TOI correspondent from Washington: A rare congressional rebuke of President Donald Trump’s Canada tariffs, a presidential rant targeting a flagship US-Canada bridge, and an impending Supreme Court ruling on emergency trade powers are converging to deepen uncertainty around American trade policy — and raising fresh doubts about the durability of the fledgling US-India trade framework.On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 219–211 to terminate Trump’s use of a “national emergency” to impose punitive tariffs on Canadian goods. Six Republicans joined all but one Democrat in backing the resolution — an extraordinary act of dissent in a chamber where the GOP holds a narrow 218–214 majority. The Senate, despite its Republican tilt, has already voted twice to block the Canada tariffs.The resolution is largely symbolic; Trump, armed with executive power, is unlikely to retreat. But its political weight is significant. Lawmakers appear increasingly uneasy with the president’s expansive use of emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to wage trade battles traditionally overseen by Congress. Some on Capitol Hill privately acknowledge the vote was also intended to signal to the Supreme Court — which is reviewing the legality of tariffs — that Congress does not endorse this interpretation of executive authority.The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last November, and is expected to rule soon, possibly as early as its next non-argument session on February 20. Justices across ideological lines expressed skepticism about whether fentanyl flows and trade imbalances — of the kind U.S has with India — qualify as a “national emergency” justifying unilateral tariffs. If the Court strikes down the measures, the federal government could face $150–$200 billion in refunds to importers who have paid the duties since 2025 — a fiscal and political jolt.The legal battle unfolds against a backdrop of renewed friction with Ottawa. In a Monday social media outburst, Trump threatened to block the opening of the $4.6 billion Gordie Howe International Bridge linking Detroit and Windsor, accusing Canada of exploiting the US and demanding 50% ownership. He claimed the Canadian-funded project violated “Buy American” rules — assertions flatly contradicted by Canadian officials, who note that both US and Canadian steel and labor were used.For Canada, the episode reinforces a pattern: agreements and understandings can be upended by presidential impulse. Trump once celebrated the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) as the “biggest trade deal in history,” replacing NAFTA, which he had branded the “worst ever.” Yet even after signing USMCA in 2020, he imposed steel and aluminum tariffs on Canada and Mexico under national security provisions and repeatedly threatened withdrawal to extract concessions on unrelated issues such as immigration.A similar script played out with South Korea. After renegotiating the KORUS trade pact in 2018 and touting it as more equitable, Trump recently slapped 25% tariffs on Korean exports, citing procedural delays despite Seoul’s pledge of $350 billion in US investments. Allies have drawn a lesson: no deal is immune from revision. That perception now hangs over India.Last week’s announcement of a US-India trade framework was billed by the White House as a breakthrough, with claims that India would slash tariffs on US pulses, eliminate digital services taxes, and purchase $500 billion in American goods. Within hours, following pushback from New Delhi, references to pulses disappeared, digital tax commitments were removed, and language stating India had “committed” to purchases was softened to “intends.”The rapid edits suggested that elements were inserted prematurely — or aspirationally — and withdrawn once challenged. For Indian negotiators, the episode echoed a broader concern: goalposts in Washington can shift without warning.If a signed trilateral pact like USMCA cannot shield Canada from sudden tariffs, and if Congress itself is moving to curb presidential trade powers, India has reason to question the durability of any arrangement struck with the current administration. New Delhi is simultaneously negotiating agreements with the United Kingdom and the European Union — partners viewed as procedurally steadier.Trade agreements rest not only on market access but on institutional credibility. With Congress rebelling, the Supreme Court weighing limits on executive authority, and the president oscillating between praise and punishment of his own deals, America’s trade posture appears unsettled. For India, the message is cautionary: in Washington’s current climate, even signed agreements may prove provisional.
Leave a Reply