Trump yet to decide on tariffs over China's Russian oil purchase: Vance
'Well, the President said he's thinking about it, but he hasn't made any firm decisions,' Mr. Vance told Fox News Sunday (August 10, 2025).
He was responding to a question about Mr. Trump imposing significant tariffs on countries like India for buying Russian oil and whether Washington will impose similar levies on China since Beijing also buys Russian oil.
Also Read | 'Not until we get it resolved': Trump indicates pause in trade talks over Russian oil imports
"Obviously the China issue is a little bit more complicated because our relationship with China, it affects a lot of other things that have nothing to do with the Russian situation," Mr. Vance said.
He added that Mr. Trump is 'reviewing his options, and of course, going to make that decision when he decides.'
The U.S. had initially imposed 25% reciprocal tariffs on India and Mr. Trump last week slapped another 25% levies on Delhi for its purchases of Russian oil, bringing the total duties on India to 50%, among the highest imposed by the U.S. on any country in the world.
The additional 25% duty will come into effect from August 27.
India slammed the move as "unfair, unjustified and unreasonable".
"It is extremely unfortunate that the U.S. should choose to impose additional tariffs on India," the External Affairs Ministry said in a statement in Delhi, adding that India will take all actions necessary to protect its national interests.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
16 minutes ago
- Economic Times
After national guards deployed in D.C, are New York and Los Angeles next? Trump drops a warning
Synopsis Donald Trump has taken an unprecedented step by seizing control of Washington, D.C.'s police force and deploying National Guard troops, citing a 'public safety emergency.' The president claims the city is facing a crime crisis, comparing it to 'worse than Mexico City.' However, official police data shows violent crime has actually dropped 26% this year, with homicides down 12%. The move has sparked sharp criticism from D.C. leaders, who call it a political power grab. Trump has warned New York City could be next, raising questions about how far federal intervention in local policing could go. After deploying National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump has hinted that New York and Los Angeles could face similar federal crackdowns, warning he's ready to act if local leaders 'fail to protect their citizens.' President Donald Trump on Monday took the extraordinary step of federalizing Washington, D.C.'s police force and ordering hundreds of National Guard troops into the nation's capital, declaring what he called a 'public safety emergency' and vowing to 'liberate' the city from what he described as 'out-of-control crime.' But police data tells a sharply different story — violent crime in D.C. has actually fallen 26% this year, with homicides down about 12% compared to 2024. Invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act — a provision that has never before been used by a sitting president — Trump transferred operational control of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) to the Justice Department for up to 30 days. Attorney General Pam Bondi will oversee the operation, working with newly appointed federal police commissioner Terry Cole. The plan includes up to 800 D.C. National Guard troops, with 100 to 200 on active duty at any given time, patrolling high-crime neighborhoods, transportation hubs, and tourist areas. 'This is Liberation Day,' Trump said from the White House, branding D.C. 'worse than Mexico City' and accusing local leaders of 'surrendering the streets to criminals.' According to MPD statistics, the first half of 2025 has seen some of the lowest violent crime levels in three decades. Crime category Change vs. 2024 Year-to-date notes Violent crime -26% Significant decline citywide Homicides -12% Down from last year's mid-year tally Property crime -8% Slight drop in theft, burglary rates Local officials argue that the numbers reflect ongoing policing reforms and community initiatives, not a crisis requiring federal intervention. Mayor Muriel Bowser called the move 'deeply unsettling and unprecedented' but said the city would comply, acknowledging that the Home Rule Act gives the president broad emergency powers over the capital. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb labeled the takeover 'unlawful' and vowed to explore legal challenges, saying, 'This is not about safety — this is about control.' Several members of the D.C. Council have condemned the move, noting the timing comes as crime is trending downward. Trump warned during his remarks that New York City 'could be next', hinting at similar federal crackdowns if local governments 'fail to protect their citizens.' Legal experts say the D.C. case is unique because the city lacks statehood, making it subject to federal authority in ways other cities are not. But they warn the precedent could embolden the White House to test the limits of federal intervention in local policing elsewhere. The surprise announcement is already fueling political tensions ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Supporters say the president is delivering on his promise to get 'tough on crime,' while critics accuse him of manufacturing a crisis for political gain. For now, D.C.'s streets will see an unprecedented mix of local officers, federal agents, and National Guard troops — even as crime numbers suggest the city was already getting safer. Q1. Why did Donald Trump take control of D.C. police? Trump cited rising crime concerns and declared a 'public safety emergency' despite data showing crime is falling. Q2. How much has violent crime dropped in D.C. this year? Police data shows violent crime has fallen by about 26% compared to last year.
