Trump reaches trade deal with Vietnam as big tariff deadline looms
"In other words, they will 'OPEN THEIR MARKET TO THE UNITED STATES,' meaning that, we will be able to sell our product into Vietnam at ZERO Tariff," the president added.
More: Trump's tariffs are 'not going away' amid legal battles, White House says
Trump announced the deal after speaking with To Lam, general secretary of the Communist Party of Vietnam. Vietnamese state media said the U.S. and Vietnam reached an agreement on a joint statement for a "reciprocal, fair and balanced" trade deal.
During Trump's phone call with Lam, the Vietnamese leader asked the U.S. to recognize Vietnam as a market economy and remove restrictions on the exports of hi-tech products to Vietnam, Vietnam News Agency reported.
More: Trump says U.S. will end trade talks with Canada, could move deadline for other tariffs
Companies are currently paying a 10% universal U.S. tariff that Trump imposed on imports from Vietnam and some 180 other nations.
However, significantly larger reciprocal tariffs that Trump initially imposed in early April - but soon after paused for 90 days amid market turbulence - are set to go back into effect July 9. Trump could choose to extend the pause, but he's said he's not interested in that.
"No, I'm not," Trump told reporters July 1 when asked whether he plans to lengthen the pause. "I'm not thinking about the pause. I'll be writing letters to a lot of countries. And I think you're just starting to understand the process."
When the Trump administration delayed the sweeping reciprocal tariffs to allow negotiations with other nations to continue, the White House economic team predicted deals would come at breakneck speed.
"We're going to run 90 deals in 90 days. It's possible," White House trade adviser Peter Navarro said at the time.
But the administration has struggled to make progress on that pledge.
Trump and United Kingdom Prime Minister Keri Starmer in May reached the first trade deal since Trump imposed the new tariffs - but no others have followed.
More: Trump says trade deal with China is 'done;' aides tout 'framework' deal
In June, Trump announced the framework of a trade deal with China in which the U.S. would collect 55% tariffs on Chinese imports and China would collect 10% on U.S. imports. A month earlier, Trump and China agreed to slash triple-digit tariffs imposed on the other as the two parties continued talks.
The Trump administration had previously pointed to Japan as another opportunity to secure a trade deal. But Trump on Tuesday said a U.S.-Japan deal is unlikely.
"I doubt it with Japan - they're very tough. You have to understand, they're spoiled," Trump told reporters.
Contributing: Reuters
Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
6 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Europe is scrambling to form a united front and regain relevance in the Iran crisis
Exposed as divided and marginalised during the Iran crisis, European nations are scrambling to retrieve a place at the Middle East negotiating table, fearing an impulsive Donald Trump has diminishing interest in stabilising Iran or the wider region now he believes he has achieved his key objective of wiping out Tehran's nuclear programme. On Tuesday the EU's top diplomat, Kaja Kallas, was the latest senior European figure to phone the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, offering to be a facilitator and urging Tehran not to leave the crisis in a dangerous limbo by keeping UN weapons inspectors out of Iran. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, has even broken a three-year silence to speak to Vladimir Putin about the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, including how a deal could be struck between Iran and the US on a restricted civil nuclear programme. Macron has been involved in Iranian diplomacy for a decade and came close to engineering a rapprochement between Trump and the then Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, at the UN general assembly in 2018. But Iran, faced with what it regards as craven European support for Israeli and American airstrikes that killed more than 930 people and injured as many as 5,000, is not placing much faith in the continent's ability to influence the White House. For Europe, this signals a slow slide into irrelevance. The three major European powers known as the E3 – France, Germany and the UK – were once key fixtures in Iran's diplomacy and played a central role in brokering the Iran nuclear deal, which they signed alongside the EU, the US, China, Russia and Iran in 2015. Europe had little input in the US's recent negotiating strategy with Iran, led by Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, and was given just over an hour's official warning before the Israeli and US attacks. The one meeting that the E3 foreign minsters held during the crisis with Iranian diplomats in Geneva on 20 June proved a failure and was followed by the US strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. France claimed it helped Israel repel Iranian drones. Trump crowed afterwards that 'Iran doesn't want to speak to Europe. They want to speak to us. Europe is not going to be able to help in this one.' From the Iranian perspective, Europe has long been a disappointing negotiating partner, repeatedly failing to show any independence from the US. When Trump withdrew the US