Tag: Business

Oil prices surge above $102 as Saudi Arabia and UAE weigh joining Iran war
Global oil prices passed $102 a barrel on Tuesday morning after reports that U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf are inching toward joining the war against Iran.
Brent crude futures for May delivery were rising 2.8% to trade at $102.74 a barrel as of 8:40 a.m. Eastern time, while West Texas Intermediate contracts for May delivery were up 3.9%, to $91.56 a barrel.
Both oil benchmarks on Monday fell sharply after President Donald Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social that the U.S. would be halting strikes on Iran’s power plants for five days “subject to the success of the ongoing meetings and discussions.” Both the Brent and WTI on Monday settled at their lowest levels since March 11, according to FactSet data.
Market optimism has faded since Iran refuted Trump’s claims that the U.S. has had “very good and productive” talks with Tehran, with Parliament Speaker Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf calling the announcement “fake news” used to “manipulate” markets.
“Obviously much now depends on the progress of any talks, and whether the more optimistic rhetoric is followed up by concrete action,” Jim Reid, head of global macro research at Deutsche Bank, wrote in a note on Tuesday, adding that “some nervousness” had crept back into markets, sending Brent crude back past the $100 threshold.
Investors’ concerns regarding the future of the war in Iran were also exacerbated by a Wall Street Journal report on Monday evening that U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf are edging closer to joining the conflict. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are mulling helping efforts as their economies continue to be disrupted by the strikes and the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
The report notes that neither has deployed its military openly yet, but pressure is increasing as Tehran continues to exert control across the region, with energy infrastructure targeted.
“Investors are still unclear about what happens next. The fog of war is thick,” said David Morrison, senior market analyst at Trade Nation. “The Strait of Hormuz remains closed to just about everything, and that should continue to support energy prices. This in turn plays into fears of higher inflation, adding to concerns that were building even before hostilities began.”
U.S. stock futures were edging lower after all three major benchmarks on Monday booked their biggest daily percentage gains since early February. The Dow Jones Industrial Average futures were off 0.5%, while the S&P 500 futures were falling 0.4% and the Nasdaq 100 futures were dropping 0.6%, according to FactSet data.
March 24, 2026
Slovenia limits fuel purchases as shortages hit pumps amid Iran war impact
Slovenia on Sunday temporarily limited fuel purchases to tackle shortages at the pump caused in part by cross-border fuelling and stockpiling due to the Iran war, raising concerns about security of supplies just as the country goes to the polls.
Fuelling at individual service stations has been restricted to 50 litres per day for private vehicles and 200 litres for companies and other priority users such as farmers, Prime Minister Robert Golob announced on Saturday evening.
The restrictions will stay in force until further notice.
“Let me reassure you that there is enough fuel in Slovenia, the warehouses are full and there will be no fuel shortages,” said Golob, a liberal who is standing against right-wing populist Janez Jansa in an election on Sunday.
Golob said the problem lay in the transportation of fuel to filling stations, and that the army would use tankers to help retailers move supplies. The government also recommended that retailers prepare special measures for foreign drivers, without being specific.
Petrol, the largest Slovenian oil distribution company in which the state has a 32.3% stake, has seen long queues at its gas stations in recent days due to fuel shortages.
Many filling stations across Slovenia were closed on Sunday. Those belonging to Hungarian oil and gas group MOL have remained open but had already limited purchases to 30 litres for individuals and 200 litres for companies.
“Today we didn’t have problems because I have an application where I can check where to tank (fill up),” teacher Tamara Gale Beasinsky, 40, said at a gas station in Ljubljana. “But yesterday we had a problem because we were waiting more than 20 minutes in the queue … and we were able to tank only 30 litres of diesel.”
At an emergency session on Sunday, the government accused Petrol of failing to eliminate disruptions in fuel distribution and ordered an inquiry into possible violations in fuel trading and the management of critical infrastructure.
It also called on the Slovenian sovereign wealth fund to request a meeting of Petrol’s shareholders and ask for a special audit of the company’s logistics operations after March 16.
The government also ordered the interior ministry to submit a report to law-enforcement agencies due to “possible grounds for suspicion” of criminal offences by some Petrol staff.
Petrol did not reply to Reuters’ requests for comment. It said on Saturday that fuel supplies remain stable and that supply sources are secured, blaming occasional shortages at individual points of sale on increased demand locally.
(Reporting by Fatos Bytyci, Gaspar Lubej and Branko Filipovic; Writing by Daria Sito-Sucic; Editing by Kirsten Donovan and David Holmes)
March 23, 2026
China positions itself as ‘Harbour of Stability’ to global CEOs amid U.S.–Iran tensions
China sought to woo global chief executives including Apple’s Tim Cook, UBS’s Sergio Ermotti and HSBC’s Georges Elhedery in Beijing on Sunday, touting the country’s safety and reliability in stark contrast to a US bogged down in war with Iran.
Premier Li Qiang told more than 70 chief executives gathered in the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse for the government’s annual Davos-style forum that the world’s second-largest economy offered an unmatched supply chain and a predictable commercial environment.
The country was committed to being a “cornerstone of certainty” and a “harbour of stability” in the face of rising trade protectionism and upheaval in the rules-based international order, said Li.
“China will unswervingly promote high-level opening up to the outside, import more high-quality foreign goods and work with all parties to promote the optimised and balanced development of trade, jointly expanding the global economic and trade pie,” he told the audience.
The conference, the China Development Forum, is held every year in late March after the meeting of the country’s rubber-stamp parliament. It acts as the leadership’s vehicle for pressing its talking points on global CEOs.
This year, Beijing is selling its latest five-year economic plan to 2030 as an opportunity for foreign investment.

