Tariff deals could be wrapped up by Labor Day, Bessent says as talks pick up
FILE PHOTO: U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent speaks during a press conference in Washington, D.C., U.S., June 24, 2025. REUTERS/Kevin Mohatt/File Photo
By David Lawder, Susan Heavey and Manoj Kumar
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Friday the Trump administration's various trade deals with other countries could be done by the Sept. 1 Labor Day holiday, citing talks with 18 main U.S. trading partners and new revisions to a deal with China aimed at expediting rare earths shipments.
After a week where tariffs took a back seat to the U.S. strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and the massive tax and spending bill in Congress, the Trump administration's trade negotiations have picked up. The United States sent a new proposal to the European Union on Thursday and India sent a delegation to Washington for more talks.
"So we have countries approaching us with very good deals," Bessent said on Fox Business Network.
"We have 18 important trading partners. ... If we can ink 10 or 12 of the important 18, there are another important 20 relationships, then I think we could have trade wrapped up by Labor Day," Bessent said.
He did not mention any changes to a July 9 deadline for countries to reach deals with the United States or see tariffs spike higher, but has previously said that countries negotiating in good faith could get deals.
But President Donald Trump told reporters at the White House that he could extend the tariff deadline or "make it shorter," adding that within the next week and a half, he would notify countries of their tariff rates.
"I'd like to just send letters out to everybody: Congratulations. You're paying 25%" tariffs.
NEW U.S.-CHINA EXPORT REVISIONS
Bessent said the United States and China had resolved issues surrounding shipments of Chinese rare earth minerals and magnets to the U.S., further modifying a deal reached in May in Geneva.
As part of its retaliation against new U.S. tariffs, China suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets, upending supply chains central to automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies and military contractors around the world.
During U.S.-China talks in May in Geneva, Beijing committed to removing the measures imposed since April 2, but those critical materials were not moving as fast as agreed, Bessent said, so the U.S. put countermeasures in place.
"I am confident now that we -- as agreed, the magnets will flow," Bessent said, adding that these materials would go to U.S. firms that had received them previously on a regular basis. He did not disclose details of the latest agreement, which Trump administration officials said was reached earlier this week.
Efforts to resolve the dispute included a phone call between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping which led to teams from both sides meeting again in London, as negotiators try to end a trade war between the world's biggest economies.
China's commerce ministry said on Friday the two countries have confirmed details on the framework of implementing the Geneva trade talks consensus. It said China will approve export applications of controlled items in accordance with the law. It did not mention rare earths.
China has dual-use restrictions in place on rare earths which it takes "very seriously" and has been vetting buyers to ensure that materials are not diverted for U.S. military uses, according to an industry source. This has slowed down the licensing process.
The Geneva deal faltered over China's curbs on critical minerals exports, prompting the Trump administration to respond with export controls of its own preventing shipments of semiconductor design software, ethane, engines for Chinese-made aircraft and other goods to China.
The U.S.-China negotiations have yet to delve into the Trump administration's core complaints about China's state-led, export-driven economic model with just over six weeks to go before the Geneva tariff truce expires on Aug. 10.
News of the latest revision to the China deal comes as Trump has a meeting scheduled Friday with the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, two African nations that are rich in critical minerals.
INDIA TALKS
Indian government sources told Reuters that a trade delegation from New Delhi was back in Washington on Friday aiming to sew up a limited U.S. trade deal ahead of the July 9 deadline.
Trump administration officials frequently count India among countries with which trade talks are at an advanced stage, along with Japan. But early optimism about a simple deal to reduce India's high tariffs has hit roadblocks over disagreements on U.S. import duties for auto parts steel and farm goods, Indian officials with direct knowledge said.
The U.S. Trade Representative's office did not immediately respond to queries on talks with India or the European Union.
Trump said that his administration was looking to get a "full trade barrier dropping" deal with India.
"I'm not sure that that's going to happen, but as of this moment, we've agreed to that -- go into India and trade," Trump said.
PRE-TARIFF SPENDING FADES
The latest negotiating activity comes amid signs on Friday that uncertainty over Trump's tariffs is starting to take a toll on the economy. U.S. consumer spending unexpectedly fell in May as the boost from the pre-emptive buying of goods like motor vehicles ahead of Trump's tariffs faded, while monthly inflation maintained a moderate pace of increase.
But Wall Street investors took the consumer spending data as another sign that the Federal Reserve may resume rate cuts in July, sending stock indexes back to record highs.
