The news also comes against the backdrop of rising oil prices fuelling inflation concerns and lifting expectations of further European Central Bank (ECB) rate hikes. While Iran has dismissed United States President Donald Trump’s talks of negotiations as “fake news,” reports claiming administration insiders as sources stated that Washington would continue its strikes against the Western Asian nation.

Talking about Bund yields, Germany’s 10-year government bond yield, ‌the euro area’s benchmark, ⁠dropped 0.5 ⁠basis points to 3.01%. A couple of days back, it reached 3.077%, its highest level since June 2011.

Money markets have fully priced ‌in two European Central Bank interest rate hikes ⁠by July 2026, along with a deposit facility rate at 2.65% by year-end. The ratio currently stands at 2%.

According to Reuters, Germany’s two-year yields, more sensitive to expectations for policy rates, were down 1.5 bps at 2.60%. They hit 2.764% the day before, their highest level since July 2024. Italy’s 10-year government bond yields fell one bp to 3.91%, after recently reaching 4.119%, their highest since July 2024.

The yield gap of ⁠Italian government bonds versus Bunds was at 85 bps. It was at 63 bps before the attacks against Iran and hit 53.50 in mid-January this year, its lowest level since August ‌2008. The French spread, on the other hand, was at 69 bps ⁠from 58 bps before the conflict.

Discussing the existing money market mood, Commerzbank rates strategist Hauke Siemssen said, “Markets look set to remain in sell-off mode as latest headlines out of the Middle East point to prolonged energy price increases.”

Goldman Sachs also expects the ECB to deliver two 25 basis point interest rate hikes in April and June 2026.

“At the April meeting, only a few data pointers for March will be available, which would render a potential hike a risk management exercise and a sign of commitment to stay ahead of the inflation curve. More hawkish-leaning council members seem in favour of an April hike, while centrist council members ‌should ultimately tip the balance,” Siemssen concluded.

The post Bund yields near 15-year high as investors remain cautious appeared first on International Finance.

Malaysia’s Investment, Trade, and Industry Minister Datuk Seri Johari Abdul Ghani stated that the US-Malaysia Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (ART) no longer holds any legality. He further claimed the deal was not suspended or paused, but terminated.

“It is not on hold. It is no longer there, it’s null and void,” Johari said, as reported by the New Straits Times. He further told reporters that if tariffs were imposed and legitimised based on a trade surplus, authorities should clearly specify the industry involved instead of implementing the mechanism on a blanket basis.

The ART was signed on the sidelines of the 47th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur in October 2025, with Donald Trump and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim as signatories. The agreement covered roughly 12% of Malaysia’s exports to the United States, offering improved market access for Malaysian exporters while making American products more competitive for Malaysian businesses. Under its terms, the world’s largest economy maintained a 19% reciprocal tariff on most Malaysian imports, with carve-outs for select goods.

The voiding of the deal comes at a particularly fraught moment. In March, the Trump administration launched a sweeping Section 301 trade investigation, authorised under the Trade Act of 1974, targeting 16 trading partners, including Malaysia.

Section 301 allows Washington to impose additional tariffs on countries found to be engaging in unfair trade practices. Johari identified Malaysia’s key vulnerable sectors as electrical and electronics, oil and gas, plantation commodities including palm oil, rubber gloves, and other rubber-based goods.

He stressed that Malaysian exporters must ensure compliance with labour and environmental standards to minimise exposure.

Domestically, the development has triggered a political response. Opposition coalition Perikatan Nasional has called for a special parliamentary session to address the collapse of the agreement, with secretary-general Takiyuddin Hassan warning of potential damage to export sectors and supply chains.

Donald Trump, for his part, has warned of significantly higher retaliatory tariffs against any nation attempting to exploit the Supreme Court ruling to unpick existing trade arrangements, a threat that hangs directly over Kuala Lumpur’s decision.

The post Malaysia voids US trade deal after SC strikes down ‘Trump Tariffs’ appeared first on International Finance.

Economists Konstantinos Gavrilidis, Ramya Raghavan, and Jim Stock published a new paper, titled “The Macroeconomic Effects of Climate Policy Uncertainty,” stating that climate policy uncertainty curbs investments, output, and employment while increasing prices. They found that climate change denial has stagflationary effects that compound and complicate policy responses.

By analysing millions of newspaper articles dating back to the 1980s, these economists created a monthly index of US climate policy uncertainty that tracks legislative debates, regulatory reversals, and shifts in international climate commitments.

Their research found that when this index spikes, such as during the 2009 Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade Bill or the 2017 US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, macroeconomic models indicated that businesses respond by cutting back on investment, scaling down production plans, and postponing hiring and research.

Simultaneously, the risk of future tightening in emission standards or compliance costs raises expected future production costs, which helps transmit the uncertainty into higher applied prices.

When company policies change unpredictably, companies become uncertain. They act or respond to policy uncertainty just like they would to a financial risk, such as currency swings or interest rate moves.

Firms related to climate change risks, such as energy producers, heavy manufacturers, car makers, and even big tech firms with large data centre footprints, don’t treat climate rules as a distant problem. They begin to adjust spending, borrowing, and hiring plans according to climate policy.

The report reveals that when climate policy uncertainty occurs, firms cut back on capital spending, resulting in fewer new factories, power plants, production lines, and renewable energy projects. This shift can lead to a 5%-15% drop in annual investments for exposed companies over a few years, depending heavily on the intensity of the regulatory back-and-forth.

Furthermore, there is a notable scale-back on research and development, particularly in clean tech. Since green energy often only becomes profitable under strict emission rules, this uncertainty inadvertently slows down innovation in several key areas, including battery storage, electric vehicles, and industrial decarbonisation.