from the nuclear deal in 2018, the E3 condemned the move in a joint statement issued by its then-leaders, Angela Merkel, Theresa May and Macron. But it did nothing effective to pursue an independent strategy to lift European sanctions on Iran as it had promised. The fear that European firms trading with Iran would be put under US sanctions was too great. The view from Tehran, it was felt, was that Europe's timidity left it with no choice but to follow the policy of nuclear brinkmanship, including gradually increasing its stockpile of enriched uranium. At the start of Trump's second term, the E3 plus Kallas tried again to insert themselves into the process by holding three low-key meetings with Iranian negotiators. But Araghchi was always angling to speak to Washington, telling the Guardian of his discussions with the Europeans: 'Perhaps we are talking to the wrong people.' After Trump indicated he was willing to speak to Iran bilaterally and showed some flexibility about Tehran's right to enrich uranium, Iran cast Europe aside. Iran believes Europe played a role either through naivety or complicity in opening the door for the Israeli attack by tabling a motion of censure at the board of the UN nuclear inspectorate, the International Atomic Energy Agency. Such motions have been passed before at the IAEA and usually led to Iran retaliating by increasing its stocks of enriched uranium. But the 12 June motion was different – for the first time in 20 years the board found Iran in breach of its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Europe had to take that step to use its right as a signatory to the 2015 deal to reimpose sanctions on Iran before expiry of the deal on 15 October. Because of the way the deal was negotiated, neither Russia nor China can veto Europe reimposing sanctions. America is no longer party to the deal so this power to reintroduce UN sanctions is Europe's diplomatic re-entry point into the Iranian file. European diplomats insist that the IAEA censure motion was necessary, and that they had no option owing to Iran's mounting stocks of highly enriched uranium that had no possible purpose in a civilian nuclear programme. Europe also still hoped the talks between the US and Iran, mediated by Oman, would bear fruit, and had not foreseen the US giving Israel the green light to attack. Since the Israeli strikes, European unity has frayed further. Britain has largely opted for opacity, but it was obvious from what ministers did not say that the government's legal advice was that the Israeli attack could not be justified as an act of self-defence under the UN charter. France openly asserted that the attack was unlawful. By contrast, Germany endorsed all that Israel has done. At the G7 summit in mid-June, the chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said: 'This is the dirty work that Israel is doing, for all of us.' Germany's foreign minister, Johann Wadephul, told parliament that 'Israel has the right to defend itself and protect its people. Let me say clearly that, if Israel and the US have now managed to set back the Iranian nuclear programme, it will make Israel and its neighbourhood more secure.' Asked by the newspaper Die Zeit if he believed Israel's actions were lawful, he said Germany did not have the same quality intelligence sources as the US and Israel, but he had to trust their belief that Iran was close to acquiring a nuclear weapon. 'They told us that, from their perspective, this is necessary – and we must accept that.' Such remarks have left Iranian diplomats spitting about European double standards over the sanctity of international law. By contrast, Enrique Mora, the EU's point person on Iran from 2015 to early 2025, has written a scathing piece in which he says Israel has killed nuclear diplomacy and Iran's nuclear knowledge cannot be destroyed. He wrote: 'If Iran now chooses the militarisation of its nuclear capabilities, if it now decides to move toward a bomb, it will do so following a clear strategic logic: no one bombs the capital of a nuclear-armed country. June 21, 2025, may go down in history not as the day the Iranian nuclear programme was destroyed, but as the day a nuclear Iran was irreversibly born.' There are different strategies Europe can pursue. It can, like Germany, show Iran there is no daylight between the E3 and Israel and assert that Iran can only have a civil nuclear programme that excludes domestic enrichment of uranium. It can press ahead with the reimposition of sanctions and hope that Iran buckles. Alternatively, it can champion a compromise that Tehran can wear. In a recent statement, the European Council on Foreign Relations said 'maximalist demands on Iran – including negotiating over missiles now viewed by Tehran as its main deterrence umbrella – will likely push the country to use every means still available to reach nuclear breakout. A more viable endgame would involve a return of wide-scale inspections by international monitors and an immediate, substantial roll-back of Iranian uranium enrichment. The goal should be Iran pursuing this enrichment through a regional consortium backed by the United States.' That is broadly closer to the French position. Europe will never hold sway like Israel or the US, but it has one last chance to help create something durable, and prevent the Iranian crisis becoming a nuclear proliferation crisis for the whole region.
