In a dramatic announcement that has electrified India’s political landscape, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Donald Trump unveiled what they’re calling a landmark US-India trade deal 2026 on February 1st. Modi took to X (formerly Twitter) to hail the agreement as a “historic milestone” that would deepen bilateral ties and unlock unprecedented economic opportunities. Yet within hours, the Congress criticism US India deal erupted into a political firestorm, with opposition leaders branding the arrangement a capitulation that threatens to transform India into an “American colony.”

The controversy centers on what remains unsaid as much as what’s been revealed. While the Trump Modi trade agreement details promise substantial tariff reductions and increased trade flows, the devil—as opposition voices insist—lurks in the strategic concessions that may fundamentally alter India’s foreign policy autonomy.

The Deal’s Contours: Tariff Cuts and Trade Commitments

According to multiple authoritative sources including Reuters and Bloomberg, the agreement centers on reciprocal tariff reductions that could reshape bilateral commerce. The India US tariffs reduction impact appears substantial on paper: India has committed to slashing tariffs on select American goods from approximately 50% to 18%—a reduction that Washington has long demanded.

In exchange, Trump administration officials have indicated willingness to reduce certain tariffs on Indian exports, particularly in sectors where India holds competitive advantages. The Council on Foreign Relations notes that this represents a significant shift from Trump’s previous stance, where he famously called India the “tariff king.”

Key provisions reportedly include:

Sector-Specific Tariff Impacts:

While proponents argue these reductions will boost Indian exports—particularly in pharmaceuticals and IT services, where India commands global market share—critics point to asymmetric vulnerabilities in agriculture and manufacturing.

Opposition’s Fury: “Economic Surrender” or Strategic Pragmatism?

The Congress criticism US India deal has been withering and unrelenting. Rahul Gandhi, Congress’s most prominent voice, attacked the agreement as “Modi’s complete surrender to American interests,” drawing parallels to colonial-era treaties that subordinated Indian interests to British commercial demands.

“This isn’t a trade deal—it’s a charter for American economic colonization,” Gandhi declared at a press conference, highlighting what he termed “secret clauses” that remain undisclosed. Congress spokesperson Jairam Ramesh elaborated on what the opposition views as the deal’s most troubling aspects:

The Russian Oil Dilemma: Perhaps the most explosive allegation centers on reports that India stops Russian oil US deal provisions may be embedded in side agreements. According to The Hindu, unofficial briefings suggest India has committed to “significantly reducing” its purchases of discounted Russian crude—purchases that have saved the Indian economy billions of dollars since the Ukraine conflict began.

India ramped up Russian oil imports from virtually zero to over 1.8 million barrels per day following Western sanctions on Moscow. This discounted oil—purchased at $20-30 below market rates—has been crucial in managing inflation and maintaining India’s current account balance. Opposition economists estimate that reverting to market-rate purchases from Middle Eastern or American suppliers could cost India an additional $15-20 billion annually.

The $500 Billion Question: Trump has publicly claimed India will purchase “$500 billion worth of American goods” over the deal’s timeframe, though specific timelines remain unclear. Hindustan Times reports that Indian officials have neither confirmed nor denied this figure, fueling speculation about what commitments Modi’s government actually made.

Critics note that India’s total imports from the US in 2024 stood at approximately $42 billion. Reaching $500 billion would require either a dramatic expansion of the timeline or transformative shifts in procurement—particularly in defense, energy, and technology sectors.

Strategic Autonomy Under Pressure?

Beyond immediate economic calculations, opposition voices frame the deal as eroding India’s cherished strategic autonomy—the decades-old policy of maintaining independent foreign policy choices regardless of great power pressures.

Former Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran articulated these concerns in recent commentary, noting that trade agreements increasingly serve as vehicles for broader geopolitical alignment. “When trade deals involve commitments on third-party relations—such as oil purchases from Russia—they cease to be purely commercial arrangements,” he observed.

