The Trump administration urged a New York court not to block President Trump’s controversial tariffs, arguing they were crucial tools in managing global conflicts and trade. Officials claimed Trump “used tariffs and trade” to ease tensions between India and Pakistan and to pressure China into trade talks.
The Trump administration, which has been facing many legal challenges recently due to controversial decisions made by then-President Donald Trump, requested a New York court not to block or pause the President’s unpopular tariff orders.
ALSO READ: India vs Pakistan War 2025: How India Constitutionally Declares War – Explained!
Officials told the court that stopping the tariff policy could harm America’s global position and even restart the military conflict between India and Pakistan. They also said it could end trade negotiations with China.
In their argument, the Trump administration claimed that President Trump used tariffs and trade deals to deal with big international problems. They said that Trump played a key role in calming down tensions between India and Pakistan and also forced China to talk about correcting trade imbalances.
According to the US government officials, “used tariffs and trade“ to control the India-Pakistan conflict and bring China to the negotiation table. They warned the court that any legal defeat in the tariffs case could make China behave more aggressively and may also result in India and Pakistan resuming their military actions.
In their plea, the Trump administration said that a court ruling against the tariffs would cause “undesirable actions by China and could even lead to a resumption of the India-Pakistan conflict”, and that it would “leave Washington embarrassed globally”.
Four top officials represented the Trump administration in court: Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Marco Rubio, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.
The case was brought by several small American businesses who were badly affected by the tariffs. These businesses are challenging the President’s use of “national emergency” powers to impose these tariffs.
In court, the officials repeated President Trump’s claim that he helped stop military actions between India and Pakistan using his trade strategy. They told the judges that even though India has denied Trump’s involvement in stopping the conflict, the US government still believes his actions helped secure a fragile peace.
They added that “the current truce between the two nations is ‘fragile'”.
Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told the court, “Allies and adversaries alike monitor US courts for signs of constraint on presidential power,” pointing out the India-Pakistan ceasefire as an example of Trump’s successful diplomacy.
He described the situation as a “tenuous ceasefire” and said that “both sides (India and Pakistan) agreed to stop their military actions only after Donald Trump offered to expand trade with the countries in exchange for it.”
Lutnick warned that if the court blocks the tariffs, the peace between India and Pakistan might fall apart.
He said, “If the court pauses President Trump’s tariffs move, then it will lead to both countries resuming their military actions since there will be no condition left to compel them to maintain peace.”
He continued, “An adverse ruling that constrains presidential power in this case could lead India and Pakistan to question the validity of President Trump’s offer, threatening the security of an entire region and the lives of millions.”
Speaking about China, the US officials explained that Trump’s tariffs pushed Beijing to come to the negotiation table. They claimed that the entire trade discussion with China was possible only because of those strict tariffs. If the court blocks them now, the talks might stop.
Lutnick stated, “An adverse ruling would destroy the carefully crafted China trade agreement, which is asymmetric in America’s favour, in order to address the emergency of our persistent goods trade deficit.”
He added that Trump’s increasing tariffs were the main reason China agreed to talk.
According to a report in the South China Morning Post, Lutnick also said, “It was President Trump’s spiraling tariffs that exerted pressure on Beijing to achieve the foreign-policy objective of bringing China – the greatest contributor to the national emergency and a well-known strategic adversary – to the negotiating table.”
He warned the court that any ruling against Trump’s tariffs would, “collapse ongoing trade negotiations, allow for Chinese aggression during a period of strategic competition, and leave the American people exposed to predatory economic practices.”
Backed by Commerce Secretary Lutnick, Secretary Marco Rubio told the court that judges should not interfere in matters of foreign policy or national security.
He said, “not appropriately situated to handle and intervene in matters of foreign policy and national security.”
Rubio added that a legal defeat would be very embarrassing for the United States and could have serious consequences worldwide.
He said, “a legal setback would lead to embarrassment of the United States on a global stage” and “would embolden allies and adversaries alike, leading to a dangerous situation globally.”
