President Trump’s nominee, Sergio Goal, is set to become the next U.S. ambassador to India. He recently addressed a Senate confirmation hearing, noting that the ties between Washington and New Delhi are currently at a “critical juncture.”
That’s definitely a fair observation. With tariff disputes lingering, both nations are eager to close ranks as partners in emerging technology sectors. As Goal mentioned, this collaboration could be “particularly noteworthy.” He emphasized in his written statement, “If confirmed, I would urge India to invest in U.S. manufacturing for active pharmaceutical ingredients.”
Yet, this ambition feels somewhat misplaced given India’s ongoing issues with U.S. intellectual property rights.
The situation is, well, quite deep-rooted. If you look back at the first Special 301 Report from 1989, the U.S. trade office identified India as a major offender regarding American intellectual property.
Not much has shifted since then. In the 2025 report, representatives pointed out that “India continues to be one of the most significant challenges for major economies when it comes to safeguarding and enforcing intellectual property.”
There’s an ongoing struggle with patent enforcement, which is rife with complications.
A critical issue is India’s lack of regulatory data protection. This gives local competitors a leg up, as they don’t have to bear the costs or risks associated with collecting their own safety data for generic or biosimilar products.
This problem transcends mere technology; it cuts to the core of U.S. research and development, which hinges on enforceable rights abroad.
This mindset is essential for Goal’s strategy. If India proceeds without robust patent and regulatory data protections, then it diminishes the utility of Indian firms manufacturing active pharmaceutical ingredients in U.S. facilities. It hardly qualifies as a partnership; it feels more like taking advantage without contribution.
Goodwill alone won’t solve this for India. Despite repeated mentions in the Special 301 reports of “Naming and Shaming” and “Out of Cycle” reviews, change remains elusive, even as multiple administrations have tried for decades.
The U.S. must exert influence here. Initiating a Section 301 investigation into India could underscore that the U.S. won’t tolerate systemic breaches, especially ones that undermine our innovative economy.
Utilizing such an investigation during bilateral talks would signal to India that the U.S. is serious about safeguarding American innovation and won’t merely allow India to pay lip service on the matter.
This isn’t so much punishment as it is a form of insurance. Without some pressure, India lacks incentive to rectify its approach.
On the other hand, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has expressed hopes for India becoming a hub for digital trade, green energy, and advanced tech. Still, without proper intellectual property protections, India risks remaining a problematic partner. That’s not something to overlook.
Both Trump and Modi frequently discuss their vision for a “strategic partnership.” But clarity is vital in any strategy. If Washington compromises on intellectual property in favor of quick fixes like defense or manufacturing deals, the U.S. might end up in a skewed partnership where India benefits and American innovators pay the price.
The message should be clear: there is no solid partnership without robust intellectual property protections.
The Trump administration needs to hold firm, which includes considering a Section 301 case before making further commitments.
If not, this “critical juncture” in U.S.-India relations may simply turn into yet another instance where America loses its edge, reflecting that India isn’t quite ready to step up.
