US and China sign trade agreement, Donald Trump says
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg TV that the deal was signed earlier this week. Neither Mr Lutnick nor Mr Trump provided any details about the agreement.
'We just signed with China the other day,' Mr Trump said late on Thursday.
Mr Lutnick said the deal was 'signed and sealed' two days earlier.
It follows initial talks in Geneva in early May that led both sides to postpone massive tariff hikes that were threatening to freeze much trade between the two countries.
Later talks in London set a framework for negotiations and the deal mentioned by Mr Trump appeared to formalise that agreement.
Mr Lutnick said: 'The president likes to close these deals himself. He's the dealmaker. We're going to have deal after deal.'
China has not confirmed any new agreements, but it announced earlier this week that it was speeding up approvals of exports of rare earths, materials used in high-tech products such as electric vehicles.
Beijing's limits on exports of rare earths have been a key point of contention.
The Chinese Commerce Ministry said on Thursday that Beijing was accelerating a review of export licence applications for rare earths and had approved 'a certain number of compliant applications'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
9 minutes ago
- BBC News
What to know about the Supreme Court birthright citizenship case
The Supreme Court is expected to decide one of the most consequential cases in modern US history on Friday - whether a single federal judge can block an order from the US president from taking effect case stems from President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship, which has been frozen by multiple lower Supreme Court is not likely to rule on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship itself. It will instead focus on federal judges' use of nationwide injunctions, which have stunted key aspects of Trump's agenda. The Trump administration has argued that the judges have overstepped their power, but others say the injunctions are needed to avoid "chaos". A quick road to the Supreme Court On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at ending automatic citizenship rights for nearly anyone born on US territory - commonly known as "birthright citizenship".The move was instantly met by a series of lawsuits that ended in judges in district courts in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the order from taking Washington, US District Court Judge John Coughenour called Trump's executive order "blatantly unconstitutional". Trump's Department of Justice responded by saying the case did not warrant the "extraordinary measure" of a temporary restraining order and appealed the case to the Supreme Court. Injunctions have served as a check on Trump during his second term, amid a flurry of executive orders signed by the 40 different court injunctions have been filed this year. This includes two lower courts that blocked the Trump administration from banning most transgender people from the military, although the Supreme Court eventually intervened and allowed the policy to be the case being heard at the nation's highest court is not about birthright citizenship directly - but about whether lower courts should have the authority to block nationwide presidential orders with injunctions. The argument against court injunctions The issue of nationwide injunctions has long troubled Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum. Conservative and liberal justices alike have argued that a judge in one district should not be able to unilaterally decide policy for the entire country. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan said in remarks in 2022: "It can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process."Similarly, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas once wrote that "universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious". Injunctions are also criticised for enabling what is known as forum shopping - the practice of filing a lawsuit in a jurisdiction where a more favourable ruling is critique of injunctions is the speed at which they are delivered versus their far-reaching impact. The Trump administration is arguing in the birthright citizenship case that lower judges did not have the right to put time-consuming legal obstacles in front of the Trump's agenda. The arguments for nationwide injunctions Without nationwide injunctions, backers of the measure say the power of the executive branch could go unchecked and leaves the burden of protection from potentially harmful laws on individuals who would need to file separate lawsuits. Injunctions are often the only legal mechanism to prevent Trump's executive orders from taking immediate legal effect. Such orders are a marked contrast from laws passing through Congress, which takes longer and subjects them to additional Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the Trump administration's argument advocated for a "catch me if you can" justice system."Your argument says 'we get to keep on doing it until everyone who is potentially harmed by it figures out how to file a lawsuit, hire a lawyer, etc,'" Jackson said. "I don't understand how that is remotely consistent with the rule of law," she other argument for injunctions is that it allows for consistency in the application of federal laws. Lawyers arguing against the Trump administration have said that, in the birthright citizenship case, there would be "chaos" in the absence of a nationwide injunction, creating a patchwork system of citizenship. What are the arguments around birthright citizenship? The first sentence of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution establishes the principle of birthright citizenship."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."However, the Trump administration's arguments rest on the clause in the 14th Amendment that reads "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". It argues that the language excludes children of non-citizens who are in the US legal scholars say President Trump cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive the 15 May hearing, Justice Kagan noted that the administration had lost on the birthright citizenship issue in every lower court and asked: "Why would you ever take this case to us?" Here are some of the ways the justices could rule On nationwide injunctions, the justices could say injunctions can only apply to the people who sued, including class actions, as government lawyers have advocated justices could also say injunctions can only apply in the states where the cases are brought, or that injunctions can only be issued on constitutional questions (like birthright citizenship). Constitutional questions, though, concern the bulk of the cases with nationwide injunctions that the Trump administration is appealing. If the court rules the injunctions should be lifted, then the Trump administration could deny birthright citizenship to children of undocumented immigrants while the court cases the injunctions hold, the individual court cases challenging the birthright citizenship order will likely work their way to the Supreme Court. The high court could decide on the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, but justices have indicated they would prefer a separate, full hearing on the could also give indications or hints in their written opinion on which way they are leaning on the citizenship question, without ruling directly on it.
