被剥夺了关税这把大棒，特朗普此行访华的意义究竟何在？ 2023年2月20日，美国最高法院作出了最终裁决，认为特朗普去年发起的全球范围内加征关税的行为是违法且违宪的。这个裁决让外界开始质疑，特朗普是 否还具备威胁世界的能力。毕竟，曾经作为他对抗各国的最强武器，关税大棒如今被废除，特朗普就像一只被拔了牙的老虎，失去了威慑力。更为讽刺的 是，在最高法院作出这一裁决的同一天，白宫宣布，特朗普计划在3月31日至4月2日访问中国。特朗普期待已久的中国之行，不仅是他个人的战略考虑，也 涉及到对美国未来利益的深远布局。然而，问题来了：特朗普当初挥舞着关税大棒走进中国的家门，如今却成了手无寸铁的使者。失去了这一重要武器，中 国还会继续给他面子吗？ 其次，特朗普的中国之行，可能会使中美两国关系回到2025年之前的轨道。自拜登政府上台以来，美国对华政策采取了接触与遏制并行的方式。表面上看， 拜登政府并没有与中国发生直接冲突，而是通过与盟友结盟，间接压缩中国的战略空间。特朗普是否会在没有关税大棒的情况下，效仿拜登的做法，通过软 实力的方式重新塑造对华政策？从目前的局势来看，这完全有可能。毕竟，特朗普曾经认为关税是与中国博弈的决定性工 ...

美国最高法院六比三的裁决，直接把特朗普用《国际紧急经济权力法》加征全球关税的路子给堵死了。 这项判决说得很清楚：总统没国会点头，不能自己拿这个法律当借口收税。 特朗普去年重新坐回白宫之后，就一直拿关税当武器使，动不动就对中国、加拿大、墨西哥课重税，理由是打击毒品走私和非法移民。 他甚至把某一天定成"解放日"，专门用来宣布对贸易伙伴征收对等关税。 这种做法早就惹得不少国家和企业不满，觉得他破坏了国际贸易的基本秩序。 现在法院一锤定音，说他越权了，宪法不认这个账。 特朗普的反应一点不温和，他在白宫临时召开发布会，当场骂投反对票的大法官"非常不爱国"。 连他自己亲手提名的两位保守派大法官，他也照批不误。 更进一步，他暗示这些法官被外国势力和民主党人操控，完全不提司法独立这回事。 这种把个人好恶凌驾于制度之上的态度，让很多人担心美国政治根基正在被侵蚀。 但特朗普根本没打算停手，反而立刻转向另一个法律工具——1974年《贸易法》第122条。 他马上签了行政令，要对所有贸易伙伴统一加征10%的关税，而且命令"立即生效"。 这个动作快得让人措手不及，明显是在跟最高法院对着干。 他就是要告诉全世界：就算法院说我违法，我照样有 ...

当地时间2月22日，美国财政部长斯科特·贝森特在接受美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）采访时，被主持人 达娜·巴什追问着一个看似直接、却难以直接回答的问题：既然最高法院已裁定特朗普政府依据《国际 紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）征收的大范围"紧急关税"缺乏授权，那么此前收上来的巨额关税款，退不 退、怎么退？ 巧合的是，判决出炉后的这两天，越来越多企业和行业组织迅速转向"第二战场"，即通过诉讼与程序性 申报，抢在诉讼队伍最前面要求退款。 虽然最高法院把"能不能征"这件事说清了，但对"怎么还钱"却并未明示，这也使得该问题成了目前华盛 顿和华尔街都最敏感也最关注的焦点。 贝森特闪烁其词"打太极" 贝森特当天在CNN接受采访时强调两点：第一，最高法院对总统依据IEEPA征收关税的权力做了"非常 狭义"的解读，但并没有涉及退款问题；第二，案件已发回下级法院，因此退款"不是政府决定，而是由 下级法院决定"。 如果只看字面，这两句话都有一定真实性，但若看整体效果，却更像是一场有技巧的 责任转移。 首先看贝森特"说对"的部分。贝森特反复强调，最高法院这次并没有就"退款怎么操作"给出具体方案， 退款问题将更多落到下级法院与执行部门的后 ...

