National Handloom Day 2026: From Alia Bhatt to Samantha Ruth Prabhu; Actresses who celebrated India's textile heritage as brides

The Royals enter the Doctor Who universe: King Charles and Queen Camilla beam into Commonwealth Games in TARDIS

Unitree Robotics targets $9 billion valuation in landmark IPO backed by DeepSeek and Tencent

India names 27 sites in Arunachal Pradesh

Bharat Bhhagya Viddhaata OTT: When will Kangana Ranaut's film stream online?

How many soldiers operate one S-400 battery?

Shakib Al Hasan ready to return to Bangladesh—under one condition

‘Fake news’: MEA rejects report claiming India sought defence pact with Israel after Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey deal

Rockstar to unveil GTA 6 extended look ahead of November launch

Russia forms Ukrainian Volunteer Spetsnaz Brigade to fight Ukraine

Drug-resistant fungus that hides in hair and enters bloodstream reported in 23 US states

Technology transfer deal boosts India's defence manufacturing ambitions

Border row erupts in Europe after Ceuta crossings, Spain imposes border controls on Italy

Morale plummets on USS Abraham Lincoln: Are US sailors reaching a breaking point? | GRAVITAS

'Security can't be bought with Pakistan, Turkey deal': Iran tells Saudi Arabia

Baba Vanga's 2026 prophecy: 2 predictions 'already came true', 3 terrifying ones remain. Details inside

Colombia’s new president Abelardo de la Espriella vows to ‘defeat narco-terrorists’, signals hardline shift

New Friday OTT releases (August 7, 2026): Operation Safed Sagar, Vadhandhi, Main Vaapis Aaunga- 6 movies and TV shows on Netflix, Prime Video and more

Squadron Leader Bhawana Kanth scripts history as Indian Air Force gets its first woman ‘Top Gun’ pilot

RSS says Gen Z protests reflect genuine distress

Trump says Iranian school bombing photos could be AI-generated - 'I don’t think...'

IAF officer held for sharing sensitive information in 'honey trap' case, booked under Official Secrets Act

Stray Kids under scrutiny? Fans react to Grammy submission silence after BTS boycott

Why the Su-30MKI doesn't need external fuel tanks to fly vast distances

Jugal Hansraj reunites with Shekhar Kapur after 40 years for Masoom: The Next Generation

New speed limits, automatic challans: Big traffic change coming to Delhi-Meerut Expressway. All you need to know

India officially names 27 places in Arunachal to counter China's renaming claims

Trump calls White House ballroom ruling a 'national disgrace' as court says Congress approval needed

US sanctions Iran’s crypto network after Strait of Hormuz attacks, offers $15m bounty for intel on IRGC finance

Why the Su-30MKI is one of the heaviest fighters ever built

Uttarakhand young innovator builds India's own flying vehicle, conducts first test flight: WATCH

Chilling video shows students take cover as teen opens fire at Thai school

Reese Witherspoon's father hospitalised after poolside incident in Nashville: Report

The Trump administration is preparing to impose new restrictions on exports of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) chips to Malaysia and Thailand as part of a broader effort to block the illegal flow of US semiconductors to China. The move, still in draft form at the US Commerce Department, signals Washington’s growing concern that these Southeast Asian nations may be used as intermediaries to bypass longstanding export bans. The regulation would prevent leading American firms like Nvidia Corp. from shipping their high-performance AI processors to companies in Malaysia and Thailand unless specific conditions are met.&nbsp;These new curbs are seen as a continuation and reshaping of the 2022 and 2023 restrictions imposed under President Joe Biden’s administration, which targeted direct and indirect AI technology transfers to China. According to a report by Bloomberg, the draft rule aims to halt the so-called “AI diffusion” that could give Chinese firms access to restricted chips via third countries. The regulation could still be amended, but it reflects the Trump administration’s first concrete step in rewriting the US export control framework for sensitive technologies.<h2>Suspected diversion routes spark alarm</h2>While the US has already barred direct sales of Nvidia’s most powerful chips to Chinese entities, officials believe some of these processors may be reaching China through partner firms or cloud servers located in Southeast Asia. A key concern is the potential for Chinese AI companies to remotely access advanced computing power via data centres in Malaysia or Thailand, sidestepping the export bans.In June, Malaysian authorities acknowledged they were investigating claims that a Chinese company operating locally was using servers equipped with Nvidia hardware to train large language models. The new restrictions would seek to close these loopholes.The policy also reflects growing unease in Washington about the rising role of Southeast Asia in the global semiconductor supply chain. Malaysian and Thai facilities are integral to chip packaging and testing, which are essential stages in chip production. But recent surges in chip exports to Malaysia have drawn scrutiny from US regulators.In a related case, Singaporean prosecutors recently charged three individuals for allegedly defrauding clients about the true destination of Nvidia-powered AI servers shipped to Malaysia. Nvidia has not been accused of any wrongdoing.<h2>Transitional relief and ongoing review</h2>The draft rule includes temporary relief measures to reduce the immediate impact on US and allied companies operating in the region. For a few months after the rule takes effect, businesses headquartered in the US or approved allied nations would be able to ship AI chips to Malaysia and Thailand without applying for special licenses. Additional exemptions are expected to avoid disrupting global chip supply chains.Officials from the Commerce Department have not commented on the specifics of the draft rule, but Secretary Howard Lutnick previously told lawmakers that allies would still be allowed to buy AI chips, provided they’re managed by US-approved data centre operators and cloud service providers.Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has stated in the past that there is “no evidence” of chip diversion, although he did not reference any country in particular. Meanwhile, Malaysian and Thai officials have yet to formally respond, though Malaysia has emphasised the need for consistent and transparent policy from the US.This move marks a critical shift in US tech policy, one that could reshape the landscape for AI development in Southeast Asia and further deepen the technological divide between China and the West. Whether more countries will be added to the restricted list remains to be seen, but officials have not ruled out broader measures.

These new curbs are seen as a continuation and reshaping of the 2022 and 2023 restrictions imposed under President Joe Biden’s administration, which targeted direct and indirect AI technology transfers to China.

The Trump administration is preparing to impose new restrictions on exports of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) chips to Malaysia and Thailand as part of a broader effort to block the illegal flow of US semiconductors to China. The move, still in draft form at the US Commerce Department, signals Washington’s growing concern that these Southeast Asian nations may be used as intermediaries to bypass longstanding export bans. The regulation would prevent leading American firms like Nvidia Corp. from shipping their high-performance AI processors to companies in Malaysia and Thailand unless specific conditions are met. These new curbs are seen as a continuation and reshaping of the 2022 and 2023 restrictions imposed under President Joe Biden’s administration, which targeted direct and indirect AI technology transfers to China. According to a report by Bloomberg, the draft rule aims to halt the so-called “AI diffusion” that could give Chinese firms access to restricted chips via third countries. The regulation could still be amended, but it reflects the Trump administration’s first concrete step in rewriting the US export control framework for sensitive technologies. Suspected diversion routes spark alarm While the US has already barred direct sales of Nvidia’s most powerful chips to Chinese entities, officials believe some of these processors may be reaching China through partner firms or cloud servers located in Southeast Asia. A key concern is the potential for Chinese AI companies to remotely access advanced computing power via data centres in Malaysia or Thailand, sidestepping the export bans. In June, Malaysian authorities acknowledged they were investigating claims that a Chinese company operating locally was using servers equipped with Nvidia hardware to train large language models. The new restrictions would seek to close these loopholes. The policy also reflects growing unease in Washington about the rising role of Southeast Asia in the global semiconductor supply chain. Malaysian and Thai facilities are integral to chip packaging and testing, which are essential stages in chip production. But recent surges in chip exports to Malaysia have drawn scrutiny from US regulators. In a related case, Singaporean prosecutors recently charged three individuals for allegedly defrauding clients about the true destination of Nvidia-powered AI servers shipped to Malaysia. Nvidia has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Transitional relief and ongoing review The draft rule includes temporary relief measures to reduce the immediate impact on US and allied companies operating in the region. For a few months after the rule takes effect, businesses headquartered in the US or approved allied nations would be able to ship AI chips to Malaysia and Thailand without applying for special licenses. Additional exemptions are expected to avoid disrupting global chip supply chains. Officials from the Commerce Department have not commented on the specifics of the draft rule, but Secretary Howard Lutnick previously told lawmakers that allies would still be allowed to buy AI chips, provided they’re managed by US-approved data centre operators and cloud service providers. Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has stated in the past that there is “no evidence” of chip diversion, although he did not reference any country in particular. Meanwhile, Malaysian and Thai officials have yet to formally respond, though Malaysia has emphasised the need for consistent and transparent policy from the US. This move marks a critical shift in US tech policy, one that could reshape the landscape for AI development in Southeast Asia and further deepen the technological divide between China and the West. Whether more countries will be added to the restricted list remains to be seen, but officials have not ruled out broader measures.

The new curbs are seen as a continuation and reshaping of the 2022 and 2023 restrictions imposed under President Joe Biden’s administration, which targeted direct and indirect AI technology transfers to China.

US plans AI chip curbs on Malaysia, Thailand amid China smuggling concerns

The State Bank of India (SBI) has branded Reliance Communications' loan account as "fraud" without hearing Anil Ambani, reigniting accusations of a relentless smear campaign against the former telecom tycoon by his business rivals. SBI said it had reported Anil Ambani as a fraud to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on July 1, 2025. However, in what is construed as a misuse of its powers, it issued the order without providing Ambani a personal hearing. SBI's ex parte order cites a 2020 forensic audit alleging Rs 12,692.31 crore in fund diversions from a Rs 31,580 crore loan dating back to 2016. These orders&nbsp;are issued in emergencies. However, the forensic audit report was available with SBI for 5 years, which means there was no emergency.&nbsp;The bank's action echoes a failed attempt by Canara Bank in November 2024, which was stayed by the Bombay High Court in February 2025 for procedural violations. Ambani’s legal team has slammed SBI’s move as a “gross violation” of natural justice, RBI guidelines, and judicial precedents, pointing to a pattern of regulatory overreach that consistently overshadows positive developments in Ambani’s business ventures.&nbsp;The SBI’s fraud classification is marred by procedural flaws, including the withholding of the full forensic audit report and reliance on a December 2023 show-cause notice (SCN) issued under outdated RBI guidelines, superseded by revised directives in July 2024. Ambani’s counsel argues that SBI’s failure to respond to communications for nearly a year led him to believe the matter was resolved, and the selective targeting of Ambani—while SCNs against other non-executive directors were withdrawn—suggests a vendetta possibly fueled by corporate rivalries. This is not an isolated incident; in May 2025, Reliance Power faced allegations of submitting fake SBI guarantees for a government tender, leading to a temporary blacklisting, though Ambani avoided personal liability. Similarly, in August 2024, SEBI banned Ambani and 24 entities from the stock market over alleged fund diversion at Reliance Home Finance, a decision currently under appeal. These incidents, often amplified by media, coincide with positive milestones, such as Reliance Power’s debt-free status and a joint venture with a US defense contractor in July 2025, fueling speculation of a coordinated effort to tarnish Ambani’s legacy. The pattern of regulatory and legal actions against Ambani is striking, particularly as they often emerge during periods of business recovery. For instance, the SEBI ban followed Reliance Infrastructure’s reported net worth recovery to ₹33,000 crore, while SBI’s fraud tag came amid Reliance Power’s expansion into clean energy and defense, including a deal to supply artillery shells to a German firm. The 2020 UK bankruptcy declaration, where Ambani claimed to have “nothing meaningful” in personal wealth, garnered global headlines, yet subsequent court reliefs, like the Delhi High Court’s 2021 status quo order on RCom’s fraud classifications, received less attention. Critics argue that these actions, often stalled by courts for procedural lapses—as seen in the Bombay High Court’s rebuke of Canara Bank’s “cut, copy, paste” fraud order—reflect a broader agenda, possibly linked to Ambani’s past rivalry. SBI’s latest move also disregards protections under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), particularly Section 32A, which shields companies under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) from pre-insolvency liabilities once a resolution plan is approved. RCom, managed by a Resolution Professional since May 2018 with a debt of ₹48,216 crore as of March 2025, awaits National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approval for its resolution plan. Yet, SBI persists in targeting Ambani for pre-CIRP loans, a move critics say undermines the IBC framework and risks derailing RCom’s revival. This echoes earlier controversies, such as the 2018 allegations of fund diversion at Reliance Naval and Engineering, which led to insolvency proceedings but no conclusive evidence against Ambani personally. The recurring cycle of high-profile accusations, followed by judicial stays or dismissals, as seen in the Canara Bank case and SEBI’s ongoing appeal, underscores a pattern of regulatory aggression that legal experts predict will face another judicial rebuke, further exposing the apparent witch hunt against Anil Ambani. Pattern of Smear Campaign: The SBI fraud tag, SEBI ban, and Reliance Power tender controversy illustrate a pattern where regulatory actions coincide with Ambani’s business recovery efforts, such as Reliance Power’s debt-free status and defense contracts. These incidents, often amplified by the media, are frequently stalled by courts due to procedural flaws. Procedural Violations: SBI’s ex-parte order, like Canara Bank’s failed fraud tag, violates RBI’s Master Directions on Frauds and principles of natural justice by denying Ambani a hearing and full audit disclosure. The SEBI ban also faces challenges for similar reasons. Selective Targeting: SBI’s withdrawal of SCNs against other RCom directors while pursuing Ambani, despite his non-executive role, mirrors the selective scrutiny in the Reliance Power tender case, where only the SECI chief faced consequences. Judicial Precedents: The Bombay High Court’s February 2025 stay on Canara Bank’s fraud tag and the Delhi High Court’s 2021 order highlight a judiciary critical of banks’ overreach. The SEBI ban’s appeal and SBI’s order are likely to follow suit. Corporate Rivalry: While speculative, the timing of actions against Ambani, are often linked to his rivalry. IBC Protections: SBI’s pursuit of pre-CIRP liabilities disregards IBC Section 32A, aligning with criticisms of banks undermining insolvency processes, as seen in Reliance Naval’s case.&nbsp;This isn't an isolated incident. The 2024 SEBI ban and 2025 Reliance Power tender controversy, alongside earlier issues like Reliance Naval’s insolvency, reflect a consistent pattern of regulatory scrutiny that often lacks conclusive evidence against Ambani. However, they are often successful at generating negative publicity against the businessman.

The State Bank of India (SBI) has branded Reliance Communications' loan account as "fraud" without hearing Anil Ambani, reigniting accusations of a relentless smear campaign against the former telecom tycoon by his business rivals. SBI said it had reported Anil Ambani as a fraud.

The State Bank of India (SBI) has branded Reliance Communications' loan account as "fraud" without hearing Anil Ambani, reigniting accusations of a relentless smear campaign against the former telecom tycoon by his business rivals. SBI said it had reported Anil Ambani as a fraud to the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on July 1, 2025. However, in what is construed as a misuse of its powers, it issued the order without providing Ambani a personal hearing. SBI's ex parte order cites a 2020 forensic audit alleging Rs 12,692.31 crore in fund diversions from a Rs 31,580 crore loan dating back to 2016. These orders are issued in emergencies. However, the forensic audit report was available with SBI for 5 years, which means there was no emergency. The bank's action echoes a failed attempt by Canara Bank in November 2024, which was stayed by the Bombay High Court in February 2025 for procedural violations. Ambani’s legal team has slammed SBI’s move as a “gross violation” of natural justice, RBI guidelines, and judicial precedents, pointing to a pattern of regulatory overreach that consistently overshadows positive developments in Ambani’s business ventures. The SBI’s fraud classification is marred by procedural flaws, including the withholding of the full forensic audit report and reliance on a December 2023 show-cause notice (SCN) issued under outdated RBI guidelines, superseded by revised directives in July 2024. Ambani’s counsel argues that SBI’s failure to respond to communications for nearly a year led him to believe the matter was resolved, and the selective targeting of Ambani—while SCNs against other non-executive directors were withdrawn—suggests a vendetta possibly fueled by corporate rivalries. This is not an isolated incident; in May 2025, Reliance Power faced allegations of submitting fake SBI guarantees for a government tender, leading to a temporary blacklisting, though Ambani avoided personal liability. Similarly, in August 2024, SEBI banned Ambani and 24 entities from the stock market over alleged fund diversion at Reliance Home Finance, a decision currently under appeal. These incidents, often amplified by media, coincide with positive milestones, such as Reliance Power’s debt-free status and a joint venture with a US defense contractor in July 2025, fueling speculation of a coordinated effort to tarnish Ambani’s legacy. The pattern of regulatory and legal actions against Ambani is striking, particularly as they often emerge during periods of business recovery. For instance, the SEBI ban followed Reliance Infrastructure’s reported net worth recovery to ₹33,000 crore, while SBI’s fraud tag came amid Reliance Power’s expansion into clean energy and defense, including a deal to supply artillery shells to a German firm. The 2020 UK bankruptcy declaration, where Ambani claimed to have “nothing meaningful” in personal wealth, garnered global headlines, yet subsequent court reliefs, like the Delhi High Court’s 2021 status quo order on RCom’s fraud classifications, received less attention. Critics argue that these actions, often stalled by courts for procedural lapses—as seen in the Bombay High Court’s rebuke of Canara Bank’s “cut, copy, paste” fraud order—reflect a broader agenda, possibly linked to Ambani’s past rivalry. SBI’s latest move also disregards protections under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), particularly Section 32A, which shields companies under the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) from pre-insolvency liabilities once a resolution plan is approved. RCom, managed by a Resolution Professional since May 2018 with a debt of ₹48,216 crore as of March 2025, awaits National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approval for its resolution plan. Yet, SBI persists in targeting Ambani for pre-CIRP loans, a move critics say undermines the IBC framework and risks derailing RCom’s revival. This echoes earlier controversies, such as the 2018 allegations of fund diversion at Reliance Naval and Engineering, which led to insolvency proceedings but no conclusive evidence against Ambani personally. The recurring cycle of high-profile accusations, followed by judicial stays or dismissals, as seen in the Canara Bank case and SEBI’s ongoing appeal, underscores a pattern of regulatory aggression that legal experts predict will face another judicial rebuke, further exposing the apparent witch hunt against Anil Ambani. Pattern of Smear Campaign: The SBI fraud tag, SEBI ban, and Reliance Power tender controversy illustrate a pattern where regulatory actions coincide with Ambani’s business recovery efforts, such as Reliance Power’s debt-free status and defense contracts. These incidents, often amplified by the media, are frequently stalled by courts due to procedural flaws. Procedural Violations: SBI’s ex-parte order, like Canara Bank’s failed fraud tag, violates RBI’s Master Directions on Frauds and principles of natural justice by denying Ambani a hearing and full audit disclosure. The SEBI ban also faces challenges for similar reasons. Selective Targeting: SBI’s withdrawal of SCNs against other RCom directors while pursuing Ambani, despite his non-executive role, mirrors the selective scrutiny in the Reliance Power tender case, where only the SECI chief faced consequences. Judicial Precedents: The Bombay High Court’s February 2025 stay on Canara Bank’s fraud tag and the Delhi High Court’s 2021 order highlight a judiciary critical of banks’ overreach. The SEBI ban’s appeal and SBI’s order are likely to follow suit. Corporate Rivalry: While speculative, the timing of actions against Ambani, are often linked to his rivalry. IBC Protections: SBI’s pursuit of pre-CIRP liabilities disregards IBC Section 32A, aligning with criticisms of banks undermining insolvency processes, as seen in Reliance Naval’s case. This isn't an isolated incident. The 2024 SEBI ban and 2025 Reliance Power tender controversy, alongside earlier issues like Reliance Naval’s insolvency, reflect a consistent pattern of regulatory scrutiny that often lacks conclusive evidence against Ambani. However, they are often successful at generating negative publicity against the businessman.

The bank's action echoes a failed attempt by Canara Bank in November 2024, which was stayed by the Bombay High Court in February 2025 for procedural violations.

Anil Ambani's legal team flags procedural flaws in SBI's order, calls it witch hunt

Europe’s IPO market remains in a precarious position as a combination of geopolitical turmoil, trade tensions, and valuation mismatches continue to spook investors and delay high-profile listings. While global equity markets have largely rebounded from the initial shock of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff announcements earlier this year, the aftershocks are still being felt in capital markets, particularly in Europe. Volatility has eased as the VIX index has dropped about 67 per cent from its post-tariff peak, and fund flows into European equities have reached their second-highest level this century.&nbsp;However, investor appetite for initial public offerings remains subdued. Advisers point to lingering concerns over geopolitical flashpoints, especially the brief but intense Israel-Iran conflict, and the weak aftermarket performance of recent IPOs such as German retailer Douglas, whose shares fell over 12 per cent on debut and subsequently cut guidance.<h2>Major listings postponed or scrapped</h2>Several companies have shelved or postponed planned listings, citing geopolitical uncertainties and market dynamics. Among the most notable was Brainlab, a German med-tech firm specialising in AI-driven surgical solutions, which pulled its Frankfurt debut just two days before pricing. The offering, which aimed to raise €160 million ($188.44 million) in new capital, would have valued the company at €1.7 billion ($2 billion) but was ultimately shelved due to shareholder concerns over the quality of the investor order book.Other delayed listings include pharmaceutical company Stada and car parts seller Autodoc, both of which have cited either market volatility or weak demand. Even Cobalt Holdings, backed by Glencore and billed as London’s largest IPO of the year, failed to drum up sufficient interest.Adding to the pressure is the trend of large London-listed firms exiting the exchange in favour of US markets. Companies like AstraZeneca and Wise Plc are considering or have already shifted listings to New York, citing greater liquidity and investor depth. More than $100 billion in market value has already moved across the Atlantic in recent years, further eroding confidence in the City of London as a viable IPO venue.<h2>Hope for a post-summer recovery</h2>Despite IPO volumes across EMEA (Europe, the Middle East and Africa) falling to 44 from 59 a year earlier and proceeds plummeting from $14.1 billion to $5.5 billion in the first half, some bankers remain cautiously optimistic. Advisers say that a slew of delayed but high-quality listings may return after the summer, provided market conditions stabilise.Firms like Ottobock, ISS Stoxx, and the Swiss Marketplace Group are reportedly in the pipeline, while Visma, a €19 billion ($22.37 billion) software firm backed by Hg Capital, could be London’s marquee IPO in 2026. Spain’s Cirsa, a casino operator owned by Blackstone, is also expected to proceed with its €2.5 billion ($2.94 billion) float in the coming days, despite market jitters.Until the broader geopolitical landscape stabilises and investor confidence returns, Europe’s IPO market appears stuck in a holding pattern, with hopes now pinned on a much-needed post-summer reset.

