White House provides reason for not putting tariffs on Russia
US President Donald Trump's administration has not imposed any tariffs on Russia in order not to jeopardize ongoing talks on settling the Ukraine conflict, White House Economic Council director Kevin Hassett has told ABC.
On Tuesday, the US president introduced new dues ranging from 10% to 50% on imported goods from dozens of nations, including China, EU member states, and Japan. The move was part of a broader strategy to promote American industry and correct what Trump described as
'grossly unfair trade imbalances.'
Russia, along with Belarus, Cuba, and North Korea, were absent from the list.
When asked to explain why Moscow was left out, Hassett said,
'There's obviously an ongoing negotiation with Russia and Ukraine,'
adding that the White House did not want to
'conflate the two issues.'
Read more
Trump says his tariff policies 'will never change'
Pressed by ABC on whether it was the right thing to do, the economic council director maintained it would not be wise to
'put a whole bunch of new things on the table in the middle of a negotiation that affects so many American and Ukrainian and Russian lives.'
Reporter George Stephanopoulos then claimed that negotiators
'do that all the time,'
but Hasset responded by saying that it was
'not appropriate to throw a new thing into these negotiations right in the middle of it. It's just not.'
Read more
White House explains Russia's absence from tariff list
Over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has been engaged in talks with Russia to end the Ukraine conflict. Both sides have described the process as productive, and US officials have hinted at a possible ceasefire in the foreseeable future. Moscow has repeatedly signaled it is open to a peaceful resolution as long as its interests and concerns are taken into account.
Earlier this week, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent provided another explanation for Washington's decision not to include Russia in the tariff list, telling Fox News that America
'does not trade meaningfully'
with Moscow, and that sanctions are already
'doing the work that tariffs would.'
American imports from Russia fell to approximately $3 billion in 2024, down 34.2% from the previous year, according to US government data.
The two nations are currently seeing a modest thaw in diplomatic contacts under the new Trump administration. Kirill Dmitriev, Russian President Vladimir Putin's special economic envoy and head of the country's sovereign wealth fund, visited Washington this week for closed-door meetings with administration officials and business leaders in the highest-level Russian visit to the US since the start of the Ukraine conflict.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
3 hours ago
- Russia Today
Mission: Regrettable – Ukraine's drone strike blows up in its face
For most people, June 1st is a cheerful date – the start of summer, a celebration of children. But from 2025 onward, it may also be remembered as the day Ukraine launched its largest covert operation in Russia since the start of the conflict. While the full impact of the operation is still unclear, estimates suggest anywhere from a handful to several dozen Russian aircraft were damaged or destroyed. The precise details will likely remain shrouded in speculation. What is certain, however, is that the Russian military must rethink how it defends strategic facilities. The traditional approach – based on intercepting missiles and deploying advanced air-defense systems – has proven inadequate against cheap drones that can be assembled from off-the-shelf parts and launched from almost anywhere. That lesson is now painfully clear. But the military will draw its own conclusions. Our focus should be on the political meaning of what happened. Make no mistake – this was not just a military act. Like much of what Ukraine does, this was political theater, staged for a very specific audience: Donald Trump. Kiev's objective was simple. Derail the Istanbul negotiations and paint Russia as the intransigent party. How? By provoking a furious response – one that would make headlines, stir outrage inside Russia, and force Moscow to walk away from the table. The idea was to provoke a reaction that Ukraine could then parade before Washington. The message? 'See? We told you they don't want peace. Arm us more!' It's not the first time they've tried this tactic. From the attack on the Kursk Bridge to the shelling of Donbass civilians, Ukraine has repeatedly used provocation as a diplomatic weapon – seeking to engineer Russia's diplomatic isolation by sabotaging any steps toward negotiation. And yet, once again, it didn't work. Despite outrage from parts of Russian society, Moscow did not take the bait. Our delegation flew to Istanbul as planned. There, negotiators presented Ukraine with a memorandum reiterating the same terms previously offered. Not a step back. At the same time, humanitarian agreements were reached – including a new exchange of prisoners and the return of fallen fighters' remains. So did Russia 'turn the other cheek'? Hardly. Moscow has adopted a strategy one might call an 'Italian strike' – doing the bare minimum to deny our enemies a propaganda victory, while withholding the kind of breakthroughs that would reward bad-faith behavior. Yes, the humanitarian measures agreed upon in Istanbul are important. But let's not kid ourselves – they are not steps toward a peace settlement. Politically, the situation is unchanged. However, there is a deeper issue now at play – one with far more serious implications. On June 1st, Ukrainian forces didn't just target military bases. They targeted components of Russia's nuclear deterrent. Under our official doctrine, an attack on the strategic nuclear infrastructure is grounds for the use of nuclear weapons. Now, no one is suggesting we nuke Kiev over a few aircraft, no matter how advanced or expensive. That would be disproportionate. But here lies the paradox: If Russia does nothing, it risks undermining the credibility of its own deterrence posture, and that sends a dangerous message. In the Western capitals and among Ukrainian hawks, there are already whispers: 'If they didn't respond to this, maybe they'll tolerate even more.' That may sound absurd – but that's how these people think. Their fantasies become policy more often than one would like. So what is the answer? Let's be honest: repeating slogans like 'our response will be success on the battlefield' won't cut it here. Ukraine's leadership isn't acting out of military logic, but emotional desperation. Their calculation is political. So Russia's response must be political, too – emotionally resonant, unmistakably firm, and, above