Connect with us

Opinion

US Insurrection Act: Obnoxious law Sri Lankan policymakers unaware of

Published

3 years ago

on

BY Daya Gamage
Foreign Service National Political Specialist (rtd)
US Department of State

During the summer of 2020, protests against police violence and racial injustice erupted throughout the United States. May 25, 2020-death of George Floyd, a Black man who died in police custody, renewed the people’s outrage regarding police treatment of Black Americans and caused protests and demonstrations to erupt across the nation. Over 10,000 demonstrations by millions of protesters occurred across nationwide in a mobilisation estimated the largest mass movements in American history.

More than ninety-five percent of the protests remained peaceful, then-President Donald Trump delivered a speech during the height of the protests in which he threatened to “deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem”. The comment referred to the President of the United States’ unilateral power to invoke the Insurrection Act, send in active duty military to quell the mass agitation.

The Executive branch of the United States along with many Members of the Legislature considered these protests not as an expression of anger and opposition to human rights violation but as an insurrection.

What’s discussed in this write-up is the use of a draconian law that has given despotic powers to the Executive Branch headed by the president: The Insurrection Act, an Act authorising the deployment of the military in case of mass agitations often described by authorities as insurrections to suppress such events.

The Insurrection Act describes itself as “Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws, either of the United States, or of any individual state or territory, where it is lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia for the purpose of suppressing such insurrection, or of causing the laws to be duly executed, it shall be lawful for him to employ, for the same purposes, such part of the land or naval force of the United States, as shall be judged necessary, having first observed all the pre-requisites of the law in that respect.

The importance, at this time, of ‘disclosing’ or ‘revealing’ that the United States has such a ‘draconian’ law that facilitates the deployment of the armed military to suppress mass agitations mostly connected with civil rights abuses, racial discrimination and socio-political issues is when the American ambassador to Sri Lanka Julie Chung, on many occasions, agitated Sri Lanka to either repeal or amend the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). In the United States, instead of finding solutions to the outcry of the masses, these outcries are labeled as insurrections to deploy the armed military, which the American authorities have done in the past.

This writer found appropriate and vital to ‘disclose’ or ‘reveal’ the existence of a draconian law in the United States as the Sri Lankan policymakers and lawmakers have not shown any signs or indication that they were aware of the existence of such a law in the American statute books.

This writer who had a very long service with the Government of the United States as a Foreign Service National Political Specialist thought this was an opportune time to bring this issue to the forefront so that when Sri Lankan policymakers and lawmakers next meet American diplomatic representatives in Colombo they could raise the existence of the Insurrection Act when the later raise issues connected to the PTA as well as human rights.

In a forthcoming analytical-investigative book, Defending Democracy: Lessons in Strategic Diplomacy from US-Sri Lanka Relations, this writer along with another retired Senior Foreign Service and Intelligence Officer of the U.S. Department of State Dr. Robert Boggs discloses how the US foreign policy approaches largely harmed Sri Lanka, and the inability of the policymakers and lawmakers of Sri to comprehend their own country’s socio-political-economic development and structure, along with covert and overt US foreign policy decisions. Such an understanding and gained knowledge would have helped to have a better rapport and fruitful dialogue with the United States while safeguarding the sovereignty and independence of Sri Lanka.

The Insurrection Act authorises the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations. The statute implements Congress’s authority under the Constitution to “provide for calling forth the Naval and Armed Forces of the United States to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

Crucial provisions of the Insurrection Act are in Sections 251 through 254 in the Title of the United States Code, some of them being as follows:

251. Federal aid for State governments Whenever there is an insurrection in any State against its government, it shall be lawful for the President to, upon the request of its legislature or the executive if the legislature cannot be convened, call forth such of the militia of the other States, in the number requested by that State, and use such of the land or naval forces of the United States, as he considers necessary to suppress the insurrection.252. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority .

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, it shall be lawful to call forth the militia of any or all the States, and use of the land and naval forces of the United States, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.

