The country’s largest commercial banks are in early talks to create a jointly issued stablecoin, an effort aimed at defending their dominance in the payments ecosystem as cryptocurrency adoption and regulatory support grow under the Trump administration, The Wall Street Journal has reported.
The discussions involve major banking players including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and others through entities they co-own, such as Early Warning Services—the operator of peer-to-peer payments app Zelle—and the Clearing House, which runs a real-time payments network.
According to people familiar with the matter, WSJ said, these firms are considering whether to collaborate on a unified digital token that could be used across member institutions and potentially beyond.
The concept remains at an early stage and is subject to change.
People involved said a final decision would hinge on several factors, including whether there is enough consumer and business demand for a bank-issued stablecoin, and how new legislation shapes the regulatory framework.
GENIUS Act bill encouraging crypto firms to apply for banking charter
Stablecoins are digital currencies designed to maintain a one-to-one peg with a national currency like the US dollar.
They are backed by reserves such as cash or US Treasurys and are primarily used in the cryptocurrency sector to facilitate trades or store value.
However, banks increasingly see them as a promising tool for speeding up traditional financial processes like cross-border payments, which can take days using current infrastructure.
The potential move by the banks comes amid growing signs that the Trump administration is poised to accelerate support for stablecoins.
Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported that several crypto-native firms are preparing to apply for banking charters, encouraged by momentum behind a bill called the GENIUS Act.
The bill aims to establish a federal framework for stablecoin issuance, allowing both banks and qualified nonbanks to participate.
On Thursday, the Senate advanced the bill past a procedural hurdle.
A recent memo from law firm Paul Hastings noted that the latest draft includes limitations on stablecoin issuance by nonfinancial public companies—an attempt to appease bank lobbyists—but stops short of a complete ban.
Big banks seek digital edge before tech giants move in
Banking leaders fear that if they do not move quickly, deposits and payment activity could be diverted to crypto-native firms or tech giants entering the space.
Trump-aligned entities, such as the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial, recently launched their own stablecoin, signaling an expansion of private digital currency initiatives.
Against that backdrop, banks see a potential opening to reassert their dominance.
A bank-backed stablecoin could offer a faster, more secure alternative for domestic and cross-border payments.
Some sources said the model under discussion might allow non-owner banks to use the stablecoin, potentially broadening adoption.
However, a separate effort by smaller banks to create their own stablecoin has reportedly faced steep operational and strategic hurdles.
Gold prices are on track for their best weekly performance in over a month, buoyed by a decline in the US dollar and investor unease over America’s fiscal outlook, which has revived demand for the metal as a traditional safe haven.
As of early Friday trading in Asia, spot gold was up 0.3% to $3,303.09 an ounce, while US gold futures rose 0.2% to $3,302.80.
Bullion is up 3% so far this week, making it the strongest weekly performance since the first week of April.
Dollar’s slump boosts gold attractiveness
A sharp retreat in the US dollar this week has made dollar-priced gold more appealing to foreign investors.
The dollar index has dropped over 1% so far, marking its worst week since April 7.
“This week, trade optimism has somewhat given way to worries about the U.S.’s fiscal situation, and the resulting hesitancy towards U.S. assets has put gold back in the frame with investors,” said Tim Waterer, chief market analyst at KCM Trade in a Reuters report.
Gold can likely maintain its foothold above the $3,000 level while tariff, US debt and geopolitical tensions remain swirling around financial markets.
Investors are increasingly concerned about the United States’ growing debt burden.
On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a wide-ranging tax and spending bill, aligned with former President Donald Trump’s policy platform, which could add trillions of dollars to the national debt.
The bill now moves to the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority.
Meanwhile, the Treasury Department on Wednesday encountered tepid demand for a $16 billion auction of 20-year bonds.
The sale followed a decision by Moody’s last week to strip the US of its triple-A credit rating, a move that has further unsettled market sentiment.
Geopolitical tensions add to gold’s momentum
Heightened geopolitical risks also contributed to gold’s surge.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi warned that the US would bear legal responsibility for any Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, following media reports suggesting Israel is preparing military action.
Such developments have historically driven investors toward gold, which is seen as a reliable store of value during times of political instability and financial uncertainty.
Retail demand in Asia diverges amid higher prices
Physical demand for gold in Asia remained mixed this week.
