Trump Pulls U.S. Out of 66 Global Bodies, Creating Leadership Vacuum and Opening Door for China

 U.S. President Donald Trump has taken one of the most far-reaching foreign policy decisions of his second term by pulling the United States out of 66 international organisations, a move that is already reshaping global governance and opening up significant space for China to expand its influence. The list includes major United Nations bodies as well as the International Solar Alliance (ISA), a flagship initiative led by India and France.

By signing a memorandum titled “Withdrawing the United States from International Organisations, Conventions, and Treaties that Are Contrary to the Interests of the United States”, President Trump formally instructed all U.S. government departments and agencies to begin the withdrawal process immediately. The order makes clear that the exits should be completed “as soon as possible,” marking a decisive break from decades of American engagement with multilateral institutions.

In New Delhi’s assessment, the most immediate impact of the U.S. exit will be felt in two areas: funding and leadership. Many of the organisations affected rely heavily on American financial contributions and political backing. With Washington stepping away, officials believe a leadership vacuum is inevitable — one that China is well-positioned to fill given its financial resources, institutional reach, and growing diplomatic clout.

One of the most consequential exits is from the World Health Organisation (WHO). The U.S. initiated its withdrawal on January 20, 2025, the first day of Trump’s second term, and it is scheduled to become fully effective by January 2026. As the WHO’s largest donor, the U.S. departure will lead to significant funding shortfalls. This could weaken global preparedness for future pandemics, disrupt disease surveillance systems, and affect health programmes in developing countries, including India, particularly those targeting HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.

The U.S. exit from UNESCO, formally notified in July 2025, is expected to create similar challenges. Reduced funding and the absence of American leadership may allow other countries, especially China, to step in and shape agendas related to education, culture, and heritage preservation. The withdrawal also means fewer resources for global heritage conservation and educational initiatives worldwide.

Washington’s decision to leave the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) further limits its ability to influence global human rights discourse. With the U.S. no longer participating, countries such as China and Russia may face less resistance in diluting human rights norms and weakening international accountability mechanisms.

Another major fallout involves the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). After the U.S. suspended all funding in February 2025, the agency’s capacity to deliver humanitarian assistance in Gaza and other Palestinian territories has been severely constrained. India, which has been a consistent contributor to UNRWA, may face pressure to increase its support — a sensitive issue given Israel’s long-standing criticism of the agency.

Broadly, Trump’s latest decision affects two major categories of organisations. The first includes climate and environmental bodies. By exiting not only the Paris Agreement but also foundational treaties like the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the U.S. becomes the first country to withdraw from the core architecture of global climate governance. As one of the world’s largest historical emitters, America’s departure is expected to slow collective climate action and weaken efforts to limit global warming to 1.5°C. It could also embolden other countries to scale back their commitments.

The U.S. withdrawal from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is particularly significant. The move undermines global climate science by sidelining American researchers and reducing the pool of shared data critical for accurate climate modelling and policymaking — a setback for countries like India that depend on global assessments for planning and adaptation.

For India, the U.S. exit from the International Solar Alliance represents both a practical and symbolic blow. Headquartered in India, the ISA was created to mobilise over $1 trillion in solar investments by 2030. The loss of U.S. participation means reduced funding prospects, diminished technical expertise, and a weakening of global influence, even though the alliance has diversified its membership and financing sources over time.

Other environmental and energy groupings likely to feel the impact include the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), and initiatives such as the 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact.

The second category affected by Trump’s decision includes economic, development, and human rights institutions. By rejecting the OECD-led global minimum tax deal, the U.S. has injected uncertainty into efforts to curb profit shifting by multinational corporations. Without participation from the world’s largest economy, implementing the global tax framework becomes far more difficult.

Additional organisations facing disruption include the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), UN Women, and the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), all of which play critical roles in development, gender equality, and global trade governance.

Also targeted are institutions that uphold the rules-based international order, such as the International Law Commission, the UN Peacebuilding Commission, the Venice Commission, and the Global Counterterrorism Forum. The withdrawal extends to key UN economic and regional bodies under ECOSOC, as well as offices dealing with children in armed conflict.

Indian officials believe many of these institutions are now “ripe for picking” by Beijing. As the U.S. steps back, India and other like-minded countries will need to coordinate closely to preserve global norms, protect institutional integrity, and prevent the erosion of the rules-based order.

UN Pegs India’s Growth at 7.2% for FY26, Says Domestic Demand Can Offset U.S. Tariffs

 

India’s economic growth outlook remains largely positive despite rising global trade tensions, according to the latest assessment by the United Nations. Just a day after the Indian government projected a 7.4% growth rate for the economy in the 2025–26 financial year, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) offered a slightly more cautious but still optimistic estimate, pegging India’s growth at 7.2% for the same period.

In its flagship report, World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026, the UN body said that strong domestic demand — driven by consumption and sustained public investment — is expected to absorb much of the shock caused by higher tariffs imposed by the United States. According to the report, these internal strengths will help India maintain momentum even as external pressures mount.

That said, the UN also flagged potential risks. It noted that prolonged tariff measures could begin to weigh on India’s export performance, particularly because nearly 18% of Indian exports are destined for the U.S. market. While the immediate impact may be manageable, continued trade restrictions could create headwinds if they persist over a longer period.

To counter these challenges, the report highlighted the role of domestic policy support. Measures such as tax reforms and a more accommodative monetary policy are expected to provide short-term relief and stimulate economic activity. In addition, India’s growing trade engagement with other regions — including Europe and West Asia — is likely to cushion the blow from reduced access to the U.S. market.

On a calendar-year basis, the UN projects India’s economy to expand by 7.4% in 2025, broadly in line with government estimates. However, the growth trajectory is expected to moderate slightly in subsequent years. For the financial years 2026–27 and 2027–28, India’s growth is forecast at 6.6% and around 6.7–6.8%, respectively. Despite the slowdown, the UN emphasized that these rates still place India among the fastest-growing major economies in the world.

The report underscored that household consumption remains resilient, supported by improving income levels and steady employment trends. Alongside this, robust public investment continues to act as a backbone for economic expansion. Government spending on physical infrastructure, digital connectivity, defence manufacturing, and renewable energy has played a major role in boosting capital formation over the past year.

On the supply side, the UN expects manufacturing and services to remain key engines of growth. The continued expansion of these sectors is likely to sustain output and employment across the forecast period. Importantly, the report pointed out that not all exports are equally vulnerable to U.S. tariffs. High-value segments such as electronics and smartphones are expected to remain exempt, limiting damage to some of India’s most dynamic export categories.

The UN’s analysis also placed India’s performance in a broader global context. In 2025, India recorded strong growth in gross fixed capital formation, reflecting increased investments in infrastructure and strategic sectors. This contrasts with trends in some other major economies. For instance, China experienced a contraction in fixed asset investment during the first three quarters of 2025, largely due to prolonged weakness in its property sector.

Meanwhile, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries continued to invest heavily in large-scale projects as part of their long-term economic diversification plans. These investments have helped sustain regional demand and provided opportunities for trade and cooperation with countries like India.

Overall, the UN’s assessment suggests that while global uncertainties — particularly trade-related tensions — pose risks, India’s growth story remains fundamentally strong. With solid domestic demand, sustained public investment, and expanding manufacturing and services sectors, the economy appears well-positioned to navigate external shocks and maintain steady growth in the years ahead.

