Join Us at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida! Nov. 17-19, 2023
Join Us at the 2023 World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida!
? Dates: November 17, 18, and 19 ? Location: Orlando, Florida, USA (or tune in from home with our virtual ticket options)
Are you ready to unlock the future of economics and finance? Prepare for an unforgettable World Economic Conference experience in sunny Orlando, Florida! This premier event is your gateway to insights, networking, and valuable resources that will supercharge your understanding of the global economy.
?️ What’s Included for In-Person Attendees:
- Event Admission: Enjoy reserved seating assigned based on the order of ticket sales, ensuring you have a prime view of every presentation.
- Presentation Slides: Gain access to the presentation slides from all speakers, allowing you to delve deeper into the topics discussed.
- Video Recording: Can’t make it to a session? No worries! You’ll receive access to video recordings of all conference presentations, so you can catch up at your convenience.
- WEC Event App: Connect with the conference on a whole new level. Access presentation slides, bonus reports, recordings, and more via the official WEC Event App.
- Bonus Conference Materials: Get a package of bonus conference-related materials, including exclusive bonus reports and videos (as provided by Martin Armstrong).
- Morning Information Sessions: Don’t miss out on important morning information sessions, screened on-site in the meeting room on Saturday and Sunday.
- Networking Opportunities: Exclusive access to the Event App Networking Feature allows you to connect with fellow attendees, both in-person and virtual, fostering valuable professional relationships.
- Culinary Delights: Savor delicious breakfast and lunch on Saturday and Sunday, prepared to keep you energized throughout the day.
- Cocktail Reception: Kick off the conference in style at our Friday evening cocktail reception. Meet and mingle with fellow attendees while enjoying refreshing drinks.
- Swag Bag: As a token of our appreciation, each in-person attendee will receive a swag bag filled with goodies, including an Armstrong Economics notebook, pen, and an event collector’s mug!
Unable to travel? We also have two different ticket options for those wishing to attend virtually!
Don’t miss this opportunity to be part of a global gathering of economic and financial minds. Secure your spot at the World Economic Conference in Orlando, Florida, and gain the knowledge, connections, and resources you need to thrive in the world of finance and economics.
Space is limited, so act now and reserve your seat! Visit our Events page to register and join us in sunny Orlando this November.
NEW BOOK Now Available : "Mark Antony & Cleopatra"
"THE PLOT TO SEIZE RUSSIA - THE UNTOLD HISTORY"
The second edition of “The Plot to Seize Russia – The Untold History” is now available for purchase in paperback and hardcover on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. The ebook will be available shortly.
Book description:
“Take care of Russia,” Boris Yeltsin said as he departed his presidency in August 1999. These words were directed at current Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yeltsin specifically picked Putin as his predecessor to prevent the takeover of Russia.
So, who was Yeltsin warning against? Newly declassified documents from the Clinton Administration prove that there was a plot to rig the Russian election of 2000. These never-before-seen documents confirm numerous attempts to implement pro-Western policies using the Russian oligarchy headed by Boris Berezovsky.
On the other side were the communists who desired a return to the glory days of the Soviet Union. As one of the largest international hedge fund managers, author Martin Armstrong found himself in the middle of perhaps the greatest espionage, or attempt at a regime change for Russia, in modern history.
The Plot to Seize Russia pulls back the curtain to expose the most extraordinary attempt to seize power in modern history, but with the pen rather than armies. These declassified documents reveal a plot that has altered our thinking about the relations between the United States and Russia. The thirst for power comes seething through every line of these papers that alter our perception of reality, change the course of history, and now threaten us with World War III.
Chuck Schumer has Trump Derangement Syndrome
At this point, the Democrats have taken the absurd position to block ID to vote insulting the minorities as if they could not vote because they are too stupid to have ID is just astonishing. You cannot get welfare, drive a car, or take a flight no less even go to Canada without ID. The derogatory argument of Chuck Schumer is an insult to everyone. The ONLY people without an ID would be an illegal alien. When you are born, you get a Social Security number. They have completely flipped their argument because Trump is making it now.
