Tariffs – Earlybirds Invest

Tariffs – Earlybirds Invest https://earlybirdsinvest.com Latest Crypto News Sat, 30 Aug 2025 07:24:37 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.7 https://i0.wp.com/earlybirdsinvest.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/cropped-New-Project-2024-12-17T235703.455.png?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 Tariffs – Earlybirds Invest https://earlybirdsinvest.com 32 32 240146708 Spot BTC, ETH ETFs see outflows as inflation ticks up under Trump tariffs https://earlybirdsinvest.com/spot-btc-eth-etfs-see-outflows-as-inflation-ticks-up-under-trump-tariffs/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/spot-btc-eth-etfs-see-outflows-as-inflation-ticks-up-under-trump-tariffs/#respond Sat, 30 Aug 2025 07:24:36 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/spot-btc-eth-etfs-see-outflows-as-inflation-ticks-up-under-trump-tariffs/

Spot Bitcoin and Ether ETFs recorded outflows on Friday as the Federal Reserve released key inflation data showing price pressures are creeping higher under President Donald Trump’s trade policies.

According to SoSoValue data, Ether (ETH) ETFs saw a net outflow of $164.64 million, reversing five straight days of inflows that had added more than $1.5 billion to the asset class.

Bitcoin (BTC) ETFs also turned negative with $126.64 million in net outflows, their first daily loss since Aug. 22. Total assets under management dropped to $28.58 billion for Ethereum and $139.95 billion for Bitcoin.

Fidelity’s FBTC recorded the steepest single-day outflow at $66.2 million among Bitcoin ETFs. ARK Invest and 21Shares’ ARKB followed with a $72.07 million net withdrawal, while Grayscale’s GBTC saw $15.3 million exit. Only a few funds posted minor inflows, with BlackRock’s IBIT gaining $24.63 million and WisdomTree’s BTCW adding $2.3 million.

*Spot Bitcoin ETFs see outflows on Friday. Source: SoSoValue*

Related: 92 crypto-related ETPs in the works: ‘Floodgates to open soon’

Fed releases hotter-than-expected core inflation

The outflows coincided with the release of the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, the core Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) index, which showed a 2.9% annualized rise in July, the highest since February.

The report, which matched forecasts, came amid growing evidence that Trump’s tariff regime is adding pressure on core prices by raising import costs, according to CNBC.

Trump’s White House has imposed a baseline 10% tariff on all imports and targeted additional categories through reciprocal duties. Though energy prices helped keep broader inflation in check, services jumped 3.6% year-over-year.

Despite the uptick in inflation, the market is still pricing in the likelihood of a Federal Reserve rate cut at its next meeting, particularly if labor market data shows further signs of weakness, per the CNBC report.

Related: US ETFs now a major source of Bitcoin spot trading volume

Ether ETFs surge as corporate treasuries fuel demand

Since their launch in July 2024, Ether spot ETFs have gained steady traction, with net inflows rising 44% in August, from $9.5 billion to $13.7 billion. Analysts attribute the growth to a rebound in institutional interest following a period of underperformance relative to Bitcoin.

Corporate treasury adoption of Ether is also accelerating. Companies now hold 4.4 million ETH, valued at over $19 billion, roughly 3.7% of total supply, according to StrategicETHReserve.

“After an extended period of underperformance relative to Bitcoin and a souring investor sentiment, Ethereum has recently experienced a significant revival in the recognition of both its adoption rate and value proposition,” Sygnum chief investment officer Fabian Dori told Cointelegraph.

Magazine: Bitcoin’s long-term security budget problem: Impending crisis or FUD?

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/spot-btc-eth-etfs-see-outflows-as-inflation-ticks-up-under-trump-tariffs/feed/ 0 55846 Are Tariffs the Threat That Could End Wall Street's Winning Streak? https://earlybirdsinvest.com/are-tariffs-the-threat-that-could-end-wall-streets-winning-streak/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/are-tariffs-the-threat-that-could-end-wall-streets-winning-streak/#respond Fri, 29 Aug 2025 10:04:36 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/are-tariffs-the-threat-that-could-end-wall-streets-winning-streak/

The Trump administration made no attempt to hide its goals when it came to tariffs. As the current U.S. president ran for office, he made it very clear to U.S. voters and the world that they should expect higher tariffs. And that’s exactly what his administration has offered up in dramatic fashion. Some on Wall Street worry that the tariffs could turn the bull market into a bear. Here’s how a long-term investor should be thinking about this issue.

The tariffs are coming! The tariffs are coming!

To simplify what is a fairly complex issue, a tariff is a tax imposed on imported goods. The Trump administration has been using tariffs in an aggressive attempt to reshape global trade. This will have an impact on the economy and the stock market, but what that might be is hard to define today. Simply put, so many things are up in the air right now that nobody knows where the chips are going to fall.

A person with a shocked expression looking at a computer.

Image source: Getty Images.

That said, one concern is that higher tariffs will eventually be passed through to consumers. That would increase inflation, crimp consumption, and lead to lower earnings for corporate America. The flip side of that argument is that companies have increased prices so much in recent years that they can’t easily push higher costs onto consumers, and, thus, companies are likely to absorb the tariff hit. That would mean lower profit margins. Even here, however, Wall Street could still end up in the dumps as companies earn less and investors react to that negative news.

