Global week ahead: Crunch time for trade talks as Trump's deadline nears
Earlier this month, I wrote about the conundrum facing the newsroom over how to approach President Donald Trump's then-trade talk deadline of July 9. Now, at the end of the month, we find ourselves in a similar position, but this time the date we are all watching is August 1.
Why? Once again, it's another deadline for countries across the globe to try and agree a trade truce with the United States, with the European Union in particular focus this time round.
Debate in the newsroom resurfaces … when is a deadline not a deadline?
The week has become even trickier to predict, with talks between the U.S. and China now taking center stage in Stockholm on Monday and Tuesday — potentially further complicating the picture for Europe.
A U.S. trade agreement with the European Union has seemed tantalizingly close, with CNBC's Silvia Amaro reporting that a 15% baseline tariff rate is the base-case scenario, according to an EU diplomat. These reports drove stock markets across Europe and the U.S. higher last week.
On Friday, however, Trump told reporters there was only a "50-50 chance" of a deal.
As CNBC's Holly Ellyatt explains, the EU is keeping its so-called "trade bazooka" — or Anti Coercion Instrument — warm in case an agreement is not reached by the August deadline.
The corporate world is crying out for an agreement, piling pressure on the European Union to put an end to the uncertainty. Puma, VW, Michelin and other corporates across Europe have downgraded their outlooks citing the impact of tariffs and the ongoing pressure the restrictions are putting on these businesses.
This week, all eyes will be on another raft of earnings from Europe, including banking giants UBS, Santander and Standard Chartered, drinks firm Heineken, pharma giant AstraZeneca and energy major Shell to name a few.
On the data front, GDP growth rates for France, Spain, Germany and Italy will be released on Wednesday, providing insight into the wider impact of the market uncertainty.
Last week, the tricky economic conditions saw the European Central Bank opt for a hawkish hold of the benchmark rate at 2%, with President Christine Lagarde saying the ECB is "in a good place to hold and watch how risks develop over the next few months."
And so Friday August 1st will be a crucial date for market participants and corporates (and the newsroom)… until it isn't.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
a minute ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
China targets 2 Lithuanian banks in response to new EU sanctions
BEIJING (AP) — China imposed sanctions on two Lithuanian banks in what it said was retaliation for the European Union including two Chinese financial institutions in its latest round of sanctions against Russia. Lithuania's UAB Urbo Bankas and Mano Bankas AB are prohibited from having any cooperation with individuals or institutions in China, according to a statement Wednesday from the Ministry of Commerce. The European Union adopted a new round of sanctions against individuals and companies supporting Russia in its war with Ukraine in July, which went into effect August 9. Among them were multiple Chinese companies, although China's Ministry of Commerce did not name which financial institutions were affected. 'The EU, disregarding China's solemn position, insisted on adding two Chinese financial institutions to its sanctions list for alleged involvement in Russia, and formally implemented the sanctions on August 9," said the statement. It added the move "severely damages the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese companies, and has a serious negative impact on China-EU economic and trade relations and financial cooperation." NATO has in the past called China a 'decisive enabler' of Russia's war effort as its companies sold tools, equipment and microelectronics.
Newsweek
2 minutes ago
- Newsweek
It's Time to Restore American Leadership on International Religious Freedom
In February, following President Donald Trump's inauguration, I was in a packed International Religious Freedom (IRF) Summit auditorium when Vice President JD Vance gave an speech, describing IRF as "a topic whose importance grows with each passing moment." He was right, and the landscape of oppression and persecution continues to deteriorate internationally. Regimes, often in the press for their heinous violations of human rights, destabilizing global order and peace, are some of the worst offenders. Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, leading a rogues' gallery of autocratic villains, constantly attack people of faith and places of worship in order to undermine any allegiance that is devoted to a power higher than their own. Additionally, deadly waves of violent extremism in places like Nigeria and India are devastating whole communities and going unchecked. President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation accompanied by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from the White House on June 21, 2025, in Washington,... President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation accompanied by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from the White House on June 21, 2025, in Washington, D.C. More Carlos Barria - Pool/Getty Images There are both humanitarian and deeply strategic reasons for prioritizing international religious freedom in foreign policy. Where such freedoms are safeguarded, democracy is more robust, local and regional conflicts are less likely, cross-border migration is reduced, and prosperity and the prospect of lucrative business and trade opportunities abound. Regimes that do not respect or properly defend the inalienable rights of their citizens to exercise their religious beliefs in freedom are not contributors to international peace and prosperity, and they are not reliable partners. When the United States champions this cause, it strengthens relationships with emerging democracies, builds trust with civil societies, and counters the influence of dictatorships that use religious repression as a weapon of control. President Trump in his first administration demonstrated resolute leadership in prioritizing religious freedom in foreign policy, founding the International Freedom of Religion or Belief Alliance (IRFBA), establishing and hosting annual ministerial conferences to advance the issue with governments around the world, engaging forcefully with nations that violated this right, and advocating for the release of prisoners of conscience. In his address at the IRF Summit, Vance acknowledged that effort, stating, "The first Trump administration took critical steps to protect the rights of the faithful by rescuing pastors persecuted by foreign regimes or bringing relief to faith communities facing genocidal terror from ISIS." While the comments of JD Vance, and the appointment of Marco Rubio as secretary of State—a long-devoted champion of the cause—served as encouraging indicators of the new Trump administration's commitment to advancing this issue in foreign policy, the U.S. is not meeting the standard it has set for itself or fulfilling the role the rest of the