|
貿易戰2025 – 開欄文
|
瀏覽6,561 ｜回應61｜推薦2 |
|
|
|
川普終於公佈他關稅政策的細節。
雖然不懂經濟學，對貿易和國際貿易更是一無所知。但看著川瘋上蹦下跳，我還是有「代誌大條了！」的常識。他一個人胡搞亂搞還好，找了一群歪瓜裂棗當幕僚，遲早玩垮美國。美國一干政客的自私和多數選民的無知，終於把他們老祖宗近300年攢下的家當敗掉。
眼看他起朱樓，眼看他稱霸王，眼看他樓塌了。只可憐一眾蒼生被拉著墊背；唏噓、憤怒、好笑、感傷、無奈五味兼而有之，是開此欄。
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
|
關稅戰之經濟、法律大白癡 -- Steve H. Hanke
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
我在拙作《《國際現勢：2025》補充說明》中說：
「在川普大盲人趕著一群蠢瞎馬的情況下，以後兩年間，各種亂七八糟的政策或方案將層出不窮，中產階層以上可能不會受到太大衝擊，中下階層以降一定會苦不堪言。」
請比較：本欄上一篇貼文、「K形經濟」(該欄2026/02/12)、此欄(2025/11/18)、以及下文最後一短說的：“There is only one thing worse than the blind leading the blind. That’s when the deluded lead them.”
Trump’s tariffs: a lesson in economic and legal ignorance
Steve H. Hanke, 02/24/26
On Liberation Day, President Trump held up what most economists correctly thought was a rather silly reciprocal tariff chart. Armed with that chart and under the cover of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977, Trump then imposed reciprocal tariffs on most of the world’s other countries.
To pass the legal smell test, actions taken by the president under the IEEPA must be in response to an “unusual and extraordinary” foreign threat to our national security. Does the U.S. trade deficit pose a foreign threat? Hardly. The U.S. has incurred a trade deficit each and every year for the past 50 years, and those deficits have never posed a threat to America’s national security. Indeed, trade deficits have become routine.
But aren’t the deficits “bad,” as claimed by President Trump? Hardly. As long as they can be financed with ease, trade deficits are “good.” They allow Americans to live high off the hog by consuming more than they produce.
So, when the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s reciprocal tariffs, it didn’t surprise me. The court was not “unpatriotic and disloyal to the Constitution,” as President Trump asserted in his response to the decision. Indeed, it’s obvious to all that U.S. trade deficits do not pose a national security threat and do not rise to the level of a national emergency.
Never mind. No sooner had the ink dried on the Supreme Court’s February 20 ruling, than President Trump was at it again. By the end of the day, he announced the imposition of a new global, across-the-board tariff of 10%. That was followed the next day by Trump raised the tariff ante from 10% to 15%.
But what about President Trump’s claim that trade deficits are caused by foreigners ripping off Americans? This is yet another baseless claim.
America’s trade deficits are made in the good old U.S.A., because Americans spend more than they produce. This can be shown by a simple economic identity that all students learn in principles of economics: Consumption (C) + Investment (I) + Government Spending (G) + Net Exports (X) = Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Like all identities, it is true by definition. When total spending (C + I + G) exceeds GDP, there must be a trade deficit that’s equal to the amount that spending exceeds GDP. Sure enough, in 2025 total spending in the U.S. was $31.7 trillion, while GDP was $30.779 trillion. Spending exceeded GDP by $0.921 trillion, and bingo, that was exactly what the U.S. trade deficit was equal to last year. It should be clear that trade deficits are generated by a simple fact: Americans spend more than they produce. Contrary to President Trump’s assertions, trade deficits are not produced by foreigners ripping off Americans.
But won’t tariffs close the trade deficit, create jobs, and make the economy boom, as President Trump claims? In a word: no. The gap between America’s spending and its gross domestic product determines the magnitude of America’s trade deficit. As it turns out, the gap in 2025 was almost exactly what it was in 2024. So, the trade deficits in those years were almost identical.
All tariffs do is reshuffle the countries that supply the American imports that fill the spending-GDP gap. They don’t alter the overall trade deficit.
Tariffs don’t create jobs, either. Not only have none of the manufacturing jobs that President Trump touted materialized, but manufacturing jobs in the U.S. actually contracted last year by 108,000. If that’s not bad enough, only 181,000 total jobs were created last year, down from 2.2 million in 2024. Contrary to the Spinmeister-in-Chief, tariffs are, when it comes to jobs, a flop.
Not surprisingly, the tariffs also failed to create an economic boom. The GDP growth for 2025 came in at 2.2%, slightly less than the 2.3% rate in 2024.
All Trump’s tariffs have done is impose a sales tax on Americans, create uncertainty, if not chaos, in international markets, and turn friends into enemies. It’s no surprise that the tariffs have become widely unpopular at home, too.
There is only one thing worse than the blind leading the blind. That’s when the deluded lead them.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
認為關稅合法大法官們的意見 - N. Musumeci/L. Italiano
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
Why a Republican Supreme Court struck down Trump’s tariffs
Conservative Justice Launches Civil War on SCOTUS’ MAGA Hypocrites
「三客流」(該欄2025/11/23貼文第1-2)小節)就是「三客流」(該欄2024/07/07貼文「附註」)。「瞎掰亂柪」改變不了這三位「大法官」擦、舔、吹的本質和賤行。
Kavanaugh in dissent: Bad policy or not, Trump's tariffs were 'clearly lawful'
Natalie Musumeci/Laura Italiano, 02/21/26
* On Friday, a 6-3 SCOTUS majority struck down the bulk of President Trump's tariffs.
* Three conservative justices, Kavanaugh, Thomas, and Alito, issued a pair of dissenting opinions.
* See why they said Trump's tariffs are perfectly legal.
Three conservative justices of the US Supreme Court — Brett Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito — broke with the majority Friday, arguing that President Donald Trump had clear authority to impose his sweeping tariff policy.
The three dissenting justices said the president's tariffs were perfectly legal under the 1970-era law Trump used that says presidents can "regulate" importation in the case of emergencies.
"The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy," Kavanaugh wrote. "But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful."
The three justices also noted that the majority 6-3 decision is silent on how to return billions of dollars in tariffs that have already been collected.
That process "is likely to be a 'mess,'" as was acknowledged at oral arguments, Kavanaugh wrote in a lengthy dissent that Thomas and Alito joined.
The two dissents differed with the majority on two fronts: Trump's bypassing of Congress in imposing tariffs, and the legality of the president's invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA.
In the dissent written by Kavanaugh, the justices argued that presidents have "commonly" imposed tariffs to regulate imports throughout American history.
Interpreting IEEPA to exclude tariffs "creates nonsensical textual and practical anomalies," Kavanaugh wrote. As with quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a "traditional and common tool to regulate importation," he said.
"It does not make much sense to think that IEEPA allows the President in a declared national emergency to, for example, shut off all or most imports from China, but not to impose even a $1 tariff on imports from China," Kavanaugh wrote.
Reversing the tariffs may be an exercise in futility, Kavanaugh added. Even without IEPPA, "numerous other federal statutes authorize the president to impose tariffs and might justify most (if not all) of the tariffs at issue in this case," Kavanaugh wrote.
In a separate dissent, Thomas wrote that "neither the statutory text" of IEEPA "nor the Constitution provide a basis for ruling against the President."
