Oil jumps & slips, dollar dips to lowest level in 3 years
Oil retreated from its surge over West Asia tensions as traders weigh the latest developments in the region against a risk-off mood triggered by renewed tariff threats from Washington.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
At the same time, the dollar fell to the weakest level in three years amid worries over the outlook for the US economy.
The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index slid as much as 0.8% on Thursday to the lowest level since April 2022. The euro jumped to the strongest since 2021, while the British pound advanced to a new three-year high. So far in 2025, the dollar is down more than 8% as investors build up bets that US President Donald Trump's trade and tax policies will weigh on the economy.
The concern remains that the US could experience a spike in inflation and start sliding toward a recession amid Trump's sweeping tariffs on imports. This has investors poring over incoming economic data, especially on the labour market, to determine the path of rates in the US.
Brent slipped near $69 a barrel after jumping 4.3% on Wednesday, the most since Oct, with signs the rally was overstretched. Crude shot up after Iran threatened to strike US bases if nuclear talks fell through and the US told some staff to depart the embassy in Iraq.
The UK Navy issued a warning to ships sailing across the Strait of Hormuz, through which over a quarter of the world's oil travels.
On the trade front, Trump said he intended to send letters to trading partners in the next one to two weeks setting unilateral tariff rates, ahead of a July 9 deadline to reimpose higher duties on dozens of economies. That blunted appetite for risk assets.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
33 minutes ago
- Economic Times
War, trade and Air India crash cast cloud over Paris Air Show
The Paris Air Show opens amidst a complex backdrop of war, tariffs, and the Air India crash, overshadowing the usual Airbus-Boeing rivalry. Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg cancelled his appearance due to the 787 Dreamliner crash investigation. Trump's tariffs and supply chain issues further complicate matters for the aerospace industry, even as military hardware takes center stage due to global conflicts. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads War, tariffs and the Air India crash will cast a shadow over the Paris Air Show as the aerospace industry's biggest annual gathering opens on than 2,400 companies from 48 countries are showing off their hardware at the week-long event at Le Bourget airfield on the outskirts of sales rivalry between Airbus and Boeing usually drives the headlines as the world's top civilian planemakers announce many of their biggest orders at the air this year's event "is much more complex", said Airbus chief executive Guillaume Faury, who also chairs the board of the Gifas association of French aerospace firms that organises the biennial list of challenges is war in Ukraine is stretching into its fourth year and there are fears of a wider conflict in the Middle East after Israel launched strikes on Iran on Friday, disrupting commercial flights across the world economy is expected to slow sharply after US President Donald Trump launched his tariff blitz in Boeing is facing a new crisis after Thursday's crash of a 787 Dreamliner operated by Air India in the city of Ahmedabad, which killed at least 265 people on board and on the chief executive Kelly Ortberg cancelled plans to attend the Paris Air Show to focus on the investigation into the to the tragedy, Boeing had been making progress under a new leadership as the US company sought to restore trust after a series of safety and quality and its European rival, Airbus, have also been dealing with delays in delivering aircraft due to supply chain President Donald Trump's tariff onslaught has added to the issues facing the industry, which relies on a global supply imposed 10 percent tariffs on US imports of goods from nearly every country in April, and steeper levies on dozens of countries could kick in next Trump administration is also mulling whether to impose sector-specific tariffs of between 10 and 20 percent on civil aircraft and heads of Airbus and Boeing have both called for tariffs to return to zero as had been the case since a 1979 agreement."The entire Western aerospace industry considers that would be the best that could happen," said a recent interview with trade journal Aviation Week, Ortberg warned that that tariffs are an added cost for Boeing, which has been financially weakened in recent years by production "not in a position to pass those (costs) along to our customers," he told Aviation Week. "I'm hopeful that, as each of these country-by-country negotiations resolve, those tariffs will go away in the long run."The tariff problems come as the industry has yet to fully recover from effects of the Covid pandemic on its supply is having trouble getting enough fuel-efficient engines for its top-selling A320 family of single-aisle jets, holding back the delivery of around 40 main bottleneck is a lack of toilets for widebody aircraft, said Christian Scherer, the