President Donald Trump said Friday he would keep sweeping tariffs in place by invoking alternative legal authorities, hours after the US Supreme Court ruled that he exceeded his powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in imposing the trade measures.

Speaking during an afternoon press conference at the White House briefing room, Trump sharply criticized the majority opinion and the six justices who concluded that IEEPA does not grant the president authority to unilaterally levy broad-based tariffs.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on tariffs is deeply disappointing and I’m ashamed of certain members of the Court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” Trump said.

The decision marked a significant rebuke of Trump’s expansive use of emergency powers to reshape US trade policy. The majority found that while IEEPA authorizes the president to regulate certain financial transactions during national emergencies, it does not explicitly empower the executive branch to impose across-the-board import taxes.

Trump directed particular ire at John Roberts, along with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, accusing them of undermining his efforts to protect American industry.

“Their opposition to these tariffs makes them a disgrace to our nation,” Trump said. “It’s unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution.”

In dissent, Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh argued that the statute’s broad language provided the president sufficient flexibility during declared economic emergencies. Justice Samuel Alito joined Kavanaugh’s dissent, aligning with Thomas in warning that the ruling could unduly constrain executive authority in matters of national economic security.

Trump noted that he had appointed Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh during his first term, but said their votes in the case would not deter him from pursuing his trade agenda.

Despite the setback, Trump insisted the ruling would have little practical effect. He said he planned to use other statutory authorities to reimpose the same or even broader tariffs.

“The good news is that there are methods, practices, statutes and authorities as recognized by the entire Court in this terrible decision, and also as recognized by Congress, which they refer to, that are even stronger than the IEEPA tariffs available to me as president of the United States,” he said.

Trump announced that he would sign an executive order later in the day to “impose a 10% global tariff under Section 122, over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.” Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 allows the president to address balance-of-payments deficits through temporary import surcharges and quotas, subject to certain procedural requirements and time limits.

Legal scholars said the move could trigger a new round of court challenges, as Section 122 has historically been used sparingly and typically in narrower circumstances. Critics argue that any attempt to replicate the scale of the IEEPA tariffs under alternative authorities would likely face scrutiny over whether the statutory conditions are met.

Trump did not indicate whether his administration would seek to tailor the new tariffs to comply more closely with the Court’s guidance. Instead, he framed the decision as a technical obstacle that could be easily navigated.

“All we’re doing is we’re going through a little bit more complicated process, not complicated very much, but a little more complicated than what we had,” he said. “And we’ll be able to take in more tariffs.”

The president also declined to commit to returning the tens of billions of dollars already collected under the IEEPA-based tariffs. The Supreme Court’s opinion did not directly address whether the funds must be refunded to importers, leaving the issue unresolved.

“They take months and months to write an opinion, and they don’t even discuss that point,” Trump said. “I guess it has to get litigated for the next two years.”

Trade groups and importers had argued that if the tariffs were deemed unlawful, companies should be reimbursed for duties paid. The administration has not yet outlined a mechanism for handling potential refund claims, and legal experts said the matter could spawn additional lawsuits in lower courts.

Trump also said he would not ask Congress to pass new legislation expanding presidential tariff authority.

“I don’t have to. I have the right to do tariffs. And I’ve always had the right to do tariffs. It has all been approved by Congress, so there’s no reason to do it,” he said.

Under the Constitution, Congress holds primary authority over taxation and trade policy, but over decades lawmakers have delegated certain powers to the executive branch through statutes such as IEEPA and the Trade Act of 1974. The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores limits to that delegation, reinforcing that emergency powers cannot be interpreted to cover actions not clearly authorized by statute.

Democratic lawmakers welcomed the decision, saying it reaffirmed the separation of powers and prevented what they described as executive overreach. Some Republicans expressed concern that the ruling could weaken the president’s leverage in trade negotiations.

Trump’s remarks come ahead of his scheduled address to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night. Many, if not all, of the Supreme Court justices are traditionally invited to attend such speeches, which are held in the House chamber as a symbol of the balance among the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

Asked whether he expected the justices to attend, Trump said he “couldn’t care less.”

“They are barely invited,” he said, even though the president does not have the authority to exclude members of the judiciary from the House or Senate chambers. Attendance at joint sessions is voluntary for justices, and some have chosen to skip such events in the past.

The escalating rhetoric underscores mounting tensions between Trump and the judiciary, which has previously blocked or limited several of his policy initiatives. By vowing to reimpose tariffs under alternative statutes, Trump signaled that the legal fight over his trade agenda is far from over.

Analysts said the administration’s next steps could determine whether the dispute evolves into a prolonged constitutional clash or settles into a narrower debate over statutory interpretation. Either way, the ruling represents a defining moment in the ongoing struggle over the scope of presidential power in economic policymaking.

For now, Trump appears determined to press ahead, framing the Court’s decision not as a defeat but as a procedural detour. “We have many tools,” he said. “And we’re going to use them.”

Gold and silver surged to fresh record highs on Monday as President Donald Trump’s escalating push to take over Greenland stoked fears of a deepening trade war between the United States and Europe, driving investors toward traditional safe-haven assets.

Spot gold jumped as much as 2.1% to trade near $4,700 an ounce, while silver rallied up to 4.4%, reflecting a sharp rise in risk aversion across global markets. The gains came as the US dollar weakened and investors reassessed the geopolitical and inflationary fallout from Washington’s growing confrontation with key European allies.

