Bitcoin Shrugs Off Trump Tariff, But October's $19B Crash Looms

Bitcoin Shrugs Off Trump Tariff Threat, But October's $19B Crash Serves as a Stark Reminder

Former President Donald Trump’s recent announcement of a potential 25% tariff on countries doing business with Iran, delivered via Truth Social on January 12th, initially sparked concern in the crypto market. However, Bitcoin (BTC) briefly dipped below $91,000 before swiftly recovering above $92,000 within hours, avoiding a widespread liquidation cascade. This resilience contrasts sharply with the market’s reaction in October 2025, when a similar threat – a 100% tariff on China – triggered over $19 billion in forced liquidations and a 14% Bitcoin price drop. This begs the question: why the drastically different responses? The answer lies not in trader apathy, but in a growing market sophistication that now prices policy announcements through a “credibility filter.”

The Credibility Gap: Why This Tariff Didn't Break the Market

Unlike the October announcement, Trump’s January 12th declaration lacked immediate enforceability. No corresponding executive order was issued, no notice appeared in the Federal Register, and no guidance from Customs and Border Protection clarified the scope of the tariff or which transactions would be affected. This absence of formal documentation raised serious questions about the legal basis of the proposed tariff.

Reports quickly highlighted this lack of clarity, emphasizing the uncertain legal standing of the announcement. Adding to the uncertainty, the Supreme Court is currently reviewing whether Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs exceeds presidential authority. Lower courts have already ruled against the broad use of IEEPA, with those rulings stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decision. As of January 2026, prediction markets like Polymarket (27% chance of support) and Kalshi (31.9% chance) indicate a less than one-third probability that the Supreme Court will uphold the tariffs.

Traders were already discounting the potential for tariff enforcement *before* the Iran announcement. Without clear enforcement mechanisms or legal certainty, the market treated the headline as conditional guidance rather than an immediate policy shift. This is the “credibility discount” in action: a tariff threat can sound sweeping, but it trades like an option until concrete paperwork and enforcement timelines emerge.

October's Crash vs. January's Resilience: A Tale of Two Markets

The October 10th announcement wasn’t just a headline; it was a high-credibility macro shock hitting a structurally vulnerable market. Trump’s 100% tariff targeting China came with a clear geographic scope, explicit trade-war framing, and immediate repricing across all asset classes. US-China escalation is a globally recognized risk trigger, unlike Iran-linked trade restrictions, which operate within a more complex and already constrained policy landscape.

The Fragile Positioning in October

More importantly, the market conditions in early October were ripe for a correction. Perpetual futures open interest had climbed to near-record levels, funding rates were consistently positive, and leveraged positions were heavily concentrated. When the tariff news hit, it didn't just reprice risk; it triggered a cascade of forced liquidations. Bitcoin fell to as low as $104,782 before stabilizing, following over $19 billion in liquidations. This wasn't a fundamental reassessment of crypto's value, but a mechanical unwind driven by forced selling and evaporating liquidity.

A More Stable Landscape in January

In contrast, the January 12th setup looked significantly different. CoinGlass data shows current open interest at roughly $62 billion – elevated, but well below the $90 billion seen before the October washout. Funding rates hovered in a modest 0.0003–0.0008% range per eight-hour period, well below the levels that amplify drawdowns. Deribit has noted a recent jump in seven-day at-the-money implied volatility (roughly 10 vol points), indicating traders are hedging and repricing tail risk, but spot prices have largely held steady.

Furthermore, Bitcoin spot ETFs pulled in around $150 million in net inflows in January, according to Farside Investors data. This suggests institutional flows are offsetting headline-driven selling pressure, albeit narrowly. While there were outflows on January 6th and 7th ($243.2 million and $486.1 million respectively), the overall trend remains positive.

The result was a dip-and-recover pattern, rather than a cascading sell-off. Markets that hedge proactively and maintain deeper liquidity are better equipped to absorb geopolitical noise without experiencing systemic breaks. October’s liquidation spiral required both a high-credibility shock and a market structure primed to amplify it. January lacked both.

The Real Transmission Channel: China and Oil

If the tariff threat were to gain enforceable scope, its impact would be felt not directly through Iran, but through China. China is Iran’s largest trading partner by a significant margin. Reuters reported that China imported $22 billion in Iranian goods in 2022, with over half being oil. In 2025, China purchased more than 80% of Iran’s exported crude, averaging around 1.38 million barrels per day – roughly 13.4% of China’s seaborne imports.

Therefore, any serious attempt to penalize “countries doing business with Iran” would effectively become a China story, with Brazil also potentially exposed through agricultural exports. The complexity of enforcement is a key reason why markets discounted the announcement. There’s no clear targeting mechanism, no easy way to isolate Iranian-linked transactions without disrupting broader trade flows, and no precedent for how such a regime would function.

