Trump extends China tariff deadline for another 90 days
The decision came just hours before the midnight deadline in Beijing, when the previous 90-day pause was set to expire, CNBC reported on Monday, citing a White House official, quoted by Al Jazeera.
Earlier on Monday, Trump said he has been "dealing very nicely with China" as Beijing said it was seeking positive outcomes.
The US and China have a history of escalating trade tensions, with tariffs on each other's products reaching prohibitive levels. In April, the US imposed a staggering 145 per cent tariff on Chinese goods, while China retaliated with 125 per cent tariffs on US products.
However, in May, both countries agreed to temporarily lower tariffs during a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. The US reduced its tariffs from 145 per cent to 30 per cent, and China cut its tariffs from 125 per cent to 10 per cent.
But the pause comes as negotiations still loom. Asked about the deadline on Monday, Trump said: "We'll see what happens. They've been dealing quite nicely. The relationship is very good with [China's] President Xi [Jinping] and myself."
"We hope that the US will work with China to follow the important consensus reached during the phone call between the two heads of state," said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian in a statement.
He added that Beijing also hopes Washington will "strive for positive outcomes on the basis of equality, respect and mutual benefit."
In June, key economic officials convened in London as disagreements emerged and US officials accused their counterparts of violating the pact. Policymakers again met in Stockholm last month, according to Al Jazeera.
Even as both countries appeared to be seeking to push back the reinstatement of duties, US trade envoy Jamieson Greer said last month that Trump will have the "final call" on any such extension.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times of Oman
2 hours ago
- Times of Oman
Trump's tariffs destructive for US economy and foreign policy interests: Jeffrey Sachs
New Delhi: Renowned economist and Columbia University Professor Jeffrey Sachs has strongly criticised the United States administration's tariffs, terming them as pressure tactic on India. In an interview with ANI, he said US President Donald Trump's tariffs are 'bizarre' and 'very self-destructive of US foreign policy interests.' He said years of hard work in improving US-India relations is being undermined by the Trump administration. 'It's a shocking level of incompetence. I see incompetence in the US government, I'm never surprised, but I'd say that this reached this level that I have to admit actually surprised me,' he said, answering a query regarding the Trump administration imposing 25 per cent secondary tariffs on India. Trump announced 25 per cent tariffs on Indian goods in July, even as there were hopes of an interim India-US trade deal that would have otherwise helped avoid elevated tariffs. A few days later, he imposed another 25 per cent tariff, taking the total to 50 per cent, citing India's continued imports of Russian oil. Sachs highlighted the legal challenges facing the Trump administration in the wake of tariffs. '...Tariffs are wrong in that they're destructive for the US economy. It violates international law. It's a breakdown of our political system in the United States. We have a constitution. We don't have one-person rule,' he said, while also referring to powers of the Congress under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution. 'There's actually a lawsuit now in the US Appellate Court, which says that Trump has violated the law by imposing these tariffs. There's a real possibility that Trump's entire tariff regime will be deemed, as it should be, unconstitutional,' he added. The economist said that from an economic point of view as also geopolitical point of view, Trump's policies 'are doomed to fail'. 'They (tariffs) will not improve the US economy. They will isolate the United States geopolitically. They will strengthen the BRICS and other groups...,' Jeffrey Sachs told ANI. 'Trump hates the BRICS. Why? Because they stand up and say to the US, you don't run the world. The world is multipolar and we want to cooperate with you, but we don't want you to run the world. President Lula summarized it best. He said, we don't want an emperor. This is basically the point. Trump thinks he's an emperor,' he added. On India's diplomatic strategy, Sachs praised the government's measured approach. 'India's right. Take a deep breath. Don't do anything dramatic. Don't get too vituperative. I personally would do exactly what Prime Minister Modi's doing. He's flying to meet with President Xi Jinping. He's meeting with President Putin. He's meeting with President Lula. Those are India's real partners, by the way. Not only is the BRICS the fast-growing part of the world economy, but it's also the part of the world that says we don't want an emperor. We want multi-polarity and we want multilateralism,' Sachs said. India and the US initiated talks for a just, balanced, and mutually beneficial Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) in March this year, aiming to complete the first stage of the Agreement by October-November 2025. US is keen on greater access to India's sensitive agriculture and dairy sectors, which provide livelihood to a large section of people. On April 2, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order for reciprocal tariffs on various trade partners, imposing varied tariffs in the range of 10-50 per cent. He subsequently kept the tariffs in abeyance for 90 days, while imposing a 10 per cent baseline tariff, providing time and space for making trade deals. The deadline was to end on July 9, and the US administration later pushed it to August 1. He announced reciprocal tariffs on India ahead of the deadline. Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal told Parliament earlier this month that the government is examining the impact of tariffs and will take all necessary steps to safeguard the national interest.