Investors remain cautious as high-profile listings stall in Europe; hopes shift to a post-summer rebound.

Europe’s IPO market remains in a precarious position as a combination of geopolitical turmoil, trade tensions, and valuation mismatches continue to spook investors and delay high-profile listings. While global equity markets have largely rebounded from the initial shock of President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff announcements earlier this year, the aftershocks are still being felt in capital markets, particularly in Europe. Volatility has eased as the VIX index has dropped about 67 per cent from its post-tariff peak, and fund flows into European equities have reached their second-highest level this century. However, investor appetite for initial public offerings remains subdued. Advisers point to lingering concerns over geopolitical flashpoints, especially the brief but intense Israel-Iran conflict, and the weak aftermarket performance of recent IPOs such as German retailer Douglas, whose shares fell over 12 per cent on debut and subsequently cut guidance. Major listings postponed or scrapped Several companies have shelved or postponed planned listings, citing geopolitical uncertainties and market dynamics. Among the most notable was Brainlab, a German med-tech firm specialising in AI-driven surgical solutions, which pulled its Frankfurt debut just two days before pricing. The offering, which aimed to raise €160 million ($188.44 million) in new capital, would have valued the company at €1.7 billion ($2 billion) but was ultimately shelved due to shareholder concerns over the quality of the investor order book. Other delayed listings include pharmaceutical company Stada and car parts seller Autodoc, both of which have cited either market volatility or weak demand. Even Cobalt Holdings, backed by Glencore and billed as London’s largest IPO of the year, failed to drum up sufficient interest. Adding to the pressure is the trend of large London-listed firms exiting the exchange in favour of US markets. Companies like AstraZeneca and Wise Plc are considering or have already shifted listings to New York, citing greater liquidity and investor depth. More than $100 billion in market value has already moved across the Atlantic in recent years, further eroding confidence in the City of London as a viable IPO venue. Hope for a post-summer recovery Despite IPO volumes across EMEA (Europe, the Middle East and Africa) falling to 44 from 59 a year earlier and proceeds plummeting from $14.1 billion to $5.5 billion in the first half, some bankers remain cautiously optimistic. Advisers say that a slew of delayed but high-quality listings may return after the summer, provided market conditions stabilise. Firms like Ottobock, ISS Stoxx, and the Swiss Marketplace Group are reportedly in the pipeline, while Visma, a €19 billion ($22.37 billion) software firm backed by Hg Capital, could be London’s marquee IPO in 2026. Spain’s Cirsa, a casino operator owned by Blackstone, is also expected to proceed with its €2.5 billion ($2.94 billion) float in the coming days, despite market jitters. Until the broader geopolitical landscape stabilises and investor confidence returns, Europe’s IPO market appears stuck in a holding pattern, with hopes now pinned on a much-needed post-summer reset.

Investors remain cautious as high-profile listings stall in Europe; hopes shift to a post-summer rebound.

IPO uncertainty lingers in Europe amid geopolitical and market headwinds

Indonesia is proposing to increase imports of American goods, including aircraft and wheat, as part of its negotiations with the United States to secure lower tariffs on its own exports, ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccAirlangga Hartarto told Reuters on July 4. Speaking as Indonesia’s lead negotiator in the ongoing talks, Airlangga said state-owned carrier Garuda Indonesia and food giant Indofood are prepared to ramp up purchases of US products, including aircraft from Boeing and American wheat, in an effort to secure more favourable trade terms.Garuda Indonesia is reportedly in discussions to buy up to 75 Boeing aircraft, while Indofood, known for its instant noodles, could boost wheat imports. Both companies declined to comment on the ongoing negotiations.<h2>Trade deal aims to narrow deficit, boost investment</h2>The talks are part of a broader $34 billion pact expected to be finalised next week. The agreement is likely to include increased Indonesian purchases of American goods and new investments by Indonesian firms in the US. Airlangga said Indonesia is also offering the US near-zero tariffs on key exports, particularly agricultural products, which currently face duties of between 0 per cent and 5 per cent. However, he emphasised that Indonesia expects reciprocal reductions from Washington, where Indonesian goods still face tariffs as high as 32 per cent.“We want to see the same commitment from the US side,” Airlangga told Reuters. “The final tariff reductions will depend on how much the US is willing to adjust.”In return, Jakarta is seeking lower tariffs for Indonesian exports such as electronics, textiles, and footwear. Susiwijono Moegiarso, a senior official from the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs, also told Reuters these sectors are crucial to Indonesia’s export economy and need better access to US markets.<h2>Mineral investment opportunities on the table</h2>Indonesia has also extended an offer to the US to invest in its critical minerals sector, including copper, nickel, and bauxite, key inputs in electric vehicle and battery manufacturing. Airlangga confirmed that military cooperation is not part of the negotiations.In 2024, the US goods trade deficit with Indonesia stood at $17.9 billion. Top American exports to Indonesia include soybeans, petroleum gases, and aircraft, according to trade data.

The talks are part of a broader $34 billion Indonesia-US pact expected to be finalised next week. The agreement is likely to include increased Indonesian purchases of American goods and new investments by Indonesian firms in the US.

Indonesia is proposing to increase imports of American goods, including aircraft and wheat, as part of its negotiations with the United States to secure lower tariffs on its own exports, ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccAirlangga Hartarto told Reuters on July 4. Speaking as Indonesia’s lead negotiator in the ongoing talks, Airlangga said state-owned carrier Garuda Indonesia and food giant Indofood are prepared to ramp up purchases of US products, including aircraft from Boeing and American wheat, in an effort to secure more favourable trade terms. Garuda Indonesia is reportedly in discussions to buy up to 75 Boeing aircraft, while Indofood, known for its instant noodles, could boost wheat imports. Both companies declined to comment on the ongoing negotiations. Trade deal aims to narrow deficit, boost investment The talks are part of a broader $34 billion pact expected to be finalised next week. The agreement is likely to include increased Indonesian purchases of American goods and new investments by Indonesian firms in the US. Airlangga said Indonesia is also offering the US near-zero tariffs on key exports, particularly agricultural products, which currently face duties of between 0 per cent and 5 per cent. However, he emphasised that Indonesia expects reciprocal reductions from Washington, where Indonesian goods still face tariffs as high as 32 per cent. “We want to see the same commitment from the US side,” Airlangga told Reuters. “The final tariff reductions will depend on how much the US is willing to adjust.” In return, Jakarta is seeking lower tariffs for Indonesian exports such as electronics, textiles, and footwear. Susiwijono Moegiarso, a senior official from the Coordinating Ministry for Economic Affairs, also told Reuters these sectors are crucial to Indonesia’s export economy and need better access to US markets. Mineral investment opportunities on the table Indonesia has also extended an offer to the US to invest in its critical minerals sector, including copper, nickel, and bauxite, key inputs in electric vehicle and battery manufacturing. Airlangga confirmed that military cooperation is not part of the negotiations. In 2024, the US goods trade deficit with Indonesia stood at $17.9 billion. Top American exports to Indonesia include soybeans, petroleum gases, and aircraft, according to trade data.

The talks are part of a broader $34 billion Indonesia-US pact expected to be finalised next week. The agreement is likely to include increased Indonesian purchases of American goods and new investments by Indonesian firms in the US.

Indonesia offers boost in US purchases in exchange for lower tariffs

Saudi Aramco is reportedly preparing to sell up to five gas-fired power plants in a move that could raise as much as $4 billion, according to sources familiar with the matter. The asset sale is part of a broader strategy by the world’s most profitable oil company to free up capital, maintain shareholder payouts, and align with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 economic diversification goals. The potential divestment of these non-core assets, mostly power stations that supply energy to Aramco’s refineries, comes as the company navigates lower oil prices, shrinking profits, and rising fiscal demands from the Saudi government, which owns more than 81 per cent of Aramco. The government relies heavily on Aramco's dividend payouts, royalties, and taxes to fund national megaprojects such as Expo 2030 and the FIFA World Cup 2034.<h2>Strategic capital reallocation</h2>Selling these assets would allow Aramco to reallocate capital toward higher-growth and future-oriented sectors, including carbon capture, green hydrogen, and advanced infrastructure projects. While the company reported a modest dip in net income to $26 billion in Q1 2025, it raised its base dividend to $21.1 billion. However, it withheld a performance-linked dividend, signalling a more cautious approach to cash management amid global energy market volatility.Analysts say the divestment strategy aligns with global energy giants like ExxonMobil and Chevron, which have also shed non-core infrastructure to focus on upstream oil and gas operations. In addition to power plants, Aramco is reportedly exploring the sale of housing compounds, port infrastructure, and pipeline stakes.<h2>BlackRock stake buyback under consideration</h2>In a parallel development, asset manager BlackRock Inc. is in early talks to sell its stake in Aramco’s gas pipeline network back to the Saudi oil giant. BlackRock had led a consortium that acquired a 49 per cent stake in the pipeline leasing rights in a 2021 deal valued at $15.5 billion. A potential buyback would signal Aramco’s continued interest in consolidating control over core energy infrastructure, despite rising debt levels.The company’s CEO, Amin Nasser, said in May that Aramco plans to increase borrowing to fund growth, support dividend stability, and leverage its balance sheet more effectively. The firm has already raised $5 billion through a bond issuance this year, part of a broader return to debt markets after a three-year hiatus.While asset divestments and increased borrowing may raise questions about Aramco’s short-term liquidity pressures, the moves appear designed to balance shareholder interests with long-term investment in national economic transformation. If executed effectively, the strategy could enhance resilience amid a shifting global energy landscape.

The potential divestment of Aramco's non-core assets comes as the company navigates lower oil prices, shrinking profits, and rising fiscal demands from the Saudi government, which owns more than 81 per cent of the company.

Saudi Aramco is reportedly preparing to sell up to five gas-fired power plants in a move that could raise as much as $4 billion, according to sources familiar with the matter. The asset sale is part of a broader strategy by the world’s most profitable oil company to free up capital, maintain shareholder payouts, and align with Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 economic diversification goals. The potential divestment of these non-core assets, mostly power stations that supply energy to Aramco’s refineries, comes as the company navigates lower oil prices, shrinking profits, and rising fiscal demands from the Saudi government, which owns more than 81 per cent of Aramco. The government relies heavily on Aramco's dividend payouts, royalties, and taxes to fund national megaprojects such as Expo 2030 and the FIFA World Cup 2034. Strategic capital reallocation Selling these assets would allow Aramco to reallocate capital toward higher-growth and future-oriented sectors, including carbon capture, green hydrogen, and advanced infrastructure projects. While the company reported a modest dip in net income to $26 billion in Q1 2025, it raised its base dividend to $21.1 billion. However, it withheld a performance-linked dividend, signalling a more cautious approach to cash management amid global energy market volatility. Analysts say the divestment strategy aligns with global energy giants like ExxonMobil and Chevron, which have also shed non-core infrastructure to focus on upstream oil and gas operations. In addition to power plants, Aramco is reportedly exploring the sale of housing compounds, port infrastructure, and pipeline stakes. BlackRock stake buyback under consideration In a parallel development, asset manager BlackRock Inc. is in early talks to sell its stake in Aramco’s gas pipeline network back to the Saudi oil giant. BlackRock had led a consortium that acquired a 49 per cent stake in the pipeline leasing rights in a 2021 deal valued at $15.5 billion. A potential buyback would signal Aramco’s continued interest in consolidating control over core energy infrastructure, despite rising debt levels. The company’s CEO, Amin Nasser, said in May that Aramco plans to increase borrowing to fund growth, support dividend stability, and leverage its balance sheet more effectively. The firm has already raised $5 billion through a bond issuance this year, part of a broader return to debt markets after a three-year hiatus. While asset divestments and increased borrowing may raise questions about Aramco’s short-term liquidity pressures, the moves appear designed to balance shareholder interests with long-term investment in national economic transformation. If executed effectively, the strategy could enhance resilience amid a shifting global energy landscape.

The potential divestment of Aramco's non-core assets comes as the company navigates lower oil prices, shrinking profits, and rising fiscal demands from the Saudi government, which owns more than 81 per cent of the company.

Aramco eyes $4 billion from stake sales amid fiscal tightening

Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said on Friday that India is in no hurry to finalise any major trade deal on the basis of any deadline but will agree on a decision if it is a win-win for both parties. Goyal’s comments hold significance as India and the US are reportedly in the final stages of striking an interim trade deal. The talks are important, as the suspension of US reciprocal tariffs is ending on July 9, and hence both sides are looking at finalising the deal before that. Goyal stressed that India’s approach to international trade negotiations remains firm and ‘principled’.India seeks greater market access for its labour-intensive goods, while the US wants duty concessions for its agricultural products.&nbsp;<h2>‘National interest will always be supreme’</h2>&nbsp;“It should be a win-win agreement, and only when India’s interests are safeguarded—national interest will always be supreme—and keeping that in mind, if a good deal is formed, India is always ready to engage with developed countries,” Goyal said on the sidelines of the 16th Toy Biz B2B expo in Delhi.“Discussions are ongoing with various countries, be it the European Union, New Zealand, Oman, the US, Chile, or Peru. Talks about agreements are underway with many nations,” he said.&nbsp;“A free-trade agreement is only possible when there is mutual benefit. India never enters into trade deals based on deadlines or time pressure. A deal is accepted only when it is fully matured, well-negotiated, and in the national interest,” the commerce minister added.&nbsp;<h2>India proposes retaliatory duties against US over auto tariffs</h2>&nbsp;India on Friday proposed imposing retaliatory duties under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) norms against the US over American tariffs on imports of auto parts from the country in the name of safeguard measures.“The proposed suspension of concessions or other obligations would take the form of an increase in tariffs on selected products originating in the United States,” according to a notification of the WTO being circulated at India’s request.India has notified the WTO’s Council for Trade in Goods of its proposed suspension of concessions and other obligations under certain WTO provisions.&nbsp;“This notification is made in connection with safeguard measures extended by the United States of America on imports of automobile parts from India,” it said.&nbsp;On March 26, the US adopted a safeguard measure in the form of a tariff increase of 25 per cent ad valorem on imports of passenger vehicles and light trucks, and on certain automobile parts from India.&nbsp;India has maintained that the measures taken by the United States are not consistent with the GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariff) 1994 and the agreement on Safeguards.As consultations sought by India on these tariffs have not taken place, "India reserves the right to suspend concessions or other obligations", the WTO notification added.The development is important, as India and the US are actively negotiating an interim trade agreement to boost trade ties.

A free-trade agreement is only possible when there is mutual benefit. India never enters into trade deals based on deadlines or time pressure. A deal is accepted only when it is fully matured, well-negotiated, and in the national interest, the commerce minister said.

Union Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said on Friday that India is in no hurry to finalise any major trade deal on the basis of any deadline but will agree on a decision if it is a win-win for both parties. Goyal’s comments hold significance as India and the US are reportedly in the final stages of striking an interim trade deal. The talks are important, as the suspension of US reciprocal tariffs is ending on July 9, and hence both sides are looking at finalising the deal before that. Goyal stressed that India’s approach to international trade negotiations remains firm and ‘principled’. India seeks greater market access for its labour-intensive goods, while the US wants duty concessions for its agricultural products. ‘National interest will always be supreme’ “It should be a win-win agreement, and only when India’s interests are safeguarded—national interest will always be supreme—and keeping that in mind, if a good deal is formed, India is always ready to engage with developed countries,” Goyal said on the sidelines of the 16th Toy Biz B2B expo in Delhi. “Discussions are ongoing with various countries, be it the European Union, New Zealand, Oman, the US, Chile, or Peru. Talks about agreements are underway with many nations,” he said. “A free-trade agreement is only possible when there is mutual benefit. India never enters into trade deals based on deadlines or time pressure. A deal is accepted only when it is fully matured, well-negotiated, and in the national interest,” the commerce minister added. India proposes retaliatory duties against US over auto tariffs India on Friday proposed imposing retaliatory duties under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) norms against the US over American tariffs on imports of auto parts from the country in the name of safeguard measures. “The proposed suspension of concessions or other obligations would take the form of an increase in tariffs on selected products originating in the United States,” according to a notification of the WTO being circulated at India’s request. India has notified the WTO’s Council for Trade in Goods of its proposed suspension of concessions and other obligations under certain WTO provisions. “This notification is made in connection with safeguard measures extended by the United States of America on imports of automobile parts from India,” it said. On March 26, the US adopted a safeguard measure in the form of a tariff increase of 25 per cent ad valorem on imports of passenger vehicles and light trucks, and on certain automobile parts from India. India has maintained that the measures taken by the United States are not consistent with the GATT (General Agreement on Trade and Tariff) 1994 and the agreement on Safeguards. As consultations sought by India on these tariffs have not taken place, "India reserves the right to suspend concessions or other obligations", the WTO notification added. The development is important, as India and the US are actively negotiating an interim trade agreement to boost trade ties.

A free-trade agreement is only possible when there is mutual benefit. India never enters into trade deals based on deadlines or time pressure. A deal is accepted only when it is fully matured, well-negotiated, and in the national interest, the commerce minister said.

‘India’s interest more important, not deadline’: Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal on US trade talks

As Japan’s tourism industry entered 2025 on a historic high, with record-breaking visitor numbers and a global spotlight on its cultural allure, it faced an unexpected challenge this summer. Not from a natural disaster, not from geopolitical tension, but from a decades-old manga. A graphic novel titled Watashi ga Mita Mirai (The Future I Saw), first published in 1999 by elusive Japanese artist Ryo Tatsuki, has caused a sudden and significant drop in travel bookings to Japan, thanks to a viral “prediction” of a massive earthquake set to strike on July 5, 2025.<h2>A fictional forecast fuels real fears</h2>The manga gained renewed attention earlier this year when readers unearthed its eerily specific prophecy: a major quake, a deep crack forming beneath the seabed between Japan and the Philippines, and a tsunami with waves “three times” taller than those in the devastating 2011 disaster. The unsettling imagery, paired with the fact that the original edition appeared to foreshadow the Fukushima earthquake and nuclear crisis, quickly spiralled into viral anxiety, especially in Hong Kong.Social media platforms lit up with clips, screenshots, and dramatised readings of the manga. TikTok creators warned their followers against travelling to Japan in July. Conspiracy forums debated whether Tatsuki was a misunderstood prophet. In Hong Kong, where the manga’s re-release has found a cult-like following, travel agents reported a wave of cancellations and hesitations.The data backs the hysteria: Flight bookings from Hong Kong to Japan have dropped by nearly 50 per cent year-on-year, according to ForwardKeys. Between late June and early July alone, reservations plummeted by 83 per cent. Travel agencies like EGL Tours have slashed prices and even offered earthquake insurance, but to little effect. Airlines such as Greater Bay Airlines have responded by suspending flights to Japanese destinations like Tokushima due to the dramatic fall in demand.<h2>Expert rebuttals and an author’s clarification</h2>Scientists and seismologists have been quick to debunk the panic. Professor Robert Geller, a veteran seismologist from the University of Tokyo, told Travel and Tour World that earthquake prediction, even when backed by decades of research, is not scientifically possible. “There is no reliable way to predict when or where a major earthquake will strike,” Geller said.Japan, which sits on the volatile Pacific Ring of Fire, experiences thousands of small quakes every year. The recent uptick of tremors, with over 900 recorded in the Kyushu region, has added fuel to the speculative fire, despite most being minor.In an attempt to quiet the frenzy, Tatsuki herself stepped into the conversation. In interviews with Japanese outlet Mainichi Shimbun and The Guardian, she clarified that The Future I Saw was never intended as a prophecy. “I’m not a prophet,” Tatsuki said. “My work is meant to raise awareness and encourage preparedness, not fear.”But her comments have done little to stop the runaway panic. In the age of viral misinformation, even a fictional account can be interpreted as a chilling prediction.<h2>A temporary tremor in Japan’s tourism story?</h2>The timing couldn’t be worse. Japan had just begun enjoying a full rebound in international tourism following years of pandemic-related travel restrictions. In April 2025, the country welcomed a record 3.9 million visitors, driven by its springtime beauty, cultural experiences, and culinary wonders. But as July approaches, many travellers are hitting pause.Industry experts believe that the fallout, though sharp, will be short-lived. Japan’s tourism agencies said they have seen similar viral trends before, the situations create momentary dips, but the appeal of Japan usually prevails.Whether tourism rebounds quickly or takes longer to recover, The Future I Saw incident stands as a compelling case study in how online narratives, no matter how fictional, can have tangible, global consequences.For now, July 5 is just a date on the calendar. But for Japan's tourism sector, it marks a moment when art, anxiety, and algorithmic amplification collided, rewriting the travel plans of thousands.

Japan, which sits on the volatile Pacific Ring of Fire, experiences thousands of small quakes every year. The recent uptick of tremors, with over 900 recorded in the Kyushu region, has added fuel to the speculative fire, despite most being minor.

