Much Ado About a Molehill: Is the Condition of Indian Americans As Precarious As the New York Times Article Suggests?

The New York Times opinion article published at the end of the year drew wide attention from the Indian diaspora in the United States and in India. Lydia Polgreen’s “One of America’s Most Successful Experiments Is Coming to a Shuddering Halt” (29 December, 2025) advances a stern thesis: that the United States is turning against Indian Americans, long regarded as one of its most successful immigrant communities, and that this turn reflects a deeper loss of national confidence. The article is wide-ranging and evocative, but it also adopts an alarmist register that invites closer examination, especially when weighed against the evidence Polgreen herself presents.

A notable feature of the article is what it does not include. While Polgreen discusses anti-Indian rhetoric from political figures and protesters, the article does not directly present the views of the native white population as a group, nor does it quote ordinary white Americans expressing economic or cultural grievance. Instead, their presumed anxieties are inferred through political rhetoric and protest activity. This absence matters analytically. The article frames resentment as something directed outward, but it does not give voice to the internal pressures—economic, social, or psychological—that might be shaping such reactions.

Polgreen begins with a highly symbolic incident: protests against a 90-foot statue of the Hindu deity Hanuman in Sugar Land, Texas. The scene is carefully constructed. Flower petals are sprinkled over the temple from a helicopter and both “Vande Mataram” and “The Star-Spangled Banner” are played, a moment Polgreen describes as “a perfect encapsulation of Indian Americans’ easy blending into the mores of their adopted home.” Outside, protesters denounce the statue as “a demon god,” and a state senate candidate declares, “We are a CHRISTIAN nation.”

For Srinivasachary Tamirisa, a retired physician and naturalized citizen, the episode is deeply unsettling. “I thought this was heaven on earth,” he tells Polgreen, later adding, “Why am I here? I question that to myself.” Polgreen uses this reaction to suggest that even deeply assimilated Indian Americans now feel exposed and uncertain.

This analysis does not dispute the emotional impact of such encounters. It does, however, question the article’s move from symbolic shock to national diagnosis. A protest by “dozens” of demonstrators, amplified by social media, is treated as emblematic of a broader turn. The article does not establish that such incidents are widespread or representative, yet it draws far-reaching conclusions from them.

Polgreen acknowledges that “most Americans have quite positive views of Indian Americans,” but this concession is quickly overshadowed by her claim that “six decades of mutually beneficial migration are coming to a shuddering halt.”

Polgreen acknowledges that “most Americans have quite positive views of Indian Americans,” but this concession is quickly overshadowed by her claim that “six decades of mutually beneficial migration are coming to a shuddering halt.” That phrase is among the most contestable in the essay. A slowdown in student arrivals or increased visa uncertainty does not, by itself, demonstrate a historic rupture. Alarmist language risks collapsing the distinction between uncertainty, policy friction, and structural rejection.

Economically, Polgreen’s case is stronger. She notes that Indian Americans’ median household income “significantly outstrips that of white Americans overall” and that “about three-quarters of Indian American adults have at least a college degree.” She cites Milan Vaishnav, who says, “Indian Americans have really been, in many ways, the poster children for America’s legal skilled immigration regime.” These facts reinforce the sense that Indian Americans are not marginal participants but central contributors to American prosperity.

Politically, the article attributes rising hostility to rhetoric from Republican leaders. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller accuses Indians of “cheating on immigration policies,” and Governor of Florida Ron DeSantis calls the H-1B program “chain migration run amok.” These impressions are important, but the article treats them primarily as evidence of an ideological turn rather than as strategic political messaging. There is little exploration of whether such rhetoric reflects durable public opinion or serves to energize a political base during periods of economic stress.

The article’s most concrete policy analysis appears in its discussion of foreign students and visas. Polgreen recounts the experience of Sai Sushma Pasupuleti, a doctoral student who was dismissed at job fairs once employers learned she was not a U.S. citizen. “It’s crazy how they didn’t even look at my résumé,” she says. Polgreen reinforces this with data showing that foreign students have earned more engineering and computer science doctorates than U.S. citizens for over two decades. Here, the problem is not hostility but policy incoherence—educating talent while making retention uncertain.

Toward the end, Polgreen turns to broader interpretation, quoting the writer Suketu Mehta. “Every year since I came to this country in 1977, I felt more assured of my place in America,” he says. “And now for the first time, that’s been thrown into doubt.” Mehta also warns against Indian American exceptionalism, noting how some reassure themselves by saying, “We’re not like the Mexicans.” These voices represent the closest the article comes to media or intellectual analysis, and they introduce nuance often missing earlier.

Where this analysis diverges is in resisting the article’s concluding civilizational warning. Polgreen writes that the United States is pursuing “a form of talent autarky” and that this shift will leave it “poorer, weaker and more isolated.” Such claims go beyond the evidence presented. Alarmism, when not grounded in incontrovertible fact, risks raising the temperature of debate at a moment when restraint is needed. Indian Americans, who are American citizens, have a stake in stability, not escalation.

Looking ahead to the 2026 midterms, the article implicitly suggests continued political heat. It is plausible that immigration rhetoric will remain a mobilizing tool, particularly if it energizes a core Republican base even as policies generate controversy. Hypothetical developments—such as courts upholding steep increases in visa fees—would further heighten uncertainty, though such outcomes are not addressed in Polgreen’s article and should be treated as speculative.

In sum, Polgreen’s essay captures a moment of anxiety, but it overstates its conclusions. What the article documents convincingly is uncertainty and tension, not an irreversible state of affairs. Alarmist framing risks making the pot boil when what is required, especially as the country approaches another election cycle, is for saner, steadier voices to weigh in and keep analysis proportionate to evidence.

This story was sourced from a Facebook post. Top images: Instagram.

---

V.V.P. Sharma is a Delhi-based senior journalist and commentator.