Is India’s Trump strategy on track?

Donald Trump remains one of the world’s most unpredictable leaders, yet India appears confident in its approach to managing relations with him. Indeed, the Indo-US relationship arguably reached new heights during Trump’s first term. Under his administration, the US became India’s largest trading partner, defense deals worth billions of dollars were finalized, and the two nations collaborated closely on shared “challenges,” notably China.

Naturally, the path wasn’t always smooth, particularly concerning trade disputes. However, many observers believe India navigated its relationship with Trump more effectively than many other nations.

What accounts for this perceived success?

Three primary factors contribute to India’s approach: economic engagement, the personal rapport between Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and India’s strategic concessions yielding benefits for the US.

Trump, often described as a transactional leader, doesn’t operate from a “grand theory” of foreign policy. Instead, he tends to evaluate relationships based on tangible benefits for the US. In this context, India’s primary offering is its expanding economy. The country’s recent growth trajectory, particularly the burgeoning middle class, holds significant interest for a leader focused on economic outcomes.

In 2017, Trump said, “Since India opened its economy, it has seen astonishing growth and a new world of opportunities for its expanding middle class.” This economic growth presented opportunities for US firms to sell to Indian companies and attract Indian investment into the US. This dynamic was evident during Trump’s first meeting with Modi in 2017: SpiceJet finalized a $10 billion deal with Boeing for over 100 aircraft, and the US agreed to sell $2 billion worth of Predator drones to the Indian military. Trump publicly commended New Delhi for these agreements.

Subsequent meetings between Modi and Trump consistently emphasized trade deals and investments. New Delhi, similar to strategies employed by other nations, highlighted India’s investments in the US and significant defense purchases, aligning with Trump’s focus on economic wins.

Despite significant differences in personality and background, Trump appeared to hold Modi in high regard. Trump has referred to Modi as “India’s Elvis” and one of the US’s “greatest friends.” Notably, Modi was the first leader Trump hosted for a working dinner at the White House in 2017. Trump also lauded Modi for his “tremendous accomplishments,” praise not typically bestowed on many other world leaders. Critics suggest Trump admires Modi’s “populist strongman” persona. Trump himself alluded to this dynamic in a 2024 podcast interview, describing Modi as a “good guy” who could nevertheless be “a real pain in the ass,” specifically referencing Modi’s firm stance regarding Pakistan.

Modi, in turn, demonstrated adeptness in managing the relationship. Large-scale events like the 2019 “Howdy Modi!” rally in Texas and the 2020 “Namaste Trump” event in India, both drawing massive crowds, clearly impressed Trump. He praised Modi as one of “America’s greatest and most loyal friends” and pledged that, if re-elected, India would “have no better friend” than the US. Trump might also view strong ties with Modi as beneficial for garnering support among Indian-Americans.

The third factor involves strategic concessions from India, resulting in perceived gains for the US. New Delhi strategically yielded on certain issues prioritized by Trump.

Illegal immigration serves as one example.

While the deportation of undocumented Indian immigrants from the US sparked some public discontent in India, the Indian government maintained a low-key response. Officially, it condemned illegal immigration and signaled its willingness to accept deportees without significant obstruction.

India also reduced tariffs on certain US products, including motorcycles and agricultural goods, addressing Trump’s vocal complaints about high Indian import duties.

New Delhi calculated that these concessions would satisfy key Trump demands. These moves were not without reciprocal benefits for India, however. Trump facilitated India’s access to high-end defense technology. He also appeared receptive to Indian priorities, such as combating Khalistani separatist groups operating in the US, and reportedly agreed to the extradition of Tahawwur Rana, sought by India in connection with the 2008 Mumbai attacks.

Recapping the first Trump term, the US became India’s largest trading partner, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD) was revitalized, and Washington adopted a more assertive stance towards China. Furthermore, there was minimal US interference in India’s domestic politics. This latter point—minimal interference in India’s internal affairs—is particularly significant for New Delhi.

From New Delhi’s perspective, these outcomes suggest that “India’s game plan for Trump” is largely effective.

The potential extradition of Tahawwur Rana, sought by India as a key figure in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks (2008), represents a major Indian objective in bilateral discussions. Securing US agreement for his extradition has been a long-standing Indian demand. Joint statements often include commitments to take “decisive action” against groups threatening India’s security, which India interprets as progress on the Khalistan issue.

Discussions often include potential US commitments to streamline defense sales to India, possibly involving reviews of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which govern defense exports. Exploratory talks regarding a Reciprocal Defense Procurement Agreement, which could open the US defense market to Indian companies, are also a recurring theme. Such developments, facilitating access to advanced defense technology, are viewed as significant gains by India.

However, these potential gains for India are often counterbalanced by US trade demands.

