trade

The US Supreme Court has questioned US President Donald Trump’s authority to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners around the world.

In a closely watched hearing on Wednesday in Washington, DC, conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges appeared sceptical about Trump’s tariff policy, which has already had ramifications for US carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers.

The US president had earlier claimed that his trade tariffs – which have been central to his foreign policy since he returned to power earlier this year – will not affect US businesses, workers and consumers.

But a legal challenge by a number of small American businesses, including toy firms and wine importers, filed earlier this year, has led to lower courts in the country ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal.

In May, the Court of International Trade, based in New York, said Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs and “the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, in August.

Now, the Supreme Court, the country’s top court, is hearing the issue. Last week, the small business leaders, who are being represented by Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal, told the Court that Trump’s import levies were severely harming their businesses and that many have been forced to lay off workers and cut prices as a result.

In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Sunday, Trump described the Supreme Court case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country”.

“If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World,” he added.

What happened in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, and what could happen if the court rules against Trump’s tariffs?

Here’s what we know:

What was discussed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday?

During a hearing which lasted for nearly three hours, the Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D John Sauer, argued that the president’s tariff policy is legal under a 1977 national law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

According to US government documents, IEEPA gives a US president an array of economic powers, including to regulate trade, in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat”.

Trump invoked IEEPA in February to levy a new 25 percent tax on imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as a 10 percent levy on Chinese goods, on the basis that these countries were facilitating the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the US, and that this constituted a national emergency. He later paused the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but increased China’s to 20 percent. This was restored to 10 percent after Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping last month.

In April, when he imposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from a wide array of countries around the world, he said those levies were also in line with IEEPA since the US was running a trade deficit that posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to the nation.

Sauer argued that Trump had imposed the tariffs using IEEPA since “our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe”.

He also told the court that the levies are “regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs”.

But Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses that have brought the case, countered this. “Tariffs are taxes,” Katyal said. “They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.”

What did the judges say about tariffs?

The judges raised another sticking point: Also, under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. Justice John Roberts noted that “the [IEEPA] statute doesn’t use the word tariff.”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president, asked Sauer, “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defence and industrial base?

“I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy,” Coney Barrett said.

Sauer replied that “there’s this sort of lack of reciprocity, this asymmetric treatment of our trade, with respect to foreign countries that does run across the board,” and reiterated the Trump administration’s power to use IEEPA.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with the notion that the tariffs are not taxes, as asserted by Trump’s team. She said, “You want to say that tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

According to recent data released by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, as of the end of August, IEEPA tariffs had generated $89bn in revenues to the US Treasury.

During the court’s arguments on Wednesday, Justice Roberts also suggested that the court may have to invoke the “major questions” doctrine in this case after telling Sauer that the president’s tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress”.

The “major questions” doctrine checks a US executive agency’s power to impose a policy without Congress’s clear directive. The Supreme Court previously used this to block former President Joe Biden’s policies, including his student loan forgiveness plan.

Sauer argued that the “major questions” doctrine should not apply in this context since it would also affect the president’s power in foreign affairs.

Why is this case the ultimate test of Trump’s tariff policy?

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and generally takes several months to make a decision. While it remains unclear when the court will make a decision on this case, according to analysts, the fact that this case was launched against Trump at all is significant.

In a recent report published by Max Yoeli, senior research fellow on the US and Americas Programme at UK-based think tank Chatham House, said, “The Supreme Court’s outcome will shape Trump’s presidency – and those that follow – across executive authority, global trade, and domestic fiscal and economic concerns.”

“It is likewise a salient moment for the Supreme Court, which has empowered Trump and showed little appetite to constrain him,” he added.

Penny Nass, acting senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund’s Washington DC office, told Al Jazeera that the verdict will be viewed by many as a test of Trump’s powers.

“A first impact will be the most direct judicial restraint at the highest level on Presidential power. After a year testing the limits of his power, President Trump will start to see some of constraints on his power,” she said.

According to international trade lawyer Shantanu Singh, who is based in India, the global implications of this case could also be huge.

“One objective of these tariffs was to use them as leverage to get trade partners to do deals with the US. Some countries have concluded trade deals, including to address the IEEPA tariffs,” he told Al Jazeera.

After the imposition of US reciprocal tariffs in April and again in August, several countries and economic blocs, including the EU, UK, Japan, Cambodia and Indonesia, have struck trade deals with the US to reduce tariffs.

But those countries were forced to make concessions to get those deals done. EU countries, for example, had to agree to buy $750bn of US energy and reduce steel tariffs through quotas.

Singh pointed out that an “adverse Supreme Court ruling could bring into doubt the perceived benefit for concluding deals with the US”.

“Further, trade partners who are currently negotiating with the US will have to also adjust their negotiating objectives in light of the ruling and how the administration reacts to it,” he added.

Other countries including India and China are currently actively engaged in trade talks with the US. Trade talks with Canada were terminated by Trump in late October over what Trump described as a “fraudulent” advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about trade tariffs, which was being aired in Canada.

What happens if the judges rule against Trump?

Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court Hearing, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was at the court with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, told Fox News that he was “very optimistic” that the outcome of the case would be in the government’s favour.

“The solicitor general made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the power,” he said and refused to discuss the Trump administration’s plan if the court ruled against the tariff policy.

However, Singh said if the Supreme Court does find these tariffs illegal, one immediate concern will be how tariffs collected so far will be refunded to businesses, if at all.

“Given the importance that the current US administration places on tariffs as a policy tool, we can expect that it would quickly identify other legal authorities and work to reinstate the tariffs,” he said.

Nass added: “The President has many other tariff powers, and will likely quickly recalibrate to maintain his deal-making efforts with partners,” she said, adding that there would still be very complicated work for importers on what to do with the tariffs already collected in 2025 under IEEPA.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Coney Barrett asked Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses contesting Trump’s tariffs, whether this process of paying money back would be “a complete mess”.

Katyal said the businesses he’s representing should be given a refund, but added that it is “very complicated”.

“So, a mess,” Coney Barrett stated.

“It’s difficult, absolutely, we don’t deny that,” Katyal said in response.

In an interview with US broadcaster CNN in September, trade lawyers said the court could decide who gets the refunds. Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, told CNN that the US government “could also try to get the court to approve an administrative refund process, where importers have to affirmatively request a refund”.

What tariffs has Trump imposed so far, and what has their effect been?

Trump has imposed tariffs of varying rates on imports from almost every country in the world, arguing that these levies will enrich the US and protect the domestic US market. The tariff rates range from as high as 50 percent on India and Syria to as low as 10 percent on the UK.

The US president has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on all copper imports, 50 percent on steel and aluminium imports from every country except the UK, 100 percent on patented drugs, 25 percent levies on cars and car parts manufactured abroad, and 25 percent on heavy-duty trucks.

According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyses the US Treasury’s data, tariffs have brought in $223.9bn as of October 31. This is $142.2bn more than the same time last year.

In early July, Treasury Secretary Bessent said revenues from these tariffs could grow to $300bn by the end of 2025.

But in an August 7 report, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that “all 2025 US tariffs plus foreign retaliation lower real US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth by -0.5pp [percentage points] each over calendar years 2025 and 2026”.

Meanwhile, according to a Reuters news agency tracker, which follows how US companies are responding to Trump’s tariff threats, the first-quarter earnings season saw carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers take the worst hit from tariff threats. Levies on aluminium and electronics, such as semiconductors, also led to increased costs.

Reuters reported that as tariffs hit factory orders, big manufacturing companies around the world are also struggling.

In its latest World Economic Outlook report released last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy had been less extreme.

“To date, more protectionist trade measures have had a limited impact on economic activity and prices,” it said.

However, the IMF warned that the current resilience of the global economy may not last.

“Looking past apparent resilience resulting from trade-related distortions in some of the incoming data and whipsawing growth forecasts from wild swings in trade policies, the outlook for the global economy continues to point to dim prospects, both in the short and the long term,” it said.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s skeptical questioning of former President Donald Trump’s global tariffs has fueled speculation that his trade measures may be struck down, potentially upending the already fragile trade landscape.

The case centers on Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on imports. The law grants presidents broad authority to regulate trade during national emergencies but makes no mention of tariffs, raising constitutional questions about the limits of executive power.

During oral arguments on Wednesday, justices across the ideological spectrum except Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas appeared doubtful that Trump had legal authority to levy such blanket global tariffs.

Trade experts now warn that if the court invalidates Trump’s tariff policy, it could trigger a new wave of economic uncertainty, as the administration is expected to pivot quickly to other trade laws to reimpose duties.

