ABP Live Deep Dive | US Court May Block Trump Tariffs, But India’s 50% Duty Risk Isn’t Over

In a striking warning, Jamieson Greer, the US Trade Representative and Trump’s top trade negotiator, said the administration is prepared to reimpose tariffs almost immediately if the court blocks them

For India, the stakes are especially high. The country is among those facing the steepest proposed tariffs, a punitive 50 per cent levy that could dramatically reshape bilateral trade.

Source : ANI

Show Quick Read

Key points generated by AI, verified by newsroom

The fate of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs may soon be decided by the US Supreme Court. But even if the court rules against him, the White House has made one thing clear: the tariffs are unlikely to disappear for long.

In a striking warning, Jamieson Greer, the US Trade Representative and Trump’s top trade negotiator, said the administration is prepared to reimpose tariffs almost immediately if the court blocks them. Speaking to The New York Times in an interview on January 15, Greer said officials would “start the next day” to put new tariffs in place to tackle what Trump sees as unresolved trade problems.

For India, the stakes are especially high. The country is among those facing the steepest proposed tariffs, a punitive 50 per cent levy that could dramatically reshape bilateral trade.

Why India Is in the Tariff Crosshairs

Under Trump’s current tariff framework, India faces a combined duty of 50 per cent. Half of this, 25 per cent, comes from so‑called “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs that apply broadly to most US trading partners. The remaining 25 per cent is specific to India and is linked to its continued purchase of Russian oil.

The Trump administration has repeatedly criticised New Delhi for maintaining energy ties with Moscow, arguing that such imports undermine Western efforts to isolate Russia economically. That criticism has now been translated into trade penalties, placing India among the hardest-hit countries under Trump’s tariff regime.

‘We Would Start the Next Day’: White House Signals No Retreat

Greer told The New York Times that even a Supreme Court defeat would not mark the end of Trump’s tariff strategy. “The reality is the president is going to have tariffs as part of his trade policy going forward,” Greer said.

He added that advisers had given Trump “a lot of different options” early on, allowing the administration to rely on alternative legal authorities if the court strips away his current powers. If the justices rule against the White House, Greer said officials would “start the next day” to roll out replacement tariffs targeting the same trade concerns, reported The Financial Express.

The message is blunt: tariffs are not a temporary tactic for Trump. They are a permanent feature of his economic playbook.

The Law at the Centre of the Court Battle

The Supreme Court is currently reviewing Trump’s use of a 1977 statute known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Over the past year, the president has leaned heavily on this law to impose and lift tariffs on countries around the world.

Trump has argued that IEEPA gives him the authority to act unilaterally on trade matters in the name of national security. Using this framework, he has declared multiple international emergencies to justify tariffs aimed at shrinking trade deficits, curbing illegal drug flows and addressing broader geopolitical risks.

The court’s ruling, expected in the coming weeks and possibly as soon as Tuesday, could either uphold Trump’s expansive interpretation of the law or sharply curtail his authority under it.

Europe, Greenland and a Fresh Diplomatic Firestorm

The legal battle over tariffs intensified over the weekend after Trump threatened to impose new duties on seven European countries unless Denmark agrees to sell Greenland to the United States.

The threat triggered outrage across Europe and protests in Greenland itself. Legal scholars questioned whether the emergency law could plausibly be used to justify tariffs over a territorial dispute.

The episode has deepened concerns that Trump is stretching the boundaries of executive power, using tariffs as a geopolitical bargaining tool far beyond traditional trade disputes.

‘Economic Might to Avoid a Hot War’: The White House Defence

Despite the backlash, senior officials have doubled down on the strategy. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended Trump’s approach during an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday.

“The national emergency is avoiding a national emergency,” Bessent said. He argued that tariffs are being used as a form of economic pressure to prevent military conflict. “The president is using the economic might of the US to avoid a hot war,” he added.

The comments underscore how the administration views tariffs not merely as trade tools, but as instruments of foreign policy and national security.

Even a Court Defeat May Not Stop Trump

Legal experts quoted by The New York Times say that a Supreme Court ruling against Trump would not necessarily end his aggressive tariff agenda.

That is because the president still has access to other trade laws, although they are more procedurally complex and politically constrained. Many of these statutes require formal investigations, detailed reports or explicit national security and economic justifications.

One such option is Section 301 of US trade law, the same authority Trump used during his first term to impose tariffs on China. Those measures survived multiple legal challenges and became the backbone of the US–China trade war.

Greer indicated that Trump could once again turn to Section 301 or similar provisions if the IEEPA route is blocked.

What This Means for India

For India, the uncertainty is deeply unsettling. Even if the Supreme Court clips Trump’s emergency tariff powers, the administration’s own statements make clear that new duties could follow almost immediately.

That leaves Indian exporters and policymakers facing a prolonged period of volatility. A 50 per cent tariff wall would hit sectors ranging from pharmaceuticals and chemicals to textiles and engineering goods, potentially forcing companies to rethink pricing, supply chains and market strategies.

More broadly, the episode highlights how trade relations between Washington and New Delhi could become increasingly transactional and politically charged under Trump’s second term.

Union Budget 2026 Expectations | Vande Bharat Momentum: The Political Engineering Behind Railway Push

Budget 2026 Expectations: Farmers Seek MSP Guarantee As Govt Faces Post-Farm Laws Trust Deficit