Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

Embattled Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., who has long demanded that President Donald Trump release the Epstein files, now faces scrutiny as the FBI prepares to release documents tied to its investigation into his alleged ties to a Chinese intelligence operative.

The scrutiny comes after Swalwell demanded Monday that FBI Director Kash Patel refrain from declassifying the potentially damaging files, which could shed light on his relationship with Christine Fang, the suspected Chinese spy also known as “Fang Fang.”

On X, critics highlighted what they called blatant hypocrisy, pointing to Swalwell’s prior demands that Trump release the Epstein files.

One widely shared X post from July 2025 read, “Trump has the files. Why won’t HE release them,” in reference to the Epstein files.

Wait suddenly you’re against releasing files @RepSwalwell??? What changed https://t.co/AAwu8QRWlf pic.twitter.com/M47vWbRouz

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 31, 2026

On Sept. 25, Swalwell himself replied to a post from Patel, writing, “Blah blah blah. Where are the Epstein Files?”

On Oct. 7, Swalwell again pressed Patel, adding, “Where are the Epstein Files?”

Just 10 days later, Swalwell escalated further, branding House Speaker Mike Johnson the “pro-pedophile Speaker” and again demanding the Epstein files be released.

I refer to Johnson by his more accurate description, the pro-pedophile Speaker.

Release the Epstein Files.
Open the Government. https://t.co/NJRMHf6qoP

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) October 17, 2025

Swalwell conveyed his opposition in a cease-and-desist letter to Patel, urging that his own FBI files are not released.

“The congressman has never been accused of wrongdoing in that matter and your attempt to release the file is a transparent attempt to smear him and undermine his campaign for governor of California,” the letter said, as quoted by the leftist Washington Post.

It added, “Your actions threaten to expose you, others at the FBI, and the FBI itself to significant legal liability.”

The Post reported over the weekend that Patel had deployed agents to California to review the documents ahead of a potential public release.

The forthcoming release of the files could provide clarity on the FBI’s investigation into Swalwell’s early political career. He joined Congress in 2013 after serving three years on the Dublin City Council.

The probe centered on Fang’s alleged efforts to act as a Chinese intelligence operative by cultivating relationships with up-and-coming politicians.

Swalwell has not definitively denied having a sexual relationship with Fang. He purportedly cut off contact with her after being briefed by the FBI.

What Swalwell knew about Fang, and what he told the FBI, has largely remained speculative, but that could change if the files were released.

* * * Sink your fengs into these

In a blistering exclusive interview with The Telegraph, President Trump has declared he is “strongly considering” pulling the United States out of NATO, branding the 77-year-old alliance a “paper tiger” after European allies – including the UK under Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer – refused to join America’s military campaign against Iran or help reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump told the newspaper the decision was now “beyond reconsideration,” adding: “I was never swayed by Nato. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.” He singled out Britain, mocking its naval capabilities and Starmer’s green-energy focus: “You don’t even have a navy. You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work… All Starmer wants is costly windmills that are driving your energy prices through the roof.”

The row erupted after Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz – through which 20 per cent of the world’s oil flows – in response to US-Israeli strikes launched on February 28. Allies have been reluctant to deploy warships, prompting Trump to accuse NATO of operating a “one-way street.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the president on Fox News, warning that America would have to “re-examine” its NATO membership once the Iran conflict ends. “If Nato is just about us defending Europe if they’re attacked, but them denying us basing rights when we need them, that’s not a very good arrangement,” Rubio said. Trump later told The Telegraph he was “glad” Rubio had spoken out.

Starmer Fires Back: “This Is Not Our War”

Starmer moved quickly to reaffirm Britain’s commitment to NATO while drawing a firm line on the Iran conflict. “This is not our war, and we’re not going to get dragged into it,” he told The Telegraph, describing the alliance as “the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen.” He signalled a pivot toward closer European cooperation “whatever the noise” from Washington.

Absolute humiliation for the White House. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer publicly brushes off Donald Trump’s threats to leave NATO. He explicitly states that despite massive pressure from Washington, Britain will never be dragged into this disastrous war on Iran. pic.twitter.com/vkniEBVSW5

— Furkan Gözükara (@FurkanGozukara) April 1, 2026

The UK’s military vulnerabilities have only added fuel to the fire. On Tuesday, the First Sea Lord admitted the Royal Navy was not ready for war. Four of Britain’s six destroyers were out of service at the conflict’s start, forcing London to borrow a German warship to meet NATO obligations in the North Atlantic.

