Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Indian External Affairs Minister Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar at a Joint Press Availability

MODERATOR:  Secretary of State of the United States of America, His Excellency Mr. Marco Rubio; Honorable External Affairs Minister of India, Dr. S. Jaishankar; excellencies, distinguished guests, and friends from the media:  Namaskar and good afternoon to all of you.  I welcome you to this press conference.  We’ll first have remarks by the ministers, after which we’ll take some questions.

First I invite External Affairs Minister of India to make his remarks to the media.  Sir.

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER JAISHANKAR:  Thank you, Randhir.  Well, colleagues from the media, Secretary Rubio and I have held our bilateral talks this morning.  In fact, we are midway through it, and after this presser we’ll be going back for the rest over lunch.  But as you can see, we didn’t want to keep you waiting, so we decided to come out in between and share a readout.

Now, this is the Secretary’s first visit to India, but from his very first day in office, we have actually been in regular touch.  I think I was one of the first to meet you that day.  And this has included occasions in Washington, D.C., and New York, but also on the sidelines of other events.  The most recent one was in France.  So we’ve had really a continuous engagement, which has facilitated our overseeing the broad-based and growing cooperation between our two nations.

Now, as regards this visit and our discussions today and yesterday, let me give you a state of play.  In terms of the political understanding between India and the United States, I think we have a strategic partnership which emanates from a convergence of national interests in many areas.  Yesterday, during the Secretary’s call on the prime minister, some global and regional issues were discussed, and in our subsequent meeting at the embassy, we took up developments pertaining to West Asia, Middle East, to the Indian subcontinent, and to East Asia.  I also shared with him some impressions I had of my recent visit to the Caribbean.  And our talks today over lunch will focus on the latest developments in the Gulf.  As you all know, a few things have happened or seem to be happening overnight; and also on the Ukraine conflict; and the Indo-Pacific is of course on the agenda for the Quad meeting, which we will be doing on the 26th. 

Where defense and security cooperation is concerned, you’re all aware that the 10-year major Defense Partnership Framework Agreement was recently renewed.  A comprehensive Underwater Domain Awareness Roadmap was also signed.  We discussed the importance of taking into account the Make in India approach and lessons drawn from recent conflicts while going forward in the defense domain. 

On the economic front, we spoke about the value of concluding at an early date the final text of the interim agreement regarding reciprocal and mutually beneficial trade.  This will be an important step towards a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement which was envisaged during Prime Minister Modi’s visit in February 2025.  Our expectation is – we had a team recently in Washington, and our expectation is that an American team would be visiting India soon for that purpose. 

We spent some time today discussing energy issues.  And again, you’re all aware that our government’s fundamental responsibility is to address the needs of 1.4 billion people.  Obviously, ensuring the accessibility and affordability of energy for them is our prime objective.  Secretary and I, therefore, welcome the expansion in our energy trade in recent months.  Diversified supplies are at the heart of energy security for India. 

We devoted some time to nuclear energy cooperation as well.  The passage of the SHANTI Act has opened up new possibilities.  An American delegation was recently in India.  We hope to realize the potential of cooperation in the nuclear domain, and I also raised with Secretary some issues – regulatory issues – we have on the American side. 

All of you know the importance of critical minerals.  Our two nations have been cooperating bilaterally in the Quad format and also as like-minded group.  India joined the Pax Silica and is part of the FORGE initiative.  The AI Impact Summit in New Delhi in February highlighted the enormous potential of the India-U.S. relationship, and we will naturally be encouraging our businesses dealing with AI.  As India’s semiconductor and AI capabilities advance, this cooperation will be even more prominent in days to come. 

People-to-people ties are at the heart of our relationship.  I apprised Secretary Rubio of challenges that legitimate travelers face in respect of visa issuance.  While we cooperate to deal with illegal and irregular mobility, our expectation is that legal mobility would not be adversely impacted as a consequence.  After all, this is very relevant to our business, technology, and research cooperation.

Friends, India and the United States have common interests, but they also face shared challenges.  Prominent among them is terrorism.  Our position in that regard is very clear.  It is one of zero tolerance.  We appreciate the strong cooperation between concerned agencies of our two countries in this domain.  I particularly recognized the extradition from the United States to India last year of a key planner of the 26/11 Mumbai attacks.  Our two countries will intensify cooperation bilaterally as also in relevant international forums.  We will continue to collaborate closely on countering illegal trade in narcotics. 

Our discussions – which, as I said, are still ongoing – have covered a range of regional and global issues.  So let me state India’s broad position which pertains to all of them.  And I would make five points here.

One, that we advocate dialogue and diplomacy to address conflicts.

Two, we support safe and unimpeded maritime commerce.

Three, we demand scrupulous respect for international law.

Four, we are against weaponization of market shares and resources.

And five, we believe in the value of trusted partnerships and resilient supply chains to de-risk the global economy. 

