The White House quietly revised its India‑US interim trade deal fact sheet shortly after the original version was made public, removing references to “certain pulses,” softening language around India’s proposed $500 billion purchase of American goods, and changing how digital services taxation was described. New Delhi had raised concerns that the initial fact sheet contained wording and items that the two sides had not formally agreed upon, prompting the revisions.

The interim trade framework, which aims to lower tariffs and expand market access while deepening strategic economic ties, remains subject to further negotiation, with both governments underscoring that many aspects reflect intent rather than legally binding commitments. The White House has not officially responded to questions about the changes.

Details of Revisions and Official Reactions

The original fact sheet released on February 9 by the White House outlined what it described as the terms of a “historic” interim trade deal with India, including tariff cuts and expanded purchases of U.S. products. It listed “certain pulses” legumes such as lentils, chickpeas, and dry beans as part of a set of American agricultural products on which India agreed to reduce tariffs.

However, the updated version of the fact sheet deletes the reference to pulses, a politically sensitive category for India as the world’s largest producer and consumer of the crop. Analysts said this likely reflected pushback from New Delhi, which had not formally consented to that language.

Similarly, the original fact sheet stated that India “committed to buy” more than $500 billion in U.S. goods including energy, technology and other products over the next five years. The revised version now reflects that India “intends to buy” these products, a subtle but significant shift that aligns the language with the joint statement issued by the two governments on February 7.

Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal clarified that the $500 billion figure is not a binding purchase obligation, but rather a projection based on commercial demand, emphasising that India will import U.S. products where it makes economic sense, not due to a contractual requirement.

On digital taxation, the original fact sheet had said India would remove its digital services taxes as part of the deal. The updated fact sheet now states only that India has committed to negotiate digital trade rules that would address barriers and discriminatory measures affecting cross‑border digital services.

India had already scrapped its 6 per cent equalisation levy on digital advertising effective April 1, 2025, and earlier ended a 2 per cent levy on e‑commerce, steps aimed at aligning with global norms and reducing trade friction.

What the Interim Framework Actually Says

Beyond the fact sheet revisions, the interim trade framework announced in early February provides a broader context for India‑US economic engagement. Both governments describe it as a framework for deeper cooperation and a foundation for a future comprehensive bilateral trade agreement. Under the framework:

• The United States agreed to reduce reciprocal tariffs on Indian goods to 18 per cent, down from punitive levels that had reached as high as 50 per cent against some Indian exports, offering relief to key sectors such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, gems and machinery.
• India agreed to eliminate or reduce tariffs on a wide range of U.S. industrial, food, and agricultural products, including red sorghum, tree nuts, fruit, soybean oil, wine and spirits, though pulses were omitted from the revised fact sheet reference.
• Both countries pledged to work on rules of origin that ensure benefits accrue primarily to U.S. and Indian businesses, addressing concerns about third‑country goods exploiting the arrangement.

Indian officials have underscored that sensitive sectors, including core agriculture and protected industries, will continue to be shielded by domestic safeguards and that any tariff or regulatory changes will be phased and subject to statutory processes. Commerce Ministry officials have also said that the interim framework seeks to preserve India’s strategic autonomy, particularly on energy sourcing and commercial decisions.

Political and Economic Context in Both Countries

The interim trade framework comes against a backdrop of nearly a year of negotiations, tariff escalations, and diplomatic engagement. In 2025, the U.S. imposed high tariffs on Indian imports, partly linked to India’s purchases of Russian crude oil.

The February 7 announcement included a mutual understanding on energy trade that eased tensions around those issues, although India maintains that its energy sourcing decisions are guided by national interest and affordability, not external pressure.

In India, the proposed framework has sparked intense political debate. Opposition parties have criticised it as disproportionately favouring U.S. commercial interests and potentially exposing domestic farmers and industries to unfair competition.

Government officials have responded by emphasising the protections embedded in the framework and the export opportunities created for Indian goods, particularly in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, gems, and agribusiness products that will have zero or reduced duties under the new tariffs.

Economists and trade analysts have noted that the interim agreement reflects the realities of modern global trade, where tariff barriers, non‑tariff measures, and strategic economic interests intersect. While the deal may not represent a full free‑trade agreement, it signals a willingness on both sides to stabilise and expand economic ties at a time of shifting geopolitical alignments and global supply‑chain recalibration.

The Logical Indian’s Perspective

In an era where globalisation and protectionism often collide, transparent, balanced, and inclusive trade policies are vital. The revisions to the India‑US trade fact sheet demonstrate the importance of clear communication in international affairs and highlight how even well‑intentioned statements can lead to misunderstanding if not carefully aligned with shared agreements. Trade frameworks must respect domestic priorities especially in sensitive sectors like agriculture while fostering cooperation that benefits people on both sides.