In the landscape of international relations, few figures have reshaped alliances as dramatically as Donald J. Trump during his presidencies. His first term, from 2017 to 2021, was marked by bold diplomatic overtures, including the historic summit with North Korea's Kim Jong-un in Singapore in 2018—a gesture that symbolized a willingness to engage adversaries directly. Yet, as Trump embarks on his second term in 2025, a discernible pivot has emerged: a retreat from traditional partnerships with democratic allies, such as NATO members and long-standing friends in Asia, toward pragmatic engagements with authoritarian regimes and military-led states. This shift, often characterized by analysts as "transactional diplomacy," prioritizes economic incentives, resource access, and strategic leverage over ideological alignment. For India, a key democratic partner in the Indo-Pacific, these changes have introduced tensions, particularly in the context of its relations with Pakistan and broader regional dynamics. As of November 2025, with ongoing trade negotiations and military assessments in flux, this editorial examines the evolving U.S. posture, its implications for South Asia, and the imperative for balanced multilateralism.
The year 2025 has witnessed a confluence of events underscoring this realignment. The U.S. has intensified economic pressures on nations perceived as diverging from its interests, while extending olive branches to those offering tangible benefits like investments, minerals, or geopolitical footholds. This approach echoes a long-held critique of American foreign policy: that its promotion of democracy and human rights is often secondary to the pursuit of economic dominance and security imperatives. Historians point to precedents, such as the U.S. support for authoritarian regimes during the Cold War to counter Soviet influence, but the current iteration feels acutely mercantilist, driven by domestic priorities like revitalizing American manufacturing and securing supply chains. In South Asia, this manifests most starkly in the fraying of U.S.-India ties amid a surprising thaw with Pakistan, complicating efforts to counterbalance China's regional assertiveness.
Strains in the U.S.-India Partnership: Economic Levers and Diplomatic Frictions
Over the past decade, U.S.-India relations had blossomed into a strategic cornerstone, fueled by shared concerns over China's expansionism. Initiatives like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad)—comprising the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia—gained momentum, with joint military exercises and technology transfers symbolizing a commitment to a "free and open Indo-Pacific." By 2024, bilateral trade exceeded $190 billion annually, and defense pacts, including the sale of advanced drones and missile systems, underscored deepening military interoperability. However, Trump's return to the White House has injected uncertainty, with policies that appear to penalize India for pursuing energy independence and non-alignment.
A primary flashpoint has been India's continued purchases of discounted Russian oil, which surged following the 2022 Ukraine invasion and persisted into 2025 despite U.S. entreaties to diversify away from Moscow. In September 2025, the U.S. imposed secondary sanctions on Indian refiners handling Russian crude, citing violations of global energy norms. This move, justified by Washington as a deterrent against Russian aggression, has driven up India's import costs by an estimated 15-20%, straining its $3.5 trillion economy amid global inflation pressures. Compounding this, Trump has repeatedly floated tariff hikes on Indian exports, ranging from steel to pharmaceuticals, as leverage in stalled trade talks. During a October 2025 rally in Pennsylvania, he warned of duties up to 100% on "unfair" imports, framing India as a competitor in the "America First" narrative.
Beyond energy and trade, rhetorical barbs have escalated. U.S. officials have labeled India's economy as "stagnant" in congressional hearings, a tag that contrasts sharply with the International Monetary Fund's projection of 6.8% GDP growth for fiscal 2025-26. Allegations of Indian "hit squads" targeting Sikh separatists on U.S. soil—stemming from a 2023 intelligence leak—have further soured sentiment, prompting FBI investigations and diplomatic demarches. These frictions peaked in the aftermath of the India-Pakistan border skirmishes earlier this year, where U.S. commentary diverged markedly from New Delhi's narrative.
To illustrate the breadth of these pressures, consider the following key U.S. actions toward India in 2025:
- Tariff Impositions: In March, a 25% levy on Indian automobiles was enacted, affecting $5 billion in exports; further escalations threatened in July tied to Russian oil deals.
- Sanctions on Energy Sector: Secondary measures in September targeted three major Indian firms, freezing $1.2 billion in assets and prompting retaliatory reviews of U.S. tech imports.
- Ceasefire Attribution: Trump claimed personal mediation in brokering the May 2025 truce, crediting his pre-election warnings to both nations, despite India's insistence on bilateral resolutions.
- Economic Labeling: A June State Department brief described India's growth as "debt-laden and vulnerable," influencing investor sentiment and contributing to a 2% rupee depreciation.
