Donald Trump to set unilateral tariff rates for trading partners within two weeks, ‘Can take it or leave it'
United States President Donald Trump on June 11 said he intends to send letters to trading partners within the next week or two setting unilateral tariff rates, according to a Bloomberg report. The move will come ahead of a July 9 deadline to reimpose higher duties on severeal countries, it added.
Speaking to reporters, Donald Trump said, 'At a certain point, we're just going to send letters out. And I think you understand that, saying this is the deal, you can take it or leave it.'
When reporters questioned if countries would get more time to make trade deals before the higher tariffs start, the US president said he would be open to it, but 'But I don't think we're gonna have that necessity'.
While Donald Trump had initially said he would engage in talks with each country, the US strategy has since moved towards prioritising key economic partners with the administration acknowledging that it lacks the capacity to negotiate dozens of individual deals, the report said.
While deals with China and the United Kingdom have had extensive discussions and 'near' completion, Trump's team is working to secure bilateral deals with India, Japan, South Korea and the European Union.
Also speaking to reporters on June 11, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said that a deal with the EU is likely to be among the last to be completed, expressing frustration with conducting talks with a 27-nation bloc.
At present it is unclear if Donald Trump will follow through with his intent as he has often set two-week deadlines only for dates to be postponed or for the matter to be dropped, the report noted.
Notably, on May 29, a reporter invited Donald Trump ire by asking his opinion on Wall Street dubbing his tariffs plan as TACO i.e. Trump Always Chickens Out — mocking the US president's frequent tariff impositions and subsequent reductions, followed by waivers. A visibly offended Donald Trump went on a defensive rant: 'Don't ever say what you said. To me, that's the nastiest question.'
In April, the US president announced higher tariffs for dozens of trading partners, and then paused action for 90 days. Then, on May 16, Donald Trump said he would be setting tariff rates for US trading partners 'over the next two to three weeks'. Till date (June 11 last), the only trade framework the US has reached is with the UK, along with a shaky tariff truce with China.
First coined by The Financial Times' Robert Armstrong, the term 'TACO' has been picked up for use by Wall Street traders, who see large sell-offs each time Donald Trump's tariffs are announced, followed by recovery when the demand is cut down or removed.
(With inputs from Bloomberg)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
12 minutes ago
- Business Standard
India, EU aim to finalise FTA by end of this year, says Jaishankar
External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar said on Friday that India and EU have set the goal of trying to complete the Free Trade Agreement by end this year and noted that the negotiators and the stakeholders are reacting to a global environment where the importance of doing this FTA has become much more. Jaishankar, who is in France as part of his three-nation visit, said India also seeks to conclude a defence and security partnership with the European Union. "We are putting so much focus on Europe because we can see a quantum jump into multipolarity. There's a realisation in Europe that a lot of its problems and solutions will have to be analysed and thought through by Europe itself. Today's Europe is more self-aware, self-reliant and strategically autonomous, and will want to look for partners who can work with Europe in that respect... That gives an additional impetus to India-Europe relations, which were evolutionary, but I predict a very sharp acceleration in that," he said "In Brussels, we made strong progress in our Free Trade Agreement negotiations. We seek to conclude a defence and security partnership with the European Union. We are looking at a space agreement. We have individual agreements with the states of Europe on talent mobility. We are now trying to see if we can get across an understanding across the entire Union... There is a lot of discussion about connectivity because if you're going to do more business and we're all trying to de-risk and stabilise the global economy, connectivity is very much part of that conversation," he added. He spoke about the progress in FTA negotiations. "We have set the goal of trying to complete it by this year. I'm told that half the chapters are done, and for the remaining half, considerable progress has been made. Our trade ministers have met 3 times in the last 6 weeks. We will see another round of meetings by the end of this month. There is a certain urgency and energy that is different. The negotiators and the stakeholders are reacting to a global environment where the importance of doing this FTA has become much more," he added. India and France have completed 25 years of strategic partnership. The bilateral relations with France are rooted in deep trust and commitment, and the two countries cooperate closely across all domains of strategic and contemporary relevance besides sharing similar outlook on many regional and global issues.
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump sparks outrage with rambling Russia remarks, critics say he's showing signs of cognitive decline
Donald Trump's mental health is questioned again after he gave a confusing defense of Russia. Trump appeared to wrongly say that Vladimir Putin fought for Russia in World War II, even though Putin was born 7 years after the war ended. People accuse Trump of " cognitive collapse " because of his strange remarks about Russia and Putin's role in WWII, as per reports. Trump said he talked with French President Emmanuel Macron about WWII commemorations before making his confusing speech about Putin. Trump said, "I happened to speak to President Putin at the time. Now in all fairness to him, he lost 51 million people and he did fight." Trump made a historical mistake because Putin was born in 1952, and World War II ended in 1945, so he couldn't have fought in it. Trump said, "It's kind of interesting, he fought with us in WWII and everyone hates him, but Germany and Japan are fine. One day someone will explain that. I like Germany and Japan too," as reported by the Irish Star. Trump and wrong facts Trump said Putin doesn't understand why people dislike Russia, even though they were allies in WWII and lost many lives. But reports say Trump didn't seem to know it was the Soviet Union, not just Russia, that fought in the war. The Soviet Union had 15 countries, like Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus. The modern Russian Federation was created only in 1991 after the Soviet Union broke up. Trump also gave wrong numbers. Live Events According to the Irish Star, the National WWII Museum says the Soviet Union lost around 24 million people in WWII, not 51 million as Trump claimed. Many people online made fun of Trump's comments. One person wrote, "Someone should tell him that Russia now attacks democracies, while Germany and Japan are peaceful friends." Another said, "There was no Russia during WW2." A third questioned, "Putin fought WWII? How old is he then?" Someone else said Trump's brain 'didn't develop normally' and called him 'very ignorant,' as reported by the Irish Star. Another person even said Trump should be arrested for treason, writing, 'Putin was born in 1952... Being friendly with a war criminal isn't foreign policy, it's betrayal.' Critics said Trump's remarks showed signs of "cognitive collapse" and questioned his ability to lead, "Age limits for the presidency FFS. One user wrote, "This old clown mumbling about WW2 is not good." Another said, "Dementia Donnie is rambling again." Someone else called the comments "delusional" and said the room went completely silent, according to the report by Irish Star. FAQs Q1. What's the buzz about Trump and Putin in WWII? Because Trump wrongly said Putin fought in World War II, even though he was born after the war ended. Q2. What is the "cognitive collapse" people mention about Trump? It means people think Trump's thinking and memory may be getting worse due to his confusing comments.
