A "tariff earthquake" triggered by US domestic law has left the world grappling with a thorny issue. According to reports, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced that, effective from February 24 Eastern Time, it would cease collecting tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
On February 20, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling declaring the large-scale tariff policies implemented by the Trump administration by citing IEEPA illegal. Following the ruling, President Trump announced that, under Section 122 of the US Trade Act of 1974, a 10% import tariff would be levied on global goods for 150 days, replacing the tariffs deemed unlawful by the Supreme Court. On February 21, Trump stated on social media that the "global import tariff" he announced the previous day would be increased from 10% to 15%.
Furthermore, on February 23 local time, US media reported that the US government was considering imposing a new round of tariffs on six industries citing "national security" concerns. Sources indicated that the proposed tariffs might cover industries such as large-scale batteries, cast iron and iron fittings, plastic pipes, industrial chemicals, as well as power grid and telecommunications equipment. These new tariffs would be implemented separately from the recently announced global 15% tariff measure.
This tariff policy "rollercoaster" is far from a simple policy adjustment; it is a reflection of the global trade order entering deep and complex waters. As the "America First" approach fractures the rule-based consensus once led by the US and Europe, traditional trade models have become ineffective. The old order is tearing apart, while new rules are emerging through contention.
The "Asymmetric Impact" of New Tariffs Following the ruling that the Trump administration overstepped its authority in imposing tariffs, the path forward is again shrouded in uncertainty.
According to reports, on February 23 local time, Bernd Lange, Chair of the European Parliament's International Trade Committee, stated that the European Parliament's negotiating team decided to suspend work on approving the EU-US trade agreement and postpone the vote on the agreement originally scheduled for the 24th. Lange reiterated that clear regulations and legal certainty are needed before any further steps are taken.
On February 24, a spokesperson for China's Ministry of Commerce responded to questions regarding recent US tariff adjustments, stating that China is closely monitoring and will comprehensively assess the relevant US measures. Subsequent adjustments to countermeasures against US-origin fentanyl tariffs and reciprocal tariffs will be decided based on the situation. China reserves the right to take all necessary measures to resolutely defend its legitimate rights and interests.
An analysis suggests that the recent US tariff maneuvers have significantly strained its relationships with both traditional allies and competitors. For traditional allies like Europe, core industries are impacted, and previous agreements risk collapse. The new policy is particularly severe for allies such as the EU, Japan, and the UK. Because existing trade agreements (like those with the EU) had set specific tariffs, the newly added universal 15% tariff is "layered" on top, causing their average tariff rates to actually increase. This policy volatility severely damages US credibility as a trading partner. The EU has extended the suspension of retaliatory tariffs on US goods until early August but explicitly reserves the right to reinstate them at any time, significantly raising the risk of a US-EU trade war.
An international law expert described the current situation, noting that the latest round of international trade agreements lacks unified rules and standard templates. Some countries are attempting to create new standards and clauses, but whether others will accept them remains questionable. Significant divergences in national interests make reaching agreements more difficult.
The expert further analyzed that modern trade agreements are no longer limited to traditional trade relations; the concept of trade itself is expanding. Many scholars point to a "pan-securitization" trend, where trade is increasingly intertwined with national security and international competition issues. Due to the lack of universally applicable templates, it may take years to sort out rule clauses acceptable to all countries at a multilateral level.
The expert likened the current situation to "the darkness before dawn," though when dawn will arrive remains uncertain. Previously, the US and Europe were the main leaders of international rules, but now, with the US pursuing "America First" and prioritizing its own interests, advancing agreements has become difficult. The EU, once a "rule exporter" providing normative power, now faces its own challenges, with declining international competitiveness and a shift in focus towards internal market building and maintaining its own core competitiveness.
Gold Rally and US Stock Jitters Factors including US tariff uncertainty have driven a significant rally in gold. On February 23, the spot price of gold broke strongly above the $5,200 mark, while US stocks and the US dollar declined.
Amid the impact of tariffs and other factors, the decline in US stocks was particularly notable. On February 23, all three major US stock indices fell by over 1%. The S&P 500 closed down 1.04% at 6,837.75 points; the Nasdaq Composite fell 1.13% to 22,627.27 points; and the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 1.66% to 48,804.06 points.
Reports indicate that the White House's core priority is not "returning the money quickly" but "quickly reinstating the tariff tool." On one hand, the administration terminated the additional ad valorem duties imposed under IEEPA through an executive order; on the other hand, it swiftly invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a temporary 15% global tariff for 150 days, while increasing the use of traditional tools like Section 301 and even Section 232 to continue building new tariff walls.
Analysis suggests the current market pattern of "rising gold, falling US stocks, and a weak dollar" primarily reflects investor panic over policy "uncertainty," which far outweighs fear of the "tariff rate" itself. The market dislikes the "unpredictable," making避险 the only choice. Faced with trade war risks, funds flow into safe-haven assets, gold rises, and US Treasury yields fall (prices rise), clearly outlining a risk-averse market scenario.
