China's counter-surveillance industry booms amid heightened espionage fears | Gravitas

Navratri 2026: 9 days, 9 forms of Goddess Durga and 9 colours- Check the complete list

Trump accuses Houthis of driving up oil prices before US midterms, warns of consequences

Russian woman and Bihar boy's love story goes viral after she reaches India to marry him

Arijit Singh 9-city India stadium tour to start from January: Check venue and ticket prices

US Midterms 2026: In Alaska, cost-of-living anxiety meets strangest ballot in high-stakes Senate race

F1 set to return to Africa for first time since 1993 

'Don't ever mess with nature!': Trump’s tiger attack post triggers social media backlash as victim's family issues heartbreaking tribute

CMs Vijay-Naidu meet in Vijayawada, discuss water sharing, river-linking

Air India Flight from Frankfurt diverted to Jaipur after hijack alert, probe on

1,500 drones illuminate Mumbai sky as Cordelia Cruises unveils second ship, Cordelia Sky

Delhi Police arrest Cockroach Janta Party's Saurav Das, Ashutosh Ranka, Ajinkya Shinde in Jantar Mantar case, to be produced before court

‘Rise up, young patriots!’: American singer Mary Millben says US donors funding CJP, backs Modi govt

Nobel Peace Prize winner Navi Pillay calls on US to 'get back to' being defender of human rights

France accuses Musk of ‘online harassment’ of European leaders, warns of poll interference

'Turn approver, resign, we'll forgive you': Rahul Gandhi claims receiving messages from CEC Gyanesh Kumar

MI5 chief warns Russia is UK’s ‘aggressor number one’ as Iran and AI threats grow

Trump reconsidering calling off Nidal Hasan's execution livestream. Here's why

‘My president, I mean my husband’: Trump's new press secretary Katie Zacharia's first briefing goes off the rails in 14 minutes

‘How many people did she illegally bring from Somalia?’ Trump targets Ilhan Omar, questions her net worth

Marco Rubio to visit India next week, focus on energy cooperation and strategic ties

US politicians mistakenly use Indian, Russian warship images for Navy's birthday posts

'Ouch!!! That must hurt': Kangana Ranaut hails Kamal Haasan's sharp reply to Elon Musk over Starlink row

Girl 'dead' for 8 hours wakes up at her own funeral, dad insists she wasn't breathing

Sidhu Moose Wala’s younger brother wins hearts by recreating late singer’s signature move at Toronto Hologram Show

UK school ditches technology, shifts from screen to pen and paper for learning

Durga Puja 2026: Kolkata roads get a splash of colours

New OTT releases this week (October 12-18, 2026): Sacrifice, Koffee with Karan S9, Roadies Rebirth- 6 titles coming on Netflix, JioHotstar and more

Inside Aneet Padda's 24th birthday bash with rumoured boyfriend Ahaan Panday and Alia Bhatt

New Cold War: Why is China buying more gold? Explained

Netanyahu wants to join Saudi's war on Houthis, but Crown Prince denies: Report

Anupam Kher joins Ranbir Kapoor's Ramayana as Jatayu, new poster unveiled

Measles kills again: 6 dead in Pennsylvania as America faces its worst outbreak in decades | Gravitas

Cornell University suspends fraternity parties over 2024 gang rape allegations

The global cryptocurrency market capitalisation briefly topped $4 trillion on July 18 for the first time, marking a historic milestone in the asset class’s journey from speculative fringe to a central pillar of global finance. The surge comes on the back of a legislative breakthrough in the United States, rising institutional flows, and renewed confidence in digital assets across both retail and corporate sectors. According to data from CoinGecko, the crypto market hit a peak valuation of $4.01 trillion before paring gains to $3.92 trillion, as Bitcoin, the world’s largest cryptocurrency, retreated 1.5 per cent from a record high of $123,205 earlier in the week to $117,665. Ethereum (ETH), the second-largest token, rose 6.4 per cent to $3,647, continuing a sharp rally that has seen it more than double in the past three months.<h2>Trump-backed bills reshape crypto landscape</h2>The rally followed the US House of Representatives’ passage of the GENIUS Act, the first federal legislation governing stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies pegged to the US dollar and widely used for on-chain payments and trading. President Donald Trump signed the bill into law later on July 18.Lawmakers also passed two additional bills—the CLARITY Act, which provides a legal framework for broader crypto assets, and another bill prohibiting the creation of a US central bank digital currency (CBDC). Industry experts say the legislation represents a turning point in Washington’s stance on crypto.<h2>Altcoins, ETFs, and corporates drive momentum</h2>While Bitcoin remains the dominant force, accounting for roughly 60 per cent of market cap, the latest leg of the rally has been powered by altcoins like Ether, Uniswap, and Solana, which surged 6.4 per cent, 24 per cent and 6.5 per cent, respectively, on July 18. Analysts suggest the market is entering an “altcoin season” as investors rotate into riskier, high-growth tokens.This altcoin momentum has been further buoyed by the rise of crypto treasury companies, which mimic MicroStrategy’s model of using equity and debt to build token portfolios. MEI Pharma, for example, doubled its stock price after announcing a $100 million Litecoin treasury investment.On the institutional side, spot crypto ETFs continue to see robust demand. Bitcoin ETFs drew $5.5 billion in inflows so far this month, while Ether ETFs attracted $2.9 billion, signalling growing long-term confidence.<h2>Consolidation ahead? Traders eye $110K support</h2>Despite the bullish sentiment, analysts are beginning to watch for consolidation. QCP Capital noted that Bitcoin may retest support near $110,000, calling it “a more stable foundation” for the next leg of the rally. On Myriad, a blockchain-based prediction platform, over 90 per cent of users polled do not expect Bitcoin to close above $122,000 by week’s end.Still, the market’s upward momentum shows few signs of slowing. Forecasts from Bernstein suggest Bitcoin could hit $200,000 by year-end if ETF flows and regulatory clarity continue at this pace. As regulatory frameworks begin to take shape in the US and institutional adoption deepens, digital assets appear to be entering a new era of legitimacy.

The rally followed the US House of Representatives’ passage of the GENIUS Act, the first federal legislation governing stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies pegged to the US dollar and widely used for on-chain payments and trading.

The global cryptocurrency market capitalisation briefly topped $4 trillion on July 18 for the first time, marking a historic milestone in the asset class’s journey from speculative fringe to a central pillar of global finance. The surge comes on the back of a legislative breakthrough in the United States, rising institutional flows, and renewed confidence in digital assets across both retail and corporate sectors. According to data from CoinGecko, the crypto market hit a peak valuation of $4.01 trillion before paring gains to $3.92 trillion, as Bitcoin, the world’s largest cryptocurrency, retreated 1.5 per cent from a record high of $123,205 earlier in the week to $117,665. Ethereum (ETH), the second-largest token, rose 6.4 per cent to $3,647, continuing a sharp rally that has seen it more than double in the past three months. Trump-backed bills reshape crypto landscape The rally followed the US House of Representatives’ passage of the GENIUS Act, the first federal legislation governing stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies pegged to the US dollar and widely used for on-chain payments and trading. President Donald Trump signed the bill into law later on July 18. Lawmakers also passed two additional bills—the CLARITY Act, which provides a legal framework for broader crypto assets, and another bill prohibiting the creation of a US central bank digital currency (CBDC). Industry experts say the legislation represents a turning point in Washington’s stance on crypto. Altcoins, ETFs, and corporates drive momentum While Bitcoin remains the dominant force, accounting for roughly 60 per cent of market cap, the latest leg of the rally has been powered by altcoins like Ether, Uniswap, and Solana, which surged 6.4 per cent, 24 per cent and 6.5 per cent, respectively, on July 18. Analysts suggest the market is entering an “altcoin season” as investors rotate into riskier, high-growth tokens. This altcoin momentum has been further buoyed by the rise of crypto treasury companies, which mimic MicroStrategy’s model of using equity and debt to build token portfolios. MEI Pharma, for example, doubled its stock price after announcing a $100 million Litecoin treasury investment. On the institutional side, spot crypto ETFs continue to see robust demand. Bitcoin ETFs drew $5.5 billion in inflows so far this month, while Ether ETFs attracted $2.9 billion, signalling growing long-term confidence. Consolidation ahead? Traders eye $110K support Despite the bullish sentiment, analysts are beginning to watch for consolidation. QCP Capital noted that Bitcoin may retest support near $110,000, calling it “a more stable foundation” for the next leg of the rally. On Myriad, a blockchain-based prediction platform, over 90 per cent of users polled do not expect Bitcoin to close above $122,000 by week’s end. Still, the market’s upward momentum shows few signs of slowing. Forecasts from Bernstein suggest Bitcoin could hit $200,000 by year-end if ETF flows and regulatory clarity continue at this pace. As regulatory frameworks begin to take shape in the US and institutional adoption deepens, digital assets appear to be entering a new era of legitimacy.

The rally followed the US House of Representatives’ passage of the GENIUS Act, the first federal legislation governing stablecoins, which are cryptocurrencies pegged to the US dollar and widely used for on-chain payments and trading.

Crypto market surpasses $4 trillion milestone amid US regulatory breakthrough

With less than two weeks to go before a critical deadline, US President Donald Trump has significantly raised the stakes in ongoing trade negotiations with the European Union (EU), demanding a minimum 15 per cent to 20 per cent tariff on all EU imports. The escalation threatens to derail months of discussions and raises the prospect of a full-blown transatlantic trade conflict. According to a Financial Times report, Trump’s new demands aim to test the EU’s resolve after weeks of negotiations over a framework agreement that would have maintained a 10 per cent baseline tariff on most goods.&nbsp;The US president has also rejected the EU’s latest offer to reduce car tariffs, signalling he is prepared to keep duties on the sector at 25 per cent or potentially impose a blanket 30 per cent tariff on all EU imports by August 1.European Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič gave a grim assessment of the latest talks in Washington, telling EU ambassadors that the US was not budging. One American official told the Financial Times that the administration is now considering a reciprocal tariff rate above 10 per cent even if an agreement is reached.The EU, already hit with sectoral tariffs of 50 per cent on steel and aluminium, finds itself in a difficult position. While the bloc has indicated it would retaliate against unilateral US action, internal divisions have complicated its ability to respond with a unified strategy. A senior EU diplomat acknowledged the growing risk of retaliation but warned that Brussels may be forced to accept higher baseline tariffs to avoid a trade war.“The mood has clearly changed,” said a second EU diplomat. “We are not going to settle at 15 per cent.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also expressed frustration, noting that Washington is sceptical of proposals to treat sectors like automotive trade separately. “Whether we can still create sectoral rules… is an open question,” Merz said.<h2>Markets react</h2>Financial markets reacted nervously to the news. The S&amp;P 500 fell 0.2 per cent, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 250 points during the session. While Trump’s earlier tariff hikes have sparked global volatility, US stocks have largely rebounded, and customs revenue surged by nearly $50 billion in Q2. Still, economists warn that escalating tariffs could fuel inflation and dampen global growth.

The US president has also rejected the EU’s latest offer to reduce car tariffs, signalling he is prepared to keep duties on the sector at 25 per cent or potentially impose a blanket 30 per cent tariff on all EU imports by August 1.

With less than two weeks to go before a critical deadline, US President Donald Trump has significantly raised the stakes in ongoing trade negotiations with the European Union (EU), demanding a minimum 15 per cent to 20 per cent tariff on all EU imports. The escalation threatens to derail months of discussions and raises the prospect of a full-blown transatlantic trade conflict. According to a Financial Times report, Trump’s new demands aim to test the EU’s resolve after weeks of negotiations over a framework agreement that would have maintained a 10 per cent baseline tariff on most goods. The US president has also rejected the EU’s latest offer to reduce car tariffs, signalling he is prepared to keep duties on the sector at 25 per cent or potentially impose a blanket 30 per cent tariff on all EU imports by August 1. European Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič gave a grim assessment of the latest talks in Washington, telling EU ambassadors that the US was not budging. One American official told the Financial Times that the administration is now considering a reciprocal tariff rate above 10 per cent even if an agreement is reached. The EU, already hit with sectoral tariffs of 50 per cent on steel and aluminium, finds itself in a difficult position. While the bloc has indicated it would retaliate against unilateral US action, internal divisions have complicated its ability to respond with a unified strategy. A senior EU diplomat acknowledged the growing risk of retaliation but warned that Brussels may be forced to accept higher baseline tariffs to avoid a trade war. “The mood has clearly changed,” said a second EU diplomat. “We are not going to settle at 15 per cent.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz also expressed frustration, noting that Washington is sceptical of proposals to treat sectors like automotive trade separately. “Whether we can still create sectoral rules… is an open question,” Merz said. Markets react Financial markets reacted nervously to the news. The S&P 500 fell 0.2 per cent, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped more than 250 points during the session. While Trump’s earlier tariff hikes have sparked global volatility, US stocks have largely rebounded, and customs revenue surged by nearly $50 billion in Q2. Still, economists warn that escalating tariffs could fuel inflation and dampen global growth.

The US president has also rejected the EU’s latest offer to reduce car tariffs, signalling he is prepared to keep duties on the sector at 25 per cent or potentially impose a blanket 30 per cent tariff on all EU imports by August 1.

Trump pushes higher tariffs on EU imports as trade talks stall

US President Donald Trump signed a landmark bill, the Genius Act, to regulate cryptocurrency on Friday, just a day after the bill passed the House despite some opposition from conservatives. The legislation, called the Genius Act, will be the first major law governing digital currency, establishing a regulatory framework for the $250 billion stablecoin market. Stablecoins are viewed as a relatively safe type of cryptocurrency, backed by assets that are seen as reliable, such as the dollar. “This afternoon, we take a giant step to cement American dominance in global finance and Crypto technology, as we sign the landmark GENIUS Act into law,” said Trump.&nbsp;“We worked hard. It’s a very important act, the GENIUS Act. They named it after me,” the president joked in the East Room to open the signing ceremony. “And I want to thank—I want to thank you. This is a hell of an act.”&nbsp;“I also remain fully committed to my pledge never to allow the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency in America. It won’t happen,” he added.“The GENIUS Act creates a clear and simple regulatory framework to establish and unleash the immense promise of dollar-backed stablecoins. This could be perhaps the greatest revolution in financial technology since the birth of the internet itself.”“I pledged that we would bring back American liberty and leadership and make the United States the Crypto Capital of the world—and that’s exactly what we’ve done.”&nbsp;Members of Congress and top executives from crypto and financial firms like Robinhood, Tether, Gemini and others attended the signing ceremony at the White House.&nbsp;The legislation is a huge milestone for the once fringe industry, which has been lobbying Congress over regulation for years and dispensed millions into last year’s election, backing candidates that included Donald Trump.&nbsp;The bill passed the House on Thursday with the support of 206 Republicans and 102 Democrats.&nbsp;The fate of the Genius Act was in question earlier this week when a dozen conservatives stymied a procedural vote. A compromise was ultimately reached, and the holdouts allowed the legislation to proceed.&nbsp;Lawmakers also approved two other cryptocurrency bills, capping what they dubbed the “Crypto Week” in Congress. The Clarity Act would regulate digital commodities beyond stablecoins, and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act prevents the Federal Reserve from issuing any retail central bank digital currency directly to Americans.

The landmark legislation is a huge milestone for the once fringe industry, which has been lobbying Congress over regulation for years and poured millions into last year’s US presidential election, backing candidates that included Donald Trump. The bill passed the House on Thursday.

US President Donald Trump signed a landmark bill, the Genius Act, to regulate cryptocurrency on Friday, just a day after the bill passed the House despite some opposition from conservatives. The legislation, called the Genius Act, will be the first major law governing digital currency, establishing a regulatory framework for the $250 billion stablecoin market. Stablecoins are viewed as a relatively safe type of cryptocurrency, backed by assets that are seen as reliable, such as the dollar. “This afternoon, we take a giant step to cement American dominance in global finance and Crypto technology, as we sign the landmark GENIUS Act into law,” said Trump. “We worked hard. It’s a very important act, the GENIUS Act. They named it after me,” the president joked in the East Room to open the signing ceremony. “And I want to thank—I want to thank you. This is a hell of an act.” “I also remain fully committed to my pledge never to allow the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency in America. It won’t happen,” he added. “The GENIUS Act creates a clear and simple regulatory framework to establish and unleash the immense promise of dollar-backed stablecoins. This could be perhaps the greatest revolution in financial technology since the birth of the internet itself.” “I pledged that we would bring back American liberty and leadership and make the United States the Crypto Capital of the world—and that’s exactly what we’ve done.” Members of Congress and top executives from crypto and financial firms like Robinhood, Tether, Gemini and others attended the signing ceremony at the White House. The legislation is a huge milestone for the once fringe industry, which has been lobbying Congress over regulation for years and dispensed millions into last year’s election, backing candidates that included Donald Trump. The bill passed the House on Thursday with the support of 206 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The fate of the Genius Act was in question earlier this week when a dozen conservatives stymied a procedural vote. A compromise was ultimately reached, and the holdouts allowed the legislation to proceed. Lawmakers also approved two other cryptocurrency bills, capping what they dubbed the “Crypto Week” in Congress. The Clarity Act would regulate digital commodities beyond stablecoins, and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act prevents the Federal Reserve from issuing any retail central bank digital currency directly to Americans.

The landmark legislation is a huge milestone for the once fringe industry, which has been lobbying Congress over regulation for years and poured millions into last year’s US presidential election, backing candidates that included Donald Trump. The bill passed the House on Thursday.

Trump signs landmark crypto bill, the Genius Act, jokes ‘They named it after me’

Kai Trump, the eldest grandchild of US President Donald Trump, has become a teenage millionaire. The 18-year-old has a net worth of $21 million and makes five times more than her grandfather. Following in her family’s business-forward footsteps, Kai has multiple name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals amounting to more than $1 million. According to On3, she has an NIL valuation of at&nbsp;least $1.2 million.&nbsp;She earns an estimated $2.5 million a year from modelling contracts, social media sponsorships, and brand endorsement deals. In addition, she also has a trust fund of $16 million, which was established by the Trump family and is overseen by JPMorgan. On the other hand, the US president receives $400,000 annually.&nbsp;Kai, who attended The Benjamin School in Palm Beach, Florida, has about 3.2 million followers on TikTok, 1.8 million on Instagram, and 1.17 million on YouTube.&nbsp;<h2>What is Kai Trump’s net worth?</h2>&nbsp;Kai Trump, the daughter of Trump Jr and his ex-wife Vanessa Trump, has a net worth of about $21 million in 2025. While Barron, Trump’s youngest son, has a net worth range from $76 million to $80 million, according to National World. The 19-year-old is about to finish his freshman year at New York University.&nbsp;As per Sports Illustrated, Kai is among the top female student-athletes in terms of NIL earnings. She has already secured deals with Accelerator Active Energy, Leaf Trading Cards, and TaylorMade Golf and has a social media following of more than six million.&nbsp;NIL deals allow college athletes to earn money through partnerships, advertisements, endorsements, and other alternatives focused on their personal brand instead of their athletic performance.&nbsp;After graduating from high school in 2026, she will be going to the University of Miami, where she is expected to start playing golf for the school as per her commitment.

Kai, who attended The Benjamin School in Palm Beach, Florida, has about 3.2 million followers on TikTok, 1.8 million on Instagram, and 1.17 million on YouTube.

Kai Trump, the eldest grandchild of US President Donald Trump, has become a teenage millionaire. The 18-year-old has a net worth of $21 million and makes five times more than her grandfather. Following in her family’s business-forward footsteps, Kai has multiple name, image, and likeness (NIL) deals amounting to more than $1 million. According to On3, she has an NIL valuation of at least $1.2 million. She earns an estimated $2.5 million a year from modelling contracts, social media sponsorships, and brand endorsement deals. In addition, she also has a trust fund of $16 million, which was established by the Trump family and is overseen by JPMorgan. On the other hand, the US president receives $400,000 annually. Kai, who attended The Benjamin School in Palm Beach, Florida, has about 3.2 million followers on TikTok, 1.8 million on Instagram, and 1.17 million on YouTube. What is Kai Trump’s net worth? Kai Trump, the daughter of Trump Jr and his ex-wife Vanessa Trump, has a net worth of about $21 million in 2025. While Barron, Trump’s youngest son, has a net worth range from $76 million to $80 million, according to National World. The 19-year-old is about to finish his freshman year at New York University. As per Sports Illustrated, Kai is among the top female student-athletes in terms of NIL earnings. She has already secured deals with Accelerator Active Energy, Leaf Trading Cards, and TaylorMade Golf and has a social media following of more than six million. NIL deals allow college athletes to earn money through partnerships, advertisements, endorsements, and other alternatives focused on their personal brand instead of their athletic performance. After graduating from high school in 2026, she will be going to the University of Miami, where she is expected to start playing golf for the school as per her commitment.

