On a cold January night in 2025, as the world tuned in to Donald Trump’s second inaugural address, energy markets braced for a familiar storm. “America will never be held hostage by foreign energy,” he declared, echoing his first term’s aggressive rhetoric on energy independence.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government was charting a different course, embracing strategic autonomy by diversifying India’s energy sources while maintaining key partnerships with the US, Russia, and the Middle East. Their contrasting approaches highlight a fundamental question: In the battle for energy security, should nations strive for absolute independence or prioritise strategic flexibility?
Energy has long been central to global power dynamics. Nations that control resources wield immense influence over trade, security, and diplomacy. In today’s volatile geopolitical landscape, energy is not just a commodity but a strategic weapon. While Modi champions diversification to safeguard India’s energy future, Trump’s doctrine of self-reliance aimed to minimize foreign dependencies. Yet, the evolving energy landscape suggests that true resilience may not come from isolation but from the ability to adapt to shifting realities.
Strategic Autonomy vs. Energy Dominance: Strategic autonomy signifies India’s capacity to make sovereign energy decisions without overdependence on any single supplier. Under Modi’s leadership, India secured long-term LNG contracts with the US, Australia, and Qatar, while deepening ties with Russia through discounted oil deals despite Western sanctions.
This strategy mitigates price volatility, buffers supply chain disruptions and reflects a pragmatic approach to balancing geopolitical pressures with domestic needs. Investments in nuclear energy, electric mobility, and green hydrogen further bolster India’s resilience against global energy shocks.
In contrast, Trump’s ‘America First’ energy policy prioritised maximising domestic production to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers. His ‘Energy Dominance’ strategy encouraged aggressive oil and gas exploration, offshore drilling, and coal industry revival. While this created short-term economic gains, it also weakened global alliances and amplified environmental risks.
The US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the imposition of tariffs on energy partners like Canada and Mexico disrupted supply chains, exposing the limits of an isolationist approach. Recently, Trump has unleashed the tariff war with EU as well.
Diversification Vs Self-Sufficiency
The core distinction between Modi and Trump’s policies lies in their response to risk: Modi mitigates it through diversification, while Trump sought to eliminate it through self-sufficiency. Yet, absolute energy independence is increasingly impractical.
Despite surging shale production, the US still imports oil due to refining mismatches and market dynamics. Similarly, India’s reliance on Russian crude underscores the necessity of flexibility. The reality is complex: exporters and importers alike must navigate interdependencies rather than pursue rigid doctrines of independence or dependence.
India’s renewable energy push aligns with global sustainability efforts, with a target of 500 GW of non-fossil fuel capacity by 2030 through initiatives like the International Solar Alliance. Modi’s policy acknowledges that long-term energy security is intertwined with climate resilience, as renewable investments reduce exposure to fossil fuel price swings and enhance grid stability.
In contrast, Trump’s fossil-fuel-centric strategy rolled back environmental regulations, favouring short-term energy abundance over sustainability. His administration’s tariffs on clean energy imports and hostility toward multilateral climate efforts alienated allies, highlighting how rigid self-sufficiency can backfire geopolitically.
Meanwhile, Modi’s energy diplomacy balances relationships with Russia, the US, and Gulf nations, ensuring stable supplies despite global tensions. India’s ability to maintain Russian oil imports amid Western sanctions exemplifies the power of flexible alignment.
Conversely, Trump’s hardline stance against Iran and tariff conflicts with key partners disrupted alliances, illustrating how energy isolation can increase rather than reduce vulnerability.
Trump’s policies reveal that absolute independence is unrealistic in an interconnected world. While domestic production boosts security, it cannot eliminate external shocks or geopolitical pressures. Modi’s approach, by contrast, embraces strategic flexibility, ensuring India can weather crises by leveraging multiple partnerships and evolving its energy mix.
Ultimately, energy security lies not in severing ties but in managing dependencies wisely. The future belongs to nations that master adaptive resilience: balancing sovereignty with cooperation, securing diverse supply chains, and integrating sustainability into their strategic calculus. In a world of volatile geopolitics and rapid technological change, those who embrace this dynamic equilibrium will not just survive energy shocks but shape the future of global energy leadership.
The writer is Junior Fellow, Observer Research Foundation. Views expressed are personal
