By Rahi Bhide

India’s steadfast stance on continuing crude oil imports from Russia has once again placed it at odds with the United States. In response, former U.S. President Donald Trump announced a punitive 25% tariff on Indian exports. While the tariff implementation has been deferred until the 7th of the month, the decision is a stark reminder of Trump’s unpredictable foreign policy and its implications for global trade dynamics.

Ironically, this move comes despite Trump's previous declarations of camaraderie with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Even as he claims to value India as a key partner, Trump has extended a supportive hand to Pakistan, a nation widely regarded as a breeding ground for terrorism. By doing so, he has demonstrated what can best be described as “friendship with one, affection with another.”

Since assuming office, Trump has been an active player on the global trade stage under the banner of his “America First”doctrine. While intended to prioritize American interests, the policy has often backfired—hurting the U.S. economy and straining long-standing alliances. His decisions, often driven by a mixture of economic anxiety and geopolitical fear particularly regarding Russia, China, and India have led to trade wars and erratic diplomacy.

India, frequently labelled by Trump as the world’s most protectionist economy, has borne the brunt of these measures. Whether it was the purchase of S-400 missile systems from Russia or ongoing oil imports, Washington has responded with threats of sanctions and tariffs. Despite this, India has shown restraint and resolve, maintaining its strategic autonomy in foreign policy.

Yet contradictions in U.S. policy abound. While India faces penalties for dealing with Russia, Pakistan is rewardedwith energy cooperation agreements. Such duality undermines the credibility of America’s commitment to democratic partners and raises serious concerns about the motivations behind its foreign engagements.

The economic fallout for India could be significant. A 25% tariff would:

• Severely impact key export sectors such as automobiles, pharmaceuticals, electronics, textiles, and gems and jewellery.

• Make Indian goods more expensive and less competitive in the U.S. market.

• Cause strain on the Indian rupee, reduce export revenues, and lower GDP growth by an estimated 0.19% to 0.9%.

• Result in higher prices for American consumers by as much as 1.5% thus affecting U.S. inflation and spending patterns.

The tariff threat has already spooked the markets, reflecting the broader uncertainty surrounding Indo-U.S. trade ties. The response from Indian exporters and policymakers must now be strategic rather than reactive. Much like China, India will need to diversify its export base and reduce dependence on volatile partners. The Free Trade Agreement with the United Kingdom is a step in the right direction.

Furthermore, the justification given for penalizing India its energy trade with Russia may not be the full story. Some analysts believe the real concern lies in the growing influence of BRICS nations and their ambition to challenge the dominance of the U.S. dollar by creating an alternative global currency. Trump's tariffs, therefore, may be as much about safeguarding financial hegemony as they are about energy ethics.

Even within the United States, industrial groups and economists have voiced their apprehension. Far from boosting domestic industries, they argue, Trump’s tariff policies could damage American competitiveness and alienate key allies. But Trump’s style of leadership autocratic and resistant to counsel leaves little room for diplomacy.

The larger question remains: Can a country that punishes a long-time partner while cozying up to a known adversary be considered a reliable ally? Trump’s overtures to Pakistan, juxtaposed against his punitive measures toward India, signal a potential realignment of U.S. strategic interests. His decision to aid Pakistan in energy exploration, even as India faces tariffs for similar pursuits with Russia, reflects a troubling inconsistency.

In sum, what we are witnessing is not merely a disagreement over tariffs or oil imports it is a test of diplomatic trust. India must recalibrate its global strategy in the wake of this unpredictability. As the global power balance shifts, the need for resilient, multipolar alliances becomes ever more critical.

Trump’s diplomacy, characterized by unpredictability and double standards, might soon be remembered not for forging new alliances, but for fraying the old.

000

Washington / New Delhi: US President Donald Trump has announced a 25% tariff on all goods imported from India, effective August 7. However, there is still no clarity regarding the imposition of an additional penalty, as there is no mention of such a fine in the official executive order issued by the Trump administration, according to sources.

The penalty, believed to be linked to India’s continued imports of crude oil and military equipment from Russia, has not been clearly detailed. Trump had earlier indicated that an additional fine would be imposed, but the official order only mentions the tariff hike and omits any reference to penalties.

Sources familiar with the matter said, “There is confusion over this issue because the executive order makes no mention of any penalty.” The tariff and the potential penalty are widely seen as pressure tactics aimed at compelling India to align with US demands on global geopolitical matters, particularly in relation to Russia.

Recently, the US has signed favorable trade deals with major partners like Japan, the UK, and the European Union. India, however, has become the first country to be penalized for continuing imports from Russia. Previously, Trump had imposed steep tariffs on China as well, but never levied a penalty, even though China remains the largest importer of Russian oil.

Before the Russia-Ukraine war, India’s crude oil imports from Russia accounted for just 0.2% of its total oil imports. That figure has now surged to 35–40%, making India the second-largest buyer of Russian oil after China.

