Trump, EU chief seek deal in transatlantic tariffs standoff
Trump has said he sees a 50-50 chance of reaching a deal with the European Union, having vowed to hit dozens of countries with punitive tariffs unless they hammer out a pact with Washington by August 1.
The EU is currently facing the threat of an across-the-board levy of 30 percent from that date.
Von der Leyen's European Commission, negotiating on behalf of the EU's member countries, has been pushing hard for a deal to salvage a trading relationship worth an annual $1.9 trillion in goods and services.
Any deal with the United States will need approval by all 27 member states. EU ambassadors, on a visit to Greenland, were to meet Sunday morning to discuss the latest negotiations -- and again after any accord.
Sunday's sit-down between Trump and the EU chief was to take place at 4:30 pm (1530 GMT) in Turnberry, on Scotland's southwestern coast, where Trump owns a luxury golf resort.
The 79-year-old American leader said Friday he hoped to strike "the biggest deal of them all" with the EU.
"I think we have a good 50-50 chance" of a deal, the president said, citing sticking points on "maybe 20 different things".
He praised von der Leyen as "a highly respected woman" -- a far cry from his erstwhile hostility in accusing the EU of existing to "screw" the United States.
But late-night EU talks with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Saturday to hammer out the final details were "combative at times," The Financial Times reported.
As of Saturday evening, there were "still quite a few open questions" -- notably on pharmaceutical sector tariffs, said one EU diplomat.
Tariff levels on the auto sector were also crucial for the Europeans -- notably France and Germany -- and the EU has been pushing for a compromise on steel that could allow a certain quota into the United States before tariffs would apply.
- Baseline 15 percent -
According to European diplomats, the deal on the table involves a baseline levy of around 15 percent on EU exports to the United States -- the level secured by Japan -- with carve-outs for critical sectors including aircraft, lumber and spirits excluding wine.
The EU would commit to ramp up purchases of US liquefied natural gas, along with a series of investment pledges.
AFP/File | ROMAIN PERROCHEAU
Hit by multiple waves of tariffs since Trump reclaimed the White House, the EU is currently subject to a 25-percent levy on cars, 50 percent on steel and aluminium, and an across-the-board tariff of 10 percent, which Washington threatens to hike to 30 percent in a no-deal scenario.
The EU has focused on getting a deal with Washington to avoid sweeping tariffs that would further harm its sluggish economy, with retaliation as a last resort.
While 15 percent would be much higher than pre-existing US tariffs on European goods -- at 4.8 percent -- it would mirror the status quo, with companies already facing an additional flat rate of 10 percent.
Should talks fail, EU states have greenlit counter tariffs on $109 billion (93 billion euros) of US goods including aircraft and cars to take effect in stages from August 7. Brussels is also drawing up a list of US services to potentially target.
Beyond that, countries like France say Brussels should not be afraid to deploy a so-called trade "bazooka" -- EU legislation designed to counter coercion through trade measures which involves restricting access to its market and public contracts.
But such a step would mark a major escalation with Washington.
- Ratings dropping -
Trump has embarked since returning to power on a campaign to reshape US trade with the world.
But polls suggest the American public is unconvinced, with a recent Gallup survey showing his approval rating at 37 percent -- down 10 points from January.
Having promised "90 deals in 90 days," Trump's administration has so far unveiled five, including with Britain, Japan and the Philippines.
Early Sunday, ahead of his meeting with Von der Leyen, Trump was out again on the golf course, having spent most of Saturday playing at Turnberry amid tight security.
AFP | ANDY BUCHANAN
The trip to Scotland has put physical distance between Trump and the scandal around Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy financier accused of sex trafficking who died in prison in 2019 before facing trial.
In his heyday, Epstein was friends with Trump and others in the New York jet-set, but the president is facing backlash from his own MAGA supporters demanding access to the Epstein case files.