The Guardian
16 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A ceasefire in Gaza appears to be close. Here's why it could happen now
After nearly 21 months of bloody war, it now appears a question of when rather than if a new ceasefire brings a pause to the fighting that has devastated Gaza, destabilised the region and horrified onlookers across the world. On Friday, Donald Trump said he expected Hamas to agree within 24 hours to a deal that Israel has already accepted. Analysts predict a formal announcement after Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, arrives in Washington on Monday on his third visit to the White House since Trump began his current term. If a new ceasefire does come into effect, it will be the third during the war, in which about 57,000 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have died. The first lasted just 10 days in November 2023. The second was forced on a reluctant Netanyahu by Trump in February this year and ended in March when Israel reneged on a promise to move to a second scheduled phase that could have led to a definitive end to hostilities. The terms of the new deal include the staggered release of hostages held by Hamas; freedom for hundreds of Palestinians in Israeli jails; desperately needed aid for Gaza; and the phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from some parts of the strip seized in recent months. Once again, the ceasefire will last for 60 days, during which time talks about what happens next will be held. Trump and regional powers are offering guarantees to reassure Hamas that Israel will not simply return to an all-out offensive and that meaningful discussions about a permanent end to the war will actually take place. One factor that has brought a new ceasefire closer is the brief conflict last month between Israel and Iran, which ended in a US-brokered ceasefire. That capped a series of military and political developments that had seriously weakened Tehran and the various militant groups it had supported around the region, which include Hamas. More important is the boost that gave Netanyahu. Though polls record only a slight increase in support for his Likud party and in his personal popularity, many Israelis nonetheless rejoiced in what was seen as a crushing victory over a much-feared foe. If Netanyahu brings the war in Gaza to what voters see as a successful, or at least acceptable, close, Netanyahu can stand in elections – probably next year – claiming to be the man who made Israel safer than it has ever been, even if few have forgotten the security and strategic failures that led to the Hamas attack of October 2023 in which militants took 251 hostages and killed 1,200, mostly civilians. By the end of this month, Israel's parliament will have risen for a three-month recess and courts will also not sit, giving Netanyahu respite from the threat of a no-confidence vote or dissolution motion as well as from continuing cross-examination in his trial for corruption. This undermines the threats to collapse the government made throughout the conflict in Gaza by far-right coalition allies bitterly opposed to a deal with Hamas. Successive opinion surveys show that an agreement that brings back hostages would be very popular with Israelis, so this, too, would help Netanyahu in elections. Israeli casualties in Gaza – 20 soldiers died in June – are also causing concern. A poll published by Maariv, an Israeli newspaper, on Friday showed a further boost for the prime minister as hopes of a ceasefire rose. As for Hamas, analysts and sources close to its leaders say the militant Islamist organisation is divided, much weakened by the Israeli onslaught in Gaza and aware that it has few allies who can or will offer any practical support. The main aim of its leaders now is to retain some presence in Gaza, even a residual one. This alone would constitute some form of victory, and partly explains the determination with which Hamas seek a permanent end to the fighting. Whether it will get one is still not clear. Israeli media have been briefed by 'sources close to Netanyahu' that if Hamas cannot be disarmed in Gaza and its leaders exiled from the devastated territory through negotiations then Israel will resume military operations, and that Washington would support its decision to return to war. Many 'close to Netanyahu' also continue to support mass 'voluntary' emigration from Gaza, or the relocation of much of its population to an area in the south, or both. Recent days have been noisy with voices: American, Israeli, Saudi Arabian, Qatari and many others. Barely heard have been the voices of the 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza, where Israel's offensive continues. On Friday, local officials and medics said Israeli airstrikes killed 15 Palestinians in the territory and another 20 people died in shootings while waiting at food points.
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Democratic lawmakers denied entry to ‘Alligator Alcatraz' immigration jail
A group of Florida lawmakers were denied entry on Thursday into the new Florida-based immigration jail dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz' one day after the first immigrant detainees began to arrive. Five Democratic lawmakers attempted to enter the facility, which was previously toured on Tuesday by White House officials, but were stopped by law enforcement officers from local agencies, according to the state representative Anna Eskamani in an interview with CNN. 'This is a blatant abuse of power and an attempt to conceal human rights violations from the public eye,' the five said in a joint statement. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) confirmed that the first detentions at the facility began on Wednesday, but did not respond to questions regarding the number of people detained so far. The controversial Everglades jail was quickly set up in a partnership between the federal and Florida state governments. Sitting approximately 50 miles (80km) west of Miami, the remote facility is managed by the state but in large part funded the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema). 'It might be as good as the real Alcatraz. A little controversial, but I couldn't care less,' Trump said on Tuesday after touring the site. During the tour, Trump joked about immigrants being pursued by snakes and alligators if they attempted to escape. Since Trump took office, Florida has been assisting the administration's goals in rounding up a large number of immigrants to be detained and deported. Through a program called 287(g), local law enforcement agencies partner with DHS and become deputized to carry out immigration enforcement operations. According to the state government, Florida has more 287(g) deputizations than any other state in the US, which has allowed it to engage in widespread operations targeting immigrant communities. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Immigrants arrested by Florida law enforcement under the arrangement will be detained at the facility, DHS said. 'You'll have a lot of people that will deport on their own because they don't want to end up in an Alligator Alcatraz, or some of these other places,' Florida governor Ron DeSantis said after touring the facility with Trump. 'This is a model, but we need other states to step up.' Being undocumented in the US is not a crime; rather, it is a civil offense. Data analysis by the Guardian shows that there has been a dramatic nationwide increase in the arrest of undocumented immigrants with no criminal record. The White House has pressured immigration officials to arrest 3,000 people per day, with the reported goal of reaching one million a year. Two non-profit groups have sued DHS, claiming the site's buildup is violating environmental policies. DHS said it expects the facility to expand quickly to 5,000 beds.
