‘No Trade If You Go Nuclear': Trump Claims India-Pakistan Ceasefire Followed His Warning
Last Updated:
Speaking at a White House press briefing, Trump repeated his claim that he had helped defuse last month's military tensions between India and Pakistan
US President Donald Trump said on Friday that he convinced India and Pakistan to stand down from a possible nuclear confrontation by threatening to halt all trade with both countries.
Speaking at a White House press briefing, Trump repeated his claim that he had helped defuse last month's military tensions between India and Pakistan.
'We did some great work, India and Pakistan, that was going to be maybe nuclear, we did that, we did a lot of work. I don't know if there's ever been a president that's done much more," the US President said.
VIDEO | 'No trade with US, if India, Pakistan use nuclear weapons at each other," US President Donald Trump (@POTUS) repeats mediation claims.(Source: Third Party)
(Full video available on PTI Videos – https://t.co/n147TvrpG7) pic.twitter.com/bbi87E1MCH
— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) June 27, 2025
Trump recalled issuing a firm warning to both countries, saying that if they continued with the conflict — potentially even a nuclear one — the US would halt all trade with them. He said he had instructed senior officials to cancel all deals with India and Pakistan unless they agreed to de-escalate
'What do we do? I said, look, you want to have trade with the United States. It's great, but you want to go and start using nuclear weapons on each other. We're not going to allow that. And they both agreed," he stated.
The US President has repeated the claim several times that he 'helped settle" the tensions between India and Pakistan.
However, India has been consistently maintaining that the understanding on cessation of hostilities with Pakistan was reached following direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of the two militaries.
In a nearly 35-minute phone call with Trump last week, PM Narendra Modi firmly stated that India does not and will 'never accept" mediation and that the discussions between Indian and Pakistani militaries on cessation of military actions were initiated at Islamabad's request.
(With inputs from PTI)
First Published:
June 27, 2025, 23:41 IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Gazette
16 minutes ago
- India Gazette
Oppn train guns on RSS over call to remove
New Delhi [India], June 27 (ANI): Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) general secretary Dattatreya Hosabale's comments pitching to remove the words 'secular and socialist' from the Preamble of the Indian Constitution has sparked massive outrage in the political circle with the opposition leaders and parties labelling it as an 'insult to the Constitution' and an attack on its framers, including Babasaheb Ambedkar. However, BJP leaders and alliance party Shiv Sena came to defend the RSS leader, reiterating their stand that secularism has been imported from the West and represents Western values and not Indian culture. Attacking the RSS, senior Congress leader Jairam Ramesh accused the Sangh of 'never accepting the Constitution'. He claimed that they have targeted framers of the Constitution since its inception for not being 'inspired by Manusmriti'. 'The RSS has NEVER accepted the Constitution of India. It attacked Dr Ambedkar, Nehru, and others involved in its framing from Nov 30, 1949, onwards. In the RSS's own words, the Constitution was not inspired by Manusmriti. The RSS and the BJP have repeatedly given the call for a new Constitution. This was Mr Modi's campaign cry during the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The people of India decisively rejected this cry. Yet the demands for changing the basic structure of the Constitution continue to be made by the RSS ecosystem,' read a post by the Congress leader on X. KC Venugopal lashed out at Hosabale's statement, claiming that the leader's remarks were an insult to the Constitution, a rejection of its values, and a direct attack on the Supreme Court. 'A senior RSS member surely knows that the Supreme Court declared socialism and secularism to be part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Yet, to take this stand is a clear insult to the Constitution, a rejection of its values, and a direct attack on the Supreme Court of India as well,' he posted on X. Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah cautioned that the call for the removal of the words 'secular and socialist' must not be understood as a 'casual remark' but a 'long-standing agenda' to reshape the country's democracy. He highlighted RSS' persistent opposition to the mention of the terms secularism and socialism in the Constitution, which Siddaramaiah said were the 'core values of the constitution'. He added that it was a part of the long-standing agenda of the Sangh to reshape India's democracy within their ideological purview. 'The RSS has always opposed the core values of our Constitution - secularism and socialism. Now, their leaders are once again saying these words should be removed from the Preamble. This is not a casual remark - it is part of a long-standing agenda to reshape India's democracy in their ideological image,' the Karnataka CM posted on X. Focusing on the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to the marginalised communities, the Karnataka CM said, 'If not for these constitutional values, people like me would never have had the chance to study, speak, or serve. That is the power of justice, equality, and secularism.' Siddaramaiah explained that the original Preamble didn't include 'secular and socialist' since it was obvious that India would be a socially just democracy, and these terms were added later at a time when the RSS and its affiliates were attacking these values. Lok Sabha Leader of Opposition (LoP) Rahul Gandhi added to the criticism while stating that RSS intended to violate the rights of the marginalised and the poor while enslaving them. 