美国最高法院正在重新审视一项已经延续数十年的规则，这项规则限制了总统解雇联邦机构官员的权力。如果法院最终作出裁决，可能会赋予总统更广泛的 权力，允许他随意解雇行政部门的官员。 目前，法院正在审理一起案件，涉及联邦贸易委员会和美联储等独立机构的成员，长期以来，这些成员都被保护不受总统随意罢免。此案的背后，实际上是 联邦政府内部权力平衡的变化。如果最高法院决定扩大总统解雇官员的权限，可能会削弱这些独立机构的"防党派控制保护"，这将对联邦机构的独立性产生 深远影响。 如果这一变化发生，总统在经济监管、移民问题和刑事司法领域的权力将大幅提升。同时，针对政策突变的制约也将减弱。 目前，最高法院正在审理两项涉及联邦贸易委员会和美联储官员的案件。其中，特朗普政府在今年早些时候解雇了联邦贸易委员会委员丽贝卡·斯劳特，而 美联储委员莉萨·库克则获得了法院的暂时保护，防止其被免职。案件辩论计划于明年1月举行。 法院正在考虑两个核心问题：一是是否这些法定保护违反了三权分立原则；二是是否应推翻1935年确立的"汉弗莱遗嘱执行人案"裁决。 除了人事任命问题，最高法院在审理总统政策问题时的态度也在发生变化。特朗普政府第二个任期的前20周 ...

2025年9月初，美国联邦上诉法院以7票对4票裁定特朗普政府依据《国际紧急经济权力法》征收的全球关税违法。 判决一出，特朗普在社交平台激烈回应，称此举将"彻底摧毁美国"。 白宫真正焦虑的，不是他的咆哮，而是那1847亿美元——这笔由财政部通过争议性关税征收的资金，极可能因判决生效而必须退还。 整部法律文本从未出现"关税"一词。 他却将这部用于制裁伊朗、封锁俄罗斯寡头的工具，强行套用于对欧盟钢铝、日本汽车、中国电子产品乃至法国红酒加征关税。 法院在100页判决书中逐条论证：总统越权。 这不是政治立场的胜利，而是法律文本的胜利。 工具错配，再用力也拧不动制度的螺丝。 挑起诉讼的并非跨国巨头，而是一家名为VOS的小型酒类进口商。 他们每年从欧洲进口数百万美元葡萄酒，因25%额外关税导致成本飙升、利润蒸发。 起初只是行政申诉，最终竟撬动整个美国贸易政策体系。 小人物的维权，意外成为制度自检的导火索。 法院态度罕见强硬。 过去数十年，总统以"国家安全"或"经济紧急"为由扩张行政权，司法系统多采取克制立场。 但这次，法官们直接否决。 这不是简单的财政纠葛。 这是对总统权力边界的直接拷问。 特朗普动用的是1977年通过的《 ...

说起这个事儿，得从特朗普今年一月重回白宫开始聊。他一上台，就把贸易政策当成头等大事，各种关 税大棒挥得飞起。针对中国，他先是以芬太尼流入美国为理由，从二月起对中国商品加征10%的关税， 没多久又追加到20%，最后搞出个全面对等关税，把中国商品的税率拉到125%。这还不算完，加拿 大、墨西哥、印度这些贸易伙伴也没逃掉，税率从10%到50%不等。四月二日，他甚至把那天定为解放 日，签了个行政令，对全球贸易伙伴全面开征这些税。印度那边，七月特朗普对印度铜产品加了50%的 关税，八月又把钢铝和汽车零部件的税率提到最高。印度商务部的数据显示，对美铜出口一年就有3.6 亿美元，钢铝和汽车零部件超过20亿美元，这关税一砸下来，印度出口企业直接傻眼。 美国国内也不是没人反对。五家小企业和十二个州联合起诉，说特朗普没国会授权就乱加税，违反宪 法。案子一路打到联邦巡回上诉法院，焦点就是1977年的国际紧急经济权力法。这法本来是给总统在紧 急状态下管金融交易的权限，没说能随便加关税。特朗普政府辩称芬太尼危机和国家安全算紧急状态， 但法院不买账。八月二十九日，法院以七票对四票裁定特朗普的这些关税行政令违法，超出法律授权范 围。裁决书 ...

