Rhetoric accompanying these levy threats has been equally uncompromising, with many leaders finding themselves the target of a Trumpian talking-to about how their country may have exploited the goodwill of the U.S. and its economy.

On Wednesday (U.S. time), it was the turn of Irish taoiseach Micheal Martin – meeting Trump and his deputy J D Vance for the annual meeting before St Patrick’s Day – who was scolded about Ireland snapping up American pharmaceutical companies.

Similarly, Australia has recently been accused – this time by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick – of apparently “dumping” excess aluminium on the U.S. market. This is being used as the justification for 25% tariffs hitting imports of the metal, in addition to steel, which rolled out in Week 11.

But perhaps the most standout (and head-scratching) example is the U.S.’s northern neighbour, Canada, which is being slapped with the same 25% tariffs on its steel and aluminium production as well as an across-the-board levy (another 25%) on all Canadian goods flowing into the U.S.

The latter was announced almost as soon as Trump came into office, with the President saying he would be targeting Canada and Mexico jointly in response to drugs – particularly fentanyl – coming into the U.S. from north and south.

Of course, this garnered a reaction, plus a series of retaliatory actions which indicated the economic and political relationship between the countries was souring.

On March 10, Ontario Governor Doug Ford announced electricity normally flowing from the province into three U.S. states – Michigan, Minnesota, and New York – would be hit with a 25% surcharge to answer Trump’s metals tariffs.

This prompted a threat by the President to push the latter to 50%, before a compromise was eventually reached between Ford and U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick that will facilitate a rollback of the electricity charges. Levies of 25% against Canadian metals still went ahead on Wednesday, March 12.

The previous day, Trump suggested the best way to resolve the issue would be for Canada to become the 51st state. “This would make all Tariffs, and everything else, totally disappear,” he said.

It’s difficult to overstate how irrational Trump’s approach seems to be – not only his threats against the Canadian economy, but also the language wrapping it – given the integrated relations between the two in previous years.

Energy is a great place to start, with Canada and the U.S. being each other’s largest trade partner in this sector, among which is an established, nearly century-long trade in electricity underpinned by an integrated grid.

In the past two decades, reliance has been increasingly one-way, with the U.S. importing more electricity than it exports; this affects 22 states. According to Canadian nonprofit media organization Narwhal, the province of Ontario is responsible for providing $700 million worth of electricity – that is, power to 1.5 billion homes.

Professor Wesley Widmaier – from Australian National University (ANU)’s Department of International Relations – believes the tensions between the two can be compared to a personal relationship.

“There are some cases where just like in a relationship, you can say something to your partner where it changes everything,” he said.

“Trump’s ill-considered rhetoric about annexing Canada has affected what could be a lasting change like relations between the two sides, the two people.

“I was just in the U.S., and many Canadians are quite angry and offended, and that affects people where they live.”

Professor Widmeier said Canada was just one country which had been hit with uncertainty over its working relationship with the U.S. going forward.

“In the context of Europe, he’s called Article 5 into doubt by seeming to side with the Russians against Ukrainians on foreign policy,” he said.

“For Australia, I don’t think we’ve reached that point yet, I don’t think he’s engaged in any really egregious rhetoric that would change people’s views of the United States on the ground, so we can play that game of biding and waiting to see to what extent Trump himself pulls away from some of these policies.

“But it’s led to a reconsideration and in some places a deep questioning.”

Certainly, when it comes to Canada, the trade war doesn’t seem to be slowing down any time soon, with the country promising to match the U.S. “dollar for dollar” in response to the 25% metal tariffs which came in on Wednesday, announcing levies against $30 billion worth of imports from the country – that is, its own 25% tariffs against American steel, computers, and sports equipment.

Professor Widmeier said when it came to geopolitical engagements around defense, Donald Trump had returned to some longstanding preoccupations – particularly that of the U.S.’ allies relying too much on it – but had delivered these very differently.

“Burden sharing has always been an issue between the U.S. and the Europeans: it goes back to the Kennedy administration in the 1960s,” he said.

“What’s different this time – and it goes back to Trump’s statements from his first term – a suggestion that if NATO allies aren’t paying their 2% or whatever the exact amount is, that the US might consider not protecting them.

“It’s taking what was an iron-clad alliance and changing it to something transactional.