Bessent's more optimistic tone on trade also helped shares, and an influential Wall Street economist who had been a skeptic of Trump's tariffs appeared to reverse course.
Torsten Slok, chief economist at Apollo Global Management, asked in a blog: "Has Trump outsmarted everyone on tariffs?"
Slok said that extending the deadline by a year would give countries and U.S. domestic businesses time to adjust to the new world with permanently higher tariffs while reducing uncertainty, which would help markets.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
19 minutes ago
- The Mainichi
Japan wrestling with US tariff talks as July deadline looms
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) -- Japanese and U.S. tariff negotiators agreed Friday to continue talks in pursuit of a deal that will be beneficial to both countries, but significant differences apparently remain in areas such as Washington's treatment of its key Asian ally's automotive industry. Japan's government said its top tariff negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa, and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick held talks in Washington, with each side reaffirming its position during "fruitful" discussions on trade expansion, nontariff measures and economic security cooperation. Akazawa, however, did not meet the press following the tariff meeting as he had done after his previous six with U.S. Cabinet members. He was also hoping to hold another separate meeting with U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, but the Japanese government stopped short of saying whether one was arranged. The meeting between Akazawa and Lutnick, which lasted about an hour, took place as U.S. President Donald Trump and his trade team increasingly suggest they could give trading partners that are currently negotiating more time for talks beyond early July, when the administration's 90-day pause on so-called reciprocal tariffs is set to expire. Bessent said Friday that the Trump administration could complete negotiations with key trading partners by Sept. 1. In a Fox Business interview, Bessent said, "I think we could have trade wrapped up by Labor Day" if the United States can make "10 or 12" deals among its 18 highest-priority trading partners and seal "another important 20 relationships" with new agreements. Japan is among the group of 18 trading partners, also including the European Union, India and South Korea, with which the Trump administration has prioritized making deals. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt also said at a press briefing on Thursday that the 90-day pause for negotiations could be extended. On Friday, when asked what he might do with the suspension, set to expire July 9, Trump said, "We can do whatever we want. We could extend it. We could make it shorter." "I'd like to make it shorter. I'd like to just send letters out to everybody: 'Congratulations, you're paying 25 percent,'" he added during a press conference at the White House. Akazawa arrived in Washington on Thursday for his seventh round of ministerial meetings on tariffs. His visit through Saturday comes after Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and Trump failed to strike a deal last week when they met on the sidelines of a Group of Seven summit in Canada. The 90-day pause applies only to country-specific tariffs under Trump's reciprocal scheme, covering about 60 trading partners that have notable trade surpluses with the United States. It does not affect his baseline duty of 10 percent, targeting imports globally. Japan is facing an additional country-specific tariff of 14 percent, for a total rate of 24 percent. However, the Trump administration's additional tariffs targeting the automotive industry, which are not subject to the pause, have been a particular concern for Japan. The administration raised the tariff rate on imported passenger vehicles by 25 percentage points to 27.5 percent in early April, a measure that has already severely impacted the industry in Japan.
Yomiuri Shimbun
19 minutes ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions, but Fate of Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Unclear
WASHINGTON (AP) — A united conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled Friday that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. The outcome represented a victory for Trump, who has complained about judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions had emerged as an important check on the Republican president's efforts to expand executive power and remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to him and his allies. But the court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote. Even then it's unclear whether the court's decision could produce a confusing patchwork of rules that might differ in the 22 states that sued over the Trump order and the rest of the country. The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Judges have issued more than 40 such orders since Trump took office for a second term in January. The administration has filed emergency appeals with the justices of many of those orders, including the ones on birthright citizenship. The court rarely hears arguments and issues major decisions on its emergency, or shadow, docket, but it did so in this case. Federal courts, Barrett wrote, 'do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' The president, speaking in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was 'amazing' and a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of law. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York wrote on X that the decision is 'an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent for the three liberal justices, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.' This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court. The administration didn't even ask, as it has in other cases, for the lower-court rulings to be blocked completely, Sotomayor wrote. 'To get such relief, the government would have to show that the order is likely constitutional, an impossible task,' she wrote. But the ultimate fate of the changes Trump wants to make were not before the court, Barrett wrote, just the rules that would apply as the court cases continue. Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of 'putative nationwide class.' Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring opinion. States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold. 'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,' said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption. Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration. The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings. The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case. The justices also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.
