Trump hopes China will quickly quadruple its US soybean orders
"China is worried about its shortage of soybeans. Our great farmers produce the most robust soybeans. I hope China will quickly quadruple its soybean orders. This is also a way of substantially reducing China's Trade Deficit with the USA. Rapid service will be provided. Thank you President XI," Trump said on Truth Social.
A tariff truce between Beijing and Washington is set to expire on August 12, but the Trump administration has hinted that the deadline may be extended.
China, which takes more than 60% of soybeans shipped worldwide, buys the oilseed mainly from Brazil and the United States.
The most active soybean contract on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) was up 2.13% at $10.08 a bushel at 0446 GMT, having been little changed before Trump's post.
China imported roughly 105 million metric tons of soybeans last year, just under a quarter coming from the U.S. and the remainder from Brazil. Quadrupling shipments would require China to import the bulk of its soybeans from the U.S.
"It's highly unlikely that China would ever buy four times its usual volume of soybeans from the U.S.," Johnny Xiang, founder of Beijing-based AgRadar Consulting, said.
It is unclear if securing China's agreement to buy more U.S. soybeans is a condition for extending the trade truce.
China's Ministry of Commerce did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.
The country has steadily reduced its reliance on U.S. soybeans in recent years, shifting more purchases to South America.
Under the Phase One trade deal signed during Trump's first term, China agreed to boost purchases of U.S. agricultural products, including soybeans. However, Beijing ultimately fell far short of meeting those targets.
This year, amid Washington–Beijing trade tensions, it has yet to buy any fourth quarter U.S. beans, fuelling concerns as the U.S. harvest export season approaches.
"On Beijing's side, there have been quite a few signals that China is prepared to forego U.S. soybeans altogether this year, including booking those test cargoes of soymeal from Argentina," said Even Rogers Pay, an agricultural analyst at Trivium China.
Reuters previously reported that Chinese feedmakers have purchased three Argentine soymeal cargoes as they aim to secure cheaper South American supplies amid concerns about a possible soybean supply disruption in the fourth quarter.
U.S. soybean industry has been seeking alternative buyers, but no other country matches China's scale. Last year, China imported 22.13 million tons of soybeans from the U.S., and 74.65 million tons from Brazil.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Andrew Cuomo swipes at Zohran Mamdani over a classic New York topic: rent
Andrew Cuomo is demanding that his opponent in New York City's mayoral race, Zohran Mamdani, vacate his rent stabilized apartment, while pushing a longshot proposal that would bar other middle-class renters from accessing much of the city's housing. 'I am calling on you to move out immediately,' Cuomo wrote in a widely-viewed social media post this weekend, casting Mamdani as 'a very rich person' occupying an apartment that could otherwise be used by a homeless family. The line of attack drew tens of millions of views online and revived a long-standing debate about who should have access to New York's highly sought-after rent stabilized units, which make up roughly 40% of the city's rental stock and are currently open to people of all incomes. It also illustrated the rhetorical lengths that Cuomo is willing to go to as he mounts an independent bid for mayor against Mamdani, a democratic socialist who defeated him handily in the Democratic primary on a platform that centered on affordability and freezing rent on stabilized units. Mamdani, who earns $143,000 annually as a state legislator, has said he pays $2,300 per month for a one-bedroom apartment in Queens that he shares with his wife — a living situation that Cuomo called 'disgusting.' By contrast, Cuomo, a multimillionaire who previously served as the state's governor, spends roughly $8,000 monthly on an apartment in Midtown Manhattan that he moved to last year from Westchester County, a wealthy suburb. In recent weeks, the 67-year-old Cuomo has adopted a more aggressive social media presence, earning both praise and mockery for his use of millennial internet-speak and repeated references to his opponent's 'privilege.' Mamdani's mother is a successful independent filmmaker and his father is a Columbia University professor. On Monday, Cuomo went a step further, releasing a formal proposal, which he dubbed 'Zohran's Law,' barring landlords from leasing vacant rent stabilized units to 'wealthy tenants,' defined as those who would pay less than 30% of their income toward the existing rent. The rent regulation program, which caps how much landlords can raise rent each year on roughly 1 million apartments, does not currently include any income restrictions — something opponents have long pushed to change. While the average rent stabilized household makes $60,000 annually, it is not uncommon for middle- or higher-income New Yorkers to live in the units, which sometimes rent for several thousand dollars per month. But Cuomo's idea drew swift skepticism from some housing experts, who noted the cap would, by definition, mean all new tenants of rent stabilized units would give up a substantial portion of their income. 'The idea that we should only have people living in apartments they can't afford seems to be setting people up for failure,' said Ellen Davidson, a housing attorney at The Legal Aid Society. 'It's not a proposal from somebody who knows anything about the housing market or New York City.' The Real Estate Board of New York, a landlord group whose members overwhelmingly backed Cuomo in the primary, did not respond to an inquiry about whether they supported the proposal. But in an email, the group's president, James Whelan, said that the 'benefits of rent regulation are not well targeted' and that some form of means testing should be considered. Under state law, hikes on rent-stabilized units are decided by an appointed board, rather than landlords. 'Rent stabilization has never been means tested because it's not an affordable housing program, it's a program about neighborhood stability,' said Davidson, the housing attorney, adding that the proposal would likely present a 'bureaucratic nightmare.' A spokesperson for Cuomo's campaign, Rich Azzopardi, said in a text message that 'the ultra wealthy and privileged should not be taking advantage of a program meant to aide working New Yorkers," adding that the income threshold standards would fall under the same system that governs the city's other programs for low-income housing. Mamdani's spokesperson, Dora Pekec, said the proposal proved that Cuomo was both desperate and out of touch. 'While Cuomo cares only for the well-being of his Republican donors, Zohran believes city government's job is to guarantee a life of dignity, not determine who is worth one,' she added.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
After D.C., Trump wants to ‘takeover' New York and Chicago. Can he?
