Starmer says US-UK trade deal to be completed 'very soon,' Trump proclamation expected
KANANASKIS, Alberta: Britain and the United States should finalize "very soon" the implementation of a trade deal agreed last month, Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Monday (Jun 16) ahead of a meeting with US President Donald Trump in Canada.
Trump is expected to sign a proclamation on the terms of the deal covering steel, ethanol, autos and beef, three sources familiar with the matter said on Monday.
Work on the proclamation had been completed, but it was not immediately clear if Trump would sign it when he meets Starmer later on Monday, the sources said.
"I'm certainly seeing President Trump today, and I'm going to discuss with him our trade deal," Starmer told reporters on the sidelines of a Group of Seven (G7) meeting.
"I'm very pleased that we made that trade deal, and we're in the final stages now of implementation, and I expect that to be completed very soon."
Britain was the first country to agree a deal for lower tariffs from Trump, with the US reducing tariffs on imports of UK cars, aluminium and steel, and Britain agreeing to lower tariffs on US beef and ethanol.
But implementation of the deal has been delayed while details were being hammered out. The proclamation readied by the White House will set an effective date in coming weeks, one of the sources said.
On steel and aluminium, the US agreed to lower the 25 percent tariffs on imports from Britain to zero, subject to setting a quota for British steel imports that must meet supply chain requirements.
Britain had avoided tariffs of up to 50 percent on steel and aluminium that the US imposed on other countries earlier this month, but could face elevated tariffs from Jul 9 unless a deal to implement the tariff reduction is reached.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
15 minutes ago
- CNA
Trump to leave G7 summit early due to Middle East situation
KANANASKIS, Canada: US President Donald Trump is leaving the Group of Seven summit in Canada a day early due to the situation in the Middle East, the White House said on Monday. Speaking alongside Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, Trump said the former Group of Eight had been wrong to kick out Russia in 2014 after it annexed Crimea. "This was a big mistake," Trump said, adding he believed Russia would not have invaded Ukraine in 2022 had Putin not been ejected. "Putin speaks to me. He doesn't speak to anybody else ... he's not a happy person about it. I can tell you that he basically doesn't even speak to the people that threw him out, and I agree with him," Trump said. Though Trump stopped short of saying Russia should be reinstated in the group, his comments had raised doubts about how much Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy can achieve when he is scheduled to meet the leaders on Tuesday. "It was a rough start," said Josh Lipsky, a former senior IMF official who now chairs the international economics department at the Atlantic Council. European nations had wanted to persuade Trump to back tougher sanctions on Moscow. Zelenskyy said he had planned to discuss new weapons purchases for Ukraine with Trump. European officials said they hoped to use Tuesday's meeting with Zelenskyy and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and next week's NATO summit to convince Trump to toughen his stance. In another early sign the group of democracies lacked unity, a US official said Trump would not sign a draft statement calling for de-escalation of the Israel-Iran conflict. Canada has abandoned any effort to adopt a comprehensive communique to avert a repeat of the 2018 summit in Quebec, when Trump instructed the U.S. delegation to withdraw its approval of the final communique after leaving. Leaders have prepared several draft documents seen by Reuters, including on migration, artificial intelligence, and critical minerals. None of them have been approved by the United States, however, according to sources briefed on the documents. Without Trump, it is unclear if there will be any declarations, a European diplomat said. Carney invited non-G7 members Mexico, India, Australia, South Africa, South Korea and Brazil, as well as Ukraine. TARIFFS Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Monday they had finalised a trade deal reached between the two allies last month, making Britain the first country to agree to a deal for lower US tariffs. Carney said in a statement he had agreed with Trump that their two nations should try to wrap up a new economic and security deal within 30 days. Trump said a new economic deal with host Canada was possible but stressed tariffs had to play a role, a position the Canadian government strongly opposes. "Our position is that we should have no tariffs on Canadian exports to the United States," said Kirsten Hillman, Canada's ambassador to Washington.
