Trump Tariff Constitutionality Lawsuit Enters First Hearing
Key Issue: Whether IEEPA Was Abused to Exceed Presidential Authority
Preliminary Ruling by Court of International Trade Expected This Month

In what could become a defining moment in U.S. trade and constitutional law, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) has launched a judicial inquiry into whether former President Donald Trump's tariff policies violated the law. At the heart of this legal storm are allegations that the Trump administration circumvented Congress to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs on imports—actions that plaintiffs argue were not only unconstitutional but economically disruptive. As lawsuits from private companies, state governments, and advocacy groups converge in federal courtrooms, the prospect of a court ruling against the administration threatens to paralyze trade negotiations with more than 60 countries and cast uncertainty over America's global economic partnerships.

Legal Firestorm Over IEEPA and Executive Authority

The focal point of the legal battle is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 statute that grants the U.S. president extraordinary powers during times of national crisis. Designed to respond to “unusual and extraordinary threats” to the country’s security or economy, the law has traditionally been invoked for matters like terrorism or financial sanctions—not for trade policy. Nevertheless, President Trump declared a national emergency and invoked the IEEPA to justify the imposition of steep tariffs on imported goods, bypassing Congress in the process.

On May 13, a panel of three CIT judges convened in Manhattan to hear the first arguments in lawsuits brought by five U.S. businesses. These companies contend that Trump’s interpretation of IEEPA was “arbitrary” and amounted to an abuse of presidential authority. They argue that the national emergency declared by Trump had no genuine basis, calling it a "product of imagination" designed solely to provide a legal facade for aggressive trade maneuvering.

Legal scholars and policymakers alike have raised concerns about the precedent this could set. If a president can declare an economic emergency at will and take unilateral trade action without congressional oversight, the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches may be fundamentally altered. The plaintiffs are pushing back against this notion, urging the court to invalidate the tariffs and restore what they argue is a constitutionally required process.

Adding fuel to the fire, twelve U.S. states—led by New York—filed their own lawsuit with the CIT on April 23, claiming similar constitutional violations. These states include a mix of Democratic strongholds like California and Illinois, as well as Republican-governed but moderate states like Nevada and Vermont. Their bipartisan participation highlights the widespread concern over the potential erosion of legislative authority.

Separately, California Governor Gavin Newsom filed a federal case in the Northern District of California, asserting that the tariffs amounted to a massive and unauthorized tax increase. “President Trump unilaterally imposed one of the largest tax increases in our lifetime through destructive and unauthorized tariffs,” Newsom wrote on social media. A long-time political adversary of Trump and a rising figure in the Democratic Party, Newsom emphasized the harm to California's economy, which stands as one of the world's largest and most trade-dependent.

Tariffs Continue as Legal Pressure Builds

Despite the growing number of legal challenges, the tariffs remain in force. On April 22, the CIT rejected a request by the plaintiffs to suspend the tariffs during the course of the trial. The court determined that the businesses had failed to demonstrate immediate and irreparable harm—despite assertions that rising import costs were disrupting operations and inflating prices.

This means that while litigation proceeds, U.S. importers and consumers continue to bear the financial burden of tariffs, even as their legality remains in question. The continued enforcement of these trade measures has raised frustration among many affected sectors, especially given the potential for the court to eventually rule them unconstitutional.

A preliminary ruling from the CIT is expected later this month. According to Politico, if the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs and declares the Trump-era tariffs illegal, the Biden administration may be forced to halt ongoing trade negotiations with more than 60 countries. Such a disruption would have immediate consequences for America’s economic diplomacy. Politico warned that "Trump’s tariff war, regardless of cooperation from negotiating countries, could come to an abrupt halt by the end of this month,” adding that a ruling against the administration could severely stall or derail global trade talks.

If the government chooses to appeal the ruling, the case could ascend to the U.S. Court of Appeals, and possibly the Supreme Court, turning the legal saga into a landmark constitutional dispute. Such an outcome would not only delay the resolution of current trade tensions but could also define the limits of presidential trade powers for future administrations.

Meanwhile, the litigation continues to expand. The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), a conservative legal nonprofit, filed suit on May 3 challenging tariffs on Chinese imports. Similarly, a small business, supported by a civil rights group, brought another case in Florida targeting the same trade measures. Even the Blackfoot Nation, a Native American tribe, has entered the fray, contesting the tariffs imposed on Canadian goods. Across these lawsuits, the core argument is consistent: the Trump administration overstepped its constitutional bounds, misused emergency powers, and inflicted widespread economic harm in the process.

