In a series of bold statements this week, former U.S. President Donald Trump has reignited debate over his role in international diplomacy, claiming personal credit for halting a potentially catastrophic conflict between India and Pakistan earlier this year. Trump’s assertions, made both in public remarks and during bilateral meetings, have drawn attention to the tense days of May 2025, when the two nuclear-armed neighbors teetered on the brink of war.
According to The Economic Times, Trump told reporters, "I have stopped all of these wars. A big one would have been India and Pakistan. The war with India and Pakistan was the next level that was going to be a nuclear war... They already shot down seven jets, that was raging." He went on to explain that he threatened both countries with a halt in trade if they did not cease hostilities within a day. "I said, 'You want to trade? We are not doing any trade or anything with you if you keep fighting, you've got 24 hours to settle it.' They said, 'Well, there's no more war going on.' I used that on numerous occasions. I used trade and whatever I had to use," Trump claimed.
The backdrop to these claims is a period of acute tension between India and Pakistan in May 2025. The crisis erupted after India launched Operation Sindoor, a military campaign aimed at destroying terror launch pads in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. This operation was itself a direct response to the Pahalgam attack in Kashmir on April 22, which left 26 civilians dead. The violence escalated quickly, with both sides reportedly shooting down a total of seven jets between May 7 and May 10. The world watched anxiously as the two countries, both possessing nuclear arsenals, exchanged fire and rhetoric.
Trump’s narrative suggests that his intervention—specifically, the threat of suspending trade—was the decisive factor in bringing about a ceasefire. He reiterated this approach in a separate meeting with the President of the Republic of Korea, stating, "I stopped 7 wars that were raging... including India and Pakistan that was probably two weeks away from being a nuclear war. They were shooting down airplanes all over the place. I am very proud of that..."
The former president also linked his foreign policy strategy to the use of economic tools, particularly tariffs. "Of the 7 wars I stopped, 4 were because I had tariffs and trade, and I was able to say, 'If you go fight and want to kill everybody, that is okay, but I am going to charge you each a 100% tariff when you trade with us.' They all gave up..." Trump said, according to The Economic Times and reports from Washington, DC. He further boasted, "We are taking trillions of dollars in tariffs and stopping wars due to tariffs... Other countries did it to us and now we are doing it to other countries."
However, Trump’s claims have not gone unchallenged. Indian officials have consistently denied that the former U.S. president played any role in the de-escalation. According to The Economic Times, New Delhi maintains that the ceasefire was achieved through direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMO) of India and Pakistan, without any outside mediation. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs has repeatedly emphasized that the two countries are capable of managing their own disputes and that the truce was the result of bilateral negotiations, not international pressure.
The episode has sparked fresh discussion about the efficacy and ethics of using economic leverage, such as tariffs and trade restrictions, as a tool of foreign policy. Trump’s approach, which he describes as "aggressive economic leverage," has become a hallmark of his diplomatic style. This strategy has been echoed by current U.S. officials, most notably Vice President JD Vance, who recently defended the imposition of secondary sanctions and tariffs on India as part of Washington’s broader effort to pressure Russia over its ongoing war in Ukraine.
Speaking to NBC News’ Meet the Press, Vance explained, "The President has applied aggressive economic leverage, for example, the secondary tariffs on India, to try to make it harder for the Russians to get rich from their oil economy. He has tried to make it clear that Russia can be reintegrated into the world economy if it stops the killing, but they are going to continue to be isolated if it doesn't."
Vance went on to underline the administration’s willingness to use sanctions as both carrot and stick. "Sanctions are not off the table, but we are going to make these determinations on a case-by-case basis. What we do think is actually going to exert the right kind of leverage to bring the Russians to the table?" he said, while acknowledging that sanctions alone may not be sufficient to force a ceasefire.
The Vice President also pointed to the administration’s efforts to pressure China, the largest buyer of Russian oil, noting, "We have 54 per cent tariff on PRC right now, so we have already applied pretty hefty sanctions on the Chinese and we have had a number of conversations at all levels of government to try to encourage the Chinese to be better partners in bringing this war to a close." Vance suggested that tariffs could be reduced or increased depending on progress in negotiations with Russia, reflecting a flexible, outcome-oriented approach to economic statecraft.
In the context of the India-Pakistan crisis, Trump’s claims of stopping a nuclear war have drawn both skepticism and praise. Supporters argue that his willingness to use America’s economic might as leverage has prevented bloodshed and instability. Critics, however, warn that such tactics risk escalating tensions or undermining traditional diplomatic channels, especially when they involve countries with complex histories and sensitive security concerns.
What is clear is that the May 2025 standoff between India and Pakistan was a moment of genuine peril. The rapid escalation, the downing of military aircraft, and the specter of nuclear exchange rattled not only the region but also the broader international community. While the precise role of U.S. intervention remains a matter of dispute, the episode highlights the delicate balance of power in South Asia and the enduring importance of diplomatic engagement, whether through direct talks, economic incentives, or a combination of both.
As the dust settles, the debate over Trump’s legacy in crisis management continues. His supporters see a leader unafraid to wield economic tools for peace, while detractors question the wisdom and accuracy of his claims. For now, the world can be thankful that the worst-case scenario did not materialize—and that, at least this time, cooler heads prevailed on the subcontinent.
