Business
Dollar Doubts Dominate Gathering of Global Economic Leaders
On the sidelines of the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank this week, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent tried to convey an important message about the United States dollar.
Speaking to a crowd of global policymakers, regulators and investors, Mr. Bessent sought to allay fears that had ballooned in recent weeks about the dollar’s global standing and the country’s role as the safest haven during times of stress. He reiterated that the administration would continue to have a “strong-dollar policy” and affirmed that it would remain the currency that the rest of the world wanted to hold, even though it had weakened against most major currencies.
For participants at the event, Mr. Bessent’s comments were a needed salve after a bruising couple of weeks in financial markets as a result of President Trump’s trade war. Violent swings in stocks, coinciding with the weakening of the dollar as investors fled U.S. government bonds, had incited panic.
The fact that Mr. Bessent found it necessary to emphasize that message in front of such a big crowd underscored how precarious the situation had become since Mr. Trump returned to the White House less than 100 days ago. What now looms large are uncomfortable questions about what happens if the international community starts to lose faith in the dollar and other U.S. assets, something that economists warn would be costly for Americans.
“People are playing through scenarios that previously had been judged unthinkable, and they’re playing them through in a very serious kind of way in the spirit of contingency planning,” said Nathan Sheets, the chief economist at Citigroup and a Treasury official in the Obama administration.
“If the United States is going to pursue aggressive economic policies, it’s natural for the rest of the world to step back and say, ‘Well, do we want to buy U.S. assets as we have in the past?’”
‘New World Order’
At a similar gathering hosted by the I.M.F. and World Bank six months ago, attendees were preparing for an entirely different economic backdrop. Convening less than two weeks before the presidential election, they still had in their sights a rare soft landing in which the major central banks finished their fight against high inflation while managing to avoid a recession.
The tariffs Mr. Trump had been talking about on the campaign trail were top of mind, but for the most part, they were viewed as a negotiating tactic. Any turn toward protectionism was widely expected to push up the value of the dollar compared with other currencies. The rationale was that tariffs would lower demand for imported goods, since they would make them more expensive for American consumers, and over time result in fewer dollars being exchanged for foreign currencies.
But since Inauguration Day, the opposite has occurred. An index that tracks the dollar against a basket of major trading partners has fallen nearly 10 percent in the last three months. It now hovers near a three-year low. The sharpest slide came after Mr. Trump announced large tariffs on nearly all imports in April. While he temporarily reversed course, the dollar has yet to recoup its losses.
There are reasons not to read too much into its recent weakening. The U.S. economic outlook has fundamentally changed. Businesses are “frozen” by tariffs, Christopher J. Waller, a governor at the Federal Reserve, said this week as he warned about layoffs stemming from the uncertainty.
Economists have sharply scaled back their estimates for growth while raising their estimates for inflation, a combination that carries a whiff of stagflation. In that environment, it is not surprising that the dollar and other U.S. assets appear less appealing.
Dollar depreciation — even if extreme — also does not necessarily translate to a loss of stature in the global financial system. There have been previous big drops in the value of the dollar that have not incited a wholesale shift away from the currency’s primacy, said Jonas Goltermann, the deputy chief markets economist at Capital Economics.
But at this year’s spring meetings, there was a palpable sense that something more ominous could be taking place. Joyce Chang, JPMorgan’s chair of global research, noted a disconnect between domestic and international participants at the conference that the Wall Street bank hosted during the week of the meetings.
U.S.-based investors appeared less concerned about a structural shift away from the country’s assets and more focused on the ways in which Mr. Trump could course-correct on his economic policies. International investors were consumed by the prospects of a “regime change” in the financial system and a “new world order,” Ms. Chang said.
Mr. Trump had recently escalated his attacks on Jerome H. Powell, the Fed chair, fanning fears about how much the administration would encroach on the central bank’s independence. That longstanding separation from the White House is broadly seen as essential to the smooth functioning of the financial system.
“The dollar’s role in the system was not ordained from above,” said Mark Sobel, a former Treasury official who is the U.S. chairman of the Official Monetary and Financial Institutions Forum. “It’s a reflection of the properties of the United States.”
Those include a large economy that transacts with the world; the financial system’s deepest, most liquid capital markets; a credible central bank; and the rule of law.
“I do believe that Trump is doing permanent damage,” Mr. Sobel said.