Trade Winners and Losers Begin to Emerge

As the legal proceedings sow uncertainty, countries that managed to reach trade agreements with the Trump administration before the lawsuits erupted are now reaping relative benefits—while those still in negotiations face an unclear future.

The United Kingdom is among the few success stories. It secured agreements to substantially reduce tariffs on key industrial exports like automobiles, steel, and aluminum. The trade pact has allowed the UK to regain some competitive footing in the U.S. market.

China, despite being at the center of Trump’s trade war, negotiated a dramatic de-escalation. The two countries agreed to cut mutual tariffs from over 100% to below 30%, while China pledged to expand imports of American goods and improve market access. These concessions helped calm tensions and stabilize bilateral trade.

Japan, on the other hand, finds itself in a less favorable position. Although it completed a second round of ministerial talks with the U.S., no concrete reductions in key tariffs—especially on automobiles—have been secured. This leaves Japanese exporters at a disadvantage and exposes them to the continued volatility of U.S. trade policy.

The uncertainty stemming from the lawsuits and the potential court ruling has already had a chilling effect on some negotiations, with both foreign governments and American industries growing wary of entering new trade deals that might soon be rendered obsolete or invalidated.

The court’s decision, expected within weeks, could alter the trajectory of U.S. trade policy for years to come. At stake is not just the legality of a specific set of tariffs, but the future balance of power between the executive branch and Congress, and the very integrity of the constitutional process that governs American economic policy.

Growing Use of Stablecoins Raises Concerns Over Undermining Financial System Stability
Though useful as a means of payment, stablecoins are vulnerable to market shocks and questions persist over the credibility of issuing institutions.
Unlike typical virtual assets, there is a growing need for stronger regulatory oversight.

As global financial systems tighten their grip on digital assets, the future of stablecoins — cryptocurrencies designed to maintain a steady value — is growing increasingly complex. In the United States, controversy surrounding former President Donald Trump’s personal ventures into crypto has added fuel to the fire. What could have been a decisive moment for federal oversight of stablecoins instead turned into a political deadlock, revealing deeper concerns about ethics, regulation, and the direction of digital finance.

Political Fallout Over Trump’s Crypto Ties Sinks GENIUS Act

On May 12, the U.S. Senate failed to pass the much-anticipated GENIUS Act, a bill intended to establish federal regulations for stablecoins. Although the bill incorporated Democratic demands — including stronger anti-money laundering (AML) provisions — opposition from within the party ultimately blocked its passage. Nine Democratic Senators retracted their support, citing the need for tougher actions on AML enforcement, oversight of foreign issuers, and protection of national security.

What shifted their stance? The growing discomfort over President Trump’s direct involvement in cryptocurrency ventures. Delaware Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester openly questioned Trump’s financial entanglements, while Senator Jeff Merkley warned that allowing people to buy cryptocurrencies controlled by the President to gain influence amounted to “a deeply corrupt system.” Merkley added that such dynamics not only posed a threat to national security but also damaged public trust in government.

Trump had launched a meme coin called “OfficialTrump” ($TRUMP) just before taking office in January. More recently, he sparked backlash by announcing that major holders of this coin would be invited to a White House dinner. Critics, including Senator Richard Blumenthal, slammed this move as a clear example of quid pro quo. Representative Elissa Slotkin, who authored the Cryptocurrency Corruption Prevention Act, emphasized the urgency of preventing presidents from profiting through self-issued digital coins.

Further complicating matters, Trump’s family-run crypto firm, World Liberty Financial (WLFI), is reportedly planning a $2 billion investment in Binance with Abu Dhabi-based MGX. According to Chainalysis, the creators of the OfficialTrump coin have already collected over $320 million in transaction fees — adding even more weight to concerns over ethical boundaries and unchecked personal enrichment through crypto.

Dark Stablecoins Rise as Regulatory Pressures Mount

While political controversy brews in Washington, a different storm is gathering on the global front. As governments around the world move to implement tighter rules on stablecoins, experts predict a growing demand for “dark stablecoins” — privacy-focused alternatives that resist government oversight.

