Prediction market platforms Kalshi and Polymarket are discussing potential fundraising rounds that could value each company at about $20 billion.
If completed at that level, the deals would roughly double their valuations from late 2025. The discussions remain early and may not lead to finalized investments, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Prediction markets allow users to trade contracts tied to real-world events, with categories including sports, politics, elections, and more. Traders buy and sell those contracts based on what they think will happen. Essentially, it allows users to monetize information on world events.
Kalshi already operates in the United States under approval from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Founded in 2018 by Tarek Mansour and Luana Lopes Lara, raised $1 billion at an $11 billion valuation in December last year.
📊 More Investing
The company recently reached an annualized revenue run rate of about $1.5 billion, according to the WSJ report citing people familiar with the business.
Polymarket, founded in 2020 by Shayne Coplan, was valued at $9 billion in October after Intercontinental Exchange agreed to invest up to $2 billion in the platform.
None of the platforms immediately responded to requests for comments from CoinDesk.
Both platforms are leading in the sector, as prediction markets have become the latest hype for traders.
According to a Dune dashboard, open interest on Kalshi is hovering over $400 million, while on Polymarket it’s at $360 million. The third-largest market, Opinion, is at $36 million.
Similarly, the weekly notional volume (total underlying value of all prediction contracts traded) on Polymarket was $1.9 billion last week, and on Kalshi, $1.87 billion, according to Dune data. Opinion saw weekly volume of $150 million, down from over $1.2 billion ahead of its token launch.
The sector has become so popular that companies, including Coinbase and Robinhood, have entered the prediction market. In fact, Wall Street giants Nasdaq and Cboe recently said they are considering rolling out yes-or-no “binary bets” for traders on the direction of traditional markets, similar to prediction-market betting.
American businesses and families are staring down the barrel of another self-inflicted energy crisis, this one entirely of President Donald Trump’s making. Just weeks into his second term, the former real-estate developer turned wartime president has plunged the United States into a costly military showdown with Iran — and the bill is already landing squarely at the gas pump, on airline tickets, and in the supply chains that keep corporate America humming.
The average price of a gallon of regular gasoline across the United States jumped 34 cents in the past week alone to $3.32 on Friday, according to AAA data. Diesel prices have climbed even faster. Industry analysts warn the upward spiral has only just begun. When oil first spiked after Trump ordered strikes on Iran last week, many on Wall Street assumed cooler heads — or at least economic reality — would prevail and force a swift diplomatic off-ramp. That assumption now looks painfully naïve.
Oil prices are climbing
Price per barrel of Brent Crude
Source: S&P Market Intelligence and Oilprice.com
DAVID DANYEL / THE NEW YORK BUDGETS
Instead, U.S. and Israeli strikes continue, Iranian drones are hitting energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and hundreds of oil tankers sit idle in the Persian Gulf, too terrified to run the gauntlet of the Strait of Hormuz. The result? A textbook supply shock that is hammering businesses large and small.
Qatar’s energy minister, Saad Sherida al-Kaabi, delivered the latest gut punch in an interview with the Financial Times on Friday. He warned that without an immediate de-escalation, Persian Gulf producers will be forced to halt output “within days,” sending global oil prices toward $150 a barrel — more than double pre-war levels. That would push U.S. pump prices back to the $5-a-gallon peaks last seen after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
“If the Trump administration does not do something to restore confidence in ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz, these prices are going to keep heading up,” said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. “I don’t wake up too many mornings and get the chills when I look at the morning oil price numbers. It’s starting to feel like 2022 all over again.”
The pain is already rippling far beyond the neighborhood Exxon station. United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby told investors at an industry conference Friday that jet-fuel costs are climbing so fast that airfares will have to follow — and quickly. Shipping rates are rising in tandem. Travis Maderia, co-founder of New York-based LobsterBoys, which exports live Maine lobsters to restaurants worldwide, put it bluntly: “Transportation is a big part of our business. When airline prices go up, the cost of sending lobsters overseas can be dramatically impacted.”
More Middle East Tensions
Oil derivatives are embedded in everything from plastic packaging and semiconductor chemicals to industrial gases. BloombergNEF natural resources research chief David Doherty notes that Iran’s cheap drone attacks have made defending scattered energy infrastructure far harder than in past Middle East conflicts. “It is harder to protect oil infrastructure,” he said. “Defending the same breadth of space has become much more difficult than it was in the past.”
