Name: 歐洲領袖們協調對策！因應川普最新關稅升級 🇺🇸🇪🇺 | DW 新聞 (European leaders coordinate response to Trump's new tariff escalation | DW News)
Uploaded: 2026-02-23T23:08:25.000Z
Duration: 7 min 39 s

European leaders are planning a coordinated response to Donald Trump's latest action on trade tariffs.

歐洲領袖正計畫聯手回應川普最新的貿易關稅行動。

The president is planning a new worldwide 15% levy in response to the U.S.

總統計畫徵收新的全球性 15% 關稅，以回應美國

supreme Court striking down most of his previous tariffs.

最高法院推翻他先前大多數的關稅。

Germany's Chancellor, Friedrich Metz, has warned that constant uncertainty about tariffs is harmful for both European and US Economies.

德國總理 Friedrich Metz 警告，關稅的不確定性對歐洲和美國經濟都有害。

Kimberly Clausing, professor of tax law and policy, UCLA School of Law, joins us now from Los Angeles.

加州大學洛杉磯分校法學院稅法與政策教授 Kimberly Clausing 現在從洛杉磯連線。

Kimberly, almost in a blink of an eye, we had a Supreme Court ruling against tariffs, then tariffs imposed again, first at 10%, then at 15.

Kimberly，幾乎在一眨眼之間，最高法院就做出不利關稅的裁決，然後又重新徵收關稅，先是 10%，接著是 15%。

What impact will this have on the American economy?

Well, the one piece of good news here is for the institutional strength, it's good that the Supreme Court ruled in a way that's consistent with the law and with separation of powers.

嗯，這裡一個好消息是，對制度性實力而言，最高法院的裁決符合法律和分權制，這很好。

The president doesn't have the authority that he had been pretending he had in levying all of these mercurial tariffs.

總統並沒有他先前聲稱擁有的、用於徵收這些反覆無常關稅的權力。

And so now the president will be turning to these other authorities.

所以現在總統將轉向這些其他的權力。

For the economy, though, while this is all being sorted out, whether these new tariffs are even permanent or not, we're still left with a lot of chaos and uncertainty.

不過，對經濟來說，在這些事情塵埃落定之前，無論這些新關稅是否永久有效，我們仍然面臨著許多混亂和不確定性。

For consumers, prices are still going to be high.

對消費者來說，價格還是會很高。

The new levels of tariffs look very similar to what they were prior to the ruling.

新的關稅水準看起來和裁決前的水準非常相似。

So there's going to be very little change in the consumer pain.

所以消費者痛苦的程度幾乎不會有什麼改變。

If anything, businesses might be more likely to pass through these costs to consumers.

如果有的話，企業可能更傾向於將這些成本轉嫁給消費者。

The longer this lasts for businesses, there's uncertainty, higher costs and reductions in manufacturing employment in response to that.

對企業來說，這種情況持續越久，就會面臨不確定性、更高的成本，以及是以導致的製造業就業減少。

So this has been tough for the business community, too.

This obviously affects markets all over the world, but what do you imagine the European reaction should be?

這顯然會影響到全世界的市場，但你覺得歐洲的反應應該會是什麼？

Well, one good piece of news for all the US Trading partners is the predictability of US Tariff policy should be somewhat better under the new authorities than they were under the prior authority.

嗯，對所有美國貿易夥伴來說，一個好消息是，在新的權力之下，美國關稅政策的可預測性應該會比之前稍微好一些。

Under the prior authority, the president was free to change the tariff at the drop of a hat on any country and would often threaten to do so through social media posts.

在之前的權力之下，總統可以隨時隨地對任何國家改變關稅，而且經常透過社群媒體發文威脅要這麼做。

And so there was constant fluctuation and unevenness across the trading partners.

所以貿易夥伴之間就出現了持續的波動和不確定性。

Now, this authority requires, across the board, 15% maximum rate.

現在，這項權力要求，全面徵收，最高稅率為 15%。

所以這就是它能達到的最高程度了。

And trading partners can be assured that it's similar to what it is for other countries.

貿易夥伴可以放心，這跟對其他國家一樣。

So in five months, this will be gone unless the Congress passes an act to extend them.

所以五個月後，除非國會通過法案延長，否則這些都將消失。

And it's very unlikely that Congress will do that because they've already expressed disapproval of these tariffs on multiple occasions.

國會不太可能這麼做，因為他們已經多次表達對這些貿易關稅的不滿。

我很好奇，請跟我們說明一下。

What would actually happen if companies demanded a refund for tariffs that had been unlawfully imposed in recent months.

如果企業要求退還近期被非法徵收的關稅，實際上會發生什麼事？

So these refunds are absolutely sensible response to these unlawful tariffs.

所以這些退款絕對是針對這些非法貿易關稅的合理回應。

And hopefully the lower courts will start, you know, issuing rulings indicating that these refunds should happen.

而且希望各級法院能開始，你知道，發布裁決，表明這些退款應該發生。

Each year, the IRS refunds excess tax taxes paid to millions and millions of U.S. households.

每年，美國國稅局都會向數百萬戶美國家庭退還多繳的稅款。

他們將能夠退還這兩筆款項，但

it may be held up in litigation if the administration is intransigent and tries to delay or postpone these refunds.

