China Confirms Trade Framework With U.S. to Lift Export Controls
China said on Friday that it had confirmed details of a trade framework with the Trump administration that includes an agreement for Beijing to speed up exports of critical minerals to the United States and for Washington to lift recent export controls on China.
'China will review and approve applications for the export of controlled items,' China's Ministry of Commerce said in a statement, and 'the United States will correspondingly cancel a series of restrictive measures it has taken against China.'
The statement echoed remarks that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick had made hours earlier, telling Bloomberg News that the United States would 'take down' their export controls once China began delivering rare earth minerals.
It is unclear if the agreement is what President Trump was referring to when he said at a White House event on Thursday that his administration had 'signed' a trade deal with China.
The Ministry of Commerce said Chinese and American trade negotiators had 'maintained close communication' after meeting in London on June 9 and 10. The two sides had previously met in Geneva in May.
The meetings were held to stabilize ties between the two superpowers and to call a truce in an escalating trade war in which both sides slapped sky-high tariffs on each other's goods.
Tensions flared after the meeting in Geneva as Chinese rare earths exports to the United States slowed to a trickle. China dominates the supply and processing of rare earths, a vital component of many modern technologies, including semiconductors, robots and aircraft.
The Trump administration responded to the slowdown by imposing restrictions of U.S. exports of ethane, jet engines and chip software to China. These were the countermeasures that Beijing most likely expects to be canceled in return for loosening exports of rare earths.
The announcements come days after China said it strengthened controls on two chemicals that can be used to make fentanyl. That move was seen as an olive branch from Beijing, which Washington has long complained does not do enough to stop the synthetic opioid crisis in the United States.
It remains to be seen if the lifting of export controls from both sides will smooth the way to wider trade talks on fundamental issues frustrating the Trump administration, such as getting China to purchase significantly more American goods and granting more U.S. companies access to China's economy.
While China has said it will not back down from a trade war with the United States, analysts have said it is in Beijing's interests to come to a broader agreement. The Chinese economy remains sluggish because of a property crisis and a dip in consumer confidence.
Berry Wang contributed research.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Supreme Court preserves key part of Obamacare coverage requirements
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court preserved a key part of the Affordable Care Act's preventive health care coverage requirements on Friday, rejecting a challenge from Christian employers to the provision that affects some 150 million Americans. The 6-3 ruling comes in a lawsuit over how the government decides which health care medications and services must be fully covered by private insurance under former President Barack Obama's signature law, often referred to as Obamacare. The plaintiffs said the process is unconstitutional because a volunteer board of medical experts tasked with recommending which services are covered is not Senate approved. President Donald Trump's administration defended the mandate before the court, though the Republican president has been a critic of his Democratic predecessor's law. The Justice Department said board members don't need Senate approval because they can be removed by the health and human services secretary. Medications and services that could have been affected include statins to lower cholesterol, lung cancer screenings, HIV-prevention drugs and medication to lower the chance of breast cancer for women. The case came before the Supreme Court after an appeals court struck down some preventive care coverage requirements. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Christian employers and Texas residents who argued they can't be forced to provide full insurance coverage for things like medication to prevent HIV and some cancer screenings. Well-known conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who represented Trump before the high court in a dispute about whether he could appear on the 2024 ballot, argued the case. The appeals court found that coverage requirements were unconstitutional because they came from a body — the United States Preventive Services Task Force — whose members were not nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. A 2023 analysis prepared by the nonprofit KFF found that ruling would still allow full-coverage requirements for some services, including mammography and cervical cancer screening. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ostin Technology Group Co Ltd Issues Statement Regarding Market Activity
Nanjing, China, June 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Ostin Technology Group Co., Ltd. ('the Company') (Nasdaq: OST), a leading supplier of display modules and polarizers based in China, issued the following statement in response to the market activity on June 26: The Company does not have any undisclosed material matters, nor is it aware of the specific reasons for the abnormal stock price fluctuations on June 26. However, we must caution investors and all other persons to rely solely on statements and filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission issued by the Company itself or its authorized representatives. The Company does not intend to make further statements regarding this matter. About Ostin Technology Group Co., Ltd. Founded in 2010, the Company is a supplier of display modules and polarizers in China. The Company designs, develops, and manufactures TFT-LCD display modules in a wide range of sizes and customized sizes which are mainly used in consumer electronics, outdoor LCD displays, and automotive displays. The Company also manufactures polarizers used in the TFT-LCD display modules. For more information, please visit Forward-Looking Statement This press release contains forward-looking statements as defined by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events or performance, underlying assumptions, and other statements that are other than statements of historical facts. When the Company uses words such as 'may, 'will, 'intend,' 'should,' 'believe,' 'expect,' 'anticipate,' 'project,' 'estimate' or similar expressions that do not relate solely to historical matters, it is making forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results to differ materially from the Company's expectations discussed in the forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to uncertainties and risks including, but not limited to, the following: the Company's goals and strategies; the Company's forecast on market trends; the Company's future business development; the demand for and market acceptance for new products; expectation to receive customer orders for new products; the anticipated timing for the marketing and sales of new products; changes in technology; the Company's ability to attract and retain skilled professionals; client concentration; and general economic conditions affecting the Company's industry and assumptions underlying or related to any of the foregoing and other risks contained in reports filed by the Company with the SEC. For these reasons, among others, investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance upon any forward-looking statements in this press release. Additional factors are discussed in the Company's filings with the SEC, which are available for review at The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly revise these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances that arise after the date hereof. For more information, please contact: Ostin Technology Group Co., Investor Relations: Janice WangWealth Financial Services LLCPhone: +1 628 283 9214Email: services@ in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Supreme Court limits power of judges to block Trump's birthright citizenship order
By Andrew Chung WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. The court ordered lower courts to reconsider the scope of their injunctions and specified that Trump's order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that all "persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties.
