Modi and Trump once called each other good friends. Now the U.S.-India relationship is getting bumpy
A student of Gurukul school of Art completes artwork of U.S. President Donald Trump and Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, in Mumbai, India, Friday, Aug. 1, 2025. (AP Photo/Rajanish Kakade)
They men shared bear hugs, showered praise on each other and made appearances side by side at stadium rallies — a big optics boost for two populist leaders with ideological similarities. Each called the other a good friend.
In India, the bonhomie between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and U.S. President Donald Trump was seen as a relationship like no other. That is, until a series of events gummed up the works.
From Trump's tariffs and India's purchase of oil from Russia to a U.S. tilt towards Pakistan, friction between New Delhi and Washington has been hard to miss. And much of it has happened far from the corridors of power and, unsurprisingly, through Trump's posts on social media.
It has left policy experts wondering whether the camaraderie the two leaders shared may be a thing of the past, even though Trump has stopped short of referring to Modi directly on social media. The dip in rapport, some say, puts a strategic bilateral relationship built over decades at risk.
'This is a testing time for the relationship,' said Ashok Malik, a former policy adviser in India's Foreign Ministry.
The White House did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment.
The latest hiccup between India and the U.S. emerged last week when Trump announced that he was slapping 25% tariffs on India as well as an unspecified penalty because of India's purchasing of Russian oil. For New Delhi, such a move from its largest trading partner is expected to be felt across sectors, but it also led to a sense of unease in India — even more so when Trump, on social media, called India's economy 'dead.'
Trump's recent statements reflect his frustration with the pace of trade talks with India, according to a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal administration thinking. The Republican president has not been pursuing any strategic realignment with Pakistan, according to the official, but is instead trying to play hardball in negotiations.
Trump doubled down on the pressure Monday with a fresh post on Truth Social, in which he accused India of buying 'massive amounts' of oil from Russia and then 'selling it on the Open Market for big profits.'
'They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine. Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA,' he said.
The messaging appears to have stung Modi's administration, which has been hard-selling negotiations with Trump's team over a trade deal by balancing between India's protectionist system while also opening up the country's market to more American goods.
Many expected India to react strongly considering Modi's carefully crafted reputation of strength. Instead, the announcement prompted a rather careful response from India's commerce minister, Piyush Goyal, who said the two countries are working towards a 'fair, balanced and mutually beneficial bilateral trade agreement.' India's Foreign Ministry also played down suggestions of any strain.
However, experts in New Delhi wonder.
'Strenuous, uninterrupted and bipartisan efforts in both capitals over the past 25 years are being put at risk by not just the tariffs but by fast and loose statements and social media posts,' said Malik, who now heads the India chapter of The Asia Group, a U.S. advisory firm .
Malik also said the trade deal the Indian side has offered to the U.S. is the 'most expansive in this country's history,' referring to reports that India was willing to open up to some American agricultural products. That is a politically sensitive issue for Modi, who faced a yearlong farmers' protest a few years ago.
The unraveling may have gained momentum over tariffs, but the tensions have been palpable for a while. Much of it has to do with Trump growing closer to Pakistan, India's nuclear rival in the neighborhood.
In May, India and Pakistan traded a series of military strikes over a gun massacre in disputed Kashmir that New Delhi blamed Islamabad for. Pakistan denied the accusations. The four-day conflict made the possibility of a nuclear conflagration between the two sides seem real and the fighting only stopped when global powers intervened.
But it was Trump's claims of mediation and an offer to work to provide a 'solution' regarding the dispute over Kashmir that made Modi's administration uneasy. Since then, Trump has repeated nearly two dozen times that he brokered peace between India and Pakistan.
For Modi, that is a risky — even nervy — territory. Domestically, he has positioned himself as a leader who is tough on Pakistan. Internationally, he has made huge diplomatic efforts to isolate the country. So Trump's claims cut a deep wound, prompting a sense in India that the U.S. may no longer be its strategic partner.
India insists that Kashmir is India's internal issue and had opposed any third-party intervention. Last week Modi appeared to dismiss Trump's claims after India's Opposition began demanding answers from him. Modi said that 'no country in the world stopped' the fighting between India and Pakistan, but he did not name Trump.