Straits Times
23 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Negotiation or capitulation?: How Columbia got off Trump's hot seat
Columbia's approach stood in stark contrast to the tack taken by Harvard University, which turned to the courts to fight Mr Trump. PHOTO: REUTERS NEW YORK - It was a turning point in the Trump administration's efforts to bring elite academia to heel. The White House had made an example of Columbia University by axing US$400 million (S$512 million) in federal grants, and now it was saying that the Ivy League school would have to acquiesce to a bill of demands if it were to have any hope of recouping the money. One of the dictates handed down in March involved the university's Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department. The White House, which said Columbia had failed to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment, wanted the school to strip the department of its autonomy, a rare administrative step that was viewed as a serious blow to academic freedom. The university, which was the first high-profile target in the administration's war on higher education, had a different idea. Quietly, university officials were trying to navigate a narrower path, appeasing President Donald Trump by cracking down on protests and making changes to student discipline. But the measures adopted by Columbia were not as drastic as what the White House had wanted. The university's leaders sought to shape Mr Trump's demands through negotiation instead of fighting them through litigation, and to do that while maintaining core ideals that had defined the university for nearly 275 years. Columbia's approach stood in stark contrast to the tack taken by Harvard University, which turned to the courts to fight Mr Trump. While many in the academic world have accused Columbia of caving to Mr Trump's pressure, the university's strategy – so far – has limited the bleeding, even as Harvard has absorbed cut after cut, stretching into billions of dollars. While opponents of the Trump administration's crackdown have lauded Harvard for standing its ground, it is far from clear which school will be better off in the long run. And the question remains whether Columbia's path can offer a road map for other universities attacked by the president. 'Following the law and attempting to resolve a complaint is not capitulation,' Ms Claire Shipman, Columbia's acting president, said last week in a statement. 'We must maintain our autonomy and independent governance.' The university's actions have taken it out of the 'hot seat,' Mr Trump said in an Oval Office news conference in late May. Columbia, he said, had been 'very, very bad, very anti-Semitic and lots of other things, but they are working with us on finding a solution'. The demands imposed on the Middle Eastern studies department were among nine conditions proposed by the Trump administration to consider restoring the severed funding. The White House also insisted that Columbia give its campus security department the authority to make arrests and that it ban masks at campus protests. The school largely acceded to the demands. But it tweaked the wording and the content of each request, agreeing to changes that university leaders felt would allow them to exercise greater oversight over academics and to strengthen student discipline, aims it shared with the Trump administration. The Middle Eastern studies department presents a textured example of how Columbia sought to handle the federal government's directives while pushing to maintain academic freedom. But it would not be easy. And there is no guarantee that the approach will succeed. A history of controversy This was not the first time Columbia's Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department had landed in an uncomfortable spotlight. It is a small humanities department, focusing on the intellectual history of its regions, with only six tenured professors specialising in the Middle East. Many courses on the Middle East at Columbia are in other departments. But despite its size, the department has become shorthand for critics who say that Middle East studies at Columbia are dominated by an anti-Israel bent. This has been the case at least since 2004, when a documentary film, 'Columbia Unbecoming,' accused three professors in the department, which had a different name at the time, of being anti-Semitic and of intimidating pro-Israel students. A university inquiry largely exonerated the professors, though it found some of the students' complaints about intimidating remarks credible. All of the professors continued teaching, though one has since retired. In the following years, the department was broadened, with additional professors hired, particularly in South Asian and African studies. Still, it remains true that some of the department's professors are fierce critics of Israel and Zionism, and none of its tenured professors who specialise in the Middle East are supporters of Israeli policies toward Palestinians. The Israeli-born chair of the department, Ms Gil Hochberg, along with other professors – including Mr Mahmood Mamdani, the father of the New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani – are among thousands across academia who have signed statements supporting the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Backers of BDS call it a non-violent way to pressure Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. Its opponents call it anti-Semitic. Ms Hochberg rejected any suggestion that she or her department is anti-Semitic. 