OPED By Dr. Imran Khurshid
Trump’s strategic contradictions have eroded trust with India and weakened America’s global leadership. His policies undermined the very partnerships the U.S. claims to value.
President Donald Trump’s approach to South Asia reflects a series of strategic contradictions that have introduced significant strain into the India–U.S. relationship. While the United States continues to seek India’s partnership as a key player in the Indo-Pacific, several of Trump’s policy choices have run counter to India’s core strategic interests
These contradictions are evident in decisions such as hosting Pakistan’s army chief, General Asim Munir, at the White House, backing an IMF bailout to Pakistan during Operation Sindoor, and repeated praise and outreach to Pakistan’s leadership.
Trump’s frequent invitations to top Pakistani officials, along with public endorsements and gestures of goodwill, signal a greater strategic engagement that has emboldened Islamabad and given it greater strategic confidence.
Notably, the head of U.S. Central Command described Pakistan as a “phenomenal partner in the counter-terrorism world,” a remark widely seen in India as overlooking its long-standing concerns about Pakistan’s role in cross-border terrorism.
Together, such actions undermine India’s fight against terrorism and foster a perception of false equivalence. President Trump has also repeatedly claimed—more than 29 times—to have facilitated the recent India–Pakistan ceasefire, despite India’s consistent position that the agreement stemmed from bilateral military-level dialogue, initiated by Pakistan without external mediation.
Given India’s strong emphasis on bilateralism and strategic autonomy, such claims are diplomatically sensitive.
Further complicating the relationship, on July 30, 2025, Trump announced a 25% tariff on Indian goods—effective August 1—along with additional penalties related to India’s defense and energy engagements with Russia.
On the same day, he unveiled a trade and energy deal with Pakistan and, in a pointed remark, said, “Who knows, maybe they’ll be selling oil to India someday!”—a jibe widely seen as sarcastic and dismissive of India’s strategic choices.
A Strategic Disconnect
At the heart of this contradiction lies the inconsistent American approach to the Indo-Pacific and South Asia. For effective operational oversight, the United States has divided the world into multiple geographic commands. The Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM), which stretches from the west coast of the United States to the western border of India, positions India as a central strategic partner.
In contrast, the Central Command (CENTCOM) continues to view Pakistan as a key player, particularly in the context of its Afghanistan- and Iran-focused objectives.
The result is a fragmented policy: even as the U.S. hails India as an indispensable partner in the Indo-Pacific, it simultaneously extends strategic space, military equipment (such as F-16s), and diplomatic legitimacy to Pakistan—often at India’s expense.
Trump exacerbated this contradiction. Unlike previous administrations that largely avoided hyphenating India and Pakistan, his careless rhetoric and actions revived that very linkage, undoing years of diplomatic progress.
Moreover, being a global power with worldwide interests, the U.S. may justify its support to Pakistan—including military aid and the provision of weapons like F-16s—as necessary for counterterrorism cooperation in the Af-Pak region or to address evolving developments in West Asia.
However, Pakistan has consistently diverted American assistance against India. This pattern has been evident during the Cold War, after 9/11, and most notably in 2019, when U.S.-supplied F-16s were used in aerial operations against India following the Pulwama attack.
One of the key reasons for India’s estrangement from the U.S. during the Cold War was precisely this continued American support to Pakistan—something Washington must now acknowledge.
Moreover, such U.S. support emboldens Pakistan, giving it strategic confidence to act aggressively toward India—politically, militarily, and diplomatically—especially at sensitive geopolitical moments.
Undermining Trust & Strategic Autonomy
The US-India relationship was once hailed as the “defining partnership of the 21st century.” Previous US leaders—such as President Bill Clinton in his second term, President George W. Bush, and President Barack Obama—made substantial efforts to build mutual trust and began de-hyphenating India and Pakistan, treating each country on its own merits.
They largely respected India’s red lines, particularly on sensitive issues like Kashmir and strategic autonomy, and avoided viewing India through a Pakistan-centric lens.
Trump reversed much of this progress. His transactional approach to foreign policy—driven by personal ego, unpredictable behaviour, fragmented thinking, and an obsession with trade deficits and tariffs—made India uneasy.
Moreover, Prime Minister Modi, during his first term, invested considerable political capital in Trump, organizing grand public events like “Namaste Trump” in Ahmedabad and extending numerous goodwill gestures. However, Trump even failed to reciprocate Modi’s friendship and repeatedly disregarded India’s core security concerns.
That is why, when Trump invited Modi to the U.S. following the recent G7 summit, Modi declined—choosing instead to focus on domestic engagements, signaling that Trump’s actions had inflicted real damage on the trust and warmth once nurtured in the India–US relationship.
This disregard recently escalated with Trump’s unilateral decision to impose a 25% tariff on Indian goods starting August 1, 2025, coupled with vague but punitive secondary sanctions linked to India’s continued purchases of Russian oil and defense equipment.
This move—announced via social media and without prior consultation—has been perceived in India as a deliberate slight and a pressure tactic that undermines its strategic autonomy. In public remarks, he also drew negative comparisons between the Indian and Russian economies, referring to them as “dead economies dragging each other down.”
For a nation that values an independent foreign policy and has historically resisted Western coercion, such tariff impositions—and such provocative statements—are not merely economic in nature; they carry symbolic and strategic implications.
A Disruptive Global Actor
Trump did not just harm the India–US bilateral space—he undermined American leadership globally. U.S. power has historically rested largely on its structural influence—shaping the post-WWII global order through institutions like the Bretton Woods system, the UN, and multilateral forums.
