Trump won't let other countries score big ‘wins' in trade talks. Both sides could lose.
A trade agreement with India was supposed to be one of President Donald Trump's first victories from the 'reciprocal' tariff salvo he fired against dozens of trading partners in early April. But while the administration has been promising for more than two months that a deal is imminent, they're still struggling to get it over the finish line.
Two people close to the negotiations, granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions, say Washington and New Delhi continue to make progress toward the first phase of a trade deal, with the expectation that a more comprehensive agreement could come later in the fall. But the White House's demands to 'open up India' as it seeks a major trade victory ahead of President Donald Trump's self-imposed July 8 deadline — as well as his attempt to link the talks to thorny geopolitics in the region — have made it that much harder for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government to sell the deal to a domestic audience.
And it underscores how Trump's all-sticks-and-no-carrot approach to trade talks is making it difficult for even friendly foreign governments to reach an agreement they fear could be political suicide back home — no matter how much the White House threatens their economies.
'Nothing riles Indians more than the idea that their government was bullied by a foreign leader,' said Syed Akbaruddin, India's former ambassador to the United Nations. 'A trade bargain that could have been a win-win deal now risks being portrayed by those who oppose it as a tribute, not a partnership.'
India was one of the first countries to begin trade negotiations with the U.S., launching talks in February as Trump began to unveil his ambitious agenda to upend global trade. Negotiators have reached agreement on some agricultural issues, energy purchases and non-tariff barriers, prompting rosy White House projections that a deal is in the offing.
While visiting India in late April, Vice President JD Vance announced the two sides had 'officially finalized the Terms of Reference' for the negotiations. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said June 3 that, 'You should expect a deal between the United States and India (in the) not-too-distant future because I think we have found a place that really works for both countries.'
And at an event at the White House on Friday, Trump, himself, teased that, 'I think we're going to reach a deal where we have the right to go in and trade' in India. He added, 'We're looking to get a full trade barrier dropping, which is unthinkable, and I'm not sure that that's going to happen, but as of this moment, we've agreed to that.'
But it has proven difficult to officially ink a deal, people close to the negotiations say, because of all the things the Trump administration is asking India to do to lower its trade barriers, while only offering to give up some of its newly-imposed tariffs, in return.
For the White House, which is rapidly approaching its deadline, India would be just the second country that has agreed to a deal, not counting a tariff ceasefire with China. Any agreement would have to help justify the administration's claim that Trump's high tariff rates are truly helping to open up new markets for American products, while protecting the U.S. market.
'Productive discussions with India continue, and we look forward to announcing an historic U.S.-India trade agreement in short order,' said a White House official, granted anonymity to discuss the negotiation.
The president has complicated matters by repeatedly taking credit for brokering peace between India and Pakistan this spring — even though India has long insisted it won't accept any mediation when it comes to Pakistan. Modi underscored that point in a recent call with Trump, saying that there is 'complete political consensus in India on this matter,' according to a readout of the call from India's foreign minister.
The diplomatic fumble, which the president repeated multiple times this week, including at the NATO summit in the Netherlands, coupled with Trump's recent decision to host Pakistan's army chief at the White House, could make it harder for the Indian government to sell a trade deal to its people.
'Trump's comments have injected mistrust and public skepticism of U.S. support to India,' said Akbaruddin, India's former U.N. ambassador. 'The more he repeats his claim, the more a prospective U.S.-India trade agreement smells like coercion, not cooperation.'
'Whatever the current government [in India] does, it will be seen as they basically capitulated to President Trump's demand,' said Mukesh Aghi, the President and CEO of the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum. 'So they are in a no-win situation.'
The White House views tariffs as a cudgel to extract concessions from foreign countries — both on trade matters and a wide array of other foreign policy priorities. But it has failed to grasp, or simply doesn't care, how much trading partners' domestic politics factor into the discussions, and ultimately may trump even the existential economic threat the U.S. can wield.
Talks with South Korea stalled while the country, under a caretaker government, moved to elect a new leader. Negotiations with Japan have been snagged by the Trump administration's demand that Tokyo increase defense spending and insistence on maintaining its 25 percent tariff on auto and auto parts imports, a massive blow to one of Japan's culturally defining industries. EU leaders have balked at U.S. efforts to undermine their VAT, a domestic consumption tax.
India has some of the highest tariffs of any major economy in the world, with an average rate of around 17 percent. Its government, in particular, has long sought to protect the country's millions of subsistence farmers, who have outsized political clout.