It seems like nothing good can come of this whole tariff thing. Except that, so far, the market hasn’t really paid much attention. The Vanguard S&P 500 ETF (VOO +0.00%) is up more than 10% so far in 2025. Yes, there was a brief market correction early in the year, but the S&P 500 index, which is what the Vanguard S&P 500 ETF tracks, seems to have shrugged that off, as it is again trading near all-time highs.

VOO Chart

VOO data by YCharts.

Don’t get too caught up in the short term

Here’s the big takeaway from the tariff kerfuffle: It is shockingly hard to predict performance on Wall Street. Some people get market turns right once, but very few have been able to time the ups and downs with any consistency. For most investors, trying to jump in and out of the market — a practice known as market timing — is a mistake.

It is far better to buy and hold for the long term, perhaps including an exchange-traded fund (ETF) like Vanguard S&P 500 ETF in the mix. Indeed, focusing on a well-diversified portfolio is key, as it will help to soften the impact of the market’s gyrations over time. Which brings the story back to the potential for a bear market. Simply put, there will be one.

That’s not a prediction; it is just a statement of fact. Eventually, for some reason, investors will go from being bullish to being bearish. That’s just what market history tells us is the norm on Wall Street. Why it happens will be the topic of debate, and eventually, some common cause will be determined. Maybe it will be tariffs. It could also be geopolitical tensions, which are very high today. Or maybe artificial intelligence (AI) won’t turn out to be as profitable as investors expect, and that will lead the market lower, given that AI enthusiasm has helped lead the market higher.

Something will eventually give way, and there will be a bear market. Then, after some period of time, a bull market will arrive. It’s just how the market works. You should spend more of your time thinking about ways to save money and how to invest wisely. Investing wisely means taking into consideration the ever-present risk of a bear market.

Keep it simple and think long term

Far too often, investors get caught up in short-term market movements. The big picture is more important, including the sometimes erratic upward march of stocks over the long term. Sticking to an investment plan is hard, but it is likely to result in better long-term performance than trying to jump in and out of the market. Which is why a simple portfolio consisting of an S&P 500 index fund and a broadly diversified bond fund or ETF — say, in a 60% stock/40% bond breakdown — could be all you need.

^SPX Chart

^SPX data by YCharts.

Bonds help provide safety during market turmoil, and stocks provide growth over the long term. That combination will allow you to ride out bear markets without letting your emotions lead you into making investment mistakes (like selling everything you own and never investing again). Another option is just to buy a balanced mutual fund that does all the investing work for you. That leaves you to focus on saving money, which is where you will likely have the biggest impact on your long-term wealth, anyway.

If you do choose to buy individual stocks, which can be a lot of fun, don’t focus on the short term. Or to put it another way, think in decades, not days. When you do that, a bear market will probably end up looking like just a small hiccup. And it won’t really matter to you what precipitated the bear, anyway, because you will be too busy. You see, long-term investors often find their best investments during deep market declines.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/are-tariffs-the-threat-that-could-end-wall-streets-winning-streak/feed/ 0

55705

Saylor: Bitcoin to Benefit from Tariffs on Gold https://earlybirdsinvest.com/saylor-bitcoin-to-benefit-from-tariffs-on-gold/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/saylor-bitcoin-to-benefit-from-tariffs-on-gold/#respond Fri, 08 Aug 2025 20:50:00 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/saylor-bitcoin-to-benefit-from-tariffs-on-gold/

During a Friday appearance on Bloomberg, Michael Saylor, executive chairman at Strategy, opined that the tariffs on Swiss gold bars will accelerate migration to Bitcoin.

He has stressed that the big appeal of Bitcoin is that it is not physical, quipping that there are “no tariffs in cyberspace.” “It doesn’t have weight. You can settle anywhere with anybody in a few minutes. Gold has always been too heavy, too slow, and you can’t ship it across an ocean. And if you do, now you are getting tariffed,” Saylor commented.

Saylor has opined that this will be a new catalyst that will result in another wave of institutional adoption.

Earlier this week, the news of the U.S. imposing tariffs on gold bars sent shockwaves across the bullion market.

Unbothered by altcoin hype

Saylor says that he is convinced that the vast majority of capital is still currently flowing into Bitcoin while addressing the growing number of treasury companies that are pivoting to altcoins.

The number of Bitcoin treasury companies has grown from 60 to about 160 over the past six months, he says.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/saylor-bitcoin-to-benefit-from-tariffs-on-gold/feed/ 0

52214

US Trade Deficit Plummets by $76,700,000,000 in April Following the Rollout of Trump’s Tariffs https://earlybirdsinvest.com/us-trade-deficit-plummets-by-76700000000-in-april-following-the-rollout-of-trumps-tariffs/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/us-trade-deficit-plummets-by-76700000000-in-april-following-the-rollout-of-trumps-tariffs/#respond Fri, 06 Jun 2025 15:53:56 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/us-trade-deficit-plummets-by-76700000000-in-april-following-the-rollout-of-trumps-tariffs/

The US trade deficit plummeted by $76.7 billion in April following the rollout of the Trump Administration’s wave of tariffs.

