Tag: Trump

Categories
Beyond

Trump slaps 15% tariff on polysilicon imports

The US has imposed a 15 per cent tariff on imported polysilicon and related products, opening a new front in Washington’s effort to reshape critical supply chains for solar power and semiconductors.

The tariff, announced by President Donald Trump, will take effect on December 4 and is accompanied by minimum import prices for polysilicon, wafers, solar cells and modules. The measures are designed to support US manufacturers while reducing dependence on overseas suppliers.

For businesses across the solar industry, the move could have a direct impact on input costs, pricing strategies and investment decisions.

Polysilicon is one of the most important raw materials in the solar manufacturing chain. It is processed into ingots and wafers, which are then used to manufacture solar cells and, ultimately, solar panels. The material is also used in semiconductor production, making it strategically important to the US technology sector.

Under the new policy, imported raw polysilicon will face a minimum price of $21 per kilogram. The floor rises to $100 per kilogram for polysilicon ingots and wafers. Solar cells will have a minimum import price of $0.22 per watt, while solar modules will face a floor of $0.38 per watt.

For US manufacturers, the policy could provide greater protection from cheaper imports and improve the economics of domestic production. For import-dependent businesses, however, the higher costs could put pressure on margins.

The tariff is part of a wider US strategy to rebuild domestic manufacturing capacity. The Trump administration has argued that the country has become too dependent on foreign suppliers for materials critical to energy and technology.

The decline in US polysilicon production has been particularly sharp. The US accounted for roughly half of global polysilicon production capacity in 2005, but its share had dropped to less than 2 per cent by 2024.

Washington now wants companies to invest in domestic production and expand the American solar supply chain.

The policy could therefore create opportunities for US manufacturers and investors willing to build new production facilities. Companies planning to establish, refurbish or expand domestic facilities could qualify for tariff relief on certain imports needed for those projects.

That incentive could encourage fresh capital expenditure in polysilicon production, solar manufacturing and related infrastructure.

However, the business impact is unlikely to be limited to manufacturers. Solar developers and project operators could also feel the effects if equipment prices rise. Higher module prices can increase project costs and potentially affect the economics of new solar installations.

Companies may respond by changing suppliers, accelerating imports before the December deadline or seeking alternative sources of polysilicon and solar components.

The policy also reflects growing US concern over China’s dominance of the global solar manufacturing industry. Chinese companies and manufacturers operating across Asia control large portions of the polysilicon, wafer and solar-cell supply chain.

By introducing tariffs and price floors, the US is attempting to make domestic production more competitive while limiting the impact of low-cost imports.

For semiconductor companies, the issue is equally important. Polysilicon is used in the production of semiconductor wafers, linking the new trade policy to Washington‘s broader effort to strengthen domestic chip manufacturing.

The United States has already invested heavily in expanding semiconductor production and reducing its dependence on overseas supply chains. The new polysilicon measures extend that strategy further upstream, targeting a basic material used in advanced manufacturing.

The move could also alter global supply-chain economics. Producers may redirect shipments away from the US, while American buyers could look for suppliers from countries less affected by the tariff regime.

For companies with global operations, this could mean reassessing sourcing strategies, inventory levels and long-term procurement contracts.

The tariff comes after a Commerce Department investigation launched in July 2025 under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows the US government to restrict imports on national-security grounds.

The administration has increasingly used the provision to impose sector-specific trade measures, particularly in industries it considers strategically important.

The business community will now be watching how companies respond before the December 4 implementation date. Importers could bring forward shipments, while manufacturers may use the intervening period to renegotiate contracts or secure alternative supplies.

The longer-term outcome will depend on whether the policy succeeds in attracting investment without significantly increasing costs for downstream industries.

For the US, the objective is clear: build a stronger domestic polysilicon and solar manufacturing base while securing critical inputs for the semiconductor industry.

For businesses, however, the transition could bring both opportunities and challenges. Domestic manufacturers may gain pricing power and investment opportunities, while importers and solar developers could face higher costs.