Observer
7 hours ago
- Observer
Why Russia sold Alaska to the US
President Vladimir Putin of Russia was scheduled to meet with President Donald Trump in Alaska on Friday to discuss the war in Ukraine. If they talk about Ukrainian land concessions as part of peace negotiations, as Trump has suggested, they will be doing so on land that Russia sold to the United States in 1867. That won't be the only historical irony. Russia was moved to sell Alaska partly because of a war in Crimea, a peninsula that the Russian Empire annexed in 1783 under Catherine the Great. Crimea became part of an independent Ukraine in 1991, and Russia seized it in 2014 in a preview of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As ironies go, 'it doesn't get much better than that on a grand historical scale,' said Pierce Bateman, a historian at the University of Alaska Anchorage, referring to the location of the Trump-Putin summit. The $7.2 million purchase of Alaska now looks like a very good deal for the United States. Though it made sense for the Russian Empire at the time, some Russian nationalists see the sale as a historic blunder. Here's what to know about the forces and people that shaped it, and why its legacy matters: Russia acquired Alaska during an era of colonial expansion. Russian explorers reached present-day Alaska in the 18th century by crossing a narrow strait separating Asia and North America. The strait was named after Vitus Bering, the Danish-born mariner sent abroad by Czar Peter the Great in the 1720s to claim new Russian territory. Bateman said there was a 'wild west' feeling in the territory as early Russian explorers rushed to harvest sea otter furs — a prized commodity in China at the time — in and around the Aleutian Islands. There was also brutality against Indigenous people, including abductions of the children of local leaders and the destruction of boats and hunting equipment, according to William L. Iggiagruk Hensley, a historian and former Democratic state senator in Alaska. Alaska's economic appeal for Russia faded over time. In 1799, the Russian Empire chartered the Russian-American Company to streamline the fur trade and formalize Russian settlements in the territory that would become known as Alaska. 'Russian America' would eventually stretch as far south as California. But overharvesting was making the fur trade far less profitable. There were also tensions among Russian, British and American fur traders, partly because the limits of their territories and hunting grounds were not well defined. And Russia's sparsely populated settlements and assets were poorly defended. Geopolitics were a factor in the sale. The challenges of holding Alaska were complicated by developments on other continents. One was trade: Russia increasingly wanted to focus on imperial expansion in its Far East. Another was war. When Russia began fighting Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire in Crimea in 1853, Russian officials worried that British forces might try to invade the Russian Far East through North America, according to a 2016 book about the purchase of Alaska by historian Lee Farrow. Even after that threat subsided, they continued to worry about the British presence in the Pacific. They also wondered if 'Russian America' would survive U.S. expansionism. By the 1850s, the United States had acquired California, annexed Texas, and fought a war with Mexico. There was talk of 'Manifest Destiny,' the idea that the United States was destined to expand across North America. Russian officials, including the commander of its Pacific fleet, urged the ailing empire to offload Alaska while it could. The deal made sense for both sides. The diplomatic conditions for a sale were good, according to Farrow, a professor at Auburn University at Montgomery. Trade between Russia and the United States was blossoming, and both were increasingly distrustful of Britain, America's former colonial master. In March 1867, Secretary of State William Henry Seward opened the negotiations by offering $5 million for the territory to Eduard Stoeckl, the Russian minister to the United States. Two weeks later, they agreed on $7.2 million, or less than 2 cents an acre. A treaty was signed in Seward's office at 4 a.m. after an all-night negotiating session, and later approved by Congress and Czar Alexander II. The deal led to some tension and scandal: The U.S. government was late to pay Russia, and there were accusations that American politicians and journalists had taken cuts of the payment as bribes. Some critics did not see the strategic advantage of adding a frozen territory more than twice the size of France, and called the purchase 'Seward's folly.' But the resistance was largely driven by a minority of American newspapers, according to a 2019 study by historian Michael A. Hill. Many Americans were excited about Alaska's rumored natural resources, he wrote. Some Russians have seller's remorse. Alaska turned out to have plenty of resources, including gold, timber, and petroleum, and the purchase was increasingly seen as a good deal for the United States. Alaska became the 49th state in 1959. In Russia, there was some relief after the deal. But by the Soviet era, it was seen as an embarrassment, said Julia Davis, founder of the Russian Media Monitor, a project that tracks Kremlin propaganda. Putin, who often talks about the need to restore Russian power, equivocated in 2014 when asked if Russia planned to annex Alaska. But a sense of seller's remorse over the lost territory seems to be a feature of his rule, Davis said, and calls to take Alaska back have grown louder as relations with the United States have worsened. 'Alaska is ours' billboards popped up in Russia after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and the message was amplified by some politicians and television pundits. In that sense, holding a Trump-Putin summit in Alaska is a victory for hard-right Russian nationalists. 'Across the board, it's considered a major win,' Davis said. This article originally appeared in
Times of Oman
7 hours ago
- Times of Oman
US State Secy Rubio extends greetings on India's 79th Independence Day; says united by shared vision for secure Indo-Pacific
Washington DC: US Secretary of State Marco Rubio reaffirmed the strength of the India-US relationship and their shared commitment to a free, open, and secure Indo-Pacific region. While extending his warm wishes to the people of India on the occasion of the 79th Independence Day, the US Secretary of State, in a statement, highlighted the growing strategic partnership between the world's oldest and largest democracies. He described the relationship between India and the US as "consequential and far-reaching," built on shared democratic values, mutual respect, and expanding cooperation across multiple sectors. "On behalf of the United States, I extend our congratulations and warm wishes to the people of India as they celebrate their Independence Day on August 15," Rubio said in a statement released by the US Department of State on Thursday (local time). "The historic relationship between the world's largest democracy and the world's oldest democracy is consequential and far-reaching. Our two countries are united by our shared vision for a more peaceful, prosperous, and secure Indo-Pacific region. Our partnership spans industries, promotes innovation, pushes the boundaries of critical and emerging technologies, and extends into space. Working together, the United States and India will rise to the modern challenges of today and ensure a brighter future for both our countries," the statement added. Meanwhile, on Friday, the US Embassy in India extended its greeting to mark the 79th Independence Day of India, highlighting the shared values and celebrations of the occasion. "Happy Independence Day, India! The United States joins India in celebrating this important occasion, honouring our shared achievements in advancing global peace and prosperity. We look forward to strengthening the #USIndia partnership in the years ahead," The US Embassy in India stated in a post on X.
