White House trade adviser Peter Navarro on Friday launched a fresh attack on India, accusing New Delhi of profiteering from Russian oil trade and imposing tariffs that he claims are costing Americans jobs.
“FACTS: India highest tariffs costs U.S. jobs. India buys Russian oil purely to profit/Revenues feed Russia war machine. Ukrainians/Russians die. U.S. taxpayers shell out more. India can’t handle truth/spins,” Navarro wrote on X.
His comments came in response to a Washington Post article that said Washington’s harsh language toward New Delhi was worsening bilateral ties, news agency ANI reported.
Navarro, who serves as Senior Counsellor for Trade and Manufacturing to President Donald Trump, has been criticising India for continuing its trade with Russia.
He earlier described the conflict as “Modi’s war,” labelled the country “Kremlin’s laundromat,” and alleged that New Delhi is fuelling Russia’s war economy.
In a Bloomberg Television interview last week, he said, “India is helping feed the Russian war machine. I mean Modi’s war, because the road to peace runs, in part, through New Delhi.”
However, India strongly rejected his remarks. MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said, “We have seen the inaccurate and misleading statements made by Navarro, and obviously, we reject them.”
“We remain focused on the substantive agenda that our two countries have committed to, and we hope that the relationship will continue to move forward based on mutual respect and shared interests,” he added.
Jaiswal also said that India’s partnership with Washington is “very important” and rooted in democratic values and people-to-people ties. On trade, he said India “continues to remain engaged with the US side.”
Also on Friday, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said President Donald Trump and his trade team were “disappointed” with India’s continued imports of Russian crude oil but hoped for “positive developments.”
Trump has also often criticised India’s tariff policies, calling it America’s “most tariffed partner” and describing the trade relationship as a “totally one-sided disaster.”