U.S. LAW & GLOBAL TRADE RELATIONS.

     Once again, Trump is trying to steal the show — claiming he has the right to violate the law, make himself the center of attention, and to further cause chaos in a number of domestic and international fields.

     His recent threats of higher tariffs on our closest allies Japan, Korea, Canada (again), copper tariffs, EU and Brazil are the latest example of use of tariffs as his favored economic policy and tool for changing international politics — according to his daily whims. (For example, aiming to change Brazilian elections and Brazilian litigation because he favors the former Brazilian president).

     U.S. courts and Congress have so far failed to stop his illegal threats and coercion violating both U.S. domestic and international trade law.  I fact, it’s getting worse. There seems to be a total collapse of law concerning trade — both on the domestic level in the U.S. and on the international playing fields.

     However, I believe the federal courts and our trading partners (by forming newer alliances and trade patterns) are going to become more proactive and effective in stopping this unbridled extension of executive power. They will help to reorient the trading system and geopolitics to a more predictable and law-based system. Chaos and uncertainty cannot continue.

……………………………………………..

“Whatever comes out of Trump’s “reciprocal tariffs” idea, or indeed his sectoral tariffs on cars and so on, isn’t actually going to work. They won’t close the US current account deficit, they won’t lead to a manufacturing revival, and they won’t replace revenue from federal income tax …. Let’s also recall: Trump’s tactics are extremely random …. And finally, let’s remember he has at least seven targets: reciprocity, revenue, restriction (that is, protectionism), the current account, clientelism, coercion and confusion. At the moment, he’s actually enjoying creating uncertainty and making himself the center of attention.” “Trump an Disorder.” Financial Times (July 7, 2025).

“The Attorney General told tech companies that they could lawfully violate a statute barring American companies from supporting TikTok based on a sweeping claim that President Trump has the constitutional power to set aside laws, newly disclosed documents show …. Shortly after being sworn in Trump issued an executive order directing the Justice Department to suspend enforcement of the TikTok ban and has since repeatedly extended it. That step has been overshadowed by numerous other moves he has made to push at the boundaries of executive power in the opening months of his second administration …. Essentially, legal experts said, Mr. Trump is claiming a constitutional power to immunize private parties to commit otherwise illegal acts with impunity …. Last year, Congress enacted a law that banned the app in the United States unless its Chinese-owned parent company, ByteDance, sold it to a non-Chinese firm.” “Trump Invalidated TikTok Ban.” New York Times (July 6, 2025).

“The Supreme Court last week sharply curtailed the ability of federal judges to block a presidential action nationwide, even if they find it unconstitutional. That followed its decision last year granting the president broad immunity from prosecution for crimes committed in the course of his core duties …. The Senate several days ago rejected a resolution that would have let Congress decide, under its war powers, if President Donald Trump can strike Iran again. And Congress in recent months has repeatedly declined to assert its constitutional authority over spending or tariffs …. The Constitution does not permit the executive branch to unilaterally commit an act of war against a sovereign nation that hasn’t attacked the United States.” “Congress, High Court Cede Power to the President.’ Washington Post (July 7, 2025).

“Looking through the trade data, is it easy to see how Trump’s tariffs will hurt American businesses and consumers. Imports from Japan last year included $9.9 billion in assorted industrial machines, $7.5 billion in pharmaceutical preparations, and $3.1 billion in medicinal equipment. South Korea sent over $8.5 billion in semiconductors, $7.4 billion in computer accessories, and $3.2 billion in household appliances …. One illusion that’s bursting is that Trump is imposing tariffs in the cause of free trade. He’s imposing tariffs because he likes them as an economic policy. The U.S. average effective tariff rate when Mr. Trump took office was 2.4. As of last month, Trump had cranked that up to 15.6%.” “Tariff Man is Back.” Wall Street Journal (July 8, 2025).

“Yet another aspect is Trump’s extensive use of emergency powers and executive orders. He has made 168 of the latter in just the first few months of this term, bringing his total far above those of his recent predecessors. Trump rules by decree. That is one of the signs of a dictatorship …. Above all, the trade war is not over. The 90-day pause on “liberation day” tariffs is due to come to an end. Deals have not been reached with more than a handful of partners. This economically destructive war on US creditors and, above all, the uncertainty it creates, will continue. The trade war represents an assault on the institutions created by the US after the second world war. It is also damaging US alliances. More broadly, all US commitments are in doubt.”  “Trump’s Assault” Financial Times (July 9, 2025).

“There remain two rather large missing pieces in the international response. One is a positive rather than a passive policy reaction from other governments. The other is that multinational businesses are finding ways round the US tariffs in the short term but otherwise largely holding back from permanently moving their investments to restructure supply chains. A prolonged period of destructive uncertainty about trade policy from the US may change their minds.” “Trump’s Tariff Shambles.” Financial Times (July 11, 2025).

