Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe US is now withdrawing from the GCF, the entire plan of the [WEF]/[CB] is imploding. Housing is going to boom, Trump has all the pieces in place. Supreme Court is suppose to make a decision on tariffs, if they rule against Trump he has another card up his sleeve.US trade deficit dropped by 40%. Trump just gave the [WEF] the middle finger and shutdown their entire agenda. The [DS] is doing exactly what Trump wants, they are building the insurrection right in front of the countries eyes. Trump has now set the trap of all traps, never interfere with an enemy while in the process of destroying themselves. Trump has the military, he has the law on his side, everything has been planned for, playbook known. Economy https://twitter.com/SecScottBessent/status/2009264006083522849?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/TKL_Adam/status/2009018778294927730?s=20 https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/2009298104764219475?s=20 The Supreme Court is expected to potentially rule on the legality of President Trump’s tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as early as tomorrow, January 9, 2026, at around 10 a.m. ET. The justices heard oral arguments in the consolidated cases (Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.) on November 5, 2025, where they appeared skeptical of the administration’s position that IEEPA grants the president authority to impose such sweeping tariffs during declared national emergencies. Lower courts had previously ruled against the tariffs’ legality, but they remain in effect pending the Supreme Court’s decision. These options are drawn from existing trade laws and have been used by past administrations. Here’s a breakdown of the key alternatives: Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962: This allows the president to impose tariffs on imports deemed a threat to national security after an investigation by the Department of Commerce. There’s no cap on duty levels or duration, making it flexible for broad application, such as on steel or autos. Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974: Through the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), this permits tariffs in response to unfair or discriminatory foreign trade practices that violate international agreements or harm U.S. commerce. No rate limit exists, but it requires an investigation and findings, which could target specific countries like China. Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974: This enables temporary import surcharges of up to 15% (or quotas) for up to 150 days to address “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits. It’s seen as a quick interim option while longer-term measures are pursued, but extensions need congressional approval. Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974: Known as “safeguard” measures, this authorizes tariffs if surging imports are causing or threatening serious injury to domestic industries. It requires a U.S. International Trade Commission investigation and recommendation, with tariffs potentially lasting up to four years (extendable to eight). Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930: This allows duties up to 50% on imports from countries engaging in “unfair” practices that discriminate against U.S. exports. It’s less commonly used and could face immediate lawsuits due to its broad interpretation potential. The administration has signaled readiness to shift to these tools, potentially starting with Section 122 for rapid implementation. U.S. Trade Deficit Drops 40% in Latest Commerce Dept Report As you review this latest data on trade, remember any drop in trade deficits has two big picture functions: First, lower trade deficits generally mean the accompanying GDP release will be stronger than anticipated because imported products are a deduction from the valuation of all goods and services created in the U.S. economy. Lower imports mean less is deducted. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, a drop in the trade deficit created by diminished imports means more wealth remains inside the USA. We are not spending, sending money overseas, to import foreign goods at the same rate, and that money stays inside the U.S. economy. More wealth inside the U.S. provides the fuel for expanded domestic growth, more investment gains in USA manufacturing and USA industry and the ability to pay higher USA wages. The Commerce Department is reporting today that the U.S. trade deficit for October 2025 dropped to the smallest amount in 16-years. A significant amount of the deficit drop was because a high value of physical precious metals (gold/silver) was exported, simultaneous with big offshore pharmaceutical companies dropping the prices of imported products (policy and tariff pressure). Some may question whether internal consumer demand has declined, causing the significant drop in imports. However, the U.S productivity rate is still very high – which generally means domestic consumer demand is still high and all units produced have a lower overall cost per unit. Economic analysis can get weedy…. so, a simple way to look at productivity is to think about baking bread in your kitchen. If you were going to bake 4 loaves of bread it might take you 2 hrs. start to finish. However, if you were going to bake 8 loaves of bread it would not take you twice as long because most of the tasks can be accomplished with simple increases in batch size, and only minor increases in labor time. Your productivity measured in the last four loaves is higher. Economic Productivity is measured much the same way, within what’s called a production probability equation. Additionally, if two hours of your time are worth $40, each of four loaves of bread costs $10 in labor; but if you make 8 loaves in the same amount of time the labor cost is only $5/per loaf. When we see higher productivity in direct alignment with GDP increases, the increased production indicates sustainable GDP growth. Source: theconservativetreehouse.com https://twitter.com/RealEJAntoni/status/2009314808332734604?s=20 Political/Rights https://twitter.com/lizcollin/status/2009046198314008954?s=20 DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/2009287108796575807?s=20 https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2009306335087665208?s=20 These nine Republican lawmakers joined the Democrats: Fitzpatrick (PA), Bresnahan (PA), Mackenzie (PA), Lawler (NY), Salazar (FL), LaLota (NY), Valadao (CA), Kean (NJ), Miller (OH). Yes, for S.J. Res. 98 (the Venezuela war powers resolution referenced in the post) to become law and enforce limits on further U.S. military actions, it must pass the House of Representatives after its recent advancement in the Senate. If the House approves it, the bill would then go to President Trump, who has indicated he would likely veto it based on similar past actions. If vetoed, Congress would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. Article II of the Constitution, as all Presidents, and their Departments of Justice, have determined before me. Nevertheless, a more important Senate Vote will be taking place next week on this very subject. https://twitter.com/DOGEai_tx/status/2009076665054277855?s=20 101’s 11-point democratization criteria – including releasing political prisoners and restoring National Assembly powers. The 2025 bill mandates strict oversight of any aid through Section 204’s safeguards against regime capture. Taxpayers deserve transparency: Will this embassy facilitate accountability for $150B in stolen oil revenues, or just greenlight more foreign aid slush funds? Strategic engagement only works if tied to verifiable reforms, not symbolic gestures. https://twitter.com/estrellainfant/status/2008948263916015793?s=20 Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth continue to expose Delcy Rodríguez and, at the same time, prevent the internal fissures of the regime from spiraling into an uncontrolled collapse. That is no coincidence: it is strategy. Rubio is not acting to provoke an immediate implosion, but to manage the decomposition of power. By exposing contradictions, routes, false narratives, and opaque movements, he weakens Delcy in front of the Chavista leadership, but without pushing the system toward a violent break that generates a power vacuum, chaos, or an unpredictable military reaction. This achieves several objectives at once: First, it isolates Delcy. Every time she is exposed, her room to maneuver shrinks in front of her “external allies” and the regime’s hardline elements. She shifts from being an operator to becoming a risk. Second, it deepens internal distrust. When sensitive information starts to align with U.S. actions, within the regime no one knows who is leaking what. That paranoia is corrosive and weakens more than a direct strike. Third, it preserves the minimum governability necessary for a transition. An abrupt collapse favors criminal actors, armed dissidents, and foreign powers. Controlling the pace of the erosion allows maintaining channels, containing damage, and preparing the ground for a subsequent political process. In that context, Delcy is trapped. If she cooperates, she exposes herself. If
