EU wants upfront relief for key sectors in any US trade deal, sources say
BRUSSELS (Reuters) -The European Union wants immediate relief from tariffs in key sectors as part of any trade deal with the United States due by a July 9 deadline, but the bloc expects even a best-case deal to include a degree of asymmetry, EU diplomats told Reuters.
The European Commission, which coordinates EU trade policy, is pushing three key points in Washington this week even as it accepts the U.S. baseline tariff of 10% as unavoidable.
Both sides are working towards an agreement in principle, with the final details to be ironed out later. In a short negotiation document Washington sent last week, the Trump administration only presented what it expects from Brussels without any concessions of its own, EU diplomats briefed on the matter said.
For any deal, Brussels wants in return a reduction of baseline tariffs to pre-Trump levels or a zero-for-zero tariff in cases when it existed.
That means specifically lower tariffs for alcoholic beverages and medical technology, on which the U.S. applies its 10% tariff.
The EU also wants a deal to cover commercial aircraft and parts, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, sectors the U.S. is investigating, but has not yet imposed extra duties on. Trump said in June the pharma duties would be announced "very soon".
Secondly, the EU wants a concession from U.S. President Donald Trump on the 25% tariff on cars and car parts, the diplomats said, and an immediate lowering of U.S. steel and aluminium import tariffs, which Trump hiked to 50% in June.
One diplomat said cars were a "red line" for the bloc. However, Brussels and Washington have conflicting goals as Trump wants to revive U.S. auto production while Brussels wants open markets for its sector, which is struggling with high energy costs and competition from China.
Thirdly, the EU wants tariff relief to start as soon as an initial agreement is reached, rather than waiting weeks or months for a final accord. A number of EU members said a deal without this would be unacceptable, the sources said.
EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic and the European Commission president's head of cabinet Bjoern Seibert head to Washington later this week hoping to reach a deal.
Trump has suspended higher tariffs until July 9 in order to strike deals with global trade partners. He has said countries without deals will see 10% U.S. baseline tariffs on goods jack up to rates of as much as 50%. For the EU, that rate is 20%, although Trump has also threatened a 50% duty on all EU imports.
A week before the deadline, the Commission told its 27 member states all outcomes were still possible, from a successful framework agreement to higher U.S. tariffs covering additional sectors, the diplomats said.
If its goal of upfront tariff relief fails to materialise, Brussels will have to choose between accepting significant imbalances or responding with countermeasures.
Another scenario could be a deadline extension. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Monday any extension would be Trump's decision, with deals to be wrapped up by September 1.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's deportation threat to Elon Musk sends Tesla stock to 3-week low
Trump's deportation threat to Elon Musk sends Tesla stock to 3-week low originally appeared on TheStreet. In a fresh new twist amid the Trump and Musk feud, President Donald Trump has suggested that billionaire Elon Musk, who is now the richest man in the world, may have more to lose than just electric vehicle (EV) requirements in their intensifying spat. When asked about deporting Musk, President Trump said, "he might have to take a look." On Truth Social, the President also wrote that Elon Musk might have to "close up shop and go back home." Trump's vague comment suggested that the South African-born Musk might have some citizenship-related issues, sparking internet fears that these could be linked to the U.S. President's immigration reform policies. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk have both been very closely tied to the crypto for instance, has been bullish on Bitcoin and Dogecoin, which has boosted widespread interest and investment in digital currencies. While President Trump is often known as the 'crypto president' for his pro-crypto reforms within the industry and his promise to make the US the 'crypto capital of the world'. Tension between Trump and Musk had been simmering before it reached its current boiling point, as Musk publicly criticized the president's "Big, Beautiful Bill", which claims to offer large cuts to taxes and services such as healthcare and food assistance but could push the debt ceiling over the current $3 trillion, believes told Forbes on June 5 that Bitcoin is going to "take over," pointing to concerns about a $40 trillion collapse of the U.S. dollar, with some of the blame attributed to Trump's big bill. Crypto enthusiasts in the U.S. are struggling to reconcile Musk's political support with Trump's policy. At press time, Bitcoin is down to $106,580.78 from $107,000 mark seen on June 30. Trump's suggestion that Musk might be stripped of citizenship coincides with an administration-wide "America First" immigration agenda aimed at restricting immigration to protect American values, and Musk's advocacy aligns with this agenda. Tesla stocks have also been negatively impacted by the feud between Trump and Musk. At press time, Tesla stock (TSLA) has been down by over 5.72% in pre-market trading. The company's stock dropped sharply to $296.01, marking a three-week low as of July 1. Trump's deportation threat to Elon Musk sends Tesla stock to 3-week low first appeared on TheStreet on Jul 1, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jul 1, 2025, where it first appeared. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate passes Trump's spending bill with massive Medicaid cuts