Even Trump’s attempts to calm markets have fallen flat. On Truth Social he doubled down: “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced a 30-day waiver allowing India to keep buying Russian oil and floated “unsanctioning” more Russian barrels on Fox News. The president also offered political risk insurance to tanker companies and hinted at U.S. Navy escorts through the Strait.
Market research firm Macquarie told clients the same day that those promises look hollow: escort vessels are “often unavailable due to other military priorities such as missile intercepts or striking Iran.” The firm warned of “an extremely large oil price move” within weeks if the Hormuz chokepoint stays blocked.
Restarting shuttered Gulf production won’t be simple either. Vidya Mani, visiting supply-chain scholar at Cornell University’s SC Johnson College of Business, explained: “It is not as simple as flipping a switch back on. You have to get drilling operations going again. You have to get workers back in.
When there is a conflict like this, workers leave and the number that come back in may not be as many as you need.” She and other analysts now see $150 oil as a realistic near-term scenario — levels last touched in July 2008.
Alex Jacquez, policy chief at the progressive-leaning but economically focused Groundwork Collaborative (and a former Biden White House energy adviser), captured the growing frustration on Wall Street: “The markets are starting to realize there may be no off-ramp here. There was this thinking that if oil prices start to soar that Trump would back down in Iran. But that is not the way things are aligning. The president has shown no appetite for changing course.”
For an administration that campaigned on “lower prices” and “pro-business” policies, the optics are disastrous. A Washington Post-ABC News-Ipsos poll last month found most Americans already view health care, cars, and housing as unaffordable.
Republicans made lowering the cost of living the centerpiece of their midterm strategy. Now Trump’s foreign policy gamble is delivering the opposite — and doing so at the worst possible moment for corporate balance sheets and consumer wallets.
The irony is thick. In 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine, energy markets were disrupted by an external aggressor. This time, as Jacquez noted, “we didn’t choose to do this ourselves” — yet the economic damage looks disturbingly familiar.
WASHINGTON—The Federal Reserve is waging a behind-closed-doors legal challenge to a pair of subpoenas issued as part of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s criminal investigation into Chair Jerome Powell, according to people familiar with the matter.
Pirro, a longtime ally of President Trump, opened the probe to examine whether Powell gave false testimony to Congress last summer about the central bank’s building-renovation project. The move prompted an unprecedented public response from Powell, who in a Jan. 11 video statement said the investigation was a pretext for Trump’s continuing campaign to pressure the Fed to lower interest rates and end the independence of the central bank.
📊 More Economic Policy
The Fed, in sealed proceedings, is asking a judge to quash the subpoenas, which could reduce or eliminate its obligation to respond. Its specific legal arguments couldn’t immediately be learned. It isn’t uncommon, especially in high-profile investigations, for a subpoena recipient to challenge prosecutors’ demands as being overly broad or seeking information protected by legal privilege.
The fight is taking place out of public view because of secrecy rules that apply to criminal investigations pending before a grand jury.
Pirro was present during a White House event on Jan. 8 where Trump excoriated his U.S. attorneys for not moving fast enough to prosecute his favored targets. The Justice Department sent the Fed a pair of subpoenas the following day. The subpoenas asked the Fed to respond toward the end of January.
Republicans have been looking for an off-ramp to the standoff because it is threatening to delay the confirmation of Kevin Warsh, the former Fed governor Trump has chosen to succeed Powell when his term as chair ends in May.
“There were subpoenas issued. But that doesn’t have to mean that there are charges,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on CNBC earlier this month. He has also defended the probe, telling CBS in January, “I think that the message is that independence does not mean no accountability.”
Construction on the Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve building in Washington (Samuel Corum/Bloomberg)
Sen. Thom Tillis (R., N.C.) has repeatedly said he wouldn’t advance any Fed nomination, including Warsh’s, until the Justice Department probe has ended. With all Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee taking the same stand, the 13-11 GOP majority isn’t enough to push a nominee through without him.
Tillis has said the probe was launched outside of traditional channels and has warned about steps that erode investors’ expectations that the central bank will be given reasonable latitude to set interest rates as economic conditions warrant.
