As the US midterm election results came out on November 3, they sent shockwaves through President Trump’s camp, as they were not what he had anticipated. Now the Democrats control both houses of Congress. However, the question we can evaluate further is: What does this mean for India-US relations? Broadly, it shows a signal of neither gain nor loss in affairs with the US.
How did the world react?
US elections are too costly to be ignored in global affairs, whether one likes them or not. It is because of the influence it commands over global policies. First, China, which is an arch rival to the US more than Russia, reacted neutrally, indicating willingness to cooperate irrespective of the election outcome.
However, their rivalry is going to continue no matter which party wins. Next, Russia strongly reacted, saying that its Ukraine policy is never going to change and is independent of the politics unfolding in Washington. Further, Iran, which is in direct military conflict with the USA, called for self introspection of President Trump’s war policies. Curiously, it was Europe that sent mixed reactions.
Some leaders like Spain Prime Minister called it as ouster of the right-wing politics globally. However, recent confrontations with European NATO allies about military spending and security policies remain a cliffhanger.
What does it mean For India?
US has around $239.6 billion in trade with India in 2025. For India, the US is the largest trade partner after China and is engaged in many policy paradoxes in various dimensions, from geopolitics to trade. So, whether the election outcomes in the US bring a breather to India, the answer is simply uncertain.
Trade is likely to remain a central area of bilateral tension. The Trump administration’s tariff measures have affected India’s export interests and complicated negotiations towards a broader bilateral trade agreement. Although Washington and New Delhi have discussed an interim trade framework, negotiations on a comprehensive agreement remain unfinished. Democrats’ majority could increase congressional scrutiny of the economic consequences of tariff measures and the administration’s trade negotiations.
This may offer India additional diplomatic space to argue for predictable market access and reciprocal trade arrangements. However, it would be premature to assume that it will automatically support tariff reductions. Protectionist sentiment is not confined to one political party, and the executive retains significant influence over trade policy.
Further, the Democratic lawmakers may question the strategic rationale for continued military assistance to Pakistan, particularly its implications for regional stability and India’s security concerns. Congressional oversight could provide India with an opportunity to present its assessment of the regional security environment.
Nevertheless, scrutiny should not be confused with an automatic cancellation of the package. Immigration policy is another important concern for India, given the large number of Indian professionals working in the United States. Restrictions affecting H-1B visas, including the administration’s proposed $100,000 payment requirement for certain new petitions, have generated considerable uncertainty among skilled workers and employers.
Democratic Congress may evaluate the economic consequences of restrictive immigration measures, particularly their impact on American technology companies and access to skilled labour. Yet immigration politics remain contentious across party lines. India must also consider the wider social environment confronting its diaspora.
The September 2026 report by the Centre for the Study of Organised Hate, The Rising Tide of Anti-South Asian Hate in the United States, identified more than 500,000 anti-South Asian posts on X between January 2025 and June 2026. Narratives portraying South Asians as demographic threats and job competitors were prominent in the findings.
India’s strategic response: From political Engagement to institutional diplomacy
The strategic approach in this scenario of the electoral outcome must be bipartisan engagement. India’s reliance on one individual administration no longer provides bargaining leverage owing to the results of diplomatic downturns in recent years.
First, India must actively open channels to negotiate with Indian-origin lawmakers like Ro Khanna, Pramila Jayapal, etc. This can provide diplomatic leverage to argue India’s case at the congressional committee level. For instance, Ro Khanna stood for a waiver of sanctions under CAATSA.
However, uncertainty looms over this approach, as some of them are critical of the Modi government’s policies. But it cannot be neglected due to strong diaspora sentiments. Thus, building relationships across the political spectrum will help sustain bilateral cooperation through electoral transitions.
Second, New Delhi should insulate strategic cooperation from transactional disagreements. Defence technology, maritime security, critical minerals, semiconductors and Indo Pacific cooperation serve long-term interests on both sides. These areas should not become collateral damage in disputes over tariffs or immigration.
Third, but most pressing issue is the area of trade negotiations. India must now look for a leveraged bargain against the unilateral tariff policy of the Trump administration. Democrats’ leaders had back then condemned this move. Now is the time to step aside from short-term concessions to focus on long-term fairtrade negotiations. Fourth, the protection of the Indian diaspora must not be negated.
India must engage with Indian origin lawmakers to make its case strong in the congressional committees about the fair treatment of Indian skilled workers and students who have truly worked to build America what it is today. Several democrats leaders believe that immigrants have a major role in nation building. Fifth, the congressional oversight is mostly going to question Donald Trump’s deal with Russia for Diesel.
This double-standard policy, while restricting countries like India, can be called into question based on Energy security and the loss of trust among friendly nations. Hence, India can again present its argument for free and independent oil dealings owing to the interests of its citizens and economy.
Having looked at a few scenarios of congressional oversight on executive policies of President Trump, it is quite unrealistic to overturn all his decisions. This is because the US follows strict separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. However, a ruling-party majority has diminished the accountability powers that were vested in it.
Now, with Democrats in the House, checks and balances can be seen. Ultimately, one thing is for sure: as the President posted “VETO” after the election results, more political chaos can be witnessed.
*Girish M is an independent policy researcher based in Mysuru, Karnataka. Certified in Public Policy Analysis by the London School of Economics (LSE) and in Public Policy skills through the Research Analysis and Advisory Hub (RAAH) think tank.
