№ 011Weekly202610 min read

RatesMacro

Tariffs, Treasuries, and Treaty Threats

By Akram Ayyash

What happened last week in crypto and macro

The Signal

U.S. markets were closed Monday for Martin Luther King Jr. Day, but the weekend's geopolitical developments suggest volatility resumes Tuesday.

Over the weekend, President Trump announced 10% tariffs on eight European NATO allies, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, and Finland, rising to 25% by June 1, with both rates applying indefinitely "until such time as a Deal is reached" for the purchase of Greenland. This represents a categorical departure from prior tariff episodes. Unlike the April 2025 "Liberation Day" tariffs framed around trade deficits and industrial policy, the Greenland tariffs explicitly use trade policy to coerce territorial concessions from treaty allies.

The market implications extend beyond immediate trade disruption. We are witnessing the collision of three distinct narratives: a geopolitical regime shift that weaponizes alliances, a legal challenge to executive tariff authority nearing the Supreme Court decision, and market positioning that reflects hard-won lessons from the 2025 tariff tantrum. Understanding how these forces interact determines whether this episode becomes a negotiating sideshow or the catalyst for sustained volatility.

Price Action: Safe Havens Split as Risk Assets Retreat

The most instructive signal from overnight trading is the divergence between assets typically grouped as inflation hedges. Gold and silver are behaving as pure sovereign risk hedges, while crypto and equities are trading on liquidity concerns.

Gold is trading near $4,670 per ounce, approaching new highs after gaining 2.2% last week to close at $4,588. Silversurged over 10% last week, breaking through $93 to post new all-time highs. This is textbook flight-to-safety when the world's reserve currency issuer threatens economic warfare against its closest defense partners.

Bitcoin has slipped to the $92,000 handle after trading between $90,000 and $97,000 over the past month, with the broader digital asset complex following. Despite Trump's pro-crypto regulatory stance, crypto assets are proving acutely sensitive to global liquidity conditions. The October 2025 precedent remains instructive: when Trump threatened 100% tariffs on China on October 10, Bitcoin crashed from its $126,000 all-time high to below $104,000, triggering $19 billion in liquidations over 24 hours. That forced deleveraging event demonstrated how quickly leveraged positions unwind when macro uncertainty spikes, a dynamic that likely constrains risk-taking today.

A transatlantic trade war is net negative for global growth and net positive for dollar strength. The Dollar Index (DXY) has already firmed to 99.3, posting its third consecutive weekly gain. When the dollar strengthens against the euro and sterling, global liquidity contracts. Until the narrative shifts from "growth shock" to "fiscal dominance requiring monetary accommodation," expect crypto to trade more like the Nasdaq than gold.

Equity marketsclosed last week showing strain. The S&P 500 declined 0.1% to 6,940 after touching an all-time high of 6,977 on Monday. The Nasdaq fell 0.4% to 23,515. The Dow closed flat at 49,359. More telling than headline indices is the defensive rotation underneath: technology sector funds posted their third consecutive weekly outflow, the first such streak since late February 2025.

Treasury yieldsclimbed last week, with the 10-year rising 7 basis points to 4.24% and the 2-year up 11 basis points to 3.59%. This yield behavior, rising alongside equity weakness, echoes the unusual April 2025 dynamic when Treasuries suffered their steepest weekly decline in over 20 years. The bond market appears to be pricing both inflationary pressure from tariffs and uncertainty risk premia, rather than providing the typical safe-haven bid during stock market stress.

Echoes of April 2025: Familiar Pattern, New Variables

For those managing risk last spring, this environment feels familiar. The structural parallels to the April 2025 tariff episode are striking: announcement shock, synchronized selloff across stocks and bonds, safe haven outperformance, and elevated volatility driven by policy uncertainty.

The April 2025 episode unfolded in three phases. The Announcement: Liberation Day on April 2 introduced sweeping tariffs including a 10% universal baseline plus country-specific rates reaching 46% on Vietnam and 34% on China. The Shock: The S&P 500 fell 21.35% peak-to-trough, erasing $6.6 trillion in market capitalization over two days. The Bond Market Intervention: Between April 7-9, 10-year Treasury yields jumped 64 basis points to 4.5%, the largest three-day surge since 1982. Treasuries losing their safe-haven status during an equity crash alarmed policymakers sufficiently that Trump announced a 90-day tariff pause on April 9, triggering a 9.52% single-day S&P rally.

The critical difference today is narrative focus. The 2025 trade war targeted economic rivals framed through trade deficits, China as adversary, "reciprocal" tariffs to correct perceived unfairness. Today's conflict weaponizes trade policy against NATO allies over territorial geopolitics, suggesting a regime shift beyond economic nationalism into grand strategy realignment.