In India, higher global prices and a weaker rupee dampened retail interest. Dealers in the country were offering discounts of up to $49 an ounce over official domestic prices, compared with $34 last week.
Domestic prices rebounded to around 95,900 rupees per 10 grams, up from a one-month low of 90,890 rupees last week.
“Jewellers are not interested in building inventory at this price level since retail demand is weak. Besides, they are getting a lot of old jewellery in exchange for new jewellery,” said a Mumbai-based bullion dealer.
In contrast, demand in China remained firm, with dealers charging premiums of $16 to $30 per ounce over spot prices.
Analysts noted strong conviction among Chinese investors despite recent price volatility.
Premiums in Hong Kong and Singapore were more modest, ranging from par to $2.50 an ounce, while Japanese dealers reported premiums of up to $1.
Crude oil prices were poised for their first weekly decline in three weeks as the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and its allies (OPEC+) deliberated another substantial increase in production quotas.
This potential surge in supply comes at a time when the market is already anticipating a surplus, further pressuring prices downward.
International benchmark Brent crude slipped towards $64 a barrel, marking its fourth consecutive session of declines and pushing its weekly loss to approximately 2%.
West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the US benchmark, traded below $61 a barrel.
The downward pressure was intensified by reports that OPEC+ nations were discussing another major output-quota increase, potentially adding 411,000 barrels a day for July.
While delegates indicated that no final agreement has been reached, the mere prospect of additional barrels entering the market weighed heavily on sentiment.
Adding to the bearish narrative, recent data revealed another rise in US commercial oil stockpiles, reinforcing concerns about a growing supply glut.
This has been a persistent theme for crude oil, which has shed about 14% of its value this year, even hitting its lowest point since 2021 last month.
This decline has been largely attributed to OPEC+ loosening its supply curbs at a quicker-than-anticipated pace, a move that coincided with the US-led trade war creating significant headwinds for global energy demand.
OPEC+ at a crossroads: prices vs. market share
Market participants are now keenly focused on the upcoming OPEC+ decision regarding July output levels.
“Focus is increasingly turning to OPEC+ and what the group decides to do with July output levels,” commented Warren Patterson, head of commodities strategy for ING Groep NV, as quoted by Bloomberg.
He suggested that the outcome of this meeting could signal a pivotal shift in the group’s strategy:
Another large increase for July would cement a shift in policy — from defending prices to defending market share.
A group of eight key OPEC+ nations, including the de facto leader Saudi Arabia, is scheduled to hold a virtual meeting on June 1 to finalize July’s production levels.
A recent Bloomberg survey of traders and analysts indicated that a majority expect the group to approve an output quota surge, further underscoring the prevailing market anticipation.
Geopolitical undercurrents: Russian oil cap and US fiscal woes
Beyond the immediate OPEC+ deliberations, other geopolitical and macroeconomic factors are influencing the oil market.
European Commission’s economy chief, Valdis Dombrovskis, stated that it would be “appropriate to lower the price cap on Russian oil to $50 a barrel.”
He argued that the current $60 cap—a measure designed to penalize Moscow for its war against Ukraine while ensuring continued oil flow—is not effectively hurting Russia at current lower price levels.
Meanwhile, broader market sentiment was also affected by concerns surrounding the United States’ fiscal health.
The US dollar was weaker on Friday, on track for its first weekly drop in five weeks against both the euro and the yen, as investors sought safe-haven assets.
Following Moody’s downgrade of US debt ratings last week, investor attention has sharpened on the country’s substantial $36 trillion debt pile.
This concern is further amplified by US President Donald Trump’s proposed tax bill, which could add trillions more to the national debt, creating a cautious atmosphere across financial markets that inevitably spills over into commodities like oil.
European stock markets commenced Friday’s trading session on a positive note, with major indices broadly higher as investors found solace in retreating bond yields and welcomed a batch of brighter-than-expected economic data from key regional economies.
This upbeat sentiment sets the stage for a potentially strong finish to the week.
Early trading saw the pan-European STOXX 600 index rise by 0.3% by 0721 GMT, putting it on course for an impressive sixth consecutive week of gains.
A significant contributor to this positive mood was encouraging economic news out of the United Kingdom.
