EU weighs fast-track US trade deal as July 9 tariff deadline nears, mulls digital tax and countermeasures
EU leaders prefer quick trade deal with US despite unfavourable terms
EU faces US tariffs, seeks rebalancing measures
EU considers digital tax on US tech giants as rebalancing option
BRUSSELS, June 26 — European Union leaders are to tell the European Commission today if they want a quick trade deal with the United States at the cost of Washington getting better terms, or to escalate the fight in hope of something better.
A quick deal seems to be the preferred option for most, officials and diplomats said, as the EU can then seek to address the unfavourable bias with some rebalancing measures of its own.
The Commission, which negotiates trade agreements on behalf of the EU, will ask leaders of the EU's 27 members meeting in Brussels how they want to respond to President Donald Trump's July 9 deadline for a deal, now less than two weeks away.
The bloc has said it is striving for a mutually beneficial agreement, but as Washington looks set to stick to its 10 per cent across-the board tariffs on most EU goods and threatening higher rates with prolonged talks, EU diplomats said a growing number of EU countries were now favouring a quick resolution.
'It is... in everyone's interest that the trade conflict with the United States does not escalate further,' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said on Tuesday in parliament.
'I know that the European Commission is negotiating with great caution in this regard, and it has our full support. I hope that we will reach a solution with the United States by the beginning of July,' Merz said.
The bloc is already facing US import tariffs of 50 per cent on its steel and aluminium, 25 per cent for cars and car parts, along with a 10 per cent tariff on most other EU goods, which Trump has threatened could rise to 50 per cent without an agreement. The United States' only completed trade deal to date is with Britain, with the broad 10 per cent tariff still in place. US officials say it will not go lower for any trading partner. Some 23 of the leaders will come to Brussels straight from the Nato summit in the Hague. Few will want to follow accord there with an economic war.
'There is a group of EU countries that want to protect companies by seemingly accepting something they have gotten used to — a 10 per cent baseline,' one EU diplomat said.
Rebalancing measures
One question EU leaders face is whether it should respond with its own measures to such a baseline tariff. 'We are also prepared for that with a range of options,' Merz said. The European Union has agreed, but not imposed, tariffs on 21 billion euros of US goods and is debating a further package of tariffs on up to 95 billion euros of US imports. Some EU countries favour watering it down.
'The Commission has rightly said that some member states are nibbling away too much, which would weaken these rebalancing measures,' one EU diplomat.
Among the EU rebalancing options is a tax on digital advertising, which would hit US giants like Alphabet Inc's Google, Meta, Apple, X or Microsoft and eat into the trade surplus in services the US has with the EU. The bloc has a trade surplus with the US in goods.
The Commission has proposed an EU-US deal to cut respective tariffs on industrial goods to zero, along with potential further EU purchases of liquefied natural gas and soybeans.
Washington has shown little obvious interest, preferring to highlight items it considers as barriers, such as EU value-added tax, environmental standards and rules on online platforms, on which the EU does not want to move. On the sidelines of the summit, EU leaders will also seek to allay the concerns of Slovakia and Hungary over ending their access to Russian gas as foreseen by the EU's plan to phase out all Russian gas imports by the end of 2027. EU diplomats said EU leaders' assurances over gas should allow the two countries to back the EU's 18th package of sanctions against Russia, which they are now blocking. The sanctions could be adopted by EU governments tomorrow.
