Trump says to raise tariff on India over Russia oil purchases
New Delhi quickly pushed back, saying the move was unjustified and vowing to protect its interests.
Trump's heightened pressure on India comes after he signaled fresh sanctions on Moscow if it did not make progress by Friday towards a peace deal with Kyiv, more than three years since Russia's invasion.
Moscow is anticipating talks this week with the US leader's special envoy Steve Witkoff, who is expected to meet President Vladimir Putin.
On Monday, Trump said in a post to his Truth Social platform that India was "buying massive amounts of Russian Oil" and selling it for "big profits."
"They don't care how many people in Ukraine are being killed by the Russian War Machine," Trump added.
"Because of this, I will be substantially raising the Tariff paid by India to the USA."
He did not provide details on what tariff level he had in mind.
Even before the threat, an existing 10 percent US tariff on Indian products is expected to rise to 25 percent this week.
"The targeting of India is unjustified and unreasonable," India Foreign Ministry spokesman Randhir Jaiswal said in a statement, after Trump's announcement.
"Like any major economy, India will take all necessary measures to safeguard its national interests and economic security."
India has become a major buyer of Russian oil, providing a much-needed export market for Moscow after it was cut off from traditional buyers in Europe because of the war.
That has drastically reshaped energy ties, with India saving itself billions of dollars while bolstering Moscow's coffers.
But India argued it "began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict."
The world's most populous country is not an export powerhouse, but the United States is its largest trading partner.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
The new trade playbook: Africa's response to US bilateralism
US President Donald Trump announced a 30% tariff on South African goods, saying his country's relationship with Pretoria has been, 'unfortunately, far from reciprocal'. (X) On 2 April, the world witnessed a trademark move from US President Donald Trump, who declared the day Using an unprecedented and unconventional methodology, the US calculated these tariffs by taking its trade deficit with each country, dividing it by the value of that country's exports to the US, and then halving the result. The outcome was a sweeping set of tariffs ranging from 10% to 50%, with countries such as Lesotho at the upper end of the scale. This one-size-fits-all approach blatantly disregards unique country-specific realities, especially for least developed countries. Take Lesotho: years of support from successive US governments under the African Growth Opportunity Act helped it develop an export-oriented apparel industry employing about More broadly, the reciprocal tariff regime is not only punitive, it undermines US commitments under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. It poses a direct challenge to the multilateral trade system, and Africa is directly in the crosshairs. The tariffs will be felt across African countries. Although the US announced a pause in implementing full reciprocal tariffs until August, providing a window for One noteworthy example of this is the UK-US 'Economic Prosperity Deal'. The two parties seem to have agreed on a Other countries — including Vietnam, Philippines and Japan — have signed bilateral deals involving adjusted tariff rates (20%, 19% and 15% respectively). These are accompanied by supplementary conditions such as penalties on transhipped goods or sector-specific investment clauses. Notably, there is no trade deal, yet, with any African country. Zimbabwe was the first African country to respond in April 2025, prematurely, by suspending all tariffs on US imports in a bid to signal goodwill. Meanwhile, major African economies such as South Africa and Kenya are deep in negotiations, attempting to secure favourable terms in the face of mounting pressure. While another extension to the tariff pause seems likely, it's clear that the US is pursuing a transactional, bilateral trade strategy, offering selective relief in exchange for sectoral concessions or access to strategic resources like critical minerals. This approach is deeply concerning. It reduces complex trade relationships to blunt negotiations, with developing countries expected to simply 'take it or leave it'. Such a strategy fragments global trade into a patchwork of uneven bargains, privileging those with greater economic or strategic clout. For African countries, the risk is clear: without a united response, they risk being sidelined. The danger is that African nations may be pressured into accepting inequitable deals without the protection of multilateral institutions like the WTO. These deals could extend to critical sectors such as raw materials, where African leverage is significant but often underused. In response, African countries must pursue smart sector-specific bilateral deals and push for tariff exemptions on key exports like apparel, coffee and minerals. Leveraging the continents' strategic assets (minerals such as cobalt, lithium, for example) is critical to securing favourable terms. At the same time, it is crucial to diversify trade partnerships with emerging economies like China, and enhancing South-South cooperation for new export markets will be key. Long-term resilience will also require African governments to invest in industrial competitiveness and deepen regional integration under the African Continental Free Trade Area. In this new trade playbook, Africa must not be a passive player. With coordinated strategy and assertive diplomacy, the continent can protect its interests and shape a more equitable global trading order. Shimukunku Manchishi is a senior policy officer: trade at African Future Policies Hub.
