It began, as so many Trumpian fiascos do, with a screaming capital-letter announcement about tariffs.
On July 30, U.S. President Donald J. Trump took to his social media platform to declare that India would be hit with a 25% tariff, plus an unspecified “penalty,” starting August 1. The reason? India’s “very high tariffs,” “obnoxious trade barriers,” and its enduring defence and energy ties with Russia.
Never mind that India is the world’s fifth-largest economy. Or that bilateral trade between the U.S. and India hit a record $200 billion in 2023. In Trump’s zero-sum worldview, complex geopolitics must bow to chest-thumping sloganeering.
As if the first post wasn’t unhinged enough, Trump followed it with an even more bizarre outburst, essentially throwing India, Russia, and former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev under the rhetorical bus. “I don’t care what India does with Russia,” he fumed, accusing both nations of having “dead economies.” He then claimed the U.S. does “very little business” with India—again, false—and declared that Russia and America should “keep it that way.”
He finished with a mafia-flavoured threat: Medvedev, he warned, should “watch his words,” because he’s “entering very dangerous territory!”
And yet, while Trump performed his usual carnival act of grievance and bravado, India’s response was classic New Delhi: measured, deliberate, and firmly rooted in national interest.
The Commerce Ministry acknowledged the tariff announcement, stating that it was “studying the implications” of the move and that India remained committed to a “fair, balanced, and mutually beneficial trade agreement” with the United States. No drama. No panic. No tweetstorms. Officials emphasized that India has consistently engaged the U.S. in trade negotiations—but not at the cost of core interests, particularly in agriculture, dairy, MSMEs, and strategic autonomy. As one official said, “We want a deal, not a diktat.”
Indeed, despite Trump’s absurd claim that the U.S. has “done very little business with India,” reality tells another story: India is a major defence partner, a critical player in global supply chains, and one of the top buyers of U.S. technology and machinery. The two nations share strategic convergences on China, the Indo-Pacific, and counterterrorism.
What they don’t share is Trump’s tendency to confuse diplomacy with delinquency.
India’s political opposition, sensing an opportunity, pounced. Congress leaders called the tariff a betrayal, arguing that Prime Minister Modi’s red-carpet diplomacy—from “Howdy Modi” in Houston to “Namaste Trump” in Ahmedabad—had yielded little more than tariffs and threats. One MP declared, “This is what happens when you mistake photo-ops for foreign policy.”
Economists were more tempered. They warned that sectors like pharmaceuticals, gems and jewellery, textiles, and auto components could be hit hard. A 25% tariff would dampen export competitiveness and potentially affect GDP in the short term. Still, many saw Trump’s move as a pressure tactic rather than a coherent strategy—especially given that the U.S. is also courting India to counter China’s dominance in Asia.
A recent SBI Research report suggested that India could absorb the shock by boosting exports to other markets like ASEAN, the EU, and the UK, and by riding the tailwinds of the “China-plus-one” manufacturing shift. In other words, India has options—something Trump seems unaware of.
Tariffs are a blunt instrument. When used thoughtfully, they can protect domestic industry or serve as leverage in high-stakes negotiations. But when deployed via social media tantrum—without consultation, context, or clarity—they’re nothing more than economic vandalism.
Trump’s criticism of India’s ties with Russia is especially rich, considering his own ambiguous flirtations with Moscow. India’s long-standing defence relationship with Russia predates his presidency by decades. It’s built on necessity, geography, and strategic balance—not ideology. To demand that India sever those ties on Washington’s timetable, and then punish it when it doesn’t, is not how allies are treated.
Ultimately, this episode is less about trade policy and more about tone.
Trump, true to form, chooses bluster over substance, bullying over strategy, and narcissism over nuance. His statements aren’t just factually incorrect, they’re diplomatically corrosive.
India, in contrast, demonstrates the maturity of a nation that doesn’t mistake performative outrage for real power. It has signalled that it will continue engaging with the United States, but on terms that reflect its sovereignty, not Trump’s social media mood swings.
So what’s next? India will likely ride out this storm, just as it did in 2019 when Trump revoked its trade benefits under the Generalized System of Preferences.
And if history is any guide, this latest outburst may soon be forgotten, replaced by whatever shiny object catches Trump’s attention next.
But one thing is clear: India is no one’s punching bag. And while Trump rants into the digital void, India’s message is simple: We’re open for business—not for bullying.
