The public sentiment reveals strong skepticism and frustration regarding U.S. trade negotiations, particularly concerning agriculture. Many commenters express a lack of trust in U.S. intentions and a desire to protect Indian farmers from what they view as aggressive and exploitative tactics. There is a consensus that no deal is better than a detrimental compromise, with calls for India to strengthen ties with alternative nations.

India

United States

Donald Trump

I have a massive trade deficit with my grocery store.

Inner_Butterfly1991

How can a poorer country be expected to have a trade deficit with the US especially when the goods the US wants to export to India are mostly more expensive than what can be produced there? There are exceptions (soybean, dairy) and I agree India should lower trade barriers but it also is important for US infotech (both software and, increasingly, hardware) as a supply chain alternative.

After_Olive5924

India is practically our pharmacy.  They supply 40% of our generic medicines.

This will just make medicine even more expensive.

I'd love for more medical manufacturing here, but I'm not too sure this is how you go about it...

ATotalCassegrain

[deleted]

I just had to raise the price of my products by 50% due to the tariff rate.  Man this sucks...

shikodo

Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Trump just negotiate “the greatest” trade agreement ever with India not too long ago?

joe1max

wouldn't it be amazing if there was somebody in the administration that understood trade deficits. 

It would be equally as amazing if there was somebody in the administration with links to America instead of like Russia Qatar and Hungary

Bawbawian

More high tax on goods for the American consumers

One-Sir-2198

I have still yet to hear why trade deficits are a problem…

oe-eo

Does that apply to outsourced tech jobs or just affordable goods (like fruit, spices, clothes, medical stuff...)

Responsible-Car-Golf

Firm_Watercress_4228

It’s going to take decades to repair this damage.

If they are doing business with you you are by definition also doing business with them. It’s a 2 ways street. Why anyone thinks this guy is smart is beyond me

inigos_left_hand

Trade deficits are not inherently bad. Feeding into this moronic trade policy is a part of the problem.

reggers20

India makes as much from scams as they do exporting to the US. If trump wanted to hurt india he could stop h1b and put restrictions on 'call centers'.

PX_Oblivion

I do not care what our trade deficit is with India. Their people have MUCH less disposable income than ours, so obviously they can't buy as much of our stuff as we buy from them. Using tariffs to "solve" this non-issue is just going to end up costing us an absolute shit load of money, and we're getting literally nothing for it

flissfloss86

If India wasn't helping the Russians I'd be more sympathetic

Pappa_Crim

lol what — or maybe it’s because they are poorer then us and labor is cheaper there

dontich

Surprised he hasn't complained about what his base often complains about tbh

Helplessly-Aimless

The United States runs an aggregate annual SURPLUS with India. The administration is misinformed. Looking at one line item - merchandise goods - and basing punitive economic policy on that basis isn't in any way how you do things. 

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gz02SySbAAADNx4?format=jpg&amp;name=large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gz02SySbAAADNx4?format=jpg&amp;name=large) 

https://preview.redd.it/0gzsi0e38tmf1.jpeg?width=1236&amp;format=pjpg&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=13c3305745de92c4a704f58a9c5d4ec6469115ed

hampsten

I think you are sane-washing Trump's extreme behavior by framing this as a US-India trade war.  This is a US-world trade war.  It is utterly foolish and has already done long-term damage to US hegemony.  Every country on Earth now knows we might elect a psycho every four years, who could renege on trade deals they JUST made and effectively defunct military alliances on a whim.

AutoManoPeeing

Now shut down H1B and H2B from India.  Then tarrif outsourcing 200%.

Jon_Galt1

Why is it a problem that they sell stuff, if they have stuff that we want?  If it benefits us to get those things.  If we want to sell more stuff to them. . : I guess we just need to have more that they want?

Gogs85

The foreign companies with offices in India are not being factored in. Many of those are just outsourcing centers masquerading as for profit businesses. Estimates are upwards of 1,000,000 employed in these outsourcing centers run by American subsidiaries.

Technical-Art4989

Compromise would be India removing all the tariffs on US imports other than predetermined areas like agriculture and dairy products.

