Let's go live to CNN's senior White House reporter, Kevin Liptek.

讓我們連線CNN的白宮資深記者凱文-利普泰克（Kevin Liptek）。

So, Kevin, what is the president saying about this potential escalation here?

那麼，凱文，總統對這一潛在的局勢升級有何看法？

Yeah, and it's a major escalation in this tit-for-tat tariff war between Washington and Beijing.

是的，這是華盛頓和北京之間針鋒相對的關稅戰的一次重大升級。

Remember, Pam, last week, President Trump applied that 35 percent reciprocal tariff on China.

帕姆，請記住，上週，特朗普總統對中國徵收了 35% 的對等關稅。

China retaliated, applying its own 34 percent tariff on the United States.

中國進行了報復，對美國徵收 34% 的關稅。

Now President Trump saying this, if China does not withdraw its 34 percent increase above their already long-term trading abuses by tomorrow, April the 8th, the United States will impose additional tariffs on China of 50 percent, effective April 9th.

現在，特朗普總統說，如果中國在明天（4 月 8 日）之前不撤銷在其已長期濫用的貿易基礎上增加 34% 的關稅，美國將從 4 月 9 日起對中國徵收 50% 的額外關稅。

He goes on to say that, additionally, all talks with China concerning their requested meetings with us will be terminated.

他還說，此外，將終止與中國就他們要求與我們舉行會議一事進行的所有會談。

And I just want to break down the math for you here, Pamela, because, remember, President Trump had already applied a 20 percent tariff on China for its role in the fentanyl crisis.

帕梅拉，我想在這裡給你算一筆賬，因為，請記住，特朗普總統已經因為中國在芬太尼危機中扮演的角色而對中國徵收了20%的關稅。

He applied that 34 percent reciprocal tariff last week.

上週，他實施了 34% 的互惠關稅。

That goes into effect later this week.

本週晚些時候生效。

Now he's threatening this additional 50 percent retaliatory tariff on China, this tit-for-tat back and forth.

現在，他又威脅要對中國額外徵收 50% 的報復性關稅，雙方針鋒相對。

That would bring the total tariffs on China by the United States to 104 percent, which is a huge number, China the world's second largest economy, one of the United States' largest trading partners.

這將使美國對中國徵收的關稅總額達到104%，這是一個巨大的數字，中國是世界第二大經濟體，也是美國最大的貿易伙伴之一。

This could have a serious effect for American consumers, given the amount of goods that come into the United States.

考慮到進入美國的商品數量，這可能會對美國消費者產生嚴重影響。

And I think just as we have seen today, the market's clearly looking for some kind of off-ramp here, for some kind of easing on the part of the president.

我認為，正如我們今天所看到的，市場顯然在尋找某種 "出口"，尋找總統的某種寬鬆政策。

This shows that the president is very much committed to this tariff plan, exactly not what the markets were looking for, Pamela.

帕梅拉，這表明總統非常堅持這項關稅計劃，而這恰恰不是市場所期待的。

Yeah.

是啊

No, you're absolutely right.

不，你說得完全正確。

And, you know, the White House has been talking about all these countries, when the 50 countries have come and reached out to the president, wanting to negotiate.

而且，你知道，白宮一直在談論所有這些國家，當50個國家來到並接觸總統，希望進行談判時。

But the White House is also sending these mixed messages on whether the president is willing to negotiate.

但在總統是否願意談判的問題上，白宮發出的資訊也是喜憂參半。

Where do things stand on that front?

這方面的情況如何？

Yeah.

是啊

It seems to be this, that the president is willing to talk to these countries about potential trade deals, but that the bar will be very high for him to lift these tariffs.

似乎是這樣，總統願意與這些國家商談潛在的貿易協議，但他要取消這些關稅的門檻將非常高。

That seems to be the combination of what you're hearing from White House advisers today.

這似乎就是你們今天從白宮顧問口中聽到的綜合說法。

We do know this morning that the president spoke to the prime minister of Japan, that country looking to ease up some of the tariffs on them, saying that they will be sending a high-level delegation to the United States to talk about trade.

今天上午，我們確實知道總統與日本首相進行了會談，日本希望放寬對他們徵收的部分關稅，並表示他們將派遣一個高級代表團前往美國討論貿易問題。

The president will also discuss this with the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, later today.

總統今天晚些時候還將與以色列總理本雅明-內塔尼亞胡討論此事。

He imposed a 17 percent tariff on Israel last week.

