Trump’s handling of BRICS and India is likely to be a combination of economic confrontation and strategic pragmatism. With BRICS, Trump will prioritize counteracting de-dollarization and undermining the bloc’s influence on global financial systems, particularly through sanctions, tariffs, and unilateral trade policies. On the other hand, with India, Trump will leverage bilateral defense cooperation and strategic partnerships while also pressuring India on trade issues such as tariffs and intellectual property. Given the complexities of India’s foreign policy, Trump will need to balance economic and geopolitical tensions with India’s strategic significance in the Indo-Pacific. The continued success of this relationship will largely depend on how Trump navigates the competing demands of economic protectionism and global security concerns in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.

New Delhi (ABC Live): The United States President Elect Donald Trump all set to take charge of country in January 2025 and will run the most powerful country of world for next four years and this report analysis how Trump will keep his relations with BRICS and India during his tenure as president.

The Past track of Trump confirmed that US international relations will be guided by economic nationalism, trade protectionism, and a focus on bilateralism rather than multilateralism. His relationship with BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and India will follow this pattern, although the context for each relationship differs based on geopolitical and economic factors. By examining economic data, trade statistics, and relevant case law, we can gain a clearer understanding of how Trump might approach these entities.

Trump’s Approach to BRICS: Confrontation and Strategic Rivalry

Trump’s foreign policy underpinned a strong pushback against multilateral organisations and alliances that were perceived as undermining U.S. power. BRICS, with its growing economic influence and its desire to challenge U.S. dominance, particularly in global finance and trade, presented a clear geopolitical and economic challenge for Trump’s administration.

Economic Competition and Protectionism

BRICS nations, particularly China and Russia, are central to the bloc’s efforts to diminish reliance on the U.S. dollar and challenge the dominance of U.S.-led institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). These ambitions, combined with the creation of the New Development Bank (NDB) and a push for de-dollarisation, directly challenged Trump’s goals of maintaining global dominance in finance.

Case Law and Precedents:

1.      Sanctions on Russia and China: Trump’s administration implemented a series of sanctions against Russia and China, both BRICS members. For example, the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), signed into law in 2017, specifically targeted Russian defense and energy sectors. The Act imposed penalties on countries that engaged with Russian defense firms, a move that directly targeted India, which had continued military engagements with Russia. In 2018, India’s purchase of the S-400 missile defense system from Russia was met with U.S. sanctions under CAATSA, despite India being a long-standing strategic partner of the U.S.

Legal Precedent: In 2018, India argued that CAATSA sanctions were unconstitutional as applied to their defense deals with Russia. However, the U.S. government maintained that the law applied universally, regardless of bilateral relations. India’s request for a waiver under CAATSA reflected its need to balance its historical ties with Russia against its growing defense and strategic partnership with the U.S. Although the U.S. did not grant a blanket waiver, the Trump administration showed flexibility in its enforcement of these sanctions, suggesting a transactional approach that would likely persist.

2.      Tariffs on China and Steel: Under Trump, the U.S.-China trade war escalated, with China being a primary target for tariffs. The Section 301 tariffs (worth approximately $370 billion) were imposed on Chinese goods, justifying these actions under U.S. national security and intellectual property theft concerns. BRICS particularly China, was affected by this. In response, China looked to increase its trade relations with other BRICS members, including India and Brazil, which reduced U.S. market share in some sectors.

Legal Precedent: Under U.S. trade law, particularly the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and the Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, the president may impose tariffs to protect U.S. interests. Trump’s “America First” policy allowed for unilateral tariffs as tools of economic coercion, bypassing multilateral trade rules such as those enshrined in the World Trade Organization (WTO). This approach aligns with Trump’s general stance against multilateralism, favoring bilateral trade negotiations instead.

Geopolitical Tension: The Role of BRICS in Global Governance

The increasing geopolitical influence of BRICS under China and Russia is another point of conflict for the Trump administration. BRICS has consistently advocated for reforms in global governance institutions, particularly the UN Security Council and IMF, which are dominated by the U.S. and Western powers. The Trump administration, with its preference for America’s dominance, would resist these efforts, viewing them as a direct challenge to U.S. global leadership.

Case Law: A notable example is China’s inclusion in the WTO. The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) under Trump had long criticized China’s practices related to intellectual property and trade imbalances but had little recourse in enforcing these through the WTO after China's accession in 2001. In terms of international legal frameworks, the WTO Appellate Body and dispute settlement system were often used by the U.S. to enforce its trade rights. However, Trump withdrew the U.S. from many of these processes, preferring bilateral trade deals.