The investigation centers on a few minutes of answers Powell provided to questions at a Senate hearing last summer about cost overruns on renovations of two historic buildings. White House officials last year suggested either Powell made false statements about the project’s costs or the Fed failed to update building records, but the furor quickly faded after Trump toured the project with Powell in July.
U.S. Attorney For Washington, DC Jeanine Pirro at a press conference (Image source: Getty Images/Photo by Win McNamee)
Pirro has defended the probe, saying the subpoenas were issued after her office hadn’t received answers to multiple information requests. The inquiry opened in November. A lawyer in Pirro’s office sent two emails to the Fed in December asking for a meeting about the renovation.
Trump has sounded less concerned about resolving the impasse. Pirro is “going to take it to the end and see,” Trump told reporters at the White House on Feb. 2, where he inflated to $4 billion the cost of the $2.5-billion renovation.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a defiant stand against judicial overreach and global trade imbalances that have hollowed out American manufacturing for decades, President Donald Trump has pivoted swiftly from the Supreme Court’s misguided ruling against his sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs. Far from a defeat, this is a rallying cry for America First economics. On Friday, Trump unveiled a fresh arsenal of trade tools, starting with a 10% global tariff on imports—bumped to 15% just a day later—under the long-underutilized Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.
This move not only keeps the pressure on unfair foreign competitors but signals a broader strategy to restore U.S. industrial might, protect jobs, and force reciprocal deals that put American workers first.
The high court’s 6-3 decision, handed down Friday, struck down Trump’s innovative use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose tariffs ranging from 10% to 50% on nearly all countries. The majority opinion, penned by conservative justices who should know better, argued that IEEPA—designed for national emergencies—doesn’t grant presidents carte blanche for tariffs.
Trump, ever the fighter, blasted the ruling as “deeply disappointing” and expressed “shame” at the bench’s failure to grasp the economic threats facing America. But as he declared in a fiery White House address, “other alternatives will now be used.” And use them he did.
📊 More Tariff
This isn’t retreat; it’s reload. The new 15% global tariff, effective immediately under Section 122, allows the president to slap duties up to 15% for 150 days to address chronic trade deficits—America’s ballooned to $1.1 trillion in 2025, per U.S. Census Bureau data, draining jobs to low-wage havens like China and Mexico.
Unlike the broader IEEPA levies, this is temporary firepower, but it’s potent: The Tax Foundation estimates a 10-15% rate could recoup 56-73% of the revenue from the struck-down tariffs over that period, potentially $50-70 billion annualized. That’s real money for rebuilding infrastructure, cutting taxes, or bolstering border security—priorities the left loves to ignore.
Trade experts applaud the agility. Patrick Childress, a former counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, told Forbes: “The U.S. Government has the authority it needs to try to recreate the IEEPA tariff regime if it chooses to do so.” Sure, it might “take some time,” but Trump’s team is already moving: Probes under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act—targeting unfair practices like subsidies and IP theft—are launching, potentially hitting Chinese tech and European autos.
Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act, which Trump wielded masterfully for steel and aluminum (still in place, unaffected by the ruling), will expand to more sectors deemed national security risks—think semiconductors, rare earths, and EVs flooding from Beijing.
Then there’s the nuclear option: Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, untapped for nearly a century, empowers up to 50% duties on nations discriminating against U.S. businesses. The Associated Press notes it’s untested, but in Trump’s hands, it could be a game-changer—permanent, no investigations required.
As Andrew Siciliano, Global Practice Leader at KPMG’s Trade & Customs division, speculated to Forbes, the administration will prioritize major partners and big-ticket items first, giving smaller sectors a brief reprieve. Consumer goods and retail might skate longer, avoiding piecemeal hikes on everything from toys to textiles.
US President Donald Trump during a news conference in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, Feb. 20, 2026.
Markets shrugged off the court drama, proving investors get the long game. The Dow dipped just 0.8% Friday but rebounded 1.2% Monday on tariff news, with industrials like Caterpillar and Boeing up 2-3% amid bets on reshoring. S&P futures signal resilience, pricing in modest inflation bumps (0.5-1% annual CPI rise, per Moody’s Analytics) offset by manufacturing booms.
Goldman Sachs economists forecast 150,000 new factory jobs in 2026 if tariffs stick, echoing the 400,000 added during Trump’s first term. Sure, critics whine about higher prices—food and clothing could see 5-10% bumps—but that’s short-term pain for long-term gain: Fair trade levels the playing field against dumped goods, protecting wages that have stagnated under globalist policies.
