Trump says India may pay 20% to 25% tariff, trade deal not finalised
Trump added that the final rate of levy had also not been finalised as India and the US were negotiating the agreement ahead of the August 1 deadline.
'India has been a good friend, but India has charged basically more tariffs than almost any other country,' Trump said aboard Air Force One as he returned to Washington from Scotland. 'You just can't do that.'
Trump made the comments while responding to reporters' questions about the so-called reciprocal tariffs Washington plans to reimpose on dozens of countries that have not negotiated separate trade agreements with the US by August 1.
#WATCH | When asked if India is going to pay high tariffs, between 20-25%, US President Donald Trump says, "Yeah, I think so. India is my friend. They ended the war with Pakistan at my request...The deal with India is not finalised. India has been a good friend, but India has… pic.twitter.com/IYxParZqce
— ANI (@ANI) July 29, 2025
Trump announced higher levies in April, before pausing those tariffs at a reduced 10% rate to allow time for negotiations. Despite an extended deadline, Trump has only secured a handful of deals.
On Monday, the US president had said that he would likely introduce a global baseline tariff between 15% and 20% for countries that had not negotiated trade deals with his administration.
Trump's so-called reciprocal tariffs had taken effect on April 9. Hours later, however, he reduced the rates on imports from most countries to 10% for 90 days to provide time for trade negotiations.
In February, Washington had already imposed a 25% tariff on a range of products from Canada, Mexico and China.
The US president had repeatedly said that he intended to impose a reciprocal tax on several nations, citing high tariffs the countries imposed on foreign goods.
The tariff plans have led to concerns of a broader trade war that could disrupt the global economy and trigger a recession.
Earlier this month, Trump had also said that the US was very close to a trade deal with India.
Trump had said on June 27 that New Delhi could sign a 'very big' trade deal with Washington soon. On July 2, the White House said that the deal was close to being finalised and would be announced soon.
An Indian team led by Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal had visited the US in May to negotiate the agreement. Following this, a team of negotiators from the US was in India for a week in June.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
27 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
27 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
27 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
