The Trade That Binds the Indian and American Economies
Lost in the tumult is the value that both the United States and India derive from the services part of their total trade, which topped $200 billion last year.
Mr. Trump has focused on the $46 billion deficit in goods that the United States ran with Indian companies in 2024. But over the same period, Indian and American companies bought and sold, in virtually equal amounts, $84 billion worth of services. The two countries have run a nearly equal balance in the exchange of services for several years.
A big reason is that two-thirds of Fortune 500 firms, from Meta and Microsoft to Walmart and Lowe's, now rely on offshore operations across India.
In India's biggest cities, multinational companies with American headquarters are building permanent corporate offices to do work across the world. Their annual payroll is far greater than the U.S. trade deficit Mr. Trump is concerned about. That is money that helps drive India's economy and benefits companies with deep roots in the United States.
In the southern cities of Bengaluru and Hyderabad, Goldman Sachs has more employees, who are managing operations around the world, than it has in Mumbai, India's financial capital. And on Monday, it announced an expansion in Mumbai, with a new office 50 percent larger than its existing location. Those bankers work the local stock markets, now the world's fourth most valuable.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
a few seconds ago
- New York Times
Court Overturns Trump's Half-Billion Judgment, but Upholds Fraud Case
A New York appeals court on Thursday threw out a half-billion dollar judgment against President Trump, eliminating the enormous financial penalty while declining to overturn the fraud case against him. 'While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the state,' wrote Peter Moulton, one of the appeals judges whose lengthy and convoluted ruling reflected significant disagreement among the five-judge panel. The president's appeal will now most likely move to New York's highest court, providing him another opportunity to challenge the finding that he was a fraudster. Thursday's ruling handed Mr. Trump a financial victory and represents a major setback for the New York attorney general, Letitia James, who is one of the president's foremost adversaries. The case had been a career-defining victory after she campaigned for the attorney general's office promising to bring Mr. Trump to justice. However, the decision fell short of the legal vindication the president had been seeking in his fight against Ms. James. In denying Mr. Trump's bid to throw out the case, the court kept in place the ruling that he had committed fraud, an ignominious distinction for a sitting American president. Ms. James filed the case against Mr. Trump and his family real estate business in 2022, accusing them of inflating his net worth to obtain favorable loan terms. After a monthslong trial, the judge overseeing the case ruled last year that Mr. Trump was liable for fraud, denting the real estate mogul image that underpinned his political rise. Thursday's ruling came almost a year after judges heard oral arguments on the appeals case, an unusual delay that reflected the legal and political complexities of a case against a sitting president. The case infuriated Mr. Trump, who has sought revenge against Ms. James. His Justice Department has opened multiple cases into her and her office. This is a developing story and will be updated.
NBC News
a few seconds ago
- NBC News
Rep. Chip Roy, who clashed with Trump and GOP leaders, launches bid for Texas AG
WASHINGTON — Conservative firebrand Rep. Chip Roy said Thursday he is running for Texas attorney general in 2026, jumping into a crowded Republican primary field to replace Ken Paxton. Roy, a member of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, has been a thorn in the side of President Donald Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and the House GOP leadership team. A former attorney and top aide to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Roy first came to Congress in 2019. In his campaign launch video posted Thursday, Roy, 53, warned 'the Texas of our dreams, our families and our forefathers, is under assault," blaming 'radical Democrats and George Soros,' 'open border politicians,' and 'faceless corporations and the Chinese Communist Party.' 'Today, we draw a line in the sand,' he said. Roy joins several other Republican candidates in the race for attorney general after Paxton announced a bid against Sen. John Cornyn in 2026. Roy has repeatedly voted against big funding bills and has railed against the ballooning national debt and deficit spending. In one of his more memorable speeches, Roy, in November 2023, took to the House floor and berated his own GOP leadership, asking colleagues to name "one thing" that Republicans had done since taking back control of the House that January. 'I want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing — one! — that I can go campaign on and say we did. One!' Roy exclaimed. 