So, overall, this has been a very timely visit by the Secretary.  I think our discussions have been very productive, and I look forward to hearing his remarks. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you, sir.  I now invite U.S. Secretary of State for his remarks to the media. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Thank you.  Well, first of all, thank you for your very warm welcome, and it’s been a phenomenal visit already and it’s only been a day and we have so much more work to do.  And it’s an honor to be here with all of you in this important visit to one of our most important strategic partners in the world.  And I want to highlight that point for a minute.  We obviously have relations and we work with countries all over the world, and we need to, just as India does.  And we have all kinds of alliances and partnerships with countries that we work on, sometimes on discrete and individualized issues, other times on broader issues that involve one region of the world or another. 

A strategic partnership is something very different.  It’s something much broader that that.  A strategic partnership is when your interests as two nations are aligned and you work together strategically to solve those problems.  And the list of issues that we work together with India on – the breadth and scope of them – is what highlights the fact that India is an important strategic partner of the United States, one of our most important strategic partners in the world.  It begins with the fact of our shared values.  We are the two largest democracies in the world.  And so obviously that in and of itself begin to align our interests simply because our leaders respond directly to voters and people on a regular basis, which means I have to go back and justify to the American people every decision we make, and the President has to do the same, on why it’s good for our country, and our counterparts here in India have to do the exact same thing.  They have to respond to the people of India about why your partnership with the United States or your stance on any issue for that matter is to the benefit of you country. 

I imagine this is true in every country in the world to some degree, but it is particularly true for democracies.  Democracies respond directly to their people, and you have to respond constantly.  In democracies you have opposition parties, you have a free and open media.  By the way, you have a lot of media.  We have media in our government.  You guys have a lot of media, and that means a lot of scrutiny, a lot of attention. 

But that begins to align our interests immediately because we both recognize and have mutual respect and understanding that every decision we make, every announcement we make, everything we work together on, we ultimately have to go back justify it to our voters, to our people, the people who put us in these position to begin with.

The second point I would make is that our partnership from the strategic standpoint is not limited to a regional one.  Now, clearly there are regional issues in the Indo-Pacific that are important to both of our countries, but the ability increasingly as we have conversations – we are talking about strategic interests that align beyond simply the region, whether it’s your visit last week into the Western Hemisphere.  We have a lot of alignment.  Whether it’s our mutual interest of what’s happening currently now in the Straits of Hormuz and beyond.  And then on the topics as well.  

If you talk about the topics that we have a mutual interest on, both countries are strategic allies on the idea that access to critical minerals and supply chains are essential – an essential issue in the 21st century.  The overconcentration of reliance on a single source for anything, particularly things that are vital for our economies, is one of the great challenges of the 21st century.  And we are strategically aligned on that topic. 

On the issue of terrorism, both of our countries have suffered, both directly and indirectly, because of global terrorist networks.  There is a strong counterterrorism alignment as a result of that. 

On innovation and ensuring that all of the promises of new technologies and new advances in the 21st century, all of them come with risks and rewards.  Every technological advancement that’s made individuals and societies more productive have always come with risks associated with them.  Managing those risks and maximizing those benefits is one of the great challenges of the 21st century, and there is a tremendous strategic alliance between our countries and agreement on that point.

Likewise on the unimpeded flow of commerce, especially in international airspace and international waters.  This is true in the Indo-Pacific, ensuring that there is a free and open Indo-Pacific, but it extends beyond the Indo-Pacific.  We share as a strategic value the fact that no international waterway, no international airspace should ever be used or nationalized by any country in the world, and that that should never be accepted as a new normal – another area of strong strategic alignment.  And we could go on and on.

The bottom line is that the opportunities exist to work together because not just our shared and common values and our people-to-people ties, but because our nations are strategically aligned on all of the key issues that will define the new century.  All of the great challenges that are before us now in the modern era we are strategically aligned on.

And the final point – and this I mean as no disrespect to any other country in the world – but you can have a strategic alliance with countries, but there are only a handful of countries in the world that have the ability to actually do something about these big issues on a global scale.  There are only a handful of countries in the world that have both the economic and diplomatic power to be influential on strategic issues from a global perspective, and India is one of them, which is what adds the finishing touches on the importance of the strategic alliance is we have a strategic alliance between the United States and India; it’s a strategic alliance between two countries that have global influence and the ability to influence global events.  And that distinguishes it from other relationships. 

And so that’s why this is an important visit to be here today.  It’s why we hope that later this year the prime minister will visit us in Washington.  It’s why I hope our leaders will have a chance to interact in other forms.  And I also want to thank you, by the way, for hosting the latest meeting of the foreign ministers of the Quad, which will be happening the day after tomorrow, I believe, right?  Day after tomorrow.  Another important mechanism and – of joint cooperation, and one more example of our strategic relationship between our two countries.  Because that – the Quad is a form of alignment between four countries who are not just strategically aligned on a bunch of key issues, but four countries that have the ability to varying degrees to influence global events on these topics of mutual interest.