“Li didn’t name America . . . but the message is clear that China is now safer, more reliable and stable, and more focused on economic development rather than conflicts,” said George Chen, a partner at the Asia Group consultancy who was present at the meeting.

The conference comes amid widening concern over China’s huge trade surplus, which hit a record $1.2tn last year. In Europe, there are worries that low-cost Chinese imports are eliminating jobs.

The five-year plan largely doubles down on China’s manufacturing-oriented high-tech industrial policy, raising fears of an even greater shock to western factories.

People’s Bank of China governor Pan Gongsheng defended the country’s exports in a speech on Sunday about global economic “rebalancing”.

Pan rejected the claim that China’s competitiveness was a result of government subsidies, attributing it to economic reforms, the size of its domestic market and the strength of its supply chains and research.

Without naming the US, he described some countries’ persistent trade deficits as being the result of “an international monetary system dominated by a single sovereign currency”.

Jeanine Pirro takes aim at the ruling by James Boasberg on Friday. (Reuters)
Other business leaders on the invitee list this year include Siemens’ Roland Busch, Volkswagen’s Oliver Blume, SK Hynix’s Kwak Noh-jung, Nestlé’s Philipp Navratil, Mercedes-Benz’s Ola Källenius, KKR’s Joseph Bae, Cargill’s Brian Sikes, Standard Chartered’s Bill Winters and Boston Consulting Group’s Christoph Schweizer.

US executives were well represented this year, accounting for 45 per cent of invitees, according to an analysis by Han Shen Lin of the Asia Group. Europeans made up 36 per cent with the remainder from Asia, Australia and elsewhere.

Financial services dominated, accounting for about 22 per cent of invitees, while those from the energy sector were only about 4 per cent.

Apple chief executive Cook delivered a speech after Li on opportunities in education and other areas in China.
Unlike in the previous two forums, President Xi Jinping is not expected to meet top executives this year, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Asia Group’s Chen said Li’s speech was the most confident he had seen in recent years, though the premier refrained from directly criticising US President Donald Trump.

Trump, who recently postponed a meeting expected on April 1 with Xi in Beijing, is still widely expected to be planning a visit this year.

On Saturday evening, vice-premier He Lifeng, the economic tsar running trade negotiations with the US, held a dinner with a group of mostly European executives to tout the country’s five-year plan.

