Donald Trump has returned to the White House after a historic re-election. Trump, who was sworn in as America’s 47th president, signalled that he would put America first and threatened tariffs on several countries. Earlier this week, Trump again threatened 100% tariffs on BRICS bloc, which includes India, if they persist in their “de-dollarisation” efforts.

Ashok Malik, Partner at The Asia Group and Chair of its India Practice, said India needs to tread delicately to maintain relations with the US and strengthen them under Trump 2.0, especially as America is the country’s “most important business partner.”

“It’s a big market for India. It’s the source of technology. It’s a source of partnership in emerging areas such as AI, robotics, quantum computing, even green energy,” Malik told CNBC-TV18.

However, he cautioned that Trump is also likely to continue a “more protectionist mindset” that could put pressure on India. “There will be pressure to take positions that are more in harmony with US interests and US corporations,” Malik explained.

Also read: Donald Trump says he would ‘rather not’ have to impose tariffs on China

One area of potential friction is market access. Malik noted that Trump may demand “greater opening up of e-commerce” and seek more access for US products like cars, dairy, and agriculture. “We can’t open up everything, because we can’t hurt our farmers, but we can open up certain types of products,” he said.

On the energy front, Malik saw opportunities, stating: “If those sources of energy become available and those are cheaper than Russian energy, then obviously, Indian companies will look at that.”

He highlighted potential cooperation in areas like nuclear energy as well. Preserving technology and defence partnerships built under the Biden administration will also be crucial, according to Malik. “It would serve those technology and defence equities to compromise a little bit on certain kind of quickly finalise a trade deal,” he said.

The cryptocurrency sector is another area where India may face pressure. Malik acknowledged the “genuine concerns about crypto” but said this is also a “tipping point for the mainstream of crypto” that the government will have to consider.

Ultimately, Malik emphasised that India will need to maintain its strategic autonomy. “If certain adjustments in tariffs have to be made, I guess the government will be willing to make them up to a certain point,” he said.

As India navigates the new realities of Trump 2.0, balancing economic interests with strategic priorities will be the key challenge for policymakers in New Delhi.

Also read: World Economic Forum: Trump tells businesses to manufacture in US or face tariffs

With Russia wearing down Ukraine’s stretched forces and new U.S. President Donald Trump pressuring the two sides to end their nearly 3-year-old war, Kyiv and some of its European allies are discussing how that might be achieved in a way that would guarantee Ukraine’s future security.

Several ideas have been floated in the past, but the one currently gaining currency would station thousands of European troops in Ukraine, though not under a NATO banner, to serve as a deterrent and rapid reaction force should Russia invade again — an apparent non-starter for Moscow.

Kyiv has signaled a willingness to consider ceasefire terms, but Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said security promises from Kyiv’s allies would be key to a just peace and that without them, it would only be a matter of time before Russia invaded again. Ukrainian officials say past agreements with the Kremlin were worthless, pointing to 2014 and 2015 pacts Russia signed after illegally annexing Crimea but then broke with its 2022 invasion.

It remains to be seen whether Russia would want to end the war while its forces appear to be on the front foot, even if they’re sustaining heavy losses, or what terms the Kremlin might seek. But the rest of Europe is coming to terms with what a Ukrainian defeat would mean for its security.

“This isn’t just about Ukraine’s sovereignty. Because if Russia succeeds in this aggression, it will impact all of us for a very, very long time,” U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said during a recent visit to Kyiv.

With Trump’s return to the White House and his threats to withdraw crucial U.S. support from Kyiv unless Europe bears more of the Ukraine burden, some European leaders have pledged their resolve. French President Emmanuel Macron said building security guarantees for Ukraine is a key responsibility for European nations, while Starmer said the U.K. would play a “full part” in any peacekeeping efforts.

Ukraine considers NATO to be the most robust deterrent to Russia, but Trump and some top European leaders have poured cold water on the idea of a NATO-led peacekeeping presence in Ukraine.

