Core Points - The Trump administration is requesting the Supreme Court to expedite the review process, with arguments scheduled for early November [2] - A federal appeals court ruled that Trump cannot invoke a 1977 law designed for national emergencies to impose large-scale import tariffs [2] - This case is projected to be one of the largest ever reviewed by the Supreme Court, with potential implications for the current average effective tariff rate of 16.3%, which could be reduced by at least half if Trump loses [2] - A loss for Trump could also lead to the refund of hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs already collected and may disrupt preliminary trade agreements made with certain countries [2] - The federal appeals court has allowed the tariffs to remain in effect while Trump seeks Supreme Court review [2]

Group 1: Report Information - Report Title: Precious Metals Data Daily [4] - Report Date: September 3, 2025 [5] - Research Institution: ITG Guomao Futures [3] - Research Center: Macroeconomic and Financial Research Center [5] - Analyst: Bai Suna [5] Group 2: Price Tracking Spot and Futures Prices - On September 2, 2025, London Gold Spot was at $3,486.02/ounce, London Silver Spot at $40.70/ounce, COMEX Gold at $3,556.10/ounce, and COMEX Silver at $41.70/ounce. The prices of AU2510, AG2510, AU (T+D), and AG (T+D) were 804.32 yuan/gram, 9,824 yuan/kilogram, 799.94 yuan/gram, and 9,797 yuan/kilogram respectively [5]. - Compared to September 1, 2025, the price increases were 0.2% for London Gold Spot, 0.5% for London Silver Spot, 0.3% for COMEX Gold, 0.8% for COMEX Silver, 0.5% for AU2510, 0.5% for AG2510, 0.4% for AU (T+D), and 0.5% for AG (T+D) [5]. Price Spreads and Ratios - On September 2, 2025, the gold TD - SHFE active price spread was -4.38 yuan/gram, the silver TD - SHFE active price spread was -27 yuan/kilogram, the gold internal - external (TD - London) price spread was 3.19 yuan/gram, and the silver internal - external (TD - London) price spread was -633 yuan/kilogram. The SHFE gold - silver ratio was 81.87, and the COMEX gold - silver ratio was 85.29. The spreads between AU2512 - 2510 and AG2512 - 2510 were 1.86 yuan/gram and 21 yuan/kilogram respectively [5]. - Compared to September 1, 2025, the price spread changes were 12.0% for gold TD - SHFE active price spread, -3.6% for silver TD - SHFE active price spread, 86.6% for gold internal - external (TD - London) price spread, 0.1% for silver internal - external (TD - London) price spread, 0.0% for SHFE gold - silver ratio, -0.5% for COMEX gold - silver ratio, 13.4% for AU2512 - 2510 spread, and -8.7% for AG2512 - 2510 spread [5]. Group 3: Position Data Non - commercial Positions in COMEX - As of August 26, 2025 (weekly data), COMEX gold non - commercial long positions were 275,767 contracts, non - commercial short positions were 61,456 contracts, and non - commercial net long positions were 214,311 contracts. COMEX silver non - commercial long positions were 68,227 contracts, non - commercial short positions were 21,761 contracts, and non - commercial net long positions were 46,466 contracts [5]. ETF Positions - On August 29, 2025, the gold ETF - SPDR held 977.68 tons, and the silver ETF - SLV held 15,309.99769 tons. Compared to August 28, 2025, the changes were 1.01% for gold ETF - SPDR and -0.15% for silver ETF - SLV [5]. Group 4: Inventory Data SHFE and COMEX Inventories - On September 2, 2025, SHFE gold inventory was 40,191 kilograms, and SHFE silver inventory was 1,215,228 kilograms. On August 29, 2025, COMEX gold inventory was 38,925,853 troy ounces, and COMEX silver inventory was 518,232,360 troy ounces. Compared to the previous period, the increases were 1.12% for SHFE gold inventory, 0.66% for SHFE silver inventory, 0.42% for COMEX gold inventory, and 0.20% for COMEX silver inventory [5]. Group 5: Interest Rates, Exchange Rates, and Stock Market Data Exchange Rates and Interest Rates - On September 2, 2025, the USD/CNY central parity rate was 7.11. On August 29, 2025, the US Dollar Index was 97.85, the 2 - year US Treasury yield was 3.59%, the 10 - year US Treasury yield was 4.23%, the VIX was 15.36, the S&P 500 was 6,460.26, and NYMEX crude oil was $64.01/barrel [5]. - Compared to the previous period, the changes were 0.02% for the USD/CNY central parity rate, -0.02% for the US Dollar Index, -0.83% for the 2 - year US Treasury yield, 0.24% for the 10 - year US Treasury yield, 6.44% for the VIX, -0.64% for the S&P 500, and -0.48% for NYMEX crude oil [5]. Group 6: Key News - On August 29, 2025, the US Court of Appeals ruled that most of the global tariff policies implemented by former President Trump were illegal, and these additional tariffs could be maintained until October 14 to allow the US government to appeal to the Supreme Court. Chinese Vice Minister of Commerce Li Chenggang visited the US and held talks with relevant US government officials and business representatives [5]. - The preliminary Eurozone CPI annual rate in August 2025 was 0.2% (previous value 0.00%), the preliminary Eurozone PPI annual rate was 2.1% (expected 2%, previous value 2.00%), and the preliminary Eurozone core PPI annual rate was 2.3% (expected 2.3%, previous value 2.4%) [5]. - Due to market expectations of Germany's investment plan and potential increase in defense spending in Eurozone countries, Eurozone ultra - long - term government bonds faced selling pressure. The yield of Germany's 30 - year government bonds reached a 14 - year high, and the yields of 30 - year government bonds in the UK and France reached their highest levels in many years [5]. - Bank of Japan Deputy Governor Himino Ryozo stated that it is appropriate to continue raising interest rates based on the improvement of the economy and prices [5]. Group 7: Market Analysis Short - term Logic - On September 2, 2025, the main contract of Shanghai gold futures rose 1.21% to 804.32 yuan/gram, and the main contract of Shanghai silver futures rose 2.33% to 9,824 yuan/kilogram [5]. - The short - term logic is that the overall US PCE in July 2025 met expectations, indicating that the Fed's inflation control target is controllable. The decline in the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index in August further strengthened the market's