The India Trump Made: How American Bullying Is Shaping Indian Foreign Policy - Foreign Affairs

Introduction: Rethinking India–United States Relations in the Trump Era

The article The India Trump Made by James Crabtree and Rudra Chaudhuri, published in Foreign Affairs in December 2025, offers a sharp reassessment of India–United States relations. It challenges the assumption that pressure from Washington naturally strengthens strategic partnerships. Instead, it argues that coercive American behavior reshaped India’s foreign policy thinking.

At the center of the essay stands a provocative claim. Assertive U.S. diplomacy, especially during the presidency of Donald Trump, did not bind India closer to Washington. Instead, it encouraged New Delhi to deepen strategic autonomy. Consequently, India refined a multialigned posture. This posture values flexibility over dependency. Therefore, the article holds major relevance for scholars of geopolitics and policymakers alike.

The Core Argument of The India Trump Made

American Pressure as a Structural Force

Crabtree and Chaudhuri argue that American pressure acted as a structural force in Indian decision-making. Washington relied on tariffs, public threats, and transactional diplomacy. These tools sought compliance rather than consensus. As a result, India reassessed the costs of close alignment.

Rather than reacting emotionally, New Delhi responded strategically. It recalibrated expectations. It accepted cooperation but rejected subordination. Thus, American bullying shaped outcomes opposite to U.S. intentions.

Moreover, the authors emphasize that pressure did not occur in isolation. It coincided with global uncertainty. Power transitions intensified. Consequently, India valued strategic room for maneuver more than ever.

Historical Roots of Indian Strategic Autonomy

The Legacy of Non-Alignment

India’s foreign policy never embraced formal alliances easily. Since independence, Indian leaders preferred autonomy. The Non-Aligned Movement reflected this instinct. Even after the Cold War, this tradition persisted.

Crabtree and Chaudhuri stress that Trump-era pressure revived this legacy. It reminded Indian policymakers of past vulnerabilities. Hence, strategic autonomy regained salience.

Furthermore, autonomy does not imply isolation. India still engages major powers. However, it avoids binding commitments. Therefore, continuity matters as much as change in Indian diplomacy.

Trump’s Transactional Diplomacy and Its Effects

A Style That Alarmed New Delhi

Trump’s foreign policy style emphasized deals over norms. He framed alliances as cost-benefit calculations. He often questioned commitments publicly. This approach unsettled partners. India felt similar unease.

For instance, sudden tariff hikes and trade threats eroded trust. They signaled unpredictability. Consequently, Indian officials questioned long-term reliability.

Meanwhile, Washington expected strategic loyalty. It sought support on China. Yet, it offered limited reassurance. Thus, imbalance emerged. India responded by hedging its bets.

Strategic Cooperation Without Strategic Dependence

Security Ties With Limits

Despite tensions, India and the United States expanded defense cooperation. Joint exercises increased. Technology sharing improved. Dialogue mechanisms deepened.

However, India drew clear boundaries. It avoided alliance-like commitments. It retained freedom of action. For example, India refused to align fully with U.S. positions on every global issue.

Therefore, cooperation coexisted with caution. This duality defines modern India–U.S. ties. The article highlights this nuance effectively.

Multialignment as a Deliberate Strategy

Beyond a Binary Worldview

One of the essay’s strongest insights concerns multialignment. India no longer views global politics through binary blocs. Instead, it cultivates diverse partnerships.

India strengthens ties with European Union, Japan, and Gulf states. Simultaneously, it manages relations with China despite rivalry.

This strategy maximizes options. It reduces vulnerability. Consequently, India avoids overreliance on any single power. U.S. pressure accelerated this shift rather than preventing it.

Trade Disputes and Economic Reorientation

Tariffs as a Turning Point

Economic friction featured prominently during the Trump years. Tariffs targeted Indian exports. Preferential trade status ended. Negotiations stalled.

These actions forced introspection in New Delhi. India recognized economic exposure risks. As a result, it diversified markets. It sought deeper ties with Europe and East Asia.

Moreover, India promoted domestic manufacturing. It linked economic resilience with national security. Hence, trade coercion produced long-term structural change.

The China Factor in U.S.–India Relations

Shared Concerns, Divergent Approaches

Both Washington and New Delhi view China with caution. Border tensions heighten Indian concerns. U.S. strategy emphasizes containment.

However, India avoids outright confrontation. It prefers calibrated engagement. The authors argue that U.S. pressure complicates this balance. Excessive demands reduce flexibility.

Thus, India resists rigid alignment. It cooperates where interests overlap. Yet, it preserves independent judgment. This balance remains central to Indian strategy.

Diplomatic Signaling and Perceptions of Respect

The Politics of Status

Crabtree and Chaudhuri underline the importance of respect in diplomacy. India seeks recognition as a rising power. Public pressure undermines that aspiration.

Trump’s rhetoric often ignored diplomatic sensitivities. He framed negotiations as victories or losses. This style clashed with Indian preferences.

Therefore, Indian elites grew wary. They viewed autonomy as dignity. Hence, strategic independence became not only practical but symbolic.

Implications for Future U.S. Policy

The Risk of Strategic Alienation

The authors issue a clear warning. If Washington persists with coercive tactics, it risks marginalization. India will not accept junior status.

Future U.S. administrations must adjust. They must emphasize consultation. They must respect India’s priorities. Otherwise, influence will erode gradually.

Therefore, partnership requires patience. It requires mutual accommodation. The article frames this lesson persuasively.

India’s Expanding Diplomatic Horizon

Regional and Global Engagement

India increasingly invests in regional institutions. It strengthens ties in the Indo-Pacific. It engages Africa and the Middle East.

This diversification reflects confidence. It also reflects caution. India prepares for uncertainty. Multialignment serves that goal.

Thus, American pressure ironically validated India’s long-held instincts. The essay captures this paradox clearly.

Important Features of The India Trump Made

• It challenges alliance-centric assumptions in U.S. foreign policy

• It links Trump-era behavior with long-term Indian strategy

• It explains multialignment as a rational outcome, not ambiguity

• It integrates history with contemporary analysis

• It highlights economic policy as a strategic driver

• It emphasizes dignity and status in diplomacy

• It warns against coercive partnership models

Authors’ Scholarly Perspectives

Complementary Expertise

James Crabtree brings expertise in global political economy. He analyzes power shifts with clarity. Rudra Chaudhuri, as Director of Carnegie India, adds deep regional insight.

Together, they combine theory with empirical observation. Their collaboration strengthens credibility. It also ensures balance between global and local perspectives.

Critical Reflections on the Argument

Strengths and Limitations

The essay offers a compelling narrative. It avoids simplistic conclusions. It recognizes cooperation alongside friction.

However, critics may argue that U.S. pressure alone did not shape Indian policy. Domestic factors matter too. Leadership preferences influence outcomes.

Still, the authors acknowledge complexity. They avoid determinism. Thus, their argument remains persuasive rather than absolute.

Conclusion: A Partnership Transformed, Not Broken

The India Trump Made reframes how analysts view India–United States relations. It shows that pressure reshapes behavior in unexpected ways. Instead of dependence, it fosters autonomy.

India today pursues cooperation without constraint. It balances partnerships with independence. This strategy reflects history, experience, and ambition.

Ultimately, the article offers a vital lesson. Great powers cannot coerce rising states into loyalty. Respect, consistency, and dialogue matter more. For Washington, adaptation remains essential. For New Delhi, strategic autonomy remains non-negotiable.