Among the ideas that apparently haven’t gained traction was one in which allies would invest massively to arm Ukraine to the hilt to deter a future Russian assault. It would almost surely require major American support that might not be forthcoming under Trump.

Another idea, suggested by Ukrainians, would have Ukraine’s allies defend it from large-scale Russian air attacks, similar to how the U.S. helped defend Israel from an Iranian drone attack last year. Experts say one possible downside to this approach would be that it would expose sophisticated Western defense technology to Russian military learning.

A third idea, which is getting attention, is one Macron floated nearly a year ago and is modeled on the Korean armistice. It envisages Western troops being stationed in Ukraine as a deterrent and rapid reaction force.

Zelenskyy said there would need to be enough allied troops stationed in Ukraine to overcome Russia’s manpower advantage.

Furthermore, he said, Kyiv would need sufficient flows of weapons, including long-range capabilities able to strike Moscow’s defense industrial complex, including some that are more than 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) deep inside Russian territory. Trump opposes the idea.

Although Trump is pushing Zelenskyy and Russian President Vladimir Putin to “make a deal,” European leaders are grappling with questions over how much military and financial support they could theoretically offer, and the amount of political risk they would be prepared to take domestically if they were to send troops to Ukraine and possibly put them in harm’s way.

The discussions could be for naught. Russia views Ukraine as part of its geopolitical backyard, not the West’s. Putin believes he’s winning the war and can outlast Kyiv, and he won’t stomach a proposal that would put Western troops in Ukraine, current and former senior European and Russian officials told The Associated Press.

“Putin would never say yes to this,” and European nations would be unlikely to go ahead if Putin makes it clear it’s a red line, said Boris Bondarev, a former Russian diplomat who quit his role in protest after the war started.

Maria Zakharova, Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said Thursday that NATO troops in Ukraine would be “categorically unacceptable” and provoke “uncontrolled escalation.”

Nevertheless, an advisor to the Ukrainian government said “technical discussions” with allies are ongoing and speculated that Moscow might accept such scenario depending on what concessions Ukraine is willing to make. The official spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity to speak freely about sensitive matters.

Zelenskyy indicated this week that he wants foreign support and that Ukraine would need tens of thousands of allied troops at a minimum.

If European nations were to agree to send troops to Ukraine, it would send a strong signal to Russia that Europe intends to have skin in the game, said Camille Grand, a former NATO official now with the European Council on Foreign Relations.

But even if European nations were to agree, there are questions around Europe’s military production capacity, manpower and ability to fill a potential vacuum if there’s an expected reduction in U.S. aid under Trump. The U.S. provides Kyiv with 40% of its military support.

Europe’s defense production is fragmented along national lines and is underfunded, and there are questions around national governments’ ability to defend their own people, let alone meet Ukraine’s enormous needs.

There are many aspects of the Macron proposal that would need to be ironed out, including where in Ukraine allied forces would be deployed, which countries would send troops and what capabilities they would have “because that would also be a signal of their ability to fight,” said Marie Dumoulin, program director for Wider Europe at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

In conversations with the AP, Ukrainian officials described such allied troops as serving as a peacekeeping mission but also as a tripwire force, in which they would be committed to counterattacking in the event of a Russian assault.

“There are misrepresentations when people describe this as potential peacekeeping,” said Dumoulin. A senior Ukrainian official and two Western official both concurred. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to speak freely about sensitive talks.

A traditional peacekeeping mission requires a UN vote, one that Russia can easily veto. It would also not include a guarantee to counterattack in the event of a Russian strike — a key component of the type of security guarantee Kyiv is seeking.

Though the initiative would occur outside of the NATO format, one Western official pointed to NATO’s multinational battalions in the Baltic countries — which, unlike Ukraine, are members of the alliance — as a possible model. Others have also alluded to stabilization forces in Bosnia as an example.