all, creative. This doesn't mean rash escalation, but we can't rely on the old playbook. Hitting the same military targets again and again achieves little. Striking Ukraine's energy infrastructure? Done. Launching another missile as a 'demonstration'? Predictable. Escalating to mass casualties? Unnecessary and, frankly, counterproductive. So what's left? Innovation. Russia must now think asymmetrically. That might mean a covert action so unexpected that it catches Ukraine completely off guard. Or it could involve striking symbolic targets that shift the psychological balance. The key is to remind Kiev – and its patrons – that nothing they do goes unanswered, and that the cost of provocation will always outweigh the benefit. In truth, Russia has spent too long responding conventionally to a conflict that is anything but conventional. Our adversaries deal in optics, symbols, and theater. To counter that effectively, we must speak the same language – without abandoning our principles or resorting to theatrics of our own. The June 1st attack was not a turning point. But it was a warning. Not just about drones or airfields, but about perception and power. The next move, as always, is Russia's to make. And this time, it must be something they don't article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
8 hours ago
- Russia Today
Musk deletes Trump-Epstein post
Elon Musk has deleted an X post claiming that US President Donald Trump's name was in the sealed Jeffrey Epstein files, suggesting that this is the real reason they remain classified. On Thursday, Musk wrote: 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' He added: 'Have a nice day, DJT! Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.' In another inflammatory post no longer visible in the entrepreneur's X account, Musk responded 'yes' to a message that said 'Trump should be impeached' and Vice President JD Vance 'should replace him.' The businessman has not commented on the issue yet. Both posts became part of a public feud between Trump and Musk. During last year's election, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX set up and funded a pro-Trump political group, donating over $260 million, and was appointed in January to co-lead the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), tasked with reducing federal bureaucracy and wasteful spending. Musk stepped down last week. The rift started after the billionaire condemned Trump's massive tax-cut bill, which is estimated to add $2.4 trillion to the $36.2-trillion US debt over 10 years, calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' The US president then threatened to cancel federal contracts with Musk's companies. The clash then escalated into a series of jabs on social media. Musk accused the president of 'ingratitude' and threatened to paralyze the US space program by decommissioning the Dragon spacecraft. Trump, for his part, said that the tech billionaire had gone 'crazy' and claimed that Musk was actually upset because he 'took away his EV Mandate.' Following the feud, Tesla's shares dropped by about 14.2% on Thursday at market close, wiping roughly $152 billion off the value of the company. Trump Media stock also fell 8%. Trump had previously pledged to declassify the Epstein files, and in February, US Attorney General Pam Bondi announced the release of the 'first phase' of documents. However, key materials – including flight logs, client names, and contact lists – have remained under seal, fueling speculation about who could be implicated. Epstein, an investment banker with deep connections to political and business elites, was arrested in July 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges. He died the following month in a New York jail in what was officially ruled a suicide, though his death instantly sparked widespread controversy and conspiracy theories.
Russia Today
8 hours ago
- Russia Today
Israeli cabinet minister tells banks to ignore EU sanctions
Israeli banks should provide services to settlers whom the European Union has slapped with sanctions, despite any potential repercussions, the country's Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has insisted. He warned that those failing to comply could be made to pay out hefty compensations. Last July, the EU for the first time in its history imposed punitive measures on five Israeli settlers and three groups over 'serious and systematic human rights abuses against Palestinians' in the occupied West Bank, which is considered part of Palestine under international law. Apart from an EU-wide entry ban and an asset freeze, the sanctions prohibit the 'provision of funds or economic resources, directly or indirectly,' to the affected Israeli nationals. In a post on X on Wednesday, the official, who is known for his far-right views, said that he had sent a letter to the banking supervisor, Dani Khachiashvili, in which he demanded an end to 'the 'zero risk' policy on the part of banks, which leads to the abandonment of Israeli customers under the guise of compliance with foreign sanctions.' Smotrich accused Israeli financial institutions of 'small-mindedness' and unquestioning compliance with 'unjust' EU sanctions. He argued that banks in fact 'have a significant ability to act against' Brussels' punitive measures, by taking legal action and wielding their 'global economic connections.' The official threatened that if his call was not heeded, he would push for legislation that would force Israeli financial institutions to pay out sizable compensations to the affected individuals. The Israeli finance minister further wrote that he could also promote legislation that would require the Bank of Israel to 'open and manage bank accounts for citizens on whom sanctions are imposed.' Speaking to AFP last month, Swedish Foreign Minister Maria Malmer Stenergard said that Stockholm would 'push for EU sanctions against individual Israeli ministers' since there was no 'clear improvement for the civilians in Gaza.' At around the same time, her Slovenian colleague, Tanja Fajon, announced that her country was 'looking into the possibility of sanctions against Israel, alongside France and Ireland.' Also in May, the UK and Canada, which are not part of the EU, along with France, issued a joint statement condemning the ongoing Israeli military campaign in Gaza. The document accused the Israeli government of denying 'essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population' of the Palestinian enclave. London, Ottawa and Paris threatened to 'take further concrete actions,' including 'targeted sanctions,' should 'egregious actions' on the part of Israel continue. The statement also demanded that Israel halt settlement activities in the occupied West Bank.