As Japan’s tourism industry entered 2025 on a historic high, with record-breaking visitor numbers and a global spotlight on its cultural allure, it faced an unexpected challenge this summer. Not from a natural disaster, not from geopolitical tension, but from a decades-old manga. A graphic novel titled Watashi ga Mita Mirai (The Future I Saw), first published in 1999 by elusive Japanese artist Ryo Tatsuki, has caused a sudden and significant drop in travel bookings to Japan, thanks to a viral “prediction” of a massive earthquake set to strike on July 5, 2025. A fictional forecast fuels real fears The manga gained renewed attention earlier this year when readers unearthed its eerily specific prophecy: a major quake, a deep crack forming beneath the seabed between Japan and the Philippines, and a tsunami with waves “three times” taller than those in the devastating 2011 disaster. The unsettling imagery, paired with the fact that the original edition appeared to foreshadow the Fukushima earthquake and nuclear crisis, quickly spiralled into viral anxiety, especially in Hong Kong. Social media platforms lit up with clips, screenshots, and dramatised readings of the manga. TikTok creators warned their followers against travelling to Japan in July. Conspiracy forums debated whether Tatsuki was a misunderstood prophet. In Hong Kong, where the manga’s re-release has found a cult-like following, travel agents reported a wave of cancellations and hesitations. The data backs the hysteria: Flight bookings from Hong Kong to Japan have dropped by nearly 50 per cent year-on-year, according to ForwardKeys. Between late June and early July alone, reservations plummeted by 83 per cent. Travel agencies like EGL Tours have slashed prices and even offered earthquake insurance, but to little effect. Airlines such as Greater Bay Airlines have responded by suspending flights to Japanese destinations like Tokushima due to the dramatic fall in demand. Expert rebuttals and an author’s clarification Scientists and seismologists have been quick to debunk the panic. Professor Robert Geller, a veteran seismologist from the University of Tokyo, told Travel and Tour World that earthquake prediction, even when backed by decades of research, is not scientifically possible. “There is no reliable way to predict when or where a major earthquake will strike,” Geller said. Japan, which sits on the volatile Pacific Ring of Fire, experiences thousands of small quakes every year. The recent uptick of tremors, with over 900 recorded in the Kyushu region, has added fuel to the speculative fire, despite most being minor. In an attempt to quiet the frenzy, Tatsuki herself stepped into the conversation. In interviews with Japanese outlet Mainichi Shimbun and The Guardian, she clarified that The Future I Saw was never intended as a prophecy. “I’m not a prophet,” Tatsuki said. “My work is meant to raise awareness and encourage preparedness, not fear.” But her comments have done little to stop the runaway panic. In the age of viral misinformation, even a fictional account can be interpreted as a chilling prediction. A temporary tremor in Japan’s tourism story? The timing couldn’t be worse. Japan had just begun enjoying a full rebound in international tourism following years of pandemic-related travel restrictions. In April 2025, the country welcomed a record 3.9 million visitors, driven by its springtime beauty, cultural experiences, and culinary wonders. But as July approaches, many travellers are hitting pause. Industry experts believe that the fallout, though sharp, will be short-lived. Japan’s tourism agencies said they have seen similar viral trends before, the situations create momentary dips, but the appeal of Japan usually prevails. Whether tourism rebounds quickly or takes longer to recover, The Future I Saw incident stands as a compelling case study in how online narratives, no matter how fictional, can have tangible, global consequences. For now, July 5 is just a date on the calendar. But for Japan's tourism sector, it marks a moment when art, anxiety, and algorithmic amplification collided, rewriting the travel plans of thousands.

Japan, which sits on the &nbsp;Pacific Ring of Fire, experiences thousands of small quakes every year. The recent uptick of tremors, with over 900 recorded in the Kyushu region, has added fuel to the speculative fire, despite most being minor.

The manga factor: How a 1999 comic shook Japan’s tourism industry

China has announced final anti-dumping duties of up to 34.9 per cent on brandy imported from the European Union, following a months-long investigation that concluded EU producers were selling the spirit at unfairly low prices. The duties will be effective for five years starting July 5, the Ministry of Commerce said in a statement. However, in a relief to French cognac makers, key players such as Martell &amp; Co (owned by Pernod Ricard) and Rémy Martin (owned by Rémy Cointreau) will be exempt from the tariffs, provided they adhere to previously agreed minimum price commitments.&nbsp;The price undertakings, accepted by Beijing following a legal review, allow participating companies to avoid the steep duties if they commit to not undercutting the Chinese market. The ruling stems from an anti-dumping investigation launched in January 2024 in response to a complaint from the China Alcoholic Drinks Association. The probe found that European brandy, particularly French cognac, posed a material threat to China’s domestic industry by being sold below fair market value.<h2>Retaliation amid broader trade dispute</h2>The decision comes amid rising trade tensions between China and the EU, particularly over Brussels’ move to impose tariffs of up to 45 per cent on Chinese-made electric vehicles. French cognac producers claim they are collateral damage in a geopolitical trade standoff unrelated to the spirits sector. Monthly cognac exports to China, traditionally the most valuable market for the spirit, have plunged by as much as 70 per cent since preliminary duties were announced last year, according to the Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (BNIC).The announcement initially rattled European markets, with shares of Pernod Ricard, Rémy Cointreau, and LVMH (owner of Hennessy and Rémy Martin) dropping in early trading. Losses were pared back after confirmation that major producers would be spared full duties under the price commitment scheme.Trade group spiritsEUROPE expressed disappointment over the ruling, calling the duties “a significant barrier to legitimate trade,” but welcomed the exemption for certain companies. It urged Chinese authorities to extend the exemption framework more broadly to other EU exporters.

The decision comes amid rising trade tensions between China and the EU, particularly over Brussels’ move to impose tariffs of up to 45 per cent on Chinese-made electric vehicles. 

China has announced final anti-dumping duties of up to 34.9 per cent on brandy imported from the European Union, following a months-long investigation that concluded EU producers were selling the spirit at unfairly low prices. The duties will be effective for five years starting July 5, the Ministry of Commerce said in a statement. However, in a relief to French cognac makers, key players such as Martell & Co (owned by Pernod Ricard) and Rémy Martin (owned by Rémy Cointreau) will be exempt from the tariffs, provided they adhere to previously agreed minimum price commitments. The price undertakings, accepted by Beijing following a legal review, allow participating companies to avoid the steep duties if they commit to not undercutting the Chinese market. The ruling stems from an anti-dumping investigation launched in January 2024 in response to a complaint from the China Alcoholic Drinks Association. The probe found that European brandy, particularly French cognac, posed a material threat to China’s domestic industry by being sold below fair market value. Retaliation amid broader trade dispute The decision comes amid rising trade tensions between China and the EU, particularly over Brussels’ move to impose tariffs of up to 45 per cent on Chinese-made electric vehicles. French cognac producers claim they are collateral damage in a geopolitical trade standoff unrelated to the spirits sector. Monthly cognac exports to China, traditionally the most valuable market for the spirit, have plunged by as much as 70 per cent since preliminary duties were announced last year, according to the Bureau National Interprofessionnel du Cognac (BNIC). The announcement initially rattled European markets, with shares of Pernod Ricard, Rémy Cointreau, and LVMH (owner of Hennessy and Rémy Martin) dropping in early trading. Losses were pared back after confirmation that major producers would be spared full duties under the price commitment scheme. Trade group spiritsEUROPE expressed disappointment over the ruling, calling the duties “a significant barrier to legitimate trade,” but welcomed the exemption for certain companies. It urged Chinese authorities to extend the exemption framework more broadly to other EU exporters.

The decision comes amid rising trade tensions between China and the EU, particularly over Brussels’ move to impose tariffs of up to 45 per cent on Chinese-made electric vehicles.&nbsp;

China imposes tariffs on EU brandy, spares major cognac makers

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), India's market regulator, has banned&nbsp;a US-based trading firm, Jane Street Group, from accessing the local securities market for allegedly amassing massive gains using "illegal manipulation".&nbsp;On Thursday, SEBI published a 105-page note accusing the company of market manipulation and restraining it from dealing in local securities. It said the company violated market "fairness and integrity" and illegally benefited from its trading activities.&nbsp;"It has been shown that at least on 21 days, the JS Group has prima facie engaged in illegal manipulation of the securities that comprise the BANKNIFTY and NIFTY indices, thereby vitiating market fairness and integrity, and illegally benefiting from their trading activities and positions in the index options markets," SEBI said in a statement.&nbsp;"This is an unusual case where, prima facie, multiple liquid stocks with high retail participation have together been manipulated to facilitate the manipulation of the index options market, resulting in massive profits for the manipulators, at the cost of other participants and retail traders," it added.&nbsp;The market regulator said in the order that it would impound 48.4 billion rupees ($567 million) from Jane Street, which it said was the "total amount of unlawful gains" earned due to "alleged violations".&nbsp;Jane Street, denying SEBI's allegation, said it is committed to operating in compliance with all regulations in the region.&nbsp;<h2>What is Jane Street Group?</h2>&nbsp;Jane Street Group was founded by a small group of traders and "technologists" in New York in the late 1990s, according to the firm's website. It now employs over 3000 workers across five global offices.&nbsp;<h2>What does Jane Street Group do?</h2>&nbsp;The Jane Street Group says it&nbsp;emphasizes "understanding the edge cases and tail risks that others overlook".&nbsp;Its researchers and traders perform&nbsp;quantitative analysis of markets using sophisticated software. "This allows us to provide liquidity during the market’s most volatile moments," it adds.&nbsp;&nbsp;"We are a global liquidity provider and trading firm that uses sophisticated quantitative analysis and a deep understanding of market mechanics to help keep prices consistent and reliable," it says.&nbsp;The company trades in equities, bonds, options markets, and others. It registers profits by number-crunching, employing machine learning and "pen-and-paper" mathematics.&nbsp;The SEBI order said that between January 2023 and March 2025, Jane Street made $4.3 billion from trading in Indian derivatives and cash market.

On Thursday, SEBI published a 105-page note accusing the company of market manipulation and restraining it from dealing in local securities. It said the company violated market "fairness and integrity" and illegally benefited from its trading activities.

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), India's market regulator, has banned a US-based trading firm, Jane Street Group, from accessing the local securities market for allegedly amassing massive gains using "illegal manipulation". On Thursday, SEBI published a 105-page note accusing the company of market manipulation and restraining it from dealing in local securities. It said the company violated market "fairness and integrity" and illegally benefited from its trading activities. "It has been shown that at least on 21 days, the JS Group has prima facie engaged in illegal manipulation of the securities that comprise the BANKNIFTY and NIFTY indices, thereby vitiating market fairness and integrity, and illegally benefiting from their trading activities and positions in the index options markets," SEBI said in a statement. "This is an unusual case where, prima facie, multiple liquid stocks with high retail participation have together been manipulated to facilitate the manipulation of the index options market, resulting in massive profits for the manipulators, at the cost of other participants and retail traders," it added. The market regulator said in the order that it would impound 48.4 billion rupees ($567 million) from Jane Street, which it said was the "total amount of unlawful gains" earned due to "alleged violations". Jane Street, denying SEBI's allegation, said it is committed to operating in compliance with all regulations in the region. What is Jane Street Group? Jane Street Group was founded by a small group of traders and "technologists" in New York in the late 1990s, according to the firm's website. It now employs over 3000 workers across five global offices. What does Jane Street Group do? The Jane Street Group says it emphasizes "understanding the edge cases and tail risks that others overlook". Its researchers and traders perform quantitative analysis of markets using sophisticated software. "This allows us to provide liquidity during the market’s most volatile moments," it adds. "We are a global liquidity provider and trading firm that uses sophisticated quantitative analysis and a deep understanding of market mechanics to help keep prices consistent and reliable," it says. The company trades in equities, bonds, options markets, and others. It registers profits by number-crunching, employing machine learning and "pen-and-paper" mathematics. The SEBI order said that between January 2023 and March 2025, Jane Street made $4.3 billion from trading in Indian derivatives and cash market.

On Thursday, SEBI published a 105-page note accusing the company of market manipulation and restraining it from dealing in local securities. It said the company violated market "fairness and integrity" and illegally benefited from its trading activities.

What is Jane Street? Here's why SEBI accused it of illegally making '$567 million'

President Donald Trump and his administration have claimed that tariffs being planned on US trade partners could yeild between $600 billion to $1 trillion annually, but fact checks and estimates in media and analyst reports vary. The tariffs are set to kick in from August 1, for countries who do not reach trade deals with the US before Trumps' July 9 deadline. The actual amount the US would get is still being debated. What are various estimates saying? Let's take a look.&nbsp;<h2>Tariffs are not paid by countries, but importers, and consumers could suffer</h2>Contrary to the perception being created, the tariffs are not paid by trading partner countries, but by importers of goods and services in the US. Most likely, they will transfer the cost to consumers in the US, by raising prices. This could lead to reduced demand for goods whose prices go up as a result of tariffs.Also, the tariffs can cause reduction in economic output, as importing raw materials or finished goods from affected countries become less attractive for US businesses. Any gains from tariffs could be offset by reduction in other revenues like income and payrole taxes, according to recent assessments by the Wharton School of Buiness in the University of Pensylvania and the Yale School of Business.<h2>White House claims vs factchecks on Trump tariff revenues</h2>Trump, his officials and the White House claimed in various statements that tariffs, likely to range between 70 per cent to 10 per cent for different countries, could generate between $600 billion to $1 trillion for the US each year. Auto tariffs alone could yeild $100 billion per year, as per these claims.&nbsp; These figures, however, have been widely disputed in factchecks in the US media, which say that they're too optimistic, and without proper methodologies. Accoridng to these reports citing economists and think tanks, the revenue is overestimated.<h2>What the treasury department estimates say about Trump tariff gains</h2>A clearer indication might come from US Treasury Department figures of June 20, which put tariff revenues at $75 billion for the month. The June figure is, however, significantly higher from previous months of May 2025 ($23bn), April ($15.9bn) and March ($9.6 bn). When annualised, it can be as much as $255bn for the whole of 2025. One thing, however, is clear: Tariff revenues are progressively increasing, and in the event of expansion from August 1, the income could rise.<h2>Research estimates on Trump tariff revenues vary from optimistic to pessimistic</h2>According to the Washingon DC think tank Tax Foundation, a 10 per cent universal tariff could rake in $200 bn annually, which works out to $2 trillion over 10 years. Similarly, a 20 per cent universal tariff could raise $3.3tn in a decade, or around $330bn per year. The think tank's estimates factored in reduced import volumes and an 85 per cent. Yet it does not fully account for dynamic economic effects, like GDP reduction.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Penn Wharton Budget Model projected in April that US could raise $5.2 trillion over 10 years, or $520 billion annually on a conventional basis. With dynamic situations (meaning different tarrifs for different countries and import fluctuations), this could go up to $4.5 tn, or $450 bn per year.&nbsp;Similarly, the Yale Budget Lab estimated a gain of $310 bn annually, which is $3.1 trillion over 10 years. As per this calculation, when the tariff breakdown was announced by Trump on April 2, the estimate was $1.4 trillion over 2026–2035, or at best $140 billion annually. But much has changed on the ground since April 2, as the US reached some trade deals with China, UK and Vietnam, and entered into negotiations with Canada and India.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/will-tariffs-end-the-global-flow-of-entertainment-9040587/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/will-tariffs-end-the-global-flow-of-entertainment-9040587/embed</a>&nbsp;The Peterson Institute for International Economics posited that even a hypothetical 50 per cent tariff on all imports would generate $780 bn per year, below Trump’s $1 trillion claim but still optimistic.&nbsp;The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analysing tariffs on China at 10 per cent, Canada at 25 per cent, and Mexico at 25 per cent estimated a gain of $130 billion in 2025 if fully implemented, or $1.3 trillion over 10 years. JP Morgan Research, based on tariffs announced by March 2025, estimated the figure at less than $400 billion annually, assuming imports remain the same.<h2>How will tariffs hit the US GDP and consumers?</h2>Various estimates have been made. Wharton, Yale and American Progress estimates show that tariffs can reduce the US GDP in the long term by up to 8 per cent. Consumer prices could go up, with households estimated to bear additional costs of up to $5,200 annually.<h2>Retaliatory tariffs could hit Americans hard</h2>At various times in the tariff war, China has threatened up to 125 per cent tariff on the US. Canada and Mexico have made similar threats.Some countries could divert divert tarde to non-tariffed countries and round-trip goods to the US. Both these could hit Americans hard.<h2>So what are the credible estimates of Trump tariff revenues?</h2>According to reports in US media outlets like CBS, Axios and Newsweek, if all tariff-affected countries’ imports were subject to the 2025 tariffs, annual revenue could range from $130 bn to $520 bn. Most of the credible estimates are at $250–400 bn after factoring in import reductions and other dynamic effects.&nbsp;They argue that the White House’s $600 billion–$1 trillion gain is possibly inflated beacuse even a 50 per cent universal tariff would not cross $780 billion annually. If the current tariff collections are anualised, the most optimistic figure would be around $255 billion, according to these reports.<h2>So is Trump overstating the gains from tariffs?</h2>Probably yes. The US president's claims of $600 billion to $1 trillion gains from tariffs is far higher than independent assessments. At best, they range from $130 bn to $520 bn per year. Even several of these estimates are assuming that import levels would remain same as before, and ignore that demand would reduce, and retaliatory tariffs could hit US exports.

The tariffs are set to kick in from August 1, for countries who do not reach trade deals with the US before Trumps' July 9 deadline. The actual amount the US would get is still being debated. What are various estimates saying? Let's take a look.

President Donald Trump and his administration have claimed that tariffs being planned on US trade partners could yeild between $600 billion to $1 trillion annually, but fact checks and estimates in media and analyst reports vary. The tariffs are set to kick in from August 1, for countries who do not reach trade deals with the US before Trumps' July 9 deadline. The actual amount the US would get is still being debated. What are various estimates saying? Let's take a look. Tariffs are not paid by countries, but importers, and consumers could suffer Contrary to the perception being created, the tariffs are not paid by trading partner countries, but by importers of goods and services in the US. Most likely, they will transfer the cost to consumers in the US, by raising prices. This could lead to reduced demand for goods whose prices go up as a result of tariffs. Also, the tariffs can cause reduction in economic output, as importing raw materials or finished goods from affected countries become less attractive for US businesses. Any gains from tariffs could be offset by reduction in other revenues like income and payrole taxes, according to recent assessments by the Wharton School of Buiness in the University of Pensylvania and the Yale School of Business. White House claims vs factchecks on Trump tariff revenues Trump, his officials and the White House claimed in various statements that tariffs, likely to range between 70 per cent to 10 per cent for different countries, could generate between $600 billion to $1 trillion for the US each year. Auto tariffs alone could yeild $100 billion per year, as per these claims. These figures, however, have been widely disputed in factchecks in the US media, which say that they're too optimistic, and without proper methodologies. Accoridng to these reports citing economists and think tanks, the revenue is overestimated. What the treasury department estimates say about Trump tariff gains A clearer indication might come from US Treasury Department figures of June 20, which put tariff revenues at $75 billion for the month. The June figure is, however, significantly higher from previous months of May 2025 ($23bn), April ($15.9bn) and March ($9.6 bn). When annualised, it can be as much as $255bn for the whole of 2025. One thing, however, is clear: Tariff revenues are progressively increasing, and in the event of expansion from August 1, the income could rise. Research estimates on Trump tariff revenues vary from optimistic to pessimistic According to the Washingon DC think tank Tax Foundation, a 10 per cent universal tariff could rake in $200 bn annually, which works out to $2 trillion over 10 years. Similarly, a 20 per cent universal tariff could raise $3.3tn in a decade, or around $330bn per year. The think tank's estimates factored in reduced import volumes and an 85 per cent. Yet it does not fully account for dynamic economic effects, like GDP reduction. The Penn Wharton Budget Model projected in April that US could raise $5.2 trillion over 10 years, or $520 billion annually on a conventional basis. With dynamic situations (meaning different tarrifs for different countries and import fluctuations), this could go up to $4.5 tn, or $450 bn per year. Similarly, the Yale Budget Lab estimated a gain of $310 bn annually, which is $3.1 trillion over 10 years. As per this calculation, when the tariff breakdown was announced by Trump on April 2, the estimate was $1.4 trillion over 2026–2035, or at best $140 billion annually. But much has changed on the ground since April 2, as the US reached some trade deals with China, UK and Vietnam, and entered into negotiations with Canada and India. https://www.wionews.com/videos/will-tariffs-end-the-global-flow-of-entertainment-9040587/embed The Peterson Institute for International Economics posited that even a hypothetical 50 per cent tariff on all imports would generate $780 bn per year, below Trump’s $1 trillion claim but still optimistic. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget analysing tariffs on China at 10 per cent, Canada at 25 per cent, and Mexico at 25 per cent estimated a gain of $130 billion in 2025 if fully implemented, or $1.3 trillion over 10 years. JP Morgan Research, based on tariffs announced by March 2025, estimated the figure at less than $400 billion annually, assuming imports remain the same. How will tariffs hit the US GDP and consumers? Various estimates have been made. Wharton, Yale and American Progress estimates show that tariffs can reduce the US GDP in the long term by up to 8 per cent. Consumer prices could go up, with households estimated to bear additional costs of up to $5,200 annually. Retaliatory tariffs could hit Americans hard At various times in the tariff war, China has threatened up to 125 per cent tariff on the US. Canada and Mexico have made similar threats. Some countries could divert divert tarde to non-tariffed countries and round-trip goods to the US. Both these could hit Americans hard. So what are the credible estimates of Trump tariff revenues? According to reports in US media outlets like CBS, Axios and Newsweek, if all tariff-affected countries’ imports were subject to the 2025 tariffs, annual revenue could range from $130 bn to $520 bn. Most of the credible estimates are at $250–400 bn after factoring in import reductions and other dynamic effects. They argue that the White House’s $600 billion–$1 trillion gain is possibly inflated beacuse even a 50 per cent universal tariff would not cross $780 billion annually. If the current tariff collections are anualised, the most optimistic figure would be around $255 billion, according to these reports. So is Trump overstating the gains from tariffs? Probably yes. The US president's claims of $600 billion to $1 trillion gains from tariffs is far higher than independent assessments. At best, they range from $130 bn to $520 bn per year. Even several of these estimates are assuming that import levels would remain same as before, and ignore that demand would reduce, and retaliatory tariffs could hit US exports.

