Business and Economy

Elaf fund will finance projects with buy-in from Saudi investors committing $2bn for two airports in Aleppo city.

Syria and Saudi Arabia have signed a major investment package spanning aviation, energy, real estate and telecommunications as Damascus’s new leadership seeks to rebuild after a devastating 14-year civil war.

Syrian Investment Authority chief Talal al-Hilali announced a swath of deals on Saturday, including the development of a new international airport in Aleppo, the launch of a low-cost Syrian-Saudi airline, and a telecommunications project called SilkLink aimed at turning the country into a regional hub.

Saudi Arabia has been a major backer of Syria’s new leaders, who took power after toppling longtime ruler Bashar al-Assad in December 2024, with this latest deal marking the biggest investment since the United States lifted sanctions on the country in December.

Saudi Investment Minister Khalid al-Falih said the newly launched Elaf fund, which aims to finance large-scale projects with participation from Saudi private-sector investors, would commit $2bn (7.5 billion Saudi riyals) to develop two airports in the Syrian city of Aleppo.

Rebuilding Syria’s economy

Abdulsalam Haykal, Syria’s minister of communications and information technology, said his country will see nearly $1bn in investment in the telecommunications sector, with plans to lay thousands of kilometres of cable to boost connectivity between Asia and Europe.

Saudi budget carrier Flynas and the Syrian Civil Aviation Authority announced they signed an agreement to establish a new airline called “Flynas Syria”, which would be 51 percent owned by the Syrian side and is slated to start operations in the fourth quarter of 2026.

Syria’s Ministry of Energy also signed a water agreement with Saudi Arabia’s ACWA Power, which is known for running projects in power generation and desalinated water production plants in the Middle East and beyond.

Al-Hilali said the agreements targeted “vital sectors that impact people’s lives and form essential pillars for rebuilding the Syrian economy”.

Tom Barrack, the US envoy to Syria, commended the Saudi-Syrian deal on X. “Strategic partnerships in aviation, infrastructure, and telecommunications will contribute meaningfully to Syria’s reconstruction efforts,” he said.

But Benjamin Feve, senior research analyst at Karam Shaar advisory, sounded a more cautious note, saying the deals mattered “far more as a political signal than as an economic game changer” in the short term.

The government has faced criticism over the past year for making broad development promises based on written pledges with foreign investors, many of which have yet to be converted into binding contracts.

The Super Bowl, the biggest event in American football, is set for Sunday with the Seattle Seahawks facing the New England Patriots at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara, California.

The massive sporting event is set to energise fans in both cities and will send thousands this year to the San Francisco Bay Area. Those unable to make the trip are still expected to spend heavily on food, drinks and watch parties across the United States.

Historically, the Super Bowl has been a major economic boon for host cities. For the Bay Area, the event is part of a stretch of three major sporting spectacles lifting the regional economy.

A local boost?

In 2024, the Bay Area Host Committee commissioned a report forecasting the economic impact of the 2025 NBA All-Star Game, the 2026 Super Bowl, and the FIFA World Cup, all taking place in the region. The report estimated that Sunday’s game alone would generate between $370m and $630m in economic output for the Bay Area.

Last year’s Super Bowl was hosted in New Orleans, Louisiana. State officials reported the event brought in 115,000 visitors who spent $658m in the city.

For consumers, Bank of America estimates a 77 percent jump in spending near the stadium. A study analysing spending patterns from Super Bowl games between 2017 and 2025 found that, on game day, spending surged in the postal code closest to the stadium, with the biggest surge in food and parking costs.

Hosting the game does come with its own expenses for cities.

In the case of Santa Clara, it is small compared with the forecasted output. Last year, it was projected the city would cost them $6.3m, which includes training personnel for the influx of visitors and other logistical needs. However, other games have cost municipalities much more. When Atlanta hosted the Super Bowl in 2019, it cost the city an estimated $46m.

In 2023, the day after the game, which was played in Glendale, Arizona, outside of Phoenix, was the single busiest at Phoenix Sky Harbor international airport in its history, with more than 200,000 passengers passing through the airport, which is a hub for American Airlines and where budget carriers Southwest Airlines and Frontier maintain a large presence.

Other cities have used major sporting events to kick off large-scale infrastructure projects. In 2004 – ahead of the Super Bowl in Houston, Texas – METRO, the city’s transit authority, launched its first light rail line just a month before the game. The line, now one of three in the system, runs from downtown Houston to the city’s football stadium.

Prior to its launch, Houston was the only major metropolitan city in the US without a rail system.

But not all infrastructure projects paid off. Las Vegas built Allegiant Stadium in the neighbouring suburb of Paradise when the city acquired the Raiders football team from Oakland during the 2020 season. A year later, in 2021, Las Vegas won the bid to host the 2024 Super Bowl. The stadium cost $1.9bn. Nearly $750m came from hotel taxes, but the rest was shouldered by local taxpayers.

“The economic benefits are relatively short-term, not just in duration, but also in scope. They’re limited to certain industries and specific locations,” Michael Edwards, a professor of sport management at North Carolina State University, told Al Jazeera.

“The NFL [National Football League] often uses the Super Bowl as a carrot to encourage cities to invest taxpayer money in new stadiums. You’re seeing that dynamic play out in places like Chicago and Cleveland, where officials are considering domed stadiums. Part of that push is almost certainly driven by the possibility of hosting a Super Bowl, which the league dangles as an incentive,” Edwards said.

Food spending

For those who can’t make it to the game itself, there is still a surge in Americans heading to bars and restaurants to watch the game or spending money throwing a watch party.

The National Retail Federation, which has been tracking Super Bowl spending for the last decade, expects that Americans will spend a record $20.2bn, or $94.77 per person, on the big game with 79 percent of that on food.

Spending has skyrocketed since 2021 when consumers spent $13.9bn, or $74.55 per person. However, that dropped from $17.2bn in 2020 when the Super Bowl happened about a month before the COVID-19 lockdowns in the US began.

For those hosting a Super Bowl watch party at home, it will cost more than last year to stock up on the quintessential game-day foods. Wells Fargo estimates that hosting 10 people will cost about $140 per person, up from $138 last year.

Chicken wings, a staple for football fans, are a bright spot for wallets; prices are down 2.8 percent compared with this time last year. Potato chip prices are flat, but dips like salsa have jumped 1.7 percent.

Healthier options are getting more expensive as well for those opting for a veggie platter. Cherry tomatoes are up 2 percent, celery has risen 2.6 percent, and both broccoli and cauliflower are up 4 percent. Beer prices are also climbing, up 1.3 percent from a year ago.

Advertising hits records

The Super Bowl is airing on NBC with the network getting a boost in advertising spending for the big game. NBC sold out of advertising spots for the Super Bowl in September for a record $10m on average for a 30-second spot – up from $8m on average last year when the games aired on Fox.

NBC also benefits from a collection of sporting events all taking part in February that drive up advertising revenue, including from the Winter Olympics. The opening ceremony is on Friday and will run until February 22. NBC has exclusive broadcasting rights for the Olympics in the US.

“With the resurgence of the Olympic movement, our strongest Sports Upfront in history, the early sell-out of Super Bowl LX, and the remarkable return of the NBA, NBCUniversal has solidified itself as a sports powerhouse, and brands have taken notice,” Mark Marshall, chairman of NBCUniversal’s global advertising and partnerships, said in a release.

The last time the games were in the same year, back in 2024, the two events were the most-watched events on linear television.

On Wall Street, the looming sporting events set to air on NBC have sent parent company Comcast’s stock surging up more than 4 percent over the past five days.

For two decades, global energy demand was static and efficiency gains, economic shifts, and renewable growth created an illusion of control.

The narrative was one of managed transition — a straight line from fossil fuels to a cleaner, perhaps simpler, energy system.

Energy companies believe that narrative is over.

Addition, not substitution

It’s unusual to see that many security personnel lining the road to Qatar’s convention centre. Enter LNG 2026, and the vast conference centre in Doha is hosting the people who shape the global energy system. Seated on the same stage were Saad Sherida al-Kaabi of QatarEnergy, Wael Sawan of Shell, Darren Woods of ExxonMobil, Patrick Pouyanne of TotalEnergies, and Ryan Lance of ConocoPhillips — leaders of companies that collectively sit at the centre of global energy supply.

Their estimation: The era of demand is here, and the age of gas is accelerating, not fading.

Everything from artificial intelligence, data centres, electrification and population growth are all pulling the energy system to a new scale. The executives say that demand is rising faster than grids, infrastructure, and policy frameworks can adapt.

From oil to energy

Perhaps that is why the industry is changing how it describes itself. These companies no longer frame their future narrowly like “international oil companies” or oil producers. They now talk about being “international energy companies” – a deliberate shift reflecting a broader ambition: to manage molecules, systems, and supply chains in a world with increasing energy demands.

Executives outlined projections that underline how deeply the market is changing. Global LNG demand, currently about 400 million tonnes a year, is expected to reach 600 million tonnes by 2030 and approach 800 million tonnes by 2050, according to the energy executives, and LNG is growing at more than 3 percent annually, making it the fastest-growing fuel among non-renewables, according to their data.

Building for a bigger world

The confidence in Doha was backed by construction on a vast scale. QatarEnergy, under Saad al-Kaabi, is expanding LNG production and assembling a fleet expected to reach about 200 LNG carriers, one of the largest shipping expansions in energy history.

In the United States, ExxonMobil and QatarEnergy are partnering on a new 18 million MMBtu LNG facility, part of a wider North American build-out. Canadian LNG is entering the market, while new supply is emerging from Africa and South America.

These are substantial investments.

As al-Kaabi put it during the discussion: “The world cannot live without energy. People need to be prosperous, and nearly a billion people still do not have basic electricity. We cannot deprive them of growth.”

It is a framing shared across the panel. This is no longer a conversation about replacement, as one executive summed it up, “we are in a world of energy addition, not energy substitution.”

