Trump says India to face 25 per cent tariff starting Aug. 1
He said India, which has the world's fifth largest economy, will also face an unspecified penalty on Aug. 1, but did not elaborate on the amount or what it was for.
'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,' 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!'
Story continues below advertisement
India's commerce ministry, which is leading the trade negotiations with the United States, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Trump's decision dashes hopes of a limited trade agreement between the two countries, which had been under negotiation for several months.
Get daily National news
Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up
By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy
U.S. and Indian trade negotiators had held multiple rounds of discussions to resolve contentious issues, particularly over market access for American agricultural and dairy products.
Despite progress in some areas, Indian officials resisted opening the domestic market to imports of wheat, corn, rice and genetically modified soybeans, citing risks to the livelihood of millions of Indian farmers.
The new tariffs are expected to impact India's goods exports to the U.S., estimated at around US$87 billion in 2024, including labor-intensive products such as garments, pharmaceuticals, gems and jeweler, and petrochemicals.
4:21
Industries impacted by U.S. tariffs
The United States currently has a $45.7 billion trade deficit with India.
Story continues below advertisement
India now joins a growing list of countries facing higher tariffs under Trump's 'Liberation Day' trade policy, aimed at reshaping U.S. trade relations by demanding greater reciprocity.
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.
The setback comes despite earlier commitments by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Trump to conclude the first phase of a trade deal by autumn 2025 and expand bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030, up from $191 billion in 2024.
U.S. manufacturing exports to India, valued at around $42 billion in 2024, as well as energy exports such as liquefied natural gas, crude oil, and coal, could also face retaliatory action if India chooses to respond in kind.
Indian officials have previously indicated that they view the U.S. as a key strategic partner, particularly in counterbalancing China. But they have emphasized the need to preserve policy space on agriculture, data governance, and state subsidies.
–Reporting by Susan Heavey, Katharine Jackson in Washington, Manoj Kumar and Aftab Ahmed in New Delhi; editing by Doina Chiacu and Mark Heinrich
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Winnipeg Free Press
an hour ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Nuclear option
Opinion The quest for more power to meet rising demand from electric vehicles and data centres running artificial intelligence technology has led to an apparent 'renaissance' of nuclear energy. The White House recently posted an op-ed piece exalting U.S. President Donald Trump's executive orders for reinvigorating America's nuclear power generation using that just that term, while effusively lauding his agenda to increase the nation's output by 300 gigawatts by 2050. That's enough to power about 300 million homes or, more likely, thousands of data centres for AI, as well as millions of EVs. Climate change commitments may not be high on the U.S. president's mind, but it is on China's list, as it seeks to add as much as 400 GW more from atomic energy by 2050 while aiming to decarbonize its economy. It's arguably off a faster start with 119 GW of nuclear power generation in construction or development. India is next in activity with 32 GW potentially under development. The United States is much further behind at eight GW, even trailing nations like France and Poland. Actual activity and planned growth suggests trillions of dollars being invested in nuclear energy over the coming decades — and investors are intrigued. 'The ducks are coming in a row, finally,' says Scott Clayton, Toronto-based senior analyst for the Canadian Wealth Advisor with the TSI Network in Toronto. The last time nuclear energy was on an upswing with investors was in the 2000s as oil prices surged. Then, the Fukushima plant disaster in Japan in 2011 put the brakes on nuclear power. Companies like Cameco Corp. — based in Saskatoon and the world's largest uranium producer — saw growth put on ice. That is until recently. Today, Cameco's share price, fuelled largely by all the talk of plans for new reactors, is at all-time highs. Although Canada may be an oil and gas powerhouse, its potential as a supplier of the fuel for nuclear energy has arguably more upside. It has the third largest discovered reserves in the world. It is also the second-largest producer behind Kazakhstan and potentially much more production is coming, as exploration companies like NexGen Energy and Paladin Energy look to develop mines in the Athabasca Basin (home to the highest-grade deposits of uranium in the world). Yet before jumping into a surging industry, driven by the future promise of much more nuclear power (not to mention the unnerving revival of the nuclear arms race), let's splash a bit of cold water on the overheating rods of speculation. 'It still faces challenges,' Clayton says. Among them are regulatory concerns. Mining projects in Canada take a notoriously long time to be approved and uranium is particularly tricky, given its environmental impact. Power plants are equally complicated. The public might appreciate the cheap, abundant power, just don't generate it close to where they live. 'The other problem is that the costs (of construction) are just astronomical,' Clayton says. The newest nuclear power generating station in the U.S, for example — two reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia — cost US$35 billion and were behind schedule and over budget. 'We definitely think it's (nuclear energy) going to be needed,' says Andrew Bischof, senior equity analyst at Morningstar in Chicago. Yet many projects are far from construction, let alone completion, and a history exists of projects being cancelled, especially in the U.S. Bischof says many major utility companies are talking about amping up nuclear power, but those are far-away ambitions, part of five- and 10-year plans to build capacity, which could take several more years before that power is added to the grid. There does seem to be more buzz around small modular reactors, he adds. These are scaled-down power plants that take less time to build, but it's an emerging technology. To that end, Canada is a leader with a project underway in Darlington, Ont. 'Duke Energy has also mildly stated that it's exploring SMRs, but again, that is 2030 to 2035 for a time frame,' Bischof says about the U.S. power provider, which presently has six nuclear power plants in the U.S.. Notably, big tech — Microsoft, Meta and Alphabet (Google) — are considering or currently entering into contracts with power providers, providing cash up front to restart or build new nuclear capacity, often involving small reactors, to meet climate change goals and growing energy-hungry AI capabilities. The need is substantial. AI is forecast to eat up 20 per cent of new energy growth through 2030. EV expansion is expected to increase demand by 15 per cent. Whether all this growth translates into future profits remains to be seen. In the meantime, investors might consider risk-adjusted exposure. 'If you're looking to invest in more speculative areas, it's best to get exposure through stocks that already have a solid business,' Clayton says. He points to U.S.-based Constellation Energy Corp. as one viable choice. Nearly 70 per cent of its output is nuclear and it pays a small dividend (0.47 per cent yield). Another way to invest in this theme is exchange-traded funds (ETFs). Investors have close to a handful of choices. One of the longest running is VanEck Uranium and Nuclear ETF, launched in 2007. It has seen renewed popularity, after peaking in price around 2011. '(Its) recent asset growth mirrors a broader nuclear renaissance fueled by surging electricity demand, the global pursuit of dependable low carbon power and fresh policy support extending plant life and financing next generation reactors,' says Brandon Rakszawski, director of product management, VanEck in New York. Monday Mornings The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week. Its portfolio also holds the aforementioned stocks with Constellation and Cameco among the largest positions. While the stars might be aligning for nuclear, conditions quickly change — i.e. battery power for renewables — that could make a long-term investment in nuclear suddenly less ideal. Still, for investors with an appetite for risk and a long time horizon, the nuclear option could power long-term profitability. Joel Schlesinger is a Winnipeg-based freelance journalist joelschles@
Winnipeg Free Press
2 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen … can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?'
Toronto Star
4 hours ago
- Toronto Star
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.'