'The mask of RSS has come off again,' he added. 'RSS-BJP doesn't want the Constitution. They want Manusmriti. They aim to strip the marginalised and the poor of their rights and enslave them again. Snatching a powerful weapon like the Constitution from them is their real agenda,' the Congress leader posed on X. On the other hand, BJP leaders, including Union Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Union Minister Jitendra Singh, have come in defence of the remarks made by Hosabale, reiterating their argument that secularism was not fundamental to Indian culture and that 'any right-thinking person' would support such a demand as these terms were not part of the original Constitution. 'The basic sentiment of India is equality of all religions... Secularism is not the core of our culture. The word secularism was added (to our culture) during the Emergency. It should be removed... Live and let live is the basic sentiment of India... Therefore, there is no need for socialism here... There is no need for the word socialism (Samajwad) either. The country should think about this,' Chouhan told ANI. Singh emphasised that the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were added later, through the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution during the Emergency, and not by the original drafters. 'Dattatreya Hosabale has stated that the words 'secular' and 'socialist' were added to our Preamble after the Amendment. Dr Ambedkar has crafted one of the world's finest constitutions. If this was not his thinking, how did someone add these words?' the junior minister added. Shiv Sena leader Shaina NC extended support to Hosabale's suggestion while reiterating that the demand to re-examine the original draft prepared by Dr BR Ambedkar stems from the view that in a republic like India, invoking terms such as 'socialist or pseudo-secular' is no longer necessary. 'The RSS is demanding to look into the original draft of the Preamble by Dr BR Ambedkar, in which there is no mention of these words. And the socialism, secularism, that is actually a symbol of India or a symbol of civilisational ethos, then why was it not in the original draft?' Shaina NC questioned. This development comes after Hosabale questioned the legitimacy of including the terms 'socialist' and 'secular' in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution on Thursday while addressing a program on the 50th anniversary of the Emergency held at Dr Ambedkar International Centre, jointly organised by the Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts (under the Ministry of Culture), Ambedkar International Centre. He remarked that during the Emergency, terms like 'socialism' and 'secular' were forcibly inserted into the Constitution -- a move that needs to be reconsidered today. He emphasised that the Emergency wasn't just a misuse of power but an attempt to crush civil liberties. Millions were imprisoned, and freedom of the press was suppressed. He said that those who imposed the Emergency and trampled the Constitution and democracy have never apologised. If they cannot apologise personally, they should do so on behalf of their ancestors. (ANI)
India Today
28 minutes ago
- India Today
Trump says presidency is a very dangerous profession, riskier than bull riding
US President Donald Trump, during an unscheduled press briefing at the White House on Friday, reflected on the dangers of holding the nation's highest office. His remarks came as he celebrated a major US Supreme Court ruling that limits the authority of federal judges to block presidential policies with nationwide to reporters, Trump mentioned he occasionally feels physical reminders of the July 13, 2024, incident when a bullet grazed his ear during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania. "I get that throbbing feeling every once in a while," he said. "But you know what? That's okay. This is a dangerous business."advertisementTrump compared the dangers of being president to other dangerous professions. "You have race car drivers as an example, 1/10 of 1 per cent die. Bull riders, 1/10 of 1 per cent . That's not a lot, but it's - people die. When you're president, it's about 5%. If somebody would have told me that, maybe I wouldn't have run. Okay? This is, this is a very dangerous profession." Among the 45 US presidents, four have been assassinated, and some have endured severe threats or assaults. Trump is in his second term and has been targeted with numerous threats throughout and following his election ASSASSINATION ATTEMPTS In addition to the July incident, Trump allegedly evaded another assassination attempt on September 15, 2024, while golfing at his West Palm Beach resort. The perpetrator in that incident faces five federal charges and has pleaded not guilty. The July shooter, in turn, was killed by Secret Service agents after he opened fire during the Pennsylvania event when one of the attendees was killed and two others were WITH IRAN Trump also cited past intelligence that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps had planned to assassinate him, something Tehran denies. This is just days after US attacks on Iranian nuclear presidency has been characterised by vigorous rhetoric against political adversaries and a larger effort to increase executive power. On the basis of an investigation by Reuters, over 300 politically motivated acts of violence have happened in the U.S. since January 6, 2021, when a mob attacked the Capitol representing an intensely polarised and combustible period in American politics.- EndsWith inputs from ReutersMust Watch
