India's Perspective

US–India relations and the 2024 presidential elections: Continuity amidst change

As the United States approaches its 2024 presidential election, the future of its key international partnerships is under scrutiny. The US­–India relationship remains critical in an increasingly complex global landscape. This article explores how the potential outcomes of the election—be it a second Trump administration or a Harris presidency—could impact the trajectory of US–India relations and India’s foreign policy, examining areas of likely continuity and potential change.

New foundations of continuity

Despite potential policy shifts, several factors underpin expectations of continuity in US–India relations. Foremost is the deepening strategic convergence between the two nations, particularly their shared concern over China's assertive behavior in the Indo-Pacific region. This alignment transcends partisan divides in the US and provides a robust foundation for continuing cooperation.

Over the past two decades, the US–India relationship has evolved significantly, establishing concrete mechanisms for collaboration across various domains. These enduring frameworks ensure continuity in bilateral relations across administrations. Key examples include the 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue, the Defense Policy Group, the Indo-US Science and Technology Forum, etc. In defense, agreements between India and the United States have emerged to be a lasting pillar of strategic cooperation. The landmark MoU between GE Aerospace and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL) to produce fighter jet engines in India involves an 80% transfer of technology (ToT) from the US to India.

Similarly, both sides have signed a $3.5 billion deal to procure 31 MQ-9B armed High Altitude Long Endurance (HALE) Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) through an inter-governmental agreement. Boeing has delivered 12 P-8I maritime patrol aircraft to India and is now expecting an order for another six. These deals, complemented by initiatives like INDUS-X and iCET for defense innovation, demonstrate a shift from a buyer–seller relationship to joint development and strategic technology sharing. India’s defense exports to the US account for over 50% of the total exports, exceeding $2.8 billion in the last five years, showcasing a new bond in bilateral relations.

Hence, the relationship has a shared strategic logic; both sides are engaged in functional and mutually beneficial cooperation, thus deepening trust. This trust will likely maintain a certain degree of uniformity, notwithstanding the presidential election outcomes. Trump and Harris recognize India's crucial role in maintaining a free and open Indo-Pacific, and collaboration through mechanisms like the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) and bilateral security initiatives is expected to strengthen further.

Trump's potential return: Strategic alignment and economic challenges

For several reasons, a Trump presidency could benefit India's strategic interests. First, Trump's historically aggressive stance toward China aligns with India's concerns about Beijing's assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific. His administration's economic measures, like tariffs and technology restrictions, could indirectly support India's position as an alternative partner for global supply chains and technology cooperation. Further, there are questions about Trump’s support for Ukraine and his preference for a negotiated settlement with Russia. This would align with India’s interests of preventing a weakened Russia from becoming over-dependent on an assertive China.

Further, while Trump's transactional foreign policy may be challenging for traditional US allies like NATO, it might actually benefit India. His preference for bilateral deals over multilateral frameworks could give India more flexibility in negotiating agreements directly with the US, particularly in defense and technology sectors, without being constrained by broader alliance considerations. This could accelerate India's military modernization efforts and strategic autonomy.

Moreover, Trump's skepticism of Pakistan and his historical reduction of security assistance to Islamabad worked in India's favor—his administration's harder line on Pakistan's support for terrorism aligned with India's longstanding position. Additionally, Trump's less-interventionist approach to global affairs could give India more room to maneuver as a regional power, particularly in South Asia and the Indian Ocean region.

However, the economic dimension could prove challenging. Trump's "America First" agenda and protectionist tendencies might resurface, straining trade ties. During his previous term, Trump imposed tariffs on roughly 2.3% of India’s exports to the United States in 2017. As a result, India’s exports of steel products fell by 46% in the following 12 months. In 2019, he revoked India's preferential trade status under the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) program, with an impact of $5.6 billion in exports. A second Trump term could see similar disputes, potentially harming Indian exporters and complicating efforts to reach a comprehensive trade agreement. The technology sector could face particular challenges. Trump's focus on restricting immigration might further tighten H-1B visa policies. In 2020, Trump suspended H-1B visas, affecting thousands of Indian IT professionals. Such policies could disrupt talent flow and harm the Indian IT industry, which earned 193 billion USD in 2023, with the US market accounting for nearly 40-45% of this revenue.

Harris at the helm: Opportunities and new dynamics

A Harris presidency would present distinct opportunities and challenges for India's strategic interests. Her administration would likely continue the bipartisan consensus favoring strong relations with India, driven by shared concerns about China's growing influence and the increasing political clout of the 5.1 million-strong Indian American diaspora. A key differentiator could be a focus on global challenges resonating with both nations. Bilateral discussions may center on climate change, technological advancements and public health issues. This could lead to enhanced cooperation in areas like clean energy, building on initiatives like the US–India Strategic Clean Energy Partnership.

Economically, a Harris administration would present new opportunities for India. As a Democrat, Harris is likely to be less protectionist than Trump, potentially easing some trade tensions that have characterized recent years. Her administration may also be more receptive to talent exchanges and adopt a more liberal stance on H-1B visas, a move that would significantly benefit India's IT industry and diaspora.

However, Harris might focus equally on Russia and China at the geopolitical level, thereby preferring to prolong the Russia–Ukraine conflict from a rules-based order perspective. While valid, this would only complicate India’s Russia policy and could pressure India to reconsider aspects of its longstanding relationship with Moscow. India would prefer to have the US and the world focus on China as a long-term threat rather than on Russia, which is already declining.

Similarly, as a progressive leader with a strong stance on human rights, Harris may be more vocal in raising concerns about India's domestic policies, particularly religious freedom and minority rights. This increased focus on democratic values and human rights could exacerbate ongoing tensions regarding the accused involvement of Indian intelligence agency against Khalistani activists in the US.

Conclusion: Navigating change, maintaining course

As global dynamics continue to evolve, the US–India relationship is poised to play an increasingly important role in shaping the international order. The foundation of shared interests, institutionalized cooperation and strategic alignment provides a strong basis for continued partnership, regardless of the outcome of the 2024 US presidential election. However, both nations must remain adaptable and responsive to emerging challenges and opportunities. India, in particular, has demonstrated a remarkable ability to engage constructively with different US administrations, prioritizing the long-term value of the partnership. This proactive and pragmatic approach will likely continue, helping smooth potential disruptions during leadership transitions.