The Trump administration’s approach to trade negotiations operates less like traditional diplomacy and more like high-pressure business dealmaking, where speed is rewarded and hesitation carries a cost. This framework, described by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, helps explain why the India–US trade deal, under discussion for nearly a year, may have lost early momentum. Lutnick recently outlined this strategy on the All In podcast, calling it the “staircase” model of dealmaking.
Under the staircase approach, the first country to finalise a trade agreement with the United States secures the most favourable terms. Each subsequent deal is negotiated from a higher “step,” meaning tougher conditions or fewer concessions. The model is designed to create urgency and to reinforce Washington’s leverage in bilateral negotiations. According to Lutnick, the logic is simple: move fast or pay more later.
This strategy reflects Donald Trump’s long-held view that US trade deficits represent an unfair drain on American wealth. Trump believes persistent imbalances allow other countries to benefit disproportionately from access to US markets, contributing to what his advisers describe as a massive global ownership gap in US assets. Tariffs and time-bound negotiations are thus used as tools to force quicker decisions, domestic investment, or higher costs for delay.
Lutnick cited the United Kingdom as an example of how the staircase model works in practice. Britain, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, was reportedly given a narrow window to close a deal and moved quickly to do so. Starmer placed a direct call to Trump before the deadline, and the agreement was announced soon after. However, parts of that deal, including a major technology component, have since faced delays, indicating that even early movers may face complications later.
After the UK agreement, Trump publicly signalled that other countries could be next, including Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam, all of which concluded deals with Washington. India was also repeatedly mentioned as a potential early beneficiary. Negotiations progressed, and according to Lutnick, preparations were made for a direct call between Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
India, Lutnick claimed, was given a “three-Friday” deadline consistent with the staircase approach. However, the decisive call from Modi to Trump did not happen before the deadline expired. As a result, Lutnick suggested, India lost the chance to secure the most advantageous terms. He described how, once the deadline passed, earlier understandings no longer applied, and the deal effectively moved up a step on the staircase.
Lutnick stressed that, in this system, the final authority always rests with Trump. Officials may negotiate details, but the agreement is only sealed when the other leader directly engages the US president. In his account, India’s discomfort with making that call proved costly, even though much of the groundwork had already been laid.
India has strongly pushed back against this narrative. The Ministry of External Affairs stated that Modi and Trump spoke multiple times during 2025, and Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal dismissed Lutnick’s comments, emphasising that trade negotiations are not conducted through public statements or podcasts. Indian officials maintain that discussions are ongoing and that national interest, not artificial deadlines, will guide the outcome.
While there are no negotiations scheduled in the immediate term, both sides indicate that an India–US trade deal is still likely. What remains uncertain is the level at which it will be concluded. In the logic of Trump’s staircase model, the longer the delay, the higher the step India may have to climb before the deal is finally closed.
