'Trump and Xi likely to speak this week,' White House official says amid Tariff Turbulence
US President Donald Trump with China's counterpart Xi Jinping (File Image)
US President Donald Trump and China's counterpart Xi Jinping are likely to speak this week, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Monday, following the tension that flared between the two economic powerhouses over breaching tariff and trade restriction agreements.
Responding to the reporter's query, Leavitt said, "I can confirm that the two leaders will likely talk this week." "And as always, when foreign leaders call, we will provide a readout of those calls," she added, as per ABC News report.
Treasury secretary Scott Bessent indicated on CBS' "Face the Nation" that a discussion between Trump and Xi would occur "very soon" to address trade matters, including disputes over critical minerals and Chinese export limitations.
Trump expressed confidence about speaking with Xi on Friday, while Chinese officials noted in April that no recent communications had occurred between the leaders.
The US trade representative's office extended tariff exclusions for certain solar manufacturing equipment and other Chinese products until August 31, providing additional time for ongoing Beijing negotiations.
Bessent, who led Geneva negotiations resulting in a temporary trade war cessation between the world's largest economies, acknowledged to Fox News that progress has been limited since then, Reuters reported.
The US-China agreement to reduce triple-digit tariffs for 90 days sparked significant gains in global markets, though it failed to address core U.S. concerns about China's state-controlled, export-focused economic structure.
A US trade court determined on Wednesday that Trump exceeded his authority in implementing most tariffs on Chinese and other imports under emergency powers. However, a federal appeals court swiftly restored the tariffs the following day, temporarily suspending the trade court's decision pending government appeal. The court set response deadlines of June 5 for plaintiffs and June 9 for the administration.
Stay informed with the latest
business
news, updates on
bank holidays
and
public holidays
.
AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
31 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Andrew Tate's ‘Golden Passport' faces revocation in fresh blow; Here's what we know
Andrew Tate's 'golden passport' will be soon revoked as the Vanuatuan government is looking into prospects of removing his passport that he bought to receive the South Pacific island nation's "manosphere" influencer citizenship. In the United Kingdom, Tate is accused of rape, human trafficking, and regulating prostitution, while he is accused of rape and human trafficking in Romania. Tate has refuted all the charges levelled against him. The Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) reported that he bought a passport for citizenship in Vanuatu in 2022, and he was charged around the same time in Romania. The government of Vanuatu is currently investigating the purchase of his passport. Speaking to ABC News, Vanuatu authorities' spokesperson Kiery Manassah stated: 'Once we have the files, definitely, the processes will be in place to revoke his citizenship. The government does not want to encourage people of questionable backgrounds to be granted citizenship.'
Hindustan Times
37 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
A new framework to govern Ladakh
The regulations regarding Ladakh notified by the Centre on Tuesday are significant for multiple reasons. One, it suggests a direction for addressing governance concerns in the Union territory (UT), a first since 2019, when Article 370 was abrogated and Jammu and Kashmir was bifurcated into two UTs. Two, it provides partial redress to concerns that local communities raised, and highlighted in their 2023 protests, regarding safeguards for their unique regional identity, culture, and material resources. Three, a stable Ladakh with a robust governance structure and infrastructure is essential since the UT shares a restive border with China: Indian and Chinese troops clashed in the Galwan Valley in 2020 and the stand-off continued till October last year. The new rules address matters related to domicile status and job quotas (85% reservation for Ladakhis excluding economically weaker section quota), which, hopefully, will assuage the fears about large-scale settlement of 'outsiders' in this ecologically sensitive terrain. The rules concerning domicile status are similar to those in Jammu and Kashmir, though Ladakh has no elected legislature. This means regulations governing Ladakh are executive decisions made by the Centre — in this case in consultation with local representatives — and not the outcome of deliberations in an elected House. It would also mean that these regulations can be changed, withdrawn or amended through executive orders and without the approval of local stakeholders. Though such fears seem unwarranted, the Centre must have a conversation with the broader segment of Ladakhi voices if necessary, and ensure that the regulations, say for the protection of local languages, become enabling provisions. After all, the call in Ladakh has been for statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides legislative, executive, judicial and financial powers, and the current initiative falls short of that demand.