253. Interference with State and Federal law The President, by using the militia or the land and naval forces of the United States, or both, or by any other means, it shall be lawful for the President and it shall be his duty to take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it—

(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of the United States within the State, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

254. Proclamation to disperse

Whenever the President considers it necessary to use the militia or the armed forces under this chapter, he shall, by proclamation, immediately order the insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

Section 251 allows the president to deploy troops if a state’s legislature (or governor if the legislature is unavailable) requests federal aid to suppress an insurrection in that state. This provision is the one that has most often been invoked.

While Section 251 requires state consent, Sections 252 and 253 allow the president to deploy troops without a request from the affected state, even against the state’s wishes. Section 252 permits deployment in order to “enforce the laws” of the United States or to “suppress rebellion” whenever “unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion” make it “impracticable” to enforce federal law in that state by the “ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”

Section 253 has two parts. The first allows the president to use the military in a state to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that “so hinders the execution of the laws” that any portion of the state’s inhabitants is deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right. Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and John F. Kennedy relied on this provision to deploy troops to desegregate schools in the South of the United States after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Most famously, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson all invoked the Insurrection Act during the civil rights movement to enforce federal court orders desegregating schools and other institutions in the South.

The Insurrection Act was invoked in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid from President George H.W. Bush in response to civil unrest in Los Angeles that followed the acquittal of four white police officers charged with beating Black motorist Rodney King.

The second part of Section 253 permits the president to deploy troops to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” in a state that “opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.” This provision is so confusing and difficult to understand that it cannot possibly mean what it says, or else it authorises the president to use the military against any two people conspiring to break federal law.

The US Congress and the Supreme Court have failed to provide adequate checks on the president’s domestic military power, to determine the source of this power, and to accurately describe the limits of the president’s power under the Act. By failing to adhere to the conception of military involvement in domestic law the United States is left vulnerable to serious abuses of power for the sake of expediency.

Professionals who are concerned about the draconian nature of the Insurrection Act propose that Sections 252 and 253 of the Insurrection Act should be amended to require additional checks and a method for obtaining independent approval for the mobilisation of armed forces within the United States. The power to use federal troops within a state against the state’s will should not be conditioned upon the discretion of a single individual the President; this is an opinion widely expressed by legal luminaries.

Texas A&M University School of Law student Jeremy C. Campbell in a very erudite presentation to his law school journal said: Sections 252 and 253 of the Insurrection Act should be amended to require additional checks and a method for obtaining independent approval for the mobilisation of armed forces within the United States. The power to use federal troops within a state, against the state’s will, should not be conditioned upon the discretion of a single individual. Any proposed amendments should leave the president’s power to request the use of federal troops and to retain or delegate command of those troops, once approval is received, intact.

The importance of the Congress to have the authority to curb presidential authority by requiring congressional approval before the president invokes the Act has been widely discussed, and the motive of this write-up is to show Sri Lankan policymakers and lawmakers the draconian power the President of the United States has under the Insurrection Act. What is been ‘disclosed’ and ‘revealed’ to Sri Lankan lawmakers and policymakers who maintain constant rapport with American diplomats is the existence of a law which lets the president to deploy the military domestically and use it for civilian law enforcement and the urgent need of reform.

Both the (U.S.) Insurrection Act and (Sri Lanka) Prevention of Terrorism Act can then be discussed on equal terms.

The Insurrection Act is a model of how not to draft major legislation. Key terms like “insurrection” and “rebellion” are left undefined. The language is so outdated that no modern American can be sure of its meaning. The few times the law was reformed, it was changed to give the president more power rather than less. And courts have interpreted it to grant the president exclusive and unreviewable authority to decide whether the conditions to deploy the military have been met.

At a time when there is a strong possibility that former president Donald Trump could win a second term at 2024 November elections and enter the White House February 2025, the Washington Post on 6 November 2023 ran a chilling piece about Trump’s plan for a second term. It starts: “Trump and his allies have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations.”