But the EU might have to drop from the package its proposal to lower the price cap on Russian seaborne oil to US$45 (RM190) per barrel from the current US$60, because the measure has failed to win the support of the US and EU countries with big oil shipping industries — Greece, Malta and Cyprus — are also against it. — Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Malay Mail
Can Xi, Trump, Khamenei, and Anwar get along? Yes — If the world rediscovers strategic civility — Phar Kim Beng
JUNE 28 — In a world marked by sanctions, suspicion, and soundbites, the idea that Xi Jinping, Donald Trump, Ayatollah Khamenei, and Anwar Ibrahim could ever get along may seem far-fetched. But it is not impossible. The world has long misunderstood the difference between ideological differences and strategic necessity. In an era of multipolar competition and post-normal crises, the ability to disagree without destabilizing the global order is no longer a luxury—it is a prerequisite. The answer to whether these four leaders can find common ground is 'yes'—but only if the world learns to value strategic civility over ideological conformity. And only if we recognize the role of strategic convenor powers—like Malaysia under Anwar Ibrahim—in brokering spaces where dialogue, not dogma, prevails. Four leaders, four civilizational trajectories Xi Jinping leads a China determined to reclaim its historical stature through the revival of Confucian governance principles, Party supremacy, and economic statecraft. China's global posture is one of confidence—sometimes defiant, but often methodical. Donald Trump, back in office, rules through disruption. His foreign policy may seem erratic, but there is a pattern: transactionalism, spectacle, and a preference for leverage over long-term entanglements. While he loathes multilateralism, he is not instinctively drawn to war either. He wants deals—big, visible, and beneficial to domestic constituencies. Ayatollah Khamenei, presiding over a beleaguered but resilient Islamic Republic, blends revolutionary theology with geopolitical pragmatism. Despite decades of sanctions and confrontation, Tehran has always kept a channel open for diplomacy—when treated with dignity. And Anwar Ibrahim—a Muslim democrat, intellectual, and reformer—brings moral clarity without moral posturing. He is not just the Prime Minister of Malaysia; he is Asean's most articulate proponent of civilizational dialogue, advocating for coexistence between Islam, the West, and the Confucian East. His track record shows a consistent commitment to rule-based order, justice, and multilateralism anchored in ethics. When strategic interests overlap, so can leaders What connects these four leaders is not their personal affinity but their converging interests. All four, for different reasons, now operate in a world where overreach brings blowback, and where the line between strategic deterrence and economic disaster grows thinner by the day. Trump wants trade wins and less global policing. He remains open to deals that avoid new wars, especially if they burnish his legacy and strengthen U.S. industry. Xi seeks global stability to ensure China's continued rise. Tensions with the U.S. must be managed, not escalated. A rare earth agreement with Washington was recently signed—proof that economic logic can prevail over decoupling rhetoric. Khamenei, behind the veil of defiance, sees value in a stable regional order. Iran's pivot eastward, especially toward China and Asean, reflects a desire to diversify diplomacy and find breathing room from Western isolation. Anwar, more than any other, recognizes that leadership today means navigating contradictions, not escaping them. Under his stewardship, Malaysia is stepping up as a strategic convenor power—offering a rare neutral space for diplomacy between conflicting blocs. The post-normal world needs convenors, not commanders In this post-normal world—characterized by chaos, contradiction, and complexity—what is urgently missing is not hard power, but bridging power. Countries that can bring opposing sides together without being seen as biased are crucial. This is where Malaysia's role as a strategic convenor power becomes indispensable. Malaysia does not lecture. It listens. It does not impose. It hosts. Its voice resonates across the Islamic world, the Global South, and East Asia—not because it is large, but because it is trusted. The Asean Regional Forum, the East Asia Summit, and now growing Asean-GCC-China trilateral dialogues all reflect Malaysia's convening capacity. Anwar's proposal to address global problems through neutral ASEAN mediation, or to build a global moral coalition against Islamophobia and Sinophobia, are not fringe ideas—they are blueprints for how strategic convenors should behave in the 21st century. Lessons from Asean's quiet success The Asean model, for all its imperfections, thrives on strategic civility—a concept the West often mistakes for weakness. ASEAN has shown how ten countries with vastly different systems can pursue consensus, non-interference, and cooperative security without military blocs or coercion. This 'Asean way,' when applied globally, indeed, turned into Asean Will, could moderate the extremes of U.S. unilateralism, Chinese assertiveness, and Iranian resistance. But for that to happen, countries like Malaysia must be given the diplomatic space to facilitate, not just participate. Ayatollah Khamenei, presiding over a beleaguered but resilient Islamic Republic, blends revolutionary theology with geopolitical pragmatism. — AFP pic Toward a new diplomatic quadrilateral Can Xi, Trump, Khamenei, and Anwar sit at the same table—perhaps not literally, but diplomatically? If the terms are mutual respect, economic stability, and non-imposition of political systems, the answer is yes. China wants a stable periphery and global markets. The U.S. wants reduced costs and visible wins. Iran wants security guarantees and economic inclusion. Asean—led by Malaysia—wants a world where small states are not trampled by the rivalry