Recent legal filings and public statements have brought renewed attention to claims made by former President Donald Trump regarding his administration's role in averting a larger conflict between India and Pakistan and leveraging tariffs for diplomatic gains.
The Trump administration, through a submission by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to the U.S. Court of International Trade, asserted that President Trump's intervention was crucial in achieving a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed nations that engaged in combat operations earlier this month. According to the filing, this intervention involved offering both nations trade access to the United States as an incentive to de-escalate and avert a full-scale war. Lutnick argued that limiting presidential power on tariffs could lead India and Pakistan to question the validity of President Trump's offer, thereby threatening regional security and the lives of millions.
Trump himself has publicly claimed that the threat of cutting off trade forced both India and Pakistan to cease hostilities. In May 2025, he stated that he told both countries to "stop it" and that increased trade would follow if they did, otherwise, trade relations would cease. He portrayed himself as a peacemaker who averted a potential nuclear war.
However, India maintains a different perspective on these events. According to the Indian government, trade was never discussed in official phone calls between Indian and U.S. officials during the conflict. Instead, India asserts that the cessation of hostilities was a result of direct military-to-military communication and the strength of Indian weaponry.
Furthermore, a federal trade court recently blocked the Trump administration's imposition of new tariffs, which were partly justified by citing the India-Pakistan ceasefire agreement as a strategic basis. The Court of International Trade in New York ruled that Trump exceeded his legal authority by imposing sweeping tariff hikes, including a 26% duty on Indian imports, under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The court emphasized the need for checks and balances, especially when economic instruments are deployed in international diplomacy.
This ruling has wider implications for how future administrations invoke emergency powers in trade and foreign policy, particularly when tied to geopolitical scenarios such as the India-Pakistan standoff. It also raises questions about the veracity of claims made by the Trump administration regarding the effectiveness and legality of using tariffs as a diplomatic tool.
