In India, Trump’s tariffs spark calls to boycott American goods

A person sits outside a McDonald’s restaurant in Mumbai, India, on February 26, 2024. (REUTERS/File)
Short Url
Updated 11 August 2025
Follow

In India, Trump’s tariffs spark calls to boycott American goods

  • Trump recently imposed a 50 percent tariff on goods from India, rattling exporters and damaging ties with New Delhi
  • India is a key market for American brands that have rapidly expanded to target growing base of affluent consumers

NEW DELHI: From McDonald’s and Coca-Cola to Amazon and Apple, US-based multinationals are facing calls for a boycott in India as business executives and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s supporters stoke anti-American sentiment to protest against US tariffs.

India, the world’s most populous nation, is a key market for American brands that have rapidly expanded to target a growing base of affluent consumers, many of whom remain infatuated with international labels seen as symbols of moving up in life. India, for example, is the biggest market by users for Meta’s WhatsApp and Domino’s has more restaurants than any other brand in the country.

Beverages like Pepsi and Coca-Cola often dominate store shelves, and people still queue up when a new Apple store opens or a Starbucks cafe doles out discounts. Although there was no immediate indication of sales being hit, there’s a growing chorus both on social media and offline to buy local and ditch American products after Donald Trump imposed a 50 percent tariff on goods from India, rattling exporters and damaging ties between New Delhi and Washington.

McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Amazon and Apple did not immediately respond to Reuters queries.

Manish Chowdhary, co-founder of India’s Wow Skin Science, took to LinkedIn with a video message urging support for farmers and startups to make “Made in India” a “global obsession,” and to learn from South Korea whose food and beauty products are famous worldwide.

“We have lined up for products from thousands of miles away. We have proudly spent on brands that we don’t own, while our own makers fight for attention in their own country,” he said.

Rahm Shastry, CEO of India’s DriveU, which provides a car driver on call service, wrote on LinkedIn: “India should have its own home-grown Twitter/Google/YouTube/WhatsApp/FB — like China has.”

To be fair, Indian retail companies give foreign brands like Starbucks stiff competition in the domestic market, but going global has been a challenge. Indian IT services firms, however, have become deeply entrenched in the global economy, with the likes of TCS and Infosys providing software solutions to clients world over.

On Sunday, Modi made a “special appeal” for becoming self-reliant, telling a gathering in Bengaluru that Indian technology companies made products for the world but “now is the time for us to give more priority to India’s needs.”

He did not name any company.

DON’T DRAG MY MCPUFF INTO IT

Even as anti-American protests simmer, Tesla launched its second showroom in India in New Delhi, with Monday’s opening attended by Indian commerce ministry officials and US embassy officials.

The Swadeshi Jagran Manch group, which is linked to Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party, took out small public rallies across India on Sunday, urging people to boycott American brands.

“People are now looking at Indian products. It will take some time to fructify,” Ashwani MaHajjan, the group’s co-convenor, told Reuters. “This is a call for nationalism, patriotism.”
He also shared with Reuters a table his group is circulating on WhatsApp, listing Indian brands of bath soaps, toothpaste and cold drinks that people could choose over foreign ones.

On social media, one of the group’s campaigns is a graphic titled “Boycott foreign food chains,” with logos of McDonald’s and many other restaurant brands.
In Uttar Pradesh, Rajat Gupta, 37, who was dining at a McDonald’s in Lucknow on Monday, said he wasn’t concerned about the tariff protests and simply enjoyed the 49-rupee ($0.55) coffee he considered good value for money.

“Tariffs are a matter of diplomacy and my McPuff, coffee should not be dragged into it,” he said. 


