U.S. LAW & GLOBAL TRADE RELATIONS.

Tariffs are back. A new broad range of tariffs. Picking up where he left off after the Supreme Court killed his earlier tariffs. Trump is back to threatening everyone — with a new torrent of tariffs. Tariffs are an obsession for Trump, no matter what. The problem for him — he fails to care about the midterms or anyone else. This should be called the “Art of the Threat.” He really doesn’t care about the economics of tariffs. He has a host of totally idiosyncratic reasons. He now uses a host of confusing legal rationales for the new tariffs. Small firms have almost immediately sued and attacked these tariffs. Same ones that previously won in the Supreme Court –supported by very conservative organizations. By the way, Mr. President, threats and insults never work in international or personal affairs. Maybe in the short term, but never in the long term — as soon as events change, so do the compliance of the threatened.

………………………………………………………..

“Trump is preparing to reshape the legal justification for his tariff regime this week and push negotiations with North American trading partners into high gear, setting off a new phase of trade uncertainty for businesses after months of relative calm …. The calm is ending …. Expect new tariff action soon, previewing replacement tariffs for the ones that expire Friday. And a day earlier, Trump said he would impose additional 50% tariffs on certain goods from Canada, a move that pressures America’s northern neighbor to renegotiate the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The Canada tariffs were separate from the sweeping global levies Trump is trying to rebuild after the Supreme Court ruling …. Trump can keep Section 301 levies in place indefinitely. But before that can happen, USTR must issue its final report in the tariff investigation, taking into account more than 1,500 comments from U.S. companies, many of which pleaded for exemptions from the coming levies …. Trump proposed the new Canada tariffs under a never-before-used portion of U.S. trade law—Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which covers alleged discrimination on U.S. goods. That provision could give him more flexibility to impose tariffs on a whim, rather than the months of investigations required by Section 301. “Trump’s New Tack on Tariffs,” Wall Street Journal (7.22.26).

“The U.S. has announced 25% duties on many imports from Brazil, while unveiling a broader-than-expected list of exemptions, reviving a trade war that could embroil dozens of countries around the world as the Trump administration reworks its tariffs policy, one of its signature diplomatic tools …. The U.S. has announced 25% duties on many imports from Brazil, while unveiling a broader-than-expected list of exemptions, reviving a trade war that could embroil dozens of countries around the world as the Trump administration reworks its tariffs policy, one of its signature diplomatic tools …. The new tariffs, which are expected to take effect on July 22, could eventually ensnare countries from India and China to the EU, Japan and South Korea as President Donald Trump seeks a trade reset after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a previous round of global levies ,,,, India, one of the biggest trading partners of the U.S., has struggled to sign a trade deal with Washington at least partly because of the Section 301 investigations …. The most impactful exemptions include ​beef, coffee, rare earths, energy products, aircraft, and aircraft parts.” “Trump’s New Brazilian Tariffs.” Reuters (7.16.26).

“Trump is poised to unleash fresh tariffs on dozens of countries as soon as this week, even as his advisers warn him against risking the economic shocks of his original trade war in advance of the midterm elections …. Trump on Monday unveiled tariffs of 50 per cent on Canadian goods, having already hit Brazilian imports with a 25 per cent levy, underscoring his continued fixation with using tariffs against trading partners …. Behind the scenes, senior officials have been counselling the president to maintain stability with trading partners and honour the deals that Washington struck with them to reduce their tariffs in 2025, according to two people familiar with the matter ….  Trump’s attempt to renew his trade war comes at a time of escalating hostility between the US and Iran, which has roiled global energy markets and risks broadening into a regional conflict …. The new approach to imposing tariffs underscores the way in which the administration must rely on a patchwork of more procedural laws to apply high duties, rather than being able to hit countries with huge tariffs almost instantly under emergency presidential powers.” “New Trump Tariffs Barrage.” Financial Times (July 22, 2026).

“We are living in a mercantilist era. One in which the concerns of policymakers are as much those of security as of prosperity. This threatens both the stability of the world economy and relations among great powers. China is also better suited to mercantilism than the US and EU. Mercantilists seek power and security or, in other words, the ability to bully others and resist being bullied by them in turn …. China is an effective mercantilist power, though even it cannot avoid the shortcomings of this approach. The US, too, is now mercantilist, though in a far less coherent manner. The EU is also being forced in a similar direction.” “New Mercantilist War.” Financial Times (July 20, 2026).

