US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently launched yet another criticism at India, this time over the issue of corn imports.

In a conversation with Axios, he expressed frustration at New Delhi’s trade policies and said: “India brags that they have 1.4 Billion people, then why wouldn’t they buy one Bushel of corn from us? Doesn’t that rub you the wrong way, that they sell everything to us, and they don’t buy our corn? They put tariffs on everything. The President (Trump) says, ‘treat us the way we treat you. We got to right years of wrong. So we want the tariff going the other way. We fix this. That’s the President’s motto, and you either accept it, or you are going to have a tough time doing business with the world’s greatest consumer.”

His words were loaded with discontent, portraying India as an unfair trade partner unwilling to engage in agricultural imports from the United States. Lutnick’s statement gives the impression that India does not buy a single grain of corn from America. But when we look closely at the actual trade data, his remarks appear exaggerated and only partially true.

In the financial year 2024-25, India did purchase some corn from the United States—about 1,100 tonnes. Of course, when compared to the nation’s total corn imports, this figure looks tiny. India’s overall corn imports for that year stood at 0.97 million tonnes, a volume far greater than what came from American soil. Out of this total, 0.53 million tonnes were sourced from Myanmar and 0.39 million tonnes from Ukraine. These two countries have consistently remained the largest exporters of corn to India, mainly due to their lower prices and geographic proximity.

So while Lutnick’s complaint paints the picture of a country completely closing its doors, the reality is that India does buy US corn—it just does so in very small amounts compared to its imports from other nations. The figures clearly show that the United States is not India’s first or even second choice when it comes to sourcing maize.

Why India does not buy much corn from the USA

The reasons behind this trade pattern are not hidden or mysterious. India has several strong economic and policy reasons for not purchasing large amounts of corn from the United States.

• Genetically Modified Crops: The vast majority of corn grown in the United States is genetically modified (GM). India has one of the strictest positions in the world regarding GM food imports. Unless specific approval is granted by Indian authorities, genetically modified crops are simply not allowed into the country. This restriction automatically eliminates a large chunk of US corn from the import list.

• Tariff Barriers: India operates under a Tariff-Rate Quota (TRQ) system for corn imports. This system allows a fixed amount of imports—about half a million tonnes—to enter the Indian market at a lower import duty of 15%. But once that quota is exceeded, the import duty jumps to a steep 50%. That level of taxation makes US corn far too expensive for Indian buyers, especially when cheaper alternatives exist.

• Proximity and Lower Freight Costs: Importing from Myanmar and Ukraine is far less costly in terms of freight charges. Myanmar, in particular, enjoys the benefit of being a close neighbor. Cheaper shipping rates combined with India’s “Neighbourhood First” foreign policy mean that Indian importers have both economic and political incentives to continue sourcing corn from Myanmar rather than the United States.

• Push for Self-Sufficiency: Over the past decade, India has increasingly tried to reduce reliance on costly agricultural imports from distant nations. The government has promoted local production, encouraging farmers to meet domestic demand wherever possible. This policy push for self-sufficiency has made India cautious about opening up to large-scale imports from the US.

• Certification Hurdles: Even in cases where non-GM corn from the United States is available, the process of certifying the produce and meeting India’s strict plant health and safety standards is lengthy and complicated. For Indian importers, this becomes a bureaucratic headache that discourages trade in small consignments.

These combined factors explain why the United States has been unable to secure a bigger share of India’s corn market.

Why the US is eager to sell corn to India

From the American perspective, the eagerness to push corn exports to India stems from very practical reasons.

The United States is the single largest producer of corn in the world, accounting for roughly one-third of global output. In years of good harvest, the US produces far more corn than it can use domestically. Its livestock sector, ethanol industry, and food processors can absorb only so much. Without adequate export markets, this surplus risks flooding the domestic market, driving down prices and leaving farmers at a loss.

This is why corn exports are often a central feature in US trade negotiations. When American leaders strike trade deals with countries like Japan, Mexico, or South Korea, corn exports usually appear high on the agenda. Powerful farm lobbies, including the US Grains Council and the National Corn Growers Association, continuously press Washington to find new markets. Their main aim is to ensure farm incomes remain stable and that land values do not fall.

There is also a structural shift happening within the US itself. With electric vehicles gaining popularity, domestic demand for corn-based ethanol is reducing. This drop in local consumption has further increased the urgency for US producers to find foreign buyers.

Competition from other corn-producing countries such as Brazil and Argentina has only made things tougher. These nations are aggressively entering Asian markets, leaving the United States with shrinking opportunities.

To make matters worse, China, which was once the biggest importer of US corn, has drastically cut its purchases. In 2022, China imported around $5.21 billion worth of corn from the United States. By 2024, that figure had plummeted to just $331 million. And in the first seven months of 2025, Chinese imports of US corn dropped even further—to a minuscule $2.4 million.

This collapse in the Chinese market has left American corn exporters desperate for alternatives. India, with its huge population and growing demand for livestock feed and ethanol production, looks like the perfect replacement market. However, strict Indian trade policies, coupled with cheaper options from closer countries, have prevented the US from breaking through in a meaningful way.

Howard Lutnick’s complaint, therefore, has less to do with India’s supposed unfairness and more to do with America’s desperate need for buyers. His tone may suggest that Washington is standing up for fair trade, but in reality, it is the oversupply in the US and the collapse of traditional markets like China that are driving these outbursts.