Europe and energy security

The Russia–Ukraine war remains a defining reference point. Europe’s sudden loss of Russian pipeline gas forced a dramatic pivot to LNG. Imports jumped from roughly 50 million tonnes a year to approximately 120 million tonnes, transforming Europe into a major LNG market almost overnight.

What began as crisis management has reshaped global gas flows. LNG delivered flexibility, security, and scale, and for investors, that restored confidence that LNG infrastructure could be strategic.

As new supply comes online, executives expect prices to ease. When that happens, Asian demand, currently constrained by cost, is expected to rebound sharply. Several Asian economies are also shifting from exporters to net importers as domestic reserves decline.

Oil’s quiet re-entry

Two years ago, oil was widely predicted to disappear from the energy mix by 2030. That narrative, too, has faded.

Oil demand has proven resilient, and even gas-focused producers are expanding oil portfolios. Qatar is actively seeking new oil opportunities and remains one of the world’s largest holders of exploration blocks.

The shift is pragmatic. The industry is no longer debating whether oil and gas will be needed, but how they can be supplied at the lowest possible cost and emissions intensity. Several executives noted that many former oil sceptics have quietly reversed course.

AI and the end of low demand

The most urgent driver of change is not geopolitics — it is artificial intelligence.

For nearly 20 years, global energy demand was relatively stable. That period has ended. AI-driven data centres are consuming electricity at a scale planners failed to anticipate. Individual facilities can require thousands of megawatts of constant power, running 24 hours a day, with no tolerance for interruption.

Executives described this moment as a decisive break with the past. After decades of flat demand, the system has entered what they call hyper-scaling mode.

This demand, they say, is inflexible. Data centres cannot wait for weather conditions. They require power that is reliable, dispatchable, and immediate.

When renewables need backup

No one on stage dismissed renewables. Shell’s Wael Sawan and TotalEnergies’ Patrick Pouyanne both stressed their central role in the future mix. But they were clear about limitations.

The executives viewed wind and solar as intermittent and argued that grids built for predictable generation are under growing stress. Recent blackouts and near-misses in highly renewable systems have exposed the consequences of imbalance.

“When the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining,” one executive noted, “gas fills the gap.”

Gas turbines remain essential for grid stability. Nuclear takes decades to scale. Batteries are improving but remain limited. Hydrogen is promising, but not yet deployable at the pace required.

Gas, the industry argues, is the only option that can be built fast enough to meet the contemporary surge in demand.

AI: The friction points

But behind the power-hungry AI-driven confidence are real snag lines. Building energy infrastructure has become slower and more complex.

The executives pointed to permitting delays that stretch projects more than a decade. Water and grid connections are major bottlenecks. Skilled labour is in short supply. Community resistance is growing, driven by cost concerns and environmental pressure.

Executives were openly critical of policy frameworks they see as detached from operational reality. Overlapping and conflicting regulations, they argued, raise costs and delay supply.

“The market dictates what can be delivered,” one leader said, warning that governments risk choking the arteries of energy flow.

Sustainability, emissions and the social contract

The industry acknowledges that its future depends on emissions performance. Methane leakage, efficiency, manufacturing footprints, and transport emissions remain under scrutiny. Gas offers immediate reductions where it replaces coal – about 40 percent in power generation and 20 percent in marine fuels. Carbon capture and sequestration is increasingly integrated into new projects.

ExxonMobil’s Darren Woods emphasised the company’s push to be seen as a technology player — working on hydrogen, carbon capture, and new uses for hydrocarbons beyond combustion. They describe this approach as responsible energy addition.

Yet the tension remains. The current demand surge has pushed environmental scrutiny to the background, but executives know that window is temporary. The sustainability of gas in this new role is under intense scrutiny.

While it burns cleaner than coal, its emissions of CO2 and methane, along with the transport footprint of LNG, remain central to the climate debate. Industry leaders acknowledge that gas must evolve to maintain its social licence. The CEO of QatarEnergy emphasised delivering energy “in the most environmentally responsible manner”.

There is awareness that the current surge in demand has sidelined environmental concerns, but these questions will resurface forcefully once the immediate capacity crisis abates. The gas industry risks a fate similar to coal if it fails to accelerate its decarbonisation efforts through carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS), and the integration of low-carbon gases, such as hydrogen.

Inclusive not mutually exclusive

The dynamic with renewables and emerging technologies adds another layer of complexity. Executives recognise that, for many regions, building new infrastructure, renewables are the cheapest and easiest option.

The role of gas, therefore, is evolving from a baseload provider to a “complementary load-following role,” essential for balancing grids increasingly saturated with variable wind and solar power.

The advancement of battery storage technology also looms as a potential competitor for this grid-balancing role. The future energy mix is envisioned as abundant, accessible, reliable, and clean, but the path is uncertain.

Investments in hydrogen and ammonia are continuing, though with fluctuating levels of hype, indicating a sector in search of the next breakthrough.

The human connection

Strip away politics and technology, and the core driver is human. Roughly five billion people still consume far less energy than developed economies. To paraphrase QatarEnergy’s al-Kaabi: Prosperity requires power.

Removing energy poverty means adding supply – reliable, affordable supply – at unprecedented scale. That is the context in which the energy company executives are positioning gas: not as a bridge, but as a stabiliser. Energy producers are betting that global demand – supercharged by AI and economic ambition – will outpace the ability of renewables alone to carry the load.

They are building for a world that they say cannot afford shortages, blackouts, or theoretical purity. Gas, they believe, is not a bridge, but the foundation to weather the storm of demand.

And its future will be defined by a simple metric: Can the system deliver abundant, accessible, reliable, and progressively cleaner energy?

Crypto markets came under pressure this week when the price of the world’s most popular cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, tumbled to its lowest level in more than a year.

On Thursday afternoon, the price of Bitcoin fell below $66,000 and was hovering at about $62,900 on Friday morning.

The fall in the price of the digital asset kicked off in the last weekend of January, when it fell below $80,000.

In October last year, Bitcoin hit an all-time peak of more than $127,000 before falling back to about $90,000 in December.

Following its latest tumble, Bitcoin is currently down by about 30 percent more since the start of the year.

Here’s what we know about what’s going on in the world of cryptocurrency:

Why is the price of Bitcoin falling?

Volatility in other markets is one of the main drivers.

Analysts say a sell-off of global stocks amid geopolitical uncertainty and recent volatility in the price of gold and silver are part of the reason for the drastic fall in the price of Bitcoin.

“Institutional demand has reversed materially,” CryptoQuant, an organisation which provides analysis of global markets to cryptocurrency investors, wrote in a report on Wednesday.

The report noted that US exchange-traded funds (ETFs) – a form of pooled investment – which had been buying up Bitcoin last year, are selling it this year.

Deutsche Bank analysts wrote in a note to clients this week that these ETFs “have seen billions of dollars flow out each month since the October 2025 downturn”, referring to investors in the funds cashing out of them.

Furthermore, they added that specialised US spot Bitcoin ETFs suffered outflows of more than $3bn in January this year, following outflows of about $7bn and $2bn in November and December 2025, respectively.

“This steady selling in our view signals that traditional investors are losing interest, and overall pessimism about crypto is growing,” the analysts said.

Adam Morgan McCarthy, product specialist at Kaiko, an organisation that provides crypto market data and analyses, told Al Jazeera: “The fall in Bitcoin prices has been largely tied to less interest in the markets and lower trading volumes. This leads to less liquidity, so any move higher or lower is exacerbated.”

He explained that the crypto market relies heavily on “hype-driven” cycles where people buy due to a fear of “missing out” on an opportunity.

“This hype forms the foundation of trading volumes, and that is what we mean by liquidity. Essentially, more trading volumes mean more liquidity, as it makes it easier to quickly buy and sell Bitcoin,” he said.

“Right now, that foundation is disappearing and this tends to happen during bear markets or ‘crypto winters’, making it much harder to effectively trade assets, and they become even less appealing then. So it’s quite a vicious circle that leads to these downward spirals,” he added.

A “crypto winter” is an extended period of declining or stagnant prices, something that can be driven by worsening macroeconomic conditions or tightening market regulations, among other reasons.

Volatility in gold and silver prices in the past two weeks has also dampened market sentiment, affecting the price of cryptocurrencies. Analysts say geopolitical instability and the prospects of a rising US dollar have led investors to sell precious metals, resulting in the sudden downturn.

Then, last week, prices came back sharply, with the price of gold hitting a record peak of almost $5,595 an ounce, while silver hit an all-time high of nearly $122.

But this peak did not last long, and this week, the prices of these precious commodities plunged – again – with gold falling to $4,872.83 per ounce on Thursday and silver falling to $77.36 an ounce.

Other cryptocurrencies like Ether, the second-largest cryptocurrency, have also fallen. The price of Ether has fallen by 19 percent this week, closing at $1,854 late on Thursday.

Does this mean ‘crypto-friendly’ policies in the US aren’t working?

The price of Bitcoin soared after United States President Donald Trump’s return to the White House last year, with analysts expecting he would adopt a “crypto-friendly” regulatory regime.

At a Bitcoin conference in July 2024, as part of his pre-election rally, Trump had said the US is the “crypto capital of the planet” and pledged to also create a Bitcoin “strategic reserve” if he became president.

In March 2025, on taking office, Trump announced his government would create a national strategic crypto reserve which would include five cryptocurrencies – Bitcoin and Ether as well as smaller currencies XRP, Cardano and Solana.

In July last year, Trump also announced the GENIUS Act, a new cryptocurrency legislation that would establish regulations and consumer protections for “stablecoin”, a type of cryptocurrency whose value is linked to a fixed currency or commodity.

Then, last month, the US also unveiled draft legislation that would create a regulatory framework for cryptocurrency, which, if signed into law, would clarify financial regulators’ jurisdiction over the cryptocurrency sector.

The US president has a personal interest as his family owns the cryptofirm World Liberty Financial (WLFI).

Last March, WLFI launched its own “stablecoin” – a dollar-pegged cryptocoin backed by US treasuries – called USD1.

But the president’s personal interest in cryptocurrencies and supportive policies have not shielded the digital asset from external market factors.

