在被问及如果美国最高法院否决其依据《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）实施的广泛关税，他将如何 推进与格陵兰相关的关税措施时，美国总统特朗普表示，"看看许可证这个词"。 特朗普表示，他在达沃斯期间安排了与格陵兰"相关人士"的会面； 特朗普表示，他在达沃斯期间安排了与格陵兰"相关人士"的会面； 特朗普表示，他不认为有关格陵兰的威胁将危及欧盟对美国的投资。 特朗普表示，他不认为有关格陵兰的威胁将危及欧盟对美国的投资。 责任编辑：丁文武 在被问及如果美国最高法院否决其依据《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）实施的广泛关税，他将如何 推进与格陵兰相关的关税措施时，美国总统特朗普表示，"看看许可证这个词"。 特朗普在白宫新闻发布会上发表讲话， 特朗普在白宫新闻发布会上发表讲话， 特朗普说，如果最高法院限制其关税政策，他将需要考虑替代手段； 特朗普说，如果最高法院限制其关税政策，他将需要考虑替代手段； 责任编辑：丁文武 ...

美国总统唐特朗普周五表示，他可能会对那些"不配合格陵兰事务"的国家征收新的关税。 "出于国家安全考虑，我们需要格陵兰。所以我可能会这么做，"特朗普在白宫一场与医疗保健相关的活 动上说道。 这番言论表明，近几个月来特朗普试图让美国获得格陵兰岛的举动日益激进，如今他再次动用自己最钟 爱的外交施压工具之一——关税，以向外国施加影响力。 对于媒体就特朗普上述言论寻求进一步说明的请求，白宫未立即作出回应。 此前，特朗普政府曾表示正在考虑多种方案，包括动用美军，以接管这个丹麦属地。 尽管美国已在格陵兰设有军事基地，但特朗普坚称，由于中国和俄罗斯带来的国家安全威胁，美国必须 拥有格陵兰岛。 白宫还曾表示，美国正考虑提出得到这座北极岛屿的报价。然而，格陵兰和丹麦方面已多次明确表示， 该领土不出售，也无意并入美国。 就在提出可能以关税手段逼迫他国支持其格陵兰计划之前，特朗普曾描述过类似策略：通过威胁提高关 税，迫使外国提高药品价格。 特朗普一直致力于降低美国国内药价，主张强制要求美国药价与海外更低的价格水平挂钩。 在周五的白宫活动中，特朗普称，他曾威胁多个国家领导人：要么在"最惠国"协议框架下提高药品价 格，要么将面临对其所有 ...

今日周四(1月8日)亚盘时段，COMEX白银目前交投于77.76一线下方，今日开盘于77.96美元/盎司，截 至发稿，comex白银暂报77.74美元/盎司，下跌0.31%，最高触及78.90美元/盎司，最低下探77.30美元/盎 司，目前来看，comex白银盘内短线偏向看跌走势。 打开APP，查看更多高清行情>> 【要闻速递】 在最近的一份报告中，摩根士丹利分析师表示，尽管最高法院可能会完全废除或支持总统使用《国际紧 急经济权力法》（IEEPA），但预计会做出更细致的裁决。分析师指出："我们探讨了这两种情况之间 的灰色地带，并更新了我们对经济和市场结果的预期。" 最有可能的情况是最高法院在不完全废除《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）的情况下，缩小其适用范 围。据该报告称，法院拥有"广泛的裁量权"，可以作出例如限制未来关税适用或缩小现有关税范围的裁 决，而无需下令完全取消关税。 【最新comex白银行情解析】 comex白银价格走势使得日线图上形成看跌双顶反转形态的可能性上升。多头的下一个上行目标是收盘 价突破82.67美元/盎司的纪录高点这一强劲技术阻力位；空头的下一个下行目标是收盘价跌破上周低点 69. ...