Trump has repeatedly criticized India for its longstanding defense and energy trade with Russia. While the global community has urged Russia to end its invasion of Ukraine, India has significantly increased its imports of discounted Russian oil since the conflict began in February 2022. This shift in trade is reportedly a major concern for Washington.

000

Washington, D.C

The Trump administration has declassified and released thousands of newly digitized documents related to the 1968 assassination of civil rights icon Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., fulfilling a directive issued by President Donald Trump at the start of his second term.

The release, made public on Monday by the National Archives, is part of a broader executive order that also calls for the declassification of files connected to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and Senator Robert F. Kennedy — all long-standing subjects of public interest and conspiracy theories.

According to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), over 230,000 files pertaining to King’s assassination are now available. The documents include FBI investigation notes, internal memos, potential leads, and information about James Earl Ray, the man convicted of killing King. Notably, some files detail conversations with Ray’s former cellmate, who claimed Ray had spoken of an assassination plot.

In response, King’s children — Martin Luther King III and Bernice A. King — issued a joint statement urging the public to examine the files in their full historical context. They emphasized that their father had been "relentlessly targeted by an invasive, predatory, and deeply disturbing disinformation and surveillance campaign orchestrated by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover."

"While we support transparency and historical accountability, we strongly object to any misuse of these records that could distort our father’s legacy or promote false narratives," the family stated.

The King family has long questioned James Earl Ray’s conviction, maintaining that he was framed. "As we examine these newly released files, we will determine whether they offer insights beyond what we have already come to understand," the family said.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, announcing the release, said, "The American people deserve answers decades after the horrific assassination of one of our nation’s greatest leaders."

The decision to release the King files comes amid mounting pressure on the White House from President Trump’s supporters to declassify additional documents — including those related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Earlier in March, the administration had also released thousands of previously classified files on the JFK assassination.

000

Italian premier Giorgia Meloni will test her mettle as a bridge between the EU and the United States when she meets with US president Donald Trump in the White House on Thursday, 17 April, the first European leader to have a face-to-face with Trump since he announced — and then suspended — 20 per cent tariffs on European exports.

Meloni secured the meeting at a critical juncture in the trade war as Italy's leader, but she also has, in a sense, been “knighted” to represent the European Union.

She has been in close contact with EU Commission president Ursula von der Leyen ahead of the trip and “the outreach is … closely coordinated”, a commission spokeswoman said this week.

“We know we are in a difficult moment,” Meloni said this week in Rome. “Most certainly, I am well aware of what I represent, and what I am defending.”

The European Union is defending what it calls “the most important commercial relationship in the world”, with annual trade reaching 1.6 trillion euros (USD 1.8 trillion).

Trade negotiations fall under the European Commission's authority, which is pushing for a zero-for-zero tariff deal with the US.

However, Trump administration officials in talks with the EU have yet to publicly show signs of relenting on Trump’s insistence that a baseline 10 per cent tariff be charged on all foreign imports. a retaliatory increase to 20 per cent.

The pause has raised some hopes for negotiations and Meloni's margins for progress are more in gaining clarity on Trump's goals rather than outright concessions, experts say.

“It is a very delicate mission,” said Fabian Zuleeg, chief economist at the European Policy Center think tank in Brussels. “There is the whole trade agenda and, while she’s not officially negotiating, we know that Trump likes to have this kind of informal exchange, which in a sense is a negotiation. So it’s a lot on her plate.”

As the leader of a far-right party, Meloni is ideologically aligned with Trump on issues including curbing migration, promoting traditional values and skepticism toward multilateral institutions. But stark differences have emerged in .

After being the only European leader to attend the 20 January inauguration, Meloni has responded with studied restraint as abrupt shifts in US policy under Trump have frayed the trans-Atlantic alliance.

She has denounced the tariffs as “wrong” and warned that “dividing the West would be disastrous for everyone”, after Trump's heated White House exchange with Ukraine's president.

“She has been very cautious,” said Wolfango Piccoli, an analyst at the London-based Teneo consultancy. “It is what we need when we have a counterpart that is changing every day.”

Italy maintains a 40 billion euro trade surplus with the United States, its largest with any country, fuelled by Americans' appetite for Italian sparkling wine, foodstuffs like Parmigiano Reggiano hard cheese and Parma ham, and Italian luxury fashion.

These are all sectors critical to the Italian economy and mostly supported by small- and medium-sized producers, who are core centre-right voters.

“All in all, I think she will focus on the very strong economic and trade relations that Italy has with the United States, not just in terms of exports, but also services and energy,” said Antonio Villafranca, vice president of the ISPI think tank in Milan.

“For example, Italy could even consider importing more gas from the US.”

The meeting comes against the backdrop of growing concerns over global uncertainty generated by the escalating tariff wars.

Italy's growth forecast for this year has already been slashed from 1 per cent to 0.5 per cent as a result.

Meloni is also expected to address Trump's demand for NATO partners to increase military spending to 2 per cent of gross domestic product. Italy's spending, at 1.49 per cent of GDP, is among the lowest in Europe.

