“A Totally One-Sided Disaster”: Trump Pounds India-U.S. Trade After Modi’s China Visit

“A Totally One-Sided Disaster”: Trump Pounds India-U.S. Trade After Modi’s China Visit

President Donald Trump on Monday assailed the state of U.S.–India trade as “a totally one-sided disaster,” renewing a public pressure campaign that has already seen Washington impose steep punitive tariffs on Indian goods — comments that came as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was in China for the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit and publicly sought to cool tensions with Beijing. The broadside deepens a rift between two countries that in recent years have framed their relationship as a strategic partnership despite simmering trade disagreements. 

What Trump said — and where he said it

In posts on his social platform early Monday, Trump said the U.S. does “very little business with India, but they do a tremendous amount of business with us,” calling the relationship “one-sided” and adding — with little independent corroboration — that “they have now offered to cut their tariffs to nothing, but it’s getting late.” The remarks followed the administration’s decision to levy additional duties on Indian imports, raising the maximum U.S. tariff on some Indian products to as much as 50%. 

Timing and optics: Modi in Tianjin with Xi and Putin

Trump’s public rebuke landed while Modi was attending the SCO summit in Tianjin, where he held a bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Both leaders portrayed the encounter as constructive — with official readouts saying India and China are “development partners, not rivals” — a message New Delhi and Beijing clearly wanted to emphasize even as New Delhi seeks to preserve ties with Washington. The optics of Modi greeting Xi and later meeting Russian President Vladimir Putin added fuel to U.S. concerns that his government is hedging amid mounting tariff pressure. 

New Delhi’s measured pushback

Indian officials have publicly resisted Washington’s tariff pressure. Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said in recent remarks that India “will neither bow down nor ever appear weak,” adding that New Delhi would pursue alternative markets and protect domestic producers against abrupt external shocks. The Indian government has also framed its continuing purchases of discounted Russian oil as an energy-security choice for a nation of 1.4 billion people — a defence Washington has rejected as untenable. 

The trade background: collapse of talks and the tariff spiral

The administration’s tough posture follows months of failed trade negotiations. Reuters and other outlets have documented how a once-promising U.S.–India trade dialogue collapsed this summer amid misread signals, disagreements on agricultural and dairy access, and escalating U.S. demands tied to India’s oil purchases from Russia. U.S. officials say they imposed higher tariffs to penalize India’s continued purchases of Russian crude; New Delhi views the levies as punitive and economically damaging. That rupture — and Trump’s high-volume rhetoric — has now pushed ties into a more adversarial phase. 

Market impact and economic fallout

Financial markets have already priced some of the strain. The Indian rupee slid sharply as traders grappled with the prospect of prolonged trade friction, hitting record lows against the dollar in recent sessions and prompting scrutiny of Reserve Bank of India interventions. Analysts say the steep U.S. duties — effectively hitting a wide swath of Indian exporters — could shave growth, hit employment in labour-intensive sectors and complicate India’s ambition to become a global manufacturing hub. 

What the “zero tariff” claim actually means

Trump’s assertion that India “offered to cut tariffs to nothing” appears to be a mix of negotiating rhetoric and selective reading of past rounds of bargaining. New Delhi has in past talks signalled willingness to open certain industrial and services sectors under a carefully staged agreement — and Indian negotiators have offered concessions in some categories — but there has been no public, binding Indian commitment to eliminate most tariffs unilaterally. Trade officials note that tariff reductions typically come only as part of negotiated, reciprocal agreements, not as one-sided giveaways. 

Strategic stakes beyond tariffs

This episode is about more than duties. U.S. policymakers have sought India as a partner in recalibrating supply chains away from China and as a geopolitical counterweight in Asia. Heavy-handed trade pressure — especially when paired with public chiding — risks undermining that partnership at a sensitive moment. New Delhi’s outreach to Beijing and Moscow at the SCO can be read as hedging: India is balancing energy and security imperatives while preserving strategic autonomy. For Washington, the danger is that coercive economic pressure will push India into closer economic and diplomatic accommodation with rivals.

Political arithmetic in Washington and New Delhi

Domestically, Trump’s posture plays well with a constituency that wants tougher trade stances. But on Capitol Hill and among allied governments, the approach provokes concern — not least because severing or chilling the U.S.–India partnership could complicate broader efforts to deter China’s assertiveness. In India, the Modi government must balance nationalist pressure to protect industry and farmers with the need to keep investment flowing; public defiance of U.S. pressure (and public displays with Xi and Putin) are likely aimed at shoring up domestic support while signalling that New Delhi will not be coerced. 

Analysis — bargaining, bluster, or breakdown?

There are three plausible ways to read the moment:

1. High-stakes bargaining. Trump’s rhetoric and tariffs could be negotiating tactics intended to extract concessions in areas (industrial tariffs, services access, defence purchases) where India has some room to maneuver. In that scenario, both sides ultimately cut a deal that preserves the strategic alliance while addressing U.S. commercial grievances.

2. Strategic miscalculation. The more dangerous path is that punitive American moves convince New Delhi that partnership with Washington comes at too high a price — economically and politically — accelerating New Delhi’s tilt toward pragmatic engagement with Beijing and Moscow. The SCO photos and Modi’s public outreach suggest India is loath to be overtly transactional in a way that damages its strategic autonomy.

3. Prolonged friction with economic pain. Even if neither side fully breaks, extended tit-for-tat tariffs risk real economic harm: exporters, supply chains and investment flows could suffer, and markets may punish perceived geopolitical risk. For the U.S., the strategic cost of weakening India as an economic and security partner could exceed any short-term trade gains.

On balance, the most likely near-term outcome is a bruising period of negotiation with episodic public spats — unless U.S. policymakers opt to combine pressure with clear, reciprocal offers that address India’s political constraints (for example, on agriculture and data localization). A unilateral expectation that India will simply “cut tariffs to nothing” under threat is unrealistic; durable solutions will require patient, reciprocal diplomacy. 

What to watch next

• Whether Indian officials respond formally to Trump’s comment about a zero-tariff offer and whether New Delhi will clarify any negotiating positions. 

• Moves by the U.S. and Indian trade negotiating teams to reconvene — and whether either side will translate public bluster into concrete, reciprocal offers on market access. 

• Market signals: further rupee weakness, export-sector stress and foreign-portfolio flows that could force policy adjustments in New Delhi. 

• How partners in the Quad and Europe react — whether allies lean toward backing U.S. pressure or urge de-escalation to preserve broader strategic cooperation.