Refunds for duties already paid? Likely, say legal eagles. Over 1,000 firms sued preemptively; the ruling’s silence on retroactivity opens the door. Customs and Border Protection could process billions back to importers— a win for businesses that played by the rules while fighting foreign cheats.
Flashback: Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs, rolled out in April 2025 and fully effective by August after a market-jolting pause, were the boldest trade reset since Smoot-Hawley. They targeted imbalances sucking $900 billion annually from U.S. shores, per Commerce Department figures. Lower courts smacked them down; the Supremes followed suit. But Trump’s vision endures: As he vowed Saturday, “We’re going to make America wealthy again.”
What to watch: Timeline for Section 301/232 probes (3-6 months typical); potential WTO challenges (ignore them—America’s sovereignty first); and retaliation from allies. Europe and Canada might counterpunch, but Trump’s leverage—U.S. market access—is unmatched. China, nursing a 4% growth slump per IMF, can’t afford escalation.
This isn’t protectionism; it’s patriotism. Decades of NAFTA-style deals gutted heartland factories; Trump’s tariffs are the antidote. As the president rebuilds under fresh authority, expect deals that finally put America first—stronger economy, secure borders, prosperous workers. The court may have clipped one wing, but Trump’s flying higher than ever.
WASHINGTON — In a 6-3 decision that dealt a temporary blow to President Donald Trump’s bold trade agenda, the Supreme Court ruled Friday that the administration overstepped its bounds by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose sweeping tariffs on most U.S. trading partners. Chief Justice John Roberts, authoring the majority opinion, argued that IEEPA does not grant the president “unbounded” authority to levy peacetime tariffs at will, labeling it a “transformative expansion” of executive power.
Yet, in a display of unyielding resolve, Trump swiftly unveiled a robust backup plan, announcing a new 10% global tariff under alternative legal authorities and vowing to restore—and potentially exceed—the original rates that have already delivered billions in revenue and narrowed key trade deficits.
The ruling, which invalidated about 75% of the tariffs imposed in 2025—including the 10% baseline “reciprocal” duties on imports from nearly every nation—stemmed from a lawsuit by Learning Resources Inc., a manufacturer of educational materials. Justices sided with the company, emphasizing that Congress must explicitly delegate such broad tariff powers.
Roberts, joined by Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected the administration’s IEEPA interpretation, though the liberal justices diverged on the application of the “major questions” doctrine. Dissenters Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito warned of chaos, including potential refunds of billions in collected duties—a “mess” that could burden taxpayers.
Trump, undeterred, wasted no time in countering the decision. At a White House press conference hours later, he declared the imposition of a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows temporary duties to address trade imbalances for up to 150 days. “We have alternatives—great alternatives,” Trump asserted. “We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it.” He also directed the U.S. Trade Representative to launch Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by several nations, paving the way for targeted tariffs post-probe—a process that could take months but ensures compliance with the ruling.
🏛️ More Tariffs
This nimble pivot highlights the enduring strength of Trump’s pro-America trade strategy, which has already yielded tangible wins. According to Bureau of Economic Analysis data released Thursday, U.S. tariffs narrowed the goods trade deficit with China by 32% to $202.1 billion in 2025—the lowest since 2006—while slashing imbalances with Canada (25%), South Korea (14%), Germany (14%), and Japan (8%). Overall, the U.S. trade deficit dipped 0.2% despite a surge in high-tech imports for AI investments, with tariffs generating $216 billion in revenue that helped shrink the federal budget deficit from $1.84 trillion in 2024 to $1.78 trillion. “It’s ultimately pretty clear that tariffs weighed on imports,” noted Wells Fargo economists Shannon Grein and Tim Quinlan, crediting the duties for reshaping global flows in America’s favor.
Critics, including the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s Maya MacGuineas, decried the ruling as a $2 trillion “hole” in the debt fight, but proponents argue tariffs have revitalized manufacturing and jobs. The immediate post-ruling drop in effective tariff rates—from 16% to 13%, per Wells Fargo—offers short-term relief for importers, but Trump’s plan aims to reclaim that ground. “The administration retains the ability to re-impose tariffs,” economists at Morgan Stanley observed, suggesting a “lighter-touch” recalibration could balance affordability with protectionism.
