如果对等关税被叫停，特朗普还能怎么加关税？

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court's ruling halts President Trump's proposed tariffs, indicating potential legal and procedural challenges for the administration in implementing new tariffs [1][2][12]. Group 1: Court Ruling and Government Response - The U.S. International Trade Court blocked Trump's tariff policy, ruling that he overstepped his authority by imposing tariffs on countries with trade surpluses with the U.S. [1] - Goldman Sachs views the court's decision as relatively insignificant, suggesting that the Trump administration may utilize alternative legal provisions to impose tariffs [1][6]. - The White House has expressed a strong response, indicating it will leverage all available administrative powers to counter the ruling [2][3]. Group 2: Alternative Legal Provisions for Tariffs - The Trump administration has several alternative legal options to impose tariffs, including the Trade Act of 1974's Section 122, Section 301, and Section 232 [6][10]. - Section 122 allows for a rapid imposition of tariffs up to 15% without lengthy investigations, but it has a maximum duration of 150 days [7]. - Section 301 is a powerful tool for addressing unfair trade practices, allowing for unlimited tariffs but requiring lengthy investigations of 12-18 months [8][9]. - Section 232 grants broad authority to impose tariffs based on national security concerns, which has been used previously for steel and aluminum tariffs [10]. Group 3: Implications of the Court Ruling - The ruling signifies a structural shift in U.S. tariff policy, moving from unilateral executive actions to a more bureaucratic and evidence-based approach [12]. - The loss of the IEEPA as a tool for immediate and broad tariffs diminishes the Trump administration's leverage in trade negotiations, shifting focus to specific industries and unfair trade practices [13][14]. - The ruling establishes a precedent that emphasizes the need for adherence to established legal procedures in tariff imposition, reinforcing Congressional authority over trade matters [14].