India-US Trade Stalemate: Policy, Not Phone Calls, Key to Deals

A US Commerce Secretary claimed a bilateral trade deal with India collapsed because Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not personally call then-President Donald Trump. The Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI) counters this, stating the explanation overlooks substantive negotiations that continued for months after the alleged snub. The think tank argues major trade agreements founder on policy differences over tariffs, agriculture, and regulations, not leader-level symbolism. It concludes that framing the impasse as a diplomatic slight trivializes the complex structural reasons behind the elusive deal.

Key Points: India-US Trade Deal Hinged on Policy, Not Modi-Trump Call: GTRI

  • US official blamed deal failure on missed Modi-Trump call
  • Think tank says claim confuses diplomacy with reality
  • Real barriers were tariffs, agriculture, digital trade
  • Negotiations continued months after alleged cutoff date
3 min read

Trade deals hinge on policy convergence, not leader-level symbolism, says GTRI after Lutnick remarks

GTRI counters US claim that India-US trade deal failed due to a missed Modi-Trump call, arguing real barriers were policy differences on tariffs and regulations.

"Trade deals of this scale hinge on unresolved policy differences...not on symbolic gestures. - GTRI report"

New Delhi, January 10

Major trade agreements hinge largely on policy convergence between the parties and the stakeholders involved, and not leader-level symbolism, asserted India-based think tank Global Trade Research Initiative, after US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's claims that the Bilateral Trade Agreement did not fructify because Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not personally call President Donald Trump.

Earlier, the US Commerce Secretary had claimed that the trade deal between India and the United States did not happen as Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not place a call to Donald Trump. In a conversation with American venture capitalist Chamath Palihapitiya, as part of the 'All-In Podcast' on Thursday (local time), Lutnick said that while contracts were negotiated and the entire deal structure was prepared, the final step required direct, leader-level engagement.

As India-US trade talks continue to face delays, a remark by the US Commerce Secretary has shifted the focus from substance to symbolism, according to GTRI.

The explanation by Lutnick raises more questions than it answers about how complex trade negotiations actually break down, GTRI said.

Lutnick had said PM Modi later agreed to place the call, but by then it was "too late", as the US had already shifted focus to concluding trade deals with other countries.

The US trade agreements with Indonesia, Vietnam and the Philippines were concluded around July 2025, but India-US negotiations continued well beyond that period, with multiple official-level engagements on market access, tariffs and regulatory issues taking place afterward, GTRI recalled.

"If Washington had already decided in July that there would be "no deal" simply because Prime Minister Modi did not make a personal call, there would have been little reason for both sides to continue negotiating for months thereafter. The claim reads less like a contemporaneous reason and more like a retrospective justification," GTRI supplemented.

According to GTRI, reducing a complex, multi-sector trade negotiation to the absence of a leader-to-leader phone call misses the logic by which such agreements are concluded.

"Trade deals of this scale hinge on unresolved policy differences--on tariffs, agriculture, digital trade and regulatory autonomy--not on symbolic gestures. Lutnick's remarks therefore confuse diplomatic optics with negotiating reality, and overlook the deeper structural reasons why an India-U.S. deal has remained elusive."

GTRI concluded that the India-US trade impasse reflects hard policy choices rather than missed phone calls.

"Framing the delay as a matter of personal diplomacy may offer a convenient narrative, but it obscures the substantive disagreements that both sides have yet to resolve--and risks trivialising one of the most consequential trade relationships in the global economy," the GTRI report concludes.

Trump administration has imposed tariffs on countries that were major exporters to the US, including India and China. There is a 50 per cent tariffs on goods from India entering the United States since August 2025.

- ANI

Share this article:

Reader Comments

S
Sarah B
As someone who follows international trade, this makes sense. The timeline GTRI points out is key—negotiations continued for months after the alleged "missed call" deadline. Lutnick's story doesn't add up. It sounds like a post-facto excuse for a deal that was structurally difficult from the start.
P
Priya S
While I agree with GTRI's main point, a leader's personal touch *can* sometimes break bureaucratic logjams. But to blame the entire deal's failure on it? That's just drama. The 50% tariffs hurt our exporters badly. We need a solution, not symbolic stories. 🇮🇳
R
Rohit P
Typical blame game. First, they impose high tariffs, then they say the PM didn't call. The real issue is America's "America First" policy. We should also be "India First" and not rush into a bad deal. Our policy convergence should be on mutual respect, not one-sided demands.
M
Meera T
This is a very insightful take. It's refreshing to see an Indian think tank calling out a simplistic narrative. Trade deals are about hard numbers and policy alignment, not phone call etiquette. Hope our negotiators stay firm on protecting key sectors like dairy and agriculture.
D
David E
Respectfully, I think GTRI might be missing a bit of the human element in high-stakes diplomacy. While policy is king, the personal relationship between leaders can set the tone and create political will. That said, Lutnick's version does seem conveniently simplistic for the US side.

We welcome thoughtful discussions from our readers. Please keep comments respectful and on-topic.

Leave a Comment

Minimum 50 characters 0/50