How America's new plan to cut China's supply chain for Apple, Google, Samsung and other technology companies has worried Vietnam
The United States reportedly has another plan to cut China's hardware and components supply chain of Apple, Google, Samsung, Meta and other technology companies. According to a report in Reuters, America is urging Vietnam to reduce Chinese technology in devices assembled in the country and exported to America. Vietnam, a hub for tech giants like Apple and Samsung, relies heavily on Chinese components, with Meta and Google also producing goods like VR headsets and smartphones there.
Vietnam has held meetings with local businesses to increase the use of Vietnamese parts, with firms expressing willingness but noting the need for time and technology, one source told Reuters.
Trump Tariffs: 46% tariff threat and ...
The Trump administration has threatened 46% tariffs, which could disrupt Vietnam's export-driven economy. One source said that Vietnam was asked to "reduce its dependency on Chinese high-tech" to restructure supply chains and lessen US reliance on Chinese components. Another source highlighted the US goal of accelerating decoupling from Chinese tech while boosting Vietnam's industrial capacity, citing VR devices as an example.
With a US-imposed tariff deadline of July 8 looming, the scope and timing of a potential deal reportedly remain uncertain. Sources emphasized that reducing Chinese high-tech content in exports is a US priority. Last year, China exported $44 billion in tech goods to Vietnam, 30% of its total exports there, while Vietnam shipped $33 billion in tech goods to the US, per Vietnam's customs data.
The US also wants Vietnam to address Chinese goods mislabeled as "Made in Vietnam" to evade higher duties. Vietnam's trade ministry noted progress in recent Washington talks but said key issues remain unresolved.
What is Vietnam's big worry
Vietnam's Communist Party chief, To Lam, may meet President Trump in late June, though no date is confirmed, sources told Reuters. Local companies have shown willingness to adapt but warned that rapid changes could "destroy business," one source said. Industry experts note that Vietnam's supply chain lags China's by 15–20 years but is progressing in sectors like electronics. Abrupt shifts could strain Vietnam's ties with China, a key investor and also lead to security concerns.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Dealing with China: Lessons from Galwan clash, five years on
Just over five years ago, the Galwan clash between India and China saw 20 Indian and four Chinese soldiers killed. This year is also the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the two countries. The bilateral relationship has been full of surprises and turmoil. It appears that India and China, two of the largest countries, economies and militaries, who share a disputed and unresolved border, do not understand each other. The violent clash of June 2020 was the first such incident since 1975. Peace was maintained on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) for almost four decades with the help of confidence-building mechanisms (CBMs). These were achieved after long and painstaking discussions, primarily to avoid any violence on the LAC. However, in the words of Indian External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, 'So there was a clash, and a number of troops died on either side, and that has since, in a sense, overshadowed the relationship. So until we can restore peace and tranquillity on the border and ensure the agreements signed up to are adhered to, it's obviously difficult to carry on with the rest of the relationship'. But can India trust China to adhere to any agreements now? The long freeze between the neighbours after the 1962 war was revisited in 1988 with the 'normalisation' of ties and efforts were put in place to avoid a similar challenge. During Rajiv Gandhi's visit that year to Beijing, Deng Xiaoping said, 'We have both made mistakes and we can learn from each other. Why can't we share our experiences, our successes and failures? There is much we can achieve together. We can achieve nothing by being antagonists'. There was positive momentum after the visit and both sides engaged in an increased economic relationship (bilateral trade stands at around $118 billion). There was a lot of talk about cooperation. However, what has continued to be the driving factor is mistrust. Since 1988, there have been multiple stand-offs at the border, the most intense being in Doklam in 2017 — both armies stood eye to eye for 73 intense days. What complicates the situation further is that both countries are nuclear powerhouses and have advanced militaries. And both are vying to grow their global influence. The Galwan clash underscored the fragility of the relationship. It took almost four-and-a-half years and multiple rounds of bilateral talks at various levels to achieve a breakthrough. In October 2024, it was announced that India and China have agreed on patrolling rights in the Ladakh region. Foreign