Oil steadies on potential Trump-Putin meeting in coming days
Brent crude futures were up 21 cents, or 0.3%, at $67.1 a barrel by 0902 GMT while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude gained 20 cents, or 0.3%, to $64.55.
Both benchmarks slid about 1% on Wednesday, touching their lowest in eight weeks, after comments from Trump on progress in talks with Moscow.
Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov said on Thursday that Trump and Putin will meet in the coming days in what would be the first summit between leaders of the two countries since 2021.
A White House official had previously said that Trump could meet Putin as soon as next week, though the U.S. continued preparations to impose secondary sanctions, potentially including China, to pressure Moscow to end the war in Ukraine.
Oil is modestly up, benefiting from a crude draw in the U.S., higher Saudi prices for Asia and solid Chinese crude imports in July, said UBS analyst Giovanni Staunovo, adding that gains were curbed by news of the potential Trump-Putin meeting next week.
Russia is the world's second-biggest producer of oil behind the United States.
The Energy Information Administration said on Wednesday that U.S. crude oil stockpiles fell by 3 million barrels to 423.7 million barrels in the week ended August 1, exceeding an expected decline of 591,000 barrels in a Reuters poll of analysts.
In China, crude oil imports in July dipped 5.4% from June but were still up 11.5% year on year, with analysts expecting refining activity to remain firm in the near term.
Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, on Wednesday raised its September crude oil prices for Asian buyers, the second monthly rise in a row, on tight supply and robust demand.
Global macroeconomic uncertainty capped price gains, however, after the U.S. ordered a fresh set of tariffs on Indian goods. Trump imposed an additional 25% tariff on Indian goods on Wednesday, citing the country's continued imports of Russian oil. The new import tax will take effect on August 28.
Trump also said he could announce further tariffs on China.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Firebrand Trump ally Laura Loomer sparks backlash after attacking Medal of Honor recipient
Right-wing activist and Trump adviser Laura Loomer sparked a wave of backlash after slamming the US Army for honoring a war hero because he is not 'US born' and spoke at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. Loomer penned a long post on X criticizing Army Secretary Dan Driscoll for recognizing the brave sacrifice of Florent Groberg, who tackled a suicide bomber in Afghanistan and saved the lives of his fellow soldiers. A Friday post from the US Army was sent out on the 13-year anniversary of Groberg's selfless act, which left him with catastrophic injuries and a Medal of Honor. 'There are probably so many people who the Army could honor who have received the Medal of Honor,' Loomer wrote in response. 'But who did the Army choose to honor instead on their social media page under the Trump admin?' They chose Groberg, she said, whom she characterized as 'an immigrant who voted for Hillary Clinton and spoke at the DNC as Obama's guest'. 'Are we supposed to believe the Army couldn't find a Republican and US born soldier?' she continued. 'Under the Army Secretary Dan Driscoll , there have been several instances of either him, or the Army promoting anti-Trump Leftists on their official social media channels.' An Army official spoke anonymously to The Washington Post and called Loomer's attack 'despicable'. The official also called French-born Groberg a 'national hero' who is among many soldiers the Army plans to spotlight this year as the institution turns 250 years old. 'The Army is not going to check the political affiliation of our soldiers before we recognize them,' the official said. 