The tariffs are set to kick in from August 1, for countries who do not reach trade deals with the US before Trumps' July 9 deadline. The actual amount the US would get is still being debated. What are various estimates saying? Let's take a look.

$1 TRILLION for the US from tariffs every year? Trump claims so, but it's complicated. Here are best and worst projections

US President Donald Trump’s sweeping new energy legislation, dubbed the “big beautiful bill” (BBB), may dramatically reshape America’s energy future, but not without serious trade-offs. The bill, passed by a narrow 218-214 House vote on July 3, accelerates fossil fuel development while phasing out tax credits that have driven the rapid growth of renewable energy in the US. While Trump and Republican allies hail the law as a victory for “energy dominance,” critics from the clean-energy sector, major utilities, and even moderate voices in tech and manufacturing argue that the bill could undermine the electric grid, drive up household power bills, and surrender the global race for artificial intelligence (AI) supremacy to China.<h2>A hit to renewables just when demand surges</h2>Under the new law, clean-energy tax credits will phase out more rapidly than previously planned. Projects must now be completed by the end of 2027 or break ground by June 2026 to qualify. The earlier Senate version had allowed a longer runway, requiring only that construction start by the end of 2027. Analysts warn the tighter deadline will result in about 20 per cent fewer clean-energy projects over the next decade.&nbsp;The timing couldn’t be worse. US power demand, flat for decades, is now surging due to the explosive growth of AI and data centres. According to the International Energy Agency, electricity consumption is projected to grow 25 per cent by 2035 and 60 per cent by 2050. Tech giants like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google are investing tens of billions in hyperscale data centres that require massive energy inputs, far more than current gas generation can cover.<h2>Rising costs, tight timelines, and a weakened grid</h2>The bill retains some clean-energy support mechanisms, such as the transferability of tax credits—critical for smaller developers to secure capital. And a more moderate version of “foreign entity of concern” (FEOC) rules for supply chains was included after earlier drafts were criticised for being overly restrictive. Still, many say the net effect is a steep climb for new projects.The rollback of credits for residential solar, electric vehicles, and energy efficiency further compounds the issue, potentially raising bills for millions of Americans. The Department of Energy reports electricity prices have already jumped 13 per cent since 2022 and could rise further as clean energy faces costlier implementation and more pressure shifts to ageing gas and coal plants.<h2>Geopolitical stakes and the AI race</h2>Beyond energy costs, the bill could have far-reaching global implications. China, America’s top tech rival, is investing heavily in energy infrastructure, installing more solar capacity than the rest of the world combined. While still reliant on coal, China now gets roughly a third of its power from renewables—compared to about 22 per cent in the US.Energy experts warn that delaying or cutting clean-energy deployment in the US could give China a decisive edge in the power-hungry AI race. Data centres are the backbone of AI innovation, and powering them affordably and reliably is critical. While some fossil fuel advocates hailed the bill, others worry the US is missing a vital opportunity to lead.

While Trump and his allies hail the law as a victory for “energy dominance,” critics from the clean-energy sector, major utilities, and moderate voices in tech and manufacturing argue that the bill could undermine electric grid, drive up household power bills, and surrender the global AI race

US President Donald Trump’s sweeping new energy legislation, dubbed the “big beautiful bill” (BBB), may dramatically reshape America’s energy future, but not without serious trade-offs. The bill, passed by a narrow 218-214 House vote on July 3, accelerates fossil fuel development while phasing out tax credits that have driven the rapid growth of renewable energy in the US. While Trump and Republican allies hail the law as a victory for “energy dominance,” critics from the clean-energy sector, major utilities, and even moderate voices in tech and manufacturing argue that the bill could undermine the electric grid, drive up household power bills, and surrender the global race for artificial intelligence (AI) supremacy to China. A hit to renewables just when demand surges Under the new law, clean-energy tax credits will phase out more rapidly than previously planned. Projects must now be completed by the end of 2027 or break ground by June 2026 to qualify. The earlier Senate version had allowed a longer runway, requiring only that construction start by the end of 2027. Analysts warn the tighter deadline will result in about 20 per cent fewer clean-energy projects over the next decade. The timing couldn’t be worse. US power demand, flat for decades, is now surging due to the explosive growth of AI and data centres. According to the International Energy Agency, electricity consumption is projected to grow 25 per cent by 2035 and 60 per cent by 2050. Tech giants like Amazon, Microsoft, and Google are investing tens of billions in hyperscale data centres that require massive energy inputs, far more than current gas generation can cover. Rising costs, tight timelines, and a weakened grid The bill retains some clean-energy support mechanisms, such as the transferability of tax credits—critical for smaller developers to secure capital. And a more moderate version of “foreign entity of concern” (FEOC) rules for supply chains was included after earlier drafts were criticised for being overly restrictive. Still, many say the net effect is a steep climb for new projects. The rollback of credits for residential solar, electric vehicles, and energy efficiency further compounds the issue, potentially raising bills for millions of Americans. The Department of Energy reports electricity prices have already jumped 13 per cent since 2022 and could rise further as clean energy faces costlier implementation and more pressure shifts to ageing gas and coal plants. Geopolitical stakes and the AI race Beyond energy costs, the bill could have far-reaching global implications. China, America’s top tech rival, is investing heavily in energy infrastructure, installing more solar capacity than the rest of the world combined. While still reliant on coal, China now gets roughly a third of its power from renewables—compared to about 22 per cent in the US. Energy experts warn that delaying or cutting clean-energy deployment in the US could give China a decisive edge in the power-hungry AI race. Data centres are the backbone of AI innovation, and powering them affordably and reliably is critical. While some fossil fuel advocates hailed the bill, others worry the US is missing a vital opportunity to lead.

While Trump and his allies hail the law as a victory for “energy dominance,” critics from the clean-energy sector, major utilities, and moderate voices in tech and manufacturing argue that the bill could undermine electric grid, drive up household power bills, and surrender the global AI race

Trump’s big beautiful bill risks AI leadership and power stability

After the US Congress passed the spending bill, President Donald Trump is turning his focus to implementing the widely-feared import tariffs. With what he called the 'Big Beautiful Bill' on his table to sign, Trump needs money to spend, and the tariffs could be one answer to where it will come from.<h2>Tariffs to start from August 1 as July 9 deadline not to be extended</h2>The often-unpredictable American president had said earlier that the July 9 pause on tarrifs will not be extended. Several countries incuding India have been negotiating an ease on tariffs or trade deals with the US ahead of the August 1 deadline. But in all likelihood, the tariffs will be implemented in some form or the other.<h2>‘10-12 countries’ to get letters Friday: Trump on tariffs</h2>On Thursday (July 3), Trump said his administration will start sending out letters to trading partner countries starting Friday. He said countries will have to start paying from August 1.&nbsp;"10 or 12" countries will get the letters on Friday, he said, with additional letters “over the next few days.”The tariffs will range from 10 per cent to 70 per cent for different countries, he said.“They’ll be fully covered and they’ll range in value from maybe 60 or 70 per cent tariffs to 10 and 20 per cent tariffs,” Trump told reporters. “I think by the ninth [July 9] they’ll be fully covered.”“The money will start to come into the United States on August 1,” Trump added.<h2>Some trade deals in place as July 9 Trump tariff deadline looms</h2>Trump has not yet specified which countries would face the highest tariffs, or which specific goods were to be targeted.In fact, the top rate of 70 per cent is even higher than what Trump had outlined on April 2, which he called “Liberation Day”. <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-team-highlights-indias-high-tariffs-8916254/embed">https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-team-highlights-indias-high-tariffs-8916254/embed</a>&nbsp;China, one of the main targets of Trump's tariff ire, has reached an initial agreement with the US on the tariffs. The UK and Vietnam are the only other countries that have such deals in place. For Vietnam, the deal is for a 20 per cent tariff on exports and a 40 tariff on transshipped goods.Talks with Canada were canceled over differences over its move to tax US tech companies. WIth India, trade negotiations are ongoing and a mini trade deal is expected any time before July 9 deadline.<h2>Trump seems determined to roll out tariffs</h2>“We have a couple of other deals, but you know, my inclination is to send a letter out and say what tariffs they are going to be paying,” Trump said.This in all likelihood means that the tariff wars are coming, and was not an empty threat of Trump.&nbsp;

Several countries incuding India have been negotiating ease on tariffs or trade deals with the US ahead of the August 1 deadline. But in all likelihood, the tariffs will be implemented in some form or the other

After the US Congress passed the spending bill, President Donald Trump is turning his focus to implementing the widely-feared import tariffs. With what he called the 'Big Beautiful Bill' on his table to sign, Trump needs money to spend, and the tariffs could be one answer to where it will come from. Tariffs to start from August 1 as July 9 deadline not to be extended The often-unpredictable American president had said earlier that the July 9 pause on tarrifs will not be extended. Several countries incuding India have been negotiating an ease on tariffs or trade deals with the US ahead of the August 1 deadline. But in all likelihood, the tariffs will be implemented in some form or the other. ‘10-12 countries’ to get letters Friday: Trump on tariffs On Thursday (July 3), Trump said his administration will start sending out letters to trading partner countries starting Friday. He said countries will have to start paying from August 1. "10 or 12" countries will get the letters on Friday, he said, with additional letters “over the next few days.” The tariffs will range from 10 per cent to 70 per cent for different countries, he said. “They’ll be fully covered and they’ll range in value from maybe 60 or 70 per cent tariffs to 10 and 20 per cent tariffs,” Trump told reporters. “I think by the ninth [July 9] they’ll be fully covered.” “The money will start to come into the United States on August 1,” Trump added. Some trade deals in place as July 9 Trump tariff deadline looms Trump has not yet specified which countries would face the highest tariffs, or which specific goods were to be targeted. In fact, the top rate of 70 per cent is even higher than what Trump had outlined on April 2, which he called “Liberation Day”. https://www.wionews.com/videos/trump-team-highlights-indias-high-tariffs-8916254/embed China, one of the main targets of Trump's tariff ire, has reached an initial agreement with the US on the tariffs. The UK and Vietnam are the only other countries that have such deals in place. For Vietnam, the deal is for a 20 per cent tariff on exports and a 40 tariff on transshipped goods. Talks with Canada were canceled over differences over its move to tax US tech companies. WIth India, trade negotiations are ongoing and a mini trade deal is expected any time before July 9 deadline. Trump seems determined to roll out tariffs “We have a couple of other deals, but you know, my inclination is to send a letter out and say what tariffs they are going to be paying,” Trump said. This in all likelihood means that the tariff wars are coming, and was not an empty threat of Trump.

Several countries incuding India have been negotiating ease on tariffs or trade deals with the US ahead of the August 1 deadline. But in all likelihood, the tariffs will be implemented in some form or the other

LETTERS GO OUT FROM TODAY: Trump tariffs to kick in from August 1, some countries could get tariffs as high as 70 per cent

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has taken sweeping action against US high-frequency trading firm Jane Street Group, banning it and three affiliated entities from accessing Indian securities markets amid serious allegations of large-scale manipulation in derivatives trading. In a damning 105-page interim order, SEBI has accused the firm of manipulating key Indian indices, including Nifty 50 and Bank Nifty, to generate illicit gains totalling nearly ₹36,500 crore ($4.4 billion) between January 2023 and March 2025.The markets regulator has directed the firm to deposit ₹4,843.5 crore (approximately $566 million) into an escrow account and imposed a debit freeze on its bank accounts. The ban will remain in place until the allegedly illegal gains are recovered. SEBI named JSI2 Investments Private Ltd, Jane Street Singapore Pte. Ltd, and Jane Street Asia Trading Ltd among the barred entities. “Unlike the vast majority of foreign portfolio investors and other market participants, [Jane Street Group] is not a good faith actor that can be, or deserves to be, trusted,” SEBI stated in the order.<h2>‘Engineered expiry day trades’</h2>According to SEBI, Jane Street repeatedly executed aggressive trades on index expiry days to influence the closing levels of the Bank Nifty and Nifty 50 indices, a practice that significantly impacted the broader market. The firm allegedly bought large volumes of Bank Nifty stocks and futures in the morning to push prices up while simultaneously creating short positions in the more liquid options market. Later in the day, it would offload those positions, dragging the index down and turning a profit on the short options bets.SEBI highlighted similar trades across 21 trading sessions, noting that Jane Street routinely placed “disproportionately high” buy orders at or above market price to artificially move prices. The firm’s strategies showed “no plausible economic rationale” beyond benefiting their options positions, the order stated.<h2>Disregarding warnings and market integrity</h2>What has alarmed regulators further is that Jane Street allegedly continued the practice even after being explicitly warned by the National Stock Exchange (NSE) in February 2025. Despite the advisory, the firm went on to influence expiry-day trading on multiple occasions in May 2025, including May 15, by deploying similar high-volume strategies in both futures and spot markets.SEBI concluded that Jane Street’s conduct violated its Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices (PFUTP) regulations and that its persistent manipulation compromised market fairness and investor trust.“The integrity of the market, and the faith of millions of small investors and traders, can no longer be held hostage to the machinations of such an untrustworthy actor,” SEBI noted.<h2>Jane Street responds</h2>In response to the charges, Jane Street has disputed SEBI’s findings. A spokesperson for the firm told CNBC that it intends to engage further with the regulator and emphasised that Jane Street is committed to regulatory compliance across all markets in which it operates.Market observers say the action could set a strong precedent. “Any player who is abusing the market requires to be shown the discipline,” said Deven Choksey, founder of DRChoksey FinServ. “The regulator is doing their job for keeping intact the market integrity.”

According to SEBI, Jane Street repeatedly executed aggressive trades on index expiry days to influence the closing levels of the Bank Nifty and Nifty 50 indices, a practice that significantly impacted the broader market.

The Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) has taken sweeping action against US high-frequency trading firm Jane Street Group, banning it and three affiliated entities from accessing Indian securities markets amid serious allegations of large-scale manipulation in derivatives trading. In a damning 105-page interim order, SEBI has accused the firm of manipulating key Indian indices, including Nifty 50 and Bank Nifty, to generate illicit gains totalling nearly ₹36,500 crore ($4.4 billion) between January 2023 and March 2025. The markets regulator has directed the firm to deposit ₹4,843.5 crore (approximately $566 million) into an escrow account and imposed a debit freeze on its bank accounts. The ban will remain in place until the allegedly illegal gains are recovered. SEBI named JSI2 Investments Private Ltd, Jane Street Singapore Pte. Ltd, and Jane Street Asia Trading Ltd among the barred entities. “Unlike the vast majority of foreign portfolio investors and other market participants, [Jane Street Group] is not a good faith actor that can be, or deserves to be, trusted,” SEBI stated in the order. ‘Engineered expiry day trades’ According to SEBI, Jane Street repeatedly executed aggressive trades on index expiry days to influence the closing levels of the Bank Nifty and Nifty 50 indices, a practice that significantly impacted the broader market. The firm allegedly bought large volumes of Bank Nifty stocks and futures in the morning to push prices up while simultaneously creating short positions in the more liquid options market. Later in the day, it would offload those positions, dragging the index down and turning a profit on the short options bets. SEBI highlighted similar trades across 21 trading sessions, noting that Jane Street routinely placed “disproportionately high” buy orders at or above market price to artificially move prices. The firm’s strategies showed “no plausible economic rationale” beyond benefiting their options positions, the order stated. Disregarding warnings and market integrity What has alarmed regulators further is that Jane Street allegedly continued the practice even after being explicitly warned by the National Stock Exchange (NSE) in February 2025. Despite the advisory, the firm went on to influence expiry-day trading on multiple occasions in May 2025, including May 15, by deploying similar high-volume strategies in both futures and spot markets. SEBI concluded that Jane Street’s conduct violated its Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices (PFUTP) regulations and that its persistent manipulation compromised market fairness and investor trust. “The integrity of the market, and the faith of millions of small investors and traders, can no longer be held hostage to the machinations of such an untrustworthy actor,” SEBI noted. Jane Street responds In response to the charges, Jane Street has disputed SEBI’s findings. A spokesperson for the firm told CNBC that it intends to engage further with the regulator and emphasised that Jane Street is committed to regulatory compliance across all markets in which it operates. Market observers say the action could set a strong precedent. “Any player who is abusing the market requires to be shown the discipline,” said Deven Choksey, founder of DRChoksey FinServ. “The regulator is doing their job for keeping intact the market integrity.”

According to SEBI, Jane Street repeatedly executed aggressive trades on index expiry days to influence the closing levels of the Bank Nifty and Nifty 50 indices, a practice that significantly impacted the broader market.

Jane Street barred from Indian markets as SEBI alleges massive derivatives manipulation

Tesla saw a modest rebound in the UK last month, with new car sales rising 12 per cent year-on-year in June, according to fresh data from research group New AutoMotive. The US electric vehicle (EV) maker delivered 7,891 vehicles in the UK in June, up from 7,019 during the same month in 2024. The boost coincided with the start of deliveries for an updated Model Y.Overall, the UK’s new car registrations rose 12.8 per cent in June to 187,655 units, driven by a 45.5 per cent surge in battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales. Despite this sector-wide boom, Tesla’s year-to-date sales in Britain remain nearly 2 per cent lower than in the same period last year, indicating that June’s uptick may not signal a sustained trend.June’s improvement comes on the heels of a dismal May for Tesla in the UK, when sales tumbled more than 45 per cent year-on-year. The company sold just 1,758 vehicles in May, down sharply from 3,244 a year earlier. That plunge came amid rising criticism of CEO Elon Musk’s increasingly polarising political presence in Europe and mounting competition from rivals, particularly Chinese automakers.<h2>Tesla is slowing its grip in European markets</h2>Indeed, Tesla’s position across Europe is showing clear signs of erosion. In Q1 2025, the company posted steep sales declines in almost every major European market. According to registration data compiled by Reuters, Tesla's sales plummeted by 62.2 per cent in Germany, 55.3 per cent in both Sweden and Denmark, 49.7 per cent in the Netherlands, and 41.1 per cent in France. Other notable declines were seen in Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Italy, contributing to an unweighted average drop of over 30 per cent across the region.This downturn is not due to a shrinking EV market, far from it. European EV sales grew 22 per cent in Q1, with strong gains in countries like the UK, Spain, and Italy. Tesla's slipping sales and shrinking market share reflect deeper challenges: ageing vehicle models, intensified Chinese competition from brands like BYD, and the polarising public image of its CEO.Even in the UK, Tesla’s only bright spot in Q1, its market share declined by more than four percentage points, despite slight growth in total unit sales. As competitors gain ground and European EV adoption accelerates, Tesla faces a critical juncture, and if the company does not take any immediate action, its dominance in key global markets may continue to fade.

June deliveries of Tesla up 12 per cent  in Britain, but Q1 2025 data shows a steep decline across European markets.

Tesla saw a modest rebound in the UK last month, with new car sales rising 12 per cent year-on-year in June, according to fresh data from research group New AutoMotive. The US electric vehicle (EV) maker delivered 7,891 vehicles in the UK in June, up from 7,019 during the same month in 2024. The boost coincided with the start of deliveries for an updated Model Y. Overall, the UK’s new car registrations rose 12.8 per cent in June to 187,655 units, driven by a 45.5 per cent surge in battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales. Despite this sector-wide boom, Tesla’s year-to-date sales in Britain remain nearly 2 per cent lower than in the same period last year, indicating that June’s uptick may not signal a sustained trend. June’s improvement comes on the heels of a dismal May for Tesla in the UK, when sales tumbled more than 45 per cent year-on-year. The company sold just 1,758 vehicles in May, down sharply from 3,244 a year earlier. That plunge came amid rising criticism of CEO Elon Musk’s increasingly polarising political presence in Europe and mounting competition from rivals, particularly Chinese automakers. Tesla is slowing its grip in European markets Indeed, Tesla’s position across Europe is showing clear signs of erosion. In Q1 2025, the company posted steep sales declines in almost every major European market. According to registration data compiled by Reuters, Tesla's sales plummeted by 62.2 per cent in Germany, 55.3 per cent in both Sweden and Denmark, 49.7 per cent in the Netherlands, and 41.1 per cent in France. Other notable declines were seen in Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Italy, contributing to an unweighted average drop of over 30 per cent across the region. This downturn is not due to a shrinking EV market, far from it. European EV sales grew 22 per cent in Q1, with strong gains in countries like the UK, Spain, and Italy. Tesla's slipping sales and shrinking market share reflect deeper challenges: ageing vehicle models, intensified Chinese competition from brands like BYD, and the polarising public image of its CEO. Even in the UK, Tesla’s only bright spot in Q1, its market share declined by more than four percentage points, despite slight growth in total unit sales. As competitors gain ground and European EV adoption accelerates, Tesla faces a critical juncture, and if the company does not take any immediate action, its dominance in key global markets may continue to fade.

June deliveries of Tesla up 12 per cent&nbsp; in Britain, but Q1 2025 data shows a steep decline across European markets.

