President Trump announces trade deal with Vietnam that will let US goods into the country duty-free
Vietnamese exports to the United States, by contrast, would face a 20% levy.
On his Truth Social platform, Trump declared the pact 'a Great Deal of Cooperation between our two Countries.'
In April, Trump announced a 46% tax on Vietnamese imports — one of his so-called reciprocal tariffs targeting dozens of countries with which the United States runs trade deficits. Trump promptly suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to allow for negotiations like the one with Vietnam. The pause expires Tuesday, but so far the Trump administration has reached a trade agreement with only one of those countries — the United Kingdom. (Trump has also reached a 'framework' agreement with China in a separate trade dispute.)
'Vietnam has been very keen to get out from under this,' said Mary Lovely, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. 'This is forcing a smaller country to eat it, basically. We can do that. It's the big countries that everybody's keeping their eyes on.' She doubts that Trump will be able to impose such a lopsided agreement on big trading partners such as the European Union and Japan.
The United States last year ran a $122 billion trade deficit with Vietnam. That was the third-biggest U.S. trade gap — the difference between the goods and services it buys from other countries and those it sells them — behind the ones with China and Mexico.
In addition to the 20% tariffs, Trump said the U.S. would impose a 40% tax on 'transshipping' — goods from another country that stop in Vietnam on their way to the United States. Washington complains that Chinese goods have been dodging higher U.S. tariffs by transiting through Vietnam.
Monday Mornings
The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week.
In May, Vietnam approved a $1.5 billion project by the Trump Organization and a local partner to build a massive golf resort complex near Hanoi, covering an area roughly the size of 336 football fields.
Vietnam was a beneficiary of American efforts to counter China's influence. Companies looking to diversify their supply chains away from China flocked to Vietnam.
In 2023, it became the only country to host both President Joe Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping on state visits. That year, the U.S. upgraded Vietnam to its highest diplomatic status—comprehensive strategic partner—placing it on par with China and Russia.
____
Aniruddha Ghosal reported from Hanoi, Vietnam.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Star
29 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Trump will kick off a yearlong celebration of America's 250th anniversary with event in Iowa
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to deliver a 'spectacular' yearlong birthday party to mark 250 years of American independence. On Thursday, he will be in the U.S. heartland to kick off the patriotic festivities leading up to next year's anniversary. The event at the Iowa State Fairgrounds in Des Moines will feature 'dazzling' displays of Americana and American history, musical performances and a fireworks show to cap the night, said U.S. Ambassador Monica Crowley, Trump's liaison to the organizing group, America250.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
How a GOP rift over tech regulation doomed a ban on state AI laws in Trump's tax bill
NEW YORK (AP) — A controversial bid to deter states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade seemed on its way to passing as the Republican tax cut and spending bill championed by President Donald Trump worked its way through the U.S. Senate. But as the bill neared a final vote, a relentless campaign against it by a constellation of conservatives — including Republican governors, lawmakers, think tanks and social groups — had been eroding support. One, conservative activist Mike Davis, appeared on the show of right-wing podcaster Steve Bannon, urging viewers to call their senators to reject this 'AI amnesty' for 'trillion-dollar Big Tech monopolists.' He said he also texted with Trump directly, advising the president to stay neutral on the issue despite what Davis characterized as significant pressure from White House AI czar David Sacks, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and others. Conservatives passionate about getting rid of the provision had spent weeks fighting others in the party who favored the legislative moratorium because they saw it as essential for the country to compete against China in the race for AI dominance. The schism marked the latest and perhaps most noticeable split within the GOP about whether to let states continue to put guardrails on emerging technologies or minimize such interference. In the end, the advocates for guardrails won, revealing the enormous influence of a segment of the Republican Party that has come to distrust Big Tech. They believe states must remain free to protect their citizens against potential harms of the industry, whether from AI, social media or emerging technologies. 