Connect with us

Published

2 years ago

on

License at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:LA-port%2BLong-Beach1.jpg
Ports of LA/Long Beach/ Photo by Nick Prior

Trucking companies are currently suing the state of California in federal court, trying to protect their ability to continue forcing poison into your lungs and the lungs of their employees because they don’t want to save themselves money by shifting to electric trucks.

The lawsuit is over California’s Advanced Clean Fleets rule, which was finalized by the California Air Resources Board earlier this year. Since then, it has been adopted by 10 other states, as often happens with California clean air regulations.

The ambitious, world-first proposal sets high requirements for commercial fleet electrification and bans new diesel truck sales by 2036, with earlier timelines for more narrow applications. For example, drayage trucks, which bring freight from ports to distribution centers and are largely responsible for poor air quality in California’s Inland Empire, need to switch to all-electric purchases by the end of this year.

It’s a complement to California’s Advanced Clean Trucks rule, which was finalized in 2020 and focused more on the production side, ensuring that manufacturers would produce enough electric trucks for fleets to purchase once the fleets rule was implemented.

And sure enough, as time came to finalize the fleets rule, progress had gone so well with ZEV truck availability that California felt confident setting high targets for the fleets rule.

wattev port of long beach electric truck charge depot
WattEV opened the US’ largest public truck charging depot earlier this year in CA

The result is a rule that will save Californians $26.5 billion in health costs and will save fleets $48 billion in operational costs due to lower fuel and maintenance expense. Those health savings come from thousands of avoided deaths, hospital admissions and ER visits from heart and lung illnesses.

And that doesn’t even include other environmental benefits, like reducing noise pollution and protecting California’s wildlife and wilderness areas, sources of biodiversity and tourism dollars and important pollinators for California’s huge agricultural industry.

While lifetime costs are significantly lower for electric trucks, upfront costs can be higher – currently, most electric commercial vehicles cost 2-3x as much upfront as their non-electric counterparts, though that is expected to ease significantly within the decade. Current prices can result in sticker shock for fleets, but huge incentives are available both on the state and federal level.

For example, Daimler’s new RIZON Class 4-5 truck just qualified for a $60,000 incentive from the state of California (which is available to other brands as well), on top of the $40,000 federal incentive as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. Then there are further incentives available for some classes of vehicle, for example school buses which are almost free to school districts.

Instead of improving the rule, CTA sues

But despite all of those savings, a trade group representing truck operators called the California Trucking Association has decided not to engage in making the rule better, but has instead sued in federal court to permanently stop the state from protecting the health and pocketbooks of its residents, and even of the trucking companies it represents.

We spoke with Guillermo Ortiz with the Natural Resources Defense Council, who pointed out that this fleets rule was in the works for several years, and stakeholders were heavily engaged during that process. Even after the rule’s finalization, some industry sat down at the table with the state to tweak the regulation and come to a compromise.

The Engine Manufacturer’s Association, a separate trade group representing truck manufacturers (including EV truck makers Volvo and Daimler) which has made plenty of anti-electric statements, originally opposed the rule. But it made a compromise with the state, which it calls the “Clean Trucks Partnership.” In exchange for some tweaks ensuring regulatory stability and a harmonization with federal low-NOx guidelines, the EMA now supports CARB.

daimler electric trucks lineup
Daimler has a wide range of electric trucks available and we drove them all

Ortiz also pointed out that compliance with the rule has come faster than expected. CARB says that ZEV truck availability is roughly double projected 2024 requirements, and sales are about two years ahead of schedule – indicating that the rule could have even been stronger than it was.

So the CTA is complaining about a rule which fleets are already finding it easy to comply with. And instead of going the more mature route that the EMA did – trying to sit down at the table and come up with a workable solution – CTA instead jumped straight to federal court.

The choice to file in federal court is notable. It shows that the CTA likely hopes that the environment-hostile U.S. “supreme” court might eventually get a chance to issue yet another ruling that is hostile to human life, and to established US law, and that flies in the face of the wishes of the public. But then, it is unsurprising that a group, more than half of whom were appointed or confirmed undemocratically to irreversible lifetime terms with the help of millions of dollars worth of bribes from the oil industry, would feel unassailable on their mission to aid the evil industry that bought them their seats.

