The Wall Street Journal
WSJ:
The Journal.
FRIDAY, MAY 30, 2025
5/30/2025 3:56:00 PMShare This Episode
Trump's Plan B After Trade Court Setback
This week, an obscure trade court dropped a bombshell ruling: President Trump did not have the authority to issue sweeping tariffs under a 1977 law. The government has appealed the court’s decision. WSJ’s James Fanelli and Gavin Bade dig into the ruling and what it could mean for the future of Trump’s trade agenda. Annie Minoff hosts.
- Plan B /plæn biː/ 第二の選択肢、代替案
- trade court /treɪd kɔːrt/ 貿易裁判所（対外貿易に関する法的判断を下す機関）
- obscure /əbˈskjʊr/ 無名の、あまり知られていない
- dropped a bombshell ruling /drɑːpt ə ˈbɑːmˌʃɛl ˈruːlɪŋ/ 衝撃的な判決を下した
- did not have the authority /dɪd nɑːt hæv ði əˈθɔːrəti/ 権限を持っていなかった
- sweeping tariffs /ˈswiːpɪŋ ˈtærɪfs/ 広範囲にわたる関税
- 1977 law /ˈnaɪntiːn ˈsɛv(ə)n(t)i ˈsɛv(ə)n lɔː/ 1977年の法律（通商拡大法などが該当する可能性）
- the government has appealed /ðə ˈɡʌvənmənt hæz əˈpiːld/ 政府は控訴した
- court’s decision /kɔːrts dɪˈsɪʒən/ 裁判所の判断・判決
- dig into /dɪɡ ˈɪntu/ 深掘りする、詳しく調べる
- trade agenda /treɪd əˈdʒɛndə/ 貿易政策・貿易に関する政治的課題
Annie Minoff: There's a squat boxy building in New York City, a relatively unimposing courthouse tucked into Lower Manhattan. It's called the U.S Court of International Trade. And you'd be forgiven if you've never heard of it. Neither had our legal reporter, James Fanelli.
- squat /skwɑːt/ 背が低くてずんぐりした
- boxy /ˈbɑːksi/ 四角ばった、箱のような
- unimposing /ˌʌnɪmˈpoʊzɪŋ/ 目立たない、威圧感のない
imposing /ɪmˈpoʊzɪŋ/
意味：堂々とした、威圧感のある、目を引く
使い方：建物、人、外見などが「圧倒的な存在感を持っている」こと
- courthouse /ˈkɔːrtˌhaʊs/ 裁判所の建物
- tucked into /tʌkt ˈɪntu/ ～の一角にひっそりとある、奥まって位置する
- Lower Manhattan /ˈloʊər mænˈhætən/ ロウアー・マンハッタン（ニューヨーク市南部の地区）
- U.S. Court of International Trade /ˌkɔːrt əv ˌɪntərˈnæʃənl treɪd/ 米国国際貿易裁判所（国際通商に関する訴訟を扱う専門裁判所）
- you'd be forgiven if... /juːd bi fərˈɡɪvən ɪf/ ～でも責められない、無理もない
- Neither had our legal reporter /ˈniðər hæd ˈaʊər ˈliːɡəl rɪˈpɔːrtər/ われわれの法律記者もそうだった（知らなかった）
James Fanelli: You know what? I had not heard of it until these tariffs and potential legal challenges to them started percolating. A trade lawyer I spoke to about this court said that most people graduating law school had probably never heard of it.
- legal challenge /ˈliːɡl ˈtʃælɪndʒ/ 法的な異議申し立て、訴訟
- percolate /ˈpɜːrkəleɪt/ 浮上する、じわじわと広がる（比喩的に）
- trade lawyer /treɪd ˈlɔːjər/ 貿易専門の弁護士
Annie Minoff: The court is obscure, but when it comes to matters of trade, it's powerful.
James Fanelli: This court has national jurisdiction, so that means that it can hear cases all over the country involving any kind of trade dispute. And when they issue a decision, it can affect everything.
- obscure /əbˈskjʊr/ あまり知られていない、無名の
- matters of trade /ˈmætərz əv treɪd/ 貿易の問題
- powerful /ˈpaʊərfl/ 力のある、強力な
- national jurisdiction /ˈnæʃənl ˌdʒʊrɪsˈdɪkʃən/ 全国的な管轄権
Annie Minoff: And this week it did.
