2025-10-24 50经济学家 高法废止特朗普关税

2025-10 50经济学家建议高法废止特朗普关税

伯南克和耶伦在最高法院抨击特朗普关税

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/trump-tariffs-panned-by-bernanke-yellen-in-supreme-court-filing

埃里克·拉尔森，彭博新闻社，2025年10月24日

包括前美联储主席本·伯南克和珍妮特·耶伦在内的多位来自不同政界的经济学家敦促美国最高法院推翻唐纳德·特朗普总统的大部分关税，称这些关税是基于对全球经济的误解。

（彭博社）——包括前美联储主席本·伯南克和珍妮特·耶伦在内的多位来自不同政界的经济学家敦促美国最高法院推翻唐纳德·特朗普总统的大部分关税，称这些关税是基于对全球经济的误解。

“这不过是经济学入门，但其影响深远，”近50名经济学家在周五提交的一份简报中写道。

该小组表示，美国与其他国家之间的贸易逆差是意料之中的，而非特朗普政府在紧急状态法下征收全面关税时所说的“异常且非同寻常”的威胁。此外，关税无论如何也弥补不了贸易逆差。

该小组表示：“互惠关税并非‘解决’贸易逆差。相反，它们将对经济造成数万亿美元的冲击，这种冲击将波及每个家庭和每个州。”

最高法院将在定于11月5日举行的口头辩论中，评估特朗普的关税是否合法。与此同时，外部团体正在与法官们进行所谓的“法庭之友”简报，表达他们的观点。这些经济学家提交的简报是周五截止日期前提交的几份文件之一，这些文件是那些挑战特朗普关税的公司的支持者提交的。其他参与讨论的人士包括31名前联邦法官、退役军人和国家安全官员以及美国商会。

特朗普政府在9月19日提交给最高法院的文件中表示，总统认定这些关税对于“纠正美国扼杀国家利益的贸易逆差”是必要的。

“对总统来说，这些案例代表着一个严峻的选择：有关税，我们是一个富国；没有关税，我们是一个穷国，”政府表示。

挑战特朗普观点的经济学家来自不同的背景和政治观点，其中包括前国会预算主任道格拉斯·霍尔茨-埃金、前总统小布什的经济顾问委员会主席格雷格·曼昆以及总统巴拉克·奥巴马时期的经济顾问委员会主席杰森·弗曼。

该组织批评特朗普基于几乎不可能平衡的贸易逆差向其他国家征收关税。他们引用了诺贝尔奖得主罗伯特·索洛的话，索洛曾打趣说，他总是与“根本不买我东西”的理发师保持贸易逆差。

香蕉贸易逆差

该组织在华盛顿提交的文件中表示：“美国拥有全球主导的科技产业，因此几十年来一直在服务贸易中保持顺差。相反，美国长期以来一直存在香蕉贸易逆差，因为美国的气候不利于香蕉种植。”

法官们将裁定特朗普是否根据1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》合法地发布了这些关税。该法案赋予总统一系列金融工具，以应对国家安全、外交政策和经济紧急情况。

在周五提交给最高法院的另一份文件中，一群专门负责经济安全事务的前联邦高级官员，包括前财政部长雅各布·卢、前国家安全顾问杰克·沙利文和前国家情报总监艾薇儿·海恩斯，表示特朗普动用《国际紧急经济权力法案》将破坏一项旨在与美国盟友合作制裁敌对国家的法律。

与此同时，美国商会与消费者技术协会共同表示：“关税是对美国企业以及最终消费者支付的商品征收的税。由于制宪者亲身认识到征税权就是破坏权，因此宪法赋予国会征税权——包括关税权。”

美国贸易法院裁定特朗普败诉，联邦上诉法院维持了这一判决。此外，在联邦初审法官裁定特朗普败诉后，法院还在审理两家家族教育玩具公司提起的另一项诉讼。

特朗普政府还在最高法院获得了少数外部团体的支持，这些团体必须在9月23日之前提交申请。美国法律与正义中心在一份文件中辩称，总统是外交事务的“唯一机构”。

“当联邦法院质疑总统关于国际紧急情况和经济威胁的决定时，它们不仅超越了其应有的职责——它们还破坏了长期以来统治我们共和国的宪法框架。”