Have we seen ‘crypto winters’ before?

Yes.

A crypto winter was triggered after Bitcoin peaked in December 2017 and then tumbled in December 2018 due to intense regulatory crackdowns in the US, Canada and other countries, among other reasons.

Another such winter occurred in November 2022 after a peak in October 2021, due to the FTX currency exchange scandal. In November that year, crypto exchange FTX initiated US bankruptcy proceedings after a liquidity crisis prompted intervention from regulators around the world.

In a Thursday briefing note, analysts at Kaiko said the downward trend in prices “truly accelerated” after Trump appointed Kevin Warsh as the new Federal Reserve Chair.

Warsh will replace Jeremy Powell, who Trump has lambasted for not lowering interest rates.

The Kaiko briefing note stated: “Powell’s recent announcement on January 28th that interest rates would remain unchanged, combined with the appointment of the new Chairman, constituted a true turning point, acting as a catalyst for a sharp acceleration of the decline. The reaction was all the more pronounced given that the crypto market, particularly sensitive to changes in the macroeconomic regime, was already weakened,” the report said.

What will happen next?

Hougan noted that crypto winters typically last for about 13 months and assured investors that the current “winter” will not last for long.

“As a veteran of multiple crypto winters, I can tell you that the end of those crypto winters feels a lot like now: Despair, desperation, and malaise. But there is nothing about the current market pullback that’s changed anything fundamental about crypto,” he said in his report.

“I think we’re going to come roaring back sooner rather than later. Heck, it’s been winter since January 2025. Spring is surely coming soon,” he added.

The world’s most popular cryptocurrency has lost about one-third of its value since the start of the year.

Bitcoin has fallen sharply, racking up more losses after a tumultuous week for the world’s most popular cryptocurrency.

The digital currency was down nearly 14 percent on Friday morning, hovering at about $62,900 as of 01:00 GMT.

The slide continues a run of steep losses that kicked off last weekend, when the digital currency fell below $80,000.

After the latest tumble, Bitcoin, which is famed for its dramatic price swings, is down about one-third in value since the start of the year.

Bitcoin soared after United States President Donald Trump’s re-election raised expectations that Washington would adopt a crypto-friendly regulatory regime after years of crackdowns, with the digital currency hitting $100,000 for the first time in December 2024.

But the digital asset has largely been on a downward spiral since October, when it hit an all-time peak of more than $127,000, amid geopolitical and regulatory uncertainty.

A Trump-backed bill to regulate the trade of digital assets has stalled in the US Senate amid divisions between banks and cryptocurrency firms.

The Trump family’s cryptocurrency firm, World Liberty Financial, has also come under scrutiny in the US Congress after The Wall Street Journal newspaper reported that representatives of an Abu Dhabi official had signed a deal to invest $500m for a major stake in the venture.

Bitcoin’s latest tumble comes amid a heavy sell-off in global stocks and commodities.

Wall Street’s benchmark S&P 500 dropped 1.2 percent on Wednesday, while the tech-focused Nasdaq Composite fell about 1.6 percent.

Shares of tech giant Amazon plunged more than 11 percent in after-hours trading after its plans to invest $200bn in artificial intelligence-related infrastructure stoked fears of a tech bubble.

In the Asia Pacific, South Korea’s KOSPI plunged about 5 percent in early morning trading, while Australia’s ASX 200 and Japan’s Nikkei 225 were down more than 1 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively.

Precious metals, which have been on a volatile ride after racking up huge gains in 2025, also continued their recent streak of losses.

Gold was down more than 4 percent on Thursday, trading at about $4,720 an ounce.

Silver, which has seen even more dramatic price swings, fell as much as 18.5 percent, trading at about $69.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has faced questions from the United States Senate about President Donald Trump’s ongoing campaign to slash interest rates, despite concerns that such a move could turbo-charge inflation.

Bessent appeared on Thursday before the Senate’s Financial Stability Oversight Council.

There, he received a grilling from Democrats over rising consumer prices and concerns about Trump’s attempts to influence the Federal Reserve, the US central bank.

One of his early clashes came with Senator Elizabeth Warren, who sought answers about a report in The Wall Street Journal that indicated Trump joked about suing his nominee for the Federal Reserve chair, Kevin Warsh, if he failed to comply with presidential demands.

“Mr Secretary, can you commit right here and now that Trump’s Fed nominee Kevin Warsh will not be sued, will not be investigated by the Department of Justice, if he doesn’t cut interest rates exactly the way that Donald Trump wants?” Warren asked.

Bessent evaded making such a commitment. “That is up to the president,” he replied.

Pressure on Federal Reserve members

Last week, Trump announced Warsh would be his pick to replace the current Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, who has faced bitter criticism over his decision to lower interest rates gradually.

By contrast, Trump has repeatedly demanded that interest rates be chopped as low as possible, as soon as possible.

In December, for instance, he told The Wall Street Journal that he would like to see interest rates at “one percent and maybe lower than that”.

“We should have the lowest rate in the world,” he told the newspaper. Currently, the federal interest rate sits around 3.6 percent.

Experts say a sudden drop in that percentage could trigger a short-term market surge, as loans become cheaper and money floods the economy. But that excess cash could drive down the value of the dollar, leading to higher prices in the long term.

Traditionally, the Federal Reserve has served as an independent government agency, on the premise that monetary decisions for the country should be made without political interference or favour.

But Trump, a Republican, has sought to bring the Federal Reserve under his control, and his critics have accused him of using the threat of legal action to pressure Federal Reserve members to comply with his demands.

In August, for instance, he attempted to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook based on allegations of mortgage fraud, which she has denied.

Cook had been appointed to the central bank by Trump’s predecessor and rival, Democrat Joe Biden, and she has accused Trump of seeking her dismissal on political grounds. The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case.

Then, in early January, the Department of Justice opened a criminal investigation into Powell, echoing accusations Trump made, alleging that Powell had mismanaged renovations to the Federal Reserve building.

Powell issued a rare statement in response, accusing Trump of seeking to bully Federal Reserve leaders into compliance with his interest rate policy.

“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President,” Powell wrote.

Bipartisan scrutiny of Powell probe

Given the string of aggressive actions against Powell and Cook, Trump’s joke about suing Warsh fuelled rumours that the Federal Reserve’s independence could be in peril.

Within hours of making the joke on January 31, Trump himself faced questions about how serious he might have been.

“It’s a roast. It’s a comedy thing,” Trump said of his remarks as he spoke to reporters on Air Force One. “It was all comedy.”

Warren, however, pressed Bessent about Trump’s remarks and chided the Treasury chief for not rejecting them.

“I don’t think the American people are laughing,” Warren told Bessent. “They’re the ones who were struggling with the affordability.”

The prospect of Trump exerting undue influence over the Federal Reserve even earned a measure of bipartisan criticism during Thursday’s council meeting.

Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, opened his remarks to Bessent with a statement denouncing the probe into Powell, even though he acknowledged he was “disappointed” with the current Fed chair.

Still, Tillis emphasised his belief that Powell committed no crime, and that the investigation would discourage transparency at future Senate hearings.

He imagined future government hearings becoming impeded by legal formalities, for fear of undue prosecution.

“They’re going to be flanked with attorneys, and anytime that they think that they’re in the middle of a perjury trap, they’re probably just going to say, ‘I’ll submit it to the record after consultation with my attorneys,’” Tillis said, sketching out the scenario.

“Is that really the way we want oversight to go in the future?”

For his part, Bessent indicated that he backed the Federal Reserve’s long-term goal to keep interest rates at about 2 percent.

“It is undesirable to completely eliminate inflation,” Bessent said. “What is desirable is to get back to the Fed’s 2 percent target, and for the past three months, we’ve been at 2.1 percent.”

Scrutinising the lawsuit against the IRS

As Thursday’s hearing continued, Bessent was forced to defend the Trump administration on several fronts, ranging from its sweeping tariff policy to its struggle to lower consumer prices.

But another element of Trump’s agenda took centre stage when Democrat Ruben Gallego of Arizona had his turn at the microphone.

Gallego sought to shine a light on the revelation in January that Trump had filed a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) — part of his own executive branch.

Trump is seeking $10bn in damages for the leak of his tax returns during his first term as president. The IRS itself was not the source of the leak, but rather a former government contractor named Charles Littlejohn, who was sentenced to five years in prison.

Bessent was not named as a defendant in the lawsuit, though he currently serves both as the Treasury secretary and the acting commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.

Critics have argued that Trump’s lawsuit amounts to self-dealing: He holds significant sway over the Justice Department, which would defend the federal government against such lawsuits, and he could therefore green-light his own settlement package.

In Thursday’s exchange with Gallego, Bessent acknowledged that any damages paid to Trump would come from taxpayer funds.

“ Where would that $10bn come from?” Gallego asked.

“ It would come from Treasury,” Bessent replied. He then underscored that Trump has indicated any money would go to charity and that the Treasury itself would not make the decision to award damages.

Still, Gallego pressed Bessent, pointing out that the Treasury would ultimately have to disburse the funds — and that Bessent would be in charge of that decision.

That circumstance, Gallego argued, creates a conflict of interest, since Bessent is Trump’s political appointee and can be fired by the president.

“Have you recused yourself from any decisions about paying the president on these claims?” Gallego asked.

Bessent sidestepped the question, answering instead, “I will follow the law.”

EXCLUSIVE

Email exchange shows Epstein sought to arrange meeting between top Democrat and US Virgin Islands representative.

An associate of the United States Virgin Islands’ sole representative in the US Congress asked Jeffrey Epstein for help to arrange a meeting between the politician and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, according to documents released by the US Justice Department.

The outreach to Epstein was made on behalf of Stacey Plaskett, the islands’ delegate to the House of Representatives, as the politician sought to lobby Schumer for relief after two hurricanes ripped through the Caribbean in 2017, according to the documents.

“We have to help Stacey get a meeting with Schumer. Any thoughts?” Erika Kellerhals, a tax lawyer in the US Virgin Islands, wrote to Epstein in an email on January 24, 2018.