Kai, who attended The Benjamin School in Palm Beach, Florida, has about 3.2 million followers on TikTok, 1.8 million on Instagram, and 1.17 million on YouTube.

Trump’s granddaughter Kai earns more than US president? Know her net worth

President Donald Trump’s proposal to replace high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) with cane sugar in Coca-Cola products has triggered a fierce backlash from US corn farmers and food industry stakeholders, who warn the move could threaten thousands of agricultural jobs and destabilise domestic markets. “I have been speaking to @CocaCola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so,” Trump announced on social media on July 16, calling the move “very good” for American consumers.While Coca-Cola has yet to confirm the switch, saying only that “new innovative offerings” would be revealed soon, the prospect of a full-scale reformulation has rattled the corn industry. The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) said a switch away from HFCS could cost farmers up to $5.1 billion in revenue, potentially cutting corn prices by 34 cents per bushel and triggering rural job losses.<h2>A blow to US corn belt, a boost for imports</h2>Corn syrup, a long-time staple sweetener in US soft drinks due to its affordability and domestic availability, is made from roughly 400 million bushels of corn each year, about 2.5 per cent of national production. Coca-Cola’s shift, even if partial, could reduce demand for HFCS and increase US reliance on more expensive, tariffed imports of cane sugar from countries like Brazil and Central America.Archer-Daniels-Midland and Ingredion—two of the country’s largest HFCS producers—saw their stock prices dip on July 17. Analysts estimate a full switch by Coke could cost the company over $1 billion annually, given the price difference between corn syrup and cane sugar. Complicating matters further is Trump’s own trade policy, which includes a 50 per cent tariff on Brazilian sugar imports. The US produces around 3.6 million metric tonnes of cane sugar annually, less than half the amount needed to replace corn syrup across the food and beverage industry.<h2>Health politics and the rise of ‘MAHA’</h2>The move also reflects growing momentum behind the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) campaign, spearheaded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. MAHA targets ultra-processed foods and artificial additives, including corn syrup, as contributors to obesity and chronic illness.Industry experts say the biggest concern isn’t Coca-Cola’s reformulation alone, but the broader regulatory and political climate that could lead to HFCS restrictions or bans. Caught between health populism and farm-state loyalty, Trump now faces a policy dilemma: support a symbolic health push or protect a bedrock of his rural political base.

While Coca-Cola has yet to confirm the switch, saying only that “new innovative offerings” would be revealed soon, the prospect of a full-scale reformulation has rattled the corn industry.

President Donald Trump’s proposal to replace high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) with cane sugar in Coca-Cola products has triggered a fierce backlash from US corn farmers and food industry stakeholders, who warn the move could threaten thousands of agricultural jobs and destabilise domestic markets. “I have been speaking to @CocaCola about using REAL Cane Sugar in Coke in the United States, and they have agreed to do so,” Trump announced on social media on July 16, calling the move “very good” for American consumers. While Coca-Cola has yet to confirm the switch, saying only that “new innovative offerings” would be revealed soon, the prospect of a full-scale reformulation has rattled the corn industry. The Corn Refiners Association (CRA) said a switch away from HFCS could cost farmers up to $5.1 billion in revenue, potentially cutting corn prices by 34 cents per bushel and triggering rural job losses. A blow to US corn belt, a boost for imports Corn syrup, a long-time staple sweetener in US soft drinks due to its affordability and domestic availability, is made from roughly 400 million bushels of corn each year, about 2.5 per cent of national production. Coca-Cola’s shift, even if partial, could reduce demand for HFCS and increase US reliance on more expensive, tariffed imports of cane sugar from countries like Brazil and Central America. Archer-Daniels-Midland and Ingredion—two of the country’s largest HFCS producers—saw their stock prices dip on July 17. Analysts estimate a full switch by Coke could cost the company over $1 billion annually, given the price difference between corn syrup and cane sugar. Complicating matters further is Trump’s own trade policy, which includes a 50 per cent tariff on Brazilian sugar imports. The US produces around 3.6 million metric tonnes of cane sugar annually, less than half the amount needed to replace corn syrup across the food and beverage industry. Health politics and the rise of ‘MAHA’ The move also reflects growing momentum behind the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) campaign, spearheaded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. MAHA targets ultra-processed foods and artificial additives, including corn syrup, as contributors to obesity and chronic illness. Industry experts say the biggest concern isn’t Coca-Cola’s reformulation alone, but the broader regulatory and political climate that could lead to HFCS restrictions or bans. Caught between health populism and farm-state loyalty, Trump now faces a policy dilemma: support a symbolic health push or protect a bedrock of his rural political base.

While Coca-Cola has yet to confirm the switch, saying only that “new innovative offerings” would be revealed soon, the prospect of a full-scale reformulation has rattled the corn industry.

Trump’s cane sugar push sparks clash with US corn industry

US President Donald Trump is expected to unveil a sweeping set of federal policy guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) in the coming days, emphasising looser regulations, expanded energy infrastructure, and global competitiveness for American AI technology. Dubbed the AI Action Plan, the initiative marks the Trump administration’s most comprehensive stance yet on the rapidly evolving sector. The plan, crafted after months of industry consultation, is designed to accelerate AI development and adoption in the US while removing what the administration sees as regulatory roadblocks. While light on long-term legislative commitments, the plan is expected to be bolstered by a series of executive orders and a nationwide promotional campaign led by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.<h2>Federal framework over state oversight</h2>Central to the proposal is a push for Congress to enact federal AI legislation that would preempt individual state laws, a move aimed at curbing a patchwork of regulations that major tech companies have called burdensome. Earlier attempts to block state-level AI rules were struck down in the Senate, but the administration is now reviving the effort with renewed legislative backing.President Trump, who has championed AI as a strategic pillar of US competitiveness, is expected to highlight the plan during a tech policy event on July 23 hosted by the All-In podcast and the Hill and Valley Forum, a Silicon Valley consortium.<h2>Energy and export boosts</h2>As AI infrastructure demands skyrocket, the administration’s plan includes measures to expand energy availability for data centres, including reforms to permitting and streamlining environmental standards under the National Environmental Policy Act. However, guidance on fortifying national power grids is not expected in the current rollout.The initiative also aims to enhance global deployment of American AI technologies. An executive order will mobilise the US International Development Finance Corporation and the Export-Import Bank to finance exports of US AI systems, especially to countries lacking domestic capabilities. Though historically criticised by conservatives, the move underscores a strategic shift to secure AI market share abroad.<h2>Neutrality, security, and industry collaboration</h2>Another executive order, shepherded by senior advisers including David Sacks and Sriram Krishnan, will require all government-procured large language models to be politically neutral and free of bias, a nod to growing partisan scrutiny of AI-generated content.The AI Action Plan further emphasises third-party risk evaluations, international partnerships, and robust safeguards to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing US AI hardware and software. With over $500 billion in private AI infrastructure investments already pledged this year, the plan is positioned as a catalyst for sustained US dominance in the global AI race.

AI Action Plan, crafted after months of industry consultation, is designed to accelerate AI development and adoption in the US while removing what the administration sees as regulatory roadblocks. 

US President Donald Trump is expected to unveil a sweeping set of federal policy guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) in the coming days, emphasising looser regulations, expanded energy infrastructure, and global competitiveness for American AI technology. Dubbed the AI Action Plan, the initiative marks the Trump administration’s most comprehensive stance yet on the rapidly evolving sector. The plan, crafted after months of industry consultation, is designed to accelerate AI development and adoption in the US while removing what the administration sees as regulatory roadblocks. While light on long-term legislative commitments, the plan is expected to be bolstered by a series of executive orders and a nationwide promotional campaign led by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Federal framework over state oversight Central to the proposal is a push for Congress to enact federal AI legislation that would preempt individual state laws, a move aimed at curbing a patchwork of regulations that major tech companies have called burdensome. Earlier attempts to block state-level AI rules were struck down in the Senate, but the administration is now reviving the effort with renewed legislative backing. President Trump, who has championed AI as a strategic pillar of US competitiveness, is expected to highlight the plan during a tech policy event on July 23 hosted by the All-In podcast and the Hill and Valley Forum, a Silicon Valley consortium. Energy and export boosts As AI infrastructure demands skyrocket, the administration’s plan includes measures to expand energy availability for data centres, including reforms to permitting and streamlining environmental standards under the National Environmental Policy Act. However, guidance on fortifying national power grids is not expected in the current rollout. The initiative also aims to enhance global deployment of American AI technologies. An executive order will mobilise the US International Development Finance Corporation and the Export-Import Bank to finance exports of US AI systems, especially to countries lacking domestic capabilities. Though historically criticised by conservatives, the move underscores a strategic shift to secure AI market share abroad. Neutrality, security, and industry collaboration Another executive order, shepherded by senior advisers including David Sacks and Sriram Krishnan, will require all government-procured large language models to be politically neutral and free of bias, a nod to growing partisan scrutiny of AI-generated content. The AI Action Plan further emphasises third-party risk evaluations, international partnerships, and robust safeguards to prevent foreign adversaries from accessing US AI hardware and software. With over $500 billion in private AI infrastructure investments already pledged this year, the plan is positioned as a catalyst for sustained US dominance in the global AI race.

AI Action Plan, crafted after months of industry consultation, is designed to accelerate AI development and adoption in the US while removing what the administration sees as regulatory roadblocks.&nbsp;

Trump’s AI Action Plan to ease regulations, boost energy for data centres

China’s exports of rare earth elements surged sharply in June, rebounding from multi-year lows after Beijing eased some of its stringent trade war restrictions. The increase suggests a partial recovery in the global supply of magnets and other high-tech materials, following months of disruption caused by Chinese export curbs. According to customs data released on July 18, China exported 7,742.2 tonnes of rare earths last month, marking a 60.3 per cent rise from June 2024 and a 30.8 per cent increase compared to May 2025. The value of those exports climbed to 170 million yuan ($23.66 million). Exports of all rare-earth-related products, including finished magnets, rose 80 per cent from May’s five-year low to 3,808 tonnes.The sharp rise in shipments comes after China’s Ministry of Commerce began clearing a backlog of export licenses, which had been held up following sweeping controls imposed in April. Those curbs, seen as one of Beijing’s most powerful tools in its trade war with the Trump administration, targeted seven of the 17 rare earth elements, many of which are vital for electric vehicles, smartphones, wind turbines, and military equipment.<h2>Magnet supplies begin recovery after severe squeeze</h2>Magnets, which form a significant portion of rare-earth product exports, were at the centre of recent US-China trade tensions. The earlier export restrictions had triggered panic across global supply chains and prompted President Donald Trump to agree to a limited trade truce in June, amid fears of industrial disruption.Analysts believe the June export rebound signals that China is cautiously resuming supply flows under pressure from global customers. Governments across Europe, India, and the United States had urged Beijing to resume exports to stabilise the rare-earth market.<h2>Security crackdown, geopolitical frictions persist</h2>Despite the export rebound, tensions remain. On July 18, China’s Ministry of State Security accused unnamed foreign intelligence agencies of smuggling rare earth materials through postal systems. The ministry vowed to intensify crackdowns on illegal trafficking, reinforcing the strategic and national security importance Beijing places on these resources.While volumes are still below pre-curb levels, the June data suggests global manufacturers may get some near-term relief, though uncertainty remains as trade, technology, and security concerns continue to shape rare earth policy. (With inputs from agencies)

The sharp rise in shipments comes after China’s Ministry of Commerce began clearing a backlog of export licenses, which had been held up following sweeping controls imposed in April.

China’s exports of rare earth elements surged sharply in June, rebounding from multi-year lows after Beijing eased some of its stringent trade war restrictions. The increase suggests a partial recovery in the global supply of magnets and other high-tech materials, following months of disruption caused by Chinese export curbs. According to customs data released on July 18, China exported 7,742.2 tonnes of rare earths last month, marking a 60.3 per cent rise from June 2024 and a 30.8 per cent increase compared to May 2025. The value of those exports climbed to 170 million yuan ($23.66 million). Exports of all rare-earth-related products, including finished magnets, rose 80 per cent from May’s five-year low to 3,808 tonnes. The sharp rise in shipments comes after China’s Ministry of Commerce began clearing a backlog of export licenses, which had been held up following sweeping controls imposed in April. Those curbs, seen as one of Beijing’s most powerful tools in its trade war with the Trump administration, targeted seven of the 17 rare earth elements, many of which are vital for electric vehicles, smartphones, wind turbines, and military equipment. Magnet supplies begin recovery after severe squeeze Magnets, which form a significant portion of rare-earth product exports, were at the centre of recent US-China trade tensions. The earlier export restrictions had triggered panic across global supply chains and prompted President Donald Trump to agree to a limited trade truce in June, amid fears of industrial disruption. Analysts believe the June export rebound signals that China is cautiously resuming supply flows under pressure from global customers. Governments across Europe, India, and the United States had urged Beijing to resume exports to stabilise the rare-earth market. Security crackdown, geopolitical frictions persist Despite the export rebound, tensions remain. On July 18, China’s Ministry of State Security accused unnamed foreign intelligence agencies of smuggling rare earth materials through postal systems. The ministry vowed to intensify crackdowns on illegal trafficking, reinforcing the strategic and national security importance Beijing places on these resources. While volumes are still below pre-curb levels, the June data suggests global manufacturers may get some near-term relief, though uncertainty remains as trade, technology, and security concerns continue to shape rare earth policy. (With inputs from agencies)

The sharp rise in shipments comes after China’s Ministry of Commerce began clearing a backlog of export licenses, which had been held up following sweeping controls imposed in April.

China’s rare earth exports soar after trade war restrictions eased

In a historic move for the cryptocurrency industry, the US House of Representatives on July 17 passed three major pieces of crypto-related legislation, signalling the federal government’s most significant foray yet into regulating digital assets. The centrepiece of the package, known as the Genius Act, establishes a long-awaited federal framework for stablecoins—cryptocurrencies pegged to the US dollar or similar low-risk assets. The bill now heads to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it into law by July 18.Two other bills—the Clarity Act, which defines the regulatory structure for cryptocurrencies, and a bill prohibiting the Federal Reserve from creating a central bank digital currency (CBDC)—were also passed by the House and are now awaiting Senate consideration. Together, the legislative package marks a milestone in the digital asset sector’s push for legitimacy and federal oversight.<h2>What are the Genius Act and Clarity Act?</h2>The Genius Act, which passed 308-122 with bipartisan support, creates a federal regulatory regime for stablecoins, a $238 billion market that has grown rapidly in recent years. Stablecoins are digital tokens designed to maintain a fixed value, typically $1, by being backed one-to-one with US dollars or similar highly liquid assets like short-term Treasury bills. Under the law, any issuer of stablecoins, including banks and crypto companies, will be required to:<ul><li>Hold sufficient reserves to back the value of the coins they issue</li><li>Make monthly public disclosures of reserve composition</li><li>Maintain liquidity and transparency standards to ensure consumer confidence</li></ul>The Clarity Act, passed 294-134, aims to settle long-standing regulatory uncertainty by establishing when a cryptocurrency qualifies as a security or a commodity, a key issue that has defined battles between crypto firms and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The bill seeks to:<ul><li>Clearly delineate the SEC’s and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) roles</li><li>Define which tokens fall under securities law (requiring strict compliance) and which are treated as commodities (with lighter oversight)</li><li>Offer crypto platforms and investors clarity in launching and trading digital tokens</li></ul>The third bill, less publicised but politically significant, bans the creation of a US central bank digital currency, citing privacy concerns. Backed largely by Republicans, the bill reflects growing suspicion about centralised digital currencies potentially tracking citizens’ transactions.<h2>Impact on investors and the future of crypto</h2>The legislation could reshape the future of cryptocurrency in the US, especially for institutional investors and mainstream financial institutions. For years, the lack of a clear legal framework forced companies to operate under regulatory uncertainty, with the SEC pursuing enforcement actions rather than offering guidance. Now, with the Genius and Clarity Acts:<ul><li>Stablecoin issuers gain legitimacy and may attract more users and institutional partners</li><li>Retail investors could see improved protections, as stablecoins will now be backed by verifiable, liquid assets</li><li>Crypto platforms can launch tokens with greater legal certainty, likely boosting innovation and product offerings</li><li>Global companies may see the US as a crypto-friendly jurisdiction, attracting capital and talent</li></ul>Advocates say the new rules could pave the way for broader adoption of digital assets in payments, remittances, and savings, even comparing the legislation’s impact to the securities laws of the 1930s that established Wall Street as a global financial hub.The cryptocurrency sector, which spent millions lobbying Congress and backing pro-crypto candidates in the 2024 elections, sees the passage as a validation of its efforts and a critical step in escaping the legal grey area that defined much of the Biden-era crypto policy.<h2>Controversy and criticism</h2>Despite bipartisan support, the bills—particularly the Clarity Act—have not escaped criticism. Some Democrats voiced concerns that the legislation was tailored to benefit President Trump’s own crypto ventures. Trump, who once derided crypto as a “scam,” has embraced the sector since launching his own token ($TRUMP) and co-owning World Liberty Financial, a crypto finance firm.Critics argue the Clarity Act could lead to softer-touch regulation that benefits Trump’s financial interests and undermines consumer protections. They also warn that legitimising stablecoins, often issued by tech firms, without subjecting them to full banking regulations could expose the financial system to new risks. A coalition of consumer groups wrote to Congress this spring, warning that the Genius Act may encourage the “proliferation of assets that consumers will wrongly perceive as safe” and cautioning that bankruptcy protections for stablecoin holders remain unclear.With the Genius Act expected to be signed into law shortly, all eyes turn to the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority. The fate of the Clarity Act and the CBDC ban will depend on whether Senate Democrats, many of whom remain sceptical, can be persuaded to support broader crypto regulation under a Trump-led White House.Meanwhile, crypto markets responded positively. Bitcoin surged past $120,000, and stablecoin firms praised the new framework as a turning point for the sector.&nbsp;(With inputs from agencies)

The legislation could reshape the future of cryptocurrency in the US, especially for institutional investors and mainstream financial institutions. For years, the lack of a clear legal framework forced companies to operate under regulatory uncertainty.

In a historic move for the cryptocurrency industry, the US House of Representatives on July 17 passed three major pieces of crypto-related legislation, signalling the federal government’s most significant foray yet into regulating digital assets. The centrepiece of the package, known as the Genius Act, establishes a long-awaited federal framework for stablecoins—cryptocurrencies pegged to the US dollar or similar low-risk assets. The bill now heads to President Donald Trump, who is expected to sign it into law by July 18. Two other bills—the Clarity Act, which defines the regulatory structure for cryptocurrencies, and a bill prohibiting the Federal Reserve from creating a central bank digital currency (CBDC)—were also passed by the House and are now awaiting Senate consideration. Together, the legislative package marks a milestone in the digital asset sector’s push for legitimacy and federal oversight. What are the Genius Act and Clarity Act? The Genius Act, which passed 308-122 with bipartisan support, creates a federal regulatory regime for stablecoins, a $238 billion market that has grown rapidly in recent years. Stablecoins are digital tokens designed to maintain a fixed value, typically $1, by being backed one-to-one with US dollars or similar highly liquid assets like short-term Treasury bills. Under the law, any issuer of stablecoins, including banks and crypto companies, will be required to: Hold sufficient reserves to back the value of the coins they issue Make monthly public disclosures of reserve composition Maintain liquidity and transparency standards to ensure consumer confidence The Clarity Act, passed 294-134, aims to settle long-standing regulatory uncertainty by establishing when a cryptocurrency qualifies as a security or a commodity, a key issue that has defined battles between crypto firms and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The bill seeks to: Clearly delineate the SEC’s and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) roles Define which tokens fall under securities law (requiring strict compliance) and which are treated as commodities (with lighter oversight) Offer crypto platforms and investors clarity in launching and trading digital tokens The third bill, less publicised but politically significant, bans the creation of a US central bank digital currency, citing privacy concerns. Backed largely by Republicans, the bill reflects growing suspicion about centralised digital currencies potentially tracking citizens’ transactions. Impact on investors and the future of crypto The legislation could reshape the future of cryptocurrency in the US, especially for institutional investors and mainstream financial institutions. For years, the lack of a clear legal framework forced companies to operate under regulatory uncertainty, with the SEC pursuing enforcement actions rather than offering guidance. Now, with the Genius and Clarity Acts: Stablecoin issuers gain legitimacy and may attract more users and institutional partners Retail investors could see improved protections, as stablecoins will now be backed by verifiable, liquid assets Crypto platforms can launch tokens with greater legal certainty, likely boosting innovation and product offerings Global companies may see the US as a crypto-friendly jurisdiction, attracting capital and talent Advocates say the new rules could pave the way for broader adoption of digital assets in payments, remittances, and savings, even comparing the legislation’s impact to the securities laws of the 1930s that established Wall Street as a global financial hub. The cryptocurrency sector, which spent millions lobbying Congress and backing pro-crypto candidates in the 2024 elections, sees the passage as a validation of its efforts and a critical step in escaping the legal grey area that defined much of the Biden-era crypto policy. Controversy and criticism Despite bipartisan support, the bills—particularly the Clarity Act—have not escaped criticism. Some Democrats voiced concerns that the legislation was tailored to benefit President Trump’s own crypto ventures. Trump, who once derided crypto as a “scam,” has embraced the sector since launching his own token ($TRUMP) and co-owning World Liberty Financial, a crypto finance firm. Critics argue the Clarity Act could lead to softer-touch regulation that benefits Trump’s financial interests and undermines consumer protections. They also warn that legitimising stablecoins, often issued by tech firms, without subjecting them to full banking regulations could expose the financial system to new risks. A coalition of consumer groups wrote to Congress this spring, warning that the Genius Act may encourage the “proliferation of assets that consumers will wrongly perceive as safe” and cautioning that bankruptcy protections for stablecoin holders remain unclear. With the Genius Act expected to be signed into law shortly, all eyes turn to the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority. The fate of the Clarity Act and the CBDC ban will depend on whether Senate Democrats, many of whom remain sceptical, can be persuaded to support broader crypto regulation under a Trump-led White House. Meanwhile, crypto markets responded positively. Bitcoin surged past $120,000, and stablecoin firms praised the new framework as a turning point for the sector. (With inputs from agencies)

The legislation could reshape the future of cryptocurrency in the US, especially for institutional investors and mainstream financial institutions. For years, the lack of a clear legal framework forced companies to operate under regulatory uncertainty.

