The Pahalgam terror attack has heightened tensions between India and Pakistan, drawing international attention and prompting strong responses from the United States. While President Donald Trump and other senior US officials have expressed solidarity with India following the attack, their statements carry nuanced implications regarding potential support for military action.
The US has historically maintained a delicate balance in its relationships with both nuclear-armed nations, advocating for restraint while acknowledging India’s right to self-defence. This report examines the current US stance, historical precedents, and the complex factors that will likely influence whether the Trump administration will explicitly back India’s potential military retaliation against Pakistan.
Immediate Reactions From Indian Leadership
Following the attack, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has taken a firm stance, asserting that India is determined to bring the perpetrators to justice. This declaration mirrors the Indian government’s response to previous terrorist incidents and suggests potential military action against those deemed responsible for the attack.
India has historically attributed terrorist activities in Kashmir to Pakistan-based groups, and this incident appears to be reinforcing that narrative, thereby intensifying the already strained relations between the two neighbouring countries. The Indian government’s resolve is evident in Modi’s conversation with President Trump, during which he thanked the US President for his support while reiterating India’s determination to take decisive action.
US Official Responses To The Pahalgam Attack
The United States has responded to the Pahalgam attack with strong condemnation and expressions of solidarity with India. On April 23, 2025, a day after the deadly attack, President Donald Trump condemned the terrorist attack and personally called Prime Minister Narendra Modi to express his condolences for the victims. During this call, Trump extended support to India, though the exact nature and extent of this support remain somewhat ambiguous in terms of endorsing potential military action. US State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce has reiterated that “the United States stands with India and strongly condemns all acts of terrorism,” echoing statements from President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Notable Statements From Key US Officials
Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), has provided one of the most explicit statements of support for India’s potential response to the attack. In a social media post, Gabbard condemned the “horrific Islamist terrorist attack, targeting and killing 26 Hindus in Pahalgam” and affirmed that the US stands “with you and support you as you hunt down those responsible for this heinous attack”.
This statement appears to endorse some form of action against the perpetrators, though it stops short of explicitly supporting military strikes against Pakistan as a state. Meanwhile, US State Department Spokesperson Tammy Bruce has taken a more cautious approach when directly questioned about India-Pakistan border tensions, stating, “I am not going to be remarking on it” and referring to previous statements by senior officials.
The current situation bears similarities to the aftermath of the 2019 Pulwama attack, which provides valuable insights into how the US might respond to potential Indian military action against Pakistan. Following the Pulwama attack, then-President Trump described the situation between India and Pakistan as “very, very bad” and “very dangerous,” indicating an awareness of the serious implications of escalating tensions between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.
The Trump administration at that time recognised India’s right to self-defence but also emphasised the importance of de-escalation and dialogue to prevent a broader conflict. Lisa Curtis, who served as Deputy Assistant to the President and NSC Senior Director for South and Central Asia from 2017-2021, later noted that one mistake the US made was that statements by senior US officials immediately following the 2019 terror attack were interpreted as giving India a green light for a retaliatory strike against Pakistan.
Lessons From Balakot Strikes
The 2019 Pulwama attack led to a decisive response by India, India conducted a very effective airstrikes against terrorist training camps in Balakot, Pakistan, thereby eliminating hundreds of terrorists in JeM camps.
According to Lisa Curtis, a key lesson the US learned from this crisis was that “India is willing to take greater risks against Pakistan when terrorists strike on its territory”. She emphasised that striking into Pakistani territory in Balakot represented a clear departure from India’s previous responses, demonstrating India’s increased willingness to strike deep into Pakistani territory in retaliation for terrorist attacks. This lesson is particularly relevant to the current situation, as it suggests that the US anticipates a potentially significant military response from India and must calibrate its own position accordingly.
Will Trump Back India’s Military Action? A Nuanced Analysis
The question of whether President Donald Trump will explicitly back India’s potential military action against Pakistan requires a nuanced analysis. While the US has expressed strong solidarity with India and condemned the Pahalgam attack, it has not explicitly endorsed any military retaliation by India against Pakistan. The statements from US officials reflect a careful balancing act, acknowledging India’s security concerns and right to respond to terrorism while avoiding language that could be interpreted as unconditional support for military strikes against Pakistan. This approach is consistent with the historical US stance of recognising India’s right to self-defence while simultaneously emphasising restraint and dialogue to prevent escalation between the two nuclear-armed neighbours.
Strategic Considerations Influencing US Position
Several strategic considerations are likely influencing the US position on this matter. First, the US has important relationships with both India and Pakistan that it seeks to maintain, and explicitly backing military action by one against the other could complicate these relationships. Second, the US is concerned about regional stability and the potential for escalation between two nuclear-armed states, which could have far-reaching implications for international security. Third, the US relies on Pakistan’s cooperation for various counterterrorism objectives and regional initiatives, which could be jeopardised by unequivocal support for Indian military action. Finally, the US may be mindful of the lessons from the 2019 crisis, where statements perceived as endorsing Indian retaliation contributed to escalation before the US subsequently worked to de-escalate the situation.
Conclusion
While President Trump and senior US officials have expressed strong solidarity with India following the Pahalgam terror attack, the US response suggests a measured approach rather than unconditional backing for military action against Pakistan. The statements from US officials reflect a recognition of India’s security concerns and right to respond to terrorism, but they also indicate an awareness of the potential dangers of escalation between two nuclear-armed neighbours.
Historical precedents, particularly from the 2019 Pulwama/Balakot crisis, suggest that the US is likely to advocate for restraint while acknowledging India’s right to self-defence. The strongest statement of support has come from DNI Tulsi Gabbard, who endorsed hunting down those responsible for the attack, but even this falls short of explicitly backing state-level military action against Pakistan.
As the situation evolves, the US response will likely continue to balance support for India with diplomatic efforts to prevent a broader conflict, reflecting the complex strategic interests at stake in South Asia.
IDN (With Input From Agencies)
Agencies