The new tariff therefore represents more than another trade barrier. It is part of a broader restructuring of the US clean-energy and technology supply chains, with companies likely to be forced to reconsider where they source materials, where they manufacture products and how they manage costs in an increasingly protectionist global market.

Categories
Beyond

US returns $100 bn collected under Trump tariffs

The United States government has refunded about $100 billion in tariffs collected under President Donald Trump’s earlier trade programme, according to a recent court filing. The refunds follow the US Supreme Court’s February 2026 ruling that struck down a broad set of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

The scale of the repayment is significant. The US government had collected roughly $166 billion from more than 330,000 businesses through the tariffs that were later invalidated. The nearly $100 billion already returned represents about 60% of that amount, according to the latest figures submitted to the US Court of International Trade.

The refunds are being made to US importers and businesses that had paid the duties when bringing goods into the country. For many companies, the money represents a substantial recovery of costs that had earlier been added to imported products.

The latest development brings a new chapter to one of the most contentious parts of Trump’s trade policy. The administration had used emergency economic powers to impose sweeping tariffs on imports, arguing that the measures were necessary to address trade imbalances and other economic concerns.

However, the Supreme Court ruled in February that the IEEPA did not give the president the authority to impose tariffs. The decision effectively invalidated the legal basis for a major portion of Trump’s tariff programme and created an obligation for the government to return the money already collected.

The refund process has been complicated because of the sheer number of transactions involved. Thousands of importers paid tariffs across millions of customs entries, leaving US Customs and Border Protection with the difficult task of identifying eligible payments and processing repayments.

The government has now made substantial progress. About $100 billion has been refunded, while a portion of the remaining amount is still being reviewed or processed. Earlier figures indicated that around $29 billion was still under review, while another amount was delayed because some importers had not provided the banking information required to receive payments.

The refunds also highlight the financial consequences of the Supreme Court decision for the US government. Tariffs had generated substantial revenue for the Treasury while they were in force. Returning that money means the government must absorb a large reversal in tariff collections.

For American businesses, however, the refunds could provide some financial relief. Importers generally paid the tariffs when goods entered the United States. Depending on their individual circumstances, they may have absorbed those costs themselves or passed some of them on through higher prices.

The question of who ultimately benefits from the refunds has therefore become an important issue. The government is returning the money to the businesses that paid the duties, rather than automatically sending payments to consumers who may have faced higher prices because of the tariffs.

That distinction could become increasingly important. Some US consumers have already taken legal action against companies, arguing that they should receive a share of tariff-related refunds because the duties may have contributed to higher prices for imported goods.

The controversy began with Trump’s so-called “Liberation Day” tariffs, announced in April 2025 as part of a major restructuring of US trade policy. The administration used tariffs as a tool to pressure trading partners, reduce trade deficits and encourage more manufacturing activity in the United States.

The policy affected imports from a large number of countries and businesses. Tariffs became a central part of Trump’s economic agenda, but they also generated uncertainty for companies that rely on global supply chains.

The Supreme Court’s ruling did not mean that all tariffs imposed by the Trump administration disappeared. The decision specifically addressed tariffs imposed under IEEPA. The administration subsequently sought other legal routes to maintain tariffs, including measures under different sections of US trade law.

That has kept the broader US tariff policy in flux. Businesses are now dealing with both the refund process for invalidated duties and a changing framework of new tariffs imposed under other legal authorities.

The latest refund figures also offer a sense of how large the original tariff programme was. Returning approximately $100 billion means the government has already reversed a substantial share of the tariff revenue collected under the measures struck down by the court.

For the Trump administration, the episode presents both a financial and political challenge. The refunds demonstrate the practical impact of the Supreme Court’s decision, while the continuing use of tariffs shows that the administration remains committed to using trade duties as an economic policy tool.