The executives mostly praised China and talked up their own companies, said one of the people present at the dinner, but there was some discussion of Chinese overcapacity and the risks for European industry.
March 21, 2026
Bond Market Flashes Warning Signal Not Seen Since Before 2008 Financial Crisis
Troubling developments unfolded in the U.S. bond market on Thursday that had some investors drawing comparisons with the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.
The current problems start with rising oil prices as a result of the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, which is raising the risk of stagflation and the prospect of a 2026 interest-rate hike by the Federal Reserve. Brent crude the global oil benchmark, briefly blew past $119 a barrel on Thursday as attacks escalated on oil-and-gas infrastructure in the Persian Gulf. West Texas Intermediate crude-oil futures briefly crossed $100 a barrel.
But even as oil prices have spiked and stock prices come down, Treasurys, often seen as a haven during times of market unease, haven’t rallied on a continual basis. Instead, fears that the war in the Middle East could morph into a full-blown energy crisis pushed the policy-sensitive 2-year Treasury yield above the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate target on Thursday. Bond yields move inversely with prices and rise during selloffs.
Thursday’s bond-market selloff caused the Treasury yield curve to exhibit what traders describe as a “bear-flattening” pattern. This actually began back in early February. Typically, the pattern emerges when bond traders are bracing for a difficult economic environment ahead.
The confluence of these three developments — oil above $100 a barrel, a 2-year yield above the fed funds rate, and a bear-steepening dynamic in the bond market — is making some investors nervous.
The last time all three things unfolded simultaneously was in the late spring of 2008, according to Bloomberg data. About four or five months later, Lehman Brothers collapsed, ushering in the most acute phase of the 2008 financial crisis. The S&P 500 declined 38.5% that year. Widespread mortgage defaults also resulted in many Americans losing their homes.
The current environment includes both similarities and differences to that troubling time. Whereas the 2008 crisis was triggered by the bursting of a housing bubble and the subsequent collapse of the subprime mortgage market, investors are currently focused on the continued war with Iran, which began on Feb. 28, as well as signs of increasing stress in the private-credit industry.
Already, investors have been impacted by twin declines in stocks and bonds, which amount to a double-whammy for anybody holding their retirement savings in a 60-40 portfolio.
The backdrop now “does remind me of 2007-2008, when you did have cracks in the financial system,” said economist Derek Tang of Monetary Policy Analytics in Washington. The bad news now is “we are going into an energy-price shock and the Fed’s hands are tied because of inflation risks, which make it harder to cut rates.” This is all happening as the chance of a U.S. recession is growing, which is “not healthy” for risk assets. “That’s why people are on a knife’s edge right now.”
All three major U.S. stock indexes closed lower on Thursday, despite attempting to climb during the final hour of trading.
Earlier in the day, the 2-year yield, which is tied to expectations for the path of interest rates, jumped by as much as 21.8 basis points to an intraday high of almost 3.96% as the underlying government note aggressively sold off. The rate rose 8.8 basis points to 3.83% by 3 p.m. Eastern time, leaving it above the Fed’s interest-rate target of between 3.5% and 3.75%

