Supreme Court blow to Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs alters tactics, not strategy: Brahma Chellaney

A US court ruling that curbs tariff powers may appear, at first glance, to ease global trade tensions. But for India, analysts say, the impact could be limited — and may even expose structural weaknesses in New Delhi’s negotiating strategy.  

The decision by the US Supreme Court to strike down key elements of Donald Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariff regime has been interpreted in many capitals as a legal rebuke to aggressive unilateral trade policy. However, geopolitical analyst Brahma Chellaney argues that the judgment does not fundamentally alter Washington’s protectionist trajectory — and offers little automatic relief to India.  

Tariffs still central to Washington’s playbook  

According to Chellaney, tariffs are likely to remain a defining feature of Trump’s second-term economic agenda despite judicial constraints. He notes that proposals such as a new 10% global tariff indicate that trade barriers will continue to be used as instruments of leverage, even if the legal pathways to impose them become narrower.  

“The Court has weakened his hand, not changed his intent,” Chellaney observed, suggesting that the ruling modifies tactics rather than strategy.  

That distinction matters for trading partners hoping the verdict signals a broader US retreat from economic nationalism.  

Limited gains for New Delhi  

For India, the development comes at an awkward moment. New Delhi had already moved to finalise a framework trade understanding with Washington earlier this month — before legal clarity on the tariff dispute emerged.  

Chellaney characterised India’s broader negotiating record as “unimpressive,” arguing that successive governments have shown a pattern of conceding advantages during diplomatic bargaining. He contends that the current administration led by Narendra Modi has continued that trend in several strategic contexts.

Strategic backdrop: China & border pressures  

The analyst linked trade diplomacy to wider geopolitical pressures, particularly tensions with China along the Himalayan frontier. He pointed to arrangements following military standoffs in Ladakh as examples where India balanced security concerns with broader diplomatic calculations.  

In this reading, economic negotiations cannot be separated from the strategic environment in which New Delhi is simultaneously managing security risks, supply-chain dependencies, and energy needs.  

‘Front-loaded’ commitments raise questions  

A central concern raised by Chellaney is the structure of the recent India-US framework deal itself. He argues that India accepted obligations that are:  

• Front-loaded and measurable, making compliance visible and time-bound  
• Subject to monitoring, creating accountability asymmetry  
• While US commitments remain phased, conditional, and potentially reversible  

Such asymmetry, he suggests, leaves India exposed if American trade policy continues to shift under domestic political pressures — something the Court’s ruling does not eliminate.  

Beyond trade: Energy & sanctions linkages  

The agreement also reportedly incorporates provisions that extend beyond traditional trade issues, including steps related to reducing Russian oil dependence and tightening oversight of maritime transfers that could bypass Western sanctions.  

For critics, this signals how economic arrangements are increasingly tied to geopolitical alignment rather than purely market access — a trend visible across multiple U.S. partnerships.  

A legal setback, not a policy reset  

The larger takeaway, analysts say, is that the Supreme Court judgment represents a constitutional check, not a transformation of US trade doctrine. Protectionist tools may now face stricter legal scrutiny, but they remain politically salient in Washington.  

For India, that means the ruling is unlikely to deliver immediate commercial advantages. Instead, it underscores the need for sharper negotiating frameworks and contingency planning in an era when trade, technology, and security are deeply intertwined.  

In short, while the court curtailed one mechanism of tariff escalation, it did not dismantle the strategic logic behind it — leaving partners like India to navigate an only slightly altered landscape.