EU, US seal ‘biggest-ever' trade pact, scrapping tariffs on industrial goods to avert transatlantic clash
Trump emerged from a high-stakes meeting with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at his golf resort in Scotland to announce that a baseline tariff of 15 per cent would be levied on EU exports to the US.
The deal, which the leaders struck in around an hour, came as the clock ticked down on an August 1 deadline to avoid an across-the-board US levy of 30 per cent on European goods.
'We've reached a deal. It's a good deal for everybody. This is probably the biggest deal ever reached in any capacity,' said Trump.
Trump said the 15-per cent tariff would apply across the board, including for Europe's crucial automobile sector, pharmaceuticals and semiconductors.
As part of the deal, Trump said the 27-nation EU bloc had agreed to purchase 'US$750 billion worth of energy' from the United States, as well as make US$600 billion (RM2.5 trillion) in additional investments.
Von der Leyen said the 'significant' purchases of US liquefied natural gas, oil and nuclear fuels would come over three years, as part of the bloc's bid to diversify away from Russian sources.
Negotiating on behalf of the EU's 27 countries, von der Leyen had been pushing hard to salvage a trading relationship worth an annual US$1.9 trillion in goods and services.
'It's a good deal,' the EU chief told reporters.
'It will bring stability. It will bring predictability. That's very important for our businesses on both sides of the Atlantic,' she said.
She said bilateral tariff exemptions had been agreed on a number of 'strategic products,' notably aircraft, certain chemicals, some agricultural products and critical raw materials.
Von der Leyen said the EU still hoped to secure further so-called 'zero-for-zero' agreements, notably for alcohol, which she hoped to be 'sorted out' in coming days.
Trump also said EU countries — which recently pledged to ramp up their defence spending within Nato — would be purchasing 'hundreds of billions of dollars worth of military equipment.'
'Best we could get'
The EU has been hit by multiple waves of tariffs since Trump reclaimed the White House.
It is currently subject to a 25-per cent levy on cars, 50 per cent on steel and aluminium, and an across-the-board tariff of 10 per cent, which Washington threatened to hike to 30 per cent in a no-deal scenario.
The bloc had been pushing hard for tariff carve-outs for critical industries from aircraft to spirits, and its auto industry, crucial for France and Germany, is already reeling from the levies imposed so far.
'Fifteen per cent is not to be underestimated, but it is the best we could get,' acknowledged von der Leyen.
Any deal will need to be approved by EU member states — whose ambassadors, on a visit to Greenland, were updated by the commission Sunday morning. They were set to meet again after the deal struck in Scotland.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz rapidly hailed the deal, saying it avoided 'needless escalation in transatlantic trade relations'.
But German exporters were less enthusiastic. The powerful BDI federation of industrial groups said the accord would have 'considerable negative repercussions' while the country's VCI chemical trade association said the accord left rates 'too high'.
The EU had pushed for a compromise on steel that could allow a certain quota into the United States before tariffs would apply.
Trump appeared to rule that out, saying steel was 'staying the way it is', but the EU chief insisted later that 'tariffs will be cut and a quota system will be put in place' for steel.
'The big one'
While 15 per cent is much higher than pre-existing US tariffs on European goods, which average around 4.8 per cent, it mirrors the status quo, with companies currently facing an additional flat rate of 10 per cent.
Had the talks failed, EU states had greenlit counter tariffs on US$109 billion (€93 billion) of US goods including aircraft and cars to take effect in stages from August 7.
Trump has embarked on a campaign to reshape US trade with the world, and has vowed to hit dozens of countries with punitive tariffs if they do not reach a pact with Washington by August 1.
