The US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has become an unlikely lightning rod in global trade diplomacy. Once positioned as a tough negotiator tasked with delivering Donald Trump’s “America First” trade agenda, Lutnick is now drawing criticism for a string of public missteps, exaggerated claims, and unusually blunt remarks, especially when it comes to India.
His recent comments on stalled India-US trade negotiations have not only stirred political debate in New Delhi but have also reinforced a growing perception within Washington that Lutnick’s style is doing more harm than good.
‘Deal Was Set Up, But Modi Didn’t Call’
The controversy intensified after Lutnick publicly claimed that a nearly finalised trade deal with India fell apart because Prime Minister Narendra Modi did not personally call Donald Trump.
“It’s all set up, but I said I gotta have Modi call the President…they were uncomfortable doing it, so Modi didn’t call,” Lutnick said during a podcast interview.
The remark immediately raised eyebrows among diplomats and policy experts. Trade agreements between major economies typically progress through institutional channels, rather than through personal phone calls between leaders. Critics said the statement trivialised complex negotiations and projected diplomacy as a matter of personal appeasement rather than national interest.
Lutnick later added that India and the US were very close to finalising a deal but claimed New Delhi was “on the wrong side of the see-saw,” suggesting that India failed to meet Washington’s expectations at the last moment.
Who Is Howard Lutnick?
Howard Lutnick is a billionaire businessman best known as the longtime chief executive of Cantor Fitzgerald, the financial services firm that lost hundreds of employees in the 9/11 attacks. Lutnick became a nationally recognised figure after 9/11, after his emotional public appearances and for pledging a portion of the firm’s profits to the families of employees who died in the attacks.
Despite having no prior government experience, Lutnick entered the political spotlight as a close personal ally of Donald Trump. Their relationship deepened over the years through shared social circles, television appearances, and political fundraising. Lutnick emerged as one of Trump’s most loyal backers after the 2020 election and played a key role in raising tens of millions of dollars for Trump’s return bid.
That loyalty paid off when Trump appointed him Commerce Secretary and entrusted him with one of the most sensitive portfolios in the US government, which is to oversee trade negotiations, tariffs, and economic diplomacy with allies and rivals alike.
Lutnick Compares India With Other Asian Nations
Adding to the friction, Lutnick claimed that the US had already wrapped up trade agreements with countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines, and that India’s deal was supposed to be completed even earlier.
“India’s (deal) was gonna be done before them. I negotiated with them at a higher rate,” he said.
The comment was widely interpreted as a suggestion that India was being treated more harshly than other partners, reinforcing perceptions of pressure tactics rather than balanced negotiation.
Tariff Threats and the Russian Oil
Lutnick’s remarks came amid renewed warnings from Donald Trump himself. The US president openly suggested that India could face higher tariffs if it did not cooperate with the US on the “Russian oil issue.”
“India wanted to make me happy. Modi is a very good guy, and he knew I was not happy. And it was important to make me happy. We can raise tariffs on them very quickly,” Trump said.
Together, the statements signalled a hardening tone from Washington, one that linked trade concessions to geopolitical alignment, particularly on energy purchases from Russia.
Reputation for Overstatement and Confusion
Within US policy circles, Lutnick’s remarks on India are seen as part of a broader pattern, as he has previously drawn criticism for overstating trade deals with allies and mischaracterising negotiations, only for foreign governments to publicly correct his claims.
These episodes have reportedly frustrated Trump and senior White House aides, who worry that such public confusion weakens America’s negotiating credibility.
Several US officials have privately described Howard Lutnick as a micromanager who struggles with the finer details of trade policy while projecting outsized confidence, which is a combination that has complicated talks with multiple partners.
Why Trump Still Backs Him?
Despite mounting criticism, Lutnick remains firmly in Trump’s inner circle because his survival is largely attributed to his deep personal loyalty to US President Trump and his role as a major political fundraiser.
Lutnick is also one of the administration’s most vocal defenders of tariffs, a core pillar of Trump’s economic philosophy. That alignment has shielded him from internal pushback that might otherwise have ended his tenure.
The Trump’s ‘Most Annoying Buddy’?
Even among Trump allies, frustration with Lutnick has grown. Officials describe him as intense, unpredictable, and prone to speaking out of turn, and in private meetings, his name reportedly triggers discomfort, with some foreign governments preferring to engage other US officials instead.
Yet Trump has shown little interest in reining him in, and for the US President, aggressive trade posturing remains a feature, not a flaw, and Lutnick embodies that approach more loudly than anyone else.
Does It Matter for India-US Relations?
India and the United States share a strategic partnership that extends far beyond trade, covering defence, technology, and regional security. Public sparring and personalised rhetoric risk undermining years of diplomatic groundwork.
As negotiations continue, many analysts believe progress will depend less on tough talk and more on restoring trust, clarity, and institutional diplomacy, qualities that critics say have been missing from Howard Lutnick’s recent interventions.
For now, Lutnick remains both influential and controversial, a reminder that in high-stakes global trade, how a message is delivered can matter as much as the deal itself.
