AI播客：换个方式听新闻 下载mp3 音频由扣子空间生成 外交官和贸易律师表示，如果最高法院裁定特朗普目前的关税措施违宪，他将准备依据替代法案发起新 一轮关税浪潮。 最高法院最早可能在明年1月就特朗普利用紧急权力打击贸易伙伴的合法性做出裁决，这使得他经济政 策的核心命悬一线。 市场交易员正为可能的动荡做准备，如果美国最高法院作出不利于特朗普的裁决，联邦政府可能需要偿 还数十亿美元已征收的关税。但外交官和贸易律师认为，无论法院如何裁决，政府都制定了一系列计 划，结合现有贸易措施和替代法律来维持关税。 贸易律师表示，美国政府可能会利用被称为《1974年贸易法》第122条的措施，该条款允许华盛顿在150 天内对贸易伙伴征收最高15%的关税。 另一项条款，即《1930年关税法》第338条也可能被触发，尽管该条款在近代史上极少使用。它允许美 国政府立即对歧视美国商业的外国征收最高50%的关税，并可用于应对任何"不合理的收费、勒索、监 管或限制"。 据熟悉相关讨论的人士透露，特朗普政府在今年早些时候曾讨论过第338条和第122条，将其作为实施对 等关税的手段。 但是，虽然白宫或许能重建关税壁垒，但这些替代法律途径将削弱特 ...

Core Points - The Senate passed a resolution aimed at overturning President Trump's tariffs on Brazil, which is seen as largely symbolic, as the House is unlikely to vote on it and Trump would veto it anyway [1][3] - The resolution was initiated by Senator Tim Kaine, who criticized the use of emergency powers to impose tariffs without Congressional approval, highlighting the negative impact on U.S.-Brazil trade [1][4] - The vote reflects growing unease within the Republican Party regarding the economic impact of Trump's tariff policies, particularly on agriculture and manufacturing sectors [4] Summary by Sections Legislative Action - The Senate voted 52-48 in favor of the resolution to overturn tariffs on Brazil, with five Republican senators joining Democrats in support [3] - The resolution is part of a broader effort to challenge Trump's tariff policies, with similar votes expected on tariffs against Canada later in the week [4] Economic Impact - The U.S. imports over $40 billion worth of goods from Brazil annually, including nearly $2 billion in coffee, supporting over 130,000 jobs related to U.S.-Brazil trade [1] - Concerns were raised about the uncertainty created by imposing tariffs based on non-trade-related issues, which could negatively affect businesses [3][4] Political Dynamics - The vote is seen as a test of support for Trump's tariff policies within the Republican Party, indicating potential fractures regarding trade strategy [4] - Senator Kaine emphasized the need to limit presidential power in imposing tariffs without Congressional oversight, reflecting broader concerns about executive authority [4]