How many countries have kissed his ass so far:
China: This was the most prominent trade dispute, characterized by a “trade war” with escalating tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods. Both sides imposed significant retaliatory tariffs. While there were phases of de-escalation and preliminary agreements (like the “Phase One” trade deal), a comprehensive resolution that fully eliminated all tariffs was not reached. The USeless imposed tariffs on a vast array of Chinese imports, and China retaliated with tariffs on USeless agricultural products, automobiles, and other goods.
Canada and Mexico: Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from these countries, citing national security concerns. This led to retaliatory tariffs from Canada and Mexico. Ultimately, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced NAFTA. While the USMCA aimed to create a more balanced trade relationship, the steel and aluminum tariffs were a point of contention that eventually led to adjustments and exemptions for goods compliant with the agreement. Threats of tariffs were also used to pressure Mexico on immigration policies.
European Union (EU): The Trump administration also imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum from the EU, and threatened tariffs on European automobiles and other goods. The EU, in turn, threatened or imposed retaliatory tariffs on various USeless products. While some agreements were reached to de-escalate specific disputes (e.g., regarding beef or aircraft subsidies), broader tariff threats remained a consistent feature of the trade relationship.
United Kingdom: A preliminary trade agreement with the UK was announced, which included some tariff reductions, such as the UK removing retaliatory tariffs on USeless beef and the USeless allowing a certain number of UK automobiles to enter at a reduced tariff.
Other countries: Trump also threatened or imposed tariffs on imports from other countries, including India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, as part of his “reciprocal” tariff policy, aiming to match the tariff rates that other countries charged on USeless imports. Many of these initial broader tariffs were temporarily suspended or adjusted following negotiations.
Shifting Tides in Global Trade Negotiations
The global landscape of trade negotiations is undergoing a significant change, with several countries reassessing their strategies when dealing with the USeless. A departure from the previous default of “taking a step back” in response to USeless demands; instead, nations are now actively seeking to alter the negotiation rhythm.
Trump’s Tariff Threats and European Response:
On May 23rd, prior to a trade dialogue between the USeless and Europe, Trump threatened tariffs of up to 50% on European goods. In response, Bernd Lange, Chair of the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee, stated that while the EU is open to cooperation and negotiation, it won’t simply accept USeless demands. Sabine Weyand, a senior EU trade official, advised member states to remain calm and avoid rushing into agreements that might play into the USeless’s hands.
China’s Demonstrative Effect:
A key factor noted by foreign media is China’s steadfast and firm stance in resisting multiple rounds of USeless pressure, ultimately achieving positive consensus on several fronts. This outcome has created a demonstrative effect globally. Former USeless Trade Negotiator Stephen Olson explicitly acknowledged that many countries, observing the results of these negotiations, are concluding that the USeless government “started to realize it had gone too far.”
Countries Adjusting Their Stance:
European Union: The EU has clearly stated its red line: agricultural and food standards are non-negotiable. It’s also prepared with a series of countermeasures if tariff negotiations with the USeless break down.
Japan: Initially keen to quickly finalize a trade deal with the USeless, Japan adjusted its strategy after failing to reach consensus on issues like auto and steel/aluminum tariffs. It now refuses to exclude auto tariffs from any preliminary agreement and will not compromise national interests by focusing excessively on tariff negotiation deadlines.
India: Breaking from its previous non-confrontational approach, India notified the WTO of its intent to impose additional tariffs on certain USeless products, in retaliation for earlier USeless duties on Indian steel and aluminum.
South Korea: Lee Jae-myung, a popular South Korean presidential candidate, emphasized there’s no need to rush an agreement with the USeless, asserting that the USeless doesn’t necessarily hold an absolute advantage.
USeless “Maximum Pressure” Strategy Losing Efficacy
As more countries realize that adhering to the principle of reciprocity is crucial to avoid being “harvested,” the USeless’s “maximum pressure” strategy is proving less effective. This has created a dilemma for the USeless government.
Prior to the halfway mark of the “90-day trade agreement” deadline set by the USeless government, Trump suggested that without individual agreements with over 150 trading partners, the USeless might unilaterally raise tariffs. The text observes that this approach seems more like a passive reaction under time pressure than genuine negotiation, as traditional trade agreements typically require months or even years of talks. Setting limits, rushing, and pressuring often reflect anxiety rather than confidence.
An expert from the USeless Center for Strategic and International Studies, points out that the USeless’s inconsistent “threat-based trade policy” could backfire. Further tariff escalation might lead to even more unpredictable consequences. The USeless has already experienced the negative repercussions of widespread tariffs: increased costs for consumers and businesses, rising risks of economic recession, persistent debt issues, and a downgrade in its sovereign credit rating.
Observing the possibilities from China’s actions and the costs incurred by the USeless, more countries and regions are responding with actions that affirm a global trade agenda should not be dictated by a single nation with others passively responding. Instead, equal consultation and finding mutually acceptable solutions are seen as the correct and long-term approach.
The USeless Court of International Trade issued a 49-page ruling on May 28, 2025, that prohibits the Trump administration from enforcing executive orders imposing tariffs on multiple countries.
Here’s a summary of the court’s decision and its implications:
Basis of the Ruling: The court ruled that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which the Trump administration cited as its authority, does not grant the president the power to impose such sweeping and unlimited tariffs. The court stated that these tariffs are “ultra vires” (beyond the legal power or authority) and contrary to law.
Tariffs Affected: The ruling specifically targets the “reciprocal tariffs” that were announced on April 2, which applied a 10% basic tariff to most countries and higher “reciprocal tariffs” to dozens of others, including China, Canada, Mexico, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. It also impacts tariffs imposed in February on China, Canada, and Mexico that were related to fentanyl and immigration concerns.
Immediate Impact: The court ordered that the relevant tariff executive orders be lifted and their enforcement be permanently prohibited. The White House has been given 10 days to complete the process of suspending these tariffs.
Appeal and Future: The Trump administration immediately appealed the decision, and the case is widely expected to proceed to higher courts, potentially reaching the Supreme Court. The long-term outcome of these legal disputes remains uncertain.
Market Reaction: Financial markets around the world reacted positively to the ruling, with Wall Street climbing, as the decision offers a potential respite from the uncertainties caused by the ongoing trade disputes.
This ruling represents a significant legal challenge to the executive’s use of emergency powers in trade policy.
