US top official signals Donald Trump's tariff rates ‘pretty much set' ahead of August 7 rollout
'These tariff rates are pretty much set,' said US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer during an appearance on CBS News. 'I expect I do have my phone blowing up... we're seeing truly the contours of the President's tariff plan right now with these rates.'
Trump first unveiled a baseline 10% tariff on nearly all US imports on April 2, dubbed 'Liberation Day,' followed by a series of higher, country-specific rates. The initial announcement triggered a stock market downturn, prompting the administration to delay implementation twice to allow time for negotiations.
In the weeks following 'Liberation Day,' Trump's trade team engaged in fast-track talks with numerous countries. Agreements were reportedly reached with the European Union, United Kingdom, Vietnam, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Cambodia, Thailand, and others.
'Some of these deals are announced, some are not, others depend on the level of the trade deficit or surplus we may have with the country,' Greer explained.
'There are trade ministers who want to talk more and see how they can work in a different way with the United States,' said Greer. 'But I think that we have, we're seeing truly the contours of the President's tariff plan right now with these rates.'
As part of Trump's broader trade strategy, a tariff truce with China is currently in place but is set to expire on August 12. Simultaneously, the administration has given Russia until August 8 to reach a peace agreement with Ukraine. Failure to do so may lead to secondary tariffs or sanctions on countries purchasing Russian oil.
The sweeping tariff moves are also facing legal scrutiny. Last Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard arguments related to the administration's authority to impose such tariffs. Trump invoked emergency powers to justify the measures, but legal experts have raised questions about the extent of his authority.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
5 minutes ago
- Mint
Israel-Hamas war: Over 600 ex-Israeli security officials urge Trump to pressure Netanyahu govt end Gaza conflict
More than 600 retired Israeli security officials including former heads of intelligence agencies have urged US President Donald Trump to pressure their own government to end the war in Gaza. "It is our professional judgement that Hamas no longer poses a strategic threat to Israel," the former officials wrote in an open letter shared with the media on Monday, calling on Trump to "steer" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's decisions.
Indian Express
5 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump has a Russia problem, and there is no easy way out
US President Donald Trump faces a daunting series of foreign policy tests, perhaps none more confounding than the Russia-Ukraine conflict. His presidency, long known for dramatic reversals, instinctive deal-making, and headline-grabbing proclamations, appears to have hit a wall when it comes to charting a coherent course in the Ukraine war. As this crisis festers, Trump's inability to shape outcomes in other theatres of conflict such as Gaza has also become more visible. Most worryingly, the United States' long-term vision for its strategic competition with China is floundering in ambiguity, pushing allies, partners, and friends into a space of deep uncertainty, all without an endgame in sight. The muddled US-Russia equation under Trump is symptomatic of a larger leadership dilemma. Trump finds himself at perhaps the most consequential foreign policy crossroads of his career: Whether to antagonise Vladimir Putin, a strongman he has long claimed to understand, or face mounting criticism from domestic and international quarters for inaction and inconsistency. This quandary is complicated by the fact that a full-blown US-Russia confrontation is neither desirable nor politically expedient, especially with Trump's stated ambition to de-escalate global conflicts and refocus American strength inward. Over the past several months, Trump has deployed every tactic in his political playbook in an attempt to find a breakthrough in Ukraine; placating Moscow, hedging bets, arm-twisting Kyiv and European capitals alike, threatening to pull back from the transatlantic alliance, and even halting military aid to Ukraine temporarily. These manoeuvres were followed by a dramatic pivot when Trump issued a deadline for Russia to come to the negotiating table and end the war, first suggesting 50 days, only to later shorten it to 10–12 days. These shifting timelines reflect growing frustration within Washington's political corridors and a lack of strategic consistency. However, responses from Moscow suggest that Putin is in no hurry. Far from being threatened by Trump's deadline diplomacy and social media brinkmanship, the Kremlin appears unmoved. For Putin, negotiations will only begin when Russia's 'military objectives' are met, a message Moscow has delivered repeatedly. The optics of Trump pushing for a Nobel Peace Prize while issuing ultimatums to a nuclear-armed adversary only underscore the gap between ambition and reality. What began as a distant concern has now become a looming crisis for Trump. With Ukraine expressing readiness for direct leader-level negotiations after months of failed lower-level talks, Trump finds himself out of options. His own Republican Party, led by hawkish figures like Lindsey Graham, is pressing him harder than ever to show leadership and decisiveness. The days of blaming Ukraine or freezing aid as