Fed's Mary Daly: Policy is Set for Any Economic Outcome

Source: AP

As Iran’s clerical rulers confront one of the most significant threats to their power in years, their key partner, China, is showing increasing hesitancy to intervene. With the United States threatening potential military action in support of Iranian protesters, Beijing’s limited options and quiet stance reveal the true nature of its relationship with Tehran—one built on convenience, not conviction.

Experts argue that this alignment is pragmatic, driven by mutual interests rather than deep-seated trust. This has become clear as Iranian authorities carry out a bloody crackdown on mass anti-establishment protests, which has prompted US President Donald Trump to impose new tariffs and warn of "very strong action" against the country.

Jonathan Fulton, a specialist on China-Middle East relations at Zayed University in Abu Dhabi, notes that while Iran is an important partner, Beijing isn't necessarily committed to the current regime. "I don't think Beijing is particularly wedded to the Islamic Republic," he wrote. "There is utility [for China] in a large anti-Western government in the Gulf, but whether that's run by the Ayatollah or the military or a council of elders, I think Beijing is largely agnostic. As long as the energy flows, they're fine with it."

Beijing's Measured Response

China's official response to the crisis in Iran has been carefully limited. Beijing has focused its public statements on condemning US economic pressure, particularly Trump's announcement of an additional 25 percent tariff on countries doing business with Iran.

"We have always believed that there are no winners in a tariff war, and China will resolutely safeguard its legitimate rights and interests," stated Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning on January 13.

When asked a day earlier about Tehran's violent crackdown, which has reportedly killed at least 2,400 protesters, Mao expressed hope that "the Iranian government and people will overcome the current difficulties and maintain national stability." This cautious wording highlights a desire to avoid direct involvement in Iran's internal affairs.

Oil Defines and Limits the Partnership

The China-Iran relationship is anchored in energy and a shared goal of countering US influence. China serves as an economic lifeline for the heavily sanctioned Iranian economy, purchasing an estimated 90 percent of its oil exports. In turn, Iran supplied roughly 12 percent of China's oil imports, often through a shadow fleet of tankers to circumvent sanctions.

However, this energy dependence is not as critical for China as it once was, exposing cracks in the partnership.

China's Strategic Buffer Against Shocks

According to Joseph Webster, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Center, China has been preparing for potential disruptions in the oil market for years. "China has been stockpiling crude oil since 2024," he explained.

Data from commodity intelligence firm Kpler shows that Chinese refineries held between 1.2 and 1.4 billion barrels of oil by the end of 2025. Webster calculates this provides about three months of import cover if supplies were cut off. Furthermore, a substantial amount of Iranian oil remains in floating storage off Malaysia's coast, which China could likely access to further insulate itself from geopolitical shocks.

A Diversified Energy Portfolio

Beijing has also strategically diversified its oil suppliers to avoid over-reliance on any single source. Its major energy partners now include:

• Russia

• Saudi Arabia

• Iraq

• Malaysia

This strategy ensures that even with recent disruptions, such as Washington's strike on Venezuela, China's energy imports remain stable.

An Uneven Economic Lifeline

The trade relationship is deeply asymmetrical. While China is Iran's top trading partner, Iran is a minor player in China's global economic footprint. In 2024, China's official exports to Iran totaled $8.9 billion—a fraction of its $6 trillion in global trade.

In contrast, Iran is highly dependent on China. US sanctions have left Tehran with few buyers for its oil, and Beijing’s purchases, often part of a barter system trading oil for Chinese manufactured goods and technology, have been crucial in propping up the Iranian economy.

Cracks in a Fragile Alliance

Despite formal efforts to deepen ties, friction and unmet expectations plague the relationship. While China supported Iran's entry into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in 2023 and the BRICS bloc in 2024, these diplomatic wins haven't translated into unwavering support.

The landmark 25-year economic cooperation agreement signed in 2021 was met with public skepticism in Iran, partly because its text has never been publicly disclosed. Iranian officials have since urged China to do more to implement the deal, which has yielded limited results due to ongoing international sanctions.

The limits of Beijing’s support were also starkly revealed in June when it did little to assist Tehran after Israel and the United States launched strikes on Iran.

