‘India can be pressured, but not cornered’: How Western media covered Trump’s tariffs saga

The United States’ decision to impose a combined 50 per cent tariff on Indian goods, which sent ripples across global media, has now manifested into reality. August 27, 2025, marked the official imposition of an additional 25 per cent tariff on a wide range of Indian exports, including but not limited to textiles, jewellery, chemicals, shrimp, machinery and mechanical appliances, furniture, agriculture, meat and processed foods.

While Indian media outlets have been stormed with pressing concerns about the future of US-India relations, American outlets pointed out how the measures against India could potentially backfire on the US citizens due to inflation on daily essentials, and European publications state that the additional tariff is a strategic self-harm on the part of the US, arguing that diplomacy is being replaced with economic coercion at the risk of alienating a key partner in Asia.

The Tariffs

The additional 25 per cent tariffs on Indian exports were signed by Trump as an executive order on August 6, supplementing the 25 per cent imposed earlier this month. The Associated Press maintained a straightforward and neutral stance by reporting the facts without much indulgence on either the economic or diplomatic implications.

The White House maliciously framed the decision as a “strategic necessity”, through their official statement to the media stating, “We cannot allow US dollars to indirectly fund Moscow’s war effort via discounted Russian crude.” Reuters reported through a diplomatic and market-centric lens, stating that this was the first time Washington used tariffs as a direct response to energy dealings. Reuters also stated that analysts assert this action could have far-reaching consequences.

Through American Headlines

The US press coverage was split between viewing the tariffs as an assertive foreign policy tool and as a domestic economic gamble. The majority of the outlets appeared to focus solely on the market implications and perspectives. Bloomberg provided a business-centric perspective and warned that “over $48 billion of Indian exports are in the line of fire”, noting that the supply chains could face significant disruptions, leading to potential cost hikes for US industries heavily reliant on Indian imports.

The Wall Street Journal emphasised the policy aspect, in addition to the business perspective of the situation, highlighting how the administration is “raising the average US tariff rate to levels not seen in decades”, creating uncertainty for American businesses.

From the Newsrooms of Europe

European media presented an overtly sceptical view. The Guardian focused on a political and statecraft-driven outlook and argued that Washington is “using tariffs as a substitute for diplomacy”, warning that pressuring India in this manner could “push New Delhi further into the arms of Beijing and Moscow”.

Due to their data-heavy, policy- and industry-centric approach, London’s Financial Times focused on sector-specific fallout, particularly in the food industry, where India’s dominance in shrimp exports could lead to higher prices for American consumers. Le Monde underscored a geopolitical framing that even with exemptions, the move signals a “hardening of US economic statecraft”.

Finally, The Economist analytically presented the tariffs as part of a pattern by asserting that “India’s tariff burden leaps toward the top of Trump’s target list”, warning that the United States is “testing the limits of coercion with partners that are too important to alienate”.

Trade War 2.0 or Strategic Misstep for the US?

The cross-Atlantic press consensus is that the tariffs are as much about geopolitics as economics. Although the White House frames the tariffs as strategic leverage to put an end to India’s oil purchases from Russia, both American and European media analysts question the long-term wisdom of the approach.

Reuters warned that trade talks could be delayed indefinitely due to reluctance to settle on a middle ground, while Politico Europe underlined the endangerment of trade partnerships that the US tariff strategy could cause and emphasised the growing concerns among American allies worldwide.

Together, Western media paint the picture of a high-stakes gamble: the White House’s effort to wield economic power, but at the risk of eroding the very partnerships that strengthen its global influence.

Conclusion

As London’s Financial Times observes, the US is “betting that economic pain will produce diplomatic gain”, but The Economist warns this bet could prove “as risky as it is costly”.

Ultimately, the Trump administration may expect its illogical tariff policy to succeed in the short term, but they do risk causing long-term damage. As The Guardian summarised, “India can be pressured, but not cornered”. Whether the US recognises that distinction in good time will determine the America-India relations.

Anindita Mahapatra currently works in the research team of Kalinga Institute of Indo-Pacific Studies and is a post-graduate in Journalism and Mass Communication. The views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of Firstpost.