Erdogan says US CAATSA sanctions on Turkiye defence sector easing under Trump
ISTANBUL: President Tayyip Erdogan said he believed the United States' 'CAATSA' sanctions on the Turkish defence sector would soon be 'overcome' thanks to U.S. President Donald Trump's 'more open, more constructive' approach.
Asked by journalists on a return flight from Albania about the recent U.S. approval of the potential sale of missiles to Turkiye, Erdogan said he could 'easily say there is an easing on CAATSA', referring to the 'Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act'.
Erdogan said he had discussed the matter with Trump and Washington's new ambassador to Ankara.
'With my friend Trump taking office, we reached a more open, more constructive, more sincere communication,' he added, according to a transcript of the comments he made on the flight.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
White House defends crackdown on protesters in LA as Trump calls for California governor's arrest
Members of the Los Angeles Metro Police clash with demonstrators during a protest against federal immigration sweeps in downtown Los Angeles, June 8. PHOTO: REUTERS Listen to article California officials blamed President Donald Trump on Monday for inflaming an already tense situation in Los Angeles by sending in National Guard troops, while the White House argued the sometimes violent demonstrations justified ramping up deportation efforts even further. Trump even suggested California Governor Gavin Newsom be arrested. As the city faced a fourth day of protests over Trump's immigration policies, Democrats and Republicans clashed over what has become the biggest flashpoint in the Republican administration's aggressive efforts to deport migrants who are in the country illegally. Earlier in the day, Newsom, viewed as a potential Democratic presidential contender in 2028, vowed to sue the federal government over its deployment of the Guard, calling it unlawful. "This is exactly what Donald Trump wanted. He flamed the fires and illegally acted to federalize the National Guard," Newsom posted on X on Monday. "We're suing him." Federal law allows the president to deploy the Guard if the nation is invaded, if there is 'rebellion or danger of rebellion,' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.' Returning to the White House after a night at Camp David, Trump was asked by a reporter whether his border czar, Tom Homan, should arrest Newsom. Homan has threatened to arrest anyone who obstructs immigration enforcement efforts, including the governor. "I would do it if I were Tom. I think it's great," Trump replied. "Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing." The streets were calm early on Monday after protests erupted on Friday when US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents targeted several locations in the city for sweeps as part of the administration's efforts to arrest migrants. The demonstrations continued over the weekend, resulting in a large police response. The White House contended the protests were a further reason for Republicans in Congress to pass Trump's 'one big beautiful bill' that would increase border security and military spending. The bill, now in the US Senate after clearing the US House of Representatives, would also slash taxes, cut Medicaid benefits and do away with green-energy initiatives. 'We need the One Big, Beautiful Bill to pass ASAP!' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt posted on X. Fiscal conservatives in the Senate, along with former Trump adviser Elon Musk, have balked at the bill's cost, saying it will inflate the nation's budget deficit. Clash raises newsom's profile Trump has pledged to deport record numbers of people who are in the country illegally and to lock down the US-Mexico border, setting the ICE border enforcement agency a daily goal of arresting at least 3,000 migrants. For Democrats, lacking leadership since Trump won the presidential election last November, the Los Angeles protests have served as a rallying point, allowing them to find some political footing while standing up to the administration's policies. The episode has provided Newsom, serving his second term as governor, with a national platform that has allowed him to portray himself as Trump's chief antagonist. But it has also underscored the risks of appearing too sympathetic to protesters, some of whom have set cars on fire and thrown bottles at police. During his first term, Trump castigated Democrats for civil unrest during riots protesting the murder of George Floyd, a Black man, by a white police officer in 2020. In one demonstration of that delicate balancing act, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass blamed the Trump administration for inciting tensions by sending in the Guard, while also condemning protesters. "I don't want people to fall into the chaos that I believe is being created by the administration completely unnecessarily," Bass told a press conference on Sunday. Trump accused Newsom and Bass of playing down the violence. "We made a great decision in sending the National Guard to deal with the violent, instigated riots in California," he posted on social media on Monday. "If we had not done so, Los Angeles would have been completely obliterated." On guard US Northern Command said 300 members of the California National Guard had been deployed to three spots in the Los Angeles area. The Department of Homeland Security said the Guard's mission was to protect federal buildings. Police declared all of downtown Los Angeles on Sunday to be an unlawful assembly area and ordered protesters to go home after a third day of violence hit immigration protests. During those protests, officers on horseback tried to control the crowds. Some used flash-bang grenades and tear gas, CNN reported. Demonstrators shouted "Shame on you!" at police and some appeared to throw objects, video images showed. One group blocked the 101 Freeway, a downtown thoroughfare. Several self-driving cars from Alphabet's Waymo were set ablaze on a downtown street on Sunday evening. City police chief Jim McDonnell told a media briefing on Sunday evening that people had a right to protest peacefully but the violence he had seen by some was "disgusting." Asked if the National Guard was needed, McDonnell said police would not "go to that right away," but added, "Looking at the violence tonight, I think we've got to make a reassessment." Police said they had arrested 10 people on Sunday and 29 the previous night.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US and China hold trade talks in London to ease tensions
