Netanyahu to send negotiating team to Qatar for ceasefire talks, but calls Hamas proposals "unacceptable"
Netanyahu's office said that it would send its negotiating team to Qatar on Sunday, this after Hamas on Friday said it had issued a "positive response" to a U.S.-mediated ceasefire proposal in the Israel-Hamas war.
However, in the statement, Netanyahu's office said that the "changes" Hamas requested to the ceasefire proposal "are unacceptable to Israel."
In a post to Telegram Friday, Hamas said it "submitted a positive response to the mediators' latest proposal." It added that it was "fully prepared to immediately enter into a round of negotiations on the mechanism for implementing this framework," according to a translation of the post.
On Tuesday, President Trump announced that Israel had agreed to a proposal for a two-month ceasefire. At the time, neither Israel nor Hamas confirmed Mr. Trump's statement.
"I think it's been very positive, a good response," Mr. Trump told reporters late Friday night aboard Air Force One regarding the Hamas statement.
"There could be a Gaza deal next week," the president later added. "...I'm very optimistic, but you know, it changes from day to day. It's been changing for years."
Israeli sources told CBS News on Wednesday that while there was support for the terms of the proposal by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet, Israel was not committing to it yet.
Netanyahu is expected to visit Washington, D.C., on Monday to meet with Mr. Trump at the White House.
A Palestinian official told The Associated Press on Friday that Hamas was still working on its response to the proposal presented to it by Egyptian and Qatari mediators. He said Hamas is insisting on guarantees regarding an Israeli withdrawal to positions it held on March 2, during a previous ceasefire, and an end to the war following a 60-day truce, as well as ending the U.S. and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) system for distributing aid. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media.
The Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry says the number of Palestinians killed in the territory has passed 57,000 since the war began about 21 months ago. The ministry does not differentiate between civilians and combatants in its count, but says more than half of the dead are women and children.
The war began when Hamas-led militants attacked southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing about 1,200 people and taking roughly 250 hostages.
Meanwhile, the Gaza Health Ministry says at least 640 civilians have been shot to death in recent weeks trying to access desperately needed humanitarian supplies, including more than 400 at distribution sites run by GHF.
Since it began operating in Gaza on May 26, GHF has faced near-daily claims of aid-seekers being killed by Israeli forces as they try to reach its four hubs in Gaza.
"I do not want to diminish these reports, but we can't control what happens outside our distribution sites," GHF's director, American evangelical reverend Johnnie Moore, told CBS News in an interview Tuesday in response to a question about reports from doctors and eyewitnesses that Israeli soldiers have repeatedly opened fire on unarmed civilians trying to reach its aid hubs.
Earlier this week, more than 170 humanitarian groups called for the opaquely run organization — which has never revealed its funding or management structure — to be disbanded and all aid efforts in Gaza to be reorganized under the long-established United Nations-led system. Those international humanitarian efforts have been largely blocked by Israel since March.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's new version of Oval Office meetings has rattled some foreign leaders
Foreign leaders' visits to the White House used to be occasions for face-to-face diplomacy, allied backslapping and polite photo ops. But President Donald Trump's public pillorying of Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky in February has upended Oval Office norms, sparking panic among some foreign leaders. 'You're not acting all that thankful,' Trump scolded Zelensky, with Vice President JD Vance piling on in front of the international press. As the Ukraine leader pushed for more help in the country's war with Russia, Trump at one point threatened to give up on Ukraine entirely, the meeting devolving into little more than a shouting match. Foreign dignitaries took that visit – as well as Trump's unfounded accusations of genocide against South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and tense exchanges with Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney – as a sign that Oval Office visits in Trump's second term called for a different type of preparation. Five former senior diplomats who have handled preparations for these types of meetings likened Trump's White House to a boxing ring or a TV set. The dignitaries said leaders should now mentally prepare for diplomatic 'jiu jitsu,' trolling or even 'North Korean' style adulation. And never, ever say Trump is wrong in front of a camera. 'You never contradict Trump publicly, because he will lose face and that's something that he can't accept,' said Gérard Araud, who was France's ambassador to the US during Trump's first presidency. There are signs ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's planned White House visit Monday that even he is looking to avoid any chance of a fight, despite his close relationship with Trump. After Trump said Tuesday that he planned to be 'very firm' with Netanyahu on the need for a ceasefire in Gaza, an Israeli official indicated they accepted the terms of a 60-day ceasefire proposal about 24 hours later. For Lithuania's former foreign minister, Gabrielius Landsbergis, Oval Office visits from foreign leaders are 'chances for Trump to portray himself as this alpha leader, you know, pushing aside others and belittling others,' he told CNN. 