The House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats have condemned President Trump for imposing a 50% tariff on Indian imports, claiming it undermines the U.S.-India relationship and disproportionately targets India over larger buyers like China.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats have voiced strong criticism against U.S. President Donald Trump for his decision to impose a 50% tariff on imports from India. This tariff is reportedly linked to India’s purchase of Russian oil, and the committee argues that it is detrimental to American interests while also jeopardizing the U.S.-India relationship.
In a post shared on X, the committee stated that the tariff is “hurting Americans & sabotaging the US-India relationship in the process,” particularly highlighting the inconsistency of targeting India while larger buyers, such as China, remain unaffected.
The new tariffs took effect on August 27, following an announcement from U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This action is a direct result of President Trump’s Executive Order 14329, which aims to address perceived threats from Russia.
According to a media report referenced by the committee, the decision to impose tariffs exclusively on India raises questions about the administration’s policy direction. The committee remarked, “It’s almost like it’s not about Ukraine at all,” suggesting that the rationale behind the tariffs may not align with the stated goals of supporting Ukraine amid its conflict with Russia.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection clarified that the new duties were implemented to amend the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States in accordance with the executive order. These tariffs apply to all Indian products intended for consumption in the U.S. or those withdrawn from warehouses.
As the situation develops, the implications of these tariffs on U.S.-India relations and the broader geopolitical landscape remain to be seen. The committee’s concerns underscore a growing unease regarding the administration’s approach to international trade and foreign policy.
Source: Original article