Trump says U.S. has signed a deal with China on trade, without giving details
BANGKOK — The U.S. and China have signed an agreement on trade, U.S. President Donald Trump said, adding he expects to soon have a deal with India.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg TV that the deal was signed earlier this week. Neither Lutnick nor Trump provided any details about the agreement.
'We just signed with China the other day,' Trump said late Thursday.
Lutnick said the deal was 'signed and sealed' two days earlier.
It was unclear if the latest agreement was different from the one Trump announced two weeks earlier that he said would make it easier for American industries to obtain much-needed needed magnets and rare earth minerals. That pact cleared the way for the trade talks to continue, while the U.S. agreed to stop trying to revoke visas of Chinese nationals on U.S. college campuses.
China's Commerce Ministry said Friday that the two sides had 'further confirmed the details of the framework.' But its statement did not explicitly mention U.S. access to rare earths, minerals used in high-tech applications that have been at the center of the negotiations.
'China will approve the export applications of controlled items that meet the conditions in accordance with the law. The United States will cancel a series of restrictive measures taken against China accordingly. It is hoped that the United States and China will meet each other halfway,' it said.
The agreement 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 Trump appeared to formalize that agreement.
'The president likes to close these deals himself. He's the dealmaker. We're going to have deal after deal,' Lutnick said.
China has not announced 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 Thursday that Beijing was accelerating review of export license applications for rare earths and had approved 'a certain number of compliant applications.'
Export controls of the minerals apparently eclipsed tariffs in the latest round of trade negotiations between Beijing and Washington after China imposed permitting requirements on seven rare earth elements in April, threatening to disrupt production of cars, robots, wind turbines and other high-tech products in the U.S. and around the world.
China also has taken steps recently on the fentanyl issue, announcing last week that it would designate two more substances as precursor chemicals for fentanyl, making them subject to production, transport and export regulations. Trump has demanded that Beijing do more to stop the flow of such precursor ingredients to Mexican drug cartels, which use them to make fentanyl for sale in the U.S. He imposed 20% tariffs on Chinese imports over the fentanyl issue, the biggest part of current 30% across-the-board taxes on Chinese goods.
The agreement struck in May in Geneva called for both sides to scale back punitive tariff hikes imposed as Trump escalated his trade war and sharply raised import duties. Some higher tariffs, such as those imposed by Washington related to the trade in fentanyl and duties on aluminum and steel, remain in place.
The rapidly shifting policies are taking a toll on both of the world's two largest economies.
The U.S. economy contracted at a 0.5% annual pace from January through March, partly because imports surged as companies and households rushed to buy foreign goods before Trump could impose tariffs on them.
In China, factory profits sank more than 9% from a year earlier in May, with automakers suffering a large share of that drop. They fell more than 1% year-on-year in January-May.
Trump and other U.S. officials have indicated they expect to reach trade deals with many other countries, including India.
'We're going to have deal after deal after deal,' Lutnick said.
Elaine Kurtenbach, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
30 minutes ago
- CTV News
Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear
The U.S. Supreme Court is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington, Dec. 17, 2024. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File) WASHINGTON — A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of non-citizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption. Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration. The U.S. Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings. The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case. As a further fallback, the administration asked 'at a minimum' to be allowed to make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect. ___ Mark Sherman, The Associated Press
Toronto Star
37 minutes ago
- Toronto Star
Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.
Winnipeg Free Press
42 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, but fate of Trump birthright citizenship order unclear
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship. The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption. Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration. The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings. The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case. As a further fallback, the administration asked 'at a minimum' to be allowed to make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect. ___ Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at
