Trump-Xi to meet? US, China resume tariff talks to extend truce
While President Donald Trump secured a major breakthrough in trade deal with the European Union during his visit to Scotland. As part of that agreement, the EU accepted a 15% tariff on exports to the US and promised $600 billion in investments, along with large purchases of US energy and military equipment.However, no similar breakthrough is expected with China, reports claimed that both sides may agree to extend the current truce for another 90 days. This would give negotiators more time to work out a broader agreement and could set the stage for a possible meeting between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping later this year.TARIFS KEEP TENSIONS HIGHAccording to the South China Morning Post, both sides are likely to hold off on new tariffs for another 90 days."We're very close to a deal with China. We really sort of made a deal with China, but we'll see how that goes," President Trump said.While the current talks focus mainly on tariffs and halted exports like rare earth minerals and US-made AI chips, deeper economic issues remain unresolved. The US has been criticising China's state-backed economic system, which it says floods global markets with cheap goods. Meanwhile, China argues that US export controls are unfairly targeting its tech sector.WILL TRUMP AND XI MEET?There is speculation that President Trump may visit China later this year. A successful round of talks in Stockholm has opened the door to that possibility, according to Wendy Cutler of the Asia Society Policy Institute.Bessent has stated that he wants to extend the current tariff truce past August 12 to avoid a surge in import duties — which could jump to 145% on the US side.China is also likely to ask the US to lower the 55% average tariffs it currently faces and ease restrictions on buying American high-tech goods. Beijing argues that buying more from the US could help reduce the trade deficit, which reached $295.5 billion in 2024.- EndsWith inputs from ReutersMust Watch
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
28 minutes ago
- First Post
‘Everyone's a loser': From Canada to Laos, Trump's sweeping tariffs spare no one, not even the US
President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught this week left a lot of losers – from small, poor countries like Laos and Algeria to wealthy US trading partners like Canada and Switzerland. They're now facing especially hefty taxes – tariffs – on the products they export to the United States starting Aug. 7. read more President Donald Trump's latest wave of sweeping tariffs is shaking the foundations of global trade and leaving a trail of economic pain across rich and poor nations alike. Countries such as Laos, Algeria, Canada and Switzerland are now facing steep levies as Trump intensifies his protectionist agenda. But while allies scramble for exemptions and rivals brace for economic fallout, but analysts say no one has truly come out ahead not even the United States. 'In many respects, everybody's a loser here,'' Barry Appleton, co-director of the Center for International Law at New York Law School told AP. Since returning to the presidency six months ago, Trump has torn up traditional trade norms, replacing multilateral agreements with a unilateral approach driven by threats and economic clout. 'The biggest winner is Trump,' said Alan Wolff, former deputy director-general of the World Trade Organization. 'He bet that he could get other countries to the table on the basis of threats, and he succeeded dramatically.'' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump's tariff regime began on April 2, dubbed 'Liberation Day' when he imposed 'reciprocal' taxes of up to 50% on imports from countries with which the U.S. runs trade deficits, and a 10% baseline tax on others. Declaring the trade imbalance a national emergency under a 1977 law, Trump bypassed Congress to implement the sweeping changes, now being challenged in court. After an initial market selloff, Trump paused the new tariffs for 90 days to allow room for negotiations. Some countries took the opportunity to strike deals, though often under heavy pressure. The United Kingdom agreed to a 10% tariff, up from 1.3%, despite having maintained a trade surplus with the U.S. for nearly two decades. The European Union and Japan settled for 15%, lower than the threatened 30% and 25%, respectively. Other countries that agreed to higher tariffs include Pakistan, South Korea, Vietnam, Indonesia, and the Philippines. Even those with reduced levies compared to April levels remain far worse off than pre-Trump norms. Angola's tariffs dropped from 32% to 15%, but were below 1.5% in 2022. Taiwan saw its April rate of 32% lowered to 20%, but still faces a financial burden. '20% from the beginning has not been our goal, we hope that in further negotiations we will get a more beneficial and more reasonable tax rate,' Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te said Friday. Trump also rolled back Lesotho's tariff from 50% to 15%, but economic damage there may already be done. On the harsher end, nations that refused to bend or angered Trump in other ways got slammed. Laos and Algeria whose GDPs per capita are a fraction of America's now face tariffs of 40% and 30%, respectively. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Brazil was hit with a 50% tax, reportedly in retaliation for its treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro. Despite a consistent U.S. trade surplus with Brazil, the tariff went ahead. Canada was slapped with a 35% import tax, a move some analysts tie to Ottawa's plan to recognise Palestinian statehood, a position contrary to Trump's strong support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Switzerland, which didn't secure a deal, was struck with a 39% tariff, more than the 31% initially proposed. 'The Swiss probably wish that they had camped in Washington'' to make a deal, Wolff commented. 'They're clearly not at all happy.'' Trump's actions are now facing legal scrutiny. A group of American companies and a dozen states are suing, arguing that he overstepped his authority under the 1977 law. A New York court recently blocked the tariffs, but allowed collection to continue pending appeal, which may end up before the US Supreme Court. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Judges on the US Court of Appeals have expressed scepticism about the justification behind Trump's measures. 'If (the tariffs) get struck down, then maybe Brazil's a winner and not a loser,'' Appleton said. Although Trump frames tariffs as a way to tax foreign countries, in practice, U.S. importers bear the cost and pass it on to American consumers. Goldman Sachs estimates that foreign exporters have absorbed only a fifth of the tariff burden, leaving U.S. businesses and households to shoulder the rest. Major retailers and manufacturers including Walmart, Nike, and Ford — have raised prices in response. 'This is a consumption tax, so it disproportionately affects those who have lower incomes,'' said Appleton. 'Sneakers, knapsacks … your appliances are going to go up. Your TV and electronics are going to go up. Your video game devices, consoles are going to up because none of those are made in America.'' With average U.S. tariffs rising from 2.5% at the start of 2025 to 18.3% — the highest since 1934 — Yale's Budget Lab estimates the policy will cost the average American household $2,400 this year. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'The U.S. consumer's a big loser,″ Wolff concluded. With inputs from agencies