A number of states have “stop and identify” statutes. These laws require a person who is lawfully detained (not just casually stopped) to state their name for the police. In the landmark 2004 case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld these laws, ruling that requiring a suspect to disclose their name during a valid investigative stop does not violate the Constitution.
While the Supreme Court has affirmed that states can require voters to be citizens, it has also upheld that, for federal elections, this requirement can currently be satisfied by a sworn attestation (under penalty of perjury) rather than by providing documentary proof of citizenship. So, they must swear under oath that they are a citizen and if they lie that is 5 years in prison.
The Court has never struck down a law requiring voters to be U.S. citizens. However, the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly grant a universal, affirmative right to vote for all citizens. Instead, it prohibits specific forms of discrimination (e.g., based on race, sex) and allows states to set voter qualifications, like citizenship and age, as long as they don’t violate federal laws or constitutional provisions.
In the 2013 case Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, the Supreme Court ruled that states must “accept and use” the federal voter registration form, which only requires an applicant to swear they are a citizen under penalty of perjury. States may NOT unilaterally demand documents like birth certificates or passports for those registering to vote in federal races.
States can regulated ONLY state elections. The Court has allowed states to create a two-tiered system. A voter who attests to citizenship but cannot provide documents may be registered as a “federal-only” voter, meaning they can only vote for President and Congress.
So, what the hell is Chuck Schumer doing blocking ID. Is he just consumed with Trump Derangement Syndrome, where he must oppose whatever Trump says? Trump says the sky is blue, Schumer says no its red. If Trump said he will do something tomorrow, Schummer retorts and says tomorrow never comes because it is always today?
NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani has called on New York residents to volunteer as emergency snow shovelers, but they need TWO forms of ID. So you need ID to shovel snow, but nothing to vote?
McCain – “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”
COMMENT: Marty, thank you for that post. You have explained a risk I have not heard from any source. I know you met John McCain. I think you said on stage that you felt like you needed a shower after shaking his hand. Perhaps you will recall, in 2007, while campaigning for president, he was asked a question about the U.S. military and sang the words “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the Beach Boys’ song “Barbara Ann.” He also said that they would have nuclear weapons by 2009. Here we are in 2026 and still they say Iran is close.
FH
REPLY: I never met someone who was so obsessed with war than McCain. I believe because he was captured and read communist propaganda for the Vietnamese, he had this revenge streak in him especially against Russia because back then they wrongly believed that Russia was behind Vietnam. The Neocon McNamara did his video apologizing that they were wrong. The Russians were not behind it, it was just a civil War.
They turned McCain’s remake of the Beach Boys into a song all about the his dream of bombing Iran.
Our Neocons always assume victory. Their arrogance NEVER considers defeat. The Romans had suffered defeats the understood the risks of war. The Roman Republic suffered several major defeats, but two stand out as particularly devastating, each for different reasons. The single bloodiest day, took place at the Battle of Arausio. If you are asking about the most famous tactical masterpiece that shook the Republic to its core, the answer is the Battle of Cannae, Hannibal’s Masterpiece in 216BC.
It was the Battle of Arausio (105BC) according to the ancient historian Livy, some 80,000 Roman soldiers and 40,000 auxiliary troops and camp followers were killed . This total of 120,000 casualties surpasses the estimated losses at Cannae. The defeat was not due to being out-fought, but to being out-led. While Maximus attempted negotiations, Caepio launched a reckless, unilateral attack on the Cimbri camp. His force was destroyed, and the victorious Germanic tribes then turned and wiped out Maximus’s army, which was pinned against the Rhône River with no escape
The Roman Temple of Janus symbolized the inherent risk of war, which the arrogance of our warmonger ignore. The open doors of the Temple of Janus was an acknowledgment that the outcome of war was uncertain and that the god’s presence was needed to secure a favorable one so Janus was released. This coin of Nero portrays the Temple doors closed, showing brief period of peace.
