The 'horizontal jump' of US tariff policy disrupts the global trade environment (global hotspots)
It is reported that after the US Supreme Court ruled that the US government's large-scale tariff policy exceeded its authority and was illegal, more than a thousand US companies, including FedEx, Dyson, Bausch&Lomb, and other well-known enterprises, have filed lawsuits with the US International Trade Court, demanding that the government refund the tariff payments already made.
At the same time, the US tariff policy has sparked widespread criticism from the international community. Scholars from multiple countries have stated that frequent changes in the legal basis and implementation methods of US tariff policies have plunged the global trade environment into deeper levels of uncertainty.
What are the forces behind the struggle over tariff policies in the United States? What is the possible direction of US tariff policy? What risks will other economies around the world face? Professor Wei Zongyou from the Center for American Studies at Fudan University and Associate Researcher Yang Zirong from the Institute of World Economics and Politics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences shared their observations and perspectives with this newspaper.
Unrestricted tax increases restricted, or caught in a 'cat and mouse' game
The power struggle among various parties in the United States over tariff policies involves multiple levels such as law and politics, mainly stemming from disputes between the government and the government, as well as opposition between politics and business
【 Observation 】
Recently, the US Supreme Court announced a ruling that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorize the President to impose tariffs on a large scale. Subsequently, the US government confirmed the termination of the relevant tariff measures previously invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and announced the imposition of a 15% tariff on goods from all countries and regions under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act.
The Washington Post reported that the Supreme Court's ruling that the US government's emergency tariff policy is invalid has ended a "chapter" of economic uncertainty and opened another "chapter" of uncertainty.
The New York Times reported that since 2025, the aggressive and unpredictable tariff threats from the United States have strained alliance relations, caused global market turbulence, and forced American businesses and consumers to bear some of the import tariff costs.
[Comment]
Wei Zongyou: The core of the ruling of the US Supreme Court is that the US government's previous imposition of tariffs lacked legal basis and authorization, which has two specific meanings:
One is that the global benchmark tariffs, including equivalent tariffs, previously implemented by the US government under the so-called International Emergency Economic Powers Act will become invalid. Meanwhile, the 10% to 25% tariffs imposed on relevant countries under the pretext of fentanyl issues have also been declared invalid.
Secondly, the ruling of the US Supreme Court implies that the power of the executive branch is constrained in issues such as tariffs. The power to impose tariffs has been transferred back to the US Congress, and only through relevant legislation can the US government legitimately impose tariffs.
After the ruling was issued, the US government stated that it would impose "global import tariffs" under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. In addition, the US President's recent 2026 State of the Union address also mentioned relevant issues, claiming that tariffs are operating well and criticizing the ruling of the US Supreme Court.
Subsequently, both parties may fall into a game of cat and mouse. Although the ruling of the US Supreme Court can constrain and create obstacles for the US government to impose tariffs, it seems that the US government's tariff policy has not changed as a result. In the future, it may still continue to implement the policy of imposing tariffs based on other so-called laws or finding other excuses.
Yang Zirong: The struggle among various parties in the United States over tariff policies involves multiple levels such as law and politics, mainly stemming from two aspects of the game:
One is the power struggle between the government and the US Congress, as well as the political rift between the Republican and Democratic parties. On the one hand, the US government attempts to increase fiscal revenue and promote the return of manufacturing by imposing tariffs, while the US Constitution clearly assigns the power of taxation to Congress. The core controversy of this ruling lies in whether the US government has the authority to bypass Congress and directly invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose global tariffs; On the other hand, although there are concerns within the Republican Party about tariffs pushing up US prices, exacerbating inflation, and affecting votes, the overall support for the US government's tariff policy remains strong, while the Democratic Party generally criticizes the tariff policy, particularly concerned that imposing tariffs will strain US ally relations.
The second is the confrontation between politics and business, mainly manifested as the misalignment of interests between the US government and American companies. Although the US government has repeatedly stated that tariffs are borne by foreign exporters, multiple studies have shown that the additional tariffs are actually mainly borne by American businesses and consumers, causing significant damage to the interests of many American businesses and facing enormous pressure and uncertainty. According to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, for most of 2025, American businesses and consumers will bear over 90% of the costs caused by tariffs.
Policy confusion and overlapping, enterprises receiving tax refunds are far away
The US government's attempt to take other so-called 'remedial measures' to forcefully impose unreasonable tariffs on other countries around the world will open new gates for future confusion in US tariffs and foreign trade policies
【 Observation 】
Analysis has pointed out that the tariff measures currently implemented by the US government under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act have distinct temporary characteristics and require approval from the US Congress within a few months to be sustained in the long term. This arrangement not only fails to alleviate market anxiety, but also further exacerbates uncertain expectations in the global market.
In addition, whether enterprises can smoothly obtain tax refunds is another focus of concern for all parties. According to the budget model of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, the final tariff ruling by the US Supreme Court involves a refund amount of $175 billion. US importers and the government may engage in a prolonged struggle over tax refunds.
The Wall Street Journal website published an article stating that the tax refund process is not yet clear and may take a long time. Optimistic expectations suggest that returning tariffs will take one or two years, while pessimistic predictions suggest that it will take even longer.
John Bryson, a professor of international economic geography at the University of Birmingham in the UK, believes that as the US Supreme Court's ruling may trigger tariff refund claims, the US government will face dual pressures: first, the administrative costs generated by the tariff collection and refund process itself, and second, the legal disputes and financial pressure that come with it.
