Peter Navarro’s Anti-India Remarks Fact-Checked by X Amid Tariff Row

US President Donald Trump’s senior trade adviser, Peter Navarro, has once again taken aim at India over its trade and foreign policy, particularly its energy ties with Russia. But this time, his claims backfired, as social media platform X fact-checked his post and labeled it “hypocritical.”

In a sharp post, Navarro accused India of “profiteering” from discounted Russian crude imports, alleging that the revenues were “feeding Russia’s war machine” in Ukraine. “FACTS: India highest tariffs costs US 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,” he wrote.

However, X’s fact-checking community quickly flagged his remarks. The correction noted that India’s oil imports were undertaken for “energy security” and “do not violate sanctions.” It also pointed out that while India maintains certain tariffs, the US enjoys a trade surplus with India in services, and Washington itself continues to import commodities such as uranium from Russia. “Navarro’s claims are hypocritical,” one note added. “India’s legal, sovereign purchases of Russian oil for energy security do not violate international law.”

X further highlighted the “double standard” in the US position, pointing out that while Washington pressures New Delhi, it continues to conduct multi-billion-dollar trade with Moscow.

The fact-check infuriated Navarro, who lashed out at Elon Musk, calling the note “propaganda.” “Wow. @elonmusk is letting propaganda into people’s posts. That crap note below is just that. Crap,” he wrote, again accusing India of profiteering and blaming New Delhi for prolonging the Ukraine conflict.

Tariff War Escalates

Navarro’s fresh remarks come amid a tariff war that has soured bilateral ties. Recently, Trump imposed secondary tariffs on Indian exports, pushing duties above 50 percent—among the steepest levies announced by his administration, matched only against Brazil.

Navarro has since branded the Russia-Ukraine conflict as “Modi’s war,” alleging that New Delhi’s oil purchases were bankrolling Moscow’s aggression. He has also described India as the “Maharaj of tariffs” and, in controversial remarks, called the country a “laundromat for the Kremlin.” In a casteist comment, Navarro alleged, “You got Brahmins profiteering at the expense of the Indian people,” claiming Indian refiners were re-exporting processed Russian oil at a premium.

Strains and Symbolism

The friction has been compounded by optics on the global stage. At the recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) Summit in Tianjin, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was seen sharing warm gestures with Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin, signaling solidarity among leaders currently at odds with Washington. Images of the three leaders smiling, shaking hands, and embracing drew sharp reactions in US political circles.

Trump himself, in a moment of frustration, claimed that America had “lost India to China,” though he later softened his stance. “I don’t think we have (lost India). I’ve been very disappointed that India would be buying so much oil from Russia. I let them know that. We put a very big tariff on India—50 percent, a very high tariff. I get along very well with PM Modi, as you know,” he told reporters.

A Balancing Act

Despite the friction, both sides have attempted to downplay talk of a rupture. Trump emphasized that India-US ties remain a “very special relationship” and underlined his personal rapport with Modi. “He was here a couple of months ago. We went to the Rose Garden and had a press conference,” Trump recalled, stressing that the friendship endures despite policy differences.

Prime Minister Modi echoed the sentiment, noting that India values its strategic partnership with Washington. “Deeply appreciate and fully reciprocate President Trump’s sentiments and positive assessment of our ties. India and the US have a very positive and forward-looking Comprehensive and Global Strategic Partnership,” he said in response.

For now, the relationship appears to be balancing on two edges—strained by tariffs and energy politics, yet held together by strategic imperatives and personal diplomacy between the two leaders.

Also Read: Has Washington Really ‘Lost’ India to China, or Is This Just Another Trump Turnaround?