Follow the Money: How Taiwan's Banks Are Redrawing Asia's Financial Map

When the financial infrastructure shifts, everything changes. Taiwan's Cathay United Bank is quietly redrawing the map of Asian finance, following a dramatic pivot away from China. Once directing 84% of overseas investment to mainland China, Taiwan now sends just 11% there—a structural transformation that speaks volumes about where global trade is heading.

This shift isn't happening in isolation. Across the Pacific, Danish energy pioneer Ørsted finds its Revolution Wind Project—80% complete with 45 turbines already installed—abruptly halted by U.S. regulators citing vague "national security interests." The move comes despite a decade of approvals from the Pentagon, FAA, and other agencies, raising questions about whether this represents genuine security concerns or calculated disruption of the renewable energy sector. Read Orsted-Offshore Wind and the Politics of Disruption

Meanwhile, the Trump administration faces a significant legal challenge as the U.S. Appeals Court ruled most of its tariffs illegal in a 7-4 decision. The judges determined that Trump's use of the Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs represents an overreach of executive power, as the Constitution grants taxation authority to Congress, not the President. With the ruling suspended until October 14th, a Supreme Court showdown looms.

These developments reveal a global economy in transition, where institutional rules are being rewritten. Even seemingly minor regulations like de minimis thresholds—which allow low-value goods to enter countries without duties—are undergoing dramatic revision as governments recognize how e-commerce has transformed what was once a convenience into a major fiscal leakage worth billions.

For businesses navigating this landscape, the message is clear: institutional agility is essential. Whether it's banks following investment flows into emerging markets, energy companies battling regulatory whiplash, or exporters adapting to changing customs rules, those who understand these shifting systems gain competitive advantage.

Subscribe to Chain Reaction for insights that go beyond headlines to re

Chapters

• 0:33 Chain Reaction Introduction
• 2:43 Cathay United Bank's Strategic Expansion
• 6:35 US Tariffs and Global Supply Chains
• 10:07 Ørsted's Wind Project Halted
• 15:15 US-China Relations and Chip Industry
• 21:15 Economic Updates and Financial Reporting
• 25:35 De Minimis Rules Changing
• 29:01 Legal Challenges to Trump's Tariffs

Transcript

Tony Hines: 0:01

Hello, you're listening to Chain Reaction. I'm Tony Hines and it's great to be here. We've got some interesting things coming along in the show. America's in the news. Tariffs are in the news, but there's other things quite important. There's the Orsted situation, which you might have heard about, and it's how a project, nearly 80% complete, is stopped by the Trump administration because they have a real down on wind energy, so it appears, and, of course, any type of green energy. That's because Trump and his administration support oil, and you wonder if the administration is perhaps in the pocket of fossil fuel industry with all the rail against climate change. They don't believe in it. In fact, they don't believe in much. That's evidence-based. There's been attacks on science and the scientific institutions 400 attacks between January and June, and you can stop by and listen for more detail on that in the episode where I discuss how China is dominating rare earths. It's in that episode. And then there's all kinds of other attacks on the Federal Reserve, almost like an internal implosion is taking place in the US. And well, we're for democracy next. And if you look at India, they've now got 50% tariffs. They went 25% up this month and India has joined Brazil Tariffs. They went 25% up this month, and India has joined Brazil. They're both on 50%. India's tariffs are supposedly because of the purchase of Russian oil. It's a sanction, it's a penalty for buying Russian oil. But certain sectors in India won't feel the pinch, such as tech and services, because a lot of Apple manufacturing has moved to India over the past year or so and that means the chips are going to be crossing borders many times and you don't want tariff after tariff laid on those chips. So let's get on with the Chain Reaction review and you can hear about what's been happening in the past week or two, past week or two. Don't forget, if you like Chain Reaction, you can subscribe and you'll be first to know when new episodes are out and you'll never miss an episode.

Tony Hines: 2:15

We explore the systems shaping global trade, supply chains and institutional change change. Now we're looking at one story that's flown under the radar, but it speaks volumes about where the world's heading. It's not a headline about tariffs or container rates. It's about a bank, cathay United Bank to be precise, which is based in Taiwan. It's quietly redrawing the map of financial infrastructure across Asia and if you care about trade corridors, investment flows and the scaffolding that supports global business, this one is worth your attention.

