Top Trump aide accuses India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine
WASHINGTON – A top aide to President Donald Trump accused India of effectively financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing oil from Moscow, after the U.S. leader escalated pressure on New Delhi to stop buying Russian oil, in a Fox News interview that aired on Aug. 3.
More: President Trump announces 25% tariff on imports from India
"What he (Trump) said very clearly is that it is not acceptable for India to continue financing this war by purchasing the oil from Russia," said Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff at the White House and one of Trump's most influential aides.
More: Russia does not care about Trump's 'theatrical ultimatum', senior official says
Miller's criticism was among the strongest yet by the Trump administration about one of the United States' major partners in the Indo-Pacific.
"People will be shocked to learn that India is basically tied with China in purchasing Russian oil. That's an astonishing fact," Miller said on Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures."
The Indian Embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Indian government sources told Reuters on Aug. 2 that New Delhi will keep purchasing oil from Moscow despite U.S. threats.
More: Trump says he ordered 2 nuclear subs to 'appropriate regions' after Russia nuclear threats
A 25% tariff on Indian products went into effect on Aug. 1 as a result of its purchase of military equipment and energy from Russia. Trump has also threatened 100% tariffs on U.S. imports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine.
Miller tempered his criticism by noting Trump's relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, which he described as "tremendous."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
a few seconds ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana should cap out-of-state student enrollment to solve brain drain
Indiana has long been a hotspot for out-of-state students, around 85% of whom return home after graduation. Recent data also shows Indiana residents are going out of state for college more than ever. A provision hidden in President Trump's Big Beautiful Bill helped address this problem by capping the amount of debt graduate students can take on to pay for college, making it nearly impossible for them to afford studying out of state. Indiana needs to follow suit by capping out-of-state enrollment at public universities and tying university funding directly to in-state student enrollment. Opinion: Indiana's college crisis has nothing to do with woke campuses or high costs An enrollment cap may seem harsh, but North Carolina and California have already successfully enacted one. Indiana almost followed suit with Senate Enrolled Act 448, but its enrollment cap provision was removed due in part to backlash from Purdue University. That backlash emphasized how state funding cuts to higher education have created a perverse incentive for colleges to market themselves to out-of-state students and subsidize lower tuition for in-state students. That's the wrong approach. Giving a higher proportion of enrollment capacity to out-of-state students can be beneficial to their bottom line in the short-term. But, over a lifetime, bachelor's degree recipients add around $700,443 more than high school graduates to the economy through higher taxes and spending. They also file less than one-third of unemployment claims and are one-third as likely to be in poverty. Opinion: Mike Braun's tuition freeze for Indiana colleges is a marketing gimmick Recognizing that, the state should direct public universities to cut unnecessary or ineffective initiatives and focus more on the academic needs of in-state students. As an example of unnecessary spending, Indiana University-Indianapolis spent $1.6 million just on diversity, equity and inclusion administrative staff salaries and its Social Justice Scholars program during the 2023-2024 school year. Thankfully, IU recently closed the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion. IU-Bloomington still gives its student government a nearly $300,000 annual budget with little to no oversight. In turn, it has spent $48,000 on DEI programs, $35,000 on emergency contraception, $4,000 on mail-order lubricants and condoms and much more. Now, though, Indiana University is starting to make "deliberate and targeted reductions" in expenses as a result of state budget cuts. That's an acknowledgment that Indiana's public universities have room to cut spending without making up for budget cuts by bringing in out-of-state students. Despite these budget cuts, the Indiana General Assembly is still prone to wasting taxpayer dollars on schools' pet projects. For example, they recently gave $89 million to IU Indianapolis to build another athletics center and an additional $89 million for restroom upgrades, painting projects and other infrastructure upgrades. The state could more efficiently use taxpayer dollars to serve the public if it redirected this money to fund tuition for students with financial need. Just that $178 million could more than double the 21st Century Scholarship Program's budget for awards. Gov. Mike Braun has long emphasized the importance of Indiana's public universities serving residents first. He recently pushed for a tuition freeze for in-state undergraduate students in exchange for a modest tuition increase for graduate students and those from out-of-state. He has also pushed them to offer automatic admission to in-state students who obtain an Enrollment Honors Plus diploma seal. However, not all state agencies have fully embraced Braun's resident-first approach. The Commission for Higher Education has long focused on keeping graduates in Indiana by connecting students — both residents and out-of-state — with local job opportunities during and after college. "It is critical in retaining talent to connect both resident and non-resident students to local employers as a way to better align degrees with a student's intended career and help them to see Indiana as a place where they could stay, work, and build a future," a spokesperson for the Commission for Higher Education told me. Trying to retain people who grew up across the country is a lost cause. Few young adults move far from where they grew up. It is getting even harder to put down roots anywhere at all in an economy where homeownership and the ability to obtain affordable housing is becoming further out-of-reach for young people. Studies have shown the homeownership rate among student borrowers declined by 24% from 2009 to 2019, so the problem is clearly getting worse — and student debt is playing a role. Gen Z, in fact, has racked up almost twice as much debt as the previous generation. Banning or capping out-of-state enrollment at public universities altogether or tying university funding to in-state student enrollment, then, is the most realistic way to stop Indiana's brain drain and ensure our public universities are sufficiently motivated to serve Indiana first.
