Trump denies seeking summit with Xi, says he ‘may' visit China
'The Fake News is reporting that I am SEEKING a 'Summit' with President Xi of China. This is not correct, I am not SEEKING anything!' Trump said in a post on his Truth Social platform on Monday.
'I may go to China, but it would only be at the invitation of President Xi, which has been extended. Otherwise, no interest! Thank you for your attention to this matter.'
Trump's comments come after the Reuters news agency reported last week that aides to the two leaders have discussed a possible summit during a trip to Asia by the US president later this year.
The report, which cited unnamed people familiar with the plans, said Trump and Xi could possibly meet on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit taking place in South Korea from October 30 to November 1.
Trump and Xi last met face-to-face in 2019 on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan.
The US and China are currently engaged in negotiations aimed at lowering trade tensions that have spiked since Trump rolled out his on-again, off-again tariffs on Chinese exports.
On Monday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng met in Stockholm, Sweden, to kick off two days of talks focused on reaching a trade deal before the end of a 90-day tariff truce that ends on August 12.
Bessent said in an interview with Bloomberg Television last week that the administration was in 'a very good place with China now' and the August deadline could be extended in a '90-day increment'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Brazil requests World Trade Organization consultation over Trump tariffs
The government of President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has petitioned the World Trade Organization for consultations to help alleviate the steep tariffs imposed on Brazil by the United States. Sources within the Brazilian government confirmed the petition on Wednesday to news outlets like AFP and The Associated Press, on condition of anonymity. The aim is to seek relief from the 50 percent tariff that US President Donald Trump slapped on Brazilian exports in response to the country's prosecution of a former far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro. That tariff — the highest Trump has imposed on any country in August — took effect on Wednesday. India, meanwhile, is expected to face 50 percent tariffs later this month, unless a deal is struck beforehand. A request for consultations is usually the first step in the World Trade Organization's trade dispute process. The organisation functions as an international arbiter in economic disputes, though its procedures for negotiating settlements can be lengthy and inconclusive. Brazilian Vice President Geraldo Alckmin has estimated that 35.9 percent of the country's exports to the US will be subject to the stiff taxes. That equals about 4 percent of Brazil's total exports worldwide. Retaliation over Bolsonaro prosecution Trump unveiled the current tariff rate on July 9, in a letter addressed to Lula and published online. Unlike other tariff-related letters at the time, Trump used the correspondence to launch into a barbed attack on the Brazilian government for its decision to prosecute Bolsonaro, an ally, over an alleged coup attempt. 'The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace,' Trump wrote. Just as Trump did after his 2020 electoral defeat, Bolsonaro had publicly cast doubt on the results of a 2022 presidential race that saw him lose to Lula. But behind the scenes, police and prosecutors allege that Bolsonaro conspired with his associates to overturn the results of the election. One possible scenario was to declare a 'state of siege' during Bolsonaro's final days as president, as a means of calling up the military and suspending civil rights. Then, a new election would have been called, according to prosecutors. Another idea allegedly floated among Bolsonaro's allies was to poison Lula. But Trump, who likewise faced criminal charges in the past for allegedly attempting to subvert the outcome of a vote, has defended Bolsonaro, calling the prosecution politically biased. 'This trial should not be taking place,' he wrote in the July 9 letter. 'It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!' Several weeks later, on July 30, Trump followed up his tariff threat with an executive order that doubled down on his accusations. Not only did Trump accuse Brazil of 'politically persecuting' Bolsonaro, but he added that Brazil was guilty of 'human rights abuses', including the suppression of free speech, through its efforts to stem disinformation on social media. 'Recent policies, practices, and actions of the Government of Brazil threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States,' Trump wrote. 'Members of the Government of Brazil have taken actions that interfere with the economy of the United States, infringe the free expression rights of United States persons, violate human rights, and undermine the interest the United States has in protecting its citizens and companies.' Lula speaks out The executive order, however, included an annex that indicated certain products would not be subject to the new US tariffs. They included nuts, orange juice, coal, iron, tin and petroleum products. Lula has claimed that Trump is impeding attempts to negotiate a trade deal between their two countries, a sentiment he repeated in an interview on Wednesday with the news agency Reuters. 