TỐI CAO PHÁP VIỆN CHẶN ĐÒN THUẾ CỦA TRUMP, BẮC KINH VỘI SỐNG TRONG ẢO TƯỞNG

Welcome back to New Knowledge I'm Lê Minh Ladies and gentlemen on February 20th the U S Supreme Court blocked the proposed tax rates but imposed by U S President Donald Trump based on emergency powers under the IEEPA The decision was announced by a 6-to-3 vote concluding that the IEEPA does not grant the President authority to impose tariffs Reuters reported that during the debate over the matter the justices expressed skepticism and doubt regarding the legality of the tax levels Trump sought to impose under the statute emergency economic powers IEEPA This is a law enacted in 1997 designed for use in national emergency situations So does this mean President Trump is regretting the loss of his favorite tariff weapon The answer is not entirely yes ladies and gentlemen Within a U S president's tariff arsenal tariffs are not the only tool available It's like three different legal keys each unlocking a separate door The court only broke one key not the entire building's lock The first key is the IEEPA essentially an emergency authority Trump used it to impose a wide-ranging series of tariffs enacted swiftly and with great force For the purposes of the argument it was an emergency situation Yet the Supreme Court concluded that the IEEPA but does not grant the president authority to impose tariffs as we discussed so this tariff group The action taken under the IEEPA was blocked and deemed unauthorized Afterward U S Customs and Border Protection announced it would halt collecting tariffs associated with the orders The IEEPA took effect at 1:01 a m Eastern Time on February 24 and the matter of tax refunds still requires further action Proceeding through the subsequent procedures and lower courts The second key is section 232 of the law 1974 trade Tariffs imposed for national security reasons typically target specific industries such as steel aluminum automobiles although the timing of the authorities' investigation and decision The ruling on IEEPA doesn't affect this door so the tariffs under Section 232 remain in effect f the authorities implement it according to the proper procedures And the third key is Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act Tariffs are based o on unfair trade conclusions It often accompanies investigations by the Office of the United States Trade Representative The U S USTR used to target specific behaviors and trading partners such as China according to the category Just like item 232 the IEEPA ruling does not negate the right to assess The tariff under Section 301 remains in effect so the tariffs under this Section 301 are still active We see that the Supreme Court merely stated that IEEPA cannot be used to impose tariffs but they did not say that President Trump no longer has the authority to impose tariffs Here we must make this distinction very clear ladies and gentlemen That is why we see the Trump administration turning to an entirely different mechanism as a replacement e blocked portion meaning a situation akin to IEEPA they transferred opened another door already present in commercial law specifically the clause 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 Let us imagine tariffs as if they were A lever but to pull that lever the President must stand firmly on the legal platform The IEEPA is the foundation on which Mr Trump stood earlier The Supreme Court has just ruled that this foundation is It wasn't designed to be used for raising tariffs so using it that way is wrong That's exactly what Trump did—stepped onto a different platform Otherwise this is clause 122 which allows the President to impose a broad import surcharge when the United States faces what is referred to as a major issue with the international balance of payments The casino explicitly stated in writing that they were invoking this clause to impose the penalty emporary import duties On February 24 U S media reported that Mr Trump would impose A global minimum tax of 15% So what exactly is this rate Let's break it down It is not a tax targeting China specifically or a few countries it is a blanket tax mposing nearly all imports into the U S with a blanket tariff floor across the entire system The key point hinges on clause 122 which allows Trump a swift counterattack but there are limits—it allows a maximum tax of 15% and a maximum of 150 days nearly unrestricted The investigation process is lengthy much like many other tools and it truly represents nearly unchecked authority Used for 150 days if you wish to extend it you'll need to take the next step—usually a eeds the approval of opportunity So what is its strategic significance We see that it has ree layers of meaning First Trump shifted from targeting specific individuals to attacking broadly He set up a a broad-based foundational tax rate thereby turning tariffs into a negotiating lever with all trading partners ot just a rival like China the second point is that this 15% figure is by no means insignificant because it plants a layer If an item was already subject to tariffs under section 232 or 3001 then a 15% global tariff applies This will add another layer along with an additional expense—meaning it could drive up costs Imports have risen significantly and precisely for this reason they have exerted enough economic pressure to force partners to comply must react swiftly and the ultimate meaning lies in how the original court avoids the trap The legal challenge has just been delayed by its own shortcomings The court stated that IEPA lacks the authority to impose taxes Trump didn't eliminate the tariffs but replaced them with a clause worded more clearly You're probably wondering who exactly this global tax level is targeting If understood in the context of meaning that the target of this blow intended to cause