'This is a show.' Trump himself indicated the last point as his meeting with Zelensky ended, quipping: 'This is going to be great television.' Arturo Sarukhán, Mexico's former ambassador to Washington, described the meetings as 'diplomatic vandalism and trolling.' Foreign dignitaries say Trump 2.0 is at a different level even compared to his first term. In 2017 he was, 'learning the ropes of government. And I think he was learning the boundaries of his power,' said Joe Hockey, former Australian ambassador to the US. Ex-French envoy Araud said that Trump in 2017 was 'insecure, he didn't know the job. He hated to be patronized.' Trump has also acknowledged that he's much more confident in exercising his powers the second time around – and he's made it clear he's less concerned about potential limitations or criticisms. The returned president is 'far more overtly transactional,' Hockey said, as well as 'a far more formidable negotiator.' Since January, allies and foes alike have been subjected to unprecedented tariffs and the ignominy of placating Trump for preferable trade terms. And it's rattled some leaders, according to Araud: 'European leaders especially are in a sort of denial. They are panicking.' Glitzed out in gold details, the Oval Office exudes Trump, its walls reflecting his particular vision of US history. His office is as much showplace as workplace. That's not the only way the office has changed. Unlike the bureaucratic machine of past presidencies, the Trump White House functions more like a royal family or a king's court, Araud said. Without 'personal access' to Trump or his close family, leaders won't make much progress on requests. And even if heads of state do get that one-on-one time, 'it doesn't mean you're going to influence the guy.' During past administrations, 'there were rules,' Araud added. Meetings at the White House, which typically involve months of planning, were seen as a unique opportunity for foreign leaders to meet with the US president – and be seen doing so. 'You were supposed to respect some basic decency,' he said. Such visits were 'about treating foreign leaders with dignity and respect and, frankly, making sure that these visits are a win-win for both sides,' Rufus Gifford, who was the US ambassador to Denmark until 2017 and chief of diplomatic protocol under former President Joe Biden, told CNN. As chief of protocol, Gifford was responsible for coordinating meetings between the US president and foreign leaders. 'Our advice, very simply, was take advantage of the very few moments that you have,' Gifford added. 'This should be a nice meeting where you get to know each other as human beings.' Sarukhán, one of Mexico's ambassadors to the US during the Bush and Obama presidencies, said that his team would provide icebreakers and areas of shared interest to their president ahead of a visit — anything to lubricate the wheels of diplomacy. Famously, Mexican President Vicente Fox visited former President George W. Bush's Texas ranch for one of their meetings, after Bush came to Fox's ranch in Mexico years earlier. Sarukhán described pictures from the visits as 'visual gold,' adding they were the product of long discussions between both president's teams. And ahead of former President Barack Obama's inauguration, Sarukhán recalled the Mexican embassy put on a special exhibition of jewels of Mexican art in DC, where the Obamas could meet Mexico's then-President Felipe Caldéron. 'It was an Olympic goal, to use a soccer term,' Sarukhán said. 'Think in terms of television' is how Landsbergis advised preparing for a meeting with the former reality TV star president. He said that world leaders also have their home audience's public perception in mind. Pushing back or even fact checking Trump may be risky, but it isn't necessarily a losing strategy, Landsbergis said. Similarly, Sarukhán said it can be advantageous for leaders to show they can handle some 'jiu jitsu' with the US president. 'They should not have an expectation that it's going to go smoothly,' said Gifford, the Biden White House official who also worked on Kamala Harris' campaign. 'Donald Trump thrives on keeping these foreign leaders off balance.' Sometimes, that manifests in actual physicality — often involving aggressive handshakes. That presented a personal challenge for Araud when France's Emmanuel Macron met with Trump for the first time in 2017. 'Beware. He is going to be brutal with your hand. Be ready to resist,' Araud warned. He now counsels subordination. 'You should first be profusely grateful. You should really compliment the president. There is a sort of North Korean side in the White House,' he said. 'And you should let Trump really talk and talk.' 'A phone call with Trump. It's a minimum 45 minutes, and you have at least 40 minutes of Trump.' Gifford warned against trying to insincerely charm Trump. 'That works in the moment. It does not work long-term. And he will play you.' 'I don't, in my mind, understand why foreign leaders keep coming to the Oval Office thinking that it's the same as it has been. It's just not,' Gifford told CNN, adding that Trump doesn't value alliances as past US leaders have. Despite the threat of an Apprentice-style ambush beamed live to the world, Landsbergis reckons the reward of an Oval Office visit outweighs the risk of a Trump smackdown. It's the 'only chance' for a small country like Lithuania to transmit important messages or risk assessments — for example, about Russia's aggression — directly to Trump. But navigating the minefield of Oval Office barbs and fraught televized moments with Trump requires treating the most powerful man on earth like 'a whimsical and unpredictable child,' Araud said. 'Trump's the only one making decisions,' he added, 'and he's making decisions from the hip.'
