China: US needs to ‘stop spreading disinformation,' correct ‘wrongful actions'
China said on Tuesday that the United States needs to 'stop spreading disinformation' and correct 'wrongful actions' as the trade tensions between the two countries continue.
China's foreign ministry spokesperson Lin Jian claimed the U.S. 'falsely accuses and smears' China and that Washington has taken 'extreme suppression' measures. He listed 'chip export controls, blocking EDA sales and announcing plans to revoke Chinese students' visas' as actions that have 'seriously disrupted the consensus and hurt China's legitimate rights and interests.'
'China firmly opposes them and has lodged strong protests with the US,' Lin wrote in a Tuesday post on the social media platform X.
Treasury Department Secretary Scott Bessent said on Sunday that President Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping will likely talk 'soon' — a conversation that will include discussing critical minerals.
'I am confident that when President Trump and party Chairman Xi have a call, that this will be ironed out,' Bessent said during his Sunday appearance on CBS's 'Face the Nation.' 'But the fact that they are withholding some of the products that they agreed to release during our agreement — maybe it's a glitch in the Chinese system, maybe it's intentional.'
The world's two biggest economies have accused each other in recent days of violating the terms of the trade agreement struck during the meetings in Geneva last month.
Trump hammered China on Friday, arguing that Beijing violated the terms of the agreement.
'Two weeks ago China was in grave economic danger! The very high Tariffs I set made it virtually impossible for China to TRADE into the United States marketplace which is, by far, number one in the World. We went, in effect, COLD TURKEY with China, and it was devastating for them. Many factories closed and there was, to put it mildly, 'civil unrest.' I saw what was happening and didn't like it, for them, not for us,' the president wrote on Truth Social.
'I made a FAST DEAL with China in order to save them from what I thought was going to be a very bad situation, and I didn't want to see that happen,' the commander-in-chief added.
China fired back on Monday, saying that Washington was in breach of the trade agreement, citing the guidance on chip export controls, the pause of sales of chip design software to China and the revocation of F-1 student visas of Chinese students in the U.S.
After the May talks in Switzerland, the Trump administration brought down the tariffs on Chinese imports from 145 percent to 30 percent. China lowered its duties on U.S. goods from 125 percent to 10 percent.
Lin, the foreign ministry spokesperson, added on Tuesday that pressure and 'coercion are not the right way to engage China.'
'We urge the US to respect the facts, stop spreading disinformation, correct its wrongful actions, and act to uphold the consensus reached between the two sides,' the spokesperson added.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ethics legislation stalls in Springfield as Senate president tries ‘brazen' move that would have helped his election case
In the closing hours of the Illinois General Assembly's spring session, Senate President Don Harmon tried to pass legislation that would have wiped clean a potential multimillion-dollar fine against his political campaign committee for violating election finance laws he championed years ago. Harmon's move came against the backdrop of the former Illinois House speaker's upcoming sentencing for corruption and abuse of power and almost instantly created a bipartisan legislative controversy that resulted in the bill never getting called for a vote. The Oak Park Democrat's maneuver, characterized by critics as 'brazen' and self-serving, also raises anew questions about how seriously political leaders are trying to improve ethical standards in a state government the electorate already holds in low regard. Blowback to Harmon's action, particularly from inside the House Democratic caucus, was so severe it derailed an entire package of new election measures that would have required severe warnings about penalties for noncitizen voting, mandated curbside voting access for the disabled, broadened the ability of voters to cast ballots in centralized locations and provided more detailed public information about voting results. 'This is a terrible look,' said state Rep. Kelly Cassidy, a Chicago Democrat who recalled being one of several who spoke out in a closed-door House Democratic caucus meeting. 'I don't recommend that anybody in our caucus take a vote like that. There was not a single person in that caucus that could defend that vote. … There was a visceral reaction to it in caucus — both to the substance of it and the lack of forewarning.' But in an interview with the Tribune, Harmon repeatedly maintained his effort was justified and disputed criticism that it was self-serving. Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker — who previously said former Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan's February conviction was a 'vital reminder that we must maintain our vigilance in cleaning up government' — also defended Harmon and said their political party takes ethics seriously. Still, Harmon's activity is reflective of a political culture in Springfield where officials talk a good game about the importance of ethics in government but routinely stop short of adopting robust laws governing their conduct. After a legislative session that ended last weekend with lawmakers never advancing significant ethics bills, Democratic House Speaker Emanuel 'Chris' Welch of Hillside maintained that such legislation 'remains a top priority' for him. He pointed to ethics proposals approved during his first year as speaker in 2021 after Madigan was ousted while federal investigators were closing in. Welch said current 'ethics laws and the laws of the state of Illinois worked' in Madigan's case — though his predecessor was charged and convicted under federal, not state, law. 