“So again, before Trump, if the Russians invaded Lithuania, Estonia, or Latvia, the U.S. – and NATO – would respond quite seriously. You have to think that that might not happen now.”

Professor Widmaier said it was plausible this was what the US President was aiming for long term: Particularly given the support he’d received in states most affected by the free trade, and Chinese dominance in manufacturing.

“Free trade creates winners and losers, protectionism creates winners and losers,” he said.

“To the extent that Trump has a constituency – ‘Build American Manufacturing’ states, the blue wall, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, – they all want to bring those jobs back.

“To the extent that he’s pressuring companies to build factories in the States and that would bring jobs back to the States, it’s not implausible.

“Would that be a rational economic policy? Is that the best allocation of goods and services? No. So there’d be many more losers than there’d be winners.

“The case for free trade is the winners compensate the losers and everyone’s still better off. The problem is for the last 50 years, the losers from free trade have gone pretty uncompensated, and that’s one of the reasons for Trump’s rise.”

Undoubtedly one of the main things to say about Trump’s tariff policy, and the back-and-forth reactions it’s provoked, is that world markets have so far been taking a significant hit thanks to economic uncertainty.

Here in Australia, the ASX200 has experienced four consecutive weekly declines on the back of Trump’s levy threats, and Wall Street has experienced a similar downturn. Professor Widmaier said this would be an issue the President could not ignore.

“I can tell you, when I talk to people back in the United States, stock market swoon has gotten a lot of people’s attention,” he said.

“Americans have their retirement funds tied up in 401K accounts – which are bundles of stock market investments – so when people see the stock market go down, they see their retirement savings go down, and Trump is aware of this.

“And meeting – as he did recently – with the business executives round table, one can imagine this explains a bit of his erratic back and forth kind of reactions.”

The White House has commented that some short-term pain might be necessary for Trump’s trade plan to be realised. And this could be strategic.

“When he’s warning people, when he’s suggesting that a recession is likely, that’s a little more esoteric for people,” Professor Widmaier said.

“And there’s a saying in politics, ‘get your recession out of the way early’.

“Dick Cheney, when the Bush administration back in 2000 took power, Cheney was very quick to declare that the US was likely to head into a recession, because that’s a recession you can blame on the outgoing guy, and 4 years is a long time, so people aren’t going to remember it, they want to get it out of the way.”

He added that while many were talking about the potential impact of tariffs on inflation, there was not likely to be a direct effect, although the instability brought on by constantly shifting policy was something to watch.

“When people say that tariffs are going to cause inflation, I’m sceptical to the extent that these price increases are sector-specific, one-off price increases,” Professor Widmaier said.

“A one-off increase in prices because of a tariff on a particular good – if it doesn’t become embedded in people’s expectations – will not cause prolonged inflation.

“If there are constantly increasing tariffs, where he’s got 25%, then 50%, and cyclical tariffs, and things start to feed on themselves, yes that will be inflationary.”

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

US military spending is set to undergo a comprehensive review which aims to reallocate funds from programs deemed lower priority – chiefly those connected to climate change and DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) – seeking reductions of around 8% from the Pentagon’s annual budget over the next 5 years.

The figure given by Acting Deputy Defence Secretary Robert Salesses was $50 billion – to be reallocated during the 2026 fiscal year – which represents around 6% of the $876.8B defense budget anticipated under Joe Biden’s administration.

But across the next 5 years, the initiative – guided by Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth – could involve a funding reallocation of between $250B and $350B, and impact much of the civilian workforce.

The review marks another step in the path that Donald Trump’s administration has been on since its inauguration. In an interview in early February, the President signaled that Musk would be auditing the Pentagon, and would be likely to find ‘fraud and abuse’ at the agency.

In a separate interview with NBC, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz echoed these sentiments, commenting that the Pentagon’s shipbuilding processes in particular were ‘an absolute mess’, and that unnecessary spending was a feature across the board.

More recently, this desire for change has been followed up with the removal of several high-profile military personnel, including Airforce General C. Q Brown – the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – whose appointment was questioned by Hegseth in his 2024 book, The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free.

