US President's new deals contain mostly top-line figures but have landed at politically useful time
'I thought the EU would be the most prone to retaliation. And yet, they didn't do it. They really gave in to most of what Trump wanted.'
Though many details of the agreement were unclear, the EU and the US agreed to a broad-brush trade deal that sets a 15% tariff on most EU goods, including cars, averting what could have become a painful trade war with a bloc that is the US' single biggest source of imports.
The EU also agreed to purchase US$750 billion worth of US energy, which Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU's executive branch, said would be spread over three years.
That, she noted, is roughly the length of Trump's remaining term in office.
The bloc also agreed to increase its investment in the US by more than US$600b.
The two sides agreed to drop tariffs to zero on a range of goods including aircraft, plane parts, certain chemicals, certain generic drugs, semiconductor equipment and some agricultural products, von der Leyen said.
She acknowledged that the tariffs could prove tough for some European businesses but defended the deal in light of higher tariffs Trump had threatened.
'Fifteen per cent is not to be underestimated, but it is the best we could get,' she said.
It was a positive political development for Trump on a number of fronts.
Economists have mostly been sour on the idea of his sweeping tariffs, warning of dire consequences including inflation and rising unemployment.
And even as many criticised the wisdom of Trump's economic policies, his Administration came under added fire over its struggle to negotiate deals.
The agreement with the EU, the America's largest trading partner, may tamp down some of the criticism.
The agreement may also offer Trump a way to divert the news cycle from his Administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files - a controversy that has dogged him for weeks.
At a news conference on the trade deal, a reporter asked Trump whether he had rushed the agreement forward in an attempt to knock the Epstein story line out of the news.
'You've got to be kidding,' a frustrated Trump responded. 'That had nothing to do with it.'
Trade negotiations are famously complex and time-consuming, so most analysts doubted that Trump could have much success in quickly striking deals.
The Peterson Institute for International Economics said in a 2016 analysis that negotiations for a single trade deal can take more than a year, with implementation taking multiple years.
That didn't stop the White House from issuing bold predictions.
Within days of the April 2 announcement of tariffs on countries across the globe, White House officials said about 70 countries were calling to strike deals. Trump's trade adviser predicted 90 agreements in 90 days.
As the deals proved tougher to negotiate than advertised, Trump lamented the pressure he was under.
'Everyone says, 'When, when, when are you going to sign deals?'' he said in May. At one point he said: 'We don't have to sign deals'.
The agreements Trump has announced in recent days contain mostly top-line figures.
They are not the detailed, complex documents that the US has historically negotiated, which can number in the hundreds of pages.
And the new deal with the EU could still run into trouble.
The Trump Administration faces nearly a dozen lawsuits seeking to have its tariffs declared illegal on the grounds that Trump does not have the authority to impose them without the consent of Congress.
Should those suits succeed, Trump would be back to square one.
Andrew Hale, a trade policy analyst for the conservative Heritage Foundation, cautioned against reading too much into the deal with the EU until the text is released and the lawsuits are resolved.
'These are not comprehensive free trade agreements,' he said.
'Let's make that very clear. And much of this may evaporate.'