Why It Matters

The outcome of this case could reshape U.S. trade policy for years. Businesses have paid over $100 billion in IEEPA-related tariffs since 2025, and a ruling against Trump could open a complex refund battle or force the White House to seek alternative legal pathways for its protectionist agenda.

Corporate leaders, already weary of erratic trade shifts, say a ruling either way offers little stability. “Even if it goes against IEEPA, the uncertainty still continues,” said David Young of the Conference Board, who briefed dozens of CEOs after the hearing.

Trump Administration: Faces potential legal defeat but can pivot to Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act of 1962) or Section 122 (Trade Act of 1974), both of which allow temporary or national security-based tariffs.

U.S. Supreme Court: Balancing presidential powers with statutory limits on trade actions.

Businesses & Importers: Risk being caught in regulatory limbo over refunds and future duties.

Federal Reserve: Monitoring potential economic fallout from prolonged trade instability.

Refunds Could Get “Messy”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised concerns about how refund claims would be handled if the tariffs are ruled illegal, calling it “a mess” for courts to manage.
Lawyer Neal Katyal, representing five small businesses challenging the tariffs, said only those firms would automatically receive refunds, while others must file administrative protests a process that could take up to a year.

Customs lawyer Joseph Spraragen added that if the court orders refunds, the Customs and Border Protection’s automated system could process them, but he warned, “The administration is not going to be eager to just roll over and give refunds.”

Economic and Policy Repercussions

Analysts expect the administration to rely on alternative statutes if IEEPA tariffs are overturned. However, implementing new duties under those laws could be slow and bureaucratic, potentially delaying trade certainty until 2026.

Natixis economist Christopher Hodge said such a ruling would be only a “temporary setback” for Trump’s trade agenda, predicting renewed tariff rounds or trade negotiations in the coming year.

Meanwhile, Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran warned the uncertainty could act as a drag on economic growth, though it might also prompt looser monetary policy if trade instability dampens business confidence.

What’s Next

A Supreme Court ruling is expected in early 2026, leaving companies in limbo over the future of U.S. tariff policy.
If Trump’s powers under IEEPA are curtailed, analysts expect a new wave of trade maneuvers potentially invoking national security provisions to maintain his “America First” economic approach, prolonging the climate of global trade unpredictability.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4 (UPI) — Farmers for Free Trade, a nonprofit group that advocates for lower tariffs and expanded global market access, wrapped up its “Motorcade for Trade” tour Tuesday in Washington to urge policymakers to ease trade tensions and support struggling producers.

Dozens of farmers joined at different points along the route to participate in town halls and farm stops, contributing to discussions on trade priorities, export markets and challenges.

The organization has prioritized five issues, including tariff reductions, exemptions for agricultural necessities, such as fertilizer and equipment, and a timely review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

The caravan began Sept. 5 in Dorchester, Neb., with a cooperative event between farmers and Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb. The next three stops included sessions with Reps. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., Zach Nunn, R-Iowa, and Jim Baird, R-Ind.

Although the Farmers for Free Trade team did not live in its RV, the group named it Ruth after driving more than 2,800 miles with it, spending many hours inside planning and being interviewed with their furry companion, a dog named Huckleberry.

“It’s really about getting information from farmers throughout the Midwest to understand what impact the administration’s trade and tariff policies have had on individuals,” said Brent Bible, an Indiana grain farmer. “It’s had an individual impact, not just on producers, but on communities throughout rural America,”

The caravan made 10 stops — in Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington.

“We hosted events throughout the Midwest — everything from meetings with members of Congress to farmer roundtables and tariff town halls,” said Brian Kuehl, the Farmers for Free Trade executive director.

Between the fourth and fifth stop, Kuehl said, it became increasingly difficult to set a schedule.

“Our No. 1 one priority was to meet with members of Congress, and a lot of times you wouldn’t know their schedule until a few days in advance. Then, in the middle of the tour, we had the government shutdown. A bunch of members we had events with canceled because they had to be in D.C.,” Kuehl said.

His team then pivoted to hosting listening sessions and trade talks with farmers, along with visiting the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, the World Dairy Expo in Wisconsin and various farms.

Despite some adjustments, Kuehl shared his team’s optimism for the tour.

“One of the things that’s so cool about agriculture is how diverse it is throughout the United States,” he said. “In the Midwest, you’re looking at soybean and corn farms. As we moved east, we saw more dairies and hog farms. We even visited a winery in Pennsylvania. Pretty much the trade disruptions are impacting them all negatively.”

In Indiana, Bible said, “Our input costs have gone up dramatically because of tariffs on imports — fertilizer, equipment, steel, aluminum. If we need a replacement part or a new tractor, all of those things are impacted. We’re getting squeezed at both ends, and when that happens, there’s nothing left in the middle.”

In Ohio, corn, soy and cattle farmer Chris Gibbs said, he’s felt that squeeze firsthand. After more than 40 years in agriculture, he described 2025 as “a cash flow and working capital crisis,” noting that he’s paying well above production costs for major crops.

“We’re about $200 per acre under the cost of production for corn and about $100 under for soybeans,” Gibbs said.

Because of the shutdown — now the longest in history — the U.S. Department of Agriculture “is essentially not functioning,” Gibbs said. “They normally release reporting information that the market relies on, but that hasn’t been occurring. Farmers are having to make major business decisions without the data we depend on.”

Gibbs added: “I’ve been farming almost 50 years, and I’m struggling, If I’m having to move money around just to stay afloat, what happens to the young farmers who don’t have savings yet? They’re hanging on by a thread.”

Farmers strategically planned the finale of their motorcade to be in Washington this week in alignment with the Supreme Court of the United States’ schedule. The high court plans to hear oral arguments Wednesday on whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act authorizes President Donald Trump to impose tariffs to the extent he has.

“We’re in a commodity business,” Bible said. “If we have a truly free, functioning market, we can be competitive. But that hasn’t been the case. Prices have been artificially manipulated by policy decisions and retaliation from other countries.”

Former New York Jets executive Scott Pioli, who also played a key role in Bill Belichick’s New England Patriots dynasty, gives his reaction to the Jets trading away defensive stars Sauce Gardner and Quinnen Williams at the NFL’s trade deadline.

WATCH: The Whole 10 Yards – NFL’s trade deadline (UK ONLY)

The United States and China have declared a truce in the trade war launched by US President Donald Trump in April, argues Evan Medeiros, former US National Security Council director for China.

Medeiros tells host Steve Clemons that the deal reached between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump resolves the urgent trade issues between the two sides – tariff rates, soya beans and rare earth minerals – but China “remains committed to ensuring that Russia doesn’t lose” in Ukraine.

The US has more than 200,000 soldiers surrounding China, Medeiros adds, but Washington knows that “nobody wants to choose between the US and China.”

China and the United States have agreed to ease their trade war – for now.

There have been concessions from both, with some of the most painful measures put on hold for a year.

So, what tactics did each side use in the battle between the world’s two biggest economies? Will they work? And what’s the longer-term outlook: agreement, or more trouble ahead?

Presenter: Nick Clark

Guests:

Andy Mok – Senior Research Fellow at the Center for China and Globalization think tank in Beijing

Neil Thomas – Fellow on Chinese Politics at the Asia Society Policy Institute’s Center for China Analysis in Washington, DC

William Lee – Chief Economist at the Milken Institute in Los Angeles

Relations nosedived in 2018 after Canada arrested a senior Huawei executive and have remained rocky ever since.

The leaders of China and Canada have taken a step towards mending the long-fractured ties between their countries with a meeting in South Korea during the Asia-Pacific Economic Summit.

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney met on Friday and called for improving ties in a pragmatic and constructive manner, according to both sides.

“The leaders agreed that their meeting marked a turning point in the bilateral relationship,” a Canadian statement said.

Xi was quoted as saying that relations are showing signs of recovery, thanks to the joint efforts of both sides.

“We are willing to work together with Canada to take this meeting as an opportunity to promote the return of bilateral relations to a healthy, stable and sustainable track as soon as possible,” Xi said, according to an official report distributed by China’s state media.

Carney, who became prime minister in March, accepted an invitation from Xi to visit China, the Canadian statement said, without specifying any date.

Carney also later told reporters he was “very pleased” with the outcome.

“We now have a turning point in the relationship, a turning point that creates opportunities for Canadian families, for Canadian businesses and Canadian workers, and also creates a path to address current issues,” he said.

