U.S. Customs Schedule Adjustment Announcement: The True Meaning Behind the Tariff Suspension Order

On February 23rd, U.S. local time, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection officially announced that starting from 12:01 a.m. Eastern Time on the 24th (1 p.m. Beijing time on the 24th), tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act will be suspended. Once this statement was released, it immediately sparked widespread global discussion, with many analysts initially believing that U.S. trade policy might be shifting. However, a careful reading of this official statement reveals that the true policy intent is far more complex than the surface suggests.

Judicial Ruling on Illegal Tools and Policy Restructuring

To understand the real meaning behind this announcement, we must look back to a key Supreme Court ruling on February 20th. On that day, the U.S. Supreme Court, with an overwhelming 6-3 majority, ruled that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act lacked legal authorization. Legally, these tariffs were fundamentally unconstitutional from the outset.

This judicial decision exposes a long-held hidden truth: the U.S. president does not have the authority to bypass Congress and impose taxes on global goods. According to the clear provisions of the U.S. Constitution, taxing power is exclusively controlled by Congress. Any attempt by an executive to exceed constitutional limits will ultimately be stopped by the judicial system. In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Trump administration appeared to be forced to halt the tariffs based on that law, but the real policy adjustments are far from over.

Hidden Mechanisms in Suspension: Full Retention of Sections 232 and 301

The U.S. Customs statement explicitly states that the suspension of tariffs “does not cover tariffs imposed under Section 232, which involves national security, and Section 301, which involves unfair trade practices.” This seemingly plain statement contains the most critical truth about U.S. trade policy.

Section 232 originally pertains to “national security” in U.S. trade law and was widely used by the Trump administration to impose high tariffs on global steel, aluminum, and other basic industrial products—25% on steel and 10% on aluminum. These measures, nominally aimed at “protecting domestic industries,” effectively turned global supply chains into tools for U.S. economic interests. As raw material prices rose, the costs for downstream U.S. manufacturing industries soared—automakers, machinery, appliances, and others faced increased costs, leading to reduced production and layoffs. The so-called “job protection” ultimately became an economic contradiction.

Section 301 is a retaliatory tool targeting “unfair trade practices,” repeatedly used over the years to impose tariffs ranging from 10% to 35% on Chinese exports. It has become one of the most persistent trade barriers in U.S.-China economic relations. The U.S. explicitly states that these tariffs will continue to be maintained, without any reduction or removal.

Seamless Policy Transition: Rapid Activation of New Legal Tools

Even more noteworthy is the U.S. government’s rapid response. Within just three hours of the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional ruling, the Trump administration signed a new executive order, shifting the legal basis to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, imposing a temporary 10% tariff on global imports. Less than a day later, this rate was directly increased to 15%, with a planned duration of 150 days. This sequence of actions sends a clear signal to global markets: the U.S. government is not abandoning unilateral policies because of judicial rulings but has found new legal cover to continue the same economic sanctions.

This “stop-and-go” policy rhythm vividly demonstrates the core logic of U.S. decision-making: regardless of the legal guise, the goal of maintaining American economic interests and global dominance remains unchanged. Different legal tools are merely ways to circumvent judicial oversight—essentially the same unilateralist mindset under different appearances.

The Economic Truth of Cost Distribution

Empirical data from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy in Germany reveal the real economic effects of tariffs. Of all tariffs imposed by the U.S., up to 96% of the costs are ultimately borne by domestic importers and consumers, while foreign exporters bear only about 4%. This data fundamentally shatters the political propaganda of “making foreigners pay,” exposing that the actual outcome is the U.S. government passing economic costs onto its own citizens.

Looking at everyday consumer goods, the high tariffs under Section 301 on Chinese products have persisted for years. U.S. consumers buying smartphones, computers, clothing, toys, and other daily items have been paying prices above the global market level. These higher prices not only push up overall inflation but also directly reduce the living standards of low- and middle-income consumers.

Historical Policy Patterns

The U.S. has historically used Sections 232 and 301 to conduct trade sanctions, forming a clear pattern. High tariffs on EU steel products have led to escalating trade frictions and retaliations; tariffs on allies like Vietnam and Mexico show no regard for “allyship,” with all decisions driven solely by U.S. unilateral interests. The long-standing use of Section 301 against China has further weakened U.S. consumers’ purchasing power over the years. The cumulative effect of these measures has effectively eroded the economic strength of American consumers.

Deep Logic Behind Policy Intentions

The Customs statement mentions that “additional guidance will be provided in due course,” implying that the U.S. government retains flexibility to adjust tariffs as the situation evolves. Behind this wording lies a clear message: regardless of international reactions or legal constraints, the U.S. will continue to pursue unilateral trade policies to maintain its economic dominance whenever deemed necessary.

This is the consistent pattern of U.S. policy: publicly emphasizing “fair trade” and “international rules,” while practically treating rules as tools to achieve their goals—complying when convenient, bypassing when not. Such practices deviate entirely from the spirit of international agreements and multilateral cooperation, fueling growing distrust worldwide toward U.S. trade policies.

The true meaning behind this recent Customs announcement is not a 180-degree policy shift but rather a way to maintain existing economic sanctions under the guise of legal adjustments, circumventing judicial restrictions. It’s a case of changing the external appearance without changing the core intent—an illustration of contemporary U.S. trade diplomacy.