■原因 成为动用非常规手段的"杀手锏" 据统计，特朗普自去年1月20日重返白宫以来，已11次宣布国家紧急状态。算上在上一个任期内宣布的 11次，特朗普是《国家紧急状态法》颁布以来宣布国家紧急状态次数最多的总统。仅次于特朗普的是前 总统克林顿，他在8年任期内共发布了17次国家紧急状态。 1.可以绕过国会行事 美国总统特朗普1月29日签署行政令，宣布进入国家紧急状态，并威胁对向古巴提供石油的国家输美商 品加征从价关税。据统计，特朗普重返白宫以来已11次宣布国家紧急状态。美国的国家紧急状态是什 么？特朗普为何频频宣布国家紧急状态？其影响又如何？ ■解释 何为国家紧急状态 根据美国法律，国家紧急状态是一种特定的法律状态。在该状态下，总统获得临时授权，允许联邦政府 调动资源并采取在正常情况下被法律禁止的措施，以应对突发威胁。 宣布国家紧急状态的主要法律依据是于1976年颁布的《国家紧急状态法》。该法本身并不赋予总统新的 权力，而是提供一种机制以启动其他相关法定权限。当美国总统宣布国家进入紧急状态时，便会启用国 会已写入法律的100多项权力，应对范围涵盖从经济威胁到军事需求等各种危机。而在此之前这些权力 通常处于休眠状态 ...

Group 1 - London silver is currently trading above $93.11, with an opening price of $90.61 per ounce and a current price of $93.28, reflecting a 3.71% increase [1] - The highest price reached was $94.36, while the lowest was $90.50, indicating a short-term oscillating trend in the market [1] Group 2 - The President announced new measures on the Truth Social platform, which seem to follow the precedent of the controversial International Emergency Economic Powers Act, granting broad powers in the face of "unusual and extraordinary threats" [1] - The Supreme Court may soon decide whether to overturn tariffs implemented under this act, potentially jeopardizing a new round of aid funding and openly challenging judicial intervention in a new trade war [1] - Scott Lincicome from the Cato Institute warned that the new threats expose the vulnerabilities of relying on unilateral agreements rather than binding treaties [1]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court has not yet made a ruling on the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, leaving the future of this key economic policy uncertain [1][3]. Group 1: Supreme Court Ruling - The Supreme Court will not announce a decision on the Trump tariffs on January 9, with the next announcement scheduled for January 14 [1]. - The ruling will address two main issues: whether the government can impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and if refunds are necessary for importers who have already paid tariffs [3]. Group 2: Market Reactions and Implications - The lack of a ruling led to a decline in stocks related to tariffs, highlighting the market's sensitivity to the outcome [3]. - Analysts predict a mixed ruling, which may limit the government's ability to use tariffs as a tool for national security or negotiation, potentially impacting fiscal conditions [8][11]. Group 3: Alternative Strategies - Even if the court rules against the Trump administration, there are alternative methods to implement tariffs without relying on the IEEPA [6][10]. - The administration has backup plans in place to maintain tariff levels, indicating a proactive approach to potential legal setbacks [10]. Group 4: Financial Impact - Tariffs are projected to generate approximately $195 billion in revenue for the fiscal year 2025 and $62 billion for 2026, emphasizing their significance to the U.S. Treasury [9]. - The actual impact of tariffs has been less severe than expected, with limited inflation effects and a significant reduction in the trade deficit, which fell to its lowest level since the 2009 financial crisis [14].

Group 1 - The U.S. Supreme Court will not make a ruling on the Trump administration's tariff case on January 9, focusing on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and potential refunds to importers if deemed illegal [1] - The Trump administration's tariffs were initially intended as an emergency measure to prevent fentanyl influx into the U.S. [1] - U.S. Treasury Secretary emphasized that a negative ruling could limit the President's flexibility in using tariffs as negotiation tools, which would be a loss for the American public [1] Group 2 - The actual impact of the Trump administration's tariff policy has differed from initial analyst predictions, showing limited effects on U.S. inflation while significantly reducing the trade deficit, which fell to its lowest level since the 2009 financial crisis by October 2025 [2] - The decline in imports associated with the trade deficit reduction is linked to the recession triggered by the financial crisis [2] - The implications of the tariff ruling on U.S. trade dynamics, fiscal health, and global economic interactions will gradually become apparent, warranting ongoing monitoring of policy adjustments and market responses [2]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court will not make a ruling on the Trump administration's tariff case on January 9, focusing on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and potential refunds to importers if deemed illegal [1]. Group 1: Tariff Legality and Implications - The Supreme Court's review centers on whether the Trump administration had the authority to impose tariffs under IEEPA and if the government must refund tariffs paid by importers if the tariffs are found illegal [1]. - U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bansen emphasized the importance of maintaining tariff revenue levels, noting that an unfavorable ruling would limit the President's flexibility in using tariffs as negotiation tools, which could be detrimental to the American public [1]. Group 2: Economic Impact of Tariffs - The actual effects of the Trump administration's tariff policy have diverged from initial analyst predictions, showing limited impact on U.S. inflation while significantly reducing the trade deficit, which fell to its lowest level since the 2009 financial crisis by October 2025 [2]. - The upcoming tariff ruling is expected to gradually reveal its effects on U.S. trade dynamics, fiscal health, and global economic interactions, warranting ongoing monitoring of policy adjustments and market responses [2].

