来源：新华国际头条 2025年1月19日，开启第二任期的前一天，特朗普在支持者的欢呼声中扬言将废除拜登每一项"激进而愚 蠢"的行政令。此后截至12月17日的近一年来，特朗普已签署220项行政令，远超以往数届总统，可 谓"行政令治国"。 与此同时，美国国会鲜少出手干预，存在感格外弱；而联邦最高法院常在联邦政府要求下介入重大诉 讼，其独立性受到广泛质疑；强调权力制衡的"三权分立"制度受到严重冲击。 数量异乎寻常的行政令已引发大量司法诉讼，并伴随全美多轮大规模民众抗议，凸显美国社会的深度撕 裂，也引发各界对美式民主与法治的担忧。 动辄"紧急状态" 行政令"井喷" 美联社今年6月指出，特朗普正前所未有地利用"紧急权力"推进自己的政策执行。"无论是征收惩罚性关 税、向边境部署部队，还是搁置环境法规，特朗普都依赖那些原本仅用于战争或入侵等非常情况下的规 则和法律。"在特朗普当时已签署的150项行政令中，有30项援引了某种紧急权力或授权，这一比例远超 美国近代所有总统。 特朗普在华盛顿白宫展示签署后的关于所谓"对等关税"的行政令。新华社记者胡友松摄 美国历史上曾有多名总统尝试扩大行政权，但宪法和司法系统通常能施以约束。特朗 ...

动辄"紧急状态" 行政令"井喷" 在美国，总统行政令具有法律效力，且无需国会批准。 1月20日，特朗普上台伊始就发布了创纪录的40多项行政令和备忘录等文件。 特朗普此任首年即颁发200多项行政令的数据令外界惊讶不已。据统计，2021年，拜登就职首年签 署了77项行政令；2009年，奥巴马签署了40项；即使对比2017年特朗普首次就任总统首年，他也仅签署 55项行政令。 新华社华盛顿12月24日电（记者熊茂伶）2025年1月19日，开启第二任期的前一天，特朗普在支持 者的欢呼声中扬言将废除拜登每一项"激进而愚蠢"的行政令。此后截至12月17日的近一年来，特朗普已 签署220项行政令，远超以往数届总统，可谓"行政令治国"。 与此同时，美国国会鲜少出手干预，存在感格外弱；而联邦最高法院常在联邦政府要求下介入重大 诉讼，其独立性受到广泛质疑；强调权力制衡的"三权分立"制度受到严重冲击。 数量异乎寻常的行政令已引发大量司法诉讼，并伴随全美多轮大规模民众抗议，凸显美国社会的深 度撕裂，也引发各界对美式民主与法治的担忧。 多项行政令中，特朗普政府都强调"紧急状态""国家安全"，以及在外交和贸易领域的裁量权。例 如，再度上任 ...

转自：贵州日报 多项行政令中，特朗普政府都强调"紧急状态""国家安全"，以及在外交和贸易领域的裁量权。例如，再 度上任首日，特朗普就宣布南部边境进入"紧急状态"，签署行政令要求采取强硬措施阻止非法移民入 境。4月2日，特朗普援引1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》，宣布美国进入"紧急状态"，签署行政令对所 有贸易伙伴征收所谓"对等关税"。8月11日，特朗普宣布首都华盛顿存在"犯罪紧急状态"，签署行政令 要求联邦政府接管华盛顿警察局以及动用国民警卫队。 美联社今年6月指出，特朗普正前所未有地利用"紧急权力"推进自己的政策执行。"无论是征收惩罚性关 税、向边境部署部队，还是搁置环境法规，特朗普都依赖那些原本仅用于战争或入侵等非常情况下的规 则和法律。"在特朗普当时已签署的150项行政令中，有30项援引了某种紧急权力或授权，这一比例远超 美国近代所有总统。 美国历史上曾有多名总统尝试扩大行政权，但宪法和司法系统通常能施以约束。特朗普第二任期的特点 是行政令密集、政策快速推进，而此时的国会两院因被共和党掌控而呈现制衡力缺失的状态。 美国智库布鲁金斯学会高级研究员达雷尔·韦斯特对记者表示，特朗普"超越了许多以往规范，依据几 ...

