（责任编辑：宋政 HN002） 【免责声明】本文仅代表作者本人观点，与和讯网无关。和讯网站对文中陈述、观点判断保持中立，不对所包含内容 的准确性、可靠性或完整性提供任何明示或暗示的保证。请读者仅作参考，并请自行承担全部责任。邮箱： news_center@staff.hexun.com 格隆汇9月15日｜美国总统特朗普在社交媒体最新发文称，"在担任美利坚合众国总统期间，我所领导的 联邦政府已全面介入处理华盛顿特区这一国家首都曾面临的严重犯罪困境。通过有效干预，这座原本位 列全美乃至全球最危险、凶案频发的城市，在短短数周内已转变为最安全的城市之一。然而，在激进左 翼民主党人的压力下，多年来纵容首都暴力犯罪泛滥的市长穆丽尔·鲍泽近日通知联邦政府，大都会警 察局将终止与移民及海关执法局(ICE)在驱逐危险非法移民方面的合作。若允许此决定生效，犯罪潮必 将卷土重来。在此我向华盛顿特区的居民和企业郑重承诺：请勿担忧，我坚定与你们同在，绝不容许这 种情况发生。必要时我将宣布国家紧急状态并启动联邦接管程序！" ...

据CCTV国际时讯，美国东部时间今天（9月15日）凌晨，美国总统特朗普在其社交平台"真实社交"上 发帖威胁称，在华盛顿市长鲍泽通知联邦政府"华盛顿特区大都会警察局不会就非法居住或进入美国的 个人信息与美国移民与海关执法局合作"后，他将在必要时宣布美国全国进入紧急状态，并对华盛顿特 区进行全面联邦管制。 特朗普在帖文中称："在本人作为美国总统的主持下，联邦政府已全面介入华盛顿特区这一犯罪重灾 区。我国首都已从全美乃至全球最危险、凶杀案最猖獗的城市之一，在短短数周内转变为最安全的城市 之一。这座城市的餐厅、商铺和企业如今人潮涌动，呈现一派繁荣景象，数十年来首次实现近乎'零犯 罪率'。这番转变令人欣慰。但如今在激进左翼民主党人的压力下，常年纵容暴力犯罪侵蚀首都的缪里 尔·鲍泽市长竟通知联邦政府，大都会警察局将不再配合移民与海关执法局驱逐危险非法移民。如果我 放任此事，犯罪浪潮必将卷土重来。特向华盛顿特区居民和企业郑重承诺：请勿担忧，我与你们同在， 绝不容许此事发生。必要时我将宣布国家紧急状态并实施联邦管制！！！" ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses President Trump's request for the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold his global tariff policy, which could significantly impact international trade and grant him new leverage over the global economy [1][3]. Economic Implications - This case is one of the largest the Supreme Court has ever handled in terms of economic stakes, with a potential outcome that could halve the current average effective tariff rate of 16.3% and require the U.S. to refund billions in tariffs [3]. - The tariffs in question include those implemented on April 2, which represent the largest increase in U.S. import taxes since 1930, raising the average applicable tariff rate to its highest level in over a century [6]. Legal Context - The Supreme Court is being asked to expedite the review process, with oral arguments scheduled for early November, potentially leading to a ruling by the end of the year [5]. - The legal challenge stems from a ruling by a federal appeals court that determined Trump could not impose large-scale import taxes under the 1977 law intended for national emergencies [3][8]. Presidential Authority - The case will test the limits of presidential power regarding national security and economic emergencies, as the law does not explicitly grant the authority to impose tariffs [8][9]. - The Constitution assigns tariff authority to Congress, raising questions about whether this power has been delegated to the President [9]. Implications for Trade Agreements - A ruling against Trump could disrupt preliminary trade agreements he has made with various countries and affect ongoing diplomatic negotiations [4][6].