(The writer is a retired Foreign Service National Political Specialist of the U.S. Department of State).


Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinion

Think globally and act locally

Published

30 mins ago

on

2026/09/28

By

By Prof. Amarasiri de Silva

The current period can be characterised by Sri Lanka reaching a historical crossroad which determines whether the island nation will continue following the logic of an inward-oriented mind or adapt to the realities of the globally connected world. Throughout the millennia, Sri Lankan psychology has been conditioned by the island nature of its geography. The ocean around the nation has served as a protective factor and as a boundary at the same time. In the language of Sinhala people, the phenomenon is known as lin medi manasikathwaya and implies narrowing of horizons, restriction of ambitions, and the need to focus on oneself. This mentality is not characteristic of the culture only; it also affects economic thinking, political behaviour, education, and social relations. In the epoch of global trends, the nation must abandon this approach and start thinking in a bigger way.

Inwardness is characteristic of many islands. However, Sri Lanka’s situation is quite unique as the island has had centuries of contacts with other countries. For millennia, travellers, monks, scientists, merchants, and others travelled from Sri Lanka to India, China, Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. Our ports were centres of economic activity and exchange; our ancient kingdoms absorbed knowledge, technologies, and culture from foreign countries. Therefore, the island was never isolated but functioned as a meeting place of civilisations. However, for some reason, in modern times, Sri Lanka started developing an inward orientation despite having centuries of experience. There are several reasons for the phenomenon: legacies of colonial past, post-independence nationalism, rhetoric of political parties, economic dependencies, and cycles. At some point, the ocean ceased serving as a bridge.

Inward in several areas

This inwardness can be observed in several areas. It takes various forms: a conviction that Sri Lanka is too small to succeed in the global competition, fears of external influences, a tendency to compare ourselves only to nearby countries, and a failure to adopt global approaches. In politics, the island’s inwardness can be revealed in rhetoric which dismisses global trends as unimportant or even threatening. In economics, the mentality can manifest itself in focusing on internal issues instead of considering global opportunities. In education, students study mainly about the history of their own country instead of global trends. In cultural matters, openness can be confused with dilution. To move forward, Sri Lanka needs to realize that global thinking is not a luxury but a necessity.

It is quite easy to notice the effect of inwardness on the economic life of Sri Lanka. For decades, the country was characterised by limited export diversification, dependence on remittances, vulnerability to external shocks, and financial constraints. All these problems do not only affect the economy but are caused by the mentality. In general, Sri Lankan entrepreneurs have a small market mentality: they design products for domestic markets, set standards based on domestic criteria, and never consider globalisation. To change the situation, the country must adopt a global economic imagination which would encourage the development of export-oriented entrepreneurship, integration into global value chains, partnership with global companies, and promotion of globally competitive industries (information technology, tourism, agriculture, renewable energy).

Abandoning island mentality

Small countries all over the world managed to transform their economy by abandoning the logic of island mentality. Singapore, Estonia, and Vietnam are examples of such transformation: they have made investments in education, technology, and global cooperation; they have encouraged their citizens to be a part of the global labour market. Sri Lanka can do the same but only if it starts thinking differently. One of the most underused resources of the transformation can be the country’s diaspora. Millions of Sri Lankans living outside the island can be helpful: they have global knowledge, networks, and capital. Instead of being seen as sources of remittances, the diaspora can be a strategic partner in the process of national development. Global imagination requires Sri Lankans to see themselves not only as inhabitants of the island but also as participants of global processes of innovation and research. To harness the potential, there should be special policies to encourage investment of diaspora into the nation, facilitate knowledge transfer, and develop the trust between the diaspora and the state.

