Latest news with #USTR
The Hill
11 hours ago
- Business
- The Hill
These nations don't have trade deals with Trump ahead of his Aug. 1 tariff deadline
President Trump is set to hit several major U.S. trading partners with steep tariffs if they don't agree to new trade terms before an Aug. 1. deadline. Trump suggested Monday that any nation that refuses to strike a deal with the U.S. would face a tariff between 15 and 20 percent. 'We're going to be setting a tariff for essentially the rest of the world, and that's what they're going to pay if they want to do business in the United States. Because you can't sit down and do 200 deals. But we made the big ones,' he said. Here are some of the top trading partners that have not struck deals with the U.S. China Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and his Chinese counterparts held talks this week in China and Stockholm this week, which marked the third round of talks between the two nations. The talks led to another possible extension in the trade deal that was announced in May, without details about the timing of that extension. Trump said he will be briefed on Wednesday by his top officials on a deal with China to extend the tariff pause, and 'we'll either approve it or not.' China and the U.S. were facing an Aug. 12 deadline for tariffs on China at 30 percent and Chinese tariffs on the U.S. at 10 percent. That rate is significantly down from earlier in the year, when Trump hit China with a 145 percent tariff and Beijing hit U.S. goods with a 125 percent tariff. 'We have a good relationship with China,' Trump said Monday. 'China's tough.' Trump on Tuesday also pushed back on reporting that the tariff talks this week could set the groundwork for a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, saying he's not looking for a summit with his counterpart. U.S. imports from China in 2024 totaled nearly $439 billion, according to the U.S. trade representative (USTR), and U.S. exports to China in 2024 were more than $143 billion. Mexico and Canada Negotiations between the Trump administration and Canada have stalled, Trump said last week. 'We haven't really had a lot of luck with Canada. I think Canada could be one where they'll just pay tariffs. It's not really a negotiation,' Trump said on Friday. Trump threatened to levy a 35 percent tariff on the country in a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. Canada was the third-largest source of U.S. imports, totaling $412.7 billion in 2024, according to the USTR. U.S. exports to Canada in 2024 were $349.4 billion. The president also threatened to impose a 30 percent tariff on goods from Mexico in a letter, citing the flow of fentanyl across the southern border that was the original basis for a 25 percent tariff he imposed on Mexican goods earlier this year. The letter to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum was sent on the same day that Trump threatened 30 percent tariffs on the European Union. He has since made a deal with the European bloc to lower tariffs to 15 percent. Mexico was the top source for U.S. imports, which totaled just less than $506 billion in 2024, according to the USTR. U.S. goods exports to Mexico in 2024 were $334 billion. South Korea The administration hasn't cited any progress in talks with South Korea, and President Lee Jae Myung said in July that talks with the U.S. have been 'clearly not easy.' South Korea is the sixth-largest trading partner with the U.S. and was hit with a 25 percent tariff on its imports on 'Liberation Day' in April. U.S. goods from South Korea totaled more than $131 billion in 2024, according to the USTR. U.S. exports to South Korea in 2024 were more than $65 billion. Taiwan The U.S. has held three rounds of talks with Taiwanese officials, and a deal could be struck any day, a source familiar with talks told The Hill. Even so, the fate of a deal with Taiwan also depends on the U.S.