Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : During the Biden administration, India was elevated from an ordinary bilateral trade partner to a “strategic partner” and “most favored nation” in Washington’s eyes. The U.S. envisioned India as a counterweight to China’s growing influence, pouring political, economic, and strategic support into New Delhi. India was projected as the next global manufacturing hub, with U.S. industries encouraged to set up production plants there and bring their goods back to America, giving India unprecedented access to U.S. markets and raising its global profile. However, this sudden rise inflated India’s ego, making it more assertive and, at times, confrontational—not only with its neighbors like Pakistan and Nepal but also with China and even Western partners.
Confident of Washington’s protection, India began flexing its muscles globally. Its defiance became clear during disputes with the European Union and the U.S., especially after the Ukraine war began. Despite India bypassing sanctions, buying discounted Russian oil, and reselling refined products at a profit, the Biden administration imposed no penalties. For Biden, the calculus was strategic: build India’s economy, enhance its military strength, and position it as a democratic bulwark against China in the Indo-Pacific. Even when India refused to align with Western sanctions on Russia, the administration remained lenient, prioritizing long-term objectives over immediate disagreements.
This approach shifted dramatically with Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025. Viewing U.S.–India relations through a transactional lens, Trump rejected the idea of indulging India unconditionally. He saw India’s growing trade surplus, hidden tariff barriers, and its lucrative energy trade with Russia as a fundamental imbalance. Within months, Trump reversed nearly all the privileges extended under Biden and demanded that India halt Russian oil imports, stop reselling petroleum products to the U.S. and Europe at inflated prices, and lower its exorbitant tariffs on American goods. India refused, defending its “strategic autonomy” and rejecting Washington’s demands outright.
Trump’s response was swift and uncompromising. Starting with a 10% tariff on Indian goods, he escalated it to 15%, then 35%, and finally imposed a sweeping 50% blanket tariff by August 27, 2025. This single policy move crippled India’s position in the U.S. market, rendering billions of dollars’ worth of exports uncompetitive. Indian goods worth $48 to $58 billion annually—including textiles, apparel, seafood, gems, jewelry, furniture, machinery, and metals—became prohibitively expensive. Analysts estimate India could lose up to 43% of its U.S. exports, nearly $40 billion annually, hitting its manufacturing and employment sectors hard. These tariffs marked a decisive recalibration of U.S. policy, reducing India from a privileged strategic partner back to a transactional trading ally.
While the rift between Washington and New Delhi has damaged India’s position, it has created a historic opening for Pakistan. With India’s access to U.S. supply chains disrupted, Pakistan is uniquely positioned to fill the gap. In 2024, Pakistan’s total trade with the U.S. stood at $7.2 billion, with exports accounting for $5.1 billion and growing steadily. By fiscal year 2024–25, exports to the U.S. rose further to $5.83 billion, driven by textiles, apparel, leather products, surgical instruments, and home furnishings. Now, as U.S. buyers seek alternatives to Indian suppliers, Pakistan’s competitive advantages—cheaper costs, quality production, and reliability—make it a natural beneficiary.
Adding to Pakistan’s momentum is the July 2025 Pakistan–U.S. Trade and Energy Deal, signed just weeks before Trump’s final tariff decision. This landmark agreement reduced tariffs on key Pakistani exports, including textiles, leather goods, surgical instruments, agricultural products, and IT services, giving Pakistan a clear pricing edge over India. The deal also paved the way for U.S. investment in Pakistan’s energy sector while strengthening bilateral trade ties. In return, Pakistan aligned closely with U.S. policy objectives, including observing restrictions on Russian oil imports and enhancing counterterrorism cooperation. Pleased with Pakistan’s support, Trump publicly praised Islamabad’s contributions to regional stability, especially its assistance in capturing high-profile terrorists and facilitating U.S. intelligence operations.
Pakistan’s diplomatic prudence has further strengthened its standing in Washington. Unlike India, which openly defied U.S. requests while doubling down on Russian oil imports—reportedly worth $34 billion annually—Pakistan avoided any actions that could conflict with Western sanctions. Its neutral stance on energy, combined with extensive cooperation on security, made it a more trusted partner in the region. The growing relationship was symbolized by an unprecedented White House meeting between President Trump and Pakistan’s Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir, signaling elevated strategic confidence.
The implications of these developments are profound. With Indian products now priced out of the American market, billions of dollars’ worth of trade opportunities have opened across multiple sectors—especially textiles, jewelry, seafood, furniture, and machinery. Pakistan can capitalize on this shift by rapidly mobilizing its industrial base, investing in capacity expansion, and ensuring supply chain efficiency. By targeting these sectors and aggressively marketing its competitive advantages, Pakistan could capture a significant share of the U.S. market previously dominated by India.