Inwardness is a problem in politics as well. The political imagination has a great impact on the fate of the nation: when politicians think narrowly, the country follows the example; when they think globally, the country starts expanding its horizons. In general, Sri Lankan politics is characterised by a narrow focus on local problems: political leaders speak about village-level concerns and try to satisfy voters’ demands in the shortest time possible. Of course, local problems matter but they cannot be the only focus of national politics. Climate change, geopolitics, technological disruptions, and migrations have a significant influence on Sri Lanka. Therefore, to have a global political imagination, it is necessary to understand global systems, predict risks, position the country within global power dynamics, develop diplomatic skills, and learn from models of global governance which emphasise transparency and accountability.

Diplomacy as a powerful tool

Diplomacy is one of the most powerful tools at the disposal of small countries. Sri Lanka’s geographical position is one of the biggest blessings of the country as the island located at the intersection of major sea routes has huge geopolitical value. Global thinking requires the nation to utilize its potential through proper diplomacy instead of isolation or fear. Through diplomacy, Sri Lanka should attract investments, create alliances, enhance its security, increase exports, and promote cultural contacts. Countries which master diplomacy (like Qatar, Norway, and Singapore) can achieve much more in the world of politics than they actually should. However, this can be achieved only by the politicians who have global awareness, understand different economic models, technology trends, and best practices in the global context. Parliamentary debates should be conducted considering global statistics, not only local stories; policy proposals must be compared to global models. It makes a difference.

Education is the key

Education is the key factor which determines the nation’s imagination. If our education system is inward-looking, society will be the same. The curriculum of Sri Lanka must change: global history, global economics, global citizenship, foreign languages, and digital literacy should be included. Students must be prepared for global career, not only for working in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan universities must become global centres of research and innovations; this can be achieved through international universities, international faculties, international research projects, global accreditations, and encouragement of studying abroad and returning with new ideas. Furthermore, education must foster critical thinking. Inwardness is often connected with refusal from questioning, debates, and creativity.

Culture is also one of the areas where global thinking is needed. Culture does not stay the same; it develops through contacts, exchange, and adaptation. The rich culture of Sri Lanka (Buddhist heritage, Hindu traditions, Islamic influences, colonial legacy) shows that openness is a feature of our civilization. Global thinking requires cultural self-confidence: it means that Sri Lankans have confidence in traditions, arts, and values which allow the country to stand confidently in front of the world. Global thinking allows Sri Lankans to engage with global cultures without fear of losing something. Creative industries of Sri Lanka (film, music, literature, fashion) have huge global potential; to achieve it, it is necessary to cooperate globally, to promote the arts of Sri Lanka internationally, to support creative entrepreneurs, to use digital media for communicating with global audience. Tourism is also cultural diplomacy: every tourist is an ambassador of Sri Lanka. Global thinking requires improvement of tourism infrastructure, sustainable tourism, and promotion of the island’s cultural diversity.

Importance of technology

Technology is the tool of global transformation. Sri Lanka should embrace digital innovations in order to remain competitive in the global economy. A globally-connected nation requires high-speed internet access, digital payments systems, e-government, cyber security, and regulations friendly to technology. Innovation ecosystem requires startups, research labs, technology incubators, networks of venture capitals, and partnerships between universities and business. Artificial intelligence, automation, and robotics will revolutionize industries, employment, and governance. Therefore, Sri Lanka should invest in education in AI, data science, automation-ready industries, and frameworks of ethical AI.

Society must develop towards a global imagination as well. A globally connected society is inclusive, tolerant, and forward-thinking. Inwardness encourages division on ethnic, religious, regional lines. Global imagination encourages unity as it shows that diversity is strength. Sri Lankans should perceive mobility (travelling, migrating, working in other countries) as opportunities for development. In addition, global imagination requires recognising that learning about the world helps to improve the nation. Media plays an important role in forming imagination. Sri Lankan media should cover global news, provide international perspective, conduct critical analysis, and avoid isolation and sensationalism.

