CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Haley Zaremba via OilPrice.com,

• The final components of ITER's central solenoid magnet -- a 59-foot, 3,000-tonne superconducting system 15 years in the making -- have arrived in France, clearing a major path toward first plasma.

• ITER will never supply electricity to the grid; it exists purely as a research tool, and at €22 billion and counting, it's still years from achieving its primary milestone.

• A wave of well-funded private fusion startups is on track to hit the same technical benchmarks as ITER faster and more cheaply -- raising real questions about the megaproject's relevance even as it celebrates progress.

The world's biggest nuclear fusion experiment just got one huge step closer to completion. The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in Cadarache, France just received the final shipment of necessary components to assemble the giant magnet at the heart of the reactor. The central solenoid magnet, developed in the United States at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, is a critical component of the massive experimental site, which is cooperatively funded and operated by a coalition of seven major world economies: China, the European Union (EU), India, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States.

The central solenoid is awe-inspiring in its size as well as its capabilities.

"The central solenoid is 18 meters (59 feet) tall and 4.25 meters (14 feet) wide, composed of six individual modules," Interesting Engineering reported earlier this week.

"Each module weighs more than 122.5 tonnes (135 tons) and is wound from 6 kilometers (3.7 miles) of niobium-tin superconducting cable."

And this is just one component of a jaw-droppingly massive apparatus that represents "the grandest scientific experiment in the world". ITER's tokamak (the donut-shaped device designed to confine plasma with ultra-powerful magnets) measures a kilometer in length. The solenoid magnet as its core is therefore almost inconceivably powerful, and it's just one part of a much bigger and more impressive system. "This component belongs to a magnetic system weighing 3,000 tonnes (3,300 tons) that interacts with nine vacuum vessel sectors," Interesting Engineering goes on to say.

This beating heat of ITER has been 15 years in the making, with each individual module requiring a two-year process for fabrication and testing. ITER will never produce power to supply to the energy grid, but will serve as one of the most important – if not the most important – research projects on Earth to solve the puzzle of creating commercial nuclear fusion, the holy grail of clean energy. Nuclear fusion is the energetic process that powers our own sun. Replicating that process here on Earth could essentially provide limitless clean energy. It's a potentially long-lasting, ultra-efficient energy source that leaves behind zero greenhouse gases and zero hazardous radioactive waste, unlike nuclear fission.

But the scale of ITER, and the unprecedented nature of its goals, has led to increasingly long timelines and a ballooning budget for the slow-moving megaproject. While the delivery of the solenoid marks a major milestone, ITER is still years away from achieving first plasma, around €22 billion and nearly two decades after breaking ground.

ITER is still relevant, and will hopefully bring us invaluable scientific findings that would be impossible without its grand scale and budget. But the megaproject is facing increasing competition from smaller and more dexterous fusion ventures. Various other projects are on track to beat ITER to its mapped goalposts, and much more inexpensively.

The race for nuclear fusion is increasingly going private as investors start to recognize the technology as a matter of when, and not if. Interest from the tech sector is also ramping up as Silicon Valley scrambles to find a panacea to the energy monster that the AI boom has unleashed. As a result, a lot of deep-pocketed entities are now focused on fusion like never before.

"If you know how to build a fusion power plant, you can have unlimited energy anywhere and forever. It's hard to overstate what a big deal that will be," Bill Gates wrote in an October essay.

"The availability and affordability of electricity is a huge limiting factor for virtually every sector of the economy today. Removing those limits could be as transformative as the invention of the steam engine before the Industrial Revolution."

A new rush of Wall Street-backed fusion startups is already answering this call to arms, rapidly changing the scientific and economic landscape for nuclear fusion research everywhere. But ITER's backers argue that its looming obsolescence is a sign of the project's success rather than its failure, indicating that its achievements and high profile have inspired the current flood of private investing dollars into fusion research and development. And, if nothing else, ITER now stands as a vanishingly rare symbol of international cooperation for global interests, rather than nationalized and protectionist energy agendas.

The SOC Investment Group is a union-aligned shareholder advocacy organization formerly known as CtW Investment Group. It works with union-sponsored pension funds to mount pressure campaigns against public companies.

SOC's latest pressure campaign appears to target Elon Musk's SpaceX in an attempt to delay or derail the upcoming IPO.

