Trump has big plans for Pakistani oil. That's news to Pakistanis.
Governments here have dreamed for decades of finding and extracting enough oil to turn around the country's economic fortunes, but none of their attempts have succeeded. Petroleum is Pakistan's largest import; around 80 percent of the country's supply comes from abroad. When it runs low, power outages proliferate.
Still, Trump struck a notably optimistic note in his Truth Social post, announcing that 'Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive Oil Reserves.'
'Who knows,' he mused, 'maybe they'll be selling Oil to India some day!'
The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has estimated that Pakistan might hold 9.1 billion barrels of recoverable oil — a figure cited frequently by Pakistani officials to court foreign investors. But these reserves have not been proved, cautioned Afia Malik, an energy researcher here. Pakistan's proven reserves are far smaller — they place it around 50th globally, behind such countries as Romania, Vietnam and Brunei.
Pakistan produced fewer than 100,000 barrels of oil per day in 2023, according to the EIA, far less than the world's top producers. (The United States, with around 13 million barrels per day, ranked first.)
After a long history of setbacks and failures, few here believe Pakistan will ever become an oil exporter.
'Red tape, political interference, and bureaucratic inefficiencies' have deterred foreign investors and limited progress, Malik said.
Trump suggested that new investment would come from private U.S. sources. 'We are in the process of choosing the Oil Company that will lead this Partnership,' he wrote.
The most ambitious attempt ended in 2019, when a consortium that included ExxonMobil searched off Karachi but found no oil or gas deposits.
A Pakistani refiner said last week that it had struck an agreement for its first import of U.S. crude oil.
'As the President said, Pakistan and the United States will work together on developing their massive oil reserves, which will strengthen economic security for both of our countries,' White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said.
Pakistani officials have welcomed Trump's announcement to resume the search for oil.
'If there's investment coming in from countries like the U.S., China, others, we would like to welcome that,' Power Minister Awais Leghari told The Washington Post. 'It is good to see that on the radar of President Trump.'
But among commentators here, disbelief and in some cases mockery have prevailed. Some suspect Trump is sending a message to neighboring India, Pakistan's more populous and more economically influential archrival.
'Pakistan may simply be a leverage point, rather than the main beneficiary of this engagement,' political analyst Hasan Askari Rizvi said.
Relations between the Trump administration and the Indian government have faltered in recent months over trade. Trump on Wednesday said he will double the tariff on goods from India to 50 percent because of the country's continued purchase of Russian oil.
While some here doubt that Pakistan is a priority to Trump, officials say they have noticed an improvement in relations with Washington. When days of border fighting between India and Pakistan in May threatened to escalate to all-out war, the administration brokered a ceasefire. Trump hosted powerful army chief Asim Munir for lunch at the White House, and Islamabad said it would nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize.
The renewed American interest in Pakistan, some analysts suspect, might be less about oil than access to minerals and rare earths.
Pakistan is believed to hold large and unexplored deposits of the rare earths that are crucial for consumer electronics and defense technology. Amid escalating trade tensions between the United States and China, a key rare earth supplier, the Trump administration has shown growing interest in Pakistan's mines. U.S. officials attended the Pakistan Minerals Investment Forum here in April.
But as with oil, most of Pakistan's mineral deposits are unexplored and could be difficult to exploit.
China is building a nearly 2,000-mile road, rail and pipeline network to link the Chinese border in northern Pakistan, resource-rich western Pakistani provinces and a deep-sea port in the south, but the work has been hampered by growing insecurity. Islamabad is concerned about the rising militancy of the Pakistani Taliban in the northwestern province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Separatist groups in the southwestern province of Baluchistan, meanwhile, are escalating their fight against the government.
Baluch separatists claimed responsibility this week for an attack on two mining trucks in the province. The militants warned that anyone 'involved in the looting of Baloch national resources' or transporting minerals would be considered a legitimate target.
Some former Pakistani officials worry that the rising security challenges are fueled by a sense of disenfranchisement shared not only by radicalized militants but also ordinary people.
When oil or minerals were extracted in the past, locals rarely reaped the rewards.
'Serious efforts were never made to engage them as mutual partners,' said G.A. Sabri, a former top official in the Petroleum Ministry.