CryptoQuant CEO Ki Young Ju explained that government-issued stablecoins will soon face regulations akin to traditional banks, including automated tax collection through smart contracts, wallet freezes, and strict documentation requirements. In response, users who rely on stablecoins for large-scale international remittances may seek less regulated alternatives. These "dark" or private stablecoins — potentially based on algorithmic models rather than asset-backed reserves — offer a path to circumvent surveillance and maintain transactional autonomy.

Ju pointed to decentralized stablecoins that use data oracles like Chainlink to mirror regulated assets such as USDC, as well as stablecoins issued by countries that avoid financial censorship. He also floated a scenario in which Tether (USDT) refuses to comply with U.S. regulations under a Trump administration, stating that this could further entrench its role as a dark stablecoin. “USDT has often been regarded as a censorship-resistant stablecoin,” Ju remarked. “If Tether opts out of U.S. compliance, it could thrive in a future internet economy that is increasingly monitored.”

Central Banks Respond with New Regulatory Blueprints

The global regulatory response has already begun. The European Union has enacted the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), requiring greater transparency from crypto service providers and placing stablecoin issuers under strict scrutiny. As a result, European users are increasingly shifting toward newly compliant stablecoins rather than riskier options like Tether.

South Korea is also accelerating its regulatory efforts. With national elections approaching and phase-two virtual asset legislation gaining momentum, the Bank of Korea (BOK) is asserting itself more forcefully. In its 2024 Payment and Settlement Report, the central bank stressed that stablecoins — unlike other virtual assets — are now widely circulated as payment tools. If used as substitutes for legal tender, they could undermine monetary policy, financial stability, and payment systems. Hence, the BOK argues that a dedicated regulatory framework is urgently needed.

On May 12, the BOK called for the legal authority to approve stablecoin issuers, emphasizing the risk that widespread adoption of won-pegged stablecoins could decrease demand for the Korean won and severely disrupt monetary policy. It further insisted that central banks must intervene at the approval stage to minimize these potential threats.

Looking ahead, the BOK envisions a comprehensive digital finance ecosystem encompassing central bank digital currency (CBDC), deposit tokens, and stablecoins — all integrated under its policy framework. “We must build a stable and sustainable digital payment ecosystem from the ground up,” the BOK concluded, reinforcing its commitment to safeguarding national monetary systems in the age of decentralized finance.

“TWG Formed with 53 Trillion Won in Personal Wealth from Thomas Tull and Mark Walter”
xAI Teams Up with TWG and Palantir to Launch AI Tools for Financial Data
Accelerating Financial Innovation with Supercomputer Technology

As artificial intelligence reshapes industries worldwide, two American billionaires are forging a bold new path in finance—one where decisions are powered by data, algorithms, and adaptive systems. Thomas Tull, former CEO of Legendary Pictures, and Mark Walter, principal owner of the LA Dodgers and CEO of Guggenheim Partners, have joined forces to launch TWG Global, a holding company designed to redefine investment through AI integration.

Their vision is not simply to fund AI technologies—but to build an investment firm whose foundation is artificial intelligence itself. Backed by nearly $15 billion (approximately 21 trillion KRW) in capital, TWG aims to drive innovation across sectors including finance, defense, and sports, setting a new standard for how capital, technology, and strategy converge in the digital era.

TWG Secures Investment from UAE’s Mubadala, One of the Nation’s Top 3 Sovereign Wealth Funds

TWG Global was officially established on May 6, following the consolidation of a combined $40 billion capital pool by Tull and Walter. Just days later, TWG announced that it had nearly completed its fundraising—thanks largely to a $10 billion (approximately 14.15 trillion KRW) preferred equity investment from Mubadala Capital, a key branch of the United Arab Emirates’ top three sovereign wealth funds. As part of this deepening alliance, TWG also plans to acquire a 5% stake in Mubadala Capital, aligning itself with the UAE’s long-term strategy of economic diversification.

Mubadala’s involvement is more than financial—it is strategic. As the UAE pushes to reduce its dependence on oil, the fund is aggressively expanding into industries such as AI, semiconductors, life sciences, smart infrastructure, and healthcare. Mubadala’s expansion has been supported through arms like the Abu Dhabi Investment Council (ADIC) and MGX, a tech investment subsidiary focusing on AI and chip technologies.