The rally follows Trump’s announcement that the United States will impose tariffs on eight European countries — including France, Germany and the United Kingdom — that have opposed his plan to acquire Greenland. Under the proposal, 10% levies will take effect on February 1 and rise to 25% by June, a move that has alarmed markets and policymakers alike.

Concerns over the potential economic damage from Trump’s bid to annex Greenland have added new momentum to an already historic rally in precious metals. Gold prices are now up roughly 70% over the past 12 months, marking one of the strongest annual advances in decades, as investors pile into assets seen as protection against political instability, inflation and currency depreciation.

Market participants have increasingly turned to gold and silver in recent weeks amid heightened geopolitical tensions and renewed attacks by the Trump administration on the independence of the Federal Reserve. Those concerns have raised questions about the central bank’s ability to rein in inflation without political interference, further boosting demand for hard assets.

European leaders are now weighing their response. According to people familiar with the discussions, the European Union is considering retaliatory tariffs on up to €93 billion ($108 billion) of US goods. German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil struck a defiant tone on Monday, saying Europe must draw a clear line.

“We are constantly experiencing new provocations, we are constantly experiencing new antagonism, which President Trump is seeking, and here we Europeans must make it clear that the limit has been reached,” Klingbeil said in Berlin.

Analysts warn that an escalating tariff battle could have far-reaching consequences for global trade, inflation and growth. “The US’s tariff threats over Greenland are reminiscent of a mafia extortion racket,” said Peter Mallin-Jones, an analyst at Peel Hunt LLP. “The precious metal impact looks like a reaction to a move away from US dollar assets and the potential inflationary impact of a trade war between the US and EU, let alone a chilling effect on economic activity.”

Gold recorded its best annual performance since 1979 last year, supported by falling US interest rates, sustained central bank buying and growing geopolitical uncertainty linked to Washington’s foreign policy. Silver has outperformed even gold, with prices tripling over the past year as investors embraced the broader metals complex.

A significant driver of the rally has been strong buying from China, alongside renewed inflows into exchange-traded funds. Gold-backed ETFs saw holdings rise by more than 28 tons last week, the largest weekly increase since September, and have expanded in seven of the past eight weeks, underscoring the strength of investor demand.

Many analysts believe the rally still has room to run. Citigroup Inc. last week forecast that gold could reach $5,000 an ounce within three months, while silver may climb to $100 an ounce, citing strong investment flows, supply constraints and mounting geopolitical risks.

As of 12:42 p.m. in London, spot gold was up 1.7% at $4,671.97 an ounce after earlier touching a peak of $4,690.59. Silver gained 3.5% to $93.30, having earlier hit $94.12. Platinum and palladium also advanced, while the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index slipped 0.2%.

Investors are now closely watching the US Supreme Court, which is due to hear arguments on Wednesday regarding Trump’s effort to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The case is widely seen as pivotal for the future independence of the central bank — and could prove another critical catalyst for precious metals markets.

US President Donald Trump’s unpredictable tariff crusade—framed domestically as a strategy to revive American jobs—appears to be delivering the opposite effect for one of the country’s biggest defense manufacturers. Lockheed Martin, builder of the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter, is now facing an exodus of customers, cancelled contracts, and an uncertain future for more than USD 100 billion in potential sales.

The irony is striking: while Trump champions American military might and “Make America Great Again” industrial nationalism, the F-35 program—the most expensive weapons system in history, costing an estimated USD 2 trillion over its lifetime—has become a prime casualty of his foreign and economic policies.

Even before Trump returned to the White House in January, Lockheed Martin was grappling with ballooning maintenance bills, delays in the critical TR-3 upgrade, engine modernization setbacks, and rising production costs. But in 2025, the biggest threat to the F-35 has not come from technical issues. It has come from Washington.

Trump’s escalating tariff wars, his public threats against allies, and his erratic stance on NATO have pushed multiple countries to either cancel or reconsider previously signed F-35 contracts—some of them years in the making.

Despite the jet’s combat performance during Israel’s 12-day war with Iran in June—where F-35Is conducted deep strikes, SEAD/DEAD missions, and escorted B-2 stealth bombers—the geopolitical fallout from Trump’s policies has overshadowed these battlefield successes.

As a result, three countries have cancelled orders in 2025, one has suspended a major contract for review, and one has rejected the jet outright. Combined, Lockheed Martin has already lost 150 confirmed F-35 sales this year and faces uncertainty over an additional 72 jets.

The first blow came in March when Portugal scrapped its plan to buy up to 36 F-35As. Lisbon’s air force had recommended the aircraft, but outgoing Defence Minister Nuno Melo pointed directly to the United States’ reliability as an ally.

“The world has changed,” Melo warned, noting that US political unpredictability, restrictions on aircraft usage, and changing NATO dynamics made European alternatives more appealing. Portugal is now considering Rafale, Eurofighter, or Gripen fighters.

Politico described the move as “one of the first examples of the U.S. president undermining a potential lucrative arms deal.”

In July, a 39% US tariff on Swiss watches, coffee capsules, and other goods triggered political uproar in Switzerland, where lawmakers questioned the wisdom of proceeding with a USD 6 billion deal for 36 F-35A jets—signed back in 2022.

