特朗普刚宣布向全球加关税，白宫马上向中国解释：一切不变！

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that deemed Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs as unconstitutional, leading to a shift in U.S. trade policy towards China and other partners, while highlighting the anxiety behind Trump's aggressive stance on tariffs [1][3]. Group 1: Legal and Policy Changes - The Supreme Court ruled that Trump's tariffs under IEEPA were unconstitutional, prompting him to raise the baseline tariff rate from 10% to 15% [1][5]. - U.S. Trade Representative Lighthizer emphasized that agreements with partners, including China, remain valid despite the tariff changes, indicating a need for reassurance [3][5]. - The Trump administration is now considering using the Trade Act of 1974, Section 122, to impose tariffs, although this legal basis is less stable and requires a fundamental international balance of payments issue [9][11]. Group 2: Impact on U.S.-China Relations - The tariffs imposed on China, particularly the "equal tariffs," have been a significant tool for Trump, with rates reaching as high as 145% at one point [7][13]. - The Supreme Court's ruling undermines the legal foundation for these tariffs, complicating U.S.-China negotiations and potentially leading to a reevaluation of commitments made under previous agreements [13][15]. - China's response to the U.S. actions indicates a readiness to reassess its commitments, especially if the U.S. continues to impose tariffs under different legal frameworks [15][19]. Group 3: Future Trends and Strategic Considerations - The U.S. is likely to explore other legal avenues for maintaining trade barriers, such as trade investigations and national security claims, despite the change in tariff strategy [19][21]. - The balance of power in U.S.-China negotiations may shift in favor of China, as the credibility of U.S. threats diminishes following the Supreme Court ruling [21][23]. - The uncertainty in U.S. trade policy is becoming a systemic risk, prompting businesses and countries to reassess their engagement with the U.S. market [21][23].