
Trump won't let other countries score big ‘wins' in trade talks. Both sides could lose.
A trade agreement with India was supposed to be one of President Donald Trump's first victories from the 'reciprocal' tariff salvo he fired against dozens of trading partners in early April. But while the administration has been promising for more than two months that a deal is imminent, they're still struggling to get it over the finish line.
Two people close to the negotiations, granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions, say Washington and New Delhi continue to make progress toward the first phase of a trade deal, with the expectation that a more comprehensive agreement could come later in the fall. But the White House's demands to 'open up India' as it seeks a major trade victory ahead of President Donald Trump's self-imposed July 8 deadline — as well as his attempt to link the talks to thorny geopolitics in the region — have made it that much harder for Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government to sell the deal to a domestic audience.
And it underscores how Trump's all-sticks-and-no-carrot approach to trade talks is making it difficult for even friendly foreign governments to reach an agreement they fear could be political suicide back home — no matter how much the White House threatens their economies.
'Nothing riles Indians more than the idea that their government was bullied by a foreign leader,' said Syed Akbaruddin, India's former ambassador to the United Nations. 'A trade bargain that could have been a win-win deal now risks being portrayed by those who oppose it as a tribute, not a partnership.'
India was one of the first countries to begin trade negotiations with the U.S., launching talks in February as Trump began to unveil his ambitious agenda to upend global trade. Negotiators have reached agreement on some agricultural issues, energy purchases and non-tariff barriers, prompting rosy White House projections that a deal is in the offing.
While visiting India in late April, Vice President JD Vance announced the two sides had 'officially finalized the Terms of Reference' for the negotiations. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said June 3 that, "You should expect a deal between the United States and India (in the) not-too-distant future because I think we have found a place that really works for both countries."
And at an event at the White House on Friday, Trump, himself, teased that, 'I think we're going to reach a deal where we have the right to go in and trade' in India. He added, 'We're looking to get a full trade barrier dropping, which is unthinkable, and I'm not sure that that's going to happen, but as of this moment, we've agreed to that."
But it has proven difficult to officially ink a deal, people close to the negotiations say, because of all the things the Trump administration is asking India to do to lower its trade barriers, while only offering to give up some of its newly-imposed tariffs, in return.
For the White House, which is rapidly approaching its deadline, India would be just the second country that has agreed to a deal, not counting a tariff ceasefire with China. Any agreement would have to help justify the administration's claim that Trump's high tariff rates are truly helping to open up new markets for American products, while protecting the U.S. market.
'Productive discussions with India continue, and we look forward to announcing an historic U.S.-India trade agreement in short order,' said a White House official, granted anonymity to discuss the negotiation.
The president has complicated matters by repeatedly taking credit for brokering peace between India and Pakistan this spring — even though India has long insisted it won't accept any mediation when it comes to Pakistan. Modi underscored that point in a recent call with Trump, saying that there is 'complete political consensus in India on this matter,' according to a readout of the call from India's foreign minister.
The diplomatic fumble, which the president repeated multiple times this week, including at the NATO summit in the Netherlands, coupled with Trump's recent decision to host Pakistan's army chief at the White House, could make it harder for the Indian government to sell a trade deal to its people.
'Trump's comments have injected mistrust and public skepticism of U.S. support to India,' said Akbaruddin, India's former U.N. ambassador. 'The more he repeats his claim, the more a prospective U.S.-India trade agreement smells like coercion, not cooperation.'
'Whatever the current government [in India] does, it will be seen as they basically capitulated to President Trump's demand,' said Mukesh Aghi, the President and CEO of the U.S.-India Strategic Partnership Forum. 'So they are in a no-win situation.'
The White House views tariffs as a cudgel to extract concessions from foreign countries — both on trade matters and a wide array of other foreign policy priorities. But it has failed to grasp, or simply doesn't care, how much trading partners' domestic politics factor into the discussions, and ultimately may trump even the existential economic threat the U.S. can wield.
Talks with South Korea stalled while the country, under a caretaker government, moved to elect a new leader. Negotiations with Japan have been snagged by the Trump administration's demand that Tokyo increase defense spending and insistence on maintaining its 25 percent tariff on auto and auto parts imports, a massive blow to one of Japan's culturally defining industries. EU leaders have balked at U.S. efforts to undermine their VAT, a domestic consumption tax.
India has some of the highest tariffs of any major economy in the world, with an average rate of around 17 percent. Its government, in particular, has long sought to protect the country's millions of subsistence farmers, who have outsized political clout.
In 2020, after the Parliament of India passed farm legislation, farmers held a sustained protest for more than a year and eventually succeeded in getting the laws repealed. They protested again in 2024, criticizing the government for not doing more to help farmers.
'India is protective of its farmers, which is why they have relatively high tariffs compared to anywhere in the world,' said Sharon Bomer Lauritsen, a former agriculture negotiator at USTR who currently works with AgriTrade. 'They're going to protect their farmers.'