The UK’s blue-chip FTSE 100 climbed 0.4% after official data revealed that British retail sales had jumped more than anticipated in April.
Adding to the positive economic picture, data showed that the German economy grew significantly more in the first quarter than previously estimated.
This upward revision was attributed to favorable economic developments in March, providing further evidence of resilience in Europe’s largest economy.
Consequently, the German DAX also advanced by 0.4%, trading just below its all-time highs.
This positive momentum comes after a week where stock markets had faced some selling pressure.
Soaring US Treasury yields, driven by concerns about the ballooning US debt, had previously unsettled investors.
Additionally, May business activity surveys had painted a somewhat gloomy picture of the eurozone economy.
However, a notable easing in benchmark 10-year US and European government bond yields on Friday appeared to alleviate some of these concerns, providing a more supportive backdrop for equities.
Corporate movers: AJ Bell jumps, Michelin upgraded
Among individual stocks making headlines, British investment platform AJ Bell saw its shares surge by an impressive 9.8%.
This significant jump followed the company’s announcement of a 12% year-over-year rise in its half-yearly profit before tax, a result attributed to increased client activity.
French tyre manufacturer Michelin also enjoyed a positive session, with its shares rising 0.9%.
The advance came after Jefferies upgraded the company’s stock to a “buy” rating, citing growth potential in its earnings.
Delving deeper into the UK economic data, retail sales rose by an estimated 1.2% in April on a monthly basis, according to figures released by Britain’s Office for National Statistics on Friday.
This print significantly exceeded the 0.2% month-on-month rise anticipated by analysts polled by Reuters.
The April figures marked a notable recovery from the previous month, when retail sales had risen by a more modest 0.1% month-on-month.
It’s worth noting that the March figure was revised down from an initial preliminary estimate of 0.4% growth in sales volumes.
The ONS attributed the robust April growth partly to strong food store sales, which were up 3.9% on a monthly basis, a performance that retailers linked to favorable weather conditions throughout the month.
Global market context and data watch
The positive sentiment in Europe found some support from overnight developments in Asia, where stock markets were gripped by broadly positive momentum.
This was partly attributed to an agreement between the US and China to keep communication channels open following a call between top officials from both countries.
On Wall Street, stock futures were little changed as investors continued to monitor the elevated levels of US Treasury yields.
Looking ahead, investors will be closely monitoring further economic data releases from the European region.
Figures due out include updates on UK consumer confidence, alongside the already released retail sales.
French consumer confidence data is also on the agenda, as is a final print on Germany’s first-quarter economic growth.
On the earnings front, it’s a relatively quieter day, though British Land and AJ Bell were set to update shareholders on their financial performance.
Energy bills across the United Kingdom will drop by 7% from July 1, following a decline in wholesale gas prices, according to new figures from the energy regulator Ofgem.
The cut to the price cap, announced on Friday, will lower annual bills for a typical household paying by direct debit to £1,720 — a modest but welcome reduction amid the broader cost-of-living squeeze that continues to grip the country.
The move marks the end of a series of quarterly price increases, but energy bills are still expected to remain elevated by historical standards.
While consultancy Cornwall Insight does not anticipate a dramatic hike in the coming winter, it has forecast only a minimal rise in the next price cap review, suggesting little relief ahead for households already struggling.
Bills remain well above pre-crisis levels
Despite the latest cut, energy bills remain significantly higher than in previous years.
In 2019, the first year Ofgem introduced the price cap, the average annual bill stood at £1,137.
Today’s adjusted figure of £1,720 represents a 51% increase over six years.
Ashton Berkhauer, energy expert at MoneySuperMarket, said the figures highlight how entrenched the rise in energy costs has become.
“Even after this drop, we’re a long way from what was once considered normal,” he noted.
Many households are still grappling with the effects of the energy crisis that began several years ago, compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, both of which caused steep spikes in gas and electricity prices.
Despite Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s election pledge to tackle soaring energy costs, bills today remain roughly 10% higher than when Labour took office.
Ofgem acknowledged that while the 7% drop in the cap is a positive step, prices remain high by historical standards.
Tim Jarvis, Director General of Markets at Ofgem, advised consumers to consider alternative tariffs or speak with their current providers to secure better deals.
