2026-09-30 10:05:55 UTC / 路透社
作者：迪特里希·克诺特
2026年9月30日 美国东部时间上午10:05 更新于1小时前
2026年9月29日，美国华盛顿特区，美国总统唐纳德·特朗普在东厅出席科技领袖午宴后，在白宫车道上向媒体发表讲话。路透社/乔纳森·恩斯特 购买授权
- 内容提要
- 美国多个州和企业称全球关税非法
- 特朗普政府为全球关税使用了不断变化的法律依据
- 联邦政府表示，7月实施的关税将打击其他国家的强迫劳动行为
纽约9月30日路透电 — 美国国际贸易法院将于周三审理一起针对唐纳德·特朗普总统针对60个贸易伙伴的商品关税的诉讼，特朗普指控这些国家未能阻止强迫劳动制造的进口商品。反对者称，这项政策恢复了最高法院2月裁定无效的不受限制的关税权力。
四家小企业和25个由民主党领导的州认为，这些适用于欧盟和中国商品的关税远超总统权限。
《虚假信息监测》新闻简报将汇总国际虚假信息叙事，每期都包含“真实还是虚假？”测验。点击此处订阅。
广告 · 滚动继续
由特朗普、巴拉克·奥巴马和乔·拜登三位总统任命的三名法官组成的合议庭将审理此案。预计合议庭不会当庭作出裁决，而是会在庭审结束后一段时间发布书面裁决。
特朗普已将关税作为其外交政策的核心支柱，将其作为谈判全球贸易协定的筹码。但最高法院在2月20日裁定，特朗普针对绝大多数范围最广的关税违宪，认定总统不能动用紧急经济权力单方面对所有美国贸易伙伴征收关税。
特朗普随即根据另一项美国法律立即实施了10%的临时全球关税作为回应。当这些临时关税到期时，他援引了另一项法律授权，实施了如今遭到质疑的强迫劳动关税。
广告 · 滚动继续
这些于7月底实施的关税税率在10%至12.5%之间，覆盖了超过99%进口到美国的商品。
三起合并至纽约美国国际贸易法院的诉讼辩称，新关税需要针对具体国家的不公平贸易做法调查作为法律依据。诉讼称，特朗普并未就强迫劳动开展任何实质性调查，而是简单地以“强迫劳动”为借口，重新主张美国法院多次否决的不受限制的全球关税权力。
特朗普政府在法庭文件中辩称，它已对其他国家未能阻止强迫劳动生产的商品进口开展了实质性调查，并得出结论认为，对60个被调查的贸易伙伴征收关税是合理的。
blob:https://www.reuters.com/61f49554-6f5f-4dd1-b34f-81c578d1a771
路透社迪特里希·克诺特报道 亚历克西亚·加拉姆法尔维和桑吉夫·米格拉尼编辑
我们的报道准则：汤姆森路透社信任原则。
US trade court to weigh challenge to Trump’s forced labor tariffs
2026-09-30 10:05:55 UTC / Reuters
By Dietrich Knauth
September 30, 2026 10:05 AM UTC Updated 1 hour ago
US President Donald Trump speaks to the press at the White House driveway following a luncheon for tech leaders in the East Room, in Washington, D.C., US, September 29, 2026. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst Purchase Licensing Rights
- Summary
- US states and businesses say global tariffs are illegal
- Trump administration has used shifting legal bases for global tariffs
- Federal government says tariffs imposed in July will combat forced labor in other nations
NEW YORK, Sept 30 (Reuters) – The US Court of International Trade will hear a challenge on Wednesday to President Donald Trump’s tariffs on goods from 60 trading partners he accuses of failing to prevent imports made with forced labor, a policy opponents say revives the unchecked tariff power the Supreme Court struck down in February.
Four small businesses and 25 Democratic-led states argue the tariffs, which apply to goods from the EU and China, far exceed the president’s authority.
The Misinformation Monitor newsletter rounds up international misinformation narratives, with a “Real or Fake?” quiz in every edition. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
A panel of three judges appointed by Presidents Trump, Barack Obama and Joe Biden will hear the case. The panel is not expected to rule from the bench, but will issue a written ruling sometime after the hearing.
Trump has made tariffs a central pillar of his foreign policy, using them as leverage to negotiate trade deals around the globe. But the Supreme Court ruled against most of Trump’s widest-ranging tariffs on February 20, finding that the president cannot use emergency economic powers to unilaterally impose tariffs on all US trading partners.
Trump responded by immediately imposing a temporary 10% global tariff under a different US law. When those temporary tariffs expired, he invoked another legal authority to impose the forced labor tariffs now being challenged.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The tariffs, imposed in late July, range from 10% to 12.5% and cover more than 99% of goods imported into the United States.
Three lawsuits, consolidated in the US Court of International Trade in New York, argue that the new tariffs require country-specific findings about unfair trade practices to be legally justified. Rather than conducting any real investigation into forced labor, Trump is simply using “forced labor” as a pretext to revive his claim to an unfettered global tariff power that US courts have repeatedly rejected, according to the lawsuits.
The Trump administration argued in court papers that it had conducted real investigations into other nations’ failure to prevent imports of goods produced with forced labor, and concluded that tariffs were warranted for each of the 60 investigated trading partners.
blob:https://www.reuters.com/61f49554-6f5f-4dd1-b34f-81c578d1a771
Reporting by Dietrich Knauth, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Sanjeev Miglani
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复