Japan auto trade 'unfair', could buy more US oil, Trump tells Fox News
Japan engages in "unfair" automobile trade with the United States and should increase its imports of U.S. energy resources and other goods to help reduce the U.S. trade deficit, President Donald Trump said in an interview broadcast on Sunday.
Tokyo is scrambling to find ways to get Washington to exempt Japan's automakers from 25 per cent automobile industry-specific tariffs, which are hurting the country's manufacturing sector. Japan also faces a 24 per cent so-called reciprocal tariff rate starting on July 9 unless it can negotiate a deal.
"They won't take our cars, and yet we take millions and millions of their cars into the United States. It's not fair, and I explained that to Japan, and they understand it," Trump said in an interview on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo".
"And we have a big deficit with Japan, and they understand that too. Now we have oil. They could take a lot of oil, they could take a lot of other things."
The automobile sector accounted for about 28 per cent of the total 21 trillion yen ($145 billion) worth of goods Japan exported to the U.S. last year.
($1 = 144.4800 yen)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Trump's administration finds Harvard violated students' civil rights, WSJ reports
FILE PHOTO: A view of the Business School campus of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., April 15, 2025. REUTERS/Faith Ninivaggi/File Photo U.S. President Donald Trump's administration informed Harvard University that its investigation found the university violated federal civil-rights law over its treatment of Jewish and Israeli students, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday. "Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government," the report quoted a letter sent to Harvard President Alan Garber on Monday and viewed by the Journal. Reuters could not immediately confirm the report. Trump has said he is trying to force change at Harvard - and other top-level universities across the U.S. - because in his view they have been captured by leftist "woke" thought and become bastions of antisemitism. The administration warned Harvard that failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources, the Wall Street Journal reported. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
India's S Jaishankar heads to US for Quad meeting, Indo-Pacific expected to top agenda
India's External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar will embark on a four-day visit to the US today. He will attend a Quad meeting — which includes Japan, Australia and the US — for foreign ministers. Security in the Indo Pacific, as well progress on existing Quad initiatives, are expected to top the agenda during discussions. Neha Poonia reports from New Delhi.
Business Times
2 hours ago
- Business Times
Ignoring a US$7 trillion financial disaster won't make it go away
IF YOU had the power to prevent not just one Great Depression but two, you probably would not hesitate to use it. But for some (not very mysterious) reason, that is pretty much what we do when we ignore an increasingly hot and violent climate. Two of the biggest myths about climate change are that, one, it is a problem for future generations, and two, trying to alleviate it will hurt economic growth. In fact, climate change is not just a challenge already for those of us lucky enough to be alive today, it is also an economic catastrophe. Ignoring it will be far more costly than fighting it. The latest evidence comes from Bloomberg Intelligence (BI), which this week estimated that climate-related disasters have cost the US economy at least US$6.6 trillion in higher insurance premiums, clean-up spending and other expenses over the past 12 years. Adjusted for inflation, that makes climate disasters already twice as expensive as the Great Depression's US$3.3 trillion in losses over the same time frame, BI estimates. Again, for those who fell asleep in that paragraph: Climate change is already twice as painful economically as the Great Depression. For now, climate costs are only half as expensive as the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent Great Recession, which kept economic growth below its full potential for a decade and immiserated a generation. But climate losses would have to grow by only 2 per cent a year over the next dozen years to become the biggest financial disaster in US history, by BI's estimate. Recent performance suggests 2 per cent per year is a low bar to clear. Annual climate losses have more than doubled from less than US$500 billion in 2013 to nearly US$1 trillion in the past 12 months, BI has found. Average annual growth over the past five years has been nearly 15 per cent. At that rate, climate costs will exceed the Great Recession's initial 12-year toll in just five more years. A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 12.30 pm ESG Insights An exclusive weekly report on the latest environmental, social and governance issues. Sign Up Sign Up These figures are consistent with the growth in the number of US disasters inflicting at least US$1 billion in damage. The annual incidence of those doubled between 2012 and 2024, noted the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), thanks not only to more destructive storms, but Americans' eagerness to set up house in the country's riskiest ZIP codes. Because disasters magically go away when you do not look at them, President Donald Trump's NOAA has stopped keeping track of this data. But already in 2025, there have been several natural catastrophes that each inflicted more than US$1 billion in losses, including January's Los Angeles wildfires and tornadoes, flooding and other severe weather in the central US. BI's damage estimates, like the NOAA's, are in some ways an undercount. They do not include the many thousands of American lives lost to extreme heat and other natural disasters over the past 12 years. Deaths from wildfire smoke alone could cause US$244 billion in annual economic losses by 2050, a recent working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) reported. BI's estimates do not account for the profound long-term health effects of wildfire smoke, heat and other growing hazards of a chaotic climate. They also do not include the potential growth lost from dollars being diverted towards rebuilding and insurance, and away from more-productive investments. Economists are still trying to figure out how big the damage could get if the atmosphere heats beyond the 1.3 deg C above pre-industrial averages it has already warmed. Another NBER paper last year estimated that each 1 deg C of heating shaves 12 per cent from global GDP, meaning the 3 deg C path we are currently on would mean a global economy that is poorer by a third. There is still time to limit this damage, but not much. A report this month by dozens of top climate scientists suggests the world has just three years of action left to cap warming at 1.5 deg C, the stretch goal of the Paris climate accords. After that, 2 deg C won't be far away. We need to stop burning fossil fuels as quickly as possible, and make communities more resilient to the disasters already in the pipeline. But global governments remain a 'quantum leap' away from doing what is necessary, the United Nations warned last year. The US, once a leader in the climate fight, has switched teams in President Donald Trump's second term. He and his fellow Republicans in Congress are doing all they can to further enrich the fossil-fuel companies that gave them millions in campaign dollars in 2024. That includes pretending climate change is not a problem, contrary to science and the opinion of the vast majority of US voters. They are doing so in the name of keeping energy prices low for those voters, claiming fossil fuels are cheaper and more secure sources of energy. But to call them 'cheap' or 'secure' requires blurring your eyes to their many physical and financial risks. Those have become too big to ignore. BLOOMBERG