Regarding the potential impact of subsequent policy evolution on markets, analysis indicates that US stocks may experience increased volatility and significant divergence. Before the July expiration of the "Section 122" measure, the market could remain disturbed by various rumors and legal changes. If "Section 301 investigations" targeting the automotive and technology sectors materialize, related sectors will face direct pressure.
The US dollar may weaken in the medium to long term. Uncertainty surrounding US government tariff policy will negatively impact dollar credibility, leading to a potentially weaker trend for the dollar over the medium to long term.
The safe-haven logic for gold is strengthening. If the prolonged博弈 of tariff policies and geopolitical risks persist, the appeal of gold as the ultimate safe-haven asset will not diminish. It is anticipated that if subsequent US economic data weakens due to tariff impacts, sparking interest rate cut expectations, it would further support gold prices.
From another perspective, Trump may strive to maintain the existing tariff framework to avoid his tariff achievements being nullified, but significant further escalation might not occur. Through tariffs, the Trump administration achieved two major results: fiscal revenue and investment commitments. Without alternative means, these achievements could be erased, giving him strong incentive to preserve the tariffs. However, under election pressure, a substantial rate increase might also not align with Trump's electoral interests.
Disregarding alternative measures, the invalidation of IEEPA tariffs could reduce the US effective tariff rate by approximately 7 percentage points. Before the ruling, the US effective tariff rate on global goods was 16.0%, with rates of 31% for China, 18% for India, and 15% for Vietnam. After IEEPA tariffs become ineffective, without additional measures, the US effective tariff rate might drop to 9.1%, with China's rate potentially falling to 15.4%, representing significant benefits.
Considering the Section 122 tariff measures, the US tariff rate still decreases, but rates diverge among countries. With Trump's 15% Section 122 tariff, the US effective rate only slightly decreases by 2 points to 13.7%. Rates for emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil generally decrease, while rates for some developed economies like the UK, Eurozone, and Japan may increase.
Where is the Tariff Storm Headed? For the foreseeable future, how Trump's tariff policies evolve will remain a key focus.
Analysis suggests that the Trump administration's tariff policy is entering a phase of prolonged, legalized博弈. While the Supreme Court rejected tariffs based on IEEPA, this has not shaken Trump's trade protectionist resolve; it only forces a change in the legal justification. Policy博弈 will shift from being primarily executive-led to multiple battlefields involving the judiciary and legislature.
In the short term (until July), the US may rely on Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The currently implemented 15% global tariff is the maximum rate under this provision. It serves both as a "stopgap measure" responding to the judicial ruling and a strong political statement. This measure is strictly limited to a 150-day validity period, expiring on July 24, 2026, unless extended by Congress.
In the medium to long term (after July), analysis indicates the US may pivot towards "Section 301" and "Section 232." The Trump administration has clearly stated that it will focus on leveraging the more clearly authorized and industry-specific "Section 301" and "Section 232" to advance its trade agenda. This suggests future tariffs will shift from indiscriminate broadside attacks to targeted pressure on specific industries (e.g., automobiles, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals) and specific countries. Once such tariffs are established, they often possess more long-term and institutionalized characteristics.
A series of key points require attention moving forward. Analysis highlights that the July 24 expiration date of the "Section 122" measure is the first critical node. Whether the US Congress will pass new legislation to extend these tariffs, or whether the administration can successfully use "Section 301/232" to seamlessly implement new tariffs, will determine the level of trade tension in the latter half of the year.
Another analysis states that on July 24, the Section 122 tariffs will expire, and extension is difficult; the US might switch to Section 232 and 301 tariffs. The new Section 301 investigations announced by Trump have three characteristics: broader scope, more comprehensive issues, and potentially faster pace. However, new Section 301 investigations average 15 months, making adjustments to existing Section 301 tariffs a more feasible approach.
Additionally, the unresolved issue of refunds for up to $175 billion in tariffs remains pending. The Supreme Court's ruling has opened the door for refunds of the massive tariffs already collected, which will become an important variable affecting the election and the economy.
Analysis anticipates that the outcome of the November midterm elections will be a decisive node. If the Republican party suffers losses and loses control of Congress, the Trump administration will face a double bind of judicial rulings and legislative constraints, greatly limiting its ability to subsequently expand tariff policy authority and simultaneously weakening policy credibility.
Future tariff博弈 may enter a new stage. Analysis suggests that uncertainty around tariff policy may increase again; the US might gradually phase out universal tariffs, with future measures becoming more targeted; tariffs may gradually solidify and institutionalize, transforming from one-off shocks into long-term frictions; the US Supreme Court ruling is unlikely to change the overall tariff landscape—tariffs will likely persist long-term, but their distribution among different countries may be adjusted.