As trade tensions between the United States and India continue, Republican lawmakers from Montana and North Dakota have stepped into the spotlight, urging President Donald Trump to engage directly with India on reducing tariffs on American pulse exports. In a development that flips the usual trade dynamic—where countries typically lobby the U.S. for concessions—the senators have now asked Trump to actively seek tariff relief from India to protect the interests of American farmers.

Senators Highlight Key Trade Imbalance

In a letter addressed to the President, Senator Steve Daines of Montana and Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakotanoted the importance of pulse crops, including yellow peas, lentils, chickpeas, and dried beans, to the agricultural economies of their states. Montana and North Dakota are the two largest pulse-producing states in the U.S., collectively supplying a substantial portion of the global market. India, in contrast, is the world’s largest consumer of pulses, accounting for roughly 27 percent of global intake.

The senators argued that recent Indian tariffs on American yellow peas have placed U.S. producers at a competitive disadvantage. As per the letter, India had implemented a 30 percent import duty on yellow peas in November 2025. This consisted of a 10 percent standard tariff plus a 20 percent Agriculture Infrastructure and Development Cess (AIDC) applicable if the Bill of Lading was issued on or after November 1, 2025. Prior to this policy, yellow peas had been allowed entry into India duty-free, a status expected to last until March 2026.

The senators contended that the new tariffs disrupt the natural flow of trade, harm American farmers, and restrict access for Indian consumers to U.S. pulses. “As a result of the unfair Indian tariffs, U.S. pulse crop producers face a significant competitive disadvantage when exporting their high-quality product to India,” the letter stated.

Context Behind India’s Tariff Decision

India’s 30 percent tariff, according to reports from Reuters, was largely a response to domestic agricultural concerns. Local farmers had raised alarms about an influx of cheaper imported pulses, which threatened to depress domestic crop prices. The government’s decision to impose the duties—including the AIDC component—was intended to protect Indian farmers’ livelihoods and maintain stable prices in the local market.

The Indian measure is part of a broader set of agricultural and trade protections designed to balance domestic production with international trade flows, particularly in staples essential for food security. While the policy addresses local economic interests, it has inadvertently created friction with U.S. producers seeking to expand their export footprint in India’s large and growing pulse market.

Senators’ Request: Trump to Engage Modi

Daines and Cramer urged President Trump to personally raise the issue of tariffs during trade negotiations with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, emphasizing the mutual benefits of reduced duties. According to the senators, such engagement would not only support American farmers but also benefit Indian consumers, who rely on imported pulses to meet dietary and nutritional demands.

The senators reminded Trump that he had hand-delivered a similar letter to PM Modi in 2020 during earlier trade negotiations. They suggested that renewed engagement could reopen dialogue on fair trade provisions for pulse crops and potentially pave the way for a broader agreement on agricultural products.

The Wider U.S.–India Trade Context

The request from the Montana and North Dakota senators comes amid broader U.S.–India trade friction. While the U.S. maintains 50 percent tariffs on certain Indian imports, many of these were announced under Trump as penalties for India’s oil trade with Russia. Negotiations for a comprehensive trade deal between India and the U.S. have been ongoing but remain unresolved, with both sides citing technical and political challenges.

In a recent development, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick claimed that a potential trade deal fell through because PM Modi “didn’t call” Trump. India rejected this assertion, emphasizing its continued interest in concluding a mutually beneficial agreement. Later, U.S. Ambassador to India Sergio Gor reiterated that both countries remain engaged on trade matters, highlighting that discussions are ongoing despite public controversies.

Economic Stakes for U.S. States

For Montana and North Dakota, pulses represent high-value agricultural exports critical to rural economies. These crops contribute not only to farm income but also to employment in processing, transportation, and storage sectors. High tariffs in India threaten this revenue stream, potentially affecting hundreds of farmers and allied businesses across the two states.

The senators also pointed out that India’s demand for pulses is consistent and growing, driven by population growth, urbanization, and changing consumption patterns. Lower tariffs would allow U.S. farmers to compete more effectively with other exporters, stabilizing market access and protecting their international share of the pulse market.

Implications for India

From India’s perspective, tariffs are a tool to shield domestic agriculture and stabilize local food markets. Pulses, being a staple in Indian diets, are sensitive to price fluctuations caused by large-scale imports. By imposing a 30 percent tariff, the Indian government sought to ensure fair pricing for domestic producers, maintaining supply security while preventing market disruptions.

Trade experts note that this situation highlights the delicate balancing act in international agricultural trade. While U.S. producers seek broader access to Indian markets, India must protect domestic farmers who rely on pulses as both a source of income and a key nutritional crop. Negotiations will need to address the interests of both countries, potentially through phased tariff reductions, export quotas, or collaborative agricultural programs.

Political Angle

The senators’ letter also underscores a unique political scenario, where domestic U.S. lawmakers are urging the President to press a foreign government for concessions, a reversal from typical lobbying patterns. Usually, foreign governments seek relief from U.S. tariffs; in this case, it is U.S. producers asking the President to advocate abroad.

The letter frames the engagement as mutually beneficial: U.S. farmers gain market access, while Indian consumers and food processors benefit from stable, high-quality supplies of pulses. The request also positions Trump as a deal-maker, reinforcing his domestic political image as a champion of American farmers while engaging in high-level international negotiations.

Looking Ahead

As January 2026 progresses, attention will likely focus on whether Trump raises the issue with PM Modi during upcoming bilateral discussions or trade negotiations. Analysts suggest that a potential agreement could include:

• Gradual reduction of India’s 30 percent tariffs on specific pulses
• Mechanisms to ensure stable pricing for Indian farmers
• Trade facilitation measures to streamline exports from Montana and North Dakota

Such measures would aim to balance the competing priorities of U.S. exporters and Indian domestic producers, while strengthening agricultural trade ties between the two countries.

Conclusion

The letter from Senators Daines and Cramer represents a notable intervention in the U.S.–India trade dialogue, spotlighting the economic and political stakes surrounding pulse crops. With Montana and North Dakota leading U.S. production and India consuming the largest share globally, tariffs on pulses have become a flashpoint.

By urging Trump to actively seek tariff relief, the senators are highlighting both the importance of pulses to American farmers and the potential for bilateral cooperation in agricultural trade. As negotiations continue, all eyes will be on whether the U.S. President engages India directly to achieve a practical solution that addresses both domestic and international interests.