作者： root

SCOTUS Live: US Supreme Court rules against Trump’s tariffs

2026-02-20T15:01:37.449Z / Reuters

LIVE

Last updated 4 mins ago

SCOTUS Live: US Supreme Court rules against Trump’s tariffs

By Kylie MacLellan, Christina Anagnostopoulos, Natasa Bansagi and Vanessa Balintec

节点运行失败

FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., January 20, 2026. REUTERS/Nathan Howard [License this content on Reuters Connect, opens new tab]

Summary

What’s happening?

• US Supreme Court rules against President Donald Trump’s tariffs
• The White House has not yet commented
• Trump hit nearly every foreign trading partner with tariffs
• Lower courts had also ruled Trump exceeded his authority
• Trump has said tariffs have made the US stronger financially
• Trouble viewing video? Content in posts depends on your cookie settings

22 minutes ago

15:10 UTC

Pinned

By

Ben Welsh

Tariffs at issue are ‘clearly lawful,’ Kavanaugh writes

4 minutes ago

15:28 UTC

By

John Kruzel

FILE PHOTO: Kavanaugh in Washington, D.C., March 12, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis

In a written dissent, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that IEEPA’s text, as well as history and prior Supreme Court rulings, supported the Trump administration’s position.

“Like quotas and embargoes, tariffs are a traditional and common tool to regulate importation,” wrote Kavanaugh, whose dissenting opinion was joined by fellow conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy,” Kavanaugh added.

“But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful. I respectfully dissent.”

Reaction

‘A victory for every working family who watched their grocery bills climb’

6 minutes ago

15:25 UTC

By

Andrea Shalal

Melissa Morales, founder and president of Somos Votantes, a Latino-led civic engagement group, called the ruling a victory for families hit hard by higher prices caused by the tariffs.

“Trump tried to manufacture an emergency to justify picking the pockets of hardworking families, and the highest court in the land said no. This is a victory for every working family who watched their grocery bills climb, their car payments spike, and their paychecks fall short because of one man’s reckless economic agenda,” Morales said in a statement.

Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority in the U.S., accounting for about a fifth of the population. Trump received 48% of the Hispanic vote in 2024 – more than any Republican presidential candidate in history – up from the 36% share he garnered in 2020, according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

But a November survey of more than 5,000 Latino voters by Pew showed Trump is down 12 percentage points among those who backed him in 2024.

What to know about the IEEPA

9 minutes ago

15:23 UTC

By

Will Dunham

To impose the tariffs at issue in the case,Trump invoked a 1977 law passed by Congress that gives a president extra powers in the event of a national emergency.

Trump was the first president to invoke this statute to impose tariffs. In the past, it has often been used to apply punitive economic sanctions to adversaries.

Known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, the law gives a president broad authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions when a national emergency is declared.

Trump deemed the U.S. trade deficit a national emergency. The United States has run trade deficits every year since 1975.

Trump also cited U.S. overdoses of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl as a national emergency.

What are Trump’s options now?

12 minutes ago

15:20 UTC

By

Andrew Chung

FILE PHOTO: Trump at the White House in Washington, D.C., April 2, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

After the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case in November, Trump said he would consider alternatives if it ruled against him on tariffs, telling reporters that “we’ll have to develop a ‘game two’ plan.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and other administration officials said the United States would invoke other legal justifications to retain as many of Trump’s tariffs as possible.

Among others, these include a statutory provision that permits tariffs on imported goods that threaten U.S. national security and another that allows retaliatory actions including tariffs against trading partners that the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative determines have used unfair trade practices against American exporters.

Trump ‘must point to clear congressional authorization,’ Roberts writes

16 minutes ago

15:16 UTC

By

John Kruzel

FILE PHOTO: Roberts in Washington, D.C., March 04, 2025, Win McNamee/Pool via REUTERS

The justices’ ruling was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Roberts, citing a prior Supreme Court ruling, wrote that “the president must ‘point to clear congressional authorization’ to justify his extraordinary assertion of the power to impose tariffs,” adding: “He cannot.”