“The meeting signals a change in tone and an openness to relations at the highest levels, but this is not a return to strategic partnership,” said Vina Nadjibulla, vice president of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. “Canada needs to proceed with caution because there’s nothing to suggest the Chinese Communist Party’s actions have changed since the prime minister named China as a foreign security threat.”

She said Carney should keep talking with Chinese leaders but stay mindful of China’s threats to Canada’s security interests, including its efforts to play a greater role in Arctic affairs.

Shaky relations

Relations took a nosedive in late 2018 after Canadian authorities arrested a senior executive of Chinese tech giant Huawei as part of its extradition agreement with the United States. China then arrested two Canadian citizens and charged them with espionage.

Ties did not improve much even after the 2021 release of the two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, and the Chinese executive, Meng Wanzhou, who is the daughter of Huawei’s founder.

More recently, relations have been shaken by Canada’s decision to levy a 100 percent tariff on electric vehicles (EVs) from China in 2024 and a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminium. China retaliated with its own steep tariffs on canola, seafood and pork, and has offered to remove some of those import taxes if Canada drops the EV tariff.

Canada made the move last in tandem with the US.

The Canadian statement said that both leaders directed their officials to move quickly to resolve trade issues and irritants and discussed solutions for specific products such as EVs, canola and seafood.

Xi called for expanding “pragmatic” cooperation in areas such as the economy, trade and energy. Both Canada and China have been hit by tariffs imposed by US President Donald Trump.

The attempt at rapprochement comes as Carney looks to diversify Canada’s trade away from the US and as Trump says he plans to raise tariffs on imports of Canadian goods by an extra 10 percent. Canada’s free trade agreement with the US is up for review.

Earlier on Friday, Carney told a business event that the world of rules-based liberalised trade and investment had passed, adding that Canada aimed to double its non-US exports over the next decade.

Nadjibulla said China should not be viewed as the solution to Canada’s issues with the US, however.

“We should not diversify away from the US and go deeper into China,” she said. “Canada’s overdependence on both the US and China has been shown to be a vulnerability we cannot afford.”

As Brussels pushes ahead with a new wave of enlargement, the numbers behind Europe’s trade with its candidate countries reveal a story of dependence, asymmetry, but also a large, untapped potential.

The official EU candidates are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey, and Ukraine. Kosovo is treated as a potential candidate.

Together, they cover a diverse sweep of geography from long Adriatic coastlines to lush forests and some of Europe’s most productive farmland — also including some of Europe’s youngest populations.

But while trade flows between the bloc and future members are booming, the relationship remains unequal, with more EU-produced goods finding a market than those stemming from potential member states.

A relationship measured in billions

According to the European Commission’s 2025 Western Balkans trade factsheet, total trade in goods between the EU and the six Western Balkan partners reached €83.6 billion in 2024, up 28.6% since 2021.

Exports from the EU to the region stood at €49.06bn, while imports from the Western Balkans came to €34.52bn, leaving Brussels with a €14.54bn trade surplus.

The EU’s dominance as a market is overwhelming. It accounts for around 62% of all Western Balkan trade, whereas the region represents barely 1.7% of the EU’s external trade.

For Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Albania, between two-thirds and three-quarters of all exports go to EU countries.

“All (candidate) countries, with the curious exception of North Macedonia, have persistent trade deficits with the EU, meaning they import more from the EU than they export there,” explained Branimir Jovanović, an expert with The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies (WIIW).

“These are economies with small productive sectors. They do not produce enough of what they need, so they have to import, and they also do not produce enough to export,” Jovanović continued.

Over the past decade, North Macedonia has become a production base for components that go straight into EU industry that qualify for preferential access to the EU market under the Stabilisation and Association framework (SAA).

The result is that North Macedonia can sell a relatively high share of what it makes directly into the EU without being blocked by technical standards.

This is very different from, say, Albania, which leans more on raw materials and low-value textiles, or Montenegro, which is tourism-heavy and import-dependent in goods.

It is also different from Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia, which still import a lot of higher-value machinery from the EU and then export a more mixed, lower-value basket back.

Ukraine and Moldova import high-value EU machinery, vehicles and industrial equipment, while exporting mainly lower-margin goods. In essence, they supply raw materials and basic products, and the EU supplies the technology to produce them.

Barriers to trade

The Western Balkans trade with the EU under SAAs, which gradually remove tariffs and align national laws with EU rules as part of the formal accession process. By contrast, Ukraine and Moldova operate under Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas (DCFTAs), broader deals that open large parts of the EU single market in exchange for adopting much of the EU’s regulatory framework.

In essence, SAAs are a pathway to membership, while DCFTAs offer deep EU market integration without full membership. This distinction has, however, become blurred — with Brussels indicating that it believes in full membership for Ukraine and Moldova after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

“Countries exporting to the EU face many barriers aside from tariffs. Economists call these technical barriers to trade, such as phytosanitary standards,” Jovanović explained.

So even if they produce something that there is a demand for in the EU, it never reaches those markets because these companies might not have the necessary certificates.

“So, although unemployment has decreased, there is no real progress in development. There is also a real risk of a middle-income trap, in the sense that these economies remain assembly-line economies, with low wages and limited technological development and innovation.”

The same debate now extends to Ukraine, which formally opened EU accession talks in 2024. Despite the war, trade between the EU and Ukraine has surged. Eurostat data shows the bloc exported €42.8bn worth of goods to Ukraine in 2024 and imported €24.5bn, yielding a €18.3bn surplus for the EU.

The composition of that trade has shifted dramatically since the Russian invasion. Agricultural commodities still dominate Ukrainian exports such but the EU has become its conduit for reconstruction materials and machinery.

Neighbouring Moldova, another candidate country since 2023, shows similar patterns. The EU is Moldova’s biggest trading partner, accounting for 54% of its total trade in goods in 2024. Some 65.6% of Moldovan exports head to the EU.

Trade turnover reached about €7.5bn last year, with EU exports to Moldova amounting to €5.1bn and imports to €2.4bn.

EU standards, a distant dream?

The Western Balkans have made solid progress since the early 2000s, but full convergence with the European Union remains a distant goal, warned the OECD’s Economic Convergence Scoreboard for 2025.

The six economies have more than doubled their output in two decades — yet the region still only reaches about 40% of the EU average. At current growth rates, full convergence won’t arrive until 2074.

The region’s output per person (in purchasing-power parity terms) has more than doubled in 20 years, showing real improvement in productivity, investment, and living standards.

That means the Western Balkans are closing the gap, but painfully slowly, and the strong growth rates are offset by the much higher productivity and capital stock inside the EU.

Growth, on its own, is not enough for convergence. The Western Balkans need qualitatively different growth which is driven by innovation, skills, and higher-value industries.

Infrastructure and productivity are the region’s weakest links.

According to the OECD report: “The insufficient quality and coverage of core public transport infrastructure can be a significant obstacle to higher economic growth…as inadequate transport networks can severely constrain the connectivity of producers and consumers to global and regional markets.”

With regard to Ukraine, its economy has adapted after a historic shock, but the damage is staggering. Much of the population has been displaced and large swathes of infrastructure have been destroyed.

Output fell –28.8% in 2022 and rebounded +5.5% in 2023. Public finances are being stretched to the limit by defence needs, hindering convergence with EU member states.

Foreign investment: Friend or foe?

Foreign direct investment (FDI) brings factories and jobs to candidate countries, as well as building stronger links with existing EU member states. Even so, Jovanović argued that this has not led to “structural transformation” in the candidate nations.

The pattern is visible, for example, in Serbia — where car plants are boosting employment but the country is still importing high-tech machinery.

When FDI concentrates in lower-value stages of production and local supplier bases remain thin, wage gains are limited and more value is captured abroad.

“There is a duality in how FDI is perceived: politicians still see it as the key — sometimes even the only way — to develop the economy, while people are increasingly seeing it as a vicious circle,” said Jovanović.

“Hence, a change in the economic model is long overdue — with a more selective approach towards FDI, focusing on high-quality and high-tech investment and a greater focus on domestic companies through industrial and innovation policies,” Jovanović added.

The argument is clear: while FDI raises employment and links these economies to EU markets, it becomes transformative only when it upgrades the local production base.

Otherwise, candidate countries risk remaining an assembly platform rather than a full partner in Europe’s value chains.

A test of Europe’s promise

In the end, the numbers tell both a success story and a warning. They show integration without transformation: Exports are up, factories are open, but productivity and infrastructure still lag.

The next phase will need to hinge on quality, not just quantity, say experts. This means selective FDI that upgrades supply chains, targeted single-market access tied to reforms, and faster investment in skills, energy, and transport.