Sabri hopes Pakistani officials have learned their lesson. But as the government seeks foreign investment, it has introduced legislation to expand its control over mineral extraction, giving more cause for local grievances.
'When local communities see tangible benefits from exploration,' said Malik, the energy researcher, 'they are more likely to take ownership of its security and success.'
Haq Nawaz Khan contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Oil markets seen bearish after Trump-Putin Alaska meeting
By Seher Dareen LONDON (Reuters) -Oil markets are set for a muted price reaction when they open on Sunday after U.S. President Donald Trump's and Russian leader Vladimir Putin's meeting in Alaska, at which Trump said a fully-fledged peace deal was the aim for Ukraine rather than a ceasefire. Trump said he had agreed with Putin that negotiators should go straight to a peace settlement - not via a ceasefire, as Ukraine and European allies, until now with U.S. support, have been demanding. Trump said he would hold off imposing tariffs on countries such as China for buying Russian oil following his talks with Putin. He has previously threatened sanctions on Moscow and secondary sanctions on countries such as China and India that buy Russian oil if no moves are made to end the Ukraine war. "This will mean Russian oil will continue to flow undisturbed and this should be bearish for oil prices," said ICIS analyst Ajay Parmar. "It is worth noting that we think the impact of this will be minimal though and prices will likely see only a small dip in the very near term as a result of this news." The oil market will wait for developments from a meeting in Washington on Monday between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. European leaders have also been invited to the meeting, a source familiar with the matter told Reuters. "Market participants will track comments from European leaders but for now Russian supply disruption risks will remain contained," said Giovanni Staunovo, analyst at UBS. Brent settled at $65.85 a barrel on Friday, and U.S. West Texas Intermediate at $62.80 - both down nearly $1 before the talks in Alaska. Traders are waiting for a deal, so until that emerges, crude prices are likely to be stuck in a narrow range, said Phil Flynn, a senior analyst with Price Futures Group. "What we do know is that the threat of immediate sanctions on Russia, or secondary sanctions on other countries is put on hold for now, which would be bearish," he said. After the imposition of Western sanctions, including a seaborne oil embargo and price caps on Russian oil, Russia has redirected flows to China and India.


Fast Company
15 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Employers need help managing workers who are taking second jobs
Employers who sense rising levels of anxiety and signs of disengagement or displeasure in their workplace now have survey data to explain the sources of that unsettling vibe. But those insights also suggest managers need to address the sources of that unhappiness to avoid losing employees to companies that are already doing so. That was the main lesson in a recent study by staff recruitment, management, and payroll software company Remote. It polled '2,000 full-time, desk-based U.S. workers' about their perceptions of their workplaces. The overarching message participants sent was they're 'worried about the economy, unsure about their career future, and searching for employers they can trust.' As a result, many respondents said they're looking for greater financial and job security, and simultaneously want more input and guidance from employers—as well as increased flexibility in their work. Some of those expectations are directly linked to financial pressures many participants said they were under, as well as habits developed under pandemic-era remote working arrangements. Their own money concerns—and the increased fears about the economy's future that 80 percent of respondents expressed—led nearly 20 percent of participants to say they'd already taken on a second job or side hustle. An additional 57 percent say they're looking to do so, for the same reasons. Rising employee preoccupations with working a second job, along with their pandemic experiences of having worked from home, made flexibility a top priority for all but 11 percent of participants. About a third said their desire for fully remote employment was higher than it was a year ago, with 26 percent saying the same for hybrid. Around 60 percent of both groups said they'd take a pay cut to secure those arrangements, which tend to offer greater range in doing work and alsofacilitate juggling a side hustle. Interestingly, other replies in the Remote survey indicated that employers providing increased flexibility may help remedy another problem cited: worker complaints about insufficient communication and support. Polling data found just 17 percent of respondents said they were getting enough resources and support to feel stable and engaged on the job. Meanwhile, only 8 percent said their company regularly shares information on how the economy may impact their role or organization, with about a quarter describing those updates as 'vague.' Over a third of participants—or 35 percent—said they receive no feedback on that from bosses—but wish they did. Unexpectedly, however, 50 percent of people with hybrid arrangements and 46 percent of fully remote employees reported getting higher levels of that information and direction from