Washington, Sep 23 (NationPress) As Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal engaged with senior officials from the Trump administration in Washington on Monday for discussions on the initial phase of a trade agreement, Christopher Padilla, a former US Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade and a distinguished foreign policy analyst, asserted that the US's decision to limit H-1B visas would significantly influence the trade talks with India.

During an interview with IANS in Washington, Padilla emphasized that visas for skilled workers have consistently been a critical concern for India.

“I do anticipate that the H-1B visa situation will affect the trade discussions. For India, skilled worker visas have always been a focal point, previously addressed by trade negotiators. This adds another complex and sensitive topic to the array of bilateral challenges during this delicate period,” he remarked.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump issued a proclamation that aims to drastically limit the H-1B visa program, introducing a $100,000 fee for every new application.

This announcement led to considerable confusion over the weekend, as it appeared to indicate potential difficulties for current H-1B visa holders returning to the US.

The White House later clarified to IANS that this is a “one-time fee” applicable solely to new visa applications, excluding renewals or existing visa holders.

“This one-time fee is relevant only to the petition and applies exclusively to new visas, not renewals or current visa holders. It will take effect during the next lottery cycle,” a White House official informed IANS.

A spokesperson from the White House also explained to IANS that the policy aims to “deter companies from exploiting the system.”

“President Trump pledged to prioritize American workers, and this logical measure achieves that by discouraging firms from exploiting the system and reducing wages. It also provides clarity to American businesses eager to hire high-skilled workers but have faced challenges due to system abuses,” stated Taylor Rogers, White House Spokeswoman.

Padilla, who served as a senior official during the George W. Bush administration and is now a Senior Advisor at the global consulting firm Brunswick, highlighted that any trade agreement must incorporate concessions regarding agriculture, which has “historically been one of the most challenging subjects in US-India trade relations.”

“For a trade agreement to materialize, compromises regarding agriculture will be necessary. India might agree to increased market access for US commodities like corn, but this would necessitate relaxing restrictions on genetically modified crops, as the majority of US corn is GMO. This is feasible, yet a substantial challenge,” he noted.

Padilla added that India could propose “greater access” in less controversial agricultural sectors such as nuts, seed oils, and specialty crops; however, the US might also “need to scale back its requests for increased market access for dairy, considering the sensitivities surrounding this matter in India.”

He described the additional 25 percent tariffs on India for purchasing Russian oil as “perhaps the most challenging issue” and mentioned that “a deal could potentially be reached concerning reciprocal tariffs” only.

“As this is a separate tariff, it might be possible to negotiate a reduction in the 'reciprocal' tariffs while maintaining the 25 percent levy on Russian energy purchases. This remains a particularly tough issue, as it is perceived in India as a matter of sovereignty and an independent foreign policy,” Padilla asserted.

Regarding the future of negotiations, he stated that with the Trump administration, “uncertainty” is the only constant.

“The primary lesson is that when engaging with the Trump administration on trade, the only certainty is unpredictability. If you had told me in January that by September we would have 50 percent tariffs on India while simultaneously negotiating a trade deal with China during a significant summit, I would have assumed you mixed up the two countries in your statement. Yet, here we are,” he concluded.