
Deal with Beijing Will Speed China's Export of Minerals to the US, Treasury Secretary Says
BANGKOK (AP) — Washington and Beijing have signed a trade agreement that will make it easier for American firms to obtain magnets and rare earth minerals from China that are critical to manufacturing and microchip production, U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday.
The agreement comes after China retaliated against steep import tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on Chinese goods and moved to slow export of rare earth minerals and magnets much-needed by U.S. industrial interests.
Bessent said on Fox Business Network's 'Mornings with Maria' that Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping 'had a phone call' previously 'and then our teams met in London, ironed this out, and I am confident now that we, as agreed, the magnets will flow.'
'Part of the agreement was tariffs coming down and rare earth magnets starting to flow back to the U.S.,' Bessent said. 'They formed the core of a lot of our industrial base. They were not flowing as fast as previously agreed.'
His comments follow President Donald Trump announcing two weeks earlier an agreement with China that he said would ease exportation of magnets and rare earth minerals
That pact cleared the way for the trade talks to continue. The U.S. has previously suspended some sales to China of critical U.S. technologies like components used for jet engines and semiconductors. It has also agreed to stop trying to revoke visas of Chinese nationals on U.S. college campuses.
Bessent added of critical mineral exports: 'What we're seeing here is a de-escalation.'
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg TV that the deal was signed earlier this week.
China's Commerce Ministry said Friday that the two sides had 'further confirmed the details of the framework,' when responding to a question about if China was to speed up exports of rare earths to the U.S. and if the U.S. was to remove some restrictions on China.
'China will, in accordance with the law, review and approve eligible export applications for controlled items. In turn, the United States will lift a series of restrictive measures it had imposed on China,' the ministry said.
Initial talks in Geneva in early May led both sides to postpone massive tariff hikes that were threatening to freeze much trade between the two countries. Later talks in London set a framework for negotiations and the deal mentioned by Trump appeared to formalize that agreement — setting the stage for Bessent's comments on Friday.
In London, export controls of the minerals eclipsed tariffs in the trade negotiations after China in April imposed permitting requirements on seven rare earth elements, per a Chinese law that applies to all exports, not just those bound for the U.S. market.
With the permitting process taking 45 days, the new requirement has caused a pause in shipments, threatening to disrupt production of cars, robots, wind turbines and other high-tech products in the U.S. and around the world. The U.S., meanwhile, took restrictive measures on exports of high tech to China.
By the latest agreement, China does not remove the permitting requirement on rare earths but retains the flexibility to dial up or down the approval process as needed.
Sun Yun, director of the China program at the Washington-based think tank Stimson Center, said Beijing has only tightened its overall policy on rare earths but has the discretion on how to implement it. 'That's the Chinese style,' she said. 'If all goes well, permit happens. If things go in a wrong direction, like U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, permits gone with wind.'
China also has taken steps recently on the fentanyl issue, announcing last week that it would designate two more substances as precursor chemicals for fentanyl, making them subject to production, transport and export regulations. Trump has demanded that Beijing do more to stop the flow of such precursor ingredients to Mexican drug cartels, which use them to make fentanyl for sale in the U.S. He imposed 20% tariffs on Chinese imports over the fentanyl issue, the biggest part of current 30% across-the-board taxes on Chinese goods.
The agreement struck in May in Geneva called for both sides to scale back punitive tariff hikes imposed as Trump escalated his trade war and sharply raised import duties. Some higher tariffs, such as those imposed by Washington related to the trade in fentanyl and duties on aluminum and steel, remain in place.
The rapidly shifting policies are taking a toll on both of the world's two largest economies.
The U.S. economy contracted at a 0.5% annual pace from January through March, partly because imports surged as companies and households rushed to buy foreign goods before Trump could impose tariffs on them.
In China, factory profits sank more than 9% from a year earlier in May, with automakers suffering a large share of that drop. They fell more than 1% year-on-year in January-May.
Trump and other U.S. officials have indicated they expect to reach trade deals with many other countries, including India.
'We're going to have deal after deal after deal,' Lutnick said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Japan Times
2 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump's court win opens a path to clear hurdles to his agenda
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of U.S. courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair game' "Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a news conference in the White House Friday that the administration will "promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and "stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.' The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total "retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple paths "It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. "But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a U.S. law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. "This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. "It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said that he and his Democratic colleagues would "assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. "The court confirmed what we've thought all along — nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said.

