EU's Dombrovskis Says ‘Making Progress' in Trade Talks With US

The European Union is continuing intensive trade talks with the US ahead of a July 9 tariff deadline set by President Donald Trump and is 'making progress,' according to EU Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis.
'Our preference is to find a mutually acceptable solution and in a sense to park those trade tensions,' he told a news conference after a meeting of euro-area finance ministers in Luxembourg on Thursday.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Buzz Feed

14 minutes ago

• Buzz Feed

The Unexpected Consequences of My 2016 Trump Vote

I am a Chinese woman, a daughter of immigrants, who voted for Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. It is almost a secret, though I sometimes offer up the confession like it is penance. I cried driving away from my polling place and sobbed on a futon when he won. My chest was tight, my stomach churned, my face was hot — all blood and breath and acid had conspired inside me to signal alarm. I immediately hated my choice, but I did not yet believe it to be wrong. I had bought into the lesser-of-two-evils arc, with 'But her emails!' still echoing in my mind to assure me that this was the only option. Earlier that fall, my church had just launched a new 'Adopt A College Student!' ministry. It was imagined as a mentorship and fellowship opportunity for the young adults in our congregation, a chance to share coffee and do laundry. We were invited to apply for the program, so that we could prayerfully be matched up with an adoptive family. I learned the family of one of our church's pastors had requested to be paired with me, and this thrilled me. I had secretly hoped to be matched with them, and I loved a narrative in which I was chosen. My eagerness to sign up for anything that promised me love was what had brought me to church in the first place. The messaging was direct. They had cornered the market on love, and all I needed to do was say yes. The love would turn out to be a gimmick to get me signed up for the real program, one that I was even more primed to receive, and that I believed was simply the precursor to how to be loved: how to be good. In addition to a behavioral and ideological rulebook, white evangelical culture provided me with one other thing I'd been chasing after my whole life: an entry point into dominant white culture. I wanted to un-other myself and believed that I could assimilate myself into safety, power, and love. A deep sense of un-belonging had been with me since my earliest memories. When I was little, kids would ask me why my eyes weren't more Chinese — the asker would drag their own eyes out to the edges of their face in a sliver. I never had an answer but took it as a mercy that I was less Chinese than I could have been. At my Baptist preschool, my favorite teacher, who had long brown hair that I loved to play with, asked me one day what the Chinese word for hair was. I answered, 'Tóufa' — and then it became my nickname for the rest of my years there. I internalized these differences as things that made me special, but over time this morphed into two beliefs: I was only as special as I was separate; and in this showcase of separation was where I was most likely to be endeared. In church, I learned to further capitalize on this difference, twisting the isolation into testimony. I had felt much pain related to my Chinese identity, and the church was ready to pin Chinese culture as the culprit and this American gospel as the solution — as salvation. I had grown up in a family that was not apolitical but that had not considered politics from a perspective that I could understand. My parents were Chinese immigrants who'd grown up during the Cultural Revolution and come to the United States following the Tiananmen Square massacre, and who'd told me exactly none of this over the course of my years at home. I was in high school when I learned about the massacre on the internet and in my 20s when I thought to ask my mother if she had been in Beijing when it happened (she had been). Once, after a fifth-grade civics lesson, I wondered whether my parents were Democrats or Republicans, and I asked my neighbor down the street what she thought: Which was better, and which were my parents? She said my dad was probably a Republican because he owned a small business. Then she shared that she was a Republican, too. I remember feeling a frivolous pride teaching my parents the Pledge of Allegiance when they were preparing to become citizens, like it was my little American trick. The first time they voted in a presidential election, I was surprised. I knew they could, but it hadn't occurred