Trump Clears Bill Allowing 500% Tariffs on Countries Buying Russian Oil, India Under Pressure

 

The geopolitical pressure on India over its Russian oil purchases has intensified sharply after U.S. President Donald Trump gave the green signal to a powerful new sanctions bill that could reshape global energy trade. The proposed legislation would allow the U.S. President to impose tariffs of up to 500% on countries that continue buying oil or uranium from Russia — a move clearly aimed at nations like India, China, and Brazil.

According to senior U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the bill’s key architects and a close ally of President Trump, the legislation has already received presidential approval and could be put to a vote in Congress as early as next week. If passed, it would give the White House unprecedented leverage over countries that are still purchasing discounted Russian energy, which Washington believes is helping fund Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine.

Senator Graham did not mince words while explaining the intent behind the bill. He said the objective is to pressure major importers to stop buying “cheap Russian oil” that is, in his words, financing President Vladimir Putin’s war effort. With overwhelming bipartisan backing — 84 co-sponsors in the Senate and 151 in the House of Representatives — the bill is widely expected to pass without difficulty once it reaches the floor.

The timing of this development is particularly significant for India. It comes just days before Sergio Gor, the U.S. Ambassador-designate to India, is set to arrive in New Delhi to formally begin his tenure. Mr. Gor, who will also serve as the U.S. Special Envoy to South and Central Asia, has already made it clear that pushing India to end Russian oil imports will be one of his top priorities.

During his Senate confirmation hearings earlier, Mr. Gor stated that President Trump had been “crystal clear” on the issue. He openly acknowledged that India remains a major buyer of Russian crude and warned that the new sanctions law would empower the President to impose tariffs far higher than the existing 25% penalty currently in place.

President Trump himself hinted at the upcoming legislation earlier this week during a joint appearance with Senator Graham, describing it as “great legislation” that would give the administration discretion to impose tariffs well beyond the current limits. If enacted, the law would not just encourage reductions — it would push for a complete halt to Russian oil imports.

There are already signs that this pressure is having an impact. Reliance Industries, which operates the world’s largest oil refinery complex at Jamnagar, confirmed that it has not received Russian crude shipments for most of December and does not expect any in January either. This suggests that at least some Indian refiners are proactively adjusting their sourcing strategies.

While Indian public sector oil companies did increase their intake of Russian crude in November 2025, the overall picture looks less optimistic. Reliance stepping back, combined with sanctions-hit Nayara Energy’s inability to import, makes it unlikely that India’s Russian oil imports will return to earlier peak levels anytime soon.

This is not the first time India has faced such pressure. In 2018, under the previous Trump administration, New Delhi was forced to completely halt oil imports from Iran and Venezuela following similar U.S. sanctions threats.

International reactions have also underscored the shift. In Paris, Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski publicly welcomed India’s reduction in Russian oil purchases during a joint appearance with India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, alongside the foreign ministers of France and Germany.

As Washington sharpens its stance, India now finds itself balancing strategic autonomy, energy security, and diplomatic realities — once again at the center of a high-stakes global power play.

Delhi Maintains Silence After Trump’s Remark on PM Modi, Chooses Diplomacy Over Reaction

 

New Delhi has opted for restraint after U.S. President Donald Trump made a controversial remark suggesting that Prime Minister Narendra Modi had personally sought a meeting with him. The comment has caused unease within political circles in India, but the government has decided — at least for now — not to issue a formal response.

In his latest statement, Mr. Trump claimed that Prime Minister Modi had approached him saying, “Sir, may I see you please,” a remark that was seen in Delhi as dismissive and unnecessary. Despite growing political calls for a strong rebuttal, India’s diplomatic establishment has advised caution, arguing that reacting publicly would serve little purpose.

This is not the first time Mr. Trump has made remarks critical of India. Earlier this week, he said Mr. Modi was “not very happy” with him following Washington’s decision to raise tariffs on Indian goods to 50 per cent, citing India’s continued purchase of Russian oil. The latest 25 per cent penalty was imposed on top of existing duties, significantly escalating trade tensions.

Mr. Trump also claimed that India had been waiting for five years to receive Apache helicopters from the United States and said New Delhi had ordered 68 of them. Indian government sources quickly disputed this account, stating that India had only purchased 28 Apache helicopters — 22 for the Indian Air Force and six for the Indian Army — and that all of them had already been delivered.

According to official records, the first deal for 22 Apache helicopters was signed in September 2015 during the Obama administration, with deliveries completed during Mr. Trump’s first term as President. The second agreement for six helicopters was signed during Mr. Trump’s visit to India in February 2020. While deliveries under this contract were delayed, the helicopters were handed over by December 2025, not in early 2024 as suggested by Mr. Trump. In fact, the issue of delivery timelines was discussed during Prime Minister Modi’s visit to Washington in February 2025.

Despite the inaccuracies, senior officials believe that responding publicly would be counter-productive, especially at a time when India and the United States are still negotiating a broader trade agreement. “There is no need to react to every statement or provide a running commentary on what the U.S. President says,” a government source said, adding that India’s focus remains firmly on trade talks.

Mr. Trump has made similar remarks in the past. In August 2025, he claimed to have warned Mr. Modi that the U.S. would impose extremely high tariffs and abandon trade negotiations. He also asserted that he personally intervened to prevent an India-Pakistan conflict, a claim New Delhi has repeatedly rejected.

Although Indian officials have, on occasion, fact-checked Mr. Trump’s statements, they acknowledge that such corrections have not stopped him from continuing to make sweeping claims, including taking credit for easing tensions between India and Pakistan in May 2025.

Speaking in Luxembourg on Wednesday, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar addressed the broader issue without naming Mr. Trump directly. He noted that countries far removed from the region often comment on South Asian tensions without examining instability closer to home. “People sitting far away will say things — sometimes thoughtfully, sometimes carelessly, sometimes out of self-interest,” he said.

Referring to Operation Sindoor, Mr. Jaishankar recalled how several countries offered unsolicited advice to India. “That is the nature of the world,” he said. “What people say is not always what they do. We accept it and move on.”

For now, Delhi appears determined to stay the course — prioritising diplomacy, trade negotiations, and long-term interests over sharp public exchanges.

Trump Claims Venezuela Will Send Up to 50 Million Barrels of Oil to U.S. After Maduro’s Capture

U.S. President Donald Trump has said that Venezuela’s interim government will hand over between 30 and 50 million barrels of oil to the United States, following Washington’s military intervention in the oil-rich South American nation earlier this month.

In a social media post on Tuesday, Mr. Trump said the oil would be transferred as part of what he described as a new arrangement with Venezuela’s interim authorities, after U.S. forces captured President Nicolás Maduro during a night-time operation on January 3. According to reports in the American media, the attack resulted in the deaths of at least 75 people, including several Cuban nationals.

“I am pleased to announce that the Interim Authorities in Venezuela will be turning over between 30 and 50 million barrels of high-quality, sanctioned oil to the United States,” Mr. Trump wrote. He added that the oil would be shipped directly to U.S. ports and sold at market prices.

Mr. Trump claimed that the proceeds from the sale would be placed under his control to ensure the money is used “for the benefit of the people of Venezuela and the United States.” However, he did not clarify what Venezuela would receive in return for the oil, nor did he provide a clear timeline for when shipments would begin.

