Why in News?

• The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6–3 ruling, struck down President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 1977.
• The judgment marks a critical moment in the debate over separation of powers, executive overreach, and the future of U.S. trade policy.
• The ruling has significant implications for the global economy, including countries like India, which have been directly affected by U.S. tariff measures. 

What’s in Today’s Article?

• Constitutional Issue - Executive vs Legislative Authority
• Trump’s Tariff Strategy - Economic and Foreign Policy Tool
• Legal Challenges and Federal Pushback
• Alternative Tariff Mechanisms - Sections 122, 301, and 232
• Broader Implications
• Challenges and Way Forward
• Conclusion

Constitutional Issue - Executive vs Legislative Authority:

• Core constitutional principle:
  • The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the authority to levy taxes and tariffs, not the President.
  • Trump invoked IEEPA, a law meant for national emergencies, to impose tariffs without Congressional approval.
  • The Court upheld a lower court ruling stating that this action exceeded presidential authority.
• Nature of IEEPA:
  • Enacted in 1977 under President Jimmy Carter, it was historically used to freeze assets, impose sanctions. It does not explicitly mention tariffs.
  • Trump became the first President to use IEEPA to impose tariffs.

Trump’s Tariff Strategy - Economic and Foreign Policy Tool:

• Trade war and economic leverage:
  • Trump used tariffs as a revenue-generating instrument (estimated $300 billion annually if fully retained).
  • It is used as a foreign policy tool, a means to renegotiate trade deals, and a pressure mechanism against China, Canada, Mexico, India, and Brazil.
• “Liberation Day” tariffs (April 2, 2025):
  • Announced “reciprocal tariffs” on most trading partners.
  • Justified under a “national emergency” related to trade deficits.
  • Also invoked IEEPA citing fentanyl trafficking and migration concerns.
• Economic impact:
  • Over $175 billion collected under IEEPA-based tariffs (Penn-Wharton estimate).
  • $195 billion net customs duty receipts in FY 2025 (record high).
  • Refund liability likely after the Supreme Court ruling.
  • Created global market uncertainty and financial volatility.

Legal Challenges and Federal Pushback:

• Three lawsuits challenged the tariffs -
  • Small importing businesses.
  • 12 U.S. states (including Arizona, Colorado, New York).
  • Federal rulings against the administration.
• The Court reaffirmed national emergency powers cannot become a substitute for legislative trade authority.

Alternative Tariff Mechanisms - Sections 122, 301, and 232:

• After the ruling, Trump indicated he would explore other statutory options. For example,
• Section 122 (Trade Act, 1974):
  • It allows up to 15% tariff to address serious balance-of-payments deficits. Never used before, it is valid for 150 days, unless extended by Congress.
  • Trump signaled a 10% global tariff under this provision.
• Section 301 (Trade Act, 1974):
  • It is a targeted and investigation-based (not sweeping) provision, triggered when the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) finds “unfair trade practices”.
  • Previously used against India over the Digital Services Tax (2020). Later resolved under OECD global minimum tax framework.
• Section 232 (Trade Expansion Act, 1962):
  • It allows tariffs on national security grounds, and it is sector-specific (steel, aluminium, automobiles, etc.).
  • India currently faces 232 tariffs on steel, aluminium, automobiles, and copper derivatives.
  • Some relief possible under the recent U.S.-India trade understanding, including:
    • Tariff removal on certain aircraft parts.
    • Preferential TRQ (Tariff Rate Quota) for automotive parts.
    • Negotiations in generic pharmaceuticals.

Broader Implications:

• For the U.S. political system: Reassertion of judicial review. Curtailment of expansive executive authority. Reinforcement of Congressional primacy in taxation.
• For Global trade: Potential rollback or restructuring of tariff regimes. Increased uncertainty in the short term. Possible shift toward more rules-based trade measures. Affects WTO dynamics and global trade governance.
• For India: Relief potential in select sectors (aircraft parts, auto components). Continued exposure to 232 tariffs. Trade diplomacy becomes critical. Strategic balancing amid U.S.–China competition.

Challenges and Way Forward:

• Conflict: Between Executive-Legislative branches over trade authority. Strengthening Congressional oversight in trade policy.
• Risk: Of renewed protectionism under alternative provisions. Greater adherence to multilateral trade norms (WTO-consistent measures). Targeted, transparent use of national security provisions.
• Instability: Of the global supply chain. Diplomatic engagement to prevent tariff escalation. For India, proactive trade negotiations and diversification of export markets is the way ahead.

Conclusion:

• The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a pivotal constitutional correction in the United States, reinforcing the doctrine that emergency powers cannot be stretched into instruments of broad economic policy.
• For the global economy — and countries like India — the decision may reduce tariff unpredictability, but the era of strategic trade weaponisation is far from over.
• The episode underscores a larger global trend: trade policy is increasingly intertwined with national security, domestic politics, and geopolitical rivalry.

Why in the News?