So there’s a lot of details and things we can talk about.  I didn’t mention energy, but we also are strategically aligned on energy.  Energy is – and the ability to generation power – is the key behind all of the great industries out there.  Whether it’s data centers, whether it’s artificial intelligence, whether it’s the ability to modernize and continue to advance economically – all of it begins and ends with the ability to generate the power necessary not just to raise standards of living but, beyond that, to expand into new industries.  And both of our countries are strategically aligned and ensuring that we have a world that can not just produce but deliver the energy resources that are necessary to power a modern economy.

So I’m not – given the breadth and scope of areas of alignment, one visit alone will never solve or be able to address all of these.  But this continuing dialogue and engagement between our countries is important because, as I said, I think it’s not just evidence of the importance of our strategic alliance, but it’s necessary in order to continue to advance on all of these topics. 

So thank you for your warm welcome.  Thank you all for covering these events here today.  And I look forward to returning many times.  Four days for a country of this size, of this beauty and of this diversity and all the things you have to show us, we can’t possibly see it all in four days, but we’re going to try or we’re going to die trying, because it’s a pretty packed schedule.  And I appreciate all – everything you’ve facilitated for us in our time here together.  Thank you. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you, sir.  We now open the floor for some questions.  Please be brief as you ask your question, and please do introduce yourself and your organization. 

We will begin there – Kadambani (inaudible), please. 

QUESTION:  Good afternoon.  I’m Kadambani Sharma.  I’m an independent journalist.  I have a question for both of you. 

For Secretary Rubio, to you:  Indian students, engineers, doctors, researchers have contributed enormously to U.S. economy and innovation ecosystems, but the recent changes in J-1 visa, F-1, H-1B visas are being seen in India as hurting the core pillar of people-to-people relationship.  What does your administration have to say about this to – in regard to Indians and the message to Indians in this regard? 

Dr. Jaishankar, to you my question is:  India today has strong relations with UAE, the Gulf countries, Israel, Iran, and of course USA.  And how confident are you of managing all these relations at this time in the current situation?  Would you say it is an example of multi-alignment?  Thank you. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Thank you.  Let me just handle on the – first of all, I take and accept what you’ve just said about the contribution that Indians have made to the U.S. economy.  Over $20 billion have been invested in the U.S. economy by Indian companies.  We want that number to continue to increase, and obviously the expertise as well that they’ve provided into our economy has been very, very valuable. 

I don’t want you to view – or anyone – I made this point yesterday in an interview.  The changes that are happening now or the modernization of our migration system into the United States is not focused – it’s not India-specific.  It is global.  It’s being applied across the world.  We are in a period of modernization.  And I’ll be frank and honest with you, because it’s important to talk about this.  We’ve had a migratory crisis in the United States.  This is not because of India, but broadly, we had over 20 million people illegally enter the United States over the last few years, and we’ve had to address that challenge. 

In addition to that challenge – and I think this is true for India, this is true for every country in the world, okay?  Everything that you do as a country needs to be in your national interest, and that includes your immigration policy.  The United States, I believe, is the most welcoming country in the world on immigration.  Every single year, a million people, roughly, become permanent residents of the United States and contribute greatly.  My parents entered the United States as permanent residents in 1956 from Cuba.  And so it’s a process that’s enriched us. 

But it has to be a process that’s adjusted in every era to the realities of the modern times in which you live.  And we are – and it’s long overdue.  So the United States is currently undergoing a process of reforming the system by which we choose how many people come into our country, who comes in, when they come in, et cetera.  Anytime you undertake a reform, anytime you undertake a change in the system by which you admit people, or frankly, anytime you undertake a reform in any system – not just on immigration – there are going to be – there’s going to be a period of transition that’s going to create some friction points and some difficulties and so forth.

Ultimately, we think when this process is in place, once this process has been modernized – and that’s really what it is.  We are modernizing the U.S. immigration system for the 21st century so that it is an immigration system that’s not just good for America but it’s also good for the people that are coming.  Once we are complete and once we’ve done the work of modernizing that system, I think we’re going to come up with a system – we’re going to wind up with a system that’s more efficient and even better than the previous system, and in some ways may prove to be even more beneficial than the previous system was to people from India that seek to enter the United States to work and innovate.  But obviously, there’s going to be a period of adjustment along the way. 

So I just – I don’t – what I want to leave clear is that the changes, while they may be having a disproportionate impact on a place like India that provides so many high-skilled workers to the U.S. economy, it is not a system that is targeted at India.  It is one that’s being applied globally.  But we’re in a period of transition, and like any period of transition there’s going to be some bumps on that road.  But we think ultimately our destination is going to be a better system, a more efficient system, one that works better than the one that we had in place previously, and more sustainable, by the way. 

