PM Modi speaks to Elon Musk days before Vance's India visit
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said he discussed his country's potential to collaborate with the US on "technology and innovation" during a conversation with Elon Musk.On Friday, Modi shared a post on X detailing his telephone conversation with the tech billionaire and said they had revisited topics from their meeting in Washington earlier this year.Modi's conversation with Musk comes as India is working towards securing a bilateral trade agreement with the US to offset the brunt of US President Donald Trump's potential tariffs.It also comes days before US Vice-President JD Vance's four-day trip to India.
"We discussed the immense potential for collaboration in the areas of technology and innovation," Modi wrote in his post on X.He added that India remained "committed to advancing our partnerships with the US" in these domains.Musk, who is seen as being close to Trump and also heads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), is looking at making inroads into India with his business plans. In March, Starlink signed an agreement with two of India's biggest telecoms firms to bring satellite internet to India and is awaiting government approval to start providing its services.Musk's X is suing India, as Tesla and Starlink plan entryMusk v Ambani: Billionaires battle over India's satellite internetTesla could also finally be making its debut and has begun hiring for a dozen jobs in Delhi and Mumbai. It is also reportedly hunting for showrooms in both cities.Meanwhile, Vance is set to meet Modi on 21 April, the first day of his trip, for discussions on economic, trade and geopolitical ties.He will be accompanied by his children and wife Usha Vance whose parents migrated to the US from the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.The visit comes against the backdrop of an intensifying trade war between the US and China.Trump slapped India too with 27% US tariffs on 2 April, before he announced a 90-day pause.Since then, Delhi and Washington have been working towards an early conclusion of trade negotiations.Follow BBC News India on Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scottish Sun
11 hours ago
- Scottish Sun
I posed as illegal Channel migrant to rent a Just Eat account – minutes later I was delivering leaving customers SHOCKED
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A SUN reporter posing as an illegal Channel migrant rented a Just Eat courier account and made a delivery within minutes despite promises of a crackdown. Pretending to be an asylum seeker from Afghanistan, he purchased the login to the delivery app's service from a seller called Danyel. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 5 Sun reporter Thomas Godfrey, posing as an illegal Channel migrant, rented a Just Eat courier account and made a delivery within minutes Credit: Steve Bell 5 Our reporter took a KFC Bargain Bucket to cement contractor Joe Stanton, 27, for his family Credit: Steve Bell We showed how easy it was to scam the system after a Sun investigation last week showed migrants across the country could work illegally from asylum hotels as fast-food delivery drivers within hours of arriving in Britain. Today, bosses of Deliveroo, Uber Eats and Just Eat will be hauled in by the Home Office. As part of his cover story, our reporter told the account 'dealer' — who operated on open Facebook forums under his real name — that he had no right to work in the UK as he had only just been processed by the Home Office. But the dealer, based in Guildford, Surrey, told us: 'It is no problem if you do your job, mate.' The account had been verified by Just Eat after background, criminal and passport checks on Danyel's Romanian documents. Our reporter was handed control of the account for £40 a week. Its earnings history revealed riders renting it earlier this year had made more than £250 in a week. He was given a shift dropping off orders on Wednesday night in nearby Addlestone, and delivered a Wimpy burger, chips and strawberry milkshake to Just Eat customer Rebekah. When we told her what was going on, Rebekah, who was looking after her mum, said: 'That makes me a bit nervous.' Two days later, he switched to Gravesend, Kent, and was immediately flooded with offers without being asked to verify his identity. Thousands of boat migrants working as delivery riders within hours of arriving while housed and fed by taxpayer, Sun probe reveals The dealer assured our man that, had he been asked, he would have logged in and verified himself before handing back control. Our reporter took a KFC Bargain Bucket to cement contractor Joe Stanton, 27, for his family. He told us: 'This shows how easy it is, and the fact that anyone could do it.' An Indian takeaway was dropped to Parminder Singh, 51, who works as a registered delivery driver. He told us: 'When you order through an app, you put your trust into that company. 'This does make me wary about who can turn up.' Furious Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick said: 'Firms like this are not just profiting from the small boat crisis, they're fuelling it.' Just Eat said: 'We'd like to thank The Sun for drawing this case to our attention. 'The account has been suspended while we conduct a thorough investigation.' Bordering on lunacy DESPERATE migrants clutch children's rubber rings as they start a Channel crossing — despite such inflatables being useless in emergencies. At least 40 men were seen crammed into a dinghy when it launched from Gravelines, near Calais yesterday. 5 Small boat migrants clutch children's rubber rings as they start a Channel crossing Credit: LNP Fine weather this week could bring this year's small boat arrivals to 20,000. The tally is currently at 18,500 — up by almost 6,000 on this time last year. Meanwhile, a new migrants return deal with France is expected to be announced. 5 Migrants waiting to board a boat on the French coast Credit: LNP
NBC News
11 hours ago
- NBC News
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states propose a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. 'Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved,' said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. 'Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents.' Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional 'collections' actions that one would take against a 'deadbeat debtor.' Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including 'sanctuary' policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. 'We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites,' she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. 'It's a novel concept,' said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. 'I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds.' Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. 'So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much,' said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. 'There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people,' he said. 'The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'' But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. 'Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'' he said. 'States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law.' But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. 'We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget,' said Moon, the Maryland legislator. 'There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House.'
NBC News
a day ago
- NBC News
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. 'Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved,' said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. 'Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents.' Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional 'collections' actions that one would take against a 'deadbeat debtor.' Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including 'sanctuary' policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. 'We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites,' she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. 'It's a novel concept,' said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. 'I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds.' Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. 'So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much,' said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. 'There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people,' he said. 'The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'' But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. 'Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'' he said. 'States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law.' But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. 'We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget,' said Moon, the Maryland legislator. 'There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House.'
