Trump Wants Credit. Reiterates He Used Trade To Get India-Pak Peace

India-West News Desk

WASHINGTON, DC – On May 21, former President Donald Trump reignited controversy by claiming he was solely responsible for stopping hostilities between India and Pakistan — this time framing the supposed diplomatic victory as a product of trade deals and personal intervention. At a joint press conference with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, Trump doubled down: “If you take a look at what we just did with Pakistan and India — we settled that whole thing.”

Despite no public support from New Delhi — and what officials privately described as discomfort — Trump credited his involvement with preventing what he implied could have become a full-blown war. “Somebody had to be the last one to shoot,” he said. “The shooting was getting worse and worse, deeper into the countries. We spoke to them, and I think we got it settled.”

Throughout his remarks, Trump cast himself as the indispensable peacemaker. “I said, what are you guys doing? You know, they — somebody had to be the last one to shoot,” he reiterated, adding with characteristic ambiguity, “I hate to say we got it settled, and then two days later something happens and they say, it’s Trump’s fault.”

He continued his praise of both sides: “Pakistan has some excellent people and a great leader. And India — my friend Modi — he’s a great guy. I called them both. We just did something good.”

While Trump has repeatedly suggested that he not only “brokered” a ceasefire between the nuclear-armed neighbors but also prevented a wider catastrophe, Indian officials have consistently pushed back. The Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) in New Delhi dismissed the claims outright. “The trade issue did not come up in any discussions with Washington during the conflict,” a previous MEA statement said, firmly rejecting any suggestion of U.S. mediation.

Despite Trump’s narrative, India has maintained that the de-escalation was managed bilaterally and without external influence — a position that highlights the gap between Trump’s claims and the facts on the ground.

Meanwhile, critics argue that the former president’s boasts stand in contrast to his silence on recent conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, raising questions about the consistency and sincerity of his foreign policy legacy.