In simple terms, when businesses can’t be sure what climate rules will look like in five to ten years, they stop treating climate policy just as a policy issue and start treating it as a real financial risk that affects how much they build, invent, hire, and borrow.

Companies seen as more vulnerable to climate rules often see their stock prices suffer or become more volatile, and their borrowing costs also rise slightly. Even analyst ratings turn a little bit more cautious.

The cost of uncertainty that businesses absorb is then fed back into the broader economy, making growth slower and transitions bumpier than they would be if there were clear, stable rules.

The post US’ climate policy uncertainty: A global macro risk appeared first on International Finance.

While the Republican called the verdict a “disgrace” and decided to carry on the levies, named as “global tariffs,” through alternative means, the mechanism, since 2025, has created flutters around the world. Not only did the overall global trade flow get adversely affected, Uncle Sam’s relations with allies like Canada, the European Union, South Korea and India also faced significant headwinds.

Post the SC verdict, where are things heading now? To discuss this, International Finance caught up with Linda Middleton-Jones, an advocate and ambassador for international trade. As a founder and Managing Director of International Trade Matters with over 30 years of experience in international commerce, Linda serves as an Internationalisation Specialist for “Innovate UK,” supporting innovative tech startups in global market expansion.

Previously, as the International Trade Director for Plymouth Chamber of Commerce, she created the Manufacturing Barometer (mentioned at Davos and recorded in Hansard) and the Global Trade Blueprint based on Sensemaking principles. Named “Most Influential Businesswoman in Multi-Sector International Commerce 2022,” Linda completed certified training with MIT, The Economist and the ILM.

In this exclusive conversation, Linda discusses how the “Trump Tariffs” achieved limited success in fulfilling primary goals such as manufacturing reshoring, deficit reduction and revenue generation, while generating substantial costs for American businesses and consumers alike. She also notes that businesses dependent on imported components faced higher input costs, reducing competitiveness globally.

International Finance: What is your view on the clash between the US Supreme Court and the Donald Trump administration after tariffs continued despite the ruling?

Linda Middleton-Jones: The clash exemplifies political fragmentation overriding institutional governance—a tension familiar to companies navigating competing jurisdictions. When executive authority supersedes judicial oversight, it creates unpredictability for internationally trading businesses. From my work with UK exporters through International Trade Matters, this instability complicates strategic planning and risk assessment. Companies require regulatory certainty; when political expediency trumps constitutional frameworks, it undermines the governance pillar of ESG that businesses increasingly depend upon. This isn’t merely domestic politics—it reverberates through global supply chains, forcing trading partners to question America’s commitment to rules-based commerce. The real victims are SMEs lacking resources to pivot quickly when political whims override established frameworks.

Are tariffs the only way to address serious balance of payments deficits?

Tariffs represent the bluntest instrument in economic policy—effective perhaps for headline politics but crude for addressing structural imbalances. My experience with Innovate UK (United Kingdom’s national innovation agency) demonstrates alternative approaches: investing in innovation, enhancing productivity, supporting export capability, and improving competitiveness through skills development. Japan and Germany achieved trade surpluses through manufacturing excellence, not protectionism. Balance of payments deficits reflect deeper issues, currency valuations, consumption patterns, productivity gaps, and comparative advantages. Addressing these requires systemic change: infrastructure investment, education reform, and industrial strategy. Tariffs may temporarily reduce imports but simultaneously increase costs for domestic manufacturers dependent on global supply chains, potentially worsening competitiveness. Sustainable solutions lie in enhancing export capability, not simply restricting imports.

Have tariffs helped boost US manufacturing, trade balance, or federal revenue so far?

Evidence suggests limited success across all three metrics. Manufacturing reshoring proves slow and expensive—relocating complex supply chains requires years and substantial capital investment. The trade deficit with China decreased marginally but diverted rather than eliminated—imports shifted to Vietnam, Mexico, and other nations. Federal revenue from tariffs increased nominally but pales against broader economic costs: higher consumer prices, retaliatory tariffs damaging agricultural exports, and supply chain disruptions. Companies I work with report increased costs without corresponding domestic alternatives. The Peterson Institute estimates tariffs cost American households considerably more than the revenue generated. Manufacturing competitiveness requires workforce skills, infrastructure, and innovation investment—tariffs alone cannot substitute for a comprehensive industrial strategy. Short-term political gains versus long-term economic reality.

Do Trump’s tariffs contradict the principles of free trade?

Unequivocally, yes. Free trade principles rest on comparative advantage, specialisation, and mutual benefit through reduced barriers. Tariffs fundamentally contradict these tenets, representing protectionism regardless of justification. However, the nuanced reality acknowledges that ‘free trade’ rarely exists purely—every nation maintains strategic protections around agriculture, defence, and sensitive technologies. The question becomes whether tariffs address genuine unfair practices or simply protect uncompetitive industries. China’s state subsidies, intellectual property theft, and market access restrictions warrant a response, but blanket tariffs penalise allies and trading partners indiscriminately. WTO mechanisms exist precisely to adjudicate trade disputes through rules-based frameworks. Abandoning multilateral systems for unilateral action undermines decades of trade architecture, inviting retaliatory fragmentation that ultimately harms all participants.

Could the ruling affect the China+One supply chain strategy in the near term?

The ruling creates short-term uncertainty but is unlikely to derail China+One fundamentally. Companies pursuing supply chain diversification respond to multiple drivers beyond tariffs: geopolitical risk, pandemic lessons, intellectual property concerns, and ESG considerations regarding labour practices and critical minerals sourcing. My clients implementing China+One strategies—relocating to Vietnam, India, Mexico—cite resilience over cost optimisation. Even tariff removal wouldn’t reverse investments already committed. However, reduced tariff certainty may slow new diversification investments as companies await clarity. The strategic imperative remains: overconcentration in China presents unacceptable risk regardless of tariff policy. Geographic diversification reflects long-term risk management, not merely tariff avoidance. Political instability accelerates this trend rather than reverses it.