"This Court has consistently upheld Congress's delegation of power over foreign commerce, including the power to impose duties on imports," Thomas wrote. "The Court has long conveyed to Congress that it may 'invest the President with large discretion in matters arising out of the execution of statutes relating to trade and commerce with other nations.'"
In remarks at the White House following the Supreme Court's decision, Trump praised the three dissenting justices while bashing the others.
"I'd like to thank and congratulate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh for their strength and wisdom and love of our country, which is right now, very proud of those justices," Trump told reporters. "When you read the dissenting opinions, there is no way that anyone can argue against them — there is no way."
Trump called the Supreme Court ruling "deeply disappointing" and said he was "ashamed of certain members of the court."
Read the original article on Business Insider
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
關稅戰搞烏龍之川普於法無據 - Ben Werschkul
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
請參考：
Live Updates: Supreme Court’s Tariff Ruling Adds New Uncertainty in Global Trade
Companies Suing Trump to Recover $150 Billion in Tariffs
Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s blanket tariffs
Ben Werschkul, Washington Correspondent, 02/20/26
The Supreme Court scrambled the US trade landscape with a decision announced Friday striking down the centerpiece of President Trump’s second-term tariff program.
The 6-3 ruling in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump came just over one year into Trump’s second term and after skeptical questioning from key justices during oral arguments last November.
It appears set to immediately halt a massive section of Trump’s tariffs announced last year on “Liberation Day” using a 1977 law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The law gives the president the ability to declare an economic emergency and take action but doesn't specify tariffs as a remedy.
“IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs," read the decision by Chief Justice John Roberts.
It was a complex ruling with varied opinions and dissents stretching to 170 pages. Roberts captured the central legal issue, writing that Trump had asserted "the extraordinary power to unilaterally impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope."
The text of the law, he wrote, “cannot bear such weight."
The decision does not appear to address the question of eligibility for tariff refunds, which is likely to lead to a complex legal process for companies.
The ruling upholds two lower courts — including the US Court of International Trade — that previously found Trump did not have the authority to impose global tariffs under IEEPA.
Joining Roberts in the majority were Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, who also wrote concurring opinions, alongside liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elena Kagan.
Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Brett Kavanaugh offered dissenting opinions after a conservative push to uphold Trump’s tariffs.
Trump has continued to float new tariff threats nearly weekly on a wide array of fronts, from countries doing business with Iran to new duties on French wine.
'An imposition of taxes on Americans'
The central question for the court was whether the law implicitly empowers the president to impose tariffs or whether Trump’s action was an illegal usurpation of “the power of the purse” that is the responsibility of Congress as laid out in the Constitution.
During oral arguments in November, swing justices ask a series of skeptical questions, with Roberts asking perhaps the most pointed questions.
He posited that regardless of why a president makes his moves, "the vehicle is an imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress."
He expressed further skepticism that any president’s foreign policy prerogatives could "trump that basic power of Congress."
The ruling made similar points and was a striking blow for Trump and his team, who have promised to replace the tariffs using other powers if they are struck down.
Trump and his team had seized on the law to declare a variety of economic emergencies over issues ranging from fentanyl to trade imbalances, and impose blanket tariffs in response.
Trump set the stage for the decision with weeks of comments playing up the consequences of the ruling. On Thursday, during a stop in Georgia, the president proclaimed that "without tariffs, you know what, everybody would be bankrupt, the whole country would be bankrupt."
Companies have been preparing for refunds since the arguments in November, even amid uncertainty about the result. At stake is more than $175 billion in revenue that has been collected under this law, according to the Penn-Wharton Budget Model in a new analysis for Reuters.
Costco (COST) made headlines recently when it became the biggest name to join the ranks of businesses pre-emptively suing the Trump administration to ensure future eligibility for refunds.
The lawsuit called Trump's IEEPA tariffs "unlawfully collected." The company told a federal trade court it "seeks relief from the impending liquidations to ensure that its right to a complete refund is not jeopardized."
The Supreme Court arguments featured a discussion of what possible refunds could entail.
"It seems to me like it could be a mess," Justice Amy Coney Barrett said.
This is a developing story and will be updated.
Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance.
Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
《吉隆坡協商的意義與影響》小評
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
我相信該文作者過於樂觀(請見本欄上一篇)，甚至於有點天真或一廂情願。作者的分析雖然欠些深度，倒也說得上周全；所以仍然轉載供參。
我以上的批評基於以下的觀察和了解：
1) 川普和習近平兩位行事都不以「誠信」著稱；兩人的拿手(或慣技)都是：「翻臉不認帳更不認人」。
2) 在國際事務上沒有「雙贏」這碼子事；只有「誰能掐住誰的脖子」這個鐵律。一旦(自以為)「掐」死了對方，在習、川兩人(或其他任何一位國家領導人)認知裏，所有「協議」不過是白紙一張，或「我耍你這個白癡的啦」。
釜山高峰會後，雖然各方殷殷期待的「關稅戰停火」算是維持了。不過，「好景不常」乃是國際事務的另一個鐵律；我們且一邊享受這暴風雨來臨前的暫時寧靜，一邊焦躁地等著看兩位大爺那一個，等多久會「翻臉」或「賴帳」。
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
吉隆坡貿易協商的意義與影響 - Sahil Nair
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Kuala Lumpur：吉隆坡，馬來西亞首都
The Weekend That Shook the World: Inside the US-China Trade Deal Nobody Saw Coming
Sahil Nair, 10/30/25
Tariffs, tech, and trust here’s what really happened when Trump and Xi rewrote the rules.
I’ve been doing geopolitics for years, and this weekend in Kuala Lumpur was different. There was a feeling in the air, an airy sense of maybe, just maybe, we were seeing a real turning point in the trade war that’s hung over the global economy like some kind of black cloud.
Unlike the U.S., Russia, and China, which generally have taken a hands-off approach to territorial disputes in Southeast Asia, India has avoided getting involved as much as possible. After months of escalating threats, tariff wars and economic saber-rattling, both Washington and Beijing have drawn back from the brink.
Why This Matters More Than You Think
The thing many people don’t get about this: we’re not just juggling numbers on a page. This is about the basic infrastructure of the global economy. The United States and China are the world’s two biggest economies, and when they’re at each other’s throats, everyone suffers.
The weekend preliminary framework concludes the first major agreement between the United States and China in months. And honestly? This win was oh so crucial to each side.
The Rare Earth Reality Nobody Wants to Talk About
Let me be clear about something uncomfortable for any American to contemplate: we are perilously dependent on China for crucial minerals. I’m talking about rare earth elements the stuff that goes into everything from your smartphone to the F-35 fighter jet.
China has about 70% of the world’s supply, and they process about 90 percent of it in total. Even more alarming? Roughly 78 percent of the US military-industrial base relies on minerals from overseas, including China’s. That’s not just an economic weakness it’s a national security disaster.
US Trade Representative Jameson Greer practically acknowledged this in the course of the talks. He added, and here I quote: “We have had very constructive conversations about how to achieve an improved STOA where we can get more access to the rare earths out of China.”
There it is. The truth laid bare. All the bluster, all the threats it’s actually all of a kind: America needs those minerals and China knows that.
What Actually Happened in Kuala Lumpur
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng shepherded the weekend discussions. These weren’t junior staffers sparring, or feelers being laid out; these were the high-powered negotiators who truly had authority to make deals.
And make deals they did. Here’s what we know so far:
The framework would postpone by a year China’s planned export restrictions on rare earth minerals. These were supposed to take hold in weeks, and they would have absolutely decimated U.S. manufacturing and defence contractors. Now they are being postponed back until at least late next year.