-China talks in Sweden. Taiwan is bracing for Trump possibly cutting them out of a trade relationship as part of making a deal with China, the source said, and is 'actively contemplating the prospect of a new go-it-alone era, where Taipei can no longer count on support from the White House.' The Trump administration reportedly denied Taiwanese leader Lai Ching-te's request to stop over in the U.S. next month, a move that has added to the fears that the president would 'sell out' Taiwan's democracy in order to have a strong trade relationship with China. Taiwan is the seventh-largest trading partner with the U.S. and was hit with a 32 percent tariff on its imports in April. U.S. imports from Taiwan in 2024 totaled more than $116 billion, according to the USTR, and U.S. exports to Taiwan in 2024 totaled more than $42 billion. India Top administration officials, including Trump, have insisted for months that a deal with India was pending but have yet to announce one. 'No, it's not,' Trump said on Tuesday when asked if a deal with India was finalized. He also threatened to impose a 25 percent tariff on India. India and U.S. trade last year overall was valued at roughly $130 billion, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi paid a friendly visit to Trump in February. Vice President Vance then traveled to India in April and hailed progress on trade talks with Modi, expressing optimism about striking a deal. Trump imposed a 26 percent tariff on goods from India during his April 2 'Liberation Day' tariff announcement. India is the 10-largest trading partner with the U.S., and U.S. imports from India totaled more than $87 billion in 2024, according to the USTR. U.S. exports to India in 2024 were nearly $42 billion. Brazil Trump declared that Brazil would be hit with a hefty 50 percent tariff in part due to the criminal prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro, Brazil's former president, over an alleged plot to remain in power after losing an election. He sent a letter to Brazil, deeming the prosecution of Bolsonaro — known as the 'Trump of the tropics' — a 'witch hunt.' Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has urged Trump to return to trade talks and said on CNN earlier this month that Trump 'was elected not to be the emperor of the world.' Brazil is among the top 15 trading partners with the U.S. and was hit with a 10 percent tariff on its imports in April. U.S. imports from Brazil in 2024 totaled more than $42 billion, according to the USTR, and U.S. exports to Brazil in 2024 were nearly $50 billion. Switzerland Switzerland is hopeful that the draft trade deal it approved will be signed off by Trump ahead of the deadline, Bloomberg reported. Swiss President and Finance Minister Karin Keller-Sutter said in July that the two nations were close and was hopeful at the time that Switzerland would be one of the first nations to strike deals with the U.S. Switzerland is among the top 20 trading partners with the U.S. and was hit with a 31 percent tariff on its imports in April. U.S. imports from Switzerland totaled more than $63 billion in 2024, according to the USTR, and U.S. exports to Switzerland in 2024 were $25 billion. Thailand Thailand and Cambodia agreed to a ceasefire on Monday to end five days of fighting in the region, which is expected to also restart trade talks with the U.S. 'I have instructed my Trade Team to restart negotiations on Trade,' Trump said on Truth Social after he spoke to both leaders about the truce. Trump had previously said if the two countries did not stop fighting, they would not get a trade deal with the U.S. Thailand's acting Prime Minister Phumtham Wechayachai said he expects a 'very good' trade deal after agreeing to end the conflict. He said that Trump told him 'there will be tariff negotiations, which will be beneficial, and we will get something very good out of it. He will do his best to give us as much as he can,' Bloomberg reported. Thailand is among the top 20 trading partners with the U.S. and was hit with a 36 percent tariff in April. U.S. imports from Thailand totaled more than $63 billion in 2024, according to the USTR, and U.S. exports to Thailand in 2024 were nearly $18 billion.