'The day my intuition says Trump is ready to talk, I won't hesitate to call him,' Lula told Reuters. 'But today my intuition says he doesn't want to talk. And I'm not going to humiliate myself.' The three-term, left-wing president explained that he saw Trump's tariff threats as part of a long history of US intervention in Brazil and Latin America more broadly. 'We had already pardoned the US intervention in the 1964 coup,' Lula said, referencing the overthrow of a Brazilian president that sparked a two-decade-long military dictatorship 'But this now is not a small intervention. It's the president of the United States thinking he can dictate rules for a sovereign country like Brazil. It's unacceptable.' Lula added that he plans to bolster Brazil's 'national sovereignty' by reforming its mineral extraction policy to boost the local economy. With the US tariffs in play, Lula also explained that he would reach out to members of the BRICS economic trading bloc, named for its founding members: Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. Trump, however, has threatened any BRICS-affiliated country with an additional 10-percent tariff. Lula has been on an English-language media blitz since Trump announced the latest his latest slate of tariffs in July, warning that consumers across the world will be penalised. Late last month, for instance, Lula gave his first interview to The New York Times newspaper in nearly 13 years. When the Times asked what his reaction would be to the tariffs taking effect, Lula expressed ambivalence. 'I'm not going to cry over spilled milk,' he said. 'If the United States doesn't want to buy something of ours, we are going to look for someone who will.'
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Wegovy maker Novo Nordisk warns of layoffs as competition grows
Novo Nordisk's outgoing CEO, Lars Fruergaard Jorgensen, has warned that layoffs at the Danish pharmaceutical giant could be unavoidable as competition heats up against its blockbuster obesity drug Wegovy amid rising pressure from rival Eli Lilly. Novo Nordisk – which became Europe's most valuable company, worth $650bn, last year on booming sales of Wegovy – is facing a pivotal moment as the medicine loses market share and sees sales growth slow, especially in the United States. It has warned of far slower growth this year, in part due to compounders who have been allowed to make copycat drugs based on the same ingredients as Wegovy due to shortages. Novo Nordisk, which according to its website has 77,000 employees, cut its full-year sales and profit forecasts last week, wiping $95bn off its market value since. The slide is a vast and abrupt turnaround for the firm that has been one of the world's hottest investment stories, which led to a rapid expansion of manufacturing and sales capacity. Now the company is eyeing potential cost-cutting measures. Layoffs loom 'We probably won't be able to avoid layoffs,' Jorgensen told Danish broadcaster DR. 'When you have to adjust a company, there are some areas where you have to have fewer people, some [areas] where you have to be smaller.' He added, though, that any decision on layoffs would be in the hands of the incoming CEO, company veteran Maziar Mike Doustdar, who takes over on Thursday. On a media call, Jorgensen said the market for copycat versions of Wegovy's class of drugs – known as GLP-1 receptor agonists – was of 'equal size to our business' and compounded versions of Wegovy were sold at a 'much lower price point'. In May, Novo Nordisk said it expected many of the roughly one million US patients using compounded GLP-1 drugs to switch to branded treatments after a US Food and Drug Administration ban on compounded copies of Wegovy took effect on May 22, and it expected compounding to wind down in the third quarter. However, finance chief Karsten Munk Knudsen said on Wednesday that more than one million US patients were still using compounded GLP-1s and that the company's lowered outlook has 'not assumed a reduction in compounding' this year. 'The obesity market is volatile,' Knudsen told analysts when asked under what circumstances the company could see negative growth in the last six months of the year. The low end of the firm's new full-year guidance range would be for 'unforeseen events', such as stronger pricing pressure in the US than forecast, he said. The lower end of the range would imply sales around 150 billion Danish krone ($23bn) in the second half of 2025, compared with 157 billion krone ($24.5bn) in the same period last year. Knudsen reiterated that the company was pursuing multiple strategies, including lawsuits against compounding pharmacies, to halt unlawful mass compounding. Jorgensen said the company was encouraged by the latest US prescription data for Wegovy. While the drug was overtaken earlier this