On July 27, local time, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. delivered his fifth State of the Nation Address (SONA). Clocking in at 86 minutes, it was the longest address of his presidency.
This polished political performance exposed Marcos Jr.’s fence-sitting and opportunistic stance on the South China Sea, while laying bare the Philippine ruling elite’s gross governance failures.
Click to Gallery
On July 27, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. delivers his State of the Nation Address before Congress.
Demonstrators hold placards during a protest rally.
On July 27, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. delivers his State of the Nation Address before Congress.
Two-Faced Duplicity Conceals Malicious Intent in the South China Sea
On July 21, Marcos Jr. met with the Chinese Ambassador to the Philippines, striking a conciliatory tone and expressing a willingness to "bring China-Philippines relations back onto a path of improvement."
Yet just six days later, he completely reversed his rhetoric at the podium, adopting a sharp and aggressive posture toward China.
Dredging Up an Illegal Ruling. Disregarding historical facts regarding sovereignty over the South China Sea, Marcos Jr. publicly labeled the waters the "West Philippine Sea." He high-mindedly reaffirmed the "validity" of the 2016 South China Sea Arbitration award, touting the illegal ruling as an absolute cornerstone of Philippine maritime policy.
Stoking Anti-China Sentiment. Although Marcos Jr. refrained from naming China directly, his sharp barbs were squarely aimed at Beijing. He reframed South China Sea disputes as a matter of "national dignity," escalated maritime friction into "external challenges to national honor," and glorified illegal incursions and manufactured provocations as "patriotic actions."
Furthermore, he publicly praised the Armed Forces and Coast Guard, claiming a commitment to resolving disputes through "peaceful and legal means."
Ironically, just days before preaching "peaceful resolution," the Philippines deployed small boats near Ren'ai Jiao (Second Thomas Shoal), violently attacking Chinese Coast Guard personnel with paddles and wooden poles. Meanwhile, Manila organized official vessels and incited fishing boats to illegally gather and encroach upon Huangyan Island (Scarborough Shoal)—exposing its two-faced duplicity for all to see.
Clinging to the U.S. and Stirring Regional Antagonism
While Marcos Jr. did not dedicate large portions of his speech to the U.S.-Philippine alliance, Manila’s actions over the past year make its trajectory crystal clear.
The Marcos administration has aggressively expanded the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), granting the U.S. access to more military bases and holding frequent joint naval exercises with the U.S. and Japan.
Just last week, Marcos Jr. held a phone call with President Trump, who reportedly promised to convey Manila's concerns to Beijing—a heavy-handed show of backing.
Marcos Jr. is attempting to leverage the U.S. military presence to counterbalance power in the South China Sea, using the alliance as leverage to pressure China for illegal maritime gains.
However, tying national security to the U.S. war chariot is nothing short of "inviting a wolf into the house." Far from securing genuine safety, it erodes ASEAN’s long-standing tradition of resolving disputes independently through consensus, heightens regional confrontation risks, and will ultimately backfire on Manila.
Grandstanding on Stage, Cracking Behind the Scenes
Marcos Jr.’s 86-minute speech was packed with self-serving rhetoric, yet riddled with glaring holes.
He opened with a dramatic anti-corruption spectacle, training his sights on his first cousin, former House Speaker Martin Romualdez, in a desperate bid to project righteous integrity. In truth, this was nothing more than a classic "sacrificing a pawn to save the king" political maneuver.
He then reeled off a laundry list of policy initiatives—promising tax cuts and over a hundred energy projects—to orchestrate a illusion of stellar governance.
The economic reality, however, is grim. The Philippines’ GDP grew by a meager 2.8% in Q1 2026, far below its target of 5%–6%. Persistent inflation continues to squeeze everyday citizens, creating a deep-seated livelihood crisis.
To make matters worse, as he spoke, over 15,000 protesters converged on Commonwealth Avenue in Quezon City, raising banners that read "Anti-Corruption" and "Stop High Prices" as they blockaded the congressional precinct. Meanwhile, an explosion rocked the area outside the Department of Justice building in Manila, and a suspected explosive device was discovered near the Senate—sending shockwaves straight to the seat of power.
Mass protests and street bombs shattered the facade of this political show.
Demonstrators hold placards during a protest rally.
This single address laid bare Marcos Jr.’s three distinct faces: fence-sitting and duplicity toward China, subservience and dependency toward the U.S., and deceitful political grandstanding toward his own people.
Statecraft is not a stage for political opportunism, nor is the South China Sea a bargaining chip for pushing China’s bottom line. If Marcos Jr. insists on going down this reckless path, he will inevitably drag his nation into chaos—and suffer the consequences of his own making.
Jiu Wan Li: The High Ground
** 博客文章文責自負,不代表本公司立場 **
On July 23, local time, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) issued a notice citing Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, using the pretext of so-called "forced labor" to impose tiered tariffs on 60 countries and regions worldwide.
From the "Liberation Day Tariffs" launched in April 2025, to Section 122 this past February, and now Section 301, the Trump administration has exhausted every means to prolong the effectiveness of U.S. tariff policies, delivering a fresh round of shocks and challenges to the global economic and trade order.
Announcement on the official USTR website.
Tariff Repackaging with a Seamless Transition
This U.S. tariff adjustment is meticulously designed, with a seamless transition between old and new policies—a clear sign that the White House has gone to great lengths to implement Trump's tariff agenda.