Any formal US withdrawal would require Congressional approval under 2023 legislation co-sponsored by Rubio himself. However, experts note Trump could still gut American participation by pulling troops, bases, and command support – effectively hollowing out the alliance without a full exit.

Trump is expected to deliver a national address on Wednesday evening outlining the Iran war’s status and, according to Reuters sources, to voice further disgust at NATO’s lack of reciprocity.

As oil prices spiral and recession fears mount, the standoff over the Strait of Hormuz has exposed raw fractures in the Western alliance. Whether Trump’s latest broadside is negotiation theatre or the beginning of America’s strategic retreat from Europe remains to be seen — but the “paper tiger” label has already left its mark.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon appeared on Fox & Friends on Tuesday, covering everything from artificial intelligence to the economy to the continuing exodus from radical-left blue states. More notably, he offered his views on the U.S.-Iran war, which this week entered its fifth week and has remained at the center of the news cycle.

Dimon was first asked about the energy shock from the US-Iran conflict and whether surging fuel prices would impact the American economy.

“Look the markets are unpredictable and it’s hard to for me to tell you exactly what,” Dimon said of a potential impact.

“But I think they’re just looking at, is there a chance something can go wrong now? We should all hope nothing goes wrong. We should all hope that … we win this thing and clean up the straits and that Iran is no longer a threat to everybody. The markets will be concerned until it’s over.”

Dimon added, “It’s much more important that this be successfully completed than what the market does.”

He noted, “Yes, I hear people say they were not an imminent threat. But these people have been engaged in violent acts for 47 years, killing people, killing Americans, and funding Hamas. Several Americans were killed on October 7. They have fought proxy wars and threatened people. A ballistic missile can travel 3,000 miles. These are bad people who needed to be stopped. I do not know what the military and the president know, but we have to finish this thing and finish it right.” 

Layered on top of Dimon’s comments yesterday is a broader geopolitical framework laid out earlier this month by Zoltan Pozsar of Ex Uno Plures.

In Pozsar’s view, the Trump administration is “methodically building a portfolio of assets” from Venezuela to the Panama Canal to Iran’s oil flows and the Strait of Hormuz, a strategy aimed at reasserting American dominance, securing the empire for years to come, and tightening the screws on Beijing after last year’s rare earths stunt.

Over the weekend, both Emirates Global Aluminum (EGA) – the largest aluminum producers in the Gulf – and Aluminium Bahrain (ALBA) reported drone attacks damaging smelting facilities after hits on Iranian steel infrastructure last week.

Neither company (at the time) confirmed whether supply will be impacted, but this morning the worst case appears to be confirmed with Reuters reporting that according to a Wednesday note by consultancy Wood Mackenzie “EGA’s Al Taweelah facility in the United Arab Emirates halted operations after an Iranian missile and drone attack on Saturday damaged a power plant.” A subsequent report from Bloomberg confirmed the report, writing that “Emirates Global Aluminium, the Middle East’s top producer of the metal, halted operations at its Al Taweelah smelter after the site was struck by Iranian missiles and drones over the weekend, according to a person familiar with the matter.“

At the same time, the smelter belonging to Aluminium Bahrain – Alba – which was also targeted on Saturday, “sustained significant damages and is expected to operate at an estimated utilisation of 30 percent”, Wood Mackenzie said.

“The ongoing Middle East conflict is triggering a critical supply crisis in the global aluminium market, with disruptions potentially removing 3 to 3.5 million tonnes of output in 2026,” Wood Mackenzie said. For context, the world produced just under 74 million tonnes of primary aluminum last year.

Wood Mackenzie’s press office said its information was sourced from the consultancy’s contacts in the Middle East, but declined to provide further details. 

