The recent meeting between US President Donald Trump, Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif, and Pakistan’s powerful Army Chief Asim Munir at the White House has raised eyebrows across the globe. After years of strained ties, Washington and Islamabad suddenly appear to be rediscovering each other, with Trump claiming credit for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan while Shehbaz hailed him as a “man of peace.” But behind the optics and handshakes lies a deeper question: is this truly a new beginning for US-Pakistan relations, or simply a moment of political convenience for both sides? Shehbaz Sharif’s trip to Washington is notable for being the first official visit by a Pakistani prime minister to the White House in six years. His words of praise for Trump’s “bold and courageous leadership” stood in stark contrast to the bitter exchanges that characterized past interactions. During his first term, Trump had accused Pakistan of harbouring terrorists, lying to the US, and deceiving Washington while pocketing billions in aid. By comparison, President Joe Biden completely froze out Islamabad, not even making a courtesy phone call to any Pakistani leader during his presidency.
Trump’s return to office has clearly reset the tone. Since taking power for his second term, he has met with both Shehbaz and Munir, signalling a willingness to restore cooperation. The symbolism of inviting Pakistan’s civilian and military leadership together to the Oval Office is not lost on analysts—it underscores the US recognition of the military’s outsized role in Pakistan’s political and security affairs. One of the central themes of this meeting was Trump’s repeated insistence that he personally brokered the ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Since May 10, he has claimed dozens of times that his intervention “helped settle” tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals. Yet India has categorically rejected this version of events, maintaining the understanding was reached through direct talks between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMO) of the two countries. For New Delhi, acknowledging US mediation would undermine its long-standing position that disputes with Pakistan must be handled bilaterally, without external involvement. Pakistan, however, appears more than willing to endorse Trump’s narrative. For Shehbaz Sharif, highlighting Trump’s role not only flatters the US president but also positions Islamabad as a partner eager for Washington’s Favor.
Beyond security, the White House discussions also touched on trade. Earlier this year, Pakistan and the US signed a tariff agreement that includes a 19% tariff arrangement on Pakistani imports. According to official figures, bilateral trade in goods and services reached USD 10.1 billion in 2024, with US goods imports from Pakistan at USD 5.1 billion. Washington has also pledged to help develop Pakistan’s oil reserves, an area where Islamabad desperately needs foreign investment. Sharif invited American companies to invest in Pakistan’s agriculture, IT, minerals, and energy sectors, hoping to revive Pakistan’s struggling economy through foreign partnerships. The message was clear: Pakistan wants trade, not aid.
The White House meeting also addressed counter-terrorism cooperation. In the past, Washington accused Pakistan of playing a double game—supporting US counter-terrorism operations while covertly backing militant groups. But this time, Trump publicly endorsed Pakistan’s role in fighting terrorism, giving Sharif a much-needed diplomatic boost. Still, skeptics warn that such endorsements may gloss over enduring challenges, including Pakistan’s ties with extremist networks and its fragile internal security situation.
The optics of the meeting were striking Trump smiling with his signature thumbs-up pose, Shehbaz speaking warmly about a renewed partnership, and Field Marshal Asim Munir seated as an equal at the table. This was more than symbolism—it was a reminder of Pakistan’s civil-military dynamics and Washington’s pragmatic recognition of that reality. The presence of Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio highlighted the importance the Trump administration attaches to this outreach.
At first glance, the Trump-Shehbaz-Munir meeting looks like a diplomatic triumph for both sides. For Pakistan, it marks a return from isolation to the global stage, with the US once again treating Islamabad as a partner of consequence. For Trump, it provides an opportunity to portray himself as a peacemaker and strategic dealmaker, especially on the sensitive India-Pakistan front. Yet the substance remains thin. India disputes Trump’s claims of brokering peace, and Pakistan’s economic troubles cannot be solved by photo-ops. The deeper mistrust that has haunted US-Pakistan ties—from the Osama bin Laden raid in 2011 to disagreements over the Taliban—has not magically disappeared.
What has changed, however, is political expediency. Trump needs foreign policy “wins” to showcase his leadership, while Shehbaz and Munir need American investment, security backing, and diplomatic legitimacy. The White House meeting may have been conducted in a “pleasant atmosphere,” but whether this goodwill translates into long-term trust and cooperation is far from certain.
While the Shehbaz-Munir-Trump meeting was projected as a landmark moment in Pakistan-US relations, the reality beneath the surface is far more complicated. Trump’s repeated boast that he “settled” tensions between India and Pakistan rings hollow, especially when India firmly denies any outside mediation and maintains that the ceasefire was achieved through direct military-to-military talks. By clinging to Trump’s narrative, Islamabad risks not only undermining its own credibility but also allowing Washington to reshape the story of South Asian diplomacy for Trump’s political gain. Pakistan’s eagerness to shower Trump with praise—calling him a “man of peace” and a “bold, courageous leader”—exposes more desperation than diplomacy. After years of isolation during the Biden presidency, Islamabad appears too willing to hand Trump an inflated role as peacemaker simply to restore favour in Washington. Pakistan Prime Minister, Army Chief Hold Talks with Trump at White House this opportunistic flattery may secure short-term goodwill, but it reduces Pakistan to a prop in Trump’s theatre of self-aggrandizement rather than an equal partner with its own agency. Moreover, history cautions against such shallow optimism. US-Pakistan ties have long swung between transactional cooperation and deep mistrust—from the Cold War to the war on terror, to the bitterness after Osama bin Laden’s killing. Empty promises, photo-ops, and exaggerated claims have never produced sustainable trust. Instead, they have repeatedly left Pakistan vulnerable to shifting American priorities and presidential whims. If this “reset” is to mean anything, it must go beyond Trump’s soundbites and Islamabad’s flattery. True progress lies in honest dialogue, transparency, and concrete cooperation, not in recycled praise or inflated credit-taking. Otherwise, Pakistan risks becoming once again a pawn in America’s political showmanship, while the real issues—regional instability, economic fragility, and the threat of militancy—remain unaddressed.