India and the United States share deep ties rooted in democratic values, increasing trade, and strong people-to-people connections. India must adapt its foreign policy to stay flexible, independent, and open to opportunities as global power shifts and President Donald Trump leads a second term marked by unilateral decisions. The United States remains a vital partner, but New Delhi needs to understand clearly: in Washington today, long-term alliances give way to transactional, interest-driven diplomacy.
The Trump Doctrine: Transactional and Unilateral
President Trump’s administration has redefined U.S. foreign engagement by shifting away from multilateral frameworks and traditional alliance structures. The focus is on direct negotiations, national self-interest, and short-term gains. In this context, diplomacy has become less predictable and more centralized within the executive branch, often bypassing institutional procedures and bipartisan consensus.
This approach has produced mixed results worldwide. Some allies have voiced concerns about reduced coordination, while others have adapted by focusing on specific interests that align with the administration’s priorities—such as security cooperation, trade balances, and symbolic acts of loyalty. For India, the key is to engage productively without sacrificing its strategic independence.
Strategic Openings: Engage on Common Ground
India should identify clear areas where its interests align with the current U.S. posture. A limited but meaningful trade agreement focused on:
– Technology transfer and licensing
– Expansion of skilled worker mobility (especially H1B visas)
– Investment facilitation in critical sectors like defence, digital infrastructure, and clean energy can form the basis for a mutually beneficial dialogue. The Trump administration values deals that can be framed as “wins” domestically. India should structure any agreement to emphasise American access to Indian markets, job creation, and reciprocal benefits, while quietly advancing its long-term interests.
A symbolic, high-profile event—such as a military parade in New Delhi during a state visit—could appeal to the administration’s emphasis on optics and public diplomacy. These gestures do not replace substance, but they serve as strategic tools in a relationship increasingly driven by image and performance.
Leveraging the Indian Diaspora
India’s most consistent asset in the U.S. is its diaspora. Indian Americans are influential in business, academia, and, increasingly, in politics. Their upward mobility and bipartisan appeal make them effective informal ambassadors of Indian interests.
New Delhi should strengthen engagement with this community through public diplomacy initiatives, cultural programs, and policy forums. Supporting leadership pipelines, especially in state and federal politics, ensures a more robust foundation for bilateral ties, regardless of the administration in power.
Security Architecture: Managing the Quad and Indo-Pacific Goals
The Indo-Pacific remains an area of overlapping interests. While the Trump administration advocates for a “free and open Indo-Pacific,” its actions have favoured bilateral security ties over collective defence structures. The Quad (comprising India, the U.S., Japan, and Australia) reflects shared concerns about China’s assertiveness; however, the group lacks formal military commitments or a clear operational doctrine. India should continue engaging with the Quad, but with realistic expectations. The framework facilitates strategic dialogue and joint exercises, but does not guarantee support in the event of direct conflict. The U.S. may respond quickly to a crisis involving Australia or maritime threats from China. Still, its commitment to land-based disputes in South Asia—such as those involving India’s northern borders—is less specific. India must focus on strengthening naval cooperation, investing in maritime domain awareness, and developing joint operational readiness with like-minded countries. It should avoid overcommitting to security frameworks that are politically popular but lack structural depth.
Regional Dynamics: Autonomy in South Asia
Regarding Pakistan, the Trump administration has adopted a firm stance by suspending aid and demanding accountability for terrorism. However, American engagement remains sporadic and driven by broader counterterrorism interests. The India–Pakistan relationship is often viewed in the U.S. through a narrow lens focused on crisis management rather than long-term resolution. The belief that this conflict is deeply rooted and complex discourages proactive involvement.
India should anticipate ongoing disengagement from the U.S. on Kashmir and other bilateral disputes. It must assert its position independently while preparing for periodic pressure related to human rights narratives or regional stability concerns.