The timing is particularly sensitive. India has walked a diplomatic tightrope on Ukraine, refusing to condemn Russia explicitly while maintaining robust defense and energy ties with Moscow. This position has frustrated Washington but allowed India to preserve relationships across the geopolitical spectrum. Critics worry the new trade framework forecloses this flexibility.

Comparisons to the recent US-Pakistan ceasefire have also surfaced in political discourse. Congress leaders argue that Trump is simultaneously rewarding Pakistan with diplomatic engagement while extracting strategic concessions from India—a “double game” that leaves New Delhi with obligations but uncertain benefits.

Economic Benefits: Real or Oversold?

Government defenders counter that opposition criticisms ignore substantial economic opportunities. The Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) has welcomed the agreement, particularly provisions that may ease market access for Indian IT services, pharmaceuticals, and textiles.

IT and Digital Services: With tariff and regulatory barriers reduced, Indian IT companies—which already dominate global outsourcing—could expand their US footprint. Industry estimates suggest potential revenue gains of $15-20 billion over five years.

Pharmaceutical Exports: India supplies nearly 40% of generic drugs to the US market. Streamlined regulatory approvals and tariff reductions could accelerate this further, though concerns about intellectual property requirements persist.

Manufacturing and “Make in India”: Here the picture muddies considerably. While reduced tariffs on intermediate goods could boost India’s manufacturing competitiveness, flooding Indian markets with American agricultural products and finished goods could undermine domestic industries still developing under protectionist frameworks.

Agricultural economists warn that dairy farmers, pulse growers, and certain fruit producers could face devastating competition from heavily subsidized American agribusiness. The politically crucial farm sector—already volatile after years of protest—could become even more unstable.

What We Still Don’t Know: The Transparency Deficit

Remarkably, for an agreement touted as “historic,” critical details remain undisclosed. As Council on Foreign Relations analysts note, the absence of published text—even in summary form—is highly unusual for trade agreements of this magnitude.

Unanswered Questions Include:

• Implementation timeline: When do tariff reductions actually take effect?
• Sectoral exclusions: Which industries are protected or exempt?
• Dispute resolution: What mechanisms exist for resolving trade conflicts?
• Labor and environmental standards: Are there enforceable provisions?
• Investment protections: What rights do American companies gain in Indian markets?
• Pharmaceutical IP requirements: Does India face tighter intellectual property enforcement that could limit generic drug production?

This opacity fuels opposition charges of US India trade surrender concerns, with critics arguing that transparency itself has been sacrificed for optics.

Global Context: Trump’s Transactional Trade Strategy

Understanding the deal requires situating it within Trump’s broader trade approach. Unlike traditional multilateral frameworks, Trump favors bilateral deals that maximize American leverage and deliver tangible, measurable outcomes—preferably ones he can tout politically.

For India, this creates both opportunity and risk. Trump’s willingness to negotiate suggests flexibility that multilateral forums rarely offer. Yet his transactional style also means agreements can be renegotiated or abandoned if political winds shift. The volatility that characterized his first term—when he threatened India with retaliatory tariffs multiple times—hasn’t disappeared.

Bloomberg’s trade analysts note that Trump views India primarily through three lenses: a massive consumer market for American goods, a counterweight to China, and a source of skilled immigration he wants to restrict. The challenge for Indian negotiators is extracting maximum benefit from the first two while managing the third.

Opposition’s Alternative Vision: What Would Congress Do Differently?

Critics bear responsibility for articulating alternatives, not just opposition. Congress leaders have sketched—albeit vaguely—what they would prioritize differently:

• Maintain Russian energy ties while diversifying suppliers to avoid overdependence
• Negotiate tariff reductions sector-by-sector rather than broad cuts that expose vulnerable industries
• Demand reciprocal commitments on H-1B visas and immigration restrictions
• Prioritize regional trade agreements (particularly reviving enthusiasm for Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership participation)
• Insist on published texts before parliamentary ratification

Whether these alternatives constitute a coherent counter-strategy or political positioning remains debatable.

