Doesn’t seem super realistic to me, budget wise the US now really needs the tariffs to fill the coffers.
(And I think that was part of the idea, makes it really hard to go back to pre tariffs situation, then it’s probably easier to get legislative branch to approve it formally)
There’s an article in the current edition of The Economist about possible alternatives, here’s a summary that I totally wrote myself:
If the Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs, the administration has several backup options:
Immediate Response
Section 122: The quickest fix. Allows tariffs up to 15% for 150 days. Can be activated instantly as a stopgap.Investigation-Based Approaches
Section 301: Enables tariffs on specific countries after a USTR investigation. Trump used this for China tariffs in his first term.
Section 232: Enables tariffs on specific industries after a Commerce Department investigation. Recently used for cars and steel.
Challenge: These require time-consuming investigations and create legal vulnerabilities. Rebuilding the tariff structure would be “brick by brick.”Aggressive Option
Section 338: A never-used 1930s provision allowing retaliatory tariffs up to 50% on countries with “unreasonable” trade practices. Requires no lengthy investigations.The key difference: IEEPA offers flexibility and immediate action. All alternatives are either temporary (Section 122), procedurally slow (301/232), or legally untested (338). This means less presidential manoeuvrability and prolonged uncertainty for businesses—exactly what manufacturers have been waiting to end before making hiring and investment decisions.
They then also need the tariffs to be low enough. At 39% level trade basically stops, so no tariff income. It needs to strike a balance.
well, all the tariff income is going to go into the newly announced tariff dividend, not into the budget, no? 
If push comes to shove, I think congress would approve the tariffs in the end.
Dems could then potentially use the filibuster to block that.
I get the impression that especially in the Senate, tariff support even among Republicans isn’t enough to get it through congress.
So this is the usual stalemate, not enough votes to take the toys away from Trump and not enough votes to make them official.
Burry is toast.
We’re in for a new bull run.
He was early in the housing bubble, almost got obliterated, but right in the end. Maybe he’s early now…or…the smartest people in the world, employed by the Mag6, Palantir, OpenAI etc haven’t all gotten it very wrong.
His hedge fund apparently managed about $150m according to the news I read today. I was a little disappointed about that sum assuming he managed his own money in that fund, too. Honestly thought he made much more during the GFC, but as @Mirager mentioned, he was probably early in calling that bubble.
Let me guess … this is the Mag7 minus Nvidia?
I’ll see myself out.
BOA issued a warning.
And don’t forget the 7(*) others he called that didn’t pop.
Surely some money must have been wasted there too…
(*) The magic number
I suggest we call them “The Super Friends”. Tesla can be Aquaman. 
Edit: Plus, it’s flexible, we can always add or remove one depending on the season and the episode.
Dunno, my hedges BRK and SCHD are on FIRE 
but it’s TQQQ that’s burning!
CH tariff deal for 15% has been reached with US. Bought CHDVD 2 hours ago 
Do we have more information on it? From what I’ve seen a few days ago, talks included the application by Switzerland of US sanctions on other nations (at least the bigger ones), which would be problematic in regards to neutrality and may not be blessed by the parliament.
Is that in there?
Me too!
Based on the press conference on SRF, Parmelin said strictly no, no concession regarding sanctions were made.
Nice!
When checking the chart, it seems it is already priced in couple of days ago (when the topic startetd to be actual again). Can‘t think of any other reasons.
It’s mainly
Simply put -: pay to play. I think if we think from Swiss companies pledging investment, most likely they have done the math that investing in US to serve US market from US would be competitive for them.
What is not clear to me is that if this investment which is a huge number for Swiss economy will eventually mean lower jobs growth in CH or not. Most likely it’s an investment which could have been made in CH but now will be made in US
—-
An einer kurzfristig anberaumten Medienkonferenz erläuterten Wirtschaftsminister Guy Parmelin und Staatssekretärin Helene Budliger Artieda die Eckpunkte des Abkommens. Parmelin sprach von einem «Durchbruch», der nach Monaten intensiver Arbeit gelungen sei. Ein zentrales Element des Deals ist ein Investitionsversprechen von Schweizer Firmen in der Höhe von 200 Milliarden Dollar, verteilt auf mehrere Branchen. Dazu zählen unter anderem Teile der Pharmaindustrie, die Goldschmelzbranche sowie Hersteller von Eisenbahnausrüstungen.