How have tariffs strained US ties with allies like Japan, South Korea, the UK, EU, and India?

Tariffs against allies fundamentally breach the trust underpinned by decades of partnership. Japan and South Korea, critical security partners facing China and North Korea, find themselves economically targeted alongside adversaries. The UK, seeking post-Brexit trade opportunities, encountered American protectionism rather than the promised partnership. EU relations deteriorated as tariffs on steel, aluminium, and other sectors contradicted stated alliance values. India’s retaliatory tariffs on American goods demonstrate damaged goodwill. Beyond economics, these actions signal unreliability—if America weaponises trade against allies during peacetime, what commitment remains during crises? My work shows British exporters questioning American market dependence, seeking alternative partnerships. Trust, once broken, requires years rebuilding. Allies increasingly pursue China relationships, CPTPP membership, and regional agreements excluding America, fundamentally realigning global trade architecture.

Will US allies now seek more concessions after the ruling?

Absolutely. The ruling demonstrates institutional limits on executive authority, emboldening allies to press for advantages. Japan, the EU, and others will demand tariff removals, market access improvements, and safeguards against future unilateral actions as preconditions for deeper cooperation. They recognise American political instability creates negotiating leverage—businesses and states demanding trade certainty pressure the federal government toward compromise. However, allies also pursue insurance policies: strengthening intra-regional trade, diversifying away from US dependence, and building alternative frameworks. The ruling proves America’s internal divisions, suggesting allies cannot rely upon a consistent policy. Consequently, concessions sought extend beyond immediate tariff relief toward structural guarantees and dispute resolution mechanisms limiting future executive overreach. Power dynamics have shifted—America’s allies recognise they hold cards previously underutilised.

Have these tariffs become counterproductive for the US economy?

Increasingly, evidence suggests yes. Initial objectives—manufacturing reshoring, deficit reduction, revenue generation—achieved limited success while generating substantial costs. American manufacturers dependent on imported components face higher input costs, reducing competitiveness globally. Agricultural exports collapsed under retaliatory tariffs, requiring federal bailouts exceeding tariff revenue. Consumer prices increased disproportionately, affecting lower-income households. Supply chain disruptions revealed during COVID-19 were exacerbated rather than resolved. Perhaps most damagingly, America’s reputation for rules-based trade governance suffered irreparable harm, encouraging allies toward alternative partnerships. My clients report that tariff unpredictability—more than tariffs themselves—proves most destructive, preventing long-term investment decisions. When political expediency overrides economic rationality, everyone loses. Protectionism may offer short-term political satisfaction but delivers long-term economic pain.

The post Protectionism delivers long-term pain: International Trade Matters Founder Linda Middleton-Jones appeared first on International Finance.

In fact, according to Saad al-Kaabi, Qatar’s energy minister, if the ongoing conflict forces Gulf energy producers to ⁠shut down exports within weeks, it could drive oil to USD 150 a barrel. In response to the US-Israel joint strikes on its territory, which were launched on February 28, Tehran has stopped the traffic of tankers moving through the Strait of Hormuz, which handles roughly one-fifth of global daily oil supply. The conflict has also resulted in the disruption of output, as refineries and liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants are facing shutdowns.

“Every day the Strait stays closed, prices will go higher. The belief in the market was that Donald Trump might pull back at some point because he doesn’t want to have high oil prices, but the longer that takes, the clearer it is how much is at risk,” said Giovanni Staunovo, commodity analyst at UBS, while interacting with Reuters.

As per a White House official, the Donald Trump administration will likely announce measures to combat rising energy prices from the conflict.

In fact, the Treasury granted waivers on March 5 for companies to buy sanctioned Russian oil stored on tankers to ease supply constraints that have resulted in Asia-based refineries cutting fuel processing. As per the ship-tracking firm Kpler, about ⁠30 million barrels of Russian oil are available and loaded on vessels in the Indian Ocean, Arabian Sea region and Singapore Strait, including volumes in floating storage.

Meanwhile, spot Middle East crude premiums have spiked to multi-year highs in the first week of March, a trend that also suggests higher costs for regional refiners, with the latter struggling to find immediate alternatives and facing potential output cuts, resulting in the global hike for crude prices.

Along with Brent crude futures and West Texas Intermediate, benchmark Dubai’s cash premium jumped to USD 19.63 per barrel, the reported highest from 2018. Premiums for Oman and Murban crude also soared, hitting USD 19.15 and USD 17.87 per barrel, respectively.

“Dubai spreads have surged as crude exports remain stranded within the Middle East Gulf, making price discovery nearly impossible. We expect Strait of Hormuz disruptions to continue through at least mid-March. There are concerns that Dubai price assessment will be nearly impossible once Oman- and Fujairah-loading Murban shipment volumes are exhausted this cycle,” said Richard Jones, a crude analyst at ⁠Energy Aspects, while interacting with Reuters.

The post Oil price stares at massive gain amid Middle East crisis appeared first on International Finance.

According to Gene Seroka, executive director for the Port of Los Angeles, total processed cargo volume at the facility in January was down by approximately 12% year over year, citing a decline in agricultural exports as among the major factors. He further told CNBC, “Exports to China look dismal,” suggesting that the shipping activity towards the world’s second-largest economy has dropped considerably across the United States’ major ports, with containerised exports down 26% in 2025. As per the data published by the port authorities, Los Angeles took a big hit on the crucial agricultural export of soybeans.

