Category: International Trade

Posted on

Supreme Court Setback for Trump

Key Points

  • In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 doesn’t authorize President Donald Trump to impose tariffs.
  • The Yale Budget Lab estimated that households’ average cost burden would fall by about half in 2026, to between $600 and $800, if the Supreme Court ruled against the tariffs.
  • However, Trump administration officials previously said they would use different legal pathways to achieve an outcome similar to the IEEPA tariffs.
  • President Trump signed a proclamation Friday night that will impose a 10% duty on most imports for up to 150 days, as permitted under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
  • Businesses may be able to claim refunds for IEEPA tariffs paid, but are unlikely to pass these on to consumers.

Last year, President Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) to impose tariffs on US trading partners.

He declared a national emergency, saying an influx of illegal drugs from Canada, Mexico, and China had created a public health crisis, and that large and persistent trade deficits had undermined US manufacturing. His administration used IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports to manage the perceived crises: a 10% baseline tariff on all US trading partners and higher duties on Canada, Mexico, and China.

Chief Justice John Roberts

Chief Justice John Roberts

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the IEEPA doesn’t authorize the president to impose tariffs.

“The Government reads IEEPA to give the President power to unilaterally impose unbounded tariffs and change them at will,” according to the court.

“That view would represent a transformative expansion of the President’s authority over tariff policy,” their opinion argued. “It is also telling that in IEEPA’s half-century of existence, no President has invoked the statute to impose any tariffs, let alone tariffs of this magnitude and scope.”

The Yale Budget Lab estimated that households’ average cost burden would fall by about half in 2026, to between $600 and $800, if the IEEPA tariffs were overturned.

Before the ruling, Trump administration officials had said they would use different legal pathways, if overruled, to achieve roughly the same outcome as the tariffs. (CNBC)

President Trump signed a proclamation Friday night that will impose 10% tariffs on most imports to the United States, to replace the 10% IEEPA baseline tariff rate overturned by the earlier Supreme Court ruling.

The new tariffs take effect Monday and are levied under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to impose duties of up to 15% for 150 days to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments issues. (CBS News)

Businesses will likely claim refunds for the estimated $175 billion in IEEPA tariffs paid to date, but consumers will not receive any direct benefit. (Reuters)

Treasury Markets

10-year Treasury yields increased on news of the Supreme Court ruling, but remain close to primary support at 4.0%.

10-Year Treasury Yield

Stocks

The S&P 500 rallied on the prospect of reduced tariffs, but will likely reverse on news of Trump’s Friday night proclamation.

S&P 500

Financial Markets

The Chicago Fed National Financial Conditions Index reached -0.568 on February 13, signaling loose monetary conditions.

Chicago Fed National Financial Conditions Index

However, Bitcoin1 (BTC) remains below 70,000, indicating that financial markets are shedding risk assets.

Bitcoin (BTC)

Inflation

The Fed’s favored measure of underlying inflation, the core PCE index, jumped by 0.355% in December 2025, warning of an upsurge in price pressures.

Core PCE Inflation - Monthly

Annual growth in the core PCE inflation index lifted to 3.0%, and the headline PCE index increased to 2.9%.

PCE & Core PCE

The University of Michigan (UOM) survey of consumers reported a median expected price increase of 3.4% over the next year, with the 3-month average declining to 3.9%.

University of Michigan: 1-Year Inflation Expectations

Consumers

Consumer sentiment from the February UOM survey remains near record lows since the survey commenced in 1960.

University of Michigan: Consumer Sentiment

Participants’ assessment of current economic conditions is also near the lowest ebb in more than 60 years.

University of Michigan: Current Economic Conditions

Economy

Real GDP growth slowed to 0.35% in the fourth quarter, or 1.4% annualized, according to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. Aggregate weekly hours worked grew at a slower 1.0% over the 12 months to January 2026, suggesting that GDP growth will likely slow further.

Real GDP & Growth in Total Hours Worked

Dollar & Gold

The US Dollar Index met resistance at 98 after news of the Supreme Court ruling, and we expect the downtrend to continue.

