FT : US targets UK, EU and Canada in new round of tariff probes

US targets UK, EU and Canada in new round of tariff probes
Investigations could lead to fresh levies after US Supreme Court struck down many of Trump’s tariffs

The US has targeted 60 trading partners, including the UK, the EU and Canada, with new investigations into their practices around forced labour that could allow the Trump administration to impose fresh tariffs.

The US trade representative’s office, in a filing late on Thursday evening, said it would launch probes under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 that would focus on whether countries had adequate rules against importing goods made with forced labour.

US trade representative Jamieson Greer said the investigations would also determine “how the failure to eradicate these abhorrent practices impacts US workers and businesses”. 

The probes could help President Donald Trump shore up his tariff wall after the Supreme Court ruled many of his previous sweeping levies were illegal.

These trade investigations come on the heels of similar probes announced by the US earlier this week into whether American trading partners had “excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors”.

But the studies into forced labour cover far more countries, including the UK and Canada, which were omitted from the earlier probe.

The US has rules in place banning the imports of goods made with forced labour. It also has restrictions on imports from the Xinjiang region of China, where it has accused Beijing of using forced labour.

Taken together, the trade actions could help the Trump administration raise duties back to the level they were at before the US’s top court ruled the president could not use emergency powers to impose tariffs.

The administration moved immediately after the ruling to impose a blanket 10 per cent tariff on almost all trading partners to replace the levies that were deemed illegal. But the legislation used to impose the new tariffs only allows them to stay in place for 150 days.

Greer told reporters on Wednesday that his “target” was to conclude his fresh investigations ahead of the expiration of the stopgap levies. 

He added that the administration would launch further probes into topics including digital services trade and drug pricing.

WSJ : How the Iran War Unraveled the Gulf’s Image as a Luxurious Safe Haven

How the Iran War Unraveled the Gulf’s Image as a Luxurious Safe Haven
Missiles and drones have shattered the illusion that ‘you’re not in the Middle East’—and the impact is being felt across the region

The president of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed, strolled through the sprawling Dubai Mall on March 2, reassuring shoppers they had nothing to fear.

Iranian missiles and drones had been falling on the glittering city for days, shutting down the airport, striking the iconic Burj Al Arab hotel and Dubai’s deep-water port, and killing several people across the U.A.E.

Sheikh Mohamed shook hands with children and rode the mall’s crowded escalators. “Are you happy?” he asked one shopper from Ghana. “Very happy,” came the reply.

“All is well in the U.A.E.,” Sheikh Mohamed declared at a public appearance a few days later.

It is anything but.

Dubai became one of the world’s biggest, richest and gaudiest financial centers on the back of a simple idea: Despite being located in a volatile region, it was impervious to conflict—a haven of stability untouched by the wars, corruption and upheaval around it.

Its success inspired imitators in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have followed similar paths toward Western-friendly growth as they try to diversify their economies beyond fossil fuels.

The Iran war has punctured the notion that towering skyscrapers, financial clout and the embrace of luxury and diversity in the Persian Gulf can act as impenetrable shields against the region’s turmoil. The impact is already evident.

Asset managers and lawyers are fielding calls from people looking to move money to safer regions. Real-estate deals are on hold. Expats are questioning whether it still makes sense to put down roots.

Even if the missiles and drones stop falling, the lingering risk from a hostile Iran remains a disruptive threat.

“A drone a day keeps Gulf stability at bay,” said Andreas Krieg, a senior lecturer at the School of Security Studies at King’s College London.

Quinten François, a 30-year-old cryptocurrency analyst, evacuated to Bangkok after enduring what he called “a really grim atmosphere,” punctuated by the constant noise of fighter jets and explosions.

“In five years, when people are considering moving to Dubai, they will still think about it,” said François, who moved there in 2024. “Stuff like this is not forgotten easily.”

‘The region woke up’
Saudi Arabia is particularly at risk. The kingdom’s multitrillion-dollar plan to diversify—known as Vision 2030—aimed to make the country feel more like Dubai, with ultraluxury resorts along its Red Sea coast, star soccer players like Cristiano Ronaldo playing in its national league, big entertainment festivals and looser restrictions on alcohol.

Even before the war, the project was running into reality, and budget constraints forced deep revisions and delays. A shift to foreign investors to bridge the funding gap has left the plan hostage to perceptions of risk in the Gulf.

Qatar’s position as a major aviation hub is being tested by persistent airspace restrictions, and the country has been forced to halt the exports of liquefied natural gas that have brought in the cash to fund its development. More fiscally vulnerable states like Bahrain and Kuwait are more likely to struggle to attract capital.

No place has more to lose than the U.A.E.

Much of the country’s success was based on “the belief that you’re not in the Middle East,” said Bernard Hudson, a former Central Intelligence Agency counterterrorism chief with extensive experience in Gulf states including the U.A.E. “The region woke up and got reminded that they live in a volatile part of the world that can affect them.”

The problem is that “there’s still going to be an Iran across the water that’s armed, that has experience crossing red lines vis-a-vis the Emiratis, and they’ll never be able to completely go back,” he said.

A lot depends on how the crisis develops.

Among Dubai’s wealthy elite, there is alarm and anger at the U.S. for launching a war that has put the emirate at risk.

“On what basis did you make such a dangerous decision?” one of the city’s leading developers, Khalaf Al Habtoor, said in a social-media post directed at President Trump. “Did you calculate the collateral damage before pulling the trigger?” He later deleted the messages. Al Habtoor’s company didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Trump said Monday the war will be over “very soon.” His advisers have urged him to find an off ramp to a conflict that has pushed up oil prices and destabilized the Middle East.

