The White House is preparing alternative legal avenues to preserve President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff regime if the Supreme Court ultimately rules against the administration’s use of emergency powers, according to National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett.

Speaking Friday on CNBC’s Squawk on the Street, Hassett said senior administration officials have already convened to plan for a potential adverse ruling on the president’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs.

“There was a big call last night with all the principals to talk about if the Supreme Court were to rule against this IEEPA tariff, what would the next step be?” Hassett said.

The IEEPA, traditionally used to impose sanctions during national emergencies, has become the legal foundation for Trump’s tariff actions, allowing the White House to move rapidly without congressional approval. That aggressive interpretation has drawn legal challenges from businesses, trade groups, and importers, who argue the statute was never intended to authorize broad trade levies.

Hassett said the administration remains confident it will prevail but made clear that a loss would not derail its trade agenda.

“There are a lot of other legal authorities that can reproduce the deals that we’ve made with other countries, and can do so basically immediately,” he said. “And so our expectation is that we’re going to win, and if we don’t win, then we know that we’ve got other tools that we could use that get us to the same place.”

His remarks suggest the White House views the tariffs less as a single legal mechanism and more as a strategic outcome that can be achieved through multiple statutes. Trade lawyers say those alternatives could include existing trade laws that allow duties in response to unfair practices or threats to national security, though such routes often involve longer investigations and more procedural hurdles.

Hassett said U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has been deeply involved in preparing contingency plans, highlighting the degree of coordination across the administration’s economic and trade teams.

The Supreme Court’s first decision day of 2026 passed on Friday without a ruling on the tariff case, prolonging uncertainty for markets, companies, and U.S. trading partners. The case is closely watched because it could set lasting limits on presidential authority over trade, especially the use of emergency powers to bypass Congress.

Trump’s tariff policy has already reshaped global trade flows, triggering renegotiations with multiple countries and influencing corporate investment decisions. Supporters within the administration argue the approach has strengthened U.S. leverage and helped secure more favorable terms, while critics warn it raises costs for consumers and exposes the economy to retaliation.

The legal fight comes as Trump continues to frame economic policy through a national security lens, tying trade enforcement to domestic manufacturing, supply chain resilience, and geopolitical competition. A Supreme Court ruling against the IEEPA tariffs would represent one of the most significant judicial checks on that approach to date.

Hassett’s comments also arrive amid growing attention on his own political trajectory. He is widely viewed as one of the leading contenders to succeed Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve chair, with Powell’s term set to expire in May. Asked about the prospect, Hassett struck a cautious note.

“I’m really happy with the job I have here,” he said. “We’ll see what the president thinks about where I should be.”

The White House is signaling that, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules, Trump’s tariff strategy is unlikely to be abandoned. Instead, officials are positioning the administration to pivot quickly, ensuring that trade pressure remains a central tool of U.S. economic policy amid legal and political battles.

China’s Wingtech Technology is preparing to escalate its long-running dispute with the Dutch government to international arbitration, seeking damages of up to $8 billion over the Netherlands’ seizure of semiconductor maker Nexperia.

The case, now moving beyond Dutch courts, is shaping up as one of the most consequential investor-state disputes to emerge from Europe’s tightening grip on strategically sensitive industries.

At its core, the fight is not only about ownership of a profitable chipmaker, but about how far governments can go in the name of national security without triggering massive compensation claims under international investment treaties.

How Nexperia Became a Flashpoint

Nexperia traces its roots to the former standard products division of NXP Semiconductors. It was acquired in stages by Wingtech, a Chinese electronics manufacturer best known for producing smartphones and consumer devices, completing full ownership in 2021. Although headquartered in the Netherlands, Nexperia operates a global manufacturing footprint, with major wafer fabrication plants in Europe and backend packaging and testing operations closely linked to China.

The company occupies a critical niche in the semiconductor ecosystem. It specializes in so-called “legacy” chips — power semiconductors, diodes, and logic components — that are indispensable to automotive manufacturers, industrial equipment makers, and consumer electronics firms. Unlike cutting-edge AI processors, these chips are produced on mature nodes, but shortages during the pandemic demonstrated how essential they are to modern supply chains.

By 2024, Nexperia reported profits of $331 million on revenues of $2.06 billion, underscoring its commercial value and strategic relevance.

The Dutch government’s intervention did not come out of nowhere. Over the past several years, the Netherlands has moved to strengthen its foreign investment screening regime, aligning with broader European Union efforts to curb perceived security risks linked to Chinese ownership of critical technology.

Those concerns intensified after the Netherlands became a central player in U.S.-led efforts to restrict China’s access to advanced semiconductor equipment. Dutch firm ASML, the world’s sole supplier of extreme ultraviolet lithography machines, has been barred from shipping its most advanced tools to China under export control agreements with Washington.

