‘Not accurate’: India rejects Lutnick’s claim on trade deal, cites 8 Modi–Trump calls

New Delhi: New Delhi on Friday rejected as “inaccurate” US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s claim that the proposed India–US trade deal stalled last year because Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not personally call President Donald Trump, pointing out that the two leaders held eight telephone conversations in 2025 covering different aspects of bilateral ties. The Ministry of External Affairs said the portrayal of the negotiations did not reflect the actual engagement between the two sides, and asserted that India remains interested in concluding a balanced and mutually beneficial trade agreement between what it described as two “complementary economies”.

Responding at the MEA’s weekly media briefing, spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India and the United States had been committed to negotiating a bilateral trade agreement since the decision was taken during a meeting between Modi and Trump at the White House on February 13, 2025. “Since then, the two sides have held multiple rounds of negotiation to arrive at a balanced and mutually beneficial trade agreement,” he said. Jaiswal added that the remarks attributed to Lutnick did not correctly describe the discussions.

“We have seen the remarks… the characterisation of these discussions in the reported remarks is not accurate,” Jaiswal told reporters. He said that at several points the two sides came close to finalising a deal. “On several occasions, we have been close to a deal,” he said, while reiterating that India continued to look forward to concluding an agreement that serves both countries’ interests.

The Indian statement came a day after Lutnick, in an interview and on the popular ‘All-In’ podcast, offered a detailed account of why he said the agreement did not go through. Lutnick claimed that Washington had pressed New Delhi with strict deadlines and that the trade pact could have been finalised if Modi had made a phone call to Trump at the right moment. “I will tell you a story about India,” Lutnick said, suggesting the opportunity was missed because India did not act quickly enough.

According to Lutnick, India was given “three Fridays” to close the deal. “We were talking (with) India, and we told India, ‘You have three Fridays’. Well, they have to get it done,” he said. He alleged that Trump’s trade negotiations operate under a time-bound sequencing, and that partners who move fastest receive better terms.

Lutnick described Trump’s approach as “like a staircase”, saying “the first stair gets the best deal.” He recalled that after the U.S. concluded a trade agreement with the United Kingdom in June 2025, many asked which country would be next, and Trump publicly named “India a couple of times”. Lutnick said the administration expected India’s negotiations to be completed quickly, but argued that when New Delhi returned later indicating readiness, other countries had already moved ahead.

“We did this whole bunch of deals because we negotiated them and assumed India was going to be done before them,” Lutnick said, adding that subsequent agreements were struck at higher tariff rates. When India later came back, he claimed, the window had closed. “It was like three weeks later. Are you ready for the train that left the station three weeks ago?” he said.

Lutnick repeatedly stressed that Trump was the final decision-maker in negotiations. “It’s his deal. He is the closer. He does the deal,” he said. He claimed he had told Indian officials that Modi needed to call Trump directly to finish the agreement. “You got to have Modi, it’s all set up, you have to have Modi call the president,” Lutnick said, adding: “They (India) were uncomfortable doing it, so Modi didn’t call.”

New Delhi pushed back firmly, saying the story did not match the reality of engagement. Jaiswal highlighted that Modi and Trump spoke by phone eight times during 2025, discussing “different aspects of our wide-ranging partnership.” People familiar with the matter also said there was no point during the past year when one single call could have been decisive, disputing the suggestion that the pact depended on a last-minute personal outreach.

The dispute has unfolded as relations between the two sides have come under severe strain, with officials describing the phase as possibly the worst for India–US ties in the past two decades. Trade negotiations, which once appeared close to completion, ran into a major obstacle after Trump imposed a 50 per cent tariff on India, including a 25 per cent additional duty linked to India’s purchase of Russian crude oil. The tariff step significantly altered the context of discussions, complicating prospects for a settlement acceptable to both governments.

Lutnick also claimed that after the relevant deadline passed, Washington announced trade deals with Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam, and that the US had finalised several pacts with other countries in July. He suggested that the agreement negotiated with India was no longer available on the earlier terms.

The Indian side, however, reiterated that talks had remained active since the February 2025 decision and that efforts continued to secure a balanced outcome. “India remained interested in a mutually beneficial trade deal between two complementary economies,” Jaiswal said, adding that New Delhi looked forward to concluding it. His remarks sought to counter the impression that the negotiations had broken down solely due to political optics.

The trade friction has also intensified amid Washington’s growing criticism of India’s energy purchases. Lutnick’s comments surfaced days after Trump publicly expressed displeasure over India’s continued imports of Russian oil. Trump warned that the US could raise tariffs on Indian goods “very quickly”, injecting fresh uncertainty into the trade discourse even as New Delhi maintains that engagement has been continuous.

At the same briefing, Jaiswal said India was closely watching developments related to a proposed US legislative move aimed at buyers of Russian oil. He referred to US Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s Russia Sanctions Bill, which seeks to impose tariffs of up to 500 per cent on countries buying Russian oil, including China and India. “We are aware of the proposed bill. We are closely following the developments,” Jaiswal said.

Jaiswal reiterated India’s stance on energy sourcing, linking it to domestic requirements and changing global conditions. “Our position on the larger question of energy sourcing is well known,” he said. “In this endeavour, we are guided by the evolving dynamics of the global market and by the imperative to secure affordable energy from diverse sources to meet the energy security needs of our 1.4 billion people.” Graham said this week that Trump had “greenlit” the bipartisan bill, describing it as a mechanism to allow the president to “punish” countries buying cheap Russian oil that he argued was fuelling Moscow’s “war machine.”

Jaiswal was also asked about Washington’s decision to withdraw from dozens of international organisations and bodies linked to the United Nations, including the International Solar Alliance (ISA). He said India supports multilateralism and believes global issues require consultative and collaborative action. “Since its inception, the International Solar Alliance has made significant progress in advancing its mandate to promote solar energy deployment and cooperation among its 125 member countries. We will continue to advance its goals,” he said.

Apart from tariffs, officials noted other points of strain in bilateral ties, including Trump’s claim of ending the India–Pakistan conflict in May last year, and Washington’s new immigration policy. Even so, India maintained that its objective remained a trade pact that serves both sides’ interests, and that negotiations since February 2025 had been marked by sustained engagement rather than a single unresolved gesture.