If Brussels and the candidates can shift from assembly to innovation, the gap can narrow within a generation. If not, the candidate countries risk remaining a dependable workshop rather than a prosperous partner.

GYEONGJU, South Korea, Oct. 30 (UPI) — U.S. President Donald Trump departed from South Korea on Thursday after a highly anticipated meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping that lowered the temperature on a simmering trade war with agreements on rare earth minerals, fentanyl, soybeans and tariffs.

The two leaders met for the first time since 2019 at Gimhae Air Base in the southeastern city of Busan, shortly after Xi arrived in the country for a three-day state visit to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

Speaking to reporters on his way back to Washington aboard Air Force One, Trump described the outlines of a trade deal that he said would be signed “pretty soon.”

According to the president, China agreed to take steps to stop the flow of precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl into the United States. In response, Trump said he halved the 20% fentanyl-linked tariffs he had imposed earlier this year.

“Based on [Xi’s] statements today, I reduced it by 10%. So, it’s 10% instead of 20%, effective immediately,” Trump said.

The reduction brings the overall tariff rate on goods from China from 57% to 47%, he said.

Beijing also agreed to resume purchases of American soybeans and set a one-year pause on its planned export controls of rare earth minerals. China dominates the production and processing of the metallic elements, which are crucial for manufacturing a vast array of high-tech products from smartphones to missiles.

“We have not too many stumbling blocks now,” Trump said. “We have a deal. We’ll negotiate at the end of a year, but all of the rare earth has been settled.”

No official announcement from either side has been released yet, but the U.S. president declared the meeting a “great success.”

“Overall, on the scale of from zero to 10, with 10 being the best, I would say the meeting was a 12,” Trump said.

One topic the two leaders did not discuss was Taiwan, Trump noted. Some analysts had expected Xi to exert leverage in an attempt to soften U.S. support for the self-governing island of 23 million, which China sees as a breakaway province.

“I’m relieved Taiwan apparently didn’t come up in today’s meeting,” Sean King, senior vice president and East Asia expert at New York-based consulting firm Park Strategies, told UPI.

However, King said that the trade deal does not represent significant progress from when Trump kicked off his global tariff scheme in early April, on what the White House dubbed “Liberation Day.”

“We’re seemingly no further along than where we were on Liberation Day,” King said. “Unlike friendly leaders, Xi gave Trump no golden gifts … Right now, for better or worse, it seems like not too much of major trade substance happened in today’s meeting.”

At the start of the meeting, the two leaders had a brief introductory exchange that was open to the media.

“Given our different national conditions, we do not always see eye to eye with each other and it is normal for the two leading economies of the world to have friction now and then,” Xi said.

Xi called on Trump to join him and “ensure the steady sailing forward of the giant ship of China-U.S. relations.”

“I always believe that China’s development goes hand in hand with your vision to make America great again,” Xi said. “Our two countries are fully able to help each other succeed and prosper together.”

After the meeting, Xi traveled to the nearby city of Gyeongju to take part in the APEC Economic Leaders’ Meeting. Trump attended the APEC summit on Wednesday, where he struck a trade deal with South Korean President Lee Jae Myung and delivered a keynote address at a CEO luncheon.

Indian Defence Minister Rajnath Singh is set to meet his U.S. counterpart Pete Hegseth in Kuala Lumpur on Friday, two Indian officials confirmed. The meeting, taking place on the sidelines of the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting (ADMM), will mark the first direct interaction between the two leaders and comes at a delicate moment for bilateral relations strained by Washington’s punitive trade tariffs on Indian imports.

The discussions are expected to cover India’s ongoing plans to acquire six Boeing P-8I maritime patrol aircraft for its navy and a proposed new India-U.S. defence cooperation framework aimed at revitalising strategic ties. According to one official, the meeting could lay the groundwork for a bilateral visit either by Hegseth to New Delhi or Singh to Washington as both sides look to reset momentum in defence diplomacy.

Key Issues

Relations between India and the United States hit a low point earlier this year when U.S. President Donald Trump doubled tariffs on Indian imports to 50% to punish New Delhi for continuing to purchase Russian oil. The planned Singh-Hegseth meeting in Washington in August was consequently scrapped.

However, geopolitical shifts are now offering both sides an opening to rebuild ties. Following U.S. sanctions on Moscow’s top crude exporters, Indian refiners have reduced imports of Russian oil, aligning New Delhi’s actions more closely with Western interests. Washington, in turn, appears keen to re-engage with India to strengthen strategic cooperation in Asia particularly in countering China’s influence.

Why It Matters

The meeting is a key test of how far the India-U.S. strategic partnership can withstand trade disputes and geopolitical friction. Defence cooperation has been one of the strongest pillars of bilateral relations, spanning arms sales, joint exercises, and intelligence sharing under the Quad framework.

Reviving momentum now could reinforce India’s role as a security partner for the U.S. in the Indo-Pacific, especially as Washington seeks to deepen defence ties in the region amid rising tensions in the South China Sea and with China’s growing assertiveness.

India’s Defence Ministry: Seeking to secure technology transfers and diversify suppliers while preserving its strategic autonomy.

U.S. Department of Defense: Looking to reassure New Delhi of continued defence engagement despite trade frictions.

Boeing and U.S. defence contractors: Potential beneficiaries if new procurement deals move forward.

ASEAN nations: Watching the talks closely as regional defence alignments shift amid great-power competition.

What’s Next

Singh is expected to deliver formal remarks at the ASEAN meeting on November 1, where he may underscore India’s vision for regional security and freedom of navigation. If Friday’s talks go smoothly, analysts anticipate a high-level bilateral visit could follow within months a sign that the world’s two largest democracies are again moving toward strategic alignment after a period of economic friction.

For now, both sides remain cautious but pragmatic, aware that long-term interests especially in defence and Indo-Pacific security outweigh short-term trade disputes.

With information from Reuters.

United States President Donald Trump expects “a lot of problems” will be solved between Washington and Beijing when he meets China’s President Xi Jinping in South Korea for a high-stakes meeting on Thursday, amid growing trade tensions between the two.

Relations between the two world powers have been strained in recent years, with Washington and Beijing imposing tit-for-tat trade tariffs topping 100 percent against each other this year, the US restricting its exports of semiconductors vital for artificial intelligence (AI) development and Beijing restricting exports of critical rare-earth metals which are vital for the defence industry and also the development of AI, among other issues.

Officials from Washington and Beijing have been locked in trade talks since August to de-escalate trade tensions, and they also came up with a framework for a trade deal during meetings in Malaysia over the weekend.

On the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Gyeongju, South Korea, on Wednesday, Trump said an expected trade deal between China and the US would be good for both countries and “something very exciting for everybody”.

But only a meeting between Trump and Xi can confirm if a trade deal is really in the making.

Expectations for the agreement are modest, with analysts expecting the two world powers to continue to clash over their myriad differences long-term.

When are the two leaders meeting?

Trump is scheduled to meet Xi on Thursday in the port city of Busan in southeastern South Korea. The meeting is expected to start at 11am local time (01:00 GMT).

It will be the first time the leaders have met in person since Trump returned to the White House in January.

The US president last met Xi in 2019, during Trump’s first term, on the sidelines of the Group of 20 (G20) summit in Osaka, Japan.

“I think we’re going to have a great meeting with President Xi of China, and a lot of problems are going to be solved,” Trump told journalists on Wednesday on Air Force One while en route to South Korea.

On Wednesday, China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs confirmed the meeting between Xi and Trump in a statement and said the leaders “will exchange views on bilateral relations and issues of mutual interest”.

What will Trump and Xi talk about?

Discussions are likely to cover:

• Trade tariffs
• Trafficking of fentanyl, a drug responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the US each year
• China’s export controls on critical rare-earth metals and its purchase of US soya beans
• US export controls on semiconductors
• Geopolitical and security issues, particularly Russia’s war in Ukraine and Washington’s position on Taiwan
• Port fees on Chinese ships docking in US ports
• Finalising a deal to buy TikTok, the social media platform, from its Chinese owners

Alejandro Reyes, adjunct professor at the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Hong Kong, told Al Jazeera that at this meeting, both sides will want to steady an uneasy rivalry – but for different reasons.

“For Washington, the goal is to show that its tough line on China has delivered results. The Trump team is walking into this summit after signing trade pacts with Malaysia, Cambodia and Japan that link market access directly to national security cooperation. These deals require America’s partners to align with US export controls and supply-chain rules – essentially making ‘economic security’ a shared obligation,” he said.