Soon after the military operation, Mr. Trump had declared that the United States would effectively “run” Venezuela for the time being and said American oil companies would be encouraged to return and invest in the country’s energy sector. His comments were later softened by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said Washington did not intend to govern Venezuela directly but would push for changes through sanctions and a naval quarantine, which is currently restricting oil tankers entering and leaving the country.

Venezuela’s interim leader, Delcy Rodríguez, rejected claims of foreign control over the country. Speaking days after the U.S. attack, she insisted that Venezuela remained sovereign and that no outside power was governing it. “The government of Venezuela is in charge in our country, and no one else,” she said, according to international news agencies.

At the same time, Ms. Rodríguez has sent mixed signals about her willingness to cooperate with Washington. While she has spoken about peaceful coexistence and dialogue, she has also pushed back strongly against U.S. demands, especially those related to Venezuela’s oil reserves.

Mr. Trump, however, has maintained that the United States is now effectively “in charge” and has warned Ms. Rodríguez to comply with his administration’s conditions. He said he had instructed Energy Secretary Chris Wright to immediately arrange for the oil to be transported by storage ships to unloading docks in the United States.

Venezuela holds the world’s largest proven oil reserves but currently produces less than one million barrels a day. At that rate, producing 50 million barrels would take more than two months. At current global prices of around $60 per barrel, the oil shipment would be worth roughly $3 billion.

Mr. Maduro, who remains in U.S. custody, is facing charges related to what Washington has described as “narco-terrorism.” The Venezuelan government has not officially confirmed Mr. Trump’s claims regarding the oil transfer.

As tensions continue to rise, analysts say the situation raises serious questions about sovereignty, international law, and control over one of the world’s most valuable energy reserves.

Government Estimates India’s GDP Growth at 7.4% for FY 2025–26 Amid Global Trade Pressures

 

The Union government has projected India’s real GDP growth at 7.4% for the financial year 2025–26, marking an improvement over the 6.5% growth recorded in the previous year. The estimate, released as part of the First Advance Estimates (FAE) by the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, comes at a time when the economy is navigating global uncertainties and rising trade pressures.

Alongside real growth, the government has pegged nominal GDP growth at 8% for the year. These advance estimates carry particular significance, as they form the statistical foundation for key fiscal calculations used in the preparation of the Union Budget.

Advance estimates are essentially forecasts based on data available up to a certain point in the year. While the First Advance Estimates provide an early picture, a Second Advance Estimate will be released on February 27, offering a clearer assessment as more data becomes available. The Provisional Estimates, based on full-year data, are scheduled for release on May 30.

According to the government’s assessment, economic momentum was strong in the first half of the year, with GDP expanding by 7.8% in the first quarter and 8.2% in the second quarter. However, growth is expected to moderate in the latter half, with the average pace for the third and fourth quarters estimated at 6.8%. This suggests a gradual slowdown as external and domestic challenges begin to weigh on activity.

The Reserve Bank of India had earlier projected GDP growth at 7.3% for 2025–26, with growth expected to ease from 7% in the third quarter to 6.5% in the fourth. Both the government and the central bank’s projections reflect a cautious optimism amid mounting global headwinds.

One of the most pressing challenges facing the economy is the 50% tariff imposed by the United States on Indian imports. This has disproportionately affected labour-intensive industries such as textiles, apparel, and engineering goods, raising concerns over exports and employment. While the government has attempted to stimulate domestic demand through cuts in both direct and indirect taxes, consumption growth appears to be softening.

Data from the advance estimates shows that Private Final Consumption Expenditure, a key indicator of household spending, is expected to grow by 7%, slightly slower than the 7.2% growth recorded last year. This suggests that consumer confidence, while stable, has not strengthened significantly despite policy support.

Sector-wise, performance remains uneven. The mining and quarrying sector is projected to contract by 0.7%, a sharp reversal from the 2.7% growth seen in the previous year. In contrast, the services sector is expected to emerge as the main growth driver, with overall expansion accelerating to 9.1%, compared to 7.2% last year.

Within services, strong growth is anticipated in financial services, real estate, and professional services, as well as public administration and defence, both expected to grow at nearly 10%. The trade, hotels, transport, and communication segment is also set to improve, with growth rising to 7.5%, up from 6.1% in the previous year.

Investment activity shows signs of resilience, with Gross Fixed Capital Formation projected to grow by 7.8%, higher than last year’s 7.1%, indicating continued momentum in capital spending despite broader economic uncertainties.

Explained: What the India–EU Strategic Agenda Means for the Future

 Explained: What the New India–EU Strategic Agenda Means

The relationship between India and the European Union (EU) is stepping into a new phase, with Brussels laying out a detailed roadmap to strengthen ties. Earlier this month, the EU released a document that highlights how it wants to engage with India going forward. The framework is built around five key pillars: the economy, emerging technologies, security, global connectivity, and people-to-people links.

At first glance, this may look like just another diplomatic announcement. But the timing and tone of the agenda show that Europe is trying to position itself as a reliable partner for India at a moment when global politics is shifting rapidly. With U.S. President Donald Trump reshaping alliances and creating uncertainty in established partnerships, the EU sees an opportunity to offer India a steady and predictable relationship.

Why the Agenda Matters Now

India has become one of the fastest-growing major economies in the world and is central to discussions on trade, climate, technology, and security. For Europe, building stronger ties with New Delhi is about more than economics — it’s about ensuring stability and influence in Asia.

Unlike the U.S., whose policies can swing sharply with political changes, the EU is emphasizing long-term commitments. By presenting itself as an “all-weather” partner, Europe hopes to assure India that it can be counted on, regardless of the turbulence elsewhere in the world.

The Five Pillars of Cooperation

The new agenda identifies five major areas where India and the EU can deepen their partnership:

1. Economy – Trade and investment remain at the heart of the relationship. Negotiations on a free trade agreement have dragged on for years, but both sides seem keen to inject fresh momentum. The EU is already one of India’s biggest trading partners, and there is enormous room to grow.

2. Emerging Technologies – From artificial intelligence to green energy, both India and Europe want to collaborate on innovation. Europe has the expertise and resources, while India brings scale and a booming digital economy. This partnership could prove crucial in shaping global standards for new technologies.

3. Security – As the geopolitical landscape shifts, Europe is increasingly aware of the need to work with India on security challenges — whether in the Indo-Pacific, cybersecurity, or counterterrorism. With tensions rising in multiple regions, this cooperation is likely to get stronger.

4. Global Connectivity – This is Europe’s answer to China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The EU wants to invest in sustainable infrastructure projects, and India is seen as a key partner in building networks that are transparent, reliable, and environmentally responsible.

5. People-to-People Ties – Education, research exchanges, and cultural programs are another important area. Europe wants to attract more Indian students, researchers, and professionals, while also promoting tourism and cultural exchange.

The Road to the Summit

All of this will culminate in the India–EU leaders’ summit scheduled for February next year. The summit is expected to build on European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s visit to India earlier this year, which laid the groundwork for this agenda.

In the run-up to the summit, officials from both sides will meet nearly once a week over the next six months. These meetings will cover everything from trade negotiations to climate policy, ensuring that by February, the leaders have a concrete set of deliverables to announce.