In early 2026, President Donald Trump announced China was considering purchasing an additional eight million metric tons of American soybeans (totalling 20 million) for the current season, following the October 2025 agreement to buy 12 million tons. Soybeans coming out of the Port of Los Angeles to China were down 80% last year, and despite the high-profile declaration from the Republican, no improvement was seen in either November or December after the initial discussions between the world’s two largest economies.

“It’s a really important part of the overall export strategy here. Argentina and Brazil have picked up a lot of the contracts for China on soybeans,” Seroka said, while adding that any increase in the American farm sector’s ability to export will take time.

“These are not transactional-type applications. These are agreements that are for the last three, six, and twelve months in duration. So, it’ll be yet another cycle before the US soybean exporter has a chance to bid and get into the game,” the senior official added.

“The Port of Los Angeles reported roughly 812,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEUs) for January, including imports, exports and empty containers. In January 2025, roughly 924,000 TEUs were reported, fuelled by front-loading of freight ahead of not only the major holiday period in Asia but the start of President Trump’s second-term tariffs. Breaking out the container count, January imports were 421,000 container units, down almost 13% from last year’s higher levels. On the export side, 104,000 container units were processed, a close to 8% drop year over year,” CNBC reported.

“Empty export containers that during times of high demand are sent back to Asia, a forward-looking indicator of Asia demand, came in at 286,000 TEUs, a 12.5% drop from last year,” the port authority stated.

According to Seroka, elevated 2025 numbers from a period when importers were scrambling to get cargo in ahead of Trump tariffs will continue to be a factor in comparisons throughout 2026.

“US trade policy remains largely uncertain, and I expect that to continue,” he concluded.

The post Quiet crisis at Port of Los Angeles amid US-China trade tensions appeared first on International Finance.

Trump has also made immigration tough, and the shooting of a woman in Minneapolis by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents has the whole nation on edge.

Amidst such developments, Suzanne Clark, the CEO of the US Chamber of Defence, urged corporate leaders to courageously defend free-market principles against expanding government intervention. Speaking in a dimmed ballroom, Clark emphasised that America must maintain its openness to global commerce, the exchange of talent, innovative ideas, and international trade partnerships.

While Clark avoided directly naming President Donald Trump or his specific policies, her remarks represented a subtle critique of the administration’s unprecedented interference in corporate affairs. The Republican has broken new ground in executive involvement with private business operations, taking positions in technology companies, dictating corporate equity arrangements, implementing sweeping tariffs, and pursuing immigration restrictions that the Chamber opposes.

Clark’s comments reflect a broader pattern emerging among American business leaders, including measured, careful criticism that stops short of confrontation. This cautious approach marks a significant shift from Donald Trump’s first presidential term, when executives were more willing to publicly break with the administration over controversial issues, including the president’s response to the 2017 white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Selective Corporate Criticism

Several high-profile CEOs have recently voiced concerns about specific administration policies, though their objections remain narrowly focused on areas directly affecting their business interests. ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon both made headlines with tempered criticisms, but limited their remarks to Venezuela’s oil sector and Federal Reserve independence, respectively.

The muted nature of these responses has drawn criticism from governance experts and political observers. Richard Painter, a University of Minnesota law professor who served as chief ethics counsel under President George W. Bush, characterised the business community’s reaction as disappointingly weak.

He pointed to concerning developments, including immigration enforcement actions affecting US citizens in Minneapolis and Trump’s consideration of claiming Greenland, which could potentially isolate American companies from European markets.

Painter noted the stark contrast between the current administration’s authoritarian tendencies and Bush’s commitment to free-market economics. He emphasised that business leaders need to take a stronger stance against governmental coercion, regardless of whether it targets street protesters or corporate executives who resist presidential pressure.

Mark Levine, New York City’s Comptroller, overseeing substantial public pension fund investments in major US corporations, echoed these concerns. He characterised CEO responses as merely “baby steps,” with executives speaking up only when Trump’s actions directly threaten their bottom lines. Levine warned that capitalism cannot function properly if presidents with autocratic inclinations dictate corporate behaviour across American industry.

The Chamber’s Defence

Responding to criticism, a Chamber spokesperson referenced Clark’s media briefing, where she stated the organisation’s opposition to government intervention in business regardless of partisan source. Clark suggested that CEOs have been engaging in “quiet work” behind the scenes to promote sound public policy, avoiding what she termed a “rush to outrage.”

This approach aligns with the Chamber’s strategic positioning. In August 2025, the organisation’s chief policy officer, Neil Bradley, indicated that the group intended to respond to Trump in a nonpartisan manner to preserve broader support for free-market principles.

Presidential Pushback And Economic Perceptions

The public’s perception of Trump’s economic success contradicts his claims. He presently has a 36% approval rating on economic issues, which is lower than his 41% approval rating overall. Despite Trump’s claims that his policies have produced explosive growth, soaring productivity, booming investment, rising earnings, and conquered inflation, this mismatch still exists.

When CEOs have dared to question his approach, Trump has responded swiftly and sharply. After Woods expressed scepticism about Venezuela as an investment destination, calling it “uninvestable,” Trump threatened to exclude Exxon from future deals in the country, criticising the company for “playing too cute.” Similarly, when Dimon defended Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s independence following a criminal investigation into Powell’s conduct, Trump dismissed the CEO’s concerns outright.

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla also voiced frustration over Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s efforts to roll back childhood vaccine recommendations, calling the moves scientifically baseless. However, representatives from Exxon, JPMorgan, and Pfizer all declined to provide additional comments for this story.

