特朗普得瑟不下去了？罕见点名中方，我国商务部通告美国

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were illegal, highlighting a significant conflict between the executive and judicial branches regarding presidential powers in trade policy [1][3][5]. Group 1: Legal and Political Implications - The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision overturned tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, indicating that the president exceeded his authority under IEEPA [5]. - The ruling reflects a broader struggle over the limits of presidential power during a declared "emergency," raising questions about the extent to which the executive can bypass Congress [3][5]. - Following the ruling, Trump quickly announced a new plan to impose a 10% global import tariff, utilizing powers granted under the Trade Act of 1974, indicating a shift in strategy [10]. Group 2: Trade Relations and Agreements - Despite the Supreme Court ruling, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer affirmed that existing trade agreements with countries like China, the EU, Japan, and South Korea would remain in effect [12][14]. - The U.S. is under pressure to maintain tariffs on China while attempting to impose new global tariffs, balancing domestic political pressures with international trade negotiations [14]. - China's response emphasized the protectionist nature of unilateral tariffs and indicated that it would closely monitor U.S. actions, suggesting a potential escalation in trade tensions [16][18]. Group 3: Future Trade Dynamics - The ongoing legal and political battles signal a shift towards stricter constraints on unilateral trade actions, with the potential for increased institutional checks on presidential power [20]. - The uncertainty surrounding global trade policies is expected to persist, but there are indications that institutional frameworks may gain more influence over unilateral actions in the future [20].