to me that they would. They still felt so un-American to me, and U.S. politics felt like it didn't belong to them, or to us. Over the next few years, I felt a growing sense that I both should and shouldn't find my place in political conversations around me. In churched spaces, the prevailing message was that politics were bad, divisive, and a scheme, but still, there was an unspoken alliance. I don't remember learning Christian nationalism, but one day it was just there, the innate understanding that Christians were Republicans, that liberalism was bad, and that it was good to root for our beliefs to be everybody's beliefs. The church I attended had an American flag on the stage, the children said the Pledge of Allegiance before AWANA, and on more than one occasion, we sang about God and country during Sunday worship, declaring our patriotism through choruses of 'America, America, God shed his grace on thee.' My public school invited students to church lock-ins with the aim of proselytization, refrained from Halloween festivities, prayed before sporting events, and I had come to receive this breakdown of church and state as a blessing. By the time the 2016 election rolled around, I had spent a lifetime in sacred and secular institutions that had braided moral uprightness with a message of Christian faith. In the months leading up to the election, I spent a lot of time with the pastor's family who had 'adopted' me for the college student ministry. The wife, in particular, spoke frequently to me about politics. She shared her beliefs with a parental (and pastoral) authority on gun control and racism, and Hillary Clinton. She presented ideologies as an assumed commonality, sparing me the opportunity to react wrongly. One day in the car, she shared her 'all lives matter' ethic with me at a stoplight on the way to pick up her daughter from dance. I tensed for a moment — and then we were talking about something else. By November, we had had so many conversations about Hillary Clinton that I knew she was not an option. I don't remember any conversations about Donald Trump. My first time voting in a presidential election was when I was 21. I had spent my few previous adult years priding myself on being good and moral, while managing to stay outside of political schematics. An impulse to challenge the things that unsettled me had begun to creep in, but immediately I would assert that I didn't care about politics, that this thing I was bringing up wasn't that. I had begun the psychic separation of church and state, knowing that I would legally support gay rights, even if doctrinally I couldn't. But I wasn't watching the news, and I wasn't engaging with the worst of Donald Trump. I had reduced him to nothing more than the option that was not Hillary Clinton. I knew that I had a duty to civic participation and that I couldn't leave this world completely up to chance, but I also believed that my citizenship was not of this world but another. I believed there was a spiritual superiority in staying above the anxiety of politics. It's true that this ideology I had built my life on had begun to fray, that I expressed unease over my plan to vote for Donald Trump, that I fought to justify it because I knew it wasn't justifiable. But nuancing my culpability wouldn't do a damn thing for the mistake I would make in the end. A few months before the election, I had just for the first time considered whether or not I was a 'person of color.' I had watched a recording of a diversity roundtable segment from a popular Christian women's conference featuring people of color discussing race and the church, and two East Asian women were on the panel. Afterward, I asked my white roommate if I was a person of color and cracked a joke about whether or not yellow was a color. I knew I wasn't white, but I had been white-adjacent enough to believe that a racialized experience wasn't something that belonged to me. I had only ever heard race discussed in the contexts of Blackness and whiteness. Recently, my only Asian American friend from high school shared that her prevailing memory of me was that I hated being Chinese and wished I was white. She remembers me saying this over and over again. I had always felt the categorical otherness of being Chinese in a town that was over 90% white and had so minute an Asian population that the category was often omitted altogether in census data (other times, it came in at a decimal below 1%). But I lacked a framework to make sense of it. I didn't yet understand white supremacy, or the model minority myth or even systemic racism. I didn't know that I was a person of color. I instinctively hated what was hated in me, but even that felt like