Time of India
2 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
US-India ‘natural partners' in AI, will co-create global solutions: Google public policy chief Karan Bhatia
Karan Bhatia Karan Bhatia is Google 's Global boss for Government Affairs and Public Policy. With direct reporting to CEO Sundar Pichai , Bhatia – who served as Deputy US Trade Representative (USTR) between 2005 and 2007 -- says India is like a second home for the tech giant and stands as a 'natural ally' to America when it comes to the development of AI and subsequent regulations. He says Google's investments in India, including hirings and development of global solutions, will only strengthen with time, complementing the company's previously-committed $10 billion India Digitization Fund. He denies the company wants to monopolize the local tech ecosystem by abusing its dominant position, and says the industry is highly competitive which acts as a deterrent against any hegemony of the Big Tech. Excerpts from an interview given to TOI at Google's Washington office: Google has been in India for over two decades now, and been an integral part of the country's digital revolution. How do you see your engagement here going forward and how critical is India when we look at Google's global ambitions? If you look at the growth and the investments that Google has made in India, it does justify the statement that 'India is like our second home'.We have more than 13,000 employees in the country, we have five major office sites, and have invested in creating substantial amounts of infrastructure… I think the future is quite optimistic, and quite exciting. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like These Are The Most Beautiful Women In The World Undo India is absolutely one of the most critical markets for Google globally. It's not just its scale, which obviously is huge, but it's also a very, very tech savvy market. AI has been expanding exponentially across the globe. How do you see India and the US collaborating in the development of AI, and also in creation of regulations around frontier technologies? I think the US and India are natural partners in the development of AI. There are complementary strengths and strong existing ties in talent and in technology that are going to make the US and India co-creators of AI solutions for years to come. I'm particularly pleased to see the bipartisan commitment – both under (former) President (Joe) Biden and (current) President (Donald) Trump – to deepen the technology relationship with India. This is important and provides the stability that companies need to strengthen business-to-business relationships. I think there are a lot of components that make me believe that the future of AI is going to be one where you see the US and India work very closely together. Beyond the benefits of AI, we have also seen new threats emerge from areas such as deep fakes, synthetic content, and misinformation. This is particularly dangerous in a market like India which has a billion-plus people with smartphones. We've seen instances where misinformation can create havoc. AI is clearly a very powerful technology. Sundar (Pichai) has said from the outset that AI is too important not to be regulated. But too important not to be regulated smartly. And I think it starts with how each company itself approaches the area. Google, starting back in 2018 and well before the current AI craze, was probably the first major company to adopt what we called 'AI principles', which were certain basic rules that we applied to how we are going to develop AI and what tools and applications we would allow for AI to be deployed in and where we would not. And we've continued to maintain a set of AI principles all the way up to today. Are you prepared for regulations around AI. There have been instances where regulatory efforts have been fragmented across regions. Does that worry you? Do you believe that regulations around critical technologies like AI should be global in nature and perhaps harmonised? Very much so. We are quite concerned with what we've seen, not just with respect to AI, but with respect to digital regulation, (and) technology regulation. Over the last decade, there has been an explosion in regulation that we've seen. Just in the Asia Pacific region alone, 1,300 new regulations have been adopted over the past three years that have an impact on the way our services operate or are brought to market. Imagine any other sector going through that. If you are the airline industry, for instance, and every country, every city, requires that your wings be a little bit longer or your wheels be a little bit shorter. You know, it's crazy. Even for a big company like Google that has the resources to be able to create complicated and sophisticated compliance systems, this is a challenge. If you talk about smaller companies, it becomes prohibitive to do this. And so, there's much less innovation, there's much less trade that happens. So, we do believe and think that it would be a great benefit, and maybe something coming of the current trade discussions around the world, that there could be a more harmonized set of rules governing technology and governing digital services. Google has been a key player in furthering India's digital ambitions. But there's also this fear – something which is felt globally -- that Big Tech is stifling startups. In India, we saw Google being penalised by fair play regulator Competition Commission (CCI). You also had the billing issue on Play Store where local companies accused Google of abusing dominance, and monopolizing the ecosystem. How much do you agree with the view that the dominance