Jefferies’ latest read on U.S.-India relations is blunt: the 50% tariff wall Washington just threw up against Indian goods is not grand strategy, it’s grievance politics. Chris Wood at Jefferies calls the duties “draconian” and pegs the hit to India’s economy at $55–60 billion. He also attributes the move to Donald Trump’s “personal pique” after New Delhi refused to let him play mediator in an India-Pakistan flare-up. In other words, policy by wounded ego. If accurate, that is more than petulant diplomacy. It is textbook abuse of power – and therefore impeachable.
First, the facts, because markets trade on detail. The White House created a two-step stack: a 25% “reciprocal” tariff rate applied to India in late July, then an extra 25% penalty on India alone on August 6 for buying Russian oil. The administration’s own orders say the new 25% Russia-related duty “shall apply in addition to” the reciprocal tariff, which is how you get to 50%.
The economic consequences are immediate and ugly. Reuters reports duties now “as high as 50%” on garments, gems, footwear, furniture and chemicals, with exporter groups warning that nearly 55% of India’s $87 billion in merchandise exports to the U.S. could be affected. Jobs, especially in small-firm clusters from Surat to Noida, are in the firing line. This is not how you treat a strategic partner in the Quad. It is how you turn a supply-chain ally into a sceptic.
Worse, the legal scaffolding beneath this tariff spree is wobbling. A U.S. federal appeals court has just ruled that most of Trump’s sweeping tariffs are illegal because the emergency statute he leaned on does not grant a president power to impose blanket tariffs. The court is letting them linger until October 14 while the White House appeals, but the headline is damning: the core authority is likely ultra vires. If you are an ally on the receiving end, “trust us, it’s all perfectly legal” is no longer persuasive.
Now to the constitutional heart of the matter. The American impeachment standard is not a scavenger hunt for statutory crimes. The Founders wrote “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” into Article II, Section 4, leaving Congress to judge abuses of public trust. Hamilton couldn’t have been clearer in Federalist 65: impeachable offenses are those that arise from “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Modern House Judiciary analyses reach the same conclusion: abuse of power and corrupt use of office are impeachable.
So ask the only question that matters: if the Jefferies assessment is right – that a president used the tariff lever of the United States to punish India because he felt snubbed as a would-be Kashmir mediator – is that a legitimate public purpose or a private vendetta dressed up as policy? It looks a lot like the latter. Using the machinery of state to settle personal scores with another sovereign government is not “America First,” it is Office First, Person First, Constitution Last. That is precisely the kind of corrupt motive the framers meant Congress to check.
Cue the predictable spin: tariffs are leverage, India buys Russian oil, reciprocity is good. Fine, argue the merits. But the White House’s own documents show the penalty is stacked on top of a universal tariff framework that a federal court has just found unlawful. And the contemporaneous economic analysis from Jefferies says the push was guided by “personal pique,” not considered strategy. When the motive is private and the instrument is public power, you are staring at an abuse of office. Markets call that mispricing risk. The Constitution calls it impeachable.
For India and Britain, the response should be grown-up, not theatrical. New Delhi should keep its head, protect jobs in exposed sectors, and accelerate trade diversification. London should say the quiet part out loud: allies don’t weaponise tariffs against each other to indulge one man’s vanity. As for Washington, there is a constitutional remedy for presidents who treat policy like a cudgel for personal slights. The House should pick it up.