对等关税受阻，特朗普团队考虑“B计划”

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the challenges faced by the Trump administration regarding its tariff strategy and the potential implementation of a two-step "Plan B" to navigate legal obstacles and maintain its trade policies [1][2]. Group 1: Plan B Strategy - The Trump administration is considering a two-step "Plan B" involving the use of the 1974 Trade Act's Section 122, which allows for a temporary imposition of tariffs up to 15% for 150 days to address trade imbalances [3]. - During the 150-day period, the administration may tailor individual tariffs for major trading partners using Section 301 of the same law, aimed at countering perceived unfair trade practices [3]. - Senior trade advisor Navarro hinted at the dual-track approach, suggesting the potential use of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act to impose tariffs on countries deemed discriminatory against the U.S. [3]. Group 2: Legal Risks and Challenges - Despite the new strategy appearing well-prepared, legal challenges remain a significant concern, as highlighted by former officials who note that the new plan must provide strong evidence of unfair trade practices to avoid litigation [5][6]. - Legal experts warn that shifting to different legal grounds during ongoing appeals could be interpreted as an acknowledgment of defeat in current cases [6]. Group 3: Impact on Global Trade Relations - The court's ruling against Trump's tariff authority has broader implications, limiting the president's negotiating leverage and complicating ongoing trade discussions with multiple countries [8]. - Contrasting views emerge within the administration, with some officials expressing optimism about trade negotiations, while others acknowledge the uncertainty introduced by the court's decision [9]. - Analysts suggest that if the ruling remains effective post-appeal, it could facilitate a trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU by removing a key obstacle in negotiations [11].