US opens student visa applications, urges applicants to follow rules
Speaking to ANI, Houston said, "Our student visa applications have opened, students can apply and submit their application but what we want students to understand when they're applying for that visa, we want them to understand that we want to see a use of that visa that is in line with their application and the students come to the United States and study and not obstruct students from studying in class, not to vandalize campuses."
She added, "Every decision we make is a US national security decision. We have these policies with the US immigration law to ensure that we are holding the highest standard for US immigration... not only to protect US citizens but also the other students studying here..."
US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Mignon Houston also told ANI that India is an "essential partner" for Washington in the Indo-Pacific region, as talks continue for a bilateral trade agreement between the two nations.
Speaking to ANI, Houston underlined the United States' aim of establishing a "fair and reciprocal" trade relationship with its partners, in line with the Trump administration's "America First" agenda.
"We want trade that is fair and reciprocal. Working closely, India is an essential partner in the Indo-Pacific and the Quad. We expect that all our partners understand why this is so important to the 'America First' agenda, that we look for trade policies that have a fairness, reciprocal, balanced way to ensure that all parties benefit," Houston told ANI.
She defended the Trump administration's decision to impose tariffs, saying unfair trade practices had harmed American farmers and industries.
"I can say writ large as it relates to the United States' position that these tariffs are a way for countries to meet us at a place of fairness. The United States has an open economy, but there are unfair trade policies that have impacted US farmers and industries," she said.
Talks between India and the US on a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) are underway, with a July 9 deadline fast approaching. The deadline marks the end of a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariff hikes.
On Tuesday, US President Donald Trump said that a trade deal between India and the United States was likely soon and promised reduced tariffs."I think we are going to have a deal with India. And that is going to be a different kind of a deal. It is going to be a deal where we are able to go in and compete. Right now, India does not accept anybody in. I think India is going to do that, and if they do that, we are going to have a deal for much less tariffs," Trump said.
Meanwhile, India has taken a firmer stand on agricultural issues as the negotiations continue. According to government sources, India's negotiating team, led by Chief Negotiator Rajesh Agrawal, has extended its stay in Washington.
The trade talks were initially scheduled for Thursday and Friday but were extended as both sides work to finalise an interim agreement before the July 9 deadline.
A senior official warned that failure to reach an agreement would result in the return of a 26 per cent tariff structure that had been temporarily suspended for 90 days. These tariffs were first imposed during the Trump administration on April 2.
"The failure of these trade discussions would trigger the immediate reimplementation of the 26 per cent tariff structure," the official said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
American CTO shares 'his story' of Soham Parekh: Indian techie used to ...
Soham Parekh An Indian software engineer Soham Parekh has been accused of moonlighting practices at multiple US startups simultaneously. Now, another American starts has shared a cautionary tale involving the techie. An American CTO has accused the Indian software engineer of emotionally manipulating him during the height of Operation Sindoor . American CTO shares 'his story' of Soham Parekh Arkadiy Telegin Arkadiy Telegin, founder and CTO of AI firm Leaping AI , shared a screenshot of his conversation with Shoam Parekh on social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter). Telegin shared screenshots of messages from Parekh, who claimed a drone had been shot down '10 minutes away' from his home during the conflict. The messages, sent at 2:29 a.m., appeared to suggest Parekh was in a war zone. However, it was later revealed he was in Mumbai, far from the active conflict areas. 'He used to guilt-trip me for being slow on pull requests while claiming to be in a conflict zone,' Telegin wrote. 'Next person should hire him as Chief Intelligence Officer.' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo The issue of Soham Parekh moonlighting at various US startup escalated when other startup founders chimed in. Flo Crivello (Lindy), Matthew Parkhurst (Antimetal), Nicolai Ouporov (Fleet AI), and Adish Jain (Mosaic) all revealed that Parekh had worked at their companies—often simultaneously—and performed exceptionally well in interviews. Soham Parekh confesses to moonlighting at Silicon Valley startups Soham Parekh has publicly admitted to working at multiple Silicon Valley startups simultaneously after being exposed in a viral social media post, claiming financial desperation drove his controversial employment scheme. "It is true," Parekh confirmed in a TBPN interview when asked about allegations of holding multiple full-time jobs. "I'm not proud of what I've done. That's not something I endorse either. But no one really likes to work 140 hours a week, I had to do it out of necessity." Parekh attributed his actions to severe financial circumstances rather than greed. "I was in extremely dire financial circumstances," he explained in the interview. "I'm not a very people person. I don't share much about what's going on in my life. So I just thought: if I work multiple places, maybe I can elevate myself out of the situation faster."