Green Party leader Balthasar Glättli blasted the contradiction: “A country which throws rocks at us in trade shouldn’t get a present.”

Though the contract remains intact as of November, Bern is now renegotiating pricing, and internal pressure remains intense.

In August, Spain cancelled its 2023 €6.25 billion allocation for up to 65 F-35s. While Madrid had initially eyed the A and B variants to replace its Hornet and Harrier fleets, Trump’s demand that all NATO countries spend 5% of GDP on defense ignited a public spat.

Spain currently targets 2% spending and bristled at Washington’s pressure campaign. Madrid says it will now pursue Eurofighter upgrades or the future FCAS sixth-generation system.

Trump offered F-35s to India earlier this year, shortly after India’s four-day conflict with Pakistan. But the proposal was dead on arrival.

With Trump imposing a stunning 50% tariff on Indian exports and repeatedly provoking New Delhi, the Modi government dismissed the F-35 option despite China reportedly equipping Pakistan with its new J-35A stealth fighters.

New Delhi is now focusing on Russia’s Su-57 as its only viable fifth-generation contender.

Perhaps the biggest potential setback is unfolding in Canada, where a 2023 deal to acquire 88 F-35s is under formal review. Ottawa is reassessing whether the aircraft still aligns with Canada’s defense and sovereignty needs “in light of evolving geopolitics.”

Sensing a once-in-a-generation opening, Sweden has launched a full-scale charm offensive to sell Saab Gripens, promising to turn Canada into a production hub and create 10,000 domestic jobs.

Industry Minister Mélanie Joly openly questioned whether the F-35 deal has delivered sufficient economic benefits, calling Saab’s offer “very interesting.” If Canada cancels the remaining 72 jets, it would represent the single largest loss ever for the F-35 program.

The only bright spot for Lockheed in 2025 is Saudi Arabia’s revived interest in acquiring the F-35. Riyadh has sought the jet for years, and Trump has now signaled approval. But the deal still requires congressional backing—and faces fierce Israeli opposition, human rights criticism, and skepticism even within allied militaries.

When Trump returned tariffs against allies—from India to Switzerland, Canada to the EU—few anticipated the collateral damage to America’s premier fighter program. But the global backlash has been swift.

Between cancellations, renegotiations, and open reconsiderations, more than USD 100 billion worth of F-35 contracts are now at risk.

When Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi traveled to Washington in June 2023, the reception could hardly have been more grand. The White House rolled out the red carpet, staging a state dinner and a congressional address that underlined India’s rising stature in American foreign policy. Then-President Joe Biden embraced Modi with warmth, describing India as a “defining partner of the 21st century.”

Barely a year later, the landscape looks unrecognizable. As of August 27, 2025, most Indian goods entering the United States face a punitive 50% tariff — one of the steepest barriers in the global trading system. The penalties were imposed by President Donald Trump following a collapse in trade negotiations and an escalation of tensions over India’s continued purchases of discounted Russian oil.

The turnabout has jolted policymakers in both Washington and New Delhi. For U.S. officials who long championed India as a counterweight to China in the Indo-Pacific, the tariffs represent a stunning reversal. For India, whose economy relies heavily on exports to the American market, the shock threatens growth, jobs, and Modi’s political standing at home.

This is the story of how two democracies that once styled themselves as “natural allies” have stumbled into one of their sharpest trade conflicts in decades — and what it could mean for the balance of power in Asia.

Trump’s decision to slap tariffs on India is part of a broader strategy he has resurrected from his first presidency: wielding trade penalties as leverage to extract concessions. In April 2025, the White House unveiled sweeping duties on a host of trading partners, insisting that “America will no longer be taken advantage of.”

India initially hoped to secure an exemption through bilateral negotiations. But talks collapsed after Washington insisted New Delhi curtail its imports of Russian crude, which India has been buying in record quantities since Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine. The oil purchases, though vital for India’s energy security, clashed with U.S. sanctions policy.

By summer, frustration in the White House had boiled over. Trump imposed an additional 25% penalty on Indian goods — on top of the April tariffs — citing India’s defiance. The result: a combined 50% barrier that has effectively priced Indian exports out of the American market.

“The administration saw India as both a trade problem and a geopolitical challenge,” said Rick Rossow, Chair on India and Emerging Asia Economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). “Trump was right that India is protectionist in many sectors. But the tools he’s chosen are blunt and deeply damaging.”

The U.S. is India’s single largest trading partner. In 2024, India exported $87 billion worth of goods to the American market — everything from textiles and jewelry to machinery and pharmaceuticals. That number is now expected to plunge.

The Global Trade Research Initiative, a New Delhi think-tank, forecasts that Indian exports to the U.S. will shrink by 40% within two years, potentially falling to $50 billion by 2026. Sectors like textiles, garments, and gemstone processing — which together employ hundreds of thousands — are bracing for collapse.

“Factories are already slowing production,” said a textile exporter from Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu. “Orders have dried up. If this continues, we’ll see mass layoffs.”

The U.S., by contrast, exported about $42 billion worth of goods to India in 2024 — less than half the flow in the other direction. That imbalance means India stands to lose far more in the tariff war.

Sushant Singh, a lecturer at Yale University, was blunt: “Under Trump, India has no leverage. The losses are mainly India’s.”

