Washington: The trade relationship between India and the United States has once again come under strain, this time over American corn imports, highlighting a pattern of Washington using tariffs as a diplomatic and economic lever. Even before formal trade negotiations resumed, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick issued a stern warning to New Delhi, asserting that India could risk losing access to the American market if it refuses to buy U.S.-grown corn.
Speaking to Axios, Lutnick painted a picture of an imbalanced trade relationship. “India sells to us and takes advantage of us,” he said. “They block us from their economy, and they sell to us while we are wide open for them to come in and take advantage.” He emphasized the contradiction he sees in India’s market stance: “India brags that they have 1.4 billion people. Why won’t 1.4 billion people buy one bushel of U.S. corn? They put tariffs on everything.” A bushel, he noted, measures 35.2 liters and is commonly used for dry goods like grains.
Lutnick further claimed that President Donald Trump had instructed India to reduce tariffs and treat the U.S. on equal terms. “That’s the president’s model, and you either accept it or you’re going to have a tough time doing business with the world’s greatest consumer,” he said, signaling that Washington is prepared to leverage tariffs in its favor until it perceives trade disparities to be corrected.
India’s reluctance to import U.S. corn is rooted in regulatory and agricultural concerns. Most U.S. corn varieties are genetically modified (GM), and India prohibits the cultivation and import of GM corn for human consumption or animal feed to prevent genetically modified crops from entering the food chain. A NITI Aayog proposal to grow GM corn for ethanol production was also abandoned, reflecting India’s cautious approach to biotechnology in agriculture. In addition, U.S. corn remains among the world’s cheapest and is widely used for animal fodder and other industrial purposes, which does not align with Indian domestic regulations or food security policies.
The new pressure over corn trade follows an already tense period in India-U.S. relations. Earlier this year, the Trump administration imposed a 25% duty on India’s Russian oil imports, part of a wider tariff regime that Washington claimed was necessary to “right years of wrong” in bilateral trade. India rejected these measures as “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable,” defending its energy procurement as driven by national interest and market dynamics. U.S. officials also criticized India for buying Russian oil, accusing New Delhi of indirectly funding the conflict in Ukraine a charge India firmly denies.
Despite these tensions, there are signs of cautious diplomatic engagement. President Trump recently indicated that talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi were ongoing and expressed optimism about finalizing a trade deal. Following this, U.S. trade negotiators are reportedly scheduled to arrive in New Delhi for detailed discussions. Yet, even before formal negotiations resumed, Lutnick issued his stern message, signaling that corn trade would remain a priority and that Washington intends to push for concessions from India.
The U.S. emphasis on corn exports is also tied to domestic economic pressures. American agricultural groups have reported widespread challenges, particularly due to the ongoing trade war with China. Beijing’s reduced orders for American crops have forced U.S. farmers to confront a surge in bankruptcies, with recent data indicating a five-year high in small business failures among the agricultural sector. With the U.S.-China trade talks still fragile, India represents a potentially new market for American farmers, many of whom form a key voter base for the Trump administration.
As trade talks advance, the corn issue illustrates a broader pattern in U.S. foreign economic policy: the use of tariffs and market access as leverage to secure concessions while managing domestic economic pressures. For India, the challenge remains balancing national regulations, agricultural integrity, and energy and trade needs, all under the scrutiny of an increasingly assertive U.S. administration.