Donald Trump completed his goal of 'sending in the troops' this week as he announced that the D.C. National Guard would be mobilized to fight crime in the District of Columbia, where federal officials would also be taking over the local police force. But will he stop there, or will other cities be next? After reportedly spending months debating how best to achieve the humiliation and cowing of a liberal-run urban center, the president's second go at it appears on track for greater success. Trump previously ordered National Guard troops to begin protection duties in Los Angeles and the surrounding area following unrest in January over ICE deportation raids. That deployment, once thousands of troops, is now down to less than 300 as federal officials squabble with local leaders in the courts over whether the whole thing was a political stunt. That dynamic playing out on the West Coast is a sign that Trump will likely be less successful at duplicating his takeover of the nation's capital in blue states around the U.S., even as he pledged to do so during his Monday press conference at the White House. "We're not going to lose our cities over this. This will go further. We're starting very strongly with D.C., and we're going to clean it up real quick," Trump told reporters. "We're going to take back our capital. And then we'll look at other cities also. But other cities are studying what we're doing." In D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser has meekly pushed back against the image of her city being 'war-torn' and drug-infested as being shared by the White House. Aside from refusing to sign on to that characterization, she's painstakingly avoided direct confrontation with Trump, clearly fearful that the president (with the backing of a GOP House and Senate) could pursue a full federalization of D.C. city government by asking Congress to revoke the Home Rule Act. The reality is simple: Trump can't deputize federal troops, including state National Guard detachments, to conduct crime-control activities without the cooperation of state leaders and some kind of actual rationalization for doing so. Pointing at crime trends and graphs won't cut it. Especially in states with uncooperative leaders, his deployment of National Guard troops is limited to his administration's ability to come up with rationalizations for their use; in California, Guardsmen were dispatched in response to large-scale protests around federal buildings housing detained undocumented immigrants. In Chicago, Baltimore, New York and other cities, Trump lacks even the minimal standards that the administration would need to defend such deployments. So what can Trump do? The answer may still end up being more than Democratic state and local leaders would like to see from the White House. This week, federal attorneys battled with California in court over whether National Guard troops deployed to the state in June overstepped their constitutional authority by providing support to ICE agents during raids and other enforcement actions, where National Guard troops served to protect law enforcement personnel but were directed not to participate directly in arrests of migrants. The director of the Los Angeles field office testified that the support provided by the Guard on these raids was critical for preventing assaults against officers: "We still had officer assault situations, but they did reduce drastically." That's the loophole Trump and his team will use, should it be upheld as legal. Democratic state leaders can force the Guard to operate under solely federal authority, known as 'Title 10,' which bars troops from performing law enforcement activities and forces them to operate solely with federal funding and oversight. In California's case, this was used; and it severely restricted the usage of the Guard to support roles for enforcement operations. But Trump simply could use further demonstrations against ICE agents as the impetus for launching similar operations in Democrat-run cities such as Chicago or New York. The president needs no additional authority to ramp up immigration raids in those areas, and now has the funding to do it, thanks to the GOP's budget reconciliation package containing money for tens of thousands of new ICE agents and detention centers. It's the question of whether he would be able to sustain a supporting guardsman presence for any extended amount of time, or whether court challenges in those states would force him to close up shop that's still uncertain. Trump could find more leeway in red states, where state governors could cooperate with the Trump administration and change the game. If Guardsmen were activated under 'Title 32' authority, which shares oversight and funding for the deployment between state and federal officials, those deployed troops would not be subject to the same restrictions on carrying out law enforcement activities. It was under this authority that the president is calling in the Guard to Washington D.C., which falls constitutionally under federal jurisdiction and likely can't block the president from wielding that power. Federal officials haven't said that National Guard troops in D.C. will directly conduct law enforcement operations, however. The Guard is currently slated to provide support roles to assist the newly federalized Metropolitan Police Department, the city's primary law enforcement agency. It's a sign that even under the broadest authority Trump is willing to grant U.S. troops operating on American soil, the White House is still hesitant to lean into the full militarization of American cities. As midterm season approaches, Democratic state leaders can likely breathe a sigh of relief knowing that blue states remain shielded from Trump's ambitions of bringing local police forces under his control, and from seeing troops on city streets putting down dissent or conducting law enforcement in an attempt to smear the president's critics as pro-crime. Voters in red states, however, could be in for a ride if the president decides that leaning into immigration raids is his party's ticket to protecting congressional majorities next year.
