Market Performance - A-shares collectively retreated, with the Shanghai Composite Index closing down 0.81% at 3954.79 points, the Shenzhen Component down 1.14%, and the ChiNext Index down 2.31%[1] - The Hong Kong Hang Seng Index fell 1.43% to 25906.65 points, with the Hang Seng Tech Index down 2.37% and the Hang Seng China Enterprises Index down 1.91%[1] - The total market turnover in Hong Kong decreased to 257.613 billion HKD[1] Economic Indicators - In October, the sales revenue of China's top 100 real estate companies dropped by over 41.9% year-on-year, amounting to 253 billion RMB (approximately 35.6 billion USD)[12] - The U.S. stock indices showed slight gains, with the Dow Jones up 0.09%, S&P 500 up 0.26%, and Nasdaq up 0.61%[1] Trade Relations - U.S. President Trump indicated willingness to eliminate all tariffs related to fentanyl if China takes strict measures against its export[12] - The EU is reportedly considering a new trade measure called "physical tariffs" to ensure the supply of critical raw materials from China[12] Sector Performance - Energy and metals sectors showed gains, while pharmaceutical stocks performed strongly against the market trend[1] - The overall decline in the real estate sector reflects ongoing challenges in the Chinese housing market, which has been struggling for over four years[12]

Core Viewpoint - China expresses sympathy for the American people affected by the fentanyl crisis and calls for the U.S. to create necessary conditions for cooperation [1] Group 1: China's Position on Drug Control - China maintains a consistent and clear stance on drug control, being one of the countries with the most stringent regulations and the highest number of controlled substances [1] - The Chinese government has a strong record in drug prohibition and has previously provided assistance to the U.S. regarding the fentanyl issue, achieving positive results [1] Group 2: Call for Cooperation - China is open to continuing cooperation with the U.S. on the fentanyl crisis and urges the U.S. to take practical actions to facilitate this collaboration [1]

Core Points - U.S. companies are urging the Supreme Court to uphold lower court rulings that deemed tariffs imposed by the Trump administration as illegal taxes on American businesses [1][3] - The legal basis for these tariffs, invoked under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is being challenged as an overreach of presidential authority [4][5] Group 1: Legal Challenges - Seven companies and several states are contesting the legality of tariffs imposed under IEEPA, claiming they create unprecedented tax burdens [3] - The IEEPA allows the president to take economic control measures during a national emergency, but its application for tariffs is disputed [3][4] - The plaintiffs argue that IEEPA does not grant the president the unilateral power to impose tariffs, as it only allows for actions like freezing foreign assets [4][6] Group 2: Economic Impact - The tariffs are expected to lead to significant financial strain on small businesses, with claims that they could result in bankruptcies and an annual loss of at least $1,000 per average American [5][6] - The unpredictability of tariff changes is disrupting supply chains and harming relationships between businesses and their suppliers and customers [6] - Learning Resources claims that the tariffs could lead to a tax increase of over $3 trillion for American taxpayers over the next decade [6] Group 3: Court Proceedings - The Supreme Court is set to hear the case on November 5, with expectations that it will uphold the lower court's ruling against the legality of the tariffs [2][3] - The plaintiffs' briefs submitted to the court emphasize that tariffs fall under the constitutional authority of Congress, not the president [3][4] - The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision will determine the future of the so-called "reciprocal tariffs" and "fentanyl tariffs" [6][7]

Revenue and Tax Rate Insights - U.S. tariff revenue surged to $144.4 billion in the first eight months of 2025, 2.8 times higher than the same period last year, making it the fourth largest source of federal revenue at 4.0%[12] - The average tariff rate increased from 2.2% in January to 8.9% in June 2025, reflecting a significant rise driven by higher tariff rates[16] Trade Partner Analysis - The actual average tariff rate on imports from China reached 37.4% in June 2025, up 26.5 percentage points from January, with a peak of 45.6% in May[27] - U.S. imports from China fell by 18.9% and exports by 20.2% in the first seven months of 2025, indicating a significant decline in trade volume[28] Trade Dynamics - U.S. imports grew by 10.7% and exports by 4.8% year-on-year in the first seven months of 2025, while the trade deficit expanded by 21.3%[27] - The U.S. reliance on Chinese imports decreased, with imports from China constituting 9.4% of total U.S. imports, down 3.4 percentage points year-on-year[5] Product-Specific Tariff Changes - Tariff rates on labor-intensive goods, such as toys and shoes, increased significantly, with rates rising by 24.2 and 13.1 percentage points respectively[37] - The "232 tariffs" on steel and aluminum products saw rates increase from 25% to 50%, leading to substantial hikes in actual tariff rates for these categories[38]