head of Airbus's commercial aircraft Paris Air Show is also about showing off the latest military hardware, at a time of conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle countries are boosting defence budgets in the face of the Ukraine war and fears about Trump's commitment to the NATO alliance."The geostrategic environment has led us to bolster this aspect which was in the background in previous years," said Gifas head Frederic 75 companies related to weapons production will be participating at the show, with military jets, helicopters and drones to be Martin's F-35 fifth-generation stealth multirole fighter will be featured, along with the Rafale produced by France's Dassault Israeli companies -- fewer than in the past -- are expected to have displays after a French court rejected a bid by NGOs to ban them over their alleged role in the Gaza conflict.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Walk away if deal is lopsided, US can't cut tariffs: Former officials, experts write to govt
India should resist signing a trade deal if the Donald Trump-led US administration demands disproportionate concessions, as it is not legally permitted to reduce tariffs and can therefore offer no substantial trade-related concessions in the near term, as many as 20 experts and former senior government officials have said in a letter to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry on Friday. This comes as the US is seeking greater market access in a range of sensitive sectors, including agriculture, and has raised objections to India's restrictions on politically sensitive genetically modified (GM) products and regulations requiring that imported dairy come from animals not fed blood-based feed. 'If excessive or disproportionate concessions are demanded on India's hardest interests, India should take equally hard positions and resist – even at the cost of not securing a deal. In these circumstances, the costs of no deal — navigating a US market walled off by high tariffs in the short-to-medium term — may still be lesser than the longer-term costs of an unequal pact,' the memorandum said. The signatories to the document include K M Chandrasekhar, former Cabinet Secretary; G.K. Pillai, former Home Secretary; Ujal Singh Bhatia, former Member and Chairman, WTO Appellate Body; Amarendra Khatua, former Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs; and Sanjaya Baru, author and former adviser to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. The letter said it was important to acknowledge that the ongoing negotiations with the US could not be seen as business-as-usual, and that their exceptional nature must be recognised. It said that the proposed BTA may be aimed more at mitigating escalatory tariff action by the US and reaching an acceptable compromise — 'balancing the equation', as it were — rather than actually resolving trade issues with the US. The Trump administration in its trade deal with the UK retained the 10 per cent baseline tariff — which Trump said is the lowest country-specific tariff that will be applied to trading partners, giving concessions only on the escalatory tariffs that Trump had announced on countries globally since assuming office in February this year. Experts such as Ajit Ranade, Senior Fellow, Pune International Centre; Badri Narayanan Gopalakrishnan, economist; Prabhash Ranjan, professor, OP Jindal Global University; R V Anuradha, partner, Clarus Law Associates; Anand P. Gupta, former professor of economics, IIM Ahmedabad; and Pradeep S. Mehta, Secretary General, CUTS International, also supported the letter to the ministry. 'It is also important to mention here that, in the absence of a valid Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), the current US administration is not legally permitted to reduce tariffs and can therefore make no substantial trade-related concessions in the near term. The tariff discussions in the BTA negotiations are accordingly expected to be restricted only to the executive tariffs levied by the current administration. This also raises questions regarding the durability of any deal reached,' the letter said. The memorandum further said hat careful thought must be given to the legal architecture of the BTA, as it remains to be seen whether the agreement will take shape as an interim arrangement leading to a conventional GATT Article XXIV-type regional trade agreement, which would require a roadmap towards finalisation and preferential trade liberalisation on 'substantially all trade', interpreted qualitatively. 'In any event, care must be taken to ensure that the contours of any negotiated outcome are compliant with India's existing obligations under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) framework. In the face of the US' blatant disregard for the rules-based multilateral trading system (MTS), with the WTO at its core, India, as an ascendant global power, should also call out US actions,' the letter said. A Commerce and Industry Ministry spokesperson in response to a query said: 'The negotiations are being held along the lines outlined by the two leaders, President Trump and Prime Minister Modi, in their meeting in Washington'.
