'We do not seek confrontation': China responds to Trump's threat to Brics; opposes 'tariffs being used as a tool of coercion'
Responding to Trump's remarks, the Chinese foreign ministry said on Monday, 'The use of tariffs serves no one,' and reiterated Beijing's opposition to using tariffs as a means of political pressure. 'We oppose tariffs being used as a tool to coerce others,' the ministry added.
The statement comes amid renewed rhetoric from Donald Trump, who said that his administration would consider additional tariffs targeting the Brics group—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and newly added members like Egypt and the UAE.
The remarks come after Trump issued a sharp warning on his Truth Social platform, saying: 'Any country aligning themselves with the anti-American policies of Brics will be charged an additional 10% tariff. There will be no exceptions to this policy. Thank you for your attention to this matter!'
The US president's post followed India's endorsement of a Brics declaration that criticised US-led tariff regimes. Trump's comments signalled a possible return to aggressive trade policies if re-elected.
Beijing stressed that Brics—comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, and newer members such as Egypt and the UAE—focuses on cooperation and inclusive development, not rivalry. "Brics is not about confrontation but building a more balanced and inclusive global order," the foreign ministry said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
4 minutes ago
- Economic Times
tsla: Elon Musk's net worth dips by $14 Billion in a single day, Here's what investors are saying
Wall Street Grows Wary of Musk's Political Maneuvers Elon Musk Net Worth Takes a Major Hit ADVERTISEMENT Tesla's Sales and Shareholder Confidence Slipping ADVERTISEMENT Musk-Trump Rift Adds Fuel to the Fire The America Party: Strategic Move or Political Overreach? ADVERTISEMENT Musk Political Party Yet to Find Favor Among Investors FAQs Why did Elon Musk lose $14 billion in a single day? What is the 'America Party'? Tech billionaire Elon Musk, known for his sweeping influence in both the corporate and political arenas, suffered a sharp blow to his personal wealth and business standing on Monday. With Tesla shares tumbling 7 per cent, Musk's net worth fell by approximately $14 billion in a single day—an erosion tied closely to Wall Street's growing unease over his escalating political drop follows Musk's announcement of a new political outfit, the 'America Party,' and his increasingly public rift with U.S. President Donald Trump, a development that analysts say has distracted from Tesla's core business performance, as per a report by announcement of Musk's political venture comes at a time of volatility in the electric vehicle (EV) sector and heightened scrutiny of regulatory frameworks under the Trump administration. In a client note issued Monday, William Blair analyst Jed Dorsheimer downgraded Tesla stock from 'Buy' to 'Hold,' citing what he called a 'less favourable federal regulatory credit environment' resulting from recent legislation.'Investors are growing tired of the distraction,' Dorsheimer wrote, referring to Musk's increasing political theatrics and public feuds. The sentiment was echoed across trading desks, with Tesla's shares plunging by $24 apiece during an otherwise uneventful day for the broader Tesla's market value taking a dip, Musk's personal wealth—which remains the largest in the world—now stands at $391 billion, down from $405 billion the previous day, according to Forbes estimates. Despite the decline, he still maintains a commanding lead of over $100 billion compared to the next richest net worth slide comes amid a 32% drop in Tesla stock since President Trump's second term began—a stark contrast to the 4% gain logged by the S&P 500 benchmark in the same struggle is not confined to the stock market. Analysts at J.P. Morgan reported Monday that the company is headed toward its worst annual vehicle delivery numbers since 2022. Data from the first two quarters of 2025 reveal significant declines in deliveries, attributed in part to waning public sentiment towards Musk polling data compiled by Silver Bulletin indicates that 55% of Americans now hold an unfavourable view of Musk, up from 45% at the end of last year. The souring of opinion spans party lines—Democrats, Republicans, and independents alike have all expressed declining confidence in the Tesla CEO, as per a report by Forbes.'The concern isn't just political,' noted Wedbush analyst Dan Ives, a long-time supporter of Tesla stock. 'Musk diving deeper into politics and now trying to take on the Beltway establishment is exactly the opposite direction that Tesla investors and shareholders want him to take.'Initially viewed as a strategic alliance between two high-profile power players, the Musk-Trump relationship has deteriorated rapidly over the past few weeks. Musk reportedly contributed $288 million toward Trump's re-election campaign last year, positioning himself as a key political their alignment began to unravel following disagreements over Trump's recently signed fiscal package, which the Congressional Budget Office warns could expand the national debt by $3.4 trillion. Their feud reached a public climax last week when Trump labelled Musk a 'TRAIN WRECK' in a scathing post, while Musk retaliated by accusing the Trump administration of misrepresenting the controversial Epstein Files—a post he later launch of the 'America Party' is seen by some observers as an effort to channel public dissatisfaction into political capital. However, financial markets appear unconvinced, interpreting the move as a distraction from Tesla's operational priorities at a time when competition in the EV market is a twist of irony, Musk's losses on Monday—nearly $14 billion—were nearly equivalent to the total market capitalization of Rivian, Tesla's closest American rival in the EV Musk doubles down on political ambition, industry watchers and financial analysts are raising alarms over the implications for Tesla's long-term trajectory. With analysts now sounding cautionary notes and shareholders increasingly vocal in their discontent, questions remain about how Musk plans to balance corporate leadership with his emerging political the 'America Party' may yet shape U.S. political dynamics, its immediate impact on investor sentiment has been unambiguously negative. For now, the market message is clear: stakeholders would prefer the world's richest man to steer clear of Capitol Hill and return focus to the factory personal wealth dropped by approximately $14 billion on Monday, July 7, 2025, after Tesla shares fell by 7%. This sharp decline is tied to investor concerns over Musk's growing political involvement, particularly the launch of his new political outfit, the 'America Party.'The 'America Party' is a new political movement launched by Elon Musk. Although full details remain limited, it appears to be Musk's attempt to influence U.S. politics independently, diverging from traditional party lines and challenging political norms—an effort many investors view as a distraction from his business priorities.
