US Supreme Court curbs nationwide injunctions against Trump
The specific case before the court had to do with what is known as birthright citizenship, which allows anyone born on US soil to automatically become a citizen regardless of their parents' immigration status.
Trump signed an order on his first day in office to revoke the right for certain people. Those include babies whose mothers are in the country illegally or temporarily, as well as children whose fathers are not US citizens or permanent residents.
The court's decision limits the ability of federal judges to issue rulings that apply nationwide. It specifies that Trump's order cannot take effect for 30 days, but it didn't address the constitutionality of the order.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
5 hours ago
- Japan Times
Ten ways to force Putin back to the bargaining table
Vladimir Putin came to Alaska and got the red carpet treatment, complete with a fighter jet flyover and a warm presidential handshake. The state was an ironic location for a summit given Russia's continuing seller's remorse over having sold it to America in the mid-19th century. While expectations were low for a full ceasefire, most observers were hoping for at least a path to negotiations. But as he has for months now, Putin simply continued to play rope-a-dope like a boxer in the ring, ducking both a ceasefire or even a demonstrated willingness to negotiate. A subdued President Donald Trump canceled a planned luncheon to discuss broader economic and security issues with Russia, uncharacteristically refused to take questions and flew back to DC to ponder his next steps. Clearly, it's going to take "severe measures,' to use Trump's own words, to get Moscow not just to sit at the bargaining table but stay for dinner. But what measures need to be up for discussion to convince the maximalist Putin to reduce his demands? Is there a specific checklist?
Nikkei Asia
6 hours ago
- Nikkei Asia
After Trump quotes Xi on Taiwan, China calls for 'peaceful reunification'
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to reporters aboard Air Force One before his meeting with Russia's Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Aug. 15. During the flight, he told Fox News that China's Xi Jinping had promised no invasion of Taiwan during the Trump administration. © Reuters JAMES HAND-CUKIERMAN August 18, 2025 18:28 JST TOKYO -- China on Monday said it is prepared to pursue "peaceful reunification" with Taiwan, days after U.S. President Donald Trump said that Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping had promised no invasion of the island democracy while Trump is in office.
Japan Times
6 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump's transactional policies threaten global stability
The much-hyped Trump-Putin Alaska summit ended Friday without any agreement on Ukraine, despite both leaders hailing the 'progress' made. U.S. President Donald Trump conceded that no deal was reached, while Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted they had achieved an 'understanding.' The meeting, filled with pomp but lacking substance, only reinforced the perception of Trump's transactional style — warmth for adversaries but little clarity on outcomes. Just before the Alaska summit, Trump also claimed that Chinese President Xi Jinping had privately assured him that China would not invade Taiwan during his tenure, underscoring the unpredictable yet highly consequential impact of Trump's diplomacy on global security. These developments form the backdrop against which Trump's renewed tariff wars must be understood. His second term in the White House is dramatically reshaping the global geopolitical landscape, particularly in trade and strategic alignments. While some of these changes may be guided by his ambition to 'make America great again,' there is a growing sentiment — both within and outside the United States — that his actions are shaped as much by pay-to-play and personal motivations as by strategic vision. At the heart of these shifts lies a reinvigorated tariff war, which has not only targeted traditional rivals like China but also extended to strategic partners in the Indo-Pacific such as Japan and India. Trump's first presidential term (2017-20) was marked by a clear foreign-policy orientation that sought to contain the rise of China. Recognizing China as the principal challenger to U.S. supremacy, his administration sought to forge new alignments in the Indo-Pacific region, bolstering ties with countries such as Japan, Australia and India to act as counterweights. The strategic language was couched in terms of preserving a free and open Indo-Pacific, in which the U.S. portrayed itself as a Pacific power with legitimate stakes in the region's balance of power. Trump's second term, however, has seen a notable pivot: economic protectionism now overrides strategic consistency, and trade wars are being used not only as economic instruments but as tools of geopolitical leverage. As with Trump's steep tariffs on Japan , his more recent imposition of tariffs on India — America's largest democratic partner and a crucial player in the Indo-Pacific — is a startling manifestation of this shift. On Aug. 6, Trump signed an executive order imposing an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods, raising the overall tariff to a staggering 50%. The rationale given was India's continued purchase of Russian oil, which the White House claimed represented an 'unusual and extraordinary threat' to American national security and foreign-policy interests. Yet upon even cursory examination, the Trump administration's reasoning is riddled with inconsistencies and double standards. Data shows that India accounted for only 13% of Russia's fossil-fuel revenue since the start of the Ukraine war, whereas the European Union — despite its anti-Russia rhetoric — contributed 23%. Still, the EU has been spared punitive tariffs, while India faces the economic brunt. This selective application of punitive measures suggests that the logic behind the tariffs is not solely grounded in principled foreign policy. It increasingly looks like an attempt to pressure countries that have limited leverage over the United States. Unlike China, which retaliated against earlier tariffs by banning the export of rare earth minerals — forcing Washington to reduce its tariff burden — India lacks such economic levers. With a vast population dependent on agriculture and dairy, New Delhi has long resisted opening up these sensitive sectors. Trump's insistence that India must make concessions in these very sectors adds further strain, as such demands are politically unacceptable in the Indian domestic context. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has responded with firmness, making it clear that India will not compromise the interests of its farmers, fishermen and dairy producers. Speaking at a public event, he acknowledged that India might have to pay a heavy price for its stance, but asserted his readiness to bear it, saying he will 'stand like a wall against any harmful policies' impacting Indian agriculture. This defiant posture marks a significant deterioration in U.S.-India trade ties, especially since Washington has simultaneously ruled out any further trade talks until the matter is resolved. For a relationship once touted as among the most consequential of the 21st century — not only in the Indo-Pacific region but globally — the fallout is deeply disconcerting. What adds to the complexity is Trump's seemingly contradictory behavior toward other global actors. His previous hostility toward NATO and its European members has, during his second term, given way to more transactional economic deals with both the EU and the U.K. With this change in tack he has managed to extract higher defense spending from them, fulfilling one of his longstanding demands. Meanwhile, Trump's initial soft posture toward Russia — based on the belief that he could persuade Putin to end the war — has hardened as that expectation failed to materialize. Yet, rather than directly penalizing Russia — and even taking steps to normalize relations with Putin at the Alaska summit — Trump has chosen to exert pressure on countries like India that maintain energy ties with Moscow. Even more puzzling is Trump's stance toward China. Despite earlier confrontations, he now appears to be exploring a potential trade deal with Beijing. There is speculation that he may even visit China, signaling a thaw that could have wide-ranging geopolitical ramifications. This approach stands in stark contrast to the harsh tariff measures directed at India and Brazil, both of which are founding BRICS members. Trump has also described BRICS (a 10-nation grouping of major emerging economies including Brazil, India, China and South Africa) as 'anti-American' and blamed the group for pushing de-dollarization — claims that are contested and oversimplified, but serve to justify further economic penalties. The net effect of these shifting positions is a growing perception that Trump's foreign and trade policies lack coherence and are driven more by short-term gains and political optics than by long-term strategic thinking. For India, this unpredictability represents a significant challenge. The country must now navigate an increasingly volatile external environment in which even its traditional partnerships can no longer be taken for granted. The economic consequences are already visible. According to Moody's, the new tariffs could slow India's GDP growth by 0.3% in fiscal year 2025–26, pulling it down from 6.3% to around 6%. Key sectors like electronics manufacturing may see reduced foreign investment due to the tariff gap compared to other Asia-Pacific economies. Investor sentiment is weakening, with foreign portfolio investors pulling out $2 billion in July and nearly $1 billion more in early August. Although the stock market has shown some resilience, the broader trend is one of caution and concern. At the same time, China's recent export restrictions on rare earth elements have highlighted the vulnerabilities in America's high-tech and defense manufacturing sectors. While the U.S. has invested in domestic production and diversification strategies, it remains years away from building a self-reliant supply chain. This gives China a significant bargaining chip in any future negotiation — one that India lacks. Trump's willingness to go easier on China while punishing India only reinforces the perception that his administration picks its targets based on expediency rather than principles. Another layer of complexity is Trump's sudden pivot toward Pakistan, a country he had once derided as duplicitous. His recent deal with Islamabad and the hosting of Army Chief Gen. Asim Munir at the White House are being viewed as part of a larger recalibration in the Indo-Pacific. Taken together with his softer posture toward China, this development raises serious questions about U.S. strategic priorities in the region and how India figures in the American calculus going forward. India, therefore, faces a geopolitical moment that demands both caution and clarity. As Trump's second tenure introduces a mix of unpredictability, pressure tactics, and transactional diplomacy, New Delhi must work to safeguard its long-term interests without compromising its sovereign decision-making. This will require not only diversifying its strategic partnerships but also strengthening domestic economic resilience in the face of external shocks. The tariff war may just be one front — but the battle for geopolitical stability is far from over. Anand Kumar is associate fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses in New Delhi.
