Connect with us

Business

Trump White House prepares tariff fallback ahead of court ruling

Published

on



President Donald Trump’s administration is working behind the scenes on fallback options if the Supreme Court strikes down one of his major tariff authorities, looking to replace the levies as quickly as possible.

Both the Commerce Department and the Office of the US Trade Representative have studied Plan B options if the court rules against the administration, according to US officials familiar with the planning. Those include Section 301 and Section 122 of the Trade Act, which grant the president unilateral ability to impose duties.

The replacements come with risks — they tend to be either slower or more limited than the wide-ranging powers Trump has asserted so far and could face their own legal challenges. The administration is holding out hope that it will win the case outright. Trump has repeatedly urged the justices to uphold his country-based tariffs, which he imposed by citing an economic emergency. 

Still, the preparations are the latest signal the administration is bracing for a potential unfavorable outcome, after the court appeared skeptical of Trump’s global tariffs during this month’s oral arguments. They also show Trump’s commitment to imposing tariffs, including through untested means. One administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that tariffs will remain a core part of Trump’s economic agenda regardless of the court’s decision.

“We’re waiting for a decision. We hope it’s going to be good, but if it’s not, we’ll do — we always find ways, you know, we find ways,” Trump said Wednesday. 

The White House declined to comment on the specifics of its preparations but acknowledged it’s seeking “new ways” to maintain Trump’s trade policy.

“President Trump lawfully exercised the emergency tariff powers granted to the Executive Branch by Congress, and the Administration is confident in ultimate victory on this matter by the Supreme Court. The Administration is always examining new ways to address America’s historic goods trade deficit and reshore the manufacturing that’s critical to our national and economic security,” spokesman Kush Desai said.

It’s not clear when the Supreme Court will rule. The justices could uphold the tariffs, knock them down entirely or take a more targeted approach. The decision threatens to generate further uncertainty for businesses and foreign governments.

“My expectation is they’ll move immediately to reinstate them,” said Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute, referring to Trump’s team. “They’re going to basically piece it all back together.”

The Supreme Court case hinges on Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, under which he’s imposed so-called “reciprocal” tariffs on imports worldwide, as well as charges on Chinese, Canadian and Mexican goods related to fentanyl and a levy on products from Brazil in an ill-fated attempt to stop the prosecution of former president and Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro.

The total effective tariff rate on US imports is about 14.4%, and more than half of that is due to IEEPA duties, according to Bloomberg Economics estimates. The economists “expect most duties to eventually be fully replaced” if the Supreme Court wipes out the country-based levies.

In some cases, backup plans are already in motion. Trump has launched a 301 investigation against Brazil, for instance, and has 301 levies on some Chinese products from his first term. The provision typically requires a lengthy investigation before duties can be implemented.

National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett has said Trump may turn to 301 or 122 powers to reimpose import taxes if the Supreme Court rules against the administration.

“There are a lot of things that we could do so that we could reproduce the policies that we have right now with alternative authorities,” Hassett said during a Nov. 13 interview with Bloomberg host and Carlyle Group co-founder and co-Chairman David Rubenstein at an Economic Club of Washington event.

Section 122 powers would let the president impose tariffs of 15% — a threshold he’s settled on in several deals with other nations — but only for a maximum of 150 days. Trump trade adviser Peter Navarro earlier this year cited that time limit as a reason the administration does not plan to rely heavily on that measure.

Trump has also used Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act to apply tariffs to sectors including metals and autos. The administration has announced new investigations and imposed fresh duties. Plus, the steady creep of completed products falling under those duties has irritated some trading partners, including those in Europe, who say it undercuts a cap on sectoral tariffs in the US-European Union trade pact. 

“I’m beginning to wonder whether this is part of the Administration’s Plan B should IEEPA be found unconstitutional,” former US trade negotiator Wendy Cutler posted last month on social media. “It’s only a matter of time before the 232s cover most of our manufacturing base.”

Section 338 of the Tariff Act is another potential tool for Trump, but one that could be ripe for a fresh legal fight given that it has never before been used.