The Ukrainian president said he discussed the French proposal for foreign contingents with the U.K., France, Poland and the Baltic states, but the reality is, it would meet fierce resistance from Putin. Even so, opening negotiations with a proposal for a Western troop presence in Ukraine could leave European nations with negotiating room to maneuver with Putin, who would see such a suggestion “as NATO in Ukraine anyway,” Dumoulin said.

The Sri Lankan government has announced the formation of a cabinet-appointed project and negotiating committee to review and renegotiate the electricity tariffs under the power purchase agreement with the Adani Group, CNBC-TV18 sources confirmed. This move follows the revocation of a tariff decision made by the previous government under President Ranil Wickremesinghe, although the overall deal for the wind power projects remains unchanged.

In May 2024, the government, under President Wickremesinghe, agreed to purchase electricity at a rate of 8.2 cents per kWh from Adani Green Energy as part of a 20-year agreement for the development of wind power projects, aimed at generating 484 MW of power. However, the new administration under Anura Kumara Dissanayake has decided to revoke the agreed tariff, though the broader deal remains intact. These committees will now review the terms and renegotiate the tariffs with the company.

The Adani Group has issued a statement refuting reports that the 484 MW wind power projects in Mannar and Pooneryn have been cancelled. The company clarified that a standard review process is currently underway with the Sri Lankan government and reaffirmed its commitment to investing $1 billion in Sri Lanka’s green energy sector.

A company spokesperson explained, “The Sri Lankan Cabinet’s decision of 2 January 2025 to re-evaluate the tariff approved in May 2024 is part of a standard review process, particularly with a new government, to ensure that the terms align with their current priorities and energy policies. The project has not been cancelled.”

The development in Sri Lanka comes after Bangladesh’s highest court ordered the government to form a committee of experts to review the country’s power contact with Adani in November 2024.

Meanwhile, Adani Green Energy reported a strong performance in its Q3 financials, with consolidated net profits surging more than 85%, reaching ₹474 crore, compared to ₹256 crore in the same period last year.

ALSO READ | Adani Green shares slip amid report of Sri Lanka revoking power deal; company issues clarification

President Donald Trump signed an executive action reinstating the so-called Mexico City Policy, delivering an early and expected victory to opponents of abortion rights who helped fuel his return to power.

The White House announced the move on Friday, the same day as the annual March for Life event on the National Mall in Washington, a major gathering of anti-abortion rights advocates. Trump addressed the group via a video message, and Vice President JD Vance attended in person.

Under the policy, international nonprofit organisations must certify that they do not provide or promote abortion services or counseling — using funds from any source — to continue receiving US federal money.

The policy’s status invariably depends on which party is occupying the White House. It was enacted by Republican President Ronald Reagan, and in the subsequent decades has been repeatedly rescinded by Democratic presidents and reinstated by GOP office-holders. Trump reinstated and expanded it during his first term in office, and saw it rescinded again by Joe Biden.

During Trump’s first term in office, he expanded the policy to apply to the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, maternal and child health and other US programs.

Trump also signed another related action to reaffirm the Hyde Amendment, a policy that dates back to 1977 that bans the use of federal money for abortion care.

Abortion is an issue on which Trump struggled with his messaging during the 2024 campaign as he sought to both retain his support among religious conservatives who helped propel him to the White House and court moderate and suburban women angered by the wave of restrictions following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. Trump nominated three of the conservative justices who repealed federal protections for abortion rights.

The right-flank of the Republican party and religious conservatives have pushed for a strict national ban. Trump has said he supports exceptions for women seeking abortions in cases involving rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk. He has said he would not sign a national abortion ban but has also suggested he would allow states to monitor women’s pregnancies to help enforce local restrictions on reproductive care.

Ahead of the march, Trump pardoned nearly two dozen people who were convicted for blocking access to abortion clinics.

“They will be released and they will be out very shortly,” Trump said Friday morning ahead of a trip to North Carolina and California. “It was disgraceful.”

Earlier this week, Trump also signed an executive order withdrawing from the World Health Organization.