Michael Rubin Says "Indians Shouldn't Take Trump Literally"
In the latest chapter of escalating tensions and strategic diplomacy in South Asia, a former US Pentagon official has offered a blunt and cautionary perspective on US President Donald Trump's recent statements concerning the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Michael Rubin, currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, took a sharp jab at Trump’s penchant for self-congratulatory claims, advising Indians not to take the US President’s words too literally.
Rubin's comments came in response to Trump's bold assertions that his administration had single-handedly averted a nuclear conflict between the two subcontinental rivals. Trump claimed credit for brokering an “immediate and permanent cessation of hostilities” between India and Pakistan, following the violent escalation triggered by the Pahalgam terrorist attack and India's subsequent military retaliation under Operation Sindoor.
Speaking to ANI in an interview, Rubin joked, “Donald Trump likes to claim credit for everything. If you ask Donald Trump, he single-handedly won the World Cup. He invented the Internet. He cured cancer.” His tongue-in-cheek remarks reflected a deep skepticism toward Trump’s sweeping claims, which often blur the lines between fact and exaggeration.
Rubin urged Indians to adopt a more American-style detachment when it comes to interpreting Trump’s rhetoric. “Indians should be more like Americans in this regard and not take Donald Trump literally,” he said, adding that while the US often plays a quiet, behind-the-scenes role in crisis mediation, it rarely operates with the kind of drama Trump projects.
Trump, speaking at a press event earlier in the week, had taken credit for stopping what he described as a potential “bad nuclear war.” He lauded his administration’s role, especially Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in helping to broker the ceasefire. “We stopped a nuclear conflict. I think it could have been a bad nuclear war. Millions of people could have been killed,” Trump said. He also linked his ceasefire push to trade incentives, reportedly telling both nations that economic cooperation hinged on halting the conflict.
However, as Rubin points out, the reality on the ground tells a more complex story. India's launch of Operation Sindoor in retaliation for the deadly Pahalgam terror attack, which claimed 26 lives, was followed by precision airstrikes across the Line of Control (LoC), targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. The strikes reportedly killed over 100 terrorists and inflicted significant damage on Pakistani military positions.
In response, Pakistan initiated limited airspace violations and attempted retaliatory strikes, which were effectively countered by the Indian Air Force. The military exchanges raised international concern, particularly due to both nations being nuclear-armed. Rubin emphasized that in such scenarios, the US traditionally acts through diplomatic channels to provide “off-ramps” to both sides to de-escalate without losing face or military credibility.
He elaborated, “Whenever Pakistan and India come into conflict, the United States tries to mediate behind the scenes, and this is reasonable because the United States is trying diplomatically to provide an off-ramp to prevent unrestricted warfare and also, in a worst-case scenario, prevent an escalation to any sort of nuclear exchange.”
Rubin added that both New Delhi and Islamabad are well aware of this dynamic, often using Washington as a conduit for indirect messaging when direct diplomatic channels are strained or blocked.
While Rubin acknowledged that Trump’s administration may have contributed diplomatically to reducing tensions, he cautioned against equating quiet diplomacy with Trump’s bombastic claims of single-handedly averting war. “The fact that the United States would be in touch with both New Delhi and Islamabad is obvious,” Rubin said, but he stressed that this does not justify Trump’s exaggerated self-praise.
The skepticism expressed by Rubin echoes a broader international view of Trump's foreign policy style, which has frequently been criticized for prioritizing optics over substance. Trump’s inclination to overstate his achievements is seen as part of a broader strategy to maintain a strongman image domestically, especially as the 2026 midterm elections approach.
For India, Rubin's comments offer a timely reminder to approach US claims with nuance. While Washington’s support and mediation remain important in South Asia, India’s strategic calculus and military responses are largely autonomous, calibrated based on national interest and regional security considerations.
As Operation Sindoor unfolded and India decisively responded to both terrorism and Pakistani aggression, it became clear that New Delhi was not acting under foreign pressure but in alignment with its own defense doctrine. The ceasefire, while welcome, was a product of intense military, diplomatic, and strategic maneuvering—not the unilateral work of any one international leader.
In conclusion, Rubin’s candid observations serve as a reminder that diplomacy, especially in volatile regions like South Asia, is rarely the domain of grandstanding. It is often shaped by quiet negotiations, mutual deterrence, and realpolitik. While Trump’s claims may make headlines, the real credit belongs to the nuanced, often unseen, work of diplomats, military strategists, and regional leaders on both sides of the border.