Core Points - The Trump administration continues to utilize import tariffs to revitalize U.S. manufacturing and strengthen national security [1][4] - New tariffs include a 10% tax on imported softwood lumber and a 25% tax on imported cabinets and wood products, effective from October 14, with some rates increasing on January 1 [1] - The increase in tariffs is expected to raise costs in the residential construction and renovation sectors, exacerbating housing affordability issues for average Americans [1] - Approximately 30% of the softwood used in the U.S. comes from Canada, which faces a 14.5% countervailing and anti-dumping duty [1] Industry Insights - The new tariffs are part of a broader strategy to restructure domestic supply chains, although domestic lumber production may not meet the immediate demands of builders [4] - There is a noted generational gap in interest towards manufacturing jobs, with younger individuals preferring careers in fields like social media and fashion design [4] - The latest tariff measures stem from an investigation initiated by the U.S. Department of Commerce under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows for tariffs based on national security concerns [4][5] Legislative Context - The U.S. Department of Commerce has also launched new investigations into imports of robots, industrial machinery, and medical devices under the same legal framework [5] - The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) allows the President to impose tariffs without stringent requirements to prove national security concerns, which has been a focal point in recent tariff implementations [5] - The legality of the White House's invocation of IEEPA is set to be debated in the Supreme Court on November 5 [5]

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]

Core Points - The U.S. government has been ruled illegal in its use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, marking a significant setback for the aggressive trade policies of the Trump administration [1][3] - The ruling raises questions about the validity of previous trade agreements made with the U.S. [1][5] - The ruling was upheld by the Federal Circuit Court, which stated that the power to impose tariffs is a core authority of Congress, not the President [3][5] Summary by Sections Legal Ruling - The Federal Circuit Court maintained the previous ruling that the Trump administration's tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act were illegal, with a vote of 7 to 4 [3] - The court emphasized that while the Act allows the President to take certain economic measures in emergencies, it does not grant the authority to impose tariffs through executive orders [3] Economic Impact - The ruling could have direct implications for the U.S. economy and may trigger reactions in global markets, as trade partners reassess the legal standing of U.S. tariffs [5] - The Trump administration collected approximately $107 billion in tariffs from February to July, a significant portion of which was based on the now-ruled illegal measures [4] Ongoing Trade Negotiations - The U.S. is still engaged in trade negotiations with multiple countries, including the UK, Vietnam, and the EU, but the legal uncertainty surrounding tariffs may complicate these discussions [6][7] - Japan's trade representative canceled a trip to the U.S. due to dissatisfaction with proposed U.S. tariffs, indicating potential friction in ongoing negotiations [7]

Trade Negotiation Outlook - Trade negotiations between China and the US in Stockholm are expected to result in a three-month extension of the tariff truce [1] - Both countries are expected to commit to refrain from imposing additional tariffs or escalating the trade war [1] Key Issues - The US will likely express concerns regarding China's excess industrial capacity [1] - China is expected to pressure the US regarding fentanyl tariffs [1]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. has not lifted the so-called "fentanyl tariffs" imposed on Chinese imports, which is viewed as a bullying tactic that undermines trust and dialogue in drug control efforts between the two countries [1] Group 1: U.S.-China Relations - The Chinese National Narcotics Control Commission criticized the U.S. for its actions, stating that it severely damages the foundation for cooperation in drug control [1] - China is recognized as one of the countries with the strictest and most comprehensive drug control policies in the world [1] Group 2: International Cooperation - China actively engages in international cooperation on drug control and has offered humanitarian assistance to help the U.S. address its fentanyl crisis, with visible results [1] - The Chinese government urges the U.S. to reflect seriously and adopt a responsible approach to reduce drug demand at the source, rather than shifting blame [1]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. International Trade Court (CIT) ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs, leading to the annulment of related tariff measures [1][7]. Group 1: Court Ruling Details - The CIT combined two cases, one initiated by the Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small businesses challenging the "reciprocal tariffs" and another by the Oregon Attorney General representing twelve states against global tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, and fentanyl tariffs [3]. - The court confirmed that the IEEPA does not explicitly authorize the President to impose unlimited tariffs, which have significant economic and political implications [4][5]. - The ruling stated that the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration exceeded the authority granted by the IEEPA and violated constitutional principles [6][7]. Group 2: Implications for Trade Policy - The ruling could represent a significant policy shift, particularly benefiting small and medium-sized enterprises that struggle to absorb the costs of tariffs [6]. - The decision emphasizes that trade decisions should not be made unilaterally by the President without Congressional authorization, reaffirming the importance of legislative oversight [4][5]. - The CIT's ruling applies nationwide, affecting all importers, but does not address tariffs authorized under other laws, such as those related to steel and aluminum [7].