News
Trump’s Shrinking Ambitions on China
When President Trump campaigned in 2024, he promised a trade agenda that would hit China harder than any other economic partner, expanding on actions he had taken in his first term.
Mr. Trump talked about imposing a tariff of 60 percent or more on the country, and proposed stripping China of the preferential trade relations given to it when it joined the World Trade Organization. The rest of the world would be subject to tariffs too, but they would be much lower, at 10 or 20 percent.
More than a year into Mr. Trump’s first term, the picture looks dramatically different. Though U.S. tariffs on China are higher overall when the tariffs from Mr. Trump’s first term are added in, other countries have faced punitive levies that were nearly as high, and higher for some products.
The Trump administration has saved its most caustic criticism for allies in Europe and Canada, while approaching China with more cautiously. And as Mr. Trump heads to Beijing this week for a summit with the Chinese leader Xi Jinping, expectations for its outcomes are limited.
Rather than pushing China for broader structural changes to its economy, as Mr. Trump’s aides did in his first term, the focus now is largely on maintaining stable relations between the countries, while restoring or increasing U.S. sales of products like airplanes, ethanol, soybeans, beef and sorghum.
The remarkable shrinking of Mr. Trump’s Chinese ambitions is the result of the events of the last year, when China responded to Mr. Trump’s tariffs by cutting off the supply of rare earth minerals and magnets needed by American companies making everything from cars and weaponry to power tools.
Facing the prospect of shuttered U.S. factories and widespread economic damage, the Trump administration appears to have given up the idea of a more ambitious deal with China — widely acknowledged as America’s most problematic trading partner — even as it presses less troublesome partners more aggressively than ever before.
Myron Brilliant, a senior counselor at DGA-Albright Stonebridge Group, a consulting firm, said this week’s summit in Beijing would be “high on strategic distrust and high on symbolism but low on ambition.” Last year was a tumultuous period for U.S.-China relations, he said, and both sides “are in risk management now.”
“Each side seeks stability, and deliverables will be largely short-term in nature,” he said. Mr. Brilliant said the outcomes could include agricultural and airplane purchases, and agreements to curb fentanyl exports.
U.S. officials have talked about the creation of a new “board of trade” that would oversee the agreed purchases, which could run to tens of billions of dollars. Others have suggested the meeting could result in lower tariffs on more general products, to spur their sales.
While Mr. Trump’s global tariffs have been repeatedly struck down by the courts, the administration is preparing two new trade investigations that are likely to result in more levies on dozens of countries this summer, including China. Chinese officials are expected to press U.S. officials to keep those tariffs low.
Analysts said Chinese officials also appeared likely to push for the relaxation of U.S. technology controls or a change in U.S. posture on Taiwan, a self-governing island that China claims as its own.
Kurt Campbell, a former U.S. deputy Secretary of State, said the Chinese side would be looking, wherever possible, to get the United States to relent on economic actions like tariffs. But the most important priority for China is to get Mr. Trump to depart from traditional approaches when it comes to Taiwan.
“If there are deals to be made on Chinese substantial purchases of agricultural or beef products, pork or Boeing, they will expect things in return for that,” he said.
U.S. officials have said they don’t expect to see any changes with regard to policy on Taiwan. In a briefing with reporters Sunday, Anna Kelly, a spokeswoman for the White House, said that Mr. Trump had refocused U.S.-China relations “on what matters most, rebuilding the safety, security and prosperity of Americans.”
“During this visit, President Trump will continue doing what he has done over the past year, rebalancing the relationship with China and prioritizing reciprocity and fairness to restore American economic independence,” she said.
Despite Mr. Trump’s aggressive talk during the campaign, his advisers say his goal was never a decisive decoupling with China. Instead, he envisioned his trade threats as a way to push Beijing into a bigger trade deal that would tilt the balance in the relationship to benefit the U.S. economy and help ensure global peace.
The problem was the execution. When Mr. Trump tried to force China into making concessions last year by threatening extreme tariffs, the tactic backfired, forcing the U.S. to pare back its goals.
“They did move to be more aggressive on China,” Mary Lovely, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said of U.S. officials. “What happened was China decided to invoke its significant choke-points of its own and countered the U.S. in ways that it hadn’t done before.”
“I have no idea why they didn’t anticipate that,” she added.
As the situation escalated again last fall, top officials including Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, and Jamieson Greer, the trade representative, assembled a list of actions they could take to strike back, including restrictions on things like software, semiconductor manufacturing equipment and visas, that might force Beijing to back down.
But ahead of a meeting with Mr. Xi in South Korea in October, the president told his advisers instead to try to push for a truce. The United States ended up shelving a variety of actions on China, including a delay in the imposition of a sweeping technology restriction that would affect Chinese companies, and new fees on Chinese ships aimed at building up the U.S. shipbuilding industry.
