
‘America First' agenda could leave USD behind
The dollar has struggled this year, especially since Trump's April 2 tariff announcement. While the currency is on pace for one of its strongest weeks this year after jumping around 1% on Monday following the announcement of U.S.-EU trade deal, this short-term move doesn't change the long-term trends that could undermine the greenback's position.
Economic dominance in the future could largely depend on access to affordable, efficient energy to power artificial intelligence technologies. And in the race to dominate the industries of the future, the U.S. is arguably going in reverse.
It's retreating from the renewables space, as seen in the administration's recent move to eliminate many clean energy subsidies, opens new tab. The president appears to be making the bet that the U.S. can maintain energy dominance indefinitely by relying on its own fossil fuel resources.
This could ultimately result in uncompetitive power costs in the future, especially given that China is already dominating in clean energy technologies like solar and electric vehicles.
As historian Adam Tooze argues, "for the first time in two centuries the West is no longer the leader in future technologies but the follower."
While Trump may be seeking to enhance American self-sufficiency, the administration's policies may actually be increasing the country's dependency on foreign capital.
Trump's recently passed budget bill – which looks pretty ugly to fiscal watchdogs despite its name – could cement the U.S.'s position as the world's biggest capital importer by adding an expected $3.4 trillion to the U.S. deficit over the next decade, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, potentially locking in 6% to 7% budget deficits for years.
Importantly, the U.S. has also been running current account deficits of roughly 4% over the past several years, and this widened to 6% of GDP in Q1 2025, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
By spending beyond its means and running these twin deficits, the U.S. will continue to require large amounts of foreign capital inflows.
But unfortunately for Washington, this capital may soon be harder to come by, if both Europe and Asia seek to keep more of it closer to home.
Europe is pushing for increased defense spending, as seen in its new goal to spend 5% of GDP on defense in the coming decade. While the bloc has agreed to increase U.S. energy purchases through the recently announced U.S. trade deal, much of that agreement remains up in the air and the volumes suggested are pretty unrealistic. Meanwhile, Asia has begun to trade more internally, as China has been focusing on export diversification.
A growing regionalization of supply chains began during the pandemic and appears to be accelerating as Trump seeks to drive production back to the U.S. and all major global powers focus on securing regional raw material access (e.g., rare earths and other critical minerals) for national security purposes.
This shift could eventually create the foundation for true regional FX blocs across Asia, Europe and the Americas.
This development would have a major impact on the global economy, currency values and capital markets, arguably providing a more balanced global economy with three poles of supply and demand, each attuned to their own regional dynamics rather than the current set-up whereby the global economy responds primarily to the Federal Reserve and U.S. internal dynamics.
Recently, European policymakers have discussed what ECB President Christine Lagarde has termed a 'Global Euro' moment, one built upon a European Savings and Investment Union designed to foster both a European safe-haven asset that could eventually compete with U.S. Treasuries and deeper, more liquid European capital markets to fund European infrastructure and innovation.
Of course, this won't be an overnight shift. The dollar remains the world's dominant reserve currency, and the U.S. debt market is estimated to be more than three times the size of Europe's, according to the World Economic Forum.
But simply having a larger percentage of European capital stay at home could make a huge difference. Europe's current account surplus has averaged roughly $400 billion over the past few years, and Europe invests roughly $300 billion per year in offshore financial assets, according to the New York Times.
Within Asia, Pan Gongsheng, Governor of the People's Bank of China, has recently highlighted China's interest in having the yuan play a larger role in a multi-polar currency world.
Other officials soon followed, discussing how China plans to improve home market access for foreign capital while expanding opportunities for the Chinese to invest abroad. While China's capital account remains closed, Asian currencies already primarily trade off the yuan rather than the U.S. dollar.
Even though China faces challenges, such as its fight against deflation, its efforts on this front – namely, boosting consumption and reining in excess supply, especially in the renewable energy space across solar, wind and batteries – could ultimately help attract more foreign capital by boosting China's growth profile and corporate earnings.
There is obviously no guarantee that these measures will be successful, but the government's intense focus on achieving these goals is evident. The recent decision to provide $12.4 billion in childcare subsidies suggests a potential policy Rubicon has been crossed, as China has typically resisted these types of direct fiscal stimulus measures in the past.
