Europe Pushes for Midweek Trade Deal With US Despite Trump's New Delay
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The European Union is holding firm to its goal of striking a trade deal with President Donald Trump by midweek, even after the White House unexpectedly delayed its tariff deadline once more until August, raising uncertainty and frustration in Brussels.
The EU is still aiming for a July 9 agreement in principle, which would include a 10 percent baseline tariff, European Commission spokesperson Olof Gill told Newsweek. Trump announced Sunday that the return of sweeping U.S. tariffs — previously slated for this week — would now be pushed back to Aug. 1, leaving EU officials to navigate what they described as yet another "sorry saga" in negotiations.
Last week, while all eyes in Washington were on the Capitol to see if Trump's sweeping tax and spending bill would pass the House, EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič traveled to the city to lead the bloc's delegation in meetings with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick.
Days later, speaking with CNN's State of the Union host Dana Bash, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Trump would be "sending letters to some of our trading partners saying that if you don't move things along, then on August 1 you will boomerang back to your April 2 tariff level."
The EU flags flutter in the wind in front of the Berlaymont, the EU Commission headquarter on June 16, 2023 in Brussels, Belgium.
The EU flags flutter in the wind in front of the Berlaymont, the EU Commission headquarter on June 16, 2023 in Brussels, Belgium.
Photo byPreparing for Both Scenarios
EU officials confirmed to Newsweek they had received a draft U.S. proposal last week, though one diplomat described it as offering "nothing very concrete." The idea, another official said, is to agree on a deliberately short framework now, leaving more detailed negotiations over specific sectors — such as cars, aircraft, and digital services — for later.
"This would not be a detailed, comprehensive trade deal, but rather a political understanding laying the groundwork for more concrete arrangements," one senior EU diplomat said.
The EU, which is the U.S.'s largest trading partner when goods and services are combined, has been a frequent target of Trump's ire. He has regularly cited a goods trade deficit of about $236 billion in 2024 while pushing Europe to buy more American cars, energy, and defense equipment, and to ease up on its digital regulations — demands EU officials have rejected as incompatible with EU law.
The European Commission has signaled it could live with a baseline 10 percent U.S. tariff on EU imports if offset by relief in key sectors. But divisions remain within the bloc, with Germany and Italy favoring quick acceptance of such a deal and France and Ireland urging a harder line.
Diplomats in Brussels expect the final text to resemble the outline deal Britain signed with the U.S. earlier this year — a few pages long, largely symbolic, leaving the most contentious issues for later. "The expectation that we have is that by the 9th, something will be there — but it might be very little," Brando Benifei, a member of the European Parliament and chair of its delegation with the U.S., told The New York Times.
The European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maros Sefcovic, pictured in Washington on February 18, 2025.
The European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maros Sefcovic, pictured in Washington on February 18, 2025.
JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images
Officials emphasized that while Brussels is pushing hard to secure the best possible outcome for its member states, the bloc remains fully prepared for the worst-case scenario if negotiations collapse. Retaliatory measures targeting $22.6 billion (€21 billion) in U.S. goods are already approved, and another package covering $102.2 billion (€95 billion) remains ready to activate if necessary.
"We are prepared for both outcomes — but our priority is to secure the best deal we can before the deadline," one official said.
Trump has threatened to impose 50 percent tariffs if no deal is reached, pushing both sides to pursue a "political understanding" — a broad framework rather than a comprehensive accord, similar to agreements the U.S. has already reached with the U.K. and China.
Principles Now, Details Later
The emerging consensus in Brussels is that any agreement reached this week will be a political framework — essentially an agreement in principle — rather than a fully detailed trade pact. "It is not excluded that some sectors could be addressed while others are not," one EU official said, noting that more specific arrangements could follow later.
European officials are also considering pledges to buy more U.S. liquefied natural gas, invest in U.S. technology and defense sectors, and work jointly against unfair Chinese trade practices, diplomats said — offering Trump symbolic wins without overhauling EU rules.