Economic Times
16 minutes ago
- Economic Times
Gold plunges Rs 1,000 amid sell-off in global markets
Gold prices plunged Rs 1,000 to Rs 1,01,520 per 10 grams in the national capital on Tuesday in line with a sell-off in global markets, according to the All India Sarafa Association. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Gold prices plunged Rs 1,000 to Rs 1,01,520 per 10 grams in the national capital on Tuesday in line with a sell-off in global markets, according to the All India Sarafa Monday, the precious metal of 99.9 per cent purity had settled at Rs 1,02,520 per 10 the local markets, gold of 99.5 per cent purity dipped Rs 1,000 to Rs 1,01,100 per 10 grams (inclusive of all taxes) on Tuesday."Gold prices dipped after US President Donald Trump clarified on social media that there would be no tariffs on gold imports. Although an official confirmation from the White House is still pending, the announcement eased some trade-related concerns," Abans Financial Services CEO Chintan Mehta to this, the White House announced on Monday that the suspension of high-level tariffs on China will be extended until November 11. This decision has helped ease ongoing macroeconomic tensions for now, which has pressured gold prices downwards, Mehta Tuesday, the rupee edged higher by 10 paise to 87.65 against the US Dollar in early silver prices slumped by Rs 2,000 to Rs 1,12,000 per kilogram (inclusive of all taxes) on Tuesday. It had settled at Rs 1,14,000 per kg on the global front, spot gold was trading at USD 3,347.18 per ounce, up by 0.13 per cent in New Chainani, Head of Research at Augmont, said Trump's announcement on Monday that gold will not be subject to tariffs allayed concerns about a dramatic rise in the price of importing the metal, causing prices to drop below USD 3,400 per silver rose nearly 1 per cent to trade at USD 37.90 per ounce in the overseas markets."Investors will continue to closely watch upcoming US macroeconomic data, such as Consumer Price Index , Producer Price Index and retail sales, which will provide fresh cues on the Federal Reserve's interest rate trajectory," Chainani to commodities market experts, speeches from some US Fed officials will play a key role in driving the near-term US Dollar price dynamics and provide some meaningful impetus for the direction of bullion demand for the safe haven asset took a hit due to speculation that the meeting between Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin on Friday could unveil a truce plan for the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, they added.
India Today
16 minutes ago
- India Today
As Asim Munir dares, how real is Pakistan's nuclear war threat?
(NOTE: This article was originally published in the India Today issue dated June 2, 2025)No battle plan ever survives the first bullet fired in a war. That old military adage held true for the sixth war between India and Pakistan, which ended abruptly in a ceasefire on May 10, four days after it had begun. India planned to deliver a strong punitive deterrent to Pakistan's aiding and abetting terror strikes on our soil, including the attack in Pahalgam this April. It achieved that goal in its very first strike, in the early hours of May 7, when its armed forces launched precision attacks across the international border and the Line of Control, targeting the headquarters and training camps of key Pakistan-backed terror groups. Having deliberately avoided hitting military installations, India informed Pakistan that it had no interest in escalating hostilities further and only if Islamabad retaliated would it though, was in no mood to take India's blows lying down. Over the next three days, fighting intensified, with both sides chiefly deploying their air assets, including high-speed missiles as well as loitering, kamikaze drones to target each other's air bases and military installations. India claimed its superior firepower helped it get the upper hand in these exchanges, forcing Pakistan to call a truce. What it did not anticipate, though, was US president Donald Trump stealing its thunder and claiming victory for stopping the war. In a post on his social media account, Trump declared it was the US that helped mediate a ceasefire, announcing it even before the combatants could do so themselves. Two days later, at a White House briefing, Trump embarrassed India further, claiming, 'We stopped a nuclear conflict. I think it could have been a bad nuclear war. Millions of people could have been killed.'Trump stuck to that line even after Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his address to the nation on May 12, asserted that Operation Sindoor had proved that 'India would not be deterred by nuclear blackmail' and foreign secretary Vikram Misri denied any 'nuclear signalling' during the war. In an interview to Fox News on May 16, Trump said, 'These are major nuclear playersand they were angry. And