As a reminder, the aluminum smelter in Al Taweelah, in the emirate of Abu Dhabi, has a capacity of roughly 1.5 million metric tonnes per year, and an alumina refinery. Alba’s capacity of 1.6 million tonnes per year in Bahrain makes it the world’s biggest single-site aluminium smelter. The Middle East as a whole produces about 9% of global supply, with EGA and others playing a key role in supplying manufacturers across Europe, Asia and the US. Even before the industry was directly targeted, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz had already left the region’s major producers short of critical inputs, with the sector anticipating a cascading wave of production cuts unless the strait reopens soon.

As Goldman commodity specialist James McGeoch writes, it’s “hard to think of a bigger metal supply shock: High degree of expectation this was where it was heading, but the initial reaction was to fade the uncertainty yesterday, that should be replaced by fresh length if history is a guide.”

This is how the Goldman trader does the math on lost output:

Lost ALBA 1mm + EGA 1.6mm + Qatalam 0.3mm  + Mozal 0.6mm = 3.5m on a 74mt mkt = 4.7% impact to supply, and 7.7% of ex china supply

Balance this with Oil price demand destruction ~1mm, assume China overproduce and ship 500k – need to price demand destruction to balance ~2mt (inventory we see at ~1.5mt but majority of that is China link).

McGeoch says that in light of the shut downs, some traders have been eyeballing a significant surge in the aluminum price to $4500 (15% premium to LME for China is a clear starting point).

The Goldman trader also writes that if the report is accurate, the market will first draw LME stocks, which is hard as not everyone can take Russian units, both regionally and financially.
Second, market needs to solve for the China export tax.
Third, it will be important to see China ramp supply, which means you have to convince them its a good use of power allocations.  

Aluminum futures on the London Metal Exchange have surged since the strikes, with LME Aluminum trading up 50% from a year ago, and if production remains shuttered, it will likely move notably higher.

Via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Dario Perkins of TS Lombard wrote a piece titled “How to Respond to Oil Shocks.”

His analysis draws on the Fed’s history to address how it should respond to today’s oil shock.

While researching Fed transcripts from the 1990 Gulf War, he discovered a proposal by Don Kohn, senior Fed staffer, that offers a solution to the central bank’s oil shock problem: nominal GDP targeting.

Kohn’s logic is straightforward and makes sense in the current environment where the Fed is contemplating monetary policy as oil prices spike, simultaneously boosting inflation and reducing economic growth. Per Kohn, if those two forces balance out, the Fed should hold rates steady. But if one dominates, the Fed should respond: “hike if nominal GDP growth rises” and “cut if nominal GDP growth falls.”

In other words, a demand shock calls for higher rates, while a supply-side shock calls for lower rates.

Historically, as he shares in the table below, nominal GDP almost always falls after a supply-driven oil shock.

Today’s spike, driven by the Iranian conflict and “the Iranian weaponization of the Strait of Hormuz,” is unambiguously a supply shock. By the Kohn framework, the Fed should be cutting the Fed Funds rate, not considering hiking it.

The current counterargument is the high-inflation era of the 1970s, when central banks were allegedly too dovish on inflation and allowed inflation expectations to spiral out of control.

Perkins dismisses this comparison directly. To wit:

The 1973-74 recession “was one of the worst in history” and “in terms of its impact on unemployment, it was only slightly better than the GFC.”

Importantly, he notes that the 1970s featured widespread union membership and inflation-indexed wage contracts that caused wages to “accelerate even as the economy sank.”

That wage-price spiral is nonexistent today.

Thus, the inflationary danger of easing into an oil shock is considerably lower than the popular 1970s narrative suggests.

His conclusion: Central banks don’t need to hike today. In fact, if they follow the advice of Don Kohn, they will probably need to ease policy.

Russia has suffered one of its worst aerial disasters of the Ukraine war, as an An-26 Military Transport aircraft went down in Crimea with no survivors reported.

The aerial disaster happened Tuesday, with state media reporting that the aircraft slammed into a cliff during what was described as a routine flight over the Black Sea peninsula.

via TASS

All 29 onboard, including 23 passengers and six crew, were killed in the crash, marking one of the deadliest recent incidents involving Russian military aviation in the region.

Officials say the trouble began very quickly into the flight. “On 31 March at around 18:00 Moscow time, contact was lost with the An-26 military transport aircraft whilst it was on a scheduled flight over the Crimean Peninsula,” the defense ministry said.