上週，他對以色列徵收了 17% 的關稅。

But in a way, that's a cautionary tale.

但在某種程度上，這也是一個警示故事。

Remember, Netanyahu lifted customs duties on U.S. imports to Israel, but the president went ahead with that tariff anyway. Exactly.

請記住，內塔尼亞胡取消了美國對以色列進口商品的關稅，但總統還是繼續徵收關稅。 沒錯。

That's absolutely right.

完全正確。

Kevin Lipchak, thank you so much.

凱文-利普查克，非常感謝。

Wolf?

狼？

All right, Pamela, I want to get some more of the breaking news right now.

好的，帕梅拉，我現在想了解更多的突發新聞。

Joining us, Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley of Illinois.

伊利諾伊州民主黨眾議員邁克-奎格利（Mike Quigley）正在接受我們的採訪。

Congressman, thanks so much for joining us.

議員先生，非常感謝您接受我們的採訪。

First of all, what do you make of the president's decision to escalate his trade war once again?

首先，您如何看待總統再次升級貿易戰的決定？

Do you see any chance for an off-ramp before this gets a whole lot worse?

在情況變得更糟之前，你認為有可能找到一條出路嗎？

I don't see it coming from the president of the United States.

我不認為美國總統會這麼做。

You talk about a very strange world we live in.

你說到了我們生活的這個非常奇怪的世界。

I'm, what, the liberal Democrat from Chicago, agreeing with headlines from The Wall Street Journal, the dumbest trade war in history.

我，什麼，來自芝加哥的自由民主黨人，同意《華爾街日報》的頭條新聞，史上最愚蠢的貿易戰。

I'm very concerned, as are my constituents, with extraordinary cost increases, a recession, and the volatility in the markets that create uncertainty and great economic peril for our country.

我和我的選民一樣，非常擔心成本的超常增長、經濟衰退和市場的動盪，這些都給我們的國家帶來了不確定性和巨大的經濟危險。

I think the bigger concern right now is it's part of a larger issue where this country, through the president, thinks that we can stand alone.

我認為現在更大的擔憂是，這是一個更大問題的一部分，這個國家通過總統認為我們可以獨善其身。

Four percent of the world's population, we're going to be less secure financially, and we're going to be more vulnerable in every other way from threats from across the seas.

佔世界總人口 4% 的我們在經濟上將更無保障，在其他各方面也更容易受到來自大洋彼岸的威脅。

I do want to start by talking about this sort of tit-for-tat trade war between the U.S. and China.

我想先談談中美之間這種針鋒相對的貿易戰。

Obviously, a lot of threats in the air between both countries.

顯然，兩國之間存在著很多威脅。

Donald Trump now threatening to slap an additional 50 percent tariff on China if China does not pull back its 34 percent tariff hike.

唐納德-特朗普（Donald Trump）現在威脅說，如果中國不收回其加徵 34% 關稅的決定，他將對中國額外徵收 50% 的關稅。

Just explain to us the potential consequences and which economy stands to lose more from this escalating trade war.

請向我們解釋一下貿易戰升級的潛在後果，以及哪個經濟體的損失會更大。

Well, it's hard to know which is going to lose more, but it's easy to tell you which consumers will lose more, and that's us, right?

嗯，很難知道哪個損失更大，但很容易告訴你哪個消費者損失更大，那就是我們，對嗎？

I mean, we consume in the United States and throughout the West huge amounts of Chinese goods for everyday life.

我的意思是，我們在美國和整個西方國家的日常生活中消費著大量的中國商品。

Think about, just to take the most basic example, an iPhone, which now markets at, what, $1,100 for the newest models of them.

想想看，就拿最基本的 iPhone 來說，現在市場上最新型號的 iPhone 售價是 1100 美元。

And if you ended up doing the 50 percent hike on components, you're probably adding another $500 or so to that.

如果你最終將組件加價 50%，你可能還要再加 500 美元左右。

And of course, there's everything you're looking at at Walmart and much of what you're looking at on Amazon.

當然，你在沃爾瑪看到的一切和亞馬遜上看到的很多東西都在這裡。

So these would flow through.

是以，這些都會流過。

What really sort of struck me about President Trump's Truth Social posting, which was just less than an hour ago, was if you know much about the Chinese structure and about Xi Jinping, the idea of setting him a deadline to back down in 24 hours, he's not going to do that.

