US, China seal framework deal on trade, rare earths in focus
BEIJING: China confirmed Friday details on the framework of a trade deal with the United States, saying Washington would lift "restrictive measures" while Beijing would "review and approve" items under export controls.
A top priority for Washington in talks with Beijing had been ensuring the supply of the rare earths essential for products including electric vehicles, hard drives and national defence equipment.
China, which dominates global production of the elements, began requiring export licences in early April, a move widely viewed as a response to blistering tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump.
The two sides agreed after talks in Geneva in May to temporarily lower steep tit-for-tat tariffs on each other's products.
China also committed to easing some non-tariff countermeasures but US officials later accused Beijing of violating the pact and slow-walking export licence approvals for rare earths.
They eventually agreed on a framework to move forward with their Geneva consensus following talks in London this month.
A White House official told AFP on Thursday that the Trump administration and China had "agreed to an additional understanding for a framework to implement the Geneva agreement."
That clarification came after the US president told an event that Washington had "just signed" a deal relating to trade with China, without providing further details.
Beijing confirmed on Friday that an agreement had been reached.
"It is hoped that the United States and China will meet each other halfway," a spokesperson for the commerce ministry said in a statement.
It said both sides had "further confirmed the details of the framework."
Under the deal, China "will review and approve applications for the export control items that meet the requirements in accordance with the law."
"The US side will correspondingly cancel a series of restrictive measures against China," the commerce ministry said.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday that Washington could wrap up its agenda for trade deals by early September, indicating more agreements could be concluded although likely extending past an upcoming deadline.
Speaking to Fox Business ahead of a July 9 deadline for steeper US duties to kick in on dozens of economies, Bessent reiterated that there are 18 key partners Washington is focused on pacts with.
"If we can ink 10 or 12 of the important 18, there are another important 20 relationships, then I think we could have trade wrapped up by Labour Day," Bessent said. That holiday falls on September 1.
About the July date, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg Television on Thursday that "we're going to do top 10 deals, put them in the right category, and then these other countries will fit behind."
Countries have been moving to negotiate and reach trade pacts with Washington to avoid further tariff hikes following a 10 per cent levy Trump imposed on most trading partners in April.
Wall Street's major indexes bounced on hopes for deals with China and others. The broad-based S&P 500 hit a new record in a stunning comeback from lows in April, while most stock markets rose in Europe and Asia indexes were mixed.
The White House suggested Thursday that the Trump administration could extend the July deadline.
Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday: "Perhaps it could be extended, but that's a decision for the president to make."
She added: "The deadline is not critical."
"The president can simply provide these countries with a deal if they refuse to make us one by the deadline," she said.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
3 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Court rejects Netanyahu's request to postpone graft trial hearings
Supporters of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu describe the long-running trial as politically motivated. (EPA Images pic) JERUSALEM : An Israeli court today rejected prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's request to postpone giving testimony in his corruption trial, after US President Donald Trump said the case should be cancelled. Netanyahu's lawyer on Thursday asked the court to excuse the leader from hearings over the next two weeks, saying he needed to concentrate on 'security issues' after Israel's 12-day war with Iran. The Jerusalem district court said in a judgement published online that 'in its current form (his request) does not provide a basis or detailed justification for the cancellation of the hearings'. Trump on Wednesday described the case against Netanyahu as a 'witch hunt', saying the trial 'should be CANCELLED, IMMEDIATELY, or a Pardon given to a Great Hero'. Netanyahu has thanked Trump for his support in Israel's brief war against Iran, which ended with a ceasefire on June 24. Netanyahu has denied any wrongdoing and his supporters have described the long-running trial as politically motivated. In a first case, he and his wife, Sara, are accused of accepting more than US$260,000 worth of luxury goods such as cigars, jewellery and champagne from billionaires in exchange for political favours. In two other cases, Netanyahu is accused of attempting to negotiate more favourable coverage from two Israeli media outlets. During his current term since late 2022, Netanyahu's government has proposed a series of far-reaching judicial reforms that critics say were designed to weaken the courts. Netanyahu has requested multiple postponements in the trial since it began in May 2020, citing the war in Gaza which started in 2023, later fighting in Lebanon and this month the conflict with Iran.
