|
|
|
|
|
The Morning Risk Report: Trump’s Russia Sanctions Strategy Runs Hot and Cold
|
|
By Richard Vanderford | Dow Jones Risk Journal
|
|
|
|
|
Good morning. President Trump’s sudden turn against Russia has been met with skepticism from officials in his administration and European capitals who say he has done little since returning to office to punish the Kremlin for failing to end its war on Ukraine.
Trump has given Russian President Vladimir Putin an Aug. 8 deadline to reach a cease-fire with Kyiv, shortening a 50-day deadline he had set. Failure to stop the fighting would lead to secondary tariffs on countries that buy Russian energy, Trump has threatened, namely India and China.
-
Deadline: In a social-media post Wednesday, Trump said India on Aug. 1 would start paying a tariff rate of 25% plus an extra penalty for its Russian energy purchases.
-
More pressure: U.S. officials and Trump confidants say he realized he couldn’t count on his working relationship with Putin to broker a deal. Now, Trump believes pressuring Russia is the best chance to end the war, those people said, in addition to a slew of weapons sales to European nations earmarked for Ukraine’s battlefield.
-
Some doubts: Even Trump has expressed doubts that any additional measures he might implement against Putin’s Russia would have real teeth or staying power. “I don’t know if it’s going to affect Russia, because he wants to obviously probably keep the war going,” Trump told reporters Tuesday aboard Air Force One. “But we’re going to put on tariffs and the various things that you put on. It may or may not affect them, but it could.”
|
|
|
Content from our sponsor: Deloitte
|
|
Government Trends 2025: Enhancing Delivery in 9 Areas
|
Governments around the globe are addressing contemporary challenges and enhancing public services through the strategic use of technology, innovation, and collaboration, according to a new report. Read More
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A still from an Apple ad showing actor Bella Ramsey showcasing Apple Intelligence features.
|
|
|
|
Tech giants are revising AI product claims that faced scrutiny.
Apple, Google, Microsoft and Samsung have been revising or retracting certain claims about their newest, hottest artificial intelligence products.
The tech giants made the changes over the past year in response to a probe by an ad-industry self-regulatory group into whether marketers are overstating the capabilities or availability of AI features.
The Federal Trade Commission has also been studying the sector’s advertising, in September announcing several legal complaints as part of a crackdown it called Operation AI Comply.
|
|
|
White House urges new crypto anti-money-laundering requirements.
The Trump administration is pushing Congress to create tailored anti-money-laundering reporting requirements for cryptocurrency companies and others operating in the digital asset space.
Congress should amend the Bank Secrecy Act—which governs how banks report illicit financial activity to regulators—to create customized financial institution categories that more accurately capture the types of actors in the digital asset space, administration officials said in a report published Wednesday.
|
|
|
|
|
|
73%
|
The proportion of senior leaders who believe one day entire business units will be managed by agentic AI, according to a survey by EY.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard arguments Thursday. Photo: Aaron Schwartz/ZUMA Press
|
|
|
|
Trump’s tariffs questioned by appeals court.
Federal appeals judges on Thursday grilled a Trump administration lawyer over the White House’s use of emergency powers to impose worldwide tariffs, pushing back against the president’s claims that a 1977 law addressing economic emergencies gives him the ability to rewrite the tariff schedule.
Justice Department attorney Brett Shumate told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that in granting the president the power to “regulate” imports during national emergencies, Congress included the power to impose tariffs as he saw fit. But several members of the court cited both statutes and court precedents suggesting that lawmakers had allowed at most only small adjustments to congressionally set tariffs in response to discrete threats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|