India–US relations have entered a turbulent phase following President Donald Trump’s decision to raise punitive tariffs on Indian exports to as high as 50 percent, citing New Delhi’s growing purchases of Russian oil despite Western sanctions over the Ukraine war.

In an interview with Fox News, Trump acknowledged that the move had soured ties with India, candidly stating, “Look, India was their (Russia’s) biggest customer. I put a 50% tariff on India because they’re buying oil from Russia. That’s not an easy thing to do. That’s a big deal. And it causes a rift with India.”

His remarks underscored both the economic and diplomatic strain created by the tariff escalation, which has triggered outrage across India, with rising anti-US sentiment particularly in political and trade circles.

The series of steps began earlier this summer when Trump imposed an initial 25 percent tariff on selected Indian goods, framing the action as retaliation for India’s continued importation of discounted Russian crude, which Washington and its allies view as undermining global sanctions designed to pressure Moscow.

When India’s imports from Russia rose further, Trump announced that the tariffs would double to 50 percent from August 27. Analysts interpreted this as the sharpest rebuke yet of India’s strategic balancing act—maintaining discounted energy flows from Russia while simultaneously seeking closer technology and defence ties with the United States.

The timing is significant because bilateral trade between the US and India has surpassed $190 billion annually, making India one of America’s fastest-growing economic partners. The new tariffs, however, risk cutting into this growth and have already reignited debates over market access, agricultural barriers, and the long-disputed issue of tariff parity.

India has been steadfast in resisting US pressure to reduce energy dealings with Moscow, arguing its purchases are guided by national energy security imperatives and pointing to Europe’s own continued energy transactions with Russia until very recently.

Reports in Indian media suggest that business federations and industry leaders have expressed concern over the tariff hike, fearing disrupted access to the US market, particularly for sectors such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, and information technology, where India has built a substantial export presence.

The resentment has also translated into political rhetoric, with opposition voices portraying Trump’s decision as an attack on India’s sovereignty.

Despite the escalating row, Trump has indicated a willingness to engage with Prime Minister Narendra Modi to explore avenues for de-escalation. He told Fox News that his administration is “continuing negotiations to address trade barriers with India” and signalled an outreach to Modi in the coming weeks. This parallel track of punitive economic action mixed with promises of reset reflects the transactional, pressure-heavy style that has marked Trump’s foreign policy.

His nominee for ambassador to India, Sergio Gor—also tapped as special envoy for South Asia—emphasised that the tariffs should be viewed as “a little hiccup.”

Gor insisted that while Washington is frustrated with Indian energy purchases from Russia, Trump has avoided personal criticism of Modi, leaving the door open for a rapprochement. He underlined that the administration would hold “friends to different standards,” casting the move as designed to realign India firmly into Washington’s orbit rather than alienate it.

The broader geopolitical undertone is inescapable. Trump’s comments during the same Fox appearance reflected mounting impatience with Russian President Vladimir Putin, a leader with whom he has claimed a previously cordial rapport. “It’s sort of running out, and running out fast,” he said when asked about his patience with Putin, noting frustration at Moscow’s failure to end its invasion of Ukraine.

While he stopped short of announcing new sanctions, Trump floated an expansion of measures targeting Russian banks and oil exports and suggested that coordinated action with European allies remained essential.

Thus, the India tariffs serve not only as a bilateral economic issue but also as a signal of Trump’s intent to weaponize markets and tariffs as part of his wider Russia strategy.

For India, the stand-off represents a difficult juncture in its foreign policy calculus. New Delhi remains deeply engaged with Moscow in energy and defence procurement while simultaneously cultivating strategic defence-industrial partnerships with Washington.

The tariffs highlight the risks of this balancing act at a moment when the US expects allies and close partners to align more tightly with Western positions on Ukraine.

With India’s commerce minister scheduled to visit Washington soon, negotiations are expected to focus on narrowing tariff barriers and easing the shock of Trump’s measures, but the underlying rift over Russia’s role is likely to remain a stumbling block in resetting ties.

Agencies