Trump hints at expanding trade with 'brilliant' Pakistan
Listen to article
US President Donald Trump has claimed that his intervention prevented the recent India-Pakistan conflict from spiralling into a nuclear war by leveraging trade diplomacy.
In an interview with Fox News, Trump said Pakistan and India were locked in a tit-for-tat cycle of escalating hostilities. He described the episode as a major foreign policy achievement, saying it was "a bigger success than I would be ever given credit for".
"Those are major nuclear powers and they were angry. The next phase was probably ... you see where it was getting," he said, adding that the conflict could have turned "nasty" had he not stepped in to secure a ceasefire.
Speaking on the potential for a nuclear showdown, Trump said both countries had come dangerously close to war. "And I said we're gonna talk about trade. We're gonna do a lot of trade don't forget Iran wants to trade with us," he noted.
The US president said he had a productive conversation with Pakistan and expressed his desire to expand trade relations. He praised Pakistani-made products and said he would be more than happy to boost trade ties, which, in his view, remain underdeveloped.
"Ohh they would love to trade they would love to trade, they are brilliant people they make brilliant products," he noted.
Earlier, during a visit to a US military base in Qatar as part of his Gulf tour, Trump told American troops that both Pakistan and India were satisfied with the ceasefire.
He said hostilities between the two nuclear-armed neighbours had been defused after he encouraged them to shift their focus from war to economic cooperation.
The decades-old rivals halted what was described as their worst fighting in nearly thirty years after agreeing to a ceasefire on May 10. The agreement followed a series of diplomatic efforts and mounting pressure from Washington.
Pakistan welcomed Trump's mediation and maintained that it was India that approached the US seeking a ceasefire.
Reiterating his claims in the Fox News interview, Trump said that his outreach to both India and Pakistan pulled the two countries back from the brink - a move he again described as "a bigger success than I'll ever be given credit for," pointing to the "great hatred" between the two nations.
"Tensions got to a point where the next phase was probably 'nuclear'," Trump said.
When asked about foreign policy successes prior to his Middle East trip, Trump confirmed, "I did, ya," referring to the phone calls he made to both India and Pakistan. The interviewer acknowledged this as a success.
Trump described the conflict as a dangerous escalation: "It was tit for tat. It was getting deeper and more - I mean, more missiles, everyone was 'stronger, stronger' - so to a point where the next one's going to be, you know what? The N word. You know the N word is, right?"
The interviewer responded, "nuclear".
"It's the N word. That's a very nasty word, right? In a lot of ways. The N word used in a nuclear sense - that's the worst thing that can happen. And I think they were very close. The hatred was great. And I said, 'We're going to talk about trade. We're going to do a lot of trade'," Trump said.
"I'm using trade to settle scores and to make peace," he added.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US and China hold trade talks in London to ease tensions
London talks follow first public call between Trump and Xi since his return to the White House, held just days earlier. PHOTO: REUTERS Listen to article Top US and Chinese officials were meeting in London on Monday to try and defuse a high-stakes trade dispute that has widened from tariffs to restrictions over rare earths, threatening a global supply chain shock and slower economic growth. On the first of likely two days of talks, officials from the two superpowers were meeting at the ornate Lancaster House to try to get back on track with a preliminary agreement struck last month in Geneva that had briefly lowered the temperature between Washington and Beijing. Since then the US has accused China of slow-walking on its commitments, particularly around rare earths shipments. White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said on Monday that the US team wanted a handshake from China on rare earths after Donald Trump said Xi Jinping had agreed to resume shipments in a rare call between the two presidents last week. "The purpose of the meeting today is to make sure that they're serious, but to literally get handshakes," Hassett, director of the National Economic Council, told CNBC in an interview. He said the U.S. would expect export controls to be eased and rare earths released in volume immediately afterwards. The talks come at a crucial time for both economies, which are showing signs of strain from Trump's cascade of tariff orders since his return to the White House in January. Customs data showed that China's exports to the US plunged 34.5% year-on-year in May in value terms, the sharpest drop since February 2020, when the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic upended global trade. In the US, business and household confidence has taken a pummelling, while first-quarter gross domestic product contracted due to a record surge in imports as Americans front-loaded purchases to beat anticipated price increases. But for now, the impact on inflation has been muted, and the jobs market has remained fairly resilient, though economists expect cracks to become more apparent over the summer. Attending the talks in London will be US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, and a Chinese contingent helmed