NDTV
an hour ago
- NDTV
Trump May Try To Alter AUKUS Deal, But Here's Why He Won't Sink It
The Pentagon has announced it will review the massive AUKUS agreement between the United States, United Kingdom and Australia to ensure it's aligned with US President Donald Trump's 'America first' agenda. The US undersecretary of defence for policy, Elbridge Colby, is reportedly going to oversee the review. The announcement has raised concern in Australia, but every government is entitled to review policies that their predecessors have made to consider whether or not there's a particular purpose. The UK has launched a parliamentary inquiry into AUKUS too, so it's not actually unreasonable for the US to do the same. There's a degree of nervousness in Australia as to what the implications are because Australia understandably has the biggest stake in this. But we need to consider what Colby has articulated in the past. In his book, The Strategy of Denial: American Defence in the Nature of Great Power Conflict, he made the case the US could 'prepare to win a war with China it cannot afford to lose – in order to deter it from happening'. So, with a deterrent mindset, he sees the need for the US to muscle up militarily. He's spoken about the alliance with Australia in very positive terms on a couple of occasions. And he has called himself an ' AUKUS agnostic ', though he has expressed deep concern about the ability of the submarine industrial base in the US to manufacture the ships quickly enough. And that leads to the fear the US Navy would not have enough submarines for itself if Washington is also sending them to Australia. As part of the deal, Australia would eventually be able to contribute to accelerating the production line. That involves Australian companies contributing to the manufacture of certain widgets and components that are needed to build the subs. Australia has already made a nearly A$800 million (US$500 million) down payment on expanding the US industrial capacity as part of the deal to ensure we get some subs in a reasonable time frame. There's also been significant legislative and industrial reforms in the US, Australia and UK to help facilitate Australian defence-related industries unplug the bottleneck of submarine production. There's no question there's a need to speed up production. But we are already seeing significant signs of an uptick in the production rate, thanks in part to the Australian down payment. And it's anticipated the rate will significantly increase in the next 12–18 months. Even still, projects like this often slide in terms of timelines. Why The US Won't Spike The Deal I'm reasonably optimistic that, on balance, the Trump administration will come down on the side of proceeding with the deal. There are a few key reasons for this: 1) We're several years down the track already. 2) We have more than 100 Australian sailors already operating in the US system. 3) Industrially, we're on the cusp of making a significant additional contribution to the US submarine production line. And finally, most people don't fully appreciate that the submarine base just outside Perth is an incredibly consequential piece of real estate for US security calculations. Colby has made very clear the US needs to muscle up to push back and deter China's potential aggression in the region. In that equation, submarines are crucial, as is a substantial submarine base in the Indian Ocean. China is acutely mindful of what we call the ' Malacca dilemma '. Overwhelmingly, China's trade of goods and fossil fuels comes through the Malacca Strait between Malaysia and Indonesia's island of Sumatra. The Chinese know this supply line could be disrupted in a war. And the submarines operating out of Perth contribute to this fear. This is a crucial deterrent effect the US and its allies have been seeking to maintain. And it has largely endured. Given nobody can predict the future, we all want to prevent a war over Taiwan and we all want to maintain the status quo. As such, the considered view has been that Australia will continue to support the US to bolster its deterrent effect to prevent such a scenario. Could Trump Be Angling For A Deal? As part of the US review of the deal, we could see talk of a potential slowdown in the delivery rate of the submarines. The Trump administration could also put additional pressure on Australia to deliver more for the US. This includes the amount Australia spends on defence, a subject of considerable debate in Canberra. Taking Australia's overall interests into account, the Albanese government may well decide increasing defence spending is an appropriate thing to do. There's a delicate dance to be had here between the Trump administration, the Australian government, and in particular, their respective defence departments, about how to achieve the most effective outcome. It's highly likely whatever decision the US government makes will be portrayed as the Trump administration 'doing a deal'. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a bad thing. This is what countries do. We talk a lot about the Trump administration's transactional approach to international relations. But it's actually not that different to previous US administrations with which Canberra has had to deal. So I'm reasonably sanguine about the AUKUS review and any possible negotiations over it. I believe the Trump administration will come to the conclusion it does not want to spike the Australia relationship. Australia has been on the US side since federation. Given this, the US government will likely make sure this deal goes ahead. The Trump administration may try to squeeze more concessions out of Australia as part of 'the art of the deal', but it won't sink the pact. However, many people will undoubtedly say this is the moment Australia should break with AUKUS. But then what? What would Australia do instead to ensure its security in this world of heightened great power competition in which Australia's interests are increasingly challenged? Walking away now would leave Australia more vulnerable than ever. I think that would be a great mistake. (Author: , Professor, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University) (Disclosure Statement: From 2015 to 2017 John Blaxland received funding from the US Department of Defense Minerva Research Initiative (subsequently disbanded by the Trump administration). This was used to write a book (with Greg Raymond) entitled "The US Thai Alliance and Asian International Relations" (Routledge, 2021). John currently is a fulltime employee of the ANU.)