The decision injects uncertainty into global markets, with the S&P 500 dipping 0.8% Friday amid fears of refund lawsuits—potentially chaotic, as Justice Kavanaugh warned. Yet, Trump’s tariff threats have historically spurred deals, like those easing duties with allies.
As he eyes higher rates, the move reaffirms his commitment to fair trade, countering what he calls decades of exploitation. “We’re screwed if we don’t fight back,” Trump posted on Truth Social last month—a sentiment echoed by supporters who see tariffs as essential for American sovereignty.
This ruling, while a setback, may ultimately fortify Trump’s legacy: proving tariffs’ efficacy in deficit reduction and revenue generation, even as legal hurdles force creative enforcement. As the administration ramps up investigations, the world watches—America first, tariffs intact.
WASHINGTON — In a 6-3 ruling that exposed the limits of even a strong executive’s reach, the Supreme Court on Friday invalidated the bulk of President Donald Trump’s innovative global tariffs, deeming his use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) an overstep without explicit congressional backing. Chief Justice John Roberts, penning the majority opinion, argued that IEEPA does not confer “unbounded” peacetime tariff authority, framing it as a potential “transformative expansion” of presidential power.
Yet, in a testament to Trump’s unyielding commitment to American economic sovereignty, the president swiftly pivoted, announcing a new 10% global tariff under alternative statutes and vowing to restore the protective measures that have already slashed trade deficits, generated billions in revenue, and revitalized U.S. manufacturing.
The decision, a rare check on Trump’s pro-America trade revolution, overturned about 75% of the 2025 tariffs—including the 10% baseline “reciprocal” duties on imports from nearly every nation—stemming from a lawsuit by educational materials maker Learning Resources Inc. Roberts, joined by Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, emphasized that Congress must clearly delegate such sweeping powers.
The liberal justices concurred but split on the “major questions” doctrine’s application, while dissenters Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Samuel Alito highlighted potential chaos from billions in refunds—a “mess” that could undermine fiscal gains.
Trump, ever the fighter, didn’t miss a beat. Emerging from a truncated meeting with governors—where he confided his inner fury at the “disgraceful” ruling—he held a defiant 45-minute White House press conference, dimming the lights for dramatic effect.
🏛️ More Politics
“I think it’s an embarrassment to their families, if you want to know the truth—the two of them,” he said of Gorsuch and Barrett, two of his own appointees who sided against him. Praising the dissenters for their “strength and wisdom and love of our country,” Trump singled out Kavanaugh as a “genius.” He even quipped that the six majority justices were “barely invited” to the State of the Union, underscoring his frustration with a court he helped solidify as conservative.
Undaunted, Trump signed an executive order Friday night imposing a 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allows temporary duties for trade imbalances up to 150 days. “We have alternatives—great alternatives. Could be more money. We’ll take in more money, and we’ll be a lot stronger for it,” he declared.
The administration also launched Section 301 investigations into unfair practices by key partners, enabling targeted tariffs post-probe—a more deliberate but equally potent tool. “Other alternatives will now be used to replace the ones that the court incorrectly rejected,” Trump affirmed, spinning the setback as a clarifying win that bolsters his arsenal.
This resilience highlights why tariffs remain a cornerstone of Trump’s America First doctrine. Bureau of Economic Analysis data released Thursday showed the policy’s triumphs: The U.S. goods trade deficit with China plunged 32% to $202.1 billion in 2025—the lowest since 2006—while imbalances with Canada (25%), South Korea (14%), Germany (14%), and Japan (8%) narrowed sharply.
Overall, the deficit dipped 0.2% despite AI-driven high-tech import surges, with tariffs raking in $216 billion—slashing the federal budget gap from $1.84 trillion in 2024 to $1.78 trillion. “It’s ultimately pretty clear that tariffs weighed on imports,” noted Wells Fargo economists Shannon Grein and Tim Quinlan, crediting the duties for reshaping flows in America’s favor and boosting domestic jobs.
Critics like Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget decried the ruling as a $2 trillion “hole” in debt reduction, but proponents argue tariffs have been a fiscal boon, funding infrastructure without tax hikes. The immediate drop in effective rates—from 16% to 13%, per Wells Fargo—offers short-term relief, but Trump’s plan promises restoration.
