On 6 February 2026, the United States and India announced a framework for an interim trade agreement, cutting the U.S. reciprocal tariff on Indian goods from 25 percent to 18 percent and removing a separate 25 percent surcharge tied to India’s purchases of Russian oil. The framework commits India to eliminating or reducing tariffs on U.S. industrial and agricultural goods and to purchasing over $500 billion in U.S. energy, technology, and other products, while both sides keep negotiating the fuller Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA) behind it. As of 1 October 2026, that broader deal remains unsigned, with Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer still working to finalise terms. This article lays out what was actually agreed, what is still open, and what businesses trading between the two countries should watch for next.
Trade frameworks like this one tend to get reported as finished deals the day they are announced, when in practice they are closer to a ceasefire with a roadmap attached. The February announcement genuinely changed tariff rates and genuinely set direction for a fuller agreement, but it is not itself a signed free trade agreement, and as of October 2026 the follow-on Bilateral Trade Agreement it points toward is still being negotiated. Understanding that distinction matters for any business trying to plan around it.
The core of the announcement was tariff relief, backed by a large Indian purchase commitment and a roadmap for the negotiations still to come.
The 6 February announcement was a Joint Statement setting out agreed terms and direction, not a ratified or fully implemented trade agreement. Tariff changes tied to it (the removal of the Russia-oil surcharge and the reduction to 18%) took effect through a U.S. executive order, but the broader package, including rules of origin, digital trade rules, and non-tariff barrier commitments, is still being implemented and negotiated.
The announcement followed a phone call between President Trump and Prime Minister Modi, after which the two sides reached a framework for an interim agreement on reciprocal trade. Two concrete tariff actions came out of that call and the Joint Statement that followed:
Prime Minister Modi publicly welcomed the framework, describing it as reflecting the “growing depth, trust and dynamism” of the India-U.S. partnership, and framing it as a boost to Make in India, India’s MSMEs, startups, farmers, and fishermen, while strengthening investment and technology ties and supply chain resilience.
Beyond the tariff numbers, the Joint Statement and accompanying fact sheet laid out a set of commitments covering market access, purchasing, digital trade, and economic security cooperation.
India will eliminate or reduce tariffs on all U.S. industrial goods and a wide range of U.S. food and agricultural products, explicitly naming dried distillers’ grains, red sorghum, tree nuts, fresh and processed fruit, soybean oil, wine and spirits, and additional products. The U.S. side frames this against a baseline where India has maintained tariffs as high as an average of 37 percent on agricultural goods and over 100 percent on certain autos, among the highest of any major economy.
India intends to buy more American products and purchase over $500 billion of U.S. energy, information and communication technology, coal, and other products under the framework. This purchasing commitment sits alongside, rather than instead of, the tariff reductions, and is one of the headline figures the U.S. side has used to characterise the deal’s scale.
India committed to address non-tariff barriers affecting bilateral trade in priority areas, with both sides set to negotiate rules of origin ensuring agreed benefits accrue predominately to the United States and India, limiting pass-through from third countries. India also committed to negotiate a robust set of bilateral digital trade rules addressing discriminatory or burdensome practices and other barriers to digital trade, a priority area given India’s size as a digital market.
The two countries committed to strengthen economic security alignment to enhance supply chain resilience and innovation, through complementary actions addressing non-market policies of third parties, and cooperation on inbound and outbound investment reviews and export controls. The framework also commits both sides to significantly increase bilateral trade in technology products and expand joint technology cooperation, extending the relationship well beyond traditional goods trade.
The February framework explicitly describes itself as a step toward a fuller Bilateral Trade Agreement, not a substitute for one. Per the Terms of Reference for the BTA, the two countries will continue negotiations covering a long list of unresolved areas:
| Area Still Under Negotiation | What It Covers |
|---|---|
| Remaining tariff barriers | Categories not addressed in the February framework’s initial list |
| Additional non-tariff barriers | Broader protectionist practices beyond the priority areas already named |
| Technical barriers to trade | Standards, testing, and certification requirements |
| Customs and trade facilitation | Border procedures and clearance processes |
| Services and investment | Market access for services and investment protections |
| Intellectual property | IP protection and enforcement standards |
| Labor and environment | Standards commonly attached to modern trade agreements |
| Government procurement | Access to public-sector contracts in each market |
| State-owned enterprise practices | Trade-distorting or unfair practices by SOEs |
This list is long by design, since a framework announced in a single Joint Statement cannot resolve the full scope of issues a comprehensive bilateral agreement typically covers. It is also why describing the February announcement as a finished “trade deal” overstates what was actually signed, even though the tariff relief it delivered was real and immediate.
The February framework remains the most concrete, implemented outcome to date, the tariff reduction and surcharge removal are in effect. The interim agreement it describes, and the fuller BTA behind that, are both still being negotiated, with talks complicated most recently by new U.S. legislation enabling steep tariffs on countries buying significant volumes of Russian oil or gas. India has raised concerns with Washington over that law. Businesses should treat the relationship as actively in motion rather than settled.
For a business actually moving goods, components, or services between the U.S. and India, the practical takeaway is that conditions have improved but the rulebook is not finished. Treating the February framework as the final word risks missing changes still to come in rules of origin, services access, or additional tariff categories, exactly the kind of uncertainty that makes formal contracting and risk allocation matter more, not less, during a transition period like this one.
A tariff framework changes the economics of trade between two countries. It does not verify who you are actually doing business with, protect your specifications during negotiation, or give you a formal record if a disagreement arises later. That gap is what GTsetu is built to close. It is a structured partnership platform, not a directory or a general marketplace, where every company is verified on 6 government-sourced points before engagement, where discovery is anonymous until mutual interest is confirmed, where NDAs are executed digitally before any commercial information changes hands, and where document exchange happens through an encrypted workspace rather than email attachments.
GTsetu is used by industrial manufacturers, distributors, and raw material suppliers across 100+ countries, including both the United States and India, to build out a distributor network, source international wholesale distribution partners, or find manufacturing and technology partnership relationships they intend to keep for years, not a single shipment timed to a tariff window.
The U.S.-India framework is one of several trade developments reshaping sourcing decisions in 2026, alongside other agreements such as the India-EU free trade agreement, the India-New Zealand free trade agreement, and the broader wave of U.S. reciprocal trade agreements being negotiated with partners from Guatemala and Ecuador to Indonesia, Bangladesh, Taiwan, and Argentina. Businesses tracking this shifting landscape, applying consistent partnership evaluation criteria through a B2B matchmaking platform, often find it easier to stay current than re-researching each bilateral development individually.
GTsetu is purpose-built for manufacturers, distributors, and raw material suppliers in industrial sectors seeking verified long-term trade partnerships, across 100+ countries including the U.S. and India, with government-sourced partner verification, built-in NDA workflows, and zero commission.
Explore GTsetu Free → Browse Verified Companies
They represents the product, and research team behind GTsetu, a global B2B collaboration platform built to help companies explore cross-border partnerships with clarity and trust. The team focuses on simplifying early-stage international business discovery by combining structured company profiles, verification-led access, and controlled collaboration workflows.
With a strong emphasis on trust, and disciplined engagement, Team GTsetu shares insights on global trade, partnerships, and cross-border collaboration, helping businesses make informed decisions before entering deeper commercial discussions.