2026年2月22日 上午11:07 UTC / 路透社
作者：安德里亚·沙拉尔
- 摘要
- 美国最高法院裁决削弱特朗普关税威胁
- 华盛顿的贸易伙伴可能在谈判中获得了杠杆
- 现有贸易协定可能保持完整
华盛顿，2月22日（路透社）- 美国最高法院裁定推翻了唐纳德·特朗普总统的大部分关税，削弱了他随时威胁和实施关税的能力，但这不会消除贸易伙伴或企业挥之不去的不确定性。
特朗普在周五对裁决的回应中，立即对所有进口商品征收新的10%关税，并下令展开新的贸易调查，这些调查可能在数月内导致额外征税，同时坚称与近20个国家（大多数国家关税更高）达成的贸易和投资协议应不受影响。
路透社《内部动态》通讯是您了解全球体育界重大事件的必备指南。点击此处注册。
不到24小时后，他将新关税税率提高到15%——这是法律允许的最高水平。
美国前贸易官员、亚洲协会政策研究所高级副总裁温迪·卡特勒表示，特朗普这种快速变化的做法体现了总统的意愿和能力——将贸易伙伴置于不安之中。
“在他看来，不确定性不仅给他带来了实际关税之外的巨大额外杠杆，因为人们担心他会做什么。”
但卡特勒和其他贸易专家一致认为，特朗普的”翅膀已被剪断”。新的10%替代关税仅持续150天，根据其他法规实施的新关税将需要更长时间才能生效，这剥夺了总统在《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）被废除前用来实施关税的”随时、随地、因任何原因”的大棒。
“他失去了最喜欢的工具，”卡特勒说，”特别是在外交政策问题和其他与贸易无关的、惹恼他的国家方面，他失去了发出可信威胁的能力。”
前美国政府高级官员、战略与国际研究中心成员威廉·莱因施表示，最高法院以6:3的坚定裁决削弱了特朗普威胁其他国家的能力。
“这剥夺了他挥舞大棒的能力，”他说，尽管经济影响将有限，10%的关税和其他预期在未来几个月征收的关税将取代部分甚至全部目前被认定为非法的关税。
美国外交关系委员会主席迈克尔·弗罗曼表示，裁决和政府的回应留下了许多问题，包括进口商如何获得非法征收关税的退款，以及还有哪些进一步的关税即将出台。
“最高法院裁决最重大的影响可能是，它应该限制总统将关税作为贸易领域之外的首选杠杆或惩罚工具的威胁或使用，”弗罗曼说，他曾在2013年至2017年担任奥巴马政府的首席贸易谈判代表。
这一发展可能为因特朗普的不可预测性和反复使用关税威胁来惩罚他们（非贸易事务）、逼其让步并确保外国投资而伤痕累累的国家带来缓解。
美国总统曾援引IEEPA对一系列非贸易问题征收关税，这使各国感到受伤和紧张，加剧了全球企业的不确定性。他曾威胁对欧洲国家因其反对他对格陵兰岛的主张而征收关税，对允许从中国进口电动汽车的加拿大征收关税，以及对巴西对待右翼前总统雅伊尔·博索纳罗（特朗普盟友）的行为征收关税。
不再有”贸易火箭筒”
大西洋理事会国际经济学主席乔希·利普斯基警告称，由于新关税的不确定性和总统使用一系列工具的意愿，现在预测最高法院裁决对特朗普杠杆作用的影响还为时过早。
“这对他的国际经济贸易议程是一个重大打击。但不一定是致命的，因为还有其他权力可用。但我们必须看到它们在实践中的效果，”他说，”尽管IEEPA被废除，但感觉‘关税舰队’已经来救援了。但在未来几个月，这种情况如何影响杠杆作用则是另一个问题。”
特朗普政府近几个月与各国达成的近20项基于IEEPA关税威胁的框架协议或更坚定的贸易协定将如何处理，目前尚不清楚。
特朗普、美国贸易代表杰米森·格里尔和财政部长斯科特·贝森特周五坚称，这些协议应继续生效，即使这些税率高于临时通用税率。
分析师们怀疑各国是否会因担心触发特朗普的愤怒而试图废除或重新谈判协议。
前美国高级贸易官员、哥伦比亚大学国际与公共事务兼职教授米里亚姆·萨皮罗表示，特朗普可能失去了他的”贸易火箭筒”，但她不相信现有协议会瓦解。不过，她表示，裁决可能让各国在与特朗普政府的新谈判或持续谈判中获得更多杠杆。
“由于不确定性以及希望将美国作为强大盟友和伙伴的愿望，各国仍有达成协议的兴趣，”她说，”但各国确实比以前有了更多的议价能力。”
她表示，从特朗普的角度来看，使用IEEPA是他愿意承担的风险，因为它帮助快速达成了一些贸易协议，尽管在某些情况下仍需解决细节问题，且执行可能具有挑战性。
格里尔在接受福克斯新闻《特别报道》节目采访时表示，考虑到特朗普希望快速灵活地采取行动，IEEPA在当时是合适的工具，并表示它帮助为美国企业打开了市场准入。”我们不后悔，”他说，”我们只是会使用不同的工具。”
海外国家在评估最高法院裁决后反应谨慎。韩国表示，将审查裁决和美国的回应，并计划就11月达成的一项投资承诺达3500亿美元的关税协议的执行情况继续进行”友好”谈判。
美国韩国经济研究所经济政策分析师汤姆·拉梅奇表示，特朗普政府继续利用其他关税措施的能力可能会说服韩国及其企业履行承诺。
“否则可能会增加总统实施进一步报复的可能性，尤其是如果政府试图以退出谈判协议的国家为例的话，”他在韩国经济研究所网站上写道。
报道：安德里亚·沙拉尔；编辑：丹·伯恩斯和保罗·西马奥
我们的标准：路透社信托原则。
Tariff ruling limits Trump’s leverage but won’t end uncertainty for trade partners
February 22, 2026 11:07 AM UTC / Reuters
By Andrea Shalal
节点运行失败
A transport truck travels along Highway 401, a vital trade corridor linking Canada to U.S. markets, Ingersoll, Ontario, Canada, February 3, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Osorio Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
- Summary
- US Supreme Court ruling weakens Trump’s tariff threats
- Washington’s trading partners may have gained leverage in negotiations
- Existing trade deals likely to remain intact
WASHINGTON, Feb 22 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down a large swath of President Donald Trump’s tariffs has weakened his ability to threaten and impose tariffs at a moment’s notice, but it won’t end gnawing uncertainty for trade partners or companies.
