Washington, D.C./New Delhi — In a dramatic claim that has rattled diplomatic circles, former U.S. President Donald Trump reiterated that his administration prevented a potential nuclear war between India and Pakistan by leveraging trade threats. His remarks, made during a media interaction at the White House on May 12 and again at Joint Base Andrews on May 31, have drawn sharp rebukes from New Delhi and raised questions about America’s role in South Asian security affairs.
Trump’s Bold Assertion: Trade as a Peacekeeping Tool
Standing alongside Tesla CEO Elon Musk in the Oval Office, Trump said his administration’s decisive use of economic pressure led to the ceasefire declared on May 10, 2025, in the wake of India’s retaliatory Operation Sindoor against terror camps in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir.
“I told both nations — if you stop it, we’ll do trade. If you don’t, we’re not going to do any trade,” Trump asserted. “Millions could have died in a nuclear war. We stopped it.”
According to Trump, threats to suspend trade deals — coupled with promises of future economic engagement — pressured both India and Pakistan into halting hostilities. He doubled down on these claims during a press meet at Joint Base Andrews, framing the episode as a victory for his brand of “economic diplomacy.”
Backing him up, a May 23 affidavit by the U.S. Commerce Secretary, cited by The Wire, referenced the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, suggesting the administration had contemplated real trade leverage to influence the South Asian standoff.
India Hits Back: “Ceasefire Was Our Decision, Not Theirs”
India, however, was swift and firm in rejecting Trump’s claims.
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar and spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal emphasized that the ceasefire was a bilateral military decision, orchestrated through direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMO) of India and Pakistan.
“Trade was never discussed in any of our communications with the United States,” Jaiswal clarified on May 13. “Ceasefire talks were strictly between the two militaries. India does not accept third-party mediation in such matters.”
This sentiment echoes India’s long-standing policy of keeping international actors — including allies — out of its strategic engagements with Pakistan.
Adding to India’s rebuttal, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, speaking to Reuters, also denied any nuclear escalation, dismissing Trump’s narrative as exaggerated and unsubstantiated.
Context: The April 22 Pahalgam Attack and Operation Sindoor
The backdrop to this diplomatic drama is grim. On April 22, 2025, a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, killed 26 civilians, including women and children. In response, the Indian Armed Forces launched Operation Sindoor, a precision strike operation conducted between May 6 and 7, targeting terror infrastructure in PoK and Pakistani territory.
According to Indian security sources, the operation resulted in over 160 militant and support personnel casualties, significantly degrading terror capabilities across the border. Pakistan’s retaliatory attempt — dubbed Operation Bunyan al-Marsoos — failed to achieve its objectives and reportedly led to internal pressure within Islamabad’s security establishment.
It was at this point that Pakistan’s DGMO reached out, requesting de-escalation — ultimately leading to the May 10 ceasefire agreement, widely perceived in India as a strategic and moral victory.
The Fallout: Diplomatic Ripples and Global Perception
Trump’s remarks, amplified by posts from outlets and handles like @ANI and others on X, have reignited debates over American influence in South Asia and its perception of regional autonomy.
While Trump supporters view his actions as a demonstration of global leadership, critics argue that his statements undermine India’s sovereignty and misrepresent a complex geopolitical reality.
India Reasserts Its Autonomy
Indian diplomats have pointed out that such statements — whether accurate or not — distort the narrative around sensitive regional security decisions.
“The ceasefire followed a calibrated military and diplomatic response,” said a senior Indian official on condition of anonymity. “It was neither impulsive nor driven by foreign influence. India does not need a mediator.”
The episode has also highlighted the fragile trust in Indo-U.S. strategic dialogue under Trump’s influence, despite traditionally strong bilateral ties.
A Larger Debate on Intervention and Influence
This incident underscores a broader global debate — how much should major powers intervene in regional conflicts? While the U.S. may seek to project influence, especially in conflict flashpoints like South Asia, nations like India are increasingly vocal about retaining agency over their own security affairs.
As the dust settles from this war of narratives, one truth remains clear — India and Pakistan continue to walk a tightrope of deterrence, and efforts to claim credit for peace must not overshadow the ground realities and diplomatic sensitivities at play.
