美国总统特朗普在本届任期不到一年的时间里签署的行政令数量，已然超过其整个第一任期的总和。他一再绕开国会行事，迫使法院去界定其 权力所对应的宪法边界。 本周一，特朗普签署一项行政令，下令将芬太尼列为"大规模杀伤性武器"，这已是他第二任期内的第221道行政令。自就职以来，他凭借行政 令推行大范围关税政策、报复那些他认定的政敌，还插手各类大小文化事务，上至挑战移民法，下到管控淋浴喷头的出水压力。 据《华盛顿邮报》依据非营利组织CourtListener与JustSecurity的数据展开分析，截至12月12日，特朗普签署的行政令中有三分之一已遭到明确 的司法诉讼。 自20世纪初起，美国总统就不断强化行政权力以绕开国会。而近几十年来，国会立法事务减少，党派间的边缘政策博弈愈演愈烈，这一趋势愈 发明显，特朗普更是进一步加剧了这一态势。 即便国会由其所在政党掌控，特朗普依旧屡次绕过这一机构，使得行政权力扩张的势头愈发猛烈。这种方式能快速达成成效，这是立法手段很 难实现的，但同时也让他诸多引以为傲的政策成果，容易遭遇司法挑战，且未来政府也可能将这些政策推翻。 在11道旨在惩罚其政敌的行政令中，近四分之三都已被提起诉讼。 白 ...

Core Points - The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning the legality of Trump's comprehensive tariff policy, with several justices expressing skepticism about the administration's use of a 50-year-old law to justify these tariffs [1][2] - Trump's administration invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to implement tariffs, a move that has not been previously used by any president [1] - The Supreme Court's decision could take weeks or months, and even if the administration loses, it may still pursue tariffs under other legal frameworks [3] Group 1 - The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments regarding the legality of Trump's tariff policy, with both conservative and liberal justices raising pointed questions [1][2] - The administration's reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act has been challenged by businesses and states, leading to previous court rulings against the policy [1] - Trump's comments indicate that a loss in court would have "devastating" consequences, highlighting the high stakes involved in the case [1][3] Group 2 - The Supreme Court consists of nine justices, with a majority being conservative, which may influence the outcome of the case [2][3] - Even if the Supreme Court limits the administration's power to impose tariffs, it is unlikely to completely eliminate the comprehensive tariff policy [2] - The U.S. Treasury Secretary has indicated that the administration may continue to use other legal authorities to maintain tariff policies if the current ones are overturned [3]

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is questioning the legality of Trump's comprehensive tariff policy, with potential significant consequences if the government loses the case [1][4]. Group 1: Legal Proceedings - The Supreme Court is reviewing the legality of Trump's tariff policy, with oral arguments lasting two and a half hours, during which both conservative and liberal justices raised sharp questions about the administration's legal basis [1]. - Trump's administration is defending its tariff policy by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which allows the president to regulate imports in certain emergencies [1][4]. - Previous court rulings have deemed the use of this act for implementing comprehensive tariffs as illegal [1]. Group 2: Political Implications - If the Supreme Court rules against the Trump administration, it could lead to significant restrictions on the current tariff policy, although it may not completely eliminate it [2][4]. - Trump's absence from the court proceedings was noted, as he expressed concerns about distracting from the case's importance [4]. - The administration's reliance on other legal frameworks to maintain tariff policies, regardless of the court's decision, has been highlighted by economic analysts [4]. Group 3: Court Composition - The Supreme Court consists of nine justices, with six being conservative and three liberal, which influences the potential outcomes of the case [3].

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]

Group 1 - The Senate passed a resolution to terminate President Trump's global tariff policy, marking a significant legislative challenge to the White House's trade strategy [3][5] - The vote, with 51 in favor and 47 against, highlights deep divisions within the Republican Party regarding trade issues, as some Republican senators joined Democrats in opposition to the tariffs [3][5] - The resolution reflects growing concerns among lawmakers from agricultural and manufacturing states about the negative impact of tariffs on their constituents, leading to a shift in political allegiance [3][5] Group 2 - The resolution's passage in the Senate does not guarantee success in the House of Representatives, where the political landscape is more complex and previous attempts to overturn tariff policies have been blocked [5] - Even if the House were to pass a similar resolution, it would face a presidential veto, requiring a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override, which is unlikely given the current political dynamics [5] - The ongoing tariff debate reveals deeper issues within the U.S. political system, including concerns over the expansion of executive power and the visible ideological rift within the Republican Party regarding free trade [7][8] Group 3 - The uncertainty surrounding U.S. trade policy is causing turmoil in global markets, signaling a lack of coherence in American trade strategies that may change with political shifts [8][10] - The Senate's vote serves as a political warning to the White House, indicating that the path of the trade war may not be straightforward and could face significant obstacles [8][10] - This tariff struggle is expected to continue in the House, leaving a lasting impact on U.S. political history and potentially affecting economic stability and global trust in U.S. policies [10]

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].