Inside today’s Daily Journal…

Garth Brooks wrote a song years ago Republicans would be wise to remember.

Sometimes, I thank God for unanswered prayers
Remember, when you’re talkin’ to the man upstairs
And just because he doesn’t answer doesn’t mean he don’t care
Some of God’s greatest gifts are unanswered prayers

– “Unanswered Prayers,” Garth Brooks

The United States dodged a bullet last week when the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s “emergency” tariffs in its ruling Learning Resources v. Trump.

The White House argued the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) granted the president the authority to arbitrarily levy tariffs – even against countries with whom the U.S. is at peace.

The authority to levy taxes is the government’s “ring of power,” to use a J.R.R. Tolkien Middle Earth metaphor. Taxes are coercion. They represent the power to destroy. And that is why the power to tax must never be vested into the hands of a single man.

Granting that power to the president, permanently, would have meant the end of Western civilization.

Limits to taxation – limits to the government’s power – are the foundation of American culture, our society, and our legal structure. The Magna Carta (Great Charter) established this fundamental limit in its 12^th clause:

King Charles I tried to bypass Parliament and levy taxes on his own in 1630. That triggered the English Civil War, costing him his throne and his head. When the British Parliament taxed the American colonies without giving them representation in Parliament, it sparked the American Revolution.

That’s exactly why, when the U.S. Constitution was drafted, the power to tax is specifically reserved to Congress (Article I, Section 8).

That hasn’t stopped presidents from seeking this power. And when they’ve gotten it, presidents have seized vast amounts of private property.

Before IEEPA, presidents relied on The Trading With The Enemy Act Of 1917 (“TWEA”) to wield “emergency” economic powers to seize property and arbitrarily impose taxes. This law was passed during the first World War to prohibit trade with the Axis powers and to seize Axis assets in the United States.

TWEA had a key limitation: It could only be used with Congressional approval: a declaration of war.

Alas, once established, government powers are always expanded.

In President Franklin Roosevelt’s 1933 inaugural address he asked Congress for the power to “solve” the Great Depression by granting him the right to declare an emergency without the threat of invasion. Congress complied, giving him – one man – the power to seize private property and impose arbitrary taxes.

Within 48 hours of his election, FDR declared an emergency and used TWEA authority to shut down every bank in the country, seize all the privately owned gold, and nullify all contracts requiring payment in gold. America was no longer the “land of the free.” The U.S. had become, overnight, a people’s republic.

Going forward, presidents would have sweeping economic powers, including the right to seize private property and abridge private contracts, anytime they merely said the word “emergency.”

What presidents never did, however, was ever declare an end to any emergency! By the 1970s the government was operating under four different “emergency” authorizations, none of which were related to any declared war or the threat of any foreign invasion.

In 1971, facing economic limits to government spending that mirror today’s huge debt and deficits, President Richard Nixon declared yet another national emergency under TWEA. Much like FDR, Nixon defaulted on our debts (by refusing to honor our promise to exchange dollars for gold at $35 an ounce). And, like Trump, he unilaterally imposed a 10% “surcharge” on all imports.

Sound familiar? When the government goes broke, it goes after private property without Congress’s approval.

By the late 1970s, the American people had had enough.

Nixon’s tariffs, the loss of the Vietnam War, Watergate, and spiraling inflation all led Congress to rethink the wisdom of letting one man take unrestricted government power based on “I-said-so” emergencies.

The National Emergencies Act (“NEA”) of 1976 formally terminated existing states of emergency and set procedural rules for future declarations. Then in 1977, Congress further limited the president’s power to impose tariffs and seize property by passing IEEPA. Congress explicitly designed IEEPA to limit the president’s ability to seize property or levy tariffs without Congressional approval.

Trump was using IEEPA to do exactly what the law says presidents can’t do: declare nonsense “emergencies” and pass taxes without Congressional approval.

You’d think this history and these facts would be something the media would explain to the public. But nope. The media is part of the government today. It will never explain why limits to the government’s power exist and why they are important.

We’re lucky Chief Justice John Roberts knows better. I’d also strongly recommend reading Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurring opinion (starting on page 28). Justice Gorsuch lays out the crucial constitutional principles at stake. Without a rigid rule forcing Congress to speak clearly when delegating massive economic authority, the executive branch will inevitably seize the legislature’s power.

And that’s why Republicans should thank God for this unanswered prayer. Imagine what future presidents would have done with the power to levy “emergency” taxes and tariffs.

The path to prosperity for the U.S. doesn’t lie in more taxes. Or by giving the government more “emergency” powers.

The founding fathers wisely understood: the power to tax can only be safely vested in a legislative body that’s elected by the people. They also understood that voting for those legislators must be limited to property owners (aka, taxpayers). I fear we face another bloody revolution to re-learn that lesson.

Tell me what you think of today’s Daily Journal: [email protected]

Good investing,

Porter Stansberry
Stevenson, Maryland

1. Novo Nordisk’s next-gen obesity drug fails to beat Eli Lilly’s Zepbound… again. Shares of Novo Nordisk (NVO) plunged 16% this morning after the company’s latest obesity drug, CagriSema, failed to outperform Eli Lilly’s (LLY) tirzepatide in a head-to-head late-stage trial. Patients on CagriSema lost 23% of their body weight over 84 weeks compared with 25.5% for Zepbound (tirzepatide) – the second major CagriSema disappointment in just over a year. Since June 26, 2025, when we recommended Complete Investor subscribers sell shares of Novo Nordisk and buy shares of Eli Lilly, NVO has fallen 41.58% while LLY has gained 35.84%.

2. The housing squeeze tightens. Housing-supply growth in the U.S. is sluggish as building permits hit a six-year low of 1.42 million, a 19% drop from the 2021 peak. With housing starts (down 0.6% YOY) and completions (down 7.9%) also sliding to 2019 levels, the widening gap between shrinking supply and strong demand is crushing affordability.

3. Electric grids buckle under data center loads. AI data center buildouts have caused global electricity demand to rise at the fastest rate in 15 years, according to the International Energy Agency (“IEA”). And the record $400 billion flowing into new grid investments last year still isn’t enough to meet that demand. Goldman Sachs estimates the need for a 50% increase in annual global grid spending through 2030. This all spells good news for the handful of companies that can help meet this explosion in new power demand.

Domino’s Pizza (DPZ) reported earnings this morning and announced its 12th consecutive annual dividend increase.

Lee B. writes:

Chuck H. writes:

Porter Comment: Chuck —

Thanks for your kind note. It is much appreciated.

Regarding your questions, we really can’t offer any feedback. There’s a bright line from a regulatory standpoint between providing third-party research (which is what we do) and providing investment advice.

While I generally believe the rules are for other people, in this case, I agree with the regulations.

An investment advisor should know you personally and have a full picture of your goals and risk tolerance. We can’t offer that level of service to our 30,000 subscribers.

What we can do, as you’ve seen, is provide fantastic investment recommendations that are, for the most part, extremely profitable. But how you put that to work is genuinely and completely up to you.

I hope you’ll understand this —

And thanks again for your note.

Porter

Pam W. writes:

Please note: The investments in our “Porter & Co. Top Positions” should not be considered current recommendations. These positions are the best performers across our publications – and the securities listed may (or may not) be above the current buy-up-to price. To learn more, visit the current portfolio page of the relevant service, here. To gain access or to learn more about our current portfolios, call our Customer Care team at 888-610-8895 or internationally at +1 443-815-4447.