What to Watch For

The big question is whether this agenda can move beyond talk and deliver tangible results. Free trade agreements have been stuck in the past, and cooperation in sensitive areas like technology and security can take time to materialize. Still, both India and the EU now have strong incentives to make it work: India needs stable partners to support its growth, and Europe wants to diversify its global partnerships in an uncertain world.

If successful, this strategic agenda could mark a turning point — making the India–EU relationship not just transactional but truly comprehensive.

India–US Trade Deal Could Include Oil Bargain, Says New Jersey Governor

 

India-US Trade Talks Could Lead to Oil Bargain, Says New Jersey Governor

The future of India–U.S. trade relations may involve more than just resolving tariff disputes. According to New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, a senior Democratic leader and vocal critic of President Donald Trump’s trade policies, both nations could strike a broader deal that includes oil as part of the negotiations.

Speaking on Wednesday, Murphy suggested that while there is room to compromise on the stiff tariffs currently weighing down bilateral trade, the talks could evolve into a “grand bargain” that extends to the energy sector.

The backdrop to this is Trump’s recent decision to impose a 25% penalty tariff on India for continuing to import oil from Russia. The move was part of Washington’s wider push to penalize countries seen as helping Russia bypass Western sanctions. But for India, which relies heavily on energy imports to meet its growing demand, Russian oil has been an affordable and vital option.

Murphy, who has often positioned himself against Trump’s hardline economic policies, made it clear that he disagreed with the idea of punishing allies like India with high tariffs. “When it comes to the India–U.S. trade deal, there will be a landing place on tariffs,” he said, adding that the solution may not be as simple as lowering taxes on goods. Instead, the governor hinted at a more strategic compromise that ties together trade, energy, and broader geopolitical interests.

The Tariff Tussle

India and the U.S. have had a bumpy trade relationship in recent years, with disputes ranging from agricultural products to tech and pharmaceuticals. Trump’s tariffs — especially the latest ones on oil imports — have added more friction. For Washington, the tariffs are a way to apply pressure; for New Delhi, they are seen as unfair punishment, especially given India’s role as a long-time U.S. partner in Asia.

The 25% tariff in particular stings because of India’s unique energy needs. As the world’s third-largest oil importer, India cannot easily replace Russian crude without driving up domestic fuel prices. While the U.S. would prefer India to shift more of its purchases to American suppliers, the sudden cost jump makes it difficult for New Delhi to comply.

Oil at the Center of the Deal

This is where Murphy’s idea of a “grand bargain” comes in. Instead of wrangling endlessly over tariffs, the U.S. and India could negotiate an arrangement that involves long-term commitments on energy. For instance, India could agree to increase imports of American oil and gas, while the U.S. could ease tariffs on other goods or services important to New Delhi. Such a compromise could balance both nations’ economic and strategic priorities.

Energy trade is already becoming a pillar of the India–U.S. relationship. In recent years, India has significantly increased imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) and crude oil from the U.S., diversifying its energy basket. A formalized bargain could lock in those trends while easing the current tension over Russian supplies.

Looking Ahead

Murphy’s comments underline a growing split in Washington over how best to deal with allies like India. While Trump sees tariffs as leverage, critics argue that such heavy-handed tactics risk alienating partners at a time when global cooperation is vital.

For India, the big question is whether Washington is willing to recognize its energy realities. Any grand bargain will need to acknowledge that India cannot abruptly cut ties with Russian oil without major economic costs. But if the U.S. offers a fair deal — lower tariffs, more access to American energy, and perhaps concessions in other trade areas — there may be a path forward.

As the world watches the unfolding U.S.–India talks, Murphy’s suggestion adds a new dimension: this may not just be about tariffs and trade but also about reshaping the global energy equation.

Ladakh on Edge: Climate Activist Sonam Wangchuk Detained Under NSA After Leh Violence

 Climate Activist Sonam Wangchuk Detained Under NSA Amid Tensions in Leh

The Union Territory of Ladakh is on edge after the detention of prominent climate activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk, who has been leading a peaceful campaign for Statehood and Sixth Schedule protections for the region. On Friday, authorities invoked the National Security Act (NSA) against Wangchuk, just two days after violent protests in Leh left four civilians dead and nearly 90 injured.

The move has sparked outrage among local groups and supporters across the region. The Leh Apex Body (LAB), which has been at the forefront of the agitation alongside Wangchuk, strongly denied that he had any role in the violence. According to them, the clashes on September 24 were driven by anger among young protesters, particularly after news broke that two demonstrators on hunger strike had been hospitalized.

Despite this, police led by Ladakh DGP S.D. Jamwal detained Wangchuk, and according to his wife, Gitanjali Angmo, he was flown out of Leh to Jodhpur, Rajasthan. Leh has remained under curfew for two days since the protests, while internet services have been suspended. In Kargil, the administration has imposed Section 163 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which restricts gatherings of more than four people.

The government’s use of the NSA — a law that allows prolonged preventive detention — suggests officials are linking Wangchuk’s arrest directly to the unrest, though he has not been named in the violent incidents. Protesters had attacked the BJP headquarters and the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Secretariat in Leh during Wednesday’s clashes, leading to heavy police action and the tragic civilian deaths.

Community leaders, however, insist Wangchuk is being unfairly targeted. Chering Dorjey Lakrook, president of the Ladakh Buddhist Association and co-chairman of LAB, called the accusations against Wangchuk “baseless,” adding that the youth’s anger was fueled by fear for the lives of hunger strikers, not by Wangchuk’s words or actions.

Meanwhile, grief continues to grip Leh. The last rites of the four deceased protesters are scheduled for September 28 and 29, and leaders say talks with the Union government cannot resume until the funerals are complete. The LAB delegation still plans to travel to Delhi on September 29 to push its case for Statehood and Sixth Schedule protections, despite the tension on the ground.

Political leaders have also spoken out. Ladakh MP Haji Hanifa condemned the detention, saying, “If Mr. Wangchuk has been arrested for his peaceful agitation, we strongly oppose it.” Civil society and religious groups across Ladakh have echoed similar sentiments, warning that the detention risks further alienating the local population.

At 59, Sonam Wangchuk is not just a local activist but an internationally respected figure, known for his climate advocacy and awarded the Ramon Magsaysay Award for his contributions. His detention marks a turning point in the Ladakh agitation, raising fears that the conflict between local aspirations and the central government’s stance could escalate further.

For now, Leh remains tense — its streets quiet under curfew, its people grieving, and its future uncertain.

Trump Slaps New Tariffs on Drugs, Trucks, and Furniture: What Americans Need to Know

 

Trump Slaps Big Tariffs on Drugs, Trucks, and Furniture: What It Means for You

President Donald Trump is once again reaching for one of his favorite tools in trade policy — tariffs. In a sweeping announcement on Truth Social this week, Trump revealed a fresh round of duties that will hit a wide range of imports, from life-saving branded drugs to heavy-duty trucks and even kitchen cabinets and furniture. The new rules are set to kick in on October 1, and they’re already stirring up debate in business circles and beyond.

So, what’s changing? First, the most dramatic move: a 100% tariff on all branded pharmaceutical products coming into the U.S. That essentially doubles the price of imported name-brand drugs, unless the drug company behind them has already begun building a factory on American soil. Trump framed this as a push to get Big Pharma to invest more in U.S. manufacturing, while critics worry about higher prescription costs and supply disruptions.