For Modi, the trade conflict has landed at a delicate moment. His Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had campaigned heavily on economic growth and the success of his “Make in India” program to boost manufacturing. The tariffs strike at the heart of that agenda.

“Manufacturing is only about 14% of India’s GDP,” Rossow noted, “so the macro-level impact may be limited. But politically, this is a problem. Modi promised jobs in factories, and now his biggest export market is closing its doors.”

The prime minister also faces criticism for mismanaging relations with Trump. Opposition leaders argue that Modi, once hailed for his personal rapport with foreign leaders, has failed to safeguard India’s interests.

The optics are particularly tricky because Modi had only recently celebrated his strong ties with Trump, calling the U.S. a “trusted partner.” The contrast between the pageantry of 2023 and the penalties of 2025 has fueled charges that his diplomacy is all spectacle and little substance.

While trade disputes were central, the real spark may have been geopolitical. Trump has repeatedly demanded that India cut off purchases of Russian oil, framing it as a test of loyalty. Modi resisted, arguing that India needs cheap energy to fuel development.

The tensions deepened further after the India-Pakistan conflict in May 2025. Trump claimed credit for brokering a ceasefire, while Modi told domestic audiences that Pakistan had “sued for peace” after India’s military response.

“That clash of narratives really angered Trump,” said Singh. “He wanted to showcase his deal-making skills. Modi wanted to showcase his toughness. The tariffs became a way for Trump to reassert control.”

The economic hit is severe, but experts warn the greater risk lies in geopolitics. For nearly two decades, successive U.S. administrations have courted India as a partner to balance China’s rise. Military exercises, intelligence sharing, and arms sales have all expanded under the banner of the “Indo-Pacific strategy.”

Now that partnership is in jeopardy.

“Trump is approaching China, India, and the Indo-Pacific very differently,” Singh observed. “If India concludes the U.S. cannot be trusted, it could tilt closer to China or Russia. That would be geopolitically disastrous for Washington.”

Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics added that U.S. companies may rethink plans to shift supply chains from China to India. “For a while India looked like the alternative manufacturing hub,” he said. “But with tariffs this high, it’s back to square one.”

Even the American education sector may feel the blow. Indian students constitute one of the largest groups of international enrollees at U.S. universities, contributing billions to the economy. Analysts expect a sharp decline in applications as goodwill erodes.

Curiously, prominent Indian-American leaders in Silicon Valley have been muted. Despite layoffs and tighter immigration rules under Trump, executives of companies like Google, Microsoft, and Adobe — all led by Indian-born CEOs — have avoided criticizing the White House.

“They’re scared,” Singh explained. “No one wants to antagonize Trump. They’re calculating that silence is safer than confrontation.”

This silence has frustrated some in India, who hoped diaspora voices would lobby against the tariffs. But the political climate in the U.S. has left little room for dissent.

In India, the tariffs hit hardest in regions where export industries dominate local economies. Towns in Gujarat that polish diamonds, garment hubs in Tamil Nadu, and jewelry clusters in Rajasthan all face uncertainty. Unions warn of mass unemployment.

“The jewelry industry could see a collapse,” said Ajay Sahai, director general of the Federation of Indian Export Organisations. “It’s not just about export numbers — it’s about livelihoods in entire communities.”

The government has floated relief measures, including subsidies and tax breaks, but economists doubt these will offset the U.S. tariffs. The World Bank projects India’s GDP growth could slow by nearly a full percentage point in 2026 if the standoff persists.

Politically, Modi is still dominant, but opposition parties sense vulnerability. Rahul Gandhi of the Congress Party accused Modi of “failing to protect India’s national interest” and “bending before foreign powers.”

Despite the harsh rhetoric, many believe a trade deal remains possible. Trump thrives on dramatic brinkmanship, often escalating before pivoting to declare victory. India, desperate to restore market access, may be willing to make concessions — such as modestly reducing tariffs on U.S. agricultural imports or pledging to buy more American energy.

“They want to give Trump a win,” Singh said. “This could happen any week, any month. That’s how the Trump administration works.”

Rossow agrees: “Both sides know the stakes. India is on the verge of becoming the world’s third-largest economy. The U.S. needs India for regional security. A strong partnership is still in both countries’ interests.”

The U.S.–India rift comes at a moment when global alignments are already shifting. China is pressing its influence across Asia, from the South China Sea to the Himalayas. Russia is courting partners to blunt Western sanctions. The European Union is grappling with its own economic troubles.

If Washington and New Delhi cannot repair ties, the consequences could reverberate far beyond trade statistics.

“Imagine an Asia where China is the undisputed leader, India plays a secondary role, and the U.S. is sidelined,” Singh warned. “That’s the geopolitical risk we’re talking about.”

For now, businesses and workers on both sides of the Pacific can only wait to see whether Trump and Modi will clash further — or strike a deal that salvages what remains of a partnership once hailed as historic.

The arc from pageantry in 2023 to punishment in 2025 underscores the volatility of international politics in the Trump era. What began as a celebrated alliance between the world’s two largest democracies now teeters on the edge of a trade war.

For Modi, the tariffs threaten jobs, growth, and his political brand. For Trump, they are a gamble that could yield concessions — or backfire geopolitically by driving India toward China.

US President Donald Trump says he will soon announce “major” tariffs on imported pharmaceuticals, a move that could end decades of low-cost global trade in medicines.

