In a renewed and emphatic claim, former U.S. President Donald Trump has once again asserted that he pressured both India and Pakistan into ending a military conflict earlier this year by threatening to impose a 350 percent tariff on each country — a move he says forced their leaders to back down. According to Trump, both Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India and Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif personally called him to say they would not go to war.
Trump’s Narrative: Tariffs as a Foreign-Policy Tool
Trump, speaking at a high-profile U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum in Washington, doubled down on his long-standing claim that his “tariff power” played a decisive role in stopping what he described as a potentially catastrophic India–Pakistan escalation. “India and Pakistan were going to go at it with nuclear weapons,” Trump said, adding: “I told them, you can go at it, but I’m putting a 350 percent tariff on each country. No more trade with the United States.” Hindustan Times+2Business Standard+2
He framed the threat as earnest: “I was all set, 350 percent tariff to settle that war,” he told the audience. The Times of India+2Business Standard+2 Trump emphasized that he explicitly told the two countries that if they ceased hostilities, a favorable trade deal would follow: “If the countries stopped the war, we’ll make a nice trade deal.” The Economic Times+2The Indian Express+2
He claimed to have told his Treasury Secretary (Scott Bessent) that he was serious about imposing the 350% tariff — but that he was also prepared to pull back if New Delhi and Islamabad agreed to de-escalate. Business Standard
The Claimed Calls from Modi and Sharif
According to Trump, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif called him to express gratitude, allegedly saying he had “saved millions and millions of lives.” The Indian Express+1 Trump also said he received a call from Prime Minister Modi. In his retelling, Modi told him, “We’re done.” Trump said he replied, “You’re done with what?” — to which he claims Modi responded, “We’re not going to war.” Hindustan Times+1
Following that conversation, Trump said he told Modi: “Let’s make a deal.” Business Standard+1
Tariff Number Keeps Changing — and So Do the Stories
It’s worth noting that Trump has shifted his claimed tariff threat over time:
- In the remarks earlier this week, he insisted the rate was 350 percent. Hindustan Times
- But in earlier interviews — including one in October — he said he had threatened 200 percent tariffs on both countries. www.ndtv.com
- At yet another event, he mentioned a 250 percent tariff when discussing the same issue. Reuters
These shifting numbers raise questions about the consistency of his claims.
Trump’s Broader Argument: Tariffs as Peacemaking
Trump says that his use of tariffs as a foreign-policy lever is by design. He argued that he “settled” multiple international conflicts using trade pressure, claiming that five out of eight wars he dealt with ended because of his tariff strategy. Hindustan Times+1
He portrayed himself as a dealmaker who does not shy away from hardball tactics. “I used tariffs to settle all these wars … because of the economy, … because of trade, because of tariffs,” he asserted. Business Standard
India’s Response: Rejection and Denial
Despite Trump’s repeated claims, New Delhi has strongly denied that any third-party — including the United States — mediated the truce. Officials maintain that the understanding was reached bilaterally, through direct communication between the two countries’ military leadership. www.ndtv.com+2The Times of India+2
In particular, India’s Ministry of External Affairs has stated that trade was never discussed during the de-escalation talks. AP News According to them, the ceasefire was negotiated directly between the two armies, without any trade or tariff-based intervention. Business Standard+1
Historical Context: What Actually Happened
To understand Trump’s narrative, it helps to recall what triggered the crisis in May:
- On May 7, India launched Operation Sindoor, targeting militant infrastructure inside Pakistan and in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, following a terror attack that killed 26 civilians. The Economic Times+1
- A truce was announced on May 10, and Trump claimed at that time that Washington had brokered a “full and immediate” ceasefire. The Economic Times
- Yet, according to Indian officials, the deal was made at the DGMO (Director General of Military Operations)level — not via any U.S. diplomatic intervention. The Economic Times+1
Assessing the Claims: Fact vs. Assertion
Trump’s version of events has several key elements:
- He threatened 350% tariffs if India and Pakistan did not stop fighting. Hindustan Times+1
- He was willing to roll back the tariffs if they stood down, and promised a “nice trade deal” in return. The Economic Times
- He claims both Sharif and Modi called him to express that they would not go to war. The Indian Express+1
- He frames his tariff threats as a consistent tool he has used to resolve multiple global conflicts. Business Standard
On the other hand, India’s response is firm and unambiguous:
- New Delhi denies any trade-oriented mediation, saying no tariff or trade deal was ever discussed during the conflict. www.ndtv.com+1
- Officials maintain that the ceasefire was the result of direct military communication — not third-party negotiation. Business Standard
Why This Matters
Trump’s repeated claims are part of a broader narrative that elevates his presidency as one that can directly influence global conflicts through economic coercion. If true, it would suggest a powerful role for trade policy in peacemaking — something not usually associated with national security or diplomacy in conventional terms.
But the pushback from India also signals deeper geopolitical tensions over sovereignty, narrative control, and the legitimacy of external intervention. India’s insistence on a bilateral resolution reflects its long-standing diplomatic stance that conflicts with Pakistan should not be publicly reframed as outcomes of U.S. pressure.
If U.S.-led trade threats did play a role — as Trump claims — it would raise new questions about the nature of modern diplomacy, the leverage of economic tools in international crises, and the limits of narrative control in geopolitical strategy.
At the same time, critics may view Trump’s repetition of the claim — with shifting tariff figures (200%, 250%, 350%) — as part of a self-aggrandizing or exaggerated account. Given that this is not the first time he has made similar assertions (he has reportedly repeated the claim more than 60 times), the credibility gap could sway public perception and diplomatic reception.
Conclusion
Donald Trump’s fresh assertion — that he forced India and Pakistan to stand down via a 350% tariff threat, earning personal calls from both Modi and Sharif — remains unverified by independent sources and is flatly denied by India. While Trump frames the narrative as a diplomatic victory fueled by economic coercion, New Delhi’s rebuttal underscores its commitment to a bilateral resolution independent of external mediation.
Whether his account has any factual basis, or is part of a political myth-making process, the clash of narratives illustrates the complex interplay of diplomacy, trade, and power in contemporary geopolitics.
Leave a Reply