Dubai in particular retains numerous advantages, including low taxes that are likely to keep attracting residents, and it emerged stronger from previous crises.

Still, a wounded but undefeated Iran—located just 80 miles from the U.A.E., about the distance from New York to Philadelphia—would retain the ability to terrorize cities like Dubai and disrupt tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. That will make attracting capital harder.

Acrimony from the war could also make it harder for Iran to circumvent sanctions through front companies in Dubai’s free-trade zones, shutting off a substantial dollar flow that benefited both sides.

Emirati officials say the conflict will prove to the world that it remains a safe haven.

“The system works and the people are able to operate safely in the city and do so at a time where we are tested in an angle where we’ve never been tested before,” Omar Sultan Al Olama, Emirati state minister for artificial intelligence, one of the U.A.E.’s biggest new industries, said 10 days into the war.

If the attacks taper off, he predicts life will get back to normal, business will come back in full force and tourism will recover strongly.

Building the dream
Establishing a global city and financial hub to rival Singapore or London was always an audacious undertaking. It required ignoring a scorching climate and unrest in the region going back decades.

But Emirati leaders knew they needed to do something. Once a humble port town of pearl divers and traders, Dubai had a little oil but not much. Their answer was to promote a polyglot society that straddled the line between Western and Muslim sensibilities, while promising wealth, efficiency and stability.

Hijabs and bikinis are both accepted beachwear. Hotel bars and mosques dot the city. Smart Police Stations promise to let “customers” do things “smartly,” like pay fines without interacting with a police officer. It has a minister of state for happiness and wellbeing. There is little street crime or low-level corruption.

The U.A.E has courted expats and investors with business-friendly regulation, minimal bureaucracy and a pledge that the city wouldn’t get dragged down by its neighbors’ troubles.

Leaders backed their vision of stability and security with a high-tech surveillance state that silenced dissenters and imprisoned extremists, ensuring Dubai remained largely untouched by terrorism.

The city’s tolerant version of Islam still discourages public displays of affection, and homosexuality remains illegal, though the law is rarely enforced. Public dissent can be punished. Authorities are now frequently issuing public warnings against sharing images and videos of “incident sites or damage” caused by Iranian attacks, saying violators will be treated “without leniency.”

Leaders have gone to great lengths to make the place appeal to Westerners. It boasts the world’s tallest building, deepest diving pool and longest urban zipline. Ski Dubai, an indoor ski resort in the Mall of the Emirates, offers an “ultimate penguin experience” where guests can feed its resident flightless birds, despite summertime temperatures outside that sometimes surpass 115 degrees Fahrenheit.

There are now 19 restaurants with Michelin stars and more than 170 five-star hotels.

The city’s contemporary roots go back to the late 1970s, when the construction of a deep-sea port at Jebel Ali and free-trade zones that eliminated taxes and local ownership requirements drew the first wave of immigrants and expats.

The establishment in 1985 of government-owned Emirates airline, now among the world’s largest long-haul carriers, was another milestone, followed by a boom in hotel and apartment construction, turning Dubai into a real-estate and tourism powerhouse.

The 2008 financial crisis burst Dubai’s real-estate bubble, forcing a bailout from Abu Dhabi, the U.A.E. capital with much deeper oil reserves. But when the Arab Spring broke out a few years later, Dubai benefited, as investors looked for a safe haven. Those investors eventually included wealthy individuals from places such as Lebanon, Syria and, more recently, Russia and Ukraine.

Emirati leaders tightened enforcement on protest and expression, and extended crackdowns on religious groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Human Rights Watch criticized the government for using “an arsenal of invasive surveillance tools,” including “by directly monitoring messages, emails, and mobile devices in the U.A.E. and beyond its borders.”

After Covid briefly shut down the city, leaders took additional steps to make the place appealing, further liberalizing social norms and even moving the weekend from Friday-to-Saturday, as is customary in many Arab nations, to Saturday-to-Sunday.

Dubai’s population surged to around 4 million at the end of 2024—roughly 90% of them expats—from less than 1 million at the turn of the century. Last year, the U.A.E. attracted a record 9,800 millionaires, bringing over $60 billion with them—the highest net inflow globally, followed by the U.S. at 7,500 relocating millionaires, according to estimates by advisory firm Henley & Partners.

Disaster strikes
That idyllic illusion was shattered when Iran began launching hundreds of drones and missiles at Dubai and other parts of the Gulf.

KPMG chartered planes to evacuate staff. Google rushed to extract more than 1,000 of its people who were in Dubai for a corporate sales event. Some banks and hedge funds booked contingency accommodations in remote desert areas that wouldn’t be a target for Iranian drones.

Dubai-based employees at Wall Street banks were told to work from home. Deutsche Bank and asset manager Franklin Templeton suspended travel to the region. A tennis tournament, held just over an hour’s drive from Dubai, was abruptly canceled after players dashed off court following an Iranian drone attack nearby.

For some residents, the sudden danger has deepened their appreciation for Dubai, which they say has welcomed diversity and created an environment where entrepreneurs can thrive.

“I am not running away,” said Federico Ferraro, co-founder of Quiqup, a B2B platform that helps provide logistics for e-commerce businesses. He moved to Dubai years ago to expand the business after launching in London and came to love how efficient and well-managed it is, he said.

The drones and missiles are “all a bit of a shock,” he said. But he’s still hoping to get a long-term visa and buy a home in Dubai. “I still feel safe.”

