'Differences Can't Be Resolved Overnight': Top US Official On India-US Trade Deal
The 25 per cent figure would single out India more severely than other major trading partners, and threaten to unravel months of talks between the two countries.
As the United States announced a tariff of 25 per cent on India, a top US official said that the differences between the two nations cannot be resolved overnight to arrive at a trade deal.
Speaking to the reporters late on Thursday, he said, 'Our challenges with India—they've always been a pretty closed market… there are a host of other kinds of geopolitical issues."
'You've seen the president express concern about, you know, membership in BRICS, purchases of Russian oil and that kind of thing," he added.
The official stated that there were constructive discussions with India on the subject, adding, 'These are complex relationships and complex issues, and so I don't think things can be resolved overnight with India."
His remark came after US President Donald Trump on Wednesday had said that the trade deal with India was still being negotiated, hours after he announced a 25 per cent tariff on goods imported from the country starting on Friday.
The 25 per cent figure would single out India more severely than other major trading partners, and threaten to unravel months of talks between the two countries, undermining a strategic partner of Washington's and a counterbalance to China.
However, New Delhi has pushed back against these demands, pointing to its historic relationship with Russia and its own economic interests.
BRICS, which counts India among its core members, has been described by Trump as adversarial to the U.S. The group has rejected this portrayal, insisting its purpose is to champion the collective interests of its members and other developing economies.
Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated!
view comments
First Published:
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
P Chidambaram writes: Military boldness, political timidity
During the debate in both Houses of Parliament last week, the government gave the impression that Operation Sindoor had been finally paused, the goals had been achieved, and it is back to the usual way of doing things. That would be wrong. The truth is, the military was playing a tough game when the civilian government forcibly snatched the ball. Operation Sindoor has busted some myths: that fighting a war against Pakistan will be easy, that India's superiority in conventional war will prevail, and that India has friends and Pakistan none. The military leadership was exemplary. Apparently, they asked for and got operational freedom. The Indian armed forces' first-mover advantage gave them early wins: 9 places that hosted terrorist infrastructure were demolished and several terrorists were killed. However, Pakistan's armed forces quickly recovered. They counter-attacked on May 7-8 using China-made aircraft (J-10), China-made missiles (PL-15) and drones acquired from Türkiye. Realising that 'tactical mistakes' had been made, the military leadership paused the operation and 're-strategised'. That is leadership. It re-launched the Operation on May 9-10, struck at 11 military airbases and severely damaged them. Inevitably, the Indian armed forces suffered some 'losses', and the Chief of Defence Staff and the Deputy Chief of Army Staff admitted the losses. That too is leadership. Contrast the political leadership. It will not admit the mistakes or the losses. Like an ostrich whose head is buried in the sand, it maintains that India scored a 'decisive victory' in Operation Sindoor. If there was a decisive victory, why did India not press its advantage, secure more military gains, and demand and obtain from Pakistan political concessions? Why was the first outreach by the DGMO, Pakistan accepted immediately and without conditions? There were no answers from the government. [A celebrated example of a decisive victory was the surrender of Pakistan's General Niazi to India's Lt General Aurora on December 16, 1971.] Nor will the political leadership acknowledge the reality: Pakistan and China have forged strong military and political bonds. China is supplying new generation fighter aircraft and missiles to Pakistan. Obviously, China was testing its military hardware in a battlefield in a real war. The military bond is visible. On the political front, China's foreign minister Wang Yi praised Pakistan's 'resolute action on terrorism'. China also voted in favour when IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank approved large amounts of loans to Pakistan. The other reality is that Pakistan's (at least the Pakistan military's) bonds with the United States are firmly in place. President Trump invited General Asim Munir, Pakistan's Army Chief, to lunch at the White House, an unprecedented honour to a person who is not Head of State or Head of Government. Mr Trump thanked General Munir 'for not going into the war and ending the war', and gloated again that he had brought about the ceasefire. The Prime Minister and the Home Minister do not miss an