Trump Is Penalizing 1.4 Billion People for the Actions of 2 Companies

In recent days, senior members of the Trump administration have made a strange accusation against India. Writing in the Financial Times on Aug. 18, Peter Navarro, the White House counselor for trade and manufacturing, claimed that India’s “Big Oil Lobby” was profiteering on discounted Russian crude, selling it to Europe, and “shielding India from sanctions scrutiny.” U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent echoed that view in an interview with CNBC on Aug. 19, saying that “India is just profiteering … which is unacceptable.”

Yes, refined Russian crude is reaching Europe. It comes through multiple routes, including Turkey and India. But Europe’s imports from India come mainly from just two private companies, not public sector ones. These are business decisions, not acts of state. Calling them the conduct of India confuses private commerce with national policy.

Even if the profits of these firms anger Western capitals, the response matters. An additional 25 percent tariff on Indian goods, which is set to go into effect on Aug. 27, would be a blunt hammer. It would punish thousands of unrelated Indian exporters with no link to Russian oil, damage goodwill in a partner country, and make cooperation harder when it is most needed.

Consistency matters, too. Western buyers themselves have been purchasing fuel from these refiners—should they not be penalized? The answer lies in stronger oversight, not scapegoating. Proof of origin rules should be tightened. Attestations and audits should be stricter. Standards should apply equally to buyers and sellers. If Washington objects to Russian fuels refined in India, it must also explain why U.S. companies are among the leading buyers. The United States cannot simultaneously claim to have built the rules-based international system while criticizing particular countries for playing by those very rules.

Europe has already chosen a calibrated path. In its 18th sanctions package, adopted in July, the European Union set a transition period until January 2026 and required evidence of crude origin for refined imports. The aim is to close loopholes without causing a diesel shock for European consumers. That is risk management, not indulgence. U.S. policy should follow the same approach. Strengthen import checks. Enforce the price cap more firmly. Track vessels more closely. Target violators where needed. But do not punish a country for the commercial choices of two companies. And do not block exports that serve a developing economy trying to navigate a volatile global market.

Conflating corporate trade with national policy is bad analysis and worse strategy. If the goal is to cut Kremlin revenue, the right tools are focused verification and strict enforcement. Precision will strengthen the U.S.-India partnership, while scapegoating will only undermine it.