Trump & Fico Meet on Nuclear Deal and Ukraine Policy

China's exports of rare earth materials edged lower in December, as markets monitored rising geopolitical friction between Beijing and Japan that could foreshadow tighter shipment controls on the critical minerals.

December Export Figures Show Minor Contraction

According to customs data released on Sunday, China's total outbound shipments of rare earths reached 6,745 tonnes in December. This marks a decrease from the 6,958 tonnes exported in November.

These materials are indispensable components in a wide range of modern technologies, including electric vehicles, advanced weapons systems, and high-tech manufacturing. A significant portion of these exports consists of rare-earth magnets, a product that provides Beijing with powerful leverage in global trade disputes.

Japan Becomes New Focus of Export Controls

In recent years, the rare earths supply chain has become a major geopolitical flashpoint, with the United States and other nations actively working to reduce their dependence on China's dominance in mining and processing.

While a trade truce between Beijing and Washington in October eased some of those tensions, the focus has now shifted to Japan. China's Ministry of Commerce recently announced new controls on shipments to Japan that have potential military applications. This move followed remarks made last year by Japan's prime minister concerning Taiwan.

Adding to the pressure, Beijing is also reportedly considering stricter scrutiny of licenses for shipping these minerals to Japan, according to a report from the China Daily.

Awaiting a Clearer Picture

The export data released on Sunday represents a total figure for all destinations and does not offer a breakdown by individual country or specific product type. More detailed data, which could provide greater insight into trade flows with specific partners, is expected to be released on Tuesday.

The European Union has called an emergency meeting of its ambassadors in Brussels this Sunday following President Donald Trump's announcement of tariffs on eight EU nations. The move is designed to pressure Denmark into a deal for the United States to acquire Greenland.

A representative for Cyprus, the current holder of the EU Council presidency, confirmed the urgent meeting to NBC News. Trump's declaration on Saturday triggered immediate and sharp criticism from lawmakers on both sides of the Atlantic, who largely rejected both the tariff threats and the goal of taking control of Danish territory.

Top European Officials Condemn Pressure Tactics

European leaders swiftly pushed back against the tariff announcement, framing it as a damaging move against key allies.

Roberta Metsola, President of the European Parliament, questioned the strategy of targeting NATO partners. Writing on X, the Maltese official stated that actions against allies would not improve security in the Arctic. Instead, she warned, they could embolden shared adversaries seeking to undermine common values. Metsola reiterated that both Greenland and Denmark have made their positions clear: the territory is not for sale, and its sovereignty will be respected, regardless of tariff intimidation.

Kaja Kallas, an Estonian vice president of the European Commission and the EU's chief diplomat, argued that China and Russia would be the only beneficiaries of Trump's decision. She noted that these countries celebrate when divisions appear among allied nations. Kallas suggested that NATO is the appropriate venue for any security discussions concerning Greenland and cautioned that the proposed tariffs would harm economies and reduce prosperity in both Europe and America. She also urged that such disagreements should not distract from the crucial mission of supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression.

The tariff threat has also put a major EU-US trade agreement at risk. Several European officials have signaled a desire to block the final ratification of a trade deal negotiated last summer. While parts of the agreement are already in effect, it requires approval from the European Parliament to become fully binding.

Bernd Lange, the long-serving chair of the parliament's international trade committee, called the new tariffs unacceptable. The German official posted on X that the approach violates how partners should treat one another. Accusing Trump of weaponizing trade for political leverage, Lange insisted that the EU cannot conduct business as usual under these conditions and demanded that all progress on the trade deal be halted until the US withdraws its threats.

Bipartisan US Lawmakers Reject Tariffs on Allies

The reaction in Washington was similarly critical, with American legislators from both parties voicing their opposition to Trump's plan.

Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Thom Tillis (R-NC), who co-chair the Senate NATO Observer Group, issued a joint statement from Copenhagen. They were there with a bipartisan congressional delegation meeting Danish officials to strengthen ties amid Trump's ongoing comments about Greenland.

The senators warned that with many Americans already concerned about the cost of living, these tariffs would only increase expenses for households and businesses. They urged the administration to abandon the threats and seek a diplomatic solution instead. Their statement underscored that the targeted nations are among America's most steadfast allies:

• United Kingdom

• France

• Germany

• Netherlands

• Finland

• Sweden

• Denmark

• Norway

They reminded the administration that these NATO partners have fought alongside American troops, suffered shared casualties, and contributed to US security and economic prosperity.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced Saturday that Democrats would introduce legislation to block the tariffs before they could further damage the American economy and its European partnerships. Schumer criticized Trump's existing tariffs for raising prices and argued that the new actions would compound those errors by targeting close allies over an "unrealistic" attempt to acquire Greenland.