“[S]hould not be a problem need to know the reason and subject,” Epstein wrote back a few hours later.

“She has been unable to confirm a meeting with him. He is driving the disaster relief bill and has only been talking about Puerto Rico and not the [Virgin Islands]. She’s concerned we will be ignored,” Kellerhals told Epstein in response.

After his exchange with Kellerhals, Epstein sent an email to Kathy Ruemmler, a former chief counsel to US President Barack Obama, asking for help in setting up a meeting with Schumer.

“schumer is driving the puerto rico . virgin islands relief=bill. the VI congressional rep Stacey plaskett , h=s not been able to get a meeting. confirmed with him. ca= you help?” Epstein wrote to Ruemmler, who is now the chief lawyer to Goldman Sachs.

“I do not have any relations=ip with him, but let me see whether I can get to his COS,” Ruemmler said in response, referring to his chief of staff.

The emails are among some 3.5 million pages of files released last week that relate to US authorities’ investigations into Epstein, who died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges.

It is not clear if a meeting between Schumer and Plaskett went ahead, though Congress ultimately approved emergency funds for the US Virgin Islands as part of a two-year budget package passed in February 2018.

There is no public record of Schumer meeting or directly communicating with Epstein.

Schumer, Plaskett and Kellerhals did not respond to requests for comment. Ruemmler could not be reached for comment.

The email exchange with Epstein, which has not been previously reported, is the latest among numerous examples of how the disgraced financier continued to exert influence at the highest levels of politics and business long after his 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution with a minor.

Plaskett’s ties to Epstein have been a source of controversy for years.

Plaskett narrowly escaped censure by the House of Representatives last year over revelations that Epstein had coached her over text during a Congressional hearing in February 2019.

Shortly after Epstein was arrested for a second time in July 2019, Plaskett announced that she would donate a sum to charity equivalent to several campaign donations she had received from Epstein and his associates.

While Plaskett is a non-voting member of Congress, the Democrat participates in floor debates and sits on several influential committees, including the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

Plaskett has previously denied enabling Epstein, calling him a “demon” and saying she was “disgusted by his deviant behavior”.

The world’s most popular cryptocurrency has fallen nearly 20 percent in value since the start of 2026.

Bitcoin has dropped below $71,000, adding to a week of losses that have wiped out all of its gains since United States President Donald Trump’s re-election in 2024.

The world’s most popular cryptocurrency fell more than 7 percent on Thursday, continuing a steep downward slide that began in mid-January.

Bitcoin, which is famed for its wild price swings, was trading at about $70,900 as of 04:30 GMT.

The latest slide takes the value of the digital asset down by nearly 20 percent since the start of the year.

Bitcoin hit $100,000 for the first time in December 2024 and breached that level again in February and May 2025. But the asset has largely been on a downward trajectory since October, when it hit an all-time high of more than $127,000.

Bitcoin and other digital currencies racked up explosive gains after President Trump’s re-election raised expectations of Washington adopting a light touch to regulating digital assets after years of regulatory crackdowns.

Trump had pledged to turn the US into the world’s cryptocurrency capital during his re-election campaign, and launched his own crypto firm, World Liberty Financial, along with his sons, before winning the vote.

Shortly after taking office, Trump announced the establishment of a strategic crypto reserve that would include Bitcoin and four other cryptocurrencies.

But a Trump-backed bill to regulate the trading of cryptocurrency has stalled in the US Senate amid disagreement between banks and cryptocurrency firms, casting doubt over the industry.

US Democratic Party lawmaker Ro Khanna said on Wednesday that he would investigate World Liberty Financial after The Wall Street Journal newspaper reported that representatives of an Abu Dhabi official signed a $500m deal to buy a 49 percent stake in Trump’s fledgling cryptocurrency venture.

Equities and commodities markets also saw losses on Thursday, with silver dropping as much as 16 percent and benchmark stock indexes in Hong Kong and Japan down about 1.3 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively.

US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s probe seen as latest effort by Trump administration to roll back diversity and inclusion policies.

Nike is being investigated in the United States over claims that it discriminated against white workers through its diversity and inclusion policies.

The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) said on Wednesday that it had filed a court motion to compel Nike to produce information related to allegations of “intentional race discrimination” against white employees.

The allegations relate to a suspected pattern of discrimination in “hiring, promotion, demotion, or separation decisions, including selection for layoffs; internship programs; and mentoring, leadership development and other career development programs”, the US government agency said.

The agency said it took the action after Nike had failed to respond to a subpoena for various information, including the criteria used in selecting employees for redundancies and setting executives’ pay.

EEOC chair, Andrea Lucas, an ardent critic of racial diversity initiatives who was appointed last year by President Donald Trump, said US anti-discrimination law is “colour-blind” and protects employees of “all races”.

“Thanks to President Trump’s commitment to enforcing our nation’s civil rights laws, the EEOC has renewed its focus on even-handed enforcement of Title VII,” Lucas said in a statement, referring to a section of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, colour, religion or sex.

Nike, based in Beaverton, Oregon, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The EEOC’s action is seen as the latest move by the Trump administration to roll back policies promoting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in the workplace.

In one of his first acts upon returning to the White House, Trump signed an executive order to abolish “radical” and “wasteful” DEI initiatives introduced under his predecessor, Joe Biden.

Like many corporate giants in the US, Nike publicly backed social justice causes such as Black Lives Matter prior to Trump’s re-election in 2024.

Between 2020 and 2021, Nike’s share of non-white employees rose more than four percentage points, the most among firms apart from healthcare provider Danaher, according to a Bloomberg analysis of company data reported to the EEOC.

New Delhi, India – When US President Donald Trump announced a trade deal with India on Monday this week, he declared that New Delhi would pivot away from Russian energy as part of the agreement.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Trump said, had promised to stop buying Russian oil, and instead buy crude from the United States and from Venezuela, whose president, Nicolas Maduro, was abducted by US special forces in early January. Since then, the US has effectively taken control of Venezuela’s mammoth oil industry.

In return, Trump dialled down trade tariffs on Indian goods from an overall 50 percent to just 18 percent. Half of that 50 percent tariff was levied last year as punishment for India buying Russian oil, which the White House maintains is financing Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.

But since Monday, India has not publicly confirmed that it has committed to either ceasing its purchase of Russian oil or embracing Venezuelan crude, analysts note. Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, told reporters on Tuesday that Russia had received no indication of this from India, either.

And switching from Russian to Venezuelan oil will be far from straightforward. A cocktail of other factors – shocks to the energy market, costs, geography, and the characteristics of different kinds of oil – will complicate New Delhi’s decisions about its sourcing of oil, they say.

So, can India really dump Russian oil? And can Venezuelan crude replace it?

What is Trump’s plan?

Trump has been pressuring India to stop buying Russian oil for months. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the US and European Union placed an oil price cap on Russian crude in a bid to limit Russia’s ability to finance the war.

As a result, other countries including India began buying large quantities of cheap Russian oil. India, which before the war sourced only 2.5 percent of its oil from Russia, became the second-largest consumer of Russian oil after China. It currently sources around 30 percent of its oil from Russia.

Last year, Trump doubled trade tariffs on Indian goods from 25 percent to 50 percent as punishment for this. Later in the year, Trump also imposed sanctions on Russia’s two biggest oil companies – and threatened secondary sanctions against countries and entities that trade with these firms.

Since the abduction of Maduro by US forces in early January, Trump has effectively taken over the Venezuelan oil sector, controlling sales cash flows.

Venezuela also has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, estimated at 303 billion barrels, more than five times larger than those of the US, the world’s largest oil producer.

But while getting India to buy Venezuelan oil makes sense from the US’s perspective, analysts say this could be operationally messy.

How much oil does India import from Russia?

India currently imports nearly 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) of Russian crude, according to analytics company Kpler. Under Trump’s mounting pressure, that is lower than the average 1.21 million bpd in December 2025 and more than 2 million bpd in mid-2025.

One barrel is equivalent to 159 litres (42 gallons) of crude oil. Once refined, a barrel typically produces about 73 litres (19 gallons) of petrol for a car. Oil is also refined to produce a wide variety of products, from jet fuel to household items including plastics and even lotions.

Has India stopped Russian oil purchases?

India has reduced the amount of oil it buys from Russia over the past year, but it has not stopped buying it altogether.

Under increasing pressure from Trump, last August, Indian officials called out the “hypocrisy” of the US and EU pressuring New Delhi to back off from Russian crude.

“In fact, India began importing from Russia because traditional supplies were diverted to Europe after the outbreak of the conflict,” Randhir Jaiswal, India’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, said then. He added that India’s decision to import Russian oil was “meant to ensure predictable and affordable energy costs to the Indian consumer”.

Despite this, Indian refiners, currently the second-largest group of buyers of Russian oil after China, are reportedly winding up their purchases after clearing current scheduled orders.

Major refiners like Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd (HPCL), Mangalore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd (MRPL), and HPCL-Mittal Energy Ltd (HMEL) halted purchasing from Russia following the US sanctions against Russian oil producers last year.

Other players like Indian Oil Corporation (IOC), Bharat Petroleum Corporation, and Reliance Industries will soon stop their purchases.

What happens if India suddenly stops buying Russian oil?

Even if India wanted to stop importing Russian oil altogether, analysts argue it would be extremely costly to do so.

In September last year, India’s oil and petroleum minister, Hardeep Singh Puri, told reporters that it would also sharply push up energy prices and fuel inflation. “The world will face serious consequences if the supplies are disrupted. The world can’t afford to keep Russia off the oil market,” Puri said.

Analysts tend to agree. “A complete cessation of Indian purchases of Russian oil would be a major disruption. An immediate halt would spike global prices and threaten India’s economic growth,” said George Voloshin, an independent energy analyst based in Paris.

Russian oil would likely be diverted more heavily towards China and into “shadow” fleets of tankers that deliver sanctioned oil secretly by flying false flags and switching off location equipment, Voloshin told Al Jazeera. “Mainstream tanker demand would shift toward the Atlantic Basin, most likely increasing global freight rates as a result,” he noted.