'The system worked. We don't need to rush and react. We need to take our time and get things right. We don't need to react to headlines,' he said. 'We need to make sure things get properly vetted, that the House, the Senate and the governor's office can all come to agreement on these things, and we're committed to doing that.' Madigan, 83, once the state's most powerful politician, faces sentencing Friday after being convicted Feb. 12 by a jury on federal bribery conspiracy and other corruption charges that alleged he used his office to enhance his power, line his pockets and enrich a small circle of his most loyal associates. But pieces of the post-Madigan changes that Welch points to still draw criticism because they are weaker at holding lawmakers in Illinois accountable than laws in other states. In particular, a revolving-door clause only requires lawmakers to wait a maximum of six months to become a lobbyist if they leave office in the middle of their term. And, if they complete their term in office, they can start as a lobbyist the next day. Rep. Patrick Windhorst of Metropolis, the top Republican on the House Ethics & Elections Committee, said the lack of substantive action on ethics this spring should make it 'clear to any objective observer — any observer, really, of the state government — that the Democratic majority does not care about ethics reform, does not believe we need ethics reform and is not going to take serious action to enact ethics reform.' Rep. Maurice West, the Rockford Democrat who chairs the House committee on ethics, said his panel never held hearings on major ethics proposals during the spring session because there was no agreement with Senate Democrats to advance any bill. During the session, West repeatedly said the committee was set to meet to take testimony on proposed ethics changes. 'That was my expectation and hope, that there was going to be a robust conversation on ethics, but I also knew that I had to go through a process. This had to be agreed upon in both chambers to ensure … that we can get it signed into law,' West said. 'And if there's not an agreement, then it's an automatic brick.' After lawmakers adjourned, a spokesperson for Pritzker referred questions about proposed ethics laws to West, who said he had a brief conversation with the governor toward the end of the session about 'how we can partner … and collaborate on ethics over the summer.' 'That's all I have to say when it comes to the governor,' West said, declining to elaborate on any specific proposals. Cassidy, the House Democrat, said it may be time to take up each proposal on its own merits rather than jam them into one bill that requires Democrats in both chambers to agree before a vote is taken on ethics, elections and campaign finance matters. 'I just wonder if maybe we should rethink that,' she said. While any legislative movement on ethics languished in Springfield, Harmon, on the final scheduled day of the session, attempted to statutorily quash his case before the State Board of Elections, which acted following a Tribune review and inquiry about political contributions Harmon received last year. Elections board officials in March informed the Senate president that he had improperly accepted nearly $4.1 million in contributions exceeding the allowed campaign finance limits, and they threatened to levy a substantial fine. Harmon has filed an appeal and said he 'fully complied with the law.' At the heart of the disagreement between Harmon and election officials is a significant and controversial loophole in state campaign finance law. It allows politicians to collect contributions above state limits if any candidate in the race in which they are running — themselves or an opponent — reports reaching a 'self-funding threshold' in which they have given or loaned their campaign funds more than $250,000 for statewide races and more than $100,000 in races for the state legislature or local offices. Originally described as a method allowing a candidate to compete against a wealthy self-funded opponent or to counter a well-funded opposing group's independent expenditures, the loophole has instead become a way for candidates — even if they face no opposition — to accept unlimited contributions by purposely breaking the limits themselves. Harmon, who sponsored the earlier law, has repeatedly done that himself, giving or loaning his campaign fund more than $100,000 — sometimes by just a single dollar — to trigger the so-called 'money bomb' loophole. Harmon did it again for the 2024 campaign season when, in January 2023, he gave his state Senate campaign committee more than $100,000 even though he was not running for office last year. While members of the Illinois House are up for election every two years, state Senate seats have one two-year term and two four-year terms every 10 years. In paperwork filed with the state elections board, Harmon indicated the move allowed him to keep collecting unlimited cash through the November 2024 election. However, board officials informed him that the loophole would be closed after the March 2024 primary. Still, from the March 2024 primary through the end of that year, state records showed his Friends of Don Harmon for State Senate campaign committee collected more than $8.3 million, nearly half of which the state board has now said was over the campaign contribution limits. In appealing the board's case, Harmon's campaign fund acknowledged that, if it loses, it could be subject to a penalty of up to $6.1 million — a figure based on the 150% of the amount the board deems a candidate willingly accepted over the limits — as well as a payment of nearly $4.1 million to the state's general operating fund. Such a massive penalty, however, is unlikely. Politicians frequently challenge the board, and negotiations can result in final fines that are a fraction of the potential penalty. And if Harmon wins the appeal before the elections board, he could end up paying no penalty. In a Tribune interview last week, Harmon defended his eleventh-hour attempt to change state law with a clause that could have eliminated his elections board dispute and potential fine. He said the language he sought to insert in the statute was 'existing law.' But that is Harmon's interpretation of 'existing law,' not the elections board officials'. 