The 2-year yield climbed at a faster pace than the benchmark 10-year yield which rose just 2.5 basis points to 4.28% —producing a bear-flattening pattern of the Treasury curve. The difference between 2- and 10-year Treasury yields shrank to around 45.1 basis points on Thursday from 51.5 basis points a day ago, and it is down from 74 basis points in early February.
The curve’s bear flattening is already hurting financial institutions, which rely on borrowing at short-term rates to lend at long-term rates, and retirement-age investors who held the 2-year Treasury note because of its cash-like qualities. As the note sells off, its yield rises so those older investors could have waited to buy at a lower price and higher yield. The bear-flattening’s significance to investors more broadly rests in the signals it sends about the likely upward path for interest rates and a negative economic outlook.
The 2-year rate is pricing in a scenario in which “the Fed will have to move into a rate-hiking cycle for the next few years,” said Ben Emons, founder of the New York-based investment management firm FedWatch Advisors, who added that he does not share this view.
However, a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis is not necessarily in the cards because “we’re not in stagflation yet and the economy is not as reliant on oil prices as it was back then,” Emons said in a phone interview. “We have private-credit issues, but there’s a difference between that and the subprime crisis at the time. The banking system is far more resilient than before.”
Fed-funds futures traders currently see a 93.8% chance of no change in borrowing costs this year and a 6.2% likelihood of one rate hike by December. On Wednesday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell lent some credence to the idea of a hike by saying officials have deliberated on whether their next move should be to lift rates, though this is not currently the central bank’s base-case scenario.
March 19, 2026
Investors slash Fed rate-cut bets as Iran war drives surge in petrol prices
Investors are slashing bets that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates this year, as the widening crisis in the Middle East sends petrol prices surging and threatens a fresh burst of inflation.
Markets are not anticipating a Fed rate cut until summer next year, according to trading in federal funds futures. It marks a dramatic shift from just weeks ago when traders were pricing in two quarter-point cuts in 2026.
The stark shift in Wall Street expectations highlights how the surge in energy prices caused by the war in Iran is prompting investors to rapidly rethink their outlook for inflation in the world’s biggest economy.
“This has been a wild shift. The market went completely mad today and decided to price out lots and lots of cuts,” said Gennadiy Goldberg, head of US interest rate strategy at TD Securities.
He added: “This enormous move . . . is a function of the market betting that it will be difficult for the Fed to cut rates while oil prices remain high.”
Petrol prices, which are a major cost for consumers, hit $3.60 a gallon on Thursday, compared with $2.94 a month ago, according to motor club AAA.
The dwindling rate-cut bets undercut US President Donald Trump’s hopes for the Fed to drastically cut rates to accelerate growth and lower borrowing costs for consumers. The Fed, which is due to meet next week, reduced rates by a quarter point three times last year.
Still, the president on Thursday renewed his calls for Fed chair Jay Powell to slash borrowing costs: “Where is the Federal Reserve Chairman, Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell, today? He should be dropping Interest Rates, IMMEDIATELY, not waiting for the next meeting!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Investors have already moved to price out cuts, and price in rises, across a range of big economies, including the UK and the Eurozone, viewed as particularly vulnerable to energy-driven inflation.
Short-term US government debt, which is particularly sensitive to monetary policy expectations, fell sharply in price on Thursday, sending yields higher.
The two-year Treasury yield, which moves with interest rate expectations, rose as much as 0.1 percentage points to 3.76 per cent.
One popular trade in the market that has been put under pressure are so-called steepeners: bets that short-dated debt will outperform long-term bonds. Instead, the yield curve on Treasury debt has flattened, with the additional interest rate on 10-year debt over the two-year equivalent falling from 0.7 percentage points in early February to just above 0.5 percentage points.
John Stopford, head of multi-asset income at asset manager Ninety One, said the flattening represented the US bond market trying to price in “negative growth implications of higher oil prices and the likelihood of less accommodative monetary policy”.
Longer-term yields have also increased in recent days, something that has pushed mortgage rates higher after they hit the lowest level since 2022 late last month. The average 30-year fixed rate rose to 6.11 per cent this week, from less than 6 per cent in late February — denting one of the president’s flagship pledges to improve home affordability.
Despite market expectations that the Fed will refrain from rate cuts this year, some rate setters view the shock from higher energy prices as temporary.
Christopher Waller, a Fed governor who is one of the more dovish members of the Federal Open Market Committee, said last week: “You’re going to see a spike in gasoline prices, that’s what the American citizens are going to see at the pump, and they’re going to stare at it and be a little shocked . . . but, for us, thinking about policy going forward, it’s unlikely to cause sustained inflation.”
March 12, 2026
Live Nation Reaches Tentative Antitrust Settlement With U.S. Justice Department as States
Live Nation reached a tentative settlement with the US Justice Department on Monday in the federal antitrust case brought against the entertainment giant.
The settlement, which still requires the approval of District Judge Arun Subramanian, comes just days after the antitrust trial began in New York.
The case was initiated under then-president Joe Biden, with prosecutors accusing Live Nation — which owns Ticketmaster — a monopolist that controlled virtually all live entertainment in the United States.
The settlement requires Live Nation to open up the ticketing platform to competitors and to allow other promoters to stage events at certain Live Nation venues, a senior Justice Department official said.