“Instead of viewing tariffs as part of a broader trade policy, President Trump sees them as a valuable weapon he can wield on the world stage …. But while Trump spoke about tariffs off and on before becoming a presidential candidate, he usually described his broader grievance about trade in terms of other countries or companies “ripping off” the United States. It is since Trump became a candidate in 2015 that he has talked about tariffs in earnest, describing them as a tool that he could easily deploy to rebalance the country’s economic footing.” “Trump’s Tariffs – A power Tool, Not Trade Tool.” New York Times (July 11, 2025).

“President Trump’s threat for a 50% tariff on Brazilian imports expanded his use of punitive duties over matters that have nothing to do with trade, breaking with more than a half-century of global economic precedent …. And on Thursday evening, in a new letter to Canada’s leader, Trump said the U.S. will impose 35% tariffs on some Canadian imports starting Aug. 1, citing the fentanyl crisis among other grievances with the country …. Trump’s moves have shaken the global trade order established in the 1940s, when market economies sought to put tariffs and trade among them on a stable footing …. Trump’s approach carries legal risks. In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade struck down many of the president’s tariffs, saying they weren’t justified by the emergency legal authority that he cited. An appeals court will hear the case on July 31, a day before Trump’s so-called reciprocal tariffs are scheduled to go back into effect on Brazil and scores of other nations.” “Trump Employs Tariffs as Political Cudel.” Wall Street Journal (July 11, 2025). 

“Six months into his new administration, Trump’s assault on global trade has lost any semblance of organization or structure …. The resulting uncertainty is preventing companies and countries from making plans as the rules of global commerce give way to a state of chaos ….Yet even reaching a trade deal may not diminish uncertainty.” “Trump’s Whims & Rules of Global Trade.” New York Times (July 12, 2025).

“The move showed Mr. Trump’s new willingness to use tariffs to settle political scores, regardless of questions of legality, because of their sheer power to cause economic destruction and impose intense political pressure …. And in recent months, Brazil had been a winner in the global tariff war. Its beef exports to the American market doubled and its coffee shipments increased by over 40 percent in the first five months of the year, as threats of tariffs by Trump on other major exporters like China and Vietnam made Brazilian products more attractive.” “Tariffs and Brazil’s Prosecution.” New York Times” New York Times (July 12, 2025).

“The first world war smashed that complacency apart. Protectionism, populist politics and nationalism exploded, causing globalisation and free-market ideas to unravel. Instead, in the interwar years commerce became subordinated to statecraft …. After 1945, there was another pendulum swing. Western governments embraced the ideas advanced by Keynes that the state should use public finances and institutions to manage domestic demand cycles — and allies collaborated around institutions such as the IMF and World Bank to boost global trade and financial links. This rejected the zero-sum vision of commerce and finance that had dominated in the interwar years …. Then, in the 1980s, another shift occurred: leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan rejected the domestic agenda of Keynes and instead embraced the free-market ideas …. Now, with Trump, we see a backlash against 1980s neoliberal economics, coupled with a rejection of the spirit of internationalism …. Thus when Joe Biden became president in 2021, he not only retained many of Trump’s tariffs but embraced activist industrial policy ….
The Trump team, however, is taking this to new extremes. They operate with a “zero-sum” mentality and an obsession with power politics that was arguably last seen in the 1930s. And this is not just playing out with tariffs but could soon affect the sphere of finance too …. Geopolitical competition means we are seeing a return to strategic statecraft …. All countries are going to need to get much better at thinking strategically, about . . . their approach to using every lever of the state … Many cling to the hope, after all, that the eruption of geoeconomics in the west will be a temporary phenomenon, likely to end when Trump leaves office. And it is far from clear that the rest of the world will follow the US into greater mercantilism and isolationism. “Global Trade and Geopolitics.” Financial Times (July 12, 2025).

“Trade chaos is forcing America’s allies closer together, and further from the United States …. We’re living in turbulent times, and when economic uncertainty meets geopolitical volatility, partners like us must come closer together …. In hard times, some turn inward, toward isolation and fragmentation.” “Trade Chaos and Allies Moving Closer Together.” New York Times (July 14, 2025).

     Recent global TV interviews by Dr. Malawer on Trump’s Tariffs.

Some Global TV Interviews on Trump’s Tariffs (2025)

Stuart S. Malawer, JD, Ph.D.  (July 1, 2025).

• Global Business: Impact of U.S. Tariffs CGTN (China) 2025.

• Global Business: Impact of U.S. Tariffs on Mexican Farm Products CGTN (China) 2025.

• White House Slams Jeff Bezos’s Amazon Over Tariff Display Plan | Race To Power  WION (India) 2025.

• China Hits Back At Donald Trump With 84% Retaliatory Tariff On US Goods | WION (India) 2025.

