2025年11月，美国最高法院成为全球聚焦的焦点，审理的案件涉及特朗普政府的关税政策是否合规。这 一案件的核心问题是：特朗普是否可以在没有国会授权的情况下，借口国家紧急状态单方面对包括中国 在内的多个国家加征高额关税？这场审判的结局不仅关系到特朗普经济政策的成败，还可能使美国政府 面临高达2万亿美元的赔偿。面临着司法天平的倾斜，特朗普，曾将关税视为经济武器，正深陷前所未 有的焦虑和被动之中。 11月5日，特朗普大规模关税政策合法性的辩论在美国最高法院开庭，这场庭审被认为是对总统行政权 限的重大考验。美国财政部长贝森特应特朗普要求出席听证会，显示出政府对这一案件的重视。政府的 辩护律师是最高法院的首席律师、总检察长D·约翰绍尔，他不断强调，特朗普征收关税是为了应对国际 贸易失衡带来的国家安全威胁，因此是必要的。 然而，庭审气氛并没有如政府预期般对其有利。在口头辩论阶段，大多数法官对政策的合法性提出了质 疑，甚至一些通常偏向保守派的大法官，也未明确支持政府立场。法官们的关注点集中在两个问题上： 一是国会是否已将征收关税的权力独占，二是特朗普援引国家紧急状态是否存在滥用。有法官直言，若 承认总统的这种权力扩张，将使 ...

美国政府计划采购并拥有多达10座新建大型核反应堆，以应对数据中心和人工智能发展带来的电力需求 激增。 11月19日，据媒体报道，美国能源部幕僚长Carl Coe在美国一场能源会议上表示，尽管政府介入私营市 场有悖常规，但当前的局面已构成"国家紧急状态"。 分析认为这表明特朗普政府正试图利用行政权力，加速推动核能基础设施建设以填补能源缺口。 资金方面，该计划可能利用日本此前承诺的5500亿美元投资资金。作为美日贸易协议框架的一部分，日 本已同意向美国能源项目投资约3320亿美元，其中包括对西屋电气（Westinghouse）新型AP1000反应堆 及小型模块化反应堆的投资。 然而，鉴于日本自身的财政状况，这笔资金最终能否完全到位，或是否需由美国财政部填补缺口，目前 仍存在不确定性。 这一消息引发了市场对核能板块的高度关注，预计将为核电供应链带来大量资本流入。从反应堆设计、 重型制造到铀浓缩及安全监控设备，多个环节的行业龙头被视为潜在受益者。 "国家紧急状态"下的非常规干预 Carl Coe在田纳西先进能源商业委员会主办的会议上直言： 随着人工智能数据中心对电力的需求呈爆炸式增长，以及美国本土制造业的潜在复苏，美 ...

Report Summary 1) Report Industry Investment Rating No information provided. 2) Core Viewpoints of the Report - The precious metals market experienced significant fluctuations last week, with gold and silver prices soaring mid - week and silver hitting a record high, but then sharply correcting on Thursday and Friday. The international gold price returned to $4000 per ounce, and the silver price returned to around $50 per ounce. The long - term upward trend remains unchanged despite high volatility [3]. - Trade war easing has a bearish impact on gold prices, while the escalation of geopolitical tensions is favorable for gold [3][4]. - The probability of the Fed cutting interest rates in December has decreased, but it is likely to accelerate rate cuts next year. The short - term decline in gold and silver prices is directly related to the reduced probability of a December rate cut [9][10]. 3) Summary by Related Content Market Performance - Last week, the gold and silver markets were highly volatile. Gold and silver prices rose sharply mid - week, and silver set a new record high. However, they declined significantly on Thursday and Friday. The international gold price reached $4000 per ounce, and the silver price was around $50 per ounce [3]. Trade Policy - On November 14, the US White House announced that President Trump signed an executive order to adjust the scope of "reciprocal tariffs", excluding some agricultural products from the additional tariffs. The updated tariff exemption list will take effect on November 13, 2025, at 0:01 EST [3]. - This is a sign of trade war easing, which has a bearish impact on gold prices [4]. Geopolitical Situation - Geopolitical tensions have escalated. In the Russia - Ukraine situation, a German military official said Germany is ready to fight Moscow, and Ukraine stated it will not negotiate with Russia for the time being, intensifying regional tensions [5][6]. - On November 14, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zakharova said Russia has no plan to attack NATO countries but will respond with all means if attacked [8]. Fed's Interest Rate Policy - The US government reopened, and some economic data affected by the shutdown will be released later. The uncertainty of data makes it more likely for the Fed to pause rate cuts before getting reliable new data [9]. - Some Fed officials, represented by Logan, find it difficult to support another rate cut in December, indicating a growing internal divide. The market's expectation of a December rate cut dropped from 62% to 51% last Thursday and further to 46% by Friday [9]. - Although the probability of a December rate cut has decreased, it is still possible. If the US stock market continues to fall, it may force the Fed to cut rates. A new Fed chair, likely a dovish figure approved by Trump, is expected to accelerate rate cuts next year [9][10].