and scale of Big Tech is becoming a challenge for smaller companies? First of all, I have never seen a sector that is more dynamic and more competitive than the technology sector. You just look back five years ago -- companies like OpenAI, even TikTok, were barely present on the system. Today they are global powerhouses. Two years from now, who knows what the next great company is going to be. So, this is an incredibly dynamic industry. The idea that any one company has got the ability to lock out new products, it just doesn't resonate when you look at what the history of the last five, ten, or 15 years has been. Secondly, Google has been one of the great incubators of new businesses, startups, sometimes even competitors. And that's great. Lastly, I will just say that we are very proud of the relationship that we have with small businesses. So, whether you want to talk about a YouTube creator who may be a single mother who has managed to get a global audience watching how she cooks the best biryani, or a developer who's come up with some new great app. They're utilizing Google's platforms to be able to build their businesses, compete and grow. I think there are always going to be people who use the competition laws to try to sort of nudge outcomes that they like. I can assure you, hand on heart, that we feel like this is a very competitive world. In India, how do you view the govt's moves to regulate the tech sector? We had the digital personal data protection (DPDP) law come in. We are now moving towards overhauling the current IT law, while working on Broadcasting Services (Regulation) Bill, and a Digital Competition Bill. Do you think these steps are in the right direction, or does it complicate things, especially when countries like India mirror legislations enacted in the EU and suddenly implement them. I won't comment specifically on India. But broadly speaking, we are not opposed to regulation, whether it's of AI or other digital services. But we do think that it's important that it be balanced, targeted, and harmonized. When it comes to balanced, there is always a trade off in regulation between risk and lost opportunity. You just have to figure out what that right balance is. There's so much opportunity now with respect to technology. There are risks of misuse. But there is also the risk of missed use, you know, that you don't use. And when you're a company that's competing globally – say in automotive, pharmaceutical, chemicals, whatever -- and if you don't have access to the best technology to enable you to do the best product innovation or the best marketing or the best production, you are going to be at a disadvantage compared to your global competitors. So, we think it is critical to have balanced regulation. Targeted is the second point I would say. Oftentimes, govts find the incentive to just go out and do something. And they don't note that there's already a lot of regulation on the books. Not to make everything about AI, but AI is a perfect example. If it's fraud, it's fraud. Whether you're perpetrating it by AI or whether you're perpetrating it based on, you know, the mail. Lastly, it being harmonized is the key. You cannot have a hundred different types of regulations, whether it's in a country, a region, the globe. In the last couple of years, we've seen this rise in instances where nations are going for data sovereignty, including in India. Govts today want greater control on what is happening with the data. There are suspicions over the handling of data by the Big Tech. Are you okay with this sovereign data assertiveness? We do understand that there is always going to be certain data that is highly sensitive which needs to be stored in the country and completely under the control of a govt entity or sometimes a state-owned entity. In general, we would say that it is good for having the ability for data to move across borders and for data to be stored in the cloud, frankly, because it is more secure. It has been shown to be more secure when it is in the cloud than when it is stored in on-premise kinds of systems where any individual employee can make a mistake or where you could find some vulnerability of the data in a specific place. Even just storing everything in one place alone creates a risk. Having said that, there are always situations where there's going to be some sovereignty requirements. We understand that. However, we think that for the govts to be truly sovereign, we need to do three things. They need to have control and at Google, we believe in giving them that control. We think there needs to be security and then, we think there needs to be choice. Let me walk through each of those a little bit. On control, what we have said is that if you -- a govt -- wants your data to be running on a Google system, but that you want to control it, fine. We can either put it on the cloud and give you unique access controls, encryption controls, which means that we cannot access the data, there is zero access for us, and there is complete control of the govt. Or if you even want it, you can take it and have what is called an air gap solution which is basically Google's technology residing on an on-premise set of servers. Both of those are fine and we can facilitate it. You can get a lot of the benefits of Google's services and technology while having complete control over the data. That's the control part. But control without security and without choice really isn't sovereignty. So, security means you've got to have the best-in-class global security. We've hugely invested in this space. I think Google today is widely acknowledged as probably having the best track record for