Shortly after, confirmation came from the ground: “The An-26 aircraft, with which communication was lost earlier, crashed into a cliff, it was reported to TASS from the site of the crash.”

While no official cause has been confirmed, early indications point to possible technical failure, which if accurate would mark another blow to aging Soviet-era hardware still widely used across Russia’s military fleet, also as sweeping Western sanctions have been in effect, impacting aviation parts and software.

A huge search effort for bodies is ongoing and is difficult, given the crash happened in a mountainous region. Various emergency units – local and national – are involved.

Meanwhile, separately there are reports of a new drone attack on a Russian petrochemical plant:

“RUSSIA: Mass casualty event declared after a Ukrainian drone strike hit one of Russia’s largest petrochemical complexes, Nizhnekamskneftekhim”
[Amir Tsarfati post quoting Open Source Intel] pic.twitter.com/Hd5ZE9yOxl

— LarryE (@LarryE77197284) April 1, 2026

“A criminal case was opened into the crash of the aircraft due to alleged violations of Article 351 of the Russian Criminal Code which pertains to violations of flight rules or regulations governing flight preparation, according to a report from the Russian Investigative Committee press office,” one regional report says.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is again warning of a growing threat to the nation. In her lone dissent in Chiles v. Salazar, Jackson observed that “to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now.” The ominous tone stemmed from the fact that free speech had prevailed over state-imposed orthodoxy in a Colorado case.

Eight justices, including her two liberal colleagues, ruled that Colorado could not prevent licensed counselors from “any practice or treatment” that “attempts or purports to change” a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The win for free speech was catastrophic for Jackson and many on the left. Allowing counselors to discuss the causes and basis for sexual orientation changes, Jackson maintained, would “open a can of worms.” It would be far better for the majority to simply silence such dissenting voices in the name of science.

The dissent in Chiles is only the latest example of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a pronounced dismissal of free speech values. Consider the holding of her colleagues that Jackson finds so horrific.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the First Amendment “reflects … a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth … any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”

What a nightmare.

Instead, Jackson would have declared the ban on anything deemed “conversion therapy” to be “conduct,” not speech.

It is that easy.

You simply impose an orthodoxy and then treat any dissenters as being regulated for their conduct, not their viewpoints.

Justice Elena Kagan could not withhold her frustration with her colleague, noting that “[b]ecause the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.” She added that Jackson’s view “rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”

Other countries have embraced Jackson’s permissive approach to speech curtailment.

Recently, Malta failed to convict a man who was facing five months in prison for merely discussing his own abandonment of homosexuality due to a religious conversion.

Of course, we just went through a pandemic when censorship and orthodoxy were dressed up as science.

Leading scientific figures were canceled and harassed. That was the case with Jay Bhattacharya, who co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration and was a vocal critic of COVID-19 policies. Bhattacharya was targeted due to his dissenting views on health policy, including opposing wholesale shutdowns of schools and businesses.

He and other scientists were later vindicated. European allies that did not shut down their schools fared far better than we did, including avoiding a national mental health and learning crisis. We simply never had that debate.

He was recently honored with the prestigious “Intellectual Freedom” award from the American Academy of Sciences and Letters. He is also now the 18th director of the National Institutes of Health.

Yet, years ago, the courts, the media, and politicians joined in treating dissenting views as “conspiracy theories.”

Some argued that the virus’s origin was likely the Chinese research lab in Wuhan. That position was denounced by the Washington Post as a “debunked” coronavirus “conspiracy theory.” The New York Times Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli called any mention of the lab theory “racist.”

Federal agencies now support the lab theory as the most likely based on the scientific evidence.

Likewise, many questioned the efficacy of those blue surgical masks and supported natural immunity to the virus — the government later recognized both positions.

Others questioned the six-foot rule, which shut down many businesses, as unsupported by science. In congressional testimony, Dr. Anthony Fauci later admitted that the rule “sort of just appeared” and “wasn’t based on data.” Yet not only did it result in heavily enforced rules (and meltdowns) in public areas, but the media further ostracized dissenting critics.

For years, pundits portrayed those who questioned gender reassignment surgeries and treatments as bigots. Now, leading medical associations and European nations have decided that such procedures should not be generally allowed.

All of it was orthodoxy masquerading as science.

