Oil Extends Gain as Trump Ratchets Up Tariffs Before Russia Move
Brent gained as much as 0.6% — after adding 2.5% on Friday — to trade near $71 a barrel while West Texas Intermediate was near $69. Trump said the rates on Mexico and the EU would start Aug. 1, dashing optimism that 11th-hour agreements could be reached in a threat to oil demand.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
28 minutes ago
- USA Today
Apple inks $500 million raw materials deal to boost US supply chain
Apple AAPL.O has signed a $500-million deal with Pentagon-backed MP Materials MP.N for a supply of rare earth magnets, becoming one of the first tech companies to ink a U.S. supply agreement after China curbed exports earlier this year. The move reflects strong backing for Las Vegas-backed MP by one of the world's most valuable companies, coming just days after the U.S. government said it would become MP's largest shareholder. Both mark an amazing about-face for MP after it contemplated merging with an Australian rival last year just to survive. MP shares jumped 21% in Tuesday trading to a record high, while Apple's stock gained under 1%. The deal, announced on Tuesday, guarantees Apple a steady flow of rare earths and magnets free from China - the world's largest producer. For Apple, the cost to support U.S. magnet production paled in comparison to the long-term risk that it could lose access entirely to the critical components, analysts said. MP last week agreed to a multibillion-dollar deal with the U.S. Department of Defense that will see the Pentagon become MP's largest shareholder and financial backstop. "Any time you have government ownership, that's a huge vote of confidence,"said Gracelin Baskaran, director of the critical minerals security program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "We're in an era where executives are willing to pay a significant premium for a reliable supply chain. They don't want stoppage." Neither the precise length of the deal nor the specific volumes of magnets to be supplied was provided, although the agreement does call for magnets produced from recycled material, in keeping with Apple's long-standing goal of ending its reliance on the mining industry. Rare earths are a group of 17 metals used to make magnets that turn power into motion, including the devices that make cell phones vibrate. They are also used to make weapons, electric vehicles, and many other electronics. China halted exports in March following a trade spat with U.S. President Donald Trump that showed some signs of easing late last month, even as broader tensions underscored demand for non-Chinese supply. In case you missed it: Apple's $95 million Siri settlement deadline nears: How to get your cash As part of the agreement, Apple will prepay MP Materials $200 million for a supply of magnets slated to begin in 2027. The magnets will be produced at MP's Fort Worth, Texas, facility using magnets recycled at MP's Mountain Pass, California, mining complex, the companies said. "Rare earth materials are essential for making advanced technology, and this partnership will help strengthen the supply of these vital materials here in the United States," Apple CEO Tim Cook said in a statement. Bob O'Donnell, president at market research firm TECHnalysis Research, said Tuesday's move "makes complete sense" given that Apple requires significant amounts of rare earth magnets for its devices. "Plus, by focusing on a U.S.-based supplier, it does help position Apple more positively in Washington," he said. Apple, which said the deal is part of its $500 billion four-year investment commitment to the U.S., has faced threats from Trump over iPhones not made in the U.S. But many analysts have said making the iPhone in the U.S. is not possible, given labor costs and the existing smartphone supply chain. Apple, which sold about 232 million iPhones last year, according to data from IDC, did not disclose which devices in which it will use the magnets. MP said the deal will supply magnets for hundreds of millions of devices, which would constitute a significant share of any of Apple's product lines, which also include wearable devices such as watches and earbuds. MP already produces mined and processed rare earths and has said it expects to start commercial magnet production in its Texas facility by the end of this year. The company already has a magnet supply deal with General Motors GM.N and Germany's Vacuumschmelze. Last week's deal between MP and the U.S. government includes a price floor for rare earths designed to spur investment in domestic mines and processing plants, which has been lagging partly due to low prices set in China. Reporting by Ernest Scheyder in Houston; additional reporting by Zaheer Kachwala in Bengaluru, Eric Onstad in London and Stephen Nellis in San Francisco; Editing by Bernadette Baum, Shinjini Ganguli, Rod Nickel and Marguerita Choy
Bloomberg
29 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Andrew Hale on Trump's Tariff Strategy
