The World This Week | US Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s global tariffs, tensions with Iran reaching a tipping point, Pakistan-Afghanistan clashes claim 300 lives

The Trump administration spent its entire first year slapping tariffs on more than 90 countries to coerce them into signing agreements that would reduce the US’s trade deficits. If anything, Washington’s trade deficit has marginally increased to $1.240 trillion in 2025 from $1.215 trillion in 2024.

A case of separation of powers

Trump had imposed the duties, citing the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 1977, which gives the US President authority to “regulate” trade in response to an emergency.

The conservative-dominated Supreme Court bench stated that the President had exceeded his legal authority when he unilaterally imposed duties using a law reserved for national emergencies.

In a 6-3 majority verdict, the bench restored the US Congress’s primacy in trade policy, reminding the separation of powers—between the legislature, executive, and judiciary—in decision-making in democracies.

Neal Katyal, the Indian-origin lawyer who argued about the illegality of the levies in the Supreme Court on behalf of small businesses, said: “The idea that we have a system that self-corrects, that allows us to say ‘You might be the most powerful man in the world but you still can’t break the Constitution.’ That to me is what today is about.”

Trump and senior White House counsellor Peter Navarro have maintained that the tariffs collected by the federal government would replace the income tax system. However, income tax contributed over $2.7 trillion in FY25 while tariffs brought in less than $200 billion.

‘The tools remain’

Defiant about utilising what he once called the “most beautiful word in the dictionary,” Trump, in a rant on social media, labelled the ruling “anti-American” and announced that he would pursue alternate legal mechanisms to impose tariffs. He reiterated this during his State of the Union address on Tuesday (February 24).

Navarro, considered the chief architect of Trump’s tariff strategy, has argued that the verdict is not an impairment but an opportunity, stating that “the tools remain, and the statutory footing beneath them is now clearer”.

What are the alternate legal routes?

Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act: On Saturday (February 21), a day after the verdict, the Trump administration slapped a 10 per cent levy on all imports using a temporary legal provision, Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. Hours later, he increased it to 15 per cent, the highest rate allowed under this provision. The tariffs under this provision are limited to 150 days and can be extended by Congress approval.

Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, 1962: This statute allows imposing industry-specific tariffs on national security grounds, and is already in place for steel, aluminium, lumber and automotive imports.

The provision warrants a 270-day investigation and provides an additional 90-day window for the President to impose tariffs, taking the entire process duration to 360 days.

Section 301 of the Trade Act, 1974: The provision allows the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate and to take action against unfair trade practices. The agency must complete an investigation within 12 months.

Tariffs on imports from China imposed under Section 301 during Trump’s first administration in 2018 remain in effect.

Section 338 of the Tariff Act, 1930: This Great Depression-era statute empowers the President to impose tariffs up to 50 per cent or even an embargo in case of discrimination against US commerce. But experts have argued that it would invite immediate legal action.

What does it mean for India?

Earlier this month, the US dropped its tariffs on Indian products from 50 per cent to 18 per cent ahead of an interim trade deal between the two countries. After the verdict, Indian exports originally slated for an 18 per cent duty under previous agreements will now see a reduction to the 15 per cent blanket rate, providing further relief to manufacturers. This also puts India on equal footing with the rest of the world—for now.

Since the top court’s verdict challenges the legitimacy of the unilaterally imposed tariffs—a threat Trump has resorted to repeatedly—the equation in upcoming negotiations could change.

An Indian trade delegation, expected to reach Washington, D.C. on February 22 to finalise the interim trade agreement with the US, has deferred its visit.

Trump warned trade partners of higher levies if they “play games” over the court ruling.

126% tariffs on Indian solar

Amid the tariff conundrum, the US Commerce Department imposed a 126 per cent blanket duty on Indian solar products, marking a significant setback for manufacturers in this sector.

This comes after two Adani Group companies withdrew from the anti-subsidy investigation proceedings. The US Commerce Department said that the companies benefited from various subsidy schemes and “shipped solar cells in ‘massive’ quantities during a relatively short period”. The Department also noted the Indian solar cells industry’s heavy reliance on imports from China.

