AUGUST 30 — When the United States Court of Appeals ruled that former president Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to justify punitive tariffs was legally unsound, many in foreign capitals briefly rejoiced.

The verdict, hailed in some quarters as a vindication of the global trading order, was seen as a reminder that even in the most powerful democracy, the rule of law can still clip the wings of executive overreach.

Yet that optimism is premature.

For one, Trump has made a career out of defying institutional checks, bending and twisting them until they lose meaning.

His leadership style is defined by an instinct to stretch presidential authority through executive orders, daring courts and Congress to stop him.

Even when judicial pushback arrives, it is often too late: the policies have already reshaped trade, politics, and global supply chains.

The Tariff Maze

Tariffs were the linchpin of Trump’s economic nationalism—wielded not as a carefully calibrated policy tool but as a blunt weapon. Steel, aluminum, semiconductors, even agricultural commodities—all became bargaining chips in his pursuit of “America First.”

The recent appellate ruling does not dismantle the tariff architecture he built; it merely challenges the legal scaffolding on which some of his measures rested.

But Trump has never been one to retreat when courts intervene. Instead, he relishes the battle. Appeals, counter-appeals, procedural delays—these are all part of his method.

Far from chastening him, legal defeats fuel his narrative that the establishment is conspiring to block his defense of American workers. His supporters embrace the fight as proof that he alone has the courage to disrupt the system.

Executive Defiance

Historically, American presidents have tested the boundaries of executive power, but few have done so with the sheer persistence of Trump.

From immigration bans to pandemic mandates to the deployment of tariffs, he has consistently favored sweeping executive action over consensus-driven governance.

For Trump, courts are not arbiters of constitutional limits but adversaries in a perpetual contest of wills.

This approach ensures that legal challenges provide no real relief for other countries caught in his tariff net. Even if one set of tariffs is struck down, another is rolled out under a different guise.

Commerce Department reviews, national security justifications, emergency declarations—Trump’s toolbox is deep.

Allies and adversaries alike find themselves whipsawed by new rules, often announced via press conference or social media, leaving little predictability for global trade.

The Futility of Legal Victories Abroad

Foreign governments should therefore resist the temptation to interpret this appellate ruling as a turning point.

In practice, trade partners have learned that favorable verdicts in U.S. courts do not translate into policy reversals at the White House.

At best, they slow the machinery of tariff enforcement; at worst, they provoke Trump into doubling down.

This was evident during his first term, when China, Canada, and the European Union lodged complaints at the World Trade Organization.

Even as panels ruled against aspects of Trump’s measures, his administration either ignored the verdicts or stalled compliance indefinitely.

The message was unmistakable: international law and domestic legal checks alike are obstacles to be circumvented, not respected.

The Political Economy of Defiance

Why does Trump persist? Because tariffs are not simply economic instruments; they are political theater.

They allow him to project toughness, punish rivals, and rally domestic constituencies disillusioned with globalization.

Court rulings may declare his methods illegal, but they do not erode the political payoff of being seen as a fighter against unfair trade.

Moreover, Trump has mastered the art of converting legal setbacks into campaign fuel. Each ruling against him becomes evidence that elites are thwarting his mission.

Appeals and counter-appeals keep controversies alive, feeding media cycles and sustaining his persona as a warrior against entrenched systems.

Global Implications

For the rest of the world, this creates a conundrum. How does one engage with an America whose trade policy is not governed by law or multilateral norms, but by one man’s improvisational style? Negotiating with Trump means accepting that agreements can be torn up overnight, tariffs imposed at will, and legal victories rendered hollow by executive fiat.

ASEAN economies, in particular, should take note. Malaysia, Vietnam, and Indonesia have all sought carve-outs or exemptions from Trump’s tariff blitz.

But as this court case shows, even if the legal ground under his tariffs crumbles, the practical effect is negligible. Supply chains are rerouted, investors hesitate, and long-term planning is impossible.

No Southeast Asian government can afford to bet its economic future on the assumption that U.S. courts will rein in Trump’s impulses.

The Illusion of Restraint

It is tempting to view the judiciary as the last line of defense against protectionist excess.

In theory, the separation of powers is meant to ensure that no president can unilaterally redraw the contours of global trade.

But Trump’s tenure illustrates that legal checks are slow, reactive, and often toothless in the face of determined executive defiance.

By the time a ruling arrives, the damage has already been done to markets and diplomacy.

In that sense, Trump has redefined the presidency as a vehicle for ceaseless confrontation—with Congress, with the courts, with allies, and with adversaries.

The appellate ruling on tariffs is but another skirmish in this ongoing battle, one that he is unlikely to concede.

Conclusion: No Relief in Sight

The global community should therefore view this decision not as an endpoint but as a waypoint in the endless loop of legal challenges and executive counter-moves.

Trump thrives in such an environment, where ambiguity and confrontation reinforce his political brand.

For countries hoping for respite, the verdict offers none.

The tariff front remains as volatile as ever, subject to the whims of a president who sees legal rebuke not as deterrence but as motivation.

The courts can declare his measures illegal; Trump will simply repackage them, reissue them, and reframe them as battles worth fighting.

In this legal loop-a-loop, the only certainty is uncertainty itself. And that may be Trump’s greatest weapon of all.

• Phar Kim Beng, PhD is the Professor of Asean Studies at International Islamic University of Malaysia and Director of Institute of Internationalisation and Asean Studies (IINTAS).

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.