of giants. It is not only possible, but necessary, for this emerging diplomatic quadrilateral to form. Conclusion: Replacing clash with convening The time of zero-sum diplomacy is over. No single power—American, Chinese, or Islamic—can impose its version of order without backlash. What the world needs are strategic convenor powers that can host the moral imagination of all civilizations, offering an architecture of dialogue when architecture of dominance is crumbling. Anwar, by not siding with any ideological camp, but standing for values rooted in justice and dignity, is uniquely placed to midwife this new order. Yes, Xi, Trump, Khamenei, and Anwar can get along—if the rest of us choose convening over coercion, civility over confrontation, and realism rooted in respect. * Phar Kim Beng is Professor of Asean Studies at the International Islamic University Malaysia and a former Head Teaching Fellow at Harvard University. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Trump wins Supreme Court ruling but birthright citizenship fight continues
WASHINGTON: The U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump, except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship - a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called 'universal' injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday, while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief, left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. 'I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,' said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a 'green card' holder. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days, a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts. The court's six conservative justices delivered the majority ruling, granting Trump's request to narrow the injunctions issued by the judges in Maryland, Washington and Massachusetts. Its three liberal members dissented. The ruling by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed to the court in 2020, emphasized the need to hem in the power of judges, warning against an 'imperial' judiciary. Judges can provide 'complete relief' only to the plaintiffs before them, Barrett wrote. A HOST OF POLICIES That outcome was a major victory for Trump and his allies, who have repeatedly denounced judges who have impeded his agenda. It could make it easier for the administration to implement his policies, including to accelerate deportations of migrants, restrict transgender rights, curtail diversity and inclusion efforts, and downsize the federal government - many of which have tested the limits of executive power. In the birthright citizenship dispute, the ruling left open the potential for individual plaintiffs to seek relief beyond themselves through class action lawsuits targeting a policy that would upend the long-held understanding that the Constitution confers citizenship on virtually anyone born on U.S. soil. Bray said he expects a surge of new class action cases, resulting in 'class-protective' injunctions. 'Given that the birthright-citizenship executive order is unconstitutional, I expect courts will grant those preliminary injunctions, and they will be affirmed on appeal,' Bray said. Some of the challengers have already taken that path. Plaintiffs in the Maryland case, including expectant mothers and immigrant advocacy groups, asked the presiding judge who had issued a universal injunction to treat the case as a class action to protect all children who would be ineligible for birthright citizenship if the executive order takes effect. 'I think in terms of the scope of the relief that we'll ultimately get, there is no difference,' said William Powell, one of the lawyers for the Maryland plaintiffs. 'We're going to be able to get protection through the class action for everyone in the country whose baby could potentially be covered by the executive order, assuming we succeed.' The ruling also sidestepped a key question over whether states that bring lawsuits might need an injunction that applies beyond their borders to address their alleged harms, directing lower courts to answer it first. STATES CHALLENGE DIRECTIVE The challenge to Trump's directive also included 22 states, most of them Democratic-governed, who argued that the financial and administrative burdens they would face required a nationwide block on Trump's order. George Mason University constitutional law expert Ilya Somin said the practical consequences of the ruling will depend on various issues not decided so far by the Supreme Court. 'As the majority recognizes, states may be entitled to much broader relief than individuals or private groups,' Somin said. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, a Democrat who helped lead the case brought in Massachusetts, disagreed with the ruling but sketched out a path forward on Friday. The ruling, Platkin said in a statement, 'recognized that nationwide orders can be appropriate to protect the plaintiffs themselves from harm - which is true, and has always been true, in our case.' Platkin committed to 'keep challenging President Trump's flagrantly unlawful order, which strips American babies of citizenship for the first time since the Civil War' of 1861-1865. Legal experts said they expect a lot of legal maneuvering in lower courts in the weeks ahead, and the challengers still face an uphill battle. Compared to injunctions in individual cases, class actions are often harder to successfully mount. States, too, still do not know whether they have the requisite legal entitlement to sue. Trump's administration said they do not, but the court left that debate unresolved. Meanwhile, the 30-day clock is ticking. If the challengers are unsuccessful going forward, Trump's order could apply in some parts of the country, but not others. 'The ruling is set to go into effect 30 days from now and leaves families in states across the country in deep uncertainty about whether their children will be born as U.S. citizens,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic.
