Trump claims US ‘peacekeeper’ role, says tariffs helped broker India-Pakistan truce

Donald Trump claimed that his administration’s trade tariffs played a “peacekeeping” role between India and Pakistan, suggesting that economic leverage helped reduce tensions between the two South Asian nations. His remarks come amid ongoing debate over his foreign policy approach.

Fatima hasan 07 October 2025 05:17

US President Donald Trump on Oct 6 reiterated his assertion that he played a decisive role in de-escalating tensions between India and Pakistan, crediting his administration’s use of tariffs for facilitating a truce between the two nuclear-armed neighbors.

Speaking from the White House, Trump claimed that without his “power of tariffs,” multiple wars—including the standoff between India and Pakistan—would still be raging.

“If I didn’t have the power of tariffs, you would have at least four of the seven wars raging… If you look at India and Pakistan, they were ready to go at it. Seven planes were shot down,” he said, adding that the US not only made “hundreds of billions of dollars” but also acted as a peacekeeper through economic leverage.

Trump’s narration casts tariffs as a diplomatic tool rather than purely an economic policy, positioning the US as an arbiter capable of applying pressure to prevent conflict. He claimed to have threatened to sever trade ties unless India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire.

However, India has denied that trade incentives played any role in the cessation of hostilities. A spokesperson for the Indian Ministry of External Affairs dismissed the suggestion that commerce was ever part of the dialogue between New Delhi and Washington, noting that India’s understanding with Pakistan was reached through existing military and diplomatic channels.

The tension between Trump’s claims and official Indian statements underscores the delicate balance of sovereignty, diplomacy, and public narratives.

Trump’s version emphasizes a strong US role in global peacemaking, leveraging tariff threats as coercive diplomacy. India’s response underscores that its security decisions are determined bilaterally or through established international processes, not external pressure.

Observers note that Trump’s framing may be as much political theatre as foreign policy positioning, given that retrospective claims of influence are often deployed for domestic messaging.

Still, linking tariffs with conflict resolution is a bold statement, one that will likely amplify debates over how economic tools intersect with geopolitics.