These steps, while not unprecedented in U.S. policy toward allies, signal a departure from the Biden-era warmth, raising questions about the durability of the partnership.
The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission's Report: A Point of Contention
At the heart of recent discord lies a November 2025 report from the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC), an independent congressional body tasked with monitoring Beijing's global influence. Submitted to Congress on page 109 of its annual assessment, the document analyzes the May 2025 India-Pakistan conflict—triggered by the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir—and draws conclusions that have sparked outrage in New Delhi.
The Pahalgam incident, which claimed 28 lives (mostly tourists), was orchestrated by militants affiliated with The Resistance Front (TRF), a Pakistan-based group designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. in July 2025. Indian authorities described it unequivocally as a cross-border terror strike, linking it to Lashkar-e-Taiba operatives. In response, on May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor: precision missile strikes on nine militant camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK), aimed at dismantling terror infrastructure without targeting military assets. The four-day operation, involving over 100 sorties and BrahMos cruise missiles, ended in a ceasefire on May 10, with both sides claiming tactical victories but reporting minimal casualties—12 Indian soldiers and 18 Pakistani personnel, per official tallies.
The USCC report, however, frames these events differently. It characterizes the Pahalgam assault as an "insurgent attack" rather than terrorism, a semantic choice that dilutes accountability for state-sponsored elements. More controversially, it hails Pakistan's response during the ensuing clashes as a "military success," attributing this to the efficacy of Chinese-supplied weaponry, including JF-17 fighters and real-time satellite intelligence from Beijing. The report notes: "Pakistan's military success over India in its four-day clash showcased Chinese weaponry," highlighting how China allegedly provided "live inputs" on 109 Indian positions, enabling precise counterstrikes. This portrayal aligns with neither India's account of a "befitting reply" to aggression nor neutral assessments from bodies like the United Nations, which called for de-escalation without assigning victors.
As of November 21, 2025, the Modi government has refrained from direct rebuttal, prioritizing backchannel diplomacy amid ongoing U.S. trade negotiations. Opposition voices, including Congress leader Jairam Ramesh, have decried the report as "biased and factually flawed," urging a formal demarche. The divergence underscores a broader U.S. calculus: using the conflict to spotlight China's arms exports, which rose 20% globally in 2025, while inadvertently validating Pakistan's narrative.
Trump's Ceasefire Claims and the Specter of Tariffs
Exacerbating these interpretive gaps, President Trump has reiterated his role in averting escalation, stating on November 19 that he threatened 350% tariffs on both nations to enforce peace—a figure invoked 56 times in public remarks since May. While his administration touts this as diplomatic wizardry worthy of a Nobel nomination (echoing Pakistan's formal endorsement in June), Indian officials maintain the truce resulted from direct military-to-military hotlines, not external pressure. Such claims, while not novel for Trump, risk undermining bilateral trust, especially as tariff threats loom over a $500 billion trade imbalance.
Engaging Autocrats: The Saudi Example
This episode fits into a pattern of U.S. engagements with non-democratic actors, exemplified by the lavish White House welcome for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) on November 18, 2025—the prince's first U.S. visit since the 2018 killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist and former Saudi advisor, was murdered and dismembered at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, an act a 2019 CIA assessment linked directly to MBS. The U.N. report of 2021 held the Saudi state responsible, prompting European arms embargoes and U.S. congressional scrutiny under Biden, who branded Riyadh a "pariah" in 2020.
Yet, Trump's hosting—complete with Oval Office toasts and a state dinner—brushed aside these shadows. In exchange for MBS's pledge of $600 billion in U.S. investments, including rare earth mining and AI ventures, Trump elevated Saudi Arabia as a "major non-NATO ally" and greenlit F-35 jet sales, potentially worth $100 billion. When pressed on Khashoggi during a joint presser, Trump deflected: "Ancient history—we're focused on the future." Critics, including Amnesty International, decry this as hypocrisy, noting Saudi's 196 executions in 2025 alone, but proponents argue it secures oil stability (Saudi supplies 15% of U.S. imports) and counters Iran.
This pragmatism extends to resource-driven alliances. Unlike sanctioned oil producers like Iran or Venezuela, whose exports bypass U.S. markets, Saudi crude flows affordably, bolstering American leverage. The deals also encompass nuclear energy cooperation, with U.S. firms like Westinghouse poised for $20 billion in reactor builds, signaling a thaw after years of human rights tensions.