Live Nation will divest up to 13 amphitheaters and pay $280 million in damages to the nearly 40 states that were parties to the antitrust lawsuit against the California-based company, the official said.
The increased competition should result in ticket prices coming down, the official said.
Live Nation shares surged nearly six percent on the New York Stock Exchange following the announcement.
New York and a number of other states declined to join the settlement and said Monday that their litigation against Live Nation would continue.
“For years, Live Nation has made enormous profits by exploiting its illegal monopoly and raising costs for shows,” New York Attorney General Letitia James said.
“The settlement recently announced with the US Department of Justice fails to address the monopoly at the center of this case, and would benefit Live Nation at the expense of consumers,” James said in a statement.
“We will keep fighting this case without the federal government so that we can secure justice for all those harmed by Live Nation’s monopoly.”
A spokesperson for the New York attorney general, a Democrat, said prosecutors would file a motion with the court seeking a mistrial and file a new case against Live Nation brought solely by the states.
The Justice Department official said talks with a number of the states were ongoing and was hopeful some of them will eventually sign off on the settlement.
Live Nation is a behemoth in its industry: in 2025 it organized more than 55,000 events worldwide, drawing 159 million attendees.
Beyond promotion, it holds stakes in 460 venues and, since 2010, has controlled Ticketmaster, the world’s leading ticket seller.
The Justice Department had accused Live Nation of abusing its dominant position to pressure artists and venues into signing with it, stifle competition, and impose excessive fees on fans.
The Trump administration’s decision to press forward with the case against Live Nation had surprised many observers, who had interpreted the recent resignation of Justice Department competition chief Gail Slater as a sign the case would be dropped.
Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren condemned the settlement in a post on X.
“Donald Trump just betrayed every fan who’s been exploited by Ticketmaster,” Warren said. “This fine is less than one percent of Live Nation’s revenue last year. We need to break up Ticketmaster and Live Nation.”
John Kwoka, a professor of economics at Northeastern University, said the settlement appeared “inadequate.”
“It does not deal with the fact that Ticketmaster is still an integrated company that has incentives that remain pretty much intact to disadvantage competitors,” Kwoka said.
“This is a minor accomplishment in the face of what the Justice Department laid out as a course of business,” he said.
March 9, 2026
Prediction Platforms Kalshi and Polymarket Seek Funding at Nearly $20 Billion Valuation
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.

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.
March 7, 2026
Antitrust Trial Begins That Could Force Breakup of Live Nation, Ticketmaster’s Parent Company
A high-stakes antitrust trial that could lead to the possible breakup of Live Nation, the parent company of Ticketmaster, got underway Tuesday in a case over whether the entertainment giant’s dominance of the concert industry amounts to an illegal monopoly.
In opening statements, a U.S. Justice Department lawyer pointed to the company’s infamously problem-plagued effort to sell Taylor Swift tickets in 2022 as he implored the Manhattan federal jury to end the company’s hold on the market and reward artists and consumers with a competitive marketplace that will leave them with more money.
“This case is about power, the power of a monopolist to control competition,” said the attorney, David Dahlquist. “Today, the concert ticket industry is broken.”
David Marriott, arguing on behalf of the companies, disputed the government’s claims.
“We’ll let the numbers do the talking,” he said. “We do not have monopoly power.”
Judge Arun Subramanian has told jurors that evidence will be presented over the next six weeks before they’ll be left to decide whether Live Nation and Ticketmaster broke antitrust laws.
The trial stems from a lawsuit filed in 2024 that alleged the companies have dominated the industry by suffocating competitors and controlling everything from concert promotion to ticketing.

Ticketmaster, which was established in 1976 and merged with Live Nation in 2010, is the world’s largest ticket seller across live music, sports, theater and more.
Dahlquist noted that the ticket seller sparked outrage in November 2022 when its site crashed during a presale event for Swift’s Eras Tour.
The company said the site was overwhelmed by both fans and attacks from bots, which were posing as consumers to scoop up tickets and sell them on secondary sites. The debacle prompted congressional hearings and bills in state legislatures aimed at better protecting consumers.
Dahlquist said Live Nation’s anti-competitive practices include using long-term contracts ranging from five to seven years to keep venues from choosing rivals and blocking venues from using multiple ticket sellers.
Ticketmaster’s clashes with artists and fans date back three decades. Pearl Jam took aim at the company in 1994, years before the Live Nation merger, although the Justice Department ultimately declined to bring a case.
Live Nation has maintained that artists and teams set prices and decide how tickets are sold.
Marriott said Live Nation was the world’s biggest supporter of musical artists, enabling 159 million people in 2025 to see 11,000 artists at 55,000 concerts.
He said the government has exaggerated how much the companies make, including by saying Ticketmaster pockets $7 a ticket, when it actually gets $5 and clears less than $2 after expenses.
Live Nation and Ticketmaster, he said, “are all about bringing joy to people’s lives.”
March 4, 2026
Paramount Wins Bidding War for Warner Discovery After Netflix Backs Out
Paramount Global—now under the control of Skydance Media—has clinched a $81 billion deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., outbidding streaming behemoth Netflix Inc. after the latter bowed out, citing the escalated price as no longer viable. The victory for David Ellison’s Paramount caps a contentious takeover saga, uniting storied assets like HBO, CNN, and the DC Comics universe under one roof, while raising fresh antitrust alarms in an industry already grappling with consolidation and shifting viewer habits.
Netflix co-CEOs Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters announced the withdrawal in a statement late Thursday, hours after Warner’s board deemed Paramount’s revised $31-per-share all-cash offer superior to Netflix’s $27.75-per-share bid for the studios and HBO Max alone. “This transaction was always a ‘nice to have’ at the right price, not a ‘must have’ at any price,” they said, emphasizing fiscal discipline amid Wall Street’s scrutiny of Netflix’s ballooning content spend. The decision sent Netflix shares (NFLX) surging 10% in after-hours trading to $682.50, recouping some of the $170 billion market value erosion since rumors of its Warner pursuit surfaced in September 2025. Analysts at JPMorgan hailed the pullback as “prudent,” noting Netflix’s subscriber base hit 285 million in Q4, up 12% year-over-year, without the added debt burden.
For Warner Bros. Discovery (WBD), the deal—pending regulatory nods—marks a lifeline under embattled CEO David Zaslav, whose cost-cutting regime has drawn ire but delivered hits like the Oscar-nominated “Sinners” and “One Battle After Another.” Zaslav, in a memo to staff, celebrated the merger as a value-maximizer for shareholders, projecting $6 billion in synergies through streamlined operations and shared IP like Harry Potter and Superman. “Once our Board votes to adopt the Paramount merger agreement, it will create tremendous value,” he stated. Warner shares dipped 0.35% to $10.85 in regular trading but climbed 2% after-hours on merger optimism.

