Trump signals fresh trade tensions with China
WASHINGTON: US President Donald Trump signaled renewed trade tensions with China on Friday, arguing that Beijing had 'violated' a deal to de-escalate tariffs, at a time when both sides appeared deadlocked in negotiations.
Trump's post on his Truth Social platform came hours after US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that trade talks with China were 'a bit stalled,' in an interview with broadcaster Fox News.
The world's two biggest economies had agreed this month to temporarily lower staggeringly high tariffs they had imposed on each other, in a pause to last 90 days, after talks between top officials in Geneva.
But on Friday, Trump wrote that: 'China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US,' without providing further details.
Asked about the post on CNBC, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer took aim at Beijing for continuing to 'slow down and choke off things like critical minerals.'
He added that the United States' trade deficit with China 'continues to be enormous,' and that Washington was not seeing major shifts in Beijing's behavior.
On Thursday, Bessent suggested that Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping could get involved in the situation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
3 hours ago
- Arab News
Will the lifting of sanctions usher in a new beginning for the Syrian people?
LONDON: When news broke that Western sanctions on Syria would be lifted, Marwah Morhly finally allowed herself to imagine something she had not dared to in years: a stable life in her hometown of Damascus. A Syrian writer and editor now living in Turkiye, Morhly once navigated a precarious existence back home — trying to earn a remote income in a country cut off from global banking systems and mired in uncertainty. Returning to Damascus always felt like a distant dream — too risky and too complicated. But with sanctions easing, that dream is beginning to look attainable. 'It's a different kind of freedom — the freedom to dream,' she told Arab News. 'As someone who works remotely, the lifting of sanctions lets me imagine a future where I can work from my home in Damascus, receive my salary through a bank transfer directly to my account there, without any form of danger or exploitation.' Under sanctions, she said, Syrians working with foreign clients had to operate in secrecy. 'We were working in the shadows … like ghosts,' she said. 'We weren't allowed to be visible, like unknown soldiers, because the moment it became clear (to employers abroad) that the work was happening inside Syria, it could jeopardize our livelihoods.' The breakthrough came on May 13, when US President Donald Trump, during a visit to Riyadh, announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria. He framed the move as a historic opportunity for economic recovery and political stabilization. Ten days later, the US Treasury Department issued General License 25, authorizing transactions with Syria's new transitional government, led by President Ahmad Al-Sharaa. In parallel, the State Department suspended the Caesar Act sanctions for 180 days, signaling a pivot toward reconstruction and humanitarian relief. The EU soon followed suit, announcing the end of its own economic sanctions in a coordinated effort to support a nation fractured by more than a decade of civil war. On Saturday, Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al-Saud announced from Damascus a joint effort with Qatar to fund salary support for Syria's state employees. The move built on the two countries' decision earlier in May to pay off the $15.5 million debt Syria owed to the International Development Association, a World Bank fund that provides zero- or low-interest loans and grants to the world's poorest countries. This policy shift did not happen in a vacuum. Ibrahim Al-Assil, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute, said years of grassroots advocacy were pivotal. 'Of course, the Saudi role was huge, and many Syrians appreciate that, and same for the Turkish role,' Al-Assil told CNN. 'But also, many Syrians have been working on that — from students to academics to activists to business leaders and journalists writing and talking about this and pushing more and more towards lifting sanctions.' The impact of these efforts goes beyond international politics. 'Why? Because it allows Syrians to breathe again,' he said, adding that sanctions are often viewed only on a macro level as something that affects an entire country. In reality, they have a serious impact on daily life. 'We forget that they affect the lives of the individuals on the tiny details — from medicine to connectivity and being able to check their email normally … also to what industries they can have, where they can travel, what kind of machines they can buy for their factories.' For ordinary Syrians, these limitations posed immense challenges. Now, Al-Assil said, the situation is changing. 'It's still challenging, but the major obstacle seems to have been moved out of the way for Syrians, allowing them to move ahead and rebuild their country.' Beyond basic needs, the lifting of sanctions opens new possibilities for professionals still living in Syria — many of whom have endured years of isolation, limited access to technology, and restricted earning potential. Salma Saleh, a graphic designer based in Damascus, says she has spent 13 years building her career under the weight of sanctions, along with the years before that dedicated to her education. 'The challenges have been endless,' she told Arab News. 