turmp

has signed a new executive order imposing a flat 10% tariff on imports from all countries, marking a swift policy response to a major ruling by the . The Court reportedly ruled 6–3 against the administration’s earlier reliance on the (IEEPA) to justify sweeping peacetime tariffs, effectively limiting the executive branch’s ability to use emergency economic powers for broad trade restrictions.

Rather than retreating from its tariff-centered trade strategy, the administration quickly shifted its legal footing. The new order invokes Section 122 authority under U.S. trade law, allowing for a temporary tariff measure that could remain in place for up to 150 days. This pivot signals that while one legal pathway has been blocked, the broader policy objective remains firmly intact.

At the core of the Supreme Court’s decision is a constitutional question about the separation of powers. Tariffs historically fall within Congress’s authority to regulate commerce and impose duties. While Congress has delegated certain trade powers to the executive branch over the decades, the Court’s ruling appears to draw a sharper boundary around how far those delegations extend—particularly when emergency powers are invoked outside of wartime or clear national crises. By rejecting the use of IEEPA for wide-ranging tariff enforcement, the Court reinforced the idea that expansive trade actions require clearer statutory grounding.

The administration’s response suggests that it anticipated legal resistance and prepared alternative mechanisms. Section 122, while more limited in duration, provides a route to impose temporary import restrictions to address balance-of-payments concerns or currency-related pressures. By framing the new tariff under a different statutory authority, the White House is attempting to preserve policy momentum while reducing vulnerability to immediate judicial reversal.

Economically, a flat 10% global tariff represents a significant intervention in international trade flows. Unlike targeted tariffs aimed at specific countries or sectors, a universal rate spreads cost pressures broadly across industries. Importers are the first to experience the direct financial impact, as they must pay the additional duty upon entry of goods into the United States. From there, the effect typically moves through the supply chain. Manufacturers relying on imported raw materials may see higher production costs, retailers could face tighter margins, and consumers may ultimately encounter higher prices.

The extent to which costs are passed on depends heavily on market conditions. Companies operating with strong pricing power may transfer most of the tariff burden to buyers. Others in highly competitive industries may attempt to absorb a portion of the cost to maintain market share. In either case, a universal tariff of this scale introduces upward pressure on input prices, raising concerns about potential inflationary effects, particularly if the measure remains in place for the full 150-day window or evolves into a more permanent structure.

Financial markets tend to react in stages to trade policy shifts. The initial phase is often driven by headlines and sentiment, producing immediate movements in equities, bonds, and currency markets. Risk-sensitive sectors such as technology, manufacturing, and retail may experience volatility as investors assess exposure to global supply chains. Currency markets may adjust based on expectations of trade balances and capital flows, while bond markets evaluate potential inflationary implications and the likelihood of central bank responses.

The second phase of market reaction is more analytical. Economists and institutional investors begin modeling the direct and indirect effects of the tariff—sector by sector, region by region. Analysts evaluate which industries rely most heavily on imported components, how quickly firms can diversify sourcing, and whether domestic alternatives are available at competitive costs. Over time, these calculations shape earnings forecasts and investment strategies.

For businesses, planning uncertainty may prove as impactful as the tariff itself. Even if the order is technically temporary, companies must make real-time decisions about inventory levels, supplier contracts, and pricing strategies. Some firms may accelerate imports ahead of implementation to mitigate short-term costs. Others may explore renegotiating supplier agreements or shifting production to domestic facilities where feasible. However, such adjustments often require time and capital, meaning short-term disruption can be difficult to avoid.

The legal dimension of the policy remains dynamic. The new order could face fresh challenges from trade groups, importers, or other stakeholders who argue that the revised legal basis still oversteps statutory authority. Courts may once again be asked to interpret the limits of delegated trade powers, potentially leading to further judicial clarification. The administration’s use of Section 122 may withstand scrutiny given its temporary nature, but its broader strategy—especially if additional trade authorities are invoked, could continue to test constitutional boundaries.

Politically, the move reinforces tariffs as a central pillar of Trump’s economic messaging. Supporters may view the swift transition to a new legal mechanism as evidence of determination to pursue a protectionist trade agenda despite institutional obstacles. They may argue that such measures protect domestic industries and address perceived trade imbalances. Critics, on the other hand, may contend that shifting legal strategies without altering the underlying policy increases economic uncertainty and undermines stable governance.

Internationally, trading partners are likely to assess both the substance and durability of the new measure. A universal tariff affects allies and competitors alike, potentially prompting diplomatic negotiations or retaliatory considerations. Some countries may seek exemptions through bilateral talks, while others could challenge the measure through international trade dispute mechanisms.

