Why Greenland matters... Louis Navellier isn't worried about the volatility... a potential Supreme Court decision on tariffs could be coming... how it might go VIEW IN BROWSER If you’ve glanced at headlines this morning and thought, “Wait…Greenland? Huh?” – you’re not alone. President Trump’s renewed interest in Greenland has suddenly pushed its way to the top of the news cycle, and many people are trying to wrap their minds around why. Here’s the short version of what’s happening... Greenland sits in a strategically critical location between North America and Europe, right along key Arctic shipping routes that are becoming more accessible as ice melts. It’s also rich in rare earth minerals, such as neodymium, dysprosium, praseodymium – the same materials we’ve profiled for years here in the Digest. These critical materials are used in everything from smartphones to EVs to advanced military hardware. Just as importantly, they’re at the heart of our trade conflict with China – China has them. The U.S. largely doesn’t. So, potential U.S. control of Greenland isn't about real estate. It's about supply chains, national security, and long-term economic leverage in a world increasingly defined by resource competition. Of course, Greenland isn’t simply there for the taking. It’s controlled by Denmark, a member of NATO and the EU. Meanwhile, the Danish government and people of Greenland haven’t exactly been enthusiastic about potential new U.S. ownership. Trump's response? Economic pressure. Cooperation on Greenland could mean smoother trade relations. Resistance could mean tariffs. Here’s CNN: The president announced Saturday that he wouldimpose 10% tariffs on February 1 on goods from Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and the United Kingdom. It would increase to 25% if an agreement is not reached by June 1. For some perspective, here’s how legendary investor Louis Navellier framed it this morning. From this morning’s Flash Alert in Growth Investor: This is classic Trump-style negotiation, the market is reacting to the rising geopolitical noise. I don’t want you to worry. I think any pullback in our powerful tech stocks, especially the data center-related stocks and semis, are all good buys right now. But all this will be clarified tomorrow when President Trump gives his speech in Davos, and we shall see. So, don’t worry about all the gyrations and distractions. The U.S. is just asserting its leadership. So, this is going to be interesting to watch. Louis' overall take: this is theater with a purpose. Watch for clarity after Davos, but don't overreact to the noise. But Greenland and European tariff threats aren't the only Trump trade story investors need to track. The coming weeks could bring fireworks for a related – but very different – reason that's been quietly tying Wall Street in knots for months. | Recommended Link | | | | In July 2025, Mark Zuckerberg quietly unveiled a project codenamed “Prometheus” — a massive AI supercluster in Ohio designed to achieve “superintelligence.” The problem? Prometheus requires so much electricity that the local power grid couldn’t handle it. So, on January 9th, Meta announced it has signed deals to secure 6.6 gigawatts of nuclear energy to bring Prometheus to life. 6.6 gigawatts is roughly the output of six large-scale nuclear reactors… a staggering amount of power. And it proves one thing beyond a shadow of a doubt: The AI revolution is dead in the water without nuclear energy. Click here to see what Luke Lango believes is the United States’ next move to secure nuclear power and AI dominance. |  | | Over the coming weeks, we may finally get an answer to the question that's been hanging over Wall Street for months Are Trump’s tariffs illegal – and is the Supreme Court about to say so? If that sounds dramatic, it’s because it is. Right now, traders, economists, and portfolio managers are watching the Supreme Court calendar closely – because a ruling on Trump's tariffs could arrive at any moment, even though it's now unlikely to be this week. Coming into this morning, court watchers believed we could get a ruling because the Supreme Court had scheduled Tuesday as an opinion-release day. But when the Court released its opinions earlier today, the tariff case wasn't among them – and most legal analysts now don't expect a decision this week. Still, markets don't wait for certainty – they price risk. And this ruling carries enormous implications for inflation, corporate margins, and presidential power, which is why it's worth understanding now. Most court watchers now believe the ruling will arrive later this month or in February, once the Court moves deeper into its opinion calendar. SCOTUSblog reports that February 20 is emerging as a widely expected opinion date. Still, the case has been fully argued and is ready for decision. While unlikely this week, the Court could theoretically drop its ruling at any time without warning. That's why you've been hearing so much chatter about it recently – and why it's worth understanding the implications now, before markets have to react in real time. Given what’s at stake, let's slow everything down and walk through what's happening, why timing matters, and what different outcomes might mean for your portfolio. Why is everyone watching the Supreme Court right now? Tariffs are set by Congress. That’s straight out of the Constitution. But in 2025, the Trump administration imposed broad tariffs using an emergency-powers law from the 1970s – the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). That law was originally designed to let presidents respond quickly to national emergencies by restricting trade or financial flows. The legal challenge that the Supreme Court is deciding on boils down to a simple question with major consequences: Does “regulating” or “blocking” imports