The coins of Nero bearing the Temple of Janus motif are generally accepted as referring to the peace following the cessation of Corbulo’s campaigns against the Parthians. Therefore, Nero used the image of the temple of Janus on this coin to commemorate the end of the Parthian campaign and the peace treaty. Nero closed the doors of the Temple of Janus in 66AD, for the first time this had been done since the reign of Augustus (27BC-14AD) when the doors were closed three times in 29BC, 25BC and 13BC.
Has China Blown the US Out of the Sky?
China’s military has for the first time shown a new, tailless combat aircraft widely identified by analysts as their sixth-generation fighter jet J-36, a large, unconventional prototype that flew in public alongside a J-20 chase plane and has reignited debate about whether Beijing is closing the technology gap with the West.
The J-36 is reported to operate effectively above 65,000 feet (20,000 meters), giving it a literal “high ground” over the F-22, which has a service ceiling around 59,000 feet (18,000 meters). This allows the J-36 to spot the F-22 first while remaining harder to detect itself. The 2023 incident where an F-22 struggled to intercept a Chinese balloon at 65,000 feet (20,000 meters) is often cited as a practical example of this limitation.
I flew in the Concorde which travelled across the Atlantic from London to NY in about 3 hours at a height of 60,000 feet compared to 40,000 feet for conventional aircraft. When you look out the window, I could see a 747 flying below which looked tiny from that altitude. When you looked above, it was dark as if you could see the start of Outer Space, although technically that starts at 264,000 feet. If the J-36 can fire of a F-22 from that height, this would be an awesome weapon.
The J-36 likely carries the PL-17 missile with a range of over 245 miles (400 km), more than double that of the F-22’s AIM-120D (approx. 100 miles (160 km)). Combined with a potentially more powerful AESA radar, the J-36 could theoretically detect, target, and fire upon an F-22 well before the F-22 could even get into firing range. This is a great concern.
If an F-22 survives the Beyond Visual Range phase and closes to visual range, its superior agility, thanks to thrust vectoring, would give it a significant advantage in a traditional dogfight against the much larger J-36, which is not designed for that kind of maneuvering.
The J-36 is designed with a “smart” skin and powerful onboard systems to process vast amounts of data and potentially employ directed-energy jamming. It could use its electronic warfare suite to disrupt the F-22’s sensors and communications, blinding it while feeding targeting information to its own missiles or accompanying drones.
The concern is not about a one-on-one dogfight. It’s about how the J-36’s design would allow China to project power and challenge U.S. operations in a way the F-22 cannot counter.
The J-36 vs. F-22 matchup is essentially a contest of “system vs. platform.” The F-22 is an incredibly capable but finite platform. The J-36 is the centerpiece of a networked system designed to dominate a battle-space. The alarm in the U.S. comes from the realization that China has not only fielded a prototype of a sixth-generation aircraft before the U.S. has finalized its own NGAD/F-47 design , but that its design philosophy directly targets the key vulnerabilities of the U.S. way of war in the Pacific.
In short, the US is alarmed because the J-36, if it enters production as advertised, could neutralize America’s primary tactical advantage in the region by leveraging superior range, altitude, and battlespace awareness to dictate the terms of an engagement.
That means the US may find it difficult to defend Taiwan altogether.
PRIVATE BLOG – US Iran War – The Major Risk for WWIII
PRIVATE BLOG – US Iran War – The Major Risk for WWIII
Private blog posts are exclusively available to Socrates subscribers. To sign-up for Socrates or to learn more, please visit Ask-Socrates.com.