managers. Meaning, with only 37 percent of in-office respondents feeling the same, 'organizations with distributed teams may lean more towards intentional, proactive communication,' analysis of the findings said. What can employers do to respond to the study's results? Its authors offered the following steps that companies might take to provide workers the 'honesty, stability, and real investment in their well-being' they need and reduce the risks of them seeking these qualities elsewhere instead. Talk about it. Regular, transparent updates help employees feel grounded. Rethink flexibility. Flexible policies have moved out of perk territory, and into the essential camp. Flexible working can be a lifeline for disengaged and anxious employees and for those with needs and responsibilities that don't fit into rigid structures. Invest in development. Clear career paths build security and loyalty. Support financial wellness. Educational resources can go a long way. Create space for dialogue. Especially when the conversations are hard. 'The findings serve as a reminder that people-first leadership isn't about guesswork, but listening, responding, and proactively creating environments where employees can maintain stability and productivity, even in uncertain times, instead,' noted Remote's chief people officer, Barbara Matthews. — By Bruce Crumley


Newsweek
16 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Map Shows Tax Cuts Promised by Trump Administration Across 50 States
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan Washington-based think tank, has produced a map forecasting the effects of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act on taxes across the United States, broken down to the county level. The White House's website reposted the map, noting that the Tax Foundation said Trump's package would "reduce federal taxes on average for individual taxpayers in every state" and create almost 1 million jobs. Newsweek contacted the Tax Foundation for comment on Saturday outside regular office hours. Why It Matters Trump signed his One Big Beautiful Bill, the centerpiece of his economic agenda, into law on July 4 after it narrowly passed both the House and Senate. The Congressional Budget Office has said the legislation will add $2.4 trillion to the U.S. national debt, a forecast that contributed to a falling out between Trump and his previous close confidant Elon Musk. The One Big Beautiful Bill included sweeping tax cuts, reduced spending on Medicaid, and additional funding for the military and border security. It also raised the U.S. debt ceiling by $5 trillion. What To Know On Wednesday, the Tax Foundation published a study forecasting the effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill on taxes paid by the average American on a county-by-county basis between 2026 and 2035. This was accompanied by a map showing the breakdown by county over this period. Two days later, the White House published a news release welcoming the study, which included a screenshot of the Tax Foundation's map taken for 2026. According to the Tax Foundation, the average tax cut per American for 2026 will be $3,752 because of Trump's spending package. This is forecast to fall to $2,505 in 2030 as some measures expire before increasing again to $3,301 in 2035. A map produced by the Tax Foundation showing the effects of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill in 2026 on a county-by-county basis. A map produced by the Tax Foundation showing the effects of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill in 2026 on a county-by-county basis. Tax Foundation The states forecast to see the largest tax cuts in 2926 are Wyoming ($5,375), Washington ($5,372) and Massachusetts ($5,139). By contrast, the smallest cuts are expected in West Virginia and Mississippi—at $2,503 and $2,401, respectively. In its report, the Tax Foundation described the One Big Beautiful Bill as "the most significant legislative changes to federal tax policy since the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act," which was passed in Trump's first term. The president's One Big Beautiful Bill contained a number of tax cuts, including extending corporation and income taxes he imposed in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It also raises the cap on state and local tax deductions over the next five years to $40,000 for those making less than $500,000 per year, reduces tax on tips and overtime pay, and phases out some of former President Joe Biden's energy tax credits. The Tax Foundation also projected that the One Big Beautiful Bill would produce about 938,000 jobs "over the long run," including 132,000 in California and 81,000 in Texas. What People Are Saying White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said in the news release: "President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill is the largest, most consequential tax cut on the middle class ever. Now, the Tax Foundation—the leading nonpartisan tax policy nonprofit—confirms that. Between lower inflation, massive investments, and historic tax cuts, all Americans are reaping the benefits of the Trump Economy—and the Golden Age has just begun." What Happens Next While supporters of Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill may be buoyed by the Tax Foundation's report, which suggests it will result in widespread tax reductions and job creation, critics are likely to continue raising concerns about its effects on the national debt and Medicaid cuts.