New reports about a lobbying firm engaged by New Delhi in Washington has stirred the pot afresh over what exactly happened to make US Donald Trump claim credit for the India-Pakistan ceasefire in May last year.
India hired a lobby group led by a former Trump adviser two days after the Pahalgam attack and intense parlays took place between the Indian embassy in Washington and the White House on the day the Operation Sindoor ceasefire was announced.
The Pahalgam attack that took place in Kashmir on 22 April killed 26 people. On 24 April, India reportedly inked an agreement with SHW Partners LLC for a one-year contract for a monthly fee of $150,000.00 (for one year India would pay about Rs 16.2 crore).
On 7 May, India retaliated to the Pahalgam attack by destroying terror infrastructure inside Pakistan-controlled Kashmir and Pakistan. On 10 May, US President Donald Trump announced that he had brokered a ceasefire between the two sparring nations.
The same day, the Indian embassy reached out to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles, US trade representative Jamieson Greer and Ricky Gill at the National Security Council to discuss “media coverage” of the conflict, reported The Hindu, based on a filing by the lobby firm with the US justice department.
It is unclear whether the calls were made before or after the ceasefire but they indicate close interaction on the day, according to the report.
The firm, SHW Partners LLC, led by Jason Miller, agreed to provide India strategic counsel, planning and government relations assistance in dealing with the Trump administration, the Congress, academic institutions, and think tanks, according to the agreement.
Miller previously worked as a senior advisor to Trump’s presidential campaigns and transition teams in multiple election cycles and his network in Republican circles makes him influential in Washington.
The credit for the ceasefire has been contested. While Trump has asserted and Pakistan has admitted that the US President played a role, India has consistently denied it and said military commander-level talks between the two neighbours led to the ceasefire.
But doubt remains if Trump took India’s rejection of his role nicely and whether the lobby group was successful to soften the US President’s stance on India.
In August last year, Trump imposed a 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods. And on 1 August, he doubled it to 50 per cent on 27 August.
Trump accused India of buying Russian oil and helping Moscow fund the Ukraine war and cited this to be the reason for the additional tariff, although many analysts believe it is more a bargaining tool in free-trade negotiations.
The lobby group now had to deal with a new problem—to sign off a trade deal beneficial for India.
The lobbyist asked to fix meetings for external affairs minister S. Jaishankar, the foreign secretary, deputy national security advisor, Indian Ambassador, flag Prime Minister Modi’s social media posts and make calls to the White House and the United States Trade Representative, according to The Hindu.
Modi has time and again posted messages for Trump in the past few months. A trade deal between the two countries remains elusive despite rounds of official talks.
India has not denied the report and has said it is “standard practice” for “outreach”. Pakistan also lobbied in Washington during the same period and spent three times more than India, according to reports.
In the US, lobbying is legally protected and has no political hiccups.
This is not the first time India has sought help from lobbyists.
In 2017, the relationship between two countries was strained due to the H-1B visa. Trump, in his first term, also bandied India and China together as a common enemy of the US.
A decade or so before that, the US-India nuclear deal was another point of contention.
In both cases, as a report from The Conversation states, Indian Americans took to lobbying through a network of professional and political organisations such as the Indian American Forum for Political Education, Indian American Committee for Political Awareness and US-India Political Action Committee.
In 2004, a bipartisan India Caucus was formed in the US Senate headed by Hillary Clinton, Democratic senator of New York, and John Cornyn, Republican senator of Texas.
This was the first time a Senate caucus was formed dedicated to a single country.
But times have changed. A New York Times report, published on 29 December 2025, argued that the Indian-American success story was under strain.
The report outlined rising hostility towards immigrants, visa restrictions, and attacks on programmes such as the H-1B had created uncertainty for Indians. And cultural flashpoints, including protests against Hindu symbols, underscored growing unease.
A few questions remain. Did India engage the firm after deciding that it would retaliate against Pakistan? Was the firm successful in outreach given Trump has exhibited bonhomie with Pakistan more than India in the past nine months? And can Modi’s posts and official meetings melt the tariff ice?