Tesla’s UK sales rebound in June, while the road remains bumpy in Europe

Wall Street surged on July 3, closing out the shortened trading session with record highs for the S&amp;P 500 and Nasdaq, as a stronger-than-expected June jobs report lifted investor sentiment, even as it reduced the likelihood of a Federal Reserve interest rate cut this month. The S&amp;P 500 rose 0.83 per cent to close at 6,279.36, while the Nasdaq Composite jumped 1.02 per cent to 20,601.10, both marking all-time highs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 0.77 per cent, ending just shy of its own record at 44,828.53. The rally has been fuelled by retail investors, who are largely ignoring the inflationary pressure on the horizon and uncertainty around tariffs.The rally came as the US Labor Department reported a gain of 147,000 jobs in June, surpassing economists’ expectations of 110,000. The unemployment rate ticked down to 4.1 per cent from 4.2 per cent, further signalling labour market resilience despite ongoing economic headwinds, including President Donald Trump’s tariff policies and political uncertainty over federal spending.<h2>Nvidia surges, Fed rate cut bets fall</h2>Among standout performers was Nvidia, which climbed 1.3 per cent to push its market capitalisation to $3.89 trillion, just a tad below Apple’s record valuation. The AI chipmaker is now within striking distance of becoming the most valuable publicly traded company in history.Investors appeared to brush off shifting expectations around monetary policy. Traders have now nearly priced out the possibility of a July rate cut, with CME Group data showing just a 4.7 per cent chance of a reduction this month, down sharply from 23.8 per cent a day earlier. Odds for a September rate cut also fell.Following the market close, Republicans in the House approved President Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill, which is expected to add $3.4 trillion to the national debt and impact millions of Americans’ access to health insurance.Despite potential long-term risks, markets remained buoyed. For the week, the S&amp;P 500 rose 1.72 per cent, the Nasdaq gained 1.62 per cent, and the Dow climbed 2.3 per cent. Trading volume was light ahead of the Independence Day holiday, with just 10.85 billion shares traded versus the 20-day average of 17.82 billion.

The US markets rally has been fuelled by retail investors, who are largely ignoring the inflationary pressure on the horizon and uncertainty around tariffs.

Wall Street surged on July 3, closing out the shortened trading session with record highs for the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, as a stronger-than-expected June jobs report lifted investor sentiment, even as it reduced the likelihood of a Federal Reserve interest rate cut this month. The S&P 500 rose 0.83 per cent to close at 6,279.36, while the Nasdaq Composite jumped 1.02 per cent to 20,601.10, both marking all-time highs. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 0.77 per cent, ending just shy of its own record at 44,828.53. The rally has been fuelled by retail investors, who are largely ignoring the inflationary pressure on the horizon and uncertainty around tariffs. The rally came as the US Labor Department reported a gain of 147,000 jobs in June, surpassing economists’ expectations of 110,000. The unemployment rate ticked down to 4.1 per cent from 4.2 per cent, further signalling labour market resilience despite ongoing economic headwinds, including President Donald Trump’s tariff policies and political uncertainty over federal spending. Nvidia surges, Fed rate cut bets fall Among standout performers was Nvidia, which climbed 1.3 per cent to push its market capitalisation to $3.89 trillion, just a tad below Apple’s record valuation. The AI chipmaker is now within striking distance of becoming the most valuable publicly traded company in history. Investors appeared to brush off shifting expectations around monetary policy. Traders have now nearly priced out the possibility of a July rate cut, with CME Group data showing just a 4.7 per cent chance of a reduction this month, down sharply from 23.8 per cent a day earlier. Odds for a September rate cut also fell. Following the market close, Republicans in the House approved President Trump’s sweeping tax and spending bill, which is expected to add $3.4 trillion to the national debt and impact millions of Americans’ access to health insurance. Despite potential long-term risks, markets remained buoyed. For the week, the S&P 500 rose 1.72 per cent, the Nasdaq gained 1.62 per cent, and the Dow climbed 2.3 per cent. Trading volume was light ahead of the Independence Day holiday, with just 10.85 billion shares traded versus the 20-day average of 17.82 billion.

The US markets rally has been fuelled by retail investors, who are largely ignoring the inflationary pressure on the horizon and uncertainty around tariffs.

S&P 500 and Nasdaq close at record highs after strong jobs market report

The latest US jobs report for June has painted a picture of a resilient labour market, with nonfarm payrolls rising by 147,000, well above analysts’ expectations of 110,000. The unemployment rate fell slightly to 4.1 per cent, marking it the lowest since February. However, beneath the headline figures, there are signs that the labour market is losing momentum, raising questions about the strength of the recovery and the path ahead for the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy.<h2>Government jobs lead the charge; private sector slows</h2>The June report showed that the job gains were heavily concentrated in government employment, which accounted for nearly half of the total increase. State and local government education saw a robust rise of 63,000 jobs, primarily due to the seasonal uptick in education-related hiring. Healthcare also contributed significantly, adding 39,000 jobs, while social assistance, which includes family services, added another 19,000 positions.Private sector hiring, however, showed signs of slowing down. While the overall increase in private payrolls stood at 74,000, it was the lowest gain since October 2024, signalling a cooling in hiring across many key industries. Notably, manufacturing shed 7,000 jobs for the second consecutive month, a worrying development for one of the sectors President Donald Trump has prioritised for growth. Retail and transportation, industries sensitive to trade policies, also showed weak job creation.Additionally, the report revealed a slight dip in the average workweek, edging down by 0.1 hour to 34.2 hours. This reduction suggests that businesses may be cutting hours as economic headwinds, such as tariffs and global uncertainty, begin to weigh on corporate decision-making.<h2>The Fed’s dilemma</h2>While June’s job gains exceeded expectations, the data could make it more challenging for the Federal Reserve to justify an interest rate cut in its upcoming meetings. The Federal Reserve has been under increasing pressure from President Trump to reduce borrowing costs, but with strong job growth and rising wages, the central bank may hold off on cuts in the near term.The report revealed a modest rise in average hourly earnings of 0.2 per cent, bringing the year-over-year wage increase to 3.7 per cent, which still outpaces inflation. However, wage growth has slowed from earlier months, and economists suggest this may signal a plateau in the labour market recovery.Though initial jobless claims remain low and overall unemployment is at a low level, the broader picture suggests caution. The labour force participation rate remained stable at 62.3 per cent, but this masks a larger issue, the number of people leaving the workforce is climbing. In fact, the household survey showed that the labour force contracted by 329,000 in June, signalling a shrinking pool of job seekers. The broader U-6 measure of unemployment, which includes discouraged workers and part-time workers seeking full-time jobs, fell to 7.7 per cent, its lowest level since January 2024.<h2>Cracks beneath the surface</h2>Despite the positive headline figures, the details of the June jobs report reveal cracks in the economy. One of the most notable concerns is the increase in the number of long-term unemployed workers. The number of people unemployed for 27 weeks or longer rose by 190,000 to 1.6 million, accounting for 23.3 per cent of the total unemployed population. This uptick, combined with a rise in the average duration of unemployment, suggests that many job seekers are facing longer periods of joblessness, despite the overall low unemployment rate.Moreover, the rising jobless rate for Black Americans, up to 6.8 per cent in June from 6.0 per cent the previous month, highlights persistent inequality in the labour market. The increase in jobless rates among women, who have left the workforce in greater numbers since January, further complicates the labour market’s outlook. Since the beginning of the year, 338,000 women have exited the labour force, while 183,000 men have joined it.The apparent resilience in the job market also belies underlying weaknesses in certain sectors. The loss of jobs in manufacturing, the slow growth in construction, and the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s trade and immigration policies all point to broader challenges.In short, while the June jobs report on the surface seems to reflect a thriving labour market, it hides significant challenges. The slowdown in private sector job creation, the rise in long-term unemployment, and the broader labour force contraction suggest that the economy is facing more headwinds than the headline data would suggest. For the Federal Reserve, these mixed signals will complicate its decision-making on monetary policy.&nbsp;(With inputs from agencies)

The June report showed that the job gains were heavily concentrated in government employment, which accounted for nearly half of the total increase. State and local government education saw a robust rise of 63,000 jobs, primarily due to the seasonal uptick in education-related hiring. 

The latest US jobs report for June has painted a picture of a resilient labour market, with nonfarm payrolls rising by 147,000, well above analysts’ expectations of 110,000. The unemployment rate fell slightly to 4.1 per cent, marking it the lowest since February. However, beneath the headline figures, there are signs that the labour market is losing momentum, raising questions about the strength of the recovery and the path ahead for the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy. Government jobs lead the charge; private sector slows The June report showed that the job gains were heavily concentrated in government employment, which accounted for nearly half of the total increase. State and local government education saw a robust rise of 63,000 jobs, primarily due to the seasonal uptick in education-related hiring. Healthcare also contributed significantly, adding 39,000 jobs, while social assistance, which includes family services, added another 19,000 positions. Private sector hiring, however, showed signs of slowing down. While the overall increase in private payrolls stood at 74,000, it was the lowest gain since October 2024, signalling a cooling in hiring across many key industries. Notably, manufacturing shed 7,000 jobs for the second consecutive month, a worrying development for one of the sectors President Donald Trump has prioritised for growth. Retail and transportation, industries sensitive to trade policies, also showed weak job creation. Additionally, the report revealed a slight dip in the average workweek, edging down by 0.1 hour to 34.2 hours. This reduction suggests that businesses may be cutting hours as economic headwinds, such as tariffs and global uncertainty, begin to weigh on corporate decision-making. The Fed’s dilemma While June’s job gains exceeded expectations, the data could make it more challenging for the Federal Reserve to justify an interest rate cut in its upcoming meetings. The Federal Reserve has been under increasing pressure from President Trump to reduce borrowing costs, but with strong job growth and rising wages, the central bank may hold off on cuts in the near term. The report revealed a modest rise in average hourly earnings of 0.2 per cent, bringing the year-over-year wage increase to 3.7 per cent, which still outpaces inflation. However, wage growth has slowed from earlier months, and economists suggest this may signal a plateau in the labour market recovery. Though initial jobless claims remain low and overall unemployment is at a low level, the broader picture suggests caution. The labour force participation rate remained stable at 62.3 per cent, but this masks a larger issue, the number of people leaving the workforce is climbing. In fact, the household survey showed that the labour force contracted by 329,000 in June, signalling a shrinking pool of job seekers. The broader U-6 measure of unemployment, which includes discouraged workers and part-time workers seeking full-time jobs, fell to 7.7 per cent, its lowest level since January 2024. Cracks beneath the surface Despite the positive headline figures, the details of the June jobs report reveal cracks in the economy. One of the most notable concerns is the increase in the number of long-term unemployed workers. The number of people unemployed for 27 weeks or longer rose by 190,000 to 1.6 million, accounting for 23.3 per cent of the total unemployed population. This uptick, combined with a rise in the average duration of unemployment, suggests that many job seekers are facing longer periods of joblessness, despite the overall low unemployment rate. Moreover, the rising jobless rate for Black Americans, up to 6.8 per cent in June from 6.0 per cent the previous month, highlights persistent inequality in the labour market. The increase in jobless rates among women, who have left the workforce in greater numbers since January, further complicates the labour market’s outlook. Since the beginning of the year, 338,000 women have exited the labour force, while 183,000 men have joined it. The apparent resilience in the job market also belies underlying weaknesses in certain sectors. The loss of jobs in manufacturing, the slow growth in construction, and the uncertainty surrounding Trump’s trade and immigration policies all point to broader challenges. In short, while the June jobs report on the surface seems to reflect a thriving labour market, it hides significant challenges. The slowdown in private sector job creation, the rise in long-term unemployment, and the broader labour force contraction suggest that the economy is facing more headwinds than the headline data would suggest. For the Federal Reserve, these mixed signals will complicate its decision-making on monetary policy. (With inputs from agencies)

The June report showed that the job gains were heavily concentrated in government employment, which accounted for nearly half of the total increase. State and local government education saw a robust rise of 63,000 jobs, primarily due to the seasonal uptick in education-related hiring.&nbsp;

US payroll expands beyond expectation in June, but are there cracks beneath the surface?

The United States dollar has fallen at its fastest pace in more than 50 years, with its worst performance in the first half of 2025 since the Arab oil embargo of 1973. The dollar index, which measures the US currency against a basket of six major global currencies, plummeted by 12.1 per cent from January to June 2025, bringing it down to 96.72. This sharp decline has sparked concerns not only in the US but across the world, as a weaker dollar threatens the stability of global markets and economies.<h2>The causes behind the collapse</h2>The most significant driver behind this dramatic fall has been President Donald Trump’s economic policies, including his tariffs and tax reforms. Initially, many believed that Trump’s trade war with China and other nations would lead to a stronger dollar, as foreign countries’ currencies would weaken in response to rising tariffs on US imports. However, the opposite has occurred: the dollar’s value has steadily fallen.One primary reason for this is the slowdown in US economic growth. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently downgraded its forecast for US GDP growth in 2025 from 2.4 per cent to just 1.6 per cent. Meanwhile, inflation remains elevated, especially in core sectors, which has constrained the Federal Reserve’s ability to cut interest rates. Higher inflation, combined with slow growth, has made US assets less attractive to foreign investors, further driving down the dollar’s value. As a result, countries such as Germany and Japan, which are expected to experience stronger growth, have seen their currencies outperform the US dollar.Another key factor behind the dollar’s weakness is the growing uncertainty over the US government’s fiscal policies. President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill Bill”, which aims to extend tax cuts while slashing healthcare and welfare spending, would significantly increase the US national debt. The bill is projected to add $3.3 trillion to the debt by 2034, raising the debt-to-GDP ratio from 124 per cent to an even more unsustainable level. These fiscal concerns, combined with political instability surrounding the US Federal Reserve’s independence, have further undermined confidence in the dollar.<h2>Global consequences</h2>The US dollar is not just the currency of the world’s largest economy; it’s also critical when we look at global finance. Approximately 54 per cent of world exports are denominated in US dollars, and the currency makes up more than half of global foreign exchange reserves. Consequently, a drop in the dollar’s value affects markets far beyond the US itself.In particular, the weaker dollar has impacted the value of international financial assets, including stocks, bonds, and commodities. The euro has gained 13 per cent against the dollar, hitting levels above $1.17, and the Stoxx 600 index of European stocks has seen a significant uptick, providing relief to investors looking for alternatives to US assets. In fact, investors are increasingly shifting their capital away from US markets and toward safer investments in Europe, as concerns about Trump’s trade war and his unpredictable economic policies mount.Central banks, too, are reacting to the shifting landscape. As the value of the US dollar falls, the price of gold has risen to new record highs, with many central banks investing in the precious metal as a hedge against the dollar’s devaluation. This shift underscores the growing uncertainty surrounding the dollar’s future and signals that many governments are preparing for potential currency instability.<h2>Implications for the US and other economies</h2>While a weaker dollar may provide some short-term benefits, such as making US exports more competitive, it also brings several negative consequences. For Americans, a declining dollar means higher prices on imported goods, leading to reduced purchasing power and rising inflation. Although some US firms may benefit from increased demand for American-made products abroad, it is still too early to tell if this will result in long-term economic growth.Moreover, a weaker dollar also threatens the stability of the US financial markets. The US has historically been able to finance its trade deficit by attracting foreign capital, including investment in US bonds and stocks. However, the current trend shows that foreign investors are becoming increasingly reluctant to hold US assets. This could lead to higher borrowing costs for the US government, potentially further exacerbating the country’s debt problems.For emerging markets, a weak dollar can have mixed effects. On one hand, it can reduce the burden of dollar-denominated debt in countries like India, Zambia, and Pakistan, where local currencies are often pegged to the greenback. On the other hand, a weaker dollar could also cause an increase in commodity prices, including oil, which is traded in US dollars. This could lead to higher costs for many developing nations that rely on imports of oil and other critical commodities.India, in particular, is feeling the effects of a weaker dollar. The Indian rupee has appreciated against the dollar, but Indian IT companies and exporters, which are heavily reliant on the US market, are facing growing pricing pressures. With US tariffs on Indian exports and higher costs for American consumers, the Indian economy is expected to experience some slowdown.<h2>What’s next for the dollar?</h2>Despite the alarming decline in the dollar’s value, some analysts remain cautiously optimistic, arguing that the US economy could eventually recover and the dollar's strength will be restored. The Trump administration’s push for tax cuts and deregulation has provided short-term boosts to market sentiment, and some investors believe that the US economy’s fundamental resilience could prevail.However, as long as growth remains sluggish and fiscal policies remain unstable, the dollar’s prospects remain uncertain. The Federal Reserve’s policy decisions in the coming months, particularly regarding interest rates, will likely play a crucial role in determining the direction of the currency. If the Fed decides to cut rates further to support the economy, this could exacerbate the dollar’s decline, causing even more damage to the US financial system and its global standing.

The most significant driver behind this dramatic fall in the US dollar index has been President Donald Trump’s economic policies, including his tariffs and tax reforms.

The United States dollar has fallen at its fastest pace in more than 50 years, with its worst performance in the first half of 2025 since the Arab oil embargo of 1973. The dollar index, which measures the US currency against a basket of six major global currencies, plummeted by 12.1 per cent from January to June 2025, bringing it down to 96.72. This sharp decline has sparked concerns not only in the US but across the world, as a weaker dollar threatens the stability of global markets and economies. The causes behind the collapse The most significant driver behind this dramatic fall has been President Donald Trump’s economic policies, including his tariffs and tax reforms. Initially, many believed that Trump’s trade war with China and other nations would lead to a stronger dollar, as foreign countries’ currencies would weaken in response to rising tariffs on US imports. However, the opposite has occurred: the dollar’s value has steadily fallen. One primary reason for this is the slowdown in US economic growth. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) recently downgraded its forecast for US GDP growth in 2025 from 2.4 per cent to just 1.6 per cent. Meanwhile, inflation remains elevated, especially in core sectors, which has constrained the Federal Reserve’s ability to cut interest rates. Higher inflation, combined with slow growth, has made US assets less attractive to foreign investors, further driving down the dollar’s value. As a result, countries such as Germany and Japan, which are expected to experience stronger growth, have seen their currencies outperform the US dollar. Another key factor behind the dollar’s weakness is the growing uncertainty over the US government’s fiscal policies. President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill Bill”, which aims to extend tax cuts while slashing healthcare and welfare spending, would significantly increase the US national debt. The bill is projected to add $3.3 trillion to the debt by 2034, raising the debt-to-GDP ratio from 124 per cent to an even more unsustainable level. These fiscal concerns, combined with political instability surrounding the US Federal Reserve’s independence, have further undermined confidence in the dollar. Global consequences The US dollar is not just the currency of the world’s largest economy; it’s also critical when we look at global finance. Approximately 54 per cent of world exports are denominated in US dollars, and the currency makes up more than half of global foreign exchange reserves. Consequently, a drop in the dollar’s value affects markets far beyond the US itself. In particular, the weaker dollar has impacted the value of international financial assets, including stocks, bonds, and commodities. The euro has gained 13 per cent against the dollar, hitting levels above $1.17, and the Stoxx 600 index of European stocks has seen a significant uptick, providing relief to investors looking for alternatives to US assets. In fact, investors are increasingly shifting their capital away from US markets and toward safer investments in Europe, as concerns about Trump’s trade war and his unpredictable economic policies mount. Central banks, too, are reacting to the shifting landscape. As the value of the US dollar falls, the price of gold has risen to new record highs, with many central banks investing in the precious metal as a hedge against the dollar’s devaluation. This shift underscores the growing uncertainty surrounding the dollar’s future and signals that many governments are preparing for potential currency instability. Implications for the US and other economies While a weaker dollar may provide some short-term benefits, such as making US exports more competitive, it also brings several negative consequences. For Americans, a declining dollar means higher prices on imported goods, leading to reduced purchasing power and rising inflation. Although some US firms may benefit from increased demand for American-made products abroad, it is still too early to tell if this will result in long-term economic growth. Moreover, a weaker dollar also threatens the stability of the US financial markets. The US has historically been able to finance its trade deficit by attracting foreign capital, including investment in US bonds and stocks. However, the current trend shows that foreign investors are becoming increasingly reluctant to hold US assets. This could lead to higher borrowing costs for the US government, potentially further exacerbating the country’s debt problems. For emerging markets, a weak dollar can have mixed effects. On one hand, it can reduce the burden of dollar-denominated debt in countries like India, Zambia, and Pakistan, where local currencies are often pegged to the greenback. On the other hand, a weaker dollar could also cause an increase in commodity prices, including oil, which is traded in US dollars. This could lead to higher costs for many developing nations that rely on imports of oil and other critical commodities. India, in particular, is feeling the effects of a weaker dollar. The Indian rupee has appreciated against the dollar, but Indian IT companies and exporters, which are heavily reliant on the US market, are facing growing pricing pressures. With US tariffs on Indian exports and higher costs for American consumers, the Indian economy is expected to experience some slowdown. What’s next for the dollar? Despite the alarming decline in the dollar’s value, some analysts remain cautiously optimistic, arguing that the US economy could eventually recover and the dollar's strength will be restored. The Trump administration’s push for tax cuts and deregulation has provided short-term boosts to market sentiment, and some investors believe that the US economy’s fundamental resilience could prevail. However, as long as growth remains sluggish and fiscal policies remain unstable, the dollar’s prospects remain uncertain. The Federal Reserve’s policy decisions in the coming months, particularly regarding interest rates, will likely play a crucial role in determining the direction of the currency. If the Fed decides to cut rates further to support the economy, this could exacerbate the dollar’s decline, causing even more damage to the US financial system and its global standing.

The most significant driver behind this dramatic fall in the US dollar index has been President Donald Trump’s economic policies, including his tariffs and tax reforms.