Positive-Ad1859

U.S. goods exports to India in 2024 were $41.5 billion, U.S. goods imports from India in 2024 totaled $87.3 billion

musicman651

Buddy how have u not figured out that a trade deficit is not a bad thing for a first world country. First world nations import more than exported. If we do this our dollar gets devalued and we enter a stagflate economy. Say bye bye to the jobs market.

Sweenybeans

Emergency_Panic6121

Even if the U.S. is India’s biggest export market, India has never been a huge part of the global economy that was initiated by the U.S. During the cold war because India was softly in the Soviet sphere of influence (they weren’t exactly fans of the U.K. or Australia after they became independent).

As a result India can more easily weather U.S. tariffs and even sanctions if it comes to it.  It doesn’t seriously impact the U.S. to impose tariffs on India like it does China either because the U.S. isn’t as heavily reliant on good from India as it is China.

However there would certainly be a number of sizeable businesses in India which will suffer together with a few in the U.S. who are more heavily reliant on specific goods from India.  If we’re talking about the Tariffs being inflicted due to India’s oil trade with Russia, it’s not necessarily a big difference for India to seek oil from the Middle East and other countries instead, if they think it’s better than putting up with the Tariffs. Though India might just double down on trade with Russia rather than put up with U.S. influence.

SpinzACE

Trade wars are stupid and usually only have losers.

TheMikeyMac13

Clearly not written by Trumplestiltskin, too few caps lock moments.

He and his advisers have no clue how international trade works.  Good luck getting it to balance at the level of individual countries.  Oh wait, it’s supposed to have a positive balance for the US at the country level.  As if that wouldn’t have some major economic impacts.🙄

Postulative

Trade deficits are meaningless as a statistic without greater context, and aren't really a negative indicator. The way they've been reported by the Trump have been misleading by doing things by ignoring the sale of services and focusing exclusively on goods.

2407s4life

middlequeue

I mean, good are immaterial… India sells services

Sleep_adict

Trump didn't write this. It's not stupid.

SourceBrilliant4546

Trade deficits are only a concern to the economically illiterate.

BigoteMexicano

I don’t understand how heartless you have to be to attack a poverty-stricken country like this.

EyeraGlass

By that logic I do no business with the grocery store because I never sell anything to my grocery store.

It's stupid but that's fascist you voted for I guess.

Talzon70

I don't think about it. It's trivial. 

That being said, India maintains strong barriers to access their market in order to leverage exports and protect local producers in order to promote growth. America has effectively been subsidizing the Indian economy. It's technically not fair trade.

But, again, it is trivial. It isn't egregious like China, and India isn't openly hostile, like China.

dogsiwm

In my opinion. 

The US is too reliant on Indian pharmaceuticals. For that alone I hope the trade war causes either diversification or bringing such production back to the US.

Militarily, they would be a better regional ally than Pakistan even though they are just as crazy, but they have made their bed with russia for decades at this point. Considering they help russia get around sanctions, this is another reason to target them economically. 

Whether this actually works or has even some of the intended effects, I dont know, and I doubt our politicians have the political willpower to follow it to any useful conclusion.

trinalgalaxy

Real leverage on India isnt trade-its H1-B’s. To get India to cooperate we have to squeeze them on that.

Compoundeyesseeall

No way trump wrote this.He could never understand how to use the word ponder in a sentence.

xaviery777

Trade deficits are not an aspect of trade wars. Deficits are a normal aspect of trade. It is practically impossible to avoid them. If you trade, there will be a deficit.

If you want to export more than you import, then do so. Make more stuff and sell it. This is not a "war".

Kris40000

We need tariffs on India to stop outsourcing. So for once, this is a good thing. Assuming it sticks.

Miserable_Corgi_764

India is poor American goods are expensive most Indians can't buy them.

thebigmanhastherock

Its not about the money, it's about sending a message.  With us or against us. India is officially against the western world now. Just like Russia and China

b4stoner

Protectionism has been done before, but putting tariffs on goods that allow you to produce stuff, E.G. steel and copper is so obviously misguided.