Against that backdrop, Chinese ownership of a major chipmaker operating on Dutch soil increasingly attracted political and security scrutiny.

On September 30, 2025, the Dutch state announced it was seizing control of Nexperia, citing fears that the company’s Chinese chief executive could relocate sensitive operations or intellectual property to China. Officials framed the move as necessary to safeguard national security and technological sovereignty.

The seizure marked one of the most aggressive state interventions against a foreign-owned company in the Netherlands in decades.

Although the Dutch government suspended the seizure in November, the damage was already done. According to people familiar with the matter, the intervention triggered a breakdown in relations between Nexperia’s European manufacturing operations and its Chinese packaging and distribution units.

That rupture disrupted internal coordination across the company’s supply chain, complicating production planning and customer deliveries at a time when automakers globally are still sensitive to chip supply shocks. For Wingtech, the episode raised fundamental questions about whether it could continue to operate, expand, or eventually divest its investment under the cloud of state interference.

Turning to International Arbitration

On October 15, Wingtech served formal notice to the Dutch ministries of foreign affairs and economic affairs, invoking the dispute resolution mechanism under the Netherlands-China bilateral investment treaty. That step initiated six months for negotiations, after which the company can formally file for arbitration.

Wingtech’s claim is expected to rely heavily on Article 10 of the treaty, which guarantees fair and equal treatment of investors and requires compensation for state actions that effectively expropriate or damage investments. Arbitration would be heard at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), a World Bank-affiliated tribunal that has handled some of the world’s largest investor-state cases.

Legal experts say the Dutch intervention, even if later suspended, strengthens Wingtech’s case. Steffen Hindelang, a trade law professor at Uppsala University, noted that any direct state action against a company inevitably affects valuation and undermines an investor’s ability to manage or exit the business.

While the Netherlands is likely to argue that its actions were lawful, proportionate, and justified on national security grounds, such defenses are not automatic shields in investment arbitration. Tribunals typically scrutinize whether measures were necessary, non-discriminatory, and accompanied by adequate compensation.

A Broader Clash Over Industrial Policy

The dispute lands at a sensitive moment for Europe. Governments across the continent are asserting greater control over strategic sectors, from semiconductors and energy to telecommunications and defense. Yet many of these sectors rely heavily on foreign capital, including Chinese investment accumulated during a period when security concerns were less pronounced.

If Wingtech succeeds in its claim, the financial implications could be severe. An $8 billion damages award would dwarf Nexperia’s annual profits and send a warning signal to European governments weighing similar interventions.

Even if the Netherlands ultimately prevails, the case has highlighted the legal and economic risks embedded in a more interventionist industrial policy. It also raises questions about whether existing investment treaties are compatible with today’s security-driven approach to economic governance.

A key hearing remains scheduled in Dutch courts on January 14, but the arbitration track now looms larger. If negotiations fail during the six-month window, the dispute will shift to ICSID, where proceedings could stretch over several years.

Shares of major mortgage lenders soared on Friday, buoyed by President Donald Trump’s directive to inject liquidity into the housing market through a massive purchase of mortgage bonds.

The move, announced via social media on Thursday, aims to drive down interest rates and monthly payments, potentially revitalizing a sector strained by elevated borrowing costs. In his post, Trump called on unspecified “representatives” – leaving ambiguity as to whether this involves the Treasury Department, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or another federal entity – to acquire $200 billion in mortgage bonds.

“This should bring down both rates and monthly payments, making home ownership more affordable,” Trump stated.

He attributed the push to the substantial cash reserves held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that purchase mortgages from originating lenders like banks and credit unions.

Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director Bill Pulte swiftly responded on social media, affirming, “We are on it.” This quick acknowledgment underscores the administration’s intent to act promptly on the president’s instructions.

The market reacted quickly. Rocket Companies, a leading mortgage lender, climbed more than 6% to a new 52-week high. UWM Holdings, another key player, advanced over 8%, marking one of its strongest daily performances in the past year. PennyMac Financial Services rose approximately 5%. Even lenders with niche focuses benefited: Better Home & Finance, which emphasizes artificial intelligence in its operations, gained more than 2%. Opendoor Technologies, a real estate e-commerce platform that has garnered meme-stock status, surged over 16%.

Wall Street had anticipated some form of intervention from the Trump administration to curb rising mortgage rates, but the specifics have prompted a wave of analysis regarding consumer impacts and stock implications.

“We read this as the President ordering FHFA Director Bill Pulte to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy $200 billion of their own MBS to bring down interest rates,” wrote Jaret Seiberg, an analyst at TD Cowen, referring to mortgage-backed securities.