“You don’t have to pay the price cap,” he said. “There are better deals out there. Changing your payment method to direct debit or smart pay-as-you-go could save up to £136 a year.”
Jarvis added that longer-term reforms are needed to stabilise prices and achieve energy security.
“We’re working closely with the government to get the investment we need to reach our clean power and net zero targets as quickly as possible,” he said.
Pressure builds on government amid volatile energy market
The government has come under renewed pressure to provide more targeted support for low-income and vulnerable households, with experts warning that wholesale prices remain highly sensitive to geopolitical and economic shifts.
Though British gas prices have fallen nearly 30% since the start of the year, they have edged upward again in recent weeks, highlighting the market’s inherent volatility.
Cornwall Insight attributed the most recent drop in prices to several short-term factors, including warmer-than-average temperatures and international developments such as the easing of European gas storage regulations and newly announced US trade tariffs.
Dr Craig Lowrey, principal consultant at Cornwall Insight, cautioned that relief may be fleeting.
“This fall in the price cap is undoubtedly welcome news for households, offering a degree of relief at a time when many are grappling with high living costs,” he said.
But while it’s important to celebrate the small wins, the energy market remains unpredictable. Global events can quickly reverse the current trend.
Energy suppliers, too, have warned against assuming the worst is over.
EDF Energy said that the market remains “incredibly volatile” and that further action is needed to support the most at-risk customers.
The company urged the government and regulator to implement long-term solutions to insulate the UK energy system from international price shocks.
Other utilities add to household cost burden
While energy prices are set to fall in July, water bills have surged sharply.
From April, average water bills in the UK increased by 26% — the steepest annual rise on record.
The rise has been attributed to investment in critical infrastructure and efforts to tackle the growing public backlash over water leaks and sewage pollution.
These parallel increases have left households facing a broader utility squeeze, even as headline inflation begins to stabilise.
The Trump administration has revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, escalating its clash with elite academic institutions.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced Thursday it had withdrawn the school’s certification under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, citing concerns over campus safety and alleged foreign influence.
“It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said in a statement.
The decision blocks new international student admissions and puts the legal status of nearly 6,800 current foreign students at risk unless they transfer to another certified institution.
Harvard said it would challenge the move and support affected students.
“The government’s action is unlawful,” the Ivy League university said in a statement.
“We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the University – and this nation – immeasurably,” a university spokesperson said.
DHS cites campus environment, links to China
In its statement, DHS accused Harvard leadership of creating an “unsafe campus environment,” alleging that anti-American and pro-terrorist elements had targeted students, particularly those who are Jewish.
It also claimed the university’s administration had coordinated with the Chinese Communist Party.
“Harvard’s leadership has created an unsafe campus environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students,” the department stated.
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem had earlier demanded that Harvard submit information on potentially unlawful activity by foreign students by April 30.
On Thursday, she reiterated the administration’s broader goals.
“This administration is holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus,” Noem said.
Broader tensions over federal oversight
The move compounds existing tensions between the university and the federal government.
The administration has already frozen federal research funding to Harvard and demanded wide-ranging reforms, including changes to faculty hiring, admissions, and campus governance.
The White House has also floated revoking the university’s tax-exempt status.
Harvard has pushed back, filing lawsuits and defending its autonomy. President Alan Garber said the university would not “surrender its independence or its constitutional rights.”
While acknowledging antisemitism is a concern, he has warned that the administration’s demands risk undermining academic freedom.
The restrictions come amid broader criticism of US universities in the wake of campus protests related to the Israel-Gaza conflict.
The Trump administration has framed its actions as an effort to combat antisemitism and curb perceived ideological bias at major institutions.
Harvard University finds itself at the epicenter of an escalating confrontation with the Trump administration, which has been methodically ratcheting up pressure on elite US colleges to enact sweeping policy changes.
Framing its actions as an initiative to combat campus antisemitism and enforce civil rights protections, the administration has employed coercive tactics, including the rescission of federal funding and the revocation of international student visas, with Harvard bearing the most significant brunt of these measures.
The dispute, a stark illustration of the tension between academic independence and governmental oversight, has seen the Trump administration freeze over $2.6 billion in federal research grants previously allocated to Harvard.
This drastic step was taken in response to the university’s refusal to overhaul its governance, disciplinary procedures, hiring practices, and admissions policies to align with the White House’s agenda.
