‘Trump tried to rig elections': Newsom backs Texas Dems, eyes bold map shift in California
14:22
02:27
04:04
03:22
04:24
03:06
02:34
02:01
02:32
03:00
03:27
10:26
06:37
05:16
03:13
02:27
08:03
03:01
03:32
03:46
03:51
04:01
04:49
03:09
05:03
12:08
01:16
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
21 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Sanctions, exemptions and assurances: A cautionary note on India's trade deal strategy
Casinos and betting companies around the world might as well start offering odds on US tariff rates across goods for different countries and for how long the rates will stick. If one were lulled into complacency about understanding the current state of affairs, the Trump administration is sure to throw a few wildcards into the mix to keep everyone on their toes – and this includes analysts as well as trade negotiators. A few other countries, including Europe, have agreed on a trade deal with the US, and analysing its structure and form can give a strong indication of how the Indian deal might play out. Finally, a free trade agreement with the UK that was recently signed and one with Australia that was signed a few months ago give India a minor edge in the proceedings. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte recently threatened India, along with China, Brazil and others with 100 per cent secondary sanctions if they continue doing business with Russia, including buying Russian oil. Simultaneously, US Senator Lindsey Graham is pushing for the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, a bipartisan legislative proposal. The bill, backed by Trump and 170 other lawmakers, threatens an unprecedented 500 per cent tariff on all goods exported to the US by countries that buy Russian oil, gas, petrochemicals or uranium. This is part of an overall strategy to choke the Kremlin's war bank and economic lifelines. Trump has warned that if Russia does not stop its military offensive within 50 days, nations trading with Russia will receive trade penalties. India imports 90 per cent of its crude oil needs, of which 35-40 per cent comes from Russia. Recall that in 2020, the share of Russia in India's crude oil imports was less than 1 per cent. The response by the Indian administration has been mixed. India's foreign secretary hit back at NATO's double standards for both buying Russian gas and for buying refined oil from India, which uses Russian crude as inputs. He has also indicated that India might not readily fall in line, as securing India's energy needs is the top priority for this government. Elsewhere, there's a tacit acknowledgement of the cost-benefit analysis. India's Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri has implicitly acknowledged that India is prepared to 'deal with these sanctions' when they are passed. What helps is that India now has diversified its import sources to 40 countries, as opposed to 27 in the past, which means that India can reduce its imports from Russia, should the sanctions be passed. While diversifying imports to other countries can turn out to be slightly more expensive, a 500 per cent (or even 100 per cent) tariff rate would kill India's competitiveness with the only major trading partner with which India has a trade surplus. India will have to assess the probability of Trump keeping his word on the secondary tariffs. The oil spot markets called his bluff, as the price for Brent crude barely moved from $69 per barrel. If the secondary sanctions stick and Russian oil (which accounts for 10 per cent of the total global oil supply) is shut out of the global markets, the price could shoot up to $120 per barrel. This would derail Trump's domestic low-energy prices agenda. Moreover, if secondary tariffs on Chinese (mainly) and Indian goods stick, it would result in a significant increase in prices of imported goods and cause runaway inflation in the US. Will the acronym TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) be validated again? Along with the threat of secondary tariffs, Trump has also separately imposed tariffs on auto and auto parts. He is also threatening tariffs on pharmaceutical imports and a 10 per cent additional tariff on all products from BRICS countries for attempting to 'destroy' the US Dollar. These additional tariffs would make the Indian side wary of signing a deal with the US, given that it may be superseded at any time by such ad hoc measures. A trade deal would mean very little if there's a new threat of tariffs every other day. To mitigate this, the Indian side would want explicit assurances that no new tariffs will be imposed once a Bilateral Trade Agreement is finalised. India should now insist on the agreement including renegotiation clauses, or compensation from its trading partner in case of a tariff increase. It could even insist on a clawback clause, which allows India to withdraw benefits if