by Vice Premier He Lifeng. The inclusion of Lutnick, whose agency oversees export controls for the US, is one indication of how central rare earths have become. China holds a near-monopoly on rare earth magnets, a crucial component in electric vehicle motors. Lutnick did not attend the Geneva talks at which the countries struck a 90-day deal to roll back some of the triple-digit tariffs they had placed on each other. Positive collection The second round of meetings comes four days after Trump and Xi spoke by phone, their first direct interaction since Trump's January 20 inauguration. During the more than one-hour-long call, Xi told Trump to back down from trade measures that roiled the global economy and warned him against threatening steps on Taiwan, according to a Chinese government summary. But Trump said on social media the talks focused primarily on trade led to "a very positive conclusion," setting the stage for Monday's meeting in the British capital. The next day, Trump said Xi had agreed to resume shipments to the US of rare earths minerals and magnets, and Reuters reported that China has granted temporary export licenses to rare-earth suppliers of the top three US automakers. China's decision in April to suspend exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets upended the supply chains central to automakers, aerospace manufacturers, semiconductor companies and military contractors around the world. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt told the Fox News program "Sunday Morning Futures" that the U.S. wanted the two sides to build on the progress made in Geneva in the hope they could move towards more comprehensive trade talks. The preliminary deal in Geneva sparked a global relief rally in stock markets, and U.S. indexes that had been in or near bear market levels have recouped the lion's share of their losses. But Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, said while a temporary truce was possible, there was little prospect for the bilateral relationship to become constructive given broader decoupling trends and continued US pressure on other countries to take China out of their supply chains. "Everyone around Trump is still hawkish and so a breakthrough US-China trade deal is unlikely, especially in the context of other deals that are further along and prioritized," he said in an analyst note.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
America's immigration dilemma: Law, accountability, and the crisis within
For decades, America has prided itself as a land of opportunity—a magnet for dreamers, workers, and refugees. But today, under the aggressive implementation of ICE-led deportations, spearheaded by President Donald Trump's renewed enforcement drive, the country finds itself fractured. The issue is no longer just about legality—it has become a battleground of narratives, identity, and accountability. President Trump insists that 'millions and millions' of illegal immigrants—whom he categorizes as violent criminals, traffickers, sex offenders, and pedophiles—have 'invaded' the U.S. According to him, his administration's duty is to remove these threats through mass deportations, often carried out with military-style precision. ICE raids in cities like Los Angeles, where five individuals with criminal pasts were arrested on June 7, are presented as success stories. But a deeper question lurks behind these headlines: if such individuals are indeed dangerous and illegal, how did they get into the country in the first place? As a legal immigrant myself, my family and I embarked on a long and arduous journey. We applied in 2007 for family-sponsored immigration and were not approved until 2024. Seventeen years of background checks, verification of employment, travel history, character assessment, and criminal records—all under the scrutiny of U.S. immigration services. It is a stringent, sometimes grueling, system that leaves little room for error. If followed diligently, it is almost impossible for someone with a dubious past to pass through. This raises troubling questions. How do individuals with criminal records—those labeled as drug dealers, violent offenders, or sex criminals—make it into the U.S. undocumented? What loopholes exist? And more importantly, who allowed it? Beyond bureaucratic lapse, another profound and often overlooked truth must be acknowledged: every wave of immigration has often been triggered by destruction caused by the United States and its allies. The Syrian crisis, spurred by U.S.-led regime change attempts, created millions of refugees—many welcomed into the United States. The U.S. invasion of Iraq unleashed chaos, civil war, and displacement, compelling thousands of Iraqis to seek shelter abroad. Libya, after being bombed into anarchy, witnessed similar refugee outflows. Palestinians displaced by decades of unending Israeli occupation, often with U.S. political and military backing, have also found refuge in America. The collapse of Afghanistan after two decades of NATO occupation led to a mass exodus—especially of Afghans who worked with Western forces. Most arrived with no paperwork or formal identity verification, given the country's primitive recordkeeping systems. Yet, many were fast-tracked into the U.S., bypassing the very scrutiny imposed on legal immigrants from stable nations. This uncomfortable truth demands moral clarity: if undocumented immigrants are subject to the full weight of the law, then those policymakers and officials who created the conditions for their displacement, or allowed their entry without due diligence, must also be held accountable. It is