Precision Timing in Legal Transition
In February of this year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the "reciprocal tariffs" imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unconstitutional.
On the very day of the ruling, the Trump administration invoked Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, citing "balance of payments imbalances" to impose a 10% temporary tariff on all countries.
However, Section 122 grants the president tariff authority for only 150 days, with no possibility of extension. In other words, this temporary tariff would automatically expire on July 24.
To that end, the USTR initiated a replacement plan as early as March, launching two parallel Section 301 investigations: one targeting so-called "overcapacity," and the other directly aimed at "forced labor," covering the 60 economies in this round.
Ultimately, the "forced labor" investigation was completed in just five months—solely to ensure a seamless transition between the old and new policies.
At the same time, Section 301 has no statutory constraints on tariff rates or implementation duration, subject only to a mandatory review every four years.
This means the Trump administration can escape the "temporary" nature of high tariff barriers and legally pursue tariff policies over the long term.
On July 22, the U.S. Trade Representative testified at a hearing.
Precisely Calibrated Tariff Scope
This round covers approximately 99% of U.S. foreign trade volume, effectively bringing nearly all major trading partners into the tariff net, with differentiated rates based on unilaterally determined U.S. criteria.
- Tier 1 includes 17 economies—Canada, the UK, Mexico, and others—subject to a 10% tariff. The U.S. claims these economies have already implemented so-called "forced labor control measures," thus qualifying for lower rates.
- Tier 2 includes the EU, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan (China), and others. They are not subject to a standalone 12.5% tariff; instead, their Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) rates are stacked with Section 301 tariffs. As a result, the final applicable rates for these economies are capped between 10% and 12.5%.
- Tier 3 includes 38 economies—China, Brazil, Thailand, and others—subject to a 12.5% tariff. The U.S. alleges that these economies have not implemented "forced labor" bans, thus incurring higher rates.
This classification standard, determined at the USTR's sole discretion, is rash and absurd. "Forced labor" is nothing more than a veneer for the Trump administration's protectionist trade agenda.
Carefully Curated Exemption List
This tariff scheme also includes an exemption list, with all waivers concentrated in strategic goods indispensable to the U.S.
Minerals, pharmaceuticals, aviation components, and basic industrial raw materials are exempt from the new tariffs. This arrangement is heavily self-serving: by keeping upstream raw material imports tariff-free, the U.S. stabilizes domestic prices while shifting the entire tax burden onto foreign products.
Additionally, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Bangladesh can receive tariff exemptions on apparel and textiles, up to the value of U.S. cotton and textile raw materials they import. This is designed to encourage these four countries to buy more U.S. textile materials for their garment processing industries.
The Trump administration's tariff plan may appear legally grounded, but in reality, it places domestic law above multilateral trade rules. At its core, it remains the same "America First" hegemonic logic.
Interlocking Interests and Calculations
By switching tariff legal instruments, the U.S. has transformed temporary tariff measures into institutionalized tariff weapons, underpinned by complex interests and strategic calculations.
Pressuring International Trading Partners
- For allies, the U.S. has not granted exemptions, merely setting relatively lower rates to maintain a semblance of unity within the alliance system. The tiered tariff structure allows the U.S. to both coerce allies into making concessions on market access, rules of origin, and geopolitical issues, and to reinforce its control over the alliance system through economic means. Moreover, for U.S. allies to secure lower rates, they must amend domestic laws to align with U.S. standards and submit to verification.
- For China, the timing of this new Section 301 tariff carries strong overtones of strategic maneuvering. Although recent China-U.S. economic and trade teams have maintained communication, differences persist on issues like market access. This comes as high-level talks between the two sides are scheduled to resume, making the U.S. move a clear bid to gain additional bargaining leverage.
Consolidating Domestic Electoral Support
With the U.S. midterm elections approaching and the manufacturing reshoring narrative heating up, tariffs have become a highly cost-effective political tool.
On one hand, during the implementation of Section 122 tariffs, the federal government collected approximately $8 billion per month—a significant incremental revenue source for the Trump administration. By extending tariff policies, the administration can sustain this revenue stream to support domestic fiscal spending.
On the other hand, Trump continues to showcase his "America First" toughness to voters, thereby shoring up support among conservative constituencies. The core message is unmistakable: no matter what judicial rulings may obstruct, the administration's resolve to maintain high-pressure tariffs and uphold "America First" will never waver.
A Prelude to Further Actions
This round of Section 301 tariffs under the "forced labor" pretext is only the beginning. Another Section 301 investigation targeting so-called "industrial overcapacity" is still underway, and more targeted tariff barriers in key industries—steel, automobiles, new energy, and others—cannot be ruled out in the future.
This U.S. tariff policy reveals two clear trajectories: for high-tech, new energy, and other industrial commanding heights, the U.S. will continue tightening imports to curb the industrial upgrades of major competitors; for consumer goods like apparel and home furnishings, exemption policies are designed to alleviate domestic inflation and create breathing room.
The Trump administration has changed tariff justifications time and again, but its essence—wielding tariffs as a weapon and pursuing trade protectionism—has never changed. Such unilateral actions that undermine the international economic and trade order cannot resolve its own deep-seated structural problems and will ultimately backfire.
In an era of deep global economic integration, a zero-sum game leads nowhere. Only through equal consultation and mutual benefit can trade differences be genuinely resolved.
