Latest news with #U.S.TradeRepresentative
The Hill
09-07-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Schumer jabs Trump for falling short of '90 deals in 90 days'
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) took a shot at President Trump Wednesday for falling well short of his top trade advisor's pledge of striking 90 trade deals in 90 days, declaring it another 'broken promise.' 'Ninety days ago Donald Trump promised the world that his tariffs would lead to 90 deals in 90 days,' Schumer said on the Senate floor. 'He makes these promises left and right. He doesn't care whether he executes them or not, but the American people do. 'By my count, he's about 88 trade deals short,' Schumer said. Trump announced a trade deal with Vietnam on July 2 and reached an agreement with the United Kingdom to cut tariffs on British cars, steel and aluminum in exchange for reduced British tariffs on U.S. imports. Trump announced on Monday that sanctions would snap back to between 25 percent and 40 percent on 14 countries, including Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia, if deals aren't reached by Aug. 1. 'What has Donald Trump done? He kicks the can down the road again and again. He talks a big game, but shows little follow-through of strategic understanding of how to secure America's interest,' Schumer said on Wednesday. Republican senators say they would like to see the Trump administration make faster progress on trade deals but they caution that trade agreements are complicated and require a lot of time to get done. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee who has kept in touch with the U.S. Trade Representative and Treasury Department, said he thinks more deals will be announced in the next few weeks. 'There are multiple others that are in process that I know firsthand are in process. So there's work that's going on,' he said. Lankford, however, acknowledged that many deals won't get wrapped up by August and said there would need to be a 'resolution' to accommodate longer-term talks. 'There has to be a resolution to try to figure out how long the rest of them are going to take,' he said of trade deals that don't get put together this month.
The Diplomat
09-07-2025
- Business
- The Diplomat
New Trump Tariffs Target Kazakhstan With 25% Rate
A letter to the Kazakh president stated, 'Starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Kazakhstan a Tariff of only 25% on any and all Kazakh products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs.' In a July 7 executive order, U.S. President Donald Trump effectively kicked back his deadline to review the early April 'reciprocal tariffs' to August 1, while also announcing that new tariff rates had been set for a group of 14 countries — with more announcements expected soon. Kazakhstan, which was targeted in the initial 'Liberation Day' tariff announcement with a rate of 27 percent, was hit instead with a 25 percent tariff that will go into effect on August 1. Trump sent — and of course, posted to social media immediately — letters to the leaders of the affected countries. The letters are nearly identical in substance and if it wasn't 2025, a reasonable person might assume they were a joke based on the absurd phrasing and capitalization quirks. 'It is a Great Honor for me to send you this letter in that it demonstrates the strength and commitment of our Trading Relationship, and the fact that the United States of America has agreed to continue working with Kazakhstan, despite having a significant Trade Deficit with your great Country,' the letter to Kazakh President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev begins. 'We have had years to discuss our Trading Relationship with Kazakhstan, and have concluded that we must move away from these longterm, and very persistent, Trade Deficits engendered by Kazakhstan's Tariff, and Non Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers.' Where the actual trade balance rests is a matter of whose statistics are referenced. As I wrote in April: According to the U.S. Trade Representative, total goods trade with Kazakhstan amounted to $3.4 billion in 2024 – $1.1 billion in U.S. exports to Kazakhstan and $2.3 billion in U.S. imports from Kazakhstan, for a trade deficit of $1.3 billion. Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration said in an April 3 statement that trade turnover in 2024 amounted to $4.2 billion – with $2.2 billion in imports from the U.S. and nearly $2 billion in exports from Kazakhstan to the U.S. These figures not only do not match up, but they suggest conflicting trade deficits. Both the U.S. and Kazakhstan cannot simultaneously be in a trade deficit with the other. The bulk of Kazakhstan's exports to the United States are crude petroleum, silver, and radioactive chemicals (i.e. uranium). Kazakhstan is a major oil-exporting country and is the world leader in uranium production. The original April tariff announcement outlined a range of exceptions. The new rates would not supersede tariffs set out in various other orders mandating sectoral tariffs — on aluminum, steel, automobiles — and would not apply to a wide range of goods listed in an annex that included copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, critical minerals, and energy and energy products. The new executive order and a fact sheet posted by the White House do not mention those exceptions beyond the sectoral tariffs. (This doesn't mean they aren't in play, but that the official communication is not clear on this point.) In fact, the letter to Tokayev stated: 'Starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Kazakhstan a Tariff of only 25% on any and all Kazakh products sent into the United States, separate from all Sectoral Tariffs' (emphasis added). Nevertheless, in a July 8 statement, Kazakhstan's Ministry of Trade and Integration stated that 'the measures taken will not affect about 95 percent of Kazakhstan's exports to the United States.' The ministry said that 'most of Kazakhstan's exports will continue to be supplied without new duties due to the exemption from the new tariffs.' Astana, the statement noted, had sent specific proposals to Washington and was awaiting a date for negotiations. Kazakhstan, the ministry said, was not considering retaliatory tariffs. The ministry states that trade turnover between Kazakhstan and the U.S. for January-May 2025 amounted to $1.2 billion, with exports from Kazakhstan to the U.S. accounting for $418.2 million, suggesting that imports from the U.S. to Kazakhstan were around $847 million — meaning, as noted above, that the two sides effectively both believe they are the one in the trade deficit. Whatever the actual data is, this illuminates the larger reality that trade is not a simple mathematical exercise. And a trade deficit, regardless of which side it falls on, isn't easily solved with tariffs. Trump continues to erroneously phrase his tariffs as taxes that partner countries importing goods into the U.S. 'pay.' That's just not how tariffs work. In most cases, businesses — that is, American businesses — will pay tariffs to import goods from abroad. Those costs, economists argue, are typically passed onto customers. The foreign country doesn't pay them directly. A foreign country may 'pay' by seeing less demand from the U.S. And while that may be a serious problem for some countries that have deeply integrated themselves in the U.S. economy, it's hard to envision Kazakhstan being one of them. Astana has a large number of trade partners, broadly spread across Europe and Asia. According to OEC data from 2023, the top destinations of Kazakhstan's exports were China (15.8 percent, $15.2 billion), the UK (14.9 percent, $14.3 billion), and Russia (10.2 percent, $9.78 billion). The U.S., in that data set, imported $2.27 billion in goods from Kazakhstan in 2023, amounting to just 2.3 percent of Kazakhstan's exports. One more note has to be made: While Trump's tariffs are packaged in the language of fairness — accusing Kazakhstan and other countries of treating the U.S. unfairly by exporting more to the U.S. than they buy from Americans and imposing various non-tariff barriers — Astana has complaints of its own to make, namely about the Jackson-Vanik amendment to the Trade Act of 1974, which rendered certain countries ineligible for normal trade relations with the United States due to restrictions on emigration, specifically that of Soviet Jews seeking to leave the USSR. Although the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Jackson-Vanik lived on and to this day applies to most of Central Asia. Although several bills over the years have been proposed in Congress to exempt Kazakhstan (as well as Uzbekistan and Tajikistan — but not Turkmenistan) from the amendment, none have ever made it out of committee. In practice, Kazakhstan has been granted conditional normal trade relations on an annual basis, after review, every year for decades — allowing trade to operate and grow, mostly as normal. But the amendment remains a sore point for Astana. One cannot hear a Kazakh diplomat speak in Washington without there being mention of Jackson-Vanik. It is a lingering remnant of Cold War policy, which U.S. lawmakers have not cared about enough to repeal, and that says something about how seriously the U.S. takes its relationship with Kazakhstan. Trump's 25 percent tariffs — whether they apply to all Kazakh exports to the U.S. or just 5 percent — say something similar.