'Tension in the conservative movement is palpable,' said Adam Thierer of the R Street Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank. Thierer first proposed the idea of the AI moratorium last year. He noted 'the animus surrounding Big Tech' among many Republicans. 'That was the differentiating factor.' Conservative v. conservative in a last-minute fight The Heritage Foundation, children's safety groups and Republican state lawmakers, governors and attorneys general all weighed in against the AI moratorium. Democrats, tech watchdogs and some tech companies opposed it, too. Sensing the moment was right on Monday night, Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee, who opposed the AI provision and had attempted to water it down, teamed up with Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington to suggest striking the entire proposal. By morning, the provision was removed in a 99-1 vote. The whirlwind demise of a provision that initially had the backing of House and Senate leadership and the White House disappointed other conservatives who felt it gave China, a main AI competitor, an advantage. Ryan Fournier, chairman of Students for Trump and chief marketing officer of the startup Uncensored AI, had supported the moratorium, writing on X that it 'stops blue states like California and New York from handing our future to Communist China.' 'Republicans are that way … I get it,' he said in an interview, but added there needs to be 'one set of rules, not 50' for AI innovation to be successful. AI advocates fear a patchwork of state rules Tech companies, tech trade groups, venture capitalists and multiple Trump administration figures had voiced their support for the provision that would have blocked states from passing their own AI regulations for years. They argued that in the absence of federal standards, letting the states take the lead would leave tech innovators mired in a confusing patchwork of rules. Lutnick, the commerce secretary, posted that the provision 'makes sure American companies can develop cutting-edge tech for our military, infrastructure, and critical industries — without interference from anti-innovation politicians.' AI czar Sacks had also publicly supported the measure. After the Senate passed the bill without the AI provision, the White House responded to an inquiry for Sacks with the president's position, saying Trump 'is fully supportive of the Senate-passed version of the One, Big, Beautiful Bill.' Acknowledging defeat of his provision on the Senate floor, Cruz noted how pleased China, liberal politicians and 'radical left-wing groups' would be to hear the news. But Blackburn pointed out that the federal government has failed to pass laws that address major concerns about AI, such as keeping children safe and securing copyright protections. 'But you know who has passed it?' she said. 'The states.' Conservatives want to win the AI race, but disagree on how Conservatives distrusting Big Tech for what they see as social media companies stifling speech during the COVID-19 pandemic and surrounding elections said that tech companies shouldn't get a free pass, especially on something that carries as much risk as AI. Many who opposed the moratorium also brought up preserving states' rights, though proponents countered that AI issues transcend state borders and Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. Eric Lucero, a Republican state lawmaker in Minnesota, noted that many other industries already navigate different regulations established by both state and local jurisdictions. 'I think everyone in the conservative movement agrees we need to beat China,' said Daniel Cochrane from the Heritage Foundation. 'I just think we have different prescriptions for doing so.' Many argued that in the absence of federal legislation, states were best positioned to protect citizens from the potential harms of AI technology. 'We have no idea what AI will be capable of in the next 10 years and giving it free rein and tying states hands is potentially dangerous,' Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote on X. A call for federal rules Another Republican, Texas state Sen. Angela Paxton, wrote to Cruz and his counterpart, Sen. John Cornyn, urging them to remove the moratorium. She and other conservatives said some sort of federal standard could help clarify the landscape around AI and resolve some of the party's disagreements. Wednesdays Columnist Jen Zoratti looks at what's next in arts, life and pop culture. But with the moratorium dead and Republicans holding only narrow majorities in both chambers of Congress, it's unclear whether they will be able to agree on a set of standards to guide the development of the burgeoning technology. In an email to The Associated Press, Paxton said she wants to see limited federal AI legislation 'that sets some clear guardrails' around national security and interstate commerce, while leaving states free to address issues that affect their residents. 'When it comes to technology as powerful and potentially dangerous as AI, we should be cautious about silencing state-level efforts to protect consumers and children,' she said. ___ Associated Press writer Matt Brown in Washington contributed to this report.
