&w=3840&q=100)
Stock Market LIVE: GIFT Nifty trades flat amid mixed Asia; Trump announces tariffs on 14 countries
Connect with us on WhatsApp
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
34 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Donald Trump says India deal soon, flags Brics again
The US and India are close to reaching a trade deal, President Donald Trump said on Monday, as his administration held off on including India among 14 countries that were sent ultimatum letters, threatening new tariffs from August 1. Marco Rubio, US secretary of state, left, and US President Donald Trump during a cabinet meeting at the White House in Washington. (Bloomberg) Officials in New Delhi have said that they are waiting on word from Washington, after trade talks concluded last week with some sticking points appearing to remain unresolved. 'We've made a deal with the United Kingdom, we've made a deal with China, we're close to making a deal with India,' Trump told reporters during a meeting with Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Speaking on Tuesday morning, Trump appeared to temper some of the optimism by a separate threat when he said India would face a 10% tariff as a member of the BRICS economic bloc, which he accused of trying to undermine the US dollar. 'They [India] will certainly have to pay 10% if they are in BRICS because BRICS was set up to hurt us, to degenerate our dollar,' Trump told reporters when asked if India would be subject to his announced BRICS tariffs. 'The Dollar is king. We are going to keep it that way. If people want to challenge it, they can. But they will have to pay a big price. I don't think any of them are going to pay that price.' On Monday, the Trump administration unveiled tariff rates for 14 countries - including 25% levies on major allies Japan and South Korea - but notably excluded India from the list despite months of stalled negotiations over sensitive issues including agriculture and automobiles. Of the 14 countries that received ultimatum letters Monday, most are smaller economies facing tariffs ranging from 25% to 40%, with the highest rates targeting Bangladesh (35%), Cambodia (36%), Laos (40%), and Myanmar (40%). India's negotiating team, led by Special Secretary Rajesh Agrawal, returned from Washington last week after intensive discussions with the Office of the US Trade Representative failed to fully resolve key disputes that have persisted since talks began in March. India has consistently refused demands for unfettered access for American agricultural goods, which officials, speaking to HT last week, described as 'a highly sensitive area for New Delhi as it involves the livelihood of millions of subsistence farmers.' The country remains unwilling to allow imports of genetically modified crops like soybean and corn, since GM products are banned domestically. India has also resisted opening its dairy sector, citing both the subsistence-level nature of farming - where millions depend on just one or two cows or buffaloes - and religious sensitivities around US cattle feed containing non-vegetarian products. Despite these sticking points, experts believe the exclusion from Monday's ultimatum letters signals progress in negotiations. 'I think they basically sewed up what is likely to be an agreement in principle but not a legally binding agreement in which the two sides issue a statement highlighting what has been agreed so far,' said Mark Linscott, senior advisor at the Asia Group and former Assistant US Trade Representative for South and Central Asian Affairs. Linscott, who was involved in US-India trade talks during the first Trump administration, predicted any deal would be 'substantial' and 'go further than the other two agreements that have been announced so far with the UK and Vietnam,' including benefits on tariffs, market access, and non-tariff barriers. Last week's negotiations followed frenzied developments on the trade front as the July 9 deadline neared. On July 3, India put the US on 30-day notice at the World Trade Organization before potentially suspending concessions on American imports, following its May challenge over US steel and aluminium tariffs. India argues these tariffs affect $7.6 billion in Indian exports and generate $1.91 billion in duty collections for the US. Commerce minister Piyush Goyal emphasised last week that India 'never negotiates trade deals with a deadline' and that any agreement would be announced only when 'fully finalised, properly concluded and in the national interest.' Speaking last week, Goyal stressed that 'national interest should always be supreme' and India would only pursue deals where 'both sides are benefitted.' Trump extended his original July 9 deadline to August 1. The delay pertains to his April 2 'Liberation Day' tariffs, which imposed a 10% baseline levy globally plus higher country-specific rates that were suspended for 90 days. India had initially faced a combined 26% tariff - the 10% baseline plus an additional 16% reciprocal levy - but officials have been hopeful of some concessions since both nations have been engaged in conversations from before. Bilateral talks were announced in February when Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Washington, with both leaders agreeing to negotiate the first tranche of a bilateral trade agreement by September and double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Win for Trump: US supreme court allows for downsizing federal workforce; Thousands already out of work
