Trump urges EU to hit China and India with 100% tariffs to squeeze Putin

Trump urges EU to hit China and India with 100% tariffs to squeeze Putin — a high-stakes trade gambit that risks blowback

President Donald Trump on Tuesday privately urged European Union officials to impose punitive tariffs of up to 100% on imports from China and India as part of a strategy to deny Moscow vital customers for Russian oil and force President Vladimir Putin “to the table,” according to U.S. and European officials who spoke to news organisations. The extraordinary diplomatic push — first reported by the Financial Times and corroborated by Reuters and other outlets — would mark a major escalation in the use of trade policy as a tool of wartime coercion, and sets off a chain of legal, economic and geopolitical risks that EU capitals are already weighing. 

Officials who participated in the conference call said Trump suggested Washington would mirror any EU action with matching U.S. duties, effectively creating a transatlantic tariff wall against two of Russia’s biggest energy customers. The request was conveyed to the EU’s sanctions envoy David O’Sullivan during talks in Washington that were ostensibly about new measures to tighten pressure on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. EU diplomats described the proposal as abrupt and provocative; Reuters noted it could require a fundamental shift away from the bloc’s preferred toolbox of targeted sanctions and price caps. 

European caution, political feasibility and legal constraints

Brussels faces an immediate problem of political feasibility. EU trade policy is collective and politically sensitive: any move to slap sweeping, economy-crushing tariffs on China or India would require buy-in from member states that depend heavily on open markets and integrated supply chains. European officials and trade ministers are already wary of triggering a transatlantic trade war that would reverberate through industry — from autos and chemicals to agriculture — and could invite retaliatory duties that hurt Europe’s exporters. EU officials in Washington have been in talks with U.S. counterparts about tougher measures on Russia, but the 100%-tariff proposal would be an abrupt and far-reaching departure from recent EU practice.

Legal and institutional questions would also loom large. A tariff of that magnitude would almost certainly face immediate challenges at the World Trade Organization, risk large-scale trade retaliation and likely prompt emergency appeals to arbitrate damage claims. Past rounds of U.S. tariff hikes have already provoked countermeasures from the EU and other partners; European Commission officials have in recent months warned they would “react firmly and immediately” to punitive U.S. measures that disrupt negotiated trade frameworks. Implementing a joint U.S.–EU tariff architecture aimed specifically at altering another country’s energy purchases would test the legal and political boundaries of trade diplomacy. 

Washington’s recent tariff record and the Indian precedent

The proposal comes after a summer of aggressive U.S. tariff actions. The Trump administration this year dramatically raised duties on Indian imports — at one point doubling levies to as much as 50% — and has threatened steep tariffs on a broad set of trading partners as part of a coercive industrial-policy approach. New Delhi has responded with damage-mitigation measures for exporters and has paused some defence and procurement talks with Washington amid the dispute. That recent history suggests India would not accept blanket punitive duties lightly and may retaliate, complicating the geopolitical objective of isolating Moscow.

China and India likely to push back hard

Beijing and New Delhi are both signalled to be highly resistant to such measures. China has repeatedly warned it will retaliate against tariff moves it deems coercive and has in the past matched U.S. levies with steep counter-tariffs; officials in Beijing treat trade sovereignty as both a commercial and strategic front. India, too, has made clear it will use policy tools to defend exporters hurt by U.S. duties and has been reported preparing relief packages to blunt damage from U.S. tariffs. Both countries are major buyers of Russian crude and would see any attempt to coerce them through third-party tariffs as a serious escalation that could push them closer to Moscow or accelerate efforts to bypass western financial and shipping channels.

Market and energy implications — a risky bet to choke Russia’s oil revenues

Policymakers backing the idea argue the calculus is simple: cut off the customers, squeeze Russia’s oil revenue, and you reduce Moscow’s capacity to wage war. In practice, however, economists and market analysts say the move could have perverse consequences. A sudden, co-ordinated tariff shock would likely force buyers to look for alternate supply arrangements, reroute shipments, accelerate barter and local-currency deals, or prompt greater cooperation among oil producers to stabilise markets. The immediate effect could be higher global oil prices, renewed inflationary pressure in energy-importing economies and significant disruption to global supply chains — outcomes that would weigh on the very European electorates whose leaders would have to approve such a plan. Reuters reported a modest oil price rise after the tariff story and other geopolitical shocks, underlining market sensitivity.

A difficult diplomatic sell for the EU — and domestic politics at play

Beyond the mechanics, the proposal collides with European domestic politics. Several EU members are export-oriented economies that would carry a disproportionate share of the damage from tit-for-tat tariffs; political leaders in those capitals have little appetite to hand voters higher consumer prices and disrupted industry at the altar of a strategy that depends on third parties changing sovereign energy policies. The EU has tools to coordinate sanctions, but member states have so far preferred targeted measures, price caps and financial restrictions rather than sweeping trade bans that could boomerang. That makes a unified European front on 100% tariffs politically unlikely in the near term. 

Geopolitical tradeoffs and unintended consequences

Experts warn the plan risks pushing India and China into deeper economic and strategic alignment with Russia. Both countries have incentives to preserve energy security and diversify suppliers; punitive tariffs could accelerate de-dollarisation efforts, strengthen alternative payment systems and harden alliances among non-Western buyers and sellers. In addition, using tariffs as a wartime instrument raises questions about the durability of post-war trade rules and the precedent it sets for future conflicts. Some analysts say a better route to choke Moscow is to close loopholes in shipping and finance that allow sanctioned crude to flow rather than to rely on blunt, economy-wide trade measures that hit consumers and businesses. 

What Brussels and Washington might actually do next

EU officials in Washington are expected to stress coordination on targeted measures — tightening loopholes in the crude price-cap mechanism, expanding sanctions lists, and penetrating shipping and insurance avenues that enable sanctioned sales — rather than adopt blanket reciprocal tariffs, which remain politically toxic. U.S. officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, have previously flagged secondary measures and hinted at punitive action against buyers, but have also acknowledged such steps require careful coordination and carry serious risks. For now, the debate appears to be at the level of pressure and signalling: Trump’s intervention escalates the conversation, but it does not mean the EU will follow.

What to watch next

The key indicators will be the tone from the European Commission and member-state capitals in the coming 48–72 hours; any formal proposal from Brussels would require detailed legal vetting and political negotiation. Watch for statements from EU trade chief and foreign ministers, for emergency talks between the European Commission and national capitals, and for rapid responses from Beijing and New Delhi. Markets will watch oil flows and prices, shipping-insurance patterns, and any signs of trade retaliation that could widen into a global trade war. 

Analysis — coercion by tariff is blunt, costly and uncertain

President Trump’s proposal to rope the EU into a 100%-tariff strategy is a high-risk attempt to convert economic leverage into strategic effect. It is bold — perhaps recklessly so — because it presumes third parties will subordinate their own economic priorities to geopolitical demands. The approach also underestimates how trade coercion reshapes alliances: countries facing punitive tariffs are more likely to accelerate efforts to evade, compensate and retaliate than to capitulate. In short, the idea may score rhetorical points on the stump but, if adopted, would reconfigure global trade politics in ways that could be harder to manage than the immediate Russian problem it seeks to solve.

A more sustainable strategy would combine tighter enforcement of existing sanctions, accelerated efforts to cap revenues from Russian crude, and intensified diplomacy with major buyers that offers incentives as well as penalties. That is a harder, slower path, but it is less likely to blow up markets or to close off the diplomatic channels the West will need even after a negotiated pause or end to the conflict.