In a move that has stirred debate across global capitals, U.S. President Donald Trump has called on the European Union to impose tariffs of up to 100% on India and China, aiming to pressure Russia to end its war in Ukraine. The proposal, which Trump delivered during a high-level meeting with U.S. and EU officials in Washington on September 9, 2025, has met with skepticism from European leaders and prompted discussions about the future of transatlantic trade policy and global energy markets.
According to Reuters, Trump’s request was clear-cut: he urged the EU to levy severe tariffs on India and China, two of Russia’s most significant oil customers, as a means to cut off a key source of revenue for Moscow’s military operations. Trump stated, as quoted by an unnamed U.S. official in the Financial Times, “We’re ready to go, ready to go right now, but we’re only going to do this if our European partners step up with us.” The White House indicated that the U.S. was prepared to mirror any tariffs Europe might impose on these countries, signaling a willingness to escalate economic pressure in lockstep with its allies.
The backdrop to this dramatic call for action is the ongoing war in Ukraine, now grinding through its third year with no end in sight. Despite months of diplomatic efforts, Russia and Ukraine remain far apart on fundamental issues, including territorial concessions and post-conflict security guarantees. Trump, who has pledged to bring a swift end to the conflict as part of his election campaign, has grown increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress. The president’s new tariff proposal appears to be part of a broader strategy to hit Russia’s war economy where it hurts—its energy exports.
Yet, the European response has been measured, if not outright resistant. As CNBC reports, European officials have expressed wariness about alienating India and China, particularly given their own ongoing trade negotiations with New Delhi and Beijing. An EU diplomat confirmed to Reuters that “so far, there is no discussion on possible tariffs neither on India...nor with China.” The European Union has historically handled tariffs differently from sanctions, requiring lengthy investigations to establish legal grounds before any action is taken. To date, the bloc’s tariff responses to the Ukraine conflict have been limited to fertilizers and agricultural products from Russia and Belarus, justified on the basis of preventing strategic dependence and protecting EU-based industries.
Moreover, the EU is currently working to finalize a trade agreement with India, and officials are cautious about jeopardizing this delicate negotiation. By September 10, 2025, Trump’s tone toward India appeared to soften, as he expressed interest in rebuilding trade relationships with New Delhi. On social media, Trump stated, “I feel certain that there will be no difficulty in coming to a successful conclusion for both of our Great Countries!” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi responded in kind, saying he was confident the talks would “pave the way for unlocking the limitless potential of the India-US partnership” and looked forward to speaking with Trump soon.
Despite the diplomatic overtures, trade tensions remain high. In August 2025, Trump unilaterally raised the tariff rate on Indian imports to 50%, citing India’s continued purchases of Russian oil. India has pushed back, calling the U.S. tariffs “unfair, unjustified, and unreasonable,” while also highlighting the ongoing trade between the U.S., EU, and Russia. China, for its part, has not yet been specifically targeted by Trump’s latest round of tariffs, though the specter of further escalation looms as Washington and Beijing continue their own trade negotiations.
Analysts and commentators have been quick to weigh in on the feasibility and wisdom of Trump’s approach. Ian Bremmer, founder of Eurasia Group, told CNBC that the White House’s demand “looks more like an attempt to shift responsibility for a stronger response to Europe, creating political cover for American inaction on the sanctions front while avoiding a direct hit to U.S.-China relations.” Bill Blain, a London-based market strategist, echoed this sentiment, arguing that “no one in Europe believes tariffs are an effective trade policy tool ... Europe would prefer diplomacy to address issues, rather than outright trade war.”
The EU’s own economic ties to Russia further complicate matters. According to European Commission data cited by CNBC, the bloc’s bilateral trade with Russia was valued at 67.5 billion euros ($78.1 billion) in 2024, with imports—dominated by fuel and mining products—accounting for over half that figure. While the EU has made strides in reducing its dependence on Russian energy, Russia’s share of EU pipeline gas imports only fell from over 40% in 2021 to about 11.6% in 2024. The U.S. has encouraged its European allies to switch to American liquefied natural gas (LNG), and as Trump noted, the EU pledged to purchase U.S. LNG, oil, and nuclear energy products valued at $750 billion over the next three years as part of a broader trade deal framework.
U.S. Secretary of Interior Doug Burgum provided further context, telling CNBC on September 10, 2025, that exporting LNG to Europe would help “displace Russian gas, drive their market share to zero in Europe and drive U.S. market share up. That’s great for America, great for our allies, and we stop funding Russia’s side of the war.” The EU’s 19th sanctions package, expected to be proposed on September 12, 2025, is said to include banks from two Central Asian nations and Chinese refineries, reflecting a more targeted approach to sanctions enforcement.
For now, the EU seems unlikely to adopt Trump’s proposed tariffs, preferring to use sanctions and targeted measures rather than broad trade penalties that could disrupt global markets and diplomatic relations. The European Commission, in a statement to CNBC, emphasized that the EU “has engaged with all relevant global partners, including India and China, in the context of its sanctions enforcement efforts. This engagement will continue.”
As the Ukraine war drags on and the geopolitical chessboard grows ever more complex, the debate over tariffs, sanctions, and energy policy underscores the challenges facing Western leaders. Trump’s call for transatlantic unity on economic pressure may have rattled some cages, but for now, the EU is charting its own course—one that balances pressure on Russia with the realities of global trade and diplomacy.
