Did trump approve 500% tarrifs on india due to russian oil buying?
Executive summary
Donald Trump has not directly "approved" a 500% tariff on India; the United States under his presidency did impose a combined 50% tariff on many Indian imports tied in part to New Delhi’s purchases of Russian crude (25% + an extra 25%) and Trump and some senators have promoted legislation that would authorize tariffs “up to 500%” on countries buying Russian energy, but that far larger rate is a legislative proposal and not an enacted, targeted tariff on India [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. What was actually imposed: the 50% tariffs
In August 2025 the Trump administration imposed an initial 25% tariff on Indian goods and then added another 25% by executive action, bringing the total punitive tariff level applied to many Indian exports to roughly 50%, and U.S. officials explicitly linked half of that burden to India’s continued purchases of discounted Russian crude [2] [1] [5].
2. Where the “500%” figure comes from: a legislative proposal, not a final order
Reporting shows Republican senators—most notably Lindsey Graham—pushed a bipartisan bill (variously called a Russia sanctions or “Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025” in the press) that would give the U.S. administration authority to impose very steep secondary tariffs, with public statements using the phrase “up to 500%,” and Trump has been reported to have “greenlit” or backed this legislative effort, but that is distinct from the White House issuing a 500% tariff on India itself [3] [6] [4].
3. Trump’s public threats and administration messaging
President Trump publicly warned that the United States could raise tariffs further if India did not curb purchases of Russian oil, repeatedly tying tariff policy to oil imports in interviews and remarks from Air Force One; Reuters and other outlets record those warnings and the administration’s view that petroleum revenues support Russia’s war effort [7] [5] [8]. Those warnings fueled headlines about dramatically larger levies, but the concrete action taken in 2025 was the doubling to 50%, not an immediate jump to 500% [1] [9].
4. Why the narrative of a “500% tariff approved” spread
Multiple outlets and regional papers summarized the legislative proposal and Trump’s vocal support in shorthand that can be read as an approval of a 500% punitive tariff, and some outlets explicitly framed Trump as having “backed” the bill that would allow such rates—language that blurs the line between legislative authority and an enacted presidential tariff decision [3] [6] [4]. Senate advocacy, Trump’s public comments, and media shorthand combined to create the popular impression that a 500% tariff had been implemented when in fact it remained a potential tool pending congressional action or executive exercise of new authority [10] [4].
5. Alternative views and limits of available reporting
Indian officials have pushed back, calling U.S. demands to stop buying Russian crude “unjustified and unreasonable,” and New Delhi has repeatedly emphasized national energy needs and market considerations as drivers of purchases—context that complicates any simple cause-and-effect narrative that tariffs alone forced policy change [2] [9]. Reporting shows Trump and allies arguing tariffs influenced India’s import decisions, but available sources do not provide a definitive causal chain proving a tariff-driven 100%+ drop or that a 500% tariff was ever signed into law [11] [8].
6. Bottom line: what can be stated with confidence
The factual record in the cited reporting supports two firm points and one clear limitation: first, the Trump administration imposed a combined 50% tariff on many Indian imports and tied part of that to India’s purchases of Russian oil [2] [1]; second, there is a high-profile legislative proposal and political rhetoric about levies “up to 500%” that Trump and senators have promoted [3] [4]; third, there is no reliable reporting in these sources that a 500% tariff on India was actually approved and implemented—rather, that number describes possible legislative authority, not an executed tariff order [3] [6].