In return, Trump is to withdraw the threatened 100% tariffs on Chinese goods. I will say that again: 100 percent tariffs. That is not a negotiating strategy that’s economic warfare. And it would have been catastrophic for both. Bessent suggests that these tariffs are now “effectively off the table,’’ which I read as a huge American give-away.
The current trade truce, which suspends existing tariffs of up to 145 percent on Chinese goods, will be extended beyond its expiration date on November 10. Crisis was hardly averted for now.
Image used from hubbardobrieneconomics 請至原網頁觀看2018 – 2025 美國進口關稅變動圖表
The Farmers Finally Get Heard
I’d like to write about something that has been breaking my heart recently: what is happening to American farmers. These people have been decimated by this trade war, and they’ve been screaming for help.
Chinese purchases of American ag goods, including soybeans, have tanked. We are discussing real people who are losing their farms, losing their livelihoods, losing a way of life. And they’ve been pressing extremely hard on Trump to solve this.
The good news? The delegations really did make progress on agricultural trade. “When we see the final deal, certainly our soybean farmers are going to feel really good about what’s happening for this season and seasons ahead many years ahead,” Bessent told NBC News.
I hope he’s right. These farmers deserve more than to be collateral damage in a trade war.
The TikTok Subplot That Almost Got Lost
One small but significant detail that you might have missed: It looks like both parties completed the restructuring said to create new, independent TikTok. Bessent referred to it as “the closing deal.”
Under this setup, TikTok is spun off into a company majority-owned by American investors. Which is exactly what Trump advocated a face-saving way to avoid an outright ban of the platform while expressing national security concerns about Chinese ownership.
You love it, you hate it: TikTok has become a huge part of American digital culture, especially for its youthful users in this country. A total ban was politically outrageous. This might actually be a compromise that is acceptable for everyone.
The Meeting That Could Define a Decade
Now we get to the truly high-stakes portion. Trump and Xi Jinping are expected to meet in South Korea on 30 October. It’s their first encounter since 2019 and the expectations are astronomical.
Think about what’s at stake: trillions of dollars’ worth of trade, technology competition that will determine the economic winners and losers of the 21st century, military posturing in the South China Sea, the future status of Taiwan, intellectual property rights you name it.
What we have from Kuala Lumpur is only a preliminary framework. It still requires final approval from both governments. Much is still murky, and the Chinese state media has been quite cautious not to oversell this as a total resolution. They are being savvy about expectations.
American negotiators have admitted large issues are still outstanding. Intellectual property theft, cyber security issues, technology transfer these are extraordinarily complicated problems that aren’t going to be solved with one dinner or even one year.
Why I’m Cautiously Optimistic
Listen, I’ve done enough of these negotiations in my time to know that nothing is guaranteed until the ink is wet and both sides have actually delivered on what it is they signed up for. We’ve seen promising talks break down in the past.
But here’s why I think this time may be different: both sides really do want to make something work.
Trump needs a win. His tariffs approach is still ridiculous, even if its effects are being felt by American farmers and manufacturers. He’s under pressure to deliver politically, and he has always been a deal maker.
China, meanwhile, has been signaling for months that they are willing to talk so long as Washington treats them with respect. And whatever one might think of how we got here, the present negotiations appear to be reflecting that mutual respect. Both sides are behaving like grown-ups and not throwing tantrums.
Image used from statista.com 請至原網頁觀看川普進口關稅對全球經濟負面影響圖表
The markets certainly think that something real is going on. Asian stock markets were up on Monday, with Japan’s Nikkei 225 and South Korea’s KOSPI each gaining more than 2 percent. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng was nearly 1 percent higher. The MSCI World Index reached a record. Safe-haven assets such as gold and US Treasuries declined, as investors switched to riskier stocks. Copper prices which are often viewed as a barometer of global economic health have been trading near historic highs.
That’s real money wagering on real optimism. Markets can be wrong, of course, but they have genuine signals that de-escalation may be possible.
What Happens Next
The next few days are absolutely key. The Trump-Xi encounter in South Korea could turn this framework into a historic agreement or showcase its weaknesses, pushing us right back to confrontation.
And besides trade, they have some extraordinarily sensitive issues to discuss. Taiwan is the perennial elephant in the room of U.S.-China relations. There’s talk (and it may be no more than that) of secondary sanctions on Chinese importers of Russian oil imagine the diplomacy of untying that knot. And, with that comes the inevitable focus on rare earth access.
There’s even some speculation that Beijing may use its influence over Russian crude imports to win more concessions from Washington. Now that would be an interesting chess move using their ties with Moscow to boost their standing in Washington.
My Personal Take
I’ll be upfront with you: I really want this to work. Not because I am some naïf about the very real contrasts between the United States and China: And not because this solves all of our problems. But because the alternative an ever-worse trade war between the world’s two biggest economies that threatens all of us is truly, absolutely frightening.
We have all seen what happens when great powers stop talking and start threatening. Trade wars can be transformed into actual wars. Economic nationalism can darken into something far worse. And always, it’s innocent people who pay.
Two parties sitting down, engaging in constructive discussions and emerging with a framework that answers to both sides’ concerns? That’s progress. Real, meaningful progress.
Trump’s threat of 100% tariffs is what got China back to the negotiating table, Bessent Treasury Secretary Bessent said. Maybe. Or perhaps it was America’s clamouring for rare earths. Or perhaps, just maybe, both sides concluded that cooperation serves their interests more effectively than confrontation.
China’s Communist Party newspaper published an editorial calling on global powers to “make joint efforts to preserve hard-won agreements.” That is not the standard bombastic propaganda it’s a real call for cooperation and stability.
The Road Ahead
Here’s what I’m keeping an eye on in the days to come:
The first is the meeting on Oct. 30 between Trump and Xi themselves. Will they come out with a full agreement or merely an understanding to keep talking? Either would be useful, but of course a real accord would be preferable.
Second, how quickly can access to rare earths really be restored? American defence companies are clamoring to receive these goods and their absence could present serious consequences for military readiness and manufacturing schedules.
Third, how does agricultural trade fair? American farmers need to have real purchases, not promises. Will China follow through?
Fourth, the TikTok restructuring has to occur in fact. The details of this matter, and we need to see the ownership structure itself.
Third, I will be watching to see whether this framework can reach beyond these short-term flash points. Can we achieve real cooperation on technology standards, intellectual property and cyber security? Or is this a pause before the next round?
Why This Matters to You
You may not give much thought to international trade or geopolitics, but this is touching your life. There are also rare earth elements in your phone. Your grocery bills are affected by agricultural trade. Your retirement plan is not insulated from world events. The job market in your hometown relies on secure international commerce.
The US and China fighting is bad for everyone. When they’re cooperating, everyone benefits. It really is that simple.
Final Thoughts
After months of chaos, threats and escalating tensions, we may indeed be witnessing a real turning point. The framework unveiled in Kuala Lumpur is not perfect and far from complete. But it stands for something crucially meaningful both sides backing off the edge of the abyss and choosing words over blows.
In the days ahead we will see whether this fragile construct is a historic breakthrough or just another pause in the great power competition. I would love for the former, but I’m ready to embrace the second.
But what is clear is that we are living through a moment of historical significance in world economic history. The choices these authorities make in South Korea this week could resound for years perhaps decades.
I’m going to be monitoring that and reporting back all the time. This story is not finished in many ways; it is just beginning.