In addition the move to file in federal court is probably also intended to have a chilling effect on EPA’s upcoming “phase 3” truck regulations, which build further on its first update to truck rules in 21 years, finalized late last year.

What’s worse, it’s hard to find out exactly which companies are members of CTA. The organization doesn’t publish a member list (the directory is private), so the only names the NRDC could find are from testimonials on its website.

How the rule helps everyone – including the CTA

And the CTA’s lawsuit is against the interest of these trucking companies themselves – those $48 billion in operational cost savings would go into their pockets, not the manufacturers’.

We hear so much grousing about gas prices – which, even at today’s rates, are artificially low due to trillions in global fossil fuel subsidies in the form of ignored external costs – raising the price of goods. Yet when there is an opportunity to save $48 billion on the cost of shipping those goods, we see companies sue not to save that money. If fuel costs matter, this lawsuit doesn’t make sense.

And there is high public support for this transition as well, and of course there is. It would reduce pollution and the costs of shipping. It would likely improve public perception if the industry electrified. This could (and will) be a huge win for the industry, if they’d only see it.

On another front, it would help their employees too. These workers would get to drive and work around cleaner vehicles with less exhaust and vibration from big diesel engines, meaning less health problems for employees, more productivity, and more happiness. We’ve already heard of some truckers delaying retirement because electric trucks are so much easier on their body – important in a time when the trucking industry is dealing with a long-term driver shortage.

The same health benefits apply particularly to the low-income communities in which many of these ports and distribution centers are located. The Port of Long Beach/Los Angeles is a pretty desolate place, choked with exhaust from moving 40% of the US’ containerized traffic from the coast to California’s Inland Empire, which has some of the worst air quality in the US.

CA’s Inland Empire is surrounded by mountains – often made invisible by smog. Photo by Ken Lund

This is why drayage trucks are being targeted first for electrification, because the environmental justice air quality gains are outsized when electrifying that specific application. In discussions over the Advanced Clean Fleets rule, a diverse coalition including labor representatives joined the usual suspects (scientists, public health, environmental justice organizations, etc) in supporting the rule.

Ortiz pointed out to us that if the higher-up business leaders making decisions in the CTA had to live in these communities, or had to explain themselves to these communities, maybe they’d have more trouble passing along their talking points so uncritically. That $26.5 billion in health costs isn’t just a number – that’s real misery, and it’s a burden that is mostly borne by the communities that can handle it the least.

Those communities aren’t just writing checks to get out of this cost, they’re being forced into early retirement and disability, saddled with weekly doctor’s appointments, and filling up ERs. Their children are getting asthma and having their mental development stunted by pollution. That’s the actual cost here if the trucking companies prevail in this idiotic lawsuit, not just their own dollars which they could save if they dropped it.

Why do business orgs oppose improvements?

So, if everyone else understands that this transition is a good thing – manufacturers, laborers, accountants, the public, scientists, people with lungs, and so on – then what is CTA’s problem? It’s just another example of a business reacting negatively to any sort of regulation, even if that regulation is beneficial for everyone.

We saw this happen before – in California no less – when in 2016 virtually all car companies begged the EPA’s new oil-funded boss to reverse President Obama’s historic national fuel efficiency standard which represented an alignment between federal and California standards for the first time.

With any foresight they might have known that asking idiots to destroy regulations would cause a difficult split market for them, but they fell victim to the big business compulsion to avoid science and the public interest at all costs. Only after the fact did they realize their mistake and instead started lobbying the EPA to close the “Pandora’s Box” which they themselves had originally opened.

Luckily, California eventually won that fight, as we predicted it would. And good regulations continued on, despite all the nonsense efforts to resist them.

