[By Wolfgang Münchau, translated by Whale Life]

European liberals hate Donald Trump. They also often misjudge him. This tendency is particularly evident in European media, where wishful thinking has become the dominant form of judgment.

The media drew incorrect political conclusions about Trump's upcoming trial in 2024. Now, they are once again misjudging the U.S. court's decision last week to block his April 2nd proposal to impose "reciprocal tariffs." Trump will likely win this latest "legal battle" just as he did in previous lawsuits, with the final result possibly being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court: there, the majority of justices hold conservative views. Six were appointed by Republican presidents, and three were personally nominated by Trump himself.

Recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court have clearly favored Trump's stance. Before the results of last year's presidential election were finalized, it ruled that Trump enjoys immunity for actions taken during his presidency. The U.S. Supreme Court has also supported several Trump administration cases, including one involving his decision to replace two members of an independent federal agency; another concerning the protected status of Venezuelan immigrants; and a case limiting the scope of environmental reviews. The only adverse ruling against Trump by the U.S. Supreme Court involved the deportation of a Venezuelan accused of gang activity by the federal government.

Based on past records, Trump's success rate at the U.S. Supreme Court is roughly 80-20. However, I believe there is a deeper reason why Trump will win this case: if the legal arguments put forth by the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York are supported, it would set a dangerously precedent. This would be equally disadvantageous for Democrats.

Trump invoked the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs. This act was signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, originally intended to allow the president to take emergency measures following the oil crisis of that era.

On May 30th, Trump emphasized at a rally in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, that he would increase import tariffs to protect the domestic steel industry. Video screenshot.

Trump's lawyers argued that the ongoing trade deficit in the United States constitutes a national emergency, sufficient justification for invoking the act. The New York court rejected this argument, stating that the United States has been experiencing a trade deficit since 1976. If a situation persists for so long, how can it still be considered an emergency?

However, this argument is purely sophistry. In finance and economics, most crises erupt precisely because of long-standing problems. Remember subprime mortgages? They originated in 1988 but triggered the global financial crisis nearly 20 years later. Or consider chronic diseases in medicine. Life is full of emergencies, and tracing their roots often leads back to accumulated issues over time.

Even if I am wrong and Trump loses this case, what then? He is still a winner. The reason is that Trump has many ways to impose tariffs. Moreover, similar effects can be achieved through other means.

The White House acted last weekend when Trump announced that he would double the tariffs on steel and aluminum to 50% (the White House issued a statement on June 3rd local time, increasing the tariffs on imported steel and aluminum and their derivative products from 25% to 50%, effective from midnight Eastern Time on June 4, 2025, as observed by Observer Network translation). These tariffs are based on another legal provision: Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. I roughly estimate that at least five bills authorize the U.S. president to impose tariffs—there may actually be more. Section 232 concerns "national security." Joe Biden previously invoked this section to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese-made electric vehicles. Trump's proposed auto tariffs also fall under this category.

Can the U.S. courts challenge Trump under Section 232? I doubt it. Historically, courts rarely oppose the president on national security issues. Trump invoked Section 232 on the grounds that the United States is overly dependent on imports for key goods and materials such as automobiles, steel, and pharmaceuticals. This is indeed true. You cannot use "national security" as an excuse to restrict the import of champagne using Section 232. But Trump can still follow Europe's lead: establish food and wine quality standards that only American suppliers can meet.

The terminology of U.S. trade and financial policies is filled with numbers, and coincidentally, all of them are three digits. For example, Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act targets "unfair trade practices." The initiation of Section 301 requires a formal investigation by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. This is a powerful bill, but the process is slow, requiring strict procedural rules: initiating an investigation, holding hearings, allowing parties to raise objections. However, after all these procedures are completed, the final decision still rests with the president.

Additionally, there is a "nuclear-grade" weapon: Section 338 of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. It was this act that triggered the Great Depression. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act allows the president to levy up to 50% tariffs on the most common grounds—protecting American industries from foreign competition. Surprisingly, this law remains effective to this day.

Want to hear more numbers? Consider Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. It grants Trump the power to impose a 15% tariff for 150 days without any justification. If you delve into the "One Big Beautiful Bill" passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last week by a narrow margin of one vote, you might discover Section 899. This section stipulates that investors from countries deemed by the United States to have "tax systems harmful to American commercial interests" will face additional taxation.

