E Children and F 10 E Ull iller E B File s l Trans . ustifica in a elli f and sta 8 1 BS 55 7 th The 197 A FRE CALL AND THE l # 11 1 ter 美国贸易代表贾米森·格里尔2月25日表示，美国对部分国家加征的"全球进口关税"税率将从新近实施的10%升至15%或更高，但他未透露任何具体的贸易伙 伴或其他细节。 20日，美国最高法院裁定，特朗普政府依据《国际紧急经济权力法》实施的相关大规模关税措施缺乏明确法律授权。当天，美最高法院大法官以6比3的结果 维持下级法院裁决，认定特朗普援引《国际紧急经济权力法》实施关税政策超出了其法定权限。最高法院是在企业及美国12个州提起的诉讼中作出这一结论 的。这些企业和州认为，特朗普以这一法律为依据，单方面征收进口税的做法前所未有。 裁决公布后，特朗普20日转而依据《1974年贸易法》第122条，宣布加征"全球进口关税"，税率10%，为期150天，以取代被最高法院认定违法的关税。随后 在21日，美国总统特朗普又在其社交平台"真实社交"上发文称，将把对全球 ...

特朗普应对最高法院裁定的方式，直接了当——拖延战术。他知道，这笔1700多亿美元的退款涉及到复 杂的计算，涉及多个政府部门的数据调取与核算，几乎比五角大楼查账还麻烦。光是诉讼文件就足够堆 成几卡车，而特朗普的律师团队可以不急不躁地拖延时间，最终让这场官司无休止地拖下去，等到相关 企业倒闭，大法官退休，特朗普自己也许早已不再是总统，案件依旧未必解决。 面对最高法院的裁 定，特朗普显得毫不慌张，甚至可能暗自窃笑。毕竟，这些年来他早已习惯了与美国司法机构的博弈。 对于最高法院的裁定，他不但没有低头，反而用法律回击。他宣布将再对全球加征10%的关税，完全无 视最高法院的权威。当最高法院认为他不能通过国际紧急经济权力法加征关税时，特朗普就迅速转而使 用《贸易法》第122条，该条款规定，在美国遭遇严重的收支失衡或者美元大幅贬值时，总统可以临时 增加关税。由于这条法律缺乏量化标准，特朗普有了充分的空间进行操作。他宣布，美国已经处于最危 险的时刻，必须通过加税保护美国人。若最高法院再次裁定无效，他还可以继续引用其他条款，这些年 来，特朗普和他的团队已经把美国的法律研究得透彻，对这些漏洞如数家珍，最高法院要想堵住这些漏 洞，难 ...

在记者会上，特朗普对法官们发起了一连串批评，指责他们"非常不爱国，对我们的宪法不忠"，并声称 最高法院受到了"外国势力"的影响。 该案的核心是，特朗普援引1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》，在未经国会批准的情况下迅速实施关税 ——尽管征税是立法部门的一项明确权力。 在11月初的口头辩论中，最高法院9名法官中的多数人（其中6人由共和党总统任命）就已对特朗普绕过 国会征收两位数关税的权力表示怀疑。 美国最高法院否决了总统唐纳德·特朗普针对美国几乎所有贸易伙伴征收的关税后，特朗普签署命令， 新征收10%的"全球关税"。这一裁决对其标志性经济政策造成重大打击，并可能使美国与世界其他国家 的关系变得复杂。 最高法院维持了下级法院的裁决，认定特朗普去年动用20世纪70年代的一项紧急法律征收所谓的对等关 税，以及对来自中国、加拿大和墨西哥的商品征收与芬太尼相关的关税时，超越了总统职权。 特朗普称这一裁决"令人深感失望"，他表示："我为最高法院的某些成员感到羞耻，绝对羞耻，他们没 有勇气做对我们国家正确的事。" 在记者会上，特朗普暗示他不会退还数千亿美元，此事最终将陷入漫长的法庭斗争。 特朗普表示："外国肯定非常高兴，他们正在 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the new tariffs imposed by the U.S. on China under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), highlighting two main components: the "fentanyl tariff" and the "reciprocal tariff" [1] Summary by Relevant Categories Tariff Details - The current tariff rate on China for the "fentanyl tariff" is 10% [1] - The "reciprocal tariff" also has a 10% rate currently enforced, while an additional 24% rate is on hold [1] Legal Context - According to U.S. executive orders, these tariffs are stated to be "terminated as soon as possible" [1] - A ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court implies that any administrative orders to cancel IEEPA tariffs will also apply to the relevant parts of the U.S.-China tariff arrangements, leading to an automatic cancellation of the IEEPA tariffs on China [1]