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Written by: Luke Broadwater
©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Trump's tariff moves suggest Indian and US co-operation over China can no-longer be counted on
Until that point, his Administration had been angling to reduce India's trade barriers but said nothing about its two years of buying Russian oil at a wartime discount. Before the shock of Trump's announcement in April of sweeping global tariffs, the world's two largest democracies seemed to be enjoying the friendship that its leaders had forged. At a meeting with Trump at the White House in February, India's Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, described India's intention to become one of the world's most advanced economies, with the US as a partner. 'In the language of America, it's 'Make India Great Again' — Miga,' he said. 'When America and India work together, this Maga plus Miga becomes a 'mega partnership for prosperity.'' Trump smiled. Left unmentioned but lingering just out of sight was China, the only country with a population to rival India's and an economy to stand in its way. China is also far and away America's most important economic competitor. Together, the US and India were seen as ready to use each other to try to restrain China's might. Total trade between the US and India was roughly US$130 billion last year. India's top exports to America include pharmaceuticals, auto parts, electrical goods, and gemstones. Modi's confidence in enlisting the US in its economic rise was well grounded. US administrations have been courting India as a geopolitical ally for more than a quarter of a century, since India announced its nuclear arsenal as a deterrent, it said, to China. And American dollars have poured into India as China's economy has matured and become more assertive. The Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine were the catalysts for a surge in investment. Multinational companies grew excited about doing business in India, to reduce the risk of exposure to China as it girds for a trade war with the US and possibly a real war with Taiwan. Manufacturing and professional services led the way. Wall Street followed, banking on the future growth of India, with its relatively young population and enviable political stability. But over the past week, Trump's escalating attacks on India have suddenly undermined this joint venture and sent reverberations throughout the business worlds of both countries. Today, an executive order by Trump said that India would face an extra 25% tariff starting on August 27 if it continued to buy oil from Russia. That levy on Indian goods imported into the US would come on top of a 25% tariff Trump announced last week, which is set to take effect tomorrow and on its own ranks as one of the highest rates in Asia. India's Foreign Ministry responded to Trump's executive order, reiterating that the country's motives for importing oil from Russia were tied to the energy needs of its 1.4 billion people. It was 'extremely unfortunate that the US should choose to impose additional tariffs on India for actions that several other countries are also taking in their own national interest,' the ministry's statement said. Indian officials had signalled over the weekend that they did not intend to stop buying Russian oil. With his tariff threats, Trump has thrown months of trade talks between both countries into question. Just a couple of weeks ago, negotiators and business leaders sounded upbeat. Even with some difficult details to be settled, the expectation was that India and the US mean too much to each other to let a global trade war tear them apart. US President Donald Trump with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, on February 13. With threats of tariffs up to 50%, Trump seems to be scrapping America's plan to turn India into a counterweight to China, declaring instead that it was a 'dead economy'. Photo / Eric Lee, The New York Times Modi was one of the first world leaders to visit Trump in Washington after he returned to the White House in January. The two men had long shared what was by all appearances a close relationship. As political leaders, both are regarded as strongmen. The US was earlier wary of Modi, who had been denied a visa to the US on the grounds that he played a role in the deadly anti-Muslim riots in 2002. But he was embraced when he became Prime Minister in 2014. Part of the calculation was based on security and the possible future of military alliances across Asia. Yet, India's attractive qualities as a partner in defence always hinged on the promise of its economy. Companies such as Apple have poured billions into India, which in 2023 eclipsed China in population, with eyes on India's domestic market and its capacity to export manufactured goods to the US and elsewhere. Those investments were supposed to be better than profitable; they were supposed to reduce or eliminate everyone's dependence on China to be the factory of the world. The 25% tariff alone, already much higher than those imposed on Asian competitors including Vietnam, Japan, and South Korea, would reduce the viability of such a trade. A 50% tariff would kill it. Yesterday, Trump took aim at two other industries that were explicitly being developed in India as an alternative to China. Pharmaceuticals, where India has world-beating advantages and sells more than US$10b a year to the US, is to face a special tariff that could eventually reach 250%, Trump said, to be announced 'within a week or so'. Eli Lilly, as one of many American corporations that have invested in India, for example, recently invested US$3b in an Indian factory. India makes nearly 40% of the generic drugs bought in the US. Trump's plan is to bring back manufacturing to the US, which is also the reason he has given for imposing another special tariff on semiconductors. Unfortunately for Indian and American companies, and some in East Asia too, everyone has been spending to make India competitive in this sector. Micron, based in