A Climate Of Uncertainty

The dread that permeates business boardrooms is highlighted by recent surveys. According to the Conference Board’s most recent study, uncertainty will be the biggest risk factor for American CEOs in 2026. Chief economist Dana Peterson pointed out that executives are aware that the lobbying environment has drastically changed, even if the study did not specifically address Trump.

According to Gary Clyde Hufbauer, a senior scholar at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, CEOs might be carefully calibrating their public remarks to prevent reprisals while positioning their businesses to profit from Trump’s aims and policies. He cautioned, though, that this laissez-faire strategy might backfire and lead to even more stringent regulations after Trump leaves office.

Executives may see the current interventionist policies as transient anomalies, according to Hufbauer. However, he warned that since state capitalism appeals to both progressive Democrats and some MAGA Republicans, investors and business executives may be dangerously complacent about long-term defence of free-market values.

The conflict between corporate America and the Trump administration raises important issues regarding the balance between private industry and governmental authority, as business executives must balance safeguarding their own interests with upholding more general economic liberties.

The post IF Insights: Corporate leaders navigate tensions with Trump administration appeared first on International Finance.

Lowering long-term borrowing costs has evolved into a critical objective, yet the path forward bristles with contradictions and constraints. If the administration cannot successfully diminish market expectations for future Federal Reserve policy rates, it must pivot toward alternative strategies focused on reducing the “term premium,” that additional yield investors demand for holding long-term bonds instead of perpetually rolling over short-term securities.

Several technical approaches exist to address the term premium. The Treasury could expand its bond buyback programmes, restructure federal debt issuance to favour shorter maturities over longer-dated securities, and implement long-discussed modifications to banking regulations that might stimulate demand for government bonds. Theoretically, these measures could ease pressure on long-term rates by altering the supply-demand balance in the Treasury market.

Nevertheless, the effectiveness of these strategies appears questionable. Market participants have already tested or publicly discussed many of these adjustments over the preceding year. Bond traders have likely incorporated these prospective policy changes into their pricing calculations, signifying that the tools may have already exhausted substantial portions of their potential impact.

Throughout 2025, Treasury yields maintained relative stability despite numerous market shocks and disturbances, suggesting that conventional policy levers possess limited potency in the current environment.

The yield curve tells a revealing story about the administration’s dilemma. Long-term Treasury yields have demonstrated remarkable stubbornness in confronting concerns that would customarily propel borrowing costs upward.

Apprehensions about fiscal expansion, tariff escalations, overheated economic growth, and potential threats to Federal Reserve independence have all failed to push long-term rates conspicuously higher. Yet paradoxically, these identical yields have obstinately refused to descend meaningfully even as the Fed resumed its easing cycle in late 2024.

The numerical evidence illuminates this intractable reality. The 30-year Treasury yield currently hovers just above 4.8%, precisely where it stood when Donald Trump assumed office. The 10-year yield has contracted roughly 40 basis points, which might superficially resemble progress.

However, during this identical interval, estimates of the 10-year term premium have increased approximately 30 basis points to reach nearly 80 basis points. This arithmetic demonstrates that the decline in nominal yields has suffered nearly complete offset by an increase in the risk premium investors require for holding long-term government debt.

This market comportment elucidates the administration’s palpable impatience with the Federal Reserve’s calibration of interest rate reductions. Confronting circumscribed options to manipulate long-term borrowing costs through orthodox means, the administration appears to be canvassing every conceivable avenue to importune the central bank into more bellicose monetary accommodation.

The objective revolves around compelling faster and more trenchant rate diminutions that might finally vanquish the long-term yields that predominate for mortgages and other consumer borrowing.

Political meddling in Federal Reserve policymaking, already perceptible in recent days, may constitute an emerging ramification of this exasperation. However, substantial uncertainty persists whether hectoring the Fed to eviscerate rates more pugnaciously, or subverting the central bank’s institutional autonomy, will genuinely consummate the coveted outcome of depressed long-term Treasury yields.

The mathematics of monetary policy presents a fundamental conundrum. Precipitous interest rate reductions would instantaneously impact short-term rates, furnishing the administration with a political shibboleth. Yet the reverberations on long-term debt could prove deleterious.

If aggressive rate curtailments overheat an economy already operating at elevated temperatures, the term premium embedded in long-term bonds would likely distend further. Investors would exact even heftier compensation for the amplified inflation jeopardy and economic turbulence that premature or immoderate easing might catalyse.

Inflation remains recalcitrantly elevated above the Federal Reserve’s target, and a durable reversion to price stability has proven maddeningly elusive. Aggressive rate reductions in this milieu risk reigniting inflationary conflagrations rather than extinguishing them.

Market participants have already commenced contemplating scenarios where the Fed might necessitate reversing course and constricting monetary policy anew to countervail a potential resurgence in inflation. This prospect alone could perpetuate elevated term premiums irrespective of metamorphoses in short-term policy rates.

The ramifications for the administration’s reported fascination with mortgage market interventions prove particularly ominous. Any initiative to depress mortgage rates by manipulating Treasury yields or badgering the Fed would likely founder on these fundamental contradictions.

If long-term yields remain stubbornly elevated despite aggressive Fed accommodation, or worse yet, if they ascend due to inflation trepidations, then endeavours to render homeownership more accessible through attenuated mortgage rates would simply disintegrate.

The administration discovers itself ensnared between competing objectives and shackled by market realities that refuse to genuflect to political pressure. The holy grail of suppressed Treasury yields may remain perpetually beyond grasp, not from deficiency of effort or ingenious policy formulations, but because the underlying economic fundamentals and the labyrinthine complexity of bond markets resist the oversimplified solutions political expediency mandates.

The post IF Insights: Donald Trump’s mortgage ambitions clash with treasury reality appeared first on International Finance.