Few Alternatives
It is hard to overstate the dominance of the dollar globally, meaning there are real limitations to how significantly private and public investors can diversify away from it, even if they want to.
Most trade is invoiced in dollars. It is the leading currency for international borrowing. Central banks also prefer to hold dollar assets more than anything else, and by a wide margin.
“Anybody who’s looking for diversification has to be realistic,” said Isabelle Mateos y Lago, the chief economist at BNP Paribas. “Reserve assets, by definition, have to be liquid.”
Alternatives do exist, but they are hobbled by their own weaknesses. China lacks open, deep and liquid capital markets, and its currency does not float freely, tarnishing its appeal globally. Top European leaders — including Christine Lagarde, the president of the European Central Bank — have talked more readily about bolstering the prominence of the euro, something that is considered more plausible now that countries like Germany are stepping up their spending. But the amount of available euro-denominated safe assets pales in comparison with that of U.S. capital markets.
Still, in the recent period of volatility, investors have found a number of places to take cover. The euro, Swiss franc and Japanese yen have been clear beneficiaries. Gold has rallied sharply, too.
“You don’t need to have the role of the dollar as a reserve asset go to zero,” said Ms. Mateos y Lago. “A multipolar system can totally work.”
Burden or Privilege?
When asked at Wednesday’s event, which was hosted by the Institute for International Finance, whether the dollar’s reserve currency status was a burden or a privilege, Mr. Bessent said: “I actually am not sure that anyone else wants it.”
But economists warn that Americans would be losing clear benefits if the government was too cavalier about the dollar’s shedding its special status.
The country’s exporters would reap rewards, as a weaker dollar would make their products more competitive. However, that advantage could come at the expense of reduced spending power for Americans abroad and higher borrowing costs at a time when the government has huge financing needs.
Despite the pain that Americans may have to bear, the global financial system would be far more “resilient” if other currencies shared the dollar’s global role over time, said Barry Eichengreen, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. During times of stress, that would mean multiple sources of liquidity.
However, three months into Mr. Trump’s second term, Mr. Eichengreen warned that a “dire scenario is now on the table” — a sharp sell-off of dollar-denominated assets into cash.
“A chaotic rush out of the dollar would be a crisis,” he said. “All of a sudden, the world would not have the international liquidity that 21st-century globalization depends on.”
Walt Disney Co.’s ABC is forcefully resisting Federal Communications Commission efforts to soften the network’s programming, accusing the federal agency of an overreach that violates 1st Amendment freedoms.
Last week, the FCC took the unusual step of calling in the licenses of eight Disney-owned television stations for early review. The move — widely interpreted as an effort to chill the network’s speech — came a day after President Trump demanded that ABC fire late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.
The FCC separately has taken aim at ABC’s daytime discussion show, “The View,” which delves deeply into politics.
The FCC has questioned whether the show, which prominently features Trump critics Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, could continue toclaim an exemption to rules that require broadcasters to provide equal time for opponents of political candidates.
In its response this week to the FCC, Disney’s Houston television station raised the stakes in “The View” dispute, calling the commission’s actions “unprecedented” and “beyond the Commission’s authority.” The ABC station’s petition for a declaratory ruling said “The View,” has long qualified as a “bona fide” news interview program with freedom to conduct interviews of legally qualified political candidates.
“The Commission’s actions threaten to upend decades of settled law and practice and chill critical protected speech, both with respect to The View and more broadly,” the Houston station KTRK-TV said in the filing.
The network’s firm stance sets up a clash with the Trump administration, including the president’s hand-picked FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, who has made no secret of his disdain for Kimmel and other ABC programming. Earlier this year, Carr announced that decades-old exemptions from the so-called “equal time rule,” for some programs, including “The View,” were no longer valid.
In a statement, the FCC said it would “review Disney’s assertion that ‘The View’ is a ‘bona fide news program’ and thus exempt from the political equal time rules,” according to a spokesperson.
“Decades ago, Congress passed a law that generally prohibits broadcast television programs from putting a thumb on the scale in favor of one political candidate over another,” the spokesperson said. “The equal time law encourages more speech and empowers voters to decide the outcome of elections.”
ABC’s strenuous arguments mark a turning point for the Disney-owned outlet.
In December 2024, a month after Trump was elected to a second term, the network quickly settled a lawsuit over statements made by news anchor George Stephanopoulos that Trump found offensive. ABC agreed to pay Trump $15 million to end his legal fight — sparking an outcry among free speech advocates, who accused the network of caving on a case it may have won.