该组织表示：“关税持续??扰乱全球经济，并给金融市场注入不确定性，而总统则利用提高关税的威胁来迫使贸易伙伴达成有利于美国的协议。

关税已成为特朗普外交政策的核心，以至于他的内阁官员在8月份警告联邦上诉法院，反对征收关税的裁决将带来毁灭性的后果，财政部长斯科特·贝森特警告称，这将带来“危险的外交尴尬”。

就在这些外部人士提交简报的几天前，提起诉讼的小型企业和民主党领导的各州已向美国最高法院提交了自己的辩论材料。其中一家名为Learning Resources Inc.的企业称，特朗普的关税是长达十年、对美国人征收的3万亿美元非法税。

以俄勒冈州总检察长丹·雷菲尔德为首的各州表示，特朗普使用“夸张的言辞”来掩盖他所说的一个简单的法律问题，即美国正在沦为“附庸国”。

各州在早些时候提交给法官的文件中表示：“国会，而不是总统，决定是否以及征收多少对从国外进口商品的美国人征税。本法院应该驳回总统攫取这一权力的企图。”

特朗普表示，他的关税是根据《紧急状态法》（IEEPA）合法授权的，因为该法的一项关键条款规定，总统可以“监管”财产的“进口”以“应对”紧急情况。

受到质疑的税收包括特朗普4月2日的“解放日”关税，该关税根据来源国对大多数美国进口商品征收10%-50%的关税。特朗普以美国贸易逆差构成国家紧急状态为由，为根据IEEPA征收的关税辩护。

此次上诉还涵盖了特朗普因未能阻止移民流动和芬太尼贩运而对加拿大、墨西哥和中国征收的关税。特朗普表示，根据IEEPA，边境局势也构成国家紧急状态。

特朗普政府官员淡化了此次诉讼的影响，称大多数关税可以通过其他合法途径征收。特朗普对钢铁、铝和汽车征收的关税是根据另一项法律征收的，因此不会直接受到上诉的影响。

这些案例是学习资源诉特朗普案，24-1287，以及特朗普诉V.O.S.案，25-250，美国最高法院。

（更新了美国商会等机构的简报。）

关键判决前夕，伯南克、耶伦带头，近50名经济学家呼吁美最高法推翻特朗普关税

李丹10-24 18:14

包括伯南克和耶伦在内的这些知名经济学家在提交最高法院的意见书中指出，美国与别国的贸易逆差是可以预期的正常现象，并非特朗普政府引用紧急法律时所称的“异常和特殊”威胁。他们认为，关税无法弥合贸易逆差，反而将对美国经济造成数万亿美元的影响，波及每个家庭和州。

包括两位前美联储主席在内，近50名知名经济学家联手向美国最高法院施压，呼吁推翻美国总统特朗普出台的大部分全球关税。这些政治立场各异的经济学家在最近提交给法院的摘要中指出，特朗普政府的关税政策建立在对全球经济的误解之上。

美东时间10月24日周五，上述经济学家在提交的意见书文件中表示，美国与其他国家之间的贸易逆差是可以预期的正常现象，并非特朗普政府引用紧急法律时所称的"异常和特殊"威胁。他们认为，关税无法弥合贸易逆差，反而将对美国经济造成数万亿美元的影响，波及每个家庭和州。

据新华社报道，美国联邦最高法院上月宣布，将快速审议特朗普政府征收的多数关税的合法性，并于11月5日听取口头辩论。诉讼所涉关税包括特朗普援引1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）面向全球征收的10%“基准关税”，对未与美国达成贸易协议的贸易伙伴征收的更高额度关税，以及所谓“芬太尼关税”。

上述经济学家的意见书是在最高法院11月5日口头辩论前提交的众多“法庭之友”摘要之一。其他提交意见的人士还包括31位前联邦法官、前军方和国家安全官员以及外交政策教授。

关税已成为特朗普外交政策的核心。美国财长贝森特曾在8月警告联邦上诉法院，如果关税被推翻将造成“危险的外交尴尬”。

跨党派经济学家阵营批评关税 反驳贸易逆差威胁论

从签名方看，本周五被披露的经济学家意见摘要来自各种背景且政见不一的经济学家，包括前美联储主席伯南克和耶伦、前国会预算局局长Douglas Holtz-Eakin、小布什任总统时期白宫经济顾问委员会主席Greg Mankiw，以及奥巴马总统时期的经济顾问委员会主席Jason Furman。

