On November 2, U.S. President Donald Trump announced he would not attend the Supreme Court hearing on the legality of his global tariff actions. The hearing, scheduled for this Wednesday, centers on one crucial question: Can the president invoke a “national emergency” to bypass Congress and impose tariffs unilaterally?

Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump told reporters he preferred not to draw attention away from the case. “This hearing is about the country, not about me,” he said.

The case stems from lawsuits filed by multiple state governments and trade groups arguing that Trump’s use of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to levy tariffs exceeded his constitutional authority. They claim it undermines Congress’s control over taxation and trade. The Trump administration, however, maintains that tariffs are a vital tool for national security. “Without tariffs,” Trump said, “there is no national security. Other countries have exploited us for years through unfair trade.”

This hearing goes far beyond a legal technicality — it could redefine the balance of power between the White House and Congress. If the Court rules against Trump, future presidents will find it harder to alter tariffs under emergency powers, potentially making U.S. trade policy more predictable and rules-based. But if the Court upholds his authority, the president will retain broad freedom to adjust global tariffs at will — turning trade policy into a real-time geopolitical weapon.

For China’s exporters and international freight forwarders, the implications are serious. Should presidential “tariff authority” be validated, the United States could change import rates overnight, destabilizing shipping schedules and pricing structures across Asia. Conversely, a restriction on that power could mark the beginning of a more stable trade period and give global supply chains a much-needed breather. Either way, this case will likely shape the rules of global commerce for the next decade.