The clarification follows an outrageous claim by Donald Trump in an American court - that his contentious tariffs were key in securing an India-Pakistan ceasefire

India has firmly and repeatedly rejected assertions by the Trump administration that US tariff policies played any role in facilitating the May 10, 2025 ceasefire between India and Pakistan following Operation Sindoor.

The controversy emerged when the US government, facing legal challenges to President Trump's sweeping tariff regime, claimed in federal court that the ceasefire was achieved only after both nuclear-armed nations were offered enhanced trading access with the United States. However, India's Ministry of External Affairs has categorically denied these claims, emphasising that tariff discussions never occurred during diplomatic conversations throughout the four-day military conflict. This diplomatic dispute highlights broader tensions over trade policy and raises questions about the Trump administration's use of economic leverage claims to justify controversial tariff measures that have faced significant legal and international opposition.

The ceasefire agreement was ultimately reached through direct military-to-military communication between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both countries on May 10, 2025. This direct negotiation channel represented the traditional mechanism for conflict resolution between the two nations, bypassing any third-party mediation. The agreement has held successfully, with both countries reporting resumed commercial flights and a return to normalcy in the affected regions.

Trump Administration's Legal Strategy And Ceasefire Claims

The Trump administration's claims about its role in the India-Pakistan ceasefire emerged as part of a desperate legal strategy to defend controversial tariff policies in federal court. When the New York-based Court of International Trade challenged Trump's authority to impose sweeping tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and other officials presented the India-Pakistan situation as justification for presidential emergency powers. The administration argued that the ceasefire was achieved only after President Trump "interceded and offered both nations trading access with the United States to avert a full-scale war".

Lutnick's court filing on May 23 represented the first time the administration formally claimed credit for brokering the ceasefire at a legal forum, warning that "an adverse ruling that constrains presidential power in this case could lead India and Pakistan to question the validity of President Trump's offer, threatening the security of an entire region and the lives of millions". The administration's legal team attempted to frame the tariff strategy as an essential tool of foreign policy, arguing that restricting presidential authority under IEEPA would "have ripple effects across every domain in which economic instruments are used for strategic effect".

The federal court ultimately rejected this defence strategy, ruling that President Trump exceeded his legal authority in imposing the tariffs and blocking the implementation of his so-called "Liberation Day" tariff plan. The three-judge panel specifically stated that "the court does not pass upon the wisdom or likely effectiveness of the President's use of tariffs as leverage," focusing instead on the legal boundaries of presidential power. This legal setback dealt a significant blow to Trump's broader trade policy agenda, which included a proposed 10% tax on most imports and even higher duties on goods from China and the European Union.

India's Comprehensive Rebuttal And Six-Point Denial

India's response to the Trump administration's claims has been swift, comprehensive, and unambiguous. Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal delivered the most recent clarification on May 29, stating categorically that "from the time Operation Sindoor commenced on May 7 till the time of cessation on May 10, there was conversation between India and the US on the evolving military situation. The issue of tariffs never came up during the discussion". This statement directly contradicted the Trump administration's narrative about using trade incentives to facilitate the ceasefire agreement.

The government had previously issued a detailed six-point rebuttal on May 15, systematically dismantling multiple assertions made by President Trump and senior administration officials. The rebuttal addressed several key false claims: first, that the ceasefire was brokered by the United States rather than through direct India-Pakistan military channels; second, that the conflict posed a nuclear escalation risk when India's response remained strictly within the conventional domain; third, that trade leverage was used during negotiations when no trade discussions occurred during Operation Sindoor; and fourth, that there was scope for US mediation in the broader Kashmir dispute.

India's diplomatic response emphasised the autonomous nature of its military decisions and the bilateral character of the ceasefire negotiations. The MEA clarified that while there were conversations with the US during the conflict period, these discussions focused on the evolving military situation rather than any quid pro quo arrangements involving trade benefits. This position reinforces India's long-standing policy of handling regional security matters through direct bilateral engagement rather than third-party mediation, particularly regarding sensitive issues like cross-border terrorism and Kashmir.

The Broader US-India Trade Context And Ongoing Negotiations

The tariff controversy unfolds against the backdrop of complex and ongoing US-India trade negotiations aimed at dramatically expanding bilateral economic ties. Both nations have been working toward a comprehensive trade agreement designed to boost bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030, more than doubling current trade volumes as part of the ambitious "Mission 500" initiative. The first phase of this trade deal has reportedly been finalised, with terms of reference established for implementation by the end of 2025.

The trade relationship has been complicated by Trump's imposition of a 26% tariff on Indian goods as part of his broader protectionist agenda, though this specific tariff has been paused until July 9 to allow for ongoing negotiations. India has responded with significant tariff reforms, reducing import duties on approximately 8,500 industrial items, including prominent American products such as bourbon whiskey and Harley-Davidson motorcycles. These reciprocal gestures indicate both nations' commitment to expanding trade despite political disagreements over tariff policies and diplomatic claims.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar has characterised the trade negotiations as "complicated," emphasising that "any trade deal has to be mutually beneficial; it has to work for both countries". This pragmatic approach suggests that India is willing to engage constructively on trade issues while maintaining firm boundaries on political and security matters. The potential agreement covers diverse sectors including energy, critical minerals, technology, and manufacturing, with India considering zero-duty imports from the US in select industries under its Production-Linked Incentive schemes.

Implications for US Foreign Policy Credibility And Regional Diplomacy

The diplomatic dispute over ceasefire claims reveals deeper issues about the Trump administration's approach to international relations and its tendency to exaggerate American influence in global affairs. The administration's attempt to claim credit for resolving a regional conflict that was actually settled through direct bilateral negotiations undermines US credibility and demonstrates a problematic pattern of overstating American diplomatic achievements. This behaviour raises concerns among international partners about the reliability of US claims regarding its role in global conflict resolution and crisis management.

The Indian government's firm rejection of these claims sends a clear message about the limits of US influence in South Asian regional affairs. By emphasising that the ceasefire resulted from direct India-Pakistan military communication rather than American mediation, India asserts its autonomy in handling security matters and rejects attempts to create false narratives about external intervention. This position aligns with India's broader foreign policy approach of strategic autonomy, where it maintains partnerships with multiple global powers while preserving decision-making independence on core national interests.

The controversy also highlights the problematic use of fabricated diplomatic achievements to justify controversial domestic policies. The Trump administration's attempt to use false claims about brokering the India-Pakistan ceasefire to defend legally questionable tariff policies in federal court represents a troubling precedent for intertwining foreign policy narratives with domestic legal strategies. This approach not only damages international relationships but also undermines the integrity of legal proceedings and democratic institutions.

Conclusion

India's categorical rejection of Trump administration claims linking US tariffs to the India-Pakistan ceasefire represents more than a simple diplomatic disagreement—it reflects fundamental tensions about sovereignty, regional autonomy, and the appropriate limits of great power influence in international affairs. The Indian government's consistent and detailed rebuttals demonstrate its commitment to maintaining accurate historical records and preserving its decision-making autonomy in security matters. The episode reveals the dangers of fabricating diplomatic achievements for domestic political purposes and the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between legitimate trade negotiations and manufactured crisis management narratives.

Agencies