Speaker 3: Tonight, a three-judge panel ruling that the emergency declared by President Trump to impose those sweeping tariffs "exceeds any tariff authority delegated to the president."
James Fanelli: The trade court ruling is a big deal. That's a big deal. If this ruling stands, then Trump will have to find a new way to impose tariffs. He wouldn't be able to declare a national emergency and then enact these broad levies around the world.
Annie Minoff: Welcome to The Journal, our show about money, business, and power. I'm Annie Minoff. It's Friday, May 30th. Coming up on the show, how an obscure court upended Trump's trade agenda.
On April 2nd, Trump imposed his Liberation Day tariffs and kicked off a global trade war.
Speaker 4: The president announced goods from every nation we trade with will be subject to import taxes.
Speaker 5: A 34% tax on imports from China. That's on top of the 20% tariff, already imposed. 24% on Japan and 20% on the European Union.
Speaker 6: He's also announcing 10%, at least, tariffs on all countries. And then what he's called-
Annie Minoff: How soon after Trump began imposing sweeping tariffs did people in your world, the legal world, start asking, "Wait a second. Can he do that?"
James Fanelli: I think they started asking that question fairly quickly. And the question that they focused on was whether he had the full reach of the Constitution to be allowed to make these sweeping tariffs.
- airly quickly /ˈferli ˈkwɪkli/ かなり早く
- focused on /ˈfoʊkəst ɑːn/ ～に注目した、集中した
- full reach of the Constitution /fʊl riːʧ ʌv ðə ˌkɑːnstɪˈtuːʃən/ 憲法の完全な権限・適用範囲
- allowed to make /əˈlaʊd tuː meɪk/ ～することを許されている
- sweeping tariffs /ˈswiːpɪŋ ˈtærɪfs/ 広範囲にわたる関税、大規模な関税
Annie Minoff: Typically, Congress regulates tariffs, but in this case, Trump argued that he could do it. His administration invoked a 1970s ERA law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, IEEPA for short.
- typically /ˈtɪpɪkli/ 通常は、一般的に
- Congress /ˈkɑːŋɡrəs/ アメリカ合衆国議会
- regulates tariffs /ˈreɡjəˌleɪts ˈtærɪfs/ 関税を規制する
- argued that /ˈɑːrɡjuːd ðæt/ ～と主張した
- invoked /ɪnˈvoʊkt/ （法律・規則などを）根拠にした、引用した
- 1970s ERA law /naɪnˈtiːnz ˈsɛvntiːz ˌiːɑːrˈeɪ lɔː/ 1970年代の緊急経済権限法
- International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) /ˌɪntərˈnæʃənəl ɪˈmɜːrdʒənsi ɪˈkɑːnəmɪk ˈpaʊərz ækt/ 国際緊急経済権限法（略称IEEPA）
James Fanelli: And he said that "I can impose these sweeping tariffs like on basically every nation in the world because there's this emergency happening where the US has a trade deficit and it's affecting our supply chain, it's affecting our domestic manufacturing, and it's affecting our military."
Donald Trump: Chronic trade deficits are no longer merely an economic problem. They're a national emergency that threatens our security.
Annie Minoff: When President Trump invoked the Emergency Economic Powers Act, had we ever seen anything like that before? How new was that?
James Fanelli: It was brand new. This law had never been used in this way before. No previous president had ever tried to impose tariffs under IEEPA.
Annie Minoff: It was a first. And the move raised eyebrows. Some academics and legal groups started looking into whether the tariffs could be challenged in court. That led to a few lawsuits, including one brought by a libertarian nonprofit law firm called The Liberty Justice Center. That suit brought together a group of small businesses to sue the government.
- a first /ə fɜːrst/ 前例のないこと、初めてのこと
It was a first.