“The Trump administration is preparing to introduce another barrage of global tariffs as soon as this week, as the president tries to replace tariffs that were declared legally invalid in February. The specific authorities this administration is using have changed, but the trade strategy has not.” ….  Lawmakers are weighing whether to expand or restrict the president’s ability to impose tariffs. While the Constitution gives power over trade to Congress, lawmakers have written numerous laws that allow the president to issue tariffs in certain circumstances. Mr. Wyden introduced a bill on Wednesday that would eliminate or reform various tariff authorities delegated to the president to reassert Congress’ authority over such duties. The bill would mandate Congressional approval for tariffs, establish a committee that would review the president’s tariff actions and make clear that binding trade pacts need approval from Congress.” “Trump Resurrecting Tariffs.” New York Times (July 23, 2026).

“The biggest obstacle to undoing Trump’s tariffs after 2028 won’t be legal. It will be financial. With the national debt clocking in at a staggering $39.6 trillion, the market responsible for selling this debt has quickly grown addicted to the money coming into the government every day thanks to tariffs. …. Trump, still convinced that tariffs are the best economic weapon he has available to fix what he believes is an unfair trading system, never abandoned the strategy.” “Trump’s Tariffs Will Long Outlast Him.” New York Times (July 24, 2026).

“Tariffs are back. The Trump administration put new levies into effect around midnight in Washington. But unlike last time, businesses saw these coming, so don’t expect the same frantic scramble to shore up global trade and supply chains. While these new measures appear more legally defensible, court challenges are still inevitable. More important, let’s be honest about what the tariffs are: the administration’s primary tool for negotiating leverage — even as the levies raise fresh questions about the future of U.S. relationships with trade partners.” “Tariffs are Back.” New York Times (July 24, 2026).

“Washington has hit 60 trading partners with tariffs of at least 10 per cent, as President Donald Trump attempts to reconstruct the tariff wall that the US Supreme Court razed earlier this year. Under the new regime, countries such as the UK, EU, Canada and Mexico face a 10 per cent duty, while others, such as China, India, Brazil and Australia, face duties of 12.5 per cent. For some European countries, such as France and Germany, this move reduces the US effective tariff rates they face. The White House’s rationale for tariffs keeps changing. It imposed Section 232 tariffs on imports such as semiconductors on “national security” grounds. It used “emergency” powers to institute the “liberation day” tariffs unveiled in the Rose Garden last year, which the Supreme Court ruled illegal and terminated. Following that, it imposed tariffs under the Section 122 authority, designed to remedy balance-of-payments problems. The Section 122s expire today, which could explain the latest salvo. The new duties come under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, under the justification that targeted countries have failed to prohibit “forced labor” in their supply chains. Building back the tariff wall using multiple legal levers could prevent a court from causing another blanket collapse of the tariff regime, analysts said. How should we understand Trump’s tariff campaign? It is not simply a return to 1930s protectionism. Instead, it is best described as a project to ensure the US cannot be coerced economically and ‘gets paid’ for superpower services it provides to the world.” “Torrent of New Trump Tariffs.” Financial Times (July 24, 2026).

“Tariffs are an obsession for Trump, much as climate was for the Biden Administration. How else to explain his imposition of yet another round of border taxes three months before the November election despite their political unpopularity and economic harm? The Administration unveiled new tariffs under Section 301 to replace the President’s Section 122 tariffs that were lapsing. These latest duties will affect some 60 economies, hitting nearly all U.S. imports, with rates from 10% to 12.5%, and they come on top of a slew of other border taxes. Wait, didn’t the Supreme Court strike down Mr. Trump’s tariffs in February? Only the emergency tariffs …. Then again, Trump doesn’t seem to care about the damage since tariff costs are dispersed across businesses, consumers and workers. Customs duties have raised $163 billion in the current fiscal year through June, which excludes some $70 billion in emergency-tariff refunds. That’s a big tax increase.” “Trump and Mores Tariffs.” Wall Street Journal (July 25, 2026).

“Small businesses have been playing a prominent role in the Supreme Court challenge. The case’s lead plaintiffs include V.O.S. Selections, a wine importer, and Learning Resources, which manufactures educational toys in China. Many big businesses, in contrast, have been noticeably quiet about the effects of Trump’s tariffs …. The small-business community, in addition to having less fear of retaliation, feels like we don’t have another option.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Consumer Technology Association, which both represent major multinational companies, submitted a brief to the Supreme Court last week arguing that the emergency powers law does not confer the sweeping power the president has claimed.” “Small Business Sue Immediately After Latest Tariffs – Same Ones as Last Time.” New York Times (July 25, 2026).