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Anti-slavery document from 1847 reveals American Baptists' commitment to abolition
GROTON, Mass. (AP) — Jennifer Cromack was combing through the American Baptist archive when she uncovered a slim box among some 18th and 19th century journals. Opening it, she found a scroll in pristine condition. A closer look revealed the 5-foot-long (1.5-meter-long) document was a handwritten declaration titled 'A Resolution and Protest Against Slavery,' signed by 116 New England ministers in Boston and adopted March 2, 1847. Until its discovery in May at the archives in Groton, Massachusetts, American Baptist officials worried the anti-slavery document had been lost forever after fruitless searches at Harvard and Brown universities and other locations. A copy was last seen in a 1902 history book. 'I was just amazed and excited,' Cromack, a retired teacher who volunteers at the archive, said. 'We made a find that really says something to the people of the state and the people in the country. … It speaks of their commitment to keeping people safe and out of situations that they should not be in.' The document offers a glimpse into an emerging debate over slavery in the 18th century in the Northeast. The document was signed 14 years before the start of the Civil War as a growing number of religious leaders were starting to speak out against slavery. Split over slavery The document also shines a spotlight on a critical moment in the history of the Baptist church. It was signed two years after the issue of slavery prompted southern Baptists to split from northern Baptists and form the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination. The split in 1845 followed a ruling by the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society prohibiting slave owners from becoming missionaries. The northern Baptists eventually became American Baptist Churches USA. 'It comes from such a critical era in American history, you know, right prior to the Civil War,' said Rev. Mary Day Hamel, the executive minister of the American Baptist Churches of Massachusetts. 'It was a unique moment in history when Baptists in Massachusetts stepped up and took a strong position and stood for justice in the shaping of this country,' she said. 'That's become part of our heritage to this day, to be people who stand for justice, for American Baptists to embrace diversity.' A risky declaration Deborah Bingham Van Broekhoven, the executive director emerita of the American Baptist Historical Society, said many Americans at the time, especially in the North, were 'undecided' about slavery and weren't sure how to respond or were worried about speaking out. 'They thought it was a southern problem, and they had no business getting involved in what they saw as the state's rights,' Van Broekhoven said. 'Most Baptists, prior to this, would have refrained from this kind of protest. This is a very good example of them going out on a limb and trying to be diplomatic.' The document shows ministers had hoped 'some reformatory movement' led by those involved in slavery would make their action 'unnecessary,' but that they felt compelled to act after they 'witnessed with painful surprise, a growing disposition to justify, extend and perpetuate their iniquitous system.' 'Under these circumstances we can no longer be silent,' the document states. 'We owe something to the oppressed as well as to the oppressor, and justice demands the fulfillment of that obligation. Truth and Humanity and Public Virtue, have claims upon us which we cannot dishonor.' The document explains why the ministers 'disapprove and abhor the system of American slavery.' 'With such a system we can have no sympathy,' the document states. 'After a careful observation of its character and effects and making every deduction with the largest charity can require, we are constrained to regard it as an outrage upon the rights and happiness of our fellow men, for which there is no valid justification or apology.' Who signed the document? Rev. Diane Badger, the administrator of the American Baptist Church of Massachusetts who oversees the archive, teamed up with Rev. John Odams of the First Baptist Church in Boston to identify what she called the 'Holy Grail' of abolitionist-era Baptist documents. Her great-grandfather was an American Baptist minister. Sundays Kevin Rollason's Sunday newsletter honouring and remembering lives well-lived in Manitoba. Since its discovery, Badger has put all the ministers' names on a spreadsheet along with the names of the churches where they served. Among them was Nathaniel Colver, of Tremont Temple in Boston, one of the first integrated churches in the country, now known as Tremont Temple Baptist Church. Another was Baron Stow, who belonged to the state's anti-slavery society. Badger also is working to estimate the value of the document, which is intact with no stains or damage, and is making plans to ensure it is protected. A digital copy could eventually be shared with some of Massachusetts' 230 American Baptist churches. 'It's been kind of an interesting journey and it's one that's still unfolding,' Badger said. 'The questions that always come to me, OK, I know who signed it but who didn't? I can go through my list, through my database and find who was working where on that and why didn't they sign that. So it's been very interesting to do the research.' Rev. Kenneth Young — whose predominantly Black Calvary Baptist Church in Haverhill, Massachusetts, was created by freed Blacks in 1871 — called the discovery inspiring. 'I thought it was awesome that we had over hundred signers to this, that they would project that freedom for our people is just,' Young said. 'It follows through on the line of the abolitionist movement and fighting for those who may not have had the strength to fight for themselves against a system of racism.'