the next phase was probably—did you see where it was getting? It was tit for tat. It was getting deeper and more missiles, that got stronger and stronger. To a point where the next one's going to be, you know what? The N word. The N word used in a nuclear sense—that's the worst thing that can happen. And I think they were very close. The hatred was great.' With all three nations involved—India, Pakistan and the US—presenting differing versions of what really happened in the final hours of the war, one question still hangs in the air: how real was and is the threat of a nuclear war? (Graphic by Tanmoy Chakraborty) THE NUCLEAR EQUATIONNot for nothing did Bill Clinton, as US president, describe the subcontinent as the most dangerous place in the world. Both India and Pakistan had conducted nuclear tests in the summer of 1998, when Clinton was in office, overtly demonstrating their recessed prowess. By then, they already had over 50 nuclear weapons each, a number that has trebled since. Both have perfected accurate supersonic ballistic missiles to deliver these weapons, with India relying on the Agni series and Pakistan on the Ghauri and its variants. Apart from air force jets, India has completed the triad of delivery systems for nuclear weapons by equipping two of its nuclear submarines with a sea variant of the strategic terms of doctrine, India believes in no-first use of its nuclear weapons. But if Pakistan does use a nuclear missile against it, it will retaliate massively and destroy all its major cities. Pakistan, on the other hand, believes in using its nukes first if its territorial integrity or economy is under threat; it will apply the full spectrum of nuclear weapons in its possession in that eventuality. If either launches a nuclear weapon like the 15-kiloton bomb in Hiroshima on Mumbai or Karachi, the death toll, experts say, could exceed a million, while large parts of these cities will be rendered unfit for human habitation for decades because of the impact of the Tellis, author of several seminal books on South Asia's nuclear conundrum, believes Pakistan has overtaken India and possesses the largest and most diversified nuclear arsenal in the region. This is because, he says, 'Pakistan is increasingly driven less by what India is actually doing and more by its fervid imaginings of India's capabilities coupled with an expansive—and expanding—notion of what its nuclear requirements entail.' In the past decade, Pakistan has added tactical nuclear weapons and missiles suited for battlefield scenarios to thwart an unexpected land invasion by India. It has thus introduced a hair-trigger complexity, as the command and control of tactical weapons have to be decentralised to the brigade level for effective use during crisis, leaving the so-called nuclear button in the hands of relative to expectations that the possession of such dangerous weapons would reduce the risk of a confrontation for fear of mutually assured destruction, the two nations have found themselves on the brink of a nuclear conflagration on three major occasions. The first was in 1999, a year after their respective nuclear tests, when the two countries fought a bitter border war in the icy heights of Kargil under the shadow of a nuclear umbrella. When both sides brandished their nukes, Clinton was forced to step in and tell Pakistan to withdraw its intrusion and restore status quo. The US had to intervene again after the 2001 terror attack on India's Parliament to prevent an all-out war between the two countries by forcing Pakistan to take strict action against third nuclear confrontation took place as recently as February 2019, following the Pulwama terror attack that killed 40 paramilitary personnel, prompting India to send fighter jets to strike terrorist camps in Balakot, deep within Pakistani territory. However, when an Indian pilot was captured in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir after his fighter jet was shot down and he bailed out, the crisis, according to then US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, came close 'to spilling over into a nuclear conflagration'. Pakistan accused India of moving its nuclear-armed submarine close to its shores and gave orders to keep its nukes in readiness. It took Pompeo and then US national security advisor John Bolton much jaw-jawing with leaders of the two sides to defuse the situation, with the pilot set free and both India and Pakistan claiming victory. DANGEROUS BRINKMANSHIPDespite the sixth war between India and Pakistan lasting just four days compared to the two-month-long 1999 Kargil war, Lisa Curtis, director, Indo Pacific Security Program, Center for a New American Security, in Washington DC, believes it was the most serious Indo-Pak conflict since the 1971 Bangladesh war. Her reason: 'The scope and breadth of the territory involved in this war was vast compared to the limited border strikes