This week, the United States Mint began producing a new dollar coin. On the front: Donald Trump, in a suit and tie, with a stern look on his face. Around him, the word LIBERTY arcs across the top. The dates 1776 and 2026 frame the bottom. IN GOD WE TRUST sits in the middle.

The coin is gold. Or rather, it looks gold. It is not made of gold. It is composed of non-precious metals with a gold-like finish on the exterior, which is a technically accurate description that also tells you almost everything you need to know about the aesthetic ambitions of this project.

Trump, when asked about it Wednesday on Fox Business Network, said: “It’s very unusual, but I was honored by it. It’s very cute they gave me a coin.”

There is a law that says this coin should not exist. The coin exists anyway. That tension, between the legal, the historical, and the political, is worth unpacking carefully before everyone retreats to their corners and starts yelling.

What the law actually says

Federal law has prohibited the depiction of a living person on United States currency since 1866. The prohibition came after Congress got fed up with Treasury Secretary Salmon Chase putting his own face on paper money during the Civil War and decided the practice was unseemly enough to ban permanently. For 160 years, the rule held. Washington on the quarter. Lincoln on the penny. Hamilton on the ten. Every face on American money belonged to someone already dead.

The Trump coin exists because of a carve-out. In 2020, during Trump’s first term, Congress passed a law authorizing commemorative dollar coins in 2026 with designs, in the law’s exact language, emblematic of the United States semiquincentennial. That law gave the Treasury Secretary the authority to authorize the minting and issuance of coins in connection with the 250th anniversary celebration.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent used that authority. He argued the design falls squarely within the America 250 statutory authority and called the coin a way to honor both our founding and our current leadership within the bounds Congress has set. The Commission of Fine Arts, whose members were appointed by Trump, approved the design earlier this year.

What the law authorized was a semiquincentennial coin. What the Treasury produced was a Trump coin with semiquincentennial dates on it. Whether those two things are the same depends entirely on who you ask and what you believe about the people making the decision.

What is on the coin and what changed

The front features Trump in a suit and tie with a stern expression, which is not how most commemorative coins tend to present their subjects, but is consistent with the particular brand of stern authority Trump has cultivated across two decades of public life. The word LIBERTY arcs across the top. The dates 1776 and 2026 sit at the bottom. IN GOD WE TRUST appears in the center.

The back is traditional: the bald eagle from the Great Seal, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA across the top, E PLURIBUS UNUM on the shield across the bird’s breast.

An earlier version of the design, approved by the Commission of Fine Arts in the spring, showed Trump with his fists resting on a desk as he leaned forward. That version did not make it to production. The Treasury Department has not explained why the final coin differs from the approved design, or who made that call, or when. The fists are gone. The stern look remains.

The coin will not circulate as regular currency. It will be sold through the US Mint’s numismatic channels as a packaged legal-tender dollar, meaning you can spend it as a dollar but you would not receive it as change at a grocery store. It carries a modest premium over face value. It is, in the language of coin collecting, a commemorative piece aimed at collectors and, presumably, supporters.

The context that matters

This coin does not exist in isolation. It is the latest entry in a pattern that has been building since Trump’s second inauguration.

In March, the Treasury announced that Trump’s signature would appear on all new US paper currency. Traditionally, bills carry the signatures of the Treasury Secretary and the Treasurer of the United States, not the president. That change means that every dollar bill printed from this point forward carries Donald Trump’s name on it, a departure from 230 years of practice.

Trump has also renamed the US Institute of Peace, the Kennedy Center, a new class of US Navy battleships, and multiple federal buildings after himself or members of his family. His name appears on the checks sent to families through the Trump Accounts program. The dollar coin announced Wednesday is not an isolated gesture. It is part of a coherent and deliberate project of imprinting a presidency onto the physical artifacts of American life.

In a 2025 letter to Bessent, Senate critics warned that putting Trump on a dollar coin risked edging the United States toward a cult of personality aesthetic more common in monarchies and urged Treasury to stick with non-presidential semiquincentennial motifs. The letter did not stop the coin. It did produce a useful phrase that will be debated for years.

The two honest arguments

Here is where this letter tries to do something the cable news coverage will not.

