Trump Is Pushing India-US Ties to the Brink for Personal Gain
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
23 minutes ago
- Japan Times
Trump's push for peace shifts to Zelenskyy in Oval Office again
The fate of Donald Trump's push to stop the fighting in Ukraine will be tested again as Volodymyr Zelenskyy prepares to respond to the U.S. president's shifting demands following mixed signals from the Russia-U.S. summit in Alaska. Trump will host the Ukrainian president at the White House on Monday in their first Oval Office encounter since a public spat in February. The new encounter comes in the shadow of Friday's still-secretive meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, after which Trump abandoned his push for an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine and Putin insisted that Kyiv give up land. Trump told Zelenskyy and European leaders in a phone call that Putin wants Ukraine to cede control of the entire Donbas region in Ukraine's east, renewing his longstanding demand, according to people familiar with the matter who spoke on condition on anonymity. Zelenskyy has previously said that Ukraine won't give up territory and Putin has broken ceasefires before. The European leaders spoke with Trump as he flew back from Alaska, a meeting that failed to uncover a path to end the war, currently in its fourth year. Trump called his meeting productive, then also signaled he would tell Zelenskyy to make a deal, piling more pressure on the Ukrainian leader. Several senior European diplomats expressed angst over the outcome soon after they got word of the details, noting Putin appeared to have gained the most. They pointed to Putin's symbolic win for securing an invitation to the U.S. and the Russian leader apparently prevailing on Trump to shift focus to an overarching peace settlement without an immediate ceasefire. European allies from the so-called coalition-of-the-willing countries that pledged support to Kyiv will hold a video call on Sunday, France said Saturday. Some European leaders may also join Zelenskyy in person for his meeting with Trump on Monday, said one of the people. Trump's White House stayed deliberately tight-lipped on Saturday after the president's return to Washington, declining to further detail the talks, his plans or what he'd discuss with Zelenskyy. Zelenskyy has repeatedly ruled out giving up all of Donetsk and Luhansk, which Moscow's forces only partially control and have so far failed to take militarily. Russia would halt advancing its claims over the parts of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson region it doesn't now control, effectively freezing the battle lines there, the people said. U.S. President Donald Trump berates Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington in February. | Doug Mills / The New York Times German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Saturday voiced his doubts about the Russian leader's intentions. "Putin has promised a lot so far, signed many agreements. I don't believe it so easily. But at least, it's the beginning of a conversation,' Merz said in an interview with RTL/ntv. Trump told European leaders that he was prepared to contribute to guaranteeing Ukraine's security as long as it didn't involve NATO, they added. The president suggested Putin would be OK with that, the people said. "Ukraine reaffirms its readiness to work with maximum effort to achieve peace,' Zelenskyy said in a social media post after a call with Trump on Saturday. Trump confirmed the Ukrainian president's visit to Washington in a Truth Social post, and said a meeting with Putin and Zelenskyy could be scheduled "if all works out.' The U.S. president said in the post that his meeting with Putin and the call with Zelenskyy both went "very well.' "It was determined by all' that the best way to end the war was to achieve a peace agreement and "not a mere Ceasefire Agreement,' he wrote. Trump had said going into the summit that a ceasefire would be his key demand. He also threatened to walk out of the meeting and to impose new tough punitive measures if it wasn't met. Trump signaled on Friday he wasn't in a rush to implement fresh penalties on Russia's trading partners. "This is just not Trump's forte,' said Charles Lichfield, deputy director of the Atlantic Council's GeoEconomics Center in Washington. "He's not shaping the discussion, he's not setting the themes, and he's used to being in control, and this was him hosting, and yet we come out of it with him looking less in control. So it seems to be a bit of a failure to me.' Still, he said, Europe has no choice but to deal with Trump as the broker. "He's the one who has the most direct line to Putin,' Lichfield said. "I think the Ukrainians and Europeans are doomed to have to work through Trump.' Monday's visit to the White House will be a pivotal moment for Zelenskyy, who's had an uneasy relationship with Trump. His last visit in the Oval Office in February ended in a shouting match between the two leaders and led to the U.S. briefly pausing military aid to Ukraine. Trump and Zelenskyy have since patched up their ties. European officials welcomed Trump's efforts but also reiterated the need for a trilateral meeting between Trump, Putin, and Zelenskyy in a statement released on Saturday. That statement made no mention of earlier demands for an immediate ceasefire as a first step toward negotiations. The topic of a trilateral summit wasn't raised in Alaska, Russia's state TV channel Vesti reported on Saturday, citing Russian presidential aide Yuri Ushakov. European leaders also said that it will