“Trump is preparing to reshape the legal justification for his tariff regime this week and push negotiations with North American trading partners into high gear, setting off a new phase of trade uncertainty for businesses after months of relative calm …. The calm is ending …. Expect new tariff action soon, previewing replacement tariffs for the ones that expire Friday. And a day earlier, Trump said he would impose additional 50% tariffs on certain goods from Canada, a move that pressures America’s northern neighbor to renegotiate the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. The Canada tariffs were separate from the sweeping global levies Trump is trying to rebuild after the Supreme Court ruling …. Trump can keep Section 301 levies in place indefinitely. But before that can happen, USTR must issue its final report in the tariff investigation, taking into account more than 1,500 comments from U.S. companies, many of which pleaded for exemptions from the coming levies …. Trump proposed the new Canada tariffs under a never-before-used portion of U.S. trade law—Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which covers alleged discrimination on U.S. goods. That provision could give him more flexibility to impose tariffs on a whim, rather than the months of investigations required by Section 301. “Trump’s New Tack on Tariffs,” Wall Street Journal (7.22.26).

“The U.S. has announced 25% duties on many imports from Brazil, while unveiling a broader-than-expected list of exemptions, reviving a trade war that could embroil dozens of countries around the world as the Trump administration reworks its tariffs policy, one of its signature diplomatic tools …. The U.S. has announced 25% duties on many imports from Brazil, while unveiling a broader-than-expected list of exemptions, reviving a trade war that could embroil dozens of countries around the world as the Trump administration reworks its tariffs policy, one of its signature diplomatic tools …. The new tariffs, which are expected to take effect on July 22, could eventually ensnare countries from India and China to the EU, Japan and South Korea as President Donald Trump seeks a trade reset after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a previous round of global levies ,,,, India, one of the biggest trading partners of the U.S., has struggled to sign a trade deal with Washington at least partly because of the Section 301 investigations …. The most impactful exemptions include ​beef, coffee, rare earths, energy products, aircraft, and aircraft parts.” “Trump’s New Brazilian Tariffs.” Reuters (7.16.26).

Two outstanding pieces appeared today in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal — both assessing critically Trump’s tariff policies and focus on geopolitics and national security in economic relations. Namely that his tariff policies have been a total failure and blindly promoting national security concerns over economic efficiency is questionable (if not wrong).

“During his first term, Mr. Trump weaponized tariffs in response to concerns that a trading system lacking reciprocity — with China, in particular — left the United States at a disadvantage. In his second term, his list of targets has expanded enormously …. Corporations will accelerate the overhaul of their operations in a world where artificial intelligence is already driving change. The game theory of global commerce will force many companies to continue to replace just-in-time production strategies with just-in-case ones. Backup supply chains will be more prevalent; so will reshoring factories to be nearer to their major consumers. Expect also the proliferation of chief geopolitical officers or chief geoeconomic officers as boardrooms integrate rigorous national security and industrial policy issues into their corporate strategies …. The transition from an era driven by economic efficiency to one defined by geoeconomics and economic statecraft is no longer theoretical. It is the new operating system for the global economy and its markets. Those who fail to change risk being caught off guard by sudden policy shifts, punitive tariffs and systemic fragmentation.” “Geopolitics now, not Economic Efficiency.” New York Times (7.11.26).

“This is a deflection from the dismal reality that his border taxes are raising costs and have failed to usher in a manufacturing renaissance …. But the President is right that his tariffs are at work—in destroying U.S. jobs and raising prices. The U.S. has lost some 75,000 manufacturing jobs since January 2025, including 25,900 in motor vehicle and parts production. Manufacturing jobs have been declining since early 2023, so not all of these job losses stem from Mr. Trump’s border taxes …. Trump’s Section 232 national security tariffs on autos and parts have cost $35.2 billion through April of this year, and his steel and aluminum tariffs another $17.5 billion, according to U.S. government data. Mr. Trump and his advisers claim that foreigners pay his border taxes, but the evidence shows that U.S. companies, workers and consumers are picking up most of the tab…. The uncertainty hanging over the extension of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement is delaying some investments since businesses don’t know what the trade rules or tariffs will be in a few years—or even tomorrow with Trump. His trade oscillations and border taxes are a major reason the economy hasn’t performed as well as during his first term, and why Americans are so unhappy.” “How Trump’s Tariffs Really Work.” Wall Street Journal (7.11.26).