IOL News
3 hours ago
- IOL News
Trump's Economic Coercion Failing to Intimidate BRICS Countries
Demonstrators burn a US flag and a picture of US President Donald Trump during a protest in defence of national sovereignty following the US government trade taxes and sanctions on Brazil, near the US consulate, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, on August 1, 2025. Image: AFP Kanwal Sibal US President Trump has rattled Washington's ties with New Delhi to an unexpected degree. Countries, including India, were prepared for rough diplomatic weather after Trump won his second term, but did not anticipate the kind of onslaught he has unleashed on the global system and diplomatic norms. Trump's latest attack on India and the BRICS countries explains this underlying dynamic. The BRICS aspire to play a greater political, economic and financial role in global affairs. This aspiration is based on shifts of economic and concomitant political and financial power towards the so-called emerging powers or middle-income countries. BRICS countries have already begun to use their national currencies in trading with each other as much as possible. The use of draconian financial sanctions on Russia by the West has accelerated this process. Today, almost all trade operations between Russia and China are conducted in rubles and yuan. India, too, is encouraging the use of its national currency in payment transactions with select countries. A significant portion of the trade between India and Russia is now settled using a rupee-ruble mechanism. Washington cannot use secondary sanctions to prevent countries, including India, from using the US dollar to trade with Russia and then oppose de-dollarisation if these countries are compelled to use alternative payment mechanisms. If the US continues to weaponise the dollar, it will inevitably lead to the very 'de-dollarisation' that Trump is concerned about. India has officially disowned any de-dollarisation agenda, not the least because the US is its biggest trade partner in goods and services. India seeks more investments and technology transfers from the US. In many ways, New Delhi's ties with Washington are the most important for achieving its growth and developmental goals. But that does not preclude India from establishing other partnerships to reduce over-dependence on one country, balance its external relations and hedge against the excesses of US foreign policy. Trump has exacerbated the disruptions caused by Washington's frequent use of sanctions as a political weapon by also weaponising tariffs. He is convinced that by imposing arbitrarily determined tariffs on imports from other countries, he will compel them to enter into negotiations with the US to obtain relief by lowering their high tariffs on American products. But India on Wednesday sent a clear message: it is determined to protect the interests of its businesses, farmers and people. Trump's use of tariffs as a lever, like in the case of Brazil, where he has cited President Lula's treatment of his predecessor Bolsonaro as a reason for imposing 50% levies, is being closely monitored by the world's governments. Trump has repeatedly targeted BRICS since his return to the Oval Office. He had threatened the countries with tariffs if they continued to pledge to create a new common currency or support any alternative to the US dollar. Trump appeared to harbour the illusion that BRICS was 'dead' following his threats, which have now materialised into action. In reality, the BRICS summit held in Brazil this July showed no visible signs of intimidation. On the contrary, such overt displays of American economic coercion may well drive more countries toward alliances that seek to challenge the dominance of any single global power. The administration in Washington appears to lack realism in its assessment of global trends. Trump positions himself as a peacemaker and openly aspires to win a Nobel Peace Prize, while at the same time bombing Iran and assisting Israel in perpetuating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Similarly, threatening China as a BRICS member with 100% tariffs so casually – along with talk of bombing Beijing if the People's Republic were to invade Taiwan – makes little sense, especially given that an interim trade deal has already been reached and further negotiations are imminent. The US cannot reasonably claim that forums like BRICS have no right to determine their agenda in pursuit of their shared interests. At the same time, the US has walked out of or subverted key international agreements and institutions. It has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Change agreement, the WHO, the UN Human Rights Commission and UNESCO. Trump seems to believe that these organisations cannot function or survive without the presence of the US and its financial contributions. In reality, the US will lose its voice and its leadership in these international forums. The space it vacates will be filled by others, especially China. Beijing has already carved out enormous influence in the UN institutions, as it is now the second largest contributor to the UN. With Washington also bullying Europe and thereby damaging Western solidarity, the US's absence from these organisations will have even less impact. The more the world learns to manage without the US in these international bodies, the more America's international influence will erode. These US decisions will also accelerate the dispersal of influence at the global level, as other centres of influence develop. * Kanwal Sibal is a retired Indian foreign secretary and a former Ambassador to Russia between 2004 and 2007. This article was originally published at ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL, Independent Media or The African.