“It would be subject to litigation, probably very quickly,” Lincicome said. “I’m cautiously optimistic that we are avoiding a return to 2025 chaos.”

Still, the new measures won’t be as easy for Trump to enact, given their limitations. Officials would have to grapple with novel legal questions, such as whether the administration could impose Section 122 tariffs concurrently, cancel them before the deadline and then reimpose them under a new clock or whether to retroactively apply duties to try and avoid refunding money collected under the existing system.

“It would be a huge mess,” Lincicome said.

An adverse court ruling could force the administration to give back more than $88 billion in duties already collected, according to Bloomberg Economics. 

White House Deputy Chief of Staff James Blair said he thinks there’s a 50-50 chance, or better, of the administration winning the case. But if it doesn’t, officials would essentially restore any levies struck down.

“There are tools that the president already has in existing authorities to pretty much just put it back through a different means,” Blair said at a Nov. 18 Bloomberg Government event. “We’ll see what they rule.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

‘Let’s not be naive’: Ray Dalio warns the global rule-based order is already ‘gone,’ toppled by America’s debt crisis and raw power

Published

on



Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio, speaking to Fortune‘s Kamal Ahmed at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, issued a stark warning to global leaders and business executives: Stop pretending the old rules still apply. In a candid assessment of the current geopolitical landscape, Dalio argued the fate of the post-World War II global order—much debated amid President Donald Trump’s pursuit of Greenland and unsettling of the NATO alliance—is a moot point.

“Let’s not be naive and say, ‘Oh, we’re breaking the rule-based system,’” Dalio said. “It’s gone.”

The billionaire founder of the largest hedge fund in history added that as a student of financial history, he pays close attention to the economic cycles of the last 500 years and sees cycles repeat themselves over time.

“And what I learned through that exercise is the same thing happens over and over again,” he said. “And it’s like a movie for me. It’s like watching the same movie happen.”

According to Dalio, five specific forces interact to drive the movie plot forward, with the “money-debt cycle” serving as the MacGuffin that kicks things off. The roots of the current instability, Dalio explained, lie in the monetary decisions made during the past several decades. Since 1971, when the U.S. under President Richard Nixon broke the dollar’s link to gold, Dalio notes, governments have consistently chosen to “print money” rather than allow debt crises to naturally play out. This behavior occurs when debt-service payments rise faster than incomes, squeezing spending. After more than half a century of this, he argued, repeating a consistent warning in his public remarks on the subject, the world is now witnessing a “breakdown of the monetary order,” evidenced by central banks altering their reserves and buying gold.

The previous day, Dalio had said in an appearance on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” from the sidelines of the annual meeting in Davos, fiat currencies and debt as a storehouse of wealth were “not being held by central banks in the same way” anymore. He pointed to a decoupling in which the U.S. markets have underperformed foreign markets in specific metrics, a trend visible in the changing balance sheets of global central banks.

The core of Dalio’s concern lies in the transition from trade disputes to what he terms “capital wars.” He alluded to how U.S. Treasury bonds were the bedrock of global reserves for decades, but now, Dalio said the sheer supply of debt being produced by the U.S. is colliding with a shrinking global appetite to hold it.

“There’s a supply-demand issue,” Dalio noted, adding “you can’t ignore the possibility that … maybe there’s not the same inclination to buy U.S. debt.”

This reluctance is driven by geopolitical friction. According to Dalio, in times of international conflict, “even allies do not want to hold each other’s debt,” preferring instead to move capital into hard currencies. This shift forces the issuer of the debt to monetize it, a phenomenon Dalio summarized bluntly: “We’re increasingly buying our own money. That’s… the lesson of all this.”

As Dalio was speaking on Monday, markets weathered a global selloff as they digested the revelation that President Donald Trump was demanding U.S. possession of Greenland in revenge for not getting the Nobel Peace Prize in 2025. He had texted the Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Støre in anger about this, according to confirmed reports over the weekend, even though the Nobel Prize committee is separately operated from the government of Norway. But Dalio’s Tuesday remarks came amid calmer markets, as Trump reiterated his request for Greenland but clarified he would not authorize use of force to acquire it.

