Sullivan delivered his critique during an appearance on The Bulwark Podcast, where he drew attention to a palpable shift in global perceptions. “The American brand globally is in the toilet,” he said, explaining that foreign leaders are increasingly prioritising strategies to “de‑risk” from Washington. By contrast, China is gaining in popularity and credibility.
India is Sullivan’s prime example. Once the focal point of a bipartisan push to counter Chinese influence, he said, it’s now weighing alternative alignments. “We were working to build a deeper and more sustainable relationship… Now the Indians are saying, ‘maybe we have to go sit down with China to hedge against America,’” he noted.
The tariff hike that sparked this backlash—a doubling to 50 percent—took effect on 27 August and targets Indian exports across textiles, jewellery, and machinery. The White House justifies the move as retaliation for India's ongoing imports of discounted Russian oil, which it says undermines sanctions aimed at isolating Moscow amid the Ukraine war.
Economic fallout is already being projected. Barclays estimates that up to 70 percent of Indian exports to the U. S. are under “serious threat” due to the steeper tariffs—potentially weighing heavily on growth and jobs. Meanwhile, geopolitical analysts warn the tariffs imperil the Quad framework and broader strategic cooperation across the Indo-Pacific.
Voices of dissent are not limited to Sullivan. Economist Richard Wolff criticised the tariff strategy as “shooting itself in the foot”, arguing it may drive India toward BRICS and diminish U. S. influence in emerging markets. Chancellor-nation diplomacy is already responding: Prime Minister Modi is due to visit China, his first trip there in seven years, amid signs of a thaw in bilateral links.
Behind closed doors, Washington continues to frame the tariffs as strategic pressure linked to energy imports from Russia. Adviser Peter Navarro directly tied tariff reductions to India curbing its oil purchases, warning that continued imports indirectly fund the Russian war machine.
India's response, framed through its Ministry of External Affairs, rejects any linkage between its energy policy and geopolitical pressure, emphasising its right to secure affordable supplies for its population. That stance is consistent with past statements clarifying that these purchases reflect strategic autonomy rather than alignment with Moscow.
Caught in this crossfire are bilateral defence and investment relations. Reports of India pausing U. S. defence procurements surfaced, though the Indian side swiftly dismissed them as “false and fabricated.” Still, uncertainty now surrounds the timing of the next Quad leaders' summit—an event that once symbolised growing trust and cooperation.
Polling cited by Sullivan suggests a broader shift: China is being viewed in many regions as a more stable and reliable partner than the United States—a stark reversal from just a year earlier.
As tensions deepen and analysts warn of lasting damage, diplomatic observers say both nations face a crucial choice: escalate toward confrontation or rebuild toward mutual benefit.