A U-Turn on China: Rare Earths and Trade Thaws
Parallel to the Saudi overture, Trump's China policy has softened, reversing first-term hawkishness. Beijing's dominance in rare earth minerals—controlling 80% of global supply, essential for F-35s, EVs, and semiconductors—proved a chokehold. When Trump proposed 100-150% tariffs in March 2025, China responded with export curbs, spiking U.S. prices by 40% and halting Tesla production lines. By August, tariffs were halved, and Xi Jinping hosted Trump in Beijing for "phase two" talks, yielding $200 billion in mineral access commitments. This détente, while stabilizing supply chains, alarms Indo-Pacific allies, as it dilutes Quad cohesion amid China's South China Sea maneuvers.
Reviving Old Ties: The U.S.-Pakistan Thaw
No shift is more consequential for India than the U.S. embrace of Pakistan, a relationship historically fraught but strategically enduring. From the 1971 Indo-Pak War—where U.S. naval forces tilted toward Islamabad—to post-9/11 counterterrorism pacts, Washington has often favored Pakistan's military over India's democracy, providing $33 billion in aid since 2002 despite terror safe havens like Abbottabad, where Osama bin Laden was killed in 2011.
In 2025, this pattern revived amid Pakistan's overtures. A April 27 crypto memorandum between the Trump family-backed World Liberty Financial (WLF)—60% owned by Trump's son and son-in-law—and the Pakistan Crypto Council aims to integrate blockchain into Islamabad's finance, potentially unlocking $5 billion in digital reserves modeled on U.S. initiatives. Field Marshal Asim Munir, Pakistan's de facto leader, visited the White House in May post-Operation Sindoor, securing closed-door pledges on F-16 upgrades. Pakistan's Nobel nomination for Trump in June, coupled with troop commitments to his 20-point Gaza peace plan—adopted by the U.N. Security Council on November 17—further cemented ties. The plan envisions an international force, including 5,000 Pakistani peacekeepers, to demilitarize Gaza under a U.S.-chaired "Board of Peace," offering Trump validation from a Muslim-majority ally despite his past rhetoric.
Strategically, Pakistan aids U.S. ambitions in Afghanistan, including reclaiming Bagram Air Base for counter-Taliban ops, leveraging its geography and influence over Kabul. In return, Islamabad gains dollars and arms, with $2 billion in 2025 aid resuming after a 2022 freeze. This transactionalism, while stabilizing U.S. interests in the Middle East and Central Asia, ignores Pakistan's democratic backsliding—Munir's lifelong immunity grant in October—and its role in sheltering TRF militants.
Implications for India: Vulnerabilities and Pathways Forward
For India, these developments pose multifaceted challenges. The Quad, once a bulwark against China, falters as U.S. priorities shift; joint exercises in September 2025 were scaled back amid tariff disputes. China's post-Sindoor support—selling "battle-tested" missiles to global clients—exacerbates border tensions, with Galwan-like incursions in Ladakh persisting unresolved. India's $100 billion trade deficit with Beijing, unchanged since 2020, underscores economic asymmetry.
Key vulnerabilities include:
- Resource Dependence: Reliance on Russian oil (40% of imports) invites U.S. sanctions, while rare earth shortages hinder defense indigenization.
- Alliance Fragility: U.S. Pakistan ties revive "enemy's enemy" dynamics, potentially arming Islamabad with F-35s via Saudi proxies.
- Diplomatic Isolation: Silence on the USCC report risks eroding military morale; opposition critiques highlight domestic political costs.
- Economic Repercussions: 50% tariff threats could shave 1% off GDP growth, per RBI estimates, amid a "dead economy" stigma.
Yet, opportunities abound. India's G20 presidency legacy and $5 trillion economy by 2027 position it as a swing power. Diversifying ties—deepening EU FTAs, BRICS energy pacts, and ASEAN security dialogues—can mitigate U.S. volatility. As foreign policy sages like Henry Kissinger noted, "Power respects power"; assertive responses, like the 2020 Ladakh standoff, compelled Chinese restraint. Publicly, India could press for USCC clarifications while privately advancing trade concessions on U.S. dairy and IT visas.
In conclusion, Trump's 2025 diplomacy—rooted in deal-making over dogma—reflects a world where alliances are fluid, forged by mutual utility rather than shared values. For India, the lesson is clear: over-reliance on any hegemon invites peril. By cultivating a multi-aligned strategy, New Delhi can navigate this "tectonic shift," safeguarding sovereignty amid the clamor of transactional tides. As global orders evolve, resilience, not reaction, will define enduring influence.
Post a Comment