He wrote that if Congress had intended IEEPA to bestow on the president “the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly — as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”

“The power to ‘regulate . . . importation’ does not fill that void,” Roberts wrote, quoting the statute’s text that Trump claimed had justified his sweeping tariffs.

Recap: How the tariffs case got to the Supreme Court

20 minutes ago

15:12 UTC

By

Will Dunham

FILE PHOTO: A protester holds a sign outside the Supreme Court in Washington, November 5, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard

The litigation at the Supreme Court consisted of three separate lawsuits, which were consolidated for purposes of oral arguments.

One of the challenges was brought by a family-owned toy company, Learning Resources, which has about 500 employees.

Another was brought by the Liberty Justice Center, a public interest law firm, on behalf of a group of small businesses including a wine distributor called V.O.S. Selections.

The third case was filed by 12 U.S. states: Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York,Oregon and Vermont.

The case reached the Supreme Court after lower courts ruled that Trump had exceeded his authority in imposing the tariffs under a law meant for use only in national emergencies.

The Trump administration appealed to the top U.S. judicial body after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and Washington-based U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras ruled against him.

What we know about the ruling

22 minutes ago

15:10 UTC

By

Andrew Chung

The Supreme Court justices, in a 6-3 ruling, upheld a lower court’s decision that the Republican president’s use of this 1977 law exceeded his authority.

The three justices who ruled for Trump’s tariffs were Brett Kavanaugh, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

The Supreme Court reached its conclusion in a legal challenge by businesses affected by the tariffs and 12 U.S. states, most of them Democratic-governed, against Trump’s unprecedented use of this law to unilaterally impose the import taxes.

How much money is at stake?

24 minutes ago

15:08 UTC

By

David Lawder

Trump’s administration has not provided tariffs collection data since December 14.

But Penn-Wharton Budget Model economists estimated on Friday that the amount collected in Trump’s tariffs based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act stood at more than $175 billion.

That amount likely would need to be refunded with a Supreme Court ruling against the IEEPA-based tariffs.

Reaction

The White House has no immediate comment on the ruling

25 minutes ago

15:07 UTC

By

Andrea Shalal

Reaction

US stock indexes rise after ruling

27 minutes ago

15:05 UTC

At 10:02 a.m. ET:

• The Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 207.03 points, or 0.42%, to 49,602.19
• The S&P 500 gained 33.44 points, or 0.52%, to 6,895.33
• The Nasdaq Composite gained 153.93 points, or 0.68%, to 22,836.66

What was Trump’s legal reason for imposing tariffs?

28 minutes ago

15:04 UTC

FILE PHOTO: Trump delivers remarks on tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House in Washington, D.C., April 2, 2025. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

During arguments in the case, conservative and liberal justices appeared to cast doubt on the legality of the tariffs, which Trump imposed by invoking a 1977 law meant for use during national emergencies.

Trump’s administration was appealing rulings by lower courts that he overstepped his authority.

Trump invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on goods imported from individual countries – nearly every foreign trading partner – to address what he called a national emergency related to U.S. trade deficits.

He invoked the same law to impose tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico, citing the trafficking of the often-abused painkiller fentanyl and illicit drugs into the United States as a national emergency.

Breaking

The Supreme Court rules against Trump’s tariffs enacted under a federal law meant for national emergencies

30 minutes ago

15:02 UTC

Breaking

The Supreme Court has ruled on Trump’s tariffs

31 minutes ago

15:01 UTC

The U.S. Supreme Court has just issued its much-anticipated ruling on the legality of President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

The case marks a major test of presidential powers and has far reaching implication for the world economy.

The ruling has just been published and our reporters are combing through the details.

Stay with us and we’ll bring you everything you need to know, as well as reaction and analysis.

31 minutes ago

15:01 UTC

To respect your privacy, some content on this site may not be visible due to your current cookie preference settings. Content provided through social media plugins and other services may set non-essential cookies, advertising and other tracking technologies. To enable all content, you may need to update your cookie preferences. You can manage your cookie preference settings by clicking on the ‘Manage cookies’ link located in the page footer on desktop or ‘menu’ > ‘support & legal’ > ‘manage personal data’ on the app.