Sumit Pokharna, vice president at Kotak Securities, noted that Indian refineries have reported robust margins in the last two years, majorly benefitting from the discounted Russian crude.

“If they move to higher-costing, like the US or Venezuela, then raw material cost would increase, and that would squeeze their margins,” he told Al Jazeera. “If it goes beyond control, they may have to pass the excess onto consumers.”

Can India stop buying Russian oil altogether?

It may not be able to. One of India’s two private refiners, Nayara Energy, is majority-Russian-owned and under heavy Western sanctions. The Russian energy firm Rosneft holds a 49.13 percent stake in the company, which operates a 400,000-barrel-per-day refinery in India’s Gujarat, PM Modi’s home state.

Nayara is the second-largest importer of Russian crude, buying about 471,000 barrels per day in January this year, accounting for nearly 40 percent of Russian supplies to India.

Its plant has relied solely on Russian crude since European Union sanctions were imposed on the company last July.

Nayara is not planning to load Russian oil in April as it shuts its refinery for more than a month for maintenance from April 10, according to Reuters.

Pokharna said the future of Nayara hangs in the balance, with the US unlikely to grant India an overt exemption for the Russia-backed company to import crude.

Can India switch to Venezuelan oil?

India has been a major consumer of Venezuelan oil in the past. At its peak, in 2019, India imported $7.2bn of oil, accounting for just under 7 percent of total imports. That stopped after the US slapped sanctions on Venezuelan oil, but some officials of the government-owned Oil and Natural Gas Corporation are still stationed in the Latin American country.

Now, major Indian refiners have said they are open to receiving Venezuelan oil again, but only if it is a viable option.

For one thing, Venezuela is roughly twice as far from India as Russia and five times further than the Middle East, meaning much higher freight costs.

Venezuelan oil is more expensive as well. “Russian Urals [a medium-heavy crude blend] has been trading at a wide-ranging discount of about $10-20 per barrel to Brent, while Venezuelan Merey currently offers a smaller discount of around $5-8 per barrel,” Voloshin told Al Jazeera.

“Importing from Venezuela and forgoing the Russian discount would be a costly affair for India,” said Pokharna. “From transportation cost to forgoing discounts, it could cost India $6-8 more per barrel – and that is a huge increase in the importing bill.”

Overall, a complete pivot away from Russia could raise India’s import bill by $9bn to $11bn – an amount roughly equal to India’s federal health budget – per year, according to Kpler.

“Venezuelan crude must be discounted by at least $10 to $12 per barrel to be competitive,” argued Voloshin. “This deeper discount is necessary to offset the much higher freight costs, increased insurance premiums for the longer Atlantic voyage, and the somewhat higher operational expenses required to process Venezuela’s extra-heavy high-sulfur crude.”

Without deeper discounts, the longer journey and complex handling make Venezuelan oil more expensive on a delivered basis, he added.

Another major issue is that many Indian refiners simply do not have the facilities to process very heavy Venezuelan oil.

Venezuelan crude is a heavy, sour oil, thick and viscous like molasses, with a high sulphur content requiring complex, specialised refineries to process it into fuel. Only a small number of Indian refineries are equipped to handle it.

“[Venezuelan oil’s heaviness] makes it an option only for complex refineries, leaving out older and smaller refineries,” Pokharna told Al Jazeera. “The shift is operationally difficult and would require blending with more expensive light crudes.”

Then there is the question of availability. Today, Venezuela produces barely a million barrels per day when pushed to its limit. Even if all production was sent to India, it would not match the total Russian oil import.

Where else could India buy oil?

India’s Minister Puri has said that New Delhi is looking to diversify sourcing options from nearly 40 countries.

As India has reduced Russian imports, it has increased them from Middle Eastern nations and other countries in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Now, while Russia accounts for nearly 27 percent share in India’s oil imports, OPEC nations, led by Iraq and Saudi Arabia, contribute 53 percent.

Reeling from Trump’s trade war, India has also increased purchases of US oil. American crude imports to India rose by 92 percent from April to November in 2025 to nearly 13 million tons, compared to 7.1 million in the same period in 2024.

However, India would be competing for these supplies with the European Union, which has pledged to spend $750bn by 2028 on US energy and nuclear products.

Meanwhile, for Venezuela to return to higher production, Caracas needs political stability, changes in foreign investment and oil laws, and to clear debts. That will take time, experts say.

Walmart has reached a $1 trillion market valuation, a first for the big-box retailer.

The company’s shares hit a high on Tuesday morning trade as the stock continues to soar on the news of a new CEO and looming trade negotiations with India, where the Arkansas-based company maintains a large presence both in supply chain and domestic markets within India. The stock was up 2.1 percent from the market open in midday trading.

Walmart, which has 11,000 stores in 19 countries, joins a slate of nine corporate giants in the so-called trillion dollar club, including Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet, and Microsoft, among others. Amazon is the only other retailer that has broken the barrier and is now valued at $2.6 trillion.

Trade deal bump

On Monday, United States President Donald Trump announced a trade deal with India that would slash tariffs to 18 percent from 50 percent and that impacts Walmart, which has strategically shifted supply chain operations to India and away from China.

On Tuesday, in an interview with CNBC, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said that the White House is still ironing out the details of the deal, but that still hasn’t slowed Walmart’s stock from popping on the looming deal.

“We have an announcement of an India deal, but still no timeline about when it comes into effect and whether the secondary tariffs, the 25 percent linked to India’s purchase of Russian oil, when those would be removed, so I think there’s still a lot of questions,” economist Rachel Ziemba, founder of Ziemba Insights, told Al Jazeera.

While there are limited details on the specifics of the deal, markets are responding to tariffs likely to come down.

“Markets are, of course, forward-looking. I think this sort of reinforces a view in the marketplace that incremental tariffs will be less this year,” Ziemba said.

The big box retailer jumped from 2 percent of its global exports coming from India in 2018 to 25 percent in 2023, according to a Reuters review of import data in 2023. Walmart hopes to source $10bn in goods from India by next year.

At the time, the company also decreased its percentage of goods from China to 60 percent from 80 percent.

Walmart did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

The Federation of Indian Export Organisations (FIEO), a lobby for exporters, said the cut in US tariffs will significantly boost Indian exports, including textiles and apparel, putting them on par with Asian peers, such as Vietnam and Bangladesh.

According to data from ImportYeti, a platform that tracks import contracts for major companies, Walmart’s biggest import areas are in home fabrics, apparel and toys.

“Those are the products facing the highest tariffs, while consumer electronics and other categories have largely been shielded. If the India–US deal becomes a reality, it would put tariffs on Indian goods entering the US at roughly the same level as those from Southeast Asia, making that supply-chain realignment more attractive. You also highlight the importance of the Indian market,” Ziemba added.

While the trade deal is in focus, Walmart has also invested significantly in India domestically, as well, and holds an 80 percent stake in India’s e-commerce giant Flipkart.

C-suite changes

The surge also comes concurrently with a shake-up in the C-suite. On Monday, John Furner took over as Walmart’s chief executive, succeeding longtime CEO Doug McMillion who announced his retirement late last year.

Furner, who started at the company in a job stocking shelves, has climbed up the ladder. Most recently, he served as the CEO of Walmart US, where he focused on key initiatives driving growth, including curbside pick-up. Prior to that, he served as the CEO of Sam’s Club, Walmart’s wholesale chain.

Furner’s appointment comes as the company grows as an e-commerce giant and intends to double down in AI tech, healthcare services, e-commerce, and hybrid options with its brick-and-mortar footprint.

“As AI rapidly reshapes retail, we are centralizing our platforms to accelerate shared capabilities, freeing up our operating segments to be more focused on and closer to our customers and members,” Walmart said in a statement last month.

“Walmart is masterful at brick-and-mortar retail and remains highly competitive with Amazon. I love that because it shows consumerism is still alive and well. Five years ago, the narrative was the fall of the mall and the decline of retail. This confirms the opposite. Walmart also has a clear strategy for retaining consumers and managing the customer experience,” Brett Rose, CEO and founder of United National Consumer Suppliers (UNCS), a distributor that focuses on excess inventories, which it provides to more budget-friendly retailers, told Al Jazeera.

The tech-centric focus comes as e-commerce has grown for the company, which reported a 28 percent jump in e-commerce sales compared with the previous quarter. Walmart is slated to release its next earnings report on February 19.

“What you need to look at is that Walmart has successfully become a marketplace, not as big as Amazon, but big enough to give it a run for its money,” said Rose.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer says ex-envoy Peter Mandelson should no longer hold a seat in the upper house of parliament.

Police in the United Kingdom have announced they are reviewing allegations of misconduct in public office following revelations that London’s former ambassador to Washington leaked confidential government information to the late financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

The announcement by the Metropolitan Police on Monday came after investigative files released by United States authorities revealed that Peter Mandelson shared government plans with Epstein while serving as a UK minister.

Mandelson, who served as business secretary under former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, told Epstein about asset sales and tax changes under consideration by London in 2009, as well as plans for the 500 billion euro ($590bn) bailout of the single currency in 2010, according to emails released by the US Department of Justice on Friday.

“Following this release and subsequent media reporting, the Met has received a number of reports relating to alleged misconduct in public office. The reports will all be reviewed to determine if they meet the criminal threshold for investigation,” Metropolitan Police Commander Ella Marriott said in a statement.

“As with any matter, if new and relevant information is brought to our attention we will assess it, and investigate as appropriate,” Marriott added.

The Metropolitan Police did not name Mandelson, but its statement came after the leader of the pro-independence Scottish National Party said he had written to the police commissioner urging him to investigate the former ambassador for alleged misconduct in public office.

Earlier on Monday, Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced an inquiry into Mandelson’s ties to Epstein.

Starmer, who sacked Mandelson as London’s top diplomat in Washington last year after the emergence of correspondence detailing his ties to Epstein, also said the former minister should lose his lifelong appointment to the UK’s upper house of parliament.

