&w=3840&q=100)
Amid Trump's 25% tariffs on India, Scott Bessent says US trade team 'frustrated' over trade negotiations
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the American trade team is 'frustrated' over negotiations with India, describing it as 'slow-rolling things'. While speaking to CNBC, Bessent argued that while the negotiations started with New Delhi early, it has become an annoyance to American counterparts.
Bessent expressed his frustration with India, just days after US President Donald Trump announced 25 per cent tariffs on Indian goods, describing it as 'penalties' for buying oil and military equipment from Russia. In the CNBC interview, Bessent argued that Trump and the whole trade negotiation team have been frustrated with India.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'India has also been a big buyer of Russian oil, which they then resell as refined products.' In that context, 'they have not been a great global actor,' he remarked. When asked if there is any potential for further negotiations with India ahead of the August 1 deadline, Bessent said that 'it will be up to India,' hinting at the fact that it will be New Delhi, which will have to make the first move for things to roll again.
India awaits more clarity
Meanwhile, sources close to the matter told CNBC-TV18 that India is unlikely 'to jump the gun' before more clarity emerges on the matter. New Delhi is also waiting for confirmation on the exact penalties or associated duties which Trump has warned about its ties with Russia.
Amidst this chaos, the sixth round of negotiations for the first tranche of a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) between India and the US remains scheduled for August 25. Meanwhile, discussions on bilateral trade are expected to continue in virtual mode.
Soon after the Trump announcement, Union Minister Piyush Goyal briefed the Parliament today on the US tariffs, explaining that the commerce ministry is assessing the impact of the tariffs. Goyal assured that the government will take all necessary steps to safeguard 'our national interests'.
The Trump administration is miffed with New Delhi
Bessent is not the only top Trump official who expressed frustration over Trump-India ties. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended President Donald Trump's move to impose 25 per cent tariffs on India, arguing that India's purchase of Russian oil is a ' point of irritation' in New Delhi's relationship with Washington, DC.
While speaking to Fox Radio on Thursday, Rubio said that the Indian purchases of Russian oil are helping Moscow's war efforts in Ukraine. 'Look, global trade – India is an ally. It's a strategic partner. Like anything in foreign policy, you're not going to align 100 per cent of the time on everything,' Rubio said in the interview.
The secretary of state claimed that the Trump administration is 'disappointed' with India as it continues to buy Russian military equipment and energy. Rubio acknowledged India has 'huge energy needs and that includes the ability to buy oil and coal and gas and things that it needs to power its economy like every country does, and it buys it from Russia, because Russian oil is sanctioned and cheap and – meaning they have to – in many cases, they're selling it under the global price because of the sanctions.'
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
However, he noted that 'it is helping to sustain the Russian war effort. So it is most certainly a point of irritation in our relationship with India, not the only point of irritation. We also have many other points of cooperation with them." 'But I think what you're seeing the President express is the evident frustration that with so many other oil vendors available, India continues to buy so much from Russia, which in essence is helping to fund the war effort,' and allowing this war to continue in Ukraine.
Trump tariffs against India are now being seen as a pressure tactic to get New Delhi to agree to demands made by the US, which has, in recent days, got favourable trade deals with major partners like Japan, the UK and the European Union.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
23 minutes ago
- Hans India
TGCHE Chairman inaugurates national workshop to elevate standards in B-Schools
Hyderabad: In a significant move toward enhancing academic excellence in business education, Professor V. Balakista Reddy, Chairman of the Telangana Council of Higher Education (TGCHE), inaugurated a two-day National Workshop titled 'Building Excellence in B-Schools: Academic Leaders' Strategies for Institutional Development.' The workshop was organised by the Association of Indian Management Schools (AIMS) at their newly established Secretariat in Hyderabad. Speaking to an audience of over 50 Deans and Directors from top B-Schools across India, Professor Reddy emphasised the vital importance of human resource development in preparing the youth of India for emerging technologies and the demands of the global industry. He pointed out that in addition to academic leadership, clarity in policies related to tariffs and regulations is essential for sustained growth in both business and educational institutions. The workshop included interactive sessions led by distinguished resource persons from academia and industry, focusing on modern strategies for institutional development, innovation, and technology integration. Participants shared best practices aimed at enhancing the quality of teaching, research, administration, and leadership within Indian business schools. The event will continue on August 2 with panel discussions and collaborative planning sessions designed to foster long-term academic and industry connections across the country.
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Second US appeals court open to blocking Trump's birthright citizenship order
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills U.S. President Donald Trump's order restricting birthright citizenship appeared on Friday to be headed toward being declared unconstitutional by a second federal appeals court , as judges expressed deep skepticism about a key piece of his hardline immigration agenda.A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sharply questioned a lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice as to why they should overturn two lower-court judges who blocked the order from taking lower-court judges include one in Boston who last week reaffirmed his prior decision to block the order's enforcement nationally, even after the U.S. Supreme Court in June curbed the power of judges to broadly enjoin that and other San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last week became the first federal appeals court to hold Trump's order is unconstitutional. Its ultimate fate will likely be determined by the U.S. Supreme Department attorney Eric McArthur said on Friday that the citizenship clause of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 after the U.S. Civil War, rightly extended citizenship to the children of newly-freed enslaved Black people."It did not extend birthright citizenship as a matter of constitutional right to the children of aliens who are present in the country temporarily or unlawfully," he the judges questioned how that argument was consistent with the Supreme Court's 1898 ruling interpreting the clause in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, long understood as guaranteeing American citizenship to children born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents."We have an opinion by the Supreme Court that we aren't free to disregard," said Chief U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, who like his two colleagues was appointed by a Democratic executive order, issued on his first day back in office on January 20, directs agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident, also known as a "green card" court to consider the order's merits has declared it unconstitutional, including the three judges who halted the order's enforcement nationally. Those judges included U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin in Boston, who ruled in favor of 18 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, who had swiftly challenged Trump's policy in court."The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized children born to individuals who are here unlawfully or who are here on a temporary basis are nonetheless birthright citizens," Shankar Duraiswamy, a lawyer for New Jersey, argued on 6-3 conservative majority U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 sided with the administration in the litigation by restricting the ability of judges to issue so-called universal injunctions and directing lower courts that had blocked Trump's policy nationally to reconsider the scope of their the ruling contained exceptions, allowing federal judges in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and the 9th Circuit to issue new decisions stopping Trump's order from taking effect rulings on appeal to the 1st Circuit were issued by Sorokin and the New Hampshire judge, who originally issued a narrow injunction but more recently issued a new decision in a recently-filed class action blocking Trump's order nationwide.