“For Beijing, the priority is to project calm and endurance. The meeting comes just after the fourth plenum, which reaffirmed Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s authority and set the direction for the next five-year plan. China’s message is that it has weathered Western pressure and is back to focusing on growth and domestic stability,” he added.

But discussions on disputes over trade tariffs, critical rare-earth metals, AI technology and geopolitical strategies, the issues that most define the current relationship between the US and China, according to Reyes, are not going to be easy to resolve.

“The mistrust is structural now – it’s built into how both countries think about power and security,” he said.

What are the sticking points?

Fentanyl

A key issue for the Trump administration is stopping the illegal flow of drugs, particularly fentanyl – a powerful synthetic opiate which is 50 times more potent than heroin – from China to the US. In February, Trump slapped a 20 percent trade tariff on all imports from China, citing Beijing’s lack of effort in curbing the flow of the drug into the US.

In a media briefing note sent to Al Jazeera by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, Bonnie Glaser, managing director of GMF’s Indo-Pacific programme, said the fentanyl trade has been “a really contentious issue between the US and China”.

“From what I have heard, a criminal money-laundering cooperation supports the fentanyl trade, and this is where China is willing to cooperate, in a way where it will have minimum negative impact on their domestic situation,” she said at a briefing held in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.

Late on Tuesday, The Wall Street Journal reported that during Thursday’s meeting, “China is expected to commit to more controls on the export of so-called precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl.” The newspaper added that if this agreement is reached, Trump would reduce the tariffs imposed because of fentanyl by as much as 10 percent.

Trade tariffs

Following the fentanyl-related tariffs, in March, China imposed a 15 percent tariff on a range of US farm exports in retaliation, triggering a tit-for-tat tariff war.

In April, Trump raised tariffs on Chinese imports to 145 percent, prompting China to hit back with 125 percent tariffs of its own.

Washington and Beijing later cut tariffs to 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively, in May, and agreed to a 90-day truce in August for trade talks. The truce has been extended twice, but despite repeated talks, a trade agreement has not been reached.

Rare-earth metals and soya beans

China has restricted exports of 12 critical rare-earth metals this year, as well as of the machinery needed to refine these metals, citing security reasons. Beijing also said its restrictions were in response to US restrictions on the Chinese maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries.

The first seven metals to be restricted were announced in April, while the remaining five were announced on October 10. These metals are crucial for the defence industry and for developing AI technology.

In October, Trump responded by threatening to impose 100 percent tariffs on China from November 1, citing Beijing’s strict export controls on critical rare earths as the reason for the tariffs.

Trump added that the US would also impose export controls on “any and all critical software”.

Reyes noted that while the US wants guaranteed access to rare earths and battery materials, it signed a new agreement with Japan and trade clauses with Malaysia this week, which aim to reduce the US dependence on China for these. “Beijing sees this as an effort to contain its influence,” he said.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent told many US media outlets this week that he expected China to defer its restrictions on rare earths and that Trump’s 100 percent tariff threat was “effectively off the table”.

Bessent added that the Chinese side would agree to increase purchases of US-grown soya beans.

Dylan Loh, associate professor in public policy and global affairs at Nanyang Technological University, said he anticipates some positive movement on solving these trade disputes but does not believe the fundamental economic tension between the US and China will be resolved at the meeting.

“The competition and mistrust go beyond simply economics,” he told Al Jazeera. “But the problems can be managed and must be managed well. It requires political capital and the ability to move beyond zero-sum thinking.”

Technology and TikTok

In September, Trump signed an executive order to transfer TikTok’s US assets to US investors, citing national security reasons. On Sunday, Bessent told US broadcaster CBS that the US and China had “reached a final deal on TikTok”, which will be finalised at the Trump-Xi meeting.

But, Reyes said, “the deal cools one dispute but doesn’t end the fight over chips, AI and digital control”.

In October, Washington blacklisted hundreds of Chinese tech firms, claiming they posed a risk to national security. The US has also restricted companies such as Nvidia from exporting advanced chips, important to manufacture key equipment used for the development of AI, to China, claiming that Beijing would use it to advance its global power.

Beijing has been irked by Washington’s restrictions and has launched antitrust investigations into Nvidia and Qualcomm, and has also increased its export controls on rare-earth elements.

Speaking to reporters on board Air Force One en route to South Korea on Wednesday, Trump said he might speak to Xi about Nvidia chips.

“I think we may be talking about that with President Xi,” Trump said.

Geopolitical Issues

According to analysts, Trump is eager to use this meeting with Xi to discuss ways to end Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Beijing, a close ally of Moscow, has said a prolonged war in Ukraine “serves no one’s interest”. But, in July, according to a report by The South China Morning Post, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told the European Union that it can’t afford to have Russia lose the war in Ukraine since the US would then turn its attention to China.

Trump has threatened to slap sanctions and tariffs on countries that buy Moscow’s crude oil in efforts to end the war. It has already imposed an additional 25 percent tariff – bringing the total to 50 percent – on India as a punishment for purchasing Russian oil.

But the US has not yet taken this step with China, which imports about 1.4 million barrels of Russian oil per day by sea.

According to a Reuters report, however, after the US sanctioned two of Moscow’s largest oil companies, Rosneft and Lukoil, in October, Chinese national oil companies like PetroChina and Sinopec have said they will refrain from importing seaborne Russian oil for the short term.

“Trump wants a ceasefire and a peace deal in Ukraine. Putin has been unwilling to play ball, and Trump, I think, intends to raise this with Xi Jinping, possibly ask him if he can reach out to Putin and encourage him to come to the negotiating table,” Glaser said.

“We know so far, Xi Jinping has been very, very cautious about getting involved. I think he will be reluctant to pressure Putin to do,” she added.

Besides Ukraine, Beijing will be eager to discuss the US position on Taiwan, according to Glaser.

“Xi Jinping will raise concerns about what Beijing views as the pro-independence policies of Taiwan’s President Lai Ching-te, and I think he will want clarification of the US stance and may well press Trump to say that the US opposes Taiwan independence and supports China’s unification,” she said.

“The bottom line is that Trump is not likely to abandon Taiwan because doing so could lead to a PRC [People’s Republic of China] decision to use force, and Trump wants to take credit for ending wars, not starting them,” Glaser added.

Trump, however, told journalists on board Air Force One on Wednesday that he was “not sure” he would discuss Taiwan.

How strong are their negotiating positions?

The balance of power in the respective negotiating positions of China and the US has shifted in the recent past.

Former US President Joe Biden restricted exports of US semiconductors, which are crucial for the development of AI, much to China’s annoyance. Then, early this year, Trump compounded this with 145 percent tariffs on Chinese goods.

China retaliated with 125 percent tariffs on US goods, escalating a trade war, until the two sides agreed in May to pause tariffs to allow for trade talks.

But that was not before China placed export restrictions on seven rare-earth metals in April. In October, China restricted exports of five more rare-earth metals, and Trump threatened 100 percent tariffs again in retaliation.

This week, seeking to diversify trade and its supply chains, China strengthened a trade deal with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). But the US also drew up new trade agreements with Japan, Malaysia and Cambodia. On Wednesday, South Korea announced that it too had reached a trade agreement with the US, and was lowering tariffs on imported US goods.

According to Loh, it is unclear who has the upper hand right now between the US and China.

“While the signing of the FTA [with ASEAN] has certainly enhanced China’s position and influence and is indeed quite significant for ASEAN and China, it does not necessarily have a direct bearing on US-China itself,” Loh said.

“US retains considerable political and economic influence in this part of the world still, as evinced by Trump’s trip here,” he added.

According to Reyes, each side has different kinds of leverage.

“The United States has built a new network of allies who have literally signed on to Washington’s playbook,” he said, referring to the deal Washington signed with Malaysia, which obliges Kuala Lumpur to match US trade restrictions. Malaysia has clarified that this deal would only apply to matters of shared concern.

But Reyes said such a deal “gives Trump’s team political and legal momentum going into the China meeting”.

“China, though, has the economic stamina. It still anchors global manufacturing, dominates critical-mineral processing, and has proven that tariffs couldn’t break its model. China used the trade war to build muscles, resistance and resilience – it learned to do everything faster, cheaper and at scale,” he said.

“So the US has the ‘louder’ hand; China has the steadier one. Washington can escalate, but Beijing can outlast,” Reyes added.

So what is likely to come out of these talks?

The stakes are high with Trump announcing that he anticipates a “great” meeting. But expectations of any “great” outcome are low.

Reyes said he expects a truce in their strained ties with photo opportunities rather than any grand bargain.