The Trump administration has been here before. During his first term, negotiators worked with India in an attempt to secure a bilateral trade deal — similar to agreements the administration was able to negotiate with Japan and South Korea.
The deal would have centered around three areas — increased access to India's agricultural, information technology and medical devices markets. But as talks dragged on and the scope of the deal shrank, Trump scrapped the plan.
'They got very close, really, really close to concluding a first-ever bilateral trade deal,' said Mark Linscott, a former negotiator for USTR who was involved in negotiations with India. 'This time around it's clearly a priority for both sides …. It's the agreement that got away.'
Much of the challenge has been opening India's agricultural market, particularly when it comes to the genetically modified crops grown in the U.S. and dairy products. India, as a majority Hindu country, has significant religious concerns about the import of byproducts from cows.
While the Biden administration was able to secure increased access for specialty agriculture products like nuts and cranberries, India is reluctant to make deals that undercut its own farmers.
Any early deal with India would likely focus on products that are not readily accessible in the country, like fruits and vegetables, nuts, alfalfa and potentially ethanol.
But, despite the political tension in India, the U.S. agriculture industry has continued its long-standing push to open the country's fast-growing market to U.S. products, particularly dairy.
A deal on dairy is still proving elusive, even as the U.S. has shifted its strategy to lower tariffs and simplify the certificates necessary to allow more dairy products into the country.
'They've been pretty clear all along that dairy was going to be a heavy lift,' said a person close to the negotiations.
Any deal announced by July 9 is likely to just be the first phase of an ongoing effort to secure a substantial bilateral trade agreement with India — a process that could stretch on for at least another year, those close to the discussions say.
Linscott, who negotiated with India for USTR in the first Trump administration, said the administration knows the U.S. will likely have to make some concessions in order to secure a larger deal, putting the talks in a different bucket than other deals the U.S. is seeking to negotiate.
'India is the fourth largest economy in the world now, will soon be the third largest economy in the world, and is a critical strategic partner in the Indo-Pacific,' Linscott said. 'I think all those factor in a bit in the overall negotiating dynamics.'
Phelim Kine contributed to this article.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Deal that reduced US tariffs on UK cars and aircraft parts comes into effect
(Reuters) -The trade deal signed between U.S. President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer lowering some tariffs on imports from Britain has come into effect, the British government said on Monday. British car manufacturers will now be able to export to the U.S. under a reduced 10% tariff quota from an earlier 27.5%, while the current 10% tariffs were fully removed for goods like aircraft engines and aircraft parts, the statement said, reiterating details announced earlier in June. However, the issue of steel and aluminum tariffs remains unresolved. Britain has avoided tariffs of up to 50% on steel and aluminum that the U.S. imposed on other countries earlier this month, but it could face elevated tariffs starting July 9 unless a deal is reached. "... we will continue go further and make progress towards 0% tariffs on core steel products as agreed," the British statement added. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


Bloomberg
31 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Dealmakers Hit $1.8 Trillion as They Get Used to Trade Chaos
Big money takeovers of private companies helped drive mergers and acquisitions in the first half, as dealmakers got comfortable writing sizable checks in topsy-turvy markets. More than half of the 10 largest deals announced in 2025 have involved a private target, data compiled by Bloomberg show, including the tie-up of Charter Communications Inc. and Cox Communications, Alphabet Inc. 's purchase of cybersecurity firm Wiz Inc. and Constellation Energy Corp. 's acquisition of US power station operator Calpine Corp. All were valued at around $30 billion or more including debt.