On May 22nd local time, the U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed President Trump's large-scale tax and spending reform bill with 215 votes in favor and 214 against.

That’s enough about clause numbers. Ultimately, Trump will always find a way. Only a fool would bet on the U.S. courts stopping Trump. This has never succeeded in the past, and it won’t happen now either.

Behind all these misjudgments lies a deeper issue. One reason for the political setbacks suffered by centrist forces in Western liberal democracies is their preference for resorting to "legal battles." Carl von Clausewitz, a German military historian, once said, "War is the continuation of politics by other means." A "legal battle" is the continuation of politics through the judicial system. If you can't win elections, at least you can control the courts. This is an abuse of the judicial system. Western democratic systems should not function this way.

"Legal battles" often backfire. Besides Trump's criminal trials, there are numerous examples. In 2019, the UK Supreme Court overturned Boris Johnson's prorogation of parliament, which was another counterproductive judicial move. Remain supporters cheered this ruling, but it led to an early general election, with Johnson unexpectedly winning a decisive victory.

The European Commission also employs its so-called "rule of law" procedure to launch "legal battles"—politicians vote on whether to withhold funds to punish disobedient EU member states. Courts in France and Romania once barred major candidates in presidential elections from running. In Germany, centrist politicians are actively discussing whether to ban the Alternative for Germany (AfD). If you can't defeat your opponents, eliminate them—this is a "legal battle."

There are two reasons why "legal battles" fail. First, they earn broader public sympathy for the targeted party—a phenomenon that has occurred with Trump. Brexit campaigners during the referendum also benefited similarly. But perhaps more importantly, it poses significant harm to those launching the "legal battle." These initiators rely on the courts to do their "dirty work." Because the courts are backing them, they did not fully commit to defeating Trump in elections.

I observe that centrist liberals tend to be complacent. In Europe, liberal figures wear Ukrainian flags, vowing to support Ukraine until it defeats Russia. But for this promise to have meaning, it requires genuine sacrifices, such as raising taxes, imposing an oil and gas embargo on Russia, or completely excluding Russian banks from the Western financial system. I pity Ukraine for having such weak allies among the centrist liberals. The problem with centrist liberals is that they fight "legal wars," not "political wars"; they want things done but are unwilling to do it themselves; they don't want to go to war themselves but expect others to do it for them. European centrists detest Trump partly because it was he who personally ended this toxic game.

After Trump announced that he would increase tariffs on imported steel and aluminum from 25% to 50% starting in early June, Bernd Lange, chairman of the European Parliament's Trade Committee, stated that the EU should adopt countermeasures "immediately." Photo credit: Reuters.

The reality is that Trump has won two elections and has nearly four more years in office. His opponents should think wisely about how to move forward after he leaves office rather than how to defeat him in court. If the Democrats win next year's midterm elections, what political agendas should be prioritized? How should Sino-American relations be positioned? What will America's trade policy look like after 2029? Do Americans really want manufacturing to return? What kind of manufacturing does America want to develop?

The root cause of public dissatisfaction with politicians on the stage in Western countries lies in the fact that many people have not participated in the fast lane of economic development in the 21st century. Solving this problem will be a daunting task, meaning re-integrating ordinary voters into the 21st-century economic network. Trump is indeed better at connecting with ordinary voters than Democratic rivals, but ultimately, I don't believe he can fulfill his promises. Trump's second term as president will likely end in disappointment. The sole purpose of his tariff policies is to pay for tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy.

If you want to defeat Trump, forget the courtroom. Addressing practical issues is the right path.

(The original article was published on UnHerd Comment website in the UK, titled "Legal battles cannot defeat Trump; Liberals are fighting the wrong war." Translation provided for reader reference only and does not represent the views of Observer Network.)

This is an exclusive article by Observer Network. The content purely reflects the author's personal views and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, and legal action will be taken if violated. Follow Observer Network WeChat account guanchacn for daily interesting articles.

Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7512339999493292594/

Disclaimer: The article solely represents the author's viewpoint. Welcome to express your opinions in the button below the article to show your attitude.

This article is an exclusive contribution by Observer Network. The content purely reflects the author's personal views and does not represent the platform's views. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited, and legal action will be taken if violated. Follow Observer Network WeChat account guanchacn for daily interesting articles.