2026年2月，特朗普在被美国最高法院以6:3的投票结果裁定关税政策越权违宪后，非但没有收敛，反而 在24小时内完成了极端反杀—— 换用《1974年贸易法》第122条为依据，将全球进口关税从此前的10%直接加码至15%，顶格用满了法 条允许的税率上限。 很多人把这次操作当成特朗普"关税大棒"的又一次常规挥舞，甚至将其和他第一任期的对华贸易战、 2025年刚上任的全球关税政策混为一谈。 但事实上，这次加征关税，和特朗普2017年入主白宫以来推出的所有关税政策，都有着颠覆性的本质区 别—— 它已经彻底脱离了"美国优先"的经济叙事，不再是贸易博弈的筹码，而是一场以对抗司法、绑架国内经 济、挑衅全球秩序为代价的纯粹政治豪赌。 合法性本质不同，特朗普是在法律框架内打擦边球，到如今是公然对抗最高法的违宪裸奔。 特朗普此前的所有关税政策，无论外界争议多大，都始终披着一层完整的"合法性外衣"，在美国三权分 立的制度框架内运行。 2018年开启的对华贸易战，特朗普依据的是《1974年贸易法》第301条，走完了所谓"不公平贸易行为调 查"的完整法定流程，最终的关税调整也始终在国会赋予总统的对外经贸权限范围内。 2025年刚上任时 ...

【环球时报驻美国特约记者 冯亚仁 环球时报记者 李萌 环球时报特约记者 王黎】 编者的话： 爱泼斯坦案文件公布所引发的余震正在美国以及欧洲 上演。从爱泼斯坦首次被指控到现在近30年，除了他本人及同伙马克斯韦尔受到惩罚外，其他美国涉案人员均未遭起诉。这是否直指美国司法乃 至政治制度的深层症结？美国国会与白宫围绕涉案文件的博弈引发诘问：其权力制衡制度是有效运转还是已然失灵？在"爱泼斯坦案棱镜"深度认 知系列报道中，我们将为您分析涉案文件的公布究竟映射出美国哪些问题，会对美国社会产生何种影响，而制度运行紊乱的美国，又将给世界带 来哪些连锁反应？ " 整个司法系统又一次辜负了我们 " "多年来，爱泼斯坦案的受害者一直在站出来讲述自己的遭遇，却始终未能得到公正的对待。"据澳大利亚"对话"新闻网报道，早在1996年，25岁 的美国女子法默就向纽约警察局和联邦调查局报案，指控爱泼斯坦及其女友兼同伙马克斯韦尔的暴力性侵犯，受害者甚至包括法默未成年的妹 妹。然而，联邦调查局并未启动有效调查，导致爱泼斯坦的侵害行为得以持续。 即便在证据不断累积的情况下，美国司法系统也未能展现出应有的追责力度。2008年，当为超过200名受害者提 ...

（来源：千龙网） 特朗普重回白宫执政已满一年，承诺将结束美国衰落的特朗普，在第二任期表现如何？ 在去年的年末演讲中，特朗普再度进行了一番自我吹嘘，不过应者寥寥，社交媒体评论区及网络直播弹 幕上还频繁出现"撒谎"一词。在至为关键的经济议题上，特朗普声称，"以前所未有的速度提升民众的 真实收入"，可事实上，美国一些经济数据已呈现"衰退前"特征。再看被浓墨重彩讲述的对外交往，特 朗普并没有给世界带来更多和平，反而下令在他国领土发起了近600次单方面军事打击行动。更别说， 加税成本被转嫁给民众，政府效率部改革折戟沉沙，政府"停摆"创下最长纪录……简言之，槽点不胜枚 举，尽管调门很高，但皆是不尽不实的"模糊政绩"。 "行政令治国"，被认为是特朗普此任期的鲜明特点。数据显示，截至今年1月15日，他已签署超220项行 政令，是自己第一任期首年55项的4倍之多。数量井喷之下，"行政扩权"史无前例。按1787年联邦宪 法，美国设立"三权分立"制度，以确保立法、行政和司法三个系统互相制衡。可到了特朗普这儿，为共 和党掌控的国会存在感格外弱，最高法的独立性也受到广泛质疑。更让人震惊的是，特朗普此前公开宣 称，"不需要国际法"，唯一 ...

Core Points - The article discusses the significant legal battle in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Trump's tariff policies, which he claims are crucial for the nation's future [1][3] - Trump's tariffs have led to increased costs for American consumers, contradicting his previous claims that foreign countries would bear the burden [3][5] - The Supreme Court's conservative justices are scrutinizing the legality of Trump's tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which has never been used for comprehensive tariffs [5][6] Group 1 - Trump's assertion that the case is the "most important in history" highlights its potential to redefine presidential power and impact the U.S. economy and trade for decades [3][5] - The Supreme Court's conservative majority, including justices appointed by Trump, is questioning the extent of presidential authority in imposing tariffs [6][8] - Economic analyses indicate that Trump's tariffs have resulted in over $1.2 trillion in losses for U.S. businesses, with more than half of the costs passed on to consumers [5][8] Group 2 - The core dispute centers on whether Trump has the authority to impose tariffs based on a 1977 law, with historical precedent suggesting such powers belong to Congress [5][6] - The justices expressed skepticism about the justification for tariffs, with some questioning the validity of Trump's claims regarding foreign investment resulting from these tariffs [6][8] - Potential outcomes of the Supreme Court's ruling include full support for Trump's tariff powers, complete rejection of his policies, or a compromise that partially upholds and partially overturns the tariffs [8][10]

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]