India-US Trade Talks: Racing Against Trump's Deadline Vantage with Palki Sharma
India-US Trade Talks: Racing Against Trump's Deadline | Vantage with Palki Sharma | N18G
India-US Trade Talks: Racing Against Trump's Deadline | Vantage with Palki Sharma | N18G
India and the United States are rushing to sign a trade deal before the 8th of July — a deadline set by U.S. President Donald Trump. His goal: a zero-tariff agreement. But India is pushing for a more measured approach, protecting sensitive sectors like agriculture and textiles. Both sides are now aiming for an interim deal — one that avoids U.S. Congressional hurdles. Palki Sharma unpacks what's at stake, and how India is diversifying its trade strategy beyond Washington.
Operation Sindoor: India's Military, Diplomatic and Strategic Triumph.
Check out the special edition Firstpost e-paper here:
https://www.firstpost.com/fp-operation-sindoor.pdf
See More
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
37 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump vs Musk: Call the breakup poetic justice. Call it karmic crypto-collapse. Just don't call it surprising
Some alliances hum like clockwork. Others tick like time bombs. This one? It was always a countdown. When two men believe the world revolves around them, it's only a matter of time before their orbits collide. And when they do, the explosion isn't quiet. Rather, it's a full-blown Twitter meltdown with echoes loud enough to rattle both Wall Street and Mar-a-Lago. And boy, we are watching the best cosmic collision since Pluto got downgraded. Welcome to the spectacular implosion of the Trump–Musk bromance. What began as a mutual admiration society of billionaire chest-thumping and red-hat flirting has now devolved into the kind of public breakup even the Real Housewives would find a bit too messy. Let's rewind. Once upon a time, in the golden age of post-truth politics, Elon Musk, the tech messiah, meme lord, and part-time Mars enthusiast, decided to dip his toes into political kingmaking. A neat little $277 million was funnelled into the Donald Trump campaign machinery. In any other part of the world, this would be called oligarchic meddling. In the United States, it's called 'Super Tuesday'. Trump, ever the transactional romantic, reciprocated by giving Musk a cosy seat at the regulatory table named DOGE, where he could quietly dismantle watchdogs, neuter climate policies, and make capitalism great again (for Tesla stock). Love was in the air. Or maybe, it was just the fumes from Musk's Boring Company flamethrowers. But like all ill-fated love stories, this one came with red flags. Musk's reputation, once burnished with visions of space colonies and clean energy, began to crumble under the weight of layoffs, lawsuits, and livestreamed tantrums. Turns out, being the adult in the room is hard when you're too busy rebranding Twitter into an unpronounceable algebra problem. Enter phase two: Reputation rehab. Suddenly, Musk was 'distancing' himself from the Trump administration. He quit councils, tweeted vaguely progressive things, and flirted with the idea of centrism, all while pretending he hadn't spent the past four years quietly enjoying deregulation like a raccoon in a trash buffet. But this Thursday? The façade shattered. In a tweet that will one day be studied in both communications courses and FBI depositions, Musk posted: 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files.' He even had the gall to add: 'Have a nice day, DJT!' That wasn't a mic drop. That was a nuke in 280 characters. And let's be honest: If anyone was going to try to cancel someone else using Jeffrey Epstein, it was always likely to be Musk. Trump, unsurprisingly, didn't take it well. His reply was less subtle than a red tie in a wind tunnel: Musk is 'crazy,' and perhaps more worryingly for SpaceX investors, he threatened to cut off government contracts. Suddenly, two men who once shared bromantic photo ops and mutual disdain for accountability were hurling legal threats across a billion-dollar battlefield. Kanye West (of course) tried to play counsellor, tweeting something along the lines of 'bros don't fight, we love you both'. Unfortunately, love is dead and so is Kanye's credibility. And yet… are we really witnessing the final act? Let's not forget: Trump has made up with worse. Just ask Marco 'sweaty little man' Rubio or Ted 'your wife is ugly' Cruz. With Trump, personal insults are just foreplay. It's politics as WWE: Everyone's bleeding, but it's still part of the script. Still, there's something deliciously different this time. This feud doesn't feel like kayfabe. It feels real. Real messy. Real vindictive. Real stupid. And that makes it… kind of beautiful? Because if 2025 is going to be yet another parade of rich men yelling into microphones about how oppressed they are, the least we can ask for is a little entertainment. Preferably the kind that ends in lawsuits and meme wars. So, grab your popcorn. Watch the world's richest man implode on the platform he owns, while being roasted by the guy he helped elect. Call it poetic justice. Call it karmic crypto-collapse. Call it what you will. Just don't call it surprising. After all, in the immortal words of the internet, 'This you?'