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].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning the legality of the "global tariff" policy implemented during Trump's presidency, which could lead to over $100 billion in tax refunds if deemed unlawful [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Basis and Implications - Trump's administration claims the tariffs are based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which allows the president to act in national security or economic emergencies, but does not explicitly authorize tariff imposition [2]. - The Supreme Court justices, including those appointed by Trump, expressed skepticism about the administration's interpretation of IEEPA, suggesting it could undermine Congress's authority over taxation and trade [2][3]. - If the court rules against Trump, it would not only require refunds to importers but also restrict future presidents' ability to unilaterally impose tariffs under the guise of national emergencies, potentially shifting tariff authority back to Congress [3]. Group 2: Court Proceedings and Stakeholders - The hearing lasted two and a half hours, with significant participation from government officials, including the Secretary of the Treasury and the U.S. Trade Representative, indicating the high stakes involved [2]. - The case centers on tariffs announced on April 2, 2025, which imposed rates between 10% and 50% on most U.S. imports, justified by claims of addressing trade deficits and combating fentanyl smuggling [1][3]. - The ruling is expected by the end of the year and could set a critical precedent regarding executive power in trade policy post-Trump [4].

Core Argument - The U.S. Supreme Court will hold oral arguments regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by President Trump, focusing on whether he has the authority to set import tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act [1][3]. Group 1: Legal Authority and Historical Context - The central issue is whether the Constitution's grant of exclusive tax and trade powers to Congress still holds, and if the executive branch can set tariffs without public oversight [1]. - The case arises from lower court rulings that deemed Trump's tariff policies illegal, prompting the government to appeal [1]. - Historical precedents show that U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, have allowed tariffs under similar laws in specific circumstances, such as during the Nixon administration [4]. Group 2: Financial Implications and Arguments - The Trump administration argues that revoking the legal authority for tariffs could lead to significant costs and a larger federal revenue gap than previously disclosed [3]. - However, proponents of a liberal stance dispute this claim, noting that U.S. tariff revenue is relatively limited [3]. Group 3: Legal Text and Interpretation - The International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 does not explicitly mention "tariffs," raising questions about whether "regulating" imports includes the authority to impose tariffs [6]. - The Trump administration contends that regulating imports inherently includes taxation, while the opposing side argues that Congress would have specified "tariffs" if that were the intent [6]. Group 4: Potential Outcomes and Future Implications - Even if the Supreme Court rules against Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for tariffs, it may not dismantle the protectionist framework established by his administration [6]. - Existing legal frameworks, such as the 1974 Trade Act and provisions from the 1930 Tariff Act, could still support tariff policies regardless of the court's decision [6]. - The oral arguments on November 5 will be a significant event in the intersection of U.S. law and politics [6].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a significant case regarding Trump's tariffs, which could impact presidential powers related to rapid taxation and trade policy [1] Group 1: Legal Context - The case centers on whether Trump has the authority to impose import tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a law that has not been used for taxation in its 50-year history [1] - The appellate court ruled these tariffs invalid in August, indicating a divided opinion among judges, suggesting a complex outcome [1] Group 2: Arguments Presented - The plaintiffs argue that the case addresses fundamental boundaries between executive and legislative powers, emphasizing that taxation should be approved by elected representatives, a core principle of American governance [1] - The government contends that the court should not question the president's declaration of a "national emergency," with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin stating that the tariffs were a response to a critical trade deficit to prevent a trade crisis [1] Group 3: Potential Consequences - If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's ruling, Trump may face chaotic refund processes, declining fiscal revenues, and damaged trade agreements [1] - The White House indicated that if the IEEPA is overturned, it would consider using other, more complex trade laws to impose tariffs, which would significantly weaken the president's ability to impose rapid tariffs [1]

