India Didn’t ‘Make A Killing’: Why Trump’s Trade Adviser’s Russian Oil Claims Fall Flat

Last Updated:August 30, 2025, 15:40 IST

As Peter Navarro accuses India of fuelling Putin’s war for profit, the facts point to a very different reality, one of public sector sacrifice and price cap compliance

Peter Navarro, a senior adviser to US President Donald Trump, launched a fresh attack on India this week. (News18)

Peter Navarro, a senior adviser to US President Donald Trump and one of the architects of his protectionist trade agenda, launched a fresh attack on India this week. In a fiery thread on X, he accused Indian refiners of laundering Russian oil, profiting from discounted crude, and indirectly fuelling the war in Ukraine. Navarro claimed Indian companies, with “silent Russian partners", refined and re-exported oil to global markets while shielding themselves under the “pretense of neutrality".

“We run a $50-billion trade deficit with India – and they’re using our dollars to buy Russian oil. They make a killing and Ukrainians die," he said, alleging that India had become a “massive oil money laundromat for the Kremlin".

Navarro tied these accusations directly to the 50 per cent tariff now imposed on Indian exports by the Trump administration, saying the move was aimed at cutting off what he called a “financial lifeline" New Delhi had extended to Vladimir Putin’s war machine.

But while the rhetoric has escalated, the numbers tell a very different story, one where India’s public sector units (PSUs), far from profiteering, took a significant financial hit to protect its own people during a global crisis.

What The Data Shows: Rs 21,000 Crore Loss, Not Profit

In the immediate aftermath of the Ukraine war, international oil prices surged, peaking at $137 per barrel in March 2022. Yet, the Indian government chose not to pass the burden to consumers, keeping petrol and diesel prices frozen.

This decision came at a cost. India’s three major oil PSUs—Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Bharat Petroleum (BPCL), and Hindustan Petroleum (HPCL)—sold diesel at a net cash loss of up to Rs 10 per litre. Between April 2022 and January 2023, they collectively incurred a cumulative loss of Rs 21,000 crore, or nearly $2.5 billion. These losses were absorbed by the companies without compensation at the time.

Instead of reaping profits from discounted Russian crude, India’s state-run refineries acted as a buffer between global energy volatility and the average Indian citizen.

Why Didn’t India Raise Fuel Prices Like Other Nations?

With 1.4 billion people and a vast population dependent on affordable fuel for transport, agriculture, and essential goods, India made a policy choice to cushion citizens from global inflation. The Centre slashed excise duties by Rs 10 per litre in May 2022, and several state governments followed with VAT cuts. Together, this helped contain fuel inflation, even as other economies struggled with spiking energy bills.

Meanwhile, oil PSUs bore the brunt. The government also took additional steps to prevent private refiners from exporting excessively during high-margin periods. Export duties were imposed, and companies were mandated to sell a portion of their exports back in the domestic market—50 per cent for petrol and 30 per cent for diesel. These steps ensured that not a single retail outlet in India ran dry during the global supply crisis.

Was India’s Oil Trade With Russia Illegal Or Secretive?

Navarro’s implication that India bypassed sanctions is misleading. Russian oil was not banned by the US, EU, or G7. Instead, a price-cap mechanism was designed to prevent excess profits while allowing oil to keep flowing.

India’s purchases were in line with this framework. Transactions were settled in non-dollar currencies, such as the UAE dirham, often through traders in third countries. At no point did the US officially ask India to halt these purchases, until trade talks with the Trump administration collapsed.

In fact, key Western officials acknowledged India’s stabilising role. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen publicly stated the US was comfortable with India’s oil purchases. Ambassador Eric Garcetti credited India with preventing price shocks. Geoffrey Pyatt, the US energy envoy, called India a key market stabiliser.

Did Indian Refineries Really Flip Oil For Profit?

India has long been one of the world’s top refining hubs. Its 23 refineries cater to domestic and export markets. One of Reliance’s two major refineries, located in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), was built specifically for exports in 2006, well before the Ukraine war.

India exported 99.2 million metric tonnes (MMT) of refined products in FY 2021-22. That figure remained largely stable over the next three years—at 98.8 MMT in FY 2022-23 and 107 MMT in FY 2023-24. For FY 2024-25, the volume actually dropped to 88.25 MMT.

Meanwhile, domestic demand increased, and about 70 per cent of refined products were consumed within India. Exports to the EU did rise marginally, from 12.6 MMT in FY22 to 21.1 MMT in FY25, but that shift was driven by changing market routes, not a profiteering strategy. The EU itself relied on Indian diesel and jet fuel after banning direct Russian imports.

So Why Is India Being Singled Out?

Navarro’s renewed tirade against India comes at a moment of heightened friction in the US–India relationship. The imposition of a 50 per cent tariff on Indian exports, growing scrutiny of H-1B visa allocations, and stalled defence technology transfers have all added strain to bilateral ties. But to target India as the chief enabler of Putin’s war effort, while overlooking far bigger players like China, has drawn criticism even within the United States.

Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee said the Trump administration’s approach “does not match the scale of the problem." In a statement, they pointed out that instead of imposing sanctions on countries purchasing larger volumes of Russian oil, “Trump’s singling out India with tariffs, hurting Americans and sabotaging the US–India relationship in the process."

Even conservative foreign policy experts have expressed disbelief. Jeff M. Smith, director of the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation and generally aligned with Trump’s worldview, called the move “dumb." Responding to the tariff decision, he said, “Yeah, I’m also perplexed. I can’t see the strategic rationale for sanctioning India but not China. Dumb."

The criticism underscores a growing concern in Washington that the punitive approach could damage a strategic partnership built over decades.

Conclusion: Sacrifice, Not Profiteering

Peter Navarro accused India of making a killing. The data shows the opposite.

Public oil companies in India took a Rs 21,000 crore hit to insulate citizens from a global crisis. They sold diesel at a Rs 10/litre loss. The government slashed taxes. Refiners were bound by domestic obligations. And the so-called “windfall" margins quickly disappeared as global markets rebalanced.

India didn’t just act in self-interest; it helped prevent global crude prices from spiralling past $200 per barrel, a scenario that would have hurt economies worldwide, including the US.

Framing this as profiteering is not just inaccurate, it’s dangerously misleading.

Karishma Jain

Karishma Jain, Chief Sub Editor at News18.com, writes and edits opinion pieces on a variety of subjects, including Indian politics and policy, culture and the arts, technology and social change. Follow her @kar...Read More

Karishma Jain, Chief Sub Editor at News18.com, writes and edits opinion pieces on a variety of subjects, including Indian politics and policy, culture and the arts, technology and social change. Follow her @kar...

Read More

Location :

First Published:

August 30, 2025, 15:40 IST

News explainers India Didn’t ‘Make A Killing’: Why Trump’s Trade Adviser’s Russian Oil Claims Fall Flat

Read More