Tony Hines: 2:54

Let's start with the context. Back in 2010, 84% of Taiwan's overseas investment went to China. Today, it's just 11%. Investment went to China. Today, it's just 11%. That's not a blip, it's a structural shift, and Cathay is following the flow. They've expanded into Vietnam, cambodia, laos, myanmar and, most recently, india. Why? Well, because that's where their clients are going. As Bernie Miao, cathay EVP, executive Vice President, put it, if I'm not there and my client is, I can't serve them. It's a simple truth with profound implications.

Tony Hines: 3:31

Banks aren't just financial institutions. They're enablers of trade, compliance and growth, and Cathay's strategy is a masterclass in institutional agility. Take Singapore Cathay has planned to double its staff there by the end of this year, focusing on relationship managers and private bankers. Their assets under management have doubled since 2020, with minimum accounts starting at $2 million. This isn't retail banking. It's strategic capital placement. And in the Philippines, they've signed a tripartite agreement with PISA and RCBC to support Taiwanese corporate expansion. That includes site selection, advisory services and sustainability-linked loans. It's a public-private model that could be replicated across ASEAN.

Tony Hines: 4:24

Now let's zoom out for a systems thinking perspective on what's happening with Cathay. The move reveals a feedback loop trade shifts, client relocation, banking, infrastructure, policy alignment, esg integration. It's not just about being present, it's about being relevant. Cathay is building legacy infrastructure in markets that will define the next decade of global trade, and for strategists, educators and policy makers it's an interesting development. There are lessons here. Follow the banks, follow the money. Where they go, opportunity follows. So what does this mean for exporters in the UK and in the US, for policy makers in both Westminster and in the White House and, of course, if you're a student and you're mapping the future of global trade well, plenty to see. It means the scaffolding is shifting and if we want to build resilient, inclusive and forward-looking systems, we need to pay attention to these quiet moves. Cathay United isn't just expanding, they're banking on the shift the legacy infrastructure, long-term capacity building, institutional agility, public-private partnership. So we've seen in this short piece that Cathay United bank expansion isn't just a business move, it's a signal. They're expanding into Vietnam, cambodia, laos, myanmar and, most recently, india, as I said. And it's not just about being present, it's a signal they're expanding into Vietnam, cambodia, laos, myanmar and, most recently, india, as I said. And it's not just about being present, it's about being relevant. Cathay United isn't just expanding, they're banking on the shift.

Tony Hines: 6:02

Now, if you've been following the turnarounds and changes to tariffs in the United States, the one thing you may have picked up if you've been following the turnarounds and changes to tariffs in the United States, the one thing you may have picked up if you picked up anything and nothing else is that nothing remains certain, and that's because the tariffs change all the time. Trump's obsessed with making deals, and those deals turn tariffs from some grand number into some lesser number quite often. And he's trying to impose a lot of pressure on China, but not really with any great success, because China has all the cards, as Trump likes to say, because they control 70% of all rare earths, which are needed for smartphones, telecommunications, defence systems and everything for the new economy, the electric economy and for EV car makers too. So to try and move everything inside the new economy, the electric economy and for EV car makers too, so to try and move everything inside the United States, which Trump has said is his state of aim, it doesn't seem very realistic in the age of global, complex supply chains, and actually it's what used to be known as cutting off your nose to spite your face, because we're dependent on the global economy and if we decide to become self-sufficient, costs will increase for everybody, and it's a step too far. It's far too difficult in today's complex global supply chain world to be totally self-sufficient. Although the United States has a good chance of having a high proportion of production at home, it can't do everything, and it shouldn't, because it won't be efficient, it won't be cost-effective and it will cause great pain for businesses and consumers alike.

Tony Hines: 7:39

Inflation is already on the rise, the availability of goods is much lower, and there's an institutional war in the United States from the current administration trying to take control of all major institutions, which reduce the checks and balances for democratic oversight, and you'll have seen the raids on John Bolton's home by the FBI. You'll have witnessed the attacks on Lisa Cook, who's on the Fed exec, which sets interest rates, and the attacks on Jerome Powell, who is the chief of the Fed. Trump's threatened to remove him too. So that's one part of the conflict that's taking place, and this is all about central control and Trump wants interest rates lowering. That suits his policy. But actually the economic numbers are not good. Employment is falling, costs are going up, and I read quite recently about one company in the United States that had its costs rise by £100,000 since Trump started all his tariffs on Liberation Day this year. So these are big costs for businesses.