'Anybody sitting in the complex, you want to come down to the floor and come explain to me one material, meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done besides, 'Well, I guess it's not as bad as the Democrats.'' He was one of a handful of Republicans who backed Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis over Trump in the 2024 presidential primary. And he initially was opposed to Trump's " big beautiful bill" earlier this year before eventually voting for it, saying he helped secure changes, including eliminating clean-energy subsidies. In 2021, after Democrat Joe Biden's presidential election victory, Roy broke with Trump and GOP leaders when he voted to certify the results of the 2020 election. "That vote may well sign my political death warrant, but so be it," Roy said at the time. Since then, Trump has disparaged Roy on several occasions, calling him a "RINO" congressman who seeks "cheap publicity" and should face a primary challenge. In his campaign video, Roy briefly invokes Trump, saying he helped the president secure the border. "Texans' next attorney general must have a proven record of fighting to preserve, protect and defend our legacy, an attorney general unafraid to fight, unafraid to win," Roy said. "That's why I fought to secure our border and help President Trump deliver results." Roy joins a handful of other conservative rabble rousers who are heading for the exits of Congress to run for statewide office — a welcome development for Johnson and his team, who have struggled to corral votes from these Freedom Caucus members. Former Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Biggs is running for governor in Arizona, while Rep. Ralph Norman is running for that same post in his native South Carolina. Rep. Nancy Mace, a Freedom Caucus ally who also frequently bucked leadership, is running for South Carolina governor. And former Rep. Matt Gaetz, who created headaches for leadership, resigned from Congress last November and is eyeing a bid for governor in Florida.
Atlantic
a few seconds ago
- Atlantic
What Trump Actually Wants From a Ukraine Deal
Whenever Donald Trump announces an international meeting about the Russia-Ukraine war, his critics immediately begin talking about Munich 1938 or Yalta 1945. The analogies are not only misplaced, but misleading. What happened in Anchorage last week and in the follow-on visit by European leaders to Washington on Monday was something far less tragic, and far less serious, than the comparisons would imply. Too often, the commentary focused on trivialities. For the Trump-Putin summit: Was the B-2-bomber overflight when Vladimir Putin arrived in Alaska an undeserved honor or a sobering reminder of American power? How damaging was it when Trump whinged, once again, about 'Russia, Russia, Russia' and repeated his delusions about having won the 2020 election? For the Washington meeting with European leaders and Vlodymyr Zelensky: Was the Ukrainian president's black suit a sign of submission, or a display of good sense? Did it make a difference that the European delegation was met by the chief of protocol and not the president in all his glory? Fluff and flummery. The muddled outcomes (did the Russians accept the idea of Western security guarantees to Ukraine? Did the Ukrainians agree to cede territory to Russia?) began with the prelude to the meetings. The confused signals going in resulted in part from an incompetent special envoy, Steve Witkoff, being unable to get straight what the Russians had offered in preliminary talks—a rookie mistake if ever there was one, although par for the hapless real-estate lawyer turned diplomatic ingenue. But they resulted as well from the very different positions of the four parties, and those in turn emerged from their motivations, which explain a lot about what happened and what may lie ahead. Putin's motivation is simple, even if Witkoff and Trump do not really understand it: He seeks to dominate Ukraine, seize what pieces of it he can, and eradicate its democratic government and national independence. For Zelensky, it is only slightly more complicated: He wishes to preserve Ukrainian sovereignty and freedom of action, and to guarantee its membership in the larger European community of free countries—all while refusing to recognize de jure the loss of its territory to Moscow. For the European leaders, it is also a bit more complex: They want to help Ukraine achieve those things while ensuring continued American engagement in European security against a menacing Russia. Tom Nichols: Trump keeps defending Russia Trump's motivation is actually the simplest of all: He wants a Nobel Peace Prize. We know that because he cannot stop talking about it. This is what makes a true sellout of Ukraine unlikely. For Trump to have that glorious moment when five otherwise insignificant Norwegians bless his contributions to humanity, he needs the willing cooperation of Zelensky and the Europeans. If he merely handed Ukraine over to Russia, as some observers say he has always wished to do, no Nobel: The Norwegians, having some claim to democratic scruples, would