‘Pakistan PM would’ve died if...’: Trump reignites Operation Sindoor claims in SOTU speech

The remark came during his State of the Union address, where he appeared to misspeak while recounting his role in de-escalating hostilities between the two nuclear-armed neighbours in May 2025.

“Pakistan PM would’ve died if it were not for my involvement,” Trump said, before continuing to portray himself as central to preventing a broader conflict.

He cited what he described as praise from Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, claiming he had saved “35 million” people.

Longest SOTU revives old India-Pakistan claims

On Tuesday (US time), the American president returned to a theme he has repeatedly raised in recent months.

Despite addressing a wide range of domestic and international issues, Trump again focused on what he described as his decisive role in defusing last year’s India-Pakistan crisis.

On February 24, Trump delivered the longest State of the Union address by any US president since the American Presidency Project began recording such speeches in 1964.

While outlining what he framed as his administration’s global achievements, he highlighted South Asia as a key example.

“In my first 10 months, I ended 8 wars.. Pakistan and India would have had a nuclear war,” he said during the address.

‘Peacemaker’ narrative and explosive claim

Expanding on his self-described role as a peacemaker, Trump made an even more dramatic assertion about the fate of Pakistan’s leadership.

“35 million people said the Prime Minister of Pakistan would have died if it were not for my involvement,” he pressed, reinforcing his claim that his actions prevented catastrophic escalation.

The remarks extend a narrative Trump has consistently promoted, suggesting he brokered peace between India and Pakistan through economic pressure and direct intervention.

Operation Sindoor and India’s position

Trump’s comments relate to the May 7, 2025, military operation codenamed Operation Sindoor, during which India targeted terror infrastructure based in Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK).

New Delhi launched the operation in response to the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir’s Pahalgam, where 26 civilians, mostly tourists, were killed.

While Trump has repeatedly claimed credit for ending the confrontation, India has firmly rejected that narrative.

Indian officials have stated that the ceasefire followed direct communication between the Directors General of Military Operations of both countries, initiated by Pakistan.

Bolton and India push back on Trump’s claims

Scepticism over Trump’s assertions is not limited to New Delhi.

Former US national security adviser John Bolton has previously challenged the president’s version of events.

“If you ask most Indian officials, and certainly their press, they’re outraged that Trump claims he had any influence on the thing at all,” Bolton said.

Tariffs as a tool to ‘end wars’

Trump has continued to argue that economic coercion, particularly tariffs, enabled him to resolve conflicts.

Speaking after a Board of Peace appearance last week, he claimed he threatened both India and Pakistan with 200 per cent tariffs unless they halted military action.

“Tariffs have likewise been used to end 5 of the 8 wars I have settled. I have settled 8 wars, whether you like it or not, including India- Pakistan, big ones, which could have been nuclear,” he declared.

Echoing his SOTU remarks, he added, “The Prime Minister of Pakistan said yesterday at the Peace Board meeting that President Trump could have saved 35 million lives by getting us to stop fighting. They were getting ready to do some bad things.”

Pakistan praises Trump

Despite India’s categorical dismissal of Trump’s claims, Pakistan has continued to publicly praise the US president.

At the inaugural Board of Peace meeting, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif described Trump as a “man of peace” and the “saviour of the people of South Asia.”

Sharif has previously gone a step further by nominating Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, reinforcing Islamabad’s alignment with the US president’s narrative even as New Delhi maintains that the ceasefire resulted solely from bilateral military communication.