Others have been struck by the sense of calm on the ground. Thomas Hennelly, a 30-year-old Irish expat who moved to Dubai in January to expand his hedge-fund recruitment firm, said he watched missiles and drones cut across the sky from the balcony of his temporary rental in the city’s man-made waterfront district packed with glitzy skyscrapers.

When smoke billowed from the damaged Fairmont The Palm hotel, he decided to hunker down. And yet the streets are still filled with traffic, he said, and some people are still relaxing on the beaches.

Money matters
Dubai only needs to lose some of its expats and investment to hit confidence in the city—or any other part of the Gulf—as a safe place to park wealth.

By the end of 2025, the Dubai International Financial Centre hosted nearly 300 banks and more than 100 hedge funds. Last year JPMorgan Chase, America’s biggest bank, expanded its Dubai outpost, relocating bankers from London.

Many came on the assumption that Dubai was as predictable as London or Singapore.

“Nobody will actually park wealth under the illusion that there’s no geopolitical friction,” said Ryan Lin, a director at Singaporean law firm Bayfront Law. “New money coming in—I think that will be tough.”

Since the war began, Lin said he’s fielded calls from roughly 20 of his ultrawealthy clients—including some who have obtained Dubai’s so-called golden visas for long-term residency—who have asked about moving assets out. Two have pushed to move money urgently.

“They’ve said, ‘I want to move now, what’s the fastest you can do?’” Lin said. “They are thinking of moving some of their assets from Dubai over to Singapore.”

Compounding the anxiety is the realization that Dubai and other parts of the Gulf weren’t made for conflict. Unlike Israel, the U.A.E. has no established network of shelters or carefully calibrated alert levels.

“Many people in finance were looking for shelters and recognized there are not many,” said Hussein Nasser Eddin, chief executive of global security firm Crownox, which has evacuated nearly 4,000 people out of the region since the conflict began. His company pinpointed underground parking lots and hotel ballrooms as possible shelter areas. “It showed a lack of awareness.”

Al Olama, the Emirati minister, said many structures, including parking garages, offered shelter across the city. He acknowledged that public awareness could have been better.

Cracks in the economy are already showing.

The attacks arrive at the peak of a multiyear real-estate boom. Dubai residential real-estate prices jumped 60% between 2022 and the first quarter of 2025, according to Fitch Ratings, leaving the market exposed to a possible correction.

Commercial real estate could also feel the impact. Citi evacuated several buildings in the U.A.E. Wednesday and said its employees have fully shifted to working from home, the same day Iran threatened to attack banks in the region following a missile strike on a Tehran bank.

Tourism, another key economic driver, is taking a hit, with tens of thousands of vacation-rental bookings already canceled. According to Tourism Economics, the conflict risks triggering up to a 27% annual drop in international visitors to the Middle East this year, translating to as much as $56 billion in losses in visitor spending.

Nabil Milali, portfolio manager at Edmond de Rothschild Asset Management, said his firm, which has a Dubai office, has been fielding client inquiries about the region’s future since the earliest hours of the conflict.

“It will have a big impact on the attractiveness, especially of the U.A.E., because they had this investment pitch of describing it like the Switzerland of the region, a safe place for international investments,” he said.

“Now, the geopolitical risk premium is high and will stay on.”

WSJ : Rivian’s Make-or-Break Car Arrives at the Worst Possible Moment for EVs

Rivian’s Make-or-Break Car Arrives at the Worst Possible Moment for EVs
The startup seeks to buck an EV downturn with a $57,990 SUV that can drive up to 330 miles on a single charge

  • Rivian Automotive is launching the new, more affordable R2 SUV this spring to broaden its appeal and ensure its survival.
  • The R2 will roll out with a $57,990 launch version, followed by a $45,000 version late next year, as Rivian aims to sell 20,000 to 25,000 R2s this year.

RJ Scaringe has been selling his boxy, off-road-ready Rivian SUVs and trucks to well-heeled electric vehicle fans for the past few years.

Now, his company, Rivian Automotive, is trying to do what few other automakers have been able to pull off: go from a niche startup to a mainstream car brand.

Its survival rides on the outcome. “The phrase ‘make-or-break product’ has been said, and it is probably true,” Scaringe, Rivian’s CEO, said in an interview.

Rivian plans to launch a new, more affordable SUV this spring called the R2. The rollout is a big bet by the electric-car maker that it can boost sales by appealing to a wider swath of car buyers, including people who might have considered a gas car instead.

Scaringe, an MIT-educated mechanical engineer by training, started Rivian 17 years ago. It delivered its first vehicle in 2021. The company, which has never made an annual profit, had $5.4 billion in revenue last year with sales of 42,000 vehicles.

Now he is debuting the new model amid a downturn in EV sales in the U.S., after the elimination of tax credits that encouraged EV sales.

“If you could have chosen a worse time, I don’t know when it would have exactly been,” said Ivan Drury, director of insights at the car-shopping website Edmunds. Most automakers have pivoted back to their more profitable gas models. Electric-only Rivian doesn’t have that option.

Rivian said Thursday it will first roll out a $57,990 launch version of the R2 that can drive up to 330 miles on a single charge, while being able to go from zero to 60 miles an hour as quickly as 3.6 seconds. Late next year, the company plans to sell a $45,000 version with an estimated 245 miles of range.

Since it began sales in 2021, Rivian has appealed to a small segment of ultrawealthy car buyers. The R1S and R1T start in the $70,000 range, and most surpass $90,000 or even $100,000 after buyers add options like larger batteries.