Global News
08-07-2025
- Business
- Global News
Canada-U.S. trade talks seek ‘sustainable' deal, ex-official suggests
With the target date for a new Canada-U.S. trade and security deal less than two weeks away, both sides will aim for a 'long-term' deal, one former White House trade official told Global News. Brian Janotivz, former White House Economic Counsel and former official with the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), said there's a sense of 'urgency' as both sides try to find a 'sustainable' solution. 'I think the commitment to the integration of the North American market helps. It makes it so that all of the parties have an interest in building something that's sustainable long-term. It sort of works for everybody,' he said. Janovitz said this only fast-tracks the negotiations on the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Free Trade Agreement (CUSMA), which was up for review in 2026. 'Those talks had already started and so you know, for something like this, it will inject a sense of urgency into those conversations,' he said. Story continues below advertisement In an interview with Global News on Saturday, Prime Minister Mark Carney said he's staying 'nimble,' given the U.S. has 'multiple' objectives for its trade talks with various countries. Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy 'Some of it's strategic competition with China. Sometimes it's just whether or not they can have a trade balance,' he said. 'Some of it's about revenue, for their budget, and of course it's jobs for workers, (and) also issues around the border.' 2:21 Canada kills digital services tax to salvage U.S. trade talks On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order that extended the deadline for negotiations with countries that are subject to Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs. He set a 25 per cent tax on goods imported from Japan and South Korea, as well as new tariff rates on a dozen other nations that would go into effect on Aug. 1. Story continues below advertisement Imports from Myanmar and Laos would be taxed at 40 per cent, Cambodia and Thailand at 36 per cent, Serbia and Bangladesh at 35 per cent, Indonesia at 32 per cent, South Africa and Bosnia and Herzegovina at 30 per cent and Kazakhstan, Malaysia and Tunisia at 25 per cent. Carney has said he is aiming to reach a deal with the U.S. on trade and security by July 21. Janovitz said while the Trump administration's aims with placing tariffs on trading partners — such as incentivizing domestic manufacturing or putting pressure on trading partners to negotiate — will be front and centre, the White House will also want to guard against the negative impact of tariffs on the U.S. This includes increased costs for American manufacturers and higher prices for consumers. 'The administration is in a position of having both to balance competing objectives, but also to respond in real time to different developments within the market,' he said. He added that Trump directly negotiating individual trade deals and removing Congress from the process was a double-edged sword. 'To move the congressional process would be a lengthier one. In some way, it introduces a level of stability to it, but it also introduces a slower pace (to the negotiations),' he said. Story continues below advertisement — With files from Global News' Jackson Proskow, Reggie Cecchini and The Associated Press
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
USTR Eases Port Fees for Foreign Vehicle Carriers, Scraps LNG Export Mandate
The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) is again softening more of the fees it initially slapped on international vessels docking at U.S. ports. On Friday, the USTR proposed revisions that would reduce port fees for non-U.S. car carriers like Wallenius Wilhelmsen and ease restrictions on liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers. The new rules would scrap the requirement that American LNG be transported on domestically built vessels, relieving pressure on some U.S. exporters. More from Sourcing Journal Hapag-Lloyd Bookings Double on China-US Route in Weeks After Tariff Truce Panama Canal Sees Post-Drought Spike in Container Shipping Transits LA, Long Beach Ports Brace for Potential Record-Breaking Summer Surge Under the revisions, ships of pure car and truck carriers calling at U.S. ports will be charged $14 per metric ton, down from the previously proposed $150 per car equivalent unit. With the new structure, the port fees for a 5,000 CEU car carrier—with a net tonnage of about 15,000 metric tons—would drop from $750,000 to $210,000. The USTR said in a 10-page notice that the modification was 'appropriate to address administrability and in light of the potential for fee evasion.' Additionally, LNG exporters will no longer have to commit to moving 1 percent of exports on U.S.-built ships by 2029 'in order to allay concerns about the provision's impact on the U.S. LNG sector,' the notice read. That change eliminates a provision which would have allowed for the suspension of LNG export licenses, if not compliant. The U.S. LNG industry was rattled the initial plan, with Charlie Riedl, the executive director for the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas (CLNG), calling the requirement 'simply not feasible' in an April statement. No U.S.