Core Points - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that President Trump's invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not grant him the authority to impose tariffs on multiple countries [2] - The court maintained a previous lower court's ruling with a 7-4 vote, stating that the Act allows the president to take certain economic measures in emergencies but does not authorize comprehensive actions like imposing tariffs [2] - The ruling will not take effect until October 14, allowing the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court [2] - The ruling does not affect tariffs imposed under other regulations, such as those on steel and aluminum [2] - President Trump criticized the ruling on social media, claiming it incorrectly sought to eliminate tariffs and warned of disastrous consequences if tariffs were removed [2] - The ruling is seen as a significant setback for the Trump administration, which has faced instability in trade policies, impacting financial markets and raising concerns about rising prices and economic slowdown [2] Industry Impact - The ruling is expected to create uncertainty in trade policies, which could affect market stability and corporate interests [2] - Concerns have been raised regarding the potential for price increases and slower economic growth as a result of the administration's trade policies [2] - The legal challenges to the administration's tariff measures highlight the ongoing tensions between executive actions and legislative authority in trade matters [3]

Core Points - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that President Trump's invocation of the law to impose tariffs lacked the authority to do so [1] - The court maintained a previous lower court's ruling, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the president the power to impose tariffs without congressional approval [1] - The ruling is seen as a significant blow to Trump's aggressive trade policies, with the administration planning to appeal to the Supreme Court [1] Summary by Sections - **Court Ruling**: The U.S. Court of Appeals voted 7-4 to uphold a lower court's decision that Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the imposition of most tariffs [1] - **Legal Basis**: The court clarified that while the International Emergency Economic Powers Act allows the president to take certain economic measures in emergencies, it does not permit comprehensive actions like imposing tariffs through executive orders [1] - **Next Steps**: The ruling will not take effect until October 14, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court [1] - **Impact on Trade Policy**: The ruling is viewed as a major setback for the Trump administration's trade policies, which have relied on unilateral tariff measures since taking office [1]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of the global tariff policies implemented by President Trump are illegal, stating that the law he invoked does not grant him the authority to impose these tariffs [2][3]. Group 1: Court Ruling - The U.S. Court of Appeals maintained a previous lower court ruling with a 7-4 vote, indicating that the emergency law cited by Trump does not authorize the imposition of most tariffs [2]. - The court's decision is based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which allows the president to take certain economic measures in emergencies but does not permit comprehensive actions like imposing tariffs [2][3]. - The ruling will not take effect until October 14, allowing the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court [2]. Group 2: Trump's Response - Following the ruling, Trump asserted on social media that "all tariffs remain in effect" and announced plans to appeal to the Supreme Court [3]. - Trump criticized the appellate court's decision as "wrong" and warned that removing tariffs would lead to a "total disaster" for the U.S. [3].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of the global tariff policies implemented by President Trump are illegal, stating that the law he invoked did not grant him the authority to impose these tariffs [2][5]. Group 1: Court Ruling - The U.S. Court of Appeals maintained a previous lower court ruling with a 7-4 vote, indicating that the emergency law cited by Trump does not authorize the imposition of most tariffs [5]. - The court's decision is set to take effect before October 14, allowing the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court [6]. - The ruling does not affect tariffs imposed under other regulations, such as those on steel and aluminum [6]. Group 2: Trump's Response - Trump asserted on social media that "all tariffs remain in effect" and announced plans to appeal to the Supreme Court [3][9]. - He criticized the appellate court's ruling as "wrong" and warned that removing tariffs would lead to a "total disaster" for the U.S. [9]. - Trump's administration had previously invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs without congressional approval, which has been challenged in court [8].