如果政府態度強硬，試圖延遲或推遲這些退款，可能會在訴訟中被拖延。

That's Kimberly Claussing, a professor of tax law and policy, UCLA School of Law.

這是加州大學洛杉磯分校法學院稅法與政策教授 Kimberly Claussing。

Really appreciate your time and your perspective.

Abigail hall, associate professor in economics at the University of Tampa, joins us now for more.

現在加入我們的是坦帕大學經濟學副教授 Abigail Hall，來為我們提供更多資訊。

Abigail hall, Almost in a blink of an eye, we had a Supreme Court ruling against tariffs, then tariffs again, first at 10%, then at 15.

Abigail Hall，幾乎是轉眼之間，我們就經歷了最高法院一項反對貿易關稅的裁決，然後又恢復了貿易關稅，先是 10%，然後是 15%。

這對美國經濟會有什麼影響呢？

So all we can really say at this point is here we go again.

所以我們現在真的只能說，又來了。

So I anticipate that we're going to continue to see a lot of uncertainty which has really plagued businesses both large and small throughout the US Economy over the last year.

是以，我預計我們將繼續看到很多不確定性，這一年來，這種不確定性確實困擾著美國經濟中的大小企業。

Now, whether or not these tariffs will stand up to legal challenges, which are inevitably coming.

現在，這些貿易關稅是否能經得起法律挑戰，而法律挑戰是不可避免的。

Given the Supreme Court ruling that we got yesterday, that seems really unlikely.

鑑於我們昨天收到的最高法院裁決，這似乎不太可能。

You're across the Atlantic, but with a vision towards the other side.

您身在大西洋彼岸，但目光卻投向了另一邊。

What should the European reaction look like?

So it's difficult to say as an economist what people should or shouldn't do.

作為一名經濟學家，很難說人們應該做什麼或不應該做什麼。

It wouldn't surprise me at all if, as the chancellor mentioned, there is not a coordinated European response.

如果如總理所說，歐洲沒有協調一致的反應，我一點也不會感到驚訝。

Because really, in the face of these tariffs again now repeated over and over for the last year, there's really kind of two options.

因為說真的，面對這一年來不斷重複出現的貿易關稅，其實只有兩種選擇。

One is to kind of acquiesce to the demands of the US President.

The other is to kind of push back in terms of implementing their own economic pain.

另一種則是透過實施自身的經濟壓力來反擊。

Keeping in mind, however, that just as tariffs imposed by the US Are detrimental to our trading partners as well as ourselves, any kind of counter response is similar, and

不過要記得，就像美國徵收的貿易關稅對我們的貿易夥伴和我們自己都有害一樣，任何反擊措施也類似，

that it's not just harmful to the US but also harmful to the nations who impose them.

而且這不僅對美國有害，對實施反擊的國家也有害。

Will Trump's latest tariffs remain in place, or will they be overturned by a court?

川普最新的貿易關稅會持續下去，還是會被法院推翻？

Again, given the Supreme Court ruling yesterday, which was very clear that the president does not have widespread authority to issue tariffs, it seems very unlikely that this most recent round will hold.

再說一次，鑑於我們昨天收到的最高法院裁決，該裁決非常清楚地表明總統沒有廣泛的權力可以徵收貿易關稅，是以這最新一輪的貿易關稅似乎不太可能成立。

Specifically, the legislation that the administration is saying allows them to impose this latest round of tariffs has to do with something called the balance of payments.

具體來說，行政部門聲稱允許他們徵收這最新一輪貿易關稅的法規，與所謂的國際收支有關。

And this type of tariff that he's proposing is only allowable in a balance of payments crisis.

而他提出的這種貿易關稅，僅在國際收支危機時才允許。

But based on current exchange rates, our balance of payments is zero.

但根據目前的匯率，我們的國際收支是零。

So it seems very difficult to see how this would hold legal water.

所以很難看出這在法律上站不站得住腳。

I suspect as an economist recently, you've probably been looking at the whole issue of tariffs much more closely than you ever looked in the past.

我猜身為經濟學家，你最近一定比以往任何時候都更密切地關注關稅的整個議題。

Looking at the evidence from the first and now second Trump administrations, have tariffs actually delivered on their promises for American workers?

看看川普第一任和現在第二任政府的證據，關稅對美國勞工的承諾兌現了嗎？

Or are we risking a long trade war that leaves both the US and its partners worse off?

還是我們正在冒著一場漫長的貿易戰的風險，讓美國及其貿易夥伴都變得更糟？

If we're using the yardstick laid out by the administration for what tariffs were supposed to accomplish, the answer to that question is clearly no.

如果我們用政府提出的關稅應該達成的標準來看，這個問題的答案顯然是否定的。

We were promised a boon in manufacturing.

我們被承諾製造業會蓬勃發展。

We've certainly not seen that in many cases.

在許多情況下，我們確實沒看到。

We've seen a contraction in manufacturing.

It's become more expensive for businesses to import products to use to make goods.

企業進口商品來製造產品的成本變高了。

In the United States, it's made goods more expensive for consumers.

在美國，這讓消費者的商品變貴了。

So far from being a boon for the American economy and a boom for the US Consumer, we're seeing quite the opposite.

所以，這不只不是美國經濟和美國消費者的福音，我們看到的卻是完全相反的情況。

That's Abigail hall, an associate professor in economics at the University of Tampa.

這位是 Abigail Hall，坦帕大學經濟學副教授。