这些经济学家批评，特朗普根据几乎不可能平衡的贸易逆差对各国征收关税。他们引用诺贝尔经济学奖得主Robert Solow的比喻称，他与理发师之间总是存在贸易逆差，"因为理发师从我这里什么也不买"。

这些经济学家在文件中写道：“对等关税并不能‘解决’贸易逆差。” 他们补充说："这是非常基础的经济学内容，但其影响深远。"

他们在文件中详细阐述了贸易逆差的正常性，写道：

“美国的科技行业在全球占主导，因此几十年来在服务贸易中一直保持持续（贸易）盈余。而美国长期存在香蕉贸易逆差，因为美国的气候不适合种香蕉。”

小企业指控关税为非法税收

起诉特朗普政府的小企业Learning Resources在周一提交的摘要中称，特朗普的关税实质上是对美国人征收的非法3万亿美元税收，将在未来十年内分摊。

该公司表示，特朗普在根据一项从未打算用于征收关税的紧急法律于2月和4月发布税率时，篡夺了国会的征税权。相关摘要写道：“此后几个月，他随意提高和降低、暂停和恢复、威胁和取消威胁关税，理由五花八门。”

由葡萄酒和烈酒经销商V.O.S. Selections Inc.领导的另一批小企业的律师在周一提交的第二份摘要中表示，特朗普的关税与美国开国元勋赋予国会征税权的初衷相悖。

该公司指出：“政府声称，总统可以在任何时候、以任何税率、针对任何国家和产品、持续任何时长对美国人民征收关税——只需宣布长期存在的美国贸易逆差为国家紧急状态和异常及特殊威胁即可。”

特朗普政府坚持关税必要性

特朗普政府在9月19日提交给最高法院的文件中表示，总统认定关税对于"纠正美国致命的贸易逆差"是必要的。政府在文件中称："对总统而言，这些案件提出了一个鲜明的选择：有关税，我们就是富国；没有关税，我们就是穷国。"

最高法院将裁定特朗普是否根据IEEPA合法发布了关税。该法律赋予总统一系列金融工具以应对国家安全、外交政策和经济紧急情况。

美国贸易法院此前作出不利于特朗普的裁决，联邦上诉法院维持了这一决定。法院还在审理两家家族企业教育玩具公司提起的另一项挑战，联邦初审法官也作出了不利于政府的裁决。

特朗普政府官员淡化了诉讼的影响，称大多数关税可以通过其他法律途径征收。特朗普对钢铁、铝和汽车征收的关税是根据不同的法律实施的，因此不会直接受到上诉的影响。关税继续搅动全球经济并给金融市场注入不确定性，特朗普利用提高关税的威胁迫使贸易伙伴达成有利于美国的协议。

Trump Tariffs Panned by Bernanke, Yellen at Supreme Court

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/trump-tariffs-panned-by-bernanke-yellen-in-supreme-court-filing

Erik Larson， Bloomberg News Oct 24, 2025

A slate of economists from across the political spectrum, including former Federal Reserve Chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, urged the US Supreme Court to overturn most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, saying they’re based on misconceptions about the global economy.

(Bloomberg) — A slate of economists from across the political spectrum, including former Federal Reserve Chairs Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen, urged the US Supreme Court to overturn most of President Donald Trump’s tariffs, saying they’re based on misconceptions about the global economy.

“This is Economics 101, but the implications are profound,” a group of nearly 50 economists wrote in a brief filed Friday.

Trade deficits between the US and other nations are expected and not the “unusual and extraordinary” threat the Trump administration cited in imposing sweeping tariffs under an emergency law, the group said. Besides, the tariffs won’t close the deficits anyway.

“The reciprocal tariffs do not ‘deal with’ the trade deficits,” the group said. “Instead, they will have trillions of dollars’ worth of impact on the economy, an impact that will reverberate across every household and state.”

The Supreme Court will weigh whether Trump’s tariffs were issued legally during oral arguments set for Nov. 5. In the meantime, outside groups are making their views known in so-called friend-of-the-court briefs with the justices. The economists’ filing was one of several submitted before Friday’s deadline for supporters of the companies that are challenging Trump’s tariffs. Others to weigh in included 31 former federal judges, ex-military and national security officers, and the US Chamber of Commerce.