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER JAISHANKAR:  Your question on the Iran/Gulf, the conflict which is going on – well, look, India would be one of the very few countries who has very good relations, very strong relations with the United States, with Israel, with Iran, and with the Gulf countries.  So we have – and we have real interests.  So for us, the challenge in this situation is how to maintain all these relationships, how to protect our equities, how to advance our interests.  And we don’t look at it as a zero-sum game.  We have to manage and actually take care of all these accounts. 

So having said that, I would say there are some general principles by which we would approach this region.  Obviously, we want peace and stability in the region. 

Two, for us, the welfare, the well-being of the diaspora, is crucial.

Three, we want to see energy prices go down because we are a very big importer of energy, and much of it comes from that region. 

Four, as I stated in my remarks, we very much are in favor of safe and unimpeded maritime commerce through the region.  And what we want to see is really the markets open up there.  We don’t want to see constraints. 

So these would be the principles with which we would approach that region.  And in a way, of course, every situation is unique, but I think we will find increasingly in the world that there will be conflicts or difficult situations where India – because our interests are growing, we have relationships with all the parties involved.  I mean, we are seeing this is in the Ukraine conflict as well, where we have very strong relations with Russia, we have it with Europe, we have it with Ukraine as well, we have it with the United States.  And then the question is:  How do you manage them, all of them? 

So in that sense, yes, it is multi-alignment because today’s India has that range of interests which require us to manage multiple accounts. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you, sir.  Sir, if you allow, we can take a group of questions together. 

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER JAISHANKAR:  Sure. 

MODERATOR:  That way we’ll be able to cover more.  Can we go here?  Sidhant, please. 

QUESTION:  Hi, sirs.  I’m Sidhant from WION.  To Secretary Rubio, my question is on technological partnership.  How do you see India as a trusted technological partnership partner? 

The second question is on energy and critical minerals.  Once your visit is over, what will be the key outcomes when it comes to these two aspects? 

And thirdly, there have been a lot of racism – racist comments coming from United States against Indians, Indian Americans.  This goes against the basic premise of India-U.S. relationship.  So that’s your take on that?

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Yeah, what’s your third question? 

QUESTION:  A lot of comments, racist comments coming from U.S., that of course —   

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Well, who made those comments?

QUESTION:  We all have seen those comments, sir.  We have seen endorsement of those comments.  So —

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Which ones?  I’m —

QUESTION:  Sir, it’s well-known, sir. 

MODERATOR:  Anyway, we —

QUESTION:  Yeah.  And to EAM Jaishankar, my question is in terms of the energy partnership, we know that we are importing LNG, we are importing crude from United States, but there is a chokepoint at the Hormuz.  So what is the future strategy when it comes to cooperation with the United States? 

MODERATOR:  We go this side.  Shaun from W – AFP, sorry.   

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Mr. Secretary, I wanted to ask you about the latest on Iran.  The President said yesterday the final details are being worked out on the Iran deal.  Can you tell us what the status is now?  As you’ve said many times, it should go back to the status quo ante on the Strait of Hormuz.  Are you confident that this deal would do that? 

And then taking a step back, we’ve seen from this war, if it’s going back to the Strait of Hormuz, we’ve seen thousands of people dead in Iran and elsewhere.  We’ve seen billions of dollars spent.  We’ve seen some alliances rattled by this, global energy prices rising and global economic shocks.  Was this war worth it? 

And to the external affairs minister, you mentioned at the beginning the strategic convergence.  Can I just ask you about the Iran war in particular?  Was that – does that – did that meet the interest of India?  And also the role of Pakistan.  Pakistan is playing a very strong role with the United States right now.  Does that – does India have any concerns about that?  Thanks very much. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you.  We’ll take one more question from this side.  Vera from WSJ.

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Secretary Rubio, some of Trump’s own allies – Mike Pompeo, Lindsey Graham, and Ted Cruz – are warning that the deal that is taking shape could give Iran access to more money while leaving it with leverage over Hormuz and deferring the nuclear issue.  Are they wrong on that? 

And for the minister, has the Trump Administration shown the same commitment and investment in the Quad as the previous U.S. administration?  And what concrete outcomes are you hoping to see beyond statements of support? 

MODERATOR:  So we can take these questions. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  All right.  Do I go first or —

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER JAISHANKAR:  Yeah. 

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Okay.  I don’t know how to address that but I’ll take that very seriously about the comments.  Look, I’m sure that there are people that have made comments online and other places, because every country in the world has stupid people.  I’m sure there are stupid people here.  There are stupid people in the United States that make dumb comments all the time.  I don’t know what else to tell you other than the United States is a very welcoming country.  Our nation has been enriched by people who come to our country, have come from* our country from all over the world, have become Americans, have assimilated into our way of life, and have contributed greatly.  So that’s all I can comment on that.