What do you think? Do you feel encouraged by these talks, or do you see this as temporary theatre ahead of the next crisis? Leave your thoughts in the comments. I really would like to hear what you think of all this.
Reference
* The New York Times. Live Updates: Trump News — October 26, 2025.
* IntelliNews. US-China Trade Talks Deliver Breakthrough as Markets Rally Ahead of Trump-Xi Talks at APEC.
* Evrim Ağacı. US and China Reach Trade Breakthrough Before Summit.
Written by Sahil Nair
Student of Psychology and Philosophy. Opinionated writer practicing in a wandering mind...
Published in Geopolitics & Beyond
Geopolitics & Beyond explores the forces shaping our world global power shifts, economic trends, AI, and science. We connect politics, innovation, and strategy to reveal insights that guide understanding of today’s complexities and tomorrow’s possibilities.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
貿易戰之失之美國收之全球 -- Eleanor Pringle
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Trump bet China would face ‘tremendous difficulties’ without U.S. consumers—Beijing just focused on the rest of the world instead
Eleanor Pringle, 10/13/25
* President Trump’s tariff offensive against China appears to be backfiring as Beijing sidesteps U.S. consumers and boosts exports elsewhere. Chinese shipments to the U.S. plunged 27% in September, but overall exports rose 8.3%—their highest total this year—driven by strong demand from Europe and other markets. The World Bank now expects China’s economy to grow 4.8% in 2025, while it downgraded U.S. growth to 1.4%. Despite Trump’s renewed threat of 100% tariffs, analysts at UBS and Deutsche Bank say both sides appear open to compromise, with markets betting negotiations will resume soon.
At the beginning of his tariff standoff with Beijing, President Trump was confident in his strong hand. China’s economy was reliant on U.S. consumers, he said, and so it would have to make some compromises or risk losing them.
“China has been hit much harder than the USA, not even close,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, the social media site he owns, in April. Later that month, he admitted that while American shoppers may have to cut back on Chinese-produced consumption, the White House’s tariff plan meant the Chinese government was “having tremendous difficulty because their factories are not doing business.”
Six months later and it seems Beijing has simply circumnavigated the U.S. by focusing on increasing its exports to the rest of the world. The diversification has been so successful that China’s export market is actually tracking significant growth despite the trade war.
According to data released by the General Administration of Customs, China’s shipments to the U.S. fell 27% in September, the sixth month of double-digit declines to its once most valuable customer. Meanwhile it charted strong growth to areas like the European Union (currently operating under a 15% tariff rate from the White House), leading to export growth to non-U.S. countries of 14.8%.
The shift away from the U.S. means exports are actually up 8.3% in September compared to a year ago, raking in $328.6 billion—its highest total for 2025 so far.
China’s economy is fairing better than expectations outlined back in April, when President Trump first made his tariff plans known. Earlier in the year World Bank speculated China’s economy would grow 4% in 2025, but last week revised this up to 4.8%. Likewise, it upped its expectations for 2026 from 4% to 4.2%.
Conversely, in June the World Bank cut its expectations for U.S. growth by 0.9 percentage points to 1.4% for 2025.
This backdrop means Trump’s threat last week to impose 100% tariffs on China may not have held the potency it once did. Having been relatively successful in side-stepping Trump’s tariffs so far, Beijing responded forcefully to the Oval Office’s threat, blasting it as a “double standard.”
A spokesman for the Ministry of Commerce said: “Frequently threatening high tariffs is not the right approach to engaging with China. China’s position on a tariff war is consistent: we do not want one, but we are not afraid of one.”
Room for compromise
Having issued the warning—and with both sides still operating under a pause on reciprocal tariffs until November 10—President Trump did then seek to strike a more reasoned tone, and sent futures climbing as a result.
“I think we’re going to be fine with China,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One yesterday afternoon. “I have a great relationship with President Xi, he’s a very tough man, a very smart man, he’s a great leader for their country and I have a great relationship with him.
“I think we’ll get it set. I know what happened, I really understand what happened, and I’m not even saying he’s wrong. But then we met him with something much tougher than what he did to us.”
The back-and-forth may simply boil down to showmanship, wrote Deutsche Bank’s Jim Reid in a note to clients the morning: “There’s still plenty of time for negotiations, and I suspect the market will begin to price in a reasonable probability of a deal once the initial shock fades.
“For what its worth, Polymarket has the probabilities of the two Presidents meeting by October 31st at 62% this morning, down from a peak of 88% last week but up from around 35% at the lows on Friday night. So there is a belief emerging that this is mostly negotiating tactics on both sides.”
UBS’s Paul Donovan also noted the Oval Office’s appetite for negotiation, telling clients this morning: “Both Trump and U.S. Vice President Vance have made conciliatory noises which suggests that there may be some kind of retreat from the original threat.”
“While the U.S. is obviously not able to publish data at the moment, the trend recently has the two countries’ data showing China selling U.S. more than the U.S. was buying from China,” he added. “That anomaly hints very strongly at rerouting by China to enable U.S. importers to avoid some of the tariffs.”
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
貿易戰之烽火再起與見招拆招 - Bloomberg News
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
TACO川瘋一再老戲新唱；台下耳朵起繭，台上你老累不累啊？
China Tells US to Back Off on Threats, Warns of Retaliation
Bloomberg News, 10/12/25
(Bloomberg) -- China said the US should stop threatening it with higher tariffs and urged further negotiations to resolve outstanding trade issues, adding it will not hesitate to retaliate should Washington persist in its measures against Beijing.
President Donald Trump on Friday announced an additional 100% tariff on China as well as export controls on “any and all critical software” beginning Nov. 1, hours after threatening to cancel an upcoming meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. That came after China added new port fees on US ships, started an antitrust investigation into Qualcomm Inc., and unveiled sweeping new curbs on its exports of rare earths and other critical materials.
Beijing justified its moves as defensive actions and accused the US of introducing new restrictive measures targeting China since talks between the two in Madrid in September, according to a Ministry of Commerce statement on Sunday. Last month, the US Commerce Department unveiled a dramatic expansion of its export controls, which closed loopholes in current measures to block Beijing from cutting-edge chips.
“Threatening with high tariffs at every turn is not the right way to get along with China,” the Commerce Ministry said. “If the US persists in its own course, China will resolutely take corresponding measures to safeguard its legitimate rights and interests.”
Last week Beijing unveiled broad new curbs on its exports of rare earths and other critical materials. Overseas exporters of items that use even traces of certain rare earths sourced from China will now need an export license, it announced Thursday, citing national security grounds. Certain equipment and technology for processing rare earths and making magnets will also be subject to controls.
Vice President JD Vance told China on Sunday that the US has more leverage in the escalating trade dispute, saying the Trump administration is ready to be reasonable if Beijing is.
“If they respond in a highly aggressive manner, I guarantee you, the president of the United States has far more cards than the People’s Republic of China,” Vance said on Fox News’s s.
China’s export control is not a ban on exports, and applications that meet the regulations will be approved, the Commerce Ministry said Sunday. Before the measures were announced, China had notified relevant countries and regions through the bilateral export control dialogue mechanism, it added.
China has fully assessed the possible impact of the measures on the industrial and supply chains in advance and is convinced that the relevant impact is very limited, the ministry said. It added that the country is willing to strengthen dialogue and exchanges on export control with other nations to better maintain the security and stability of the global industrial and supply chains.
Beijing’s addition of new port fees on US ships coincides with the date Washington plans to impose new charges on large Chinese vessels calling at American ports.
