Trump raises jets downed count to seven in India-Pakistan conflict.
Speaking about the conflict, Trump added a new claim, saying that seven fighter jets were shot down in the clashes between the two nuclear-armed neighbors. His statement has sparked renewed debate, as earlier he had mentioned different numbers of aircraft downed. The revised figure has once again drawn scrutiny over the accuracy of his claims.
US President Donald Trump on Monday once again revisited one of his most controversial assertions — that he was personally responsible for brokering peace between India and Pakistan during their military standoff earlier this year. What stood out this time, however, was a revision in his numbers.
Just last month, Trump had declared that five planes were downed when the two “serious nuclear countries” clashed. His latest statement, therefore, represents not only a shift in figures but also fuels renewed scrutiny about his repeated tendency to alter details when recounting past events.
Interestingly, even as he raised the number to seven, Trump did not specify which country lost how many aircraft. The absence of clarity once again left observers guessing. What gives this story more weight is the fact that, only weeks earlier, Indian Air Chief Marshal Amar Preet Singh publicly confirmed that five Pakistani fighter jets had indeed been brought down during Operation Sindoor.
Operation Sindoor was a decisive military action undertaken by India in May, aimed at dismantling terrorist infrastructure inside Pakistan and in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. According to the Air Chief Marshal, Indian forces relied on their sophisticated S-400 air defense systems to neutralize enemy aircraft.
This loss was particularly devastating for Pakistan’s air force, as such planes are critical for surveillance, coordination, and early detection of threats.
Yet, Trump’s remarks went far beyond the question of military numbers. He linked the entire episode back to his own role in “stopping” what he described as an imminent nuclear war. painting a dramatic picture of the situation as he saw it.
In his telling, the crisis was not only about military clashes but also about economic pressure. Trump repeated a line he has often used in similar contexts: that he leveraged trade to bring both countries to the table. He claimed that he gave India and Pakistan a strict 24-hour deadline to end hostilities, warning them that the United States would withhold trade if they refused.
“I said, ‘You want to trade? “I used that on numerous occasions. I used trade and whatever I had to use,” he added, presenting himself as a dealmaker who could bend nations through sheer economic influence.
While his supporters often highlight these anecdotes as proof of his hard-nosed leadership style, critics argue that Trump’s repeated revisions — particularly about the number of jets downed — undermine his credibility.
Still, his remarks continue to generate headlines because they mix fact with narrative flair. The reference to “nuclear war” resonates strongly with audiences, given the longstanding tensions between the two neighbors. Few global leaders would casually suggest that their intervention prevented such a catastrophic outcome. Trump, however, appears entirely comfortable making that claim, not once but multiple times.
As India and Pakistan quietly maintain the truce agreed upon earlier this year, Trump’s latest comments serve as a reminder of how the story of that conflict is still being contested — not only on the ground but also in political rhetoric. Whether one believes his account or not, his words highlight how volatile the India-Pakistan equation remains, and how easily it can be pulled into the orbit of great-power politics.