Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday sharpened his attack on the government’s proposed trade arrangement with the United States, repeating his claim that the Prime Minister is “compromised” and asserting that the deal undermines national interests.The Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha said the agreement, which aims to deepen market access and ease tariff barriers between the two countries, represents a “surrender” of economic sovereignty. His remarks followed his challenge a day earlier for the Prime Minister to cancel the pact if it is not aligned with the interests of citizens, arguing that transparency around its terms remains inadequate.
Addressing party workers and speaking to reporters, Gandhi alleged that key sectors, including agriculture and small-scale manufacturing, could face heightened competition without sufficient safeguards. He contended that the negotiating process lacked parliamentary scrutiny and that details of tariff concessions and regulatory alignments had not been fully disclosed to lawmakers.
Government officials have defended the trade talks as part of a broader effort to strengthen strategic and economic ties with Washington. The two sides have been working to finalise elements of a bilateral trade framework that could expand exports, address longstanding tariff disputes and facilitate technology transfers. Senior ministers have described the arrangement as an opportunity to attract investment, enhance supply chain resilience and support domestic manufacturing ambitions.
Commerce ministry officials have previously indicated that the agreement seeks to resolve friction over duties on products ranging from steel and aluminium to agricultural goods, while exploring cooperation in areas such as digital trade and clean energy. Proponents argue that closer economic integration with the world’s largest economy would provide exporters with more predictable access and encourage multinational firms to diversify operations.
Gandhi, however, has questioned whether reciprocal concessions are proportionate. He claimed that sensitive domestic sectors may be exposed without equivalent gains in services or high-value exports. Referring to his earlier remarks, he repeated that the Prime Minister’s position appeared weakened, using the term “compromised” to describe what he sees as an imbalance in negotiations.
Political observers note that trade policy has become a sharper point of contest ahead of key state and national political milestones. The Congress leader has framed the debate as one of economic self-reliance versus external dependence, a theme that has featured prominently in opposition messaging. His comments echo previous criticisms of international agreements that he has characterised as favouring corporate interests over farmers and small businesses.
Officials within the ruling alliance have rejected the accusations. They argue that any final agreement will undergo legal and procedural checks and will be consistent with domestic priorities. Government representatives have maintained that India’s negotiating stance is firm and guided by long-term economic strategy, pointing to earlier decisions to walk away from trade pacts deemed unfavourable.
Trade experts suggest that the eventual impact will depend heavily on the specific provisions. Analysts note that while tariff reductions can open export avenues, they also require domestic industries to adapt to competition. Sectors such as pharmaceuticals, information technology services and textiles could benefit from streamlined access, whereas agriculture and certain manufacturing segments may seek protective clauses.
Diplomatic relations between New Delhi and Washington have broadened in recent years to include defence cooperation, technology partnerships and supply chain initiatives. Both governments have emphasised shared interests in the Indo-Pacific and in diversifying critical industries away from concentrated production hubs. Against this backdrop, a trade understanding is seen as a logical extension of strategic alignment.
Yet negotiations have historically faced hurdles. Disputes over data localisation, market access for dairy and medical devices, and retaliatory tariffs have periodically strained ties. The current discussions are understood to focus on incremental progress rather than a comprehensive free trade agreement, reflecting the complexity of aligning regulatory systems and domestic political considerations.
Within Parliament, opposition parties have demanded a detailed statement outlining commitments and safeguards. Gandhi reiterated that lawmakers should be given a full account of concessions under consideration. In his words, Opposition chief sharpens attack on US deal, insisting that economic decisions of this scale require broader consensus.