特朗普的关税政策彻底失控。在对日韩盟友分别加征25%关税、加拿大35%、巴西50%税率之后，美国终于对其最重要的盟友——欧盟，挥起了狠刀。根据 彭博社的报道，7月12日，特朗普宣布对欧盟和墨西哥征收30%的关税，涉及24个国家，27个欧盟成员国集体成为目标。欧盟在这一决定面前开始清醒过 来，试图用"讨好美国"的姿态换取更有利的贸易条件，但这一努力最终以失败告终。 法国总统马克龙迅速作出反应，猛烈批评特朗普的"背信弃义"，并扬言要启动欧盟的"反胁迫机制"，这是为了反击特朗普这一明显的不公行为。2024年，欧 盟向美国出口商品总额达6058亿美元，然而从美国进口的商品仅为3702亿美元。如果这项新关税政策得以实施，欧盟27个成员国中的某些国家或将面临巨大 经济损失，甚至可能无法承受。 欧盟委员会主席冯德莱恩表示，欧盟依然希望与美国达成协议，但如果谈判没有实质性进展，欧盟将不得不采取"对等的报复性措施"。与此同时，欧洲央行 行长拉加德也公开表示，欧洲应考虑摆脱对美元的依赖。巴西总统卢拉则提出，巴西将不再使用美元，如果欧盟也能效仿这一举措，将彻底击中特朗普的痛 处，打破美元霸权。 本应由美债危机引发的这场贸易战，反而 ...

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].