This economic instability feeds directly into the collapse of political norms, Dalio told Fortune on Wednesday. He argued the multilateral world order established in 1945—characterized by institutions such as the United Nations and the World Trade Organization—was arguably a “naive system” from the start, as it relied on representation without guaranteed enforcement.

“What happens when the leading power doesn’t want to abide by the vote?” Dalio asked. “Do you really expect that there’s going to be a United Nations vote or a World Court that’s going to resolve these things?”

The result, he argued, is a definitive shift from a multilateral system to a unilateral one. Dalio posited the central question of our time has become: “Who makes the rules, who enforces the rules, and how are you going to deal with that?”

Perhaps the most chilling aspect of Dalio’s analysis is the erosion of legal authority in favor of brute force. “Power matters more” than the law, he told Fortune, noting conflicts are increasingly decided by who controls the military, the police, and the National Guard. This trend is visible not only internationally but within nations, where democracy is threatened by populism and a growing belief the system is corrupt.

When asked if this rupture should strike fear into corporate boards and CEOs who have long relied on stable global rules, Dalio responded ignoring the truth is far more dangerous.

“I think what always scares me is the lack of realism,” he said.

Dalio advised leaders to stop relying on a dissolving rule-based system and instead focus on “jurisdiction questions,” seeking out places where people are “like-minded” and mutually supportive. Whether dealing with international boundaries or domestic regulations, Dalio insists businesses must now face the hard reality the era of assured legal protection is ending.

“Will law prevail?” Dalio asked. “Internationally, everybody is having to deal with that question.”

As confidence in institutions, the law itself, and fiat-denominated debt erodes, Dalio highlighted to CNBC the quiet but significant resurgence of gold. He emphasized gold should not be viewed merely as a speculative asset but as “the second-largest reserve currency” in the world. He noted in the previous year, gold was the “biggest market to move,” and it performed far better than tech stocks as central banks diversified their holdings. JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon had similar remarks in an interview with Fortune at the Most Powerful Women conference in October, when he said for the first time in his life, it had become “semi-rational” to have gold in your portfolio.

However, Dalio’s outlook was not entirely defensive. He said he sees the current era as a bifurcation between the decaying monetary order and a “wonderful technological revolution,” echoing Trump’s remarks onstage earlier that day about the “economic miracle” taking place. In that regard, at least, might may end up making right.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Jensen Huang says AI bubble fears are dwarfed by ‘largest infrastructure buildout in human history’

Published

on



Pushing back against growing skepticism regarding the sustainability of artificial intelligence spending, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang argued against the mountain backdrop of Davos, Switzerland, that high capital expenditures are not a sign of a financial bubble, but rather evidence of “the largest infrastructure buildout in human history.”

Speaking in conversation with BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, the interim co-chair of the World Economic Forum, Huang detailed an industrial transformation that extends far beyond software code, reshaping global labor markets and driving unprecedented demand for skilled tradespeople. While much of the public debate focuses on the potential for AI to replace white-collar jobs, Huang pointed to an immediate boom in blue-collar employment required to physically construct the new computing economy.

“It’s wonderful that the jobs are related to tradecraft, and we’re going to have plumbers and electricians and construction and steel workers,” Huang said. He noted the urgency to erect “AI factories,” chip plants, and data centers has radically altered the wage landscape for manual labor. “Salaries have gone up, nearly doubled, and so we’re talking about six-figure salaries for people who are building chip factories or computer factories,” Huang said, emphasizing the industry is currently facing a “great shortage” of these workers.

Ford CEO Jim Farley has been warning for months about the labor shortage in what he calls the “essential economy,” exactly the type of jobs mentioned by Huang in Davos. Earlier this month, Farley told Fortune these 95 million jobs are the “backbone of our country,” and he was partnering with local retailer Carhartt to boost workforce development, community building, and “the tools required by the men and women who keep the American Dream alive.” 

It’s time we all reinvest in the people who make our world work with their hands,” Farley said.