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

经典歌曲配流行元素 春到河畔歌台之夜撞出新火花

发布时间：2026年2月20日 23:24 / 来源：联合早报

资深歌台艺人搭配新生代歌手，经典老歌穿插流行音乐，“老少配”的编排在春到河畔歌台之夜撞出新火花。

星期五（2月20日）大年初四傍晚，天空放晴，吸引不少公众到春到河畔欣赏农历新年灯饰。滨海湾花园绿坪（The Meadow）舞台前的约1000个座位也座无虚席，观赏近20名歌台艺人的落力演出。

艺人为观众带来一首首耳熟能详的好歌，观众也跟着音乐拍手，挥动荧光棒等。

住在马来西亚新山的罗振杰（36岁，工程师）一家五口星期五特地开车到新加坡，游览春到河畔，感受新年气息。他说，上一次到访春到河畔已是十多年前的事，记忆已有些模糊。

“今年再次到访，觉得一切很新鲜。家人都喜欢财神爷的灯饰，在那里拍了很多照片。星期五也碰上歌台之夜，父母挺喜欢的，我们会听完再回新山。”

社会及家庭发展部兼内政部政务部长吴培铭和义顺集选区议员李蕙莹，星期五也受邀与观众一同观赏演出。

吴培铭致辞时祝贺公众马年身体健康，心想事成，一帆风顺，马到功成。李蕙莹也祝愿公众四季平安，百事吉祥，千事顺心，万事如意。

春到河畔2026歌台之夜节目策划陈志伟接受《联合早报》访问时说，他们在今年的节目编排和舞台呈现下了不少功夫，希望在保留歌台传统韵味的基础上，加入更多新鲜感和变化，让整场节目的情绪起伏、音乐层次和节奏铺排更丰富、更有看头，让观众感受到歌台一直在成长进步。

他指出，除了保留大家熟悉和喜欢的传统贺岁歌、经典福建歌和华语金曲，今年的节目也加入了比较年轻化、有时代感的歌曲，希望不同年龄层的观众来到现场，都能找到属于自己的共鸣。艺人阵容方面，他们也特别加强跨世代的合作安排，让资深歌台艺人和新生代歌手互相激荡，同时也尝试让不同歌路、不同风格的艺人组合演出，希望在这种“混搭”当中碰撞出新的火花，让舞台更有张力、更有惊喜。

陈志伟说：“加入这些新元素，并不是要改变歌台，而是希望提升整体观赏体验，让年轻一代更容易接触、理解歌台文化，同时也让老观众看到，歌台依然保有它的根，也拥有继续走下去的生命力。”

公众刘敏莉（40岁，教师）和丈夫星期五带着两名孩子和帮佣到春到河畔。她说：“这是我们每年的传统。春到河畔的灯饰很漂亮，我们来之前也会稍微打扮一番，今年就穿了亲子装。在这里拍的每张照片都是日后的美好回忆。”

另一名公众谢伽穗（40岁，项目经理）也趁着初四好天气，和家人到春到河畔。她说：“歌台艺人在台上表演，儿子也听得相当投入。要是天气好，我们可能星期天会再来，欣赏新谣歌曲。”

春到河畔将举行至2月24日，歌台之夜星期六（21日）再唱一晚，星期天（22日）是新谣之夜，星期一（23日）是S-Pop之夜，星期二（24日）则是和谐之夜。

春到河畔由新加坡宗乡会馆联合总会、新加坡中华总商会、新报业媒体华文媒体集团、新加坡旅游局及人民协会联合主办。

《早年味》春节特辑。想知道更多马年生肖运势、新年贺词怎么说、新年捞鱼生吉祥话有哪些、年货市场该怎么逛等，尽在《联合早报》。

Trump administration rule could pause work permits for asylum applicants for ‘many years’

By Ted Hesson

February 20, 2026 3:36 PM UTC Updated 13 mins ago

节点运行失败

Asylum-seeking migrants line up near the border while waiting to be transported by the U.S. Border Patrol after crossing the border from Mexico into the U.S. in Jacumba Hot Springs, California, U.S. April 29, 2024. REUTERS/Go Nakamura Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) – Work permits for asylum applicants could be paused for ‘many years’ under a proposed rule published by U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday, in what would be one of the most sweeping changes to asylum-seeker employment authorization in decades.