This story was originally published on Healthcare Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Healthcare Dive newsletter. The Senate narrowly passed a massive tax and domestic policy bill on Tuesday that would likely cull millions of beneficiaries from the safety-net insurance program Medicaid. The passage of the legislation — a major priority of President Donald Trump — is a success for Republicans, who've dodged a number of policy and political hurdles to get the bill to the finish line. However, it was a battle to get passed. The Senate slogged through a 'vote-a-rama,' where Democrats introduced a number of amendments urging lawmakers to reconsider the Medicaid cuts or boost support to rural hospitals, that began Monday and went through Tuesday midday. The bill ultimately passed 51-50, after three Republicans, Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Thom Tillis from North Carolina and Susan Collins from Maine, joined Democrats to vote against the package. Vice President JD Vance cast the tiebreaking vote. A similar uphill battle may lie ahead when the bill returns to the House. The legislation includes several healthcare plans. Many of them center on Medicaid and have become some of the most hotly debated provisions. Notably, it would require many adult beneficiaries in the safety-net insurance to log a minimum of 80 hours of work, volunteer or education hours a month to stay covered. States would also be required to check beneficiaries' eligibility for Medicaid more frequently and implement cost-sharing for some services delivered to higher-income enrollees. Additionally, the bill would freeze provider taxes — arrangements states use to finance their share of Medicaid funding — in states that haven't expanded Medicaid, and gradually lower allowed rates in expansion states. This is a more aggressive policy than that proposed in the House and was a sticking point for some senators late into Monday evening, who worried rural hospitals in their district would be unable to survive the financial ramifications. In an effort to woo those on the fence, lawmakers added a $25 billion fund to aid rural hospitals to the package. Late Monday night, Collins proposed doubling that amount to no avail. "I am pleased that the bill contains a special fund that I proposed to provide some assistance to our rural hospitals, but it is not sufficient to offset the other changes in the Medicaid system," Collins said on X after the vote. In total, the reconciliation legislation would increase the number of uninsured people by 11.8 million people in 2034, according to an estimate released Saturday by the Congressional Budget Office. It would also increase the nation's budget deficit by $3.3 trillion over the next decade. The Senate's bill cuts Medicaid more steeply than the lower chamber's proposal — $100 billion more due to restrictions on provider taxes and state-directed payments that allow states to boost funding for Medicaid providers, according to an analysis by Manatt Health. Some House Republicans have raised concerns about the Senate's text, arguing cuts to Medicaid are too steep. The legislation additionally cuts Medicaid funding for a year for large abortion providers, restricts how Medicaid funds can be used to treat legal migrants and caps how much federal money states can receive if they use their own funds to provide healthcare for undocumented people. The Senate also made changes to Medicare, including barring most immigrants from receiving services and removing a provision that would tie physician reimbursement rates to a measure of inflation. The bill faced plenty of challenges in the upper chamber too. GOP senators worked through the weekend in an effort to get the reconciliation legislation to Trump's desk by July 4, reworking parts of their proposal to appease the Senate parliamentarian and convince lawmakers skeptical about the deep cuts to Medicaid. Democrat lawmakers staunchly oppose the bill, arguing it preserves tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest Americans while reducing funds for Medicaid and food assistance. 'It's the biggest Medicaid cut in history and represents the largest transfer of wealth in history,' Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said on the Senate floor Monday. 'It is caviar over kids, hedge funds over healthcare, Mar-a-Lago over the middle class.' The healthcare sector has been outspoken about the possible impacts of the legislation. Hospitals argue the Medicaid cuts will increase their burden of uncompensated care as the number of uninsured rise, hitting their bottom lines and forcing them to cut services. 'We are deeply disappointed by today's vote in the United States Senate,' said American Hospital Association CEO Rick Pollack in a statement Tuesday. 'The real-life consequences of these nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts – the largest ever proposed by Congress – will result in irreparable harm to our health care system, reducing access to care for all Americans and severely undermining the ability of hospitals and health systems to care for our most vulnerable patients.' The CEO warned hospitals could see longer wait times and may have to cut staff or close entirely, especially in rural areas. Now, the bill will return to the House to gain approval. The Senate's version is likely to face challenges from some conservative members who believe the bill has not gone far enough to cut costs. 'The Senate's version adds $651 billion to the deficit — and that's before interest costs, which nearly double the total,' the caucus said in a statement Monday, 'That's not fiscal responsibility. It's not what we agreed to.' Recommended Reading Senate Republicans propose deeper Medicaid cuts in reconciliation bill
