Explain how the unpredictability of 'America First' trade policies shapes India's choices between bilateral trade agreements and WTO multilateralism.

'America First' uses tariffs as bargaining tools that can change overnight. They are not stable rates bound under WTO rules. In 2026 alone, India faced an 18% "reciprocal" rate, the collapse of that rate's legal basis, and then a fresh Section 301 duty. This volatility pushes India towards hedged bilateralism: bilateral deals to limit immediate damage, and multilateralism as long-term insurance.

How the unpredictability shows up

• Shifting rates: the February 2026 Joint Statement set an 18% reciprocal tariff on Indian goods such as textiles and leather [1].
• Shifting legal base: in February 2026 the US Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorise tariffs [2]. The administration then switched to other statutes.
• New grounds: in July 2026 USTR imposed an extra 10% Section 301 duty over forced-labour concerns. It covers about 55% of India's exports to the US [3].

Why India leans towards bilateral deals

• Damage control: India got the lower 10% tier, down from the 12.5% first proposed, after it amended its Foreign Trade Policy to ban imports made with forced labour [3].
• Market access: under the interim framework, India cuts its tariffs and states an intention to buy US$500 billion of US goods over five years. In return, the US promises tariff relief on goods such as generic medicines and gems [1].
• Diversification: FTAs with other partners reduce India's dependence on one volatile market [6].
• Staying engaged: India continues talks on Section 301 while it works to finalise the framework [5].

Why WTO multilateralism still matters

• Weak enforcement is the gap: the Appellate Body cannot hear appeals because it has had too few members since December 2019 [4]. This forces India to bargain bilaterally in the short run.
• Bilateral concessions are fragile: India offered farm-tariff cuts against a US rate whose legal basis the courts later removed [1][2]. MFN-bound commitments last longer than executive tariffs.
• Protection for smaller players: common rules shield developing economies better than case-by-case bargaining with a large power.

So US unpredictability makes India pragmatic: it goes bilateral where speed matters and multilateral where durability matters. The way forward is to tie India's concessions to the removal of the Section 301 duty and to legally secure US commitments. At the same time, India should push WTO reform, including restoring the Appellate Body. This protects both export interests and strategic autonomy, in line with SDG 17.10's goal of a universal, rules-based multilateral trading system.