The reported cancellation of US President Donald Trump’s planned visit to India for the 2025 Quad Summit marks a significant downturn in the once-positive relationship between Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

According to a detailed account published by The New York Times and reported in Indian media, Trump has abandoned his commitment to attend the high-level Indo-Pacific gathering later this year, suggesting deeper tensions in India-US ties.

The unravelling of this bilateral dynamic is being attributed to a mix of personal disagreements, sharp policy differences, and Trump’s controversial insistence on claiming credit for a ceasefire in the brief but intense May 2025 clash between India and Pakistan.

At the heart of the fallout lies Trump’s repeated assertion that he was singularly responsible for brokering peace during "Operation Sindoor," a four-day military escalation between India and Pakistan.

New Delhi has consistently rejected this narrative, making it clear that the ceasefire was achieved through direct communication between the two militaries without foreign mediation.

Prime Minister Modi, known for guarding Indian strategic autonomy, reportedly grew increasingly frustrated with Trump’s attempts to frame himself as the peacemaker, especially given the domestic sensitivity around any foreign involvement in the Kashmir or Pakistan issue.

Matters reached a decisive low point during a June 17 phone call between the two leaders, after the G7 Summit in Canada, when Trump not only repeated his claims but also suggested that Modi should endorse him for the Nobel Peace Prize, mirroring alleged moves by Pakistan. Modi firmly refused, emphasising that the US had no role in the ceasefire. This exchange is described as pivotal in triggering the cooling of personal rapport between the leaders.

The broader context of the strain also emanates from Trump’s economic policies targeting India. Already under fire for imposing punitive tariffs on several countries, Trump singled out India with a sharp 25% levy on its Russian oil imports. While framed as part of Washington’s strategy to economically pressure Moscow, experts quoted in the US press argued that this was less about curbing Russia and more about Trump’s dissatisfaction with Modi’s refusal to toe the American line.

Richard Rossow of the Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that had the aim truly been a policy-driven pressure campaign on Russia, Trump could have sought more comprehensive sanctions on multiple countries.

Instead, the selective targeting of India suggested political frustration, particularly around Modi’s unwillingness to concede ground in trade talks and global diplomatic alignments.

Diplomatic signals underscore how personal the rift has become. Trump is said to have attempted several times to engage Modi via calls and backchannel outreach, but Modi largely refrained from responding, reflecting narrowing space for open dialogue.

The White House itself remained conspicuously silent, avoiding direct acknowledgment of key conversations, while Trump continued to publicly repeat his claims of ending the India-Pakistan clash over forty times.

This disconnect between official lines and Trump’s personal rhetoric further fed distrust in New Delhi. For India, Trump’s insistence on narrating a peacemaker role not only misrepresented ground realities but also risked undermining Modi politically, given the ironclad domestic consensus against any suggestion of third-party mediation in South Asia’s most sensitive geopolitical issue.

The cancellation of Trump’s India visit also casts a shadow on the Quad, a forum designed to deepen strategic and security cooperation among India, the US, Japan, and Australia in countering China’s influence. India, scheduled to host the Summit this year, had viewed Trump’s participation as an opportunity to reaffirm US commitments to the Indo-Pacific partnership.

His deliberate withdrawal, now linked to frustrations with Modi, sends an ambiguous signal about Washington’s commitment and complicates India’s leadership role in the grouping. It also raises concerns about how much Trump’s personal calculations and pursuit of accolades—such as the Nobel Prize—are shaping what should be strategic long-term diplomacy.

A telling feature of this episode is how quickly personal chemistry between the two leaders appears to have soured. In Trump’s first term, he and Modi were seen projecting close camaraderie, including highly visible events such as "Howdy Modi" in Houston and "Namaste Trump" in Ahmedabad.

However, Trump’s fixation on credit for geopolitical breakthroughs, his unpredictable use of tariffs as leverage, and his expectation of reciprocal political endorsements appear to have clashed with Modi’s carefully crafted image as a strong, independent leader.

The personal breakdown has now spilled into the official sphere, with implications not just for bilateral ties but also for India’s balancing role between the US, Russia, and China.

In conclusion, the unravelling of Trump-Modi relations ahead of the Quad Summit highlights the fragility of leader-driven diplomacy when it is overexposed to personal egos and domestic political sensitivities. Where once the relationship embodied a model of populist leaders leveraging their bond for geopolitical advantage, it is now beset by mistrust and unmet expectations.

With Trump choosing to punish India economically and diplomatically while Modi resists external pressures, the situation may mark the most serious rift in India-US ties since the early 2000s.

As the Quad Summit approaches, uncertainty surrounds whether this tension will remain a temporary personal fallout or evolve into a longer-term drift in strategic cooperation between New Delhi and Washington.

Based On TOI Report