&w=3840&q=100)
What's in 'very big pact' with India as Donald Trump's tariff deadline nears?
US President Donald Trump has claimed that a 'very big' deal with India could come soon. His remarks came as Indian negotiators landed in the United States on Friday for the final round of talks on a bilateral trade agreement (BTA). But what do we know? What do experts think? read more
US President Donald Trump delivering remarks on tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington. Reuters
Is the trade deal between India and the US imminent?
US President Donald Trump has claimed that a 'very big' deal with India could come soon.
Trump's remarks came as Indian negotiators landed in the United States on Friday for the final round of talks on a bilateral trade agreement (BTA).
Trump on April 2 – which he had dubbed 'liberation day' – had announced tariffs on dozens of nations.
Trump later paused his 'reciprocal tariffs' and issued a 90-day deadline for countries to reach bilateral trade deals with America.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
That deadline is set to expire on July 9.
'Everybody wants to make a deal and have a part of it… we just signed with China yesterday. We are having some great deals. We have one coming up, maybe with India. A very big one. Where we're going to open up India. In the China deal, we are starting to open up China,' Trump said on Friday.
'We're not going to make deals with everybody. Some, we are just going to send them a letter, say thank you very much… My people don't want to do it that way. They want to do some of it, but they want to make more deals than I would do'.
But what's in this 'very big pact'? What do experts think?
Let's take a closer look:
What's in this 'very big' pact?
India's team is being led by Rajesh Aggarwal.
Aggarwal, who is the chief negotiator, will be dealing with US officials including those from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Trade between India and the United States touched $131.84 billion in the 24-25 Financial Year.
If no deal is reached, India will face a base tariff of 10 per cent – lower than the 26 per cent Trump originally imposed.
The US wants India to open up its agriculture, dairy, aviation and energy sectors.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
It wants India to reduce tariffs on soy, wheat, ethanol and corn – two of which are its top exports to China.
The US also wants less tariffs on apples.
Reports say the meetings between the two sides have been contentious at times – with the Indian side pushing back on US demands particularly when it comes to its sensitive agriculture and dairy market.
The US wants India to open up its agriculture, dairy, aviation and energy sectors, while New Delhi is looking for Washington to cut tariffs on steel and auto parts
The US also wants to sell genetically modified (GM) crops in India.
However, the Indian side is pushing back to protect Indian farmers.
They also say they do not want to undercut the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system in India.
A NITI Aayog working paper in May suggested that New Delhi offer some concessions on 'soybean oil imports' to help redress the trade imbalance – which has become an obsession for Trump.
India is the world's biggest importer of edible oil.
India may agree to reduce tariffs on automobiles – a long-pending demand of the US.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
India, on the other hand, wants the US to roll back its reciprocal tariffs to zero.
New Delhi also wants Washington to cut tariffs on steel and auto parts.
The US had imposed a 50 per cent tariff on steel and aluminium, and a 25 per cent tariff on automobile imports from India.
But there is a stumbling block.
'The US side first wants India to commit to deeper import tariff cuts on farm goods like soybeans and corn , cars and alcoholic beverages along with easing of non-tariff barriers,' an official in the know has said.
What do experts think?
Experts think a bilateral trade deal (BTA) could benefit traders exporting textiles, gems and jewellery, smartphones and pharmaceuticals to the US.
However, they say a BTA could benefit US exporters particularly those sending walnuts, pistachios and cranberries more.
They say this is because many of New Delhi's exports to Washington already have duty-free access to the market.
They say the rest could get only a limited boost.
Which is perhaps why some have suggested caution.
'The ball is now in the US court. India is not for any win-lose trade partnership,' Ram Singh, chief of the Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, told The Times of India.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The Global Trade Research Initiative, for example, has warned against a deal that favours the US.
