How Modi's US visit could add to China's growing list of worries
The read-out also added that 'both leaders emphasised their commitment to advance the US-India strategic partnership and the Indo-Pacific Quad partnership, with India hosting Quad leaders for the first time later this year'. The US is India's largest trading partner. Two-way trade in 2023-24 was worth US$118 billion, with India having a surplus of US$32 billion. Trump had earlier described China, India and Brazil as 'tremendous tariff-makers', and in his first term he urged Modi to lift tariffs on the US-made Harley-Davidson motorcycle. In a signal to Washington, the annual budget presented in New Delhi on February 1 announced major cuts to import tariffs including for high-end motorcycles. Senior officials in the Ministry of Finance claimed that India wants to shed the image of being a protectionist nation and that it is not a 'tariff king'. While the new and disruptive Trump-triggered trade tariffs and related protocols are an issue with which every major trading partner of the US – including China – is grappling, the more complex dilemma for Delhi is in the security-strategic domain.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South China Morning Post
4 minutes ago
- South China Morning Post
Russia offers India ‘special mechanism' to keep buying its oil, amid Trump tariff threat
Russia expects to continue supplying oil to India thanks to a 'special mechanism' despite warnings from the United States , Russian embassy officials in New Delhi said on Wednesday, adding that Moscow hopes trilateral talks will soon take place with India and China. US President Donald Trump has announced an additional tariff of 25 per cent on Indian goods exported to the US from August 27, as a punishment for buying Russian oil, which constitutes 35 per cent of India's total imports compared with a negligible 0.2 per cent before the Ukraine war. top aide to Donald Trump earlier this month accused India of effectively financing Russia's war in Ukraine by buying oil from Moscow. 'I want to highlight that despite the political situation, we can predict that the same level of oil import [by India],' Roman Babushkin, the charge d'affaires at the Russian embassy in India, told a press briefing. He predicted India and Russia would find ways to overcome Trump's latest tariffs in their 'national interests'. Trade talks between India and the US broke down over the opening up of India's vast farm and dairy sectors, as well as its purchases of Russian oil. The total tariff announced on Indian goods entering the US is 50 per cent.
South China Morning Post
2 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
Trump slams Smithsonian for focusing on ‘how bad slavery was', threatens funding
US President Donald Trump suggested on Tuesday he will pressure the Smithsonian Institution – a premier museum, education and research complex for US history and culture – to accept his demands, just like he did with colleges and universities by threatening to cut federal funding. In a social media post, Trump complained about what he called excessive focus on 'how bad Slavery was.' 'I have instructed my attorneys to go through the Museums, and start the exact same process that has been done with Colleges and Universities where tremendous progress has been made,' Trump said on social media. The Smithsonian, which was established in 1846 and includes 21 museums and galleries and the National Zoo, had no immediate comment. Most of its museums are in Washington. The White House said last week it will lead an internal review of some Smithsonian museums after Trump earlier this year accused it of spreading 'anti-American ideology' and raised alarm among civil rights advocates. The exterior of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History in Washington. Photo: Reuters When asked if Trump would threaten funding cuts to the Smithsonian based on the findings, a White House official said, 'President Trump will explore all options and avenues to get the Woke out of the Smithsonian and hold them accountable.'