In 2020, after the Parliament of India passed farm legislation, farmers held a sustained protest for more than a year and eventually succeeded in getting the laws repealed. They protested again in 2024, criticizing the government for not doing more to help farmers.
'India is protective of its farmers, which is why they have relatively high tariffs compared to anywhere in the world,' said Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, a former agriculture negotiator at USTR who currently works with AgriTrade. 'They're going to protect their farmers.'
The Trump administration has been here before. During his first term, negotiators worked with India in an attempt to secure a bilateral trade deal — similar to agreements the administration was able to negotiate with Japan and South Korea.
The deal would have centered around three areas — increased access to India's agricultural, information technology and medical devices markets. But as talks dragged on and the scope of the deal shrank, Trump scrapped the plan.
'They got very close, really, really close to concluding a first-ever bilateral trade deal,' said Mark Linscott, a former negotiator for USTR who was involved in negotiations with India. 'This time around it's clearly a priority for both sides …. It's the agreement that got away.'
Much of the challenge has been opening India's agricultural market, particularly when it comes to the genetically modified crops grown in the U.S. and dairy products. India, as a majority Hindu country, has significant religious concerns about the import of byproducts from cows.
While the Biden administration was able to secure increased access for specialty agriculture products like nuts and cranberries, India is reluctant to make deals that undercut its own farmers.
Any early deal with India would likely focus on products that are not readily accessible in the country, like fruits and vegetables, nuts, alfalfa and potentially ethanol.
But, despite the political tension in India, the U.S. agriculture industry has continued its long-standing push to open the country's fast-growing market to U.S. products, particularly dairy.
A deal on dairy is still proving elusive, even as the U.S. has shifted its strategy to lower tariffs and simplify the certificates necessary to allow more dairy products into the country.
'They've been pretty clear all along that dairy was going to be a heavy lift,' said a person close to the negotiations.
Any deal announced by July 9 is likely to just be the first phase of an ongoing effort to secure a substantial bilateral trade agreement with India — a process that could stretch on for at least another year, those close to the discussions say.
Linscott, who negotiated with India for USTR in the first Trump administration, said the administration knows the U.S. will likely have to make some concessions in order to secure a larger deal, putting the talks in a different bucket than other deals the U.S. is seeking to negotiate.
'India is the fourth largest economy in the world now, will soon be the third largest economy in the world, and is a critical strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific,' Linscott said. 'I think all those factor in a bit in the overall negotiating dynamics.'
Phelim Kine contributed to this article.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Miami Herald
10 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Who is Senate parliamentarian? What to know about staffer Trump seeks to overrule
At the heart of the debate over the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' stands one little-known official: the Senate parliamentarian. The low-profile congressional official has been thrust into the spotlight after issuing a procedural decision on the GOP-backed spending bill, drawing sharp responses from some Republicans. President Donald Trump himself has even weighed in, calling for the 'unelected senate staffer' to be ignored. Who is the Senate parliamentarian? What powers do they have? And why are Republicans up in arms? Here is what to know. Who is the parliamentarian? The Senate parliamentarian is a nonpartisan advisor who makes recommendations to lawmakers regarding the interpretation of rules and precedents in the upper chamber. The role was established in 1935 amid the passage of a slew of New Deal-era laws, which 'expanded opportunities for procedural confusion and mischief,' according to Senate records. The parliamentarian is appointed by the Senate majority leader and serves at their pleasure, according to the National Constitution Center. The official's rulings are not necessarily final. The presiding officer of the Senate — typically the vice president or the president pro tempore — can simply ignore their advice, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. This has happened a few times in recent history, including in 2017, when GOP lawmakers changed Senate rules to allow Supreme Court nominees to be confirmed with a simple majority. That said, the Senate typically adheres to the parliamentarian's guidance, according to Time. This included in 2021, when the staffer rejected Democrats' attempt to include a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the 'Build Back Better' bill. Currently, the office of the parliamentarian is held by Elizabeth MacDonough, who has served in the position since 2012. She was appointed by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. MacDonough formerly worked at the Senate library and as a trial attorney, according to the Wall Street Journal. She also