London talks follow first public call between Trump and Xi since his return to the White House, held just days earlier. PHOTO: REUTERS Listen to article Top US and Chinese officials were meeting in London on Monday to try and defuse a high-stakes trade dispute that has widened from tariffs to restrictions over rare earths, threatening a global supply chain shock and slower economic growth. On the first of likely two days of talks, officials from the two superpowers were meeting at the ornate Lancaster House to try to get back on track with a preliminary agreement struck last month in Geneva that had briefly lowered the temperature between Washington and Beijing. Since then the US has accused China of slow-walking on its commitments, particularly around rare earths shipments. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said on Monday that the US team wanted a handshake from China on rare earths after Donald Trump said Xi Jinping had agreed to resume shipments in a rare call between the two presidents last week. "The purpose of the meeting today is to make sure that they're serious, but to literally get handshakes," Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, told CNBC in an interview. He said the U.S. would expect export controls to be eased and rare earths released in volume immediately afterwards. The talks come at a crucial time for both economies, which are showing signs of strain from Trump's cascade of tariff orders since his return to the White House in January. Customs data showed that China's exports to the US plunged 34.5% year-on-year in May in value terms, the sharpest drop since February 2020, when the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic upended global trade. In the US, business and household confidence has taken a pummelling, while first-quarter gross domestic product contracted due to a record surge in imports as Americans front-loaded purchases to beat anticipated price increases. But for now, the impact on inflation has been muted, and the jobs market has remained fairly resilient, though economists expect cracks to become more apparent over the summer. Attending the talks in London will be US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and a Chinese contingent helmed by Vice Premier He Lifeng. The inclusion of Lutnick, whose agency oversees export controls for the US, is one indication of how central rare earths have become. China holds a near-monopoly on rare earth magnets, a crucial component in electric vehicle motors. Lutnick did not attend the Geneva talks at which the countries struck a 90-day deal to roll back some of the triple-digit tariffs they had placed on each other. Positive collection The second round of meetings comes four days after Trump and Xi spoke by phone, their first direct interaction since Trump's January 20 inauguration. During the more than one-hour-long call, Xi told Trump to back down from trade measures that roiled the global economy and warned him against threatening steps on Taiwan, according to a Chinese government summary. But Trump said on social media the talks focused primarily on trade led to "a very positive conclusion," setting the stage for Monday's meeting in the British capital. The next day, Trump said Xi had agreed to resume shipments to the US of rare earths minerals and magnets, and Reuters reported that China has granted temporary export licenses to rare-earth suppliers of the top three US automakers. China's decision in April to suspend exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets upended the supply chains central to automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies and military contractors around the world. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told the Fox News program "Sunday Morning Futures" that the U.S. wanted the two sides to build on the progress made in Geneva in the hope they could move towards more comprehensive trade talks. The preliminary deal in Geneva sparked a global relief rally in stock markets, and U.S. indexes that had been in or near bear market levels have recouped the lion's share of their losses. But Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, said while a temporary truce was possible, there was little prospect for the bilateral relationship to become constructive given broader decoupling trends and continued US pressure on other countries to take China out of their supply chains. "Everyone around Trump is still hawkish and so a breakthrough US-China trade deal is unlikely, especially in the context of other deals that are further along and prioritized," he said in an analyst note.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
America's immigration dilemma: Law, accountability, and the crisis within
For decades, America has prided itself as a land of opportunity—a magnet for dreamers, workers, and refugees. But today, under the aggressive implementation of ICE-led deportations, spearheaded by President Donald Trump's renewed enforcement drive, the country finds itself fractured. The issue is no longer just about legality—it has become a battleground of narratives, identity, and accountability. President Trump insists that 'millions and millions' of illegal immigrants—whom he categorizes as violent criminals, traffickers, sex offenders, and pedophiles—have 'invaded' the U.S. According to him, his administration's duty is to remove these threats through mass deportations, often carried out with military-style precision. ICE raids in cities like Los Angeles, where five individuals with criminal pasts were arrested on June 7, are presented as success stories. But a deeper question lurks behind these headlines: if such individuals are indeed dangerous and illegal, how did they get into the country in the first place? As a legal immigrant myself, my family and I embarked on a long and arduous journey. We applied in 2007 for family-sponsored immigration and were not approved until 2024. Seventeen years of background checks, verification of employment, travel history, character assessment, and criminal records—all under the scrutiny of U.S. immigration services. It is a stringent, sometimes grueling, system that leaves little room for error. If followed diligently, it is almost impossible for someone with a dubious past to pass through. This raises troubling questions. How do individuals with criminal records—those labeled as drug dealers, violent offenders, or sex criminals—make it into the U.S. undocumented? What loopholes exist? And more importantly, who allowed it? Beyond bureaucratic lapse, another profound and often overlooked truth must be acknowledged: every wave of immigration has often been triggered by destruction caused by the United States and its allies. The Syrian crisis, spurred by U.S.