Bitcoin breaks $100k barrier for first time in months
Bitcoin soared past the $100,000 mark on Thursday for the first time in three months, buoyed by growing investor confidence in riskier assets following the announcement of a new trade agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom.
The world's largest cryptocurrency climbed 5.3% over the past 24 hours to reach $101,293, according to data from CoinDesk. The rally marked a significant milestone for Bitcoin, which had not breached the $100,000 threshold since February.
Analysts pointed to improving geopolitical sentiment as a key driver behind the surge. "Now that the United States appears more reasonable and concludes agreements with other countries, cryptocurrencies are on the rise again," said Stephane Ifrah, an analyst at crypto platform Coinhouse.
The breakthrough came after President Donald Trump unveiled what he described as a 'full and comprehensive' trade agreement with the UK—marking the first major trade deal since his Liberation Day tariff announcement in April, which introduced sweeping reciprocal tariffs on several U.S. trading partners.
While details of the pact remain limited, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick stated the agreement would boost British imports of US goods, particularly in agriculture, including ethanol, beef, and industrial machinery. Trump confirmed the deal on Truth Social, adding that several more agreements were in 'serious stages of negotiation.'
The announcement helped buoy not only cryptocurrencies but also global stock markets, as investors welcomed a sign of de-escalation in recent trade tensions.
Cryptocurrencies, often viewed as high-risk assets, typically mirror broader market sentiment. They tend to perform well in times of economic clarity and drop during uncertainty or macroeconomic stress. Bitcoin's latest rally reflects a shift in investor mood, following the Federal Reserve's decision on Wednesday to keep interest rates steady amid what Chair Jerome Powell described as 'extremely elevated' uncertainty.
With the trade deal offering a glimmer of stability, the crypto market appears to have regained its footing. However, it remains to be seen whether Bitcoin's momentum can be sustained in the weeks ahead.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Canada hosts G7 summit as tensions with US grow over trade, foreign policy
Listen to article Group of Seven leaders gather in the Canadian Rockies starting on Sunday amid growing splits with the United States over foreign policy and trade, with host Canada striving to avoid clashes with President Donald Trump. While Prime Minister Mark Carney says his priorities are strengthening peace and security, building critical mineral supply chains and creating jobs, issues such as US tariffs and the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine are expected to feature heavily. Israel and Iran launched fresh attacks on each other overnight into Sunday, killing scores hours before the leaders of the world's industrialized democracies meet. "This issue will be very high on the agenda of the G7 summit," German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said. He said his goals are for Iran to not develop or possess nuclear weapons, ensuring Israel's right to defend itself, avoiding escalation of conflict and creating room for diplomacy. The summit takes place in the mountain resort of Kananaskis, some 90 km (56 miles) west of Calgary. The last time Canada played host, in 2018, Trump left the summit before denouncing then Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as "very dishonest and weak" and instructing the US delegation to withdraw its approval of the final communique. "This will be a successful meeting if Donald Trump doesn't have an eruption that disrupts the entire gathering. Anything above and beyond that is gravy," said University of Ottawa international affairs professor Roland Paris, who was foreign policy adviser to Trudeau. Trump has often mused about annexing Canada and arrives at a time when Carney is threatening reprisals if Washington does not lift tariffs on steel and aluminum. "The best-case scenario... is that there's no real blow-ups coming out of the back end," said Josh Lipsky, chair of international economics at the Atlantic Council think tank and a former White House and State Department official. Carney's office declined to comment on how the Israeli strikes would affect the summit. Diplomats said Canada has ditched the idea of a traditional comprehensive joint communique and would issue chair summaries instead, in hopes of containing a disaster and maintaining engagement with the US. A senior Canadian official told reporters that Ottawa wanted to focus on actions the seven members - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States - could take together. Canadian Senator Peter Boehm, a veteran former diplomat who acted as Trudeau's personal representative to the 2018 summit, said he had been told the summit would last longer than usual to give time for bilateral meetings with the US president. Expected guests for parts of the Sunday to Tuesday event include leaders from Ukraine, Mexico, India, Australia, South Africa, South Korea and Brazil. "Many will want to talk to President Trump about their own particular interests and concerns," Boehm said by phone. A senior US official said on Friday working discussions would cover trade and the global economy, critical minerals, migrant and drug smuggling, wildfires, international security, artificial intelligence and energy security. "The president is eager to pursue his goals in all of these areas including making America's trade relationships fair and reciprocal," the official said. The visit of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to the Oval Office in February descended into acrimony and has served as a warning for other world leaders about the delicate dance they face in negotiating with Trump. But diplomats say the frustration of dealing with the Trump administration has made some keener to assert themselves. 'The big test' Canada has long been one of Ukraine's most vocal supporters. Trump came to power promising to end the war with Russia within 24 hours but diplomatic efforts have stalled. One Ukrainian official involved in preparations for the summit said hope had faded for a strong statement in support of Ukraine. Instead, success for Kyiv would merely constitute an amicable meeting between Trump and Zelenskiy. A European official said the G7 summit and the NATO summit in The Hague later in June provided an opportunity to underscore to Trump the need to press ahead with a sanctions bill put together by US senators alongside a new European package to pressure Russia into a ceasefire and broader talks. Trump's first international summit of his second term will offer some early clues on whether he is interested in working with allies to solve common problems, said Max Bergmann, a director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'The big overarching question here is, basically, is the United States still committed to formats like the G7? That is going to be the big test,' Bergmann said.
