On August 30, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce released a statement: On August 27 to 29 local time, the Chinese delegation visited the United States and held talks with officials from the U.S. Department of Treasury, Department of Commerce, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

During this period, the Chinese side clearly stated that China and the United States should respect each other and follow their own paths, achieving win-win cooperation through collaboration.

Both sides should make good use of the mechanism for economic and trade consultations, and if there are differences, they should sit down and negotiate on equal terms; where cooperation is possible, they should move forward together, so that the bilateral economic and trade relations can be stable and long-term.

According to official reports, this time the two sides mainly discussed issues related to Sino-U.S. economic and trade relations and the implementation of the consensus reached in the Sino-U.S. economic and trade talks. However, it remains unknown whether substantial results have been achieved at present.

At present, although the Sino-U.S. tariff war is in a "ceasefire" state, this does not mean that all issues have been resolved; it's just that the conflict has been paused, and underlying contradictions and differences still remain hidden beneath the surface.

It is always a good thing to sit down and communicate, but unexpectedly, on the last day of the Chinese delegation's visit to the U.S., a highly dramatic event occurred in Washington.

On August 29 local time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit caught the Trump administration off guard, ruling that most of its tariff measures were unconstitutional due to lack of clear congressional authorization, constituting a typical overreach.

The United States has always emphasized the separation of powers, with the legislative, executive, and judicial branches checking and balancing each other. This ruling is an effective supervision of the executive power by the judicial branch.

Interestingly, this ruling did not take immediate effect, but will be implemented only on October 14.

This is like opening a back door for the Trump administration, giving them enough time to appeal to the Supreme Court and try to reverse the situation.

Additionally, this ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the Trump administration's tariff measures were illegal does not affect the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under other rules.

For example, the tariffs on aluminum and steel under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act.

The reason for this situation is that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act grants the Trump administration specific powers.

Under this rule, the Trump administration can impose tariffs on imported aluminum and steel products on the grounds of "national security," and this logic has been recognized at the legal level.

This not only provides a "waiver" for some of the Trump administration's tariff policies, but also gives him the confidence to continue his tough trade stance.

Certainly, Trump was quick to react, expressing his "anger" on social media.

He began by emphasizing that "all tariffs are still valid," followed by accusing the "partisan biased" appellate court of making a wrong decision.

Trump spoke vehemently, stating that if the tariffs were canceled, it would bring "complete disaster" to the United States.

More importantly, he couldn't help but praise his tariff policies, claiming that the United States would definitely win in the end, and expressed his intention to fight back against the relevant rulings with the help of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Currently, Trump has already filed an appeal.

The fact that the U.S. federal appellate court ruled that the Trump administration's tariff policies were illegal is somewhat intriguing.

On one hand, this reflects the American system of checks and balances, with the judiciary exercising oversight over the executive branch, preventing the president's power from becoming too dominant. After all, the U.S. Constitution emphasizes the principle of power balance, and the court's judgment based on legal provisions seems reasonable.

But from another perspective, it's hard not to think about whether it's a "double act." After all, although the court ruled it illegal, it gave a buffer period until mid-October, effectively providing Trump with time and space to appeal.

Meanwhile, Trump immediately jumped out to strongly oppose, portraying himself as a figure fighting for American interests, which could please his base who support his tariff policies, while shifting domestic attention away from economic issues toward the judicial system.

This subtle rhythm makes it difficult to distinguish whether it is an inevitable result of the system or a tacit understanding formed among different branches of power in complex games.

No matter what the truth is, this "play" has added more uncertainty to the future of the U.S. tariff policy, but as we said before, there is no winner in a trade war, and Trump's claim that the United States will ultimately win will not come true.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7544262336736018978/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author, and you are welcome to express your attitude by clicking on the [top / bottom] buttons below.