Defending the use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs, senior officials in President Donald Trump’s administration have told the US Court of International Trade last week that a legal setback limiting Trump’s emergency tariff powers would disrupt trade deals the US is pursuing and jeopardise the ceasefire between India and Pakistan, court filings showed.
The lawsuit — which could have a widespread impact on global trade — was filed by small business owners in the US against the Trump administration. They argued in court that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is unlawful because US federal law does not authorise presidents to impose tariffs, court documents showed.
“A ruling that narrows IEEPA would have ripple effects across every domain in which economic instruments are used for strategic effect. For example, India and Pakistan- two nuclear powers engaged in combat operations just 13 days ago- reached a tenuous ceasefire on May 10, 2025. This ceasefire was only achieved after President Trump interceded and offered both nations trading access with the United States to avert a full-scale war. An adverse ruling that constrains presidential power in this case could lead India and Pakistan to question the validity of President Trump’s offer, threatening the security of an entire region and the lives of millions,” US Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick said in his submission to the court on May 23.
According to the court filings dated May 24, the Trump administration said: “…the United States tactfully brokered a ceasefire in an escalating confrontation between two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan. The United States is also navigating and addressing a range of extremely consequential threats, from strategic acquisitions to naval drills to the export of deadly substances.”
United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the court that trade negotiations are currently in a delicate state, with discussions ongoing and final deals yet to be reached, adding that these negotiations are “premised on the ability of the President to impose tariffs under IEEPA.
On Trump’s claim on trade, India’s Ministry of External Affairs’ official spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal had said on May 13: “From the time Op Sindoor commenced on 07 May till the understanding on cessation of firing and military action on 10 May, there were conversations between Indian and US leaders on the evolving military situation. The issue of trade did not come up in any of these discussions.”
This assumes significance as India is negotiating a trade deal and is expected to sign an interim agreement within the 90-day reciprocal tariff pause window. Under the agreement, the US has sought access to several sectors that traditionally enjoy high protection, such as agriculture, automobiles, and alcoholic beverages.
Story continues below this ad
“The success of the Nation, in these endeavours and into the future, is built off the dispatch and unitary nature of the executive, girded by necessary tools.
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), and President Trump’s tariff actions under that Act, is one of those critical tools. The consequences of judicial intervention would be cascading and devastating, as declarations from four Cabinet Secretaries explain,” filings in the US Court of International Trade quoting the Trump administration stated.
The Trump administration told the court that through tariffs, the President has also “imposed leverage on foreign trading partners”, so that these countries will address the “tariff and non-tariff barriers” that have created an untenable US goods trade deficit and have “hollowed out the United States’ manufacturing and defence-industrial base”.
“In the President’s judgment, the tariffs themselves will also reduce the United States’ trade deficit, increase US manufacturing infrastructure, and strengthen America’s defence-industrial base. And any attempt by the judiciary to second-guess the President on these national-security matters would be unprecedented, unravel the progress the President has achieved, and have far-reaching consequences to the United States’ foreign, economic, and national-security posture,” a Trump official told the court.
Story continues below this ad
Rubio also warned the court that if it were to stop the President from imposing tariffs, “US trade partners would likely believe that the President lacks power under IEEPA to promptly respond to their actions during the ongoing negotiations”.
“They may also perceive such a ruling as a vulnerability and encourage them to retaliate against the United States for attempting to impose tariffs and negotiate agreements to protect our national security. Notably, other countries declined to retaliate against the United States after the President made clear he would exercise his authority under IEEPA to impose additional tariffs, as he did with China,” Rubio said.
Trump’s tariff tantrum on India
India and the US had decided to conclude the first phase of the proposed bilateral trade agreement by the autumn (September–October) of this year. However, both sides have now agreed on an interim trade deal before the first tranche, to be finalised by 9 July.
Nonetheless, Trump has continued his tariff rhetoric targeting India. After Apple announced that a majority of iPhones to be sold in the US would be produced in India, Trump said that Apple would have to pay a 25 per cent tariff if it sold iPhones in the US that are built in India or elsewhere.
Story continues below this ad
Trump also stated that he had told Apple CEO Tim Cook he does not want the company to expand its manufacturing operations in India unless it is to serve the Indian domestic market.
Moreover, an April report by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) criticised various Indian trade barriers, including “localised internet shutdowns that disrupt commercial operations” and regulations requiring that “dairy products intended for food must be derived from animals that have not consumed feed containing blood meal”.
“India requires that dairy products intended for food be derived from animals that have not consumed feed containing internal organs, blood meal, or tissues of ruminant or porcine origin, and that exporting countries certify to these conditions, which lack a discernible animal health or human health justification,” the report said.