Then, there are the trucks. Imports of heavy-duty trucks — think of the large Peterbilt, Kenworth, or Freightliner rigs that keep America’s highways busy — will face a 25% tariff. Trump argued this was necessary to shield American truck makers from what he called “unfair outside competition.” The White House singled out companies like Paccar (which owns Peterbilt and Kenworth) and Daimler Truck (maker of Freightliner) as expected beneficiaries. But here’s the rub: many of these trucks — and their parts — come from close allies like Mexico, Canada, Germany, and Japan. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already warned that these tariffs could strain relations and raise costs in industries that rely on imported trucks.

Furniture isn’t escaping either. Starting October 1, kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities will carry a 50% tariff, while upholstered furniture will see a 30% duty. Trump described this as a response to what he called the “large-scale flooding” of such products into the U.S. from abroad. If you’ve been eyeing a home renovation, this could hit your wallet sooner than you think.

The bigger picture here is Trump’s evolving trade strategy. His administration has increasingly leaned on tariffs not just as an economic tool but as a political one. They’ve been used to pressure foreign governments, rewrite trade agreements, and — in Trump’s telling — bring jobs back to the U.S. The Treasury Department, meanwhile, has praised tariffs as a revenue generator, estimating they could bring in $300 billion by the end of this year alone.

But it’s not just about the items already on the tariff list. The administration has launched multiple new probes into products ranging from wind turbines and semiconductors to copper and timber. More recently, Trump said investigations are underway into personal protective equipment, robotics, and industrial machinery — all of which could eventually face tariffs too.

Critics, particularly in the pharmaceutical and trucking sectors, are worried. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America pointed out that companies have already announced billions of dollars in U.S. investments and warned that tariffs could derail those plans. Meanwhile, the trucking industry is nervous about higher costs filtering down to everything from shipping to construction. And since a big share of imported truck components come from allies — not rivals — some argue the national security justification is shaky.

For everyday Americans, the immediate question is cost. Will branded medicines become more expensive? Will furniture and kitchen renovations cost significantly more? And will shipping and logistics — the backbone of nearly every industry — feel the pinch from pricier trucks? The short answer: probably yes.

Trump’s tariffs have always been about more than economics; they’re a signal of his “America First” approach. Whether they succeed in reshaping global supply chains in America’s favor or simply raise prices for U.S. consumers remains to be seen. What’s certain is that come October 1, a new wave of tariffs will roll in, touching everything from your prescription pills to the sofa in your living room.

Trump’s “Braggadocious” Moment: The History of a Word Made for Him

 

Trump’s “Braggadocious” Moment and the Story Behind the Word

When Donald Trump steps onto a stage, you can almost always expect a show. His address to the UN General Assembly was no different. Speaking with the confidence of a man who knows the whole world is watching — and yet, at times, seems not to care — he delivered one of his trademark performances. “I’m really good at predicting things, you know? … And I don’t say that in a braggadocious way, but it’s true. I’ve been right about everything,” he declared.

It was classic Trump: a mix of boasting, dismissing critics, and speaking directly past the diplomats in the room to his base back home. In that speech, he accused the UN of being full of “empty words,” waved off climate change concerns, and scolded European countries for what he saw as being too generous to asylum seekers. It was less a diplomatic address and more a monologue designed to keep the Make America Great Again faithful nodding in approval.

Trump and His Love for Words

Trump has always had a curious relationship with language. Back in 2015, during his first run for president, he famously told a rally crowd: “I know words. I have the best words.” For many, it was an oddly memorable line, equal parts boastful and bizarre. So, when he dropped “braggadocious” into his UN speech, it felt like another Trump-ism — one of those quirky words you’d imagine him inventing on the fly at Mar-a-Lago.

But here’s the fun twist: Trump didn’t invent it.

The Real Origin of “Braggadocious”

According to Merriam-Webster, “braggadocious” has been around for centuries. The term first swaggered into English literature in the late 16th century, appearing in Edmund Spenser’s famous poem The Faerie Queene. In it, there was a character named Braggadocchio — a pompous, boastful figure who strutted around with an inflated sense of self-importance.

Over time, Braggadocchio’s name evolved into “braggadocio,” a noun meaning boastful talk. From there, it slipped into “braggadocious,” an adjective used to describe people who can’t resist puffing themselves up. Just like “Scrooge” became shorthand for a miserly person and “Grinch” for a holiday spoilsport, “braggadocious” became the go-to word for describing someone with a flair for bragging.

A Word Made for Trump?

In a way, “braggadocious” feels almost tailor-made for Trump. The word carries with it centuries of association with arrogance and self-promotion, and he uses it unapologetically, almost as if claiming it for himself. While most politicians try to temper their language with diplomacy and caution, Trump leans into exaggeration and bluntness. For his critics, it’s grating. For his supporters, it’s part of his charm — a refreshing refusal to play by the old rules.

More Than Just a Word

Trump’s choice of “braggadocious” may have sparked a round of chuckles and dictionary lookups, but it also says something bigger about his style. He thrives on spectacle. He relishes language that stands out. And he has no hesitation about using words, even archaic ones, to underline his larger-than-life persona.

So, while “braggadocious” may not be a Trump original, it certainly feels at home in his vocabulary. Like so much of his political career, it’s a revival of something old, remixed with bravado, and delivered with a wink to the crowd that never tires of hearing him boast.

India–US Trade Talks Gain Momentum After “Productive” Meeting

 

India–US Trade Talks Back on Track After “Productive” Meeting

The India–US trade deal that had been hanging in uncertainty for months may finally be finding its way back on track. India’s chief trade negotiator, Rajesh Agrawal, recently returned home after what has been described as a “productive” meeting with the United States Trade Representative, Jamieson Greer.

This round of talks comes at a crucial time when both countries are trying to resolve long-pending issues on tariffs, market access, and investment rules. According to those aware of the discussions, the tone of the meeting was positive and is expected to ease recent tensions that had slowed down progress on the deal.

Why the Meeting Matters

Trade relations between India and the US have been a constant mix of collaboration and conflict. On one hand, the US is one of India’s biggest export markets, buying everything from textiles to IT services. On the other hand, disputes have often flared up over tariffs on goods like steel, medical equipment, and agricultural products.

The latest discussions, led by Agrawal from India’s side, seem to have set the stage for a more constructive dialogue. While there are still many hurdles to cross before a full-fledged agreement is signed, the fact that negotiators are back at the table with a cooperative spirit is already being seen as a win.

H-1B Visas Not Part of Trade Talks

One of the important clarifications made during the talks was about H-1B visas — a subject that often gets tangled up with trade discussions. The US side made it clear that the visa issue is separate from trade negotiations.

This is significant because H-1B visas are a lifeline for thousands of Indian professionals, especially in the IT sector. Many families and businesses in India closely follow policy changes around these visas. However, keeping them out of trade negotiations allows the deal to move forward without being burdened by an unrelated but emotionally charged issue.

What’s at Stake

For India, a successful trade deal could mean greater access for its exports to the US market, protection for its service sector, and clarity on investment rules. For the US, it could mean reduced trade imbalances, new opportunities for American companies in India’s fast-growing market, and stronger economic ties with a key strategic partner in Asia.

Both sides know that a smooth trade relationship will go beyond economics — it will also strengthen the political and strategic partnership. In a world increasingly defined by shifting alliances, India and the US share common ground on many global issues, and trade is one of the strongest bridges between them.