3 hours ago
イランに「孤独ではない」 旧ソ連経済同盟が首脳会議
After the Supreme Court issued a ruling that limits the ability of federal judges to issue universal injunctions — but didn't rule on the legality of President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship — immigrant rights groups are trying a new tactic by filing a national class action lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two immigrant rights organizations whose members include people without legal status in the U.S. who "have had or will have children born in the United States after February 19, 2025," according to court documents. One of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs, William Powell, senior counsel at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law, says his colleagues at CASA, Inc. and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project think that, with the class action approach "we will be able to get complete relief for everyone who would be covered by the executive order." The strategic shift required three court filings: one to add class allegations to the initial complaint; a second to move for class certification; and a third asking a district court in Maryland to issue "a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction asking for relief for that putative class," Powell said. In the amended complaint, filed two hours after the Supreme Court's ruling, the immigrant rights attorneys said that Trump's effort to ban birthright citizenship, if allowed to stand, "would throw into doubt the citizenship status of thousands of children across the country." "The Executive Order threatens these newborns' identity as United States citizens and interferes with their enjoyment of the full privileges, rights, and benefits that come with U.S. citizenship, including calling into question their ability to remain in their country of birth," reads the complaint. Rights groups and 22 states had asked federal judges to block President Trump's executive order on birthright citizenship. Issued on his first day in office, the executive order states, "the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States." But after three federal district court judges separately blocked Trump's order, issuing universal injunctions preventing its enforcement nationwide, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block universal injunctions altogether. The Supreme Court did not rule on the birthright issue itself. But after the ruling, Trump called it a "monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law," in a briefing at the White House. The president said the ruling means his administration can now move forward with his efforts to fundamentally reshape longstanding U.S. policy on immigration and citizenship. Friday's ruling quickly sparked questions about how the dispute over birthright citizenship will play out now — and how the ruling on universal injunctions might affect other efforts to push back on executive policies, under President Trump and future presidents. "Nationwide injunctions have been an important tool to prevent blatantly illegal and unconstitutional conduct," the National Immigrant Justice Center's director of litigation, Keren Zwick, said in a statement sent to NPR. The decision to limit such injunctions, she said, "opens a pathway for the president to break the law at will." Both Zwick and Powell emphasized that the Supreme Court did not rule on a key question: whether Trump's executive order is legal. At the White House, Attorney General Pam Bondi would not answer questions about how the order might be implemented and enforced. "This is all pending litigation," she said, adding that she expects the Supreme Court to take up the issue this fall. "We're obviously disappointed with the result on nationwide injunctions," Powell said. But, he added, he believes the Supreme Court will ultimately quash Trump's attack on birthright citizenship. "The executive order flagrantly violates the 14th Amendment citizenship clause and Section 1401a of the Immigration and Nationality Act," Powell said, "both of which guarantee birthright citizenship to nearly all children born in the United States, with only narrow exceptions for ambassadors [and] invading armies." The court's ruling set a 30-day timeframe for the policy laid out in Trump's executive order to take effect. "The Government here is likely to suffer irreparable harm from the District Courts' entry of injunctions that likely exceed the authority conferred by the Judiciary Act," a syllabus, or headnote, of the Supreme Court's ruling states. The majority opinion, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, also discusses the differences between "complete relief " and "universal relief." "Here, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against the child of an individual pregnant plaintiff will give that plaintiff complete relief: Her child will not be denied citizenship," Barrett wrote. "Extending the injunction to cover all other similarly situated individuals would not render her relief any more complete." In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the ruling suggests that constitutional guarantees might not apply to anyone who isn't a party to a lawsuit. The concept of birthright citizenship has deep roots, dating to the English common law notion of jus soli ("right of the soil"). The doctrine was upended for a time in the U.S. by the Supreme Court's notorious Dred Scott ruling. Current legal standing for birthright citizenship in the U.S. extends back to the 1860s, when the 14th Amendment of the Constitution was ratified, stating, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." "Any executive order purporting to limit birthright citizenship is just as unconstitutional today as it was yesterday," Wendy Weiser, vice president for democracy at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School, told NPR. "There is nothing substantively in the decision that undercuts those lower court opinions. The opinion just undercuts the tools available to the courts to enforce that constitutional mandate." Copyright 2025 NPR


Asahi Shimbun
3 hours ago
- Asahi Shimbun
Key MSDF patrol aircraft not up to task as corrosion ‘eating' engines
Engine malfunctions are plaguing the fleet of patrol aircraft essential to Maritime Self-Defense Force tracking of Chinese submarines and suspect ships in Japanese waters, according to the Board of Audit. The aircraft fly over the ocean at low altitudes for hours on end, making them prone to engine corrosion. The aircraft are a mainstay in Japanese efforts to monitor China's growing maritime assertiveness. The board did not divulge how many aircraft were affected in keeping with Defense Ministry protocols on security issues. The P1, the nation's first domestically made aircraft, was initially viewed as holding huge potential. It was considered to have no peer in submarine detection and tracking technology and there was talk of exporting the aircraft. But that never got off the ground. The Board of Audit study covered the 35 P1 aircraft deployed at MSDF bases across Japan as of September 2024. Primarily manufactured by Kawasaki Heavy Industries Ltd., the first P1 was deployed in 2013. It was the successor aircraft to the P3C, made by U.S. manufacturer Lockheed Martin Corp. The Board of Audit study said development, purchase and repair costs for the P1 through fiscal 2023 came to 1.776 trillion yen ($12.3 billion). The Defense Ministry's Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency plans to eventually deploy a total of 61 P1 aircraft at a cost of 4.090 trillion yen. The agency knew early on about the engine corrosion issue, but IHI Corp., which oversaw development, said the malfunctions were coincidental. So, nothing was done to rectify the problem. Within the MSDF, flying the P1 is considered the 'mission of missions' in that it comes with a huge array of detection equipment, making the plane a joy to operate. Increased sightings of Chinese submarines and other vessels in waters around Japan resulted in many more P1 missions. The burden of operating the aircraft around the clock on a rotational basis was never envisaged in the development stage, according to a highly placed MSDF officer. All sorts of issues emerged early on. The technology used in the U.S.-made P3C was off-limits, so Japanese engineers had to basically develop the aircraft technology from scratch. And this was at a time when the defense budget was not nearly as massive as it is today, meaning not all aspects of development could be adequately dealt with. The 'stovepipe' structure that separated ministry bureaucrats from SDF uniformed officers led to a failure in sharing information during the development stage, according to a high-ranking Defense Ministry official. The Board of Audit also pointed out that issues with the onboard electronic equipment and weapons were another reason some of the aircraft were grounded. Hopes of exporting the P1 aircraft were dashed after one of a pair dispatched to the Paris Air Show in 2017 developed problems and could not take part. (This article was written by Wataru Netsu and Daisuke Yajima.)