year by rival Eli Lilly's Zepbound in terms of US prescriptions, that lead has narrowed in the past month. Second-quarter sales of Wegovy rose by 36 percent in the US and more than quadrupled in markets outside the US compared to a year ago, Novo Nordisk said. While Wegovy's US pricing held steady in the quarter, the company expected deeper erosion in the key US market in the second half, due to a greater portion of sales expected from the direct-to-consumer or cash-pay channel, as well as higher rebates and discounts to insurers, Knudsen said. He said Novo Nordisk was expanding its US direct-to-consumer platform, NovoCare, launched in March, and may need to pursue similar 'cash sales' directly to patients, outside of insurance channels, in some markets outside the US. Cost cuts Novo Nordisk reiterated its full-year earnings expectations on Wednesday after last week's profit warning. Jorgensen said the company was acting to 'ensure efficiencies in our cost base' as it announced it would terminate eight research and development projects. 'There seems to be a larger R&D clean-out than usual, but we do not know if this reflects a strategic re-assessment or just a coincidence,' Jefferies analysts said in a note. Investors have questioned whether the company can stay competitive in the booming weight-loss drug market. Several equity analysts have cut their price targets and recommendations on the stock since last week. Shares in Novo Nordisk plunged 30 percent last week – their worst weekly performance in over two decades. The stock has continued to tumble since the market opened in New York. As of 12pm local time (16:00 GMT), the pharmaceutical giant was down by more than 3.3 percent.
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Public opinion is split as US marks 80th anniversary of Hiroshima bombing
On August 6, 1945, the United States became the first and only country in history to carry out a nuclear attack when it dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. While the death toll of the bombing remains a subject of debate, at least 70,000 people were killed, though other figures are nearly twice as high. Three days later, the US dropped another atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing at least 40,000 people. The stunning toll on Japanese civilians at first seemed to have little impact on public opinion in the US, where pollsters found approval for the bombing reached 85 percent in the days afterwards. To this day, US politicians continue to credit the bombing with saving American lives and ending World War II. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, perceptions have become increasingly mixed. A Pew Research Center poll last month indicated that Americans are split almost evenly into three categories. Nearly a third of respondents believe the use of the bomb was justified. Another third feels it was not. And the rest are uncertain about deciding either way. 'The trendline is that there is a steady decline in the share of Americans who believe these bombings were justified at the time,' Eileen Yam, the director of science and society research at Pew Research Center, told Al Jazeera in a recent phone call. 'This is something Americans have gotten less and less supportive of as time has gone by.' Tumbling approval rates Doubts about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the advent of nuclear weapons in general, did not take long to set in. 'From the beginning, it was understood that this was something different, a weapon that could destroy entire cities,' said Kai Bird, a US author who has written about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His Pulitzer Prize-winning book, American Prometheus, served as the basis for director Christopher Nolan's 2023 film, Oppenheimer. Bird pointed out that, even in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, some key politicians and public figures denounced it as a war crime. Early critics included physicist Albert Einstein and former President Herbert Hoover, who was quick to speak out against the civilian bloodshed. 'The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul,' Hoover wrote within days of the bombing. Over time, historians have increasingly cast doubt on the most common justification for the atomic attacks: that they played a decisive role in ending World War II. Some academics point out that other factors likely played a larger role in the Japanese decision to surrender, including the Soviet Union's declaration of war against the island nation on August 8. Others have speculated whether the bombings were meant mostly as a demonstration of strength as the US prepared for its confrontation with the Soviet Union in what would become the Cold War. Accounts from Japanese survivors and media reports also played a role in changing public perceptions. John Hersey's 1946 profile of six victims, for instance, took up an entire edition of The New Yorker magazine. It chronicled, in harrowing detail, everything from the crushing power of the blast to the fever, nausea and death brought on by radiation sickness. By 1990, a Pew poll found that a shrinking majority in the US approved of the atomic bomb's use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only 53 percent felt it was merited. Rationalising US use of force But even at the close of the 20th century, the legacy of the attacks remained contentious in the US. For the 50th anniversary of the bombing in 1995, the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, had planned a special exhibit. But it was cancelled amid public furore over sections of the display that explored the experiences of Japanese civilians and the debate about the use of the atomic bomb. US veterans groups argued that the exhibit undermined their sacrifices, even after it underwent extensive revision. 