Ladies and gentlemen, a major event is happening tonight—at 23:00, the final ruling on the legality of Trump's tariff policy will be announced. According to the latest market data, the probability of Trump losing the case has risen to 72%, which directly relates to whether the over $130 billion in tariffs already collected will be refunded. Sounds like good news? Don’t celebrate just yet; this situation is much more complex than last year.
Why did the same policy last year trigger a completely different market reaction? The key lies in the fact that the underlying market logic has completely changed. At this time last year, Trump's tariff policies fueled inflation expectations, leading to rising commodity prices and a decline in risk assets. Back then, if the tariffs were deemed illegal, the market would see it as a relief from inflationary pressure, and the cryptocurrency market would inevitably benefit.
But now, the situation is like solving a multi-layered logical puzzle. First, the refund process of over $130 billion is itself full of uncertainties. The refunds are targeted at importers, not directly injecting liquidity into the market, so the effects are entirely different. Second, the specific rules for refunds—who qualifies, the amount, installment periods—are still uncertain.
Even more concerning is that the White House has already signaled that even if Trump loses, he won't give up easily. They still hold multiple cards, such as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—this clause has never been activated before, but once used, it allows for the direct imposition of a 15% tariff within 150 days. This means that the apparent policy shift might just be a legal formality to continue pushing forward.
The underlying logic is that the uncertainty surrounding trade policy has been thoroughly locked in. Regardless of tonight’s verdict, the market faces ongoing policy fluctuations. In this context, contract holders need to be especially cautious—such a level of uncertainty can trigger violent volatility similar to contract delivery days. Don’t operate blindly tonight; the key is to understand the true intent behind the policies, rather than being led by a single piece of news.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
9 Likes
Reward
9
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
fork_in_the_road
· 4h ago
The winners are already hedging, retail investors are still waiting for good news, hilarious
Wait, 130 billion directly to importers? Ordinary people won't get anything then
This is the real game, don't move until the judgment text is out
A 72% win rate itself is worth caution, it's too perfect
Once the signature of Article 122 is revealed, the market will reverse
I just want to know if tonight will be another false breakout
Contract leverage traders should stay honest and lie low tonight
The real variable is in the White House, the court is just the opening act
See, policy reversals are the new normal
View OriginalReply0
RooftopReserver
· 4h ago
A 72% win rate sounds good, but even if you really win, it's pointless. The folks at the White House definitely have a backup plan.
Wait, 130 billion refunded to importers? So what benefit can retail investors get from this?
To be honest, no matter what the verdict is tonight, we must prevent contract liquidation. Liquidity is not as abundant as you might think.
If Trump really uses Clause 122, it's like a de facto revival, an old fox.
Instead of staring at 23:00, it's better to think about how to avoid volatility. Do you understand that politics is the biggest macro?
View OriginalReply0
NFTDreamer
· 4h ago
A 72% chance of losing the lawsuit can't be saved; the White House has long prepared a backup plan. This is the playbook of political players.
It's incredible—on the surface, they lose money but still continue to cut, and even if 130 billion is returned, the retail investors won't get a share.
Don't touch the contract tonight; wait and see. This kind of uncertainty is more terrifying than anything else.
Are policies repeatedly locked down? Then keep making money in the uncertainty. Anyway, we're used to it.
Oh my God, with tools like Clause 122, no wonder the White House is so calm—they never really intended to give up.
Don't be fooled by positive news; the analogy of a spy puzzle is so fitting—layer after layer of traps.
It's an old trick: winning the lawsuit but losing in the market. No matter how they tinker with tariffs, ordinary people are the ones getting cut.
Liquidity flows to importers, not retail investors. The difference is huge, and most people haven't even thought of this step.
Not making any moves tonight is the smartest choice. Just watch the show; there will definitely be more drama ahead.
This time feels ten times more complicated than last time. The underlying logic of the market has completely changed, and old experienced players are no longer useful.
View OriginalReply0
ShibaOnTheRun
· 4h ago
A 72% probability sounds very comfortable, but there are knives hidden in the details. The White House still holds the 122 provisions, which essentially means continuing to cut under a different shell.
Uncertainty has been locked in, and tonight the contract positions will suffer.
The tactics from last year are now completely ineffective; the logic of liquidity injection has changed entirely.
The 130 billion refund to importers is not a refund to the market; everyone is over-simplifying.
Policy reversals are the norm; those who can't adapt should cut losses.
Why focus solely on tonight? This has always been a long-term battleground.
A superficial loss in court is not a victory; it's just the beginning of another round of game theory.
Playing with contracts now is all about betting on mindset, not policy.
View OriginalReply0
GmGnSleeper
· 4h ago
Winning is also losing, the White House's hand is really clever.
---
It's the same old trick, the ruling still ends up choking the neck.
---
130 billion looks like a lot, but how much will actually remain with the importers?
---
Don't make reckless moves, let's wait and see.
---
Clause 122 is really a sneaky idea.
---
Why does it feel like no matter the outcome, the coins will drop?
---
The key issue is liquidity; tax rebates ≠ direct money printing.
---
Damn, it's the same old story of policy flip-flops.
---
The real showdown is at 23:00, but probably still just smoke and mirrors.
---
The qualification review will be a headache again; it's not that simple.
View OriginalReply0
AllInAlice
· 4h ago
A 72% chance of losing sounds great, but the White House's Section 122 card can directly trap you, it's the same old story with a different name.
Ladies and gentlemen, a major event is happening tonight—at 23:00, the final ruling on the legality of Trump's tariff policy will be announced. According to the latest market data, the probability of Trump losing the case has risen to 72%, which directly relates to whether the over $130 billion in tariffs already collected will be refunded. Sounds like good news? Don’t celebrate just yet; this situation is much more complex than last year.
Why did the same policy last year trigger a completely different market reaction? The key lies in the fact that the underlying market logic has completely changed. At this time last year, Trump's tariff policies fueled inflation expectations, leading to rising commodity prices and a decline in risk assets. Back then, if the tariffs were deemed illegal, the market would see it as a relief from inflationary pressure, and the cryptocurrency market would inevitably benefit.
But now, the situation is like solving a multi-layered logical puzzle. First, the refund process of over $130 billion is itself full of uncertainties. The refunds are targeted at importers, not directly injecting liquidity into the market, so the effects are entirely different. Second, the specific rules for refunds—who qualifies, the amount, installment periods—are still uncertain.
Even more concerning is that the White House has already signaled that even if Trump loses, he won't give up easily. They still hold multiple cards, such as Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974—this clause has never been activated before, but once used, it allows for the direct imposition of a 15% tariff within 150 days. This means that the apparent policy shift might just be a legal formality to continue pushing forward.
The underlying logic is that the uncertainty surrounding trade policy has been thoroughly locked in. Regardless of tonight’s verdict, the market faces ongoing policy fluctuations. In this context, contract holders need to be especially cautious—such a level of uncertainty can trigger violent volatility similar to contract delivery days. Don’t operate blindly tonight; the key is to understand the true intent behind the policies, rather than being led by a single piece of news.