A Mix of Flattery and Tough Talk Between Trump and Modi

U.S. President Donald Trump addressed House Republicans at their annual issues conference retreat, held at the Kennedy Center—renamed the Trump-Kennedy Center by the Trump-appointed board of directors—in Washington, D.C.

During his remarks, Trump delved into his relationship with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, claiming that Modi had approached him deferentially with, “Sir, may I see you please,” before admitting that Modi is “not that happy with me” due to the tariffs imposed by Washington on Delhi for its purchases of Russian oil.

In the ever-evolving theater of international diplomacy, this episode highlights the Modi-Trump dynamic as a fascinating blend of mutual admiration, economic arm-twisting, and geopolitical pragmatism. Trump’s comments position him as the dominant figure, doling out favors and penalties with a businessman’s flair.

But beneath the surface, these remarks reveal more about Trump’s worldview and political strategy than about any genuine “very good relationship” with Modi. This isn’t just casual name-dropping; it’s Trump leveraging his current presidency to highlight his “America First” agenda, while reminding his Republican allies—and the public—of his toughness on global trade and alliances amid ongoing global tensions.

Trump’s anecdote about Modi’s polite request is classic Trumpian storytelling. It casts Modi, a leader known for his own strongman persona and massive domestic popularity, in a surprisingly subservient role. This isn’t accidental; Trump has always thrived on narratives that emphasize his personal charisma and influence over world leaders.

During his first term, the two shared a visible rapport, marked by high-profile events like the “Howdy, Modi!” rally in Houston in 2019 and the “Namaste Trump” extravaganza in Ahmedabad in 2020. These spectacles were mutual ego-boosts: Modi gained from associating with a U.S. president who praised India’s rise, while Trump courted the Indian-American vote and highlighted deals like arms sales.

Their alignment on issues like countering China and Islamic extremism further solidified this bond, making it one of the warmer U.S.-India ties in recent history. Now, in his second term, Trump seems eager to revive that narrative, using the renamed venue—a symbolic flex of his influence over cultural institutions—as a backdrop to assert his ongoing global clout.

Yet, Trump’s comments quickly pivot to friction points, betraying the transactional core of their relationship. He boasts of a “very good relationship” but notes Modi’s displeasure over tariffs—specifically, the 50% levies on Indian goods, including a 25% surcharge tied to India’s purchases of Russian oil.

This stems from Trump’s frustration with India’s neutral stance in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where New Delhi has continued buying discounted Russian crude to fuel its economy, despite Western sanctions.

Trump mentions that India has “now reduced it very substantially,” which aligns with recent shifts in global oil markets but also suggests U.S. pressure has paid off.

In essence, Trump is patting himself on the back for using economic sticks to influence allies, even if it strains relations.

Why highlight this at a GOP retreat? It’s a not-so-subtle dig at perceived weaknesses in past policies, implying that his leadership ensures compliance.

The choice of January 6—a date laden with political symbolism from 2021—adds an layer of domestic messaging, rallying Republicans around his assertive foreign policy.

The Apache helicopters reference adds another layer to this opinion. Trump claims India complained about waiting five years for these advanced attack choppers, but “we’re changing it” with an order for 68 units.

This nods to a real deal from his first term—the $3 billion agreement for Apache and Chinook helicopters in 2020—but frames it as a fresh triumph over bureaucratic delays.

In reality, such arms sales are part of a broader U.S.-India defense partnership aimed at bolstering India’s military against China and Pakistan. Trump’s emphasis here highlight his belief in quid pro quo diplomacy: tariffs as punishment for “bad” behavior on oil, but rewards like military hardware for compliance or strategic alignment.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has not issued any direct public statement responding to U.S. President Donald Trump’s recent remarks on the tariffs imposed on India—specifically the 50% levies, including a 25% penalty tied to India’s purchases of Russian oil.

Neither has the Indian Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) released an official comment on Trump’s January 6 claims at the House GOP retreat, where he described Modi as “not that happy” with him over the tariffs, or on related statements from earlier in the week threatening further hikes.

This silence is deliberate and aligns with India’s longstanding diplomatic playbook under Modi: prioritize national interests, avoid public spats that escalate tensions, and handle sensitive bilateral issues through backchannel negotiations rather than media soundbites.

India has indeed reduced Russian oil imports substantially in recent months—dropping sharply since mid-2025, with reports of near-zero arrivals in early 2026 from major refiners like Reliance—but New Delhi frames this as a market-driven decision influenced by global prices and diversification, not capitulation to U.S. pressure.

Behind the scenes, actions speak louder. Modi has reportedly spoken to Trump multiple times since the tariffs were ramped up in August 2025, and Indian officials, including Commerce Secretary-level talks and Ambassador Vinay Kwatra’s engagements in Washington, have pushed for tariff relief while highlighting increased U.S. oil purchases and defense cooperation.

Trump’s own mention of accelerating delivery on India’s order for 68 Apache helicopters (after alleged complaints of five-year delays) suggests some quid pro quo is at play—carrot alongside the stick.

Domestically, opposition voices like Congress leader Rahul Gandhi and Jairam Ramesh have criticized the government, invoking past leaders like Indira Gandhi to contrast “surrender” under pressure with defiance.

Former diplomats have called Trump’s framing humorous or understated, implying deeper Indian frustration. Yet, the government’s response remains muted, focusing instead on mitigating impacts: urging exporters to build homegrown brands, diversifying energy sources, and advancing broader strategic ties (e.g., Quad, countering China).

Modi’s non-response is savvy pragmatism. Publicly confronting Trump—a leader who thrives on personal narratives and dominance—would risk further escalation, especially with looming U.S. legislation threatening up to 500% tariffs on Russian oil buyers.

By staying quiet, Modi preserves leverage for a potential trade deal, protects economic stability (despite hits to sectors like textiles and IT), and upholds India’s non-aligned stance: energy security first, without alienating a key partner.

So, why did Trump say all this? It’s multifaceted. First, it’s self-aggrandizement—Trump loves portraying himself as the indispensable dealmaker who commands respect from global heavyweights like Modi, especially from a podium at a venue bearing his name.

Second, it’s political theater for his base. On the fifth anniversary of January 6, 2021, he’s using the occasion to contrast his “tough” policies with any alternatives, positioning tariffs on India as a symbol of protecting American jobs and punishing free-riders in the global system.

Finally, it reflects Trump’s zero-sum view of international relations: friendships are fine, but only if they serve U.S. interests without compromise.

Modi, for his part, has navigated this adeptly—maintaining ties with Trump while diversifying India’s partnerships—but Trump’s remarks risk oversimplifying a complex alliance into a personal scorecard.

Overall, the Modi-Trump relationship is a pragmatic one, built on shared interests rather than deep ideological affinity. It’s endured tariffs and tensions because both leaders prioritize national gains over personal slights.

But Trump’s retelling at the Trump-Kennedy Center feels like a rose-tinted revision, designed to burnish his legacy and energize his supporters. In a world of shifting alliances, it’s a reminder that diplomacy under Trump is always as much about the show as the substance—and that’s unlikely to change.

Naorem Mohen

Naorem Mohen is the Editor of Signpost News. Explore his views and opinion on X: @laimacha.