Seiberg noted that the directive was “not a surprise,” aligning with broader expectations of policy actions to stimulate housing affordability.TD Cowen projects the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield could close 2026 at 3.5%, a decline from Friday’s level of about 4.17%. This shift would exert downward pressure on 30-year fixed mortgage rates, potentially reducing them to around 5.25% from the current 6.2%. If the $200 billion purchases are executed rapidly, rates could dip even further, approaching 5% by year’s end.

However, not all assessments were as optimistic. Tobin Marcus of Wolfe Research described the $200 billion program as “smaller than the firm previously anticipated,” suggesting its effect on the housing market would be “positive but fairly modest.” Rafe Jadrosich from Bank of America highlighted potential relief for prospective homebuyers, estimating that for every quarter-point drop in mortgage rates, the monthly payment on a $400,000, 30-year fixed loan could decrease by up to $70.Sector-specific outlooks varied among analysts.

Jeffrey Adelson at Morgan Stanley indicated that lower rates could propel UWM Holdings and Rocket Companies toward his more bullish scenarios. Terry Ma of Barclays identified PennyMac and UWM as offering the strongest risk-reward profiles for investors, cautioning that Rocket’s relatively high valuation multiple could hinder its upside.

“The volume levered names are the clear beneficiaries from an earnings perspective to the extent that these initiatives stimulate refinance and purchase origination activity in a meaningful way,” Ma explained in a note to clients.

The announcement also raises questions about its ripple effects on potential initial public offerings (IPOs) for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, both of which remain under federal conservatorship. Pulte told CNBC on Thursday that a decision on pursuing IPOs could come within the next month or two. Wolfe’s Marcus expressed skepticism, stating, “We have always thought that the path toward a transaction would be slower and messier than some investors seemed to be assuming in the post-election euphoria last year.”

Marcus further characterized the mortgage bond purchases as “the biggest and most obvious demand-side tool in the [White House’s] housing toolkit.” Yet, he tempered expectations, noting that the initial market response was underwhelming.

“It still looks to us like the White House doesn’t have a silver bullet for housing or for the ‘affordability’ problem more generally,” he concluded.

While the stock gains reflect optimism, the modest scale of the program suggests that broader economic factors – including Treasury yields and overall demand – will play a pivotal role in determining its ultimate success.

In markets, everyone is welcome to participate, but only a few are invited to collect the trophies. The difference is not location or luck; it is capability. My Accumulation of Capability Construct explains that firms do not win simply because they are present in an industry;  they win because they master it. A petrol station operator, a local fuel trader, a neighbourhood car dealer and a global manufacturer like Toyota or a refinery like Dangote are all in the same broad sectors. Yet, the value they capture is radically different.

Why? Because the station and dealer play at the downstream edge of the value chain, while Toyota and Dangote have climbed upstream by accumulating deep technical, financial and organizational capabilities that are extremely hard to copy.

The message for founders and executives in Lagos, Nairobi, Accra and beyond is simple: trading may feed you, but capabilities will keep you. If you remain permanently downstream, you will always be exposed to currency swings, supplier decisions, and policy shocks you cannot control. But if you deliberately climb upstream,  like Dangote moving from importation to refinery, or Toyota evolving from assembler to global platform designer, you position your firm where value is thickest and competition is thinnest. Right there, you begin to “tax” the state and the government in what I have called the conglomerate tax!

Here, Conglomerate Tax isn’t a formal government levy but a concept where large conglomerates, due to their scale, market power, and ability to solve major national problems (like infrastructure), effectively receive “taxes” from governments in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and concessions that smaller businesses can’t get, making the citizens and nations indirectly support their growth. It’s a system where governments subsidize conglomerates to fix critical market frictions, essentially paying them to build national capacity, as seen with Amazon and the Dangote Group.

Good People, the Igbo Apprenticeship System must go upstream. Yes, while currently downstream, the Igbo Apprenticeship System can move upstream by adopting a corporate cooperative framework. This shift mirrors the success of Europe’s FrieslandCampina, which transformed thousands of dairy farmers into a $13 billion corporate powerhouse, serving continents with products, with Peak Milk its most popular brand in Nigeria.

It can be argued that looking to Europe is unnecessary when Nigeria has its own history of scaling the ‘Ubuntu’ cooperative spirit. Before their eventual decline, the cocoa, palm oil, and groundnut marketing boards demonstrated our capacity for large-scale collective enterprise. By embracing the Ghanaian concept of ‘Sankofa’, reaching back to reclaim our past, we can extract vital lessons to architect a more resilient economic future.