In 2024, Mubadala Capital led all sovereign wealth funds globally in investment volume, allocating $29.2 billion (approximately 41.3 trillion KRW)—a 67% year-on-year increase, as reported by Global SWF. This surge far outpaced the global average increase of 7% and reinforces Mubadala’s conviction in future-oriented technologies like AI. For TWG, this support provides a powerful combination of capital, credibility, and long-term alignment with one of the world’s most aggressive strategic investors.

TWG and Palantir Form AI Joint Venture for Financial Services

With a strong financial base secured, TWG has turned to execution—starting with a strategic joint venture announced in March with Palantir Technologies, a leader in enterprise data analytics and AI infrastructure. This collaboration, still in its early stages, aims to develop AI-powered financial analytics tools targeted at banking, investment management, insurance, and other financial services.

The venture is the result of a year of quiet collaboration between TWG and Palantir, during which AI capabilities were embedded into TWG’s portfolio companies. The new initiative seeks to transition institutions from fragmented data usage to comprehensive, AI-integrated enterprise systems. Palantir, which supports government agencies including the CIA and global corporations, brings its analytical expertise and strong financial footing—as highlighted by InvestingPro—to power this transformation.

Adding to the strength of this alliance is the participation of xAI, the AI company founded by Tesla CEO Elon Musk. xAI is contributing its Grok large language models (LLMs) for rapid, large-scale data analysis and the Colossus supercomputer for real-time processing. Grok will handle functions like financial market forecasting and risk analysis, while Colossus will support live trade evaluation and predictive modeling—together creating a high-speed, intelligent infrastructure for next-generation financial services.

The synergy among these players—TWG, Palantir, and xAI—signals a major evolution. Their goal is not merely to modernize financial systems, but to embed real-time intelligence directly into operational processes, enabling institutions to respond faster, forecast more accurately, and manage risk with unprecedented agility.

TWG Leads Solution Design and Deployment

TWG’s role in this collaboration is not limited to capital or strategy—it is also taking the lead in developing and deploying customized AI solutions. Unlike generic technology rollouts, TWG works directly with executives at client companies to design systems tailored to the realities of specific industries. This bespoke approach ensures that AI is integrated into the operational heart of organizations—not bolted on as an afterthought.

This belief—that artificial intelligence must be central to business, not peripheral—is shared across TWG’s partners. According to Palantir CEO Alex Karp, the majority of financial institutions have not yet had the opportunity to fully harness AI’s capabilities. He emphasized that embedding AI into operations can help institutions achieve faster, more relevant outcomes for their customers, while also delivering far greater societal value.

This strategic vision is already catalyzing momentum. According to Reuters, the TWG-Palantir-xAI alliance is expected to accelerate AI adoption across the financial industry, serving as a model for future integration efforts. Meanwhile, xAI continues to scale its infrastructure ambitions. In March, the company joined a U.S.-based consortium supported by NVIDIA, Microsoft, MGX, and BlackRock, aiming to build and expand national AI infrastructure capabilities.

What started as a partnership between two high-profile billionaires is quickly becoming a cornerstone of the global AI-finance movement. As TWG Global continues to evolve, it stands poised to shape a new standard for intelligent capital—where speed, precision, and adaptive decision-making become essential to how value is created in the 21st century.

China races ahead, casting a shadow over Japan’s battery industry
Strategic overhaul of battery supply chains inevitable
Increasing reliance on imports, with no viable domestic alternatives in Japan

Once hailed as a powerhouse in automotive technology, Japan now faces a sobering turning point: its battery industry, once a symbol of national pride, is steadily losing ground. Major automakers like Nissan and Toyota are no longer investing in domestic battery production, instead redirecting their focus abroad—particularly to the United States. With this shift, Japan appears to be stepping back from its former role as a global leader in battery innovation and stepping into a new one: that of a dependent importer in a rapidly electrifying world.

Panasonic: The Only Japanese Firm Among Global Battery Giants

The unraveling began with Nissan’s decision to cancel its planned EV battery plant in Kitakyushu on Kyushu Island. The facility, which was expected to produce lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, had been scheduled to begin operations by 2028. However, amid weak profitability across the auto sector and a reassessment of investment priorities, the company withdrew from the project.

This setback dealt a significant blow not only to Nissan’s strategy but also to Japan’s national vision for a homegrown battery industry. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) had aimed to expand domestic battery production capacity to 150 GWh annually by 2030, backing roughly 30 related projects with government subsidies. Nissan’s project alone was slated to receive up to 55.7 billion yen (approximately $536.5 million USD) in public support. Its cancellation has thrown into question the feasibility of Japan’s broader industrial goals.

