Cautious Pragmatism

The trajectory of India-US relations has always been marked by a mixture of high expectations and difficult adjustments. In recent months, however, the bilateral partnership has witnessed at least two critical shifts—one structural and the other perceptual. Both are closely tied to the second Donald Trump administration, which has injected an unusual blend of transactional policymaking, populist rhetoric, and disruptive signalling into Washington’s global outreach and policy.

Hardening Realities

The most tangible change in the India-US relationship has been on the economic front. The Trump administration has imposed tariffs on Indian goods at levels unimaginable in the months leading up to Trump’s second inauguration. For New Delhi, this has been particularly stark because expectations from a Trump second term were quite different.

In India, the belief was that Trump would intensify the tariff war with China, further destabilising supply chains and creating opportunities for other economies like India which would emerge as beneficiaries. Many in New Delhi expected Washington to use tariffs as a weapon primarily against Beijing, while carving out exceptions for partners like India, at least in some sectors. These hopes were not unfounded. During Trump’s first term, India had already absorbed difficult policy measures like the withdrawal of Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) benefits, the downgrading of India’s Strategic Trade Authorization (STA) tier, and persistent nudges to “do more” in the Indo-Pacific. Yet, the overall framework was one where India was recognised as a critical partner in balancing China. New Delhi’s designation as a “Major Defense Partner” under the Obama administration and the consolidation of the Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership had created a sense of durability.

The second Trump administration, however, has complicated this equation. Instead of being seen as a trusted partner, India now finds itself facing the brunt of punitive tariffs, as high as 50 per cent. These measures have disrupted export prospects for Indian gems and jewellery, auto components, steel, aluminium, and pharmaceutical products while discouraging US investments in Indian manufacturing. For India, the imposing questions are not just economic but also strategic, as it raises questions about whether Washington’s Indo-Pacific rhetoric truly accommodates India’s rise as an indispensable pillar of regional stability.

Perceptions and the Social Media Battlefield

The second shift has been perceptual, rooted in the narrative wars that play out on social media. Donald Trump has long relied on social media platforms to communicate directly with global audiences, often bypassing traditional diplomatic channels. His sharp statements and warnings aimed at India have triggered consternation among Indian netizens. As such, within weeks, public perception of Trump in India shifted dramatically from a leader admired for his bluntness against China and Pakistan to one accused of ‘backstabbing’ a trusted partner. While this sentiment has not shaped the official government response in India, it has begun to influence the broader political conversation. The government in New Delhi, by contrast, has remained measured in choosing continued engagement below the top leadership level rather than confrontational posturing.

This divergence between social perception and government-to-government engagement is noteworthy. It reflects a maturity in Indian diplomacy, which has learned to navigate the unpredictability of US politics without overreacting. On the other hand, the current circumstances also underline the fragility of public goodwill in sustaining a partnership as complex as India-US ties.

The timing of these shifts has coincided with significant multilateral developments. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Tianjin, China, provided striking visuals of Indian, Russian, and Chinese leaders signalling revived coordination. For many in Washington, this appeared as a warning that New Delhi was drifting into alternative alignments, even if only tactically. Trump himself responded quickly. He hinted that “we have lost India and Russia to deepest, darkest, China,” a message that resonated with the anxieties of US policymakers. Yet, almost in the same breath, he pivoted, underscoring his continued friendship with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and painting a bright future for India-US ties. This dual signalling captures Trump’s approach of combining disruptive rhetoric followed by corrective gestures. It was, in many ways, an off-ramp—a recognition that the India-US relationship cannot be allowed to spiral out of control, despite the short-term frictions.

India, for its part, has not interpreted these developments as a duel or confrontation with Washington. Rather, its responses have been grounded in protecting its own interests, such as securing economic growth, diversifying partnerships, and avoiding overdependence on any single power. To be sure, the SCO summit and the upcoming BRICS summit in 2026 are viewed in New Delhi not as alternatives to the US partnership but as hedges against an uncertain global order. The revival of the Russia-China-India dynamic, though limited, is a reminder that India retains strategic space. As global supply chains are reoriented under US pressure, India seeks to anchor itself in multiple frameworks ranging from the Quad to SCO and BRICS. The end goal of India’s hedging between alignments is not abandoning the US partnership but ensuring it is not left vulnerable to American unpredictability.

For Washington, India continues to be indispensable to Indo-Pacific strategy. The two countries align on democracy, freedom of navigation, counterterrorism, and a rules-based order. Yet. Trump’s tariff-centric worldview views partners not in terms of shared values but in terms of immediate gains and losses. This explains the paradox that even as Trump describes Modi as a friend, his policies towards Indian exports have been harsher than many expected. The irony is that Trump’s confrontational economic stance undermines the very strategic objectives that US policymakers articulate—that India’s rise is essential to balancing China.

Between Tariffs and Trust

The India-US relationship today stands at a crossroads. It is neither unravelling nor flourishing but being recalibrated under pressure. On one side are Trump’s tariffs and social media warnings, which risk alienating Indian public opinion. On the other side are enduring convergences on security, technology, and regional stability, which compel both sides to keep the engagement alive. The challenge for Washington is to recognise that punitive tariffs on India not only weaken trust but also push New Delhi to explore alternatives in frameworks which may not align with the US’ own designs. The challenge for India is to navigate US unpredictability without derailing the long-term strategic alignment that has been painstakingly built since the early 2000s.

Ultimately, the state of play is one of cautious pragmatism. Trump’s statements and policies may create turbulence, but the structural logic of India-US partnership remains intact. For both nations, the test will be whether they can insulate long-term strategic interests from short-term political shocks—be they tariffs, posts, or summit theatrics.