security of our systems. It's built into everything we do, starting with Gmail, starting with Google's own services. So, security is a key component. And then lastly choice -- If a govt is beholden to one company to provide all of its office software, or all of its cloud solutions, what sovereignty is there really? There is none. You're at the control of the best one company. So, we have strongly advocated that any govt must adopt a multi-cloud, multi-provider solution. Don't go only with Google. We would urge not to go only with Google, but you also should not go with any other one company. There has to be diversity. What is your view about the impact of AI on jobs? Do you think it will be positive for jobs or do you think it can actually take the number of jobs down? If you only look at the history of technology writ large, it has been a job creator over the course of history, and continues to be so even now. Will it change the jobs? Absolutely right. We no longer have people driving horse-drawn carriages anymore, but we have many, many more jobs of people who are building cars, creating automotive systems, and operating highways than existed before. We think the same is going to happen with AI. Lastly, what is your view on India's talent in IT. This is one area where we started developing very early and we've got a big pool of talented IT professionals. Also, why do you think India has not been able to produce a Google or a Microsoft or an OpenAI? Do you see that happening anytime soon? The talent of the Indian IT workforce is well known globally and it's the reason why we and many other companies have a strong presence in India. On the question of why you don't have a Google or an Amazon born out of India – I feel India is a hotbed of great innovation, and there are great companies in the IT and other space that continue to be born. I have no doubt that the future is going to see even more global IT powerhouses coming out of India. Stay informed with the latest business news, updates on bank holidays and public holidays . AI Masterclass for Students. Upskill Young Ones Today!– Join Now
Mint
3 days ago
- Business
- Mint
India draws the red line on GM foods, dairy ahead of August trade talks with US
New Delhi: As trade negotiations between India and the US entering a critical stretch, New Delhi remains firm that genetically modified (GM) food crops such as maize and soybean, and dairy imports, should not be part of the deal. A senior government official said India's position on GM crops and dairy remains 'non-negotiable". These two sectors have emerged as key points of contention ahead of the next round of face-to-face discussions between India and the US for a bilateral trade agreement. The discussions are scheduled to take place in New Delhi in the second week of August. 'The government has consistently maintained that GM food crops and dairy imports are not aligned with India's domestic priorities—be it on health, environment, or livelihood grounds," the official said, requesting anonymity. 'We are ready to explore other areas of convergence, but we cannot compromise on these issues." The US has been pushing for greater market access for GM maize and soy-based products. Besides, the US's dairy industry has been lobbying for access to India's vast consumer market. However, Indian policymakers have consistently resisted such proposals, citing concerns related to biosafety, political sensitivities, and potential disruption to millions of small-scale dairy farmers. 'Any import of dairy products from subsidized markets like the US could severely hurt India's rural economy and traditional milk cooperatives," this official added. India has instead proposed mutually beneficial options, such as promoting value-added sectors, simplifying regulatory procedures, and offering tariff concessions in non-sensitive areas. New Delhi is also seeking better access for Indian pharmaceuticals, textiles, and services to the US market. A crucial stretch India and the US pushed back their deadline to finalize abilateral trade agreement from the earlier 9 July cutoff to later in the month as US President Donald Trump, while announcing rates for some countries, decided to enforce his reciprocal tariffs from 1 August. The trade deal is crucial for India as negotiators seek the elimination of the reciprocal tariffs and additional duties such as those on steel, aluminium, and auto components. India recently withdrew quality control orders for three key industrial chemicals—acetic acid, methanol, and aniline—to ease compliance burdens on domestic manufacturers. India imports substantial quantities of acetic acid and aniline from the US and China. The decision to withdraw the quality control orders is being viewed as New Delhi's gesture to address US concerns, especially after the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR), in its 2025 National Trade Estimate Report released in March, flagged several trade barriers in India, including high tariffs, digital restrictions, and regulatory hurdles. The USTR report specifically raised concerns over India's quality control orders, including one on polyethylene introduced in January 2024. The report said such measures did not align with international standards and disrupted trade in plastics and chemicals. India, however, maintains such policies are essential to prevent the entry of substandard imports. The US remains one of the few countries with which India maintains a strong merchandise trade surplus. In 2024-25, Indian exports to the US rose 11.6% to $86.51 billion, while imports grew 7.4% to $45.33 billion, pushing the surplus to $41.18 billion. India opens up autos, services, liquor to UK; gains access in goods