“Expect both sides to announce small wins: a delay on tariffs, a joint statement on trade stability, maybe a working group on critical minerals cooperation,” he said.

“This summit won’t end the rivalry – it simply marks a new phase: the US building alliances through treaties, and China doing much the same, while consolidating power through endurance building. This meeting isn’t about ending the rivalry – it’s about learning to live with it,” he said.

GYEONGJU, South Korea — The United States and South Korea advanced trade talks on Wednesday, addressing details of $350 billion that would be invested in the American economy, after negotiations and ceremonies that included the presentation of a gold medal and crown to President Trump.

Both were gifts from the country’s president, Lee Jae Myung, who dialed up the flattery while Washington and Seoul worked to nail down financial promises during the last stop of Trump’s Asia trip.

Although both sides said progress has been made — Trump said things were “pretty much finalized” — no agreement has been signed yet. The framework includes gradual investments, cooperation on shipbuilding and the lowering of Trump’s tariffs on South Korea’s automobile exports, according to Kim Yong-beom, Lee’s chief of staff for policy. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The announcement came after a day of adulation for the visiting American president from his hosts. There was a special lunch menu featuring U.S.-raised beef and a gold-adorned brownie. A band played Trump’s campaign anthem of “Y.M.C.A.” when he stepped off Air Force One. Lee told him that “you are indeed making America great again.”

Trump can be mercurial and demanding, but he has a soft spot for pomp and circumstance. He was particularly impressed by a choreographed display of colorful flags as he walked along the red carpet.

“That was some spectacle, and some beautiful scene,” Trump told Lee during their meeting. “It was so perfect, so flawlessly done.”

Earlier in the day, Trump even softened his rhetoric on international trade, which he normally describes in predatory terms where someone is always trying to rip off the United States.

“The best deals are deals that work for everybody,” he said during a business forum.

Trade deal with Seoul in process

Trump was visiting while South Korea is hosting the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in the historical city of Gyeongju. He previously stopped in Japan, where he bonded with the new prime minister, and Malaysia, where he attended a summit of the Assn. of Southeast Asian Nations.

The Republican president has been trying to tie up trade deals along the way, eager to show that his confrontational approach of tariffs is paying dividends for Americans who are uneasy about the job market and watching a federal government shutdown extend into its fifth week.

South Korea has been particularly tough to crack, with the sticking point being Trump’s demand for $350 billion of direct investment in the U.S.

Korean officials say putting up cash could destabilize their own economy, and they’d rather offer loans and loan guarantees instead. The country would also need a swap line to manage the flow of its currency into the U.S.

Trump, after meeting with Lee, said “we made our deal pretty much finalized.” He did not provide any details.

Oh Hyunjoo, a deputy national security director for South Korea, told reporters earlier in the week that the negotiations have been proceeding “a little bit more slowly” than expected.

“We haven’t yet been able to reach an agreement on matters such as the structure of investments, their formats and how the profits will be distributed,” she said Monday.

It’s a contrast from Trump’s experience in Japan, where the government has worked to deliver the $550 billion in investments it promised as part of an earlier trade agreement. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick announced up to $490 billion in specific commitments during a dinner with business leaders in Tokyo.

For now, South Korea is stuck with a 25% tariff on automobiles, putting automakers such as Hyundai and Kia at a disadvantage against Japanese and European competitors, which face 15%.

Lee, speaking at the business forum before Trump arrived, warned against trade barriers.

“At a time when protectionism and nationalism are on the rise and nations focus on their immediate survival, words like ‘cooperation,’ ‘coexistence’ and ‘inclusive growth’ may sound hollow,” he said. “Yet, paradoxically, it is in times of crisis like this that APEC’s role as a platform for solidarity shines brighter.”

Trump and Lee swap praise

Lee took office in June and had a warm meeting with Trump at the White House in August, when he praised Oval Office renovations and suggested building a Trump Tower in North Korea.

He took a similar approach when Trump visited on Wednesday. The gold medal presented to Trump represents the Grand Order of Mugunghwa, the country’s highest honor, and Trump is the first U.S. president to receive it.

Trump said, “It’s as beautiful as it can possibly be” and “I’d like to wear it right now.”

Next was a replica of a royal crown from the Silla Kingdom, which existed from 57 B.C. to 935 A.D. The original crown was found in a tomb in Gyeongju, the kingdom’s capital.

Besides trade disagreements, there have been other points of tension between Washington and Seoul this year. More than 300 South Koreans were detained during a U.S. immigration raid on a Hyundai plant in Georgia in September, sparking outrage and betrayal.

Lee said at the time companies would likely hesitate to make future investments unless the visa system was improved.

“If that’s not possible, then establishing a local factory in the United States will either come with severe disadvantages or become very difficult for our companies,” he said.

Asked Monday about the immigration raid, Trump said, “I was opposed to getting them out,” and he said an improved visa system would make it easier for companies to bring in skilled workers.

Trump-Xi meeting is expected Thursday

While in South Korea, Trump is also expected to hold a closely watched meeting on Thursday with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Washington and Beijing have clashed over trade, but both sides have indicated that they’re willing to dial down tensions.

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One on Wednesday that he expects to lower tariffs targeting China over the flow of fentanyl ingredients.

“They’ll be doing what they can do,” he said. Trump added that “China is going to be working with me.”

Trump sounded resigned to the idea that he wouldn’t get to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on this trip. The president previously floated the possibility of extending his stay in South Korea, but on Wednesday said “the schedule was very tight.”

North Korea has so far dismissed overtures from Washington and Seoul, saying it won’t resume diplomacy with the United States unless Washington drops its demand for the North’s denuclearization. North Korea said Wednesday it fired sea-to-surface cruise missiles into its western waters, in the latest display of its growing military capabilities as Trump visits South Korea.

Trump brushed off the weapons test, saying, “He’s been launching missiles for decades, right?”

The two leaders met during Trump’s first term, although their conversations did not produce any agreements about North Korea’s nuclear program.

Megerian writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Kim Tong-hyung and Hyung-jin Kim contributed to this report from Seoul and Josh Boak contributed from Tokyo.

Oct. 29 (UPI) — An Australian cybersecurity expert who served as director of L3Harris Trenchant, a U.S. defense contractor, has pleaded guilty in federal court to selling trade secrets to a Russian broker that resells cyber exploits to buyers including the Russian government.

Peter Williams, 39, pleaded guilty to two counts of theft of trade secrets that had been stolen over a three-year period from the defense contractor where he worked, the U.S. Justice Department announced in a news release.

The Justice Department did not name the American company, but British government corporate records showed it to be L3Harris Trenchant, where he was employed as the director from October 2024 until he resigned in August.

Williams admitted as part of his plea deal that he used his access to steal $35 million worth of trade secrets beginning in 2022 until his resignation, the Justice Department said.

Using the alias John Taylor, Williams then entered into “multiple written contracts” with a Russian broker who paid him some $1.3 million in cryptocurrency, and then used the money to buy himself fake Rolexes and high-end jewelry.

Sources told Australia’s ABC broadcaster that Williams previously worked for the Australian Signals Directorate, the country’s equivalent to the U.S. National Security Agency.

Precise details of what was stolen by Williams have not been made public, but the Justice Department said the materials were “national security-focused software that included at least eight sensitive and protected cyber-exploit components.”

“America’s national security is not for sale, especially in an evolving threat landscape where cybercrime poses a serious danger to our citizens,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

Williams faces up to 10 years in prison for each count at his sentencing, expected to take place next year. He also faces fines of up to $300,000 and will have to pay restitution of $1.3 million.

WASHINGTON — The Senate approved a resolution Tuesday evening that would nullify President Trump’s tariffs on Brazil, including oil, coffee and orange juice, as Democrats tested GOP senators’ support for Trump’s trade policy.

The legislation from Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, a Democrat, passed on a 52-48 tally.

It would terminate the national emergencies that Trump has declared to justify 50% tariffs on Brazil, but the legislation is likely doomed because the Republican-controlled House has passed new rules that allow leadership to prevent it from ever coming up for a vote. Trump would almost certainly veto the legislation even if it were to pass Congress.

Still, the vote demonstrated some pushback in GOP ranks against Trump’s tariffs. Five Republicans — Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina — all voted in favor of the resolution along with every Democrat.

Kaine said the votes are a way force a conversation in the Senate about “the economic destruction of tariffs.” He’s planning to call up similar resolutions applying to Trump’s tariffs on Canada and other nations later this week.

“But they are also really about how much will we let a president get away with? Do my colleagues have a gag reflex or not?” Kaine told reporters.