Experts cautioned, however, against raising expectations over any concrete progress.

“The best strategy has been to be very circumspect: Get there, get the meeting, get the photo opportunity,” Piccoli said. “If she is able to come back, and give a sense of how Washington wants to frame future relations on trade, defence and Ukraine policy, that would be a huge win."

What Donald Trump is doing to the universities in the United States is not very different from what is being done in India.

Unlike American universities, most Indian universities do not have endowments to sustain them and depend entirely on government grants. Yet, there are in India rules to abide by and red lines not to be crossed on matters of academics, admissions and the appointment of vice-chancellors and faculty — all of which are being breached by the government here.

The following editorial, published in The Harvard Crimson points to collective action and the kind of resistance that universities across the world can put up to authoritarian rulers:

‘In an email to affiliates, the university announced it will not give in to the Trump administration’s expanded demands. Mere hours later, in a blatant act of retaliation, . Harvard’s decision to stand in defence of the academic project against the Trump administration’s attacks is noble. As the White House attempts to decimate American higher education, we hope other universities will join ours in fortifying it.”

"The federal government is picking off democratic institutions at all levels of American life one by one. Harvard’s brave choice to stand by the academic project should be a blueprint for the rest of civil society to follow."

— Fareed Zakaria (@FareedZakaria)

The editorial continues, to say that when the Trump government’s initial letter arrived on Harvard’s doorstep a week ago, it was immediately clear that the demands — from calls to entirely to implementing “merit based admissions” — had nothing to do with genuinely fighting anti-Semitism and everything to do with stripping away Harvard’s autonomy.

The new Trump letter, debuted in university president Alan M. Garber’s email to the community, somehow went even further.

On top of the original demands, the Trump administration brands whole academic units as potential bastions of anti-Semitism in need of supervision, including the entirety of Harvard Medical School, Harvard Divinity School, the Harvard School of Public Health, and many others.

The letter goes on to demand “viewpoint diversity” at Harvard in admissions and faculty hiring, down to every “teaching unit” — an odd paradox given the anti-DEI drive of the Trump administration.

Notwithstanding the infeasibility of gauging political opinions in a college application, is a roomful of math professors expected to be half liberal and half conservative? Are environmental research institutes expected to host climate change deniers?

Such questions only scratch the surface of Trump’s list, which also included an apparent political litmus test for international applicants and comprehensive federal oversight of the University through at least 2028.

As university president Alan M. Garber made clear in his message to affiliates, ceding to these demands would do more than please the POTUS.

“It would strip fundamental autonomy away from our country’s most storied institution and irrevocably alter the landscape of higher education,” he said.

“No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” - President Alan Garber

— Harvard University (@Harvard)

Undeniably, the impending funding cuts will bring serious, short-term pain for Harvard students, faculty and staff, not to mention hampering the advancement of human knowledge, he said.

But to acquiescence to Trump’s demands would have had even graver, lasting consequences — not just for Harvard, but for higher education and American society as a whole.

“The federal government is picking off democratic institutions at all levels of American life one by one. Harvard’s brave choice to stand by the academic project should be a blueprint for the rest of civil society to follow,” continues the Harvard Crimson editorial.

“Time and time again, we have called for Harvard to find its voice and lead America’s universities...

“Now, the institution has answered the call.

“The student reaction was overwhelming and immediate.

“At a school often derided for a lack of spirit, Harvard today experienced a moment of intense unity.

“In the face of Trump’s assault on higher education, silence has spoken volumes — we’ve seen elite institutions buckling under the pressure of the federal government’s barrage of funding cuts and threats to academic freedom.

“All the while, calls to action have been plenty: students, faculty, legislators, governors, and even past University presidents have demanded that Harvard stand up to Trump. These stakeholders, too, understood the necessity of such resistance for the sake of both academic freedom at Harvard and our democracy at large.

“As one of the most distinguished universities in the world — and the oldest in the United States — Harvard has a unique capacity and responsibility to lead the fight against Republicans attempting to infringe upon our independence.

“But Harvard cannot stand alone.

“The University’s decision to hold the banner must galvanise peer institutions to resist Trump’s attacks — a form of collective action we have called for before.”

The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.

— Harvard University (@Harvard)

Meanwhile, hanging over Harvard’s collective head is the Damocles’ sword brandished by homeland security (DHS). It has threatened to revoke Harvard University’s ability to enrol foreign students if it failed to provide by 30 April records on its ’ “illegal and violent” activities.

It has also cancelled another USD 2.7 million worth of grants, and has proposed the revocation of the university’s ‘tax exempt’ status over its “radical ideology”.

‘DHS secretary Kristi Noem announced the cancellation of two DHS grants totalling over USD 2.7 million to Harvard University, declaring it unfit to be entrusted with taxpayer dollars,’ the DHS said in a statement on Wednesday, 16 April.

With PTI inputs