Is Trump tariff passed by the Supreme Court in favor of the risk market or not? Trump's tariff policy is currently awaiting the final decision of the Supreme Court. From Kalshi's forecast data, the probability that the Supreme Court will support Trump's tariff is only 24%, which means that unless the Trump government finds other excuses to collect taxes, this tax farce that has lasted for nearly a year is likely to be untenable. So if the verdict is not true and Trump does not have a better tax collection tool, will it be good or bad for the market? In fact, Trump's global tariff plan will cause great uncertainty to the supply chain, import costs, corporate profits and inflation path itself. The market has also taken this matter as a risk for a long time. Enterprises need to raise their cost expectations, investors need to reassess their profitability, risk aversion is heating up, and liquidity is again locked. On the contrary, if the Supreme Court rules that tariffs are illegal or significantly limits the scope of tariffs, the market sentiment will be completely opposite. Supply chain risks will ease, cost expectations will decrease, inflationary pressures will ease, and corporate profits will improve. This is equivalent to opening a window for the economy from both the fiscal and supply sides, and the boost to the risk market will be very significant. So tariffs are essentially invisible tax burdens. Overthrowing tariffs can quickly release liquidity, alleviate inflationary pressures, and reduce geopolitical trade frictions. The ultimate result is that companies can recover their normal cost structure faster, consumers face lower price pressures, global supply chain expectations stabilize, and the risk premium of the entire market is significantly reduced. When costs are no longer pushed up by tariffs and inflationary pressures begin to ease, the Federal Reserve's monetary policy space will be greater, and there will be no need to be forced to maintain tightening for structural inflation caused by tariffs. This lays the foundation for future interest rate cuts and even liquidity easing. In other words, if tariffs are overturned, the market will experience a long-term positive resonance from the three main lines, with improved profitability on the enterprise side, reduced production costs, and disappearance of uncertainty. The inflationary pressure has eased and is no longer pushed up by tariffs. The policy space has expanded, and the Federal Reserve does not need to struggle between being forced to fight inflation and worrying about recession. For the risk market, this means clearing out risk factors from the source, not only boosting emotions, but also releasing real funds, and even allowing safe haven funds to flow back into sectors such as technology stocks and cryptocurrency assets. If the end of the shutdown solves "fiscal liquidity", then the tariff problem solves "structural risk premium", and the combination of the two is undoubtedly beneficial for risk assets. Of course, this is a rational view. From the perspective of Trump, the implementation of tariffs can not only ease financial pressure, but also be a tool to "kill three birds with one arrow" in politics. Firstly, tariffs can directly increase fiscal revenue on the books, even if the scale is not large, and can provide a simple and crude source of cash in the context of budget review, deficit negotiations, and high pressure on the Ministry of Finance. Secondly, the existence of tariffs can demonstrate a "tough stance" domestically, especially when facing manufacturing states, blue collar voters, and industrial chain relocation issues. Tariffs are the most easily understood, intuitive, and publicized policy. Thirdly, tariffs can also become a bargaining chip at the trade negotiation table, maintaining their oppressive nature in international games, serving as both a pressure tool and a bargaining chip. From the perspective of Trump's political logic, tariffs are essentially the policy weapon with the lowest cost, the fastest efficiency, and the strongest narrative. They do not need congressional authorization, do not need to wait for system reform, and do not need complex design. They can almost immediately produce visible political effects. Because of this, even if the Supreme Court overturns the current global tariff scheme, Trump may continue to try to find other forms of "alternative tariffs" or "administrative charges", because for him, tariffs are a gesture, a kind of control, and a symbol of reshaping the voice of the supply chain. But this is exactly the biggest contradiction between the market and political logic. For the market, tariffs are costs, inflation and uncertainty. For Trump, tariffs are tools, chips and political gains. That's also why the Supreme Court's ruling is particularly crucial. It does not determine a tax, but rather the future economic, trade policy, and even inflation path of the United States in the coming years. If tariffs are restricted, the market is likely to breathe a sigh of relief. But if tariffs continue to push forward, although they score politically, they will have to bear higher costs and fluctuations on the economic side. This article is sponsored by @ Bitget | Save the most transaction fees, receive the most gifts, and become a VIP on Bitget