Group 1 - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of the global tariff policies implemented by President Trump are illegal, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the president the authority to impose these tariffs [1][2][3] - The court's decision was made with a 7-4 vote, affirming a previous lower court ruling that Trump's invocation of the emergency law exceeded his powers [2][3] - The ruling allows the tariffs to remain in effect until October 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court [1][3] Group 2 - The court's decision is seen as a significant blow to Trump's aggressive trade policies, which were enacted without congressional approval through executive orders [3] - Trump criticized the ruling on social media, asserting that all tariffs remain effective and warning that their removal would lead to a "total disaster" for the U.S. [1][3]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that President Trump's authority to impose tariffs on multiple countries was not granted by the law he cited, effectively deeming the tariffs illegal [1][2][3]. Group 1: Court Ruling Details - The Court of Appeals upheld a previous lower court ruling with a 7-4 vote, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose most tariffs without Congressional approval [2][3]. - The IEEPA allows the President to take certain economic measures in emergencies but does not permit comprehensive actions like imposing tariffs [3][4]. - The ruling will not take effect until October 14, allowing the Trump administration to appeal to the Supreme Court [5]. Group 2: Implications for Trade Policy - The ruling is seen as a significant blow to Trump's aggressive trade policies, with potential implications for global trade valued in trillions of dollars [5][6]. - If the Supreme Court ultimately rules against Trump, it could undermine his touted trade agreements and lead to demands for refunds of tariffs already paid [6]. - Trump's administration argues that the tariffs are essential for national and economic security, with officials expressing concerns about the potential diplomatic repercussions of the ruling [8]. Group 3: Future Developments - The Trump administration has two options: appeal directly to the Supreme Court or allow the International Trade Court to reassess the case [6]. - Trump's criticism of the ruling highlights his belief that removing tariffs would be disastrous for the U.S. economy [6][8]. - The administration's chief lawyer warned that a ruling against the President could lead to "catastrophic consequences," referencing existing trade agreements with various countries [7][8].

另据《卫报》报道，民主党籍加州州长纽森也对美国上诉法院裁定特朗普对多国征收关税违法的举动迅 速作出反应。他于当地时间30日在社交平台X上发文批评特朗普。 当地时间8月29日，美国联邦巡回上诉法院以7比4的投票结果维持了之前下级法院的裁决，认为特朗普 援引的紧急法案并未授权他征收大部分关税。根据裁决书，该裁决10月14日之前不会生效，以便特朗普 政府向美国最高法院提出上诉。美国当地媒体认为，美国上诉法院的裁决对特朗普政府激进的贸易政策 是沉重打击。 特朗普政府今年1月上台后援引美国《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。美国国际贸易法院5月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。 责任编辑：郝欣煜 外媒 "所有关税仍然有效！"特朗普在帖文开头指责说，"充满党派偏见的上诉法院"错了。他称，如果关税被 取消，对美国来说"将是一场彻底的灾难"，随后又对其关税政策进行了一番吹捧。 特朗普最后表示，他将"在美国最高法院的帮助下"对相关裁决进行反击。 【环球网报道 记者 索炎琦】美国联邦巡回上诉法院29日裁定，美国总统特朗普批准对多国征收关税时 ...

当地时间8月29日，美国联邦巡回上诉法院以7比4的投票结果维持了之前下级法院的裁决，认为特朗普援引的紧急法案并未授权他征收大部分关税。根据裁 决书，该裁决10月14日之前不会生效，以便特朗普政府向美国最高法院提出上诉。美国当地媒体认为，美国上诉法院的裁决对特朗普政府激进的贸易政策是 沉重打击。 【环球网报道 记者 索炎琦】美国联邦巡回上诉法院29日裁定，美国总统特朗普批准对多国征收关税时援引的法律，实际上并没有赋予其征收这些税款的权 力。据英国《卫报》、法新社等媒体报道，特朗普当地时间周五（29日）晚些时候在其社交平台上发文，对该裁决作出"愤怒"回应。 特朗普最后表示，他将"在美国最高法院的帮助下"对相关裁决进行反击。 另据《卫报》报道，民主党籍加州州长纽森也对美国上诉法院裁定特朗普对多国征收关税违法的举动迅速作出反应。他于当地时间30日在社交平台X上发文 称，"特朗普是美国最大的失败者"。 "所有关税仍然有效！"特朗普在帖文开头指责说，"充满党派偏见的上诉法院"错了。他称，如果关税被取消，对美国来说"将是一场彻底的灾难"，随后又对 其关税政策进行了一番吹捧。 特朗普政府今年1月上台后援引美国《国际紧急经济权 ...