Yet, Jackson sees the protection of dissenting scientific and professional views as a “can of worms” that the courts should avoid in favor of state and assocational imposed truths.  She wrote that allowing such opposing views “ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and wellbeing.”

Keep in mind that counselors can still be sued for any harm that they cause due to malpractice or negligence. Indeed, recently in New York, a jury awarded $2 million to Fox Varian, 22, over the double mastectomy performed on her while she was a minor.

State associations can also publish positions on such therapy and seek to convince both professionals and the public on the best practices for children.

None of that was sufficient for Justice Jackson or Colorado. Ironically, Colorado has now succeeded in dramatically strengthening free speech in its repeated failures to curtail it. The Democratic legislators have made the state arguably the most hostile to free speech in the nation.

Colorado’s Supreme Court sought to bar President Donald Trump from the ballot. Notably, while many of us viewed Trump’s views on the 2020 election to be protected speech, Colorado treated it as conduct and advocacy of insurrection.

It was Colorado that sought to force bakers, photographers, and web designers to produce work in favor of same-sex marriages despite their religious objections.  Each effort was supported by the Tenth Circuit and each failed in spectacular fashion before the Supreme Court.

As many of us celebrate this victory for free speech, these advocates are denouncing the ruling in apocalyptic terms.

What is most chilling is that Jackson is now routinely called the model for new nominees, including the push to pack the Supreme Court with an instant liberal majority.

If so, Jackson’s radical views on constitutional interpretation could be replicated on a new packed Court. To paraphrase this decision, “to be completely frank, we know exactly what will happen then.”

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Oil prices are down overnight but playing headline roulette with every word that comes out of any leaders’ (or non-leaders’) mouth as ceasefire chatter (now denied) has WTI riding a roller-coaster (but below $100 once again as we write).

“Flows and actions matter more than words,” said Giovanni Staunovo, a commodity analyst at UBS Group AG.

And while inventory data may not be the market-moving event in this new regime, it is useful to see signs of stockpiling or demand.

DOE

Crude +5.45mm (+10.3mm API, +2mm exp)

Cushing +520k

Gasoline -586k

Distillates -2.11mm

A sizable crude build (the sixth weekly rise in total US crude stocks in a row) was mirrored by the seventh weekly drawdown in gasoline stocks…

Stockpiles at Cushing, Oklahoma, also rose for the sixth consecutive week.

A 520,000-barre- build takes inventories at the storage hub to the highest level since July 2024. Stockpiles at Cushing are now firmly above 30 million barrels. 

Stocks for all transport fuels in the US dropped this week with diesel falling 2 million barrels to the lowest level since mid-March.

That fuel, alongside jet, is in the spotlight as the Iran war has had an outsized impact on the price of those fuels compared with gasoline. 

Interestingly, US crude production slipped lower again last week. Refinery crude runs fell for the first time in five weeks. Despite the drop, they remain at a multi-year seasonal high. 

Oil prices dipped after the data…

The surge in market volatility has made intraday trading choppier, with many traders having to curb position sizes.

By Molly Schwartz, cross-asset macro strategist at Rabobank

US Treasury yields have been falling for the past two days. On Monday, we saw US rates grind lower after Powell gave a speech at Harvard University where he seemed to hint that hikes were not part of the Fed’s plan for the immediate future, noting that “tariffs have a one-time impact on inflation” and that “there are risks to both sides of the mandate.” In times like these where inflation fears have been the headline, Powell’s refusal to doomspeak on the inflationary impacts of the war and elevated energy prices said enough on its own.

Powell also took time to talk about the continued issue of Fed independence, or lack thereof, highlighting how “there’s broad consensus” that the Fed requires independence on monetary policy. However, as we have noted previously, history suggests otherwise. The Fed was not independent from the Treasury until 1951 when the Treasury-Fed Accord was signed, and the Bank of England wasn’t formally independent until 1997.

But Powell has taken the issue of independence to heart, having announced that if he feels that Fed independence is at stake, and so long as the DoJ investigation continues, he will remain on the Board of Governors even after his term as Fed Chair ends, preventing Trump from appointing a third Governor to the Board this term.

