While U.S. President Donald Trump is deeply entangled in the war in the Middle East, he is simultaneously struggling with the consequences of the tariff web he himself has created. His aggressive policies have drawn strong criticism from around the world, and domestically, he is increasingly under pressure. Reports indicate that his popularity continues to decline. Once positioning himself as a contender for the Nobel Peace Prize, Trump’s image has now shifted to that of a harbinger of unrest. He seems unable to find a way out of the war while his tariff policies are failing to achieve the desired results.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently delivered a verdict challenging the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, leaving him visibly frustrated. The Court ruled that the President has no authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. In response, Trump bypassed this decision by invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, initially imposing a 10% duty, later raising it to 15%. This provision allows the President to impose tariffs of up to 15% for a period of 150 days to address significant trade deficits. Since then, Trump has continued exploring new ways to levy tariffs, weakening the U.S. government’s leverage in trade negotiations with various countries.
Once again, Trump is preparing to launch a fresh wave of tariffs worldwide. Using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, he has initiated investigations against India and 15 other countries, accusing them of “unfair trade practices.” The U.S. alleges that these countries are creating trade imbalances by increasing their production capacity. If the investigations confirm these claims, the U.S. may impose new tariffs or other trade restrictions on these nations. Countries under scrutiny include India, China, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Taiwan, Vietnam, Singapore, Bangladesh, Switzerland, and others. Section 301 allows the U.S. to respond when trade is conducted in a way that creates an imbalance or deviates from established standards.
A key question remains: why has the U.S., which was moving toward a trade deal with India, suddenly found fault with India’s trade practices? The primary reason appears to be India’s policies that limit easy market entry for U.S. companies. U.S. officials argue that India’s requirement for companies to store data locally and apply Indian laws to digital services makes competition difficult for American businesses. Government price controls in sectors such as pharmaceuticals further limit opportunities for U.S. firms. These restrictions explain why India has been included in the Section 301 investigation despite ongoing trade negotiations.
The tariffs and trade barriers imposed by the U.S. have forced many countries to seek alternative markets. India, however, has responded proactively with strategic initiatives and multiple trade agreements. It has signed free trade agreements with the European Union, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and New Zealand, among others. To date, India has signed 21 free trade agreements, which have expanded export opportunities, facilitated foreign investment, and strengthened defense and technology cooperation. As a result, the impact of U.S. tariffs on India has been minimal. To further mitigate this minor impact, India has undertaken internal reforms aimed at improving productivity and trade conditions.
Frustrated, Trump has now weaponized Section 301 once again, reportedly considering the imposition of new tariffs under the pretext of national security. Products potentially affected include large batteries, cast iron, plastic pipes, industrial chemicals, power grid components, metals, industrial machinery, and telecom equipment. If implemented, these measures could impact several sectors of the Indian economy.
Domestically, Trump’s military actions against Iran have sparked growing opposition within the U.S. The war in the Middle East has caused the U.S. to lose its bases in the Gulf, resulting in significant financial losses. American citizens are questioning the objectives of these operations, and there is growing domestic unity against the war. Democrats are also unwilling to fully support Trump. According to surveys, six out of ten Americans disagree with his tariff and inflation policies, and there is widespread concern over the economy. Trust in Trump is also declining.
Caught in the quagmire of Iran and facing domestic unrest, Trump may attempt any measure to salvage his image. However, many Americans feel that the consequences of his actions—policies that pose risks to global stability—will ultimately fall back on the United States itself. Energy markets, particularly oil and gas, are facing increasing uncertainty. India, too, must remain vigilant in dealing with the maneuvers of a “friend” like Trump and continue to safeguard its supply chains to ensure uninterrupted trade and economic stability.
