As he prepared to go to Washington this week, India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, spoke of building on the warm relations he shared with President Trump during his first term in the White House.

But Mr. Trump can be a fickle friend. So when Mr. Modi meets with him on Thursday, he is expected to bear offerings designed to ease emerging points of friction and preserve growing U.S.-India ties.

One major focus is trade. Indian officials have said that domestic companies are in talks to increase purchases of American energy supplies, particularly liquefied natural gas. The two leaders are also expected to discuss expanded spending on U.S. defense equipment and potentially announce new deals.

In addition, Mr. Modi can point to recent reductions in Indian tariffs on high-end American motorcycles — namely Harley-Davidsons — and the prospect of lower duties on goods like bourbon and pecans, which are produced mainly in Republican states.

These moves, though largely symbolic in some cases, are intended to placate Mr. Trump’s irritation over the American trade deficit with India and the high import duties that make India a difficult market to enter.

On another big source of tension, illegal immigration, Mr. Modi has already offered concessions. India accounts for the largest group of illegal migrants to the United States outside Latin America. The Indian government has made clear it will cooperate with Mr. Trump’s deportation drive, even as it caused a political headache for Mr. Modi last week.

The arrival of 100 shackled and handcuffed Indians on an American military plane, just days before Mr. Modi was to go to Washington, left his government scrambling to play down the episode and contain a domestic backlash.

India is acutely aware that the trade and immigration issues are a potential double whammy in Mr. Trump’s universe of preoccupations.

So far, while Mr. Trump has threatened even close allies with punitive tariffs over these issues, India has managed to stay out of his cross hairs. If any country can walk the tightrope of Mr. Trump’s hurricane-force return to power, India believes it is the one.

The two countries, the world’s largest democracies, have grown more closely aligned economically and geopolitically as they see a shared threat in an increasingly assertive China.

Mr. Modi will be the fourth world leader to meet with Mr. Trump since he took office about three weeks ago, after a visit to the White House by the Japanese prime minister and talks with the Israeli and Jordanian leaders over war in the Middle East.

Mr. Trump and Mr. Modi share much in common. Both are strongman leaders who hold largely transactional views of foreign policy, with a populist’s sense of what plays well with the base.

Even as Mr. Modi has shown a willingness to go along with Mr. Trump’s muscle-flexing, he is working to get what India needs out of the relationship. That is particularly true with Mr. Trump’s push to undo a range of Biden-era legal actions.

India is also hoping to move on from U.S. legal actions related to accusations of an Indian government plot to assassinate an American citizen on U.S. soil.

Even during the Biden administration, officials took pains to deal with the assassination case largely privately, a sign of how important the countries’ trade and defense ties have become.

The relationship has enjoyed bipartisan support in Washington, including among lawmakers who are now in Mr. Trump’s inner circle and view India as important in sharing the burden of containing China.

In addition to the “very close rapport” between Mr. Trump and Mr. Modi, Vikram Misri, India’s foreign secretary, has listed several areas of “convergence of interest” between the two nations.

Mr. Misri pointed to expanding technology and trade connections, as well as joint efforts on counterterrorism and on security in the Indo-Pacific region. He also highlighted the increasingly influential Indian diaspora in the United States, as well as the large numbers of Indian students studying there.

An important area of alignment that could help both leaders claim victories is defense cooperation, particularly weapons spending.

India is the world’s largest importer of military arms, accounting for nearly 10 percent of the global total, according to the Stockholm Institute of Peace Research.

For decades, cheap and reliable Russian equipment made up the bulk of India’s defense purchases. American equipment was expensive and out of reach because of longstanding U.S. suspicions over India’s ties to Russia.

U.S. defense sales to India now approach $25 billion a year, up from almost nothing in 2008. With India expected to spend more than $200 billion over the next decade to modernize its military, according to the Congressional Research Service, purchases from the United States are likely to only grow.

When Mr. Modi spoke with Mr. Trump by phone shortly after his inauguration last month, “the president emphasized the importance of India increasing its procurement of American-made security equipment,” the White House said in a statement.

India, however, has been trying to move past simple purchases of U.S. equipment so that the deals generate much-needed jobs and industrial capacity at home.

“If India is to become a net security provider in this part of the world, you have to build capacities as well,” said Ashok Malik, the India chair at the Asia Group and a former foreign policy adviser to the Modi government.