In October, at Ford’s Pro Accelerate conference, Farley shared that his own son was wrestling with whether to go to college or pursue a career in the trades. The Ford CEO has estimated the shortage at 600,000 in factories and nearly the same in construction.

Huang dismisses bubble fears

Fink brought up the bubble talk for a good reason: Fear of a popping bubble gripped markets for much of the back half of 2025, with luminaries such as Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon, and, just the previous day in Davos, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, warning about the potential for pain. Much of this originated in the underwhelming release of OpenAI’s GPT-5 in August, but also the MIT study that found 95% of generative AI pilots were failing to generate a return on investment. “Permabears” such as Albert Edwards, global strategist at Société Générale, have talked about how there’s likely a bubble brewing—but then again, they always think that.

Huang, whose company became the face of the AI revolution when it blew past $4 trillion in market capitalization (a bar recently reached by Alphabet on the positive release of its Gemini update), tackled these fears in conversation with Fink, arguing the term misdiagnoses the situation. Critics often point to the massive sums being spent by hyperscalers and corporations as unsustainable, but Huang countered the appearance of a bubble happens because “the investments are large … and the investments are large because we have to build the infrastructure necessary for all of the layers of AI above it.”

Huang went deeper on his food metaphor, describing the AI industry as a “five-layer cake” requiring total industrial reinvention, with Nvidia’s chips a particularly crunchy part of the recipe. The bottom layer is energy, followed by chips, cloud infrastructure, and models, with applications sitting at the top. The current wave of spending is focused on the foundational layers—energy and chips—which creates tangible assets rather than speculative vapor. Far from a bubble, he described a new industry being built from the ground up.

“There are trillions of dollars of infrastructure that needs to be built out,” Huang said, noting that the world is currently only “a few 100 billion dollars into it.”

To prove the market is driven by real demand rather than speculation, Huang offered a practical “test” for the bubble theory: the rental price of computing power as seen in the price of Nvidia’s GPU chips.

“If you try to rent an Nvidia GPU these days, it’s so incredibly hard, and the spot price of GPU rentals is going up, not just the latest generation, but two-generation-old GPUs,” he said. This scarcity indicates established companies are shifting their research and development budgets—such as pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly moving funds from wet labs to AI supercomputing—rather than simply burning venture capital.

Beyond construction and infrastructure, Huang addressed the broader anxiety regarding AI’s impact on human employment. He argued AI ultimately changes the “task” of a job rather than eliminating the “purpose” of the job. Citing radiology as an example, he noted that despite AI diffusing into every aspect of the field over the last decade, the number of radiologists has actually increased. Because AI handles the task of studying scans infinitely faster, doctors can focus on their core purpose: patient diagnosis and care, leading to higher hospital throughput and increased hiring.

Fink reframed the issue, based on Huang’s pushback. “So what I’m hearing is, we’re far from an AI bubble. The question is, are we investing enough?” Fink asked, positing that current spending levels might actually be insufficient to broaden the global economy.

Huang appeared to say: not really. “I think the the opportunity is really quite extraordinary, and everybody ought to get involved. Everybody ought to get engaged. We need more energy,” he said, adding the industry needs more land, power, trade, scale and workers. Huang said the U.S. has lost its workforce population in many ways over the last 20-30 years, “but it’s still incredibly strong,” and in Europe, pointing around him in Switzerland, he saw “an extraordinary opportunity to take advantage of.” He noted 2025 was the largest investment year in venture capital history, with $100 billion invested around the world, mostly on AI natives.”

Huang concluded by emphasizing this infrastructure buildout is global, urging developing nations and Europe to engage in “sovereign AI” by building their own domestic infrastructure. For Europe specifically, he highlighted a “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to leverage its strong industrial base to lead in “physical AI” and robotics, effectively merging the new digital intelligence with traditional manufacturing. Far from a bubble, he seemed to be saying, this is just the beginning.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires are demanding Davos leaders to tax them more: ‘Tax us. Tax the super rich.’

