US-EU Trade Deal to Reshape Energy and Investment Landscape
The deal was hailed by the Trump administration as a major victory for the US economy, promising to bolster energy exports and enhance investment flows. While the specifics of the energy sectors involved remain under discussion, the agreement signals a substantial shift in the global energy market. The US, a major producer of natural gas and oil, is expected to benefit from increased exports, particularly in liquefied natural gas and other energy resources.
At the heart of the deal is the mutual understanding that both parties will benefit from zero tariffs on industrial goods, which has been a longstanding issue in US-EU trade talks. The tariff reduction is expected to boost economic growth on both sides, especially for sectors such as automotive, technology, and agriculture. For the EU, the opening of the US market is seen as a crucial opportunity to tap into the world's largest economy without facing the heavy tariffs that have traditionally limited market access.
ADVERTISEMENT
Investment plays a pivotal role in the agreement, with the EU's commitment to direct $600 billion more than previously agreed upon into US infrastructure, technology, and innovation. This will likely lead to a surge in American jobs, particularly in industries poised for growth. It also presents a major opportunity for EU businesses to secure a foothold in the burgeoning US tech sector, which has long been a hotspot for investment.
The announcement of the deal was accompanied by optimistic rhetoric from both US and EU officials, who described the agreement as an example of transatlantic cooperation that will not only benefit both economies but also foster stronger geopolitical ties. Experts believe the trade deal could serve as a model for future trade relations, potentially influencing global trade dynamics and setting a precedent for other international agreements.
However, the deal has faced criticism from some quarters. Critics argue that the focus on energy purchases and large-scale investments could overshadow critical issues like labour rights, environmental protections, and fair competition. Some environmental groups have voiced concerns about the potential long-term environmental impact of increased energy trade, particularly if it leads to more fossil fuel reliance. These concerns underscore the ongoing debates about the balance between economic growth and sustainability, a tension that continues to shape global trade discussions.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Khaleej Times
2 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
Opec+ makes another large oil output hike in market share push
Opec+ agreed on Sunday to raise oil production by 547,000 barrels per day for September, the latest in a series of accelerated output hikes to regain market share, as concerns mount over potential supply disruptions linked to Russia. The move marks a full and early reversal of Opec+'s largest tranche of output cuts plus a separate increase in output for the UAE amounting to about 2.5 million bpd, or about 2.4 per cent of world demand. Eight Opec+ members held a brief virtual meeting, amid increasing US pressure on India to halt Russian oil purchases — part of Washington's efforts to bring Moscow to the negotiating table for a peace deal with Ukraine. President Donald Trump said he wants this by August 8. In a statement following the meeting, Opec+ cited a healthy economy and low stocks as reasons behind its decision. Oil prices have remained elevated even as Opec+ has raised output, with Brent crude closing near $70 a barrel on Friday, up from a 2025 low of near $58 in April, supported in part by rising seasonal demand. 'Given fairly strong oil prices at around $70, it does give Opec+ some confidence about market fundamentals,' said Amrita Sen, co-founder of Energy Aspects, adding that the market structure was also indicating tight stocks. The eight countries are scheduled to meet again on September 7, when they may consider reinstating another layer of output cuts totalling around 1.65 million bpd, two Opec+ sources said following Sunday's meeting. Those cuts are currently in place until the end of next year. Opec+ in full includes 10 non-Opec oil producing countries, most notably Russia and Kazakhstan. The group, which pumps about half of the world's oil, had been curtailing production for several years to support oil prices. It reversed course this year in a bid to regain market share, spurred in part by calls from Trump for Opec to ramp up production. The eight began raising output in April with a modest hike of 138,000 bpd, followed by larger-than-planned hikes of 411,000 bpd in May, June and July, 548,000 bpd in August and now 547,000 bpd for September. 'So far the market has been able to absorb very well those additional barrels also due to stockpiliing activity in China,' said Giovanni Staunovo of UBS. 'All eyes will now shift on the Trump decision on Russia this Friday.' As well as the voluntary cut of about 1.65 million bpd from the eight members, Opec+ still has a 2-million-bpd cut across all members, which also expires at the end of 2026. 'Opec+ has passed the first test,' said Jorge Leon of Rystad Energy and a former Opec official, as it has fully reversed its largest cut without crashing prices. 'But the next task will be even harder: deciding if and when to unwind the remaining 1.66 million barrels, all while navigating geopolitical tension and preserving cohesion.'
