The announcement by former U.S. President Donald Trump approving the extradition of Tahawwur Rana to India marks a pivotal moment in the protracted pursuit of justice for the victims of the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks. Rana, a Canadian businessman of Pakistani origin, is accused of providing logistical support to Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the Pakistan-based militant group responsible for the three-day siege that claimed 166 lives, including six Americans. While his extradition is a significant milestone, it also raises critical questions about international legal cooperation, U.S.-India strategic ties, and the enduring fight against terrorism. The 2008 Mumbai attacks remain a searing wound in our collective memory. Gunmen targeted iconic locations, including the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel and Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus, in a meticulously planned assault that exposed glaring intelligence and security failures. Rana’s alleged role—facilitating communication and travel for the attackers—was uncovered during a U.S. trial in 2011, where he was convicted of supporting LeT but acquitted of direct involvement in Mumbai. India’s subsequent extradition request faced years of legal hurdles, with a U.S. court initially denying it in 2020 over jurisdictional technicalities. Trump’s intervention, citing “immediate” handover, underscores the executive’s role in balancing legal rigor with diplomatic imperatives. This decision aligns with the broader trajectory of U.S.-India relations, which have deepened under successive administrations as a counterweight to China’s influence. Counterterrorism cooperation has emerged as a cornerstone of this partnership, with both nations designating LeT as a terrorist entity. By extraditing Rana, the U.S. signals trust in our judicial system and reinforces shared commitments to combating extremism. For us, it is a diplomatic victory, validating our persistent appeals for accountability. For victims’ families, Rana’s extradition offers a semblance of closure after 17 years of anguish. Prosecuting those complicit in such atrocities is not merely about punishment but about affirming the value of every life lost. It also sends a deterrent message to terror networks: globalized crime warrants globalized justice. However, Rana’s trial in our country must adhere to transparent standards to avoid perceptions of politicization. Extradition, while a legal mechanism, is inherently political. Critics may argue that Rana’s case risks entanglement in U.S.-India geopolitics or question our capacity for a fair trial. Yet, the gravity of the charges demands accountability, provided safeguards are upheld. Moreover, Rana’s testimony could unveil deeper insights into the attacks’ orchestration, potentially implicating state actors in Pakistan—a narrative we have long emphasized.