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jerome Powell says Fed would have lowered rates already if it weren't for tariffs
Were it not for tariffs, the Federal Reserve would have already cut interest rates in 2025, chair Jerome Powell said on Tuesday at a conference of central bankers. During an onstage interview at the European Central Bank Forum alongside the central bankers of England, Korea, Japan, and the European Union, Powell was asked if the uncertainty caused by the White House's ongoing tariff regime had led the Fed to hold off on cutting interest rates. He responded: 'I do think that.' Since then the Fed has sat pat on making any decisions about interest rates. 'We went on hold when we saw the size of the tariffs and where, and essentially all, all inflation forecasts for the United States went up materially as a consequence of the tariffs,' Powell said. 'So we didn't overreact it. In fact, we didn't react at all.' The Fed had closed 2024 with a series of interest rate cuts. However, it had paused that rate-cutting cycle at the start of this year. Since then at each FOMC meeting, Powell has reiterated the view that with the economic outlook so uncertain the Fed would wait to see what happened before lowering rates. The rampant uncertainty, which affected all market participants, not just the Fed, started when President Donald Trump announced his widespread and harsh tariff policy in early April. The new policy led to a stock market crash, caused bond yields to soar, and saw the dollar weaken. It also forced businesses into a holding pattern for any future investment plans, which risked exacerbating a recession. 'We think the prudent thing to do is to wait and learn more and see what those effects might be,' Powell said. 'And again, they haven't really shown up. So for now—we're waiting.' Powell's comments point to a certain irony in the current situation of the U.S. economy. The pause in interest-rate cuts was due to heightened levels of uncertainty stemming from Trump's tariff policy. At the same time, Trump is furious with Powell for not lowering interest rates. On Monday, the President renewed his attacks on Powell, posting a picture of a handwritten note that accused him of taking too long to lower rates. At the ECB Forum, Powell again declined to answer any questions about Trump's comments, his typical response whenever asked. A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Powell did earn a show of solidarity from his peers for his reaction to Trump's criticisms. 'I speak for all colleagues on the panel, I think we would do exactly the same thing as our colleague Jay Powell does,' said European Central Bank president Christine Lagarde. Powell has about 10 months left in his term, which ends in May 2026. In that time, he said his top priority was delivering to his successor an economy that is 'in good shape.' 'That's all we ever want,' Powell said. 'So that's what keeps me awake at night: are we on a path to do that? And how do we get that done?' Trump's frustrations with Powell, which have regularly boiled over in public, shattered the longstanding practice of keeping the Federal Reserve apolitical. Since the 1970s it has been understood that Fed chairs didn't comment on the White House policy, and the president didn't tell the Fed where to set rates. Now that bargain has fallen apart—at least on the president's side. With Powell's term coming to a close, the question of his successor has heated up. Trump has made clear he would like a Fed chair that will lower interest rates. 'If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are, or whatever, I'm not going to put them in,' Trump said in the Oval Office last week. 'I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates. There are a lot of them out there.' On Tuesday Powell again declined to answer any questions about his own future at the Federal Reserve. But the question did come up when the panelists were asked what advice they would give their potential successors. Powell highlighted what he considered to be the importance of the Fed operating a 'completely non-political way.' 'We don't take sides,' Powell said. 'We don't play one side against the other. We stay out of issues that are really not our bailiwick and we just focus on [economic stability for the benefit of all the people].' Providing a strong, stable economy would benefit the public and lawmakers alike, he said. 'We're trying to have it be so that the public lives their best economic lives and so elected policymakers can make the really important decisions in a stable environment,' Powell said. 'That's how I think about it.' This story was originally featured on Sign in to access your portfolio