（それは（まさに）初めてのことだった。）
「the first」というように強調して「唯一の最初」や「最も初めの例」とは必ずしも断定せず、一般的に「前例のないこと」として軽く示している感じ
ちょっとした「驚き」や「前例のなさ」を示すために、より自然で口語的な表現として「a first」
- raised eyebrows /reɪzd ˈaɪbraʊz/ （驚きや疑問で）眉をひそめる、人々の注目を集める
- academics /ˌækəˈdɛmɪks/ 学者、大学関係者
- legal groups /ˈliːɡəl ɡruːps/ 法律団体、法律関係のグループ
- challenged in court /ˈʧælɪnʤd ɪn kɔːrt/ 裁判で争われる、法的に異議を唱えられる
- lawsuits /ˈlɔːsuːts/ 訴訟
- libertarian /ˌlɪbərˈtɛəriən/ 自由至上主義の、リバタリアンの
- nonprofit law firm /ˌnɑːnˈprɑːfɪt lɔː fɜːrm/ 非営利の法律事務所
- brought together /brɔːt təˈɡɛðər/ 集めた、一緒にした
- small businesses /smɔːl ˈbɪznəsɪz/ 小規模企業
- sue the government /suː ðə ˈɡʌvərnmənt/ 政府を訴える
James Fanelli: There was five in total, including a New York based wine importer. There was a fishing tackle retailer in Pennsylvania. There was a woman's cycling apparel brand based in Vermont, a Utah manufacturer of plastic pipes, and a company called MicroKits, which was a Virginia based maker of educational electronic kits.
Annie Minoff: That is quite a motley assortment of businesses.
- quite /kwaɪt/ かなり、相当
- motley /ˈmɑːtli/ ごちゃ混ぜの、寄せ集めの
- assortment /əˈsɔːrtmənt/ 寄せ集め、取り合わせ
- businesses /ˈbɪznəsɪz/ 企業、事業
James Fanelli: Yes, you're right. And they chose those five because I think all those five businesses, they had stuff that they were importing from over 30 different countries around the world.
Annie Minoff: So they could really cover their ground with these five companies.
James Fanelli: So they could cover their ground. That's right, yes.
Annie Minoff: A few weeks ago, James visited the Court of International Trade, that obscure court in Lower Manhattan. He was there to watch as the plaintiffs and the Trump administration made their case before a panel of three judges. And what argument did those five businesses make?
- obscure /əbˈskjʊr/ あまり知られていない、無名の
- Lower Manhattan /ˈloʊər ˈmænˌhætən/ ローワー・マンハッタン（ニューヨークの地区名）
- plaintiffs /ˈplæntɪfs/ 原告（訴訟を起こした側）
- Trump administration /trʌmp ədˌmɪnɪˈstreɪʃən/ トランプ政権
- made their case /meɪd ðɛr keɪs/ 自分たちの主張を述べる
- panel of three judges /ˈpænl ʌv θriː ˈʤʌʤɪz/ 3人の裁判官による合議体
James Fanelli: The plaintiffs argued that this law, that Trump's use of IEEPA, had never been used before by any other president. It was the first time that any president had ever said that, "Oh, I can impose tariffs on another country based on this emergency that I believe is happening." They said that the IEEPA does not grant any kind of ability for the president to impose tariffs. That's the job of Congress, and Congress created this law, and they argued that there was no language in that law that said that Trump had the ability to impose tariffs.
Annie Minoff: The businesses also disputed Trump's claim that the country is in the middle of an emergency.
- disputed /dɪsˈpjuːtɪd/ 異議を唱えた、争った
James Fanelli: The plaintiff's argument was that this wasn't an emergency, there's been a trade deficit for decades, and this definitely wasn't some unusual and extraordinary threat.
Annie Minoff: And what did the government argue in response to that?
James Fanelli: The government argued that this was an emergency, that in the last five years the trade deficit had ballooned, and that cumulatively this was affecting domestic manufacturing and was affecting our military supply chain.
- ballooned /bəˈluːnd/ 急増した、膨れ上がった
- cumulatively /ˈkjuːmjələtɪvli/ 累積的に
Annie Minoff: But there was also a larger argument that the government wanted to make, an argument about executive power.
James Fanelli: The main argument for the Justice Department was that Trump had this power to unilaterally impose these tariffs and that the court had a very limited role in even reviewing his use of that authority. They said that the court didn't have any right to decide whether or not Trump's emergency was a real emergency or not and that was something that was left up for him to decide and that Congress could potentially review his actions but it wasn't the court's role.
