2月20日，美国最高法院对"对等关税"作出不利裁定，白宫的王牌当场掉地。短短几天，美国对外口风骤变，对内戏码却更足。 2月24日深夜，特朗普在国会拉满近两小时的演讲时长，台下掌声被调度得很热闹。他到底在急着遮住什么？又在对谁悄悄示弱？ 判决落下那一刻，白宫最难受的不是面子，而是关税这根棒子突然缺了合法支点。过去那套绕开国会、用"紧急"名义放大的工具，被法官一句话按住，外界 立刻看出美国内部并不铁板一块。 同一天，格里尔就把话递到了中国方向。时间卡得很巧，像是舞台上灯光突然闪了两下，导演第一反应不是解释故障，而是先让后台把最怕的风险稳住。 2月22日，第二次喊话紧跟着到来。措辞不求新，主旨只求稳，反复围绕一件事打转：希望中方别趁窗口期做动作，希望既有贸易安排照旧执行。 2月24日，第三次喊话压着国情咨文当天落地。三连发的节奏太密，密到不像外交沟通，更像危机公关的流程表，目的就是给华盛顿争取一个"别出事"的安 静夜晚。 格里尔在前台打招呼，特朗普在社交平台又补了一脚，放出更硬的口吻，暗示谁敢搞小动作就要被加码。话说得重，动作却更像护短，意在先把外界的注意 力从法院判决上拉开。 这段时间，外部压力也没闲着。欧盟、巴 ...

国芯网[原:中国半导体论坛] 振兴国产半导体产业！ 不拘中国、 放眼世界 ！ 关注 世界半导体论坛 ↓ ↓ ↓ 2月9日消息，据外媒报道，比亚迪已对美国政府提起诉讼。比亚迪质疑特朗普征收关税的合法性，并要求其退还自去年4月以来比亚迪已缴纳的全部关 税！ 在此之前，美国企业及多个州政府联合起诉特朗普政府的关税政策。目前该案已上诉至美国最高法院，核心争议在于总统是否可以依据《国际紧急经济权 力法》绕过国会、单方面征收全面关税。 此前，美国国际贸易法院及联邦上诉法院均裁定相关关税缺乏法律授权，目前案件已上诉至美国最高法院，等待最终裁决。案件最终裁决结果，或将直接 影响数千亿美元关税的合法性与退税问题。 美国最高法院正在审理特朗普关税措施的合法性问题。众多企业均赶在关税清算之前提起相关诉讼，以免丧失退还税款的资格。 比亚迪的美国子公司在诉状中指出，由于无法确保在没有自身案件判决和司法救济的情况下获得退款，因此决定单独起诉。 ***************END*************** 半导体公众号推荐 半导体论坛百万微信群 此前，已有数千家在美国开展业务的全球企业提出类似申诉，但比亚迪是首个就美国关税问题提起诉 ...

在此之前，美国企业及多个州政府联合起诉特朗普政府的关税政策。目前该案已上诉至美国最高法院， 核心争议在于总统是否可以依据《国际紧急经济权力法》绕过国会、单方面征收全面关税。 （文 / 观察者网 周盛明 编辑 / 高莘） 据路透社2月9日报道，比亚迪已对美国政府提起诉讼。比亚迪质疑特朗普征收关税的合法性，并要求其 退还自去年4月以来比亚迪已缴纳的全部关税。 此前，已有数千家在美国开展业务的全球企业提出类似申诉，但比亚迪是首个就美国关税问题提起诉讼 的中国车企。这些企业质疑特朗普依据《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）征收边境税的合法性。 在1月26日向美国国际贸易法院提交的诉状中，比亚迪旗下四家美国子公司辩称，该法律并未授权征收 边境关税，因为"IEEPA的文本中并未使用'关税'一词，也未使用任何具有同等含义的表述"。 换言之，比亚迪的核心法律主张是：IEEPA本质是一部用于金融制裁与贸易限制的紧急权力法案，并非 专门的关税征收法律。该法条文本中既未出现"关税"字样，也未赋予政府加征进口税的明确授权。 因此，特朗普政府依据IEEPA推出对华关税措施，在法律适用上存在越权争议——这也是比亚迪要求退 还已缴税款的核 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to make a ruling on the legality of tariffs implemented during Trump's administration, which could have significant implications for trade policy and the U.S. fiscal situation [1] Group 1: Legal and Policy Implications - The ruling will address whether the government has the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and whether the government must refund tariffs paid by importers if the tariffs are deemed illegal [1] - The court may issue a mixed ruling, granting limited authority under IEEPA while requiring limited refunds, or it may explore various other options [1] - Even if the White House loses the case, it retains other policy tools to implement tariffs without invoking emergency powers [1] Group 2: Economic Impact - Losing the tariff tool could have multiple repercussions, including negative effects on the ambition for industrial relocation to the U.S. and potential increases in interest rates, although it may benefit corporate profits by lowering input costs and facilitating trade [2] - The government has identified several alternative strategies to maintain most tariffs if the court ruling is unfavorable, with a 28% probability that the court will support the current tariff implementation [2] - Tariffs are projected to generate approximately $195 billion in revenue for the fiscal year 2025, with an additional $62 billion expected in 2026 [2] Group 3: Analyst Perspectives - Analysts from Morgan Stanley believe there is significant leeway in the Supreme Court's ruling, which could result in a narrowing of existing tariffs without a complete repeal or limitations on future tariff applications [3] - The focus on affordability issues may allow the government to adopt a more moderate approach to the overall tariff system [3] Group 4: Trade Deficit and Inflation - The impact of tariffs has exceeded analysts' expectations, showing limited effects on inflation while significantly reducing the trade deficit, countering views that tariffs could isolate the U.S. in global trade [4] - The U.S. trade deficit reached its lowest level since the end of the 2009 financial crisis in October last year, indicating a substantial decrease in imports [4]

