Trump rows back threat of ‘secondary tariffs' against India and China after Putin summit
Trump had proposed the levies as a new way of pressuring Russia's war-time economy if it failed to stop its invasion of Ukraine, and they were largely due to impact China and India, by far the two biggest buyers of Russian crude.
Mr Trump earlier this month doubled duties on Indian products to 50 per cent after imposing an additional 25 per cent tariff for buying Russian oil, kicking off from 27 August.
New Delhi was facing the risk of even higher tariffs if Mr Trump's summit in Alaska failed to end Russia's war in Ukraine after the US treasury secretary Scott Bessent said Wednesday that 'secondary tariffs could go up' if things don't go well at the meeting.
In recent days, Mr Trump has expressed his anger with India for its refusal to stop buying oil from Russia. He has accused India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing discounted crude from Moscow.
China remains the largest market for Russian oil exports. However, raising tariffs on Beijing threatens to break a delicate truce deal between China and the US after it was extended for another 90 days. The truce saw both countries lowering tariffs on each other's goods after the trade war between the two biggest economies threatened to upend global markets.
On board Air Force One on his way to meet Mr Putin in Alaska, Mr Trump still appeared undecided on whether he would impose secondary tariffs or not, saying they would be 'very devastating' for China in particular and suggesting Russia had already 'lost an oil client' in India. ''If I have to do it, I'll do it. Maybe I won't have to do it,' he said.
After the nearly three-hour-long meeting with Mr Putin, Mr Trump hailed the Alaska summit as a 'great and very successful day' although 'we didn't get there' on agreeing an immediate ceasefire. He instead endorsed Russia's longstanding position – that Kyiv and Moscow would need to agree a full peace deal while fighting continued in the background.
And in a post-summit interview with Hannity, Mr Trump said he would hold off on imposing secondary tariffs on China for buying Russian oil after making progress with Mr Putin. He did not mention India directly.
"Because of what happened today, I think I don't have to think about that now," Mr Trump said of the tariffs. "I may have to think about it in two weeks or three weeks or something, but we don't have to think about that right now."
India has previously said that it needs Russian oil to meet the energy needs of its fast-growing economy. The country has been sourcing nearly a third of its oil from Russia since the Ukraine war began in early 2022 and Moscow started offering it at a discounted rate.
New Delhi has decried the double standards of the US sanctioning its oil purchases while continuing to buy Russian uranium hexafluoride, palladium and fertiliser.
Narendra Modi's government called the US tariffs "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable" and vowed to "take all actions necessary to protect its national interests'.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
5 minutes ago
- The Independent
Democrat Senator said Alaska summit was ‘great day' for Russia: Putin was ‘absolved of his crimes in front of the world'
A key senator on the Foreign Relations committee called Donald Trump's Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin a 'disaster' Sunday and blamed the U.S. president for legitimizing his Russian opponent in front of the world. 'It was an embarrassment for the United States. It was a failure. Putin got everything he wanted,' said Chris Murphy, the ranking Democratic member of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on European security cooperation. Murphy told NBC's Meet the Press that Trump was forced to abandon his main commitment — a call for a ceasefire — during the meeting and was similarly unable to convince Putin to drop demands for Ukraine to cede more territory, something the senator from Connecticut said was 'stunning' to see a U.S. president consider. 'He wanted to be absolved of his war crimes in front of the world. He was invited to the United States — war criminals are not normally invited to the United States of America,' Murphy said. Trump 'walked out of that meeting saying, 'I didn't get a ceasefire. I didn't get a peace deal. And I'm not even considering sanctions,'' the senator continued. 'And so Putin walks away with his photo op, with zero commitments made, and zero consequences. What a great day for Russia.' Murphy's comments to NBC come as two top Trump officials who traveled with the president to Alaska for the summit Friday, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, did the rounds on separate Sunday morning programs defending the outcome of the president's meeting with Putin. The optics of the meeting are being endlessly scrutinized in the mainstream press, partly due to the few specifics released so far about what the two men discussed. Among those moments been picked apart by analysts included the arrival of the Russian president, which was preceded by U.S. troops, in uniform, rolling out a red carpet on the tarmac. On Sunday, Witkoff told CNN'S State of the Union t hat the U.S. secured what he claimed was a 'game-changing' development in the discussions: Putin's willingness to consider accepting a U.S. security agreement protecting the future sovereignty of Ukraine's borders. This was the first time negotiators were able to gain ground on the issue, he explained. 'We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO," he said. Witkoff wouldn't specify whether the security guarantee could lead to what Trump and his followers have long opposed — a promise to directly engage U.S. troops in defense of Ukraine should Russia continue crossing Trump's red lines. Murphy, on Sunday, seemed to imply that such a guarantee would be the bare minimum standard necessary for any peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. 'That [security guarantee] is an essential element of a peace agreement because any commitment that Vladimir Putin makes to not invade Ukraine again isn't worth the paper that it's written on,' said the senator. 'He's made that commitment many times. So yes, there has to be a guarantee that if Putin were to enter Ukraine after a peace settlement, that there would be some force there, a U.S. force, a U.S.