In a series of bold statements made at the White House this week, U.S. President Donald Trump has again claimed personal credit for averting what he described as a potential nuclear war between India and Pakistan earlier in 2025. Speaking during cabinet meetings on both August 26 and 27, Trump asserted that his direct intervention, involving stern warnings and the threat of crippling tariffs, persuaded both South Asian nations to step back from the brink of catastrophic conflict.
According to reporting from Economic Times and other international outlets, Trump recounted his conversations with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whom he repeatedly described as “a very terrific man.” Trump said, “I’m talking to a very terrific man, Modi of India. I said, what’s going on with you and Pakistan? Then I spoke to Pakistan about trade. I said, what’s going on with you and India? This has been going on for a hell of a long time, sometimes under different names for hundreds of years.”
Trump’s remarks came as additional U.S. tariffs imposed on India took effect, further complicating the already tense trade relationship between the two countries. During the cabinet meeting on August 27, Trump elaborated on his approach, claiming he had threatened India with steep tariffs and refused to proceed with a trade deal unless the conflict with Pakistan was resolved. He recounted telling Modi, “I said, I don’t want to make a trade deal with you... You guys are going to end up in a nuclear war... I said, call me back tomorrow, but we’re not going to do any deals with you, or we’re going to put tariffs on you that are so high, your head’s going to spin.”
The president went on to claim that his intervention had an immediate impact. “Trump claimed that within five hours of the conversation, both sides had backed down. ‘It was done. Now maybe it starts again. I don’t know. I don’t think so, but I’ll stop it if it does. We can’t let these things happen,’” he said, as reported by Economic Times.
Trump also asserted that the conflict had already resulted in the downing of several military aircraft, with losses totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. “That’s not good, that’s a lot of jets. 150 million dollar planes were shot down, a lot of them – seven, maybe it could be higher, they never revealed the true numbers,” Trump stated, though he did not provide evidence or cite official sources for these claims.
Drawing a parallel to another major geopolitical crisis, Trump suggested that the India-Pakistan standoff could have escalated in a manner similar to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. “Just like Russia and Ukraine were going to pull the world into World War, India and Pakistan were going to end in nuclear war,” he said, emphasizing the global stakes involved.
This is not the first time Trump has claimed that his intervention prevented an all-out war between India and Pakistan. Over the past year, he has repeatedly pointed to his role as a mediator, often framing the crisis as one that required the unique leverage of the U.S. president to resolve. According to Trump, his willingness to use trade as a negotiating tool was key to de-escalating the situation. “I said, call me back tomorrow,” Trump recalled, “but we’re not going to do any deals with you, or we’re going to put tariffs on you that are so high, your head’s going to spin.”
However, these claims have been met with categorical denials from the Indian government. Both Prime Minister Modi and senior officials have consistently rejected the notion that any third-party mediation, including that of the United States, played a role in the de-escalation. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh previously stated that the ceasefire was the result of India’s own strategic decisions and that “no external pressure was a factor.”
Parliamentary records from last month show PM Modi himself refuting the idea of third-party involvement, a stance echoed by other senior ministers. External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar and Home Minister Amit Shah have both publicly dismissed suggestions that the U.S. or any other country influenced India’s handling of the crisis. This firm rejection underscores India’s longstanding policy of resolving matters with Pakistan bilaterally, without external interference.
The India-Pakistan relationship has been fraught with tension for decades, punctuated by periodic flare-ups along the Line of Control in Kashmir and elsewhere. Both countries possess nuclear arsenals and have fought multiple wars since their independence in 1947. The risk of escalation is never far from the surface, and even minor incidents can quickly spiral into major confrontations. In this context, Trump’s claims—whether accurate or exaggerated—reflect the high stakes and international concern that typically surround any India-Pakistan crisis.
Yet, the precise details of the 2025 standoff remain shrouded in ambiguity. While Trump has spoken of “seven, maybe it could be higher” military aircraft being shot down, neither India nor Pakistan has confirmed such losses, and independent verification is lacking. The president’s assertion that both sides “backed down” within five hours of his intervention has also not been corroborated by officials from New Delhi or Islamabad.
Some observers suggest that Trump’s narrative fits a broader pattern of self-promotion, particularly in the context of foreign policy. By positioning himself as the indispensable peacemaker, Trump seeks to reinforce his image as a dealmaker who can resolve even the world’s most intractable disputes. Critics, however, argue that such claims risk oversimplifying complex situations and can undermine the credibility of diplomatic efforts.
For India, the idea of third-party mediation remains particularly sensitive. Successive governments have maintained that the country’s disputes with Pakistan are bilateral and should not be subject to outside interference. This position has deep historical roots, dating back to the Simla Agreement of 1972, which established the framework for direct dialogue between the two countries. Any suggestion that New Delhi bowed to external pressure is likely to meet with strong resistance, both politically and in public opinion.
Meanwhile, the specter of nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan continues to haunt the region. Despite occasional steps toward dialogue, the underlying issues—territorial disputes, cross-border terrorism, and mutual mistrust—persist. The international community, including the United States, has a vested interest in preventing escalation, but the limits of outside influence are often apparent.
As the dust settles on Trump’s latest remarks, the broader question remains: What role, if any, did U.S. diplomacy play in defusing the 2025 crisis? While Trump’s account is dramatic and self-assured, the official Indian version is far more restrained and firmly rooted in the principle of sovereignty. What is clear is that the risks of escalation in South Asia are real—and the search for lasting peace, as ever, remains unfinished business.