NDTV
22 minutes ago
- NDTV
Trump May Try To Alter AUKUS Deal, But Here's Why He Won't Sink It
The Pentagon has announced it will review the massive AUKUS agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to ensure it's aligned with US President Donald Trump's 'America first' agenda. The US undersecretary of defence for policy, Elbridge Colby, is reportedly going to oversee the review. The announcement has raised concern in Australia, but every government is entitled to review policies that their predecessors have made to consider whether or not there's a particular purpose. The UK has launched a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS too, so it's not actually unreasonable for the US to do the same. There's a degree of nervousness in Australia as to what the implications are because Australia understandably has the biggest stake in this. But we need to consider what Colby has articulated in the past. In his book, The Strategy of Denial: American Defence in the Nature of Great Power Conflict, he made the case the US could 'prepare to win a war with China it cannot afford to lose – in order to deter it from happening'. So, with a deterrent mindset, he sees the need for the US to muscle up militarily. He's spoken about the alliance with Australia in very positive terms on a couple of occasions. And he has called himself an ' AUKUS agnostic ', though he has expressed deep concern about the ability of the submarine industrial base in the US to manufacture the ships quickly enough. And that leads to the fear the US Navy would not have enough submarines for itself if Washington is also sending them to Australia. As part of the deal, Australia would eventually be able to contribute to accelerating the production line. That involves Australian companies contributing to the manufacture of certain widgets and components that are needed to build the subs. Australia has already made a nearly A$800 million (US$500 million) down payment on expanding the US industrial capacity as part of the deal to ensure we get some subs in a reasonable time frame. There's also been significant legislative and industrial reforms in the US, Australia and UK to help facilitate Australian defence-related industries unplug the bottleneck of submarine production. There's no question there's a need to speed up production. But we are already seeing significant signs of an uptick in the production rate, thanks in part to the Australian down payment. And it's anticipated the rate will significantly increase in the next 12–18 months. Even still, projects like this often slide in terms of timelines. Why The US Won't Spike The Deal I'm reasonably optimistic that, on balance, the Trump administration will come down on the side of proceeding with the deal. There are a few key reasons for this: 1) We're several years down the track already. 2) We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system. 3) Industrially, we're on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line. And finally, most people don't fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations. Colby has made very clear the US needs to muscle up to push back and deter China's potential aggression in the region. In that equation, submarines are crucial, as is a substantial submarine base in the Indian Ocean. China is acutely mindful of what we call the ' Malacca dilemma '. Overwhelmingly, China's trade of goods and fossil fuels comes through the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia's island of Sumatra. The Chinese know this supply line could be disrupted in a war. And the submarines operating out of Perth contribute to this fear. This is a crucial deterrent effect the US and its allies have been seeking to maintain. And it has largely endured. Given nobody can predict the future, we all want to prevent a war over Taiwan and we all want to maintain the status quo. As such, the considered view has been that Australia will continue to support the US to bolster its deterrent effect to prevent such a scenario. Could Trump Be Angling For A Deal? As part of the US review of the deal, we could see talk of a potential slowdown in the delivery rate of the submarines. The Trump administration could also put additional pressure on Australia to deliver more for the US. This includes the amount Australia spends on defence, a subject of considerable debate in Canberra. Taking Australia's overall interests into account, the Albanese government may well decide increasing defence spending is an appropriate thing to do. There's a delicate dance to be had here between the Trump administration, the Australian government, and in particular, their respective defence departments, about how to achieve the most effective outcome. It's highly likely whatever decision the US government makes will be portrayed as the Trump administration 'doing a deal'. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a bad thing. This is what countries do. We talk a lot about the Trump administration's transactional approach to international relations. But it's actually not that different to previous US administrations with which Canberra has had to deal. So I'm reasonably sanguine about the AUKUS review and any possible negotiations over it. I believe the Trump administration will come to the conclusion it does not want to spike the Australia relationship. Australia has been on the US side since federation. Given this, the US government will likely make sure this deal goes ahead. The Trump administration may try to squeeze more concessions out of Australia as part of 'the art of the deal', but it won't sink the pact. However, many people will undoubtedly say this is the moment Australia should break with AUKUS. But then what? What would Australia do instead to ensure its security in this world of heightened great power competition in which Australia's interests are increasingly challenged? Walking away now would leave Australia more vulnerable than ever. I think that would be a great mistake. (Author: , Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University) (Disclosure Statement: From 2015 to 2017 John Blaxland received funding from the US Department of Defense Minerva Research Initiative (subsequently disbanded by the Trump administration). This was used to write a book (with Greg Raymond) entitled "The US Thai Alliance and Asian International Relations" (Routledge, 2021). John currently is a fulltime employee of the ANU.)