Tony Hines: 8:41

The second conflict, which is another internal conflict, but also in an international sense. It's an international conflict. It's a war against science. Any evidence-based science seems to be disliked by Trump. That's because it doesn't suit the narrative, and it's dangerous when the facts don't match up with your political narrative, isn't it? So how do you overcome that? Well, you talk. Talk about fake news, you talk about false statistics and you talk about your own story as if it's true in your own parallel universe. If you want to catch up on all these things, and more, then drop by and listen to chain reaction, because it's affecting global supply chains in major ways, and these are all macro factors that are impacting your supply chain, your business and your life.

Tony Hines: 9:35

Ørsted is a Danish energy company and you may not have heard of them. As the global energy transition accelerates, ørsted, a Danish pioneer in offshore wind, found itself at the centre of a geopolitical storm. The recent halt of its Revolution Wind Project by the Trump administration raises urgent questions about energy policy, national security and political intent. Let's take a look at Ørsted. The projects are involved in the investment. Let's take a look at Ørsted the projects that are involved in the investment. Let's take a look at Orsted the projects that are involved in the investment and the risk. Orsted has evolved from a North Sea oil and gas operator, formerly Dong Energy, into a global leader In renewable energy. Its portfolio spans Europe, asia and North America, with a strong emphasis on offshore wind. It's involved in a number of projects and if you drop by and take a look at the Chain Reaction Review I'll put the link in the episode you'll find details where you'll see a table of the investments it's made and the status of those investments and the risk assessed the investments it's made and the status of those investments and the risk assessed. Ørsted recently announced a 60 billion Danish kroner investment that's about 9.4 billion dollars for a rights issue to stabilise its balance sheet amid rising costs and regulatory uncertainties.

Tony Hines: 10:56

But there's been an unwelcome interruption and intervention by the US administration. There's been an unwelcome interruption and intervention by the US administration. Ørsted's Revolutionary Wind Project, which is 80% complete, with 45 of 65 turbines installed, was abruptly halted by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, boem, citing national security interests. The project had passed a decade of reviews, including from the Pentagon, the Federal Aviation Authority and the NOAA. No specific threats were disclosed. Critics argued that the halt is politically motivated. Boem's acting director is a former fossil fuel lobbyist. The project had full federal and state permits, including 20-year PPAs with Rhode Island and Connecticut. Similar halts have occurred with the Empire, wind and Lava Ridge projects.

Tony Hines: 11:51

There's collateral damage here Orsted and its US partners. Orsted's exposure and risk is that its share price is down 30% since the rights issue was announced. Standard Poor's downgraded Allstead to BBB and that put its costs up. That basically increases the interest rate you might pay on a loan or the risk of actually getting a loan in the first place. Citing deteriorating US conditions and the $9.4 billion capital raise now look seriously at risk due to regulatory uncertainty At the state level. There's also fallout. Rhode Island and Connecticut tend to lose 704 megawatts of clean energy capacity. Hundreds of union jobs will be jeopardised. Ratepayers may face higher costs due to delays in grid integration and fossil fuel fallback. Governors and attorneys general from both states have condemned the halt as bizarre, arbitrary and politically motivated. If we take a look at the bigger picture, there's basically fossil fuel favouritism going on and clean energy retrenchment.

Tony Hines: 12:58

Since January, the Trump administration has paused all new offshore wind leases. The Trump administration has paused all new offshore wind leases, rescinded designated wind energy areas, launched a national security probe into wind turbine imports and cut tax credits and funding for renewables under the one big beautiful bill. Meanwhile, oil and gas lease sales have surged and the strategic petroleum reserve is being refilled. Offshore drilling and seabed mining are back on the table. This isn't just policy. It's a paradigm shift. It's a political tinkering or strategic sabotage Maybe. Well, you might say the tinkerman is at it again.

Tony Hines: 13:46

The timing, vagueness and selective enforcement of the stop-work orders suggest more than caution. They suggest calculated disruption. With clean energy projects nearing completion and delivering union jobs, grid stability and long-term savings, halting them midstream undermines both economic and environmental goals. Some analysts call it political hostage-taking. Others see it as a broader attempt to reframe environmental law as a weapon against renewables. Either way, the message to global investors is clear US energy policy is no longer predictable. Orsted's predicament is emblematic of a deeper tension between long-term systems thinking and short-term political calculus. If the US wants to be a leader in clean energy, it must offer regulatory stability, not partisan whiplash. Let's not confuse national security with national insecurity.

