Congress leader Jairam Ramesh launched a scathing attack on the Modi government after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said India had committed to purchasing USD 500 billion in US goods over the next five years. In a detailed post on X (formerly Twitter), Ramesh questioned the timing, the economic logic and the diplomatic channels through which such major announcements appear to be emerging. He also demanded answers on an Indo‑US trade agreement that he called anti‑people and linked recent US actions to alleged political favours to Indian business interests.

Marco Rubio’s claim and Jairam Ramesh’s initial reaction

At a dedication ceremony for the new US Embassy Support Annex in the national capital, Marco Rubio, who is on a four‑day visit to India, wrote on X, “Huge thanks to US Ambassador to India Sergio Gor and our American diplomats for their efforts. Because of their great work, India has committed to purchasing USD 500 billion in US goods over the next five years focusing on energy, technology and agriculture. They’re doing terrific work on behalf of President Trump and the American people!” Jairam Ramesh said Rubio’s statement “shocked the country” and pointed out that India’s current yearly imports from the US are far lower. “India’s current yearly imports are $52.9 billion as of FY26 — Secretary Rubio’s statement implies that India will have to double its annual imports from the US,” he wrote.

Economic concerns: Rupee depreciation and imports

Jairam Ramesh warned that such a surge in imports would have serious macroeconomic consequences. He noted that “the Indian rupee has lost 12% of its value against the US dollar over the past 12 months” and asked whether a large increase in imports from the US would not put further downward pressure on the rupee. He also contrasted the alleged commitment with domestic exhortations from the Prime Minister asking citizens to cut down on fuel consumption and overseas travel to conserve foreign exchange, asking pointedly: “Why has the Modi government simultaneously agreed to record imports from the US at the same time?”

ALSO READ

Questions on the ‘Indo‑US trade deal’

Congress leader Ramesh framed Marco Rubio’s announcement in the context of the broader Indo‑US trade process. He recalled that in February the two countries had announced a framework for an Interim Agreement under a larger Bilateral Trade Agreement launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi and President Trump on February 13, 2025. Ramesh alleged that the rush to sign an Indo‑US trade deal- “signed in a hurry by the PM while he was under pressure from @RahulGandhi’s expose in Parliament”- involved “unilateral” concessions that threatened Indian farmers and industries. Citing the recent US Supreme Court decision that struck down Trump-era tariffs, Jairam Ramesh invoked other countries’ responses: “Countries like Malaysia have declared their trade agreements with the US ‘null and void’ after the US Supreme Court ruling which struck down the Trump‑tariffs that formed the backdrop to these agreements.” He asked why the Modi government had not “had the courage to renounce this anti‑people, dangerous trade deal like Malaysia and other countries have?”

Jairam Ramesh asked 5 direct questions to Prime Minister Narendra Modi:

  • Given the US Supreme Court ruling that undermines the logic behind many Trump-era tariff‑linked deals, why has the government not renounced the Indo‑US trade deal as other countries have done?
  • Why is the government promoting record imports from the US while urging citizens to reduce domestic fuel consumption and overseas travel to save foreign exchange?
  • With the rupee down 12% in the last 12 months, will a large surge in imports not further weaken the currency?
  • Last week the Trump administration dismissed criminal fraud charges against the Adani Group related to an alleged $265 million bribery in a solar energy case. Is the Modi government’s stance on imports linked to the relief provided to the “Modani” empire by President Trump?
  • Why is major foreign policy communication, from the ‘Operation Sindoor’ ceasefire and the halting of Russian oil and gas imports to the Indo‑US trade deal and the Venezuelan president’s visit, now appearing first from Washington instead of New Delhi? “Why have the Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister renounced their responsibility to communicate to the Indian people and to the world the foreign policy of our sovereign state?” he asked.