As of now, Panasonic Energy’s joint venture with Subaru is the only major domestic project moving forward. The plant, backed by a 463 billion yen (around $4.45 billion USD) investment, is expected to open in 2027. Yet, despite its progress, industry observers agree that the project is too limited in scale to fill the gap left by Nissan’s departure.

Japan’s presence in the global battery market continues to shrink. In 2024, six of the world’s top ten EV battery producers were Chinese companies, according to SNE Research. CATL retained the top position with a dominant 37.9% market share, making it the industry leader for the eighth consecutive year. In contrast, Panasonic, once a pioneer, was the only Japanese firm to make the list, trailing at sixth place.

Toyota’s Withdrawal Seen as an Effective Surrender of the Battery Industry

The situation worsened when Toyota, Japan’s largest automaker, announced the suspension of its next-generation battery plant in Fukuoka Prefecture earlier this year. The factory, to be built and operated by Toyota Battery—a dedicated production subsidiary—was expected to start operations in 2028. But slower-than-expected growth in the EV market and a flood of inexpensive Chinese batteries into the global supply chain eroded margins, leading Toyota to put the plan on indefinite hold.

The move underscored a painful reality: Japan’s battery sector is faltering in both technology and price competitiveness. Toyota may have presented its decision as a temporary adjustment, but many in the industry see it as a concession to structural weaknesses. Batteries are not merely components—they are strategic resources in the EV economy. For Japan’s largest automaker to put domestic production on hold and instead turn to foreign suppliers is widely seen as a symbolic defeat.

In place of domestic production, Toyota opted to procure approximately $1.5 billion USD worth of batteries from LG Energy Solution’s facility in Lansing, Michigan. This choice not only illustrates the declining capacity of Japan’s manufacturing base but also highlights its growing dependence on external supply chains for even the most essential components. For a country that once led the global automotive industry, the implications are profound.

Industrial Competitiveness in Decline: From Global Player to Mere Buyer

Looking forward, there is little indication that Japan will regain its footing anytime soon. Even if Toyota chooses to expand its battery production, analysts agree it is far more likely to do so in the United States rather than in Japan. The company is already constructing a major factory in North Carolina and is actively considering further expansion. Internally, executives at Toyota have acknowledged that rising EV demand may eventually require expanding the current U.S. facility or even establishing an entirely new one. As part of this planning, they are evaluating multiple regions outside Japan, indicating a clear strategic preference for foreign manufacturing.

This direction suggests a future where Toyota’s core production infrastructure is increasingly anchored in the United States, not in Japan. The company’s mid- to long-term goal is to increase the proportion of electric and hybrid vehicle sales in North America from 50% to 80% by 2030, reinforcing the notion that the U.S. is central to its growth strategy. Although the timing of additional investments will depend on how the market evolves over the next two to three years, the momentum is already shifting away from Japan.

Despite the Japanese government’s continued promotion of EVs as part of a national industrial policy, the country’s private sector is increasingly disengaging. Companies are turning outward, discouraged by high domestic operating costs, uncertain demand forecasts, and a widening technological gap. The growing consensus among industry watchers is that Japan may soon be forced to abandon its “Made in Japan” philosophy in the battery sector altogether.

What was once a symbol of industrial strength is now a cautionary tale. From Nissan’s retreat to Toyota’s pivot and Panasonic’s solitary stand, Japan’s battery industry is confronting a harsh reality: the world has moved forward, and Japan is struggling to keep pace—not as a leader, but as a buyer.

U.S. Tariffs on China Cut from 145% to 30%, China's Tariffs on U.S. Reduced from 125% to 10%
Early Signs of Consumer Spending Slowdown — Impact Could Spread Rapidly if Growth Stalls
Tariffs Hinder Economic Growth and Fail to Reduce Trade Deficit

U.S. President Donald Trump has decided to drastically reduce the high tariffs — up to 145% — previously imposed on Chinese goods. Analysts say this marks a clear limit to Trump’s hardline tariff strategy, as it began placing too much burden on U.S. businesses.

