India’s Choices in the Trump Tariff Storm

Donald Trump has always employed a trade style different from the structured approach most countries use. It is sharp, opportunistic and centred on power. He looks at every negotiation as a zero-sum game, what he gains must come from the other side’s loss. That makes the process less about compromise and more about pressure. Tariffs and sanctions are not just tools in his hands; they are also messages to domestic audiences and signals to rivals.

In this approach, escalation is often sudden. Trump targeted India with this approach, raising tariffs on its exports to 50%, abruptly halting trade talks, and linking demands to unrelated geopolitical decisions such as India’s purchase of Russian oil. Public criticism becomes part of the strategy, keeping the focus intense and the atmosphere unpredictable.

Trump uses tariffs as both an economic lever and a political weapon. This is not new in American history, the McKinley era at the turn of the 19th century saw high duties as a revenue source. But the way Trump deploys them is different. He can switch them on or off quickly, link them to entirely separate policy disputes, and use them to test the opponent’s limits. This approach allows him to fire quickly, as Congress approvals don’t constrain him. Such unpredictability is designed to keep the other side on edge and willing to yield more. Nevertheless, these are three things India must do to restore balance:

1.Immediate Response

In the immediate term, India cannot afford to simply accept punitive tariffs. Matching the US rate with equivalent duties on American goods would signal balance rather than aggression. Avoiding a response could be read as weakness, inviting more demands in the future.

In the longer run, India needs to prepare for a sustained phase of tough bargaining. That means diversifying export markets so that the US is not a single point of pressure, keeping strategic partnerships with countries like Russia, and maintaining leverage for future talks. Export diversification will make it harder for Washington to use market access as a bargaining chip.

2.No Go Areas

Some concessions are simply off the table. Opening agricultural and dairy markets to US producers is politically risky, given farmer sensitivities and a large rural voter base. Stopping Russian oil imports would hurt economic stability and energy security. It would also push global crude prices higher, which would hurt India more than it would help any strategic alignment with the US.

3.Cannot Not Respond

Failing to respond to steep tariffs risks setting a precedent that India is a soft target. This can weaken future negotiating positions, embolden unilateral actions from the US, and permanently skew trade terms. The credibility of India’s trade policy depends on showing that it will respond when pushed too far.

Any India-US trade agreement under Trump will require safeguards against abrupt policy shifts. The ability to adjust quickly, retaliate proportionally, and keep negotiations issue-specific will be key. The challenge is to engage from a position of strategy, strength and readiness to act, rather than waiting to react. Trade under Trump will not be a predictable process. It will be a series of high-pressure exchanges where only those with patience, preparation and resilience will come out with balanced outcomes. For India, the task is clear: enter the arena with the will to hold ground and the foresight to plan beyond the current skirmish.