in the 1999 Kargil war. I have been following India-Pakistan now for 30 years and the sight of two nuclear-armed states barraging each other with missiles and drone strikes over a four-day period, striking military installations deep inside each other's territory, was both shocking and alarming.'From US vice-president J.D. Vance telling Fox News on May 8 that this conflict was none of America's business to calling up PM Modi 12 hours later, asking India to de-escalate, is how rapidly the situation had escalated. According to American media reports, Vance had conveyed to Modi on May 9 that, as per US assessment, there was a high probability of Pakistan dramatically escalating violence, and pressed the Indian premier for a potential off-ramp to stop hostilities that would also be acceptable to the Pakistanis. But while the reports said Modi was non-committal, sources in India's external affairs ministry reveal that the Indian prime minister told Vance, 'If the Pakistanis do anything, please be assured that they will get a response more forceful, stronger and more devastating than anything they did. Pakistan needs to understand this.'Modi's warning went unheeded by Pakistan. That evening, around 8.30, its armed forces launched Operation Bunyan Marsoos (literally, a wall of lead, but a phrase that symbolises unity, strength and discipline), unleashing a wave of retaliatory strikes using drones, heavy artillery and missiles on 26 sensitive Indian locations, including air bases and military installations. It even launched a Fatah-II missile, a supersonic guided artillery rocket system with 400-km range, to strike the Delhi airport, but India's missile defence system intercepted it near Sirsa. India claims to have neutralised most incoming Pakistani munitions with minimal struck back ferociously in the early hours of May 10 around 1.10 am, using among other missiles the BrahMos, its hypersonic cruise missile. It targeted eight air bases, including the one at Nur Khan in Chaklala between Rawalpindi, the general headquarters of the Pakistan army, and capital Islamabad. India's armed forces released photographs, showing the damage to vital infrastructure there. The Nur Khan base is also close to Pakistan's nuclear command and control headquarters. Pakistan prime minister Shehbaz Sharif later revealed that army chief General Asim Munir had called him up at 2.30 am and informed him of the attack on the air bases, including the one close to the capital. Meanwhile, sources disclose that the Indian navy, too, had by then positioned its strike fleet close to Karachi and had been alerted that orders to begin a blockade of Pakistan's ports were imminent. THE TIPPING POINTExperts in the know say that on May 10 between 2.30 am and 10.30 am—for eight hours, that is—the fate of the subcontinent hung in the balance. Brig. Feroz Hassan Khan (retd), a research professor at the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, who had earlier served in Pakistan's Strategic Plans Division, says, 'The fact that Nur Khan was hit [near] the capital city would create more political pressure. Both India and Pakistan had climbed the rungs of the military escalation ladder so fast, it was evident that in the next 24-48 hours, the tipping point would have been reached for an all-out war.' That India had hit at strategic air bases such as Nur Khan, and Mushaf at Sargodha, meant that red lines were about to be crossed. 'Had India inadvertently hit a nuclear storage site, Pakistan would have considered it as a first strike and retaliated with nuclear weapons. If the ceasefire had not been called on May 10, the next night would have been a terrible one,' says is among those who do not think the crisis was near nuclear boiling point. He believes the Indian air strikes of May 10 were extremely modest because, he says, 'The fear of nuclear escalation is always baked into such conflicts. Destroying infrastructure is not something you can do in a single spasm of violence, it needs protracted targeting. In Nur Khan, India didn't set out to decapitate the nuclear command system. What they did was more of a psychological campaign of uncertainty, intimidation and fear, which is the real payoff rather than physically destroying large portions of infrastructure.' Unless there is clear evidence of Pakistan moving to elevate its nuclear weapons readiness levels, Tellis finds it hard to believe the current crisis would have careened towards a nuclear sources, too, maintain the crisis never acquired nuclear dimensions, and that Pakistan climbed down after the air strikes on its bases as it realised that another two days of war would have forced it into humiliating submission. They say it was Gen. Munir who got in touch with Rubio early that morning and requested him to get India to stand down. Soon after, Rubio called external affairs minister S. Jaishankar, who told him that if Pakistan wanted to