Can Modi-Trump meet clear trade deal hurdles? What former US negotiator said

A US-India Bilateral Trade Agreement is a negotiated framework for improving trade between the two countries. In the discussions described here, “BTA” most immediately means an interim agreement. It matters because both sides want better market access and a stronger signal of strategic partnership.

The interim deal would focus on selected priorities. These include lowering some tariffs and resolving certain non-tariff barriers affecting American access to India. It would not attempt to complete every part of a comprehensive trade agreement. Agricultural commodities and other sensitive areas could be postponed.

The full agreement would come through later phases and cover harder subjects left unresolved. The interim text would still be legally binding, so agreements in principle must be translated into precise legal language. Linscott says the interim deal is very close, but questions remain over India’s confidence in preferential tariff assurances.

The negotiations have made visible progress, but they are not finished. Five rounds have taken place, and recent meetings were described as very positive. Talks moved to Washington after discussions on the margins of the G20 trade ministerial in Milwaukee.

The two sides also spent significant time together during the last two weeks. Linscott viewed that as an important signal of forward movement. Minister Piyush Goyal reportedly called the deal “done and dusted,” but Linscott considered that description too definitive.

The remaining work is partly legal and partly political. Agreements reached in principle must become a legally binding interim agreement. India also wants confidence that any tariff granted will be preferential compared with tariffs faced by major competitors. A possible Narendra Modi-Donald Trump meeting at the December G20 could create pressure to deliver.

The interim agreement is close, but several difficult questions remain. India wants assurance that its tariff treatment will be preferential compared with that of other major competitors. That assurance is central because a legal promise must provide confidence, not just a political understanding.

The language itself is another hurdle. Agreements in principle still need to be translated into legally binding text. Sensitive agricultural commodities are likely to stay outside the first phase, and Linscott does not expect much on dairy. Those subjects are described as among the hardest areas for later negotiations.

Russian oil is probably part of the conversation, especially in light of the SRIA Act. The issue recalls last year’s tariff dispute. The two sides eventually resolved that matter in February after direct leader-level engagement. Linscott says this earlier resolution suggests the current circumstances may also be manageable.

Tariff pressure has been a major source of tension in the trade relationship. Linscott recalls that conditions became particularly difficult last year, when the United States applied a high reciprocal tariff to India. The US Supreme Court later struck that tariff down.

A separate 25 per cent tariff then remained. Linscott describes that period as a bad moment for the relationship. The dispute was not solved simply through routine negotiations. It required the leaders of both countries to engage directly, showing how trade measures became a broader diplomatic issue.

The two sides resolved that issue in February, but tariff pressure still shapes the interim agreement. India wants any new tariff arrangement to be preferential against major competitors. Linscott believes the earlier resolution is a positive sign, while noting that Russian oil and current US policy flexibility could affect the present discussions.

An interim agreement would change the conditions under which companies sell goods across the two markets. Its immediate purpose is market access, rather than completing every part of a full trade deal. That matters because tariffs and non-tariff barriers can make imported products harder or more expensive to sell.

For American businesses, lower Indian tariffs and progress on selected barriers could make access to India easier. Indian businesses would gain from preferential treatment compared with major competitors. The agreement could therefore create a more level playing field in each country’s market.

Consumers could see more accessible products if lower tariffs reduce trade costs, although the article does not promise specific price changes. The deal would also signal that India and the United States are strategic partners. If no interim deal is reached, Linscott says both sides would be worse off than they otherwise would be.

India and the United States want preferential access because each sees value in the other’s market. The article presents this as the immediate economic purpose of the negotiations. It also says both countries have been pursuing preferential agreements with other partners, making equal treatment important.

The mechanism is straightforward: an agreement could lower selected tariffs and address priority non-tariff barriers. That would improve one country’s access to the other and prevent their businesses from facing a disadvantage compared with competitors that already have trade preferences.

China appears in the discussion as a possible manufacturing alternative, but Linscott does not describe that as the immediate focus. He says market access benefits come first. The agreement would also carry strategic meaning by showing that India and the United States can move forward together. The article does not establish a specific plan to reduce dependence on China.

Tariffs are charges placed on imported goods. They can raise the cost of products from another country and make foreign businesses less competitive. Non-tariff barriers are restrictions that do not take the form of a tariff, such as rules, procedures, or requirements that make market access more difficult.

The article identifies both as central issues in the interim negotiations. For example, the United States could benefit from lower Indian tariffs and from resolving selected priority non-tariff barriers. The agreement would not address every barrier at once. It would focus on issues both sides have chosen for the first phase.

A trade agreement regulates these matters by recording negotiated commitments in legal text. Those commitments can specify which tariffs fall and which barriers are addressed. Here, the interim agreement would be legally binding, while especially sensitive areas, including some agriculture and dairy questions, could be deferred to later phases.