Once again, US President Donald Trump has taken credit for mediating the end of hostilities between India and Pakistan, saying he used commerce as a tool to save the two nuclear-armed neighbors from going to war. “We stopped India and Pakistan from fighting,” Trump said at a recent gathering in the Oval Office.
That, in my opinion, might have resulted in a nuclear catastrophe, and I would like to express my gratitude to my people as well as the leaders of Pakistan and India. Additionally, when we discuss trade, we stress that we cannot do business with those who are aiming at one another and may be utilizing nuclear weapons.
They understood and agreed, and they are excellent leaders in those nations. As he has stated in several interviews and public appearances in recent weeks, Trump stressed that his administration de-escalated tensions by using trade incentives and the threat of stopping commerce.
The Indian government has, however, strongly refuted these allegations. Although there were discussions between Indian and US leaders about the changing military situation after the start of Operation Sindoor on May 7—a reaction to the Pahalgam terror attack—the topic of trade or tariffs was not brought up in any of those exchanges, according to India’s Ministry of External Affairs.
Official statements claim that the cease-fire was reached on May 10 following direct discussions between the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan, rather than as a result of any third-party mediation or pressure from the US over commerce. The External Affairs Minister and spokesperson for India have reaffirmed this stance and emphasized India’s strategy of using direct communication to resolve bilateral issues with Pakistan.
26 civilians were killed in a terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, which sparked the most recent escalation. Operation Sindoor, which targeted terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, was India’s response.
The DGMOs of both nations decided to stop all military operations on land, in the air, and at sea after days of drone and missile attacks. With India traditionally resisting third-party engagement in its issues, Trump’s repeated claims about using trade as pressure to end the conflict have rekindled discussion over the amount of international influence in the region.
India insists that the deal was reached bilaterally, without outside influence or any connection to trade talks, despite Trump and his administration’s ongoing portrayal of the US as a crucial mediator in the de-escalation. In addition to highlighting the persistent difficulties over the role of global powers in South Asian wars, this narrative divergence also underlines how sensitively India handles questions of diplomatic involvement and sovereignty.