Some of the biggest deals in recent years have brought India into the development and production of equipment. In 2023, General Electric announced that it would jointly produce jet engines in India. In its final weeks, the Biden administration also announced that India would become “the first global producer” of Stryker combat vehicles.

Concrete steps on these deals, as well as finalizing other purchases — including of patrol and reconnaissance aircraft for the Indian Navy — could be among the announcements that follow Mr. Modi’s meeting with Mr. Trump.

“All options are under discussion,” Sanjeev Kumar, India’s defense production secretary, said ahead of the trip. “We certainly wish to expedite the transactions with the U.S.”

Alex Travelli contributed reporting.

The Ukrainian Parliament on Tuesday passed a contentious bill allowing the government to purchase two unused, Russian-made nuclear reactors from Bulgaria for at least $600 million — a project that has faced sharp criticism over its high cost and yearslong timeline.

The Ukrainian government plans to install the two reactors at the Khmelnytskyi nuclear power plant in western Ukraine, arguing they will help reinforce a grid crippled by relentless Russian attacks. Bulgaria bought them more than a decade ago from Russia’s state-owned nuclear giant, Rosatom, but they never went into operation.

Energy experts and anti-corruption activists say the reactors will take years to install and that the funds would be better spent on weapon procurement or on immediate solutions to strengthen Ukraine’s energy resilience, such as installing small gas turbines across the country.

There are also concerns that the project could serve as a front for money laundering, given the history of corruption cases tied to Ukraine’s energy ministry and Energoatom, the state-owned nuclear company overseeing the purchase. Several top officials and employees have been arrested in recent months and charged with taking bribes.

The purchase of the reactors has drawn significant attention in Kyiv’s diplomatic and political circles in recent months, as it touches on some of the most pressing challenges facing the war-torn nation today and in the near future: rebuilding its energy infrastructure, determining where best to allocate limited financial resources and combating entrenched corruption.

“It’s going to be a test,” Inna Sovsun, an opposition lawmaker who sits on Parliament’s energy committee, said in a phone interview. She was one of 39 lawmakers to vote against the purchase, while 261 voted in favor.

Ms. Sovsun noted that the Ukrainian Parliament still must pass a law approving the installation of the reactors before the project can move forward. She said she was concerned about how Kyiv’s foreign backers will perceive it, at a time when the election of President Trump has thrown U.S. support for Ukraine into doubt.

“With the multiple corruption schemes around Energoatom, I think that this decision might damage Ukraine’s reputation as the country that is trying to combat corruption and not feed it,” she said.

President Volodymyr Zelensky is expected to sign the bill into law soon. On Tuesday, he backed the project, saying it would prevent winter blackouts and lower electricity prices. He dismissed critics as people seeking to “fill their own pockets, or those of their patrons, with money from more expensive energy sources.”

With most of its thermal and hydroelectric power plants destroyed or badly damaged by Russian attacks, Ukraine relies on its three operational nuclear power stations to provide more than half of the country’s electricity.

Russia has refrained from attacking the nuclear plants directly, which could trigger a catastrophic disaster — although they have tried to cripple their ability to transmit power by destroying the substations connecting them to the grid. Russia captured Ukraine’s largest nuclear plant, the six-reactor Zaporizhzhia plant, at the beginning of the war, and it no longer supplies power to the grid.

German Galushchenko, Ukraine’s energy minister, has argued that expanding the country’s nuclear power capacity is the only viable solution to ensuring long-term energy security. He has emphasized that purchasing the two reactors from Bulgaria, instead of constructing new ones, is the fastest and most cost-effective option available.

Energoatom has also argued that Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, which date back to the Soviet era, rely on reactors built with Soviet technology that can only be sourced from former Soviet Union countries like Bulgaria. But the nuclear company also has plans to build two other reactors at the Khmelnytskyi plant using Western technologies.

More problematic, critics of the project say, is that it will take years to install the reactors, while Kyiv has little time to waste in strengthening its energy network. They argue that the funds would be better spent on repairing substations and thermal power plants damaged by strikes or developing conventional generating capacity.

It is also unclear how the government will fund the project after the European Union declined to help pay for the purchase. The government is strapped for cash and has already raised taxes. In addition, the deal with Bulgaria would supply only the plants and not the uranium to power them.

Placing more nuclear reactors in a war zone would also inherently increase risks. The war has already raised alarms about a potential nuclear disaster at the Zaporizhzhia plant, which is near the front line and has been struck repeatedly by artillery and small-arms fire.