the most pain is precisely those countries selling goods Many went to the U S attracted by low taxes and the absence of a protective trade agreement The reason is that these countries were originally ravelling down a smooth road with low taxes only to have this additional 15% tax suddenly thrown on top is frustrating ghly taxed Conversely countries that were already subject to very high taxes under previous packages sometimes It might be relatively less painful as the new baseline alters the overall picture So who was hit the hardest It's not just about looking at country names—we need to examine the underlying structure Does that country's exports to the U S fall within the scope of this tariff coverage Because Mr Trump didn't impose tariffs indiscriminately the Office of the U S Trade Representative has a fairly extensive list of exceptions something the U S wouldn't want to shoot itself in the foot with such as certain strategic groups or factions as been shifted to another mechanism Therefore countries exporting to the U S primarily certain product groups are affected lifestyle consumer goods light industry such as clothing footwear wooden products household items toys common consumer goods that are not protected by agreements such as those meeting standard requirements and thus exempted en this 15% tariff will feel heavier As for countries exporting to the U S the impact will be more pronounced For groups excluded or clearly protected by agreement this 15% penalty is less severe At its core this move targets the entire system but its deeper strategic aim is to change the rules play of all countries around the U S leaving no one out Trump wants a situation where everyone is involved All must be recalculated If I want to keep surviving off the U S market I'll have to accept America's terms In that picture China remains the dominant force but Trump isn't targeting China alone That's not how you raise taxes on Chinese goods He took a different approach—setting up a tax framework globally to force both supply chains and allies to take sides thereby squeezing China Tariffs on outer rings origin rules anti-transshipment measures supply chain standards technology controls It's not just about confronting China head-on with a spear but about dragging the entire playing field along with you e U S law that makes it harder for China to circumvent regulations Also on February 24 Jabbad Thams wrote that a swift reversal of fortune the countries hardest hit by the tax The biggest winners from the court's ruling have once again become the supporters of U S President Donald Trump crack down on and reject these emergency taxes China India and Brazil are among the countries that have taken this stance These are the countries currently benefiting from lower tax rates on shipments exported to the United States This argument sounds reasonable at first glance but it falls apart under closer logical scrutiny The first issue is that they are Confusing pain relief with victory Indeed when the emergency tax portion under IEPA was struck down by the court Countries previously hit hard by that mechanism will immediately improve in terms of numbers but the relief is only superficial It's just a temporary state—like having your throat squeezed then being eased up slightly You haven't fully let go—you've just changed the way you're holding on It's precisely those international media channels tha also clearly stating that after the ruling the government shifted to a different tax mechanism to replace the previous one The blocked portion is such The second issue is that the average effective tax rate is a figure prone to sparking controversy An average rate of 12% doesn't tell you the three much more important things: which specific product it refers to 被打压 供应链被掐断 哪个行业是各国的命脉 例如 如果一个国家 on average but industries they depend on such as consumer goods and standard components If textiles are hit by tariffs precisely in the affected sector companies in that country still suffer greatly Conversely f a country's average growth increases but its key industries fall within the excluded group or follow the same pattern as those excluded Another mechanism results in less pain than that average figure suggests While the average is easier to read and grasp it doesn't tell the whole story But it also obscures the structure and creates a misleading impression The third issue is the Japan Times article attempting to grade using tariffs while the game with China is about much more than tariffs ladies and gentlemen Even the average tariff Temporarily reduced China still faces other barriers that the article could not cover The figure of 12% is acceptable—that refers to taxes under mechanisms other than IEPA which are still not in effect echnology control supply chain control anti-circumvention investigations That's the living dew that can win the battle And more importantly the new mechanism includes a 15% global tax Temporary measures increase policy risks making it difficult for businesses to plan ahead In other words They might cut taxes today but they’re afraid to invest tomorrow and that’s clearly not a victory That's why saying China India and Brazil could immediately feel relief after the ruling—that IEPA isn't applicable—is misleading o tax it But calling it a big win clearly misrepresents the essence This is merely a shift in the method of attack Switching from fighting to setting the terms just to force negotiations and restructuring is just playing around Real victory is Honestly it all depends on whether Trump can turn that 15% into a 7% lever to lock down tax evasion loopholes whether to tighten restrictions on China or pull supply chains out of China Generally speaking Trump is still holding onto that stance raising the stakes in this tariff saga And as you can see after the Supreme