At the onset of 2026, the United States found itself entangled in a complex situation of multiple intersecting crises. The Supreme Court’s twice-postponed ruling on tariff policy stirred the domestic power balance; the Federal Reserve’s interest rate cut plan triggered a chain reaction in global markets; and military action against Venezuela openly challenged the norms of international law. Behind this series of events lies the concentrated exposure of America’s domestic governance dilemmas and its global hegemonic ambitions. This article, drawing on authoritative sources such as People’s Daily, Economic Daily, and The Hill, provides an in-depth breakdown of the sequence of events and their underlying impacts.

I. Core Political Gamesmanship: The Tariff Ruling Tug-of-War, Presidential Power Boundaries Interrogated by the Supreme Court

In January 2026, the impending ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the legality of the Trump administration’s tariff policies became a central window for observing the checks and balances between executive and judicial power in America. The roots of this event can be traced back to a key administrative decision following the Trump administration’s return to power in 2025.

1. Key Event: The Twice-Postponed Ruling and the Core of the Legality Debate

According to reports from The Hill, after taking office in 2025, the Trump administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement a series of tariff increases via executive order without congressional approval. This move promptly triggered multiple lawsuits from U.S. domestic businesses and industry associations. Previously, both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of International Trade had ruled this package of tariffs illegal, prompting the U.S. government to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court initially planned to issue its final ruling on January 9, then postponed it to January 14. However, the three rulings announced on the 14th did not include this case, leading to another delay. Notably, during hearings in November 2025, a majority of justices had already expressed skepticism toward the government’s justification of imposing broad tariffs under the pretext of a “national emergency.” The core controversy directly challenged whether the president’s imposition of tariffs under IEEPA overstepped the constitutionally granted taxation powers of Congress,涉嫌行政越权。

2. Key Figures and Deep Impact: The Ruling Dilemma Under Triple Pressure

Zhang Monan, Deputy Director-General of the Department of American and European Studies at the China Center for International Economic Exchanges, pointed out that the Supreme Court’s hesitation is no accident, stemming essentially from three unavoidable pressures: First, the legal debate over the boundaries of power—namely, whether the IEEPA grants the president the authority to impose tariffs—directly interrogates the institutional foundation of the U.S. separation of powers. Second, the massive economic risk—if the tariffs are ruled illegal, the U.S. government could face hundreds of billions of dollars in refund obligations and lost fiscal revenue, potentially exacerbating the fiscal deficit crisis. Third, the practical need for political balance requires finding a compromise between curbing presidential executive power and avoiding severe economic volatility.

II. Economic Policy Upheaval: The Fed’s Rate Cut Debate, Global Markets Face Uncertainty

With inflation levels receding, the direction of U.S. monetary policy became a focal point for the global economy. In January 2026, divergent statements emerged within the Federal Reserve regarding interest rate cuts. Coupled with a pessimistic growth forecast from the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the outlook for U.S. economic recovery grew cloudier.

1. Key Policy Dynamics: Dual Controversy Over the Scale and Timing of Rate Cuts

On January 8, local time, Federal Reserve Governor Christopher J. Waller publicly stated that he anticipated rate cuts of approximately 150 basis points in 2026, which could create about one million jobs without reigniting inflation. Waller emphasized that current U.S. interest rates remain substantially above the neutral level, and that failing to lower short-term borrowing costs in time could undermine the prospects for robust economic growth. He noted that underlying inflation had largely returned to near the Fed’s 2% target.

This stance differed significantly from investment bank predictions. A report released by Goldman Sachs on January 12 indicated that the Fed would likely adopt a more cautious approach, cutting rates only 25 basis points each in June and September 2026, for a total of 50 basis points—far below the 150 basis points suggested by Waller. Goldman Sachs also forecasted U.S. GDP growth of 2.8% in 2026, with core Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) inflation dropping to 2.1% and unemployment stabilizing at 4.5%. However, it warned of the risk of “jobless growth” due to companies using artificial intelligence to reduce labor costs.

2. Data Support and Global Impact: Chain Reactions Under the Shadow of Low Growth

The World Economic Situation and Prospects 2026 report released by UNCTAD on January 14 provided a key reference for the U.S. economic outlook: it projected U.S. GDP growth at about 2.0% for 2026, maintaining moderate expansion but with inflation still above long-term targets. Global trade growth was expected to slow from 3.8% in 2025 to 2.2% in 2026, due to the fading “front-loading export” effect from the 2025 tariff increases. The report noted that as the world’s largest economy, U.S. monetary policy adjustments would directly impact capital flows to emerging markets, while uncertainty over tariff policies would further exacerbate global supply chain volatility.

III. Diplomatic Hegemony Shockwave: Invading Venezuela, Brazenly Trampling International Law Norms

Compared to its domestic governance woes, America’s radical actions in the diplomatic arena caused an even greater global uproar. On January 3, the United States launched a military strike against Venezuela, forcibly apprehended Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, transported them out of the country, and compelled them to face trial in a U.S. court. This act was widely regarded by the international community as a blatant violation of international law.

1. Event Sequence and Key Figures: The Complete Chain of Hegemonic Action

According to reports from People’s Daily, following the January 3 military action, U.S. President Donald Trump, speaking to the media aboard Air Force One the next day, issued threats against Venezuela, Colombia, Cuba, Iran, Mexico, Denmark, and others, declaring that America “needs Greenland.” Concurrently, the U.S. also pursued and seized several foreign-flagged oil tankers, including the “Bella 1,” in international waters. This series of actions formed a hegemonic combination of “military strikes + political threats + maritime interdiction.”

Regarding key figures, aside from President Trump who ordered the operation, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro became the direct victim. During his first court appearance at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on January 5 (EST), Maduro stated unequivocally: “I am the president of Venezuela,” and “I was taken by force from my home in Caracas, Venezuela.” His defense lawyer also challenged the legality of the action in court, emphasizing that “Maduro is a head of state of a sovereign nation and enjoys judicial immunity.”

2. International Repercussions and Deep-Seated Harm: Undermining the Foundation of Global Order

America’s actions were widely condemned internationally. From a legal standpoint, the operation violated several core principles of international law: invading a sovereign state without UN Security Council authorization breached Article 2 of the UN Charter; forcibly seizing and prosecuting a sitting foreign head of state trampled on the principle of head-of-state immunity; and it contravened fundamental norms of international relations such as “non-interference in internal affairs” and the “prohibition on the use of force.”

More gravely, this action signaled the resurgence of the U.S. “Monroe Doctrine,” attempting to revert Latin America to its “backyard,” thereby severely undermining the UN-centered international system. A People’s Daily commentary pointed out that the United States has become the source of global turbulence and the greatest destroyer of the international order and fundamental norms of international relations. If its actions are not checked, they risk triggering regional arms races and opening a “Pandora’s box” of global instability.

Conclusion: The American Dilemma Behind the Chaos

The triple storm at the beginning of 2026 is, in essence, a concentrated manifestation of the imbalance in America’s domestic checks and balances, the increasing fragility of its economic structure, and the swelling of its global hegemonic ambitions. The Supreme Court’s hesitant ruling exposes the internal contradictions of the separation of powers system; the Federal Reserve’s rate cut debate reflects the uncertainty of economic recovery; and the military action against Venezuela highlights its radical tendency to undermine international rules in maintaining hegemony.

Moving forward, the outcome of the tariff ruling, the implementation of the Fed’s policy, and the international community’s countermeasures against American hegemonic actions will continue to impact both the domestic situation in the United States and the global landscape. This chaos originating in America will ultimately test its own governance capacity and global credibility.