In regards to your point, your second question – there was another question about technology cooperation.  Absolutely.  One of the reasons why we’re such strong strategic allies is because India is a place that’s very advanced technologically.  You have companies that are on the leading edge of technology in a variety of fields, and you happen to be our ally in terms of country-to-country.  So it is an area of tremendous partnership.  It speaks directly to the point that I made a moment ago, and that is you can have an alliance with countries – and we have – we work with countries all over the world on a variety of issues, but there are only a handful of countries in the world where you can actually partner to influence global outcomes.  And so India is one of those countries, which adds – which is the reason why our strategic alliance is so critical.  It is between – it’s a strategic alliance between two highly capable partners who have industries within our country – private industries within our company – within our countries that are on the leading edge of some of the top technologies of the 21st century. 

So it makes all the sense in the world:  Two democracies with a lot of pre-existing links, with companies that are on the leading edge of cutting-edge 21st century technologies partnering together to make sure that those technologies are not just developing and continuing to lead the world in innovation, but are doing so in a way that furthers our national interest.  So that is on that point.

On the – on the Iran situation, there’ll be, I believe, maybe more news coming out a little bit later today on this topic, and I’ll leave it to the President to make further announcements on it.  Suffice it to say that some progress has been made, significant progress, although not final progress has been made.  Ultimately, here’s – I remind everybody, and I think this ties into the second question that was asked with relation to it:  What is the goal here?

The goal here ultimately – the ultimate goal is that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.  Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon.  The President has been clear about that.  They will never possess a nuclear weapon, certainly not as long as Donald Trump is President of the United States. 

Related to that is this issue of the straits.  Okay, this is an international waterway what we’re – they don’t own it.  It’s an international waterway.  And what they are doing now is basically they are threatening to destroy commercial vessels using an international waterway.  That is illegal under any concept of international law that governs us, but it’s also an – if we allow that to become normal, we would be normalizing an unacceptable status quo and setting a dangerous precedent that could be replicated here in this region and in multiple places around the world. 

So the desire the President has, his preference, is to find a diplomatic way that these problems can be solved.  That’s always the President’s preference.  He would have much rather have me and the Department of State solve this problem than the Department of War having to solve this problem.  But the problem is going to be solved one way or the other.  So we’ve made some progress over the last 48 hours working with our partners in the Gulf region on an outline that could ultimately, if it succeeds, leave us not just with a completely open straits – and I mean open straits without tolls – and with addressing some of the key things that underpin what has been Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions in the past. 

So we think we’ve made some progress on the outline of something that, if it works, could give us that outcome.  Obviously, that will require full Iranian acceptance and then compliance, and it will require some future work on negotiating the details.  When you’re talking about a nuclear program, as an example, these are highly technical matters and ones that would probably need to be addressed over some period of time.

On the issue of benefits that they could get from it – and whatever domestic criticisms there may be – I don’t think anyone’s been tougher on the Iranian nuclear ambition than President Trump.  Understand – okay?  Again, I’m not – I don’t know what some of these individual comments have been from different sectors of our politics in the United States.  But I will say this:  There is no one who has been stronger on this issue than President Trump.  Multiple political leaders, multiple presidents of the United States, have all said the same thing:  Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.  The only one who’s tried to do anything and has actually done anything about it, in a real way, has been President Trump. 

So his commitment to that principle that they’ll never have a nuclear weapon shouldn’t be questioned by anybody.  And the idea that somehow this President, given everything he’s already proven he’s willing to do, is going to somehow agree to a deal that ultimately winds up putting Iran in a stronger position when it comes to nuclear ambitions is absurd.  That’s just not going to happen.  But our preference is to address this through a diplomatic means, and that’s what we are endeavoring to do here.  I think we’ve made some progress.  I’m always cautious when I say that because you can agree to things on paper; they actually have to be implemented.  You can agree to things in writing, and then you actually have to go out and do it.  And – but I do think perhaps there is the possibility that over the next few hours the world will get some good news, at least with regards to the straits and through – and with regards to a process that can ultimately leave us where the President wants us to be, and that is a world that no longer has to be in fear or worry about an Iranian nuclear weapon. 

And so I do think there’s some good news on that front but not final news on that front, but perhaps a little bit later today we’ll have more to say.  But some progress has been made.  I don’t want to under – I don’t want to – I don’t want to downplay that, but I also want to caveat it by saying we still have some work to do.  We’ll see. 

MODERATOR:  Sir. 

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER JAISHANKAR:  Okay.  The first question about energy chokepoints and what’s happening between us and the U.S. on energy – well, I think there’s a – again, as I mentioned, there’s been actually a very significant uptick in our energy imports from the United States.  It’s not new.  It started out many, many years ago, but I think it’s really picked up in the last year. 

And where India is concerned, look, this is an era of de-risking, and probably energy more than anything else requires de-risking.  So a big country, if you are to do de-risking, looks at multiple sourcing.  And for us, the United States has emerged as a very significant and reliable source of energy, as indeed have some other countries. 

