Trump claims he prevented India-Pakistan nuclear war through trade deals
Hague [Netherlands], June 25 (ANI): US President Donald Trump has claimed he stopped a potential nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan by threatening to withhold trade deals.
Speaking at a NATO summit in Hague, President Trump doubled down on his claims at the press conference Wednesday, saying he used 'a series of phone calls on trade' to convince the nuclear-armed neighbours to step back from military confrontation during escalating tensions in May 2025.
'I said if you're going to go fighting each other, we're not doing any trade deal,' Trump told reporters at the conclusion of the NATO summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday.
'We stopped the nuclear war,' he added.
Trump referenced recent diplomatic meetings, saying Pakistani general Asim Munir had visited his office the previous week while praising Prime Minister Narendra Modi as 'a great friend of mine' and 'a great gentleman.'
According to the President's account, both countries chose potential economic partnerships over military action when presented with the option.
'I got them to reason, and I said, we're not doing a trade deal if you're going to fight. They said, no, I want to do the trade deal,' Trump explained.
The comments represent the President's most latest public account of his claimed role in mediating the India-Pakistan crisis that erupted earlier this year.
However, Trump's characterisation of events has been disputed by Indian officials.
The Indian government has previously contested the President's assertion that US mediation was decisive in achieving the ceasefire between the two nations in May 2025.
Meanwhile, India has clarified that the cessation of hostilities between India and Pakistan took place on May 10 following contacts between the two DGMOs.
A spokesman for India's foreign ministry said senior officials in New Delhi and Washington had been 'in regular contact' during the crisis, but stopped short of confirming Trump's version of events.
The conflict represented the most serious military escalation between India and Pakistan in over five decades, with both nuclear-armed nations mobilising forces along their disputed border.
The US maintains significant economic relationships with India and a bilateral trade worth billions of dollars annually.
India is one of America's largest trading partners in Asia, while Pakistan has sought closer economic ties with Washington in recent years.
In fiscal year 2024-25, the bilateral trade between the two countries reached USD 131.84 billion.
During the press conference, Trump also defended US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities as 'very, very successful', contradicting a preliminary intelligence report suggesting more limited damage.The US president called the operation 'obliteration' and compared it to the atomic bombs that ended World War II.
'No other military on Earth could have done it,' he said, dismissing media reports on the intelligence assessment as 'spin'.
The strikes came days before a ceasefire between Israel and Iran was announced. A classified US intelligence report suggested the attacks set Iran's nuclear programme back 'a few months'.
However, the Israel Atomic Energy Commission said the strikes had delayed Iran's nuclear weapons development 'by many years'.
Trump has previously highlighted his personal relationships with world leaders as key to resolving international disputes, though his claims about direct intervention in foreign conflicts have sometimes drawn scepticism from diplomatic sources.
The president made similar assertions about preventing wars during his previous term in office, including claims about North Korea and Middle Eastern conflicts. (ANI)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Toronto Sun
Trump says he will move aggressively to undo nationwide blocks on his agenda
Published Jun 28, 2025 • 5 minute read President Donald Trump exits the Oval Office for an event in the Rose Garden of the White House. MUST CREDIT: Demetrius Freeman/The Washington Post Photo by Demetrius Freeman / The Washington Post An emboldened Trump administration plans to aggressively challenge blocks on the president's top priorities, a White House official said, following a major Supreme Court ruling that limits the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Government attorneys will press judges to pare back the dozens of sweeping rulings thwarting the president's agenda 'as soon as possible,' said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations. Priorities for the administration include injunctions related to the Education Department and the U.S. DOGE Service, as well as an order halting the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the official said. 'Thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis,' President Donald Trump said Friday at a news conference in which he thanked by name members of the conservative high court majority he helped build. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Trump on Friday cast the narrowing of judicial power as a consequential, needed correction in his battle with a court system that has restrained his authority. Scholars and plaintiffs in the lawsuits over Trump's orders agreed that the high court ruling could profoundly reshape legal battles over executive power that have defined Trump's second term – even as other legal experts said the effects would be more muted. Some predicted it would embolden Trump to push his expansive view of presidential power. 'The Supreme Court has fundamentally reset the relationship between the federal courts and the executive branch,' Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, who has studied nationwide injunctions, said in a statement. 'Since the Obama administration, almost every major presidential initiative has been frozen by federal district courts issuing 'universal injunctions.'' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Nationwide injunctions put a freeze on an action until a court can make a decision on its legality. They have became a go-to tool for critics of presidential actions in recent times, sometimes delaying for years the implementation of an executive order the court ultimately approves. Experts said the Supreme Court's ruling could make it more difficult and cumbersome to challenge executive actions. It could result in courts issuing a patchwork of rulings on presidential orders in different parts of the country. In the short term, the ruling is a setback for liberals who have gone to court to thwart Trump. But the decision could also ultimately constrain conservatives seeking broad rulings to rein in a future Democratic president. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Trump undertook a flurry of executive actions in the opening month of his term that ranged from dismantling government agencies to seeking the end of birthright citizenship. There have been more than 300 lawsuits seeking to block his executive actions. Federal district judges have issued roughly 50 rulings to date, temporarily holding up the administration's moves to cut foreign aid, conduct mass layoffs and fire probationary employees, terminate legal representation for young migrants, ban birthright citizenship, and more nationwide. Some of those rulings have been stayed by higher courts. The Supreme Court found Friday that federal district courts must limit their injunctions to the parties bringing the case, which could be individuals, organizations or states. They had previously been able to issue injunctions that applied to people not directly involved in cases. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The ruling came as part of a case challenging Trump's ban on birthright citizenship. The court did not rule on the constitutionality of that executive order. The justices left it to lower courts to determine whether a nationwide injunction might be a proper form of relief for states in some cases, like the ban on birthright citizenship, where the harm could be widespread. The court also did not forestall plaintiffs from seeking nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits. Smita Ghosh, a senior appellate counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive public interest law firm, said the ruling could be a blow to plaintiffs seeking to stymie Trump's executive orders. The CAC has filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the birthright citizenship ban. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'This approach will make it more difficult and more time-consuming to challenge unconstitutional executive practices, limiting courts' abilities to constrain unlawful presidential action at a time when many believe that they need it most,' Ghosh said. Many groups will pivot to filing class-action lawsuits to sidestep the ruling, she predicted, as some plaintiffs in the birthright citizenship lawsuit sought to do Friday. Such lawsuits allow individuals or groups to sue on behalf of a larger class of individuals who have suffered a similar harm from a government policy. It's likely courts will see more and more class- or mass-action lawsuits from cities, counties and states that realize they can no longer rely on litigation brought by others to advocate for their interests, said Jonathan Miller, chief program officer for the Public Rights Project, which is challenging several Trump policies. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. 'I think this decision will be perceived by this administration as a green light to more aggressively pursue its agenda, be bolder when it comes to compliance with injunction and its willingness to test the limits of the judiciary,' Miller said. Not everyone expected the ruling to have broad impacts. Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which has filed numerous challenges against Trump's agenda, called it a 'limited ruling' and said the court left open a number of routes for challenges against executive actions that could result in broad blocks on Trump's policies. Ed Whelan, a conservative attorney, was likewise skeptical. He wrote in a newsletter that 'the ruling is probably going to accomplish much less than many people celebrating it realize,' in part because plaintiffs would instead pursue more class-action lawsuits that would ultimately produce similar results as nationwide injunctions. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The administration on Friday trumpeted the decision at the White House as a victory in its broader fight against the judiciary. Officials frequently deride judges who rule against the administration as activists and obstructionists. Dozens of judges appointed by presidents of both parties have temporarily paused many of Trump's efforts, and data shows threats against the judiciary have risen since he took office. 'Americans are getting what they voted for, no longer will we have rogue judges striking down President Trump's policies across the entire nation,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said, standing beside Trump at the news conference. She added, 'These lawless injunctions … turned district courts into the imperial judiciary.' Both Democratic and Republican presidents have complained about the blocks, said Jesse Panuccio, a partner at the Boies Schiller Flexner law firm and a Justice Department official in the first Trump administration. 'I think the ruling is seismic for how the federal district courts have been doing business in the last 20 years or so because the universal injunction has become a fairly standard and – in my view – unlawful remedy in cases,' Panuccio said. NHL Columnists Columnists Toronto Raptors Toronto Maple Leafs
Toronto Sun
an hour ago
- Toronto Sun
McCAUGHEY: Hypocrites suddenly claim 'constitutional scruples' about war-making
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders speaks during a stop in the Fighting the Oligarchy tour at the McAllen Performing Arts Center on Friday, June, 20, 2025, in McAllen, Texas. Photo by Joel Martinez / The Monitor via AP Even Americans who loathe President Donald Trump should be capable of seeing that the U.S. and the world are safer without a nuclear-capable Iran. But Trump derangement is blinding them. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account Trump and the U.S. military recently executed a 'spectacularly successful' precision bombing of Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities with no American casualties and minimal impact on Iran's people. Now, Trump is being bombarded with attacks here at home. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) called Trump's strike 'grossly unconstitutional,' a claim repeated by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has sparred with Trump on other issues, and Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.). New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and a chorus of Democrats are calling for Trump's impeachment. Even New York City's Democratic mayoral candidates — for whom Trump hatred is a litmus test — are piling on. Zohran Mamdani blasted Trump's 'unconstitutional military action' and Brad Lander slammed the president's 'reckless & unconstitutional strikes.' Your noon-hour look at what's happening in Toronto and beyond. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. These claims are crazy. Prior presidents, including Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, struck foreign targets without consulting Congress first and even waged hostilities for months at a time without authorization from Congress. No one called for their impeachment. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who defended Obama's military operations in Libya without congressional authorization when she was House minority leader, slammed Trump, saying he 'ignored the Constitution.' Call her the queen of hypocrisy. As for 'ignoring the Constitution,' that's simply false. Article II states 'The President shall be Commander in Chief.' Trump clearly acted within his Article II powers. True, Article I gives Congress power to declare war, but war hasn't been declared since the Second World War. Yet, the U.S. has waged at least 125 military operations since then. Declarations of war are an anachronism. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. The Constitution contains a built-in tension between the branches over when to deploy the military. Congress can exert its authority by refusing to fund ongoing military operations it opposes. Congress limited and finally cut off funding for combat in Vietnam, effectively ending the war in response to rising public discontent. Similarly, Congress used its power of the purse to curtail military operations in Angola, Nicaragua and Somalia in the 1970s, '80s and '90s. War weariness during the prolonged but undeclared Vietnam War led Congress to try to devise another method — the War Powers Resolution of 1973, designed to put guardrails around the president's conduct of military operations and guarantee Congress' involvement short of an actual declaration of war. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. But the War Powers Resolution was controversial and ineffective from the minute it was enacted. Invoking it now, after 50 years of failure, is mere political theatre. Richard Nixon opposed what he called its 'dangerous and unconstitutional restrictions' on presidential authority and vetoed it, though Congress overrode his veto. Ronald Reagan also insisted that no mere act of Congress could legitimately narrow the military powers the Constitution grants presidents. Clinton waived off War Powers Resolution concerns, launching cruise missile attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998. The following year, he defied the resolution to continue bombing in Kosovo. No one talked of impeachment — at least not for that. He was impeached for lovemaking, not making war. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. Fast-forward to Midnight Hammer, the code name for the strike obliterating Iran's nuclear facilities early on Sunday. House Speaker Mike Johnson, whom Trump briefed about the strike before it occurred, responded to the barrage of criticism, saying 'tonight's necessary, limited and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties.' All true. RECOMMENDED VIDEO Massie, a frequent Trump critic, and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) are pushing a new resolution that would bar any further action against Iran without Congressional approval. Now that the mission has succeeded, let the debate begin. But let's be clear about what the debate is about. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is slamming Trump's attack, insisting that 'no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war.' Schumer's comment distorts reality. Iran has been waging war against the U.S. for decades. Iran's leaders chant 'death to America.' Iranian proxies have attacked American oil tankers on the high seas, assassinated American troops at a U.S. military post in Jordan and plotted the assassination of Trump. All with impunity. Trump's strike against Iran's nuclear capabilities took the cudgel out of the ayatollah's hands. No matter how Iran responds, the threat will be less now that the bully has been de-nuked. Betsy McCaughey is a former Lt. Governor of New York State and founder of SAVENYC NHL Columnists Columnists Toronto Raptors Toronto Maple Leafs
Globe and Mail
3 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
G7 agrees to exempt U.S. companies from higher taxes
The United States and the Group of Seven nations have agreed to support a proposal that would exempt U.S. companies from some components of an existing global agreement, the G7 said in a statement on Saturday. The group has created a 'side-by-side' system in response to the U.S. administration agreeing to scrap the Section 899 retaliatory tax proposal from President Donald Trump's tax and spending bill, it said in a statement from Canada, the head of the rolling G7 presidency. The G7 said the plan recognizes existing U.S. minimum tax laws and aims to bring more stability to the international tax system. Opinion: The G7 is dead – time to move on to the G6 U.K. businesses are also spared higher taxes after the removal of Section 899 from Mr. Trump's tax and spending bill. Britain said businesses would benefit from greater certainty and stability following the agreement. Some British businesses had in recent weeks said they were worried about paying substantial additional tax due to the inclusion of Section 899, which has now been removed. 'Today's agreement provides much-needed certainty and stability for those businesses after they had raised their concerns,' Britain's finance minister Rachel Reeves said in a statement, adding that more work was needed to tackle aggressive tax planning and avoidance. G7 officials said that they look forward to discussing a solution that is 'acceptable and implementable to all.' In January, through an executive order, Trump declared that the global corporate minimum tax deal was not applicable in the U.S., effectively pulling out of the landmark 2021 arrangement negotiated by the Biden administration with nearly 140 countries. He had also vowed to impose a retaliatory tax against countries that impose taxes on U.S. firms under the 2021 global tax agreement. This tax was considered detrimental to many foreign companies operating in the U.S.