Netflix Inc.
Netflix Inc.
Source: FactSet

Paramount’s path to victory was fraught. Ellison, son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison, prioritized Warner after Skydance’s $8.4 billion takeover of Paramount in August 2025, viewing the combo as essential to compete against Disney, Netflix, and Amazon in the $500 billion global entertainment market. Initial overtures were rebuffed, but Paramount’s hostile $30-per-share bid in December—escalating to $31 this week—prevailed. Key concessions included a $7 billion termination fee for regulatory failures and covering Warner’s $2.8 billion breakup payout to Netflix, plus an accelerated “ticking fee” of 25 cents per share quarterly starting September 30.
The merger creates a colossus: Paramount gains Warner’s film/TV studios, HBO Max (with 110 million subscribers), and cable nets like CNN, TNT, TBS, and Food Network—bolstering its Peacock and Paramount+ platforms amid a streaming wars projected to reach $240 billion by 2030, per PwC. Yet, hurdles loom. The Justice Department, already probing Netflix’s bid for anticompetitive practices, will scrutinize this tie-up, especially combining legacy studios and news outlets. Media watchdogs like Free Press’s Craig Aaron decried it as “unthinkable,” warning that folding CNN into CBS News could amplify biased coverage, particularly on sensitive issues like Israel’s actions in the Middle East—where consolidated ownership risks amplifying pro-Israel narratives at the expense of balanced reporting.
Ellison’s revamp of CBS News—installing Bari Weiss as editor-in-chief to target “center-left to center-right” audiences—has sparked concerns of editorial shifts, potentially tilting foreign policy discourse. CNN President Mark Thompson urged staff not to “jump to conclusions,” but the deal’s scale—creating a entity with $60 billion in annual revenue—invites FTC intervention, especially post-Trump antitrust relaxations.
Wall Street cheered the outcome: Paramount shares (PSKY) leaped 10.04% to $45.20, adding $12 billion to its market cap, while the S&P 500 Media Index rose 1.8%. “This is Ellison’s moonshot—scale to survive in streaming’s endgame,” said MoffettNathanson analyst Michael Nathanson, upgrading Paramount to Buy with a $55 target.
As regulators deliberate, the merger underscores Hollywood’s consolidation imperative amid cord-cutting and ad market volatility. For Netflix, the retreat preserves cash for originals like “Squid Game” sequels; for Paramount, it’s a bet on IP synergy to challenge Disney’s $200 billion empire. But in an era of media monopolies, questions linger: Will this super-studio foster innovation or stifle diverse voices, especially on global hotspots like Israel-Palestine?
February 26, 2026
What to Know About Trump’s New 15% Global Tariff on Imports
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.

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.
February 21, 2026
High Court Rules Trump Exceeded Authority With Worldwide Tariff Plan
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.

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.
February 21, 2026
Inside the Supreme Court’s Decision to Strike Down Trump’s Global Tariffs
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.

“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.
February 20, 2026