US passes crypto regulation bills: What does it mean for the industry and investors?

Mark Zuckerberg and a group of current and former Meta Platforms executives have reached a settlement in a high-profile shareholder lawsuit seeking $8 billion in damages over repeated violations of Facebook users’ privacy and corporate mismanagement. The agreement was announced in Delaware’s Court of Chancery on July 17, halting what would have been a rare trial scrutinising the internal governance of one of the world’s most powerful technology companies.The lawsuit, filed by Meta shareholders, alleged that Zuckerberg and other top Meta officials failed in their oversight responsibilities by allowing years of data privacy breaches. The claims centred on the company’s inability to comply with a 2012 consent agreement with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), culminating in a record $5 billion fine in 2019 following revelations about unauthorised data access by political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica.While the specific terms of the settlement remain confidential, the trial was abruptly adjourned just before its second day of proceedings. The move shields Zuckerberg, former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, and other high-profile defendants, including board members Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, and Reed Hastings, from having to testify. The lawsuit had sought to hold 11 current and former Meta directors and officers personally liable for regulatory fines and legal costs related to user data mishandling.<h2>Oversight claims and the Cambridge Analytica fallout</h2>The core of the shareholder case revolved around so-called “Caremark” oversight claims, among the most difficult to prove under Delaware corporate law. Plaintiffs accused Meta’s leadership of deliberately ignoring their fiduciary duty to monitor compliance with federal privacy laws. They also alleged that the company’s executive team knowingly operated Facebook as what they described as an “illegal data harvesting enterprise.”The trial, if it had continued, was set to feature testimony from several high-level figures in Silicon Valley, including Zuckerberg, Sandberg, Thiel, and Hastings. The plaintiffs hoped the testimony would reveal internal deliberations and failures that contributed to Meta’s growing list of privacy-related penalties.The litigation followed the scandal involving Cambridge Analytica, which accessed data from tens of millions of Facebook users without consent and allegedly used it for political profiling during Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The FTC ruled that Facebook had violated its 2012 agreement to protect user data and imposed the $5 billion penalty.Expert witnesses called by the plaintiffs had pointed to systemic gaps in Facebook’s privacy oversight practices, while internal board communications were expected to be examined in depth. However, some defence evidence, including notes from former board member Jeffrey Zients, suggested that directors were actively discussing privacy reforms, potentially weakening the case.<h2>Settlement avoids high-risk testimony and legal precedents</h2>The surprise settlement spares Meta’s leadership from what would have been an unprecedented public reckoning under Delaware’s legal framework for corporate governance. Notably, the case marked the first time that Caremark oversight claims had advanced to trial—an indicator of the case’s potential significance for future boardroom accountability.Sandberg, who left Meta in 2022, had already been sanctioned during the pre-trial phase for deleting sensitive communications, complicating her potential defence. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg faced intense scrutiny over his dual role as CEO and controlling shareholder, which critics argue concentrates power without sufficient accountability.The trial’s abrupt end also means there will be no official court finding on whether Meta’s leaders violated legal standards of board oversight. While investors sought financial restitution for the company, they also aimed to achieve greater transparency and accountability for privacy failures that continue to shape Meta’s public image.Meta, which changed its name from Facebook in 2021, was not a named defendant in the case. The company has stated that it has invested billions in privacy improvements since the Cambridge Analytica episode, though it declined to comment on the settlement.The closure of the case, while removing immediate legal risk for the individual defendants, also ensures that many key questions about how Meta handled its most significant privacy scandals may remain unanswered. Meta shares were down 0.21 per cent on July 17 and have declined 3.1 per cent over the past five days.

The lawsuit, filed by Meta shareholders, alleged that Zuckerberg and other top Meta officials failed in their oversight responsibilities by allowing years of data privacy breaches.

Mark Zuckerberg and a group of current and former Meta Platforms executives have reached a settlement in a high-profile shareholder lawsuit seeking $8 billion in damages over repeated violations of Facebook users’ privacy and corporate mismanagement. The agreement was announced in Delaware’s Court of Chancery on July 17, halting what would have been a rare trial scrutinising the internal governance of one of the world’s most powerful technology companies. The lawsuit, filed by Meta shareholders, alleged that Zuckerberg and other top Meta officials failed in their oversight responsibilities by allowing years of data privacy breaches. The claims centred on the company’s inability to comply with a 2012 consent agreement with the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), culminating in a record $5 billion fine in 2019 following revelations about unauthorised data access by political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica. While the specific terms of the settlement remain confidential, the trial was abruptly adjourned just before its second day of proceedings. The move shields Zuckerberg, former Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, and other high-profile defendants, including board members Marc Andreessen, Peter Thiel, and Reed Hastings, from having to testify. The lawsuit had sought to hold 11 current and former Meta directors and officers personally liable for regulatory fines and legal costs related to user data mishandling. Oversight claims and the Cambridge Analytica fallout The core of the shareholder case revolved around so-called “Caremark” oversight claims, among the most difficult to prove under Delaware corporate law. Plaintiffs accused Meta’s leadership of deliberately ignoring their fiduciary duty to monitor compliance with federal privacy laws. They also alleged that the company’s executive team knowingly operated Facebook as what they described as an “illegal data harvesting enterprise.” The trial, if it had continued, was set to feature testimony from several high-level figures in Silicon Valley, including Zuckerberg, Sandberg, Thiel, and Hastings. The plaintiffs hoped the testimony would reveal internal deliberations and failures that contributed to Meta’s growing list of privacy-related penalties. The litigation followed the scandal involving Cambridge Analytica, which accessed data from tens of millions of Facebook users without consent and allegedly used it for political profiling during Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The FTC ruled that Facebook had violated its 2012 agreement to protect user data and imposed the $5 billion penalty. Expert witnesses called by the plaintiffs had pointed to systemic gaps in Facebook’s privacy oversight practices, while internal board communications were expected to be examined in depth. However, some defence evidence, including notes from former board member Jeffrey Zients, suggested that directors were actively discussing privacy reforms, potentially weakening the case. Settlement avoids high-risk testimony and legal precedents The surprise settlement spares Meta’s leadership from what would have been an unprecedented public reckoning under Delaware’s legal framework for corporate governance. Notably, the case marked the first time that Caremark oversight claims had advanced to trial—an indicator of the case’s potential significance for future boardroom accountability. Sandberg, who left Meta in 2022, had already been sanctioned during the pre-trial phase for deleting sensitive communications, complicating her potential defence. Meanwhile, Zuckerberg faced intense scrutiny over his dual role as CEO and controlling shareholder, which critics argue concentrates power without sufficient accountability. The trial’s abrupt end also means there will be no official court finding on whether Meta’s leaders violated legal standards of board oversight. While investors sought financial restitution for the company, they also aimed to achieve greater transparency and accountability for privacy failures that continue to shape Meta’s public image. Meta, which changed its name from Facebook in 2021, was not a named defendant in the case. The company has stated that it has invested billions in privacy improvements since the Cambridge Analytica episode, though it declined to comment on the settlement. The closure of the case, while removing immediate legal risk for the individual defendants, also ensures that many key questions about how Meta handled its most significant privacy scandals may remain unanswered. Meta shares were down 0.21 per cent on July 17 and have declined 3.1 per cent over the past five days.

The lawsuit, filed by Meta shareholders, alleged that Zuckerberg and other top Meta officials failed in their oversight responsibilities by allowing years of data privacy breaches.

Mark Zuckerberg, Meta executives settle $8 billion privacy lawsuit ahead of testimony

US stock markets surged to record highs on July 17, buoyed by stronger-than-expected economic data and a wave of upbeat corporate earnings that reinforced investor confidence in the resilience of the American consumer. The S&amp;P 500 climbed 0.54 per cent to close at a record 6,297.36, while the Nasdaq Composite advanced 0.74 per cent to 20,884.27, marking its tenth record close of 2025. The Dow Jones Industrial Average also added 229.71 points, or 0.52 per cent, finishing at 44,484.49.It was the latest leg in a market rally that has seen the Nasdaq notch record finishes in six of the last seven sessions and the S&amp;P 500 tally six new highs since late June. The rally follows a volatile spring marked by trade policy uncertainty, particularly after President Donald Trump’s April announcement of sweeping tariff measures.<h2>Retail sales, jobless claims fuel economic optimism</h2>The gains were driven by fresh economic data that suggested continued strength in the US economy. The US Census Bureau reported that retail sales rose 0.6 per cent in June, beating the 0.2 per cent consensus estimate, signalling that American consumers remain resilient despite rising prices from tariffs and inflation pressures. Additionally, the Labor Department reported initial jobless claims fell to 221,000, down 7,000 from the prior week.Fed Governor Adriana Kugler said the central bank would hold off on rate cuts as it monitors the inflationary impact of President Trump’s tariffs. Market pricing now shows a 54 per cent chance of a September rate cut, while a July move is increasingly unlikely, according to CME’s FedWatch tool.<h2>Corporate earnings boost tech, consumer stocks</h2>More than 88 per cent of companies that have reported second-quarter results so far have beaten earnings expectations, according to FactSet. Consumer-facing firms and tech giants were among the biggest gainers.PepsiCo surged 7.5 per cent after beating earnings forecasts and delivering upbeat guidance, driven by demand for energy drinks and healthier product lines. United Airlines rose 3.1 per cent, predicting stronger travel demand into the second half of the year, despite industry headwinds from budget cuts and trade tensions. Rivals Delta and American Airlines each climbed over 1.4 per cent.Tech stocks also gained after Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) posted record quarterly profits, citing surging demand for AI chips. TSMC’s US-listed shares rose 3.4 per cent, while Nvidia and Marvell gained 1 per cent and 1.6 per cent, respectively.Ameriprise’s chief market strategist Anthony Saglimbene said the strong TSMC results bode well for the broader tech sector ahead of Big Tech earnings. “The setup is pretty positive, which is why tech is leading the way,” he said. As Wall Street continues to assess Trump’s tariff policies and Fed signals, investors appear encouraged by robust consumer activity and corporate performance—a combination that could keep the bull market charging ahead.&nbsp;(With inputs from agencies)

The S&P 500 climbed 0.54 per cent to close at a record 6,297.36, while the Nasdaq Composite advanced 0.74 per cent to 20,884.27, marking its tenth record close of 2025. The Dow Jones Industrial Average also added 229.71 points, or 0.52 per cent, finishing at 44,484.49.

US stock markets surged to record highs on July 17, buoyed by stronger-than-expected economic data and a wave of upbeat corporate earnings that reinforced investor confidence in the resilience of the American consumer. The S&P 500 climbed 0.54 per cent to close at a record 6,297.36, while the Nasdaq Composite advanced 0.74 per cent to 20,884.27, marking its tenth record close of 2025. The Dow Jones Industrial Average also added 229.71 points, or 0.52 per cent, finishing at 44,484.49. It was the latest leg in a market rally that has seen the Nasdaq notch record finishes in six of the last seven sessions and the S&P 500 tally six new highs since late June. The rally follows a volatile spring marked by trade policy uncertainty, particularly after President Donald Trump’s April announcement of sweeping tariff measures. Retail sales, jobless claims fuel economic optimism The gains were driven by fresh economic data that suggested continued strength in the US economy. The US Census Bureau reported that retail sales rose 0.6 per cent in June, beating the 0.2 per cent consensus estimate, signalling that American consumers remain resilient despite rising prices from tariffs and inflation pressures. Additionally, the Labor Department reported initial jobless claims fell to 221,000, down 7,000 from the prior week. Fed Governor Adriana Kugler said the central bank would hold off on rate cuts as it monitors the inflationary impact of President Trump’s tariffs. Market pricing now shows a 54 per cent chance of a September rate cut, while a July move is increasingly unlikely, according to CME’s FedWatch tool. Corporate earnings boost tech, consumer stocks More than 88 per cent of companies that have reported second-quarter results so far have beaten earnings expectations, according to FactSet. Consumer-facing firms and tech giants were among the biggest gainers. PepsiCo surged 7.5 per cent after beating earnings forecasts and delivering upbeat guidance, driven by demand for energy drinks and healthier product lines. United Airlines rose 3.1 per cent, predicting stronger travel demand into the second half of the year, despite industry headwinds from budget cuts and trade tensions. Rivals Delta and American Airlines each climbed over 1.4 per cent. Tech stocks also gained after Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) posted record quarterly profits, citing surging demand for AI chips. TSMC’s US-listed shares rose 3.4 per cent, while Nvidia and Marvell gained 1 per cent and 1.6 per cent, respectively. Ameriprise’s chief market strategist Anthony Saglimbene said the strong TSMC results bode well for the broader tech sector ahead of Big Tech earnings. “The setup is pretty positive, which is why tech is leading the way,” he said. As Wall Street continues to assess Trump’s tariff policies and Fed signals, investors appear encouraged by robust consumer activity and corporate performance—a combination that could keep the bull market charging ahead. (With inputs from agencies)

The S&amp;P 500 climbed 0.54 per cent to close at a record 6,297.36, while the Nasdaq Composite advanced 0.74 per cent to 20,884.27, marking its tenth record close of 2025. The Dow Jones Industrial Average also added 229.71 points, or 0.52 per cent, finishing at 44,484.49.

S&P 500, Nasdaq hit fresh records as strong earnings, retail sales lift investor sentiment

The US Department of Commerce on July 17 announced preliminary anti-dumping duties of 93.5 per cent on graphite-based anode materials imported from China, a move that significantly escalates trade tensions in the electric vehicle (EV) supply chain. The ruling comes after a months-long investigation revealed Chinese producers were selling graphite at unfairly low prices in the US market, undermining domestic manufacturers. The penalties apply to graphite anode materials with a minimum carbon purity of 90 per cent by weight, including synthetic, natural, or blended graphite—a critical component in lithium-ion EV batteries. Imports of these materials from China totalled $347.1 million in 2023, as per the Commerce Department, and nearly two-thirds of all US graphite imports originated from Chinese suppliers, according to BloombergNEF.<h2>Total penalties now exceed 160%</h2>This latest decision adds to a growing list of tariffs and duties imposed on Chinese graphite. In May, the Commerce Department imposed countervailing duties of 6.55 per cent for most producers, but as high as 721 per cent for specific firms like Huzhou Kaijin New Energy and Shanghai Shaosheng. When combined with the existing 25 per cent Section 301 tariffs and 30 per cent retaliatory duties, the effective import penalty now exceeds 160 per cent.The anti-dumping and countervailing duty petitions were filed by the American Active Anode Material Producers, a coalition including firms such as Anovion Technologies, Syrah Technologies, and Novonix Anode Materials. The Commerce Department is expected to issue a final determination by December 5, 2025.<h2>Automakers, battery suppliers push back</h2>Major EV players, including Tesla and battery supplier Panasonic, had lobbied against the new tariffs, arguing that US producers are not yet capable of meeting the scale and quality standards required for mass production. The announcement sent Tesla shares down by 1.4 per cent on July 17.“This move adds roughly $7 per kilowatt-hour to battery costs—nearly 20 per cent of the value of US battery tax credits,” Sam Adham, head of battery materials at CRU Group, told Bloomberg. “That could erase one to two quarters of profits for Korean battery makers operating in the US.”The tariffs come amid increasing efforts by the US to reduce reliance on Chinese critical minerals, a concern highlighted by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which recently classified graphite as among the most supply-risk-exposed battery materials.As Washington prioritises energy security and EV supply chain resilience, the ruling may accelerate domestic investments, but it could also raise short-term costs for automakers and slow EV adoption in the US.

Major EV players, including Tesla and battery supplier Panasonic, had lobbied against the new anti-dumping duties, arguing that US producers are not yet capable of meeting the scale and quality standards required for mass production. 

The US Department of Commerce on July 17 announced preliminary anti-dumping duties of 93.5 per cent on graphite-based anode materials imported from China, a move that significantly escalates trade tensions in the electric vehicle (EV) supply chain. The ruling comes after a months-long investigation revealed Chinese producers were selling graphite at unfairly low prices in the US market, undermining domestic manufacturers. The penalties apply to graphite anode materials with a minimum carbon purity of 90 per cent by weight, including synthetic, natural, or blended graphite—a critical component in lithium-ion EV batteries. Imports of these materials from China totalled $347.1 million in 2023, as per the Commerce Department, and nearly two-thirds of all US graphite imports originated from Chinese suppliers, according to BloombergNEF. Total penalties now exceed 160% This latest decision adds to a growing list of tariffs and duties imposed on Chinese graphite. In May, the Commerce Department imposed countervailing duties of 6.55 per cent for most producers, but as high as 721 per cent for specific firms like Huzhou Kaijin New Energy and Shanghai Shaosheng. When combined with the existing 25 per cent Section 301 tariffs and 30 per cent retaliatory duties, the effective import penalty now exceeds 160 per cent. The anti-dumping and countervailing duty petitions were filed by the American Active Anode Material Producers, a coalition including firms such as Anovion Technologies, Syrah Technologies, and Novonix Anode Materials. The Commerce Department is expected to issue a final determination by December 5, 2025. Automakers, battery suppliers push back Major EV players, including Tesla and battery supplier Panasonic, had lobbied against the new tariffs, arguing that US producers are not yet capable of meeting the scale and quality standards required for mass production. The announcement sent Tesla shares down by 1.4 per cent on July 17. “This move adds roughly $7 per kilowatt-hour to battery costs—nearly 20 per cent of the value of US battery tax credits,” Sam Adham, head of battery materials at CRU Group, told Bloomberg. “That could erase one to two quarters of profits for Korean battery makers operating in the US.” The tariffs come amid increasing efforts by the US to reduce reliance on Chinese critical minerals, a concern highlighted by the International Energy Agency (IEA), which recently classified graphite as among the most supply-risk-exposed battery materials. As Washington prioritises energy security and EV supply chain resilience, the ruling may accelerate domestic investments, but it could also raise short-term costs for automakers and slow EV adoption in the US.

