Economic nationalism has become one of the strongest forces shaping world politics in the 2020s. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Atmanirbhar Bharat (“Self-Reliant India”) and US President Donald Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) agenda both aim to revive domestic manufacturing, protect national industries, and reduce reliance on China. But instead of working in harmony, the two strategies are clashing. This friction is now testing the strength of the US–India partnership and reshaping global trade and geopolitics.
Made in India: Strategic self-reliance
Modi launched Made in India in 2014 to boost manufacturing and jobs. Over time, it has grown into a broader strategy of economic and strategic self-reliance. Under Modi’s third term, the policy is tied directly to India’s long-standing pursuit of “strategic autonomy.”
The government is offering incentives to global companies in sectors such as semiconductors, electric vehicles, and renewable energy. It is also pushing for local defense production, both to reduce reliance on Russian arms and to promote India as an exporter. The program combines domestic needs with foreign policy goals: India wants to be seen as independent and capable, but also as an attractive destination for international investment.
MAGA economics 2.0
When Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, many expected ties with India to strengthen, Modi was one of the first foreign leaders to visit Washington, and both leaders presented themselves as strong nationalists.
But relations soured quickly. In August, the US imposed a 25 per cent tariff on Indian goods after trade talks broke down. Weeks later, Washington announced another “secondary tariff” of 25 per cent, this time linked to pressure on India over its purchase of Russian oil. Together, these measures doubled the baseline tariff on Indian exports to 50 percent.
Trump added fuel by threatening 200 percent tariffs on Indian pharmaceuticals and calling India a “dead economy.” For Washington, these tariffs serve both political and diplomatic goals. They appeal to Trump’s domestic base, and they give him leverage in foreign policy, especially in relation to Russia and the war in Ukraine.
Clash and overlap
Despite the tensions, Made in India and MAGA share many goals. Both want to rebuild domestic manufacturing and reduce reliance on China. But they take different paths, which leads to both overlap and competition.
In terms of manufacturing, the US focuses on reshoring high-value industries like semiconductors. India aims to attract a wider range of industries, from textiles to electronics. This creates competition for investment. Regarding technology, both want sovereignty in critical areas like semiconductors and AI. The US leads in design, while India wants to be a hub for large-scale production. For green energy, the US emphasises advanced technologies for export while India prioritises scaling up deployment to meet its vast energy needs.
The US is pursuing “friend-shoring” among allies for its supply chains, while India is positioning itself as a global alternative to China, competing for the same space. Multinational corporations like Apple, Tesla, and defence companies must navigate conflicting rules: “Buy American” in the US and “Make in India” in India.
Europe, Japan, and the global context
The US–India clash has created openings for others. The European Union and Japan see India as a key partner in reducing dependence on both Washington and Beijing. They are investing more in trade, technology, and defence cooperation with New Delhi.
While they acknowledge the risks of global trade fragmentation, they also see opportunity: building more resilient supply chains, diversifying markets, and strengthening a multipolar order. For India, this is a chance to act as a balancing actor and to present itself as leader of the Global South.
Conclusion
The clash between Made in India and MAGA shows how economic nationalism is no longer just a domestic policy. It is now a tool of global power politics. Both Modi and Trump seek to strengthen their countries, but their visions collide. For those who know both leaders, this was predictable.
Trump wants America to dominate. Modi wants India to shape the world. Trump’s transactional, business-first style, combined with the unresolved Russia–Ukraine war, gave him the leverage to pressure India on Russian oil. But in doing so, Washington risks damaging a partnership that has been carefully built over decades.
If the US continues to treat India more as a target of tariffs than as a strategic partner, it may weaken not only bilateral ties but also its own Indo-Pacific strategy.