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Former CIA director says people must understand ‘how dangerous a world we live in right now' in the wake of Trump's Iran strike
Leon Panetta, the former director of the CIA during Barack Obama 's first term, has warned that President Donald Trump 's decision to bomb Iran – and the intelligence disputes surrounding it – only serve to emphasize 'how dangerous a world we live in right now.' Panetta, 86, who also served as Bill Clinton 's chief of staff and currently co-hosts the foreign policy podcast One Decision, told The i Paper: 'I don't think there's any alternative but to understand how dangerous a world we live in right now. 'Not only because of the adversaries that are out there – whether it's China, or Russia, or North Korea, or Iran, or terrorism – but also because of the concerns about leadership, and whether or not the U.S. will exercise the right kind of leadership in a dangerous world.' After Israel launched air strikes against Iran on Friday June 13 as part of its Operation Rising Lion offensive, intended to stop Tehran developing a nuclear weapon, Trump initially kept his distance before dropping bunker-busting bombs on three Iranian uranium enrichment sites over the weekend. In the run-up, the president dismissed the significance of his own Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard briefing Congress in March that Iran was not currently advancing its efforts to build a weapon of mass destruction. He also sidelined her from Situation Room meetings discussing the conflict but offered no evidence of his own to contradict her assessment. The president and his administration have since attacked The New York Times and CNN for reporting on a U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that found the damage done to the Fordo, Natanz, and Esfahan facilities was not as severe as Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had indicated. Responding to those tensions, Panetta said: 'There's no question that when the U.S. president makes a statement that our intelligence assessments are wrong and doesn't believe our own intelligence, that creates a very dangerous moment. 'It undermines the work of our intelligence professionals who really are focused on trying to provide the president with the truth. When the president questions their credibility, that certainly undermines their morale, I'm sure. 'But secondly, it also creates a real problem for the president, because if he rejects the intelligence he's receiving, then what will be the basis for the decisions that he makes in the future, and that is a very scary prospect.' The former official added: 'I have always been confident about our intelligence assessments with regards to Iran… The fundamental question is: did they make a decision to proceed with developing a weapon? And I think our intelligence indicates that that still was not the case.' For Panetta, the episode provides the latest example of Trump's 'unpredictability' as a leader, which poses a risk to America's NATO allies, who met this week in the Netherlands, at a time of heightened international unease. 'It really does rest with our European allies to do everything necessary to make sure that NATO is prepared militarily, to be able to respond if necessary,' he said.
Reuters
20 minutes ago
- Reuters
Czechs say China followed, planned intimidation of Taiwan vice-president
PRAGUE, June 27 (Reuters) - Chinese diplomats and secret service followed Taiwan's Vice-President-elect Hsiao Bi-khim and planned to intimidate her physically when she visited Prague last year, Czech military intelligence said on Friday. Hsiao visited the Czech Republic in March 2024. Prague does not have official diplomatic ties with Taiwan but has fostered warm relations with the democratically-governed island, which China views as its own territory. Czech media reported last year that a Chinese diplomat had run a red light when following her car. Czech public radio news website said on Thursday that the Chinese had also planned to stage a demonstrative car crash. Czech Military Intelligence spokesman said Chinese diplomats in Prague had taken actions that violated diplomatic rules. "This consisted of physically following the vice-president, gathering information on her schedule and attempts to document her meetings with important representatives of the Czech political and public scene," spokesman Jan Pejsek said in emailed comments to Reuters. "We even recorded an attempt by the Chinese civil secret service to create conditions to perform a demonstrative kinetic action against a protected person, which however did not go beyond the phase of preparation." A spokesperson for China's foreign ministry, commenting on the matter, denied any wrongdoing by Chinese diplomats and also said the Czech Republic had interfered in China's internal affairs by allowing Hsiao's visit to go ahead. The Czech Foreign Ministry said it had summoned the Chinese ambassador over the incident at the time but did not comment further on Friday. Taiwan's China-policy making Mainland Affairs Council said the Chinese actions "seriously threatened the personal safety of Vice President Hsiao and her entourage". "The Mainland Affairs Council today protested and strongly condemned the Chinese communist's bad behaviour and demanded that the Chinese side should immediately explain and publicly apologise," it said. In Beijing, foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said: "Chinese diplomats have always abided by the laws and regulations of the countries in which they are stationed." "China urges the parties concerned not to be provoked and exploited by separatist forces for Taiwan independence, and to not make a fuss over nothing, engage in malicious speculation, and interfere with and undermine the relations between the two countries." Hsiao assumed office, along with President Lai Ching-te, on May 20 last year. Czech relations with China have cooled in recent years. The Czechs accused China in May of being behind a cyberattack on the foreign ministry. Czech politicians have visited Taiwan and former Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen visited Prague last October.