The Independent
8 minutes ago
- The Independent
Republican's town hall descends into chaos as angry voters rage over Epstein files and Trump agenda
A California lawmaker has become the latest Trump-era Republican to face the ire of his constituents at a town hall that devolved into chaos Monday morning. Doug LaMalfa, a fourth-generation rice farmer who has represented his northern California district since 2013, was booed, jeered and cursed out by angry voters at the local Elks Lodge in Chico over the president's economic policies and the administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein investigation. Over 90 minutes, attendees called LaMalfa a 'liar,' an 'a**hole,' and accused him of 'bull****.' At one point, when the moderator called on one person to ask a question, someone yelled: 'F*** you!' LaMalfa's is the latest GOP town hall to attract irate voters after similar scenes earlier this year in states including Wisconsin, Georgia, and North Carolina. It led National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson to reportedly advise his party's lawmakers to avoid in-person events in March. While Republican leaders previously suggested these hecklers were paid protesters, they have not provided evidence for these claims. The crowd of around 650 people in Chico, a college town 90 miles north of Sacramento, were especially angry over the administration's handling of the Epstein investigation. Last month, the Justice Department and FBI released a joint memo indicating there would be no further disclosures related to the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The apparent lack of transparency over the late sex offender's case was condemned by Republicans and Democrats alike. 'You all left, the Speaker of the House released you guys so you didn't have to deal with releasing the files,' one attendee shouted, referring to House Speaker Mike Johnson's decision to send lawmakers on August recess before they could vote on a resolution calling on the Trump administration to release more information about Epstein. 'It's interesting the Epstein situation was not an issue during the Biden administration,' LaMalfa noted earlier in the town hall. The crowd booed and jeered in response. LaMalfa also called for 'very clear transparency' on the Epstein investigation, and said he hoped more information will be available when Congress returns next month. 'I think it's a bad look to have this information continue to be suppressed, but there's also people involved in the way those files at some level need to be redacted,' he added. One attendee expressed frustration that Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's former girlfriend who is serving 20 years for her role in his sex trafficking scheme, was recently moved to a minimum-security prison in Texas after being interviewed by the Justice Department. 'She needs to still get her time and be held accountable,' the same attendee, who had asked about the Epstein Files, shouted, as LaMalfa nodded along. Another audience member then asked: 'Do you believe that elected officials who knowingly protect and enable criminal behavior, including insurrection, fraud, and sexual abuse, should be removed from office?' LaMalfa looked down during the question, prompting the audience member to shout: 'I'm talking to you, look!' 'If yes, why have you not publicly condemned members of your own party accused of these actions?' the audience member added. 'Everybody should be held accountable whether you're elected or not if you've done an illegal activity,' LaMalfa responded. 'And there you get, you know, the lady was talking about due process, right? Due process for Ghislaine Maxwell, due process for the people on January 6.' 'You should be ashamed of yourself!' an attendee cried out in response. 'That wasn't a good answer?' LaMalfa asked. Several attendees cried out: 'No!' One audience member also asked LaMalfa about the cuts to Medicaid and Medicare under Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill,' a sweeping tax and spending bill he signed into law last month. The legislation is estimated to cut spending on Medicaid, Medicare and Obamacare by $1.1 trillion over the next decade, and 11.8 million people are expected to lose coverage by 2034. LaMalfa claimed there are 'no cuts to the people themselves.' In response, an attendee shouted: 'You're lying!' Another attendee blasted Trump's tariffs, citing the impact on farmers. Under these tariffs, the costs of fertilizers, machinery and other supplies will go up, The New York Times reports. 'If you're not here to either announce your resignation, why aren't you here to apologize to the farmers of the North State because of your support for the Trump tariffs?' the attendee asked. The audience cheered in response to the question.
