Trump's EU tariff extension pushes gold prices down
Gold prices eased on Monday after US President Donald Trump set a July 9 deadline for a trade deal with the European Union (EU), rescinding his earlier threat of a 50 per cent tariff from June 1.
Spot gold was down 0.3 per cent at $3,346.55 an ounce, while US gold futures fell 0.6 per cent to $3,345.80.
SPDR Gold Trust, the world's largest gold-backed exchange-traded fund, said its holdings fell 0.15 per cent to 922.46 tons on Friday from 923.89 tons on Thursday, Reuters reported.
Gold prices rose more than two per cent to a two-week peak on Friday, supported by safe-haven inflows after Trump recommended 50 per cent tariffs on EU imports from June 1 and said he was considering a 25 per cent tariff on any Apple iPhones made outside the US.
'There is (a) kind of element of relief in the marketplace after (the) pause on tariffs on the EU and we're seeing gold weaken,' the Reuters report quoted Kyle Rodda, Capital.com's financial market analyst, as saying.
Rodda, however, said the trend is still positive for gold because of the United States' actions, which is impacting them as well and that could negatively impact the dollar and U.S. assets, adding that most of the central banks were moving away from the dollar to gold.
The dollar index, meanwhile, fell to a nearly one-month low against its rivals. A weaker dollar makes greenback-priced gold less expensive for other currency holders.
Trump on Sunday backed off his threat to speed up 50 per cent tariffs on imports from the European Union, agreeing to extend his deadline for trade talks until July 9 after the head of the EU executive body said the bloc needed more time to 'reach a good deal'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Arabian Post
an hour ago
- Arabian Post
Elon's blood feud with Trump will not gut SpaceX's $350 billion valuation
Matein Khalid I had analyzed SpaceX as a potential 10X winner in the Dubai media circa late 2020 when it traded at a mere $46 billion in the private market and even invited a number of close friends in an investor syndicate after sourcing shares from the Founders Fund in San Fran via the secondary market. Shakespear's Henry V praised the English longbow archers who won him the battle of Agincourt and thus the crown of France as 'we few, we happy few, we band of brothers'. I feel the same way about my SpaceX chums except our band of brothers includes a very noble sister. ADVERTISEMENT Is the 9X fairytale in SpaceX shares over, now that Elon publicly accused Trump of falsehood and even suggested that POTUS-47 was on a Jeff Epstein's Fantasy Island paedo guest list? Not at all, even though Trump has threatened to take away all Uncle Sam subsidies and contracts away from Elon's companies, now that the bromance of the century has gone sour with such a bang. Tesla (TSLA) shares naturally lost $150 billion last night on Nasdaq as TSLA plunged to 295 but a mass market EV car brand with stiff Chinese competition and declining market share cannot remotely be compared to SpaceX – Why? Unlike Tesla, SpaceX has no real technological peer and neither the Pentagon's Space Command nor NASA can or will replace SpaceX just because Trump has fallen out with Elon. America is not yet Russia, where Elon would take a jump from a window or be found with 6 bullets in his head, as happens in every Kremlin routine suicide. True, Wall Street is agog with rumours that the Navy SEAL team that whacked Osama in his safehouse is now rehearsing for even a more secret mission than Zero Dark Thirty to silence Geronimo. Jokes apart, SpaceX is too crucial to US national security, the rocket launch program and Space warfare to do anything but nurture SpaceX and help it grow bigger and richer in the years ahead for my band of brothers and noble sister. SpaceX is gaining market share and key awards and neither Trump nor even Musk can do much to derail its meteoric rise to Silicon Valley superstardom. SpaceX just won a $6 billion contract for 28 rocket launch missions critical to US national security from Space Command. Blue Origin only won a $2.4 billion contract for 7 rocket launches. SpaceX is easily the largest, most reliable, most successful, most technologically advanced space contractor for Uncle Sam and the President can do squat about this cold hard reality. SpaceX is on a roll with the world's top governments and intel agencies apart from USG/Uncle Sugar. After all, SpaceX commercial launch revenue rose by an incredible 56%, the kind of growth I see in a snappy, nappy software unicorn rather than a 20 year old Valley golden oldy that mesmerizes and owns Space, the Final Frontier… Sadly for Trump, Elon is Captain James T. Kirk and naughty even though he gets to yell 'beam me up Scotty' when the going gets tough on FX deal making with President Xi in Beijing. SpaceX is already the most profitable commercial rocket launch business the world has ever seen and its growth curve is not yet over. The FAA allowed SpaceX a five fold increase in rocket launches from its Texas base, now rebranded and incorporated as the City of Starbase. The air war between Indian and Pakistan tell the world's heads of state/spymasters that air battles will be won or lost via satellite based command and control centers, which the Chinese PLA has perfected to an art form. So I expect SpaceX to get some multi-billion dollar mega contracts from India, which is miffed at both Trump and French electronic warfare technologies. So can SpaceX command a $500 billion valuation? To borrow Obama's slogan, yes we can! Also published on Medium. Notice an issue? Arabian Post strives to deliver the most accurate and reliable information to its readers. If you believe you have identified an error or inconsistency in this article, please don't hesitate to contact our editorial team at editor[at]thearabianpost[dot]com. We are committed to promptly addressing any concerns and ensuring the highest level of journalistic integrity.
