North Korea says Trump must accept new nuclear reality
Kim Yo Jong, the powerful sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un who is believed to speak for his brother, said she conceded that the personal relationship between Kim and US President Donald Trump "is not bad".
But if Washington intended to use a personal relationship as a way to end the North's nuclear weapons programme, the effort would only be the subject of "mockery", Kim Yo Jong said in a statement carried by KCNA.
"If the US fails to accept the changed reality and persists in the failed past, the DPRK-US meeting will remain as a 'hope' of the US side," she said. DPRK is short for North Korea's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
North Korea's capabilities as a nuclear weapons state and the geopolitical environment have radically changed since Kim and Trump held talks three times during the US president's first term, she said.
"Any attempt to deny the position of the DPRK as a nuclear weapons state ... will be thoroughly rejected," she said.
Asked about the North Korean statement, a White House official said Trump was still committed to the goal he had for the three summit meetings he held with Kim in his first term.
"The resident retains those objectives and remains open to engaging with Leader Kim to achieve a fully denuclearised North Korea," the White House official told Reuters.
At their first meeting in Singapore in 2018, Trump and Kim signed an agreement in principle to make the Korean peninsula free of nuclear weapons. The subsequent summit in Hanoi next year broke down due to a disagreement over removing international sanctions that had been imposed against Pyongyang.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
3 hours ago
- Straits Times
Trump's deal-making with other elite US schools scrambles Harvard negotiations
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – By the start of last week, Harvard University had signalled its readiness to meet President Donald Trump's demand that it spend US$500 million (S$643 million) to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its crucial research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: US$50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state workforce development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marvelled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' Ms May Mailman, the top White House official under Mr Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinise its behaviour. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Aug 4 that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government – after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr Trump – would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending US$500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University – which agreed to a US$200 million fine in July – to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests lin 2024. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and workforce training programs instead of the federal government, Mr Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward workforce programmes aligns with some of what Mr Trump has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking US$3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after the Times reported the US$500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its US$53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up US$7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip US$9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened US$510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its US$50 million settlement payment toward workforce programmes of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fuelled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant US$500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. In July, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programmes, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Ms Paula Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on July 31, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard President Alan Garber and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Professor Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Prof Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Ms Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a US$53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?' NYTIMES
AsiaOne
3 hours ago
- AsiaOne
Trump again threatens India with harsh tariffs over Russian oil purchases, World News
WASHINGTON — US President Donald Trump again threatened on Monday (Aug 4) to raise tariffs on goods from India over its Russian oil purchases, while New Delhi called his attack "unjustified" and vowed to protect its economic interests, deepening the trade rift between the two countries. In a social media post, Trump wrote, "India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits. They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine." "Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA," he added. A spokesperson for India's foreign ministry said in response that India will "take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security." "The targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable," the spokesperson added. Trump has said that from Friday he will impose new sanctions on Russia as well as on countries that buy its energy exports, unless Moscow takes steps to end its 3-1/2 year war with Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown no public sign of altering his stance despite the deadline. Over the weekend, two Indian government sources told Reuters that India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite Trump's threats. India has faced pressure from the West to distance itself from Moscow since Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022. New Delhi has resisted, citing its longstanding ties with Russia and economic needs. Trump had already in July announced 25 per cent tariffs on Indian imports, and US officials have cited a range of geopolitical issues standing in the way of a US-India trade accord. Trump has also cast the wider BRICS group of developing nations as hostile to the United States. Those nations have dismissed his accusation, saying the group promotes the interests of its members and of developing countries at large. Crude buyer India is the biggest buyer of seaborne crude from Russia, importing about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil from January to June this year, up 1 per cent from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by trade sources. [[nid:720925]] India began importing oil from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict, the Indian spokesperson said, calling it a "necessity compelled by global market situation." The spokesperson also noted the West's, particularly the European Union's, bilateral trade with Russia: "It is revealing that the very nations criticising India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia." Despite the Indian government's defiance, the country's main refiners paused buying Russian oil last week, sources told Reuters. Discounts to other suppliers narrowed after Trump threatened hefty tariffs on countries that make any such purchases. Indian government officials denied any policy change. The country's largest refiner, Indian Oil Corp, has bought seven million barrels of crude from the United States, Canada and the Middle East, four trade sources told Reuters on Monday. India also has been frustrated by Trump repeatedly taking credit for an India-Pakistan ceasefire that he announced on social media in May, which halted days of hostilities between the nuclear-armed neighbours. The unpredictability of the Trump administration creates a challenge for Delhi, said Richard Rossow, head of the India programme at Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies. "India's continued energy and defence purchases from Russia presents a larger challenge, where India does not feel it can predict how the Trump administration will approach Russia from month to month," he said. [[nid:720581]]
