Rahul Gandhi criticises India–US trade deal as tariffs on Indian goods rise to 18%

Summary

Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi has criticised the recently concluded interim India–US trade agreement, arguing that it leaves India at a disadvantage on tariffs, digital policy, agriculture and energy security. The government has positioned the deal as a stabilising step in bilateral trade relations.

NEW DELHI, Feb 11 — Congress leader and Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday criticised the interim trade agreement between India and the United States, calling it “absurd” and arguing that it weakens India’s strategic and economic position.

Speaking during the Budget Session of Parliament, Gandhi claimed that effective US tariff levels on Indian goods have risen from roughly 3% earlier to 18% under the new framework. The agreement reduces previously announced US reciprocal tariffs from 25% to 18% and removes an additional levy linked to India’s purchase of Russian oil.

Concerns over tariffs and strategic leverage

Gandhi argued that the agreement should have been negotiated differently to better protect India’s long-term interests. He suggested that India could have used access to its large digital market and data ecosystem as a stronger bargaining tool in trade discussions.

According to Gandhi, data will be a defining strategic asset in the global economy, and India should treat it as such when negotiating with major partners.

Digital policy and data governance

A key part of his criticism focused on digital trade provisions. Gandhi alleged that the deal:

• Eases data localisation requirements
• Allows freer cross-border data flows
• Places constraints on digital taxation and regulatory disclosures

He argued that such provisions could limit India’s flexibility in shaping its digital economy and industrial policy in the future.

The government has not publicly detailed specific digital trade concessions in response to these claims.

Agriculture and energy security

Gandhi also raised concerns about the potential impact on agriculture, warning that increased market access for US agricultural products could intensify competition for Indian farmers, particularly small and marginal producers.

On energy security, he stressed that India must retain full autonomy over its sourcing decisions and ensure trade arrangements do not restrict its ability to manage imports independently.

Government position

While responding more broadly to trade policy discussions, government officials have described the interim agreement as a practical step toward stabilising trade ties with the US and reducing the immediate tariff burden compared with earlier proposals.

They have framed the deal as part of a phased approach toward a broader bilateral trade framework.

Why this matters

• Tariff realignment: Even with a reduction from earlier proposed levels, an 18% tariff baseline may reshape export competitiveness for key Indian sectors.
• Digital sovereignty debate: The dispute highlights the growing role of data governance in trade negotiations.
• Farmer sensitivity: Agriculture remains politically and economically sensitive, making trade concessions highly scrutinised.
• Strategic balancing: The deal reflects the broader challenge of balancing economic ties with the US while preserving domestic policy flexibility.

FAQs

Q1: What did Rahul Gandhi say about the India–US trade deal?

He criticised the interim agreement, arguing that it disadvantages India on tariffs and strategic policy areas such as data, agriculture and energy.

Q2: Why did he mention tariffs rising to 18%?

He argued that effective US tariffs under the new framework are higher than earlier baseline rates, despite being lower than previously proposed 25% tariffs.

Q3: What are his concerns about digital trade?

He claims the deal may relax data localisation rules and constrain India’s regulatory flexibility in the digital economy.

Q4: How could this affect Indian farmers?

Increased market access for US agricultural products could intensify competition if imports rise.

Q5: Has the government responded?

Officials have defended the agreement as a stabilising and pragmatic trade step, though detailed rebuttals to specific allegations have not been publicly outlined.