Tony Hines: 14:47

Now you might want to also take a look at how China's monopoly on rare earths is impacting Trump's tariff power. That episode is just out and it talks about the global balance of power and it says it's not just about military might or economic sanctions. It's increasingly about who controls the critical minerals that power our modern world. And China has masterfully positioned itself as the dominant force in rare earth elements, controlling 70% of mining, 90% of refining for 17 elements Essential to everything from smartphones to missile guidance systems. So drop by and pick that up, stay informed, stay ahead with Chain Reaction. This week, of course, trump is about to meet Xi to discuss rare earths, so we'll need to watch that space too.

Tony Hines: 15:43

Both America and China have suspended the imposition of tariffs on each other for 90 days. Of course it's America that's imposing the tariffs. China is responding as they continue to work towards some kind of trade deal. 10th of November is the new deadline. The White House confirmed that NVIDIA and AMD have agreed to hand 15% of revenues they receive from selling chips in China to the American government. It's thought to be the first time that the company has had to commit to such an arrangement, simply to obtain export licenses Separately. The Chinese government is urging domestic firms not to use the H20 chips supplied by Nvidia. It hasn't banned them, but it's trying to put pressure on so that they feel the pain. Of course, president Trump likes to throw his weight around. He's dealing with a lot of that lately and he's trying to put pressure on all kinds of people. He sees everything as transactional, a trade deal, but does he always make the right decisions? The proof will be in the pudding as time moves on.

Tony Hines: 16:46

The British economy is not growing so much now. It grew 0.3% in the second quarter, but it's flatlined in the latest month's statistics. The figure was better than expected. Weak output has been recorded in April and May, but GDP repounded in June, but July is flat. Higher employer taxes were in this quarter and that's also put threats on employment growth, particularly in the hospitality sector or anywhere where lots of people are employed. And it's not just the tax on the national insurance, but it's also those higher minimum wages that the government introduced earlier in the year too.

Tony Hines: 17:28

For a government that's stated mission is growth, it doesn't seem to be very focused on growth at all, because it's done a lot to damage business, and this week the situation appears to be getting slightly worse. Recently, the ASDA chair said that it's about time governments stopped thinking about taxing everything, and the message was quite strong. I think supermarkets are feeling the pain. They're concerned that there might be further rate rises on properties, and they have a lot of property in their portfolios. If rates go up, it pushes the costs up, it's inflationary and it will put food prices up, and already there are reports in the press this week that food prices are on the rise. It'll put everything up. So the government has to tread quite carefully, but they're desperate to fund the 40 billion black hole that's been created by previous policies. Those previous policies, of course, are not just from this government, but from the government before too.

Tony Hines: 18:30

There's an interesting article I read, which was in Lexington a few weeks ago, and the economist compared Donald Trump with President Putin. They said to defy Trump is to court punishment, or should that be to get punishment in court? A rival politician can expect an investigation, an aggravating network may face a lawsuit, and this week, of course, the New York Times is being sued for libel and defamation. A left-leaning university can bid farewell to its public grants. I think all universities are probably seen as left-wing in the United States because they rely on evidence-based science. Now, those statements in themselves confirm the attack on science, the attack on institutions and if you see it through that lens, then no doubt it's a dangerous strategy. Institutions, and if you see it through that lens, then no doubt it's a dangerous strategy.

Tony Hines: 19:23

Donald Trump in some ways shares similarities with Putin, according to Lexington, and perhaps that's one reason that they have some affinity, but that's not totally clear, because I don't think at the present time President Trump and President Putin are getting along too well. Both President Trump and President Putin are ploughing their own furrow. President Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union, the Soviet bloc, and President Trump is unwittingly, probably helping him to do that. It's about powerful men ruling the world. It's about powerful men ruling the world and not about working to rules and having concerns for ethics.

Tony Hines: 20:13

The South Korean president, lee Jong-un, met Donald Trump recently in the White House and a trade deal was struck. They also discussed the issue of South Korea paying for 28,500 American troops in the country. Mr Trump raised the possibility of taking ownership of Korean land on which the American bases stand. So another land deal for the President. Korea never announced a big order for 103 Boeing planes. The meeting was seen as a success, and it had been feared by South Koreans. I think that their president might be humiliated, as indeed other presidents have been in the past in the Oval Office, but he escaped that one. But he came out unscathed.