Court blocked the tariff In his emergency measures he launched another front which we have just analyzed But it is 's still not closed off enough to eliminate all loopholes In this situation the Trump administration has continued to tighten The geopolitical pressure in America's backyard—Latin America where China is also deeply entrenched through port facilities— minerals telecommunications and digital infrastructure This time the story begins in Chile The story in Chile starts with This is a clear example of an infrastructure security strike The U S has just imposed visa restrictions on certain Chilean officials citing security concerns surrounding a China-linked underwater fiber-optic project and using it as a warning signal ahead of the summit meeting in Miami Digital infrastructure telecommunications of this kind It's no longer just an economic issue it has become a strategic security concern Looking at the map Chile may seem far from the United States but in the chessboard of U S -China economic and geopolitical strategy is once again a pivotal point because it precisely brings together the three elements that define today's competition betwee major powers are focused on two key areas: strategic minerals and connectivity infrastructure including cables Sea cumbers and salmon are significant exports to the Western Hemisphere For China Chile is first and foremost a mine raw materials for the industrial and energy transition sectors It is a major exporter of copper and China is the place that absorbs and refines vast amounts of copper Please note Chile exports the majority of its copper to China and the U S market account for only a small portion of Chile's refined copper exports Moreover Chile is located within South America's lithium belt which Beijing views as key to battery technology electric vehicles and the green technology supply chain The story of Chile's strategic alliance known as SQM-Codenco reveals that Chile's lithium story is no longer just a commercial one So much so that China's antitrust authority when approving the joint venture attached conditions to ensure the source Lithium carbonate supply to Chinese customers remains uninterrupted It's clear that China needs Chile to secure the raw materials for its industry and the currency for its infrastructure development Lithium gives China an edge in electric vehicles and the entire supply chain helping it maintain its position in the clean value chain In recent years China has accelerated its presence in Latin America to secure strategic minerals such as lithium copper nickel and downstream investment to secure relationships and lock in the value chain They want to bring the United States' backyard under their sphere of influence Of course Chile holds importance for the United States according to a different logic This is where competition with China has shifted from trade to the very lifeblood of industry Chile has long been a country renowned for its talented DJs China is its top trading partner Meanwhile the United States remains a major foreign investor When a country like Chile successfully takes on the role of a leading DJ the It will become a model for the entire region and precisely because it is a model it also becomes a frontline If Washington can steer Chile toward meeting the new U S security standards for digital infrastructure Undersea cables data ports and minerals—these are the elements that triggered a domino effect across the rest of Latin America as the U S stepped in That's when you begin to understand the strategic move by the Trump administration—they didn't choose to target Chile with tariffs The very moment you choose to target the most sensitive point of the era—data connectivity infrastructure— AP reports that the U S has imposed visa restrictions on certain Chilean officials linking the move to concerns over democratic backsliding security around a submarine cable project linked to China The Japan Times described the same underlying current This is a direct push against China Chile on the brink of the U S -Latin American summit in Miami The underlying message is unmistakable: minerals The data and cable networks may be debated but the U S views them as the nervous system of national security Allowing China to establish a foothold in that nervous system would be seen by the United States as a strategic risk and Chile is no exception And here is where it directly connects to the subject we've just analyzed regarding tariffs With IEPA blocked Trump still needed a legal stick to force partners to the negotiating table However the most effective tool isn't just taxation—it's the economic security package Tariffs impose financial pressure while digital infrastructure ports and cables create security challenges When Trump set up the tax framework forcing everyone to negotiate he simultaneously established a security standard that compelled everyone to choose a system Tariffs are the barrier at the gate of the U S market while undersea cables and data are the security scanner that checks everything before it passes through that barrier Chile was chosen as an example because it possesses strategic resources that China needs It is both the infrastructure node that the U S seeks to control according to its own standards and simultaneously the region's model for connectivity Another particularly noteworthy issue is when Mr Trump expanded his campaign against China When it comes to Chile the threat here isn't just some single cable project but rather a few external moves but it's the risk of a strategic link being broken in Western Europe e place where China is using trade minerals and infrastructure connectivity to establish a long-term foothold And as we've just analyzed Chile holds significant value for China When the U S exerts pressure on Chile the underlying message