At an Asia Society gathering in New York, held alongside the UN General Assembly, Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar outlined his assessment of the relationship between India and the United States. He characterised the United States as unresponsive on counterterrorism matters, drew attention to its deepening relationship with Pakistan, and cited trade policies favouring wealthier nations at the expense of developing economies.

Observers describe the tone as reflecting a shift in how India is approaching its relationship with the Trump administration, amid growing friction between the two countries. Over many years, India has tended to address contentious matters with partner nations through diplomatic channels rather than in public. India has pursued a comparable strategy in its ties with the United States, a relationship that has generally drawn backing from both major political parties.

Following months of diplomatic friction, India has shifted toward a more forthright posture in its dealings with the United States, reflecting concerns over unpredictability in the current administration's approach to foreign policy. This shift coincides with a period in which Prime Minister Narendra Modi has faced growing domestic scrutiny and opposition pressure over what critics describe as concessions to the United States.

On Wednesday, Modi held a telephone conversation with Trump, describing it as "productive" — notably more measured language than his previous characterisation of the US president as a "good friend." Chatham House researcher Chietigj Bajpaee described Jaishankar's remarks as offering a candid assessment of the current India-US relationship, adding that the initial optimism many in India held towards a second Trump administration appeared to have faded.

Addressing the Asia Society gathering, Jaishankar observed that the India-US relationship, viewed in broader context, had proven less fraught than many other nations' ties with Washington, describing that as a reality rather than a source of comfort. Trade has remained a point of tension between the two countries. The United States stands as India's foremost trading partner, with two-way goods exchanges totalling $149.1 billion in 2025, though the trade balance favours India by $58.4 billion on the goods side.

Jaishankar called on nations to move beyond narrow self-interest, arguing that the economic ripple effects of the conflicts in Iran and Ukraine demanded that countries apply practical judgment to avoid neglecting the fundamental needs of others. Discussing bilateral trade negotiations, Jaishankar pointed to the per capita disparity between the two nations and the divergent nature of their production systems and social structures, noting that agriculture had remained a deeply contested area as India maintained protections for its farming sector.

He observed that the anticipated pace of progress had encountered more complex realities on the ground, while also conveying that a broad understanding on a trade agreement had taken shape. This comes as India had previously been among the nations subject to some of the highest tariff rates introduced under the Trump administration. Following a ruling by the US Supreme Court that invalidated the broad tariff measures, the administration put forward a new flat-rate levy of 10 percent applied across all trading partners.

Legislation enacted by Trump earlier this month allows the US to levy tariffs of as much as 100 percent on nations, including India, that buy oil from Russia. Ajay Bisaria, a former diplomat who held postings as high commissioner to Canada and Pakistan and as ambassador to Poland, told a television news outlet that India had chosen to respond more openly to public discourse because of widespread perception that the United States was applying undue pressure on India while India remained publicly quiet. He further noted that the proposed 100 percent tariff on India, set to take effect within weeks, represented a potential obstacle to the bilateral relationship.

The strain between the two nations traced back to May of the prior year, when a four-day military confrontation broke out following a militant assault in the Kashmir territory administered by India that left 26 civilians dead. Trump declared a ceasefire, stating that he had warned both nations of potential economic consequences unless hostilities ceased. Since then, he has repeatedly asserted that he was responsible for negotiating the ceasefire. Pakistan's leadership worked to build a rapport with Trump, offering public endorsements and putting his name forward for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Jaishankar described terrorism as a top priority, noting that few nations had faced the sustained, state-directed threat India had endured from a neighbouring country over many decades, and added that Washington had yet to fully recognise these concerns. Bisaria characterised New Delhi's more assertive approach as a position shaped by accumulated experience.

Following the ceasefire dispute, Harsh Pant, vice president of the Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi-based think tank, noted that the Trump administration's focus on Pakistan without accounting for India's concerns had fuelled a desire to openly articulate those differences, adding that an absence of reciprocity at the highest level leads to shifting calculations and a push to bring disagreements into the public domain. Meanwhile, Indian nationals have been among the largest recipients of H1B visas, though application costs and restrictions have been tightened under the Trump administration amid opposition from within his own political base. Jaishankar noted that freedom of movement had long been viewed primarily through the lens of economic benefit.

Bisaria noted that Modi faces domestic political pressure ahead of upcoming state elections, which means the government cannot be seen as acquiescing to coercive treatment from the United States. Pant observed that issues such as migration affect ordinary Indians directly, and that public attitudes toward the United States are shifting, with the government now giving voice to that sentiment openly.

Following Trump's return to the White House for a second term, analysts within India's strategic establishment expressed cautious optimism regarding the prospects for ties between the two nations. Bajpaee noted that notwithstanding the growing divisions, neither party had abandoned efforts to restore bilateral ties, adding that the deterioration in India-US relations reflected the Trump administration's transactional and at times unpredictable approach to foreign policy. Bajpaee added that the development could open a pathway toward an eventual normalisation of the relationship.

Pant noted that New Delhi's position amounted to waiting for Trump's term to run its course, and observed that other nations appeared to share that stance, with the conclusion of a bilateral trade agreement serving as a key indicator to monitor. Trump has shown a pattern of departing from established diplomatic protocols and accepted standards of interstate conduct. Pant questioned how one is supposed to manage a person like that.