On Sunday, Mandelson resigned from the governing Labour Party, whose return to electoral dominance he helped to engineer in the 1990s, citing his wish to avoid causing further embarrassment to his colleagues.

In further fallout in the UK on Monday, the charity launched by Sarah Ferguson, the ex-wife of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, announced that it would close “for the foreseeable future” amid revelations about her friendly relationship with Epstein.

“Our chair Sarah Ferguson and the board of trustees have agreed that with regret the charity will shortly close for the foreseeable future,” a spokesman said in a statement, without elaborating on the reasons for the closure.

Separately on Monday, the US Justice Department said it had removed thousands of Epstein-related files from the internet after lawyers representing some of his alleged victims said their identities had been exposed due to insufficient redactions in the latest release of documents.

United States President Donald Trump has announced the launch of a strategic minerals stockpile.

The stockpile, called Project Vault, was announced on Monday. It will combine $2bn of private capital with a $10bn loan from the US Export-Import Bank.

It is the latest move by the White House to invest in rare-earth minerals needed in the production of key goods, including semiconductor chips, smartphones and electric car batteries.

The aim is to “ensure that American businesses and workers are never harmed by any shortage”, Trump said at the White House.

The move to develop a strategic stockpile is the latest in a slew of efforts by the Trump administration to take control of the means of production for critical rare-earth materials to limit reliance on other countries, particularly China, which has held up its exports to gain leverage in negotiations with Trump.

Here’s a look at some of the investments the US government has made in this space.

What are the investments?

In 2025, the Trump administration acquired equity stakes in seven companies by converting federal grants into ownership positions. Among the investments is a 10 percent stake in USA Rare Earth, which plans to build rare-earth element and magnet production facilities in the US.

The project is supported by $1.6bn in funding allocated under the CHIPS Act, legislation passed during the administration of former Democratic President Joe Biden, aimed at reducing dependence on China for semiconductor manufacturing.

USA Rare Earth announced the investment last week and expects commercial production to begin in 2028.

The US government also acquired a roughly 10 percent stake, valued at about $1.9bn, in Korea Zinc to help fund a $7.4bn smelter in Tennessee through a joint venture controlled by the US government and unnamed US-based strategic investors, who would then control about 10 percent of the South Korean firm.

The venture will operate a mining complex anchored by two mines and the only operational zinc smelter in the US. Construction is set to begin this year, with commercial operations expected to start in 2029.

In October, the government announced a $35.6m investment to acquire a 10 percent stake in Canadian-based Trilogy Metals to support the Upper Kobuk Mineral Projects (UKMP) in Alaska. The investment backs the development of critical minerals, including copper, zinc, gold, and silver, in Alaska’s mineral-rich northwest Ambler mining district.

Also in October, the US announced a 5 percent stake in Lithium Americas as part of a joint venture with General Motors (GM) to fund operations at the Thacker Pass lithium mine in Nevada. The project will supply lithium for electric vehicles and has attracted significant interest from the Detroit-based automaker.

In August, the White House acquired an almost 10 percent stake in Intel. The government’s investment in the semiconductor chip giant was an effort to help fund the construction and expansion of the company’s domestic manufacturing capabilities.

In July, the White House announced a 15 percent investment in MP Materials, which operates the only currently active rare-earth mine in the US, located in California. The largest federal stakeholder in the investment is the Department of War, then called the Department of Defense, which committed $400m.

The US is also reportedly exploring an 8 percent share in Critical Minerals for a stake in the Tranbreez rare-earths deposit in Greenland, underscoring Trump’s unsolicited attempts to acquire the Danish self-governed territory, the Reuters news agency reported.

Amid news of Trump’s stockpile plan, sector stocks are mixed. MP Materials and Intel are up 0.6 percent and 5 percent, respectively. Others finished out the day trending downwards. Lithium Americas is down 2.2 percent. Trilogy metals is down almost 2 percent, USA Rare Earth is down by 1.3 percent, and Korean Zinc finished down 12.6 percent.

Is this unusual?

The government buying equity stakes in large companies is unusual in US history, but not unprecedented.

During the 2008 financial crisis, the US government temporarily acquired equity stakes in several major companies through the Troubled Asset Relief Programme (TARP). In 2009, TARP provided federal assistance to General Motors, ultimately leaving the government with a more than 60 percent ownership share. This intervention began in the final months of the administration of former President George W Bush. The government fully sold its stake in GM in 2013.

Through TARP, the government also acquired a 9.9 percent stake in Chrysler, which it exited in 2011.

The programme extended beyond car makers to the financial sector. The US government took a more than 73 percent stake in GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corporation, now Ally Financial), exiting its ownership in 2014. It also acquired nearly 74 percent of the financial services insurance giant AIG, selling its remaining stake in 2012, and took a 34 percent stake in Citigroup, which it fully exited by 2010.

“This isn’t like 2008, when there was an urgent need to shore up critical companies. There’s a much more measured approach here. They [the US government] want these investments to generate returns, and they need to be seen as good investments in order to attract other forms of capital,” Nick Giles, senior equity research analyst at B Riley Securities, an investment banking and capital markets firm, told Al Jazeera.

During the Great Depression, the government bought stakes in several large banks. Before that, at the turn of the 20th century, it bought an equity stake in the Panama Railroad Company, which was responsible for building the railway that would be used during the construction of the Panama Canal. That equity stake was attached to a specific project rather than a more open-ended challenge, such as foreign dependence on critical minerals.

“There may not be a defined end date, but they’re clearly looking to make a return, and it sends an important signal that more is coming. I don’t think they [the government] are going to let this fail,” Giles added.

Political divide on the approach

Interest in providing funds to critical mineral projects was shared by Trump’s predecessor, Biden, who brought in the CHIPS Act for that purpose. Biden was focused on providing grants for projects rather than buying equity stakes.

Trump’s approach to buy stakes is actually more aligned with progressive Democrats than with members of his own party. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has long been a proponent of the US government buying equity stakes in companies.

In August, after the White House bought an equity stake in Intel, Sanders applauded the move.

“Taxpayers should not be providing billions of dollars in corporate welfare to large, profitable corporations like Intel without getting anything in return,” Sanders said at the time.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, a Republican known for his libertarian stances, called ownership a “terrible idea” and referred to it as a “step towards socialism” on CNBC. North Carolina’s Thom Tillis likened the Intel investment to something that countries like China or Russia would do.

For Babak Hafezi, professor of international business at the American University, the investments are a step to remove any reliance on China.

“Without domestic control and resiliency in both extraction and production, we are dependent on China, which extracts nearly 60 percent of global rare-earth minerals and produces 90 percent of it. This creates a major global chokepoint, and China can use this chokepoint as a means to dictate American Foreign policy via supply chain limitations,” he said.

“Thus, establishing free and open markets for US consumption is critical to remove any dependency.”

New budget includes a $7.6m military spending increase and aims to cut the deficit to 5 percent by the end of 2026.

France has passed a budget for 2026 after two no-confidence motions failed, allowing the legislation to pass and potentially heralding a period of relative stability for Prime Minister Sebastien Lecornu’s weak minority government.

The budget, adopted on Monday after four months of political deadlock over government spending, includes measures to bring France’s deficit down and boost military spending.

“France finally has a budget,” Lecornu said in a post on X. “A budget that makes clear choices and addresses essential priorities. A budget that contains public spending and does not raise taxes for households and businesses.”

Motions tabled by France Unbowed, the Greens and other left-wing groups drew 260 of the 289 votes needed to oust the government. The far-right motion secured only 135 votes.

Budget negotiations have consumed the French political class for nearly two years, after President Emmanuel Macron’s 2024 snap election delivered a ⁠hung parliament just as a massive hole in public finances made belt-tightening more urgent.

The budget talks have cost two prime ​ministers their jobs, unsettled debt markets and alarmed France’s European partners.

However, Lecornu – whose chaotic two-stage nomination in October ‍drew derision around the world – managed to secure the support of Socialist lawmakers through costly but targeted concessions.

Reducing the deficit

France is under pressure from the European Union to rein in its debt-to-GDP ratio – the bloc’s third-highest after Greece and Italy – which is close to twice the EU’s 60-percent ceiling.

The bill aims to cut France’s deficit to five percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2026 from 5.4 percent in 2025, after the government eased back from an earlier target of 4.7 percent.

The budget includes higher taxes on some businesses, expected to bring in about 7.3 billion euros ($8.6bn) in 2026, though the Socialists failed to secure backing for a proposed wealth tax on the superrich.

It also boosts military spending by 6.5 billion euros ($7.7m), a move the premier last week described as the “heart” of the budget.

The Socialists did, however, win several sought-after measures, including a one-euro meal for students and an increase in a top-up payment for low-income workers.

Tehran, Iran – Iran’s economic outlook appears increasingly grim more than three weeks after the start of what became one of the most comprehensive and prolonged state-imposed internet blackouts in history, impacting a population of more than 90 million people.

Iranian authorities abruptly cut off all communications across the country on the night of January 8, at the height of nationwide protests that the United Nations and international human rights organisations say were suppressed with the use of deadly force.

Most of Iran’s internet bandwidth, local and international phone calls and SMS text messages have been restored over recent days. But most of the country is still unable to freely connect to the global internet amid heavy filtering by the state.

The increased bandwidth allows more people to circumvent state restrictions using a variety of proxies and virtual private networks (VPNs), but solutions are often costly and temporary.

Last week, Information and Communications Technology Minister Sattar Hashemi told reporters his ministry estimates that the Iranian economy suffered at least 50 trillion rials (about $33m at the current exchange rate) in damages on a daily basis during the blackout.

But the minister admitted that the true toll is likely much higher, and said that other ministers and economic officials have privately offered heftier estimates that he did not expand upon.

‘Can’t do anything without the internet’

The government of President Masoud Pezeshkian has said the decision to fully block connectivity was taken outside of its control by the Supreme National Security Council.

