by CATHERINE GASCHKA, SAM McNEIL and PAUL WISEMAN, Associated Press

PARIS (AP) — Europe and the United States are meeting in Paris to negotiate a settlement of a tense tariff spat with global economic ramifications between two global economic powerhouses.

The European Union’s top trade negotiator, Maroš Šefčovič, met Wednesday with his American counterpart, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, on the sidelines of a meeting of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

“We’re advancing in the right direction at pace,” Šefčovič said at a news conference. He said ongoing technical meetings between EU and U.S. negotiators in Washington would be soon followed by a video conference between himself and Greer to then “assess the progress and charter the way forward.”

European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security Maros Sefcovic arrives for a meeting of EU trade ministers at the European Council building in Brussels, Thursday, May 15, 2025. (AP Photo/Omar Havana)

Brussels and Washington are unlikely to reach a substantive trade agreement in Paris. The issues dividing them are too difficult to resolve quickly.

President Donald Trump regularly fumes about America’s persistent trade deficit with the European Union, which was a record $161 billion last year, according to the U.S. Commerce Department.

Trump blames the gap between what the U.S. sells and what it buys from Europe on unfair trade practices and often singles out for criticism the EU’s 10% tax on imported cars. America’s was 2.5% until Trump raised it to 25% in April. The EU has argued its purchases of U.S. services, especially in the technology sector, all but overcome the deficit.

After the Trump administration’s surprise tariffs last week on steel rattled global markets and complicated the ongoing, wider tariff negotiations between Brussels and Washington, the EU on Monday said it is preparing “countermeasures” against the U.S.

The EU has offered the U.S. a “zero for zero” deal in which both sides end tariffs on industrial goods, including autos. Trump has rejected that idea, but EU officials say it’s still on the table.

The EU could buy more liquefied natural gas and defense items from the U.S., and lower duties on cars, but it isn’t likely to budge on calls to scrap the value added tax, which is akin to a sales tax, or open up the EU to American beef.

“We still have a few weeks to have this discussion and negotiation,” French Trade Minister Laurent Saint-Martin said in Paris on Wednesday ahead of the OECD meeting. “If the discussion and negotiation do not succeed, Europe is capable of having countermeasures on American products and services as well.”

Related Articles

Mexican girl is granted humanitarian parole to continue receiving lifesaving care in US, lawyers say

Federal lawsuit accusing Peter Navarro of using unofficial email account dropped

Trump asks Congress to claw back billions in approved spending targeted by DOGE

Federal officers in tactical gear went into a Latino community in Minneapolis. A protest followed

Musk calls Trump’s big tax break bill a ‘disgusting abomination,’ testing his influence over the GOP

Greta Peisch, who was general counsel for the U.S. trade representative in the Biden administration, said the zero-for-zero proposal could provide a way to make progress if the Trump administration “is looking for a reason not to impose tariffs on the EU.’’

But Peisch, now a partner at the Wiley Rein law firm, wondered: “How motivated is the U.S. to come to a deal with the EU?’’ Trump, after all, has longstanding grievances and complaints about EU trade practices.

One target of his ire is the value-added tax, similar to U.S. state sales taxes.

Trump and his advisers consider VATs unfair protectionism because they are levied on U.S. products. But VATs are set at a national level, not by the EU, and apply to domestic and imported products alike, so they have not traditionally been considered a trade barrier. There is little chance governments will overhaul their tax systems to appease Trump.

Likewise, the Europeans are likely to balk at U.S. demands to scrap food and safety regulations that Washington views as trade barriers. These include bans on hormone-raised beef, chlorinated chicken and genetically modified foods.

“When you start talking about chickens or GMOs or automobile safety standards, you’re talking about the ways countries choose to regulate their economies,” Peisch said. “We think that’s protectionist. They think it’s keeping their citizens healthy … It’s been a sore point for 60 years.’’

McNeil reported from Barcelona and Wiseman reported from Washington, D.C.

Former President Joe Biden’s metastatic cancer diagnosis brings together two controversial issues: PSA testing for prostate cancer and presidential politics.