Express Tribune
14 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Trump-Musk feud exposes new realities of US politics
On the political stage of Donald Trump's ever-expanding theatre, the Elon Musk affair began like a swaggering bromance destined for longevity — two outsider moguls, both mythmakers in their own right, momentarily aligned in ambition and spectacle. But as with so many Trumpian plots, it ended not with grace or even drama, but with the pettiness of a playground spat. What began in mutual admiration curdled into a bitter, adolescent feud — one whose theatrics have told us far more about the state of American power than either man intended. But not too long ago, when Musk stepped into the national limelight alongside Donald Trump — a MAGA cap perched atop his famously unruly hair — it felt like the opening scene of a grand political union. Then Musk's high‑profile appointment as co‑head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) positioned him, at least symbolically, as the next chapter in the disruption of Washington. His presence on the cabinet stage, dressed in casual gear and flanked by pizza‑fuelled staff, sent a clear message — here was the billionaire outsider, ready to 'cut a trillion dollars' from the federal budget. But the very theatricality that made the pairing so arresting proved to be its undoing. At its height, the alliance was a spectacle of spectacle-makers – Trump, the reality-TV president with a flair for soundbites and theatrics, and Musk, the tech-pop star whose every move was pre-scripted for social media audiences. Together, they promised a new era of anti-establishment governance. The combination was irresistible to journalists, political strategists, and television cameras alike — yet it was always designed for the spotlight, not for sober policy implementation. The unravelling began with Trump's signature legislative project — the 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' Conceived as a sweeping, populist package, it was a Republican policy masterpiece — only it came with a sting in its tail. The bill slashed clean‑energy subsidies and EV incentives, cut taxes, and expanded deficit spending — a move that triggered Musk's ire. Speaking on CBS, he called it 'a disgusting abomination' and a betrayal of the efficiency agenda he had been installed to advance. But his public rebuke was more than a policy critique — it was episode four of the Trump‑Musk reality show. The tension had been building; now it burst into public view. Trump responded in kind. On Truth Social, he accused Musk of 'ingratitude' and threatened to yank federal contracts and subsidies tied to Tesla and SpaceX — threats with real economic force behind them. Suddenly, this was no orchestrated photo op — it was a headline‑grabbing feud deserving of its own prime‑time billing. Overnight, Tesla stock plunged 15 per cent — one of its worst-days ever — and Musk's fortune took a $90 billion hit. SpaceX's vital NASA and Pentagon contracts fell under immediate review — not by sleepy bureaucrats, but by White House fingers ready to pull strings. For anyone paying attention, it was raw theatre, complete with streaming platforms (X vs. Truth Social), soundbites, dramatic reversals, and fiscal consequences. But for all the entertainment, serious governance, if any, was taking a hit. Analysts warned that politically motivated interference in critical space and defence infrastructure carried national-security risks. The spectacle masked its stakes behind the shimmer, but the scoreboard was bloodied. What fuelled this sudden collapse was not just policy difference — it was a power grab between two large egos. Trump, the master negotiator, thrives on loyalty and control. Musk, by contrast, is a self-styled disruptor, menacing timelines and bureaucracies with layoffs and dismissals, as he had done at Twitter. Their clash, experts argue, was not merely about policy, but symbolic – part of a broader trend in the 'mafia‑state' dynamics of loyalty and authoritarian imprinting within Trump's inner circle. As the drama played out, media and public alike were gripped. Cable channels looped clips — pundits called it 'popcorn politics' (MSNBC's Nicole Wallace advised, 'Buckle up and pop some popcorn'). This was not analysis – it was entertainment — by design and by outcome. Washington became Wembley Arena, and global coverage spun imagery faster than facts. Musk, for his part, added to the plotline. After his critique, he reportedly floated a new 'America Party,' polling X followers on whether he should launch one. It was a plot twist worthy of any reality-franchise season — his move away from MAGA signalling yet another potential storyline — billionaire insurgent becomes ideological kingmaker. Trump seized on this. On Truth Social, he explicitly warned Musk: support Democrats, and he'd face 'very serious consequences'. It was a resurfacing of the personal stakes of their public feud. When the dust began to settle, Musk issued a mea culpa — 'I regret some of my posts' — though signs were clear that the bromance had left the building. Sources close to Trump described interactions as 'pure avoidance' and warned 'Trump doesn't forget'. The alliance had evaporated, leaving behind a collapsed set piece, disrupted constituencies, rattled markets — and a cratering of public trust. To frame this as merely a feud is to mischaracterise what took place. This was politics