- main argument /meɪn ˈɑːrɡjumənt/ 主な主張
- Justice Department /ˈdʒʌstɪs dɪˈpɑːrtmənt/ 司法省
- unilaterally impose /ˌjuːnɪˈlætərəli ɪmˈpoʊz/ 一方的に課す
- tariffs /ˈtærɪfs/ 関税
- court /kɔːrt/ 裁判所
- limited role /ˈlɪmɪtɪd roʊl/ 限定された役割
- reviewing /rɪˈvjuːɪŋ/ 審査すること
- authority /əˈθɔːrɪti/ 権限
- right /raɪt/ 権利
- decide whether or not /dɪˈsaɪd ˈwɛðər ɔːr nɑt/ ～かどうかを決める
- left up for /lɛft ʌp fɔːr/ ～に委ねられている
- Congress /ˈkɑːŋɡrəs/ 議会
- potentially review /pəˈtɛnʃəli rɪˈvjuː/ 可能性がある見直し
- not the court's role /nɑt ðə kɔːrts roʊl/ 裁判所の役割ではない
Congress 法律を作る機関 トランプ大統領の関税権限を監視・見直す可能性あり
Justice Department 政府の法務機関 トランプの関税権限を裁判で弁護している
the court 法律の適用・判断をする機関 トランプの関税権限の行使を審査するが、司法省は権限を限定的と主張
- Congress（議会） 関税の設定は議会の権限と考え、大統領の権限を制限したい立場
- Trump（トランプ大統領） 一方的に関税を課す権限があると主張
- 司法省（Justice Department） トランプ側の代理として裁判所に大統領の権限を弁護
Annie Minoff: That seems like a hard argument to make to a bunch of judges, that you have no place here.
James Fanelli: It's a hard argument to make. And I think even during some of the hearings, they were very skeptical of that argument. And were even wondering aloud like, "Well, what role should the court have?" The judges were also a little skeptical about how do you measure what is a national emergency? And one of the judges, I think maybe she did it in a tongue-in-cheek kind of manner, she posed this scenario, "What about if there was this shortage of peanut butter?" So she wanted to know where the president's-
- a hard argument to make /ə hɑrd ˈɑːrɡjumənt tuː meɪk/ 主張しづらい議論・説得が難しい論点
- skeptical /ˈskɛptɪkəl/ 懐疑的な、疑い深い
- hearing(s) /ˈhɪərɪŋ/ 聴聞会、公開審理
- wondering aloud /ˈwʌndərɪŋ əˈlaʊd/ 声に出して疑問を持つ
- what role should the court have /wʌt roʊl ʃʊd ðə kɔːrt hæv/ 裁判所はどの程度の役割を果たすべきか
- measure /ˈmɛʒər/ 測る、判断する
- national emergency /ˈnæʃənəl ɪˈmɜrdʒənsi/ 国家の緊急事態
- tongue-in-cheek /ˌtʌŋ ɪn ˈtʃiːk/ 冗談めかした、皮肉っぽい表現
- pose a scenario /poʊz ə səˈnɛrioʊ/ シナリオ（仮定の状況）を提示する
- shortage /ˈʃɔrtɪdʒ/ 不足、欠乏
Annie Minoff: What's the line?
James Fanelli: Yeah, what's the line between a national emergency and just some kind of inconvenience to some people?
Annie Minoff: The government's lawyer responded that IEEPA set out clear boundaries for exercising presidential power. The court issued its ruling on Wednesday night. Its verdict? Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs under the Emergency Economic Powers Act. In response to the ruling, a White House spokesman said, "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency." Lawyers for the Trump administration immediately appealed the court's decision. They also requested a stay that would keep the tariffs in place temporarily. Yesterday they got that stay, which will remain in place as the case works its way through the courts.