'The exhibit still says in essence that we were the aggressors and the Japanese were the victims,' William Detweiler, a leader at the American Legion, a veterans group, told The Associated Press at the time. Incensed members of Congress opened an investigation, and the museum's director resigned. The exhibit, meanwhile, never opened to the public. All that remained was a display of the Enola Gay, the aeroplane that dropped the first atomic bomb. Erik Baker, a lecturer on the history of science at Harvard University, says that the debate over the atomic bomb often serves as a stand-in for larger questions about the way the US wields power in the world. 'What's at stake is the role of World War II in legitimising the subsequent history of the American empire, right up to the current day,' he told Al Jazeera. Baker explained that the US narrative about its role in the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan — the main 'Axis Powers' in World War II — has been frequently referenced to assert the righteousness of US interventions around the world. 'If it was justifiable for the US to not just go to war but to do 'whatever was necessary' to defeat the Axis powers, by a similar token, there can't be any objection to the US doing what is necessary to defeat the 'bad guys' today,' he added. A resurgence of nuclear anxiety But as the generations that lived through World War II grow older and pass away, cultural shifts are emerging in how different age groups approach US intervention — and use of force — abroad. The scepticism is especially pronounced among young people, large numbers of whom have expressed dissatisfaction with policies such as US support for Israel's war in Gaza. In an April 2024 poll, the Pew Research Center found a dramatic generational divide among Americans over the question of global engagement. Approximately 74 percent of older respondents, aged 65 and up, expressed a strong belief that the US should play an active role on the world stage. But only 33 percent of younger respondents, aged 18 to 35, felt the same way. Last month's Pew poll on the atomic bomb also found stark differences in age. People over the age of 65 were more than twice as likely to believe that the bombings were justified than people between the ages of 18 and 29. Yam, the Pew researcher, said that age was the 'most pronounced factor' in the results, beating out other characteristics, such as party affiliation and veteran status. The 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing also coincides with a period of renewed anxiety about nuclear weapons. US President Donald Trump, for instance, repeatedly warned during his re-election campaign in 2024 that the globe was on the precipice of 'World War III'. 'The threat is nuclear weapons,' Trump told a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia. 'That can happen tomorrow.' 'We're at a place where, for the first time in more than three decades, nuclear weapons are back at the forefront of international politics,' said Ankit Panda, a senior fellow in the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a US-based think tank. Panda says that such concerns are linked to geopolitical tensions between different states, pointing to the recent fighting between India and Pakistan in May as one example. The war in Ukraine, meanwhile, has prompted Russia and the US, the world's two biggest nuclear powers, to exchange nuclear-tinged threats. And in June, the US and Israel carried out attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities with the stated aim of setting back the country's ability to develop nuclear weapons. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombings, advocates hope the shift in public opinion will encourage world leaders to turn away from nuclear sabre-rattling and work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. Seth Shelden, the United Nations liaison for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, explained that countries with nuclear weapons argue that their arsenals discourage acts of aggression. But he said those arguments diminish the 'civilisation-ending' dangers of nuclear warfare. 'As long as the nuclear-armed states prioritise nuclear weapons for their own security, they're going to incentivise others to pursue them as well,' he said. 'The question shouldn't be whether nuclear deterrence can work or whether it ever has worked,' he added. 'It should be whether it will work in perpetuity.'
