Trump Crushes India’s Hopes, Announces Reciprocal Tariffs From April 2

India-West News Desk

WASHINGTON, DC – In a forceful speech before a joint session of Congress on March 4, President Donald Trump announced that the U.S. will impose reciprocal tariffs starting April 2, on India, citing unfair trade practices.

“Other countries have used tariffs against us for decades, and now it’s our turn to start using them,” Trump declared. “India charges us tariffs—100 percent. The system is not fair to the U.S., it never was,” he said. He also cited China and the EU.

The move comes as India’s trade surplus with the U.S. has more than doubled over the past decade to $35 billion, accounting for nearly 1% of India’s GDP for the fiscal year ending in 2024. Sectors like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and textiles—major contributors to this surplus—are expected to be hit hard by the new tariff measures.

Goyal’s U.S. Visit Yields No Breakthrough

Amid the looming tariff implementation, Indian Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal had made an urgent visit to the U.S. on March 3 to negotiate trade concessions. The visit, which was not accompanied by an official statement from India, followed the abrupt cancellation of previously scheduled meetings.

India was reportedly open to lowering tariffs on industrial goods such as automobiles and chemicals but resisted pressure to reduce duties on agricultural products, citing concerns about the impact on its farmers.

India’s Trade Vulnerabilities

With the U.S. being India’s largest trading partner, any tariff escalation poses significant risks. India’s merchandise trade with the U.S. has grown 8% year-over-year, surpassing $106 billion in the ten months through January. However, sectors such as chemicals, metals, jewelry, and food products remain vulnerable.

Analysts from Citi Research told Bloomberg that India could face annual losses of up to $7 billion due to the tariffs.

In an attempt to mitigate trade tensions, India has already reduced tariffs on select goods, but with Trump’s firm stance on “fair trade,” further concessions may be required to avoid economic fallout.