The US’s implementation of Section 301 measures targeting China’s maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries has severely harmed China’s interests and undermined the atmosphere of bilateral economic and trade talks, and China is resolutely opposed to them, the Commerce Ministry said.
The actions China took are “aimed at safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese industries and enterprises, as well as maintaining a fair competitive environment in the international shipping and shipbuilding markets,” the ministry added.
On Sunday, China’s market regulator said it would proceed with an antitrust probe of tech giant Qualcomm. The State Administration for Market Regulation highlighted exchanges with Qualcomm over its acquisition of Israel’s Autotalks Ltd., according to a statement, following the announcement of the probe last week.
While Qualcomm had told Beijing it would scrap the deal in March 2024, it went on to complete the move without any communication, it said. The probe into Qualcomm is based on clear facts and solid evidence, the agency added.
--With assistance from Jessica Sui, Fran Wang and Josh Wingrove.
(Update with Vance remarks starting in sixth paragraph)
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
貿易戰之川普六個月成績平議 - Sahil Nair
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
我認為：這篇文章稱得上持平之論；分析具有一定水準和深度。當然，它們只是我這個只懂得看熱鬧外行人的愚見。
Trump’s Trade War: The Shocking Truth Six Months In
Sahil Nair, 08/15/25
What the headlines didn’t tell you about America’s biggest economic gamble — and the surprising winners and losers emerging right now.
I can remember watching the news six months ago when President Trump escalated what most economists would call one of the largest trade wars in 25 years. The US stock market was sold off in a big way after it became known that the US would levy tariffs against China as well as two close allies, Mexico and Canada. But here we are today, and the fact is that reality has differed quite a bit from what many of us had anticipated.
I spent years of my life tracking economic developments, and we have seen this trade war unfold in ways even those who had done nothing but eat, live, and breath economics during their adult lives never could have predicted. Allow me to brief you on both what happened, the actual damage incurred, and if Trump’s grandiose statements about “winning” trade wars are accurate.
The Chaos That Started It All
I hate to admit it, but when Trump first announced those tariffs, I was one of the ones who thought we were headed for economic ruin. The knee-jerk market response would have validated all of our worst nightmares. However, the interesting nuance is how things have changed during these six months.
The complexity of trying to track these tariffs has been mind boggling. Trump wasn’t just dropping a blanket tariff on everything — he was charging different countries and products various rates. This was especially damaging to China, but also to commodities like steel and cars. But sorting out how that translated to the typical American took a closer reading of the numbers.
Breaking Down Trump’s Trade War Timeline
Here is an analysis of the key moments that defined these six months and were missed or mis-interpreted by the media:
January — February: The opening salvo started around the first of February when President Trump, pushed China pulling receipts with a 10% tariff hike and by early March adding tariffs on Mexico and Canada.
March: That’s where things get interesting — Trump exempted goods under the previous US-Mexico-Canada agreement, meaning in fact the average tariff rate fell for a short period.
April — May: From April, the events kept escalating; which started with an increased tariff on steel and aluminium to a initial 10% for most countries, additionally out of nowhere the figure was climbed up to huge 25% raise for cars.
It was The Big Moment — Liberation Day: this was when the real deal started. Then Trump rolled out the “reciprocal tariffs” for everyone, hence the massive average-tariff spike that freaked out markets.
June — July: Trump then eased up on some tariffs (on high-stakes China) and held them fast (against strategic Canada, Mexico).
Most of all, I was so impressed by how strategic this all was, looking back on it now. As crazy as it was, it did not seem so disorderly when an outside observer couldn’t see the method to the madness.
The Economic Impact: Separating Fear from Reality
Inflation: The Dog That Didn’t Bark
That is where I must confess that I was utterly mistaken in my first guess. I, along with most people who are following anything in the realm of economic news, anticipated some heavy-duty inflation out of these tariffs. Any basic economic theory tells you that when tariffs rise by 15% or more in such a short time, the import prices shoot up and it reflects on the price level escalation.
In reality, however inflation kept dropping. Yes, you read that right. Not only did it not rise, but it fell during that time.
It did take a little more lateral thinking, and I came up with three answers that I thought were logical:
Controlled Stocking: US importers understood the tariffs were coming salting away heavy stocking before the levies hit from China and elsewhere. This enabled them to absorb the higher costs of tariffs for months after they were put in place.
Pricing: American companies and foreign exporters hitting consumers with the cost of tariffs gave way to cost absorption. The really interesting part is that a study shows foreign exporters are paying about 53% of these tariffs which kind of does vindicate Trump’s claim to Foreigners would pay.
Reduced Consumer Spending: This could be due to Trump’s erratic behaviour, which scared the poop out of us Americans that we spent less overall, easing inflationary pressure & balancing off whatever imported inflations levels brought in to maintain the markets in a state of equilibrium.
GDP Growth: Where the Predictions Held True
Economic growth has indeed tracked right on the money — not inflation. The U.S. economy was expected to grow by 2.4 percent in 2025; now growth is pegged at only 1.5–1.7 percent. This is a major slowdown directly caused by the trade war.
As far as I can see this is a logical solution. Tariffs create uncertainty and as everyone knows, uncertainty kills investment. If businesses have no idea what trade policies will be in a month, they will wait on major decisions.
The Dollar’s Surprising Decline
But this one — I did not see coming. The conventional wisdom of tariff theory is that they should boost a country’s currency and reduce imports. That is what indeed occurred during Trump’s first trade war, with the dollar appreciating against China-renminbi.
However, this time the dollar really did fall on the news of new tariffs. The answer has to do with global capital flows. Tariffs should reduce imports which would strengthen the dollar but Trump’s haphazard way of governing has scared away foreign investors who used to regard the US as a predictable place in which to do business.
Money that would have gone into U.S. stocks and bonds now heads to Taiwan, Switzerland or Europe. Amidst the global unpredictability, with European investors praying for a safe haven, does Trump’s America no longer feel like the default option?
Global Ripple Effects: Winners and Losers
The European Union: Unexpected Beneficiary
The EU’s reaction to Trump’s trade war has been amazing. At first, I thought Europe would take the pain too. They have, however, converted some of them into opportunities instead.
Europe Outperforms: EPFR reports the first month on outflows since February and — as we’ve come to expect from the recent data — flows into US bond funds continued to ease, coming in at a near 5-month low even as European equity funds took in almost $1 billion during the week ending August 21 their biggest inflow this year. In the context of Trump’s America, investors are seeing Europe as (relatively) lower risk.
Defense Spending Boost: Trump’s threat to impose tariffs has led Europeans to raise their defense spending, a pre-Arctic boom economic stimulus.
Internal Market Completion: Faced with trade barriers outside of its frontiers, the EU now looks like it finally means business about dismantling internal trade barriers between member countries — something the EU should have done in earnest decades ago.
Canada: Adaptation and Political Consequences
Canada’s response has been especially noteworthy in terms of politics. The Liberal Party likely benefited in its recent election from Trump’s apparent hostility, which means that voters repudiated the Conservative Party for looking like they supported Trump.
Canada, most importantly, is weaning itself off the United States like a sixteen year-old moving out of his parents’ house and ending its suspiciously Goodfellas-style intra-Canadian trade barriers that amount to an estimated 21% internal tariff or so by IMF figures.
Mexico: The Unintended Beneficiary
Actually, in this trade war with the US Mexico could be a net gainer. Trump has used threats against Mexico, but where trade with the rest of the world is concerned, it’s been regarded as a much more free affair — excluding Trumps various tariffs.