Looking Ahead: Parliamentary Battles and Economic Reality

As the deal moves toward potential parliamentary consideration, political warfare will intensify. The opposition, though numerically weaker, will use the debate to question the government’s competence and independence. Regional parties—particularly those representing agricultural states—will face pressure to oppose provisions threatening farmers.

Yet economic gravity may ultimately matter more than political rhetoric. If the agreement genuinely accelerates growth, creates jobs, and expands exports, public opinion may shift regardless of opposition framing. Conversely, if tariff reductions devastate specific sectors or strategic concessions prove costly, vindication will flow to critics.

The US-India trade deal 2026 represents more than commerce—it’s a referendum on India’s evolving global posture. Whether it marks a new chapter of prosperity or an erosion of hard-won strategic independence may not be clear for years. What is certain is that in democratic India, every clause and concession will be fiercely, noisily debated.

The countdown to a more resilient food future has begun. From 16–19 March 2026, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) will host the Asia and the Pacific Food Systems Forum at its headquarters in Manila and online.

As the region grapples with the intersection of climate change, water scarcity, and rising food costs, this forum serves as a critical pitstop on the road to transformation. Under the theme “Feeding the Future, Sustaining the Planet,” global leaders and innovators will gather to turn ADB’s $40 billion food systems commitment into tangible action.

🌏 Event At-a-Glance

💡 Why This Forum Matters

Asia and the Pacific are at a tipping point. This isn’t just another conference; it’s a collaborative engine designed to tackle “permacrisis” head-on. The agenda bridges the gap between high-level policy and boots-on-the-ground innovation.

Key Highlights Include:

• Flagship Showcases: Deep dives into initiatives like Glaciers-to-Farms, Sustainable Rice Farming, and the Pacific Agri-Food Investment Platform.
• Tech & AI: Spotlighting digital and data-driven solutions that can scale productivity without sacrificing the planet.
• Natural Capital: Exploring how nature-positive solutions and “Source-to-Sea” river basin management can safeguard our food supply.
• Nutrition Fair: A vibrant marketplace for cutting-edge research and investment opportunities in nutrition security.

🎯 Who Should Attend?

This forum is a “big tent” event for anyone moving the needle on food security:

• Government Officials from ADB member countries.
• Private Sector Innovators and AgTech startups.
• Development Partners (MDBs, UN agencies, and donors).
• Academia & Think-Tanks researching sustainable agriculture.
• Civil Society advocates for inclusive and rural revitalization.

📋 Objectives: The Roadmap to Success

The forum aims to do more than just discuss—it aims to deliver. The core goals include:

1. Reporting Progress: Tracking the performance of ADB’s massive food systems investment.
2. Mapping Solutions: Identifying innovations across every pillar of the food supply chain.
3. Mobilizing Finance: Strengthening partnerships to fund climate-resilient agriculture.
4. Setting the Agenda: Guiding the discussions for the upcoming ADB Annual Meeting in May 2026.

📝 How to Secure Your Spot

Participation is free, but registration is mandatory for both virtual and in-person attendees.

Note for Onsite Hopefuls: Space at the Manila HQ is limited. Filling out the registration form does not guarantee an onsite seat; please wait for a formal confirmation email from the Secretariat before booking your travel.

Registration Deadline: 15 February 2026

To register for the event , fill out this form on or before 15 February 2026.

In the mahogany-rowed offices of Canary Wharf, the air has shifted. For decades, HSBC—the “World’s Local Bank”—tried to be everything to everyone, a sprawling colonial-era relic attempting to compete in every corner of the financial universe. But under the clinical leadership of CEO Georges Elhedery, the bank is shedding its skin.

The result? The emergence of a $600 billion debt machine.

By pivoting away from high-glamour, low-yield advisory and equity underwriting in Western markets, HSBC has effectively doubled down on what it does best: moving massive amounts of credit through its global arteries. As revealed in the HSBC 3Q 2025 Earnings Release, the bank is no longer just a lender; it is a high-velocity origination and distribution engine.

