Heather Somerville

Basically, what we're talking about are two broad swaths of tariffs here for the Trump administration. The first is all of those so-called reciprocal tariffs that he promulgated on so-called Liberation Day. Those were invalidated by this ruling, right? And the second is the tariffs that were based on the fentanyl trade, on fentanyl smuggling. That was on Canada, Mexico, and China.

Basically, what we're talking about are two broad swaths of tariffs here for the Trump administration. The first is all of those so-called reciprocal tariffs that he promulgated on so-called Liberation Day. Those were invalidated by this ruling, right? And the second is the tariffs that were based on the fentanyl trade, on fentanyl smuggling. That was on Canada, Mexico, and China.

Both sets of those tariffs... were promulgated under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. And Trump said that that gave him the power to do these global tariffs. And the court said, no, it does not.

Both sets of those tariffs... were promulgated under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. And Trump said that that gave him the power to do these global tariffs. And the court said, no, it does not.

So there are the so-called Section 232. These are national security tariffs on individual industrial sectors. So the steel and aluminum tariffs, the automotive tariffs, the tariffs that are coming down the pike on semiconductors, on lumber, on things like that. So those sector-specific tariffs, that's a totally different legal authority. They were not part of this at all. They remain in effect.

So there are the so-called Section 232. These are national security tariffs on individual industrial sectors. So the steel and aluminum tariffs, the automotive tariffs, the tariffs that are coming down the pike on semiconductors, on lumber, on things like that. So those sector-specific tariffs, that's a totally different legal authority. They were not part of this at all. They remain in effect.

There's a couple reasons. The first is that the administration has pledged to, if they can't do tariffs under this authority, they will find other authorities to impose their tariffs. The second one is that those national security tariffs, the sectoral tariffs that we talked about, are still in place. And a lot of countries would love to negotiate their way out of that as well.

There's a couple reasons. The first is that the administration has pledged to, if they can't do tariffs under this authority, they will find other authorities to impose their tariffs. The second one is that those national security tariffs, the sectoral tariffs that we talked about, are still in place. And a lot of countries would love to negotiate their way out of that as well.

So there are still things to talk about here. It does undermine a little bit of the U.S. leverage here. That's what the Trump administration said yesterday. in their filing for the emergency stay on the Court of International Trade decision. They said that that decision severely undermines their negotiating position, undermines their leverage, and that's why they need an immediate stay.

So there are still things to talk about here. It does undermine a little bit of the U.S. leverage here. That's what the Trump administration said yesterday. in their filing for the emergency stay on the Court of International Trade decision. They said that that decision severely undermines their negotiating position, undermines their leverage, and that's why they need an immediate stay.

Then you saw Kevin Hassett and others on television today saying, Nothing has changed. Conversations continue. We're still talking to world leaders. So obviously, there's a little bit of tailoring the message for the audience there. But I would say the talks are still on, but they're certainly affected by these latest court decisions.

Then you saw Kevin Hassett and others on television today saying, Nothing has changed. Conversations continue. We're still talking to world leaders. So obviously, there's a little bit of tailoring the message for the audience there. But I would say the talks are still on, but they're certainly affected by these latest court decisions.

Certainly not the end. They are actively exploring other options to keep these in place. One interesting option on the table is kind of a twofer, right?

Certainly not the end. They are actively exploring other options to keep these in place. One interesting option on the table is kind of a twofer, right?

There's a section of the Trade Act of 1974 called Section 122, and that actually allows you to impose up to 15% tariffs for up to 150 days on countries that have persistent balance of payment issues with the United States, things like the trade deficit that Trump was trying to solve with all these reciprocal tariffs. Now,

There's a section of the Trade Act of 1974 called Section 122, and that actually allows you to impose up to 15% tariffs for up to 150 days on countries that have persistent balance of payment issues with the United States, things like the trade deficit that Trump was trying to solve with all these reciprocal tariffs. Now,

The Court of International Trade actually name-checked that section in their opinion and basically said, you should have done this in the first place without saying that explicitly. We could see the Trump administration do that. Now, that would allow them to impose tariffs immediately without an investigation. That's one idea under consideration. There are others as well.

The Court of International Trade actually name-checked that section in their opinion and basically said, you should have done this in the first place without saying that explicitly. We could see the Trump administration do that. Now, that would allow them to impose tariffs immediately without an investigation. That's one idea under consideration. There are others as well.

Expanding their use of national security tariffs. That's something they could do. They could also use what's called Section 338, which dates all the way back to 1930 and the Tariff Act then. and actually gives very broad tariff authority for the country to counteract unfair foreign trade practices as well. So there's a lot of different options for them to do this.

Expanding their use of national security tariffs. That's something they could do. They could also use what's called Section 338, which dates all the way back to 1930 and the Tariff Act then. and actually gives very broad tariff authority for the country to counteract unfair foreign trade practices as well. So there's a lot of different options for them to do this.

They initially chose the kind of boldest, fastest, and riskiest strategy, and we're seeing that that risk didn't necessarily pay off here. But there are a lot of options for them to continue.

They initially chose the kind of boldest, fastest, and riskiest strategy, and we're seeing that that risk didn't necessarily pay off here. But there are a lot of options for them to continue.

Thanks, Alex.

Thanks, Alex.

should Meta with Anduril win this contract to develop virtual reality headsets for the Army, it would be the most significant tie-up that Meta will have had with the U.S. military. And a contract that could be potentially $100 million to build tech for the U.S.

should Meta with Anduril win this contract to develop virtual reality headsets for the Army, it would be the most significant tie-up that Meta will have had with the U.S. military. And a contract that could be potentially $100 million to build tech for the U.S.

Army would create very different and potentially significant new line of business for Meta, which remember was at its heart a social media company that makes its profit from online advertising.

Army would create very different and potentially significant new line of business for Meta, which remember was at its heart a social media company that makes its profit from online advertising.

And it's really one of the most striking examples as of late of how far Silicon Valley has come in recent years in embracing national security work and being willing and enthusiastic about working for the Defense Department. This was not the case not that long ago. And for a company the size of Meta to now be getting into building hardware for the Army itself

And it's really one of the most striking examples as of late of how far Silicon Valley has come in recent years in embracing national security work and being willing and enthusiastic about working for the Defense Department. This was not the case not that long ago. And for a company the size of Meta to now be getting into building hardware for the Army itself

is just a striking indication of the evolution of big tech.

is just a striking indication of the evolution of big tech.

Since the start of the war, there's been a lot of interaction between U.S. and Ukrainian drone companies. So what we have now is we have a smattering of official partnerships, businesses that have been created through a combination of U.S. entrepreneurs and Ukrainian drone manufacturers.

Since the start of the war, there's been a lot of interaction between U.S. and Ukrainian drone companies. So what we have now is we have a smattering of official partnerships, businesses that have been created through a combination of U.S. entrepreneurs and Ukrainian drone manufacturers.

And what they're trying to do is leverage all of this Ukrainian know-how that has been developed over more than three years of war with the software skills that American engineers really excel at. Combining those things together, the hope is we'll start to have some really seriously good drones that the U.S. Defense Department can begin to buy.

And what they're trying to do is leverage all of this Ukrainian know-how that has been developed over more than three years of war with the software skills that American engineers really excel at. Combining those things together, the hope is we'll start to have some really seriously good drones that the U.S. Defense Department can begin to buy.