Core Points - The article discusses former President Trump's unusual legal maneuver of suing himself for $230 million, claiming political persecution from various federal investigations [3][5][7] - Trump's lawsuit is unprecedented in U.S. history, as it involves a sitting president suing his own administration [5] - The compensation is intended to cover legal fees and potential damages from investigations, which Trump argues have caused him emotional distress and reputational harm [7][9] Summary by Sections Lawsuit Details - Trump filed the lawsuit on October 21, 2025, seeking $230 million from the Justice Department, which he leads [5] - He claims that investigations like the Russia probe and the 2020 election interference inquiry are politically motivated attacks [7] Financial Implications - Trump has stated that the compensation would be used for charitable purposes or renovations to the White House, including a $250 million project for a luxury ballroom [9] - The lawsuit's approval process is likely to be influenced by Trump's allies within the Justice Department, raising concerns about self-review [10] Legal and Political Context - The lawsuit is framed within the context of ongoing political tensions, with Trump viewing the investigations as a vendetta by the Democratic Party [15][19] - Trump's legal challenges, including multiple federal charges, have persisted into the 2024 election cycle, and he is leveraging his presidential position to avoid legal repercussions [19] Public Reaction - The lawsuit has drawn significant criticism, especially as it is perceived as exploiting taxpayer money during a fiscal crisis [12][13] - Trump's actions are seen as a strategic political move to reinforce his victim narrative and consolidate support for future elections [19]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, raising concerns about the potential financial implications for the government and the future of U.S.-China trade relations [1][6]. Group 1: Legal and Political Implications - The Supreme Court's questioning indicates skepticism about the administration's authority to impose tariffs, emphasizing that such powers belong to Congress as per the U.S. Constitution [3][6]. - Chief Justice Roberts highlighted that tariffs are essentially taxes on Americans, which should be legislated by Congress, not unilaterally imposed by the executive branch [3][6]. - The legal challenge reflects a broader issue of executive overreach and the balance of power within the U.S. political system, with previous lower court rulings deeming the tariff policy illegal [6][8]. Group 2: Economic Consequences - Trump's claim that the government may owe over $20 trillion in refunds if tariffs are deemed illegal is exaggerated; actual potential refunds range from $50 billion to $200 billion, with collected tariffs amounting to only $174 billion as of September [4][6]. - The administration's reliance on tariffs to secure foreign investment agreements, totaling over $1.7 trillion, may collapse if the tariffs are ruled illegal, posing a significant risk to these economic commitments [4][6]. - The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has criticized the administration's claims about tariff revenues, suggesting that the actual income is likely only half or a third of what is being promoted [4][6]. Group 3: Strategic Responses - In contrast to the U.S. political turmoil, China has demonstrated strategic stability by signaling a willingness to ease tensions through dialogue and mutual concessions on tariffs [6][8]. - The ongoing legal battle over tariffs underscores the lack of domestic consensus on Trump's trade policies, with significant pushback from businesses and public dissatisfaction with economic conditions [6][8]. - The potential invalidation of the tariff policy could dismantle the narrative that tariffs are beneficial for the economy, leading to broader implications for the U.S. fiscal situation and capital markets [6][8].

Core Points - The Supreme Court's debate on the legality of Trump's tariffs is seen as a "power boundary dispute" that raises fundamental questions about the U.S. political system [1] - The court's concern is not about the tariffs themselves but about the expansion of presidential power, as the Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority over taxation and tariffs [3] - If Trump wins, it could set a precedent allowing future presidents to bypass Congress by declaring "national emergencies," potentially disrupting the balance of power [3] - A loss for Trump could lead to significant financial repercussions, including refunds exceeding $100 billion for U.S. companies and potential global trade disruptions [5] - The recent local election results indicate a decline in Trump's influence, which could exacerbate internal party dissent if he loses the tariff case [5] - The ongoing situation reflects a recurring issue in the U.S. political system, where the separation of powers is being used as a tool for partisan conflict [7] - The Supreme Court's decision is anticipated to take weeks or months, but the tariff debate and its implications for Trump's political future will continue [7]

