Bitcoin faces a 150-day risk period as Trump shifts focus to a 1974 trade statute that remains unaddressed by the Supreme Court.

Bitcoin remains stable as Trump references Trade Act for 15% tariffs following Supreme Court’s restriction on IEEPA authority, while the market monitors the 150-day timeline

This weekend session is one of those uncommon instances where the chart shows minimal movement… yet there is a sense that something is on the verge of changing.

Bitcoin is trading around $68,000, fluctuating within a narrow range, as Washington provides the markets with a narrative that intertwines legal and macroeconomic elements.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recently limited the emergency-powers tariff route that Trump utilized, and the White House is now referencing a different statute to maintain a 15% tariff, at least for a temporary period.

Sideways trading can create a sense of anticipation. The headline establishes the context, while the secondary effects continue to conflict with one another.

Asset	Last	Change vs. prior close	Intraday high	Intraday low
Bitcoin (BTC)	$68,009	-$198	$68,637	$67,821

Bitcoin sideways price action and calm weekend movements

Related Reading

Bitcoin eyes $175B in refund liquidity as Supreme Court nullifies Trump tariffs

The dispute transitions to trade court, but markets are already factoring in a potential cash transfer that could quickly alter liquidity.

Feb 22, 2026 · Gino Matos

Traders are assessing the implications of the ruling on growth, inflation, interest rates, and liquidity, the factors that have consistently influenced crypto pricing in the post-2020 landscape.

The legal battle is significant as it determines the perceived longevity of the policy shock, and this durability compels businesses and investors to reassess future valuations.

On Feb. 20, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 does not grant the president the authority to impose broad tariffs. In simple terms, the Court has narrowed the scope, and tariffs of this magnitude now require clearer authorization from Congress.

Then came the shift. Within a day, Trump referenced Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, a more limited authority that permits a tariff of up to 15% for a maximum of 150 days under specific balance-of-payments conditions.

The tariff tax effect on Bitcoin

The dispute is rooted in statutes and processes, raising new questions about whether the conditions of Section 122 are satisfied and how far the authority can be extended beyond its historical application.

Tariffs represent a tax imposed at the border. They can rapidly increase import prices, pressure profit margins, and alter supply chains.

These dynamics can influence inflation in one direction and growth in another, and when these signals are at odds, markets often hesitate before making commitments.

This hesitation is currently evident in Bitcoin. If tariffs exert inflationary pressure and maintain elevated real yields, financial conditions tighten, and high-volatility assets may experience heavy trading.

If tariffs lead to concerns about growth and the market begins to anticipate looser policy in the future, liquidity expectations may become favorable, allowing Bitcoin to gain traction. With both scenarios plausible simultaneously, the market often experiences choppy trading, reflecting an ongoing internal debate.

There is also an element of confidence. Policies perceived as reversible can be treated as noise, while those viewed as durable can necessitate a complete reassessment.

This situation embodies both characteristics: existing tariffs and a legal framework that leaves the next steps uncertain.

Related Reading

Bitcoin disregarded Trump’s recent 25% tariff threat, but the $19B liquidation concern from October is quietly resetting in the background

Leverage is reduced, funding is more stable, hedges are more expensive, and ETF inflows have quietly absorbed the selling pressure.

Jan 14, 2026 · Gino Matos

From courtroom ruling to balance-sheet reality

The Supreme Court ruling also leaves an important practical question: what will happen to the tariff funds that have already been collected under the now-restricted framework?

The ruling did not clarify the fate of the over $133 billion already collected, funds that importers are seeking to reclaim and businesses are demanding clarity on.

This is where policy becomes operational. Someone imported goods, paid the tariff, set prices, and developed a strategy based on that cost.

Refunds that are delayed, fragmented, or pursued through litigation maintain uncertainty outside the courtroom, and this uncertainty can impact payrolls, purchasing decisions, and capital expenditures.

Capital expenditures are one of the channels that markets monitor when attempting to predict the Fed’s next actions.

The macro trajectory follows the usual connections: inflation and growth influence Fed expectations, which in turn affect yields and the dollar, and yields and the dollar impact global liquidity conditions.

Related Reading

The only thing worse than buying Bitcoin so far this year is selling at this time of the week

Bitcoin’s January weekend downturn is erasing all weekday gains and leaving portfolios significantly impacted.

Jan 27, 2026 · Liam 'Akiba' Wright

Why Bitcoin appears calm, and why that calm feels tense

Bitcoin’s range-bound activity reflects a market attempting to discern which macroeconomic path prevails.

A 15% tariff can quickly affect price levels. Any decrease in demand may take longer to manifest in concrete data, and that delay can keep rate expectations caught between competing narratives. Rate expectations have been one of the most consistent short-term influences on crypto sentiment during periods of macroeconomic uncertainty.

The sequence of events is also significant.

• First comes the price shock and the headlines.
• Then come inflation reports, surveys, and corporate forecasts.
• Next is the market’s revised perspective on the Fed’s reaction function.
• Finally, positioning often shifts abruptly once the debate is resolved.

Until the debate is settled, Bitcoin may trade as if it is caught in a standoff between narratives: inflation risk versus growth risk, tighter liquidity versus potential easing, and current risk-off correlations versus future liquidity-driven rallies.

Section 122 is important due to its built-in timer, lasting up to 150 days. A timer influences behavior.

Permanent policies encourage widespread repricing, while temporary policies promote positioning.

A 150-day timeframe can lead to pull-forward effects, prompting rush imports before regulations change, increased lobbying, and a continuous stream of implementation and litigation news.

This compresses uncertainty into months rather than years, and compressed uncertainty often triggers the most volatile market reactions.

This is also where the trade-policy toolbox becomes relevant. If the administration relies on longer-lasting authorities beyond Section 122, including other trade statutes that extend uncertainty further into the year, the market’s perception of a “temporary shock” may shift to a different kind of positioning.

What crypto traders will monitor next

The watch list remains straightforward, as Bitcoin’s macro connections have remained consistent in situations like this:

• U.S. Treasury yields, particularly the 10-year and real yields
• The dollar, trade-weighted measures, and DXY-style strength
• Equities and credit spreads, risk appetite, and stress indicators

Rising yields alongside a stronger dollar often tighten financial conditions, and Bitcoin typically struggles in that environment.

Falling yields due to recession fears can shift the market toward expectations of easier monetary policy, allowing Bitcoin to thrive. Equities and credit can set the initial tone, and crypto may decline alongside other assets during stress before any divergence becomes apparent later.

International responses add another dimension. The Guardian reported backlash and warnings from European leaders regarding economic damage and instability. The FT noted strain for partners like the UK as expectations around tariff levels shifted.

These reactions influence global growth expectations, which in turn affect every risk metric on the screen.

Bitcoin is trading as if the legal narrative is significant, and the macroeconomic repercussions remain the pivotal factor.

The Supreme Court’s IEEPA ruling and the Section 122 shift have initiated a countdown for the next phase of tariff policy. The chart will respond when the macro variables cease their internal conflict.

Until then, sideways trading reflects the market’s attentiveness.

The post Bitcoin enters a 150-day danger zone as Trump pivots to a 1974 trade law the Supreme Court hasn’t addressed yet appeared first on CryptoSlate.