Mint
41 minutes ago
- Mint
Why Elon Musk turned against Donald Trump and his ‘One Big Beautiful Bill' - Here are the 5 reasons
Once close allies, now at odds: Elon Musk's once-robust relationship with Donald Trump appears to be crumbling amid growing policy clashes, public criticism, and mounting fallout for Musk's companies. The turning point seems to be Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill,' a sweeping Republican legislative package that Musk claims undermines innovation and economic discipline. Here's a breakdown of the key reasons behind the falling out: Elon Musk's sharp break from Donald Trump finds its most immediate pain point in Tesla's bottom line: the proposed elimination of federal electric vehicle (EV) tax credits. Under current policy, buyers of new EVs are eligible for up to $7,500 in federal tax credits, with an additional $4,000 available for used EVs. These credits, part of the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act, have been a critical incentive driving EV adoption—and by extension, Tesla's sales. But Trump's so-called 'Big Beautiful Bill,' backed by GOP lawmakers, aims to gut those incentives entirely for manufacturers that have already sold over 200,000 qualifying vehicles between 2009 and 2025. Tesla, by far the EV market leader, is directly in the firing line: the company sold over 336,000 vehicles in just Q1 of 2025 alone. According to JPMorgan analyst Ryan Brinkman, the removal of these credits could represent a $1.2 billion headwind for Tesla—a significant blow as the company battles slumping demand, falling profits, and political backlash from Musk's government role. So, Musk became increasingly vocal in criticising Trump's massive federal spending bill—nicknamed the 'Big Beautiful Bill.' Musk called the bill 'a disgusting abomination' and accused GOP lawmakers of abandoning fiscal responsibility. 'I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly… which increases the budget deficit… I don't know if a bill can be big and beautiful,' Musk told CBS previously. Musk's discontent escalated after Trump abruptly withdrew the nomination of private astronuat and his ally Jared Isaacman—as NASA Administrator. Trump cited 'prior associations' in his decision, which Musk might have seen as a betrayal. Isaacman had broad support in the space community and was seen as Musk's pick to align NASA policy with SpaceX's interests. His removal coincided with Musk's own exit as a 'special government employee' running the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 'It is rare to find someone so competent and good-hearted,' Musk said in support of Isaacman, signaling the depth of his frustration. Elon Musk's foray into federal governance as a 'special government employee' under the Trump administration has left a lasting dent in his personal and public image. What began as a high-profile effort to 'streamline government efficiency' quickly turned into a political and reputational minefield for the billionaire CEO. As head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Musk was tasked with cutting what the Trump administration called 'wasteful spending.' But the resulting actions—including mass layoffs in federal departments, rumored threats to Social Security and Medicare programs, and abrupt budget slashes—sparked widespread backlash. Despite Musk's repeated clarifications that DOGE had no authority over entitlement programs, public anger snowballed. 'It's a bit unfair because DOGE became the whipping boy for everything,' Musk told CBS. 'I've had people think DOGE is going to stop them from getting their Social Security check, which is completely untrue.' The political blowback triggered a sharp decline in Musk's public approval. Protests, online campaigns, and lawsuits followed, along with a string of death threats and acts of violence targeting both Musk and Tesla facilities. As public anger grew, Tesla became a target: Showrooms were vandalised Tesla vehicle sales plummeted Shares fell 50% from record highs Net worth dropped by $100 billion Musk lamented being made the scapegoat: 'DOGE became the whipping boy for everything... People thought it would stop their Social Security checks.' His candid remarks reflect a man caught between two identities—visionary entrepreneur and political appointee. 'I don't want to speak up against the administration,' he said, 'but I also don't want to take responsibility for everything this administration is doing.' Musk recently escalated pressure on the FAA to drop Verizon's $2.4 billion contract for air traffic control upgrades, claiming the system is failing. He offered Starlink as an emergency solution, suggesting the FAA should shift the contract to SpaceX. But critics flagged this as a possible conflict of interest—especially since Musk had been advising on federal spending.
