US President Donald Trump today reiterated his claim that he once threatened both India and Pakistan with 200 per cent tariffs to force a halt to their May 2025 military confrontation, asserting his “Board of Peace” had helped avert regional war.

At the first formal meeting of his self-styled “Board of Peace” a peace initiative Trump has positioned as an alternative to the United Nations the US President on Thursday once again claimed credit for preventing a potential India-Pakistan war last year by threatening punitive tariffs.

Trump alleged that both nuclear-armed neighbours backed down in the May 2025 military tensions when he warned that the United States would impose tariffs as high as 200 per cent on goods from each country if hostilities continued.

Highlighting the severity of that conflict, Trump asserted that “very expensive jets” later quantified by him as 11 aircraft were shot down in aerial skirmishes before the standoff eased. “When it came to losing a lot of money, there’s nothing like money,” Trump said, framing the tariff threat as decisive in persuading both sides to pull back from the brink.

He also claimed that Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif thanked him for saving “25 million lives,” though neither Islamabad nor New Delhi have publicly verified such remarks.

Trump’s speech at the Washington event also included lofty claims about the new Board of Peace including pledges of billions of dollars for Gaza reconstruction and mixed moments of showmanship and diplomacy.

According to reports, Trump boasted of his tariff-centred approach as a form of leverage that “worked out a deal” to halt the cross-border fighting, underscoring his belief in using economic pressure as a tool of conflict resolution.

Contradictions and Controversies – What Officials Say

Trump’s narrative has been met with sharp rebuttals and scepticism from officials and analysts alike.

India has consistently rejected claims of any US mediation or tariff threats influencing the outcome of the 2025 standoff, emphasising that the ceasefire was agreed bilaterally through military channels specifically between the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) of India and Pakistan without third-party involvement.

The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi maintains that India’s decisions during the conflict were sovereign and internally negotiated, and that no high-level trade ultimatum was ever discussed with Washington.

Similarly, Pakistan has not issued an official confirmation aligning with Trump’s version of events. Though Trump claimed Pakistani praise at his Board meeting, Islamabad has not published such statements through its government channels.

Instead, Pakistani officials arriving in Washington around the same time were reported to be seeking clarity on a separate international stabilization initiative for Gaza, emphasising that any troop or peacekeeping commitments would be strictly humanitarian in nature.

Policy experts have also challenged Trump’s claims, noting that there is no documented evidence that either country agreed to cease hostilities specifically because of threat of tariffs. Diplomatic analysts have pointed out that the president’s repeated references to his role come without corroboration from official foreign ministries, and that Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has remained mostly silent publicly on Trump’s assertions, opting to emphasise bilateral ties in other areas such as trade and strategic cooperation instead.

Beyond the India-Pakistan narrative itself, Trump’s speech at the Board event touched on broader global crises including Iran and Gaza, with the president warning of potential military action against Tehran if no nuclear deal is reached while also championing a multi-billion-dollar Gaza reconstruction effort under the Board’s banner.

These moves have drawn both praise and criticism: some world leaders expressed cautious support for peace initiatives, while others raised concerns that the Board could undermine or overshadow established international diplomacy mechanisms like the UN.

Setting the Record Straight: What Really Happened in May 2025

To place Trump’s remarks in context, the conflict he referred to in May 2025 followed a terror attack near Pahalgam, Jammu & Kashmir, which killed 26 civilians. India responded with Operation Sindoor, a concerted military strike on alleged terror infrastructure across the Line of Control.

Conventional hostilities between India and Pakistan escalated over several days including reported aerial engagements before a ceasefire was announced. There is no verified public record that the US directly brokered that ceasefire through threats of tariffs.

Indeed, India and Pakistan, despite their frequent tensions, have historically employed bilateral and military-to-military communication channels to avoid protracted open conflict. Third-party mediation in such disputes has typically been limited, and both nations have traditionally expressed a preference for handling matters directly without external pressure.

That longstanding approach is at odds with Trump’s repeated insistence that he wielded trade penalties to compel peace.

Trump’s repeated claims about tariff leverage and military deterrence form part of a broader pattern in his political rhetoric, wherein economic coercion is framed as equivalent to diplomatic negotiation a view that some experts argue oversimplifies the complex interplay of strategic interests, national sovereignty, and regional dynamics in South Asia.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

At The Logical Indian, we uphold a view of peace built on dialogue, mutual respect, and transparent diplomacy, not declarations that risk oversimplifying or misrepresenting serious international conflicts.

While any reduction in hostilities between nuclear-armed neighbours is preferable to escalation, assertions that monetary threats alone averted war must be treated with rigorous scrutiny, especially when official records from the countries directly involved do not corroborate the narrative.

Using tariffs or any form of economic pressure as a tool for peace negotiations treads a fine line between leverage and coercion. It invites questions about respect for sovereign decision-making and the ethical limits of influence in matters of life and death.

Robust peace efforts should centre on trust, multilateral cooperation, and shared human values, rather than evoking imagined numbers of aircraft shot down or hypothetical lives saved. In emphasising economic threats as a linchpin of peace, leaders risk reducing diplomacy to spectacle.