NDTV
28 minutes ago
- NDTV
US Court Upholds Order Blocking Indiscriminate Targeting By Immigration Patrols In California
A US appeals court has upheld an order blocking immigration agents from carrying out patrols in California that led to indiscriminate detentions without reasonable grounds to suspect people of being undocumented. The ruling late Friday by a three-judge panel denies the federal government's appeal to overturn a temporary July order to halt the "roving patrols" in Los Angeles that immigration rights groups have described as illegally using racial profiling. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong had ordered an end to the arrests, arguing such actions by agents violate a person's constitutional rights that safeguard against unreasonable seizures by the government. She said the detentions were being made "based upon race alone," on whether a person was speaking Spanish or English with an accent or because of their place of work, and ordered them stopped. Friday's ruling by the US court of appeals for the Ninth Circuit described the case of plaintiff Jason Gavidia, a US citizen born and raised in East Los Angeles who was arrested outside a tow yard in Montebello on June 12 by agents carrying military-style rifles. "The agents repeatedly asked Gavidia whether he is American -- and they repeatedly ignored his answer: 'I am an American,'" the ruling said. Agents asked what hospital he was born in, and Gavidia responded he did not know, but said he was born in "East LA." It said Gavidia told the agents he could show them his government-issued ID. "The agents took Gavidia's ID and his phone and kept his phone for 20 minutes. They never returned his ID." California residents and advocacy groups sued the Department of Homeland Security over the detentions. Los Angeles and surrounding suburbs have been ground zero for President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration crackdown. He ordered the US military deployed there for weeks, and agents have rounded up migrants at car washes, bus stops, stores and farms. The ruling said the government's defense team argued that "certain types of businesses, including car washes, were selected for encounters because... they are likely to employ persons without legal documentation." Rights groups hailed the order as a victory for those seeking to bar the Department of Homeland Security and agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement from conducting such raids. "This decision is further confirmation that the administration's paramilitary invasion of Los Angeles violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region," said attorney Mohammad Tajsar of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. "We look forward to holding the federal government accountable for these authoritarian horrors it unleashed in Southern California."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Viral: JD Vance shames Democrats on criticism of Sydney Sweeney's American Eagle ad, netizens applaud
Image credits: X In the long list of American ads that shook the nation into an overdrive of comments, one has made a recent and grand entry. Sydney Sweeney , America's dream girl and a talented actress was featured in American Eagle's ad campaign that talked about both "good jeans" and good genes" While the former has been the brand's motto for as longas its existence, the latter managed to rile up not only social media users but also the country's political who's and who's. From comparing her photos to those of Hitler, to analysing her actions from a Nazi perspective, people have left no stone unturned to make the ad campaign look like the worst decision ever and possibly force the company to take it back. Now, in the long line of reactions, an important one has been added. That of the Vice President of America, JD Vance. The 41-year-old appeared at the Ruthless Variety Progrum and engaged in a candid conversation about a variety of topics ranging from the White House to Sydney Sweeney. "The Democrats have essentially been like Sydney Sweeney represents like a Nazi, white supremacy issue. Do you think it's that deep? Do you think attacking Sydney Sweeney is how they can win back young men?" asked one of the hosts of the podcast posted on YouTube. To this Vance replied, "My political advice to Democrats who continue to tell everybody that who thinks Sydney Sweeney is attractive is Nazi, that appears to be their actual strategy." "I mean it actually reveals something pretty interesting about the Dems though, which is that you have like a normal all American beautiful girl doing like a normal jeans ad. They are trying to sell jeans to kids in America, and they have managed to so unhinge themselves over this thing. It's like you guys did you learn nothing from the November 2024 election?" "Like I actually thought that one of the lessons they might take is we're gonna be less crazy. The lesson they have apparently taken is we are gonna attack people as Nazis for thinking Sydney Sweeney is beautiful. Great strategy guys! That's how you are gonna win the midterms, especially young American men." "So much of Democrats is oriented around hostility to basic American life," he added. Netizens react to JD Vance's opinion on the Sydney Sweeney ad Image credits: YouTube/Ruthless Podcast Netizens seem to agree with Vance's view. The current reality in the Democrats' arena is giving a boost to anything that takes up the attention and emotions of the young netizens, and if it's Sydney Sweeney, then that works for their agenda of getting under the people's good books. Many criticised the left writing, "They don't learn their lesson, no wonder their approval ratings are in the toilet", and "The Left is taking a nosedive." Others appreciated Vance's eloquent and smart reply to the question, writing, "Vance is great at this kind of thing. Genuine and reasonable without being offensive," and "JD on point.... again." Some fans of the Vice President also stated how he would be the perfect President post-Trump. "JD is going to be a great president" and "They didn't learn— and that's fine. Let them repeat it all. Makes winning 26' midterms and JDs presidency in 28' all the easier."