The proposed rule, issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, seeks to reduce incentives for migrants to file asylum applications to gain legal work authorization and aims to lower the processing workload to increase security checks.

The Reuters Inside Track newsletter is your essential guide to the biggest events in global sport. Sign up here.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

Report Ad节点运行失败

The proposed change – which will likely face legal challenges – is part of a broader Trump administration effort to reduce both legal and illegal immigration. Trump, a Republican, returned to office in 2025 after a campaign that widely portrayed immigrants and asylum seekers as criminals and economic drains on U.S. communities despite evidence contradicting those claims.

The new DHS proposal would pause processing of work permits for all new asylum applicants until average processing times for certain asylum applications reach 180 days or lower. Based on current wait times, DHS estimated it could take between 14 to 173 years to reach the level to resume the processing, but stressed that other factors could shorten the timeline.

Advertisement · Scroll to continue

The Trump administration also proposed creating more restrictive eligibility criteria for asylum-based work permits, arguing that a work permit

下午察：中国“超级智库”的陨落

发布/2026年2月20日 23:38

从有中国“超级智库”之称的中国国际经济交流中心，主管单位今年1月由中国国家发改委变为图中的中国社科院。 （中国社科院官网）

媒体披露，有中国“超级智库”之称的中国国际经济交流中心（简称国经中心），主管单位已由中国国家发展和改革委员会，变更为官方智库中国社会科学院。

国经中心原理事长毕井泉，早在去年5月已因涉嫌严重违纪违法被查，12月被开除党籍和公职并移送司法机关起诉。毕井泉曾任中国国务院副秘书长、国家食品药品监督管理总局局长，2018年8月因长春长生疫苗案引咎辞职，2020年“复出”出任全国政协经济委员会副主任、国经中心常务副理事长，2024年任国经中心理事长。

香港《星岛日报》评论认为，国经中心被划归中科院，标志着这家“超级智库”的式微；香港《南华早报》更问道：中国智库由卸任明星官员主导的黄金时代是否已经结束？

立即订阅《联合早报》，了解中国时政动态，把握大中华区经济发展脉搏，解锁地区热点评析。

兀兰关卡交通执法行动 59名驾驶者因触犯交通条例被捉

发布/2026年2月20日 23:55

移民与关卡局和交通警察近期展开五天交通执法行动，共有59名驾驶者因犯下交通相关罪行或涉及危险驾驶行为而被捉。

《联合早报》早前报道，移民局和交通警察将从2月13日至17日，在兀兰关卡展开加强版交通执法行动，以遏制和侦测超速、插队等违规行为。

根据有关当局星期五（2月20日）发布的文告，共有59名驾驶者因犯下交通相关罪行或涉及危险驾驶行为被捉。

这些驾驶者被发现犯下的交通违规行为，包括逆向行驶、越过双白线，以及将车辆停放于可能引发危险、造成阻碍或带来不便的位置。有部分驾驶者也被发现违规插队。

另外，有48辆车被指示掉头并需要重新排队，也有31辆车事后交由交警作进一步处理。共有11辆外国注册车子因越过双白线及插队等违规行为，被禁止入境新加坡。

当局强调，严正对待违反交通规则并危及其他驾驶者安全的旅客，并将毫不犹豫地对在关卡触犯条例或不遵守官员指示的旅客采取严厉行动。

当局呼吁所有旅客保持耐心和理解，配合执勤人员，遵守交通规则并保持车道纪律，共同打造更安全、更愉快的陆路关卡通关体验。

伊朗：两三天内向美国提呈核协议草案 | 联合早报

发布/2026年2月20日 20:01

美军林肯号航母已在中东地区就位。1月30日摄于阿拉伯海域的照片显示，隶属于美军第41攻击战斗机中队的F/A-18F超级大黄蜂战斗机，在航母飞行甲板上实施拦阻着陆。 （林肯号（CVN-72）航母发布）