This moment calls for a coordinated national effort. The government must work with exporters, industry leaders, and the Pakistani diaspora in the U.S. to identify priority sectors and align strategies for substitution. Incentives for new investments in high-demand industries, compliance with international quality standards, and guaranteed reliability in fulfilling large-scale orders will be critical to success. By filling this gap effectively, Pakistan could double or even triple its exports to the U.S. within a few years, creating a ripple effect across other Western markets, particularly Europe, which often follows U.S. trade patterns.
Time, however, is of the essence. Trade realignments happen quickly, and other regional players like Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Indonesia are also competing to replace India’s share. Pakistan must act decisively to strengthen its production capacity, maintain consistent quality, and streamline export processes. The government’s role in facilitating infrastructure improvements, reducing regulatory bottlenecks, and supporting exporters with favorable policies will determine whether Pakistan can fully exploit this opportunity.
In the broader context, India’s inflated confidence, cultivated during years of indulgence under the Biden administration, has collided with Trump’s economic realism. By challenging India’s trade advantages and energy autonomy, Trump has reshaped the dynamics of South Asian commerce, weakening India’s grip on U.S. markets and opening the door for Pakistan. For Islamabad, this is more than a commercial opportunity—it is a strategic chance to redefine its economic partnership with the United States, expand its global trade profile, and accelerate long-term industrial growth.
The window is open but will not remain so indefinitely. If Pakistan acts with agility, coordination, and vision, it can transform this disruption into a turning point for its economy, positioning itself as the primary South Asian beneficiary of U.S. trade and reshaping regional economic dynamics for years to come.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : When Donald Trump reassumed the presidency in January 2025, he came with a determination to reset the United States, to restore what he called its lost glory, and to end the long years of exploitation by allies and adversaries alike. His first and fiercest target was China. Even before his administration had taken shape, when his cabinet was being scrutinized in the Senate and the Congress, it was clear that nearly every appointee, from the national security leadership to the economic team, carried one unifying agenda: to confront China, to cut down its growing influence, and to reclaim for America the leadership of the international order. The early months carried the full weight of this antagonism. Tariffs were slapped on Chinese goods, hawkish statements were made about containing Beijing in the Pacific, and even talk of stopping the flow of Chinese students to American universities was floated. The tone was confrontational, the stance uncompromising, and the ambition was nothing less than to push China back not only from American shores but from Asia, Europe, and beyond.
Yet as the weeks unfolded, a sobering reality dawned on Washington. The United States no longer had the leverage it once commanded. The global order had shifted. China was not a fragile power dependent on American markets and technology; it was a formidable actor that had, over the past decade, consolidated its dominance in manufacturing, technology, and finance. By 2024, China accounted for nearly 31% of global manufacturing output, making it the indispensable workshop of the world. Its grip on rare earth elements was even more decisive, producing nearly 70% and processing about 85% of the world’s supply, the backbone of modern technologies from smartphones and electric vehicles to satellites and fighter jets. To think that tariffs alone could bend such a power was wishful, and it quickly became apparent that the United States was staring at a competitor far too entrenched to be bullied.
Trump’s early declarations that allies like Europe, Canada, and Mexico had been “plundering” the United States found quick results there. NATO states, under American pressure, agreed to hike defense spending from 2% to as high as 5% of GDP, and European negotiators conceded to humiliating trade deals that forced them to buy more American goods while swallowing a 15% tariff on their exports to the U.S. Canada, too, suffered greatly, as disputes over trade, security, and investment battered its economy and its political stability.
In those regions, Trump’s heavy-handed tactics worked because the dependency on the United States remained asymmetric. But with China, the playbook misfired. Beijing did not bend. It retaliated with equal tariffs, diverted exports to Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, and doubled down on its Belt and Road Initiative, which by 2025 had already drawn in more than 150 countries and over a trillion dollars in investment. Far from retreating, China used America’s confrontation to strengthen its global alternatives.
The attempt to ban Chinese students quickly collapsed as well. In 2024, more than 290,000 Chinese students were enrolled in American universities, contributing over $15 billion annually to tuition and living expenses. When proposals were made to cut them off, university presidents, governors, and state legislators raised the alarm that such a move would devastate higher education budgets and gut critical research programs. By the summer of 2025, Trump reversed course, openly admitting that these students were vital not only for finances but also for America’s scientific and technological advancement. What had been framed as a security threat was rebranded as a necessary lifeline for institutions already struggling with deficits.
On the military front, too, harsh reality intruded. American officials initially talked of quadrupling the U.S. presence in the South China Sea to contain Beijing. But the Pentagon’s own assessments made clear that China now had the largest navy in the world by ship count, and that sustaining such deployments would bleed the U.S. treasury without altering China’s resolve. With a defense budget already at $850 billion in 2024, America faced the prospect of draining itself in a contest it could not decisively win. It was not Beijing that appeared overstretched but Washington, and in the calculus of resources, the United States realized that escalation could only sap its strength.