cease hostilities, it needed to communicate it via the hotline between their respective director generals of military operations. Maj. Gen. Kashif Abdullah, Pakistan's DGMO, then called his Indian counterpart, Lt Gen. Rajiv Ghai, at 3.35 pm and told him that Pakistan wanted a ceasefire. India agreed and it was mutually decided that it would come into force at 5 pm that day. India denies US intervention in bringing this explanation flies against Trump's assertion that he had averted a potential nuclear conflict. Rubio, too, had several rounds of discussions with the key players—Jaishankar, Gen. Munir, Shehbaz Sharif and India's national security advisor Ajit Doval. In a social media post, Rubio thanks these leaders and says that both countries had not only agreed to an immediate ceasefire but also 'to start talks on a broad set of issues at a neutral site'. This seemed in consonance with state department spokesperson Tammy Bruce's read-out of Rubio's conversations with Munir and Jaishankar. The one with Munir read, 'He continued to urge both parties to find ways to de-escalate and offered US assistance in starting constructive talks in order to avoid future conflicts.' The read-out with Jaishankar, on the other hand, went thus: 'Rubio emphasised that both sides need to identify methods to de-escalate and re-establish communication to avoid miscalculation. He further proposed US support in facilitating productive discussions to avert future disputes.' Posting his take on the conversation, Jaishankar's message on X read: 'Had a conversation with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio this morning. India's approach has always been measured and responsible and remains so.' THE ENDGAMEIn off-the-record briefings, however, the MEA says there was no such agreement to resume talks with Pakistan as it would run contrary to India's stated policy of no talks unless Pakistan turns off the terror tap. Christopher Clary, assistant professor of Political Science at the University at Albany, State University of New York, and an expert on South Asian nuclear issues, believes the truce came about through a combination of factors, including the likelihood of US intelligence agencies observing a change in the readiness status of Pakistan's nuclear assets. 'My hypothesis,' says Clary, 'is that a combination of Indian military pressure combined with US inducements created a mix of carrots and sticks that made Pakistan indicate it could cease hostilities.' Curtis agrees that India and Pakistan would not have agreed to a ceasefire on their own and needed third-party intervention to step back from the nuclear though, saw Trump's observations and Rubio's comments as a significant victory. Not only did Trump, in a subsequent briefing, offer to mediate between India and Pakistan on Kashmir, the US also told India to hold talks on key issues. Pakistan claimed they were able to internationalise the Kashmir issue again and get re-hyphenated with India. Gen. Munir got himself promoted to Field Marshal to demonstrate his clout and cement his status as the de facto czar of sense of triumphalism in the Pakistan military worries Curtis. 'It makes it seem like this act of terrorism helped draw international attention to Kashmir and sends a wrong signal that could encourage more violence in the future,' she says. 'It doesn't help calm tensions in the region.' She believes the US must quietly work behind the scenes to encourage the two sides to get some kind of bilateral dialogue going, including on the issues of terrorism and nuclear risk admit the truce is tenuous, and another terrorist act could trigger a resumption of hostilities. Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistan ambassador to the US and senior fellow, Hudson Institute, Washington DC, says, 'The jihadis may want to break the peace, but I think Pakistan will now put a leash on them as they don't want to go down this path again.' The real problem, Haqqani fears, is that the public in both countries is jingoistic and seemingly unaware of the grave dangers of a nuclear miscalculation. 'Our attitude seems to be that even if the plane we are travelling in is crashing, we are laughing and asking for more whisky,' he says. Hassan Khan believes India and Pakistan need to build an architecture that can sort out such things immediately before they get into 'a commitment trap' that pushes them towards a dangerous war. Tellis thinks the longer term challenge is now tied up with the future of India-Pakistan relations and cannot be resolved without actual engagement between the two countries. 'To my mind, the question is how do you punish the enemy by minimising the risks to yourself,' he says. Talking about nuclear war, a sci-fi movie from the Cold War era had this line: 'It is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play.' It could be a tactic worth to India Today Magazine- EndsTune InMust Watch