India and the US in February had agreed to increase bilateral trade, which was at $262 billion in 2024, to $500 billion by 2030. Reuters
'The more likely outcome is a limited trade pact - styled after the US-UK mini trade deal announced on May 8,' GTRI Founder Ajay Srivastava said. 'Any trade deal with the US must not be politically driven or one-sided, it must protect our farmers, our digital ecosystem, and our sovereign regulatory space.'
'There may also be pressure on India to ease FDI restrictions in multi-brand retail, potentially benefiting firms like Amazon and Walmart and to liberalise rules on remanufactured goods, currently subject to stringent import norms,' Srivastava added.
'India must hold its ground and insist on a reciprocal, balanced, and transparent agreement,' the think-tank added.
Indian officials have insisted that the country's interests will come first in any deal.
'Protecting India's interests will be supreme in India-US BTA talks,' an Indian official in the know said.
Modi and Trump in February had agreed to increase bilateral trade, which was at $262 billion in 2024, to $500 billion by 2030.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Indus Waters Treaty: India rejects ‘illegal' arbitration court's authority, calls it ‘charade' at Pak behest
India on Friday rejected the authority of an arbitration court 'illegally' formed under the Indus Waters Treaty after the body issued a 'supplemental award' on its competence to hear cases on the Kishenganga and Ratle hydroelectric projects in Jammu & Kashmir. The Indian government has consistently opposed the proceedings of The Hague-based Court of Arbitration ever since its constitution by the World Bank in October 2022. In a statement Friday, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) termed the move as the 'latest charade at Pakistan's behest' and said that this is an attempt by Islamabad to escape accountability for its role as the global epicentre of terrorism. 'India has never recognised the existence in law of this so-called Court of Arbitration, and India's position has all along been that the constitution of this so-called arbitral body is in itself a serious breach of the Indus Waters Treaty and consequently any proceedings before this forum and any award or decision taken by it are also for that reason illegal and per se void,' said an MEA statement. The Court of Arbitration had said Thursday that India's position of holding the treaty in abeyance 'does not deprive the Court of Arbitration of competence'. India is constructing the Kishenganga project on the Kishenganga river, a tributary of the Jhelum, and the Ratle project on the Chenab river. In 2015, Pakistan objected to their design features and moved the World Bank to seek a settlement through a neutral expert. But it withdrew its request a year later and asked for adjudication through a Court of Arbitration instead. India, for its part, sought a neutral expert to rule on the differences. On October 13, 2022, the World Bank appointed Michal Lino as the neutral expert. The same day, it also appointed a Court of Arbitration. India has opposed the court since then, saying it could not be 'compelled to recognise illegal and parallel proceedings not envisaged by the Treaty'. India has continued participating in the 'Treaty-consistent Neutral Expert proceedings'. The MEA statement on Friday said: 'Following the Pahalgam terrorist attack, India has in exercise of its rights as a sovereign nation under international law, placed the Indus Waters Treaty in abeyance, until Pakistan credibly and irrevocably abjures its support for cross-border terrorism. Until such time that the Treaty is in abeyance, India is no longer bound to perform any of its obligations under the Treaty. No Court of Arbitration, much less this illegally constituted arbitral body which has no existence in the eye of law, has the jurisdiction to examine the legality of India's actions in exercise of its rights as a sovereign.' The Indus Waters Treaty was signed on September 19, 1960, after nine years of negotiations between India and Pakistan. Then Indian Prime Minister Pt Jawaharlal Nehru and then Pakistani President Mohammed Ayub Khan signed the treaty in Karachi. The treaty has 12 Articles and 8 Annexures (from A to H). As per the provisions of the treaty, all the water of 'Eastern Rivers'— Sutlej, Beas and Ravi—shall be available for the 'unrestricted use' of India. However, Pakistan shall receive water from 'Western Rivers'—Indus, Jhelum and Chenab. In January 2023, India had issued a notice to Pakistan seeking the 'modification' of the Treaty. This was the first such notice in the more than six decades of the Treaty's existence. India upped the ante in September 2024, by issuing Islamabad another formal notice, this time seeking the 'review and modification' of the IWT. The word 'review', according to experts, effectively signals New Delhi's intent to revoke, and renegotiate the Treaty which will turn 65 this year. India decided to keep in abeyance the IWT on April 23 Pahalgam terror attack, in which militants killed at least 26 people and injured another 10.
Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Supreme Court nationwide injunction ruling: What are Justices Barrett and Jackson's arguements
The US Supreme Court on Friday handed President Donald Trump a major victory by ruling to curb the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding his policies. However, the issue of whether the administration can limit birthright citizenship still remains unresolved. Trump welcomed the court's 6-3 ruling, declaring that his administration can now proceed with numerous policies such as his executive order aiming to restrict birthright citizenship. US Supreme Court ruled on nationwide injunction by federal judges on Friday(AFP) "We have so many of them. I have a whole list," Trump told reporters at the White House. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the ruling, directed lower courts that blocked Trump's order on birthright citizenship to reconsider. She and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson had completely different arguments in their opinions. Jackson and other liberal justices wrote a joint dissent. The Biden-nominee, in her solo dissent, said 'disaster was looming'. 'It gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate,' she wrote. Barrett quickly rebuked her colleague. 'We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary. No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so," Barrett wrote. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent, added: "The majority ignores entirely whether the President's executive order is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the order's patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority's error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case." Trump called the ruling a 'monumental victory for the Constitution, the separation of powers and the rule of law'. "It was a grave threat to democracy, frankly, and instead of merely ruling on the immediate cases before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," Trump said of nationwide injunctions. (With inputs from Reuters)
Economic Times
19 minutes ago
- Economic Times
US consumer spending falls unexpectedly in May
AP FILE - A shopping cart filled with groceries sits in an aisle at an Asian grocery store in Rowland Heights, Calif., Thursday, April 3, 2025. U.S. consumer spending unexpectedly fell in May as the boost from the pre-emptive buying of goods like motor vehicles ahead of tariffs faded, while monthly inflation increases remained moderate. Consumer spending, which accounts for more than two-thirds of economic activity, dropped 0.1% last month after an unrevised 0.2% gain in April, the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis said on Friday. Economists polled by Reuters had forecast consumer spending would edge up 0.1%. President Donald Trump's sweeping tariffs, which have led businesses and households to front-run imports and goods purchases to avoid higher prices from duties, have muddled the economic picture. Economists warned it could take time for the tariff-related distortions to wash out of the data. A record goods trade deficit in the first quarter, thanks to a deluge of imports, accounted for much of the 0.5% annualized rate of decline in gross domestic product during that period. Consumer spending also nearly braked last quarter after being propelled by households pulling forward goods purchases. Households also spent less on services last quarter, helping to restrain growth in consumer spending to only a 0.5% pace, the slowest rate since the second quarter of 2020. That data potentially puts spending on a slow growth path in the second quarter. The combination of soft consumer spending and inflation is, however, unlikely to spur the Federal Reserve to resume cutting interest rates in July. Fed Chair Jerome Powell told lawmakers this week that the U.S. central bank needed more time to gauge the impact of tariffs on prices before considering a rate cut. Economists argue that price increases have remained moderate because businesses are still selling inventory accumulated before the tariffs went into effect. They expect inflation will start picking up, beginning with consumer price data for June. The Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) Price Index gained 0.1% in May, matching the rise in April, the BEA said. In the 12 months through May, PCE inflation increased 2.3% after climbing 2.2% in April. Stripping out the volatile food and energy components, the PCE Price Index increased 0.2% last month. That followed a 0.1% rise in the so-called core PCE inflation in April. In the 12 months through April, core inflation advanced 2.7% after rising 2.6% in April. The Fed tracks the PCE price measures for its 2% inflation target. The central bank last week left its benchmark overnight interest rate in the 4.25%-4.50% range, where it has been since December.
