Tariffs Over?🚨Massive Catalyst Unlock!🔥

The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed skeptical of President Donald Trump’s authority to impose sweeping tariffs in a series of executive orders earlier this year. A majority of the justices appeared to agree with the small businesses and states challenging the tariffs that they exceeded the powers given to the president under a federal law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.  

~This episode is sponsored by Tangem~
Tangem ➜ https://bit.ly/TangemPBN
Use Code: "PBN" for Additional Discounts!

00:00 intro
00:08 Sponsor: Tangem
00:30 Supreme Court v. Tariffs
00:57 Defense Stretches Words in Law
02:11 Court not buying it
02:28 National Emergency is Vague
03:15 Are Tariffs a Tax?
04:15 Trump still has trade power
04:45 Supreme Court Destroys Defense
05:52 Laughed Out of Court?
06:26 Polymarket Odds Plummet
06:50 Tariff Refunds?
07:22 Trump Rebate Checks 
07:55 Government Shutdown vs CLARITY
08:24 Cathie Wood Bearish on Bitcoin
09:33 Flip-Flop To Ethereum?
10:12 Matt Hougan: We Bottomed Soon
11:22 Washing out retail holders
12:00 Crypto Still Falling?
13:29 outro

#tariffs #crypto #bitcoin
~Tariffs Over?🚨Massive Catalyst Unlock!🔥
⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺


Join our community!

Diamond Circle Email (FREE)➜ https://bit.ly/pbnmembership
Private Telegram Group (FREE) ➜ https://t.me/+nISqoMxrok40NTcx

Subscribe on YouTube ✅ https://bit.ly/PBNYoutubeSubscribe
X/Twitter 📱 http://bit.ly/PBNtwitter

Get official PBN merch! ➜ https://merch.paulbarronnetwork.com/
~ The Best Self Custody Wallet ➜ https://tangem.com/en/ Use Code PBN for Additional Discounts!
~ The Best Crypto Exchange ➜ Coinbase, get up to $200 in crypto - coinbase-consumer.sjv.io/BARRON
~ Looking for the best tax havens for Crypto? Free Month with iTrust Capital ➜ Use PROMO CODE - PAUL BARRON https://rebrand.ly/PAULBARRON

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Tariff chaos could be over today. We'll break it all
down for you and how it will affect crypto. Don't
miss it. Let's just jump right into it. I want
to thank our sponsor, and that is Tangum. This is
one of the things you should be doing in crypto,
and if you're brand new to crypto, this is your
first step, your first test, and that is to get
into self custody. Self custody is by far the magic
pill of crypto. All you have to do is jump

(00:21):
over to tangum dot com. You two can start putting
your own tokens on your own self custody. Use our
link down below to get a little bit of a
discount and get started out there on self custody. Let's
go into it today because there's a lot happening around
the tariff issue with Trump's administration and his defense facing
the US Supreme Court. Now, how this plays into crypto

(00:44):
is going to get interesting because we could actually see
something happen in a very big way, maybe.

Speaker 2 (00:50):
To the level of a rebate.

Speaker 1 (00:51):
I want to go to this first clip because this
is where they kind of try to compare what's happening
now to what has happened in the past.

Speaker 2 (00:58):
Take a look.

Speaker 3 (00:59):
Is there any that you can find in the entire
code where regulate includes taxing power? Just answered the justices question,
An you identify any statute that use that phrase to
confer to her?

Speaker 4 (01:11):
Yeah?

Speaker 5 (01:11):
The only two statutes I can identify now are TWYA.
Where else in the code has Congress used the word
regulate twia?

Speaker 3 (01:20):
So the answer is the contested application in TYA and
then now and I EVA. I have about sixteen laws
in the past that when Congress intended regulate to mean taxing,
that it used taxes simultaneously, but it didn't.

Speaker 5 (01:35):
Hear it is naturally if we're conferring the power to tariff,
which has delegated to the executive branch.