be up to Ukraine to make decisions on its territory. "International borders must not be changed by force,' according to the statement, signed by the leaders of France, Italy, Germany, Finland, Poland, the U.K. and the president of the European Commission. Russian leader Vladimir Putin and U.S. President Donald Trump pose on a podium on the tarmac after they arrived to attend a meeting at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska, on Friday. | Sputnik / Pool / via REUTERS Some European officials are concerned that Trump will now pressure Zelenskyy to make territorial concessions to reach a deal, according to people familiar with the matter, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private deliberations. "President Trump's resolve to get a peace deal is vital,' said European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas. "But the harsh reality is that Russia has no intention of ending this war anytime soon.' Putin continues to drag out negotiations and "left Anchorage without making any commitments to end the killing,' Kallas said. Putin told his government on Saturday that the conversation with Trump in Alaska was "very frank and meaningful,' the Kremlin said on its website. "We, of course, respect the position of the American administration, which sees the need for a speedy end to military action,' he said. "We would also like this and would like to move to resolving all issues by peaceful means.' In an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity after the Alaskan summit, Trump said that there were a few sticking points remaining, even as he cautioned that the two hadn't reached a deal. He shifted his focus to Zelenskyy, putting the onus on him to end the war. "I think we're pretty close to a deal," he said, adding: "Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they'll say 'no.'" Asked what he would advise Zelenskyy to do, Trump said: "Gotta make a deal." "Look, Russia is a very big power, and they're not," he added. European leaders, however, made it clear in their statement that Ukraine "must have ironclad security guarantees to effectively defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity' and "no limitations should be placed on Ukraine's armed forces or on its cooperation with third countries.' "Russia cannot have a veto against Ukraine's pathway to EU and NATO,' the statement said. Meanwhile, Ukraine's Air Force said on Telegram Saturday morning that Russia launched 85 drones and a ballistic missile at Ukrainian territory overnight, underscoring Moscow's intention to press on with the war. "We anticipate that in the coming days the Russian army may try to increase pressure and strikes against Ukrainian positions in order to create more favorable political circumstances for talks with global actors,' Zelenskyy said on X.
The Mainichi
an hour ago
- The Mainichi
Trump's aggressive push to take over DC policing may be a template for approach in other cities
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The left sees President Donald Trump's attempted takeover of Washington law enforcement as part of a multifront march to autocracy -- "vindictive authoritarian rule," as one activist put it -- and as an extraordinary thing to do in rather ordinary times on the streets of the capital. To the right, it's a bold move to fracture the crust of Democratic urban bureaucracy and make D.C. a better place to live. Where that debate settles -- if it ever does -- may determine whether Washington, a symbol for America in all its granite glory, history, achievement, inequality and dysfunction, becomes a model under the imprint of Trump for how cities are policed, cleaned up and run, or ruined. Under the name of his Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force, Trump put some 800 National Guard troops on Washington streets this past week, declaring at the outset, "Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals." Grunge was also on his mind. "If our capital is dirty, our whole country is dirty, and they don't respect us." He then upped the stakes by declaring federal control of the district's police department and naming an emergency chief. That set off alarms and prompted local officials to sue to stop the effort. "I have never seen a single government action that would cause a greater threat to law and order than this dangerous directive," Police Chief Pamela Smith said. On Friday, the Trump administration partially retreated from its effort to seize control of the Metropolitan Police Department when a judge, skeptical that the president had the authority to do what he tried to do, urged both sides to reach a compromise, which they did -- at least for now. Trump's Justice Department agreed to leave Smith in control, while still intending to instruct her department on law enforcement practices. In a new memo, Attorney General Pam Bondi directed the force to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement regardless of any city law. In this heavily Democratic city, local officials and many citizens did not like the National Guard deployment. At the same time, they acknowledged the Republican president had the right to order it because of the federal government's unique powers in the district. But Trump's attempt to seize formal control of the police department, for the first time since D.C. gained a partial measure of autonomy in the Home Rule Act of 1973, was their red line. When the feds stepped in For sure, there have been times when the U.S. military has been deployed to American streets, but almost always in the face of a riot or a calamitous event like