Interview: We’re Pushing Russia & Iran to Nuclear War
Market Talk – February 20, 2026
US/AMERICAS:
-
Dow advanced by 230.81 points (+0.47%) to 49,625.97
-
S&P 500 advanced by 47.62 points (+0.69%) to 6,909.51
-
NASDAQ advanced by 203.34 points (+0.90%) to 22,886.069
-
Russell 2000 declined by 1.31 points (-0.05%) to 2,663.78
Canada Market Closings:
-
TSX Composite advanced by 222.53 points (+0.66%) to 33,817.51
-
TSX 60 advanced by 9.97 points (+0.51%) to 1,955.94
Brazil Market Closing:
-
Bovespa advanced by 2,000.00 points (+1.06%) to 190,534.42
Trump’s Tariffs & The New Risk Ahead
QUESTION: I just saw you on Russia Today explaining the Supreme Court decision. You said this will have a psychological impact on Trump internationally. Would you elaborate?
GR
PS. I agree it is strange how you will appear on TV in Asia and Europe even in Russia but not in America.
ANSWER: President Trump said the Supreme Court’s tariff ruling was “deeply disappointing.” He also said “I’m ashamed of certain members of the court—absolutely ashamed for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country.”
I said on Podcasts that I would have voted against the use of that statute. Justice Roberts wrote that Trump “asserts the independent power to impose tariffs on imports from any country, of any product, at any rate, for any amount of time.” But the chief justice wrote that the law Trump invoked to do so “cannot bear such weight”
Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, Gorsuch, and Barrett. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that under the government’s interpretation of IEEPA, the president is “unconstrained by the significant procedural limitations in other tariff statutes and free to issue a dizzying array of modifications at will.” All it takes to unlock that extraordinary power is a Presidential declaration of emergency, which the Government asserts is unreviewable.
Chief Justice Roberts further wrote: “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. The Government points to no statute in which Congress used the word ‘regulate’ to authorize taxation. And until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.”
Trump particularly emphasized the tariffs would boost manufacturing and generate revenue. However, Trump promised that imposing the highest tariffs since the Great Depression would spark a renaissance in U.S. manufacturing. But factories have been in a slump for most of the last year, shedding 108,000 jobs in 2025. I have disagreed with that and pointed out that it was TAXES and REGULATION that led to every auto manufacture to leave Detroit, which because of the fiscal mismanagement defaulted on their debt in 1937. Sorry, but companies have left because of crazy progressive regulations and taxation. They they blame the Chinese for their own stupidity.
Over 60% of total tariff revenue in 2025 stemmed from tariffs imposed under IEEPA, which has never before been used to implement tariffs. This includes country-by-country or “reciprocal” tariffs ranging from 34% for China to a 10% baseline for the rest of the world, and a 25% tariff Trump imposed on goods from Canada, China and Mexico for what the administration said was their failure to curb the flow of fentanyl.
The decision does not affect ALL of Trump’s tariffs, leaving in place ones he imposed on steel and aluminum using different laws. U.S. Customs and Border Protection collected about $133.5 billion of tariff revenue under IEEPA in fiscal year 2025 and in fiscal year 2026 through December 14, representing about 60% of total tariff revenue collected during that time. Trump could seek to reimpose some tariffs using other laws. Companies that had to pay the tariffs may be able to seek a refund from the Treasury Department. Hundreds have already sued.
The Statutory Framework: Duties vs Tariffs
There is indeed a substantial difference between traditional tariffs requiring Congressional approval and various duties, fees, and restrictions the President can impose unilaterally under existing statutory authority. Trump’s first term demonstrated willingness to exploit these authorities aggressively, and a second term will likely see even more creative use of executive power to reshape trade flows without seeking Congressional authorization.
Congress has delegated broad trade authority to the President through various statutes enacted over the past century. These delegations were intended for specific circumstances—national security emergencies, unfair trade practices, international negotiations—but the statutory language is often vague enough to permit aggressive interpretation. Trump demonstrated that these authorities, when pushed to their limits, provide enormous unilateral power over trade policy.