-European force there to defend Ukraine.' He would go on to hammer Trump over reports that Witkoff wouldn't confirm when pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper, which revealed that Trump had signaled his own willingness to accept Russian demands for Ukraine to cede the entire occupied Donbas region as part of a potential agreement. Murphy said that the reported development was 'another sense that Putin is just in charge of these negotiations.' Chris Van Hollen, another Democrat on the Foreign Relations panel, was equally critical of Trump's meeting with the Russian president during an interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz on This Week. Heading into Friday's summit, Trump warned of 'severe consequences' if Russia continued to oppose peace efforts and said that he was working towards an immediate ceasefire. Afterwards, he claimed in a Truth Social post that "It was determined by all [in attendance] that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' Van Hollen called this news a 'setback' for the U.S.'s European allies and Ukraine, while accusing Trump of being 'flattered' by Putin. 'There's no sugarcoating this. Donald Trump, once again, got played by Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin got the red carpet treatment on American soil. But we got no ceasefire, no imminent meeting between Putin and Zelensky,' said Van Hollen. Jake Sullivan, national security adviser to the Biden administration, agreed. "President Trump's stated goals were very simple, get an immediate ceasefire, and in the absence of a ceasefire, impose what he called severe consequences," Sullivan said. "Well, the summit has come and gone. There is no ceasefire. There are no consequences.' Trump is now scheduled to meet Monday with European leaders including Finnish president Alexander Stubb, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, French president Emmanuel Macron and the UK's Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. Stubb is known for his personal relationship with Trump, and is poised to be on-hand to quell any disputes between Trump and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky, who will also be in attendance. Zelensky is reported to be wholly opposed to any demand to recognize Russian occupation of the Donbas as legitimate.
Daily Mirror
5 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump's Gaza blackout as US President BANS visas for desperate and starving kids
Visas for starving and sick children from Gaza have been halted by Donald Trump's administration following pressure from a conservative activist who questioned why they were allowed into the US Donald Trump's administration has stopped giving US visas to children in urgent need of medical help from Gaza. A day after conservative activist Laura Loomer posted videos on social media of kids from Gaza arriving in the US for medical treatment and questioning how they got visas, the State Department said it was halting all visitor visas for people from Gaza pending a review. The State Department said the visas would be stopped while it looks into how "a small number of temporary medical-humanitarian visas" were issued in recent days. Secretary of State Marco Rubio today told "Face the Nation" on CBS that the action came after "outreach from multiple congressional offices asking questions about it". Rubio said there were "just a small number" of the visas issued to children in need of medical aid but that they were accompanied by adults. The congressional offices reached out with evidence that "some of the organisations bragging about and involved in acquiring these visas have strong links to terrorist groups like Hamas," he asserted, without providing evidence or naming those organisations. As a result, he said, "we are going to pause this programme and reevaluate how those visas are being vetted and what relationship, if any, has there been by these organisations to the process of acquiring those visas." Loomer on Friday posted videos on X of children from Gaza arriving earlier this month in San Francisco and Houston for medical treatment with the aid of an organisation called HEAL Palestine. "Despite the US saying we are not accepting Palestinian 'refugees' into the United States under the Trump administration," these people from Gaza were able to travel to the US, she said. She called it a "national security threat" and asked who signed off on the visas, calling for the person to be fired. She tagged Rubio, President Donald Trump, Vice President JD Vance, GOP Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat. Trump has downplayed Loomer's influence on his administration, but several officials swiftly left or were removed shortly after she publicly criticised them. The State Department on Sunday declined to comment on how many of the visas had been granted and whether the decision to halt visas to people from Gaza had anything to do with Loomer's posts. HEAL Palestine said that it was "distressed" by the State Department decision to stop halt visitor visas from Gaza. The group said it is "an American humanitarian nonprofit organisation delivering urgent aid and medical care to children in Palestine." A post on the organisation's Facebook page last Thursday shows a photo of a boy from Gaza leaving Egypt and heading to St Louis for treatment. It said he is "our 15th evacuated child arriving in the US in the last two weeks." The organisation brings "severely injured children" to the US on temporary visas for treatment they can't get at home, the statement said. Following treatment, the children and any family members who accompanied them return to the Middle East, the statement said. "This is a medical treatment programme, not a refugee resettlement programme," it said. The World Health Organization has repeatedly called for more medical evacuations from Gaza, where Israel's over 22-month war against Hamas has heavily destroyed or damaged much of the territory's health system. "More than 14,800 patients still need lifesaving medical care that is not available in Gaza," WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said Wednesday on social media, and called on more countries to offer support. A WHO description of the medical evacuation process from Gaza published last year explained that the WHO submits lists of patients to Israeli authorities for security clearance. It noted that before the war in Gaza began, 50 to 100 patients were leaving Gaza daily for medical treatment, and it called for a higher rate of approvals from Israeli authorities. The UN and partners say medicines and even basic health care supplies are low in Gaza after Israel cut off all aid to the territory of over 2 million people for more than 10 weeks earlier this year. "Ceasefire! Peace is the best medicine," Tedros added Wednesday.
