US slaps 26% tariff on India amid ongoing bilateral trade talks
NEW DELHI, April 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. slapped a 26% reciprocal tariff on India in a setback to the South Asian country's expectation of getting relief from President Donald Trump's global trade policy that has unnerved world markets for weeks.
The reciprocal tariff will be effective from April 9, according to a statement from the White House.
here.
Trump's Wednesday announcement on India was part of his wider plan to impose a 10% baseline tariff on all imports from April 5 and higher duties on certain other countries including 34% on China and 46% on Vietnam.
"They (India) are charging us 52% and we charge almost nothing for years and years and decades," Trump said at the White House while announcing the reciprocal tax.
The duty of 26% was based on tariff and non-tariff barriers including currency manipulation, the Trump administration said.
India imposed "uniquely burdensome" non-tariff barriers, the removal of which will increase U.S. exports by at least $5.3 billion annually, the White House said in a statement.
The tariffs would remain in effect until Trump determined that the "threat posed by the trade deficit and underlying non-reciprocal treatment is satisfied, resolved, or mitigated," the statement added.
The U.S. has a trade deficit of $46 billion with India.
The reciprocal tariff will add pressure on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who counts himself among Trump's friends, to find ways to get India off the hook.
Last week Reuters reported that New Delhi is open to cutting tariffs on U.S. imports worth $23 billion to mitigate the impact on its exports in sectors like gems and jewellery, pharmaceuticals and auto parts.
Modi's administration has taken a number of steps to win over Trump by lowering tariffs on high-end bikes, bourbon and dropping a tax on digital services that affected U.S. tech giants.
Before the reciprocal announcement, the U.S. tariff rates were among the lowest, with simple average tariffs at 3.3%, compared with India's 17%, the White House said.
Nigel Green, CEO of global financial advisory deVere Group, said the U.S. duties risked pushing India closer to alternative trade blocs and strategic partners.
"(This) makes Indian exports immediately less competitive ... it dents investor confidence just as India is trying to attract global capital fleeing China," he said.
Ajay Sahai, director general at the Federation of India Export Organisations, said the reciprocal tariff on India was lower than key competitors like Vietnam and Bangladesh, which could help Indian apparel and footwear sectors.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Without a Badenoch/Farage pact, the Left will rule Scotland for decades to come
Did Zia Yusuf's dramatic (and as it turns out, temporary) resignation on the day of the Hamilton by-election cost Reform the seat? Of course not. The idea that chaos in Reform puts off its voters is based on a misunderstanding of what motivates those voters. Reform exists because the older parties failed. You might argue that not all of that failure was their fault. Some of the issues that enrage the electorate – poor public services, high taxes, rising prices, dwindling social capital – are the products of a lockdown that 93 per cent of the country demanded. Others are products of our demographic decline: nations with elderly populations are bound to be less dynamic. Equally, though, there have been unforced errors and broken promises, above all on immigration. Reform is a howl of protest against those betrayals. It is an essentially negative vote, and I say that in no slighting spirit. Every party attracts negative votes. I used to get lots of them as a Conservative MEP when people wanted to punish Labour governments. Negative votes can take you, Trump-like, to the very top. I simply make the point that Reform's supporters show scant interest in their party's policies, let alone its personnel. Reform came from nowhere in the Hamilton by-election despite not having a leader in Scotland. It is hard to imagine the famously resilient electors of Lanarkshire determining their vote on the basis of an unelected party official resigning in London. If we want to play 'what if', the thing that might have given Reform the extra 1,471 votes it needed was the backing of the local Conservatives. Not every Tory would vote for Reform in the absence of a Conservative candidate, of course. Still, the electoral system used for Holyrood argues strongly for a deal at next year's Scottish Parliament election. Just as the SNP and the Scottish Greens used to maximise their representation by focusing respectively on the constituencies and the top-up list, so Reform and the Tories should do the same in 11 months' time. In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the parties have similar policies but different electorates. The Scottish Conservatives are strong in the Borders and the north-east, Reform in the more populous Central Belt. An understanding between them would leave both with more MSPs next May. Such a deal in Wales might have put Reform into office had the principality not just ditched that voting system and adopted EU-style proportional representation, but that's another story. How many Tory and Reform voters would co-operate? Although the two manifestos are compatible – lower taxes, strong defence, less wokery, secure