The case for the coin, made honestly: Congress passed a law in 2020 authorizing commemorative semiquincentennial dollar coins. The Treasury Secretary has statutory authority to approve coin designs in connection with that anniversary. Every face on American currency represents a human being who once led this country. The 250th birthday of the United States is a genuine occasion for commemoration. A president who presided over the anniversary year appearing on a commemorative coin is not, on its face, historically unprecedented in concept even if it is unprecedented in the specific.

The case against it, made equally honestly: the 1866 prohibition on living persons on currency exists for a reason that has not changed. The Commission of Fine Arts that approved the design was appointed by the man whose face is on the coin, which is not an independent review process by any reasonable definition. The coin is not a neutral historical document. It is being released during an active presidency, by a Treasury Secretary who serves at the pleasure of the man depicted, in the context of a broader pattern of putting that man’s name and face on as many public artifacts as possible. The semiquincentennial law authorized a coin emblematic of the nation’s 250 years. A portrait of the sitting president is a portrait of the sitting president. Those two things are not identical.

Both of those arguments are real. Both deserve to be heard before anyone decides which one wins.

The bottom line

By this fall, you will be able to walk into a post office or log onto the US Mint’s website and purchase a gold-toned dollar coin bearing the face of a living president, the first time that has happened in American history under a law designed to prohibit exactly that, enabled by a statutory carve-out, approved by a commission the president himself appointed, announced by a Treasury Secretary who serves at his pleasure.

Trump called it very cute. Critics are calling it something else entirely. The coin presses at the Philadelphia Mint are already running.

Whatever you think about the politics, the precedent is set. The next president will be able to point to this moment and say it has already been done. The one after that. And the one after that.

That is the thing about precedents. They are very hard to unmint.

That is what this letter is for.

— US Daily Letter | July 16, 2026

This morning, the Supreme Court ruled on something that will affect your money, your mortgage, and the price of groceries for years to come. Most Americans will not hear about it until tonight. That is exactly why we are writing it now.

In a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court ruled that President Trump cannot remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from her position, at least not yet, and not the way he tried to do it. Cook was the first Governor to be fired in the central bank’s 111-year history. The Court blocked her removal and sent the underlying question back to the courts to be resolved through proper legal process.

The ruling is narrow. It is procedural. And it is far more consequential than either of those words suggests.

What actually happened

In August 2025, Trump posted screenshots on Truth Social of a letter firing Cook from the Fed, contending that before joining the Fed she had committed mortgage fraud by designating both a house in Michigan and a condo in Atlanta as her primary residence when taking out loans within a two-week period. The allegations came from a Trump-appointed official. Cook denied everything and went to court immediately.

The Supreme Court’s opinion was pointed on the procedural failure: “At minimum, Cook was entitled to some explanation of the evidence at issue, some avenue for a response.”

The Court did not rule that Trump can never fire a Fed governor. It ruled that you cannot fire someone without telling her what she is accused of and giving her a chance to respond. That principle is older than the Constitution itself.

Cook was direct about what she believed was really happening: “This was never about mortgage documents signed years before I became a Federal Reserve governor. It was an attempt to remove me on a manufactured pretext because I refused to bow to political pressure and continued to set interest rates based only on what would best serve the American people.”

Trump called the decision “strictly procedural” and vowed to pursue the case further.

The ruling that landed alongside it

On the same morning, in a separate case, the Court expanded presidential power significantly. The justices overturned a key 1935 ruling called Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, giving Trump far broader authority to remove members of independent agencies previously shielded from political removal. Chief Justice Roberts wrote: “Our Constitution creates three branches, but only one president. Subordinates who exercise the president’s power are subject to removal by him.”

So the Court said, in the same breath, on the same morning: the president can fire independent agency heads more freely than before, and he cannot fire this Fed governor the way he tried to. The Court explicitly concluded that the Federal Reserve is different from other independent agencies, based on its unique structure, history, and role in the nation’s financial system.

Justice Kavanaugh, concurring, was blunt: the government’s argument that a president could fire any Fed governor without judicial review “would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”

Four justices dissented. Their argument is a legitimate constitutional one: if the president heads the executive branch, restricting his ability to remove those who exercise executive power limits his authority in ways the Constitution does not clearly permit. Today’s ruling buys time. It does not settle that argument.