'The only thing I promote is the right for all people to have rights,' she said. The lack of pro-Israel voices in the department has upset critics seeking ideological balance on the issue. They accuse the department of fostering views that single out the Jewish state. The tensions came to a head after the Oct 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, when one of the department's professors, Mr Joseph Massad, wrote an article for the Electronic Intifada, an online publication, that described the attack on Israel as the work of an 'innovative Palestinian resistance'. He also used the word 'awesome' to refer to scenes from the attack, and referred to Israelis who fled their homes in terror as 'colonists' abandoning their 'settlements'. In response, nearly 80,000 people signed a petition calling for him to be removed from the faculty. Columbia's president at the time, Ms Minouche Shafik, was questioned before Congress in 2024 about why Mr Massad was still teaching and whether he would be disciplined. Ms Shafik responded that she had been 'appalled' by Mr Massad's article and said that he had been 'spoken to'. About 200 people, many of them medical school faculty, signed another petition in February that called for the department to remove Mr Massad from the classroom and to 'hire at least three tenured pro-Israel faculty to allow ideological diversity and to combat indoctrination against the West and Israel'. The recommendations of that petition closely mirrored the demand letter sent by the Trump administration the next month. The White House wanted the department placed under receivership for at least five years. In most cases, receivership, which effectively wrests control away from the academic leaders of a department, is imposed internally when a department descends into extended periods of strife and dysfunction. But this time, it was the White House calling for the imposition of receivership. Columbia leaders knew they would have to do something. But how could they mollify Mr Trump while protecting academic freedom? Settling on a strategy When Columbia received the demand from the Trump administration to place the Middle Eastern studies department into receivership, the university modified it. Instead of concentrating solely on that department, it agreed to review all programs at Columbia focused on the Middle East to ensure quality and better collaboration among them. That included its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, which expressly supports the right of the state of Israel to exist, and the Center for Palestine Studies. It also pledged to hire several faculty members for joint positions in the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and other departments. Ms Hochberg said in her first interview since the Trump administration leveled its demands that she believed Columbia had made a commitment not to interfere with the department's autonomy. 'There is false news that MESAAS is under receivership and that MESAAS is under review' alone, she said, using an acronym for the department. 'We are part of a broader review that is a legitimate review,' she added, 'that any other university would do' in the same situation. Columbia has appointed a new vice provost, Mr Miguel Urquiola, an economist, to review the work of the department and the university's other Middle East programs, including those in Tel Aviv, Israel, and in Amman, Jordan. But Mr Urquiola, who is working with a committee, does not have operational control of the department and will only be making recommendations, unlike in a receivership. In the future, Mr Urquiola will also review programs dealing with other parts of the world. Mr Timothy Mitchell, a British-born Columbia professor who studies how colonialism shapes the modern Middle East, said that despite the pressure of the review, he was confident that his scholarly work and that of his colleagues would go on. 'There is a basic principle of academic freedom that is under attack, but I still believe in it,' he said. 'And I think everybody in this department believes in it. And I think the students we teach believe in it.' For now, the department continues its work. Mr Massad was not disciplined and is still teaching the course that he has taught for more than two decades, 'Palestinian and Israeli Politics and Societies.' Ms Hochberg said that despite a suggestion from Ms Shafik's office, she had decided not to postpone or limit enrollment in the course, because she had no evidence that there were problems with it. In her five years as department chair, she said, 'I have not received a single complaint from a single student about any class in my department,' including Mr Massad's. She noted that all courses at Columbia, including his, had passed a curriculum review conducted by the university, and that Mr Massad was also protected by tenure and norms of academic freedom. 'I will always support academic freedom, but I also support professionalism, and I believe there are ways to maintain both,' Ms Hochberg added. For his part, Mr Massad vehemently denied any claim that he supported terrorism or had harassed Jewish students, he wrote in a letter to Ms Shafik after her congressional testimony, which he provided to The New York Times. He also provided the Times with Columbia's official student evaluation reports from his courses in the spring of 2024 and 2025, which overall rated the course a 4.8 out of 5. While the Trump administration has not yet returned the US$400 million, Columbia does not plan to file a lawsuit as long as talks are continuing, Mr Keith Goggin, one of Columbia's 21 trustees, said at a university senate town hall this spring. 'If we can do something that we were going to do anyway without having to litigate, and restore the things that we care about here, that is, in our opinion – or in my opinion – our best path,' he said. 'And we might not be able to follow that path, but that is where we are today.' NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
