Trump administration to crack down on Chinese visas, applicants, Rubio says
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has announced plans to crack down on Chinese holders of student visas and ramp up scrutiny of new visa applicants from China and Hong Kong, escalating the Trump administration's confrontational approach to Beijing.
In a statement, Rubio said the State Department would work with the
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
7 hours ago
- Scoop
Trump Tariffs Critique Sparks Councillor To Jump To US President's Defence
If Donald Trump ever found himself on the West Coast, he could count on at least one fan to roll out the regional council welcome mat. Goldmining councillor Allan Birchfield sprang to the defence of the US President at this month's corporate services meeting, after the council's treasury advisor critiqued Trump's tariff policies and their chaotic impact on financial markets. Bancorp corporate manager Miles O'Connor was presenting the firm's quarterly report on the West Coast Regional Council's (WCRC) $14 million investment fund, and the global trends likely to affect interest rates - all backed up with graphs, facts and figures. The US was moving away from acting in the world's interest towards an America-centric approach, he noted. Traditionally 60 percent of the world's capital had gone to the US because it was seen as a safe haven in uncertain times, O'Connor said. But the volatility in the equity and bond markets that followed Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs had not been seen since the stock market crash of 1987, and had caused a flight of capital out of the US and into European, Asian, and Japanese markets. Predicting profits and interest rates had become so difficult that some banks and major companies had given up forecasting completely, O'Connor said. The US president had also challenged the independence of the Federal Reserve by calling on its governor to cut interest rates. "Now that's just not done normally by political leaders. You don't see our Reserve Bank being told by the Prime Minister you must drop rates. "It's inherent in monetary policy that the central bank is independent of political influence." Trump had since reduced the 145 percent on Chinese goods to 30 percent, and the markets had settled down somewhat, but some tariffs would be permanent and New Zealand exports would be affected, O'Connor said. A recent Federal Reserve survey showed the tariffs were not working as hoped in the US domestic market: businesses were passing on price hikes to customers which was inflationary and hardly any overseas companies were relocating to the US. "My view is (Trump) probably won't go back to what he was doing; he probably didn't expect the reaction he got." Two Trump policies that did make sense were US defence spending and ending "unfettered" immigration, O'Connor said. "I'm not totally opposed to what he (Trump) does - some of the other policies I am slightly dubious about." Councillor Birchfield, whose goldmine office sports a large photo of Trump, seized his opening. "I'm pleased you're starting to give Donald a bit of credit - you go on with the usual rhetoric, anti-Donald Trump. "You say the US only does stuff in its own interest - you need to think about the US Navy - it guarantees freedom of trade - even for China [and] it's a huge cost on the US taxpayer." The US had recently "sorted out" the (Yemen rebel group) Houthis who had been disrupting world trade, Birchfield said. "Nobody else is gonna do that so you do need to start recognising the value of the US. And I see you saying it could impact New Zealand exports. "You don't really know. Lift your game," Birchfield instructed the Bancorp manager. O'Connor agreed the US did protect world trade. "But [the tariffs] are having an effect on our exports - we know that from some of our clients who've had orders cancelled." Birchfield continued, saying Trump had a huge problem of debt and a trade imbalance with China. "There's gonna be a bit of a shake down but at the end of the day he had to sort that out." O'Connor said the reason for the trade imbalance was that the US just could not match China's manufacturing capabilities. Council chairperson Peter Haddock put an end to the exchange, saying "We've had a shot across the bows by the US". "We have to recognise the volatility in the world... the best we can get out of it is lower interest rates." O'Connor said the official cash rate was likely to drop to three percent this year or possibly lower by November. The council had longer term cover in place for its investments and would not need to make any changes until next year, he said.
