U.S. President Donald Trump has almost single-handedly brought the India-U.S. partnership to its lowest point in two decades. On August 6, Trump signed an executive order imposing an additional 25 percent tariff on Indian goods in a bid to punish India for its continued purchase of Russian oil. The move came a few days after he reported his displeasure over India’s trade with Russia, claiming that he would substantially raise tariffs on India. This brings the total duty on India to 50 percent.
Adding insult to injury, Trump offended many in India with his remarks, saying, “I don’t care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care.”
This trade spat has roiled the India-U.S. relationship, which is arguably at its lowest point thus far in the 21st century.
The current tensions appear surprising to many because of the positive trajectory of the India-U.S. partnership in the last couple of decades. However, the relationship is laden with significant fault lines, the chief one being India’s ties with Russia. Trump is compounding this fault line for political gain.
For Washington, a stronger partnership with India rested on the rationale of leveraging India as a counter to China’s rise, and because of that, the divergence on Russia was largely kept aside for a long time. However, the United States today is distracted by the conflicts in Europe and the Middle East. Consequently, countering China in the Indo-Pacific is not the U.S. foreign policy’s most predominant and pressing objective for now.
If “countering China,” is not a priority for Washington, then India is not an important partner for the United States. India is neither a critical nor a major trading partner of the U.S., unlike China, which dominates the critical minerals sector. This explains why China has been given a 90-day extension for tariff negotiations, even though it is the largest buyer of Russian oil and gas. Realizing that China has emerged unscathed from Trump’s tariffs while the U.S. is heavily dependent on China for critical minerals, the Trump administration has been trying to reach an accommodation with China. Therefore, Chinese containment in the Indo-Pacific appears to be fading away for now – and with it, the need for a robust partnership with India.
Due to this, Trump has targeted tariffs on India alone for the purchase of Russian oil and gas. For its part, India has asserted that the demand to halt trade with Russia remains totally unjustified and unreasonable. In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, the United States itself encouraged India’s energy purchases, India’s Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement, “because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict.” Even today, the U.S. still continues to import fertilizers, chemicals and uranium and palladium from Russia, the MEA pointed out.
On the other hand, India has drastically increased its energy purchases from the United States, with crude oil imports surging 51 percent in the first half of 2025. India’s liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the U.S. have nearly doubled from $1.41 billion in FY2023-24 to $2.46 billion in FY2024-25. In February, Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged to boost U.S. energy imports to $25 billion from $15 billion in 2024 – and thus reduce the trade deficit, which is a constant concern for Trump. In accordance with that, Indian oil and gas companies are discussing long-term purchases of U.S. oil and gas with their U.S. counterparts. India has been endeavoring to reduce its reliance on Russian energy purchases by increasing its U.S. energy imports.
Why, then, did Trump decide to hit India with 50 percent tariffs over the issue of Russian oil?
Trump is clearly frustrated that he has been unable to achieve his promise of striking a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. The tariffs on India for Russian oil and gas purchases thus look more like a personalistic attack – Trump’s way of acting out his frustration over not achieving his geopolitical goal of halting the Russia-Ukraine war.
Indeed, Trump’s beloved self-image as the world’s biggest dealmaker underlies the current tensions with India. He has made repeated public claims about brokering the India-Pakistan ceasefire post-Operation Sindoor – a claim that India has vehemently denied at all official levels, including Modi himself. Therefore, tariffs may also have an element of punishing India for denying his claims of brokering the ceasefire. On the other hand, Pakistan – which embraced Trump’s claim of mediation, even nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize – is enjoying a renewed warmth in its relationship with Washington.
The United States has not reached an agreement with India even after five rounds of trade negotiations, despite India’s reported willingness to make substantial trade concessions. This suggests that the tariffs were political – or personal, in Trump’s case – retaliation rather than economic.
India is not the only country to be hit with high tariffs due to Trump’s personal grievances. He imposed 50 percent levy on Brazil because of judicial proceedings in the Brazilian Supreme Court in which Trump’s ally, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, was charged with staging a coup against current President Lula. Trump has not shied away from threatening tariffs if he finds any country’s actions, policies, and statements unacceptable.
If compelling India to move away from the purchase of Russian oil and gas was one of the aims of the tariffs, it is unlikely to achieve this. Instead, India is going to double down on its multialignment foreign policy in light of the increased distrust towards the United States. Modi’s planned visit to China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit at the end of August, and the upcoming visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin to India for the annual India-Russia summit at the end of the year, reflect that.
The current trade tensions are expected to instill and intensify India’s distrust toward the United States. It remains to be seen whether India and the U.S. will be able to contain and then repair the damage inflicted by Trump; trust is hard to build, harder to sustain, and hardest to rebuild once it evaporates.