Trump tariffs: US-China trade talks have 'stalled' according to Scott Bessent
Trade negotiations between the United States and China have stalled, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on Thursday, less than three weeks after the two countries agreed to a temporary truce in their ongoing trade war.
A deal was reached earlier this month, following talks in Switzerland, which saw both nations agree to reduce tariffs on each other's goods, suspending some duties for 90 days from 14 May.
The United States lowered tariffs on Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, while China cut its retaliatory tariffs on US goods from 125% to 10%.
Speaking to Fox News, Bessent described the stalled talks as 'a bit stalled' but stressed that discussions were ongoing and expected to resume in the coming weeks.
He indicated that the involvement of both US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping might be necessary to break the deadlock.
There is no better negotiator than @POTUS.
President Trump is carrying out the long-overdue work of rebalancing the global economy to the benefit of the American people.
I am confident that the Chinese, and the rest of our trading partners, will come to the table thanks to his… pic.twitter.com/wNgoLJFpvu
— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) May 29, 2025
'I believe that we will be having more talks with China in the next few weeks and I believe we may at some point have a call between the president and Chinese President Xi Jinping,' Bessent said, adding that the two leaders maintained 'a very good relationship.'
The development comes amid legal challenges to Trump's global tariffs policy.
On Wednesday, the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing some of the tariffs. A day later a federal appeals court temporarily reinstated the most sweeping of President Donald Trump's tariffs.
However, the White House successfully appealed the decision, temporarily reinstating the duties while the case continues.
Trump criticised the ruling on his social media platform, calling it 'horrific' and urging the Supreme Court to reverse the decision 'quickly and decisively.'
The tariffs have been a key element of the Trump administration's strategy to reduce trade deficits, encourage domestic manufacturing, and raise tax revenue by making foreign goods more expensive.
Meanwhile, US trade talks with other countries are expected to continue. Recently, the Trump administration also set a deadline of July 9 to reach a trade deal between the United States and European Union.
Trade experts warn that the ongoing legal uncertainty surrounding the tariffs could weaken US leverage in future trade negotiations.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
42 minutes ago
- Express Tribune
US warns of China threat, urges Indo-Pacific allies to boost defence spending
Listen to article US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned on Saturday that the threat from China was real and potentially imminent as he pushed allies in the Indo-Pacific to spend more on their own defence needs. Hegseth, speaking for the first time at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, Asia's premier forum for defence leaders, militaries and diplomats, underlined that the Indo-Pacific region was a priority for the Trump administration. "There's no reason to sugar coat it. The threat China poses is real, and it could be imminent," Hegseth said, in some of his strongest comments on the Communist nation since he took office in January. He added that any attempt by China to conquer Taiwan "would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world", and echoed Trump's comment that China will not invade Taiwan on the president's watch. China views Taiwan as its own territory and has vowed to "reunify" with the democratic and separately governed island, by force if necessary. It has stepped up military and political pressure to assert those claims, including increasing the intensity of war games around Taiwan. Taiwan's government rejects Beijing's sovereignty claims, saying only the island's people can decide their future. "It has to be clear to all that Beijing is credibly preparing to potentially use military force to alter the balance of power in the Indo Pacific," Hegseth said. China said the comments "were steeped in provocations and instigation". "Mr. Hegseth repeatedly smeared and attacked China and relentlessly played up the so-called 'China threat'," the Chinese embassy in Singapore said on its Facebook page. "As a matter of fact, the U.S. itself is the biggest 'troublemaker' for regional peace and stability." Hegseth's comments on allies needing to increase spending is likely to cause consternation amongst partners, even though experts said he faced a relatively friendly audience in Singapore. China's Defence Minister Dong Jun has decided to skip the major Asian security forum and Beijing has sent only an academic delegation. Hegseth has previously taken aim at allies in Europe for not spending more on their own defence. In February, he warned Europe against treating America like a "sucker" while addressing a press conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels. On Friday, while delivering the keynote address at the Shangri-La Dialogue, French President Emmanuel Macron said Hegseth was justified in asking Europe to increase its own defence spending. Europe stepping up IISS Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth speaks at the IISS Shangri-La Dialogue security summit in Singapore, May 31, 2025. REUTERS/Edgar Su Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab "It's hard to believe, a little bit, after some trips to Europe that I'm saying this, but thanks to President Trump, Asian allies should look to countries in Europe as a new found example," Hegseth said. "NATO members are pledging to spend 5% of their GDP on defence, even Germany. So it doesn't make sense for countries in Europe to do that while key allies in Asia spend less on defence in the face of an even more formidable threat, not to mention North Korea." Dutch Defence Minister Ruben Brekelmans said it was important to have Hegseth acknowledge that European countries were stepping up. "It was for me maybe the first time or one of the first times I heard the U.S administration acknowledge this explicitly," Brekelmans said, referring to Hegseth's comments. U.S. Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth, who is co-leading a bi-partisan delegation to the Shangri-la Dialogue, said it was noteworthy that Hegseth emphasised that the United States was committed to the region, but his language on allies was not helpful. "I thought it was patronising of our friends in the Indo-Pacific in particular," Duckworth said. Spending on weapons and research is spiking among some Asian countries as they respond to a darkening security outlook by broadening their outside industrial partnerships while trying to boost their own defence industries, according to a new study by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, the organisation that runs the Shangri-La Dialogue. The spike comes even as Asian nations spent an average of 1.5% of GDP on defence in 2024, a figure that has kept relatively constant over the last decade, it said. Hegseth suggested that allies in Europe focus on security on the European continent, so that Washington could focus on the threat posed by China in the Indo-Pacific, alongside more participation by allies in Asia. "We would much prefer that the overwhelming balance of European investment be on that continent, so that as we partner there, which we will continue to do, we're able to use our comparative advantage as an Indo-Pacific nation to support our partners here," he said in response to a question after his speech. Hegseth, a former Fox TV host who has spent much of his first months in office focused on domestic issues, spoke to the international audience on topics that he has frequently talked about when in the United States, like "restoring the warrior ethos." "We are not here to pressure other countries to embrace or adopt our politics or ideology. We are not here to preach to you about climate change or cultural issues," Hegseth said. "We respect you, your traditions and your militaries. And we want to work with you where our shared interests align."
