US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has launched a fresh, pointed offensive against India’s trade practices, warning that the world’s most populous nation could lose access to the American market unless it opens its doors to US-grown corn and reduces tariffs on American goods. The unusually sharp rhetoric comes amid ongoing, delicate trade negotiations between the two democracies, with both sides seeking leverage in a relationship that has grown increasingly fraught over the last year.
Speaking in a series of interviews and press conferences over the weekend leading up to September 14, 2025, Lutnick repeatedly questioned India’s refusal to buy even a single bushel of US corn, despite its population of 1.4 billion. As reported by The Times of India, Lutnick raged on the Axios Show, “India brags that they have 1.4 billion people… why won’t they buy one bushel of corn from us? Doesn’t that rub you the wrong way?” He continued, “President says bring down the tariffs… we have to right years of wrong. You either accept it or you are going to have a tough time doing business with the world’s greatest consumer.”
Lutnick’s remarks, echoed in interviews with Axios and CNBC, reflect a hardening US position. He described the trade relationship as “one way,” arguing that India benefits from access to the vast US market while restricting American goods. “They sell to us and take advantage of us. They block us from their economy. We are wide open for them to come in and take advantage of us,” he fumed, according to India Today. “It’s about fairness. America buys Indian goods freely, but when we want to sell, the walls go up.”
Underlying this public grandstanding is a deeper agricultural and geopolitical dispute. The US, facing a crisis in its farm sector after being shut out of the Chinese market—China has recently turned to Brazil for corn and soybeans—has pressed India to open its markets, particularly to American corn. Republican lawmakers from farm states, including Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Representative Don Bacon of Nebraska, have expressed growing concern about the damage President Trump’s tariff war is inflicting on American farmers. North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis warned that some farmers in his state are “one crop away from bankruptcy” due to the tariffs, TOI reported.
For its part, India has defended its policies vigorously. Indian officials point out that the country is the world’s fifth-largest corn producer, largely self-sufficient, and, in some years, even an exporter of corn. They note that American corn is mostly genetically modified, and India does not import genetically modified crops except for cotton. Perhaps most importantly, Indian negotiators emphasize their right to protect a fragile agricultural sector that employs roughly 500 million people, especially against imports from countries that heavily subsidize their own agriculture. While there is some scope for importing US corn for ethanol production, Indian officials argue that Lutnick’s “tirades, replete with misrepresentation, put India in a difficult spot even in areas where some accommodation is possible.”
The friction is not limited to corn. The Trump administration has imposed steep tariffs on Indian goods—25% on all imports, with an additional 25% penalty specifically tied to India’s purchases of discounted Russian oil. This brings the total tariff burden on Indian goods to a staggering 50%, among the highest imposed on any country in the world, according to News18. Lutnick justified these measures by saying, “The president says, ‘bring down your tariffs and treat us the way we treat you. We’ve got to right years of wrong, so we want tariffs to go the other way until we fix this. That’s the president’s motto and you either accept it or you are going to have a tough time doing business with the world’s greatest consumer.’”
The US has also tied its trade demands to India’s energy policy, particularly its continued purchase of Russian oil. Lutnick has repeatedly pointed to India’s procurement of discounted Russian crude as a key bone of contention. “Well, we’re going to sort out India,” he told CNBC, suggesting that progress in trade negotiations could occur if India stopped importing oil from Russia. The US has even urged the G7 and European Union to impose 100% tariffs on imports from India and China, seeking to isolate Russia economically and pressure it over the war in Ukraine.
India has not taken these accusations and actions lightly. New Delhi has officially described the US tariffs as “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable,” according to PTI. Indian officials maintain that their energy procurement is driven by national interest and market dynamics, not geopolitics. They argue that the US’s approach ignores the realities of India’s domestic needs and economic vulnerabilities. As one Indian interlocutor explained, “Such public grandstanding does not help negotiations.”
Despite the high-decibel rhetoric, there are signs that both sides recognize the need for compromise. US Ambassador nominee Sergio Gor told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that Washington and New Delhi are “not that far apart right now,” hinting at a possible softening of the American stance. President Trump himself, after initially ramping up the pressure, has reportedly “tuned it down” in recent days, though his advisers—including Lutnick, White House trade counselor Peter Navarro, and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—remain vocal advocates of the hardball approach.
The numbers reveal the complexity of the relationship. In 2024, India exported $87.3 billion worth of goods to the US, while the US exported $41.5 billion to India, resulting in a trade deficit of $45.8 billion. This gap is projected to shrink to around $40 billion in 2025 as India increases its purchases of US goods, including big-ticket military sales. Trade in services between the two countries is roughly balanced, further complicating the picture painted by US officials of a one-sided arrangement.
Critics of Lutnick’s approach have not held back. Some have labeled him a “carnival barker” and an “uneducated broker” for echoing Trump’s fixation on tariffs and for what they see as a simplistic view of global trade dynamics. Others, however, argue that the tough talk is part of a calculated strategy to extract concessions from India at the negotiating table. As TOI notes, “some analysts reckon they are only laying out his strategy of playing hardball with tough language.”
For now, the future of US-India trade relations hangs in the balance. The two sides remain locked in a test of wills, with agricultural exports, energy policy, and geopolitical alignments all in play. While the rhetoric may be heated, both nations have powerful incentives to find common ground. After all, in the world of global trade, even the toughest standoffs have a way of giving way to deals—sometimes at the very last minute.