Looking Ahead

While the recent meeting doesn’t mean a deal is right around the corner, it signals progress after a long period of friction. Negotiators from both sides are expected to keep up the momentum with follow-up discussions in the coming weeks.

For now, optimism seems to be back on the table. If the “productive” tone of the meeting can translate into practical agreements, India and the US could be on their way to finalizing a deal that has been years in the making.

Leh Under Curfew After Four Protesters Killed: Ladakh Demands Justice

 

Leh Under Curfew After Protest Deaths: Tension Grips Ladakh

Leh town in Ladakh is on edge, with curfew continuing a day after four local men lost their lives during violent protests. Their bodies were handed over to families on Thursday for the last rites, while dozens of people have been detained in a sweeping crackdown.

Grief and Last Rites

The four who died — identified as Tsewang Tharchin (46), Jigmet Dorjay (25), Stanzin Namgyal (23), and Rinchen Dadul (20) — belonged to different villages in the region. Tharchin was a retired soldier from the Ladakh Scouts. As per the families’ wishes, all were cremated in Leh with full respect, in coordination with the Ladakh Buddhist Association.

Clashes and Casualties

The unrest broke out on Wednesday near the BJP office and the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council building, leaving dozens injured, including both civilians and security personnel. Authorities confirmed that at least 15 people were seriously wounded, one of whom had to be airlifted to Delhi for treatment. Around 30 more suffered minor injuries, and nearly 30 security personnel were hurt in the clashes.

Security forces imposed curfew, made extra deployments across the town, and used loudspeakers mounted on vehicles to warn residents against stepping out.

Demands Behind the Protests

The violence erupted on the 15th day of a hunger strike led by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk and his supporters. Their protest is aimed at pressing the Indian government for statehood for Ladakh and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides special protections to certain regions and communities.

Leaders from both the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) have called for a judicial inquiry into the deaths, pointing out that several protesters had bullet and pellet wounds. They alleged the police fired indiscriminately instead of handling the situation peacefully.

Political Reactions

Officials from the Union Home Ministry have met with local leaders in Leh. A follow-up meeting in Delhi is being planned, where representatives from LAB, KDA, and Ladakh’s Member of Parliament are expected to participate.

Meanwhile, Ladakh’s Lieutenant-Governor has warned that those who engaged in violence “will not be spared.” A high-level security review has been held, and the District Magistrate has ordered all schools in Leh district to remain closed for two days.

In Kargil, residents observed a complete shutdown in solidarity with the people of Leh. Shops, schools, and offices remained shut following a call from the KDA.

Local leaders strongly criticized the use of extreme force. “Instead of sympathizing with people, authorities resorted to firing. Peaceful protestors have been treated like criminals,” said KDA co-chairman Asger Ali Karbalai. Ladakh’s MP, Haji Hanifa, added, “Force should never have been used so harshly against a population known for its peace-loving nature.”

Sri Lankans Trafficked Into Russia’s War: Families Left in Fear and Silence

 

 Sri Lankans Caught in Russia’s War: UN Raises Alarm Over Human Trafficking

A shocking revelation has emerged from the United Nations, pointing to Sri Lankans — including Tamils from the war-scarred north of Jaffna — being trafficked and forced to fight in Russia’s war in Ukraine.

At a press conference in Geneva on September 22, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Russia, Mariana Katzarova, said the Russian Defence Ministry has been recruiting foreign nationals, including people from Sri Lanka and Nepal, through coercion, torture, and threats. According to her findings, many of these men were tricked by fake job offers, only to end up on the battlefield. Disturbingly, the report even cited a case where a man was shot dead for refusing to sign a military contract.

The Trap of “Predatory Recruitment”

Back in July, the UN had already flagged concerns in a letter to the Sri Lankan government. It highlighted how three Sri Lankan Tamils were lured abroad with promises of well-paid jobs in Europe but were instead trafficked and pushed into the Russian army. Their families, desperate for answers, reached out to Sri Lankan authorities, including the Foreign Ministry and the President’s Office, but reportedly received little to no help.

The letter also hinted at something much bigger — a global criminal network profiting from trafficking vulnerable men into warzones. It warned that “hundreds of other Sri Lankans” could be trapped in the same cycle, alongside victims from other countries.

Growing Regional Concern

This is not an isolated case. Similar reports have surfaced from Nepal and India. Earlier this year, Nepali citizens were reported stranded on the frontlines in Ukraine, pleading to be rescued. Around the same time, at least 15 Indians were said to be stuck in the conflict after being misled into joining Russia’s war effort.

Sri Lanka, too, has its share of heartbreaking accounts. In May 2025, reports suggested that around 120 former Sri Lankan soldiers, who had left to fight as mercenaries in Russia in 2024, had lost all contact with their families. At least 60 of them have been missing for over a year.

Why Sri Lankans Are Vulnerable

Since the island nation’s 2022 economic meltdown, thousands of Sri Lankans have left home seeking work abroad, often paying huge sums to recruitment agencies. The desperation for jobs has made them easy targets for traffickers. According to government figures, more than 144,000 Sri Lankans went overseas for work in just the first half of 2025, underlining how heavily the country now relies on foreign employment and remittances.

Government Response

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that Russia has now “halted recruiting Sri Lankans” into its army. Officials said they have requested Moscow to allow those who have completed their contracts to return home if they wish. However, the government has not disclosed how many Sri Lankans are currently fighting in Ukraine.

Interestingly, instead of taking a hard stance, Sri Lanka has emphasized its “close ties” with Russia. The government even said it is working with Russian authorities to ensure compensation for families of Sri Lankans who have been killed or injured in combat.

---

This disturbing situation reveals how economic desperation and predatory recruitment networks are dragging vulnerable people from countries like Sri Lanka, Nepal, and India into a brutal war they have no stake in. And while governments scramble to manage diplomatic ties, families back home continue to wait — often in silence — for answers about their missing loved ones.

GST Overhaul: Why RBI Says Lower Taxes Could Boost Spending and Growth

 

GST Reform: Why the RBI Believes It Will Make Goods Cheaper and Spur Spending

The Goods and Services Tax (GST), often called the biggest tax reform in India’s history, has just gone through another major overhaul. Starting September 22, the government rolled out a simplified two-slab structure of 5% and 18%, replacing the older system that had four different rates. According to an article by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), this reform could do more than just clean up the tax system—it may also lower retail prices and give a much-needed push to consumption.

From Complexity to Simplicity

Until recently, India’s GST was split into four main slabs, with goods and services taxed at 5%, 12%, 18%, or 28%. While this structure tried to balance revenue collection with affordability, it also created confusion for businesses and consumers alike. Products that seemed similar often fell into different tax categories, which sometimes led to disputes, compliance issues, and uneven pricing.

By consolidating the rates into just two slabs—5% for essentials and 18% for most other goods and services—the government aims to simplify the tax regime. This, the RBI notes, is likely to bring more transparency and predictability into the system. Consumers will find it easier to understand what they’re paying, while businesses will face fewer complications in classification and filing.

Lower Prices, Higher Demand

The central argument of the RBI’s article is that simpler taxes can translate into lower costs. Here’s why: when businesses spend less time and money navigating tax complexities, their compliance costs drop. Those savings, combined with the streamlining of tax rates, often flow down to consumers in the form of reduced prices.

