What role have public figures played in this case?

Scene two: The sacred defenceThree days later, Pakistan struck back. Operation Bunyan Marsoos — Arabic for “iron wall” — was declared. The name alone tells you everything. This wasn’t just a retaliatory strike; it was a theological assertion, a national sermon. The enemy had dared to trespass. The response would be divine.

Pakistani missiles reportedly rained down on Indian military sites: brigade headquarters, an S-400 system, and military installations in Punjab and Jammu.Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharifproclaimed that Pakistan had “avenged the 1971 war”, in which it had capitulated and allowed Bangladesh to secede. That’s not battlefield strategy. That’s myth-making.

The media in Pakistan amplified this narrative with patriotic zeal. Indian strikes were framed as war crimes, mosques hit, civilians killed. Photographs of rubble and blood were paired with captions about martyrdom. The response, by contrast, was precise, moral, and inevitable.Pakistan’s national identity, as constructed in this moment, was one of righteous victimhood: we are peaceful, but provoked; restrained, but resolute. We do not seek war, but we do not fear it either.

The symmetry is uncanny. Both states saw themselves as defenders, never aggressors. Both claimed moral superiority. Both insisted the enemy fired first. Both said they had no choice.

Constructing the enemy and the victimThe judgement affects levies imposed on April 2, including the baseline 10 percent tariff and higher, so-called “reciprocal” duties on many countries, but not the sectoral tariffs that Trump had imposed earlier.

The ruling left in place any tariffs that Trump issued using his Section 232 powers from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, including his 25 percent tax on most imported, as well as on all foreign-made

The judges gave the government 10 days to carry out the necessary administrative moves to remove the affected tariffs.How has the Trump administration responded to the ruling?