特朗普政府继续动用进口关税工具来重振美国制造业，以及强化所谓的国家安全。 最新关税措施始于美国商务部在今年3月根据《贸易扩展法》第232条启动对进口木材、板材、橱柜和家具等衍生产品的调查。 "232调查"是特朗普两个任期内众多关税政策工具之一，涉及具体的商品类别。该条款授权商务部对特定产品进口威胁国家安全立案调查，并规定由总统决 定实施关税、配额或其他限制措施。 具体从进口国家来看，美国使用的软木中约有30%来自北边邻国加拿大。加拿大绝大部分森林资源属公共土地，采伐成本更低。从加拿大进口的木材已被美 国征收14.5%的反补贴和反倾销税。 特朗普政府希望通过关税来促进其国内产业链重构，但是其本土木材难以在短期内满足建筑商的要求，行业内部也存在分歧。 另外，全球化的支持者、南加州大学政治学与国际关系教授（Jonathan Aronson）此前在接受智通财经采访时表示，美国制造业很难吸引到足够多的年轻 人，因为他们不愿意从事重复性的制造业工作，而宁愿成为网络红人、时装设计师。 美东时间9月29日，这位美国总统宣布对进口软木原木及木材征收10%关税，并对进口橱柜、浴室柜及软包木制品加征25%关税。 新措施于10月14 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the potential implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and explores alternative legal frameworks for imposing tariffs if the Supreme Court rules against the administration [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Context and Implications - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of the Trump administration's tariff measures are illegal, which undermines the administration's ability to use tariffs as a key economic policy tool [1][3]. - If the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, it will only affect tariffs imposed under IEEPA, specifically the "reciprocal tariffs" and fentanyl tariffs, leaving other tariffs under different legal frameworks unaffected [2][3]. Group 2: Alternative Tariff Measures - Treasury Secretary Becerra mentioned that there are other legal options available, such as Section 301, Section 232, Section 122, and Section 338, although these may not be as effective as IEEPA [4][5]. - Section 338 allows the President to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries found to discriminate against U.S. trade, but it has not been formally used by the administration [4][7]. - Section 232 investigations have already been initiated on various products, including steel, aluminum, and semiconductors, indicating a potential for continued tariff imposition through this avenue [6][5]. Group 3: Market Reactions and International Relations - Financial markets showed a muted response to the Appeals Court ruling, indicating that investors are adopting a wait-and-see approach regarding the ongoing legal disputes and policy changes [8]. - The potential for an unfavorable ruling from the Supreme Court could significantly impact companies that have adjusted their supply chains and pricing strategies based on current tariffs [8][9]. - European leaders expressed frustration over the U.S. trade policies, emphasizing the need for the EU to defend its interests while seeking stronger global trade partnerships [9].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled against President Trump's tariff policy, stating that he overstepped his authority by imposing tariffs on countries with trade surpluses with the U.S. This ruling challenges the legality of the tariffs and emphasizes the constitutional power of Congress in regulating trade [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Challenge and Court Ruling - The U.S. International Trade Court's ruling on May 28, 2023, blocked Trump's tariff policy, asserting that the President does not have the authority to impose broad tariffs without Congressional approval [2][3]. - The lawsuit was initiated by a coalition of 12 states, arguing that Trump's tariff policy was an unlawful exercise of power [2]. - The court's decision undermines Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as a legal basis for imposing tariffs, which could lead to the cancellation of tariffs imposed under this act [2][3]. Group 2: Implications for Trade Policy - The ruling is expected to significantly impact the Trump administration's trade agenda, potentially limiting its ability to use tariffs as a tool for trade protectionism [3][6]. - The decision may embolden other countries in their negotiations with the U.S., as it strengthens their position against U.S. trade pressures [3][9]. - The ruling could lead to a reassessment of U.S. trade policies, as domestic pressures from affected industries and political divisions grow [9][10]. Group 3: Market Reactions - Following the court's decision, there was a notable market reaction, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures rising over 1%, indicating optimism regarding a potential easing of trade tensions [7][8]. - The ruling is likely to influence sectors such as technology and industrials, which may see gains, while defense and domestic steel industries could experience pullbacks [8]. - The overall market sentiment reflects a belief that the tariff policies may become more moderate in the future, despite ongoing uncertainties [9].

文 | 赵伟、陈达飞、赵宇、李欣越 联系人 | 赵宇 报告正文 5月29日，美国国际贸易法庭裁决特朗普依据《国际紧急经济权力法》(IEEPA)加征关税的行为违法，美国贸易战的合法性面临哪些挑战？ 特朗普能否拒绝执行？ 从裁决书下发时刻起，根据《行政程序法》，前期加征关税的行政命令已经失效；关税应当被立即停收。裁决中命令政府部门10个日 历日内发布必要的行政命令，以执行永久禁令。即便这一行政命令未颁布，理论上关税也应立刻被取消，否则可视为藐视法庭。 谁是起诉方？ 此次判决是两个起诉的合并审理。一是12 个州民主党籍总检察长联名（俄勒冈州领衔）起诉特朗普政府；二是由非营利组织自由司法中心代理 的5家进口商企业起诉特朗普，包括V.O.S. Selections(酒类进口)、Genova Pipe(塑料管材)等。 判决理由是什么？ 一是特朗普的关税超出IEEPA授权，法院认为总统绕过《1974贸易法》直接使用IEEPA，属于越权，IEEPA未允许总统无限制设定关税税 率；二是以芬太尼与移民问题为由征收关税不符合IEEPA法定条件，关税与打击芬太尼、移民问题之间缺乏合理关联。 IEEPA有何争议？ 一是IEEPA授予总 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court has halted President Trump's tariff policy, which may lead to the administration exploring alternative legal avenues to impose tariffs [1][2]. Group 1: Court Ruling and Government Response - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled against Trump's tariff policy, stating that he overstepped his authority by imposing comprehensive tariffs on countries with trade surpluses with the U.S. [1] - Goldman Sachs described the court's decision as a "Nothingburger," suggesting that the Trump administration may utilize Section 122 of the Trade Act to impose tariffs while seeking time for further investigations under Section 301 [2][3]. Group 2: Alternative Legal Provisions - The Trump administration has several alternative legal provisions to impose tariffs, including Sections 122, 301, 338, and 232 of various trade laws [5][6]. - Section 122 allows for a rapid imposition of tariffs up to 15% without lengthy procedures, but it has a maximum duration of 150 days [6]. - Section 301 is a powerful tool that permits the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate unfair trade practices and impose unlimited tariffs, although investigations can take 12-18 months [7]. - Section 232 grants the president broad authority to impose tariffs on imports based on national security concerns, which has been upheld in legal challenges [8]. Group 3: Implications of the Court Ruling - The court ruling signifies a structural shift in U.S. tariff policy from unilateral executive action to a more bureaucratic and transparent process, increasing the time required for tariff actions [10]. - The loss of the IEEPA as a "tariff nuclear button" diminishes Trump's unilateral influence in trade negotiations, shifting focus to specific industries or unfair trade practices rather than broad tariffs [11]. - The ruling establishes a precedent that the executive branch cannot impose tariffs arbitrarily and must adhere to established legal procedures involving public input and congressional oversight [12].