President Donald Trump announced on Thursday (August 13, 2026) tariffs of up to 100% on imports of unmanned drones and their components to reduce U.S. reliance on imports in an industry dominated by China.

The U.S. president justified the decision on national security grounds, according to a White House statement that detailed a 100 percent duty rate on the import of certain unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), as they are formally known.

Those with a takeoff weight of more than 25 kilograms and with so-called national security capabilities such as thermal cameras and docking stations will be tariffed at 100%.

Smaller drones face a 25% tariff.

The statement said the tariffs will “encourage increased domestic production” of drones and their components and reduce reliance on foreign supply chains.

Most of the new tariffs are to take effect September 3.

“The tariffs are really targeting industrial and commercial drones, and to a lesser degree smaller drones used by hobbyists,” Clayton Swope, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told AFP.

Dual use

In December 2025, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — which is charged with regulating telecommunications nationally — argued that domestic production of drones would “reduce the risk of direct UAS attacks and disruptions, unauthorized surveillance, sensitive data exfiltration, and other UAS threats to the homeland.”

It added that drones “are inherently dual-use: they are both commercial platforms and potentially military or paramilitary sensors and weapons,” and foreign production of drones and their components, “could enable persistent surveillance, data exfiltration, and destructive operations over U.S. territory.”

The war in Ukraine has underscored how commercial and hobbyist drones can be outfitted for frontline attacks.

The Chinese company DJI, founded in 2006, has captured more than two-thirds of the global drone market in recent years, according to several studies.

It has also been in Washington’s crosshairs for several years, with U.S. officials accusing it of supplying products used to surveil ethnic minorities in China, particularly the Uyghurs.

Since 2022, DJI has been on a U.S. list of Chinese companies linked to the country’s military and therefore subject to restrictions on access to U.S. technology.

DJI fought its inclusion on the list in 2024, insisting that it was not owned or controlled by the military.

It is “critical that America be able to produce its own unmanned capabilities without parts or even raw materials from China,” Joshua Steinman, a supply chain expert formerly on the Trump administration’s National Security Council, told AFP.

Last week, China announced restrictions on drone exports to the United States and blacklisted six companies in response to trade sanctions imposed by Washington over forced labor and national security concerns.

That move came days after the U.S. imposed fresh tariffs on China and 59 countries.

In late July 2026, the U.S. government also added humanoid and quadruped robots to a blacklist of products and companies barred from import into the United States, saying they posed critical national security risks.

That sector, too, is dominated by Chinese industry.

U.S. President Donald Trump has given generic pharmaceutical companies a two-year window to establish manufacturing facilities in the United States, warning that products imported after August 2028 could face tariffs of up to 200%.

The announcement, made on Wednesday (July 22, 2026) through a social media post, has significant implications for India, which sends more than a third of its pharmaceutical exports to the U.S. While Indian drugmakers sought to strike a cautious note, they warned that higher tariffs would ultimately increase medicine costs for American consumers.

Mr. Trump said the measure is intended to encourage generic drug production in the U.S. and reduce dependence on overseas supply chains.

“Effective August 1, 2026, all generic drugs being brought into the United States will continue to have a tariff of zero per cent for a two-year period of time, after which the tariff will be raised to 100% for a one-year period of time, and 200% thereafter,” he said. The policy, he added, is aimed at reshoring pharmaceutical manufacturing while preserving existing arrangements for patented and innovative medicines.

The announcement rattled pharmaceutical stocks. The Nifty Pharma index fell 1.31%, with 18 of its 20 constituent companies closing lower. Industry executives largely adopted a wait-and-watch approach, while reiterating that any additional costs would likely be passed on to consumers.

“It’s not practical to move operations like that to the U.S. overnight. If tariffs are imposed, we will have to raise prices,” said Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Chief Executive Officer Erez Israeli. He added that the company was not planning any immediate changes and noted that policy positions could evolve over time.

According to the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), India is among the countries most exposed to the proposed measure. India exported pharmaceutical products worth $25.8 billion in 2025, of which $9.7 billion, or 37.7%, went to the United States, its largest overseas market.

Indian firms account for nearly 47% of all generic prescriptions dispensed in the U.S., making India the largest supplier of affordable generic medicines. Despite this dominance, generics’ low pricing means India’s share of the value of U.S. generic imports is estimated at about 30%.