Why this matters to you personally

The Federal Reserve sets the interest rate that determines what you pay on your mortgage, your car loan, and your credit card. The entire theory behind its independence is that monetary policy should be made on economic evidence, not on what is politically convenient for whoever is in the White House.

Trump has been publicly demanding interest rate cuts since before his second inauguration. The Fed has declined, citing inflation supercharged by the Iran war and the energy crisis. Cook voted with the majority to hold rates steady. The attempted firing cannot be separated from that context.

The unbiased read

Both sides have something right here.

The administration is correct that presidential authority over the executive branch is a real constitutional principle and that independent agencies with no direct electoral accountability raise legitimate questions about democratic governance. Four Supreme Court justices said so today.

Cook and her defenders are correct that the Federal Reserve’s independence from short-term political pressure is one of the structural pillars of the American economy. Markets trust the Fed precisely because it is not simply an instrument of whoever won the last election. Eroding that trust lands on ordinary people in the form of higher borrowing costs and more volatile prices.

Both things can be true simultaneously. A president can have a legitimate constitutional interest in executive accountability and still have chosen a method that bypassed the procedural protections the law requires.

The Court drew a line around the Federal Reserve today. The underlying lawsuit continues. The constitutional question remains unresolved. And Trump has already signaled he intends to pursue it.

How long that line holds is the question the next chapter of this case will answer.

That is what this letter is for.

— US Daily Letter | June 29, 2026

Trump wanted rate cuts. What he got is more complicated than that.

Last Friday morning, Kevin Warsh walked into the East Room of the White House, raised his right hand, and was sworn in as the 17th Chair of the Federal Reserve by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

It was the first time a Fed chair had been sworn in at the White House since Alan Greenspan in 1987. That detail is not ceremonial trivia. It is a statement about how close the president wants to keep the one institution specifically designed to operate at arm’s length from political pressure.

Trump could not contain himself. “I had a rotten head of the Fed, and now I have a great head of the Fed,” he told a rally in New York that same evening, adding that interest rates would be coming down “very quickly.”

Here is the problem. Kevin Warsh may not cut interest rates. And the reasons why tell you almost everything important about the American economy right now.

Who he actually is

Warsh is not a loyalist handed a job he cannot do. He is a former Fed governor who served during the 2008 financial crisis, a Stanford fellow, and a man with strong views that do not simply amount to whatever Trump wants.

He wants to sell off most of the Fed’s $6.7 trillion balance sheet and return the central bank to a passive observer of markets rather than an active participant. He wants to eliminate the Fed’s famous quarterly interest rate forecast chart in favor of more flexible communication. He wants to strip the Fed of involvement in climate policy and diversity initiatives, which aligns with Trump’s view that the central bank “lost its way” under Powell.

In short, Warsh is a hawk with his own agenda.

What Trump wants and probably will not get

Fed policymakers had projected rate cuts later this year but have shifted their thinking as energy prices surge and geopolitical instability grows. The majority now favor holding rates steady. Some are floating the possibility of a rate hike.

That last sentence and Trump’s rally promises exist in direct contradiction. The Fed held its benchmark rate at 3.50 to 3.75 percent at its last meeting, with four dissents, the most divided the committee has been since 1992. Gas at $4.55 a gallon is feeding inflation across food, shipping, and manufacturing. The Fed’s job in that environment is to hold or raise, not cut.

As of mid-May, less than 3 percent of investors believed there would be a rate cut at any remaining FOMC meeting this year. Markets are essentially betting Trump gets nothing he wants from his new chair for the rest of 2026.

When senators asked Warsh directly whether Trump had pressured him on rates, he was unequivocal: “The president never asked me to predetermine, commit, fix, decide on any interest rate decision in any of our discussions, nor would I ever agree to do so.”

What it means for you

Your mortgage rate is not going down anytime soon. Your credit card APR is not dropping. The home you want to buy is not getting more affordable this summer.

In three weeks, Warsh chairs his first Federal Open Market Committee meeting. That will be the first real test of everything: his independence, his ability to manage a deeply divided committee, and his willingness to tell a president who already announced the outcome something he does not want to hear.

The gap between what Trump is promising and what Warsh is likely to deliver is significant. How that plays out will determine whether the economic pain of the Iran war gets worse before it gets better.

