Trump hikes India levy over Russian oil as tariff deadline looms
The additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, coming into place in three weeks, stacks atop a separate 25% duty entering into force, taking the level to 50% for many products.
Mr Trump's order also threatens penalties on other countries who "directly or indirectly" import Russian oil, a key revenue source for Russia's war in Ukraine.
Exemptions remain however for goods targeted under sector-specific duties such as steel and aluminum, and categories that could be hit later, like pharmaceuticals and semiconductors.
Smartphones are in this list of exempted products for now, shielding Apple from a major hit as the US tech titan shifts production from China to India.
India's foreign ministry condemned Mr Trump's announcement, calling the move "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable."
The ministry previously said India began importing oil from Russia as traditional supplies were diverted to Europe over the war - noting that Washington had "actively encouraged" such imports to strengthen "global energy market stability."
However, Mr Trump recently raised pressure on India over the oil purchases, threatening new tariffs as part of a campaign to force Moscow into ending its devastating invasion of Ukraine.
India's national security adviser was in Russia, media ii reported, coinciding with US envoy Steve Witkoff's visit.
The 25% additional tariff is lower than the 100% Mr Trump floated last month when he told Russia to end the war in Ukraine within 50 days or face massive new economic sanctions.
The Republican said at the time that these would be "secondary tariffs" targeting Russia's remaining trade partners, seeking to impede Moscow's ability to survive already sweeping Western sanctions.
Tariff turmoil
Mr Trump has separately taken aim at Brazil over the trial of his right-wing ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro - who is accused of planning a coup.
US tariffs on various Brazilian goods surged from 10% to 50%, although broad exemptions including for orange juice and civil aircraft are expected to soften the blow.
A new wave of tariffs impacting dozens of other economies, from the European Union to Taiwan, is set to kick in later today.
These updated "reciprocal" tariffs, meant to address trade practices Washington deems unfair, go up to 41% for Syria
US trading partners face varying increases from a current 10% level, starting at 15% for economies like the EU, Japan and South Korea.
Countries not targeted by these "reciprocal" tariff hikes continue facing a 10% levy Mr Trump imposed in April.
Mr Trump's plans have sparked a rush to avert steeper duties, with Switzerland's President Karin Keller-Sutter hurrying to the US ahead of the deadline. It was unclear if she would meet Mr Trump or any top economic officials.
While Switzerland's key pharmaceutical sector has been spared from the incoming 39% duty for now, Mr Trump has warned that future pharma tariffs could eventually rise to 250%.
Many of Mr Trump's sweeping tariffs also face legal challenges over his use of emergency economic powers, with the cases likely to ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
Tokyo's tariffs envoy Ryosei Akazawa was also in Washington, pressing for clarity on when promised cuts to tariffs on Japan's auto imports from 25% to 15% would take effect.
A US official said meanwhile that, unlike for the European Union, tariffs on other Japanese imports would not be capped at 15% but that these "reciprocal" levies would be added to existing ones.
Japan averted threatened extra tariffs of 25% in a deal struck in July, but the two sides appear at odds over key details, including over Japanese investments of $550 billion into the United States.
"It's our money to invest as we like."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Examiner
42 minutes ago
- Irish Examiner
Thousands of hotels in Europe to sue Booking.com over ‘abusive' practices
is facing a class-action lawsuit from more than 10,000 European hotels, arguing the accommodation mega-site used its muscle to distort the market to their detriment over a 20-year period. The Association of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafes in Europe (Hotrec), which represents the industry within the EU and is bringing the legal action, recently extended to August 29 a deadline for hotel owners to join the suit because of high demand. The lawsuit, expected to be one of the largest ever filed in the European hospitality sector, is also backed by 30 national hotel associations, including Ireland's. 'Over 10,000 hotels have already joined the pan-European initiative to claim compensation for financial losses caused by use of illegal 'best price' (parity) clauses,' Hotrec said in a statement. It alleges the 'best price' pledge on was extracted from hotels under huge pressure not to offer rooms at lower prices on other platforms, including their own websites. The hotel industry says the Netherlands-based platform also used the clauses to prevent customers making what it called 'free-rider' bookings, which it defined as using its services to find a hotel but then booking directly with the management, cutting out 'Registration [to the legal action] continues to grow steadily, and the response so far demonstrates the hospitality industry's strong desire to stand up against unfair practices in the digital marketplace,' Hotrec said. The litigation, which experts say will be an uphill battle, seeks damages for the period from 2004 to 2024, when did away with the best price clause to comply with the EU Digital Markets Act. Hotrec said the class action, to be heard in Amsterdam, follows a European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling from 2024, 'which found that parity clauses violated EU competition law'. 