Perhaps the CTA could learn something from the auto industry’s last boondoggle, and stop wasting time and money fighting against regulations that will save them money, and will save the lives of their employees and the public.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Environment

Anker SOLIX Halloween Sale takes up to 63% off camping-ready solutions from $279, Lectric XP Trike2 750 with $661 in FREE gear, more

Published

2 hours ago

on

October 20, 2025

By

Anker SOLIX Halloween Sale takes up to 63% off camping-ready solutions from 9, Lectric XP Trike2 750 with 1 in FREE gear, more


Kicking off this week’s Green Deals, we have the newly launched Anker SOLIX Halloween Sale that is taking up to 63% off power stations, like the new SOLIX C1000 Gen 2 Portable Power Station and bundles starting from its second-best rate of $398, among others. We are also shining a spotlight back on Lectric’s ongoing Spooky Sale, particularly on the Long-Range XP Trike2 750 that is getting its largest bundle of $661 in FREE gear (a $558 bundle + $103 in mystery gifts) at $1,799. There’s also EcoFlow’s latest 48-hour Halloween flash sale that is taking up to 68% off four offers, a 2-in-1 Worx lawncare solution, and more waiting for you below. And don’t forget about the hangover deals from last week that are collected together at the bottom of the page, rounded up into our latest edition of Electrified Weekly.

Head below for other New Green Deals we’ve found today and, of course, Electrek’s best EV buying and leasing deals. Also, check out the new Electrek Tesla Shop for the best deals on Tesla accessories.

Anker SOLIX Halloween Sale takes up to 63% off camping-ready units, like the new C1000 Gen 2 station at $398

Anker SOLIX has officially launched its Halloween Sale through the upcoming holiday, giving you ample time to take advantage of the up to 63% discounts on a collection of power stations and accessories, especially if you missed the Prime Day event. Among the lineup, we spotted the brand’s new C1000 Gen 2 Portable Power Station dropping down to $397.99 shipped this time, which also happens to match its pricing at Amazon. While it has been carrying a $799 MSRP since hitting the market at the top of September, we’ve been seeing it regularly keep down near $449, with Prime Day delivering the biggest discount to $379, while today’s $401 markdown from its MSRP gives you the second-best price we have tracked. Learn more about it by heading below or checking out our hands-on tested review here, and be sure to also checking out the early-bird savings on the new SOLIX C2000 Gen 2 power station here.

The first of Anker’s new gen 2 backup power solutions, the SOLIX C1000 Gen 2 power station comes as a lighter and more compact unit over the original C1000 model (which is sitting at the same price). Trading in its modular expandability for this decrease in size, it sports a 1,024Wh LiFePO4 battery that delivers up to 2,000W of steady power to devices and appliances, surging up to 3,000W as needed. There are 10 port options you’ll have to choose from: five AC, two 140W USB-C, one 15W USB-C, one 12W USB-A, and one 120W car output.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Charging times on this new model have been sped up, with its AC input allowing for a faster 49-minute charge time to get the battery back to full. There’s also options to connect to a gas generator (providing passthrough charging), utilizing up to a maximum 600W solar input, using both AC and solar simultaneously, or by plugging into your car’s auxiliary port. You can get a rundown on what mine has been keeping powered in our hands-on tested review.

Anker SOLIX Halloween Sale C1000 series deals:

Anker’s other camping-ready SOLIX Halloween Sale deals:

Anker’s SOLIX Halloween Sale electric cooler deals:

You can check out Anker’s full SOLIX Halloween Sale lineup here on the landing page, which includes the larger home backup units. Be sure to also check out the early-bird deals of up to 50% discounts on the brand’s upcoming SOLIX C2000 Gen 2 Portable Power Station ahead of its launch next week.

man and woman riding Lectric long-range XP Trike2 e-bikes down road

Lectric Spooky Sale offers largest $661 bundle of FREE gear with the new long-range XP Trike2 750 at $1,799

The Lectric Spooky Sale is in full swing with up to $762 in savings being taken off its e-bike bundles with bonus FREE mystery gifts on select models, making it a great time to upgrade your commute. Among the lineup that includes some of the biggest bundles on the XP4 750 e-bikes, we also spotted the biggest packages on the brand’s new Long-Range XP Trike2 750 getting $558 in FREE gear + $103 in FREE mystery gifts at $1,799 shipped, while the standard XP Trike2 is getting $257 in FREE gear at $1,299 shipped. The newer model just hit the scene back in August and has seen bundles of $493 and $455 accompany purchases so far. This sale is now increasing the savings with the largest bundles of free gear – $661 in total – which includes the two mystery gifts, front and rear cargo baskets, an upgraded saddle with a backrest, an Elite headlight upgrade, and a suspension seat post.

