Catégorie oBox : BuzzNews

According to a report published by the Financial Times, the United States has drained its oil stockpiles to their lowest level since 2004 as Donald Trump’s conflict with Iran continues to disrupt global energy markets. The report found that U.S. crude and petroleum inventories have fallen to roughly 1.57 billion barrels, raising concerns about the country’s ability to respond to future supply shocks after months of market intervention and heavy withdrawals from emergency reserves. Total inventories reportedly declined by 10.6 million barrels in a single week, while the United States increasingly relied on exports and strategic reserves to compensate for supply disruptions affecting global supply. The decline has raised concerns among energy analysts who warn that the country now has a significantly smaller cushion available should another major geopolitical crisis or supply disruption emerge in the coming months.

The Financial Times report paints a picture of an energy market under growing strain. As supplies from the Middle East became increasingly unstable, U.S. exports climbed to approximately 5.8 million barrels per day in an effort to help stabilize global markets. Washington also released tens of millions of barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and authorized additional withdrawals to ease pressure on consumers and businesses. The reserve, which has long served as an emergency safeguard during international crises, has become a critical tool in managing the consequences of the conflict. Energy executives have warned that inventories are approaching unusually low levels. Exxon senior vice-president Neil Chapman recently described stockpiles as reaching «really, really low levels» and cautioned that oil prices could rise substantially if supply disruptions continue and inventories keep falling. Analysts have similarly warned that a prolonged disruption could leave global markets increasingly vulnerable to additional shocks.

The decline follows months of military confrontation involving the United States, Israel and Iran. Since late February, a series of military operations, retaliatory strikes and escalating tensions around the Strait of Hormuz have repeatedly threatened one of the world’s most important energy corridors. Roughly one-fifth of global oil shipments normally pass through the waterway, making any disruption immediately significant for global markets. Trump has consistently defended the military campaign as necessary to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Speaking about the administration’s objectives, he said, «They’re not going to have a nuclear weapon, that’s number one.» He later added, «That’s number one, two and three. They will never have a nuclear weapon.» Those comments have become a central part of the administration’s justification for maintaining pressure on Tehran despite the economic costs associated with the conflict and the uncertainty it has created across international energy markets.

Efforts to negotiate a diplomatic solution suffered a significant setback this week as tensions between Washington and Tehran once again complicated talks. Reports that Iran had suspended negotiations following renewed regional tensions fueled concerns that a breakthrough remained distant. The uncertainty immediately affected energy markets, with traders increasingly worried that disruptions to shipping routes could persist far longer than previously expected. While the administration has publicly maintained that diplomacy remains possible, Trump has expressed frustration with the pace of negotiations. At one point he said he «couldn’t care less» about the talks and later described negotiations as «very boring.» More recently, however, he suggested that discussions remained active and that progress was still possible. The conflicting messages have contributed to uncertainty surrounding both the diplomatic process and the future direction of oil markets.

American consumers have already felt the economic impact of the conflict. Gasoline prices surged dramatically in the months following the outbreak of hostilities, with national averages at one stage climbing above $4.48 per gallon, representing one of the sharpest increases since the conflict began. Although prices have fluctuated since then, they have remained significantly above pre-war levels, continuing to place pressure on household budgets. Economists estimate that higher energy costs have added billions of dollars in expenses for consumers while also contributing to broader inflation concerns. The OECD has warned that prolonged disruptions in global energy flows could slow economic growth and increase recession risks in countries heavily dependent on imported energy. Analysts have likewise cautioned that further disruptions involving the Strait of Hormuz could trigger another wave of price increases across global fuel markets.

The Financial Times report suggests the United States is increasingly using its own energy reserves as a buffer against a conflict with no clear end in sight. Oil prices have periodically approached the $100-per-barrel mark since the beginning of the confrontation, while analysts continue to warn that prices could move substantially higher if negotiations fail and supply disruptions worsen. Chapman recently warned that physical Brent crude could eventually reach between $150 and $160 per barrel if inventories continue to decline. With U.S. oil stockpiles now at their lowest level in more than two decades, gasoline prices still elevated and diplomatic efforts producing only limited progress, the economic consequences of Trump’s confrontation with Iran are becoming increasingly visible both domestically and across global markets, leaving policymakers with fewer options should another major energy shock emerge.