US dollar faces historic fall: A weaker greenback raises global concerns

Dr Subhash Chandra Exclusive Interview: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) Founder and Chairman Emeritus Dr Subhash Chandra revealed in an exclusive interview that the company board has approved a massive investment of Rs 2,237 crores (approx. $262 million) by the promoters. Dr Chandra said that the promoter stake will increase to 18.39 per cent and this will in turn boost investors’ confidence. ZEEL’s promoter shareholding stood at 3.99 per cent, as of March 31. Dr Chandra also shared future mega plans and recalled the difficult period when the promoter stake had to be sold after the company failed to repay debt.&nbsp;Dr Chandra further said in the exclusive interview with Zee Business Managing Editor Anil Singhvi that the promoter’s decision to invest Rs 2,237 crores (approximately $262 million) in the company is proof of his unwavering commitment to the company and its shareholders.&nbsp;<h2>Past struggle and resolve to repay debt</h2>&nbsp;Dr Chandra recalled the period when he first failed to fulfill his commitment to the financial markets on January 25, 2019, and had to sell a 44 per cent stake in ZEE to pay off debt of over Rs 40,000 crore (approx. $4.7 billion). The sale brought the promoters’ stake in ZEE down to just 4 per cent.The chairman emeritus admitted that the group’s other troubles, especially the mistakes in the infrastructure business, also affected ZEE Entertainment.“The infrastructure business was a big mistake, which was handed over to the wrong people,” he said, adding that after paying off the debt, he is now putting the recovery amount back into the company.&nbsp;<h2>Booster dose of Rs 2,237 crore</h2>&nbsp;The board of ZEE recently took a historic decision, on JP Morgan’s advice, and approved the issuance of 16,95,03,400 convertible warrants to the promoter group.The promoter group will invest a total of Rs 22,37,44,48,800 in the company, and after this investment, the total stake of promoters will increase to 18.39 per cent.Dr Chandra revealed that the most encouraging thing about this deal is that the promoters are buying shares at a price of Rs 132 per warrant, which is more than the regulatory price (Rs 128.58).This is the biggest proof of how much confidence they have in the future of the company, Dr Chandra said.&nbsp;<h2>‘Double benefit’ for shareholders</h2>&nbsp;The increased promoter holding will benefit the shareholders and result in a ‘double benefit’ for them. Firstly, the shareholders were uncomfortable with the promoter’s holding of only a 4 per cent stake in a large and complex business like ZEE, and so an increase in the promoters’ stake will boost investors’ confidence.Secondly, the infusion of Rs 2,237 crore (approx. $262 million) will act as a ‘booster dose’ for the company and give momentum to growth.&nbsp;&nbsp;This money will be used mainly for growth in content and technology, strengthening the balance sheet, and rapid implementation of the strategic growth plan, thereby putting the company in a better position to compete with big competitors like Reliance and Disney, Dr Chandra said.&nbsp;<h2>What’s the roadmap for the future?</h2>&nbsp;Dr Chandra said that there is still money to be paid in some accounts, which is being paid on the due date. Besides, money for infrastructure is pending with the state governments.&nbsp;The board believes that the promoters will be more motivated for the growth of the company as their stake increases in it, and this investment will put ZEE in a good position for the future, Dr Chandra said.When the owners are themselves increasing their stake by investing thousands of crores, and that too at a price higher than the market price, it shows that they expect tremendous growth in the future, said Dr Chandra.This will also increase the confidence of investors in the market and can have a direct impact on the performance of the stock in the coming days, he said.&nbsp;<h2>ZEEL share price climbs&nbsp;</h2>&nbsp;On Thursday, the stock of ZEEL was trading at Rs 144 with a gain of about 2 per cent. In the last one month, the stock has gained 10 per cent after rising 14 per cent in the last 6 months. This year the stock has jumped 16 per cent so far.

Dr Chandra revealed that the most encouraging thing about this deal is that the promoters are buying shares at a price of Rs 132 per warrant, which is more than the regulatory price (Rs 128.58). This is the biggest proof of how much confidence they have in the future of the company, he said.

Dr Subhash Chandra Exclusive Interview: Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd (ZEEL) Founder and Chairman Emeritus Dr Subhash Chandra revealed in an exclusive interview that the company board has approved a massive investment of Rs 2,237 crores (approx. $262 million) by the promoters. Dr Chandra said that the promoter stake will increase to 18.39 per cent and this will in turn boost investors’ confidence. ZEEL’s promoter shareholding stood at 3.99 per cent, as of March 31. Dr Chandra also shared future mega plans and recalled the difficult period when the promoter stake had to be sold after the company failed to repay debt. Dr Chandra further said in the exclusive interview with Zee Business Managing Editor Anil Singhvi that the promoter’s decision to invest Rs 2,237 crores (approximately $262 million) in the company is proof of his unwavering commitment to the company and its shareholders. Past struggle and resolve to repay debt Dr Chandra recalled the period when he first failed to fulfill his commitment to the financial markets on January 25, 2019, and had to sell a 44 per cent stake in ZEE to pay off debt of over Rs 40,000 crore (approx. $4.7 billion). The sale brought the promoters’ stake in ZEE down to just 4 per cent. The chairman emeritus admitted that the group’s other troubles, especially the mistakes in the infrastructure business, also affected ZEE Entertainment. “The infrastructure business was a big mistake, which was handed over to the wrong people,” he said, adding that after paying off the debt, he is now putting the recovery amount back into the company. Booster dose of Rs 2,237 crore The board of ZEE recently took a historic decision, on JP Morgan’s advice, and approved the issuance of 16,95,03,400 convertible warrants to the promoter group. The promoter group will invest a total of Rs 22,37,44,48,800 in the company, and after this investment, the total stake of promoters will increase to 18.39 per cent. Dr Chandra revealed that the most encouraging thing about this deal is that the promoters are buying shares at a price of Rs 132 per warrant, which is more than the regulatory price (Rs 128.58). This is the biggest proof of how much confidence they have in the future of the company, Dr Chandra said. ‘Double benefit’ for shareholders The increased promoter holding will benefit the shareholders and result in a ‘double benefit’ for them. Firstly, the shareholders were uncomfortable with the promoter’s holding of only a 4 per cent stake in a large and complex business like ZEE, and so an increase in the promoters’ stake will boost investors’ confidence. Secondly, the infusion of Rs 2,237 crore (approx. $262 million) will act as a ‘booster dose’ for the company and give momentum to growth. This money will be used mainly for growth in content and technology, strengthening the balance sheet, and rapid implementation of the strategic growth plan, thereby putting the company in a better position to compete with big competitors like Reliance and Disney, Dr Chandra said. What’s the roadmap for the future? Dr Chandra said that there is still money to be paid in some accounts, which is being paid on the due date. Besides, money for infrastructure is pending with the state governments. The board believes that the promoters will be more motivated for the growth of the company as their stake increases in it, and this investment will put ZEE in a good position for the future, Dr Chandra said. When the owners are themselves increasing their stake by investing thousands of crores, and that too at a price higher than the market price, it shows that they expect tremendous growth in the future, said Dr Chandra. This will also increase the confidence of investors in the market and can have a direct impact on the performance of the stock in the coming days, he said. ZEEL share price climbs On Thursday, the stock of ZEEL was trading at Rs 144 with a gain of about 2 per cent. In the last one month, the stock has gained 10 per cent after rising 14 per cent in the last 6 months. This year the stock has jumped 16 per cent so far.

Dr Chandra revealed that the most encouraging thing about this deal is that the promoters are buying shares at a price of Rs 132 per warrant, which is more than the regulatory price (Rs 128.58). This is the biggest proof of how much confidence they have in the future of the company, he said.

Dr Subhash Chandra reveals Rs 2,200-crore investment plan; promoter holding to rise over 18%

As the US and China hold onto a fragile trade truce, Beijing is growing increasingly concerned about Washington’s escalating efforts to isolate Chinese firms from global supply chains. Ahead of a key deadline on July 9, US officials are deep into negotiations with trading partners across Asia and Europe, pushing for agreements that include restrictions on Chinese goods or demand commitments to counter China’s alleged unfair trade practices. The first of these deals, a two-tiered tariff agreement with Vietnam, introduces a 20 per cent tariff on Vietnamese exports to the US, with a 40 per cent levy on goods believed to be transshipped through the country, often as part of a broader strategy to avoid US tariffs.&nbsp;While Vietnam has become a hub for Chinese companies seeking to sidestep tariffs by reassembling products and labelling them as Vietnamese-made, this agreement could significantly affect trade flows. According to reports, as much as 28 per cent of Vietnam’s exports to the US in 2022 included Chinese content. Other Asian nations, including India and South Korea, are negotiating similar “rules of origin” agreements to qualify for tariff exemptions, with India pushing for a lower threshold than the US demands.<h2>China responds with defiance</h2>In response, China has repeatedly voiced its opposition to such trade agreements, warning that it will not accept deals that harm its interests. The Ministry of Commerce has reiterated that China will “resolutely counter” any agreements designed to exclude Chinese companies from supply chains. Foreign minister Wang Yi is expected to bring up these concerns during his diplomatic tour of Europe, where the US has also been pressing for similar measures.The US has also been exploring the possibility of export controls on high-tech products like semiconductors, targeting Chinese firms’ access to advanced manufacturing tools. Taiwan recently added Huawei Technologies and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. to its entity list, further complicating the situation for Chinese companies seeking to maintain their supply chains.<h2>A shift toward “trusted” supply chains</h2>The broader risk for China is that these isolated trade pacts could eventually coalesce into a new global trade system focused on “trusted” supply chains, leaving Chinese firms on the outside. Beijing has expressed concern that countries, particularly within the EU, may align more closely with the US in the coming months, further constricting China’s access to global markets. The EU, which is China’s largest export destination for electric vehicles, has already been accused by Brussels of “weaponising” rare earths and magnets, a key element in China’s manufacturing strategy.If the US and its partners reach agreements on global supply chain security, export controls, and ownership rules, similar to provisions in the UK-US deal, China could be forced into a defensive stance. The EU’s stance remains delicate, with Washington leveraging its stronger economic ties to press for commitments that could further isolate Chinese firms.<h2>Transshipment and loopholes</h2>As the US crackdown on Chinese transshipment practices continues, the situation in Southeast Asia remains murky. Chinese businesses have quickly adapted to new US tariffs by shifting production across the region to countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand, where products are minimally altered before being exported to the US. Despite attempts by local authorities to close loopholes, such as Vietnam’s stricter enforcement and Malaysia’s crackdown on illegal rerouting, the reality is that enforcement remains challenging. Chinese companies are skilled at bypassing regulatory hurdles, even creating supply chains that make it appear as though goods are coming from other countries.This transshipment activity is expected to persist in the region, with experts noting that customs enforcement remains inconsistent and many businesses simply avoid unloading containers altogether in an effort to avoid inspection. This practice raises concerns that the US tariffs may not have their intended impact, especially if enforcement remains lax or the rules governing trade deals remain too vague.&nbsp;(With inputs from agencies)

US officials are deep into negotiations with trading partners across Asia and Europe, pushing for agreements that include restrictions on Chinese goods or demand commitments to counter China’s alleged unfair trade practices.

As the US and China hold onto a fragile trade truce, Beijing is growing increasingly concerned about Washington’s escalating efforts to isolate Chinese firms from global supply chains. Ahead of a key deadline on July 9, US officials are deep into negotiations with trading partners across Asia and Europe, pushing for agreements that include restrictions on Chinese goods or demand commitments to counter China’s alleged unfair trade practices. The first of these deals, a two-tiered tariff agreement with Vietnam, introduces a 20 per cent tariff on Vietnamese exports to the US, with a 40 per cent levy on goods believed to be transshipped through the country, often as part of a broader strategy to avoid US tariffs. While Vietnam has become a hub for Chinese companies seeking to sidestep tariffs by reassembling products and labelling them as Vietnamese-made, this agreement could significantly affect trade flows. According to reports, as much as 28 per cent of Vietnam’s exports to the US in 2022 included Chinese content. Other Asian nations, including India and South Korea, are negotiating similar “rules of origin” agreements to qualify for tariff exemptions, with India pushing for a lower threshold than the US demands. China responds with defiance In response, China has repeatedly voiced its opposition to such trade agreements, warning that it will not accept deals that harm its interests. The Ministry of Commerce has reiterated that China will “resolutely counter” any agreements designed to exclude Chinese companies from supply chains. Foreign minister Wang Yi is expected to bring up these concerns during his diplomatic tour of Europe, where the US has also been pressing for similar measures. The US has also been exploring the possibility of export controls on high-tech products like semiconductors, targeting Chinese firms’ access to advanced manufacturing tools. Taiwan recently added Huawei Technologies and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. to its entity list, further complicating the situation for Chinese companies seeking to maintain their supply chains. A shift toward “trusted” supply chains The broader risk for China is that these isolated trade pacts could eventually coalesce into a new global trade system focused on “trusted” supply chains, leaving Chinese firms on the outside. Beijing has expressed concern that countries, particularly within the EU, may align more closely with the US in the coming months, further constricting China’s access to global markets. The EU, which is China’s largest export destination for electric vehicles, has already been accused by Brussels of “weaponising” rare earths and magnets, a key element in China’s manufacturing strategy. If the US and its partners reach agreements on global supply chain security, export controls, and ownership rules, similar to provisions in the UK-US deal, China could be forced into a defensive stance. The EU’s stance remains delicate, with Washington leveraging its stronger economic ties to press for commitments that could further isolate Chinese firms. Transshipment and loopholes As the US crackdown on Chinese transshipment practices continues, the situation in Southeast Asia remains murky. Chinese businesses have quickly adapted to new US tariffs by shifting production across the region to countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand, where products are minimally altered before being exported to the US. Despite attempts by local authorities to close loopholes, such as Vietnam’s stricter enforcement and Malaysia’s crackdown on illegal rerouting, the reality is that enforcement remains challenging. Chinese companies are skilled at bypassing regulatory hurdles, even creating supply chains that make it appear as though goods are coming from other countries. This transshipment activity is expected to persist in the region, with experts noting that customs enforcement remains inconsistent and many businesses simply avoid unloading containers altogether in an effort to avoid inspection. This practice raises concerns that the US tariffs may not have their intended impact, especially if enforcement remains lax or the rules governing trade deals remain too vague. (With inputs from agencies)

US officials are deep into negotiations with trading partners across Asia and Europe, pushing for agreements that include restrictions on Chinese goods or demand commitments to counter China’s alleged unfair trade practices.

China braces for US trade deals aimed at excluding China from global supply chains

South Korea’s new President Lee Jae Myung has acknowledged that it remains unclear whether Seoul and Washington can settle their high-stakes tariff negotiations before a deadline set by US President Donald Trump, as both sides struggle to reconcile competing demands. At his first news conference since taking office last month, Lee struck a cautious tone, saying talks with the United States were “clearly not easy” and that negotiators were still working to clarify their positions and define common ground. As per the Associated Press, Lee warned that it was impossible to guarantee an agreement before Trump’s deadline next week, even as both governments race to avoid punishing new tariffs on South Korean exports.<h2>A deadline with big stakes</h2>The sense of urgency stems from Trump’s 90-day pause on new “global reciprocal tariffs,” which is set to expire on July 9. Once that pause ends, South Korean goods could be hit with sweeping 25 per cent tariffs—posing a major threat to the trade-dependent economy. South Korean officials are particularly worried about the possibility of higher duties on critical sectors such as automobiles and semiconductors. According to the Associated Press, these industries are the backbone of the country’s exports and a vital source of jobs and growth.&nbsp;Lee said it was essential to secure a “truly reciprocal outcome that benefits both sides,” but admitted the process was proving complex and politically sensitive. “It’s difficult to say with certainty whether we will be able to reach a conclusion by July 8. We are now doing our best,” he told reporters.<h2>Trump’s tough stance</h2>President Trump has championed his “America First” approach to trade, demanding what he calls fairer, more balanced deals with key partners. The Trump administration argues that some foreign producers have unfairly benefited from past trade rules at America’s expense. The Associated Press reports that Trump has also insisted on new tariff measures to stop companies from evading existing duties by shipping Chinese-made goods through third countries like Vietnam or South Korea.&nbsp;Beyond tariffs, there are concerns in Seoul that Trump might use the trade negotiations to demand higher payments from South Korea to cover the cost of hosting 28,000 US troops on the peninsula forces seen as vital to deterring North Korean threats.<h2>Lee’s cautious approach</h2>Lee, who came to power after winning a snap election following the ouster of conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol, has sought to balance a firm defence of South Korea’s interests with a pragmatic approach to US ties.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Associated Press notes that Lee has consistently urged patience in tariff negotiations, arguing that rushing into a deal could undermine the national interest. His trade minister, Yeo Han-koo, is reportedly arranging meetings in Washington with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in a last-ditch bid to secure a compromise.<h2>Broader diplomatic goals</h2>While trade is dominating headlines, Lee also used his news conference to lay out his vision for improving relations with North Korea. According to the Associated Press, Lee pledged to restart long-dormant inter-Korean talks, despite acknowledging that deep-seated distrust would make quick progress difficult. He also proposed resuming more frequent summits with Japan and reaffirmed his intention to pursue “pragmatic diplomacy” that balances ties with the US, China, Russia and North Korea.&nbsp;Lee’s government has already taken small steps to ease tensions with Pyongyang, halting anti-North propaganda broadcasts at the border and cracking down on activists who send leaflet balloons across the heavily fortified frontier.<h2>A delicate balance</h2>Lee’s challenge now is to secure a trade deal with Washington that shields Korean industry from crippling tariffs, while also managing an unpredictable relationship with North Korea and navigating Trump’s transactional approach to alliances.&nbsp;As the tariff deadline looms, South Korea’s new president is walking a tightrope, seeking to avoid economic disruption while maintaining the country’s strategic security partnership with the United States.&nbsp;(With inputs from the agencies)&nbsp;

With US tariffs set to hit South Korean exports, President Lee Jae Myung voices doubts over reaching a deal in time, as Seoul scrambles to protect key industries and manage diplomatic ties with Washington.

South Korea’s new President Lee Jae Myung has acknowledged that it remains unclear whether Seoul and Washington can settle their high-stakes tariff negotiations before a deadline set by US President Donald Trump, as both sides struggle to reconcile competing demands. At his first news conference since taking office last month, Lee struck a cautious tone, saying talks with the United States were “clearly not easy” and that negotiators were still working to clarify their positions and define common ground. As per the Associated Press, Lee warned that it was impossible to guarantee an agreement before Trump’s deadline next week, even as both governments race to avoid punishing new tariffs on South Korean exports. A deadline with big stakes The sense of urgency stems from Trump’s 90-day pause on new “global reciprocal tariffs,” which is set to expire on July 9. Once that pause ends, South Korean goods could be hit with sweeping 25 per cent tariffs—posing a major threat to the trade-dependent economy. South Korean officials are particularly worried about the possibility of higher duties on critical sectors such as automobiles and semiconductors. According to the Associated Press, these industries are the backbone of the country’s exports and a vital source of jobs and growth. Lee said it was essential to secure a “truly reciprocal outcome that benefits both sides,” but admitted the process was proving complex and politically sensitive. “It’s difficult to say with certainty whether we will be able to reach a conclusion by July 8. We are now doing our best,” he told reporters. Trump’s tough stance President Trump has championed his “America First” approach to trade, demanding what he calls fairer, more balanced deals with key partners. The Trump administration argues that some foreign producers have unfairly benefited from past trade rules at America’s expense. The Associated Press reports that Trump has also insisted on new tariff measures to stop companies from evading existing duties by shipping Chinese-made goods through third countries like Vietnam or South Korea. Beyond tariffs, there are concerns in Seoul that Trump might use the trade negotiations to demand higher payments from South Korea to cover the cost of hosting 28,000 US troops on the peninsula forces seen as vital to deterring North Korean threats. Lee’s cautious approach Lee, who came to power after winning a snap election following the ouster of conservative President Yoon Suk Yeol, has sought to balance a firm defence of South Korea’s interests with a pragmatic approach to US ties. The Associated Press notes that Lee has consistently urged patience in tariff negotiations, arguing that rushing into a deal could undermine the national interest. His trade minister, Yeo Han-koo, is reportedly arranging meetings in Washington with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in a last-ditch bid to secure a compromise. Broader diplomatic goals While trade is dominating headlines, Lee also used his news conference to lay out his vision for improving relations with North Korea. According to the Associated Press, Lee pledged to restart long-dormant inter-Korean talks, despite acknowledging that deep-seated distrust would make quick progress difficult. He also proposed resuming more frequent summits with Japan and reaffirmed his intention to pursue “pragmatic diplomacy” that balances ties with the US, China, Russia and North Korea. Lee’s government has already taken small steps to ease tensions with Pyongyang, halting anti-North propaganda broadcasts at the border and cracking down on activists who send leaflet balloons across the heavily fortified frontier. A delicate balance Lee’s challenge now is to secure a trade deal with Washington that shields Korean industry from crippling tariffs, while also managing an unpredictable relationship with North Korea and navigating Trump’s transactional approach to alliances. As the tariff deadline looms, South Korea’s new president is walking a tightrope, seeking to avoid economic disruption while maintaining the country’s strategic security partnership with the United States. (With inputs from the agencies)

South Korea’s President Lee Jae Myung warns of uncertainty over sealing a US tariff deal before Trump’s looming July 9 deadline.