The Star
5 hours ago
- The Star
In win for Trump, US Supreme Court limits judges' power to block birthright citizenship order
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow on Friday to the power of federal judges by restricting their ability to grant broad legal relief in cases as the justices acted in a legal fight over President Donald Trump's bid to limit birthright citizenship, ordering lower courts that blocked the policy to reconsider the scope of their orders. However, the court's 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not let Trump's policy go into effect immediately and did not address the policy's legality. The justices granted a request by the Trump administration to narrow the scope of three nationwide injunctions issued by federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state that halted enforcement of his directive while litigation challenging the policy plays out. The ruling was written by conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett. With the court's conservatives in the majority and its liberals dissenting, the ruling specified that Trump's executive order cannot take effect until 30 days after Friday's ruling. "No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation - in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberal members, wrote, "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump welcomed the ruling in a social media post. "GIANT WIN in the United States Supreme Court," Trump wrote on Truth Social. On his first day back in office, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the United States who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also called a "green card" holder. More than 150,000 newborns would be denied citizenship annually under Trump's directive, according to the plaintiffs who challenged it, including the Democratic attorneys general of 22 states as well as immigrant rights advocates and pregnant immigrants. The case before the Supreme Court was unusual in that the administration used it to argue that federal judges lack the authority to issue nationwide, or "universal," injunctions, and asked the justices to rule that way and enforce the president's directive even without weighing its legal merits. In her dissent, Sotomayor said Trump's executive order is obviously unconstitutional. So rather than defend it on the merits, she wrote, the Justice Department "asks this Court to hold that, no matter how illegal a law or policy, courts can never simply tell the Executive to stop enforcing it against anyone." "The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along." Federal judges have taken steps including issuing nationwide orders impeding Trump's aggressive use of executive action to advance his agenda. 'ILLEGAL AND CRUEL' The American Civil Liberties Union called the ruling troubling, but limited, because lawyers can seek additional protections for potentially affected families. "The executive order is blatantly illegal and cruel. It should never be applied to anyone," said Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project. "The court's decision to potentially open the door to enforcement is disappointing, but we will do everything in our power to ensure no child is ever subjected to the executive order." The plaintiffs argued that Trump's directive ran afoul of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War of 1861-1865 that ended slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause states that 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." The administration contends that the 14th Amendment, long understood to confer citizenship to virtually anyone born in the United States, does not extend to immigrants who are in the country illegally or even to immigrants whose presence is lawful but temporary, such as university students or those on work visas. Washington state Attorney General Nick Brown, whose state helped secure the nationwide injunction issued by a judge in Seattle, called Friday's ruling "disappointing on many levels" but stressed that the justices "confirmed that courts may issue broad injunctions when needed to provide complete relief to the parties." In a June 11-12 Reuters/Ipsos poll, 24% of all respondents supported ending birthright citizenship and 52% opposed it. Among Democrats, 5% supported ending it, with 84% opposed. Among Republicans, 43% supported ending it, with 24% opposed. The rest said they were unsure or did not respond to the question. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has handed Trump some important victories on his immigration policies since he returned to office in January. On Monday, it cleared the way for his administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In separate decisions on May 30 and May 19, it let the administration end the temporary legal status previously given by the government to hundreds of thousands of migrants on humanitarian grounds. But the court on May 16 kept in place its block on Trump's deportations of Venezuelan migrants under a 1798 law historically used only in wartime, faulting his administration for seeking to remove them without adequate due process. The court heard arguments in the birthright citizenship dispute on May 15. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the administration, told the justices that Trump's order "reflects the original meaning of the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed citizenship to the children of former slaves, not to illegal aliens or temporary visitors." An 1898 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case called United States v. Wong Kim Ark long has been interpreted as guaranteeing that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to American citizenship. Trump's administration has argued that the court's ruling in that case was narrower, applying to children whose parents had a "permanent domicile and residence in the United States." Universal injunctions have been opposed by presidents of both parties - Republican and Democratic - and can prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone, instead of just the individual plaintiffs who sued to challenge the policy. Proponents have said they are an efficient check on presidential overreach, and have stymied actions deemed unlawful by presidents of both parties. (Reporting by Andrew Chung; Editing by Will Dunham)
New Straits Times
6 hours ago
- New Straits Times
US, China seal framework deal on trade, rare earths in focus
BEIJING: China confirmed Friday details on the framework of a trade deal with the United States, saying Washington would lift "restrictive measures" while Beijing would "review and approve" items under export controls. A top priority for Washington in talks with Beijing had been ensuring the supply of the rare earths essential for products including electric vehicles, hard drives and national defence equipment. China, which dominates global production of the elements, began requiring export licences in early April, a move widely viewed as a response to blistering tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump. The two sides agreed after talks in Geneva in May to temporarily lower steep tit-for-tat tariffs on each other's products. China also committed to easing some non-tariff countermeasures but US officials later accused Beijing of violating the pact and slow-walking export licence approvals for rare earths. They eventually agreed on a framework to move forward with their Geneva consensus following talks in London this month. A White House official told AFP on Thursday that the Trump administration and China had "agreed to an additional understanding for a framework to implement the Geneva agreement." That clarification came after the US president told an event that Washington had "just signed" a deal relating to trade with China, without providing further details. Beijing confirmed on Friday that an agreement had been reached. "It is hoped that the United States and China will meet each other halfway," a spokesperson for the commerce ministry said in a statement. It said both sides had "further confirmed the details of the framework." Under the deal, China "will review and approve applications for the export control items that meet the requirements in accordance with the law." "The US side will correspondingly cancel a series of restrictive measures against China," the commerce ministry said. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Friday that Washington could wrap up its agenda for trade deals by early September, indicating more agreements could be concluded although likely extending past an upcoming deadline. Speaking to Fox Business ahead of a July 9 deadline for steeper US duties to kick in on dozens of economies, Bessent reiterated that there are 18 key partners Washington is focused on pacts with. "If we can ink 10 or 12 of the important 18, there are another important 20 relationships, then I think we could have trade wrapped up by Labour Day," Bessent said. That holiday falls on September 1. About the July date, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg Television on Thursday that "we're going to do top 10 deals, put them in the right category, and then these other countries will fit behind." Countries have been moving to negotiate and reach trade pacts with Washington to avoid further tariff hikes following a 10 per cent levy Trump imposed on most trading partners in April. Wall Street's major indexes bounced on hopes for deals with China and others. The broad-based S&P 500 hit a new record in a stunning comeback from lows in April, while most stock markets rose in Europe and Asia indexes were mixed. The White House suggested Thursday that the Trump administration could extend the July deadline. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters Thursday: "Perhaps it could be extended, but that's a decision for the president to make." She added: "The deadline is not critical." "The president can simply provide these countries with a deal if they refuse to make us one by the deadline," she said.
