Oil edges down as market contemplates potential sanctions, tariffs
(Reuters) -Oil prices edged down on Tuesday as the market digested U.S. President Donald Trump's 50-day deadline for Russia to end the Ukraine war and avoid sanctions on buyers of its oil, while worries continued to linger over Trump's trade tariffs.
Brent crude futures fell 5 cents to $69.16 a barrel by 0000 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude futures fell to $66.89, down 9 cents.
Both contracts settled more than $1 lower in the previous session.
Trump announced new weapons for Ukraine on Monday, and threatened sanctions on buyers of Russian exports unless Moscow agrees to a peace deal in 50 days.
Oil prices had climbed at the news of potential sanctions, but later gave up these gains as the 50-day deadline raised hopes that sanctions could be avoided, and traders dwelled on whether the U.S. would actually impose steep tariffs on countries continuing to trade with Russia.
"The pause eased concerns that direct sanctions on Russia could disrupt crude oil flows. Sentiment was also weighed down by rising trade tensions," ANZ senior commodity strategist Daniel Hynes wrote in a note to clients.
Trump said on Saturday he would impose a 30% tariff on most imports from the European Union and Mexico from August 1, adding to similar warnings for other countries and leaving them less than three weeks to hammer out framework deals that could lower the threatened tariff rates.
Tariffs risk slowing down economic growth, which could sap global fuel demand and drag oil prices lower.
Elsewhere, oil demand is set to stay "very strong" through the third quarter, keeping the market snugly balanced in the near term, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' secretary general said, according to a Russian media report.
Goldman Sachs on Monday raised its oil price outlook for the second half of 2025, pointing to potential supply disruptions, shrinking oil inventories in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, and production constraints in Russia.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
8 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Were Texas flood deaths avoidable? Here's what Americans said in a new poll
Many Americans believe the deaths caused by recent floods in Texas could have been prevented, and most think that the government's response was imperfect, according to new polling. The YouGov/Economist survey — conducted July 11-14 — comes after central Texas was pummeled by flash floods beginning on July 4, when the Guadalupe River surged over its banks, sweeping away homes and leaving at least 134 dead and about 100 missing, ABC News reported. Among the worst affected areas was Camp Mystic, a Christian camp in Kerr County, where NBC News reported 27 campers and counselors lost their lives. President Donald Trump traveled to Texas on July 11 and met with the families of victims. He said he wished to express 'the love and support and the anguish of our entire nation,' CBS News reported. 'I've never seen anything like it,' he added, 'a little narrow river that becomes a monster…' In the aftermath of the devastating disaster, multiple organizations and individuals have faced scrutiny over their preparedness. Among them were Kerr County officials, who did not install a comprehensive flood warning system despite being aware of its necessity, according to the Texas Tribune. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has also faced criticism over its response, and the New York Times reported that it failed to answer thousands of calls from Texas flood survivors Here is a breakdown of the findings. Were deaths avoidable? In the survey — which sampled 1,680 U.S. adults — 52% of respondents said that most of the deaths could have been prevented if the government had been more adequately prepared. Twenty-nine percent said the deaths were unavoidable, and 19% said they didn't know. On this question, there was a sizable partisan divide. Most Democrats and independents — 74% and 53%, respectively — called the deaths avoidable, while just 28% of Republicans said the same. Government response The poll — which has a margin of error of 3.4 percentage points — also asked respondents to judge the government response to the flooding. A plurality, 38%, labeled the overall government response as poor, while smaller shares described it as fair (14%), good (19%) or excellent (14%). Individual officials received somewhat similar marks. When asked about Trump's response, 42% said it was poor, while fewer said it was fair (11%), good (15%), and excellent (21%). Meanwhile, 36% said Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's response was poor. Eight percent said it was fair; 14% said it was good and 13% said it was excellent. Presidents visiting disaster sites Additionally, respondents were asked about presidents visiting disaster sites (the survey began on the day Trump traveled to Texas). A majority, 64%, said presidents should visit locations of disasters because it demonstrates their solidarity. Just 17% said they should not do this 'because it takes resources away from the disaster response.' The results broke along similar lines when respondents were asked specifically about Trump. Sixty-five percent said they believed Trump 'should travel to Texas to survey the damage and meet with people affected by recent flooding.' Meanwhile, 20% said he should not do this, and 15% said they were not sure.
Washington Post
10 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Google partners with Youngkin and offers AI training courses to Virginia job seekers
RESTON, Va. — Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin announced on Tuesday that Google will partner with his administration to provide free and low-cost artificial intelligence certification courses to Virginians as part of his office's ongoing effort to connect citizens to new jobs amid changes to the state's economy. The partnership, which he has described as an AI career launchpad, will provide Google-sponsored AI training courses for up to 10,000 Virginians at any given time, officials said at Google's office in the northern part of the state.
