Trump’s Tariff War with Modi’s India

The recent tariff tensions between the United States and India under President Donald Trump can be seen as temporary jolts in international relations—more tactical than strategic. Despite the friction, Washington continues to view New Delhi as a crucial strategic partner in the Asia-Pacific, especially in countering China’s growing influence. In the current scenario, Trump is exerting strong pressure on Prime Minister Modi’s administration to align more closely with U.S. policies, and this pressure has both long-term and short-term dimensions.

From a long-term perspective, the Trump administration believes that for the past 25 to 30 years, the United States has extended considerable support to India in multiple sectors, including military cooperation, security partnerships, technological assistance, economic agreements, and educational exchanges. Even it has helped India a lot to portray its soft image in the US society. In return, Washington feels that India has done little to advance American interests. India has consistently maintained a policy of non-alignment, avoiding binding military or political alliances with the US in its wars, and while it has deepened economic and defense ties with Washington, it has simultaneously engaged in massive trade with China and maintained a strong strategic partnership with Russia in areas such as defense and energy. Both China and Russia are major rivals of the United States. This approach stands in contrast to Pakistan’s historical alignment with the U.S., which included joining the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) in the 1950s and later supporting Washington during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the War on Terror. India, by comparison, has refrained from such direct strategic cooperation while maintaining close ties with both the US and its adversaries at a time. Trump’s team believes this dynamic must change, aiming to restructure the relationship so that the U.S. gains more tangible benefits from its partnership with India rather than continuing a one-sided arrangement.

The short-term aspect of Trump’s policy is shaped by the ongoing Russia–Ukraine war. When Trump came to power, one of his ambitions was to bring an end to the conflict. And he thought he would do this very easily. But so far those efforts have failed, largely because President Vladimir Putin has shown little willingness to engage in dialogue despite repeated outreach. Trump believes that the oil trade agreements between Russia, China, and India have provided Moscow with the financial resources needed to sustain its war effort. In his view, India’s continued purchase of Russian oil is a key factor preventing economic pressure from forcing Russia to negotiate. This belief forms the basis of his decision to impose tariffs on Indian goods, aiming to reduce India’s purchases of Russian oil, thereby cutting Moscow’s revenue and indirectly pressuring Putin’s administration to come to the negotiating table. The move also coincides with a period when Russia has intensified strikes on Ukraine, increasing both the humanitarian crisis and the political pressure on Trump to demonstrate decisive action.

India’s response to these measures has been firm. The foreign ministry issued a six-point rebuttal, criticizing the U.S. and European nations for their past trade with Russia and pointing out that even today, the U.S. continues certain trade links with Moscow when it suits its own economic needs. India emphasized that it will always prioritize the welfare of its people and will continue purchasing oil from Russia to ensure affordable energy supplies. This position makes it clear that New Delhi’s energy policy will not be dictated by Washington, especially when the U.S. does not hold itself to the same standards it demands of others.

Despite the current tension, the U.S.–India partnership remains deeply rooted in shared strategic objectives, particularly in balancing China’s influence in the region. Both nations recognize the importance of this alliance, and for that reason, the current tariff dispute is unlikely to last long. It is better understood as a tactical maneuver rather than a deep strategic rift—a temporary skirmish in an otherwise enduring and mutually significant relationship.

The author is a researcher, columnist, and the founder of Political Frontline. He holds a master degree in International Relations and has a wide experience of writing in various news forums on issues related to diplomacy, conflict and political economy. He tweets on @BarkatViews2