Asked what the next deal would be, Trump replied: 'This was the big one. This is the biggest of them all.' — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
3 hours ago
- New Straits Times
NST Leader: 'AI is too important not to regulate'
TECH titans have finally got what they were clambering for: a free pass to artificial intelligence (AI) development, thanks to United States President Donald Trump's AI Action Plan unveiled on Wednesday in Washington, at a tech summit attended by the elites of the industry. Calling it "Winning the AI Race", he said his action plan is designed to put the US ahead of other nations. "America must once again be a country where innovators are rewarded with green light, not strangled with red tape", the media quoted him as saying. There is only one way to read Trump's "green light" message: whatever regulations that stand in the way of AI "innovation" will be removed. First to go will be whatever that remains of the former administration's regulations. Is this the right path to take on AI? While tech titans will say yes, there are others who say no because AI comes with so many unknowns. Not even the AI entrepreneurs know where the technology is taking us. Certainly, AI has promises of benefits, but they come clothed with known and unknown risks. Alphabet and Google chief executive officer Sundar Pichai writing an opinion piece in the Financial Times on May 23, 2023 said that "AI is too important not to regulate and too important to regulate well", meaning regulating in a way that balances innovation and potential harms. But a race to be first will certainly not strike the right balance. Google's promise is to develop AI responsibly, but when the profit chase becomes hot would the pledge still hold? Pichai must know AI is fast becoming a crowded space, with every company racing to shape the technology according to its business needs. In other words, profit before people and planet. Our bad old free market economic model — the myth that markets perform best when they are free of regulations — has followed us into the digital world. Myth-busting economist Ha-Joon Chang has made it crystal clear that the free market doesn't exist anywhere in the world. With this "free-to-choose" mindset, nothing can be developed responsibly, let alone AI. We have long been witnesses of irresponsible capitalism, at times victims even. Hence the call for "compassionate capitalism", a sign that the free-to-choose market model has hit the lowest of low. Innovative AI development is only possible in a regulation-free space is a similar myth by another name. This is why the European Union has opted for the AI Act, one of whose aims is to make the technology "work for people and is a force for good in society". It came into effect on Aug 1 last year, claiming the honour of being the first-ever legislation to address the risks of AI. Whether or not such a goal is enforced is a question of political will, not the fault of the law. The EU model isn't the only way to tame AI. A better approach is a global AI treaty. But this will only work in a rules-based world order. Ours isn't. The Paris Treaty on climate change is in a bit of a shambles. So are the Rome Statute and the Law of the Sea. Regional or national approach may be inevitable.
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
Analysis-World Court climate opinion turns up the legal heat on governments
THE HAGUE (Reuters) -A landmark opinion delivered by the United Nations' highest court last week that governments must protect the climate is already being cited in courtrooms, as lawyers say it strengthens the legal arguments in suits against countries and companies. The International Court of Justice, also known as the World Court, last Wednesday laid out the duty of states to limit harm from greenhouse gases and to regulate private industry. It said failure to reduce emissions could be an internationally wrongful act and, found that treaties such as the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change should be considered legally binding. While not specifically naming the United States, the court said countries that were not part of the United Nations climate treaty must still protect the climate as a matter of human rights law and customary international law. Only a day after the World Court opinion, lawyers for a windfarm distributed copies of it to the seven judges of the Irish Supreme Court on the final day of hearings ona case about whether planning permits for turbines should prioritise climate concerns over rural vistas. It is not clear when the Irish court will deliver its ruling. Lawyer Alan Roberts, for Coolglass Wind Farm, said the opinion would boost his client's argument that Ireland's climate obligations must be taken into account when considering domestic law. Although also not legally binding, the ICJ's opinion has legal weight, provided that national courts accept as a legal benchmark for their deliberations, which U.N. states typically do. The United States, where nearly two-thirds of all climate litigation cases are ongoing, is increasingly likely to be an exception as it has always been ambivalent about the significance of ICJ opinions for domestic courts. Compounding that, under U.S. President Donald Trump, the country has been tearing up all climate regulations. Not all U.S. states are sceptical about climate change, however, and lawyers said they still expected the opinion to be cited in U.S. cases. In Europe, where lawyers say the ICJ opinion is likely to have its greatest impact on upcoming climate cases, recent instances of governments respecting the court's rulings include Britain's decision late last year to reopen negotiations