'We struggled to access most technologies and tools. Often, we had to use workarounds just to get hold of banned software or platforms.' Freelancing is no easier. 'Syrians are blocked from PayPal and most global payment platforms used by freelancing platforms,' she said. 'Even sites essential for our work like Shutterstock, Freepik, and Envato are inaccessible. We can't even purchase courses on Coursera or Udemy, nor the software we work with, such as Adobe programs. 'We can't promote our work on social media platforms due to the ban on paid advertisements in Syria. Clients are afraid to work with Syrian freelancers because of the difficulty with payment methods and fears of being accused of funding terrorism.' Electricity outages posed further challenges. 'My heart nearly stopped every time the power cut while I was rendering a video on my laptop,' said Saleh. 'It happened so many times we eventually got used to it. Syrian designers have become the most resilient professionals out there.' Syria's electricity sector has all but collapsed owing to infrastructure damage, fuel shortages, and economic sanctions. Once relatively stable, the system now delivers just a few hours of electricity per day. In some areas, that is as little as 30 minutes. 'We had to jump through hoops just to keep up with the rest of the world,' said Saleh. 'We gave it everything. I consider the Syrian designer a super designer — and rightfully so.' For Syrians across the diaspora, the developments mark a fragile but significant turning point. Cautious optimism is beginning to take root — even as the country remains divided and the road to recovery is long. Lama Beddawi, a Syrian-American DevOps environment analyst based in the US, echoed that sentiment. 'The recent decision to lift sanctions on Syria marks a pivotal turning point, and I am hopeful that it signals a move in the right direction,' she told Arab News. 'This development brings a sense of optimism that the country's long-strained economy may begin to recover, opening the door for increased stability and renewed international investment,' she said. 'With fewer restrictions, Syria has the potential to rebuild its infrastructure, strengthen its institutions, and create opportunities for its people, paving the way for a more sustainable and prosperous future.' Still, the benefits remain largely theoretical for now. On the ground, daily challenges persist, and progress will take time. 'Everyone understands this isn't a magic fix — the effects will take time to show,' said Morhly. 'As one man from central Damascus put it: 'For now, we'll take a hit from the dollar rate, but in a couple of months, more people will actually be able to afford meat again.'' There is also cautious optimism that basic services might begin to improve. 'There's hope the electricity situation might improve — which is the second biggest concern after water, especially with summer approaching and the heat already setting in,' she added. From an economic perspective, the lifting of sanctions presents both opportunities and challenges. Mohamed Ghazal, managing director of Startup Syria, a community-led initiative supporting Syrian entrepreneurs, believes translating sanctions relief into concrete gains such as jobs, investment, and basic services 'will be a complex and gradual process.' He remains optimistic about certain sectors. 'Quicker gains are possible in transport and trade,' Ghazal told Arab News. However, critical areas like general business development and startups are experiencing slower momentum. 'Lifting sanctions can take months,' said Ghazal. 'Capital flow issues persist due to a crippled banking system. 'Syria's banks lack access to SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication), suffer low liquidity, and operate under opaque regulations. 'Attracting foreign capital requires a modern investment law, clear property rights, business licensing frameworks, and financial repatriation mechanisms. 'The speed of progress depends on comprehensive reforms, institutional rebuilding, international investment, and continued humanitarian support. 'The lifting of sanctions is expected to open up channels like new funding, banking, or investment channels for Syrian startups.' Diaspora and foreign investors could offer the capital injection needed to get the economy off its knees. There are 'positive signs from the Syrian diaspora and potential foreign direct investment, especially from GCC countries and Turkiye,' said Ghazal. 'Interest from impact investors seeking financial returns and social and environmental impact.' He identified several immediate priorities for revitalizing the economy, including restoring access to SWIFT, enacting a modern investment law with clear legal protections, and easing import restrictions on essential technology to enable the use of software, cloud services, and digital tools. The SWIFT system is a global messaging network that enables financial institutions to exchange transaction details — like money transfer instructions — quickly, securely, and accurately across borders. Before Lebanon's 2019 financial collapse, many Syrians used its banking system to bypass sanctions, parking billions in assets and accessing US dollars and trade channels. When the system froze, transfers stopped, savings were locked, and Syrians lost access to critical funds. The Syrian pound then collapsed, inflation surged, and the economy worsened. While some estimates once placed Syrian deposits as high as $40 billion, remaining deposits in 2025 were estimated at just $3 to $4 billion, according to the Karam Shaar Advisory consultancy. Some experts believe sanctions relief could signal a path forward. Ghassan Ibrahim, a London-based Syria analyst and founder of the Global Arab Network, believes sanctions relief could unlock trade and investment. 