What is happening to U.S. observing international law and being the world leader in promoting international Law?

Just this week the Supreme Court rejected some very-long standing judicial rules implementing international law in the United States (Alien ort Statute, Tortue Victims Protection Act, Foreign Immunities Act). Also the International Criminal Court has filed suit against Trump in federal court in New York.

I’m not even talking about the launching a war against Iran and pursuing it in very questionable means. This has been subsequent to blowing up boats on the high seas and capturing foreign leaders and killing some. Raises many questions of international and U.S. law.

The good news is that the federal courts (and even the Supreme Court, occasionally) have provided a bulwark against some of Trump’s worst instincts and policies. A lot more to be said.

…………………………………………………………………….

The International Criminal Court and the Trump administration have entered a new chapter after three ICC judges filed a lawsuit against the U.S. president, arguing that sanctions imposed on them crossed legal boundaries and have severely disrupted their personal and professional lives. Filed in federal court in Manhattan the lawsuit challenges sanctions introduced by the Trump administration last year against several ICC officials, marking an unprecedented attempt by sitting judges at the Hague-based court to fight back through the U.S. legal system.” “International Court Justices (ICC) Sue Trump in Federal Court.” MS Now (June 25, 2026).

“The Supreme Court ruled in Exxon Mobil v. Corporación Cimex that a lawsuit by Exxon Mobil against Cuban state-owned companies for the confiscation of assets owned by subsidiaries of the oil giant’s predecessor can go forward. Writing for the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that the Helms-Burton Act, a federal law passed in 1996, cancels the immunity that the Cuban government and its companies would normally have, so that plaintiffs seeking to rely on that statute to sue them are not required to satisfy an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a federal law that generally prohibits lawsuits in U.S. courts against foreign governments and their “agencies and instrumentalities.” “Stacking an FSIA requirement on top of the Helms-Burton Act would thwart Congress’s design and directly contravene the President’s foreign policy judgments,” Kavanaugh wrote.” “No Sovereign Immunity for Cuba under Helms-Burton Act.” Scotus Blog  (June 23, 2026).

“The Supreme Court made it far more difficult for foreigners to bring lawsuits in U.S. courts alleging serious violations of international law. In an opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the justices ruled that a 1789 law, the Alien Tort Statute, on which plaintiffs have relied to bring such cases, only allows lawsuits based on the very small group of claims that Congress likely had in mind when it passed the law. The court also ruled that the Torture Victim Protection Act, a 1991 law that allows suits against individuals who subject others to torture while acting on behalf of a foreign government, does not allow lawsuits for aiding and abetting torture.” “S. Ct. Limits 1789 Alien Tort Statute and 1991 Torture Victims Protecti0on Act.” Scotus Blog (June 23, 2026).

“The US judiciary has traditionally shown forbearance to any executive action with the words “national security” before it. The same cannot be said of the home front. Although Trump has assaulted one guardrail after another — and destroyed longstanding norms — the US courts have thrown plenty of grit into his wheels. In addition to upholding the 2020 presidential election through more than 60 rulings, including by Trump-appointed judges, courts have since January 2025 blocked or tried to block hundreds of White House executive orders …. Trump has also made little progress in his judicial retribution campaign …. Public opinion is the ultimate bulwark against a rogue US presidency ….  Department of Justice officials have routinely ignored court orders, or continued to pursue an action on quickly altered legal grounds …. Another check on Trump could occur in November, if Republicans lose control of Capitol Hill in midterm elections. A Democratic-controlled Congress would bury Trump in subpoenas and probably put further grit in his wheels. For the time being, the system is just about holding.” “Trump and Court System – It’s Holding.” Financial Times (June 26, 2026).

— Graduate International Transactions Program —

(Reunion of Initial Graduates After 35 Years.)

Recent reunion of initial graduates (early 1990’s) of the George Mason’s MAIT Program (Masters of International Transactions). Happy and successful group.

As the Founder and Former Director of the program, I am really proud of them. The program quickly became the largest graduate program at GMU.

Glad to reunite after 35 years. Many met their spouses in the program and all remain friends and colleagues today (even their children).

Many have had outstanding professional careers in the federal government, international organizations and have established very successful professional and commercial enterprises. Great tribute to George Mason University and the Commonwealth of Virginia of Virginia.

MAIT.Brochure_1_1995_.pdf

RTD.MAIT_Program_1992_..jpg (2197×1074)

MAIT.Brochure_1_1995_.pdf

This is the early brochure from the graduate international transactions program founded at George Mason University in 1991. Just had a reunion of many early students from the early 1990’s. Really outstanding.