（华盛顿综合电）在美国总统特朗普为伊朗设定达成核协议的期限后，伊朗外长阿拉格奇说，德黑兰准备在未来几天内向美国提交其核协议草案。

根据美国MSNBC电视台星期五（2月20日）在线发布的访谈内容，阿拉格奇说：“我的下一步是向美国同行提交一份可能的协议草案。我相信在未来两三天内就能完成，经上级最终确认后，将提交给（美国特使）威特科夫。”

阿拉格奇也称，美国谈判代表并未要求德黑兰停止铀浓缩活动。这与美国官员的说法相矛盾，特朗普也曾多次表示，绝不能允许伊朗以任何方式进行铀浓缩。

特朗普周四（19日）在总统专机空军一号上，要求伊朗“最多10到15天”达成核协议，并暗示如果伊朗不这样做，美国将对伊朗发动攻击。

在这同时，美国军方已在中东安排20多年来最大规模的军事部署，远超此前为捉拿委内瑞拉总统马杜罗所调动的军力。

追踪网站FlightRadar24数据显示，美军运输机、空中加油机、侦察机和无人机正密集飞往卡塔尔、约旦、希腊克里特岛和西班牙的军事基地，其中包括KC-46和KC-135空中加油机，以及用于运输部队和重型装备的C-130J运输机。

这次军事部署规模堪称2003年美国入侵伊拉克前集结兵力以来最大。虽然美军不太可能向伊朗派遣地面部队，但这番军力调动说明特朗普在为自己预留空间，准备与以色列合作开展持续多日的军事行动。

《华尔街日报》报道指出，美国海军目前已在中东地区部署13艘舰艇，支援潜在伊朗行动。林肯号航母和九艘驱逐舰已经就位，能够击落伊朗发射的弹道导弹，并向伊朗目标发射“战斧”巡航导弹。美军福特级核动力航母，也在汇合路上。

华盛顿近东政策研究所军事研究主任艾森斯塔特指出，两艘航母的部署为美国提供更多选择，可以在必要时开展更持久的行动。

伊朗也在为可能的袭击做准备。美国有线电视新闻网（CNN）报道，伊朗近几个月维修了关键导弹设施，以及在去年6月伊以12天空战期间严重受损的空军基地，同时将战争老将调任至国家安全机构，并在波斯湾开展海上军事演习。当局也加大对异议人士的镇压力度。

《华尔街日报》另外报道称，特朗普考虑对伊朗实施初步有限的军事打击，迫使后者接受核计划要求。此举旨在向德黑兰施压，但不会升级为可能引发大规模报复的全面攻击。

若获授权，美军首轮打击可能在数日内实施，目标锁定伊朗若干军事或政府设施。

伊朗常驻联合国代表伊拉瓦尼致函联合国秘书长古特雷斯和安全理事会主席，强调若美国发动攻击，美军基地、设施和资产都会成为“合法打击目标”。

以色列总理内坦亚胡则再次恫言，如果伊朗因遭到美国军事打击而攻击以色列，会面临以方难以想象的报复。

受访学者：美印协议框架条款对印度不利 但措辞具弹性

发布/2026年2月20日 20:18

学者指出，若未来五年大手笔购买5000亿美元的美国产品，将导致印度的贸易赤字大幅扩大，但考虑到美国大型科企如苹果和谷歌等在印度大量投资，印度本身也在大力发展AI数据中心，从美国购买的高端晶片和处理器等科技产品，将在印度的长期发展中扮演关键角色。 （路透社）

印度争取与美国于4月落实临时贸易协议，将美国对印度商品课征的对等关税调降至18%，受访印度学者认为，当中一些条款对印度而言极难落实，在经济和外交上也有潜在不利影响，不过协议框架的措辞具弹性，若延续至正式协议，可在政策执行面上为印度提供灵活应对的空间。

印度工商部长戈雅星期五（2月20日）说，美印的临时贸易协议有望在4月生效。根据两国2月6日公布的协议框架，美国承诺将印度商品关税从25%降至18%，印度则承诺撤销或降低美国工业品和一系列食品和农产品关税，并在五年内向美国购买高达5000亿美元（约6344亿新元）的能源、飞机与部件、贵金属、科技品和煤炭等产品。此外，印度也将与美国合作管制敏感科技出口，以应对第三国的非市场政策，这显然针对中国。

