
Trade war: 'Not planning to extend tariff pause after July 9', says Donald Trump; India's trade team extends US stay
US President
has said he does not plan to extend the 90-day pause on additional global tariffs beyond July 9, even as India's trade delegation extended its stay in Washington in a final push to iron out differences before the deadline.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The in-person negotiations between Indian and US officials, initially scheduled to run through June 27, were extended by a day, raising hopes of an interim trade agreement, Bloomberg reported, quoting officials.
India is seeking full exemption from the additional 26 per cent reciprocal tariff announced by the US on April 2. While the tariff was suspended for 90 days, the 10 per cent baseline tariff imposed by Washington remains in place.
Meanwhile Trump, in an interview with Fox News said he does not plan to extend the pause. "I don't think I'll need to," he said. "I could, no big deal."
Letters notifying countries of the upcoming tariffs will begin going out "pretty soon," he said. "We'll look at how a country treats us — are they good, are they not so good — some countries we don't care, we'll just send a high number out," Trump told Fox News.
Those letters, he said, would state: "Congratulations, we're allowing you to shop in the United States of America, you're going to pay a 25 per cent tariff, or a 35 per cent or a 50 per cent or 10 per cent."
The high tariffs, first announced on April 2, are set to be enforced unless individual countries reach trade agreements with the US. "There's 200 countries, you can't talk to all of them," Trump said. The Trump administration had set a goal of reaching 90 trade deals in 90 days
Meanwhile, the Indian side continues to resist key US demands, including Washington's push to open India's agricultural market to genetically modified crops — an ask New Delhi has rejected, citing risks to farmers.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
India is also unwilling to sign a deal that doesn't address both sectoral access and reciprocal tariffs on its exports, Bloomberg earlier reported.
Despite the challenges, Trump said last week that "a very big" deal with India was likely soon.
Why deal matters
For India, the goal is to protect sensitive sectors while gaining entry into the US market, the largest for global consumers. For the United States, the focus is on narrowing trade deficits, increasing its exports, and strengthening ties with a strategic partner as trade frictions with China continue.
What are USA's demands
The United States is urging India to open up sectors such as agriculture, dairy, and energy, and to reduce tariffs on products like soy, wheat, corn, ethanol, and apples, many of which are significant US exports to China. Washington is also seeking market access for genetically modified (GM) crops in India.
India, however, is resisting these demands, particularly in agriculture and dairy, citing the importance of safeguarding farmers and maintaining the Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanism.
Negotiations have at times been marked by tension, as TOI reported earlier.
What India wants
At the beginning of the negotiations, the Indian government aimed to secure zero-duty access for several key export items, including textiles, leather products, pharmaceuticals, certain engineering goods, and auto parts. As TOI reported earlier that while American negotiators have shown interest in concluding the deal, they have conveyed to their Indian counterparts that the Trump administration is not in a position to offer zero tariffs immediately.
Separately, India has also sought protection from any future tariff measures once an agreement is reached.
Moreover, agriculture and dairy sectors are difficult and challenging areas for India to give duty concessions to the US. India has not opened up dairy in any of its free trade pacts signed so far.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
21 minutes ago
- First Post
How Trump had his way in Nato's Hague Summit
Nato allies spared no effort in putting the US president at ease at the two-day Hague summit. However, it was more evident than ever that the US and Europe no longer see themselves as sharing a common enemy read more The Nato Summit, held recently on June 24–25 in The Hague, has been described as both 'transformational' and 'historic'. 'We're witnessing the birth of a new Nato,' said Finland's President Alexander Stubb. Following the conclusion of the summit, the White House stated: 'In a defining moment for global security, President Donald J Trump achieved a monumental victory for the United States and its allies, brokering a historic deal to dramatically increase defense contributions across the Nato alliance — marking a new era of shared responsibility and strength in the face of global threats.