Trump may travel to China to meet Xi in 'not-too-distant future'
"President Xi has invited me to China, and we'll probably be doing that in the not-too-distant future," Trump told reporters in the White House's Oval Office.
"A little bit out, but not too distant. And I've been invited by a lot of people, and we'll make those decisions pretty soon."
Reuters has reported that Trump and Xi's aides have discussed a potential meeting between the leaders during a trip by the U.S. president to Asia later this year, citing two people familiar with the plans.
While plans for a meeting have not been finalized, discussions on both sides of the Pacific have included a possible Trump stopover around the time of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in South Korea or talks on the sidelines of the October 30-November 1 event, the people said.
Another possible trip would be for a September 3 Beijing ceremony commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, which Russian President Vladimir Putin is planning to attend.
The White House and the Chinese government had declined to comment on that earlier Reuters report.
Trump made the comment about meeting Xi during a meeting with Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., a key Pacific ally who Trump said he had successfully moved away from China, even as he said it was fine for the two countries to have relations.
Trump has sought to lower tensions with Beijing in recent weeks after pausing a tit-for-tat tariff war that has upended global trade and supply chains.
Trump has sought to impose tariffs on virtually all foreign goods, which he says will stimulate domestic manufacturing and which critics say will make many consumer goods more expensive for Americans.
He has called for a universal base tariff rate of 10% on goods imported from all countries, with higher rates for imports from some, including China. Imports from China have the highest tariff rate of 55%.
Trump has set a deadline of August 12 for the U.S. and China to reach a durable tariff agreement.
Other points of friction between the countries include China's support for Russia, trade in fentanyl-related chemicals, regional security worries, and exit bans on some American residents.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Nikkei Asia
44 minutes ago
- Nikkei Asia
Fed holds rates steady despite Trump's pressure in split decision
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady on Wednesday in a split decision that gave little indication of when borrowing costs might be lowered and drew dissents from two of the U.S. central bank's governors, both appointees of President Donald Trump who agree with him that monetary policy is too tight. "The unemployment rate remains low, and labor market conditions remain solid. Inflation remains somewhat elevated," the central bank said in a policy statement released after the Federal Open Market Committee voted 9-2 to keep its benchmark overnight interest rate steady in the 4.25%-4.50% range for the fifth consecutive meeting. The policy statement did note that economic growth "moderated in the first half of the year," possibly bolstering the case to lower rates at a future meeting should that trend continue. But it also said that "uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated" with risks to both the Fed's inflation and employment goals, language that has anchored the central bank's reluctance to cut rates until the path of inflation and jobs becomes clearer. This week's meeting marks the first time in more than 30 years that two members of the Fed's seven-person Washington-based Board of Governors voted against a rate decision at the consensus-driven central bank, and it will likely stoke debate about how Trump's public pressure to cut rates is playing out at an institution designed to set monetary policy independent of demands from elected officials. Both Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman and Governor Christopher Waller, who has been mentioned as a possible nominee to replace Fed Chair Jerome Powell when his term expires next May, were appointed to the board by Trump and "preferred to lower the target range for the federal funds rate by one quarter of a percentage point at this meeting," the Fed's policy statement said. Powell, a bipartisan figure who was appointed to the Fed's board by former President Barack Obama and later promoted to the top job by Trump, voted to hold rates steady, as did three other governors and the five Fed regional bank presidents who currently hold a vote on the rate-setting FOMC. The Fed's regional bank presidents are hired by local boards of directors who oversee the Fed's 12 regional institutions. Governor Adriana Kugler was absent and did not vote. While the statement gave little hint of when the Fed might cut rates, Powell will likely be questioned about the outlook at a press conference that begins at 2:30 p.m. Dissenting members of the FOMC often release statements explaining their vote on the Friday following Fed meetings. The data since the Fed's June 17-18 meeting has given policymakers little reason to shift from the "wait-and-see" approach they have taken on interest rates since Trump's January 20 inauguration raised the possibility that new import tariffs and other policy shifts could put upward pressure on prices. The unemployment rate is still low at 4.1%, and recent inflation data showed faster increases for some heavily imported goods - a development policymakers will watch in the coming weeks. The Commerce Department earlier on Wednesday reported that U.S. growth rebounded more than expected in the second quarter, but declining imports accounted for the bulk of the improvement and domestic demand rose at its slowest pace in 2-1/2 years. Trump has berated Powell in particular for not cutting rates to try to lower the government's borrowing costs, a concern outside the Fed's congressionally-mandated goals of maintaining stable inflation and maximum employment.
Nikkei Asia
44 minutes ago
- Nikkei Asia
China's Instagram used to steer Taiwan public opinion: Taipei official
Xiaohongshu, known as China's Instagram, has more than 300 million active users and is popular among young people in Taiwan. © Reuters MINA ASHIKAWA TAIPEI -- Chinese social media app Xiaohongshu is a tool used by the Communist Party to steer ideological leanings in Taiwan toward China, a Taiwanese official said, warning that it could affect the thinking of young people on the island. "The Chinese Communist Party believes that if more young people in Taiwan use Xiaohongshu, it will lower the hurdles to controlling Taiwan," said Shen Yu-chung, deputy minister of Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council, which oversees the island's China policy. Shen spoke to Nikkei and other media.