borders, growth over greenery – tonal and aesthetic differences remain. Some Reform supporters will never vote Conservative, either because they can't forgive the tax rises and immigration failures of the last administration or, conversely, because they are former Labour voters who would never back the party of Margaret Thatcher. Some Conservatives – a smaller number – recoil from a party they see as a Trumpian personality cult. One way to express the difference is this. The Tories, after three and a half centuries, have a sense of the trade-offs and complexities involved in holding office. Reform is in the happy position of being able to claim that it is simply a question of willpower. Consider the issue of immigration. On Friday, Kemi Badenoch embarked on a major overhaul of the Blairite juridical state. She asked her shadow law officers to look at all treaties and domestic laws that hinder elected ministers from fulfilling their promises, and set five tests by which to measure success. Will we be able to deport people who should not be here, protect our veterans from 'lawfare', prioritise British citizens in housing and welfare, keep malefactors in prison, and get things built? Meeting all five tests is hard, but not impossible. Badenoch wants to take her time and get it right. But, to some, it will come across as equivocation. 'Why can't you just say now that you would leave the European Convention on Human Rights?', they ask. I have no doubt that that is where she will end up. But we need policies, not slogans. Leaving the ECHR is not a skeleton key that unlocks every door. Our problems go far deeper. Outside the ECHR, we would be constrained by numerous other international accords: the UN Refugee Convention; the Paris Agreement on climate change (under which our Australia Free Trade Agreement is being challenged in court); the Aarhus Convention, which caps costs for activist groups bringing eco-challenges. Even the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child has been used both to challenge deportation orders and to block welfare reforms. All these things need to be looked at, calmly and thoroughly. Nor is it just foreign treaties. The last Labour government passed a series of domestic statutes that constrained its successors: the Human Rights Act, the Climate Change Act, the Equality Act and a dozen more. We need to tackle these, too. What, if anything, should replace the ECHR? Do we update our own 1689 Bill of Rights? Do we offer a CANZUK version? Do we rely on pure majoritarianism? Even if all the obnoxious laws were swept away, what would we do about Left-wing activists who become judges rather than go to the bother of getting themselves elected to anything, and who legislate from the bench? Can we return to the pre-Blair arrangements where the lord chancellor is in charge? My point is that all this requires patience, detail and nuance. But a lot of voters are understandably impatient, and regard nuance as the sign of a havering milksop – a nuancy-boy, so to speak. They see not a Conservative Party determined to repair the broken state machine so that it can deliver on its manifesto, but a bunch of vacillating wets shying away from simple solutions. This worries me. Suppose that Nigel Farage were to form the next government and leave the ECHR, only to find that illegal immigrants continued to arrive, that judges continued to apply the rules asymmetrically, and that every one of his statutes ended up being snarled up in the courts? What would be the impact on our democracy? I pick the example of immigration because it is the most salient, but much the same applies across government. Reducing spending involves trade-offs, and anyone who pretends that there are huge savings to be made by scrapping DEI programmes or cutting waste has not looked at the figures. The same is true of reducing welfare claims, scrapping quangos, reforming the NHS and raising school standards. The diagnosis may be easy, but the treatment will be long and difficult, and will require more than willpower. In his response to Yusuf's resignation, Farage reminded us why he is a successful politician. He blamed Islamophobic trolls for making his party chairman's life impossible, thereby both anticipating the 'no one can work with Nigel' charge and reinforcing his non-racist credentials. The same calculation led him to condemn Tommy Robinson, and played a part in his falling-out with Rupert Lowe. Farage knows that there are hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised Muslims, many of whom, like his white supporters, are former Labour voters in decaying northern towns. Unnoticed by the national media, Farage has been reaching out to these communities. Imagine Farage's political nous and personal energy allied to the detailed policy work that the Tories are undertaking. Imagine his reach, whether in Hamilton or in some of those Muslim-dominated old industrial towns, complementing the traditional Conservative appeal to property-owners. 'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished. Next year's Scottish elections will be the first test of whether figures on the British Right are prepared to put country before party. A possible by-election in Jacob Rees-Mogg's old seat may be another. But one thing is already clear. If the two parties are taking lumps out of each other all the way to the next general election, they will lose – and they will deserve to.
