The remarks originated from U.S. conservative radio host Michael Savage during an episode of his show “The Savage Nation,” in which he criticized birthright citizenship in the United States and referred to countries including India and China in derogatory terms.

Trump reposted a transcript of the comments on his Truth Social platform on Thursday without adding his own remarks.

India’s foreign ministry responded strongly, with spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal saying the remarks were “obviously uninformed, inappropriate and in poor taste,” and did not reflect the longstanding relationship between the two countries.

“The remarks certainly do not reflect the reality of the India-U.S. relationship, which has long been based on mutual respect and shared interests,” Jaiswal said in a statement.

The U.S. embassy in New Delhi cited Trump as having previously described India as “a great country,” seeking to underscore the broader context of ties between the two nations.The comments come amid ongoing debate in the United States over birthright citizenship, with Trump pursuing restrictions that are currently under legal challenge in the Supreme Court.

Earlier this month, he attended a hearing on the issue in a rare presidential visit to the court.India’s main opposition Indian National Congress condemned the remarks as “extremely insulting,” urging Prime Minister Narendra Modi to formally raise the issue with Washington.

Government data show approximately 5.5 million people of Indian origin reside in the United States, forming one of the largest Asian-origin communities alongside Chinese Americans.Despite the diplomatic friction, both countries have been engaged in efforts to strengthen economic ties.

Following a period of trade tensions, including the imposition of high U.S. tariffs on Indian goods last year, New Delhi and Washington are currently working toward a trade agreement aimed at boosting bilateral commerce and avoiding further tariff escalations.

The proposed law, which sought to increase the size of the lower house by about 55% to 850 seats ahead of the 2029 general elections, fell short of the required two-thirds majority, with 298 lawmakers voting in favor and 230 against in the Lok Sabha.

The government had linked the expansion to the implementation of women’s reservation, arguing that redrawing constituency boundaries based on updated population data was necessary to ensure equitable representation. Seats in parliament have remained frozen since the 1971 census, despite significant demographic changes.

Opposition parties supported the principle of reserving seats for women but opposed tying it to a nationwide delimitation exercise, alleging the move could be used to alter electoral dynamics in favor of the ruling party.

Opposition leader Rahul Gandhi criticized the bill shortly after the vote, calling it an “unconstitutional trick” that undermined the Constitution under the guise of advancing women’s representation.The government rejected those claims, maintaining that the proposal was essential for modernizing India’s electoral framework.

Interior Minister Amit Shah defended the bill in parliament, warning that blocking it would disappoint women across the country and vowing continued efforts to secure legislative backing for gender quotas.

A law passed in 2023 had already approved reserving one-third of parliamentary seats for women, but its implementation was contingent on the completion of the next census and subsequent constituency redrawing, a process still underway and expected to delay enforcement beyond the next election cycle.

Women currently account for about 14% of members in the lower house and 17% in the upper house, with representation in state legislatures averaging around 10%, according to official data.

The failure of the bill highlights ongoing political divisions over electoral reforms and gender representation, as well as the challenges of securing broad consensus for constitutional amendments in India’s increasingly polarized parliament.