Dollar Index

Gold rallied to above $5,100 per ounce, signaling another test of resistance at $5,500.

Spot Gold

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruling against President Trump’s tariffs checks his expansive use of emergency powers in pursuit of his economic agenda. The ruling also increases the economic uncertainty that has bedeviled Trump’s economic policy, making it difficult for corporations to make long-term investment decisions.

Declining real GDP growth in the fourth quarter highlights that the US economy is heavily reliant on massive capital investment in AI data centers to keep the country out of a recession, while the broader economy shudders from one mishap to the next.

Consumer sentiment and perceptions of current economic conditions are near sixty-year lows, again reflecting the narrow economic recovery, which has failed to benefit most Americans despite low unemployment. Republicans are going to find it difficult to hold a majority in Congress after the November midterm elections, delivering a further setback to Trump’s economic agenda.

The Supreme Court decision, led by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts, is a sign that conservatives will increasingly resist Trump’s disregard for the checks and balances built into the Constitution. We have likely passed “peak Trump” on the economic front, though he will likely try to stay in the spotlight with his geopolitical agenda.

We maintain our overweight position in gold and defensive stocks with stable cash flows, while avoiding high-multiple technology stocks and long-term financial instruments.

Acknowledgments

Notes

  1. Cryptocurrencies are the highest-risk asset class, and we analyze Bitcoin (BTC) solely to identify risk sentiment in financial markets. Our analysis is not a recommendation to buy or sell BTC, nor is it a commentary on the merits of cryptocurrency.
Posted on

Trump-Xi more of the same

United States President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping have agreed to a trade truce under which the US will ease tariffs and Beijing will restart imports of US soya beans, delay the introduction of export restrictions on some of its rare earth metals, and intensify efforts to curb illegal fentanyl trafficking. (Al Jazeera)

Trump threatened a 100% import tax in retaliation for China’s rare earth restrictions, but he told reporters after the meeting that total tariffs on China would be reduced to 47%.

There is mutual recognition that neither country wants to risk damaging the world economy, as this would harm itself.

When the two were seated at the start of the meeting, Xi read prepared remarks that stressed a willingness to work together despite differences. (APNews)

The meeting was shorter than expected, which indicates that neither side deviated from an agreed-upon script. Trump described the meeting, which lasted an hour and forty minutes, as “amazing” and “12 out of 10,” but analysts remain skeptical.

“The proposed deal on the table fits the pattern we’ve seen all year: short-term stabilization dressed up as strategic progress,” said Craig Singleton, senior director of the China program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Both sides are managing volatility, calibrating just enough cooperation to avert crisis while the deeper rivalry endures.” (APNews)

The US will likely also reduce restrictions on exports of advanced computer chips to China. According to the president, the issue was discussed, and Nvidia will hold talks with Chinese officials.

Posted on

Douglas Holtz-Eakin on Tariffs

Douglas Holtz-Eakin was Director of the Congressional Budget Office and Chief Economist of the Council of Economic Advisers under George Bush. His view on tariffs is that they are a tax paid by US corporations and consumers, and if you raise taxes, growth will suffer.

[Length: 6:30]

Posted on

End game for the Dollar

The end game for the Dollar: China vs the US, with Grant Williams and Luke Gromen:

Posted on

Productivity not population key to Aussie living standards | Macrobusiness

From Leith van Onselen at Macrobusiness:

Former ALP minister Craig Emerson has penned an article in The AFR calling on the Morrison Government to tackle Australia’s declining productivity growth, which is central to boosting the nation’s living standards:

“Productivity growth has contributed 95 per cent of the improvement in Australians’ material living standards since 1901”.
“From the turn of the century, Australia’s productivity performance began to slide and the longer it has gone on the worse it has gotten”.
“Over the period from 2015 until the COVID-19 pandemic struck, actual productivity growth was worse than the low-productivity scenario included in the 2015 intergenerational report”.
“In the decade since 2010 – even excluding last year – Australia recorded its slowest growth in GDP per capita of any decade in at least 60 years”.
“Without a comprehensive economic reform program, Australia will inevitably have weak growth in living standards during the remainder of the 2020s and into the 2030s”.