Vikram Misri said: 'Agreement has been arrived at on patrolling arrangements along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the India-China border areas, leading to disengagement and a resolution of the issues that had arisen in these areas in 2020 and we will be taking the next steps on this.' However, it appears that disengagement will be a long process. China appears keen to discuss restarting the people-to-people and economic engagement. After Galwan, India banned several Chinese apps and stopped major Chinese investments and direct flights. After the thaw, China has been keen to restart direct flights. It has issued around 85,000 visas and has resumed the Kailash Mansarovar Yatra for Indians. On the other hand, India has continued to reiterate that no significant developments can be achieved if the border issue is unresolved. Galwan is a major recent reminder of what the border is capable of doing. It can push the countries as well as the region into uncertainty. India has continued to focus on building capabilities in the border region and developing infrastructure that can help in the proper management and movement of troops and equipment. The most prominent of these is the all-weather Sela Tunnel in Arunachal Pradesh. Even after years of positive statements and shows of bonhomie, the neighbours appear to be just talking at each other. The talks of people-to-people interaction by China and the fact that India continues to reiterate the centrality of the border for a genuine stable relationship to exist shows the gap in perception and understanding. This gap needs to be bridged sooner rather than later. For Beijing, when it comes to its relations with New Delhi, it is economic dynamics that matter. New Delhi, however, should not forget the lessons from Galwan and ignore the fragility of diplomatic measures, which can clearly be ignored and trampled by China. The writer is associate professor, OP Jindal Global University
India.com
38 minutes ago
- India.com
Have 4 wives, owns 38 private jets, 300 cars, 52 golden boats and..., he is world's richest king, his name is..., not richer than Mukesh Ambani, Adani
Have 4 wives, owns 38 private jets, 300 cars, 52 golden boats and..., this is world's richest king, his name is..., not richer than Mukesh Ambani, Adani There are many billionaires across the world, but very few live as richly and royally as King Maha Vajiralongkorn of Thailand, also known as King Rama X. According to The Business Standard , he is believed to be the richest king in the world, with an estimated wealth of around Rs 3.7 lakh crore (which is about 43 billion US dollars). Where does his wealth come from King Vajiralongkorn didn't make his money like most businesspeople. His wealth comes from centuries of royal inheritance, and it grew even more after his father, King Bhumibol Adulyadej, passed away in 2016. Since then, he has made major investments in some of Thailand's biggest companies and owns a lot of valuable land and buildings. In fact he owns more than 17,000 properties in Bangkok alone which makes him one of the largest landowners in Thailand. These include hotels, old palaces, and commercial buildings, many of which earn large amounts of rent. A life of extreme luxury King Vajiralongkorn lives a life of true royal luxury. His collection includes: Over 300 luxury cars 38 private jets A fleet of 52 golden boats used for special royal events These boats are not for travel, but part of grand traditional ceremonies, showing the rich culture of Thailand's royal family. A royal with military training Born in 1952, he is the only son of King Bhumibol and Queen Sirikit. Raised from an early age to take over the throne, he was given elite military training abroad, where he studied in the United Kingdom and then at the University of New South Wales in Australia, graduating in military studies. He also had pilot training and served with the Royal Thai Army, where he saw action in counter-insurgency campaigns during the politically charged 1970s. A controversial figure Even though his personal life has been full of headlines, he has been married four times and often attracts media attention. Out of the four, three of them ended in divorce and have been the subject of tabloid headlines. He also remains an important and powerful figure in Thailand. He represents both the rich royal tradition and the modern face of the monarchy. Meanwhile, in India… India's richest people are well-known business tycoons. As of May 2025, Mukesh Ambani is the richest Indian, with a net worth of about 92.5 billion dollars. Gautam Adani is second with 56.3 billion dollars, with businesses in ports, energy, and infrastructure. But even compared to these corporate giants, King Vajiralongkorn stands out—not just for his huge fortune, but for a lifestyle filled with palaces, private jets, golden boats, and royal ceremonies that few others in the world can match.
Time of India
39 minutes ago
- Time of India
Israel-Iran Conflict: How another Middle East War is ripping MAGA apart - will Trump coalition survive?