'A man or woman serving is not a Democrat or Republican, they are an American. Their political affiliation has nothing to do with their service.' Groberg was awarded the military's highest honor following his heroics on August 8, 2012, where a suicide bomber killed four men: Army Command Sgt. Maj. Kevin J. Griffin, 45; Army Maj. Thomas E. Kennedy, 35; Air Force Maj. Walter D. Gray, 38; and Foreign Service officer Ragaei Abdelfattah, 43. Had Groberg not sprinted toward the suicide bomber and pushed him further back, 'many more would have died,' according to the Army. 'Groberg sustained multiple injuries in the attack, including the loss of 50 percent of his lower calf, going deaf in his left ear, and a significant traumatic brain injury,' the Army said. After Loomer launched her social media rant on Saturday, Groberg publicly responded to the right-wing activist by bringing the focus back to the men he lost in the war. 'Thirteen years ago today is my Alive Day, the day I nearly lost my life, and four of my brothers, including three Army leaders, never came home,' he wrote. 'I've served under presidents from both parties and will always honor my oath to this country. Yes, I spoke for 60 seconds at the DNC when asked about service and sacrifice, not politics. For me, 8/8 isn't about parties. It's about the lives we lost.' During his brief speech at the DNC, Groberg said he wasn't speaking as Republican or Democrat but as a 'proud immigrant to this country, a proud veteran of the United States Army, and a proud recipient of our nation's highest military honor.' And in an interview with The Washington Post in 2016, he actually clarified that he is a Republican. 'I saw an opportunity for me to go in, not as a Republican, not as a Democrat, not as a political figure, but as a veteran. As an immigrant. As an American,' he said at the time. 'I made a choice,' he said. 'I stood up. I knew I would take the heat. But guess what? I still go to sleep at night like a baby. I'm okay with it.' Loomer told The Post that she stands by her posts criticizing Driscoll and Groberg, while also saying that no one from the White House told her to take them down. 'It is very important that the secretary of the Army does not push out Democratic propaganda,' she said. 'I just laid out the facts.' Loomer also said that this is the third time the Army, under Trump's second term, has highlighted people who oppose the administration. She cited Driscoll's show of gratitude for Rep. Eugene Vindman (D-Virginia) for attending the Army parade in Washington, D.C. as one example. Vindman testified against Trump in his first impeachment trial. The other instance Loomer mentioned was when the Army appointed retired officer and Biden official Jennifer Easterly as a faculty member at West Point Military Academy. In that case, Driscoll withdrew Easterly's appointment last month following severe backlash from Loomer and others. Former Trump officials have defended Groberg and have tried to point out that the military is a nonpartisan institution. 'One of the first things my drill sergeant told us at Army Basic Training in 1983 was, "You all bleed Army green now — no one cares about the color of your skin, where you came from, or what religion you are,"' Chris Miller, who served as acting defense secretary during the first Trump administration, wrote to The Post in a text message. 'He didn't have to add, "or your political affiliation" because it was taken for granted that our oath was to the Constitution and not any political party or person,' Miller said. Miller called Loomer an 'agent provocateur' whose decision to cast aspersions on Driscoll was 'an abomination and disreputable.' Robert Wilkie, the Veterans Affairs secretary during Trump's first term, said the Medal of Honor 'knows no political affiliation'. 'I am a Trump supporter and I am the son of a distinguished combat officer,' Wilkie said. 'My service was modest. I was raised to believe that that medal is sacred. No matter what the holder believes or where he came from, he is worthy of the respect and thanks of all Americans.'