Bloomberg Markets Balance of Power Andrew Hale, The Heritage Foundation Trade Policy Senior Policy Analyst, shares his thoughts on President Trump suggesting a 19% tariff on Indonesian goods coming into the US and if this percentage amount will be negotiated before the August 1 deadline. He also talks about whether or not he sees another tariff pause ahead of August. Andrew Hale speaks with Kailey Leinz and Joe Mathieu on the late edition of Bloomberg's "Balance of Power." (Source: Bloomberg)
Politico
33 minutes ago
- Politico
When one vote costs everything
Presented by Welcome to POLITICO's West Wing Playbook: Remaking Government, your guide to Donald Trump's unprecedented overhaul of the federal government — the key decisions, the critical characters and the power dynamics that are upending Washington and beyond. Send tips | Subscribe | Email Sophia | Email Irie | Email Ben When all but five Republicans voted earlier this month for DONALD TRUMP's 'big, beautiful bill,' the president once again flaunted his ability to strongarm his party into submission — even if it costs them their jobs. Democrats, enraged by stinging defeats in November, plan to focus their midterm messaging on the legislation's cuts to Medicaid and tax breaks for the richest Americans as they fight to retake a majority in one or both chambers. And ELON MUSK, infuriated that the law will add trillions to the national debt, has promised to use his vast wealth to start his own 'America Party' and primary conservative Republicans who voted for the bill. To be successful, Democrats would need to recreate the 1994, 2010 or 2018 midterms, in which the minority party successfully crafted a political message around a major piece of legislation. In 1994, the GOP took back control of Congress for the first time in 40 years on a message against former President BILL CLINTON's agenda. In 2010, Republicans seized on outrage over the Affordable Care Act to flip 63 House seats and six Senate seats, and in 2018, Democrats used the GOP's unsuccessful ACA repeal effort to net 40 seats in the House. (They weren't as successful in the Senate, where Republicans maintained control.) Former Democratic Rep. CHRIS CARNEY credits his vote for the ACA in 2010 for his ouster from the Pennsylvania district he'd represented for two terms — and cautioned that Republicans may have cause for concern next year. 'I took that vote knowing I was going to lose,' Carney said in an interview with West Wing Playbook. 'But to be a good member of Congress, you have to be willing to lose your seat for things that are important. And the Republicans who voted for the BBB probably understood that they run the risk of losing their seat by voting for it.' This interview has been edited for length and clarity. What similarities and differences do you see between the ACA and the BBB in terms of the degree of electoral liability they pose to the lawmakers who voted for them? Do you think the megabill will be the defining piece of legislation for the midterms? Both the ACA and the BBB were organizing principles for the opposition party. The Tea Party movement used Obamacare as a way to rally forces against Democrats who voted for it, and, in fact, against Democrats who didn't vote for it. Democrats this time will use the BBB probably in the same way. The real question is: How well can Democrats message against it, and how well can Republicans defend it? Back in 2010, I don't think we were given exactly the tools we needed to defend decisions to vote for it. How worried should House Republicans be as they approach 2026? As a member, you have to decide what you're willing to lose your seat over. I took the vote in 2010 knowing full well that I was going to lose in November. But for me, a bill that created that much health care was important, and as it turned out, 33,000 families and individuals in my district got health care who never had it before. As a member of Congress, you are exquisitely aware of the electoral impact your votes have. I'm sure that Republicans in Kamala Harris and Joe Biden districts are making that same calculation: Is it more important that I appease Donald Trump and take the vote for him, or do I take a vote that may preserve my reelection in the next cycle? How should Democrats seize on this moment? It's important that Democrats message in an effective way: Talk about how the BBB reduces health care while providing tax cuts to the very rich — those bread-and-butter issues resonate. As the BBB is gone through with a fine-tooth comb, there are going to be a lot of things in there that the Democrats can take advantage of in terms of messaging. The question is, can they be effective in the messaging, and can they be consistent in the messaging, and can they sustain the messaging? If they can do all those things, I think 2026 might be a tough year for Republicans, certainly in the House. If you talk about it in terms of Medicaid, a specific program, that's a little bit harder to sell than if you talk about it generally as health care, which it is. There are quite a few similarities between the situation in Washington in 2010 and today — but one new variable is Musk. What do you make of his threats to primary conservative Republicans? Who, in your