'A fundamental notion of campaign finance law is that House candidates and Senate candidates be treated the same,' Harmon told the Tribune. 'The state board staff's interpretation treats House candidates and Senate candidates fundamentally differently.' When pressed on the political optics of his move, Harmon said the new clause 'was just intended to call attention' to differences in the way the board addresses House and Senate candidates. 'We'll revisit the bill after we win the case,' Harmon said, adding, 'We're going to proceed with the case under the law as written.' Welch acknowledged it was a backlash among his House Democrats over the Harmon-backed provision that resulted in the overall bill never advancing. 'I did inform (Harmon) after our caucus that we didn't have support for that, and if a bill came over with that in it, we would not take it,' Welch told the Tribune. Good-government advocates, stymied on key proposals again this spring, were taken aback when the Harmon clause appeared late in the session. 'I thought I'd seen everything, but I was shocked to see it in the bill,' said Alisa Kaplan, executive director of Reform for Illinois. 'It clearly would have changed the law, but it was framed as just a clarification of existing rules so it would apply retroactively to Harmon's case. And it was buried in an enormous omnibus bill … at the last possible minute to minimize discussion. 'Just a breathtakingly cynical use of legal language and procedure,' Kaplan said, adding: 'It's bad enough that legislative leaders regularly abuse the self-funding loophole. We should be closing the loophole, not blowing it wide open for even more opportunities for pay-to-play politics and corruption.' The two-sentence clause Harmon backed would have generally expanded the period that a senator in a four-year term who breaks the caps can keep them off. But the second sentence in the Harmon clause caused the uproar on both sides of the aisle: 'This amendatory Act of the 104th General Assembly is declarative of existing law,' phrasing many lawmakers interpreted to mean that, if passed, could have eliminated Harmon's election board dispute. Sen. Jil Tracy, a Quincy Republican, called the clause 'mind-blowing.' 'The language was brazen,' she said. 'My initial reaction was shock. I couldn't believe the majority would be that brazen.' She said she learned of the clause in the waning hours of the legislative session when a legal staffer told her the proposal would erase Harmon's case before the board. 'That bill would have condoned and made it appropriate to go beyond what the election code allows and to supersede the limits and create a path (to) interpret what President Harmon had done was OK,' said Tracy, a former assistant attorney general who served under both former Republican Jim Ryan and Democrat Lisa Madigan, the former speaker's daughter. 'He still argues what he did was OK, but why do a bill?' asked Tracy, a member of a Senate subcommittee on ethics. At an unrelated appearance in West Chicago on Thursday, Pritzker sought to vouch for Harmon while he said that he and his fellow Democrats in Springfield have sought to clean up a state with a culture of corruption. 'I know that the Senate president doesn't have any intention other than to make the law better,' he said. At the same time, the governor acknowledged he didn't 'know enough about the violations that have been alleged.' Another provision that raised eyebrows in the Harmon-backed legislation would have allowed statewide elected officials and state lawmakers running for federal offices to hold fundraisers on session days and the day before, as long as they're held outside of Sangamon County, which includes Springfield. A statewide ban on such fundraisers was a provision in the 2021 ethics law touted by Pritzker and other top Democrats. The new provision would have benefited Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton, Pritzker's two-time running mate who's running for U.S. Senate, and a handful of state legislators who've declared their candidacies for the U.S. House. The candidates also would have been able to transfer money raised on session days for their federal campaigns into their state accounts, as long as they adhered to state contribution limits. Welch, Harmon and Pritzker's office all said they didn't know the origin of the language, which was presented in a brief committee hearing late on the final day of session as an attempt to align state law with rules governing fundraising for federal candidates. But West, giving the overall package its only public airing, couldn't explain how leaving a restriction in place only for Springfield's home county would pass legal muster. There was a feeling that it would be more ethical to keep in-session political fundraisers 'as far away from the state Capitol as possible,' West said. But Rep. Carol Ammons, an Urbana Democrat, called the provision problematic, saying: 'I don't know what difference it makes what county you're in. If you're fundraising while we're in session, you're fundraising while we're in session.' Chicago Tribune's Jeremy Gorner and Addison Wright contributed.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Has no tax on tips passed? Here's where things stand