Idaho, has taken advantage of Indian government subsidies to put US$2.5b into building chipmaking facilities in Modi's home state of Gujarat. High finance has also followed brick-and-mortar businesses. The Indian stock market has been on a bull run, finding enthusiastic new buyers among middle-class Indians. That made foreign investors eager for private deals. Stephen Schwarzman, chief executive of Blackstone, a New York investment firm, said this year that it was putting US$11b into Indian data centres to fuel the global artificial intelligence boom. A Mumbai-based investment professional, who was not authorised to speak publicly, said there was much more at stake in these investments than their dollar value. Bets like Blackstone's are about the future of business between India, China, and the US, he said, and bring expertise from one economy to another. India was benefitting from that. But now it looks like a vulnerability. The rupture of the relationship has generated huge uncertainty. Who wants to be responsible for making the next big bet? Some parts of the US-Indian equation look relatively secure. The trade in goods between the two countries has never been as important to their economic relationship as their trade in services and other people-to-people exchanges. Indians are just as present in American boardrooms as American-trained Indians are in Mumbai's corner offices. One aspect of this exchange, the proliferation of globally integrated, high-end offices in India — first in information technology and then across the professions — has remained a bright spot. Worth US$65b last year, it is more valuable than the total trade deficit in goods. China does not hold a candle to India's ability as a hub for office work other countries send its way. As frightening as the new tariffs are for many Indian factories, most American investors who have built stakes in India are not yet fleeing. They do, however, remember what happened in 2020, when India and China traded blows at their border and 24 soldiers were killed. Almost overnight, Chinese companies were forced to ditch their Indian investments at a loss. A war of words and tariffs is different, of course. However, Indian and American co-operation around China is no longer something that anyone can count on. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Written by: Alex Travelli Photographs by: Saumya Khandelwal, Eric Lee ©2025 THE NEW YORK TIMES
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
US to ease human rights criticism of El Salvador, Israel and Russia, Washington Post says
By Kanishka Singh and Costas Pitas , Reuters Under Trump, the administration has increasingly moved away from the traditional promotion of democracy and human rights, largely seeing it as interference in another country's affairs. Photo: AFP / Pool / Christopher Furlong The Trump administration plans to scale back criticism of El Salvador, Israel and Russia over human rights, the Washington Post reports, citing drafts of the State Department's annual human rights report. The draft reports related to those countries were significantly shorter than the ones prepared by the administration of Democratic former President Joe Biden, who left office in January, following Republican Donald Trump's November 2024 election win. The State Department, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment, has not yet officially released this year's report, which covers last year's incidents. A senior State Department official in a briefing with reporters declined to provide specific details about the contents of the report but said it had been restructured in a way that "removes redundancies, increases report readability". The United States has traditionally viewed the promotion of human rights and democracy as well as press freedom as core foreign policy objectives, although critics have repeatedly pointed out the double standard Washington has had towards its allies. Under Trump, the administration has increasingly moved away from the traditional promotion of democracy and human rights, largely seeing it as interference in another country's affairs. Instead, Trump officials have interfered in other ways, repeatedly weighing in on European politics to denounce what they see as suppression of right-wing leaders, including in Romania, Germany and France, and accusing European authorities of censoring views such as criticism of immigration. On El Salvador, the draft State Department report states that it had "no credible reports of significant human rights abuses" in 2024, the Post said. The previous report published under the Biden administration said there were "significant human rights issues" there including credible reports of "degrading treatment or punishment by security forces" and "harsh and life-threatening prison conditions." The Trump administration has deported people to El Salvador with help from the government of President Nayib Bukele, whose country is receiving US$6 million from the US to house the migrants in a high-security mega-prison. The draft report makes no mention of corruption or threats to the independence of Israel's judiciary, the Post reported. The previous report mentioned isolated reports of government corruption and cited the criminal case of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust - all of which he denies. Previous references to Israeli surveillance of Palestinians and restrictions of their movements were also not addressed in the draft report, the newspaper said. The final report on Russia issued under the Biden State Department made several references to violence and harassment faced by LGBTQI+ people in Russia. The Washington Post said the draft report removed all references to LGBTQ+ individuals or crimes against them, and descriptions of government abuses that remained had been softened. The embassies of El Salvador, Israel and Russia in Washington did not immediately respond to separate emailed requests for comment. The Trump administration has moved to reshape the State Department's human rights bureau, which it said had become a platform for "left-wing activists to wage vendettas against 'anti-woke' leaders". Usually, the annual report is released around March or April each year but has been delayed this year. The State Department official said the report would be released "in the very near future." "The report is not meant to be every single human rights abuse that's happened in every single country. It's meant to be illustrative and a broad picture of what the conditions of human rights are on the ground in each country," the official said. - AFP