Under Trump, this global leadership began to erode. He questioned alliances, alienated NATO, imposed unilateral tariffs, and mocked partners like Canada, Germany, Japan, and even South Korea.
In contrast, China stood to benefit. As Trump weakened American alliances and pursued narrow trade deals, China has expanded its footprint globally—economically, diplomatically, and strategically.
Trump’s praise for authoritarian leaders like Putin and Xi, and his repeated undermining of Ukraine during a critical moment of Russian aggression, showed a clear departure from America’s long-standing global leadership role.
Moreover, Trump didn’t just mishandle Ukraine—he actively undermined its negotiating position. By constantly attacking and mocking President Zelenskyy, calling him a “dictator,” and making him appear as someone begging for support, Trump weakened Ukraine’s standing vis-à-vis Russia.
Rather than bolstering an ally, he embarrassed one—signaling weakness to Putin. Instead of reinforcing Zelenskyy’s hand, Trump echoed Russian narratives repeatedly and made U.S. support conditional on personal or commercial interests, including a controversial mineral deal.
This empowered Putin, who now sees no incentive to compromise. If Zelenskyy hadn’t been publicly undermined, a deal might have been possible. But Trump’s behaviour strengthened Putin’s position—today, Russia is more defiant, occupying more territory, and refusing to negotiate.
Damaging Long-Term US Interests
Today, most of the US allies are hedging their bets, building their own security capabilities, and diversifying partnerships beyond Washington. This is healthy for global balance but dangerous for US influence. America’s strength lies in its alliances—and Trump severely weakened that strategic network.
Amid growing uncertainty, the U.S. administration recently asked key strategic allies such as Japan and Australia how they would respond if China attacked Taiwan. The very fact that such a question needs to be asked now reflects how much trust has eroded.
Trump has shaken confidence so deeply that the time may soon come when no U.S. ally is willing to stand with the United States.
The hesitant and cautious responses from these countries—Japan avoiding a direct commitment and Australia refusing to discuss hypotheticals—reveal just how profoundly Trump’s erratic and transactional behaviour has undermined their faith in the U.S.
Trump has not only damaged day-to-day diplomacy but also jeopardized America’s long-term strategic vision. Foundational documents such as the National Security Strategy and the Indo-Pacific Strategy have been weakened in practice, as his approach consistently diverges from their stated goals.
Even as China aggressively expands its global influence, Trump openly courts Beijing—saying he would “love to visit” and hoping Xi Jinping invites him. His narcissistic personality, marked by an obsession with personal image and short-term validation, drives a transactional foreign policy devoid of strategic depth.
There is growing concern that he might even be willing to trade off Taiwan for fleeting economic or personal gains—an alarming possibility, yet one entirely consistent with his erratic conduct and tendency to chase deals for self-promotion, rather than considering their long-term implications.
Domestically, Trump’s push to reindustrialize America ignores basic economic logic. Advanced economies naturally evolve into service-based systems. Western development literature has long emphasized that economies pass through stages of development, and in such a stage, not only does the economy shift, but so do people’s lives and aspirations.
Most Americans today are not inclined to return to physically demanding manufacturing jobs because their lifestyles, education levels, and expectations have changed. Moreover, reviving large-scale manufacturing would require a workforce that the U.S. alone cannot provide—yet Trump continues to oppose immigration, the very solution that could fill the labour gap.
His economic nationalism is riddled with contradictions: he promotes tariffs that raise costs for American consumers and businesses, while blocking the labour and investment flows needed to make domestic manufacturing viable in today’s global economy.
Furthermore, no U.S. president has inflicted greater damage on the India–U.S. relationship than Donald Trump. While the partnership is likely to endure due to its institutional depth, involvement of multiple stakeholders, and strong strategic rationale, trust—once broken—is difficult to rebuild.
In South Asian political culture, trust carries immense personal and diplomatic weight. Once betrayed, it is not easily forgotten. Within India’s strategic community, there will now be a heightened sense of caution. Future agreements—whether on civil nuclear cooperation or security partnerships—will face greater scrutiny from opposition parties, policymakers, and the media.
Trump’s repeated disregard for India’s core security concerns has left a lasting impression, and New Delhi will likely approach Washington with a more guarded and skeptical lens moving forward.
Conclusion
If the US wants India to be a serious and independent partner in the Indo-Pacific, it must stop undermining India in South Asia and respect its sensitivities. It must abandon binary, fragmented regional frameworks and instead pursue an integrated strategy that strengthens India’s position—not weakens it.
Supporting Pakistan for short-term objectives while expecting India to counterbalance China is not just hypocritical—it is strategically suicidal.
The contradictions in Trump’s policies—between rhetoric and reality, between short-term deals and long-term strategy—are symptomatic of a leader who doesn’t understand the structural foundational logic of global power.
America was great because it took responsibility, nurtured allies, reassured partners, shaped multilateralism, and protected shared values. Trump has challenged all of that.
If these contradictions continue, America may not just lose India—it may lose the very global leadership it once proudly commanded. Trump claims to want to “Make America Great Again,” but his actions might just ensure America becomes isolated, distrusted, and strategically irrelevant.
- Dr. Imran Khurshid is an Associate Research Fellow at the International Centre for Peace Studies (ICPS), New Delhi. He specializes in India-US relations, Indo-Pacific studies, and South Asian security issues.
- VIEWS PERSONAL OF THE AUTHOR
