Sergio Gor, President Trump’s nominee to be the next U.S. ambassador to India, told a Senate confirmation hearing that relations between Washington and Delhi are at a “critical point.”
He’s right. For all their tariff tensions, the two countries hope to become close partners on emerging technologies. “Of particular note,” as Gor said in his written statement, “if confirmed, I will encourage Indian investments in U.S. manufacturing capacity for active pharmaceutical ingredients.”
This goal, while laudable, will come to naught if India continues to undercut American intellectual property rights.
The problem runs deep. Dating back to its first Special 301 Report in 1989, the U.S. trade representative has singled out India as one of the worst offenders of American intellectual property.
Little has changed since then. In its 2025 report, for example, the trade representative observes that “India remains one of the world’s most challenging major economies with respect to protection and enforcement of” intellectual property.
Patents, including the inability to effectively enforce them, loom large in this assessment, but there are myriad challenges.
India lacks regulatory data protection. This is a windfall for local competitors, who need not pay the costs or share in the risks of generating their own data to prove the safety and efficacy of generic or biosimilar products.
This isn’t a mere technicality. It goes to the very core of U.S. research and development, which depends on enforceable rights abroad.
This matters for Gor’s plan. It doesn’t do any good to have Indian firms making active pharmaceutical ingredients in U.S. plants if India simultaneously vacates patent and regulatory data protection at home. That’s not partnership. That’s free riding.
India won’t fix this on goodwill alone. It never has, despite all the Special 301 report “naming and shaming” and “out-of-cycle” reviews that successive administrations of both parties have carried out over decades.
The U.S. needs leverage. That’s why the administration should launch a Section 301 investigation into India. It would signal that the U.S. won’t tolerate systemic violations, especially when they undercut our innovative economy.
Indeed, using a Section 301 investigation during bilateral negotiations signals to India that the U.S. is serious about protecting American innovation and will not allow India to pay lip service to the issues and run out the clock.
This isn’t punishment — it’s insurance. Without pressure, India has no incentive to change its errant ways.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants India to be a hub for digital trade, green energy and advanced tech. But without intellectual property protections, India will remain a risky partner. No serious strategy can overlook that.
Trump and Modi both talk about building a “strategic partnership.” But strategy requires clarity. If Washington sacrifices intellectual property in the interest of quick deals on defense or manufacturing, the U.S. will lock itself into a lopsided partnership: India gets the benefits, U.S. innovators pay the price.
The message should be simple: No intellectual property protections, no partnership.
The Trump administration should hold the line, and that means considering a Section 301 case before promising anything else.
Otherwise, this “critical point” in U.S.-India relations will turn into another missed opportunity — one where America loses its edge, and India proves it still isn’t ready for prime time.
Marc L. Busch is the Karl F. Landegger Professor of International Business Diplomacy at the Walsh School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.