One man now holds enormous influence over that question. He was sworn in last Friday in the East Room, with the president standing next to him, while outside the Strait of Hormuz was still closed and gas was still $4.55 a gallon.

Good luck to him.

That is what this letter is for.

— US Daily Letter | May 28, 2026

Saturday morning, May 2nd. Millions of Americans woke up and checked their phones to find a message no traveler ever wants to see: your flight is canceled. Not delayed. Not rescheduled. Gone. The airline is gone.

“It is with great disappointment that on May 2, 2026, Spirit Airlines started an orderly wind-down of our operations, effective immediately. All flights have been cancelled, and customer service is no longer available.”

Just like that. Thirty-four years. Over.

This didn’t come out of nowhere. Spirit’s collapse has been building for years, through bad bets, blocked mergers, two bankruptcies, and finally a war in the Middle East that sent jet fuel prices off the charts. But the story of how Spirit died is also the story of something bigger: what happens to regular Americans when the budget option disappears.

The numbers first

Spirit had about 9,000 flights scheduled from May 2 through the end of the month, a total of 1.8 million seats. That’s an average of 300 flights and 60,000 potential passengers a day, left scrambling. About 17,000 jobs could be impacted. 

Those aren’t statistics. Those are families stranded at airports, workers without paychecks, and people who booked the only fare they could afford, now told to figure it out.

How we got here

Spirit’s problems didn’t start this year. The airline had been struggling financially for years, filing for bankruptcy twice, in November 2024 and then again in August 2025, due to continued losses, high debt, and intense competition from other airlines.

The model had been cracking for a while. “When you’re a low-cost carrier, by definition, you’re relying on having a cost advantage. And they just don’t have that anymore,” said Shye Gilad, a former airline pilot and professor at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. “They just don’t have a lot of options left.”

Then came the Iran war. And it was the last straw.

Spirit’s restructuring plan had assumed jet fuel costs of about $2.24 a gallon in 2026. By the end of April, prices had climbed to about $4.51 a gallon, more than double, leaving the carrier unable to survive without new financing. Three days after Spirit announced a deal with creditors in February to emerge from bankruptcy, the war in Iran started, choking off about 20% of the world’s oil supply and sending jet fuel prices soaring.

Timing doesn’t get crueler than that.

The bailout that wasn’t

Here’s where it gets political.

In recent weeks, Spirit had been in very advanced discussions with the Trump administration on a rescue package, a $500 million cash infusion in exchange for a significant potential stake in the company. Unions representing Spirit’s pilots, flight attendants, and ramp workers pushed hard for the deal. Jobs were on the line. Communities were on the line.

It fell apart at the last minute. A key group of creditors rejected the plan. On Friday, Trump acknowledged reality: “We’re looking at it, but if we can’t make a good deal, no institution’s been able to do it. I’d like to save the jobs.”

By Saturday morning, there were no jobs left to save.

Trump administration officials then took to social media to blame the Biden administration for Spirit’s demise, pointing to Biden’s opposition to a proposed merger between Spirit and JetBlue in 2023. There’s truth in that. The blocked merger likely was the beginning of the end. But blaming a predecessor doesn’t put 17,000 people back to work or refund the 60,000 daily passengers left holding worthless tickets.

What this means for your wallet

Let’s be direct with you: Spirit’s death is going to cost you money, even if you never once set foot on a yellow plane.

“You do not have to fly a small carrier in order to benefit from its presence, because they will bring down the big guys’ fares,” said William McGee, a senior fellow at the American Economic Liberties Project. Without Spirit flying those routes, “everyone will be paying more.”

That’s not an opinion. That’s how airline economics work. Spirit’s ultra-low fares forced Delta, United, American, and Southwest to compete on price on every route Spirit flew. Now that pressure is gone. Removing the 2% of domestic US flights Spirit was scheduled to fly this summer will push fares higher across the entire industry. 

Budget-conscious travelers will feel it most. Leisure travelers in places where Spirit had a big footprint, Las Vegas, Fort Lauderdale, and similar markets, will likely feel the absence most acutely. Spirit had a market share of about 27% in Fort Lauderdale alone. That’s not a footnote. That’s a market restructured overnight.