At a time when US tariffs are going up on other countries, access to the American market without tariffs is more valuable than ever; giving Mexico an incredibly strong bargaining position. With the political changes as they are, Mexico may end up being the go-to cheap manufacturing hub when market after companies that sell in the states try to keep their trade deal status.
China: Finding Silver Linings
Indeed, even Trump’s primary target of the trade war, China has received some “unexpected” benefits. The chaos Trump unleashed has caused many countries to re-examine their dependence on the US, making China appear a better image and diplomacy.
Japan: Forced Modernization
If this is true, one of the most ironic circumstances have to be Japan. A line in the FT explains that Trump’s heat might actually be turning up the heat on Japan to update trade restrictions that are “literally centuries old. Japan, for instance, still has rice import walls equivalent to a 233% tariff. Japan needs rice and this is effectively an income transfer to their own consumers.
Trump’s Goals: Revenue and Reindustrialization
The Revenue Reality Check
In both cases, the officials said Trump made clear he wanted a bigger, more punitive round than the one announced Friday — and that he was unhappy about Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s efforts to restart trade talks with Chinese Vice Premier Lie He. He also alleged that tariffs would provide so much income that the government could reduce taxes for average Americans (or anybody else). Those numbers present a more nuanced tale.
The Treasury — yes, the same place that sends out your tax refunds — doesn’t report what it earns in tariffs as a line item in its annual budget reports. But over thousands of pages of tables and spreadsheets of “outlays” and “receipts,” the nonpartisan CBO tracked down current and historical tariffs going back to 1969 to try to account for how much money America really brings in from import taxes, particularly now that President Trump is raising them sharply up from nearly zero on many goods around the globe…. That is a lot of money, based on any metric. Yet Trump’s “big beautiful” tax cuts would push the US deficit up by $3 trillion over the same time.
Even counting the tariff revenue, simple math gives us 6% of what this tax cut is costing. So, Trump wasn’t wrong in that tariffs would raise money, he was just absurdly optimistic about how much they would raise compared to his other budget priorities.
Reindustrialization: The Jury’s Still Out
Trump’s focus was almost above all to, “put Americans back to work in American factories,” It is six months in and the jury on this appears mixed at best.
Trump: Businesses have pledged $12 trillion in new investments on his watch (that would be triple all business investment last year, combined, since Inauguration) But while many of these things are not nothing, too many seem to include projects that the companies would do anyway.
Examining the hard numbers for business investment in new machinery and equipment, it really is worrisome. The first three months tracked respectably, but most disappointing is that “Liberation Day” has been followed by economies encountering their worst business investment run on record — Between 30 January and 19 February this year reached its lowest ebb since the COVID-19 Omicron wave.
It is what my network in business has been reporting to me — companies that are deferring decisions to make big investments when the future is this uncertain. With tariffs subject to change on a moment’s notice, thanks to Trump’s negotiations, building a factory becomes much riskier.
My Personal Take: Six Months of Surprises
As someone who has followed this trade war almost from the outset, I am amazed at how removed from the reality we were in most of our predictions initially. The catastrophic economic collapse so many feared (myself included) never materialized — but neither did the economic renaissance Trump promised.
Well, what we have instead is something more nuanced. Certain truths lie in some of Trump’s claims — foreigners are indeed paying some portion of the tariffs, and there is repositioning starting to occur within global supply chains. However, there have been costs as well — most specifically in the form of business uncertainty and reduced investment.
The thing that honestly surprised me the most is just what I call the reordering of sort of the world, geopolitically. The result is a Trump administration forging closer ties with traditional rivals such as India and China, while the EU becomes increasingly self-assured in its view that it must move aggressively even against an overwhelming illegitimate President to protect not only its interests but global security. It remains to be seen whether that is really in the long-run interests of America.
The India-China Subplot: An Unexpected Alliance
Among the more extraordinary developments we are witnessing is how nations that have a “bloody border dispute” and basic strategic differences such as India and China come together in responding to Trump’s policies.
Sitting on the sidelines has created an opening for Beijing through a combination of the strategic partnership rhetoric, while Trump’s decision to slap a 25 percent tariff, possibly rising to 50 percent as punishment for purchasing Russian oil onto India seems impossible only months ago. New Delhi (AFP) — Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi is expected to make his first visit to China in seven years for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit next week.
This is especially ironic, since the US has spent years trying to build India into a democratic counterpoise to Chinese power. President Trump’s transactional relationships with allies and enemies alike have chipped away at all this diplomatic architecture.
Looking Ahead: What Six Months Taught Us
This is of course, far too soon to say what the full implications of any trade war may be, but there are preliminary patterns that already appear to offer a good guide to how this one will end:
Resilience of the Global Economy: The global trade disruption has been less damaging to the world economy than many anticipated before it began. And companies and countries are developing strategies to cope.
Political Consequences: These trade wars are not only economic but they are changing political alliances in ways that Trump probably didn’t anticipate when he first decided to pick some fights.
Business Uncertainty: More so than the cost of tariffs, businesses have been negatively affected by uncertainty. Many are putting key longer-term growth and investment decisions on ice until we know more about what the future of trade could hold.
Tactical vs Strategic: Trump’s tactical approach to trade may win some short-term battles, but risks undermining long-term strategic relationships.
Conclusion: The Trade War’s Mixed Report Card
As I finish this analysis, one thing that stands out is that the trade war has not been a typical trade war from any historical stand point. Trump has failed to accomplish his grandiose promises of reindustrializing America, and having “foreigners pay for tax cuts on American soil.” However, he also has not caused the economic Armageddon that most of us expected.
Instead, we have seen a more nuanced messy reality where some predictions were true and others patently wrong. The global economy is in fact more resilient and flexible than many believed, but this comes at the price of higher uncertainty, strategic disorientation etc.
Yet the biggest test will only arrive in the next year, as these policies work their way through the system. Of course, the big question is when businesses will start spending again once they have adjusted to the new trade reality. Can other nations manage to decouple from the American market? Can one go back to traditional alliances after this era of transactional diplomacy?
I will keep a very close eye on these developments as they unfold and report back once the longer-term effects have crystallized. What is absolutely certain, however, is the fact that international trade will never be as usual anymore.
Pass/Fail: How do you grade Trump’s trade war? What has been the impact, and how does it match your expectations? Let me and others know in the comments below.
References and Sources
This comprehensive analysis draws from multiple sources to provide you with the most accurate and up-to-date information available:
Primary Video Sources:
1. “Trump’s Trade War: 6 Months Later — What Actually Happened?”
News Sources:
1. CNN International — “Trump’s trade war may be pushing India and China into a wary embrace”
Additional Data Sources Referenced:
The Economist — Interactive tariff burden graphics and inflation analysis
* Joey Politano — Economic graphs and tariff rate visualizations
* University of Geneva Research — Professor Marcella O’Hara and Sara Santander’s study on foreign exporters paying portions of US tariffs
* Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — Analysis from Milan Vaishnav on US-India relations
* University of Tokyo — Professor Kenichi Ueda’s research on Japanese trade barriers
* International Monetary Fund (IMF) — Data on Canadian internal trade barriers
Methodology Note:
This analysis represents my personal interpretation and synthesis of the source materials listed above, combined with additional economic research and data analysis. All opinions expressed are my own and are based on the available information as of the publication date.
Written by Sahil Nair
Student of Psychology and Philosophy. Opinionated writer practicing in a wandering mind...