Morgan Stanley strategists Ariana Salvatore and Bradley Tian predict a “lighter-touch” approach could balance affordability with protectionism, reducing sudden shocks while concentrating on strategic sectors.
The ruling injects procedural hurdles—Section 301 probes take months—but economists at State Street Investment Management see it shifting risk to targeted, non-tariff measures like sanctions, enhancing precision in geopolitical contests. For Trump, facing midterms, it’s a chance to rally his base: “We’re screwed if we don’t fight back,” he posted on Truth Social last month. As the White House eyes congressional tweaks to IEEPA or new statutes, the decision may fortify tariffs’ legacy—proving their efficacy in deficit slashing and revenue generation, even amid legal battles.
Trump’s morning woes—Q4 2025 GDP growth slowed by shutdowns and spending dips—only amplified his defiance. “I’ve been waiting forever,” he lamented in Georgia Thursday, confident in his authority. With refunds looming but barriers high, the economic impulse leans positive: lower duties boost margins for import-heavy sectors, softening the dollar modestly. Yet, Trump’s vow for “higher” tariffs reaffirms his vision: a stronger, fairer America through bold trade action.
The Supreme Court on Friday struck down a swath of President Trump’s tariffs, paving the way for businesses to try to reclaim billions of dollars.
The decision was a major blow for the Trump administration, which had said the money could be used to help pay down federal debt, fund rebate checks to Americans and bail out farmers hurt by tariffs. Trump even claimed that tariff revenues would be large enough to replace the need for income taxes.
On Friday, Trump panned the decision and said he would sign an order to impose a 10% global tariff under a different authority, “over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.”
Source: Treasury Department
Through mid-December, U.S. Customs and Border Protection had brought in about $133.5 billion worth of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the law that was struck down. Such tariffs accounted for about 67% of the tariffs collected in the 2025 fiscal year, which runs through September, and 57% of the tariffs collected between the end of September and Dec 14.
Altogether, including a host of miscellaneous duties not related to trade measures by the president, customs collected fees of about $202 billion in the 2025 fiscal year, about 2.4 times the total amount collected the previous year.
The Supreme Court didn’t provide guidance on whether, or how, tariffs would be refunded, likely leaving those issues to lower courts. Still, trade lawyers say that hundreds of firms have already filed lawsuits to increase their chances of clawing back money.
The president declared 10% across-the-board tariffs on all imports back in April, and imposed even higher rates on a slew of nations. His team branded these “reciprocal” tariffs, saying they were intended to ensure fair treatment for American companies and goods.
Trump walked back or delayed some of the threatened reciprocal tariffs. But the government was still able to collect significant sums from major trading partners using different tariffs also imposed under IEEPA. In regard to China, the president at one point slapped the nation with 125% “reciprocal” duties and added another 20% for the country’s alleged role in the fentanyl trade. The two tariffs were each lowered to 10% under a trade agreement later.
Activist investor Boaz Weinstein is offering to buy shares in Blue Owl Capital Inc.’s business development companies after a challenging week for the lender and broader fears about bubbling risks in the $1.8 trillion private credit market.
Saba Capital Management, led by Weinstein, and Cox Capital Partners launched the tender with an offer price that’s expected to be at a 20% to 35% discount to the most recent estimated net asset value and dividend reinvestment price. That will be determined when tender offers start after a 10-business day notice period, Cox and Saba said in a statement Friday.
Existing shareholders in the non-traded BDCs would have the option — but no obligation — to sell to the firms.
📊 More Investing
The price that any tender clears at will provide a window into where the market gauges the value of these funds and if it reflects Blue Owl’s internal net asset value. Steeply discounted exits could hurt future fundraising efforts.
“The purchasers’ tender offers would provide a liquidity solution to retail investors in the wake of a significant industry-wide increase in BDC redemption requests, multiple quarters of net outflows and a rise in redemption gate provisions,” Saba and Cox said in the statement.
The move comes just days after Blue Owl decided to restrict withdrawals from one of its private credit funds. Facing a looming deadline to return cash to investors in Blue Owl Capital Corp. II, also known as OBDC II, it raised capital by selling a $1.4 billion portfolio of loans to three of North America’s biggest pension funds and its own insurance firm.
Boaz Weinstein. (Jason Alden/Bloomberg)
Blue Owl shares extended losses on Friday, closing the week at their lowest level since June 2023, while shares in other asset managers also sold off.
