# Markets barely moved because the tariff ruling was expected

Markdown copy of https://realalpha.app/s/markets-barely-moved-because-the-tariff-ruling-was-expected/ on Real Alpha, the best minutes from long interviews with the people building AI. Cite and link the page, not this copy.

- Speaker: [Ian Bremmer](https://realalpha.app/people/ian-bremmer/) · Founder & President, Eurasia Group · Founded Eurasia Group, a leading geopolitical risk advisory firm, and GZERO Media, a global-affairs media company.
- Host: [Ed Elson](https://realalpha.app/people/ed-elson/)
- Show: Prof G Markets
- Episode: [Nvidia’s Blowout Can’t Calm AI Anxiety | Prof G Markets](https://realalpha.app/v/q_vMpbXnHzk/), Feb 26, 2026
- Moment: 20:33 to 23:44 of the episode (3 min), playing on https://realalpha.app/s/markets-barely-moved-because-the-tariff-ruling-was-expected/; the episode from there: https://realalpha.app/v/q_vMpbXnHzk/?t=1233

## Quote

> “And you'll note that when the Supreme Court did its ruling, even though it was an extraordinary and historic ruling, **the markets didn't really move**.”
> — [Ian Bremmer](https://realalpha.app/people/ian-bremmer/) at [22:23](https://realalpha.app/v/q_vMpbXnHzk/?t=1343) · Prof G Markets

## Takeaways

1. The ruling constrains how the administration can impose tariffs.
2. The investigative process gives other countries room to respond.
3. Markets had largely anticipated the Supreme Court's decision.

## About this segment

Ian Bremmer says the ruling shifts tariffs into an investigative process that lets countries respond. Markets barely moved because the outcome was anticipated, and he says judicial independence benefits corporations and markets.

From “Nvidia’s Blowout Can’t Calm AI Anxiety | Prof G Markets”, Feb 26, 2026. [Watch the full episode](https://realalpha.app/v/q_vMpbXnHzk/)

## Transcript

Transcribed by machine (Whisper) from the episode’s audio, so a word may be off here and there.

[20:45](https://realalpha.app/v/q_vMpbXnHzk/?t=1245) I would also love to get your reactions to the tariff policies that we've seen, the decision from the Supreme Court. Now we've got the 10 percent tariffs. He says he's going to bump it up to 15 percent as the foreign policy expert. What does this mean for other nations? What does this mean for foreign governments, if anything? Well, the reason he did not want to do it this way, aside from the fact that he's undisciplined and impatient, is that it gives him maximal unchecked unilateral authority to place tariffs on anyone, not only any country, but frankly, on pretty much any company, any sector, for whatever reason he chooses, which the president just doesn't have the right to do.

[21:33](https://realalpha.app/v/q_vMpbXnHzk/?t=1293) Um, because now he still has tariff authority and that tariff authority will absolutely allow him to put these tariffs on most of these countries at pretty much the same level, but it is going through an investigative process, which allows those countries to then respond in that. This is precisely what Trump wanted to avoid. So it constrains him more. It turns out that the American president is not Xi Jinping.

[22:05](https://realalpha.app/v/q_vMpbXnHzk/?t=1325) He's not Vladimir Putin. And it's not only because he has midterm elections, though, that is one pretty significant component, but it's also because there's an independent judiciary. And even if it's 6-3 conservative, and even if he appointed a bunch of them, it turns out that they actually follow the law as opposed to the president. And he doesn't like that, but it is the reality. And that is good for the corporations.

[22:34](https://realalpha.app/v/q_vMpbXnHzk/?t=1354) It is good for the markets. And you'll note that when the Supreme Court did its ruling, even though it was an extraordinary and historic ruling, the markets didn't really move. And the reasons they didn't move is because this was well expected and anticipated by those of us that have been following this. You don't have to be brilliant. You just have to be reading to understand that it was never going to be allowed.

[22:55](https://realalpha.app/v/q_vMpbXnHzk/?t=1375) In fact, the only surprise is whether it was going to be 6-3 or 9-0. 6-3 is not a surprise precisely because we've seen many instances where the law was equally clear against Biden, where it was 6-3 in the other direction. All of these, you know, major questions, issues that Biden was pushing up against illegally and the Supreme Court whacked him down. But the most liberal appointees chose not to align with the majority.

[23:24](https://realalpha.app/v/q_vMpbXnHzk/?t=1404) That's an unfortunate reality of some degree of politicization of the Supreme Court justices, but ultimately doesn't undermine the institution, in my view.