'Lifting Western sanctions removes long-standing barriers to Syria joining the global market,' he told Arab News. 'It restores credibility and sends a message that Syria is on the right path.' Investor interest is already growing. 'Next week, a few American investors are heading to Damascus. We're also seeing engagement from GCC countries and Chinese firms already operating there. 'Any relief, especially from the US, will help get Syria back on track. It boosts the government's legitimacy and strengthens its diplomatic hand.' The broader economic and political impact cannot be understated. 'President Al-Sharaa will be able to travel more freely, engage in diplomacy, and attract serious development partnerships,' said Ibrahim. 'That's critical for reconstruction. 'Ultimately, this shift could improve quality of life, create jobs, and drive long-term growth.' Still, Syria's path to recovery remains long. Nearly six months after the fall of Bashar Assad, the country is still plagued by deep sectarian divisions, persistent violence, and political fragmentation. In March 2025 alone, more than 1,100 people were killed in attacks targeting the Alawite minority following coordinated assaults on government forces. Survivors remain fearful of further violence, and many perpetrators have not been brought to justice. Foreign threats compound internal instability. Israel has launched multiple airstrikes, including one near the presidential palace, citing threats to the Druze minority. Syria's new leadership condemned the attacks, highlighting the fragility of foreign relations. Internally, law and order remains weak. Women and minorities still face abuse, rights protections are unevenly enforced, and extremist groups continue to assert control in some regions, several news agencies have reported. The humanitarian crisis also endures. Around 16.7 million Syrians rely on aid, while millions remain displaced. Israel maintains a military presence, and Turkiye has voiced opposition to any settlement between Damascus and Kurdish factions — complicating efforts toward national unity. Though US, EU, and UK sanctions relief is meant to support Syria's transition, the UN warns of 'real dangers of renewed conflict.' Meanwhile, the interim government faces the daunting task of rebuilding a country where 90 percent of the population lives in poverty and millions remain displaced. The door may be open, but walking through it will require more than hope. It will take time, trust, and tangible change.
Arab News
4 hours ago
- Arab News
Global threat report reveals Trump's strategic priorities
The US Defense Intelligence Agency recently released its annual threat assessment report. While these official government documents are often bland and filled with bureaucratic language, this year's publication stands out — both for its substance and what it reveals about how the new administration views today's geopolitical challenges. This is the first threat assessment of President Donald Trump's second term, and it offers an early insight into the administration's strategic priorities. A few things jump out right away. This year's threat assessment is longer than last year's, and offers a more detailed and nuanced analysis across multiple sections. But two major changes in this year's report, when compared with the final assessment produced under the Biden administration, are particularly striking. The most notable difference is the inclusion of a dedicated section on US homeland defense and border security — placed not as an afterthought but as the first item in the report. This marks a sharp departure from last year's assessment, which focused almost exclusively on global threats and challenges. The placement and tone of the new homeland security section clearly bear Trump's personal stamp. One of his most effective political narratives has been that US policymakers focus too much on problems abroad, while neglecting the security of Americans at home. This report reflects that view. The homeland security section places particular emphasis on the national security implications of illegal immigration, transnational organized crime, and the influx of deadly narcotics by drug cartels into small American communities. These are not just political talking points; they represent real and growing threats to the safety and well-being of Americans. But the political savvy of the framing should not be overlooked. While the average American may not be deeply familiar with issues such as Taiwan's security or freedom of navigation in the South China Sea, they are certainly familiar with the devastating impact of fentanyl or cartel violence. Including homeland security at the top of the Defense Intelligence Agency's global threat assessment makes the report more relevant to the American public and highlights Trump's emphasis on border security as a matter of national defense. The second striking difference is the prominent section, entitled 'Growing Cooperation Among US Competitors and Adversaries,' which comes immediately after the homeland security section. For the first time, a US threat assessment explicitly links and highlights the emerging coordination among America's adversaries and competitors. The report states: 'Building on activities over the past two years, leaders in Beijing, Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang will strengthen their nations' ties in their drive to undermine the influence of the US and its allies.' This is