Gill, the spokesperson for the EU trade commissioner, stressed that the EU's approach had been meticulously planned months before the U.S. election.
U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a 'Make America Wealthy Again' trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. Touting...
U.S. President Donald Trump holds up a chart while speaking during a 'Make America Wealthy Again' trade announcement event in the Rose Garden at the White House on April 2, 2025 in Washington, DC. Touting the event as 'Liberation Day', Trump is expected to announce additional tariffs targeting goods imported to the U.S. More
Photo by"We've been in full prep mode even before the election," he told reporters during a briefing from Berlaymont, the curvaceous, glass campus in central Brussels that houses the European Commission. "Nothing you are seeing in terms of our approach to trade is haphazard. This has been war-gamed long before the election took place. And I think you can see that that's really playing out in real time."
Šefčovič confirmed that the EU had received "the first draft of the (U.S.) proposals for the eventual agreement in principle." The outcome of his Washington visit is expected to be discussed by EU ambassadors and the EU Council's Trade Policy Committee later this week.
Still, officials warned that talks remain fragile and could unravel quickly, as Trump demonstrated by abruptly cutting off similar negotiations with Canada last week over a digital services tax dispute.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk wants to start a 3rd party — the America Party — to take on Trump and the Democrats. Could it work?
In 1992, Ross Perot — a billionaire frustrated with America's ballooning budget deficits and fed up with its two-party system — ran for president as an independent. He won 19% of the vote against the Republican incumbent (George H. W. Bush) and his Democratic challenger (Bill Clinton). A few years later, Perot formed a third party — the Reform Party — and ran again in 1996 as its first White House nominee. Now Tesla CEO Elon Musk, another frustrated billionaire, seems to want to follow in Perot's footsteps and build an even bigger, better third party of his own. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy,' the world's richest man wrote earlier this month on X, the social media platform he owns. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.' Is Musk serious? And could his plan really work? It wasn't so long ago that Musk was calling himself Trump's 'first buddy.' After spending more than $250 million to help his friend win the 2024 election, Musk spent the first few months of Trump's second term waging a largely unchecked war against the federal bureaucracy as head of the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). But then in early June the two tycoons had a major falling out over Trump's 'One Big, Beautiful Bill.' Trump claims Musk was 'upset' about 'losing his EV mandate' — i.e., the $7,500 consumer tax credit that has long made buying or leasing electric vehicles such as Teslas more attractive and affordable for consumers. Musk insists he is concerned only with the legislation's effect on federal spending — namely, initial estimates that showed it would 'massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit [by] $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America[n] citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,' as he wrote last month on X. 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk continued. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' When a revised version of Trump's bill passed the Senate earlier this month with an even heftier $3.3 trillion deficit projection, Musk unveiled his America Party scheme. 'Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system!' he wrote on X. 'Should we create the America Party?' More than a million X users responded to Musk's snap poll; 65% said yes; 35% said no. 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!' Musk vowed the following day. Of course, there's more to launching a third party than posting about it on social media. And so far, it appears that Musk hasn't taken any of the steps required to get his America Party off the ground. For one thing, Musk can't officially start a new party until after 2028. Like Perot, a new, independent presidential candidate would first have to secure ballot access nationwide; in many states, they would actually have to compete in the 2028 election — and earn enough votes — to keep that ballot access. Then, and only then, could the so-called America Party petition the Federal Election Commission to become a real national political party — again, like Perot did with his Reform Party in 1995, three years after his initial presidential run. In the meantime, Musk could file with the FEC to start an 'America Party' political committee to assist his preferred candidates. In fact, some filings under that name did appear on the FEC website right after Musk's X announcement; two even list Tesla CFO Vaibhav Taneja as treasurer and custodian of records. But according to Musk, those filings are bogus. For now, the America Party seems short on substance. All we know is that Musk himself could never be its presidential candidate; he was born in South Africa, and the U.S. constitution requires the president to be 'a natural born Citizen.' And, at least to start, the party might not even concern itself with the presidency. 