Indian Express
23 minutes ago
- Indian Express
With Operation Sindoor, even after the Parliament debate, questions linger
In the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack, Operation Sindoor was executed with admirable precision and purpose. The nation witnessed the readiness of our armed forces, the speed of response, and the confidence with which cross-border strikes were conducted. These are not small achievements. They reflect an India that no longer hesitates to act in defence of its people and territory. Yet, amid the expressions of solidarity and triumph, a set of questions still lingers — questions that were not answered in Parliament, nor addressed in the official statements that followed. As someone who has served within the machinery of the Indian state, I believe these questions deserve not only to be asked, but to be sustained in the national memory. For, a nation's strength is not merely defined by its ability to retaliate, but by its commitment to learning from what precedes the need for retaliation. The first duty of the state is to prevent. That a group of terrorists could infiltrate and carry out a devastating attack in one of Kashmir's most surveilled and strategically vital regions signals a breach not only of physical security, but of institutional coordination. Where was the lapse? Was it a failure of intelligence collection, analysis, or dissemination? Were inter-agency protocols followed — or bypassed? What assessment has been made of the local support structures that enabled such movement? These are not peripheral queries. They go to the core of whether our deterrence posture is genuinely effective or primarily reactive. The recent parliamentary debate was a welcome recognition that national security cannot be left to press briefings alone. But even as it brought key voices to the fore, the tenor of the conversation — on both sides — often veered toward performance rather than policy. The Prime Minister was emphatic in defending the government's response and underlined the support India received globally. Yet, one sensed a reluctance to dwell on the preceding failures that made a response necessary in the first place. That is the space Parliament is meant to occupy — not to second-guess real-time decisions, but to seek clarity about the frameworks that produced those decisions. One is reminded that in parliamentary democracies, asking difficult questions is not defiance; it is duty. The absence of candour in response to such questions may win applause in the moment, but it leaves our systems unexamined and untested. Among the more troubling loose ends is the claim by US President Donald Trump that he played a role in mediating a ceasefire during the standoff. While such assertions may not always be grounded in precise fact, the absence of a firm, official rebuttal has only allowed ambiguity to grow. India has long prided itself on strategic autonomy. Our ability to act — and be seen to act — without external pressure is fundamental to the credibility of our security doctrine. To leave that credibility open to reinterpretation is to invite misperception not only among adversaries but also among allies. Silence, in such cases, is not strategic restraint. It can be construed as tacit consent — or worse, uncertainty. India's deterrence posture has evolved in practice, but it remains largely undefined in principle. Repeatedly, we have responded forcefully to provocations — from Uri to Balakot to Pahalgam — but the absence of a clear, publicly articulated doctrine invites strategic ambiguity. At some stage, ambiguity begins to undercut deterrence. Do we have a threshold doctrine that governs responses? What are the escalatory contours we are prepared to manage? How do we plan for hybrid threats that combine kinetic violence with digital disruption? These questions merit a formal treatment — not in partisan debate, but through institutional policy articulation. There is a growing tendency in our political culture to view national security through a personal lens: The Prime Minister's resolve, the Opposition's tone, the media's narrative. But true national security lies beyond personalities. It lies in systems that function regardless of who is in office, in doctrines that endure, and in institutions that are empowered to question, correct, and reform. To that end, it is concerning that after such a significant breach and the massive deployment of military assets, we have not heard of any institutional accountability being established, any resignations considered, or any operational audits made public. Transparency in such cases is not a sign of weakness; it is the very basis of democratic strength. Operation Sindoor may stand as an example of India's military responsiveness. But it should also serve as a reminder that vigilance, not retaliation, is the first responsibility of the state. When Parliament gathers, when the public listens, and when leaders speak, the goal must not only be to project unity, but to preserve credibility. In the long run, India's greatest strength will not lie in its ability to respond — but in its ability to anticipate, to prepare, and to self-correct without waiting for crisis. And perhaps, most importantly, we must never lose sight of the cost of our lapses. The train of innocent lives lost — stretching back from the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts, through the horror of 26/11, to countless attacks in Kashmir, Delhi, and elsewhere — remains an open wound on the national conscience. Each act of terror that slips through the net of prevention leaves behind not just grief but a moral reckoning. The lives lost in Pahalgam are not isolated tragedies. They join the unbroken line of innocents who have paid with their lives for our failures of anticipation. We must allow that reality to haunt us — not in despair, but as a driving force for better vigilance, stronger systems, and an uncompromising pursuit of security. The writer is a former foreign secretary