The union-affiliated pension fund adviser, linked to the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) - a labor union that has supported the left-wing, billionaire-funded "No Kings" protest against President Trump...

... has asked regulators to review the accuracy and reliability of SpaceX's financials, ensure auditor independence, and examine accounting around transactions with other Elon Musk-linked companies, including xAI and Tesla.

The InfluenceWatch database via Capital Research Center shows SOC's ties with lefty unions... 

To note, SOC is weirdly obsessed with unhinged globalist ESG investment activism that damaged the U.S. economy during the Biden-Harris regime years.

SOC warned that investors could be exposed to SpaceX, whose valuation may decline once its financial disclosures are independently reviewed. Oddly enough, SOC is not a SpaceX shareholder but has previously pushed governance pressure campaigns at major companies, including Tesla.

"We are specifically concerned that SpaceX's IPO will expose numerous investors, many unwillingly, to a company whose value may decline once its financial disclosures can be independently assessed and verified," the letter said.

SpaceX is preparing to go public in less than two months, and SOC's letter to regulators appears intended to create regulatory friction with the SEC over what could become the largest IPO in history. The timing is very notable.

A successful SpaceX IPO at a multi-trillion-dollar valuation could dramatically expand Elon Musk's wealth and power, potentially transforming him into the world's first trillionaire.

From an information and political warfare lens, SOC's pressure campaign should be viewed less as a SpaceX governance issue and more as part of a broader left-wing operation against Musk's corporate empire.

In a rare outbreak of sanity from the continent that perfected kicking the can, officials on NATO’s eastern front are openly admitting what Brussels and Frankfurt have spent years denying: you can’t fund a permanent war footing with infinite borrowing and hope the bond market never notices.

Estonia’s outgoing ECB rate hawk Madis Muller dropped the red pill in parliament Thursday, bluntly telling lawmakers that jacking up budget deficits to pay for the defense surge is no long-term solution. “These higher defense expenditures are not temporary,” he warned. The message: the party is ending, and the tab is about to get ugly.

Next door in Latvia, Finance Minister Arvils Aseradens echoed the warning, calling for “every possible instrument” to secure sustainable funding. He even threw support behind Canadian PM Mark Carney’s pet idea of a multilateral defense bank, because nothing says fiscal responsibility like creating yet another supranational borrowing vehicle to paper over the cracks.

Both Baltic states, sitting on the razor’s edge with Moscow, not to mention sharing a border with the Russian bear, have massively ramped up military outlays in recent years. Their spending has exploded even as existing social welfare commitments continue to balloon budgets already teetering under the weight of Europe’s sacred model. Welcome to the European conundrum in 2026: you need guns to deter Russia, but the welfare state can’t be touched, and nobody wants to tell voters the truth about taxes.

The broader picture across the continent is grim. European nations are scrambling to square exploding public debt with an unfunded defense boom while somehow still pretending they can keep the lights on for Ukraine’s war effort. The math simply does not add up.

Estonia’s Debt Trajectory: From Poster Child to Problem Child

Estonia, the euro-area’s former fiscal hawk with just 1.3 million people, now finds itself in the crosshairs. Its debt-to-GDP ratio remains a relatively modest 24%, but that’s changing fast. Public debt is projected to more than double: from €10 billion ($11.8 billion) in 2025 to €21 billion by 2030. The IMF has already raised concerns, and Fitch downgraded the country’s sovereign rating back in 2023 as investors began pricing in geopolitical risk and demanding higher yields.

On Thursday, Estonia’s central bank doubled down on its earlier warnings: act now while you still have the luxury of being one of the EU’s least indebted nations. Because that window is closing fast.

Tallinn’s much-touted “defense tax” introduced in 2024? Already watered down and nowhere near enough to cover the actual sums required.

This is the inevitable endpoint of Europe’s post-2022 panic: politicians who spent decades hollowing out defense budgets in favor of green deals, migration costs, and generous entitlements suddenly discover they need actual military capability. Rather than make hard choices — cut elsewhere, raise taxes transparently, or rethink open-ended commitments — the default instinct is to borrow more and hope the ECB or some new “defense bank” magically makes the numbers work.

Spoiler: it won’t.

The Baltics are simply saying out loud what markets have been whispering for months. Permanent defense hikes require permanent revenue, not more creative accounting and supranational debt vehicles. Europe’s eastern flank is learning the hard way that you cannot deter Russia with PowerPoint slides and growing interest payments.

