Trump says US wants to make tanks, not T-shirts
US President Donald Trump said on Sunday his tariff policy was aimed at promoting the domestic manufacturing of tanks and technology products, not sneakers and T-shirts.
Speaking to reporters before boarding Air Force One in New Jersey, Trump said he agreed with comments from treasury secretary Scott Bessent on April 29 that the US does not necessarily need a 'booming textile industry', comments that drew criticism from the National Council of Textile Organizations.
'We're not looking to make sneakers and T-shirts. We want to make military equipment. We want to make big things. We want to make, do the AI thing,' Trump said.
'I'm not looking to make T-shirts. I'm not looking to make socks. We can do that very well in other locations. We are looking to do chips and computers and lots of other things, and tanks and ships,' Trump said.
The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAPA) said in response to Trump's remarks that tariffs were not good for the industry.
'With 97% of the clothes and shoes we wear imported, and with clothes and shoes the most highly tariffed industry in the US, we need to focus on common sense solutions that can move the needle,' said AAPA president Steve Lamar.
'More tariffs will only mean higher input costs for US manufacturers and higher prices will hurt lower income consumers.'
Trump, who has upended world markets with the broad imposition of tariffs, revived his harsh trade rhetoric on Friday when he pushed for a 50% tariff on EU goods starting on June 1 and warned Apple he may impose a 25% levy on all imported iPhones bought by US consumers.
However, he dialled back on the EU threat on Sunday, extending a deadline for the tariffs until July 9 to allow for talks between Washington and the 27-nation bloc.
Trump won the 2016 and 2024 US presidential elections in part by appealing to working class voters hurt by the loss of US manufacturing jobs over many years.
He has sought to make good on his promises to boost manufacturing with import tariffs and heralding investments by companies and foreign nations into the US, even as the US economy remains dependent on supply chains with other countries where many goods, including textiles, are produced less expensively.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
EU's growing resolve: Sanctions on Israel now discussed amid mounting atrocities in Gaza
The EU is losing patience with Benjamin Netanyahu's Israel. After months of mounting atrocities in Gaza, it is finally reaching a turning point in its tolerance for the rogue Israeli state. Israel's relentless military campaign, flagrant disregard for international law, and spiralling settler violence in the West Bank have triggered a political shift in Europe. What once seemed unthinkable — European sanctions on Israel — is now being openly discussed. With the blocking of humanitarian aid and open calls for ethnic cleansing, Israel's actions have become too severe to ignore, deny or justify. In recent weeks, a cascade of unusually strong statements, diplomatic rebukes and threats of sanctions has emerged from European capitals — and the momentum is growing. On 20 May 2025, 17 of the EU's 27 foreign ministers triggered a formal review of the EU-Israel Association Agreement — citing concerns over serious human rights violations. The UK has suspended trade negotiations, while Norway's sovereign wealth fund has blacklisted two Israeli companies due to their operations in the West Bank settlements. And most crucially, last week the leaders of France, Canada and the UK jointly warned of sanctions on Israel unless humanitarian access to Gaza was urgently improved. Perhaps most symbolically, Germany — consistently Israel's most steadfast ally in Europe — has spoken out. The recently elected chancellor Friedrich Merz — a conservative politician and staunch supporter of Israel — publicly condemned Israeli actions in Gaza as unjustifiable. His statement marks an unprecedented step in post-war German foreign policy, which has long been anchored by its staatsraison, which sees Israel's existence and defence as a cornerstone of the very meaning of a German democratic state. That sanctions on Israel now would be too little, too late is hard to argue. The contrast with the swift and deeply economically damaging sanctions levied on Russia after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022 is glaring. The West's selective application of international law has exposed deep-seated hypocrisy in its ongoing acquiescence of Israel that is rooted in geopolitical alliances, historical guilt and economic interests. However, failure to act now would not correct past failings on this issue but rather compound them. The United Nations and countless human rights organisations have presented recurring evidence of widespread war crimes in Gaza. The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and his former foreign minister. At the International Court of Justice, South Africa's case of genocide against Israel is gathering momentum. Clearly, if the EU wants to preserve its credibility as a foreign actor and defender of human rights and international law, it cannot waste any more time. Furthermore, Israel's expanding settlements and open declarations of ' cleansing ' Gaza of Palestinians are not only morally indefensible — they are a security threat to Europe and other mid-sized liberal democracies by setting an existentially dangerous precedent. If Netanyahu is allowed to get away with seizing the West Bank and Gaza, why should Putin or Trump not do the same on their flanks in Europe and Canada? What Europe can — and must — do The question is what it can do. First, it is obvious that if Europe opts for sanctions it will have to do so without the US. That will mean banking and financial sanctions are likely to be ineffective, as the EU cannot control the USD international financial system run out of Wall Street. Rather, the EU should immobilise any foreign exchange