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
US Senate Republicans push Trump tax-cut bill ahead of July 4 deadline
WASHINGTON: U.S. Senate Republicans will seek to advance President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending bill on Saturday with a procedural vote that could kick off a marathon weekend session and lead to full congressional approval next week. The 940-page megabill, released late on Friday, would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main first-term legislative achievement, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security. Nonpartisan analysts estimate a version passed by the House of Representatives last month would add about $3 trillion to the nation's $36.2 trillion government debt. Trump has pushed for Congress to pass the bill by the July 4 Independence Day holiday. The White House said early this month that the legislation, titled the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, would reduce the annual deficit by $1.4 trillion. Friday's release of the legislation could provide a catalyst for lawmakers to vote to open debate after the Senate convenes at 2 p.m. EDT (1800 GMT) on Saturday, though some sections of the bill appeared to be open to further revision. A successful vote would kick off a lengthy process that could run into Sunday, as Democrats unveil a series of amendments that are unlikely to pass in a chamber Republicans control by 53-47 seats. 'The Big Beautiful Bill contains all of President Trump's domestic economic priorities. By passing this bill now, we will make our nation more prosperous and secure,' Senate Budget Committee Lindsey Graham said in a statement accompanying the bill text. Senate Republicans have been deeply divided over plans to partly offset that bill's heavy hit to the deficit, including by cutting the Medicaid health insurance program for low-income Americans. Republicans are using a legislative maneuver to bypass the Senate's 60-vote threshold to advance most legislation in the 100-member chamber. Their narrow margins in the Senate and House mean they can afford no more than three Republican no votes to advance a bill that Democrats are united in opposing, saying it takes a heavy toll on low- and middle-income Americans to benefit the wealthy. One Republican in each chamber has been opposed to the legislation from the start. While a handful of Republicans in both chambers have voiced opposition to some of the bill's elements, this Congress has so far not rejected any of the president's legislative priorities. TAX BREAKS, SPENDING CUTS Democrats will focus their firepower with amendments aimed at reversing Republican spending cuts to programs that provide government-backed healthcare to the elderly, poor and disabled, as well as food aid to low-income families. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer summarized the reasons for his party's opposition to the bill at a Friday press conference, saying: 'It has the biggest cuts to food funding ever' and could result in more than 2 million people losing their jobs. He also highlighted the Republican rollback of clean energy initiatives ushered in by the Biden administration. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune stressed the tax-cut components during a Friday speech to the Senate. 'The centerpiece of our bill is permanent tax relief for the American people,' he said as he showcased a new tax break for senior citizens and other taxpayers. The measure, Thune said, will 'help get our economy firing on all cylinders again.' It also would raise the Treasury Department's statutory borrowing limit by trillions of dollars to stave off a first-ever default on its debt in coming months. If the Senate manages to pass Trump's top legislative goal by early next week, the House would be poised to quickly apply the final stamp of approval, sending it to Trump for signing into law. But with Senate Republicans struggling to find enough spending cuts to win the support of the party's far right, Trump on Friday loosened the leash a bit, saying his July 4 deadline for wrapping it all up was 'important' but 'it's not the end-all.' Among the most difficult disagreements Senate Republicans struggled to resolve late on Friday was the size of a cap on deductions for state and local taxes and Medicaid cost savings that could hobble rural hospitals.