CheeseMilkerr

What he does not conveniently state is a lot of US consumer goods and tech companies make a lot of revenue from India- the market. 
 Ofcourse it is also true that US Tech companieswere responsible for the growth of the Indian economy phenomenally from the late 80s/early 90s due to the outsourcing.

Leo080671

I’m so tired of being oppressed by my local businesses. I’m constantly giving them money for things that I don’t have the time or skills to produce myself and I get noth…. Oh wait nope nevermind that’s just like like… how buying stuff you want works. 

MAGA is brain dead.

Aggressive_Arm_6297

India shouldn’t be charging the US high tariffs. This is obvious.

MsterF

We dont do business with them, but they do it with us?

Jaxraged

Trump always sees everything as a zero sum game- I.e. I win, you lose kind of situation. So to force nations into a disproportional trade deal that overwhelmingly favors the US that he can sell to his voter base. 

One of the big holdup in the trade deal is : agriculture and dairy.  Trump has no regard for India’s redlines on agriculture or dairy sectors, cannot care less for the developmental imperatives that form the fulcrum of India’s economic policies, and seeks New Delhi to commit to zero tariffs for American goods in exchange for high double-digit levy on Indian exports to the US. It is none of Trump’s concern, for instance, that India has zero appetite for genetically modified American agricultural crops, and zero tolerance for American dairy products fed on blood meal because a vast majority of Hindu Indians are vegetarians

hinterstoisser

Despite being one of the few pro US voices in Indian subreddits, deep down I always knew the US was not a truly reliable partner. Still, I hoped the relationship would improve and strengthen over the long term(because of common Chinese threat). But Trump has dragged it under the ocean for good. This damage feels irreversible.

Generations of Indian youths who will be future policymakers and politicians, will remember this betrayal. The trust deficit created now will shape how India approaches its foreign policy for decades to come.

This trade drama is just the surface. In my opinion, a lot has happened in the past 2–3 months, both publicly and behind the scenes, that has led to the current mess.

Guess India should improve ties with China for good instead of trying to mend ties with US. Democrats or Republicans there is no certainty who will backstab India in future.

AIM-120-AMRAAM

It appears the Indian negotiators were far too naive and optimistic, the American negotiators were far too greedy and in the end Trump nuked the negotiating table when he decided he wouldn't be getting the kind of announcement he wanted.

From various articles, the sequence of events that led to this seems to be:

1. In July, India offered to essentially meet the Americans halfway with immediate concessions on 40% of American industrial exports and gradually some consumer products. They also offered $25 billion of American oil purchases. With Trump announcing a 'big deal with India' they actually believed he was satisfied and would at least give them an interim trade deal.

2. On the American side, Trump and his advisors wanted nothing less than an announcement that India would open up most or all of its economy *and* pledge $350 billion or more(comparable to South Korea, Japan and the EU) of US purchases.

3. When it was clear that India wasn't going to offer that much Trump brought up the Russian oil import(which he previously didn't care about) to tighten the vice on India. The announcement on 25% tariffs is meant to go into effect immediately but the one on 50% is intentionally timed for 2 weeks in the future in order to pressure India to surrender.

This is reminding me of Trump's first attempt at a trade war, with China, when tariffs were going up to 100%, 200% and so on. He seems to have realised that India would be a much softer target for this kind of offensive.

Meanwhile, the indications are that the current 'truce' where tariffs on China are only at 30% will be extended, even though the US has far more reason to resent China on all fronts than India. Probably because of their leverage on rare earth minerals, their willingless to bribe Trump's cronies, and Trump's preference for dictators.

1-randomonium

I would agree with the article if this was between two professional negotiating teams.  
The problem is I doubt even the White house knows what tariff Trump will impose next.

India had recently signed trade deals with Australia and the UK and we are close to signing   
one with the EU. There were similar problems of India allowing access to agricultural products and dairy. There was no way we could agree to US demands when we said no to others (and our interlocutors understood our sensitivities). The deals with the UK and Australia were signed with give and take on both sides. 