The real question now isn’t whether Europe will boost defense spending, it will and will then quietly shuffle most of the funds into various green (and not so green) grifts under the guise of an "existential threat." It’s who ultimately pays - and whether the bond vigilantes will wait patiently for the answer. Given the trajectory, the real question is when does the emperor's nudity finally get confirmed.

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

From July of this year, every vehicle registered in the European Union will be required to have driver-monitoring cameras in place. That’s not every new car manufactured, but every car registered.

The “Advanced Driver Distraction Warning” (ADDW) cameras are designed to monitor driver behaviour for signs of potential distraction, and then set off a warning if those signs are detected.

It was first announced in 2024 as part of the EU’s “Vision Zero” plan to eliminate car-related deaths by 2050.

But it’s not really about that.

It’s never about what they say it’s about.

Here’s where this goes…

Firstly, kiss successful insurance claims goodbye.

Any accident will be blamed on “sub-optimal driver performance”, and that time you checked your phone while stopped at a light, or your hands moved briefly from the 10-and-2 or your eyeline wasn’t correctly picked up by the mirror sensor, will be used to blame your fender-bender on you.

This will create a change in accident reporting statistics, spiking “driver error” as the cause for anything and everything that goes wrong on the road.

This, in turn, will kick off a big “people drive dangerously” propaganda push.

Headlines like “ADDW data harvesting has shown up 80% of us might be driving more recklessly than we think”, or “most veteran drivers slip in to bad habits, reports show” will appear.

Then comes the new legislation to act on this totally fabricated problem.

What is it? It’s re-certification.

That’s not speculation; it already happened. Under new EU rules, passed just a few months ago, every driver has to be re-certified and issued a new driver’s license after 15 years. It would be the smallest of tweaks to add “or after Y number of distraction warnings are recorded” to that legislation.

The new driver’s licenses will be digital, with biometrics included. It’s possible new cars will be undrivable without a scan of your biometric license.

Your car’s data will be uploaded to a database, of course. That’s going to happen.

…in fact, it already is.

It’s not at all far-fetched to imagine your driver monitoring data getting scanned for errors by an AI, and any detected errors putting points on your license. If you go over a certain number of points, your ability to drive is taken away…pending recertification.

You can appeal, and drive while the appeal takes place. But the appeal fee will be greater than the recertification fee, and if you lose, you have to pay extra legal costs, and you’re subject to an extended driving ban.

This will be covered in the press as a universally Good Thing.

Headlines will celebrate the (almost entirely fictional) decrease in traffic fatalities, whilst baselessly claiming that the smaller number of private vehicles on the road has “improved pollution levels in the inner cities”.

An opinion piece from an anonymous “former driver” will appear in the Guardian, “I lost my driver’s license, and it’s the best thing that ever happened to me”.

It will talk up how much money they’re saving on petrol and road tax, and how much fitter they get walking and cycling everywhere and how they know their neighbours so well now.

Not forgetting all sorts of cozy anecdotes about the charming characters you meet and life-affirming tableaux you witness using public transport.

Meanwhile, American “journalists” will wax poetic about the EU’s “forward-thinking system”, and the UK press and punditry will talk of “lagging behind the EU”, and blame every road accident on Brexit.

Some academics will publish a paper finding that “private car ownership has decreased under EU driver monitoring regulations”, and this “unintended upside” will be widely applauded.

Cue Buzzfeed: “New license rules have taken cars off the road, and it’s a good thing.”

And Vox: “The EU’s driver’s license law has given us a glimpse of what a car-less future could look like, and it’s beautiful”.

While all this is going on, there will be persistent white noise on the safety of “robot drivers” vs human drivers, talking up automatic driving software in Chinese electric cars and so on.

Public transport will be increasingly automated too – whether really automated, or just remotely driven doesn’t matter. The point will be to remove images of people driving from the public sphere.

The important part is you don’t get to decide where you’re going or how you’re getting there.

The end goal will be to inculcate a generally anti-car atmosphere, where even knowing how to drive will be considered somewhat old-fashioned.

Middle-class parents will boast to social media echo chambers that “I never wanted my Jacinda to learn!”, and receive bot-fueled applause as a reward. Implausible self-congratulatory anecdotes detailing how “My eight-year-old just told me he doesn’t want to drive because it’s bad for the planet! Children are so wise!” will go viral.