Tony Hines: 20:54

The Trump administration was considering taking a 10% stake this week in Intel. Mr Lutnik, america's Commerce Secretary, said the deal would convert the grants that had been given to the firm under the Joe Biden Chips Act into equity. Softbank, a Japanese tech investor, also announced it would invest $2 billion in Intel. The share price rose on the news and it's much relief for Intel. They've come under severe pressure in the past year. They're not doing so well in this chip market, not as well as others at present.

Tony Hines: 21:28

Now lots of information has come out to quarterly reports In recent weeks the NASDAQ fell by about 2.5%. When NVIDIA shares fell around August the 20th, the NVIDIA shares fell by about 2.8% and that brought down the NASDAQ by a significant amount. Palantir, another firm in that sector, fell 12%. So it's a bit of a tough time for tech companies just at the moment, with concerns about asset valuations and what the market looks like in the light of the tariff situation. Us retailer Target has posted a 22% drop in profits year on year in the second quarter. Michael Fidelk, a company insider, is to take over as its boss next year, but it hasn't reassured investors and the company shares fell by about 10%. Of course, target is another big loser with the tariff situation. Retailers are having a really tough time at present trying to manage the uncertainty in the tariff situation and we're about to reach peak. Trade and peak will not be as high this year, but rates on transport and container boxes are well down on what they've been in previous years.

Tony Hines: 22:39

To manage the uncertainty in the tariff situation, blackrock set up a deal of £11 billion to lease natural gas facilities from Bank Aramco. The American asset manager will lease them back to the state-owned energy giant for 20 years in return, and in return, cash will go into the infrastructure from BlackRock, who are eager to attract foreign capital investment. Blackrock, of course, is announcing some other investments this week in the United Kingdom to coincide with President Trump's state visit Chinese tech firm Xiaomi. Their revenues have risen by 31% year-on-year in the second quarter. Earnings from the smartphone business dropped slightly over the period, but the EV unit narrowed its losses to 300 million yuan, that's about $42 million down from 500 million yuan in the previous quarter. Xiaomi is expecting to turn a profit by the end of the year.

Tony Hines: 23:41

Another interesting story this week was about transparency in public financial reporting, and there's been a move by the US administration to float the idea that quarterly reports may not be needed in future. They want to move them to six-monthly reports. That those quarterly reports were introduced with the aim of giving shareholders and external stakeholders more transparency about what's actually happening in companies when it comes to the finances. They didn't want surprises. So to actually go back to a six-month regime, although it will take pressure off businesses creating those quarterly reports, it will, in fact, lead to possibly some matters not being surfaced, and I don't think that's a great thing. I think there should be more openness and more transparency when it comes to financial markets. After all, there's a lot of money at stake for investors and, of course, for the public at large, and risks are greater. So when risks are greater, shouldn't you be reporting more frequently? Not less frequently? I would have thought so. You'll have heard me talk about de minimis many times on Chain Reaction.

Tony Hines: 25:03

Today we're going to unpack this deceptively simple concept with outsized consequences. It's the rule that lets low-value goods enter a country without duties or full customs clearance. But as e-commerce exploded, so did the volume and the fiscal leakage. Now both the United States and the United Kingdom have rethought the rule, and the numbers well, they're staggering. Let's start with the United States. Back in 2012, de minimis imports were barely a rounding error just $50 million. Fast forward to 2024, and they hit $128 billion. That's 4.5% of total US goods imports. Largely excluded from official trade statistics, the $800 threshold allowed frictionless entry for over a billion packages a year, but it also masked the true size of the trade deficit and undermined domestic producers. So in August 2025, the US scrapped it. Now only personal gifts under $100 are exempt. Everything else faces tariffs, duties and full customs clearance. Postal services paused shipments, platforms like Etsy and Shopify scrambled to adjust and SMEs lost key channels to US consumers. Now let's cross the Atlantic. The UK's threshold is lower $135 for customs duties, but it's still significant.

Tony Hines: 26:27

In 23-24, de minimis imports were worth £3.85 billion and last year £5.9 billion A 53% jump. A notional 20% tariff would have raised £1 billion in revenue. But more importantly, the rule is being exploited. Non-compliant goods, vat avoidance and unfair competition are eroding trust. The British Retail Consortium called for reform and in April 2025, the Chancellor launched a formal review. We're expecting policy proposals later in the year. So what does this mean for strategists, exporters and policy makers? It means that the scaffolding of digital trade is shifting.