The premise behind trade deals is that both sides seek to strengthen trade by removing bottlenecks, acting within WTO commitments and with compromise on both sides. A trade deal is not a mafia style shakedown. The Indian public was riled not just by Trump making repeated references to stopping the war, but hosting the Pak army chief (not the elected head of state) after the latter appeared at a state funeral of US &amp; UN designated terrorists and reiterating Pakistan's support for terror groups. He also referred to India being a dead economy, which is inaccurate when we are the 3rd largest in the world (in PPP) and the fastest growing in the G-20. 

I don't see any statement from Japan, South Korea or Vietnam where they have agreed to the terms Trump says the have. There is a similar lack of clarity over the terms of the EU-US deal.

Dean_46

Basically, Trump wanted India to kiss the ring and confirm to the world that they kissed the ring.

curiousstrider

SS

After five rounds of trade negotiations, Indian officials were so confident of securing a favourable deal with the United States that they even signalled to the media that tariffs could be capped at 15%.
Indian officials expected U.S. President Donald Trump to announce the deal himself weeks before the August 1 deadline. The announcement never came.

New Delhi is now left with the surprise imposition of a 25% tariff on Indian goods from Friday, along with unspecified penalties over oil imports from Russia, while Trump has closed larger deals with Japan and the EU, and even offered better terms to arch-rival Pakistan.
Interviews with four Indian government officials and two U.S. government officials revealed previously undisclosed details of the proposed deal and an exclusive account of how negotiations collapsed despite technical agreements on most issues.

The officials on both sides said a mix of political misjudgment, missed signals and bitterness broke down the deal between the world's biggest and fifth-largest economies, whose bilateral trade is worth over $190 billion.
The White House, the U.S. Trade Representative office, and India's Prime Minister's Office, along with the External Affairs and Commerce ministries, did not respond to emailed requests for comment.
India believed that after visits by Indian Trade Minister Piyush Goyal to Washington and U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance to Delhi, it had made a series of deal-clinching concessions.
New Delhi was offering zero tariffs on industrial goods that formed about 40% of U.S. exports to India, two Indian government officials told Reuters.

Despite domestic pressure, India would also gradually lower tariffs on U.S. cars and alcohol with quotas and accede to Washington's main demand of higher energy and defence imports from the U.S., the officials said.
"Most differences were resolved after the fifth round in Washington, raising hopes of a breakthrough," one of the officials said, adding negotiators believed the U.S. would accommodate India's reluctance on duty-free farm imports and dairy products from the U.S.
It was a miscalculation. Trump saw the issue differently and wanted more concessions.
"A lot of progress was made on many fronts in India talks, but there was never a deal that we felt good about," said one White House official.

"We never got to what amounted to a full deal - a deal that we were looking for."


OVER-CONFIDENCE AND MISCALCULATION


Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who visited Washington in February, agreed to target a deal by fall 2025, and more than double bilateral trade to $500 billion by 2030.
To bridge the $47 billion goods trade gap, India pledged to buy up to $25 billion in U.S. energy and boost defence imports.

But officials now admit India grew overconfident after Trump talked up a "big" imminent deal, taking it as a signal that a favourable agreement was in hand. New Delhi then hardened its stance, especially on agriculture and dairy, two highly sensitive areas for the Indian government.

"We are one of the fastest growing economies, and the U.S. can't ignore a market of 1.4 billion," one Indian official involved in the negotiations said in mid-July.

Negotiators even pushed for relief from the 10% average U.S. tariff announced in April, plus a rollback of steel, aluminium and auto duties.



Later, India scaled back expectations after the U.S. signed trade deals with key partners including Japan, and the European Union, hoping it could secure a similar 15% tariff rate with fewer concessions.

That was unacceptable to the White House. "Trump wanted a headline-grabbing announcement with broader market access, investments and large purchases," said a Washington-based source familiar with the talks.
An Indian official acknowledged New Delhi wasn't ready to match what others offered.

South Korea, for example, struck a deal just before Trump's August 1 deadline, securing a 15% rate instead of 25% by offering $350 billion in investments, higher energy imports, and concessions on rice and beef.

This range plot displays U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff rates or the most recent previously announced or threatened tariff rates for the U.S.'s top trading partners on Aug. 1, 2025.