a shared responsibility—one that begins not at the border, but in the war rooms and foreign policy chambers where these crises were ignited. There appears to be no structured inquiry or investigation into the root causes. No commissions, no accountability frameworks to identify the officials, agencies, or politicians who enabled mass illegal entry. Immigration enforcement in the U.S. has historically vacillated depending on who is in power. One administration turns a blind eye, quietly encouraging mass entry. The next tries to reverse it through high-profile crackdowns. But in the absence of institutional accountability, this cyclical dysfunction persists—feeding public anger and polarizing communities. ICE is now being weaponized not just to remove the undocumented, but to reassert political dominance. The use of unmarked vehicles, masked officers, and sudden, forceful detentions—often in front of children and elders—conveys a message of fear. It is not surprising that over 10,000 protesters recently marched through downtown Los Angeles against these raids. Many carried Mexican flags—none carried the American flag. This wasn't just a protest; it was a symptom of deeper social unrest. Critics argue that these ICE actions, while legal under the Supreme Court's allowance of 24-hour deportation notice, are being carried out in a manner that undermines constitutional due process. Rights of asylum seekers, refugees, and even undocumented residents with long-standing ties to communities are brushed aside in the name of executive orders. A nation built by immigrants is now turning its state machinery against them. Supporters of Trump's policy, on the other hand, insist that deporting illegals—especially criminals—is not just constitutional, but necessary. They point to the Clinton-era deportations of over 12 million people, Obama's deportation of 5 million, and Bush's expedited removal protocols. 'This is not new,' they argue. 'It's enforcement overdue.' But many dissenters challenge this logic. They argue that Trump is not fixing immigration—he's weaponizing it. He's framing all undocumented migrants as threats, fueling fear for political gain. His critics claim that this dehumanization is less about justice and more about re-election. Trump's rhetoric plays to a base who feel left behind—using immigrants as scapegoats for economic and social frustrations. This divide is not only ideological—it's generational, racial, and geographic. Many immigrants, including legal ones like myself, find ourselves in a complicated space. On one hand, we support the rule of law. On the other, we reject the vilification of all migrants and the blanket criminalization of entire communities. Let us remember: America is a nation of immigrants. Even Donald Trump is the grandson of Friedrich Trump, a German immigrant who arrived in the U.S. in 1885. The German Chancellor once presented Trump with his grandfather's immigration file during a White House visit—a reminder that no one, not even the president, is far removed from the immigrant experience. The real issue is not race, religion, or ethnicity. The only legitimate distinction should be between legal and illegal entry. But even that must be addressed humanely, within the framework of rights and due process. It cannot become a pretext for racial profiling, family separation, or fear campaigns. The lack of systemic accountability is the root of this chaos. Who failed to enforce border laws? Who allowed the lapse? Was it intentional? Was there bribery? Was it negligence or political strategy? These are the questions no one in Washington wants to answer. The consequences of this negligence go beyond borders. As seen in the Los Angeles protest, foreign governments—like Mexico—may begin to leverage their diaspora as political tools. If unchecked, this tactic could be replicated by other countries, introducing a dangerous element of foreign interference in domestic American affairs. In my observation of reactions on X (formerly Twitter), two dominant narratives have emerged: one, defending ICE's actions and Trump's policies as lawful and overdue; the other, denouncing the excessive force and racial undertones as unconstitutional and inhumane. Some comments suggest this is less about criminals and more about silencing immigrants—legal and illegal alike—through fear and exclusion. What, then, is the way forward? First, no society or country elsewhere in the world may be destroyed, and no country, especially one as powerful as the United States, should ever tolerate illegal immigration. The law must be upheld. But enforcement must be precise, proportional, and humane. Second, there must be rigorous accountability. Politicians, departments, and border enforcement agencies that failed in their duty must face consequences. Only then can the system regain public trust. Third, investment must be made into technology, manpower, and processes that make it virtually impossible for undocumented migrants—especially those with criminal records—to enter undetected. The U.S. has done this before during the post-9/11 anti-terrorism era. It can do it again. This is not just about protecting borders. It's about preserving the spirit of America—a land where laws are enforced, but justice is never blind to humanity. If illegal immigration is the dragon, it must be slain at its roots. Not with brutality, but with policy, accountability, and moral clarity. Let us hope that sanity prevails. Let us hope that the United States rises above political theatrics and embraces a model of immigration that is lawful, just, and worthy of the ideals it claims to defend.