Trump has also appeared to be warming up to Pakistan, even praising its counterterrorism efforts. Hours after levying tariffs on India, Trump announced a 'massive' oil exploration deal with Pakistan, saying that some day, India might have to buy oil from Islamabad. Earlier, he also hosted one of Pakistan's top military officials at a private lunch.
Sreeram Sundar Chaulia, an expert at New Delhi's Jindal School of International Affairs, said Trump's sudden admiration for Pakistan as a great partner in counterterrorism has 'definitely soured' the mood in India.
Chaulia said 'the best-case scenario is that this is just a passing Trump whim,' but he also warned that 'if financial and energy deals are indeed being struck between the U.S. and Pakistan, it will dent the U.S.-India strategic partnership and lead to loss of confidence in the U.S. in Indian eyes.'
The strain in relations has also to do with oil.
India had faced strong pressure from the Biden administration to cut back its oil purchases from Moscow during the early months of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Instead, India bought more, making it the second-biggest buyer of Russian oil after China. That pressure sputtered over time and the U.S. focused more on building strategic ties with India, which is seen as a bulwark against a rising China.
Trump's threat to penalize India over oil, however, brought back those issues.
On Sunday, the Trump administration made its frustrations over ties between India and Russia ever more public. Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff at the White House, accused India of financing Russia's war in Ukraine by purchasing oil from Moscow, saying it was 'not acceptable.'
Some experts, though, suspect Trump's remarks are mere pressure tactics. 'Given the wild fluctuations in Trump's policies,' Chaulia said, 'it may return to high fives and hugs again.'
Associated Press writer Michelle L. Price in Washington contributed reporting.
© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NHK
4 hours ago
- NHK
Senior Chinese diplomat Liu Jianchao detained for questioning, WSJ reports
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that senior Chinese diplomat Liu Jianchao has been taken away by authorities for questioning. The WSJ carried the news in its online edition on Saturday, citing people familiar with the matter. The report says Liu, the head of the International Department of the Chinese Communist Party's Central Committee, was taken away after returning to Beijing in late July from a work trip overseas. It says the reason for his detention could not be determined. NHK has asked the Chinese foreign ministry for comment on the report, but has not received a reply. The 61-year-old diplomat has served in various posts, including as foreign ministry spokesperson and ambassador to the Philippines. He assumed his current position in 2022, and has frequently held talks with Japanese politicians including senior ruling party officials. The report on Liu's detention is drawing attention as another senior Chinese diplomat was removed from office two years ago. The then foreign minister Qin Gang was dismissed more than six months after he was appointed.
The Mainichi
8 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Russia and Ukraine hold fast to their demands ahead of a planned Putin-Trump summit
The threats, pressure and ultimatums have come and gone, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has maintained Moscow's uncompromising demands in the war in Ukraine, raising fears he could use a planned summit with U.S. President Donald Trump in Alaska to coerce Kyiv into accepting an unfavorable deal. The maximalist demands reflect Putin's determination to reach the goals he set when he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022. Putin sees a possible meeting with Trump as a chance to negotiate a broad deal that would not only cement Russia's territorial gains but also keep Ukraine from joining NATO and hosting any Western troops, allowing Moscow to gradually pull the country back into its orbit. The Kremlin leader believes time is on his side as the exhausted and outgunned Ukrainian forces are struggling to stem Russian advances in many sectors of the over 1,000-kilometer front line while swarms of Russian missiles and drones batter Ukrainian cities. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also has stood firm in his positions, agreeing to a ceasefire proposed by Trump while reaffirming the country's refusal to abandon seeking NATO membership and rejecting acknowledgment of Russia's annexation of any of its regions. A look at Russian and Ukrainian visions of a peace deal and how a Putin-Trump summit could evolve: Russia's position In a memorandum presented at talks in Istanbul in June, Russia offered Ukraine two options for establishing a 30-day ceasefire. One demanded Ukraine withdraw its forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson -- the four regions Moscow illegally annexed in September 2022 but never fully captured. As an alternate condition for a ceasefire, Russia made a "package proposal" for Ukraine to halt mobilization efforts, freeze Western arms