特朗普政府关税“B计划”曝光 转折点出现了吗？

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and explores alternative legal frameworks for imposing tariffs if the Supreme Court rules against the administration [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Context and Implications - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of the Trump administration's tariff measures are illegal, which undermines the administration's ability to use tariffs as a key economic policy tool [1][3]. - If the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, it will only affect tariffs imposed under IEEPA, specifically the "reciprocal tariffs" and fentanyl tariffs, leaving other tariffs under different legal frameworks unaffected [2][3]. Group 2: Alternative Tariff Measures - Treasury Secretary Becerra mentioned that there are other legal options available, such as Section 301, Section 232, Section 122, and Section 338, although these may not be as effective as IEEPA [4][5]. - Section 338 allows the President to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries found to discriminate against U.S. trade, but it has not been formally used by the administration [4][7]. - Section 232 investigations have already been initiated on various products, including steel, aluminum, and semiconductors, indicating a potential for continued tariff imposition through this avenue [6][5]. Group 3: Market Reactions and International Relations - Financial markets showed a muted response to the Appeals Court ruling, indicating that investors are adopting a wait-and-see approach regarding the ongoing legal disputes and policy changes [8]. - The potential for an unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court could significantly impact companies that have adjusted their supply chains and pricing strategies based on current tariffs [8][9]. - European leaders expressed frustration over the U.S. trade policies, emphasizing the need for the EU to defend its interests while seeking stronger global trade partnerships [9].