To understand what is at stake Americans need basic information about PSA testing, and a frank discussion of the reasoning behind the prostate cancer screening decisions in the former president’s case. The dribble of information we’ve gotten only creates more uncomfortable questions for Biden and his family. The absence of adequate explanation also fails to contribute to public appreciation of these important medical issues.

The prostate, a walnut-shaped gland at the base of the bladder, produces “prostate specific antigen,” or PSA. Chemically classed as a glycoprotein, a sugar/protein aggregate, it leaks from the prostate into the blood, where its level can be measured with routine blood testing.

As men age, the prostate enlarges, increasing PSA levels. Screening tests take advantage of the fact that prostate cancer usually leaks more PSA than normal prostate tissue. And in the case of prostate cancer, the PSA typically rises relatively fast.

Beyond these basic facts, the PSA story becomes hazy. Although an elevated PSA may signal cancer, most men with an elevated PSA have benign prostate enlargement, not prostate cancer. Worse yet for screening, many men with prostate cancer have a mild and slow-moving disease that requires no treatment. They coexist with their disease rather than dying of it. This fact leads to the old adage that prostate cancer is the disease of long-lived popes and Supreme Court justices.

Medical advisory panels view PSA screening with skepticism partly due to the challenges of distinguishing benign PSA elevations from those related to cancer. Confirming a suspected cancer diagnosis requires prostate biopsies that can be painful and can produce side effects. Additionally, once a diagnosis is made, patients who might have coexisted with their disease may needlessly be subject to the harms of treatment, such as radiation and surgery. Finally, the benefits of early treatment of prostate cancer have been difficult to prove in clinical studies.

For all these reasons medical advisory panels have discouraged widespread testing or recommend a nuanced approach with careful discussion of risk and benefits between patients and their physicians.

Despite these concerns, the pendulum has swung toward more PSA testing in recent years. One reason is that improvements in radiographic imaging, such as MRI, allow for “active surveillance” that can track early lesions for signs of spread, allowing doctors to distinguish between relatively benign cases of prostate cancer and those likely to progress. Interventions can then be directed more specifically to those at high risk.

In my medical practice, I have generally been an advocate for prostate cancer screening despite the controversy surrounding the clinical benefits. My experience leads me to believe that early diagnosis improves prognosis. But even without improved medical outcomes, patients and their families still benefit from early diagnosis for the purposes of planning. No one wants to be sideswiped by a late-stage symptomatic disease that limits both clinical and life choices.

In Biden’s case, after some initial delay a spokesperson revealed on May 20 that there had been no PSA testing since 2014, during Biden’s vice presidency. The reasons were not revealed.

Such a decision might have been justified based on questions about the benefits and risks of PSA testing. However, given the importance of the health of a vice president and potential future president one might have expected doctors to err on the side of more information. The omission invites speculation that the political implications of a borderline or increasing PSA might have played a decisive role. More information regarding his last PSA and the basis for the decision not to continue screening might put such speculation to rest.

Related Articles

Sarah McLaughlin: Once, international students feared Beijing’s wrath. Now Trump is the threat

Allison Schrager: Break up Columbia? Maybe, and the rest of the Ivy League, too

Bruce Yandle: Trump’s policy reversals — a new way to govern?

David French: Why Trump is mad at ‘sleasebag’ Leonard Leo

Cory Franklin: The lessons of ‘Shoeless’ Joe Jackson and the MLB’s rewriting of history

In the past, the public has gained insight into important medical conditions from the unfortunate maladies affecting the first families. Colon cancer screening received increased attention after President Reagan’s diagnosis in 1985. Betty Ford’s public disclosure of her struggles with alcoholism and prescription drug dependency helped de-stigmatize treatment for substance use disorders.

Biden’s illness also offers an opportunity. Consider that prostate cancer poses the greatest cancer mortality risk faced by non-smoking American men. Transparency in dealing with the former president’s condition would serve the public interest by increasing awareness and understanding of the important, nuanced care decisions faced by so many men.