The remaining refunds could take additional time because of the large number of importers and customs transactions involved. Once the process is substantially completed, attention is likely to shift toward the future of US trade policy and whether new tariff measures can withstand legal challenges.

 

Categories
Leaders

Trump rebukes Chevron CEO over record oil profits

US President Donald Trump has publicly rebuked Chevron CEO Mike Wirth, accusing him of failing to give enough credit to the Trump administration for the strength of the American oil industry and questioning why motorists are still paying high prices at the pump.

Trump’s criticism came as Chevron reported a sharp jump in quarterly earnings, with the oil major benefiting from higher energy prices and strong operating performance during a period of heightened geopolitical tension. The confrontation highlights a growing tension between the White House and Big Oil over fuel prices, corporate profits and the cost of energy for American consumers.

Chevron reported quarterly earnings of about $12.1 billion, nearly five times its profit in the same period a year earlier. The result was helped by elevated oil prices linked to the conflict involving Iran and strong performance across the company’s operations. The company has also benefited from progress following its acquisition of Hess.

Wirth recently highlighted record US oil production and refining volumes in a television interview. Trump, however, was unhappy that the Chevron chief did not credit his administration for the industry’s performance.

The president subsequently criticised Wirth publicly, arguing that oil companies should acknowledge the administration’s policies and do more to bring down gasoline prices. Trump has increasingly focused on fuel costs as Americans continue to face expensive petrol despite movements in crude oil prices.

The dispute comes against a complicated backdrop for the global energy market. The conflict involving Iran has disrupted oil supplies and contributed to sharp swings in crude prices. Although oil prices have eased from their earlier highs as markets assess the possibility of a diplomatic breakthrough, gasoline prices in the United States have remained elevated.

Trump has argued that major oil companies are making too much money while American consumers continue to pay more at fuel stations. He has urged companies such as Chevron and ExxonMobil to reduce prices and effectively return some of their gains to consumers.

Chevron, meanwhile, has pointed to its strong operational performance and the difficult environment in which its employees have been working. The company recently announced a special bonus for employees following its strong earnings performance.

The bonus, equivalent to half a month’s base pay for most employees, was presented as recognition for the workforce’s performance. Wirth cited progress on cost reduction, early synergies from the Hess acquisition and continued safe operations despite geopolitical challenges in Venezuela and the Middle East.

The timing of Trump’s criticism is significant. The US president has long supported greater domestic oil and gas production and has sought to reduce regulatory barriers for the energy sector. His administration has promoted policies aimed at increasing American energy output and strengthening the country’s position as a major producer.

Yet Trump is now demanding that those policies translate into cheaper fuel for consumers.

That creates a difficult situation for oil companies. Higher crude prices can increase profits for producers, but retail gasoline prices are influenced by several factors beyond the price of crude. Refining costs, transportation, distribution, taxes and regional supply conditions all affect what consumers ultimately pay.

Chevron also does not directly control the prices charged at many of the branded gasoline stations carrying its name. A large portion of Chevron-branded stations are independently operated, meaning local operators have a role in determining retail prices.

Trump’s comments nevertheless reflect the political pressure facing the US energy industry. High gasoline prices can quickly become a household issue, affecting everything from commuting costs to the price of transporting goods.

The White House has already taken a tougher approach towards oil companies over fuel prices. The administration has questioned whether energy companies are benefiting excessively from market disruptions and has pushed the industry to respond more directly to consumer concerns.

The disagreement with Chevron also comes as oil companies prepare for increased scrutiny over their profits. ExxonMobil has similarly reported strong earnings, adding to the debate over whether energy companies should be making record or near-record profits while consumers face high fuel bills.

For investors, the situation creates a different set of questions. Strong earnings are positive for oil stocks, but increased political pressure could affect the way companies approach pricing, capital spending and shareholder returns.

Chevron’s record performance also demonstrates how quickly geopolitical events can reshape the energy industry. The Iran conflict has contributed to higher crude prices and improved earnings for major producers, while simultaneously increasing costs for consumers and raising concerns about inflation.