As a presidential candidate last year, Donald Trump called for no taxes on tips — an exemption from the federal income tax for all tipped income. So where does that promise stand now? There is a provision in the 'big, beautiful bill' passed by the House in May, which the Senate is now considering. The tax break is included in both the House and Senate versions of the bill, so it seems likely to make it into the final version sent to Trump's desk. Plus, the Senate already voted unanimously on a separate bill that would do the same thing. Here are answers to some common questions about the 'no tax on tips' proposal: Trump first proposed to end taxation on tipped income at a campaign rally on June 9, 2024, in Las Vegas, a direct appeal to the service workers in the swing state's tourism industry. 'So this is the first time I've said this, and for those hotel workers and people that get tips, you're going to be very happy, because when I get to office, we are going to not charge taxes on tips people [are] making,' Trump said. It was part of a broader set of proposals thrown out with little detail during the campaign, including a pledge to exempt overtime pay from income tax. It was one of Trump's more realistic promises, however, as the idea quickly gained bipartisan support, including from Kamala Harris' campaign and Democratic Sen. Jacky Rosen of Nevada plus Republicans such as Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. It was also one of a number of campaign pledges he promised would be fulfilled right away if he won a second term. The Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed the House, includes an income tax exemption for tips. As with the proposed $1,000 baby bonus and the exemption for income tax on overtime pay in the bill, the tips tax break would expire at the end of 2028, days before Trump's term ends. That helps Republicans in Congress keep the apparent cost of the bill down while setting up another fight on the issue just as the next president takes office. Under the House proposal, workers making less than $160,000 per year would qualify for the exemption. Tips would still have to be reported to the IRS, and they would be subject to withholding — meaning money would be taken out of each paycheck but workers would get it back if they were owed tax refunds the next April. Social Security and Medicare taxes would still apply to tipped income. The exemption would not apply to automatic gratuities for large parties at a restaurant and other service charges. The Senate passed a standalone bill called the No Tax on Tips Act in a surprise vote in late May. Rosen brought up the bill as a "unanimous consent" request, an accelerated process typically reserved for more routine issues, such as renaming post offices. But no senator objected, and the bill was quickly passed. The bill would create an income tax exemption of up to $25,000 for workers in jobs that have traditionally received tips who make less than $160,000. The exact jobs covered by the exemption would be decided by the Trump administration within 90 days of the bill's signing. As with the House bill, the Senate version would expire just as Trump leaves office. If it expires, the total cost of the measure would be about $40 billion. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that if the measure is extended over 10 years, it would cost more than $100 billion. The White House Council of Economic Advisers — which works for Trump — estimated that the measure would increase the average take-home pay for tipped workers by $1,675 per year. The Tax Policy Center, however, noted that the amount would vary greatly depending on the job. Half of all wait staff make $32,000 or less a year, which means they already pay little or no federal income tax. But the measure would give a much bigger break to the highest-paid tipped workers who make $60,000 or more a year. "A 20 percent tip on a $200 meal is vastly different than one for the $9.95 special at Mom's Diner," the nonprofit said in an analysis. As with the exemption on overtime pay, there's a wide range of possible outcomes. It's possible that the measure would simply end up reducing the annual tax bill for the top tipped workers and have no other effects. Or it could lead customers to give more — or possibly even less — in tips to wait staff, hairdressers and others once they know the money isn't taxed. Some economists think the exemption would undercut ongoing political efforts to increase the minimum wage for tipped workers, which is currently $2.13 per hour at the federal level. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. "No More Weapons," was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Read more: So what really happened at the cartel training site dubbed 'Mexican Auschwitz'? Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. "Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal," said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. "It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda," said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. Read more: Supreme Court throws out Mexico's suit against U.S. gun makers in a unanimous decision A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico "to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence." The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. "This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States," Sheinbaum said Friday. "But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico." Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Read more: Indigenous activist's disappearance and killing cause outcry in Mexico's Oaxaca state Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. "In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there," U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. "We want to help stop that flow." On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. "This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico," Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. "It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico." Read more: Trump wants to attack drug cartels. How can Mexico respond if he does? In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ("Boss of Bosses") pistol; and a handgun dubbed the "Emiliano Zapata," emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: "It is better to die standing than to live on your knees." Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic "war" on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. "The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups," said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. "And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns." Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