Pezeshkian, who had made scaling back internet filtering a main campaign promise, has refrained from talking about Iran’s largest internet blackout to date, instead focusing on economic reforms and cash subsidies.

The administration has promised to offer online businesses financial support, but the losses have already been sudden, acute, and too heavy to bear for many.

Simin Siami, a travel agent working in Tehran, told Al Jazeera that her company lost most of its income and had to lay off a number of employees.

“Most international flights were cancelled, and there was no way to purchase tickets or compare existing flights,” she said, adding that her company was also unable to book hotels for customers, who were initially even unable to renew their passports.

“Unfortunately, that limited our services to selling tickets for local flights and booking local hotels, and cancelled all our previous international tickets and bookings.”

Saeed Mirzaei, who works at an immigration agency in the capital, said 46 employees at his company had to go on mandatory leave for weeks amid the shutdown.

He told Al Jazeera that they suddenly lost all contact with foreign counterparts, were unable to get updated information from embassies, and missed deadlines to apply for universities on behalf of their customers wishing to leave a heavily sanctioned Iran for better opportunities.

“We can’t do anything without the internet because our work deals directly with it,” Mirzaei said.

National internet a ‘bitter joke’

During the blackout, Iran’s theocratic establishment even struggled to sustain basic services using the so-called National Information Network, a limited nationalised intranet.

The connection to the intranet was slow and patchy, many companies remained disconnected from it, and those that were allowed to connect retained only a fraction of their customer base amid general economic stagnation across the country.

Hashemi, the communications minister, said a demand by hardliners within the establishment to move away from using the international web in favour of a domestic connection was a “bitter joke” that is not feasible to enforce.

He said his ministry estimates that the country’s online businesses could survive under a blackout for roughly 20 days, signalling that the state had no choice this week but to gradually restore internet bandwidth.

Figures for economic damages incurred by the blackout published by officials reflect only the visible costs and do not account for hidden losses, according to Abazar Barari, a member of Iran’s Chamber of Commerce.

“In the import and export sector, processes are heavily dependent on the internet from the very initial stages – such as price negotiations, issuance of pro forma and other invoices – to coordination with transportation companies and the verification of documents. As a result, the internet shutdown effectively disrupted foreign trade,” he told Al Jazeera.

“During this period, customer attrition also occurred, with the damage being particularly severe in certain food commodities, as many countries are unwilling to tie their food security to unstable supply conditions.”

‘They have no right to do this’

In a tumultuous country with one of the highest inflation rates in the world, numerous Iranians who tried to make money online to stay afloat are now deeply anxious as well.

From owners of small online businesses to teachers, chefs, crypto traders, gamers and streamers, people are taking to social media to ask others for extra support after the gradual reconnect this week.

Mehrnaz, a young video editor in Tehran, said she only went back to work this week after her company put her on forced leave without pay from the start of the protests in the city’s business district in late December.

“I was on the verge of having to move back to my parents’ house in another city. I’m only 25, and I hit near-zero for the second time this year. There might not be another time,” she said, pointing out that the first time was during the 12-day war with Israel and the United States in June.

Iran’s National Post Company announced on Sunday that postal deliveries experienced a 60-percent fall at the height of the blackout, mainly damaging small and home-based businesses that depended on mailing their products.

But beyond livelihoods, many in Iran are also angered by the fact that the state can cut off communications on command, violating the people’s right to benefit from the internet.

“They had the nerve to create a tiered internet and decide which type of use is ‘essential’,” said a woman who asked not to be identified for safety reasons.

“My child wants to search about his favourite animation movies, my mom wants to read news on Telegram, and my dad wants to download books. I want to go online and write that they have no right to do this.”

Modi’s government presents annual budget, focusing on sustaining growth despite volatile financial markets and trade uncertainty.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has unveiled its annual budget, aiming for steady growth in an uncertain global economy rocked by recent tariff wars.

Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presented the budget for the 2026-2027 financial year in Parliament on Sunday, prioritising infrastructure and domestic manufacturing, with a total expenditure estimated at $583bn.

India’s economy has so far weathered punitive tariffs of 50 percent imposed by United States President Donald Trump over New Delhi’s imports of Russian oil. The government has sought to offset the impact of those duties by striking deals, such as its trade agreement with the European Union.

Despite the past year’s challenges, the Indian economy has remained one of the world’s fastest growing.

The budget for the new financial year, which starts on April 1, projects gross domestic product (GDP) growth in the range of 6.8 to 7.2 percent, according to the government’s annual Economic Survey presented in Parliament. It is a shade softer than this year’s projected 7.4 percent but still outpaces estimates by global institutions such as the World Bank.

To keep growth strong, the government said it will spend 12.2 trillion rupees ($133bn) on infrastructure in the new fiscal year, compared with 11.2 trillion rupees ($122bn) last year. It will also aim to boost manufacturing in seven strategic sectors, including pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, rare-earth magnets, chemicals, capital goods, textiles and sports goods while stepping up investments in niche industries like artificial intelligence.

Despite plans to prop up growth with state spending, the government is aiming to bring down the federal government debt-to-GDP ratio from 56.1 percent to 55.6 percent in the next financial year and the fiscal deficit from its current projected level of 4.4 percent of GDP to 4.3 percent.

Sitharaman offered no populist giveaways, saying New Delhi would focus on building resilience at home while strengthening its position in global supply chains, marking a departure from last year’s budget, which wooed the salaried middle class with steep tax cuts.

Before the budget presentation, Modi on Thursday said the nation was “moving away from long-term problems to tread the path of long-term solutions”.

“Long term solutions provide predictability that fosters trust in the world,” he said.

Modi’s government has struggled to raise manufacturing from its current level of contributing under 20 percent of India’s GDP to 25 percent to generate jobs for the millions of people entering the nation’s workforce each year.

It has also seen a sharp decline in the value of the rupee, which has recently weakened to all-time lows after foreign investors sold a record amount of Indian equities. Those sales have added up to $22bn since January last year.

“Overall, this is a budget without fireworks – not a big positive, not a big negative,” Aishvarya Dadheech, founder and chief investment officer at Mumbai-based Fident Asset Management, told the Reuters news agency.

Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel has denounced what he called an attempt by his United States counterpart, Donald Trump, to “suffocate” the sanctions-hit country’s economy.

Trump signed an executive order on Thursday threatening additional tariffs on countries that sell oil to Cuba, the latest move in Washington’s campaign of pressure on Havana. The order alleged that the government of communist-run Cuba was an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security.

In a social media post on Friday, Diaz-Canel said that under “a false and baseless pretext”, Trump plans “to suffocate” Cuba’s economy by slapping tariffs “on countries that sovereignly trade oil” with it.

“This new measure reveals the fascist, criminal and genocidal nature of a clique that has hijacked the interests of the American people for purely personal ends,” he said, in an apparent allusion to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a Cuban American and a known anti-Cuban government hawk.

Cuba, which is suffering rolling electricity blackouts blamed on fuel shortages, was cut off from critical supplies of Venezuelan oil after the US abducted Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro and his wife in a bloody military night raid on the capital, Caracas, earlier this month. At least 32 members of Cuba’s armed forces and intelligence agencies were killed in the January 3 attack.

The US has since taken effective control of Venezuela’s oil sector, and Trump, a Republican, has issued threats against other left-wing governments in the region, promising to stop oil shipments previously sent to Cuba.

Cuba’s Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez on Friday declared an “international emergency” in response to Trump’s move, which he said constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat”.

Venezuela’s government also condemned the measure in a statement on Friday, saying it violates international law and the principles of global commerce.

Reporting from Cuba’s capital, Al Jazeera’s Ed Augustin said Trump’s announcement “is a massive psychological blow”, noting that analysts describe it as the “most powerful economic blow the United States has ever dealt the island”.

Days after Maduro’s abduction and transfer to the US, Trump urged Cuba to make a deal “before it is too late,” without specifying what kind of agreement he was referring to.

In a post on social media, Trump suggested Rubio could become the president of Cuba. “Sounds good to me!” he wrote on his Truth Social platform.

‘There’s no solution’

In Havana, residents expressed anger at Trump’s tariff threat, which will only make life harder for Cubans already struggling with an increase in US sanctions.

“My food is going bad. We haven’t had electricity since 6am,” Yenia Leon told Al Jazeera. “You can’t sleep. You have to buy food every day. There’s no solution to the power situation,” she said.

“This is a war,” Lazaro Alfonso, an 89-year-old retired graphic designer, told The Associated Press news agency, describing Trump as the “sheriff of the world” and saying he feels like he is living in the Wild West, where anything goes.

Alfonso, who lived through the severe economic depression in the 1990s known as the “Special Period” following cuts in Soviet aid, said the current situation in Cuba is worse, given the severe blackouts, a lack of basic goods and a scarcity of fuel.

“The only thing that’s missing here in Cuba … is for bombs to start falling,” he said.

Meanwhile, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she would seek alternatives to continue helping Cuba after Trump’s announcement following a decision this week to temporarily halt oil shipments to the island amid heightened rhetoric from Trump.

Mexico became a key supplier of fuel to Cuba, along with Russia, after the US sanctions on Venezuela paralysed the delivery of crude oil to the island.

Sheinbaum said cutting off oil shipments to Cuba could trigger a “far-reaching humanitarian crisis” on the island, affecting transportation, hospitals and access to food. She did not say whether Mexico would cut shipments of oil or refined products to Cuba, which ‌she said accounted for 1 percent of Mexico’s production.

“Our interest is that the Cuban people don’t suffer,” Sheinbaum said, adding that she had instructed her foreign minister to contact the US ‌State Department to better understand the scope of the executive order.

Mexico supplied 44 percent of Cuban oil imports and Venezuela exported 33 percent until last month, while some 10 percent of Cuban oil is sourced from Russia. Some oil is also sourced from Algeria, according to The Financial Times figures.

In November last year, a senior United Nations expert said the long-running US sanctions on Cuba must be lifted as they are “causing significant effects across all aspects of life”.