Core Point - The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to issue rulings on the legality of tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [1] Group 1 - The rulings are expected to address significant legal questions regarding the authority of the President to impose tariffs without Congressional approval [1] - The outcome of these cases could have substantial implications for U.S. trade policy and international relations [1]

【文/观察者网 柳白】 美国总统特朗普关税的"合法性之战"将见分晓。美国最高法院早前宣布，将于当地时间周五（1月9日） 对此案作出裁决。 最高法院九名大法官中，保守与自由派的比例为六比三。 当时首席大法官约翰·罗伯茨说，关税等税收一向是国会的核心权力，让总统的外交权力凌驾于国会的 基本权力之上，似乎会削弱行政、立法两权之间的制衡作用。特朗普第一任期内任命的保守派大法官尼 尔·戈萨奇表示，这将导致行政权持续扩张，国会权力逐渐丧失。 路透社1月7日援引美国海关与边境保护局（CBP）的数据称，倘若美国最高法院裁定特朗普依据《国际 紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）征收的关税违法，联邦政府可能不得不向进口商退还超过1335亿美元的关 税。 当天，CBP发布了最新的统计更新数据，统计对象是自特朗普去年2月首次依据IEEPA加征关税以来的 相关进口商品。 1335亿美元的数字是截至12月14日的累计核定关税总额。其中，针对所有国家和地区的所有物品征收的 所谓"对等关税"总额为817.4亿美元，除此之外还有针对一些国家征收的芬太尼关税和针对巴西和印度 征收的惩罚性关税。 数据显示，美国针对墨西哥和加拿大征收的芬太尼关税，分别为 ...

Group 1 - The World Bank reports that developing countries face an unprecedented debt repayment gap and new financing needs totaling $741 billion from 2022 to 2024, with interest payments reaching historical highs [1] - The EU plans to introduce the "Industrial Acceleration Act," which mandates that local content for critical products like cars and batteries must reach up to 70%, supported by government subsidies [2] - The Eurozone's November composite PMI was revised up to 52.8, the highest level in 30 months, driven by growth in the services sector, indicating signs of economic recovery in the region [2] Group 2 - Australia's Q3 GDP grew by 2.1% year-on-year and 0.4% quarter-on-quarter, falling short of market expectations [3] - South Korea's Q3 real GDP grew by 1.3% quarter-on-quarter and 1.8% year-on-year, both exceeding expectations [4] Group 3 - The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose by 408.44 points to close at 47,882.90, an increase of 0.86%; the S&P 500 gained 20.35 points to close at 6,849.72, up 0.30%; the Nasdaq Composite increased by 40.42 points to close at 23,454.09, a rise of 0.17% [5] - Light crude oil futures for January 2026 rose by $0.31 to $58.95 per barrel, an increase of 0.53%; February Brent crude oil futures rose by $0.22 to $62.67 per barrel, up 0.35% [5] Group 4 - COMEX gold futures rose by 0.33% to $4,234.8 per ounce, while COMEX silver futures increased by 0.39% to $58.93 per ounce [6] - The U.S. dollar index fell by 0.51% to close at 98.855, with the euro trading at 1.1672 dollars and the British pound at 1.3350 dollars, both higher than the previous trading day [7]