With the uproar refusing to die down, a headline agreement with the EU -- in addition to bolstering Trump's dealmaker credentials -- could bring a welcome distraction.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Star
6 hours ago
- The Star
US to punish top ANC officials over foreign policy, graft allegations
President Cyril Ramaphosa Former South African ambassador to US, Ebrahim Rasool. ANC first deputy secretary general Nomvula Mokonyane. South Africa's relationship with the United States is on a diplomatic knife-edge, as the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee push forward a bill that could see senior African National Congress (ANC) leaders hit with sanctions, including travel bans and asset freezes. The proposed U.S. – South Africa Bilateral Relations Review Act of 2025 calls for a sweeping 120-day probe into Pretoria's foreign policy stance, targeting individuals accused of corruption or of acting against American interests. The looming sanctions have intensified diplomatic tensions, placing several senior ANC figures squarely in the crosshairs. President Cyril Ramaphosa, ANC National Chairperson Gwede Mantashe, former International Relations Minister Dr. Naledi Pandor, ANC First Deputy Secretary-General Nomvula Mokonyane, and former U.S. Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool have all been flagged as potential targets of the proposed U.S. action. The bill's advancement has triggered a political storm in Pretoria, with ANC leaders condemning it as an affront to South Africa's sovereignty and its right to pursue an independent foreign policy. Although the U.S. legislation stops short of naming individuals, growing pressure is falling squarely on President Ramaphosa and his cabinet, whose diplomatic choices have increasingly drawn fire from U.S. lawmakers. At the heart of the growing rift is South Africa's vocal and consistent defence of Palestine. Pretoria has become one of the strongest international voices condemning Israel's war on Palestinians, and this has not gone unnoticed in Washington. The South African government's move to initiate a case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide in Gaza was seen as a deliberate shift away from its previously neutral stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Alongside this, Pretoria's growing alignment with Russia, China, and Iran has further strained its relationship with the U.S., who view these ties as contradictory to American geopolitical interests. President Ramaphosa, who has steered South Africa's foreign policy in this direction, faces intense scrutiny. His administration's engagement with Russia and its stance on the Middle East has drawn sharp rebuke from U.S. lawmakers, who have accused South Africa of aligning with authoritarian regimes and undermining democratic values. U.S. diplomats have expressed frustration over Ramaphosa's outspoken criticism of U.S. policy, particularly on issues such as Israel and the war in Gaza. In June, IOL reported that President Ramaphosa released a cautious statement calling for dialogue and a peaceful resolution to rising geopolitical tensions. His remarks highlighted South Africa's sensitive diplomatic position, balancing its longstanding relationship with Iran and its vocal criticism of Israel's actions in Gaza. 'President Cyril Ramaphosa and the South African government have noted with a great deal of anxiety the entry by the United States of America into the Israel-Iran war," the statement read. 'It was South Africa's sincerest hope that President Donald Trump would use his influence and that of the US government to prevail on the parties to pursue a dialogue path in resolving their issues of dispute. 'South Africa calls on the United States, Israel, and Iran to give the United Nations the opportunity and space to lead on the peaceful resolution of the matters of dispute, including the inspection and verification of Iran's status of uranium enrichment, as well as its broader nuclear capacity,' the statement reads. Gwede Mantashe, serving as both ANC National Chairperson and Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy, is among those who could come under scrutiny. He was named in the Zondo Commission report, which linked him to alleged corrupt dealings with the now-defunct facilities company Bosasa. The report detailed claims that Mantashe received illicit security upgrades at his properties, allegations he has consistently denied, but which continue to cast a shadow over his political standing. Nomvula Mokonyane, ANC First Deputy Secretary-General and former Minister of Environmental Affairs, also appears to be in Washington's sights. Her alleged involvement in the Bosasa corruption scandal remains a point of concern, but it is her recent proposal to rename Sandton Drive, where the U.S. Consulate is located, to 'Leila Khaled Drive' that has drawn international attention. Khaled, a Palestinian militant associated with plane hijackings and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a group designated as a terrorist organisation by the U.S., has made Mokonyane's comments especially controversial, sparking widespread outrage and potentially deepening the diplomatic rift. Then there is Dr. Naledi Pandor, South Africa's former Minister of International Relations and Cooperation, who has emerged as a central figure in the foreign policy debate. Her vocal defence of South Africa's