The Department said that US’s solar imports from India were valued at $792.6 million in 2024, a more than nine-fold increase compared with 2022 levels.

Reliance on exports to the US

Between 2021 and 2024, over 90 per cent of India’s solar photovoltaic module exports were shipped to the US, data from India’s Commerce Ministry showed.

Ankit Jain, vice-president and co-group head, corporate ratings, ICRA Limited, said the move could dampen exports, exert pricing pressure on domestic OEMs [original equipment manufacturers], and “impact profitability of solar module manufacturers”.

Other Indian manufacturers like Waaree Energies are also subject to the new rates.

Iran-US tension nears tipping point

The situation in the Middle East has arguably entered a ‘calm before the storm’ phase. The region has witnessed a historic level of US military buildup since last month, and negotiations in Geneva on Iran’s nuclear enrichment programme concluded on Friday.

Washington has been pressing Tehran to abandon its enrichment programme, which had been a cause of concern for Israel and a major point of contention with the West. The Islamic regime has said it would never do that.

So far, the region has witnessed the deployment of the Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, scores of naval ships and military aircraft. The US’s most-advanced aircraft carrier group, the Ford Carrier Strike Group, is also headed towards the region.

Trump has repeatedly issued threats to Iran. The US President has told advisers that if diplomacy or initial targeted strikes do not lead Iran to give in, he will consider a much bigger attack in the coming months.

Making matters worse for Tehran, students at multiple universities across the country have started anti-regime protests again.

In response to the external pressure, Iran has also held military exercises close to the Strait of Hormuz—a major maritime choke point with a fifth of the world’s energy supplies passing through it.

Last week, on the day of the Board of Peace’s inaugural meeting, Trump announced a deadline of “10-15 days” for Iran to finalise an agreement.

Iran, which has maintained that it will not initiate any war, said that if Washington attacked, all bases and assets in the region belonging to the “hostile forces” would be “legitimate targets” for retaliatory strikes.

Regional stability and oil markets at risk

A conflict could cause global oil and gas prices to skyrocket owing to the theatre’s proximity to the Strait of Hormuz—a major chokepoint for energy shipments.

Iranian arsenal already hosts a wide range of ballistic missiles—with ranges of up to 2,000 km—and the Shahed drones, a series of ‘suicide drones’ with similar ranges. This puts a majority of US regional bases within range.

Tehran is close to finalising a deal with China to purchase supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles. The CM-302 missiles, which have a range of about 290 kilometres and fly low to avoid defences, would bolster Iran’s missile capability significantly.

Beijing buys more than 80 per cent of Iran’s shipped oil.

Proxies aligned with the Islamic Republic—like Hamas, Hezbollah and Houthis, collectively referred to as the ‘axis of resistance’—could also join the conflict, although their capabilities have been significantly degraded in their fight with Israel.

On the other hand, Saudi officials have said that they will acquire nuclear weapons if Iran does.

‘Cannot be Maduroed’

Unlike Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, who was whisked off barely 30 km from the Caribbean coast earlier this year and replaced by Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez, a more cooperative figure for Washington, targeting the Iranian establishment would be a radically different task.

Firstly, Tehran lies 640 kilometres from the Persian Gulf.

Secondly, if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were removed or killed in precision strikes, he would be replaced by hardliners in an establishment that has crystallised over decades.

Alongside its traditional armed forces, Iran also has the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—which has around 200,000 active personnel, a naval force, an intelligence network, a special forces unit, and a paramilitary volunteer militia—which directly answers to the Supreme Leader.

Thirdly, the Ayatollah has already named four layers of succession for military and government roles, according to the NYT report.

Ali Larjani

Ali Larijani, the country’s top national security official and a former IRGC commander, has emerged as the Supreme Leader’s most trusted advisor.

Faced with the largest anti-regime uprising since the Islamic Republic’s founding, Khamenei turned to Larijani to lead the brutal crackdown. According to an NYT report, Laijani has been effectively running the country.

