April 18, 2025 — Washington, D.C.
In the latest development in the ongoing global trade dispute, the United States has formally rejected India’s claim at the World Trade Organization (WTO) challenging tariffs imposed on steel and aluminum exports. U.S. officials defended the tariffs, originally enacted during the Trump administration, as necessary measures to protect national security interests.
India had filed a case with the WTO, arguing that the U.S. tariffs violated global trade rules and unfairly impacted its metal industries. The case is part of a broader push by several countries to challenge what they see as protectionist policies implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act — a U.S. law that allows trade restrictions for national security reasons.
“The United States will not allow its national security to be compromised by unfair trade practices,” a spokesperson from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said on Thursday. “Our position remains firm: these tariffs are essential to ensure the viability of domestic steel and aluminum industries, which are critical to our defense infrastructure.”
The WTO had previously ruled in favor of multiple countries, including India, in similar cases, stating that the U.S. tariffs breached international obligations. However, Washington has consistently maintained that matters of national security are not subject to WTO jurisdiction — a stance that has raised questions about the future role and authority of the global trade body.
India has expressed disappointment over the U.S. position and has called for a return to rules-based trade. “The justification of national security cannot be used as a blanket exemption for economic protectionism,” a senior Indian trade official said.
This latest rejection could intensify tensions between the two nations, particularly as both sides engage in broader discussions around technology, defense, and market access. It also comes at a time when the WTO is under increasing pressure to reform and clarify the boundaries of its dispute resolution process.
As the case continues to unfold, analysts warn that prolonged disputes could lead to retaliatory measures and further strain global trade relationships.