a tactic are effectively over. In response, Trump has escalated his posture toward Russia, even going so far as to authorise the movement of a US nuclear submarine to waters closer to Eastern Europe. His administration is also contemplating secondary sanctions of unprecedented severity on countries that continue to purchase Russian energy, like China, India, and Turkey. Additionally, Trump is now pushing European nations to increase military-industrial cooperation with the United States by purchasing and supplying more arms to Ukraine. But such hardline tactics risk backfiring. Putin, who has long resisted deadlines or threats, is unlikely to respond positively to coercion. Any further escalation by Washington could provoke retaliatory steps from Moscow, possibly even in domains beyond Ukraine. Moreover, Trump's style of diplomacy, which is public, transactional, and often lacking nuance is unlikely to move the needle with a Russian leadership that prefers closed-door bargaining over media dramatics. The implications stretch far beyond Ukraine. By threatening secondary sanctions on energy transactions, the Trump administration is risking a widening rift between the West and the so-called 'Rest'. India, which imports a significant portion of its crude from Russia, could be forced to redraw its energy map which would not only be politically contentious but also economically destabilising. Similar pressures on multilateral arrangements like BRICS+ would likely lead to a further fracture of global alliances and fuel the rise of alternative axes. Studies have already warned that sweeping sanctions on Russian energy could eliminate millions of barrels of crude oil daily from the global market. The resulting disruption would have far-reaching consequences not just for oil prices but for the delicate economic recoveries underway in countries across the Global South. In such an environment, Brazil, Canada, and Mexico — already smarting from Trump's steep tariffs — are beginning to reposition themselves economically and diplomatically, seeking trade diversification and lessened dependency on the US market. Layered atop this turbulence is the Indo-Pacific question. The US under Trump has continued to project rhetorical support for a 'free and open Indo-Pacific,' but the strategic foundation of that promise is cracking. Washington's increasingly transactional posture, coupled with its lack of security guarantees, is prompting regional partners like India to rethink the reliability of American commitment. Even as Washington nudges India to do more within the Quad to shape its security dimensions, American assurances remain vague. The credibility gap is widening. India, Japan, and Australia are left wondering whether the US would truly back them in the face of a regional contingency, particularly when Trump's strategic competition with China seems to shift based on economic calculations and domestic political considerations. Over the past few weeks, Trump's handling of Taiwan only underscored these concerns. After extracting major investment promises from Taipei, Trump reportedly denied permission for the Taiwanese Premier to land in Washington under Chinese pressure. It reveals the precarious balancing act Trump has placed himself in by talking tough against China at home, but pliability when Beijing flexes its muscles diplomatically. This duality risks boxing the US into a corner. Without a coherent strategy or clear red lines in Asia, Trump's administration risks creating a strategic vacuum that China could exploit. And without trusted assurances from the US, many in the Indo-Pacific may start seeking alternative security arrangements or intensify a hedging strategy, undermining decades of American strategic positioning in the region. In the absence of a clear endgame, Trump may find that he is not shaping world events but is instead being shaped by them. The writer is Visiting Fellow, ORF America and Deputy Director, Strategic Studies Programme, ORF
India.com
5 minutes ago
- India.com
Nuclear Submarines Are In Russian Region, Says Trump
When asked if there was anything Russia could do to avoid sanctions at this point, Trump said, "Yeah, get a deal where people stop getting killed." He further said that he was looking for fairness and not leverage when he was imposing tariffs. "I'm not looking for leverage -- I'm looking for fairness. We want to see reciprocal wherever we can, and all I can say is this: our country will be taking in hundreds of billions of dollars." Trump said on Friday that he was ordering two US Navy nuclear submarines to "appropriate regions," in response to remarks by Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's Former President and current deputy chairman of its Security Council. In what he called an effort to be "prepared," Trump said in a Truth Social post that he had "ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that." Trump later on Friday said the repositioned nuclear submarines were moved "closer to Russia," CNN reported. He said Thursday he intended to place new sanctions on Moscow, and called Russia's attacks on Ukraine "disgusting." In an earlier social media message, Trump said the Ukraine war "should have never happened," as per CNN. "This is Biden's War, not 'TRUMP's.' I'm just here to see if I can stop it!" Trump wrote. The president did not specify what type of submarines were being moved or where to, and the Pentagon usually reveals little about any of its subs' movements, CNN reported. The US Navy has three types of submarines, all of which are nuclear-powered, but only one of which carries nuclear weapons.
