Congressional Rebuke and Legal Battles Shake US Trade Policy
In a significant political move, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 219–211 on Wednesday to terminate President Donald Trump's use of a "national emergency" to impose punitive tariffs on Canadian goods. This rare congressional rebuke saw six Republicans join all but one Democrat in backing the resolution, marking 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 these tariffs, signaling growing unease within the party.
Symbolic Yet Politically Weighty Resolution
The resolution is largely symbolic, as Trump, armed with executive power, is unlikely to retreat from his stance. However, its political weight is substantial. Lawmakers are increasingly uncomfortable 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 that the vote was also intended to signal to the Supreme Court, which is reviewing the legality of these tariffs, that Congress does not endorse this interpretation of executive authority.
Supreme Court Skepticism and Potential Fallout
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 have expressed skepticism about whether issues like fentanyl flows and trade imbalances, such as those the 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, representing a significant fiscal and political jolt.
Renewed Friction with Canada and Broader Implications
This 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 U.S. and demanding 50% ownership. He claimed the Canadian-funded project violated "Buy American" rules, assertions flatly contradicted by Canadian officials, who note that both U.S. and Canadian steel and labor were used.
Pattern of Presidential Impulse Undermining Agreements
For Canada, this episode reinforces a pattern where 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 U.S. investments. Allies have drawn a lesson: no deal is immune from revision, and this perception now hangs over India.
Doubts Over US-India Trade Framework
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 U.S. pulses, eliminate digital services taxes, and purchase $500 billion in American goods. However, 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."
Rapid Edits and Shifting Goalposts
The rapid edits suggested that elements were inserted prematurely or aspirationally and withdrawn once challenged. For Indian negotiators, this 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.
Institutional Credibility at Stake
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.