Time of India
37 minutes ago
- Time of India
Musk-Trump breakup exposes cracks in Wall Street's meme casino
Live Events Bloomberg You Might Also Like: Musk-Trump breakup puts billions in SpaceX contracts at risk, jolting US space program Bloomberg It took less than a day for the great Donald Trump-Elon Musk split to reshape debates over billionaire power and influence in American another level, the breakup was a reminder of something else: the perils of personality-driven investing, a growing and lucrative business for the Wall Street bankers cranking out, rapid-fire, a never-ending array of new financial products. Few have done more to fuel these gambling spirits than the president and the world's richest a matter of hours, a loosely connected web of Musk-linked trades — and a few tied to Trump — cratered as the public feud escalated. Dogecoin sank 10%; a publicly traded fund dangling SpaceX exploration for retail consumption slid 13%; leveraged bets amping up returns on Musk-related ventures lost a quarter of their value or more. Shares of Trump's media company spat — ignited by the deficit-expanding tax bill threatening Tesla's electric-vehicle subsidies — cooled on Friday and asset valuations steadied. But by then, investors had gotten the message loud and clear. 'You can go from being an incredible beneficiary one moment and then being bludgeoned the next,' said Peter Atwater, founder of Financial Insyghts. 'Anytime you are investing in something that is as crowded as these Elon Musk-related vehicles, you are going to be either the beneficiary or the victim of his standing.'The breakup drama was backdrop to a comparatively sleepy week in regular markets. The S&P 500 ended the week 1.5% higher, while the extended FANG index — which doesn't include Tesla — hit a record. The dollar touched its lowest level in about two years. Ten-year Treasury yields jumped more than 10 basis points this week, as Friday's jobs data eased concerns about an imminent economic for the casino crowd on Thursday, things got ugly. These investors aren't just trading stocks or crypto, they're paying for proximity to dominant personalities. Tesla is a financial avatar for Musk's ambitions. Trump's political resurgence reverberates across his media company, his fast-expanding crypto empire and MAGA-theme products across the broader industry. Each post, endorsement and headline is a chance to pull capital into the retail investment hasn't just drawn in risk junkies — it's built an entire product architecture, from speculative bets to more conventional funds tied to the fortunes of billionaire Musk. Vehicles like Baron Partners Fund and the Ark Innovation ETF got caught up in the selloff before markets rebounded on sharp rout — its worst week since 2023 — was fueled by projections that the company faces a $1 billion hit to full-year profit, if it loses a tax credit from Trump's bill. Meanwhile, the president's businesses pushed deeper into the financial ecosystem. His media company was one step closer to launching the Truth Social Bitcoin ETF, the latest in a string of crypto-linked assets and 'MAGA'-themed investment those with the nerve to dive into the newfangled, the gains have been eye-popping at times. A closed-end fund with Space-X exposure, Destiny Tech100 Inc., surged about 500% in just a month after the Nov. 5 election. Dogecoin went from 15 cents to above 43 cents in November, when Ark surged by 26% in less than two spirits have run high since the pandemic but soared anew after Trump buddied up with Musk on the campaign trail and won the White House, backed by the $250 million the Tesla founder spent on the meme ethos was cemented when Musk's program to cut government spending took its name from a crypto token born as a canine-themed joke.'I put him in the separate category of the Zeus of personality cults, beyond anything that has ever happened,' said Jay Hatfield, CEO of Infrastructure Capital Management. 'We've never had anybody running a major company like him.'The result has been a speculative spasm that, until this week, was often insulated from old-school markets convulsed by Trump's on-again-off-again tariff threats. An element of the craze that infuriates Wall Street's old guard — the near-impossibility of forming a valuation case around things like crypto tokens and public vehicles for private holdings — proved a virtue at a time of rampant economic uncertainty.'Retail traders — the bro trade component of retail — they've never really cared much about fundamentals,' said Dave Mazza, Chief Executive Officer at Roundhill Investments who in February launched a Tesla-focused product. 'These folks really believe in the narrative on stocks like Tesla and Palantir Technologies Inc. Some of these names are really dependent upon a dream premium and not what they actually do for business.'Another case in point: 16% of ETFs launched this year offer single-security strategies that use either leverage or options overlay, according to Bloomberg Intelligence's Athanasios Psarofagis. That's a record. Many target retail investors who trade aggressively, take on higher risk, and use them for dip buying.'The rise of degen leverage and derivative products on the highest profile stocks makes a mockery of the idea that the market is 'allocating capital' in any rational way,' says Dave Nadig, an ETF industry expert. 'It's immensely profitable. That's why very few people are even suggesting there are any issues in ETF land.'