In it, he wondered if race might have been a factor in Brown’s elevation to such a prestigious position, saying “Was it because of his skin colour? Or his skill? We’ll never know, but always doubt – which on its face seems unfair to C.Q. But since he has made the race card one of his biggest calling cards, it doesn’t really much matter.”

Also among those fired last week was Admiral Lisa Franchetti, who – as head of the US Navy – was the first woman to lead a military service

But although the budgetary review is likely to usher in significant change in programming at the Pentagon – marking as it does, the most profound assessment of defence spending since the Budget Control Act (BCA) in 2011 – this is not likely to have a negative impact on the United States’ capabilities, according to Research Fellow at UWA Defence and Security Institute Dr Troy Lee-Brown.

Commenting on Waltz’s suggestion that shipbuilding processes could be under the microscope, Dr Lee-Brown said this area of military spending would not be likely to receive cutbacks.

“I was interested in Hegseth’s response to those comments, that he supported DOGE’s efforts to cut costs at the Pentagon, but not to the detriment of US operational and tactical capabilities,” he said.

“In fact, Hegseth believes defence spending should increase so that will be an area to watch.

“A bill was introduced to Congress recently that set out the need to grow the US naval fleet and raised ways in which allied shipbuilders might contribute to shipbuilding.”

Despite the likely profundity of the incoming military review, and the shift to a new US administration, Dr Lee-Brown said he was confident that the country’s $368 billion AUKUS deal with Australia – in which the latter would buy 3 to 5 off-the-shelf Virginia-class boats in the early 2030s – was on-target.

“Phase One or the SRF-West component of AUKUS Pillar One seems to progressing quite well at the operational level,” he said.

“(Defence Minister Richard) Marles’ initial meeting with incoming Sec Def Hegseth was encouraging with regard to phase 2 or the acquisition of 3-5 USN Virginia submarines.

“The politics will remain tricky and lots of work still to be done.”

Trump and Waltz’s earlier comments came only days after Richard Marles’ visit to Washington, where he and Trump met to discuss AUKUS, with Australia announcing it had paid the first of six $797 million payments.

While Hegseth made assurances that the boats would be delivered on time, there remain concerns about the deal, given the apparent difficulty US shipbuilders are having producing even the 2 subs per year required for US procurement.

Dr Lee-Brown said he did not expect any significant changes as part of President Trump’s overall approach to US defence, but added that “The Trump admin will pressure allies to do and spend more on defence.”

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

In the wake of the invasion, uncertainty and tension saw the latter push up to a price of $120 per barrel, and this period was followed by a spate of sanctions against Russia – chiefly targeting oil, gas and coal – from the United States, Canada, the European Union and other Western entities.

(This tendency has continued too, with the EU this week signing off on its 16th sanction package, which includes bans on the provision of services and technology that could facilitate completion of Russian LNG or crude oil products.)

In a general sense, the war prompted conversations about the need for countries to ensure their supply chains are both strong and diversified.

This is then augmented by the headwinds from recent U.S. tariff policies.

But Donald Trump’s recent interventions in international diplomacy concerning the war have introduced another topic into the chat: Ukraine’s richness in critical minerals, which the U.S. President wants to get his hands on.

The idea echoes early pronouncements from Trump that the States could acquire Greenland, an autonomous territory in the kingdom of Denmark rich in uranium, rare earth minerals, and iron ore.

After that, he moved his sights to the benefits that could be yielded from Ukraine in return for U.S. military aid. Initially, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy rejected a proposal that would have handed over half of the country’s critical mineral assets to the United States.

But after meetings which began over the weekend, it appears that Ukraine’s leaders have agreed to a deal which would enable the joint development of the country’s assets in return for strengthened relations with, and military support from, the United States.

According to media reports, the deal is set to be formalised on Friday, with Zelenskyy planning to fly to Washington for this purpose.

For much of its history, Ukraine was known for its contribution to agriculture: Unsurprisingly, given it accounts for a third of the globe’s most fertile land, with wheat, maize, and sunflower oil being some of its main exports in this sector.

But the country also holds 5% of the world’s mineral resources, including 20,000 deposits of 116 different types, of which only 15% (or 3,055) were active. Of the active deposits, 147 were metallic; 4,676 non-metallic.

More specifically, Ukraine has been noted for its supply of rare earth metals, titanium, lithium, beryllium, manganese, gallium, uranium, zirconium, graphite, apatite, fluorite, and nickel.