The Trump administration has announced new Section 301 tariffs on Brazil. It has also just made what could be the first in a steady drumbeat of tariff news, announcing plans for a 10% tariff on top allies like the European Union and Canada and a 12.5% rate on other nations, including China.

The USTR announced that 59 countries and the 27 member states of the EU had failed to counteract goods being made with forced labor and that the practice “burdens or restricts U.S. commerce” and is therefore ripe for future action under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. (These would replace the more recent Section 122 tariffs.) Too bad the U.S. has not signed an important ILO convention outlawing forced labor.

The Trump admiration is also dragging its heels on tariff refunds — refusing and appealing Court of International Trade orders. The administration is also increasing tariff enforcement and criminal tariff evasion charges against importers. These newer tariff actions are clearly a corollary of the New Tariff War (Part 2). He is utilizing more limited statutory authorities, requiring administrative procedures, such as Section 301 (retaliation) and Section 232 (national security). Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has recently upheld an earlier Section 301 tariff on China from Trump I.

Of course, Trump has continued to threaten even new measures — imposition of Section 301 tariffs if the EU goes forward with a digital service tax on U.S. multinationals,

So the tariff wars are now on again. An additional uncertainty is the impact of the ‘Iran War Peace Agreement’ on new U.S. threats of tariff actions. Good Luck with Tariff War II, Mr. President. Carter 2? Too bad for the consumer, the U.S. and global trade.

……………………………………

Trump administration proposes 25% tariffs on Brazil despite extensive US trade surplus. Following “an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,” the Trump administration on Monday “proposed 25% tariffs on imports from Brazil, charging that the world’s 10th-biggest economy engages in trade practices that are ‘unreasonable’ and that ‘burden or restrict U.S. commerce. ” “Last year, Trump had slapped Brazil with a 50% tariff, mainly to protest its prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro for trying to overturn his electoral defeat in 2022.” But the “Supreme Court ruled in February that Trump overstepped his authority by using … the International Emergency Economic Powers Act … to impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners, including Brazil.” The administration relies on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 in its current push to hit Brazil with new tariffs.” Scotus Blog (June 3, 2026).

Trump Begins Rebuilding His Tariff Wall, Citing Forced Labor. Trump administration made its “biggest move” yet toward rebuilding the system of tariffs that was “struck down by the Supreme Court” earlier this year. “Following an investigation into how trade partners handle goods allegedly produced by forced labor, a 10% tariff rate would apply to imports from Canada, Mexico, the European Union, Taiwan and the UK, among other places,” the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative announced. “Products from other major economies, including China, India, Japan, South Korea, Brazil and Switzerland, would be subject to a 12.5% levy.” Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. Scotus Blog (June 4, 2026).

“Trump Administration Turns to a New Rationale to Justify Old Tariffs — The administration has settled on a more legally and politically durable way to impose tariffs, but some say the focus on forced labor laws is merely a pretext for protectionism. the Trump administration unveiled part of its Plan B: a tariff of 10 percent to 12.5 percent on 59 countries and the 27-member European Union. The levies were intended to pressure governments that the United States says have not enacted or enforced laws against trading goods made with forced labor. Those tariffs could go into effect as soon as July, and they are unlikely to be the last ones. The administration is working on another slate of tariffs related to countries’ manufacturing practices that will presumably be added to the forced labor ones …. The new tariffs will be imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, a law that allows the president to issue tariffs to respond to other countries’ trade practices.” “Forced Labor and Section 301.” New York Times (Jue 4, 2026).

“Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade “took the unusual step of personally responding” in a letter to the Justice Department “to the Trump administration’s appeal of his order to refund $166 billion in tariffs the Supreme Court declared unlawful, calling the government’s filings ‘colorful’ and questioning its legal stance.” . “Eaton suggested that if the Justice Department succeeded in asking an appeals court to immediately intervene, it” would “discourage continuing progress” in the development of “an online claims system that has been processing at least $85 billion in refunds so far.” It is “rare for judges to directly push back against parties who appeal their rulings.” …. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit “agreed to halt an order requiring the head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to testify next week about tariff refunds … until it resolves the government’s arguments” against the appearance. The U.S. Court of International Trade Judge Richard Eaton had demanded that CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott about the government’s work on tariff refunds. “Commissioner Scott’s testimony is necessary to ascertain if it is the Government’s policy to return all of the unlawfully collected duties either by complying with the court’s order, or by some other means.” Scotus Blog (June 5, 2026).