position on Israel, along with continued diplomatic engagement with Iran and Hamas, has made her a lightning rod for criticism. U.S. lawmakers have accused Pandor of steering South Africa toward increasingly adversarial alliances, arguing that her actions are undermining the country's longstanding relationship with the West. Ibrahim Rasool, former South African Ambassador to the United States, has also come under scrutiny from U.S. lawmakers. Known for his outspoken criticism of U.S. foreign policy, especially regarding the Middle East and Israel, Rasool has often been at odds with American diplomats. His influential role in shaping the ANC's foreign policy during the Obama administration is now being reexamined amid Washington's broader review of its diplomatic relationship with South Africa. The ANC's response has been one of defiance, with ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula condemning the bill as an 'attack on our sovereignty.' Mbalula has warned that the proposed sanctions are part of a broader U.S. effort to undermine South Africa's political independence and foreign policy decisions. "There is no justification for sanctions against our leaders simply for standing up for what we believe is right, especially on the issue of Palestine," Mbalula said in a statement. While the US sanctions bill may pass into law, it is far from certain that the Trump administration will take immediate action. Joel Pollak, a former senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, suggested that the sanctions would likely be targeted at individuals deemed to be responsible for actions that go against U.S. interests. 'The Magnitsky Act is about holding people accountable for undermining democracy and supporting corrupt practices. This is not an attempt to punish South Africa, but to target those who undermine key democratic norms,' Pollak said. As the U.S. Congress moves closer to passing the bill, South Africa faces a crossroads in its relationship with the United States. Should the sanctions go ahead, it will signal a significant shift in South Africa's international standing, particularly with the U.S., and potentially mark the beginning of a new phase in its foreign policy, where its support for Palestine and criticism of Western powers takes centre stage. The Star [email protected]
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US and EU clinch deal with broad 15% tariffs on EU goods to avert trade war
Deal includes $600 billion EU investments in US, more EU energy, defence purchases 15% tariff better than threatened 30%, in deal mirroring Japan's US steel and aluminium tariffs remain at 50% By Andrew Gray and Andrea Shalal The announcement came after European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen travelled for talks with U.S. President Donald Trump at his golf course in western Scotland to push a hard-fought deal over the line. 'I think this is the biggest deal ever made,' Trump told reporters after an hour-long meeting with von der Leyen, who said the 15% tariff applied 'across the board'. 'We have a trade deal between the two largest economies in the world, and it's a big deal. It's a huge deal. It will bring stability. It will bring predictability,' she said. The deal, that also includes $600 billion of EU investments in the United States and significant EU purchases of U.S. energy and military equipment, will indeed bring clarity for EU companies. However, the baseline tariff of 15% will be seen by many in Europe as a poor outcome compared to the initial European ambition of a zero-for-zero tariff deal, although it is better than the threatened 30% rate. The deal mirrors parts of the framework agreement the United States clinched with Japan last week. 'We are agreeing that the tariff… for automobiles and everything else will be a straight across tariff of 15%,' Trump said. However, the 15% baseline rate would not apply to steel and aluminium, for which a 50% tariff would remain in place. Trump, who is seeking to reorder the global economy and reduce decades-old U.S. trade deficits, has so far reeled in agreements with Britain, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although his administration has failed to deliver on a promise of '90 deals in 90 days.' He has periodically railed against the European Union saying it was 'formed to screw the United States' on trade. Arriving in Scotland, Trump said that the EU wanted 'to make a deal very badly' and said, as he met von der Leyen, that Europe had been 'very unfair to the United States'. His main bugbear is the U.S. merchandise trade deficit with the EU, which in 2024 reached $235 billion, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. The EU points to the U.S. surplus in services, which it says partially redresses the balance. Trump also talked on Sunday about the 'hundreds of billions of dollars' that tariffs were bringing in. On July 12, Trump threatened to apply a 30% tariff on imports from the EU starting on August 1, after weeks of negotiations with the major U.S. trading partners failed to reach a comprehensive trade deal. The EU had prepared countertariffs on 93 billion euros ($109 billion) of U.S. goods in the event there was no deal and Trump had pressed ahead with 30% tariffs. Some member states had also pushed for the bloc to use its most powerful trade weapon, the anti-coercion instrument, to target U.S. services in the event of a no-deal.