For years, most countries, including the US, have imposed few or no tariffs on finished drugs, thanks in part to a 1995 World Trade Organisation (WTO) agreement aimed at keeping medicines affordable.

This shift comes after Trump introduced a blanket 10% tariff on other imports last week, as part of a broader effort to bring manufacturing back to the US.

His new “reciprocal” tariffs – including a duty of 104% on goods arriving from China – came into force on Wednesday, intensifying a global trade war and further shaking markets.

Pharmaceutical buyers, so far spared from such measures, are now preparing for what may come next.

The US has typically imported vast quantities of finished medicines from India, Europe and China without buyers paying tariffs – although active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), used to make drugs, do face some duties.

Speaking at a fundraiser dinner for his Republican Party on Tuesday, Trump said: “We’re going to be announcing very shortly a major tariff on pharmaceuticals. And when they hear that, they will leave China.”

He also told reporters on board his Air Force One plane last week that “pharma” tariffs would arrive “at a level that you haven’t really seen before”, saying these would be announced “in the near future”.

In 2024, the US imported $213bn (£168bn) worth of medicines – more than two and a half times the total a decade earlier.

While short on detail, his comments have rattled buyers, especially those relying on Indian imports. India supplies nearly half of all US generics, or cheaper versions of popular drugs, saving the country billions in healthcare costs.

Indian pharma stocks fell sharply on the news. India sends about a third of its $13bn annual pharma exports to the US, which is a key market.

At the moment, Americans pay little or no tax on imports of Indian medicines – compared with the duty of nearly 11% paid by Indians importing American medicines.

Indian drugmakers warn that tariffs would force them to raise prices, which could ultimately drive up US medical bills. While firms like Cipla and Dr Reddy’s have US plants, most say moving production is not viable for low-margin generic drugs.

European drugmakers are also on alert. After a high-level meeting between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and top pharma firms on Tuesday, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) warned that tariffs could shift production away from Europe, and to the US.

The EFPIA, whose members include major pharmaceutical companies such as Bayer, Novartis, and Novo Nordisk – the maker of the star diabetes type 2 drug Ozempic – expressed concerns that rising tariffs could disrupt Europe’s role as a key player in global pharmaceutical production.

In 2024, pharmaceuticals were the EU’s largest export to the US, worth a reported $127bn (£100bn).

Major companies have urged the EU to act swiftly, seeking policy changes to enhance Europe’s competitiveness and prevent a “mass exodus” to the US. They have also expressed concerns about potential EU retaliatory tariffs, which could disrupt supply chains and affect patients on both sides of the Atlantic.

Global pharma giants like GSK and Pfizer operate across several countries, including Ireland and Germany, meaning new tariffs could disrupt multiple parts of the supply chain.

Oil prices continued their downward slide for a second consecutive day as fears over economic growth, trade policies, and geopolitical tensions rattled global markets. Brent crude dropped to nearly $69 a barrel, following a 1.5% decline on Monday, while West Texas Intermediate (WTI) fell below $66.

The slump in oil prices mirrored a broader retreat from risk assets. Investors pulled back amid growing concerns that the U.S. economy could slow due to escalating tariffs and spending cuts under President Donald Trump’s administration. The uncertainty sent shockwaves through equity markets, with major stock indexes plunging as investors sought safer havens.

Oil has tumbled nearly 20% from its peak in mid-January as Trump’s aggressive trade policies and budget reduction plans darken economic forecasts. The U.S., the world’s largest producer and consumer of crude, faces growing uncertainty as businesses and financial markets grapple with policy shifts.

“The market is pricing in fears of slower economic growth, and that’s weighing on oil,” said Ed Morse, global head of commodities research at Citigroup. “When risk-off sentiment takes over, everything tied to economic expansion—oil, equities, and industrial metals—gets hit.”

Adding to the bearish sentiment, OPEC+ signaled plans to increase supply, further pressuring oil prices. The group, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, has been gradually easing production cuts put in place during the pandemic. Meanwhile, China, the world’s second-largest oil consumer, has instructed refiners to shift away from diesel and gasoline production, raising concerns about weaker demand.

Monday’s sell-off also saw the U.S. dollar break a five-day losing streak. A stronger dollar makes oil, which is priced in the currency, more expensive for global buyers, adding another layer of pressure to crude prices.

“The strength of the dollar is playing a role here,” said Francisco Blanch, head of commodities research at Bank of America. “When the greenback gains, oil prices tend to struggle because it reduces purchasing power in emerging markets.”

Currency fluctuations have long been a key driver of commodity markets, and this latest move in the dollar underscores broader macroeconomic concerns.

Amid the market turmoil, U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright reaffirmed the Trump administration’s commitment to enforcing sanctions on Iranian oil exports. Speaking at the CERAWeek by S&P Global conference in Houston, Wright emphasized that Washington remains determined to curb Tehran’s ability to sell crude on global markets.

“The administration is fully prepared to enforce sanctions on Iran’s oil industry,” Wright said. “We won’t allow loopholes or backchannels to undermine our policy.”

The tough stance on Iran could limit global oil supplies, but for now, traders appear more focused on demand-side risks.

Despite concerns over trade and economic uncertainty, top oil executives voiced strong support for President Trump’s energy policies at CERAWeek. Leaders from Chevron Corp., Shell Plc, and Saudi Aramco praised the administration’s commitment to energy dominance, which has led to record-high U.S. oil production.