Market positioning has shifted substantially since April 2025. Institutional investors entered the Liberation Day shock overweight U.S. equities with minimal hedges. Bank of America's Fund Manager Survey captured the violent repositioning: U.S. equity allocation plunged from net 17% overweight to net 36% underweight in one month, a 53 percentage-point swing representing the largest decline on record. Europe allocation surged to net 39% overweight, while cash levels rose 4.8%.

This defensive positioning persisted. By mid-2025, international-developed ETFs attracted $124 billion (record), EM ETFs added $37 billion, and European-domiciled ETFs gathered €372 billion, while U.S.-focused equity funds saw withdrawals. The first week of January 2026 recorded $18.9 billion in equity fund outflows versus $12.5 billion into bond funds.

The lesson: today's market carries less crowded long positioning and more embedded hedges than April 2025. VIX at 15.86 might not signal complacency but rather a structurally elevated volatility baseline, when options markets fundamentally repriced policy uncertainty.

The Legal Circuit Breaker: Supreme Court as Binary Event

The crucial difference between April 2025 and today is the legal backdrop. Markets currently price the assumption that Trump can unilaterally impose these tariffs. That assumption faces an imminent challenge.

The Supreme Court is weeks, perhaps days, from ruling on consolidated challenges to Trump's International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) authority in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections and Learning Resources v. Trump. Oral arguments on November 5, 2025 ran nearly three hours, with justices expressing skepticism about the administration's claim that IEEPA authorizes comprehensive tariff regimes.

Lower courts ruled unanimously against the administration. Justice Gorsuch warned of a "one-way ratchet" toward permanent executive power accumulation during oral arguments. Chief Justice Roberts questioned how a "multibillion-dollar tariff regime" could rest on statutory silence. Legal observers assign approximately 28% probability to an administration victory.

If the Court strikes down IEEPA authority, refunds would become available for all IEEPA tariffs collected since February 2025, potentially $88-195 billion. However, Treasury Secretary Bessent stated publicly that backup authorities are ready: Section 122 permits 15% tariffs deployable within days; Section 232 permits unlimited rates pending Commerce investigation. His assessment: "What is not in doubt is our ability to continue collecting tariffs at roughly the same level."

This creates a binary volatility event. If the Court upholds authority, the Greenland tariffs are legally viable and risk premiums remain elevated. If the Court strikes down IEEPA, the legal basis evaporates instantly, potentially sparking relief rallies while forcing the administration onto alternative statutes with their own limitations.

European Response: Coordinated Defiance, Calibrated Escalation

European reaction has been swift and unified. An eight-nation joint statement on January 18 declared that "tariff threats undermine transatlantic relations and risk a dangerous downward spiral." Multiple European leaders used the word "blackmail" to describe the tactic, a remarkably sharp rhetorical choice for allied nations.

An emergency EU summit convenes Thursday, January 22 in Brussels, where leaders will consider response options. The most significant: reactivating a €93 billion retaliatory tariff package suspended after the July 2025 EU-US trade deal. That suspension expires February 6, 2026.

Alternatively, the EU could deploy the never-before-used Anti-Coercion Instrument (Regulation 2023/2675), which permits restrictions on U.S. banking access to EU capital markets and exclusion from public procurement. The fact that this tool, previously considered too escalatory for allies, is now on the table signals how rapidly transatlantic norms are eroding. What was unthinkable coordination between NATO partners six months ago has become active contingency planning.

European officials have signaled preference for diplomatic resolution while preparing economic countermeasures, recognizing that escalation carries mutual costs but determined not to reward coercive tactics.

The Week Ahead: What to Watch

With U.S. markets closed Monday, real price discovery begins Tuesday morning. Several signposts merit attention:

Treasury yield direction will signal how markets interpret the tariff threat. If the 10-year breaks higher above 4.24%, it suggests bond investors are pricing not just inflation risk but the fragility of fiscal policy under autarky, tariffs as both inflationary tax and potential revenue source for a government increasingly constrained by debt sustainability concerns. If yields fall as investors flee to safety, it suggests markets see this primarily as a growth shock with deflationary implications.

European equity performance, particularly luxury goods and auto sectors heavily exposed to U.S. consumer spending, will indicate whether markets price this as negotiating theater or structural realignment of trade relationships.

Dollar strength bears monitoring. Continued DXY appreciation tightens global financial conditions and pressures emerging markets, crypto, and commodities. A dollar reversal would ease liquidity concerns.