If you’re stranded right now

The practical reality for passengers caught mid-trip or holding upcoming tickets:

United Airlines, Delta Air Lines, JetBlue Airways and Southwest Airlines are capping fares for Spirit passengers, with prices expected to be about $200 for a one-way ticket. That’s the good news. The bad news: Spirit said it will not reimburse customers for incidental travel costs associated with canceled trips, though travel insurance may cover costs for those who purchased it. Potential refunds for rewards, coupons and vouchers will be determined through the bankruptcy court process. 

In plain language: get on a competitor’s flight, save your receipts, and don’t hold your breath for Spirit to make you whole anytime soon.

The bigger picture

Spirit is the first American airline to fully collapse since the pandemic era. It will not be the last if the Iran war keeps fuel prices where they are. American Airlines has said that every penny that jet fuel prices rise costs the airline $50 million over the course of a year. United said last month that if fuel prices continue at their current level, the airline could incur $11 billion in additional expenses, double its highest-ever annual profit.

The big carriers can absorb that, painfully, but they can. Smaller ones cannot. German airline Lufthansa canceled 20,000 flights last month to protect itself from soaring fuel costs. India’s Air India increased fuel surcharges on all flights and reduced 100 flights a day.  The aviation industry is in a slow-motion crisis that most Americans haven’t fully registered yet.

Spirit just became the first visible casualty on US soil.

The bottom line

Spirit wasn’t a beloved airline. The fees were maddening, the seats were thin, and the complaints were endless. But it served a real purpose for real people, the ones who couldn’t afford the legacy carriers, who just needed to get somewhere without draining a savings account.

That option is now gone. The Iran war, two bankruptcies, a failed merger, and a bailout that fell apart at the last hour all converged on the same outcome. Thirty-four years of flying, ended by a press release at 3 in the morning.

Seventeen thousand workers. Sixty thousand daily passengers. Higher fares for everyone else.

Some collapses happen in slow motion. You watch them coming for years. This one still managed to hit like a gut punch when it finally arrived.

We’ll keep watching what happens to air travel and to your money as this shakes out.

That’s what this letter is for.

— US Daily Letter | May 4, 2026

Sources: NPR, CNN, Fortune, Al Jazeera, Georgetown University

Subject line: Spirit Airlines is dead. Here’s what it costs you.

Preview text: 17,000 jobs gone. 60,000 passengers stranded. And your fares are about to go up.

A LETTER FROM WALL STREET

Week of April 21, 2026

Dear Reader,

Wall Street spent last week celebrating what looked like peace. It’s spending this week trying to decide if it was premature.

Here’s the situation as the opening bell rings on Tuesday morning.

THE RALLY THAT ALMOST WAS

Last week, the S&P 500 gained 4.5%, the Dow rose 3.2%, the Nasdaq rallied 6.8%, and the small-cap Russell 2000 jumped 5.6% — a broad-based surge that came on the back of Iran’s brief decision to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.  Indexes hit all-time highs. The Fear & Greed index flipped from Fear to Greed almost overnight. Traders were pricing in a deal.

Then the weekend happened.

Iran had declared that the Strait of Hormuz was reopened — but by Saturday, vessel traffic was restricted again, with state media saying the U.S. had not fulfilled its obligations. On Sunday, the Navy seized an Iranian cargo ship in the Gulf of Oman. The S&P 500 shed 0.24% to close at 7,109.14 Monday, while the Nasdaq’s 13-day winning streak — its longest positive run since 1992 — came to an end.

This morning, however, the mood has shifted again. S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures are up 0.3% and 0.4% respectively, with Dow futures gaining 310 points, as investors focus on a second round of peace talks between the U.S. and Iran in Islamabad. Tehran is reportedly sending a delegation. The ceasefire officially expires today.

The pattern is clear: this market is being held hostage to a single choke point in the Persian Gulf, whipsawing between relief and dread every 48 hours.

EARNINGS SEASON: THE REAL STORY UNDERNEATH THE NOISE

While geopolitics dominates the headlines, corporate America is quietly delivering. And the numbers are good.

Q1 2026 earnings growth is running at +12.6% year-over-year — the sixth consecutive quarter of double-digit growth, with tech driving 87% of the gains. That’s the underlying foundation the bulls keep pointing to, and they’re not wrong to do so.