US–South Korea tariff deal in doubt as Trump’s deadline approaches

In a significant development that threatens to disrupt Apple’s ambitious plans to ramp up iPhone production in India, Foxconn Technology Group, the Taiwanese company responsible for manufacturing a majority of Apple’s devices, has recalled hundreds of its Chinese engineers and technicians from its factories in India. This move, which began two months ago, has raised concerns regarding the ability of India to meet the growing demand for iPhones, especially with the launch of the iPhone 17 scheduled for later this year. According to media reports, more than 300 Chinese engineers and technicians have been sent back to China from Foxconn’s iPhone manufacturing plants located in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, two key factories in India.&nbsp;Foxconn, which has been instrumental in helping Apple scale up its production in India, did not issue an official statement about the move, and Apple has refrained from commenting as well. The decision to repatriate these Chinese workers coincides with broader geopolitical tensions and shifts in the global supply chain. Foxconn, which has been expanding its production capacity in India in recent years, has deployed a significant number of skilled Chinese engineers to fast-track the development of iPhone manufacturing lines in India. These engineers played a pivotal role in training local Indian workers and transferring critical technology for assembling iPhones.However, as of now, the majority of those who remain in India are Taiwanese technicians, raising concerns that the absence of the Chinese workforce could slow down the pace of training for local employees. While there are no immediate reports indicating that the quality of the final product will be affected, experts suggest that the disruption could impact the efficiency of the assembly line, leading to potential delays in production.<h2>China tightens its grip on talent and technology transfers</h2>The repatriation of Chinese engineers comes at a time when Beijing is reportedly tightening its grip on the movement of skilled labour and technology abroad. As part of an unofficial policy aimed at limiting technology transfers to countries like India and Vietnam, China has taken steps to discourage the outflow of essential manufacturing know-how and equipment. Reports suggest that the Chinese government has been urging local companies to curb exports of critical machinery and skilled labour to these nations, effectively hindering the expansion of foreign manufacturing operations.&nbsp;This move by China can be seen as a response to growing global efforts, particularly from the United States, to diversify supply chains and reduce dependence on Chinese manufacturing. During the Trump administration, the US imposed tariffs on Chinese exports, prompting many companies, including Apple, to shift some of their production capacity to alternative locations such as India and Vietnam. As global tensions between China and the US escalate, Beijing’s response appears to be aimed at preventing the further erosion of its manufacturing dominance.Furthermore, reports indicate that the Chinese government has also delayed the clearance of key machinery exports necessary for retrofitting assembly lines in India to handle the production of the upcoming iPhone 17. These machines, crucial for the manufacture of advanced smartphone models, have been held up by Chinese customs, further complicating Foxconn’s ability to ramp up production in India.<h2>Impact on Apple’s production plans in India</h2>Foxconn’s decision to send back hundreds of Chinese workers couldn’t have come at a worse time for Apple. The company is currently in the process of scaling up its operations in India to meet growing demand for its flagship products. Apple has long sought to diversify its manufacturing beyond China, and India has become a critical part of its strategy. The country’s production-linked incentive (PLI) scheme, designed to encourage local manufacturing, has played a crucial role in attracting companies like Apple to set up assembly plants.Apple intends to produce most of the iPhones sold in the US in India by the end of 2026. This marks a significant shift in Apple’s global supply chain strategy, as the company aims to reduce its reliance on China for iPhone manufacturing. In fact, Apple is already producing around 40 million iPhones annually in India, accounting for roughly 15 per cent of its global output. However, with the sudden departure of Chinese engineers, India’s ability to meet these production targets could be jeopardised.As part of its broader expansion plans, Foxconn had been planning to hire an additional 1,000 local employees in India by mid-July, further increasing its workforce to support Apple’s growth ambitions. The absence of Chinese engineers and the potential delay in key equipment shipments could lead to a slowdown in the training process, which may, in turn, result in an increase in the overall production cost of iPhones in India. This would further strain Apple’s margins, especially in comparison to the cost-effective manufacturing processes that have long been in place in China.<h2>India’s growing ambitions and the geopolitical tensions</h2>India has been actively courting foreign companies to set up manufacturing hubs within its borders. This is part of the government’s broader goal to transform India into a global manufacturing powerhouse, reducing its dependence on China for key technologies and goods. In addition to Apple, other major players like Asus, HP, and several toy manufacturers have moved part of their production to India in recent years.Apple’s $30-32 billion production target for India by 2027 is an ambitious one, but the country’s manufacturing infrastructure and labour force are still in the process of ramping up to meet such demands. While India’s government has expressed confidence that local workforce training and the growing pool of skilled workers will ensure minimal disruption, the recall of skilled Chinese labour presents an immediate challenge.Furthermore, tensions between India and China continue to simmer. Despite recent diplomatic efforts to ease relations, significant obstacles remain. India continues to ban several Chinese apps, including TikTok, while China has imposed selective export bans on fertilisers and critical materials like rare earth metals. These geopolitical factors add another layer of complexity to the already delicate process of setting up advanced manufacturing operations in India.<h2>Long-term consequences for Apple’s global supply chain</h2>The unfolding situation in India underscores the delicate balancing act Apple faces as it seeks to diversify its production away from China. While India offers significant advantages in terms of cost and access to a large labour force, the ongoing political and logistical challenges are not insignificant.Apple CEO Tim Cook has consistently praised the skill and expertise of Chinese assembly workers, calling it one of the main reasons Apple continues to rely heavily on China for production. As Foxconn faces delays in training local employees and retrofitting production lines, it’s clear that India’s ability to meet the demands of the iPhone 17 launch could be impacted, potentially affecting the timeline and cost of production.At the same time, Apple is facing growing pressure from the US government to bring more manufacturing back to American soil. The high labour costs in the US, however, make such a move difficult, and Apple’s push for increased production in India is seen as a necessary step to reduce costs and diversify its supply chain.

According to media reports, more than 300 Chinese engineers and technicians have been sent back to China from Foxconn’s iPhone manufacturing plants located in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, two key factories in India. 

In a significant development that threatens to disrupt Apple’s ambitious plans to ramp up iPhone production in India, Foxconn Technology Group, the Taiwanese company responsible for manufacturing a majority of Apple’s devices, has recalled hundreds of its Chinese engineers and technicians from its factories in India. This move, which began two months ago, has raised concerns regarding the ability of India to meet the growing demand for iPhones, especially with the launch of the iPhone 17 scheduled for later this year. According to media reports, more than 300 Chinese engineers and technicians have been sent back to China from Foxconn’s iPhone manufacturing plants located in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, two key factories in India. Foxconn, which has been instrumental in helping Apple scale up its production in India, did not issue an official statement about the move, and Apple has refrained from commenting as well. The decision to repatriate these Chinese workers coincides with broader geopolitical tensions and shifts in the global supply chain. Foxconn, which has been expanding its production capacity in India in recent years, has deployed a significant number of skilled Chinese engineers to fast-track the development of iPhone manufacturing lines in India. These engineers played a pivotal role in training local Indian workers and transferring critical technology for assembling iPhones. However, as of now, the majority of those who remain in India are Taiwanese technicians, raising concerns that the absence of the Chinese workforce could slow down the pace of training for local employees. While there are no immediate reports indicating that the quality of the final product will be affected, experts suggest that the disruption could impact the efficiency of the assembly line, leading to potential delays in production. China tightens its grip on talent and technology transfers The repatriation of Chinese engineers comes at a time when Beijing is reportedly tightening its grip on the movement of skilled labour and technology abroad. As part of an unofficial policy aimed at limiting technology transfers to countries like India and Vietnam, China has taken steps to discourage the outflow of essential manufacturing know-how and equipment. Reports suggest that the Chinese government has been urging local companies to curb exports of critical machinery and skilled labour to these nations, effectively hindering the expansion of foreign manufacturing operations. This move by China can be seen as a response to growing global efforts, particularly from the United States, to diversify supply chains and reduce dependence on Chinese manufacturing. During the Trump administration, the US imposed tariffs on Chinese exports, prompting many companies, including Apple, to shift some of their production capacity to alternative locations such as India and Vietnam. As global tensions between China and the US escalate, Beijing’s response appears to be aimed at preventing the further erosion of its manufacturing dominance. Furthermore, reports indicate that the Chinese government has also delayed the clearance of key machinery exports necessary for retrofitting assembly lines in India to handle the production of the upcoming iPhone 17. These machines, crucial for the manufacture of advanced smartphone models, have been held up by Chinese customs, further complicating Foxconn’s ability to ramp up production in India. Impact on Apple’s production plans in India Foxconn’s decision to send back hundreds of Chinese workers couldn’t have come at a worse time for Apple. The company is currently in the process of scaling up its operations in India to meet growing demand for its flagship products. Apple has long sought to diversify its manufacturing beyond China, and India has become a critical part of its strategy. The country’s production-linked incentive (PLI) scheme, designed to encourage local manufacturing, has played a crucial role in attracting companies like Apple to set up assembly plants. Apple intends to produce most of the iPhones sold in the US in India by the end of 2026. This marks a significant shift in Apple’s global supply chain strategy, as the company aims to reduce its reliance on China for iPhone manufacturing. In fact, Apple is already producing around 40 million iPhones annually in India, accounting for roughly 15 per cent of its global output. However, with the sudden departure of Chinese engineers, India’s ability to meet these production targets could be jeopardised. As part of its broader expansion plans, Foxconn had been planning to hire an additional 1,000 local employees in India by mid-July, further increasing its workforce to support Apple’s growth ambitions. The absence of Chinese engineers and the potential delay in key equipment shipments could lead to a slowdown in the training process, which may, in turn, result in an increase in the overall production cost of iPhones in India. This would further strain Apple’s margins, especially in comparison to the cost-effective manufacturing processes that have long been in place in China. India’s growing ambitions and the geopolitical tensions India has been actively courting foreign companies to set up manufacturing hubs within its borders. This is part of the government’s broader goal to transform India into a global manufacturing powerhouse, reducing its dependence on China for key technologies and goods. In addition to Apple, other major players like Asus, HP, and several toy manufacturers have moved part of their production to India in recent years. Apple’s $30-32 billion production target for India by 2027 is an ambitious one, but the country’s manufacturing infrastructure and labour force are still in the process of ramping up to meet such demands. While India’s government has expressed confidence that local workforce training and the growing pool of skilled workers will ensure minimal disruption, the recall of skilled Chinese labour presents an immediate challenge. Furthermore, tensions between India and China continue to simmer. Despite recent diplomatic efforts to ease relations, significant obstacles remain. India continues to ban several Chinese apps, including TikTok, while China has imposed selective export bans on fertilisers and critical materials like rare earth metals. These geopolitical factors add another layer of complexity to the already delicate process of setting up advanced manufacturing operations in India. Long-term consequences for Apple’s global supply chain The unfolding situation in India underscores the delicate balancing act Apple faces as it seeks to diversify its production away from China. While India offers significant advantages in terms of cost and access to a large labour force, the ongoing political and logistical challenges are not insignificant. Apple CEO Tim Cook has consistently praised the skill and expertise of Chinese assembly workers, calling it one of the main reasons Apple continues to rely heavily on China for production. As Foxconn faces delays in training local employees and retrofitting production lines, it’s clear that India’s ability to meet the demands of the iPhone 17 launch could be impacted, potentially affecting the timeline and cost of production. At the same time, Apple is facing growing pressure from the US government to bring more manufacturing back to American soil. The high labour costs in the US, however, make such a move difficult, and Apple’s push for increased production in India is seen as a necessary step to reduce costs and diversify its supply chain.

According to media reports, more than 300 Chinese engineers and technicians have been sent back to China from Foxconn’s iPhone manufacturing plants located in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, two key factories in India.&nbsp;

Foxconn repatriates Chinese engineers; what does it mean for Apple and India manufacturing?

The European Union is preparing to enforce its landmark AI Act, billed as the world’s first comprehensive set of rules for artificial intelligence. With parts of the regulation set to take effect on August 2, companies and political leaders are warning that the bloc may be moving too quickly and urging Brussels to consider a delay.&nbsp;As per Reuters, big US tech firms like Alphabet (Google’s parent) and Meta, as well as European companies including France’s Mistral and Dutch chip equipment giant ASML, have asked the European Commission to postpone enforcement of the law by years.<h2>What is the EU AI Act?</h2>Passed in 2024 after intense negotiations between EU member states, the AI Act aims to make artificial intelligence more transparent, safe, and accountable. It categorises AI systems by risk—from minimal to unacceptable and imposes tighter controls on high-risk and so-called general-purpose AI (GPAI) models.&nbsp;According to Reuters, these GPAI rules will apply to foundation models built by companies like Google, OpenAI and Mistral. The law includes requirements on documentation, transparency and risk management designed to ensure such powerful systems respect European values and consumer rights.<h2>What’s significant about the August 2 deadline?</h2>The EU AI Act is being rolled out in phases over several years, but August 2 is a key early deadline.Reuters reports that, from that date, companies building GPAI systems will have to:<ul><li>Produce detailed technical documentation.</li><li>Demonstrate compliance with EU copyright laws.</li><li>Summarise the content used for training their algorithms.</li><li>Test for bias, toxicity and robustness before launch.</li></ul>For models considered high-impact or posing systemic risks, even stricter obligations will apply. These include adversarial testing, formal risk assessments, incident reporting to the European Commission and disclosures about energy efficiency.<h2>Why do companies want a delay?</h2>Companies say they’re facing both high costs and legal uncertainty. As reported by Reuters, the core complaint is that the EU has yet to publish clear guidelines explaining exactly how firms should comply.A key guidance document, the AI Code of Practice, was supposed to be released on May 2 but is delayed. Without it, companies argue they don’t know precisely what standards they’ll be held to.&nbsp;In an open letter signed by 45 European companies and quoted by Reuters, they called for a two-year “clock-stop” to address this uncertainty and to simplify the new rules. The letter warns that the Act risks stifling European innovation, especially among smaller AI firms with fewer resources than their US counterparts.<h2>What are politicians saying?</h2>According to Reuters, calls for a pause aren’t limited to the private sector. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has described the AI rules as “confusing” and has asked the European Union to halt enforcement temporarily.&nbsp;Tech lobbying group CCIA Europe has also weighed in, calling for an urgent “stop-the-clock” measure to provide legal certainty while the necessary standards remain unavailable or incomplete<h2>Will the EU agree to postpone?</h2>For now, the European Commission has not committed to delaying the August deadline. Reuters reports that Brussels has declined to comment directly on any possible postponement.However, EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen said on Wednesday that the AI Code of Practice, the long-awaited guidance document will be published before August.&nbsp;Yet with less than a month to go, many companies say time is running out. As per Reuters, industry leaders warn that pushing forward without clear standards could lead to confusion, legal risk, and a blow to Europe’s ambition to lead in safe, trustworthy AI development. The debate over the AI Act’s timing highlights a broader challenge for regulators worldwide: balancing the need to rein in powerful new technologies without throttling innovation or leaving companies in regulatory limbo.&nbsp;(With inputs from the agencies)&nbsp;

As the EU prepares to enforce its AI Act on August 2, companies like Google, Meta, and ASML warn of confusion and rising costs amid missing guidance, pushing for a two-year delay.

The European Union is preparing to enforce its landmark AI Act, billed as the world’s first comprehensive set of rules for artificial intelligence. With parts of the regulation set to take effect on August 2, companies and political leaders are warning that the bloc may be moving too quickly and urging Brussels to consider a delay. As per Reuters, big US tech firms like Alphabet (Google’s parent) and Meta, as well as European companies including France’s Mistral and Dutch chip equipment giant ASML, have asked the European Commission to postpone enforcement of the law by years. What is the EU AI Act? Passed in 2024 after intense negotiations between EU member states, the AI Act aims to make artificial intelligence more transparent, safe, and accountable. It categorises AI systems by risk—from minimal to unacceptable and imposes tighter controls on high-risk and so-called general-purpose AI (GPAI) models. According to Reuters, these GPAI rules will apply to foundation models built by companies like Google, OpenAI and Mistral. The law includes requirements on documentation, transparency and risk management designed to ensure such powerful systems respect European values and consumer rights. What’s significant about the August 2 deadline? The EU AI Act is being rolled out in phases over several years, but August 2 is a key early deadline. Reuters reports that, from that date, companies building GPAI systems will have to: Produce detailed technical documentation. Demonstrate compliance with EU copyright laws. Summarise the content used for training their algorithms. Test for bias, toxicity and robustness before launch. For models considered high-impact or posing systemic risks, even stricter obligations will apply. These include adversarial testing, formal risk assessments, incident reporting to the European Commission and disclosures about energy efficiency. Why do companies want a delay? Companies say they’re facing both high costs and legal uncertainty. As reported by Reuters, the core complaint is that the EU has yet to publish clear guidelines explaining exactly how firms should comply. A key guidance document, the AI Code of Practice, was supposed to be released on May 2 but is delayed. Without it, companies argue they don’t know precisely what standards they’ll be held to. In an open letter signed by 45 European companies and quoted by Reuters, they called for a two-year “clock-stop” to address this uncertainty and to simplify the new rules. The letter warns that the Act risks stifling European innovation, especially among smaller AI firms with fewer resources than their US counterparts. What are politicians saying? According to Reuters, calls for a pause aren’t limited to the private sector. Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson has described the AI rules as “confusing” and has asked the European Union to halt enforcement temporarily. Tech lobbying group CCIA Europe has also weighed in, calling for an urgent “stop-the-clock” measure to provide legal certainty while the necessary standards remain unavailable or incomplete Will the EU agree to postpone? For now, the European Commission has not committed to delaying the August deadline. Reuters reports that Brussels has declined to comment directly on any possible postponement. However, EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen said on Wednesday that the AI Code of Practice, the long-awaited guidance document will be published before August. Yet with less than a month to go, many companies say time is running out. As per Reuters, industry leaders warn that pushing forward without clear standards could lead to confusion, legal risk, and a blow to Europe’s ambition to lead in safe, trustworthy AI development. The debate over the AI Act’s timing highlights a broader challenge for regulators worldwide: balancing the need to rein in powerful new technologies without throttling innovation or leaving companies in regulatory limbo. (With inputs from the agencies)

Big tech and EU firms urge Brussels to delay the AI Act’s August rollout, citing lack of clarity and high compliance burdens.

What is the EU AI Act and will it be delayed before the August deadline?

China has issued a stark warning that it will retaliate if its interests are threatened by the newly finalised trade agreement between the United States and Vietnam, underscoring the growing friction between Beijing and Washington as both countries recalibrate their global supply chains. The comments, delivered at a press briefing in Beijing, reflect China’s deep concern that the US is striking trade deals across Asia designed to curb its economic clout. According to Bloomberg, China’s Ministry of Commerce made clear it would not accept being sidelined in the region without responding.<h2>Beijing signals strong opposition</h2>At Thursday’s briefing, He Yongqian, a spokeswoman for China’s Ministry of Commerce, said Beijing is closely reviewing the details of the US–Vietnam deal to assess whether it damages China’s commercial interests. “We are happy to see all parties resolve trade conflicts with the US through equal negotiations but firmly oppose any party striking a deal at the expense of China’s interests,” He said, as reported by Bloomberg.&nbsp;She added that if the agreement were found to harm China, the country would “firmly strike back to protect its own legitimate rights and interests,” though she did not specify what form those countermeasures might take.<h2>What’s in the US–Vietnam deal?</h2>The warning comes just days after US President Donald Trump announced a new trade deal with Vietnam that includes a 40 per cent tariff on goods suspected of being transshipped through the country to evade existing US tariffs on Chinese-made products. As per Bloomberg, the Trump administration has targeted this practice, where companies move Chinese-made products to Vietnam, relabel them, and then ship them to the US to avoid tariffs, as part of its broader effort to reduce America’s trade deficit with China.&nbsp;Trump has insisted that the new tariff structure is essential to stop what he describes as unfair trade practices and to ensure that tariffs imposed on China cannot simply be circumvented through Vietnam.<h2>China’s broader trade worries</h2>Bloomberg notes that Beijing’s reaction reflects a broader anxiety about US efforts to build alternative supply chains in Asia, away from China. Washington has struck or is negotiating a series of trade agreements with countries across the Indo-Pacific, aiming to diversify manufacturing bases and reduce strategic dependencies on China, especially for critical technologies and industrial goods.&nbsp;This strategy has angered Chinese officials, who see it as an attempt to isolate China economically and contain its rise. The Ministry of Commerce’s latest comments are a continuation of Beijing’s tough line, signalling that any deals threatening China’s trade flows will be met with a response.<h2>Other trade tensions simmering</h2>China’s trade authorities also addressed another point of contention on Thursday. When asked about the ongoing anti-dumping probe into European Union brandy imports, the Ministry of Commerce said it would issue a final decision in the coming days.&nbsp;That investigation has been widely viewed as a retaliatory measure against EU moves to curb Chinese electric vehicle exports, a sign that Beijing is willing to use trade policy as leverage in multiple arenas.<h2>A fragile moment for global trade</h2>As per Bloomberg, China’s warning over the US–Vietnam deal highlights just how fragile the global trade environment remains. While Washington and its partners seek to secure supply chains and reduce over-reliance on China, Beijing views these moves as a direct challenge to its economic interests and is promising retaliation if it believes the country is being deliberately shut out.&nbsp;The escalating rhetoric underscores the risk of further trade tensions and tit-for-tat measures that could weigh on global commerce, unsettle markets, and complicate diplomatic ties well beyond Asia.&nbsp;(With inputs from the agencies)&nbsp;

Beijing issues a strong response to the new US–Vietnam trade agreement, accusing Washington of sidelining China and vowing to defend its trade interests, Bloomberg reports.