Trump has suggested that fuel prices could fall significantly if the conflict ends and global oil supplies stabilise. Any reopening of key shipping routes and improvement in Middle East supply conditions could put downward pressure on crude prices.

That would provide relief for consumers but could also reduce the earnings boost currently enjoyed by oil producers.

The Chevron dispute therefore goes beyond a disagreement between a president and a corporate executive. It reflects a broader debate over who benefits when energy prices rise and how much responsibility oil companies should bear for keeping fuel affordable.

 

Categories
Beyond

Oil prices crash 5% as Trump seeks Iran deal

Oil prices fell sharply on Monday, August 3, after US President Donald Trump called off a planned attack on Iran and said he was seeking a quick deal to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and reopen the strategically important Strait of Hormuz.

Brent crude futures fell $4.65, or 5.29%, to $83.28 a barrel by 0702 GMT, while US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude dropped $5.20, or 6.14%, to $79.47 a barrel. The decline came after both benchmarks had gained more than 20% in July as the conflict between the US and Iran intensified and concerns grew over disruptions to global oil supplies.

The latest oil price fall reflects a sudden shift in market expectations. Investors who had been preparing for another escalation in the Middle East are now betting that diplomacy could ease pressure on oil supplies, particularly if shipping through the Strait of Hormuz returns to normal.

Trump said Iran and other Middle Eastern countries had asked for more time to complete a deal. He said the agreement would involve the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and addressing what he described as the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme. He has said the planned military action would be cancelled as long as a deal could be reached quickly.

For oil traders, the Strait of Hormuz remains the key issue. The waterway is one of the world’s most important energy corridors, and disruptions there can quickly affect crude oil prices, shipping costs and fuel markets worldwide. Before the conflict, around 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas supplies moved through the strait.

The possibility of the route reopening has therefore eased some of the immediate supply concerns that had pushed Brent crude prices higher in recent weeks.

However, the oil market is not assuming that the crisis is over. Shipping activity through the Strait of Hormuz remains subdued following reports of attacks on vessels. Reuters reported that two tankers carrying Saudi crude crossed the Bab el-Mandeb Strait out of the Red Sea over the weekend, while traffic through Hormuz remained slow. The United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations also reported three additional tanker attacks since Saturday.

That uncertainty means oil prices could remain highly sensitive to developments in the US-Iran negotiations. A successful agreement could encourage shipping companies to resume normal operations and bring additional crude supplies back into the market. A breakdown in talks, on the other hand, could quickly revive fears of supply disruptions and send crude oil prices higher again.

The recent fall also comes alongside an increase in planned OPEC+ production. The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies agreed on Sunday to raise their oil production quota by about 188,000 barrels per day from September. The move completes the unwinding of another portion of the voluntary production cuts introduced earlier.

The impact of the higher OPEC+ output, however, may be limited in the short term. Disruptions linked to the Iran and Ukraine conflicts have prevented some of the additional planned supply from reaching the market. As a result, previous monthly increases in OPEC+ production have had less effect on actual availability than expected.

The oil market reaction was also visible across global financial markets. US and European stock futures moved higher as investors welcomed the possibility of a broader de-escalation in the Middle East. S&P 500 futures gained 0.6%, Nasdaq futures rose 0.8%, while European futures were up about 0.8%, according to Reuters.

Lower oil prices also helped push US Treasury yields down. The yield on the 30-year US Treasury fell 3.7 basis points to 5.238%, moving further away from a 19-year high reached last week.

The decline in crude prices could also ease some of the inflationary pressure that had emerged from the conflict. Higher fuel and transportation costs can feed into the prices of goods and services, making oil prices an important factor for central banks and financial markets.

The stakes are particularly high because Brent crude oil prices had already surged sharply during the latest phase of the conflict. Reuters reported that Brent gained 24% in July as an earlier ceasefire unravelled and fighting intensified again.

