The legislation received unusually strong bipartisan backing amid deep political divisions in the United States. A total of 203 Republicans, 58 Democrats and one Independent voted in favour, while 152 Democrats and seven Republicans voted against it.
The Senate had already approved the bill by 86-11 votes on August 7. It was then set to be sent to President Donald Trump for his signature.
For India, the most significant provision of the bill is the authority it gives President Trump to impose tariffs of up to 100% on countries that buy Russian oil or gas.
The aggressive language used by Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal in support of the legislation has triggered the strongest debate in India. Speaking to the media outside Capitol Hill after the bill passed, Blumenthal said, “To China and India, you better clean up your act. Buy your oil and gas somewhere else. Appeasement is not a strategy.”
The remarks prompted a wider debate over the future direction of India-US relations. Varghese K George, local editor of The Hindu, wrote, “We keep hearing that once Trump’s term ends, India-US relations will return to the Bush-Obama era. Now listen to what a Democrat has to say.”
Responding to George’s comment, Tanvi Madan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, wrote, “I have actually heard very few people say that time can be turned back in India-US relations. Even in earlier periods, several Republican and Democratic lawmakers had problems with India over Russia and other issues.”
“The difference was that the previous administration managed these disagreements because two things were important in its strategy: viewing India through the lens of competition with China and concerns over oil prices. That is why a price-cap solution was brought in for Russian oil.”
Questioning the language used by the Democratic senator, Madan wrote, “The US Congress is underestimating the goals of India’s economic and strategic autonomy. If implemented, this could also benefit Russia. If oil prices rise further, Russia’s revenues could increase even if it sells less oil. That could strengthen Russia’s argument in India that the US is against it. Europe still buys Russian LNG and refined products made from Russian crude.”
Navdeep Singh Suri, who has served as India’s ambassador to the UAE and Australia, also criticised Blumenthal’s language. He wrote, “The US is needlessly damaging bilateral relations without any concrete benefit. From Canada to Europe and the Gulf, this has been a feature of Trump’s foreign policy of harming its own interests.”
International relations professor Happymon Jacob described Blumenthal’s remarks as a warning that could provoke an angry response. He wrote, “The natural response to Senator Richard Blumenthal’s tasteless warning to India is anger for now. But once the anger subsides, India will have to do three things as part of a broader strategy: identify the sources of its external dependencies, reduce them carefully and systematically, and create a mechanism capable of doing so. Anger is not foreign policy, and certainly not a comprehensive strategy.”
International relations analyst Zorawar Singh Dulat responded to Jacob’s comments by writing, “India’s policy response to American pressure should not be anger but a calm resolve to deepen relations with all countries that believe in sovereign trade and interdependence and that ultimately help meet the country’s basic needs. The anger is more on the part of those who are disappointed with America or have become so entrenched that they are unable to see the world as it actually is.”
India is one of the largest importers of Russian crude oil. After Western countries imposed sanctions on Russia, Russian oil increasingly shifted towards Asian buyers, increasing its importance for India. India has maintained that its priority is to ensure affordable and reliable energy for 140 crore people.
India’s response to the passage of the US bill has also become a subject of debate. It has been described as the first time India has spoken so explicitly to the Trump administration on the issue.
India said in its response, “We have very clearly put forward the potential impact on bilateral relations as well as on international energy markets.”
The statement indicated that India sees possible consequences for bilateral relations as well as the international energy market. Madan wrote, “For the first time in the past year, the Indian government has made such strong public statements about tariffs and sanctions and their impact on India-US relations and energy markets. The Indian statement also suggests that the passage of this bill was not a surprise to the Indian government and that it had been discussing the issue with the Trump administration for some time. The Indian government would also have expected the President to sign the bill.”
“What India will watch now is how the President uses it. For example, tariffs were imposed on India last year, but not on China. It is worth noting that India-US relations were more strained then than they are now and global oil prices were below $70 a barrel, while they are now above $100.”
Dulat also believes India has issued a strong response. He wrote, “This is so far India’s strongest statement. The US pressure campaign has reached its peak. But India has some strong options of its own. It genuinely has several routes open to secure what it needs for security and economic development.”
Prabhash Ranjan, a professor and vice dean at Jindal Law School, responded to Dulat’s comment, writing, “It would have been even better if India had also questioned the legality of such secondary tariffs under international law. I often do not understand why the terminology of international law is not used. It would only strengthen India’s position.”
China has referred to international law in its response. China has said that such a measure has no basis in international law or in authorisation from the United Nations Security Council.
The bill could have a significant economic impact on India. Any disruption in the supply of Russian crude could substantially increase India’s import bill, putting pressure on the rupee and the current account balance.
India’s Ministry of External Affairs said on Thursday that it would take all necessary steps to protect the country’s trade and economic interests.
The ministry warned that the bill could affect India-US bilateral relations as well as the international energy market.
Several prominent US analysts have also criticised the move. Evan Feigenbaum, a former US administration official, described it as “heavy-handed pressure” and “an open interference” in India’s foreign policy.
He said the measure was impractical given India’s economic requirements. According to Feigenbaum, it was also an attempt to shift the blame for Trump’s failure to pressure Russia into ending the Ukraine war onto India.
Feigenbaum said, “Strategically, if you care about US-India relations, this message is not going to work. In the past year and a half, the efforts of 25 years to strengthen US-India relations have been damaged. That includes efforts made during Trump’s first term.”
Critics have also pointed to what they describe as US double standards in the matter. The United States itself continues to import Russian goods, including nuclear fuel. Russia has historically supplied 20-25% of the uranium used by the United States. The congressional ban on Russian low-enriched uranium passed in 2024 includes exemptions related to national interest and supply shortages. The United States also continues to buy Russian palladium, fertilisers and chemicals.
Michael Kugelman, a senior fellow for South Asia at the Atlantic Council, believes the United States is treating India more harshly than China. Kugelman wrote, “I have said this before and will say it again: No non-Western leader has tried harder than Modi to persuade Putin to end the war.”
“He has not succeeded, but no other leader outside the West has tried harder. Amid more than a year of major shocks to US-India relations, the new Russia sanctions bill could be the biggest shock yet. There is also a risk that the US could impose tougher tariffs on India than on China. The US has done this before, even though China buys more oil from Russia than India. The US government knows that China’s influence on the global economy is enormous.”
Stanley Johny, international editor of The Hindu, views Trump’s approach from a very different perspective.
Writing on X, Johny said, “Only those whose strategic thinking is stuck in the 1990s still believe that a relationship subordinate to the US and operating at its direction is the only path for India’s rise. That era has passed because of three major changes.”
He wrote, “First, the world is no longer unipolar. Competition among major powers is increasing. The US itself is facing intense economic and security competition. In such circumstances, it is trying to strengthen its position through pressure. Its targets may include allies and partners as well as rivals.”
“Second, there appears to be a consensus in both major US parties that Washington should no longer continue helping India’s development in the same way it helped China’s development from the 1970s until recently. US officials today openly say they do not want another China to rise in Asia through American assistance and access to the American market.”
“Third, accepting India’s strategic autonomy is not easy in Washington. Look at the US relationship with its allies since the mid-1940s. Also look at its relationship with China during the final two decades of the Cold War. The US has preferred allies who accept its decisions rather than equal partners.”
According to Johny, these three factors indicate that what is happening in India-US relations today is not solely because of Trump.
He said India should be prepared to face American economic pressure for a long time to come, regardless of whether Trump or someone else occupies the White House.
About The Author
Comment List