Trump’s premature message on the ceasefire is a setback for India-US ties

President Trump’s post implies a moral equivalence between India and Pakistan, a framing that disregards the US’ own historical stance against Pakistan’s well-documented links to cross-border terrorism.

Over the last four decades, India has faced repeated terrorist attacks sponsored by Pakistan. The US has previously acknowledged this, with successive administrations designating Pakistan-based groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed as terrorist organisations. Pakistan has long been a safe haven for US-wanted terrorists, the most notable being Osama bin Laden, discovered in Abbottabad in 2011. The al-Qaeda operative, Saif al-Adel, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing mastermind, Ramzi Yousef and, Omar Sheikh who kidnapped and murdered journalist Daniel Pearl also found refuge in Pakistan. In 2019, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan himself admitted to 30,000–40,000 armed terrorists operating on Pakistani soil. By praising both nations equally, Trump’s statement sidesteps this reality, positioning India, the victim of such aggression on the same footing as Pakistan, a state sponsor of terrorism.

Facts expose the irrelevance of hyphenation

Second, President Trump’s post re-hyphenates India and Pakistan on the global stage. Since the late 1990s, India has worked to de-hyphenate itself from Pakistan in international discourse. This shift truly began with President Bill Clinton’s 2000 visit to India, which excluded a stop in Pakistan, a big break from the past. Heads of States of most countries have followed suit, recognising India’s rising global stature. Trump’s statement, however, clubs the two nations together, reviving an outdated framework that diminishes India’s independent standing.

The disparity in the US’ relationships with the two nations speaks for itself. In 2024, US-India trade reached $129.2 billion, with exports at $41.8 billion and imports at $87.4 billion. In contrast, US-Pakistan trade was a mere $7.3 billion, with $2.1 billion in exports and $5.1 billion in imports.

The Indian diaspora in the US, numbering 5.2 million, contributes significantly to the US economy, while the Pakistani diaspora, at around 600,000, is much smaller. Also, per capita income of this Indian diaspora is ~$73,000, almost double that of the Pakistani diaspora. India is also now the leading country of origin for international students in the US, accounting for almost 30% of the total international student population with Pakistan at less than 5% of India’s number. This contrast in trade, diaspora influence and economic and intellectual contribution highlights India’s unique strategic importance to the US, making Trump’s equivalence completely outdated.

The India-US relationship has evolved significantly over the last two decades. The 2005 India-US nuclear deal kick-started that process with expansion of defense ties ($24bn of contracts since 2008), and India’s role in the Quad solidifying this partnership. However, the US administration’s messaging amid the latest conflict threatens to unravel some of this progress.

Pakistan’s deep ties with China also run counter to US strategic interests. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a flagship project of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), has seen China invest over $60 billion in Pakistan, including the Gwadar Port, which gives China strateguc access to the Arabian Sea. Pakistan’s military relies heavily on Chinese equipment, with China supplying 70% of its arms imports between 2019 and 2023. This alignment directly challenges US efforts to counter China’s expansionism. President Trump’s overture to Pakistan, despite his vocal opposition to the BRI (as seen in his handling of the Panama Canal issue), undermines the US’ broader Indo-Pacific strategy.

Likely impact of a churn in the Trump administration

The Trump administration’s flawed handling of this issue also likely stems from personnel churn. Mike Waltz’s exit from the National Security Advisor role has saddled Secretary of State, Marco Rubio with multiple and sometimes conflicting roles. Unlike the previous administrations, where both the above roles balanced diplomatic approaches as a complementary “Yin and Yang,” Rubio’s singular oversight limits multi-track diplomacy especially in security matters.

Also, Paul Kapur, the Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia designate is yet to be confirmed by the Senate. This further complicates matters leaving the region without a dedicated diplomat to navigate the complexity.

The India-US relationship, while resilient, now faces a period of recalibration. Trade negotiations, which the US administration had hinted were progressing well are likely to become fiercer. India may adopt a more assertive stance, slowing down discussions to extract clearer commitments from the US. Similarly, India’s anticipated expansion of weapons purchases from the US, part of a growing defense partnership will mostly face delays. India might show greater inclination towards the Russian made Su-57 over US’ offer of F-35 fighter jet.

India will likely seek stronger signals of US intent, particularly on counterterrorism and China, before deepening cooperation. The Quad, a cornerstone of US’ Indo-Pacific security strategy, also comes under scrutiny. The excitement that defined India-US relations in recent times has been dampened and could likely be replaced by a more transactional and cautious approach for the time being.

(Athan Joshi is a Sophomore at Los Altos High School with interest in politics, economics and business.)

Views are personal, and do not represent the stance of this publication.