According to Tommy Pigott, a spokesman for the State Department, “the Trump administration has no higher priority than protecting American citizens and upholding American sovereignty.”

Since Donald Trump’s second inauguration on January 20, 2025, the number has increased by 2.5 times compared to the total that was withdrawn during Joe Biden’s presidency in 2024.

According to the State Department, “thousands” of the visas were cancelled due to offences like assault and drunk driving.

Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, has proudly emphasised that he revoked the visas of students who demonstrated against Israel.

Although some of his well-known targets successfully contested deportation orders in court, Marco Rubio invoked a McCarthy-era statute that permits the United States to deny entry to individuals deemed to be against US foreign policy.

Eight thousand of the revoked visas were for students, according to the State Department.

The surge in revocations is driven by the State Department’s new “Continuous Vetting Centre,” which monitors foreign nationals in real-time even after they have entered the United States. This system flags minor infractions, such as speeding tickets or arrests where charges were later dropped, triggering automatic visa terminations via the SEVIS database.

However, this “strike first, ask later” approach has faced significant legal challenges. In 2025, federal judges in several states issued “Temporary Restraining Orders,” ruling that the Trump administration may have violated the “Administrative Procedure Act” and due process rights.

Notable cases, such as those of Turkish PhD student Rumeysa Ozturk and various Columbia University activists, saw courts temporarily restore legal status after finding the government’s actions were based on political dissent rather than genuine security threats.

Additionally, the Trump administration has toughened visa requirements, including screening visitors’ social media posts.

The revocation of visas is a part of a larger campaign of mass deportations that is being actively carried out by an increase in federal officials.

The post United States revokes record 100,000 visas in 2025 appeared first on International Finance.

We are not speaking of routine business profits or the slow accretion of real estate value. Instead, we are discussing a massive pivot into the opaque world of digital assets, where the Trump family has erected a multibillion-dollar machine seemingly engineered to bypass every known safeguard against corruption.

The sheer scale of this transformation must be fully appreciated, for it explains why the presidency itself has become inextricably intertwined with the whims and demands of the international crypto elite.

A team of Reuters investigative journalists, Tom Bergin, Michelle Conlin, Lawrence Delevingne, and Tom Wilson, has further shed light on the contentious development.

According to them, while the Trump Organisation’s traditional business activities (the familiar resorts, licensing deals, and real estate ventures) generated approximately $62 million in revenue over a recent reporting period, that tally was dwarfed by the family’s new digital empire.

The family business earned more than $800 million from crypto assets, establishing a “massive pivot” in operational focus. Of that staggering sum, over $463 million flowed from sales of the World Liberty Financial (WLF) governance token, WLFI, while another $336 million was derived from a Trump-branded meme coin project. It means that nearly 93% of the family’s documented income stream now comes from these highly volatile, globally accessible, and lightly regulated digital ventures.

At the heart of such a financial tsunami is World Liberty Financial (WLF), a crypto exchange and DeFi platform that launched in October 2024, promising to replace the limits of traditional banking with open on-chain infrastructure, a noble goal perhaps, if not completely overshadowed by the political proximity of its owners.

The governance token, WLFI, is touted as a mechanism for community-driven decision-making, a utility token giving holders a voice in ecosystem expansion. Yet the true utility appears to be far simpler, far more cynical, serving as a direct mechanism for interested parties, particularly those overseas, to purchase influence.

“The contractual arrangements that link the presidency to the operation are complex by design but clear in their intent, ensuring the maximum flow of wealth directly into the family coffers. Various reports confirm that an affiliated entity holds a substantial ownership stake in the World Liberty Financial holding company, initially reported as high as 60% and currently claimed as 38% via DT Marks DeFi LLC, a company affiliated with Donald Trump and his family members,” the journalists claimed.

Beyond the equity, the Trump family also received an astonishing 22.5 billion units of the WLFI governance tokens, guaranteeing their foundational dominance in the platform. Most strikingly, the family entity is also entitled to claim an additional 75% of net revenue derived from all future token purchases, a mechanism that essentially turns the President’s family into the permanent majority tax collector on the system they created.

The rapid creation of a virtually unprecedented financial pipeline was intentionally focused on foreign capital from the start, demonstrating a proactive effort to leverage the presidency for overseas financial gain.

Reuters detailed a meeting in Dubai where Eric Trump openly pitched investors, urging them to purchase $20 million of WLF governance tokens. The targeted solicitation of overseas money signals that the primary market for this political access was always international, capitalising on the reality that those living outside the US jurisdiction often have the most to gain from regulatory leniency or political favours.

Such a pattern confirms the analysis of the digital wallets holding vast amounts of World Liberty tokens, which found that the overwhelming majority were indeed held by overseas buyers. The shift is a stark move into the shadows of accountability, exploiting the structural opacity of decentralised finance to shield these massive flows of private presidential income from public and congressional oversight.

The enterprise is less a genuine technology venture and more an influence voucher, a clear method for high-stakes buyers to invest in political insurance and access, especially given that WLF has yet to deliver on its promised peer-to-peer lending platform, suggesting that technological utility is not the true value proposition.

Profiling the international clientele

Viewing World Liberty Financial as simply a crypto start-up, a technological venture seeking capital like any other, constitutes a grave error. It functions as an international visa office, a pay-to-play lobbying operation where the price of a governance token is the cost of regulatory or legal immunity from the United States government.

“Look closely at the roll call of those who rushed to invest their money; they form a global rogues’ gallery of the legally embattled and the ethically compromised. These individuals and entities are not paying hundreds of millions because they admire the technical sophistication of a platform that has failed to deliver its core product; they are buying political shelter that only the President of the United States can sell,” Reuters stated.