Overcoming inwardness

Overcoming of inwardness will take a lot of time and effort; nevertheless, there are steps to take. Leaders should act according to global imagination. Organisations should adopt global standards and practices. Citizens should acquire global awareness through studying global news, learning foreign languages, traveling whenever possible, interacting with global ideas and embracing diversity. The nation requires a national vision in which Sri Lanka is seen as a globally connected, innovative, and resilient nation. The vision should be conveyed consistently, clearly, and confidently.

The future of Sri Lanka depends on imagination of the nation. If the nation is going to be confined to its island mentality, it will continue struggling with economic stagnation, political fragmentation, and social division. However, in case Sri Lanka decides to open and start thinking in a global way boldly, strategically, and confidently, the country will be able to unlock its tremendous potential. Global thinking does not destroy the identity of Sri Lankans but makes it stronger. It allows the nation to interact with the world on its own terms. It turns the small size of the nation into an advantage. Geographical location is a strategic asset. It makes citizens globally-competitive and gives them ability to contribute to the nation as well. The sea around the country should be used as a bridge, not as a boundary. The world is close to us. The future of the nation depends on imagination; let us think globally, act wisely, and imagine boldly.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Sri Lanka’s geopolitical positioning for future prosperity

Published

3 days ago

on

2026/09/25

By

Kariyawasam

By Chula Goonasekera
For the LEADS Forum (admin@srilankaleads.com)

Sri Lanka’s future prosperity will depend on how effectively it positions itself within an increasingly complex global environment. At a recent LEADS Forum discussion (https://youtu.be/Bbr3e_qU1Fw), veteran diplomat Prasad Kariyawasam, former Secretary to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, High Commissioner to India, Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador /Permanent Representative to the UN in New York and Geneva —outlined the strategic choices Sri Lanka must make to secure long term stability and economic advancement. Kariyawasam offered a rare blend of historical perspective, diplomatic experience and practical guidance.

His central message was clear: Sri Lanka must exercise strategic agency—engaging all major partners while safeguarding its national interests.

Foreign Policy as an Extension of National Aspirations

Foreign policy, Kariyawasam emphasised, is inseparable from domestic priorities. As your text notes, “foreign relations often reflect the medium- and long-term aspirations of a country’s people and its leadership.” Governments must therefore craft external relations that reflect the public’s economic and social expectations, avoiding short-term political impulses that undermine long-term national interests.

For a small nation, foreign policy cannot be symbolic or personality driven. It must be purposeful, pragmatic and directed towards the security and prosperity of the people.

A History of Global Connectivity

Sri Lanka’s history demonstrates that the island has never been isolated. From ancient ties with India and Southeast Asia to Arab, Persian and Chinese maritime networks, the island prospered when connected to the wider world. We must realise that “geography creates opportunity, but geography alone does not create prosperity.” Institutions, infrastructure and policy determine whether geographic advantage becomes economic success.

Colombo’s emergence as a cosmopolitan trading hub and Galle’s role as a resupply station for Indian Ocean shipping in colonial times , illustrate how deeply Sri Lanka has been embedded in global commerce for centuries.

Lessons from Asia’s High Performers

Kariyawasam highlighted the experiences of Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam. Their paths differ, but their success rests on common foundations:

• investment in human capital and infrastructure

• merit based institutions

• integration into global markets

• attraction of investment and technology

• export oriented industries

• strategic engagements with both China and Western economies

The lesson for Sri Lanka is not imitation but continuous adaptation and constructive integration with the global economy.

India: Sri Lanka’s Closest Major Partner

India’s transformation into a global economic power presents Sri Lanka with both opportunity and responsibility. India is already Sri Lanka’s largest source of tourists and a major investor. Kariyawasam states, “The larger question is how effectively Sri Lanka can participate in and benefit from India’s growth.”

A partnership should encompass modern, more open pathways for trade, investment, logistics, energy, technology, digital services, education and professional mobility—And asymmetry between the two economies must be handled with maturity and foresight, seeking special and differential treatment .

China and Other Global Partners

China remains a significant economic partner. Sri Lanka must avoid viewing this relationship through a zero sum lens. The goal should be productive and transparent engagement, ensuring better terms of trade and meaningful technology transfer.

