The US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Trump-era emergency tariffs has altered the optics of leverage in China-US trade talks. While the ruling narrows Washington’s tactical flexibility, Beijing’s restrained response suggests it sees opportunity but not a decisive shift. Rather than escalate, China appears to be prioritizing policy continuity and strategic stability.
The US Supreme Court’s decision to strike down President Donald Trump’s IEEPA-based emergency tariffs has reshaped the leverage debate in ongoing trade negotiations with China, but it hasn’t fundamentally altered the balance of power.The ruling halts tariffs tied to fentanyl and “reciprocal” duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which removes one of the White House’s fastest escalation tools. Some Chinese analysts argue that this weakens Washington’s hand ahead of further talks, especially if agricultural purchases such soybeans again become part of the negotiations. The Trump administration has temporarily lost a means of swift counteractions.
Beijing has not framed the decision as a victory.
On Tuesday, China’s Ministry of Commerce, or Mofcom, said it was “closely assessing” US measures and reiterated its opposition to unilateral tariffs. China also indicated that it may adjust its corresponding countermeasures (see here).
Mofcom said China is prepared to hold candid discussions during the upcoming sixth round of trade consultations, with the date yet to be announced.
In a separate statement Wednesday responding to US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer’s Section 301 review of China’s compliance with the bilateral Phase One trade agreement, the ministry defended Beijing’s record. Mofcom said China had “seriously fulfilled” its obligations despite multiple unfavorable factors, citing progress on intellectual property protection, financial-sector opening and agricultural market access.
The ministry urged Washington not to shift blame and warned that China would safeguard its interests if new tariffs follow.
— Strategic stability —
The court ruling reinforces the argument that US trade policy is vulnerable to domestic legal and political shifts. That uncertainty may complicate long-term economic arrangements and strengthen Beijing’s case for clearer, more durable commitments in trade.
Yet Washington’s tariff authority is being redirected rather than dismantled. US officials have already turned to Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, while investigations under Sections 301 continue. Future actions could be more sector-specific, potentially delivering more targeted pressure on China’s development trajectory (see here and here).
Such measures would likely be narrower but potentially harder to unwind. Emergency tariffs created broad pressure but were politically reversible. Targeted actions tied to specific industries may embed longer-term constraints on China. Measures aimed at semiconductors, AI-related technologies or critical supply chains embed themselves in regulatory frameworks that outlast individual administrations.
Against that backdrop, both governments appear to be operating within a phase of “strategic stability,” meaning steady relations alongside efforts to reduce vulnerabilities in supply chains and critical technologies.
— Broader policy direction —
China’s draft 15th Five-Year Plan for 2026–2030 places expanded high-level opening at the center of its economic strategy. In a January policy address, Commerce Minister Wang Wentao said China would diversify trade partners, expand domestic consumption and accelerate the development of services trade during the new planning cycle. He framed openness as a structural driver of modernization rather than a tactical concession.
China’s five-year planning framework provides a defined long-term policy horizon. For trading partners, that architecture signals continuity. Market access, services liberalization and consumption expansion are presented as multi-year commitments rather than short-term bargaining tools.
After recording a record trade surplus last year, China launched a new campaign branded “Export to China,” aimed at encouraging more countries to sell into the Chinese market. The Commerce Ministry said the program will include more than 100 promotional events in 2026 and is designed to expand imports and promote trade balance (see here).
The timing is notable. Rather than leveraging surplus strength for pressure, Beijing is emphasizing demand expansion and import growth. The initiative signals reassurance to trade partners at a moment of geopolitical tension.
None of this suggests that structural rivalry is easing. Export controls, investment screening and technology rivalry remain embedded in the China-US economic relationship.
Beijing’s trajectory, however, points toward restraint and internal development rather than escalation. In a trade environment shaped by legal uncertainty in Washington, China appears to be betting that predictability itself can function as leverage.
— Analysis by Emily Liu.
Please email editors@mlex.com to contact the editorial staff regarding this story, or to submit the names of lawyers and advisers.