US President Donald Trump has signed into law a sanctions measure targeting Russia and Iran that gives his administration the authority to impose tariffs of up to 100% on countries purchasing Russian oil and natural gas. India, as one of the world's largest buyers of Russian crude, could come under the new tariff framework, adding another layer of uncertainty to India-US trade and energy relations.
A key point, however, is that Trump's signing of the law does not mean that a 100% tariff has been imposed on India. The legislation provides the US President with the right and authority to impose tariffs up to 100%. The actual tariff, if imposed, could be substantially below 100%, depending on the US administration's determination of the countries covered, the rate selected and the implementation process. The law therefore creates a tariff risk rather than automatically triggering a 100% duty.
The Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act of 2026 was passed by the US Senate by 86-11 on August 7 and by the House of Representatives by 262-159 on September 16. Trump signed it on September 18. The legislation expands sanctions against Russia's energy and defence sectors, Russian officials and financial institutions, and entities involved in sanctions evasion. It also targets Russia's so-called shadow fleet of oil tankers.
India among countries facing tariff risk
The tariff provision covers the five largest buyers of Russian crude oil or natural gas, based on purchases during the relevant period. It can also apply to countries that knowingly make new purchases of Russian energy after the law takes effect and to countries identified among the leading facilitators of sanctions evasion.
India and China are therefore central to the potential impact of the measure. Other countries that could potentially face scrutiny include Brazil, Japan and some European countries, depending on how the US administration interprets the provisions and identifies the relevant countries.
The law gives the administration considerable discretion over implementation. This means that the eventual tariff exposure of India cannot be determined until Washington identifies the countries covered and announces the applicable tariff rates.
There is also an exemption related to Russian natural gas. Countries whose Russian gas imports represented less than 15% of Russia's total exports during the relevant period may qualify for exemption if they have taken significant steps to reduce those imports.
India heavily dependent on imported crude
The issue is particularly significant for India because of its high dependence on imported oil. According to analysis by the Global Trade Research Initiative (GTRI), India imports more than 88% of its crude-oil requirements.
Russia's role in India's crude supply has increased sharply since 2022. GTRI estimates that in July 2026, Russia supplied crude worth $7.27 billion, accounting for 51.1% of India's total crude imports of $14.21 billion.
The UAE accounted for 10.8%, Saudi Arabia 9.6%, Venezuela 6.3%, Brazil 5.5%, Oman 5.3% and the US 2.9%. Thus, Russia's share alone was larger than the combined share of these six suppliers, according to the GTRI analysis.
The shift represents a major change from the pre-2022 supply pattern. Gulf countries had supplied more than 55% of India's crude before 2022, while Russia's share was below 15%. India's purchases from Russia subsequently increased substantially, partly because Russian crude became commercially attractive amid changes in global energy flows.
Trade agreement and energy security
GTRI has argued that the new law could give Washington additional leverage in negotiations with India. Its analysis says the US could potentially use the prospect of a high tariff to encourage India to reduce Russian oil purchases while seeking concessions in bilateral trade negotiations.
The new statutory authority also gives the US a congressional basis for tariff action, potentially making it legally different from some earlier tariff measures that relied primarily on presidential powers. Critics have raised concerns over the breadth of executive discretion, while supporters argue that the legislation contains sufficient criteria and safeguards.