Yomiuri Shimbun
34 minutes ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
University of Virginia President, Pressured over DEI, Resigns Rather Than ‘Fight Federal Government'
WASHINGTON (AP) — The president of the University of Virginia, facing heavy pressure from conservative critics and the Trump administration over the school's diversity, equity and inclusion practices, announced Friday that he was resigning rather than 'fight the federal government.' The departure of James Ryan, who had led the school since 2018, represents a dramatic escalation in the Trump administration's effort to reshape higher education. Doing it at a public university marks a new frontier in a campaign that has almost exclusively targeted Ivy League schools. It also widens the rationale behind the government's aggressive tactics, focusing on DEI rather than alleged tolerance of antisemitism. Ryan had faced conservative criticism that he failed to heed federal orders to eliminate DEI policies, and his removal was pushed for by the Justice Department as it investigated the school, according to a person who was not authorized to discuss the matter by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press. Ryan referenced the Trump administration pressure in a statement to the university community Friday in which he said he had submitted his resignation with a 'very heavy heart.' 'To make a long story short, I am inclined to fight for what I believe in, and I believe deeply in this University,' he said. 'But I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my job.' Ryan had already decided that next year would be his last, he said, and remaining in his position until then would be 'knowingly and willingly sacrificing this community.' The New York Times first reported on the resignation and the Justice Department's insistence on it. In a CNN appearance Friday, the Justice Department's assistant attorney general for civil rights denied that Ryan's removal was an explicit demand but said the agency 'significantly lacked confidence' in his leadership. 'I don't have any confidence that he was going to be willing and able to preside over the dismantling of DEI,' Harmeet Dhillon said. Ryan's removal is another example of the Trump administration using 'thuggery instead of rational discourse,' said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, which represents university presidents. 'This is a dark day for the University of Virginia, a dark day for higher education, and it promises more of the same,' Mitchell said. 'It's clear the administration is not done and will use every tool that it can make or invent to exert its will over higher education.' Virginia's Democratic senators react In a joint statement, Virginia's Democratic senators said it was outrageous that the Trump administration would demand Ryan's resignation over ''culture war' traps.' 'This is a mistake that hurts Virginia's future,' Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine said. After campaigning on a promise to end 'wokeness' in education, Trump signed a January action ordering the elimination of DEI programs nationwide. The Education Department has opened investigations into dozens of colleges, arguing that diversity initiatives discriminate against white and Asian American students. The response from schools has been scattered. Some have closed DEI offices, ended diversity scholarships and no longer require diversity statements as part of the hiring process. Some others have rebranded DEI work under other names, while some have held firm on diversity policies. The University of Virginia became a flashpoint after conservative critics accused it of simply renaming its DEI initiatives. The school's governing body voted to shutter the DEI office in March and end diversity policies in admissions, hiring, financial aid and other areas. Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin celebrated the action, declaring that 'DEI is done at the University of Virginia.' Among those drawing attention to the Charlottesville campus was America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller. In a May letter to the Justice Department, the group said the university failed to dismantle DEI programs and chose to 'rename, repackage, and redeploy the same unlawful infrastructure under a lexicon of euphemisms.' The group directly took aim at Ryan, noting that he joined hundreds of other college presidents in signing a public statement condemning the 'overreach and political interference' of the Trump administration. On Friday, the group said it will continue to use every available tool to root out what it has called discriminatory systems. 'This week's developments make clear: public universities that accept federal funds do not have a license to violate the Constitution,' Megan Redshaw, an attorney at the group, said in a statement. 'They do not get to impose ideological loyalty tests, enforce race and sex-based preferences, or defy lawful executive authority.' Ryan has been leading the school since 2018 Ryan was hired to lead the University of Virginia in 2018 and previously served as the dean of Harvard University's Graduate School of Education. Earlier in his career he spent more than a decade as a law professor at the University of Virginia. A biography on Harvard's website credits Ryan with increasing the 'size, strength and diversity' of the faculty, adding that building a diverse community was a priority. Robert D. Hardie, leader of the University of Virginia's governing board, said he accepted Ryan's resignation with 'profound sadness,' adding that the university 'has forever been changed for the better as a result of Jim's exceptional leadership.' Until now, the White House had directed most of its attention at Harvard University and other elite institutions that Trump sees as bastions of liberalism. Harvard has lost more than $2.6 billion in federal research grants amid its battle with the government, which has also attempted to block the school from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. Harvard and its $53 billion endowment are uniquely positioned to weather the government's financial pressure. Public universities, however, are far more dependent on taxpayer money and could be more vulnerable. The University of Virginia's $10 billion endowment is among the largest for public universities, while the vast majority have far less.