Trump’s decision to pause the planned strike has therefore given markets some breathing room, but traders remain cautious. The next phase will depend largely on whether Washington and Tehran can turn the latest diplomatic opening into a lasting agreement.

For now, the immediate pressure on global oil prices has eased. Brent has moved back towards the low-$80 range and WTI has slipped below $80, offering some relief to consumers and businesses exposed to energy costs.

But the market is unlikely to declare victory yet. The Strait of Hormuz remains vulnerable, shipping routes are still facing security risks and the US-Iran nuclear negotiations could change direction quickly. If talks progress, oil could remain under pressure as supply fears fade. If they collapse, the geopolitical risk premium could return just as quickly.

 

Categories
Beyond

Oil surges after Trump rejects Iran terms

Global crude oil prices jumped sharply on Monday after US President Donald Trump dismissed Iran’s latest ceasefire proposal, deepening concerns over a prolonged conflict in West Asia and possible disruptions to global oil supplies.

Brent crude crossed the $105-per-barrel mark, while US crude prices moved closer to $100 as traders reacted to rising geopolitical uncertainty. Market fears intensified over the continued disruption in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping route through which a major portion of the world’s oil supply passes.

Iran’s response to the US-backed peace proposal included demands for sanctions relief, compensation for damages caused during the conflict, and broader guarantees regarding regional security. Trump reportedly rejected the terms, calling them unacceptable and indicating that negotiations remained far from a breakthrough.

The developments have reduced hopes of an immediate ceasefire and triggered fresh worries about stability in the Gulf region. Reports of continued drone attacks and military activity across parts of West Asia further added to market anxiety.

Energy markets responded quickly to the uncertainty. Analysts said fears of reduced oil movement through the Strait of Hormuz could tighten global supplies and push fuel prices even higher in the coming weeks. Countries heavily dependent on oil imports, including India, are expected to feel the pressure more sharply if prices continue rising.

The surge in crude prices has also renewed inflation concerns globally. Higher fuel costs could increase transportation and manufacturing expenses, potentially affecting consumer prices and slowing economic growth.

Financial markets across the world remained cautious following the developments. Investors moved towards safer assets such as gold and the US dollar, while equity markets witnessed volatility amid concerns over rising energy costs.

Also Read: Gold at ₹1.52 lakh, silver at ₹2.74 lakh

Categories
1 Minute-Read

Trump hosts Crypto event as meme coin crashes

US President Donald Trump hosted leading investors of his $TRUMP cryptocurrency at Mar-a-Lago in Florida, holding an exclusive event for top token holders. Reports said around 297 investors attended, with some invited to a VIP gathering.

The event came even as the meme coin has lost more than 95 percent of its value from earlier highs. Critics questioned the ethics of Trump’s links to crypto businesses while holding office. Supporters said the gathering reflected continued interest from wealthy backers.

Retail investors, however, have suffered heavy losses as the token’s value sharply declined.

Categories
1 Minute-Read

Trump pauses Iran strikes for 2 weeks

US President Donald Trump has announced a two-week pause in military strikes against Iran, aiming to ease tensions and allow negotiations. The suspension is conditional on Iran reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a key global oil route.

The move follows mediation efforts led by Pakistan and signals willingness from both sides to pursue diplomacy. The conflict, involving US, Israel, and Iran, had disrupted oil supplies and raised regional tensions. After the announcement, oil prices fell and markets stabilised slightly.

While some leaders welcomed the step, concerns remain over unresolved issues. The two-week period is seen as critical for further talks.

Categories
Beyond

Trump’s signature to appear on US currency

In a notable policy shift, the United States Treasury has approved a change in currency design that will introduce Donald Trump’s signature on new US banknotes, replacing the long-standing inclusion of the US Treasurer’s signature.

The decision marks the end of a 165-year-old convention, under which US currency carried the signatures of both the Treasury Secretary and the Treasurer. Going forward, new notes will feature the signature of the President alongside that of the Treasury Secretary, reflecting a significant departure from established practice.

