Lately, there’s been no shortage of drama in U.S.-India relations. One moment they’re enjoying “intimate interactions,” and the next, they’re locked in a public spat. India denies having given the U.S. a heads-up about “Operation Sindoor,” says the recent ceasefire had nothing to do with Washington, and flirts with retaliatory tariffs—only to then turn around and talk about zero tariffs. Meanwhile, the U.S. tries to play peacemaker between India and Pakistan, pressures India to open up its market, and still has the nerve to wonder how Apple managed to break into India.

So what’s really going on between these two self-proclaimed “strategic partners”? Has their relationship hit a turning point?

Military Action: Where’s the “Strategic Trust”?

In the early hours of May 7, India launched “Operation Sindoor”, carrying out airstrikes deep into Pakistani territory, reportedly reaching near the Pakistani Army headquarters in Rawalpindi. The whole affair followed the usual South Asian script: India accuses Pakistan of harboring terrorists and strikes back militarily; Pakistan denies everything and responds with tit-for-tat retaliation to “punish the aggression.”

But what made this episode more intriguing were the small, telling details involving the U.S.

Detail One: After the operation, India emphasized that it did not consult the U.S. beforehand. While that might be understandable for operational secrecy, it’s still eyebrow-raising from a strategic standpoint. After all, the U.S. usually pays close attention to India-Pakistan tensions—especially between two nuclear-armed neighbors—and would very much prefer they not start a nuclear firestorm.

If something this significant is kept under wraps, one has to ask: what’s the actual value of this so-called strategic partnership? Clearly, India’s trust in the U.S. has its limits. There are concerns Washington might leak sensitive plans. At the same time, India—ever the master of balancing great powers—doesn’t want to appear too cozy with the U.S., especially during military actions. Maintaining operational independence helps bolster its image as a truly autonomous power.

Detail Two: On May 9, U.S. Vice President JD. Vance stated in an interview that Washington hoped for a quick de-escalation and had no intention of getting involved in “a fundamentally foreign conflict.” That line made it crystal clear: the U.S. won’t be jumping into another South Asian mess anytime soon—a classic case of America First in foreign policy.

For India, that’s no dealbreaker. Confident in its military superiority over Pakistan, U.S. support would be a bonus, not a necessity. And on Kashmir, India has long opposed and rejected any foreign interference.

Detail Three: On May 11, Trump suddenly preempted both Indian and Pakistani governments by announcing a ceasefire—and naturally took credit for it, claiming it was his trade pressure that pushed both sides to the table. On May 12, India’s Ministry of External Affairs shot back, saying the ceasefire agreement was reached directly with Pakistan, without U.S. involvement. And in Modi’s first public speech post-conflict? Not a single word about America.

So, who’s exaggerating—Trump, with his trademark self-promotion, or Modi, downplaying U.S. involvement for domestic reasons? That’s open to interpretation. But what does matter is that Trump’s grandstanding didn’t play well in India. It triggered doubts about U.S.-India relations and resentment toward Trump himself. After all, it gave the impression that India, despite being the stronger party, backed down under U.S. pressure before achieving a clear win over its weaker rival. Not exactly a good look for Modi.

Nirupama Rao, former Indian ambassador to both the U.S. and China, put it well: India had recently reoriented its foreign policy, casting itself as Washington’s key regional partner and taking on a growing role in counterbalancing China. Now, once again, it found itself dragged back into the old India-Pakistan script.

Tariff Trouble: Is India Standing Up to the U.S.?

If India’s military posture was about signaling resolve, then its moves in trade were the follow-through.

According to Indian media, on May 13, New Delhi notified the WTO that it planned to impose retaliatory tariffs on certain U.S. goods. The move came in response to Washington’s decision back in March to slap a 25% tariff on imported steel and aluminum—a move India says affects about $7.6 billion worth of its exports to the U.S. Under WTO rules, India now claims the right to suspend some trade concessions and hit back with its own tariffs.
India hasn’t released a list of targeted products yet, but said the tariffs could take effect as early as June—if the U.S. refuses to negotiate.

Now here’s the twist: back in early April, when Trump first floated his “reciprocal tariff” idea, India actually played nice. It promised to lower tariffs on American goods, boost imports of U.S. energy and defense products, and accelerate trade talks. Not exactly a sign of rebellion.

Why? At the time, India figured the U.S. wasn’t targeting it as harshly as others. In fact, India saw a golden opportunity: use the situation to grab more of the U.S. garment market from Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. With the U.S.-China tariff war heating up, India even dreamed of a new “springtime” for its manufacturing sector.

So Why the Tough Stance on Trade Talk?

This wasn’t some impulsive turn. India’s new tone is the product of multiple pressures: mounting economic stress at home, stalled trade talks with Washington, and shifting winds in U.S.-China relations.

First, the real bite of U.S. tariffs. Despite India’s earlier goodwill gestures—cutting tariffs on Harleys and Bourbon, for instance—Trump didn’t budge. In March, he hit all steel and aluminum imports with 25% tariffs. Then in May, he signed an executive order targeting imported pharmaceuticals.

India, the world’s largest exporter of generic drugs, saw this as a direct threat. Washington’s pressure could force it to compromise on patent rights or compulsory licensing—issues that strike at the heart of India’s pharma industry. Its cost competitiveness and market share were both under threat. So when compromise didn’t deliver results, New Delhi decided it was time to push back.

Second, trade talks hit a wall. Reports say India offered to drop 60% of tariffs on U.S. goods and grant preferential access to nearly 90% of American imports—but still, no breakthrough. Meanwhile, the USTR’s 2025 National Trade Estimate Report put India in the “priority watch list” right after China and the EU. The list accused India of high tariffs, non-tariff barriers, foreign investment restrictions in insurance and retail, and digital services taxes on global tech giants.

Third, domestic political constraints. With key state elections looming in 2024, protecting local jobs is the politically safe bet. Appearing too soft on Washington could spark voter backlash. By taking a tougher stance on tariffs, the ruling BJP can burnish its nationalist credentials and keep domestic industries onside.

Fourth, the China factor. India wasn’t reacting in a vacuum. The surprise thaw in U.S.-China trade tensions—marked by sudden tariff cuts after Geneva talks—was a wake-up call. Indian analysts saw this as a signal: the global power game was shifting. Economic clout now determined bargaining power.
Some Indian think tanks argue the U.S. might now pay less attention to pressuring India, while the larger message—“economic muscle wins negotiations”—emboldens India to stand its ground. India also likely hopes its tougher stance will signal foreign policy independence and open new doors in regional economic cooperation.

U.S.-India Talks: Still in the Thick of It

Trade negotiations between the two are far from over. Trump fancies himself the ultimate dealmaker, while India is infamous for being one of the world’s toughest negotiators. Sparks are bound to fly over tariffs and market access.

In the coming days, expect more hard bargaining, public posturing, and perhaps a few more “surprise announcements” from Washington. But if one thing’s clear, it’s this: behind the polite talk of “strategic partnership” lies a very real tug-of-war between national interests. And like any good drama, the plot keeps thickening.

Editor: LQQ