CNN
21 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Why Trump's hold on the GOP Congress may threaten its hold on power
Back-to-back retirement announcements last week from a Republican representative and senator represented a victory for President Donald Trump that could yet become a revealing liability for him and his party. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, two of a bare few congressional Republicans who have sought any independence from Trump, joined a long list of other GOP legislators in recent years who have either retired or been defeated in primaries after crossing Trump, including former Sens. Jeff Flake and Bob Corker and former Reps. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger. The choice by Tillis and Bacon to announce their retirements during the final throes of debate over the party's budget and tax legislation underlines Trump's success at eliminating almost all tolerance in the party for dissent from him and his agenda. By stepping away, Tillis and Bacon have made clear that 'their style of Republicanism, that seeks some level of pragmatism and bipartisan compromise, is unwelcome,' says Charlie Dent, a centrist Republican former representative who retired in 2018 after resisting key elements of Trump's agenda. 'Because they have heterodox views on some issues, they feel that they're not particularly welcome within the broader Republican conference.' But while the twin retirement announcements testify to Trump's success at mastering the GOP, they leave open the question of whether a party reshaped so completely in his image can consistently win majorities in the House and Senate. With the roster of congressional Republicans displaying any separation from the president dwindling, the GOP is testing whether at least 218 House districts and 50 Senate seats will accept candidates offering themselves as unalloyed Trump acolytes. Few strategists in either party believe that question has a definitive answer. But many on both sides agree that the GOP's path to maintaining its majority in both chambers is narrower if even candidates in swing states and districts feel compelled to endorse the most polarizing aspects of Trump's agenda. 'In a post-Trump world, 100% loyalty is the party litmus test,' said GOP consultant Ken Spain, a former communications director for the National Republican Congressional Committee. 'There is very little room for nuance, even if it means putting the House and Senate majorities to the test.' For most of the 20th century, it was common for members of Congress to break from their party's dominant position on key votes — even when that placed them in opposition to a president from their own side. That tendency was visible for years among Republicans from the East and West Coasts, and even more pronounced among the Southern and rural Democrats who became known as 'blue dogs.' But tolerance for defection on big congressional votes has waned over the past generation. The engine of the change has been the ideological re-sorting of the electorate, which has left each party with a voter base that holds more uniform views on major issues. In both parties and in both chambers, that has encouraged a transition toward a quasi-parliamentary system, with legislators from each party voting more in lockstep with their own side, and in opposition to the other. When Democrats held a narrow congressional House majority during President Joe Biden's first two years, only one of their members (Maine's Jared Golden) voted against Biden's version of 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — his 'Build Back Better' plan. In this environment, legislators who break from their side on big votes, as Tillis did on Trump's agenda bill, have faced greater pushback. Republicans sympathetic to Trump's iron-fisted approach to party loyalty point out that liberal interest groups also now regularly attack Democrats who vote too often against their party; during the Biden years, both Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, the two Democratic senators who defected most often, ultimately chose to identify as independents and not to seek reelection in 2024. But the pressure for conformity from Trump on Republicans dwarfs the coercion that liberal groups can apply to Democrats. 'It's orders of magnitude worse for Republicans,' said Matt Bennett, executive vice president for external affairs at Third Way, a centrist Democratic group. Left-wing interest groups 'are a problem for our moderates without question and occasionally they can beat them or hurt them. But Trump is an extinction-level event for Republican moderates.' Dent, now the executive director of the Aspen Institute's congressional program, believes independent thinking is under siege in both parties. But he agrees that no source of pressure in the Democratic Party approaches Trump. In fact, Dent argues, no president has ever been as relentless as Trump about crushing internal dissent. 'We haven't seen that, because most presidents … understood that today's dissenter is tomorrow's ally,' Dent said. 