Thread by @Vasudev00411816

Can we say the problem with #PresidentTrump is that he is highly transactional and totally business minded?.
Does MAGA mean only Americans should become rich ?.
Was he heavily funded by #Farmers #USA lobby during his election campaign with a promise that US agricultural

products would gain entry in Indian markets?.
When #PMModi tried to reform Indian #FarmLaws, the massive farmer protests were heavily financed by US Farmers lobby. Now, Trump is unable to get the trade deal done in favour of US dairy/farm products. Is this  the reason for his

frustration ?.
Let's analyze the above, one by one — with clarity and balance.
1. Is Trump highly transactional and totally business-minded?
To a large extent, yes.
Transactional nature: Trump often approaches diplomacy and governance like business deals — focusing on

short-term wins, perceived "deals", and direct quid-pro-quo benefits. He evaluates foreign policy through a cost-benefit lens — “What does the U.S. get in return?”

Business-minded: His rhetoric and decision-making style — such as pressuring allies to pay more for defense

(e.g., NATO), or pushing tariffs — reflect a businessman’s perspective more than a long-term geopolitical strategist.
Implication: This transactional mindset often alienates long-term partners and weakens multilateral diplomacy.

2. Does MAGA mean only Americans should become rich?

Practically, it leans in that direction.
"Make America Great Again" (#MAGA) is framed around restoring American industry, jobs & wealth — especially for working-class Americans.
Under Trump, this has often translated into:

Protectionist policies (tariffs, trade renegotiations)

Discouraging outsourcing

Blocking foreign imports seen as undercutting U.S. industries

So, while MAGA doesn’t literally mean "only Americans should be rich," it prioritizes American economic dominance, even if it comes

at the cost of other countries' growth or equitable trade.
3. Was Trump funded by the U.S. farmer lobby with promises of Indian market access?

There is indirect evidence, but no direct proof of quid-pro-quo.

#Trump relied heavily on support from rural America, including

the U.S. farm lobby, during his campaigns.

During his presidency, he pushed aggressively for market access to India’s agricultural and dairy sectors, which are largely protected.

U.S. officials, under Trump, publicly pressured India to open its markets for dairy, poultry &

other agri-products.

While we cannot claim direct funding in exchange for specific promises, there is a clear alignment of political support and policy push in favor of American agricultural exports — especially targeting India.

4. Did U.S. farm lobby finance the Indian farmer protests against Modi's farm reforms?
yes, there were geopolitical undercurrents.
The #FarmerProtests (2020–21)
in India were largely domestic &fueled by genuine fear among farmers that the reforms would lead to corporatization

and loss of #MSP (Minimum Support Price).
However, international voices, especially from diaspora groups in the U.S., UK & Canada, amplified the movement, some with backing from Sikh-American or pro-Khalistan groups.

Some U.S. lawmakers, including those sympathetic to farmer

lobbies, voiced support for Indian farmers.

But it is fair to say that international agricultural interests and diaspora groups had a stake in the outcome of Indian farm reforms — and may have tried to influence it indirectly.
5. Why couldn’t Trump get the trade deal done

with India — especially on dairy/agriculture?

Because India refused to compromise on key domestic interests.
Trump wanted zero tariffs or reduced tariffs on U.S. dairy and agricultural products.

India was adamant about protecting its rural economy, citing:

Concerns about

bovine hormones in U.S. dairy

Religious sensitivities (cow-based products)

MSP and livelihood concerns for Indian farmers

#PMModi’s government refused to yield, especially before elections and during farmer unrest.

Trump grew visibly frustrated & called off a larger trade

deal, despite multiple rounds of negotiations.

Trump’s transactional style, his alignment with U.S. agri-lobbies, and his MAGA agenda brought him into direct conflict with India’s domestic policies, especially under #PMModi .

He could not get India to concede on #agriculture, which may have fueled his frustration and combative stance, especially when farm reforms failed — a moment he may have hoped to capitalize on.
@POTUS

@POTUS @threadreaderapp , please unroll