E-Paper
'Trump's trade strategy more coercive, extractive': Expert flags risks in India-US trade framework
The United States and India have finalised a framework for an “interim agreement” on reciprocal and mutually beneficial trade.
Strategic affairs expert Brahma Chellaney has mounted a sharp critique of the India–US trade deal, arguing that it reflects what he describes as US President Donald Trump’s increasingly “coercive and extractive” approach to trade diplomacy.
In a strongly worded assessment, Chellaney said the agreement is part of a pattern in which Washington leverages its market power to secure large-scale commitments from partner countries, often at the cost of skewing bilateral trade balances.
“The trade deal with India adds another feather to Trump’s extractive cap. His weaponized trade strategy — after extracting U.S.-investment commitments of $550 billion from Japan, $350 billion from South Korea and $70 billion from Malaysia — has now coerced India into pledging $500 billion in imports of American products over the next five years, as the newly released joint statement makes clear,” Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in Delhi, wrote on X.
The United States and India have finalised a framework for an “interim agreement” on reciprocal and mutually beneficial trade, the White House announced late night on Saturday, February 6. The framework marks a formal breakthrough after nearly a year of negotiations between the two countries and brings down the US imposed tariffs to 18 per cent.
“But unlike export-oriented East and Southeast Asian economies, India is an import-dependent economy whose growth rests primarily on domestic consumption. With total U.S.-India bilateral goods trade at just $132.13 billion in 2025, forcing India to import roughly $100 billion a year from the United States would not merely skew the bilateral relationship — it could, without a dramatic jump in Indian exports, nearly double India’s overall merchandise trade deficit to around $200 billion,” he added.
“Trump has thus once again demonstrated that his trade strategy is more coercive and extractive than even China’s Belt and Road Initiative. By targeting weaker Asian partners, Trump is using U.S. market access not as leverage but as a blunt instrument of economic coercion".
Also Read | 'India is self-sufficient': No import benefits given to US for agricultural products, says Goyal
Chidambaram on India-US trade framework
Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram has questioned the India–US trade framework, arguing that what has been announced is neither an interim agreement and “framework for an interim agreement” is opaque, tilted heavily in favour of the United States, and raises serious concerns about tariff asymmetry and the real extent of India’s commitments.
“It is not even an Interim Agreement. It is a 'framework for an interim agreement'. Paragraph 2 and the various bullet points make the framework deal so opaque that unless one reads and analyses the Orders of the United States dated 2-4-2025, 5-9-2025, 8-3-2018. 30-7-2025 and 17-5-2019, it is not possible to understand the exact nature of the commitments undertaken by the US,” Senior Congress leader P Chidambaram wrote on X.
"One thing is clear: the framework deal is heavily tilted in favour of the U.S. and the asymmetry is obvious. nFor example, while India will eliminate or reduce tariffs on all U.S. industrial goods and a wide range of food and agricultural products, the U.S. will impose a tariff of 18 per cent on goods originating from India. These goods will include textiles, leather goods, organic chemicals etc. and the U.S. will remove the tariff only upon a 'successful conclusion of the Interim Agreement'
U.S. tariffs on steel, copper and aluminium will apparently continue except on certain aircraft and aircraft parts. The ongoing investigation by the U.S. under Section 232 will continue and the framework deal will be subject to that investigation.
How is this 'framework for an Interim Agreement' a matter of celebration?"