President Masoud Pezeshkian’s role in the establishment has diminished in the meantime. He told a cabinet meeting that he appealed to Larijani to lift internet restrictions because they were harming e-commerce.

When Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi sought Pezeshkian’s permission to establish contact with the American side for nuclear negotiations, the President directed him to call Larijani.

Pakistan and Afghanistan clashes: nearly 300 killed

Relations between Islamabad and Kabul have nosedived after a fragile ceasefire, brokered last year, ended this week with Pakistani airstrikes allegedly targeting militant camps on Afghan soil.

Pakistan conducted “precision strikes” on Sunday on seven camps along the Afghan border, accusing Kabul of hosting members of the Pakistani Taliban (also known as Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan or TTP) and its affiliates.

The strikes were followed by denial and counteraccusations by the Taliban as the group vowed to retaliate. The Taliban forces carried out operations against Pakistani military posts along the border on Thursday night. Pakistan responded with more strikes.

At least 12 Pakistani ⁠soldiers ⁠were killed, and ⁠274 ‌Taliban officials and militants ‌were killed since ‌Thursday night, Reuters quoted Pakistan General Ahmed Sharif Chaudhry as saying.

Who are the TTP?

The TTP is a Sunni Islamist militant group ideologically allied with the Afghan Taliban and operating primarily in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province, where border skirmishes with the Afghan group have surged in recent years.

According to the United Nations Security Council, the TTP was formed in 2007 following Pakistan military operations against al Qaeda-affiliated militants as part of the US’s war on terror.

The group was formed in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (now integrated into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province) and has between 30,000 and 35,000 members, mostly Pashtuns.

Relations with Afghanistan

Although the most recent point of friction has been militancy, the relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan has been marred by distrust since its inception. The issue stems from Kabul’s refusal to recognise the Durand Line as the international border.

Pakistan considers the line as the permanent international border. Owing to this, successive dispensations in Afghanistan—ranging from the monarchy and nationalists to the Taliban—have clashed with Islamabad in various fora.

Notably, Afghanistan became the only country to oppose Pakistan’s entry into the UN.

Pashtuns in Pakistan

Currently, more than 20 million Pashtu-speaking people live in Pakistan.

Amid repeated disagreements and skirmishes with Afghanistan, Islamabad dissolved the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa’s Tribal Agencies in 2018, integrating the regional units into the province. Pashtuns viewed the move as an insult to their way of life by the Punjabi-dominated Pakistan state and army.

The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan is considered kin by them.

Pakistan continues to consider Afghans as ungrateful, after Islamabad hosted Pashtun refugees and seven Mujahideen groups during the Afghan Jihad against the Soviets.

A brief period of calm

Pakistan welcomed the Taliban’s return to power in 2021, during the tenure of then-Prime Minister Imran Khan, expecting a stable relationship with the group after a nearly 20-year war with the US.

In September of the same year, following the US withdrawal, then ISI chief Faiz Hameed visited Kabul and prayed with the Taliban leadership. There was relative peace during this brief period.

Notably, Khan had long drawn criticism for his perceived sympathy for the group, earning the moniker ‘Taliban Khan’. In 2012, Khan told reporters that the group was fighting a “holy war” in the neighbouring country, drawing sharp response from then US-backed Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

Relations soured again after Khan was ousted from power in 2022, and Shehbaz Sharif, brother of former PM Nawaz Sharif, took his place. Both Khan and Hameed are serving sentences for an array of charges.

Militancy inside Pakistan has surged since 2022, with attacks by the TTP and Baloch insurgents rising sharply, according to conflict monitoring data cited by news agency Reuters.

Flaring tensions in Balochistan

Pakistan has been reeling under militancy in recent years. The recent development comes in the backdrop of flaring tensions in Balochistan province.

Coordinated attacks by the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and subsequent counter-operations resulted in nearly 200 deaths last month.

Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.

🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for February 2026. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at manas.srivastava@indianexpress.com🚨