Titanium – a metal essential for the aerospace, medical, automotive and marine industries – is a particularly attractive commodity for the U.S., and Ukraine holds the world’s largest reserves and was a key supplier to the military sector before the invasion began.

Alongside this is lithium – a commodity whose fortune has fluctuated in recent years, as oversupply in China led to a price plunge, although this is a situation expected to correct itself in the next year or so, as supply wanes again.

Ukraine is home to one of Europe’s biggest confirmed reserves of the metal (at an estimate of 500,000 tonnes), including the Shevchenkivske field and the Kruta Balka block.

Since these are in regions close to the conflict – Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia respectively – their exploitation has not been possible for several years.

The country is also the fifth largest producer of gallium – an increasingly sought-after metal, whose price rose significantly last December due to Chinese export restrictions – in addition to supplying 90% of neon gas which is essential to the U.S. chip industry.

As nations vie to secure the materials critical for the ‘electrification of the globe’ and clean energy transition, Trump’s intentions in Eastern Europe may be ethically questionable, but not surprising.

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

Listen to the HotCopper podcast for in-depth discussions and insights on all the biggest headlines from throughout the week. On Spotify, Apple, and more.

However, headwinds remain: Particularly uncertainties brought on by a new Donald Trump Presidency in the United States and tensions in Europe and other regions.

That was the message from Tony Brennan, chief investment strategist with Canaccord Genuity, at the RIU Explorer’s Conference in Fremantle on Tuesday.

Addressing a packed audience at the opening session, where this HotCopper writer was in attendance, Mr Brennan said things were “getting back on track for the global outlook,” but warned investors needed to watch future uncertainties.

Expanding on the first theme, Mr Brennan said we were “getting to the end of the pandemic, and back to a sustainable economy.”

He continued: “Growth is better than normal in conditions of high inflation, and it should be back to target in 12 to 18 months.”

Notably, there had been a trend continuing since the beginning of COVID-19 where services played a crucial role in offsetting subdued manufacturing data, which had been hit by higher rates and energy prices after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

But barring threats from a potential trade war, Mr Brennan suggested this sector would also move to a more optimistic track in the future.

In terms of global growth in 2025, he declared, “We’re on a path that allows for steady expansion, not quick rebound.”

There are some issues to watch though – beginning with large budget deficits among many national economies. Chief among them is the U.S.

“It has one of the biggest deficits outside a (period of) war,” he said. Trump’s plan to introduce tax and spending cuts could blow this out of the water though.

“You get to a point where the debt is unsustainable: This is the uncharted territory we have to watch,” Mr Brennan said, before adding that other Trump policies – including deportations and trade wars – could also add to U.S. inflation.

But given the greater importance of underlying global fundamentals, Mr Brennan said in the opening address, the best policy was to “wait and see.”

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

The President mentioned two metals in particular focus: Aluminium and steel. The latter is one the U.S. imports from Australia, to the tune of $640 million a year.

Trump had also issued tariffs on steel and aluminium during his first term in office, prompting then-Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull to press for an exemption for Australia, based on the two countries’ solid defence relationship, in addition to Australia’s trade surplus with the U.S.

It is expected that similar diplomatic pressure will be enacted by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. (He has not spoken with Trump since November 2024.)

Currently, the U.S. charges zero tax on steel, iron ore, or aluminium from Australia.

The issuing of tariffs has been key to Trump’s early weeks in the White House, coming on the back of an election campaign in which he said that tariff was “the most beautiful word in the dictionary.”

In the first days after his inauguration, the President focused attention on Mexico and Canada – slating tariffs of 25% on imported goods from these countries, although announcements to this effect have been postponed.

Nevertheless, an additional tariff of 10% on all goods coming from China was actually announced – this being lower than expected – prompting retaliation from Beijing; China then declared any U.S.-originating goods like liquefied natural gas, coal, crude oil, farm equipment, and some automotive goods would be subject to tariffs of between 10 and 15%.

The latter tariffs – to go into effect on Monday – account for $14 billion worth of goods, with this development indicating a trade war between the two countries will not be cooling off any time soon.

An additional volley has come from German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who warned the European Union would act quickly if Trump issued tariffs against EU goods.