For years, Donald Trump has complained about high Indian tariffs on US goods. Addressing these complaints, discussions often revolve around negotiating a new bilateral trade agreement (distinct from a comprehensive free trade agreement) aimed at granting US companies enhanced market access, potentially with target dates like late 2025. The stated ambition includes finalizing such an agreement and boosting bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030, more than doubling current levels.

Meanwhile, while the US already sells billions in oil and gas to India, a key objective for a potential second Trump administration would likely be reducing the significant trade deficit (around $50 billion) by increasing these sales further. A renewed energy partnership could position the US as one of India’s top energy suppliers.

Thus, the dynamic involves India potentially gaining access to more US defense technology while facing pressure to purchase more US energy.

However, India’s willingness to significantly increase US energy imports beyond symbolic amounts likely hinges on competitive pricing, especially compared to discounted supplies available from sources like Russia.

Nevertheless, India is already a substantial and growing customer for US goods. Imports from the US have increased significantly in recent years (e.g., by $3 billion in one recent period), with crude oil being the top commodity by value since 2019. Furthermore, New Delhi highlights its $40 billion investment in the US in recent years, supporting approximately 500,000 American jobs. New Delhi can leverage these existing purchases and substantial investments to counter pressure for further increases in imports from the US. These activities may have also helped prevent the trade deficit from widening further. Additionally, India can argue that its defense posture and role as a net security provider in the Indian Ocean region align with and advance US interests, potentially mitigating pressure to buy more US arms. India’s naval operations in Middle Eastern waters to protect shipping and its efforts to supply missiles to Southeast Asian nations as a counterweight to China further bolster this argument.

Modi has also pledged cooperation in combating illegal immigration to the US, targeting human trafficking networks. Given the political sensitivity of illegal immigration in the US, such cooperation helps assure Washington that India respects US concerns on this front.

Other potential areas of discussion or agreement include the US offer of the F-35 fighter jet, coinciding with India’s search for a 5th generation aircraft, and joint calls for Pakistan to prevent its territory from being used for terrorism.

Early in Trump’s first term, Modi was among the first world leaders hosted, following only the leaders of Israel, Japan, and Jordan—all close US allies. This sequencing signaled the importance the Trump administration placed on the US-India partnership, although immediate, concrete results were not necessarily expected at that early stage. Nevertheless, initiatives like the announced “US-India COMPACT for the 21st Century (Catalyzing Opportunities for Military Partnership, Accelerated Trade and Technology)” aim to provide a framework for strengthening the partnership.

However, significant uncertainties requiring attention persist, particularly regarding the handling of undocumented migrants and the provision of sanctions waivers. Specifically, the implications of a potential Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran, including potential reluctance to grant sanctions waivers, remain unclear for India’s strategic Chabahar port project.

Finally, India’s strategies for navigating potential trade disputes under Trump have faced criticism for being reactive or insufficient. Critics argue that some measures, such as concessions on tariffs, appear aimed at short-term appeasement rather than long-term strategic positioning, seemingly uncharacteristic of New Delhi’s usual approach. The “Make in India” initiative, designed to boost domestic manufacturing, serves as another example. Despite initial enthusiasm and Trump’s apparent support for India as a manufacturing alternative to China, its overall success has been limited, potentially dampening initial US optimism. While progress is evident in sectors like mobile phones and pharmaceuticals, broader success remains elusive. In many other sectors, competitors, especially China, present formidable challenges. More significantly, inadequate infrastructure remains a major impediment to the “Make in India” goals. Consequently, India appears to be falling short of its initial ambitions in this area. In other words, it seems that Delhi still has a long way to go.

Amid fluctuating global trade dynamics, New Delhi, prioritizing the US relationship for strategic reasons, is actively negotiating multiple bilateral trade agreements (reportedly seven). These aim to bolster India’s economic standing and tackle market access and production hurdles. Concessions are expected to vary across agreements based on strategic considerations. The political capital invested and positive rhetoric surrounding these negotiations signal a departure from past skepticism, partly driven by pressures like Trump’s focus on tariffs.

Characteristically pragmatic, New Delhi focuses on mitigating immediate risks and protecting existing market shares in both goods and services. While maintaining market share is crucial, the ultimate objective remains growth. Acknowledging India’s achievements is fair, yet its manufacturing expansion efforts have arguably fallen short of potential.

And yet, despite these challenges, the India-US relationship appears fundamentally robust.

Recent remarks by Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar offer insight:

Jaishankar stated, “Many of Trump’s priorities are working for us.”

He added, “We believe that working with the US to strengthen the international financial and economic system should be a priority.”

Furthermore, Jaishankar observed, “The US is moving towards multipolarity and that suits India.”