The company is now following a similar path as Elon Musk’s Tesla: starting with the more expensive, higher-margin products, then trying to broaden its appeal with more affordable models.

To doubters, Scaringe and his executives frequently point to the success of Tesla’s similarly sized and priced Model Y. Tesla sold nearly 360,000 Model Ys in the U.S. in 2025, making it America’s bestselling EV.

Wassym Bensaid, Rivian’s chief software officer, said EVs, other than the Model Y and a few others, haven’t caught on in the U.S. because they haven’t had the range, performance and value that customers want.

“We know that there are just two companies in the U.S. who know how to do it: Tesla and us,” he said.

Rivian is building a new factory in Georgia that will eventually make the R2, though it will start producing the R2 at its plant in Illinois. The company got a $6.6 billion loan from the Energy Department to build the Georgia plant.

Rivian aims to sell about 20,000 to 25,000 R2s this year, while the Georgia plant will eventually be able to churn out 400,000 cars a year—about 10 times as many EVs as Rivian sold in 2025.

Rivian shares fell 8.1% on Thursday, when the company detailed the R2’s pricing and specifications.

Scaringe is looking beyond the R2. The company plans to introduce even smaller and lower-priced SUVs called the R3 and R3X. Both cars could potentially go up against cheaper Chinese EVs, if those were to be sold in the U.S. in the coming years.

Rivian and Volkswagen are codeveloping future EV software and electrical architectures. This $5.8 billion joint venture has provided a cash lifeline for Rivian, while giving the German automaker much-needed access to EV technology after years of disappointing efforts.

The R2 is the first car to use the technology platform, which will be less expensive to build than other EVs while offering more advanced automated driving aids. Rivian plans to release a lidar-equipped R2 later this year that Scaringe has said will enable hands-free driving.

For now, Scaringe said the company is focused on getting the R2 launch right. “This step from our flagship products to mass-market is one that we get to make once,” he said.

WSJ : The Electric Grid Needs Huge Upgrades. No One Knows Who Will Pay for Them.

The Electric Grid Needs Huge Upgrades. No One Knows Who Will Pay for Them.
Utilities around the U.S. are set to spend tens of billions of dollars on high-voltage lines, largely to meet demand from data centers

  • The U.S. power industry is undertaking an expensive AI-driven expansion of the electric grid, with costs potentially shared by AI companies and consumers.
  • The White House is seeking to work with utilities and state regulators to ensure that large tech companies pay for the cost to power new data centers.
  • Utilities and regulators warn that consumers may still bear costs for grid upgrades, with PJM Interconnection approving $12 billion in projects.

The U.S. power industry is embarking on an AI-driven expansion of the electric grid, a build-out that promises to be one of the most expensive since World War II.

Some of the costs are set to be shared between power-gobbling AI companies and consumers already bridling at utility bills.

President Trump has sought to minimize the extent to which consumers will be forced to pay for new data centers that power the artificial-intelligence boom, but utilities and regulators warn that those measures won’t fully shield consumers from costs associated with long-needed upgrades to the system for transmitting power across the U.S.

Utilities around the country are planning to spend tens of billions of dollars to build new high-voltage transmission lines to carry electricity from power plants over long distances. Many companies this year announced plans to substantially increase capital expenditures to build the new capacity, in large part to serve demand from data centers.

Utility and power officials for years have argued for upgrading the aging transmission system, much of which was built to support the postwar population boom in the 1950s and 1960s. But doing so has historically proven pricey and time-consuming because of permitting issues, regional opposition and supply-chain snarls.

Now, as the AI race propels significant electricity-demand growth for the first time in decades, companies are seeking to overcome the hurdles to supply data centers, some of which use the same amount of power as a midsize city. They say the investments are needed to bring new power plants online and ease bottlenecks on the existing grid.

Southern Company, which operates electric utilities in Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, expects to invest $81 billion in its system over the next five years, a 30% increase from its forecast last year. About $17 billion is earmarked for building and upgrading transmission, said Aaron Abramovitz, the company’s treasurer and senior vice president of finance.

“It’s because of growth, it’s because data centers are coming to the Southeast, but it’s also to ensure that we have a reliable energy source for all of our customers,” he said. “As new data centers come to our service territory, we’re making them pay their fair share.”


The AI build-out is driving up electricity costs in some places, an issue that has angered politicians and spurred intervention by the Trump administration. The White House this month announced that seven of the nation’s largest tech companies had agreed to pay for all the costs associated with powering new data centers.

Trump called it “a historic signing that will help keep down utility bills very, very substantially,” though the administration has no direct control over the prices utilities charge to customers. That is overseen by state regulators, who have in recent years approved rate increases as utilities make investments not only to support data centers but also to upgrade the grid to withstand more extreme weather and replace parts that are decades old.

The president “is promising something that is largely out of his control in a lot of ways and will be very difficult to rein in,” said Rob Rains, director of policy research for Washington Analysis, a research firm. “Electric service costs are going in one direction.”

A White House official said part of the pledge by tech companies includes negotiating with utilities to create frameworks to better ensure data-center costs aren’t borne by residential customers. Such negotiations have been under way for months in many states, with some having approved measures that require tech companies to pay more for power.

Transmission spending, though, poses challenges for utilities and regulators in determining how costs should be divided. In many places, some transmission costs will be shared among customers other than tech companies because the upgrades may benefit the broader system.