This range plot displays U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff rates or the most recent previously announced or threatened tariff rates for the U.S.'s top trading partners on Aug. 1, 2025.


COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN

"At one point, both sides were very close to signing the deal," said Mark Linscott, a former U.S. Trade Representative who now works for a lobby group that is close to the discussions between the two nations.
"The missing component was a direct line of communication between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi."
A White House official strongly disputed this, noting other deals had been resolved without such intervention.
An Indian government official involved in the talks said Modi could not have called, fearing a one-sided conversation with Trump that could put him on the spot.

However, the other three Indian officials said Trump's repeated remarks about mediating the India-Pakistan conflict further strained negotiations and contributed to Modi not making a final call.

"Trump's remarks on Pakistan didn't go down well," one of them said. "Ideally, India should have acknowledged the U.S. role while making it clear the final call was ours."

A senior Indian government official blamed the collapse on poor judgment, saying top Indian advisers mishandled the process.

"We lacked the diplomatic support needed after the U.S. struck better deals with Vietnam, Indonesia, Japan and the EU," the official said.
"We're now in a crisis that could have been avoided."
Trump said on Tuesday he would increase the tariff on imports from India from the current rate of 25% "very substantially" over the next 24 hours and alleged that New Delhi's purchases of Russian oil were "fuelling the war" in Ukraine.
WAY FORWARD
Talks are ongoing, with a U.S. delegation expected in Delhi later this month and Indian government officials still believe the deal can be salvaged from here.
"It's still possible," one White House official said.
The Indian government is re-examining areas within the farm and dairy sectors where concessions can be made, the fourth official said. On Russian oil, India could reduce some purchases in favour of U.S. supplies if pricing is matched.
"It likely will require direct communication between the prime minister and the president," said Linscott.
"Pick up the phone. Right now, we are in a lose-lose. But there is real potential for a win-win trade deal."

I think it is a direct impact from the border skirmish earlier in May. The series of fights basically proves that India has no proper means to keep that subcontinent in order. Pakistan, indeed, is much inferior in military power, but it can pose significant threat and damage to India.

TBH, the capability of planning and execution shown by India in that air fight is very much impressive. I dare to say, except US, no NATO country can properly plan and execute an aerial raid with over 70 jet fighters in four to five fronts. But the loss is still unbelievable, and someone or something must be held accountable.

For India, they really don't think that is their fault since they have demonstrated their execution beautifully. PAF has some weapon systems from China, what could India do without F-35A and EA-18G? Nothing.

However, for US, they really cannot admit that China is getting edge on military equipment over NATO, otherwise the confidence within NATO will collapse. 

That is a deadlock for Modi and Trump. They both want the other side to admit something that is one stone away from political, even biological suicide, and of course, they cannot agree on any deals.

Glory4cod

Thanks for posting to r/libertarianmeme! Remember to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/libertarianmeme/wiki/index/). Join the discord community on [Liberty Guild](https://discord.gg/J4WZQVXGzh) and our channel on telegram at  t(dot)me/Chudzone. We hope you enjoy!

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/libertarianmeme) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

I wouldn't say the government is "sending" labor to the US - brain drain is a huge problem in India and the government wants them to stay home, not work with H1B visas in the US

k0unitX

Tarrifs are an aggression against the individuals who participate in trade across borders.

India does not "take advantage" of the US. 

Collectivist, economically illiterate nonsense.

Medical_Flower2568

We can’t accept GM crops or US dairy. It is bad for our health and economy. Time to ditch US dollar and move towards integrating bricks-pay

SeparateNet9451

Don't accept GM seeds. Indian farmers will become indentured servant to Monsanto. India needs to have it's own seeds for crops.

Certain-Bath8037

Someone ban this bot already it's always in my feed

Klutzy_Environment13

It's good that we've taken a stand against the US bullying. These sectors are very sensitive in India.

We have a million issues but our relative food quality has been one of our strengths. Do not let it go away by the entry of US into these sectors.

Square-Care5643

damian_wayne_13335

Trump ko bitcoin ka koi piramid scheme samjhao. Pura hi pagal ho gaya hai ye. Iske rahte kuch nahi hoga aab. Dusre term me ye sathiya gaya hai.