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
With Gaza in the global spotlight, expect Israel to turn the heat on Hezbollah
Israel finds itself in need of diverting global attention away from its atrocities in Gaza. Enter Hezbollah. The Israeli government appears to see renewed war with the Lebanese group as a chance to further its interests, pretexting the latter's refusal to surrender its weapons to the Lebanese state as it previously pledged. The timing is driven by several factors. The administration of US President Donald Trump has grown weary of waiting for Beirut to fulfil its promise of exclusive state control over arms, and it might be ready to endorse any Israeli decision, regardless of its severity. Another factor is Iran's unwillingness to enter a direct war with Israel on Hezbollah's behalf. Indeed, Tehran is both preoccupied with the fallout from the recent US and Israeli strikes and worried about another wave of attacks in the near future. Still, it refuses to abandon its strategy of using armed regional proxies as bargaining chips in potential negotiations with Washington. Tensions between the US and Iran are thus escalating – manifested through American sanctions, Iranian threats and Israeli war preparations. Iran's proxies in Lebanon and Yemen are on high alert, and the wider Iranian 'Axis of Resistance' is watching events closely, from Iraq to Gaza. Israel has zero tolerance regarding Hezbollah's arsenal. It has convinced the Trump administration that if the Lebanese government fails to implement its disarmament pledge, Israel has no choice but to press ahead with its war on the group. Meanwhile, the international conference on the two-state solution – co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France at the UN – might have angered Iran. The Islamic Republic's ideology rejects the two-state solution, with its doctrine calling for Israel's destruction. Moreover, the conference's show of global support for the Palestinian Authority as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people was also a collective cry against Hamas, a key player in Iran's axis. Just as Israel is indifferent to the civilian toll in Gaza, Iran appears unbothered by Palestinian suffering, particularly as long as Hamas remains faithful to the axis. Mr Trump was recently forced to acknowledge the human-made famine in Gaza, having previously denied this reality. While he didn't initially act against Israel, which is enacting a policy of starvation in the enclave, he spoke about it after parts of his Maga political base pressed him to intervene to end the humanitarian catastrophe. This was accompanied by a different kind of global political pressure as Mr Trump was challenged by European and non-European allies who participated in the two-state solution conference and endorsed its final communique charting a path towards a Palestinian state alongside Israel. There are concerns over possible vindictive responses from Mr Trump, particularly if he feels isolated on the international stage. There is unease over his administration sanctioning the PA's leadership, which the latter says is a form of punishment for seeking the establishment of a Palestinian state. It shouldn't surprise anyone if Israel seeks to crush everything that emerged from the UN conference. It views the PA as an obstacle to its ambitions of annexing the West Bank. It opposes the near-unanimous international view that Hamas should be dismantled, only because its policy is to fracture Palestinian unity and undermine the PA. The dilemma facing the US President over the current Israeli government's extremist policies is his growing global isolation on the Palestine issue. He may still choose to ignore increasing international momentum in favour of a Palestinian state, but it could come at a cost. Indeed, it was no small development for Saudi Arabia to insist to the international community that it won't normalise relations with Israel unless a Palestinian state is established. Riyadh's support for Palestinian statehood gained greater significance when it co-chaired the conference with France. The event brought surprising developments, including the UK's readiness to recognise the state of Palestine at next month's UN General Assembly unless Israel changes course from its current approach in Gaza. Yet a Palestinian state cannot come into being without American backing and Israeli compliance. The UN Security Council has already enshrined the two-state solution in resolutions 1397 and 1515, both supported by Washington. But the roadmap they laid out for Palestinian statehood by 2005 was never implemented and the Trump administration walked back American commitments to those resolutions. The events in New York could push Mr Trump further into the arms of Israeli extremism and its rejection of the two-state solution. Or he might find himself cornered and unable to punish the broad coalition of states that have challenged him. If so, his policy could shift under pressure. This would require a deft diplomatic effort to present Mr Trump with ways to align with the emerging consensus without feeling provoked. Countries have bilateral interests and won't risk undermining relations with Washington solely for the sake of the two-state solution. Having been increasingly scrutinised by the international community, Israel appears intent on shifting global focus away from Gaza. This is precisely because it intends to continue its policies there. And as long as European states fail to impose tangible punitive measures on Israel, and as long as Mr Trump supports its project of 'voluntary displacement', Israel will continue with its agenda. Israel's posture towards Lebanon and Iran, however, is another matter. There is little international sympathy for Iran's insistence that Hezbollah retain its arms in defiance of Lebanese sovereignty. Nor is there sympathy for Tehran's reckless endangerment of the Lebanese people's safety, security and agency. There is, likewise, little global sympathy for the Islamic Republic's stubborn adherence to its triad of strategic doctrines – nuclear capability, ballistic missiles and proxy warfare – without modifications. Thus, should it once again face US or Israeli military strikes, it is unlikely to find many sympathisers. Tehran is now trapped by American sanctions and the threat of more air strikes. Hezbollah, too, will find no one rushing to its rescue if it falls prey to Israel's attempts to shift global attention away from Gaza. Both entities will have only themselves to blame.
Khaleej Times
3 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
India to maintain Russian oil imports despite Trump threats, government sources say
India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite U.S. President Donald Trump's threats of penalties, two Indian government sources told Reuters on Saturday, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. On top of a new 25% tariff on India's exports to the U.S., Trump indicated in a Truth Social post last month that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters he had heard that India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. But the sources said there would be no immediate changes. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight." Justifying India's oil purchases from Russia, a second source said India's imports of Russian grades had helped avoid a global surge in oil prices, which have remained subdued despite Western curbs on the Russian oil sector. Unlike Iranian and Venezuelan oil, Russian crude is not subject to direct sanctions, and India is buying it below the current price cap fixed by the European Union, the source said. The New York Times also quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials on Saturday as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy. Indian government authorities did not respond to Reuters' request for official comment on its oil purchasing intentions. However, during a regular press briefing on Friday, foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India has a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," he said. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. India's top supplier Trump, who has made ending Russia's war in Ukraine a priority of his administration since returning to office this year, has expressed growing impatience with Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks. He has threatened 100% tariffs on U.S. imports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the leading supplier to India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, accounting for about 35% of its overall supplies. India imported about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil from January to June this year, up 1% from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. But while the Indian government may not be deterred by Trump's threats, sources told Reuters this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil after July discounts narrowed to their lowest since 2022 - when sanctions were first imposed on Moscow - due to lower Russian exports and steady demand. Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp , Bharat Petroleum Corp and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources told Reuters. Nayara Energy - a refinery majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft, and major buyer of Russian oil - was recently sanctioned by the EU. Nayara's chief executive resigned following the sanctions, and three vessels laden with oil products from Nayara Energy have yet to discharge their cargoes, hindered by the new EU sanctions, Reuters reported last week.