“Data center developers have said they want to pay their fair share, but the question is, what does fair mean?” said Timothy Fox, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners. “Cost allocation for transmission has always been a very complex and difficult question. It’s an imperfect science.”

The utility industry argues that adding data centers has the potential to lower costs for other customers, as they could spread shared costs over a greater volume of electricity sales. That has been the case in some places such as North Dakota.

Cost increases related to the data-center build-out have been most acute within PJM Interconnection, the nonprofit organization that operates part of the grid serving 67 million people in a 13-state region stretching from Kentucky to New Jersey. PJM is home to the largest concentration of data centers in the world, and the grid there is under strain as such facilities use more power and add to the risk of electricity-supply shortages when demand is high.

PJM last month approved nearly $12 billion in transmission projects meant to help stabilize the system. The grid operator says the spending, the largest amount it has ever approved at once, will help maintain grid reliability by transporting power from new power plants and relieving stress on the network. About half of the costs will be spread among all customers within PJM, and the other half will be allocated by region.

FirstEnergy is one of the utility companies within PJM that plans to build some of the transmission projects approved by the grid operator, as well as others it says are necessary to power data centers and maintain grid reliability. The company, which serves customers in six states, plans to invest $36 billion over the next five years, with transmission projects accounting for just over half the spending.

“It’s a heavy lift, no doubt, but we have the expertise and relationships to deliver,” FirstEnergy CEO Brian Tierney said during an earnings call last month.

In Texas, which has become a hot spot for data-center development, the grid operator known as Ercot approved a $33 billion transmission plan to handle the expected explosion in electricity demand. Ercot, which stands for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, and state regulators are working to figure out how best to make sure tech companies pay for their share of the transmission build-out.

Brent Bennett, a director at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, said the costs could fall more heavily on residential customers than on the companies that are creating the new demand. His organization has estimated that the average ratepayer will pay somewhere between about $150 and $225 a year for the transmission projects that have been recently approved.

“These costs are socialized in Texas, and the current method allocates a relatively large share to residential ratepayers,” he said.

FT : US has burned through ‘years’ of munitions since start of Iran war

US has burned through ‘years’ of munitions since start of Iran war
Rapid depletion of stockpile including Tomahawk missiles raises pressure on Trump over cost of conflict

The Trump administration has burned through “years” of critical munitions since the start of the war with Iran, said three people familiar with the matter, fuelling concerns about the rising cost of the conflict and the US’s ability to replenish its stockpiles.

The rapid depletion of weaponry included advanced long-range Tomahawk missiles, the people said.

It is a “massive expenditure of Tomahawks”, said one person familiar with the US military’s use of munitions. “The navy will be feeling this expenditure for several years.”

The rising costs will pile pressure on Donald Trump as the war has brought a critical maritime trade corridor to a halt and sent oil prices above $100 a barrel. In a midterm election year, the war is also increasingly unpopular with American voters who face soaring petrol prices and are questioning whether the president has signed the country up for another prolonged conflict in the Middle East.

The Pentagon is expected to submit a formal request to the White House and Congress in the coming days for as much as $50bn in additional spending for the military. The supplemental funding request will set the stage for what is likely to be a fierce funding battle on Capitol Hill that could lay bare growing unease among lawmakers about the administration’s actions.

Lisa Murkowski, a Republican on the Senate appropriations committee charged with approving the federal budget, has warned lawmakers will chafe at any expectation from the White House of a blank cheque.

The Pentagon must “engage” Congress, she said on Thursday.

“You’ve got to be able to provide us with information, as requested, justification,” she said. “Don’t just take for granted that the Congress’s role is basically just to write the cheque.”

Any supplemental bill to fund the war in Iran could face a battle in the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Republicans control the House by a razor-thin margin and fiscal conservatives are likely to recoil at any big outlay of taxpayer money, especially if the White House tries to attach additional public spending such as tariff relief for farmers to a military funding package.


Democratic lawmakers, who have criticised the Iran war as illegal because Trump did not seek congressional approval, are also likely to balk at allocating more money for the Pentagon.

Former Republican Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell on Thursday urged his colleagues “who oppose the president’s use of force against Iran” to approve the military’s supplemental budget request all the same, arguing that it presents an “overdue opportunity to invest in urgent and strategic defence priorities”.

“Weakness invites challenge,” McConnell, a frequent critic of Trump in his second term, said on the Senate floor. “But our adversaries have sought to weaken and undermine America regardless of who the commander-in-chief is.”

Pentagon officials earlier this week told senators that the war had cost more than $11bn in the first six days of strikes. The costs were overwhelmingly for munitions.

“The rounds we’re firing — Patriot rounds, Thaad rounds . . . these weapon systems, each round is millions of dollars,” Democratic senator and Air Force veteran Mark Kelly told MS Now. Meanwhile, the Iranians are “firing cheap drones”, he said, referring to the Shaheds that US intelligence officials say Iran is able to produce quickly for $30,000 a piece.

“The math on this doesn’t work,” Kelly added.

The military is expected to brief Congress on munitions expended in the coming days, a person familiar with the matter said.

US officials have expressed growing concerns in recent years that the use of critical munitions could outpace their production, particularly if the US is drawn into conflicts with adversaries such as Russia or China. This could leave US stockpiles dangerously depleted and the US military less ready to confront future wars.

Murkowski recalled US administrations explaining to Ukraine and European partners in recent years that “we would do more” to help supply them, “but we don’t have the stockpiles”.

“With the level of inventory that [US operations in Iran are] going through on a daily basis, I think we all have reason to ask good questions about how we are doing on munitions,” Murkowski added.