Economic Times
4 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Indira Gandhi attacked Golden Temple in collaboration with the British, claims BJP MP Nishikant Dubey
ANI BJP MP Nishikant Dubey (File) Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey on Monday accused former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi of attacking the Golden Temple in Amritsar in collaboration with Britain and alleged that the Congress party has used the Sikh community for political gain. In a post on X, Dubey shared a letter written by the then Private Secretary to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Brian Fall, to the then Private Secretary to the Home Secretary, Hugh Taylor. He used this to support his claim that British army officers were present in Amritsar at the time of Operation Blue Star in 1984. "In 1984, Indira Gandhi launched an attack on the Golden Temple in collaboration with Britain, with British army officers present in Amritsar at that time. For Congress, the Sikh community is merely a toy," Dubey wrote. He further alleged that Kartarpur Sahib was handed over to Pakistan through an agreement signed in 1960 by Sardar Swaran Singh. "1. Pakistan was finally given Kartarpur Sahib in 1960 through an agreement made by Sardar Swaran Singh," the BJP MP wrote. Dubey also claimed that prominent Sikh leaders were elevated to high offices to mask the events of 1984 and shield Congress leaders accused of involvement in the anti-Sikh riots."2. During the 1984 attack on the Golden Temple and the killing of innocent devotees, GiZail Singh was made President. 3. To cover up the 1984 massacre of Sikhs and to protect senior leaders H.K.L. Bhagat, Jagdish Tytler, and Sajjan Kumar, Manmohan Singh was made a puppet Prime Minister in 2004. The story of selling out the country and surrendering before foreigners continues," the X post comments come a day after Dubey's earlier post on Sunday, in which he accused the Congress government of giving away 80 per cent of India's share of Indus River water and the Kartarpur Sahib gurdwara to Pakistan in 1960."Do you know that in exchange for Pakistan's blood, we gave 80 per cent of our water in the Indus Water Treaty in 1960, and in that same 1960, another agreement took place between Sardar Swaran Singh Ji and Pakistan's Home Minister K.M. Sheikh on January 11, 1960?" Dubey questioned the legitimacy of the agreement and accused the then-leadership of surrendering national interests."1. Look at the politics--Sardar Swaran Singh Ji was neither the Home Minister nor the Foreign Minister, yet he was making the agreement? 2. Because in that agreement, we gave away our religious centre, Kartarpur Sahib?" the X post read. He further accused former Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru of giving away parts of land in Punjab and favouring Pakistan. "3. We gave away Sarja Majra, Rakh Hardit Singh, and Pathanke in the Lahore-Amritsar region. 4. We donated some parts of Punjab's Firozpur district. 5. We gave away the areas of Sulemank and Chak Ladke. They announced this in Parliament as if it were the personal property of Nehru Ji or the Gandhi family. Under the Constitution, this is illegal, but this history of Pakistan favouritism is a shameful and deplorable example of political mentality," the BJP MP claimed.
Economic Times
4 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Multilateralism must Trump US-first policy
Donald Trump's America-first stance reflects his belief that the US has lost global dominance, and he aims to restore the US to its former glory by ensuring that the world 'respects' the US. On Sunday, Trump injected himself into the summit of the BRICS group of nations in Rio de Janeiro, warning countries that aligning with the 'anti-American' policies of the grouping would attract a 10% tariff. At the summit, BRICS leaders expressed 'serious concerns' about the rise in unilateral tariff and non-tariff measures'. Though the US was not mentioned by name, the signals were clear. Whether it is BRICS, of which the US is not a member, or the Quad, of which it is, what is increasingly clear is that the Trump administration is focused on pursuing an 'America for itself' policy. Washington has hosted two Quad foreign ministers' meetings in the last six months, with a focus on security. There is little doubt that this recalibration is driven by China's ambitions and influence in the Indo-Pacific region. But then, Trump's US is not the poster child for steady ties-consider the renewed engagement with Pakistan. The BRICS summit was about what lies ahead-how emerging economies deliver on their promises. Contrary to Trump's apprehension, the US remains the pre-eminent global power. That explains China's response to the 10% additional tariff. The Rio summit and the Quad foreign ministers' meeting point to the same thing: multilateralism remains the only viable response. To ensure that the world does not move from a US-dominated world order to one defined by the Beijing-Kremlin combine, countries like India need to step up and engage more globally to build a multilateral system that is fit for the 21st century.
