Trump says US, India still negotiating after 25% US tariff threat
A 25 per cent tariff would strain US relations with the world's most populous democracy.
WASHINGTON/NEW DELHI - President Donald Trump said on July 30 the United States is still negotiating with India on trade after announcing earlier in the day the US will impose a 25 per cent tariff on goods imported from the country starting on Aug 1.
The 25 per cent tariff, as well as an unspecified penalty announced by Mr Trump in a morning social media post, would strain relations with the world's most populous democracy.
Later at the White House, the Republican president indicated there was wiggle room.
'They have one of the highest tariffs in the world now, they're willing to cut it very substantially,' Trump told reporters.
'We're talking to India now - we'll see what happens... You'll know by the end of this week.'
The 25 per cent figure would single out India more severely than other major trading partners, and threaten to unravel months of talks between the two countries, undermining a strategic partner of Washington's and a counterbalance to China.
What the penalty would be was not clear. Mr Trump indicated initially it was for India buying Russian arms and oil and its non-monetary trade barriers.
Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
Singapore Water supply issues during Toa Payoh blaze affected firefighting operations; SCDF investigating
Singapore 3 taken to hospital after fire in Marsiling flat
Singapore School, parents on alert after vape peddlers approach primary school pupil
Singapore Tampines, Toa Payoh BTO flats most popular among first-time home buyers in July HDB launch
Sport Leon Marchand sets first world record at World Aquatics C'ships in Singapore
Singapore Jail, fine for man linked to case involving 3 bank accounts that received over $680m in total
Singapore Provision shop owner who raped 11-year-old gets more than 14 years' jail
Singapore Escape, discover, connect: Where new memories are made
When asked about the penalty at the White House, he said it was partly due to trade issues and partly because of India's involvement in the Brics group of developing nations, which he described as hostile to the US. Mr Trump in July said the US will impose
an additional 10 per cent tariff on any countries aligning themselves with the 'Anti-American policies' of the Brics.
The India announcement came as countries face an Aug 1 deadline to reach deals on reciprocal tariffs or have a Trump-imposed tariff slapped on them. Mr Trump on July 30 signed a proclamation
ordering 50 per cent tariffs on certain copper imports, citing national security, the White House said.
Early warning
The White House had previously warned India about its high average applied tariffs - nearly 39 per cent on agricultural products - with rates climbing to 45 per cent on vegetable oils and around 50 per cent on apples and corn.
'While India is our friend, we have, over the years, done relatively little business with them because their Tariffs are far too high, among the highest in the World, and they have the most strenuous and obnoxious non-monetary Trade Barriers of any Country,' Mr Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.
'They have always bought a vast majority of their military equipment from Russia, and are Russia's largest buyer of ENERGY, along with China, at a time when everyone wants Russia to STOP THE KILLING IN UKRAINE – ALL THINGS NOT GOOD!'
In response to his Truth Social post, the Indian government said it was studying the implications of Mr Trump's announcements and remained dedicated to securing a fair trade deal with the US.
'India and the US have been engaged in negotiations on concluding a fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement over the last few months. We remain committed to that objective,' it said.
Russia continued to be the top oil supplier to India during the first six months of 2025, making up 35 per cent of overall supplies.
The United States, the world's largest economy, currently has a US$45.7 billion (S$59.2 billion) trade deficit with India, the fifth largest.
White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said Mr Trump has been frustrated with the progress of trade talks with India and believed the 25 per cent tariff announcement would help the situation.
The new US tax on imports from India would be higher than on many other countries that struck deals with the Trump administration recently. Vietnam's tariff is set at 20 per cent and Indonesia's at 19 per cent, while the levy for Japan and the European Union is 15 per cent.
'This is a major setback for Indian exporters, especially in sectors like textiles, footwear, and furniture, as the 25 per cent tariff will render them uncompetitive against rivals from Vietnam and China,' said Mr S.C. Ralhan, president of the Federation of Indian Export Organisation.
Contentious issues
US and Indian negotiators have held multiple rounds of discussions to resolve contentious issues, particularly over market access into India for US agricultural and dairy products.
In its latest statement, India said it attached the utmost importance to protecting and promoting the welfare of its farmers, entrepreneurs, and small businesses.
'The government will take all steps necessary to secure our national interest, as has been the case with other trade agreements,' it said.
The setback comes despite earlier commitments by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Mr Trump to conclude the first phase of a trade deal by autumn and expand bilateral trade to US$500 billion by 2030, from US$191 billion in 2024.
Since India's
short but deadly conflict with arch South Asian rival Pakistan, New Delhi has been unhappy about Mr Trump's
closeness with Islamabad and has protested, which cast a shadow over trade talks.
'Politically, the relationship is in its toughest spot since the mid-1990s,' said Mr Ashok Malik, partner at advisory firm The Asia Group. 'Trust has diminished. President Trump's messaging has damaged many years of careful, bipartisan nurturing of the US-India partnership in both capitals.'
Besides farm products access, the US had flagged concerns over India's increasingly burdensome import-quality requirements, among its many non-tariff barriers to foreign trade, in a report released in March.