The Department of Justice’s recent False Claims Act settlement with Perfectus Aluminum illustrates the government’s continuing interagency focus on customs and tariff enforcement, and the related criminal indictment provides insight into conduct enforcers may associate with tariff evasion schemes. International Trade Law 360(June 6, 2026).

“Trump issued a barrage of trade actions this week as his administration tried to reimpose new tariffs on trading partners after America’s top court struck down the president’s duties …. The US is also working on a probe into industrial overcapacity and subsidies that, once completed, could hit a range of countries with levies. This week, it asked businesses to comment on its new plans to manage trade with China …. This week, they cut tariffs imposed on some farm and industrial machinery as they sought to protect American farmers and manufacturers from high costs…. The administration also issued a notice inviting businesses to comment on its so-called Board of Trade with China, as it tries to manage relations with the world’s second-largest economy.” “Trump Launches Tariff War.” Financial Times (June 6, 2026).

“As ever with Trump, there is not much point trying to find logic here. Yes, the forced labour accusations make little sense. But then neither did the original international emergency IEEPA tariffs struck down by the Supreme Court. And nor did the “Section 122” balance-of-payments tariffs that were imposed in February as a temporary replacement until summer. Like the IEEPA ones, they were struck down by the US Court of International Trade, though the federal appeals process will keep them around long enough to hand over the baton to the 301s and fresh “Section 232” national security tariffs on pharmaceuticals and who knows what else …. The US has a long history of legislating against forced labour in considerably more good faith than it is doing today. The use of import bans against goods made with coerced labour goes back to the 19th century. It was codified in the otherwise notorious Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 and then over the past decade enforced and toughened up, being directed particularly against goods made by oppressed Uyghurs in the Chinese region of Xinjiang …. Trump’s abuse of forced labour provisions is one of the many depressing ways in which perfectly reasonable justifications for using loopholes in World Trade Organization rules (national security, labour standards) are being horribly misused ….  But thanks to Trump (and Biden), the world isn’t deliberatively moving towards a more systematic use of such exceptions than before. It is simply handing unscrupulous governments an excuse to do what they want.” “New Tariff Wars and Forced Labor.” Financial Times (June 7, 2026).

“Forced labor tariffs would swap the lapsing Section 122 surcharge for a targeted Section 301 …. But legally Sections 301 and 232 genuinely do give more deference to the president than do IEEPA or Section 122. And politically I’m having a hard time imagining the John Roberts Supreme Court destroying Trump’s ability to implement his number one tool of international economic policy by striking down every type of brick even as he’s putting them up …. The US has a long history of legislating against forced labour in considerably more good faith than it is doing today. The use of import bans against goods made with coerced labour goes back to the 19th century. It was codified in the otherwise notorious Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 and then over the past decade enforced and toughened up, being directed particularly against goods made by oppressed Uyghurs in the Chinese region of Xinjiang.” “Trump’s Replacement Tariff Wall.” Financial Times (June 7, 2026).

“Courts keep knocking down President Trump’s border taxes, but he keeps imposing them, no matter the economic or (soon) the political harm …. The U.S. Trade Representative last week teed up new tariffs of 10% to 12.5% on some 60 countries …. So Mr. Trump is dusting off Section 301, which lets him impose tariffs in response to “unfair foreign acts, policies, or practices affecting U.S. commerce.” The first Trump Administration used the law to slap tariffs on China as punishment for its mercantilist policies, including intellectual property theft and forced technology transfers …. But rather than perform detailed investigations for each country, the trade office simply declares that they all engage in unfair trade practices by failing to “impose and effectively enforce a forced labor import prohibition” …. The President campaigned on an across-the-board 10% tariff, and that’s more or less what he seems to be settling on with Section 301 …. Trump’s tariff obsession is a self-defeating act. There’s been no surge in domestic manufacturing, and they are contributing to rising prices. They are also unpopular, especially in the farm belt.” “Trump’s Big Tariff and Tax Increase.” Wall  Street Journal (June 10, 2026).

Journal of East Asia and International Law (2026)

— Yijun Institute of International Law (Korea) — 19 Journal of East Asia and International Law 243 (2026).