Group 1 - The U.S. Senate has reached an agreement to end the federal government shutdown that has lasted for 40 days, with President Trump indicating that a resolution is near [1] - The Senate previously rejected two bipartisan funding bills, leading to the shutdown that affected hundreds of thousands of federal employees and various government services [1] - A new funding bill, which includes short-term funding measures until January 2026 and three annual appropriations bills, is expected to pass with sufficient Democratic support [1] Group 2 - The ongoing government shutdown has severely impacted multiple industries, with officials warning of economic downturns and disruptions to citizens' daily lives [1] - The Senate's inability to pass funding bills has resulted in a historic low in legislative efficiency, with 14 rejections of the same bill during the shutdown [2] - The aviation industry has been particularly affected, with over 2,000 flight cancellations and more than 7,000 delays reported, attributed to air traffic control staffing shortages [2]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning the legality of President Trump's tariff policies, which could lead to significant setbacks for him, especially following a recent trade agreement with China [1][5]. Group 1: Legal Authority and Constitutional Concerns - The core debate revolves around the president's power to impose taxes, as the U.S. Constitution grants this authority to Congress, not the president [3]. - Supreme Court justices are skeptical of the Trump administration's invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, suggesting it was intended to limit presidential power rather than expand it [3][5]. - Justices pointed out that the tariffs effectively act as a tax on American citizens, raising constitutional concerns about the delegation of trade responsibilities to the president [3][5]. Group 2: Potential Consequences of a Supreme Court Ruling - If Trump loses the case, he may have to refund up to $140 billion in tariffs to U.S. businesses, which could severely threaten his presidency [5]. - The Trump administration maintains that its actions are legal, but justices question whether allowing the president to impose tariffs under the guise of national security undermines Congress's role in trade [5]. - Regardless of the Supreme Court's decision, Treasury Secretary Yellen has indicated that the government will seek alternative methods to maintain tariffs, suggesting that U.S. businesses have already incurred significant costs due to Trump's tariff policies [6]. Group 3: Broader Implications - The Supreme Court's ruling, expected by the end of the year, is anticipated to redefine the boundaries of power within the U.S. government and have lasting effects on global trade dynamics [6].

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is debating the legality of the President's broad tariff powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which has significant implications for presidential authority, congressional tax powers, and the economic fate of thousands of businesses [1][4][15] - The case has garnered widespread media attention, with reports highlighting skepticism and concerns among justices regarding the interpretation of IEEPA as a basis for universal tariff authority [1][4][11] Group 1: Background of the Case - The legal battle began in April 2025 when Learning Resources, an educational toy company, filed a lawsuit against the President's tariff policy due to rising import costs and squeezed profit margins [4] - Similar lawsuits were filed by V.O.S. Selections, a wine and spirits importer, questioning the legality of the President's broad tariff imposition under IEEPA [4][5] - The case escalated from the U.S. International Trade Court to the Federal Circuit Court, which ruled that the President lacked the authority to impose such extensive tariffs under IEEPA, prompting the government to appeal to the Supreme Court [4][5] Group 2: Legal Representation and Arguments - The government is represented by Solicitor General D. John Roberts, a highly regarded figure in the Supreme Court, while the opposing side includes former Solicitor General Neal Katyal, representing small businesses [8][9] - A coalition of state governments has also joined the plaintiffs, emphasizing the need for clear congressional authorization for significant actions in the sensitive area of tariffs [8][9] Group 3: Court Proceedings and Dynamics - The oral arguments on November 5 were extended to 80 minutes due to intense questioning from justices, lasting approximately two and a half hours [10] - Justices focused on whether IEEPA grants the President the authority to impose such broad and long-term tariffs, with discussions around the "major questions doctrine" and the historical context of tariff powers [11][12] Group 4: Potential Outcomes and Implications - Predictions for the Supreme Court's ruling include three main possibilities: a significant limitation of presidential power, a technical compromise acknowledging limited emergency powers, or a ruling in favor of the government's position [15][16] - The outcome will have profound implications for U.S. trade policy, affecting business costs, import prices, and the constitutional balance of power between the presidency and Congress [15][16]

Core Points - The potential refund of tariffs could reach up to $1 trillion if the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, impacting American households with nearly $8,000 in debt each [1] - The case is described as a "final showdown of the separation of powers," with U.S. companies suing their own president rather than foreign governments [1] Group 1: Tariff Impact on Companies - Learning Resources, a family-owned toy company, faces severe cash flow issues due to increased costs from tariffs, highlighting the struggles of many U.S. businesses reliant on imports [3] - An alliance led by V.O.S. Selections estimates that Trump's tariffs could result in over $3 trillion in additional taxes for American citizens over the next decade, with the legal obligations falling on U.S. companies [3] Group 2: Legal Proceedings and Rulings - The U.S. International Trade Court ruled that the Trump administration lacked the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, emphasizing that tax authority is constitutionally granted to Congress [5] - The appellate court upheld this ruling with a 7-4 vote, labeling Trump's tariff policy as "illegal" [5] Group 3: Political and Economic Context - The case has broader implications for the U.S. constitutional system, with experts suggesting that a ruling in favor of the lower courts would limit executive power abuse [10] - The upcoming Supreme Court hearing on November 5 is critical, with a majority of justices appointed by conservative presidents, raising questions about the potential outcomes [12]