

**The White House is reconstructing its tariff program through multiple trade laws after the Supreme Court invalidated the previous approach, senior adviser Peter Navarro said.** The White House is rebuilding its tariff regime through at least three separate trade-law investigations after the Supreme Court struck down the prior program, senior adviser Peter Navarro said Thursday, opening new fronts on forced labor, EU technology policies and foreign industrial overcapacity. "These investigations give us the legal foundation to protect American workers and industries using statutes Congress has long provided," Navarro said in an interview. "The Supreme Court closed one door, but Congress left several others open." The new approach relies on trade laws targeting forced labor in global supply chains, Section 301 authorities addressing the European Union's treatment of US technology companies and separate probes into foreign industrial overcapacity. Specific tariff rates, affected trade volumes and effective dates have not yet been disclosed. The reconstruction effort threatens to escalate trade conflicts across multiple fronts simultaneously. New duties on EU tech companies could affect billions of dollars in transatlantic digital services trade, while overcapacity investigations may target sectors from steel to semiconductors — raising costs for multinational corporations and potentially reigniting inflation pressures. The Supreme Court's decision earlier this year invalidated the administration's previous tariff framework, which had relied on a broad interpretation of executive authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The ruling forced the White House to return to statutory trade laws that require formal investigations, public comment periods and specific findings of injury or unfair practices. The previous tariff regime had covered roughly $380 billion in annual US imports before the court struck it down, according to Census Bureau data. The forced-labor component targets supply chains where US Customs and Border Protection has identified potential violations. The administration is expected to issue withhold-release orders on specific products, though Navarro did not specify which goods or countries would be affected first. Similar forced-labor authorities have previously been applied to products from Xinjiang cotton to electronics components, affecting an estimated $5 billion in annual trade. **EU Tech Probe Targets Digital Services** The investigation into the European Union's treatment of US technology companies marks a significant escalation in transatlantic trade tensions. The EU has imposed digital services taxes on American firms including Apple Inc., Alphabet Inc.'s Google and Meta Platforms Inc., drawing threats of retaliatory tariffs from Washington for years. The Section 301 probe — the same statute used during the US-China trade war that imposed tariffs on $370 billion in Chinese goods — could lead to duties on European digital services, luxury goods or agricultural products. The US trade deficit in digital services with the EU stood at roughly $18 billion in 2025, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data. **Overcapacity Investigations Broaden Scope** Separate probes into foreign industrial overcapacity could affect multiple sectors where global supply exceeds demand. The administration is examining whether state-subsidized production in countries such as China has depressed prices and harmed US manufacturers. Previous overcapacity actions have targeted steel and aluminum, where US tariffs of 25% have been in place since 2018, but the new investigations may extend to semiconductors, solar panels and electric vehicles. The previous US tariff on Chinese EVs added roughly $12,000 to the sticker price of a $48,000 vehicle, according to industry estimates. For investors, the multi-front tariff strategy introduces uncertainty across supply chains, corporate margins and inflation expectations. Companies with exposure to EU digital services, Asian manufacturing and cross-border supply chains face the highest risk of cost increases. The next milestone will be the publication of formal investigation findings, which will trigger specific tariff proposals and public comment periods. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