Daniel J. Stone is an internist and geriatrician in Beverly Hills. He wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

American universities have long feared that the Chinese government will restrict its country’s students from attending institutions that cross Beijing’s sensitive political lines.

Universities still fear that consequence today, but the most immediate threat is no longer posed by the Chinese government. Now, as the latest punishment meted out to the Trump administration’s preeminent academic scapegoat shows, it’s our own government posing the threat.

In a May 22 letter, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced she revoked Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, meaning the university’s thousands of international students must transfer immediately or lose their legal status. Harvard can no longer enroll future international students either.

Noem cited Harvard’s failure to hand over international student disciplinary records in response to a prior letter and, disturbingly, the Trump administration’s desire to “root out the evils of anti-Americanism” on campus. Among the most alarming demands in this latest missive was that Harvard supply all video of “any protest activity” by any international student within the last five years.

Harvard immediately sued Noem and her department and other agencies, rightfully calling the revocation “a blatant violation of the First Amendment,” and within hours a judge issued a temporary restraining order against the revocation.

“Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country,” Noem wrote on X about the punishment. And on Tuesday, the administration halted interviews for all new student visas.

This is not how a free country treats its schools — or the international visitors who attend them.

Noem’s warning will, no doubt, be heard loud and clear. That’s because universities — which depend on international students’ tuition dollars — have already had reason to worry that they will lose access to international students for displeasing censorial government officials.

In 2010, Beijing revoked recognition of the University of Calgary’s accreditation in China, meaning Chinese students at the Canadian school suddenly risked paying for a degree worth little at home. The reason? The university’s granting of an honorary degree to the Dalai Lama the year before. “We have offended our Chinese partners by the very fact of bringing in the Dalai Lama, and we have work to resolve that issue,” a spokesperson said.

Beijing restored recognition over a year later, but many Chinese students had already left. Damage done.

Similarly, when UC San Diego hosted the Dalai Lama as commencement speaker in 2017, punishment followed. The China Scholarship Council suspended funding for academics intending to study at UCSD, and an article in the state media outlet Global Times recommended that Chinese authorities “not recognize diplomas or degree certificates issued by the university.”

This kind of direct punishment doesn’t happen very frequently. But the threat always exists, and it creates fear that administrators take into account when deciding how their universities operate.

American universities now must fear that they will suffer this penalty too, but at an even greater scale: revocation of access not just to students from China, but all international students. That’s a huge potential loss. At Harvard, for example, international students make up a whopping 27% of total enrollment.

Whether they publicly acknowledge it or not, university leaders probably are considering whether they need to adjust their behavior to avoid seeing international student tuition funds dry up.

Will our colleges and universities increase censorship and surveillance of international students? Avoid inviting commencement speakers disfavored by the Trump administration? Pressure academic departments against hiring any professors whose social media comments or areas of research will catch the eye of mercurial government officials?

And, equally disturbing, will they be willing to admit that they are now making these calculations at all? Unlike direct punishments by the Trump administration or Beijing, this chilling effect is likely to be largely invisible.

Harvard might be able to survive without international students’ tuition. But a vast number of other universities could not. The nation as a whole would feel their loss too: In the 2023-24 academic year, international students contributed a record-breaking $43.8 billion to the American economy.

Related Articles

Allison Schrager: Break up Columbia? Maybe, and the rest of the Ivy League, too

Bruce Yandle: Trump’s policy reversals — a new way to govern?

David French: Why Trump is mad at ‘sleasebag’ Leonard Leo

Cory Franklin: The lessons of ‘Shoeless’ Joe Jackson and the MLB’s rewriting of history

Clive Crook: The US is about to discover if deficits don’t matter

And these students — who have uprooted their lives for the promise of what American education offers — are the ones who will suffer the most, as they experience weeks or months of panic and upheaval while being used as pawns in this campaign to punish higher ed.

If the Trump administration is seeking to root out “anti-Americanism,” it can begin by surveying its own behavior in recent months. Freedom of expression is one of our country’s most cherished values. Censorship, surveillance and punishment of government critics do not belong here.