Furthermore, the administration revoked the certification of Harvard’s program for international students, effectively barring them from attending the institution.
The pressure on the Ivy League institution shows no signs of abating, with potentially more punitive measures on the horizon.
President Trump has publicly stated his intention to strip Harvard of its tax-exempt status, a benefit that, according to a Bloomberg News analysis, saved the university at least $465 million in 2023.
Adding to this financial vise, the Republican-led House of Representatives has passed legislation that includes a significant tax increase on the net investment income from private college endowments, a measure that would directly impact Harvard’s substantial endowment.
In response, Harvard has filed a lawsuit, alleging that the government’s actions threaten its institutional independence and stifle free speech by suspending federal research grants.
The university has also called the block on foreign student enrollment unlawful.
The genesis of the conflict: “antithetical values” and antisemitism allegations
President Trump has long been a vocal critic of elite universities, which he contends foster ideas “antithetical to American values” and maintain policies that violate laws prohibiting racial discrimination.
During his 2024 election campaign, Trump threatened to use “taxation, fines and lawsuits to shrink ‘excessively large private endowments’” and vowed to “reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical Left and Marxist Maniacs.”
His administration’s criticism of Harvard, America’s oldest and wealthiest university, has primarily centered on its alleged failure to adequately combat antisemitism.
Harvard’s campus, like many others nationwide, experienced a prolonged period of turmoil following the October 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, which the US classifies as a terrorist organization, resulting in 1,200 deaths and over 200 hostages.
The ensuing conflict in the Gaza Strip, which according to the Hamas-run health ministry has led to over 53,000 Palestinian deaths, fueled campus protests and complaints from some Jewish students and external Jewish groups about rampant antisemitism at Harvard.
Alan Garber, a longtime provost, assumed the role of interim president in January 2024 after President Claudine Gay’s resignation.
In August, Harvard appointed him as the permanent leader. Garber subsequently implemented changes in response to the antisemitism complaints, including adopting a formal definition of antisemitism and introducing new educational programming for students.
However, President Trump and other conservative voices argued that Harvard’s measures did not go far enough to protect Jewish students.
In an April 11 letter to the university, the Trump administration identified several Harvard programs, including the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Divinity School, that it claimed “fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.”
Further escalating the rhetoric, the Department of Homeland Security, in a May 22 statement, accused Harvard’s leadership of having “created an unsafe environment by permitting anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals,” alleging that many of these agitators were international students.
The department also accused Harvard’s leadership of coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party, an allegation echoed by Republican lawmakers in Congress who, in a May 19 letter to Garber, demanded information about the university’s ties to China’s government and military.
The path to stalemate: demands, rejections, and lawsuits
The current funding freeze was preceded by a series of escalating demands.
On March 31, the Trump administration threatened to withdraw nearly $9 billion in research grants due to what it termed Harvard’s failure to “combat antisemitic harassment.”
A federal task force on antisemitism subsequently issued demands on April 3 for governance reforms, presented as prerequisites for continued federal funding.
The April 11 letter detailed the administration’s revised set of demands, which included:
achieving “viewpoint diversity” in academic departments
adopting strictly “merit-based” admissions and hiring practices
eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs
diminishing the influence of faculty perceived as “more committed to activism than scholarship,” and
banning international students deemed “hostile to American values”
President Garber rejected these demands, stating on April 14:
No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.
Hours later, the US government froze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants, prompting Harvard to file its lawsuit on April 21.
The situation continued to deteriorate when Education Secretary Linda McMahon informed Harvard on May 5 that it would be ineligible for further federal grants until it demonstrated “responsible management.”
Days later, eight US agencies terminated an additional $450 million in grants to the university, leading Harvard to expand its lawsuit on May 13.
Harvard’s legal stand: defending independence and due process
In its lawsuit filed in Boston federal court against several US executive branch agencies and top officials, Harvard claims the funding freeze violates its First Amendment right to free speech.
The original complaint argued that by withholding federal funds, the government attempted to “coerce Harvard to conform with the government’s preferred mix of viewpoints and ideologies.”
Harvard further contended that the agencies sought to assert undue control over the university and argued that the government cannot supplant Harvard’s own decision-making processes in combating antisemitism.
