'Unthinkable Trade Barriers Must Go'- Donald Trump Warns India Ahead of US Trade Deal Deadline
TOI.in
/ Jun 28, 2025, 10:21AM IST
Donald Trump amped up the pressure on India just days before the July 9 tariff deadline, stating that US businesses must be allowed to trade freely without "unthinkable" restrictions. As the US finalizes deals with China, Trump's focus has shifted to India, accusing it of trade protectionism and threatening 25% reciprocal tariffs if barriers aren't lifted. Talks have reportedly stalled over auto, steel, and agricultural duties, with India pushing for concessions while offering tariff cuts on nuts and energy access to the US. Trump also signaled he may bypass formal negotiations altogether by sending letters demanding compliance. With stakes rising, will Modi give in or stand firm? This could redefine the future of India-US economic ties.#donaldtrump #india #unitedstates #ustradedeak #trumpindia #usindiatrade #tariffdeal #trumpnews #moditrump #tradewar #uspolitics #indiaglobaltrade #toi #toibharat #bharat #breakingnews #indianews
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
36 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
What's next for birthright citizenship as US Supreme Court's ruling expand Trump's power
The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. Donald Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. (AFP) Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. What does birthright citizenship mean? Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.'
Hindustan Times
42 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
After US Supreme Court ruling over Trump's order, what next for birthright citizenship?
The legal battle over President Donald Trump's move to end birthright citizenship is far from over despite the Republican administration's major victory Friday limiting nationwide injunctions. The US Supreme Court did not address the merits of President Donald Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order.(AFP) Immigrant advocates are vowing to fight to ensure birthright citizenship remains the law as the Republican president tries to do away with more than a century of precedent. The high court's ruling sends cases challenging the president's birthright citizenship executive order back to the lower courts. But the ultimate fate of the president's policy remains uncertain. Here's what to know about birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court's ruling and what happens next. What does birthright citizenship mean? Birthright citizenship makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States,' the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the U.S. to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the U.S., no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of U.S. law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the U.S. to foreign diplomats. Trump has long said he wants to do away with birthright citizenship Trump's executive order, signed in January, seeks to deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a 'magnet for illegal immigration.' Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment — 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' – saying it means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. A series of federal judges have said that's not true, and issued nationwide injunctions stopping his order from taking effect. 'I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order,' U.S. District Judge John Coughenour said at a hearing earlier this year in his Seattle courtroom. In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that 'the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed' Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. Is Trump's order constitutional? The justices didn't say The high court's ruling was a major victory for the Trump administration in that it limited an individual judge's authority in granting nationwide injunctions. The administration hailed the ruling as a monumental check on the powers of individual district court judges, whom Trump supporters have argued want to usurp the president's authority with rulings blocking his priorities around immigration and other matters. But the Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order. 'The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief,' said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is 'very confident' that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. Questions and uncertainty swirl around next steps The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear."
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Iran holds mass funeral for top Iranian officials killed in Israel strikes, minister warns Trump against further threats
Hundreds of thousands of Iranians gathered in Tehran on Saturday to mourn senior military officials and scientists killed in the recent conflict with Israel, according to the Associated Press (AP). The state funeral included top figures such as Hossein Salami, commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of Iran's armed forces. They were among the roughly 60 people killed in the 12-day conflict, which ended earlier this week with a ceasefire. The BBC said the coffins, draped in Iranian flags, were carried through central Tehran, where large crowds gathered near Enghelab and Azadi squares. Many chanted slogans such as 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel.' The war began on June 13 after Israeli strikes targeted Iranian military commanders and nuclear sites. Iran responded by firing more than 550 missiles at Israel, according to Israeli officials. The Israeli army said it killed 30 senior Iranian military figures and 11 nuclear scientists and struck hundreds of sites linked to Iran's weapons programme. Iran said 627 people were killed in the country, including civilians, while 28 people died in Israel. The conflict led to a US intervention, with airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi attended the funeral and warned US President Donald Trump against making further threats. 'If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader,' Araghchi posted on X. Trump has made several remarks about the conflict and Iran's leadership. When asked by the BBC during a White House briefing on Friday if he would bomb Iran again, he said: 'Absolutely.' He added he would 'without question' act if US intelligence found Iran was enriching uranium at dangerous levels. On his social media platform Truth Social, Trump said he had been 'working on the possible removal of sanctions' but stopped after hearing Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei claim victory. Trump wrote that he saved Khamenei from an 'ugly death,' and didn't receive words of gratitude. 'Instead I get hit with a statement of anger, hatred, and disgust, and immediately dropped all work on sanction relief, and more.' Trump also claimed he knew Khamenei's location during the war and 'saved him from a very ugly and ignominious death.' Iran has suspended cooperation with the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The head of the agency, Rafael Grossi, told CBS News that damage to Iran's nuclear facilities, including the underground Fordow site, was 'very considerable' but warned that military action would not stop nuclear development. 'You are not going to solve this in a definitive way militarily, you are going to have an agreement,' he said. Although Iran's parliament has voted to halt cooperation with the IAEA, Araghchi hinted on X that Iran might be open to new talks. Ayatollah Khamenei has not appeared in public since the war began, though he issued a pre-recorded message after the ceasefire, saying that US and Israeli attacks had achieved 'nothing significant.'