Jairam Ramesh posted on x and said, “Countries like Malaysia have declared their trade agreements with the US ‘null and void’ after the US Supreme Court ruling which struck down the Trump-tariffs that formed the backdrop to these agreements. The Indo-US trade deal, signed in a hurry by the PM while he was under pressure from Rahul Gandhi’s expose in Parliament, saw the Modi Government unilaterally make enormous concessions that threaten our farmers and industries. The logic of this deal has now collapsed after the US Supreme Court’s verdict striking down the tariffs. Why has the Modi Government not had the courage to renounce this anti-people, dangerous trade deal like Malaysia and other countries have?”. “The PM is on record asking citizens to cut down on domestic fuel consumption and overseas travel to save foreign exchange. Why has the Modi Government simultaneously agreed to record imports from the US at the same time?. The Indian rupee has lost 12% of its value against the US dollar over the past 12 months. Will this surge in imports from the US not further cause the rupee to depreciate?,” he added. “Last week the Trump administration dismissed the criminal fraud charges against Mr Adani in the solar energy scam where Mr. Adani reportedly paid bribes for $265 million. Is Mr. Modi’s capitulation to the US on imports linked to the relief provided to the Modani empire by Mr. Trump? Why is all the communication on Indian foreign policy – from the Operation Sindoor ceasefire and the halting of Russian oil and gas imports, to the Indo-US trade deal and the visit of the Venezuelan President – now coming first from Washington DC instead of New Delhi? Why have the Prime Minister and Foreign Affairs Minister renounced their responsibility to communicate to the Indian people and to the world the foreign policy of our sovereign state?,” Jairam Ramesh asked PM Modi.

ALSO READ

Allegations on foreign policy messaging and ‘Operation Sindoor’

Jairam Ramesh further alleged that Washington, not New Delhi, has often been the first to communicate key developments involving India’s foreign policy. He recalled two examples: on May 10, 2025, Rubio “first made the announcement of the ceasefire that brought Operation Sindoor to an unexpected halt,” claiming President Trump’s intervention made the ceasefire possible; and on May 21, 2026, Rubio “was again the very first to announce that the President of Venezuela would be visiting India next week,” before either India or Venezuela had publicized or confirmed the visit. Ramesh used these instances to argue that “all the communication on Indian foreign policy- from the Operation Sindoor ceasefire and the halting of Russian oil and gas imports, to the Indo‑US trade deal and the visit of the Venezuelan President- is coming first from Washington DC.”

Ties between imports and Adani relief

In his post, Ramesh also linked the alleged US announcements and trade commitments to recent US actions benefiting the Adani Group. He referenced reports that the Trump administration dismissed criminal fraud charges in a solar energy case where Adani was accused of paying $265 million in bribes. “Is Mr. Modi’s capitulation to the U.S. on imports linked to the relief provided to the Modani empire by Mr. Trump?” Ramesh asked, using the portmanteau “Modani” to suggest alleged closeness between the Modi family and Adani businesses.

Accusation of appeasement and “compromised” Prime Minister

Ramesh closed his statement with a barbed critique of the Prime Minister’s conduct. He described the PM as “compromised” and said he “is keen on going the extra mile to appease and please his good friend,” a direct shot at the relationship with the U.S. leadership. The Congress leader argued that India’s sovereign foreign policy is being undermined by an imbalance in how major decisions and announcements are being made and communicated.

Indo‑US trade talks and previous announcements

The US and India had announced a framework for an Interim Agreement in February, reaffirming both sides’ commitment to a broader Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) that was launched by President Trump and PM Modi on February 13, 2025. The framework was said to include additional market access commitments and measures to bolster supply chains. Rubio’s post at the US Embassy event reiterated an expectation, if not a formal government‑to‑government announcement, of large US goods purchases by India in the coming five years.

As of now, the Modi government and the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) have not issued a detailed clarification responding to Jairam Ramesh’s specific questions about the $500 billion claim, the alleged trade commitments, or the broader allegations concerning foreign policy messaging. The Centre may seek to issue a statement clarifying the nature of the Marco Rubio comment- whether it reflects a formal commitment under the interim framework or an aspirational figure reflecting ongoing negotiations. Opposition parties are likely to continue pressing for transparency and for a formal response from the Prime Minister and the External Affairs Minister.

Jairam Ramesh’s wide‑ranging post ties Rubio’s USD 500 billion claim to deeper anxieties about India’s trade balance, currency stability, foreign policy autonomy and perceived ties between political leadership and corporate interests. His five pointed questions place pressure on the government to clarify the scope of any commitments to US purchases and to explain why key diplomatic developments have often been first reported by US officials. The government’s response, if forthcoming, will shape political debate on trade, diplomacy and economic strategy in the months ahead.