• Рейды, протесты и ввод войск в Калифорнию ][ Итоги второго раунда переговоров США и Китая (English ……… mp4 – Google Drive) RT (Russia) 2025.

 Stuart Malawer with two recent Awards (2025) from the Commonwealth of Virginia — Joint Resolution from the Virginia General Assembly for Public Service and from the Virginia Supreme Court for Pro Bono Litigation.

      The impact of Trump on broad areas of domestic and international policies have been chaotic. But is the worse yet to happen? Most likely ………..

     Trump’s impact on international areas such as trade, tariffs, migration, alliances (NATO), regional conflicts (Ukraine, Middle East), bilateral trade conflicts (Canada, China, India, Vietnam, EU) and use of force (Iran) is broadly known.  As is his impact on domestic areas such as federal workers, foreign student visas, threats to universities, lawyers, law firms, federal judges, domestic use of the military and generally the rule of law (both domestic and international).

     Trump’s overly broad reliance on national security and declaration of national emergencies (which continues) has been attacked in numerous lawsuits with some success. Trump’s back to the future in rejecting international law, interactional organizations, alliances and institutions and obvious attempt to reestablish sphere of influence in international relations and protectionism mirror the disastrous 1930’s. 

      The fear is that the worse has not yet happened.

     It’s clear that lawyers and federal courts are in the forefront of reacting to executive overreach, even though the recent Supreme Court case limits nationwide injunctions by district courts and continues to utilize its emergency docket to review power court’s preliminary determinations and provisional orders.  But the fight continues in light of an uncertain fate before a conservative Supreme Court. Congress is still far behind in formulating an effective opposition. No Congressional resolutions have been passed opposing military use of force (Iran) or extensive use of tariffs as part of Trump’s unilateral economic warfare against adversaries and allies.

    Trump’s constant backtracking, deadline extensions, flight from one issue to another only increases policy chaos.

     Will the chaos get worse — We’ll see.

…………………………………..

“India, Vietnam, Japan, the European Union, Malaysia and other governments have been working toward deals that could smooth relations with the United States and avoid double-digit tariffs. But the Trump administration has been moving forward with plans to impose another set of tariffs on certain industries that it views as essential to national security, a threat that has foreign leaders worried that there could be more pain ahead …. Those tariffs on certain critical sectors, which would be issued under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, aim to build up domestic capacity for important products and ensure that the country isn’t reliant on foreign factories in times of war or shortages. But these sectors — along with automobiles and steel, on which the Trump administration has already applied national security tariffs …. Vietnam, Japan, Malaysia, South Korea and Indonesia could be hit by tariffs on semiconductors and other electronics, including phones and computers. Vietnam and Malaysia could also be hurt by tariffs on lumber and timber, which could cover products like kitchen cabinets.” “More Tariff Threats and National Security.” New York Times (July 1, 2025).

“Donald Trump’s return to power has generated chaos for much of the legal sector …. “I’ve challenged federal and agency over-reach under every administration since President Reagan, but this administration’s intrusion is unmatched in scale and scope” ….  It is clear that there is not as robust a response to this Trump administration as there was last time.” “Trump’s Chaos and Lawyers.” Financial Times (June 25, 2025).

“The Supreme Court ruling barring judges from swiftly blocking government actions, even when they may be illegal, is yet another way that checks on executive authority have eroded …. But the diminishing of judicial authority as a potential counterweight to exercises of presidential power carries implications far beyond the issue of citizenship. The Supreme Court is effectively tying the hands of lower-court judges at a time when they are trying to respond to a steady geyser of aggressive executive branch orders and policies …. And Congress, under the control of Trump’s fellow Republicans, has done little to defend its constitutional role against his encroachments.” “Supreme Court Slows Trump Litigation.”  New York Times (July 29, 2025).

“The Supreme Court’s ruling against nationwide injunctions means that approach is largely out the window, leaving litigants to ponder uncertain strategies that could be slower and less potent … The ruling could mean fewer significant wins for Trump opponents but also prompt a jump in lawsuits against the administration because more individuals, businesses and organizations might have to bring their own cases if they believe their rights have been violated …. Lawyers and public-interest groups immediately began looking to style more lawsuits as class actions, with a lead plaintiff suing on behalf of a broader group of people facing similar circumstances …. Class actions must satisfy several procedural requirements, including that all members of a proposed class have similar characteristics and legal interests. The suits also must be certified by a judge. The …. State attorneys general, who already play a significant role in cases challenging White House policies, could see their influence grow …. Local governments also are thinking about playing larger roles as litigants.” “New Litigation Strategy.” Wall Street Journal (June 30, 2025).