Straits Times
4 hours ago
- Straits Times
Badly bruised elite US universities are rushing to cut deals with Trump
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – As a growing number of the wealthiest US colleges capitulate in their battles with the Trump administration, the strain from lost and frozen federal funding is putting pressure on the remaining holdouts to cut a deal. Universities targeted by Mr Donald Trump's crackdown on diversity programmes and other policies he says show a liberal bias are essentially bleeding at the negotiating table after taking on debt, laying off hundreds of staff and slashing spending. As the fall semester approaches, they may be increasingly eager to ink accords that will stanch the flow. Cornell and Northwestern, both of which announced steps to address major budget shortfalls this year after the federal government suspended research funds, are now close to agreements with the White House, Bloomberg News has reported. Brown, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania reached accords over July. But amid those settlements, new universities are being targeted. Most recently, the University of California at Los Angeles and Duke joined Harvard, Northwestern, Princeton and others in losing access to federal grants that are the financial lifeblood of large research institutions. It all adds up to an unprecedented pressure campaign that's roiling the world of higher education, reverberating through faculty, student and alumni groups and clouding the outlook for the type of medical and scientific research that takes place at the colleges. The multitrillion-dollar tax law signed in July also hikes the tax on income from endowments for some of the wealthiest private schools . As the Trump administration gains leverage, colleges' bruised budgets could drive them toward making agreements quicker. 'It seems like they want to get deals done now,' said Professor Brendan Cantwell, a professor at Michigan State University who focuses on the political economy of higher education. 'It's almost like a dam is broken. I would not be at all surprised if we saw a cascading set of agreements.' Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Asia What's it like to deal with brutal US tariffs? Ask Malaysia Singapore Singapore launches review of economic strategy to stay ahead of global shifts Singapore A look at the five committees reviewing Singapore's economic strategy Opinion Keeping it alive: How Chinese opera in Singapore is adapting to the age of TikTok Life Glamping in Mandai: Is a luxury stay at Colugo Camp worth the $550 price tag? Sport World Aquatics C'ships in S'pore deemed a success by athletes, fans and officials Singapore Strong S'pore-Australia ties underpinned by bonds that are continually renewed: President Tharman Federal funding has been used as a cudgel by the Trump administration, which has criticized what it says is a failure by academic institutions to crack down on antisemitism during campus protests over Israel's war in Gaza. The moves also come amid a broader campaign against diversity efforts and accusations of political bias. The fallout has already started. Northwestern said it would cut more than 400 jobs to save 5 per cent on labour costs, with university officials calling the past few months some of the most difficult in its 174-year history. The Trump administration in April paused US$790 million (S$1 billion) in research funding for the Evanston, Illinois-based school because of potential civil rights violations. At Cornell, leaders in June warned that drastic financial austerity measures were on the table after hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research contracts were terminated or frozen. 'The spring semester was unlike anything ever seen in higher education,' they wrote in a letter to students and staff. 'We have been using institutional resources to try to plug these funding holes in the short term, but these interim measures are not sustainable.' Late in July, the government froze US$108 million in research funding to Duke University, or about 20 per cent of its federal revenue, three Trump administration officials told Bloomberg. Duke is in talks with government officials on a settlement, according to an administration official. Duke's press office didn't provide a comment on the funding loss or the status of government talks. A Duke official, who asked not to be identified discussing internal deliberations, said the school is reconsidering its budget amid the funding loss, but that it hopes an end to the freeze will come soon. Cornell and Northwestern have declined to comment on any settlement talks. Trump agreements On July 23, Columbia University agreed to pay US$221 million in a deal that was promptly criticised for infringing on academic freedom at the school. Brown announced a deal on July 30, agreeing to give US$50 million over 10 years to workforce development organisations in its home state of Rhode Island in exchange for the reimbursement of at least US$50 million in unpaid federal grants. Shortly before reaching the deal, Brown took out a US$500 million loan – a sign of how strained the school's finances had become. Brown, the least wealthy of the Ivy League schools with an endowment of US$7.2 billion, had previously warned in June of 'significant' cost-cutting measures to offset the federal funding. The Trump administration's higher-education crackdown has exposed just how dependent some of the elite, research-focused universities are on the government. They're essentially 'major federal contractors' and stopping the stream would be catastrophic for many of them, according to Prof Cantwell. 'Think about Booz Allen or Raytheon,' Prof Cantwell said. 'If they said, 'All your federal funding will be frozen for 9 months,' you can imagine how those firms might react.' The Trump administration has dealt a harsher financial blow to Harvard than any other university in its crosshairs, freezing billions of multiyear research grants and contracts. The school estimates that the moves by the administration, as well as the endowment tax increase, will cost about US$1 billion annually. Harvard's Kennedy School already cut staff. 'The unprecedented challenges we face have led to disruptive changes, painful layoffs, and ongoing uncertainty about the future,' Harvard President Alan M. Garber said in a letter to the campus. Dr Garber has told faculty that a settlement with the government is not imminent and the university is considering resolving its dispute through the courts, the Harvard Crimson reported on Aug 4. Mr Larry Ladd, who served as Harvard's budget director and now advises schools at the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges, said he cannot criticise any college for coming to a deal with the Trump administration given what is at stake for their campuses. 'Schools are likely facing pressure to use endowment and tuition revenue, which are typically used to support students, to support some of their research enterprise instead,' Mr Ladd said. 'They don't want to do that because they want to continue to support students. There's that pressure as well.' Ms Lynn Pasquerella, president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities, said campus leaders are being put in an 'untenable position' and worries that federal funds will continue to be weaponized by the Trump administration, even if schools make deals. 'The concern is the more we capitulate through making these agreements, the more the administration will be empowered to continue along these lines,' she said. BLOOMBERG
