The battle over tariffs: first the stop then the cancellation. Here is what is happening

The rejection on global reciprocal tariffs - suspended on appeal - came from a three-judge panel of the Manhattan-based Court of International Trade: Trump - according to the ruling - went beyond his powers as president by imposing generalised, and therefore illegal, import duties. According to the judges - two of whom were appointed by conservative presidents, Trump himself and Ronald Reagan - the Constitution gives Congress exclusive authority to regulate trade with other countries, and this authority is not overridden by the emergency powers invoked by the president to safeguard the US economy.

"The duty measures are impermissible not because they are senseless or ineffective, but because federal law does not permit them," the judges wrote in their ruling, issued Wednesday night. At issue is therefore Liberation Day, proclaimed by Trump on 2 April to impose so-called reciprocal duties on trading partners accused of exploiting the US.

The Federal Trade Court explicitly rejected the White House's unprecedented use of a 1977 law allowing for the declaration of national emergencies caused by extraordinary threats to national security, foreign policy and the economy, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to legitimise the tariffs.

The ruling followed two lawsuits, one brought by the Liberty justice centre on behalf of five small US companies affected by import duties, the other brought by 12 US states. The judges' decision also invalidated the duties imposed on Canada, Mexico and China, invoking border security, against migrant flows and fentanyl trafficking. It did not cover duties introduced in specific sectors, such as those on steel imports, aluminium and car imports.

Trump and his people have been given almost two weeks by the D.C. Court of Appeals to counter (and are prepared to go to the Supreme Court in the future). "If anyone thinks they caught us by surprise, they are sorely mistaken. Nothing has changed, ready with more tariffs,' Navarro relaunched. While Hassett let it be known that 'bilateral negotiations are proceeding' and stated that there are 'alternative measures' on trade.

The governments of many partner countries and the EU leadership preferred not to comment on the matter. The president, even in case of a final rejection, is still left with at least four options to insist on trade wars. He can impose tariffs of up to 15% for up to 150 days to deal with a balance of payments deficit (according to the Trade Act of 1974). It can hit imports in specific sectors (Trade Expansion Act of 1962), as already threatened for pharmaceuticals and semiconductors, and as already decided for chip and technology trade with China. And he can introduce 50% tariffs (Trade Act of 1930) against countries that discriminate against the US. More difficult for Trump to venture into investigations that would allow him to impose unlimited duties, but would take months (again under the Trade Act of 1974).

Donald Trump hopes to be proven right by the courts. But he certainly does not intend to change his strategy on international trade.