deliveries and ban any third-country forces on its soil. Moscow also suggested Ukraine end martial law and hold elections, after which the countries could sign a comprehensive peace treaty. Once there's a truce, Moscow wants a deal to include the "international legal recognition" of its annexations of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and the four regions in 2022. Russia says a peace treaty should have Ukraine declare its neutral status between Russia and the West, abandon its bid to join NATO, limit the size of its armed forces and recognize Russian as an official language on par with Ukrainian -- conditions reflecting Putin's earliest goals. It also demands Ukraine ban the "glorification and propaganda of Nazism and neo-Nazism" and dissolve nationalist groups. Since the war began, Putin has falsely alleged that neo-Nazi groups were shaping Ukrainian politics under Zelenskyy, who is Jewish. They were fiercely dismissed by Kyiv and its Western allies. In Russia's view, a comprehensive peace treaty should see both countries lift all sanctions and restrictions, abandon any claims to compensation for wartime damage, resume trade and communications, and reestablish diplomatic ties. Asked Thursday whether Moscow has signaled any willingness to compromise to make a meeting with Trump possible, Putin's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov responded that there haven't been any shifts in the Russian position. Ukraine's position The memorandum that Ukraine presented to Moscow in Istanbul emphasized the need for a full and unconditional 30-day ceasefire to set stage for peace negotiations. It reaffirmed Ukraine's consistent rejection of Russian demands for neutral status as an attack on its sovereignty, declaring it is free to choose its alliances and adding that its NATO membership will depend on consensus with the alliance. It emphasized Kyiv's rejection of any restrictions on the size and other parameters of its armed forces, as well as curbs on the presence of foreign troops on its soil. Ukraine's memorandum also opposed recognizing any Russian territorial gains, while describing the current line of contact as a starting point in negotiations. The document noted the need for international security guarantees to ensure the implementation of peace agreements and prevent further aggression. Kyiv's peace proposal also demanded the return of all deported and illegally displaced children and a total prisoner exchange. It held the door open to gradual lifting of some of the sanctions against Russia if it abides by the agreement. Trump's positions Trump has often spoken admiringly of Putin and even echoed his talking points on the war. He had a harsh confrontation with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on Feb. 28, but later warmed his tone. As Putin resisted a ceasefire and continued his aerial bombardments, Trump showed exasperation with the Kremlin leader, threatening Moscow with new sanctions. Although Trump expressed disappointment with Putin, his agreement to meet him without Zelenskyy at the table raised worries in Ukraine and its European allies, who fear it could allow the Russian to get Trump on his side and strong-arm Ukraine into concessions. Trump said without giving details that "there'll be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both" Russia and Ukraine as part of any peace deal that he will discuss with Putin when they meet Friday. Putin repeatedly warned Ukraine will face tougher conditions for peace if it doesn't accept Moscow's demands as Russian troops forge into other regions to build what he described as a "buffer zone." Some observers suggested Russia could trade those recent gains for the territories of the four annexed by Moscow still under Ukrainian control. "That is potentially a situation that gives Putin a tremendous amount of leeway as long as he can use that leverage to force the Ukrainians into a deal that they may not like and to sideline the Europeans effectively," Sam Greene of King's College London said. "The question is, will Trump sign up to that and will he actually have the leverage to force the Ukrainians and the Europeans to accept it?" Putin could accept a temporary truce to win Trump's sympathy as he seeks to achieve broader goals, Greene said. "He could accept a ceasefire so long as it's one that leaves him in control, in which there's no real deterrence against renewed aggression somewhere down the line," he said. "He understands that his only route to getting there runs via Trump." In a possible indication he thinks a ceasefire or peace deal could be close, Putin called the leaders of China, India, South Africa and several ex-Soviet nations in an apparent effort to inform these allies about prospective agreements. Tatiana Stanovaya of the Carnegie Russia and Eurasia Center argued Putin wouldn't budge on his goals. "However these conditions are worded, they amount to the same demand: Ukraine stops resisting, the West halts arms supplies, and Kyiv accepts Russia's terms, which effectively amount to a de facto capitulation," she posted on X. "The Russian side can frame this in a dozen different ways, creating the impression that Moscow is open to concessions and serious negotiation. It has been doing so for some time, but the core position remains unchanged: Russia wants Kyiv to surrender." She predicted Putin might agree to meet Zelenskyy but noted the Kremlin leader would only accept such a meeting "if there is a prearranged agenda and predetermined outcomes, which remains difficult to imagine." "The likely scenario is that this peace effort will fail once again," she said. "This would be a negative outcome for Ukraine, but it would not deliver Ukraine to Putin on a plate either, at least not in the way he wants it. The conflict, alternating between open warfare and periods of simmering tension, appears likely to persist for the foreseeable future." (AP)