In a world of currency blocs, both Europe and Asia could emerge as potential winners, as they erode the U.S.'s position as the world's financial powerhouse. So while many investors may get lost in the short-term currency noise, it might be wise to instead focus on the long-term signal.
(The views expressed here are those of Jay Pelosky, the Founder and Global Strategist at TPW Advisory, a NYC-based investment advisory firm. You can follow Jay on Substack at The Tri Polar World, opens new tab).
Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tab your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI,, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn,, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
Motor finance victims urged to complain as compensation could hit £18bn
Millions of drivers could be owed a share of up to £18bn after the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) announced it will consult on an industry-wide compensation scheme. Motorists could receive a pay-out after it emerged many motor finance firms were not complying with rules or the law by not providing customers with relevant information about commission paid by lenders to the car dealers who sold the loans, the FCA said. The authority estimates that most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation. The final total cost of any compensation scheme is estimated to be between £9 billion and £18 billion, the FCA added. Consumer champion Martin Lewis said in a video posted to X that millions of people are likely to be due a share of up to £18 billion. He told Sky News the consultation is 'likely to mean 40% of people who got a car finance deal between 2007 and 2021 will be due some form of redress, likely to be hundreds not thousands of pounds'. The consultation will be launched by early October. If the compensation scheme goes ahead, the first payments should be made in 2026. It comes after Friday's ruling by the Supreme Court on cases in which the FCA had intervened. While some motor finance customers will not get compensation because in many cases commission payments were legal, the court ruled that in certain circumstances the failure to properly disclose commission arrangements could be unfair and therefore unlawful, the FCA added. People who have already complained do not need to do anything, the FCA said. Consumers who are concerned that they were not told about commission and think they may have paid too much to their motor finance lender have been urged to complain now. Consumers do not need to use a claims management company or law firm and doing so could cost them around 30% of any compensation paid, it added. To make an initial complaint, the FCA says people should get in touch with their lender or broker, then the provider should send an acknowledgement within eight weeks. Under the FCA's current rules, it will not have to send a final response until after December 4 2025. But as the FCA is consulting on a compensation scheme, the deadline may be extended. If customers are unhappy with their provider's response, they can then complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service, the FCA added. The authority will propose rules on how lenders should 'consistently, efficiently and fairly' decide whether someone is owed compensation and how much. It will monitor if firms are following the rules and act if they are not. Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA, said: 'It is clear that some firms have broken the law and our rules. It's fair for their customers to be compensated. 'We also want to ensure that the market, relied on by millions each year, can continue to work well and consumers can get a fair deal. 'Our aim is a compensation scheme that's fair and easy to participate in, so there's no need to use a claims management company or law firm. If you do, it will cost you a significant chunk of any money you get. 'It will take time to establish a scheme but we hope to start getting people any money they are owed next year.'