Mint
41 minutes ago
- Mint
Trump's Court Win Opens a Path to Clear Hurdles to His Agenda
The US Supreme Court's ruling curbing the power of judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis has raised questions about whether dozens of orders that have halted President Donald Trump's policies will stand. The conservative majority's ruling Friday came in a fight over Trump's plan to limit automatic birthright citizenship. But it may have far-reaching consequences for the ability of US courts to issue orders that apply to anyone affected by a policy, not just the parties who filed lawsuits. Judges entered nationwide preliminary orders halting Trump administration actions in at least four dozen of the 400 lawsuits filed since he took office in January, according to a Bloomberg News analysis. Some were later put on hold on appeal. Nationwide orders currently in place include blocks on the administration's revocation of foreign students' legal status, freezes of domestic spending and foreign aid, funding cuts related to gender-affirming care and legal services for migrant children, and proof-of-citizenship rules for voting. The Supreme Court's new precedent doesn't instantly invalidate injunctions in those cases. But the Justice Department could quickly ask federal judges to revisit the scope of these and other earlier orders in light of the opinion. 'Fair Game' 'Everything is fair game,' said Dan Huff, a lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office during Trump's first term. A Justice Department spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment. Trump said at a press conference in the White House Friday that the administration will 'promptly file to proceed with numerous policies that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis.' Trump listed cases that they would target, including suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding and 'stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries.' The Trump administration has made it a priority to contest court orders that block policies on a nationwide, or universal, basis, although the controversy over whether those types of rulings are an appropriate use of judicial power has been brewing for years. Conservative advocates won such orders when Democratic presidents were in office as well. Noting the mounting pushback and debate, judges in dozens of other cases involving Trump's policies have limited their orders against the administration to the parties that sued or within certain geographical boundaries. Anastasia Boden, a senior attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation whose practice includes suing the federal government, said she didn't see the ruling as a total 'retreat' from judges' authority to enter universal orders going forward. Multiple Paths 'It's addressing the case where a plaintiff is getting relief that applies to everyone across the country merely because judges think that it's an important issue,' she said. 'But it doesn't change the case where the plaintiff needs that relief.' Boden offered the example of a challenge to government spending, in which the only way to halt an unlawful action would be to stop payment of federal dollars across the country, not just to individual plaintiffs or in certain areas. Trump's opponents say the justices' decision still leaves them with multiple paths to sue the administration over actions they contend are unlawful and even to argue for nationwide relief. Those options include class action lawsuits, cases seeking to set aside agency actions under a US law known as the Administrative Procedure Act and even continuing to argue that nationwide relief is the only way to stop harm to individual plaintiffs, like parties did in the birthright citizenship cases. But they also acknowledged the court significantly raised the burden of what they have to prove to win those types of orders. 'This is going to make it more challenging, more complicated, potentially more expensive to seek orders that more broadly stop illegal government action,' Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, said. 'It is watering down the power of federal courts to check government misconduct.' The Supreme Court sent the birthright citizenship cases back to lower court judges to reconsider the scope of orders pausing Trump's restrictions while the legal fight on its constitutionality continues. The justices did not rule on the core question of whether the policy itself is lawful. The administration can't fully enforce the birthright policy for at least another 30 days. Democratic state attorneys general involved in the birthright litigation highlighted language in Justice Amy Coney Barrett's majority opinion that the court didn't shut off the possibility that the states could still successfully argue for a nationwide order. Speaking with reporters after the ruling, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin said that he and his Democratic colleagues would 'assess' the impact on other cases. He said they already had been judicious in asking judges for nationwide relief as opposed to orders that restricted administration policies in specific states. 'The court confirmed what we've thought all along — nationwide relief should be limited, but it is available to states when appropriate,' Platkin said. ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