The rollout is expected to begin with the $100 bill from June 2026, with other denominations to follow in phases. Existing currency will continue to remain legal tender and circulate alongside the newly issued notes, ensuring no immediate disruption to the financial system.

Officials have positioned the move as part of a broader symbolic refresh tied to the 250th anniversary of US independence, framing it as a design evolution rather than a structural change. Importantly, the update does not alter any functional or security features of the currency.

From a market and institutional perspective, the impact is expected to be limited. Analysts note that the change is largely cosmetic and does not affect monetary policy, currency valuation, or the role of the US dollar in global markets. However, it does signal a shift in how national identity is reflected in financial instruments.

The decision has generated mixed reactions. Supporters view it as a modernisation step aligned with national milestones, while critics argue it breaks with long-standing institutional norms designed to keep currency design politically neutral.

Also Read: Petrol duty reduced to ₹3, diesel to zero

 

 

Categories
Beyond

Oil prices drop on Iran negotiation talks

Global oil prices declined after Donald Trump signalled possible progress in negotiation talks with Iran, raising hopes of easing tensions in West Asia.

Trump indicated that discussions were moving in a positive direction, leading markets to expect a potential reduction in risks to oil supply. The remarks triggered a drop in crude prices, which had recently surged due to fears of prolonged conflict in the region.

Key benchmarks such as Brent crude and US West Texas Intermediate fell following the comments. Prices had earlier climbed sharply amid concerns that tensions could disrupt shipments through critical routes like the Strait of Hormuz, a major artery for global oil transport.

The decline was further supported by indications that immediate military escalation may be avoided. Reports suggested that potential strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure were delayed, easing fears of sudden supply shocks. Oil markets, which are highly sensitive to geopolitical developments, responded quickly to these signals.

However, uncertainty continues to cloud the outlook. Iranian officials have denied that formal negotiations are underway, raising questions about the likelihood of a quick resolution. This has kept volatility high, with traders remaining cautious.

Recent trends highlight how rapidly oil prices can shift based on political developments. After reaching elevated levels due to supply concerns, prices have now retreated on hopes of diplomatic progress.

The fall in oil prices has also supported global financial markets, as lower energy costs help ease inflationary pressures and support economic growth.

Also Read: Rupee falls 20 paise to 93.76, nears 94

Categories
Beyond

$580mn oil bet before Trump post raises questions

A large $580 million bet in global oil markets placed shortly before a public statement by Donald Trump has raised concerns over possible insider trading and market fairness. The trades were executed minutes before Trump shared an update about easing tensions with Iran, triggering sharp movements across financial markets.

The bets were made in oil futures just 10–15 minutes before Trump posted on social media about “productive” talks with Iran and a pause in potential US military action. Soon after the announcement, crude oil prices dropped quickly, allowing those who placed bearish bets to make significant profits.

The timing has drawn attention because of the scale and precision of the trades. Market analysts say it is unusual for such large positions to be taken so close to a major geopolitical announcement without some level of prior expectation. While there is no confirmed evidence of wrongdoing, the sequence of events has prompted speculation about whether certain traders had advance information.

The announcement also had a wider impact on global markets. US stock futures rose as investors reacted positively to signs of reduced geopolitical risk, while oil prices saw a sharp decline due to expectations of stable supply. This quick shift highlights how sensitive markets are to developments in regions like the Middle East, where tensions directly influence energy prices.

It is said that geopolitical signals, especially those involving countries like Iran, often lead to sudden and large price swings. In such an environment, even small informational advantages can translate into massive financial gains.

The incident has renewed debate around transparency and regulation in global financial markets. Observers are calling for closer scrutiny of trading patterns around major political announcements to ensure a level playing field for all investors.

Although no official investigation has been announced so far, the scale and timing of the trades are likely to attract regulatory attention.

Also Read: IndiGo appoints ex-Air India Express head as CSO