If you want to learn more about the XP Trike2’s capabilities, as well as the full lineup of deals, be sure to check out our original coverage of this sale here.

man connecting EcoFlow's DELTA 2 power station to solar panels outside next to lake

EcoFlow 48-hour flash sale drops expanded DELTA 2 bundle with 2x 110W solar panels to $919 low, more from $129

As part of EcoFlow’s ongoing Halloween Sale, you can find the next of the event’s 48-hour flash sales live, with up to 68% discounts on four different offers. Among them, we spotted the DELTA 2 Portable Power Station getting an extra battery and two 110W solar panels at $919 shipped, which is not available as a bundle on Amazon. Carrying a $2,646 MSRP, we’ve seen the costs previously taken lowest to $939 during the brand’s Prime Day Sale event that ended last week. Through October 21, however, you can pick up this solar-capable bundle with even more savings – $1,727 off the MSRP – while this flash offer lasts, giving you the best price we have tracked to date.

If you want to learn more about this well-rounded bundle, or the other offers, be sure to check out our original coverage of this flash sale here.

man using Worx GT3.0 20V 12-inch cordless string trimmer and edger on sloped hill

Keep weeds tamed and lines clean with Worx’s GT3.0 20V 12-inch cordless string trimmer/edger at $75

Amazon is offering the Worx GT3.0 20V 12-inch Cordless PowerShare String Trimmer/Edger with 2.0Ah battery at $74.99 shipped. While it carries a $130 MSRP, we’ve been seeing it keep down at $119 over the year, with it recently holding lower at $79 since late August, and some occasional drops as low as $70. We saw that low price back at the top of September, with today’s deal landing just $5 higher, giving you the second-best price we have tracked, which even beats out its Prime Day pricing from two weeks ago. You’ll also find this tool coming with two 2.0Ah batteries for $110, if you want extended runtimes.

If you want to learn more about this 2-in-1 tool, be sure to check out our original coverage of this deal here.

Best Fall EV deals!

Best new Green Deals landing this week

The savings this week are also continuing to a collection of other markdowns. To the same tune as the offers above, these all help you take a more energy-conscious approach to your routine. Winter means you can lock in even better off-season price cuts on electric tools for the lawn while saving on EVs and tons of other gear.


Add Electrek as a preferred source on Google
Add Electrek as a preferred source on Google

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Two biggest advisory firms urge ‘no’ vote on Elon Musk’s ridiculous $1T pay day

Published

2 hours ago

on

October 20, 2025

By

Two biggest advisory firms urge 'no' vote on Elon Musk's ridiculous T pay day

Elon Musk Tesla Money hero

The two largest independent advisory firms, Institutional Shareholder Services and Glass Lewis, have both recommended a “no” vote on the proposed pay package for Tesla CEO Elon Musk, citing many concerns about shareholder dilution and other terms of the plan.

In September, Tesla’s board proposed a stock award worth up to $1 trillion for CEO Elon Musk. It includes several milestones regarding Tesla stock and product performance, each of which unlocks tens of billions of dollars for Musk.

It’s the largest award proposed for any CEO of any company by multiple orders of magnitude – with previous proposed Musk awards holding the second and third place positions as well.

In addition to that much-reported proposal, another proposal is up for a vote which would create a special share reserve of 208 million shares (current value $92 billion) which the Tesla board can give to Elon Musk with no string attached.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Both proposals will be voted on by TSLA shareholders at Tesla’s shareholder meeting on November 6.

There are a lot of details and history behind this proposal which we at Electrek have covered extensively. Most recently, I went over most of the details of the stock award in this article: Elon Musk’s $1 trillion stock award gets more ridiculous the more you look into it.

But now, both of the largest independent advisory companies have chimed in to point out concerns about the proposals in front of shareholders.

ISS and Glass Lewis state concerns with Musk pay packages

Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) and Glass Lewis are “proxy advisory” companies, both of which who do research and analysis of company proposals and then make recommendations to shareholders about how to vote for them.

Company boards often have their own recommendation on an issue, which may or may not be the best for shareholders – especially if those boards are lacking in independence, and may make recommendations that favor management personally over shareholders as a whole. So, it’s important for independent outside advisors to have a look at proposals and give their take.

Proxy advisory firms are generally less interested in the specifics of what industry a company is in, and just want to ensure good corporate governance – independent and diverse boards, appropriate executive compensation, and so on.