Todd Blanche, Donald Trump’s former personal criminal defense attorney and current acting attorney general, made a remarkable admission while discussing the president’s legal troubles during an appearance on Sean Hannity’s podcast. As the conversation turned to the criminal cases that surrounded Trump throughout the 2024 campaign, Blanche agreed that losing the election could have resulted in the president being sent to prison. The exchange provided one of the most direct acknowledgments yet from a top Trump administration official that the president’s return to the White House fundamentally altered the trajectory of the prosecutions that once threatened to make him the first former American president to serve time behind bars. The comments came during a discussion about the Trump administration’s long-running claim that the Department of Justice had been weaponized against the president and his political allies.

The exchange began when Hannity referenced Trump’s criminal conviction in New York and argued that the 2024 election had become a defining moment not only for the country but also for Trump’s personal freedom. Hannity reminded viewers that Trump «was convicted on 34 felony charges» before asking Blanche, «So, is it an accurate statement to say, ‘He either wins in 2024, wins the White House—it’s either the White House or the big house?’» Blanche immediately agreed. «Yes. I mean — oh, yeah, absolutely,» he replied. Hannity then followed up by asking whether Trump would have received a prison sentence had he failed to win the presidency. Blanche again offered a direct answer, stating, «I think so. I think that’s exactly where that was headed.» The comments quickly attracted attention because they appeared to confirm that Trump’s election victory changed the legal landscape surrounding the cases he faced.

Blanche’s remarks carried particular significance because he was the attorney who represented Trump in the Manhattan hush-money trial that led to the first criminal conviction of a current or former president in American history. Following that verdict in 2024, Blanche repeatedly made clear that avoiding prison was the primary goal of the defense team. During a previous appearance with Hannity shortly after the conviction, Blanche said, «Our goal there is quite simple, and that’s to keep the leading candidate for President of the United States out of prison.» He later added, «He shouldn’t go to prison.» Blanche further argued, «Under no circumstances, should spend a day in prison.» Those statements were made months before voters returned Trump to the White House and underscored the concerns among his legal team that incarceration remained a genuine possibility despite his status as a former president and leading presidential candidate.

As he elaborated on his reasoning during the podcast, Blanche pointed to the multiple criminal investigations and prosecutions that were still active before Trump’s election victory. He said, «He had a D.C. case breathing down his neck. He had the Florida case, which had been dismissed, but they were appealing it. And then he had a judge in New York. There’s no scenario in which he wasn’t going to send President Trump to prison—and he didn’t after the president won.» Blanche’s comments referenced the federal election interference prosecution linked to January 6, the classified documents case involving records stored at Mar-a-Lago and the New York business records case. His argument was that Trump faced simultaneous legal threats across multiple jurisdictions and that the outcome of the election dramatically changed the future of those proceedings.

The legal saga that unfolded between Trump’s first and second terms produced a series of unprecedented developments. In May 2024, a Manhattan jury convicted Trump on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records connected to payments made before the 2016 election, making him the first former U.S. president to become a convicted felon. Judge Juan Merchan later imposed an unconditional discharge, meaning Trump received neither jail time nor financial penalties while pursuing an appeal. At the same time, Trump was facing other criminal cases, including the federal election interference case related to January 6, the classified documents case involving records kept at Mar-a-Lago and the Georgia election interference prosecution. Following Trump’s victory in the 2024 election, those cases were either dismissed, abandoned or otherwise failed to move forward, largely because of legal, procedural and constitutional issues surrounding the prosecution of a sitting president.

Blanche’s comments were notable not because they established what would have happened had Trump lost the election, but because they revealed how Trump’s former defense attorney views that period. As the lawyer who represented Trump during some of his most consequential criminal battles and who now serves as acting attorney general, Blanche has long argued that the prosecutions were politically motivated and part of a broader effort to prevent Trump from returning to office. Whether Trump ultimately would have received a prison sentence remains unknowable, as sentencing decisions rest with judges and depend on numerous legal factors. Nevertheless, Blanche’s willingness to say Trump would have «absolutely» gone to prison and that a prison sentence was «exactly where that was headed» offered a rare glimpse into how one of Trump’s closest legal allies interprets the criminal cases that shadowed his 2024 campaign.