The suit also alleges that the government violated federal regulations in cutting the funding.
For instance, while the administration invoked Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (which bars discrimination based on race, color, or national origin) to justify its actions, Harvard claims the act grants it the right to voluntarily work with the government to correct any compliance failures—an opportunity it says was not afforded before the funds were frozen.
Harvard’s amended lawsuit reiterates these claims, asserting that a wide range of government agencies violated both the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act by abruptly cutting off funding.
The ripple effect: research, students, and finances at risk
The consequences of the funding freeze, according to President Garber in a letter to the Harvard community, will be “severe and long-lasting.”
He highlighted that it will impact crucial research into childhood cancer, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease, and Alzheimer’s disease.
The lawsuit further states that the freeze will affect the education of thousands of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows in science, technology, medicine, and public health.
In the last academic year, Harvard received approximately $700 million in research funding from various federal agencies, including the Departments of Health and Human Services, Defense, and Energy.
This federal research funding constitutes 11% of the university’s operating revenue, according to Harvard University bond documents for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024.
(Source: Harvard University bond documents)
To counteract the loss, Harvard has announced it will allocate an extra $250 million of university funds to support research in the coming academic year, supplementing the approximately $500 million it already spends annually.
President Garber is also voluntarily reducing his salary by 25% for the year starting July 1.
While Harvard possesses an endowment valued at over $53 billion, this vast sum is not a readily accessible bank account.
A portion is distributed annually to support the university’s budget, but much of the remainder is restricted for specific purposes or tied up in illiquid assets.
The block on international students also poses a significant financial challenge.
Nearly 6,800 international students, representing 27% of Harvard’s total student body and hailing from over 140 countries (up from 19.6% in 2006), contribute substantially through tuition fees.
For prospective international students, the timing of the visa program revocation was particularly detrimental, as Harvard’s May 1 deadline to accept admission offers coincided with that of most other US colleges.
The tax-exempt question: presidential powers and precedents
On May 2, President Trump declared on his Truth Social platform: “We are going to be taking away Harvard’s Tax Exempt Status. It’s what they deserve!”
This followed weeks of threats regarding the university’s tax status.
In response, four Democratic senators have called for an investigation into whether Trump’s targeting of Harvard violates a criminal law barring the president from ordering the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to target individuals and organizations with investigations and audits.
They argued in a letter to Heather Hill, the Treasury Department’s acting inspector general for tax administration, that it appears Trump “publicly and repeatedly broke this law when he suggested that Harvard should lose its exempt status for not bending to his will.”
The senators emphasized that under the Internal Revenue Code, an organization cannot lose its tax-exempt status until the IRS conducts a “careful objective review” and the entity has had an opportunity to appeal.
The revocation of a university’s tax-exempt status is not unprecedented, though it is rare and typically follows lengthy legal battles.
Bob Jones University in South Carolina lost its federal tax exemption in 1976 due to its policies banning interracial dating, a decision ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court in 1983.
The university later dropped the policy in 2000 and regained its tax benefits in 2017.
Harvard’s tax-exempt status, like that of approximately 1,700 other non-profit colleges in the US, is granted based on its societal contributions through education and research.
This status provides significant advantages, including the ability for donors to write off contributions (Harvard typically raises over $1 billion annually this way) and the issuance of tax-exempt bonds.
The university also benefits from property tax exemptions on educational buildings, instead making voluntary payments to its host cities.
A broader trend: other universities face similar pressures
Harvard is not alone in facing pressure from the Trump administration.
In March and April, federal funding freezes were also imposed on other elite universities, including Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern, Princeton, and the University of Pennsylvania, citing similar reasons of noncompliance with policy demands and alleged failures to address antisemitism.
Columbia University’s response differed markedly from Harvard’s.
On March 21, Columbia announced it would comply with the administration’s demands to begin negotiations on restoring $400 million in frozen funding.
Concessions included banning masks during campus protests, hiring 36 “special officers” with arrest powers, and placing its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African studies department under increased oversight.
This contrasting approach highlights the difficult choices universities are facing.
On April 22, over 200 leaders of academic institutions signed a joint letter opposing “undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses” and “the coercive use of public research funding.”