Major EV players, including Tesla and battery supplier Panasonic, had lobbied against the new anti-dumping duties, arguing that US producers are not yet capable of meeting the scale and quality standards required for mass production.&nbsp;

US slaps 93.5% anti-dumping duty on Chinese graphite imports, escalating EV supply chain pressure

US retail sales rose 0.6 per cent in June, defying expectations and signalling a modest rebound in consumer spending. The Commerce Department’s report on July 17 highlighted that retail sales, which had been in decline for two consecutive months, reversed course and exceeded forecasts. Economists had predicted only a 0.1 per cent increase for the month. This growth marks a significant improvement after a 0.9 per cent drop in May and a 0.1 per cent dip in April. Year-on-year, June retail sales surged 3.9 per cent, surpassing the 3.6 per cent anticipated by economists, suggesting a continued but cautious consumer appetite.&nbsp;The positive figures provide a glimmer of optimism for an economy that has been caught in the throes of tariff-induced price hikes and trade uncertainty. The strong June report, especially in the face of the ongoing trade war and its inflationary effects, suggests that consumer spending, a key pillar of the US economy, remains resilient.<h2>Auto sales and necessities drive growth</h2>A major contributor to the uptick in retail sales was a 1.2 per cent jump in auto and auto parts sales, a rebound from the previous month’s 3.8 per cent drop. Consumers rushed to make purchases ahead of anticipated tariff-driven price hikes on imported vehicles. However, the growth in auto sales was likely driven by higher prices rather than an increase in volume.Other areas of spending showed mixed results. Sales in clothing and accessories increased by 0.9 per cent, while health and personal care items rose 0.5 per cent. Online retailers also saw a moderate uptick of 0.4 per cent. Yet, spending in electronics, appliances, and furniture stores dipped, reflecting the strain of higher costs tied to the ongoing tariffs. In particular, items heavily reliant on imports, such as electronics, showed signs of weakening demand, as price hikes outpaced consumer demand. Despite these hurdles, there are signs that Americans are prioritising essentials, with sales of household goods, groceries, and personal care products continuing to perform well.&nbsp;<h2>Mixed economic signals raise questions</h2>While the retail sales data is encouraging, it comes amid growing concerns about inflation. The US inflation rate rose 2.7 per cent in June, its highest level since February, as tariffs have driven up the costs of everyday goods. President Donald Trump has called on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, but the recent inflation data makes it less likely that the Fed will take such a step in the immediate future.Economists are also keeping a close eye on the job market, which continues to show resilience. Initial claims for unemployment benefits fell to a three-month low in the week ending July 12, reflecting steady job growth. However, fears about trade policy uncertainty and the risk of rising prices could still lead to a pullback in consumer spending later in the year.As the retail landscape braces for the upcoming back-to-school shopping season, which is expected to see a 3.3 per cent increase in spending, the full impact of tariffs and economic uncertainty will likely continue to shape US consumer behaviour in the months ahead. Retailers will have to navigate these shifting dynamics, balancing supply chain challenges and changing demand as they head into the busy autumn shopping period.

The positive US retail sales figures provide a glimmer of optimism for an economy that has been caught in the throes of tariff-induced price hikes and trade uncertainty.

US retail sales rose 0.6 per cent in June, defying expectations and signalling a modest rebound in consumer spending. The Commerce Department’s report on July 17 highlighted that retail sales, which had been in decline for two consecutive months, reversed course and exceeded forecasts. Economists had predicted only a 0.1 per cent increase for the month. This growth marks a significant improvement after a 0.9 per cent drop in May and a 0.1 per cent dip in April. Year-on-year, June retail sales surged 3.9 per cent, surpassing the 3.6 per cent anticipated by economists, suggesting a continued but cautious consumer appetite. The positive figures provide a glimmer of optimism for an economy that has been caught in the throes of tariff-induced price hikes and trade uncertainty. The strong June report, especially in the face of the ongoing trade war and its inflationary effects, suggests that consumer spending, a key pillar of the US economy, remains resilient. Auto sales and necessities drive growth A major contributor to the uptick in retail sales was a 1.2 per cent jump in auto and auto parts sales, a rebound from the previous month’s 3.8 per cent drop. Consumers rushed to make purchases ahead of anticipated tariff-driven price hikes on imported vehicles. However, the growth in auto sales was likely driven by higher prices rather than an increase in volume. Other areas of spending showed mixed results. Sales in clothing and accessories increased by 0.9 per cent, while health and personal care items rose 0.5 per cent. Online retailers also saw a moderate uptick of 0.4 per cent. Yet, spending in electronics, appliances, and furniture stores dipped, reflecting the strain of higher costs tied to the ongoing tariffs. In particular, items heavily reliant on imports, such as electronics, showed signs of weakening demand, as price hikes outpaced consumer demand. Despite these hurdles, there are signs that Americans are prioritising essentials, with sales of household goods, groceries, and personal care products continuing to perform well. Mixed economic signals raise questions While the retail sales data is encouraging, it comes amid growing concerns about inflation. The US inflation rate rose 2.7 per cent in June, its highest level since February, as tariffs have driven up the costs of everyday goods. President Donald Trump has called on the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, but the recent inflation data makes it less likely that the Fed will take such a step in the immediate future. Economists are also keeping a close eye on the job market, which continues to show resilience. Initial claims for unemployment benefits fell to a three-month low in the week ending July 12, reflecting steady job growth. However, fears about trade policy uncertainty and the risk of rising prices could still lead to a pullback in consumer spending later in the year. As the retail landscape braces for the upcoming back-to-school shopping season, which is expected to see a 3.3 per cent increase in spending, the full impact of tariffs and economic uncertainty will likely continue to shape US consumer behaviour in the months ahead. Retailers will have to navigate these shifting dynamics, balancing supply chain challenges and changing demand as they head into the busy autumn shopping period.

The positive US retail sales figures provide a glimmer of optimism for an economy that has been caught in the throes of tariff-induced price hikes and trade uncertainty.

US retail sales rebound in June, buoyed by consumer spending resilience

Russia’s cross-border trade is undergoing a significant shift. As Western sanctions tighten the noose on foreign currency transactions, Moscow is turning inward, and the ruble is becoming the dominant currency in both exports and imports. But this self-reliance is coming at a price.&nbsp;According to new data published by the Bank of Russia on Wednesday, more than 50 per cent of Russian exports are now being paid for in rubles. Payments in so-called “friendly” currencies, primarily the Chinese yuan, have shrunk to about one-third of total receipts, down from nearly half at their peak a year ago. Meanwhile, the share of payments in “unfriendly” currencies, mainly the US dollar and euro has fallen to just 15 per cent.&nbsp;This marks a sharp change in Russia’s post-Ukraine invasion strategy. After sanctions froze its access to Western financial systems in 2022, Russia increasingly leaned on the Chinese yuan. But even that workaround has begun to fray.<h2>Sanctions squeeze yuan trade too</h2>The turning point came in mid-2024, when the United States ramped up secondary sanctions on foreign banks facilitating transactions for Russian entities. According to Bloomberg, this move has chilled even “friendly” bank interactions, stalling the yuan’s previously growing role in Russia’s trade and banking system.&nbsp;The Moscow Exchange, where the yuan is now the only major currency traded, no longer discloses turnover data, but yuan volumes reportedly fell to a two-year low in May, and remained subdued in June, according to Kommersant newspaper.The Russian central bank, which once detailed rising yuan usage in the banking system, has also stopped publishing granular figures.<h2>Exporters sell fewer dollars as ruble takes over</h2>With more trade now settled in rubles, the volume of foreign currency sales by Russian exporters has slumped to the lowest level since early 2023, even though exporters are still converting close to 100 per cent of receipts, the central bank said in its latest report.&nbsp;Simultaneously, corporate demand for foreign currency has halved compared to the monthly average in 2024. According to Stanislav Murashov, economist at Raiffeisenbank in Moscow, this is partly because “the growing use of rubles to pay for imports” has reduced the need for foreign currency. The share of imports paid in foreign currencies has now dropped to 45 per cent, the rest settled in rubles.<h2>Why is Russia doing this?</h2>According to Murashov, the shift is fundamentally about sanctions avoidance. “The main goal of switching trade to rubles was to avoid frozen or delayed payments,” he told Bloomberg. “It’s about mitigating sanctions risk and keeping payments flowing.”&nbsp;But this pivot has its downsides. As Murashov explains, the combination of a stronger ruble and lower commodity prices has delivered a “double blow to budget revenues.”<h2>A shadow network of trade payments</h2>To navigate the growing risks of international sanctions, Russian businesses have adapted, using alternative and less visible payment networks. A report by the Center for Analysis and Strategies in Europe (CASE) revealed that most Russia–China trade is now routed through “mirror” ruble and yuan accounts.&nbsp;Here’s how it works: Chinese importers pay in rubles from local ruble accounts, while Russian exporters also receive rubles. In parallel, yuan accounts maintained in Chinese banks carry out the currency conversion without any direct transfer, thereby avoiding regulatory scrutiny. The CASE report describes this setup as “highly adaptable” and increasingly “robust and less transparent.”&nbsp;In countries where this dual-account model isn’t viable, specialised intermediaries step in. These firms, registered across multiple jurisdictions, accept rubles from Russian buyers and pay exporters in rubles, handling the currency exchange offshore. For large Russian firms, more sophisticated routes exist, but all share one principle: keeping currency flows hidden from the Western financial system.&nbsp;The West’s financial sanctions may have reshaped Russia’s trade architecture but haven’t stopped it. Instead, Moscow is doubling down on the ruble, even as the price includes a drop in export revenues, rising transaction costs, and a murkier financial landscape. While these adjustments may shield Russia from immediate shocks, they signal a deeper decoupling from the global monetary system, one that’s becoming less transparent, less efficient, but more sanctions-proof. &nbsp;

Consequently, foreign currency sales by exporters have plummeted, with import payments now 55% in rubles. Businesses have created alternative payment networks to mitigate sanctions, resulting in a more opaque trade setup that helps Russia adapt to the global monetary system challenges.

Russia’s cross-border trade is undergoing a significant shift. As Western sanctions tighten the noose on foreign currency transactions, Moscow is turning inward, and the ruble is becoming the dominant currency in both exports and imports. But this self-reliance is coming at a price. According to new data published by the Bank of Russia on Wednesday, more than 50 per cent of Russian exports are now being paid for in rubles. Payments in so-called “friendly” currencies, primarily the Chinese yuan, have shrunk to about one-third of total receipts, down from nearly half at their peak a year ago. Meanwhile, the share of payments in “unfriendly” currencies, mainly the US dollar and euro has fallen to just 15 per cent. This marks a sharp change in Russia’s post-Ukraine invasion strategy. After sanctions froze its access to Western financial systems in 2022, Russia increasingly leaned on the Chinese yuan. But even that workaround has begun to fray. Sanctions squeeze yuan trade too The turning point came in mid-2024, when the United States ramped up secondary sanctions on foreign banks facilitating transactions for Russian entities. According to Bloomberg, this move has chilled even “friendly” bank interactions, stalling the yuan’s previously growing role in Russia’s trade and banking system. The Moscow Exchange, where the yuan is now the only major currency traded, no longer discloses turnover data, but yuan volumes reportedly fell to a two-year low in May, and remained subdued in June, according to Kommersant newspaper. The Russian central bank, which once detailed rising yuan usage in the banking system, has also stopped publishing granular figures. Exporters sell fewer dollars as ruble takes over With more trade now settled in rubles, the volume of foreign currency sales by Russian exporters has slumped to the lowest level since early 2023, even though exporters are still converting close to 100 per cent of receipts, the central bank said in its latest report. Simultaneously, corporate demand for foreign currency has halved compared to the monthly average in 2024. According to Stanislav Murashov, economist at Raiffeisenbank in Moscow, this is partly because “the growing use of rubles to pay for imports” has reduced the need for foreign currency. The share of imports paid in foreign currencies has now dropped to 45 per cent, the rest settled in rubles. Why is Russia doing this? According to Murashov, the shift is fundamentally about sanctions avoidance. “The main goal of switching trade to rubles was to avoid frozen or delayed payments,” he told Bloomberg. “It’s about mitigating sanctions risk and keeping payments flowing.” But this pivot has its downsides. As Murashov explains, the combination of a stronger ruble and lower commodity prices has delivered a “double blow to budget revenues.” A shadow network of trade payments To navigate the growing risks of international sanctions, Russian businesses have adapted, using alternative and less visible payment networks. A report by the Center for Analysis and Strategies in Europe (CASE) revealed that most Russia–China trade is now routed through “mirror” ruble and yuan accounts. Here’s how it works: Chinese importers pay in rubles from local ruble accounts, while Russian exporters also receive rubles. In parallel, yuan accounts maintained in Chinese banks carry out the currency conversion without any direct transfer, thereby avoiding regulatory scrutiny. The CASE report describes this setup as “highly adaptable” and increasingly “robust and less transparent.” In countries where this dual-account model isn’t viable, specialised intermediaries step in. These firms, registered across multiple jurisdictions, accept rubles from Russian buyers and pay exporters in rubles, handling the currency exchange offshore. For large Russian firms, more sophisticated routes exist, but all share one principle: keeping currency flows hidden from the Western financial system. The West’s financial sanctions may have reshaped Russia’s trade architecture but haven’t stopped it. Instead, Moscow is doubling down on the ruble, even as the price includes a drop in export revenues, rising transaction costs, and a murkier financial landscape. While these adjustments may shield Russia from immediate shocks, they signal a deeper decoupling from the global monetary system, one that’s becoming less transparent, less efficient, but more sanctions-proof.

Russia's cross-border trade is shifting toward the ruble due to tightening Western sanctions, with over 50% of exports now settled in rubles.

Russia’s foreign currency inflows shrink as trade shifts to ruble payments

Canada’s Alimentation Couche-Tard (ACT) has officially pulled its $46 billion bid to acquire Japan’s Seven &amp; i Holdings, the operator of 7-Eleven, citing a “lack of constructive engagement” during a year of negotiations. The withdrawal marks the end of what would have been the largest foreign takeover in Japan’s corporate history. In a scathing letter to Seven &amp; i’s board, Couche-Tard accused the Japanese company of obstructing the due diligence process, describing the meetings as tightly scripted and accusing Seven &amp; i of delaying tactics.“There has been no sincere or constructive engagement from Seven &amp; i that would facilitate the advancement of any proposal,” Couche-Tard stated, adding that the Japanese retailer's actions had been detrimental to its own shareholders. The Canadian convenience store operator also complained that its critical questions remained unanswered and that the information shared by Seven &amp; i was minimal and largely public.<h2>Seven &amp; I reject mischaracterizations</h2>In response, Seven &amp; i expressed disappointment over Couche-Tard’s decision but denied the accusations. “While we are disappointed by ACT’s decision, we disagree with their numerous mischaracterizations,” the company said. Seven &amp; i emphasised that it had engaged in good faith and was focused on maximising shareholder value through its own restructuring efforts, which include a $5.4 billion sale of its supermarket business and a ¥2 trillion ($13.24 billion) share buyback plan.Shares of Seven &amp; i fell over 9 per cent following Couche-Tard's announcement, reflecting the market’s disappointment with the failed deal. Analysts suggested that the failure of the deal highlighted the persistent barriers to foreign takeovers in Japan, a country where corporate governance practices are often seen as protectionist.<h2>Future prospects for Seven &amp; i</h2>Couche-Tard had initially made a $39 billion offer in August 2024, later raising it to $46 billion in an attempt to acquire Seven &amp; i and create one of the world’s largest retail groups by store count. However, the two companies failed to agree on a deal structure, with Couche-Tard proposing to acquire Seven &amp; i’s international businesses, leaving the Japanese operations partially under the control of the latter.With the bid now abandoned, Seven &amp; i faces the challenge of demonstrating that its standalone strategy can deliver more value than the rejected acquisition offer. Its upcoming August strategy update will be critical in convincing investors of its ability to move forward successfully without the proposed merger.&nbsp;(With inputs from agencies)

The withdrawal marks the end of what would have been the largest foreign takeover in Japan’s corporate history. Shares of Seven & i fell over 9 per cent following Couche-Tard's announcement, reflecting the market’s disappointment with the failed deal.

Canada’s Alimentation Couche-Tard (ACT) has officially pulled its $46 billion bid to acquire Japan’s Seven & i Holdings, the operator of 7-Eleven, citing a “lack of constructive engagement” during a year of negotiations. The withdrawal marks the end of what would have been the largest foreign takeover in Japan’s corporate history. In a scathing letter to Seven & i’s board, Couche-Tard accused the Japanese company of obstructing the due diligence process, describing the meetings as tightly scripted and accusing Seven & i of delaying tactics. “There has been no sincere or constructive engagement from Seven & i that would facilitate the advancement of any proposal,” Couche-Tard stated, adding that the Japanese retailer's actions had been detrimental to its own shareholders. The Canadian convenience store operator also complained that its critical questions remained unanswered and that the information shared by Seven & i was minimal and largely public. Seven & I reject mischaracterizations In response, Seven & i expressed disappointment over Couche-Tard’s decision but denied the accusations. “While we are disappointed by ACT’s decision, we disagree with their numerous mischaracterizations,” the company said. Seven & i emphasised that it had engaged in good faith and was focused on maximising shareholder value through its own restructuring efforts, which include a $5.4 billion sale of its supermarket business and a ¥2 trillion ($13.24 billion) share buyback plan. Shares of Seven & i fell over 9 per cent following Couche-Tard's announcement, reflecting the market’s disappointment with the failed deal. Analysts suggested that the failure of the deal highlighted the persistent barriers to foreign takeovers in Japan, a country where corporate governance practices are often seen as protectionist. Future prospects for Seven & i Couche-Tard had initially made a $39 billion offer in August 2024, later raising it to $46 billion in an attempt to acquire Seven & i and create one of the world’s largest retail groups by store count. However, the two companies failed to agree on a deal structure, with Couche-Tard proposing to acquire Seven & i’s international businesses, leaving the Japanese operations partially under the control of the latter. With the bid now abandoned, Seven & i faces the challenge of demonstrating that its standalone strategy can deliver more value than the rejected acquisition offer. Its upcoming August strategy update will be critical in convincing investors of its ability to move forward successfully without the proposed merger. (With inputs from agencies)

The withdrawal marks the end of what would have been the largest foreign takeover in Japan’s corporate history. Shares of Seven &amp; i fell over 9 per cent following Couche-Tard's announcement, reflecting the market’s disappointment with the failed deal.

Couche-Tard withdraws $46 billion bid for Seven & i, citing lack of cooperation

France is heating up and so are its electricity prices. A fresh spike in demand for cooling systems is pushing the country’s power rates to their highest in weeks, as Europe battles another bout of summer heat. According to Bloomberg, French electricity prices for Thursday surged by 41 per cent to €91.20 (about $106) per megawatt-hour. This marks the highest level since early July, based on market data from Epex Spot, a key European power exchange. The surge is being driven by an unseasonal jump in temperatures, especially in southern France and Spain, forcing households and businesses to ramp up air conditioning.<h2>Heat triggers cooling crunch</h2>France, like much of Europe, has already endured one heatwave this summer, in late June and early July. That weather event drove electricity prices higher across the continent, with demand for cooling outpacing seasonal norms.&nbsp;But this week’s heat is more localised, hitting France, Spain, and parts of the Nordic region, where daily temperatures have hovered well above the long-term average. As per Bloomberg, some Nordic areas have experienced several consecutive days of abnormally high temperatures.&nbsp;The French national weather service has warned that temperatures will climb even further on Friday, likely triggering another jump in power demand. According to energy analysts cited by Bloomberg, the heat is projected to nearly double the typical number of cooling degree days, a metric that measures demand for air conditioning based on how much temperatures exceed a comfort threshold compared to the 30-year average for this time of year.<h2>Why this matters?</h2>Rising power prices not only squeeze households but also add pressure on industries and grid operators during peak hours. For France, which relies heavily on nuclear power for its energy supply, maintaining steady output is crucial, especially during extreme weather, when even reactor operations can be affected.&nbsp;While renewables such as solar can help buffer daytime demand, prolonged heat waves typically stretch grid capacity, particularly in regions not historically designed for large-scale cooling loads.&nbsp;Europe’s power markets remain sensitive to weather fluctuations, and events like these raise questions about climate resilience, infrastructure planning, and the energy cost burden amid warming summers. &nbsp;

This heatwave, following prior extreme weather, stresses the grid and household budgets, raising concerns about energy resilience and infrastructure amid prolonged heating trends across Europe.