opportunity to rebuke the Opposition but dare not rebut or refute President Trump or President Xi or their foreign ministers. The overwhelming reality is that the US and China are on the same page in their support to Pakistan militarily, politically and economically. Keeping aside their differences, the US and China have decided to support and patronise Pakistan. Worse, every country to which India reached out offered sympathy for the victims of the Pahalgam attack and condemned terrorism but did not condemn Pakistan as the perpetrator. India's political leadership refuses to acknowledge the reality and continues to nurture the false belief that Pakistan is friendless and India has friends all over the world. The other delusion of the Indian political leadership is that the 'terror ecosystem' has been smashed in Jammu & Kashmir. The truth is different. Ministry of Home Affairs disclosed to the all-party meeting on April 24, 2025 (immediately after the Pahalgam attack on April 22) that, between June 2014 and May 2024, there were — Undeniably, there were terrorist incidents and casualties in the governments of A B Vajpayee (1998-2004) and Manmohan Singh (2004-2014) as well. The terror ecosystem is populated by Pakistan-based infiltrators and India-based extremists, especially in Kashmir. Often, they work together, strike together and help each other. On April 26, the government demolished several houses in Kashmir of suspected 'terrorists associated with the Pahalgam massacre' — the owners were obviously India-based. In June 2025, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) arrested two Indians for harbouring the suspected terrorists. The suspected terrorists were neutralised on July 27-28 and identified as infiltrators. India-based terrorists have committed terrorist attacks in the past. For example, Mumbai witnessed terror attacks in 2006 (suburban train bomb blasts), 2008 (Tajmahal Hotel) and 2011 (Zaveri Bazaar). The 2006 incident was committed by India-based terrorists, the 2008 attack was by 10 Pakistani infiltrators including Kasab, and the 2011 incident was by India-based terrorists. The government's claim that the terror ecosystem in India has been dismantled is manifestly wrong. The failure of intelligence and the absence of security forces in Pahalgam led to the tragedy. No one in the government has taken responsibility. The military's gains in Operation Sindoor will have a deterrent effect on Pakistan but the political leadership's timidity before the US and China may cancel the gains and give encouragement to Pakistan.
Indian Express
7 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Tavleen Singh writes: Trump and his trumpeter
This week I was planning to write about Narendra Modi's image both here and in foreign lands. Readers of this column regularly berate me for writing more often about the Dynasty than the Prime Minister. They charge me with 'hatred' of the Gandhi family and troll me viciously. I was planning to bow to the demands of the box office and comment on Modi's stature at home and abroad. Especially abroad where on the world stage the most powerful leaders today are a collection of clowns, tyrants and brutal warmongers. This subject will have to be postponed for another time because Rahul Gandhi, always irresistible, said something that was so weird and mysterious that I found it hard to ignore. Days after he challenged the Prime Minister to say 'Donald Trump, you are a liar' inside the Lok Sabha, he suddenly found himself on Trump's side. The President of America, as has now been widely reported, said that the Indian economy was dead. A comment that in the eyes of most political analysts was both offensive and foolish but not in the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition. When reporters accosted him outside Parliament House and asked what he thought about Trump's remark, he said, 'But the Indian economy is dead. Trump is right. Everybody knows that the Indian economy is a dead economy…except the Prime Minister and the finance minister.' He added that the BJP had destroyed the Indian economy to help Gautam Adani. Now I am no economist, but you do not need to be one to know that this remark is both bizarre and bewildering. But, very much in keeping with the economic ideas Rahul Gandhi expressed during the election campaign in 2019 when it was Anil Ambani he was obsessed with. Remember those days when he and his sister campaigned with toy fighter jets in their hands to make the point that Modi made money out of buying Rafale jets. Mr. Ambani, in his view, was the launderer of this bribe. This was never established. Never proved. So Ambani was forgotten. To come back, though, to the 'dead Indian economy', may I say that Rahul Gandhi appears not to have any memories of those years when Granny was prime minister and the Indian economy was dead, dead, dead. Ask anyone who lived through those times, and they will tell you what shopping for groceries used to be like. There were shortages of the kind that countries experience only when there has been a war or a massive natural disaster. We queued and