In his first months back in office, Trump has threatened to use military force to seize Greenland and the Panama Canal, suggested that the United States could take ownership of Gaza after the expulsion of two million Palestinians, and demanded that Ukraine give up territory to Russia in exchange for a cease-fire (and bombed Iran!). These acts and statements might appear to be just a handful of examples of Trump’s typical wide-ranging and hyperbolic bluster. But in fact, they all form part of a cohesive assault on a long-standing principle of international law: that states are prohibited from threatening or using military force against other states to resolve disputes. Now, that expectation is gone. Trump is not merely abandoning the United States’ traditional role in defending the prohibition on war and, with it, conquest. He seems to want something more: to restore war or the threat of it as the main way that states resolve their disagreements and seek economic gain …. Prior U.S. administrations can be condemned for their hypocrisy. But the Trump administration’s willingness to give up altogether on the prohibition on war is far more dangerous ….  Trump’s various rhetorical salvos and policy shifts may seem chaotic. But they all form part of a wider attempt to dismantle the postwar legal order.”   “Trump, Use of Force and International Law.” Foreign Affairs (July / August 2025).

      My recent lecture and material concerning Trump’s Tariffs, Geopolitics, Corporate Strategies and State Economic Development …………….

    Three recent developments, among many, have now become more apparent as a result of higher U.S. tariffs. One, U.S. corporations are responding to increases in tariffs by resorting to more attempts to reclassify imported products under the Harmonized Tardiff Schedule (HTS). Two, again because of higher U.S. tariffs, China is now redirecting exports and flooding markets throughout the world (another ‘China Shock’). Three, The Supreme Court has declined to fast-track the tariff cases concerning Trump’s tariffs involving IEEPA.

…………

“Tariff engineering involves changing an item’s materials, altering its dimensions or compositions so that the finished products can be justified to fit in a different “harmonized system code” …. There are over 5,000 different product classification codes that U.S. customs authority uses while assessing tariffs. These tariff classifications were determined through decades of negotiations between governments and industry bodies, often varying by product category …. Companies have to tread a fine between redesigning their products and fraudulently misrepresenting product classifications …. U.S. Customs and Border Control has developed a so-called “binding ruling” system where companies can obtain official determinations on product classifications and HTS code before importing.”  “Tariff Engineering.” CNBC (June 18, 2025).

“Today, a new China shock is cascading across the globe from Indonesia to Germany to Brazil. As President Trump’s tariffs start to shut China out of the United States, its biggest market, Chinese factories are sending their toys, cars and shoes to other countries at a pace that is reshaping economies and geopolitics. This year so far, China’s trade surplus with the world is nearly $500 billion — a more than 40 percent increase from the same period last year …. By diverting the flow of its stuff to Southeast Asia, Latin America and Europe, China has already eased the economic effect of a plunge in demand from the United States.” “China’s Exports Surge to World.” New York Times (June 18, 2025).

“The Supreme Court on Friday declined to fast-track a legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s tariffs, rejecting a motion to expedite the case and delaying consideration despite pressure from affected companies.” “Supreme Court – No Fast Track for Tariffs.” MSN (June 20, 2025).

     Today’s trade war is about to expand to include a new tax war. Proposed congressional legislation (Section 899 of the current fiscal budget bill) would add a punishing income tax on foreign firms operating in the U.S. This would be in retaliation of the OECD proposed minimum tax and digital tax on U.S. firms. U.S. business groups are opposing this new tax. We’ll see ………….

“Business lobbyists are working to kill a tax measure embraced by Republican lawmakers that would punish companies based in countries that try to collect new taxes from American firms …. These taxes would punish companies based in countries that either adhere to the terms of a 2021 global minimum tax agreement or impose digital services taxes on American technology companies …. The legislation is poised to reignite international tax and trade wars that have been on hiatus as policymakers around the world grapple with how to overhaul the global tax system …. The Global Business Alliance estimates that the tax measure, known as Section 899, could cost the United States 700,000 jobs …. The Trump administration is including concerns about digital services taxes and other international tax issues in its trade negotiations with dozens of countries.” “Proposed ‘Punish Tax’ on Foreign Firms in US for OECD Min Tax & Digital Tax.” New York Times (June 17, 2025).

“Much of the financial press has taken to labeling Section 899 of the reconciliation bill a “revenge tax”—generally leaving out what exactly it’s revenge for. The section would allow the Treasury secretary to tax certain income of residents and firms of a country that imposes unfair extraterritorial and double taxation of U.S. companies …. Section 899 would let the U.S. respond to this extraterritorial and double taxation. It could be used to withhold taxes on the income earned by individuals and firms or by the government that collects these taxes.” “Revenge Tax.” Wall Street Journal (June 19, 2025).

     Zhaogang, a Visiting Legal Scholar from China, at the George Mason University (Schar School), has just published an article on corporate strategies in light of President Trump’s tariff and trade policies. This appeared in a leading international law journal. Proud to have supervised his year here at George Mason. Congratulations.

http://journal.yiil.org/home/archives_v18n1_12