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.
S&P 500 futures and crude oil contracts on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) at approximately 6:50 a.m. ET Monday—mere minutes before President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social that the United States and Iran had held “very good and productive conversations” toward resolving hostilities in the Middle East.
The timing has raised eyebrows across trading desks and prompted quiet scrutiny from market participants, even as the White House forcefully denies any impropriety.
According to Bloomberg data reviewed by multiple outlets, roughly 6,200 Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures contracts traded in a single minute around 6:50 a.m., representing a notional value of approximately $580 million.
At virtually the same instant, S&P 500 e-mini futures recorded an isolated burst of activity that stood out against an otherwise subdued pre-market session. Both oil and equity futures then moved dramatically once Trump’s post appeared at 7:05 a.m.
More Middle East
WTI crude plunged nearly 12% to around $83–$88 per barrel by the close, while Brent fell below $100 for the first time since early March. S&P 500 futures, by contrast, jumped more than 2.5% in the minutes following the announcement, reflecting investor relief that planned U.S. strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure had been postponed for five days.
The volume anomalies occurred during thin early-morning liquidity, when even modest order flow can create noticeable spikes. Still, veteran traders described the coordinated moves—aggressive selling or shorting of oil while buying equity futures—as unusually prescient.
“It’s hard to prove causality… but you have to wonder who would have been relatively aggressive at selling futures at that point, 15 minutes before Trump’s post,” one senior market strategist at a major U.S. broker told the Financial Times. Another hedge-fund portfolio manager with 25 years of experience called the pattern “really abnormal” for a quiet Monday morning with no scheduled data releases or Fed speakers.
The SEC and CME Group declined to comment. White House spokesperson Kush Desai rejected any suggestion of insider activity, stating: “The only focus of President Trump and Trump administration officials is doing what’s best for the American people… any implication that officials are engaged in such activity without evidence is baseless and irresponsible reporting.”
Markets React to De-Escalation — For Now
Trump’s Truth Social post described “productive conversations” with Iran and ordered the postponement of strikes on Iranian power plants and energy infrastructure for five days, subject to continued talks. Iran’s parliament speaker, Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf, quickly denied that any negotiations were underway, calling the claim “fake news” designed to manipulate oil and financial markets.
Oil prices, which had climbed aggressively in recent sessions on fears of supply disruption through the Strait of Hormuz, reversed sharply. WTI settled down roughly 10–12% at $83–$88 per barrel, while Brent dropped 11–13% to just under $100. European natural gas (TTF) also fell sharply.
The moves provided temporary relief to risk assets but highlighted how fragile sentiment remains. Morgan Stanley analysts warned that a sustained rise to $120 per barrel oil could shave 20–30 basis points off Asian GDP growth and force rate hikes in several emerging economies later this year.
A Pattern of Well-Timed Trades?
This is not the first instance of unusually prescient trading ahead of major Trump administration announcements in recent months. Hedge funds and energy consultants have privately noted several large block trades that appeared well-timed relative to official statements on Iran and Venezuela.
While such patterns are difficult to prove as improper without concrete evidence, they have generated “a level of frustration” among institutional investors, according to one portfolio manager.
Algorithmic and macro strategies can produce rapid cross-asset flows, especially in thin pre-market hours, but the scale and precision of Monday’s moves—selling oil and buying equities just before a de-escalation announcement—left many questioning whether non-public information circulated.
Political and Market Context
The episode unfolds against a backdrop of heightened geopolitical tension and domestic political pressure on the Trump administration’s aggressive posture toward Iran. While Trump framed the postponement as a sign of progress, critics argue the administration’s brinkmanship has already inflicted economic pain through elevated energy prices and market volatility.
For now, the market appears to be pricing in cautious optimism that a wider conflict can be avoided. Yet with Iran denying talks and both sides continuing information operations, the “fog of war” remains thick.
Investors would be wise to treat headline-driven moves with skepticism—especially when large, well-timed trades precede them.
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.
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.
The Pentagon has concluded that Alibaba and BYD should be added to a list of companies with alleged connections to the Chinese military, two months before Donald Trump is expected to meet Xi Jinping in Beijing.
The defence department posted an updated “Chinese Military Companies” list to the Federal Register on Friday morning. However, in a move that has led to confusion, the PDF was abruptly removed from the site following a request from the Pentagon, which did not provide any explanation. A defence official said the Pentagon would release the new list next week.