For households, even a small drop in everyday expenses makes a difference. Lower retail prices increase disposable income, which means people can spend more on other goods and services. This creates a ripple effect—boosting demand across sectors, supporting businesses, and ultimately strengthening economic growth.

Consumption-Led Growth

India’s economy, like many others, thrives on domestic consumption. When households buy more—whether it’s groceries, clothing, electronics, or services—the wheels of the economy turn faster. By making goods and services more affordable, the restructured GST has the potential to act as a catalyst for this consumption-driven growth.

It’s not just about retail shoppers. For small and medium businesses, clarity in taxation reduces compliance headaches, making it easier to plan pricing and investment strategies. Over time, this stability could encourage higher participation in the formal economy, expanding the tax base further.

A Step Toward Efficiency

Of course, no reform is without challenges. Critics may argue about possible revenue shortfalls for the government or question whether the two-slab system oversimplifies a diverse economy. But the RBI’s analysis highlights that, at least in the short to medium term, the benefits of affordability and increased spending outweigh these concerns.

Simplifying GST is also in line with the long-term vision of creating a tax environment that is business-friendly, consumer-friendly, and globally competitive. In a world where efficiency and ease of doing business are key, India’s move could make its market more attractive to investors as well.

The Bottom Line

The new GST structure isn’t just a change in tax rates—it’s a reset of how India approaches indirect taxation. If the RBI’s optimism proves correct, the two-slab system will do more than make bills easier to read. It could help lower prices, boost household spending, and provide fresh momentum for the Indian economy at a crucial time.

India-EU Free Trade Talks: Cars and Crops Still Stalling a Deal

 

India-EU FTA: Automobiles and Agriculture Still Holding Back a Deal

The long-running negotiations between India and the European Union on a free trade agreement (FTA) are inching forward, but some of the biggest hurdles remain firmly in place. A fresh EU status report confirms what many insiders already knew: while talks have made progress on several technical issues, automobiles and agricultural products continue to be the sticking points.

According to the report released on Wednesday, negotiators from both sides did manage to close certain gaps this month, particularly on matters like rules of origin, sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures, and investment frameworks. But despite these advances, no new chapter of the agreement could be fully wrapped up. Sensitive areas — especially cars and farm goods — remain unresolved.

High-level interventions by EU officials with Indian authorities did help both sides better understand each other’s positions. Yet, the report admits that this was not enough to unlock progress on the most difficult topics. Tariff elimination and reduction on key goods, including automobiles and agricultural items, will require more political engagement at the highest levels before breakthroughs are possible.

That said, negotiators did succeed in clarifying their offensive and defensive interests in both industrial and agricultural market access. In other words, each side is now clearer on what it is willing to give and what it expects in return. Detailed discussions also continued on services and investment, building on the market access offers exchanged earlier in July.

The next round of talks is scheduled to take place in Brussels next month, with hopes of narrowing down outstanding issues further.

A Growing Economic Relationship

Beyond the negotiations, the broader India-EU economic relationship is expanding rapidly. The EU is already India’s largest trading partner, while India is the EU’s biggest partner in the Global South. Bilateral trade in goods touched €120 billion in 2024 — nearly double what it was a decade ago. Around 6,000 European companies are currently operating in India, underlining the depth of the economic ties.

On the investment front, the EU is leaning on its Global Gateway initiative to deepen engagement with India. The strategy focuses on building smart, clean, and secure connections in digital, energy, and transport sectors, while also supporting health, education, and research. In India alone, the Global Gateway portfolio has already crossed €15 billion, with investments in renewable energy, urban transport, water systems, and digital infrastructure. By providing guarantees and blended finance to de-risk private investments, the EU is aiming to make India a central pillar of its global connectivity push.

The Road Ahead

The India-EU FTA has been under discussion for years, and the latest round of talks shows both progress and persistent challenges. With automobiles and agriculture still unresolved, the deal is far from done. But with trade volumes rising and investment pipelines strengthening, both sides have strong incentives to keep pushing. Whether political leaders can break the deadlock on the toughest issues will determine if this partnership can finally deliver a long-awaited trade pact.

The UN at 80: Empty Ceremony or a Test of Relevance?

 

The UN at 80: Ceremony or Service?

When the United Nations turned 80, it should have been a moment of pride. Eight decades of survival in a fractured world is no small feat. But instead of celebrating longevity, the milestone forces a harsher question: relevance. The UN may have endurance, but does it still have purpose?

An anniversary like this isn’t about the parade of world leaders making speeches in New York. It’s about whether the UN can actually deliver where it matters. Can it keep aid corridors open in times of war? Can it marshal resources before floods, famines, or earthquakes strike? Can it provide legitimacy in conflicts where brute power dominates? If the answer is shaky, then all the ceremony rings hollow.

The founding promise of the UN was bold and simple: to maintain peace and security in a war-torn world. Eighty years later, that promise feels painfully unfulfilled. Look around. In Gaza and Ukraine, in Sudan and Haiti, crises rage on with little resolution in sight. And yet, paradoxically, these same crises show why the UN still matters. Without it, even the thin scaffolding of international cooperation might collapse entirely.

At this year’s General Assembly, the paradox was captured—albeit in an unlikely way—by Donald Trump. In a speech that rambled across his usual themes, he paused to make a point that cut uncomfortably close to the truth: “The UN has such tremendous, tremendous potential. But it’s not even coming close… It’s empty words and empty words don’t solve war.” Strip away the bombast, and he voiced what many quietly admit: the UN talks a lot, but too often fails to act.

The problem is structural as much as political. The Security Council, frozen in time since World War II, no longer reflects the power dynamics of today. Funding shortfalls plague the UN’s agencies, leaving them overstretched and under-resourced. Sovereignty, nationalism, and great-power rivalry chip away at its ability to intervene meaningfully. And when the most powerful members use the UN only when convenient, credibility suffers.

Still, the solution isn’t to discard the UN. For all its flaws, it remains the only forum where nearly every country—rich or poor, powerful or fragile—sits at the same table. In a world where conflicts are increasingly global, from pandemics to climate disasters, no single nation can solve these challenges alone. The UN is imperfect, but it is also indispensable.

So at 80, the UN doesn’t need self-congratulation. It needs introspection. It needs reforms that make it fit for this century, not the last. It needs to show that its legitimacy can translate into real results, not just lofty speeches.

The true audit of the UN won’t come from ceremonies or commemorative stamps. It will come from whether it can stop the next war from spiraling, deliver aid before the next disaster strikes, and stand firm where power alone cannot. If it can’t, then the question “Does the UN still matter?” will only grow louder.

Trump at the UN: When Domestic Politics Became Global Diplomacy

 

Trump at the UN: A Mirror to the World Order

When Donald Trump took the stage at the UN General Assembly, it wasn’t so much a statesman’s address as it was an extension of his campaign rallies. For nearly an hour — far beyond the time slot he was given — Trump leaned heavily on the familiar themes of the MAGA movement. He showered himself with praise, belittled his political opponents, repeated his claim of having “ended seven wars” (including, oddly, between India and Pakistan), railed against migration, dismissed climate change, and even took potshots at foreign leaders like the mayor of London.

At its core, the speech made one thing crystal clear: U.S. foreign policy today is largely shaped by Trump’s domestic political base. And in doing so, it highlighted how much his presidency has disrupted the international order.