Trump responded within hours to the ruling on Friday, slapping a new 10% tariff on all imports and ordering new trade investigations that could lead to additional levies in months, while insisting that trade and investment deals reached with nearly 20 countries – most with higher tariffs – should remain untouched.
The Reuters Inside Track newsletter is your essential guide to the biggest events in global sport. Sign up here.
Less than 24 hours later, he raised the rate of the new tariff to 15% – the maximum level allowed under the law.
Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade official and senior vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, said Trump’s rapid-fire change was emblematic of the president’s desire – and ability – to keep trading partners on their toes.
“The uncertainty, in his view, just gives him enormous additional leverage beyond the actual tariffs. Because people are worried about what he’ll do.”
But Cutler and other trade experts agree Trump’s wings have been clipped. The 10% replacement tariff lasts only 150 days, and new tariffs imposed under other statutes will take longer to implement, robbing the president of the “anytime, anywhere for any reason” cudgel he used to impose tariffs before his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was nixed.
“He’s lost his favorite tool,” Cutler said. “Particularly for foreign policy matters and things that irk him on other countries that have nothing to do with trade, he’s lost the ability to offer a credible threat.”
William Reinsch, a former senior U.S. government official who is now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the Supreme Court’s solid 6-3 ruling diminished Trump’s ability to threaten other countries.
“It takes away his ability to wave the big stick around,” he said, although the economic impact will be limited, with the 10% tariff and other duties expected in coming months replacing some if not all the tariffs now deemed illegal.
Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the ruling and the administration’s response left many questions unanswered, including how importers could get refunds for duties collected illegally, and what further tariffs were still coming.
“Perhaps the most consequential impact of the Supreme Court’s decision is that it should curtail the threat or use of tariffs as the president’s preferred form of leverage or punishment outside the trade domain,” said Froman, who served as former President Barack Obama’s chief trade negotiator from 2013 to 2017.
That development could provide relief to countries scarred by Trump’s unpredictability and repeated use of tariff threats to punish them over non-trade matters, extract concessions and secure foreign investments.
The U.S. president had invoked IEEPA to impose tariffs over a range of non-trade issues, leaving countries bruised and skittish, and heightening uncertainty for companies around the world. He threatened tariffs against European countries over their opposition to his claims on Greenland, against Canada for allowing the importation of electric vehicles from China, and against Brazil for its treatment of far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally.
NO MORE ‘TRADE BAZOOKA’
Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council, cautioned that it was too early to predict the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump’s leverage, given uncertainty about fresh tariffs and the president’s willingness to use a range of tools.
“It’s a significant blow to his international economic trade agenda. It’s not a crippling one, necessarily, because of the other authorities, but we have to see how they play out in practice,” he said. “It feels like the ‘tariff armada’ has come to the rescue despite IEEPA. But how that plays out in terms of leverage is a different question in the months ahead.”
It is also unclear what will happen to nearly 20 framework deals or firmer trade agreements that the Trump administration has reached with countries in recent months that were based on the IEEPA tariff threats.
Trump, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent insisted on Friday that the deals should remain in effect, even if those rates were higher than the temporary universal tax.
Analysts said they doubted countries could seek to abrogate or renegotiate deals, out of concern of triggering Trump’s ire.
Miriam Sapiro, a former senior U.S. trade official and adjunct professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University, said Trump might have lost his “trade bazooka,” but she didn’t expect the existing deals to unravel. However, the ruling could give countries more leverage in new or ongoing negotiations with the Trump administration, Sapiro said.
“There’ll still be interest in doing deals because of the uncertainty and the desire to keep the U.S. as a strong ally and strong partner,” she said. “But countries do have a bit more bargaining power than they might have felt they had previously.”
From Trump’s perspective, she said, using IEEPA was a risk he was willing to take because it helped reel in some trade deals quickly, although details still needed to be worked out in some cases and enforcement could be challenging.
Greer told Fox News’ “Special Report” program that IEEPA was the appropriate tool at the time, given Trump’s desire to move quickly and flexibly, and said it had helped open market access for U.S. firms. “We don’t regret it,” he said. “We’ll just use a different tool.”
Initial reactions from overseas were measured as countries assessed the Supreme Court decision. South Korea said it would review the ruling and U.S. response and planned to continue “amicable” talks over implementation of a tariff agreement finalized in November with $350 billion in investment pledges.
Tom Ramage, an economic policy analyst at the Korea Economic Institute of America, said the Trump administration’s continued ability to tap other tariff measures would likely persuade South Korea and its companies to maintain their commitments.
“Anything less could increase the likelihood that the president will impose further retaliation, especially if the administration seeks to make an example of countries that want to back out of negotiated deals,” he wrote on KEI’s website.
Reporting by Andrea Shalal; Editing by Dan Burns and Paul Simao
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
发表回复