The Mainichi
10 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Armenians and Azerbaijanis greet US-brokered peace deal with hope but also caution
YEREVAN, Armenia (AP) -- Residents and politicians in Armenia and Azerbaijan responded Saturday with cautious hope -- and skepticism in some cases -- after their leaders signed a U.S.-brokered agreement at the White House aimed at ending decades of hostilities. Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan signed the agreement on Friday in the presence of U.S. President Donald Trump, who stood between the leaders as they shook hands -- a gesture Trump reinforced by clasping their hands together. While the agreement does not constitute a formal peace treaty, it represents a significant diplomatic step toward normalization of relations. The two countries remain technically at war, and the deal does not resolve the longstanding dispute over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. It does, however, reflect the shifting power dynamics following Azerbaijan's 2023 military victory, which forced the withdrawal of Armenian forces and ethnic Armenians from the region. Among the agreement's provisions is the creation of a new transit corridor, dubbed the "Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity," highlighting a changing geopolitical landscape amid declining Russian influence in the South Caucasus. Nagorno-Karabakh has been at the heart of the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict since the Soviet Union's collapse. Although internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan, the mountainous region was controlled for decades by ethnic Armenian forces backed by Armenia. Two wars -- in the early 1990s and again in 2020 -- left tens of thousands dead and displaced. In 2023, Azerbaijan regained control of most of the territory in a swift offensive. Hopeful for peace and a weaker Moscow Ali Karimli, head of the opposition People's Front of Azerbaijan Party, wrote on Facebook that the signing of the agreement "has undoubtedly brought Azerbaijan and Armenia significantly closer to peace," and noted that it delivered "another blow ... to Russia's influence in the South Caucasus," while deepening ties with the U.S. Arif Hajili, chairman of Azerbaijani opposition party Musavat, said he believed that "the most positive aspect of the initialing in Washington was the absence of Russia from the process." He said lasting stability in the region hinges on the continual dwindling of Russian power, which "depends on the outcome of the Russian--Ukrainian war." Hajili also warned of lingering challenges, including Armenia's economic dependence on Russia and some 2 million Azerbaijanis living in Russia. "Russia will continue to use these factors as levers of pressure," he said. Hope on the streets of Azerbaijan's capital "We have been waiting for a long time for this agreement to be signed," a resident of Baku, Gunduz Aliyev, told The Associated Press. "We did not trust our neighbor, Armenia. That's why a strong state was needed to act as a guarantor. Russia couldn't do it, but the United States succeeded." "The U.S. is taking full responsibility for security. This will bring peace and stability," said another, Ali Mammadov. "Borders will open soon, and normal relations with Armenia will be established." Abulfat Jafarov, also in Baku, expressed gratitude to all three leaders involved. "Peace is always a good thing," he said. "We welcome every step taken towards progress." More divided views in the Armenian capital Some people in Yerevan were unsure of the meaning of the agreement. "I feel uncertain because much still needs clarification. There are unclear aspects, and although the prime minister of Armenia made some statements from the U.S., more details are needed," Edvard Avoyan said. But entrepreneur Hrach Ghasumyan could see economic benefits. "If gas and oil pipelines pass through Armenia and railway routes are opened, it would be beneficial for the country," he said. "Until now, all major routes have passed through Georgia, leaving Armenia sidelined and economically limited." Others were skeptical that peace could be achieved, and expressed discontent with the terms of the agreement. "That declaration is unlikely to bring real peace to the region, and we are well aware of Azerbaijan's stance," Ruzanna Ghazaryan said. "This initial agreement offers us nothing; the concessions are entirely one-sided."
