近期发展显示的是部分退让而非全面政策逆转：在最新一周，政府透过限制产品清单扩张并给予豁免，著手回撤部分钢铁与铝措施，且亦准备了与台积电相关客户（如亚马逊、Google、Microsoft）挂钩的大型半导体排除条款。与此同时，平行的双边谈判被描述为一个以虚张声势为主的阶段，伙伴预期华盛顿希望降低关税，因此试图以有限让步换取缓解。印度在 2 周前宣布协议后即体现此一模式：美国将关税减免与降低俄罗斯石油采购相连结，而印度仅表示将逐步分散来源，并强调商业采购决策由企业掌握，使得尽管有头条承诺，落实仍存在模糊性。
文章的主要统计与战略警示在于，与正式公告相比，法律、政治与执法层面的不确定性可能更主导结果。最高法院一项待定的时间表可能突然改变行政部门的关税授权，削弱在现有假设下谈成的协议，而是否重新施加仍将需要政治意志。数值锚点凸显杠杆不均：印度的惩罚性税率为25%，据报日本承诺对美国投资550bn，且具有更明确的衡量义务，而国会距离达成可持久推翻所需的2/3门槛仍相当遥远。整体趋势是：关税政策似乎正从最大化升级转向选择性豁免与谈判式稀释，但在合规性、可信度与后续落实方面仍具有高波动性。
The article argues that US politics may have reached “peak tariff” in 2026, with President Donald Trump’s import taxes becoming broadly unpopular across parties, businesses, and consumers. A key political signal came when the House followed earlier Senate resistance and passed measures to challenge emergency tariff use, including Canada-related IEEPA actions, although a full reversal still faces the high constitutional hurdle of veto-proof 2/3 majorities in both chambers. The core context is that tariff incidence is now widely framed as domestic, with US firms and households paying more, not foreign exporters, and this shift is changing the political cost-benefit calculus around trade protection.
Recent developments show partial retreat rather than full policy reversal: in the latest week, the administration moved to roll back parts of steel and aluminum measures by limiting product-list expansion and granting exemptions, and it also prepared large semiconductor carve-outs tied to TSMC-linked customers such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. Parallel bilateral bargaining is described as a bluff-heavy phase in which partners expect Washington wants lower tariffs and therefore try to trade limited concessions for relief. India illustrates this pattern after a deal announced 2 weeks earlier: the US linked tariff relief to reduced Russian oil purchases, while India signaled only gradual diversification and emphasized that commercial buying decisions sit with companies, creating implementation ambiguity despite headline commitments.
The article’s main statistical and strategic cautions are that legal, political, and enforcement uncertainty may dominate outcomes more than formal announcements. A pending Supreme Court timetable could abruptly alter executive tariff authority, weakening deals negotiated under current assumptions, while reimposition decisions would still require political will. Numerical anchors highlight uneven leverage: India’s punitive rate was 25%, Japan reportedly committed $550bn of US investment with clearer measurement obligations, and Congress remains far from the 2/3 thresholds needed for durable override. Overall trend: tariff policy appears to be moving from maximal escalation toward selective exemptions and negotiated dilution, but with high volatility in compliance, credibility, and follow-through.