Introduction
In Washington, formal hearings are often routine, procedural exercises that rarely capture attention beyond the Beltway. Yet, every so often, a session comes along that signals something deeper about America’s foreign policy priorities. A recent country-specific hearing on India in the US House of Representatives stood out in precisely this way. It highlighted both the enduring bipartisan consensus on India’s importance and the growing unease with President Donald Trump’s handling of one of Washington’s most consequential strategic partnerships. The hearing, convened under the aegis of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was notable not simply because it focused on a single country, but because of the political moment in which it occurred. While Trump continues to project an image of toughness on trade and immigration, members of Congress from both parties are increasingly concerned that his approach is doing real, lasting damage to US – India ties. No voice captured this anxiety more sharply than Congresswoman Sydney Kamlager-Dove, who warned that Trump’s policies have eroded strategic trust in New Delhi and risk making him “the president who lost India.”
Why this hearing matters?
Country-specific hearings are rare in the US system. Committees usually group nations by region or theme, focusing on broad issues like Indo-Pacific strategy, global human rights, or trade. When lawmakers decide to devote an entire hearing to a single partner, it sends a clear message: this relationship is too important, and too fragile, to be left on autopilot. In India’s case, the strategic logic is obvious. For more than two decades, successive US administrations, Republican and Democrat, have invested in building a partnership with New Delhi around shared interests in the Indo-Pacific, counter-balancing China, deepening defence cooperation, and diversifying global supply chains. The hearing’s framing around the “US – India strategic partnership” reflected this continuity. It was less about a narrow dispute and more about taking stock of a relationship that has moved from estrangement during the Cold War to tentative engagement in the 1990s, and then to genuine alignment in the post–9/11 and post – China-rise eras. Holding such a hearing at a time of tension, rather than celebration, is what makes it politically significant. It suggests that lawmakers believe the relationship is at an inflection point, strong enough that it is worth defending, but vulnerable enough that it could be damaged by short-sighted policy.
Bipartisan consensus on India
One of the most striking aspects of the hearing was how it reaffirmed that India still enjoys unusually broad support across the US political spectrum. Republicans and Democrats may disagree on almost everything else, but the notion that India is a “linchpin” in US Indo-Pacific strategy has become a shared article of faith in Washington. This bipartisan backing has manifested in several ways: high levels of defence sales, support for India’s role in the Quad, and political cover in Congress during difficult moments, whether on trade, sanctions, or human rights debates. The hearing underscored that this consensus is not just rhetorical. For such a session to take place, the committee’s majority, currently Republicans, must agree to place it on the agenda. That means the GOP leadership decided it was worth using its limited calendar time to spotlight India, even though doing so would inevitably invite criticism of a Republican president’s policies. Democrats, for their part, used the platform to sharpen their critique of Trump while simultaneously signalling to India that their party remains firmly committed to the partnership. The result was a layered message: Congress, as an institution, stands behind India. The two parties may clash over tactics, but they converge on the larger strategic picture. In a period of intense polarisation in US domestic politics, that convergence is not trivial; it is a key pillar of India’s long-term confidence in the partnership.
Sydney Kamlager-Dove and the critique of Trump
Within this bipartisan frame, Sydney Kamlager-Dove’s intervention symbolised the sharpening Democratic critique of Trump’s India policy. Her central argument is that trust is the hardest currency in strategic relationships, and that Trump’s approach is squandering it. For years, American and Indian officials painstakingly built habits of cooperation: regular high-level dialogues, defence agreements like LEMOA, COMCASA and BECA, joint exercises, and a steady flow of economic and technological engagement. This created a sense in New Delhi that Washington was a reliable, if occasionally demanding, partner. Trump’s policies, in Kamlager-Dove’s telling, have disrupted this trajectory. Punitive tariffs on Indian exports, aggressive rhetoric on trade deficits, and steep hikes in fees for work visas that disproportionately affect Indian professionals have all contributed to a perception in India that the relationship is being “weaponised” for domestic political gain. Instead of resolving disputes through quiet negotiation, the administration has escalated them in public, making it harder for Indian leaders to sell compromise at home. Her warning that Trump’s actions have done “real and lasting damage” to strategic trust is not just about economics. It is about credibility. If New Delhi begins to doubt that the United States can separate structural strategic interests from short-term political impulses, it will hedge more aggressively, deepening ties with Russia, keeping channels open with China where necessary, and investing further in strategic autonomy rather than alignment. In that scenario, Trump risks being remembered in Washington as the president who let India drift away at the very moment when US policymakers most needed it as a partner.
