In the tangled web of geopolitics and trade, the U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent manoeuvres have sparked a storm of controversy across South Asia. His overt support for Pakistan’s military regime during a heightened India-Pakistan conflict has drawn criticism from Indian policymakers and global observers alike, raising concerns over America’s strategic direction in the Indo-Pacific.
At the heart of this controversy lies a high-stakes trade negotiation with India, part of Trump’s broader “reciprocal tariff” agenda. Yet, what began as a dispute over trade imbalances has morphed into a geopolitical gambit—one that may have underestimated India’s economic and strategic weight, while emboldening a military-dominated regime in Pakistan.
A Convenient Ceasefire Narrative
On April 22, 2025, a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir claimed the lives of 26 Indian tourists, triggering a fierce response from India in the form of “Operation Sindoor” on May 7. Over the next three days, cross-border exchanges between India and Pakistan pushed the region to the brink. A ceasefire on May 10 was announced via direct military-to-military communication. However, Trump quickly claimed credit, saying his administration brokered peace through trade incentives.
Indian officials, including Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar, firmly rejected this version. The ceasefire, they asserted, was a direct consequence of Indian military pressure and diplomacy—not American mediation. The Pakistani regime, however acknowledged the US administration’s intervention, and later credited President Trump with striking a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. The US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick also supported Trump’s narrative in legal filings, suggesting that threats under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) deterred escalation.
Trump’s Embrace of Pakistan’s Generals
In a widely criticized move, Trump used his State of the Union address to praise Pakistan for handing over a low-level ISIS operative, falsely labelling him a senior figure. Critics pointed out this was a well-worn tactic by Pakistan’s military to gain favour with the West through minor counterterrorism gestures. More contentious was Trump’s praise for Pakistan’s military regime—led by General Asim Munir, who conveniently got himself promoted as a field marshal—despite widespread condemnation of its anti-democratic behaviour and alleged election manipulation.
Trump’s May 14 speech in Riyadh, calling for India and Pakistan to “have a nice dinner together,” further inflamed Indian public opinion. The suggestion of parity between the two nations, especially after India’s military response, was seen as deeply insulting by many in New Delhi. Commentators called out the “hyphenation” of India with Pakistan as a deliberate and ignorant provocation.
Tariffs as a Weapon
Behind the diplomatic drama was a broader economic strategy. On April 2, 2025, Trump imposed a steep 27% tariff on Indian goods, citing imbalances in reciprocal tariffs. Though paused temporarily, the move was intended to force India into deeper concessions. Trump publicly linked the tariffs to India’s military conduct, stating: “If you stop [the fighting], we’ll do a trade. If you don’t stop it, we’re not going to do any trade.”
India denied any such linkage, stating that ceasefire decisions were based on national security calculations, not trade. Yet, this conflation of trade pressure and military diplomacy underscored Trump’s unique, often chaotic approach to foreign policy. The legal case against IEEPA tariffs—ruled unlawful on May 30 but stayed pending appeal—further complicates the strategy.
India’s Strategic Calculations
India is no minor player. With a GDP of $3.4 trillion and bilateral trade with the U.S. at $120 billion, India’s market dwarfs Pakistan’s $340 billion economy and $6.89 billion trade volume with the U.S. India’s strategic role in the Quad, its arms purchases from the U.S., and its position as a counterweight to China elevate its value as a U.S. ally.
The Trump administration’s attempts to treat India and Pakistan as equal players, or to extract trade concessions via veiled threats, have severely strained this relationship. Prominent Indian commentators have accused Trump of undermining a decade of strategic convergence for short-term economic wins.
China: The Elephant in the Room
Trump’s manoeuvring may also inadvertently bolster China. Pakistan remains a key Chinese ally via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), and Beijing has expanded its influence across South Asia. By alienating India, Trump risks pushing New Delhi closer to non-Western coalitions like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, undermining U.S. efforts to counterbalance China.
Meanwhile, Chinese firms are already pivoting to the Indian market to offset U.S. trade losses, further complicating the calculus. India, caught between Trump’s tariffs and Beijing’s charm offensive, may choose to reassert its strategic autonomy, complicating any long-term U.S. containment strategy against China.
A Miscalculated Bet?
Trump’s praise for Pakistan’s authoritarian regime, his self-styled role as a ceasefire broker, and his aggressive trade tactics against India appear more focused on domestic optics than sustainable diplomacy. The economic disparity between India and Pakistan makes this approach all the more puzzling. India’s response—military, economic, and diplomatic—has already exposed Pakistan’s strategic weakness.
Furthermore, allegations of Pakistani regime-linked lobbying and personal business ties to the Trump family, including rumoured involvement of crypto-linked interests, have raised ethical concerns. These underscore the perception that Trump’s actions are driven more by political expediency than strategic vision.
Conclusion: A Risky Game with Long-Term Costs
Trump’s entanglement of trade policy with conflict diplomacy—especially his apparent tilt toward Pakistan’s military regime—has jeopardized the U.S.-India relationship. His strategy may deliver temporary wins in tariff negotiations, but it risks permanent damage to America’s credibility in South Asia.
In an era where strategic alliances are vital to containing authoritarian influence and maintaining global stability, Trump’s transactional approach could prove dangerously shortsighted. By alienating a rising democratic power like India, while legitimizing a militarized regime in Pakistan, he may be handing China a gift wrapped in diplomatic missteps. Trump’s support for the military-led Pakistani regime is also alienating the Pakistani public, whose votes were stolen by the military to install the current regime, thereby fueling anti-American sentiments.