据新华网消息，近期美国再度调整对中国部分商品关税政策，中美关税博弈持续引发全球关注。自特朗普再次执政以来，对中国发起的关税战便成为国际经 济与政治领域焦点。如今局势突变，特朗普正面临极为棘手的局面。 美国有线电视新闻网评论称，在短短六个月内，特朗普 "重塑了全球贸易格局，颠覆了长达一个世纪的惯例"。一些企业主公开表示，若关税战持续，企业 将被迫裁员甚至倒闭，这将对美国就业市场造成沉重打击，普通民众也将深受其害。美国部分政客也对特朗普的关税政策提出批评，认为其可能导致美国经 济衰退，仅依靠加征关税这一简单粗暴的手段，无法实现美国的繁荣发展，反而可能使美国经济陷入困境。 从经济数据对比来看，特朗普的关税战并未达到预期效果。在关税战背景下，美国经济增长动能受到抑制。美国 6 月贸易逆差虽出现收窄，据美国人口普查 局与商务部经济分析局 8 月 5 日联合公布的数据，2025 年 6 月美国货物和服务贸易逆差为 602 亿美元，比修正后的 5 月 717 亿美元减少 115 亿美元，环比 下降 16%，但这主要是由于内需放缓导致消费品及原材料进口降至新冠疫情以来最低，并非关税政策的积极成效。 与此同时，美国国内通胀压力 ...

新华社北京8月6日电 题：政策与权力的双重争斗——特朗普政府的关税官司远未了结 新华社记者马倩 美国特朗普政府声称将自8月7日起对多国征收高额关税，但其关税政策在国内引发的官司远未了结，美 国国内对白宫关税政策涉嫌违宪违法的质疑声日益高涨。 在美国一家联邦巡回上诉法院近日举行的听证会上，多名法官对特朗普政府是否有权力决定对众多国家 施加大规模、高额关税提出质疑。 美国《纽约时报》说，特朗普政府目前面临十多起涉及关税政策的诉讼，如果败诉将在关税政策上"回 到原点"。美国法律专家认为，这场司法大战既是美国国内的贸易政策之争，也是有关总统权限的权力 之争。 "那项法律根本就没提关税" 上周，华盛顿特区联邦巡回上诉法院举行听证会，围绕特朗普政府对多国征收高额关税的相关做法是否 构成越权违宪展开辩论。 特朗普政府上台后援引美国《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。今年5月，美国国际贸易法院裁定特朗普政府此举违法。随后，特朗普政府向联 邦巡回上诉法院提起上诉。 在上周的听证会上，上诉法院多名法官质疑特朗普政府"关税权力"的合法性，认为白宫未能证明，所谓 美国的贸易逆差构成 ...

Group 1 - The legality of President Trump's broad imposition of global tariffs is being challenged in a federal appeals court [1] - A hearing was held by an 11-judge panel, focusing on the Trump administration's claim that the ongoing trade deficit constitutes a national emergency [1] - The outcome of the court's decision could impact the implementation of higher tariffs set to take effect the following day [1]

Core Viewpoint - A U.S. court has ruled that Trump's tariff policy is invalid, raising questions about presidential authority in trade matters and causing significant market reactions [3][9][10]. Group 1: Background and Context - The tariff policy was announced by Trump on April 2, aimed at addressing perceived unfairness in the global trade system and reducing the trade deficit [5][6]. - The policy imposed varying tariffs on multiple countries, intending to pressure them into renegotiating trade agreements [6][8]. Group 2: Economic Impact - The tariffs have negatively affected global economic stability, leading to rising costs for U.S. companies, particularly those reliant on exports, and increasing consumer prices [6][8]. - Economists and industry associations have warned that high tariffs could disrupt global supply chains and weaken U.S. competitiveness in international markets [8]. Group 3: Legal and Political Reactions - The court's ruling was based on the U.S. Constitution, which assigns tariff authority to Congress, not the president, and deemed Trump's claims of a national emergency unfounded [9][10]. - Despite the ruling, Trump plans to appeal, indicating a potential prolonged legal battle over the tariff policy [10][12]. Group 4: Market Reactions - Following the court's decision, global markets reacted strongly, with U.S. stock futures showing significant gains, reflecting investor optimism about the potential repeal of the tariffs [11][13]. - A successful repeal could restore confidence in global markets, encouraging multinational companies to increase foreign investments and enhancing capital flow [13].