受访学者指出，印度目前每年进口的美国商品总额不到500亿美元，若要在五年内购足5000亿美元，相当于平均一年须提高一倍以上，是极大增幅。

印度尼赫鲁大学经济学退休教授塔尔（Biswajit Dhar）接受《联合早报》访问时说，印度本身制定了雄心勃勃的制造业蓝图，此前已担忧从中国进口太多组件会影响到自身发展，“如果美国再推大量产品过来，难免对印度自身的发展构成巨大压力”。

新加坡国立大学南亚研究中心高级研究员帕里特（Amitendu Palit）受访时解析，印度从美国进口的产品多数不会取代现有其他进口，意味着贸易赤字将进一步扩大。但长远来看，从美国进口的高端晶片和处理器等主要用于战略领域，如人工智能（AI）驱动服务，叠加在美国科技公司对印度的大量投资，以及印度大力发展AI数据中心的策略，美国商品其实对印度的发展发挥关键作用。

印度智库全球贸易研究计划学者斯里瓦斯塔瓦（Ajay Srivastava）则向本报点出，根据协议框架文本，印度是“有意”向美国购买，并非“承诺”。“因此，如果印度认为不可行，也可能不买，但我们还须观察最终协议的文本。”

塔尔也说，两国谈判代表使用了相对模糊的字眼，先跨过眼前难关，“印度到时候可说，我们很愿意帮特朗普减少美国对印度的贸易逆差，会买更多，但也得看能吸纳多少，把问题推到执行面，再看未来一年的情况发展”。

与美国交易 印度须在中美间小心平衡

对于剑指中国的敏感科技出口管制，以及应对中国大量补贴工业及倾销产品等非市场行为，塔尔坦言，自莫迪去年底寻求与北京改善双边关系后，美国如今的要求为美中印的互动带来了微妙的转捩点。

他说，印度实际上难以摆脱对中国进口的依赖，因此要如何与美国合作应付中国，最终协议的文字非常重要，“我相信字眼上也会模糊，把问题推到执行层面”。

帕里特也说：“这项条款可能对印度形成挑战，因为北京已向贸易伙伴表明，跟美国达成的任何协议都不应当影响与中国的贸易关系，因此各国都必须小心在中美之间平衡。”

他以关键矿产为例进一步解析，印度此前也受中国大幅收紧稀土等物项的直接与间接出口管制影响，过去几个月才恢复常态。美国本月初召开关键矿产会议，显然是要反制中国的主导地位，印度也参加了。“虽然中印关系并不热络，但也在金砖国家和上海合作组织的框架内合作，印度须避免对中国释放错误的信息。”

美高院推翻对等关税 谈判局面须重新计算

美国最高法院周五裁定，总统特朗普援引1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）加征关税的做法是不合法的，总统必须得到国会的明确授权才能行使加税权。

美国众议院也在上周四（12日）通过法案，否决了特朗普去年对加拿大实施的关税，当中有六名共和党议员倒戈支持议案。

尽管那次表决的实际作用不大，就算再获参议院通过，也会被特朗普否决，但印度学者仍认为，这一发展反映了美国国内反对特朗普关税的声音在壮大。

塔尔在美国最高法院周五的裁决出炉之前说：“国会发出了强大政治信号，它在重新行使制定关税政策的权力。这个立场最终可能会被最高法院采用。”

斯里瓦斯塔瓦同样在最高法院裁决出炉之前说，若美国最高法院裁定对等关税不合法，除了印度，美国达成的其他所有贸易协议都会作废。印度政府将观察这一发展，至今未对美国开放关键的农产品领域。

不过他强调，这个不确定性不会影响美印谈判进度，“谈判会持续，但上述情况若发生，将影响最终结果”。

帕里特则点出，不论对等关税被判定合法与否，印度谈判的前提都是美国不会放弃关税政策，也有其他法律途径可重新征收关税。届时，印度面对的新局面是必须重新计算，哪些领域和哪些产品将引来哪些关税取代对等关税。

