With scathing charges directed at India’s trade and energy policies, Peter Navarro, US President Donald Trump’s Senior Counselor for Trade and Manufacturing, has rekindled tensions between Washington and New Delhi. In a new round of social media comments, Navarro accused India of purchasing Russian oil “just for financial gain” and asserted that the money obtained from these deals is being used to support Moscow’s war apparatus.
In keeping with the Trump administration’s long-standing complaints about what it views as unfair trade practices by New Delhi, he went on to suggest that India’s tariff policy harms American jobs. His remarks, which came in response to a Washington Post article detailing the internal disputes within Trump’s team regarding India policy, once again exposed the widening gap between the diplomatic establishment and the White House’s trade wing.
In recent weeks, Navarro has used offensive language that has drawn harsh criticism in New Delhi, such as referring to India as a “laundromat for the Kremlin” and making castiest allusions to “Brahmins profiteering” from the conflict in Ukraine.
India promptly responded to the remarks formally, with the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) calling Navarro’s assertions “inaccurate and misleading.” Speaking to the media on Friday, MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal categorically denied the accusations, emphasizing that India buys oil in accordance with its own national interests and energy security needs.
Jaiswal emphasized the continued importance of India’s cooperation with the United States, pointing to their shared democratic principles, interpersonal relationships, and convergent global interests. He noted that despite disputes, the bilateral strategic cooperation has withstood many hardships in the past and will remain fueled by respect for one another and a meaningful agenda.
Regarding trade, the MEA downplayed the combative attitude being promoted by Navarro and other White House trade advisers, restating that India has been actively working with Washington to address unresolved issues.
It’s interesting to note that the Trump administration did not entirely agree with Navarro’s statements. While acknowledging that President Trump and his trade team are “disappointed” with India’s ongoing acquisition of Russian crude, Kevin Hassett, another senior White House economic advisor, said there is still hope for “positive developments.” This more moderate stance highlights the disagreement in Washington between proponents of a more diplomatic, issue-by-issue approach with New Delhi and trade hardliners like Navarro.
The issue of Indian tariffs is another topic that Trump frequently brings up in domestic politics. He has frequently referred to India as “America’s most tariffed partner” and charged New Delhi with managing an unfair trade policy in which Indian exporters have easy access to the US market but American businesses encounter substantial obstacles.
However, recent US court decisions that ruled that numerous of Trump’s own unilateral tariff actions were unlawful have damaged the credibility of this viewpoint and exposed the legal flaws in his larger trade war strategy.
India is still maintaining a careful balancing act in world geopolitics at the moment of the dispute. In addition to increasing its exports of refined petroleum products to Western markets, it has also expanded its purchases of Russian oil in order to secure affordable energy in the face of fluctuating world prices.
Washington and European capitals have frequently criticized this economic pragmatism, claiming that it subtly aids Moscow’s military economy. However, New Delhi has consistently resisted attempts to interpret its energy alliances through the prism of Western geopolitical disputes and insisted that its activities are entirely within the norms of international law.
Navarro runs the danger of making this delicate situation more complicated by using divisive language and criticizing India’s trade position. He also runs the risk of creating unfavorable opinions about Washington’s dependability as a partner among the Indian public and policy community.
Notwithstanding these challenges, Indian leaders seem determined to emphasize the bilateral partnership’s continuity and stability in order to preserve the strategic advances made in recent years in the areas of technology, global governance, and defense.
Navarro’s most recent outburst appears to be more representative of the Trump administration’s divided approach to India than of a cohesive US foreign policy: a tense struggle between trade hardliners who see New Delhi as an economic rival and strategic policymakers who understand India’s critical role in balancing China and forming the Indo-Pacific security framework.
It remains to be seen if this contradictory stance eventually results in policy reorientation or additional stress, but for the time being it highlights the US-India relationship’s economic fragility at a time when both parties stress its long-term strategic significance.
