2026年2月24日，美国东部时间凌晨6:05 /路透社
作者：安德里亚·沙拉尔(Andrea Shalal)和大卫·劳德(David Lawder)
[1/2] 2026年2月23日，美国加利福尼亚州奥克兰港，美国最高法院裁定特朗普在实施关税时越权后，空集装箱码头的景象。路透社/卡洛斯·巴里亚购买授权，在新标签页中打开
- 摘要
- 特朗普的15%替代关税周二生效，有效期150天
- 特朗普律师在最高法院辩称，第122条并非解决贸易逆差的恰当工具
- IEEPA诉讼案中的原告专注于确保所有进口商获得退款
2月24日电——唐纳德·特朗普总统为替换被美国最高法院推翻的关税而实施的临时15%关税，旨在解决许多经济学家认为并不存在的问题：美国国际收支危机。这使得这些关税可能容易受到新的法律挑战。
最高法院周五推翻特朗普根据《国际紧急经济权力法》(IEEPA)实施的大幅关税后数小时，总统宣布根据《1974年贸易法》第122条实施新关税。这是一项从未使用过的法规，甚至他自己的法律团队数月前就认为该法律与当前情况无关。
晨间最新法律新闻直接发送到您的收件箱，订阅《每日法律简报》通讯。[点击此处注册]
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
新的15%关税的征收于周二午夜开始，此前10%-50%的IEEPA关税征收已暂停。
第122条法律允许总统对任何国家和所有国家征收最高15%的关税，有效期最长150天，以解决“大规模和严重的”国际收支逆差以及“根本性的国际支付问题”。
特朗普的关税令称，美国存在严重的国际收支逆差，表现为年商品贸易逆差达1.2万亿美元，经常账户逆差占GDP的4%，以及美国原始收入盈余的逆转。
包括前国际货币基金组织(IMF)第一副总裁吉塔·戈皮纳特(Gita Gopinath)在内的一些经济学家，对特朗普政府的担忧表示异议。
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
“我们可以一致认为，美国并未面临国际收支危机，国际收支危机是指国家面临国际借贷成本大幅上升且无法进入金融市场的情况，”戈皮纳特告诉路透社。
戈皮纳特驳斥了白宫声称美国自1960年以来首次出现原始收入负平衡是大规模和严重国际收支问题的证据。
她将负平衡归因于过去十年外国对美国股票和风险资产购买的大幅增加，这些资产在此期间表现优于外国股票。
前美国财政部和IMF官员马克·索贝尔(Mark Sobel)表示，国际收支危机更多与实行固定汇率的国家相关，并指出浮动汇率的美元一直稳定，10年期美国国债收益率相当稳定，美国股市表现良好。
大西洋理事会智库国际经济学主席乔什·利普斯基(Josh Lipsky)表示同意，并指出国际收支危机发生在一个国家无法支付进口费用或无法偿还外债时。他补充说，这与贸易逆差有本质区别。
美国外交关系委员会货币和贸易专家布拉德·塞特瑟(Brad Setser)在拜登政府担任美国贸易代表高级顾问，他持某种相反观点，在周日的长篇X（原推特）帖子中辩称，特朗普政府可能有合理理由认为存在“大规模和严重的”国际收支逆差。
他指出，经常账户赤字远高于1971年尼克松总统为解决国际收支危机而征收关税时的水平，而且美国净国际投资头寸要差得多。“这给了政府一个真正的论点，”塞特瑟写道，支持其关税政策。
白宫、美国财政部和美国贸易代表办公室未立即回应关于使用第122条的置评请求。
不适合这项工作的法规
尽管特朗普政府将焦点转向国际收支，但司法部此前曾辩称，第122条并非处理贸易逆差国家紧急状态的恰当法规。
在为IEEPA关税辩护的法庭文件中，司法部称第122条“在这里显然不适用，因为总统宣布紧急状态时所确定的关切源于贸易逆差，这在概念上与国际收支逆差不同。”
代表挑战IEEPA关税的原告在最高法院进行辩论的尼尔·卡塔亚尔(Neal Katyal)告诉CNBC，特朗普政府反对将第122条用于贸易逆差的立场将使这些关税容易受到诉讼。
“我不确定这是否一定会需要上诉至最高法院，但如果总统坚持使用他自己的司法部称他不能使用的法规，那么我认为这很容易提起诉讼，”卡塔亚尔说。
目前尚不清楚谁将牵头挑战第122条关税。
自由司法中心(Liberty Justice Center)是一家非营利公共利益律师事务所，代表几家挑战IEEPA关税的小企业，其主席萨拉·阿尔布雷希特(Sara Albrecht)表示，该组织将密切关注任何新法规的援引情况。
阿尔布雷希特没有透露未来的诉讼策略，她补充道：“我们的当务之急很简单：确保退款流程开始，并确保支票流向那些支付了违宪关税的美国企业。”
最高法院在裁决中未就退款问题给出指示，而是将案件发回下级贸易法院以确定下一步行动。
我们的标准：路透社信托原则，[在新标签页中打开]
Trump’s new tariffs shift focus to balance of payments; economists see no crisis
February 24, 2026 6:05 AM UTC / Reuters
By Andrea Shalal and David Lawder
Item 1 of 2 An empty shipping containers terminal at the port of Oakland following the Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority when he imposed tariffs, in Oakland, California, U.S., February 23, 2026. REUTERS/Carlos Barria
[1/2]An empty shipping containers terminal at the port of Oakland following the Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump had exceeded his authority when he imposed tariffs, in Oakland, California, U.S., February 23, 2026. REUTERS/Carlos Barria Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
- Summary
- Trump’s 15% replacement tariffs took effect on Tuesday for 150 days
- Trump lawyers argued at Supreme Court that Section 122 not the right tool to address trade deficits
- Plaintiffs in IEEPA case focused on securing refunds for all importers
Feb 24 – President Donald Trump’s temporary 15% tariffs to replace those struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court are meant to resolve a problem that many economists say does not exist: a U.S. balance of payments crisis, making them potentially vulnerable to new legal challenges.