US defence secretary Pete Hegseth last week said: “We’ve got no shortage of munitions. Our stockpiles of defensive and offensive weapons allow us to sustain this campaign as long as we need to.”

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt on Thursday said: “The US military has more than enough munitions, ammo and weapons stockpiles to achieve the goals of Operation Epic Fury laid out by President Trump and beyond.”

“Nevertheless, President Trump has always been intensely focused on strengthening our armed forces and he will continue to call on defence contractors to more speedily build American-made weapons, which are the best in the world.”

Tomahawks, subsonic cruise missiles with a 1,000lb warhead, are manufactured by US weapons maker RTX at a cost of $3.6mn each.

The US military has bought only 322 of the missiles in the past five years, including the 57 the navy has earmarked for fiscal year 2026 at a cost of $206.6mn. It stands to replenish just a fraction of what it has probably used in recent days.

The US also used at least 124 of the missiles to target Houthi militants in Yemen and Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2024 and 2025. Washington used more than two dozen of the missiles in its attack on the regime’s facility at Isfahan, General Dan Caine, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, said last June.

The Center for International and Strategic Studies estimated the US used 168 Tomahawks in the first 100 hours of the war that started on February 28.

“It’s a lot. And it will take years to replace,” said one US lawmaker of the Tomahawks, as well as US reserves of Thaad interceptors and Patriot missiles, critical air defences against the barrage of missiles and drones that Iran has unleashed on US and allied assets in the Middle East since the start of the war.

The US is spending “many billions” on a war that is proving deeply unpopular with Americans, Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate financial services committee, said on Thursday.

The cost of it “goes up practically as we talk”, he said. “It’s an astronomical sum.”

>>> US After Hours Summary: PD -14%, ULTA -7.5%, ADBE -7.3%, TTAN -6.3%, S -4.9%

After Hours Summary: PD -14%, ULTA -7.5%, ADBE -7.3%, TTAN -6.3%, S -4.9% lower on earnings; RBRK +3.1% higher on earnings; PAR -22.4% on convertible notes offering

After Hours Gainers:

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: TOI +16.4%, SVCO +15.5%, KODK +11.8%, ABX +5.8% (also to acquire a $53 mln minority investment in Manning & Napier), RBRK +3.1%, NKTR +2.9%, APEI +2.6% (also authorizes new $50 mln share repurchase program), WPM +1.4%

Companies trading higher in after hours in reaction to news: RILY +8% (retirement of $37.9 mln debt through bond-for-equity exchanges and repurchases), CSTM +3.7% (authorizes new $300 mln share repurchase program), DY +2% (to build flagship digital infrastructure training center), ACET +1.4% (files for $250 mln mixed securities shelf offering), CRML +0.8% (US advances critical minerals discussions with the EU and Japan on price floor, according to Bloomberg), COHR +0.4% (announces advancements in its scale-across portfolio), GRAL +0.4% (CEO to retire, names new CEO), ETN +0.3% (completes acquisition of Boyd Thermal business), CL +0.2% (BMY CEO named to board; also increases dividend), RTX +0.2% (awarded a $266.9 mln modification to Missile Defense Agency contract), AMZN +0.1% (to shift Prime Day sale to June from July, according to Bloomberg), BA +0.1% (awarded a $2.33 bln modification to previously awarded Air Force contract), LMT +0.1% (awarded a $111.5 mln Navy contract),

After Hours Losers:

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to earnings/guidance: OFRM -24.4%, EVCM -22.9%, KLC -22.1%, TBCH -19.1%, PD -14% (also expands its AI integration ecosystem; strategic partnerships with Anthropic, Cursor and LangChain), ULTA -7.5%, ADBE -7.3% (also CEO to transition from his position after a successor has been appointed), TTAN -6.3% (also names new Chief Technology and Product Officer), ZUMZ -5.9% (also authorizes new $40 mln share repurchase program), HNRG -5.1%, S -4.9%, EGY -4.8%, AVO -4.2%, LEN -1.2%

Companies trading lower in after hours in reaction to news: PAR -22.4% ($225 mln convertible notes offering), PODD -6% (initiates voluntary correction for specific lots of Omnipod 5 Pods), AAOI -3.8% (amends sales agreement filing which increases offering to $500 mln of stock from $250 mln), ATRO -1.1% (selected by Boeing to supply fuel tank access doors for 737 MAX program), HOOD -0.9% (February operating data), PATH -0.6% (expanding its alliance with Deloitte), TIC -0.5% (files for $500 mln mixed securities shelf offering), MP -0.2% (US advances critical minerals discussions with the EU and Japan on price floor, according to Bloomberg), WPC -0.2% (increases dividend), DOMO -0.2% (Nine Entertainment selects Domo's AI and data platform)

FT : Does SoftBank’s $33bn US power plant justify the price tag?

Does SoftBank’s $33bn US power plant justify the price tag?

Inside SoftBank’s $33bn US power plant project

In the highly anticipated first round of Japan’s pledged $550bn investment in the US, the centrepiece was a gas-fired power plant in Ohio like none the world has seen before.

At an eye-watering price tag of $33bn with generation capacity equivalent to nine nuclear power plants, the SoftBank-led infrastructure project would be the biggest gas plant in the world by some distance.

“There are no comparable gas generation projects in the US,” said Eric Gimon, senior fellow at Energy Innovation, a non-partisan energy and climate change think-tank.