'They recognize there's always another vote. But Trump always treats the next vote as the last. Everything is a litmus test with him.' In a critical shift, the Republican congressional leadership is mostly reinforcing Trump's pressure, Dent noted. Historically, he said, congressional leaders from both parties worried intently about how to protect their members in marginal seats and tried to structure votes that reduced their risk of backlash from swing voters. But now, Dent went on, the GOP leadership seems more focused on pacifying Trump — and more attentive to the demands of senators and representatives from reliably red areas who fear the president and his allies will launch primary challenges from their right. 'It seems,' Dent said, 'the Republican leadership is more interested in protecting the president than protecting their most vulnerable members.' Trump doesn't appear totally unaware that Republicans running in swing areas may need some flexibility in their votes. Maine Sen. Susan Collins is the only GOP senator left from the 19 states that voted against Trump in all three of his presidential campaigns and he has not publicly attacked her for voting against the budget bill last week. (She, in turn, did not criticize the bill nearly as sharply as Tillis did.) Trump has also indulged hardline conservatives in both chambers who have delayed the package to tilt it further to the right, as long as they vote with him in the end — which explains why Trump has promoted a primary challenge against Republican Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, who has opposed the measure at each step. But, as the floor debates in both chambers over the budget bill showed, virtually no congressional Republican feels comfortable criticizing any significant aspect of Trump's agenda, much less voting against it, no matter the effect on their own constituents. Trump is 'not worried about what a bill means to somebody's home state or district,' said longtime Republican pollster Glen Bolger. 'It's his way or the highway. You cannot cross the president because he will cross you off.' Over the past several decades, voters' attitudes toward an incumbent president have increasingly shaped how they vote in House and Senate races. But Trump may push that trend even further. His unrelenting demands for loyalty have created an environment in which GOP candidates are running with his logo stamped on them as visibly as if they were one of his hotels or office buildings. Can Republicans win enough seats with that positioning to consistently control the House and Senate? The party's electoral performance since Trump's emergence gives them some reason for optimism, particularly in the Senate. Trump has won 25 states in all three of his presidential campaigns, and Republicans incredibly now control all 50 of those states' Senate seats, up from 42 in 2017. Democrats have high hopes next year of contesting one of the 50 (the North Carolina seat that will become open with Tillis' retirement announcement). But until they can compete for more, in places such as Ohio, Iowa or Texas, Republicans will have the easier path to a Senate majority, notes Kyle Kondik, managing editor for the Sabato's Crystal Ball election newsletter of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. At first glance, the trends in House races may seem equally encouraging for a Trump-stamped GOP. Trump won 230 House districts in 2024 (the same number he did in 2016), which would provide the GOP a relatively comfortable majority by modern standards if their House candidates also won those districts. But it may be harder for a uniformly Trumpist GOP to hold the House than the Senate. In the more difficult electoral climate of 2020, Trump only won 202 House districts, and even last year, he won about 40 of the districts he carried only by single-digit margins. To Kondik and other analysts, that suggests Democrats could recapture enough of those seats to flip the majority in a more favorable national environment — which widespread public disapproval of the 'big beautiful bill' might help create for them. 'Basically, by all the vulnerable Republican members voting for the bill, you are making it easier for the opposition to nationalize your race, which is what Democrats are going to want to do,' Kondik said. By falling into line behind Trump so reliably, Republicans in more competitive areas (apart from maybe Collins) have denied themselves one of the most common arguments legislators from such places have historically used to win reelection: that they will support their party's agenda when it helps their constituents and oppose it when it doesn't. Dozens of House Republicans whose districts face big losses from the budget bill's Medicaid and clean energy cuts voted for it anyway. Democrats see that as a huge vulnerability, particularly in the House seats they plan to contest. 