Even the most powerful weapon in America’s arsenal, the dollar, proved less decisive than hoped. The dollar still made up about 58% of global foreign exchange reserves in 2024, but China and its BRICS partners had been steadily eroding this dominance. By early 2025, nearly a quarter of intra-BRICS trade was being conducted outside of the dollar, through local currency swaps and yuan settlements. At the same time, Beijing reduced its U.S. Treasury holdings to under $775 billion, its lowest in more than a decade, subtly weakening America’s ability to weaponize its debt dependence. The weaponization of finance, so effective against weaker adversaries, had limited effect on a China that had prepared its defenses.
It was on rare earths and supply chains that the hardest lesson was learned. Any disruption from Beijing would paralyze entire sectors of the U.S. economy. Defense contractors building F-35s, tech companies producing semiconductors, automakers racing to transition to EVs—all were dependent on Chinese supply chains. Attempts to reshore production or find alternative suppliers in Africa and Australia were years away from maturity. In the meantime, tariffs and restrictions only drove up prices at home. Walmart, Target, and Home Depot reported that household goods were rising by 10–15%, squeezing American consumers and fueling inflationary pressures. What had been billed as a strategy to punish China threatened to punish the very voters Trump had pledged to protect.
Trump is not a leader who easily admits defeat, but he is a pragmatist when forced by circumstances. Gradually, the rhetoric softened. Where once he threatened to choke off Chinese students, now he welcomed them. Where once he promised to multiply naval deployments, now he quietly acknowledged that China was too big to intimidate. Where once he boasted that tariffs would bring Beijing to its knees, now he conceded in his own words that “both China and the United States hold powerful cards, but I do not want to use these cards anymore.” It was a rare admission of limits, but also a demonstration of flexibility, of learning fast and adjusting course in the face of hard realities.
The implications of this shift are global. For Europe and Canada, the price of submission to American tariffs has been humiliation and economic loss. For developing countries, especially those bound to China through investment and infrastructure like Pakistan, the easing of U.S.-China tensions offers relief, stability, and opportunities. Supply chains can stabilize, inflationary shocks can be tempered, and the specter of a bifurcated technological order can be postponed. The nervousness that gripped global markets in early 2025 may yet give way to a calmer, more predictable environment.
This is not submission by the United States, nor is it triumph for China alone. It is a recognition of a multipolar world, one where interdependence outweighs the fantasies of domination. It is also a testament to Trump’s instinct for survival, his ability to correct course, and his willingness to pivot when faced with the immovable weight of reality. The United States still holds cards—in its consumer market, its technology base, its dollar system, and its alliances. But China holds cards too—in its manufacturing dominance, its rare earths, its investments, and its financial innovation. The test now is not who can outplay the other, but who can recognize that destroying the table destroys the game for all.
The course correction we are witnessing may prove to be one of the most consequential strategic adjustments of Trump’s presidency. It suggests not weakness, but wisdom—the wisdom to see that America cannot remain a hegemon in a world where China has become the indispensable player. In showing flexibility, Trump has revealed that leadership is not only about force but about judgment. He has acknowledged that America’s power, though vast, must coexist with China’s, and that a stable balance is the only path to safeguard prosperity at home and stability abroad. To some, this may feel like compromise. To others, like survival. But history may remember it as something larger: the moment the United States accepted the reality of a multipolar world, and chose coexistence over collision.

Paris (Imran Y. CHOUDHRY) :- Former Press Secretary to the President, Former Press Minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France, Former MD, SRBC Mr. Qamar Bashir analysis : When I lived in Pakistan, homelessness was largely perceived as a problem confined to the developing world—a symptom of poverty, conflicts, and weak governance. The idea that a resource-rich country like the United States could face a similar crisis seemed unimaginable. Yet, after nearly a year of living here, I have come to realize that homelessness is neither a “third-world problem” nor a rare phenomenon. It is a deep-rooted crisis at the heart of the world’s wealthiest nation, silently transforming its social and urban landscape.
President Donald Trump, already grappling with significant domestic and international challenges—including wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, tensions between Pakistan and India, and his claims of having helped defuse multiple global conflicts—has placed homelessness among his top priorities. From Los Angeles to New York City, the evidence is striking: small tents line sidewalks, makeshift shelters occupy public spaces, and families live beneath bridges or in their cars. What might once have been viewed as isolated instances has become a widespread humanitarian emergency.