The U.S. imported pharmaceutical products worth $213 billion in 2025, including $94.1 billion worth of finished medicines sold in retail packs. GTRI founder Ajay Srivastava said many Indian generics could remain competitive despite the tariffs because they are significantly cheaper than branded alternatives. However, large-scale relocation of generic drug manufacturing to the U.S. would be challenging, given the industry’s reliance on global supply chains and imported active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Granules India Executive Director Priyanka Chigurupati said the company’s three U.S. facilities position it well to support increased local manufacturing. However, she cautioned that higher generic drug prices could ripple across the healthcare system and affect patient affordability.

Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance Secretary General Sudarshan Jain said Indian companies already have a substantial U.S. presence, with more than 40 facilities supporting jobs, manufacturing and research. India, he said, remains a trusted partner in supplying affordable, quality medicines to American patients.

GTRI added that building a fully domestic pharmaceutical supply chain in the U.S. would require significant investment and would almost certainly lead to higher medicine prices.

Pharmexcil Chairman Namit Joshi said the announcement provides welcome clarity. “The zero-tariff window through 2028 gives the industry a meaningful runway, and we see this as time we can use productively — to keep strengthening our position across multiple markets rather than relying on any single one.”

U.S. President Donald Trump has given generic pharmaceutical companies a two-year window to establish manufacturing facilities in the United States, warning that products imported after August 2028 could face tariffs of up to 200%.

The announcement, made on Wednesday (July 22, 2026) through a social media post, has significant implications for India, which sends more than a third of its pharmaceutical exports to the U.S. While Indian drugmakers sought to strike a cautious note, they warned that higher tariffs would ultimately increase medicine costs for American consumers.

Mr. Trump said the measure is intended to encourage generic drug production in the U.S. and reduce dependence on overseas supply chains.

“Effective August 1, 2026, all generic drugs being brought into the United States will continue to have a tariff of zero per cent for a two-year period of time, after which the tariff will be raised to 100% for a one-year period of time, and 200% thereafter,” he said. The policy, he added, is aimed at reshoring pharmaceutical manufacturing while preserving existing arrangements for patented and innovative medicines.

The announcement rattled pharmaceutical stocks. The Nifty Pharma index fell 1.31%, with 18 of its 20 constituent companies closing lower. Industry executives largely adopted a wait-and-watch approach, while reiterating that any additional costs would likely be passed on to consumers.

“It’s not practical to move operations like that to the U.S. overnight. If tariffs are imposed, we will have to raise prices,” said Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Chief Executive Officer Erez Israeli. He added that the company was not planning any immediate changes and noted that policy positions could evolve over time.

According to the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), India is among the countries most exposed to the proposed measure. India exported pharmaceutical products worth $25.8 billion in 2025, of which $9.7 billion, or 37.7%, went to the United States, its largest overseas market.

Indian firms account for nearly 47% of all generic prescriptions dispensed in the U.S., making India the largest supplier of affordable generic medicines. Despite this dominance, generics’ low pricing means India’s share of the value of U.S. generic imports is estimated at about 30%.

The U.S. imported pharmaceutical products worth $213 billion in 2025, including $94.1 billion worth of finished medicines sold in retail packs. GTRI founder Ajay Srivastava said many Indian generics could remain competitive despite the tariffs because they are significantly cheaper than branded alternatives. However, large-scale relocation of generic drug manufacturing to the U.S. would be challenging, given the industry’s reliance on global supply chains and imported active pharmaceutical ingredients.

Granules India Executive Director Priyanka Chigurupati said the company’s three U.S. facilities position it well to support increased local manufacturing. However, she cautioned that higher generic drug prices could ripple across the healthcare system and affect patient affordability.

Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance Secretary General Sudarshan Jain said Indian companies already have a substantial U.S. presence, with more than 40 facilities supporting jobs, manufacturing and research. India, he said, remains a trusted partner in supplying affordable, quality medicines to American patients.

GTRI added that building a fully domestic pharmaceutical supply chain in the U.S. would require significant investment and would almost certainly lead to higher medicine prices.

Pharmexcil Chairman Namit Joshi said the announcement provides welcome clarity. “The zero-tariff window through 2028 gives the industry a meaningful runway, and we see this as time we can use productively — to keep strengthening our position across multiple markets rather than relying on any single one.”

