The $87B Birthday Call That Could Save Trade

Donald Trump in his limousine, circa 1987

Getty Images

In the high-stakes world of international trade, where billions of dollars hang in the balance and entire industries can be reshaped overnight, one might expect cold calculations and economic fundamentals to drive decisions. Yet the recent escalation and subsequent de-escalation between the United States and India over tariffs reveals a different truth: in the age of strongman politics, personal relationships and strategic flattery often matter more than spreadsheets and trade statistics.

When Economic Policy Becomes Personal Theater

The dramatic arc of U.S.-India trade relations over the past month reads like a diplomatic thriller. In late August, President Trump delivered on his threat to impose punishing 50% tariffs on Indian imports, among the highest levied on any major trading partner. The stated reason was India’s continued purchase of Russian oil, but the subtext was clearly broader frustration with what Trump characterized as India’s unfair trade practices.

The economic impact was immediate and severe. From gems and jewelry to garments and industrial chemicals, Indian exporters faced crushing disadvantages that threatened to undermine the “Make in India” initiative and put millions of livelihoods at risk. The tariffs placed India at a competitive disadvantage against China and sent shockwaves through Indian-American business communities already grappling with higher costs and difficult choices between absorbing losses or passing them to consumers.

But a single phone call may have opened the door to a dramatic shift in trajectory.

The Birthday Call That Could Reshape Relations

On September 16, as tensions over the 50% tariffs reached a crescendo, President Trump took an unexpected step that could reshape the entire dynamic: he personally dialed Prime Minister Narendra Modi to greet him on his 75th birthday. The timing of this personal outreach, coming just weeks after imposing some of the harshest trade penalties on any major partner, revealed something profound about Trump’s approach to diplomacy.

What emerged from that conversation was less about Modi’s strategic maneuvering and more about Trump’s own diplomatic instincts. The call represented Trump’s preferred diplomatic love language: using words of affirmation and personal validation as tools of persuasion, believing that personal relationships can override policy disagreements.

“Just had a wonderful phone call with my friend, Prime Minister Narendra Modi,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “He is doing a tremendous job. Thank you for your support on ending the war between Russia and Ukraine.“

Modi’s response on X was gracious and reciprocal: “Thank you, my friend, President Trump, for your phone call and warm greetings on my 75th birthday. Like you, I am also fully committed to taking the India-US Comprehensive and Global Partnership to new heights.” The tone shift was immediate, and within days, both sides were speaking of potential resumed trade negotiations rather than escalating economic warfare, though no concrete policy changes have yet materialized.

This episode illustrates Trump’s diplomatic approach: using personal gestures as tools of persuasion. The underlying economic and political calculations reveal why such relationship-building may be essential to resolving structural disagreements that have resisted traditional trade negotiations.

The Economic Reality Behind The Theater

Beneath the diplomatic theater, real economic interests remain at stake. With India’s exports to the U.S. totaling $87.3 billion in 2024-25, Trump’s tariff threats put an enormous portion of this trade relationship at risk. Trump’s claims that India has offered to reduce its tariffs to zero following the U.S. action suggests that the pressure campaign may be achieving its intended effect. India’s economy, while robust, cannot easily absorb the shock of losing preferential access to the American market, particularly in sectors like textiles and manufacturing where competition with China is already intense.

The complexity of these trade tensions becomes particularly evident in India’s textile sector, which finds itself caught between competing agricultural and manufacturing priorities. While the U.S. imposed 50% tariffs on Indian textile exports starting August 27, 2025, India simultaneously removed its 11% import duty on cotton until December 2025 to support struggling textile manufacturers.

This creates a striking paradox: India is being penalized by U.S. trade policy while providing preferential access to American cotton farmers. India’s cotton imports surged in fiscal 2025, reaching an estimated 25 lakh bales (2.5 million bales), up from 17.5 lakh bales (1.75 million bales) the previous year. Simultaneously, India’s domestic cotton production declined, with total output for 2024-25 pegged at 302 lakh bales (30.2 million bales) compared to 325 lakh bales (32.5 million bales) in the previous year, due to crop damage and a 10% drop in acreage. The 50% U.S. tariffs threaten India’s textile exports, worth billions in annual trade, while making Indian manufacturers more dependent on American cotton to remain competitive in other markets.