Assertiveness Is Not Aggression
India’s diplomatic voice must match its stature. European and Scandinavian nations routinely criticise others—including India—on human rights, climate policy, or domestic matters, often in the name of democratic values. They portray these actions as principled stances that align with their political interests and traditions. India has every right to respond with the same clarity. When it articulates its national interests with logic, conviction, and calm strength, it is not being confrontational—it is engaging as an equal. There should be no hesitation or squeamishness in setting the record straight. Diplomacy is not a one-way channel. Of course, diplomacy has boundaries. Personal attacks and undiplomatic language are to be avoided. But red lines matter. When crossed, they must be addressed—not with outrage, but with structured rebuttals that reflect India’s position with firmness and civility. Engaging assertively does not undermine relationships—it preserves mutual respect. As India’s global role expands, so must its willingness to stand its ground, not just with adversaries, but even with allies.
Managing Legacy Ties with Russia
India’s longstanding defence relationship with Russia faces increasing scrutiny in Washington, especially after Russia invaded Ukraine. The Trump administration has shown limited interest in expanding sanctions on India, but the broader U.S. establishment remains cautious about defence cooperation with Moscow.
India must navigate this carefully, honouring existing contracts while diversifying suppliers. Recent acquisitions from the U.S., France, and Israel indicate this shift. Moving forward, India should focus on defence indigenisation and avoid high-profile joint ventures with Russia that could provoke a political backlash in Washington.
China: Assertive Diplomacy, Managed Risk
The Trump administration views China as its main strategic rival and has increased its support for Taiwan, enhanced naval activities in the South China Sea, and challenged China’s trade practices. This opens opportunities for alignment with India, especially on border issues and broader Indo-Pacific relations. At the same time, India should avoid being drawn into an outright anti-China coalition. While it must defend its sovereignty and security, it also needs to keep opportunities for diplomatic dialogue with Beijing. A strategy of deterrence coupled with engagement best serves India’s long-term interests.
Middle East and Energy Security
The Trump administration has maintained close ties with Israel and several Gulf states while taking a tough stance on Iran. India, which depends on Middle Eastern energy and hosts millions of expatriates in the Gulf, must be careful. Although India has reduced oil imports from Iran due to U.S. sanctions, it should continue to pursue economic engagement where possible, including developing the Chabahar Port. At the same time, India must avoid becoming entangled in regional power struggles—particularly the rising tensions between Israel and Turkey or the U.S. and Iran—by keeping its diplomacy focused on specific issues and results.
Vice President J.D. Vance and Institutional Engagement
Even within a personalised administration, figures like Vice President J.D. Vance offer a more structured approach to policy. His understanding of manufacturing, trade, and cultural ties could support a deeper India–U.S. relationship if properly cultivated. Engaging across institutions—including Congress, federal agencies, and state-level actors—remains critical for India’s long-term engagement strategy.
Recommended Actions for India’s Balanced Stance: –
· Negotiate Targeted Trade Agreements
· Focus on technology, digital services, and skilled labour mobility.
· Frame outcomes in terms that appeal to U.S. domestic narratives (jobs, investment).
· Strengthen Maritime Defence Ties
· Prioritise naval collaboration with the U.S., Australia, and Japan.
· Build capacity in the Indian Ocean without forming rigid alliances.
· Empower the Diaspora as Strategic Intermediaries
· Invest in outreach, education, and leadership programs for Indian-Americans.
· Diversify Defence Procurement
· Shift away from dependence on Russia while ramping up indigenous capabilities.
· Maintain Diplomatic Space with China and Iran
· Avoid provocative alignments while asserting national security interests.
· Respond to Western Criticism with Clarity and Dignity
· Engage on equal terms with Europe and uphold India’s sovereign voice without diplomatic reticence.
· Engage Proactively at the State and Congressional Levels in the U.S.
· Build relationships beyond the White House for stability across administrations.
Conclusion:
India’s foreign policy should be guided by clarity, restraint, and strategic calculation. In the current era of U.S. unilateralism, the key is to engage wisely—aligning when interests overlap, avoiding dependence, and preserving strategic space. Assertiveness, not aggression, must characterise India’s diplomatic stance—especially when facing unsolicited criticism from allies. By adopting a long-term approach—investing in its economy, defence, and diplomacy—India can sustain its growth while adapting to a changing global order.