Telegraph
2 minutes ago
- Telegraph
NHS to spend more on US drugs as Britain bows to Trump
Ministers are preparing to boost NHS spending on US drugs in a race to avoid a future tariff hit from Donald Trump. The Government told drugmakers last week that it would agree to boost spending on medicines to comparable levels with the US. The promise to increase the GDP share allocated to medicines is understood to have been made as part of talks with drug bosses over the NHS drugs spending cap. It follows demands from the US president that other countries stop 'freeloading' on American innovation and pay more for its medicines. In the US-UK trade agreement, signed earlier this year, ministers said the NHS would review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president'. The UK's expenditure on new innovative medicines currently stands at just 0.28pc of GDP, around a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even in Europe, the UK lags other countries, with Germany spending 0.4pc of its GDP and Italy spending 0.5pc. Ministers are understood to have offered to take steps to get the UK level closer to the US proportion. However, sources said the Government did not provide details on timing or concrete actions as to how the NHS would increase medicine spending. One insider claimed the proposal was 'a lot of jam and a lot of tomorrows'. The offer comes weeks after the US president told the world's biggest drugmakers that they needed to lower prices for Americans, suggesting they pay for this by charging higher fees abroad. In a letter sent to the bosses of 17 pharmaceutical companies, Mr Trump demanded they 'negotiate harder with foreign freeloading nations' for their medicines, suggesting he would use tariffs to push through higher prices if countries resisted. Earlier this year, the Telegraph revealed that the White House was already pressing for the NHS to spend more on American drugs. US officials are particularly concerned by an arrangement that allows the NHS to spend less on medicines than other countries by forcing drugmakers to pay rebates. The UK's voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (known as VPAG) makes sure that the NHS does not overpay for medicines. It does this by requiring pharmaceutical companies to pay sales rebates back to the NHS if its medicine bill rises faster than expected, essentially keeping a cap on drug costs. Earlier this year, the Department of Health launched a review of the scheme under pressure from Mr Trump and the pharmaceutical industry. Since then, ministers have been in negotiations with drug companies over how much the NHS should be able to claw back in rebates. Drug company chiefs are expected to vote on whether to accept the latest offer next week. The offer follows years where drug bosses have called for the UK to spend more on medicines. Albert Bourla, the chief executive of US drug giant Pfizer, said in June: 'We represent in the UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices.' He said countries were other countries were 'free-riding' on the US. A government spokesman said: 'The VPAG review is one of many ways in which we are taking decisive action to unlock innovation and drive investment in the UK's world-class pharmaceutical sector including the Life Sciences Sector Plan. 'We will make sure the next game changers in medicine are developed here in Britain, for the benefit of our health at home and abroad. 'We continue to work closely with industry, including Associated of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, on the VPAG review and the outcome will be announced in due course.' The Government previously argued it would 'only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading'.
The Guardian
24 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump administration threatens to strip Harvard University of lucrative patents
The latest phase of the Trump administration's offensive against Harvard University is a comprehensive review of the university's federally funded research programs, and the threat to strip the school's lucrative portfolio of patents. In a letter to the Harvard president, Alan Garber, posted online on Friday, Donald Trump's commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, accused Harvard of breaching its legal and contractual requirements tied to federally funded research programs and patents. Lutnick also said the commerce department has begun a 'march-in' process under the federal Bayh-Dole Act that could let the government take ownership of the patents or grant licenses. 'The Department places immense value on the groundbreaking scientific and technological advancements that emerge from the Government's partnerships with institutions like Harvard,' Lutnick wrote. He said that carried a 'critical responsibility' for Harvard to ensure that its intellectual property derived from federal funding is used to maximize benefits to the American people. Harvard did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Friday's letter ratchets up White House pressure on Harvard, which it has accused of civil rights violations for failing to take steps dictated by the administration in response to accusations that student protests against Israel's assault on Gaza were antisemitic. Harvard sued in April after the administration began stripping or freezing billions of dollars of federal research money. In his letter, Lutnick demanded that Harvard provide within four weeks a list of all patents stemming from federally funded research grants, including how the patents are used and whether any licensing requires 'substantial US manufacturing'. As of 1 July 2024, Harvard held more than 5,800 patents, and had more than 900 technology licenses with over 650 industry partners, according to the Harvard Office of Technology Development. Other universities faced with federal research funding losses have signed settlement agreements with the government, including Columbia University, which agreed to pay more than $220m, and Brown University, which agreed to pay $50m. Harvard's president reportedly told faculty that a New York Times report that the university was open to spending up to $500m to settle with the government was inaccurate and had been leaked to reporters by White House officials. The bipartisan Bayh-Dole Act was sponsored by senators Birch Bayh of Indiana and Bob Dole of Kansas and signed into law by Jimmy Carter near the end of his term. Carter said at the time it was important that industrial innovation promote US economic health, and the legislation 'goes far toward strengthening the effectiveness of the patent incentive in stimulating innovation in the United States'. Many civil rights experts, faculty and White House critics believe the Trump administration's targeting of schools for supposedly failing to address antisemitism is a pretext to assert federal control and threaten academic freedom and free speech.