pointing at a ghost. How do you gather evidence when all the evidence is just ways you are quietly not there? The movies you are not in, the books, the TV shows. The way your history is omitted, but you can't cite what you don't know, you can only know what isn't yours, and the history you learn never is. You singularly fill the gap that accounts for your existence, because if you haven't learned about you, then surely they haven't either. They ask you about your eyes or your food or your parents' names, but it's all in good faith (except when it's not). The systems that are designed to restrain us — the ones that succeed without our ever seeing them — breed a particularly maddening brand of self-hatred. Following the election, the bubble of white-adjacent privilege I had quietly kept myself in popped overnight. All of the good behavior in the world couldn't save me from the pain that was now presented to me as my birthright. People I loved had received a blanket permission slip to say out loud any abhorrent things they had believed all along. Oftentimes racist ideology was shared with me with no awareness of its implication on me at all. I'd spent so many years trying to convince white people and myself that I was one of them, and I'd almost done it. I'd prided myself on being the kind of Asian you could make Asian jokes to, ask your racist questions to. I beat people to the punchline for a quick laugh. I cracked jokes about pretending to be everybody's adopted Chinese daughter; one year, I wound up in three different families' church directory photos as a gag. I'd spent my life allying with whiteness, and I couldn't believe now how it had betrayed me. When I share now that I voted for Trump in 2016, it drops like a bomb every time. People who didn't know me then are shocked because it feels aggressively counter to every value I hold now. People who did know me then just never clocked me as particularly Republican, and so even 'voting for the platform' doesn't quite explain what I did because was I ever so against abortion? When I told my therapist a few weeks ago, she gasped and immediately asked me, 'Why?' The truth of the moment of decision is not particularly interesting or compelling. 'I was told I had to,' feels cheap and off-kilter. My understanding of that political era is so different now than it was then that it is hard for me to access my actual beliefs from that time. What did I truly believe about Hillary Clinton? How little did I think about my decision as my own before I cast it on a ballot? Most of my close white evangelical friends sat the election out because they said they just couldn't vote for him, and they couldn't vote for her. How, then, had I reconciled the cognitive dissonance that was voting for Donald Trump? The short answer is, I didn't. The longer one is that two primary impulses compelled me to my vote: the desire to stay loved and the desire to stay close to whiteness — both repackaged as a desire to please God. I didn't believe Trump would get me any closer to these things, but I thought compliance might. I don't know what I really believed about the stakes of that election or the platforms of the candidates (though my body gave me signs I had betrayed myself immediately after I voted), but I do know that I truly believed that the church was the reigning authority on love. This belief, paired with my pleasing tendencies and my insecurities, made me incredibly susceptible to the church's ideological mandates. I felt like I had snuck into the group and had so much to lose. I wanted to stay trusted and to be seen as good, and I believed them when they told me how to do it. I wonder sometimes how long it would have taken me to get here had Trump not won the election in 2016. My story of regret is not unique, and neither is it noble. I allied with whiteness until it had nothing left to offer me. I was swayed by the church's authority on love not because of how I hoped the church might dispense love to others but because of how I hoped it might dispense love to me. I still live in the same small, white, churched town in West Virginia. Everyone I love either loves someone who voted for Trump or is someone who voted for Trump. I worry that there is a parallel universe in which I did again, too — in which I am a completely different person because I remained allied with power. I have laid down much at the altar of white supremacy, but if Trump's first term gave me nothing else, it gave me an ultimatum. I am not grateful to have made the mistake of voting for Donald Trump in 2016, and I am not grateful for anything that has come from his politics or his presence, but I am grateful for the other side of a crisis point.

