A Deep Dive into Economic & Geopolitical Stakes
A significant House resolution was introduced in the US Congress on Friday, December 13, 2025, by Democratic lawmakers Representatives Deborah Ross (North Carolina), Marc Veasey (Texas), and Raja Krishnamoorthi (Illinois). This resolution seeks to terminate President Donald Trump’s tariffs on India, which have imposed duties as high as 50% on Indian imports. The move challenges a policy that has sparked debate on US-India relations, economic impact, and presidential authority in global trade, specifically concerning the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and congressional authority.
The Spark: A Congressional Challenge to Trump-Era Tariffs
The House resolution directly targets the Trump administration’s declaration of a “national emergency” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). This declaration, made in August 2025, authorized an increase in tariffs on Indian goods, starting with an initial 25% duty, followed by an additional 25% “secondary” duty, resulting in a cumulative 50% levy on many Indian-origin products.
The stated justification for these tariffs was India’s continued Russian oil imports, which the Trump administration argued indirectly financed Russia’s war efforts in Ukraine. However, the sponsoring US lawmakers have labeled these tariffs “illegal” and “economically damaging,” asserting they harm American workers and consumers, disrupt supply chains, and weaken the U.S.-India strategic partnership. This action is part of a broader congressional effort to reclaim its constitutional authority over trade and challenge the executive branch’s use of emergency powers for unilateral trade policy.
Tariffs & Trade Barriers
50%
Obstructing Exchange
Unpacking the Tariffs: Why 50% on Indian Goods?
The 50% tariff rate on Indian imports comprises an initial 25% “reciprocal” tariff and an additional 25% penalty linked to India’s Russian oil purchases. The Trump administration intended these duties to exert economic pressure on Russia by curtailing its energy revenues and to address existing trade imbalances and India’s tariffs on certain American goods.
India, the world’s third-largest oil consumer, imports approximately 89% of its energy needs. Following the 2022 Ukraine conflict, India significantly increased its imports of discounted Russian oil to prioritize its energy security and economic stability. Despite US sanctions against Russian oil producers, India’s imports remain robust due to their cost-effectiveness. India maintains these purchases are legitimate, comply with international norms, and helped stabilize global oil prices by absorbing discounted crude within the G7-EU price cap mechanism. This highlights a clash between geopolitical pressure and national economic imperatives.
Economic Dynamics: India’s Oil Imports ⬆️ Indian Exports ⬇️
Geopolitics vs. Energy Security
The Economic Ripple Effect: India and USA Feel the Pinch
Impact on India
The economic impact on India from the 50% tariffs has been substantial. Indian labor-intensive export sectors like gems, textiles, and seafood have reported significant declines (37% to 60%), particularly damaging as the U.S. is the largest market for Indian exports (20% of its goods exports). Financial markets have reacted with over $16 billion in foreign investment withdrawing from Indian equities, and the Indian rupee reaching a record low beyond 90 rupees to the U.S. dollar. The IMF revised India’s growth projection for 2026-27 downward from 6.4% to 6.2% due to potential prolonged U.S. tariffs. Analysts estimate that if India reduces its reliance on discounted Russian oil, it could face an additional annual crude oil cost of $3 billion to $11 billion, potentially exacerbating India’s trade deficit, driving up domestic energy costs, and increasing inflation.
Impact on USA
On the American side, Democratic lawmakers argue these tariffs harm the US economy by disrupting supply chains and increasing the cost of imported Indian goods, leading to higher prices for consumers.
Supply Chain Disruption
Rising Consumer Prices
A Broader Battle: Constitutional Authority over Trade
This House resolution is a critical juncture in the debate over congressional authority versus presidential powers in trade policy. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce, but significant authority has been delegated to the President through statutes like the IEEPA.
The IEEPA, enacted in 1977, grants the President broad economic regulatory powers during a declared national emergency. Historically used for sanctions like asset freezes, its expanded use by the Trump administration for imposing broad tariffs (e.g., on China, Mexico, and India) has faced legal challenges, with federal courts ruling some tariffs illegal for exceeding IEEPA authority. The Supreme Court heard arguments in November 2025 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, a case that could redefine presidential emergency economic powers. This resolution aligns with broader legislative efforts, such as the “Congressional Trade Authority Act” and the “Prevent Tariff Abuse Act,” to curb unilateral presidential trade actions and restore the constitutional balance of power. CONGRESS PRESIDENT TRADE POLICY
The Road Ahead: What’s the Likelihood of Passage?
The resolution faces a complex path with a mixed outlook. A previous, broader Senate resolution (S.J.Res.49) to terminate global tariffs declared under emergency powers failed in April 2025 with a 49-49 vote, highlighting the difficulty in securing bipartisan support. However, the current House resolution specifically targets tariffs on India, and Democratic lawmakers emphasize the direct harm to American businesses and consumers, which might garner different support levels.
The Biden administration’s stance is a key factor. While President Biden has maintained many Trump-era tariffs, particularly on China, his administration has criticized tariffs on allies and has voiced disapproval of India’s Russian oil purchases, though acknowledging they didn’t violate sanctions and offering diversification assistance. Democratic advisors have criticized Trump’s 50% tariffs on India, warning of risks to the US-India strategic partnership. The resolution’s success depends on building significant bipartisan consensus, navigating the current political climate, and influencing future US-India trade relations and global trade policy.
A Visual Perspective
Navigating Complex Global Dynamics
This graphic illustrates the intricate forces at play in global trade and policy decisions.
Conclusion: Charting a Course for US-India Trade
The House resolution to terminate tariffs on India is a critical moment for US-India relations and global trade. Democratic lawmakers are challenging the legality and economic impact of these Trump administration duties, underscoring the intertwining of geopolitics, energy security, and economic prosperity.
The outcome will affect Indian exports, American consumers, and set a precedent for congressional authority over presidential powers under the IEEPA. As the resolution progresses, attention will be on Washington and New Delhi to navigate this complex landscape. The resolution advocates for a stronger US-India strategic partnership and more predictable trade policy, signaling a potential shift towards renewed economic cooperation.
About the Author