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Nato is a political and military alliance of countries from Europe and North America. Its members are committed to protecting each other from any threat. It was created by 12 countries from Europe and North America on April 4, 1949. Since then, 20 more countries have joined Nato through 10 rounds of enlargement. At present, Nato has 32 member countries—30 from Europe, besides the USA and Canada. These countries, called Nato Allies, are sovereign states that come together through Nato to discuss political and security issues and make collective decisions by consensus. The principle of collective security is at the heart of Nato's founding treaty. Article 5 of Nato's Charter says that 'The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all,' and that 'if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area'. Recent geopolitical shifts, particularly Trump's stance on burden-sharing, have raised concerns about Nato's future. In his first term as president, Trump had repeatedly threatened to withdraw US forces from Europe as part of his 'America First' policy. Moreover, Trump had also declared that he was not going to protect Nato members that failed to meet their defence spending targets. Therefore, during the run-up to the Nato Summit at The Hague, there were anxieties among the other Nato members that if the US withdrew from Nato, it would have enormous strategic consequences as Russia would get emboldened to be more aggressive towards its European neighbours. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In 2023, the US Congress had passed a legislation requiring Congressional assent for any US withdrawal from Nato. Even so, the procedure for withdrawal remains relatively straightforward, requiring only one year's notice under Article 13 of the North Atlantic Treaty. Given Trump's threats in his first term that he would not protect allies who failed to spend enough on defence and even quit Nato, the stakes for this intergovernmental military alliance have been high. Not surprisingly, Trump's Nato allies spared no effort in putting him at ease at the two-day summit, and he completely dominated the summit. There are some important takeaways from the recent Nato Summit. The first takeaway is the big hike in defence spending. Nato members have committed to a 5 per cent defence spending target which has to be reached within a decade. It's a remarkable jump from the current 2 per cent guideline, which too isn't met by eight Nato members out of 32. Only 3.5 per cent of that figure is meant to be achieved entirely through core defence spending on troops and weapons. The remaining 1.5 per cent can be shown as being for 'defence-related expenditure'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Thus, Trump returned to Washington with a deal which he was happy with. The other member states had agreed to increase their Nato spending, which is what he wanted. As he put it, 'I left here differently. I left here saying that these people really love their countries. It's not a rip-off, and we're here to help them protect their country.' However, not all European Nato members came on board. Spain officially refused to be a party to the agreement, while Slovakia had reservations. The second major takeaway, which is important from the point of view of the European countries, is that the Nato Summit declaration reaffirmed its commitment to provide support to Ukraine. The declaration called it an 'enduring sovereign commitment' towards Ukraine's defence and its defence industry. The declaration also stated that the security of Ukraine contributes to their own, and to this end they would make direct contributions towards Ukraine's defence and its defence industry. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is generally felt that the European Nato members persuaded Trump to agree to this in return for their pledges to increase defence spending. Significantly, the declaration stated that contributions to Ukraine's security could be included by members when calculating their own defence spending. This is important in the context of their being able to meet the 5 per cent defence spending target. The third takeaway is that there are some important signals about how things are changing. The recent Nato summit communique is much shorter and its language much weaker as compared to previous years. The statement issued after last year's Nato Summit in Washington had stated that Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine has shattered peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and gravely undermined global security. It had also said that Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to the Nato Allies' security. In contrast to this, the declaration issued after the recent Nato Summit in The Hague does not even mention the Russian invasion of Ukraine, though it does make a reference to 'the long-term threat posed by Russia to Euro-Atlantic security'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Again, while the Nato Summit held in Washington last year under then-US President Joe Biden had issued a declaration that mentioned Ukraine 59 times, this year's much shorter declaration only has two mentions of Ukraine. It is clear that other Nato leaders were deferential towards US President Donald Trump, who has for years embraced Putin and sharply criticised Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The fourth big takeaway is that The Hague summit declaration is not only very short, but it is also focused on portraying the alliance solely in terms of military capability and economic investment to sustain that. The declaration of every Nato summit after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has used the same form of words: 'We adhere to international law and to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and are committed to upholding the rules-based international order.' The declaration issued by The Hague Summit on June 25 conspicuously does not have any mention of international law, the UN Charter or a rules-based international order. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In the unfolding scenario, questions regarding the future of Ukraine are particularly important, particularly as US support for Ukraine has dried up under Trump. Last year, at the Nato Summit in Washington, Zelenskyy was feted by the then US President Joe Biden and secured a pledge from Nato that Ukraine's push for membership was 'irreversible'. This year – despite Nato chief Mark Rutte insisting that remains the case – the final declaration of the summit had no mention of Ukraine's bid to join. In essence, Trump has ruled out Nato membership for Kyiv, and Zelenskyy, who has been vociferous on the subject before, was quiet this time round at the Nato Summit in The Hague. In fact, Zelenskyy was left largely on the margins of this Nato summit, though he managed to get a closed-doors meeting with US President Donald Trump. While Zelenskyy was successful in securing aid for Ukraine from Europe, he did not make much progress with the US, which had been Ukraine's most important benefactor and whose equipment had been critical for checking Russia's advance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At a press conference following the meeting with Zelenskyy, Trump acknowledged that it is 'possible' that Putin has ambitions to invade a Nato country, but when asked whether money and equipment will still flow from Washington to Kyiv, he appeared to show reluctance. On the issue of giving Ukraine additional Patriot air defence systems, which it badly needs, Trump said that 'we're going to see if we can make some available — they're very hard to get". As regards financial aid to Ukraine, Trump said, 'As far as money going, we'll see what happens.' Though there were none of the bumper pledges of new weaponry to Kyiv that had been a hallmark of earlier gatherings, a consolation for Zelensky was Trump's remark, 'I had a good meeting with Zelensky. He's fighting a brave battle. It's a tough battle.' Trump added, 'Vladimir Putin really has to end that war. People are dying at levels that people haven't seen before for a long time'. While Trump said that he would talk again soon to Russian President Vladimir Putin to push stalled peace efforts, he made no mention of any possible sanctions on Moscow for stalling on these talks. Trump called the summit outcome 'a monumental win for the United States' and 'a big win for Western civilisation'. However, what this recent Nato summit and the run-up to it made quite clear is that the US and Europe no longer perceive themselves as having the same common enemy. Europe is focused on Russia as the major threat to international peace, while the US is devoting more attention to the increasingly bellicose China. Their perceptions are not identical at all, and this undeniable fact is important for understanding how global geopolitics is unfolding. The writer is a retired Indian diplomat and had previously served as Consul General in New York. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
24 minutes ago
- First Post
Trump revives proposal for Israel-Hamas ceasefire in Gaza, release of hostages: Report
After a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, US President Donald Trump has revived talks for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip and the release of remaining hostages taken during the October 7 terrorist attack, according to a report. read more Israeli military patrols near the Al Shifa Hospital compound in Gaza City amid the ongoing ground operation against Hamas in the northern Gaza Strip on November 22, 2023. (Photo: Reuters) After brokering a ceasefire in the Israel-Iran war, US President Donald Trump has revived talks to end the war in the Gaza Strip, according to a report. The Israel-Hamas deal reached in January collapsed in March and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel ordered the resumption of attacks. Several thousands of Palestinian casualties have been reported since the resumption of attacks, many of them as they gathered to receive humanitarian aid. The Jerusalem Post has reported that Trump has revived talks for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza and the release of remaining hostages taken during the October 7 terrorist attack. A US source said that the administration was 'optimistic' about reaching the deal. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Trump came to power with the promise of ending wars in Gaza and Ukraine. Instead, he entered a new war with Iran. Moreover, instead of ending the war in Gaza, he has become party to the conflict by announcing the takeover of Gaza and conversion of the strip into a resort town after the expulsion of all Palestinians. The declaration, which critics say amounts to ethnic cleansing, would effectively killed the two-state solution. 75% work done for Israel-Hamas deal: Source A source told The Post that 75 per cent of issues have been resolved in recent weeks. 'The remaining 25 per cent includes key matters such as the humanitarian situation, the conclusion of the war itself, and the guarantees Israel is demanding to prevent Hamas from rearming,' the source said. One option being discussed is the exile of Hamas leaders from Hamas once a ceasefire is reached, according to the newspaper. Hamas has previously rejected the idea. Around the same time that the report emerged, it was reported that Netanyahu held a meeting with senior ministers and defence officials on Sunday to discuss the war in Gaza. The Post reported that that one of the questions discussed in the meeting was whether Israel should send a delegation for indirect talks with Hamas either to Qatar or Egypt.


Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How Zohran Mamdani turned his Hinge match into a political strategy for Gen Z voters
When a political leader casually mentions meeting their spouse via an app-assisted meet-cute, it catches your attention. When they go on to say, 'There is still hope in those dating apps,' it screams #relatable. Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for New York's mayoral elections, an Internet sensation and the chosen Gen Z messiah, is proof that a politician's love life doesn't need to be a scandal or a secret. The 33-year-old Indian-American got one step closer to being the next mayor of NYC by winning the Democratic primary election on June 24 against his main challenger, and party veteran, Andrew Cuomo. His campaign strategy so far points to a fundamental shift in what it takes for younger generations to feel the sparks between them and their representatives. Mamdani shared that he met his partner, Syrian-American artist Rama Duwaji, on Hinge during a podcast interview. In another social media post with Indian comedian Kaneez Surka, Mamdani made modern-day romance (or the lack of it) an electoral matter. Surka rather cheekily asks Mamdani, 'New Yorkers want to know how are you going to help single people find love.' Mamdani reiterated how he met his partner, and added, 'The love of your life may currently be too stressed about whether they can afford the most expensive city in the US to find you. Affordability is about romance!' The answer hit more than just a campaign check box. It spoke to a generation which has just begun venturing into the political arena. A 2023 survey found that one-third of Gen Z voters wished they had known more about the candidates running in the 2022 US midterm elections, compared to 21 per cent of Millennials and 11 per cent of those from Generation X. A lot has already been written about Mamdani's earnest, no-holds-barred social media clips. The boomers may sneer at his 'flippant' campaign style, but the youngsters were hooked. Mamdani calls his approach the 'politics of no translation', meaning direct communication without intermediaries. As he explained to The Guardian: 'We believe in a politics of no translation, one that is both direct to the struggles of working people's lives and also delivered directly.' For decades, campaigns of largely older sections of political leaders operated through carefully controlled information flows: press releases and heavily media-trained public appearances. Personal details were either completely off-limits or structured to serve narratives. Politicians spoke about their families in terms that revealed nothing genuinely candid. Mamdani broke this mould. He has owned up to his immigrant story (he moved to New York when he was seven), cringed at his rap past as 'Mr Cardamom' and even used a mango lassi analogy to explain the electoral process to his desi voters. From Deewar edits and Karz dialogues to a reel making fun of himself for awkward hand-waving in videos, Mamdani is a man after the Gen Z heart. When Mamdani shared how he navigated (and successfully at that) the awkward realities of modern-day romance, he validated an entire generation's lived experiences. It is also a nod to a crucial demographic. Most dating app users are in their late 20s and early 30s, which overlaps almost perfectly with the age group now becoming the most politically active. A 2023 article on 'TikTok's influence over Generation Z's Political Behavior' in the Journal of Social Media in Society demonstrates that social media can be an important instigator of political participation, depending on how it is used. Mamdani's approach taps into this reality with an awareness that voters who meet partners online, build careers through LinkedIn, and organise communities via social media seek leaders operating in the same digital ecosystem. It's also a strategic recognition of the 'chronically online' Gen Z's tendency to form parasocial relationships with Internet icons, now including politicians. The generational disconnect isn't unique to New York City. In India, Parliament has been getting older significantly over time. The average age of elected representatives rose from 46.5 years in 1952 to 55.6 years in 2024. This growing gap explains the lack of youth participation both as leaders and voters. When enamoured young Indians comment, 'My mayor (I'm from India)' or 'I live in New Delhi. Can I still vote for him?' on Mamdani's posts on social media, they express a desire for political leaders who understand their reality. These voters are drawn to someone speaking their language, acknowledging the digital-first 'normal' we inhabit. The 'window' of possibilities Mamdani's Hinge story suggests that the 'Overton Window of Political Possibility', a model based on how ideas in society change over time and influence politics, has shifted. What could once be put away as 'too personal' for politics is now validating and even relatable. It points to a need to acknowledge that younger voters' 'normal' experiences include digital-mediated relationships and social media-driven community building. For information-hungry voters, the trust built by 'keeping it real' has the potential to extend credibility to policy discussions. Now, voters who believe the Democratic nominee is open enough to be honest about his dating life are more likely to listen keenly to his political platform about rent freezes, free city buses, and public childcare. When communication across the board is not conventionally packaged, complex policy stances feel accessible and urgent. Mamdani's success offers a blueprint for leaders to allow themselves to be real people with real experiences, even if that means a perfect 'swiped right' story. A generation growing up online demands leaders who meet voters where they are rather than where age-old political playbooks suggest they should be. Vibha B Madhava is a sub-editor at the news desk for She is interested in writing about gender, culture and politics of ableism. Having specialised in digital journalism, she is keen to explore various forms of interactive, multimedia storytelling. Apart from that, she also likes to experiment with social media. Qualification, Degrees/other achievements: Bachelor's degree in Media and Communication from Manipal Institute of Communication, Manipal Academy of Higher Education. PG Diploma in Integrated Multimedia Journalism from Asian College of Journalism, Chennai. With The Indian Express, this is Vibha's first stint in pursuing journalism in a full-time capacity. Previous internship experience: Deccan Herald, Bengaluru; The News Minute, Bengaluru; The Mojo Story; Radio Indigo 91.9 and Fever FM 94.3 (Hyderabad) You can find her on Twitter as @VibhaBMadhava , on LinkedIn (Vibha B Madhava), or write to her at ... Read More