美国最高法院正在审议特朗普全面关税政策的合法性并在当天听取口头辩论。据多家媒体报道，在2个 半小时的口头辩论期间，多名保守派和自由派法官"尖锐"提问代表特朗普政府的律师，质疑特朗普是否 可以利用一项50年前的法案所赋予的权力为其关税政策辩护，认为这是对行政权力的扩张。 根据美国宪法，美国国会决定关税政策。然而，特朗普政府援引1977年通过的美国《国际紧急经济权力 法》推行全面关税政策。该法赋予总统在某些紧急情况下"管制"进口的权力。 在特朗普之前，没有美国总统曾依据该法征收关税。受特朗普关税政策影响的美国企业和美国12个州先 前发起诉讼，质疑该政策的合法性。多家法院先前裁决，特朗普政府援引该法施行全面关税政策违法。 今年4月，美国宣布对所有贸易伙伴实施所谓"对等关税"政策，设立10%的"最低基准关税"，并针对包 括最不发达国家在内的部分贸易伙伴实施更高税率。 （原标题：特朗普：输了麻烦就大了） 来源：新华社 美高院激辩关税 特朗普：输了麻烦就大了 美国最高法院多名法官5日质疑特朗普政府全面关税政策的合法性。特朗普当日发帖说，如果政府输掉 这一案件，影响将"极具破坏性"。 据美联社报道，最高法院各有3名保守派和 ...

来源：新华社 美高院激辩关税 特朗普：输了麻烦就大了 据美联社报道，最高法院各有3名保守派和自由派法官对特朗普关税政策存有疑虑。所以，3 名自由派法官加上2名保守派法官投票反对特朗普关税政策，最高法院即可对特朗普实施关税 政策的权力予以限制，但不大可能彻底结束其全面关税政策。 美国最高法院由9名法官构成，其中6人为保守派，3人为自由派。 美联社报道认为，最高法院至少要数周甚至几个月才能对此案作出裁决。报道说，即使输掉 这起官司，特朗普政府仍会援引其他法律推行其关税政策，只是实施关税政策的速度和程度 会受到限制。 特朗普没有出席当天的辩论。他先前在社交媒体发文称："我周三(5日)不会去法院，因为我不 想分散人们对这项重要决定的注意力。"他当日发帖说，如果政府输掉这一案件，影响将"极 具破坏性"。 路透社报道认为，随着此次辩论的举行，美国企业、贸易律师和经济学家们逐渐意识到：无 论法院如何裁决，特朗普的关税都不会轻易消失。 美国财政部长贝森特先前预计，最高法院将维持现有关税政策，但若被推翻，美国政府将转 而动用其他法律授权。 美国最高法院多名法官5日质疑特朗普政府全面关税政策的合法性。特朗普当日发帖说，如果 政府 ...

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court will review President Trump's comprehensive tariff policy on November 5, with Trump stating he will not attend the debate [1][4] - The case will determine the fate of many of Trump's tariff policies, which are defended under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) [4][5] - This is the first time a U.S. president has imposed tariffs under this law, making the Supreme Court's decision unprecedented [5] Group 1 - The main issue at stake is whether Trump can use emergency powers to justify global tariffs, representing an unprecedented expansion of executive power [4][5] - The Supreme Court currently has a conservative majority of 6 to 3, which has previously supported Trump in significant cases [7] - Regardless of the court's ruling, it is anticipated that Trump's tariffs will not easily disappear due to the established multi-path tariff system [6][8] Group 2 - The IEEPA has been the legal basis for Trump's tariffs, similar to the law used by Nixon in 1971 to impose a temporary 10% tariff [4][5] - The ongoing tariff policies have disrupted supply chains for U.S. manufacturers, as highlighted by the experience of OTC Industrial Technologies [8]