opinion, are the winners and losers if the America Party comes to fruition? If the America Party actually becomes a thing, the Republican Party will lose more of its votes, and certainly lose the votes it gained in 2024. I don't think that there are many Democrats that would be supportive of Elon Musk's party, but I think that there are a number of libertarian and Trump-curious voters that might be turned off by how he's governed since he's been in office in his second term, and what the Republicans in Congress have done. If the America Party does end up forming, I think it hurts Republicans far more than it hurts Democrats. MESSAGE US — West Wing Playbook is obsessively covering the Trump administration's reshaping of the federal government. Are you a federal worker? A DOGE staffer? Have you picked up on any upcoming DOGE moves? We want to hear from you on how this is playing out. Email us at westwingtips@ Did someone forward this email to you? Subscribe! POTUS PUZZLER Who was the first president to have his Cabinet appointee rejected? (Answer at bottom.) Agenda Setting YOU CAN STAY: Senate Republicans will scale back the White House's request for $9.4 billion in spending cuts as they look to shore up their votes, our JORDAIN CARNEY and CASSANDRA DUMAY report. Sen. ERIC SCHMITT (R-Mo.), who is leading the recissions effort with the White House, said Republicans will restore a $400 million cut to the global AIDS program known as PEPFAR, bringing the total amount of cuts to $9 billion. Senate Majority Leader JOHN THUNE said he expects the PEPFAR switch to be the only change made to the package, adding that there was a 'lot of interest' among his caucus in funding the GEORGE W. BUSH-era program, which has been credited with saving tens of millions of lives. RURAL FOOD ACCESS HIT: The Department of Agriculture has cut nearly all funding for a dozen rural centers that support farms and food businesses across the country, our MARCIA BROWN reports. Funding for Regional Food Business Centers, established under the Biden administration, has been frozen since January. The department has not provided the centers with a reason aside from saying that the funding was under review for its alignment with Trump administration priorities. USDA confirmed the end of the program later today, saying that the centers 'should not have been established in this manner in the first place.' TWIDDLING OUR THUMBS: Despite employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau still getting paid, the bureau has in practice been mostly inoperable for nearly six months, AP's KEN SWEET reports. CFPB employees say they essentially spend the workday not doing anything, forbidden from doing any work by directive from the White House. One current employee told AP that outsiders would be amazed at how little work gets done. Conversations between colleagues are seldom out of fear that they would be possibly violating the directive. The agency's press office doesn't respond to emails. WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT ETHICS CHANGES AT DOJ: The Justice Department is ramping up its efforts to strip law enforcement officials with civil service protections intended to insulate their work from political interference, NYT's DEVLIN BARRETT reports. On Friday, a new batch of more than 20 career employees at the department and its component agencies were fired, including the attorney general's own ethics adviser, JOSEPH W. TIRRELL. The rest included senior officials at the U.S. Marshals Service, as well as prosecutors and support staff who once worked for JACK SMITH when he was a special counsel prosecuting the president. Some DOJ veterans say the move represents a pattern of the administration ignoring and eventually demolishing longstanding civil service legal precedents meant to keep politics out of law enforcement work, and to give more leeway to Trump's loyalists. A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment. Knives Out LIKE HE NEVER LEFT: Former national security adviser MIKE WALTZ pledged today to push for reform at the United Nations, following in the administration's footsteps in slashing the size of the federal government, our AMY MACKINNON reports. Waltz, who Trump nominated as his ambassador to the organization, said that the administration was conducting a number of reviews of the UN to examine how it is spending its funds, calling for the body to refocus on its founding principles. What We're Reading 'We're not buying it': Trump ties Ukraine aid to America First (POLITICO's Eli Stokols and Dasha Burns) Federal Workers' 'Emotional Roller Coaster': Fired, Rehired, Fired Again (NYT's Eileen Sullivan) The government wants AI to fight wars and review your taxes (WaPo's Douglas MacMillan, Faiz Siddiqui, Hannah Natanson and Elizabeth Dwoskin) Event Planners Are Cancelling on Trump-Era Washington. Is This a Sign of Things to Come? (POLITICO's Michael Schaffer) POTUS PUZZLER ANSWER That would be former President ANDREW JACKSON, who had his nominee for Treasury secretary, ROGER TANEY, rejected in 1834 as part of inter-party disagreements over the National Bank.
