Peter Navarro, the Senior Counsellor for Trade and Manufacturing under former U.S. President Donald Trump, has once again courted controversy with incendiary remarks directed at India, following a series of online fact-checks countering his claims.

The latest episode unfolded after Navarro initiated a poll on X (formerly Twitter) concerning the platform’s moderation policies. When users fact-checked and challenged his assertions about India’s alleged profiteering from Russian oil purchases, Navarro accused Indian users of deliberately manipulating the poll results.

In a post laced with derision, he claimed that despite India being the world’s most populous country, it could only muster “a few hundred thousand propagandists” to interfere with American domestic dialogue, portraying this as evidence of foreign influence operations on U.S. social media.

At the time of reporting, his poll had garnered over 56,000 votes, with 75 percent siding with his viewpoint that X should not present such notes as “diverse viewpoints,” though critics highlighted that his framing itself was misleading and reactionary.

Navarro’s tirade followed a heated confrontation with X’s community notes feature, which had flagged his earlier post spreading misinformation about India’s energy trade with Russia.

Despite clear evidence that India’s purchase of discounted Russian oil has been conducted transparently to safeguard its own energy security amid global volatility, Navarro characterised this as profiteering and claimed it undermined American jobs through its trade policies.

His rhetoric escalated into allegations that Elon Musk, by allowing “propaganda” allegedly disseminated by Indian interests, was compromising the integrity of open debate on the platform.

By invoking themes of foreign interference, Navarro attempted to conflate legitimate fact-checks and counterarguments by Indian users with malign influence operations, drawing criticism for misrepresenting both India’s policies and the functionality of social media scrutiny mechanisms.

This incident is not isolated. Over recent months, Navarro has persistently targeted India in public statements, often blending trade grievances with inflammatory cultural or political language. He has previously accused India of serving as a “laundromat for the Kremlin” by buying Russian crude oil, despite the fact that this practice has been acknowledged internationally as a sovereign economic measure in line with New Delhi’s longstanding policy of energy diversification.

His rhetoric has strayed further into offensive territory, including a caste-based jibe wherein he suggested that “Brahmins are profiteering” from the conflict in Ukraine, drawing sharp rebukes from Indian observers for racialised and divisive framing.

Coupled with his earlier claims that Indian tariffs harm U.S. workers’ livelihoods, Navarro has carved out a consistent pattern of antagonistic commentary that blends protectionist trade rhetoric with overtly disparaging stereotypes about India.

Analysts note that his latest remarks reflect a strategy of deflection from the repeated fact-checking that erodes his credibility online. Navarro has made a career of doubling down when confronted with contradictory data, particularly on issues related to global trade and industrial policy.

By branding fact-checks and Indian users’ responses as orchestrated interference, he attempts both to sidestep accountability and to rally domestic audiences around the spectre of foreign manipulation.

Yet, this approach also risks undermining nuanced debate on U.S.-India trade relations and energy policy, which remain complex, multi-faceted issues shaped by market dynamics, sanctions regimes, and strategic considerations rather than purely transactional profiteering.

In the broader context, Navarro’s remarks come amid a period where U.S.-India relations have grown in strategic significance, with the two democracies deepening defence, technology, and energy ties.

His repeated public attacks stand in stark contrast with bipartisan efforts in Washington to strengthen the partnership, particularly against the backdrop of global supply chain realignment and Indo-Pacific security challenges.

For many observers, Navarro’s framing appears increasingly out of step with both the facts on the ground and the diplomatic priorities of the United States.

Nonetheless, his consistent targeting of India exemplifies a strand of protectionist and polarising rhetoric that continues to resonate with segments of the American political spectrum, leaving his online meltdowns both a spectacle of personal frustration and a reflection of deeper undercurrents in U.S. trade politics.

Based On ANI Report