[Comment]
Wei Zongyou: Unlike the previous tariffs imposed by the US government, according to Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, the new tariffs can only last for a maximum of 150 days, unless the US Congress approves an extension. At present, the US government's new executive order has two issues:
The legality of imposing tariffs on this basis is questionable.
Secondly, even if new tariffs are imposed according to this law, their validity period is only 150 days. Beyond this deadline, approval from the US Congress is required for an extension.
The US government is attempting to take other so-called 'remedial measures' to forcefully impose unreasonable tariffs on other countries around the world. But this approach is bound to trigger new legal lawsuits, and its legal basis is even more unreliable. This will undoubtedly open a new floodgate for the future confusion of tariffs and foreign trade policies in the United States.
In addition, the US Supreme Court has not previously made a clear ruling on whether the government must refund, and related issues will be handled by the US International Trade Court. With a large number of American and some foreign companies filing lawsuits demanding refunds of the imposed tariffs, the US government may spend a lot of financial, human, and energy resources on this matter.
Yang Zirong: In the future, although the adjustment of US tariff policies may have marginal benefits for some enterprises, that is, eligible enterprises may receive tax refunds, there are many obstacles in the actual implementation process, and the overall situation is not clear.
Firstly, the tax refund process may be lengthy and subject to financial obstacles. Enterprises need to go through a complex litigation process to obtain tax refunds, and even if they win the lawsuit, the payment cycle will be very long. More importantly, tariff revenue is an important source of revenue for the US government's finances, and the slowdown in the rise of US government debt in fiscal year 2025 is largely due to the support of tariff revenue. In the current context of high debt, the US government lacks the motivation to proactively refund taxes and is likely to adopt a "delaying tactic", leading to unclear prospects for corporate tax refunds.
Secondly, small and medium-sized enterprises find it difficult to withstand the pressure of long-term waiting. Currently, interest rates in the United States are still relatively high, and many small and medium-sized enterprises have fragile cash flows. Long term litigation cycles and delayed payments can easily lead to a break in their funding chain and prevent them from holding on until the tax refund is implemented.
In addition, the adjustment of US tariff policies will also lead to expected confusion and tax system confusion. After the original tariffs were ruled illegal, the US government was eager to introduce new tariffs. The constantly changing policies made it difficult for companies to form stable expectations, and they faced many difficulties in both daily operations and long-term investment planning.
Uncertainty intensifies, countries take multiple measures to reduce dependence on the United States
Many countries around the world, including US allies, are accelerating diversification measures to reduce dependence on the US and weaken the negative impact of US tariff policies. The global trade landscape is facing profound adjustments
【 Observation 】
The European Commission recently issued a statement demanding a "completely clear" explanation from the US on the latest tariff measures, while warning that unpredictable tariff policies will seriously undermine global market confidence.
According to Kyodo News, in response to the latest statement by the US government on tariff policies, the head of the Liberal Democratic Party's tax investigation committee, Itsunori Onodera, recently stated that the international community may accelerate its departure from the United States.
Latin American economies such as Brazil and Mexico remain vigilant about the trend of US tariff policies. Salazar Sirinachis, Executive Secretary of the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, stated that profound changes in US trade policy have reshaped the global trade landscape. Latin American economies should accelerate cooperation with partners such as the European Union, China, India, ASEAN, Gulf countries, and Africa.
Bloomberg recently reported that the uncertainty of US tariff policies has prompted Africa to reduce the use of the US dollar in trade settlements, and African companies are exploring more use of their own currency and other national currencies.
[Comment]
Yang Zirong: The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the relevant tariffs are illegal. Although it has formed certain constraints on the US government's tariff policy at the legal level, it cannot fundamentally change the trend of the US tariff policy being volatile and entering a highly uncertain stage in the context of political fragmentation in the United States. In addition, although the economic and financial sectors in the United States appear stable on the surface, there are hidden risks. Once fluctuations occur, they will further exacerbate policy swings.
The uncertainty of US tariff policies will have multiple impacts on countries around the world and global trade. Firstly, as the world's largest economy, the US's blatant trade protectionism and reckless disregard for its own interests over international law and rules will seriously undermine the credibility of global trade rules and bring huge risks to global trade, investment, and financial markets; Secondly, the United States' unilateral imposition of tariffs, artificially cutting off supply chains and increasing trade costs, will hinder the free flow of trade and investment.
In response to this, countries around the world have taken various measures, including more firmly promoting trade diversification, strengthening regional and multilateral cooperation, exploring local currency settlement to reduce dependence on the US dollar, and so on. At the same time, countries may be more inclined towards a diversified and autonomous strategy in trade negotiations with the United States.
Wei Zongyou: The politicization, weaponization, and instrumentalization of economic and trade issues by the United States is a serious impact on the global trading system centered around the World Trade Organization.
According to US media reports, the US government is considering imposing a new round of tariffs on industries such as large batteries, cast iron and iron fittings, plastic pipes, industrial chemicals, as well as power grids and telecommunications equipment, citing "national security" concerns. If the new tariffs are implemented, they will not only disrupt global trade, but also cause more losses for related American companies.
Faced with the "tariff stick" wielded by the United States, relevant countries have taken corresponding measures. For example, the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament has previously stated that it has considered delaying the vote on the European American trade agreement; The European Union and the Southern Common Market officially signed a free trade agreement in early 2026. It can be seen that many countries around the world, including US allies, are accelerating diversification measures to reduce dependence on the US and weaken the negative impact of US tariff policies, leading to a profound adjustment in the global trade pattern.