- set out /sɛt aʊt/ （計画・ルールなどを）明示する、提示する
- clear boundaries /klɪər ˈbaʊndəriz/ 明確な制限、境界線
- exercising presidential power /ˈɛksərsaɪzɪŋ ˌprɛzɪˈdɛnʃəl ˈpaʊər/ 大統領権限の行使
- ruling /ˈruːlɪŋ/ 判決、裁定
- verdict /ˈvɜrdɪkt/ 判決、評決
- authority /əˈθɔrɪti/ 権限、権威
- impose tariffs /ɪmˈpoʊz ˈtærɪfs/ 関税を課す
- Emergency Economic Powers Act /ɪˈmɜrdʒənsi ˌɛkəˈnɑmɪk ˈpaʊərz ækt/ 緊急経済権限法（1977年の米国法）
- White House spokesman /ˈwaɪt haʊs ˈspoʊksmən/ ホワイトハウス報道官
- unelected judges /ˌʌnɪˈlɛktɪd ˈdʒʌdʒɪz/ 選ばれていない裁判官（選挙で選ばれていない裁判官）
- appeal /əˈpil/ 控訴する、上訴する
- stay /steɪ/ 差し止め、一時停止措置
- remain in place /rɪˈmeɪn ɪn pleɪs/ （状態が）継続する
- work its way through the courts /wɜrk ɪts weɪ θru ðə kɔrts/ 裁判所を通過しながら進行する、法的手続きを進める
James Fanelli: And I think a lot of legal experts feel like this case is eventually going to end up in the Supreme Court and will be decided there. I would say it has the potential to be a big loss for Trump.
Annie Minoff: But in the meantime, the Trump administration does have a plan B. That plan is after the break.
So could you start by introducing yourself?
Gavin Bade: Yeah. I'm Gavin Bade. I'm the trade and economic policy reporter here at The Wall Street Journal, based in Washington DC.
Annie Minoff: So you're not busy at all?
Gavin Bade: Not at all. It's been a quiet start to the year for me. Quiet start to the Trump administration.
Annie Minoff: Gavin has been tracking the administration's moves in the aftermath of the International Trade Court's decision. Gavin, the administration is in the middle of trade negotiations right now with the European Union, with China. How could this ruling impact those talks?
Gavin Bade: Well, the administration has said it doesn't impact them at all. That the trading partners are calling up and still eager to do deals. We've heard Jamieson Greer, the trade representative, say that.
Jamieson Greer: All the other countries I'm dealing with in negotiations are treating this as just kind of a bump in the road rather than any fundamental change. So I feel pretty confident about the case.
- negotiations /nɪˌgoʊʃiˈeɪʃənz/ 交渉
- treating ... as /ˈtriːtɪŋ ... æz/ ...を～として扱う
- bump in the road /bʌmp ɪn ðə roʊd/ （比喩的に）小さな問題、障害
- fundamental change /ˌfʌndəˈmɛntəl ʧeɪnʤ/ 根本的な変化
- feel confident /fiːl ˈkɑnfɪdənt/ 自信を感じる
- pretty /ˈprɪti/ かなり、結構
Gavin Bade: That contrasts a little bit with their position in court, their actual court filings. In their petition for the stay the administration was very clear that they thought that putting these tariffs on hold would undermine their leverage in all of these trade talks, they said really jeopardize everything that they were trying to do. So they're kind of talking out of both sides of their mouth here.
- contrasts /ˈkɒntræsts/ 対照的である
- position /pəˈzɪʃən/ 立場、見解
- court filings /kɔrt ˈfaɪlɪŋz/ 裁判所への提出書類
- petition for the stay /pəˈtɪʃən fər ðə steɪ/ 差し止め（裁判所命令の一時停止）申請
- administration /ədˌmɪnɪˈstreɪʃən/ 政権、政府当局
- putting ... on hold /ˈpʊtɪŋ ... ɑn hoʊld/ （処理を）一時停止する
- undermine /ˌʌndərˈmaɪn/ （権威・力などを）弱める、損なう
- leverage /ˈlɛvərɪʤ/ 交渉力、影響力
- jeopardize /ˈʤɛpərˌdaɪz/ 危うくする、危険にさらす
- talking out of both sides of their mouth /ˈtɔkɪŋ aʊt ʌv boʊθ saɪdz ʌv ðɛr maʊθ/ 「二枚舌を使う」、言動が矛盾している様子
Annie Minoff: So was the administration right in that court filing? Does this decision make it less likely that countries will want to make a deal?
