U.S. Trade Map Incorporates Disputed Territories: A New Signal in South Asia's Geopolitical Chessboard

On February 6, 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative posted a graphic and text regarding the interim U.S.-India trade agreement on the social media platform X. This seemingly routine trade announcement drew significant attention from international observers due to the Indian map used in the accompanying image. The map clearly marked the entire Jammu and Kashmir region—including Pakistan-administered Kashmir (PoK) and the Aksai Chin area disputed between China and India—as Indian territory, without using any dashed lines or annotations to indicate its disputed status. This map was released alongside a statement by U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, which focused on new Indian market access for U.S. agricultural products such as tree nuts, dried distillers’ grains, red sorghum, and fresh processed fruits. A trade announcement about agricultural goods paired with a map carrying profound political implications is no accident. In the geopolitically sensitive South Asian subcontinent, maps are declarations, and lines are positions. Is Washington’s move a gesture of goodwill toward New Delhi, pressure on Islamabad, or a veiled warning to Beijing?

Map Details and the Art of "Line Drawing" in Historical Context

To grasp the significance of this map, it must be examined within the context of the decades-long cartographic tradition of the United States government regarding territorial disputes in South Asia. For a long time, maps published by official U.S. agencies such as the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency have typically adopted a technically ambiguous approach when dealing with the Kashmir issue. For instance, maps of India in the U.S. State Department's "World Regional Maps" or "The World Factbook" commonly use a prominent dashed line to separate the Pakistan-administered Kashmir region from the Indian-administered part, accompanied by annotations such as "Jammu and Kashmir (disputed area)." Regarding Aksai Chin, many official or academic maps from the United States either incorporate it into China's territory based on the actual line of control or similarly mark it as disputed with a dashed line.

In August 2023, China's Ministry of Natural Resources released a new version of the standard map, clearly incorporating Arunachal Pradesh (referred to as South Tibet by China) and Aksai Chin, both claimed by India as sovereign territories, into China's national map. This move triggered strong protests and diplomatic engagements from India. Earlier in 2020, the Pakistani cabinet approved a new political map that not only claimed the entirety of Jammu and Kashmir but also included Junagadh, Manavadar, and Sir Creek in India's Gujarat state. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs dismissed it as a political absurdity at the time. Against this backdrop, the map released by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, which features no dotted lines, no disputed area markings, and fully adopts India's official claims, appears particularly striking in its deviation from the norm.

The specific channels through which the map was released are also noteworthy. It did not appear in some obscure diplomatic note or academic report but was accompanied by an official social media post from the Office of the United States Trade Representative, focusing on the U.S.-India trade agreement. This is akin to embedding a geopolitical statement under the spotlight of economic and trade cooperation. The tweet was issued by the @USTradeRep account, an official channel representing the highest authority in U.S. trade policy with hundreds of thousands of followers. Its message carries clear policy implications. Analysts point out that choosing to release the map while announcing a specific trade achievement reduces its sensitivity as an isolated political provocation while ensuring the information gains the widest possible dissemination and interpretation.

The strategic transactions and policy shifts behind the interim trade agreement.

The emergence of this map closely coincides with a critical period of adjustment in U.S.-India bilateral relations. On February 7, 2026, the two sides officially announced the achievement of an interim trade framework agreement. According to the agreement, the U.S. will reduce punitive tariffs on Indian goods from a peak of 50% to a reciprocal rate of 18%. India, in turn, has committed to lowering or eliminating tariffs on a range of U.S. industrial and agricultural products, and to reducing its reliance on Russia for energy procurement, shifting instead to U.S. supplies. Both parties have agreed to use this as a foundation to accelerate negotiations toward a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement.

This trade breakthrough was achieved after years of tense negotiations. In the early days of the Trump administration's second term, U.S.-India trade relations were once overshadowed by issues such as India's large-scale purchases of Russian oil, with the U.S. threatening and implementing a series of high tariffs. The conclusion of this interim agreement marks a new convergence of interests between the two sides in the economic and trade fields. In a statement, U.S. Trade Representative Jameson Greer said the agreement would open up one of the world's largest markets with over 1.4 billion consumers for American workers and producers, and thanked Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal for his leadership.

However, the conclusion of economic and trade agreements often represents just the tip of the iceberg. The deeper driving force stems from the continuously deepening strategic and security cooperation between the two sides. India's role as a core pillar in the U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy is becoming increasingly solidified, with ongoing enhancements in cooperation across areas such as the Quad Security Dialogue, military exercises, and defense technology transfers. Shortly after the announcement of the agreement, Indian Prime Minister Modi embarked on a visit to Malaysia on February 7, focusing discussions on defense and security cooperation, including potential sales of Dornier aircraft and maintenance support for Scorpène-class submarines and Su-30 fighter jets. This series of actions paints a clear picture: the United States is leveraging economic and trade concessions and technological cooperation to further integrate India into its led security and economic framework.