当地时间10月30日，美国政治再次迎来重大变动。参议院以51票赞成、47票反对的微弱优势通过了一项重要决议，直指总统特朗普推行的全球关税政策。这 一决议的通过，不仅是对白宫贸易战略的一次重大反击，也揭示了共和党内部在贸易问题上的深刻分歧。 此次参议院通过的联合决议，核心内容是要求终止特朗普为了实施全球关税而宣布的"国家紧急状态"。这意味着，特朗普通过"国家安全"名义实施贸易保护 政策的做法，首次在立法层面遭到明确的挑战。更为引人关注的是，参议院在这之前不久，已经连续通过了两项决议，专门针对特朗普政府对加拿大和巴西 等传统盟友加征的关税。接连发力、节奏紧凑，这一系列举措表明，部分共和党人和民主党人已经联手，决心阻止贸易战进一步升级。 这次投票的结果——51票对47票，反映了华盛顿复杂的政治局势。尽管共和党控制着参议院，但仍有一些共和党议员倒戈，和民主党站在一起。他们的"背 叛"并非一时冲动，而是经过深思熟虑的政治决策。随着中期选举临近，来自农业州和制造业州的议员们纷纷发现，关税政策的反噬已经影响到他们的选 民：大豆销路不好、工厂成本上涨，民众的怨声四起。在这种情况下，他们选择站在政治生存一边，而不是继续支持总统 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the transition of DOGE after Elon Musk's departure, highlighting the challenges and changes in leadership, operational structure, and political implications for the organization [3][9][36]. Summary by Sections Musk's Departure - Elon Musk left DOGE at the end of May, with reports indicating a sudden and uncommunicated exit from the Trump administration [4][6]. - His departure marked a significant shift for DOGE, which had been a focal point of political and operational discussions [9][10]. DOGE's Financial Impact - Initially, Musk claimed DOGE would save the federal government $2 trillion, later revised to $1 trillion. However, DOGE reported savings of $190 billion through asset sales, contract cancellations, and layoffs, which has been met with skepticism regarding the accuracy of these figures [7][8]. - During Musk's tenure, approximately 260,000 federal positions were eliminated, but many departments are now in the process of rehiring [7]. Legal and Political Challenges - A legal dispute is ongoing regarding whether DOGE should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act, as it operates in a gray area between being a government entity and a private advisory group [8][9]. - The political landscape surrounding DOGE has become contentious, with Trump expressing dissatisfaction with its aggressive strategies and suggesting that cutting subsidies to Musk's companies could save money [10][11]. Leadership Changes - Following Musk's exit, key figures associated with him, including Steve Davis, also left DOGE, leading to a power struggle within the organization [12][13]. - The new leadership structure appears to be more integrated with various government departments, with Russell Vought, a loyal Trump appointee, taking a prominent role in guiding DOGE's future [22][23]. Future Direction of DOGE - DOGE is transitioning from a standalone entity to a more embedded role within federal departments, focusing on technology and efficiency improvements, particularly through AI [21][16]. - The recent passage of a budget-cutting bill indicates a shift towards a more institutionalized approach to implementing reforms, with Russell Vought emphasizing a systematic execution of budget cuts [26][29]. Ongoing Issues - Despite the restructuring, DOGE faces challenges such as staffing shortages in key areas like the Social Security Administration due to layoffs, leading to operational inefficiencies [35]. - Concerns about data security and potential leaks have arisen, particularly regarding unauthorized access by former DOGE members [35][36].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses a lawsuit by five small U.S. businesses against the Trump administration's recent tariff increases, arguing that the President lacks the authority to impose such tariffs without Congressional approval [1][2][4]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - Five small businesses involved in the lawsuit import and distribute various products, including wine, plastics, electronics, fishing gear, and cycling apparel [1]. - The lawsuit is being represented by the nonprofit organization Freedom Judicial Center, which argues that the President's power to impose tariffs is an unprecedented illegal expansion of executive authority [4][6]. Group 2: Legal Arguments - The businesses claim that the President's ability to impose tariffs at will undermines the intent of Congress and represents an overreach of executive power [4][6]. - The U.S. Department of Justice argues that the President has historically been granted the authority to manage foreign affairs and trade, including the imposition of tariffs since 1794 [8]. Group 3: Judicial Proceedings - During the hearings, a conservative judge criticized the government's stance, emphasizing that the court's role is to interpret the law, not to engage in policy discussions [10]. - The judge questioned the rationale behind declaring a national emergency based on long-standing trade deficits, suggesting that such a claim lacks urgency [10][12].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing legal debate centers around the authority of President Trump to impose tariffs without congressional approval, with small businesses challenging the legality of these tariffs in court [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The U.S. International Trade Court in Manhattan is hearing a case from five small businesses seeking to block recent tariffs imposed by the Trump administration [1]. - The businesses involved include VOS Selections, Plastic Services and Products, MicroKits, FishUSA, and Terry Precision Cycling, all of which import various goods [1]. Group 2: Arguments Presented - The businesses argue that President Trump lacks the authority to impose unlimited tariffs at will, claiming this represents an unprecedented illegal expansion of executive power [2][3]. - The Department of Justice, representing the Trump administration, contends that the President's tariff authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court in past cases [2][4]. Group 3: Judicial Perspectives - Judge Restani expressed skepticism about the government's justification for the tariffs, questioning the rationale behind declaring a national emergency for long-standing trade issues [5][6]. - The debate highlights the tension between executive power and congressional authority in regulating trade, with differing interpretations of what constitutes "regulation" [4][5].