Ahead of strikes, Trump was told Iran attack is high risk, high reward

Updated 6 sec ago
Follow

Ahead of strikes, Trump was told Iran attack is high risk, high reward

  • Experts caution that the unfolding conflict could take dangerous turns and the first official said ‌the Pentagon’s planning did not appear to guarantee the outcome of any conflict

WASHINGTON: Ahead of the US attack on Iran, President Donald Trump received briefings that not only delivered blunt assessments about the risk of major US casualties but also touted the prospect of a geopolitical shift in the Middle East in favor of US interests, ​a US official told Reuters. The launch of what the Pentagon called Operation Epic Fury on Saturday plunged the Middle East into a new and unpredictable conflict. The US and Israeli militaries struck sites across Iran, triggering retaliatory Iranian attacks against Israel and nearby Gulf Arab countries.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the briefers described the operation to the president as a high-risk, high-reward scenario that could present a once-in-a-generation opportunity for change in the region.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Trump briefings included risks, opportunities in Middle East 

• Diplomatic efforts with Iran fail to avert ‌military confrontation 

• Iran vows retaliation, targets US and Israeli interests

Trump himself appeared to echo that sentiment when he acknowledged the stakes at the onset of the operation, saying “the lives of courageous American heroes may be lost.”
“But we’re doing this not for now, we’re doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission,” Trump said in a video address announcing the start of major combat operations.
“For 47 years, the Iranian regime has chanted death to America and waged an unending campaign of ‌bloodshed and mass murder ... We’re ‌not gonna put up with it any longer.”
The briefings from Trump’s national security team help explain ​how ‌the ⁠president decided ​to ⁠pursue arguably the riskiest US military operation since the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Ahead of the strikes, Trump received multiple briefings from officials, including CIA Director John Ratcliffe, US General Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
On Thursday, Admiral Brad Cooper, who leads US forces in the Middle East as the head of Central Command, flew to Washington to join discussions in the White House Situation Room.
A second US official said that before the strikes, the White House had been briefed on risks associated with operations against Iran, including retaliatory strikes on multiple US bases in the region by Iranian missiles that could overwhelm defenses, as well as Iranian proxies attacking US troops in Iraq and Syria.
The official said that despite the massive military ⁠buildup by the United States, there were limits to the air defense systems that had been rushed into ‌the region.
Experts caution that the unfolding conflict could take dangerous turns and the first official said ‌the Pentagon’s planning did not appear to guarantee the outcome of any conflict.
Trump called on Iranians ​to topple the government but that is easier said than done, said ‌Nicole Grajewski with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“The Iranian opposition is pretty fragmented. It’s unclear what the population is willing to do in ‌terms of rising up,” Grajewski said.
Both US officials requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the internal discussions.
The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The Pentagon declined to comment.

TRUMP’S SWEEPING GOALS

In the weeks leading up to the attack, Trump ordered a major military buildup in the Middle East. Reuters reported military planning to carry out a sustained campaign against Iran, if that is what the president chose. Plans included targeting individual officials, officials said.
An Israeli official said Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah ‌Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian were both targeted but the result of the strikes was unclear. Speaking on Saturday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said there were many signs indicating that Khamenei “is no longer” and ⁠called on Iranians to “take to the streets ⁠to finish the job.”
Trump made clear on Saturday that his objectives in Iran were sweeping, saying he would end the threat posed by Tehran to the United States and give Iranians a chance to topple their rulers. To accomplish this, he outlined plans to lay waste to much of Iran’s military as well as deny it the ability to build a nuclear weapon. Iran denies seeking a nuclear weapon.
“We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground... We’re going to annihilate their navy,” he said. “We’re going to ensure that the region’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces.”
Trump’s decision demonstrates an increasing risk appetite, far greater than when he ordered US special operations forces into Venezuela last month to seize that country’s president in an audacious raid.
The unfolding campaign against Iran is also riskier than when Trump ordered US forces to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites in June.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards threatened all US bases and interests in the region and said Iran’s retaliation would continue until “the enemy is decisively defeated.”
Experts warn that Iran has many options for retaliation, including missile strikes but also drones and cyber warfare.
Daniel Shapiro, a former senior ​Pentagon official for Middle East issues, said that despite the US ​and Israeli strikes, Tehran would still be capable of causing some pain.
“Iran has many more ballistic missiles that can reach US bases than the US has interceptors ... some Iranian weapons will get through,” said Shapiro, also a former US ambassador to Israel. “(The strikes are) a major gamble.”