reserves that reside in the EU. This would impose a huge economic cost on Israel. As Martin Sandbu has shown in the Financial Times, the Bank of Israel invests about a quarter of its relatively large stock of reserves in Europe. A freeze would make this unavailable for stabilising the Israeli economy and currency, which have already been hard hit by the costs of funding the war. In time, these could also be put towards compensation due to Palestinians and the astronomical cost of clearing and rebuilding Gaza. Second, the EU should hit Israel even harder with sanctions on trade and travel. Israel sources nearly half of its goods imports from Europe and sends more than a third of its exports to the continent. A significant share of its imports consists of fuels, which would be hard hit by restrictions on Europe's dominance of shipping-related services. According to its statistics bureau, at least a quarter of Israel's critical services trade is with Europe. Restrictions on business services and tourism would be highly disruptive, both economically and reputationally. Overcoming EU gridlock Critics of the EU would argue that discussions on sanctions towards Israel is a moot point; foreign policy, and by extension the imposition of sanctions, require EU council unanimity. There are enough stooges of Israel within the EU to sabotage any discussions, most obviously Victor Orban's Hungary. Orban has already defied international law by welcoming Netanyahu to Budapest, despite the ICC arrest warrant. This, however, is precisely why the EU must reform its decision-making processes. It cannot continue to allow its foreign policy to be hijacked by a single illiberal leader, as they have been with Hungary repeatedly holding up sanctions on Russia. Actions on Israel should serve as the catalyst for moving decision-making on foreign policy from unanimity to qualified majority voting. The EU must also be prepared for retaliation from Washington. Already the US has attacked the ICC over its case against Israeli leaders. The feelings of Donald Trump towards Europe are clear, having labelled the bloc a 'foe', its leaders as 'parasites', and the whole of the EU being 'formed to screw over America'. He recently threatened the bloc with 50% tariffs. But appeasing US hostility is not a strategy, it is surrender. Taking the lead on actions against Israel would also serve to build a coalition of the willing, to which Canada, Australia and South Africa, among others, would be able to join. For countries like South Africa, stuck between China and the 'West', there are now two Wests — the liberal one in Brussels and the illiberal one in Washington. By sanctioning Israel, Europe would send a message that no state is above the law. It would shift the dynamic of international opprobrium of Israel to materially threaten the stability and sustainability of the Israeli economic model. Following economic measures, soft power tactics — such as banning Israel from participation in international sporting and cultural events like the Olympics, international football and Eurovision — would be a possible and natural next step. Apartheid in South Africa was ended in no small part by the international sanctions levelled on it, and the wave of international sentiment against the country. Many have labelled the Zionist state an apartheid one. Yet its actions against the Palestinians in Gaza and its regime of terror in the West Bank make any comparison to the South African apartheid state complimentary. But the point is clear; to end these massacres and crimes against humanity, the EU, and the rest of the West which has retained its moral compass, must use more than words. As Theodore Roosevelt once advised, the key to diplomacy is to 'speak softly and carry a big stick'. Today, the US has forfeited that role. It is the EU that must pick up the mantle, and wield its influence where it counts. Then, after taking the lead, other similarly minded nations will be able to follow. DM
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Chief Rabbi Goldstein abuses legal and religious concepts in attack on Ramaphosa
On 21 May 2025, President Donald Trump's Oval Office was yet again turned into the set of a reality television show livestreamed into the homes of many millions of viewers all over the world. The meeting between the US president and South Africa's President Cyril Ramaphosa quickly shifted gear from the initial pleasantries to spectacular political theatre as Trump played video material purporting to be evidence of a 'white genocide' in South Africa. This included footage of Julius Malema in a packed football stadium chanting 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer' and a 'cemetery with 1,000 white crosses' that turned out to be a memorial commemorating the murder of two farmers. As this political theatre was taking place in the White House, a real-time genocide was unfolding in Gaza with Israel's relentless bombardment, its humanitarian blockade of food, water and medical aid and its refusal to comply with international court rulings. In the face of these developments, and an intensification of international pressure and criticism of Israel, South Africa's chief rabbi, Warren Goldstein, decided it was time to respond. In his Facebook video message Goldstein accused Ramaphosa of many things, including allowing a 'South African genocide' to take place. Although the chief rabbi refrained from using the term 'white genocide', and acknowledged that all South Africans are victims of violent crime, he appeared to endorse the key talking points of Trump's Maga movement and South African right-wing, white nationalist agendas. This played right into the accusations of 'white genocide' plied by right-wing Afrikaner organisations to discredit the South African government's transformation policies, especially its land reform and employment equity programmes. But the chief rabbi went much further than these white nationalists. In his relentless attack on the South African President, he insisted that the 'shame' and 'humiliation' that Ramaphosa had experienced in the Oval Office on 21 May 2025 was 'divine retribution' for South Africa's genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). This is how the chief rabbi described how God choreographed what happened in the White House meeting: 'As I watched the White House spectacle unfold, as I watched President Ramaphosa literally squirm in his seat, visibly uncomfortable, humiliated, as President Trump accused him of genocide in his own country, I couldn't help but think, I'm not a prophet and I do not presume to know the will of God, and yet the thought kept crossing my mind – this moment, this humiliation, felt biblical. It felt like divine retribution. It felt like justice for a different earlier sin. 