'If Tariffs Are So Good...': Indian-Origin Lawyer On Trump's New 15% Levies

Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal has sharply criticised US President Donald Trump's decision to impose a 15% global tariff, saying the President cannot bypass Congress for such measures. Katyal argued that if Trump believes the tariff is a "good idea", he should follow the Constitution.

Katyal's remarks came soon after the Supreme Court struck down most of Trump's earlier tariff actions in a 6-3 ruling, saying the administration overstepped its authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977 and reaffirming that the power to tax lies mainly with Congress.

Katyal, who recently won a major case against Trump's earlier trade measures, also questioned the legal basis for the new 15% tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. He pointed out that the Department of Justice (DOJ) had previously told the Court that Section 122 was not suited for situations involving trade deficits, which are different from balance-of-payments deficits.

In a post on X, he wrote, "Seems hard for the President to rely on the 15 percent statute (sec 122) when his DOJ in our case told the Court the opposite: Nor does [122] have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits."

Katyal added, "If he wants sweeping tariffs, he should do the American thing and go to Congress. If his tariffs are such a good idea, he should have no problem persuading Congress. That's what our Constitution requires."

Seems hard for the President to rely on the 15 percent statute (sec 122) when his DOJ in our case told the Court the opposite: “Nor does [122] have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which…

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) February 21, 2026

The criticism followed Trump's rapid tariff moves after the court ruling. Trump first issued a 10% global tariff under Section 122 as a temporary surcharge allowed for up to 150 days. He then raised it to the "fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level," calling the Supreme Court's judgment "extraordinarily anti-American" on Truth Social.

Economist and former IMF First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath also supported Katyal's analysis on X and pointed out that trade deficits and balance-of-payments deficits are not the same.

.@neal_katyal speaking International Economics 101:“Nor does [122] have any obvious application here, where the concerns the President identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits." https://t.co/lQyeKGJ4Hi

— Gita Gopinath (@GitaGopinath) February 21, 2026

Trump's announcement also affects India. A White House official said countries like India would be covered under the new global tariff until a different authority is invoked. This comes as the US and India work on an Interim Agreement on bilateral trade, which includes tariff adjustments on several goods.

Who Is Neal Katyal?

Born in Chicago to Indian immigrant parents - a doctor and an engineer - Katyal has built a career around high-stakes constitutional battles. He is a graduate of Dartmouth College and Yale Law School and clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer of the US Supreme Court.

Appointed Acting Solicitor General by President Barack Obama in 2010, Katyal represented the federal government before the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals nationwide. He has argued more than 50 cases before the Supreme Court, breaking records for minority advocates.

Currently a partner at Milbank LLP and the Paul Saunders Professor at Georgetown University Law Center, Katyal specialises in constitutional and complex appellate litigation. His past cases include defending the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, challenging Trump's 2017 travel ban, and winning unanimous rulings in major environmental and national security disputes.

(With inputs from agencies)