India's apparel and textile exporters to the US still face tariffs of up to 25 percent, and a new US law threatening 100 percent duties on buyers of Russian oil has injected fresh risk into the long-anticipated bilateral trade agreement — with no completion date in sight.

The Sanctioning Russia Act, signed into law on September 18, could penalize India for its continued purchases of Russian crude. The legislation landed just as negotiations between Washington and New Delhi had already lost momentum. India pulled back from talks after the Supreme Court unraveled President Donald Trump's flagship tariff scheme in February, extending uncertainty and giving the US more room to scrutinize India's relationship with Russia.

The tariff picture for Indian exporters has shifted repeatedly over the past year. Indian goods faced US duties as high as 50 percent. The rate dropped to 25 percent in February as both governments worked toward completing a strategic partnership arrangement — a level that still squeezes margins for apparel, home textiles and yarn suppliers competing against Bangladesh, Vietnam and other sourcing destinations with more favorable access.

The first diplomatic contact since the sanctions law took effect came Wednesday, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke with Trump by phone. Modi described the conversation as "productive" and said the two "reviewed our bilateral cooperation in trade, defence, energy, critical technologies and other areas."

"We agreed to maintain close engagement to take our Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership forward," Modi wrote on X.

That public assurance followed a far blunter assessment from Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar, who told an Asia Society event in New York during the week of the UN General Assembly that America's "self-centered" trade policies have made life "difficult" for India and other countries in the Global South, according to Al Jazeera.

Jaishankar identified concrete sticking points in the negotiations. The US has refused to open its agricultural market as part of the bilateral trade agreement — a dealbreaker for New Delhi. He also cited "the issue of terrorism" as a source of friction.

That reference points to the armed conflict between India and Pakistan in May 2025, which followed an attack in Indian-administered Kashmir on April 22, 2025 that killed 26 people, according to India. A ceasefire was brokered, and Trump has repeatedly claimed credit for ending the fighting — most recently this week. India's government disputes that account.

"Now, if something which matters so deeply to us, there isn't enough understanding or appreciation or empathy of that, I think that creates a problem too," Jaishankar said.

Despite the friction, the foreign minister expressed hope that a deal would come soon, noting it "would contribute to a better relationship" with the US.

His candor contrasts sharply with Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal, who told reporters last Thursday that the US agreement was "almost done and dusted." Goyal noted India has recently finalized nine free trade agreements with other nations, counting the US among them.

The gap between the two ministers' assessments signals that a finished text is not imminent, whatever the commerce ministry's messaging. For sourcing teams, that means Indian capacity continues to carry a tariff premium of as much as 25 percentage points relative to pre-2024 baselines, with no confirmed timeline for relief.

The next concrete checkpoint is the G20 Summit in December at Trump National Doral Miami. Modi, who has attended every G20 leaders' summit for the past 12 years, is expected to be in North America anyway to finalize India's Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement with Canada alongside Prime Minister Mark Carney. A face-to-face meeting with Trump on US soil could prove decisive for the trade deal's fate.

Until then, buyers weighing Indian cotton textiles, apparel and technical textiles must plan around an unresolved tariff regime, sanctions exposure tied to Russian oil purchases and negotiating positions that remain far apart on agriculture.