然而，经济学界的研究给出了不同的结论。美国银行的专业分析指出，关税带来的额外成本中，有超过 一半最终转嫁给了普通消费者。标普全球的深入研究更进一步指出，仅今年一年，特朗普的关税政策就 让美国企业损失了1.2万亿美元，而这些损失最终都由美国消费者承担。 审过程中，大法官们的质疑声音不断。自由派阵营的三位大法官明确表示反对特朗普的关税政策，认为 征税权应该归属于国会，不应由总统单方面决定。出乎意料的是，特朗普提名的戈萨奇大法官也指出， 总统的权力一旦扩大，就像"开闸放水"，很难再收回。 首席大法官罗伯茨对"紧急权力法是否允许政府 随意加征关税"表示怀疑；卡瓦诺大法官则追问为何历任总统都没有依据该法加征关税；巴雷特大法官 也质疑实施对等关税的必要性。这些尖锐的问题直接触及案件的核心——总统是否有权在宣布"经济紧 急状态"后，对全球单方面加征关税？ 庭审过程中还揭露了一个重要事实：特朗普宣称通过关税为美国 争取到22万亿美元的外国投资，这一说法被证明完全不真实。大法官们明确指出，征税权属于国会，而 特朗普征收的关税实际上是向美国民众征收的消费税。 特朗普警告美国正面临"生死存亡"的重大时刻。他把个人的政治命运与国家的 ...

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China is significantly influenced by a legal battle within the U.S., where American companies, state governments, and trade associations are challenging the legality of the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, which could lead to a potential refund of up to $1 trillion in tariffs if the Supreme Court rules against the government [1][20]. Group 1: Legal Framework and Implications - The legal basis for the tariffs stems from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which grants the U.S. President emergency powers to impose economic measures in response to significant threats [3]. - The Trump administration utilized the IEEPA to implement extensive tariffs, escalating from an initial 10% to as high as 100%, effectively bypassing Congress [5][6]. - A significant ruling from the Federal Circuit Court in August 2025 deemed most of the global tariff policies illegal, stating that the President lacked the authority to impose such broad taxation under the invoked law [8][10]. Group 2: Economic Consequences - As of August 2025, U.S. companies had already paid over $210 billion in what are considered illegal tariffs, with potential refunds reaching $750 billion to $1 trillion if the case extends into 2026 [13][15]. - The financial implications of a Supreme Court ruling against the Trump administration could lead to a catastrophic impact on the U.S. economy, equating to the annual defense budget [13][15]. - The tariffs have resulted in significant job losses in the U.S., with over 42,000 manufacturing jobs reportedly lost since the new tariffs were implemented, affecting sectors such as automotive, appliances, and electronics [18]. Group 3: Strategic Outcomes - The trade war, initially aimed at protecting American workers and manufacturing, has ironically led to job losses and economic burdens on U.S. consumers and small businesses, while China has managed to maintain its economic stability [17][20]. - The legal challenges against the Trump administration's tariffs highlight the checks and balances within the U.S. government, particularly the judiciary's role in curbing executive power [17]. - The upcoming Supreme Court hearings scheduled for November 5, 2025, will be pivotal in determining the future of these tariffs and the broader implications for U.S.-China trade relations [22].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a significant shift in the U.S. Congress's attitude towards China, highlighting a recent visit by a bipartisan delegation that praised China as one of the "most powerful and influential countries in the world" [3][6][8]. Group 1: U.S.-China Relations - The visit marks the first official engagement by the U.S. House of Representatives with China since 2019, indicating a thaw in relations [3][6]. - Congressman Adam Smith's use of the term "most" to describe China reflects a stark contrast to previous characterizations of China as a "strategic threat" or "enemy" [6][10]. - The shift in tone suggests a recognition that the U.S. cannot isolate or completely contain China, as it has become a crucial player in global issues [10][12]. Group 2: Economic and Security Concerns - The article notes that the U.S. has faced economic backlash from its previous hardline stance, particularly in agriculture, where exports to China have significantly declined [15][17]. - The U.S. military is increasingly concerned about rising tensions in sensitive regions, with incidents of close encounters between U.S. and Chinese forces increasing by nearly 20% year-on-year [17][19]. - The lack of effective military communication channels has raised fears of unintended conflicts, prompting a reevaluation of U.S. strategies towards China [19][34]. Group 3: Political Dynamics in the U.S. - The article highlights the complexities of U.S. governance, where the legislative and executive branches may have conflicting views on foreign policy, complicating efforts to improve U.S.-China relations [21][23]. - Despite the positive rhetoric from the congressional delegation, their ability to influence significant policy changes is limited due to the separation of powers in the U.S. government [21][26]. - The need for consistent and actionable policies is emphasized, as past statements have often failed to translate into concrete actions [28][30]. Group 4: Future of U.S.-China Relations - The article suggests that while there is a newfound willingness to engage, the underlying competition between the two nations remains, with ongoing tensions in technology, supply chains, and global governance [30][32]. - The future relationship is likely to be characterized by a "dangerous balance," where both nations must manage competition while avoiding direct conflict [32][36]. - The interdependence of the two economies means that cooperation is essential, particularly in areas like climate change and regional security, despite the competitive nature of their relationship [36][38].

Group 1 - Trump's economic policies, particularly tariffs and pressure on the Federal Reserve, are facing unprecedented legal challenges [1][3] - A recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals determined that many of Trump's tariff policies lack explicit congressional support, categorizing them as executive overreach [1] - If the Supreme Court upholds this ruling, the U.S. government may face hundreds of billions in tariff refunds, significantly impacting fiscal policy reliant on tariff revenue [1] Group 2 - The Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has formally sued Trump over his attempt to remove her, emphasizing the independence of monetary policy [3] - The judge overseeing the case, nominated by Biden, is expected to rule against Trump's dismissal, which would severely undermine his influence over the central bank [3] - The ongoing power struggle reflects a backlash against Trump's attempts to expand presidential authority, testing the resilience of the U.S. system of checks and balances [5] Group 3 - Observers are closely monitoring the outcomes of the tariff case and Cook's lawsuit, as they could redefine the boundaries of presidential power [5] - The intersection of Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan and the rule of law may lead to a significant constitutional crisis in the U.S. political system [5]