The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump's DoJ is demanding states hand over election information. Officials are wondering what they intend to do with it
The Department of Justice is on a mission to collect election information, including sensitive voter information, from states as part of President Donald Trump 's executive order cracking down on voting accessibility – but it's left state officials concerned. Over the last three months, the DoJ's Voting Section has reached out to at least 15 states seeking their voter roll, information about individuals who may have violated federal voting laws, and questions about the state's process for identifying and removing ineligible voters, the Associated Press reported. Traditionally, the Voting Section's main focus is to protect citizens' right to vote, but under Trump's direction, it's cracking down on voter fraud – a rare occurrence that Trump has mischaracterized as a major problem in the United States. But some state officials have flagged concerns with the swath of information being requested, saying voter rolls contain private information about individuals and cannot be shared without congressional notification. Utah's Lieutenant Governor Deidre Henderson, the state's top election official, said she refused to provide expansive information on the state's 2.1 million voters to the DoJ. 'We've offered the public voter list. If they want protected data, there's a process for government entities to request it for lawful purposes,' Henderson told The Salt Lake Tribune. 'We'll address that if it comes,' she continued, 'but so far we haven't identified any federal or state statute that would justify handing over to the federal government the personal identifying information of 2.1 million Utah voters,' Henderson added. Officials in at least four California counties told the Associated Press that DoJ officials requested information about the number of people removed from rolls for being noncitizens, including their ID numbers, dates of birth, and voting records. Trump has sought to conduct the largest deportation of undocumented immigrants, in part by targeting individuals using government information. In Colorado, DoJ officials demanded the state hand over 'all records' pertaining to the 2024 election – a massive trove of documents that includes ballots and voting equipment information, as well as records retained from the 2020 election. Last year, the Colorado state Supreme Court tried to bar Trump from appearing on the presidential ballot, claiming he was ineligible because he violated the Fourteenth Amendment by inciting the January 6 attack on the Capitol. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Trump, declaring that states did not have the authority to determine a federal candidate's eligibility. In Maine, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said she was denying the DoJ's request for the state's voter registration list, the names of officials who maintain the list, and the number of ineligible voters due to noncitizenship status. Officials had sent multiple requests for information, one of which insinuated that Maine had an unusually high number of registered voters, the Maine Morning Star reported. 'The nature of these questions suggest that the DOJ is more interested in keeping people that they don't like from voting than promoting voter registration and participation,' Bellows told Maine Morning Star. Already, DoJ officials had spoken to Bellows about a potential 'information-sharing agreement' to provide the department with information on registered voters who are ineligible to vote. Similar requests were made to Arizona, Connecticut, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. 'Why on Earth does the Department of Justice need the voter information from all 50 states?' Bellows asked. 'If Congress thought it was appropriate that there be a national voter file, Congress could have authorized the Department of Justice to do that, but they have not.' The DoJ's motivation in collecting such information appears to be to assist its efforts to identify and prosecute those who violate federal election laws. Trump has directed the attorney general and DoJ to collect election information from states to add extra safeguards to elections. Despite no evidence of mass voter fraud or noncitizen voting in the last several elections, Trump has continually claimed the 2020 election was rigged with mass voter fraud and that undocumented migrants voted in the 2024 election.


The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
High street banks lost £100bn in customer savings to rivals since 2019
High street lenders have lost the equivalent of £100 billion in customer savings to online banks and building societies as they come under pressure to adapt amid a major shift in the sector, according to a report. KPMG's latest State of the Banks report found that traditional banking groups saw their market share in deposits drop sharply from 84% in 2019 to 80% in 2024. It came as competitors – such as new challenger banks, specialist lenders and building societies – lured customers away by paying higher savings rates. The UK banking sector also suffered a £3.7 billion combined drop in total pre-tax profits last year, marking the first major downturn since the rebound seen in the wake of the pandemic, according to KPMG. It warned that increasing competition, rising costs and a wave of consolidation will change the shape of the sector in the years ahead. Peter Westlake, partner in KPMG UK's banking strategy team, said: 'The post-Covid profit boom is over. 'Banks are facing a lower-growth, higher-cost environment that demands transformation at pace. 'While we can expect profitability to broadly remain sound this year, the entire sector needs to show how they are preparing for challenges ahead.' Bank costs increased by 6% in 2024, which together with falling productivity among workers, is set to put bank profits under pressure, according to the report. It forecasts that the sector's average return on equity, which is a key performance measure for banks, could drop by more than a third from a peak of 13% in 2023 to 8% by 2027 – the equivalent of an £11 billion drop in annual profits. KPMG's experts urged banks to overhaul their business models and embrace artificial intelligence (AI) to tackle the challenges. 'The winners will be those that move beyond tactical cost-cutting and proactively address oncoming market headwinds through business model transformation,' said Mr Westlake. Any move to scrap so-called ring-fencing in the UK sector, which requires banks to separate their retail activities from investment banking, would also spur on further change, KPMG said. Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced plans to reform the ring-fencing regime last month as part of wider measures to loosen regulation and boost growth. Peter Rothwell, head of banking at KPMG UK, said: 'Evolving regulation, particularly the reform of ring-fencing, is set to reshape the competitive landscape. 'Raising thresholds could favour recent entrants, particularly well-capitalised US players, accelerating their push into the UK retail market and intensifying competition.'