Here is your professionally rewritten, SEO-optimized, E-E-A-T compliant HTML article, maintaining depth, length, analytical clarity, and a human editorial tone suitable for a senior news desk.

How Donald Trump Is Subtly Removing Roadblocks from the US-India Trade Deal Ahead of Signing

The Trump administration has quietly revised its US-India trade deal fact sheet, softening key provisions on pulses, agricultural imports, digital taxes, and a proposed $500 billion purchase plan. What do these changes signal? Here’s a detailed breakdown.

In international trade diplomacy, nothing is final until the ink dries. That appears to be the case with the proposed US-India trade agreement announced by President Donald Trump nearly ten days ago. While the deal is expected to be formally signed around mid-March, critical elements are still being recalibrated behind the scenes.

In a notable development, the White House has quietly revised its official fact sheet after certain provisions — particularly those concerning pulses tariffs and India’s reported $500 billion purchase “commitment” — diverged from the jointly released US-India statement. The discrepancies triggered confusion and sharp criticism from political opponents in India.

The revised document suggests that backchannel negotiations remain active. More importantly, it signals that New Delhi may have successfully pushed back against language it considered politically and economically sensitive.

The original fact sheet was released earlier this week but was modified within 24 hours. According to multiple reports, the Narendra Modi government urged Washington to soften or remove wording that overstated India’s obligations under the proposed agreement. Below, we dissect the most significant changes and what they indicate about the evolving trade dynamics between the two countries.

Key Changes in the US Trade Deal Fact Sheet

1. Removal of Explicit Reference to Pulses Tariff Cuts

One of the most consequential revisions concerns tariffs on pulses — a politically sensitive sector in India. The initial White House fact sheet stated that India would eliminate or reduce tariffs on a broad range of US agricultural and food products, including “certain pulses.”

The earlier version read:

“India will eliminate or reduce tariffs on all US industrial goods and a wide range of food and agricultural products, including dried distillers’ grains (DDGs), red sorghum, tree nuts, fresh and processed fruit, certain pulses, soybean oil, wine and spirits, and additional products.”

However, in the updated version, the reference to pulses has been removed entirely.

This is a significant adjustment. India’s agricultural sector is highly sensitive to import liberalisation, particularly in pulses. India is the world’s largest producer and consumer of pulses, accounting for approximately 25–28% of global output. Any reduction in tariffs could directly impact millions of small farmers — making it a political red line for successive governments.

It is worth noting that two US senators had earlier urged President Trump to press India to lift a 30% import duty on American pulses during trade tensions last year. That duty, widely viewed as a retaliatory measure against earlier US tariff hikes, came into effect on November 1. Under the current negotiations, that tariff has reportedly been reduced to 18% — but the broader language suggesting further elimination has now disappeared.

2. “Committed” Replaced with “Intend” on $500 Billion Purchase Plan

Another major change involves India’s proposed purchase of US goods and services. The original fact sheet stated that India had “committed” to purchasing more than $500 billion worth of American products over five years.

The updated version replaces the word “committed” with “intend.”

While this may appear to be a minor semantic shift, in trade diplomacy the difference between a binding commitment and a stated intention is enormous. A commitment can imply enforceability and legal obligation. An intention signals flexibility and future negotiation space.

The earlier version read:

“India committed to buy more American products and purchase over $500 billion of US energy, information and communication technology, agricultural, coal, and other products.”

In the revised document, not only is “committed” replaced with “intend,” but the specific mention of “agricultural goods” has also been removed.

This revision significantly reduces the political pressure on New Delhi and prevents the perception that India has locked itself into a rigid, legally binding procurement framework.

3. Digital Services Tax (DST) Language Softened

Another area of revision concerns India’s Digital Services Tax (DST). The earlier version of the fact sheet suggested that India would “remove” its digital services taxes — a statement that raised eyebrows in policy circles, as India’s official joint statement contained no such pledge.

The updated fact sheet now reads:

“India committed to negotiate a robust set of bilateral digital trade rules that address discriminatory or burdensome practices and other barriers to digital trade.”

This reframing removes the explicit claim that India would scrap its DST entirely.

For context, the Digital Services Tax is levied on large foreign technology companies — including firms like Google and Meta — that generate revenue from Indian users, even if they lack a physical presence in the country. The policy has been a point of contention between India and the United States for several years.

It is important to note that India has already abolished its 6% equalisation levy on digital advertising services effective April 1, 2025. However, the broader digital tax framework remains subject to international negotiations under the OECD global tax reform discussions.

What Do These Revisions Indicate?

In high-stakes trade negotiations, language matters as much as policy. Even minor changes in wording can reshape political narratives, economic expectations, and market reactions.

The earlier White House fact sheet appeared to amplify India’s obligations, particularly regarding agricultural imports and large-scale US purchases. The swift revisions suggest that New Delhi objected to interpretations that went beyond what was formally agreed upon in the joint statement.

With the updated document now in circulation, the official position is clearer: India has not formally pledged to eliminate tariffs on pulses, nor has it entered into a legally binding $500 billion procurement commitment.

At the same time, one major issue remains unresolved in public documentation — President Trump’s assertion that India would significantly reduce or halt purchases of Russian oil. Neither Washington nor New Delhi has provided official clarification on this point.

As the anticipated mid-March signing approaches, the evolving language of the trade deal underscores a broader reality: negotiations between two major economies are rarely linear. Strategic recalibration, diplomatic nuance, and domestic political considerations often shape the final contours of agreements.

For now, the subtle revisions indicate that India has secured important clarifications, while the Trump administration appears focused on ensuring the deal proceeds without unnecessary friction.