While the Senate has previously passed similar bipartisan measures to limit Trump's tariff authority with a simple 51-vote majority, any new legislation would still face uncertain prospects in the House.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has issued a stark warning, stating that any U.S. military action to take Greenland would delight Russian President Vladimir Putin and fatally undermine the NATO alliance.

In a recent interview with the La Vanguardia newspaper, Sanchez argued that such a move would provide justification for Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

"If we focus on Greenland, I have to say that a U.S. invasion of that territory would make Vladimir Putin the happiest man in the world," Sanchez said. "Why? Because it would legitimize his attempted invasion of Ukraine."

He added that the consequences for Western security would be dire. "If the United States were to use force, it would be the death knell for NATO. Putin would be doubly happy."

Trump Threatens Tariffs to Force Sale

The comments follow former U.S. President Donald Trump's renewed push to acquire the autonomous Danish territory. On Saturday, Trump appeared to shift his strategy, vowing to impose escalating tariffs on key European allies until a deal to purchase Greenland is reached.

In a post on Truth Social, Trump detailed a plan for new import duties starting February 1. The plan includes:

• An additional 10% tariff on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, and Great Britain.

• An increase of these tariffs to 25% on June 1.

Trump stated these tariffs would continue until the United States is allowed to purchase Greenland. He has consistently maintained that he will accept nothing less than full U.S. ownership of the island.

However, leaders in both Denmark and Greenland have repeatedly dismissed the idea, insisting the island is not for sale and has no desire to become part of the United States.

The Trump administration is floating a proposal for a new international body, the "Board of Peace," asking countries to contribute at least US$1 billion for a permanent position on its board, according to a draft charter.

Under the plan, Donald Trump would serve as the group's first chairman, holding the power to select its members.

The draft charter explicitly links long-term membership to a significant financial commitment. "The three-year membership term shall not apply to Member States that contribute more than USD $1,000,000,000 in cash funds to the Board of Peace within the first year," the document states. For all other members, the term would be capped at three years, subject to the chairman's renewal.

Unprecedented Power for the Chairman

The proposed structure concentrates considerable authority in the hands of the chairman. According to the draft, the chairman would have final say over all matters, including:

• Decision-Making: While decisions would be made by a majority vote of members present, all outcomes are "subject to the chairman's approval."

• Membership Control: The chairman decides who is invited to join and has the power to remove a member, a move that could only be vetoed by a two-thirds majority.

• Agenda Setting: The chairman convenes all meetings and must approve the agenda.

• Succession: The charter specifies that "the Chairman shall at all times designate a successor for the role of Chairman."

Trump would also be responsible for approving the organization's official seal. The board would become operational once three member states agree to its charter.

A Potential Rival to the United Nations?

The charter describes the board's mission as promoting stability, restoring lawful governance, and securing peace in conflict-affected regions. However, the proposal is sparking concern that it is designed to be an alternative, or even a rival, to the United Nations, an institution Trump has frequently criticized.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the plan.

International Pushback and Concerns

A specific initiative under this new umbrella, a "Board of Peace for Gaza," has already drawn a sharp rebuke. Trump invited several world leaders to join this group, including Argentina's Javier Milei and Canada's Mark Carney. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quickly criticized the plan, stating that the details were not coordinated with his government.

Several European nations have also been invited to join the main peace board, according to sources familiar with the discussions. These individuals, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the draft suggests Trump himself would control the funds—a condition most countries would find unacceptable. They added that multiple nations strongly oppose the charter and are organizing a collective pushback against the proposals.

First Steps: The Executive Panel

Ahead of the board's formal creation, the White House announced an initial executive panel on Friday. This panel includes Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Crude oil’s recent rally, fueled by fears of U.S. military action against Iran, has stalled. The brief surge sent both Brent and WTI crude to multi-month highs, directly challenging bearish market forecasts. This has left traders caught in a classic conflict between explosive geopolitical risks and a sobering supply-and-demand reality.

The Bear Case: A Market Awash in Supply

The fundamental outlook for oil remains overwhelmingly bearish. A broad consensus among analysts points to a market where supply significantly outpaces demand.

Reinforcing this view, Goldman Sachs recently revised its 2026 price predictions downward. The bank now anticipates Brent crude will fall even further, projecting a market surplus of 2.3 million barrels per day in 2026. The firm stated that "rebalancing the market likely requires lower oil prices in 2026 to slow down non-OPEC supply growth and support solid demand growth," a forecast made even as tensions in Iran were pushing prices higher.

Adding to the supply-side pressure, the United States has effectively taken control of Venezuela's oil industry and has begun selling its crude. A U.S. official confirmed the first batch was sold for $500 million, with more sales expected to follow. While oil executives have cautioned against expecting a rapid recovery in Venezuelan output, the new supply stream strengthens the case for lower prices.