However, the move lower yesterday was sparked after a Wall Street Journal article reported that “President Trump told aides he’s willing to end the US military campaign against Iran even if the Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed.” Should this statement hold water, this would bring a whole new meaning to the TACO trade. But, it appears more likely that it doesn’t, especially when this announcement was sprinkled between threats from the Administration to decimate Iranian desalination and energy infrastructure.

Yet, markets have returned to taking headlines as gospel and 2 year yields closed down more than 3bp yesterday. Meanwhile, whereas last Friday the OIS curve indicated investors were positioned for around 6bp worth of hikes from the Fed by 2026 year-end, yesterday they were positioned for 8bp worth of cuts. USD came under pressure due to the broad move in yields as the DXY Index closed down 0.65%, back below the 100-handle for the first time since Friday. USD weakness was especially visible against the euro, with EUR/USD closing the day up 0.80%, back to 1.15. We will also note that yesterday was the end of March and the end of Q1, so some of yesterday’s price action may also be a result of rebalancing flows.

What markets cared significantly less about was a new five point peace plan proposed by China and Pakistan. The plan includes talk of an immediate ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. This is likely to go the same way as Iran’s proposed five point plan and the US’ fifteen point plan—nowhere at all. Markets were rocked, however, after a report circulated that Iranian President Pezeshkian stated that Iran was prepared to end the war if they “receive guarantees.” These guarantees, of course, are the same as the five point plan already proposed, and there was no confirmation that this announcement was a tangible indicator that the war will come to a close anytime soon, as FX and rates markets quickly retraced in response. The S&P 500, however, took that move and ran with it, jumping 1.16% to $6,515, and grinding above that level the rest of the US afternoon.

Trump’s focus, however, has shifted back to Europe. In a Truth Social post, Trump bemoaned Europe’s refusal to get involved, and has especially called out the UK’s Keir Starmer, saying that “all of those countries that can’t get jet fuel because of the Strait of Hormuz, like the United Kingdom, which refused to get involved in the decapitation of Iran, I have a suggestion for you…build up some delayed courage…and just TAKE IT…the USA won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us. Iran has been, essentially, decimated. The hard part is done. Go get your own oil!”

Trump’s ire comes as several European countries, including the UK, have pushed back on US demands in the context of the war. This includes France’s refusal to allow American planes headed to Israel to flay over French territory, Italy denying US aircraft access to a base in Sicily, and of course, the UK’s hesitancy and red tape in allowing American access to British military bases.

While markets have focused on the energy crisis in the middle east, another war is fueling its own energy crisis further north. Russia’s Ust-Luga port was damaged after being struck by Ukrainian drones for the fifth time in ten days. According to Bloomberg, “Primorsk and Ust-Luga handled about 45%, or 1.72 million barrels a day, of Russia’ seaborne crude exports,” and the damage has set  Russia’s oil flows to its lowest level in more than a year

Amid the fog of war and fading ‘hard’ data, the final March S&P Global Manufacturing PMI printed 52.3 (a small drop from the flash 52.4 print), higher than the 51.8 print for February.

“Faster growth of output in March points to encouraging resilience for US manufacturing in the face of the outbreak of war in the Middle East,” according to Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence.

The ISM Manufacturing PMI also rose from 52.4 to 52.7 – the highest since August 2022…

Source: Bloomberg

Under the hood, Prices Paid continued to rise dramatically while New Orders and Employment dipped…

Business confidence regarding output in the year ahead has also so far held up well, if one follows the S&P Global report.

“This sustained resilience in part reflects reduced concerns over government policies such as tariffs, but also indicates that producers anticipate only a short-term and modest impact from the war, which is clearly uncertain.

It remains early days in terms of the impact of the conflict, and a sharp rise in prices and delivery delays has cast a cloud over the outlook, threatening to drive inflation higher, dampen demand and throttle supply chains, warns S&P Global’s Williamson.

Factory input costs have already jumped higher on the back of surging oil prices and supplier delays have become more widespread than at any time since October 2022, linked to the war exacerbating existing shipping, haulage and port delays.

“Some manufacturers are hence reporting stock building as a precaution against future price rises or supply shortages, and hiring has almost stalled in order to reduce staffing costs, underscoring the growing concern about how the war might cause problems for factories in the coming weeks.”

Obviously, if price pressures and supply delays persist, demand, employment and production capabilities will inevitably start to be more seriously affected.