Published in The Geopolitical Economist
In The Global geopolitics, truth is one, but the wise interpret it differently.— Here, we interpret these diversions
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
貿易戰之三權分立原則：聯邦上訴法庭裁定川普關稅不合法 -- Alexis Keenan
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Appeals court invalidates many of Trump's tariffs. Next stop: The Supreme Court.
Alexis Keenan, Senior Legal Reporter, 08/30/25
A federal appeals court struck down most of President Trump's Congress-averting global import tariffs Friday in a dispute that's predicted to head to the US Supreme Court.
The 7-4 ruling, issued by 11 judges for the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., allows the tariffs to remain in place while the administration decides on an appeal to the US Supreme Court.
The decision upholds a ruling handed down in May by the US Court of International Trade (CIT), saying that the president lacked legal authority to order, by way of executive orders, a series of global tariffs imposed on US trading partners.
"We affirm the CIT’s holding that the trafficking and reciprocal tariffs imposed by the challenged executive orders exceed the authority delegated to the President," the majority held in the ruling. "We also affirm the CIT’s grant of declaratory relief that the orders are 'invalid as contrary to law.'"
At the center of the dispute is the scope of a national security-based law enacted in 1977 known as “IEEPA” — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The law authorizes the president to “regulate” international commerce after declaring a national emergency.
"In response to these declared emergencies, the President has departed from the established tariff schedules and imposed varying tariffs of unlimited duration on imports of nearly all goods from nearly every country with which the United States conducts trade," the court said in its ruling.
In a post to his social media website Truth Social, the president said, "a Highly Partisan Appeals Court incorrectly said that our Tariffs should be removed, but they know the United States of America will win in the end. If these Tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the Country."
Post to Truth Social by President Donald J. Trump on August 29, 2025 (Truth Social / President Donald J. Trump) 請至原網頁查看川普回應
The court emphasized that under the US Constitution, Congress is empowered to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises and to regulate commerce with foreign nations.
"Tariffs are a tax, and the framers of the Constitution expressly contemplated the exclusive grant of taxing power to the legislative branch," the ruling said.
The court was tasked with deciding if IEEPA is among a handful of rare exceptions that extend limited taxing power to the president, a power otherwise exclusive to Congress.
Trump cited IEEPA when he declared two national emergencies — illegal immigration and flows of illegal drugs from overseas — as bases for the tariff orders.
Trump’s Justice Department Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate argued in July before the appeals court that IEEPA could not limit president's method of regulation, once the president declared an emergency. Congress would have understood that when it wrote the law, Shumate said, and Congress can step in to overrule the president's tariffs.
Brian Simmonds Marshall, a lawyer for one of 12 states that joined the importers in their challenge opposing the tariffs, argued that the term "regulate" was meant to permit the president to order quotas that limit the number of imported goods — and potentially order import licensing requirements and fees.
“IEEPA doesn't even say ‘tariffs.’ It doesn't even mention it,” one judge said during the hearing in May.
“What does ‘regulation of importation’ mean?” another judge asked. And “If ‘regulate’ doesn’t cover tariffs, what does it cover?”
The appeals panel that issued Friday's decision was composed of seven judges appointed by former Democratic presidents and four appointed by Republican presidents.
Trump tariffs versus Nixon tariffs
The judges looked to a Nixon-era lawsuit that addressed IEEPA’s predecessor law, known as the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA), which Trump's team cited as proof that the president’s global tariffs should be allowed to stand in court.
Roughly five decades ago, President Nixon unilaterally imposed 10% duties on imports as part of a set of economic measures dubbed the "Nixon shock." Those tariffs were challenged in court in much the same way as Trump's 2025 tariffs have been.
A Japanese zipper-making business called Yoshida International sued, saying Nixon lacked the power to set the tariff under three different laws that the government cited as justification: the Tariff Act, the Trade Expansion Act, and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA).
The most controversial justification was the TWEA.
A US Customs Court initially sided with the zipper importer, holding that none of the three laws offered adequate authority for the duty. Yet on appeal, Nixon's tariffs were upheld.
The court that upheld the Nixon tariffs reasoned that "neither need nor national emergency" justified the levies because Congress had not delegated such power and because the authority was "not inherent" in his office. However, the court said, TWEA carved out enough power to regulate importation during an economic emergency.
One of the appeals court judges hearing the Trump case referenced the 1970s case and said, “It seems pretty clear to me that Yoshida is telling us that ‘No, the president doesn't have the authority to rewrite the Tariff Schedule.’ In this case, that's what the president is trying to do.”
A lawyer for the challengers to Trump’s duties argued that by adopting IEEPA in 1977, Congress ratified the high court’s holding in Yoshida, which he said allowed the president to impose “modest, bounded, temporary tariffs,” but did not sanction unbounded, permanent duties.
During the arguments before the appeals panel, the lawyers also sparred over whether the president’s declared national emergency met IEEPA’s requirements of "unusual" and "extraordinary."
One judge agreed the president did meet these requirements by identifying underlying causes contributing to the threat, including trade deficits, tariff barriers, domestic production shortfalls, and a lack of reciprocity in US trading relationships.
“How does that not constitute what the president is expressly saying is an extraordinary threat?” the judge asked the challengers.
Another judge countered, “How can a trade deficit be an extraordinary and unusual threat when we've had trade deficits for decades?”
Lawyers for the administration argued that the deficit becomes extraordinary and unusual once it reaches a point where it threatens the resources that are foundational to US national security.
Other cases involving challenges to the IEEPA-based tariffs have been filed in multiple jurisdictions.
In a case set for arguments in the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in September, two private, family-owned American toy companies, Learning Resources, Inc., and hand2mind, Inc., allege that IEEPA neither authorizes the president to impose tariffs nor authorizes the particular challenged tariffs. The companies also allege that the tariffs violate the Administrative Procedure Act.
A district court ruled in favor of the toy companies, which import goods from China, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, and India.
In a rare legal filing, the toy companies asked the high court to grant certiorari before an anticipated judgment from the US Appeals Court for the DC Circuit.
“Whether the President has authority to impose tariffs … is of such imperative importance that it warrants review now,” the toy companies said. However, the high court declined to take up the case.
Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed.
相關閱讀
* The latest news and updates on Trump's tariffs
* What Trump's tariffs mean for the economy and your wallet
* Click here for the latest economic news and indicators to help inform your investing decisions
* Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
貿易戰之敵人的敵人就是朋友 - Mayu Saini
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
請參考：
* Xi hails ‘far-reaching’ new friendship with Modi as rivals bury the hatchet (08/31/25補增)
* China-India Relations Thaw but No Major Reset Yet
* Trump Needs To Rebuild U.S.-India Relationship
India and China: US Tariffs Turn Rivals Toward Friendship in Major Geopolitical Shift
Mayu Saini, 08/20/25
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi arrived in New Delhi on Monday for a two-day visit viewed by many as the first indication of a thaw in relations between two rivals.
The last such meeting took place in 2020 after a border clash heightened tensions between China and India, which have long been locked in a state of controlled hostility.
Moving forward in the wake of extraordinarily high U.S. tariffs of 50 percent on India, the two largest economies in Asia are looking for synergy and a positive outlook to navigate the turbulence in global trade.
Neither side is pretending past tensions are moot, even though it is clear that geopolitics in South Asia stands at an important crossroads.
After their meeting on Monday, India’s foreign minister S. Jaishankar said it was time to “move ahead from a difficult period in our ties,” while Wang Yi indicated it was time to “move beyond being adversaries, to being partners.”
