Name: 川普關稅違法？除非國會點頭，否則通通不行！專家分析 (Trump's tariffs are illegal unless Congress approves : Analysis)
Uploaded: 2026-02-21T23:13:23.000Z
Duration: 5 min 28 s

Will Hutton is a political economist joining us from Oxford in the UK So you may have heard there the statement by governors, governors against a president, a president accusing judges of being disloyal.

Will Hutton 是一位政治經濟學家，從英國牛津加入我們。所以你可能聽說了州長們的聲明，州長們反對總統，總統指控法官不忠。

情態副詞

Just how stable a trading partner does the US Appear to be to other countries, especially in Europe?

美國對其他國家，特別是歐洲，究竟是一個多穩定的貿易夥伴？

Well, the terms of the trade are obviously unstable, but you have to remember that the United States is that one quarter of world gdp.

嗯，貿易條款顯然不穩定，但你必須記住，美國佔世界國內生產總值的四分之一。

You need to have a market presence in the United States to kind of validate your company.

你需要擁有美國的市場佔有率，才能某種程度上驗證您的公司。

So, I mean, people, one way or another have to devise workarounds or mechanisms to deal with all this kind of uncertainty and instability.

所以，我的意思是，人們或多或少必須設計替代方案或機制來應對所有這些不確定性和不穩定性。

I think the fact that it's not going to be a 10% tariff for just 150 days and quite likely that it won't be congressional approval at the end of 150 days, it's kind of unambiguous good news.

我認為，這不是百分之十的關稅僅僅持續一百五十天，而且很可能在一百五十天結束時不會獲得國會準許，這算是一個明確的好消息。

And it's good news for South Africa who are facing 50% tariffs.

對於面臨百分之五十關稅的南非來說，這是個好消息。

It's good news for the Europeans who are facing 15% tariffs now, 10% tariffs.

對於目前面臨百分之十五關稅、百分之十關稅的歐洲人來說，這是個好消息。

It's good news for a lot of countries in the global south who are facing extraordinary tariffs, including China.

這對許多合作夥伴來說是個好消息

The open question is to what extent will the president look for kind of particular countries and particular sectors where he can use other provisions and other trade acts to impose tariffs, but it won't be the kind of blanket Liberation Day tariffs that we saw last April.

It's going to be much more slow moving and tricky for him.

Well, let me jump in then say, though, haven't those very specific tariffs already been used to target certain sectors, including in Europe?

So it's not a case that, or correct me if I'm wrong, that all tariffs come down to 10% because the Supreme Court ruling just applies to those tariffs imposed emergency.

所以這不是一個情況，或者共同

So, yeah, of 1977, those are the, those are the tariffs.

所以，是的，1977年，那些就是關稅。

But the Europeans, under the European Trade Agreement, kind of what it does is it says that no tariffs on any American exports to the US including on cars, actually, which the Europeans did have a special 10% tariff on cars.

但歐洲人，根據歐洲貿易協定，它的作用是說，美國出口到美國的商品都沒有關稅，包括汽車，事實上，歐洲人對汽車有特別的百分之十的關稅。

And reciprocally, there was going to be a flat rate tariff of 15%.

相對地，將會有一個百分之十五的固定關稅。

I think there was one sector, aluminium, where actually there was a potential for Trump to try to do something special.

我認為有一個領域，鋁，川普其實有可能會嘗試做一些特別的事情。

But that was the basic, that's the basic framing.

但那就是基本的，那就是基本的架構。

That's the basic frame of the deal, does that deal still have the same appeal as it did to Europeans?

那就是協議的基本框架，這個協議對歐洲人還有當初的吸引力嗎？

Now that the whole tariffs, rules and regime is changing, will the European Parliament still go ahead with ratification or will they at least ask for some concessions or amendments?

現在整個關稅、規則和制度都在改變，歐洲議會還會繼續準許嗎？或者他們至少會要求一些讓步或修改嗎？

I'd be surprised if the European Parliament ratifies this deal next week, first of all.

我會很驚訝，如果歐洲議會下週就準許這項協議的話，首先。

而且百分之十的關稅只會持續一百五十天。

And actually, why should they give lots of trade concessions and tariff concessions to the United States in exchange for not very much, actually, if there's not going to be kind of any, if the entire threat of high tariffs or selective tariffs has gone away.

而且實際上，如果沒有那種威脅，如果高關稅或選擇性關稅的威脅都消失了，為什麼他們還要為了沒什麼東西而給予美國很多貿易讓步和關稅讓步呢？

I think they're going to want some really, some real guarantees from Trump on kind of how he's going to behave kind of subsequently.

我認為他們會想要川普一些非常、非常實在的保證，關於他之後會如何行事。

And he's not going to, they're not going to get them in particular.

I mean, using tariffs to kind of threaten countries around Greenland and all that's gone out of the window.

我的意思是，用關稅來威脅格陵蘭周邊的國家，這些都已經不可能了。

So, you know, I mean, I think that the, I mean, I think the Europeans will want to kind of.

所以，你知道，我的意思是，我認為歐洲人會想要。

I would be very surprised if the European Parliament doesn't want to pause and actually have a look at kind of and just see how the, how this landscape is going to settle.

我會非常驚訝，如果歐洲議會不想暫停下來，好好看看，然後只是看看這個局勢將如何穩定下來。

I'm glad you mentioned that because since you're also a political economist, let me, let me ask you a look at it from a slightly different angle.

很高興你提到這個，因為你也是一位政治經濟學家，讓我也從一個稍微不同的角度來問你看看。

As you mentioned, tariffs was a weapon, a leverage tool in the arsenal of Donald Trump's foreign policy approaches to issues from Greenland to who does business with Iran.

正如你所說，關稅是川普外交政策武器庫中的一種武器，一種籌碼，用來處理從格陵蘭到與伊朗做生意的各種議題。

I mean, under the Emergency Powers act, he was using that to do it.

我的意思是，根據《緊急權力法》，他當時是這樣做的。

And the Supreme Court has been unambiguous.

他說這是對美國消費者的課稅。

That taxation, that tax right sits with Congress.

It's illegal to do it unless you get congressional kind of legislative support.

除非獲得國會某種程度的立法支持，否則這樣做是非法的。

Subscribe to Al Jazeera for reliable news and expert insights like Share.

訂閱半島電視臺，獲取可靠新聞和專家觀點，例如 Share。