-led regime change attempts, created millions of refugees—many welcomed into the United States. The U.S. invasion of Iraq unleashed chaos, civil war, and displacement, compelling thousands of Iraqis to seek shelter abroad. Libya, after being bombed into anarchy, witnessed similar refugee outflows. Palestinians displaced by decades of unending Israeli occupation, often with U.S. political and military backing, have also found refuge in America. The collapse of Afghanistan after two decades of NATO occupation led to a mass exodus—especially of Afghans who worked with Western forces. Most arrived with no paperwork or formal identity verification, given the country's primitive recordkeeping systems. Yet, many were fast-tracked into the U.S., bypassing the very scrutiny imposed on legal immigrants from stable nations. This uncomfortable truth demands moral clarity: if undocumented immigrants are subject to the full weight of the law, then those policymakers and officials who created the conditions for their displacement, or allowed their entry without due diligence, must also be held accountable. It is a shared responsibility—one that begins not at the border, but in the war rooms and foreign policy chambers where these crises were ignited. There appears to be no structured inquiry or investigation into the root causes. No commissions, no accountability frameworks to identify the officials, agencies, or politicians who enabled mass illegal entry. Immigration enforcement in the U.S. has historically vacillated depending on who is in power. One administration turns a blind eye, quietly encouraging mass entry. The next tries to reverse it through high-profile crackdowns. But in the absence of institutional accountability, this cyclical dysfunction persists—feeding public anger and polarizing communities. ICE is now being weaponized not just to remove the undocumented, but to reassert political dominance. The use of unmarked vehicles, masked officers, and sudden, forceful detentions—often in front of children and elders—conveys a message of fear. It is not surprising that over 10,000 protesters recently marched through downtown Los Angeles against these raids. Many carried Mexican flags—none carried the American flag. This wasn't just a protest; it was a symptom of deeper social unrest. Critics argue that these ICE actions, while legal under the Supreme Court's allowance of 24-hour deportation notice, are being carried out in a manner that undermines constitutional due process. Rights of asylum seekers, refugees, and even undocumented residents with long-standing ties to communities are brushed aside in the name of executive orders. A nation built by immigrants is now turning its state machinery against them. Supporters of Trump's policy, on the other hand, insist that deporting illegals—especially criminals—is not just constitutional, but necessary. They point to the Clinton-era deportations of over 12 million people, Obama's deportation of 5 million, and Bush's expedited removal protocols. 'This is not new,' they argue. 'It's enforcement overdue.' But many dissenters challenge this logic. They argue that Trump is not fixing immigration—he's weaponizing it. He's framing all undocumented migrants as threats, fueling fear for political gain. His critics claim that this dehumanization is less about justice and more about re-election. Trump's rhetoric plays to a base who feel left behind—using immigrants as scapegoats for economic and social frustrations. This divide is not only ideological—it's generational, racial, and geographic. Many immigrants, including legal ones like myself, find ourselves in a complicated space. On one hand, we support the rule of law. On the other, we reject the vilification of all migrants and the blanket criminalization of entire communities. Let us remember: America is a nation of immigrants. Even Donald Trump is the grandson of Friedrich Trump, a German immigrant who arrived in the U.S. in 1885. The German Chancellor once presented Trump with his grandfather's immigration file during a White House visit—a reminder that no one, not even the president, is far removed from the immigrant experience. The real issue is not race, religion, or ethnicity. The only legitimate distinction should be between legal and illegal entry. But even that must be addressed humanely, within the framework of rights and due process. It cannot become a pretext for racial profiling, family separation, or fear campaigns. The lack of systemic accountability is the root of this chaos. Who failed to enforce border laws? Who allowed the lapse? Was it intentional? Was there bribery? Was it negligence or political strategy? These are the questions no one in Washington wants to answer. The consequences of this negligence go beyond borders. As seen in the Los Angeles protest, foreign governments—like Mexico—may begin to leverage their diaspora as political tools. If unchecked, this tactic could be replicated by other countries, introducing a dangerous element of foreign interference in domestic American affairs. In my observation of reactions on X (formerly Twitter), two dominant narratives have emerged: one, defending ICE's actions and Trump's policies as lawful and overdue; the other, denouncing the excessive force and racial undertones as unconstitutional and inhumane. Some comments suggest this is less about criminals and more about silencing immigrants—legal and illegal alike—through fear and exclusion. What, then, is the way forward? First, no society or country elsewhere in the world may be destroyed, and no country, especially one as powerful as the United States, should ever tolerate illegal immigration. The law must be upheld. But enforcement must be precise, proportional, and humane. Second, there must be rigorous accountability. Politicians, departments, and border enforcement agencies that failed in their duty must face consequences. Only then can the system regain public trust. Third, investment must be made into technology, manpower, and processes that make it virtually impossible for undocumented migrants—especially those with criminal records—to enter undetected. The U.S. has done this before during the post-9/11 anti-terrorism era. It can do it again. This is not just about protecting borders. It's about preserving the spirit of America—a land where laws are enforced, but justice is never blind to humanity. If illegal immigration is the dragon, it must be slain at its roots. Not with brutality, but with policy, accountability, and moral clarity. Let us hope that sanity prevails. Let us hope that the United States rises above political theatrics and embraces a model of immigration that is lawful, just, and worthy of the ideals it claims to defend.