The total goods and services deficit was $61.6 billion in April, down from $138.3 billion in March, per a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.

The US clocked $289.4 billion worth of exports in April, $8.3 billion more than March, and $351.0 billion worth of imports, which was $68.4 billion less than the previous month.

“The April decrease in the goods and services deficit reflected a decrease in the goods deficit of $75.2 billion to $87.4 billion and an increase in the services surplus of $1.5 billion to $25.8 billion.

Year-to-date, the goods and services deficit increased $179.3 billion, or 65.7 percent, from the same period in 2024. Exports increased $58.4 billion or 5.5 percent. Imports increased $237.8 billion or 17.8 percent.”

The US trade deficit skyrocketed in March as consumers and businesses stockpiled ahead of Trump’s tariffs.

The future of those tariffs remains uncertain as rulings about their legality ping-pong back and forth through the US court system.

Last week, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that many of the duties exceed the authority granted to the president by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The federal court struck down Trump’s April 2nd executive order establishing tariffs against 57 countries worldwide and several follow-up executive orders modifying the duties’ rates and start dates.

The CIT also axed a slew of earlier tariffs Trump had applied to Mexico, Canada and China, which he claimed were retaliation for failing to stop the flood of illegal narcotics into the US.

The Trump Administration immediately appealed the CIT’s ruling and requested a stay on the judgment, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted.

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Check Price Action

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

&nbsp

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please be advised that your transfers and trades are at your own risk, and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.

Generated Image: Midjourney

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/us-trade-deficit-plummets-by-76700000000-in-april-following-the-rollout-of-trumps-tariffs/feed/ 0

40505

A federal court just struck down Trump’s tariffs, in V.O.S. Selections v. US https://earlybirdsinvest.com/a-federal-court-just-struck-down-trumps-tariffs-in-v-o-s-selections-v-us/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/a-federal-court-just-struck-down-trumps-tariffs-in-v-o-s-selections-v-us/#respond Fri, 30 May 2025 03:16:43 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/a-federal-court-just-struck-down-trumps-tariffs-in-v-o-s-selections-v-us/

Editor’s note, May 29, 4:10 pm ET: On Thursday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an administrative stay of the trade court’s decision striking down the tariffs. This is a temporary order, which effectively hits “pause” on the case until the Federal Circuit has enough time to decide whether to issue a more long-lasting order leaving the tariffs in place.

The Federal Circuit also called for additional briefing on whether to issue a more extended stay, with the final brief due on June 9. The tariffs will almost certainly remain in effect until that final brief is filed. The story below was published on May 28.

A federal court ruled on Wednesday evening that the massive tariffs President Donald Trump imposed shortly after beginning his second term are illegal.

The US Court of International Trade’s decision in two consolidated cases — known as V.O.S. Selections v. United States and Oregon v. Department of Homeland Security — is quite broad. It argues that the Constitution places fairly strict limits on Congress’s ability to empower the president to impose tariffs in the first place — limits that Trump surpassed — and it reads several federal trade laws to place rigid constraints on Trump’s ability to continue his trade war.

The decision may not be final; it can be appealed up to the Supreme Court. But if higher courts embrace the trade court’s reasoning, Trump most likely will not be able to reimpose the sweeping kind of tariffs at issue in the V.O.S. Selections case, although he might still be able to impose more modest tariffs that are more limited in scope and duration.

The three-judge panel that decided V.O.S. Selections unanimously agreed that the Trump’s tariffs, as they stand now, are illegal in an unsigned opinion. The panel included judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, Barack Obama, and Trump himself.

The trade court judges reached four significant conclusions in the V.O.S. Selections opinion

Trump primarily relied on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) when he imposed his tariffs. That statute permits the president to “regulate…transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest,” but this power “may only be exercised to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.”

The trade court’s first significant holding is that, although a federal appeals court has held that this power to “regulate” foreign transactions sometimes permits the president to impose tariffs, this statute cannot be read to give Trump “unlimited tariff authority.” That is, the IEEPA does not give Trump the power he claims to impose tariffs of any amount, upon any nation, for any duration.

Significantly, the trade court, based in New York City, concludes that the statute cannot be read to give Trump unchecked authority over tariffs because, if Congress had intended to give Trump that power, then the statute would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers because Congress cannot simply give away its full authority over tariffs to the president.

Among other things, the court points to a line of Supreme Court decisions establishing that Congress may only delegate authority to the president if it lays “down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to fix such [tariff] rates is directed to conform.” So, if the president’s authority over tariffs is as broad as Trump claims, the statute is unconstitutional because it does not provide sufficient instructions on when or how that authority may be used.

The court’s second significant holding arises out of Trump’s claim that the tariffs are needed to address the nation’s trade deficit — the fact that Americans buy more goods from foreign nations than we export. But, as the trade court explains, there is a separate federal law — Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — which governs the president’s power to impose tariffs in response to trade deficits.

This statute only permits the president to impose tariff rates of 15 percent or lower, and those tariffs may only remain in effect for 150 days. The trade court concludes that Trump may only rely on his authority under Section 122 if he wants to impose tariffs to respond to trade deficits. So, while he could potentially reimpose some tariffs under this law, they would expire after five months.