AllAfrica
3 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Trump slams door on Afghan asylum seekers fleeing Taliban
Thousands of Afghans living in the United States face an uncertain future after a federal appeals court ruled on July 21, 2025, that the Trump administration can end a humanitarian relief program that provided them work permits and protection from deportation. The program, temporary protected status, known as TPS, grants legal status to people from certain foreign countries who are already in the US and have fled armed conflict or natural disasters. It's usually granted for 18 months, with an option of an extension. About 8,000 Afghans and 7,900 Cameroonians benefiting from this humanitarian protection were affected by the May 2025 decision from the administration to terminate TPS. Afghans in the US first received TPS in 2022, after the Taliban returned to power in Afghanistan in late 2021. The Taliban enforces a repressive interpretation of Islamic law that includes banning women and girls from attending school or working outside their home. The Taliban emerged in the early 1990s and controlled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. They were overthrown after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, but regained control in 2021 after the withdrawal of US and NATO forces. In 2023, the Department of Homeland Security extended TPS for Afghans through 2025, as the conditions that triggered the initial designation – namely, armed conflict in Afghanistan – were deemed to be ongoing. In May 2025, however, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem announced the termination of TPS for Afghans, stating that Afghanistan no longer poses a threat to the safety of its nationals abroad and that Afghan nationals can safely return to their country. 'We've reviewed the conditions in Afghanistan with our interagency partners, and they do not meet the requirements for a TPS designation,' Noem said in May 2025. 'Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country.' Most Afghans who have arrived in the US since 2021 share a fear of persecution by the Taliban. That includes people who worked for the former government, advocated for women's rights or worked with the US military in Afghanistan. As a migration policy scholar, I believe the cancellation of TPS for these Afghans won't lead to voluntary repatriation, as the fear of persecution by the Taliban remains a serious concern for many. Instead, it will likely force thousands of people into unlawful residency in the US. That, in turn, would not only leave thousands at risk of deportation but limit their employment opportunities in the US and keep them from financially supporting the families they left behind in Afghanistan. Unlawful US residency can disqualify Afghans from accessing benefits such as Medicaid and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a federal program that provides cash assistance and support services to low-income families with children. For Afghan TPS holders without any other pending legal status – such as asylum claims, for example – the termination also means the loss of work authorization, as their employment authorization document was tied to having TPS. This can cut off thousands of Afghans from financial stability, according to the nonprofit group Global Refuge. Many Afghans are likely to seek alternative legal pathways to remain in the US, most commonly through the already underresourced asylum process. For these people, the outlook looks daunting. Filing an asylum application with US Citizenship and Immigration Services means joining an unprecedented backlog. Taliban security personnel stand guard as an Afghan woman walks along a street in the Baharak district of Badakhshan province on Feb. 26, 2024. Photo: Wakil Kohsar / AFP via Getty Images / The Conversation At the end of 2024, nearly 1.5 million asylum applications were pending with USCIS, according to the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy organization. Most applicants faced estimated wait times of up to six years for a decision. Asylum applicants are allowed to remain in the US while their application is pending. And they can apply for work authorization, but only after the asylum application has been pending for at least 150 days. However, the work authorization is not issued until a minimum of 180 days has passed since filing for asylum. So Afghan nationals applying for asylum following the TPS termination face a mandatory six-month period without legal work authorization. This period can stretch even longer, depending on how long it takes applicants to retain an attorney and complete the complex application process. Like many forcibly displaced populations, Afghans often arrive in the US with extremely limited financial resources. Forced migration is typically abrupt and unplanned, leaving little opportunity to liquidate assets or withdraw funds. The small amount of cash or valuables that this population manages to carry is often just enough to reach immediate safety. Against this background, the ability to work is a critical issue for Afghans in the US. Most Afghans in the US are also supporting older parents and immediate or extended family members in Afghanistan, according to unpublished research I'm conducting with my colleagues, Proscovia Nabunya and Nhial Tutlam. This makes timely access to legal employment not only a matter of survival for themselves but also a lifeline for loved ones left behind. TPS was never intended as a long-term solution. And the number of Afghan nationals who held it as their sole legal status in the US was relatively small – estimated at around 8,000 – compared with the over 180,000 Afghans who have arrived in the US since 2021. What is more concerning for Afghans in the US, however, are the government's assertions surrounding the termination of TPS for this group. If the US government now maintains that Afghanistan is safe for return, it raises concerns about how this stance may influence the adjudication of Afghan asylum claims. Although most Afghan asylum applications are grounded in a combination of factors – fears based on nationality, ethnicity, religion and political opinion – labeling Afghanistan as safe for return could undermine claims that rely on nationality as a central basis for protection. Mitra Naseh is assistant professor of migration, Washington University in St. Louis This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
