President Donald Trump’s recent tweet on trade has provided India with a respite from rising conflicts with the United States, though the conditions hinted at in his statement indicate that this trade-off might carry a heavy and imbalanced cost. Following closely on the heels of the EU-India free trade pact—often interpreted in international circles as Europe’s response to American demands regarding Greenland and weakening NATO relations—the interaction between Trump and Modi seems to revive prospects for a bilateral US-India agreement that New Delhi has pursued for the past year. However, the entry fee now appears steeper.
On the surface, the main compromise seems beneficial. Trump indicated that mutual tariffs on Indian goods entering the US would drop to 18%, providing much-needed support to exporters facing high barriers. Financial markets, anticipating a thaw after prolonged ambiguity, have responded positively to this development. But a deeper examination of India’s reported concessions uncovers a deal that’s heavily skewed.
Based on Trump’s description, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has agreed to three significant changes. India would cease importing crude oil from Russia, shifting instead to sources from the US and possibly US-backed Venezuela. It would abolish all tariffs and non-tariff restrictions on American imports. Additionally, it would adopt a “Buy American” commitment, ramping up acquisitions of US energy, tech, farm products, coal, and other items to exceed $500 billion.
The catch? Trump stays mum on the 25% punitive tariff layered atop reciprocals. This stick likely hinges on India’s Russia oil cutoff: comply fully, and tariffs ease; falter, and effective rates hit 43%. Trump thus retains leverage, turning energy geopolitics into trade weaponry.
Live Events
The energy aspect is especially critical. Over the last two years, Russian crude has been vital to India’s refining sector, enabling access to cheap raw materials and exports of refined fuels, particularly to Europe. Switching to US or Venezuelan supplies would likely increase costs, pressuring domestic refining profits and potentially driving up fuel prices in Europe, which could harm India’s over $20 billion in annual refined product exports. The repercussions would go beyond economic balances to impact energy reliability and market leverage.
The $500 billion procurement target also invites doubt. Trump’s portrayal implies Indian purchases at that level, which doesn’t align with existing trade patterns. For 2024–25, India’s exports to the US were around $87 billion, with imports at about $45 billion, making total bilateral trade roughly $132 billion. Even the earlier “Mission 500” aim of $500 billion in combined trade by 2030 was bold. Rephrasing it as solely Indian imports would demand unrealistic expansion, far exceeding the 6.5% average growth seen in the prior six years.Notably absent is discussion of areas where India has historically set strict boundaries. Agriculture stands out, as eliminating tariffs and barriers there would spark major political and economic backlash. Another under-the-radar concern is defense: If the agreement subtly pushes for stronger “Buy American” obligations, might it urge India to redirect military acquisitions from traditional partners like Russia and France to the US? The tweet provides no details, but this is significant given the magnitude, geopolitical stakes, and extended timelines of defense deals.
Similarly revealing is the lack of mention on services. Trump’s message offered no assurances regarding H-1B visa charges or the planned HIRE Act, both of which could substantially impact India’s IT services sector, where skilled visa access is essential. Absent specifics here, the tariff reductions on goods seem increasingly lopsided.
Overall, the deal’s outline as presented by Trump matches core US objectives. It aims to redirect Indian demand toward American energy and products, limit Russian sway, safeguard US employment, and secure broad market entry from New Delhi. This contrasts with the equitable growth in mutual trade that characterized prior talks.
Markets might still applaud the short-term de-escalation. Amid US post-election volatility and India’s budget-related setbacks, any tariff relief is appreciated. But the longevity of this enthusiasm depends on the details. Both capitals have yet to issue official statements, and India’s stance on zero tariffs for sensitive farm imports will be especially indicative.
If enacted, the agreement could overhaul India’s energy policies, reduce its $42 billion trade surplus with the US, and influence its foreign reserves path. On a larger scale, it highlights the persistent “America First” strategy under Trump: gains are demanded, not bargained. For India, juggling enhanced US ties with relations to Russia and European benefits will challenge its foreign policy finesse. For stakeholders, actual oil movements and tariff specifics—rather than social media posts—will reveal if this ceasefire lasts.
(The author Dhananjay Sinha is CEO & Co-Head of Institutional Equities at Systematix Group)
(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times)