Trump’s midterm test: What India is watching as global power equations shift

America’s approaching midterm elections may test Donald Trump’s political strength, but for India, the stakes extend beyond who controls Capitol Hill. Trade negotiations, Washington’s ties with Pakistan and the possibility of renewed conflict with Iran form a more consequential set of concerns.

In a conversation with Hindustan Times Senior Anchor Aayesha Varma on Point Blank, Executive Editor Shishir Gupta outlined a world in which electoral uncertainty intersects with diplomatic maneuvering and military pressure.

His central message was one of caution: neither election forecasts nor displays of force guarantee the outcomes their architects seek. Gupta’s assessment of the November 3 US midterms was measured. While acknowledging that Democrats appeared to have an edge, he resisted predictions of a sweeping Republican defeat.

“My bet would be that … he may lose the House but he may retain the Senate,” he said, presenting divided congressional control as his preferred forecast rather than a certainty. His reasoning centred on polarisation, turnout and local candidates.

Disappointment with Trump, he argued, does not automatically translate into support for Democrats. Voters may remain with Republicans because their opposition to the other party outweighs dissatisfaction with the president.

For Gupta, the distinction between public sentiment and voting behaviour is crucial. Campaign noise can suggest momentum, but the outcome depends on who actually reaches the polling booth. He also warned against complacency: an electorate convinced that victory is assured may fail to turn out in sufficient numbers.

Asked about the implications for India, Gupta identified three principal concerns: a bilateral trade agreement, the inward-looking impulses of Trump’s Make America Great Again agenda, and Washington’s relationship with Pakistan.

He expected the direct impact of the midterms on India to be limited; what mattered more was the policy direction that followed. On trade, his position was clear: speed cannot take precedence over national interest. Although an agreement could potentially be completed by year-end, he cautioned that even apparently advanced negotiations can stall over unresolved provisions.

“India is not going to sign a trade deal in a hurry,” he said. Competitive tariffs, predictability and mutual benefit, rather than a politically convenient deadline, would determine whether an agreement was acceptable. The second concern involves the friction between America-first policies and Indian aspirations.

Gupta pointed to H-1B visas and student admissions as areas where Washington’s domestic priorities could clash with Indian interests. His argument was not that every MAGA objective necessarily targets India, but that policies designed to turn America inward can create difficulties for Indians seeking opportunities there.

Pakistan represented the sharper security concern. Gupta described closer US-Pakistan relations and Islamabad’s interest in upgrading American-origin equipment, including F-16 fighters, as developments New Delhi was watching closely.

In his assessment, Chinese military supplies combined with potential American upgrades could strengthen Pakistan’s capabilities. He also argued that US backing carries significance beyond weapons: diplomatic support and access to international financing can bolster Islamabad’s resources and legitimacy.

Beyond bilateral concerns, Gupta identified Washington’s relationships with Moscow and Beijing as important variables for India. Discussing the G20 foreign ministers’ meeting referred to in the conversation, he highlighted Ukraine and Iran as the central issues.

On Ukraine, he saw greater American recognition of the need for negotiations - an approach he said India had long advocated. He described India and Turkey as working to bring Russia and Ukraine towards dialogue and a ceasefire.

Yet the larger strategic question, in his reading, was whether Washington could draw Moscow away from Beijing. Such a shift, he argued, would serve Indian interests while raising difficult questions for Europe, given its investment in Ukraine’s war effort.

Gupta also rejected the notion that engagement between Washington and Beijing necessarily signalled a durable rapprochement. He characterised their relationship as one shaped by competing ambitions and persistent differences.

Diplomatic contact, in this assessment, should not be mistaken for strategic convergence. The discussion’s most urgent warning concerned the possibility of renewed hostilities with Iran. Gupta cited what he described as a substantial American military build-up around the North Arabian Sea and Gulf of Oman, including aircraft carriers, marine and amphibious forces, and Patriot missile-defence systems.

He interpreted those deployments as evidence that renewed military action remained a possibility - not an inevitable outcome.