“对等关税”遭遇法律挑战，特朗普团队准备“B计划”

Core Viewpoint - The Trump administration is facing significant legal challenges regarding its tariff policies, prompting the consideration of a backup plan involving a two-step approach to implement tariffs more effectively [1][3][4]. Group 1: Legal Challenges and Responses - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled that the Trump administration's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs was illegal, which has created a setback for the tariff strategy [3][4]. - Following this ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals temporarily reinstated the tariff measures, allowing the Trump administration to continue its tariff policies while exploring alternative legal frameworks [3][4]. - The Trump team is considering invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a broad 15% tariff for 150 days, which would address trade imbalances with other countries [4][5]. Group 2: Proposed Two-Step Plan - The first step of the proposed plan involves a temporary broad tariff, while the second step would involve personalized tariffs for major trading partners based on Section 301 of the same Trade Act [4][5]. - This two-step plan is seen as more legally sound compared to the previously challenged IEEPA-based tariffs, as Section 301 has a history of being used effectively in trade disputes [9][10]. - The Trump administration believes that this approach could maintain leverage in ongoing trade negotiations without interruption from court rulings [4][5]. Group 3: Market Reactions and Implications - The uncertainty surrounding the tariff policies has led to fluctuations in the Wall Street market, reflecting investor concerns about the potential impacts of these legal challenges on trade negotiations [3][10]. - Analysts suggest that if the court's ruling against the IEEPA-based tariffs is upheld, it could eliminate key obstacles in U.S.-EU trade negotiations, paving the way for a more balanced agreement [10][11]. - The potential for a more pragmatic approach from both the U.S. and EU could lead to a resolution that benefits both parties, particularly in sectors like steel and automotive, which are currently under scrutiny [10][11].