Both sides agreed that “stability had now been restored at the borders,” although analysts warned that years of mistrust could not “so easily be swept aside by business interests.”
Wang Yi’s meeting on Tuesday with Prime Minister Narendra Modi at his official residence further underlined the effort. After the meeting, Modi tweeted: “Glad to meet foreign minister Wang Yi. Stable, predictable, constructive ties between India and China will contribute significantly to regional as well as global peace and prosperity.” He added, “I look forward to our next meeting in Tianjin on the sidelines of the SCO Summit,” referring to his accepted visit to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1.
Pushed further together by what is being seen as a rupture in friendship with President Donald Trump through the punishing 50 percent tariff on Indian goods (the highest in the region), Modi is recalibrating India’s strategy.
The tariff began with a 25 percent duty for India, compared to 20 percent for Bangladesh, Vietnam and Sri Lanka, along with 19 percent for Pakistan, Cambodia and Indonesia.
The additional 25 percent was slapped on India for its imports of Russian crude oil, bringing the total to 50 percent are set to take effect on Aug. 27.
India has held firm in its objections to the tariffs, with the Ministry of External Affairs calling the targeting of India “unjustified and unreasonable.” The overtures to China are viewed as a part of the fallout between the U.S. and India.
Premal Udani, former chairman of the Apparel Export Promotion Council (AEPC) and managing director of Kaytee Corp Pvt Ltd, described the situation as an “existential crisis for the apparel and textile industry.” He told Sourcing Journal that many U.S. buyers had paused shipments and put new orders on hold.
“The industry cannot take this kind of impact. Current effective duties are already at around 40 percent and will climb to 65 percent next week,” he said.
Hopes that a U.S. delegation visit this week might advance bilateral trade talks appear dim, with reports suggesting the visit has been put on hold. “There were two things happening at the same time. There was talk of a Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA), and the delegation was coming for that—it wasn’t to negotiate on tariffs. Realistically, none of us expected much headway in the BTA until these contentious issues were resolved. We were not holding our breath,” Udani explained.
According to a recent report by the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER), nearly 70 percent of Indian exports to the U.S. will face 50 percent tariffs under the new tariff regime.
“While this represents just 1.56 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) and 7.38 percent of total exports—far from catastrophic for a $3.9 trillion economy—the impact is concentrated in labor-intensive and high-value sectors such as textiles, apparel, gems, jewelry, auto parts, and agricultural products like shrimp. These sectors not only anchor India’s merchandise exports to the U.S. but also directly affect employment and the livelihoods of millions. The U.S. alone accounted for approximately 29 percent of India’s textile and apparel exports last financial year, valued at about $10.3 billion,” the report noted.
Manufacturers have been faced with some dire conversations with the brands and retailers these past weeks.
In Tirupur, which accounts for 68 percent of India’s knitwear exports, manufacturers have paused shipments and voiced deep uncertainty. U.S. buyers account for nearly one-quarter of exports from Tirupur, and Tamil Nadu officials warned that the entire state—which sends 31 percent of its $52.18 billion exports to the U.S.—faces urgent threats to livelihoods. The Tirupur Exporters and Manufacturers Association (TEAMA) said that 3 million jobs and 20,000 factories are “at immediate risk” due to the extra 25 percent to 50 percent tariff. The association has appealed to Prime Minister Modi for relief measures, including high-level diplomatic talks, loan-repayment moratoriums, collateral-free working capital loans, and the temporary suspension of the goods and service tax, income tax and other levies for affected exporters.
Sanjay Jain, chair of the Indian Chamber of Commerce National Textiles Committee and managing director of TT Ltd, echoed the depth of the crisis throughout the textile and apparel sectors.
“It’s a bad situation—buyers are putting orders on hold, and even ready goods are being asked not to dispatch. Exporters are having to give steep discounts just to move shipments or secure new orders. It’s a total loss for exporters,” he said.
Jain urged urgent action, warning that summer orders were already being placed and India could not afford to lose market share to other countries. “The U.S. is the single largest buyer of home textiles and apparel in the world—we cannot ignore it. Now it is about the survival of the small and medium companies and skilled labor. The government must act boldly and support the industry in finding new pastures.”
His suggestions included quickly reducing raw material costs, removing import duties on cotton and textile raw materials, and offering a 10 percent U.S.-focused incentive for products facing the 50 percent tariff.
Other manufacturers told Sourcing Journal that a “comparative paralysis has set in.”
“While there’s no point in hand-wringing over the so-called friendship with the U.S. and casting blame, all eyes are on our government to see how they protect this badly hit, labor-intensive industry. It’s hard to see how the government can cover the 30 percent tariff gap monetarily. We need a multi-pronged strategy,” said a Tirupur based manufacturer, requesting anonymity.
Prime Minister Modi’s Independence Day speech on Aug. 15, in which he promised relief for the industry through tax reforms before the festival of Diwali in November, signals movement toward India holding its own.
Additionally, on Monday, the Finance Ministry announced the elimination of the 11 percent duty on cotton imports until Sept. 30, a step welcomed by manufacturers and a move that also eases access for U.S. cotton into India.
Hansa Sharma, founder of the eco-friendly sustainable fashion brand Hansa, described how the situation was transforming the entire supply chain in a post: “This is a reminder that trade policies don’t just change numbers on a balance sheet—they reshape entire supply chains. As a manufacturer, we see first-hand how tariffs tilt the playing field, making adaptability and efficiency more critical than ever. While challenges are real, they also push us to rethink sourcing, diversify markets, and lean into innovation. In the end, resilience becomes the true currency of global trade.”
A northern India manufacturer, described it as a “huge ripple effect.”
“In India it is creating a de facto embargo for exports to the U.S., but the impact is much bigger than that. The tariffs are not only straining local supply chains but also reshaping the geopolitics of sourcing in South Asia,” he said, adding that manufacturers were already considering building factories in other countries, although that would result in a loss of employment in India.
Despite the palpable tension, not all are swamped in gloom.
Many manufacturers endorsed Jaishankar’s point to Wang Yi that “differences must not become disputes, nor competition conflict,” and that the same point could well be applied to the business of sourcing.
While the tentative Chinese connections were not immediately seen as bridges to building business, Udani said that they were overall a “very positive step forward.”
“They need our raw materials and we need a lot of their goods as well. If it works out it’s a win-win situation for 25 percent of humanity,” he said.
As for the upcoming deadline for additional U.S. tariffs that is causing disruptions across the supply chain, it’s still being seen as a possible window to change. “We’re still cautiously optimistic,” said Udani.
“As Russia-U.S. talks are on, and Ukraine-U.S. talks are on, this issue of tariffs for crude oil imports from Russia may well be swept aside for India.” He pointed to China’s last-minute extension on tariffs as an encouraging precedent, while acknowledging that “given the impulsive and uncertain way tariffs are being distributed, it could quite go the opposite way, too.”
“So, Aug. 27 is the date to watch,” he said, referring to the deadline for the second 25 percent in tariff measures to take effect.
His optimism went further: “I wish other countries well, but in the end, India has great strength in its verticality in the sector. It’s only a matter of time, and hopefully we will get a chance to get there.”
More from Sourcing Journal
* Shein Reportedly Considers Moving HQ Back to China For Hong Kong IPO
* Sri Lanka Praises UK's Easing of Tariff-Free Rules
* No Hint of a Slowdown at Arc'teryx Parent Amer Sports Despite Tariff Impacts
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
|
|
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