Speaker 3 (01:41):
You know, again and again and again, go I'm sorry.
So it doesn't say regulate tariffs. It says regulate importations
and exportations. You agree that they can't put tariffs on
exportations from the institution? Agree that, all right? So why
should we think that it's natural then to think that
regulate importation includes taxing importations.

Speaker 5 (02:03):
And the statute doesn't use the word tariffs, but it
uses the word regular importation.

Speaker 3 (02:08):
I don't understand this argument, why are we permitting them?

Speaker 1 (02:12):
This is the defense just trying to stretch the meaning
of what that meant in terms of the words around
this regulation. Of course, the Supreme Court was not having it.
This next clip goes into Justice Sodemeyer talking about the
comparison of what Biden tried to do versus what this
is doing.

Speaker 2 (02:29):
Take a look, didn't we in.

Speaker 3 (02:30):
The Biden case recently say an emergency can't make clear
what's ambiguous.

Speaker 5 (02:38):
The Court has never applied the major question stotturning the
foreign policy.

Speaker 2 (02:41):
Cause we have foreign consuls.

Speaker 3 (02:44):
So Biden could have declared a national emergency in global
warming and then gotten his student forgiveness to tax fossil
fuel or to do something else.

Speaker 5 (02:55):
I don't think he could have gotten student loan forgiveness.

Speaker 3 (02:57):
Why foreign facing With the looks.

Speaker 1 (03:02):
Of this, it does not appear that this is going
to actually go through. Defense is stumbling across this trine
to position they are not winning. The defense also tries
to argue that tariffs aren't a tax on Americans.

Speaker 2 (03:14):
Take a look at this clip.

Speaker 4 (03:16):
The vehicle is in position of taxes on Americans, and.

Speaker 5 (03:21):
First the notion that these are the taxes are all
born by Americans are not.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
There's no basis for that in the record.

Speaker 5 (03:26):
It's actually a mixing pays the tariffs, so it gets
allocated at.

Speaker 3 (03:30):
This a tax.

Speaker 5 (03:31):
It is a it is a if I may it's
a foreign facing regulation of foreign commerce that pain.

Speaker 4 (03:36):
Has it been suggested that the tariffs are responsible for
significant reduction in our deficit? I would say that's raising revenue.

Speaker 5 (03:43):
There certainly is an incident on collateral effect to the
tariffs that they do raise revenue, but it's very important
that they are regulatory tariffs, not revenue raising tariffs. This
policy is by far the most effective. If nobody ever
pays the tariffs.

Speaker 3 (03:55):
So a tariff rail tariff that why not do what
the statue permits bar importation of products altogether. The statute
says the president can do that. What it doesn't say
is the president can raise revenues. Has a lot of verbs,
but none of them include generating revenue.

Speaker 2 (04:16):
All right, so you can kind of see it.

Speaker 1 (04:17):
The way this is going to play out, most likely
is they're going to take away the powers of the
president to do tariffs in the model that he's been
doing them. What they can't do is get it into
what Sodomayer just said there, which was where he could
limit importation, meaning he could go right after the automobile industry,
which would be huge to Europe, Japan, China, etc. And

(04:41):
that could be one of his major areas of where
he would try to go attack this. All right, I've
got another clip for you. This is Judge Gorshi, which
is basically destroying the defense to the point where it
gets a little bit laughable.

Speaker 2 (04:54):
Take a look.

Speaker 4 (04:55):
So, Congress delegate to the president the power to regulate
commerce with foreign nations as he sees fit and collect
duties as he sees fit.

Speaker 5 (05:07):
We don't assert that here. That would be a much
harder case now in seventeen nine, And that's the logic
of your of your view, though I don't think so.

Speaker 4 (05:15):
Now you're admitting that there is some non delegation principle
at play here and therefore major questions as well.

Speaker 2 (05:21):
Yea very limited, very very deferential limited is what it means.

Speaker 4 (05:24):
I know, But that's where you started off, and now
you've retreated from that.