-built ships are currently capable of carrying LNG. Although these specific penalties weren't exclusively targeting Chinese-built ships, the duties are an extension of the USTR's Section 301 investigation into China's maritime, logistics and shipbuilding sectors. The office determined in January that China had an 'unreasonable' dominance over the industries, largely on allegations that state-owned and state-subsidized resources increase foreign dependence on the country and harm global competition. The public comment period for the proposed modifications has begun and will run through July 7. Fees are expected to go into effect Oct. 14. In April, the USTR pared back its first proposal to impose port docking fees on Chinese container ships after hearing significant backlash from American industries and global shipping firms alike. That proposal called for vessels operated by Chinese companies to pay up to $1 million per port call, while operators of ships built in China would have to pay as much as a $1.5 million fee per port call. That proposal was amended to benefit carriers leveraging non-Chinese ships, and now calls for fees based on net tonnage (starting at $50 per net ton) and number of containers carried. For the most part, ocean carriers have indicated that they will be able to skirt the current fees. Companies like Maersk, CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd have said that their fleets will not incur any additional costs, as they will not deploy any Chinese-built ships to U.S. ports after the Oct. 25 deadline. Chinese carriers Cosco Shipping and subsidiary Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL) will have to work around the fees by replacing ships on U.S. trade lanes with fee-exempt ships operated by their Ocean Alliance vessel-sharing partners, including CMA CGM and Evergreen. The carriers could also opt to sail more fee-exempt ships below 4,000 TEUs. Ahead of Wednesday's tariff truce between the U.S. and China, a Chinese official took a shot at the port fees during a shipping conference in Athens. Fu Xuyin, vice minister at China's ministry of transport, called the port fees and tariffs a 'selective implementation of discriminatory measures.' 'Port fees and tariffs…seriously disrupt the world economic and trade order and cause severe challenges the shipping industry,' Fu added at an international conference co-organized by the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS). Despite the fees in place, it doesn't appear that many of the major carriers have been completely deterred from placing orders for Chinese ships since the first USTR proposal back in February. Based on analysis on data from Clarksons, between Feb. 21 and June 8, 151 out of 343 newbuilding orders were placed by shipowners in Chinese yards. In terms of 'compensated gross tonnage,' a measure of work required to build a ship, Chinese shipbuilding won 48 percent of newbuild orders in the period while 52 percent went to yards in other countries. Shipbuilding orders have slid in the first five months of 2025 compared to the record pace of 2024, with Clarksons data saying that total orders were down 55 percent. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
09-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
USTR eases proposed penalties, fees for non-US LNG tankers, vehicle carriers
By Lisa Baertlein LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -The U.S. Trade Representative softened fee proposals for non-U.S.-built LNG tankers and car carriers amid its ongoing effort to counter China's dominance on the high seas and revive domestic shipbuilding. The revised proposal, unveiled by USTR on Friday, would remove LNG-related penalties for failing to export a percentage of fuel on U.S.-owned ships. It also would reduce fees when foreign-built car carriers visit domestic ports and exempt those vessels when they are serving the U.S. military. USTR previously exempted ships carrying U.S. exports as well as operators of smaller ships from port fees originally aimed at China-linked vessels. The agency also exempted vessels that service the Great Lakes, Caribbean and U.S. territories. "This is a step in the right direction, and we look forward to working with USTR on a solution that ensures U.S. LNG remains competitive on the global stage," Rob Jennings, vice president of natural gas markets for the American Petroleum Institute, said on Monday. USTR caught the liquified natural gas industry off guard in April with new rules for outbound shipments of that fuel, sparking an outcry. It also surprised the vehicle carrier industry with a plan to impose port fees on all non-U.S.-built vessels in that segment - including U.S.-flagged and U.S.-crewed ships admitted to the U.S. Maritime Security Program (MSP) that supports Washington's military readiness. USTR on Friday removed language saying it could suspend LNG export licenses until its rules for moving a percentage of outgoing shipments on U.S.-built and operated vessels were met. On April 17, USTR said LNG producers would have to transport 1% of their exports on U.S.-built ships starting in April 2029. That percentage would escalate to 15% in April 2047 and beyond. The World Shipping Council, whose members vehicle carriers such as Norway's Wallenius Wilhelmsen, did not immediately comment on the revisions. The vehicle carrier fee effective October 14 was to be $150 per car capacity of a non-U.S.-built ship known as roll-on/roll-offs, or RoRos. Typical RoRos have capacity to carry nearly 5,000 vehicles. In the revision, USTR lowered that fee to $14 per net ton. It also exempted vessels in the MSP, as well as U.S. government cargo - matching previous exemptions made for other vessel segments. Companies with ships in the MSP include Florida-based American Roll-On, Roll-Off Carrier Group, a U.S.-flag operator of vehicle carriers that is part of Wallenius Wilhelmsen Group, which did not immediately comment. The RoRo fees come on top of steep, 25% fees on auto imports imposed by Trump. These affect mainly European vehicles. U.S. exporters also use RoRos to export U.S.-made BMW SUVs, John Deere tractors and other goods. Shipping industry groups and attorneys have said USTR overreached by levying fees on RoRos made in countries that were not part of the Biden administration's fast-track investigation into China. The USTR's revisions continued to reference "non-U.S. built" vehicle carriers. Interested parties, which were not previously given the opportunity to comment on rules for RoRos or LNG tankers, have until July 7 to submit feedback on the revisions. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
