From India-Pak tensions to national security threat: BIZARRE reasons Trump admin gave to defend tariffs in US court

In a landmark judgement that could reshape the global trade dynamics, a US trade court blocked Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs from going into effect, stating that the US president overstepped authorities. Rejecting all arguments, the Manhattan-based three-judge Court of International Trade ruled that Congress did not delegate "unbounded" powers to the President under International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). It only authorises the president to impose necessary economic sanctions during an emergency "to combat an unusual and extraordinary threat," the bench said.

The White House, as per AFP, has been given 10 days to complete the bureaucratic process and halt the tariffs. However, the White House said that the "unelected judges" have no right to weigh in on Trump's handling of the issue.

As the judgement changed the track of Trump's tariff game, what drew eyeballs was his administration's bizarre explanations to the court justifying his tariffs.

1. The Trump administration, in their plea, stated that the US was able to stop military actions between India and Pakistan using his trade and tariff - a claim that India's MEA has denied

2. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told the court that the “tenuous ceasefire” between India and Paksitan was achieved after "Donald Trump offered to expand trade with the countries in exchange for it."

3. Lutnick went on to claim, “If the court pauses President Trump’s tariffs move, then it will lead to both countries resuming their military actions since there will be no condition left to compel them to maintain peace.”

4. Trump administration said the court ruling could hamper the security of entire region - “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," Lutnick said.

5. The Trump administration said that the ruling could have "an adverse ruling would destroy the carefully crafted China trade agreement." Lutnick claimed that it was President Trump’s spiraling tariffs that brought China to "negotiating table."

6. Trump administration also said in the court that the ruling could "allow Chinese aggression" and "leave the American people exposed to predatory economic practices"

7. Trump's secretary of state Marco Rubio claimed that the ruling could be a threat to national security. "A legal setback would lead to embarrassment of the United States on a global stage” and “would embolden allies and adversaries alike, leading to a dangerous situation globally," he said.