sent is about the strategic importance of the mining inputs China's reliance on certain factors to maintain its green industrial advantage could itself become politicized meaning it's no longer as safe as a purely transactional relationship This is the kind of intimidation that China fears most—its supply chain vulnerabilities exposed to the light and turned into a tool of geopolitical leverage Washington has now resorted to the rare measure of revoking visas from certain individuals Chilean officials accused them of undermining regional security through a submarine cable project could connect Chile to China For China the cable isn't just about faster internet It refers to the ability to access the data pipeline creating a corridor that connects Asia South America is hard for the U S to control When the U directly confronts this issue Beijing would face threats and a loss of credibility as well as jeopardize its ability to implement the project Partners are afraid of U S visa and diplomatic sanctions as well as damage to their ability to operate an independent data route in Mỹ-La Tình Before considering that it sets a dangerous precedent Today it's Chile tomorrow it's other places in the region all will steer clear of projects tainted by Chinese espionage o avoid being seen by Washington as a strategic risk When Trump chose Chile as his target He was telling the entire region that the era of the double-membrane pendulum was rapidly fading For Beijing the threat here is losing strategic space countries in the Americas and Latin America may still continue selling goods for China but would be hesitant to allow China to establish a presence in sensitive infrastructure Cables data ports telecommunications and energy due to fear of being targeted by the U S From this perspective we can see that Trump's move precisely targeted Beijing's vulnerability putting it in a difficult position reaction If China responds strongly they risk being labeled a security threat if they respond weakly Partners will realize that aligning with China is risky as China cannot even protect itself It was a move that simultaneously intimidated the partner while also stripping China of its advantageous position What just happened is actually a very typical two-faced portrait of America A On the other side the executive power wants to use tariffs as weapons of economic warfare to pressure the world rearranged according to American interests On the other side is the legal framework requiring such weapons to be grounded in law When the Supreme Court invalidated the portion of the tariff based on IEEPA on the surface it appeared tha Trump's swift wide-ranging and urgent offensive was effectively halted Thus it's no surprise that some media outlets immediately claimed Beijing saw an opportunity Perhaps Trump is sowing chaos while scrambling to patch together a trade strategy For instance the Wall Street Journal reported that Beijing sees an opportunity in the conflict Trade with the U S declined after the court diminished the effectiveness of Trump's tariff weapons Meanwhile The Guardian reported on Trump's efforts to fix his tax strategy The collapse of the empire had unleashed chaos and confusion across the globe The very strength of the United States is also what makes its confrontation with China more complicated Trump represents the ambition to use economic power to restore a global order favorable to the United States The Supreme Court represents the limit of power within a rule-of-law state When these two forces collide the media may call it chaos while rivals might see it as an opportunity But from a long-term strategic perspective the question isn't whether Trump is weakening but the United States could simultaneously uphold the rule of law while devising a strategy of pressure The economy is strong and legally sound enough that rivals no longer have room to maneuver From the perspective of Trump supporters that strategic shift demonstrates one clear thing: the United States There are still many paths to pursue and the law only forces Trump to change his route not give up But from the opposite perspective it was precisely that dizzying rate of change that revealed an underlying truth Trump's strongest tariff weapon is no longer a specific percentage but uncertainty A single legal twist is enough to throw the entire world into confusion And in that void of bewilderment The rival could seize an opportunity exploiting market volatility and the shifting dynamics within the U S alliance This is the cost of a democracy with checks on power—it may slow the blow e president's actions inadvertently created an opening for the opponent But precisely because of this a nation truly becomes unstoppable when its three branches of power—legislative executive and judicial—are fully aligned and functioning in harmony The executive and judicial branches do not operate in isolation but function as a unified machine Each branch continues to fulfill its oversight role yet all now focus on the same national interest At that point the opponent no longer relied on internal weaknesses and the market was no longer dragged into chaos rown into chaos by political betrayals In other words power lies not just in the strike itself but in the maneuvering behind it but lies in the entire power structure moving along the same strategic line the legislative branch does not become The handbrake of conscience slows the nation's pace while enforcement ensures power never leaps beyond bounds When that axis is straight and aligned a nation's greatness is nearly limitless It could be blocked entirely and in this case we can see that happening in the United States That concludes today's program We invite you to share your thoughts Personal reflections on today's topic Lê Minh says hello and looks forward to seeing you again