In recent months, the United States and China have maintained a tentative truce. Many exports of Chinese rare earths have resumed to companies not linked to the military, though U.S. companies remain intensely concerned about their longer-term access to minerals. The administration has taken steps to try to increase the domestic supply of rare earths, including creating a critical minerals stockpile, but U.S. industry remains heavily reliant on China for the materials that will be critical to the U.S. economy going forward.
After Mr. Trump met Mr. Xi in South Korea, both sides talked enthusiastically of meetings to come between the leaders in the following year. A meeting was planned for April, but then rescheduled for May because of the Iran conflict.
Christopher Padilla, a former trade official in the George W. Bush administration, agreed that there would likely not be “a lot of big outcomes.” He added, “They’re going to agree we buy some of this, they buy some of that, and then they’ll have a party and call it a day.”
U.S. officials say their talks will result in a fairer trade relationship with China, and argue that they still have an edge. But the Chinese government seems more determined than ever to match any offensive U.S. measures step for step, in ways that could be deeply harmful for the U.S. economy.
China has issued regulations in recent months to investigate and punish foreign companies that stop using Chinese suppliers in response to foreign pressure. And after the United States penalized several Chinese refineries for purchasing Iranian oil, the Chinese government took the unorthodox step of ordering its companies not to comply with the sanctions.
Ms. Lovely of the Peterson Institute said China had been building out the legal foundation for measures to counter foreign sanctions for a decade. “Now they feel confident enough to use them,” she said.
The U.S. Supreme Court
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for Alabama to use a congressional district map favored by Republicans.
The court, in an unsigned order, overturned a three-judge district court panel that found that the map is “tainted by intentional race-based discrimination.” The court’s three liberals publicly dissented.
The ruling means that Alabama’s 2026 midterm elections will feature six Republican-leaning districts and one Democratic-leaning one, as opposed to a map with only five safe Republican seats. Democrat Shomari Figures, who represents Alabama’s Second District, will likely lose his seat as a result of the high court’s ruling.
The story of Alabama’s congressional map is long and tortured. It began in 2021, when the state implemented a new map to account for population changes in the census. The map featured only one majority-black district out of seven, even though the state is more than one-quarter Black.
Voters immediately sued, claiming the map illegally diluted minority votes in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. Lower court judges agreed, ruling that the state must draw a map with two districts where Black voters have a realistic chance of electing their candidate of choice. The Supreme Court more than once has ordered Alabama to draw a compliant map.
But the state has refused and instead continued to litigate the case. On Tuesday, that tactic paid off.
What changed? In April, the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority all but gutted what remains of the Voting Rights Act, ruling that states cannot purposefully draw districts that are majority-minority.
Alabama then asked the high court to reinstate the state’s old map, under the theory that this new ruling meant that it was permissible to use a map with only one majority-Black district. In an unsigned, unexplained order in May, the high court essentially reversed its previous opinions, and allowed Alabama to use the old map for the upcoming midterm elections.
This set off a flurry of activity in Alabama. By the time the Supreme Court issued its May order, absentee balloting had already begun, using the court-drawn map. So Republican Governor Kay Ivey cancelled elections and scheduled a special primary for August for the affected congressional races.
The case, however, was not over.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court had ordered a lower court panel to continue evaluating Alabama’s map in light of its recent Voting Rights Act decision. And just 15 days after that order, the panel, composed of three Republican judges—two of them Trump appointees—concluded unanimously that even under the Supreme Court’s new standards, the plan for a single black district was “intentionally discriminatory.”
So, once again, Alabama returned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the map was partisan, not racially discriminatory. In short, that the Republican legislature simply drew the map to elect more Republicans. And that under the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the GOP map should be allowed to stand.
The court’s conservative agreed, writing that the lower court “did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith.”
The court’s three liberals publicly dissented, castigating the conservative majority for failing to abide by its 2006 decision in the case of Purcell v. Gonzalez. That decision declared that courts should not change election rules too close to an election.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, said the court “debases the democratic process” and “corrodes the rule of law by rewarding Alabama’s gamesmanship and outright defiance of court orders.”
Tuesday’s decision is the latest in a series of Supreme Court rulings that could well reshape the 2026 midterm elections, making it much harder for Democrats to prevail.
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A minor, 3.7-magnitude earthquake struck in the San Francisco Bay Area on Tuesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 9:44 a.m. Pacific time about 4 miles southeast of Cloverdale, Calif., data from the agency shows.
U.S.G.S. data earlier reported that the magnitude was 3.6.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Aftershocks detected
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
The New York Times When quakes and aftershocks occurred
Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 12:59 p.m. Eastern. Aftershocks data is as of Tuesday, June 2 at 1:59 p.m. Eastern.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. The United States continues to lead the world in Artificial Intelligence (AI) because of the enormous talent and innovation of our AI industry, and because we refuse to stifle this innovation with overly burdensome regulation. My Administration has unleashed tremendous technological growth and economic investment in AI by slashing the bureaucratic constraints that the prior administration placed on America’s AI developers and researchers, and by instead encouraging AI innovation and accelerating responsible AI adoption across government and industry.