the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Trump's use of force was born of an emergency that he saw and city officials -- and many others -- did not. A stranger to nuance, Trump has used the language of emergency to justify much of what he's done: his deportations of foreigners, his tariffs, his short-term deployment of National Guard troops to Los Angeles, and now his aggressive intervention into Washington policing. Washington does have crime and endemic homelessness, like every city in the country. But there was nothing like an urban fire that the masses thought needed to be quelled. Violent crime is down, as it is in many U.S. cities. Washington is also a city about which most Americans feel ownership -- or at least that they have a stake. More than 25 million of them visited in 2024, a record year, plus over 2 million people from abroad. It's where middle schoolers on field trips get to see what they learn about in class -- and perhaps to dance to pop tunes with the man with the music player so often in front of the White House. Washington is part federal theme park, with its historic buildings and museums, and part downtown, where restaurants and lobbyists outnumber any corporate presence. Neighborhoods range from the places where Jeff Bezos set a record for a home purchase price to destitute streets in economically depressed areas that are also magnets for drugs and crime. In 1968, the capital was a city on fire with riots. Twenty years later, a murder spree and crack epidemic fed the sense of a place out of control. But over the last 30 years, the city's population and its collective wealth have swelled. A cooked-up emergency? Against that backdrop, Philadelphia's top prosecutor, District Attorney Larry Krasner, a Democrat, assailed Trump's moves in Washington. "You're talking about an emergency, really?" Krasner said, as if speaking with the president. "Or is it that you're talking about an emergency because you want to pretend everything is an emergency so that you can roll tanks?" In Washington, a coalition of activists called Not Above the Law denounced what they saw as just the latest step by Trump to seize levers of power he has no business grasping. "The onslaught of lawlessness and autocratic activities has escalated," said Lisa Gilbert, co-chair of the group and co-president of Public Citizen. "The last two weeks should have crystallized for all Americans that Donald Trump will not stop until democracy is replaced by vindictive authoritarian rule." Fifty miles northeast, in the nearest major city, Baltimore's Democratic mayor criticized what he saw as Trump's effort to distract the public from economic pain and "America's falling standing in the world." "Every mayor and police chief in America works with our local federal agents to do great work -- to go after gun traffickers, to go after violent organizations," Brandon Scott said. "How is taking them off of that job, sending them out to just patrol the street, making our country safer?" But the leader of the D.C. Police Union, Gregg Pemberton, endorsed Trump's intervention -- while saying it should not become permanent. "We stand with the president in recognizing that Washington, D.C., cannot continue on this trajectory," Pemberton said. From his vantage point, "Crime is out of control, and our officers are stretched beyond their limits." The Home Rule Act lets a president invoke certain emergency powers over the police department for 30 days, after which Congress must decide whether to extend the period. Trump's attempt to use that provision stirred interest among some Republicans in Congress in giving him an even freer hand. Among them, Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee drafted a resolution that would eliminate the time limit on federal control. This, he told Fox News Digital, would "give the president all the time and authority he needs to crush lawlessness, restore order, and reclaim our capital once and for all." Which raises a question that Trump has robustly hinted at and others are wondering, too: If there is success in the district -- at least, success in the president's eyes -- what might that mean for other American cities he thinks need to be fixed? Where does -- where could -- the federal government go next?
NHK
an hour ago
- NHK
Protesters rally in Washington against Trump's National Guard deployment
More than 1,000 people have rallied around the White House to protest President Donald Trump's move to deploy National Guard troops to the US capital as part of his anti-crime efforts. Trump declared a state of emergency to address what he describes as "out of control" violent crime in Washington D.C. He issued an executive order to put local police under federal control and directed the deployment of the National Guard. The demonstration took place at a square in central Washington on Saturday. Protesters held up placards, with some reading "No military occupation." They marched toward the White House, chanting "Free D.C." Some demonstrators made a direct protest when they found National Guard personnel. But there were no major disruptions. A participant said the Trump administration is taking away people's rights little by little and breaking down the democratic system. She also said she is very concerned that a martial law situation was created under the auspices of crime, and added that if the deployment is allowed in Washington, it could happen in other places as well. Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser countered Trump's claim, saying violent crime in the city has fallen to its lowest level in 30 years.