Otago Daily Times
3 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
Trump could meet Putin over Ukraine soon: official
President Donald Trump could meet Vladimir Putin as soon as next week, a White House official says, as the US prepares to impose secondary sanctions, including potentially on China, to pressure Moscow to end the war in Ukraine. Such a face-to-face meeting would be the first between a sitting United States and Russian president since Joe Biden met Putin in Geneva in June 2021, some eight months before Russia launched the biggest attack on a European nation since World War 2. Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have not met since December 2019 and make no secret of their contempt for each other. The New York Times reported that Trump told European leaders during a call on Wednesday that he intended to meet with Putin and then follow up with a trilateral involving the Russian leader and Zelenskyy. "There's a good chance that there will be a meeting very soon," Trump told reporters. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: "The Russians expressed their desire to meet with President Trump, and the president is open to meeting with both President Putin and President Zelenskyy." The details emerged following a meeting on Wednesday between Putin and US special envoy Steve Witkoff that Trump described as having achieved "great progress" in a Truth Social post, although later said he would not call it a breakthrough. A Kremlin aide said the talks were "useful and constructive." The diplomatic manoeuvers come two days before a deadline set by Trump for Russia to agree to peace in Ukraine or face new sanctions. Trump has been increasingly frustrated with Putin over the lack of progress towards peace and has threatened to impose heavy tariffs on countries that buy Russian exports, including oil. Trump on Wednesday also said he could announce further tariffs on China similar to the 25% duties announced earlier on India over its purchases of Russian oil. "We did it with India. We're doing it probably with a couple of others. One of them could be China," he said. The White House official earlier said that while the meeting between Witkoff and Putin had gone well and Moscow was eager to continue engaging with the United States, secondary sanctions that Trump had threatened against countries doing business with Russia were still expected to be implemented on Friday. Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov said the two sides had exchanged "signals" on the Ukraine issue and discussed the possibility of developing strategic cooperation between Moscow and Washington, but declined to give more details until Witkoff had reported back to Trump. Zelenskyy said he believed pressure had worked on Russia and Moscow was now more "inclined" to a ceasefire. "The pressure on them works. But the main thing is that they do not deceive us in the details - neither us nor the US," Zelenskyy said in his nightly address. Trump on Truth Social said he had updated some of Washington's European allies following Witkoff's meeting. A German government spokesperson said Trump provided information about the status of the talks with Russia during a call with the German chancellor and other European leaders. PRESSURE ON INDIA - AND MAYBE CHINA? Trump took a key step toward punitive measures on Wednesday when he imposed an additional 25% tariff on imports from India, citing New Delhi's continued imports of Russian oil. The new measure raises tariffs on some Indian goods to as high as 50% - among the steepest faced by any US trading partner. India's external affairs ministry called the decision 'extremely unfortunate.' The Kremlin says threats to penalise countries that trade with Russia are illegal. Trump's comment on Wednesday that he could impose more tariffs on China would be a further escalation between the world's two biggest economies. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week warned Chinese officials that continued purchases of sanctioned Russian oil would lead to big tariffs due to legislation in Congress. The US and China have been engaged in discussions about trade and tariffs, with an eye to extending a 90-day tariff truce that is due to expire on August 12, when their bilateral tariffs shoot back up to triple-digit figures. AIR STRIKES Bloomberg and independent Russian news outlet The Bell reported that the Kremlin might propose a moratorium on airstrikes by Russia and Ukraine - an idea mentioned last week by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko during a meeting with Putin. Such a move, if agreed, would fall well short of the full and immediate ceasefire that Ukraine and the US have been seeking for months. But it would offer some relief to both sides. Since the two sides resumed direct peace talks in May, Russia has carried out its heaviest air attacks of the war, killing at least 72 people in the capital Kyiv alone. Trump last week called the Russian attacks "disgusting." Ukraine continues to strike Russian refineries and oil depots, which it has hit many times. Putin is unlikely to bow to Trump's sanctions ultimatum because he believes he is winning the war and his military goals take precedence over his desire to improve relations with the US, three sources close to the Kremlin have told Reuters. The Russian sources told Reuters that Putin was sceptical that yet more US sanctions would have much of an impact after successive waves of economic penalties during the war.