France is heating up and so are its electricity prices. A fresh spike in demand for cooling systems is pushing the country’s power rates to their highest in weeks, as Europe battles another bout of summer heat. According to Bloomberg, French electricity prices for Thursday surged by 41 per cent to €91.20 (about $106) per megawatt-hour. This marks the highest level since early July, based on market data from Epex Spot, a key European power exchange. The surge is being driven by an unseasonal jump in temperatures, especially in southern France and Spain, forcing households and businesses to ramp up air conditioning. Heat triggers cooling crunch France, like much of Europe, has already endured one heatwave this summer, in late June and early July. That weather event drove electricity prices higher across the continent, with demand for cooling outpacing seasonal norms. But this week’s heat is more localised, hitting France, Spain, and parts of the Nordic region, where daily temperatures have hovered well above the long-term average. As per Bloomberg, some Nordic areas have experienced several consecutive days of abnormally high temperatures. The French national weather service has warned that temperatures will climb even further on Friday, likely triggering another jump in power demand. According to energy analysts cited by Bloomberg, the heat is projected to nearly double the typical number of cooling degree days, a metric that measures demand for air conditioning based on how much temperatures exceed a comfort threshold compared to the 30-year average for this time of year. Why this matters? Rising power prices not only squeeze households but also add pressure on industries and grid operators during peak hours. For France, which relies heavily on nuclear power for its energy supply, maintaining steady output is crucial, especially during extreme weather, when even reactor operations can be affected. While renewables such as solar can help buffer daytime demand, prolonged heat waves typically stretch grid capacity, particularly in regions not historically designed for large-scale cooling loads. Europe’s power markets remain sensitive to weather fluctuations, and events like these raise questions about climate resilience, infrastructure planning, and the energy cost burden amid warming summers.

France's electricity prices surged 41% to €91.20 per megawatt-hour due to increased cooling demand from unseasonably high temperatures, particularly in southern France and Spain.

French power prices spike 41% as heatwave drives cooling demand

Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook, is embroiled in a high-stakes $8 billion lawsuit brought by its own shareholders, including major institutional investors. The legal action, filed in Delaware’s Chancery Court, accuses CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other top executives, including former COO Sheryl Sandberg, of failing to oversee the company’s handling of user data. The lawsuit stems from the fallout of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which saw Facebook users’ private information harvested and used for political targeting without consent.The plaintiffs claim that Zuckerberg and other senior leaders violated their fiduciary duties and were complicit in illegal data practices that led to significant regulatory fines and legal costs for the company. At the heart of the suit is an allegation that Facebook’s leadership allowed the company to breach a 2012 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) consent order. This order required Facebook to cease the collection and sharing of user data without consent. Despite this, the lawsuit alleges that Facebook continued to sell user data to third parties, failing to disclose these practices adequately to the public.<h2>The Cambridge Analytica scandal and its aftermath</h2>The case dates back to 2018 when it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct political consulting firm, improperly harvested data from millions of Facebook users without their consent. The firm then allegedly used this data to craft targeted political ads for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The revelation sparked a global outcry, leading to investigations and fines from regulators around the world.In 2019, Meta (then Facebook) settled with the FTC for $5 billion over the data privacy violations stemming from the scandal. Additionally, the company faced significant fines in Europe and reached a $725 million settlement with affected users. However, shareholders are now suing to recover more than $8 billion in damages, including the FTC fine and other legal costs, claiming that Zuckerberg and other executives were directly responsible for the company’s failure to properly protect user privacy.Neil Richards, a privacy expert from Washington University School of Law, testified for the plaintiffs, stating that Facebook’s privacy disclosures were “misleading” and failed to adequately inform users of the risks associated with their data. The trial, which began on July 16, is expected to include testimony from several high-profile figures, including Zuckerberg himself, former COO Sheryl Sandberg, and other board members such as Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel.<h2>Board’s role in the scandal and governance failures</h2>The lawsuit argues that Meta’s board failed to fulfil its duty of oversight, allowing Zuckerberg and his team to oversee a “data harvesting operation” that violated privacy laws and led to massive financial and reputational harm. Shareholders allege that Meta’s board ignored repeated warnings and did not take sufficient action to prevent the misuse of personal data.Meta’s corporate governance structure also came under scrutiny during the trial. Zuckerberg controls 61 per cent of Meta’s voting shares, a dual-class share structure that gives him significant power over the company’s direction. Shareholders argue that this structure undermines checks and balances, giving Zuckerberg the ability to act unilaterally and allowing the board to fail in holding him accountable for the scandal.The court case also touches on claims of insider trading. Zuckerberg allegedly anticipated the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica scandal and sold a portion of his Facebook shares before the stock price plummeted. The plaintiffs claim that Zuckerberg’s actions were motivated by insider information, though the defendants have denied this and assert that Zuckerberg followed a pre-established stock-trading plan designed to avoid such conflicts.<h2>Implications for Big Tech and executive accountability</h2>The outcome of the case could have broad implications for executive accountability in the tech industry, especially concerning issues of data privacy and corporate governance. The lawsuit is seen as one of the most significant shareholder actions against a major tech company, as it alleges not only privacy violations but also failures in corporate oversight.Meta, which remains incorporated in Delaware despite recent tensions with the state’s corporate laws, has not commented on the trial. The company has continued to emphasise its commitment to user privacy, stating that it has invested billions of dollars in improving its data protection practices since 2019. For now, the case serves as a reminder of the growing scrutiny Big Tech companies face regarding their handling of user data and the broader question of how much responsibility executives should bear when their companies are implicated in privacy violations.

The lawsuit against Meta stems from the fallout of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which saw Facebook users’ private information harvested and used for political targeting without consent.

Meta Platforms Inc., the parent company of Facebook, is embroiled in a high-stakes $8 billion lawsuit brought by its own shareholders, including major institutional investors. The legal action, filed in Delaware’s Chancery Court, accuses CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other top executives, including former COO Sheryl Sandberg, of failing to oversee the company’s handling of user data. The lawsuit stems from the fallout of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which saw Facebook users’ private information harvested and used for political targeting without consent. The plaintiffs claim that Zuckerberg and other senior leaders violated their fiduciary duties and were complicit in illegal data practices that led to significant regulatory fines and legal costs for the company. At the heart of the suit is an allegation that Facebook’s leadership allowed the company to breach a 2012 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) consent order. This order required Facebook to cease the collection and sharing of user data without consent. Despite this, the lawsuit alleges that Facebook continued to sell user data to third parties, failing to disclose these practices adequately to the public. The Cambridge Analytica scandal and its aftermath The case dates back to 2018 when it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica, a now-defunct political consulting firm, improperly harvested data from millions of Facebook users without their consent. The firm then allegedly used this data to craft targeted political ads for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The revelation sparked a global outcry, leading to investigations and fines from regulators around the world. In 2019, Meta (then Facebook) settled with the FTC for $5 billion over the data privacy violations stemming from the scandal. Additionally, the company faced significant fines in Europe and reached a $725 million settlement with affected users. However, shareholders are now suing to recover more than $8 billion in damages, including the FTC fine and other legal costs, claiming that Zuckerberg and other executives were directly responsible for the company’s failure to properly protect user privacy. Neil Richards, a privacy expert from Washington University School of Law, testified for the plaintiffs, stating that Facebook’s privacy disclosures were “misleading” and failed to adequately inform users of the risks associated with their data. The trial, which began on July 16, is expected to include testimony from several high-profile figures, including Zuckerberg himself, former COO Sheryl Sandberg, and other board members such as Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel. Board’s role in the scandal and governance failures The lawsuit argues that Meta’s board failed to fulfil its duty of oversight, allowing Zuckerberg and his team to oversee a “data harvesting operation” that violated privacy laws and led to massive financial and reputational harm. Shareholders allege that Meta’s board ignored repeated warnings and did not take sufficient action to prevent the misuse of personal data. Meta’s corporate governance structure also came under scrutiny during the trial. Zuckerberg controls 61 per cent of Meta’s voting shares, a dual-class share structure that gives him significant power over the company’s direction. Shareholders argue that this structure undermines checks and balances, giving Zuckerberg the ability to act unilaterally and allowing the board to fail in holding him accountable for the scandal. The court case also touches on claims of insider trading. Zuckerberg allegedly anticipated the fallout from the Cambridge Analytica scandal and sold a portion of his Facebook shares before the stock price plummeted. The plaintiffs claim that Zuckerberg’s actions were motivated by insider information, though the defendants have denied this and assert that Zuckerberg followed a pre-established stock-trading plan designed to avoid such conflicts. Implications for Big Tech and executive accountability The outcome of the case could have broad implications for executive accountability in the tech industry, especially concerning issues of data privacy and corporate governance. The lawsuit is seen as one of the most significant shareholder actions against a major tech company, as it alleges not only privacy violations but also failures in corporate oversight. Meta, which remains incorporated in Delaware despite recent tensions with the state’s corporate laws, has not commented on the trial. The company has continued to emphasise its commitment to user privacy, stating that it has invested billions of dollars in improving its data protection practices since 2019. For now, the case serves as a reminder of the growing scrutiny Big Tech companies face regarding their handling of user data and the broader question of how much responsibility executives should bear when their companies are implicated in privacy violations.

The lawsuit against Meta stems from the fallout of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, which saw Facebook users’ private information harvested and used for political targeting without consent.

Mark Zuckerberg faces $8 billion lawsuit over data privacy and alleged corporate mismanagement

Larry Ellison, who owns nearly an entire Hawaiian island, co-founded Oracle, and helped power the CIA’s earliest databases. Now, at the age of 80, Ellison has become the second-richest person in the world. With this he even surpassed Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and positioned&nbsp;himself at the centre of America’s AI and political transformation. On the Bloomberg Billionaire Index, with a fortune swelling to $251 billion, Ellison trails only Elon Musk and pushed Jeff Bezos and Bernard Arnault further down the list.&nbsp;But who is Larry Ellison? How did a college dropout become Silicon Valley’s stealth power player and now a key figure in Donald Trump’s AI ambitions?<h2>Who is Larry Ellison?</h2>Born in 1944 in New York City, Ellison was raised by his great-aunt and uncle on the south side of Chicago. After dropping out of college twice, first from the University of Illinois and then the University of Chicago, he moved to California in the late 1960s, joining the state’s early computer revolution, as per Bloomberg.&nbsp;&nbsp;In 1977, Ellison reportedly co-founded a company called Software Development Laboratories, which later became Oracle. Their first major client was reportedly the CIA, and their project, codenamed “Oracle" helped lay the foundation for the global database industry.According to Bloomberg, Ellison built his reputation not as a coder, but as a visionary and salesman. As he once told Bloomberg in 2003 interview that, “I’m not a tech guy. I sell software the way other people sell cars.”<h2>Why is he back in the spotlight now?</h2>Ellison’s net worth reportedly soared by $6 billion in a single day on July 15, after US officials eased chip restrictions on China, boosting Oracle shares by nearly 6 per cent, as per Bloomberg.&nbsp;Oracle is now one of the biggest players in the AI cloud computing race, supplying infrastructure to firms like OpenAI. The company is reportedly challenging Amazon and Microsoft in the battle to host large language models and Ellison is emerging as a quiet giant in Washington’s AI-industrial complex. Bloomberg also reports that Oracle is set to play a key role in Trump’s proposed “Stargate” AI project, &nbsp;a multi-agency effort to secure American dominance in artificial intelligence.<h2>How close is he to Donald Trump?</h2>Ellison is one of the rare tech billionaires who publicly aligned with Trump. In 2020, he even hosted a fundraiser for the Republican leader at his estate in Rancho Mirage, California. This reportedly bought a lot of criticism from Silicon Valley circles.&nbsp;According to Bloomberg, Oracle is in the running to acquire TikTok’s US operations if Trump forces a divestment. It also reportedly won government cloud contracts during Trump’s first term and is poised to benefit from his second-term industrial policy particularly around AI and digital infrastructure.&nbsp;In previous Bloomberg reporting, Ellison called Trump “A friend who understands how important it is for America to win the technology race.”<h2>What does Larry Ellison own?</h2>According to Bloomberg data, Ellison owns 98 per cent of Lanai, the sixth-largest Hawaiian island, which he purchased for about $300 million in 2012. His real estate portfolio is reportedly among the most opulent in the world, featuring a $200 million estate in Woodside, California, alongside luxurious properties in Malibu, Newport, and Palm Beach.&nbsp;Ellison also reportedly owns a fleet of luxury yachts and private jets, further cementing his billionaire lifestyle. He is the owner of the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, one of the premier venues in professional tennis. In addition to these assets, Ellison co-founded Sensei, a wellness tech company focused on longevity, which blends artificial intelligence, nutrition, and spa culture, particularly integrated into his Hawaiian developments, as per Bloomberg reports.&nbsp;<h2>How did he make his money?</h2>Much of Ellison’s wealth reportedly comes from his 42 per cent stake in Oracle, which has bought back tens of billions of dollars in stock over the years. His fortune is now largely tied to Oracle’s AI bets, growing cloud business, and its alignment with government digital projects.&nbsp;Bloomberg notes that Ellison has also gained from Tesla, he was once on the company’s board and holds a sizeable stake. Despite signing the Giving Pledge, his philanthropic donations remain limited compared to peers like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett.<h2>Has Ellison ever been this rich before?</h2>Ellison briefly overtook Zuckerberg and Bezos in 2022, but tech market volatility reportedly knocked him down. The current surge in Oracle’s share price, combined with global AI investments and Washington's support has put his ranking on firmer ground.&nbsp;According to Bloomberg, Ellison is now about $17 billion richer than Zuckerberg and just $13 billion shy of Musk.<h2>What makes him different from other tech titans?</h2>Ellison isn’t an engineer like Musk or a coder like Zuckerberg. He’s a strategist, investor, and marketer, who built his empire through bold acquisitions, salesmanship, and government contracts. He’s also reportedly known for his combative streak. Bloomberg notes that Ellison waged corporate wars against rivals like SAP, Salesforce, and even Bill Gates.&nbsp;&nbsp;At one point, he even tried to acquire Apple, though Steve Jobs declined. His management style is relentless. A former colleague once told Bloomberg that, “Larry doesn’t want to win. He wants you to lose.”<h2>What’s next for him?</h2>With Oracle powering more AI infrastructure and Ellison cementing ties to Trump’s White House, his influence could stretch far beyond Silicon Valley.&nbsp;He’s not just building software anymore. He’s helping build the backbone of America’s digital future and rewriting the billionaire playbook along the way.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Ellison has strong connections with Donald Trump, having hosted a fundraiser in 2020 and having Oracle positioned for government contracts and potential acquisitions like TikTok US operations. Unlike other tech moguls, he focuses on strategy and sales, actively challenging rivals. 

Larry Ellison, who owns nearly an entire Hawaiian island, co-founded Oracle, and helped power the CIA’s earliest databases. Now, at the age of 80, Ellison has become the second-richest person in the world. With this he even surpassed Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and positioned himself at the centre of America’s AI and political transformation. On the Bloomberg Billionaire Index, with a fortune swelling to $251 billion, Ellison trails only Elon Musk and pushed Jeff Bezos and Bernard Arnault further down the list. But who is Larry Ellison? How did a college dropout become Silicon Valley’s stealth power player and now a key figure in Donald Trump’s AI ambitions? Who is Larry Ellison? Born in 1944 in New York City, Ellison was raised by his great-aunt and uncle on the south side of Chicago. After dropping out of college twice, first from the University of Illinois and then the University of Chicago, he moved to California in the late 1960s, joining the state’s early computer revolution, as per Bloomberg. In 1977, Ellison reportedly co-founded a company called Software Development Laboratories, which later became Oracle. Their first major client was reportedly the CIA, and their project, codenamed “Oracle" helped lay the foundation for the global database industry. According to Bloomberg, Ellison built his reputation not as a coder, but as a visionary and salesman. As he once told Bloomberg in 2003 interview that, “I’m not a tech guy. I sell software the way other people sell cars.” Why is he back in the spotlight now? Ellison’s net worth reportedly soared by $6 billion in a single day on July 15, after US officials eased chip restrictions on China, boosting Oracle shares by nearly 6 per cent, as per Bloomberg. Oracle is now one of the biggest players in the AI cloud computing race, supplying infrastructure to firms like OpenAI. The company is reportedly challenging Amazon and Microsoft in the battle to host large language models and Ellison is emerging as a quiet giant in Washington’s AI-industrial complex. Bloomberg also reports that Oracle is set to play a key role in Trump’s proposed “Stargate” AI project, a multi-agency effort to secure American dominance in artificial intelligence. How close is he to Donald Trump? Ellison is one of the rare tech billionaires who publicly aligned with Trump. In 2020, he even hosted a fundraiser for the Republican leader at his estate in Rancho Mirage, California. This reportedly bought a lot of criticism from Silicon Valley circles. According to Bloomberg, Oracle is in the running to acquire TikTok’s US operations if Trump forces a divestment. It also reportedly won government cloud contracts during Trump’s first term and is poised to benefit from his second-term industrial policy particularly around AI and digital infrastructure. In previous Bloomberg reporting, Ellison called Trump “A friend who understands how important it is for America to win the technology race.” What does Larry Ellison own? According to Bloomberg data, Ellison owns 98 per cent of Lanai, the sixth-largest Hawaiian island, which he purchased for about $300 million in 2012. His real estate portfolio is reportedly among the most opulent in the world, featuring a $200 million estate in Woodside, California, alongside luxurious properties in Malibu, Newport, and Palm Beach. Ellison also reportedly owns a fleet of luxury yachts and private jets, further cementing his billionaire lifestyle. He is the owner of the Indian Wells Tennis Garden, one of the premier venues in professional tennis. In addition to these assets, Ellison co-founded Sensei, a wellness tech company focused on longevity, which blends artificial intelligence, nutrition, and spa culture, particularly integrated into his Hawaiian developments, as per Bloomberg reports. How did he make his money? Much of Ellison’s wealth reportedly comes from his 42 per cent stake in Oracle, which has bought back tens of billions of dollars in stock over the years. His fortune is now largely tied to Oracle’s AI bets, growing cloud business, and its alignment with government digital projects. Bloomberg notes that Ellison has also gained from Tesla, he was once on the company’s board and holds a sizeable stake. Despite signing the Giving Pledge, his philanthropic donations remain limited compared to peers like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett. Has Ellison ever been this rich before? Ellison briefly overtook Zuckerberg and Bezos in 2022, but tech market volatility reportedly knocked him down. The current surge in Oracle’s share price, combined with global AI investments and Washington's support has put his ranking on firmer ground. According to Bloomberg, Ellison is now about $17 billion richer than Zuckerberg and just $13 billion shy of Musk. What makes him different from other tech titans? Ellison isn’t an engineer like Musk or a coder like Zuckerberg. He’s a strategist, investor, and marketer, who built his empire through bold acquisitions, salesmanship, and government contracts. He’s also reportedly known for his combative streak. Bloomberg notes that Ellison waged corporate wars against rivals like SAP, Salesforce, and even Bill Gates. At one point, he even tried to acquire Apple, though Steve Jobs declined. His management style is relentless. A former colleague once told Bloomberg that, “Larry doesn’t want to win. He wants you to lose.” What’s next for him? With Oracle powering more AI infrastructure and Ellison cementing ties to Trump’s White House, his influence could stretch far beyond Silicon Valley. He’s not just building software anymore. He’s helping build the backbone of America’s digital future and rewriting the billionaire playbook along the way.

Larry Ellison, co-founder of Oracle and owner of nearly all of Lanai, the sixth-largest Hawaiian island, has become the second-richest person globally, with a net worth of $251 billion.

Oracle’s billionaire founder becomes world’s second-richest man: Who is Larry Ellison?

The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on July 17 that it plans to adopt new rules aimed at blocking the connection of undersea submarine communication cables to the US that include Chinese technology or equipment. This decision is part of a broader initiative to safeguard the US internet infrastructure from potential threats posed by foreign adversaries, particularly China. “We have seen submarine cable infrastructure threatened in recent years by foreign adversaries, like China,” said FCC Chair Brendan Carr in a statement. “We are therefore taking action here to guard our submarine cables against foreign adversary ownership and access as well as cyber and physical threats.”<h2>Security concerns over subsea cable networks</h2>The US has long expressed concerns over China’s involvement in the management and operation of global subsea cables, citing risks of espionage and cybersecurity breaches. More than 400 undersea cables currently handle approximately 99 per cent of international internet traffic, making them vital to global communication. In recent years, the US government has heightened its scrutiny of Chinese involvement in these networks, fearing that the country could exploit this infrastructure for surveillance or cyberattacks.The FCC’s announcement comes as part of a continued effort to protect national security. Since 2020, US regulators have successfully blocked the development of several subsea cables that would have linked the United States to Hong Kong, raising alarms about Chinese access to critical communication networks.<h2>Banning Chinese equipment in critical infrastructure</h2>The new rules would restrict the use of equipment and services from companies on an FCC blacklist, which includes major Chinese firms like Huawei, ZTE, China Telecom, and China Mobile. These companies have been identified as national security threats due to their ties to the Chinese government and concerns over potential misuse of the networks.Carr emphasised that the FCC’s actions were necessary to address the growing risks to submarine cable security, particularly as incidents of sabotage and physical attacks on undersea cables have escalated. In 2023, Taiwan accused Chinese vessels of cutting the only cables providing internet access to the Matsu Islands, and similar incidents have been reported in the Red Sea, where three cables serving Europe and Asia were damaged. The FCC will also seek public comment on additional measures to further strengthen the security of submarine cables against foreign adversary interference.