Published

on



While the wealthiest business leaders from U.S. president Donald Trump to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang touch down in the Swiss town of Davos to discuss the state of the world, a cohort of the ultra-rich are already sounding the alarm. Hundreds of millionaires and billionaires released an open letter in time for the World Economic Forum, calling on leaders attending the conference to fight raging wealth inequality with taxes. 

“Millionaires like us refuse to be silent. It is time to be counted. Tax us and make sure the next fifty years meet the promise of progress for everyone,” the letter stated

“Extreme wealth has led to extreme control for those who gamble with our safe future for their obscene gains. Now is the time to end that control and win back our future.”

So far, nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires across 24 countries have signed the letter condemning extreme wealth, including the likes of Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo, Disney heirs Abby and Tim Disney, and real estate developer Jeffrey Gural.

The open letter is part of a “Time to Win” campaign, led by wealth redistribution organizations including Patriotic Millionaires, Millionaires for Humanity, and Oxfam. It criticized global oligarchs with riches who have “bought up” democracies, exacerbated poverty, stifled tech innovation, dampened press freedom, and overall, “accelerated the breakdown of our planet.” After all, 77% of millionaires from G20 nations think extremely wealthy individuals buy political influence, and 71% believe those with riches can significantly influence elections, according to a poll conducted for Patriotic Millionaires.

The Time to Win wealthy signatories offer a simple solution: “Tax us. Tax the super rich.”

“As millionaires who stand shoulder to shoulder with all people, we demand it,” the open letter continued. “And as our elected representatives—whether it’s those of you at Davos, local councillors, city mayors, or regional leaders—it’s your duty to deliver it.

Stars and billionaires are calling out the super-rich for being ungenerous 

As the world mints hundreds of thousands of millionaires yearly and billionaire wealth soars to record highs, some leaders can’t stand to stay quiet. Celebrities and the ultra-rich haven’t just sent a message to money-hoarders with the Time to Win letter—some have even called out billionaires in person, questioning their existence. 

“If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties,” Eilish said onstage last year at the WSJ Magazine Innovator Awards with Meta mogul Mark Zuckerberg, worth $214 billion, in attendance. 

Even the most philanthropic members of the ultra-rich club are wary of their peers’ lack of charity. Billionaires have started their own initiatives like Warren Buffett, Melinda French Gates, and Bill Gates’ The Giving Pledge, which attracted more than 250 billionaires who pledged to donate at least half of their wealth during their lifetimes, or in their wills. But efforts have largely fallen short. Last year, French Gates admitted that the signatories haven’t given enough; And in a letter to shareholders, Buffett fessed up to the fact that billionaires aren’t following through. 

“Early on, I contemplated various grand philanthropic plans. Though I was stubborn, these did not prove feasible,” Buffett wrote. “During my many years, I’ve also watched ill-conceived wealth transfers by political hacks, dynastic choices, and, yes, inept or quirky philanthropists.”

Billionaire and millionaire wealth is on the rise 

There’s more people rolling in riches than ever before, and it’s fueling an equity crisis at the bottom of the economic ladder. 

In 2024 alone, the U.S. minted 379,000 new millionaires—over 1,000 millionaires every day—as the proportion of Americans in the ultrawealthy club swelled by 1.5%, according to a 2025 report from investment bank UBS. This cohort held about $107 trillion in total wealth at the end of that year: more than four times the amount they owned at the turn of the millennium. 

In 2000, there were only 13.27 million everyday millionaires, but by the end of 2024, the group swelled to 52 million people worldwide. 

While it might appear that eye-watering riches are spreading out to a larger number of individuals, it’s mainly concentrating at the top. America’s top 20% household earners—averaging a net worth of $4.3 million—accounted for about 71% of the U.S.’s total wealth at the end of 2024, according to 2025 data from the Federal Reserve. 

Meanwhile, the bottom half of American households, averaging about $60,000 in wealth, owned just 2.5% of the country’s wealth. For the vast majority of U.S. citizens, joining the millionaire club—and even more so, the billionaire club—is a total pipe dream.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.