The country’s largest commercial banks are in early talks to create a jointly issued stablecoin, an effort aimed at defending their dominance in the payments ecosystem as cryptocurrency adoption and regulatory support grow under the Trump administration, The Wall Street Journal has reported.
The discussions involve major banking players including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and others through entities they co-own, such as Early Warning Services—the operator of peer-to-peer payments app Zelle—and the Clearing House, which runs a real-time payments network.
According to people familiar with the matter, WSJ said, these firms are considering whether to collaborate on a unified digital token that could be used across member institutions and potentially beyond.
The concept remains at an early stage and is subject to change.
People involved said a final decision would hinge on several factors, including whether there is enough consumer and business demand for a bank-issued stablecoin, and how new legislation shapes the regulatory framework.
GENIUS Act bill encouraging crypto firms to apply for banking charter
Stablecoins are digital currencies designed to maintain a one-to-one peg with a national currency like the US dollar.
They are backed by reserves such as cash or US Treasurys and are primarily used in the cryptocurrency sector to facilitate trades or store value.
However, banks increasingly see them as a promising tool for speeding up traditional financial processes like cross-border payments, which can take days using current infrastructure.
The potential move by the banks comes amid growing signs that the Trump administration is poised to accelerate support for stablecoins.
Last month, The Wall Street Journal reported that several crypto-native firms are preparing to apply for banking charters, encouraged by momentum behind a bill called the GENIUS Act.
The bill aims to establish a federal framework for stablecoin issuance, allowing both banks and qualified nonbanks to participate.
On Thursday, the Senate advanced the bill past a procedural hurdle.
A recent memo from law firm Paul Hastings noted that the latest draft includes limitations on stablecoin issuance by nonfinancial public companies—an attempt to appease bank lobbyists—but stops short of a complete ban.
Big banks seek digital edge before tech giants move in
Banking leaders fear that if they do not move quickly, deposits and payment activity could be diverted to crypto-native firms or tech giants entering the space.
Trump-aligned entities, such as the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial, recently launched their own stablecoin, signaling an expansion of private digital currency initiatives.
Against that backdrop, banks see a potential opening to reassert their dominance.
A bank-backed stablecoin could offer a faster, more secure alternative for domestic and cross-border payments.
Some sources said the model under discussion might allow non-owner banks to use the stablecoin, potentially broadening adoption.
However, a separate effort by smaller banks to create their own stablecoin has reportedly faced steep operational and strategic hurdles.
Gold prices are on track for their best weekly performance in over a month, buoyed by a decline in the US dollar and investor unease over America’s fiscal outlook, which has revived demand for the metal as a traditional safe haven.
As of early Friday trading in Asia, spot gold was up 0.3% to $3,303.09 an ounce, while US gold futures rose 0.2% to $3,302.80.
Bullion is up 3% so far this week, making it the strongest weekly performance since the first week of April.
Dollar’s slump boosts gold attractiveness
A sharp retreat in the US dollar this week has made dollar-priced gold more appealing to foreign investors.
The dollar index has dropped over 1% so far, marking its worst week since April 7.
“This week, trade optimism has somewhat given way to worries about the U.S.’s fiscal situation, and the resulting hesitancy towards U.S. assets has put gold back in the frame with investors,” said Tim Waterer, chief market analyst at KCM Trade in a Reuters report.
Gold can likely maintain its foothold above the $3,000 level while tariff, US debt and geopolitical tensions remain swirling around financial markets.
Investors are increasingly concerned about the United States’ growing debt burden.
On Thursday, the House of Representatives passed a wide-ranging tax and spending bill, aligned with former President Donald Trump’s policy platform, which could add trillions of dollars to the national debt.
The bill now moves to the Senate, where Republicans hold a narrow majority.
Meanwhile, the Treasury Department on Wednesday encountered tepid demand for a $16 billion auction of 20-year bonds.
The sale followed a decision by Moody’s last week to strip the US of its triple-A credit rating, a move that has further unsettled market sentiment.
Geopolitical tensions add to gold’s momentum
Heightened geopolitical risks also contributed to gold’s surge.
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi warned that the US would bear legal responsibility for any Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, following media reports suggesting Israel is preparing military action.
Such developments have historically driven investors toward gold, which is seen as a reliable store of value during times of political instability and financial uncertainty.
Retail demand in Asia diverges amid higher prices
Physical demand for gold in Asia remained mixed this week.