not deliver, however dubious some of their past awards. No, at some level, Zelensky and his European supporters will have to find the deal, whatever form it may take, to be better than continuing the war, and for now, nothing on offer seems to meet that test. There is another reason that the United States has less leverage than Trump may think: He has weakened his hand by silly concessions. The meeting with Putin was a gift to the Russian dictator, for which Washington received nothing. The easing of some sanctions on Russia is a similar unilateral gift. Trump's long-threatened secondary sanctions have yet to materialize. Most important, by ruling out putting American forces on the ground in Ukraine, the American president has, so to speak, discarded a trump card. The American foreign-policy establishment has become so accustomed to denigrating Europe's leadership that it has not fully taken on board the remarkable coherence and adroitness of its leaders' performance in Washington. They spoke with one voice, and they skillfully combined flattery (which is indispensable in dealing with Trump) and a quiet firmness (also essential). Zelensky, too, hit all the right notes, and the result was an atmosphere of geniality which may not have been substantive, but was useful. America's weakened hand is the result also of the quiet, limited, but nonetheless significant mobilization of the Ukrainian and European defense industrial base. Ukraine is the largest producer of its own excellent military hardware, followed by the Europeans, and then the United States, which provides only 20 percent of the hardware (although, admittedly, the most advanced and in some cases unique 20 percent). Even that contribution, however, will no longer be paid for by the U.S. but by European states—as a result of the Trump administration throwing away yet another source of leverage over Ukraine, the provision of military aid without strings attached. In theory, the administration could try to coerce a Ukrainian deal by cutting off all intelligence sharing and refusing to sell weapons to Europe for Ukraine. But even there, as a senior intelligence official from the continent recently informed me, the Europeans have been quietly figuring out ways to minimize the loss from certain unique capabilities (particularly space-based reconnaissance). Cutting off all aid would also stir protest even from some Trump loyalists in the Republican Party, and besides, Trump always wants to sell American products. Most important, such blatant arm-twisting means no Nobel, and Trump can't have that. Vivian Salama and Jonathan Lemire: Zelensky wasn't going to repeat his Oval Office disaster The trouble with the historical parallels that are now being drawn is that they inflate the capacity of the adversary that Ukraine faces and minimize Western leverage. The Munich 1938 analogy is dumb because the British and French leaders were then dealing with a powerful and vigorous Nazi Germany and operating under the shadow of the mass slaughter of World War I, which had taken place only 20 years earlier. Czechoslovakia was bound to succumb to German demands unless the Soviet Union joined in its defense, and that was made impossible by Stalin's demands to London, Paris, and Warsaw. The Yalta 1945 analogy is also dumb: Yes, Poland was consigned to Soviet occupation, but the Red Army held the territory, and to pry it loose there and elsewhere in Eastern Europe would have required a new war, which neither the United States nor Great Britain was prepared to fight. Yalta was awful, but also unavoidable. Instead, in the current circumstance, we have a Ukraine whose heroism and persistence is extraordinary, a far larger country with a more capable military than either the Czechs in 1938 or the Polish Home Army in 1945 had at their disposal. Ukraine also shares borders with its Western supporters. We have a third party—the European states—that retains agency as well. In Russia, Ukraine and its supporters face neither a dynamic Germany nor a titanic Soviet superpower, but rather a creaky, corrupt dictatorship that has taken a million casualties; is suffering diplomatic setbacks everywhere from the Middle East to the Caucasus, to its northern flank; whose sovereign wealth fund has almost run dry; and whose economy is beset by inflation, wretched productivity, and falling oil prices. If Trump were as good a dealmaker as he claims to be, he would be focusing far more on exploiting Russia's weaknesses, which he can exacerbate if he wishes, than on basking in the chumminess of his KGB-trained counterpart, which is nothing more than deception. No one knows how this war will end. Either side could collapse, or there could be some kind of freezing of the front line, unsatisfactory to both sides but guaranteeing Ukraine's independence and, to some measure, its security. When the war reaches its conclusion, it will probably surprise all of us, and none more than those who think Trump is as shrewd as he is often malign. He is not, and that is probably the only thing on which his counterparties can agree wholeheartedly.
