Peter Navarro vs India: Why His “Blood Money” Rhetoric Falls Flat

Peter Navarro, former White House trade adviser and current Senior Counselor to President Donald Trump, has once again taken to social media—this time on a loose rhetorical sprint against India. An outspoken critic with a flair for melodrama, Navarro has accused India of funding Russia’s war through “blood money” oil purchases, claimed Indian tariffs are “killing American jobs,” and even labeled BRICS a “vampire alliance.” It’s the kind of political theatre that plays well to partisan galleries but collapses under the weight of facts. Strip away Navarro’s theatrics, and the picture is clear: India’s policies are guided by strategy and stability, not by the drama he imagines.

India’s Russian Oil Imports: Strategic, Legal, and Stabilizing

Navarro’s “blood money” tag belongs more in a movie trailer than in serious economic debate. Before the Ukraine war, Russia supplied less than 2% of India’s crude. By mid-2023, that share rose above 36%, peaking at 2.15 million barrels per day in May 2023 and averaging 1.78 million by July 2025.

This wasn’t profiteering; it was pragmatic statecraft. Western sanctions reshaped global supply, and India secured oil at discounts of 10–13%, saving $12.6 billion over 39 months. Those savings helped cool inflation, stabilized the rupee, and trimmed India’s import bill by billions.

And let’s be clear: these purchases are not illegal. In fact, Washington quietly encouraged them in 2022 to stop oil prices from spiraling out of control. So when Navarro cries “blood money,” one is tempted to ask: if India is guilty for buying discounted oil, does that make the US complicit for encouraging it?

Tariffs and Trade: The Myth of “American Job Losses”

Navarro’s lament about Indian tariffs “killing jobs” makes for a fiery campaign soundbite—though the numbers stubbornly refuse to play along with his script. In FY 2024–25, India exported $86.51 billion in goods to the US and imported $45.33 billion, giving India a $41.18 billion goods surplus. Yet when you include services, royalties, arms sales, and education, the scoreboard flips—the US actually enjoys a $35–40 billion surplus with India.

India’s tariffs, broadly aligned with global norms, protect MSMEs that account for nearly half its exports. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s decision to slap 50% tariffs on Indian goods has undercut Indian sectors like textiles, pharmaceuticals, and gems—industries vital to jobs and livelihoods. Ironically, Navarro’s “job protection” abroad may have been more effective at killing jobs in India than saving them in America.

And let’s not forget, the US shields its own agriculture with non-tariff barriers. Navarro’s narrative of unilateral American victimhood is less economics and more performance art.

BRICS and the “Vampire Alliance” Remark

Navarro’s “vampire alliance” quip may draw headlines, but it’s less geopolitical analysis and more late-night comedy material. India and China, despite border tensions, maintain structured dialogues through WMCC and Special Representatives’ talks. Hardly the stuff of Gothic thrillers.

At the 2025 BRICS Summit, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar emphasized resilient supply chains, fair trade, and multilateral reforms. For India, BRICS is an economic platform, not a spooky conspiracy against Washington.

As for Navarro’s claim that BRICS nations “cannot survive without selling to the US,” it overlooks rising intra-BRICS trade, currency settlement frameworks, and diversification strategies. If anything, BRICS is steadily reducing its dependency on the very market Navarro insists is indispensable. His quip makes for a catchy headline, but it wouldn’t pass peer review in a freshman economics class.

What Navarro Conveniently Misses

Navarro’s outrage is highly selective—like a spotlight that only works when aimed away from America’s own contradictions. Consider these facts:

• The US continues to import Russian uranium and fertilizers.
• China—not India—is Russia’s top oil customer, yet Washington hasn’t slapped Beijing with equivalent penalties.
• India’s refined petroleum exports—$97.47 billion in FY 2022–23—include shipments to Europe and the US, indirectly propping up Western energy security.
• Without India’s Russian imports, analysts estimate Brent crude could have soared past $200/barrel, unleashing inflation across the West.

So, while Navarro rages against India, he sidesteps the fact that its decisions have shielded global markets—including America’s—from chaos.

Facts Over Bravado

Peter Navarro has built a career on sharp elbows and sharper rhetoric. But on India, his claims collapse under scrutiny. India’s policies are guided by legality, affordability, and strategic autonomy—not partisan theatrics.

Far from destabilizing markets, India has cushioned global volatility, kept oil prices in check, and strengthened trade ties with both BRICS and the US. That is not “blood money” or opportunism; it is responsible statecraft.

Navarro’s rhetoric may rally partisan applause, but under scrutiny it looks less like economic critique and more like improv comedy without the laughs.