The much-anticipated meeting between Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump took place on February 13, marking a crucial diplomatic engagement as India sought to navigate the contours of a second Trump administration. This encounter, occurring in the early weeks of President Trump’s new term, was of significant geopolitical importance, considering his aggressive executive actions aimed at restructuring global trade and immigration policies. India, well aware of Trump’s unpredictability, approached the engagement with a shrewd strategy—seeking both to renew personal rapport and to safeguard India’s interests in a rapidly shifting international order.
On the eve of this high-profile meeting, President Trump issued an executive order imposing “reciprocal tariffs” on imports, a move meant to address America’s trade imbalances with key trading partners. India, ranked seventh among nations maintaining a trade surplus with the US at $45.7 billion, found itself in the crosshairs of this policy. The imposition of tariffs on aluminum imports from India—worth $1 billion—posed a significant challenge since India does not import aluminum from the US. This policy, emblematic of Trump’s broader “America First” doctrine, introduced further complexities into Indo-US trade relations.
Despite this inauspicious development, India responded with a calculated policy of appeasement. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri, in his post-meeting briefing, emphasized that India had anticipated Trump’s concerns regarding trade imbalances and illegal immigration. Beyond trade, India’s goal was to reestablish Modi’s personal rapport with Trump, which had taken a backseat during Joe Biden’s presidency. This meeting, therefore, was not just about economic diplomacy but also about reinforcing a strategic alignment that had evolved during Trump’s first term.
A key takeaway from the meeting was India’s willingness to provide Trump with a diplomatic “win.” India agreed to finalize the first phase of a trade agreement by the fall of 2025, aiming to double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030. However, it remained unclear whether Trump would suspend the newly imposed tariffs during this period or use them as leverage. India, mindful of Trump’s transactional approach, proceeded cautiously, focusing on ensuring continued cooperation across multiple sectors.
Defense collaboration emerged as a pivotal aspect of the dialogue. Over the last decade, India has progressively shifted from Russian military imports to American defense platforms. The meeting solidified a new ten-year defense framework (2025–2035) emphasizing co-production and technology transfer. A defense procurement agreement is reportedly imminent, marking another step in deepening military cooperation. Other domains of collaboration included autonomous systems, critical emerging technologies, space exploration, and energy security. Notably, India committed to increasing its purchase of American oil and gas, partly to alleviate the trade imbalance, while also expanding civil nuclear cooperation, particularly in small modular reactors. India’s legal modifications limiting foreign suppliers’ liability in nuclear projects—stemming from concerns following the 1984 Bhopal disaster—had already been implemented to facilitate this collaboration.
Trump’s “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) doctrine, with its protectionist overtones, presented India with both opportunities and challenges. Silicon Valley tech leaders, favoring H-1B visas for global talent acquisition, found themselves at odds with Trump’s staunchly nationalist base, which opposed immigration policies perceived as threatening American jobs. Modi skillfully reminded Trump of the large-scale public rallies—“Howdy Modi” in Houston and “Namaste Trump” in Ahmedabad—that had previously celebrated Indo-US ties. However, the mood among the Indian diaspora in the US remained cautious, particularly regarding Trump’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants and the uncertain fate of skilled professionals seeking permanent residency.
India diplomatically addressed the issue of illegal immigration. Modi empathized with Indians who had resorted to the perilous “donkey” route to enter the US illegally but emphasized the need to dismantle the human trafficking networks facilitating these crossings. While India sought a more humane deportation process, the contentious practice of shackling and handcuffing deportees was left undiscussed. The Indian delegation may have proposed adopting Colombia’s model of repatriating deportees using civilian aircraft instead of US military planes, a method that had sparked controversy when used for deporting Indians to Amritsar. One of the significant diplomatic victories for India was Trump’s announcement that the extradition of Tahawwur Rana—wanted in connection with the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks—had been cleared. This signaled continued Indo-US cooperation on counter-terrorism despite objections from Pakistan. However, other security concerns, such as Khalistani separatist activities and the alleged involvement of Indian agents in the attempted assassination of Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, were tactfully sidestepped.
On global issues, the responses from both leaders were revealing. When questioned about the China threat, Trump evaded direct confrontation, instead highlighting Beijing’s role in resolving global conflicts, including the war in Ukraine. Modi, maintaining India’s careful diplomatic stance, asserted that India was not neutral on Ukraine but rather “pro-peace,” advocating for diplomacy and dialogue to resolve hostilities. This careful balancing act allowed India to engage with the US while maintaining autonomy in its foreign policy.
The meeting also touched upon broader strategic alignments, particularly in West Asia. Modi underscored the convergence between Trump’s policies in the region and India’s initiatives like the India-Middle East-Europe Corridor (IMEC) and the I2U2 framework, both of which were conceptualized during the Biden administration. However, these initiatives hinge on regional stability, which remains elusive given the ongoing conflict in Gaza. Trump’s proposal for the mass relocation of two million Palestinians from Gaza was widely dismissed, and his self-proclaimed role as a peacemaker in Ukraine was met with skepticism in Europe. With Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy facing US pressure to negotiate under the threat of reduced military aid, the geopolitical landscape remains fluid.
India’s diplomatic strategy in engaging with Trump 2.0 has been one of cautious pragmatism. By employing a mix of flattery, non-confrontation, and strategic alignment on key issues, Modi successfully navigated an unpredictable presidency. India has bought time to adjust its trade policies while ensuring continued cooperation in defense, technology, and energy. However, the broader global landscape remains volatile. Trump’s past failures in diplomacy—such as his unsuccessful outreach to North Korea—raise questions about his ability to mediate complex international disputes. India, therefore, must remain vigilant in its engagement.
As the saying goes, “Trust, but verify.” For India, dealing with Trump necessitates precisely that—maintaining collaboration while safeguarding its strategic autonomy in an increasingly uncertain world.
Dipak Kurmi
(the writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
RELATED POSTS
View all