Craig Emerson’s assessment is broadly correct, as evidenced by the stagnant real per capita GDP, wage and income growth experienced over the past decade (even before the coronavirus pandemic).

Sadly, however, the Morrison Government with the help of the Australian Treasury seems hell bent on leveraging the other ‘P’ – population growth – to mask over Australia’s poor productivity performance and to keep headline GDP growing, even if it means per capita GDP, income growth and living standards deteriorate.

Rather than using the coronavirus pandemic as an opportunity to reset the Australian economy to focus on quality over quantity, the Morrison Government is intent on repeating the policy mistakes of the past by returning to the lazy dumb growth policy of hyper immigration.

Rebooting mass immigration will inevitably contribute to Australia’s poor productivity growth by:

  • Crush-loading cities, increasing congestion costs and rising infrastructure costs;
  • Encouraging growth in low productivity people-servicing industries and debt creation, rather than higher productivity tradables; and
  • Discouraging companies from innovating and adopting labour saving technologies.

It’s time to put the Australian Treasury’s Three-Ps framework to rest once and for all, along with the snake oil solution of mass immigration.

Policy makers must instead focus first and foremost on boosting productivity, followed by lifting labour force participation. These are the two Ps that actually matter for living standards.

We agree with the concern over poor productivity growth, but focusing on labor force participation is putting the cart before the horse. The key cause of low productivity growth is declining business investment.

Business Investment

Without business investment, new job creation and wages growth will remain low. The way out of this trap is to prime the pump. Boost consumption through infrastructure programs — investment in productive infrastructure that will boost GDP growth (to repay the debt). Boost business investment through strong consumption, a lower Australian Dollar and tax incentives (like accelerated write-off) for new investment.

The lower exchange rate is important to rectify a serious case of Dutch disease1 from the resources industry. There are only three ways to achieve this:

  1. Increase imports, which would be self-defeating, destroying jobs;
  2. Reduce exports; or
  3. Export capital, of which Australia has little.

China is doing its best to help us with the second option, by restricting imports of a wide variety of Australian resources, but that has so far achieved little. David Llewellyn-Smith came up with an interesting alternative:

If we accept that the CCP is the latest manifestation of the historical tendency to give rise to political evils intent on dominating the lives of freedom-loving humanity, then why don’t we cut the flow of iron ore right now…….

The results would be instant. The Chinese economy would be structurally shocked to its knees. 30% of its GDP is real estate-related. 60% of the iron ore that drives it is sourced in Australia. Roughly speaking that is 18% of Chinese GDP that would virtually collapse overnight. Vast tracts of industry would fall silent. An instant debt crisis would sweep the Chinese financial system as its bizarre daisy chain of corruption froze. Local governments likewise. Unemployment would skyrocket.

…..What we can say with confidence is that it would pre-occupy the CCP for many years and hobble it permanently. Its plans for regional domination would be set back decades if not be entirely over.

The problem is how to convince the old boys around the boardroom table at BHP that this would be in their interest as well as in the country’s interest.

Notes

  1. Dutch disease is a term coined by The Economist to describe the impact on the Netherlands’ economy of a resources boom from discovery of large natural gas fields in 1959. The soaring exchange rate, from LNG exports, caused a sharp contraction in the manufacturing sector which struggled to compete, in export markets and against imports in the domestic market, at the higher exchange rate.
Posted on

The S&P 500 and Plan B

The S&P 500 penetrated its rising trendline, warning of a re-test of support at 3000. But selling pressure on the Trend Index appears to be secondary.

S&P 500

Transport bellwether Fedex retreated below long-term support at 150 on the monthly chart — on fears of a slow-down in international trade. Follow-through below 140 would strengthen the bear signal, offering a target of 100. The bear-trend warns that economic activity is contracting.