For the 45 million Indians employed in the textile industry, this represents a lose-lose scenario: job losses from reduced U.S. market access combined with increased competition from duty-free American cotton that undercuts domestic farmers.

For Modi, the challenge is maintaining India’s strategic autonomy including its energy relationship with Russia while avoiding a devastating trade war with its largest trading partner. But there’s a deeper political calculus at play: Trump’s primary objective appears to be gaining access to India’s protected agricultural market, particularly for American wheat, corn, poultry, and dairy products, which puts Modi in direct conflict with his most crucial political constituency.

Indian farmers represent not just an economic sector but Modi’s core electoral base. When the Prime Minister attempted agricultural reforms in 2021, massive farmer protests forced him into a rare political retreat, compelling him to repeal three controversial farm laws. As Modi recently declared, “India will never compromise the interests of its farmers, fishermen and dairy farmers,” a statement that takes on new significance given Trump’s agricultural market access demands.

The agricultural stalemate explains why Modi’s response to Trump’s tariffs has been particularly defiant. While India has signaled openness to allowing greater access to American dry fruits and apples, it has remained firm against entry of US agricultural products in core markets like wheat, poultry, dairy, and corn. Farmer groups have already warned that allowing duty-free imports of US farm produce would “devastate Indian agriculture,” creating a political nightmare for Modi ahead of upcoming state elections.

The recent phone call appears to have bought time for both sides to find a face-saving compromise, but these competing agricultural and manufacturing priorities create structural tensions that resist easy resolution.

Beyond India: A Pattern Of Personal Politics

The Trump-Modi dynamic reflects a broader shift in how international trade negotiations now unfold in an era of personalized diplomacy. Trump’s approach consistently reflects his belief that good personal relationships with foreign leaders can overcome structural economic disagreements, using words of affirmation and gift giving as primary diplomatic tools.

This pattern extends across Trump’s international relationships. Whether it’s his famous “love letters” with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, his complex relationship with China’s Xi Jinping, or his interactions with European allies, Trump has consistently prioritized the personal dimension of diplomacy. Other world leaders have learned to navigate this approach: some through reciprocal verbal praise, others through grand gestures of gift giving like Qatar’s $400 million luxury jet gift intended as the new Air Force One.

Critics argue this approach reduces complex multilateral trade relationships to bilateral personality contests, potentially undermining long-term strategic interests for short-term diplomatic wins. Supporters contend it represents a more pragmatic recognition of how international relations actually work in an era of strongman leadership.

Lessons For Global Business

For multinational corporations and trade professionals, the Trump-Modi dynamic offers several key insights. First, in an era of personalized diplomacy, understanding the psychological and political needs of key decision-makers can be as important as traditional economic analysis. Second, the rapid shifts in trade policy underscore the importance of scenario planning and supply chain diversification.

Perhaps most significantly, the episode demonstrates how quickly trade relationships can pivot based on factors that have little to do with underlying economic fundamentals. Companies operating in this environment must be prepared for volatility driven not just by market forces, but by the interpersonal dynamics between world leaders who view trade policy as an extension of personal diplomacy.

The Future Of Flattery-Driven Diplomacy

As Trump continues his second term and Modi solidifies his position as India’s dominant political figure, their relationship will likely remain a key variable in global trade dynamics. Both leaders have shown they understand the value of strategic praise and personal validation in achieving policy objectives.

Whether this approach ultimately serves the long-term interests of both nations remains to be seen. What’s clear is that in an era where trade wars can be triggered by tweets and resolved by birthday calls, personal relationships have become an essential tool of economic statecraft.

For other world leaders and business executives watching this diplomatic dance between Washington and New Delhi, the lesson is unmistakable: in Trump’s world of deal-making, understanding his preference for personal validation and relationship-building can be just as valuable as traditional economic leverage. In the complex calculus of international relations, sometimes the most effective currency isn’t dollars or rupees, but carefully timed words of affirmation and gestures of respect delivered at precisely the right moment.