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
The U.S. Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation – again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signaled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern U.S. history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' Johnson added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. US says it will start revoking visas for Chinese students 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice - on April 7 and on May 16 - have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention center in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,' the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The U.S. government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on U.S. soil,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States.' A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government $6 million. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' Mukherjee said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017-2021. The Supreme Court gave Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants - often called 'Dreamers' - who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship - a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on U.S. soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being send there. Murphy on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' Johnson said.
Express Tribune
10 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Indian defence chief admits fighter jet losses to Pakistan
Listen to article India's military has officially confirmed the loss its fighter jets during the May clashes with Pakistan, marking the first official acknowledgment of air losses in the ongoing conflict. General Anil Chauhan, Chief of Defence Staff of the Indian Armed Forces, disclosed the information in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Saturday, during the sidelines of the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. However, he denied Pakistan's tally of six Indian jets being shot down, choosing not to specify the exact number of aircraft lost. "What is important is not the jet being down, but why they were being down," Chauhan said. "Numbers are not important." His comments followed confirmation from Pakistan, including a statement by Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, who confirmed that the Pakistan Air Force had downed a sixth Indian aircraft, a Mirage 2000, near Srinagar on the night of May 6-7. Chauhan further discussed tactical mistakes made during the conflict, noting that the Indian military had resumed air operations just two days later and carried out long-range precision strikes. "The good part is that we are able to understand the tactical mistakes, remedy them, and implement them again," he added. While General Chauhan did not specify the number of jets lost, a senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, Subramanian Swamy, had earlier acknowledged the loss of at least five Indian aircraft during the clash against Pakistan. READ MORE: French intelligence official confirms downing of Rafale by Pakistan Speaking on a podcast, Swamy confirmed that Pakistan had downed five Indian fighter jets, including Rafale aircraft, during the military exchange. He further commented on the performance of Indian and Pakistani jets, stating, 'Pakistan shot down five of our aircraft using Chinese fighter jets." He admitted that 'the Chinese jets had outperformed the French Rafales.' Earlier, reports from Pakistan indicated that Indian forces had suffered significant losses during the clashes, including the downing of three Rafale jets, a critical asset for the Indian Air Force. In the wake of these losses, both nations engaged in heavy air strikes, with Pakistan had declaring to have neutralised Israeli-made drones launched by India. READ MORE: US officials confirm Pakistan downed at least two Indian jets, including Rafale On the potential for nuclear escalation, General Chauhan dismissed such concerns, labelling them as "far-fetched". He emphasised that there was a significant gap between conventional operations and the nuclear threshold. Additionally, Chauhan pointed out that communication channels between India and Pakistan remained open throughout the fighting, which helped in managing the situation. "There are more sub-ladders which can be exploited for settling our issues," he said. The conflict between India and Pakistan initially escalated on April 22, after an attack in Pahalgam area of Indian-Ilegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (IIOJK) killed 26 people. India blamed Pakistan for the incident without providing any evidence. Islamabad denied India's claims and called for an independent probe. India then suspended the 65-year-old Indus Waters Treaty, cancelled visas, and closing border crossings leading to tit-for-tat measures by Pakistan. READ: India approves stealth jet plan amid tensions with Pakistan The military engagement further intensified with missile strikes on May 7 targeting several cities in Punjab and Azad Jammu and Kashmir, followed by Pakistan downing Indian warplanes. As hostilities increased, both countries launched military strikes, with India hitting Pakistani airbases and Pakistan retaliating by damaging Indian missile storage sites and other strategic targets. By May 10, US-led diplomatic efforts resulted in a ceasefire agreement, though both countries continue to engage in a war of narratives.
