

**Oil's surge above $96 a barrel is reshaping the Federal Reserve's policy path, with traders now pricing a September rate hike as the most likely outcome.** Traders on Kalshi, the prediction market platform, have sharply increased bets on the Federal Reserve raising interest rates at its September meeting, as a five-day rally in crude oil stokes fresh inflation concerns. Brent crude futures climbed 2.6 percent to $96.49 a barrel Thursday, the highest since June 8, after attacks on tankers in the Middle East raised the specter of supply disruptions. The shift in rate expectations marks a stark reversal from just weeks ago, when markets were pricing a prolonged pause. "The oil shock is reintroducing upside risk to the inflation forecast at exactly the wrong time for the Fed," said Priya Malhotra, senior macro strategist at TS Lombard. "If Brent holds above $95 into August, the September meeting becomes live for a hike — something the market had all but ruled out." The repricing has rippled across asset classes. Two-year U.S. Treasury yields, the most sensitive to rate expectations, climbed to a 17-month high this week as traders added to short positions. The dollar index firmed, while gold slipped 0.6 percent to $4,103.39 an ounce after touching a two-week high Wednesday. The yen weakened to 163.23 per dollar, its lowest level since December 1986, keeping traders on alert for intervention by Japanese authorities. The S&P 500 and Nasdaq have come under pressure as higher discount rates weigh on equity valuations. The Fed meets next week and is widely expected to hold the federal funds rate steady. But the oil-driven shift in the inflation outlook has upended the forward guidance narrative. Futures markets now price at least one quarter-point hike by year-end, with September emerging as the most probable window. The last time the Fed raised rates after a prolonged pause was in 2023, when a similar energy-driven inflation scare forced a 25-basis-point increase that caught markets off guard. **What a September hike would mean** A rate increase in September would tighten financial conditions at a time when the labor market is already showing signs of cooling. Australia's employment data Thursday beat expectations by a wide margin — 76,300 jobs added versus 16,400 forecast — but that strength was concentrated in part-time roles, and the participation rate rose to 67 percent, suggesting slack remains. In the U.S., initial jobless claims data due next week will be scrutinized for any deterioration that could complicate the Fed's calculus. The European Central Bank, which meets later Thursday, is expected to hold its deposit rate at 2.25 percent, but its statement will be parsed for any acknowledgment that energy prices are complicating its own path to price stability. The Bank of Japan faces a similar dilemma: markets price 27 basis points of additional tightening this year, but a weaker yen — now at levels that triggered intervention in April and May — adds imported inflation pressure that could force the BOJ's hand sooner. For investors, the stakes are clear. If oil prices sustain above $95, the Fed's September meeting becomes a live event, and the "higher for longer" narrative that dominated 2024-2025 could give way to a "higher again" scenario. That would push bond yields higher, compress equity multiples, and strengthen the dollar — a headwind for emerging markets and risk assets across the board. The next data point to watch is the July consumer price index, due Aug. 13, which will show whether oil's rally is feeding through to core inflation. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

**Brian Johnson, President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, told lawmakers Thursday he has not decided whether to pursue plans to fire the vast majority of the agency's staff, as Democrats accused him of enabling a pay-to-play system that has dropped 42 enforcement cases against presidential donors.** "I have an open mind about staffing levels for offices," Johnson, a Capital One Financial vice president who served as the CFPB's deputy director during Trump's first term, said at a Senate Banking Committee hearing. His response came after Sen. Ruben Gallego, Democrat of Arizona, asked whether he agreed with acting Director Russell Vought's plan to slash the number of agency examiners to 77 from 350. The exchange underscored the stakes for the consumer watchdog, which Congress created after the 2008 financial crisis to police predatory lending. Republicans have long attacked the bureau as an overreach of government power, while defenders say it has returned more than $19 billion to harmed consumers since its inception. Vought, who also serves as White House Office of Management and Budget director, has halted virtually all agency activities and sought to eliminate most of its staff, though federal courts have so far blocked those efforts. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who originally conceived the CFPB, pressed Johnson on whether he would cooperate with congressional oversight after the bureau dropped a lawsuit against Capital One shortly after the credit card issuer donated $1 million to Trump's inauguration. Warren noted that 42 enforcement cases — including actions against Apple Inc., Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Toyota Motor Corp., Walmart Inc. and Meta Platforms Inc. — were dropped after those companies made donations to the president. "Will you agree to notify us if you get a call about a political donor from the Trump family?" Warren asked. Johnson replied: "With respect, I dispute the premise of the question." Johnson's nomination is the third attempt by the Trump administration to install a permanent director since the president returned to office last year, after the White House withdrew both prior nominees. If confirmed, Johnson has agreed to forfeit between $250,000 and $500,000 in unvested Capital One shares and has signed an ethics pledge to recuse himself for two years from matters involving his former employer. His financial disclosure showed net assets of between $336,000 and $2.7 