Trump says incoming pharma tariff may go as high as 250% - Economy
"We'll be putting (an) initially small tariff on pharmaceuticals, but in one year, one-and-a-half years, maximum, it's going to go to 150 percent," Trump said in an interview on CNBC.
"And then it's going to go to 250 percent because we want pharmaceuticals made in our country," he added.
In the same interview, Trump said he expects to raise the US tariff on Indian imports "very substantially over the next 24 hours" due to the country's purchases of Russian oil.
While Trump has taken aim at products from different countries with varying tariff rates after imposing a 10-percent levy on almost all trading partners in April, these have excluded certain products he planned to target separately.
These sector-specific tariffs have generally come after government investigations that look into the national security concerns surrounding certain imports.
After earlier embarking on probes on imported semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, the Trump administration has signaled plans to wrap up these studies which could lead to new tariffs.
Already, Trump has slapped steep tariffs of 50 percent on imported steel and aluminum, and also rolled out a separate but lower duty on autos and parts.
Follow us on:
Short link:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily News Egypt
an hour ago
- Daily News Egypt
Netanyahu's Final Gamble: Will the Gaza Deal Seal His Fate or Save His Legacy?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is living through one of the most politically precarious moments of his career. At the heart of this crisis lies the looming Gaza deal — a potential turning point that could either salvage his political future or mark the end of it. While Netanyahu clearly wants the deal, he remains uncertain about what comes next. What happens on 'Day 61' if Hamas refuses to surrender? Can Israel resume its military campaign? And perhaps most critically, will international backing — particularly from the United States — still be there? Since the beginning of the Gaza war, Netanyahu has held firm to a hardline stance: no ceasefire without the complete eradication of Hamas. Yet, as the war nears its third year, none of his declared objectives have materialised — neither the release of hostages nor the dismantling of Hamas's grip on Gaza. In recent weeks, however, something has shifted — not in declared goals, but in tone and strategy. For the first time, Netanyahu has spoken publicly about ending the war as part of the proposed deal now being negotiated in Cairo and Doha. In a meeting with hostage families in Washington, he stated unequivocally: 'If the deal moves forward, negotiations for ending the war will begin immediately — not after 60 days. The goal after 60 days is to end the war.' In politics, no statement is made without intent. These words signal a notable shift — especially given US President Donald Trump's resolute stance: 'I will be very firm with Netanyahu about ending the war in Gaza.' At the same time, Israel's position is becoming increasingly untenable in the eyes of the international community, as it continues to enforce a punishing blockade on Gaza's civilian population. Thousands of aid trucks have been stranded at the Rafah border for months, denied entry by Israel without justification. Facing mounting pressure both at home and abroad, Netanyahu is manoeuvring for time. He seeks a temporary deal that would allow him to remain in power, appease Washington, and avoid alienating his far-right coalition. His ideal outcome? A partial deal that secures the release of some hostages alive, allows for a temporary halt in fighting, and buys him political breathing space. The Biden administration — and, more specifically, Trump's ambitions if he returns — appears less tolerant this time. Unlike past ceasefires, the US is signalling it will not allow a return to hostilities after 60 days. Trump, driven by his ambition to secure a Nobel Peace Prize, is determined to broker a lasting solution. Gaza, in his eyes, is merely the first step toward a grand regional bargain. To achieve that, he may be willing to pressure even America's closest ally in the region. Netanyahu thus faces a dangerous paradox. If he agrees to a deal that rules out resuming combat, he risks the collapse of his ruling coalition. If he insists on keeping that option open, he may lose Trump's support — and with it, any leverage he has on the world stage. It is a classic clash between domestic survival and international demands. The challenge is not external alone. Inside Israel, key coalition partners like Smotrich and Ben Gvir have made it clear they will not accept any deal that leaves Hamas standing in any form — military or civil. Even the prospect of sweeping regional peace agreements would mean little to them if Hamas remains intact. This is why Netanyahu prefers a limited deal: rescuing 10 hostages alive and retrieving 18 bodies in exchange for a short-term ceasefire. If Hamas refuses to surrender afterwards, Israel can return to war. But if the deal requires a full cessation of hostilities, Netanyahu will be forced to choose between recovering the hostages or saving his political career. True to form, Netanyahu will likely attempt to manoeuvre his way out — as he has done in the past. But this time, the minefield is far more treacherous. Trump is not a background player but a driving force with a prize in sight. And Gaza, for him, is not the endgame — it is the opening move on a much larger regional chessboard. Whether Netanyahu can pull off one more deal — or if this truly is his final political gamble — remains to be seen. Dr. Hatem Sadek: Professor at Helwan University
Daily News Egypt
an hour ago
- Daily News Egypt
Trump's Reckless Nuclear Poker: Why Is Israel Exempt from 'Peace Through Strength'?