These recommendations are often followed by institutional investors – banks and other large companies that hold large chunks of shares in many companies, many of which they won’t track deeply. So they hire advisory firms to help them make decisions on votes.

ISS and Glass Lewis combined make up the vast majority of the proxy advisory market, so when they make recommendations, it can sway a lot of votes.

And, in looking at the proposals in front of Tesla investors for this year’s shareholder meeting, both of them have stated significant concerns.

On Friday, ISS stated that while it recognizes Musk’s “track record and vision” and the board’s intent to retain him for those reasons, the pay package “locks in extraordinarily high pay opportunities over the next ten years” and “reduces the board’s ability to meaningfully adjust future pay levels.”

It also pointed out that the proposal is designed in such a way as to allow extremely high pay for Musk even if most milestones aren’t achieved, and stated that its “astronomical” size would dilute shareholder value and voting rights.

Glass Lewis’ recommendation counters Tesla board on most proposals

Electrek obtained a full copy of Glass Lewis’ report, but not of ISS’.

Today, Glass Lewis echoed ISS’ statement, saying that dilution to shareholders “warrants significant concern.” It recommended shareholders to vote against all three pay-related proposals (2, 3 and 4), and to vote against re-election of board members Ira Ehrenpreis and Kathleen Wilson-Thompson, though it did recommend voting for the re-election of Joseph Gebbia.

Glass Lewis calls proposal 3 “particularly concerning,” as it ties a 208 million share award for Musk to the creation of a pool of 60 million shares for all other Tesla employees combined, and notes that the employee pool is only necessitated by the board’s previous action draining the pool of shares for employees and giving them all to Musk. It suggests that shareholders vote down this proposal, and that the company put up a separate, clean proposal to refill the employee pool.

And proposal 4, the $1 trillion award, is noted as being excessively dilutive for current shareholders and allowing too much concentration of ownership into Musk’s hands, along with producing more “key man risk” for Tesla. Glass Lewis states that attaching Tesla’s future so inextricably with Musk’s is risky, given his “vast and varied interests,” and suggests it would be reasonable to “sets parameters that limit the key man risk to which shareholders are exposed,” which the company has chosen not to do.

It also notes concern over promising billions of dollars of awards to Musk for doing some of the most basic things that a CEO is meant to do, such as developing a succession plan. Shareholders should “reasonably be concerned that the committee feels the need to compel Mr. Musk to perform such duties, particularly at such cost to shareholders.”

The milestones involved in the award are noted as potentially being easy to achieve, particularly given that the board can decide on a whim to grant a tranche of stock even if a product milestone isn’t reached, if market realities have changed between now and then (a “covered event”) resulting in those product milestones becoming unrealistic. The board is given significant discretion in this matter.

Finally, Glass Lewis points out the danger of allowing Musk to vote his entire ownership stake in favor of his own pay, which was not the case in the last shareholder vote over Musk’s pay. This means essentially a free 15% head-start on the vote, due purely to Musk’s own shares. Glass Lewis cites surveys of its clients and others, stating that a majority of both shareholders and non-investors think that executives should not be able to vote on their own pay packages in stating that Musk’s ability to vote on this proposal does not align with market expectations.

Glass Lewis also stated its concerns with a proposal for Tesla to invest in xAI. xAI is a private company which Musk started started to compete with Tesla (and is currently subject to a lawsuit for that reason). Glass Lewis said that this matter should be decided by the board, not shareholders.

In sum, Glass Lewis’ recommendations ran counter to the Tesla’s board recommendation in almost every case. The only proposals they agreed on are the election of Gebbia, ratification of Tesla’s auditor, and proposals 8 and 9, two shareholder proposals recommending Tesla adopt standards on sustainability and child labor.

Tesla responds by lashing out with attacks

Tesla has, expectedly, responded with attacks against both firms.

Both ISS and Glass Lewis have recommended “no” votes on Musk’s pay packages in the past, citing similar concerns over their size and the amount of dilution which they would cause to shareholders. And Tesla has spoken out against the two firms in those instances.

In this instance, Tesla attacked ISS, suggesting that its status as a disinterested advisor (which does not hold shares in the company) somehow makes it less capable of seeing the reality of the situation. It also notes past shareholder votes on other proposals, which were different from the proposals on the table today.