The key distinction is this: Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power “to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” However, Congress has chosen to delegate much of this authority to the President through statutes. Once delegated, the President can act without further Congressional approval unless Congress revokes the delegation—which requires passing legislation that can survive presidential veto, a high bar given partisan polarization. This is what Congress does most of the time. They delegate powers to unelected agencies. I believe this undermines the entire Constitutional framework, but that is just my personal opinion.
Section 232: National Security Tariffs
The most powerful tool is Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which authorizes the President to impose tariffs or other import restrictions when imports threaten to impair national security. This provision was rarely used until Trump weaponized it during his first term. I cannot explain what he did not use this statute. I think whomever advised him was trying to covertly undermine him.
The statute requires the Commerce Department to investigate whether imports threaten national security, but “national security” is undefined and interpreted broadly. The President has essentially unreviewable discretion to determine what constitutes a national security threat.
During Trump’s First-Term, he imposed 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminum under Section 232 in 2018, affecting imports from virtually all countries including allies like Canada and the European Union. The ratification was that domestic steel and aluminum production capacity is essential to defense industrial base—without it, America cannot manufacture tanks, aircraft, ships, and weapons during wartime. The legal arguments were stretched but survived judicial challenge. Courts have been extremely deferential to presidential determinations of national security, recognizing this as a core executive function.
Section 232 authority could theoretically be applied to virtually any critical industry. For example, semiconductors and electronics were targeted during first term but not fully implemented. The argument is straightforward. Modern weapons systems depend entirely on advanced semiconductors. If America cannot produce these domestically and depends on Taiwan, which is vulnerable to Chinese invasion thanks to Biden & Pelosi as well as South Korea, which is vulnerable to North Korean attack. In such cases, national security is imperiled.
This could justify 25-50% tariffs on semiconductor imports from China, Taiwan, South Korea, and potentially even allied producers like Japan and Europe to force production back to the United States. As I have articulated, nobody wants to look at the real reason manufacture left in the first place – excessive progressive taxation line Newsom in California or Mandami in NYC. The CHIPS Act provides subsidies for domestic production; Section 232 tariffs would provide the stick to complement the carrot.
Turning to the Pharmaceuticals and Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, here too America imports approximately 80% of active pharmaceutical ingredients, predominantly from China and India. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed this vulnerability when supply chains disrupted. Section 232 could justify tariffs forcing pharmaceutical production back to America or trusted allies.
Then there is the Rare Earth Elements. Here, China controls 60-70% of global rare earth production and 90% of processing. These materials are essential for electronics, batteries, magnets in defense systems, and countless other applications. To make onw F35 you need 900 pounds of Rare Earths. Section 232 tariffs could target rare earth imports to incentivize domestic production, though this would be economically painful given the lack of current U.S. capacity.
Trump repeatedly threatened to impose Section 232 tariffs on automobile imports, arguing that domestic auto manufacturing capability is essential to defense industrial base, which is BS. They argue that vehicles, engines, manufacturing expertise is transferable to military production in time of war. So you should pay double for a Toyota or BMW to make it more profitable for over-regulated manufactures that only support further socialism. This was NOT implemented during the first term but remains available.
A 25% tariff on automobile imports would be catastrophic for foreign manufacturers and would force massive restructuring of the industry. It would also significantly increase vehicle prices for American consumers, creating political backlash. I think if Trump tried this, he would be bounced out of office.
Lithium, cobalt, nickel, copper, and other materials essential for batteries, electronics, and defense applications could justify Section 232 actions. America imports the vast majority of these materials, creating strategic vulnerability.
As you can see, there is an advantage of Section 232 is that it provides unilateral authority with minimal procedural requirements and virtually no judicial review. Once the Commerce Department investigation concludes (a process controlled by the administration), the President can impose restrictions immediately.