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
‘America's attitude to Britain was ruthless as it became global hegemon — China's ‘military-civil fusion' mirrors the US now'
What is the core of your research? When exactly did the 'military-industrial complex' emerge — and is this a purely American entity or a multinational force? Live Events Is there any one emerging technology which could completely redefine national security now? (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Katherine C. Epstein is Associate Professor of History at Rutgers University-Camden. Speaking to Srijana Mitra Das , she outlines, on America's Independence Day, the rise of the US ' military-industrial complex ' — and its implications:I focus on two main issues. The first is how the two most powerful, liberal societies of the modern era — Great Britain and the United States — sought to acquire the most cutting-edge secret naval technology. Upto World War I, naval technology was the most advanced on Earth — air power was in its infancy and nuclear weapons hadn't been invented. Naval procurement presented difficult challenges though — one was the tension between the government and private sector over the control of intellectual property rights (IPRs), patents and advanced new weapons which, owing to their growing sophistication, couldn't be procured by traditional methods like in-house building in public factories. As such technology grew more complex, governments began investing in private sector research and development. This raised questions about who owned the IPRs — the contractor doing the work or the government giving subsidies? Also, these weapons were so secret, governments could assume national powers over them, forbidding exports, etc. I look at the tension here between classical liberal norms of property rights and national security interests.I also study the hegemonic transition from the Pax Britannica to the Pax Americana — this change, where the US became global hegemon over Britain, was much more contested and rivalrous than often thought. Considerable evidence shows Britain was quite unhappy — and the US, quite ruthless — about the American pursuit of power at Britain's expense. I argue the US behaviour towards Britain then anticipated Chinese behaviour towards the United States today. This is reflected in US tech imports, through pursuit and theft, which China has apparently done, and in terms of US efforts to build a navy, financial infrastructure, global telecom, etc., that rivalled Britain in much the same way China has been doing the US, the canonical description of the 'military-industrial complex' comes from President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 address — Eisenhower warned this system threatened many American liberties. He defined it as the conjunction of a large military establishment with a permanent arms industry. There were huge changes in military production with World War II and the early Cold War. However, drawing from Benjamin Cooling's work, my research finds the first 'military-industrial complex' in America was naval and emerged in the late 19th century, not as a response to any one war but driven by a set of forces — these included the industrialisation of warfare and technology, geopolitical rivalries between the great powers like the scramble for Africa, the starting of globalisation and so H. McNeill's book 'The Pursuit of Power' further traces the first military-industrial complex to 1880s Britain, emerging in response to a set of global forces that caused a naval buildup in peacetime. This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon — it exists worldwide, from South America to Japan, Russia, France, Germany, etc. China's 'military-civil fusion' has several parallels with the US military-industrial complex and vice-versa. Also, although the military-industrial complex looks like a well-oiled machine from outside — a hugely profitable global ring of arms manufacturers, etc. — inside, there are large tensions between militaries and contractors, the first, often a terrible customer who sees the second as sense is that war will always remain a human phenomenon and we can be sceptical of the ability of any technology to transform warfare. Of course, torpedoes, airplanes and nuclear weapons did change warfare — today, semiconductors and artificial intelligence could do this. However, I retain some reservations about moves like restricting the export of semiconductors to China — we need to ask if this could have been relevant in a lack of smart weapons and the proliferation of dumb weapons which cause huge civilian AI , from a national security view of threats posed, this technology makes populations stupider by undermining critical thinking. The American education system is in a dreadful state and AI's role in stunting intellectual development is a huge threat for a nation that needs educated and aware AI will only deepen the trend of the growing insulation of the American people from the violence done in their names — this has increased over the 20th century, reflected in fiscal terms and how the US has resorted to borrowing to pay for its wars rather than taxation, hiding conflict's true financial costs from also been an increasing move towards 'standoff weapons', like drones, where American bodies are not at risk and the US can effectively do violence to others without risking it for themselves. In that sense, AI and semiconductors — which are about improving the ability of weapons to do what muscle power once did — are more a continuation of a trend than something fundamentally expressed are personal
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Trump signs executive order to raise entry fees for foreigners visiting national parks
In a statement, the White House said that the revenue generated from the increased entry fees will raise hundreds of millions of dollars for conservation and deferred maintenance projects to improve national parks read more President Donald Trump speaks during a roundtable at "Alligator Alcatraz," a new migrant detention facility at Dade-Collier Training and Transition facility, on Tuesday, in Ochopee, Fla. AP file US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to raise the entry fees for foreigners visiting US national parks, even as his administration seeks to cut national park spending by more than a third. In a statement, the White House said that the revenue generated from the increased entry fees will raise hundreds of millions of dollars for conservation and deferred maintenance projects to improve national parks. 'Charging higher entrance fees to foreign tourists is a common policy at national parks throughout the world that supports both conservation and affordable access for residents,' the White House statement titled 'President Trump Makes Our National Parks Great Again' said. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The Trump administration has defended the order, saying that it promotes fairness as American taxpayers help fund national parks and public lands through their taxes, but foreigners pay the same amount as they do to enter. The executive order comes as the Trump administration has proposed cutting more than $1 billion from the Park Service budget in fiscal 2026, which would represent a reduction of more than a third of the agency's budget from the prior year. Permanent staffing at the Park Service since Trump took office in January has dropped 24 per cent, while just 4,500 of the 8,000 seasonal workers his administration pledged for this summer have been hired, according to an analysis on Wednesday from the National Parks Conservation Association, a watchdog-advocacy group. 'During President Trump's first term, he signed the Great American Outdoors Act—the single largest investment in America's national parks and public lands in history and the most significant conservation achievement since Teddy Roosevelt's presidency,' the statement said. With inputs from agencies