Equally Important relations must be nurtured with the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, ASEAN and the Gulf.

All these relationships can be vibrant partnerships that does not lead towards , dependency but mutually beneficial pragmatic arrangements .

A Fragmenting International System

Global geopolitics is becoming more volatile. Trade tensions, wars, sanctions, supply chain disruptions, climate change and technological competition increasingly shape national security. We must realise, “foreign policy cannot be separated from economic policy.”

Sri Lanka’s recent economic crisis demonstrated the importance of international confidence, access to finance and resilient supply chains. Energy security, food security, cybersecurity and digital infrastructure are now core elements of national strategy.

Strategic Agency: The Guiding Principle

Sri Lanka must avoid becoming an arena for great power competition. Strategic agency means making decisions based on national interest, expanding Sri Lanka’s choices, not restricting them.

India is essential. China is important. The United States, Europe, Japan, Australia, ASEAN and the Gulf are important. The objective is a web of partnerships that strengthens resilience and autonomy.

Sri Lanka’s Strategic Assets

1. Location: Sri Lanka’s geography is a long standing advantage. Ports such as Colombo, Hambantota, Trincomalee and Galle can become specialised hubs—if connected to logistics, manufacturing, services and exports.

2. Digital Connectivity: Submarine cables, data centres, cloud services and cybersecurity are now as important as physical geography. Sri Lanka can turn its location into both a maritime and digital advantage.

3. Tourism and Natural Heritage: The focus should shift from tourist numbers to value creation—wellness, heritage, ecotourism, cruise tourism, education and MICE tourism.

4. Human Resources and Demographics: High literacy is no longer enough. Skills in technology, engineering, AI, logistics and advanced manufacturing are essential, especially with an ageing population.

5. Migrant Workforce: Migrant workers are a strategic asset, not merely a source of remittances. Bilateral labour agreements, skills recognition and diaspora engagement should be central to foreign policy.

Requirements for Sustained Prosperity

Sri Lanka’s future depends on:

• peace and security

• access to international markets

• productive investment

• a skilled, productive workforce

• modernised agriculture

• higher value tourism

• demographic preparedness

• climate resilience

• strong, predictable institutions

Please note that “foreign policy can open doors. Domestic institutions determine whether we can walk through them.”

The Role of the State

Sri Lanka does not need a larger state—only a more capable one. Policy continuity, professional institutions, predictable regulation and reduced corruption are essential. Geography does not change; long-term national interests do not change. Intentional relationships built over decades should not be reinvented with each election cycle.

Building Trust Internationally

Trust is a strategic asset. Sri Lanka must be known as a country that honours commitments and maintains predictable policies. This is vital not only for diplomacy but also for investment and long term partnerships.

Avoiding Zero Sum Geopolitics

Sri Lanka does not need to choose between India and China, or between Asia and the West. The task is to identify what each relationship can contribute to national development while protecting sovereignty and freedom of decision making.

Sri Lanka’s geography is an inheritance, but prosperity is not guaranteed. The world is changing rapidly—great-power competition, technological disruption, and climate vulnerability demand a foreign policy that is pragmatic, adaptive, and anchored in national interest.

Sri Lanka must build partnerships without dependencies, maintain strategic agency without isolation, and integrate with the global economy while strengthening domestic capacity.

“We cannot change where Sri Lanka is. We can, however, determine what Sri Lanka becomes because of where it is”

Continue Reading

Opinion

A tariff deal with the US? Make haste slowly

Published

4 days ago

on

2026/09/24

By

by Gomi Senadhira

Sri Lanka’s former ambassador to the United States Mahinda Samarasinghe is back in Sri Lanka lobbying for speedier finalisation of a new tariff deal with the United States. According to news reports, delivering the keynote address at the Sri Lanka Institute of Directors’ Annual Meeting last week, he stated, “I have recommended very strongly to the government that we need to conclude the agreement so that we can lock in the very favourable tariff rate that Sri Lanka has got up to now“.