Vitol Group CEO Russell Hardy projected that oil prices would remain in a “reasonable” range of $60 to $80 per barrel over the coming years, despite short-term volatility.

“While we see near-term weakness, fundamentals remain strong,” Hardy said. “U.S. production continues to grow, and demand should recover as global economic concerns stabilize.”As markets digest the latest developments, analysts warn that volatility is likely to persist. The combination of trade tensions, geopolitical uncertainty, and shifting supply-demand dynamics could keep oil prices on a rollercoaster in the months ahead.

“The next few weeks will be critical,” said Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets. “We’re watching whether the White House follows through on tariff threats, how China responds, and what OPEC+ decides on production levels.”

With global markets on edge, oil traders are bracing for more turbulence. The coming days will reveal whether the recent slump is a temporary correction or the start of a prolonged downturn.

RIYADH: Saudi Arabia’s financial markets are on a sharp upward trajectory despite challenging global economic trends, experts have told Arab News.

Market volatility across the world — as seen by the S&P 500 dropping below 6,000 on Wednesday — together with US President Donald Trump’s policies prompting oil market uncertainty, and continuing supply chain disruptions, are increasing investment risks.

However, the Kingdom’s economic resilience, backed by Vision 2030’s diversification efforts and strong regulatory reforms, has helped Saudi Arabia mitigate these challenges.

In 2024, the economy rebounded with a 1.3 percent growth, driven by a 4.6 percent increase in non-oil activities, despite a decline in oil activities.

Saudi Arabia’s financial ecosystem is poised for even greater growth, but the key question remains: Can it continue to solidify its position as a global financial hub in such an unpredictable environment?

Vikas Papriwal, leader of FTI Consulting Middle East and Africa, told Arab News the Kingdom is very much in charge of its own destiny in this regard.

“The key to future-proofing against oil market volatility and maintaining leadership in the global energy industry is for Saudi Arabia to continue to place significant emphasis on researching, developing, and innovating in the space of renewable and sustainable energy and be leaders in the global energy transition,” he said.

Saudi Arabia’s progress can also be seen in its extensive regulatory reforms. The country has worked hard to ensure that its financial markets align with international best practices, providing greater transparency, stability, and ease of access for investors.

“Reforms that can fortify the Kingdom’s position as a financial powerhouse include further easing processes for operating and starting businesses, particularly through legal and tax reforms,” said Papriwal.

Rezwan Shafique, principal of financial services at Arthur D. Little, told Arab News that those reforms are just the starting line, emphasizing that the path toward becoming a powerhouse is now underway.

“Government and regulatory reforms, such as Companies Law, CMA (Capital Market Authority) strategic plans, and MISA (Ministry of Investment) guidelines, have laid the groundwork by improving corporate transparency, stability, and predictability. The Kingdom is now in a phase to communicate opportunities to global players,” Shafique added.

He noted that Saudi Arabia has already made progress in this area, highlighting that the country’s share in the MSCI Emerging Markets Index has risen to 4 percent from 2.7 percent in 2019. He also pointed out that foreign ownership in the Saudi Exchange has increased 25-fold over the past five years, reaching $100 billion, signaling expanding opportunities for global investors.

“Gaining traction on new listings and becoming a multi-jurisdictional player should be a key focus. A number of factors will need to converge, including Saudi Arabia actively forging ties between itself, China, Singapore, and African nations through strategic partnerships,” he said.

Indeed, Saudi Arabia’s ambition to lead the region in financial services is evident. Over the past few years, its exchange, Tadawul, has made tremendous strides, earning a spot among the top 10 global stock markets.

Its market capitalization reached $2.9 trillion as of late 2024, with the Kingdom continuing to attract significant foreign investments, especially in light of the world’s largest initial public offering — Aramco’s listing in 2019, which raised over $25 billion.

“Tadawul’s inclusion in major global indices like MSCI and FTSE has increased foreign investor participation, while the size and scale of recent initial public offerings have showcased the Kingdom’s ability to attract significant global capital,” said Serkan Teker, financial services partner at Deloitte Middle East.

He added that to rival global giants such as Wall Street and London, Saudi Arabia must continue evolving its capital markets by enhancing liquidity, diversifying sector representation, and improving transparency.

Teker also highlighted how the banking sector has been a significant driver of the Kingdom’s non-oil gross domestic product expansion. It posted an “impressive annual growth of almost 11 percent between 2018 and the beginning of 2023, maintaining strong asset quality with non-performing loans gradually declining since the first shock waves of the COVID-19 pandemic.”

Beyond the financial sector, Saudi Arabia’s broader economic strategy also focuses on creating new business environments and fostering innovation to attract foreign investors.

Teker said: “The Kingdom could also look into creating new free zones and specialized economic zones for key areas of strategic focus, such as healthcare, biotech, and information and communications technology. Additionally, continued investment in transformative urban projects that allow KSA to act as a central hub for commerce and hospitality will further strengthen its position on the global stage.”

The Deloitte partner went on to explain that Saudi Arabia’s rapid advancements in artificial intelligence, fintech, and digital banking are transforming the country into a global innovation hub. And he cited regulatory initiatives including the FinTech Sandbox and the adoption of Open Banking as helping the Kingdom become a magnet for tech startups and international investors.