an important — and overdue — acknowledgment of a multipolar and interconnected world. For years, much of the US foreign policy establishment has resisted the concept of multipolarity, preferring to see the world in unipolar or bipolar terms. This resistance is rooted in Cold War-era thinking, when power was viewed through a US-versus-Soviet lens. But a new generation of American strategists understands that multiple centers of power exist — and are increasingly coordinating with one another to challenge US interests around the globe. The coming months will be critical for the future of America's role in the world. Luke Coffey Recognizing the reality of this multipolar environment does not mean conceding that all powers are equal. It simply acknowledges the complexity of today's geopolitical landscape. The inclusion of this section in the threat assessment is a necessary step toward grappling with the way these regimes are learning from each other, cooperating diplomatically, militarily, and economically, and exploiting US vulnerabilities. To illustrate the shift, if you took a diplomat from 1980 and one from 1880 and brought them both to 2025, it might be the latter — accustomed to a world of competing empires and power centers — who would better recognize the dynamics at play today. Recognizing these trends is one thing, acting on them another. Within the new administration, there are competing schools of thought on how to respond. Some believe China is the primary threat and argue that all instruments of US power should be directed toward countering Beijing. Others, often aligned with more isolationist instincts, believe the US should focus exclusively on homeland security and reduce its global footprint. Then there are more traditional Republican voices who argue that the US must be able to address multiple threats simultaneously and maintain its global leadership role. Though the administration is still filling out its national security team, the contents of the Defense Intelligence Agency report suggest that the latter group is gaining the upper hand, at least for now. That could signal a more balanced approach in future, one that prioritizes US security at home, while maintaining engagement and vigilance abroad. In the coming months, the Department of Defense is expected to publish a new National Defense Strategy, which should provide additional clarity on how the US plans to counter the threats identified in the Defense Intelligence Agency assessment. Likewise, the National Security Council is likely to release a similar document outlining a more comprehensive, whole-of-government approach to these challenges. Importantly, all these strategies must be backed by resources. The White House will need to work with Congress to ensure that the budget aligns with these stated priorities. It is one thing to acknowledge that America's adversaries are coordinating their efforts, but quite another to craft a strategy — and appropriate the funds — to counter them effectively. Some in the Biden administration may have understood that this emerging coordination by America's competitors posed a threat, but were reluctant to spotlight it publicly for fear of being forced to act. The Trump administration, by contrast, has put these challenges front and center. But in doing so, it has also raised the stakes. Having declared that homeland defense is national security — and that America's adversaries are working together — the administration will now be judged on how it responds. The coming months will be critical, not only for America's national security and that of its allies, but also for the future of America's role in the world.
Arab News
5 hours ago
- Arab News
Africom's demotion sends a signal: Africa must buckle up
US Gen. Michael Langley's blunt declaration at the African Lion 2025 military exercise — 'There needs to be some burden sharing' — resonates less as a strategic evolution and more as polite euphemism for irreversible US retrenchment in Africa. It marks a discernible shift away from the usual rhetoric of good governance and counters the underlying causes of insurgency that defined past US engagement. Instead, Washington is now signaling that its fragile African allies must prepare to stand more on their own. This is not merely a tactical adjustment; it is perhaps the opening salvo in a potential dismantling of the US Africa Command, an institution born in 2008 to symbolize Africa's rising strategic importance. A leaked Pentagon briefing, contemplating Africom's merger back into European Command as a subordinate three-star billet, exposes the core driver: fiscal parsimony disguised as strategic realignment. After all, the projected savings represent a minuscule 0.03 percent of the Pentagon's nearly $900 billion annual budget, leading to one retired general's wry assessment that dismissed the proposed 'merger' as mere cost-cutting rather than well-conceived strategic maneuvering. Strangely, the move contradicts the administration's almost simultaneous escalation of kinetic operations — from loosened airstrike rules in Somalia to expanded combat authorities — revealing a preference for lethal action divorced from the holistic planning a dedicated command is almost always required to provide. On the surface, this bizarre posture does not suggest outright disengagement, as alarmists would have us believe, but a cheaper, more fragmented, and ultimately less effective militarization. 