But, over the past year, the network has weathered several storms, including a threat by Carr in September to punish ABC if it didn’t muzzle Kimmel for comments he made in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s death. ABC briefly benched Kimmel to allow tensions to cool but, during the week his show was off the air, protesters loudly bashed Disney, demanding the legendary company stand up for free speech.
Thousands of consumers canceled their Disney+ and Hulu subscriptions in protest.
Protesters swarmed Hollywood Boulevard, protesting ABC’s move to bench Jimmy Kimmel in September over comments he made about the shooting of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk.
(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)
Some conservatives, including Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and commentator Ben Shapiro also criticized Carr’s handling of 1st Amendment issues.
“The days of the FCC as a paper tiger are numbered,” the FCC’s lone Democrat, Anna M. Gomez, said Friday in a statement. “What the public will remember is who complied in advance and who fought back. I’m glad Disney is choosing courage over capitulation.”
The high-profile dispute presents an early challenge for Disney Chief Executive Josh D’Amaro, who succeeded longtime chief Bob Iger in March.
ABC has asked for the full commission — a three member panel of Carr, Gomez and Commissioner Olivia Trusty, a Republican — to rule on the equal time exemption for “The View.” ABC said that, in 2002, it received a ruling from the FCC that granted the exemption, and the show’s format has not changed. “The View” is produced by ABC News.
“Some may dislike certain — or even most — of the viewpoints expressed on The View or similar shows,” the station said in its filing. “Such dislike, however, cannot justify using regulatory processes to restrict those views.”
ABC described a logistical nightmare of providing equal time for political opponents by pointing to California’s crowded primary field of gubernatorial candidates. “Affording equal time would mean accommodating over 60 legally qualified candidates, regardless of their perceived newsworthiness,” the station wrote.
The network said it makes show bookings based on newsworthiness, not partisan politics. It also noted it has invited politicians from both sides of the aisle to appear on “The View,” but some, including Vice President J.D. Vance, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Secretary of State Marco Rubio and entrepreneur Elon Musk, have declined the invitation.
The station also noted that, while the FCC has questioned the exemption for “The View,” the agency hasn’t shown interest in regulating programs on other networks, “including the many voices — conservative and liberal — on broadcast radio.” The FCC also oversees radio station licenses.
“The danger is that the government will simply decide which perspectives to regulate and which to leave undisturbed,” ABC said.
On April 28, Carr called for a review of Disney’s broadcast licenses, including for the Houston station and KABC-TV in Los Angeles, two years before any of them were set to expire. The FCC said the review was part of the agency’s year-old inquiry into Disney’s diversity, equity and inclusion policies and whether they violated federal anti-discrimination rules.
In its Thursday petition, ABC said it had fully complied with the FCC’s request for documents related to its diversity and hiring.
The company has produced more than 11,000 pages of documents to comply with the request, Disney said.
The same week that Disney sent documents to the FCC, Kimmel made a joke on his show about Melania Trump, comparing her glow to that of “an expectant widow.” On April 25, a gunman tried to breach security at the Washington Hilton, where the first couple were on stage for the White House Correspondents’ Assn. Dinner. Shots were fired outside the ballroom.
Three days later, the FCC announced it was requiring early license renewal applications for the Disney-owned stations.
The United States on Friday announced a flurry of new sanctions intended to increase pressure on Iran’s economy, targeting people and companies in China and Hong Kong that have been helping the Iranian military gain access to supplies and war equipment.
The sanctions came ahead of a major summit between President Trump and China’s leader, Xi Jinping, in Beijing next week. China’s support for Iran has become a flashpoint with the Trump administration, which has been trying to compel independent Chinese refineries to stop purchasing Iranian oil.
China is Iran’s biggest buyer of oil, and the Trump administration has said that it is sponsoring terrorism by propping up the Iranian economy.
The new sanctions are aimed at Iran’s military industrial supply chain, and are intended to make it harder for Iran to secure access to the material it needs to build drones and missiles. In addition to China, the sanctions also target people and companies based in Belarus and the United Arab Emirates.
“Under President Trump’s decisive leadership, we will continue to act to keep America safe and target foreign individuals and companies providing Iran’s military with weapons for use against U.S. forces,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a statement.