And after Glass Lewis’ recommendation today, Tesla levied another attack, making similar points about votes on past proposals, rather than the proposals in front of shareholders today.

Separately, Tesla also attacked a group of pension funds which are invested in TSLA, mocking them for having returns of 7-13% (which, collectively, is above average for large stable funds). Tesla even hired an outside PR company to publicize this attack.

Electrek’s Take

We’ve been clear here, over and over, about how ridiculous this stock plan is.

However, despite it seeming ridiculous at first glance, it only gets more ridiculous the deeper you look into it.

I went over it all this weekend in the article mentioned above, Elon Musk’s $1 trillion stock award gets more ridiculous the more you look into it. It’s long, but if you want more detail, that’s the place to go.

In short, the analyses presented by these outside firms looking at Tesla’s shareholder proposals, and the environment around them, are clear-headed and made in the interest of Tesla shareholders. If shareholders actually read the letters or analyses involved with their own interests in mind, they will likely be persuaded.

Meanwhile, Tesla’s responses have been filled with the sort of language that someone would expect out of an entity that is trying to deceive – the sort of language we’ve gotten used to in our politics. They read as campaign messages or advertising efforts, not as the result of deep analysis. And Musk also threatened his own company just yesterday, once again, in the hope that shareholders will feel trapped enough that they vote to retain him.

If the only place people read about this is on twitter, which Elon Musk bought for the purpose of spreading his own propaganda and shutting down dissent, they might get one sense of what the proposals mean. In that upside-down world, TSLA investors can only benefit as the stock goes up, and Musk only benefits if the stock goes up.

But looking into the actual details of the proposals, it becomes apparent that Musk can get awarded with a larger payday than any CEO ever for doing nothing at all, that that award comes at the cost of every other Tesla employee and the voting rights of every Tesla shareholder, and that better options are available which would maintain the rights of Tesla investors while also compensating its CEO (whose performance has been exceptionally bad recently).

But those options have not been provided to shareholders to vote on, as Tesla’s board is working more in the benefit of their friend Elon, rather than the benefit of TSLA shareholders as a whole.

The 30% federal solar tax credit is ending this year. If you’ve ever considered going solar, now’s the time to act. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here.


Add Electrek as a preferred source on Google
Add Electrek as a preferred source on Google

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

U.S. and Australia sign critical minerals agreement with $8.5 billion project pipeline

Published

2 hours ago

on

October 20, 2025

By

U.S. and Australia sign critical minerals agreement with .5 billion project pipeline

U.S. President Donald Trump meets Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in the Cabinet Room at the White House, in Washington, D.C., U.S., October 20, 2025.

Kevin Lamarque | Reuters

President Donald Trump and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese on Monday signed an agreement on critical minerals that includes plans for projects worth a total of up to $8.5 billion.

“There will be $1 billion contributed from Australia and the United States over the next six months with projects that are immediately available,” Albanese told reporters at the White House during a meeting with Trump.

Albanese said there will be three groups of joint projects between the two countries, which will include companies such as Alcoa. The U.S. will invest in rare earths processing in Australia, the prime minister said. One project is a joint venture between Australia, the U.S. and Japan, he said.

“What we’re trying to do here is to take the opportunities which are there,” Albanese told reporters.

China dominates the global rare earths supply chain, particularly refining and processing. The U.S. is dependent on Beijing for rare earths imports. Australia, a close U.S. ally, is one of the few countries in the world other than China that processes rare earths.

“In about a year from now, we’ll have so much critical mineral and rare earths that you won’t know what to do with them,” Trump told reporters. The U.S. is also working with other nations to build a supply chain that isn’t dependent on China, the president said.

China-U.S. tensions

China announced strict export controls on rare earths earlier this month, pushing Beijing and Washington to the brink of a renewed trade war. Trump has threatened 100% tariffs on Chinese goods starting Nov. 1 or sooner if Beijing does not back down.

“They threatened us with rare earths, and I threatened them with tariffs, but I could also threaten them with many other things, like airplanes,” Trump said.

Trump confirmed he will meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea later this month. The U.S. president said he will visit China early next year.

“We had presidents that allowed China and other countries get away with murder,” Trump said. “We’re not going to allow that, but we’re going to have a fair deal. I want to be good to China. I love my relationship with President Xi. We have a great relationship.”

Continue Reading

Trending