Daily Maverick
7 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
SA practising damaging politics of the zero-sum game
While there are many prisms through which you can attempt to understand our politics, one may be to examine whether people see the entire process as a zero-sum game. There may now be mounting evidence that more politicians and voters believe every single issue must be reduced to winners and losers. Anyone with much experience of life will be aware that, as a general rule, when life improves for one person, it often improves for another. This happens in an economy all the time. It is well known that one restaurant in one city block might be popular enough to bring in a certain number of customers. But a group of competing restaurants in the same place are much more likely to bring in a much bigger number. In other words, you are more likely to be successful through sharing space with other restaurants. Growing an economy might well rest on this. One cannot just make a product and sell it on your own. You need to be part of a chain that enables your market and ensures you have both suppliers to help you make your product, and customers to buy it. People who are thinking over the longer term will often make decisions that will cost them in the short run, because they expect to gain in the longer run. Last week, Moneyweb reported that some suppliers to Pick n Pay were actually giving it goods at lower than usual prices. While this costs them in the short run, they don't want a situation where Checkers becomes so dominant they only have one person to sell to. This means that they are helping someone to regain market share. In the case of South Africa, with its incredibly diverse constituencies, and defined by its inequality, the idea of people helping one another might well be more important than in many other places. Winners and losers The nature of our economy requires everyone to be working in the same direction. Instead, what we have is people simply fighting really hard not to be the losers, and others not the winners. Currently, 50 proposals to change the Labour Relations Act are going through Nedlac. While labour analyst Andrew Levy says it's not clear if they really change the balance between workers and managers, several groups and unions have already held a protest against the proposals. They believe that their members might soon lose out, and managers might win. This kind of situation happens all the time in our society. In our politics, the coalition sometimes appears to be reduced to fights between the ANC and the DA that are literally about ensuring one wins and the other loses. Because this is all happening in public, and they are representing constituencies, it can give the impression that those constituencies are really fighting to ensure they are not seen to lose. This transactional approach, and the damage it can cause, is wonderfully, and horrifically, illustrated by the Trump administration's approach to trade. One of the most important dynamics of the past 30 years has been the rise of China as a manufacturer of trade goods. It has made these goods at a cheaper price than many other places, and sold them. This has exported deflation around the world – the price of a cheap bicycle has declined dramatically in real terms since the 1980s. This is largely because companies in different countries have traded with each other. And both parties have become very rich doing so. Trump appears to believe that if one country is getting rich, the other must be losing out. The overwhelming evidence is that this is not the case. Instead, both parties win through these transactions. In some ways, such is the impact of the US, that this example might well be having an impact on our politics. At the same time, another important aspect of how life really works is being lost. In many cases, there is no clear 'winner' and clear 'loser'. Often it is entirely grey, with very little difference in shade. The NHI stand-off In our politics now, it seems that everything must become a life and death situation, that there will be armageddon if someone does not get what they want. Given our inequality, this can sometimes appear as if it is a life-and-death struggle between classes. The NHI might be a useful example: those who support it say the rich are trying to condemn the poor to death, those who oppose it say the rich will lose everything they have. Instead, this is something that should really be negotiated between representatives of constituencies. And there should be a solution that everyone can live with. There are many reasons why we are in this situation. Our racialised inequality must be an important reason. Those who are poor have everything to gain and nothing to lose, while those who are rich have everything to lose and nothing to gain. But this may also be the result of deliberate political strategy. Just as politicians have created abortion as a political issue in the US, by forcing people to take a position, so our leaders often do the same. Both the ANC and the DA benefit from continuing the fight around the NHI. They both get to demonstrate to their constituencies that they are fighting for them. And because the struggle for voters is now so difficult and so intense, the stakes rise each time, and so it is more likely that politicians will behave in this way. All of this feeds an artificial intensity in our politics.
