The United States and India have built, over the past two decades, a relationship that is as deep as it is complex. It rests on democratic values, economic complementarities and a shared strategic concern over China. Yet, it is also shaped by personalities, impulses and geopolitics. With Donald Trump again at the centre of American politics, the Indo–US equation faces another test. The question is not whether the partnership will endure — it will — but in what form and at what cost.
Trump is unlike any American leader India has dealt with. He is instinctive, transactional and thrives on spectacle. In his world, flattery is currency, loyalty trumps institutions, and strength, military, economic or symbolic, commands respect. He enjoys dealing with leaders who mirror his authority but resents countries that he believes have taken advantage of America. For India, this makes the relationship both enticing and treacherous.
This is evident in Trump’s repeated attempts to cast himself as a global peacemaker. He has claimed more than once that he “settled” the India–Pakistan conflict. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has firmly but politely rejected this suggestion of third-party mediation. For a man eager to secure the Nobel Peace Prize, India’s refusal stung. Pakistan, in contrast, indulged Trump’s narrative. The bonhomie between Trump and Field Marshal Asim Munir has been a source of unease in New Delhi.
While India’s rejection of Trump’s claim was principled, a more neutral language could have deflected the issue without bruising his ego. Trump does not easily forget perceived slights. Yet, in a noisy democracy like ours, no government can afford to be seen as conceding to third-party mediation. The result is an aggrieved Trump who feels India denied him the recognition.
Trade has been another sore point. Trump views America’s $45.8 billion trade deficit with India as proof of exploitation. He likes deals where he can claim personal victory, and India’s cautious, calibrated negotiations often frustrate him.
Here, India must go beyond defensive bargaining. The US is our largest trading partner, with bilateral trade touching $212 billion. With a suitable positioning, as a partner in America’s effort to de-risk supply chains from China, India can create outcomes that benefit both sides. US companies remain powerful allies. Be it Apple or Tesla or semiconductor firms, many US businesses are expanding in India. Leveraging these interests through platforms like the US-India CEO Forum can make American business a vocal constituency for India in Washington. If Trump can see gains by US businesses, he is far more likely to declare it a win-win situation for both countries.
Immigration is equally sensitive. Trump’s hard-line rhetoric on visas unsettles thousands of Indian families. His tightening of H-1B rules fits neatly into his America First narrative. Indians account for nearly 70 per cent of all H-1B visas, so the impact is disproportionately high.
But here, too, India has leverage. The 4.5 million-strong Indian-American diaspora is one of the most prosperous and politically active communities in the US, with representation in Congress and state legislatures. US tech giants, from Google and Microsoft to thousands of startups, are deeply reliant on Indian engineers. Restrictive visa regimes mean talent bottlenecks and higher costs. By engaging diaspora leaders and corporate America, India can reframe H-1B visas not as concessions to India, but as a boost to American competitiveness.
It would be wrong to view Trump only through the prism of disputes. He has been bolder than many of his predecessors in confronting China. His tariffs, technology bans and open rhetoric against Beijing marked a fundamental shift in American policy. For India, which has its own long list of grievances with China, this alignment is strategically valuable. The challenge is that Beijing plays Trump’s game better, using rare earths and market leverage as tools. India must, however, rely on diplomacy, which carries less weight in Trump’s world.
Trump admires strength. Modi’s persona resonated with him, and the massive crowds at “Howdy Modi” and “Namaste Trump” rallies flattered his ego. But Trump today is more transactional, more impatient and less forgiving. India must gauge this carefully.
Add to that the absence of seasoned advisers in Trump’s inner circle who understand India. His team has few voices capable of interpreting Indian sensitivities or long-term interests. Even the newly appointed ambassador, Sergio Gor, is not an India expert. This vacuum raises the risk of misunderstandings.
India must tread carefully, avoid overt symbolism, and prepare for tough trade negotiations with smart concessions and reciprocal gains. It should engage not just the White House but also American institutions such as Congress, business chambers, Indian-origin CEOs and think tanks. It must leverage the diaspora and corporate alliances to counter restrictive visa impulses. Above all, it should project strength through economic resilience, defence preparedness and technological capability.
The paradox of Trump is that he is both flexible and rigid, impulsive yet calculating, eager for friendship but quick to take offence. Modi is the opposite — disciplined, consistent and strategic. When styles complement, the relationship flourishes; when they clash, sparks fly.
As India rises in global stature, its relationship with the US remains indispensable. But it must be managed with nuance and pragmatism. With Trump, the opportunity lies in closer strategic alignment and defence cooperation, while the risk lies in personality-driven volatility. Balancing substance with symbolism, firmness with flexibility and national dignity with diplomatic agility,will be important. If India gets this right, the Indo–US partnership will remain the defining relationship of this century. If not, it could become a story of missed opportunities at the very crossroads where Trump now stands.
The writer is chairman, RPG Enterprises