'Burden sharing,' therefore, appears less a call for equitable partnership and more a precursor to transactional disengagement. The underlying calculus seems worryingly mercenary — that is, for African countries to expect enduring US security investments, Washington must first be assured of demonstrable, immediate returns. Of course, this introduces a whole host of questions. Will potential host nations even agree to foot the bill for bases? Will access to critical minerals such as cobalt — vital for batteries, with 70 percent of global supply coming from the Democratic Republic of the Congo — be guaranteed on favorable terms? Favorable to whom? Will US energy firms secure priority contracts? Langley's oblique reference to US support for Sudan, in further comments, hints at this new 'quid pro quo' expectation. Moreover, the systematic dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development and other soft power initiatives under previous budgets leaves the military as the primary, blunt instrument of influence, now wielded with an eye firmly on the balance sheet. This is not multilateralism but rugged transactionalism, where security partnerships exist only if they yield direct, tangible economic or strategic profit that exceeds the cost of deployment. For now, however, the bureaucratic inertia favoring Africom's survival remains formidable. Congressional Armed Services Committee chairs issued an immediate rebuke of any plans to dismantle the institution, declaring combatant commands the tip of the American warfighting spear and vowing to block unilateral changes lacking rigorous process. Their control over the defense budget and security assistance programs grants them significant leverage. But it is unclear whether that will be sufficient to dissuade an administration convinced that a rather different set of rules are now at play across the African continent. For African countries to expect enduring US security investments, Washington must first be assured of demonstrable, immediate returns. Hafed Al-Ghwell Regardless, CASC lawmakers do have a point. The proposed demotion of Africom from a four-star combatant command to a three-star entity under European Command constitutes far more than an organizational reshuffle. It represents a deliberate degradation of Africa's institutional standing within the Pentagon's hierarchy, with profound implications for how US security policy toward the continent is formulated and prioritized. After all, the bureaucratic architecture of the US military assigns immense weight to the rank and position of its commanders. A four-star combatant commander occupies one of only 41 such positions across the entire US military — a rarefied stratum granting direct, unfiltered access to the defense secretary and the president. This constitutes a critical 'action channel,' a formal pathway enabling the commander to shape policy debates, advocate for resources, and present Africa-centric security assessments at the apex of national security decision-making. Removing this four-star billet effectively mutes Africa's dedicated advocate in the rooms where global priorities are set and resources allocated. A three-star deputy, nested within EUCOM's bureaucracy and reporting through a superior focused primarily on European and transatlantic security concerns, simply lacks the equivalent rank, prestige, and direct access necessary to ensure Africa's complex challenges receive commensurate high-level attention, especially when competing against demands from regions such as Ukraine or the Indo-Pacific. However, Africom's toehold on the continent, though opaque, has only become more vulnerable in recent years. The expulsion from Agadez and Niamey, two critical drone bases in Niger with more than 1,100 personnel, crippled intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities across the Sahel. This leaves Chabelley airport in Djibouti — supporting perhaps 4,000 troops and a squadron of MQ-9 Reaper drones — as the sole publicly confirmed, persistent drone hub. Estimates of total Africom personnel fluctuate wildly due to rotational deployments and classified sites, but credible assessments suggest fewer than 5,000–10,000 troops continent-wide at any time, concentrated heavily in Djibouti and Somalia. This scattering across what are known as 'Cooperative Security Locations' and 'Contingency Locations,' potentially two dozen sites with 100-200 troops each, creates persistent entanglement risks. Furthermore, sustaining such a diffuse, vulnerable presence has become politically unsustainable given the lack of clear, publicly defensible victories against resilient groups such as Al-Shabab or Daesh affiliates flourishing in post-Qaddafi Libya and parts of the Sahel. Yet, the confluence is undeniable. The demand for allies to shoulder more risk coincides with a push to downgrade the command structure advocating for sustained engagement, all while expanding kinetic operations on the cheap. Thus, the 'end' of Africom as an independent entity is plausible, even likely — blamed on budgetary scalpels, but mostly due to being a casualty of a transactional worldview. However, this does not in any way signify a total demilitarization of US policy in Africa. Rather, it heralds a more incoherent, reactive, and narrowly self-interested era — and Africa had better buckle up. Military force would remain an option, perhaps even the default option in the absence of robust non-kinetic tools, but planned and executed with less expertise, less consistent oversight, and less regard for long-term stability. Africa, in this emerging era, risks becoming a theater for opportunistic strikes and extractive deals, its complex challenges reduced to a ledger of costs and immediate benefits — a far cry from the 'smart power' aspirations that accompanied Africom's founding.