The $600 Billion Balance Sheet: HSBC’s New Powerhouse

At the heart of Elhedery’s “Simplification” program is the newly minted Corporate and Institutional Banking (CIB) division. This isn’t just a name change; it’s a consolidation of power. By merging Global Banking and Markets with Commercial Banking, HSBC has created a unit with a near-$600 billion balance sheet dedicated to dominating the credit lifecycle.

This strategy—which we might call HSBC balance sheet optimization—is designed to exploit the bank’s unique footprint. While Wall Street titans like JPMorgan often struggle with local liquidity in emerging markets, HSBC sits on a $1.7 trillion deposit base (as of 3Q 2025).

Why the Shift to Debt?

The math is simple. Equity underwriting is volatile and requires expensive “star” bankers. Debt financing, however, is the bread and butter of global trade. By focusing on HSBC financing strategies that prioritize debt origination over M&A advice, the bank is targeting more predictable, recurring revenue streams.

“We are moving from 0% single accountability… to now about 60% of our revenue generated under single accountability,” Elhedery recently noted, signaling an end to the “matrix” bureaucracy that once slowed the bank to a crawl.

The Mechanics of the Machine: CLOs, SRTs, and Private Credit

To keep this machine running without falling foul of stringent capital requirements, HSBC is employing a sophisticated toolkit of financial engineering.

The “machine” functions through three primary levers:

1. Significant Risk Transfers (SRTs): By selling the “first loss” piece of its loan portfolios to private investors, HSBC can reduce its risk-weighted assets (RWAs) without actually selling the loans. This allows for rapid capital recycling.
2. Collateralized Loan Obligations (CLOs): HSBC has become a dominant force in the CLO market, bundling mid-market loans into tradable securities, essentially acting as a bridge between corporate borrowers and yield-hungry institutional investors.
3. HSBC Private Credit Alliances: In a “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” move, the bank has formed deep partnerships with private credit funds. This allows HSBC to originate loans that might be too risky for its own balance sheet and pass them off to partners, earning a fee in the process.

This shift toward global debt distribution has allowed HSBC to report a Q3 2025 pre-tax profit of $7.7 billion (excluding notable items), as reported by Reuters.

The Rivalry: How HSBC is Competing with JPMorgan in Debt Markets

For years, the narrative was that US banks had won the global banking war. However, 2025 has seen a surprising counter-offensive. While JPMorgan remains the undisputed king of the “bulge bracket,” HSBC is winning the battle for the “Global South” and tech-heavy corridors.

Data from Bloomberg suggests that HSBC has overtaken several US peers in dollar-denominated bond bookrunning for tech giants and emerging market sovereigns. The bank’s ability to offer “end-to-end” financing—from simple credit lines to complex cross-border debt issuance—makes it a formidable opponent.

Risks in the Gears: Macroeconomic Headwinds

No machine is without its friction points. As The Economist has frequently warned, a “debt machine” is only as healthy as the global economy’s ability to service that debt.

• Interest Rate Volatility: While high rates have boosted banking net interest income (NII) to an expected $43 billion+ for 2025, a sharp “hard landing” could lead to a spike in expected credit losses (ECLs).
• The Hong Kong Factor: Despite the pivot, HSBC remains heavily exposed to the Hong Kong commercial real estate (CRE) sector, which has seen significant pressure in 2025.
• Regulatory Scrutiny: Regulators are increasingly wary of “shadow banking” ties, particularly the private credit alliances that HSBC is now championing.

Conclusion: The Investor’s Journey

HSBC’s transformation is a journey from a sprawling empire to a focused, high-tech fortress. For investors, the appeal lies in the bank’s commitment to a 50% dividend payout ratio and its upgraded Return on Tangible Equity (RoTE) guidance of “mid-teens or better” for 2025.

By fashioning a $600 billion debt machine, Georges Elhedery isn’t just cutting costs; he is redefining what it means to be a global bank in a fragmented world. Whether this machine can weather the next global downturn remains the $600 billion question.