The US imposed a near-total trade embargo on Cuba in 1962, with the goal of toppling the government put in place by Fidel Castro after he took power in a 1959 revolution. Castro himself was the target of numerous assassination attempts by the US’s Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA.

Alena Douhan, special rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, said the “extensive regime of economic, trade and financial restrictions” against Cuba marks the longest-running unilateral sanctions policy in US history.

She noted that there are shortages of food, medicine, electricity, water, essential machinery and spare parts in Cuba, while a growing emigration of skilled workers, including medical staff, engineers and teachers, is further straining the country.

The accumulative effect has “severe consequences for the enjoyment of human rights, including the rights to life, food, health and development”, Douhan said.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer arrived in China this week with a large delegation of businesspeople and cultural figures.

He received a warm welcome from Chinese President Xi Jinping.

But the visit got a frosty reception from the White House, with United States President Donald Trump calling Starmer’s trip “dangerous”.

What prompted Trump’s remarks? And how important was the British prime minister’s visit?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Will Hutton – Political economist

Andy Mok – Senior research fellow at the Center for China and Globalization

Steve Tsang – Director of the China Institute at SOAS University of London

United States President Donald Trump has nominated former Federal Reserve Governor Kevin Warsh to head the US central bank when current Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s term ends in May.

The announcement on Friday caps a months-long, highly publicised search for a new chair of the Federal Reserve, widely regarded as one of the most influential economic officials in the world.

It comes amid Trump’s public pressure campaign on Powell, whom he appointed during his first term but has repeatedly condemned for not cutting interest rates at the pace the president would like.

“I have known Kevin for a long period of time, and have no doubt that he will go down as one of the GREAT Fed Chairmen, maybe the best,” Trump posted on his Truth Social site. “On top of everything else, he is ‘central casting,’ and he will never let you down.”

The statement referenced the apparent compromise Warsh represents. The 55-year-old is known to be in Trump’s orbit and has recently called for lower interest rates, although he is expected to stop short of the more aggressive easing associated with some other potential candidates for the job.

Still, he is expected to face a punishing Senate confirmation hearing, with US lawmakers likely to be particularly critical given Trump’s public comments and the Department of Justice’s decision earlier this month to open a criminal probe into Powell.

Critics, including Powell, have said Trump’s actions seek to undermine the Federal Reserve’s independence and pressure the agency to set monetary policy aligned with the president’s wishes.

What does the Federal Reserve do?

The Federal Reserve has long been seen as a stabilising force in global financial markets, due in part to its perceived independence from politics.

The Federal Reserve is tasked with combating inflation in the United States while also supporting maximum employment. It is also the nation’s top banking regulator.

The agency’s rate decisions over time influence borrowing costs throughout the economy, including for mortgages, car loans and credit cards.

In a statement, Senator Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the US Senate Banking Committee, said, “This nomination is the latest step in Trump’s attempt to seize control of the Fed.”

She pointed to the investigation into Powell, as well as Trump’s effort to push out Fed Governor Lisa Cook, which is currently being challenged before the US Supreme Court.

“No Republican purporting to care about Fed independence should agree to move forward with this nomination until Trump drops his witch-hunt,” Warren said.

Republican Senator Thom Tillis, meanwhile, said he would not vote to confirm any nominee until the Department of Justice probe into Powell is ended.

“Protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve from political interference or legal intimidation is non-negotiable,” he said in a statement.

Still, some Republicans welcomed the nomination.

“No one is better suited to steer the Fed and refocus our central bank on its core statutory mandate,” Republican Senator Bill Hagerty said in a statement.

If Warsh is confirmed, it remains unclear if Powell would immediately step down or finish out his term. Traditionally, Federal Reserve Chairs step aside as soon as their replacement is appointed, but the political situation has led to speculation Powell could stay on as long as possible.

Who is Warsh?

Warsh is currently a fellow at the right-leaning Hoover Institution and a lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Business.

He was a member of the Federal Reserve’s board from 2006 to 2011 and became the youngest Federal Reserve Governor in history when he was appointed at age 35.

He was an economic aide in George W Bush’s Republican administration and was an investment banker at Morgan Stanley. His father-in-law is Ronald Lauder, heir to the Estee Lauder cosmetics fortune and a longtime donor and confidant of Trump’s.

Warsh has historically supported higher interest rates to control inflation, but has more recently argued for lower rates.

He has been a vocal critic of current Federal Reserve leadership, calling for “regime change” and criticising Powell for engaging on issues like climate change, which Warsh has said are outside the role’s mandate.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Kimberly Halkett said Warsh’s experience means his appointment will likely be well received by the markets.

“The consensus is that in the short term, yes, this is a nominee who will do what the president has asked,” she said.

“But what he could do long term as chair of the board is very similar, ironically, to what Jerome Powell, the current board chair, is doing right now,” she said.

“That is having independence – making decisions based on economic data and not necessarily on political whims of a president.”

Venezuela’s interim President Delcy Rodriguez has signed into law a reform bill that will pave the way for increased privatisation in the South American country’s nationalised oil sector, fulfilling a key demand from her United States counterpart, Donald Trump.

On Thursday, Rodriguez held a signing ceremony with a group of state oil workers. She hailed the reform as a positive step for Venezuela’s economy.

“We’re talking about the future. We are talking about the country that we are going to give to our children,” Rodriguez said.

The ceremony came within hours of the National Assembly – dominated by members of Rodriguez’s United Socialist Party – passing the reform.

“Only good things will come after the suffering,” said Jorge Rodriguez, the assembly’s head and brother of the interim president.

Since the US military’s abduction of Venezuela’s former leader Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores on January 3, the Trump administration has sought to pressure President Rodriguez to open the country’s oil sector to outside investment.

Trump has even warned that Rodriguez could “pay a very big price, probably bigger than Maduro”, should she fail to comply with his demands.

Thursday’s legislation will give private firms control over the sale and production of Venezuelan oil.

It would also require legal disputes to be resolved outside of Venezuelan courts, a change long sought by foreign companies, who argue that the judicial system in the country is dominated by the ruling socialist party.

The bill would also cap royalties collected by the government at 30 percent.

While Rodriguez signed the reform law, the Trump administration simultaneously announced it would loosen some sanctions restricting the sale of Venezuelan oil.

The Department of the Treasury said it would allow limited transactions by the country’s government and the state oil company PDVSA that were “necessary to the lifting, exportation, reexportation, sale, resale, supply, storage, marketing, purchase, delivery, or transportation of Venezuelan-origin oil, including the refining of such oil, by an established US entity”.

Previously, all of Venezuela’s oil sector was subject to sweeping US sanctions imposed in 2019, under Trump’s first term as president.

Thursday’s suite of changes is designed to make Venezuela’s oil market more appealing to outside petroleum firms, many of whom remain wary of investing in the country.

Under Maduro, Venezuela experienced waves of political repression and economic instability, and much of his government remains intact, though Maduro himself is currently awaiting trial in a New York prison.

His abduction resulted in dozens of deaths, and critics have accused the US of violating Venezuelan sovereignty.

Venezuela nationalised its oil sector in the 1970s, and in 2007, Maduro’s predecessor, Hugo Chavez, pushed the government to increase its control and expropriate foreign-held assets.

Following Maduro’s abduction, Trump administration officials have said that the US will decide to whom and under what conditions Venezuelan oil is sold, with proceeds deposited into a US-controlled bank account.

Concerns about the legality of such measures or the sovereignty of Venezuela have been waved aside by Trump and his allies, who previously asserted that Venezuelan oil should “belong” to the US.

It was built on democracy, open markets and cooperation – with America at the helm.

But the rules-based global order created after World War II is now under strain. Conflicts are rising. International rules are being tested. Trade tensions are escalating. And alliances are shifting.

At the centre of it all is US President Donald Trump.

In just a few short weeks, he’s captured Venezuela’s president, vowed to take control of Greenland, and threatened to slap tariffs on those who oppose him.

Meanwhile, China is presenting itself as a stable partner.

Many warn that the global order is starting to break apart.

Musk’s electric car company says it will invest $2bn in artificial intelligence start-up as part of pivot away from auto market.

Tesla has reported its first-ever decline in annual revenue on a busy day for corporate earnings that also saw the release of results from Microsoft, Meta and Samsung Electronics.

Elon Musk’s electric car company said on Wednesday that revenue fell 3 percent year-on-year to $24.9bn in the final quarter of 2025. Revenue for all of 2025 was $94.8bn, down from $97.7bn the previous year.

Net profit fell 61 percent to $840m in the quarter, taking profit for the year to $3.8bn, down sharply from $7.1bn in 2024.

The Austin, Texas-based company also revealed that it had agreed to invest $2bn in Musk’s artificial intelligence start-up xAI – the developer of Musk’s controversial Grok chatbot – as part of a push to lessen its reliance on the auto market.

“Together, the investment and the related framework agreement are intended to enhance Tesla’s ability to develop and deploy AI products and services into the physical world at scale,” the company said in its earnings report.

Tesla shares rose about 2.2 percent in after-hours trading.

Also on Wednesday, tech giants Microsoft, Meta and Samsung reported strong earnings in their latest reports to shareholders.

Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, reported a profit of $22.8bn on revenue of $59.9bn in the October-December period, a 6 percent rise year-on-year.

Meta shares surged nearly 7 percent in extended-hours trading.

Microsoft said profit rose 60 percent to $38.5bn in the final quarter, based on revenue of $81.3bn.

“We are only at the beginning phases of AI diffusion and already Microsoft has built an AI business that is larger than some of our biggest franchises,” Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said in a statement.

“We are pushing the frontier across our entire AI stack to drive new value for our customers and partners.”

Despite its strong earnings, Microsoft’s announcement that capital spending hit a record $37.5bn in the second quarter stoked fears of an AI investment bubble, sending stock prices sharply lower.

Microsoft’s shares fell more than 6 percent in after-hours trading on Wednesday.

Samsung Electronics, the biggest producer of memory chips globally, reported a profit of 20.1 trillion won ($13.98bn) on revenue of 93.8 trillion won ($65.6bn), a more than three-fold rise from the previous year.