2月20日晚间，美股三大指数盘中直线拉升。 黄金、白银剧烈波动，截至发稿，白银暴涨近5%，黄金涨超1%。分析师James Athey指出，市场似乎不太确定该如何应对美国最高法院的裁 决。 | 中国资产方面，中概股指数低开高走转涨。富时中国A50指数直线拉升涨近1%，人民币短线拉升！ | | --- | 消息面上，全球迎来史诗级利好。 美国最高法院作出裁决：特朗普对等关税和芬太尼关税违法！大法官们以6比3裁定，认为特朗普政府依据1977年的《国际紧急经济权力法》 （IEEPA），对全球进入美国的商品征收激进关税的做法，不被该法律所允许。 这项裁决由首席大法官罗伯茨执笔，他与三位自由派大法官以及两位保守派大法官：尼尔·戈萨奇和艾米·科尼·巴雷特，组成多数意见。 | 最高: 6909.87 | 今开:6843.26 | 52周最高: 7002.28 | 量比: 1.17 | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | 最低: 6836.33 | 昨收:6861.89 | 52周最低: 4835.04 | 振幅: 1.07% | | 成交昌: 8.15亿股 | | | | 美元指数直线跳水。 这是特朗普今 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the frequent declarations of national emergency by President Trump, highlighting the implications and legal framework surrounding such actions, as well as the criticisms they have garnered [1]. Summary by Relevant Sections National Emergency Definition - A national emergency in the U.S. is a specific legal status that allows the President to mobilize resources and take actions typically prohibited by law to address sudden threats, based on the National Emergencies Act of 1976 [1]. - The declaration activates over 100 powers written into law by Congress, covering various crises from economic threats to military needs [1]. Frequency of Declarations - Since returning to office on January 20, 2017, Trump has declared a national emergency 11 times, making him the president with the most declarations since the law's enactment, surpassing former President Clinton's 17 declarations over eight years [1]. Use of Emergency Powers - National emergencies allow the President to bypass Congress and implement policies through executive orders, such as economic sanctions against countries like Cuba, Iran, and Venezuela [1]. - The declaration elevates diplomatic issues to "national security threats," providing legal justification for sanctions and tariffs, which can be adjusted or extended at the President's discretion [1]. Impact of Declarations - The U.S. has used national emergency powers to address issues like weapons proliferation, terrorism, and human rights violations, leading to sanctions against multiple countries, including Canada and Mexico [1]. - Concerns have been raised about the potential abuse of power, as the ease of declaring emergencies may lead to actions that do not constitute genuine emergencies [1]. - Legal challenges have emerged against Trump's use of emergency powers, particularly regarding tariffs, with courts ruling against the legality of his actions, and the Supreme Court is currently reviewing these cases [1].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court has delayed a decision on the legality of tariffs imposed by President Trump, maintaining the status quo and causing significant financial losses for U.S. importers, estimated at over $16 billion per month [1][6]. Group 1: Tariff Impact - Trump's tariffs have resulted in over $16 billion in monthly losses for U.S. importers since their implementation [1][6]. - By February 20, the total tariffs collected under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act could exceed $170 billion, according to Bloomberg's economic analyst Chris Kennedy [5]. Group 2: Legal Proceedings - The Supreme Court has not yet announced a ruling on the legality of Trump's tariffs, with the next possible decision date set for February 20, following a four-week recess [2][5]. - There have been over 1,500 preemptive claims submitted to the U.S. International Trade Court by companies affected by the tariffs, indicating a significant legal response from the business community [5]. Group 3: Political Context - Trump's tariffs are also being used as leverage in geopolitical strategies, such as pressuring European nations regarding Greenland, with proposed increases in tariffs from 10% to 25% on certain countries [6]. - Despite potential unfavorable rulings from the Supreme Court, experts suggest that Trump may continue to use tariffs as a tool for geopolitical ambitions, indicating a persistent strategy regardless of legal outcomes [6].

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]

Group 1 - The core point of the news is that President Trump signed an executive order to prevent the seizure of Venezuelan oil revenues held in U.S. Treasury accounts, emphasizing that these funds are sovereign assets for government and diplomatic purposes [2][8] - The executive order declares a national emergency, stating that any court attempts to seize these funds would significantly harm U.S. national security and foreign policy [2][8] - The order also highlights that any judicial actions regarding these funds would interfere with efforts to maintain Venezuela's economic and political stability [2][8] Group 2 - The context includes the recent capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife, who face drug trafficking charges, with Trump indicating cooperation between the U.S. and Venezuela to rebuild the oil and gas infrastructure [2][8] - Trump met with executives from major oil companies to encourage investment in Venezuela, although ExxonMobil's CEO stated that the country currently lacks investment conditions [2][8] - Chevron is noted as the only major U.S. oil company still operating in Venezuela under a special license granted by the Trump administration [4][9]