Fedex

Brent crude dropped below $60/barrel on fears of a global slow-down. Expect a test of primary support at 50.

Brent Crude

Dow Jones – UBS Commodity Index broke primary support at 76 on the monthly chart, also anticipating a global slow-down.

DJ-UBS Commodity Index

South Korea’s KOSPI Index is a good barometer for global trade. Expect a re-test of primary support at 250.

KOSPI

While Dr Copper, another useful barometer, warns that the patient (the global economy) is in need of medical assistance.

Copper (S1)

The Fed can keep pumping Dollars into financial markets but at some point, the patient is going to stop responding. In which case you had better have a Plan B.

Posted on

Trump gets his Deal

Donald Trump signed the Phase One US-China trade deal with China’s Vice-Premier Liu He in Washington D.C. on Wednesday.

The deal is important for Trump politically as he needs to disrupt media focus on his impeachment playing out in the Senate.

China attempted to downplay the significance of the deal by sending their Vice-Premier rather than Xi Jinping for the signing ceremony. But the deal is no less important for them in order to halt/slow the relocation of manufacturing jobs by multinationals to avoid US tariffs.

Trivium China sum up the outcome:

  1. We are still in a trade war. Tariffs remain levied on hundreds of billions of USD worth of goods.
  2. A phase two deal looks dead in the water. US President Trump has already said that he might wait until after the November election to negotiate the next phase. More importantly, there is little appetite in China to make concessions on any of the remaining issues.
  3. Third countries are getting screwed. China’s overall import bill is unlikely to jump by USD 200 billion over the next two years, so increased purchases of US goods will come at the expense of producers in other countries.
  4. This deals another blow to the multilateral trading system. The world’s two largest economies just bypassed the multilateral rules-based system to negotiate a deal that undermines the principles of free trade.
  5. China is downplaying the deal. The fact that Liu He – not Xi Jinping – signed the deal sent a strong signal domestically that this is not a big deal. And Chinese officials have said that most of these measures would have happened irrespective of a deal.
  6. Finally, the deal is a positive for stability. This will serve to halt – or at least slow – economic decoupling. That’s a positive for the global economy and security.

Rhodium Group in The Good, The Bad and The Missing focus on what should have been in the deal but isn’t:

  1. Chapter 1 Pledges greater protection for a handful of specific products – pharmaceuticals, medicines and unlicensed software – and generally more enforcement against counterfeit products but the concerns of other industries are not addressed
  2. There are no robust enforcement mechanisms in Chapter 7. It provides a forum for discussion and consultation but not arbitration. If unable to resolve the issue, the aggrieved party can withdraw from the Agreement. This creates little incentive to resolve issues and may result in a logjam.
  3. The managed trade approach does not even start to remedy systemic concerns like the predominance of state enterprises, the prevalence of foreign investment limitations in the vast set of industries that did not get early attention in this deal, the lack of consistency in competition policy treatment and the general asymmetry of information and the playing field for private firms foreign and domestic.
  4. Phase One fails to address growing challenges at the intersection of economics and national security: Huawei and 5G telecommunications, detentions and pressure on expatriates and travelers from the other side, foreign investment screening and export controls, and the threat of financial decoupling.

Rhodium concludes:

The agreement is a limited one, primarily capping the potential for further escalation of protectionism on both sides rather than taking serious steps to address long-standing issues in Chinese trade practices. The managed trade outcomes in which China promises additional US imports are the most significant substantive commitments made, but China’s capacity and willingness to meet these targets remains in question. Significant tariffs remain in place on both sides, uncertainty about the future path of the US-China relationship will persist, and the broader decoupling trends in security-sensitive areas of the bilateral relationship will continue. Progress toward any Phase Two agreement is likely to be minimal in 2020. (The Chinese side immediately said after the January 15 signing that it wanted to go slow before any further talks.)

The deal attempts to head off further escalation but falls well short of addressing long-standing issues with Chinese trade practices. Trade tensions and decoupling are likely to continue.

Powered by WordPress / WordPress Maintenance Service By Website Helper