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

And looking at the new President’s actions within his first week – particularly concerning policies around renewable energy and building a ‘greener’ economy’ – one could be forgiven for thinking of the paradox of ‘an unstoppable force’ meeting ‘an immovable object.’

That is to say, Trump appears to present an immovable position of disdain towards environmentally friendly policies and clean energy transport – and a desire to emphasize fossil fuels instead.

However, he is faced with the unstoppable force of a global energy transition, underscored in particular by the growing popularity of electric vehicles (EVs).

And market-watchers might also ask, what could this mean for ASX-listed companies focused on critical minerals?

In his first week – starting January 20 – Trump signed a swathe of executive orders, including one promising to get rid of what he described as an ‘electric vehicle mandate’ imposed by the Biden administration.

This referred to an executive order signed by Joe Biden in 2021 which was pushing for half of all vehicles sold in the U.S. by 2030 to be EVs. While the latter was more about encouraging buyers rather than restricting their access to other cars, Trump has sought to frame the issue as a matter of promoting ‘true consumer choice.’

His own order, ‘Unleashing American Energy,’ also ends Federal funding for vehicle charging stations – subject to completion of a review process – and works to end a federal exemption relating to California which allows the state to phase out the sale of vehicles fuelled by petrol (gas) by 2035.

The first of these has already received pushback from Democrats pointing out Biden’s charger funding was part of a wider bipartisan infrastructure law, together with climate law the Inflation Reduction Act – noting any attempts to remove funds already allocated would be illegal.

To further underscore his antagonism to environmentalism, Trump has also considered a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, with a definite order to new UN ambassador Elise Stefanik to take the country out of any commitment made in the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Key to the electric vehicle story is the critical mineral of lithium, which has been locked in a volatile cycle, reaching a high point of 5750,000 Chinese yuan per tonne (CNY/t) in late 2022, before a dramatic fall of 86% over the last two years, as the market responded to the problem of oversupply, mainly from China.

The situation was still dicey coming into the new year; lithium prices had fallen 25% year-on-year throughout 2024.

China has also become the protagonist of an optimistic narrative for the metal as Beijing policymakers push for clean cars to make 20% of vehicles on Chinese roads by 2025.

Consumers there have been offered subsidies to buy EVs, and this was doubled in July 2024, with Chinese buyers flocking to purchase these vehicles: The latter trend was indicated by 31% growth in EV sales, year-on-year, for the first nine months of last year.

Additionally, recent data has shown the output of new energy vehicles within the country soared by 30.5% in December.

So will this demand and production mop up the lithium glut?

On one hand, the outlook for this critical metal appears to be improving – with experts tipping the global supply of lithium carbonate (LCE) to fall from 150,000 tonnes in 2024 to 80,000 in 2025.

Again, this is largely based on Chinese demand right now.

Closer to home, the commodity’s continuing low price has affected local producers and explorers, exemplified by IGO Ltd (ASX:IGO)‘s decision (taken together with joint venture partner Tianqi Lithium) to close operations at its lithium refinery in Kwinana.

While design issues at the plant were part of the story, IGO acknowledged a weak lithium price had also prompted anticipation of a net loss in the first half of the year.

This followed pullbacks from other players in the lithium space, such as NYSE-listed Albemarle: Which in August 2024 announced that expansion efforts at its Kemerton lithium hydroxide conversion site – also in Western Australia – would be rolled back, with the workforce to drop by 40%.

On the other hand, ASX-listed companies such as Chariot Corporation Ltd (ASX:CC9) – which is approaching lithium at the exploration stage, with a large tenement portfolio in Wyoming, Nevada, and Oregon – are holding tight to their assets and waiting out the price headwinds while the EV market and lithium demand rebuilds.

Saxo Head of Commodity Strategy Ole S. Hansen believes that although Trump’s new policies and approaches may stifle the United States’ drive towards electric vehicle ownership, the overall trend remains positive.

“Demand for critical metals towards the energy transformation, and specifically the EV industry, may see a slowdown in demand from the US,” he said.

“But ultimately, I do not believe it will have a material impact on the demand outlook as the energy transition will continue — also in the U.S. — as long the industry can compete with traditional producers.

“The 50% target (of Biden’s) I believe was never realistic and it’s not my belief that miners have based their demand outlook on that assumption.”