Because the easiest way to trap people is to make freedom uncool.

That might seem like a lot of speculation based on a little information, and in some ways it is, but pattern recognition is important. It’s much easier to put out a fire that hasn’t started yet, and we know they want to burn it all down.

We know they want to end private vehicle ownership; they have repeatedly said so.

Well, this is how they do that. A little at a time, creating atmospheres and environments. Seemingly arbitrary rules and regulations with “unforeseen consequences”. That’s how they work now, they come at us sideways with slow-developing long-cons, because they can’t afford to work in straight lines, not since Covid.

Stuff like this might seem a small – a throwaway issue vs war or the price of oil – but the powers-that-shouldn’t-be have an eye on the far horizon when they take small steps, and we should pay attention to where they want to take us.

Reform UK is on track for historic gains in the 2026 UK local elections - seizing hundreds of seats in the early counts while Labour and the Conservatives suffer heavy defeats across England. 

With results from 39 of 136 councils declared overnight (roughly 28% of the vote counted), Reform UK has already gained over 300 seats - a remarkable surge for a party that had almost no local presence just a few years ago.

Now more than 300 seats won for Reform UK.

Absolutely brilliant. ????

— Dr David Bull (@drdavidbull) May 8, 2026

Labour has lost 220 seats, the Conservatives 107, while the Liberal Democrats gained 35 and the Greens 22.

Labour on the Brink in Traditional Strongholds

The scale of Labour’s collapse is stark. In areas where the party was defending seats, it has retained only 23% so far. One senior Conservative commentator noted on X that Labour is “currently losing 84% of the seats they are defending.”

Labour has already lost control of at least five councils, including long-held northern strongholds. Tameside fell after 47 years of Labour rule. Heavy losses were also recorded in Halton, Hartlepool, Redditch and Tamworth, with Reform UK making major inroads in former Labour heartlands across the North and Midlands.

Birmingham on the Brink of a Reform Takeover?

Nowhere is the drama more intense than in Birmingham, where all 101 council seats are up for election. Pre-poll surveys had Reform UK as the largest party or very close to it, with some projections putting them on 47 seats - just short of an outright majority.

A widely shared post on X claimed Reform UK is “tipped to take control of Birmingham City Council in what could become one of the biggest political upsets in modern British politics.” Local issues including a prolonged bin strike and council finances have dominated the campaign. Results from Britain’s second city are expected later today.

If these projections are even close to accurate, today will go down as a historic moment in modern British politics.

Reform UK potentially gaining nearly 1,600 council seats would represent one of the most dramatic political shifts in recent local election history.

Labour and… https://t.co/P94MVzMTrP pic.twitter.com/tA8bAVkUUQ

— Ben Graham (@BenGrahamUK) May 7, 2026

Across the declared councils, Reform UK is winning approximately 48% of the seats contested so far. Many authorities are heading for no overall control, creating a fragmented political map.

The Liberal Democrats enjoyed a standout result in Richmond upon Thames, taking every seat. The Greens also made solid gains.

In Scotland, counting for the Scottish Parliament election begins this morning, with first results expected around lunchtime. Polls had suggested the SNP would fall short of a majority while Reform UK was on course for a significant breakthrough. Wales is also counting today.

Political Earthquake for Starmer

These are the first major elections since Labour’s 2024 landslide victory and represent a serious test for Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has hailed the results as evidence of a “historic change in British politics.”

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch faces questions about her party’s ability to stem the flow of votes to Reform on the right.

This is a developing story. More councils - including several major metropolitan boroughs - will declare throughout Friday, with the full national picture expected by Saturday.

The last word goes to @higgyboson

CV.

Completely ruined a major 126 year old political party in less than 2 years.

Became the most hated UK Prime Minister in history. 

Unilaterally gave away billions of £'s of taxpayers money with no accountability required from the recipients. 

Wrecked the economy. 

Failed to control mass immigration, both legal and illegal.

Failed to address the problem of muslim rape gangs.

Increased welfare payments to a point where benefits now cost more than the entire income tax take.

Allowed weekly pro-Palestinian hate marches on our streets.

Consistently referred to people with concerns about the proliferation of migrant violence as "Far Right".

Promoted one of his friends to high office despite knowing he was a buddy of one of the most prolific paedophiles on the planet.