“Saba and Cox are looking to capitalize on the headlines in the market,” said Michael Covello, executive managing director at investment bank Robert A. Stanger & Co. Inc.
For an investor who says, “I’ve read all the headlines, I’m scared, I don’t care what it costs, I want to get out today,” the tender offer could be a good opportunity, even with the discount, Covello said. “But there’s a cost to liquidity.”
Saba and Cox sent notice to purchase OBDC II shares on Feb. 17. They plan to make similar offers for Blue Owl Technology Income Corp. and Blue Owl Credit Income Corp., which are also BDCs.
Who’s Buying?
Weinstein is a seasoned activist investor who has waged aggressive proxy battles against Wall Street’s biggest names, including BlackRock Inc. and Nuveen. He launched Saba in 2009 and the hedge fund has focused on building stakes in closed-end funds and special purpose acquisition companies.
A Deutsche Bank AG alum, Weinstein has sometimes positioned himself as a defender of retail investors, taking on fund managers that he sees as more interested in collecting fees than maximizing returns for shareholders.
Cox Capital is an investor in dozens of private funds, from BDCs to real estate investment trusts. The Philadelphia-based firm, founded by John Cox in 2020, provides a source of “secondary liquidity” to investors in alternative assets, according to its website.
The credit secondaries market is a fast-growing area of finance, and has proven useful to private equity firms in need of cash, especially as dealmaking slowed down after the Covid-19 pandemic.
After a tactical pause during the holiday shopping frenzy, U.S. companies are unleashing a fresh wave of price increases in early 2026, with hikes often exceeding typical January adjustments amid persistent tariffs, soaring labor expenses, and supply chain pressures. From apparel giants like Levi Strauss & Co. to spice purveyors McCormick & Co., firms are passing on costs to consumers, signaling a potential end to the brief reprieve that lured bargain-hunters last fall. Economists warn these “stronger-than-normal” escalations—particularly in electronics, appliances, and durable goods—could fuel inflation concerns while testing shopper tolerance in a post-pandemic economy still grappling with wage stagnation for many.
The shift marks a reversal from late 2025, when retailers and manufacturers held steady on pricing or even discounted to capture holiday demand, fearing a consumer pullback amid economic uncertainty. Now, with the festive dust settled, companies are recalibrating. Harvard Business School professor Alberto Cavallo’s daily online price tracking through February 10 shows a 2.3% uptick in costs for the most affordable imported goods since November’s lows. The Adobe Digital Price Index echoed this, reporting January’s largest monthly online price surge in 12 years, propelled by electronics (up 4.1%), computers (3.8%), appliances (3.2%), and furniture (2.9%).
Levi Strauss exemplifies the trend. The denim icon implemented tariff-driven increases last month and is layering on more this February. Women’s ribcage straight ankle jeans now retail for $108, a $10 jump, while men’s original fit jeans climbed $5 to $84.50. “We’re strategically raising prices on newer, premium items while moderating hikes on entry-level products,” a Levi spokesperson said, noting efforts to offset duties on imported fabrics and components. The company’s shares (LEVI) dipped 1.2% to $22.45 in after-hours trading Wednesday, reflecting investor jitters over potential sales erosion, though year-to-date gains stand at 8% amid robust denim demand.
🏛️ More Business
McCormick & Co., the Maryland-based spice leader, is similarly surgical. After absorbing $70 million in tariff hits last year—with another $70 million projected for 2026—the firm bumped select prices in September and again this month, targeting commodities like black pepper and cinnamon amid packaging inflation. “Our actions are targeted to cover unavoidable costs without broad impacts,” CEO Brendan Foley told analysts in a January earnings call. McCormick’s stock (MKC) rose 0.8% to $78.12 Thursday, buoyed by a 5% revenue beat in Q4 2025, but analysts at JPMorgan warn of “margin compression” if spice demand softens.
Outdoor apparel maker Columbia Sportswear Co. is hiking spring and fall lines by high single digits on average, after largely sparing autumn/winter collections. CEO Tim Boyle, in a February earnings discussion, framed it as a tariff offset, combined with factory renegotiations and internal efficiencies. “Our goal is dollar-for-dollar mitigation,” he said. Columbia’s shares (COLM) fell 2.1% to $82.34 midweek, part of a broader apparel sector retreat as UBS economist Alan Detmeister flagged “elevated January hikes” in durables, up 3-5% versus the usual 1-2%.
