South Korea president says ‘doing utmost' for trade deal with US
'It's certainly not easy, that much is clear. And to be honest, I can't say with confidence that we'll be able to wrap everything up by July 8,' Lee said at a press conference marking his first month in office.
'We're doing our best, and the goal is to reach a genuinely mutually beneficial outcome, but at this stage, both sides still haven't clearly defined what exactly they want,' he said, adding: 'All I can say for now is that we're doing our utmost.'
Already hit by sector levies on steel and car exports, Seoul is laser-focused on negotiations over a 25 percent country-specific tariff that has been suspended until next week.
Without an agreement, it will come into effect just after midnight Washington time on July 9.
Seoul's Ministry of Industry and Trade confirmed this week it is seeking an extension.
'With the US tariff suspension deadline fast approaching, the direction of Washington's future actions remains highly uncertain and volatile, including whether the suspension will be extended,' Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo said Thursday.
Yeo said the reimposition of US tariffs would be a 'grave situation' requiring an all-out, government-wide effort to minimize the negative impact on Asia's fourth-largest economy.
Lee assumed office facing a daunting array of challenges, from a deepening economic slump and intensifying global trade tensions to rising alarm over growing military cooperation between nuclear-armed North Korea and Russia.
He inherited a nation deeply fractured by the political crisis triggered by his predecessor, Yoon Suk Yeol, whose attempted imposition of martial law in December sent shockwaves through South Korean democracy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arab News
an hour ago
- Arab News
US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting on Thursday limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan. The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy's April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called 'third countries' where they have no ties to get a chance to tell officials they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out. The court on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision also extended to Murphy's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The US State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation 'due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.' Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision. The court said that Murphy should now 'cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order.' Murphy's May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the US government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-US citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy's April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order 'remains in full force and effect.' Calling that ruling by the judge a 'lawless act of defiance,' the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy's May 21 decision as well. Murphy's ruling, the Justice Department said in court filings, has stalled its 'lawful attempts to finalize the long-delayed removal of those aliens to South Sudan,' and disrupted diplomatic relations. Its agents are being 'forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict,' it added. Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation. The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal members dissented from the June 23 decision pausing Murphy's injunction, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor calling it a 'gross abuse' of the court's power that now exposes 'thousands to the risk of torture or death.' After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there 'without the need for further procedures.' Murphy found that the administration's policy of 'executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims' likely violates due process requirements under the US Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The Justice Department on Tuesday noted in a filing that the administration has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the aliens at issue will not be subject to torture.' The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
A Look at What Will Happen to Food Assistance Under Trump's Big Tax Cut Bill, by the Numbers
President Donald Trump's big tax cut bill will overhaul a common food assistance program for lower-income people by forcing states to pick up some of the costs and requiring more people to work to receive benefits. The changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program are projected to squeeze some people out of the program, which has existed for decades in varying forms as part of the nation's social safety net. Here's a look at the food assistance program by the numbers: Year: 2008. The federal aid program formerly known as 'food stamps' was renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, on Oct. 1, 2008. The program provides monthly payments for food purchases to low-income residents, generally earning less than $1,632 monthly for individuals or $3,380 monthly for a household of four. The nation's first experiment with food stamps began in 1939. The modern version of the program dates to 1979, when a change in federal law eliminated a requirement that participants purchase food stamps. There currently is no cost to people participating in the program. Number: 42 million. More than 42 million people nationwide received SNAP benefits in March, the latest month for which figures are available. That's roughly one out of every eight people in the country. Participation is down from a peak average of 47.6 million people during the 2013 federal fiscal year. Often more than one person in a household