The most glaring example of such corruption involves the $100 million token purchase by a little-known entity called Aqua1 Foundation, which announced its massive investment shortly after President Trump visited the United Arab Emirates and promoted new commercial deals there.

The Chinese businessman behind the recently registered UAE fund is Guren “Bobby” Zhou, a figure whose own legal history is checkered with far more than simple corporate debt. Zhou, who has had executive roles in multiple businesses, is currently under active investigation in Britain for money laundering, a stunning detail that renders the neutrality of his investment utterly impossible to believe.

One must ask what possible motivation a businessman facing serious money laundering scrutiny could have for funnelling $100 million into the private, family-controlled venture of the sitting US President, if not the desperate, preemptive purchase of political goodwill or protection. The answer is unfortunately clear: the World Liberty token serves as a new global currency for compromise, inviting foreign actors to invest in American impunity.

The pattern of exporting political access for private gain was on flagrant display during the Trump brothers’ international roadshow, turning presidential proximity into a luxury commodity. Consider the spectacle in Sofia, Bulgaria, where Donald Trump Jr. arrived for a red-carpet welcome for a conference titled “Trump Business Vision 2025.”

The key sponsor for the lavish display of political influence was Nexo, a Cayman Islands–based crypto firm that had been aggressively pursued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), eventually paying a $45 million fine for offering unregistered securities.

Yet after the fine, the co-founder of the SEC-sanctioned company, Antoni Trenchev, not only sponsored the presidential son’s tour but was later hosted by the President himself for lunch at his Scottish golf resort.

The photos and glowing social media posts about their “joint vision for crypto in the US” speak volumes, serving as a public advertisement that regulatory transgression can be quickly forgiven, even celebrated, for the right financial contribution. It fundamentally undermines the entire notion of financial law enforcement, transforming it into an obstacle to be overcome, a fee to be paid directly into the family bank account.

The most cynical transaction (the one that set the blueprint for all subsequent dealings) involves the crypto billionaire Justin Sun. Sun, the founder of the Tron blockchain, faced a major SEC lawsuit alleging fraud, the offering of unregistered securities, and market manipulation.

Facing potential arrest, Sun had reportedly avoided travel to the United States. Then the inevitable payment was made, with Sun purchasing $75 million worth of tokens from the Trump-associated WLF. Crucially, almost immediately following the investment, the Trump-led SEC abruptly dropped its high-confidence case against Sun, a decision that reportedly “surprised” even the SEC’s own staff.

It’s the targeted, specific dismissal of a major federal fraud case in direct quid pro quo for tens of millions of dollars. The lesson for the global financial elite is simple: compliance is expensive, but freedom, purchased through the World Liberty Financial conduit, is guaranteed. The network is nothing less than a global concierge service for the criminally or civilly compromised, with the President’s family serving as the ultimate political gatekeepers.

A transactional presidency

The evidence of a direct, transactional exchange between investments in the Trump family’s crypto business and favourable executive action is forensic, demonstrating a clear, damning pattern in which regulatory and criminal constraints are available for purchase.

The correlation between private financial gain and public policy shift begins with the administration’s overt embrace of the crypto industry during the 2024 campaign, a calculated political repositioning that was immediately followed by profound institutional changes.

The centrepiece of such a regulatory reset was the explicit promise to remove the most effective check on the industry, vowing to fire Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chairman Gary Gensler on the first day of the new administration.

It was highly consequential, as Gensler’s SEC had been the industry’s most aggressive antagonist, pursuing over half of all digital asset enforcement actions carried out by the commission since 2015.

The administration, in effect, signalled that the era of scrutiny was over before it even fully began. Following the inauguration, the Trump-led SEC wasted no time in executing what was promised, immediately signalling a massive, favourable shift.

The agency began pausing or reviewing several ongoing crypto cases inherited from the previous regime, suggesting a willingness to halt active enforcement matters or pursue quiet resolutions, a move that immediately created a safe harbour for the very industry that enriched the President’s family.

The systemic consequences are best illustrated by two landmark cases that prove that regulatory impunity is now a commodity, purchasable through the World Liberty Financial structure.

Consider the case of Justin Sun, the founder of the Tron blockchain network, a figure who had reportedly avoided travel to the United States due to the lingering threat of arrest. The SEC’s lawsuit against Sun was abruptly dropped in February 2025, a decision that reportedly “surprised” several SEC officials who had been “highly confident in winning the case.”

The timing here is crucial, for this abrupt legal reversal came immediately after Sun purchased $75 million worth of tokens from the Trump-associated WLF. The implication is undeniable. The dismissal of a high-stakes federal lawsuit was granted only after a seven-figure payment was channelled directly into the presidential family’s private business venture.

If the SEC was highly confident in its case, the sudden withdrawal after a massive private investment suggests political influence overrode the agency’s mission, transforming the justice system itself into a transaction for the highest bidder.

The ultimate exchange of political power for private profit manifested in the presidential pardon issued to Changpeng Zhao (CZ), the founder of Binance, in October 2025. CZ had pleaded guilty in late 2023 to failing to maintain an anti-money laundering programme and had already completed his four-month sentence.

The White House statement accompanying the pardon was telling, brazenly declaring that the move ended “their war on cryptocurrency,” effectively framing the enforcement of federal anti-money laundering laws as a political attack.

Clemency was granted amid “extensive business dealings” between Binance and WLF, including a landmark $2 billion stablecoin transaction that financially benefited the Trump family. Legal experts have rightly pointed out that this use of executive clemency for direct personal business gain is unprecedented in American history, treating the highest office as a vendor of impunity. The chart below highlights how these massive financial transfers coincided directly with profound regulatory favours, creating a transactional timeline in which wealth flows preceded political outcomes.