Time of India
38 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's ambition collides with law on sending migrants to dangerous countries
As the Trump administration ships migrants to countries around the world, it is abandoning a long-standing US policy of not sending people to places where they would be at risk of torture and other persecution. The principle emerged in international human rights law after World War II and is also embedded in US domestic law. It is called "non-refoulement," derived from a French word for return. The issue came into sharp relief in the past month as the Trump administration has tried to deport migrants with criminal records to Libya and South Sudan, countries considered so dangerous that they are on the State Department 's "do not travel" list. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Birla Evara 3 and 4 BHK from ₹ 1.68 Crore* Birla Estates Learn More Undo "What the US is doing runs afoul of the bedrock prohibition in US and international law of non-refoulement," said Robert K. Goldman, faculty director of the War Crimes Research Office at American University's law school. (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) In a recent affidavit, Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the Trump administration's efforts to send migrants to those two countries as part of a diplomatic push to improve relations. He acknowledged that the Libyan capital, Tripoli, was wracked by violence and instability. Live Events You Might Also Like: Trump administration proposes $1,000 fast-track fee for US tourist visas: memo To critics of the administration, the sworn statement shows that the United States is no longer considering whether a deportee is more likely than not to be at risk of abuse through repatriation or transfer to a third country. State Department employees were also recently told to stop noting in annual human rights reports whether a nation had violated its obligations not to send anyone "to a country where they would face torture or persecution." The State Department said in a statement that it dropped that requirement to focus the reports on "human rights issues themselves rather than a laundry list of politically biased demands and assertions." "Enforcing US immigration law, including removing those without a legal basis to remain in the United States, is critical to upholding the rule of law and protecting Americans," the statement said. You Might Also Like: Trump's ban on Harvard international students blocked by US judge A judge blocked the transfer of migrants to South Sudan, which is teetering on the brink of civil war, and the men were being held at a US military outpost in Djibouti pending more court action. The Trump administration is also in a showdown in another court over its transfer of Venezuelan deportees described as dangerous gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador without due process. "If they were sending them to Sweden, that would be a different thing than sending them to South Sudan, which is one of the most dangerous places on the planet," said Michael H. Posner, director of the Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University's Stern School of Business. Posner, who was the assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor from 2009 to 2013, said the United States could send someone from Cuba or Venezuela to another country if it had been determined at a hearing that the place was safe. "We should not be deporting people to third countries where they have no connections and where their lives will be in serious jeopardy," he said. You Might Also Like: Trump travel ban: Why is Trump banning millions from entering the US again? The White House likens its crackdown on illegal migration to combating a national security threat from a hostile enemy. It has pressed military troops into service at the southwestern border and at a small detention operation for migrants at Guantánamo Bay. But even after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the United States abided by its non-refoulement obligation for prisoners it was holding at Guantánamo Bay, during a period when it flouted international law by torturing other detainees in secret overseas prisons called black sites. In 2004, Secretary of State Colin Powell concluded that the United States would not repatriate Chinese citizens from the Uyghur Muslim minority who had been rounded up in the war against terrorism in 2001 and held at the military base at Guantánamo. The United States believed that the men would be at risk if they were sent to China. Eventually, in 2013, the State Department found other countries to take in all of the Uyghurs. In the past, State Department officials have essentially asked two questions to determine where a detainee could be sent: Would the destination be safe for the individual? Would the United States and its allies be safe if the person was sent there? US officials had to assess whether the receiving country could monitor the activities of the detainees to prevent them from endangering the United States or an ally. Officials were also required to assess whether a deportee would be subjected to torture or other inhumane treatment. The United States adopted the same approach to its efforts to send home Islamic State group members or their relatives who were being housed in camps in northern Syria. "Consistent with both long-standing policy and its legal obligations, the US government cannot send people to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe that they will be mistreated," said Ian Moss, a lawyer and a former senior counterterrorism official at the State Department. In his affidavit, Rubio accused the courts that were reviewing deportation challenges of undermining US foreign policy. He also said that plans to announce "expanded activities of a US energy company in Libya" had been postponed. Rubio did not mention whether any diplomatic agreements surrounding the proposed resettlement included guarantees about how the migrants would be treated. "If these individuals are as dangerous as the administration represents them to be," Moss said, "sending them to a conflict area or country where there is a lack of capacity to manage them undermines the national security justification," Moss said. The State Department statement referred questions about "the removals process, including screening for credible or reasonable fear," to the Department of Homeland Security . The eight men who were to be sent to South Sudan were at a holding site in Texas when they were informed of their destination. An immigration division official, Garrett J. Ripa, said in a sworn statement May 23 that none of the men declared himself afraid to go. Court records showed that an immigration officer gave the men a form that listed their intended place of deportation. None signed the document. "By not signing, people are protesting being sent to a third country in the only way they know how," said Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the migrants in the case. Administration officials had previously planned to deport one of the men to Libya, which has been so unstable that Congress has since 2015 not allowed detainees who are cleared for release from Guantánamo Bay to be sent there.