Group 1 - The case will be submitted to the Supreme Court, with Trump seeking to expedite the decision process [1] - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on August 29 that Trump's imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act was overreaching, but allowed current tariffs to remain in effect until October 14 [3] - Trump argues that removing tariffs could lead to another economic depression, as his administration relies on tariffs for billions in revenue and domestic manufacturing support [3] Group 2 - Trump warned that eliminating tariffs could turn the U.S. into a "third world" country, while small businesses claim these tariffs harm U.S. companies reliant on imports and raise consumer prices [4] - The appeals court ruled 7-4 that Congress likely did not intend to grant the president unlimited power to impose tariffs, stating that the law does not explicitly include the power to levy tariffs [6] - A related case is under review by another federal appeals court, which also found that tariffs exceeded presidential authority, with a deadline of October 14, 2025, for the Trump administration's tariff policy [6] Group 3 - The deadline set by the U.S. Court of Appeals means the Supreme Court must decide whether to hear the case before this date, with a potential final ruling by 2026 [8] - Regardless of the outcome, this dispute over presidential power will redefine the boundaries of presidential authority in trade policy, raising concerns about the separation of powers [8]

Core Points - Trump is leveraging his executive power to suppress political opponents, particularly Democrats, and is intervening in local affairs to fulfill his law-and-order political promises, thereby consolidating his base [1] - These controversial actions are seen as a way for Trump to energize his core supporters and set the political agenda ahead of the midterm elections [1] Group 1: Chicago Intervention - Trump is planning to deploy federal troops to Chicago, a city managed by Democrats, citing the need to combat crime [3] - Chicago's crime rate has actually decreased by 22% in the first half of the year, suggesting that Trump's actions are more politically symbolic than a response to actual security needs [3] - Local Democratic leaders have strongly opposed Trump's intervention, labeling it as an unwarranted federal overreach [3] Group 2: Security for Kamala Harris - Trump has revoked the Secret Service protection for former Vice President Kamala Harris, which was legally extended beyond the standard six-month period [4][5] - This decision has drawn sharp criticism from Democratic officials, who view it as a politically motivated act of retaliation [5] Group 3: Federal Reserve Interference - Trump is attempting to dismiss Federal Reserve board member Lisa Cook amid allegations of misconduct, which many see as a direct attack on the Fed's independence [7][8] - The move is perceived as an effort to install a more compliant member who would support looser monetary policies, potentially leading to higher inflation [10] - The situation raises concerns about the rule of law in the U.S. and its implications for the global economy [10][11]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that President Trump's imposition of most global tariffs was illegal, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs beyond his powers [1][2]. Group 1: Court Ruling - The majority opinion of the U.S. Federal Circuit Court found that Trump's invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs exceeded presidential authority [2]. - The court's ruling includes a buffer period, allowing the tariffs to remain in effect until October 14, enabling the U.S. government to appeal to the Supreme Court [3]. - The ruling means that the tariffs will continue to impact trade partners until a final decision is made by the Supreme Court [4]. Group 2: White House Response - The White House and Trump expressed strong statements in response to the judicial ruling, asserting the legality of the tariffs [5]. - White House spokesperson Kush Desai stated that President Trump was exercising the tariff powers granted by Congress to protect national and economic security from foreign threats, confirming that the tariffs would remain effective [6]. - Trump emphasized on social media that he would continue to leverage these tariffs for the benefit of the nation with the help of the Supreme Court [7].

Core Viewpoint - The Trump administration is intensifying scrutiny on Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook following allegations of mortgage fraud, with Treasury Secretary Yellen calling for an internal review of the Fed [1][2][3] Group 1: Allegations and Responses - Treasury Secretary Yellen questioned Cook's lack of denial regarding the fraud allegations, suggesting that if proven true, Cook should face prosecution [2] - The allegations stem from claims that Cook misrepresented properties in mortgage applications, potentially to secure better loan terms [8][9] - Cook's legal team has stated that Trump lacks the authority to dismiss her and plans to challenge the termination in court, emphasizing the importance of the Fed's independence [10][11] Group 2: Political Implications - If Trump successfully replaces Cook, he would gain a majority on the seven-member Federal Reserve Board, which could influence monetary policy decisions [3][5] - Trump's Chief Economic Advisor has publicly suggested that Cook should resign during the legal proceedings, further escalating political tensions [6][7] - Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren defended Cook, arguing that the allegations do not justify her dismissal from the Fed [7] Group 3: Legal and Institutional Context - The legal framework governing the dismissal of Fed governors requires "just cause," typically interpreted as misconduct or malfeasance [9] - The outcome of Cook's potential lawsuit could have significant implications for the independence of the Federal Reserve and the limits of presidential power [10]