The court’s third significant holding arises out of IEEPA’s language stating that any tariffs imposed under this statute must “deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat.” Trump justified some of his tariffs by claiming that they will help deter the importation of illegal drugs into the United States, but the trade court concludes that these tariffs don’t actually do anything to “deal with” the threat of drug trafficking — and thus they are illegal.

As the trade court argues, the tariffs do not directly prevent any illegal drugs from entering the United States. Trump’s lawyers argued that the tariffs will help reduce illegal drug trafficking because other nations will crack down on drug dealers in order to be rid of the tariffs, but the court rejects the argument that the tariffs can be justified because they pressure other nations to shift their domestic policies.

“[H]owever sound this might be as a diplomatic strategy, it does not comfortably meet the statutory definition of ‘deal[ing] with’ the cited emergency,” the court argues, adding that “it is hard to conceive of any IEEPA power that could not be justified on the same ground of ‘pressure.’”

Finally, the court ends its opinion by permanently enjoining the tariffs on a nationwide basis.

The Supreme Court is currently debating whether to limit lower courts’ power to issue such nationwide orders, but the trade court makes a strong argument that it is constitutionally required to block the tariffs throughout the country: As the V.O.S. Selections opinion notes, the Constitution provides that “all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” So, if these tariffs cannot lawfully be imposed on one person, the same rule must apply to all persons.

So what happens from here?

The trade court is the first federal court to rule on whether these tariffs are legal, but it is unlikely to be the last. This court’s decisions ordinarily appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and then to the Supreme Court. And Trump is all but certain to ask higher courts to lift the trade court’s injunction.

These higher courts could potentially reveal fairly soon whether they think the tariffs are legal. In an order accompanying the trade court’s decision, the court announces that “within 10 calendar days necessary administrative orders to effectuate the permanent injunction shall issue.” So, if no higher court steps in, Trump’s tariffs will cease to exist very soon.

Of course, Trump will no doubt seek a stay of the trade court’s decision from the Federal Circuit and, if the Federal Circuit rules against him, the Supreme Court. That means that, depending on how the Federal Circuit rules, the Supreme Court may have to decide whether to reinstate the tariffs within weeks.

So, while higher courts will need to weigh in before we know if the tariffs will survive, we may know what the justices think about Trump’s tariffs very soon.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/a-federal-court-just-struck-down-trumps-tariffs-in-v-o-s-selections-v-us/feed/ 0

39072

Semiconductor exemptions don’t matter when it comes to tariffs https://earlybirdsinvest.com/semiconductor-exemptions-dont-matter-when-it-comes-to-tariffs/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/semiconductor-exemptions-dont-matter-when-it-comes-to-tariffs/#respond Thu, 22 May 2025 15:32:31 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/semiconductor-exemptions-dont-matter-when-it-comes-to-tariffs/

Opinion by: Ahmad Shadid of O.xyz

Semiconductors scored a rare exemption from US President Donald Trump’s aggressive reciprocal tariffs, but the relief is symbolic at best. Most semiconductors enter the US embedded in servers, GPUs, laptops, and smartphones.

The finished goods remain heavily tariffed, some with duties reaching up to 49%. The exemption looks good politically but delivers little practical benefit. Nvidia’s DGX systems, crucial for training advanced AI models, do not fall under the exempted HTS codes. Nvidia could pay effective tariffs nearing 40% on these vital components. Such costs threaten to stall critical AI infrastructure projects across the country.

Semiconductor tariffs may compromise the goal of the CHIPS Act. The act promised tens of billions of dollars in subsidies to support domestic chip manufacturing. Yet advanced lithography machines — key equipment from countries like the Netherlands and Japan — face 20%–24% tariffs. Ironically, tariffs designed to boost American production increase the cost of essential manufacturing equipment.

The effect of new tariffs is already slowing progress in critical supply chains — just as generative AI and large language models are gaining momentum across sectors like finance and defense. Any delays or cost increases now could blunt America’s technological advantage.

Indirect costs undermine exemptions for AI

Modern semiconductor supply chains are global and highly integrated. An exemption on raw silicon means nothing when servers, GPUs and other finished products face steep tariffs. Tariffs indirectly inflate costs, eliminating any competitive advantage from domestic manufacturing.

Indirect tariff costs hit high-end systems disproportionately hard. The effect ripples through AI model training, data center expansions and major infrastructure projects, significantly slowing the industry’s momentum.

Tariff impasse halts investment

So far, it’s clear that the US president’s tariff plan didn’t follow any conventional economic trends or calculated strategy. The uncertain tariff situation stalls investment decisions across the technology sector. Companies need predictable costs to justify large capital expenditures. Ongoing tariff volatility prevents them from committing resources to new data centers and manufacturing lines.

This mirrors the supply chain chaos of 2020. At that time, uncertainty caused massive order cancellations and slowed industry recovery for years. If tariff ambiguity continues, we could see similar waves of cancellations in 2025. This would further compound existing inventory and revenue issues in the semiconductor sector.

Domestic production is not optimal

The border argument for these tariffs is that they’re meant to boost domestic production. They do little, however, to encourage genuine domestic semiconductor production. Despite subsidies under the CHIPS Act, most US semiconductor companies still rely on international foundries for manufacturing. Instead, they face increased equipment and operational costs.