Last year, Japan agreed to invest $550bn in the US during President Donald Trump’s tenure in return for tariffs being reduced to 15 per cent — an audacious bilateral investment scheme without precedent.

As the flagship deal in the first round of projects worth $36bn announced last month, SoftBank’s power plant will be closely watched as a potential blueprint for investments that follow.

The supposed justification for the size and price tag is the race to build AI infrastructure. SoftBank has pledged to invest $100bn in US infrastructure during Trump’s second presidential term to fast-track the development of AI — which requires vast quantities of reliable power.

The project was hailed by US commerce secretary Howard Lutnick as a “massive America first trade win”, boasting the plant would “strengthen grid reliability, expand baseload power and support American manufacturing with affordable energy”.

But behind the scenes, Japanese officials are wrangling over the details of a project that nobody seems to have a unified idea of. Some remark that SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son may unduly benefit from Japan financing the mega-project or that it may never happen.

“Son plays a role in a good and bad sense. He always has big ideas and concepts,” said one person involved in the negotiations. “Materialising them is not so easy. The gas-fired power plant will be very difficult to complete.”

Commercial banks were struggling with the risk of putting so much funding behind one single project, the person added.

Given the vast size of the project, many expect it will be built in several phases to make permitting, insurance and surrounding infrastructure more manageable. Otherwise, “it could turn into a real morass”, Gimon said.

Energy sector specialists are wondering how a gas-fired power plant could cost $33bn. One factor, Japanese officials say, is political optics: a big number to impress voters in Ohio in the US midterm elections later this year.

Another more substantive reason is surging turbine costs, driven by the rush to build around-the-clock gas-fired power plants in the US and elsewhere to serve as the backbone for data centres.

Costs are estimated at about $2,200-$3,000 per kilowatt for combined-cycle gas turbines and $900-$1,700 per kW for combustion turbines, less efficient units used more for periods of peak demand.

Assuming the project uses two different configurations of the two turbine types, Gimon estimates the cost for the machines alone would reach $23bn to $25bn. The remaining $8bn to $10bn would likely be spent on pipelines for gas supply, transmission line upgrades and backup battery equipment, he said.

The monster project has not only raised questions about a new era of energy infrastructure costs but has also reeled Japan in as an accomplice in building hugely emitting infrastructure in the US.

John Larsen, partner at the Rhodium Group, estimates the plant would emit 16.2mn tonnes of CO₂ a year, making it the third-largest emitting power plant in the country. The top-20 list is currently exclusively made up of coal-fired power plants.

“A rush to gas is bad economic risk management,” said Gimon, who estimates the CO₂ emissions would be between 24mn to 45mn tonnes factoring in upstream methane leakage — equivalent to 5mn to 10mn cars.

“It will be interesting to see how SoftBank deals with the climate blowback of funding so much dirty infrastructure in the post-Trump era.” (Harry Dempsey)

FT : Senior loans, like airport lounges, are losing their elite status

Senior loans, like airport lounges, are losing their elite status
First-lien is not so special any more due to changes in leveraged finance markets

Airport lounges were once exclusive enclaves that allowed customers to avoid the chaos occurring just a few metres away. Today, lounges are not so picky about whom they let in, or in what numbers. The experience has suffered accordingly.

The financial equivalent of an airport lounge is “first-lien” senior debt. This is a claim advertised as safe because it ranks above others in the credit pecking order, secured against assets such as property or equipment. Like the Delta Sky Club, it keeps the beneficiary apart from the general mayhem, in this case that of being a junk bondholder or private equity sponsor.

In 2026, first-lien is not so special any more, due to several changes in leveraged finance markets. First, capital structures associated with leveraged buyouts of companies, which typically had senior loans at the top cushioned by junior junk bonds underneath, are less common. Loan-only “unitranche” structures have become more prevalent.

As such, losses are increasingly soaked up by senior debt tranches. Moody’s data shows that the proportion of junior debt in leveraged capital structures slid from 33 per cent two decades ago to just 9 per cent by 2024.

Then there is the troubling phenomenon of “creditor-on-creditor violence” — equivalent to stressed passengers throwing down at the airport gate. A troubled company pits rival senior creditors against each other to see who offers better terms on a rescue financing, taking advantage of loan contracts that lack covenants. The winner gets their first-lien debt upgraded into a rarefied “super senior” layer. The loser is thrown into steerage.


First-lien’s loss of status shows up in two important numbers. First, recovery rates for that kind of debt, according to Moody’s, have fallen almost 20 cents from their historical average of 75 cents per dollar loaned. The standard deviation for returns — indicating how far they spread from the mean in either direction — is about 30 per cent, meaning there can be almost catastrophic losses in some cases.

Because first-lien loans have been marketed as relatively safe, they are also only moderately lucrative. But their high single-digit returns and protection from interest rates going up made them attractive to insurers, pensioners and those who lack the stomach for swashbuckling junk bonds. If the credit cycle is turning, those investors may be surprised to discover how many others have a claim on their free snacks and comfortable chairs.

FT : US intervention in oil futures would be ‘biblical disaster’, CME warns

US intervention in oil futures would be ‘biblical disaster’, CME warns
Terry Duffy says any attempt by the government to lower prices using derivatives market would erode confidence

The head of CME Group has warned the Trump administration it risks a “biblical disaster” if it attempts to lower oil prices by intervening in derivative markets during the war with Iran.

Terry Duffy, the chief executive of CME Group, which runs the exchange where US oil futures trade, told a conference this week that it would erode market confidence if the US government stepped into the futures market in a bid to curb the rise in crude.