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Apple braces for turbulent WWDC amid technical, regulatory storm
Listen to article Apple is facing an unprecedented set of technical and regulatory challenges as some of its key executives are set to take the stage on Monday at the company's annual software developer conference. On the technical side, many of the long-awaited artificial-intelligence features Apple promised at the same conference a year ago have been delayed until next year, even as its rivals such as Alphabet's Google and Microsoft woo developers with a bevvy of new AI features. Those unfulfilled promises included key improvements to Siri, its digital assistant. On the regulatory front, courts in the US and Europe are poised to pull down the lucrative walls around Apple's App Store as even some of the company's former supporters question whether its fees are justified. Those challenges are coming to a head at the same time US President Donald Trump has threatened 25% tariffs on Apple's best-selling iPhone. Apple's shares are down more than 40% since the start of the year, a sharper decline than Google and also lagging the AI-driven gains in Microsoft shares. Apple has launched some of the AI features it promised last year, including a set of writing tools and image-generation tools, but it still relies on partners such as ChatGPT creator OpenAI for some of those capabilities. Bloomberg has reported that Apple may open up in-house AI models to developers this year. But analysts do not believe Apple yet has what technologists call a "multi-modal" model - that is, one capable of understanding imagery, audio and language at the same time - that could power a pair of smart glasses, a category that has become a runaway hit for Meta Platforms . Google said last month it would jump back in to this category, with partners. Such glasses, which are far lighter and cheaper than Apple's Vision Pro headset, could become useful because they would understand what the user is looking at and could help answer questions about it. While Apple has focused on its $3,500 Vision Pro headset, Google and Meta have seized on the smart glasses as a cheaper way to deploy their AI software prowess against Apple in its stronghold of hardware. Meta Ray-Bans all sell for less than $400. Analysts say Apple needs to answer that challenge but that it is not likely to do so this week. "I'm not trying to replace my phone - this is a complementary thing that gives me more world context, because it's got a camera and it sees what I see, and I can talk to it in natural language," said Ben Bajarin, CEO of technology consultancy Creative Strategies. "Apple is not positioned to do that." To be sure, Apple's rivals are not decisively ahead in smart glasses. Anshel Sag, principal analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy, said Meta's Ray-Bans still lack some features and Google has not yet landed its "Gemini" model in a mass-market pair of glasses yet. "Meta has the undisputed lead, but Google is catching up fast and probably has the best-suited AI for the job," Sag said. "Vision Pro is great, but it's a showroom product that developers can use." But Bob O'Donnell, CEO of TECHnalysis Research, said it remains far from clear that smart glasses will gain wide acceptance. O'Donnell also said it is not certain that Apple is at any particular disadvantage if it partners with a company such as Google, OpenAI or even a smaller firm like Perplexity for core AI technology. So far, O'Donnell said, there is not yet strong evidence that consumers are basing major hardware-purchasing decisions on AI features. "There's an argument to be made that it's OK that (Apple) is behind because, except for the bleeding edge, most people don't care," O'Donnell said.