Recent: How trade wars impact stocks and crypto

The idea that tariffs promote domestic production ignores the reality of global semiconductor manufacturing. Costs rise across the board, putting American companies at a disadvantage rather than offering protection.

AI projects face heightened risk

The blockchain and crypto sectors, particularly AI-driven projects, also feel the pinch. Projects depend heavily on GPUs and high-performance servers for mining, validating transactions and running decentralized AI computations. Increased hardware costs directly affect profitability and growth, potentially stalling innovation in blockchain applications.

AI developments have just started to pick up the pace in the blockchain and Web3 space. The industry saw increased interest from investors and VCs just a year ago. So, they are still on tighter budgets. Elevated costs can, however, lead to stagnation. We might see innovators and developers exiting the market. The ripple effect extends beyond the general technology sector and could threaten future digital economies.

Moreover, these cost pressures disproportionately affect startups and smaller tech firms. Industry giants can absorb additional expenses, but innovative, smaller players face existential threats. This dynamic risks stifling innovation at the grassroots level, harming the entire tech ecosystem.

What to expect

Semiconductors have momentarily escaped direct tariffs, but the exemption provides little benefit. Tariffs continue to hit finished products, driving up indirect costs across the industry. Instead of boosting domestic manufacturing, these tariffs create economic paralysis, stall critical infrastructure projects, and threaten America’s lead in AI innovation. Policymakers must acknowledge these realities and adjust their approach before irreversible damage is done to the nation’s technological future.

Opinion by: Ahmad Shadid of O.xyz.

This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/semiconductor-exemptions-dont-matter-when-it-comes-to-tariffs/feed/ 0

37682

Trump’s tariffs are probably getting struck down by a federal court https://earlybirdsinvest.com/trumps-tariffs-are-probably-getting-struck-down-by-a-federal-court/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/trumps-tariffs-are-probably-getting-struck-down-by-a-federal-court/#respond Wed, 14 May 2025 09:56:49 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/trumps-tariffs-are-probably-getting-struck-down-by-a-federal-court/

A federal court held the very first hearing on President Donald Trump’s wide-ranging, so-called Liberation Day tariffs on Tuesday, offering the earliest window into whether those tariffs — and potentially all of the shifting tariffs Trump has imposed since he retook office — will be struck down. The case is V.O.S. Selections v. Trump.

It is unclear how the three-judge panel that heard the case will rule, but it appears somewhat more likely than not that they will rule that the tariffs are unlawful. All three of the judges, who sit on the US Court of International Trade, appeared troubled by the Trump administration’s claim that the judiciary may not review the legality of the tariffs at all. But Jeffrey Schwab, the lawyer representing several small businesses challenging the tariffs, also faced an array of skeptical questions.

Many of the judges’ questions focused on United States v. Yoshida International (1975), a federal appeals court decision which upheld a 10 percent tariff President Richard Nixon briefly imposed on nearly all foreign goods.

That is understandable: Yoshida remains binding on the trade court, and the three judges must take it into account when they make their decision. It is not, however, binding upon the Supreme Court, whose justices will be free to ignore Yoshida if they want. Ultimately, that means it is unclear how much influence the trade court’s eventual decision will have over the Supreme Court, which is likely to have the final word on the tariffs.

At the heart of V.O.S. Selections are four key words in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA), the statute Trump relied on when he imposed these tariffs.

That statute permits the president to “regulate” transactions involving foreign goods — a verb which Yoshida held is expansive enough to permit tariffs — but only “to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.” It is likely that the trade court’s decision will turn on what the words “unusual and extraordinary threat” means. While Yoshida offered guidance on “regulate,” there appears to be few, if any, precedents interpreting what those four words mean.

In his executive order laying out the rationale for these tariffs, Trump claimed they are needed to combat “large and persistent annual US goods trade deficits” — meaning that the United States buys more goods from many countries than it sells to them. But it’s far from clear how this trade deficit, which has existed for decades, qualifies as either “unusual” or “extraordinary.”

Schwab seemed to flub several direct questions from the judges asking him to come up with a universal rule they could apply to determine which “threats” are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” When Judge Gary Katzmann, an Obama appointee, asked Schwab to name the best case supporting his argument that a trade deficit is neither unusual nor extraordinary, for example, Schwab was unable to do so.

That said, some of the judges sounded outright offended when Eric Hamilton, the lawyer for the Trump administration, claimed that the question of what constitutes an unusual or extraordinary threat is a “political question” — a legal term meaning that the courts aren’t allowed to decide that matter. As Judge Jane Restani, a Reagan appointee, told Hamilton, his argument suggests that there is “no limit” to the president’s power to impose tariffs, even if the president claims that a shortage of peanut butter is a national emergency.

The overall picture presented by the argument is that all three judges (the third is Judge Timothy Reif, a Trump appointee) are troubled by the broad power Trump claims in this case. But they were also frustrated by a lack of guidance — both from existing case law and from Schwab and Hamilton’s arguments — on whether Trump can legally claim the power to issue such sweeping tariffs.