China has issued a stark warning that it will retaliate if its interests are threatened by the newly finalised trade agreement between the United States and Vietnam, underscoring the growing friction between Beijing and Washington as both countries recalibrate their global supply chains. The comments, delivered at a press briefing in Beijing, reflect China’s deep concern that the US is striking trade deals across Asia designed to curb its economic clout. According to Bloomberg, China’s Ministry of Commerce made clear it would not accept being sidelined in the region without responding. Beijing signals strong opposition At Thursday’s briefing, He Yongqian, a spokeswoman for China’s Ministry of Commerce, said Beijing is closely reviewing the details of the US–Vietnam deal to assess whether it damages China’s commercial interests. “We are happy to see all parties resolve trade conflicts with the US through equal negotiations but firmly oppose any party striking a deal at the expense of China’s interests,” He said, as reported by Bloomberg. She added that if the agreement were found to harm China, the country would “firmly strike back to protect its own legitimate rights and interests,” though she did not specify what form those countermeasures might take. What’s in the US–Vietnam deal? The warning comes just days after US President Donald Trump announced a new trade deal with Vietnam that includes a 40 per cent tariff on goods suspected of being transshipped through the country to evade existing US tariffs on Chinese-made products. As per Bloomberg, the Trump administration has targeted this practice, where companies move Chinese-made products to Vietnam, relabel them, and then ship them to the US to avoid tariffs, as part of its broader effort to reduce America’s trade deficit with China. Trump has insisted that the new tariff structure is essential to stop what he describes as unfair trade practices and to ensure that tariffs imposed on China cannot simply be circumvented through Vietnam. China’s broader trade worries Bloomberg notes that Beijing’s reaction reflects a broader anxiety about US efforts to build alternative supply chains in Asia, away from China. Washington has struck or is negotiating a series of trade agreements with countries across the Indo-Pacific, aiming to diversify manufacturing bases and reduce strategic dependencies on China, especially for critical technologies and industrial goods. This strategy has angered Chinese officials, who see it as an attempt to isolate China economically and contain its rise. The Ministry of Commerce’s latest comments are a continuation of Beijing’s tough line, signalling that any deals threatening China’s trade flows will be met with a response. Other trade tensions simmering China’s trade authorities also addressed another point of contention on Thursday. When asked about the ongoing anti-dumping probe into European Union brandy imports, the Ministry of Commerce said it would issue a final decision in the coming days. That investigation has been widely viewed as a retaliatory measure against EU moves to curb Chinese electric vehicle exports, a sign that Beijing is willing to use trade policy as leverage in multiple arenas. A fragile moment for global trade As per Bloomberg, China’s warning over the US–Vietnam deal highlights just how fragile the global trade environment remains. While Washington and its partners seek to secure supply chains and reduce over-reliance on China, Beijing views these moves as a direct challenge to its economic interests and is promising retaliation if it believes the country is being deliberately shut out. The escalating rhetoric underscores the risk of further trade tensions and tit-for-tat measures that could weigh on global commerce, unsettle markets, and complicate diplomatic ties well beyond Asia. (With inputs from the agencies)

China warns of retaliation over the US–Vietnam trade deal, citing threats to its interests amid escalating regional supply chain tensions.

China warns of retaliation over US–Vietnam trade deal as tensions flare

Business conditions in the United Arab Emirates faced fresh pressure in June as the Israel–Iran conflict rattled regional demand, denting sales and testing Dubai’s reputation as the Gulf’s commercial safe-haven. According to S&amp;P Global data cited by Bloomberg, the UAE’s non-oil private sector showed only modest growth last month, with companies reporting a slowdown in orders amid heightened geopolitical tensions.<h2>UAE PMI points to slowdown</h2>The UAE’s headline Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI), a key measure of private-sector health outside the oil industry, inched up to 53.5 in June from 53.3 in May, S&amp;P Global said. While still in expansion territory (above 50), the muted increase reflected caution among households and businesses.&nbsp;“The UAE non-oil sector showed signs of a minor setback in June due to the conflict between Israel and Iran,” said David Owen, senior economist at S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence, as quoted by Bloomberg. “The impact was primarily felt on the demand side, as some businesses reported a slowdown in orders driven by heightened tensions.”<h2>Dubai’s economy feels the strain</h2>The data showed a sharper impact in Dubai, the UAE’s commercial and financial hub, often seen as the Middle East’s safe port in a storm. Dubai’s non-oil PMI dropped to 51.8 in June from 52.9 in May, marking the lowest reading in nearly four years, S&amp;P Global reported. The decline was driven by what the firm described as “a marked slowdown in sales growth,” underscoring the vulnerability of the emirate’s economy to regional uncertainty.Several companies cited in the S&amp;P Global survey pointed to increased competition and weaker tourism linked to the heightened tensions, both of which weighed on new business.<h2>A test for the UAE’s “open for business” strategy</h2>As Bloomberg notes, the Israel–Iran conflict has posed a sharp test for the UAE’s long-standing strategy of maintaining political stability and an open, business-friendly environment in an often turbulent region.While the UAE has largely stayed insulated from direct military fallout, the conflict has fuelled worries over shipping risks, insurance costs, regional tourism flows and investor sentiment. Dubai’s model as a neutral, globally connected hub relies on steady demand and confidence from tourists, investors and multinational firms.&nbsp;&nbsp;The PMI data suggests that even without direct attacks, the conflict’s ripple effects can slow spending and investment.<h2>Outlook remains cautiously positive</h2>Despite the setback, economists see potential for recovery if regional tensions subside. “With consumer price pressures appearing limited, the latest data suggests that a rebound in sales growth is wholly possible in the coming months should regional tensions ease,” Owen told Bloomberg.&nbsp;The UAE has weathered previous regional crises, relying on its diversified economy, modern infrastructure and pro-business policies to maintain investor confidence. Analysts say these fundamentals remain intact, giving the country scope for a rebound later this year.<h2>Balancing growth and stability</h2>The latest PMI figures highlight the delicate balance the UAE must maintain as it promotes itself as a haven for global business while navigating a volatile neighbourhood. As S&amp;P Global’s report makes clear, even indirect consequences of geopolitical crises can undermine consumer demand and business confidence, underscoring the need for diplomacy and stability to sustain growth.&nbsp;While the Israel–Iran conflict continues to cast a shadow over Dubai’s economy, many observers remain confident in its resilience, provided the region can avoid a wider escalation in the months ahead. &nbsp;

UAE faces economic headwinds as regional conflict dampens business confidence, dragging Dubai non-oil PMI to its weakest level since 2020, S&P Global data shows.

Business conditions in the United Arab Emirates faced fresh pressure in June as the Israel–Iran conflict rattled regional demand, denting sales and testing Dubai’s reputation as the Gulf’s commercial safe-haven. According to S&P Global data cited by Bloomberg, the UAE’s non-oil private sector showed only modest growth last month, with companies reporting a slowdown in orders amid heightened geopolitical tensions. UAE PMI points to slowdown The UAE’s headline Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI), a key measure of private-sector health outside the oil industry, inched up to 53.5 in June from 53.3 in May, S&P Global said. While still in expansion territory (above 50), the muted increase reflected caution among households and businesses. “The UAE non-oil sector showed signs of a minor setback in June due to the conflict between Israel and Iran,” said David Owen, senior economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, as quoted by Bloomberg. “The impact was primarily felt on the demand side, as some businesses reported a slowdown in orders driven by heightened tensions.” Dubai’s economy feels the strain The data showed a sharper impact in Dubai, the UAE’s commercial and financial hub, often seen as the Middle East’s safe port in a storm. Dubai’s non-oil PMI dropped to 51.8 in June from 52.9 in May, marking the lowest reading in nearly four years, S&P Global reported. The decline was driven by what the firm described as “a marked slowdown in sales growth,” underscoring the vulnerability of the emirate’s economy to regional uncertainty. Several companies cited in the S&P Global survey pointed to increased competition and weaker tourism linked to the heightened tensions, both of which weighed on new business. A test for the UAE’s “open for business” strategy As Bloomberg notes, the Israel–Iran conflict has posed a sharp test for the UAE’s long-standing strategy of maintaining political stability and an open, business-friendly environment in an often turbulent region. While the UAE has largely stayed insulated from direct military fallout, the conflict has fuelled worries over shipping risks, insurance costs, regional tourism flows and investor sentiment. Dubai’s model as a neutral, globally connected hub relies on steady demand and confidence from tourists, investors and multinational firms. The PMI data suggests that even without direct attacks, the conflict’s ripple effects can slow spending and investment. Outlook remains cautiously positive Despite the setback, economists see potential for recovery if regional tensions subside. “With consumer price pressures appearing limited, the latest data suggests that a rebound in sales growth is wholly possible in the coming months should regional tensions ease,” Owen told Bloomberg. The UAE has weathered previous regional crises, relying on its diversified economy, modern infrastructure and pro-business policies to maintain investor confidence. Analysts say these fundamentals remain intact, giving the country scope for a rebound later this year. Balancing growth and stability The latest PMI figures highlight the delicate balance the UAE must maintain as it promotes itself as a haven for global business while navigating a volatile neighbourhood. As S&P Global’s report makes clear, even indirect consequences of geopolitical crises can undermine consumer demand and business confidence, underscoring the need for diplomacy and stability to sustain growth. While the Israel–Iran conflict continues to cast a shadow over Dubai’s economy, many observers remain confident in its resilience, provided the region can avoid a wider escalation in the months ahead.

UAE’s non-oil sector growth slowed in June as Israel–Iran tensions hurt demand, with Dubai’s PMI hitting a near four-year low.

Israel–Iran war threatens UAE business outlook before Q3 rebound

The US government has lifted recent export restrictions on chip design software sales to China, a move that is seen as a step toward easing trade tensions between the two countries. The decision follows a broader trade agreement between Washington and Beijing, aimed at restoring the flow of critical technologies and reducing tariffs imposed during the ongoing trade war. The US Commerce Department notified several major players in the electronic design automation (EDA) software market, including Siemens, Synopsys, and Cadence, that the restrictions imposed in May have been removed. These companies, which dominate the global chip design software industry, confirmed they had been granted the green light to resume sales in China without requiring export licences.Siemens, the German tech giant, announced that it had “restored full access” to its software and technology in China, following the government’s decision to lift the curbs. “We have resumed sales and support to Chinese customers,” Siemens said in a statement. Similarly, US-based Synopsys and Cadence confirmed that they were working to restore access to their software and technology in China, with both companies affirming that they are complying with US export laws.The lifting of restrictions comes after China and the US signed a trade deal that promised to ease some of the punitive measures each country had imposed on the other. As part of the agreement, the US agreed to relax curbs on chip design software, ethane exports, and jet engine technology, contingent upon China honouring its pledge to expedite the approval process for critical mineral exports.<h2>A critical move for the semiconductor industry</h2>The restrictions on chip design software were initially implemented in May 2025, as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to curb China’s semiconductor and artificial intelligence ambitions. These measures were triggered by China’s limitations on the export of rare-earth minerals, which are crucial for electronics and defence manufacturing.The US software giants, Siemens, Cadence, and Synopsys, dominate the EDA market, collectively holding nearly 80 per cent of China’s market share in this vital sector. EDA software is essential for designing and testing semiconductor blueprints, used in the production of everything from advanced processors for tech giants like Nvidia and Apple to simpler components for consumer electronics. Despite China’s efforts to create a self-sufficient chip design industry, the US companies remain integral to China’s semiconductor production capabilities.The lifting of these restrictions has been seen as a significant win for the tech companies involved. Shares of Synopsys and Cadence rose by 6 per cent and 7 per cent, respectively, following the announcement. Although the sector represents a relatively small portion of the global semiconductor market, around 1.6 per cent of the $600 billion industry, it plays a critical role in the broader supply chain, making it a key point of contention in US-China trade talks.<h2>Impact on global semiconductor landscape</h2>While the lifting of these restrictions is a positive development for the companies involved, it also highlights the ongoing strategic importance of the semiconductor sector. The US has long been cautious about allowing China access to advanced technologies that could enhance its military and economic power, leading to restrictions on chip design software, chip-making equipment, and high-tech components.China’s growing push for semiconductor self-sufficiency has seen mixed results, as it still heavily relies on foreign EDA software to produce competitive chips. The trade deal appears to signal a new phase in the US-China relationship, where both sides are willing to ease restrictions in exchange for commitments to accelerate the flow of critical resources, such as rare-earth minerals.As China and the US work to implement the terms of their trade agreement, the semiconductor industry will be closely watching how future trade dynamics unfold, particularly in the critical areas of chip design software and advanced manufacturing technologies.

The restrictions on chip design software by the US were initially implemented in May 2025, as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to curb China’s semiconductor and artificial intelligence ambitions.

The US government has lifted recent export restrictions on chip design software sales to China, a move that is seen as a step toward easing trade tensions between the two countries. The decision follows a broader trade agreement between Washington and Beijing, aimed at restoring the flow of critical technologies and reducing tariffs imposed during the ongoing trade war. The US Commerce Department notified several major players in the electronic design automation (EDA) software market, including Siemens, Synopsys, and Cadence, that the restrictions imposed in May have been removed. These companies, which dominate the global chip design software industry, confirmed they had been granted the green light to resume sales in China without requiring export licences. Siemens, the German tech giant, announced that it had “restored full access” to its software and technology in China, following the government’s decision to lift the curbs. “We have resumed sales and support to Chinese customers,” Siemens said in a statement. Similarly, US-based Synopsys and Cadence confirmed that they were working to restore access to their software and technology in China, with both companies affirming that they are complying with US export laws. The lifting of restrictions comes after China and the US signed a trade deal that promised to ease some of the punitive measures each country had imposed on the other. As part of the agreement, the US agreed to relax curbs on chip design software, ethane exports, and jet engine technology, contingent upon China honouring its pledge to expedite the approval process for critical mineral exports. A critical move for the semiconductor industry The restrictions on chip design software were initially implemented in May 2025, as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to curb China’s semiconductor and artificial intelligence ambitions. These measures were triggered by China’s limitations on the export of rare-earth minerals, which are crucial for electronics and defence manufacturing. The US software giants, Siemens, Cadence, and Synopsys, dominate the EDA market, collectively holding nearly 80 per cent of China’s market share in this vital sector. EDA software is essential for designing and testing semiconductor blueprints, used in the production of everything from advanced processors for tech giants like Nvidia and Apple to simpler components for consumer electronics. Despite China’s efforts to create a self-sufficient chip design industry, the US companies remain integral to China’s semiconductor production capabilities. The lifting of these restrictions has been seen as a significant win for the tech companies involved. Shares of Synopsys and Cadence rose by 6 per cent and 7 per cent, respectively, following the announcement. Although the sector represents a relatively small portion of the global semiconductor market, around 1.6 per cent of the $600 billion industry, it plays a critical role in the broader supply chain, making it a key point of contention in US-China trade talks. Impact on global semiconductor landscape While the lifting of these restrictions is a positive development for the companies involved, it also highlights the ongoing strategic importance of the semiconductor sector. The US has long been cautious about allowing China access to advanced technologies that could enhance its military and economic power, leading to restrictions on chip design software, chip-making equipment, and high-tech components. China’s growing push for semiconductor self-sufficiency has seen mixed results, as it still heavily relies on foreign EDA software to produce competitive chips. The trade deal appears to signal a new phase in the US-China relationship, where both sides are willing to ease restrictions in exchange for commitments to accelerate the flow of critical resources, such as rare-earth minerals. As China and the US work to implement the terms of their trade agreement, the semiconductor industry will be closely watching how future trade dynamics unfold, particularly in the critical areas of chip design software and advanced manufacturing technologies.

The restrictions on chip design software by the US were initially implemented in May 2025, as part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to curb China’s semiconductor and artificial intelligence ambitions.

US lifts export curbs on chip design software to China

Oil prices slipped on Thursday after a strong rally in the previous session, as traders weighed the looming threat of higher US tariffs, signs of faltering demand in major economies, and expectations that OPEC+ will announce an output increase at its upcoming meeting. According to Reuters, Brent crude futures fell 45 cents, or 0.65 per cent, to $68.66 a barrel by 0645 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude declined 44 cents, or 0.66 per cent, to $67.01 a barrel.&nbsp;The losses follow a roughly 3 per cent surge on Wednesday, when prices hit their highest level in a week. That rally was driven by geopolitical jitters after Iran suspended cooperation with the United Nations nuclear watchdog, fuelling fears the long-running dispute over its nuclear programme could spiral into armed conflict. Additionally, a preliminary trade deal between the US and Vietnam offered some support to sentiment.<h2>Tariff uncertainty clouds demand outlook</h2>However, attention has now turned back to the uncertain outlook for global demand, with traders wary of fresh tariff risks. As per Reuters, the US is nearing the end of a 90-day pause on higher tariffs, which is set to expire on 9 July. Without new trade agreements in place with major partners such as the European Union and Japan, there is growing concern that Washington could reimpose steeper duties.&nbsp;Analysts fear such a move could slow global trade and dampen fuel demand. ING analysts, cited by Reuters, noted that with both the tariff deadline and the US Independence Day holiday weekend approaching, many market participants will be reluctant to maintain large positions, reducing appetite for risk.<h2>OPEC+ expected to raise output</h2>The production outlook is also weighing on prices. According to Reuters, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its allies, including Russia, collectively known as OPEC+—are widely expected to agree to raise output by 411,000 barrels per day at their meeting this weekend.&nbsp;Such an increase would add to global supply at a time when demand signals are already flashing warnings, potentially putting further pressure on prices in the weeks ahead.<h2>Demand concerns deepen on China, US data</h2>Reuters also reported that demand worries were compounded on Thursday by weaker-than-expected economic data out of China, the world’s biggest oil importer. A private-sector survey showed service-sector activity in China expanded at its slowest pace in nine months in June, with domestic demand weakening and new export orders declining.&nbsp;Meanwhile, in the US, the world’s largest crude consumer, official data revealed a surprise build in inventories last week. The Energy Information Administration said crude stocks rose by 3.80 million barrels to 419 million barrels, defying analyst expectations in a Reuters poll for a drawdown of 1.80 million barrels. Weekly gasoline demand also fell to 8.6 million barrels per day, raising fresh concerns about consumption during the peak US summer driving season.<h2>Eyes on US jobs data, Fed outlook</h2>Traders are also awaiting key economic data to gauge the health of the US economy and the likely path of interest rates. Reuters noted that markets are keenly watching Thursday’s release of the US monthly employment report, which could help shape expectations around the depth and timing of potential Federal Reserve rate cuts later this year.&nbsp;Lower interest rates could stimulate economic activity, which would be expected to support oil demand. However, signs of a cooling labour market may complicate that outlook. A private payrolls report released on Wednesday showed a contraction for the first time in two years, though analysts cautioned there is no direct correlation with the government’s official data.

Crude prices slip after a brief rally, pressured by weak China and US demand data, looming US tariff hikes, and anticipated OPEC+ supply increases.

Oil prices slipped on Thursday after a strong rally in the previous session, as traders weighed the looming threat of higher US tariffs, signs of faltering demand in major economies, and expectations that OPEC+ will announce an output increase at its upcoming meeting. According to Reuters, Brent crude futures fell 45 cents, or 0.65 per cent, to $68.66 a barrel by 0645 GMT. US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude declined 44 cents, or 0.66 per cent, to $67.01 a barrel. The losses follow a roughly 3 per cent surge on Wednesday, when prices hit their highest level in a week. That rally was driven by geopolitical jitters after Iran suspended cooperation with the United Nations nuclear watchdog, fuelling fears the long-running dispute over its nuclear programme could spiral into armed conflict. Additionally, a preliminary trade deal between the US and Vietnam offered some support to sentiment. Tariff uncertainty clouds demand outlook However, attention has now turned back to the uncertain outlook for global demand, with traders wary of fresh tariff risks. As per Reuters, the US is nearing the end of a 90-day pause on higher tariffs, which is set to expire on 9 July. Without new trade agreements in place with major partners such as the European Union and Japan, there is growing concern that Washington could reimpose steeper duties. Analysts fear such a move could slow global trade and dampen fuel demand. ING analysts, cited by Reuters, noted that with both the tariff deadline and the US Independence Day holiday weekend approaching, many market participants will be reluctant to maintain large positions, reducing appetite for risk. OPEC+ expected to raise output The production outlook is also weighing on prices. According to Reuters, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its allies, including Russia, collectively known as OPEC+—are widely expected to agree to raise output by 411,000 barrels per day at their meeting this weekend. Such an increase would add to global supply at a time when demand signals are already flashing warnings, potentially putting further pressure on prices in the weeks ahead. Demand concerns deepen on China, US data Reuters also reported that demand worries were compounded on Thursday by weaker-than-expected economic data out of China, the world’s biggest oil importer. A private-sector survey showed service-sector activity in China expanded at its slowest pace in nine months in June, with domestic demand weakening and new export orders declining. Meanwhile, in the US, the world’s largest crude consumer, official data revealed a surprise build in inventories last week. The Energy Information Administration said crude stocks rose by 3.80 million barrels to 419 million barrels, defying analyst expectations in a Reuters poll for a drawdown of 1.80 million barrels. Weekly gasoline demand also fell to 8.6 million barrels per day, raising fresh concerns about consumption during the peak US summer driving season. Eyes on US jobs data, Fed outlook Traders are also awaiting key economic data to gauge the health of the US economy and the likely path of interest rates. Reuters noted that markets are keenly watching Thursday’s release of the US monthly employment report, which could help shape expectations around the depth and timing of potential Federal Reserve rate cuts later this year. Lower interest rates could stimulate economic activity, which would be expected to support oil demand. However, signs of a cooling labour market may complicate that outlook. A private payrolls report released on Wednesday showed a contraction for the first time in two years, though analysts cautioned there is no direct correlation with the government’s official data.

Oil prices dip as demand concerns, US tariff risks, and expectations of an OPEC+ output hike offset geopolitical tensions.

Oil prices slip as US tariff deadline, OPEC+ output hike loom