• The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) has criticised the government for poorly planned and slow SANKALP Scheme Implementation, citing findings from a CAG report.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• SANKALP Scheme (Overview, Objectives, Funding Pattern, etc.)
• CAG Report (Progress, Critical Concerns, Broader Context)

Overview of the SANKALP Scheme

• The Skill Acquisition and Knowledge Awareness for Livelihood Promotion (SANKALP) scheme is a flagship programme of the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship.
• It was approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) in October 2017 with a total outlay of Rs. 4,455 crore.
• The scheme was launched in January 2018 and was originally scheduled for completion by March 2023. It was later extended to March 2024.
• SANKALP was designed to strengthen short-term skill training across India through:

• Improved institutional frameworks
• Better industry linkages
• Inclusion of marginalised communities
• Enhanced monitoring and governance systems

• The broader objective was to improve employability outcomes and create a more demand-driven skilling ecosystem aligned with industry requirements.

Funding Structure of the Scheme

• The financial design of SANKALP involved a mix of domestic and external funding sources:

• Rs. 3,300 crore through a World Bank loan
• Rs. 660 crore through State leverage
• Rs. 495 crore through industry participation

• The scheme aimed to use outcome-based financing and performance-linked incentives to strengthen skill development at both national and State levels.
• However, the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) found significant shortfalls in financial utilisation and implementation efficiency.

CAG Findings on Financial and Physical Progress

• According to the CAG report examined by the PAC, only 44% of the budgeted provision under the SANKALP scheme was disbursed between 2017-18 and 2023-24.
• Further, against the first tranche of the World Bank loan of $250 million, Rs. 1,606.15 crore (86%) was disbursed by the World Bank. However, the Ministry utilised only Rs. 850.71 crore as of December 2023. The CAG also highlighted:

• Weak adherence to implementation guidelines
• Sluggish pace of execution
• Lack of preparedness before commencement of the loan period

• The audit pointed to “non-preparedness” within the Ministry as a key reason for delays.

Observations of the Public Accounts Committee

• The Public Accounts Committee described the scheme’s implementation as “lackadaisical”.
• During its examination of the CAG report, the PAC raised several critical concerns:
• Absence of Central Monitoring Mechanism
  • Members questioned why there was no robust central monitoring system to track implementation across States.
  • Given that skill development involves coordination between the Centre, States, and private sector partners, monitoring gaps can significantly undermine outcomes.
• Lack of Due Diligence
  • The Committee flagged inadequate due diligence before the rollout of the scheme. This suggests that institutional readiness and administrative capacity were not fully assessed prior to loan utilisation.
• Missing Roadmap for School-Level Skilling
  • MPs also noted the absence of a clear roadmap to integrate skilling into the school curriculum from primary to higher secondary levels.
  • This is particularly significant in light of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, which emphasises vocational education from an early stage. The lack of alignment between skilling schemes and education reform weakens long-term employability goals.

Broader Context of Skill Development in India

• India’s demographic dividend presents both an opportunity and a challenge. With a large youth population entering the workforce, skill development is central to economic growth and social mobility.
• Schemes such as Pradhan Mantri Kaushal Vikas Yojana (PMKVY) and SANKALP aim to improve the quality, scale, and relevance of skill training. However, issues such as the following continue to affect the outcomes:

• Fragmented implementation
• Weak industry alignment
• Inadequate monitoring
• Underutilisation of funds

• The SANKALP experience underscores the importance of institutional preparedness, data-driven evaluation, and inter-ministerial coordination.

Context

• Across the world, democratic systems are experiencing democratic backsliding, weakening institutions, and growing authoritarianism.
• Many citizens appeared resigned to unresponsive governance, yet a new political actor has emerged: Generation Z (1997–2012).
• Recent protests in Bangladesh (2024) and Nepal (2025), organised around corruption, transparency, and accountability, demonstrate that political participation has not disappeared but is transforming.
• Unlike earlier protest waves such as the Arab Spring or Occupy Wall Street, which generated visibility without lasting institutional change, contemporary youth mobilisation requires understanding beyond traditional frameworks of parties, leadership, and ideology.

Generational Change and Political Imagination

• Each generation reshapes social values and ethical practices.
• Older traditions persist as an absent presence within new forms, yet unfamiliar expressions often appear superficial to earlier generations. Political participation is therefore not declining but changing in form.
• Gen Z was frequently considered politically disengaged, absorbed in technology and detached from public life.
• However, organised youth protests reveal a different reality. Democracy rests not only on constitutional frameworks and institutions but also on everyday moral behaviour and collective emotions.
• Gen Z’s politics operates primarily within everyday experience rather than formal structures, making it less visible yet socially influential.

The Worldview of Gen Z

• Gen Z embodies a blend of radical individualism and relative tolerance, showing less overt prejudice and cynicism.
• Its guiding principle resembles: personal is political, while politics itself is not treated as a personal ideological commitment.
• This generation prefers lived conduct over doctrine. Acting as exemplars rather than emissaries, it demonstrates values through behaviour instead of advocacy.
• It resists preaching and avoids preaching to others, making sustained collective mobilisation difficult.
• Young people react strongly to visible hierarchies and discrimination but often lack a systemic analysis of structural inequality.
• Comfort with the virtual world shapes political participation. Digital platforms allow expression without intense face-to-face interaction.
• Consequently, protests are typically leaderless, ideologically loose, and episodic protests rather than long-term movements. 