23 minutes ago
- Straits Times
US news consumers are turning to podcaster Joe Rogan and away from traditional sources, report shows
US media personality Joe Rogan (centre) standing for a benediction after President Donald Trump was sworn in as the 47th US President of the US on Jan 20. PHOTO: REUTERS US news consumers are turning to podcaster Joe Rogan and away from traditional sources, report shows Prominent podcasters like Joe Rogan are playing a bigger role in news dissemination in the United States, as are AI chatbots, contributing to the further erosion of traditional media, according to a report released on June 17. In the week following the January 2025 US presidential inauguration, more Americans said they got their news from social and video networks than from TV and news websites and apps - the first time that shift has occurred, the report said. Traditional US news media increasingly risks being eclipsed by online personalities and creators, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism said in its annual Digital News Report, which is based on an online survey of almost 100,000 people in 48 markets, including the United States. The trend is particularly acute among young Americans. Over half of people under age 35 in the US are relying on social media and video networks as their main source for news, the report found. Across the countries that the report surveyed, 44 per cent of people aged 18 to 24 said these networks are their main source of news. One fifth of a sampled group of Americans came across news or commentary from podcaster Rogan in the week following the presidential inauguration, the report found, while 14 per cent of respondents said they had come across former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson discussing or commenting on news during that period. Carlson now generates content across multiple social media and video networks. Top creators during that period also included Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens and Ben Shapiro on the political right, and Brian Tyler Cohen and David Pakman on the left. The vast majority of the most followed commentators who discuss politics are men, the report found. 'These are not just big numbers in themselves,' wrote Nic Newman, Senior Research Associate at the Oxford, UK-based Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. 'These creators are also attracting audiences that traditional media struggle to reach. Some of the most popular personalities over-index with young men, with right-leaning audiences, and with those that have low levels of trust in mainstream media outlets, seeing them as biased or part of a liberal elite.' Despite their popularity, online influencers and personalities are seen as the biggest sources of false or misleading information worldwide, along with politicians, the report found. In the United States, politicians are considered the biggest sources of false or misleading information. Over 70 per cent of Americans say they remain concerned about their ability to tell what is true from what is false when it comes to news online, a similar proportion to last year. That compared to 58 per cent across all of the surveyed markets. Artificial intelligence is another emerging theme in news consumption, particularly for young people. Of respondents under age 25, 15 per cent rely on AI chatbots and interfaces for news each week, compared to 7 per cent of respondents overall, the report found. ChatGPT was the most mentioned AI service for news, followed by Google's Gemini and Meta AI. The trend is raising concerns about a potential loss of search referral traffic to publisher websites and apps, the report found, as chatbots eliminate the need for users to click on a story link. Text remains the most preferred way for people worldwide to consume news, although around a third say they prefer to watch the news online and 15 per cent say they prefer to listen. Younger people are much more likely to prefer watching or listening to the news. Social media platform X, formerly Twitter, is also becoming a more popular source of news in the United States, particularly among right-leaning users and young men, with 23 per cent of sampled Americans consuming news there - up 8 percentage points from last year. Rival networks like Threads, Bluesky and Mastodon are struggling to gain traction globally, with reach of 2 per cent or less for news. Levels of trust in news across markets are currently stable at 40 per cent, and unchanged for the last three years, the report found. The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism is funded by the Thomson Reuters Foundation, the philanthropic arm of Thomson Reuters. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
