上海国际问题研究院外交政策研究所所长牛海彬向第一财经记者表示，在金砖峰会后，特朗普就径直对 巴西发出了关税威胁，时间点十分微妙。特朗普政府反复利用关税作为武器，不仅仅是要满足各种经济 利益的诉求，还有包括政治安全等非经济因素的考虑，已成为美国外交和对外战略的重要工具。 特别峰会 大部分巴西输美产品面临的关税税率高达50%。 巴西欲联合金砖国家共同应对美国的不合理关税。 据报道，多位消息人士透露，巴西总统卢拉计划在9月8日召集金砖国家领导人以视频方式举行特别峰 会，共同讨论美国的贸易政策。 在今年7月巴西里约热内卢举行的金砖国家领导人第十七次会晤上，卢拉就呼吁南方国家加强合作，表 示每个国家"都是自己命运的主人"，此外他还表示"如果美国对其他国家加征关税，那么其他国家也可 以对等地对美国加征关税"。 卢拉这一说法惹怒了特朗普。据新华社报道，特朗普6日在社交媒体上宣称金砖国家推行所谓"反美政 策"，并威胁对所有与金砖国家"反美政策"保持一致的国家额外征收10%的关税。 巴西学界也对金砖机制寄予厚望。巴西圣保罗大学国际法教授、金砖国家研究小组协调人卡塞利亚 （Paulo Borba Casella）日前表示，美国关 ...

Core Viewpoint - Trump criticized India's high tariffs on U.S. goods, claiming it has led to a one-sided trade disaster, and suggested that India's recent proposal to reduce tariffs to zero is too late [2] Group 1: Trade Relations - Trump signed an executive order on July 31, imposing a 25% tariff on Indian goods starting August 7, which was later increased to an additional 25% due to India's import of Russian oil, resulting in a total tariff rate of 50% on Indian products [4] - The U.S.-India trade negotiations have been suspended amid these tariff increases [4] Group 2: Trade Data - In 2024, the total trade volume between the U.S. and India is projected to be approximately $129.2 billion, with a trade deficit of $45.7 billion for the U.S., reflecting a 5.4% increase from 2023 [4]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of a U.S. appellate court ruling that deemed most of the global tariffs imposed by the Trump administration illegal, and Trump's intention to appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn this decision [1][4][10]. Group 1: Legal and Economic Implications - Trump plans to appeal the appellate court's ruling to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the urgency of a quick resolution due to the tariffs' impact on the nation's financial structure [3][4]. - The appellate court's decision indicates that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not grant the President the authority to impose tariffs, which could significantly affect U.S. trade policy [4][10]. - If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's ruling, it would severely limit Trump's ability to impose tariffs, undermining his economic strategy to compel companies to invest in the U.S. [10][11]. Group 2: Market Reactions - Following the announcement of the appellate court's ruling, U.S. stock markets experienced declines, with the S&P 500 down approximately 1% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropping over 380 points [1][4]. - Trump attributes the market downturn to uncertainty surrounding the tariff situation, suggesting that a favorable ruling could lead to a significant market rally [1][4]. Group 3: Alternative Legal Strategies - The U.S. Treasury Secretary expressed confidence that the Supreme Court would support Trump's use of IEEPA for imposing tariffs but is also preparing alternative legal strategies in case of a loss [9][10]. - If the Supreme Court rules against Trump, the administration may resort to other legal frameworks, such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, to impose tariffs, albeit with less efficiency [9][10]. Group 4: Potential Consequences of Ruling - Legal experts warn that a Supreme Court ruling against the tariffs could lead to significant economic repercussions, including potential financial collapse due to the loss of tariff revenue, which totaled $159 billion as of July [10][11]. - The ruling could also set a precedent affecting the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress regarding trade policy [10][11].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. President Trump criticized India's late proposal to reduce tariffs on U.S. goods to zero after the U.S. imposed a 50% tariff on Indian imports, indicating that India should have made such moves years ago [1][2]. Trade Relations - On July 31, Trump signed an executive order imposing a 25% tariff on Indian goods starting August 7, which was later increased to an additional 25% due to India's importation of Russian oil, resulting in a total tariff rate of 50% on Indian imports [4]. - The U.S. and India had previously engaged in trade negotiations, which have now been suspended following the tariff increases [4]. Trade Data - In 2024, the total trade volume between the U.S. and India is projected to be approximately $129.2 billion, with a trade deficit of $45.7 billion for the U.S., reflecting a 5.4% increase compared to 2023 [4].