Hours after the high court on Friday struck down a huge swath of tariffs Trump had imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the president announced the new duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a never-used statute that even his own legal team dismissed as irrelevant months ago.
Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
Collections of the new 15% tariffs began at midnight on Tuesday as IEEPA tariff collections of 10% to 50% halted.
The Section 122 law allows the president to impose duties of up to 15% for up to 150 days on any and all countries to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits and “fundamental international payments problems.”
Trump’s tariff order argued that a serious balance of payments deficit existed in the form of a $1.2 trillion annual U.S. goods trade deficit and a current account deficit of 4% of GDP and a reversal of the U.S. primary income surplus.
Some economists, including former International Monetary Fund First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath, disagreed with the Trump administration’s alarm.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
“We can all agree that the U.S. is not facing a balance of payment crisis, which is when countries experience an exorbitant increase in international borrowing costs and lose access to financial markets,” Gopinath told Reuters.
Gopinath rejected the White House’s claim that a negative balance on the U.S. primary income for the first time since 1960 was evidence of a large and serious balance of payment problem.
She attributed the negative balance to a large increase in foreign purchases of U.S. equities and risky assets over the past decade, which outperformed foreign equities over this period.
Mark Sobel, a former U.S. Treasury and IMF official, said that balance of payments crises are more associated with countries that have fixed exchange rates, and noted that the floating-rate dollar has been steady, the 10-year Treasury yield fairly stable, with U.S. stocks performing well.
Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council think tank, agreed, noting that a balance of payments crisis occurred when a country could not pay for what it was importing or was unable to service foreign debt. That was fundamentally different from a trade deficit, he added.
Brad Setser, a currency and trade expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who served as a senior adviser to the U.S. Trade Representative in the Biden administration, took a somewhat contrarian view, arguing in lengthy X posts on Sunday that the Trump administration may have a reasonable case that there is a “large and serious” balance of payments deficit.
He noted that the current account deficit was far higher than when then-president Richard Nixon erected tariffs in 1971 to address a balance of payments crisis, and the U.S. net international investment position is much worse. This “gives the administration a real argument,” in favor of its tariffs, Setser wrote.
The White House, U.S. Treasury and U.S. Trade Representative did not immediately respond to requests for comment about the use of Section 122.
WRONG STATUTE FOR THE JOB
Despite the Trump administration’s new focus on balance of payments, the Justice Department had previously argued that Section 122 was the wrong statute to handle a national emergency over the trade deficit.
In court filings in its defense of IEEPA tariffs, the Justice Department said Section 122 would not have “any obvious application here, where the concerns the president identified in declaring an emergency arise from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance-of-payments deficits.”
Neal Katyal, who argued at the Supreme Court on behalf of plaintiffs challenging the IEEPA tariffs, told CNBC that the Trump administration’s stance against the use of Section 122 for a trade deficit will make those tariffs vulnerable to litigation.
“I’m not sure it will necessarily even need to get to the Supreme Court, but if the president adheres to this plan of using a statute that his own Justice Department has said he can’t use, yeah, I think that’s a pretty easy thing to litigate,” Katyal said.
It is unclear who might take the lead in challenging the Section 122 tariffs.
Sara Albrecht, chair of the Liberty Justice Center, a nonprofit, public-interest law firm representing several small businesses that challenged the IEEPA tariffs, said the group would closely monitor any new statutes being invoked.
Albrecht did not reveal any future litigation strategy, adding: “Our immediate focus is simple: making sure the refund process begins and that checks start flowing to the American businesses that paid those unconstitutional duties.”
In its ruling, the Supreme Court did not give instructions regarding refunds, instead remanding the case to a lower trade court to determine next steps.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
发表回复