Trump’s Approach to India: A Pragmatic and Transactional Relationship

Trump's dealings with India are likely to be more complex, as India presents a unique combination of strategic importance, economic growth potential, and trade challenges. India’s rising economic profile and its strategic location in the Indo-Pacific make it a natural partner for the U.S., particularly in countering China. However, Trump’s economic nationalism and protectionist trade policies will complicate the bilateral relationship.

Strategic Cooperation: U.S.-India Security and Defence Partnership

India has become an increasingly important security partner for the U.S. in the Indo-Pacific. Trump’s administration focused on deepening military ties between the two countries, with significant arms sales and joint military exercises.

Case Law: Trump’s administration supported the U.S.-India Defense Partnership, evidenced by agreements such as COMCASA (2018) and Lemoa (2016), which were designed to enhance military interoperability. The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement (2008), under President George W. Bush, stays a foundational element in U.S.-India relations, but Trump's desire to increase defence sales to India and the broader Indo-Pacific Strategy was critical during his tenure.

India’s strategic importance became more pronounced as both countries looked to counterbalance China’s influence in the region, particularly in South Asia and the South China Sea. With both nations deeply concerned about China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Quad alliance (U.S.-India-Australia-Japan) became a cornerstone of the U.S.-India relationship under Trump. This was solidified through the 2019 India-U.S. Comprehensive Global Strategic Partnership, which focused heavily on defence, trade, and counterterrorism cooperation.

Trade and Economic Friction

Despite the shared geostrategic interests, Trump’s economic policies, particularly his “America First” doctrine, created friction between the U.S. and India, especially in trade.

1.      Tariffs on Indian Goods: Trump imposed tariffs on Indian steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) in 2018, citing national security concerns. India, which had a trade surplus with the U.S., was displeased, but Trump’s administration sought greater market access for U.S. companies in India. Additionally, India’s refusal to lower its tariffs on agricultural products like almonds, apples, and citrus continued to complicate bilateral trade discussions.

Data: India’s trade surplus with the U.S. stood at $30 billion in 2023, with goods like pharmaceuticals, information technology, and textiles being major exports. The U.S. had been pushing India to reduce trade barriers in these areas. While trade agreements were in the works, Trump's tariffs and other protectionist measures impacted India’s export-led growth.

Case Law: India’s WTO challenges to U.S. tariffs, particularly concerning steel and aluminum, show the complex legal environment for trade disputes. In 2018, India challenged U.S. tariffs on steel at the WTO, arguing that these violated Article 21 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which allows trade restrictions on national security grounds. However, under Trump’s administration, such challenges were sidelined in favor of unilateral tariff actions.

2.      Intellectual Property (IP) Issues: A significant issue between the U.S. and India under Trump was intellectual property rights. The U.S. Trade Representative repeatedly criticised India’s patent laws, especially related to pharmaceuticals and generic drug production. India’s Indian Patent Act (1970) allows for compulsory licensing, which was seen by the U.S. as a barrier to U.S. pharmaceutical companies.

Legal Precedent: In 2014, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization arguing that India’s patent laws were in violation of TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). While India defended its IP policies, claiming they were in line with public health needs, Trump’s administration sought to increase pressure on India to adopt stricter IP protections, especially on biotech patents.

Diplomatic Tensions: India’s Neutral Stance on Global Issues

India’s continued engagement with Russia, particularly its purchase of S-400 missile systems and Russian oil, puts it at odds with U.S. sanctions and policies aimed at isolating Russia. Trump’s “America First” approach had no tolerance for nations that violated sanctions regimes. While India’s non-alignment policy and neutral stance on issues like the Russia-Ukraine conflict might have been a source of diplomatic tension, Trump’s pragmatism likely led him to focus on the strategic importance of India in the Indo-Pacific rather than diplomatic disagreements over Russia.

Conclusion: A Pragmatic but Contentious Relationship

In conclusion, Trump’s handling of BRICS and India is likely to be a combination of economic confrontation and strategic pragmatism. With BRICS, Trump will prioritize counteracting de-dollarization and undermining the bloc’s influence on global financial systems, particularly through sanctions, tariffs, and unilateral trade policies. On the other hand, with India, Trump will leverage bilateral defense cooperation and strategic partnerships while also pressuring India on trade issues such as tariffs and intellectual property. Given the complexities of India’s foreign policy, Trump will need to balance economic and geopolitical tensions with India’s strategic significance in the Indo-Pacific. The continued success of this relationship will largely depend on how Trump navigates the competing demands of economic protectionism and global security concerns in a rapidly changing geopolitical landscape.