Tony Hines: 27:11

De Minimis was designed for simplicity, but simplicity at scale becomes opacity. We're seeing a recalibration towards transparency, compliance and fiscal integrity For SMEs. It's a wake-up call. Local fulfilment, trade advisory and customs literacy are no longer optional For educators and analysts. It's a case in systems adaptation how a small rule became a global lever and why it's being pulled. And, of course, big beneficiaries of De Minimis have been some of the Chinese companies selling directly to UK and US consumers Temu and Zian, temu and Shine. De Minimis thresholds were once a footnote. Today they're a headline, and tomorrow there'll be a litmus test for how we balance frictionless trade with fair competition.

Tony Hines: 28:04

In the United States. The policy change to De Minimis comes into effect in the US. The policy change to de minimis came into effect in the United States on the 29th of August. Now the autumn term should be quite interesting.

Tony Hines: 28:22

In the US, there are some interesting appeals court rulings that will be based on tariffs. The US appeals court ruled that most of the tariffs issued by the US president, donald Trump, are illegal, and this has set up a showdown likely to play out in the courts, which could upend his foreign policy agenda. The ruling affects Trump's reciprocal tariffs imposed on most countries around the world. Affects Trump's reciprocal tariffs imposed on most countries around the world, as well as the tariffs placed on China, mexico and Canada. In a 7-4 decision, the US Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit rejected Trump's argument that tariffs are permitted under the Emergency Economic Powers Act, calling them invalid as contrary to law. The ruling won't take place until the 14th of October. That gives the administration some time to ask the Supreme Court to take up the case.

Tony Hines: 29:12

Trump's already been on his truth social, claiming that, if allowed to stand, this decision would likely destroy the United States of America. Well, it's a bit of an over-claim, isn't it? We don't think so, do we? He always over-claims, of course, so we have to take this with a pinch of salt. If these tariffs ever went away, it would be a total disaster for the country. It would make us financially weak, and we have to be strong. Well, it's the usual tirade from Trump when he doesn't like something, of course, just to take up the argument in some ways, what makes countries great is their ability to innovate, create, produce, make goods and produce those goods and, of course, to trade successfully with other nations and, of course, create stability and be ethical in your dealings. If tariffs, of course, are your only strategy to run an economy, then I'm afraid you're going to be very disappointed, and history tells us that the markets will probably be pleased that Trump's tariffs could possibly be set aside, particularly those reciprocal tariffs. But no doubt there'll be a referral to the US Supreme Court and we'll find out what happens in those courts after October.

Tony Hines: 30:28

The 14th Also headed for the Supreme Court another legal fight over the independence of the Federal Reserve. They're expected to announce a small interest rate cut this week. With all the pressure that's been heaved on them, trump has made tariffs a pillar of US policy in his second term, using them to exert political pressure and to renegotiate various trade deals with countries that export to the United States. Bypassing the World Trade Organization, which is the usual route for tariff negotiations. The Trump administration have extracted economic concessions from trading partners, but they've also tipped the world economy into a volatile economy with greater risks, much greater risks, for both the United States and all the global partners. He expects to reverse this decision with the help of the Supreme Court to overturn his tariffs, and some see this as a tactic to bully them into a reversal.

Tony Hines: 31:23

But we know that Trump likes taking risks and we know that he doesn't always play by the rules.

Tony Hines: 31:29

Trump claimed that the decision was highly partisan and that's because the makeup of the particular court had six judges appointed by Democratic presidents in the majority and two judges who dissented, while Republican presidents appointed just one judge in the majority and two dissenters. So that's why he says it's partisan, because he thinks it's well, the cards are against him. I suppose that's the message, but I think many legal judges are far more fair-minded than perhaps the president himself can accept. He thinks everybody plays like he does, booking the rules. The judges noted that Trump's unprecedented tariffs are an overstep of his power, because the ability to impose taxes, including tariffs, is a core congressional power that the Constitution grants to the legislative branch, not the executive. The International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not authorise tariffs like the ones Trump used the law for. Earlier in the year, the Federal Circuit had said in an unsigned opinion that they'd rule against Trump's tariffs, and now it's been ratified by the Supreme Court, so watch this space.