New Delhi [India], July 14 (ANI): India must remain firm and avoid compromising its core sectors—particularly agriculture—despite growing pressure from the United States under President Donald Trump’s administration, according to a report released by the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI).
The report warns that entering into a trade agreement under duress could lead to “irreversible consequences,” especially given the uncertainty of such deals surviving a future shift in U.S. political leadership.
“India should stay the course and avoid trading away core sectors like agriculture. A hasty deal under pressure could have irreversible consequences, especially when such agreements may not survive the next shift in US politics,” the report stated.
GTRI noted that Trump’s aggressive trade threats are losing credibility. Despite more than three months of sustained pressure, only two countries—the United Kingdom and Vietnam—have agreed to the U.S.’s “one-sided trade terms.” Other nations, including Japan, South Korea, the European Union, and Australia, have resisted these demands.
These demands fall under what GTRI described as MASALA deals—Mutually Agreed Settlements Achieved through Leveraged Arm-twisting. These agreements typically require partner countries to:
- Unilaterally reduce tariffs,
- Commit to guaranteed purchases of U.S. goods, and
- Accept the possibility of Washington imposing additional tariffs later, even without reciprocal concessions.
Due to limited success in securing such terms, the Trump administration has adopted punitive measures. On July 7, it imposed 25% tariffs on imports from Japan and South Korea. Just days later, on July 12, it threatened to impose 30% tariffs on goods from the EU and Mexico—even while negotiations with these countries are ongoing.
The GTRI report urged India to recognize that it is not alone in facing such pressure. The U.S. is currently engaged in trade negotiations with over 20 countries and seeking concessions from more than 90.
However, many of these nations are pushing back, recognizing that MASALA deals are politically driven and offer no lasting certainty in international trade.
About The Author