Section 301: Unfair Trade Practices
Then there is Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President through the U.S. Trade Representative to investigate and retaliate against foreign unfair trade practices, including intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, discriminatory regulations, and trade agreement violations. The USTR must investigate and determine whether foreign practices are “unreasonable or discriminatory and burden or restrict U.S. commerce. Upon such determination, the President can impose tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions.
Here, under Trump’s First Term, the China tariffs affected over $350 billion in annual imports. They were imposed primarily under Section 301 authority based on USTR investigation finding systematic Chinese IP theft, forced technology transfer, and unfair industrial policies. These tariffs started at 10-25% on various product categories and escalated during the trade war, ultimately affecting nearly all Chinese imports. The Section 301 authority provided legal basis without requiring Congressional approval.
The Biden administration maintained most Trump-era China tariffs and even increased some. A second Trump term could expand these to 60% or higher as Trump proposed during the 2024 campaign on all Chinese imports, effectively attempting to decouple the economies. That would increase geopolitical tensions.
Section 301 investigations could target EU digital services taxes affecting American tech companies, agricultural subsidies harming American farmers, or regulatory barriers like GDPR compliance costs. Retaliatory tariffs on European automobiles, luxury goods, wine, cheese, and other products could be justified under Section 301.
Then there is the Indian pharmaceutical manufacturing advantages partly result from regulatory arbitrage and IP protections weaker than U.S. standards. Section 301 could justify tariffs on Indian pharmaceutical imports or generic drugs. This could put a lot of people at health risk.
Vietnam and Southeast Asia countries have become transshipment points for Chinese goods attempting to evade tariffs. Section 301 authority could be used to impose tariffs on countries facilitating Chinese circumvention.
The Section 301 process requires investigation and findings but remains under executive control. The USTR can initiate investigations at presidential direction and reach conclusions supporting administration policy objectives.
There are a lot of other means available:
International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)
Countervailing Duties and Anti-Dumping
Reciprocal Tariffs and “Mirror Tariffs”
Import Licensing and Quota Systems
Currency Manipulation Tariffs
Border Adjustment Mechanisms
The proliferation of presidential trade authorities creates flexibility to implement protectionist policies without Congressional approval:
- Section 232 for national security-related industries
- Section 301 for unfair trade practices
- IEEPA for emergency situations or coercive diplomacy
- CVD/AD for industry-specific protection
- Quotas and licensing for quantitative restrictions
- Currency-based measures for exchange rate issues
A comprehensive Trump trade strategy could layer these authorities, using different legal bases for different objectives while maintaining that each action is legally justified under existing statute. This approach is legally defensible (though challengeable) while politically controversial.
The fundamental question is whether Congress will tolerate continued expansion of executive trade authority or will attempt to reassert legislative control. Given partisan polarization and dysfunction, reassertion seems unlikely unless trade actions become so economically painful that bipartisan opposition emerges.
The Psychological Impact
I am more concern that this will create the image that the US debt will rise sharply. The computer is already showing that bonds are entering a bear market. Trump can scream all he wants at the Federal Reserve, it is the free markets that set the long-term rates. You can see that using our database back to the inception of US debt, we are entering crash mode. If things heat up with Iran, this will impact China who gets most of their energy from Iran and this too can undermine confidence in the invincibility of the USA.
Trump possesses extensive authority to impose duties, fees, and trade restrictions beyond traditional tariffs through Section 232 national security provisions, Section 301 unfair trade practice retaliation, IEEPA emergency powers, countervailing and anti-dumping duty processes, quota systems, and various other mechanisms. These authorities allow imposition of trade restrictions affecting hundreds of billions in imports without Congressional approval, fundamentally reshaping global trade flows through executive action. The legal basis for each mechanism varies in strength, but judicial deference to presidential authority in trade and national security matters makes successful challenges difficult.
