The Congress on Saturday raised a series of objections to the proposed India-US trade framework, alleging that the emerging provisions could widen tariff imbalances, increase pressure on Indian farmers and exporters, and allow Washington to link trade penalties to India’s oil import decisions.
Senior Congress leaders said the joint statement lacked clarity on key commitments and called on the government to disclose the full details and economic implications of the arrangement.
Former Union Finance Minister P Chidambaram said the joint statement did not amount to a bilateral trade agreement but only outlines a “framework for an interim agreement”, adding that the provisions were opaque and difficult to interpret without examining multiple US executive orders and related documents.
He said the available details suggested a clear imbalance, with India expected to reduce tariffs on a wide range of American industrial and agricultural goods while several Indian exports could continue to face tariffs in the US until a final agreement was concluded. He also indicated that US duties on metals such as steel and aluminium were likely to continue and that ongoing American investigations under Section 232 could further influence the outcome of the arrangement.
Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said details emerging from the US side indicate that Washington would monitor whether India imports oil from Russia, directly or indirectly, and could consider restoring an additional 25 per cent tariff on certain Indian exports if such purchases are detected. He said the provision raised concerns over India’s autonomy in energy procurement decisions and called on the government to clarify the commitments made under the framework.
Ramesh also questioned the government’s defence of the arrangement from the perspective of farmers, stating that the reference to unspecified “additional products” in the statement makes the agreement open-ended and lacks transparency.
He said the commitment to address “long-standing barriers” to US agricultural trade could potentially involve easing restrictions on genetically modified crops and dairy products, a move he warned may have implications for domestic producers.
He further expressed concern that increased imports of DDGS, a feed product derived from genetically modified corn, could enter the Indian market and affect oil seed farmers, particularly soybean growers in Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, if imports of DDGS and soybean oil increase.
“Has Government made this commitment to US President Donald Trump. The industrial sector seems to have been thrown wide open and even the formulation is ‘including ‘ not limited too in the case of agriculture. This merits a full-fledged discussion in Parliament on what exactly has been agreed too by the Government of India for it has seemingly portentous implications given that huge unilateral concessions across multiple tariff lines that already have been given by India in the Finance Bill of 2026,” said Congress MP Manish Tewari.
Congress media and publicity department head Pawan Khera, while addressing a press conference, also criticised the arrangement, and said the understanding could open Indian markets more widely to American goods and place additional pressure on farmers as well as small and medium enterprises.
He argued that a sharp rise in imports from the US without matching commitments could affect the trade balance and domestic industries, and called for greater transparency regarding the list of products likely to be covered under the agreement.
Khera alleged that the government was compromising national self-respect and sovereignty, claiming India was being portrayed internationally as a “thief” under monitoring arrangements, including scrutiny of India’s oil purchases and US has threatened a 25 percent penalty tariff if India is found buying oil from Russia.
“The Prime Minister wants the country to celebrate this,” he said, while asking what was there to celebrate when the country was still to pay heavy tariffs. He said the tariffs had actually risen from 3 per cent to 18 per cent.
Khera also alleged that corporate interests were being prioritised over national interest, naming industrial groups like Adani and Ambani, and asked whether their concerns were being safeguarded at the cost of farmers, SMEs and the middle class.
Calling the arrangement a betrayal of India’s economic principles over the past 75 years, Khera said, “This is not a deal; it is a surrender,” and warned that once compromises begin, “there is no end to it.”