--- title: "Trump changes \"vest\" and restarts 15% tariffs, firmly pointing out the outbreak of a \"revenue and expenditure crisis\" in the United States, which is refuted by the academic community" type: "News" locale: "zh-CN" url: "https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/276706558.md" description: "U.S. President Trump imposed a 15% tariff on imported goods under the name of \"temporary substitute measures,\" attempting to fill the gap left by the Supreme Court's ruling that the previous tariff policy was illegal. This move claims to address the \"U.S. balance of payments crisis,\" but economists generally believe that such a crisis does not exist, and the new tariff measures may face legal challenges. The new policy took effect on Tuesday, terminating the previous graduated tariff, implemented under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974" datetime: "2026-02-24T08:52:03.000Z" locales: - [zh-CN](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/276706558.md) - [en](https://longbridge.com/en/news/276706558.md) - [zh-HK](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/276706558.md) --- > 支持的语言: [English](https://longbridge.com/en/news/276706558.md) | [繁體中文](https://longbridge.com/zh-HK/news/276706558.md) # Trump changes "vest" and restarts 15% tariffs, firmly pointing out the outbreak of a "revenue and expenditure crisis" in the United States, which is refuted by the academic community According to the Zhitong Finance APP, U.S. President Donald Trump bypassed congressional procedures and imposed a 15% tariff on imported goods under the guise of "temporary substitute measures," attempting to fill the gap left by the Supreme Court's ruling that previous tariff policies were illegal. This administrative action claims to address the so-called "U.S. balance of payments crisis," but most economists point out that such a crisis does not exist, and unilateral tariff measures may face a new round of judicial review challenges due to a lack of legal basis. Last Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to revoke the large-scale tariff measures implemented by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Just hours after the ruling, Trump signed an executive order announcing that a new 15% tariff would be imposed on imported goods under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (the "Balance of Payments Adjustment Clause"). Notably, this clause has never been activated since its enactment, and the Trump administration's legal team had clearly stated months ago that it "is unrelated to the current trade dispute." The new tariff policy officially took effect at midnight on Tuesday, simultaneously terminating the previously imposed 10%-50% gradient tariffs under the IEEPA. According to the authorization of Section 122, the U.S. president can unilaterally impose an additional tariff of up to 15% on all trading partner countries for a period not exceeding 150 days, but two statutory conditions must be met: 1. There is a "huge and serious" balance of payments deficit; 2. There is a "fundamental obstruction" in the international payment system. ## Trump's Tariff "Balance of Payments Crisis" Claims Refuted by Economists Trump's tariff order argues that a severe balance of payments deficit does indeed exist, specifically manifested as a $1.2 trillion U.S. goods trade deficit, a 4% current account deficit relative to GDP, and a reversal of the U.S. primary income surplus. However, some economists—including former International Monetary Fund (IMF) First Deputy Managing Director Gita Gopinath—dismiss the Trump administration's warnings. "We all agree that the U.S. is not currently facing a balance of payments crisis. A balance of payments crisis refers to countries experiencing a sharp rise in international borrowing costs and losing access to financial markets," Gopinath stated. Gopinath publicly rebutted the White House's viewpoint, pointing out that the negative balance in the U.S. primary income account is the first occurrence since 1960 and does not constitute a basis for determining a "serious and huge" balance of payments crisis. She emphasized that the negative primary income balance mainly reflects changes in the distribution of returns on multinational investments, rather than a deterioration in overall international payment capacity, and that the current U.S. current account deficit remains within a controllable range. She attributed this negative balance to the significant purchases of U.S. stocks and risk assets by foreign investors over the past decade, which have outperformed foreign stocks during this period. Additionally, former officials from the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund, including Mark Sobel, stated that balance of payments crises are more related to countries with fixed exchange rates and noted that the floating exchange rate of the dollar has remained stable, with U.S. 10-year Treasury yields being relatively stable and the U.S. stock market performing well Josh Lipsky, the chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council think tank, agreed with this. He pointed out that a balance of payments crisis occurs when a country is unable to pay for imported goods or unable to service its foreign debt. He added that this is fundamentally different from a trade deficit. Brad Setser, an expert on currency and trade at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former senior advisor to the U.S. Trade Representative during the Biden administration, has a somewhat contrarian view. Last Sunday, he argued in a series of lengthy X posts (formerly Twitter) that the Trump administration may have had reasonable grounds to assert that there was a "huge and serious" balance of payments deficit at the time. He noted that the current current account deficit is far higher than the level when President Richard Nixon imposed tariffs in response to a balance of payments crisis in 1971, and that the U.S. net international investment position has also deteriorated significantly. Setser wrote that this "provides a solid argument for the government to support its tariffs." The White House, U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative did not immediately respond to requests for comments on the use of Section 122. ## Trump's Tariff Policy Faces Legal "Hardship" Although the Trump administration has recently shifted its focus to balance of payments issues, the U.S. Department of Justice previously argued that Section 122 is not an appropriate basis for declaring a national emergency due to trade deficits. In court documents defending the IEEPA tariffs, the Justice Department stated that Section 122 "has no obvious applicability here, as the concerns raised by the president when declaring a national emergency stem from trade deficits, which are conceptually distinct from balance of payments deficits." Neil Katyal, who represented plaintiffs challenging the IEEPA tariffs before the Supreme Court, stated that the Trump administration's position that Section 122 does not apply to trade deficits would make these tariffs vulnerable to lawsuits. "I’m not sure this really needs to go to the Supreme Court, but if the president insists on pursuing this plan—using a statute that his own Justice Department has clearly stated he cannot use—then yes, I think it’s very easy to sue over this," Katyal said. It is currently unclear who will lead the challenge against the Section 122 tariffs. Sara Albrecht, chair of the Liberty Justice Center—a nonprofit law firm representing several small businesses challenging the IEEPA tariffs—stated that the organization will closely monitor any new regulations being invoked. Albrecht did not disclose any future litigation strategies and added: "Our current focus is simple: to ensure that the refund process is initiated and that checks start flowing to those American businesses that paid unconstitutional tariffs." The Supreme Court did not provide guidance on the refund issue in its ruling but sent the case back to a lower trade court to determine the next steps ## 相关资讯与研究 - [16:46 ET/C O R R E C T I O N -- National Association of Secondary School Principals/](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/279991586.md) - [Jefferies Remains a Hold on Power Corp of Canada (POW)](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/279995499.md) - [Armanino Foods of Distinction (OTCMKTS:AMNF) Releases Earnings Results, Beats Expectations By $0.04 EPS](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/279988922.md) - [US appeals court tosses FTC order against Intuit over TurboTax advertising](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/279991239.md) - [NVIDIA Corporation $NVDA Stock Position Lifted by GAMMA Investing LLC](https://longbridge.com/zh-CN/news/280014998.md)