Group 1 - The tariff policy promoted by Trump has revealed significant issues, particularly due to severe malfunctions in the U.S. customs system, leading to a halt in the collection of new tariffs [1][3] - The customs system's failure is not an isolated incident but a culmination of long-standing technical problems, exacerbated by budget cuts and staff shortages, which hinder the effective implementation of tariff policies [3][6] - The disconnect between policy design and execution capabilities indicates that Trump's tariff strategy is more of a political stance than a viable policy solution, with the emphasis on rhetoric over practical implementation [6][10] Group 2 - Legal uncertainties surrounding the tariffs, including questions of legality and potential overreach, have emerged, raising concerns for businesses about the stability of the regulatory environment [8][10] - The challenges faced by U.S. customs in managing the influx of small cross-border packages highlight the inadequacies of the current system, which lacks the necessary resources for effective tariff enforcement [13][15] - Despite the escalating rhetoric surrounding tariffs, the actual execution capabilities are diminishing, revealing vulnerabilities in the U.S. administrative system and the limitations of aggressive trade policies [15][17]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of tariffs imposed by former President Donald Trump, which could lead to a $150 billion refund battle for importers seeking to reclaim previously paid tariffs [1][9]. Group 1: Legal Context and Implications - Trump is the first U.S. president to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), typically used for sanctions against hostile nations [2][11]. - As of December 14, tariffs imposed under this act have generated approximately $133.5 billion in revenue, nearing $150 billion based on recent averages [2][11]. - The Supreme Court's ruling could invalidate these tariffs, but there are concerns that the government may resist refunding the collected amounts [1][9]. Group 2: Refund Process and Electronic Reforms - The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced a shift to electronic refunds starting February 6, which aims to streamline the refund process [3][12]. - This electronic system is expected to reduce errors and fraud, although it does not guarantee a fully automated refund process [3][12]. - The potential scale of refunds is unprecedented for the CBP, which typically manages large tax refunds but has not dealt with such a significant tariff refund scenario [3][12]. Group 3: Legal Actions and Market Reactions - Some companies, including Costco and others, have preemptively filed lawsuits to secure their rights to refunds, fearing that without judicial intervention, they may not recover the tariffs paid [6][14]. - Smaller companies are opting to sell their refund claims in a burgeoning secondary market at steep discounts, with some claims selling for as low as 9% of their face value [7][15]. - Companies are advised to maintain detailed transaction records and act quickly to ensure they can claim refunds if the Supreme Court rules in their favor [7][15]. Group 4: Industry Perspectives - Executives express skepticism about the likelihood of receiving refunds, citing concerns over government reluctance to return funds [1][10]. - The trade representative indicated that even if tariff revenues decline, the government could introduce new tariffs under different legal authorities to compensate for lost revenue [4][13]. - Companies are preparing for a potentially lengthy wait for refunds, with expectations that processing could take years [8][16].

Group 1 - The U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessenet stated that the Trump administration will be able to implement its tariff agenda regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Court case [2][7] - Bessenet emphasized the broad powers granted to the president over import tariffs under various provisions of the Trade Act of 1962, specifically citing Sections 301, 232, and 122 [2][7] - He confirmed that the measures would be permanently implemented, noting that while Section 122 allows for a maximum duration of 150 days, Sections 301 and 232 do not have clear time limits [3][7] Group 2 - Bessenet expressed confidence in the likelihood of a favorable outcome for the U.S. in the Supreme Court case [4][7] - When asked about the nomination of the next Federal Reserve Chair, Bessenet avoided the question and highlighted the limited influence of the Chair on interest rates, mentioning that decisions are made by a committee [4][8] - Reports suggest that Kevin Hassett, the Director of the National Economic Council, is a leading candidate for the position of Federal Reserve Chair [8]

Core Viewpoint - Trump announced plans to distribute at least $2,000 to most Americans using revenue from tariffs, despite legal challenges regarding the authority to impose these tariffs [2][3]. Group 1: Tariff Revenue and Payments - Trump stated that the revenue from tariffs could be used to provide payments of at least $2,000 to most Americans, excluding high-income individuals [2]. - The tariffs, a hallmark of Trump's economic policy, have generated hundreds of billions in revenue for the U.S. government [2]. - The White House confirmed that the tariffs serve both national security purposes and generate significant revenue for the government, which is committed to using this money for the benefit of the American people [4]. Group 2: Legal Challenges - During recent Supreme Court debates, several justices expressed skepticism about the president's authority to unilaterally impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [3]. - Approximately three-quarters of the tariffs announced during Trump's second term are based on the IEEPA, which has faced legal scrutiny from small businesses and state governments [3]. - The government argued that these tariffs were not intended to increase fiscal revenue, as the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes [3].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning the legality of the federal government's large-scale tariff policies, which may have significant implications for the global economy and the current administration's authority [2][4]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Supreme Court is reviewing an appeal from the federal government regarding the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which has never been used for such purposes before [2][4]. - Five small businesses and twelve states filed lawsuits in April, challenging the legality of the tariff policies, with several courts previously ruling against the government's use of the Act for comprehensive tariffs [2][4]. Group 2: Government's Position - The U.S. Deputy Attorney General argued that tariffs are necessary to negotiate trade agreements and prevent aggressive trade retaliation from other nations, framing the situation as a potential economic and security disaster [3]. - The Chief Justice and other conservative justices expressed skepticism about the government's authority to impose tariffs, emphasizing that taxation is a core power of Congress [3][4]. Group 3: Potential Outcomes - If the Supreme Court rules against the government, it may have to cancel trade agreements and potentially refund importers, which could lead to significant economic repercussions [5]. - The government has alternative options to impose tariffs, such as using Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to address perceived unfair trade practices [5]. Group 4: Economic Impact - Tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act have generated an estimated $89 billion in revenue from February 4 to September 23 of this year [6]. - However, the economic costs of the tariff policies are substantial, negatively impacting consumers and productive enterprises, with a significant portion of the public attributing rising living costs to the government's actions [6].