内容摘要：Had he left a few months later, he would have received a military pension. The rule change in 1975, like rules on pensions generally, were not retrospective.

Had he left a few months later, he would have received a military pension. The rule change in 1975, like rules on pensions generally, were not retrospective.

while kick-starting negotiations over trade policies it views as unfair.Global markets have been thrown into disarray since the announcement, but Trump has since backed down on some tariffs and reduced or delayed others.

For now, John Leonard, a former top official at the US Customs and Border Protection Agency (CBP),that there would not be any changes at the border and that tariffs would still have to be paid.If the White House is unsuccessful in its appeal, the CBP would then issue directions to its officers to refund the payments, he said.

The original ruling also raisedquestions about ongoing trade talks between the US and other countries. The White House had argued in court hearings that its negotiating position would be weakened if the court struck down the tariffs.

Paul Ashworth, from Capital Economics, said the ruling "will obviously throw into disarray the Trump administration's push to quickly seal trade 'deals' during

He predicted other countries "will wait and see" what happens next."The President of the United States must be allowed to protect America against those that are doing it Economic and Financial harm," he said.

But earlier Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, one of 12 states involved in the lawsuit, welcomed the decision."The law is clear: no president has the power to single-handedly raise taxes whenever they like," she said.

The next hearing in the case is on 5 June.Depending on what happens, the case could eventually go to the Supreme Court - the highest court in the US - but even if Trump lost there it would not necessarily spell the end of his tariff plans.