It’s a dangerous and corrosive precedent, suggesting that wealthy individuals facing US prosecution or regulation need only fund the Trump family’s private ventures to gain immunity, rendering the American justice system optional for the global elite. The cost of freedom, it turns out, is a hefty investment in World Liberty Financial.

The ‘Emoluments Clause’ crisis

Perhaps the most sophisticated and constitutionally alarming aspect of the digital cash machine is the use of the stablecoin USD1 to launder foreign government influence and money directly into the President’s private accounts, a clear and systemic evasion of the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

Stablecoins are designed to maintain a 1:1 parity with a traditional currency, typically the US dollar, requiring the issuers, like WLF, to hold massive reserve assets to back the digital currency. It is within the management of these reserves that the scheme finds its constitutional loophole.

The mechanism came into sharp focus with the involvement of MGX, a state-backed investment firm based in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE). It’s an entity closely associated with a foreign sovereign power. MGX announced a massive $2 billion investment in Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, and crucially, it chose to settle the deal using World Liberty Financial’s recently announced stablecoin, USD1.

It is the cornerstone of the ethical breach. The Trump family’s financial stake runs through DT Marks SC LLC, a company affiliated with the President and his family, which is explicitly entitled to an unknown portion of the “interest earned on the reserve assets backing USD1.”

“By selecting USD1 to facilitate the $2 billion transfer, MGX effectively deposited $2 billion into a financial instrument controlled by the sitting US President’s enterprise, providing WLF with billions in capital to invest and reap returns from,” Reuters said.

Senators Jeff Merkley and Elizabeth Warren immediately recognised this transaction for what it was, demanding urgent answers and labelling the arrangement a “staggering conflict of interest.” They argued that the deal serves as an explicit “backdoor for foreign kickbacks and bribes,” which will “indirectly pay the Trump and Witkoff families hundreds of millions of dollars.”

The payment is essentially “rent” extracted from a transaction that has no inherent connection to WLF’s utility, constituting a digital emolument, a gift or profit from a foreign government entity that is explicitly forbidden by the US Constitution.

The transactional nature of the stablecoin selection was confirmed by WLF itself, which admitted that if USD1 had not been available, MGX and Binance would likely have settled the transaction using a foreign fiat currency or another established stablecoin not connected to the President.

Such an admission proves that the $2 billion payment served a dual purpose, both facilitating the Binance deal and simultaneously serving as a massive, intentional payment to the Trump family, making it an investment in influence and access that otherwise would not have benefited the President.

The fact that MGX, a sovereign wealth proxy, incurred unnecessary risk and complexity by choosing a nascent, Trump-affiliated stablecoin over established alternatives highlights that the non-financial benefit (specifically, leverage over the US President) vastly outweighed any financial cost.

Complicating the situation is the recent emergence of the UAE-based Aqua1 Foundation, a Web3-native fund that surfaced shortly after President Trump visited the Middle East and quickly invested $100 million in WLFI tokens.

Government watchdog groups noted the foundation’s minimal digital footprint and recent registration, suggesting it was quickly established as a vehicle specifically designed to funnel large sums of money into the presidential family’s crypto venture. These transactions emphasise the alarming reality that foreign actors with hidden agendas are actively buying influence over Donald Trump through his opaque and unregulated crypto ventures.

Unprecedented evisceration of American ethics

The Reuters investigation ultimately dissected a machine, describing it as a globally focused, digitally sophisticated engine of wealth generation that relies entirely on the transactional exchange of political power for private profit.

The evidence leads to one inescapable conclusion, which is that the World Liberty Financial structure, combined with the shifts in American regulatory and executive policy, constitutes a fundamental and unprecedented collapse of ethical boundaries within the highest office of the land.

Systemic corruption rests on three intertwined pillars of calculated malfeasance. First, the deliberate, massive financial pivot away from transparent traditional business into the opaque, globally targeted world of crypto, specifically designed to evade the scrutiny that traditional political donations or business dealings would normally invite.

Second, the undeniable transactional sale of regulatory and criminal impunity, demonstrated by the abrupt dismissal of federal lawsuits against wealthy figures like Justin Sun and the stunning presidential pardon of Changpeng Zhao, both occurring amid extensive financial dealings with WLF.

Third, the sophisticated mechanism of the USD1 stablecoin, which allows state-backed foreign entities, notably the UAE’s MGX, to deposit billions into an instrument that perpetually enriches the sitting President, fulfilling the definition of a digital Emoluments Clause violation and creating a catastrophic national security risk.

As law professor Kathleen Clark noted, the investors, whether from the Middle East or facing SEC charges, are not pouring money into the Trump family business because of their technical acumen; they are doing it because they seek “freedom from legal constraints and impunity that only the president can deliver.”

The defence often offered is that the transactions are “legal,” a distinction that only highlights the alarming truth that the WLF crypto machine was expertly engineered specifically to exploit the blind spots in American ethics and financial law. The system was custom-built to be legal but profoundly unethical.

When presidential power, whether through granting pardons or overriding regulatory agencies, has a direct, calculable dollar value that flows immediately into the family bank accounts, the core principle of disinterested public service is destroyed. The President is effectively operating as an executive facilitator for his private crypto clients, a fiduciary of his own financial interests rather than those of the American people.

The lack of guardrails against foreign actors buying influence through these opaque ventures is a ticking time bomb for American democracy. Congress must undertake aggressive and immediate oversight, and judicial review must address how these financial structures violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution’s anti-corruption safeguards. This apparatus of transactional governance must be dismantled before the cost of influence becomes the final price of democracy.

The post The making of a crypto dynasty appeared first on International Finance.