Sarah McLaughlin is senior scholar on global expression at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and author of the forthcoming book “Authoritarians in the Academy: How the Internationalization of Higher Education and Borderless Censorship Threaten Free Speech.” She wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

For meat lovers, there’s nothing better on a spring day than firing up the grill and making yourself a really great steak.

But what if the weather doesn’t cooperate, or worse, your budget doesn’t allow for those fat New York strips or marbled rib-eyes you just know would fill your family’s savory hankerings with their rich, buttery flavor?

How about a steak salad instead?

Since the meat gets sliced thin against the grain into bite-sized pieces, you’ll need less of it to fill multiple dinner plates. And if you serve it with fresh, readily available (and economical) veggies like crisp greens and cucumbers, it will still feel substantial while offering a variety of textures, flavors and nutritional benefits.

This flavorful salad marries pan-seared skirt steak — a budget-friendly cut with a rich, beefy flavor — with a bright and gingery carrot vinaigrette you make in a blender. They’re tossed with crisp disks of spicy radish, paper-thin slices of cucumber and the sweet and crunchy inner hearts of romaine lettuce.

Carrots can sometimes be almost an afterthought in salad because they’re one of those vegetables you feel obliged to include. (They’re cheap and plentiful year-round.) But here, they’re actually the star of the dish, adding color and earthiness to every bite.

While any store-bought variety of seasoned rice vinegar will work in this recipe (it’s enhanced with sugar and salt), the cookbook authors don’t suggest substituting regular rice vinegar in its place because you want that sweet-and-salty flavor.

Rather use homemade? Simply combine 1/2 cup unseasoned rice vinegar with 1/4 cup sugar and 1 tablespoon salt. Let sit for 5 minutes, then whisk constantly until the sugar and salt dissolve. (It can be stored in an airtight container at room temperature for up to 1 week.)

I cooked the steak per instructions in a cast-iron pan on the stovetop, but am looking forward to also trying it on the grill for a more smoky, charred flavor.

Steak Salad with Carrot-Ginger Vinaigrette

INGREDIENTS

For vinaigrette:

2 carrots, peeled and chopped
1/4 cup seasoned rice vinegar
3 tablespoons water
1 1/2 -inch piece ginger, peeled and chopped coarse
1 teaspoon toasted sesame oil
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/4 cup vegetable oil

For salad:

1 1/2 pounds skirt steak, trimmed and cut with grain into 4-inch lengths
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/4 teaspoon pepper
2 tablespoon vegetable oil, divided
3 romaine lettuce hearts, quarters and sliced thin
1/2 English cucumber, halved lengthwise and sliced thin
4 radishes, trimmed and sliced thin
2 carrots, peeled and cut into 2-inch matchsticks

DIRECTIONS

1. Make vinaigrette: Process carrots, vinegar, water, ginger, sesame oil and salt in blender until finely ground, about 30 seconds.

2. With blended running slowly add vegetable oil and process until incorporated and smooth, about 20 seconds. Set aside.

3. Prepare salad: Pat steak dry with paper towels and sprinkle with salt and pepper.

4. Heat 1 tablespoon oil in 12-inch skillet over medium-high heat until just smoking. Add half of steak and cook until well browned and meat registers 125 degrees (medium-rare), about 2 minutes per side.

5. Repeat with remaining 1 tablespoon oil and remaining steak. Let rest 5 minutes.

6. Toss lettuce, cucumber, radishes, carrots and 1/2 cup vinaigrette together in bowl. Divide salad among 4 plates.

7. Slice steak thin against grain. Top individual salad portions with steak.

8. Serve, passing remaining vinaigrette separately.

Serves 4.

— “The Complete Salad Cookbook” by America’s Test Kitchen

Related Articles

Quick Fix: Grilled Cheese Sandwich Supper with Spinach and Tomato Salad

Tangy cherry preserves bring balance to this ancient ricotta tart

7 easy ways to make your herbs last so much longer

Recipes: Use blackberries to make a pie, tiny cakes and even a salad

Light and breezy: Five easy weeknight dishes that won’t weigh you down