BBC News
27 minutes ago
- BBC News
Zia Yusuf returning to Reform UK two days after quitting
Zia Yusuf, the ex-chairman of Reform UK who resigned on Thursday, has said he will return to the party in a new this week, Yusuf resigned, saying working to get the party elected was no longer "a good use of my time", without expanding Saturday evening, he wrote on social media that he would return to run the party's "UK Doge team", which is modelled on the Department of Government Efficiency set up by US President Donald UK leader Nigel Farage told the BBC Yusuf will take on a more public role for the party, appearing more frequently in the media. This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly. Please refresh the page for the fullest can receive Breaking News on a smartphone or tablet via the BBC News App. You can also follow @BBCBreaking on X to get the latest alerts.
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Katie Miller, Stephen Miller's wife, in a ‘tricky situation' after Musk and Trump's falling out
Katie Miller, the wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, recently departed from the Trump administration to work for Elon Musk, days before the spectacular falling out between President Donald Trump and the billionaire. The 33-year-old Miller was one of Musk's first hires as he established the Department of Government Efficiency and began reducing the federal workforce. She left the administration alongside him last week. Like Musk, she was designated as a 'special government employee' during her time in government, which allowed her to work for Musk and Trump, as well as in the private sector, simultaneously. Miller even helped to set up the departing press conference in the Oval Office featuring Musk and Trump, according to The Wall Street Journal. Musk and Trump's relationship fell apart in public on Thursday, with Musk unfollowing Stephen Miller on X. Friends of Miller told the paper that she was in a difficult position between Trump and Musk. 'Katie Miller was a critical reason DOGE was able to get off the ground and deliver massive cuts to waste, fraud, and abuse for the American people,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told the outlet. This isn't the first time that Miller has been caught in the crossfire of a Trump feud. Miller also worked for then-Vice President Mike Pence when Trump began attacking him for not aiding him in his attempt to overturn the 2020 election towards the end of his first term. However, at the time of the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, she was on maternity leave. In December last year, Miller became one of the first DOGE staffers announced by the then-president-elect. However, her work at DOGE soon became the catalyst for disagreements with the White House, where top Trump aides argued that she hadn't sufficiently convinced Musk to work alongside the administration. Top administration officials told The Journal that she often spoke on behalf of Musk, issued orders about what agencies should do, and how the government's work should be communicated. Officials were concerned about her continuing work for P2. However, she left the firm after The Journal published an article about her work there. She then also departed the White House to work for Musk, just before the blowup between the billionaire and the president. Miller has been described as having endless energy and as being fiercely protective of her husband. Current and previous co-workers told The Journal that she could go from charming to abrasive. Those who know her told the paper that she has a 'YOLO' tattoo on the inside of her lip. Miller has at times worked for clients while lobbying the government, simultaneously addressing government issues. She quickly rose through the ranks after being hired in 2015 by Republican U.S. Sen. Steve Daines of Montana. Former Daines aide Jason Thielman told The Journal that 'Everything was always at full speed, full throttle.' 'Sometimes, she just exhausted people, and they gave her what she wanted,' he added of her battles with reporters. She joined the Department of Homeland Security during Trump's first term before working for Pence. It was during her time at DHS that she met Stephen Miller. 'Every Trump White House had its divisions, but she was always willing to go to bat to protect the VP's prerogatives,' Pence's Chief of Staff Marc Short told the paper. Following the insurrection, Stephen Miller kept working for Trump, and she remained in Pence's office. While she was placed on Pence's postpresidential payroll, partly because she needed healthcare, according to Pence's advisors, his office subsequently severed connections with her after Stephen Miller began working with then-President Trump. He continued to target his former vice president. After joining the Republican consulting firm P2 Public Affairs following Trump's 2021 departure from office, she subsequently became the top point of contact between Musk and the 2024 Trump campaign. She often joined Musk at events and then began advising Robert F. Kennedy, who later became Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, now known as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Pence opposed Kennedy's appointment, and in January of this year, Miller took aim at her former boss, saying that he only had 'family values' when it was 'politically expedient' and called him a 'footnote of American history.'
