A huge tariff change + BTC vs gold

plus, the dollar outlook, Bitcoin payments and more

“We have to encourage the future we want rather than trying to prevent the future we fear.” – Bill Joy ||

Hi everyone!

Ok, well, yesterday’s trade court decision changed a few things… more on this below. Plus, BTC vs gold, the dollar outlook and more.

There were some interesting news drops yesterday at the Bitcoin Conference that I had to leave out of today’s newsletter due to time and word limits, but hopefully tomorrow is relatively quiet and I can talk about them then.

IN THIS NEWSLETTER:

• No more tariff flip-flops?

• BTC vs gold ETF flows: not what it seems

• Macro-Crypto Bits: the dollar outlook, Bitcoin payments

If you’re not a premium subscriber, I hope you’ll consider becoming one! You get ~daily commentary on markets, tokenization, regulation and other signs that crypto IS impacting the macro landscape. As well as relevant links and music recommendations ‘cos why not.

WHAT I’M WATCHING:

No more tariff flip-flops?

Just when you thought the US tariff situation couldn’t possibly get more chaotic…

Yesterday, after the market close, the US Court of International Trade (CIT) published its ruling on the suit against President Trump’s tariff policy brought by a handful of private businesses as well as some US states. In both cases, the plaintiffs’ main argument was that Trump overstepped his authority in applying blanket tariffs to virtually all trading partners.

You’ll recall that the “Liberation Day” measures invoked the powers given to the President by the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). These allow him to apply targeted economic measures in response to a previously declared “national emergency”, which in this case was the trade deficit.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs, that the trade deficit is not necessarily a national emergency and that the nature of the tariffs were too broad to be considered a targeted response. When it comes to the tariffs on China, Canada and Mexico for the fentanyl crisis, the court ruled that the measures didn’t directly address the declared emergency, and as such were outside IEEPA scope.

This decision invalidates the tariffs levied for fentanyl-related shipments, the broad 10% baseline and the “Liberation Day” list. It does not question the levies on steel, aluminium and automobiles as these were not part of the challenge and were applied under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which gives the President authority to address specific sector imports that “threaten national security”.

None of this means tariffs are off the table, however. In the ruling, the judges suggest that Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 would be a more suitable framework for broad trade deficit-reducing tariffs. This allows the President to apply levies of 15% for 150 days, unless the period is extended by Congress. To date, this law has not been used to apply trade restrictions, and it’s hard to imagine Trump being happy with the limitations… but, for now, there doesn’t seem to be an easy alternative beyond targeting more “national security” sectors under Section 232.

What does this mean for markets?