Core Viewpoint - Costco has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. federal government, claiming that the imposition of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act is illegal and is seeking a full refund of the tariffs paid [1][3]. Group 1: Company Actions - Costco's Chief Financial Officer, Gary Millerchip, revealed that approximately one-third of the products sold in the U.S. are imported, with about two-thirds being non-food items, and around 8% of total sales coming from products imported from China [3]. - Prior to Costco's lawsuit, several companies, including Kawasaki and Bumble Bee Foods, had already initiated similar legal actions against the government, indicating a growing trend among businesses to challenge tariffs [3][4]. - The lawsuit by Costco is particularly notable as it marks the first time a major corporation has publicly taken such action, contrasting with smaller companies that have previously filed lawsuits [4][5]. Group 2: Impact of Tariffs - In response to tariff impacts, Costco has adjusted its pricing strategies, with some non-essential imported items, like flowers, experiencing price increases, while essential items, such as fresh fruits, have not seen price hikes [5]. - Kawasaki's CEO acknowledged that tariffs might necessitate a price increase of approximately 17% on high-end motorcycles sold in the U.S. [5]. Group 3: Legal Context - The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing the legality of the federal government's authority to impose tariffs on multiple goods, with both liberal and conservative justices questioning the president's power to levy tariffs without congressional approval [6]. - Even if the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, companies like Costco and Kawasaki have expressed that this may not guarantee the return of previously paid tariffs, necessitating legal action against the government [6]. Group 4: Government's Position - The U.S. government maintains that tariffs are essential for addressing long-term economic and national security challenges, despite the negative impact on small businesses [7]. - The Supreme Court has not yet announced when it will rule on the legality of the tariffs, but if deemed illegal, the government could face significant financial repercussions [7][8].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) could lead to significant financial implications, including potential refunds of tariffs amounting to $750 billion to $1 trillion if deemed illegal [1][5]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings and Implications - The Supreme Court is expected to expedite the ruling process, with predictions of a decision as early as December this year or January next year [1]. - If the court rules against the Trump administration, over $100 billion in tariffs may need to be refunded, along with potential interest and compensation claims from businesses [1][5]. Group 2: Perspectives from Importers - Importers, such as DeerStags, believe that the refund process will not be chaotic, as customs documentation clearly outlines the tariffs paid on imported goods [2]. - The CEO of Greenbar Distillery expressed confidence in the ease of reclaiming tariffs due to clear documentation, although there are concerns about the current administration's handling of tariff issues [3]. Group 3: Economic Impact and Business Adjustments - U.S. businesses are facing challenges such as reduced exports and potential retaliatory tariffs from other countries, with estimates suggesting a $223 billion impact on U.S. exports and a loss of 141,000 jobs [4]. - The unpredictability of tariff changes has created significant uncertainty for small businesses, with over 40 modifications to tariff laws in a single year [6]. Group 4: Refund Process and Administrative Challenges - The refund process for tariffs deemed illegal is expected to be straightforward, similar to past experiences with the Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) refunds [6]. - However, logistical challenges may arise due to a shortage of experienced personnel in customs brokerage, complicating the handling of increased refund claims [6][7].

Core Viewpoint - Trump's warning about a potential economic disaster if he loses a legal battle over comprehensive tariffs highlights the stakes involved, with implications for over $2 trillion in tariff revenue and investment [1][3]. Group 1: Legal and Economic Implications - The "trillion-dollar refund crisis" described by Trump is seen as a tactic to instill fear, framing a legal issue as a national economic crisis [3][5]. - Trump's actions are perceived as an overreach of executive power, testing the limits of the U.S. constitutional system [3][7]. - The Supreme Court faces a dilemma: ruling against Trump could lead to a financial disaster due to the need to refund over $100 billion in taxes, while ruling in favor could set a precedent for future presidential power expansion [9][11]. Group 2: Political Strategy - Trump's proposal to distribute $2,000 to low- and middle-income Americans is a strategy to gain public support for his controversial legal stance [7]. - The potential Supreme Court ruling not only affects Trump's authority but also impacts the expectations of voters who anticipate financial benefits [7][9]. - The case represents a unique confrontation between presidential power and judicial authority, differing from historical precedents due to Trump's method of expanding power through reinterpretation of existing laws [11].