特朗普：如果败诉需要关税第二方案

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses President Trump's potential response to a Supreme Court ruling against his tariff policies, indicating that a "second plan" may be necessary if the court rules against him, which he believes would have devastating consequences for the U.S. economy [2][4]. Group 1: Legal Context and Implications - The Supreme Court recently held oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of Trump's core tariff mechanism, "reciprocal tariffs," with several justices expressing skepticism about the legal basis for these tariffs [4]. - The current tariffs are based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not explicitly authorize the imposition of tariffs, leading to claims of overreach by the Trump administration [5]. Group 2: Alternative Legal Frameworks - Alternatives to IEEPA include the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows for a maximum 50% tariff increase, and the Trade Act of 1974, which permits a maximum 15% tariff on imports within 150 days to address balance of payments deficits [6]. - Specific tariffs on steel and aluminum are based on Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which has already seen over 700 "derivative products" added to the tariff list since spring [6]. Group 3: Implementation and Timing Concerns - Trump noted that while alternative legal frameworks could be explored, they would likely take more time compared to the current IEEPA-based approach, which allows for rapid implementation of tariffs through presidential executive orders [7]. - He emphasized the need for quick decision-making, stating that the current method is the best defense measure available [7]. Group 4: Financial Consequences of a Supreme Court Loss - If the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, the U.S. Treasury will need to address potential refund procedures for taxpayers, with estimates suggesting that the tax revenue at stake could reach between $750 billion and $1 trillion, half of which may require actual refunds [8]. - The U.S. Trade Representative indicated that not only the plaintiffs but also other taxpayers might seek refunds, with the specific procedures to be determined through discussions between the Treasury and the courts [8].