The current US tariff policy has become a focal point of the global trade order, signaling a restructuring of the international economic system established after World War II. The global trade regime is shifting from multilateral cooperation to a landscape increasingly defined by economic and geopolitical competition. The US domestic law is increasingly replacing multilateral mechanisms such as the WTO as the primary legal point at issue and center of gravity influencing and shaping the global trade order. In this transitional phase of order reconstruction, East Asian enterprises should allocate resources to closely monitor geopolitical developments, the US domestic politics, legal frameworks, and ideological trends. They should also establish mechanisms for geopolitical risk management and prioritize risk management over business expansion as a core strategic principle. However, this is not entirely negative; the new research, understanding, and strategic adjustments undertaken by enterprises may lay a deeper foundation for the next wave of globalization.

The US is in conflict with China over various trade issues. Although both countries agreed to temporarily suspend tariffs for the next 90 days, this trend is expected to continue after then. New related to tariffs has been a daily occurrence in the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, and yet a gap remains between the US and China that is difficult to bridge. This seems to stem from the fact that President Trump wants to “Make America Great Again” with a vengeance. In addition to implementing a new tariff system, the US seems to be moving towards supporting “strong patents” to safeguard intellectual property rights. These policies will significantly impact both the US and other nations worldwide. This article explores the external developments in the aftermath of the US presidential election and reviews current issues related to intellectual property in the US, focusing on tariff imposition and the prevailing emphasis on strong patent rights.

Under Trump and Biden, the US trade policy has veered away from its traditional approach, developed since World War II, from multilateralism to focusing primarily on national and unilateral concerns. At the center of this approach have been tensions with China. This includes a renewal of industrial policies, protectionism and, most importantly, reliance on national security, manifested by newer and unexpected geopolitical developments. The discussion of trade policy today has become very toxic, especially during this presidential campaign season, with its renewed focus on tariffs. The trade debate in the US is now entering a new stage with the nomination of Kamala Harris and J.D. Vance. I believe the US drift away from the postwar policies of promoting global trade and investment will continue. Nationalist and protectionist policies will continue as part of a new economic and industrial policy, fused with national security concerns and rhetoric, no matter who wins.

The US has invoked Article XXI of the GATT 1994 to justify its tariff measures on imports of steel and aluminum. However, the US’ tariff measures are not imposed for the protection of the US “essential security interests” but for economic and trade reasons. They do not satisfy the conditions listed under Article XXI (b) (i) to (iii) and should not be justified by them. They should not be considered as either national security measures or safeguard measures, but as ordinary trade restriction measures that are inconsistent with the WTO rules and the US obligations. A panel or the Appellate Body not only has the jurisdiction to review this dispute, but is also capable of making findings and providing a recommendation. Even if the US has the discretion to impose tariff measures under Article XXI (b), whether it has been acted in good faith, is still subject to the WTO review. As regards the tariff measures, the US has not acted in good faith.

Many are crying foul over the Trump Administration’s use of steel and aluminum tariffs, claiming that imports are not a threat to the US national security. Rather, it has been argued that the tariffs are a pretext to gain strategic advantage in unrelated trade negotiations. Members of the Trump administration have hailed subsequent trade concessions as proof that the tariffs have been successful, which, if proven, could raise a credible question as to whether the President exceeded the scope of his authority. Domestic and international challenges have already begun with the US courts being a more effective forum to the challenge the legality of the tariffs than the WTO.

With the continuous development of northeast Asian integration, the establishment of free trade zones between China, Japan and South Korea has become a development trend. This paper USES the GTAP model to simulate the changes and impacts brought by the reduction of agricultural tariffs in the free trade zones of China, Japan and South Korea on agricultural trade. The research results show that: first, the gradual reduction of tariff barriers for agricultural products of China, Japan and Korea will have a greater trade effect on China; Second, the creation effect of China-south Korea trade is far greater than that of China and Japan. Third, the reduction of agricultural tariffs will promote the growth of the overall economic aggregate of the three countries and change the terms of trade.