The Trump administration said in a filing with the Supreme Court on Sept. 19 that the president determined the tariffs were necessary to “rectify America’s country-killing trade deficits.”

 

“To the president, these cases present a stark choice: With tariffs, we are a rich nation; without tariffs, we are a poor nation,” the government said.

The economists challenging Trump’s view came from a wide range of backgrounds and political points of view and included former Congressional Budget Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers Chair Greg Mankiw and Jason Furman, CEA chair under President Barack Obama.

 

The group criticized Trump for issuing tariffs against countries based on deficits that would be nearly impossible to balance. They cited Nobel prize winner Robert Solow, who quipped that he always has a trade deficit with his barber “who doesn’t buy a darned thing from me.”

 

Banana Deficits 

 

“The United States has the dominant technology sector in the world and, as a result, has been running a persistent surplus in trade in services for decades,” the group said in their filing in Washington. “Conversely, the United States has long run banana trade deficits because the climate in the United States is not good for banana farming.”

 

The justices are set to determine if Trump legally issued the tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law that gives the president a range of financial tools to address national security, foreign policy and economic emergencies.

 

In another filing with the Supreme Court on Friday, a group of former senior federal officials who specialized in economic security matters, including former Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, ex-National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan and former Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines, said Trump’s use of IEEPA would undermine a law that’s intended to sanction hostile nations in cooperation with US allies.

 

The Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, weighed in with the Consumer Technology Association to say that “tariffs operate as a tax on goods that is paid by American businesses and, ultimately, consumers. Because the Framers understood firsthand that the power to tax is the power to destroy, the Constitution vests the taxing power — including the tariff power — in Congress.”

 

The US trade court ruled against Trump in a decision that was upheld by a federal appeals court. The court is also considering a separate challenge being pressed by two family-owned educational toy companies after a federal trial judge ruled against the administration.

 

The Trump administration also got support at the Supreme Court from a handful of outside groups, who had to file by Sept. 23. The American Center for Law and Justice argued in a filing that the president is the “sole organ” in foreign affairs.

 

 

“When federal courts second-guess presidential determinations about international emergencies and economic threats, they do not merely exceed their proper role — they undermine the constitutional framework that has governed our Republic for over two centuries,” the group said.

 

The tariffs continue to roil the global economy and inject uncertainty into financial markets, with the president using the threat of higher tariffs to pressure trading partners into making deals favoring the US.

 

The tariffs have become so central to Trump’s foreign policy that his cabinet officials warned a federal appeals court in August that ruling against the levies would have devastating consequences, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent warning of “dangerous diplomatic embarrassment.”

 

The briefs by outside parties come days after small businesses and Democratic-led states that brought the suits filed their own arguments with the nation’s highest court. One of the businesses, Learning Resources Inc., called Trump’s tariffs an illegal $3 trillion tax on Americans stretched out over a decade.

 

 

The states, led by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, said Trump was using “hyperbolic rhetoric” about the US declining into a “vassal state” to obscure what he says is a simple legal question.

 

“Congress, not the president, decides whether and how much to tax Americans who import goods from abroad,” the states said in their earlier filing with the justices. “This court should reject the president’s bid to seize that power for himself.”

 

Trump says his tariffs are authorized legally under the emergency law, known as IEEPA, because a key provision of the statute says the president can “regulate” the “importation” of property to “deal with” an emergency.

The challenged taxes include Trump’s April 2 “Liberation Day” tariffs, which impose levies of 10%-50% on most US imports depending on the source country. Trump justified the levies under IEEPA by declaring US trade deficits to be a national emergency.

The appeal also covers tariffs Trump imposed on Canada, Mexico and China for allegedly failing to stem the flow of migrants and fentanyl trafficking. Trump said the situation at the borders also constituted a national emergency under IEEPA.

Trump administration officials have downplayed the impact of the litigation by saying that most of the tariffs can be imposed through other legal avenues. Trump’s tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles were imposed under a different law, so are not directly affected by the appeal.

The cases are Learning Resources v. Trump, 24-1287, and Trump v. V.O.S., 25-250, US Supreme Court.

(Updates with briefs by US Chamber of Commerce, others.)