A Weakening UN in the Spotlight

Trump painted himself as a peacemaker, though most of those claims don’t hold up to scrutiny. But he wasn’t entirely wrong when he pointed out the UN’s declining role in conflict resolution. Once seen as the world’s go-to mediator, the UN has been struggling for years to stay relevant. Structural problems — outdated power balances in the Security Council, funding bottlenecks, and the rise of sovereignty-first politics — have left it sidelined.

This shift means that countries, especially middle powers like India, are rethinking how much energy and trust they should invest in the UN. If the institution wants to stay true to its founding principles, it will need to reform and reinvent itself. Take climate change: Trump dismissed it as “the greatest con job ever,” but the reality is that the planet can’t afford to wait on Washington’s denialism. The UN has to push global cooperation forward, with or without U.S. leadership.

Living With Trumpism

Trump’s appearance also raises a bigger question: how should the world deal with a United States that has become unpredictable, swinging wildly in its commitments from one administration to the next? From Ukraine to NATO to the Iran nuclear deal to the Paris Accord, U.S. positions have flipped depending on who sits in the Oval Office.

For now, many countries are finding that quiet, pragmatic, bilateral deals are the safest bet. At this year’s UNGA, unlike Trump’s first outing when he was met with laughter, leaders responded with polite applause — and some even chuckled along with his jokes. Despite his attacks, European and other world leaders lined up for meetings, eager to strike deals directly.

It may be a smart short-term strategy. But the long-term consequence of Trumpism could be the steady erosion of the very idea of internationalism — already weakened, now further at risk of being replaced by transactional, one-on-one arrangements.

Trump’s Paracetamol Ban Isn’t Science — It’s Politics That Puts People at Risk

 Trump’s Paracetamol Clampdown Isn’t About Science — It’s About Politics

The Trump administration has taken another controversial step in the name of “public health” — this time targeting one of the world’s most common and trusted painkillers: paracetamol, also known as acetaminophen or Tylenol. President Donald Trump has announced that U.S. doctors will soon be advised against prescribing the drug to pregnant women, citing a supposed link to autism. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has gone further, saying the FDA will update warning labels and launch a public campaign against the medication.

On the surface, that may sound like caution. After all, every medicine deserves scrutiny. But here’s the problem: rigorous scientific studies have repeatedly failed to establish a direct connection between paracetamol and autism. While some researchers have argued that autism is influenced by a mix of genetic and environmental factors, they reject the idea of singling out a single drug. By ignoring this consensus, Trump and Kennedy are not just rejecting science — they’re exploiting public fears about autism to push a narrative that could harm millions.

Undermining Trust in Science

This paracetamol crackdown isn’t an isolated move. It’s part of a troubling pattern that has been steadily eroding the credibility of American science. Just last month, Susan Monarez, head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), was fired after disagreeing with Kennedy over vaccine policy. Kennedy, long known for his vaccine skepticism, has already drawn criticism for his handling of the ongoing measles crisis. Earlier this year, Peter Marks, the FDA’s top vaccine expert, resigned after accusing the health secretary of spreading misinformation.

Meanwhile, the CDC itself has faced budget cuts, layoffs, and chaotic policy shifts. These internal upheavals are not just weakening America’s public health system — they are having global consequences. A landmark international study on Covid vaccine safety, led by the Global Vaccine Data Centre in New Zealand, was abruptly shut down this April because the CDC could no longer provide funding. HIV research, too, has been crippled, as Trump’s administration has stalled the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Research, an initiative that once funded millions of life-saving HIV tests each year.

Dangerous Consequences

The fallout from Trump’s “Don’t take Tylenol” campaign could extend far beyond the U.S. Pregnant women around the world may now hesitate to take paracetamol even when medically necessary — despite the fact that untreated high fever during pregnancy poses very real risks to fetal health. Public health experts are worried that the administration’s rhetoric will sow confusion globally, making it harder for doctors to provide safe, evidence-based care.

Trump and Kennedy present their policies under the banner of “Making America Healthy Again.” But in reality, these actions risk making societies everywhere more vulnerable — by undermining trust in medicine, stoking fear without evidence, and weakening the very institutions meant to protect global health.

Science thrives on debate, data, and evidence. Politics thrives on fear and perception. The Trump administration’s war on paracetamol is not just anti-science — it’s anti-people.

US Calls India a Critical Partner as Trade Talks and Possible Modi-Trump Meeting Loom

 

US Calls India a ‘Critical Partner’ as Talks Heat Up on Trade, Energy, and Possible Modi-Trump Meeting

India’s relationship with the United States is once again under the spotlight, with high-level meetings in New York signaling a push to reset momentum on a stalled trade deal and broader strategic ties. Following his talks with India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described India as “a relationship of critical importance” for Washington.

Rubio highlighted five big-ticket areas of cooperation — trade, defense, energy, pharmaceuticals, and critical minerals — as pillars that will shape the next phase of U.S.-India engagement.

Trade Deal Back on the Table

The two countries are revisiting a trade deal that had been frozen due to tariff disputes and U.S. objections to India’s continued purchase of Russian oil. This comes after the Trump administration doubled tariffs on Indian imports to 50% as a penalty and sharply raised H-1B visa fees to $100,000.

With Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal also in talks with U.S. officials, sources suggest both sides are exploring the possibility of closing a deal soon. If successful, it could open the door to a face-to-face meeting between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Donald Trump.

The Window for a Modi-Trump Meeting

There’s a potential opening next month: Trump is considering attending the ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur from October 26–28. Modi is expected to be there as well. If trade negotiations make enough progress, the two leaders could meet in Malaysia — but the clock is ticking. A deal would need to be wrapped up by October 26 to make that meeting feasible.

Balancing Between the US and EU

Jaishankar’s diplomatic calendar in New York also included a special meeting with EU foreign ministers. The European Union is pushing an ambitious agenda with India ahead of the leaders’ summit early next year, presenting itself as a “reliable” partner at a time when many in New Delhi view Washington’s policies as unpredictable.

The EU talks focused on multilateral cooperation, supply chain resilience, and trade, while also covering pressing issues such as the Ukraine conflict and the Gaza situation. EU officials later emphasized their commitment to multilateralism, free trade, and the UN Charter.

Indo-Pacific and the Quad

During his meeting with Jaishankar, Rubio also reaffirmed U.S. commitment to the Quad grouping (India, U.S., Japan, and Australia), framing it as key to ensuring a “free and open Indo-Pacific.” The message was a clear signal to Beijing, as concerns grow over China’s assertive actions in the region.

According to U.S. officials, the hour-long discussion between Jaishankar and Rubio was candid and positive. “Our conversation covered a range of bilateral and international issues of current concern. Agreed on the importance of sustained engagement to progress on priority areas,” Jaishankar later posted on X, hinting that even difficult topics were tackled head-on.

The Road Ahead

The coming weeks will be critical. Whether through a revived trade deal, deeper defense cooperation, or a possible Modi-Trump meeting in Kuala Lumpur, both governments are signaling they want to keep the relationship on track. At the same time, India is hedging its bets, expanding ties with the EU and other partners to ensure it has multiple options in a turbulent global order.

One thing is clear: Washington and Delhi see each other as too important to drift apart — but making the partnership work will require compromise on some thorny issues.