Consistently worked to reverse the result of the biggest democratic vote in British history by stealth.

Placed tax dodgers, fraudsters and CV fantasists in Ministerial posts.

Invited a known islamist terrorist to No.10 while simultaneously banning foreign commentators from the UK for merely reporting on the border fiasco.

Took two weeks to find a Royal Navy ship that actually worked.

Introduced legislation that will destroy the private rental market and create hundreds of thousands of homeless families.

Promised to build 1.5 million homes in five years despite everyone telling him it would be impossible. 

Failed to help motorists and hauliers after the rise in the price of fuel caused by the war in Iran.

Continues to allow Ed Milliband to wreck the UK's energy industry with his insane Net Zero policies.

Raised the minimum wage and employers National Insurance contributions leading to thousands of job losses and businesses folding.

Introduced VAT to private school fees leading to many excellent seats of learning closing their doors.

Consistently refused to answer questions during the session in the parliamentary week set aside for this specific purpose. 

Consistently failed to accept responsibility for any wrong doing, preferring to sack others instead.

Alienated "working people" while claiming to be on their side.

And the lies. The constant lies.

Failure. Failure. And more Failure.

Time to go.

Just another day in private credit paradise... er, hell. 

One day after Gundlach repeated his warning that the private credit crisis will end in tears for bagholders, Blackrock cut the value of its publicly-traded private credit fund by about 5%, as it - like most of its peers - struggled under the weight of troubled loans, markdowns and lower returns.

BlackRock TCP Capital Corp., a publicly traded middle-market lending fund, said markdowns totaled $35 million in the quarter ended March 31, according to a statement on Thursday. Amusingly, and in hopes of redirecting attention, the $1.5 billion fund highlighted “improving credit quality,” and said it invested more in senior debt and strengthened its balance sheet. The fund said its dividend, which was cut to 17 cents a share last quarter, would remain flat.

The fund has been a challenge for BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with about $14 trillion in assets, which is expanding aggressively into private credit. BlackRock acquired specialist manager HPS Investment Partners last year for about $12 billion, aiming to significantly expand its existing capabilities and legacy funds, including TCPC.

The TCPC fund said in January that it cut the net asset value of its assets by 19%, which sent shares tumbling. The fund has struggled in part due to exposure to e-commerce aggregators - companies that buy and manage Amazon.com Inc. sellers - as well as troubled home improvement company Renovo Home Partners, which filed for bankruptcy. Back in March, we reported that Blackrock slashed the value of one of its private loans from par to 0 in just months, Infinite Commerce Holdings, sparking a selloff in the shares as the market was stunned by how quickly a loan from the world's most iconic asset manager can go from par to 0 in just days.

“While we have made meaningful progress, we recognize there is more work to do and we remain focused on disciplined execution,” Chief Executive Officer Phil Tseng said on a call with analysts.

Loans on non-accrual status - typically meaning borrowers have missed their debt payments - declined to 7.6% on a cost basis, compared with 9.7% in the prior quarter. That's because one of its portfolio loans was sold, and two were restructured. Investments in 13 portfolio companies were on non-accrual status.

Tseng said the largest driver of the markdowns was an investment in Job and Talent, a staffing and recruitment company that suffered from weak performance in the quarter. Almost a third of the markdowns came from software-related investments, he said.

Lenders in the $1.8 trillion private credit market have been under scrutiny as advancements in artificial intelligence threaten to upend their bets on software, an industry that makes up a significant portion of lenders’ portfolios. 

Elsewhere, the last big private credit fund we were waiting to report its redemption gates, did just that: Golub Capital announced it was capping withdrawals from its private credit fund after investors sought to pull 8.5% of shares, the latest instance of a money manager restricting outflows amid a wave of redemption requests.

Golub Capital Private Credit Fund, or GCRED, plans to enforce the quarterly withdrawal limit of 5% of common shares outstanding, according to a letter to shareholders on Thursday. The roughly $9.9 billion fund intends to fulfill repurchase requests for 8,891,200 shares.

The credit manager told investors that the redemption requests “were concentrated in a small subset representing approximately 5% of GCRED’s more than 12,000 shareholders.” Golub also cited roughly 14 million in new share subscriptions this year through the end of April. 