The most significant transmission channel is oil. Brent crude was trading around $64 per barrel and West Texas Intermediate near $59.70, with analysts estimating a $3 to $4 per barrel geopolitical risk premium tied to tensions over Iran. If this premium persists and drives sustained upward pressure on inflation expectations, the real damage to crypto would come through the rates channel: higher oil prices, higher inflation expectations, higher real yields, and weaker risk assets. Crypto’s vulnerability to geopolitics is indirect, mediated through macro repricing.

A Framework for Pricing Policy Noise

Comparing January 12th and October 10th reveals a clear pattern: policy headlines move markets when they combine credibility, immediacy, and fragile positioning. Here’s a breakdown of the key dimensions:

Dimension	Key Question	Evidence Checklist (What to Verify)	Market/Quant Proxies (What to Measure)	Scoring Guide (0-5)	If the Score is High, Expect…
Credibility	Is this real policy or just rhetoric?	Signed executive order published? Federal Register notice? Agency guidance (e.g., CBP) issued? Clear statutory authority cited (and legally durable)?	“Docs present” (yes/no); time from headline → formal action; legal clarity (court status / prediction-market odds)	0: social post only, no docs/authority. 3: partial docs or credible leaks, authority contested. 5: signed + published + agency implementation + clear authority	Repricing that sticks (not just a wick); vol bid persists
Immediacy	Can this hit flows/cashflows soon?	Enforcement date specified? Identifiable counterparties named? Covered transactions clearly defined?	Days-to-enforcement; scope breadth; compliance feasibility; cross-asset reaction speed	0: no date/scope. 3: date or scope exists, still fuzzy. 5: date + scope + counterparties + enforcement mechanism	Faster, cleaner risk move; less dip-buying
Leverage Fragility	Will structure turn a headline into forced selling?	OI-heavy market? Funding persistently positive? Liquidation levels clustered near spot? IV regime complacent or already stressed?	OI / market cap; funding (8h) level & persistence; liquidation heatmaps/clusters; IV level + term structure (7D vs 30D)	0: low OI ratio, negative/flat funding, dispersed liq, IV already high. 3: elevated but not extreme. 5: extreme OI ratio + hot funding + tight liq clusters + low-vol complacency	Higher odds of cascade; large liquidation prints; liquidity air pockets

October 10th scored high on credibility, with clear China targeting and trade-war escalation rhetoric. It also scored high on immediacy with a direct tariff threat and broad market interpretation, and extremely high on leverage fragility driven by record open interest, crowded positioning, and low hedging. January 12th, however, scored low on credibility due to the lack of formal documentation, low on immediacy due to unclear enforcement scope and timing, and moderate on leverage – elevated but not extreme, with active hedging visible in volatility markets.

The market’s muted response to January 12th wasn’t irrational sentiment or desensitization. It was a rational repricing through the lenses of enforceability and positioning.

What Could Flip the Script

The current base case is that the Iran tariff threat remains a headline without teeth. It’s an optionality that traders monitor but don’t need to price aggressively until implementation mechanics appear. However, several scenarios could change that calculus:

• Formal Executive Order: If a formal executive order emerges with clear enforcement scope, naming specific sectors or counterparties and setting definitive start dates, both credibility and immediacy would jump.
• Supreme Court Validation: If the Supreme Court validates Trump’s emergency-tariff authority under IEEPA, future tariff announcements would regain credibility even without full documentation. Conversely, a ruling against the regime would diminish the threat.
• Persistent Oil Premium: If the oil geopolitical risk premium persists and drives inflation expectations high enough to push real yields higher, crypto faces downside through the rates channel, regardless of whether the Iran tariffs materialize.
• Rebuilding Leverage: If leverage rebuilds to October’s extremes, the next tariff headline or macro shock could trigger a similar cascade.

Lessons Learned

The lesson from January 12th isn’t that crypto has become immune to geopolitical risk. It’s that crypto has become immune to *unenforced* geopolitics, at least until leverage returns. Markets that price policy through credibility filters, hedge proactively, and maintain depth can absorb headline volatility without cascading. Markets that don’t, can’t.

Trump’s Iran tariff threat landed in a structure that had adapted. Traders bought volatility instead of selling spot. Open interest stayed elevated but not extreme. Institutional flows offset retail jitters. The result was a dip that recovered within hours, rather than a liquidation wave that compounded over days. The fragility hasn’t disappeared; it’s conditional. If credibility rises, if immediacy sharpens, if leverage rebuilds to October’s extremes, the next headline could trigger a cascade. Until then, crypto will continue to treat maximalist announcements as negotiating positions rather than executable policy. The Supreme Court will ultimately decide whether that discount is warranted.

Mentioned in this article

Bitcoin Deribit CoinGlass Farside Investors Polymarket Kalshi Donald Trump