**Compass International Holdings data shows pre-marketed homes sold for 4.6% more than direct-to-MLS listings, as the brokerage's chief executive declared the US housing market is turning the corner.** Compass International Holdings Chief Executive Officer Robert Reffkin said the US housing market is "definitively" turning the corner, as new data from the brokerage showed its pre-marketed listings commanded a 4.6% price premium over homes listed directly on the multiple listing service. "The data is consistent: Giving homeowners marketing strategies to build interest in their home and refine the price before listing on the MLS and portals leads to a higher sale price," Compass Chief Data Officer Dave Crosby said in a statement. "It's real money." The 4.6% premium — up from 2.9% in a prior study covering 2024 data — was based on an analysis of more than 70,000 closed Compass transactions during the 12 months ending March 31. Pre-marketed homes also went under contract 34% faster and were 29% less likely to receive a price cut, the brokerage said. At the US median home price of $430,000, the premium equates to about $19,780. The findings bolster Compass's push for a phased marketing approach — Private Exclusive, Coming Soon, then MLS — as the brokerage competes for listings in a market where existing-home sales have been constrained by the mortgage rate lock-in effect. First American Deputy Chief Economist Odeta Kushi said in a separate report this month that the lock-in effect is "beginning to loosen," while Zillow data showed home sales jumped in June and mortgage costs fell below year-ago levels. The Compass study controlled for more than 50 confounding variables including property characteristics, agent attributes, seller demographics and neighborhood-level conditions. However, the analysis only covered transactions that closed during the period and did not account for listings that expired or were withdrawn, nor did it disclose price adjustments made during the pre-marketing phases. Compass also highlighted research by Dr. Darren Hayunga of the University of Georgia, who found that pocket listings in the Dallas-Fort Worth area between 2002 and 2022 sold for a 1.7% premium on average, with luxury properties commanding an 8.2% premium. That study compared homes listed on the MLS with those that had zero days on market and were only added after sale — a narrower definition than Compass's phased approach. **Broader Market Shows Signs of Thaw** Beyond Compass's proprietary data, multiple indicators point to a gradual recovery in housing activity. Redfin reported that the median luxury home sale price rose 4.7% year-over-year during the three months ending May 31 — more than triple the gain in non-luxury prices. Veros Real Estate Solutions described the market as "stuck, not sinking," while the National Federation of Independent Business reported that small business optimism rose 2.1 points in June and uncertainty declined. The improving sentiment comes as mortgage rates have eased from their 2025 peaks, though they remain elevated relative to pre-pandemic levels. The Mortgage Bankers Association's purchase index has shown modest improvement in recent weeks, suggesting buyers are gradually re-entering the market after a prolonged period of caution. **What the Premium Means for Sellers** For homeowners considering a sale, the Compass data suggests that patience in the pre-marketing phase can yield meaningful financial returns. The 4.6% premium on a $430,000 home translates to nearly $20,000 — a sum that more than covers typical closing costs and commission fees in many markets. The trade-off, however, is time: properties in the pre-marketing phases may take longer to reach a signed contract when counting the days spent as a Private Exclusive or Coming Soon listing, data that Compass did not disclose. Reffkin's bullish stance on Fox Business reflects a broader shift in tone among housing industry executives. After a year marked by affordability constraints and limited inventory, the combination of easing mortgage costs, rising consumer confidence and data showing pricing power for strategic sellers is beginning to reshape the narrative around the US housing market. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

HF Sinclair Corp. sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for failing to decide on 42 pending small-refinery exemption petitions, escalating a regulatory battle over biofuel blending costs that has left refiners facing billions of dollars in compliance uncertainty. The lawsuit, reported by Bloomberg News on Friday, follows a similar action by the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, which represents U.S. refiners. Both challenges target the EPA's Renewable Fuel Standard mandates finalized in late March, which require oil refiners to blend billions of gallons of ethanol and other biofuels into the nation's fuel supply or purchase renewable identification numbers, or RINs, as compliance credits. The EPA said earlier this month that 42 small refinery exemption petitions remained pending, with no approvals or denials issued over the previous month. The agency faces a Sept. 1 deadline to provide decisions on the outstanding requests. HF Sinclair is among a group of refiners waiting for relief from blending quotas that the industry argues would sharply increase compliance costs and raise fuel prices for consumers. The dispute comes as Congress debates legislation to allow year-round sales of higher-ethanol E15 gasoline, a measure that would expand the biofuels market but further complicate the compliance landscape for refiners. A court ruling in favor of HF Sinclair could force the EPA to expedite exemption decisions, potentially lowering compliance costs for small refiners. Conversely, a ruling upholding the agency's delays would maintain the current regulatory pressure on the refining sector and keep RIN credit prices elevated, affecting margins across the industry. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.