Fund flow data will reveal whether the January equity exodus accelerates. The $18.9 billion first-week outflow broke seasonal patterns; continuation would signal deeper defensive repositioning.

Diplomatic signals from either Washington or Brussels could move markets dramatically. The January 22 EU summit becomes a critical event risk, as does any Supreme Court decision timing.

Structural Perspective: Incentives, Flows, and Constraints

The macro-structural forces shaping this episode center on divergent incentives, defensive flows, and political constraints.

Incentives favor confrontation in the near term. Trump appears to prize "deal-making" credibility and views tariff threats as negotiating leverage. European leaders face domestic political pressure to demonstrate sovereignty and resist coercion, particularly regarding territorial integrity. Neither side has immediate electoral or political incentive to capitulate quickly.

Flows are adjusting defensively. Capital is rotating toward perceived safety: gold, cash, less-exposed markets. The January equity fund outflows, technology sector exodus, and bond fund inflows all reflect risk reduction rather than conviction reallocation.

Constraints exist on both sides. For Trump, the Supreme Court ruling could eliminate his primary economic enforcement tool. Bond market discipline, demonstrated clearly in April 2025 when surging Treasury yields forced policy reversal, remains a limiting factor. For Europe, economic fragility limits appetite for prolonged trade war. Germany's manufacturing sector already faces headwinds; retaliatory tariffs that further damage growth would be politically costly.

The near-term volatility reflects these forces in tension. Markets must price scenarios ranging from rapid diplomatic resolution to measured escalation to full April 2025 redux.

Positioning for Uncertainty

The Greenland tariff announcement reintroduces policy-driven volatility at levels comparable to April 2025, though with different positioning, legal constraints, and geopolitical stakes. The current market response, gold and silver surging, crypto and equities under pressure, yields rising, reflects rational repricing of heightened uncertainty.

Three factors will determine trajectory: the Supreme Court decision's timing and scope, European response calibration, and bond market reaction. The Court ruling represents a potential binary catalyst. European leaders face the choice between diplomatic de-escalation and economic retaliation, with the January 22 summit as the critical decision point. The Treasury market will again likely serve as the ultimate policy constraint.

For market participants, this environment rewards defensive positioning, diversification, and focus on structural trends rather than directional bets. The lessons from April 2025 remain valid: policy volatility can overwhelm fundamental analysis, correlations break down under stress, and liquidity matters more than narratives when forced deleveraging begins.

Whether the Greenland tariffs prove to be negotiating theater that fades within weeks or the opening salvo in a sustained realignment of transatlantic relations remains uncertain. What is clear is that markets have entered a regime where geopolitical risk and legal uncertainty dominate price action. The February 1 implementation deadline, January 22 EU summit, and pending Supreme Court decision provide a compressed timeline for clarity. Until then, prudent risk management takes precedence over conviction.

Tidbits

DTCC "Digital Eligibility" Roadmap. The Depository Trust & Clearing Corp (DTCC) unveiled a plan to make all 1.4 million securities in its custody digitally convertible, targeting atomic settlement and 24/7 mobility. Notably, the entity explicitly rejected blockchain bridges in favor of a "burn-and-mint" model; this architectural choice prioritizes legal finality and removes the bridge-hack vectors that have historically kept bank risk committees on the sidelines.

BIS "Project Agorá" Enters Phase II. The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) confirmed that its cross-border tokenization trial, Project Agorá, has moved to live testing with seven major central banks (including the Fed and ECB). Unlike retail CBDCs, this project focuses on "Tokenized Commercial Bank Money", essentially upgrading the plumbing of the correspondent banking system to allow programmable, instant cross-border payments without bypassing commercial banks.

Stablecoin Reserves Rival Nations. The stablecoin issuer Tether now holds roughly $135 billion in U.S. Treasury securities, ranking among the world's top 20 holders of U.S. government debt, surpassing nations like South Korea. This underscores how stablecoin reserves are becoming significant players in traditional bond markets.

BitMine Allocates $200M to Creator Economy. Ethereum treasury firm BitMine's $200M strategic investment into MrBeast's Beast Industries signals a new phase of "active treasury management." By deploying crypto-denominated reserves into high-cash-flow media equity, BitMine is seeking to dampen balance sheet volatility by anchoring themselves to real-world IP and cash flows rather than pure digital asset exposure.

Drop me a line:

What do you think? Do you like this? Do you not like this? I would love to hear your thoughts, so please reach me at akram@span.blog

Enjoyed this? Subscribe for the weekly deep dive, or drop me a line at akram@span.blog.