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Korea, US prepare for summit with details of trade deal unresolved
By Hyunjoo Jin and Jihoon Lee SEOUL (Reuters) -As South Korea and the United States prepare for a summit of their leaders, topics left unresolved by a recent trade deal provide scope for more disputes between the key allies and trade partners, six former negotiators and experts said. President Donald Trump may use the summit with counterpart Lee Jae Myung to seek more concessions on defence costs and corporate investments, left out of the deal, while non-tariff barriers and currency could prove thorny issues, experts said. No official summit date has been disclosed, though Trump last week gave a timeframe of two weeks. The absence of a written agreement underpinning last week's talks could open the way for disputes, with some differences already emerging in the two sides' accounts of the deal. Key among these was Sunday's denial by a South Korean presidential adviser of U.S. claims that it would take 90% of the profit from project investments of $350 billion by South Korea, which also agreed to open up its domestic rice market. "Even a binding deal like the FTA has been efficiently scrapped," warned Choi Seok-young, a former chief negotiator for the Korea-U.S. free trade deal, signed in 2007. "And this is just promise." Last week's pact was scaled down from South Korea's previous plans for a package deal on trade, security and investment envisioned in the run-up to the summit between Trump and the newly-elected Lee. But Japan struck a deal with the United States sooner than expected, spurring South Korea into a scramble for a trade-focused pact, leaving issues of security and investment for the coming summit, presidential adviser Kim Yong-beom said. Uncertainty clouds plans for $350 billion in funds Trump has said South Korea would invest in the United States in projects "owned and controlled by the United States" and selected by him, though he gave few details of the plan's structure or timing. The allies face challenges in ironing out details of the fund at upcoming working-level talks, South Korean Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol told reporters on Friday. "People say the devil is in the details," he added. In a social media post, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick gave an assurance of "90% of the profits going to the American people", while White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said part would go to the U.S. government to help repay debt. But Kim, the presidential adviser, said the two sides did not discuss profit distribution during talks, and South Korea expected the profit to be "reinvested" in the United States. 'POLITICAL RHETORIC' The idea of the United States potentially taking most of the profit is "hard to understand in a civilised country", he added, while dismissing as "political rhetoric" Washington's claim that it would make all decisions about the fund. South Korea had added a safety mechanism to reduce financing risk, including U.S. commitments to buy products from the projects, under an "offtake" clause and invest in commercially feasible projects, he said. Seoul officials have said $150 billion would go to the shipbuilding industry, with the rest earmarked for areas such as chips, batteries, critical minerals, biotechnology, nuclear power and other strategic industries. The specifics of the structure have not been determined, said Kim, adding that loans and guarantees make up a majority of the funds, with equity investments accounting for a small part. Leavitt said South Korea would provide "historic market access to American goods like autos and rice," echoing earlier comments by Trump. But South Korea said repeatedly there had been no agreement on the agriculture market, including beef and rice, despite strong pressure from Washington. Trump expressed keen interest in Korea's quarantine process for fruits and vegetables, Seoul said, improvements to which will figure in planned technical talks on non-tariff barriers that will also cover vehicle safety rules, but gave no details. Other non-tariff barriers such as regulation of Big Tech could be hurdles. "We cannot be relieved because we do not know when we will face pressure from tariffs or non-tariff measures again," Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo said last week on returning from Washington. Defence costs are expected to emerge as a key issue during the upcoming summit, with Trump having long said South Korea needed to pay more for the U.S. troop presence there. In addition to the $350 billion, Trump said South Korea agreed to invest a large sum of money in the United States, to be announced during the summit, which he said on July 30 would be held within two weeks. The allies are holding working level-talks on currency policy, put on the agenda at April's opening round of trade talks.
