Trump anti-India tariffs a strategic misstep or leverage? How US media, think tanks, experts are reacting to punishment over Russia oil trade

The US mainstream media, most of which Donald Trump calls ‘fake news’, as well as several policy-watching think tanks, have criticised the American president's move to punish India with 50 per cent tariffs over the purchase of Russian oil. Only Trump-aligned media appear to be accepting it as a wise decision. Here is a breakdown:

Criticism of Trump tariffs against India from media, thinktanks and experts

The Wall Street Journal editorial board, often supportive of free-market conservatism, has taken a critical stance, with commentators arguing that the tariffs are disproportionate and unnecessarily antagonistic towards a key democratic ally. They noted that while India-Russia ties could be a problem for the US, Trump’s approach would do more harm than good. The Journal questioned why a nation seen as being close to the US, particularly given the bonhomie between Trump and Indian PM Narendra Modi, is now facing such punitive treatment.

Analysts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace described the move as ‘dismantling decades of bipartisan progress’ in strengthening US-India relations. They suggested the tariff policy will be perceived in New Delhi as ‘heavy-handed interference’ in Indian sovereignty, particularly given India’s strategic reliance on Russian oil. Carnegie warned that this shift from engagement to economic punishment could unravel trust between two democracies once seen as natural partners in counterbalancing China’s rise.

Opinions and experts quoted in The Guardian challenged the framing of tariffs as legitimate diplomatic tools. Dr Stuart Rollo, for instance, characterised the measures as a 'departure from traditional diplomacy', calling them instruments of 'geopolitical compulsion'. Economist Devashish Mitra pointed out that India’s regional importance as a counterweight to China appears to have been undervalued, suggesting the administration is sacrificing strategic stability for short-term pressure tactics.

Even opinion pieces in the New York Post, typically sympathetic to Trump, flagged concerns. While acknowledging India’s increased economic alignment with Russia, some writers there questioned whether tariffs are an appropriate vehicle for foreign policy enforcement. They warned that the move exposes fissures in the US–India relationship, which may not recover easily.

But conservative media defends Trump tariffs as ‘realpolitik’

In contrast, right-leaning media outlets aligned with Trump framed the tariffs as a logical extension of his “America First” agenda and a necessary recalibration of foreign policy. Fox News featured several columns positioning the tariffs as ‘tactical leverage’, not random economic aggression. Policy analyst Tanvi Ratna described the action as a ‘bold and ambitious realignment’, arguing that it is intended to force India to reassess its economic ties with Russia.

The goal, in this view, is not to punish, but to negotiate from a position of strength.

Some Fox News voices compared the strategy to ‘defensive warfare’, portraying tariffs as tools of reciprocity. They argued that if India penalises American exporters indirectly through strategic partnerships with adversaries like Russia, then the US is justified in returning the favour.

Can tariffs be a foreign policy tool?

Much of the debate centres on whether tariffs can be instruments of foreign policy at all.

On one side are those who believe in global cooperation, mutual economic benefit, and soft-power influence; while on the other, there are voice that favour transactional relationships and pressure-based negotiation.