The economic consequences would be significant make no mistake and could be political suicide for the Midterms. This would result in higher consumer prices, supply chain disruption, foreign retaliation, all as our computer is pointing to a sharp global recession into 2028. The strategic rationale is bringing back critical industries, reducing dependence on adversaries, and using trade policy as leverage for non-trade objectives like immigration control, may be noble goals. But there is NOBODY in the Trump Administration will to even look at the regulatory and taxation issues that forced many industries offshore in the first place. I even warned back in 1985 that UNLESS the CFTC and SEC were merged, the only way to provide professional funds management was to move offshore.
Trump has reacted claiming he will just impose a 10% tariff on everything. He was wrong to be listening to stupid legal advice that had to be deliberate when there were so many other rational paths to achieve the same thing. This represents a very dangerous economic nationalism that only confirms the sharp global decline into 2028. What is indisputable is that the legal authority exists, precedent has been established, and political will to use these tools aggressively has been demonstrated. The constraints are economic and political rather than legal. Trump is endangering his legacy.
His idea of bringing back American jobs may be noble, but he is listening to old-school economics that has failed and pays no attention to the progressive regulations and this constant taxing the rich and corporations and expecting them to just pay with no impact. Communism collapsed for this very same reason. It is just our turn.
Supreme Court Overrule’s Trump’s Tariffs
Download the Decision: Trump Tariffs 2-20-26 24-1287_4gcj
The Supreme Court has ruled as I expected. I have said on Podcasts that the power over tariffs lies with Congress, not the president. I also suggested that I did not expect the Supreme Court to overrule the statue as unconstitutional. To me, the plain language was very clear: IEEPA authorizes the President to:
“investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel,
nullify, void, prevent or prohibit . . . importation or exportation.”
§1702(a)(1)(B).
Nowhere does it authorize the power of tariffs. IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs plain and simple. I believe those in the Administration knew this would be the outcome. The judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction; the judgment in No. 25–250 is affirmed. The Order states:
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in case No. 25–250 is affirmed. The
judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in case No. 24–1287 is vacated, and the
case is remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
We also had a renegade anti-Trump judge in the mix. The Government moved to transfer the Learning Resources case to the Court of International Trade (CIT). It argued that the District Court lacked jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §1581(i)(1), which gives the CIT “exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced against” the Government “that arises out of any law of the United States providing for . . . tariffs” or their“administration and enforcement.” The District Court denied that motion illegally seizing jurisdiction since it was anti-Trump and granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that IEEPA did not grant the President the power to impose tariffs. 784 F. Supp. 3d 209 (DC 2025). That judge clearly had NO JURISDICTION whatsoever to make such a ruling. This is a continuing problem in our legal system. This judge should be penalized if not dismissed for an equally unconstitutional ruling our ot personal animosity.
Tariffs have helped the United States collect nearly $99 billion so far this fiscal year, which started on Oct. 1, 2025, according to the Daily Treasury Statement published on Jan. 7. To me, the law allows presidents to regulate imports during times of emergency, but it was questionable whether that regulation included tariffs, and, in particular, Trump’s large-scale tariffs.
The Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes. He classified them as “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.
Multiple federal courts had ruled that Trump’s tariffs exceeded what was allowed under the law. Days after oral argument, Trump indicated in a Nov. 11 post on Truth Social that a negative decision by the Supreme Court could implicate trillions of dollars.
“The ‘unwind’ in the event of a negative decision on Tariffs, would be, including investments made, to be made, and return of funds, in excess of 3 Trillion Dollars.”
He added that the situation “would truly become an insurmountable National Security Event, and devastating to the future of our Country – Possibly non-sustainable!”
I looked at the tariffs and the only grey area was that Trump was imposing a tariff ON TOP OF what Congress authorized, he was not actually altering the Congressional tariff. The tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.
Can Trump still impose tariffs? The answer to that question is Yes!.