Core Points - The U.S. Senate voted 51-47 to revoke the "national emergency" invoked by the government for implementing "reciprocal tariffs" in April, indicating a division within the Republican Party as all Democrats supported the measure and four Republicans also voted in favor [1][3] - Recent Senate resolutions aimed at eliminating tariffs on goods from Canada and Brazil are expected to face challenges in the House of Representatives, which previously passed a rule prohibiting legislation against U.S. tariff measures until March [3] - The Senate vote reflects growing discontent among U.S. lawmakers regarding aggressive tariff measures, with concerns about rising prices and economic pressure on American families, farmers, and manufacturers [3] Legislative Context - The House of Representatives is unlikely to vote on the recent tariff resolutions, and even if passed, they would face a presidential veto, requiring a two-thirds majority in Congress to override [3] - The Senate's actions are seen as a symbolic rejection of the government's trade policy, highlighting a potential shift in legislative attitudes towards tariffs [3] Economic Implications - Democratic Senator Wyden emphasized the economic strain on American households due to rising prices, while Senate Democratic Leader Schumer criticized the president for leaving families and small businesses to deal with the fallout from erratic tariff policies [3] - Republican Senator Paul expressed concerns about the potential economic disaster resulting from continued aggressive tariff measures [3]

Core Viewpoint - The upcoming Supreme Court hearing on November 5 regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration represents a critical juncture for the U.S. market, with potential implications for presidential power and economic policy direction [1][3]. Legal Basis and Implications - The core of the legal dispute revolves around the invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by the Trump administration, which allows the president to impose tariffs in response to a "national emergency" [4][5]. - The effective consumer goods tariff rate has risen to 17.9%, the highest level since 1934, due to tariffs that took effect on April 2 [6]. Government's Position - The White House expresses confidence in the legality of the tariffs, citing three main arguments: trade deficits as a unique external threat, the IEEPA not explicitly excluding tariffs as an emergency tool, and periodic congressional review of these tariffs [7]. Legal Community's Perspective - The mainstream legal opinion, including conservative scholars, suggests that the government's legal basis is weak, with a significant likelihood of losing the case based on the "major-questions doctrine," which requires explicit congressional or constitutional authorization for actions of substantial economic and political significance [8][9]. Market Reactions and Economic Impact - The outcome of the Supreme Court case is viewed as a "Damocles sword" over Wall Street, with the potential for two drastically different futures depending on the ruling [10]. - Current market pricing has somewhat incorporated the impact of tariffs, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessenet predicting annual tariff revenues exceeding $500 billion in the coming years, which could help reduce the fiscal deficit [10]. Consequences of a Ruling - If the Supreme Court rules the tariffs illegal, the White House may need to refund billions in tariffs, significantly impacting fiscal policy and undermining the unilateral economic strategy of the Trump administration [12]. - Conversely, a ruling in favor of the Trump administration would greatly expand presidential power, allowing for unilateral economic decisions without congressional approval, effectively granting a "quasi-royal" authority [14].

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a case on November 5 regarding the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration, which could lead to significant economic and political consequences [1][2] - The case centers around the invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by the Trump administration to justify tariffs, claiming trade deficits constitute a national emergency [3][4] - The outcome of the case could either validate the administration's broad powers or challenge the legal basis for such unilateral economic measures [5][9] Legal Context - The Trump administration argues that the IEEPA provides the president with extensive powers to impose tariffs in response to national emergencies, with tariffs having raised the effective consumer goods tariff rate to 17.9%, the highest since 1934 [3][4] - However, many legal scholars, including conservatives, believe the administration's legal foundation is weak, citing the "major-questions doctrine" which requires significant economic actions to have clear congressional authorization [5][6] Market Implications - The potential ruling is viewed as a "Damocles sword" over Wall Street, with the outcome likely to influence market pricing and fiscal strategies [7] - If the Supreme Court rules the tariffs illegal, the government may need to refund billions in tariffs, impacting fiscal stability and potentially destabilizing the unilateral economic strategy of the Trump administration [8] - Conversely, a ruling in favor of the administration could expand presidential powers significantly, allowing for unilateral economic decisions without congressional approval, which may lead to market volatility if combined with negative economic indicators [10]