Speaker 5 (05:27):
As I understand it, well, I think we would as
our frontline position a stronger position, but the court doesn't
accept it.

Speaker 2 (05:33):
Then if there is a highly time you give.

Speaker 4 (05:35):
You a reason to accept it.

Speaker 6 (05:36):
Though.

Speaker 4 (05:36):
That's what I'm struggling and waiting for. What's the reason
to accept the notion that Congress can hand off the
power to declare war to the president.

Speaker 2 (05:44):
But we don't contend that again, Well you do.

Speaker 4 (05:46):
You say it's unreviewable, there's no manageable standard, nothing to
be done. And now you're I think you tell me
if I'm wrong. You backed off that position. Maybe that's
fair to say, Okay, all right, I would be thinking
an abdication. I'm delighted to hear that.

Speaker 1 (06:03):
There's nowhere this is going for the President and the administration,
at least on the current stance of tariffs. Yes, he
does have some capabilities of being able to restrict imports.
That would be big because it would affect the auto
automobile market and possibly some of the other major markets
out there.

Speaker 2 (06:20):
That would would still be.

Speaker 1 (06:21):
A leveraging point for them to go out and negotiate
globally for a lot of his deal makers. If you
look at the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Trump,
this is absolutely not going to happen. Polymarkets got it
pretty much down at twenty six percent. This is done
I think Crypto has spoken. This will most likely go
quickly into a decision, which could happen as early as December,

(06:45):
and that would be very fast for Supreme Court to
be able to make that. How this plays out into
the next steps is the real question, because most likely
this could have impact on refunds. You heard me right,
that refunds could actually come back into the companies that
have been in this as well as the consumers. How
would that happen.

Speaker 7 (07:04):
Take a look as of right now, the treasure we'd
have to pay about ninety billion dollars back if the
Supreme Court decides against the Trump administration here. That number,
of course growing every day by the time we get
to the end of the year, and.

Speaker 8 (07:16):
By the end of the year, we're talking about maybe
one hundred and thirty billion dollars.

Speaker 1 (07:21):
All right, end of the year, one hundred and thirty billion.
Where's that going to go? Some of it will go
back to major corporations where we get tax for or
excuse me, price cuts.

Speaker 2 (07:29):
Unlikely.

Speaker 1 (07:30):
Inflation has already hit the American consumer, so you're already
out of pocket for that. But maybe what could happen
is Trump spends this and wins Anyway, we did a
couple of videos on this talking about where this could
end up coming back to the American people as a
tariff rebate. If Trump does that, then what he's done

(07:51):
is basically pivoted the whole issue into a positive for him.
Let's go further into this because this gets into other
scenarios and that is going to be going around the
government reopening soon Clarity Act passes before the end of November.
If that does occur, and then of course many people
think that we could see an all season that could
be epic by December, January, and February. I'm still on

(08:14):
the fence about that. In terms of a massive all season.
It will depend on how institutional capital plays into this,
because this is really what institutions have been waiting for.
And it's kind of interesting because this goes over to
a clip that we pulled on Kathy Wood that was
in reference to bitcoin. Now, this is forward looking statements

(08:35):
from our investment, who has been very bullish on bitcoin
at least until now.

Speaker 2 (08:40):
Take a look.

Speaker 6 (08:41):
I will say one thing that has shifted for us
stable coins are usurping part of the role that we
thought bitcoin would play. So our bullish forecast out there
is one point five million by twenty thirty. I think
we could take maybe three hundred thousand dollars off of
that bullish case just for stable coins.

Speaker 4 (09:02):
So, Kathy, this is news because this is a different expectation.
Would you take the top top number down even further?

Speaker 6 (09:12):
Digital gold could us serve half of that market or
at least become as big. So that's the other dynamic
at work here.

Speaker 4 (09:20):
You know, there's a lot of things that are better
than gold about dick coin, and most of the most
important things are this or the same, So it's either
better or the same.

Speaker 2 (09:28):
So it could at least be half.