- administration /ədˌmɪnɪˈstreɪʃən/ 政権、政府当局
- court filing /kɔrt ˈfaɪlɪŋ/ 裁判所への提出書類
- decision /dɪˈsɪʒən/ 判決、決定
- make it less likely /meɪk ɪt lɛs ˈlaɪkli/ ～の可能性を低くする
- countries /ˈkʌntriz/ 国々
- make a deal /meɪk ə dil/ 合意を結ぶ
Gavin Bade: I do think a number of countries will still be eager to do a deal with the US because maybe they will feel that they have a little more leverage in these negotiations now and I think that they see that they may have a little bit more time as well. All of these court proceedings kind of throw into question the deadline that Trump had set to complete all of these trade negotiations. That was actually on July 9th. So if you're going to do a deal with the US, you just got a little bit more breathing room and you got a little bit of leverage in these negotiations. Maybe Trump can't drive as hard of a bargain as he would have otherwise.
- eager /ˈiːɡər/ 熱望している、強く望んでいる
- leverage /ˈlɛvərɪʤ/ 交渉力、影響力
- court proceedings /kɔrt prəˈsiːdɪŋz/ 裁判手続き、裁判の進行
- throw into question /θroʊ ˈɪntu ˈkwɛstʃən/ ～に疑問を投げかける
- deadline /ˈdɛdlaɪn/ 締め切り、期限
- breathing room /ˈbriːðɪŋ rum/ 余裕、ゆとり
- drive a hard bargain /draɪv ə hɑrd ˈbɑrɡən/ 強硬な条件を押し通す、厳しい交渉を行う
- otherwise /ˈʌðərwaɪz/ それ以外の場合は、それ以外だと
Annie Minoff: The Trump administration will continue to pursue the case through the courts. But according to people Gavin's talked to, the administration is also working on a potential plan B. This plan wouldn't rely on IEEPA. It would rely on yet another law from the 1970s, the Trade Act of 1974.
- Trade Act of 1974 /treɪd ækt ʌv 1974/ 1974年貿易法（アメリカの法律）
Gavin Bade: It's a different law and actually a much more commonly used law, both by the Trump administration in its first term and numerous presidents. This is a really tried and tested law. And so the plan is kind of twofold. The first part would be utilizing what's called Section 122 of the Trade Act.
- commonly used /ˈkɑmənli juzd/ 一般的に使われている
- tried and tested /traɪd ænd ˈtɛstɪd/ 実証済みの、試されて信頼できる
- twofold /ˈtuːˌfoʊld/ 2つの部分から成る、2重の
- Section 122 /ˈsɛkʃən wʌn ˈtwɛnti tuː/ 第122条（法律の条文のひとつ）
Annie Minoff: This section, the first part of the plan, allows the president to put tariffs in place for 150 days.
Gavin Bade: And this is specifically to address what the law calls balance of payment issues with the other countries. This is kind of like the trade deficit that Trump always, the trade imbalance.
Annie Minoff: It's the trade imbalance that Trump has been talking about.
Gavin Bade: Yeah, that he always harps on, that he's always hated. So the advantage of that is that you can put that in place immediately. You don't have to do a notice and comment period. And Trump likes that. He wants to be able to put things in place.
- harp on /hɑːrp ɑn/ （同じ話題を）繰り返しうるさく言う
- hated /ˈheɪtɪd/ 嫌っている（hateの過去分詞）
- advantage /ədˈvæntɪdʒ/ 利点、強み
- put (something) in place /pʊt ɪn pleɪs/ （制度・措置などを）実施する、整える
- notice and comment period /ˈnoʊtɪs ænd ˈkɑːmɛnt ˈpɪriəd/ （行政手続きで）意見募集期間
Annie Minoff: Wants to move fast.
Gavin Bade: Wants to move fast.
Annie Minoff: The problem, of course, is that those tariffs would be temporary unless they're reauthorized by Congress.
Gavin Bade: And so that's where the second part of the plan comes in. The second part is during those 150 days, he would prepare action under a different section of the law, this is section 301, and this is designed to combat unfair trade practices in other nations.
Annie Minoff: Trump has actually used this section of the law before. He used it to impose tariffs on China during his first term. But implementing tariffs this way takes time and work.