Analyst estimates for full-year S&P 500 profits continue to trend higher — up 2.8% since the start of the Iran conflict, driven by upward revisions in energy, technology, and materials. Even war, it turns out, is good for some balance sheets.

This week is the densest stretch of the season. Noteworthy firms reporting include Tesla, Intel, IBM, Boeing, GE Aerospace, UnitedHealth, AT&T, American Express, and United Airlines. Each of them is a different kind of diagnostic. Boeing tells you about industrial recovery. United Airlines tells you whether the Iran war is hitting travel demand. UnitedHealth tells you about healthcare costs. Tesla tells you about EV demand — and whether Elon Musk’s political detours have cost him customers.

UnitedHealth shares jumped more than 6% in pre-market trading this morning after the health insurance giant posted better-than-expected quarterly earnings and hiked its full-year outlook — a strong early signal for the week.

The bigger question, though, isn’t whether companies beat their Q1 numbers. It’s what they say about Q2 and Q3. If companies cite the Iran war’s impact on supply chains or temper their forward guidance due to demand uncertainty, it could undercut the rally narrative even if Q1 beats expectations. Watch for the word “ceasefire” in earnings calls. When CEOs start hedging around geopolitics, that’s the canary.

THE FED: A NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN — MAYBE

As if the market didn’t have enough to process, the Federal Reserve is also in focus today in a very different way.

Kevin Warsh, President Trump’s pick to succeed Jerome Powell as Fed Chair, is testifying before the Senate Banking Committee this morning. Powell’s term expires May 15. The succession clock is ticking.

Warsh spent years criticizing the Fed for doing too much. More recently, he has suggested it may need to do the opposite — putting him squarely in the middle of a tug-of-war between appeasing Trump and protecting Fed independence.

In his prepared remarks, Warsh emphasized the importance of central bank independence, warning against political encroachment: “The Fed must stay in its lane.” Notably absent from those same remarks: any firm statement on where interest rates should go from here.

That silence is itself a signal. Inflation has been running above the Fed’s 2% target for five years, and with another price shock now coming from elevated oil prices, the case for near-term rate cuts is weak — regardless of what the President wants.

The political drama adds another layer: Republican Senator Thom Tillis has vowed to block Warsh’s confirmation until a DOJ probe into Jerome Powell is resolved, meaning a swift confirmation is unlikely. If Powell isn’t replaced by May 15, he stays as chair pro tempore. Markets hate that kind of limbo.

THE APPLE HEADLINE YOU ALMOST MISSED

Buried under the geopolitical noise: Apple named John Ternus as its next CEO, with the stock falling about 0.6% in extended trading on the announcement. Ternus, currently Apple’s SVP of Hardware Engineering, is the man who will be holding the iPhone when it folds — literally. He is set to take over on September 1, 2026, positioning him to lead the launch of the company’s first foldable iPhone just weeks after taking the helm.

The market’s muted reaction tells you everything: investors respect the internal promotion but are reserving judgment. Tim Cook’s shoes are famously difficult to fill. The foldable iPhone will be Ternus’s first real test.

THE BOTTOM LINE FOR YOUR PORTFOLIO

Three things are true at once right now, and they pull in different directions.

Corporate earnings are strong. The underlying economy, buffered in part by roughly $200 billion in household stimulus from the new tax bill — including average tax refunds up 11% to $3,500 — is cushioning the blow of higher energy prices on consumers. That’s genuine support for the bull case.

At the same time, oil at $88–$95 a barrel is a persistent tax on everything. Every week the Strait of Hormuz stays contested, that tax compounds.

And the Federal Reserve, whatever happens at today’s hearing, is not riding to the rescue anytime soon. Rate cuts require confidence that inflation is beaten. With energy prices elevated and a new Fed chair navigating a political minefield, that confidence is months away at best.

The market is not in freefall. But it is running on hope — hope that the ceasefire holds today, hope that earnings guidance doesn’t crack, hope that Warsh threads the needle between Trump and independence. That’s a lot of hope for a Tuesday morning.

Stay sharp.

— US Daily Letter | From Wall Street

MARKET INSIGHT | March 28, 2026

Four weeks in, the economic damage is real, spreading, and far from over.

The US-Israeli strikes on Iran began on February 28. What followed was not just a military campaign — it was the ignition of what the International Energy Agency has called the greatest global energy security challenge in history. Today, March 28, markets are still absorbing the full weight of that shock.

