Peter Navarro, Senior Counsellor for Trade and Manufacturing to US President Donald Trump, has reignited tensions between Washington and New Delhi with sharp accusations targeting India’s energy and trade policies. In a fresh set of remarks made on social media, Navarro alleged that India is buying Russian oil “purely to profit,” and claimed that the revenues from these purchases are fuelling Moscow’s war machine.

He went further to say that India’s tariff regime costs American jobs, echoing longstanding grievances of the Trump administration about what it perceives as unfair trade practices by New Delhi. His comments, which appeared as a response to a Washington Post article describing the internal conflicts in Trump’s team over India policy, once again revealed the growing rift between the White House’s trade wing and its diplomatic establishment.

Navarro has in recent weeks used provocative language, including calling India a “laundromat for the Kremlin” and making castiest references about “Brahmins profiteering” from the Ukraine conflict—remarks that have triggered sharp criticism in New Delhi.

The statements immediately drew a formal response from India, with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) describing Navarro’s claims as “inaccurate and misleading.” MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, addressing the press on Friday, firmly rejected the characterisations, stressing that India’s oil imports are based on its own national interests and energy security requirements.

Jaiswal underscored that India’s partnership with the United States remains critically important, noting the shared foundations of democratic values, people-to-people ties, and converging global interests. He pointed out that the bilateral strategic partnership has endured multiple challenges in the past and would continue to be driven by mutual respect and a substantive agenda, even amid disagreements.

On the trade front, the MEA reiterated that India has been constructively engaged with Washington to resolve outstanding issues, downplaying the confrontational rhetoric being pushed by Navarro and other White House trade advisers.

Interestingly, Navarro’s remarks were not fully echoed across the Trump administration. Kevin Hassett, another senior White House economic adviser, admitted that President Trump and his trade team are “disappointed” with India’s continued import of Russian crude but indicated there is still hope for “positive developments.” This more tempered position underscores the divide within Washington between trade hardliners such as Navarro and those advocating a more diplomatic, issue-by-issue engagement with New Delhi.

For Trump, the Indian tariff question is also a recurring domestic political talking point. He has repeatedly described India as “America’s most tariffed partner” and accused New Delhi of running a lopsided trade relationship where Indian exporters enjoy wide access to the US market while American companies face significant barriers.

However, the credibility of this position has been undermined by recent US court rulings declaring several of Trump’s own unilateral tariff measures illegal, thereby exposing the legal vulnerabilities in his broader trade war strategy.

For India, the controversy comes at a time when it continues to maintain a delicate balancing act in global geopolitics. Its Russian oil purchases have increased as a means of securing affordable energy amid volatile global prices, but they have also been accompanied by increased exports of refined petroleum products to Western markets.

This economic pragmatism has often brought criticism from Washington and European capitals, who argue that it indirectly supports Moscow’s war economy. Yet, New Delhi has consistently maintained that its actions are fully within the bounds of international law, and it has rejected attempts to view its energy partnerships through the lens of Western geopolitical contests.

By invoking inflammatory rhetoric and castigating India’s trade stance, Navarro risks complicating this already sensitive dynamic, while also stirring negative perceptions in the Indian public and policy community about Washington’s reliability as a partner.

Despite these headwinds, Indian officials appear intent on stressing continuity and stability in the bilateral partnership, seeking to safeguard the strategic gains of recent years in defence, technology, and global governance cooperation.

Navarro’s latest tirade seems less reflective of a unified US foreign policy and more emblematic of the Trump administration’s fractured approach to India: a tension-filled tug-of-war between trade hardliners viewing New Delhi as an economic adversary, and strategic policymakers recognising India’s indispensable value in balancing China and shaping the Indo-Pacific security architecture.

Whether this conflicting posture ultimately leads to policy recalibration or further strain remains to be seen, but for now, it underscores the fragility of the economic dimension of the US-India relationship at a time when both sides emphasise its long-term strategic importance.

Based On ANI Report