Tariffs on India? The U.S. Could Be Making Another Strategic Mistake

The Trump Administration’s Tariff Threat

Donald Trump’s White House is floating the idea of imposing up to 100% tariffs on imports from China and India. The goal? To punish both countries for buying Russian oil and, in theory, weaken Vladimir Putin’s war machine in Ukraine.

However, this strategy is riddled with problems:

• Europe won’t unify behind it: The EU is divided, especially with Hungary’s pro-Kremlin stance.
• Japan and the UK are wary of joining a broader U.S.-led trade war that could hurt their own economic interests in Asia.
• China is too big to threaten: It dominates supply chains and holds leverage through its control of critical raw materials like rare earths. Punitive tariffs might simply push Chinese goods into Europe, triggering internal price wars without denting Beijing’s global ambitions.

India: The Wrong Target

India is a very different case. It’s not a global manufacturing rival, nor is it geopolitically aligned with China or Russia. In fact:

• It has just signed a free-trade agreement with the UK, and is negotiating another with the EU.
• Long-time investors like Suzuki and Honda continue to expand there, joined by major Japanese banks like Sumitomo Mitsui and Mizuho.
• India’s economy is still deeply agrarian, and politically sensitive—especially when it comes to food and farming.

And yet, India is being dragged into this tariff offensive largely because it buys cheap oil from Russia. Trump sees this as an easy win.

The Risk of Backfire

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is caught in a bind. On one hand, Trump calls him a “very good friend” and claims he’s confident a trade deal can be struck. On the other hand, Washington’s demands are getting harder to meet.

The U.S. wants India to:

• Stop buying Russian oil.
• Open its massive agricultural market—including accepting U.S. genetically modified corn and soybeans.
• Cut tariffs on U.S. goods while tolerating high U.S. tariffs in return.

That last point is particularly tricky. India’s trade negotiators had hoped for a balanced deal—reducing tariffs on manufactured goods while keeping export competitiveness on par with Southeast Asia. But now, with tariffs already raised, any further concessions will look like surrender.

And this matters politically. If Modi agrees to open Indian agriculture, it could alienate rural voters and spark new farmer protests—especially after previous backlashes over agricultural reforms. Many of the workers affected by tariffs on textiles or jewelry will return to their villages. If they find even their farming income under threat, the political cost could be high.

The Strategic Cost

India doesn’t want to join a “Eurasian triangle” dominated by Chinese goods, Russian energy, and capital flows. But if pressured too hard by the West, it might have no choice. And that would be a disaster—not just for India, but for global stability.

Western leaders should remember: they once underestimated China’s rise by welcoming it into the WTO with few guardrails. They now risk making the opposite mistake with India—blocking the progress of the world’s largest youth population (375 million people aged 10–24).

Bottom Line

Weaponizing tariffs to coerce India may seem like a short-term win, but it’s a long-term gamble with serious consequences. If the U.S. wants to keep India on its side, diplomacy—not punishment—is the better path.

Source: Tariffs on India? The U.S. Could Be Making Another Strategic Mistake