Trump Gives Troops Free Hand At Border? More Trouble For Immigrants As U.S. Expands Military Zones
Amid global tensions over Iran-Israel war, Donald Trump was 'secretly' rushing more troops to the U.S. borders. The Department of Defence is expanding a militarised zone along the southern U.S. border, where troops are authorised to detain people who enter illegally. The Air Force announced Monday the annexation of a 400-kilometre stretch of the border in Texas amid a buildup of military forces under President's declaration of a national emergency at the border. Watch for more details.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
25 minutes ago
- Mint
India-US trade deal: Here's what Washington DC wants from New Delhi and what we know so far
US President Donald Trump on Thursday said that a 'very big trade deal' with India is on the cards as negotiators from New Delhi reached Washington DC, where America has reportedly demanded a few tariff cuts that India is not ready to agree with. Chief Negotiator Rajesh Aggarwal is leading a delegation from India to the US as the team works with officials from the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR), navigating through a July 9 deadline to secure an interim deal before temporary tariff protections expire. However, roadblocks in the conversations have been delaying progress in securing a bilateral trade agreement during the high-stakes negotiations, reportedly due to some demands from the US. Here's what we know so far. According to a report by ANI, several contentious issues have surfaced during the trade negotiation conversations between the US and India. The US is pressuring India into lowering duties on American agricultural and dairy products and to provide market access for genetically modified (GM) crops. However, India has resisted these demands firmly, saying that it would impact domestic food safety, public health and leave millions of farmers unprotected. The Indian delegation has also reportedly resisted an offer of broad-based access to the US agricultural and dairy sectors, which can be politically and economically sensitive. As per a report by Reuters, the Indian side wants to push for a rollback on the now-paused 26 per cent tariff that the US imposed on New Delhi, which is set to take effect if a deal is not reached by July 9. Negotiators are also demanding concessions on existing US tariffs on steel and auto parts, which American negotiators have not yet agreed to, according to Indian government sources quoted by Reuters. '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 Indian official was quoted as saying by Reuters. This has led to a disagreement between India and America. However, Indian officials have ensured that protecting the country's interests will be of supreme importance during the trade talks. "Protecting India's interests will be supreme in India-US BTA talks," an Indian official close to the negotiations was quoted as saying by ANI. Despite these challenges, both sides remain committed to reaching an interim agreement before the deadline.
NDTV
39 minutes ago
- NDTV
$30 Billion Investment, Unfreeze Funds: US Offer To Iran To Resume Talks
New Delhi: The Trump administration has been exploring a range of proposals to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, including easing sanctions, releasing frozen funds, and facilitating a multi-billion-dollar investment in a civilian nuclear energy programme, CNN reported, citing four sources familiar with the matter. Discussions have continued despite recent military strikes between Israel and Iran. US officials and Middle East intermediaries have been engaging Iran behind closed doors, as per sources. Talks have intensified since a fragile ceasefire was reached this week, brokered by US President Donald Trump. The administration has floated various proposals, all contingent on one non-negotiable: zero Iranian uranium enrichment, a position Tehran has consistently rejected. According to CNN, the proposal includes several incentives for Iran. A $20-30 billion investment in non-enrichment nuclear infrastructure for civilian energy. Sanctions relief. Access to $6 billion in Iranian assets currently frozen in foreign accounts. One idea being floated involves rebuilding the Fordow nuclear site, recently struck by US bunker-buster bombs, into a non-enriching civilian facility, potentially funded by US-aligned Gulf nations. It remains unclear whether Iran would operate that site under the new proposal. "The US is willing to lead these talks," a Trump administration official told CNN. "And someone is going to need to pay for the nuclear programem to be built, but we will not make that commitment." Steve Witkoff, US Special Envoy to the Middle East, told CNBC on Wednesday that the administration is pursuing a "comprehensive peace agreement" and sees an opportunity to present Iran with a formal term sheet. He said any new programme must be modelled after the United Arab Emirates' civil nuclear project, which prohibits enrichment. "Now the issue and the conversation with Iran is going to be, how do we rebuild a better civil nuclear programme for you that is non-enrichable?" Witkoff said. President Donald Trump confirmed the possibility of talks next week but appeared uncertain about the need for a deal. "I don't care if I have an agreement or not," he said on Wednesday, even as some of his aides reportedly view a long-term nuclear deal as essential to maintaining the current ceasefire. Qatar, key to the Israel-Iran ceasefire, will continue mediating US-Iran talks, CNN reported. Five US-Iran talks took place before Israel's strikes halted a planned sixth round in Oman. Before the US strikes, intermediaries told Iran the action would be limited and that the US demand for no uranium enrichment remained firm. "We may sign an agreement, I don't know," Trump said Wednesday from the NATO summit. "I could get a statement that they're not going to go nuclear, we're probably going to ask for that."