Core Points - President Trump initially imposed tariffs on food imports to enhance U.S. self-sufficiency but has now reversed some of these tariffs on agricultural products that cannot be produced domestically at scale, such as coffee, bananas, and orange juice [1][4] - The new tariff exemptions took effect retroactively on November 13, 2025, with Trump indicating that he does not foresee further policy rollbacks in the future [1][8] Tariffs and Economic Impact - Tariffs are taxes on imports aimed at protecting domestic industries and generating revenue, theoretically leading to reduced imports and increased domestic consumption [2] - Despite the intention behind tariffs, they cannot effectively stimulate production of items like coffee and bananas that are not feasible to grow in the U.S. [4][6] - Coffee prices surged over 40% year-over-year due to the tariffs, while banana prices increased nearly 9% [7] Legal Challenges - The tariffs have faced legal challenges, with a federal appeals court ruling that Trump overstepped his authority by imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [9][11] - The Supreme Court is currently reviewing the case, with indications that justices may be skeptical of Trump's authority to impose such tariffs [12] Tariff Rebate Checks - Trump proposed a $2,000 per person tariff "dividend" to alleviate cost of living concerns, although this would require Congressional approval [13][14] - Despite claims of reduced prices, average grocery prices in the U.S. were reported to be 2.7% higher in September compared to the previous year [14]

Core Points - President Trump warned that a Supreme Court ruling against his use of emergency powers to impose tariffs could lead to an economic and national security disaster [1][3] - The Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism regarding Trump's authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, as the act does not explicitly mention tariffs [3] - Trump claimed that the potential refunds due to a negative ruling could exceed $3 trillion, including tariff revenues and investments, which he described as a catastrophic impact on national security [4] Group 1 - Trump emphasized that the estimated refund amounts are too low and that the actual figure could exceed $3 trillion, which would have devastating effects on the economy and national security [4] - He stated that if the Supreme Court rules against him, it would create an insurmountable national security event that could jeopardize the future of the United States [4] - Trump's administration plans to use tariff revenues to provide $2,000 payments to middle- and low-income Americans and to reduce national debt [4] Group 2 - Trump's chief economic advisor noted that the government initially intended to use tariff revenues solely for deficit reduction, but now sees an opportunity to distribute bonuses due to increased tax revenues [4]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the ongoing challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding President Trump's authority to impose broad tariffs on trade partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [3][4]. Group 1: Supreme Court Proceedings - The Supreme Court held a three-hour oral argument regarding Trump's tariff authority, with most justices expressing skepticism about the government's legal basis [4]. - The current Supreme Court consists of six conservative justices and three liberal justices, with the liberal justices openly opposing Trump's use of emergency tariff powers [7]. - Chief Justice Roberts raised concerns about the absence of the term "tariff" in the IEEPA and emphasized that taxation is traditionally a congressional power [7]. Group 2: Economic Impact of Tariffs - According to Goldman Sachs, American consumers are expected to bear over 55% of the tariff costs, with businesses absorbing 22% and foreign exporters taking on 18% [7]. - The average effective tariff rate faced by U.S. consumers is estimated at 17.9%, the highest since 1934, leading to a projected 1.3% increase in price levels and an average loss of $1,800 per household [8]. - The tariffs are anticipated to raise the unemployment rate by 0.3 percentage points by the end of 2025 and by 0.7 percentage points by the end of 2026 [8]. Group 3: Potential Outcomes and Alternatives - If the Supreme Court rules against the emergency tariffs, companies involved in the lawsuit may receive refunds, while others might face complex administrative processes for reimbursement [9]. - The article mentions that the government has a "Plan B" in case of an unfavorable ruling, which could involve other legal provisions, though they may be less effective than IEEPA [10]. - The market has shown resilience despite the tariffs, indicating that if the court overturns them, it could be seen as a victory for institutional checks and balances, potentially strengthening long-term market confidence [10].

Core Viewpoint - The authority of President Trump to impose broad tariffs on trade partners under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) is being challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court, raising significant legal and economic implications for U.S. trade policy [1][2]. Group 1: Supreme Court Proceedings - The Supreme Court held a three-hour oral argument regarding Trump's tariff authority, with most justices expressing skepticism about the government's legal basis for the tariffs [2][3]. - The court consists of six conservative justices and three liberal justices, with the liberal justices openly opposing Trump's emergency tariff powers [3]. - Chief Justice Roberts questioned the absence of the term "tariff" in the IEEPA and emphasized that taxation is traditionally a congressional power, suggesting a potential limitation on presidential authority [3]. Group 2: Economic Impact of Tariffs - U.S. consumers are expected to bear over 55% of the tariff costs, with American businesses absorbing 22% and foreign exporters taking on 18% [3]. - The average effective tariff rate faced by U.S. consumers is estimated at 17.9%, the highest since 1934, leading to a projected 1.3% increase in price levels and an average household loss of $1,800 [4]. - By the end of 2025, these tariffs could increase the unemployment rate by 0.3 percentage points, rising to 0.7 percentage points by the end of 2026 [4]. Group 3: Potential Outcomes and Alternatives - If the Supreme Court rules against the emergency tariffs, companies involved in the lawsuit may receive refunds, while others could face complex administrative processes for reimbursement [5]. - The court may not entirely negate the president's emergency powers but could impose stricter limitations on the scope of tariffs that can be enacted unilaterally [6]. - Trump has mentioned a "second plan," indicating that alternative legal avenues exist for imposing tariffs, although these may be less effective than the IEEPA [5][6].

