US President Donald Trump’s repeated claims of brokering peace between India and Pakistan following their four-day military clash in May 2025 have ignited significant controversy and divergent narratives from the countries involved.

During multiple public statements, Trump has asserted he was instrumental in resolving the conflict, suggesting that he leveraged the prospect of trade deals to force a de-escalation and prevent what he described as the risk of “a tremendous nuclear conflict.”

He specifically mentioned both leaders coming together “just prior” to nuclear escalation and made reference to five or six military planes being shot down during the confrontation. Trump also cited his peace efforts in the decades-long Azerbaijan-Armenia fight, positioning himself as a global peacemaker.

In the wake of the conflict, Pakistan publicly endorsed Trump’s account and praised his intervention. The government formally recommended Trump for the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, highlighting his “decisive diplomatic intervention and pivotal leadership” in defusing the high-stakes situation. This nomination was supported by senior Pakistani officials, and Pakistan’s Army Chief Asim Munir met with Trump at the White House, further framing the US president as central to the ceasefire.

The reality of the ceasefire paints a more nuanced picture. The hostilities originated from India’s Operation Sindoor, a military response to a terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir on 22 April 2025. Over the subsequent days, missile strikes, drone battles, and border shelling resulted in significant escalation between the two nuclear-armed neighbours, causing concerns about an imminent nuclear exchange.

By 10 May 2025, both sides announced a full and immediate ceasefire after a hotline conversation between their militaries’ Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs). Indian officials have consistently maintained that the ceasefire was arranged bilaterally, without third-party or foreign mediation, and credit the effectiveness of India’s military response and direct communication for compelling Pakistan to halt hostilities.

This view was reinforced by statements from Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, who rejected the notion of US involvement and restated that the resolution was reached via established military channels. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi explicitly declared that no world leader forced India to stop hostilities during Operation Sindoor.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and other American officials, meanwhile, claimed direct role in urging the parties toward peace and described Trump as the “president of peace.” Rubio, alongside Vice President JD Vance, said they had corresponded extensively with both sides, but Indian representatives have pushed back against these characterisations, seeking to preserve the narrative of sovereign decision-making by New Delhi.

The international response to the swift ceasefire included praise from the United Nations and other global actors, and both India and Pakistan resumed commercial flights and other bilateral engagements shortly after the de-escalation.

While Trump and Pakistan have portrayed the US administration’s involvement as decisive in stopping a potential nuclear war, India’s government has repeatedly denied any external mediation, underscoring a longstanding policy against third-party interference in bilateral security affairs.

The ceasefire resulted from direct military-to-military communication amid intense US and regional diplomatic engagement. Trump’s role remains a subject of debate, with his claims gaining traction abroad, particularly in Pakistan, while being firmly refuted by New Delhi’s leadership and official statements.

Based On ANI Report