Averted war: Trump team repeats Pak ceasefire claim in court to defend tariffs

The Trump administration once again brought up the India-Pakistan conflict and the subsequent ceasefire before a US court while defending the President's controversial tariff decisions.

In a June 2 filing before the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Trump's legal team claimed that tariffs imposed under his presidency were not only economic tools but also part of successful diplomatic efforts, referring to the India-Pakistan truce.

Trump has repeated on several occassions that he helped broker the ceasefire between the nuclear powers after the countries exchanged fire for three days following India's Operation Sindoor.

The court filing stated that Trump's use of trade powers under the Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) sent a message to other nations that "certain conduct, whether economic predation, trade manipulation, or narcotics trafficking — will incur serious consequences".

It warned that restricting presidential authority under IEEPA would have wide-ranging consequences.

"Diluting this authority would not only unravel the current IEEPA actions but would also undermine future deterrence. Allies and adversaries alike monitor US courts for signs of constraint on presidential power. A ruling that narrows IEEPA would have ripple effects across every domain in which economic instruments are used for strategic effect," it said.

To support its argument, the administration pointed to the recent ceasefire, saying, "India and Pakistan — two nuclear powers engaged in combat operations just 13 days ago — reached a tenuous ceasefire on May 10, 2025. This ceasefire was only achieved after President Trump interceded and offered both nations trading access with the United States to avert a full-scale war."

The legal team stressed that an adverse ruling would jeopardise the ceasefire, threatening the security of an entire region and the lives of millions.

"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," it said.

This legal battle — Learning Resources Inc and Hand2Mind Inc vs Donald Trump, et al — centres on the legality of tariffs Trump imposed in 2025 under emergency powers.

The plaintiffs, two educational companies, challenged the move, following which a lower court blocked the tariffs. The Trump administration is now appealing that decision.

Trump has repeatedly claimed credit for preventing an escalation between India and Pakistan, tying his actions directly to trade deals.

At a May 22 press conference with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, he said, "If you take a look at what we just did with Pakistan and India — we settled that whole thing. I think I settled it through trade. We're doing a big deal with India. We're doing a big deal with Pakistan."

Again, on May 31, flanked by Elon Musk in the Oval Office, he said, "We stopped India and Pakistan from fighting. I believe that could have turned out into a nuclear disaster."

Earlier, during a speech at the US-Saudi Investment Forum in Riyadh on May 14, Trump called himself a "peacemaker" and added that India and Pakistan should "have a nice dinner together" to ease tensions. He said his administration had helped avert a "potential nuclear war" that "could have killed millions".

The ceasefire understanding between India and Pakistan came on May 10.

Trump was the first to publicly announce the truce. "I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE. Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence. Thank you for your attention to this matter," he posted on social media.

However, India has consistently dismissed Trump’s claim of US mediation. According to the Ministry of External Affairs, the decision to halt hostilities came through direct communication between India and Pakistan, initiated by Pakistan's military. Talks, the ministry said, took place between the Directors General of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both countries, not with US involvement.

India also made it clear that tariffs were never a part of those discussions. On May 29, it reiterated that the "issue of tariffs was not part of discussions with the US" during efforts to de-escalate the conflict.

Tune In