印度政府或考虑到俄乌局势可能改变

特朗普2月6日也另外签署了行政令，基于印度承诺停止直接或间接向俄罗斯购买石油，并购买美国的能源产品，因此撤销对印度加征的25%关税，但他也警告印度若违反承诺，可重新加征25%关税。

对此，斯里瓦斯塔瓦指出，美国对俄石油的制裁覆盖俄罗斯石油公司（Rosneft）和卢克石油公司（Lukoil）两大油企，约占俄石油总产量的57%，但印度和其他国家是否仍可购买其余43%，并不清楚，印度政府至今未对此表态。

他说：“印度政府可能也考量到局势或在未来一两个月改变，除了美国最高法院的判决，俄乌战争也可能停止，又或者美俄之间达成一些共识。到时候，这些现有条款也会改变。”

Man admits trying to bribe juror at trial of ex-heavyweight boxer accused of trafficking $1 billion worth of cocaine

February 20, 2026 / 7:10 AM EST / CBS/AP

A man charged with trying to bribe a juror with up to $100,000 at the drug trafficking trial of a former heavyweight boxer pleaded guilty Thursday to obstructing justice.

Mustafa Fteja entered the plea in Brooklyn federal court, where a plea agreement with the government called for him to serve roughly five to six years in prison when he is sentenced on June 23.

He was among three men charged in November in the plot to corrupt the trial of boxer Goran Gogic.

Gogic’s trial, originally set to begin in November, has not yet taken place. He has pleaded not guilty to violating and conspiring to violate the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act. If convicted, he faces a sentence of 10 years to life in prison.

Fteja has remained free on $150,000 bail since his arrest. According to court records, Fteja already knew a juror described in court papers as “John Doe #1” when he called him multiple times on his cellphone to get him to meet him on Staten Island.

Over the span of two meetings over three days, Fteja told the juror that associates in the Bronx were willing to pay him between $50,000 and $100,000 to return a not guilty verdict, according to charging documents.

Investigators said evidence included several recorded conversations of the defendants planning the bribery plot as they spoke in Albanian and English.

Gogic, who is from Montenegro, was arrested in 2022 while trying to board a flight at Miami International Airport.

The charges stem from the three seizures of cocaine, most notably 19.8 tons from a cargo ship while it was docked at Philadelphia’s Packer Avenue Marine Terminal in 2019.

Heavily armed officers stand guard as law enforcement officials present a part of the evidence from a cocaine bust on the MSC Gayane in the port of Philadelphia, during a press conference at U.S. Customs House in Philadelphia, on June 21, 2019. Bastiaan Slabbers/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Prosecutors allege that Gogic and others used “meticulous planning” to transport more than $1 billion worth of cocaine to Europe from Colombia through U.S. ports, using commercial cargo ships. Gogic is accused of orchestrating the operation by coordinating with crew members, Colombian traffickers and European dockworkers.

According to online boxing records, the 6 foot 5 inch, 250-pound Gogic competed from 2001 to 2012, winning 21 fights and losing four.

爱泼斯坦受害者索赔案 遗产管理人同意支付3500万美元

发布/2026年2月20日 20:18

美国司法部于2025年12月19日发布的爱泼斯坦照片。 （路透社）

根据法庭文件，美国性犯罪者爱泼斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）的遗产管理人已同意支付最高3500万美元，作为就数十名潜在受害者的索赔案的和解金。

和解协议必须经纽约联邦法官批准才能最终生效。根据星期四（2月19日）提交的法庭文件，和解涉及的受害者声称，他们在1995年1月1日至2019年8月10日期间（爱泼斯坦在狱中去世之日）遭到他的性侵犯、虐待或人口贩卖。

如果符合条件的受害者人数达到或超过40人，爱泼斯坦的遗产管理人将支付3500万美元（4436.60万新元）；如果人数少于40人，则支付2500万美元（3169万新元）。