Changing Forms of Protest

• Comparison with the farmers’ movement (2020–24) clarifies the shift.
• The farmers-maintained leadership, organisation, and sustained demands for years. In contrast, Gen Z mobilisations appear suddenly and dissolve quickly, yet leave a lasting symbolic impact.
• This pattern reflects a combination of confidence and insecurity. Gen Z grew up in an environment of social democratisation, encouraging self-expression and self-introspection, but also faces shrinking economic opportunities and employment instability.
• Their political engagement is therefore assertive yet fragmented.
• Mental health awareness further shapes behaviour. Openness to mental health, therapy, and emotional vulnerability contrasts with earlier generational restraint.
• Experiences of mental despair, workplace toxicity, and anomie produce intense but short-lived political participation. Emotional precarity contributes to fleeting involvement in democratic processes.

Identity, Consumption, and Nationalism

• Gen Z links identity formation with consumption patterns. Markets, technology, and education shape self-representation and weaken traditional ascriptive identities such as caste and religion.
• Digital access and information serve as sources of dignity, sometimes more meaningful than inherited status.
• Possessing advanced technology, symbolised by the iPhone, becomes an imagined social equaliser.
• This produces a generation that is more secularised yet inward-looking, prioritising personal choices.
• However, rapid digital exposure can also foster hyper-nationalism.
• Unlike earlier cultural chauvinism, this nationalism emphasises future potential and developmental achievement, pride in space missions, technological innovation, and global visibility despite persistent inequality.

Conclusion

• Generation Z is transforming democratic participation rather than abandoning it.
• Although its activism may appear inconsistent compared to traditional movements, it reflects deeper changes in democratic culture.
• This generation’s contradictions, individualistic yet socially aware, confident yet anxious, globalised yet nationalist, make its influence unpredictable.
• Established expectations of activism may not be met, but new forms of engagement are emerging.
• Gen Z therefore represents not the decline of democracy but its adaptation to a digitally connected and uncertain social world.

About Public Trust Doctrine:

• It is a legal principle asserting that the government acts as the custodian of certain natural resources for the benefit of the public.
• It rests on the principle that certain resources have such great importance to the people as a whole that it would be wholly unjustified to make them a subject of private ownership.
• Rooted in Roman law and developed through English common law, this doctrine encompasses various public assets such as tidal waters, lakes, rivers, wetlands, and ecosystems.
• It imposes an obligation on the state to act as a trustee of natural resources.
• The public is considered the owner of the resources, and the government protects and maintains these resources for the public’s use.
• It guarantees that everyone has access to essential resources, which benefits society as a whole.
• Three types of restrictions on governmental authority are often thought to be imposed by the public trust:
  • the property subject to the trust must not only be used for a public purpose, but it must be held available for use by the general public;
  • the property may not be sold, even for a fair cash equivalent;
  • the property must be maintained for particular types of uses.
• It has emerged as a vital environmental and constitutional principle in India, ensuring the protection and preservation of natural resources for public use.
• The Supreme Court held that the principle of the public trust is a part of the Indian legal system.
• Supreme Court accepted that as far as “trusteeship” is concerned, there is not any doubt that the State is the holder of all natural resources in a fiduciary relationship with the public.

About Strait of Gibraltar:

• It is the body of water separating Europe from Africa and connecting the Atlantic Ocean to the west with the Mediterranean Sea in the east.
• It is located at the southern tip of the Iberian Peninsula.
• Bordering Countries: It is bordered by Spain and the British Overseas Territory of Gibraltar in the north and by the African country of Morocco and the Spanish enclave of Ceuta in the south.
• It is the only natural link between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea and is one of the busiest waterways in the world.
• Until the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869, the Strait of Gibraltar was the only means of oceanic access to and from the Mediterranean Sea.
• An important port located on the Strait of Gibraltar is the Moroccan port of Tanger-Med, near Tangier. 

About CJ-1000 Missile:

• It is a road-mobile hypersonic cruise missile developed by China.
• It is the world’s first and so far only operational land-based scramjet-powered hypersonic missile.
• CJ-1000 is mounted on a diesel-electric hybrid transporter-erector-launcher.
• It is estimated to have a range of at least 2,500 km.
• Why Are Scramjet Missiles More Dangerous Than Glide Vehicles?
  • Scramjet missiles have a cruise altitude of 20 km to 30 km, which is much lower than that of glide vehicles. Glide vehicles typically fly at an altitude of approximately 60 km to 80 km.
  • For enemy air defence radar systems, the lower a missile flies, the more difficult it is to detect and respond to.
  • Furthermore, the scramjet engine operates throughout the cruise and terminal phases, providing greater manoeuvrability and accuracy against targets.
  • Glide vehicles, in contrast, rely largely on inertia during the final approach.