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

The material provided in this article is for information only and should not be treated as investment advice. Viewers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with a certified financial advisor before making any investment decisions. For full disclaimer information, please click here.

By 16:17 AEDT, Trump had extended his lead – achieving 230 Electoral College votes (from 51% of votes counted) to Harris’ 210 (from 48% of votes counted).

He had also gained North Carolina – the election’s first crucial swing state, and it was also confirmed that the Republican Party had won a majority in the US Senate.

Saxo Chief Macro Strategist John J. Hardy said the former President’s strong performance thus far had created ripples in financial markets.

“Markets are piling into the Trump 2.0 Trades (Bitcoin is the night’s big winner in percentage terms) as everything is going his way as votes accumulate and Harris’ path to victory looks increasingly unlikely,” he said.

“While patience is still required, markets are already trying to call this. It is important to remember that ‘proper’ Trump 2.0 Trades require control of the House – it will possibly be days before we know the results of all House elections.

“However, with Trump’s popular vote so much stronger than the last two elections, the odds are leaning higher.”

Bitcoin hit its previous record in March following the launch of US spot-bitcoin exchange-traded funds.

Join the discussion: See what’s trending right now on Australia’s largest stock forum and be part of the conversations that move the markets.

That could, if you wanted to be poetic, sum up what global markets broadly are currently thinking about with regards to the USA. They don’t know what to think.

We could see those futures numbers for Wall Street change in the coming hours. In fact, this is almost guaranteed – it’s Sunday night for Americans right now. And then, of course, there’s Trump’s latest apparent assassination attempt.

Gold hasn’t immediately skyrocketed, though it’s still clocked fresh record territory around US$2,584/oz. But there was no immediate spike when reports of this second apparent assassination attempt dropped. Brent Crude unchanged; US natgas unchanged.

Given gold’s recent performance, it’s not obvious if it wouldn’t have hit US$2,584 in the next 24 hours regardless, but it’s probably safe to bet at least some are hoarding, spurred by the Trump headlines.

(Worth noting is how many publishers are using the word “apparent” to describe this latest event from the Trump Ecosystem of Curiosities. I am going to sustain that trend for reasons, full disclosure of bias, I’d hope are obvious.)

There is, of course, something else arguably more important that happens later this week the world is watching: the looming US interest rate decision from the Federal Reserve.

On 18th September US time we get what is widely expected to be at least a -25bps cut from the Fed on the national interest rate – the first cut to come after the US, and the world, began ramping up rates to combat inflation.

Markets have been oscillating between two theories more than anything else: the Fed will cut 25bps, or it will cut 50bps. Whether it will or won’t cut isn’t really something the zeitgeist is asking anymore.

In other words: as far as the market cares, it’s all but guaranteed. You can read my weekly wrap at the end of this week to see how that decision changes things as they stand on Monday.

Don’t forget that only days ago, markets started rallying up the price of multiple commodities as Putin threatened to ban exports in response to western sanctions over its war in Ukraine.

Perhaps what is most telling for political considerations about the immediate response to the latest Trump news is that neither gold, nor Brent crude, have particularly done anything exciting. (I am using Brent despite the US caring more about WTI; ultimately, the WTI and Brent benchmarks rarely break out of correlation.)

That gold and oil haven’t done anything interesting in response to the second apparent attempt on Trump (remembering it’s still Sunday night in the US) is perhaps an eyebrow raiser, given both of those commodities rise during geopolitical conflict.

It suggests markets don’t really see the incident as a tradeable event.

Or maybe it’s because the last attempt didn’t really affect markets one way or the other in any week-by-week meaningful sense and that with NVIDIA having jumped +13.5% over the last 5 days – shaking off the second real test we’ve seen to the AI thesis – markets simply don’t care.

It’s worth reflecting on NVIDIA, who is the other large force driving markets – or at least catching the mood in the room.

Just two weeks ago, the company shed off the entire value of Chevron in one session, just astronomical amounts of money. Around A$415B, no less. It’s since bounced back and recovered those losses.

To further underscore the megacap tech value proposition, Apple remains the largest company in the world.