So what – the way we will deal with the current situation in Hormuz, and frankly, going forward as well, which is to diversify our energy sources because that is at the heart of our energy security.  And that is why we feel strongly that the energy markets should not be distorted, they should not be constrained.  It is important to keep energy prices down for global growth. 

Regarding your question on the Iran war – in fact, it flows in a way from that answer.  Sure.  I mean, at this time, whether – where India and the United States are concerned, we both have a very strong interest in ensuring that there is safe and unimpeded maritime commerce.  We also have a very strong interest in ensuring that globally energy prices are kept low and that energy sources are more available.  So look, we are both countries – obviously each one of us has our own national interest and policies, but partnerships and relationships are built on what you share.  And clearly in this case, safe and unimpeded commerce and predictable, affordable, accessible energy sources are two very important meeting points. 

Now, as to who all are involved in the matter which Secretary Rubio addressed, I think it’s for the parties to work out.  It’s for them. 

Regarding the other question on President – the Trump Administration and Quad, I want to remind you that the Quad actually, in the current form, started during President Trump’s first administration.  And actually, it picked up then.  It has moved on.  And it was very interesting.  When I began by saying that we met on the first day of Secretary Rubio’s tenure as Secretary of State, it was for a Quad meeting.  And last year we actually had two Quad meetings.  We’re having a third Quad foreign ministers meeting. 

And looking ahead, look, to me the Indo-Pacific is going to become more and more important with the passage of time.  We were just talking about energy.  It’ll even become a big energy lifeline.  I mean, if you’re going to see, for example, a much bigger India-U.S. energy trade or India’s energy – and general trade with the U.S., with other countries in the Americas, I can see much more growth, much more trade, much more maritime activity out there. 

So to me, the work on Quad goes on, and I think two days from now you will see us on the podium talking about the Quad.  And I can assure you we will have a good, strong story to tell. 

MODERATOR:  Thank you, sir.  A final round of questions.  We’ll take two questions from each side together, and then we’ll request the minister and Secretary of State to respond. 

Manas from this side. 

QUESTION:  Secretary Rubio, after 25 years of very significant progress in India-U.S. ties, including during President Trump’s first tenure as the President, many in India feel that the relationship has lost the momentum in the last one year over issues including tariffs, a more transactional U.S. approach, and mixed signals on Pakistan and China.  So how do you see these views, and what is your administration doing to address these concerns about a slide in India-U.S. relations?

And to Foreign Minister Jaishankar:  What are India’s expectations from the Trump Administration at this stage of the relationship when we are also facing the consequences of conflicts, geopolitical headwinds, specifically on our energy security? 

MODERATOR:  Rezaul.

QUESTION:  Thank you for doing this.  A question for Secretary Rubio.  Here, Secretary Rubio.  There are serious concerns in New Delhi over the U.S. administration’s renewed engagement with Pakistan, and especially Pakistan’s military leadership, especially when there are concerns in this region about that military leadership’s links with terrorism and also with regional instability.  How would you reassure India that this new engagement is not at India’s expense? 

And a question for the external affairs minister.  I know you’ve kind of touched on this, but the Quad came together and positioned itself as a platform for coordination between four maritime democracies to work on the delivery of public goods across the Indo-Pacific.  How much is this still relevant with the Trump Administration? 

MODERATOR:  We’ll go to the other side – Tom from BBC.

QUESTION:  Thank you very much.  Tom Bateman from the BBC.  Mr. Secretary, there’s a lot of attention at the moment on how to end this war, but there is continued scrutiny on the way it began.  Now, it was information about the whereabouts of the supreme leader that led to these unprecedented strikes of unprecedented scale.  That was a Saturday in Iran in the morning when millions of children were at school.  Now, Admiral Cooper said last week – confirmed the timeline of the investigation into the Minab school strike.  There is media analysis that 22 schools at least were damaged either that day or in the following weeks.  What do you say to those who will accuse the administration of unleashing a reckless action because of when this war was begun?

And Mr. External Affairs Minister, given how hard the energy crisis is currently hitting your country, did you discuss with your American counterparts further sanctions waivers, particularly on Russian oil and other oil purchases?  Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Mr. Eric. 

QUESTION:  Thank you.  Secretary Rubio, I’d like to ask you – there’s been a lot of celebration of the role of the U.S. as the world’s oldest democracy and India as the world’s largest democracy.  As part of this discussion of democracy, what is your view on the continued discussion in the U.S. as to who won the 2020 U.S. election and those who continue to question the result that was certified by Congress?  Is that appropriate?  And is it appropriate for – or should all sides in democracies accept the results of elections?

And Minister Jaishankar, if you could talk about specifically on the issue of energy purchases.  Excuse me.  Secretary Rubio has referred to the U.S. desire to sell more energy to India.  Has India made any concrete commitments regarding purchase of U.S. energy as an additional source or as India pursues increased diversification?  Thank you. 

MODERATOR:  So we can take these questions.   

