The Trump administration has sharpened its campaign against fentanyl trafficking by targeting India’s pharmaceutical sector, reflecting growing concerns over the country’s role in the global supply chain of synthetic opioids. Recent US actions, including the imposition of tariffs and new visa restrictions, underscore a broader strategy to disrupt the flow of precursor chemicals used in fentanyl production.
With US intelligence agencies now describing India as a leading source of fentanyl precursors after China, the pressure on Indian exporters and regulators has intensified, raising questions about regulatory oversight and the nation’s growing influence in international pharmaceutical markets, Bloomberg News reported.
China recently expanded its list of controlled exports for fentanyl precursors, following trade negotiations with the US. In this context, President Donald Trump halved a 20% fentanyl-related tariff after talks with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, but maintained additional trade barriers on other countries, signalling a nuanced approach to international supply chains. While China’s efforts have drawn recognition from US authorities, India’s expanding pharmaceutical sector remains under scrutiny.
Indian officials have a record of collaborating with US drug control operations, yet the sector’s rapid growth, described by Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the “pharmacy of the world”, presents regulatory challenges. The sheer scale and diversity of India’s pharmaceutical exports complicate enforcement, especially as new synthetic opioid routes emerge.
Relations between Washington and New Delhi have strained in recent months, prompting the US to revisit India’s position in the fentanyl supply chain. According to individuals familiar with internal discussions, the Trump administration considered India’s expanding role in chemical exports as grounds for new tariffs, although punitive trade action ultimately focused on India’s purchases of Russian oil. Nevertheless, drug-control experts continued to brief US officials on India’s role in synthetic opioid trafficking.
In March, US intelligence agencies identified India as the second-largest supplier of fentanyl precursor chemicals and pill-pressing equipment globally, trailing only China. The US State Department’s September report listed India among countries designated as major drug transit or illicit drug producing nations, alongside China, Colombia, and Mexico. The department clarified such designations are not penalties or assessments of a government’s efforts, but the frequency of India’s mention reflects heightened attention from US authorities.
Recent trade measures have further complicated the global regulatory environment. In February 2025, the Trump administration imposed a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports and an additional 10% on Chinese goods, explicitly citing fentanyl trafficking. While tariffs on Canada and Mexico were suspended after commitments to strengthen border security, those targeting China and related goods remain in effect, with India facing the risk of similar scrutiny as enforcement efforts broaden.
The regulation of fentanyl remains challenging due to the ease with which precursor chemicals, essential for legitimate pharmaceutical and industrial uses, can be diverted into illicit supply chains. Compounds such as N-phenethyl-4-piperidone (NPP) and 4-anilino-N-phenethylpiperidine (4-ANPP) are subject to evolving regulatory measures, but their legitimate uses complicate enforcement. The US Drug Enforcement Administration has expanded interdiction, public education, and treatment programmes to address both supply and demand dimensions of the crisis.
Internationally, the US has deployed new sanctions, including the revocation and denial of visas for business executives linked to fentanyl precursor trafficking, following high-profile incidents involving Indian companies. The use of lists identifying countries as significant sources or transit points for fentanyl chemicals reflects the complexity of the problem, with some nations described as having “failed demonstrably” to meet drug-control obligations. This evolving approach highlights the global scope of the opioid crisis and the challenges faced by regulators and industry alike.
