The economic security alignment provision in the India–US interim trade framework is emerging as a key concern in the joint statement issued on February 6, with experts cautioning that it could have implications far beyond trade.
The joint statement says both sides have agreed to strengthen economic security alignment to enhance supply chain resilience and innovation through “complementary actions” to address non-market policies of third countries.
According to the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), this provision requires great caution as it could have far-reaching implications for India’s trade and foreign policy choices.
Ajay Srivastava, founder of GTRI, said the language suggests that India’s security and economic policies may increasingly need to align with those of the United States.
“Agreeing to such a provision could have far-reaching adverse implications. If the United States were to impose 100% tariffs on imports from countries such as Russia or China on economic security grounds, India will be expected to adopt similar measures. India will also have to restrict transactions in third countries that are sanctioned by the United States,” Srivastava said.
He added that such alignment could affect India’s independent foreign policy and its trade engagement with countries outside the US orbit.
The GTRI note also flags that under this provision, India may be required to consult the United States before entering into new digital trade agreements with other countries to ensure they do not affect US interests. Similarly, India may be constrained from entering into agreements on technical or health standards with other countries if those standards are seen as disadvantaging the US.
“Given India’s size and sovereign interests, tying its economic and security policies too closely to any single country carries significant risks,” Srivastava noted.
Strategic affairs expert Dr. Brahma Chellaney, professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research, linked the clause to a broader pattern in US trade strategy.
“Trump’s trade strategy is more coercive and extractive than even China’s Belt and Road Initiative. By targeting weaker Asian partners, the US is using market access as a blunt instrument of economic coercion,” Chellaney said, referring to India’s $500-billion import pledge alongside the security alignment language in the framework.
Experts say the phrase non-market policies of third countries is commonly used in US trade language in reference to countries such as China and Russia, and could translate into expectations that India mirrors US trade or sanctions actions.
The GTRI note points out that similar commitments have been obtained by the US from Malaysia and are now likely to be extended to India through this framework.
Supporters of the agreement argue that the provision is meant to enhance supply chain resilience and innovation cooperation. However, experts say the operational meaning of the clause will become clearer only as the interim framework is converted into a detailed agreement and later into a full Bilateral Trade Agreement.
For now, trade and strategic analysts say the security clause is likely to attract as much scrutiny as tariff concessions when the agreement moves to the next stage of negotiations.