U.S. and China Agree to Cut Tariffs by 115 Percentage Points for 90 Days

On the 12th (local time), President Trump said during a White House press briefing, “They [China] agreed to open up — fully open up,” adding, “I think this will be a very good thing for China.” He also said, “It will also be very good for us and will greatly help integration and peace,” and described the Geneva negotiations as “very friendly,” noting that bilateral relations were strong. “We’re not trying to hurt China,” he added, claiming that “China was suffering significant damage.” Trump also mentioned he could speak with Chinese President Xi Jinping within the week.

During high-level trade talks held since the 10th in Geneva, Switzerland, the U.S. and China agreed to reduce tariffs on each other by 115 percentage points over the next 90 days. Starting on the 14th, the U.S. will lower tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30%, with 20% targeting fentanyl-related products and a base 10% tariff remaining. China will also reduce its tariffs on U.S. products from 125% to 10%. According to the White House, China will also suspend or withdraw non-tariff retaliatory measures imposed on the U.S. since April 2.

This grace period gives both countries more time to negotiate a broader trade deal. President Trump stated that even if a long-term deal isn’t reached during the 90-day window, he won’t raise tariffs back to 145%, though he did warn they “will increase significantly” — possibly above 30%. The Financial Times noted, “Tariff reductions between the U.S. and China came earlier and were steeper than markets expected.”

U.S. and China Settle for Compromise as Their Economies Start to Feel the Pain

After fierce back-and-forth escalation, the global market — rattled by recession fears from the trade war between the world’s two largest economies — responded with cautious relief. The Hong Kong Hang Seng Index, which includes many Chinese firms, surged 3% following the announcement. However, as the tariff cuts are temporary (90 days), uncertainty may rise again depending on future negotiations.

The second round of the U.S.-China trade war began under Trump’s second term when the U.S. imposed an additional 20% tariff in February and March over China’s fentanyl exports. Citing the growing trade deficit, the U.S. slapped a total 125% tariff on all Chinese goods last month — reaching a cumulative 145%. In response, China imposed retaliatory tariffs of 125% on U.S. products and restricted exports of seven rare earth minerals, escalating the standoff to near full trade rupture — until the dramatic compromise.

Previously, on the 9th, Trump had said a tariff level of 80% on China would be “appropriate,” but the newly announced cuts exceeded expectations. What began as a tit-for-tat tariff exchange evolved into a personal contest of pride between Trump and Xi Jinping. However, with rising concerns about the economic fallout — U.S. stock, bond, and currency markets all dropped, and China began seeing manufacturing job risks due to reduced exports — both sides have now agreed to a ceasefire.

"The Biggest Victims Are U.S. Consumers" — Concerns Mount Within America

Experts widely agree that the recent compromise highlights the limitations of President Trump's aggressive trade policies. While the tariff hikes did indeed deal a blow to China, they also had significant side effects within the U.S., such as rising consumer prices and supply chain disruptions. U.S. importers faced the threat of business shutdowns due to soaring costs, while manufacturers worried about the halted supply of critical materials like rare minerals and magnets — areas where they are heavily dependent on China.

There was also growing concern that tariffs on imported goods were being passed on to American consumers in the form of higher prices, which could suppress consumer spending and trigger an economic downturn. In fact, a February report from Yale University's Budget Lab estimated that if the U.S. aligned its tariffs and value-added taxes (VAT) with those of other countries, its effective tariff rate would rise by 13 percentage points and consumer prices would increase by 1.7% to 2.1%.

This inflation would not be limited to new homes and cars but could spread across the entire spectrum of consumer services, including public transportation and finance — placing an even greater burden on low-income households. The Center for American Progress projected that Trump’s tariff policies would cost the average American household an additional $5,200 per year (about 7.37 million KRW).

Moreover, tariffs are unlikely to achieve Trump's ultimate goal of reducing the U.S. trade deficit. They run counter to basic economic principles. The U.S. currently suffers from a massive federal budget deficit and chronic under-saving, which means domestic investment demand can't be met internally. In fact, the U.S. had a net savings shortfall of $971 billion (approx. 1,376 trillion KRW) last year — almost exactly the gap between its $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit and a $300 billion surplus in services.

In this context, foreign capital is filling the gap and investing heavily in U.S. assets — a structural advantage that comes from the U.S. being the issuer of the world's reserve currency and having the largest capital market. Steve Hanke, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, called this a "mechanism that allows consumption beyond production" and criticized Trump for misunderstanding the true nature of the trade deficit. In short, while tariffs may have a temporary effect on reducing imports, they cannot fundamentally solve trade imbalances without an increase in savings or a reduction in investment demand.