Ray_Binod

The shit monsanto pulls needs to be kept far away from here. 
No need for FDI in these sectors.

Archersharp162

utl94_nordviking

There are a lot of conflicting reports regarding this matter. Earlier today there was a report that the deal is progressing, and some officials have extended their stay to iron out the details before the leaders could finally give their approval.

Don't know which report to trust, however, there's no doubt that if there's a choke point in the negotiations, it'll be agri and genetically modified crops.

Reelthusiast

Check out r/ShareMarketupdates for this type of post daily

mohityadavv

India needs to open out the markets completely. Socialist protectionist measures hurt our own output in the long run. We can’t be globally competitive if we keep trying to shelter inefficiencies in our agricultural sector.

People say small farmer will be hurt and if not done properly that’s true. The freemarket demands economies of scale and farming on smaller pieces of land is just not economically viable. However there is a secret weapon India has been holding onto but not using for decades now. Cooperatives. Like Amul. We need more of them to help the small farmer. They seem more effective than unions and give the small farmers an actual standing in the competitive market.

In the process of trying to protect small farmers in the short run, we are also not using the same land and other finite resources to produce the maximum yield. The farmers are also under great pressure due to harvest uncertainty. Perhaps a collection cooperative that they pool all their land into and work for in return of a fixed respectable wage would be a better way to go forward. The cooperative will be owned solely by the farmers and no one else (like Amul is now). The farmers get predictable income, the cooperative has better ability to shield against downturns, negotiate with government, sell direct to the market, get cheap financing, and also employ economies of scale for greater yield. At the end of the day, any left over profits are to be used for expansion of the same mission or returned to the farmers who own the cooperative and also comprise of the bulk of its labour force.

One thing people usually look over when trying to protect local agricultural markets from the US is that if the US is producing something for cheaper than India despite the higher costs of labour over there then India should not produce that thing and rather produce more of what’s more economically viable and more profitable. This would be markets at work.

If we don’t go cooperative route and simply open blindly, then small farmers will be destroyed by the free markets and you’d see more farming companies (think llps and limited companies) pop up who will buy the farmer’s land for pennies on the dollar and then use globally competitive methods to increase yield and produce what’s profitable.

UnoptimizedStudent

As an Indian, that ship has sailed again and will not be back in port for a couple of decades at least.


The young generation in India was the most pro-US in the world until a few months ago. They would roll their eyes at older generations warnings about the US and advice from the cold war times to hold firm to Russia and about how the US was unreliable.


 Now their warnings have borne out. Trust has evaporated completely for a country that can change its policy so suddenly without any rhyme or reason. Not the tariffs per se (that's just trade negotiation) but the kind of language and accusations used recently have destroyed this relationship.


General feeling is India should continue to value its trade relationship with the US. But there's no affection any more, the US is no longer seen as a friend or even reliable defence partner.


India's future now is seen in mending fences with China and going back to strict neutrality. Step back from cozying up to the US or playing any role in the US effort to restrain China in the Pacific. 


Not sure how the Chinese managed to do it, maybe it was their crypto honeypot in Pakistan that the emperor has invested in. But they have successfully changed the global geopolitics equation without a single bullet. Pretty amazing achievement!

Historical-Edge851

Yeah, but wouldn't an alliance with China also deter "reckless adventurism"? Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean? 

The mental gymnastics these people want everyone to go through to see China bad US good is amazing.

Tzilbalba

https://preview.redd.it/pytt2m5y9cnf1.jpeg?width=800&amp;format=pjpg&amp;auto=webp&amp;s=a4826d9406e804d32e9769bd421672b46f5aca8e

Sure_Group7471

Meanwhile India is signing deals with the US allies.

andherBilla

Indeed, India choosing the greater of two evils.

h2ohow

Trump should've  just tried to annex Indian territory like China

InterestingList6729

India's agriculture minister emphasizes the need to protect farmers' interests amid ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S., amidst tensions over tariffs.

India-US Trade Relations and Agriculture

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want