The new tariffs will impact Indian goods exports to the US, estimated at around US$87 billion in 2024, including labour-intensive products such as garments, pharmaceuticals, gems and jewelry, and petrochemicals. REUTERS
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
9 minutes ago
- Straits Times
Trump's deal-making with other elite US schools scrambles Harvard negotiations
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – By the start of last week, Harvard University had signalled its readiness to meet President Donald Trump's demand that it spend US$500 million (S$643 million) to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its crucial research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: US$50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state workforce development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marvelled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' Ms May Mailman, the top White House official under Mr Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinise its behaviour. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Aug 4 that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government – after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr Trump – would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending US$500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University – which agreed to a US$200 million fine in July – to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests lin 2024. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and workforce training programs instead of the federal government, Mr Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward workforce programmes aligns with some of what Mr Trump has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking US$3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after the Times reported the US$500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its US$53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up US$7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip US$9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened US$510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its US$50 million settlement payment toward workforce programmes of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fuelled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant US$500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. In July, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programmes, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Ms Paula Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on July 31, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard President Alan Garber and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Professor Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Prof Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Ms Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a US$53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?' NYTIMES
AsiaOne
9 minutes ago
- AsiaOne
Trump again threatens India with harsh tariffs over Russian oil purchases, World News
WASHINGTON — US President Donald Trump again threatened on Monday (Aug 4) to raise tariffs on goods from India over its Russian oil purchases, while New Delhi called his attack "unjustified" and vowed to protect its economic interests, deepening the trade rift between the two countries. In a social media post, Trump wrote, "India is not only buying massive amounts of Russian Oil, they are then, for much of the Oil purchased, selling it on the Open Market for big profits. They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine." "Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA," he added. A spokesperson for India's foreign ministry said in response that India will "take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security." "The targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable," the spokesperson added. Trump has said that from Friday he will impose new sanctions on Russia as well as on countries that buy its energy exports, unless Moscow takes steps to end its 3-1/2 year war with Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown no public sign of altering his stance despite the deadline. Over the weekend, two Indian government sources told Reuters that India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite Trump's threats. India has faced pressure from the West to distance itself from Moscow since Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022. New Delhi has resisted, citing its longstanding ties with Russia and economic needs. Trump had already in July announced 25 per cent tariffs on Indian imports, and US officials have cited a range of geopolitical issues standing in the way of a US-India trade accord. Trump has also cast the wider BRICS group of developing nations as hostile to the United States. Those nations have dismissed his accusation, saying the group promotes the interests of its members and of developing countries at large. Crude buyer India is the biggest buyer of seaborne crude from Russia, importing about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil from January to June this year, up 1 per cent from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by trade sources. [[nid:720925]] India began importing oil from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the Ukraine conflict, the Indian spokesperson said, calling it a "necessity compelled by global market situation." The spokesperson also noted the West's, particularly the European Union's, bilateral trade with Russia: "It is revealing that the very nations criticising India are themselves indulging in trade with Russia." Despite the Indian government's defiance, the country's main refiners paused buying Russian oil last week, sources told Reuters. Discounts to other suppliers narrowed after Trump threatened hefty tariffs on countries that make any such purchases. Indian government officials denied any policy change. The country's largest refiner, Indian Oil Corp, has bought seven million barrels of crude from the United States, Canada and the Middle East, four trade sources told Reuters on Monday. India also has been frustrated by Trump repeatedly taking credit for an India-Pakistan ceasefire that he announced on social media in May, which halted days of hostilities between the nuclear-armed neighbours. The unpredictability of the Trump administration creates a challenge for Delhi, said Richard Rossow, head of the India programme at Washington's Centre for Strategic and International Studies. "India's continued energy and defence purchases from Russia presents a larger challenge, where India does not feel it can predict how the Trump administration will approach Russia from month to month," he said. [[nid:720581]]
Business Times
9 minutes ago
- Business Times
Gold rises as Fed rate cut bets pressure dollar, yields
[BENGALURU] Gold prices rose on Tuesday (Aug 5), after gaining in the last three sessions, supported by a weaker US dollar and lower Treasury yields following last week's weak US jobs data that boosted expectations of a Federal Reserve rate cut in September. Spot gold rose 0.2 per cent to US$3,380.61 per ounce as at 8.52 am. US gold futures also gained 0.2 per cent to US$3,434.30. The US dollar index fell for the third straight session on Tuesday, making gold more affordable for holders of other currencies. Meanwhile, the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury note dropped to a three-week low. On Friday, US President Donald Trump fired Erika L McEntarfer, the commissioner of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, after data showed employment growth was weaker than expected last month. US employment growth was softer than expected in July, while the non-farm payrolls counts for May and June were revised down by a massive 258,000 jobs, suggesting a sharp deterioration in the labour market conditions. San Francisco Fed Bank president Mary Daly said on Monday that given mounting evidence that the US job market is softening and no signs of persistent tariff-driven inflation, the time is nearing for rate cuts. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up According to the CME FedWatch tool, traders now see a 94.4 per cent chance of a September rate cut. Gold, traditionally considered a safe-haven asset during political and economic uncertainties, tends to thrive in a low-interest-rate environment. SPDR Gold Trust, the world's largest gold-backed exchange-traded fund, said its holdings rose 0.18 per cent to 954.8 tonnes on Monday from 953.1 tonnes on Friday. Elsewhere, spot silver rose 0.1 per cent to US$37.41 per ounce, platinum gained 0.1 per cent to US$1,330.17 and palladium eased 0.1 per cent to US$1,204.87. REUTERS