Republican calculations and quiet dissent
The Republican position is more complicated. Many GOP lawmakers privately share some of the concerns voiced by Democrats. Strategists and foreign policy hands in the party understand that India is essential to any serious Indo-Pacific strategy, and they recognise that gratuitous economic confrontation undermines this logic. However, few Republicans are willing to confront Trump directly, given his dominance over the party base and his personal sensitivity to criticism. This produces a pattern of “quiet dissent.” Republicans help facilitate hearings that highlight India’s strategic importance, invite witnesses who stress the costs of alienating New Delhi, and support resolutions that affirm the partnership. At the same time, they avoid directly condemning Trump’s tariffs or immigration measures. Instead, they emphasise points of continuity, shared democratic values, defence cooperation, and the need to counter China, and frame friction as a temporary phase that can be managed. From India’s perspective, this dual track has a mixed effect. On one hand, it reassures New Delhi that the India file enjoys support beyond any one administration. Congress, the Pentagon, and much of the foreign policy establishment still see India as a long-term partner. On the other hand, the reluctance to challenge Trump limits how much damage can actually be prevented. If tariffs, visa hikes, or public humiliation continue unchecked, the structural goodwill may not be enough.
What the hearing reveals about the relationship
Beyond the immediate partisan dynamics, the hearing offers three deeper insights into the state of US – India relations. First, it confirms that India has moved into a small club of countries that receive sustained, high-level attention in US domestic politics. For decades, India was peripheral in Washington’s strategic imagination; today, it is central enough that members want to be on record either defending or criticising how the relationship is managed. That is a measure of India’s rising power and relevance. Second, the session reveals a growing gap between the institutional logic of the relationship and the political logic of Trumpism. Institutions, Congress, the Pentagon, the State Department, are oriented toward building predictable, long-term partnerships. Trump’s political incentives, by contrast, reward short bursts of confrontation, symbolic toughness, and transactional bargaining. When those incentives are applied to a partner like India, which guards its autonomy and domestic political space carefully, trust can quickly fray. Third, the hearing signals that US policymakers are acutely aware of India’s options. Unlike some allies that are heavily dependent on US security guarantees, India has multiple external relationships and a strong doctrine of strategic autonomy. If New Delhi feels disrespected or taken for granted, it can recalibrate its engagement, maintaining cooperation where interests align but withholding deeper alignment in sensitive domains like technology, intelligence sharing, or basing access. The fact that members of Congress are publicly worrying about “losing India” shows that this risk is no longer theoretical.
Implications for India and the wider region
For India, the immediate takeaway is that Washington is not monolithic. While Trump’s policies have undeniably introduced volatility, the broader US system remains invested in the relationship. That creates both risks and opportunities. The risk is that a future crisis, say, a border flare-up with China, or a sanctions dispute over Russia, could be mishandled if trust has been eroded. The opportunity is that India can quietly work with sympathetic figures in Congress and the bureaucracy to build guardrails that protect core areas of cooperation from political shocks. At a regional level, the hearing will be watched closely in Beijing, Moscow, Islamabad and other capitals. Chinese strategists will note any sign that the US and India are drifting apart, as it would ease pressure in the Indo-Pacific. Russia will see potential space to deepen energy, defence and technology links with India if Washington appears unreliable. For smaller states in South Asia and the Indian Ocean, the stability of US – India ties shapes their own room for manoeuvre between great powers.
Conclusion: a warning and an opportunity
The US House hearing on India is best read as both a warning and an opportunity. It is a warning to Trump, and to any future administration, that the trust underpinning the US – India partnership cannot be taken for granted. Years of careful diplomacy can be undermined quickly by erratic tariffs, punitive visa policies, or rhetorical slights that play well domestically but land badly in New Delhi. At the same time, it is an opportunity for both countries to reflect on how to future-proof their relationship. For Washington, that means building a more bipartisan, institutional framework that limits the scope for sudden policy swings and recognises India’s sensitivities. For Delhi, it means engaging not just with the White House of the day, but with Congress, state governments, and the wider American policy ecosystem, so that the partnership rests on multiple pillars rather than a single leader-to-leader bond. In that sense, the hearing is less an anomaly than an inflection point. It showcases how far the relationship has come, from estrangement to centre stage in US strategic debates, and how fragile that progress remains in an era of polarised politics and strongman diplomacy.
