转自：京报网_北京日报官方网站 【#特朗普已22次宣布国家紧急状态#】#特朗普1年多宣布11次紧急状态#据新华社，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？何为美国"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。国家紧急状态在正式终止前将持续有效。总统有权随时 单方面发布正式的终止公告来结束紧急状态。不过，最常见的终止方式是紧急状态在一年后自动失效， 除非总统通过年度公告延长紧急状态。此外，《国家紧急 ...

据美国彭博社1月20日报道，美国最高法院将从下周开始休庭四周，下一个可能发布关税裁决的日期是 当地时间2月20日，在等待裁决的期间，有争议的关税将维持不变。根据美国联邦政府的数据，特朗普 的关税每月会给美国进口商造成超过160亿美元的损失。 特朗普上台后援引美国《国际紧急经济权力法》，以不经过国会批准、直接颁布行政令的方式出台一系 列加征关税措施，在美国国内引发一系列法律诉讼。美国联邦巡回上诉法院和美国国际贸易法院去年分 别裁定一揽子关税政策违法后，特朗普政府向最高法院提出上诉。 去年11月5日，最高法院就特朗普关税政策的合法性举行听证会，听取相关辩论。彭博社称，当时大法 官加速推进此案的审理程序，暗示可能"快速裁决"，让反对关税的人士寄希望于能迅速得到不利于特朗 普政府的裁决。 【文/观察者网 陈思佳】去年4月以来，美国总统特朗普的所谓"对等关税"对全球贸易造成严重冲击，不 仅遭到世界各国反对，在美国国内也引发法律诉讼。然而，美国联邦最高法院迟迟没有对关税案作出裁 决，使外界对于"快速撤销关税"的希望落空。 近年来，最高法院大法官偶尔会在没有开庭的情况下发布意见，但此类案件通常涉及特殊情况，例如接 近截止日 ...

Group 1 - The U.S. White House announced a 25% import tariff on certain semiconductors, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and derivatives starting from January 15 [1] - The U.S. Supreme Court did not make a ruling on the legality of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, leaving the case unresolved [2] - The Trump administration's tariffs were implemented under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act without Congressional approval, leading to legal challenges [2]

Group 1 - The core point of the news is that President Trump announced a 25% tariff on countries that engage in trade with Iran, effective immediately, although the specifics of the policy remain unclear [1][3] - The new tariff policy could significantly increase the import costs for Iran's major trading partners, including Iraq, India, the UAE, and Turkey [3] - The announcement coincides with ongoing anti-government protests in Iran, which have been met with internet blackouts and government crackdowns [3] Group 2 - Trump's administration has previously increased tariffs on Indian goods to 50% in an effort to penalize India for purchasing Russian oil, indicating a broader strategy of using tariffs as a tool for foreign policy [5] - The legal basis for Trump's tariff actions is under scrutiny, with potential challenges in the Supreme Court that could limit his ability to impose such tariffs and may require the return of approximately $130 billion in tariff revenue [5] - The economic situation in Iran is dire, with the currency plummeting, inflation exceeding 40%, and rising prices for essential goods, exacerbated by international sanctions and domestic mismanagement [5]

美国总统特朗普于周五签署一项行政令，旨在阻止扣押委内瑞拉存放在美国财政部账户中的石油收入。 该行政令指出，这笔存入外国政府存款基金的收入"完全用于主权用途"，任何法院试图扣押该笔资金的 行为，都将"对美国的国家安全和外交政策造成实质性损害"。 这份宣告国家进入紧急状态的行政令称，相关资金是委内瑞拉的主权财产，由美国代为保管，用于政府 及外交用途，并非可被私人主张权利的资产。行政令还提到，针对该笔资金采取的任何司法程序，都将 干扰"维护委内瑞拉经济和政治稳定"的相关努力。 就在特朗普签署此项行政令的一周前，美军在加拉加斯抓获了委内瑞拉领导人尼古拉斯・马杜罗及其夫 人西莉亚・弗洛雷斯。二人被控贩毒罪名，均拒不认罪。 美国总统特朗普于周五签署一项行政令，旨在阻止扣押委内瑞拉存放在美国财政部账户中的石油收入。 该行政令指出，这笔存入外国政府存款基金的收入"完全用于主权用途"，任何法院试图扣押该笔资金的 行为，都将"对美国的国家安全和外交政策造成实质性损害"。 自此次军事行动后，特朗普曾表示，两国正"携手推进合作"，共同重建委内瑞拉的油气基础设施，美国 石油巨头将向这个南美国家投资至少1000亿美元。 特朗普于周五下午 ...

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to issue rulings on Friday on cases related to the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. ...

