对等关税受阻，特朗普团队考虑“B计划”

Core Viewpoint - The Trump administration is facing challenges with its tariff strategy, prompting consideration of a two-step "Plan B" to ensure the continuation of its tariff policies despite legal obstacles [1][2]. Group 1: Plan B Details - The proposed "Plan B" involves utilizing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which has never been activated before, allowing for a temporary imposition of up to 15% tariffs on global economies for 150 days to address trade imbalances [2]. - During the 150-day period, the administration plans to tailor individual tariffs for major trading partners using Section 301 of the same law, aimed at countering what the U.S. perceives as unfair foreign trade practices [2]. - Senior trade advisor Navarro hinted at the dual-track approach, suggesting the potential use of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 to impose tariffs on countries deemed discriminatory against the U.S. [2]. Group 2: Legal Risks - Despite the new plan appearing well-prepared, it still faces significant legal challenges, as highlighted by former officials who note that proving unfair trade practices is essential to avoid litigation [3]. - Legal experts warn that shifting to different legal frameworks during ongoing appeals could be interpreted as an acknowledgment of defeat in current cases [3]. Group 3: Global Trade Dynamics - The court's ruling against Trump's tariff authority has broader implications, limiting the administration's negotiating leverage and complicating ongoing trade discussions with multiple countries [4]. - Contrasting views emerged, with the National Economic Council director expressing optimism about trade negotiations, while the uncertainty from the court's decision casts doubt on upcoming deadlines for tariff decisions [4]. - European officials argue that tariffs are detrimental to all parties and are seeking to lower trade barriers to pre-dispute levels, indicating a willingness to negotiate on key issues like steel and automotive tariffs [5].