About the Author

Distinguished Professor of Law and International Trade Stuart Malawer holds a Ph.D. from the Dept. of International Relations at the University of Pennsylvania (Wharton School). Dr. Malawer has a J.D. from the Cornell Law School and a Diploma from The Hague Academy of International Law (Research Centre). He also studied at the Harvard Law School and St. Peter’s College at Oxford University. Professor Malawer was a member of the Virginia Governor’s trade missions to China, India, and Japan. Dr. Malawer was awarded the Hardy Cross Dillard International Law Award by the Virginia State Bar, in recognition of serving as Chairman of its International Practice Section and Special Editor of the Virginia Lawyer. Most recently, he published articles on the US-China trade litigation, Trump’s tariff and trade policies, and cybersecurity. Recent books have included Trump and Trade – Policy and Law (2021), Global Trade and International Law (2012), US National Security Law (2009), and WTO Law, Litigation and Policy (2007). Earlier books include Studies in International Law (1977), Essays in International Law (1986) and Federal Regulation of International Business (1980-1983). His articles have appeared in law journals from Harvard, Cornell, Vanderbilt, Virginia, Columbia and other leading journals. Professor Malawer served as the Director and Founder of the Graduate International Transactions Program at George Mason University (a masters program in international affairs). He was subsequently named the Distinguished Service Professor of Law & International Trade, as well as the Director of the Oxford Trade Program. This program was held annually in partnership with St. Peter’s College at Oxford and Geneva. The GMU Alumni Association named Professor Malawer the Distinguished Faculty Member of the Year. He was a gubernatorial appointee to the Virginia Economic Development Partnership and recently to the Virginia International Trade Committee. He may be contacted at: StuartMalawer@msn.com.

About the Authors 286

New article on Trump’s Tariffs, Refunds, Iran War and Chaos. (Journal of East Asia & International Law 2026).

jeail_v19n1_12.pdf

So the China – U.S. China Summit is finally over. As some teenagers used to say, this was a big nothingberger (at least for the U.S.). Seems so. Some loose agreements on Boeing and beef. Not much else. No assistance with the Iran War. Nothing bad happened. Next up for Xi. Meeting with Putin. Don’t expect much here either.

By the way, the Trump administration has just announced that $20 billion in tariff refunds have been made. It owes about $200 billion. Someome’s dragging it out — It recently appealed the trade court’s order to refund all wrongful tariffs arguing the court’s order amounts to an unlawful national injunction. It does not. (The Trump administration suggested that it needs $200b more for the Iran War.) Trump has just announced new tariffs on Brazil under Section 301 retaliation. Really?

The Trump administration just made what could be the first in a steady drumbeat of tariff news, announcing plans for a 10% tariff on top allies like the European Union and Canada and a 12.5% rate on other nations, including China. The USTR announced that 59 countries and the 27 member states of the EU had failed to counteract goods being made with forced labor and that the practice “burdens or restricts U.S. commerce” and is therefore ripe for future action under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.

……………………………………………………

“On Friday, a group of consumers seeking refunds for “costs passed on to them in the form of higher prices” before the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s signature tariffs sued Amazon.com Inc. “[I]n a proposed class action filed in federal court in Seattle,” they “alleged that the e-commerce giant collected hundreds of millions of dollars in unlawful tariff costs by raising prices on imported goods before the Supreme Court had ruled.” Although other companies are facing similar lawsuits, the Amazon case is unique because the company is not seeking tariff refunds from the government. The consumers behind the new suit claim that the company “seeks to curry favor with Trump by allowing the federal government to retain the funds.” Scotus Blog (5.18.26).

“So the big meeting between presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping didn’t produce a whole lot on the day. Since  the last face-off in October, the two have shifted from frontal tariff assault to hand-to-hand supply chain skirmishes. Moreover, they are promising mechanisms of trade and investment co-operation that could deliver partial truces, depending on political will ….   In any case, it seems pretty clear that Xi is determining the pace, after having tamed Trump’s aggression last year …. The US claimed some rather unimpressive downpayments in the form of promised purchases of Boeing aircraft (if anything, fewer than had been expected), plus some supposed Chinese pledges of agricultural procurement …. If Trump tries to imitate Reagan’s strategy, the outcome will probably be even worse. For one, it’s hard to imagine Trump’s pacts enduring or being designed well. Whatever you think of his policies, Reagan ran a somewhat serious administration, staffed by grown-ups on the trade and economics side to whom he delegated power to negotiate and implement complex agreements. Trump has an extremely short attention span, an incoherent world view ….  In terms of strategy and tactics, Xi will run rings round Trump. And if at some point Trump realizes the whole game could be up and we’ll be back to all-out trade war …. It is also notable that Reagan’s protectionism at an industry level was followed by a renewed push on liberalization at the macro level, especially with the Uruguay round that ended up creating the World Trade Organization. Former US president Richard Nixon had a similar arc, the aggressive economic nationalism of his early years giving way to a multilateral push for trade deals in the Tokyo round.” Trade Secrets (May 18, 2026).

