The Trump administration, in a recent legal defence before the US Court of International Trade, has strongly reiterated its claim that President Donald Trump played a decisive role in brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan in May 2025.

In a series of submissions led by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, administration officials argued that the president’s use of trade incentives and tariff threats was instrumental in preventing a full-scale war between the two nuclear-armed neighbours. According to Lutnick, a “fragile ceasefire” was achieved on May 10, 2025, only after President Trump “interceded” by offering both India and Pakistan enhanced trade access to the United States.

Lutnick’s statements were made in the context of ongoing legal challenges to President Trump’s sweeping tariffs, which were imposed using emergency powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

He emphasised that maintaining these presidential powers is essential for effective US diplomacy, particularly in high-stakes international crises. Lutnick asserted that Trump’s offer of expanded trade access was a key factor in persuading India and Pakistan to halt their military operations, which had escalated following India’s Operation Sindoor—a targeted military response to a deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025.

The Trump administration’s argument in court went further, warning that any judicial decision limiting the president’s authority to impose tariffs or use trade as a diplomatic tool could destabilize the region. Lutnick cautioned that a negative ruling might cause India and Pakistan to question the legitimacy of Trump’s offer, potentially leading to renewed hostilities and endangering millions of lives. This line of reasoning was also extended to US-China relations, with administration officials claiming that Trump’s tariff strategy had forced China to the negotiating table to address trade imbalances.

However, Indian officials have consistently and firmly rejected the Trump administration’s claims of mediation or involvement in the ceasefire. The Ministry of External Affairs has stated that the cessation of hostilities between India and Pakistan was the result of direct negotiations between the Director Generals of Military Operations (DGMOs) of both countries, with no third-party intervention. Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has publicly clarified that while there were discussions with US leaders regarding the evolving military situation, the issue of trade or tariffs did not feature in those conversations. Indian government sources maintain that the agreement to halt the conflict was reached independently, without any external assistance.

Despite these rebuttals, the Trump administration continues to cite the India-Pakistan “ceasefire” as a prime example of how presidential trade powers can be leveraged for global stability and national security. Lutnick and other senior officials have stressed that the IEEPA is a vital instrument for the US president to respond swiftly to international crises, and that undermining this authority would disrupt ongoing trade negotiations, weaken US bargaining power, and potentially embolden adversaries such as China.

While the Trump administration has framed the India-Pakistan ceasefire as a diplomatic achievement enabled by presidential trade powers, Indian authorities have categorically denied any US role in the process. The administration’s legal argument seeks to justify the continuation of broad tariff powers as essential for US foreign policy and national security, even as its claims regarding the India-Pakistan conflict are disputed by the parties directly involved.

Based On ET News Report