What the Nixon precedent tells us about Trump’s tariffs

Early in the argument, Schwab appeared to be in trouble, as he faced a barrage of questions about how the Yoshida decision cuts against some of his arguments. As Restani told him at one point, the argument that a statute permitting the president to “regulate” does not include the power to impose tariffs is a nonstarter, because Yoshida held the opposite.

That said, all three judges proposed ways to distinguish the Nixon tariffs upheld by Yoshida from the Trump tariffs now before the trade court.

Restani, for her part, argued that the Nixon tariffs involved a “very different situation” that was both “new” and “extraordinary.” For several decades, US dollars could be readily converted into gold at a set exchange rate. Nixon ended this practice in 1971, in an event many still refer to as the “Nixon shock.” When he did so, he briefly imposed tariffs to protect US goods from fluctuating exchange rates.

Yoshida, in other words, upheld temporary tariffs that were enacted in order to mitigate the impact of a sudden and very significant shift in US monetary policy, albeit a shift that Nixon caused himself. That’s a very different situation than the one surrounding Trump’s tariffs, which were enacted in response to ongoing trade deficits that have existed for many years.

Restani and Katzmann also pointed to a footnote in Yoshida that said Congress enacted a new law, the Trade Act of 1974, after the Nixon shock. This footnote states a future attempt to impose similar tariffs “must, of course, comply with the statute now governing such action.” Whatever power Nixon might have had in 1971, in other words, may now be limited by newer laws.

Reif also made a similar argument, pointing out that there is a separate federal statute dealing with trade practices such as “dumping,” when an exporter sells goods below their normal value. He questioned whether the president could bypass the procedures laid out in that anti-dumping statute by simply declaring an emergency, and then imposing whatever trade barriers the president wanted to impose under IEEPA.

That said, none of the judges — and neither of the lawyers — were able to articulate a rule that would allow future courts to determine which presidential actions are “unusual” or “extraordinary.” Hamilton’s suggestion that courts can’t decide this question at all sunk like a pair of concrete shoes, with Katzmann arguing that the IEEPA’s “unusual and extraordinary” provision would be entirely “superfluous” if Congress hadn’t intended courts to enforce it.

Schwab, meanwhile, earned a scolding from Restani when he kept trying to argue that Trump’s tariffs are such an obvious violation of the statute that there’s no need to come up with a broader legal rule. “You know it when you see it doesn’t work,” she told him — a reference to Justice Potter Stewart’s infamously vague standard for determining what constitutes pornography.

The three judges, in other words, expressed serious concerns about the Trump administration’s argument for the tariffs. But it’s not clear that they have figured out how to navigate the uncertain legal landscape looming over this case.

Will the decision be broad enough to matter in the long run?

Though the bulk of the argument focused on the four key words in the IEEPA, it’s not clear that a narrow decision holding that this law does not permit these tariffs will have much staying power.

Trump could potentially try to impose the tariffs again, using the somewhat more drawn out process laid out in the 1974 Trade Act, which permits the government to “impose duties or other import restrictions” after the US Trade Representative makes certain findings. So if the courts issue a narrow ruling against these tariffs, they may have to go through a very similar dog and pony show in a few months.

There are, however, two controversial legal doctrines popular with conservatives — known as “major questions” and “nondelegation” — which could lead to a more permanent reduction of Trump’s authority. Broadly speaking, both of these doctrines empower the courts to strike down a presidential administration’s actions even if those actions appear to be authorized by statute.

Late in the argument, Restani seemed to latch onto the nondelegation theory. Under current law, Congress may delegate power to the president or a federal agency so long as it “shall lay down by legislative act an intelligible principle to which the person or body authorized to [exercise the delegated authority] is directed to conform.” This “intelligible principle” test is famously very deferential to Congress.

Nevertheless, Restani asked some questions indicating that she may think that the IEEPA is the rare law which provides so little guidance to the president that it must be struck down. She noted that the law does permit Congress to pass a resolution canceling tariffs after the fact, but argued that this kind of after-the-fact review is not a substitute for an intelligible principle letting the president know how to act before he takes action.

The major questions doctrine, meanwhile, establishes that Congress must “speak clearly” if it wants to give the executive branch authority over matters of “vast ‘economic and political significance.’” By some estimates, Trump’s tariffs are expected to reduce real family income by $2,800, so that’s certainly a matter of vast economic importance. Thus, to the extent that the IEEPA’s language is unclear, the major questions doctrine suggests that the law should be construed to not permit these tariffs.

Hamilton’s primary argument against this line of reasoning is that the major questions doctrine does not apply to the president at all, only to actions by federal agencies that are subordinate to the president. But none of the three judges appeared sympathetic to this argument. Restani, in particular, seemed incredulous at the suggestion.

Overall, the judges seemed interested in exploring the nondelegation and major questions factors, and repeatedly rebutted suggestions that ruling on the tariffs was beyond their power. And that suggests the trade court will likely rule against the tariffs.

