NEW DELHI: As India and the United States attempt to reboot trade talks after a turbulent diplomatic spell, one question looms large: is real progress finally within reach, or are both sides still locked in a pattern of limited, transactional wins?
Former Assistant US Trade Representative and veteran of trade negotiations with India Mark Linscott, who has deep experience across WTO/GATT, South and Central Asia, the EU and environmental trade policy, offers a candid assessment of the persistent roadblocks during a conversation with Jayanth Jacob.
How do you assess the current state of India–US trade talks? Despite signs of diplomatic repair after a rough patch in the political relationship, are the trade negotiations still stuck in a pattern of limited, transactional outcomes—or is there real momentum now?
First of all, trade negotiation is always difficult and transactional, and the United States and India have many years of experience with each other, although more on the multilateral side. But it is a rough patch, even with a history of those. Most importantly, I sense a strong desire on both sides to get back to trade after a month of a holding pattern. So that’s positive.
Having led past trade negotiations with India, what institutional or strategic challenges continue to prevent the two countries from achieving a comprehensive trade agreement?
The challenges aren’t new for the most part. Trade barriers are what make trade negotiations hard – identifying them, coming up with a strategy to get results on them, and then executing. It’s never easy. Commitments that require changes in laws are an obvious example. Any trade barrier tied to doing something that is politically costly to change will always be hard to agree on.
With India continuing to import Russian oil despite the penalty tariff, could this realistically impact ongoing trade talks, or is it more of a political pressure point?
It has already impacted ongoing trade talks. They stopped for a good period while the emotional side took over in state relations between the United States and India. So it seems that an understanding on Russian oil purchases will have to come first or before announcement of any trade deal.
Compared to your time as USTR, how has India’s negotiating style or trade strategy evolved especially under the current government’s push for self-reliance? And how has negotiating by the US changed under Trump 2.0?
India has gained a lot more experience in negotiating with important economies and getting impressive results. The U.S. negotiators seem motivated to get the job done – conclude agreements – but the agenda has been a bit unrealistic.
There’s been discussion about a possible “early harvest” deal between the two sides. From your experience, what core issues could realistically be included, and what would make such a deal impactful?
A deal will only happen when President Trump says, “deal!” So that’s impossible to predict. It could be big, like the US-EU agreement on reciprocal tariffs, or smaller, made to look a lot larger. I bet on something in the middle – big, but not huge.
Market access in sectors like agriculture and dairy remains a longstanding sticking point. Despite years of technical-level engagement, why have these issues proven so intractable? What’s really blocking progress?
Agriculture, and specifically dairy, is always going to be sensitive. I believe in the step-by-step approach to opening the sensitive sectors because that can get the most meaningful result in the end.
In the face of global trade fragmentation, how important is it for India and the US to shift from tariff-centred disputes to more strategic cooperation on standards, digital regulation, and services?
Frankly, tariffs and work on standards, digital regulations, services, all go hand in hand. They’re complementary because results on one require back-up by results on the other. You can’t get meaningful market access without lowering tariffs, fixing non-tariff barriers, and aligning on supporting services, and, of course, that means digital.
India has been active in signing FTAs with countries like Australia and the UAE. How do those agreements compare to what’s on the table with the US, and what signals should the US be reading from them?
First, India has impressed with its effort to initiate and conclude trade deals with a combination of holding the line when the balance in leverage is favorable but offering important concessions here and there. I think India would welcome a real commitment on both sides to go big and do that through a serious BTA negotiation. The Trump administration, maybe.
How much influence do business and industry lobbies hold in shaping India–US trade policy? Is there a gap between what industry wants and what governments are prioritizing?
I think both countries will prioritize what they hear from the domestic side in specific industries. I think it also involves a calculation of stakes in getting to an end game in a trade negotiation. If the sacrifices don’t justify the benefits, a trade negotiation can drag on for years.
Looking ahead, what would a bold, forward-looking India–US trade framework look like? What big ideas or concessions would be needed on both sides to make that a reality?
Oh, the dream would be shooting for the moon and going for a comprehensive agreement – put a lot of things on the table. But those are the ones that drag on for years. The Trump administration is in a hurry on trade and may have diminishing leverage, so it may either have to cut corners by concluding smaller agreements and build up to bigger ones or continue to seek high tariffs as the end – go figure.
