舒畅：美国中小型企业把川普实行关税战告上法庭能赢吗（中英双语版本）
舒畅：美国中小型企业把川普实行关税战告上法庭能赢吗（中英双语版本）
川普总统发动的“关税战”在法律层面遇到挑战，美国中小型企业把川普告上了法庭，目前案件已上诉至联邦巡回法院，甚至可能进入最高法院审理；但从实效角度来看，他的策略已带来显著经济收益。以下是事实与数量的补充，并加入我的观点。
首先，关税收入方面——2018年川普新增关税带来了约 144亿美元 的联邦收入（由经济顾问委员会报告） ；2025年5月，美国单月关税收入达到 222亿美元，创历史新高 。另据财政机构测算，他所有政策下的关税若持续十年，将带来 2400亿美元 至 3100亿美元 收入（依不同估算方式），其中 IEEPA 征税可能占 1800亿美元（传统算术） 。
其次，制造业回流与就业效应。虽然学界对“回流效应”存在分歧，但数据显示，自2010年起至2024年底，美国制造业回流投资总额已达 1.7万亿美元，即每年新增 35万 份制造业工作机会被宣布（Reshoring Initiative 报告） 。尽管并非完全归功于关税政策，但贸易壁垒提高无疑增加企业审慎重估全球供应链的动力。
就业方面，截至2024年，美国制造业就业约 1280万人，为总就业的 7.9%；若加上因贸易逆差潜在回流岗位，总数可达 1560万人，占比提升至 9.7%，增长 1.7个百分点，新增约 130万人产线工人 。
至于消费与GDP影响，美国国会预算办公室估算：关税政策将使 2025 年实际 GDP 增速下降约 0.9 个百分点，长期经济规模缩减约 0.6%（相当于每年减少 1600亿美元 产出） ；同年家庭平均会损失约 3800美元 的购买力，但这些损失主要集中在服装、纺织等领域 。
我的观点如下：
我认为川普总统在贸易战过程中的确取得了实质性的成效——他坚定地使用《232条》和《301条》这两项国会授权法律应对不公平贸易行为，有实际法律与历史依据。即便目前案件涉及 IEEPA 的授权是否过度、是否超出总统权限，但即使法律需进一步明确，我相信美国最高法院最终会站在美国民众利益视角，认同这种保护国内产业、防止不公平竞争的政策目标。
更重要的是，如果未来法院认为总统权限不足，国会授权将是必要——当前共和党控制参众两院，未来通过类似授权的可能性很高。从政治现实看，即使中小企业提出诉讼，无法扭转整体政策方向。
综合来看，关税已为政府带来数千亿美元收入，刺激回流投资与回升国内制造业就业，尽管代价存在，但整体经济表现尚可，就业与消费者信心未出现崩溃迹象。我坚信，川普政策的整体方向符合美国长期利益，法律挑战最终难以动摇其效果。注释说明：
《1962年贸易扩张法》第232条（Section 232）：授权总统可在国家安全受威胁的情况下，对特定进口商品（如钢铁、铝）设立关税或限制。这通常涉及国防工业相关的原材料。
《1974年贸易法》第301条（Section 301）：允许美国贸易代表（USTR）调查和应对他国“不合理、不公正”的贸易行为，并可由总统下令征收报复性关税，最典型的对象就是中国。
《1977年国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）：原本用于冻结外国资产、金融制裁等紧急状态下的外交手段。川普试图用此作为发动全球性征税的依据，是法律争议的焦点，因为IEEPA本身并没有直接赋予总统设定关税的权力。
English Version (not for simultaneous publish on 商语平台)
Shuchang: The Trade War—Legal Debates and Tangible Results
While President Trump’s trade war has faced legal scrutiny and court challenges that may reach the U.S. Supreme Court, the economic outcomes thus far have been materially significant.
Tariff revenues: In 2018, the new tariffs generated about $14.4?billion in federal revenue, as reported by the Council of Economic Advisers. In May 2025 alone, tariff revenue hit $22.2?billion, a monthly record. Over a decade, projections suggest cumulative revenues between $240?billion and $310?billion, with much of that stemming from IEEPA-based tariffs.
Reshoring & jobs: U.S. reshoring and foreign direct investment into manufacturing reached $1.7?trillion by the end of 2024, translating into roughly 350,000 new job announcements per year. Manufacturing employment—about 12.8 million workers in 2024, or 7.9% of total employment—could increase to 15.6 million or 9.7%, adding nearly 1.3 million production workers in principle.
GDP effect: According to Congressional Budget Office analysis, the 2025 tariffs may reduce real GDP growth by about 0.9 percentage points, and shrink long?term U.S. output by approximately 0.6%—or $160 billion annually. Average household purchasing power might decline by $3,800, mainly impacting textiles and clothing.
My view: Trump’s use of Sections?232 and?301 is grounded in congressional authorization to counter unfair trade. Even if emergency-based tariffs under IEEPA face legal limits, I believe the Supreme Court will take Americans’ national interest into account. If legislative authorization becomes necessary, the Republican?controlled Congress is likely to comply. The lawsuit from small businesses, even if based on grievance, is unlikely to overturn the broader policy trajectory.
In total, the policy has delivered billions in revenue, encouraged reshoring and investment, and supported industrial rebalancing. While trade wars carry costs, the net benefit to strategic long?term interests remains clear. I trust that the legal outcome will ultimately favor policies that uphold American workers and economic sovereignty.
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: Grants the President authority to impose tariffs or other trade restrictions on specific imports (such as steel and aluminum) if they are found to threaten national security. This is often applied to raw materials essential to the defense industry.
Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Allows the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) to investigate and respond to “unreasonable” or “unjustifiable” trade practices by other countries. The President may authorize retaliatory tariffs based on these findings. China has been the most prominent target under this provision.
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977: Originally intended to enable the President to freeze foreign assets and impose financial sanctions during national emergencies. President Trump attempted to invoke IEEPA to justify global tariff actions, but this remains legally controversial, as the act does not explicitly authorize the imposition of tariffs.