Small businesses, with slimmer buffers, feel the pinch acutely. Cincinnati’s Structural Systems Repair Group (SSRG) is imposing 10-15% contract increases this year, driven by 10% steel tariff spikes and matching healthcare jumps for its 115 employees. “We can’t sustain that without customer concessions,” President Bryan Erickson told reporters. Brooklyn’s Sin housewares firm archived a $450 ceramic planter, deeming it unviable at higher prices, and applied across-the-board hikes due to 20% wage growth since 2022 alongside shipping and materials inflation. Grand Rapids’ Atomic Object upped consulting rates to $200/hour from $195, citing 14% health premium surges equaling 10% of revenue.
Pricing Indexes Chart
Prices of tariffed goods are going up for both
expensive and more affordable imports
The Vistage Worldwide survey of 600 small-business leaders in December revealed over half planning 4-10% hikes in the next quarter, with 10% eyeing double digits—far above norms. Larger firms like Stanley Black & Decker Inc., stung by sales drops after last year’s high-single-digit increases, are now mulling selective discounts, CFO Patrick Hallinan disclosed.
Market implications loom large. The S&P 500 Consumer Discretionary Index slipped 0.7% Thursday to 1,456.23, while the Producer Price Index for final demand rose 0.3% in January, per Labor Department data, hinting at pass-through inflation. Cavallo’s research suggests a “post-holiday reset,” with prices stabilizing by March if demand holds. Yet, risks abound: Higher costs could crimp sales volumes, especially for budget items, as seen in Stanley’s U.S. retreat. Broader economic headwinds—tariff uncertainties under the Trump administration and wage pressures amid 3.8% unemployment—amplify the squeeze.
As companies balance cost absorption with profit preservation, consumers may vote with their wallets. “This isn’t just tariffs; it’s a confluence of labor, health, and global supply strains,” Detmeister noted. Whether these hikes stick or spark backlash will shape 2026’s retail landscape.
he US has relaxed its sanctions on Venezuela’s energy sector by granting two general licences and allowing several global energy companies to resume operations and negotiate new contracts in the South American country. This decision follows the capture and removal of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by US forces in early January 2026, reported Reuters.
The US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued general licences to companies such as Chevron, bp, Eni, Shell and Repsol, enabling them to operate oil and gas projects in Venezuela. These companies are major partners of Venezuela’s state-run company PDVSA and maintain offices and stakes in Venezuelan projects.
The licences require payments for royalties and taxes to be routed through a US-controlled fund.
A separate licence allows international companies to engage with PDVSA for new investments.
However, these agreements necessitate additional permits from the OFAC and exclude transactions with entities in Russia, Iran or China.
A spokesperson of Chevron was quoted by the news agency as saying: “The new General Licenses, coupled with recent changes in Venezuela’s Hydrocarbons Law, are important steps towards enabling the further development of Venezuela’s resources for its people and for advancing regional energy security.”
Additionally, in a separate development, as reported by Reuters, India’s Reliance Industries has secured a general licence from the US, allowing it to purchase Venezuelan oil directly without breaching sanctions.
(Photograph: Reuters)
This move is expected to expedite Venezuela’s oil exports while helping Reliance replace Russian crude with discounted Venezuelan oil.
The issuance comes amid reports that India is shifting away from Russian oil purchases following President Donald Trump’s removal of a 25% tariff on Indian imports.
Earlier this year, Reliance acquired two million barrels of Venezuelan oil from trader Vitol, which also received US licences alongside Trafigura.
The relaxation of sanctions is part of a broader strategy to support economic recovery in Venezuela and foster responsible investment.
The US aims to revitalise Venezuela’s oil industry through a $100bn reconstruction plan and strengthen ties between Caracas and Washington.
The proceeds from Venezuelan oil sales are directed through a fund in Qatar before reaching the interim Venezuelan Government.
ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips are currently evaluating potential re-entry into Venezuela after having their assets expropriated in 2007 under then-President Hugo Chavez.
While ExxonMobil considers Venezuela “uninvestable” at present, talks with the government continue while data is being gathered on the sector.
Last month, Venezuela reached an agreement with the US to export up to $2.8bn (1.1tn bolivars) worth of oil, according to President Trump.