is eligible for food aid. As of March, more than 22 million households were enrolled in SNAP, receiving an average monthly household benefit of $350. The money can be spent on most groceries, but the Trump administration recently approved requests by six states–Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah–to exclude certain items such as soda or candy. Dollars: $186 billion. Legislation approved by Congress is projected to cut $186 billion in federal spending from SNAP over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. More than one-third of those savings come from expanded work requirements for SNAP participants, which the CBO assumes would force some people off the rolls. Another third comes by shifting costs to states, which administer SNAP. Yet another provision in the legislation would cap the annual inflationary growth in food benefits, saving the federal government tens of billions of dollars by 2034. Ages: 14 and 55–64. To receive SNAP benefits, current law says adults ages 18 through 54 who are physically and mentally able and don't have dependents need to work, volunteer, or participate in training programs for at least 80 hours a month. Those who don't do so are limited to just three months of benefits in a three-year period. The legislation expands work requirements for those ages 55 through 64 and for parents without children younger than 14. It also repeals work exemptions for homeless individuals, veterans, and young adults aging out of foster care. States could continue to seek federal waivers from SNAP work requirements in areas with unemployment over ten percent. But the bill eliminates a more flexible exemption for areas without sufficient jobs. Percentage: 6 percent. The federal government currently splits the administrative costs of SNAP with states but covers the full cost of food benefits. Under the legislation, states would have to cover three-fourths of the administrative costs starting in the 2027 federal fiscal year. Some states, for the first time, also would have to pay a portion of the food benefits starting with the 2028 fiscal year. Under the legislation, the federal government would fully fund SNAP benefits only for states that make mistakes in fewer than six percent of their payments to people. Just seven states–Idaho, Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming–met that threshold last year, according to federal data. Nationwide, nearly eleven percent of SNAP payments had errors last year. Starting in 2028, states with error rates greater than six percent will have to cover between five percent and fifteen percent of the cost of SNAP benefits. Those with higher error rates generally must pay more, but a Senate amendment delays the cost-share implementation to as late as 2030 for states with the highest mistake rates. As a result of the cost shift, the CBO assumes that some states would reduce or eliminate SNAP benefits for people. Margin: 1. The legislation containing the SNAP changes passed the Senate 51–50. Vice President JD Vance, in his role as Senate president, cast the tie-breaking vote. The House then gave final approval to the bill 218–214.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Putin told Trump will not ‘give up' aims in Ukraine: Kremlin
MOSCOW: Russian leader Vladimir Putin told US President Donald Trump by telephone on Thursday that Moscow will not 'give up' on its aims in Ukraine, the Kremlin pair spoke as US-led peace talks on ending the more than three-year-old conflict in Ukraine have stalled and after Washington paused some weapons shipments to Kremlin said the call lasted almost an has been frustrated with both Moscow and Kyiv as US efforts to end fighting have yielded no breakthrough.'Our president said that Russia will achieve the aims it set, that is to say the elimination of the root causes that led to the current state of affairs,' Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov told reporters.'Russia will not give up on these aims.'Moscow has long described its maximalist aims in Ukraine as getting rid of the 'root causes' of the conflict, demanding that Kyiv give up its NATO offensive in Ukraine has killed hundreds of thousands of people and Russia now controls large swathes of eastern and southern so, Putin told Trump that Moscow would continue to take part in negotiations.'He also spoke of the readiness of the Russian side to continue the negotiation process,' Ushakov added.'Vladimir Putin said that we are continuing to look for a political, negotiated solution to the conflict,' Ushakov has for months refused to agree to a US-proposed ceasefire in and its Western allies have accused Putin of dragging out the process while pushing on with Russia's advance in Kremlin said that Putin had also 'stressed' to Trump that all conflicts in the Middle East should be solved 'diplomatically,' after the US struck nuclear sites in Russia's ally and Trump spoke as Kyiv said that Russian strikes on Thursday killed at least eight people in President Volodymyr Zelensky was visiting ally Denmark on Thursday.A senior Ukrainian official told AFP that Trump and Zelensky planned to speak to each other on US deciding to pause some weapons shipments has severely hampered Kyiv, which has been reliant on Western military support since Moscow launched its offensive in told EU allies in Denmark that doubts over US military aid reinforced the need for greater cooperation with Brussels and stressed again that Kyiv had always supported Trump's 'unconditional ceasefire.'On Wednesday, Kyiv scrambled to clarify with the US what a White House announcement on pausing some weapons shipments meant.'Continued American support for Ukraine, for our defense, for our people is in our common interest,' Zelensky had said on has consistently called for Western countries to stop sending weapons to Kyiv.