Forbes
31 minutes ago
- Forbes
Mortgage Debt: Hidden U.S. Estate Tax Trap For Foreign Investors
Foreign investors are often very surprised to learn that a leveraged U.S. real estate investment ... More using recourse debt will often not shield the foreign investor from U.S. estate tax exposure. This article explores the mortgage debt surprise, why it matters, and how foreign investors can navigate it. getty Foreign investment in U.S. real estate is quite significant with investors being drawn because of the market's stability, robust and reliable legal protections, and the potential for capital growth. U.S. real estate is a core wealth-building strategy for nonresident alien individuals (those who are not U.S. citizens and are not domiciled in the U.S.). Many NRA investors are caught off-guard by various aspects of the U.S. estate tax which is imposed at death on the fair market value of U.S. situs assets, such as American real estate. The maximum estate tax rate of 40% can certainly take a big chunk out of the investment. With experienced U.S. tax advice, foreigners can carefully plan their investment strategies to minimize (if not eliminate) this tax. A lesser-known aspect of the U.S. estate tax regime involves the limited deductibility of recourse mortgage debt on U.S. real property. A leveraged real estate investment using recourse debt will often not shield the foreign investor from U.S. estate tax exposure. This article explores the mortgage debt surprise, why it matters, and how foreign investors can navigate it. When an NRA passes away owning U.S. real estate, which is a U.S.-situs asset, the value of that property is included in their U.S. taxable estate, subject to estate tax rates up to 40%. Many investors assume they can deduct the full amount of any mortgage tied to the property from its fair market value thus reducing the taxable estate. This would make sense since the net equity represents the NRA's economic interest in the property. The U.S. tax rules, however, apply a different rule for recourse versus nonrecourse debt often creating a costly surprise to the estate. By way of overview, when a mortgage debt is 'recourse', it allows the lender to pursue other assets of the borrower (or his estate) if there is any shortfall if the property's sale will not cover the amount loaned. Thus, in the case of a decedent, the estate is held liable for the debt. Nonrecourse mortgage debt limits the lender's recovery to the property itself; the creditor has 'no recourse' to the estate's other assets. Under the U.S. estate tax rules, nonrecourse debt is fully deductible to offset the value of the U.S. real property. The lender can seize only the real property and no other assets and the estate isn't liable for any shortfall. Permitting the full mortgage loan to offset the value of the property reflects the estate's true economic interest, as the lender has no claim on other assets. In the case of recourse debt, however, only a portion of recourse mortgage debt is deductible by the estate. The deductible amount is proportional to the ratio of the U.S.-situs assets' value to the value of the decedent's worldwide assets. Here is an example. Assume an NRA has a worldwide estate valued at $10 million. This includes $2 million of U.S. real property which is encumbered by a $1 million recourse mortgage. The U.S. property represents 20% of the worldwide estate ($2M/$10M), so only 20% of the mortgage ($200,000) can be deducted. The taxable value in the estate of $1.8 million can result in an approximate estate tax of $720,000 (assuming no exemptions or credits). The distinction between recourse and nonrecourse debt catches out many investors who are relying on leverage to maximize returns and are expecting the full debt to offset their U.S. estate tax exposure. In this example, the result will come as a surprise since the investor's expectation would be that the U.S. property would have a $1 million taxable value after deducting the full mortgage. Why The U.S. Estate Tax Limitation for Recourse Debt? The limitation on deducting recourse mortgage debt for U.S. estate tax purposes is a mechanism to prevent the estate being able to offset U.S. estate tax using a global debt obligation even when the estate has other non-U.S. assets to repay the loan. Recourse debt renders the estate liable for repayment, potentially using worldwide assets. The tax law restricts the mortgage deduction in such a case to prevent an over-reduction of the U.S. taxable estate. The deduction is made proportional to the U.S.-situs assets' share of the worldwide estate precisely because the estate's liability for the debt is not limited to U.S. assets. This ensures the U.S. taxes the estate's net U.S. property value while accounting for global obligations, unlike nonrecourse debt, which is fully deductible because it is tied only to the equity in the U.S. property. The pro-rata formula is found in IRC Section 2106(a)(1) and its relevant Treasury Regulations and Treasury Regulation Section 20.2053-7. Assume an NRA owns U.S. real estate having a value of $5 million and that it is subject to a $3 million recourse mortgage. The NRA has foreign assets worth $15 million. Without the recourse debt limitation, the $3M recourse debt would be fully deductible, and the NRA's U.S. taxable estate would be just $2M. This would permit the estate to offset U.S. estate tax using a global debt obligation, even though the estate has $15M of foreign assets with which to repay the loan. To prevent overly reducing the U.S. taxable estate, the pro-rate formula is used. U.S. Real Property - The Surprise Recourse Debt Limitation Really Matters The limited deduction for recourse debt can dramatically increase tax liabilities, particularly given the low $60,000 estate tax exemption for NRAs (compared to $13.99 million for U.S. citizens and domiciliaries in 2025). Even modest U.S. real estate holdings can trigger significant taxes. In addition, calculating the proportional deduction requires disclosing the fair market value of the decedent's worldwide assets on IRS Form 706-NA. Such disclosure raises serious privacy concerns for investors who do not wish to reveal their global holdings. This disclosure requirement, combined with the unexpected tax burden, makes the recourse mortgage debt rule a double blow for unprepared investors. Strategies Can Mitigate The Mortgage Debt Problem There are various strategies foreign investors can adopt, depending on the facts and the investor's priorities. A qualified tax professional can assist, balancing favorable tax outcomes with practical considerations. For example, ownership structures can avoid U.S. estate tax but involve more complexity, costs and tax compliance; the investor can opt for nonrecourse debt which will mean the full debt amount can reduce the taxable estate but likely means higher interest rates or stricter terms will apply, since the lender bears greater risk. Life insurance can be explored, as well as the possible use of estate tax treaties. Every strategy will involve trade-offs, making professional advice indispensable. Proactive planning can help the U.S. real estate investment remain lucrative without the harsh surprise of unexpected estate tax liability. Stay on top of tax matters around the globe. Reach me at vljeker@ Visit my US tax blog NO ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP OR LEGAL ADVICE This communication is for general informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute tax advice or a recommended course of action. Professional tax advice should be sought as the information here is not intended to be, and should not be, relied upon by the reader in making a decision.