The decision to include Alibaba on what is formally known as the 1260H list comes three months after The Financial Times reported that US intelligence agencies believed the ecommerce giant posed a threat to national security.
The Pentagon will also add BYD, the world’s biggest electric-car maker, and Baidu, the search engine, to the 1260H list, which is mandated by Congress. While US-China trade tensions have eased since Trump and Xi met in South Korea in October, the addition of the marquee Chinese groups to the list will trigger fresh tension ahead of their summit in April.
In another point of friction, The Financial Times reported last week that the Trump administration is compiling a package of arms sales for Taiwan which could total $20bn after announcing a record $11.1bn package in November. Craig Singleton, an expert on US-China relations at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think-tank, said the addition of the Chinese companies to the list was “mutually assured disruption in practice”.
“Even as tariff threats have cooled, tech, capital and security frictions keep heating up,” he said. “Releasing the list weeks before a leader-level summit shows deliberate compartmentalisation: stabilising trade talks while sustaining pressure in national security lanes.” Henrietta Levin, a US-China expert at the CSIS think-tank, said Beijing would be upset but the move was unlikely to derail the Trump-Xi summit.
🏛️ More National Security
“Chinese officials may lament how the administration is not doing enough to foster a ‘positive atmosphere’ ahead of the anticipated summit between Trump and Xi this spring,” Levin said. “But ultimately, Beijing is confident the results of this summit will favour Chinese interests, and they will not want to miss the opportunity to extract concessions from Trump.”
When the Pentagon makes a “Chinese Military Companies” designation, it signals that the US believes the groups have direct ties to the People’s Liberation Army or are involved in China’s military-civil fusion programme, which requires them to share technology with the Chinese military.
Inclusion on the Pentagon list does not have legal implications for most of the companies. But it creates reputational risk for them, particularly because it signals that the US may take punitive action in the future.
However, the Pentagon also put Chinese biotechnology company WuXi AppTec on the list, which will affect its operations in the US. Under the Biosecure Act, which was passed in December, the federal government is restricted from doing business with “biotechnology companies of concern”, which includes any entity on the 1260H list. But the act gives the government a five-year window to complete existing contracts and wind down arrangements with designated companies. The Pentagon does not publicly disclose many details about why a company has been added to the list.
But the China committee in the House of Representatives last year called for WuXi to be added, saying its management committee included members of the PLA’s Academy of Military Medical Sciences and PLA-run hospitals. WuXi AppTec contested its inclusion on the list. “We are not owned, controlled, or affiliated with any Chinese government agency or military institution. None of our board members or senior executive team has Chinese military or political party affiliation either,” the company said.
The Pentagon also added RoboSense, which makes AI-powered robotic technology, saying the Shenzhen-based group is a military-civil fusion contributor to the Chinese defence industrial base. It also included BOE Technology, a maker of display panels for computers and smartphones. John Moolenaar, the chair of the House China committee, in 2024 urged the Pentagon to add BOE to the list.
The defence department also removed two memory chipmakers — CXMT and YMTC — in an unexpected move. Michael Sobolik, a US-China expert at the Hudson Institute, said that given China’s commitment to military-civil fusion, it was unclear what would have changed to justify their removal.
“The reputational windfall for these companies could increase their chances of selling memory chips to American customers,” he said. “The administration is trying to break the nation’s reliance on China for critical minerals. Why would we risk opening up more dependencies?”
Alibaba is one of the highest-profile changes to the list. The NY Budgets reported in November that US intelligence believed it was providing technical support for Chinese military “operations” against targets in America.
According to a White House security memo, Alibaba also allegedly provides the Chinese government and PLA with access to customer data. Alibaba strongly rejected the allegations in the memo.
On Friday, Alibaba said there was “no basis” to conclude that it should be added to the list. “Alibaba is not a Chinese military company nor part of any military-civil fusion strategy. We will take all available legal action against attempts to misrepresent our company.”
🏛️ More Business
Baidu said the Pentagon claim was “entirely baseless and no evidence has been produced that would prove otherwise”. It said it would “not hesitate to use all options available” to be removed from the list. BYD said any proposal to put it on the list was “completely unfounded”.
“BYD is not a Chinese military company, nor has it participated in any military-civil fusion strategy.”