At a time when some of the world's most dangerous decisions are made through Trump's social media platform, the lines between deterrence and political theatrics are dangerously blurred. Nuclear weapons have become bargaining chips, not last resorts. This article poses a simple yet urgent question: Why does Trump threaten Russia and Iran with force while remaining silent about Israel's actions in Gaza? Can peace be achieved through selective outrage? Can justice be built on exceptions? When power trumps principle, politics loses its meaning — and the world becomes hostage to personal whims. In a dramatic announcement that shook the international stage, President Donald Trump declared on 2 August 2025 that he had ordered the repositioning of two American nuclear submarines near Russian waters. The move was a direct response to former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's veiled threat to activate the 'Dead Hand' nuclear system. Simultaneously, Trump doubled down on threats against Iran, boasting of the June strikes that targeted its Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities, and reaffirming his readiness to 'crush' any attempt by Tehran to revive its nuclear programme. Yet, amid these bold displays of nuclear brinkmanship, Trump continues to exempt his closest ally, Israel, from his 'peace through strength' doctrine. While he relentlessly threatens Russia and Iran, he opts for soft diplomatic language when it comes to Israel — even as the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza deepens, with over 60,000 reported deaths and critical aid convoys blocked at the Rafah border crossing. Since returning to the White House, Trump has framed 'peace through strength' as the cornerstone of his foreign policy. But the way he applies this strategy reveals deep inconsistencies. He uses it as a sword against adversaries and a shield to protect friends. His threats of annihilation towards Iran, and his warnings to Russia of being 'on the edge of disaster,' contrast starkly with his message to Netanyahu: 'I will be very tough with him,' he said in July — more of a friendly nudge than a real warning. Notably, these high-stakes messages are often delivered not through formal diplomatic channels, but via his Truth Social platform — turning matters of war and peace into viral posts. This contradiction reveals a dangerous flaw in Trump's approach to deterrence: it is driven not by principle, but by political convenience. Israel, shielded by bipartisan support in Congress and a powerful pro-Israel lobby, is treated as an exception. Washington deploys submarines for Moscow and missiles for Tehran — but when it comes to Israel, even in the face of immense civilian suffering in Gaza, it sends a diplomat and offers private negotiations. Experts are raising alarms. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists warns that Trump's nuclear manoeuvres risk creating a 'commitment trap' that could spiral into uncontrollable escalation. Daryl Kimball from the Arms Control Association calls Trump's nuclear threats 'reckless and irresponsible' — especially when announced via smartphone. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has warned that nuclear escalation poses a global threat, while France and China continue to urge broader dialogue. The problem is not just a double standard — it is the message it sends to the world: that accountability depends on alliances, not actions. And this is not just morally troubling; it is geopolitically destabilising. In Iran's case, for instance, unconditional American support for Israel is used to justify Tehran's continued backing of Hamas and Hezbollah under the banner of 'resistance'. Trump's attempts to position himself as a peacemaker — a role he often cites when referencing his past mediation between India and Pakistan — are undermined by this selective morality. His bid to broker a regional settlement starting in Gaza sounds ambitious, but without holding Israel accountable, any peace initiative is doomed from the outset. He wants credit for extinguishing a fire without naming who lit the match. Inside