Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning the legality of the Trump administration's comprehensive tariff policy, with several justices expressing skepticism about the use of a 50-year-old law to justify it [1][2] - The Trump administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to implement tariffs, a move that has faced legal challenges from affected U.S. businesses and states [1][3] - The Supreme Court's decision may take weeks or months, and even if the administration loses, it may still pursue tariffs under other legal frameworks [3] Group 1 - The Supreme Court consists of 9 justices, with 6 being conservative and 3 liberal, and a vote against the tariff policy could limit Trump's authority but not necessarily end it [2][3] - The administration's tariffs have been described as potentially "devastating" if the government loses the case, according to Trump's statements [1][3] - The current tariff policy includes a 10% minimum baseline tariff and higher rates for certain trade partners, including the least developed countries [1] Group 2 - The legal challenges to the tariff policy have already seen rulings against the Trump administration, indicating a contentious legal landscape [1][3] - The Treasury Secretary has indicated that the Supreme Court may uphold the current tariff policy, but alternative legal avenues will be sought if it is overturned [3]

Core Points - The U.S. Senate passed a resolution to terminate the comprehensive tariff policy implemented by former President Trump, with a vote of 51 in favor and 47 against [3] - The resolution aims to end the national emergency declared by the President for the implementation of global tariffs, and earlier this week, the Senate also passed two resolutions to remove tariffs on Canada and Brazil [3] Legislative Process - These resolutions still require a vote in the House of Representatives, where Republican members have previously blocked legislative actions to overturn tariffs, making it unlikely for the resolutions to pass [5] - Even if the House approves the resolutions, a two-thirds majority in Congress is needed to override a presidential veto [5]

据央视新闻，当地时间10月30日，央视记者获悉，美国参议院以51票赞同、47票反对的结果通过决议， 终止美国总统特朗普在全球范围内实施的全 面关税政策。 据悉，美国参议院宣布，已批准终止总统为实施全球关税而宣布的国家紧急状态的联合决议。本周早些时候，参议院已通过两项决议，旨在取消对 加拿大和巴西征收的关税。 据悉，这些决议接下来还须经众议院表决。但此前众议院共和党人已多次阻止推翻关税的立法行动，这些决议预计很难在众议院获得投票表决。即 便众议院最终通过，国会仍需三分之二绝对多数才能推翻总统否决。 ...

Group 1 - The U.S. Senate has passed a resolution to terminate President Trump's comprehensive tariff policy with a vote of 51 in favor and 47 against [1] - The resolution aims to end the national emergency declared by the President to implement global tariffs, and it follows earlier resolutions to remove tariffs on Canada and Brazil [1] - The resolutions still require a vote in the House of Representatives, where Republican members have previously blocked legislative actions to overturn tariffs, making it unlikely for the resolutions to pass [1]

Group 1 - The U.S. Senate voted 51 to 47 to terminate President Trump's comprehensive tariff policy implemented globally [1] - The Senate approved a joint resolution to end the national emergency declared by the President for the implementation of global tariffs [1] - Earlier in the week, the Senate passed two resolutions aimed at removing tariffs imposed on Canada and Brazil [1]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. government maintains a "strong dollar" policy, dismissing speculations about a shift towards a "weak dollar" or secret currency agreements [1][9][10]. Group 1: Strong Dollar Policy - Stephen Miran, Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, confirmed the commitment to a "strong dollar" policy, refuting any claims of secret currency agreements during trade negotiations [1][3][4]. - Following Miran's statements, the U.S. dollar index rose by 0.5% to 100.1216 before slightly retreating [2]. - Miran emphasized that the strong dollar is not just about exchange rates but also concerns the stability of the dollar system and its structural advantages as the global reserve currency [10]. Group 2: Trade and Economic Strategy - Miran addressed concerns regarding tariffs, economic deficits, and potential recession, stating that the recent market volatility is expected during policy adjustments [11][13]. - He noted that while companies might delay investments or hiring, this does not indicate an impending recession, but rather a temporary shift in timing [14]. - The administration is engaged in trade negotiations with over 20 countries, expecting to finalize multiple agreements in the coming months, which could significantly boost U.S. exports and help reduce the trade deficit [15]. Group 3: Fiscal Deficit and Tax Policy - Miran criticized the Biden administration for leaving behind a challenging fiscal situation while defending the current fiscal strategy [16][17]. - He argued that fiscal deficits should occur during genuine crises, not during stable economic periods, and that assessments of deficits should consider various factors beyond static evaluations [18]. - Despite market challenges, Miran expressed confidence in the administration's core economic strategy, which focuses on tax reform, deregulation, and energy independence [19][20].