million, plus roughly $740,000 in salary and bonus from Capital One. The nominee also faces questions about his ties to other regulated entities. Ethics documents show Johnson has professional connections to companies operating the Zelle payments network, which was also the subject of a CFPB enforcement action that Vought dropped. Johnson declined to identify any actions taken by Vought that he disagreed with, signaling continuity with the acting director's approach. In one unexpected exchange, Sen. Bernie Moreno, an Ohio Republican and former car dealer, asked Johnson to investigate online auto platform Carvana Co., which Moreno said approves nearly 100 percent of its customers for credit. "Having been in the car business for a long time, that doesn't exist," Moreno said. Johnson replied he would "be happy to take a look" — a notable response given that the Dodd-Frank Act specifically excludes most auto dealers from the CFPB's direct oversight, and Republican lawmakers have consistently opposed bureau authority in the auto sector. The Senate Banking Committee, controlled by Trump's Republican allies, is expected to advance Johnson's nomination. If confirmed, he would inherit an agency that Vought has described as "woke" and sought to abolish. David Silberman, a former CFPB official whose tenure overlapped with Johnson's, said he expects Johnson would not seek to kill the agency. "I do not think he would pursue an agenda of decapitating the CFPB although I believe he will feel obligated to carry out the president's directives and policy priorities," Silberman said. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer will outline the administration's next tariff strategy Thursday as the 10% blanket duties imposed after the Supreme Court struck down Liberation Day levies are set to expire. Greer scheduled a press announcement for Thursday as the 10% global tariffs imposed under Section 122 of the Trade Act expire, forcing the White House to replace the levy that has served as its primary trade weapon since February. "The expiration creates a deadline the administration must address, and the question is whether they shift to Section 301 or pursue an entirely new legal basis," said William Reinsch, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The 10% across-the-board tariff took effect in February after the Supreme Court ruled the administration's reciprocal tariffs unlawful, with a 150-day window set to close Friday. The White House has been preparing Section 301 investigations into trading partners including South Korea, which received notice of a pending 12.5% tariff tied to a forced-labor probe. Canada faces a separate escalation under Section 338 of the Smoot-Hawley Act — a 50% levy on goods ranging from hockey sticks to cement — after the White House said Ottawa failed to address long-standing trade irritants. The shift in legal authority carries significant economic stakes. The Peterson Institute for International Economics estimated the original Liberation Day tariffs cost American households more than $1,700 each, according to a February 2026 fact sheet cited by Senator Elizabeth Warren in a hearing this week. With the 10% surcharge expiring, the administration must either secure a new legal foundation or risk losing the primary tariff mechanism that has reshaped U.S. trade flows over the past 18 months. **Section 301 Takes Center Stage** The administration has signaled it will lean on Section 301 of the Trade Act, which allows the U.S. Trade Representative to retaliate against foreign trade practices deemed unfair. The forced-labor investigation into South Korea has been completed, and Seoul was notified of a 12.5% tariff, though South Korean Trade Minister Kim Jung-kwan has insisted the 15% ceiling agreed in the bilateral trade deal must be respected. Kim, visiting Washington this week, said the first investment project under a $200 billion commitment is in final negotiations, with an announcement possible by late August or September. The shift to Section 301 mirrors the playbook used against China during the first Trump administration, when tariffs on more than $300 billion in Chinese goods were imposed under the same authority. That escalation reduced bilateral trade by roughly 15% over 12 months, according to Census Bureau data. **Canada and the Smoot-Hawley Precedent** The 50% tariff on Canadian goods under Section 338 — a law from 1930 not used in decades — represents a separate track from the Section 122 expiration. Unlike the global surcharge, which exempted CUSMA-compliant goods, the new levies apply even to products qualifying under the trade pact. National Bank of Canada estimated the threatened duties would push Canada's average effective tariff rate from roughly 5% to about 7.5%, still below the 6.9% global average. Using May trade data as a benchmark, the bank found the actual duty rate paid on Canadian goods would rise from around 3% to just over 5%, as producers of heavily tariffed goods seek alternative markets. Prime Minister Mark Carney said Tuesday that Canada will intensify trade talks with the U.S., though the White House has linked the tariffs to Canada's supply-managed dairy system and provincial bans on American liquor. **What Comes Next** The expiration of the Section 122 tariffs removes the administration's broadest trade authority, leaving a patchwork of country-specific and sectoral measures. The 12.5% tariff on South Korea under Section 301, the 50% levy on Canada under Section 338, and existing duties on steel and aluminum would remain in place. Greer faces the additional challenge of defending the administration's tariff policy before Congress, where lawmakers including Warren have pressed for reimbursement of the billions collected from American consumers under the now-invalidated Liberation Day framework. The next flashpoint comes Friday, when the 10% global tariff officially lapses — and Greer's announcement will determine whether the administration has a replacement ready or enters a period of reduced tariff coverage for the first time since April 2025. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.