also mean the president can tax them? So far, some lower courts have said no. Their reasoning was that tariffs are taxes, and Congress never clearly gave the President the power to impose them under IEEPA. Now the Supreme Court is weighing in. And because this case affects prices, inflation, corporate profits, and even how much power future presidents have over the economy, Wall Street is heavily invested in the outcome. The three most likely ways things could go Let's walk through how this might play out, and what each scenario could mean for your portfolio positioning. Path #1: The Court Upholds the Tariffs In this scenario, the Supreme Court sides with the Trump Administration and rules that the President does have authority under IEEPA to impose tariffs during emergencies. If that happens, the immediate market reaction would likely be muted because it preserves the status quo (perhaps it falls some on disappointment). Tariffs stay in place. Trade friction remains part of the landscape. And inflation pressures tied to import costs don’t suddenly disappear. So, which companies might hold up better here? - Some domestic manufacturers shielded from foreign competition
- Select industrial and materials companies
- Firms already structured around a higher-tariff world
Meanwhile, the losers might be… - Retailers and consumer brands dependent on imported goods
- Companies with thin margins and global supply chains
This outcome wouldn’t be a shock, but it wouldn’t be a relief either. Path #2: Tariffs Are Struck Down (Narrow Ruling) This is the cleanest “tariffs lose” outcome. The Court could rule that IEEPA simply does not authorize tariffs, full stop. Basically, they conclude that Congress never gave the President that power in this law. If that happens, Wall Street would likely interpret it as trade friction easing – at least temporarily. And we’re likely to see some market parties get going. This is because lower import costs can mean lower prices… lower prices can mean easing inflation pressure… and easing inflation can support bonds and rate-sensitive stocks. Likely near-term winners in this situation: - Consumer discretionary stocks, especially retailers (Target (TGT), Walmart (WMT))
- Global brands relying on overseas manufacturing (Nike (NKE), Apple (AAPL))
- Transportation and logistics companies tied to trade volume (FedEx (FDX), Union Pacific (UNP))
- Potentially bonds, if investors begin pricing in disinflation
Likely laggards: - Domestic producers that benefited from tariff protection
- Companies priced for aggressive reshoring trends
This would likely be the most straightforward “market-friendly” ruling – at least initially. Path #3: Tariffs Are Struck Down (Broad Power Ruling) This is the biggest, most complex outcome. Here, the Court wouldn’t just say “IEEPA doesn’t allow tariffs.” It would say something closer to: Congress cannot hand this much economic power to the president without clear limits. That would have implications well beyond tariffs. Markets might initially cheer for the same reasons as Path #2, but then volatility could kick in quickly because it means the saga wouldn’t be over. The White House has said that if the Supreme Court rules against them, they could explore other legal avenues to reimpose tariffs. This ruling would open the door to that. So, this path would bring some relief but also some uncertainty – a mix that Wall Street doesn’t always love. Two critical follow-up questions that will determine actual market impact Regardless of which path the Court takes, if tariffs are struck down, two huge practical questions follow immediately: - Is the ruling effective immediately, or phased in?
The difference between "tariffs end today" and "tariffs phase out over six months" dramatically affects how companies and consumers respond. - Do companies get refunds for tariffs already paid?
Billions of dollars in tariffs have already been collected. If refunds are ordered, that's a massive cash injection back into corporate balance sheets – and potentially a significant hit to Treasury finances. Those answers affect cash flows, Treasury finances, and short-term market psychology. In other words, whenever the ruling arrives, it won’t really put this issue to bed – it will just start the next chapter. So, what's the action step? Yes, this is a headline-risk event, but it’s not a reason to overhaul a sound portfolio overnight. When the ruling eventually arrives – whether in late January or February – markets might swing violently in the first hours. Certain sectors could gap up or down. But for diversified investors, this is more about volatility than fundamentals. And here’s something important to remember… The balance of risk actually skews slightly bullish. If the Court upholds the tariffs, we’re largely in the same world we’ve already been living in. And even if the ruling is broader and messier, that still mostly preserves the existing backdrop – just with more short-term noise. But if the Court cleanly strikes the tariffs down, that’s the one outcome that represents a meaningful positive shift for inflation expectations and corporate margins. In other words, the worst-case scenarios mostly look like “more of the same,” while the best-case scenario offers relief for thousands of American businesses. Regardless of the outcome, moments like this tend to reward investors who: - Don’t panic on the first headline
- Understand why markets are moving
- And recognize that policy battles rarely end with a single court ruling
So, whether the upcoming weeks bring real clarity – or just the next chapter in a longer legal fight – the advantage belongs to investors who are prepared, not reactive. Have a good evening, Jeff Remsburg Disclaimer: I own WMT and AAPL | 
0 Response to "Why Greenland, Tariffs, and the Supreme Court Are Colliding"
Post a Comment