The move to block Chinese technology or equipment is part of a broader initiative to safeguard the US internet infrastructure from potential threats posed by foreign adversaries, particularly China.

The United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced on July 17 that it plans to adopt new rules aimed at blocking the connection of undersea submarine communication cables to the US that include Chinese technology or equipment. This decision is part of a broader initiative to safeguard the US internet infrastructure from potential threats posed by foreign adversaries, particularly China. “We have seen submarine cable infrastructure threatened in recent years by foreign adversaries, like China,” said FCC Chair Brendan Carr in a statement. “We are therefore taking action here to guard our submarine cables against foreign adversary ownership and access as well as cyber and physical threats.” Security concerns over subsea cable networks The US has long expressed concerns over China’s involvement in the management and operation of global subsea cables, citing risks of espionage and cybersecurity breaches. More than 400 undersea cables currently handle approximately 99 per cent of international internet traffic, making them vital to global communication. In recent years, the US government has heightened its scrutiny of Chinese involvement in these networks, fearing that the country could exploit this infrastructure for surveillance or cyberattacks. The FCC’s announcement comes as part of a continued effort to protect national security. Since 2020, US regulators have successfully blocked the development of several subsea cables that would have linked the United States to Hong Kong, raising alarms about Chinese access to critical communication networks. Banning Chinese equipment in critical infrastructure The new rules would restrict the use of equipment and services from companies on an FCC blacklist, which includes major Chinese firms like Huawei, ZTE, China Telecom, and China Mobile. These companies have been identified as national security threats due to their ties to the Chinese government and concerns over potential misuse of the networks. Carr emphasised that the FCC’s actions were necessary to address the growing risks to submarine cable security, particularly as incidents of sabotage and physical attacks on undersea cables have escalated. In 2023, Taiwan accused Chinese vessels of cutting the only cables providing internet access to the Matsu Islands, and similar incidents have been reported in the Red Sea, where three cables serving Europe and Asia were damaged. The FCC will also seek public comment on additional measures to further strengthen the security of submarine cables against foreign adversary interference.

The move to block Chinese technology or equipment is part of a broader initiative to safeguard the US internet infrastructure from potential threats posed by foreign adversaries, particularly China.

United States moves to block Chinese technology in submarine cable infrastructure

The UK’s unemployment rate has surged to 4.7 per cent, the highest level in more than four years, as businesses scale back hiring and cut jobs in response to Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s fiscal tightening, including sharp tax hikes and wage mandates. As per the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the jobless rate rose in the three months to May, exceeding economists’ expectations of 4.6 per cent. It now stands at the highest level since early 2021, signalling a slowdown in a labour market once considered tight.&nbsp;The number of payroll employees dropped by 41,000 in June, while job vacancies declined for a third consecutive year to 727,000, highlighting broad-based hiring fatigue. Wage growth also cooled, with average regular pay excluding bonuses easing to 5 per cent, down from 5.3 per cent in the previous quarter. Notably, private sector pay growth slipped to 4.9 per cent, its weakest reading since February 2022.<h2>Tax hikes and wage pressure trigger job cuts</h2>Economists and business lobbies are pointing to April’s tax-and-wage reforms as the trigger. The government rolled out a £26 billion ($35 billion) payroll tax hike, alongside a 7 per cent increase in the minimum wage, in a bid to boost revenues and household incomes.&nbsp;“Payroll employment has fallen in seven of the eight months since the Chancellor announced the rises in National Insurance contributions (NICs) and the minimum wage,” said Paul Dales, Chief UK Economist at Capital Economics, as quoted by The Telegraph. “Clearly, businesses are offsetting the rise in costs by reducing headcounts.”&nbsp;According to Bloomberg, this jobs downturn is aligned with broader economic weakness, including back-to-back GDP contractions in April and May. Meanwhile, inflation ticked up to 3.6 per cent in June, further straining consumer and business sentiment.<h2>Bank of England rate cut now likely</h2>With unemployment rising and wage pressures receding, financial markets are increasingly betting on a Bank of England (BoE) rate cut in August. Traders are now pricing in an over 80 per cent probability of a 25-basis point cut.&nbsp;BoE Governor Andrew Bailey, speaking to The Times earlier this week, noted that policymakers were “watching for signs of slack opening up more quickly” in the labour market. This latest data “adds critical weight to that view,” said Paige Tao, economist at PwC UK, as quoted by The Telegraph.Bailey had earlier stated that the BoE would move “gradually and responsibly”, balancing the risks of persistent inflation with those of faltering growth and rising joblessness.<h2>Employers retreat from hiring</h2>According to ONS director Liz McKeown, the figures confirm a marked cooling: “The labour market continues to weaken, with the number of employees on payroll falling again… Job vacancies have now been dropping continuously for three years,” she told the BBC.&nbsp;Sectors like hospitality and retail, which are highly sensitive to wage and cost changes, saw the sharpest losses. Over the past year, the hospitality industry shed 108,000 payroll jobs, while retail and wholesale posted declines of over 65,500, as per ONS data.&nbsp;Conversely, the health and social care sector recorded hiring gains, adding 67,000 jobs over the same period, reflecting strong demand and public-sector resilience.<h2>Political and business backlash</h2>The Labour government now faces growing criticism from opposition leaders and business groups.l “Unemployment is the only thing growing under Labour,” said Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith, highlighting the rise in joblessness and falling labour demand.&nbsp;Alex Hall-Chen, a policy adviser at the Institute of Directors, also criticised the policy impact. In a statement quoted by The Telegraph, she said: “This continued slump in labour demand is the predictable result of policy blows… The increase in employer NICs, the Employment Rights Bill, and above-inflation hikes to the National Living Wage have significantly increased the costs and risks of hiring staff.” She urged the government to undertake “a significant rethink” to support jobs and growth.&nbsp;At the same time, Home Office Minister Jess Phillips, speaking to Sky News, acknowledged the data was “worrying”, but defended Labour’s approach. “Fourteen years of stagnant growth is not something that changes overnight… We are fiercely focused on creating long-term investment and economic growth,” she said.<h2>Markets react</h2>Markets responded with cautious optimism on hopes of faster monetary easing. The FTSE 100 rose 0.3 per cent to 8,950.09, while the FTSE 250 also gained 0.3 per cent.&nbsp;The British pound slipped 0.2 per cent to $1.338, reflecting market confidence that interest rates will fall. Sterling rose slightly against the euro as traders braced for potential policy action in the coming&nbsp;weeks.&nbsp;

The jobless rate surpassed expectations, with a drop of 41,000 payroll employees in June and job vacancies declining for the third year to 727,000. Wage growth also slowed to 5%, with private sector pay at its lowest since February 2022. 

The UK’s unemployment rate has surged to 4.7 per cent, the highest level in more than four years, as businesses scale back hiring and cut jobs in response to Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s fiscal tightening, including sharp tax hikes and wage mandates. As per the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the jobless rate rose in the three months to May, exceeding economists’ expectations of 4.6 per cent. It now stands at the highest level since early 2021, signalling a slowdown in a labour market once considered tight. The number of payroll employees dropped by 41,000 in June, while job vacancies declined for a third consecutive year to 727,000, highlighting broad-based hiring fatigue. Wage growth also cooled, with average regular pay excluding bonuses easing to 5 per cent, down from 5.3 per cent in the previous quarter. Notably, private sector pay growth slipped to 4.9 per cent, its weakest reading since February 2022. Tax hikes and wage pressure trigger job cuts Economists and business lobbies are pointing to April’s tax-and-wage reforms as the trigger. The government rolled out a £26 billion ($35 billion) payroll tax hike, alongside a 7 per cent increase in the minimum wage, in a bid to boost revenues and household incomes. “Payroll employment has fallen in seven of the eight months since the Chancellor announced the rises in National Insurance contributions (NICs) and the minimum wage,” said Paul Dales, Chief UK Economist at Capital Economics, as quoted by The Telegraph. “Clearly, businesses are offsetting the rise in costs by reducing headcounts.” According to Bloomberg, this jobs downturn is aligned with broader economic weakness, including back-to-back GDP contractions in April and May. Meanwhile, inflation ticked up to 3.6 per cent in June, further straining consumer and business sentiment. Bank of England rate cut now likely With unemployment rising and wage pressures receding, financial markets are increasingly betting on a Bank of England (BoE) rate cut in August. Traders are now pricing in an over 80 per cent probability of a 25-basis point cut. BoE Governor Andrew Bailey, speaking to The Times earlier this week, noted that policymakers were “watching for signs of slack opening up more quickly” in the labour market. This latest data “adds critical weight to that view,” said Paige Tao, economist at PwC UK, as quoted by The Telegraph. Bailey had earlier stated that the BoE would move “gradually and responsibly”, balancing the risks of persistent inflation with those of faltering growth and rising joblessness. Employers retreat from hiring According to ONS director Liz McKeown, the figures confirm a marked cooling: “The labour market continues to weaken, with the number of employees on payroll falling again… Job vacancies have now been dropping continuously for three years,” she told the BBC. Sectors like hospitality and retail, which are highly sensitive to wage and cost changes, saw the sharpest losses. Over the past year, the hospitality industry shed 108,000 payroll jobs, while retail and wholesale posted declines of over 65,500, as per ONS data. Conversely, the health and social care sector recorded hiring gains, adding 67,000 jobs over the same period, reflecting strong demand and public-sector resilience. Political and business backlash The Labour government now faces growing criticism from opposition leaders and business groups.l “Unemployment is the only thing growing under Labour,” said Shadow Business Secretary Andrew Griffith, highlighting the rise in joblessness and falling labour demand. Alex Hall-Chen, a policy adviser at the Institute of Directors, also criticised the policy impact. In a statement quoted by The Telegraph, she said: “This continued slump in labour demand is the predictable result of policy blows… The increase in employer NICs, the Employment Rights Bill, and above-inflation hikes to the National Living Wage have significantly increased the costs and risks of hiring staff.” She urged the government to undertake “a significant rethink” to support jobs and growth. At the same time, Home Office Minister Jess Phillips, speaking to Sky News, acknowledged the data was “worrying”, but defended Labour’s approach. “Fourteen years of stagnant growth is not something that changes overnight… We are fiercely focused on creating long-term investment and economic growth,” she said. Markets react Markets responded with cautious optimism on hopes of faster monetary easing. The FTSE 100 rose 0.3 per cent to 8,950.09, while the FTSE 250 also gained 0.3 per cent. The British pound slipped 0.2 per cent to $1.338, reflecting market confidence that interest rates will fall. Sterling rose slightly against the euro as traders braced for potential policy action in the coming weeks.

The UK’s unemployment rate has risen to 4.7%, the highest in over four years, as businesses reduce hiring amid Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s tax increases and wage mandates.

UK jobless rate hits 4.7%, highest since 2021 amid tax-driven layoffs

The future of three key cryptocurrency regulation bills remained uncertain on July 16 after a prolonged and contentious debate in the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives. The legislation, designed to create the first federal framework for digital assets, was delayed for over nine hours as GOP (Grand Old Party) lawmakers struggled to find common ground. However, late on July 16, after intervention by President Donald Trump, the bills were cleared for debate, paving the way for a potential breakthrough in what had been described as Crypto Week on Capitol Hill.The trio of bills includes the GENIUS Act, which passed the Senate in June, as well as the CLARITY Act and a controversial measure to block the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). The legislation would significantly reshape the regulatory landscape for cryptocurrencies, including stablecoins, which are pegged to the US dollar, and define when crypto products are considered commodities rather than securities.<h2>Trump’s influence and GOP divisions</h2>The road to approval hit a major hurdle on July 15 when a group of conservative Republicans joined Democrats in blocking a procedural vote. The standoff appeared to jeopardise the entire package, but Trump intervened later that day, meeting with a dozen conservative holdouts and securing their support for a second vote. Despite this effort, opposition resurfaced on July 16 from moderate Republicans, with some lawmakers in key committees opposing last-minute changes to the bills.“We had a lengthy negotiation process,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters after the vote. “It took longer than we had hoped, but we’re pleased we were able to break the logjam. Consensus was built, and now we're moving forward.”Late on July 16, after hours of closed-door discussions, a final vote advanced the crypto bills to the floor for debate. The final vote was a narrow 217-212, marking a new record for the longest open vote in modern House history. A crucial part of the compromise included attaching the anti-CBDC measure to the must-pass National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA), a move that was seen as key to securing the votes of conservatives, particularly those concerned about government surveillance over financial transactions.<h2>A watershed moment for crypto legislation</h2>For the crypto industry, the vote was a major step forward after months of uncertainty. The legislation’s passage through the House would be a critical milestone, particularly the stablecoin bill, which has already passed the Senate. Stablecoins have gained popularity in the cryptocurrency market as a way to move funds quickly and cheaply compared to traditional banking systems.Additionally, the bills would establish market structure rules to determine when crypto products are commodities and not under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The third bill, strongly supported by conservatives, would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital currency, which many see as a potential threat to privacy and financial autonomy.Despite the setbacks, the resolution of the procedural hurdles raised hopes that Congress could finally provide a regulatory framework for digital assets. The crypto industry, which has contributed millions of dollars to House members during past campaigns, is eager for clear federal rules that would help it grow and thrive in the US.Trump’s backing of the legislation has also drawn attention. Once a sceptic of cryptocurrency, Trump has embraced the industry in recent months, even launching his own meme coin and entering the crypto mining business. His involvement has sparked discussions about the broader role of crypto in the American economy and his influence over the Republican Party.With the procedural roadblocks cleared, House leaders are now expected to vote on the GENIUS Act as early as July 17, with other measures possibly pushed into next week. However, the contentious battle in the House reflects the broader divisions within the GOP on how best to regulate the rapidly growing digital asset sector.

The crypto bills would establish market structure rules to determine when crypto products are commodities and not under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The future of three key cryptocurrency regulation bills remained uncertain on July 16 after a prolonged and contentious debate in the Republican-controlled US House of Representatives. The legislation, designed to create the first federal framework for digital assets, was delayed for over nine hours as GOP (Grand Old Party) lawmakers struggled to find common ground. However, late on July 16, after intervention by President Donald Trump, the bills were cleared for debate, paving the way for a potential breakthrough in what had been described as Crypto Week on Capitol Hill. The trio of bills includes the GENIUS Act, which passed the Senate in June, as well as the CLARITY Act and a controversial measure to block the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). The legislation would significantly reshape the regulatory landscape for cryptocurrencies, including stablecoins, which are pegged to the US dollar, and define when crypto products are considered commodities rather than securities. Trump’s influence and GOP divisions The road to approval hit a major hurdle on July 15 when a group of conservative Republicans joined Democrats in blocking a procedural vote. The standoff appeared to jeopardise the entire package, but Trump intervened later that day, meeting with a dozen conservative holdouts and securing their support for a second vote. Despite this effort, opposition resurfaced on July 16 from moderate Republicans, with some lawmakers in key committees opposing last-minute changes to the bills. “We had a lengthy negotiation process,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters after the vote. “It took longer than we had hoped, but we’re pleased we were able to break the logjam. Consensus was built, and now we're moving forward.” Late on July 16, after hours of closed-door discussions, a final vote advanced the crypto bills to the floor for debate. The final vote was a narrow 217-212, marking a new record for the longest open vote in modern House history. A crucial part of the compromise included attaching the anti-CBDC measure to the must-pass National Defense Authorisation Act (NDAA), a move that was seen as key to securing the votes of conservatives, particularly those concerned about government surveillance over financial transactions. A watershed moment for crypto legislation For the crypto industry, the vote was a major step forward after months of uncertainty. The legislation’s passage through the House would be a critical milestone, particularly the stablecoin bill, which has already passed the Senate. Stablecoins have gained popularity in the cryptocurrency market as a way to move funds quickly and cheaply compared to traditional banking systems. Additionally, the bills would establish market structure rules to determine when crypto products are commodities and not under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The third bill, strongly supported by conservatives, would prevent the Federal Reserve from issuing a digital currency, which many see as a potential threat to privacy and financial autonomy. Despite the setbacks, the resolution of the procedural hurdles raised hopes that Congress could finally provide a regulatory framework for digital assets. The crypto industry, which has contributed millions of dollars to House members during past campaigns, is eager for clear federal rules that would help it grow and thrive in the US. Trump’s backing of the legislation has also drawn attention. Once a sceptic of cryptocurrency, Trump has embraced the industry in recent months, even launching his own meme coin and entering the crypto mining business. His involvement has sparked discussions about the broader role of crypto in the American economy and his influence over the Republican Party. With the procedural roadblocks cleared, House leaders are now expected to vote on the GENIUS Act as early as July 17, with other measures possibly pushed into next week. However, the contentious battle in the House reflects the broader divisions within the GOP on how best to regulate the rapidly growing digital asset sector.

The crypto bills would establish market structure rules to determine when crypto products are commodities and not under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Crypto bills face setbacks in House as Republicans struggle to forge consensus

Donald Trump’s renewed pressure on US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has rattled both Washington and Wall Street. At the centre of the storm is a simple but unprecedented question: Can Trump fire Powell? And if he does, what happens next? While Trump has publicly downplayed the idea, calling Powell’s removal “highly unlikely, unless he has to leave for fraud”, reports of the president preparing for action have stirred markets and alarmed legal scholars.&nbsp;Let’s unpack the legal grey zones, market reactions, and the political risks of what would be a first in US history.<h2>Could Trump legally fire Jerome Powell?</h2>At the heart of the debate is Section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act, which states that members of the Fed’s Board of Governors, including the Chair “can be removed for cause”. However, the phrase “for cause” has never been tested in the Supreme Court within the context of the Federal Reserve.&nbsp;&nbsp;According to a Columbia Law School paper by Jane Manners and Lev Menand, the term typically refers to inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. These standards are vague and rarely applied, and no US president has ever attempted to invoke them against a Fed chair. If Trump were to act, it would almost certainly set off a legal battle. As per Bloomberg, Powell could seek an emergency injunction from a federal court to stay in office while litigation unfolds. The case would likely reach the Supreme Court, creating a high-profile test of presidential power.<h2>What is the ‘fraud’ claim Trump is citing?</h2>Trump has pointed to the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s headquarters in Washington, up from a previous estimate of $1.9 billion, as potential grounds for dismissal. The cost increases stemmed from asbestos issues, design changes, and regulatory reviews. The decision was approved by the Fed board, not Powell personally.&nbsp;Still, Trump and his allies are building a narrative. On July 10, Russell Vought, former White House budget chief, called the renovation an “ostentatious overhaul” on social media. Bill Pulte, a Trump-appointed regulator at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, accused Powell of misleading Congress, though no evidence has been presented. The Fed maintains that Powell testified accurately, and the central bank’s Inspector General has opened a probe at Powell’s own request.<h2>What happens if Powell is removed?</h2>If Trump removes Powell, Vice Chair Philip Jefferson, a Biden appointee, would serve as acting chair under existing law. A permanent replacement would require Senate confirmation, a process that could stretch for weeks or months. But replacing Powell may not deliver Trump’s intended outcome. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which actually sets interest rates, can choose its own chair and is not legally bound to select the Fed chair.&nbsp;&nbsp;While traditionally the roles have aligned, the FOMC has 19 members (12 of whom vote), any of whom could be elected as chair. This means Trump could remove Powell but still fail to control monetary policy, particularly if Jefferson or another member continues the Fed’s cautious stance on rate cuts.<h2>What would the courts say?</h2>The Supreme Court has recently tilted in favour of broader presidential powers, particularly in Trump-related rulings. In 2024, it granted him sweeping criminal immunity and allowed contested policies to proceed. Still, the Court has treated the Fed differently. In a May 2024 decision, it referred to the central bank as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity”, implying that the president’s authority over it may be more limited than with other agencies.&nbsp;Boston University’s Jed Shugerman told Reuters that the current court seems to be “getting out of Trump’s way”, but others like Jonathan Shaub of the University of Kentucky caution that even if Trump’s actions are ruled illegal, the courts may hesitate to reinstate Powell, especially given recent rulings that restrict judicial reappointments of senior officials.<h2>How did markets react?</h2>The threat to Powell’s tenure triggered a swift reaction in global markets. Within 30 minutes of the Bloomberg report detailing Trump’s potential move, the S&amp;P 500 fell by 1 per cent. Yields on 30-year US Treasury bonds surged by 10 basis points, reflecting fears of long-term volatility. Meanwhile, the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index slid by 1.2 per cent, signalling concerns about the Fed’s future policy stance.&nbsp;These moves reflect the Fed’s foundational role in market stability. Investors are deeply concerned about political interference in central banking, especially at a time when inflation remains volatile and the US economy is navigating post-COVID interest rate dynamics.<h2>Could Trump win the legal fight?</h2>It depends on how the case is framed. If Trump argues that Powell was inefficient or engaged in misconduct over the building renovation, courts would have to assess whether Powell directly authorised the overruns, whether those actions meet the legal standard for “cause”, and whether the Fed’s semi-independent status insulates him from dismissal altogether. There is no precedent. No Fed chair has ever been fired.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue. But with Washington’s political landscape shifting and the judiciary’s recent deference to presidential power, Trump may find a path, albeit a legally contested one. Trump’s feud with Jerome Powell is no longer just a monetary policy debate. It’s a constitutional confrontation over the limits of presidential authority, the independence of America’s central bank, and the credibility of financial governance. If Trump proceeds, the consequences will go far beyond interest rates. It would be a test of how far the US system is willing to stretch or break under pressure from a single president.<h2>Has any US president fired a Fed chair?</h2>No US president has ever fired a sitting Federal Reserve Chair. Not during war, economic crisis, or political turmoil. Even in past disagreements, such as Richard Nixon’s clash with then-Chair Arthur Burns, the White House never took legal action to remove the Fed head.&nbsp;According to legal scholars cited by Bloomberg, the Federal Reserve has long been viewed as an independent agency, buffered from direct political control. Trump’s attempt would mark a historical first and test the constitutional boundaries of executive power. &nbsp;

If Trump proceeds, it could lead to a significant legal battle, testing the limits of presidential power and the independence of the Fed. Historically, no president has dismissed a Fed chair, highlighting how unprecedented Trump actions would be. 