the United States, growing bipartisan concern surrounds Trump's nuclear posturing. Lawmakers from both parties are now pushing to require congressional approval for any future nuclear military action, disturbed by the realisation that war may now be declared from a smartphone post. Perhaps the gravest concern is that Trump appears to operate not from strategic clarity but from a 'deal-making' mindset, as if global security were a casino table. But this time, he is not gambling with dollars or prestige — he is playing with humanity's future. The real question is not whether Trump might press the nuclear button — it is when, and why. Trump's version of 'peace through strength' seems to follow a troubling logic: threaten adversaries with bombs, warn Iran of annihilation, and gently ask Israel to 'ease up'. But in the eyes of the world, this equation is unravelling. Deterrence is not only about weapons — it is about moral consistency. Without that, 'peace through strength' becomes a dangerous illusion… and a blueprint for the next global disaster. Dr Marwa El-Shinawy: Academic and Writer
See - Sada Elbalad
4 hours ago
- See - Sada Elbalad
Oil Prices Fall by 1% amid Easing Fears of Russian Supply Disruptions
Taarek Refaat Oil prices dropped by nearly 1% on Tuesday, following concerns over weak global demand overshadowing investor worries about U.S. President Donald Trump's threats to India over its purchases of Russian oil. At the close of trading, Brent crude futures fell by 1.63%, settling at $67.64 per barrel, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude declined by $1.13, or 1.7%, to $65.16 per barrel. Both benchmarks reached their lowest levels in five weeks. Latest Oil Prices: WTI Crude $65.25 +0.09 +0.14% Brent Crude $67.64 -1.12 -1.63% Murban Crude $69.80 -1.23 -1.73% Natural Gas $3.009 -0.001 -0.03% Louisiana Light $72.61 +1.27 +1.78% Bonny Light $78.62 -2.30 -2.84% Mars US $71.56 -1.02 -1.41% Gasoline $2.087 -0.004 -0.20% President Trump renewed his threat to impose higher tariffs on Indian goods within the next 24 hours in response to India's Russian oil purchases. He argued that lower energy prices could pressure Russia to end the war in Ukraine. In response, New Delhi condemned Trump's threat as "unjustified" and pledged to safeguard its economic interests, further escalating the trade dispute between the two nations. UBS analyst Giovanni Stonovo described the oil market as "stable," suggesting that this status quo may persist until the U.S. president announces further details on his stance regarding Russia later this week and how buyers might respond. India, the largest buyer of Russian seaborne oil, imported approximately 1.75 million barrels per day from January to June, marking a 1% increase compared to the same period last year, according to trade sources provided to Reuters. read more CBE: Deposits in Local Currency Hit EGP 5.25 Trillion Morocco Plans to Spend $1 Billion to Mitigate Drought Effect Gov't Approves Final Version of State Ownership Policy Document Egypt's Economy Expected to Grow 5% by the end of 2022/23- Minister Qatar Agrees to Supply Germany with LNG for 15 Years Business Oil Prices Descend amid Anticipation of Additional US Strategic Petroleum Reserves Business Suez Canal Records $704 Million, Historically Highest Monthly Revenue Business Egypt's Stock Exchange Earns EGP 4.9 Billion on Tuesday Business Wheat delivery season commences on April 15 News Israeli-Linked Hadassah Clinic in Moscow Treats Wounded Iranian IRGC Fighters Arts & Culture "Jurassic World Rebirth" Gets Streaming Date News China Launches Largest Ever Aircraft Carrier News Ayat Khaddoura's Final Video Captures Bombardment of Beit Lahia Business Egyptian Pound Undervalued by 30%, Says Goldman Sachs Videos & Features Tragedy Overshadows MC Alger Championship Celebration: One Fan Dead, 11 Injured After Stadium Fall Lifestyle Get to Know 2025 Eid Al Adha Prayer Times in Egypt Arts & Culture South Korean Actress Kang Seo-ha Dies at 31 after Cancer Battle Arts & Culture Lebanese Media: Fayrouz Collapses after Death of Ziad Rahbani Sports Get to Know 2025 WWE Evolution Results
