PM Modi should not accept Rubio’s invitation to the White House

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio began a four-day official visit to India on May 23, 2026, visiting Kolkata briefly before continuing to New Delhi, where he met with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and delivered an invitation to visit the White House. PM Modi should delay any such visit until after President Donald Trump leaves office.

Trump’s stewardship of US-India relations during his second term has frozen, if not undone, 25 years of partnership. But while Trump’s insult was blatant, Rubio was complicit, even if his sleights were subtle. The May trip was Rubio’s first visit to India as Secretary of State, but he has already visited 31 other countries. India is the world’s most populous country and its largest democracy, yet Rubio found time to visit St Kitts and Nevis and Suriname before India. There was no shortage of opportunity: he was in Japan and South Korea and might have continued on; he even went to Malaysia twice.

More from Opinion

To be fair, Rubio faces a well in front and a ditch behind. He wants to keep his job as Trump casts aside other cabinet members whom he perceives as disloyal or who question him. The situation is reminiscent of an old Iraqi joke: at a press conference, a journalist asks Deputy Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz if elephants can fly. “Of course not,” he replies. The journalist then shouts, “But His Excellency, Saddam Hussein, the President of the Republic of Iraq, said they could.” Without missing a beat, Aziz quipped, “Of course they can, but only very slowly.” While Rubio’s desire to run for president is an open secret, he also likely believes he can manage damage control from within the administration.

The problem for PM Modi, however, is that, given a choice between his principles and ambition, Rubio always chooses the latter. Rubio was neither able to stop Trump’s embrace of Field Marshal Asim Munir nor Trump’s tariffs against India. As a senator, Rubio long defended Ukraine, but turned against President Volodymyr Zelenskyy when Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated him in the Oval Office, later gratuitously demanding that Zelenskyy apologise to Trump. The same dynamic is at play in West Asia, where Rubio goes along with Trump’s efforts to negotiate with Hamas and Iran despite a pre-administration track record of doing the opposite.

Rubio may be sincere in his personal beliefs and may want to set US-India ties right, but he will not be able to do so until he is President Marco Rubio. Until then, his words are meaningless.

For PM Modi to come to Washington and visit Trump in the Oval Office would risk a repeat of the Zelenskyy trap. The same old Trump allies who once lobbied for Pakistan still whisper into the president’s ear. In the power structure of Trump’s administration, old friends are more influential and powerful than secretaries or National Security Advisors. If Trump were to use PM Modi as a backdrop to spring a Kashmir compromise or a plan to resolve the “1,500-year” border dispute between India and Pakistan, Rubio would not remain silent; he would instead demand that PM Modi apologise if the Indian prime minister cited facts or corrected Trump.

Trump’s modus operandi is to test his aides’ loyalty by forcing them to betray friends. PM Modi should not put himself in that position if Trump decides Rubio must pass one of his arbitrary loyalty tests by insulting India or praising Pakistan.

There is a falsehood prevalent in the West that it never hurts to talk. This is wrong. Poorly crafted diplomacy can do lasting damage.

Certainly, Indians resent the red-carpet treatment Trump offers Munir, but they should not try to outcompete Trump’s favourite terrorist. Rather, PM Modi should play the long game. He is no supplicant; his presence is a privilege, one that Trump does not currently deserve.

(Michael Rubin is Director of Policy Analysis at the Middle East Forum in Washington, DC, USA, and a Distinguished Fellow at the Usanas Foundation in Udaipur. The views expressed are personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of Firstpost.)