IOL News
4 hours ago
- IOL News
What to expect at upcoming Trump-Putin summit in Alaska?
Russian President Vladimir Putin with US President Donald Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, August 6, 2025. Image: Kremlin Press Office / Handout via Xinhua US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are set to meet on August 15 in Alaska to discuss a potential ceasefire in Ukraine, marking the first talks between the leaders of the two countries since 2021. On the campaign trail in 2023 and 2024, Trump made repeated claims that he would end the Ukraine crisis within 24 hours of winning presidency. The summit, Trump's latest push for peace in the region, has been billed by the White House as a high-stakes push to end the Ukraine crisis. But the prospects for a breakthrough appear uncertain, with the two leaders approaching the talks from sharply different positions and many of America's allies warning that any deal struck without Kiev's participation will lack legitimacy. The plans for the face-to-face meeting between the two leaders surfaced after Putin's three-hour working meeting with Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff during the latter's visit to Moscow on Wednesday. Putin this week offered the Trump administration a broad ceasefire proposal that requires significant territorial concessions from Kiev and seeks international acceptance of Russia's claims in return for stopping the fighting, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing European and Ukrainian officials. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ Ad Loading Russian President Vladimir Putin attends a press conference at the Kremlin in Moscow, Russia, May 11, 2025. Image: Xinhua / Liu Kai Trump said Friday that he intended to secure a ceasefire, even suggesting that "swapping of territories" could be part of the deal. While he has not specified what that would entail, the phrase has drawn immediate pushback from Ukraine and its allies. Ukraine has repeatedly said it will not accept any arrangement that cedes its territory. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Saturday criticised the Alaska talks for excluding his government and warned that lasting peace cannot be achieved without Ukraine at the table. "Any decisions made against us, any decisions made without Ukraine, are at the same time decisions against peace," Zelenskyy said in a video address. "They will bring nothing. These are dead decisions; they will never work." European capitals reacted swiftly to Trump's suggestion of a land swap. Leaders from the European Commission, France, Italy, Britain, Germany, Poland and Finland issued a joint statement on Saturday affirming that Ukraine's borders, as recognised internationally, cannot be changed by force. The statement underscored that Ukraine must be directly involved in any negotiations regarding its sovereignty. The last round of Russia-Ukraine talks held in Istanbul on July 23 concluded with no breakthrough towards a ceasefire but an agreement on another prisoner swap with civilian detainees included. Russia and Ukraine remain quite apart from each other while exchanges of drone and missile attacks continue to inflict heavy casualties and infrastructure damage. Analysts say that even if Trump and Putin agree on broad principles, achieving a workable ceasefire will be far from simple, as Russia controls significant territory, including areas it has fortified heavily over the past year, while Ukraine remains committed to regaining its land. A halt to fighting would require agreement on troop withdrawals, security guarantees and the future status of disputed regions – issues that have defied resolution since the conflict began in 2022. Without clear enforcement mechanisms, experts warn, any truce could unravel quickly. Whether the Alaska summit moves the Ukraine crisis toward resolution or entrenches a fragile stalemate will depend on whether the leaders can bridge deep divides. With positions hardened and trust in short supply, a ceasefire, if it comes at all, will not be easy. Xinhua