Donald Trump’s renewed pressure on US Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has rattled both Washington and Wall Street. At the centre of the storm is a simple but unprecedented question: Can Trump fire Powell? And if he does, what happens next? While Trump has publicly downplayed the idea, calling Powell’s removal “highly unlikely, unless he has to leave for fraud”, reports of the president preparing for action have stirred markets and alarmed legal scholars. Let’s unpack the legal grey zones, market reactions, and the political risks of what would be a first in US history. Could Trump legally fire Jerome Powell? At the heart of the debate is Section 10 of the Federal Reserve Act, which states that members of the Fed’s Board of Governors, including the Chair “can be removed for cause”. However, the phrase “for cause” has never been tested in the Supreme Court within the context of the Federal Reserve. According to a Columbia Law School paper by Jane Manners and Lev Menand, the term typically refers to inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. These standards are vague and rarely applied, and no US president has ever attempted to invoke them against a Fed chair. If Trump were to act, it would almost certainly set off a legal battle. As per Bloomberg, Powell could seek an emergency injunction from a federal court to stay in office while litigation unfolds. The case would likely reach the Supreme Court, creating a high-profile test of presidential power. What is the ‘fraud’ claim Trump is citing? Trump has pointed to the $2.5 billion renovation of the Fed’s headquarters in Washington, up from a previous estimate of $1.9 billion, as potential grounds for dismissal. The cost increases stemmed from asbestos issues, design changes, and regulatory reviews. The decision was approved by the Fed board, not Powell personally. Still, Trump and his allies are building a narrative. On July 10, Russell Vought, former White House budget chief, called the renovation an “ostentatious overhaul” on social media. Bill Pulte, a Trump-appointed regulator at the Federal Housing Finance Agency, accused Powell of misleading Congress, though no evidence has been presented. The Fed maintains that Powell testified accurately, and the central bank’s Inspector General has opened a probe at Powell’s own request. What happens if Powell is removed? If Trump removes Powell, Vice Chair Philip Jefferson, a Biden appointee, would serve as acting chair under existing law. A permanent replacement would require Senate confirmation, a process that could stretch for weeks or months. But replacing Powell may not deliver Trump’s intended outcome. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which actually sets interest rates, can choose its own chair and is not legally bound to select the Fed chair. While traditionally the roles have aligned, the FOMC has 19 members (12 of whom vote), any of whom could be elected as chair. This means Trump could remove Powell but still fail to control monetary policy, particularly if Jefferson or another member continues the Fed’s cautious stance on rate cuts. What would the courts say? The Supreme Court has recently tilted in favour of broader presidential powers, particularly in Trump-related rulings. In 2024, it granted him sweeping criminal immunity and allowed contested policies to proceed. Still, the Court has treated the Fed differently. In a May 2024 decision, it referred to the central bank as a “uniquely structured, quasi-private entity”, implying that the president’s authority over it may be more limited than with other agencies. Boston University’s Jed Shugerman told Reuters that the current court seems to be “getting out of Trump’s way”, but others like Jonathan Shaub of the University of Kentucky caution that even if Trump’s actions are ruled illegal, the courts may hesitate to reinstate Powell, especially given recent rulings that restrict judicial reappointments of senior officials. How did markets react? The threat to Powell’s tenure triggered a swift reaction in global markets. Within 30 minutes of the Bloomberg report detailing Trump’s potential move, the S&P 500 fell by 1 per cent. Yields on 30-year US Treasury bonds surged by 10 basis points, reflecting fears of long-term volatility. Meanwhile, the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index slid by 1.2 per cent, signalling concerns about the Fed’s future policy stance. These moves reflect the Fed’s foundational role in market stability. Investors are deeply concerned about political interference in central banking, especially at a time when inflation remains volatile and the US economy is navigating post-COVID interest rate dynamics. Could Trump win the legal fight? It depends on how the case is framed. If Trump argues that Powell was inefficient or engaged in misconduct over the building renovation, courts would have to assess whether Powell directly authorised the overruns, whether those actions meet the legal standard for “cause”, and whether the Fed’s semi-independent status insulates him from dismissal altogether. There is no precedent. No Fed chair has ever been fired. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue. But with Washington’s political landscape shifting and the judiciary’s recent deference to presidential power, Trump may find a path, albeit a legally contested one. Trump’s feud with Jerome Powell is no longer just a monetary policy debate. It’s a constitutional confrontation over the limits of presidential authority, the independence of America’s central bank, and the credibility of financial governance. If Trump proceeds, the consequences will go far beyond interest rates. It would be a test of how far the US system is willing to stretch or break under pressure from a single president. Has any US president fired a Fed chair? No US president has ever fired a sitting Federal Reserve Chair. Not during war, economic crisis, or political turmoil. Even in past disagreements, such as Richard Nixon’s clash with then-Chair Arthur Burns, the White House never took legal action to remove the Fed head. According to legal scholars cited by Bloomberg, the Federal Reserve has long been viewed as an independent agency, buffered from direct political control. Trump’s attempt would mark a historical first and test the constitutional boundaries of executive power.

Donald Trump is exerting pressure on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, raising questions about whether he can legally fire him. Though he had denied he won't do it, but what happens if he does?

Trump vs Powell: Can the US president fire the Fed chair?

In a landmark decision on July 16, South Korea’s Supreme Court cleared Samsung Electronics Chairman Jay Y. Lee of all charges related to an $8 billion merger involving two of the company’s affiliates, Samsung C&amp;T and Cheil Industries, in 2015. The ruling effectively ends one of the most high-profile corporate trials in the country, removing a long-running legal risk for Lee and Samsung. This development is seen as a major boost for Samsung’s leadership at a critical time as it seeks to lead in the global AI chip race.The case, which centred on accusations of accounting fraud, stock manipulation, and market violations, had dragged on for nearly five years. Lee was initially accused of using the merger to solidify his control over the conglomerate and manipulate stock prices to his advantage. The Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that found insufficient evidence for the charges, marking a decisive end to the legal battle that had clouded Lee’s ability to lead the company.<h2>A long-running legal battle comes to an end</h2>At the heart of the case were allegations that Lee and his aides orchestrated the 2015 merger to help secure his succession as the leader of Samsung Group following the health crisis of his father, Lee Kun-hee, who had been in a coma since 2014. Prosecutors argued that Lee's team manipulated stock prices and engaged in fraudulent accounting practices to push the deal through, but the courts ultimately found the evidence insufficient.One of the key factors in the court’s decision was the exclusion of certain digital evidence, including data from Samsung Biologics and Samsung Bioepis servers, which prosecutors had obtained during a search. The court ruled that the authorities had failed to adhere to legal procedures when collecting the data, violating the defendants’ rights. As a result, the evidence could not be used to support the charges.The ruling comes as a welcome relief to both Samsung and Lee, as the prolonged uncertainty had weighed heavily on investor confidence and posed a risk to the company’s stability. Shares of Samsung Electronics surged 3.1 per cent following the decision, outperforming the flat market benchmark KOSPI. Analysts attribute the rise to the resolution of legal uncertainty surrounding the company and the broader optimism about Samsung’s prospects.<h2>Boost for Samsung’s future amid global tech rivalry</h2>The acquittal of Lee is expected to provide a significant boost to Samsung, which is currently navigating intense global competition in sectors like artificial intelligence and semiconductors. Analysts believe that the ruling will allow Lee to focus on long-term growth initiatives without the distraction of legal battles, enabling Samsung to maintain its position as a global technology leader.“The Supreme Court ruling clears a layer of legal uncertainty, which could be a long-term positive for Samsung,” Ryu Young-ho, a senior analyst at NH Investment &amp; Securities, told Reuters. “If the owner takes a more active role, it could allow management to focus more on long-term initiatives rather than short-term results.”For Samsung, this legal clarity could be critical as it looks to ramp up investment in cutting-edge technologies such as AI chips. The company is also facing increasing pressure from rivals in the semiconductor industry, particularly from US-based companies like Intel and Nvidia.While the ruling provides much-needed stability for Samsung, it also highlights the challenges Lee faces in solidifying his control over the conglomerate and steering it through a period of technological transformation. As one of South Korea’s largest and most influential companies, Samsung’s fortunes have a significant impact on the country’s broader economy. Business lobby groups have praised the ruling, calling it a stabilising force at a time of economic uncertainty.

The ruling effectively ends one of the most high-profile corporate trials in the country, removing a long-running legal risk for Lee and Samsung. This development is seen as a major boost for Samsung’s leadership at a critical time as it seeks to lead in the global AI chip race.

In a landmark decision on July 16, South Korea’s Supreme Court cleared Samsung Electronics Chairman Jay Y. Lee of all charges related to an $8 billion merger involving two of the company’s affiliates, Samsung C&T and Cheil Industries, in 2015. The ruling effectively ends one of the most high-profile corporate trials in the country, removing a long-running legal risk for Lee and Samsung. This development is seen as a major boost for Samsung’s leadership at a critical time as it seeks to lead in the global AI chip race. The case, which centred on accusations of accounting fraud, stock manipulation, and market violations, had dragged on for nearly five years. Lee was initially accused of using the merger to solidify his control over the conglomerate and manipulate stock prices to his advantage. The Supreme Court upheld lower court rulings that found insufficient evidence for the charges, marking a decisive end to the legal battle that had clouded Lee’s ability to lead the company. A long-running legal battle comes to an end At the heart of the case were allegations that Lee and his aides orchestrated the 2015 merger to help secure his succession as the leader of Samsung Group following the health crisis of his father, Lee Kun-hee, who had been in a coma since 2014. Prosecutors argued that Lee's team manipulated stock prices and engaged in fraudulent accounting practices to push the deal through, but the courts ultimately found the evidence insufficient. One of the key factors in the court’s decision was the exclusion of certain digital evidence, including data from Samsung Biologics and Samsung Bioepis servers, which prosecutors had obtained during a search. The court ruled that the authorities had failed to adhere to legal procedures when collecting the data, violating the defendants’ rights. As a result, the evidence could not be used to support the charges. The ruling comes as a welcome relief to both Samsung and Lee, as the prolonged uncertainty had weighed heavily on investor confidence and posed a risk to the company’s stability. Shares of Samsung Electronics surged 3.1 per cent following the decision, outperforming the flat market benchmark KOSPI. Analysts attribute the rise to the resolution of legal uncertainty surrounding the company and the broader optimism about Samsung’s prospects. Boost for Samsung’s future amid global tech rivalry The acquittal of Lee is expected to provide a significant boost to Samsung, which is currently navigating intense global competition in sectors like artificial intelligence and semiconductors. Analysts believe that the ruling will allow Lee to focus on long-term growth initiatives without the distraction of legal battles, enabling Samsung to maintain its position as a global technology leader. “The Supreme Court ruling clears a layer of legal uncertainty, which could be a long-term positive for Samsung,” Ryu Young-ho, a senior analyst at NH Investment & Securities, told Reuters. “If the owner takes a more active role, it could allow management to focus more on long-term initiatives rather than short-term results.” For Samsung, this legal clarity could be critical as it looks to ramp up investment in cutting-edge technologies such as AI chips. The company is also facing increasing pressure from rivals in the semiconductor industry, particularly from US-based companies like Intel and Nvidia. While the ruling provides much-needed stability for Samsung, it also highlights the challenges Lee faces in solidifying his control over the conglomerate and steering it through a period of technological transformation. As one of South Korea’s largest and most influential companies, Samsung’s fortunes have a significant impact on the country’s broader economy. Business lobby groups have praised the ruling, calling it a stabilising force at a time of economic uncertainty.

The ruling effectively ends one of the most high-profile corporate trials in the country, removing a long-running legal risk for Lee and Samsung. This development is seen as a major boost for Samsung’s leadership at a critical time as it seeks to lead in the global AI chip race.

Samsung chairman cleared of fraud charges, legal uncertainty removed

Australia’s labour market has shown its first signs of strain in years, with the unemployment rate unexpectedly surging to a 3.5-year high in June, prompting markets to sharply raise expectations of an interest rate cut as early as August. According to data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on Thursday, the jobless rate rose to 4.3 per cent, the highest level since November 2021, up from 4.1 per cent in May. Employment rose by just 2,000 jobs in June, falling well short of economists’ expectations of a 20,000 gain.&nbsp;The soft print weighed on the Australian dollar, which fell 0.7 per cent to $0.6480, its weakest level in over three weeks. Bond markets also responded strongly, with three-year government bond yields tumbling 10 basis points to 3.386 per cent, while interest rate futures priced in an 85 per cent chance of a rate cut by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in August, up from 76 per cent earlier, as reported by Reuters.<h2>Rate cut speculation gains momentum</h2>The weak jobs data adds to the case for more policy easing. The RBA has already slashed interest rates twice this year to 3.85 per cent, but held them steady at its last meeting, citing concerns about sticky inflation.&nbsp;“While we’re still not ringing the alarm bells, June’s slackening is another good reason for the RBA to get a wriggle on with rate cuts,” said Harry Murphy Cruise, head of economic research at Oxford Economics Australia, as quoted by Reuters.&nbsp;Cruise also noted that the labour market faces fresh headwinds, particularly from President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which he said were “weighing on business investment and prompting some firms to rethink hiring plans.”<h2>Labour market cracks widen</h2>The underlying details of the report were notably soft. Full-time jobs dropped by 38,200, partially offset by a rise in part-time roles. Hours worked also fell by 0.9 per cent, erasing gains from May. Despite the higher unemployment, the labour force participation rate edged up slightly to 67.1 per cent. While leading indicators such as job vacancies had recently shown signs of stabilising—up 2.9 per cent in the May quarter—private sector job ad data from June showed a rebound to 12-month highs, suggesting the labour market may still hold some resilience.&nbsp;Yet analysts remain concerned about the overall direction. “There are clear signs of deceleration emerging in the labour market. This calls into question the RBA’s decision to prioritise inflation over growth and jobs at its meeting earlier this month,” said Tony Sycamore, market analyst at IG, as quoted by Reuters.<h2>Inflation, jobs, and a tricky RBA path</h2>Despite slowing growth, the RBA remains cautious. It wants to see clear signs that inflation is falling back toward its 2–3 per cent target range. Key data on third-quarter inflation, due later this month, will be pivotal in shaping the central bank’s next move.So far, the rate cuts have not sparked a surge in consumer demand. As per Reuters, economic growth remains sluggish, with household spending subdued.&nbsp;With jobs softening and inflation yet to decisively retreat, the RBA faces a delicate balancing act in its August meeting, amid growing pressure from markets to ease rates further.&nbsp;

Employment grew by just 2,000 jobs, far below the anticipated 20,000. This prompted speculation of an interest rate cut by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA). Bond yields fell, while the Australian dollar weakened. 

Australia’s labour market has shown its first signs of strain in years, with the unemployment rate unexpectedly surging to a 3.5-year high in June, prompting markets to sharply raise expectations of an interest rate cut as early as August. According to data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on Thursday, the jobless rate rose to 4.3 per cent, the highest level since November 2021, up from 4.1 per cent in May. Employment rose by just 2,000 jobs in June, falling well short of economists’ expectations of a 20,000 gain. The soft print weighed on the Australian dollar, which fell 0.7 per cent to $0.6480, its weakest level in over three weeks. Bond markets also responded strongly, with three-year government bond yields tumbling 10 basis points to 3.386 per cent, while interest rate futures priced in an 85 per cent chance of a rate cut by the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) in August, up from 76 per cent earlier, as reported by Reuters. Rate cut speculation gains momentum The weak jobs data adds to the case for more policy easing. The RBA has already slashed interest rates twice this year to 3.85 per cent, but held them steady at its last meeting, citing concerns about sticky inflation. “While we’re still not ringing the alarm bells, June’s slackening is another good reason for the RBA to get a wriggle on with rate cuts,” said Harry Murphy Cruise, head of economic research at Oxford Economics Australia, as quoted by Reuters. Cruise also noted that the labour market faces fresh headwinds, particularly from President Donald Trump’s tariffs, which he said were “weighing on business investment and prompting some firms to rethink hiring plans.” Labour market cracks widen The underlying details of the report were notably soft. Full-time jobs dropped by 38,200, partially offset by a rise in part-time roles. Hours worked also fell by 0.9 per cent, erasing gains from May. Despite the higher unemployment, the labour force participation rate edged up slightly to 67.1 per cent. While leading indicators such as job vacancies had recently shown signs of stabilising—up 2.9 per cent in the May quarter—private sector job ad data from June showed a rebound to 12-month highs, suggesting the labour market may still hold some resilience. Yet analysts remain concerned about the overall direction. “There are clear signs of deceleration emerging in the labour market. This calls into question the RBA’s decision to prioritise inflation over growth and jobs at its meeting earlier this month,” said Tony Sycamore, market analyst at IG, as quoted by Reuters. Inflation, jobs, and a tricky RBA path Despite slowing growth, the RBA remains cautious. It wants to see clear signs that inflation is falling back toward its 2–3 per cent target range. Key data on third-quarter inflation, due later this month, will be pivotal in shaping the central bank’s next move. So far, the rate cuts have not sparked a surge in consumer demand. As per Reuters, economic growth remains sluggish, with household spending subdued. With jobs softening and inflation yet to decisively retreat, the RBA faces a delicate balancing act in its August meeting, amid growing pressure from markets to ease rates further.

Australia's labour market is showing strain, with the unemployment rate rising to 4.3% in June, the highest since November 2021.