Trump has linked the tariffs on Brazil to the country’s policies and criminal prosecution of former President Jair Bolsonaro. The U.S. ran a $6.8 billion trade surplus with Brazil last year, according to the Census Bureau.

“Every American who wakes up in the morning to get a cup of java is paying a price for Donald Trump’s reckless, ridiculous, and almost childish tariffs,” said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

Republicans have also been increasingly uneasy with Trump’s aggressive trade policy, especially at a time of turmoil for the economy. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said last month that Trump’s tariff policy is one of several factors that are expected to increase jobless rates and inflation and lower overall growth this year.

In April, four Republicans voted with Democrats to block tariffs on Canada, but the bill was never taken up in the House. Kaine said he hoped the votes this week showed how Republican opposition to Trump’s trade policy is growing.

To bring up the votes, Kaine has invoked a decades-old law that allows Congress to block a president’s emergency powers and members of the minority party to force votes on the resolutions.

However, Vice President JD Vance visited a Republican luncheon on Tuesday in part to emphasize to Republicans that they should allow the president to negotiate trade deals. Vance told reporters afterwards that Trump is using tariffs “to give American workers and American farmers a better deal.”

“To vote against that is to strip that incredible leverage from the president of the United States. I think it’s a huge mistake,” he added.

The Supreme Court will also soon consider a case challenging Trump’s authority to implement sweeping tariffs. Lower courts have found most of his tariffs illegal.

But some Republicans said they would wait until the outcome of that case before voting to cross the president.

“I don’t see a need to do that right now,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer, a North Dakota Republican, adding that it was “bad timing” to call up the resolutions before the Supreme Court case.

Others said they are ready to show opposition to the president’s tariffs and the emergency declarations he has used to justify them.

“Tariffs make both building and buying in America more expensive, “ said Sen. Mitch McConnell, the former longtime Republican leader, in a statement. ”The economic harms of trade wars are not the exception to history, but the rule.”

His fellow Kentuckian, Republican Sen. Rand Paul, told reporters, “Emergencies are like war, famine, tornado. Not liking someone’s tariffs is not an emergency. It’s an abuse of the emergency power. And it’s Congress abdicating their traditional role in taxes.”

In a floor speech, he added, “No taxation without representation is embedded in our Constitution.”

Meanwhile, Kaine is also planning to call up a resolution that would put a check on Trump’s ability to carry out military strikes against Venezuela as the U.S. military steps up its presence and action in the region.

He said that it allows Democrats to get off the defensive while they are in the minority and instead force votes on “points of discomfort” for Republicans.

Groves writes for the Associated Press.

An agreement designed to further liberalise trade between the EU and Kyiv came into force on Wednesday.

It will replace the deal in place since 2016, by expanding tariff-free access for Ukrainian goods and services.

However the new agreement has become a political headache for the European Commission, as Hungary, Poland and Slovakia are not lifting bans on Ukrainian agricultural imports.

“We are engaging with all the parties to try to find solutions,” Commission deputy chief spokesperson Ariana Podesta said on Tuesday.

“We believe (the agreement) is a stable, fair framework, that can be reliable both for the EU and for Ukraine, to ensure a gradual integration in our single market, while providing stable trade flows,” Podesta added.

The new deal includes safeguards limiting imports of certain sensitive products such as grains and oil. Nevertheless, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia have refused to lift their national bans on Ukrainian agri-food imports.

These restrictions were first introduced after the EU opened its market completely to Ukrainian agricultural products following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as the Black Sea — a vital export corridor for Kyiv — was effectively blocked.

The resulting land corridors into the EU, designed to keep Ukrainian exports flowing, sparked anger among farmers in neighbouring countries who accused Brussels of allowing unfair competition.

Politically charged

The issue became politically charged, weighing on Poland’s 2023 general election and fuelling tensions in Slovakia and Hungary.

“After the war, imports of agriculture to the EU doubled. We have 117% increase compared to the pre-war levels,” Tinatin Akhvlediani, an expert at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), told Euronews.

However, Akhvlediani added that “it has been unnecessarily politicised because these Ukrainian goods were easily absorbed by the neighbouring countries.”

Ukraine’s main agricultural exports — grain, sugar and oil — are largely unprocessed goods.

“This is complementary with the trading of the EU because it mostly exports processed agricultural goods,” Akhvlediani explained.

“Ukrainian goods in fact are highly demanded in the EU market. That explains why Ukraine is the third largest import partner for the European Union after Brazil and the UK.”

The new trade deal includes a “safeguard clause” allowing either side to impose protective measures if surging imports damage domestic industries.

Yet this has not eased concerns in neighbouring countries.

“Although Brussels wants to give farmers’ money to Ukraine, we are protecting the resources, the livelihoods of Hungarian producers and our market,” Hungarian Agriculture Minister István Nagy wrote on Facebook on Monday, as he and his EU peers met in Brussels.

The ongoing dispute illustrates the broader obstacles facing Ukraine’s path to EU membership.

Within the bloc, some are concerned about how Ukraine’s enormous agricultural capacity — 42 million hectares of cultivated land, the largest in Europe — would affect the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which distributes funds based on farm size.

Even if CAP payments were reformed to focus on production rather than land area, “Ukraine remains quite competitive,” Akhvlediani said.

“The solution could be that the EU puts transition measures in the accession treaty which would limit the benefit from certain policies or not benefit from them at all. This could be the case for the CAP. It’s completely up to the EU,” she concluded.

Romanian President Nicușor Dan, whose country also borders Ukraine, is one of the rare EU leaders to have spoken openly about the issue, saying the discussion about agriculture is “pending”.

According to the Romanian president, the risks of imbalances for the EU are “significant”, especially since Ukraine “does not currently meet the standards that we impose on the agricultural sector in the EU.”

“The discussions taking place are that, in terms of agriculture, Ukraine should have a special status so that it can continue to make significant exports to non-European countries while, in all other clusters, it should be treated as an equal,” Dan said.

Getty Images

Golden crowns and grand orders

Reuters

BBC/Leehyun Choi

Gyeongju, South Korea – As US President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping prepare to meet for the first time since 2019, Washington and Beijing appear poised to reach a deal to lower the temperature of their fierce rivalry.

But while Trump and Xi are widely expected to de-escalate US-China tensions in South Korea on Thursday, expectations are modest for how far any agreement will go to resolve the myriad points of contention between the world’s two largest economies.

Many details of the expected deal that have been flagged in advance relate to avoiding future escalation, rather than rolling back the trade war that Trump launched during his first term and has dramatically expanded since returning to office this year.

Some of the proposed measures involve issues that have only arisen within the last few weeks, including China’s plan to impose strict export controls on rare earths from December 1.

Whatever Trump and Xi agree to on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Gyeongju, there is little doubt that Washington and Beijing will continue to butt heads as they jockey for influence in a rapidly shifting international order, according to analysts.

“I have modest expectations for this meeting,” said Deborah Elms, head of trade policy at the Hinrich Foundation in Singapore.

“I think, no matter what happens this week, we haven’t seen the end of economic tensions, tariff threats, export controls and restrictions, and the use of unusual levers like digital rules,” Elms told Al Jazeera.

Contours of a deal

While the exact parameters of any deal are still to be determined by Trump and Xi, the contours of an agreement have emerged in recent days.

US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said in media interviews this week that he expected China to defer its restrictions on rare earths and that Trump’s threatened 100 percent tariff on Chinese goods was “effectively off the table”.

Bessent said he also anticipated that the Chinese side would agree to increase purchases of US-grown soya beans, enhance cooperation with the US to halt the flow of chemicals used to manufacture fentanyl, and sign off on a finalised TikTok deal.

While heading off a further spiralling in US-China ties, a deal along these lines would leave intact a wide array of tariffs, sanctions and export controls that hinder trade and business between the sides.

Since Washington and Beijing reached a partial truce in their tit-for-tat tariff salvoes in May, the average US duty on Chinese goods has stood at more than 55 percent, while China’s average levy on US products has hovered at about 32 percent.

Washington has blacklisted hundreds of Chinese firms deemed to pose national security risks, and prohibited the export of advanced chips and key manufacturing equipment related to AI.

China has, in turn, added dozens of US companies to its “unreliable entity” list, launched antitrust investigations into Nvidia and Qualcomm, and restricted exports of more than a dozen rare earths and metallic elements, including gallium and dysprosium.

US-China trade has declined sharply since Trump re-entered the White House.