While it’s latest Glowtime event did not shake markets like many on Wall Street predicted – shares are up only +0.7% over the last 5 days but nearly +30% over the last 6 months – it, too, is harping on a lot about AI – which it calls “Apple Intelligence.” You can decide whether you think that’s tacky or not.

At any rate, and as ever, there’s no shortage of movement to watch coming out of the USA right now.

But with commodity responses subdued as it currently stands at lunchtime Monday Sydney time, it appears that markets care more about The Fed move later this week.

Making quiet conditions worse is that we’re in the ‘financial Christmas’ period – companies are all working on their annual reports and so there’s not a whole lot of newsflow hitting the bourse lately. Sure, there’s some, but nowhere near the volumes we were seeing even this time last year. This is actually something I’ve been noticing daily for a few months now.

While the day-to-day gross newsflow volumes of ASX announcements can’t really be used as a hard scientific economic indicator, one does get the impression that the animal spirits of publicly listed companies – broadly and with many exceptions – are opting to take a step back and wait to see where the economy (and trader enthusiasm) travels in H1 FY25. That’s already the case, despite the fact everybody is currently bunkered down, working on their annual reports.

Perhaps more exciting is that “the year of elections” – 2024 opened with much commentary focused on the geopolitical implications of a calendar year where dozens of national elections happened to line up – is now really starting to be felt.

First we had India’s a few weeks ago, where Modi stayed in relatively firm control despite a weaker supportbase than expected. Indian traders initially responded with some degree of uncertainty, but as of early July the Nifty 50 is up 7.23% MoM.

Then there was France, where the far-right National Rally party won around a neat third of the national vote, bringing that party – not exactly pro-EU – to likely hold considerable influence in government. A second round of elections in France take place this weekend, where candidates will be decided for good.

Despite initial concerns, the French CAC 40 is up 2.00% over the last week. Then there’s the UK.

Just this afternoon Australian time, UK Labour leader Keir Starmer – a former chief prosecutor – has won the UK election with a ‘landslide’ vote as the UK punishes the Tories for a wide array of different points of contention. Rishi Sunak’s appearance in the pouring rain without an umbrella only weeks ago, while perhaps just a bit of poor timing and not really indicative of performance, has repeatedly been pointed to by commentators this afternoon as the point where a unifying sense of farce might have kicked in.

Even Murdoch-owned newspapers deferred to a Labour vote. Right ahead of Europe trades at 4pm Sydney time on Friday, FTSE 100 futures were up around +0.25%.

And while Europe manages to pull the Western world’s attention, there is of course the one big looming election that happens in November – another US Trump vs Biden rematch.

While the entire world appears to have an opinion on last Thursday’s debate that saw Biden fumble alongside a very alert Trump, there was one other big development from the Supreme Court that has really changed things up. In short, the US Supreme Court – which Donald Trump stacked with conservative justices during his first tenure, don’t forget – has ruled that Donald Trump has a broad right to immunity when it comes to alleged criminal acts performed while President.

The debate really comes down to whether or not a criminal act conducted ‘officially’ can be criminal. The Supreme Court effectively handballed the decision to a lower court in regards to Trump’s ongoing case regarding January 6th, and it’s now unlikely to be heard until 2025 – after the November US 2024 election.

Even if that lower court departs from the Supreme Court’s sentiment, the Supreme Court is still the literal supreme court – it’s not clear how long a lower court’s decision would survive given an appeal would go back up the chain.

That may not seem like too much of a big deal, and wouldn’t be, were we in the 2010’s political era. But we aren’t – we’ve got Donald Trump, a man loved for his irreverence, but who has also said he would spend the first year back in power, if elected, persecuting the political opposition (read: arresting them.)

Should that happen, then long-held fears from the likes of Fitch Ratings and Moody’s that America’s perception of stability could suffer, ultimately risking American exceptionalism, may come true. If America does descend into a Trump-branded authoritarian state, it’s probably not too unlikely that Wall Street will do just fine.

But that’s not really what I’m getting at. The fact is, America’s stability and dominance economically – especially the USD and treasuries – has a lot to do with its perceived stability – and that perception could have changed very rapidly by this time next year.

At any rate: predict a lot more chatter about these elections and more in the coming weeks as analysts everywhere try to figure out what it all means for the future. That will probably remain the main topic until earnings season hits proper both in the US and here at home.