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
Deputy PM Handover: Seymour Vows Straight Talk, Peters Fires Up Campaign
David Seymour has vowed to keep speaking freely as he takes over as deputy prime minister, while an unshackled Winston Peters shifts into campaign mode, planning to avoid another handover next term. And both men were quick to demonstrate their fire after Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ he still regards the number two job as largely ceremonial. The handover of the deputy prime ministership, as agreed during coalition negotiations, marks a new milestone for the government and the half-way point of its term. Seymour will head to the governor-general's official residence in Auckland on 31 May to be sworn in. In separate sit-down interviews with RNZ, the ACT and NZ First leaders remarked on the honour of holding the position, though downplayed the significance of the change. Seymour told RNZ the transition – in most respects – would be 'business as usual', adding, 'I've actually been the acting prime minister several times, and we're all still here, so don't worry.' Peters too was matter-of-fact: 'We signed up to that in 2023 – so we don't have reflections on it. Just stick to your word and keep going.' Ceremonial? 'How would he know?' The position was one of the last points of contention to be resolved during coalition negotiations. At the time, Luxon sought to play down its importance, saying it was 'largely a ceremonial role'. Eighteen months on, Luxon told RNZ he stood by that, noting Peters and Seymour were only ever left in charge for brief stints: 'When I do my trips [overseas], I'm pretty fast – in and out and back home pretty quickly.' To that, Seymour sniped: 'He doesn't think it's ceremonial when he leaves the country and relies on you to act for him. 'A couple of times when I've been acting prime minister… we had the CrowdStrike [IT outage], we had the Chinese ships … you're the person on the spot for those decisions.' Peters also gave Luxon's comments short shrift: 'When he [first] said that, he had no experience himself of the job, so how would he know?' He pointedly noted that the opposition asked him far fewer questions during Parliament's Question Time than they ever did Luxon: 'I kind of think that tells you something… experience matters, big time.' Seymour: 'Won't be losing my freedom to think' Asked whether the new role would temper his at-time-outspoken style, Seymour was defiant. 'I'm astonished you believe that my tone would need moderation or my remarks would need constraint,' Seymour told RNZ. 'I certainly won't be losing my freedom to think and to speak and to express what people in our communities are thinking.' Seymour denied ever criticising his coalition partners, saying he had only ever responded to criticism: 'Hopefully that won't be necessary again in this term of government.' He stressed he intended to discharge his new responsibilities 'very well' to demonstrate the ACT Party was 'a serious player'. 'My responsibility is going to be regulation, education, finance and health, just like the day before,' Seymour said. 'My job will be to show New Zealanders that ACT is politically competent and can deliver and execute in government. This is another chapter of that – becoming DPM.' Seymour said he'd not sought – nor received – advice from his predecessor, saying Peters had taught by demonstration. 'Some of those lessons, I'll take. Others I might leave with him.' Peters eyes 2026 as he passes the baton The NZ First leader said his role as deputy prime minister had been to 'offer experience… in a environment where a lot of ministers were new'. Peters said the privilege of the position also came with 'serious constraints' including a heavier workload and limits around expression. 'Speaking your mind is marvellous – but we're not in a free-think society here. We're in a coalition, and one should always remember it.' With his duties reduced, Peters said he would now have more time to focus on NZ First's election campaign, with a series of roadshows – 'not eating sausage rolls' – planned around the country. 'We took the first turn [as DPM], not the second one,' he said. 'It works out like a charm.' Peters also planned to ease back his relentless travel schedule as foreign minister, as previously signalled. He will be overseas at the time of the handover, visiting Sri Lanka, Nepal, and India. By his return, he will have visited 44 individual countries in the past 18 months. 'We've slogged it out trying to make up for the massive deficit that we inherited… it was pretty exhausting, and in that sense, it is going to be less now.' As for what his election campaign would look like, Peters said he had learned the 'bitter lessons' of 2020 and would bypass the mainstream media to speak directly to hundreds of thousands of 'forgotten New Zealanders' over the next 18 months. 'This time, we're getting the firepower, the army ready,' he said. 'We are better prepared than we've ever been in this party's political career.' And Peters made clear he would seek to avoid another handover of the deputy prime ministership next term. 'If we'd have been given a fair go in the 2023 election, there'd be no need for a handover,' Peters said. 'It's our intention to remove any doubt next election.' Early election? Full term, the plan The exact date of the next election remains unset, though Labour has stirred mischief by raising the spectre of an early vote. Peters said he was 'not really' preparing for that possibility: 'You can never forecast any of those things, but our plan is the full term and stable government.' Seymour also dismissed the idea his time as deputy prime minister could be cut short. 'It's in absolutely nobody's interest – except perhaps the complete Looney Tunes in the Greens and Te Pāti Māori and their enablers in Labour. 'There's only about 60 odd people in New Zealand – and they are odd people – who would benefit from an early election.' Even Labour leader Chris Hipkins told RNZ he thought it unlikely: 'Turkeys don't vote for an early Christmas.'
