In a candid interview on the popular All-In Podcast, US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick dropped a bombshell about the stalled bilateral trade negotiations between the United States and India. According to Lutnick, a lucrative trade deal that would have offered India highly favorable terms fell apart in early 2025 simply because Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not personally call President Donald Trump to close it.
Lutnick described the Trump administration’s unique “staircase” approach to trade deals. Under this strategy, the first countries to finalize agreements receive the most advantageous terms. Each subsequent deal builds on the previous one, moving “up and to the right”—meaning later negotiators face progressively tougher conditions. India, Lutnick claimed, was positioned at the front of the line and was offered the best possible rates early in the process.
Everything was ready, he said. Negotiators had hammered out the details, and all that remained was a leader-level phone call. “It’s all set up,” Lutnick recounted telling the Indian side. “You’ve got to have Modi call the President.” Yet, for reasons he described as discomfort on India’s part, the call never happened. Three weeks passed. In that window, the US finalized agreements with Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam, and others at higher tariff rates—terms less favorable to those nations but more beneficial to American interests.
When India later circled back, hoping to revive the original offer, Lutnick says the window had closed. “Are you ready for the train that left the station three weeks ago?” he reportedly asked Indian officials. The sweeter deal was no longer available.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs quickly rejected Lutnick’s version of events as “inaccurate.” Spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal pointed out that Prime Minister Modi and President Trump spoke by phone eight times in 2025 alone, discussing various aspects of the bilateral partnership. Indian officials emphasized that negotiations have been complex and ongoing, with both sides coming close to an agreement on multiple occasions. They insist the characterization of a single missed call derailing the process does not reflect reality.
The trade talks have indeed been strained for years. Key sticking points include US demands for greater access to India’s protected dairy and agricultural markets—sectors politically sensitive in India due to the influence of farmers and rural voters. India has long resisted opening these areas, citing the need to protect domestic producers. Meanwhile, Washington has repeatedly highlighted India’s substantial trade surplus with the US, which stood at around $36 billion in recent estimates, as well as India’s high tariffs on American goods like motorcycles, automobiles, and certain agricultural products.
The breakdown has already had consequences. In 2025, President Trump imposed steep tariffs on Indian exports, reaching as high as 50% on many goods—the highest rate applied to any major trading partner. These measures were partly retaliatory, including penalties linked to India’s continued purchases of Russian oil despite Western sanctions. The higher duties have raised costs for Indian exporters and complicated supply chains in sectors like textiles, pharmaceuticals, and steel.
Lutnick’s remarks shine a rare light on the personal dynamics at the highest levels of diplomacy. While trade negotiations are typically framed around economic data, tariffs, and market access, his account suggests that leader-to-leader chemistry—or the lack of it—can play a decisive role. President Trump has long styled himself as the ultimate deal-closer, thriving on direct, one-on-one engagement. The expectation of a personal call from Modi appears to have been non-negotiable in the administration’s view.
For India, the episode underscores the challenges of negotiating with a Trump administration that prioritizes speed and leverage. New Delhi has pursued a multi-alignment strategy, deepening ties with Europe, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia while maintaining strategic autonomy. Recent trade agreements with the UK, Australia, and the UAE reflect this diversification. Yet the US remains India’s largest single-country export market, making a comprehensive deal highly desirable.
Looking ahead, both sides insist talks are not dead. Indian officials have signaled willingness to continue discussions, while Lutnick himself acknowledged the deep internal politics that slow decision-making in democracies. A phased or mini-deal covering less contentious areas—such as technology, critical minerals, or defense co-production—could provide a path forward. Resolving the agricultural impasse, however, remains the biggest hurdle.
The Lutnick interview has sparked intense debate in both countries. In the US, it reinforces the narrative of Trump’s tough, results-oriented trade policy. In India, it has fueled criticism of perceived high-handedness from Washington, with some commentators questioning whether personal ego should override national economic interests.
Ultimately, the saga of the “missed call” highlights how modern trade diplomacy blends hard economics with old-fashioned personal relationships. Whether a simple phone call could have changed the trajectory remains a matter of speculation—but for now, both nations are paying the price in higher tariffs and lost opportunities.
Report : ismatimes news desk.