the US reneges on the deal. Though it would be rather foolhardy to speculate, it can be instructive to look at some of the other trade deals that the US has recently signed to get an idea of what may lie in store for India. Though some of these details are yet to be publicly confirmed, what we know so far is that trade deals with the UK, Vietnam, Indonesia, the Philippines, Japan and the EU have been finalised. The big takeaway is that a 10 per cent tariff rate is the new zero or the base rate. In addition, each country faces different additional tariffs. The UK pays no extra charges, while Vietnam faces an additional 10 per cent (bringing their total to 20 per cent, down from the originally threatened 46 per cent). Indonesia and the Philippines each pay an additional 9 per cent, resulting in total rates of 19 per cent (compared to threatened rates of 32 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively). Japan and the EU receive the most favourable treatment with only an additional 5 per cent, for a total rate of 15 per cent. In exchange for these negotiated rates, most of these countries have eliminated all tariffs on US products and opened their markets to American companies. Note that sectoral tariffs are exempted from the reciprocal tariffs. Thus, auto and auto parts tariffs of 25 per cent will apply on top of the base 10 per cent, but these countries have negotiated on some of these sectoral tariffs. Japan was able to reduce auto tariffs to 15 per cent, reduced from the threatened 25 per cent, and the UK got it reduced to 10 per cent. India should pay attention to this and negotiate on pharma and auto products to get exemptions. The writer is an Economics Professor at the Takshashila Institution, an independent and non-partisan think tank and school of public policy
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
21 minutes ago
- Business Standard
US DOJ files misconduct complaint against judge handling deportation case
The Justice Department on Monday filed a misconduct complaint against the federal judge who has clashed with President Donald Trump 's administration over deportations to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Escalating the administration's conflict with US District Judge James E Boasberg, Attorney General Pam Bondi said on social media that she directed the filing of the complaint against Boasberg for making improper public comments about President Trump and his administration. The complaint stems from remarks Boasberg allegedly made in March to Chief Justice John Roberts and other federal judges saying the administration would trigger a constitutional crisis by disregarding federal court rulings, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Associated Press. The comments have undermined the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, the complaint says, adding that the administration has always complied with all court orders. Boasberg is among several judges who have questioned whether the administration has complied with their orders. The meeting took place days before Boasberg issued an order blocking deportation flights that Trump was carrying out by invoking wartime authorities from an 18th century law. The judge's verbal order to turn around planes that were on the way to El Salvador was ignored. Boasberg has since found probable cause that the administration committed contempt of court. The comments were supposedly made during a meeting of the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's governing body. The remarks were first reported by the conservative website The Federalist, which said it obtained a memo summarizing the meeting. Boasberg, the chief judge in the district court in the nation's capital, is a member of the Judicial Conference. Its meetings are not public. The complaint calls for an investigation, the reassignment of the deportations case to another judge while the inquiry is ongoing and sanctions, including the possible recommendation of impeachment, if the investigation substantiates the allegations. Trump himself already has called for Boasberg's impeachment, which in turn prompted a rare response from Roberts rejecting the call. The complaint was filed with Judge Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. More than 250 Venezuelans who were deported to a Salvadoran mega-prison known as the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, were sent home to Venezuela earlier this month in a deal that also free 10 US citizens and permanent residents who had been held by Venezuela. But the lawsuit over the deportations and the administration's response to Boasberg's order remains in his court.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
21 minutes ago
- First Post
Operation Sindoor debate: What is the Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting that Jaishankar, Rajnath Singh are attacking?
Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar recalled the 2009 Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement in Lok Sabha, calling it a grave misstep after the Mumbai terror attacks. Their sharp remarks revived criticism of the meeting between then-PM Manmohan Singh and then-Pakistan PM Yousuf Raza Gilani, which controversially referenced Balochistan and delinked terror from dialogue read more Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani (L) shakes hands with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the 15th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in the Egyptian Red Sea tourist resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, July 16, 2009. File Image/Reuters The Sharm-el-Sheikh summit — long considered one of the most contentious chapters in India's post-26/11 diplomacy — is back in the spotlight during the Monsoon session of the Lok Sabha. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, invoked the July 2009 meeting while discussing Operation Sindoor, sharply criticising the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) for its handling of relations with Pakistan in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Their interventions have revived the criticism of a joint statement issued after talks between then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yousuf Raza Gilani in the Egyptian resort town of Sharm el-Sheikh on July 16, 2009, a document that not only altered the framing of dialogue between the two countries but also made an unprecedented mention of Balochistan. Sharm-el-Sheikh was a strategic error: Rajnath Singh Speaking on Monday in the Lok Sabha, Singh launched a pointed critique of the previous UPA government, accusing it of blunting India's position on cross-border terrorism at a time when international momentum was building against Pakistan after the 26/11 attacks. 'In 2009, the government back then made a mistake in the Sharm-el-Sheikh agreement,' Singh told the House, opening the Operation Sindoor discussion. He argued that the joint statement, issued after the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit meeting in Egypt, weakened India's insistence that any dialogue with Islamabad would hinge on a demonstrable commitment to curb terrorism emanating from its territory. 'This diluted the terms set that Pakistan will not be allowed to use its land for terrorism,' Singh said, drawing a contrast with the earlier stance of former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who, he recalled, made it 'unequivocally clear that any dialogue with Pakistan would be contingent upon a commitment to end terror originating from its soil.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Singh said the UPA missed an opportunity to mount decisive pressure on Islamabad after the Mumbai attacks of November 2008, which killed over 160 people and shocked the world. Quoting directly from the memoir of former President and UPA-era External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee, The Coalition Years, Singh read: 'Pranab Mukherjee has written in his book 'The Coalition Years' that when the Mumbai attacks happened, India had evidence that the terrorists came from Karachi port. No one in the world believed the excuse of Pakistan's 'non-state actors'. He has written, and I quote – 'Amid heated debates within the Cabinet, there was a demand for military intervention which I rejected'.' हमारी सरकार, हमारी सेनाएं और हमारी लोकतांत्रिक संस्थाएं, सभी मिलकर देश की एकता, अखंडता और सुरक्षा के लिए हर आवश्यक कदम उठाने को प्रतिबद्ध हैं। — Rajnath Singh (@rajnathsingh) July 28, 2025 STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Singh also recounted a meeting documented by a senior Indian Foreign Service officer, in which then Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon proposed a cruise missile strike on the Lashkar-e-Taiba headquarters in Muridke, Pakistan. 'Hearing this, Mukherjee took off his glasses, cleaned them, and thanked all the officers before concluding the meeting,' Singh narrated in Parliament — a vignette that, in his view, captured the indecision of the time. Singh's critique extended beyond military restraint. He argued that the government's response to 26/11 had long-term diplomatic costs. 'Just take a look at the documents of the Brics summit held after that incident; there is no mention of the Mumbai terrorist attacks anywhere,' he said, suggesting that India failed to rally global condemnation against Pakistan. He contrasted that with what he described as the more 'forceful' actions of the NDA government after later attacks, referencing the 2016 surgical strikes and the 2019 air strikes: 'I believe that if the government back then had taken decisive and tough steps like the 2016 (surgical strike) and 2019 (air strike), Pakistan's strategic calculus could have been altered. A powerful and decisive action could have proven to be a significant disincentive for Pakistan and its army-sponsored terrorist organisations.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'People who did nothing are questioning those who acted': Jaishankar Jaishankar challenged critics of the government's handling of Operation Sindoor and turning the spotlight on the UPA's response to earlier crises. 'We were asked, why did you stop at this time? Why did you not go further? This question is being asked by people who, after 26/11, felt that the best action was inaction,' Jaishankar remarked. Speaking in Lok Sabha during special discussion on India's strong, successful and decisive #OperationSindoor. — Dr. S. Jaishankar (@DrSJaishankar) July 28, 2025 In his sharpest attack, he pointed to the reference to Balochistan in the Sharm-el-Sheikh joint statement: 'In Sharm-el-Sheikh, the then government and the Pakistani Prime Minister agreed that terrorism is a main threat to both countries. Now, today, people are saying America is hyphenating you, Russia is hyphenating you — that is what I heard Deepender Hooda ji say. You are hyphenating yourself. You did not need a foreign country to say please link India to Pakistan… And worst of all, they accepted a reference to Balochistan in that.