原标题：《美大法官"大战"总统，6：3裁定特朗普关税违法：1.4万亿美元收入"落空"，或撕开美国财政千亿黑洞！特朗普闪电反击》 每经记者|兰素英 宋欣悦 岳楚鹏 每经编辑|何小桃 王嘉琦 杜波 当地时间2月20日，美国最高法院以6：3裁定特朗普政府依据《国际紧急经济权力法》实施的大规模关税违法。 这场司法终槌直接让美国未来十年超1.4万亿美元关税预期收入"落空"，还留下1750亿美元的退税悬案。千亿财政窟窿亟待填补，美债收益率应声上涨。 面对裁决，特朗普政府紧急唤醒沉睡52年的法律条款，宣布开征10%的"全球进口关税"。 当地时间2026年2月20日，美国最高法院以6：3的投票结果作出重磅裁决：特朗普政府依据《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）实施的大规模关税措施违 法。 这一纸裁决，不仅瞬间叫停了多项加征关税，让未来十年超1.4万亿美元的联邦财政预期收入化为泡影，更直接撕开了一个巨大的财政"黑洞"——高达 1750亿美元的潜在退税悬案正步步紧逼。 面对这突如其来的巨额资金窟窿，有分析警告称，紧迫的短期流动性风险将迫使美国财政部发行更多债券来填补缺口，这恐将直接推高美债收益率。 而与此同时，白宫已紧急重启沉睡 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is set to announce decisions on key tariff policies from the Trump administration, which could significantly impact the legal standing of these tariffs and the associated costs for importers [1][2]. Group 1: Supreme Court Decisions - The Supreme Court will release opinions on February 20, 24, and 25, with the potential to overturn tariffs that currently cost importers over $16 billion monthly [1]. - The case under review involves the legality of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), with estimates suggesting total tariffs could exceed $170 billion by February 20 [1]. - Justices have expressed skepticism regarding the president's unilateral authority to impose tariffs, indicating a possible challenge to Trump's actions [1][6]. Group 2: Congressional Challenges - The House of Representatives has passed legislation to terminate certain tariffs on Canadian imports, marking a significant political challenge to Trump's tariff policies [2]. - Six Republican representatives joined Democrats in supporting the bill, highlighting a weakening grip of Trump on the party as midterm elections approach [2]. - Senate Republican leaders expect a similar vote in the Senate, although Trump is likely to veto any legislation aimed at repealing his tariffs [2]. Group 3: Political Implications - Trump has warned Republican lawmakers that opposing his tariff policies could lead to severe political consequences in upcoming elections [3]. - The recent House vote represents a setback for House Speaker Mike Johnson, a key ally of Trump, as bipartisan support for the bill indicates growing discontent with Trump's economic agenda [3]. - The Democratic Party has capitalized on the situation, criticizing Republican lawmakers for supporting policies that increase living costs for voters [2][3]. Group 4: Economic Impact - The tariffs in question are estimated to impose over $16 billion in monthly costs on importers, which could have significant repercussions for the overall economy [1][6]. - The Supreme Court's decision on these tariffs will serve as a critical statement on presidential power and could influence future trade policies [6].

智通财经APP获悉，根据美国财政部周三披露的数据，1月份联邦政府支出比收入高出约300亿美元，明 显低于2025年1月的820亿美元赤字。与此同时，去年12月、11月和10月的财政缺口也较上年同期分别收 窄11%、6%和29%。上述数据均已剔除因节假日或周末导致的收付时间差异影响。 美国财政部最新数据显示，在关税收入增加以及教育、环保等领域支出大幅削减的共同作用下，美国联 邦政府财政收支缺口已连续第四个月收窄。 在具体项目上，多项联邦机构预算出现明显压缩。以消费者金融保护局为例，该机构负责打击非法催债 等侵害消费者权益的行为。在特朗普政府执政下，该机构本财年前四个月的总支出降至1.6亿美元，而 2025财年同期高达22.8亿美元，主要源于人员规模和执法活动的缩减。 教育领域支出也显著下降。美国财政部一名高级官员表示，由于拨付给基础和中等教育办公室的资金减 少，今年教育相关支出同比下降19%。与此同时，环保领域同样遭遇削减，环保署本财年至今的总支出 约为57.2亿美元，远低于去年同期的260亿美元。 从整体趋势看，支出增速放缓是赤字改善的重要原因。本财年自去年10月开始，截至目前，美国政府收 入同比增长约12% ...

2026.01. 15 本文字数：2022，阅读时长大约4分钟 作者 | 第一财经 冯迪凡 美国最高法院又"失约"了。 当地时间14日，美国最高法院仍未就特朗普政府关税案作出裁决，也未公布下次裁决的具体日期， 但按照法院的日历，可能在下周二（1月21日）或周三（1月22日）开庭时公布结果。 受此影响，美股一些消费类股票下跌，反映市场对政策不确定性的担忧。 为何裁决迟迟不出？是否 存在特朗普政府和司法系统的博弈？ 有分析师称，关税裁决越晚，对特朗普政府越有利。譬如，摩根大通表示，裁决延迟的时间越长，法 院越有可能倾向于特朗普政府。 英国杜伦大学法学院副院长、跨国法教授兼全球政策研究所联合主任杜明对第一财经记者表示，上述 分析的可能性不大，"因为法律规定留下的'扯皮'空间不大，法院可以晚出判决，判决内容可以输多 输少，但特朗普政府基本是输。" 他还对记者解释道，目前该判决没有如预期出台，"拖迟意味着内部分歧较大，但不会拖太久的。" 华尔街开始乐观 特朗普政府2025年上台后援引《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA），以不经过国会批准、直接颁布 行政令的方式出台一系列加征关税措施，所开征的关税包括所谓"对等关税"和芬 ...