as entertainment, parody as praxis. The ingredients were familiar – billionaire ego meets political celebrity, stitched together by social media platforms that thrive on outrage. But the consequences were real — agencies destroyed overnight, market valuations shifted by billions, and vital contracts placed in jeopardy — all for the sake of headlines and media attention. But this spectacle reflects a decade-long evolution in American political culture. Trump's first term was built on theatre, from flashy announcements that never materialised to summit photo‑ops with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. As analysis from Foreign Affairs noted, his style has been a perpetual cliffhanger — teasers without resolutions. Musk, with his half-truths, meme‑stoned publicity, and controversial layoffs, fit naturally into this mould. They are both public performers on global stages. In this, the Trump‑Musk debacle captures not just a broken friendship but also a political turning point. It lay bare how deeply entertainment-driven impulses have invaded the halls of power. Gone are the days when legislation was debated – now amendments are broadcast as monologues. Governance in America is reduced to co-starring roles. The deeper risk, as one expert cautioned, is not that Trump and Musk lost interest in one another — but that their ideology remains embedded in the system despite the spectacle's end. Under the veneer, despoliation continues — budget cuts, contract swaps, regulatory rollbacks. Watching two titans fight may feel like watching gladiators — but the bloodshed is institutional, not just personal. All that said, we're left asking – what now? Musk, bruised, may retreat or launch his America Party — but he remains too tethered to the infrastructure of American life. He still holds significant sway – Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, X. Government contracts, investor confidence, public goodwill — these are his fragile assets. Trump, meanwhile, proved that loyalty is conditional, and criticism of him invites retaliation. Lots of CEOs got that memo — a chilling one for anyone tempted to cross him. What's at stake is bigger than their feud. It is the normalisation of spectacle in every corner of governance. It is a democracy saturated with drama, where policy outcomes are overshadowed by sound and fury. Real governance demands debate, deliberation, accountability — but this was all bargain-basement theatre designed to go viral, even at the expense of substance. And yet, public appetite remains insatiable. Newsrooms and channels peddle reactions – social feeds fawn over every twist — Republican and Democratic operatives spin furiously. The attention economy thrives on this. But the currency of democracy doesn't – it depends on informed citizenship. In the end, the Trump‑Musk showdown will pass. Contracts will be restored — or not. Tesla may rebound. DOGE may vanish from the collective memory. But the season finale won't stop the next appropriation of spectacle. Someone else will before long step into the lead role — seeking screens, scores, and public influence. A new billionaire, a new platform, a new headline. So what remains? A cautionary tale – when governance is capitalised as content, citizens become the audience. Democracy is not served by ratings. Facts, institutions, ideas — they become afterthoughts to spectacle. For now, the Trump-Musk show is over. Critics will analyse, journalists will fact-check, markets will stabilise. And somewhere behind the lights, the next episode is already in production. The question we face is not how stage-ready leaders can be, but whether we — viewers — can reclaim the authorial seat.
Express Tribune
18 hours ago
- Express Tribune
EPA proposes higher biofuel blending
Listen to article President Donald Trump's administration on Friday proposed to increase the amount of biofuels that oil refiners must blend into the nation's fuel mix over the next two years, driven by a surge in biomass-based diesel mandates. After months of lobbying on the issue, the biofuels industry welcomed the move, which also included measures to discourage biofuel imports. The US Environmental Protection Agency proposed total biofuel blending volumes at 24.02 billion gallons in 2026 and 24.46 billion gallons in 2027, up from 22.33 billion gallons in 2025. Under the Renewable Fuel Standard, refiners are required to blend large volumes of biofuels into the US fuel supply or purchase credits, called RINs, from those that do. Small refiners can apply for an exemption to the requirements if they can prove the obligations would cause undue harm. The proposal is driven in part by an increase in biomass-based diesel requirements. EPA set a quota of 7.12 billion biomass-based diesel RINs for 2026 — a measurement of the number of tradable credits generated by blending the fuel. It said it projected that mandate would lead to the blending of 5.61 billion gallons. The EPA expressed the biomass-based diesel requirement in billion RINs in accordance with the agency's proposal to reduce the number of RINs that could be generated from imported biofuels. After accounting for the reduction for imported biofuels, the EPA said it projected the number of RINs generated for biomass-based diesel would be 1.27 per gallon in 2026 and 1.28 RINs per gallon in 2027. Previously, the EPA projected the average gallon of biomass-based diesel generated 1.6 RINs.