'European hoteliers have long suffered from unfair conditions and excessive costs. Now is the time to stand together and demand redress,' said Hotrec's president Alexandros Vassilikos, calling out 'abusive practices in the digital market' in Europe. called Hotrec and other hotel associations' statements 'incorrect and misleading' in an emailed statement, adding it had not received 'formal notification of a class action'. It said the ECJ ruling did not find that 'best price' clauses were anti-competitive but 'simply stated that such clauses fall within the scope of EU competition law and that their effects must be assessed on a case-by-case basis'. The company referred to a statement about its 'commitment to fair competition', in which it argued 'past parity clauses served to foster competitive pricing rather than restrict it'. It cited a poll in which 74% of hoteliers said made their business more profitable, with many reporting higher occupancy rates and lower customer acquisition costs. However, other industry representatives criticised the company's practices as extractive. 'As they gained control of the market, Booking was able to increase its commission rates and exert much greater pressure on hoteliers' margins,' Véronique Siegel, president of the hotels division of French hospitality sector association Umih, told public broadcaster France Inter. 'For a room that the customer pays €100 for, if you take away Booking's commission, the hotelier receives €75 at best, with which they have to pay their employees and invest.' Despite the friction, appears unavoidable for many hotels, offering an online reach and visibility hard to achieve for smaller, independent establishments. A study by Hotrec and the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland found Booking Holding, the website's parent company, controlled 71% of the European market in 2024, compared with 68.4% in 2019. The corporation is valued at $170bn (€147.1bn), three times that of Volkswagen. Rupprecht Podszun, director of the institute for competition law at Düsseldorf's Heinrich Heine University, said was a classic example of how a digital platform could conquer an entire sector, creating a 'winner takes all' dynamic. He said the legal action would probably be protracted and turn on the thorny question of how damages could be measured. 'Judges will have to form an opinion and then it will go through all the appeals — everything at great expense and with all the tricks available under the law,' he told Germany's daily Süddeutsche Zeitung. 'The case is a revolt of the hotels, saying: 'You can't just do what you want with us.'' The Guardian
The Journal
an hour ago
- The Journal
Trump and Putin have agreed to meet in the next few days
THE KREMLIN HAS said that a summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin was set for the 'coming days', with the two sides already having agreed the venue 'in principle.' The summit would be the first between sitting US and Russian presidents since Joe Biden met Putin in Geneva in June 2021, and comes as Trump seeks to broker an end to Russia's military assault on Ukraine. Three rounds of direct talks between Moscow and Kyiv have failed to yield any progress towards a ceasefire, with the two sides appearing far apart in their demands to end the more than three-year-long conflict. Trump said yesterday he was likely to meet Putin face-to-face 'very soon.' 'At the suggestion of the American side, an agreement has been reached in principle to hold a bilateral summit in the coming days,' Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov was quoted as saying on today by Russian state news agencies. 'We are now starting to work out the details together with our American colleagues,' Ushakov said. Advertisement The Kremlin said a venue had been agreed 'in principle', but did not indicate where the summit could take place. 'Next week has been set as a target date,' Ushakov added. Zelensky calls for meeting Tens of thousands have been killed since Russia launched its military offensive on Ukraine in February 2022. Russian bombardments have forced millions for flee their homes and destroyed swathes of eastern and southern Ukraine. Putin has resisted multiple calls from the United States, Europe and Kyiv for a ceasefire. Moscow has also repeatedly sought to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and ruled out a meeting between the two leaders until after the terms of a peace deal have been agreed. The announcement of the upcoming summit comes a day after US envoy Steve Witkoff met Putin in Moscow. Witkoff proposed a trilateral meeting with Zelenskyy, but Russia did not respond to that proposal, Ushakov said. Related Reads 'Good chance' of Trump and Putin meeting in coming days for Ukraine talks 'The Russian side left this option completely without comment,' he added. Earlier today, Zelenskyy had refreshed his call for a meeting with Putin – which he says is the only way to make progress towards peace. 'We in Ukraine have repeatedly said that finding real solutions can be truly effective at the level of leaders,' Zelenskyy wrote on social media. 'It is necessary to determine the timing for such a format and the range of issues to be addressed,' he added. The Ukrainian leader said this morning that he had planned to hold 'several' conversations throughout the course of the day including with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, as well as French and Italian officials. 'The main thing is for Russia, which started this war, to take real steps to end its aggression,' Zelenskyy added. - © AFP 2025
Irish Times
an hour ago
- Irish Times
EU countries increasingly keen on sending migrants outside bloc for processing
