White House adviser slams Brahmins profiteering from Indians

White House adviser slams Brahmins profiteering from Indians

His comments came shortly after Prime Minister Narendra Modi held a bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Sunday, August 31, during the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) leaders’ summit. Observers noted that the timing of Navarro’s remarks added another layer of sensitivity, as both countries are seeking ways to manage competition while avoiding escalation.

Peter Navarro Targets India: Brahmins, Trade Tariffs, and “Laundromat for the Kremlin” Allegations

In a fiery interview with Fox News on Monday, September 1, 2025, White House Trade Adviser Peter Navarro sparked controversy by singling out India for what he described as “profiteering practices” and “enabling geopolitical imbalances.” His words, sharp and unapologetic, have already rippled across diplomatic, political, and social spaces in both Washington and New Delhi.

Navarro, speaking about the Biden administration’s decision to impose a 50% tariff on imports from India, did not mince his words. He claimed that certain sections of Indian society, specifically “Brahmins,” were profiting disproportionately at the expense of ordinary citizens, suggesting that such practices were harmful not only domestically but also to global trade norms. “This profiteering needs to stop,” Navarro declared firmly, tying the argument back to Washington’s long-standing complaints about India’s complex economic structures and its resistance to U.S. trade demands.

But he didn’t stop there. In a remark that instantly grabbed headlines, Navarro referred to India as “nothing but a laundromat for the Kremlin,” accusing New Delhi of indirectly helping Russia sustain itself amid U.S.-led sanctions. He claimed that India’s purchases of discounted Russian oil and subsequent re-exports, along with its broader trade engagement, have undermined Western efforts to isolate Moscow. “This is not just about tariffs or jobs,” he added. “It’s about global security and who you choose to stand with.”

A Harsh Tone Against an Old Partner

The rhetoric marked one of the sharpest rebukes from a senior White House official toward India in recent years. While Washington and New Delhi have deepened ties in defense, technology, and education, trade has remained a prickly subject. Successive U.S. administrations have accused India of maintaining high tariff barriers, protecting its domestic industries, and failing to open its markets fairly.

Navarro’s choice of words, however, raised eyebrows not only for their directness but also for invoking caste dynamics in India — a sensitive issue that touches the core of its social and political identity. Critics in both countries described the remarks as “reckless,” arguing that the U.S. should focus on policy specifics rather than cultural stereotypes.

The Timing and the China Factor

The timing of Navarro’s remarks is particularly striking. They came just a day after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit. That meeting, though largely ceremonial, signaled New Delhi’s attempt to keep dialogue open with Beijing despite their strained relations.

Observers noted that Navarro’s words could be seen as Washington’s reminder that India’s balancing act — maintaining ties with both China and Russia while partnering with the U.S. — may no longer be acceptable. “When the U.S. sees India sitting at the same table with Xi Jinping, buying oil from Russia, and at the same time expecting defense partnerships with America, it creates frustration,” said an analyst at a Washington think tank. “Navarro is voicing that frustration bluntly.”

India’s Likely Response

In New Delhi, officials are expected to respond cautiously. India has often defended its energy purchases from Russia as driven by economic necessity rather than political alignment, pointing out that Western sanctions should not be imposed on developing nations already struggling with inflation and supply shocks. On trade, Indian negotiators have consistently argued that the U.S. also benefits from India’s growing consumer base and talent pool, especially in IT and services.

Yet the language Navarro used is likely to strike a raw nerve. “Dragging caste into a trade debate is not just inaccurate but deeply insulting,” said a senior Indian diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity. Social activists too have expressed concern, fearing such remarks could reinforce harmful stereotypes about Indian society abroad.

Domestic Reactions in the U.S.

Within the U.S., Navarro’s interview has drawn mixed reactions. Supporters of protectionist trade policies praised his stance, arguing that India’s economic model does give unfair advantages to its elites while hurting American manufacturers. “He’s right — India keeps benefiting from loopholes while our workers pay the price,” said a steel industry representative.

“This is a dangerous game,” warned a former U.S. diplomat. “India may not always align with us on every issue, but alienating them with such language risks pushing them closer to Russia or even China.”

The Human Dimension

For ordinary people, such diplomatic spats often translate into higher prices, disrupted supply chains, and uncertainty. Indian exporters, particularly in textiles, pharmaceuticals, and IT services, now face the immediate challenge of navigating a 50% tariff hike. For small business owners in the U.S., who rely on affordable imports from India, the tariffs could mean tighter margins or even layoffs.

Meanwhile, students, professionals, and diaspora communities watch closely, concerned that strained ties could spill over into stricter visa policies or reduced opportunities for collaboration. “We just want to work, study, and build lives here,” said Radhika, an Indian graduate student in New York. “But when we hear leaders speaking in such divisive terms, it makes us feel like pawns in a bigger geopolitical game.”

Looking Ahead

Navarro’s comments may mark the beginning of a harder U.S. line on India, at least in the trade domain. Whether this is part of a broader strategy or an isolated outburst remains to be seen. What is clear is that the U.S.-India relationship, often celebrated as a partnership of democracies, is also one fraught with contradictions and competing priorities.

As Washington recalibrates its global alliances, and New Delhi asserts its right to act independently, the coming months will test just how resilient the ties between the two nations truly are. For now, Navarro’s words have lit a fire — one that will take careful diplomacy to contain.