Report Summary 1. Investment Rating The provided content does not mention the industry investment rating. 2. Core View The report focuses on the current global trade situation where in 2025, China's imports of soybeans from the US and rapeseed from Canada have dropped significantly. It analyzes the supply - demand patterns and challenges in the global and domestic markets of soybeans and rapeseed, and uses scenario assumptions to predict future market trends [1]. 3. Summary by Directory 3.1 CBOT Soybean's Operating Cycle - The CBOT soybean has a strong cyclicality. From 2001 to the present, there is a complete cycle of rise, fall, and bottom operation about every 5 years. The cycle is related to the profit - loss cycle of US soybean growers and the La Nina - El Nino cycle. The bottom of the cycle usually has at least one year of grinding time, and the bottom - shock range since 2006 has generally been between 800 - 1000 cents per bushel, which is also the psychological bottom price for investors. Currently, the downward space for US soybeans is limited, and there may be a new upward trend in 0 - 12 months [5]. - From 2001 - 2015, the three cycles had a similar rhythm, with a 3 - year upward cycle and a 2 - year downward cycle. In the past 10 years, due to Sino - US trade frictions and the changing US foreign trade policy, the upward cycle of US soybeans ended earlier, and the downward cycle was significantly extended [7]. 3.2 Impact of Trade Policy on US Soybeans and Canadian Rapeseed - As of August 14, 2025, the new - crop US soybeans for the 2025/26 season had only sold 585 tons, far lower than last year's 754 tons and the 5 - year average of 1427 tons. The USDA has lowered the export forecast for 2025/26 to 4640 tons. If China restarts US soybean procurement and reaches a trade agreement, US soybean exports may increase, and the CBOT soybean price is expected to rise. Otherwise, the price may face pressure [8][11]. - In August 2025, China imposed a 75.8% anti - dumping margin on Canadian rapeseed. Since China's dependence on Canadian rapeseed imports exceeds 95%, there will be a gap of about 250 tons per year. China may increase imports from Australia, but Australian rapeseed production is unstable. This shortage will raise the bottom price of rapeseed meal [12]. 3.3 How Supply Contradictions Affect the Domestic Meal Market - As of the end of August 2025, there is still a large gap in the November, December, and January 2026 shipping schedules. Different scenarios are considered: - If an agreement is reached between China and the US this year, domestic oil mills may increase US soybean procurement, driving the M1 - 5 spread to weaken. US soybeans are expected to rise by 5% - 10%, while domestic soybean meal may rise passively or remain flat [16]. - If an agreement is not reached but China purchases some US soybean contracts during the negotiation, the short - term market will fluctuate greatly. The domestic supply shortage cannot be fully alleviated, and soybean meal will maintain a volatile upward pattern [16]. - If there is no agreement, Brazilian soybeans can meet China's demand in the short term, but as Brazilian inventory declines, the premium will rise. The domestic M2601 contract may follow the upward trend and could reach the 3250 - 3500 range [16]. - The absolute price difference between soybean meal and rapeseed meal is usually between 400 - 800 yuan/ton. When the price difference is ≤ 400 yuan/ton, the substitution of soybean meal for rapeseed meal is significant; when it is ≥ 800 yuan/ton, the substitution of rapeseed meal for soybean meal may occur. Currently, the price difference is around 550 yuan/ton, and the substitution sensitivity is increasing. The domestic rapeseed meal supply is tight in the long - term and loose in the short - term, and the price difference may strengthen after the peak season of aquaculture [17][19].

Group 1 - The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) warns that global financing is shifting from regulated banks to private markets, complicating the ability of authorities to monitor and address potential financial stability risks [1] - The RBA's responsibilities include maintaining financial stability and chairing the Financial Regulatory Agency Committee, which aims to identify and address vulnerabilities [1] - The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has outlined key areas of focus, including insider trading and systemic compliance failures among large financial institutions [1] Group 2 - There is a growing allocation of funds, particularly from pension funds, towards private equity, credit, and physical assets, reshaping capital formation in Australia [1] - Regulatory concerns are particularly heightened regarding risks in the real estate sector, where private credit companies have expanded significantly [1] - The ASIC commissioner highlighted that unchecked private credit involvement in real estate could lead to systemic shocks [1] Group 3 - The RBA emphasizes that trade policy settings and geopolitical tensions may impact global and domestic growth and inflation outcomes [2] - These factors create uncertainty that could dampen business and consumer sentiment, prompting adjustments in trade patterns and supply chains [2] - In extreme cases, these factors may pose risks to financial stability [2]