Modi–Trump: From ‘howdy’ to hesitation, inside cooling friendship between two strongmen

From bromance to diplomatic chill

Once celebrated as one of global politics’ most visible “bromances”, the relationship between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and United States President Donald Trump seems to be shifting into a new, more cautious phase. The warmth of Howdy Modi! in Houston and Namaste Trump in Ahmedabad has faded, replaced by quiet distance and diplomatic restraint.

Missed invitations, missed moments

This June, President Trump invited Prime Minister Modi to make a brief stopover in the United States while returning from Canada — an invitation Modi declined. Washington followed up with another request for Modi to attend the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit, meant to celebrate Trump’s declared success in ending the Israel–Palestine war. Modi again said no, sending a junior minister instead.

Now, at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Trump is present in person. Modi, however, has chosen to attend virtually — only the second time in a decade he has skipped ASEAN physically.

In November, Modi will head to Johannesburg for the G20 Summit, while Trump has already confirmed he won’t be there. If schedules hold, the two leaders will go nearly a year without meeting in person — an unusual gap considering the fanfare of their past diplomacy.

Once a global bromance

In 2019 and 2020, the Modi–Trump partnership defined the global stage. The duo’s joint rallies drew massive crowds, and their camaraderie was marketed as a symbol of the deepening India–US bond. Both leaders projected a shared image — nationalist, assertive, and unapologetically confident.

They spoke often of expanding trade, defence, and energy ties. For New Delhi, Trump offered an assertive partner as India sought a more global role. For Washington, India was indispensable in the Indo-Pacific strategy to counter China.

When Trump began his current presidential term earlier this year, Modi visited Washington in February. Both vowed to meet again in India for the Quad Summit. But by May, cracks began to show.

Friction over claims and control

The first signs of unease surfaced after Trump claimed he had stopped the India–Pakistan war following India’s Operation Sindoor after the Pahalgam attack. The Indian side publicly denied this — a rare diplomatic contradiction.

By June, the tone had shifted. Trump’s comments on India’s Russian oil imports and his push for tougher trade terms started to test the limits of Modi’s patience.

Three flashpoints now define the growing distance:

Trade pressure: The Trump administration insists on addressing what it calls “imbalances”, maintaining 50 per cent tariffs and seeking greater U.S. access to India’s agriculture and dairy markets. Modi has stood firm, saying India “will not compromise”.

Energy and Russia: Trump’s demand that India cut Russian oil purchases “to almost nothing” has been flatly rejected by New Delhi.

Public optics: Both leaders are image-conscious. Modi cannot appear submissive; Trump cannot look ignored. The result — fewer meetings, more messaging, and rising unease.

Why Modi is avoiding Trump or appears to

At the 47th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Modi’s decision to attend virtually was widely read as a diplomatic signal. Trump, en route to Malaysia aboard Air Force One, had again repeated his claims about the Indo–Pak ceasefire and India’s oil policy — statements New Delhi has repeatedly denied.

Indian officials even dismissed Trump’s claim of having spoken with Modi about Russian oil. Such contradictions, while seemingly minor, can erode diplomatic credibility and make joint appearances awkward.

Modi’s calculus is simple: show strength, avoid optics of compliance. Meeting Trump in person under those circumstances could appear politically weak back home. For his part, Trump prefers encounters that offer visible “wins” — announcements, deals, applause. Without that, the incentive to meet wanes.

In essence, both sides are practising calculated restraint, not open hostility.

The Sharm el-Sheikh snub

Modi’s absence at the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit was officially explained as a scheduling issue. But diplomats believe the decision carried deeper meaning.

The summit, designed to celebrate Trump’s role in ending the Israel–Palestine war, turned into an awkward spectacle. Trump invited Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on stage, where Sharif effusively praised him — even recommending Trump for another Nobel Peace Prize.

Trump, visibly pleased, asked Sharif whether India and Pakistan would “live very nicely together”.

For Modi — who has firmly maintained that the U.S. played no role in the ceasefire struck during Operation Sindoor — the optics would have been excruciating. His absence avoided the uncomfortable possibility of publicly listening to Trump’s claims on stage.

In retrospect, skipping the event may have been politically astute.

Trade talks and strategic autonomy

At the heart of the coolness lies trade. The U.S. continues to press India on tariff issues, while seeking market access. India, however, is playing the long game.

Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal recently underlined this stance, saying India will not rush into a trade deal “with a gun to its head”. He added that such agreements should be “long-term partnerships based on mutual trust”.

The language is deliberate — a diplomatic assertion of strategic autonomy. It tells Washington that New Delhi will engage, but on its own terms.

Trump, meanwhile, sees trade success as vital to his political narrative of bringing “fairness” back to America’s economic relationships. The clash of national interests is, therefore, inevitable — and increasingly visible.

The future: Reset or drift?

Looking ahead, analysts see two possible trajectories for the relationship.

Scenario A – Reset and Re-engagement:

If both leaders recognise that the partnership is too strategic to let drift, they could engineer a reset — perhaps via a new bilateral meeting tied to a trade or defence announcement. A symbolic gesture or joint initiative could revive the optics of friendship before the next U.S. election cycle.

Scenario B – Continued Drift and Functional Diplomacy:

Alternatively, the relationship could remain functional but less personal. Ministries and bureaucracies would keep cooperation alive, but without the warmth of leader-level theatrics. India might further expand ties with BRICS, Russia, and the EU, while maintaining steady — but unspectacular — ties with the U.S.

Beyond the optics: A strategic maturity

The cooling between Modi and Trump does not signal a breakdown in India–U.S. ties. Rather, it suggests a maturation — from personality-driven diplomacy to issue-based pragmatism.

Institutions, trade frameworks, and strategic partnerships now matter more than photo-ops or friendship slogans. As one diplomat put it, “The friendship may no longer need stadium rallies to prove its strength.”

The appearance of avoidance, therefore, is not rejection — it’s recalibration. Modi and Trump are both navigating domestic and international optics, ensuring they meet on equal footing when they do meet again.

In the end, the real story may not be whether they meet — but why they choose to, and what they hope to gain when they finally do.

(With inputs from News18)