The White House did not respond to a request for comment about why the Pentagon list was abruptly removed from the Federal Register.
Japan and the United States convened their second high-level consultation committee meeting on Tuesday, signaling renewed momentum in deploying a landmark $550 billion Japanese investment pledge that anchors the allies’ hard-won trade agreement. The two-hour virtual session, co-chaired by Japanese Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Ryosei Akazawa, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright, focused on expediting project selections, with officials pledging to announce the inaugural initiative “as soon as possible,” according to a statement from Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).
The gathering builds on the panel’s inaugural online meeting last week, where representatives from Japan’s foreign, trade, and finance ministries joined U.S. counterparts from the Commerce and Energy Departments to exchange views on potential investments. Energy projects emerged as early frontrunners, with sources familiar with the discussions indicating a handful under review for priority funding. Recommendations from the consultation committee will feed into an investment panel chaired by Lutnick, culminating in final approvals by President Donald Trump—a structure that underscores Washington’s directive role in allocating the funds.
This accelerated pace reflects mounting pressure to operationalize the pledge, formalized in a September memorandum of understanding (MOU) following July’s framework accord. The $550 billion commitment—upped from an initial $400 billion discussion at Trump’s insistence—secured Japan’s relief from steep U.S. tariffs, capping duties at 15% on automobiles and most goods after an earlier spike to 25%. Non-compliance risks penalty clauses, including tariff hikes, potentially unraveling the deal and exposing Tokyo to renewed trade friction.
Target sectors span strategic priorities: semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, metals, shipbuilding, energy, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing. Financing will flow through project-by-project commitments, leveraging institutions like the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and Nippon Export and Investment Insurance (NEXI) for equity, loans, and guarantees. Investments must materialize by January 19, 2029—the end of Trump’s term—aligning with his administration’s push to revitalize U.S. industrial capacity and bolster supply chains amid global competition, particularly from China.
Market reactions have been muted but positive. The Nikkei 225 edged up 0.4% on Wednesday, buoyed by clarity on tariff stability, while U.S. futures showed modest gains in chip and energy stocks. Analysts at Nomura Securities project the fund could inject $100-150 billion annually into U.S. infrastructure, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in swing states—a political windfall for Trump. However, skeptics note execution hurdles: Japan’s characterization of the pledge as facilitated private-sector flows contrasts with U.S. portrayals of direct government-directed capital, potentially complicating disbursements.
The process traces to Trump’s October visit to Tokyo, where an initial project shortlist was floated. Early contenders include LNG terminals, rare earth processing facilities, and semiconductor fabs—areas ripe for de-risking U.S. dependencies. “This isn’t charity; it’s mutual security,” Lutnick remarked in a recent CNBC interview, emphasizing profit-sharing tilted heavily toward America post-recoupment (90-10 split).
For Japan, already the largest foreign investor in the U.S. with over $800 billion in holdings, the pledge reinforces alliance ties while mitigating tariff pain on exporters like Toyota and Sony. Yet, domestic critics decry it as concessional, with opposition lawmakers questioning the fiscal burden amid Japan’s aging demographics and debt load.
As the committee eyes a third session next week and potential Trump sign-offs in early 2026, the initiative tests the Trump administration’s dealmaking prowess. Success could blueprint similar pacts with other trading partners; delays risk reigniting trans-Pacific tensions in an era of reshoring and economic nationalism.
Trump has unleashed a barrage of sanctions on Russia’s oil behemoths, Rosneft and Lukoil, sending shockwaves through global energy markets and forcing America’s key Asian trading partners—China and India—to rethink their cozy deals with Vladimir Putin’s war machine. The move, announced Wednesday amid a fresh Russian missile barrage on Kyiv that claimed seven lives including children, marks Trump’s first direct punch at Moscow’s energy lifeline since reclaiming the White House. It’s a clear signal: Enough with the empty summits and fruitless phone calls. Time for America to squeeze Putin until he sues for peace in Ukraine.
Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, rocketed 5% Thursday to $65 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate surged over 5% to nearly $60—reflecting traders’ bets on tighter supplies as Russia’s two largest producers, which pump out 3.1 million barrels per day and account for nearly half of Moscow’s crude exports, face isolation from Western finance. That’s a potential $100 billion annual hit to Russia’s coffers, per Bloomberg estimates, at a moment when the Kremlin’s war chest is already strained by three years of battlefield stalemates and a stumbling economy.