SECRETARY RUBIO:  Okay.  Do you want to start with me?  I think – I wrote them down, so all right.  On the – the U.S.-India relationship has not lost any momentum.  I understand why some people might say that.  I mean, I don’t understand, but I understand some people say that.  But I don’t see it or view that in any way, shape, or form.  The reality of it is you have a new administration that came in.  We have a – this is not about India.  This is about the United States in terms of trade.  Okay, this was not geared – the President did not say let’s figure out a way to create friction with India over trade.  The President came in and said we have a trade situation involving the U.S. economy that doesn’t work moving forward.  There’s a huge imbalance that’s built up and it needs to be addressed.  And he pursued it from a global perspective. 

And so I can tell you as Secretary of State, there virtually is no country in the world that I could travel to that isn’t going to raise the issue of trade, because we did this from a global perspective.  The President approached it and said we have to rebalance U.S. trade.  And one of the reasons why is – again, this is not about India.  I’m not speaking about India.  I’m speaking more globally.  The United States was being de-industrialized.  Okay.  We pursued trade policies that left us in a place where all of the means of production had been outsourced in such a way that left us vulnerable.  That had to change.  And it cost us jobs.  It created huge displacement in our country.  And that needed to be corrected.  There needed to be a rebalancing of how we approach global trade whether – not just with India.  With the European Union, with countries all over the world.  And obviously, now the difference is India is a massive economy.  This is a big economy.  We’re your leading trade partner.  We do a lot of trade with India.  And so obviously, there is a big difference between rebalancing trade with a country of this size and magnitude with the size and productive means of your economy versus a smaller country that maybe all they provide is agriculture as an example.  So I think it’s just gotten caught up in that.

The good news is that through this rebalancing we ultimately seek and believe we will arrive at trade arrangements around the world that are good for the United States but also good for our trade partners.  And one of those we hope will be India.  In fact, we are on the verge of making that happen.  We are hopeful that our trade representative can visit here very soon.  We had an Indian delegation in the United States, I believe last week or the week before.  We’ve made tremendous progress, and I think we’re going to wind up with a trade agreement between the United States and India that’s going to be enduring and that’s going to be beneficial to both sides, and sustainable in a way that addresses this national interest that we had.

Beyond that, I would say that we continue to cooperate on a number of fields.  As an example, when we came out with a Pax Silica proposal from the State Department, one of the first countries that joined was India.  When we had a ministerial on critical minerals, the foreign minister was there.  He was one of our key partners in that regard.  It goes and speaks back to the strategic value of our partnership.  This is an area of strategic concern for both sides, and we are partnering with it – on it.  And it’s an example of what we wanted to continue to build on.

So in just the last few months, as I said, there’s $20 billion of Indian investment in the U.S. economy, and that number continues to grow.  So I think the relationship continues to be strong, and in fact I believe by the end of this administration it will be stronger than it’s ever been.  That’s certainly our goal and that’s certainly what we’re building towards.

As far as our relations with other countries, yeah, we have relations and we work at the tactical level, for example, and in many other ways with countries all over the world.  So does India.  That’s what responsible nation-states do.  But I don’t view our relation with any country in the world as coming at the expense of our strategic alliance with India for the reasons I’ve outlined here already earlier today.

On the question of the war and the – look, that was a long question and it said a lot of things I don’t agree with, and I’m not going to speak to military tactics simply because that’s not my department.  I will say this to you:  When this conflict began with Iran, the goals were outlined and they were very simple and they were very clear.  We were going to destroy their navy, which we have done; we were going to significantly reduce their ability to launch ballistic missiles because that was the conventional shield they were trying to hide behind, and we’ve achieved that objective; and we were going to do damage to their defense industrial base so they couldn’t rebuild all of these things.  We’ve achieved that as well.  Those were the objectives of Epic Fury.   Those objectives were achieved.  Those were the targets of our operation and that’s what they were targeted on, okay?

On the other hand, Iran likes to sponsor proxy groups of terrorists, and these terrorists don’t care what they blow up.  They blow up anything and everyone, okay?  This is who we’re dealing with, okay?  This is an Iran that not long ago through their Hizballah proxies blew up a Jewish center in Argentina and killed a bunch of people.  This is an Iran that innovated the use of roadside bombs that killed and maimed a bunch of people, including American servicemembers but a but of other people. 

This is an Iran that has organized the assassinations and the attempted assassinations of people all over the world, including civilians and dissidents and people they don’t agree with.  There is no nation on Earth that sponsors more terrorism than Iran.  And they have spent – not – they’ve spent millions and millions of dollars sponsoring terrorism and targeting individuals all over the world, and including civilians that have been caught up in that, okay?  That’s what Iran has done. 