Gulf Today
3 hours ago
- Gulf Today
The Republican Party's fiscal hawk era is officially over
There is no constituency for debt reduction, which is a fancy way of saying voters don't care that the federal balance sheet is roughly $37 trillion in the red — and growing. This simple fact of American politics goes a long way toward explaining why President Donald Trump, with the help of congressional Republicans, is pushing a sweeping reconciliation package of tax cuts and fresh domestic spending priorities that is projected to add approximately $3.8 trillion to the swelling federal debt. Politics is a service business and Trump and his Capitol Hill allies are aiming to please the customer. So they've loaded up the reconciliation package, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, with a series of crowd-pleasers — expansions of existing tax breaks plus some brand-new ones. Yes, there are spending cuts. The version of the legislation that passed in the House of Representatives and is now up for consideration in the Senate includes reductions to Medicaid and other budget line items. But there's nothing in the bill that results in a net decrease in the debt. Even the proposed changes to Medicaid face an uncertain future, thanks to GOP opposition in the Senate. That's because the sort of substantial spending cuts and programme reforms required to break Washington's addiction to borrowing would be wildly unpopular. For instance, any meaningful attempt to balance the books probably requires both raising taxes and overhauling Medicare and Social Security. That's not a recipe for winning elections. As concerning as the US debt load is becoming for bond markets and some finance titans (and the few fiscal hawks left in Washington), most Americans have more urgent concerns, said David Winston, a Republican pollster who has been surveying voters for more than 25 years. 'There's another issue hitting voters that's a bigger deal, and that's inflation,' he told me. 'When you're looking at an economic situation where there's something that's pressing people at a personal level, it's not that the deficit isn't important, it is. But being able to pay bills and deal with things on a weekly basis and keep up with all your costs takes precedence.' Winston is right — and that's not to mention the fact that so many voters are convinced the looming debt bomb can be diffused by eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in government spending. But this isn't a new phenomenon. Voters generally, particularly on the left, have always found some reason or another for opposing legislation that asks them to participate in the solution to Washington's fiscal challenges. It's why tax hikes on the so-called rich are so popular and such an easy political message to wield. What has changed is the Republican Party and the voters it represents. Without question, Republican presidents prior to Trump were complicit in running up the debt. But in the pre-Trump era defined by President Ronald Reagan, fiscal responsibility and small government had currency with grassroots conservatives who formed the heart of the GOP base. But today's Republican base voters are different than their forebearers, courtesy of a Trump populist makeover. The 45th and 47th president over the past decade attracted legions of working-class voters to the Republican Party. For the most part, these newer Republicans are former Democrats who joined the GOP for cultural reasons; for instance, they passionately oppose abortion rights and support gun rights. Notably, they brought with them their preference for government safety-net programs and general lack of concern about the debt (qualities that have long defined grassroots Democrats). Simultaneously, suburban voters inclined to value fiscal responsibility generally, and debt reduction specifically, have drifted away from the GOP. The result is a Republican governing coalition much more enamored of government spending than it used to be and far less concerned about the federal debt, even though it has grown to more than 120% of the entire US economy — problematic to say the least. Brad Todd, a veteran Republican strategist in Washington and coauthor of The Great Revolt; Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics, has closely monitored this electoral transformation. 'The voters who are additive to the coalition as a result of Donald Trump are voters who are not only comfortable with entitlements. They're wary of anybody that might cut them. One of the reasons these voters were not Republican for a long time is because they believed the Democrats' scare tactics on entitlements,' Todd told me. 'The realignment works both ways. Some of the voters Republicans have lost are upscale suburbanites who are fiscal conservatives.' 'Republicans tried to do privatised Social Security accounts; A to Z budgeting; baseline budgeting; line-item veto; balanced budget amendment,' he added. 'We've tried all those innovations, none of them resulted in winning elections. Culture does result in winning elections and so Donald Trump just came along and made the party about culture and not conservative economics.' David M. Drucker, Tribune News Service
Khaleej Times
4 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Iran says no sanctions relief in US nuclear proposal
Iran's parliament speaker said on Sunday that the latest US proposal for a nuclear deal does not include the lifting of sanctions, state media reported as negotiations appear to have hit a roadblock. The two foes have held five rounds of Omani-mediated talks since April, seeking to replace a landmark agreement between Tehran and world powers that set restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities in return for sanctions relief, before US President Donald Trump abandoned the accord during his first term in 2018. In a video aired on Iranian state TV, parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf said that "the US plan does not even mention the lifting of sanctions". He called it a sign of dishonesty, accusing the Americans of seeking to impose a "unilateral" agreement that Tehran would not accept. "The delusional US president should know better and change his approach if he is really looking for a deal," Ghalibaf said. On May 31, after the fifth round of talks, Iran said it had received "elements" of a US proposal, with officials later taking issue with "ambiguities" in the draft text. The US and its Western allies have long accused the Islamic republic of seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, a charge Iran has consistently denied, insisting that its atomic programme was solely for peaceful purposes. Key issues in the negotiations have been the removal of biting economic sanctions and uranium enrichment. Tehran says it has the right to enrich uranium under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, while the Trump administration has called any Iranian enrichment a "red line". Trump, who has revived his "maximum pressure" campaign of sanction on Iran since taking office in January, has repeatedly said it will not be allowed any uranium enrichment under a potential deal. On Tuesday, Iran's top negotiator, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, said the country "will not ask anyone for permission to continue enriching uranium". According to the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran is the only non-nuclear-weapon state in the world that enriches uranium up to 60 percent -- still short of the 90 percent threshold needed for a nuclear warhead. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Wednesday rejected the latest US proposal and said enrichment was "key" to Iran's nuclear programme. The IAEA Board of Governors is scheduled to meet in Vienna later this month and discuss Iran's nuclear activities.