Time Magazine
10 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Republicans Scrap Cuts to PEPFAR Anti-AIDS Program
Senate Republicans reached an agreement with the White House on Tuesday to preserve funding for a flagship global HIV and AIDS relief program known as PEPFAR, backing off a proposed $400 million cut that had drawn sharp opposition from within their own ranks and threatened to derail President Donald Trump's sweeping package of spending rescissions. The deal would shield PEPFAR from the Trump Administration's plan to cancel billions in previously approved but unspent federal funds. The decision came after several Republican senators objected to including the widely celebrated HIV/AIDS initiative in a list of programs targeted for clawbacks under Trump's campaign to root out what he has called 'waste, fraud and abuse.' Russ Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, discussed the proposal during a closed-door lunch with GOP senators on Tuesday, telling reporters afterwards that backing off the PEPFAR cuts was a minor change to the bill. 'From a $9.4 billion package to a $9 billion package, that's something that's very exciting for the American taxpayer,' he said. 'Big chunks of this proposal are not falling out.' The scaled-down measure would still claw back unused funds from USAID and public broadcasting. But the move to preserve PEPFAR funding may avoid a Republican revolt, particularly from key lawmakers like Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the powerful Appropriations Committee and had emerged as a leading critic of the proposed cut. 'I'm very pleased that the funding for PEPFAR has been preserved,' Collins told reporters on Tuesday. 'This is something I've worked hard to protect from the beginning.' Still, she said she remained undecided on whether to support the final bill, pointing to 'other problematic parts of the rescissions package,' such as cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Launched in 2003 by President George W. Bush, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) is widely considered one of America's most consequential programs in Africa, credited with saving over 25 million lives and scaling back the AIDS epidemic. The bipartisan program has long enjoyed support across party lines, and its proposed defunding sparked fierce backlash not only from Democrats but also from GOP members. 'There was a lot of interest from our members on doing something on PEPFAR,' Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Tuesday. 'That's reflected in the substitute.' White House officials had previously justified the cut by citing claims from some social conservatives that PEPFAR funds were supporting abortion services overseas after a report found that 21 abortions were performed in Mozambique, where abortion is legal, under the program. Republicans said those abortions violated the Helms Amendment, which restricts the use of foreign aid funds to pay for abortions. 'It is essential that what appears to be an isolated incident in Mozambique does not undermine the overwhelming success and integrity of PEPFAR's mission," Democratic Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Lois Frankel of Florida said in a statement earlier this year. While the news on Tuesday was welcoming for supporters of PEPFAR, the program has still seen significant disruptions as the Trump Administration guts foreign aid programs, including USAID, which was PEPFAR's main implementing agency. The State Department is seeking $2.9 billion in funding to continue HIV-AIDS programs in the next fiscal year—far lower than PEPFAR's current budget of more than $4 billion. The rescissions package, a Trump Administration initiative under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), aims to cancel previously appropriated but unspent federal funds. The package passed the House last month by a narrow 214–212 margin and would need to be reapproved by the lower chamber if modified in the Senate. Though supporters have billed the measure as a symbolic gesture of budget-cutting resolve, the actual fiscal impact of the package is small. The $9 billion in rescinded funds represents less than 0.3% of the $3.4 trillion tax-and-spending bill Trump signed earlier this month—which he has dubbed his 'Big, Beautiful Bill.' Even with the PEPFAR change, Vought confirmed the package would still include $1.1 billion in cuts to public broadcasting for fiscal years 2026 and 2027, along with another $8.3 billion in cuts for the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID. Conservatives have long targeted the CPB, which supports PBS and NPR, accusing it of liberal bias. But some rural-state senators have expressed concern that defunding the agency could devastate small public radio and television stations that rely on federal support for as much as 30% of their budgets. Republican Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota, for instance, secured a side agreement with the White House to redirect unallocated funds toward tribal broadcasters to alleviate some of those concerns. Still, some lawmakers remain uneasy about the lack of clarity surrounding the cuts. 'It's unclear to me how you get to $9 billion,' Collins said, noting that the White House has not provided a detailed breakdown of which programs would be protected and which would be slashed. Collins showed reporters a 1992 rescission message from President George H.W. Bush as an example of how such proposals should be detailed—comparing it unfavorably to the Trump Administration's request. With procedural votes expected to begin late Tuesday and a marathon voting session on amendments scheduled for Wednesday, the coming days will test whether the Trump Administration's scaled-back proposal can overcome internal divisions—and whether the President's threats to withhold his endorsement of any Republican who votes against his rescissions package will sway reluctant senators.