The Strait Tells the Story

Everything comes back to one narrow corridor of water. The Strait of Hormuz, a maritime chokepoint between Iran and Oman, normally handles roughly 20 million barrels of oil and petroleum products per day — about a fifth of global consumption — plus roughly one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas trade.  Since the first strikes, that corridor has been effectively paralyzed.

Following the closure of the Strait on March 4, oil and LNG exports were stranded, causing Brent Crude to surge past $120 per barrel and forcing QatarEnergy to declare force majeure on all exports.  On March 18, the situation worsened: Iran struck Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City LNG complex, causing a 17% reduction in Qatar’s LNG production capacity — damage that analysts estimate will take three to five years to repair. LNG spot prices in Asia consequently surged by over 140%. 

Markets With Nowhere to Hide

The war and the spike in energy prices have rattled not just stocks, but also traditional safe havens like bonds, gold, and currencies, leaving investors with fewer places to shelter. 

The Dow, S&P 500, and Nasdaq are each on track for their worst month in a year. Gold futures have dropped 4%, Treasury yields are climbing as investors sell bonds, and the Nasdaq has entered correction territory, down more than 10% from its peak in late October. 

Traders are currently pricing in zero rate cuts from the Federal Reserve this year.  The Fed, already navigating inflation above its 2% target before the conflict started, now faces an oil-driven inflationary impulse with little room to maneuver. The word economists are quietly starting to use: stagflation.

Asia Absorbs the Hardest Hit

Japan relies on the Middle East for roughly 90% of its crude oil imports, most of which transits through Hormuz. South Korea gets about 70% of its crude from the region and routes more than 95% of that through the strait. South Korea has already activated a 100 trillion won market-stabilization program, roughly $68 billion, in response to war-related volatility. 

As of mid-March, Australia’s stock exchange had fallen more than 6%. Russian stocks, meanwhile, have trended upward, Russia being a major non-Gulf hydrocarbon supplier now positioned to benefit from the disruption. 

Europe: Exposed but Not Defenseless

Europe imports only about 5% of its crude oil through the Strait, but as a major energy importer it remains highly exposed to rising global prices. The European Central Bank postponed planned rate reductions, raising its 2026 inflation forecast and cutting GDP growth projections.  The euro-zone economy is expected to contract in Q2 and flatline through the second half of the year. 

Europe entered 2026 with significantly lower gas storage levels than in recent years — 46 billion cubic metres at end of February, compared to 60 bcm in 2025 and 77 bcm in 2024.  That buffer is thin heading into a prolonged disruption.

Food, Fertilizer, and the Downstream Spiral

The damage isn’t limited to fuel pumps and trading floors. From the start of the conflict through March 20, fertilizer prices increased by up to 40%, sending food prices rising across the globe.  Aviation has also been significantly disrupted by airspace closures on key corridors between Africa, Asia, and Europe, with airlines rerouting around the Middle East adding time, fuel costs, and economic friction to global supply chains. 

The Bottom Line

What begins as a battlefield shock hardens into a geoeconomic one.  The United States, as a net energy exporter, is better insulated than most, but not immune. The conflict is likely to reinforce a broader pattern already underway: the relative economic strength of the United States compared to its allies and trading partners. 

The critical variable remains duration. If hostilities wind down in the coming weeks, markets will recover. If the Strait of Hormuz stays commercially compromised through spring and summer, the damage to growth, inflation trajectories, and central bank credibility becomes structural, not cyclical.

For now, the world is watching a chokepoint the size of a county road decide the fate of the global economy.

US Daily Letter — Markets & Geopolitics Desk | March 28, 2026

February 21, 2026 | USDailyLetter.com

In what may be the most consequential economic ruling since the pandemic era, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday delivered a stinging rebuke to President Donald Trump’s sweeping tariff agenda — and within minutes, traders on Wall Street started buying.

The case, Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, had been years in the making but came to a head with stunning speed. By a vote of 6-3, the justices ruled that Trump’s tariffs exceeded the powers given to the president by Congress under a 1977 law providing him the authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies created by foreign threats.  The law in question — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA — had never been used to impose tariffs until Trump came along.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in plain terms: “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties. Moreover, until now no President has read IEEPA to confer such power.”  The six-justice majority included three conservatives — Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett — alongside the court’s three liberal justices. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

What Was Actually Struck Down?