In India, higher global prices and a weaker rupee dampened retail interest. Dealers in the country were offering discounts of up to $49 an ounce over official domestic prices, compared with $34 last week.
Domestic prices rebounded to around 95,900 rupees per 10 grams, up from a one-month low of 90,890 rupees last week.
“Jewellers are not interested in building inventory at this price level since retail demand is weak. Besides, they are getting a lot of old jewellery in exchange for new jewellery,” said a Mumbai-based bullion dealer.
In contrast, demand in China remained firm, with dealers charging premiums of $16 to $30 per ounce over spot prices.
Analysts noted strong conviction among Chinese investors despite recent price volatility.
Premiums in Hong Kong and Singapore were more modest, ranging from par to $2.50 an ounce, while Japanese dealers reported premiums of up to $1.
Energy bills across the United Kingdom will drop by 7% from July 1, following a decline in wholesale gas prices, according to new figures from the energy regulator Ofgem.
The cut to the price cap, announced on Friday, will lower annual bills for a typical household paying by direct debit to £1,720 — a modest but welcome reduction amid the broader cost-of-living squeeze that continues to grip the country.
The move marks the end of a series of quarterly price increases, but energy bills are still expected to remain elevated by historical standards.
While consultancy Cornwall Insight does not anticipate a dramatic hike in the coming winter, it has forecast only a minimal rise in the next price cap review, suggesting little relief ahead for households already struggling.
Bills remain well above pre-crisis levels
Despite the latest cut, energy bills remain significantly higher than in previous years.
In 2019, the first year Ofgem introduced the price cap, the average annual bill stood at £1,137.
Today’s adjusted figure of £1,720 represents a 51% increase over six years.
Ashton Berkhauer, energy expert at MoneySuperMarket, said the figures highlight how entrenched the rise in energy costs has become.
“Even after this drop, we’re a long way from what was once considered normal,” he noted.
Many households are still grappling with the effects of the energy crisis that began several years ago, compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, both of which caused steep spikes in gas and electricity prices.
Despite Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s election pledge to tackle soaring energy costs, bills today remain roughly 10% higher than when Labour took office.
Ofgem acknowledged that while the 7% drop in the cap is a positive step, prices remain high by historical standards.
Tim Jarvis, Director General of Markets at Ofgem, advised consumers to consider alternative tariffs or speak with their current providers to secure better deals.
“You don’t have to pay the price cap,” he said. “There are better deals out there. Changing your payment method to direct debit or smart pay-as-you-go could save up to £136 a year.”
Jarvis added that longer-term reforms are needed to stabilise prices and achieve energy security.
“We’re working closely with the government to get the investment we need to reach our clean power and net zero targets as quickly as possible,” he said.
Pressure builds on government amid volatile energy market
The government has come under renewed pressure to provide more targeted support for low-income and vulnerable households, with experts warning that wholesale prices remain highly sensitive to geopolitical and economic shifts.
Though British gas prices have fallen nearly 30% since the start of the year, they have edged upward again in recent weeks, highlighting the market’s inherent volatility.
Cornwall Insight attributed the most recent drop in prices to several short-term factors, including warmer-than-average temperatures and international developments such as the easing of European gas storage regulations and newly announced US trade tariffs.
Dr Craig Lowrey, principal consultant at Cornwall Insight, cautioned that relief may be fleeting.
“This fall in the price cap is undoubtedly welcome news for households, offering a degree of relief at a time when many are grappling with high living costs,” he said.
But while it’s important to celebrate the small wins, the energy market remains unpredictable. Global events can quickly reverse the current trend.
Energy suppliers, too, have warned against assuming the worst is over.
EDF Energy said that the market remains “incredibly volatile” and that further action is needed to support the most at-risk customers.
The company urged the government and regulator to implement long-term solutions to insulate the UK energy system from international price shocks.
Other utilities add to household cost burden
While energy prices are set to fall in July, water bills have surged sharply.
From April, average water bills in the UK increased by 26% — the steepest annual rise on record.
The rise has been attributed to investment in critical infrastructure and efforts to tackle the growing public backlash over water leaks and sewage pollution.
These parallel increases have left households facing a broader utility squeeze, even as headline inflation begins to stabilise.