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court held a hearing regarding the Trump administration's appeal on tariff rulings, which could generate trillions in revenue over the next decade [1] - The case tests the limits of presidential power in imposing tariffs and whether it infringes on Congress's authority [2][3] Tariff Authorization - The hearing lasted nearly two and a half hours, with government representatives arguing in favor of tariffs and opposing counsel representing businesses and states [2] - Trump is the first president to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, claiming it is necessary for national security [2] - The Constitution grants Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs, raising questions about the legality of Trump's actions [2][3] Major Questions Doctrine - The Supreme Court has previously used the "major questions doctrine" to overturn significant policies, requiring clear legislative authorization for actions with substantial economic and political impact [3][4] - The lower court ruled against Trump, stating that the tariffs lacked legal basis under this doctrine [4] Implications of the Hearing - The outcome of the case could have significant consequences, including potential refunds to importers if the tariffs are deemed illegal [6] - Recent data indicates that tariffs imposed under IEEPA have generated approximately $89 billion in revenue from February 4 to September 23 [6] - Market predictions regarding the likelihood of the Supreme Court supporting Trump's tariffs have decreased significantly following the hearing [6]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses President Trump's potential visit to the Supreme Court for a significant case regarding tariffs, emphasizing the importance of tariffs for national defense and economic stability [3][4]. Group 1: Legal Context - The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on November 5 regarding Trump's request to overturn lower court rulings that determined he lacked the authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [3][6]. - Trump's administration argues that the IEEPA grants the president the power to regulate imports in response to "any unusual and extraordinary threat," while opponents claim the law does not explicitly mention tariffs [6][7]. - Trump's chief lawyer contends that the Supreme Court has previously dismissed similar arguments and that decisions regarding national emergencies should be made by the president and Congress [6][7]. Group 2: Ongoing Tariff Actions - Despite the legal challenges, Trump continues to announce new tariffs, including a 100% tariff on imported brand-name drugs and a 50% tariff on cabinets and related products [7][8]. - The administration has also proposed a 25% tariff on heavy trucks to protect American manufacturers [7][8]. - Legal experts note that the Trump administration is rapidly advancing its tariff agenda, indicating a shift towards a dual-track tariff strategy regardless of the Supreme Court's decision [8].

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear the "V.O.S. Selections v. Trump" case in the first week of November, indicating a swift resolution to the matter [1][3] - The case arises after the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most tariffs imposed by the Trump administration were illegal, leading the White House to request expedited review [1][4] - If the Supreme Court rules against the tariffs, the average effective tariff rate of 16.3% could be reduced by at least half, potentially resulting in the refund of hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs [1][5] Legal Context - The Trump administration's tariffs are claimed to be authorized under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which does not explicitly grant the power to impose tariffs [4] - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled 7-4 that the IEEPA does not authorize such broad tariffs, emphasizing that the Constitution grants Congress the power to set tariffs, not the President [4] Financial Implications - U.S. Treasury Secretary indicated that if the Supreme Court deems the tariffs illegal, the government may have to refund about half of the tariffs collected, which would be a significant financial burden [5] - As of August 12, the U.S. had collected $142 billion in tariff revenue for the fiscal year [5] Case Developments - The Court of Appeals upheld parts of the lower court's ruling but sent back the issue of a nationwide permanent injunction for further review, ensuring judicial authority is not overstepped [5] - The case reflects the ongoing tension between executive power and legislative authority regarding tariff imposition [4][5] Stakeholder Reactions - Legal representatives for companies affected by the tariffs are advocating for the protection of small businesses and adherence to the rule of law in light of what they describe as excessive tariff actions [6]