'One way to execute on this would be to laser-focus on just 2 or 3 Senate seats and 8 to 10 House districts,' Musk hypothesized on July 4. 'Given the razor-thin legislative margins, that would be enough to serve as the deciding vote on contentious laws, ensuring that they serve the true will of the people.' It depends how you define 'successfully.' The Libertarian Party launched in 1971 and fielded its first presidential ticket the following year. By 1980, it had clinched ballot access in all 50 states. It remains America's third-largest political party today. Yet none of its recent presidential candidates have earned more than 3.3% of the national vote. Meanwhile, the Reform Party slowly collapsed after the high-water mark of Perot's 1996 campaign (8.4%). In 2000, it briefly flirted with Trump before nominating Pat Buchanan (0.4%). By the time Ralph Nader joined forces with the Reform Party four years later, it had lost its ballot line in all but seven states. Nader won just 0.38% of the vote. The most successful third party, at least on the presidential level, was the Progressive (or 'Bull Moose') Party. In 1912, former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt broke with his protege and successor William Howard Taft and decided to run for a third term. Ultimately, Roosevelt earned 27% of the national vote — more than Taft (23%) and any other third-party candidate in U.S. history. But note that it took a figure as familiar and well-credentialed as a former president to get that far — and even he didn't win. Because Roosevelt and Taft divided the GOP, Democrat Woodrow Wilson wound up flipping the White House with just 42% of the vote. 'I think it's ridiculous to start a third party,' Trump told reporters earlier this month. 'The Democrats have lost their way, but it's always been a two-party system, and I think starting a third party just adds to confusion.' 'Third parties have never worked, so he can have fun with it — but I think it's ridiculous,' the president added. The idea of another option — something different from business as usual — is perennially popular. According to Gallup, a full 58% of Americans said last October that the United States needs a third party because Republicans and Democrats 'do such a poor job' representing their interests. Over the past two decades, that number has averaged 56%; in 2023 it hit a record high of 63%. Likewise, 43% of Americans told Gallup last year that they identify as independents rather than Democrats (28%) or Republicans (28%) — a number that has been rising for some time, especially among younger voters. The problem is that the vast majority of self-described independents are actually just loyal Republicans or Democrats in disguise — and the few that remain generally seem unwilling to 'waste their vote' by casting it for a non-Democrat or non-Republican. Political data journalist G. Elliott Morris recently attempted to estimate the size of Musk's potential coalition by taking the total U.S. voter pool and subtracting hardcore Republicans (24%), hardcore Democrats (32%), soft Republicans (22%) and soft Democrats (20%). The America Party was left with less than 2% of the vote. When Morris took a slightly different approach — removing (1) devoted partisans (67.5%); (2) any remaining pro-Trump voters (14%); (3) any remaining pro-spending voters (16%); and (4) any remaining anti-Musk voters (1.75%) — the America Party wound up with an even smaller slice of the electorate (0.75%). Which isn't to say that Musk has zero chance of 'disrupting' America's partisan status quo the way he's already disrupted electric vehicles and space technology; no other third-party maestro has ever had his $400 billion fortune or his social-media megaphone. Earlier this month, Nate Silver of the Silver Bulletin expressed skepticism about anchoring a new party to milquetoast 'No Labels' centrism — but suggested Musk could find some long-term success by exploiting 'blind spots in the major party agendas' on forward-facing issues such as AI and the fertility crisis. 'That's what I'd be thinking about instead of just wanting to get revenge on Trump, or applying a template for third parties that has failed so often before,' Silver said. In the meantime, perhaps Musk will start that political committee after all — and spend millions in the 2026 midterms lavishly funding challengers to MAGA lawmakers who backed Trump's big, beautiful bill (while lambasting them on X). If he does, he could potentially spoil the election for the GOP, according to a new poll by Echelon Insights, and head into the 2028 cycle with some third-party momentum. 'The way we're going to crack the uniparty system is by using a variant of how Epaminondas shattered the myth of Spartan invincibility at Leuctra,' Musk predicted on X. 'Extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield.' Or he could simply go back to posting about other things on X and wait for everyone to forget about his latest big promise — as he has been known to do in the past.