Meanwhile, the European Union is reportedly planning to tighten its price cap on Russian oil to $44.10 per barrel starting next month. The goal is to further crimp Russia's oil revenues by linking Western insurance coverage to the cap. Although previous caps have had limited impact on Russia's budget, the EU remains committed to the strategy.

The Bull Case: Geopolitical Flashpoints Escalate

While fundamentals point downward, geopolitical flare-ups are creating significant upside risk.

The initial price spike was driven by signals from President Donald Trump that a military strike against Iran was possible. Prices began to retreat only when the U.S. president noted that the Iranian government was easing its crackdown on protesters, reducing the immediate likelihood of conflict. This quick reversal demonstrates the market's underlying sensitivity to the supply glut narrative.

Supply disruption fears have also been stoked by drone strikes on three tankers in the Black Sea. According to a Reuters source, these attacks, which included strikes on the Caspian Pipeline Consortium by Ukrainian forces, caused Kazakhstan's oil output to drop by 35% in the first two weeks of January. In response, Kazakhstan has asked the United States and the EU to help secure the vital oil transport route.

The US Shale Factor: Is the Growth Story Over?

Despite the focus on global events, a major shift is occurring in the U.S. shale patch—a development the market seems to be ignoring.

For years, rapid growth in U.S. oil production has been the primary driver of bearish sentiment. However, that growth is now disappearing. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), in its latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, forecasts that domestic oil production will flatten this year and even decline into 2027.

Shale drillers have also signaled they are not comfortable with WTI prices closer to $50 than $60, suggesting a slowdown in activity. Yet, the market has so far overlooked the end of this significant growth driver, clinging to the belief that the world is already oversupplied.

Deconstructing the "Glut": A Closer Look at the Data

Data appears to support the oversupply argument. According to Kpler, there were approximately 1.3 billion barrels of crude on the water in December, the highest level since the 2020 pandemic lockdowns.

However, a closer look complicates this picture. As noted by Reuters columnist Ron Bousso, a quarter of this floating storage comes from sanctioned producers: Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Oil from these countries takes longer to find buyers, meaning the high volume of tankers at sea may not be an accurate indicator of a true physical glut.

Furthermore, recently released data shows that China's oil imports hit an all-time high in both December and for the full year of 2025. This record demand from the world's largest importer directly challenges the narrative of a simple oversupply.

With conflicting narratives and clashing agendas, the oil market has become an exceptionally confusing and unpredictable environment. Forecasting prices has always been difficult, but the current divergence between fundamentals and geopolitics makes it more unreliable than ever.

The Trump administration's plan for post-war Gaza has hit a significant snag, with Israel formally objecting to the composition of a newly announced "Board of Peace" intended to oversee the territory's transitional government. The move signals a major diplomatic rift over the second phase of a US-brokered peace initiative.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump revealed the members of a high-profile body designed to manage the war-torn Palestinian territory following a ceasefire agreement that began in October.

Trump Unveils Two-Tier Governance Structure

The plan establishes a two-part governance framework. The top body is the seven-member "founding executive board," chaired by President Trump himself. Its members include:

• US Secretary of State Marco Rubio

• Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff

• Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair

• Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner

• World Bank President Ajay Banga

Subordinate to this is a "Gaza executive board," which a White House statement said "will help support effective governance and the delivery of best-in-class services."

This second board includes Witkoff, Kushner, and Blair, alongside Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan and Qatari diplomat Ali Al-Thawadi. The inclusion of officials from Turkey and Qatar is notable, as both nations have been critical of Israel's military operations in Gaza since the attacks of October 7, 2023.

Israel Cites Lack of Coordination

Israel’s response was swift and negative. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office declared that the board's composition "was not coordinated with Israel and runs contrary to its policy."

The statement confirmed that Netanyahu has directed Foreign Minister Gideon Saar to communicate Israel's reservations directly to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. However, the official communication did not specify the exact nature of the prime minister's objections.

The Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad also criticized the board's makeup. The group, considered a terrorist organization by the US and other countries, argued the body was formed "in accordance with Israeli criteria and to serve the interests of the occupation," signaling what it called "preexisting bad intentions."

A Fragile Peace Plan Under Strain

This new board is a central element of the second phase of the US peace plan. The first phase was a ceasefire that took effect on October 10. Since then, the agreement has been fragile, with both sides accusing each other of violations.

Key points of contention remain. Israel has continued to restrict aid into the Gaza Strip while conducting attacks. Meanwhile, Hamas—designated a terrorist organization by the US, EU, Germany, and some Arab states—has refused to meet Israel's non-negotiable demand to disarm.