In a significant development on Capitol Hill, a trio of Democratic lawmakers has introduced a resolution in the United States House of Representatives seeking to terminate steep tariffs—some as high as 50 percent—on Indian imports. The move, announced on December 13, 2025, represents a direct challenge to the emergency trade powers invoked by former President Donald Trump during his tenure, powers that have increasingly come under bipartisan scrutiny for their sweeping impact on American economic and diplomatic interests.
The resolution, spearheaded by Representatives Deborah Ross of North Carolina, Marc Veasey of Texas, and Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois, aims to revoke the national emergency declaration that allowed the Trump administration to impose these tariffs in two stages under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). According to AFP and PTI reports, the duties were justified at the time by citing trade imbalances and India’s continued purchases of Russian energy, which the White House argued indirectly supported Moscow’s war efforts in Ukraine.
But the lawmakers behind the new resolution argue that the tariffs are not only legally questionable, but also economically damaging and strategically counterproductive—especially as Washington seeks to deepen its partnership with New Delhi. In their joint statement, they emphasized that the tariffs function as a tax on American consumers and businesses, driving up prices and disrupting supply chains that rely heavily on Indian manufacturing.
“North Carolina’s economy is deeply connected to India through trade, investment, and a vibrant Indian American community,” said Congresswoman Ross, according to PTI. She pointed out that Indian companies have invested over a billion dollars in her state, creating thousands of jobs in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, technology, and advanced manufacturing. “Indian companies have created thousands of jobs in life sciences and technology, while North Carolina manufacturers export hundreds of millions of dollars in goods to India annually.”
Congressman Veasey, representing Texas, echoed these concerns, highlighting the real-world impact on ordinary Americans. “India is an important cultural, economic, and strategic partner, and these illegal tariffs are a tax on everyday North Texans who are already struggling with rising costs,” said Veasey. He argued that trade policy should be shaped through transparent legislative debate, not through emergency declarations that concentrate power in the executive branch: “Higher import duties ultimately cost ordinary Americans and should be subject to legislative oversight.”
Indian-American Congressman Krishnamoorthi added another layer to the argument, stressing the harm these tariffs do to integrated supply chains and the broader US-India strategic relationship. “Instead of advancing American interests or security, these duties disrupt supply chains, harm American workers, and drive up costs for consumers. Ending these damaging tariffs will allow the United States to engage with India to advance our shared economic and security needs,” Krishnamoorthi stated, as reported by PTI.
The tariffs themselves were imposed in two rounds during Trump’s presidency, with the most recent “secondary” duties—an additional 25 percent—coming into effect on August 27, 2025. These were layered on top of earlier reciprocal tariffs, bringing the total duties on many Indian-origin products up to 50 percent under the IEEPA. While the Trump administration cited national security and foreign policy concerns, critics have argued that such use of emergency powers stretches the law beyond its intended purpose and circumvents Congress’s constitutional authority over trade.
The resolution is not an isolated initiative. It follows a bipartisan Senate measure aimed at curbing the President’s use of emergency powers to raise import duties, including similar tariffs on Brazil. The broader context, as noted by AFP, is a growing unease in Congress—on both sides of the aisle—over the executive branch’s expansive use of emergency authorities to shape trade policy. Lawmakers are increasingly questioning whether tools designed for national security crises are appropriate for pursuing broad economic objectives.
Supporters of the resolution argue that its passage would reaffirm Congress’s central role in trade policy, provide relief to businesses and consumers, and help reset relations with India at a critical juncture. They point to the importance of the US-India partnership in the Indo-Pacific, where both nations see each other as crucial counterweights to China’s growing influence. “The tariffs risk undermining a key strategic partnership,” the lawmakers warned, adding that punitive duties send the wrong signal to investors and weaken the economic foundations of the bilateral relationship.
On the ground, the impact of the tariffs has been felt acutely by American businesses and consumers. Supply chains that depend on Indian manufacturing have faced disruptions, and prices for a range of goods have increased—an outcome that lawmakers like Ross and Veasey argue is especially damaging at a time when inflation and cost-of-living concerns are already front and center for many Americans.
The measure, however, faces an uncertain path forward. It must pass both the House and the Senate before reaching the White House, and any attempt to roll back emergency-based tariffs could encounter resistance from those who support a more aggressive trade posture. Previous efforts to rein in such executive powers have struggled to overcome partisan divisions and opposition from the administration.
Critics of the resolution maintain that emergency powers remain a necessary tool for addressing strategic and geopolitical challenges. They argue that in an increasingly contested global economic order, the President must retain the flexibility to respond rapidly to threats—whether they stem from unfair trade practices or from foreign policy crises. As AFP notes, the debate has reopened broader questions about the balance of power between Congress and the presidency, and about the proper use of trade policy in furthering US interests abroad.
The timing of the resolution is also notable. It comes as US and Indian officials continue discussions aimed at easing trade tensions and exploring a broader bilateral trade framework. While both sides have emphasized the importance of the partnership, disputes over tariffs, market access, and regulatory barriers have remained unresolved. The resolution’s supporters see its passage as a way to provide immediate relief and signal a renewed commitment to cooperation.
In the meantime, the debate in Congress is likely to intensify, with lawmakers weighing the economic, legal, and strategic implications of emergency trade powers. The outcome will not only shape the future of US-India relations but could also set a precedent for how the United States manages its trade policy in a rapidly changing world.
For now, the resolution has brought renewed attention to the complexities of international trade, the limits of executive authority, and the enduring importance of legislative oversight. As the story unfolds, all eyes will be on Capitol Hill—and on the evolving partnership between two of the world’s largest democracies.