Trump views homelessness as central to his broader plan to restore America’s global image, improve the aesthetics of its cities, and ensure public safety. However, addressing the problem is not simply a matter of clearing streets. It requires an in-depth understanding of the underlying causes and a comprehensive strategy to rehabilitate individuals rather than merely displace them.
Globally, homelessness reflects the deep inequalities that persist despite immense progress in science, technology, and wealth creation. According to the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), between 1.6 billion and 3 billion people lack adequate housing, while over 330 million face absolute homelessness—living entirely without shelter. More than 1.1 billion live in slums or informal settlements, a figure that has grown by 130 million since 2015. This is not a challenge unique to poor nations; it spans continents and economies, from conflict-torn regions to affluent capitals.
In places like Syria, Yemen, and Sudan, homelessness has surged due to war, displacement, and collapsing infrastructure. Nigeria, for example, is home to 24.4 million homeless people—about 13% of its population—driven by poverty, rapid urbanization, and a lack of affordable housing. In Syria, 6.56 million people have been rendered homeless after years of conflict, making it one of the largest displacement crises in modern history. While such figures are expected in fragile states, the growing presence of homelessness in wealthy economies like the U.S., the U.K., and Germany underscores a deeper global failure.
In the United States, homelessness has reached record levels. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported 771,480 Americans experiencing homelessness on a single night in 2024—the highest figure ever recorded. This equals 23 people per 10,000 residents living in shelters, vehicles, or unsheltered conditions. States like California and New York remain epicenters of the crisis: California reports 187,084 homeless individuals (48 per 10,000), while New York faces an even higher rate, with 158,019 people homeless (81 per 10,000). In Hawaii, the crisis is worsening, with homelessness nearly doubling between 2019 and 2024, rising from 44 to 80 people per 10,000 residents.
The drivers behind this emergency are complex and interconnected. A severe shortage of affordable housing remains at its core, compounded by rising rents, inflation, and stagnating wages. For many middle- and lower-income families, securing stable housing has become impossible. Mental health challenges and lack of access to treatment exacerbate the issue, as do natural disasters and public health crises that displace thousands of families. In some cases, even full-time employment fails to guarantee a roof over one’s head, revealing how deeply structural this crisis has become.
Europe faces its own escalating challenges, demonstrating that homelessness is not limited by geography or wealth. Across the European Union and United Kingdom, over one million people sleep without adequate shelter every night. In France, there are 333,000 homeless people—about 30.7 per 10,000 residents. Germany reports 263,000 homeless individuals (25.8 per 10,000), while the UK faces around 400,000 homeless, including over 309,000 in England alone. As in the U.S., the crisis is fueled by soaring housing costs, insufficient welfare systems, migration pressures, and underfunded public housing initiatives. According to the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless (FEANTSA), the lack of affordable housing combined with inadequate social support structures has left governments unprepared to meet growing demands.
Yet some nations have proven that homelessness is neither inevitable nor unsolvable. Japan offers an exceptional example of effective intervention. As of 2024, the country recorded just 2,820 homeless individuals nationwide, translating to two per 100,000 people—one of the lowest rates in the developed world. Japan’s success lies in comprehensive, long-term strategies that integrate permanent housing solutions, job placement programs, mental health care, and social reintegration services. Its model demonstrates that with structured governance and well-funded social policies, the cycle of homelessness can be broken.
Against this global backdrop, President Trump’s administration has unveiled an ambitious strategy to address homelessness in America. His plan prioritizes clearing unsafe encampments, expanding affordable housing projects, and partnering with private developers to accelerate construction. Additionally, his administration emphasizes rehabilitation, including mental health support, job training, and pathways to employment, alongside tighter immigration controls, arguing that undocumented migration adds pressure on limited public resources.
However, experts caution that enforcement alone cannot resolve the crisis. Removing tents and shelters from city streets may improve appearances temporarily but fails to address the structural causes of homelessness. Long-term solutions require a multi-pronged approach: investing in affordable housing, strengthening mental health infrastructure, reforming wage and rent policies, and equipping individuals with the tools to achieve stability. Without these measures, efforts risk displacing vulnerable populations rather than rehabilitating them.
The issue is no longer confined to impoverished regions or war-torn societies; homelessness has emerged as a global challenge that transcends borders, economies, and ideologies. For the United States, Trump’s war on homelessness represents both a political commitment and a moral responsibility. Success will depend on whether the country can transition from short-term optics to comprehensive policies that prioritize dignity, opportunity, and inclusivity.
America possesses the resources, innovation, and leadership to combat this crisis effectively. What is needed is a national consensus that homelessness is not a reflection of personal failure but a consequence of systemic gaps. By embracing compassion and collaboration, the U.S. can ensure a future where every citizen has access to safe, secure, and dignified housing—a future where the wealthiest nation on Earth leads not just by economic power but by its ability to care for its most vulnerable.