Donald Trump went at it again in the Oval Office against CNN Chief White House Correspondent Kaitlan Collins during a long exchange with journalists on the $1.8 billion slush fund. What began as a question from another female reporter quickly turned into a familiar public confrontation between the president and one of the White House correspondents who has repeatedly pressed him on sensitive subjects. Trump first defended the January 6 defendants he described as victims, then turned his attention toward CNN and Collins, calling the network «a very corrupt organization» and describing Collins as «a corrupt reporter.» He also referred to her as a «young, beautiful woman» before saying, «I never see a smile on her face» and «I see her standing with such hatred in her eyes,» shifting the exchange away from the fund and into a personal attack.

The exchange escalated when Collins later tried to clarify whether the administration had ended the $1.8 billion Department of Justice fund or merely paused it after backlash from Republicans. She asked, «Excuse me, Mr. President, just to clarify on what you were asked earlier… Is the $1.8 billion DOJ fund dead or is it on hold?» Trump did not give a direct answer, saying, «I’d have to ask the lawyers,» before again defending the idea behind the fund. He said, «I love it. I think it’s so important,» and added, «The weaponization fund, as far as I’m concerned, was a beautiful thing.» When Collins continued pressing him on Republicans condemning the program, Trump cut her off and ordered her to «Be quiet,» turning the policy question into another confrontation with a reporter he has repeatedly singled out.

The controversy surrounding the fund began in January, when Donald Trump, his sons and The Trump Organization filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, claiming the agency had willfully failed to protect their private tax information after a government contractor leaked Trump’s tax returns to the media. In April, Trump fired Attorney General Pam Bondi and appointed Todd Blanche, his former private criminal defense lawyer, as acting attorney general, placing him at the head of the Department of Justice while his former client was pursuing a major lawsuit against the federal government. In May, Blanche’s Justice Department and Trump’s legal team abruptly settled the IRS case out of court. Under the settlement, Trump dropped the $10 billion monetary demand in exchange for a formal apology and the creation of a $1.776 billion «Anti-Weaponization Fund» paid from federal reserves.

The fund was designed to provide financial payouts to Trump allies who claimed they had been victims of political «lawfare,» but the arrangement quickly triggered severe backlash in Washington. Critics raised questions about secrecy, political favoritism and the use of federal money for payments to people aligned with the president. The backlash intensified after a separate addendum signed one day after the settlement ordered the IRS to permanently halt ongoing and future tax audits against Trump, his family and affiliated companies. By May, the deal was facing public outrage, a federal court order temporarily blocking payouts and a revolt from congressional Republicans. GOP lawmakers warned the White House that the controversial slush fund could threaten a critical immigration funding bill worth more than $70 billion, forcing the administration to retreat from a plan Trump still praised in public.

By June, under mounting political pressure, Blanche testified before Congress and announced that the Trump administration was scrapping the fund entirely. He said, «We are not moving forward with the fund, period.» However, Blanche also confirmed that the IRS audit protection for the Trump family remained in place, leaving a major part of the settlement intact even as the administration abandoned the most explosive portion of the deal. In the Oval Office, Trump tried to distance himself from the negotiations, telling reporters, «I know very little about it. I wasn’t involved in… in the whole creation of it, and… and the negotiation.» The comment stood in contrast with his repeated praise for the fund itself, including his insistence that the program was important and his description of it as «a beautiful thing.»

The confrontation also revived Trump’s long pattern of attacking female journalists, and particularly Collins, when they press him on serious questions. In February, Collins asked him about survivors connected to the Jeffrey Epstein case, and Trump again shifted the exchange toward her appearance and demeanor. He said, «I don’t think I’ve ever seen you smile,» then added, «I’ve known you for 10 years, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a smile on your face.» Trump then offered his own explanation, saying, «You know why you’re not smiling? Because you know you’re not telling the truth,» while also accusing CNN of dishonesty. CNN later defended Collins, calling her «an exceptional journalist» who reports from the White House and the field «with real depth and tenacity.» The latest exchange added another episode to a public relationship marked by sharp questions, personal attacks and repeated attempts by Trump to turn policy scrutiny into criticism of the reporter asking the question.