Advanced AI capabilities make our Nation stronger, but also introduce new national security considerations that require coordinated action across executive departments and agencies (agencies), and components. As these capabilities evolve, my Administration will continue to work closely with industry to ensure that the best and most secure technology is deployed rapidly to confront any and all threats to our country. We will continue to lead an America First cybersecurity effort that enhances both our national security and our global AI dominance.
It is the policy of the United States to promote AI innovation and security by working collaboratively with the private sector to modernize government and private sector information systems and harden them against external threats; to protect American ingenuity and intellectual property from exploitation and theft by adversaries; and to cultivate America’s advanced AI-enabled capabilities.
Sec. 2. Upgrading American Systems for Advanced AI. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Committee on National Security Systems shall prioritize the cyber defense of National Security Systems, as defined in 44 U.S.C. 3552(b)(6)(A), by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(b) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of War shall prioritize the cyber defense of Department of War information systems by taking appropriate and expeditious action consistent with the purpose of this order.
(c) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), in consultation with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the National Cyber Director, shall release Binding Operational Directives and other guidance as appropriate to:
(i) expedite and prioritize the cyber defense of civilian Federal Government information systems in order to protect our Nation’s vital functions;
(ii) establish or expand Federal programs and cybersecurity services that enhance AI-enabled defensive tools; and
(iii) facilitate access to cybersecurity tools and services including, where appropriate, covered frontier models for agencies, State and local authorities, and operators of critical infrastructure such as rural hospitals, community banks, and local utilities.
(d) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the Secretary of War, through the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, shall form an AI cybersecurity clearinghouse, in voluntary collaboration with the AI industry and operators of critical infrastructure, that coordinates and deconflicts scanning for software vulnerabilities, discovers and validates such vulnerabilities, and coordinates and prioritizes remediation and distribution of vulnerability patches.
(e) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Director of OMB, in coordination with the National Cyber Director and the Director of CISA, shall determine whether any Federal grant programs have available and relevant funding that can be directed toward applicants developing advanced AI vulnerability detection.
(f) Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall expand the United States Tech Force Information Cybersecurity Specialist hiring and placement pathways.
Sec. 3. Secure Frontier Model Deployment. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of War, through the Director of NSA, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, through the Director of CISA, in consultation with the White House Chief of Staff, through the National Cyber Director, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST), and the Secretary of Commerce, through the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and in coordination with other agencies, as appropriate, shall:
(a) develop and maintain a classified benchmarking process to assess the advanced cyber capabilities of AI models and determine the threshold at which an AI model should be designated a “covered frontier model” for the purposes of this order, sharing such assessments with AI developers and researchers as appropriate. Such a determination shall be made by the Director of NSA, in consultation with the National Cyber Director, the APST, the Director of CISA, and other representatives of the Department of War, as appropriate.
(b) design a voluntary framework with AI developers through which developers would be able to:
(i) engage the Federal Government to determine whether model(s) under development meet the designation of “covered frontier model”;
(ii) provide the Federal Government with access to covered frontier models, subject to appropriate confidentiality, cybersecurity, insider-risk, and intellectual-property protection, use, and nondisclosure requirements, for a period of up to 30 days before they plan to release such models to other trusted partners; and
(iii) collaborate with the Federal Government to select trusted partners that will have early access to covered frontier models to promote secure innovation and strengthen the cybersecurity of critical infrastructure.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize the creation of a mandatory governmental licensing, preclearance, or permitting requirement for the development, publication, release, or distribution of new AI models, including frontier models.
Sec. 4. Protection Against Criminal Actors. The Attorney General shall prioritize the enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1028, 18 U.S.C. 1030, 18 U.S.C. 1343, and all other applicable Federal criminal laws against anyone who utilizes AI to illegally access or damage a computer without authorization, or who utilizes AI while engaged in such illegal access to further any other crime. This includes breaching any public or private information technology system, or employing AI agents to unlawfully access data or information that is subsequently used for a criminal or unlawful purpose.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Department of War.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 2, 2026.
-
Tennessee1 minute ago
TN Lottery Mega Millions, Cash 3 Morning winning numbers for June 2, 2026
-
Texas6 minutes ago3 things to watch as Texas, Texas Tech begin Women's College World Series Final
-
Utah13 minutes agoThree-star OL Sire Stewart commits to Utah – KSL Sports
-
Vermont16 minutes ago
VT Lottery Mega Millions, Gimme 5 results for June 2, 2026
-
Virginia21 minutes agoVirginia Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 Night results for June 2, 2026
-
Wisconsin31 minutes agoWisconsin Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 results for June 2, 2026
-
West Virginia36 minutes agoWest Virginia Virtual Academy celebrates second graduating class
-
Wyoming43 minutes agoWyoming mountain bike hotspot Curt Gowdy wants to know how it can improve