和解协议的共同执行人是爱泼斯坦的前律师英迪克（Darren Indyke）和他的前会计师理卡恩（Richard Kahn）。

两人均否认与已定罪的性犯罪者爱泼斯坦有任何不正当联系，他们也未被指控犯有任何性虐待罪行或目睹性虐待。

如果和解协议获得确认，将终结于2024年提起的最初诉讼。在诉讼中，这两名顾问被指控通过其法律和商业服务为爱泼斯坦的非法活动提供便利。

法新社引述星期四在曼哈顿联邦法院提交的法庭文件说，和解协议并不意味着共同执行人承认过错，也不意味着他们需要就受害者进一步的法律诉讼承担责任。

代表受害者集体诉讼的律师事务所博弗莱克斯纳律师事务所（Boies Schiller Flexner LLP）尚未就参与诉讼的人数作出回应。

彭博新闻星期四晚间报道，事务所确信至少有40名受害者尚未与爱泼斯坦的遗产管理人达成和解。

代表遗产管理人的律师韦纳（Daniel H. Weiner）尚未对此事作出回应。

爱泼斯坦建立了一个遍布全球的权势人物网络，与大批美欧政商名流交往密切，其中包括政界要人、商界高管、学者和名人，其中许多人因与他交往而名誉受损。爱泼斯坦因涉嫌性犯罪被捕后，于2019年8月死于狱中，判定为“自杀”。2025年12月，在巨大压力下，美国司法部开始陆续公布涉案文件，今年1月公布的最新一批材料包括300多万页文件、2000多段视频和18万张图片。

美国最高法院裁决特朗普关税政策违宪 1750亿美元税款或须退还 | 联合早报

（华盛顿综合电）美国最高法院星期五（2月20日）以六比三的投票结果，裁定总统特朗普动用紧急权力法单方面对世界各国加征关税，超越了总统职权，已构成违宪。这项裁决不仅重创特朗普执政的核心经济武器，更可能引发高达1750亿美元（约2217亿新元）的税款退还潮。

由首席大法官罗伯茨撰写的多数判决书指出，特朗普援引1977年《国际紧急经济权力法》（IEEPA）加征关税的做法是不合法的。罗伯茨指出，总统必须得到国会的明确授权才能行使加税权，而宪法规定这项权力属于国会，而非白宫。

自去年重返白宫以来，特朗普将关税作为外交和经济谈判的“大棒”，甚至将去年4月2日宣布对贸易伙伴加征对等关税当天定为“解放日”（Liberation Day）。他还以应对毒品贩运和非法移民为由，对中国、加拿大和墨西哥实施高额惩罚性关税。

宾夕法尼亚大学沃顿商学院预算模型（Penn-Wharton Budget Model）的经济师估计，美国政府到目前为止已征收超过1750亿美元的税款。最高法院定调后，政府可能须将这笔巨款退还给受影响的商家。

对于最高法院的阻截，特朗普政府立场强硬。财政部长贝森特等官员表明，政府将寻找其他法律依据来保留尽可能多的关税，例如动用涉及国家安全威胁或针对贸易不公平行为的报复性条款。

特朗普早前也曾向媒体放话，若法律战失利，他将启动“第二套方案”（game two plan）。然而，法律专家指出，其他法律手段在灵活性和威慑力上均远逊于IEEPA。

这一裁决对全球贸易格局影响深远。过去一年，多国领导人纷纷赶往华盛顿，试图通过承诺数百、数千亿美元的投资来换取免税或减税。如今，总统失去了“瞬间”加征关税的威慑力，未来美国在与伙伴的贸易谈判中，立场或将不再如以往般强硬。

欧盟发言人星期五说，欧盟正仔细研究美国最高法院的裁决，并与特朗普政府保持密切联系，以明确美国在判决后的具体后续步骤。“大西洋两岸的企业都依赖贸易关系的稳定性和可预测性。因此，我们将继续倡导低关税，并推动进一步削减关税。”

英国政府发言人发表声明说，英国目前享有美国给予的全球最低对等关税税率，无论面对何种情况，预计英国与美国的特殊贸易地位将得以延续。“我们将与（美国）政府合作，了解这项裁决将如何影响英国及全球其他地区所面对的关税。”