Trump not seeking to re-invigorate US-Russia trade with lack of tariffs, Greer says
WASHINGTON, April 9 (Reuters) - U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told lawmakers on Wednesday that President Donald Trump was not trying to re-invigorate trade with Russia by sparing Russian goods from new tariffs, but it was up to Trump whether to impose any future duties.
Greer told the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee that Russia was excluded from the tariffs because it already was facing heavy U.S. sanctions and sectoral trade embargoes and did not enjoy "most favored nation" trading status, as were Belarus, Cuba and North Korea.
Several Democratic lawmakers questioned why Trump imposed a 47% reciprocal tariff on Madagascar and steep duties on other impoverished countries but none on Russia, despite still-substantial U.S. Russia trade that totaled $3.5 billion in 2024, with a $2.5 billion bilateral U.S. trade deficit.
Asked by Democratic Representative John Larson whether tariffs would be imposed on Russia if that trade deficit did not improve, Greer said that it was up to Trump to decide whether to impose any tariffs.
When asked whether he recommended that Trump impose tariffs on Russian goods, Greer declined to disclose his recommendation to the president.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
8 minutes ago
- NBC News
As feud escalates, Trump implies government could cut contracts and subsidies to Musk's companies
President Donald Trump has escalated his sudden rupture with Elon Musk by implying the government could sever ties with the tech titan's businesses. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it" Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Thursday afternoon. Trump's post comes in the midst of a stunning exchange between Musk and Trump that erupted Thursday when the president told reporters in the Oval Office that he was disappointed with Musk's criticism ofthe Republican policy bill that is making its way through Congress. Musk then launched into a tire on X, where he posted throughout early Thursday a variety of critiques of Trump, the bill and other Republican politicians. In response to another Trump post, Musk said the president was lying. Various estimates have put forward of just how much Musk's firms, primarily SpaceX and Tesla, benefit from government contracts and subsidies. The Washington Post has put the figure at $38 billion. The value of government support to SpaceX, which includes Musk's high-profile space-launch ventures in addition to its Starlink satellite subsidiary — is worth $22 billion alone according to comments made by SpaceX chief Gwynne Shotwell. Tesla has benefited from approximately $11.4 billion in regulatory credits aimed at boosting electric-vehicle purchases, though that figure also includes state subsidies. Reuters has reported that the true figure is classified due to the nature of many of the contracts Musk's firms are under. Shares in Tesla, which had already fallen 8% Thursday as the tit-for-tat escalated on social media, declined as much as 12% following Trump's post.
The National
9 minutes ago
- The National
Increased UK defence spending only makes war more likely
For any country, reviewing defence in the modern age is a valuable exercise. The UK's new strategic defence review fails to get to grips with those challenges, and perpetuates a view of security as being solely about the aggressive projection of military power. We do face direct threats that we need to acknowledge, not least from the brutal Putin regime. A military-only response risks seeing the whole world 'tooling up' for conflict, creating a tinderbox situation, and also misses the other action we can take which we know improves human security and makes conflict less likely. READ MORE: BBC Debate Night branded 'farce' as formal complaint made over 'bias' Strong international cooperation and a commitment to the international rule of law are critical to improving security, yet the UK continues to arm war criminal regimes instead of pursuing justice against them. Alliances must be fostered with countries we trust, and the threat of far-right regimes must be acknowledged. Yet the UK continues to treat the Trump regime as though it's a reliable ally, while it threatens democratic countries like Greenland and Canada. Food and water security, and so much else that international development invests in, also provide the basis for a more secure world. Yet the UK has followed the lead of the Trump White House by slashing development aid. The climate emergency is barely mentioned in the review, and where it does come up it's mostly about access to Arctic waters rather than the profound threat it poses to human and environmental security around the world. And of course the UK's continued attachment to nuclear weapons continues unabated. Reconsidering the vastly expensive replacement of Trident doesn't even merit a line. In truth, Trident poses a greater threat to the people of Scotland than it does to anyone else. Its record of accidents and poor maintenance goes back a long way, and its presence makes the west coast of Scotland a key target in any potential conflict. The hundreds of billions of pounds spent on these weapons could be far better spent on international development, climate action, or emerging issues like cybersecurity or biosecurity which can't be addressed by just hiking military spending. There's so much that's needed aside from military responses that can actually reduce the threats we face instead of funnelling even more funds towards nuclear weapons. Let's also remember that these are weapons which cannot discriminate between military and civilian targets, and whose use in any circumstances would surely be the biggest war crime in human history. Such a decision made now will lock us into a more dangerous world, for decades to come. And that decision would be at the expense of action that could be taken to promote peace, and make progress towards a world that's safer because it's fairer, greener, and more just. As for the claims about jobs, this truly is a red herring. Spend tens of billions on pretty much anything and you'll create jobs, and in truth there are far better ways to build an economy that works for people than making a '10 times more lethal' army. A defence review that really engages with the changing world we live in is something I'd really like to see. This simply isn't it.
Reuters
11 minutes ago
- Reuters
Israeli military says it will strike Beirut's southern suburbs
CAIRO, June 5 (Reuters) - The Israeli military on Thursday told residents of four neighborhoods in Beirut's southern suburbs to evacuate ahead of strikes on what it said were underground Hezbollah drone-manufacturing sites, and thousands fled. The evacuation warning, published on X, was the first such warning in over a month for the suburbs, which were hit hard in the year-long war that ended in a ceasefire in November. Residents rushed to leave the area, causing traffic gridlock. "Despite the understandings between Israel and Lebanon, the IDF has identified that the Hezbollah aerial unit is operating to produce thousands of UAVs, with the direction and funding of Iranian terrorists," the army added in a statement, using acronyms for the Israel Defense Forces and drones. There was no immediate comment from Hezbollah. A U.S.-brokered truce in November halted the fighting between the Iran-backed Hezbollah and Israel. Each side accuses the other of not entirely living up to its terms, and the ceasefire has looked shaky in recent months.