Looking ahead, several key questions shape the trajectory of this policy. Will courts permit the new legal framework to stand without modification? Will exemptions be carved out for specific goods, industries, or countries? Could additional statutes—such as national security or unfair trade investigation authorities, be deployed to reinforce or expand tariff coverage? Each of these possibilities carries implications for global trade stability and domestic economic performance.

The Supreme Court’s decision may have closed one path for sweeping tariffs under emergency powers, but the administration’s rapid response demonstrates that the broader tariff strategy remains active and adaptable. For businesses, investors, and consumers, trade policy uncertainty is likely to remain a defining factor in the economic landscape.
#Turmp @Turmp $TRUMP

Ethereum's price has reached a key support level between $1,700-$1,900 amid bearish market sentiment, with analysts divided on whether it will decline further or rebound toward $4,000
ETH price dropped 9.3% between March 26-28, testing the $1,860 level
Futures premium hit a 1-year low, while options skew at 7% suggests professional traders lack confidence
ETH is currently trading at a key support zone between $1,700-$1,900
Some analysts predict a potential recovery to $4,000 based on historical patterns
Short positions ($391 million) significantly outweigh long positions ($120 million), indicating bearish sentiment
Ethereum’s price has experienced a sharp decline in recent weeks, testing key support levels and triggering debate among analysts about whether this represents a buying opportunity or signals further downside. Market data provides a complex picture of both bearish pressure and potential recovery signals.

The second-largest cryptocurrency by market cap fell 9.3% between March 26 and March 28, testing the $1,860 level for the first time in two weeks. This correction led to over $114 million in liquidations of leveraged ETH futures.
The futures premium relative to the spot market dropped to its lowest level in over a year. Currently at 2% annualized premium, this suggests a lack of demand for leveraged long positions.

Some traders view this rock-bottom futures premium as a potential bottom signal. However, historical data shows this indicator is heavily influenced by recent price movements and rarely signals changes in the spot price trend.

Options markets tell a similar story. The 25% delta skew, which measures how the market prices put (sell) options compared to call (buy) options, currently sits at 7%.

When this metric rises above 6%, it typically indicates higher demand for hedging strategies, suggesting professional traders expect continued downward pressure. The current reading suggests a lack of conviction among these market participants.

From a technical perspective, ETH is positioned at a clear support zone between $1,700 and $1,900. This range has historically acted as a launch pad for recoveries.
Previous declines to this area have triggered strong price surges. One analyst points out that Ethereum is trading within a long-term macro price range between $1,700 and $4,500.

Despite underperforming compared to Solana during this bull market, ETH has still doubled from its 2022 low. This performance exceeds that of most other altcoins.

Sentiment, is not great.
The sentiment around Ethereum has reached extreme lows. According to one analyst, the current market sentiment score shows Ethereum has hit rock bottom at 14, signaling extreme fear and uncertainty.

Historical data suggests that when ETH reaches similar sentiment lows, as it did in late 2017 and 2021, the cryptocurrency often experiences a subsequent rally to new all-time highs.

Short-term traders appear heavily positioned for further downside. Data from on-chain analytics firm Coinglass reveals that traders betting on the short side are currently over-leveraged at $1,925, having built $391 million worth of short positions at this level.

Meanwhile, traders betting on price increases have built only $120 million worth of long positions at $1,855. This imbalance clearly indicates that bears currently dominate the market.

Ethereum faces several fundamental challenges. Some analysts argue that the sharp decline in network activity is the primary reason for ETH’s reduced appeal.

Others suggest that the shift toward layer-2 scalability solutions has significantly diminished the potential of base chain fees. With validators requiring compensation, the lack of capital inflow may require more ETH issuance, potentially affecting net returns from native staking.

Competition from other blockchains also places pressure on Ethereum. Networks like BNB Chain and Solana continue to gain traction, while specialized networks like Hyperliquid and Berachain target specific use cases.

The migration of successful decentralized applications (DApps) away from Ethereum presents another challenge. For example, Ethena, a synthetic dollar protocol currently holding $5.3 billion in total value locked (TVL), is transitioning to its own layer-1 blockchain after raising $100 million in December 2024.

Despite these challenges, Ethereum has an important protocol update approaching. The Pectra upgrade, scheduled for the coming weeks, could provide practical benefits in terms of base layer fees and overall usability.

Analysts suggest that if ETH can reclaim the $2,100 level, the cryptocurrency could move rapidly toward $4,000 in just a few months. The upcoming Federal Reserve monetary policy decision in mid-April may also provide renewed bullish momentum that could benefit Ethereum’s price trajectory. $BTC
💖 Plz 🙏 Like and Share My post Thank you 🙏
At press time, Ethereum is trading near $1,870, with trading volume jumping by 50% over the past 24 hours. This increased participation from traders and investors compared to the previous day suggests heightened market interest at current price levels.
#ETH #btc70k #bnb #xrp #turmp $ADA $TAO