The Guardian
5 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Fifa consider holding Club World Cup every two years from 2029 – and could expand it
Fifa will consider holding the Club World Cup every two years from 2029 in a move that would put more pressure on the international calendar and trigger another backlash from the Premier League and Uefa. The next Club World Cup is due to take place in four years' time, following the first expanded 32-team tournament held in the US this summer, but the world governing body is under pressure from leading clubs to make it a biennial event. Real Madrid are understood to have raised the issue of moving to a two-year cycle during talks with Fifa in Miami in June, a proposal that has gained support from other clubs who failed to qualify for this year's tournament, including Barcelona, Manchester United, Liverpool and Napoli. Chelsea received £85m in prize money for winning the competition and other big European clubs want the opportunity to take advantage of Fifa's huge revenue streams, which are being funded largely by Saudi Arabia's Surj Sports Investments. Liverpool in particular were unfortunate not to take part this year, as they met one of the qualifying criteria by being among the top eight ranked clubs in Europe, but missed out as Fifa opted to admit a maximum of two sides from a country. Chelsea and Manchester City took the English slots as recent Champions League winners. There is an exception to the limit if more than two clubs from a country win their continental competition during the qualifying period, as was the case with Brazil this year. Fifa sources said that while there is no serious consideration being given to staging the Club World Cup in 2027, the situation is likely to change after 2029, with the prospect of another tournament being held in 2031 to be explored. Fifa's hands are tied in the short-term as the international match calendar is fixed until 2030, with only the 2029 Club World Cup in the schedule, as part of a memorandum of understanding signed between Fifa and the European Clubs Association two years ago. With Fifa already facing legal action from World Leagues, an international lobby group that includes the Premier League, there is no appetite to inflame it further by ripping up the current schedule. World Leagues has filed a legal complaint to the European Commission with support from the global players' union Fifpro, accusing Fifa of 'abuse of dominance' for allegedly failing to consult them over the scheduling of the Club World Cup. Staging the new competition every two years would increase tensions still further, but there is an acknowledgement on both sides that the entire global calendar after 2030 is open for negotiation. As part of a quid pro quo for moving into the club game, sources have indicated that Fifa may be willing to remove the June international break to ease player workloads and create space for events such as the Club World Cup, although that would be opposed by Uefa, which uses summer dates to stage the finals of its Nations League competition. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion In a pre-season address last week the Premier League chief executive, Richard Masters, outlined his concerns with expanding the Club World Cup, although the biggest top-flight clubs appear to disagree. 'Fifa was put on earth really to regulate the global game and to run international football, and the Club World Cup is a move into club football,' Masters said. 'The leagues and the players have not been consulted at all on the timing and scheduling of the competition, and I think whatever iteration of it may come next, we do need to be consulted on that. 'Obviously, it does have an impact on the scheduling of the Premier League season, that much is clear. We're asking for a seat at the table, a proper discussion for the leagues.' Fifa is the process of reviewing the qualifying criteria for the 2029 Club World Cup and may lift the cap of two clubs per country, and as previously reported by the Guardian it is consulting on whether to increase the number of teams involved from 32 to 48. The men's World Cup next year and the 2031 Women's World Cup will involve 48 teams for the first time, so expanding the Club World Cup would be consistent with Fifa's tournament model. Having awarded hosting rights to this year's competition to the US without inviting tenders, Fifa is planning to run formal bidding process for future tournaments. Qatar, Spain and Morocco have all expressed interest in staging the 2029 Club World Cup, with details of the tender process expected later this year.