Indian Express
4 days ago
- Business
- Indian Express
India unlikely to import US genetically modified agricultural items under trade deal: Sources
During the ongoing trade negotiations, India is unlikely to agree to US demands to accept genetically modified (GM) agricultural products such as corn and soya, a source closely monitoring the talks has indicated. 'Some things are matters of principle. We can't import GM,' the source said in response to a query over the government's position on GM imports from the US. This assumes significance since agriculture remains one of the contentious issues between the two countries, and the United States Trade Representative (USTR) has previously flagged restrictions on its GM products by countries as discriminatory. 'The Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006 includes specific provisions for regulating food products derived from genetically engineered (GE) sources; however, as of December 31, 2024, the FSSAI was still in the process of establishing its regulations. India's biotechnology approval processes are slow, opaque, and subject to political influences, and do not appear to take into account science-based approval processes for GE products in exporting countries,' the USTR report had said. While India is seeking greater market access for its textiles, leather and footwear, the US is pushing for access to India's agricultural and dairy markets — a major hurdle, as Indian farmers often operate on small land parcels with limited technological support. In contrast, the US has demanded that India should drop its GM regulation. There is significant resistance to genetically modified (GM) crops in India. Only one GM crop — Bt cotton — is approved for cultivation. No GM food crop is commercially grown, although experimental trials continue. However, imports of GM soybean oil and canola oil are permitted. A 2013 report by the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility (ENSSER) emphasised that many studies deeming GM foods safe were industry-funded, and that long‑term, independent studies were lacking. New Delhi‑based think tank GTRI said: 'Environmental studies have shown that widespread use of Bt crops can lead to pest resistance, such as in the pink bollworm, and pose risks to non‑target species such as monarch butterflies, as suggested in a 1999 Nature study. Additionally, the overuse of glyphosate with herbicide-tolerant GM crops has led to 'superweeds' and increased herbicide use.' The GTRI said that GM and non‑GM crops may intermingle at various stages of the supply chain — during transport, storage or processing. 'Once GM material enters, there is a high risk it could leak into local farming systems or processed food chains, posing risks to food safety, environmental integrity, and India's export reputation — especially in GM‑sensitive markets such as the EU,' the think tank warned. It said the import of GM products, such as animal feed, could negatively affect India's agricultural exports to the EU, which enforces strict GM-labelling rules and faces strong consumer opposition to GM‑linked products. Although GM feed is permitted, many European buyers prefer fully GM‑free supply chains. India's fragmented agri‑logistics and lack of segregation infrastructure increase the likelihood of cross‑contamination and trace GM presence in export consignments. This could result in shipment rejections, higher testing costs, and erosion of India's GM‑free image, particularly in sectors such as rice, tea, honey, spices and organic foods, the GTRI said. Ravi Dutta Mishra is a Principal Correspondent with The Indian Express, covering policy issues related to trade, commerce, and banking. He has over five years of experience and has previously worked with Mint, CNBC-TV18, and other news outlets. ... Read More
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
4 days ago
- Business
- Business Standard
India unlikely to allow US imports of GM agri products under trade deal
India is unlikely to allow American imports of genetically modified (GM) corn and soybeans, under the trade agreement that India and the United States (US) are currently negotiating, a source aware of the matter indicated. 'Some things are a matter of principle,' the source said, citing the government's position on the matter. Under the trade deal negotiations, market access for agricultural products has been one of the key demands from the US. It has also been one of the most contentious issue between both countries. Even in the past, the US Trade Representative (USTR) had pointed out several countries', including India's rules on GM products as non-tariff barriers. Last month, affiliates of the Sangh Parivar have said that the India-US trade agreement is unlikely to happen if America continues to be 'stubborn' about securing market access for genetically modified (GM) crops, Business Standard had reported. In the past, The Bharatiya Kisan Sangh (BKS) and Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM) had flagged the issue that concessions to the United States (US) in the agriculture sector, including dairy products, will have ramifications for the country's food security. Government officials had earlier said that the sixth round of negotiations with the US will take place in the second half of August — limiting the possibility of an interim trade deal over the next few days —before August 1. US President Donald Trump has set August 1 as a deadline for double-digit reciprocal tariffs to kick in. India could face up to 26 per cent reciprocal tariff from August 1 if no agreement for an interim is reached by then.