When the UK pledged to send migrants to Rwanda three years ago, the EU said the measure was inhumane and broke international law. But with rising xenophobic sentiment and more right-wing governments coming to power on the continent, the bloc is warming to such 'innovative solutions' to curb immigration . 'I think there is a broad support,' said Danish migration minister Kaare Dybvad, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency. Sending asylum seekers outside the bloc 'has so much traction now', he told the Financial Times. Denmark , Italy and Germany have been among those advocating for centres to be set up in non-EU countries to house people awaiting an asylum decision or repatriation. READ MORE Dybvad, a Social Democrat who led Denmark's own failed Rwanda plan, recalled the backlash triggered by this idea. The Danish government shelved the scheme amid a domestic political uproar in January 2023, and the UK's supreme court struck down the British plan later that year. Danish minister of immigration and integration Kaare Dybvad (right) in conversation with Austrian interior minister Gerhard Karner. Photograph: Olivier Hoslet By contrast, Dybvad said, 'now when I meet with colleagues from big member states like Germany, France, Poland, Italy' there was 'very strong support for moving forward'. German interior minister Alexander Dobrindt, a Bavarian conservative, last month said that 'models involving third countries have majority support. A vast majority of member states have made it clear that this is a path the EU must take.' The shift has been particularly stark in Germany, which 10 years ago opened up to refugees from Syria and other conflict zones, with then-chancellor Angela Merkel reassuring citizens that 'we can handle it' ('Wir schaffen das ' ). But anti-migrant sentiment stoked by the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) and several deadly attacks by migrants have led Berlin to adopt increasingly harsher measures. Other countries previously supportive of migrants, such as Luxembourg, have also changed tack as right-wing governments took over. The EU's stunning shift on the 'externalisation' of migration comes amid a surge in public support for the far right, which has made immigration its cri du coeur. [ Deportation flights signal Germany's pivot to hardline stance on migration Opens in new window ] But moves to outsource asylum have suffered legal setbacks, with human rights advocates warning that they could undermine the very foundation the EU was set up on. 'There's a broader trend in migration and asylum policymaking in the EU to make human rights secondary to political interests,' said Olivia Sundberg Diez, migration advocate at Amnesty International. Demonstrators near the gates of 10 Downing Street in London in May 2024. Photograph: Benjamin Cremel/AFP via Getty Images Britain's scheme – under which the UK would have sent asylum seekers to Rwanda for their claims to be processed there – was struck down by the UK supreme court amid concerns the people sent there could face harm. Then-prime minister Rishi Sunak tried to salvage the scheme by designating the country as 'safe', but the current government abandoned the plan. A similar argument used by Italy – to designate certain countries as 'safe' for return – was challenged by the EU top court last week. Prime minister Giorgia Meloni reacted with fury, accusing the European Court of Justice of over-reach. Andreina de Leo, a migration researcher at Maastricht University, said the ruling was 'not surprising' as it backed up Italian courts. But for Meloni and her right-wing government, she said, 'this plan has acquired such a symbolic meaning' that the premier had to lash out. Meloni last year struck a deal with Albania to set up closed centres where migrants would be transferred while their Italian asylum applications were being processed – and most likely rejected. After Italian courts challenged the scheme, Rome repurposed the facilities to house migrants awaiting deportation. A few dozen people have since been taken there, though most had to be taken back to Italy again before being repatriated, adding to the costs. 'To be honest, this concept doesn't work very well,' said Maciej Duszczyk, Poland's under-secretary of state for migration. Civil rights activists protest after migrants intercepted in Italian waters arrive at Shengjin port in Albania in 2024. Photograph: Adnan Beci/AFP via Getty Images Still, the European Commission has backed the idea of sending people awaiting deportation to 'return hubs' outside the EU – such as the repurposed Albanian centres. Brussels also drafted legislation that could make Italy's original plan a reality, by proposing an EU list of 'safe' countries, and allowing member states to send asylum seekers there even if they don't have a link to those places. 'The Italian model will be possible again,' said one EU official, who added that governments would 'make the necessary adjustments' for asylum processing to work outside the bloc. Germany is in talks with Rwanda to replicate the UK scheme, according to two people familiar with the discussions, though it is unclear how advanced the negotiations are given previous legal objections. Rwanda also said this week it had agreed to take 250 migrants deported from the US, according to the government in Kigali. The Netherlands, meanwhile, has been in talks with Uganda – a country that sentences LGBT+ people to death – about setting up a 'transit hub', according to the Dutch ministry of asylum and migration. Denmark's Dybvad said centres would be ideally set up in 'countries in north Africa' or other 'stable countries, with stable governments'. The EU already has arrangements to curb migration and is providing funding to countries including Tunisia and Libya, where the authorities have repeatedly been accused of violating human rights. 'You facilitate human rights abuses, not just for migrants but also for citizens [of these countries],' said Tineke Strik, a Green member of the European Parliament, in reference to the Tunisian government's crackdown on NGOs and dissidents. While fewer migrants left the Tunisian shores in the first six months of this year compared with the same period last year, more have embarked on the perilous journey from Libya, according to the EU's migration agency Frontex. Human rights activists say this points to the limitations of Europe's efforts to curb immigration by paying off authoritarian governments. 'These are unworkable and inhumane proposals that are extremely costly both on a human level, but also for the management of migration,' said Amnesty's Sundberg Diez. 'Governments are ignoring those costs to make grand political statements on promises that they may be unable to deliver on. ' – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