Trump, speaking alongside NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte in the Oval Office, didn’t mince words: “Every time I speak to Vladimir, I have good conversations and then they don’t go anywhere. They just don’t go anywhere.” The president scrapped a planned Budapest summit with Putin just days ago, opting instead for the sanction hammer after Moscow rebuffed his ceasefire overtures. “Now is the time to stop the killing and for an immediate ceasefire,” echoed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who framed the penalties as a direct assault on the “Kremlin’s war machine.” With Rosneft—headed by Putin’s crony Igor Sechin—and the private giant Lukoil now blacklisted by the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), plus 36 subsidiaries frozen out of U.S. markets, Trump is betting big that choking off oil revenues will drag Putin to the table.
This isn’t just tough talk; it’s targeted leverage. Russia’s oil and gas sector props up a quarter of its federal budget, fueling tanks, drones, and troops in Donbas. By design, the sanctions include a grace period until November 21 for global buyers to wind down deals, but the real teeth lie in secondary penalties: Any foreign bank, trader, or refinery touching Rosneft or Lukoil risks U.S. wrath, from asset freezes to SWIFT exclusions. “Engaging in certain transactions… may risk the imposition of secondary sanctions,” the Treasury warned pointedly. For Trump, it’s classic Art of the Deal—turning economic pain into diplomatic gain, much like his Gaza ceasefire triumph earlier this year.
India Feels the Squeeze: A Trade Deal Lifeline?
Nowhere is the ripple more immediate than in India, where refiners are scrambling to slash Russian imports that ballooned to 1.7 million barrels per day in the first nine months of 2025—up from a negligible 0.42 million tons pre-war. “There will be a massive cut,” one industry source told Reuters Thursday, as state-run giants like Indian Oil Corp. and Bharat Petroleum pore over shipping manifests to purge any Rosneft- or Lukoil-sourced crude. Reliance Industries, India’s top private buyer and locked into long-term contracts for nearly 500,000 barrels daily from Rosneft, is “recalibrating” imports to align with New Delhi’s guidelines, a company spokesman confirmed.
This pullback couldn’t come at a better time for U.S.-India relations, strained by Trump’s 50% tariffs on Indian exports—half explicitly tied to Moscow’s oil fire sale. In a Tuesday call, Prime Minister Narendra Modi assured Trump that Delhi “was not going to buy much oil from Russia” and shares his goal of ending the Ukraine bloodbath, per White House readouts. Sources close to the talks say the sanctions could shatter a diplomatic logjam, paving the way for a bilateral trade pact that levels the playing field for American farmers and manufacturers. “We’re talking about bringing India’s tariffs in line with Asian peers,” one U.S. trade official told The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal on background. “Wind down the Russian crude, and we wind down the duties. It’s a win-win: India saves on overpriced alternatives, and we get fair trade.”
Senior Indian refinery execs, speaking anonymously to Bloomberg, called the sanctions a “game-changer,” rendering direct Russian buys “impossible” amid fears of U.S. blacklisting. Exports to India hit $140 billion since 2022, but at what cost? Discounted Urals crude shielded New Delhi from energy inflation, yet it undercut Trump’s peace push and emboldened Putin. Now, with global prices spiking, Indian consumers may pay more at the pump—but the strategic upside is huge: Stronger ties with Washington, access to U.S. LNG, and a seat at the table in Trump’s post-war reconstruction bonanza for Ukraine.
Critics in the Beltway whisper that this pressures Modi too hard, but let’s be real: India’s neutrality has been a fig leaf for profiteering off Putin’s aggression. Trump’s move forces accountability, reminding allies that America’s security umbrella isn’t free. As former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst put it to the BBC, these sanctions “will certainly hurt the Russian economy… It’s a good start” toward genuine negotiations.
China’s Reluctant Retreat: Xi’s Putin Problem
Across the border, Beijing’s state behemoths—PetroChina, Sinopec, CNOOC, and Zhenhua Oil—are hitting pause on seaborne Russian crude, Reuters reported Thursday, citing trade insiders. China, which snapped up a record 109 million tons last year (20% of its energy imports), has been Putin’s economic lifeline, laundering sanctions via “shadow fleets” of ghost tankers. No longer. The quartet’s suspension, if it sticks, signals a seismic shift: Even Xi Jinping, Putin’s “no-limits” partner, can’t ignore the U.S. financial guillotine.