'Because Ramaphosa and the ANC stood on a different international stage and falsely accused the Jewish state, the State of Israel, of genocide, a lie, a libel, a defamation of an entire nation. And now, in front of the whole world, they themselves are being accused of genocide. This time a true genocide demonstrated by the cold, brutal facts of a murder rate spiralling out of control. The blood of countless victims on their hands and their total inability to protect South Africans of any race or background.' In this wide-ranging video message Goldstein held Ramaphosa personally accountable for Malema's chants of 'Kill the Boer, kill the farmer', claiming that he 'has never publicly condemned the chant as hate speech, not even in the Oval Office when he had every opportunity and motive to do so'. This was followed by an assault on the South African Constitutional Court for not ruling that Malema's chants are hate speech: 'This judgment casts a shadow on the integrity and legacy of the Constitutional Court and makes a mockery of their role as the guardians of human rights in South Africa.' Although the violent crime statistics in South Africa are truly shocking, Goldstein's claims of a 'South African genocide' radically dilutes and relativises the legal definition and meaning of the term. This constitutes a dangerous trivialisation of genocidal catastrophes, including the Holocaust. It thereby threatens to undermine the very precise meaning of genocide, a concept which was introduced into international law after the Holocaust by Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish Polish lawyer. Lemkin's concept helped establish the 1948 Genocide Convention, which legally defines the act of genocide. As the son of a German Jewish refugee whose entire family was murdered in Auschwitz and Riga, I appreciate the importance of Lemkin's precise definition of genocide. Using the notion of a 'South African genocide' to refer to a violent crime crisis undermines this precision. Most international law experts would agree that Hamas perpetrated horrific war crimes against civilians in Israel on 7 October 2023. At the same time, there is currently a growing consensus among Holocaust and genocide scholars that the Israeli military is indeed perpetrating genocide in Gaza. This assessment draws on the very specific criteria that Lemkin used to define the crime of genocide which, according to the Genocide Convention, consists of any of five 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'. These acts include killing members of the group, causing them serious bodily or mental harm, imposing living conditions intended to destroy the group, preventing births and forcibly transferring children out of the group. In terms of this very precise definition, genocide is a crime of special intent (dolus specialis) that deliberately targets a protected group. How can the unacceptably high violent crime levels that impact on all South Africans possibly constitute genocide in terms of this definition? Just as legal concepts need to be used with precision, one would also expect that the use of religious concepts needs to meet stringent definitions. It is therefore surprising to discover the flagrant abuse of religious concepts by the chief rabbi when he claimed that the shame and humiliation experienced by Ramaphosa in the White House was 'divine retribution' for an earlier sin – taking Israel to the ICJ. I will quote a lengthy passage from the video that conveys the lengths to which the chief rabbi was prepared to go to stretch the meanings of both 'genocide' and biblical notions of divine justice: '… It felt like what our sages called Midah Keneged Midah, measure for measure, a precise justice, a reckoning. And as that thought took hold, another verse came to mind. I kept hearing the words of Genesis in 12:3: 'Those who bless you will be blessed, and those who curse you will be cursed.' 'President Ramaphosa and the ANC cursed Israel, and now it feels as though they are being cursed. You can feel it in the air, in the sense of decay and despair, you can feel the weight of a divine curse settling on this Presidency… In the heavenly court, you will stand accused of presiding over the human suffering of all those who were murdered on your watch. The King of All Kings will ask you what you did to stop the carnage, the genocide… and you will be held eternally accountable for every moment of human suffering you caused through your callous neglect, through your omissions and commissions…' What is happening here? Why is the chief rabbi, the spiritual leader of South African Jews, so brazenly abusing the specific definitions and meanings of legal and religious concepts to denounce the President and the Constitutional Court? Is it simply to score political points? How will such divisive speech, which is uttered on behalf of the whole Jewish community, make Jews any more secure in South Africa? It is quite conceivable that the chief rabbi – like so many other defenders of Israel's actions in Gaza – is becoming increasingly defensive and desperate as international public opinion and Western governments become more critical of Israel's actions in Gaza. The chief rabbi's false and unconsidered accusations and condemnations appear to be a radical displacement and distraction from the horrific realities of a genocide unfolding daily in Gaza. DM