Speaker 8 (09:30):
It could at least be half of gold.

Speaker 1 (09:32):
Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely, Kathy pulled off three hundred thousand on
her top line expectations by twenty thirty. If this continues
to correlate on an annual basis over the next five years,
you can kind of see where their position might be.
And they're all in on stable coins. Of course, that
means ethereum, you look at institutions. Institutions now PILI and

(09:54):
we've already talked about this before. This was a clip
by Matt Hogan. Now remember Matt Hogan, bit wise they're
getting aroundy to launch an XRP ETF, But the main
thing he's getting at here is the status of retail
and the status of institutional and where it collides.

Speaker 8 (10:11):
Take a look, crypto retail is in max desperation. We've
seen leverage blowouts, we've seen issues with faults, we've seen
issues with yield protocols, and the market for sort of
crypto native retail is just more depressed than I've ever
seen it. I think that market is close to a bottom.
It's hard to find a crypto native investor who still

(10:34):
has much enthusiasm for the market. I think the market
is shifting into an institutionally driven market, and interestingly, that
market is still bullish. When I go out and speak
to institutions or financial advisors, they're still excited to allocate
to an asset class that, if you pan back and
look over the course of a year, is still delivering

(10:54):
very strong returns. So my view of the market is
we have to get through this retail flush out, but
I think we're very close to that, and then I'm
optimistic that we rally into the end of the year
and into twenty twenty six. As the institutional investors who
are more maybe even keeled about what's going on at
a fundamental level when crypto start to drive the market forward.

(11:17):
But we do have to finish this wash out of
retail sentiment. And again I think we're closer to the
end of that than the beginning.

Speaker 1 (11:23):
All right, guys, that's exactly the point we've been getting
at a long time. And then that is they're trying
to wash you out. When I say they, it's institutions
or it's the big bad wolfs out there that are
going after your bitcoin. Your ethereum, your XRP point being
is is that this could be the last pushed down
before we do see a complete new map of how

(11:44):
crypto could be utilized and also really invested in over
the next several years. And remember, institutional capital has a
much longer timeframe. Their horizon is much different than a
retail investor. You need to rethink how your starts to
go into these markets. If you take a look at
the charts right now, Bitcoin of course has been bleeding

(12:05):
really from that top at one twenty six to where
we are now, and you kind of see the top
here and where we are today. If we go all
the way down to the bottom. That was a twenty
one percent move down. Could we see the one hundred
k again, Yes, it's very possible that this could start
to push in. I'm leary of how this plays out
in November. I still am questioning Tom Lee's anticipation of

(12:27):
a two hundred k bitcoin by end of year. I
just don't understand that one. And of course, one thing
about Ethereum that has been significant is the fact that
they are and I think are starting to make their
case around what's going to happen in terms of new
developments and if you look at where Fusaka is in
terms of transactions, we talked.

Speaker 2 (12:45):
About that the other day.

Speaker 1 (12:47):
This could be a long form stimulus from institutions taking
a look at eth as a bigger play, meaning ETFs
as well as Ethereum spot. So a lot of that
going on, and don't forget what we're going to say
see around the staking business.

Speaker 2 (13:01):
Last up, just a quick look at XRP.

Speaker 1 (13:03):
Even though with Ripple absolutely announcing barn Burner deals including
five hundred million in new investment on a forty billion
dollars now valuation, this is crazy because remember Ripple was
valued at like eleven billion the beginning.

Speaker 2 (13:20):
Of last year.

Speaker 1 (13:21):
This is a huge, huge step, but yet XRP on
the token side has not moved. Is this a sideways
action before we see a blow off top? Let me
know what you guys think down in the comments. And also,
do you think President Trump is going to rearrange this
in his benefit around these tears? Let me know about
that as well. If you're not in the diamond circle,

(13:41):
get in on that. It's a free place where you
guys can get additional content from me and follow me
on x at Paul Baron. We'll catch you next time
right here on The Paul Baron Show.