I do not understand why the former ambassador is urging the government to expedite the finalisation of a new tariff deal or what is “the very favourable tariff rate” he refers to in his speech. However, given the ongoing terrible tariff turbulence in the United States and the fragile economic situation in Sri Lanka, I believe, this is not the right time to rush into finalising any trade agreement with the United States. I am also of the opinion that at this juncture Sri Lanka should maintain strategic patience and explore all available options.

Lessons from the countries that rushed for trade deals

To better comprehend this, let’s look at experiences of the countries that rushed to conclude tariff deals with the United States after President Donald Trump declared his “reciprocal tariffs” under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in April 2025. As Samarasinghe stated in his keynote, “The bottom line on all these negotiations was that every country that finally agreed to sign the agreement had to give either complete duty-free access for American exports into those markets, or near complete duty-free access.” In exchange for these tariff concessions and other market access commitments these countries managed to get the newly introduced country specific “reciprocal tariffs” reduced.

However, in February 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) struck down these “reciprocal tariffs” under the IEEPA. With that, the market access gains these countries received in exchange for complete duty-free access for American exports into their markets evaporated under U.S. domestic law. By moving too fast to conclude bilateral tariff agreements with the United States these countries are now bound to strict obligations whereas the benefits they bargained from the U.S. administration are not worth the paper those were written on.

Sri Lanka’s experience

In April 2025, President Trump declared his “reciprocal tariffs” and labelled Sri Lanka as the worst offender, imposing one of the highest additional duties at 44%. Since then, Ambassador Samarasinghe and other negotiators have managed to negotiate this down to 20%. I do not know what the deal was through which Sri Lanka managed to reduce the 44% tariff to 20% or what we gave in return for this “concession.” However, what we received in return has absolutely no value after the decision by the SCOTUS.

Current state of US tariffs

After the decision by SCOTUS, the U.S. administration introduced a temporary 10% additional tariff on all countries for 150 days. At the end of that period, this 10% tariff was replaced by a new “forced labor tariff ” of 10% to 12.5% on all trading partners under Section 301 of U.S. trade law. Twenty-five U.S. states and several small businesses have already filed lawsuits against these tariffs in U.S. courts. This new “forced labour tariff ” on Sri Lanka was first fixed at 12.5%. Later, after President Anura Kumara Dissanayake issued a gazette notice prohibiting the importation of goods produced using forced labour, it was reduced to 10%. That means Sri Lanka has already made a substantial commitment to receive this “tariff concession,” and I presume our negotiators understand the implications of this commitment.

Make haste slowly

After President Trump imposed 44% “reciprocal tariffs” on Sri Lanka, through an article published in The Island on 25th April 2026 (), I urged the government to engage immediately with the US administration on these tariffs. However, I also emphasised that the best way to move forward was to make haste slowly.

Two millennia ago, Augustus Caesar, the first emperor of Rome, frequently used the phrase, “make haste slowly”, because he detested rashness and haste in his military commanders. It was the recurring guiding maxim that he emphasised throughout his 40-year imperial rule. After 2000 years, this classical oxymoron remains a definitive golden rule for professional trade negotiators. More importantly it is the exact blueprint required when navigating turbulence in trade negotiations with the Trump administration.

The endgame – The most dangerous moment in trade negotiation

Samarasinghe has also stated the agreement is 90% complete. Any experienced trade negotiator should know that the final 10% contains high-stakes provisions and is the most dangerous moment in a trade negotiation. A single misplaced comma or ambiguous product description in a tariff schedule can cost millions through unintended loopholes. Rushing this last stretch to secure a deal can permanently expose Sri Lanka to sudden shifts in American trade policy, heavy compliance costs, or strict enforcement under Section 301 regarding supply-chain labour standards. Hence, this is the time for strategic patience.

(The writer can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)

Continue Reading

Trending