Why Is Trump Singling Out India?
An Analysis of the Shift in US-India Relations
In recent years, the relationship between the United States and India—which once appeared to be on a steady upward trajectory—has been showing unmistakable signs of strain. The events surrounding the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, the evolving dynamics of global trade, and shifting geopolitical alliances have all played a role. But according to a recent editorial by Sujit Nair of HW News, these tensions can be traced not only to policy decisions but also to a more personal, political factor: the disintegration of the bond between former US President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
From Rapport to Rift: The Trump–Modi Dynamic
When Trump and Modi first came together on the global stage, the camaraderie seemed unmistakable. Their public appearances—such as the “Howdy Modi” event in Houston—were highly choreographed displays of friendship that signaled a deepening partnership between the two nations. Nair argues, however, that the relationship was never truly grounded in institutional cooperation. Instead, it thrived on personal chemistry between the two leaders.
This personalization of diplomacy, Nair contends, made the bilateral relationship fragile. Without strong bureaucratic and diplomatic frameworks to fall back on, goodwill began to falter once political and strategic disagreements emerged. Over time, the warmth turned to frost.
Signals of a Cooling Relationship
Several public diplomatic episodes underline the changing tenor:
- Modi was not invited to Trump’s oath-taking ceremony, an omission that carried symbolic weight.
- During Modi’s White House visit, the usual ceremonial warmth was notably absent. Official receptions and media optics felt subdued.
- Observers noted a chill in body language whenever the two leaders shared a stage.
Although Bloomberg suggested that a strained phone call between the two leaders may have accelerated the fallout, Nair believes the deterioration had been unfolding for over a year. The seeds of discord had already sprouted—rooted in personal disagreements as much as in geopolitical maneuvering.
Pakistan and the American Stage
One striking episode fueling India’s discomfort was the visit of Pakistan’s military chief, General Asim Munir, to the United States. While in Washington, Munir made remarks that went beyond diplomatic norms: he threatened India’s economic interests and even hinted at nuclear escalation. That such comments were made on US soil—and that Washington appeared untroubled—suggested to many in New Delhi a shift in American willingness to align unequivocally with India.
This incident contrasted starkly with the earlier rhetoric of the Trump years, when the US was positioning itself closer to India in the South Asian security equation. Nair interprets this as a broader indicator that India was gradually losing ground in American strategic thinking.
Tariffs and Trade: Favoring China?
On the economic front, Trump’s decisions on tariffs deepened the perception in India of being sidelined. His administration moved to extend tariff suspensions for China, giving Beijing relatively more favorable treatment, despite China’s much heavier import of Russian oil during the Ukraine war compared to India.
Simultaneously, Indian goods continued to be subjected to tariff rates of around 50%, whereas Chinese tariffs hovered closer to 30%. For policymakers in Delhi, this imbalance smacked of discrimination—especially given the narrative in Washington that sought to cast China as a strategic competitor.
Strategic Realignments: Russia, China, and the Missing ‘India’ Factor
Perhaps the most significant geopolitical move was Trump’s outreach to Russian President Vladimir Putin, culminating in a planned meeting in Alaska. For New Delhi, this raised questions: Was Washington now pursuing a strategic triangle that excluded India? Instead of nurturing a potential Russia–India–America–China (RAIC) grouping, Trump seemed more interested in dealing with Moscow and Beijing on their own terms—independent of India’s involvement.
This approach, coupled with the cooling personal ties between Trump and Modi, fed the perception that India was being strategically isolated.
The Perils of Personalized Diplomacy
In his editorial, Sujit Nair draws a broader lesson from the Trump–Modi episode: international relationships that hinge too heavily on personal rapport are inherently unstable. While state-to-state relations ideally rest on institutional capacity, shared values, and long-term mutual interests, what unfolded between the US and India under Trump largely bypassed these safeguards.
When personal chemistry drives policy, it also creates vulnerability—because chemistry can change. In this case, the disengagement between two leaders spilled over into broader strategic and economic spheres, weakening what could have been a more resilient bilateral partnership.
Moving Forward
The deterioration of US–India relations during this period should serve as a cautionary tale for both nations. If bilateral ties are to weather the inevitable transitions in leadership and policy priorities, they must be:
- Institutionalized, so they aren’t dependent on the mood or relationship of individual leaders.
- Grounded in mutual strategic interests that extend beyond personalities.
- Supported by multi-level engagement—government officials, business leaders, cultural exchanges, and people-to-people ties.
While geopolitics will continue to shift in an increasingly multipolar world, strong bilateral relations need more than photo opportunities and political slogans; they require durable foundations.
About The Author
