‘Cautiously optimistic’: Delhi tracks shift after 18 months of rocky ties

Democrats seized control of both chambers of the US Congress in the midterm elections. That changed the political balance around President Donald Trump. Congress can now provide stronger checks on presidential decisions. For Delhi, this offered some relief after 19 months of turbulence in bilateral ties.

India was especially troubled by 50 per cent tariffs, restrictions on H-1B and student visas, OPT curbs, Trump’s proximity to Pakistan, and US re-engagement with China. Officials also worried about the effect of the West Asia war on energy prices and India’s economic environment. The new congressional majority could question or limit some executive actions.

Indian officials remained cautious rather than celebratory. They will watch whether Democrats challenge tariff powers granted under Republican control and oppose harsh immigration measures. They will also monitor Trump’s possible moves involving Iran, China, and Russia, since a politically constrained president may focus more heavily on foreign policy.

The Senate and House of Representatives are the two chambers of the US Congress, America’s national legislature. The Senate represents the states, while the House represents districts based on population. Together, they debate laws, approve spending, conduct oversight, and can shape executive authority. Their control matters because a president does not govern alone.

When both chambers are controlled by the opposition, they can hold hearings, demand explanations, reject proposals, and change laws that empower the administration. The article gives tariffs as a central example. A Republican-led Congress had empowered Trump to impose tariffs on countries importing Russian energy, including India and China. Democrats may now push back against that authority.

This does not automatically cancel presidential decisions. It creates political and legal obstacles, and it restores what the article calls checks and balances. India therefore expects closer scrutiny of tariffs and immigration policies. Congress’s response will show how much room remains for Trump to act without legislative support.

India’s difficulties covered both trade and migration. The clearest scale given is Trump’s 50 per cent tariff on Indian products. The article also identifies restrictions on H-1B visas, student visas, and Optional Practical Training, or OPT. It does not provide figures for how many Indian workers, students, or applications these immigration measures affected.

The tariff was imposed after India bought Russian energy. Trump used wartime executive powers, threatening the economic relationship and political trust built over more than two decades. He later lifted the tariffs after Delhi reduced Russian energy imports and agreed to an interim trade framework. The damage to strategic trust, however, remained.

These measures mattered because they affected two foundations of the relationship. Tariffs weakened Indian exporters’ competitiveness in the US market. Visa and OPT restrictions threatened movement for Indian workers and students. Delhi has raised these concerns with US lawmakers and will watch whether the Democratic Congress offers meaningful resistance.

A tariff raises the cost of imported goods in the US market. If Indian products become more expensive than competing goods, American buyers may choose rival suppliers. The article says this happened after Trump imposed 50 per cent tariffs: Indian products lost their competitive advantage. That directly threatened India’s exports to the United States.

The mechanism is straightforward. Higher import costs can reduce orders for Indian companies and make trade negotiations more difficult. The tariffs also affected political trust because they were used to punish India for buying Russian energy. Although Trump later lifted them after India reduced those imports and agreed to an interim trade framework, officials said the strategic damage had already been considerable.

The wider effect reaches beyond exporters. The article links the tariff dispute to affordability and the cost of living for average Americans, while the broader international environment had already raised energy prices and hurt India’s economic conditions. Delhi is therefore watching both congressional tariff policy and the pending trade deal.

The US system does not place all policymaking power in the president. Congress makes and changes laws, while courts can review whether executive actions fit the law and the Constitution. That division allows both institutions to challenge presidential decisions. The article says the Supreme Court pushed back against Trump’s tariffs, while Congress had separately empowered him to impose tariffs on countries importing Russian energy.

The key mechanism is competing authority. A president may use executive powers, but Congress can define, grant, restrict, or withdraw those powers through legislation. Courts can also question the legal basis for executive action. Democrats now control both chambers and may try to push back against tariff authority previously granted by the Republican-led Congress.

This reveals why the election matters beyond party politics. Tariffs affect trade, prices, and India’s exports, so congressional scrutiny could influence the US-India relationship. It remains uncertain how far Democrats will go, but Delhi will closely watch whether they alter or restrain the tariff powers.

Democratic control could create political space for immigrant concerns in Washington. The article says many Democratic lawmakers come from immigrant families and may take a more sympathetic approach to immigration. That could lead to stronger scrutiny of H-1B visa curbs, OPT restrictions, and ICE raids affecting Indians and other immigrant communities.

The mechanism would be congressional pressure. Senators and House members can question administration officials, hold hearings, and challenge policies through legislation or oversight. Delhi has already contacted lawmakers, including Democrats, about visa restrictions. Officials also plan to raise racism against Indians, after targeted attacks on Indians at a temple last month. They say the government will not actively lobby but will seek lawmakers’ support.

The likely effect is pushback, not an automatic reversal. Under Republican congressional control and empowered immigration czars Stephen Miller and Tom Homan, India’s pleas had failed. A Democratic majority may make debate more sympathetic, but the article cautions that its members will also ask tough questions.

Strategic trust is the confidence that two countries will treat one another reliably over time. It supports diplomacy, trade, and political cooperation because each side expects commitments to be respected. The article connects India and the United States through more than two decades of political and diplomatic work, making trust a major foundation of their relationship.

Trust can grow through stable negotiations, trade agreements, and consistent government decisions. It can also weaken quickly when one country uses economic pressure or changes strategic positions. Trump’s 50 per cent tariffs punished India for buying Russian energy. His proximity to Pakistan and US re-engagement with China also troubled Delhi. The tariffs were later lifted after India reduced Russian energy imports and agreed to an interim trade framework.

Officials said the damage was already considerable. One described public opinion in India as turning against the US and said repairing trust would take years. Future trade negotiations, immigration policy, and US actions involving Iran, China, and Russia will determine whether confidence improves.