A US congressional hearing this week noted that President Donald Trump has repeatedly described Pakistan as a “key regional partner” even as his administration seeks to further strengthen ties with India.
The hearing — held by the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on South and Central Asia — also exposed sharp disagreements among lawmakers and analysts over the direction of Washington’s India policy. Witnesses warned during the hearing that tariff battles, visa restrictions and political mistrust had pushed the relationship into what several described as a “political standstill”.
Jeff Smith of conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, long considered sympathetic to New Delhi, acknowledged that the partnership had entered “choppy waters”, attributing the downturn to Trump’s sweeping 50 per cent tariffs on Indian goods and India’s discomfort over US engagement with Pakistan after the May conflict between India and Pakistan.
The conflict, the worst between the old foes in decades, was sparked by an attack on Hindu tourists in occupied Kashmir, which New Delhi, without evidence, said was backed by Pakistan. Pakistan has denied involvement, with the foreign ministry having questioned the credibility of India’s account of the events, saying it was “replete with fabrications”.
Both sides used fighter jets, missiles, artillery and drones during the four-day conflict, killing dozens of people, before agreeing to a US-brokered ceasefire.
Smith noted that the Trump administration’s messaging during the ceasefire between India and Pakistan had placed Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a “difficult position at home”, with critics accusing him of “bending to the will of the US”.
Republican scepticism
Republican scepticism — usually muted when it comes to India — was unusually sharp. Congressman Mike Baumgartner of Washington state questioned whether India was genuinely committed to deepening defence cooperation with the United States. He recounted browsing a book on the Indian Army during a recent visit to India and finding a full-page photograph of Indian troops training with Russians while US-India exercises appeared only as a small boxed image. “The next time I go to India,” he said, “I’d like to see those pages reversed.”
His comments reflected a wider concern in Washington that despite two decades of US outreach, India continues to hedge strategically — maintaining close ties with Russia and participating actively in China-led forums such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
Committee Chairman Bill Huizenga opened the session by calling India a “defining partner for the 21st century”, praising its expanding naval posture in the Indo-Pacific, its role in the Quad, and cooperation in technology, counter-terrorism and energy. Yet he also acknowledged “understandable concerns” over Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent visit to New Delhi and India’s involvement in multilateral platforms shaped by China. Huizenga accused Beijing of pursuing a “string of pearls” strategy to militarise ports across the Indian Ocean.
‘Frozen high-level engagement’
Democratic Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove issued the strongest warning, cautioning that Trump risked becoming “the president who lost India” because of escalating disputes over trade and immigration. She revealed that a US-India trade agreement had been on track for signature in July but was abruptly withdrawn by the White House. Instead, India was hit with 50pc tariffs — among the steepest applied to any US partner — and a 25pc tariff on India-linked Russian oil imports.
She criticised the newly announced $100,000 H-1B visa fee, noting that Indians hold nearly 70pc of such visas and form a crucial segment of the US technology and medical workforce. The combined effect of these decisions, she said, had frozen high-level engagement and forced the postponement of the Quad Leaders Summit.
Yet the hearing also underscored a growing divergence between congressional rhetoric and Trump’s own public posture. While several lawmakers focused sharply on allegations of militancy in occupied Kashmir and criticised Pakistan, others noted that Trump had maintained a strikingly different tone throughout the year. He has issued more than 30 public statements praising Pakistan for its cooperation, calling Islamabad a “key regional partner”, and emphasising the need for balanced engagement with both South Asian nuclear powers.
Following the India-Pakistan May conflict, Trump declined to assign blame and instead praised Pakistan’s role in helping defuse tensions.
Analysts at the hearing indirectly acknowledged that such statements had complicated New Delhi’s domestic political narrative.
In multiple statements, Trump has reaffirmed that eight jets were downed during the military escalation. For its part, Pakistan initially said it took down six Indian fighter jets during the conflict, including the French-made Rafale, and later increased the count to seven.
Initially, New Delhi acknowledged “some losses” during the conflict but denied losing six jets. Later in October, Indian Air Force Chief Amar Preet Singh claimed without evidence that his country had “downed five Pakistani fighter jets of the F-16 and JF-17 class”.
‘Second-most significant challenge’
Dhruva Jaishankar of the Observer Research Foundation America told lawmakers that India viewed recent US engagement with Pakistan’s military leadership as “unsettling”, particularly after India’s air strikes inside Pakistan in May. Repeating India’s longstanding allegation of Pakistani support for terrorism — a claim Pakistan rejects — he warned that unresolved tariffs would increasingly be perceived in India as “acts of political hostility”.
Jaishankar, who is son of the Indian external affairs minister, described Washington’s growing relationship with Pakistan as the “second-most significant challenge” to India-US ties, after trade and tariff disputes. Responding to Trump’s assertion that he personally negotiated the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, Jaishankar said: “India’s experience is that third-party mediation has often contributed to Pakistan’s adventurism.”
He argued that the United States had long pursued a policy of “de-hyphenation”, engaging both India and Pakistan while avoiding involvement in their disputes, and urged Washington to maintain that approach. He noted that “considerable progress” in the relationship remained possible if disagreements over trade and Pakistan were managed.
At the same time, he acknowledged that defence cooperation continues to expand — including through a new 10-year Defence Framework Agreement, joint production initiatives, the impending launch of the NISAR satellite, and ongoing US support for India’s human spaceflight programme.
Sameer Lalwani of the German Marshall Fund said India remained “poised to become a pole in the international system”, but stressed that New Delhi seeks autonomy, not alignment — a reminder that US expectations often exceed India’s willingness to commit.
Jeff Smith also noted that Washington’s outreach to Pakistan’s military leadership — particularly meetings with Chief of Defence Forces and Cheif of Army Staff Field Marshal Asim Munir — had generated political unease in India, contributing to the perception that the United States was recalibrating its regional priorities.
The overarching message from the hearing was clear: political trust — the element that has long held the US-India partnership together — is now under visible strain. And as Washington reassesses its strategic options in South Asia, Pakistan’s role as a stabilising partner is once again part of the conversation, even if not always acknowledged openly.