free world has come to expect. Other nations are stepping up to the plate. The Czech Republic's Robert Řehák, special envoy for holocaust, interfaith dialogue, and freedom of religion, has been an outspoken and resolute advocate for individuals imprisoned on account of their faith. He has hosted purposeful events on combatting antisemitism and anti-Muslim hate. He will be hosting the annual ministerial for the second time in Prague in November. The U.K. special envoy has launched a focused religious freedom policy platform at the U.K. Foreign Office. Germany recently made the auspicious appointment of veteran member of the Bundestag, Thomas Rachel, as its new commissioner for freedom of religion or belief following their recent elections. Many other nations are driving forward in collaboration to tackle the scourge of persecution. Nevertheless, the outsized power, influence, and resources the U.S. offers are still needed if lasting progress is to be achieved. The U.S. has traditionally served as the elder statesman and guiding light among international partners, but the State Department's absence at the head of the table this year has not gone unnoticed. Congressman Mark Walker was nominated in April to serve as ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom and his background and record offer great promise. The U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee has not yet given the nomination its consideration. At a time when the role of IRF ambassador demands both moral conviction and diplomatic skill, the pastor and former representative from North Carolina offers both. His leadership would immediately enhance America's ability to convene partners, engage international institutions, and ensure that religious liberty remains a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy. His confirmation would enable the U.S. to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with its allies, contributing its considerable influence on the international stage, and working effectively and strategically to defend all who suffer because of their spiritual convictions or religious identities. While delivering on an IRF ambassador would not solve every problem, or in itself represent a giant leap forward in religious freedom policy, it would restore leadership within the State Department, empower the IRF Office to ramp up engagement, and create opportunities for much needed development and innovation in this field. Vice President Vance promised that this administration would do even more than was achieved during Donald Trump's first term to advance religious freedom at home and abroad. With the ongoing rise of authoritarianism around the world, extremists operating at liberty, and faith communities enduring unspeakable persecution, the U.S. Senate must step up and get Walker's confirmation resolved. He and Secretary Rubio would make a powerful alliance at the State Department, strengthening American leadership on this vital issue. Miles P. J. Windsor serves as director of strategic campaigns for international strategies at the Religious Freedom Institute. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
2 minutes ago
- Newsweek
California High-Speed Rail Protects $4B in Federal Funding Amid Lawsuit
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. California officials have reached an agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration that places $4 billion in federal grants for the state's high-speed rail project into a legal trust while a lawsuit challenging the funding cancellation moves through court. The agreement, which the California High-Speed Rail Authority confirmed to Newsweek, would set aside the funding while state authorities worked to prevent President Donald Trump's funding revocation. Why It Matters Years of delays and an inflated budget have damaged public and political faith in California's high-speed rail project, but the past few years have seen progress, with construction happening throughout the state and tracklaying set to begin later this year. Proponents of the project say that to call if off now, as many of its detractors in the White House desire, would waste years of advancement. That has not stopped Trump, a long-standing critic of the project, from regularly threatening to take away the federal funding that has been vital to the project's progress, a threat he and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy carried out in July. An Amtrak Pacific Surfliner train headed north arrives at the Moorpark Train Station in Moorpark, California, on June 15, 2024. An Amtrak Pacific Surfliner train headed north arrives at the Moorpark Train Station in Moorpark, California, on June 15, 2024. Getty Images What To Know The agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration places the contested $4 billion into a legal trust, which state officials said would prevent the funds from being redirected while the legal challenge proceeded. The California High-Speed Rail Authority, which does not comment on pending litigation, confirmed to Newsweek that the agreement had been reached. The authority has previously called the Trump administration's funding decision an "unwarranted and unjustified" move that was "based on an inaccurate, often outright-misleading, presentation of the evidence." The project has faced long-running delays and cost increases since voters approved it in 2008, with early estimates near $33 billion and more recent estimates ranging broadly in reporting between roughly $128 billion and $135 billion. The authority and state officials have pointed to continuing construction milestones. Officials said the project had entered or neared a tracklaying phase, with 171 miles under active construction and more than 50 major structures completed. What People Are Saying California Senator Dave Cortese, the chair of the Senate Transportation Committee, said in a statement on the agreement: "I'm encouraged that the California High-Speed Rail Authority has reached an agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration to prevent $4 billion in federal high-speed rail funding from being lost while litigation is pending. "These funds were terminated under the Trump Administration following a compliance review, despite no findings of fraud, waste, or abuse. The Authority promptly challenged that decision in court, and this agreement ensures that the funding will remain available until the legal process is resolved. "As Chair of the California Senate Transportation Committee, I will continue to defend our progress on high-speed rail, and efforts like my bill SB 545 will help secure opportunities for major residential and commercial development along the high-speed rail corridor, creating the kind of public-private synergy that can help fund the infrastructure of the project itself and deliver long-overdue economic benefits to communities across the state." What Happens Next The state's lawsuit challenging the federal withdrawal was filed in U.S. District Court. Initial litigation is expected to proceed in the coming months, with the trust arrangement intended to keep the grants intact until the court resolves the dispute.
