Congress demands Modi's statement in Parliament on Trump's ‘five jets shot down' claim
"The sensational new revelation by President Trump this time around is that five jets may have been downed," Ramesh said.
"The prime minister, who has had years of friendship and huglomacy with President Trump going back to 'Howdy Modi' in September 2019 and 'Namaste Trump' in February 2020, has to now himself make a clear and categorical statement in Parliament on what President Trump has been claiming over the past 70 days," the Congress leader said.
Speaking at the White House during a dinner he hosted for Republican senators on Friday, Trump said: "You had India, Pakistan, that was going in fact, planes were being shot out of the air...four or five. But I think five jets were shot down, actually, that was getting worse and worse, wasn't it?
"That was looking like it was going to go, these are two serious nuclear countries, and they were hitting each other," he said.
"But India and Pakistan were going at it, and they were back and forth, and it was getting bigger and bigger. And we got it solved through trade. We said, 'You guys want to make a trade deal. We're not making a trade deal if you're going to be throwing around weapons and maybe nuclear weapons'. Both very powerful nuclear states," Trump said.
He said his administration achieved more in six months than almost any other administration could accomplish in eight years.
"Something I'm very proud of, we stopped a lot of wars, a lot of wars. And these were serious wars, Trump said.
The Congress has been demanding that Modi must answer Trump's India-Pakistan "ceasefire" claims in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha during the forthcoming Monsoon Session.
Since May 10, when Trump announced on social media that India and Pakistan had agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire after a long night of talks mediated by Washington, he has repeated his claim on several occasions that he helped settle the tensions between the two countries.
However, India has been consistently maintaining that the understanding on cessation of hostilities with Pakistan was reached following direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries.
In a nearly 35-minute phone call with Trump last month, Modi firmly said that India does not and will "never accept" mediation and that the discussions between Indian and Pakistani militaries on cessation of military actions were initiated at Islamabad's request.
India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7, targeting terror infrastructure in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir in retaliation for the Pahalgam attack that killed 26 civilians.
India and Pakistan reached an understanding on May 10 to end the conflict after four days of intense cross-border drone and missile strikes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Delhi Confidential: Sweet offering
DMK's Arun Nehru, a first-time MP from Perambalur, has a sweet trick to make new friends in Parliament. The 41-year-old is popular among Opposition benches for his delicious homemade chocolates that he generously distributes among his colleagues. Nehru is also promoting a small venture — Kocoatrait, which makes ethically sourced zero waste bean-to-bar chocolates — from his constituency. He says it's one way of supporting a sustainable and circular economy. Nehru's sweet offering has won him praise from the Treasury benches too. While he has introduced some NDA MPs to his homemade delights, the DMK leader says he is still amassing courage to go to the senior leaders. He recently offered a few chocolates in different flavours to Union Minister Manohar Lal Khattar, who said he relished each one of them. Overhaul On Cards Ridden by factionalism, the Haryana unit of Congress may soon get new District Congress Committee (DCC) presidents under the party's Sangathan Srijan Abhiyan (organisational rejuvenation campaign). The party had kickstarted the organisational overhaul in Gujarat, where it appointed new DCCs in June. It recently sent observers to Haryana and Madhya Pradesh to oversee a similar exercise. Sources in the Congress say they are not sure when the Madhya Pradesh appointments will be finalised, but in Haryana the revamp will begin in the next few days. The party high command has meticulously gone through suggestions made by the observers, and will soon announce the appointments. In party circles in Haryana, meanwhile, speculation is rife about which faction — former Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda or party MP Selja Kumari — will have more people among the new DCCs. Old Office, New Role Senior forest service officer Gobind Sagar Bhardwaj, who was till recently a member secretary of the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA), returned to his former institution — the Wildlife Institute of India — as its director. Bhardwaj had earlier served as a scientist and faculty at the autonomous wildlife research body and has moved there after a one-year stint at NTCA.
The Hindu
16 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
A federal judge on Friday (July 25, 2025) blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen States remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The States have argued Mr. Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Lawyers for the government had argued Mr. Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. Mr. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Mr. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Mr. Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Mr. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent on Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday (July 23, 2025), a San Francisco-based appeals court found the President's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by States. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Mr. Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Mr. Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost States funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Mr. Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship.
Mint
16 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump Birthright Order Blocked Again in Fresh Legal Setback
President Donald Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship was blocked nationwide for the third time in less than a month, the latest sign that a US Supreme Court decision restricting 'universal injunctions' is having little impact on the dispute. The injunctions set up what is likely to be yet another set of appeals that could reach the Supreme Court, which has largely backed Trump in his broad crackdown on immigration. The justices haven't yet taken up the question of whether Trump's birthright citizenship order is constitutional. A federal judge in Boston ruled on Friday that an injunction pausing Trump's order nationwide is the only way to offer full protection to the Democratic-led states the filed the suit. The judge said his actions are in line with the Supreme Court's findings. US Judge Leo Sorokin said in his ruling that he could not narrow his injunction in part because Justice Department lawyers hadn't offered useful details about how such a ruling would work. 'With stakes this high, the court simply cannot adopt the defendants' blasé approach to the details and workability of a more limited injunction,' the judge said. A nationwide injunction protecting all affected babies was granted in a class-action suit in New Hampshire on July 10, while a federal appeals court this week upheld a similar block in a suit brought by four Democratic-led states. The new ruling comes in a suit brought by 18 states. A judge in a separate class-action suit is weighing another potential injunction. The Fight Over Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order: QuickTake Trump's order would restrict citizenship to babies with at least one parent who is a US citizen or green card holder. Critics say it violates a provision of the Constitution that grants citizenship to virtually every baby born in the US. The government says the directive closes a loophole that encourages illegal immigration. Trump's order was initially put on hold nationwide months ago in three separate cases. But the Supreme Court on June 27 paused those orders after ruling that judges generally can't issue nationwide injunctions that block federal policies outright. The justices returned the cases to the lower courts to weigh whether their injunctions needed to be narrowed or amended so that they provide relief only to the people or groups that sued. Sorokin held a hearing on the matter earlier this week. The Supreme Court's opinion, hailed as a major victory by the Trump administration, hasn't stopped judges from finding that broad injunctions against the president's birthright citizenship order are still necessary to protect US-born children of migrants while the cases proceed. In their request to maintain a nationwide injunction, the Democratic-led states said the Supreme Court's finding on so-called universal injunctions 'has no bearing on this case.' The states argue that a nationwide injunction is the only way to prevent harm that they say would be caused by allowing the executive order to take effect in some states, creating a chaotic patchwork of citizenship. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