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD For Jaishankar, this amounted to a damaging equivalence between victim and perpetrator: 'Now, here is a country reeling after 26/11, and you are equating Balochistan and 26/11, what happened in Mumbai, and you are saying that the perpetrator and the victim have both got a problem. And then, now you are asking me, why didn't you go further? People who did nothing are asking the Government that did so much, why didn't you do more?' Jaishankar noted that the current government had succeeded in bringing down Bahawalpur and Muridke terror sites, declaring: 'Who thought that terror sites in Bahawalpur and Muridke would be brought down the way they were?' He also traced a pattern back further, citing the UPA government's actions after the July 2006 Mumbai train bombings: 'Some years ago, if you remember Sir, the Mumbai train bombing. The Mumbai train bombing happened in the July of 2006. In September of 2006, three months after the Mumbai train bombing, at Havana, the UPA Government with its Pakistani counterpart condemns all acts of terrorism – as though we were both again equal, and agrees that it is a scourge that we need to effectively deal with together. And then they directed again, the resumption of dialogue. So, what I want to highlight is, for the people who did nothing, to have that temerity, that gumption today, to ask a Government which did so much, which brought down Bahawalpur and Muridke, to say why didn't you do more – I think it's extraordinary.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What happened at Sharm-el-Sheikh in 2009 The Sharm-el-Sheikh meeting took place on the sidelines of the Non-Aligned Movement summit in July 2009, only eight months after the Mumbai attacks. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani held discussions that led to the issuance of a joint statement — a document that became one of the most controversial diplomatic texts in India's recent history. Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani (L) shakes hands with India's Prime Minister Manmohan Singh during the 15th Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) summit in the Egyptian Red Sea tourist resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, July 16, 2009. File Image/Reuters The statement declared terrorism 'the main threat to both countries,' and included an assurance from Gilani that Pakistan would 'do everything in its power' to bring those responsible for 26/11 to justice. It also recorded that 'Pakistan had provided an updated status dossier on the investigations of the Mumbai attacks and had sought additional information/evidence,' which Singh said was being reviewed by India. 'Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues,' the joint statement said. However, two elements triggered outrage back home. First, the statement explicitly noted that 'action on terrorism should not be linked to the composite dialogue process and these should not be bracketed.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This effectively delinked dialogue from Pakistan's progress on curbing terror — a shift from India's post-26/11 stance that talks could only proceed after credible action against perpetrators. Second, Gilani's mention of Balochistan — recorded in the statement — provided Islamabad with an opening to publicly accuse India of meddling in its insurgency-plagued province. Returning home, Gilani used the reference to claim that India had tacitly acknowledged involvement, a claim India denied but one that added to the political backlash. 'Both leaders agreed that the two countries will share real time, credible and actionable information on any future terrorist threats,' the statement read. 'Prime Minister Gilani mentioned that Pakistan has some information on threats in Balochistan and other areas.' 'Both Prime Ministers recognised that dialogue is the only way forward. Action on terrorism should not be linked to the Composite Dialogue process and these should not be bracketed. Prime Minister Singh said that India was ready to discuss all issues with Pakistan, including all outstanding issues.' The fallout in India was immediate and intense. Opposition parties branded the joint statement a 'sell-out' and accused the UPA government of compromising India's position. The BJP declared in Parliament at the time: 'Waters of the seven seas will not be able to wash the shame.' Congress launched a damage-control effort, with senior figures arguing that continued engagement with Pakistan was unavoidable despite the 26/11 attacks. Manmohan Singh defended his stance in Parliament at the time, delivering a statement that framed dialogue as a strategic necessity: 'We do not dilute our positions or our resolve to defeat terrorism by talking to any country. Other major powers affected by Pakistan-based terrorism are also engaging with Pakistan. Unless we talk directly to Pakistan, we will have to rely on third parties to do so. That route, I submit to this August House, has very severe limitations as to its effectiveness, and for the longer term the involvement of foreign powers in South Asia is not something to our liking. I say with strength and conviction that dialogue and engagement is the best way forward.' For the current NDA government, it is a case study in what it portrays as UPA-era indecision — a moment when India, in its view, squandered the opportunity to decisively confront Pakistan after the Mumbai attacks. Also Watch: With inputs from agencies