Group 1: Tariff Policy and Economic Impact - President Trump warned that if the U.S. Supreme Court rules against his comprehensive tariff policy, the country could face an economic and national security disaster, with potential refunds exceeding $2 trillion in tariffs collected [1][4][5] - Trump's administration plans to use tariff revenues to provide $2,000 to low- and middle-income Americans and to reduce national debt, indicating a shift in the initial view that tariff revenues would only be used for deficit reduction [4][5] - The Supreme Court's deliberation on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) has raised concerns about the potential chaos in refunding tariffs deemed illegal, with over $100 billion at stake [5][6] Group 2: Trade Relations with India - Trump indicated that the U.S. is "very close" to reaching a trade agreement with India and plans to lower tariffs on Indian goods at some point [8][9] - The imposition of high tariffs on Indian exports has led to a significant decline in India's exports to the U.S., with a 20.3% drop in September, marking the largest monthly decline this year [10] - The recent optimism in U.S.-India trade relations comes after India reportedly reduced its purchases of Russian oil, which was a point of contention in negotiations [9][10] Group 3: Air Traffic Control and Government Operations - Trump mandated that all air traffic controllers must return to work immediately, threatening severe penalties for non-compliance, amid staffing shortages affecting flight operations [12][13] - The FAA reported significant delays and cancellations due to a shortage of air traffic control personnel, impacting approximately 250,000 passengers [14]

Core Viewpoint - The Trump tariffs, initially aimed at protecting American manufacturing, have evolved into a significant fiscal revenue mechanism, raising concerns about their legality and implications for U.S. economic policy [1][4]. Group 1: Tariff Revenue and Economic Impact - The Trump administration has expanded tariffs not only on China but also on Europe, Mexico, and Vietnam, framing them as measures for national security and fair competition, while effectively acting as an "invisible tax" on American consumers [3][5]. - If the current tariff structure remains in place until mid-next year, the U.S. government could generate between $750 billion to $1 trillion in revenue, marking the largest tax increase in nearly two decades [3][5]. - The American Employers Federation estimates that U.S. businesses will incur over $82 billion in additional costs due to tariffs in 2024, leading many small manufacturers to raise prices or reduce production [5]. Group 2: Legal and Constitutional Challenges - The legality of the tariffs is under scrutiny, as the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes, and the Trump administration's use of "emergency economic powers" to impose tariffs may violate this principle [5][7]. - Supreme Court justices have expressed doubts about the constitutionality of the tariffs, suggesting that significant economic decisions should require explicit congressional authorization [5][7]. - If the courts determine that the tariffs are effectively taxes, it could trigger constitutional disputes and potentially require the government to refund up to $19.5 billion in collected revenue [5]. Group 3: Political and Diplomatic Implications - The perception of tariffs as a covert tax undermines the credibility of U.S. trade policy in international negotiations, as trade measures are increasingly viewed as revenue-generating tools rather than diplomatic instruments [6][7]. - The Trump administration faces a dilemma: maintaining that tariffs serve as trade tools necessitates proving their direct link to national security, while acknowledging their fiscal role risks being deemed unconstitutional [7]. - The situation illustrates a broader internal conflict regarding power, money, and constitutional limits, as tariffs transition from trade levers to fiscal instruments, complicating the administration's economic agenda [7].

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning the legality of the Biden administration's imposition of tariffs on numerous countries, focusing on whether this action exceeds presidential authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [1][2] - The case revolves around the interpretation of IEEPA, which allows the president to intervene in trade during emergencies, and whether this includes the power to impose tariffs [1][3] Summary by Sections Legal Framework - The core legal question is whether the IEEPA grants the president unlimited power to impose tariffs globally, with justices expressing skepticism about the necessity of such broad tariffs [3] - The argument presented by the defense is that the trade deficit constitutes an emergency, justifying the use of tariffs as a negotiation tool, despite the increased costs to American businesses and consumers being deemed an "accident" [2][4] Implications of the Ruling - Justices are concerned about the potential legal ramifications of a ruling in favor of the White House, questioning if it would set a precedent for expanding presidential powers at the expense of Congressional authority [4] - Even if the Supreme Court rules against the White House, alternative legal avenues for imposing tariffs remain available, such as provisions in the Trade Act of 1974 and the Tariff Act of 1930 [4][5] Stakeholder Reactions - The plaintiffs argue that if the White House seeks to impose tariffs through other legal means, they will continue to defend their interests [5]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing Supreme Court hearing regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, which could generate significant revenue for the U.S. over the next decade. The case raises questions about the balance of power between the President and Congress in terms of taxation and trade regulation [3][6][11]. Tariff Authorization - The hearing lasted nearly two and a half hours, with representatives from the government and opposing parties presenting their arguments. The Trump administration is the first to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs [5][6]. - The government argues that tariffs are necessary to address trade deficits and negotiate trade agreements, while the Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs [6][10]. Major Questions Doctrine - The Supreme Court has previously used the "major questions doctrine" to overturn significant policies from the Biden administration, requiring explicit legislative authorization for actions with substantial economic and political implications [8][9]. - The lower court ruled against Trump, stating that the imposition of tariffs lacked legal legitimacy under this doctrine [9]. Potential Outcomes - The Supreme Court's decision is expected to be closely divided, with conservative justices showing some support for Trump's position, while liberal justices express skepticism about the legality of the tariffs [11][12]. - If the Court rules against the tariffs, it could lead to complications, such as the need to refund tariffs already paid by U.S. importers, which have generated approximately $89 billion in revenue since February [11][12]. Market Reactions - Following the hearing, the probability of the Supreme Court supporting Trump's tariffs decreased significantly on prediction markets, indicating a growing belief that the justices may overturn the tariff policy [12]. Government's Position - Even if the Supreme Court rules the tariffs illegal, the U.S. government may continue to impose tariffs using other legal frameworks, according to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent [13].