'They make a ton of noise, but at the end of the day they are not going to step out of line with Trump and DC leaders, and for the districts we are competing in that is the worst type of thing you can do,' said Courtney Rice, communications director for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Dent agreed the pattern is a grave risk for the GOP majority. Pressuring swing district Republican representatives to fall in line on every major issue 'is a recipe to elect a Democratic House,' he said. 'Trump might want to get used to that now and get ready for all the subpoenas and aggressive oversight that will come with it.' Bolger said he long believed that, too, but now has doubts. 'I'm a guy who always said you've got to win independent voters to win. I don't know if that's true anymore,' he said. Legislators who 'show independence' from Trump, Bolger said, risk depressing turnout among his core supporters, which could offset any gains they might see among independent voters by distancing themselves from the president. 'That's a math thing they are all going to be doing in those swing seats,' he said. No matter the national environment next year, the Senate map will make recapturing that chamber very tough for Democrats. And the sorting out of the electorate — combined with the growing sophistication of gerrymandered Congressional districts — makes it highly unlikely that Democrats in 2026 can win as many House seats as the opposition party captured in other midterms characterized by a backlash against the sitting president's agenda (including 1994, 2006, 2010 and 2018). But more than enough swing seats remain in play to give Democrats a very plausible chance of overturning the GOP's historically narrow House majority. In the provisions of their budget bill, Republican leaders made extraordinarily few concessions to the political needs of their representatives in those marginal seats (or vulnerable senators such as Collins and Tillis). They placed much higher import on cramming in as many of Trump's priorities as possible and meeting the demands of the hardcore conservatives in safe seats who constitute a much larger share of GOP legislators in both chambers. If that increases the odds some of those swing-district Republicans lose next fall —endangering the GOP majority in the House and conceivably, though less likely, the Senate — that seemed a price Trump and Congressional leaders were willing to pay. 'They want to get as much as they can in the bill,' Dent said, 'and these guys are going to be the collateral damage.' In the long arc of Trump's career, the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' may stand as yet another transaction in which he claims the rewards and others around him pay the price.
Associated Press
21 minutes ago
- Associated Press
US tariffs on European goods threaten to shake up the world's largest 2-way trade relationship
FRANKFURT, Germany (AP) — America's largest trade partner, the European Union, is among the entities awaiting word Monday on whether U.S. President Donald Trump will impose punishing tariffs on their goods, a move economists have warned would have repercussions for companies and consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. Trump imposed a 20% import tax on all EU-made products in early April as part of a set of tariffs targeting countries with which the United States has a trade imbalance. Hours after the nation-specific duties took effect, he put them on hold until July 9 at a standard rate of 10% to quiet financial markets and allow time for negotiations. Expressing displeasure the EU's stance in trade talks, however, the president said he would jack up the tariff rate for European exports to 50%. A rate that high could make everything from French cheese and Italian leather goods to German electronics and Spanish pharmaceuticals much more expensive in the U.S. The EU, whose 27 member nations operate as a single economic bloc, said its leaders hoped to strike a deal with the Trump administration. Without one, the EU said it was prepared to retaliate with tariffs on hundreds of American products, ranging from beef and auto parts to beer and Boeing airplanes. Here are important things to know about trade between the United States and the European Union. US-EU trade is enormous A lot of money is at stake in the trade talks. The EU's executive commission describes the trade between the U.S. and the EU as 'the most important commercial relationship in the world.' The value of EU-U.S. trade in goods and services amounted to 1.7 trillion euros ($2 trillion) in 2024, or an average of 4.6 billion euros a day, according to EU statistics agency Eurostat. The biggest U.S. export to Europe is crude oil, followed by pharmaceuticals, aircraft, automobiles, and medical and diagnostic equipment. Europe's biggest exports to the U.S. are pharmaceuticals, cars, aircraft, chemicals, medical instruments, and wine and spirits. EU sells more to the US than vice versa Trump has complained about the EU's 198 billion-euro ($233 billion) trade surplus in goods, which shows Americans buy more stuff from European businesses than the other way around. However, American companies fill some of the gap by outselling the EU when it comes to services such as cloud computing, travel bookings, and legal and financial services. The U.S. services surplus took the nation's trade deficit with the EU down to 50 billion euros ($59 billion), which represents less than 3% of overall U.S.