As India and the United States revisit bilateral trade ties, the Modi government finds itself in a complex negotiation with President Donald Trump’s administration. Reports suggest India is considering reducing tariffs on a range of American goods ~ almonds, walnuts, ap ples, boric acid, and diagnostic reagents ~ following the visit of Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal to Washington.

Union Commerce Secretary Sunil Barthwal main tains that no final decision has been taken and that domestic interests are being protected. Yet, without an offi cial statement clarifying the details, speculation is filling the vacuum. Indian growers ~ especially apple producers in Himachal Pradesh and walnut farmers in Jammu and Kashmir ~ are voicing concerns.

Advertisement

They fear that lower import duties on US goods will flood the market with chea per alternatives, depressing prices and jeopardising live lihoods already under strain. At the heart of these negotiations is the question: What is India getting in return? Many believe that the tariff reductions under discussion are tied to restoring India’s preferential trade status under the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP), which President Trump revoked during his first term in 2019. But Mr Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 signals a hardnosed, transactional approach.

Unlike the Biden years, whe re diplomacy softened trade disagreements, Trump 2.0 is expected to demand more for less. The Modi govern – ment is walking a tight-rope. On the one hand, deeper tra de ties with Washington are crucial, especially with China’s economic coercion and the global push for supply chain diversification. On the other, appearing to concede too much to Mr Trump risks domestic political backlash.

The world has seen how Mr Trump frames international trade negotiations. He emphasises eliminating what he calls “unfair” advantages enjoyed by trading partners and has a track record of abruptly imposing tariffs or revoking trade privileges if he deems it politically expedient. India cannot ignore the possibility that any agreement struck to day may be subject to sudden revisions tomorrow. New Delhi must, therefore, secure legally binding commitments ~ although even these can be upended by a mercurial President ~ and avoid over-reliance on goodwill or vague assurances. Otherwise, it risks being caught off guard by unilateral actions driven by Washington’s domestic political priorities. Moreover, New Delhi has to consider the broader geopolitical landscape. Mr Trump’s America-First policy focuses on deals that benefit US producers and voters.

India needs to ensure that tariff concessions are balanced with tangible benefits ~ whether in technology transfers, market access for Indian exports, or strategic cooperation. Transparency is now more important than ever. The government cannot afford to keep citizens guessing. Stakeholders, especially those directly impacted, deserve clarity on how their interests are being safeguarded. Silence breeds distrust, and in a democracy, accountability to the people is paramount. For New Delhi, the challenge lies in negotiating with a Trump Administration that prioritises hard bargains, while reassuring domestic constituencies that India’s economic sovereignty is not up for sale. Only a clear and balanced strategy, communicated openly, can navigate these turbulent waters.