Bloomberg

26 minutes ago

• Bloomberg

Japan Won't Fixate on July 9 in US Trade Talks, Akazawa Says

Japan won't fixate on the looming date that could see so-called reciprocal tariffs rise in its ongoing trade negotiations with the US, Tokyo's top negotiator said, signaling the Asian nation stands ready for the possibility that the talks will drag on. 'To avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to confirm that I have not said at all that July 9 is the deadline for negotiations between Japan and the US,' Economic Revitalization Minister Ryosei Akazawa told reporters on Friday in Tokyo. 'Japan and the US are in regular communication through various channels, and we will continue to consider what is most effective and engage in appropriate consultations.'

Yahoo

36 minutes ago

• Yahoo

New ‘bonus' tax deduction up to $6,000 could be on the way for those age 65 or older

If the massive tax package currently being debated in Congress becomes law, Americans who are 65 and older will enjoy a hefty new tax break: An additional $4,000 to $6,000 drop in taxable income, thanks to a new additional standard deduction. The House version of the tax bill calls for a $4,000 additional deduction, while the Senate version ramps that up to $6,000. The House approved its version in May, and the Senate is working now to bring its version to a vote. Then the two chambers will need to massage each bill into one cohesive whole, before sending it to President Donald Trump for signature. The potential bad news for taxpayers? There would be income limits, with the value of the tax break phasing out starting at a modified adjusted gross income of $75,000 for single filers and $150,000 for married-filing-jointly filers. This new tax break would be temporary, in effect only from 2025 through 2028. 'The bottom line is if you're in the modified adjusted gross income that gets this, it will save you on taxes,' says Mark Gallegos, a CPA and tax partner at Porte Brown LLC in Chicago. This would put 'more money back in people's pockets, and I think that's the whole point,' he says. House version Senate version Additional standard deduction $4,000 $6,000 Income limits Starts to phase out at income of $75,000 for single filers, $150,000 for couples Starts to phase out at income of $75,000 for single filers, $150,000 for couples Permanent or temporary? Temporary; in effect from 2025 through 2028 Temporary; in effect from 2025 through 2028 Available to taxpayers who itemize? Yes Yes It seems likely that this new tax break would be added on top of the existing additional standard deduction that Americans who are 65 and older already enjoy. In 2025, that additional standard deduction is worth $2,000 for a single filer aged 65 or older, or $3,200 for a married-filing-jointly couple if both spouses are age 65 or older (if just one spouse is 65+, the additional deduction is $1,600). Neither the House nor Senate proposals are clear about whether the new tax break would be added on to that existing tax perk, says Mark Luscombe, a CPA and principal analyst for Wolters Kluwer Tax & Accounting in Chicago. Nothing indicates that it would replace the existing additional deduction, 'so my interpretation is it's in addition,' Luscombe says. Keep in mind, too, that both bills propose an increase to the existing standard deduction that's available to all taxpayers. This gets a bit complicated, so let's back up a bit: The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act essentially doubled the value of the standard deduction, effective from 2018 through 2025. Now, both the House and Senate tax bills would make that tax change permanent. On top of that, each of the bills would give the standard deduction a slight bump: The House bill would temporarily increase the standard deduction by $2,000 for joint filers, $1,500 for head of household filers and $1,000 for single filers and those married filing separately, effective 2025 through 2028. The Senate bill would permanently increase the standard deduction by those same amounts, starting in 2026. So if one of these bills becomes law, then taxpayers aged 65 or older would enjoy the slightly higher standard deduction, plus their regular additional standard deduction, plus the new additional standard deduction. Here's an example of how these tax breaks would work, assuming the Senate's $6,000 version becomes law and assuming the new tax break is on top of the existing additional deduction. Example based on Senate's proposed bill A 70-year-old single taxpayer with taxable income of $50,000 in 2026 likely would qualify for these deductions: $16,000 standard deduction $2,000 existing additional standard deduction $6,000 new additional standard deduction That adds up to a $24,000 total deduction. Thus, $50,000 minus $24,000 = $26,000 taxable income. That reduction in taxable income would drop the taxpayer into the 12 percent tax bracket, from the 22 percent tax bracket. Learn more: Current tax brackets and federal income tax rates This new additional standard deduction would be in lieu of tax-free Social Security benefits for retirees, an idea touted by Trump on the campaign trail. That's because changing how Social Security benefits are taxed would be complex — and costly, reducing government revenues by as much as $1.5 trillion over 10 years, according to an estimate by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Adding an extra standard deduction is simpler and cheaper. The $4,000 proposal in the House bill would reduce government revenue by an estimated $66 billion over 10 years, according to a report from the Bipartisan Policy Center. Also, the proposed tax break would help out lower-income taxpayers more than ending taxes on Social Security benefits would have, Luscombe says. For one, Social Security beneficiaries with lower incomes generally don't owe taxes on their benefits — that's a fate that hits higher-income beneficiaries. Plus, the proposed new tax break – both the Senate and House versions — has income limits that would skew the benefit toward lower-income taxpayers. 'This proposal has a phase-out, which is unusual for a standard deduction,' Luscombe says. 'That would tend to focus it on lower- to middle-income taxpayers.' Also unusual for a standard deduction? This one would be available to people who itemize their deductions. Still, 'very few people at these income levels are itemizing,' Luscombe says. 'Only about 10 percent of taxpayers currently itemize, even with the current standard deduction.' Learn more: How to choose between claiming the standard deduction and itemizing