Trump’s tariffs are now no longer a simple issue of international trade disputes, and as the conflict in the United States intensifies, tariffs have risen to the issue of domestic rights struggle.
Although the United States and the European Union, Japan, South Korea and other countries have signed trade agreements, there may still be huge variables in the future of this agreement.
More importantly, China has just completed a round of trade talks with the United States, the Ministry of Commerce announcement has just released that there are huge variables on the US side, the future trade talks between China and the United States will not continue?
The court stabbed the "hornet's nest" and the White House jumped in a hurry
According to the latest report from CCTV News, the U.S. federal court has just issued a heavy verdict, finding that the "global tariffs" introduced by Trump are illegal.
The reason given by the U.S. Federal Court is very direct, the U.S. International Emergency Economic Power Act, introduced in 1977, did not directly authorize the U.S. President to give the U.S. President the right to impose tariffs, the Constitution stipulates that tariffs and taxes have always been the core powers of Congress, and the U.S. President can not "create terms" on his own.
The ruling was harsh, but did not block the road completely.The court gave a buffering period, and these ruled illegal tariffs could beined until October 14 in order for the White House to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The fact is that Trump’s tariffs not only affect international trade, but also the U.S. capital that used to rely on overseas manufacturing to make money.
The final tariffs went from trade and economic issues, rising to the competition for rights.
Now the U.S. Congress doesn’t want to let Trump take the three powers alone, so he stressed that the right to tax lies with Congress rather than with the president.
He posted on his social media platform, grieving the “high-party court judgment” and stressing that “all tariffs are still there!” if those tariffs were really lifted, “it would be a huge disaster for the United States.”
Following Trump’s letter, his three cabinet officials – Treasury Secretary Bessent, Commerce Secretary Lutnik and Secretary of State Rubio – immediately submitted an emergency “warning letter” to the court.
Bessent warned of a “national face,” saying the suspension of tariffs would plunge the United States into a “dangerous diplomatic embarrassment” that would make allies and opponents feel weak and incompetent.
Lutnik said he was concerned that the “cooked duck has flown” and that the trade agreements reached by the United States with the EU, Japan and South Korea would be instantly cancelled with “catastrophic consequences.”
Rubio, who directly linked tariffs and world peace, said it would even affect the ceasefire talks with Russia.
It is not only a legal battle, but also a game of power "robbing the bench".
On the surface, this is a legal litigation about the legality of tariffs.But dig deeper, it is actually under the U.S. three-power separation system, a classic power pull between Congress and the president about "who counts".
The root cause is that he tried to use the master key of "national emergency" to open the door to imposing tariffs, which originally belonged to Congress.
The IEEPA bill he cited was intended to allow the president to take quick economic action when faced with "extraordinary and extraordinary threats" such as a real war or an international crisis that collapsed instantly.
But Trump used it to address issues such as the long-term “trade deficit” and “Fentanyl smuggling.”This, according to the court, belongs to “creative abuse” and is to “urgentize” the problem of normality.
It’s not the first time Trump’s tariff policy has been defeated in court.
In May this year, the U.S. International Trade Court ruled that the tariff policy he declared on April 2, the so-called Liberation Day, was overriding and prevented from taking effect.
At that time, the court also made it clear: "The U.S. Constitution gives Congress exclusive power to regulate trade".
Therefore, the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit can be said to be a resolute maintenance of the judgment of the lower court, forming a "two-strike combo" against the expansion of the president's power.
The lawsuit is likely to go all the way to the Federal Supreme Court. At present, among the justices of the Supreme Court, although there are three personally appointed by Trump, the final result is still full of suspense.
Some legal experts have analyzed that several Supreme Court justices have praised the "major issues principle" in recent years and tend to limit excessive expansion of power by the executive branch, which makes Trump's appeal prospects not very optimistic.
In this "game of power", the deer died who hand is not yet known.
Global markets hold their breath, waiting for the "thrilling leap" in October
If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the original ruling and finds these tariffs illegal, the pleasure will be great.
The U.S. government may be forced to refund part of the tariffs it has imposed, which is a huge, unexpected spending hole for the Treasury.
What is even more difficult is that the foundation of the trade agreements that the Trump administration has worked so hard to negotiate with the European Union, Japan, Indonesia and other countries may be shaken or even collapsed in an instant.
Commerce Minister Lutnik's concerns are not empty, many of these agreements are negotiated with "tariff threats" as a code, and if the court judges as invalid, the agreement naturally faces the trouble of "disappearing, disintegrating".
If the agreement collapses, it may repeat the Great Depression of 1929. Although this analogy sounds exaggerated and aims to put pressure on the court, it is by no means entirely alarmist.
Tariff uncertainty could severely disrupt global supply chains, boost U.S. domestic inflation and undermine business and consumer confidence, which are indeed risk points that could trigger a recession.
At present, global markets react to this shocking decision relatively restrained, as if it did not react for a moment, but it is more like a calm before the storm.
Everyone's eyes have turned to the critical time node of October 14th. How will the Supreme Court rule?
This is bound to be an event that "no matter what the judgment is, it will violently shake the market pattern".
The great thing about this show is that it is not only Trump’s “right-to-right” struggle, but also a test of pressure on the United States’ constitutional resilience. It raises a central question: When the “America Priority” radical policy hits the “Tri-Power Separation” system firewall, who can laugh at the end?