-EU trade. What are the issues dividing the two sides? Before Trump returned to office, the U.S. and the EU maintained a generally cooperative trade relationship and low tariff levels on both sides. The U.S. rate averaged 1.47% for European goods, while the EU's averaged 1.35% for American products. But the White House has taken a much less friendly posture toward the longstanding U.S. ally since February. Along with the fluctuating tariff rate on European goods Trump has floated, the EU has been subject to his administration's 50% tariff on steel and aluminum and a 25% tax on imported automobiles and parts. Trump administration officials have raised a slew of issues they want to see addressed, including agricultural barriers such as EU health regulations that include bans on chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef. Trump has also criticized Europe's value-added taxes, which EU countries levy at the point of sale this year at rates of 17% to 27%. But many economists see VAT as trade-neutral since they apply to domestic goods and services as well as imported ones. Because national governments set the taxes through legislation, the EU has said they aren't on the table during trade negotiations. 'On the thorny issues of regulations, consumer standards and taxes, the EU and its member states cannot give much ground,' Holger Schmieding, chief economist at Germany's Berenberg bank, said. 'They cannot change the way they run the EU's vast internal market according to U.S. demands, which are often rooted in a faulty understanding of how the EU works.' What are potential impacts of higher tariffs? Economists and companies say higher tariffs will mean higher prices for U.S. consumers on imported goods. Importers must decide how much of the extra tax costs to absorb through lower profits and how much to pass on to customers. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the US. have said they are holding the line on 2025 model year prices 'until further notice.' The German automaker has a partial tariff shield because it makes 35% of the Mercedes-Benz vehicles sold in the U.S. in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, but the company said it expects prices to undergo 'significant increases' in coming years. Simon Hunt, CEO of Italian wine and spirits producer Campari Group, told investment analysts that prices could increase for some products or stay the same depending what rival companies do. If competitors raise prices, the company might decide to hold its prices on Skyy vodka or Aperol aperitif to gain market share, Hunt said. Trump has argued that making it more difficult for foreign companies to sell in the U.S. is a way to stimulate a revival of American manufacturing. Many companies have dismissed the idea or said it would take years to yield positive economic benefits. However, some corporations have proved willing to shift some production stateside. France-based luxury group LVMH, whose brands include Tiffany & Co., Luis Vuitton, Christian Dior and Moet & Chandon, could move some production to the United States, billionaire CEO Bernaud Arnault said at the company's annual meeting in April. Arnault, who attended Trump's inauguration, has urged Europe to reach a deal based on reciprocal concessions. 'If we end up with high tariffs, ... we will be forced to increase our U.S.-based production to avoid tariffs,' Arnault said. 'And if Europe fails to negotiate intelligently, that will be the consequence for many companies. ... It will be the fault of Brussels, if it comes to that.' Many expect Trump to drop his most drastic demands Some forecasts indicate the U.S. economy would be more at risk if the negotiations fail. Without a deal, the EU would lose 0.3% of its gross domestic product and U.S. GDP would fall 0.7%, if Trump slaps imported goods from Europe with tariffs of 10% to 25%, according to a research review by Bruegel, a think tank in Brussels. Given the complexity of some of the issues, the two sides may arrive only at a framework deal before Wednesday's deadline. That would likely leave a 10% base tariff, as well as the auto, steel and aluminum tariffs in place until details of a formal trade agreement are ironed out. The most likely outcome of the trade talks is that 'the U.S. will agree to deals in which it takes back its worst threats of 'retaliatory' tariffs well beyond 10%,' Schmieding said. 'However, the road to get there could be rocky.' The U.S. offering exemptions for some goods might smooth the path to a deal. The EU could offer to ease some regulations that the White House views as trade barriers. 'While Trump might be able to sell such an outcome as a 'win' for him, the ultimate victims of his protectionism would, of course, be mostly the U.S. consumers,' Schmieding said.
