Name: 特朗普聲稱如果輸掉關稅官司，美國將 "遭受巨大損失 (Trump claims US will 'suffer so greatly' if he loses tariff case)
Uploaded: 2025-09-04T22:47:04.000Z
Duration: 7 min 44 s

第二類條件句型

What if as a federal appeals court recently ruled what if most of President Trump's tariffs are based on a misreading of the law and are unconstitutional what if The u.s.

如果聯邦上訴法院最近裁定，特朗普總統的大部分關稅都是基於對法律的誤讀而違憲怎麼辦？

Supreme Court upholds that ruling what if the u.s.

程度副詞

Treasury then has to refund More than two hundred billion dollars to businesses that paid those tariffs Here are President Trump's rather dire answers both yesterday and today If you took away tariffs We we could end up being a third world country if we don't win that case our country is going to suffer so greatly Sounds bad CNN's Vanessa Yurkovich is at the magic wall Vanessa.

如果你取消關稅，我們最終可能會淪為第三世界國家，如果我們打不贏這場官司，我們的國家將遭受巨大損失。 聽起來很糟糕，CNN 的 Vanessa Yurkovich 正在魔幻牆前。

What kind of a potential mess might we be looking at here?

我們在這裡會看到什麼樣的潛在混亂？

It's very messy because we've never had tariffs at this scale and we've never talked about a refund check totaling more than 210 billion dollars This is the amount that the US government has collected through August 24th from tariffs and reminder to folks out there Who's paying this?

這非常混亂，因為我們從未有過如此規模的關稅，也從未談及總額超過 2100 億美元的退稅支票。 這是美國政府截至 8 月 24 日從關稅中收取的金額，並提醒人們 誰在支付這筆費用？

This is US businesses that have paid this much money because of the Trump administration's tariffs now Where do we stand exactly?

這是美國企業因為特朗普政府的關稅而付出的代價，我們現在的處境究竟如何？

so on Friday there was an appeals court that ruled that Trump's tariffs were unlawful because He was using the powers act an emergency powers act also known as IEPA and the Judge essentially said that's unlawful So the Trump administration now is planning to appeal that with the Supreme Court However, if they're not successful Jake the ruling goes into effect on October 14th Which means that the US government is going to have to stop collecting tariffs and pay back all of that money to US businesses How does that happen?

上週五，上訴法院裁定特朗普的關稅措施不合法，因為他使用了緊急權力法案，也被稱為 IEPA，法官基本上說這是不合法的。

Well, no one really knows but here are some guesses from experts The government could either just refund all the tariffs to those US businesses and importers who have paid them They could argue that they're only going to refund the tariffs to the plaintiffs that were on that ruling on Friday And that's just a few that's not a lot of businesses or they could require the federal government could require Individual importers or individual businesses to request refunds Jake we're talking about Thousands thousands of businesses that would have to make those requests that would surely take a lot of time And could be quite confusing for businesses who are just trying to do the math on how much they have paid so far and Vanessa While this is all going on.

那麼沒有人真正知道，但以下是專家們的一些猜測 政府可以直接向已支付關稅的美國企業和進口商退還所有關稅 他們可以辯稱，他們只會向週五裁決中的原告退還關稅 這只是少數企業，並不是很多企業 或者他們可以要求聯邦政府政府可以要求個別進口商或個別企業申請退款 傑克，我們說的是成千上萬的企業將不得不提出這些要求，這肯定會花費大量的時間，而且可能會讓那些只是試圖計算他們到目前為止已經支付了多少錢的企業感到相當困惑。

We're gonna get a lot of information about the job market this week today We got the first part of this data.

本週我們將獲得大量有關就業市場的資訊 今天，我們獲得了這些數據的第一部分。

We got the jolts report earlier today and that talks about openings hirings and separations layoffs or firings What we saw in this new report this morning was a little bit different than what we've been seeing We saw now that there are fewer jobs available.

今天早些時候，我們收到了一份關於 "震動"（jolts）的報告，其中談到了招聘和離職的情況，也就是裁員或解僱。

So about less than one job per job seeker You see the numbers right there jobs open seven point one eight million those looking for a job those unemployed 7.2 million so now the job seeker no longer has the upper hand as they had in the pandemic and that is really a Softening of the labor market which really supports what we saw in the July jobs report when we saw a really really meager 73,000 jobs added in the month of July President Trump was really upset by that and he fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because of that Where are the jobs openings increasing?

是以，現在求職者不再像在大流行病時期那樣佔上風，這確實是勞動力市場的疲軟，這確實支持了我們在 7 月份就業報告中看到的情況，當時我們看到 7 月份新增的工作崗位確實非常少，只有 73,000 個，特朗普總統對此非常不滿，並是以解僱了勞工統計局局長。

Well health care and social assistance This is a category that has seen a lot of robust hiring a reversal here fewer jobs opening in that category Fewer jobs by down by more than a hundred thousand in retail and trade mining and lodging also fewer openings Some increases that we've seen increases in positions Constructions, we know construction.

醫療保健和社會援助類的招聘人數大幅增加，但情況發生了逆轉，該類別的職位數量減少，零售和貿易類的職位數量減少了十多萬個，採礦和住宿類的職位數量也減少了。

We know the president's gonna like that manufacturing as well and wholesale trade Jake I will just say that this is a snapshot of the labor market A lot of folks are looking to that major US government jobs report later this week on Friday That is what the president is also going to be looking at to see if those numbers are to his liking Jake Yeah, interesting Vanessa your capers.