特朗普總統在不到一小時前發佈的 "真相 "社交網站上讓我印象深刻的一點是，如果你對中國的結構和習近平很瞭解，那麼給他設定一個在24小時內讓步的最後期限的想法，他是不會這麼做的。

He's not going to end up looking weaker to Donald Trump.

他不會最終弱於唐納德-特朗普。

It's just not in the DNA of the Chinese leadership right now, because he will think that will transfer to the confrontation over Taiwan or something else.

只是現在中國領導層的基因裡還沒有這種想法，因為他會認為這會轉移到臺灣問題或其他問題的對抗上。

So I don't think the ultimatum strategy is likely to work.

是以，我認為最後通牒策略不太可能奏效。

And David, we had Rahm Emanuel on last week, and he said the irony here is here's a president who campaigned on ending all wars and he's starting one.

大衛，上週我們請到了拉姆-伊曼紐爾（Rahm Emanuel），他說，具有諷刺意味的是，這位總統在競選時聲稱要結束所有戰爭，而現在他卻在發動一場戰爭。

And he said, no, it's not a combat war involving F-16s or anything like that.

他說，不，這不是一場涉及 F-16 戰鬥機之類的戰鬥。

But it's a trade war.

但這是一場貿易戰。

And if you think about one of the purposes that free trade or any type of trade relations and trade alliances serves is to hopefully avoid physical wars as well.

自由貿易或任何類型的貿易關係和貿易聯盟的目的之一就是希望避免實際戰爭。

And you have a president now who has fired his U.S. cyber security chief, cyber command chief, because of a conspiracy theorist apparently reportedly coming to the White House and suggesting he's not loyal.

而你現在的總統已經解僱了他的美國網絡安全負責人，網絡司令部負責人，因為據報道，一個陰謀論者顯然來到白宮，暗示他並不忠誠。

You have a president who continues to conflate friend and foe and in saying that even our friends are treating us worse than our foes.

你們的總統繼續把敵友混為一談，甚至說我們的朋友對待我們的態度比敵人還惡劣。

Just give us a sense of where that puts us in terms of security risks here in the United States.

請告訴我們美國的安全風險在哪裡。

Sure.

當然。

Well, first of all, I mean, just any reading of the history of the past century is trade conflict can frequently spill into military conflict.

首先，從上個世紀的歷史來看，貿易衝突經常會演變成軍事衝突。

We've seen that happen time and time again.

我們看到這種情況一再發生。

It was a source of the War of 1812 with Britain.

它是 1812 年與英國戰爭的源頭。

Right.

對

But you also saw elements of that in World War One and so forth.

但在第一次世界大戰等戰爭中，你也能看到這樣的元素。

Separate and apart from the history lesson here, the conflation of our adversaries with our allies is bound to come back and haunt the United States.

撇開歷史教訓不談，將我們的對手與盟友混為一談，勢必會給美國帶來麻煩。

I think, you know, what is our greatest military strength as a country beyond our nuclear weapons, which you can't really go use?

我想，你知道，作為一個國家，除了你無法真正使用的核武器之外，我們最大的軍事力量是什麼？

And the answer is it's our alliance system.

答案就是我們的聯盟系統。

Who is it that we have tariffed heavily in the course of this?

在此過程中，我們對誰徵收了高額關稅？

Japan and South Korea, who are linchpins of the effort to contain Chinese expansion, to say nothing of North Korea.

日本和韓國是遏制中國擴張的中堅力量，北韓就更不用說了。

Why poison that relationship?

為什麼要破壞這種關係？

I don't know.

我不知道。

And if the president turned around and said, well, this is about trade, not about politics, go explain what we heard over the weekend about why it was that he did not put any tariff penalties on Russia, because we're in the middle of a negotiation for peace in Ukraine.

如果總統回過頭來說，好吧，這是貿易問題，與政治無關，那就去解釋一下我們週末聽到的，為什麼他沒有對俄羅斯實施任何關稅懲罰，因為我們正在為烏克蘭的和平進行談判。

By the way, there are tariffs that were put on Ukraine.

順便說一句，烏克蘭也被徵收了關稅。

So obviously, politics has entered into the setting of these tariffs and yet not with our main allies in Europe or Asia.

是以，很明顯，政治因素已被納入這些關稅的制定中，但卻不是針對我們在歐洲或亞洲的主要盟友。

All right, David Sanger, live for us there.

好的，大衛-桑格，為我們現場報道。

Thank you.

謝謝。