He added that initiatives such as digital-only banks and AI-driven solutions in finance and healthcare are positioning Saudi Arabia at the forefront of cutting-edge financial technology.

The Kingdom’s fintech market, in particular, has experienced exponential growth — up 25 percent in 2024 according to the Saudi Central Bank — reflecting the increasing importance of digital transformation to the economy.

“Saudi Arabia is making significant investments in AI and related infrastructure, including a $40 billion tech fund and targeted investments in AI companies and startups. The launch of the Saudi Artificial Intelligence Authority is expected to accelerate innovation across key industries such as healthcare, finance, and manufacturing,” FTI Consulting’s Papriwal added.

Tadawul, however, is not without its challenges. Geopolitical instability in the Middle East remains a persistent concern, and the volatility of global markets — particularly oil price fluctuations — continues to affect the broader economy.

“Tadawul needs to evolve in two ways: first, from a domestic exchange to multi-regional, and second, toward a technology company enabling financial services firms to develop and execute investment strategies,” said Arthur D. Little’s Shafique.

Looking ahead, Saudi Arabia’s ability to expand its financial markets, further diversify its economy, and continue its digital transformation will be crucial in maintaining its upward trajectory.

The Kingdom is already focusing on innovation, sustainable finance, and digital platforms as part of its broader Vision 2030 agenda. This vision positions Saudi Arabia not only as a regional player but also as a leader in global financial markets.

Teker emphasized that Saudi Arabia can strengthen its claim as a global financial powerhouse by expanding digital and financial inclusion through digital banking solutions and financial literacy programs would help reach underserved segments of the population.

Additionally, he highlighted the importance of deepening capital market reforms, introducing advanced financial instruments, and attracting foreign participation to enhance liquidity and diversify investment options.

Teker also explained that by leveraging regulatory frameworks, fostering partnerships between banks and fintech firms, and attracting international digital players, Saudi Arabia can establish itself as a global fintech hub and strengthen its position in the rapidly evolving financial services sector.

“We believe some of these forward-looking actions, aligned with Vision 2030’s ambitious goals, can further propel Saudi Arabia into global financial leadership while driving inclusive and sustainable economic growth,” he said.

U.S. President Donald Trump announced a one-month delay on imposing 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico. The announcement sparked optimism among traders, leading to a rise in copper and zinc prices, while dragging the U.S. dollar lower. This development is seen as a respite from growing trade tensions that have rattled global markets in recent months.

President Trump’s decision to postpone the tariffs came after successful negotiations with Canada and Mexico, where both neighboring countries agreed to adopt tougher border-control measures. This concession appears to have staved off a potential continental trade war, at least temporarily.

The U.S. administration’s move provided much-needed relief to base metal markets, which have been volatile amid escalating trade war fears. Market participants welcomed the news as a sign of easing tensions between the North American trade partners.

Trump’s approach to international trade has been characterized by frequent threats of tariffs as a negotiation tactic. His decision to delay levies on Canada and Mexico comes at a time when similar threats loom over China, the world’s largest consumer of base metals.

Copper, widely considered an industrial bellwether due to its extensive use in construction and manufacturing, extended gains on Tuesday as sentiment improved following the tariff news.

On the London Metal Exchange (LME), copper traded 0.3% higher at $9,124 a ton at 9:24 a.m. in Singapore. The metal experienced significant price swings on Monday, moving within a $200 range as traders reacted to geopolitical and economic developments.

Zinc, another important base metal used in galvanizing steel, also saw gains, rising 0.3%. Meanwhile, aluminum prices steadied after previous fluctuations. Iron ore remained relatively unchanged at $104.40 a ton in Singapore.

The weakening of the U.S. dollar further supported base metals. A lower dollar makes commodities priced in the currency more attractive to global buyers, boosting demand.

Despite the positive sentiment surrounding Trump’s tariff delay, concerns about the state of demand in China continue to weigh on the market. China, the world’s largest consumer of copper and other base metals, plays a critical role in determining global commodity prices.

The ongoing Lunar New Year holiday has temporarily quieted Chinese markets, which are set to reopen on Wednesday. Analysts are closely watching for signs of renewed demand or government stimulus measures that could influence base metal prices.

The U.S.-China trade relationship remains another key factor. Trump has threatened tariffs against Beijing, but his administration has also signaled a willingness to engage in talks. Hopes for a potential reprieve have provided a glimmer of optimism for commodity markets.

Base metals have faced a turbulent start to the year, driven by geopolitical tensions and economic uncertainty. The trade-war rhetoric, combined with fears of a global economic slowdown, has led to sharp price fluctuations.

Copper, in particular, has been a barometer for market sentiment. Its price movements often reflect broader economic trends due to its widespread use in various industries. As a result, traders closely monitor developments in the trade landscape and macroeconomic indicators.

The recent price swings underscore the sensitivity of base metal markets to political and economic news. A resolution to the trade disputes involving the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and China would likely bring stability to the market, but the path to such an outcome remains uncertain.

Market analysts have expressed cautious optimism following Trump’s tariff delay. “This move by President Trump provides temporary relief to markets that have been battered by trade tensions,” said a commodities analyst at a leading investment firm. “However, the underlying issues remain unresolved, and the potential for further volatility is high.”

Another analyst noted that the weakening U.S. dollar is a significant factor supporting base metal prices. “A softer dollar makes commodities more attractive to international buyers, which is a positive development for base metals like copper and zinc.”

