 "Trump and his game of tariffs")
In the prevailing circumstances, the India-US relations, which recorded a quarter-century of bipartisan effort to strengthen the partnership, is facing its severest strain under the current US administration. The antagonistic turn came into sharper focus after US treasury secretary Scott Bessent urged Europe to join Washington in raising tariffs on Indian goods, accusing the EU of not being tough enough on New Delhi.
According to a Times of India report, his remarks, seen as an extension of President Donald Trump’s combative approach, suggested that Washington’s patience had worn thin, with the White House making clear that the tariffs would not be lifted unless India conceded ground. At the same time, new restrictions on visas, particularly those affecting business and student mobility, were said to be disproportionately targeting Indian nationals.
Western voices express dismay
While Trump and his aides have stayed largely on message in tightening the screws, leading Western experts have voiced unease. Evan Feigenbaum, a former US State Department official now at the Carnegie Endowment, was quoted as saying that attempts to frame the Russia-Ukraine war as “Modi’s war” were absurd and amounted to sabotage of decades of careful diplomacy. He reportedly argued that elements within Washington appeared intent on undoing 25 years of bipartisan work to anchor India firmly within America’s strategic orbit.
Similar sentiment was echoed in The Economist, which suggested that Washington’s punitive posture towards India amounted to an act of self-harm. The publication was reported as calling the move a “giant own-goal” that risked driving New Delhi closer to adversaries and alternative blocs. It argued that while India’s continued purchase of discounted Russian crude may look unseemly, New Delhi was operating within a Western price-cap scheme, and was even re-exporting refined petroleum products to Europe. The magazine framed Washington’s singling out of India as a grave miscalculation, one that paradoxically offered New Delhi an opportunity to project itself as a “superpower-in-waiting.”
Analysts in Europe and America have been portrayed as cautioning against alienating the world’s most populous democracy at a time when strategic partnerships are critical in managing China’s rise. The consensus among many experts appears to be that Washington is undermining its own long-term interests by reducing space for compromise with India.
For New Delhi, the moment represents both a challenge and an opportunity. On one hand, tariff hikes and visa restrictions threaten economic stability and people-to-people ties. On the other, international commentary has cast India as a resilient actor capable of withstanding external pressure, pursuing reforms at home and cultivating new markets abroad.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsEconomic consequences and shifting markets
The strain in ties has coincided with a sharp escalation in economic tensions. The United States has slapped a 50 per cent tariff on Indian goods, a move that the Reserve Bank of India warned could weigh on domestic demand. The central bank nevertheless noted that an S&P upgrade of India’s sovereign rating and strong agricultural conditions may provide some cushion in the months ahead, RBI said in its bulletin. Still, refiners in India have confirmed that Russian oil imports will rise by 10–20 per cent in September, a development underlining how indispensable discounted Moscow crude has become to India’s energy security.
Richard Wolfe, an American economist known for his trenchant critiques of Trump’s policies, was cited as saying that the US may end up strengthening the very alternatives it fears most. According to Wolfe, by pushing India away, Washington risked consolidating the Brics grouping into a more cohesive and competitive economic bloc, with India likely to divert exports towards those markets.
A defining juncture
Trump’s “America First” approach risks dismantling an edifice of trust painstakingly built since the 1990s. For India, the episode is being described as a test of its ability to assert strategic autonomy while preserving economic momentum. Whether this moment will be remembered as a rupture or a recalibration may depend less on India’s resolve—which appears firm—than on Washington’s willingness to reconsider the wisdom of punishing an indispensable partner.