queued and queued. Daily necessities like bread, milk and sugar were always in short supply. And, when it came to 'luxuries' like cars, you could remain in the queue for ten years. The richest Indians did not dare invest for the fear that if they exceeded their quotas to produce cars, scooters and air-conditioners, they could be fined and sometimes jailed. The only businessmen who thrived in those times were smugglers. They smuggled in gold and household goods like toasters, irons, kettles, coffee makers and mixers and sold them for a huge profit. As for us ladies, we would sneak off to smugglers in Karol Bagh to buy cosmetics, perfumes and fancy underwear. Things began to change only when the license raj ended. And one of the beneficiaries of this was Narendra Modi. I have never forgotten that first campaign of his when he talked of how government had no business to be in business. One of the reasons why people like me supported him was because of the hope that he would dismantle what remains of the licence raj and curb the evil officials who end one regulation only to make two more. They lived better in those central planning days than big businessmen and they had more power. They could destroy major industrialists with just a single signature. And they knew that they would get away with this because the political leaders who were their bosses were all lefties of the most committed kind. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to understand the real meaning of a 'dead economy', he needs to go back to his economics tutor and ask him to loan him some books on Nehruvian socialism. A short course is all he needs, not a degree, but a short course is essential because he leads our oldest political party and the only one that can challenge the BJP. Meanwhile, he would do well to keep his economic ideas to himself because they are ideas that are truly dead. My grievance against Modi is that he has failed to dismantle the remnants of the licence raj. He allows his bureaucrats too free a hand to make rules and regulations that crush real enterprise. Government-sponsored startups and unicorns are just a new incarnation of the public sector. What we need is a new generation of economic reforms that would truly make it easier to do business and India will take off beyond anyone's imagination. Trump's tariffs could turn into a real opportunity for India instead of being the threat that they currently appear to be. But for this to happen, Modi needs to remember that he once believed that the government had no business to be in business. Meanwhile, Rahulji can go back to his economics tutor and ask him to explain clearly why the Indian economy is not dead.
India Today
7 minutes ago
- India Today
Ex-Trump prosecutor Jack Smith faces probe by US federal agency
A US federal agency has opened a formal investigation into former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who oversaw two criminal probes into President Donald Trump following his first term in the White Office of Special Counsel confirmed to Reuters that it was investigating whether Smith violated the Hatch Act, a law prohibiting federal employees from using their position for political activity. The decision follows a request for a probe by U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, an Arkansas OSC is an independent agency that probes the conduct of federal employees, but it does not have the authority to bring criminal charges. It is different from the type of Special Counsel's office previously overseen by Smith, who was appointed by the Department of Justice to pursue criminal cases. The OSC's investigation, which was first reported by the New York Post, is the latest in a series of actions taken by Trump and his allies against theirperceived political who resigned from his post in January following Trump's election victory, could not immediately be reached for this week Cotton accused Smith of aggressively pursuing his cases against Trump with the aim of hurting his presidential campaign, calling Smith "a political actor masquerading as a public official" in a series of posts on X."That's why I've asked this unprecedented interference in the 2024 election be immediately investigated by OSC," Cotton wrote on X.A former war crimes prosecutor, Smith brought two criminal cases against Trump: one accusing him of illegally retaining classified material and another related to Trump's attempts to overturn his 2020 election loss, an effort that sparked the January 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. case went to trial, having been delayed and buffeted by a series of legal challenges, including a ruling by the Supreme Court's conservative majority that granted former presidents broad immunity from criminal dropped both cases after Trump won the election, citing a longstanding Justice Department policy against prosecuting a sitting president, but issued a report in January saying the evidence he gathered would have been enough to convict Trump at denied wrongdoing and assailed the prosecutions as politically motivated attempts to damage his campaign.- Ends
