US President Donald Trump has “no longer plans” to visit India for the Quad Summit later this year, The New York Times reported Saturday, outlining how relations between Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi have deteriorated in recent month.
The New York Times, in its report titled "The Nobel Prize and a Testy Phone Call: How the Trump-Modi Relationship Unraveled", sources familiar with Trump’s schedule revealed that after initially assuring Prime Minister Modi of a visit to India for the Quad Summit later this year, Trump now has no plans to make the trip in the fall.
There has been no official comment from the US on the NYT claims. Meanwhile, A spokesperson of the US embassy in New Delhi said, "we have received no official information on this matter. We refer you to the White House for details on the President’s schedule."
The Quad Summit, scheduled for November in New Delhi, will see leaders from India, Australia, Japan, and the US come together to discuss key geopolitical issues.
The fallout between Trump and Modi reportedly began after the US President’s repeated claims that he had “solved” the May India-Pakistan conflict—a statement that India vehemently denied.
The NYT report indicates that Modi became increasingly frustrated with Trump’s interventions, with tensions reaching a boiling point after a June 17 phone call between the two leaders.
That conversation, which took place as Trump returned from the G7 summit in Canada, came after a tense diplomatic episode where Modi had clearly stated that India would not accept US mediation in the conflict with Pakistan. Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri later confirmed that Modi had emphasised that India had resolved the situation directly with Pakistan and had no discussions with Trump regarding a trade deal or mediation.
The strained relationship follows a broader backdrop of trade tensions between the two nations, further escalating in the aftermath of Trump’s controversial remarks. This cooling of ties now casts uncertainty on the future of the Quad alliance, which has been a key element of Indo-US cooperation, according to the report.
The Trump administration hosted the Quad Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in January this year, a day after Trump took the oath of office as President for a second term in the White House.
The NYT article gives an account of how relations between Trump and Modi “unraveled” after Trump’s repeated claims of solving the four-day conflict in May between India and Pakistan, an assertion denied by India.
“President Trump’s repeated claims about having 'solved' the India-Pakistan war infuriated Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India. And that was only the beginning,” the NYT article said, adding that Modi was “losing patience” with Trump.
Trump and Modi had spoken over the phone on June 17, a 35-minute phone call that happened as Trump returned to Washington from the G7 Summit in Canada, which PM Modi also attended.
Modi and Trump were scheduled to meet on the sidelines of the G7 Leaders’ Summit in Kananaskis, but Trump returned to Washington early. Before departing Kananaskis and wrapping up his first visit to Canada in a decade, Modi had a phone conversation with Trump in Washington.
Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri had said in a video message from Kananaskis that Modi clearly conveyed to Trump that at “no point” during the days following Operation Sindoor was there any discussion, at any level, on an India-US trade deal, or any proposal for a mediation by the US between India and Pakistan.
The discussion to cease military action took place directly between India and Pakistan through the existing channels of communication between the two armed forces, and it was initiated at Pakistan's request. Prime Minister Modi firmly stated that India does not and will never accept mediation, Misri had said.
The NYT article said that during the June 17 phone call, Trump said again how proud he was of ending the military escalation and mentioned that Pakistan was going to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize, an honour that has been bestowed on former US President Barack Obama and one for which Trump has been “openly campaigning”.
“The not-so-subtle implication, according to people familiar with the call, was that Mr Modi should do the same,” and also nominate Trump for the Nobel, the paper said.
“The Indian leader bristled. He told Mr Trump that US involvement had nothing to do with the recent ceasefire. It had been settled directly between India and Pakistan,” the NYT said.
“Trump largely brushed off Mr Modi’s comments, but the disagreement — and Mr Modi’s refusal to engage on the Nobel — has played an outsize role in the souring relationship between the two leaders, whose once-close ties go back to Mr. Trump’s first term,” the NYT said.
The NYT noted that the White House did not acknowledge the June 17 call, nor did Trump post about it on his social media accounts. Trump has repeated his claim of stopping the conflict between India and Pakistan over 40 times since May 10.
“And it is also the tale of an American president with his eye on a Nobel Prize, running smack into the immovable third rail of Indian politics: the conflict with Pakistan,” it added.
The report added that, as Trump imposed additional tariffs of 25 per cent on India for its purchases of Russian oil, “the colossal penalties on India in particular appear to be punishment for not falling in line rather than any kind of cohesive effort to reduce the trade deficit or cut off funding for” Putin’s war.
The NYT article quoted chair on India at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Richard Rossow, as saying that it was “about more than just Russia.”
“If this was a real change in policy in trying to squeeze Russia, Trump could have put his weight behind legislation that would have imposed secondary sanctions on countries that buy Russian hydrocarbons. The fact that they have uniquely targeted India says this is about more than just Russia,” Rossow was quoted as saying.
The NYT article further said that Trump, “frustrated by the tariff negotiations”, reached out to Modi several times, but the Indian leader “did not respond to those requests.”
(With inputs from PTI)