Initially insisted on “ceasefire first,”
but shifts stance under pressure from meeting with Trump
Talks to resume on the 15th in Turkey

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has expressed his willingness to hold peace talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, responding to a direct request from U.S. President Donald Trump. As Putin made a surprise offer for direct dialogue and Ukraine conditionally accepted, attention is now focused on whether this could break the deadlock in the stalled peace process.

Zelensky: “I’ll Be Waiting for Putin in Turkey”

According to Reuters on the 12th (local time), President Zelensky announced on X (formerly Twitter) the previous evening, “I’ll be waiting for Putin in Turkey on Thursday (the 15th). In person.” Earlier that day, President Putin had proposed resuming negotiations in Istanbul, Turkey, on the 15th during a press conference. Despite previously declaring a unilateral short-term ceasefire while continuing airstrikes, Putin abruptly showed a conciliatory attitude toward negotiations. In turn, Zelensky responded with a bold counterproposal, raising the stakes to a “summit-level” meeting.

According to Yuri Ushakov, a foreign policy adviser at the Kremlin, the peace talks with Ukraine will consider both the shelved 2022 peace proposals and the current situation. That includes the content of the 2022 Istanbul joint statement and Russia’s ongoing occupation of significant Ukrainian territory.

This suggests that Russia may demand Ukraine not only to reaffirm its neutrality and forgo NATO membership, as outlined in the 2022 talks, but also to officially recognize the territories currently occupied by Russia as Russian land. Despite the failure of the 2022 Istanbul talks, Russia has consistently argued that an agreement is still possible based on the joint statement. Steve Whitkoff, the U.S. special envoy mediating the Ukraine conflict, has also cited the Istanbul statement as a potential roadmap for peace.

European Powers: “Russia Shows No Will for Ceasefire – Sanctions Must Be Strengthened”

Zelensky’s shift came after pressure from President Trump, who posted a message on social media on the 11th urging Zelensky to meet with Putin immediately. This was followed by Zelensky’s announcement of his changed position.

At the same time, the so-called “Weimar Plus Group”—comprising the UK, France, Germany, Poland, Italy, Spain, and the European Union—also called for a full ceasefire by Russia. The group discussed ways to bolster Ukraine’s security and, in a joint statement, declared: “Russia has shown no serious intent to make progress, and a ceasefire must happen immediately.” The group further pledged to implement strict measures to weaken Russia’s war capability, including tightening import restrictions on the Kremlin, cracking down on shadow fleets, reinforcing the oil price cap, and reducing imports of Russian energy.

French President Emmanuel Macron stated that Kyiv has repeatedly shown willingness to make concessions in order to reach a difficult but sustainable peace. Speaking to reporters, Macron said, “If President Putin genuinely wants peace, we are ready to respond accordingly. If not, stronger sanctions must be imposed.” UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy echoed this sentiment, saying in London: “Now is the time for President Putin to take peace, ceasefire, and real negotiations in Europe seriously.”

If Putin and Zelensky Meet, It Would Be the First Time in 5 Years and 5 Months

With high-stakes maneuvering between the three parties, all eyes are on whether the May 15 talks will take place as planned. Turkey, the proposed host of the meeting, has stated its full support. However, speculation remains over whether the summit will actually happen and who will be present at the negotiation table. Given standard diplomatic practices, which usually involve extensive groundwork by working-level and senior officials before a summit, many analysts see a meeting between the two adversarial leaders on such short notice as unlikely.

Putin has also questioned Zelensky’s legitimacy, arguing that his presidential term has expired—casting further doubt on the feasibility of the meeting. If Putin does not attend in person, Ukraine may also refuse to participate.

Al Jazeera commented, “If Putin doesn’t show up, it signals Russia has no intent to stop the war,” and described Zelensky as “playing a game of political chess.” The BBC added, “While both sides have agreed in principle to resume talks, negotiations and actual agreement are two very different things,” emphasizing the wide gap in their positions.

If Putin and Zelensky do meet in Istanbul, it would be the first face-to-face meeting between the two in 5 years and 5 months—since December 2019, when they met in Paris along with German and French leaders under the “Normandy Format” to mediate the conflict in Eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region. The Normandy Format refers to the four-way talks between Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France aimed at resolving the conflict between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatists in the Donbas region.