Amazon.com Inc was sued on Friday (May 15, 2026) by consumers seeking refunds for costs passed on to ​them in the form of higher prices as a result of ‌tariffs the U.S. Supreme Court later concluded had been unlawfully ​imposed by President Donald Trump.

Consumers in a proposed ⁠class action filed in federal court in Seattle alleged that the e-commerce giant collected hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariff costs by ‌raising prices on imported goods before the Supreme Court had ruled.

The U.S. Supreme Court in February concluded ‌in a 6-3 decision that Mr. Trump overstepped his authority ‌by ⁠using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose ⁠his sweeping tariffs.

Thousands of companies have begun to seek billions of dollars in refunds from the government following the ruling.

But Amazon has not, which the ​lawsuit alleged was “not because it ‌lacks a legal basis to do so, but because it seeks to curry favour with Mr. Trump by allowing the federal government to retain the funds.”

“The problem is that the ‌funds Amazon is using to stay in the President’s good ​graces do not belong to Amazon,” the lawsuit says. “These funds were wrongfully taken from consumers to cover ⁠IEEPA Tariffs that have since been invalidated.”

The lawsuit asserts claims of unjust enrichment and violation of Washington state’s consumer-protection law.

Amazon did ‌not respond to a request for comment.

The lawsuit follows several earlier cases filed by consumers accusing companies ranging from Costco to Nike to FedEx of failing to pass on tariff refunds to consumers.

Unlike companies that imported goods, consumers are not eligible to seek tariff refunds from the government for the higher ‌costs they incurred while they were in effect, Friday’s (May 15) lawsuit notes.

To support ​its claim that politics were behind Amazon’s actions, the lawsuit notes that in April 2025, the company ⁠faced White House blowback after a report that it was considering displaying ⁠how much of a product’s cost came from the IEEPA tariffs.

Amazon denied the story and said it never ‌considered listing tariff prices on its main retail site. But the report prompted Mr. Trump to call Amazon Executive Chairman ​Jeff Bezos to complain, the lawsuit says.

The U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has ruled that the 10% temporary tariff President Donald Trump imposed on all U.S. trade partners, including India, was “unauthorised by law”, striking a further blow to his attempts at using tariffs as tools to advance his policy priorities. 

However, while the ruling sets a precedent, it does not translate into immediate relief for exporters around the world. The court on Thursday (May 7, 2026) provided relief to only the plaintiffs — two small companies in the U.S. and Washington State — with the tariff remaining on all other importers. 

The U.S. government is expected to appeal the judgment at the federal level, which could extend the process by several months. 

Mr. Trump had, on February 24, 2026, used Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a 10% tariff on imports from around the world for 150 days. This was in response to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down his country-wise reciprocal tariffs, which were based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977.

Limited relief

The CIT, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that, although the U.S. Congress had originally passed Section 122 to give the President the authority to address balance of payments deficits, this did not include the trade deficit and current account deficits cited by Mr. Trump when he levied the 10% tariff.

The court ordered the U.S. government to stop collecting the tariff from the plaintiffs — Washington State, spice importer Burlap & Barrel, and toy maker Basic Fun! — and to refund the amount collected. It stopped short, however, of ordering the same for all U.S. importers. 

“The CIT did not issue a universal injunction or give relief to anyone other than the named plaintiffs,” Peter E. Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown Law School’s Institute of International Economic Law, said in a social media post following the ruling. 

“Other companies may well now decide to sue, though many will probably hold off while this decision winds its way through the appeals process,” Mr. Harrell noted. 

Tariffs still a threat

This ruling comes days after the U.S. government started paying refunds to U.S. importers who had paid the reciprocal tariffs that were eventually struck down by the Supreme Court.

The U.S. government has also launched a number of investigations under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 regarding fair trade practice and labour rights violations by several of the U.S.’s trade partners, including India. If these investigations find violations, they would empower the U.S. to once again levy tariffs on the relevant countries. 

The investigations are expected to conclude in July, which is when the 10% tariff is set to expire.

Impact on trade deal

Sources in the government said the CIT ruling strengthened India’s negotiating position with regard to the Interim Agreement on trade between India and the U.S., as well as a larger Bilateral Trade Agreement between the two countries. However, they added that the matter was too nascent for any real impact to be felt on negotiations.