Business Bankruptcies on the Rise in the EU
The latest Eurostat release on business registrations and bankruptcies in Q4 2025 is perhaps one of the most revealing datasets on the real state of the European economy, and it confirms precisely the type of slow deterioration in confidence that I have warned about for years regarding the EU’s policy direction.
On the surface, bureaucrats will point to the 0.5% quarterly increase in business registrations across the EU as a sign of resilience. Yet at the very same time, bankruptcy declarations rose by 2.5% compared to the third quarter of 2025.
Looking deeper into the sector data makes the situation even more concerning. Registrations increased most in information and communication (+6.4%) and industry (+4.9%), while sectors tied directly to consumer demand, such as trade and construction, showed declines. Meanwhile, bankruptcies surged in accommodation and food services (+8.6%), transport (+5.6%), and even information and communication (+7.9%).
When bankruptcies rise across 6 out of 8 sectors, that reflects declining economic confidence and tightening margins across the entire economy. It is far easier to start a business than it is to maintain one. Bureaucrats choose to look at business starts rather than bankruptcies.
The sharp rise in bankruptcies in hospitality and services is particularly telling given Europe’s inflation in energy, labor costs, and regulatory compliance. Small and mid-sized businesses cannot absorb these costs the way multinational corporations can. The result is a slow liquidation cycle beneath the surface of headline GDP numbers. Entrepreneurs are the first to react to declining confidence in future policy stability. When bankruptcies rise faster than new firm formation, capital becomes less confident in long-term profitability.
The sector divergence also reflects the deeper structural transformation underway in Europe. Digital and information sectors are still attracting registrations, while traditional consumer and service sectors face insolvency pressure. That is consistent with an economy being reshaped by regulation, energy policy, and declining industrial competitiveness.
Rising bankruptcies do not immediately show up in political narratives, but they erode the tax base, increase unemployment risk, and force governments into further intervention. That intervention historically leads to more regulation and taxation, which only accelerates the liquidation cycle.
The ECM has long warned that the 2026 period would mark rising volatility driven by declining confidence in government. Rising bankruptcies alongside only marginal business creation are not a healthy expansion phase. It is the early-stage warning that the private sector is under pressure while policymakers continue to insist that the system is stable.
The US Trade Deficit – A Cause for Concern?
The latest data showing the US trade deficit widening sharply to about $70.3 billion should not be interpreted the way mainstream economists always frame it. They immediately jump to the conclusion that a rising trade deficit is a sign of economic weakness, when in reality it often reflects the opposite and represents strong domestic demand. According to the latest Commerce Department figures cited in financial reports, the gap widened as imports surged while exports lagged, driven in part by capital goods and technology demand.
A trade deficit is not occurring in isolation. If the United States imports more than it exports, the excess dollars do not vanish, rather, they return as capital investment into US assets, equities, real estate, and Treasuries. That capital inflow is precisely why the dollar can remain strong even while the trade deficit widens. America has been running trade deficits since the late 20th century, yet it remains the world’s primary capital destination.
Imports rose sharply, particularly in industrial supplies, technology equipment, and capital goods linked to AI infrastructure expansion. America is attracting global capital into productive, growing sectors. Historically, trade deficits expand during periods of investment booms because domestic demand outpaces supply.
Even with aggressive tariff policies, imports continued rising, and the goods trade deficit reached record levels of around $1.24 trillion in 2025. Trade balances are driven more by capital flows and currency strength than by tariff policy alone. Global capital still viewing the United States as the safest destination amid geopolitical uncertainty in Europe and elsewhere. Capital always moves to the strongest legal and financial system, not the one with the best trade balance. This is why nations like Germany or Japan may run surpluses while still seeing capital volatility.
Countries that run chronic trade deficits are only in danger when capital stops flowing in. The key factor is CONFIDENCE. As long as global capital continues to view the United States as the primary safe haven during periods of geopolitical and economic instability, the trade deficit becomes a reflection of strength in capital attraction rather than weakness.