Prior to the occurrence of the map incident, there were already signs indicating possible adjustments in the Trump administration's South Asia policy. Reports suggested that within the Trump team, there was a tendency to discuss re-hyphenating India and Pakistan, to some extent returning to the traditional approach of balancing relations with both countries simultaneously, rather than continuing the de-hyphenation strategy (treating India as a primary strategic partner separately) promoted by previous administrations. In this context, a map clearly favoring India might have been intended to send a reassurance signal to New Delhi: even amid policy discussions with differing views, the United States' strategic support for India's core concerns remains steadfast. This serves both as a form of compensation or consideration for India's concessions in trade negotiations and as a low-cost, high-yield symbolic gesture to reinforce trust in the strategic partnership.

The reactions of various parties in the region and the potential disruption to the power balance in South Asia.

For the two other directly involved parties concerning the map—Pakistan and China—this move by the United States undoubtedly represents a diplomatic snub or probe.

Islamabad's response will be a key point of observation. Pakistan has long placed the Kashmir issue at the core of its foreign policy and national security. The release of a new version of the map in 2020 itself reflects the domestic nationalist sentiment and hardline stance within the country. As Pakistan's traditional security partner (despite the fluctuating nature of the relationship), the United States' complete adoption of India's sovereignty claims over the disputed territory in official promotional materials is difficult for both Pakistani public opinion and the government to accept. Although the map from the Office of the United States Trade Representative may not immediately change the U.S. official stance on the Kashmir dispute in international forums such as the United Nations, its symbolic significance and potential demonstration effect are substantial. This could further push Pakistan to move closer to China and Russia, deepen cooperation under the framework of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, and adopt a less cooperative stance toward the United States on issues such as Afghanistan.

Beijing's response is likely to be more restrained yet firm. The consistent stance of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs is that the China-India boundary issue should be resolved by the two sides through peaceful and friendly consultations, and it opposes any third-party involvement. The U.S. map's designation of Aksai Chin as part of India directly negates China's territorial claims and the facts of its actual control. However, China may not issue an excessively intense public reaction over a map released by a trade organization, in order to avoid escalating the issue. A more probable approach would be to raise objections with India and the United States in bilateral and multilateral settings, reiterating its own position, and potentially requiring clearer respect from the U.S. on issues involving China's core interests, such as Taiwan and the South China Sea, in subsequent diplomatic interactions with the United States. From a strategic perspective, Beijing may view this move as another link in the U.S. strategy to contain China in the Indo-Pacific, aimed at stirring up the China-India border issue and diverting China's attention.

For India domestically, this map will undoubtedly be viewed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party government as a significant diplomatic victory. Indian media outlets, such as News18 and Zee News, have highlighted its symbolic significance of U.S. recognition of India's territorial integrity in their coverage. This helps the Modi government reinforce its narrative that strong leadership has elevated India's international standing, serving domestic politics. However, discerning voices within India's strategic community are also well aware that the map itself does not alter the military realities in the Ladakh region or along the Line of Control in Kashmir. India's security ultimately depends on its own defense capabilities and diplomatic wisdom, not on any unilateral depiction by an external power.

The long-term impact of map events and the ambiguous boundaries of great power competition.

This incident reveals that in the digital age, the battleground of great power competition has extended to seemingly neutral domains such as social media, standard maps, and even academic databases. A trade notice, a scientific research map, or a boundary setting in software can all become low-cost tools for conveying political signals and testing the reactions of others. The move by the U.S. Trade Representative's Office sets a precedent for embedding clear territorial stances into routine administrative notices. This may lead other countries and institutions to follow suit, making maps—originally intended to promote communication and understanding—increasingly politicized and weaponized.

From the perspective of the long-term development of U.S.-India relations, this move is a double-edged sword. In the short term, it greatly pleases India and injects a dose of trust into bilateral relations. However, in the long run, it may also raise India's expectations for U.S. support on territorial issues. If the United States, in the future, adjusts its stance on related issues due to the need for dealings with other major powers (such as China), it could trigger stronger disappointment and backlash from India. Additionally, this also poses a risk of inconsistency in U.S. foreign policy. The official U.S. position on the Kashmir issue has always been to encourage bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan to resolve it, avoiding taking sides. Although the map incident originated from a trade department, it will inevitably be interpreted as the United States taking sides on substantive issues, which may undermine the credibility of the United States as a potential mediator.

The balance of power in South Asia has thus gained a new subtle variable. India scored psychologically and in terms of propaganda, but its security pressures from Pakistan and China have not eased as a result, and may even intensify due to the unease of the opposing sides. The United States demonstrated its tilt toward India through a map, but it must also bear the potential spillover effects of this move on U.S.-Pakistan relations and even on the complex issues in U.S.-China relations. On the chessboard of geopolitics, every move triggers a chain reaction. This map from February 2026 may not immediately alter the terrain of South Asia, but it undoubtedly redraws a clearer and riskier line on the mental maps of all parties. Future storms often brew within these seemingly calm alterations of lines.