“Markets do not like it when governments intervene in pricing,” Duffy told the conference in Boca Raton, Florida. Such a move would risk a “biblical disaster” if investors lost confidence in markets to set the price of critical commodities, he said.

Duffy’s comments followed a report by Reuters that suggested the US Treasury was considering measures to lower oil prices, including intervention in futures markets.

The Trump administration on Wednesday announced the release of millions of barrels of oil from its strategic reserve in a bid to prevent an oil price shock — its latest attempt to contain the crude rally.

Analysts have said the administration could pursue other options to shelter US consumers, such as temporarily suspending federal taxes on gasoline, relaxing environmental rules on fuel or temporarily banning US oil exports.

But wild oil price moves in recent days have prompted speculation among energy traders that the Treasury may have already intervened in futures markets. On Monday, Brent crude oil leapt to almost $120 a barrel before reversing sharply to fall back below $100.

Tim Skirrow, head of derivatives at Energy Aspects, said the consultancy had been fielding calls this week on whether the government was behind a series of large unexplained trades in recent days.

“We were being pushed by clients as to who the big seller was,” Skirrow said.

“The speculation was that it could be from the US Treasury,” he added, noting that the government has previously intervened in other markets, such as currencies.

Rapidan Energy Group, a consultancy founded by former White House energy adviser Bob McNally, said this week that while such a move by the government would be “unprecedented”, it was clear “the idea of the US Treasury selling front-month crude futures” was getting “more attention than usual”.

“Given the current panic situation,” Rapidan analysts wrote in a note for clients, “we cannot completely rule it out”.

The Treasury declined to comment on the speculation. A person familiar with Treasury secretary Scott Bessent’s thinking said the agency had not intervened in oil markets.

A spokesman at the Department of Energy said it had not been involved in oil derivatives trading or advising other arms of the government on such a course of action.

Other moves by government officials have raised eyebrows in oil markets this week.

Oil fell sharply on Tuesday after a post on X by energy secretary Chris Wright that surprised traders by saying the US Navy had escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz. The message was deleted minutes later, and the White House later denied that the navy had escorted a ship through the waterway.

John Evans, an analyst at the PVM oil brokerage in London, wrote on Thursday that it was unclear if Wright’s post was “another case of total incompetence or more seriously, shenaniganry”.

Wright said on Thursday that naval escorts were unlikely to begin before the end of the month.

FT : Federal Reserve to loosen capital requirements for big US banks

Federal Reserve to loosen capital requirements for big US banks
Wall Street cheers plans that would water down protections designed to avoid repeat of 2008 financial crisis

A top Federal Reserve official has said the central bank will soon cut capital requirements for big banks as it eases protections that were designed to avoid a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis.

The moves, announced on Thursday in a speech by Fed vice-chair for supervision Michelle Bowman, intensify the push by US regulators to loosen restrictions on Wall Street banks to encourage them to boost lending and regain market share lost to private credit groups.

Bowman, who President Donald Trump appointed last year as the central bank’s top banking regulator, said its plans to adopt the Basel III Endgame rules agreed by global regulators would lead to a “small increase” in capital requirements for US banks but would be more than offset by other reforms.

She outlined plans to change the way an extra capital buffer is calculated for the biggest banks, which would lead to a “modest decrease in the surcharges” and more than offset the impact of the Basel reforms. 

Overall, Bowman said the measures would “decrease the requirements by a small amount” for the biggest American banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. 

The Fed’s plans, which were welcomed by US lenders, are likely to intensify calls from banks in Europe and other countries to ease their rules in response. The Bank of England and EU have delayed part of their Basel reforms to see how Washington would apply them.

Three of the main US banking trade bodies said Bowman’s plans were “a thoughtful, bottom-up approach” that represented “a welcome focus on risk-sensitivity and a comprehensive view, taking into account the cumulative effects of all capital requirements”.

The Fed’s proposals represent a victory for Wall Street lobbying. In 2023, the Fed announced plans to implement the so-called Basel Endgame reforms in a way that would have resulted in a 19 per cent rise in minimum capital requirements of big US banks.

But the central bank agreed to dilute the proposals in 2024 following an aggressive campaign by bank lobbyists, including TV advertisements during half-time of the Super Bowl warning earlier that year that the rules would hurt American consumers by cutting lending and raising credit costs.

Bowman said reforms introduced after the 2008 meltdown had “substantially increased bank capital and strengthened financial system resilience”. But she added there was a risk of “unintended consequences” from excessively calibrating low-risk activities.

“Continuously increasing capital levels without a specific purpose imposes real economic cost,” she said, adding it “constrains credit availability, pushes activity into the less-regulated nonbank sector and layers on complexity and costs without meaningfully enhancing safety and soundness”.

As part of the changes outlined on Thursday, Bowman said the extra capital buffer required for the eight most systemically important US banks would be reduced by lowering the component that accounts for risk from short-term funding. The buffer will also be adjusted for inflation and growth to prevent it rising as bank balance sheets grow. 

“These changes to the capital framework eliminate overlapping requirements, right-size calibrations to match actual risk and comprehensively address longstanding gaps in our prudential framework,” she added.

The Fed and other Washington regulators plan to present the details of the reforms next week. Bowman said smaller and less complex US banks would benefit from “slightly larger reductions in capital requirements” than those of their larger Wall Street rivals.

“Crafting these reforms is no easy task,” said Bowman, who last year announced other moves to loosen restrictions on banks, such as making the Fed’s annual stress test more transparent and easing leverage ratio rules.