The Diplomat
5 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Mahathir Mohamad, the Father of Modern Malaysia, at 100
Mahathir reshaped Malaysia's politics and modernized its economy. He is also the source of many of the contradictions that continue to define the country today. Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, who turned 100 on July 10, stands as a political titan who casts a long shadow over Malaysia's modern history. A physician from a modest background, he joined politics in the 1960s, and thereby embarked on an extraordinary trajectory. Mahathir was the founding father of modern Malaysia, its most enduring political figure, and, arguably, the architect of many of the contradictions that continue to define – and divide – the country. From his first stint as prime minister from 1981 until 2003, and again in a stunning political comeback from 2018 to 2020, Mahathir reshaped Malaysia's economy, identity, and politics. His legacy is both vertiginous and deeply contested. Central to Mahathir's worldview is the 'Malay Dilemma,' an idea that he articulated in his 1970 book of the same name. Drawing from colonial narratives – notably those later critiqued by sociologist Syed Hussein Alatas in his study 'The Myth of The Lazy Native' – Mahathir internalized and reinterpreted British stereotypes of the 'lazy' or 'nonchalant' Malay. Rather than rejecting these views outright, he reframed them as an urgent national problem: the Malays, the 'sons of the soil,' were being left behind by the economically dominant Chinese minority, highlighting that the traditions of 'forced marriage of the unfit' and 'inbreeding' which, according to Mahathir, had produced 'a much greater percentage of human failures among the Malay as compared with other races.' This book aimed to explain the ethnic tensions between Malays and Chinese during the politically orchestrated ethnic riots of May 1969. In a preface to a new edition of 'The Malay Dilemma' published in 2008, Mahathir revised his view over the extent to which hereditary factors had contributed to the socio-economic status of the Malay, but the idea continues to haunt the Malaysian national psyche to the present. Mahathir's diagnosis of Malay social pathologies laid the groundwork for Malaysia's affirmative action policies, most notably the New Economic Policy (NEP), which privileged Malays in areas ranging from education to business and the civil service. Under Mahathir, these policies were not only expanded but entrenched in the country's corporate, social, and political cultures. During this time, Mahathir's management of the economy was widely praised. He prioritized fiscal discipline, maintained a relatively open market, focused on infrastructure development, and actively encouraged foreign direct investment. These efforts contributed to a consistent annual growth rate of around 6-7 percent during most of his tenure. His rule also cultivated a new confident Malay urban elite, who benefited greatly from his state-sponsored contracts and quotas. But in doing so, he also locked the Malay community into a framework of entitlement and dependency. What began as protectionism morphed into institutionalized favoritism, with political patronage and crony capitalism feeding a system that ultimately undermined the very self-reliance Mahathir hoped to instill. While intended to uplift the Malay majority, these policies deepened Malaysia's racial fractures. By encoding ethnic identity into economic opportunity, Mahathir's policies helped formalize a structural racial divide that persists today. Each election cycle has seen politicians – especially those from the dominant Malay parties – doubling down on the rhetoric of racial entitlement and fear. Instead of fostering national cohesion, the policies seeded mistrust and resentment between communities. Ironically, in his later years, Mahathir seemed to recognize the limitations and unintended consequences of this strategy. In his last term, he tried to reform the system, acknowledging that the quota-based policies no longer gave Malays a real advantage. But rather than blaming the outdated structures he helped build, Mahathir often turned his criticism inward, accusing the Malay community of complacency and failure to seize the opportunities offered to them. Paradoxically, the father of Malay empowerment chastised his own people for not thriving within the very system he contributed to designing. During his brief second term as prime minister, Mahathir took bold steps to tackle corruption, a move many saw as a long-overdue attempt to redeem his legacy. He appointed Latheefa Koya, a respected human rights lawyer and fierce critic of institutional corruption, to head Malaysia's anti-graft agency. Yet, skeptics questioned the sincerity of these reforms. The infamous 1MDB scandal, which exploded under Prime Minister Najib Razak's 2009-2018 tenure, is a symptom of the system that was created during Mahathir's earlier tenure: the building of the new United Malays National Organization (UMNO) and a Malay elite. His critics accused him of using anti-corruption efforts selectively, targeting rivals rather than genuinely dismantling the structures that enabled graft. In 2018, Mahathir's return to power against all odds was historical. At 93, he led the opposition coalition to an unexpected victory, toppling UMNO, the party he once led, for the first time since the country's independence. It was a masterclass in political reinvention: from autocratic strongman to democratic savior. Mahathir managed the impossible feat of rewriting his legacy in real time. But his second act ended in chaos. Misreading the fragile alliances that brought him back to power, Mahathir resigned in 2020, believing, as he often had before, that the nation would call him back to stabilize the government. Instead, his former deputy, Muhyiddin Yassin, seized the moment and formed a new coalition without him. This miscalculation echoed an earlier one. In the late 1990s, Mahathir dismissed Anwar Ibrahim, then his heir apparent, triggering a political crisis that would shape Malaysia for two decades. Mahathir underestimated his allies both times and paid the price. In his last attempt to run for an election, Mahathir's newly formed party, the Parti Pejuang Tanah Air (Homeland Fighter's Party) or Pejuang, had disastrous results; all candidates, including Mahathir, performed so poorly that they lost their election deposits. Mahathir now refers to himself, often sarcastically, as a 'dictator' who resigned twice. His long career has made him both a living relic and a reference point for a generation of strongmen. His friendships with controversial figures like Fidel Castro and Robert Mugabe, and admiration for figures such as Nelson Mandela, whose first political campaign he quietly funded, paint a portrait of a leader who was adept at operating on both the world stage and in the maze of domestic politics. Today, as global politics witnesses a resurgence of autocrats claiming democratic legitimacy, Mahathir offers a cautionary tale. His criticisms of leaders like Donald Trump are laced with irony, given his own long flirtation with authoritarianism. And yet, unlike many of his peers, Mahathir walked away, not once, but twice, from power. Whether that was courage, hubris, or simply miscalculation is a question my academic colleagues will debate. But there's no denying his impact. Mahathir built Malaysia's modern foundation, and created its political fault lines. Understanding his career is not just about understanding one man's journey, but the story of an entire nation navigating the promises and perils of leadership, identity, and ambition.