expectation of a Fed rate cut. The Fed's independent stance boosted the rebound of precious metal prices. Additionally, due to fiscal concerns and rising debt levels, Eurozone ultra - long - term government bonds faced selling pressure, and local geopolitical tensions increased market risk aversion, supporting precious metal prices. However, the rise in the US Dollar Index due to government bond risks may slow down the rise of precious metal prices. It is expected that the gold price will remain high in the short term, and long positions are recommended to be held. Silver is approaching the 10,000 - yuan mark, and the potential suppression of its commodity attributes by the fermentation of European debt risks should be watched out for [5]. Medium - and Long - term Logic - In the medium - and long - term, with the expectation of Fed rate cuts, continuous global geopolitical uncertainties, intensifying major - power competition, and the wave of de - dollarization, central banks around the world will continue to buy gold, and the medium - and long - term center of the gold price is likely to continue to rise [5].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of former President Trump's appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the recent ruling that deemed most of his global tariffs illegal, highlighting the potential economic consequences and market reactions associated with this legal battle [1][3][4]. Group 1: Trump's Position and Market Impact - Trump plans to appeal to the Supreme Court, asserting that a loss could lead to unprecedented economic turmoil, while a victory could cause the stock market to soar [4][6]. - The uncertainty surrounding the appeal has contributed to a decline in the stock market, with the S&P 500 dropping approximately 1% and the Dow Jones falling over 380 points [4][7]. - Trump claims that the stock market's downturn is a direct result of the recent court ruling, emphasizing that the market desires the tariffs [7]. Group 2: Legal Context and Implications - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Trump's tariffs were largely illegal, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the president the authority to impose such tariffs [7][14]. - The ruling allows the tariffs to remain in effect until October 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court [7][14]. - Legal experts suggest that if the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's ruling, it could significantly weaken Trump's ability to impose tariffs and disrupt his economic strategy [14][15]. Group 3: Alternative Strategies and Government Response - Treasury Secretary Bentsen expresses confidence in the Supreme Court's support for Trump's use of IEEPA but is also preparing alternative legal strategies [10][12]. - Bentsen compares the current trade deficit situation to the 2008-2009 financial crisis, emphasizing the urgency of addressing trade imbalances and the fentanyl crisis [11][12]. - If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, the government may resort to other legal tools, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which allows for significant tariffs against countries deemed discriminatory to U.S. businesses [12][14].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of the global tariff policies implemented by President Trump were illegal, stating that he exceeded his authority in imposing these tariffs [3]. Summary by Relevant Sections - The Appeals Court upheld a previous ruling by the International Trade Court, which found that Trump improperly invoked an emergency powers law to implement these tariffs [3]. - The International Trade Court had previously blocked the tariff policy announced on April 2, citing that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to regulate trade with other nations, and the emergency powers claimed by the President do not supersede this authority [3]. - The Appeals Court has agreed to stay the ruling until October 14, allowing the government time to appeal to the Supreme Court [3].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of President Trump's global tariff policies are illegal, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the president the authority to impose tariffs, exceeding his powers [1]. Summary by Sections - The Court's Decision: The Washington-based Federal Circuit Court ruled that Trump's tariffs could remain in effect until October 14 to allow the government to appeal to the Supreme Court [1]. - Legal Basis: The court indicated that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not explicitly empower the president to impose tariffs, and Trump's actions exceeded his authority [1]. - Impact on Other Tariffs: The ruling does not affect tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under other regulations, such as the steel and aluminum tariffs [1]. - Trump's Response: Trump criticized the appellate court's decision on social media, calling it "wrong" and emphasizing that the current tariffs are still in effect, warning that their removal would lead to a "total disaster" for the U.S. [1]. - Historical Context: After taking office, the Trump administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to implement a series of tariffs without congressional approval. In May, the U.S. International Trade Court ruled this action illegal, stating that the Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to regulate trade with foreign nations [1].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of President Trump's global tariff policies are illegal, stating that he exceeded his authority in implementing these tariffs [1][2]. Group 1 - The court upheld a previous ruling by the International Trade Court, which found that Trump improperly invoked an emergency powers law to impose tariffs [2]. - In May, the International Trade Court blocked the tariff policy announced by Trump on April 2, citing that he overstepped his authority by imposing comprehensive tariffs on countries that export more to the U.S. than they import [2]. - The court emphasized that the U.S. Constitution grants Congress exclusive power to regulate trade with other nations, and the emergency powers claimed by the President do not supersede this authority [2].