The two countries announced the Interim Agreement in February, under which India was to receive lower tariffs than its competitor nations. However, the signing of the deal was indefinitely postponed following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the reciprocal tariffs. 

While negotiations have resumed, the deal currently lies in limbo, with Indian government officials publicly saying that it cannot go ahead until the U.S. finalises the tariffs it is levying on other countries. That is, India is still pushing for preferential access over its competition, which can be established only once all tariffs are known.

A federal court has ruled against the new global tariffs that U.S. President Donald Trump imposed after a stinging loss at the Supreme Court.

A split three-judge panel of the Court of International Trade in New York on Thursday (May 7, 2026) found the 10% global tariffs were illegal after small businesses sued.

The court ruled 2-1 that Mr. Trump overstepped the tariff power that Congress had allowed the President under the law. The tariffs are “invalid” and “unauthorised by law”, the majority wrote.

Tariffs in trouble: On the U.S. Supreme Court and Donald Trump

The third judge on the panel found the law allows the President more leeway on tariffs.

If the administration appeals Thursday’s (May 7, 2026) decision, as expected, it would first turn to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, based in Washington, and then, potentially, the Supreme Court.

At issue are temporary 10% worldwide tariffs the Trump administration imposed after the Supreme Court in February struck down even broader double-digit tariffs the President had imposed last year on almost every country on Earth. The new tariffs, invoked under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, were set to expire July 24.

The court’s decision directly applied only to three of the plaintiffs — the state of Washington and two businesses, spice company Burlap & Barrel and toy company Basic Fun! “It’s not clear” whether other businesses would have to continue to pay the tariffs, said Jeffrey Schwab, director of litigation at the libertarian Liberty Justice Center, which represented the two companies.

“We fought back today and we won, and we’re extremely excited,” Jay Foreman, CEO of Basic Fun!, told reporters Thursday (May 7, 2026).

The ruling marked another legal setback for the Trump administration, which has attempted to shield the U.S. economy behind a wall of import taxes. Last year, Mr. Trump invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to declare the nation’s longstanding trade deficit a national emergency, justifying sweeping global tariffs.

The Supreme Court ruled February 28 that IEEPA did not authorise the tariffs. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to establish taxes, including tariffs, though lawmakers can delegate tariff power to the President.

Mr. Trump is widely expected to try to replace the tariffs that have been struck down. The administration is conducting two investigations that could end in more tariffs.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is looking into whether 16 U.S. trading partners — including China, the European Union and Japan — are overproducing goods, driving down prices and putting U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage. It is also investigating whether 60 economies — from Nigeria to Norway and accounting for 99% of U.S. imports — do enough to prohibit the trade in products created by forced labour.

The United States on Thursday (May 7, 2026) imposed sanctions on Iraq’s deputy Oil Minister over support to Iran, as Washington puts intense pressure on the incoming government to sever links.

The deputy Minister, Ali Maarij al-Bahadli, “abused his government position to divert Iraqi oil in support of the Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies,” State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said.

“As part of a scheme to evade sanctions, Iranian oil was fraudulently mixed with Iraqi oil and sold for Iran’s benefit,” he said.

The United States has unilateral sanctions against Iranian oil, seeking to punish any country or company that buys it.

Iran, led by Shia clerics, has had close relations with many key players in Shia-majority Iraq since the 2003 U.S. invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.

The United States has been escalating pressure on the Iraqi state to break off alleged cooperation with armed Iraqi Shia groups linked to Iran.

Tariffs in trouble: On the U.S. Supreme Court and Donald Trump

Since the United States and Israel attacked Iran on February 28, armed groups have hit U.S. facilities in Iraq more than 600 times before a ceasefire was announced, according to a U.S. official.

The official said that the United States was looking for “concrete actions” from Iraq to cast aside the armed groups before Washington can resume full cooperation.

During the Iran war, the United States notably stopped shipments to Iraq of cash from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which has handled the country’s oil revenue in an arrangement dating from the U.S. invasion.

U.S. President Donald Trump has congratulated and voiced hope for working with Iraq’s Prime Minister-designate Ali al-Zaidi, who was selected by the ruling coalition after heavy U.S. pressure against the frontrunner.