As war clouds gather over Tehran, the 'America First' coalition fractures—from Carlson's outrage to Cruz's crusade, with Vice President JD Vance echoing the commander-in-chief's every word. The MAGA Movement Promised No More Wars—Now It's on the Brink of One Donald Trump didn't just win the 2024 election—he crushed it with a promise to rebuild America without stumbling into another foreign disaster. 'No more stupid wars' became doctrine. His base connected with this pledge, proud that he hadn't launched any new wars. But now, deep into 2025, that legacy is under pressure. In June, Israel struck Iran's nuclear facilities—and Trump responded by warning Iran's leaders to surrender 'unconditionally,' advising Tehran's civilians to evacuate, and boasting that the U.S. had 'total control of the skies.' The MAGA movement—defined by its distrust of foreign entanglements—is experiencing an identity crisis. The coalition that brought Trump back to power is now split, torn between instincts that fueled his rise. The Anti-War Wing: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—and the MAGA Grassroots Tucker Carlson: MAGA's Foreign Policy Firewall Carlson has emerged as the vocal anti-war leader within MAGA circles. He warned that war with Iran could end Trump's presidency. During a dramatic on-camera exchange with Senator Ted Cruz, he challenged his hawkish views by questioning basic facts about Iran—its population, its sectarian landscape—and called out what he sees as dangerous ignorance dressed up as resolve. To Carlson, this is Iraq 2.0. And allowing MAGA to shift toward intervention is nothing short of a betrayal. Tucker and Ted Cruz Get Into Heated Debate on AIPAC and Foreign Influence Steve Bannon: The Loyal Dissenter Bannon warned that a war with Iran could destroy the MAGA coalition. Yet he tempered the warning with neutrality, noting that even dissenting voices would ultimately fall in line behind Trump. His message: the base doesn't want war, but Trump remains the centre of gravity. Marjorie Taylor Greene: Culture Warrior, Peace Advocate Greene has remained firm in her opposition to escalation. She's made it clear that another conflict in the Middle East would betray the MAGA movement's core promise: to put America first—at home, not in yet another desert war. Matt Gaetz: The Populist Sceptic Gaetz has voiced deep scepticism over renewed interventionism, warning that MAGA should not fall for recycled Bush-era framing. He's dismissed hawkish rhetoric and cautioned that any move toward war must have a clearly defined exit strategy and real American interests at stake. His message is clear: military might is not a substitute for strategic clarity. The War Caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—Old Doctrine, New Labels Ted Cruz: Confident, But Clueless? Cruz maintained a hawkish stance in public appearances, even as he fumbled through basic facts about Iran. He's called Iran a threat and said the U.S. must act if necessary. His slip—confusing Israeli actions with American ones—highlighted the extent to which some MAGA hawks are ready for conflict, regardless of the details. Marco Rubio: From Miami to Mossad Now serving as Secretary of State, Rubio has become the administration's leading voice for a hardline Iran policy. He insists that Iran must be denied not just weapons, but even enrichment capacity. His doctrine is simple: Iran cannot even come close to the nuclear threshold. Mark Levin and Sean Hannity: Reagan-era Revivalists Both Levin and Hannity have called for strong action. Levin has floated the idea of regime change. Hannity has embraced the logic of preemptive strikes. They represent the older, more muscular conservatism that sees war not as a failure—but as assertion of American strength. JD Vance: The Loyal Lieutenant, Not the Peacemaker Vice President JD Vance, once the populist realist, now speaks with tight discipline. He hasn't condemned the hawks. He hasn't echoed the doves. He simply follows the President's lead—repeating Trump's lines, offering no deviation, and avoiding ideological entanglement. Vance is not acting as a bridge between factions. He's acting as a megaphone for Trump. His silence is strategic. His discipline is total with the belief that if he holds on long enough, he's a shoo-in to the be Trump's successor. Trump's Game: Maximum Pressure, Minimum Commitment—So Far Trump has long weaponised ambiguity. He's sent American forces into visible alert, named Iranian leaders, threatened air superiority—and yet, he hasn't fired a shot. This is vintage Trump: threatening force without deploying it, posturing without committing. But the longer this game stretches, the more pressure mounts. Hawks want action. The base wants peace. And Trump, ever the tactician, wants both. MAGA's Iraq Flashback: The Ghost That Haunts Them Still The language is all too familiar. Talks of WMDs. Warning of rogue regimes. Accusations of appeasement. MAGA was born in rebellion against this rhetoric. Trump won hearts by denouncing the Iraq War as a historic failure. Now, those ghosts are back. And the question is whether the movement has truly changed—or merely changed labels. The 2025 Test: Can MAGA Survive a Middle East War? Trump's current coalition—rooted in working-class values, suburban nationalism, and youth anti-establishment sentiment—says no to foreign adventures. Most polls show his base is wary of intervention. But a gamble remains: if Trump escalates, that coalition could fracture. The internal pressure is mounting. MAGA's future depends on whether it keeps its promise—or betrays the fierce anti-war impulse that helped redefine American politics in 2025. The Real War Is Inside MAGA This is more than a foreign policy debate—it's an ideological showdown. Anti-war bloc: Carlson, Bannon, Greene, Gaetz—warning against another Iraq, urging focus at home. War caucus: Cruz, Rubio, Levin, Hannity—championing confrontation and regime change. Intercepted by: JD Vance—standing in lockstep with Trump, no deviation. At the centre: Trump—wielding threats and uncertainties while testing the elasticity of a fractured coalition. A strike on Iran may win a skirmish—but MAGA's soul hangs in the balance. The real question now isn't just 'should we go to war?'—it's 'can MAGA survive it?'