Coincidentally, the potential May 15 summit would take place while U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio is in Turkey. Rubio is scheduled to attend informal NATO foreign ministers’ meetings in Turkey from May 14 to 16. If the summit proceeds, it is possible that Rubio could take on a direct mediation role on-site.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s movements in the Middle East are also drawing attention. From May 13, he is on a four-day tour of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). According to The Washington Post, Trump’s first overseas trip since returning to power is expected to focus more on business deals than geopolitical issues. Rubio, who is in the Middle East from the 11th to 14th, is expected to share information with Trump regarding the potential Putin-Zelensky summit before heading to Turkey and may actively assist with mediation efforts.

"Xiaomi takes the top spot with a strong fanbase
Huawei, OPPO, and Vivo also make big gains
iPhone sales keep dropping sharply"

Foreign smartphone brands such as Apple are quickly losing their foothold in the Chinese market. This shift is largely due to the rise of “guochao” (国潮)—a patriotic consumerism trend—that gained momentum following the tariff war initiated by former U.S. President Donald Trump.

Apple’s Shipments Plunge in China

On May 12 (local time), the China Academy of Information and Communications Technology (CAICT), under the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, announced that shipments of foreign-branded smartphones in March totaled 1.887 million units. This represents a sharp 49.6% decline compared to the 3.747 million units shipped during the same month last year.

Although CAICT did not disclose shipment figures by individual brands, industry experts point to Apple’s significant decline as a major contributing factor. While iPhones had previously enjoyed strong popularity in China, their market share has recently been steadily falling. According to market research firm IDC, Apple was the only major brand to post a shipment decline in the first quarter of this year, despite overall growth in the Chinese smartphone market.

A key factor behind Apple’s decline is the surge of domestic Chinese brands. Local smartphone makers such as OPPO, Vivo, Xiaomi, and Huawei have been rapidly gaining market share by leveraging their technological capabilities and price competitiveness. In Q1, Apple’s iPhone shipments in China were just 9.8 million units, while Xiaomi shipped 13.3 million units—a 40% year-on-year increase. Huawei grew by 10%, OPPO by 3.3%, and Vivo by 2.3%. Huawei’s release of high-end models with its self-developed advanced chips at the end of last year has intensified competition in the premium smartphone segment, directly challenging Apple.

Patriotic Consumerism Fuels Xiaomi Boom

The growing trend of patriotic consumption has also contributed to Apple’s decline. The Chinese government is promoting the use of domestic brands, particularly in sensitive sectors, and an increasing number of state-owned enterprises and public institutions are restricting the use of foreign electronic devices. Analysts suggest this trend is about more than just price—it’s a cultural and political movement that disadvantages foreign brands.

In fact, Apple’s market share in China began to decline in the second half of last year. Among younger Chinese consumers, a clear preference for domestic products is emerging. A boycott of Apple products is gaining traction across the country, with hashtags like "Ban Apple Products" appearing billions of times on Chinese social media platforms such as Weibo and Douyin. Many netizens are actively participating in the boycott.

The rapid growth of China’s electric vehicle (EV) market is also fueling patriotic consumption. Companies like Xiaomi and Huawei are not only developing smartphones but are also entering the EV and home appliance sectors, using their own operating systems across all platforms.

After Hollywood, U.S. Travel and Study Face Restrictions

Meanwhile, the Chinese government is also ramping up restrictions on travel and study abroad in the United States. Both the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Culture and Tourism have recently issued official notices advising citizens to reconsider studying in or traveling to the U.S., citing safety concerns and risk factors.

On April 14, the Ministry of Education issued a statement urging prospective students to carefully consider the risks associated with studying in the U.S. and to raise awareness around safety and preparedness. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism followed by advising Chinese tourists to thoroughly assess the risks of visiting the U.S. due to worsening China–U.S. economic relations and public safety concerns in America. Given the centralized nature of the Chinese government, such guidance from ministries under the State Council effectively acts as a soft ban on studying or traveling to the U.S.

Previously, in retaliation for the Trump administration’s imposition of up to 125% tariffs, the Chinese government also reduced imports of U.S. Hollywood films. China, the world’s second-largest film market and a key export destination for Hollywood, is now turning away from American films. This move is expected to severely impact major studios like Disney, Warner Bros., and Paramount. Instead, China plans to diversify its film import market by increasing imports from other countries.