Core Viewpoint - The Trump administration is intensifying scrutiny on Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook following allegations of mortgage fraud, with Treasury Secretary Yellen calling for an internal review of the Fed [1][2][3]. Group 1: Allegations and Responses - Treasury Secretary Yellen questioned Cook's lack of denial regarding the fraud allegations, suggesting that if proven true, she should be prosecuted [2]. - The allegations stem from claims made by Bill Pulte, the head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who accused Cook of submitting fraudulent mortgage applications for properties in Michigan and Georgia [9]. - Pulte stated that Cook claimed both properties were her primary residence to secure better loan terms, which constitutes serious violations of mortgage laws [9]. Group 2: Political Implications - If Trump successfully removes Cook and appoints a replacement, he would gain a majority on the seven-member Federal Reserve Board, potentially influencing monetary policy towards aggressive rate cuts [3][5]. - Yellen emphasized the independence of the Federal Reserve Board members, despite the political pressure from the Trump administration [3][4]. Group 3: Legal Challenges - Cook plans to challenge her dismissal in court, asserting that Trump lacks the authority to remove her without just cause, which is typically defined as misconduct [10]. - The Federal Reserve has stated that Cook's long-term tenure and protection from arbitrary dismissal are crucial for ensuring that monetary policy decisions are based on data and economic analysis [10][11].

当地时间8月22日，美国总统特朗普表示，不排除宣布进入国家紧急状态的可能，并强调，如有必要，将对目前华盛顿特区的30天联邦管控进行延长，同时 点名芝加哥和纽约，批评这两座城市"一片混乱"，暗示可能采取类似措施。此番表态迅速在美国社会引发争议与震动。 △《卫报》报道，特朗普表示不排除宣布进入国家紧急状态的可能，并点名芝加哥和纽约"一片混乱"，表示芝加哥是下一个目标。 美国总统的政治考量 当地舆论普遍认为，虽然总统特朗普给出的理由是"应对犯罪、维护秩序"，然而这一举措更多是政治操作。 首先，根据《华盛顿特区自治法》，总统确实可以在特殊情况下接管华盛顿特区的警务，但期限最多为30天。超过30天必须得到国会批准。如果总统宣布进 入国家紧急状态，就可调用更广泛的联邦权力，不受自治法30天限制的约束，也可以绕开国会的同意程序，让联邦继续管控华盛顿特区。 同时，特朗普点名华盛顿、芝加哥、纽约这类由民主党主政的大城市，意在放大"民主党治理失败"的印象。芝加哥常被贴上"枪支暴力与治安崩坏"的标签， 纽约既是特朗普的故乡，也是民主党与主流媒体的象征性舞台。这些选择既有象征意义，也能放大政治对比，强化"只有我能恢复秩序"的选战话语 ...

Core Points - The "Major Questions Doctrine" (MQD) established during the Biden administration is now threatening Trump's global tariff plan [1][2] - The U.S. International Trade Court (CIT) ruled that Trump's tariff policy exceeded authority, estimating a tax impact of $1.4 trillion over the next decade, significantly higher than Biden's $400 billion student loan relief plan [1][5] - The legal basis for Trump's tariffs is the ambiguous International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) from 1977, which does not clearly authorize large-scale tariffs [3][5] Group 1 - The MQD was initially used by conservative judges to block significant Biden policies, indicating a precedent for evaluating major economic impacts without explicit congressional authorization [1][2] - The CIT's unanimous decision (3-0) highlighted that Trump's tariffs constitute a major economic policy requiring clear congressional authorization [1][4] - Legal and ideological divisions within the Supreme Court may influence the application of the MQD in this case, with differing views on its relevance to presidential powers [3][4] Group 2 - The upcoming Supreme Court ruling will not only determine the fate of Trump's tariff policy but could also set a precedent for the boundaries of presidential power in the future [5] - If the Court maintains a strict stance requiring congressional authorization for significant economic measures, Trump's tariffs may be overturned, marking a historical limitation on presidential taxing authority [5] - Conversely, if the Court accepts the defense regarding national security and presidential authority, it could expand presidential emergency powers in economic matters, prolonging trade war risks and global economic uncertainty [5]