advised former Vice President Al Gore during a recount dispute following the 2000 election. Why are Republicans upset? Some Republicans expressed outrage at the parliamentarian after she issued rulings on the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' which is currently being considered by the Senate, following its passage in the House in May. In late June, MacDonough ruled that a series of provisions in the bill violate the Senate's Byrd Rule, which prohibits 'extraneous' provisions from being included in budget reconciliation bills. One such provision would have charged immigrants a $1,000 fee to apply for asylum in the U.S., according to The Hill. MacDonough also ruled against several provisions that affect Medicaid. One was a proposed cap on provider taxes, which states use to fund Medicaid, according to CNBC. Another would block noncitizens from accessing Medicaid in addition to other health programs, according to USA Today. In response to these proposed changes, multiple GOP lawmakers telegraphed their frustration with MacDonough. 'The WOKE Senate Parliamentarian, who was appointed by Harry Reid and advised Al Gore, just STRUCK DOWN a provision BANNING illegals from stealing Medicaid from American citizens,' Sen. Tommy Tuberville, a Republican from Alabama, wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on June 26. 'THE SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN SHOULD BE FIRED ASAP.' Rep. Greg Steube, a Florida Republican, also singled out MacDonough for criticism. 'How is it that an unelected swamp bureaucrat, who was appointed by Harry Reid over a decade ago, gets to decide what can and cannot go in President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill?' he wrote on X. He then called on Vice President JD Vance — using his power as the presiding officer in the Senate — to ignore the proposed changes. Trump appeared to concur with this view. 'Great Congressman Greg Steube is 100% correct,' he wrote on Truth Social on June 29. 'An unelected Senate Staffer (Parliamentarian), should not be allowed to hurt the Republicans Bill. Wants many fantastic things out. NO!' However, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, poured cold water on the push to sideline MacDonough. When asked by Politico about overruling her on June 26, Thune said, 'No, that would not be a good option for getting a bill done.' Meanwhile, other Republicans have defended MacDonough. North Carolina Sen. Thom Thillis, who recently announced he will not seek reelection, called her a 'straight shooter,' according to Reuters. And Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy told reporters, 'Nah, never overrule the parliamentarian.'

Miami Herald
10 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Minnesota agriculture institute joins lawsuit against USDA to save grant funding
WASHINGTON - A Minnesota agriculture group says the Trump administration's canceling of so-called DEI grants in farm country broke the law and imperiled a food network initiative's future, in a federal lawsuit filed in the District of Columbia. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in Minneapolis joined other farm sector non-profits who said last week in a lawsuit that the U.S. Department of Agriculture slashed grants for DEI - diversity, equity and inclusion - haphazardly and without individual review, violating federal law. The grants are intended to promote DEI efforts, from a San Francisco Bay Area initiative to boost LGBTQ and multiracial farmers to a New York soil health program. In Minnesota the IATP's grant for $111,695 to finance the MinnieAg Network, including tools for bridging farmers with food and ag industry officials, was terminated just six months from the finish line. That forced the organization to spend $30,000 from its own pocket to finish the grant's goals. "The abrupt and unexpected cancelation of our grant comes at a critical juncture just before we were planning to finalize our 'Farm and Food Systems 101′ resources to make this information available to all," said Erin McKee VanSlooten, Community Food Systems program director at IATP. VanSlooten said the cuts amount to "negating" 18 months of work, and she worries about the program's future. Upon taking office in January, President Trump signed a flurry of executive orders aiming to root out government funding for equity, sustainability and diversity programs under the charges that such programs were discriminatory or wasteful. According to the ag groups' lawsuit, when USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins posted to X that she'd cancelled a grant in the Bay Area to "educate queer, trans and BIPOC urban farmers and consumers about food justice," she said her agency would refocus around "American farming, ranching and forestry." The lawsuit alleges staff at USDA did not properly review programs and the agency could not revoke funding previously granted. The plaintiffs cover a wide swath of agriculture groups working to build pathways for non-traditional farmers to enter the industry, improve soil health and build climate and food resilience. One nonprofit's grant work aimed to build more trees in cities to provide buffers from the heat. Another sought to teach producers about no-till farming. The lawsuit names USDA, Rollins and other Trump administration officials, including the acting director of the Department of Government Efficiency. In a statement, a USDA spokesperson said they would not comment on pending litigation. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.