Core Viewpoint - Jiangsu's trade with other member countries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has shown a positive growth trend, with imports and exports reaching 198.84 billion yuan in the first seven months of the year, marking a year-on-year increase of 6.8% [1] Group 1: Trade and Logistics Development - The first international freight train of the China-Kyrgyzstan-Uzbekistan (CKU) rail intermodal transport was launched on October 13, 2022, enhancing trade connectivity between the SCO (Lianyungang) International Logistics Park and Uzbekistan's Tashkent logistics hub [1] - In the first seven months of this year, the CKU freight train service has dispatched a total of 473 trains, representing a year-on-year growth of 32.87% [1] - The SCO (Lianyungang) Logistics Park has established a multimodal transport logistics system integrating road, rail, river, and sea, significantly improving international logistics service capabilities [1] Group 2: Economic Impact and Infrastructure - The logistics park has set up six overseas warehouses in Central Asia and Southeast Asia, contributing to high growth in various logistics indicators [1] - Over ten years, the SCO (Lianyungang) International Logistics Park has achieved a cumulative logistics volume of 371 million tons and generated main business revenue of 22.824 billion yuan [1]

Group 1 - The US-China trade war has reached a "ceasefire" state after three rounds of negotiations, with the US not gaining substantial benefits, leading to a shift in Trump's rhetoric [1][3] - The trade war initiated by the Trump administration in 2018 did not yield the expected results for the US, with tariffs on China soaring to 104% and then 145% [3] - China responded firmly to US tariffs, increasing its own tariffs to 125%, demonstrating its resolve to stand firm against US pressure [3][5] Group 2 - The US Treasury Secretary expressed surprise at China's strong response, noting that China is the only country willing to challenge the US [5][7] - The trade war has highlighted China's significant position in the global economy, being the largest producer and exporter of key materials and having a robust industrial system [9] - The US's reliance on China for critical materials, such as rare earths, poses a risk to its own industries, as tariffs could lead to increased costs for American consumers [9][17] Group 3 - The US's attitude towards China has softened, with the Treasury Secretary acknowledging China's status as a "great nation" and recognizing the need for cooperation [7][12] - Trump's recent statements indicate a shift towards seeking a friendly relationship with China, driven by the need to address key issues like rare earth supply and trade deficits [12] - Russia is positioning itself to benefit from the US-China trade war, as it creates opportunities for Russian businesses in China amidst Western sanctions [14][15]

Group 1 - Japan's chief trade negotiator, Akizawa Yoshimasa, has canceled his trip to Washington, which was intended to finalize a tariff agreement with the Trump administration [2] - The agreement, announced on July 22, involves a 15% tariff on most Japanese imports, effective from August 1, which is lower than the previously proposed 25% reciprocal tariff [2] - Japanese officials have expressed concerns over additional tariffs being imposed on top of the agreed 15%, and Washington has acknowledged this error, agreeing to adhere to the 15% tariff agreement and refund any excess import duties paid [2] Group 2 - Japanese government spokesperson, Yoshihide Suga, emphasized the importance of swiftly implementing the agreement for economic security between the two nations [3] - The U.S. Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnick, indicated that Washington is ready to finalize the agreement, with Japan committing to invest up to $550 billion in the U.S. over the coming years [2]

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]

Core Viewpoint - The sudden imposition of a 50% tariff by the U.S. on India, targeting its purchase of Russian oil, represents a significant miscalculation in trade policy, leading to a profound shift in global geopolitical dynamics [1][10]. Group 1: U.S.-India Relations - The tariff affects over 55% of India's exports to the U.S., particularly impacting labor-intensive industries such as textiles and jewelry, creating substantial economic pressure on India [3]. - Former U.S. National Security Advisor Sullivan criticized the tariff as a "massive trade offensive," undermining years of U.S. efforts to align India against China, and warned that the U.S. is losing international trust [1][5]. Group 2: India's Response - Indian Prime Minister Modi has not backed down, rejecting multiple calls from President Trump and focusing on a significant diplomatic tour in Asia, including visits to China and Japan, signaling India's strategic positioning in a complex geopolitical landscape [2][6]. - India's Ministry of External Affairs firmly rejected U.S. accusations as baseless and emphasized the commitment to protect national interests and economic security [2]. Group 3: Global Implications - The tariff's ripple effects extend beyond U.S.-India relations, as it raises doubts about U.S. economic policy stability among other Southeast Asian nations facing similar tariffs, prompting them to consider China as a more reliable partner [5][9]. - The situation may accelerate India's collaboration with Russia, China, and Gulf nations in energy and currency settlements, promoting "de-dollarization" and regional financial cooperation [9]. Group 4: Strategic Autonomy - India’s pursuit of "strategic autonomy" is evident as it seeks to avoid reliance on any single power, with Modi's participation in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit highlighting India's intent to deepen ties with regional powers [6][8]. - The Indian Foreign Minister openly questioned U.S. leadership, advocating for a fair and representative world order, aligning with India's longstanding diplomatic principles [8]. Group 5: Conclusion - The U.S.'s abrupt tariff increase is not only a trade blunder but also a strategic misstep that could lead to a loss of allies and a reconfiguration of global power dynamics, with India seeking greater independence and China potentially benefiting from the situation [10].

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that most of the global tariff policies implemented by President Trump are illegal, stating that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not grant the president the authority to impose these tariffs [2][4]. Group 1: Court Ruling - The Federal Circuit Court upheld a previous lower court ruling with a 7-4 vote, indicating that the law Trump cited does not authorize him to impose most tariffs [4]. - The court's decision allows the tariffs to remain in effect until October 14, giving the Trump administration time to appeal to the Supreme Court [5]. Group 2: Implications for Trade Policy - The ruling is seen as a significant blow to Trump's aggressive trade policies, as it challenges the legality of tariffs imposed without congressional approval [6]. - Trump criticized the court's decision on social media, asserting that all tariffs remain effective and warning of disastrous consequences if they are removed [3][6].