A Plea Met with Public Backlash

Tehran’s appeals for help have not been well-received in China. On January 8, amid a communications blackout and rising death toll, Iran's ambassador in Beijing, Abdolreza Rahmani-Fazli, told state-owned Phoenix TV that Iran would protect Chinese interests and hoped for assistance from "friendly countries."

According to Tuvia Gering, a researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies in Israel, this appeal was met with sharp criticism on China's heavily monitored social media. A popular nationalist account on WeChat, Zhanhao, bluntly dismissed the ambassador's comments: "Iran continues to expect China to take the bullet for it. That's pure fantasy!"

This sentiment underscores a fundamental disconnect. "It confirms what some Iran-China watchers have warned for years," Gering wrote. "Tehran and Beijing do not see the relationship in the same way."

Britain's economy is on track to expand by 1.4% this year, a performance that would see it outpace major European nations and mark its strongest growth since 2022. However, the forecast still falls short of the government's ambitious goal to lead the world's wealthiest countries.

According to new figures from Bloomberg Economics, the UK's economic outlook for 2025 has improved, with data from November showing stronger momentum than previously thought. This projected 1.4% expansion would be a significant step up from the post-lockdown recovery period.

The UK's Position in the G7 Growth Race

When Prime Minister Keir Starmer took office in 2024, he pledged to make Britain's economic development the fastest in the Group of Seven (G7) nations. The country has long struggled with slow growth, which has squeezed household incomes and created fiscal challenges for the government.

A 1.4% growth rate would place the UK third among G7 countries, trailing only the United States and Canada. This performance stands in sharp contrast to Germany, Europe's largest economy, which recorded just 0.2% growth last year. Britain appears set to maintain this third-place ranking throughout the current year.

Despite the relative strength, the outlook isn't entirely clear. While the economy now looks likely to have posted modest growth in the final quarter of the year—avoiding the flat performance some analysts and the Bank of England predicted—concerns remain. Weak job market figures and cautious consumer activity continue to weigh on the Labour government's economic agenda.

Will Consumer Spending Drive Future Growth?

The central question for the UK economy is whether consumers will become more willing to spend, according to Bloomberg Economics experts Ana Andrade and Dan Hanson. They project quarterly growth of around 0.3% through the end of 2026 but caution that this forecast might be "too optimistic, particularly in the context of a cooling labor market."

Looking further ahead, the expansion is expected to moderate. Economists polled by Bloomberg anticipate growth will slow to 1.1% in 2026, a rate that remains below the levels the UK consistently achieved during the 2010s.

Deconstructing the Latest GDP Figures

November’s 0.3% GDP growth surprised many, coming in higher than expected. However, a significant portion of this boost came from a rebound in industrial output after a hack disrupted operations at Jaguar Land Rover. This one-off event raises questions about the underlying strength of the economy.

Adding to the uncertainty is the impact of Chancellor Rachel Reeves' budget, which included a £26 billion tax increase. The effects of this fiscal tightening are yet to be fully seen.

Kallum Pickering, chief economist at Peel Hunt, offered a measured perspective. "While momentum clearly weakened in the second half of the year as households and businesses turned cautious amid worries over further tax increases, economic activity seems to have been less soft than surveys and anecdotes from businesses had indicated," he noted.

Ultimately, the government faces the difficult task of sustaining economic momentum while navigating the challenges of a hesitant consumer base and a softening labor market.

Silver's volatile start to the year has taken a sharp turn, with prices falling after President Donald Trump confirmed the U.S. would not impose import tariffs on the precious metal and other critical minerals for now. The decision offers a temporary reprieve to a market that had rallied 30% in the new year amid escalating supply concerns.

White House Opts for Negotiation Over Tariffs

In a series of proclamations, the White House announced it will not apply tariffs on processed critical minerals and their derivative products. Instead, the administration plans to pursue new trade agreements to bolster the supply of these materials, based on recommendations from the Secretary of Commerce.

The statement highlighted the nation's dependence on foreign sources, noting that the U.S. lacks sufficient production capacity for processed minerals. As of 2024, the United States was 100% reliant on net imports for 12 critical minerals and at least 50% reliant for another 29.

"The Secretary recommended that I negotiate agreements with foreign nations to ensure the United States has adequate critical mineral supplies and to mitigate the supply chain vulnerabilities as quickly as possible," the White House stated.