to return the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to Mauritius. That followed a 2019 ICJ opinion that London should cede control. BONAIRE VERSUS THE NETHERLANDS Turning to environmental cases, in a Dutch civil case due to be heard in October - Bonaire versus The Netherlands - Greenpeace Netherlands and eight people from the Dutch territory of Bonaire, a low-lying island in the Caribbean, will argue that the Netherlands' climate plan is insufficient to protect the island against rising sea levels. The World Court said countries' national climate plans must be "stringent" and aligned to the Paris Agreement aim to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial average. The court also said countries must take responsibility for a country's fair share of historical emissions. In hearings last December at the ICJ that led to last week's opinion, many wealthy countries, including Norway, Saudi Arabia, and The United States argued national climate plans were non-binding. "The court has said (...) that's not correct," said Lucy Maxwell, co-director of the Climate Litigation Network. In the Bonaire case, the Dutch government is arguing that having a climate plan is sufficient. The plaintiffs argue it would not meet the 1.5C threshold and the Netherlands must do its fair share to keep global warming below that, Louise Fournier, legal counsel for Greenpeace International, said. "This is definitely going to help there," Fourniersaid of the ICJ opinion in the Bonaire case. 'URGENT AND EXISTENTIAL THREAT' The ICJ opinion said climate change was an "urgent and existential threat," citing decades of peer-reviewed research, even as scepticism has mounted in some quarters, led by the United States. A document seen by Reuters shows the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may question the research behind mainstream climate science and is poised to revoke its scientific determination that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health. Jonathan Martel of the U.S. law firm Arnold and Porter represents industry clients on environmental issues. He raised the prospect of possible legal challenges to the EPA's regulatory changes given that an international court has treated the science of climate change as unequivocal and settled. "This might create a further obstacle for those who would advocate against regulatory action based on scientific uncertainty regarding the existence of climate change caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases," he said. The U.S. EPA changes would affect the agency's regulations on tailpipe emissions from vehicles that run on fossil fuel. Legal teams are reviewing the impact of the ruling on litigation against the companies that produce fossil fuel, as well as on the governments that regulate them. TheWorld Courtsaid that states could be held liable for the activities of private actors under their control, specifically mentioning the licensing and subsidising of fossil fuel production. Notre Affaire à Tous, a French NGO whose case against TotalEnergies is due to be heard in January 2026, expected the advisory opinion to strengthen its arguments. "This opinion will strongly reinforce our case because it mentions (...) that providing new licences to new oil and gas projects may be a constitutional and international wrongful act," said Paul Mougeolle, senior counsel for Notre Affaire à Tous. TotalEnergies did not respond to a request for comment. (Reporting by Stephanie van den Berg and Alison Withers, additional reporting by Valerie Volcovici from Washington; editing by Barbara Lewis)
The Star
6 hours ago
- The Star
Dewan Rakyat passes Fisheries Act 1985 amendments
KUALA LUMPUR: The Dewan Rakyat has passed the Fisheries (Amendment) Bill 2025, among others, to strengthen action against illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing (IUU). Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Food Security Datuk Seri Arthur Joseph Kurup stated that the country incurred losses estimated at around RM823mil due to encroachment by foreign fishermen from 2020 to 2024, encompassing the loss of commercial catches, destruction of marine habitats, and pressure on local fisheries resources. He said the bill was not just a legislative amendment, but a reform to strengthen the governance of the national fisheries sector, ensure the sustainability of resources, and protect the rights of fishermen, including those in small communities in rural areas and on islands. "This bill not only takes into account domestic needs but also aligns our country with international practices and European Commission recommendations and positions Malaysia as a country that is firm in tackling IUU," he said when winding up the debate on the bill in the Dewan Rakyat on Tuesday (July 29). Arthur said the bill, among other things, amended provisions involving regulation, transhipment, landing and maintenance of vessels as well as expanding the definition of offences involving fishing methods that damage habitats to tackle IUU. For example, he noted that the amendment to Section 26 of the Fisheries Act 1985, which prohibits fishing using explosives, poisons, or pollutants, as well as devices that use electric current and prohibited tools, is crucial in curbing IUU activities. In addition, the bill includes a new subsection 13(3A), which sets a period of prohibition on re-applying for a licence of not more than five years from the date the licence was revoked. Arthur said it was a preventive measure to protect the country's fishery resources and was considered a severe punishment to deter offenders from repeating the same offence. The sitting continues on Wednesday (July 30). – Bernama