Australia jobless rate hits 3.5-year high, boosting rate cut bets

Japan’s export engine is spluttering. Fresh trade data released Thursday showed a second consecutive monthly decline in exports, a direct blow to the country’s fragile economy as US President Donald Trump’s tariffs hit key sectors such as automobiles and steel. According to Japan’s Finance Ministry, exports fell 0.5 per cent year-on-year in June, missing economists’ expectations for a 0.5 per cent rise.&nbsp;As reported by Bloomberg, the drop was driven by an 11.4 per cent fall in shipments to the United States, Japan’s largest trading partner. Vehicle exports to the US dropped 27 per cent in value, and steel exports plunged 29 per cent. Despite the sharp decline in value, Bloomberg noted that the number of passenger cars exported actually rose 4.6 per cent, &nbsp;a sign that Japanese carmakers are slashing prices to remain competitive under Washington’s escalating tariffs.<h2>No deal in sight, tariffs to climb on August 1</h2>Tokyo has failed to reach a trade agreement with the United States, despite seven trips to Washington by Japan’s trade envoy Ryosei Akazawa. As reported by Bloomberg, Japan is currently facing a 25 per cent tariff on cars and car parts, a 50 per cent levy on steel, and a baseline 10 per cent tariff on all other goods, set to rise to 25 per cent on August 1 unless a deal is struck.&nbsp;President Trump has signalled that the US may enforce the tariff hike as scheduled. “I think probably we’ll live by the letter with Japan,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday, as quoted by Bloomberg. Reuters reported that Japanese negotiators are now racing against time, with Akazawa holding a call with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Thursday morning. However, hopes for a resolution before Japan’s upper house elections on Sunday remain slim.<h2>Carmakers absorb pain — for now</h2>The sharp fall in the value of auto exports despite higher volumes reflects a deliberate strategy by Japanese automakers to absorb tariff costs. “Exports to the US, particularly autos, have fallen significantly. Carmakers are cutting costs and sacrificing their profits to absorb the impact of the tariffs,” said Takeshi Minami, chief economist at Norinchukin Research Institute, in an interview with Bloomberg.&nbsp;A similar assessment was offered by Koya Miyamae, senior economist at SMBC Nikko Securities, who told Reuters, “Japanese automakers have so far kept production levels by sacrificing margins, so the tariff impact on their production activities has been limited.”&nbsp;But the longer trade negotiations drag on, the harder it becomes to keep prices down. “The tariff impact is likely to intensify in coming months, when the tariff rate is finalised and Japanese companies begin to fully pass on costs to consumers in the US, which would hamper competitiveness of Japanese products there,” said Koki Akimoto, economist at Daiwa Institute of Research, as quoted by Reuters.<h2>Trade hit spreads beyond US</h2>The trade pain isn’t limited to the US. As per Reuters, exports to China also declined 4.7 per cent in June, although shipments to Europe managed to rise 3.6 per cent. On the import side, Japan saw a marginal 0.2 per cent rise in June, defying expectations for a 1.6 per cent drop.As a result, Japan recorded a trade surplus of ¥153.1 billion ($1.03 billion), its first in three months, but still well below market forecasts of ¥353.9 billion, according to Reuters.&nbsp;The yen averaged 144.04 against the dollar in June, about 8 per cent stronger than the same month a year ago, which further reduced the value of dollar-denominated exports when converted back into yen.<h2>Recession fears mount, BoJ likely to hold rates</h2>Japan’s economy contracted in the first quarter, and the latest trade figures suggest that a second consecutive contraction in Q2 is increasingly likely, meeting the definition of a technical recession.While some economists expect modest growth, others are more pessimistic. “Given the fluctuating statements from President Trump, uncertainty is likely to persist,” said Norinchukin’s Minami, as quoted by Bloomberg. “If reciprocal tariffs are raised to 25 per cent, the impact on exports other than automobiles would also be significant, potentially putting pressure on corporate profits and weighing on winter bonuses and next year’s wage increases.”&nbsp;As per Reuters, the Bank of Japan is expected to keep its monetary policy steady in the face of rising downside risks, as prolonged tariff uncertainty clouds the outlook for trade, corporate earnings, and consumer demand. With no deal in sight and tariffs climbing, Japan’s export-dependent economy is buckling under US trade pressure. Auto firms are already bleeding margins, and broader sectors may be next in line, setting up a high-stakes summer for both Tokyo and the Bank of&nbsp;Japan.&nbsp;

Shipments to the US, Japan largest trading partner, dropped 11.4%, driven by a 27% decline in vehicle exports and a 29% decrease in steel exports. Despite higher volumes, automakers are cutting prices to absorb tariffs. 

Japan’s export engine is spluttering. Fresh trade data released Thursday showed a second consecutive monthly decline in exports, a direct blow to the country’s fragile economy as US President Donald Trump’s tariffs hit key sectors such as automobiles and steel. According to Japan’s Finance Ministry, exports fell 0.5 per cent year-on-year in June, missing economists’ expectations for a 0.5 per cent rise. As reported by Bloomberg, the drop was driven by an 11.4 per cent fall in shipments to the United States, Japan’s largest trading partner. Vehicle exports to the US dropped 27 per cent in value, and steel exports plunged 29 per cent. Despite the sharp decline in value, Bloomberg noted that the number of passenger cars exported actually rose 4.6 per cent, a sign that Japanese carmakers are slashing prices to remain competitive under Washington’s escalating tariffs. No deal in sight, tariffs to climb on August 1 Tokyo has failed to reach a trade agreement with the United States, despite seven trips to Washington by Japan’s trade envoy Ryosei Akazawa. As reported by Bloomberg, Japan is currently facing a 25 per cent tariff on cars and car parts, a 50 per cent levy on steel, and a baseline 10 per cent tariff on all other goods, set to rise to 25 per cent on August 1 unless a deal is struck. President Trump has signalled that the US may enforce the tariff hike as scheduled. “I think probably we’ll live by the letter with Japan,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday, as quoted by Bloomberg. Reuters reported that Japanese negotiators are now racing against time, with Akazawa holding a call with US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Thursday morning. However, hopes for a resolution before Japan’s upper house elections on Sunday remain slim. Carmakers absorb pain — for now The sharp fall in the value of auto exports despite higher volumes reflects a deliberate strategy by Japanese automakers to absorb tariff costs. “Exports to the US, particularly autos, have fallen significantly. Carmakers are cutting costs and sacrificing their profits to absorb the impact of the tariffs,” said Takeshi Minami, chief economist at Norinchukin Research Institute, in an interview with Bloomberg. A similar assessment was offered by Koya Miyamae, senior economist at SMBC Nikko Securities, who told Reuters, “Japanese automakers have so far kept production levels by sacrificing margins, so the tariff impact on their production activities has been limited.” But the longer trade negotiations drag on, the harder it becomes to keep prices down. “The tariff impact is likely to intensify in coming months, when the tariff rate is finalised and Japanese companies begin to fully pass on costs to consumers in the US, which would hamper competitiveness of Japanese products there,” said Koki Akimoto, economist at Daiwa Institute of Research, as quoted by Reuters. Trade hit spreads beyond US The trade pain isn’t limited to the US. As per Reuters, exports to China also declined 4.7 per cent in June, although shipments to Europe managed to rise 3.6 per cent. On the import side, Japan saw a marginal 0.2 per cent rise in June, defying expectations for a 1.6 per cent drop. As a result, Japan recorded a trade surplus of ¥153.1 billion ($1.03 billion), its first in three months, but still well below market forecasts of ¥353.9 billion, according to Reuters. The yen averaged 144.04 against the dollar in June, about 8 per cent stronger than the same month a year ago, which further reduced the value of dollar-denominated exports when converted back into yen. Recession fears mount, BoJ likely to hold rates Japan’s economy contracted in the first quarter, and the latest trade figures suggest that a second consecutive contraction in Q2 is increasingly likely, meeting the definition of a technical recession.While some economists expect modest growth, others are more pessimistic. “Given the fluctuating statements from President Trump, uncertainty is likely to persist,” said Norinchukin’s Minami, as quoted by Bloomberg. “If reciprocal tariffs are raised to 25 per cent, the impact on exports other than automobiles would also be significant, potentially putting pressure on corporate profits and weighing on winter bonuses and next year’s wage increases.” As per Reuters, the Bank of Japan is expected to keep its monetary policy steady in the face of rising downside risks, as prolonged tariff uncertainty clouds the outlook for trade, corporate earnings, and consumer demand. With no deal in sight and tariffs climbing, Japan’s export-dependent economy is buckling under US trade pressure. Auto firms are already bleeding margins, and broader sectors may be next in line, setting up a high-stakes summer for both Tokyo and the Bank of Japan.

Japan's exports are facing a downturn, with trade data indicating a second consecutive monthly decline. Exports decreased by 0.5% year-on-year in June, falling short of economists' expectations.&nbsp;

Japan’s exports shrink as Trump tariffs hit autos, recession risks rise

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte warned that countries like India, China, and Brazil could face significant consequences if they persist in doing business with Russia amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. Speaking to US lawmakers on July 16, Rutte called on these nations to urge Russian President Vladimir Putin to engage in peace talks or risk being hit by severe secondary sanctions, particularly in the form of tariffs on Russian exports. Rutte’s comments come as US President Donald Trump has threatened to impose “biting” secondary tariffs of up to 100 per cent on countries that continue purchasing Russian goods, including oil, if there is no peace deal within the next 50 days. This marks a new phase in the global trade war, as the US seeks to exert pressure on nations supporting Russia in the conflict.<h2>Pressure on BRICS nations to choose sides</h2>Rutte’s remarks specifically targeted India, China, and Brazil, three key members of the BRICS bloc that have maintained strong trade relations with Moscow. “If you live now in Beijing or in Delhi, or you are the president of Brazil, you might want to take a look into this, because this might hit you very hard,” Rutte said, urging these nations to rethink their positions.He further warned, “Make the phone call to Vladimir Putin and tell him that he has to get serious about peace talks, because otherwise this will slam back on Brazil, on India, and on China in a massive way.” The NATO chief’s words come at a time when these countries are critical to Moscow’s energy trade, particularly in the oil sector. India and China have been among the largest buyers of Russian crude oil since the West imposed sanctions on Russian exports after the invasion of Ukraine.Brazil, India, and China—together with South Africa—form the core of the BRICS nations, which have been seen as an alternative to Western-led institutions. Their continued trade with Russia could potentially undermine the global sanctions regime imposed by Western powers. With Moscow offering steep discounts on its oil exports, countries like India have been quick to seize the opportunity, with Russian crude now accounting for nearly 40 per cent of India’s total oil imports as of June 2025.<h2>US threatens secondary tariffs over Russian oil imports</h2>As the US ramps up its efforts to isolate Russia economically, the threat of secondary sanctions has become a key tool in its arsenal. Trump’s administration has already proposed a bill that would impose a 500 per cent tariff on goods imported from countries that continue to buy Russian oil, gas, uranium, and other exports. The proposed legislation has garnered bipartisan support, signalling a robust push to penalise those who do business with Moscow.For India, the stakes are high. Russian crude oil now accounts for more than a third of the country’s oil imports, with the value of these imports surpassing $50 billion in 2024-25. Prior to the Ukraine war, Russia accounted for less than 2 per cent of India’s oil imports. If secondary tariffs are implemented, India would likely face a significant increase in oil prices, forcing it to seek alternative suppliers in West Asia, further straining its energy security.The potential consequences of such sanctions also extend beyond oil, with broader trade implications. As the US and India continue negotiations for a trade deal, the threat of secondary tariffs could complicate efforts, potentially derailing progress on other fronts.<h2>Will the US follow through on tariffs?</h2>It remains unclear whether the US will follow through with these tariff threats, given that previous announcements have been subject to delay or revision. However, experts suggest that even the mere threat of secondary sanctions could have a chilling effect on international trade relations, particularly with countries like India and China, who are already walking a fine line between their strategic interests and the pressure from the West. As global oil markets remain volatile, with Russia continuing to offer competitive prices, the coming weeks will likely see heightened geopolitical tensions as nations grapple with the looming threat of sanctions and trade restrictions.

NATO Chief’s comments come as US President Donald Trump has threatened to impose “biting” secondary tariffs of up to 100 per cent on countries that continue purchasing Russian goods, including oil, if there is no peace deal within the next 50 days.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte warned that countries like India, China, and Brazil could face significant consequences if they persist in doing business with Russia amid the ongoing war in Ukraine. Speaking to US lawmakers on July 16, Rutte called on these nations to urge Russian President Vladimir Putin to engage in peace talks or risk being hit by severe secondary sanctions, particularly in the form of tariffs on Russian exports. Rutte’s comments come as US President Donald Trump has threatened to impose “biting” secondary tariffs of up to 100 per cent on countries that continue purchasing Russian goods, including oil, if there is no peace deal within the next 50 days. This marks a new phase in the global trade war, as the US seeks to exert pressure on nations supporting Russia in the conflict. Pressure on BRICS nations to choose sides Rutte’s remarks specifically targeted India, China, and Brazil, three key members of the BRICS bloc that have maintained strong trade relations with Moscow. “If you live now in Beijing or in Delhi, or you are the president of Brazil, you might want to take a look into this, because this might hit you very hard,” Rutte said, urging these nations to rethink their positions. He further warned, “Make the phone call to Vladimir Putin and tell him that he has to get serious about peace talks, because otherwise this will slam back on Brazil, on India, and on China in a massive way.” The NATO chief’s words come at a time when these countries are critical to Moscow’s energy trade, particularly in the oil sector. India and China have been among the largest buyers of Russian crude oil since the West imposed sanctions on Russian exports after the invasion of Ukraine. Brazil, India, and China—together with South Africa—form the core of the BRICS nations, which have been seen as an alternative to Western-led institutions. Their continued trade with Russia could potentially undermine the global sanctions regime imposed by Western powers. With Moscow offering steep discounts on its oil exports, countries like India have been quick to seize the opportunity, with Russian crude now accounting for nearly 40 per cent of India’s total oil imports as of June 2025. US threatens secondary tariffs over Russian oil imports As the US ramps up its efforts to isolate Russia economically, the threat of secondary sanctions has become a key tool in its arsenal. Trump’s administration has already proposed a bill that would impose a 500 per cent tariff on goods imported from countries that continue to buy Russian oil, gas, uranium, and other exports. The proposed legislation has garnered bipartisan support, signalling a robust push to penalise those who do business with Moscow. For India, the stakes are high. Russian crude oil now accounts for more than a third of the country’s oil imports, with the value of these imports surpassing $50 billion in 2024-25. Prior to the Ukraine war, Russia accounted for less than 2 per cent of India’s oil imports. If secondary tariffs are implemented, India would likely face a significant increase in oil prices, forcing it to seek alternative suppliers in West Asia, further straining its energy security. The potential consequences of such sanctions also extend beyond oil, with broader trade implications. As the US and India continue negotiations for a trade deal, the threat of secondary tariffs could complicate efforts, potentially derailing progress on other fronts. Will the US follow through on tariffs? It remains unclear whether the US will follow through with these tariff threats, given that previous announcements have been subject to delay or revision. However, experts suggest that even the mere threat of secondary sanctions could have a chilling effect on international trade relations, particularly with countries like India and China, who are already walking a fine line between their strategic interests and the pressure from the West. As global oil markets remain volatile, with Russia continuing to offer competitive prices, the coming weeks will likely see heightened geopolitical tensions as nations grapple with the looming threat of sanctions and trade restrictions.

NATO Chief’s comments come as US President Donald Trump has threatened to impose “biting” secondary tariffs of up to 100 per cent on countries that continue purchasing Russian goods, including oil, if there is no peace deal within the next 50 days.

NATO Chief warns India, China, and Brazil of sanctions over continued trade with Russia

US President Donald Trump has said that Washington is on the brink of sealing a trade deal with India, while a breakthrough with the European Union could also be in sight. However, he offered no clear path forward on negotiations with Canada, as trade tensions continue to mount ahead of a key tariff deadline. In an interview aired on Real America’s Voice on Wednesday, Trump said, “We’re very close to India, and … we could possibly make a deal with [the] EU.” The comments come as the Trump administration races to conclude major trade negotiations ahead of August 1 — the date when broad-based US import tariffs are set to rise again.&nbsp;As per Reuters, the Trump administration has intensified its trade talks in recent weeks as it attempts to rebalance the country’s trade relationships and shrink the US trade deficit. Both Indian and European delegations are currently in Washington for fresh rounds of dialogue.<h2>“EU was brutal, now they’re being nice,” says Trump</h2>The US president took a swipe at the European Union’s trade posture in the past, saying the bloc had long imposed unfavourable terms on Washington. “The European Union has been brutal, and now they’re being very nice,” Trump remarked. “They want to make a deal, and it’ll be a lot different than the deal that we’ve had for years,” he added, as quoted by Reuters.&nbsp;EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic arrived in Washington on Wednesday for continued talks on tariffs and industrial standards. A resolution with Brussels could ease tensions that have been brewing since Trump first threatened sweeping levies on European cars and machinery earlier this year.<h2>India–US trade pact gaining momentum</h2>India’s trade delegation, led by senior commerce officials, landed in Washington on Monday to advance talks on a bilateral trade deal. The two sides have been discussing a framework that covers tariffs, market access, and technology cooperation, particularly in semiconductors and critical minerals.&nbsp;As per Reuters, Indian officials have signalled readiness to make limited concessions in areas such as medical devices and agricultural imports, while seeking tariff relief on steel, pharmaceuticals, and textiles. A deal would mark a major reset in India–US trade ties, which had faced repeated frictions over tariffs, data protection, and digital trade policies.<h2>Canada deal uncertain, countermeasures on the table</h2>Trump struck a more cautious tone when asked about trade talks with Canada. “Too soon to say,” he said, aligning with remarks from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who noted earlier on Wednesday that a deal “that works for Canadian workers” was not yet on the table.&nbsp;Canada, like the EU, is reportedly preparing counter-tariffs in case the US pushes ahead with unilateral duties. Talks have stalled over contentious issues such as dairy access, labour standards, and digital taxation.<h2>Blanket tariffs on ‘smaller countries’ under consideration</h2>In a striking remark, Trump added that he may impose blanket tariffs of 10 per cent or 15 per cent on imports from “smaller countries,” though he did not specify which nations could be affected. The proposal aligns with Trump’s broader trade doctrine of using tariff threats to pressure partners into faster concessions.&nbsp;With the August 1 deadline approaching, most US import duties are scheduled to rise unless specific trade agreements are reached. The looming hikes have pushed multiple US allies to the negotiating table, fearing a renewed wave of economic disruption.As Trump prepares to escalate tariffs across the board, trade diplomacy is entering a critical phase. A deal with India looks imminent, while Europe may follow. But for Canada and smaller nations, the path ahead remains clouded by tariffs, countermeasures, and deepening uncertainty. &nbsp;

Trump criticized the EU prior trade stance, stating they are now willing to negotiate more favorably. Indian officials are negotiating a trade pact covering tariffs and cooperation, while Canada remains cautious, with ongoing issues related to dairy, labor, and digital taxation.

US President Donald Trump has said that Washington is on the brink of sealing a trade deal with India, while a breakthrough with the European Union could also be in sight. However, he offered no clear path forward on negotiations with Canada, as trade tensions continue to mount ahead of a key tariff deadline. In an interview aired on Real America’s Voice on Wednesday, Trump said, “We’re very close to India, and … we could possibly make a deal with [the] EU.” The comments come as the Trump administration races to conclude major trade negotiations ahead of August 1 — the date when broad-based US import tariffs are set to rise again. As per Reuters, the Trump administration has intensified its trade talks in recent weeks as it attempts to rebalance the country’s trade relationships and shrink the US trade deficit. Both Indian and European delegations are currently in Washington for fresh rounds of dialogue. “EU was brutal, now they’re being nice,” says Trump The US president took a swipe at the European Union’s trade posture in the past, saying the bloc had long imposed unfavourable terms on Washington. “The European Union has been brutal, and now they’re being very nice,” Trump remarked. “They want to make a deal, and it’ll be a lot different than the deal that we’ve had for years,” he added, as quoted by Reuters. EU trade chief Maros Sefcovic arrived in Washington on Wednesday for continued talks on tariffs and industrial standards. A resolution with Brussels could ease tensions that have been brewing since Trump first threatened sweeping levies on European cars and machinery earlier this year. India–US trade pact gaining momentum India’s trade delegation, led by senior commerce officials, landed in Washington on Monday to advance talks on a bilateral trade deal. The two sides have been discussing a framework that covers tariffs, market access, and technology cooperation, particularly in semiconductors and critical minerals. As per Reuters, Indian officials have signalled readiness to make limited concessions in areas such as medical devices and agricultural imports, while seeking tariff relief on steel, pharmaceuticals, and textiles. A deal would mark a major reset in India–US trade ties, which had faced repeated frictions over tariffs, data protection, and digital trade policies. Canada deal uncertain, countermeasures on the table Trump struck a more cautious tone when asked about trade talks with Canada. “Too soon to say,” he said, aligning with remarks from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who noted earlier on Wednesday that a deal “that works for Canadian workers” was not yet on the table. Canada, like the EU, is reportedly preparing counter-tariffs in case the US pushes ahead with unilateral duties. Talks have stalled over contentious issues such as dairy access, labour standards, and digital taxation. Blanket tariffs on ‘smaller countries’ under consideration In a striking remark, Trump added that he may impose blanket tariffs of 10 per cent or 15 per cent on imports from “smaller countries,” though he did not specify which nations could be affected. The proposal aligns with Trump’s broader trade doctrine of using tariff threats to pressure partners into faster concessions. With the August 1 deadline approaching, most US import duties are scheduled to rise unless specific trade agreements are reached. The looming hikes have pushed multiple US allies to the negotiating table, fearing a renewed wave of economic disruption. As Trump prepares to escalate tariffs across the board, trade diplomacy is entering a critical phase. A deal with India looks imminent, while Europe may follow. But for Canada and smaller nations, the path ahead remains clouded by tariffs, countermeasures, and deepening uncertainty.

US President Donald Trump indicated that a trade deal with India is close and a possible breakthrough with the EU may also occur.

Trump says India trade deal near, EU talks progress, Canada in limbo