Core Points - A significant court ruling has temporarily halted the U.S. government's tariff policy on Chinese goods, impacting U.S.-China trade relations and increasing pressure on the Trump administration [1][3][29] - The court's intervention is based on U.S. domestic legal processes rather than a proactive move from China, indicating a shift in political support for Trump within the U.S. [1][15] Group 1: Court Ruling and Legal Implications - The federal court's decision has effectively put a stop to Trump's tariff policies, which were deemed legally unsound, particularly regarding the imposition of punitive tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico [3][5] - The ruling highlights that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs was an overreach of presidential authority, as such powers require congressional approval [5][7] - The court's decision was made by a panel that included a judge appointed by Trump, which complicates the narrative that the judiciary is acting against the president [11][29] Group 2: Political Reactions and Strategic Considerations - The White House reacted strongly to the ruling, with key aides labeling it a "judicial coup" and questioning the authority of unelected judges [9][15] - The ruling may provide a temporary reprieve for countries affected by tariffs, but it does not eliminate the broader context of ongoing trade tensions between the U.S. and China [17][21] - There are speculations that the court's decision could be part of a strategic maneuver by the Trump administration to recalibrate its approach to trade negotiations, potentially using the suspension of tariffs as leverage [17][21][25] Group 3: Broader Implications for U.S. Trade Policy - The halt on tariffs may lead to increased scrutiny of Trump's overall trade strategy, especially as domestic pressures mount regarding tax cuts and fiscal deficits [23][25] - The legal challenges against Trump's tariff policies are supported by multiple state governments and various stakeholders, indicating a significant internal opposition to his trade approach [15][29] - The outcome of this legal battle could have lasting effects on the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches in the U.S., as well as on international trade relations [29][31]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled that the Trump administration's tariff policies are illegal, stating that federal law does not grant the president "unlimited power" to impose tariffs on imports from nearly all countries [1][3][4]. Group 1: Legal and Political Implications - The court's decision prohibits the Trump administration from executing tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, asserting that the president cannot impose comprehensive tariffs based on "trade imbalance" [3][4]. - The ruling is seen as a significant legal challenge to the current administration's tariff strategy, which is described as having collapsed due to its own missteps [1][4]. - The White House criticized the ruling, claiming that trade deficits constitute a "national emergency" and that the resolution of such emergencies should not be determined by unelected judges [4][6]. Group 2: Economic Impact - The ruling may lead to a slowdown in the U.S. government's ability to impose tariffs, requiring more time-consuming trade investigations and reliance on other trade laws [1][4]. - The decision is viewed as a victory for states and businesses adversely affected by the tariffs, which have been described as a significant tax increase on American families and businesses [6][5]. - Following the court's ruling, financial markets reacted positively, with the U.S. dollar rising and Asian stock markets experiencing gains, indicating a potential easing of trade tensions [5][6]. Group 3: International Reactions - The ruling could weaken the U.S. government's efforts to negotiate new trade agreements globally, as it undermines the use of unilateral tariffs as leverage in negotiations [8][9]. - The European Union and Australia are considering the implications of the ruling, with calls for the U.S. to eliminate tariffs deemed unreasonable [8][9]. - Japan is also closely monitoring the situation, preparing for ongoing trade negotiations with the U.S. [8][9].

Group 1: Trade and Economic Policy - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled that President Trump's imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) exceeded legal authority, emphasizing that the Constitution grants Congress exclusive power over foreign trade [1] - The ruling indicates a potential shift in trade policy and could impact future tariff decisions and international trade relations [1] Group 2: Federal Reserve and Economic Outlook - The Federal Reserve's meeting minutes revealed that most policymakers acknowledged facing "difficult trade-offs" in the coming months, with concerns about rising inflation and unemployment [3] - There are warnings about increasing recession risks and the need to monitor recent volatility in the bond market, which could pose risks to financial stability [3] - Changes in the dollar's safe-haven status and rising U.S. Treasury yields may have long-term economic implications [3] Group 3: Precious Metals Market - International gold prices have seen a significant decline, breaking the key support level of 3280 and reaching around 3245, indicating a bearish trend [4] - The daily chart shows a four-day consecutive decline, with MACD indicators suggesting a potential shift to a bearish trend if it falls below the zero line [4] - Short-term trading strategies suggest selling on rallies around the 3282-93 range, with support targets set at 3260-3250 and further down to 3209 if broken [6]