White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt announced that President Donald Trump’s recent decision to sharply raise tariffs on India was part of a broader sanctions strategy designed to pressure Russia into ending the war in Ukraine. Addressing reporters, she explained that the tariff rate on Indian goods had been doubled to 50 percent, achieved by imposing an additional 25 percent levy on top of the existing 25 percent. According to Leavitt, the move was intended to create “secondary pressure” on Moscow by targeting nations that continue to engage in trade with Russia, thereby tightening the economic isolation of the Kremlin.
Leavitt emphasized that Trump had been consistent in applying maximum public and diplomatic pressure to bring the Ukraine war to a swift conclusion. She argued that the administration’s sanctions, including those directed at India, were part of a strategy that rejected delay or hesitation, underscoring that the president was determined to accelerate negotiations and force an end to hostilities. Her comments came shortly after Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House, during which both leaders expressed optimism over progress towards a possible trilateral dialogue involving Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Reinforcing the administration’s commitment to rapid action, Leavitt highlighted that Trump had already secured support from European allies. Within just 48 hours of the president’s discussions with Putin, NATO Secretary General and several European leaders reportedly convened at the White House to endorse the U.S. approach. She stressed that all parties viewed Trump’s mediation efforts as a significant step forward, confirming that U.S. officials were actively working with both Russia and Ukraine to arrange direct talks between the two sides.
The press secretary also reiterated Trump’s long-standing argument that the war in Ukraine could have been avoided altogether had he been in office earlier. She noted that the president frequently maintains this position, and further claimed that Putin himself had acknowledged the likelihood that the conflict would not have begun under Trump’s leadership. This assertion, Leavitt argued, validated the administration’s belief that Trump’s policies carried enough deterrent weight to have prevented escalation in the first place.
Turning to South Asia, Leavitt restated Trump’s controversial claim that he had helped resolve the India-Pakistan conflict earlier in the year by using trade as a powerful tool of leverage. She suggested that by adjusting trade dynamics, the administration had pressured both nations to step back from confrontation. However, New Delhi has consistently rejected any notion of third-party mediation in its disputes with Pakistan, maintaining that decisions on ceasefires and de-escalation are entirely bilateral matters. Despite repeated Indian denials, Leavitt framed Trump’s approach as proof of his ability to use economic instruments as a means of resolving international conflicts.
Through her remarks, the White House sought to project Trump’s dual use of trade and diplomacy as key levers in shaping global security. By tying tariff measures against India to the Ukraine conflict, Leavitt cast Washington’s actions as part of a larger strategy to pressure Russia, while also attempting to highlight the administration’s record in conflict management beyond Europe.