However, the administration left the door open for future trade restrictions, adding that it may be "appropriate to impose import restrictions, such as tariffs, if satisfactory agreements are not reached in a timely manner."

Immediate Market Impact: Silver Retreats from Highs

The news triggered significant selling in the silver market. After touching a high of $93 an ounce, spot silver last traded at $90.09 an ounce, a decline of more than 3% on the day. Despite the drop, prices showed some resilience by bouncing off lows near $86 an ounce.

Analysts believe the removal of the immediate tariff threat could ease liquidity issues that have plagued the silver market.

"In the near-term, prices may consolidate in a range as tariff risks are reassessed and positioning normalises," said Ewa Manthey, Commodities Strategist at ING. "However, structural deficits, tight physical availability, and ongoing policy uncertainty suggest downside might be limited, with silver likely to remain well-supported on dips."

Why Tariffs Were on the Table

Market participants had been closely watching for this decision for months. The issue arose in November when silver and Platinum Group Metals (PGMs) were added to the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) 2025 List of Critical Minerals. This action prompted a Section 232 tariff investigation, giving the government 90 days to make a ruling.

While gold, silver, and PGMs were exempt from global tariffs imposed last year due to their status as precious metals, fears persisted that silver, platinum, and palladium could face new levies because of their industrial importance.

Although analysts considered tariffs an unlikely outcome, the lingering risk forced market players to maintain high U.S. stockpiles throughout most of 2025. This put immense pressure on the global supply chain, creating liquidity shortages as investment and industrial demand competed for limited supplies in London and China.

Analyst Outlook: Short-Term Weakness, Long-Term Support

While the tariff news has provided some relief to the supply crunch, analysts maintain that the market's underlying structural problems are far from over.

Market analysts at BMO Capital Markets noted that the reactionary sell-off was expected. "As Trump has not categorically ruled out tariffs, we would expect this to be transient," they said.

This view is shared by others who see persistent tightness in the global market. "The immediate heat may be off silver, but we can't expect the tightness to ease dramatically, especially as it's now tight in Asia as well," commented Rhona O'Connell, head of market analysis at StoneX.

While U.S. supply issues have been addressed temporarily, the physical market remains sensitive to other potential disruptions, including China's new export restrictions. However, analysts at Metals Focus suggest these fears may be exaggerated.

"Exporting silver from mainland China has always required a licence, and the list of qualifying companies is reviewed every two years," the firm explained. "This policy should not be interpreted as an export ban or a material shift in China's stance on silver exports. Instead, it represents a move towards stricter management of export licensing."

Metals Focus anticipates that as inventories in London recover and Chinese exports normalize, the market dislocation will gradually ease. This could create some short-term price weakness, but they expect investors will quickly buy the dip, leading to "further upside for the silver price over the foreseeable future."

Looking ahead, the firm expects ongoing supply issues to fuel volatility. A shortage of high-grade refining capacity has slowed the return of scrap silver to the market. This, "combined with an ongoing structural deficit in 2026, [means] above-ground bullion inventories have not been rebuilt as quickly as might have been expected."

Mahmoud Khalil speaks to people as they gather at Bryant Park, to participate in a "Stop starving Gaza" march during the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, in New York City, U.S., August 16, 2025. REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz

Jan 15 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that a judge had no jurisdiction to order the release of Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil from immigration detention, delivering President Donald Trump's administration a victory in its efforts to deport the pro-Palestinian activist.

The 2-1 ruling by a panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opens the door to Khalil being rearrested after it ordered, opens new tab the dismissal of a lawsuit he filed challenging his initial detention.

The court said that under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the district court that considered his lawsuit was not the proper forum to address his claims, which should have been heard through an appeal of a removal order from an immigration judge.

Khalil was among the most prominent of a number of foreign students detained last year after engaging in pro-Palestinian activism on their college campuses. While the ruling is likely to be appealed, if it stands it could close off a legal avenue that many have used to challenge deportation orders.

Thursday's ruling came from U.S. Circuit Judges Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, both of whom were appointed by Republican presidents.

"The scheme Congress enacted governing immigration proceedings provides Khalil a meaningful forum in which to raise his claims later on in a petition for review of a final order of removal," they wrote in an unsigned opinion.