As Chinese markets reopen after the Lunar New Year holiday, traders will be watching for signs of renewed demand and potential policy measures from Beijing. Additionally, any developments in U.S. trade policy will continue to influence market sentiment.

The global economic outlook remains uncertain, with central banks around the world grappling with inflationary pressures and slowing growth. These factors will play a crucial role in shaping the trajectory of base metal prices in the coming months.

In the short term, the delay in tariffs on Canada and Mexico is a welcome development for commodity markets. However, the specter of trade disputes and economic uncertainty looms large, keeping traders on edge.

• Stock Markets in Europe and Asia Tumble Amid Growing Trade War Fears

Shares across European and Asian markets suffered significant losses on Monday following US President Donald Trump’s announcement of sweeping tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China. Trump further stated that tariffs on the European Union (EU) would “definitely happen,” sending investors into a tailspin and raising concerns about a potential global trade war.

Germany’s DAX and France’s CAC 40 fell by about 2%, with automotive stocks among the hardest hit due to their reliance on international trade. In London, the FTSE 100 shed more than 1%, driven by losses in key manufacturing and export sectors.

Asian markets fared no better, with Japan’s Nikkei 225 closing down by 2.5%. Toyota shares slid 5%, while Honda’s stock plummeted 7.2%. The negative sentiment was echoed in China, where the Shanghai Composite Index fell 1.8%.

Carmakers across the globe bore the brunt of the market downturn. In Europe, shares in Stellantis, which owns brands such as Chrysler, Citroen, Fiat, Jeep, and Peugeot, dropped 7%, while Volkswagen saw a 6% decline.

Susannah Streeter, Head of Money and Markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, commented on the market turmoil:

“Investors are rattled at the prospects of a full-blown trade war breaking out, with the automotive sector appearing particularly vulnerable.”

The ripple effect extended beyond equities, with oil prices and currency markets also experiencing volatility.

The US dollar surged on currency markets, reaching a record high against China’s yuan. The Canadian dollar nosedived to its lowest level since 2003, reflecting investor concerns over the impact of the new tariffs.

The euro also weakened, hitting a two-year low against the dollar. Analysts attributed the strengthening of the dollar to heightened expectations that interest rates in the US would remain elevated for an extended period.

Russ Mould, Investment Director at AJ Bell, described the market scene as a “sea of red,” warning that the economic fallout from tariffs could lead to higher inflation and stall interest rate cuts:

“Higher prices could hurt demand, and there might be a trickle-down effect that knocks business and consumer confidence, feeding into weaker economic activity.”

Trump’s tariff plan imposes a 25% levy on exports from Canada and Mexico to the US, while Chinese-made goods will face an additional 10% tariff atop existing trade restrictions.

Canada and Mexico have vowed retaliatory measures, with both nations preparing to impose tariffs on key US exports. China’s Ministry of Commerce issued a strong statement promising “corresponding countermeasures” and announced plans to challenge the US tariffs at the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Chinese officials stressed their commitment to defending their country’s economic interests. “We will not hesitate to take all necessary steps to protect China’s legitimate rights and interests,” a spokesperson said.

Trump’s remarks over the weekend added further uncertainty, as he confirmed that tariffs on the EU were inevitable. While acknowledging that the UK was “out of line,” he expressed optimism about striking a bilateral trade deal.

The announcement has fueled concerns among European leaders, who are scrambling to mitigate the potential fallout.

The automotive sector is widely regarded as the most vulnerable to trade disruptions. Given the intricate supply chains spanning multiple countries, the additional tariffs threaten to significantly raise production costs and dampen consumer demand.

Diageo, a major drinks producer that exports tequila from Mexico to the US, saw its shares fall by 3%.

Charu Chanana, Chief Investment Strategist at Saxo Bank, warned about the broader implications:

“While tariffs may offer short-term benefits for the US economy, in the long run, they pose significant risks. Repeated use of tariffs would incentivize other countries to reduce reliance on the US, weakening the dollar’s global role.”

Oil prices rose in response to the tariff announcement. Brent crude, the global benchmark, climbed by 1% to $76.50 a barrel as traders speculated on how tariffs on Canada and Mexico, the two largest oil suppliers to the US, might affect the market.

Analysts noted that energy markets could see increased volatility if trade tensions escalate further.

The tariff dispute threatens to undermine global economic stability and complicate relations with key US allies. Economists warn that prolonged trade tensions could erode business confidence and hamper global growth.

Russ Mould highlighted the potential for a negative feedback loop:

“If businesses scale back investments and consumers tighten their spending, the economic recovery we’ve seen post-pandemic could stall.”

Trump justified the tariffs as necessary to combat illegal drugs and curb immigration, though critics argue that the measures are more about economic protectionism than security concerns.

Trump is expected to hold talks with the leaders of Canada and Mexico on Monday, just one day before the tariffs are set to take effect. While the discussions may offer a last-minute opportunity for compromise, analysts remain skeptical about a quick resolution.

Investors are bracing for a turbulent period as global markets adjust to the new trade dynamics. Financial experts urge caution, emphasizing the need for diversification and risk management strategies to weather the storm.

As the world watches anxiously, the stakes continue to rise, with the potential for a full-blown trade war casting a long shadow over the global economy.