Latest Round of U.S.-India Trade Talks Concludes with Agreement Outlook Still Uncertain
Claire Weston
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer visited India this week for trade negotiations, but neither side disclosed concrete progress — the sticking point is India's demand that Washington commit to dropping Section 301 as a post-deal weapon.
What did this round actually produce?
India's Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal called the talks "constructive and forward-looking" but made no comment on whether core disagreements had narrowed.
That stands in sharp contrast with Trump's claim at the G7 last week, after meeting PM Modi, that a deal was "very close."
This means → the optimism at the leaders' level did not translate into clause-level consensus at the negotiators' table.
What is India holding out for?
New Delhi has set two preconditions: tariff terms better than those offered to competitors, and a US commitment to never launch a Section 301 investigation against India after a deal is signed.
Section 301 — a tool under US trade law that lets Washington unilaterally label another country's trade practices "unfair" and impose punitive tariffs — has already been expanded this year to cover India and others, targeting forced labor and overcapacity.
In plain terms = India's fear is simple: if the US can still pull the 301 trigger after signing, the deal offers no real protection.
What happened to the earlier framework?
In February the two sides announced a framework to cut tariffs on Indian goods from 50% to 18%.
Days later the US Supreme Court struck down Trump's global tariff order, and the framework's implementation timeline fell into limbo.
This means → even a paper agreement can be derailed by domestic legal shifts — the negotiation isn't just bilateral; it has to survive US courts too.
What to watch next?
The make-or-break question: whether Washington is willing to make a binding commitment on Section 301.
So far there is no public signal that it will.
This reflects a deeper structural clash: the US wants to preserve unilateral leverage, while India's core demand is precisely to constrain it — the two positions are fundamentally opposed.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.