Mint
39 minutes ago
- Mint
No end to wars: Trump, Pakistan and the art of self-congratulation
Amar Patnaik , Kartikey Singh Pakistan's cynical nomination of the US president for a Nobel Peace Prize tells us something grim about today's world. Yet, as we just saw, performative diplomacy can quickly collapse. Both Pakistan and the US need to ponder the principles that underpin that prize The episode underscores how performative diplomacy, rooted in a 'transactional calculus' rather than strategic coherence, can quickly collapse under the weight of real-world events. Gift this article Two days after US President Donald Trump was 'officially recommended" for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize by Pakistan, the United States joined Israel in launching airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. Now, six months into Trump's second presidency, the world is not witnessing the peace he promised but an intensification of the very wars he vowed to end 'in 24 hours". Two days after US President Donald Trump was 'officially recommended" for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize by Pakistan, the United States joined Israel in launching airstrikes on three Iranian nuclear sites. Now, six months into Trump's second presidency, the world is not witnessing the peace he promised but an intensification of the very wars he vowed to end 'in 24 hours". Against this backdrop, Pakistan's nomination seems to be motivated by strategic sycophancy, aimed at currying favour with Washington in exchange for 'diplomatic goodwill.' Also Read: There we go again: Will America ever rid itself of its Pakistan delusions? In West Asia, Trump has openly favoured Israel across multiple wars. His stance on the Gaza conflict, a war triggered by Hamas's October 2023 incursion into Israeli territory, gruesomely killing 1,195 people and taking 251 hostages, is marked by inconsistency and opportunism. While he helped broker a three-phase ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas in January 2025, it collapsed within weeks as both sides traded accusations of violations. Nevertheless, Trump made no substantial effort to salvage the agreement. Instead, he oscillated between contradictory plans, endorsing Israel's military operations, proposing the US occupation of Gaza and suggesting peace negotiations with Hamas. Further, Trump's diplomacy has followed a similarly incoherent arc in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. Rather than finding a genuine long-term solution, he has repeatedly pressured Kyiv, even tying US military aid to concessions on 'rare earths.' Simultaneously, his approach to Iran has been equally erratic. After having withdrawn from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the Obama sponsored nuclear deal with Tehran—in 2018, Trump initiated talks earlier this year, only to undercut them by carrying out three airstrikes in Iran. On India, Trump's claims of a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, through late-night calls, 'trade-for-peace" overtures and personal negotiations with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, have been categorically denied by New Delhi. Recently, the PM himself made it clear to Trump that India has never accepted mediation—and will never do so. This clear stance is not reactionary, but reflects India's long-standing 'strategic autonomy.' India maintains robust diplomatic ties, among others, with Iran, deepening security partnerships with Israel and growing defence interoperability with the US, without allowing any single axis to influence its regional posture. Islamabad also hopes to secure US backing on Kashmir and deepen economic and tech ties. In a broader perspective, the US president must learn from past episodes. In 2001, the US invaded Afghanistan, promising to eliminate Al Qaeda, defeat the Taliban and establish democracy in the country. Yet, two decades later, power was returned to the Taliban. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq, claiming that Baghdad harboured weapons of 'mass destruction.' Additionally, in 2011, it intervened in Libya, citing the need to protect civilians from their government. Importantly, the Nobel Peace Prize, awarded 'for the greatest benefit to humankind," has been awarded to US presidents since Theodore Roosevelt (1906). Awards given to Woodrow Wilson (1920) for the League of Nations, Jimmy Carter (2002) for human rights and Al Gore (2007) for climate action were consistent in recognizing a commitment to institutional architectures, multilateral cooperation and universal values. Even Barack Obama's 2009 award, widely seen as aspirational, was granted less than a year into his presidency amid ongoing conflicts. He himself humbly acknowledged that he might not have deserved it. Yet, this award has long reflected a clearly stated vision and commitment to international diplomacy and 'global collaboration.' In essence, it recognized efforts to build bridges. In contrast, Trump's pursuits starkly deviate from that end. President Trump's departure from multilateralism is not incidental. It signifies a deliberate shift away from both global and domestic institutionalism. His administration's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, the WHO and the UN Human Rights Council; exit from arms control treaties like the INF and Open Skies Agreements; defunding of UNRWA; and departure from Unesco all demonstrate a clear disregard for an 'international consensus.' The Trump administration's actions have frequently been unilateral and without credible alternatives. Domestically, policies such as protectionist tariffs, aimed at shielding US industries, may ultimately raise consumer costs, strain American businesses and disrupt global trade flows. The episode underscores how performative diplomacy, rooted in a 'transactional calculus' rather than strategic coherence, can quickly collapse under the weight of real-world events. It is a sharp example of how easily performance is mistaken for policy. As the world's most powerful nation's leader, Trump is uniquely positioned to shape the architecture of peace, not perform it. If he truly alters the global trajectory, the recognition he seeks will follow, as it always has—for substance, not show. The authors are, respectively, a lawyer, former Member of Parliament and civil servant (@Amar4Odisha), and a lawyer based in New Delhi. Topics You May Be Interested In