Time Magazine
29 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
What Happens When Big Tech Goes Nuclear?
Silicon Valley firms are advocating for the U.S. to embark on a nuclear energy renaissance. They have received support from President Donald Trump, who recently signed four executive orders which seek to quadruple domestic production of electricity from nuclear power within the next 25 years. The massive energy needs of the data centers required to run artificial intelligence (AI) operations have led Big Tech firms like Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta to buy electricity from preexisting nuclear power plants, push for reopening closed ones, and encourage the construction of new reactors. Microsoft even signed an agreement in September 2024 to restart Unit 1 reactor at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania—the site of the worst civil nuclear accident in U.S. history when the reactor core of Unit 2 melted down in March 1979. The role of private enterprise is not new in driving technological innovation in nuclear fission. The Manhattan Project itself had companies such as Dupont, Union Carbide, Bechtel, and Westinghouse heavily involved under the guidance of the federal government. After World War II, the federal government took the lead in nurturing the U.S. nuclear energy industry. It subsidized and regulated nuclear energy in an attempt to promote this new source of electricity to utility providers while also reducing the public health risks from accidents. The Trump Administration's executive orders on nuclear energy gut regulation in the name of efficiency and cost-cuts. But if the history of nuclear energy's emergence and expansion offers us any lessons on this, it's that the federal government has been pivotal for nuclear energy's growth, reliability, and safety. Read More: Nuclear Power Is the Only Solution For almost a decade after the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the federal government kept the scientific knowledge tied to nuclear energy and weapons as top-secret 'restricted data.' But in 1954, Congress shifted gears and passed the Atomic Energy Act. Unlike its 1946 predecessor, this Act allowed for the commercialization of nuclear knowhow. The role of government was vital in creating an atomic marketplace because it had to determine which technologies private companies could trade in, without posing risks to U.S. national security—a most important tenet during the early Cold War to prevent nuclear proliferation. This early technological ambiguity posed security challenges. In one case, the American company Vitro International ended up selling blueprints for a plutonium reprocessing plant to India—a key piece of infrastructure useful both for generating nuclear power and for developing a nuclear weapon. The sale ended up helping advance India's nuclear weapons program, exposing the need for clear rules and laws governing the sale of nuclear information, which only the federal government could devise. In addition to setting rules about what companies could do with nuclear information, the government offered subsidies to spur nuclear energy growth within the United States. It also encouraged U.S. companies to sell nuclear reactors abroad as part of broader goal of maintaining American technological primacy in the postwar world order. The federal government also enacted regulation to ensure nuclear energy's safety and security. In 1957, Congress passed the Price-Anderson Act, which limited the liability of the nuclear industry for accidents and also provided the public with mechanisms for seeking compensation when they occurred. In other words, the nuclear industry accepted regulation because the government was providing the majority of funding to build nuclear power plants. This acceptance, however, would change within a decade. By the late 1960s, the federal government's willingness and capacity to support nuclear energy had diminished—for reasons having little to do directly with energy policy. The U.S. had to accumulated large deficits due to military escalation in Vietnam, which prompted a budget crunch. Moreover, as the public became more skeptical of political elites and the government due to anti-war sentiments against Vietnam, and later, the Watergate scandal, opposition to large state-led projects such as nuclear power grew. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission was even reorganized, beginning under President Richard Nixon's administration, to curtail the power of the Commission. By the Carter years, the Commission had become the Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which exists till this today, but whose regulatory powers the Trump Administration plans to drastically reduce. As government funding for the nuclear energy industry dropped, private finance stepped into the void. But, being primarily motivated by profit, private banks did not find nuclear energy lucrative enough, especially owing to frequent cost overruns of reactor construction projects, red tape, and regulation. Thus, private funding did not match the same levels of economic support that the state had once provided. Without government subsidies, the nuclear energy industry experienced financial difficulties— years before the accident at Three Mile Island shocked the nation in 1979. The Reagan Administration attempted to revive the industry by cutting regulations, or what it called 'Carter-era anti-growth policies,' while also boosting funding for nuclear energy by 36% in 1981. But the effort to save the industry failed. While the funding boost was quite generous in the context of an administration that was cutting spending on social service programs, it was not enough to cover the constant cost overruns of nuclear energy projects. Additionally, the general public came to mistrust and reject nuclear energy projects, further disillusioned by the Three Mile Island disaster. New operators even feared financial liability in the event of future accidents. Read More: The U.S. Is Losing a New Nuclear Arms Race In 1986, the severe nuclear accident in Chernobyl in the Soviet Union further increased opposition to nuclear power globally. In the U.S., the construction of new nuclear power plants halted. The only new nuclear units to be added to the grid in the 1980s were those whose construction began in the 1960s and 1970s. The current push for nuclear energy looks very different from the original one in the 1950s. Unlike in the past when the majority of funding for nuclear energy came from the state, private investments from the Silicon Valley are now flowing to the U.S. nuclear energy sector at unprecedented levels. Nuclear energy startups have mushroomed, a large number of these funded by Big Tech. This threatens to tilt the technocratic and regulatory power away from the state. President Trump's executive orders support this tilt through a variety of measures, including reducing power of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and emphasizing advanced reactor testing outside the national laboratories that are hubs of American scientific and technological innovations resulting from the Manhattan Project. And yet, historically, the U.S. nuclear energy industry has thrived when government provided strong guidance. When the federal government stepped back, the industry suffered immensely. China, Russia, and France have all learned this lesson too, embracing state-led and majority state funded industries. The ethos of Big Tech to 'move fast and break things' could spur unprecedented innovation in nuclear energy, especially through the construction of small modular reactors, microreactors, and even fusion. But, just like Silicon Valley itself, which has historically flourished through the invisible hand of the state, the nuclear energy industry might also need increased guidance from the government in order to be safe, secure, and reliable. Jayita Sarkar is Professor of Global History of Inequalities at the University of Glasgow and author of the award-winning book, Ploughshares and Swords: India's Nuclear Program in the Global Cold War (Cornell University Press, 2022). She is currently finishing her next book, Atomic Capitalism (Princeton University Press, under contract). She is a British Academy Global Innovation Fellow for 2024-25 at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Politico
30 minutes ago
- Politico
Huckabee calls for investigation after Palestinian American killed in the West Bank
The U.S. ambassador to Israel has long been a staunch supporter of the country. 'I have asked @Israel to aggressively investigate the murder of Saif Mussallet [sic], an American citizen who was visiting family in Sinjil when he was beaten to death,' U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee wrote in a post on X Tuesday. |By Gregory Svirnovskiy 07/15/2025 04:24 PM EDT U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee called on the country to probe the killing of a Palestinian American man visiting family in the West Bank. 'I have asked @Israel to aggressively investigate the murder of Saif Mussallet [sic], an American citizen who was visiting family in Sinjil when he was beaten to death,' Huckabee wrote in a post on X Tuesday. 'There must be accountability for this criminal and terrorist act. Saif was just 20 yrs old.' The Palestinian Health Ministry said Musallet, a native of Florida, was beaten to death by Israeli settlers on Friday, according to the Associated Press. But an ambulance was blocked from coming to his aid, his father said in an interview with CNN that aired this week. Musallet died before he reached the hospital.