我們知道總統也會喜歡製造業和批發貿易 傑克 我只想說，這是勞動力市場的一個縮影，很多人都在關注本週五晚些時候美國政府發佈的重要就業報告，總統也會關注這個報告，看看這些數字是否符合他的胃口 傑克 是的，凡妮莎，你的小插曲很有趣。

Thanks so much Let's explore the possibilities with an expert wealth and investment manager firm president Ross Gerber Ross If the courts rule that Trump's tariffs are illegal the US Supreme Court How much of a blow could this be to Trump and to the economy Well, it's a much bigger blow to Trump than the economy I think it's actually good for the economy this idea that it's somehow bad For the economy to take away this huge tax on American consumers is actually false and the refunds would all all go back to u.s Companies that are paying this so so I don't see how that's a negative when the tariffs are the the problem and I think really where the negative is is it's a huge blow to Trump's belief system that Executive orders are the way to put his policies in place Versus doing it the correct way the way our Constitution states that Congress has the right to make these tariffs and laws These exceptions that Trump are using are for very limited purposes and and for national security Issues and and it's just hard to argue that putting tariffs on every country in the world is a national security issue so so I don't know where this goes, but it's more another blow to Trump's style of managing this country and It's a severe blow because I think he fundamentally doesn't understand the separation powers of the United States speaking of Trump's style Vanessa was talking about the Bureau of Labor Statistics is going to have the new jobs numbers this Friday And I was just wondering how do you think they're going to be received on?

如果法院裁定特朗普的關稅是非法的，美國最高法院 這對特朗普和經濟會造成多大的打擊 嗯，這對特朗普的打擊要比對經濟的打擊大得多 我認為這實際上對經濟是有利的 這種認為取消對美國消費者徵收的鉅額稅款在某種程度上對經濟不利的想法實際上是錯誤的，退稅將全部返還給美國。所以我看不出這有什麼負面影響，因為關稅才是問題所在，我認為真正的負面影響在於，這對特朗普的信念系統是一個巨大的打擊，他認為行政命令是將其政策落實到位的方式，而不是按照我們憲法規定的正確方式來做。美國國會有權制定這些關稅和法律，而特朗普使用的這些例外是

Wall Street given the fact that he fired the last BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics director because he didn't like Numbers and he said some really just demonstrably false things about numbers She'd put out to help Joe Biden that or Kamala Harris rather that she actually had not do you think people are going to take the BLS numbers on face value because of all the Experts and serious policy people at BLS or are people going to wonder hmm Are these shaded just because Trump didn't like the last bad numbers?

華爾街鑑於他解僱了上一任BLS勞工統計局局長的事實，因為他不喜歡數字，他說了一些關於數字的真的只是明顯虛假的東西，她會放出來幫助喬-拜登，或卡馬拉-哈里斯，而她實際上沒有，你認為人們會採取BLS數字的表面價值，因為所有的專家和認真的政策人員在BLS，還是人們會想，嗯，這些陰影只是因為特朗普不喜歡最後一個糟糕的數字嗎？

I Spent a lot of time actually on the Bureau of Labor Statistics websites reading these reports and there's literally thousands of inputs These are factual numbers that are gathered throughout our country through an extensive process.

實際上，我花了很多時間在勞工統計局的網站上閱讀這些報告，其中有數以千計的輸入數據。

That is beyond belief to be honest It's incredibly detailed and so the idea that the numbers would be manipulated out of either fear or desire I think it's possible, but probably not probable.

老實說，這簡直難以置信，因為它非常詳細，所以出於恐懼或慾望而操縱數字的想法我認為是有可能的，但可能性不大。

So I'm not going to discount the numbers I always kind of use my own numbers.

所以，我不會對數字打折扣，我總是用我自己的數字。

Anyways, I think smart, you know Financial firms have other methods than just using CPI and BLS numbers to determine inflation and employment and from my own You know numbers we're seeing a softening in employment, but it's still a pretty strong economy So we expect more of the same of that and but I think the idea that somebody might lose their job Because of a bad number is a very very poor way to manage the government Once again, these are not political people These are statisticians that work for our government and they don't care who's president, you know When you work in the State Department or you work in a lot of these places you work for the US government and it's not Politics and I think that's the mistake that Trump's making is that many of these people could care less who's president They do their jobs and they try to do them well, and it's for the benefit of our country Ross Gerber Thanks so much.

總之，我認為聰明的金融公司除了使用消費物價指數和美國統計局的數據來確定通貨膨脹和就業率之外，還有其他的方法，從我自己的數據來看，我們看到就業率在走低，但這仍然是一個相當強勁的經濟，所以我們期待更多的相同的情況，但我認為，有人可能會因為一個糟糕的數字而失去工作，這是一個非常非常糟糕的方式來管理政府、這些人不是政治人物，他們是為政府工作的統計人員，他們不在乎誰是總統，你知道，當你在國務院工作或在很多這樣的地方工作時，你是在為美國政府工作，這不是政治，我認為這就是特朗普犯的錯誤，很多這些人不在乎誰是總統，他們做