GCRED has a liquidity cushion of approximately $4.1 billion and its portfolio consists of nearly $10 billion in total investments at fair value, the firm said. As of the end of the first quarter, less than 0.1% of GCRED’s investment portfolio was on non-accrual status. 

None of that mattered in the, and Golub has now joined every single one of its BDC peers in gating its investors. The silver lining, unlike such disasters as the two big Blue Owl BDCs (OTIC and OCIC), which saw investors try to pull 41% and 22% of their capital respectively - and were obviously gated - Golub's tally was only 8.5%, which in this age where double digit redemptions requests are the normal, is downright respectable.

 

 

d

 

After the close on Thursday, the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled to invalidate Trump's latest set of universal 10% tariff imposed two months ago under Sec. 122. The administration will quickly appeal this decision before it takes effect May 12. If the case follows the same pattern as the challenge to the IEEPA tariffs last year, a higher court might soon stay this ruling and leave the tariffs in place pending a longer review.  

As the tariffs are due to expire July 24, even if the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) eventually rules against these tariffs, there is a good chance a full judicial review will take long enough that the tariffs will remain in effect until the administration replaces them with new tariffs under Sec. 301 (unfair trade practices) and Sec. 232 (national security).

As a reminder, Section 122 tariffs were always a stopgap: by statute, they can only be in place for 150 days, so they’ll expire on July 24, 2026. Investigations by the US Trade Representative under Section 301 are widely expected to wrap up before then, clearing the way for permanent replacement tariffs.

That said, if the ruling survives appeal, the government will likely have to refund unlawfully collected duties, adding to the nearly $170 billion already owed as a result of the Feb. 20 decision.

Key Points: 

1. The CIT ruling was a split decision, with two Democratic-appointed judges granting summary judgment against the administration’s position and one Republican-appointed judge dissenting, favoring a full review of the case instead. This is in contrast to the CIT’s earlier ruling last year, in which a panel of one Democratic- and two Republican-appointed judges unanimously granted summary judgment against the IEEPA tariffs. 

2. The CIT ruling gives the administration 5 days to rescind the tariffs, and requires that importers be paid refunds plus interest. We expect the administration to immediately appeal the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), as it did following the CIT’s IEEPA ruling. In that instance, the CAFC stayed the CIT ruling within a day, leaving the tariffs in effect, and then took 3 months to rule on the case. That ruling was then appealed to SCOTUS, which took another 6 months to rule. As the Sec. 122 tariffs expire July 24 and cannot be extended without an act of Congress, an eventual SCOTUS ruling against these tariffs looks unlikely to come before expiration. That said, if courts ultimately rule against the use of Sec. 122 to impose these tariffs after they have expired, importers could collect refunds beyond IEEPA refunds they will start to receive in coming days.

3. The Sec. 122 tariffs are worth slightly more than 4% on the effective tariff rate (this is lower than the 10% headline rate due to exemptions for products and most imports from Canada and Mexico), and account for slightly less than half of the new tariffs since the start of 2025 that remain in effect. They are likely generating customs duty collections of around $11-12bn per month (not annualized), or around $55-60bn total if they remain in effect for the full 5 months. 

4. Regardless of how courts ultimately decide this case, the ruling should have no bearing on the administration’s longer-term ability to impose tariffs under Sec. 232 (national security) or Sec. 301 (unfair trade practices), which the White House has signaled will replace the Sec. 122 tariffs. The authority to impose tariffs under those laws is well-tested, unlike the IEEPA and Sec. 122 tariffs, and customs duties have been collected continuously under both authorities since the first Trump administration. 

5. The US Trade Representative is currently conducting investigations under the Section 301 trade enforcement authority. These investigations are widely seen as setting the stage for permanent replacement levies that will largely replicate the tariff rates in place before the Feb. 20 court ruling.

6. The court limited relief to three plaintiffs representing a small fraction of total US imports. Other importers may now bring suit, but we expect the administration to quickly appeal and seek a stay of the ruling. The split decision invalidating the tariffs is relatively narrow.

• If the ruling stands, relief is limited to the importers who brought suit — two private firms and Washington State. The court dismissed claims from other non-importer parties for lack of standing. Additional importers could — and likely will — seek relief with their own lawsuits.
• The court also sidestepped the broader question of whether the US currently faces a “fundamental international payments problem”, the authorized purpose of Section 122. Instead, it found the administration’s stated justification — trade and current account deficits — was not an appropriate stand-in.