Natural Allies? The India-US Relations from the Clinton Administration to the Trump Era
In recent years, experts and onlookers have noted a convergence of geopolitical interests between the United States and India.
Such an alignment seems natural and overdue. India has long shared striking similarities to the U.S. domestically, boasting a large multiethnic population, a democratic approach to governance and a strong feeling of national pride. Today, moreover, India and the United States face many of the same global threats. The rise of China challenges both American hegemony and Indian regional influence. Additionally, the United States currently shares India’s skepticism about Pakistan’s support for terrorist groups that operate inside Afghanistan and India and have a safe haven within Pakistani territory.
However, for two countries with such extraordinary domestic similarities and with such convergence of geopolitical interests, the United States and India have a perplexingly ordinary relationship. In fact, the two countries, which seem like they should be strong allies on paper, continuously find domestic factors and logistical challenges getting in the way of richer ties. Admittedly, over the past two and a half decades, they have worked to overcome these impediments and to build a stronger strategic partnership. In so doing, America’s first three post-Cold War presidents learned two especially powerful lessons from their interactions with India. First, genuine diplomatic connections are essential. Because Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama made a real effort to connect with Indian leaders and unquestionably recognized India as a core part of American grand strategy, they strengthened bilateral trust and cooperation. The second lesson is the need to compromise. Unsurprisingly, India’s outlook on global affairs differs from that of the United States and India puts its own national interests first, which means the two countries are bound to disagree on certain issues.
The Trump administration would be well served to remember the lessons of its predecessors. Although Trump’s relationship with Modi appears to be positive, it seems superficial when compared with the record of Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama’s engagement with their Indian counterparts. In the defense and security area, the Trump administration has continued the tradition set by its predecessors of strengthening trade and cooperation with India, but the two governments face geopolitical challenges that necessitate a stronger partnership. Moreover, Trump’s rhetoric and economic policies have put the growth of the partnership in jeopardy. Trump and Modi are both right wing nationalists who espouse some degree of political populism and a penchant for economic protectionism. To create a lasting diplomatic partnership, the two men should focus on their similarities and work toward compromise instead of standing firm where they differ.
The United States and India share a similar vision for the future security architecture of the Indo-Pacific, and have similar goals in the region. What remains to be seen, however, is how the United States deals with a country – India – that does not fit the category of a traditional American military ally and yet seeks to become a strategic partner, does not seek American security guarantees and visualizes itself as a future great power. Further, unlike other American allies, India never joined any alliance, so there is no multi-layer cross-institutional relationship between the two countries. With an American president who seeks to boost ties with India and stand up to China, this is a rare chance to re-align U.S. and Indian policy in the interests of both countries.
This page contains only a summary of our work. If you would like to have access to all the information from our research on the subject, you can download the full version in PDF format.
Natural Allies? The India-US Relations from the Clinton Administration to the Trump Era
Space Security and Missile Defense : Japan's Quest for Autonomy and Indispensability
Seeking greater autonomy without loosening its alliance with the United States, Japan has steadily turned space into a pillar of its defense, building sovereign capabilities that also make it an indispensable partner, to Washington and beyond. This approach raises questions for Europe, whose ties with Japan are multiplying but which has yet to define what it can concretely bring to Tokyo, particularly in missile warning.
China’s Climate Leadership after Hormuz: How Should Europe Adjust?
The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz in early 2026 offered an unplanned stress test of China’s approach to energy security, and China passed it far better than most expected. The episode demonstrated that the underlying risk of supply disruption is real, while validating a preference for resilience and resource security that has long underpinned Chinese energy and climate policy and has now been reinforced under the banner of building an “energy powerhouse.”
China as an ambivalent supporter of the WTO and the multilateral trading system
Amid rising trade tensions between Europe and China and broader uncertainty in the international rules-based trade regime, Beijing has worked to preserve and bolster the multilateral trading system while at the same time failing to reform the domestic policies that have served to undermine that same system.
Canada in the Indo-Pacific: Sustaining the Pivot, Partnering with France
Since the launch of Canada’s inaugural Indo-Pacific Strategy (IPS) in November 2022, Ottawa has moved—with notable but uneven momentum—from the margins of regional engagement to a position of growing strategic visibility. The Strategy, backed by an initial $2.3 billion five-year investment, reflects a long-overdue recognition: Canada is a Pacific nation whose prosperity and security are inextricably linked to the stability of the world’s most economically and strategically consequential region.