The Trump administration has been looking for ways to squeeze Iran’s economy and pressure the Iranian government to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, a conduit for the flow of global oil. Oil tankers have had sporadic access to the critical waterway since the war started earlier this year, and the United States and Iran have been fighting over who should control it.
U.S. warships that have been trying to transit the strait have been attacked by Iranian forces. The United States on Friday fired on and disabled two Iranian-flagged oil tankers as they tried to reach an Iranian port.
The Treasury Department has also imposed sanctions on the Chinese “teapot” refineries this month. The independent refineries are major purchasers of Iranian oil. But China invoked a domestic policy ordering its companies to disregard the sanctions.
Mr. Bessent said earlier this week that he expected Mr. Trump to urge Mr. Xi to use the country’s leverage over Iran to pressure it to allow oil cargo to travel.
“Let’s see if China — let’s see them step up with some diplomacy and get the Iranians to open the strait,” Mr. Bessent told Fox News on Monday.
Business
General Motors to pay $12.5 million to settle claims that it illegally sold California driver data
General Motors has agreed to pay $12.5 million dollars to settle claims that the automaker illegally sold location and driving data of hundreds of thousands of Californians, state officials said Friday.
The settlement is an example of how automakers are facing more scrutiny over allegations that they share driver data with the insurance industry, influencing how much people pay for coverage. California, though, has a law that bars insurers from using driving data to set rates.
“If we get word that a company is illegally collecting, storing or selling consumer data, we won’t hesitate to look under the hood and hold them accountable to the law,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a news conference.
The settlement is the largest California Consumer Privacy Act penalty in the state’s history, Bonta said.
The act gives California consumers the right to request that businesses disclose what data they collect. They can also opt out of the sharing or sale of their personal information and request that businesses delete their data.
Investigators found that from 2020 to 2024, GM sold driver data, including names, contact information, location data and driving behavior data, to data brokers Verisk Analytics Inc. and LexisNexis Risk Solutions. The data came from a driver’s use of OnStar, which is owned by GM and provides roadside assistance, navigation and other services.
GM said the agreement addresses a product called OnStar Smart Driver that the company discontinued in 2024. The product was meant to help improve people’s driving but faced privacy concerns from consumers. In 2024, GM also ended its partnership with the two data brokers and said it would enhance privacy controls.
“Vehicle connectivity is central to a modern and safe driving experience, which is why we’re committed to being clear and transparent with our customers about our practices and the choices and control they have over their information,” a GM spokesperson said in a statement.
Various district attorneys throughout the state, including in Los Angeles and San Francisco, were involved in the investigation and settlement.
Technology has been playing a bigger role in the auto industry, but the data collected from drivers can reveal personal information about people’s daily habits, including where they drop off their kids and doctor visits.
The California Privacy Protection Agency in 2023 started investigating the privacy practices of connected cars. As the state was looking into the automakers, the New York Times reported in 2024 that GM was sharing consumer driving behavior with insurance companies. Nationwide, GM reportedly made roughly $20 million from selling data to Verisk and LexisNexis.
The state’s privacy protection agency has taken action against other automakers before. Ford Motor Company was fined $375,703 in March and Honda was fined $632,500 in 2025 for privacy violations.
Under the GM settlement, which still needs court approval, the automaker would delete any driving data the company kept within 180 days and request that the two data brokers do the same. They would also stop selling driving data to consumer reporting agencies for five years and develop a privacy program that includes assessing and mitigating the risks of data collected from OnStar.
California’s settlement with GM came after the Federal Trade Commission in 2025 also took action against the automaker and OnStar for its privacy practices, barring them from disclosing location and driver behavior data to consumer reporting agencies for five years.
-
World3 minutes agoAs Trump forces NATO to pay up, alliance races to close military gap with US
-
Politics9 minutes agoInside the US military playbook to cripple Iran if nuclear talks collapse
-
Health15 minutes agoFitness expert visits gyms nationwide, shouts out 4 clubs for ‘getting it right’
-
Sports21 minutes ago2026 INDYCAR Odds: Alex Palou Clear Favorite for Sonsio Grand Prix at IMS
-
Technology27 minutes agoGlobal scam crackdown leads to 276 arrests
-
Business33 minutes ago
Disney’s ABC challenges FCC, escalating fight over free speech
-
Entertainment39 minutes agoWriters Guild staff union reaches deal, ending strike after nearly three months
-
Lifestyle45 minutes agoHe’s your ex, not your son. Unconditional love does not apply