CNBC
28 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump's penalty threat puts India in a bind over Russian oil
India is navigating a tricky balancing act after U.S. President Donald Trump threatened a "penalty" over its continued imports of Russian oil — a trade that New Delhi appears reluctant to end anytime soon. Despite Trump telling reporters Friday that he "heard" India would halt purchases, officials in New Delhi have remained noncommittal. Foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said that the country decides its energy import sources "based on the price at which oil is available in the international market and depending on the global situation at that time." "The Indians must be having some confusion" following Trump's threat — a reversal from the more tolerant approach taken under the Biden administration, Bob McNally, president of consulting firm Rapidan Energy Group, told CNBC's "Squawk Box Asia." "Now we're flipping around and saying, 'What are you doing taking all this Russian oil?'" McNally said. In March 2022 — a month after Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine — Daleep Singh, a former U.S. deputy national security adviser for international economics in the Biden administration, reportedly said that "friends don't set red lines" and "there is no prohibition at present on energy imports from Russia." "What we would not like to see is a rapid acceleration of India's imports from Russia as it relates to energy or any other exports that are currently being prohibited by us or by other aspects of the international sanctions regime," Singh said. On July 30, Trump announced that India would face a 25% tariff beginning Aug. 1, along with an unspecified "penalty" for buying Russian oil and military equipment. But analysts suggest that India, which is the third-largest energy consumer in the world, isn't blinking. Reuters reported that there are no immediate changes planned to India's long-term contracts with Russian suppliers, citing two anonymous Indian government sources that did not wish to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. Russia has become the leading oil supplier to India since the war in Ukraine began, increasing from just under 100,000 barrels per day before the invasion, or a 2.5% share of total imports, to more than 1.8 million barrels per day in 2023, or 39%. According to the International Energy Agency, 70% of Russian crude was exported to India in 2024. India's energy minister Hardeep Singh Puri defended New Delhi's actions in a July 10 interview with CNBC, saying that it helped stabilize global prices and was even encouraged by the U.S. "If people or countries had stopped buying at that stage, the price of oil would have gone up to 130 dollars a barrel. That was a situation in which we were advised, including by our friends in the United States, to please buy Russian oil, but within the price cap." Russian oil exports had been capped at $60 per barrel in December 2022 by the Group of Seven nations, representing the world's top economies, while the European Union had lowered the price cap to just above $47 per barrel in July. Still, pressure is mounting. Vishnu Varathan, Managing Director at Mizuho Securities, said that the U.S. threats present a "clear and present danger" to India. He said that New Delhi is likely to remain non-committal on oil purchases as it assesses the trade-offs of this "Russia option" as a bargaining chip. India will need to scour the global market for comparable oil bargains with Russian oil, Varathan, who is also the head of macro research for Asia ex-Japan, added. New Delhi could explore alternatives, including Iran — if an exemption from the U.S. can be negotiated — as well as a few other producers "either within or outside of the OPEC+ that have been pressured by the U.S," Varathan said. The OPEC+ bloc had agreed on Sunday to raise output by 547,000 barrels per day in September, as concerns mount over potential supply disruptions linked to Russia. India is going to face a tough choice, Rapidan's McNally said. "Trump is serious. He's frustrated with Putin... India is going to have a tough choice to make, but it's hard to see them continuing to import that a million and a half barrels [of] Russian crude if Donald Trump decides to really put the whole relationship on the line over it."