Group 1 - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of the global tariff policies implemented by President Trump are illegal, stating that these tariffs exceeded his authority [1] - The ruling may have significant implications for U.S. trade policy and international relations, potentially affecting various industries reliant on imports and exports [1]

Group 1 - The recent shift in Trump's diplomatic approach is linked to significant U.S.-China negotiations, particularly regarding trade and energy policies [1][4][6] - The U.S. government is applying pressure on major trade partners through tariffs, indicating a strong stance on altering international trade dynamics [2][4] - The U.S. Treasury Secretary, Bessent, revealed intense negotiations over sovereignty issues, with China asserting its rights and energy needs, marking a pivotal moment in discussions [4][6][7] Group 2 - The U.S. is facing dual pressures from the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the need to manage U.S.-China trade relations, leading to a reconsideration of its hardline tariff strategies [6][8] - China's response to U.S. technology restrictions includes enhancing rare earth export controls and deepening energy cooperation with Russia, demonstrating its countermeasures [7][8] - Despite some progress in negotiations, underlying tensions between the U.S. and China remain unresolved, particularly concerning long-term issues like technology decoupling and geopolitical strategies [8][9]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article highlights the impact of Trump's global tariff policy, categorizing countries into different tiers based on their relationship with the U.S. [1][3] - The U.S. imposes a 25% basic tariff on India, marking it as a significant target in the trade war, while China is treated as an exception without specific tariffs mentioned [3][6] - India's reliance on U.S. markets and technology makes it vulnerable, as evidenced by the suspension of Russian oil purchases due to U.S. threats [5][6] Group 2 - China's unique position as the only country not subjected to specific tariffs stems from its economic strength and strategic responses, including reciprocal tariffs and leveraging non-tariff measures [6][8] - The article discusses the implications for the U.S., noting the challenges of negotiating with China without alienating other allies or harming U.S. businesses [8] - India's experience serves as a warning for other nations, while China's approach offers a model for resisting economic pressure, emphasizing the importance of national strength and strategic negotiation [8]

Group 1 - The EU leaders' visit to Beijing aims to seek cooperation amidst the backdrop of Trump's global tariff policies, which have had widespread implications for multiple countries [2][3] - Trump's decision to lower tariffs on the EU is seen as a significant concession, with potential agreements resembling those made with Japan, where tariffs could be reduced from 30% or 50% to 15% [3][5] - The EU's strategic significance as one of the world's three major economies means that any consensus reached with China could significantly impact Trump's global tariff strategy [2][8] Group 2 - Trump's recent statements indicate a fatigue with ongoing tariff negotiations, suggesting a readiness to implement a 15% tariff on most countries by August 1 [5][16] - The agreement with Japan, which includes substantial commitments to increase imports of U.S. goods, has faced criticism and may set a precedent for similar demands on the EU, potentially leading to internal dissent within Europe [8][10] - Key EU nations, particularly Germany and France, are resistant to compromising with the U.S., with France's Macron advocating for greater European strategic autonomy [13][16] Group 3 - The evolving geopolitical landscape necessitates that Europe prepares for a more assertive role, as Trump's tariff policies may no longer yield the desired effects [16][18] - The upcoming U.S.-China trade negotiations could further influence the dynamics of global trade and the EU's position within it, highlighting the importance of finding a balance in future negotiations [16][18]