Trump’s 'illegal' tariffs on India challenged as US lawmakers move to end emergency duties

The recent move by Democratic lawmakers in the United States to terminate the 'national emergency' declaration that underpinned tariffs on Indian imports by former President Trump unveils a critical juncture in both US trade policy and the India-US strategic partnership. This development is not merely about tariffs; it delves into the constitutional balance of power within the US government and has significant implications for global trade relations.

**The Genesis of the Tariffs: Section 232 and National Security**

To truly grasp the issue, we must first understand the foundation of these tariffs. In 2018, then-President Donald Trump invoked Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 to impose tariffs of 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum imports from various countries, including India. Section 232 allows the President to investigate whether certain imports threaten national security. If such a threat is found, the President can take action to adjust imports, including imposing tariffs or quotas. The Trump administration argued that reliance on foreign steel and aluminum undermined the domestic industry crucial for national defense, thus constituting a national security threat. This broad interpretation of 'national security' was controversial, as many trade experts and allies viewed it as a pretext for protectionist measures rather than a genuine security concern.

**The Democratic Challenge: Restoring Congressional Authority**

Fast forward to the present, Democratic lawmakers have introduced a resolution aimed at terminating this national emergency declaration. Their core argument is multifaceted: first, they contend that these tariffs constitute an 'abuse of executive power.' The US Constitution, specifically **Article I, Section 8**, vests the power to 'regulate Commerce with foreign Nations' primarily with the Congress. While Congress has delegated some authority to the President through acts like Section 232, lawmakers argue that the Trump administration stretched this authority beyond its intended scope, bypassing congressional oversight and the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. Second, they highlight that these 'illegal tariffs' damage a key strategic partnership – that between the United States and India. India is not only a crucial economic partner but also a vital ally in geopolitical strategies, such as the Indo-Pacific Quad. Imposing tariffs on a partner nation undermines trust and cooperation. Third, the lawmakers argue that these tariffs ultimately harm American workers and consumers by increasing input costs for domestic industries and raising prices for goods.

**Key Players and Their Stakes**

Several key stakeholders are involved. **US Democratic lawmakers**, particularly those championing the resolution, seek to reassert congressional authority over trade policy and curb what they perceive as executive overreach. Their success would be a win for legislative checks and balances. The **Biden Administration**, while not directly involved in introducing the resolution, faces pressure to align its trade policy with its broader foreign policy goals of strengthening alliances. While President Biden has largely maintained the Section 232 tariffs, a congressional move could force a re-evaluation. **India** is a direct beneficiary if these tariffs are removed, as its steel and aluminum exports would face fewer barriers. Indian businesses and the government have consistently voiced concerns over these tariffs, even imposing retaliatory tariffs on certain US goods in 2019. **American industries and consumers** stand to benefit from lower input costs and potentially lower prices if the tariffs are lifted. Conversely, domestic steel and aluminum producers who benefited from the protection would likely oppose the resolution. Lastly, the **US Executive Branch** (past and present) and the **US Congress** are locked in a perennial struggle over the balance of power, with trade policy often being a battleground.

**Significance for India: Economic and Strategic Dimensions**

For India, the removal of these tariffs would be a significant positive development. Economically, it would provide relief to Indian steel and aluminum exporters, allowing them to compete more effectively in the US market. India's exports of steel and aluminum products to the US were substantial before the tariffs, and their re-imposition by India of retaliatory tariffs on 28 US products in June 2019 underscored the economic friction. Beyond direct economic impact, the resolution signifies a potential return to a more predictable and rules-based trade relationship with the US, which is crucial for fostering long-term investment and trade ties. Strategically, a stable and friction-free trade relationship reinforces the broader India-US strategic partnership, which is critical for addressing regional security challenges, collaborating on technology, and strengthening democratic values globally. The tariffs were seen as an irritant that complicated cooperation on other fronts, and their removal would signal a stronger commitment to mutual respect and economic partnership.

**A Broader Canvas: US Trade Policy and Separation of Powers**

This episode is a microcosm of a larger debate about protectionism versus free trade and the balance of power within democratic governance. The use of 'national security' as a justification for trade barriers has implications for the global trading system, potentially setting precedents for other countries to invoke similar pretexts. The resolution also highlights the ongoing tension between the executive's desire for swift action and the legislature's role in deliberative policymaking, especially in areas like trade which have significant economic and foreign policy consequences. This constitutional struggle is a fundamental aspect of the US system of checks and balances, designed to prevent any single branch from accumulating excessive power.

**Looking Ahead: Prospects and Pointers**

The path for the resolution is challenging. While it has garnered support, passing such a measure requires overcoming potential legislative hurdles and could face opposition from those who believe the tariffs protect domestic industries. Even if it passes Congress, a presidential veto could still block it. However, the very introduction of the resolution sends a strong signal about congressional intent to reclaim its trade authority. For India, the outcome will dictate the immediate future of its steel and aluminum exports to the US and influence the broader tone of bilateral trade discussions. In the long term, this debate could lead to a re-evaluation of Section 232's scope and application, potentially fostering a more predictable and rules-based international trade environment, which is vital for emerging economies like India.