U.S. Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman dissented, saying Congress did not mean to foreclose meaningful judicial review over Khalil's claims that his detention and potential re-detention violate his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

"Khalil claims that the government violated his fundamental constitutional rights," wrote Freeman, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden. "He has also alleged, and proven, irreparable injuries during his detention."

Khalil in a statement said the ruling is "deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve." His lawyers vowed to appeal the ruling, which does not take immediate effect, preventing his re-detention for now.

"The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability," Khalil said.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement, did not respond to a request for comment.

PRO-PALESTINIAN CAMPUS ACTIVISTS TARGETED

Khalil, a prominent figure in pro-Palestinian protests against Israel's war in Gaza, was arrested on March 8 by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan.

Trump had called the protests antisemitic and vowed to deport foreign students who took part. Khalil became the first target of this policy.

Though Khalil was initially detained in New York, by the time his lawyer sued over his detention there, immigration officials had moved him to New Jersey, leading his case to be transferred to a judge there.

He walked out of a Louisiana immigrant detention center in June, after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz of Newark, New Jersey, ordered the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to release him from custody.

The Trump administration appealed, calling Farbiarz's ruling an "unprecedented" intrusion into its efforts to detain and deport a key figure in "violent and antisemitic riots and protests" that occurred at Columbia in 2024 over Israel's war.

In September, an immigration judge ordered Khalil to be deported to Algeria or Syria over claims that he omitted information from his green card application. His lawyers have said they will appeal that order.

Thursday's ruling came hours before a federal judge in Boston was scheduled to consider whether to block the Trump administration from arresting, detaining and deporting foreign students and faculty engaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy, after he concluded last year that the policy was unconstitutional.

Source: Reuters

A Tale of Two Policies in the Motor City

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer delivered a sharp rebuke of President Donald Trump's economic strategy at the Detroit Auto Show on Thursday, presenting a starkly different reality than the one Trump portrayed in the same city just two days earlier.

Speaking to the heart of America's automotive industry, Whitmer, a Democrat in her final year as governor, argued that the administration's tariff policies are actively harming U.S. auto manufacturing while inadvertently boosting Chinese competitors.

"This will only get worse without a serious shift in national policy," Whitmer warned, highlighting the economic uncertainty currently gripping the auto sector.

Her comments directly countered President Trump's recent message. During a visit that included a tour of a Ford plant in Dearborn, Trump defended his economic record, stating confidently, "All U.S. automakers are doing great."

Whitmer Details Damage to Manufacturing

The governor painted a contrasting picture, asserting that American manufacturing has been contracting for months, resulting in job losses and cuts to production. Whitmer's opposition to the tariff strategy is long-standing, particularly given Michigan's deep economic ties with Canada.

She emphasized the complex cross-border supply chain where auto parts frequently move between the U.S. and Canada during assembly. Disrupting this relationship, she argued, weakens the entire North American manufacturing base.

"America stands more alone than she has in decades," Whitmer stated. "And perhaps no industry has seen more change and been more impacted than our auto industry."

The White House did not provide an immediate comment on the governor's speech.

The Geopolitical Chessboard: Canada and China

A central theme of Whitmer's address was the geopolitical consequence of the administration's trade policy. She revealed that in every meeting with President Trump over the past year, she has argued that damaging the U.S.-Canadian relationship ultimately serves China's interests.

"When we fight our neighbors, however, China wins," she said, framing the issue as a strategic misstep.

This argument extends to the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a trade deal negotiated during Trump's first term. While Whitmer defended the agreement, Trump recently suggested it was "irrelevant" during his Detroit-area tour, offering few details on his position ahead of the agreement's scheduled review this year.

A Calculated Political Approach

Whitmer's public disagreement with Trump is notable for its measured tone, which marks a difference from her relationship with him during his first term. She has made several visits to the White House over the last year, adopting a less combative public stance than other potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates like California's Gavin Newsom or Illinois's J.B. Pritzker.

President Trump himself has adjusted his approach to auto tariffs. After initially announcing a 25% tariff on automobiles and parts, the administration later relaxed the policy as domestic manufacturers sought relief from the threat of escalating production costs.