1News
13 hours ago
- 1News
Appeals court allows Trump to continue collecting tariffs
A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump to continue collecting tariffs under an emergency powers law for now, as his administration appeals an order striking down the bulk of his signature set of economic policies. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted an emergency motion from the Trump administration arguing that a halt is 'critical for the country's national security". The appeals court temporarily halted the order from a federal trade court issued a day before. Trump is facing several lawsuits arguing Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country's trade policy dependent on his whims. Earlier ADVERTISEMENT Earlier a federal court in New York handed Trump a big setback, blocking his audacious plan to impose massive taxes on imports from almost every country in the world. A three-judge panel of the US Court of International Trade ruled that Trump overstepped his authority when he invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to declare a national emergency and justify the sweeping tariffs. The tariffs overturned decades of US trade policy, disrupted global commerce, rattled financial markets and raised the risk of higher prices and recession in the United States and around the world. The US Court of International Trade has jurisdiction over civil cases involving trade. Its decisions can be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington and ultimately to the Supreme Court, where the legal challenges to Trump' tariffs are widely expected to end up. Which tariffs did the court block? The US president's tariff regime has been paused - except for imports from China - after upheaval in the markets. (Source: 1News) The court's decision blocks the tariffs Trump slapped last month on almost all US trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada. ADVERTISEMENT On April 2, Trump imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else. He later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to agree to reduce barriers to US exports. But he kept the baseline tariffs in place. Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, he justified the taxes under IEEPA by declaring the United States' longstanding trade deficits 'a national emergency'. In February, he'd invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs across the US border amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it. The US Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it. The tariffs are being challenged in at least seven lawsuits. In the ruling yesterday, the trade court combined two of the cases — one brought by five small businesses and another by 12 US states. The ruling does leave in place other Trump tariffs, including those on foreign steel, aluminium and autos. But those levies were invoked under a different law that required a Commerce Department investigation and could not be imposed at the president's own discretion. Why did the court rule against the president? Generic NZ court photo ADVERTISEMENT The administration had argued that courts had approved then-President Richard Nixon's emergency use of tariffs in a 1971 economic and financial crisis that arose when the United States suddenly devalued the dollar by ending a policy that linked the US currency to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language later used in IEPPA. The court disagreed, deciding that Trump's sweeping tariffs exceeded his authority to regulate imports under IEEPA. It also said the tariffs did nothing to deal with problems they were supposed to address. In their case, the states noted that America's trade deficits hardly amount of a sudden emergency. The United States has racked them up for 49 straight years in good times and bad. So where does this leave Trump's trade agenda? File photo. (Source: Associated Press) Wendy Cutler, a former US trade official who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, says the court's decision "throws the president's trade policy into turmoil'. 'Partners negotiating hard during the 90-day day tariff pause period may be tempted to hold off making further concessions to the US until there is more legal clarity," she said. Likewise, companies will have to reassess the way they run their supply chains, perhaps speeding up shipments to the United States to offset the risk that the tariffs will be reinstated on appeal. The trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and only for 150 days with countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits. For now, the trade court's ruling 'destroys the Trump administration's rationale for using federal emergency powers to impose tariffs, which oversteps congressional authority and contravenes any notion of due process,' said Eswar Prasad, professor of trade policy at Cornell University. "The ruling makes it clear that the broad tariffs imposed unilaterally by Trump represent an overreach of executive power.''