They didn’t spend their millions and millions on building roads and bridges and improving the life of their people.  That’s why their people are always in the street protesting – because their economy has been in shambles because they don’t invest in their economy.  They would rather invest in Hizballah.  They would rather invest in the rapists and the murderers of Hamas.  They would rather invest in those groups than they do in their own people.  That’s what Iran invests in.  And that’s what the world – that’s what you should be asking me about.  That’s what the BBC should be covering, and that’s what these other media outlets should be covering is how evil these people are in Iran and the damage they’ve done to people all over the world.  The world’s leading sponsor of terrorism is Iran, and look what they’re doing now.  They are holding hostage civilian vessels, including ships that have now been stuck in the Persian Gulf.  They have laid mines in an international waterway. 

And yet despite all of that, the United States remains committed to finding a peaceful, a diplomatic solution to this crisis.  But let’s be clear who we’re talking about here.  We’re not talking about some pacifist government or there or some pacifist regime.  We’re talking about one of the most vicious regimes on the face of the Earth and in modern history.  That’s what we’re dealing with.  And we were going to take away their missiles, we were going to take away their ability to make new ones, and we were going to wipe out their navy.  Imagine if they had a real navy.  What they have now is a bunch of small little speedboats that can lay mine and harass vessels, but they used to have a navy.  Now that navy resides at the bottom of the ocean.  And that was the objective of Epic Fury.

As far as the question about democracy, I don’t know what – I mean, democracy – every country that has a democracy has elections.  And in every – I’ve been involved – I’ve seen elections in the United States where a Democrat – I remember the lady from Georgia who lost her election in Georgia and said it was stolen from here.  The bottom line is you have elections, and elections are conducted on the basis of rules and so forth, and sometimes those rules are not followed, sometimes those rules are not adhered to, sometimes those rules are played around with.  Right now, Democrats are complaining about a redistricting process in the United States, but we’re going to have elections in 2026.  You guys cover it all the time.  They’re called the midterms.  We’re going to have elections in 2028.  I was elected in elections when I was an elected leader.  So at the end of the day, yeah, democracies, as I said, rely on elections.  Elections rely on rules; those rules have to be followed.  But at the end of the day, these are enduring democracies. 

I can tell you this:  The leaders that are in the United States right now – President Trump was elected.  He was elected with an overwhelming majority of the – in the Electoral College.  He was elected by winning the seven – not five, but the seven – key swing states.  He was elected in 2024 to carry out a mandate, and he responds to the American people as a result of it.  And our leaders in Congress are the same.  They have to answer to their voters, and that’s the key. 

That’s the key and I talked about it before – the largest democracy in the world and the oldest democracy in the world.  Our leaders, when we make decisions on the global stage, we have to go back and justify it to the American people.  They have to go back and justify it to their voters here in India.  We are responsible and accountable to the people.  And they always say the same thing.  They want to know why what you are doing on the global stage is good for the people of your country.  And that’s why I think it’s important that there be strategic alliances with the largest democracy in the world and the oldest democracy in the world, because we are two countries that have to make decisions that are in the national interest because our voters demand it, but also that are in our mutual interests.  And that’s why this relationship is so valuable.

MODERATOR:  Sir, thank you. 

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER JAISHANKAR:  Well, I have one question on expectations from the Trump Administration, three questions on energy which sort of overlap, and one question on the Quad.  So I’ll take them in that order. 

I think, look, where the United States is concerned, the Trump Administration has been very forthright in putting forward its foreign policy outlook as America first.  Now, where we are concerned, we have a view of India first.  So both of us are obviously driven by our respective national interests.  There will be many areas where our national interests are in harmony and we work together, which is why we have a strategic partnership.  There could be some where they don’t, in which case we have to manage those situations. 

Where the energy issues are concerned, again, look, I want to say for our energy security it’s important we have multiple sources, large sources, dependable sources, cheap sources.  So – and the United States, because that was the first question, fits the bill in many respects.  So do some other countries.  So we will continue to diversify and maintain multiple sources of supply at the most reasonable cost, because at the end of the day we have an obligation to our people to provide them energy at affordable and accessible rates. 

Now, what we don’t want to see, we don’t want to see energy markets distorted.  We don’t want to see energy markets constricted because it has a cost implication.  So the question which was asked – did we discuss that – yes, we discussed that.  And I certainly expressed the Indian point of view that we strongly believe that energy markets should be left to the market. 

Where the Quad is concerned, I’m glad you used the word maritime democracies, because both terms I think are very relevant.  We will – we are doing a lot with each other because we are maritime powers, and I see that growing.  And we are doing a lot with each other because we are democratic powers who have a certain way of doing things, who have a certain belief system, who have certain practices.  We are market economies.  We are open societies.  We want business to be conducted and life to run on the basis of international law and market practices.  So for us particularly in the Indo-Pacific, which, as I’ve already stated, I see as gaining importance in salience in the coming days, it’s very important that the Quad cooperation as maritime democracies continue.  And that is exactly what you will see two days from now. 

Thank you.

MODERATOR:  Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.  With that, we come to the closure of this press conference.  Thank you very much for your participation, and I thank Secretary of State and External Affairs Minister for their presence.  Thank you, sir.