TimesLIVE
3 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Critical TB research in South Africa at risk after US aid cuts
At a tense meeting in Nigeria's capital Abuja, health workers pored over drug registers and testing records to gauge whether US aid cuts would unravel years of painstaking work against tuberculosis in one of Africa's hardest-hit countries. For several days in May, they brainstormed ways to limit the fallout from a halt to US funding for the TB Local Network (TB LON), which delivers screening, diagnosis and treatment. 'To tackle the spread of TB, you must identify cases and that is in a coma because of the aid cuts,' said Ibrahim Umoru, co-ordinator of the African TB Coalition civil society network, who was at the Abuja meeting. 'This means more cases will be missed and disaster is looming.' This desperate struggle to save endangered programmes is being replicated from the Philippines to South Africa as experts warn that US aid cuts risk reviving a deadly infectious disease that kills about one million people every year. President Donald Trump's gutting of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) has put TB testing and tracing on hold in Pakistan and Nigeria, stalled vital research in South Africa and left TB survivors lacking support in India. The World Health Organization (WHO) says 'the drastic and abrupt cuts in global health funding' threaten to reverse the gains made by global efforts to fight the disease — namely 79-million lives saved since 2000 — with rising drug resistance and conflicts exacerbating the risks. In Nigeria, TB LON is in the firing line. The project was set up in 2020, during Trump's first term, and received $45m (R806m) worth of funding from USAID. The US development agency said at the time it was committed to a 'TB-free Nigeria'. Five years later and with the same president back in charge but now with a more radical 'America first' agenda, USAID support for TB LON's community testing work was terminated in February, according to a TB LON official who did not want to be named. 'HARD WORK IN JEOPARDY' TB kills 268 Nigerians every day and cases have historically been underreported, increasing the risk of transmission. If one case is missed, that person can transmit TB to 15 people over a year, according to the WHO. The Thomson Reuters Foundation spoke to health workers who collect TB test samples for TB LON but had stopped doing so in January due to the US aid freeze. Between 2020-2024, TB LON screened about 20-million people in southwestern states in Nigeria, and more than 100,000 patients were treated as a result. Every major TB treatment and vaccine advance in the past two decades has relied on research carried out in South Africa Lindsay McKenna, TAG TB project co-director 'All that hard work is in jeopardy if we don't act quickly,' Umoru said, adding that non-profits working with TB LON had laid off more than 1,000 contract workers who used to do TB screening. Nigeria's health ministry did not respond to request for comment on the effect of the USAID cuts on TB programmes. In March, First Lady Oluremi Tinubu declared TB a national emergency and donated 1-billion naira (R11.3m) to efforts to eradicate the disease by 2030. In South Africa, medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) said TB and HIV programmes had been disrupted across the country, making patient tracking and testing more difficult, according to a statement sent to the Thomson Reuters Foundation. South Africa had a TB incidence rate of 427 per 100,000 people in 2023, government data showed, down 57% from 2015. TB-related deaths in South Africa dropped 16% over that period, the data showed. Minister of health Aaron Motsoaledi said in May that the government would launch an End TB campaign to screen and test 5-million people, and was also seeking new donor funding. 'Under no circumstances will we allow this massive work performed over a period of more than a decade-and-a-half to collapse and go up in smoke,' he said at the time, referring to efforts to tackle TB and HIV. BLOW TO CRITICAL RESEARCH South Africa is also a hub for research into both TB and HIV and the health experts say funding cuts risk derailing this vital work. The Treatment Action Group (TAG), a community-based research and policy think-tank, says about 39 clinical research sites and at least 20 TB trials and 24 HIV trials are at risk. 'Every major TB treatment and vaccine advance in the past two decades has relied on research carried out in South Africa,' said TAG TB project co-director Lindsay McKenna in a March statement. People struggling with poor nutrition and those living with HIV — the latter affects 8-million people in South Africa — were also more at risk of contracting TB, as aid cuts made them more vulnerable by derailing nutrition programmes, community outreach and testing, said Cathy Hewison, head of MSF's TB working group. 'It's the No 1 killer of people with HIV,' she said. In the Philippines, US cuts have disrupted TB testing in four USAID-funded projects, and affected the supply of drugs, Stop TB Partnership, a UN-funded agency said. 'The country has a nationwide problem with recurrent drug shortages, which is leading to a direct impact on efforts to eliminate TB,' said Ghazali Babiker, head of mission for MSF Philippines. In Pakistan, which has 510,000 TB infections each year, MSF said US cuts had disrupted TB screening in communities and other services in the hard-hit southeastern province of Sindh. 'We are worried that the US funding cuts that have impacted the community-based services will have a disproportionate effect on children, leading to more children with TB and more avoidable deaths,' said Ei Hnin Hnin Phyu, medical co-ordinator for MSF in Pakistan. 'We cannot afford to let funding decisions cost children's lives.'