Newsweek
13 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Did Republicans Just Kill the Filibuster?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Republicans are relying on rarely employed accounting methods to push Donald Trump's "one, big beautiful bill" through the Senate, and in doing so could upend established Congressional procedures surrounding the reconciliation process and the filibuster. Why It Matters The filibuster—a procedural move allowing senators to extend debates on bills indefinitely without a 60-vote majority—has long been viewed as a move to encourage bipartisanship in Congress and as a bulwark against political dominance by slim majorities in the upper chamber. Experts told Newsweek that recent moves by Republicans while trying to pass Trump's tax legislation could create new precedent surrounding the filibuster for years to come, including past the period of GOP control. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham looks out from the upper chamber, June 11, 2025. J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo What To Know Republicans are employing the reconciliation process to pass Trump's tax bill, the centerpiece of his second-term domestic agenda, allowing them to eventually advance the bill with only a majority vote rather than the 60 votes normally needed to do away with the threat of a filibuster. A central element of the bill, which the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates would add $4.2 trillion to the nation's deficit through 2034, is the extension of the tax cuts enacted during Trump's first term. Sweeping fiscal moves of this kind are traditionally restricted by the Byrd Rule, adopted in 1985, which limits the sort of policies that can be folded into bills passed through reconciliation, and forbids legislation from adding to the nation's deficit beyond 10 years. However, as reported by AP, Congressional Budget Office Director Phillip Swagel recently notified Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley of the Senate Budget Committee that elements of the Big, Beautiful Bill would increase the deficit "in years after 2034." Going by this assessment, the Republican bill would violate the rule that determines what legislation can clear the Senate with a simple majority, which could force Republicans to amend significant portions of the legislation. In response to these concerns, and Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough advising that certain provisions in the bill were not budget-related and therefore in violation of Senate rules, Republicans have now argued that Trump's 2017 tax cuts should be treated as part of the fiscal "baseline" forecast, even though these have not yet been extended. Republicans have also cited Section 312 of Congressional Budget Act to argue that the final authority for determining baseline spending figures, and whether the tax portion of the bill violates Byrd, lies with Republican Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham. When approached by Newsweek for comment, a spokesperson for Senator Graham said: "Republicans do not want a $4 trillion tax hike—which is what would happen if the Democrats had their way and the 2017 tax cuts expired." They also referenced past support from Democrats for the notion that the Senate Budget Committee Chairman has the power to establish the baseline, citing former Chairman Bernie Sanders' 2022 remark that "the Budget Committee, through its Chair, makes the call on questions of numbers." Sanders is an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Experts have said that this new "Byrd Bath"—as it has been referred to by some on Capitol Hill—could establish a new precedent regarding budget reconciliation and the avoidance of filibusters by those in power in the future. "The budget process established in 1974 and reinforced by rules and precedents since then was intended to allow a simple majority to pass a budget as long as the contents of a budget measure were limited to budget-related spending and tax provisions," Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek. "Playing partisan games with the budget process to set aside the 10-year budget period or use it for nonbudget purposes is contrary to the plain language of the Budget Act and the Byrd rules adopted by the Senate," he added. "It is a precedent that will get repeated over and over again." Michael Ettlinger, a political adviser who previously worked with the Biden-Harris campaign, said, "If the Republican's new accounting method becomes the norm, it will be far easier to pass deficit increasing legislation in the Senate with a simple majority vote—limiting the impact of the filibuster." Ettlinger, who is currently a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), noted that nothing would then stop Democrats from employing the same precedents to bypass the filibuster in future bills. "If the Democrats reclaim the Senate they will have the opportunity to undermine the filibuster as the Republicans have done," he told Newsweek. "It's their choice." Democratic Senator Rubén Gallego, reiterated this argument, posting to X: "There is no filibuster if the Senate [Republicans] do this and when Dems take power there is no reason why we should not use reconciliation to pass immigration reform." What People Are Saying Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, in a statement released Sunday, said: "The only way for Republicans to pass this horribly destructive bill, which is based on budget math as fake as Donald Trump's tan, was to go nuclear and hide it behind a bunch of procedural jargon. We're now operating in a world where the filibuster applies to Democrats but not to Republicans, and that's simply unsustainable given the triage that'll be required whenever the Trump era finally ends." Steve Smith, professor of politics at Arizona State University, told Newsweek: "If a small Senate majority can put anything in a budget measure or ignore the ten-year budget window, then nothing is left for regular legislation that is subject to a filibuster. It represents a "get-it-while-you-can" partisanship that Republicans have adopted since [Mitch] McConnell became leader that, step-by-step, has undermined longstanding Senate norms." Republican Senator and Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham, speaking on the Senate floor on Monday, said: "I'm not the first chairman to change a baseline for different reasons." "The budget Chairman, under [Section] 312, sets the baseline," Graham continued. "This has been acknowledged by Republicans and Democrats." What Happens Next? Debate over President Trump's megabill has now reached the final stages. A "vote-a-rama" on the bill—a marathon session during which lawmakers may introduce amendments to a reconciliation package—kicked off in the Senate on Monday morning. Should the bill pass a Senate vote, expected this week, it will then be sent back down to the House for approval. On Friday, Trump said that his preferred deadline of July 4 was not the "end all," but later said via Truth Social that the House of Representatives "must be ready" to send the bill to his desk by this date.