Recently, a U.S. appeals court made an important ruling that questioned the legal basis for several global tariffs implemented during Trump’s presidency. The court found that these tariff measures exceeded the president's authority and clearly stated that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) did not grant the president the power to impose tariffs.

The ruling mainly concerns the tariffs imposed on China, Canada, and Mexico on the grounds of "reciprocal retaliation." However, it is noteworthy that the steel and aluminum tariffs implemented under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act are not affected by this ruling and will remain in effect. Currently, the enforcement of the relevant tariffs has been postponed until October 14 to allow for possible appeal proceedings.

Trump expressed strong dissatisfaction with the ruling, believing that it would "endanger the economic security of the United States." Meanwhile, the Department of Justice is expected to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. Legal experts point out that this ruling sets clear boundaries for the president's exercise of economic emergency powers, which will have far-reaching implications for the future formulation of trade policy by the executive branch.

This ruling not only concerns the legality of tariffs but, more importantly, it essentially restricts the power of the U.S. president to unilaterally impose trade measures. Against the backdrop of a reshaping global trade landscape, this decision may prompt multiple countries to reassess the legitimacy of "national security tariffs," while also providing a new dialogue platform for multilateral institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The impact of this ruling may extend far beyond the United States, as it could become an important opportunity to reshape international trade rules. Governments and trade experts around the world will closely monitor the subsequent developments of this case and its potential impact on the direction of global trade policy.