In the latest sign of growing friction between Washington and New Delhi, Peter Navarro, President Donald Trump’s influential trade adviser, has sharply criticized India for its purchases of Russian oil and defense equipment. Writing in the Financial Times, Navarro argued that India’s energy trade with Moscow is “opportunistic” and “corrosive” to Western efforts to isolate Russia over its war in Ukraine.
Navarro, who played a central role in shaping Trump’s first-term tariff policies, accused India of effectively recycling dollars it earns from trade with the United States to buy Russian crude. In his words,
“As Russia continues to hammer Ukraine, helped by India’s financial support, American and European taxpayers are forced to spend tens of billions more on Ukraine’s defence. Meanwhile, India keeps slamming the door on American exports through high tariffs and trade barriers.”
The criticism comes at a sensitive time. Just last month, President Trump imposed a 25% tariff on Indian goods and followed it with an additional 25% penalty—explicitly tied to New Delhi’s oil imports from Russia. India has dismissed these measures as “unreasonable” and “extremely unfortunate.”
Navarro also attacked Indian refiners for what he described as “profiteering”: buying discounted Russian oil, refining it, and selling petroleum products abroad to Europe, Africa, and Asia. He argued that this surge in imports was not driven by domestic needs but by commercial gain.
Beyond energy, Navarro turned his fire on defence cooperation. He questioned whether US companies should be transferring sensitive military technologies to India at a time when, in his view, New Delhi is “cozying up to both Russia and China.”
This sharp rhetoric underscores a broader shift within Trump’s foreign policy team. Senior officials—including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent—have also voiced unease with India’s ties to Moscow. What was once celebrated as a strategic partnership now increasingly looks strained by tariffs, recriminations, and mistrust.
But not everyone in Washington agrees with Navarro’s hard line. Evan Feigenbaum, a former US diplomat who played a key role in negotiating the India-US nuclear deal in the mid-2000s, called this new approach “strategic malpractice.” He warned that Washington risks turning a partnership meant to balance China into yet another trade confrontation.
The irony is hard to miss. Two decades ago, the United States invested heavily in drawing India closer, seeing it as a rising democratic power that could help stabilize Asia. Today, a senior White House adviser is effectively placing India in the same category as America’s rivals. Whether this tough stance leads to recalibration or rupture will be closely watched—not only in New Delhi and Washington but also in Beijing and Moscow.