Trump, fresh off Gaza, sees this as his opening. “Xi holds influence over Putin,” he said Wednesday, vowing to press the issue at next week’s APEC summit in South Korea. No secondary tariffs on China yet—unlike India’s 25% slap in August—but the threat looms. “Will the U.S. actively threaten secondary sanctions on Chinese banks?” mused ex-State Department sanctions guru Edward Fishman on X. Short answer: Expect pullback, at minimum. Beijing’s Foreign Ministry blasted the measures as “unilateral bullying,” but actions speak louder: With Rosneft and Lukoil cut off, Chinese traders face pricier middlemen or a pivot to Saudi or U.S. barrels.
For Russia, it’s a gut punch. China and India gobble 70% of its energy exports; losing even 20-30% could slash GDP growth from its anemic 1.5% forecast (per IMF) and force trade-offs between bombs and breadlines. “As profit margins shrink, Russia will face difficult… financing a protracted war,” notes Michael Raska of Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University. Dr. Stuart Rollo at Sydney’s Centre for International Security adds that while the sanctions won’t cripple Russia’s industrial base overnight, they “may coerce [it] into accepting peace terms” if paired with Trump’s deal-making flair.
Putin’s Bluster Meets Economic Reality
Vladimir Putin, ever the tsar, struck defiant Thursday: “No self-respecting country ever does anything under pressure,” he told Russian reporters, dismissing the sanctions as an “unfriendly act” that won’t dent Moscow’s resolve. Yet cracks show. He conceded “some losses are expected,” and warned of “overwhelming” retaliation if Ukraine gets U.S. Tomahawks—though that’s more theater than threat. Dmitry Medvedev, Putin’s hawkish ex-president, raged on Telegram: “The U.S. is our enemy… Trump has fully sided with mad Europe.” But even Kremlin-linked analysts like Igor Yushkov admit Asian buyers will shy away, hiking costs via shadowy intermediaries.
Russia’s shadow fleet—aging hulls under UAE flags—has dodged G7 caps before, sustaining flows despite EU embargoes. “New sales schemes will simply appear,” boasts military blogger Mikhail Zvinchuk. Fine, but at what price? Logistics snarls could add $5-10 per barrel, eroding the discounts that hooked India and China. With the EU mulling its 19th sanctions package—including an LNG import ban—and the UK already aboard on Rosneft/Lukoil, isolation is setting in. The Guardian reports Putin floated delaying the Budapest talks for “proper preparation,” but that’s code for stalling.
Will this end the war? Analysts like Bill Taylor, another ex-U.S. envoy to Kyiv, call it an “indication to Putin that he has to come to the table.” It’s no silver bullet—Russia’s pivoted before, and military momentum in Donbas favors Moscow. But Trump’s calculus is sound: Freeze lines, cede nothing more, and let sanctions do the talking. “If we want Putin to negotiate in good faith, we have to maintain major pressure,” Herbst urges. Under Biden, dithering let Putin dig in; Trump’s resolve is restoring deterrence.
Stock Widget
Wall Street cheered the news, with energy stocks like ExxonMobil XOM +3.00% ▲ and Chevron CVX +2.50% ▲ on prospects of higher prices and U.S. export booms. Yet Felipe Pohlmann Gonzaga, a Geneva-based trader, cautions the 5% Brent spike “will correct” amid global slowdown fears—China’s property bust, Europe’s recession. Still, for American producers, it’s manna: Permian Basin output hits 6 million barrels/day, and Trump’s LNG push could flood Asia, undercutting Russia’s Urals at $55-60.
The EU’s frozen Russian assets—$300 billion—now fund a fresh Ukraine loan, per Brussels talks. And as Trump eyes a “cut the way it is” armistice, preserving Zelenskyy’s gains without endless aid, taxpayers win too. No more blank checks; just smart pressure.
In this high-stakes energy chess game, Trump’s sanctions aren’t just hurting Russia—they’re realigning alliances, punishing enablers, and clearing the board for peace. Putin may bluster, but with India and China peeling away, his war of attrition is cracking. As Trump heads to APEC, the message to Xi and Modi is clear: Join the winning side, or pay the premium. America’s back in the driver’s seat, and the pump prices? A small price for freedom.
Cookie Consent
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By using our site, you consent to cookies.
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