That outcome is far from certain, however, and the trade court is highly unlikely to have the final word on this question. But the legal case for the tariffs appeared weak before Tuesday’s hearing, and nothing that happened on Tuesday changes that.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/trumps-tariffs-are-probably-getting-struck-down-by-a-federal-court/feed/ 0

36155

Goldman Sachs Abruptly Lifts Target for S&P 500 as US and China Agree To Reduce Tariffs by 115%: Report https://earlybirdsinvest.com/goldman-sachs-abruptly-lifts-target-for-sp-500-as-us-and-china-agree-to-reduce-tariffs-by-115-report/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/goldman-sachs-abruptly-lifts-target-for-sp-500-as-us-and-china-agree-to-reduce-tariffs-by-115-report/#respond Wed, 14 May 2025 07:48:53 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/goldman-sachs-abruptly-lifts-target-for-sp-500-as-us-and-china-agree-to-reduce-tariffs-by-115-report/

Financial services giant Goldman Sachs is reportedly predicting that the S&P 500 (SPX) will hit a new all-time high over the next 12 months amid improving market conditions.

In an investment note, analysts at Goldman raise their one-year target for the S&P 500 from 6,200 to a new record high of 6,500, reports Bloomberg.

According to a team led by chief US equity strategist David Kostin, the stock market index will rally about 11% from current levels after the White House announced an initial trade deal with China that massively reduces tariffs on both sides.

Says Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent,

“We have reached an agreement on a 90-day pause and substantially moved down the tariff levels — both sides, on the reciprocal tariffs, will move their tariffs down 115%.”

Goldman notes that the agreement between the two economic powerhouses has allayed recession risks and market uncertainty.

While Kostin’s team remains bullish on the stock market over the long term, Goldman strategists believe the recent S&P 500 rally may soon lose steam after hitting their three-month target of 5,900 on Monday. They remain cautious in the near term, warning that current conditions do not support a sustained market rebound.

“Already-optimistic market pricing of the economic growth outlook as well as uncertainty surrounding the magnitude of impending slowdown in economic and earnings growth will likely keep a ceiling on equity multiples during the next few months.”

As of Tuesday’s close, the S&P 500 is trading at 5,886.

Follow us on X, Facebook and Telegram

Don’t Miss a Beat – Subscribe to get email alerts delivered directly to your inbox

Check Price Action

Surf The Daily Hodl Mix

&nbsp

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed at The Daily Hodl are not investment advice. Investors should do their due diligence before making any high-risk investments in Bitcoin, cryptocurrency or digital assets. Please be advised that your transfers and trades are at your own risk, and any losses you may incur are your responsibility. The Daily Hodl does not recommend the buying or selling of any cryptocurrencies or digital assets, nor is The Daily Hodl an investment advisor. Please note that The Daily Hodl participates in affiliate marketing.

Generated Image: Midjourney

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/goldman-sachs-abruptly-lifts-target-for-sp-500-as-us-and-china-agree-to-reduce-tariffs-by-115-report/feed/ 0

36131

The Market Reaction to Trump's Tariffs Signals a Broader Acceptance of Bitcoin's ‘Digital Gold’ Narrative https://earlybirdsinvest.com/the-market-reaction-to-trumps-tariffs-signals-a-broader-acceptance-of-bitcoins-digital-gold-narrative/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/the-market-reaction-to-trumps-tariffs-signals-a-broader-acceptance-of-bitcoins-digital-gold-narrative/#respond Wed, 07 May 2025 16:23:10 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/the-market-reaction-to-trumps-tariffs-signals-a-broader-acceptance-of-bitcoins-digital-gold-narrative/

In financial markets, making assumptions based on short-term observations is a fool’s errand, as significant trends develop over months and years, not days or weeks. But as investors evaluate bitcoin’s role in their portfolios, the events of April are worth analyzing in order to understand the asset’s emerging reputation as a store of value.

Backdrop of volatility

The turbulence sparked by President Trump’s tariffs announcement on April 2 sent stock prices plummeting the following day, with the Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500 falling 4.8% and 5.4%, respectively. Bitcoin followed suit as the VIX Volatility Index hit levels not seen since the early days of COVID and fears of retaliatory trade measures prevailed.

However, bitcoin’s price began to recover sharply within days of the announcement, causing its correlation with both the Nasdaq 100 and S&P 500 to fall below 0.50, before those correlations rose again as the April 9 pause on tariffs brought back “risk-on” mode.

Bitcoin’s correlations to traditional markets in April

Source: Hashdex Research with data from CF Benchmarks and Bloomberg (April 01, 2025 to April 30, 2025). 30-day rolling correlations (considering only workdays) between bitcoin (represented by the Nasdaq Bitcoin Reference Price Index) and TradFi indices.

This short-term observation matters because it supports the changing nature of how investors perceive bitcoin. While some still categorize bitcoin as a high-beta “risk-on” asset, institutional sentiment is beginning to reflect a more nuanced understanding. Bitcoin recovered faster than the S&P 500 in the 60 days that followed the COVID outbreak, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the U.S. banking crisis in 2023, events in which it demonstrated resilience and a profile increasingly aligned with that of gold during stress.

These periods of decoupling establish a pattern where bitcoin displays its antifragile properties, allowing allocators to protect capital during systemic events, while still outpacing the performance of stocks, bonds and gold over the long haul.

Bitcoin vs. traditional assets, 5-year returns

Source: CaseBitcoin, Return data from May 1, 2020 to April 30, 2025 (CaseBitcoin.com)

The path to digital gold

Maybe more compelling than bitcoin’s longer-term returns are the long-term portfolio effects. Even a small allocation to bitcoin within a traditional 60% stock/40% bond portfolio would have improved risk-adjusted returns in 98% of rolling three-year periods over the last decade. And these risk-adjusted returns are markedly higher over longer time frames, suggesting that bitcoin’s volatility from positive returns more than counterbalances short-term drawdowns.