Core Viewpoint - The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule on the legality of tariffs imposed by the Trump administration under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) by January 2026, creating uncertainty around Trump's economic policies and tariffs [1][5][11]. Group 1: Legal Context and Implications - The IEEPA allows the President to impose trade restrictions during a national emergency, which has been a basis for various tariffs since Trump's second term [3][4]. - The Supreme Court's expedited handling of the case suggests a decision will be made relatively soon, with expectations of a ruling by early 2026 [1][5]. - Regardless of the Supreme Court's decision, the Trump administration may utilize other legal frameworks to maintain tariffs, such as the Trade Expansion Act and the Trade Act of 1974 [6][7][8]. Group 2: Potential Legal Strategies - If the Supreme Court rules against the government, the Trump administration may resort to broader applications of the Trade Expansion Act's Section 232, which has been used for tariffs on various goods [7][9]. - The administration could also invoke Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to investigate trade practices of other countries, including Brazil [8][9]. - Other legal provisions, such as Section 122 and Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, may also be considered for imposing tariffs [10]. Group 3: Economic and Market Reactions - A ruling against the Trump administration could significantly limit its ability to use tariffs as a tool for trade negotiations, potentially leading to a need for justification for any future tariff implementations [11]. - If the government loses, it may have to refund a substantial portion of the $195 billion in tariffs collected, raising concerns about fiscal deficits and increased borrowing [11][12]. - The market has reacted to the uncertainty surrounding the Supreme Court's decision, with notable fluctuations in U.S. Treasury yields following the court's hearings [13].

Group 1 - The article discusses the fiscal dimensions of China's economic growth miracle, highlighting various academic theories that explain this phenomenon [2][3][4] - Key theories include Lin Yifu's "Comparative Advantage Strategy," Sachs and Yang Xiaokai's "Industrialization Imitation," Cai Fang's "Demographic Dividend," Zhang Wuchang's "Local Government Competition," and Qian Yingyi's "Fiscal Incentive" [2][3][4][5] - The article emphasizes the importance of understanding China's fiscal system, which shapes government behavior and influences economic development, public goods provision, and regional balance [3][4][5] Group 2 - The evolution of China's fiscal system is divided into three stages: "Unified Collection and Expenditure," "Separate Stoves for Cooking," and "Tax Sharing System" [9][10][14] - The "Unified Collection and Expenditure" stage (1950-1979) was characterized by a highly centralized fiscal management system that limited local government incentives [10][12] - The "Separate Stoves for Cooking" stage (1980-1993) allowed local governments more autonomy but led to issues such as declining central fiscal authority and market fragmentation [11][12][13] Group 3 - The "Tax Sharing System" (1994-present) significantly altered the fiscal relationship between central and local governments, increasing central fiscal revenue's share of total revenue to around 47% [14][30] - This system incentivizes local governments to develop their economies by allowing them to retain a portion of tax revenues, particularly from value-added tax and corporate income tax [24][25][30] - The article argues that the flexibility of the tax-sharing system promotes local economic growth by aligning local government incentives with economic development goals [25][35] Group 4 - The article also discusses the role of transfer payments in balancing regional disparities and stimulating economic growth, particularly in underdeveloped areas [36][41] - Transfer payments have increased significantly since 2000, with general transfer payments rising from 13.44% to 54.03% of total transfers by 2017, indicating a focus on equalizing regional financial capabilities [37][40] - The effectiveness of transfer payments in promoting economic growth is linked to their ability to enhance the development capacity of less developed regions [41][42] Group 5 - The article concludes that the fiscal system's design, particularly the tax-sharing system and transfer payments, is crucial for stimulating local government initiatives in economic development and public service provision [43][44] - It suggests that as China's economy matures, the focus should shift from merely stimulating economic growth to enhancing public service delivery and governance [44]

Core Points - The Supreme Court's debate on the legality of Trump's tariffs is seen as a "power boundary dispute" that raises fundamental questions about the U.S. political system [1] - The court's concern is not about the tariffs themselves but about the expansion of presidential power, as the Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority over taxation and tariffs [3] - If Trump wins, it could set a precedent allowing future presidents to bypass Congress by declaring "national emergencies," potentially disrupting the balance of power [3] - A loss for Trump could lead to significant financial repercussions, including refunds exceeding $100 billion for U.S. companies and potential global trade disruptions [5] - The recent local election results indicate a decline in Trump's influence, which could exacerbate internal party dissent if he loses the tariff case [5] - The ongoing situation reflects a recurring issue in the U.S. political system, where the separation of powers is being used as a tool for partisan conflict [7] - The Supreme Court's decision is anticipated to take weeks or months, but the tariff debate and its implications for Trump's political future will continue [7]