Khanna, co-chair of the US–India Caucus, decried the tariffs—higher than those faced by China and second only to Brazil—as disruptive to key sectors such as leather and textiles, and damaging to both Indian exporters and American manufacturers. He said the tariffs are driving India toward deeper engagements with geopolitical rivals, notably Russia and China, signalling a worrying shift in alignment.
The representative framed the situation as a “five‑alarm fire,” urging members of the Indian‑American community who supported Donald Trump to speak out. “Which Indian Americans who voted for Trump over Harris are willing to oppose him now?” he challenged, spotlighting growing tensions within the diaspora.
Khanna elaborated on the personal motivation behind the tariffs, stating that Trump took the punitive action because Modi declined his request for a Nobel nomination—Pakistan had submitted the nomination instead. Khanna argued that the decision reflects a worrying politicisation of foreign policy that jeopardises strategic interests.
This appraisal aligns with investigative reporting from the New York Times, which detailed a phone conversation on 17 June during which Trump claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan and sought Modi’s support for a Nobel bid—both of which were rebuffed. Soon afterwards, trade talks faltered and tariffs soared to a total of 50 per cent. This sequence of events has notably intensified diplomatic strain, with no recorded communication between the two leaders since the phone call.
Analysts and commentators point beyond trade statistics to the broader strategic implications. Experts warn that unilateral tariffs risk driving a wedge between democratic partners, undermining trust and eroding regional stability. NATO advisers cautioned that such measures are short‑sighted and may inflict long‑term damage to a partnership seen as vital for counterbalancing emerging threats.
Domestically, India’s ministry responded emphatically, denouncing the tariffs as “unfair, unjustified and unreasonable,” particularly in light of India’s legitimate energy purchases from Russia to safeguard its energy security. Officials rejected narratives suggesting a pause in US-related defence acquisitions, reaffirming that procurement processes remain on track.
International voices have also weighed in. Former US National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan accused Trump of sacrificing ties with India over transactional politics, asserting that the United States stands to lose a key strategic partner. Meanwhile, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressed optimism that the two democracies will navigate through trade friction and reconcile their differences.
These developments occur against the backdrop of a broader diplomatic crisis that took root in August 2025, when Trump’s administration escalated tariffs from an initial 25 per cent to 50 per cent, citing India’s imports of Russian oil. Observers viewed the move as a symptom of transactional foreign policy overshadowing strategic alignment. Amid public dissent, Indian farming groups protested by burning effigies of Trump, and commentators warned of a fracture in multilateral frameworks such as the Quad.