It might still be premature to claim that bitcoin has been universally accepted as “digital gold,” but that narrative, supported by its response to geopolitical events, is gaining momentum. The combination of bitcoin’s fixed supply, liquidity, accessibility and immunity to central bank interference gives it properties no traditional asset can replicate. This should be appealing to any investor, large or small, in search of portfolio diversification and long-term wealth preservation.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/the-market-reaction-to-trumps-tariffs-signals-a-broader-acceptance-of-bitcoins-digital-gold-narrative/feed/ 0

34917

$95,000 dip: Bitcoin slide after Trump warns of new tariffs https://earlybirdsinvest.com/95000-dip-bitcoin-slide-after-trump-warns-of-new-tariffs/ https://earlybirdsinvest.com/95000-dip-bitcoin-slide-after-trump-warns-of-new-tariffs/#respond Tue, 06 May 2025 11:24:23 +0000 https://earlybirdsinvest.com/95000-dip-bitcoin-slide-after-trump-warns-of-new-tariffs/ Bitcoin stumbled this week, dropping two under the $95,000 mark big The military was attacked by the world of finance immediately. On the one hand, Donald Trump has created a wave with the new tariff threat. on the other hand, everyone Hold your breath before the Federation spare Next, move the interest rate. together, have It creates a perfect storm of uncertainty, and the crypto market feels it. The $95,000 Bitcoin Drop escaped traders as market sentiment changed rapidly.

Trump’s The tariff bomb shakes things up

Former President Trump’s The latest economic curveball? A proposal to slap foreign-made movies with 100% tariffs. Yes, really. He says the goal is to protect and rebuild the US film industry, but investors are reading between lines. this it’s not Just about Hollywoodthat Instructs a broader return strict The trade policy that defined his previous administration.

Is Bitcoin breakout imminent? $ BTC Consolidation for nearly $95,000.

Negative funding rate = whale accumulation?

Trump’s tariffs promote market speculation.

Is $100k next? Or are we getting a Rekt?

– binarix (@binarychillguy) May 1, 2025

market I didn’t do it I love it. Entertainment stocks like Disney and Netflix have become hits. I responded immediately Too much. Bitcoin fell by about 1.8%, sliding down to $94,000. Altcoin I didn’t do it Better fares. XRP sank 2.7% and Solana fell about 0.8%.

Crypto is known for its volatility. but When uncertainty about global trade policy emerges, I tend to send Bitcoin and friends are in defensive mode.

Fed’s Rate decisions are on the rise

meanwhile Trump’s Headlines stir things up, another source of stress is the federal spare Future interest rate decisions. Most analysts expect the Fed to maintain a stable fee, but nothing It is set With stones. This is not particularly true when you put new tariff plans into the mix.

Discover: Best New Cryptocurrencies to Invest in 2025

Why is it important? Well, tariffs can increase the cost of imports, which will increase inflation. It places the Fed in a tight space. Are they stable for another rate hike down the road or are they ready? Investors hate not knowing, and the crypto market tends to respond quickly by central banks Start getting Unpredictable.

$95,000 Bitcoin Drop: What does this mean for a Bitcoin Holder?

Bitcoin is always like that a bit Wild cards from this era. the It’s often seen As a hedge against inflation, but when macro photos become ambiguouseven bitcoin gets jitter. Recent dips it’s not It’s a large scale from a cryptographic perspective the It reminds us that global policy still carries weight, even in a decentralized market.

we I saw this kind of pressure in front, Uncertain Fed policy, global trade drama, and sharp revisions to overall risk assets. There’s no difference this time either. addition fact that The code Nature of 24/7 means it often responds faster than strains; you I got a volatility recipe.

I’m looking forward to it

Bitcoin below $95,000 may sound like a panic mode, but that shows just How trembling the market will be Now. Intermediate Trump’s Returning to the tariffs, waiting in anxiously Fed’s Decisions, traders play it carefully. Whether the code bounces or sinks can depend on what is said behind the podium in Washington.

Discover: 20+ Next Cryptocurrency to Explode in 2025

For the latest market updates, please join us in the discrepancy in 99bitcoins news here

Bitcoin has fallen below $95K, causing wider market uncertainty, after Trump proposed a new 100% tariff on foreign-made films.

Trump’s The tariff threat has shown a potential return to aggressive trade policies, shaking confidence across crypto and traditional markets.

Federation

spare Future interest rate decisions have added pressure. Investors are unsure how inflation policies will affect future hiking.

Also, Altcoins declined amid uncertainty, with XRP down 2.7% and Solana down 0.8%.

Bitcoin 1.8% drop.

market The response highlights how macroeconomic and political signals have a strong impact The code Short-term price movements.

$95,000 dip: Bitcoin slide after Trump warned him that he first appeared in 99 Bitcoin.

]]> https://earlybirdsinvest.com/95000-dip-bitcoin-slide-after-trump-warns-of-new-tariffs/feed/ 0

34690