A simmering dispute over pulses has surfaced as the latest obstacle in stalled US–India trade talks, with American lawmakers accusing India of unfair tariffs while New Delhi quietly balances domestic farm interests and geopolitical pressure.

The already delayed US–India trade deal has encountered a new point of contention, with pulses-or dal-emerging as an unexpected flashpoint. Two Republican senators from key agricultural states have urged US President Donald Trump to intervene, asking India to withdraw a 30% import duty on American pulses that they describe as “unfair” and harmful to US farmers.

The issue, while seemingly narrow, risks complicating broader negotiations between the two strategic partners at a time when both economies are navigating domestic pressures and global uncertainty.

The senators’ intervention has drawn renewed attention to a tariff move by India that largely escaped public scrutiny when it was introduced late last year.

Analysts now view it as part of a subtle but significant response to earlier US trade measures, underscoring how trade disputes can quietly escalate even amid strong diplomatic ties.

Senators Flag “Unfair” Tariffs Hitting US Farmers

In a letter to President Trump, Senators Kevin Cramer of North Dakota and Steve Daines of Montana pressed the administration to ensure better market access for American pulse producers in any future trade agreement with India.

Their states are among the top producers of peas, lentils and other pulses in the US, and exports to India have long been seen as a critical opportunity for American farmers.

The senators pointed out that India imposed a 30% import duty on US yellow peas on October 30 last year, with the tariff coming into effect from November 1. They argued that such high duties significantly disadvantage US farmers, especially when India is the world’s largest consumer of pulses, accounting for around 27% of global consumption.

“The most commonly consumed pulse crops in India are lentils, chickpeas, dried beans and peas.

Yet, they have levied substantial tariffs on American pulse crops,” the lawmakers said, urging Trump to prioritise agricultural concessions as part of any trade deal with New Delhi.

A ‘Silent’ Retaliation From New Delhi

What has made the tariff particularly noteworthy is the manner in which it was introduced. Unlike many high-profile trade measures, India’s decision was not widely publicised, prompting observers to describe it as a “silent” retaliation to US actions.

Last year, the Trump administration imposed punitive tariffs of up to 50% on certain Indian goods, citing trade imbalances and market access concerns.

Author and geopolitical expert Navroop Singh highlighted this dynamic on social media, noting that India did respond to US tariffs by raising duties on imported pulses, albeit quietly.

Several commentators echoed the sentiment, suggesting that New Delhi was attempting to strike a careful balance-sending a signal to Washington without inflaming domestic or international opinion.

For India, pulses are not just a trade commodity but a politically and socially sensitive staple. Protecting domestic farmers while ensuring affordable prices for consumers has long shaped the country’s agricultural policy, making any tariff decision a delicate exercise.

Why Pulses Matter So Much To Both Sides

Pulses occupy a unique place in the India–US trade relationship. For American farmers, particularly in states like North Dakota and Montana, India represents a massive potential market for peas and lentils. For India, pulses are a dietary cornerstone and a critical component of food security, especially for lower-income households.

India’s government has historically adjusted import duties on pulses to manage domestic supply and stabilise prices. When domestic production is strong, tariffs are often raised to protect farmers; when shortages loom, duties are reduced to allow imports.

The latest tariff increase, therefore, can be read both as a protectionist measure and as a strategic trade signal.

However, US lawmakers argue that such policies create uncertainty for exporters and undermine the spirit of a fair and reciprocal trade relationship, particularly when both countries are discussing a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement.

Echoes Of Past Trade Negotiations

This is not the first time pulses have featured in India–US trade talks. The senators recalled that they had raised similar concerns during Trump’s first term, when the then US President personally delivered their letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the 2020 negotiations.

That period coincided with Trump’s high-profile visit to India and the “Namaste Trump” event in Ahmedabad, which showcased the warmth between the two leaders.

While that episode helped bring agricultural issues to the negotiating table, many underlying differences remained unresolved.

The current dispute suggests that despite diplomatic bonhomie and strategic cooperation, trade negotiations continue to be shaped by domestic political compulsions on both sides.

Trade Deal In Limbo Amid Wider Strategic Ties

The pulse tariff row comes at a sensitive moment, with the long-pending US–India trade deal still in limbo. Both governments have publicly expressed interest in expanding bilateral trade and reducing barriers, yet progress has been slow due to disagreements over tariffs, digital trade rules and agricultural market access.

At the same time, India and the US share a growing strategic partnership, cooperating closely on defence, technology and regional security in the Indo-Pacific. Escalating trade tensions risk casting a shadow over this broader relationship, even if neither side views pulses as a deal-breaker on their own.

Diplomatic engagements in recent months suggest an effort to keep channels open, but the senators’ letter signals that domestic pressure within the US could push the issue higher up the political agenda.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

Trade disputes between democracies as large and diverse as India and the United States are inevitable, especially when livelihoods and food security are at stake.

Yet quiet retaliation and public pressure letters are unlikely to produce sustainable solutions.

The Logical Indian believes that transparency, empathy for farmers on both sides, and patient dialogue are essential to prevent economic disagreements from eroding trust in an otherwise strong partnership.