“With some family gatherings, the best you can hope for is that no one gets drunk and starts a fistfight. Expectations when President Trump and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, met on Thursday and Friday were similarly low — and they were met …. The fact that the United States and China are each looking to weaponize their economic dominance means that any deal should really be time-limited …. To be fair, the United States and China didn’t pretend that they had done a lasting deal when their leaders met last week …. The two sides must find a way of preventing trade disputes from spiraling out of control.” “No Deal.” New York Times (May 19, 2026).

“The Chinese government sought to draw a line on trade tensions with the United States, saying that both sides had agreed not to raise tariffs further while signaling that it could retaliate if Washington did so again.” “China Warns on Tariffs – But Boeing and Beef.” New York Times (May 21, 2026).

“U.S Companies Shamed by Trump Tiptoe Into Tariff-Refund Race According to a Bloomberg analysis, “[o]nly about 5% of the 3,000 largest publicly traded US companies mentioned refunds in the context of President Donald Trump’s now-illegal tariffs in recent comments and regulatory filings.” Bloomberg noted that such companies are staying quiet about tariff refunds in hopes of reducing “the risk of political and legal jeopardy” that comes with claiming them. That risk became clear when President Donald Trump “paint[ed] refund backers as unpatriotic after the Supreme Court struck down” his signature tariffs. “Saying too much about refunds invites not just Trump’s scorn but also legal challenges from consumers clamoring for a piece of the payout.” Scotus Blog (May 26, 2026).

$20 billion in tariff refunds paid so far, with more on the way  …. In a Tuesday filing with the Court of International Trade, Brandon Lord, executive director of trade programs at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, stated that the  –“Trump administration has refunded more than $20 billion so far in tariffs to importers and shippers … after the Supreme Court struck down the cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s trade policy in February.” Lord also said that a total of “[a]pproximately $85 billion” in refund requests “have been accepted for processing “Hundreds of companies have lined up to get their money back, including Costco, Walmart, Home Depot, Target, General Motors, Ford Motor Company, FedEx, UPS and DHL.” Scotus Blog (May 28, 2026).

“A federal trade court has ordered Rodney S. Scott, the head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to appear at a hearing next month on the Trump administration’s handling of roughly $166 billion in tariff refunds. The unexpected demand, issued on Wednesday, hinted at a judge’s ongoing concern that the government has not fully complied with a directive to return all of the money amassed under duties that were declared illegal by the Supreme Court earlier this year. At the heart of the matter are the so-called reciprocal tariffs that President Trump previously applied to imports from around the world …. The judge also cited concern about “millions” of entries for which the government has “not presented a proposal” for providing refunds …. The court and the government are far apart.” “Refund Chief to Appear Before ITC.” NYT (5.27.26).

On Friday, the Justice Department filed notice with the Court of International Trade that “it will appeal a judge’s authority to order across-the-board refunds of all tariffs ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court” to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. “At the heart of the dispute is whether the judge has authority to order refunds nationwide for all importers who paid tariffs issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, even if they did not file suit in the trade court. The US has suggested that the government need only refund importers who sue, and that the judge’s order is effectively a nationwide injunction that is barred by a recent Supreme Court ruling over birthright citizenship.” The Trump administration’s appeal could “inject legal chaos into a claims process that’s already underway.” Scotus Blog (June 1, 2026).

Paul Wiseman and Mauricio Savarese, Associated Press

Trump administration proposes 25% tariffs on Brazil despite extensive US trade surplus. Following “an investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative,” the Trump administration on Monday “proposed 25% tariffs on imports from Brazil, charging that the world’s 10th-biggest economy engages in trade practices that are ‘unreasonable’ and that ‘burden or restrict U.S. commerce. ” “Last year, Trump had slapped Brazil with a 50% tariff, mainly to protest its prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro for trying to overturn his electoral defeat in 2022.” But the “Supreme Court ruled in February that Trump overstepped his authority by using … the International Emergency Economic Powers Act … to impose sweeping tariffs on U.S. trading partners, including Brazil.” The administration relies on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 in its current push to hit Brazil with new tariffs.” Scotus Blog (June 3, 2026).