China’s exports to the US fell 27 percent in September, the sixth straight month of decline, even as outbound shipments rose overall amid expanding trade with Southeast Asia, Latin America, Europe and Africa.

China’s imports of US goods declined 16 percent, continuing a downward trend since April.

“The structural contradictions between China and the United States have not been resolved,” said Wang Wen, dean of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at Renmin University of China in Beijing, predicting continuing friction and “even worse” relations between the superpowers in the future.

“Most importantly, China’s strength is increasing and will surpass that of the United States in the future,” Wang told Al Jazeera.

‘De-escalation unlikely’

Shan Guo, a partner with Shanghai-based Hutong Research, said he expects the “bulk” of the deal between Trump and Xi to be about avoiding escalation. “A fundamental de-escalation is unlikely given the political environment in the US,” Guo told Al Jazeera.

But with the US having no alternative to Chinese rare earths and minerals in the near-term, Washington and Beijing could put aside their differences for longer than past trade truces, Guo said.

“This means reduced downside risks in US-China relations for at least a year, or perhaps even longer,” he said.

Dennis Wilder, a professor at Georgetown University who worked on China at the CIA and the White House’s National Security Council, said that while he is optimistic the summit will produce “positive tactical results”, it will not mark the end of the trade war.

“A comprehensive trade deal is still not available,” Wilder told Al Jazeera.

“Bessent and his Chinese counterpart will continue negotiating in hopes of a more lasting agreement if and when President Trump visits China next year.”

Trump and Xi’s go-to language on the US-China relationship itself points to the gulf between the sides.

While Trump often complains about the US being “ripped off” by China, Xi has repeatedly called for their relations to be defined by “mutual respect” and “win-win cooperation”.

“The United States should treat China in a way that China considers respectful,” said Wang of Renmin University.

“They have to respect China, and if they don’t, then the United States will receive an equal response until they become able to respect others,” he added.

WASHINGTON — President Trump faces the most important international meeting of his second term so far on Thursday: face-to-face negotiations with Xi Jinping, who has made China a formidable economic and military challenger to the United States.

The two presidents face a vast agenda during their meeting in Seoul, beginning with the two countries’ escalating trade war over tariffs and high-tech exports. The list also includes U.S. demands for a Chinese crackdown on fentanyl, China’s aid to Russia in its war with Ukraine, the future of Taiwan and China’s growing nuclear arsenal.

Trump has already promised, characteristically, that the meeting will be a major success.

“It’s going to be fantastic for both countries, and it’s going to be fantastic for the entire world,” he said last week.

But it isn’t yet clear that the summit’s concrete results will measure up to that high standard.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Sunday that the two sides have agreed to a “framework” under which China would delay implementing tight controls on rare earth elements, minerals crucial for the production of high-tech products from smartphones and electric vehicles to military aircraft and missiles. He said China has also agreed to resume buying soybeans from U.S. farmers and to crack down on fentanyl components.

In return, Bessent said, the United States will back down from its stinging tariffs on Chinese goods.

Nicholas Burns, the U.S. ambassador in Beijing under then-President Biden, said that kind of deal would amount to “an uneasy trade truce rather than a comprehensive trade deal.”

“That may be the best we can expect,” he said in an interview Monday. Still, he added, “it will be a positive step to stabilize world markets and allow the continuation of U.S.-China trade for the time being.”

But U.S. and Chinese officials have been close-mouthed on what, if anything, has been agreed on regarding Xi’s other big trade demand: easier U.S. restrictions on high-tech exports to China, especially advanced semiconductor chips used for artificial intelligence.

Burns said the two superpowers’ technology competition is “the most sensitive … in terms of where this relationship will head, which country will emerge more powerful.”

Giving China easy access to advanced semiconductors “would only help [the Chinese army] in its competition with the U.S. military for power in the Indo-Pacific,” he warned.

Other former officials and China hawks outside the administration have said, even more pointedly, that they worry that Trump may be too willing to trade long-term technology assets for short-term trade deals.

In August, Trump eased export controls to allow Nvidia, the world leader in AI chips, to sell more semiconductors to China — in an unusual deal under which the U.S. company would pay 15% of its revenue from the sales to the U.S. Treasury.

Matthew Pottinger, Trump’s top China advisor in his first term, protested in a recent podcast interview that the deal risked trading a strategic technology advantage “for $20 billion and Nvidia’s bottom line.”

Underlying the controversy over technology, some China watchers warn, is a basic mismatch between the two presidents: Trump is focused almost entirely on trade and commercial deals, while Xi is focused on displacing the United States as the biggest economic and military power in Asia.

“I don’t think the administration has a strategy toward China,” said Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the German Marshall Fund of the United States. “It has a trade strategy, not a China strategy.”

“The administration does not seem to be focused on competition with China,” said Jonathan Czin, a former CIA analyst now at Washington’s Brookings Institution. “It’s focused on deal making. … It’s tactics without strategy.”

“We’ve fallen into a kind of trade and technology myopia,” he added. “We’re not talking about issues like China’s coercion [of smaller countries] in the South China Sea. … China doesn’t want to have that bigger, broader conversation.”

It isn’t clear that Trump and Xi will have either the time or inclination to talk in detail about anything other than trade.

And even on the front-burner economic issues, this week’s ceasefire is unlikely to produce a permanent peace.

“As with all such agreements, the devil will be in the details,” Burns, the former ambassador, said. “The two countries will remain fierce trade rivals. Expect friction ahead and further trade duels well into 2026.”

“Buckle up,” Czin said. “There are likely more sudden moves from Beijing ahead.”

In the long run, Trump’s legacy in U.S.-China relations will rest not only on trade deals but on the larger competition for economic and military power in the Pacific Rim. No matter how this week’s meetings go, those challenges still lie ahead.

China and 11-member regional bloc sign an upgraded version of their free trade pact, as both weather the impact of the US tariffs.

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia – China and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have upgraded their free trade agreement as trade between the two regions continues to rise in the shadow of United States President Donald Trump’s trade war.

The trade pact was signed on the sidelines of the 47th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur on Tuesday, in a ceremony witnessed by Chinese Premier Li Qiang and Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

The “3.0 version” of the deal will broaden collaboration on “infrastructure, digital and green transition, trade facilitation and people-to-people exchanges”, according to China’s State Council. It builds on the region’s first free trade pact with China, which came into force in 2010.

The 11-member ASEAN and China have become each other’s largest trade partners in recent years, thanks to the China Plus One supply chain that emerged after Trump’s trade war with China in 2018.

Trade between China and ASEAN has already hit $785bn in the nine months of 2025, up 9.6 percent year-on-year. Much of this trade reflects integrated manufacturing supply chains, but it also increasingly includes finished goods from China that are destined for Southeast Asian consumers.

In his remarks to the ASEAN summit on Tuesday, Li praised China and the bloc’s deepening trade relationship, and spoke of his expectation for “expanded and higher-quality economic cooperation” under the upgraded trade pact.

“Cooperation in various fields has yielded fruitful results, trade volume continues to grow steadily, and ASEAN governments have promoted even closer people-to-people exchanges,” he said.

Zhiwu Chen, a professor of finance at the University of Hong Kong, told Al Jazeera that the “3.0” trade pact comes at a time when China is trying to shore up its relationship with ASEAN.

“This is very important for China, as its trade tensions with the US and EU have been rising, and China needs ASEAN countries. At the same time, this is a time for ASEAN to take advantage of the window of opportunities precisely for the same reason,” he said, describing the deal as a “win-win outcome for both sides”.

In his remarks, Li also took aim at Trump’s tariffs, which have disrupted global trade, and marked the most protectionist policy pursued by the US government since the 1930s.

“Unilateralism and protectionism have seriously disrupted the global economic and trade order. External forces are increasingly interfering in our region, and many countries have been unfairly subjected to high tariffs,” Li said.

The US president also attended the ASEAN summit on Sunday, and is due to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea later this week.

While at ASEAN, Trump signed trade deals with Cambodia and Malaysia, as well as framework agreements with Thailand and Vietnam, highlighting his preference for bilateral trade deals hammered out in one-on-one discussions.

The deals appeared to finalise Trump’s “reciprocal tariff” rate on the four countries, which were set earlier this year at 19 to 20 percent.

Tariffs and trade barriers are also expected to headline Trump’s meeting with Xi, after US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent announced that the two sides had reached a “framework agreement” on tariffs this week.

Earlier this month, Trump had threatened to impose a tariff of 100 percent on Chinese goods by November 1, after China strengthened export controls on rare earth minerals. Bessent said the framework agreement should help both sides “avoid” a tariff hike, according to Reuters.