Donald Trump (AP) The US Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the green light to President Donald Trump's plan to reduce the size of the federal workforce despite concerns that it could disrupt essential government services and potentially leave thousands of federal employees unemployed. The ruling overrides lower court orders that had temporarily blocked the cuts, which have been spearheaded by the Department of Government Efficiency, as reported by AP. 'This executive action promises mass employee terminations, widespread cancellation of federal programs and services, and the dismantling of much of the Federal Government as Congress has created it," wrote Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson and accused her colleagues of demonstrating, 'enthusiasm for greenlighting this President's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture.' In an unsigned order, the court had noted that it was not reviewing any specific job cuts but rather an executive order issued by Trump and a directive from his administration instructing to undertake job reductions. Tens of thousands of federal workers have already been laid off, either leaving their jobs through delayed resignation plans or being put on leave. At least 75,000 employees have taken deferred resignation and thousands of workers in the probation period are left unemployed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Discover Why These Off-Plan Dubai Apartments Sell Fast? Binghatti Developers FZE Read More Undo A coalition of unions, non-profit and local governments that sued to stop the administration's mass layoffs said on Tuesday that the supreme court, "dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy,' as reported by Reuters. The labor unions and nonprofits that challenged the downsizing told the justices it could lead to staffing cuts of 40 to 50 percent at several agencies if allowed to proceed. Cities like Baltimore, Chicago and San Francisco were among those who sued. In recent times, the supreme court has sided with Trump's decisions, and judges have allowed him to move forward with key elements of his efforts to renew the federal government. So far, the Supreme Court has stepped in mainly in response to emergency appeals from the Justice Department, which argues that lower-court rulings have wrongly interfered with presidential powers. Trump has consistently claimed that the voters gave him the mandate to carry out reforms and as such had appointed his former ally, Elon Musk, to lead the effort through DOGE, as reported by AP. Musk has since stepped down from his role. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the Trump administration must obtain congressional approval to carry out major cuts to the federal workforce. A 2-1 panel decision from the US 9th Circuit Court upheld her order, warning that the proposed slashing could have wide-reaching effects, including challenges in the food safety and healthcare systems for veterans. The Justice Department stated in its filing to the Supreme Court that controlling federal agency personnel 'lies at the heartland' of the president's executive branch authority. "The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," said the filing, as reported by Reuters. Illston had ordered multiple federal agencies to stop implementing the president's workforce executive order, signed earlier in February, along with a follow-up memo from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the Office of Personnel Management. The order greatly affects agencies like departments of Energy, Labour, Agriculture, the Treasury, the Interior, State, as well as Veterans Affairs. It also affects the National Science Foundation, Small Business Association, Social Security Administration, and Environmental Protection agency.
India Today
an hour ago
- India Today
US Supreme Court clears Trump to resume mass layoffs, agency overhaul
The US Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for President Donald Trump's administration to resume sweeping federal job cuts and agency restructuring —key elements of his broader plan to downsize and reshape the federal justices lifted a May 22 order by US District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco, which had blocked large-scale layoffs—known as "reductions in force" — that could impact hundreds of thousands of federal employees while the legal battle in February announced "a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy" in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce and gutting offices and programs opposed by the administration. Workforce reductions were planned at the US Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other wrote in her ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority in ordering the downsizing, siding with a group of unions, non-profits and local governments that challenged the administration."As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programs. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul being pursued by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in the Republican president's drive to slash the federal spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, DOGE has sought to eliminate federal jobs, shrink and reshape the U.S. government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and subsequently had a public falling out with San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the administration's request to halt the judge's 9th Circuit said the administration had not shown that it would suffer an irreparable injury if the judge's order remained in place and that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their lawsuit."The executive order at issue here far exceeds the president's supervisory powers under the Constitution," the 9th Circuit wrote, calling the administration's actions "an unprecedented attempted restructuring of the federal government and its operations."The 9th Circuit's ruling prompted the Justice Department's June 2 emergency request to the Supreme Court to halt Illston's the personnel of federal agencies "lies at the heartland" of the president's executive branch authority, the Justice Department said in its filing to the Supreme Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," the filing said, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential plaintiffs urged the Supreme Court to deny the Justice Department's request. Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its "breakneck reorganization," they wrote, would mean that "programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs."The Supreme Court in recent months has sided with Trump in some major cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in cleared the way for Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face. In two cases, it let the administration end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of also allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees and twice sided with his Department of Government Efficiency.- EndsMust Watch