Gavin Bade: You need to do a lengthy notice and comment period. You need to have hearings. And the idea is they would tailor these 301 tariffs as they're called for each and every major trading partner that he wanted to hit with tariffs.
- lengthy /ˈlɛŋθi/ 長い、長期間の
- notice and comment period /ˈnoʊtɪs ænd ˈkɑːmɛnt ˈpɪriəd/ 行政手続きにおける通知・意見募集期間
- hearings /ˈhɪərɪŋz/ 公聴会、審理
- tailor (動詞) /ˈteɪlər/ （要求・目的に合わせて）調整・適合させる
- 301 tariffs /ˈθriː ˈoʊ wʌn ˈtærɪfs/ 301条に基づく関税（アメリカの貿易法第301条による関税措置）
- trading partner /ˈtreɪdɪŋ ˈpɑrtnər/ 貿易相手国
- hit with tariffs /hɪt wɪð ˈtærɪfs/ （関税を）課す
Annie Minoff: Oh man. So you got to do this individually, country by country.
Gavin Bade: Exactly. And you have to do a lengthy fact finding investigation. You've got to notify the other countries. You've got to give industries time to comment. It takes a long time. But they could do that if these emergency tariffs get thrown out in court, that could help them get back to basically the same place where they're at now.
Annie Minoff: So Gavin, where does this all leave Trump's signature economic policy of these sweeping tariffs?
Gavin Bade: Very much in limbo now. I think uncertainty has reigned for months on this tariff front. I think it only deepened this week. If you're a company trying to think about, "Am I going to invest in the US? Can I get maybe components that I need from another nation? What is the tariff going to be?" That situation is cloudier than ever, the waters are murkier than ever, and I think that you see foreign governments just scratching their head at us. I think it's just another day rolling with the punches here. We're just trying to kind of take it as it comes here but there's really no end to the drama in sight.
- in limbo /ɪn ˈlɪmboʊ/ （状態が）宙ぶらりん、不確定な状態
- uncertainty /ʌnˈsɜrtnti/ 不確実性、不安定さ
- reign /reɪn/ 支配する、続く（ここでは「不確実性が支配している」意味）
- tariff front /ˈtærɪf frʌnt/ 関税問題の場面・局面
- deepen /ˈdipən/ 深まる、悪化する
- components /kəmˈpoʊnənts/ 部品
- cloudier /ˈklaʊdɪər/ もっと曇った、不透明な（cloudy の比較級）
- murkier /ˈmɜrkiər/ もっと濁った、不明瞭な（murky の比較級）
- scratch their head /skræʧ ðɛr hɛd/ 困惑する、理解できず首をかしげる
- rolling with the punches /ˈroʊlɪŋ wɪð ðə ˈpʌnʧɪz/ 打撃（困難）を受け流す、状況に適応しながらやっていく
- take it as it comes /teɪk ɪt æz ɪt kʌmz/ 来るままに受け入れる、成り行きに任せる
- drama /ˈdrɑmə/ 騒動、混乱、問題
- in sight /ɪn saɪt/ 見える範囲内で、近くに（ここでは「終わりが見える」意味）
Annie Minoff: That's all for today, Friday, May 30th. The Journal is a co-production of Spotify and The Wall Street Journal. The show's made by Katherine Brewer, Pia Gadkari, Carlos Garcia, Rachel Humphreys, Ryan Knutson, Sofie Kodner, Matt Kwong, Kate Linebaugh, Colin McNulty, Jessica Mendoza, Laura Morris, Enrique Perez de La Rosa, Sarah Platt, Alan Rodriguez Espinoza, Heather Rogers, Pierce Singgih, Jeevika Verma, Lisa Wang, Catherine Whelan, Tatiana Zamis, and me, Annie Minoff. Our engineers are Griffin Tanner, Nathan Singapok, and Peter Leonard. Our theme music is by So Wylie. Additional music this week from Catherine Anderson, Peter Leonard, Billy Libby, Nathan Singapok, Hailey Shaw, Griffin Tanner, and Blue Dot Sessions. Fact-checking this week by Kate Gallagher and Mary Mathis. Thanks for listening. See you Monday.