Not everything. The ruling invalidates many, but not all, of Trump’s tariffs. The decision does not affect tariffs on steel and aluminum imposed using different laws.  But the big ones — the so-called “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs that Trump unveiled on April 2, 2025, targeting nearly every country on Earth — are gone. The IEEPA tariffs, including the “Liberation Day” reciprocal tariffs, raised the applied U.S. tariff rate by 7 percentage points and the effective tariff rate by nearly 5 percentage points. 

The financial scale is enormous. As of December 14, 2025, the government had collected $133.5 billion in IEEPA tariff payments from U.S. importers, estimated through February 20 to be at least $160 billion.  Whether any of that gets refunded is now a mess of its own — the court was silent on that question, and the matter has been remanded to lower courts.

How Markets Reacted

The ruling dropped at 10 a.m. on Friday morning, and markets moved immediately — though not as explosively as some had predicted.

The S&P 500 advanced 0.69% and closed at 6,909.51, while the Nasdaq Composite gained 0.9% and settled at 22,886.07. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 230 points, or 0.47%, and ended at 49,625.97.  All three major indexes posted weekly gains.

The real winners were retail and consumer stocks. Victoria’s Secret surged as much as 5.6%, Dollar Tree jumped 4%, and Abercrombie & Fitch increased 5.5%. Shares of Lululemon and Dick’s Sporting Goods also rose.  These are companies that had been hammered by tariff-related cost pressures for nearly a year.

Treasury yields and the dollar also moved — Treasuries and a Bloomberg gauge of the dollar fell, while stocks rallied.  The dollar initially jumped against major currencies before reversing course by end of day, a sign that investors were still working through the implications.

Market sentiment was cautious but optimistic. “I think this decision is a green light for the equity bulls,” said Jeff Kilburg, CEO of KKM Financial. “Markets vaulting over this hurdle is one less macro headwind bulls need to persist higher.” 

Trump Fires Back — With a New Tariff

The president did not take the ruling quietly. Trump called the decision “deeply disappointing” and said he was “ashamed” of some of the justices, saying they were “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution” — including two he personally nominated, Gorsuch and Barrett. 

And in classic Trump fashion, he didn’t wait long to find a workaround. By Friday evening, Trump announced he had signed an executive order imposing a new 10% “global tariff” under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a different legal authority the court did not strike down.  Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said this approach, combined with other existing authorities, “will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.” 

So the tariff war isn’t over. It’s just moved to different legal terrain.

The Bottom Line

This is a historic win for the rule of law — and a meaningful one for American businesses and consumers who have borne the brunt of tariff-driven price increases. But with Trump already pivoting to alternative legal mechanisms, and the question of refunds unresolved, the story is far from finished.

As one analyst put it: the uncertainty has been lifted on one chapter. The next chapter starts Monday.

— USDailyLetter.com Staff | February 21, 2026

Letter from Wall Street

February 7, 2026

Good morning from lower Manhattan,

If this week taught us anything, it’s that even Wall Street’s darlings aren’t immune to gravity—and that investors have surprisingly short memories when it comes to selloffs.

The Whiplash Week

After one of the most brutal three-day tech routs in recent memory, markets staged a specta…

Read more

Markets reopen Tuesday after the MLK Day holiday, and the week ahead is packed. Earnings season kicks into high gear with 183 companies reporting, inflation data drops Thursday, and the rotation trade that defined early 2026 faces its biggest test yet.

Here’s what matters this week.

Earnings Season: The Main Event

Fourth-quarter earnings season is here in force. About 7% of S&P 500 companies have reported so far, with 79% beating expectations. That’s a strong start. But this week is when we find out if the broadening rally—the rotation out of mega-cap tech and into cyclicals, value, and small caps—has fundamental support or if it’s just momentum chasing.

Tuesday, January 20:

∙ Netflix (NFLX) — The streaming giant is down 4% this year and more than 30% off its 52-week high. Analysts want to see subscriber growth, pricing power, and whether the crackdown on password sharing is still driving revenue. If Netflix beats and guides higher, it could reignite interest in battered growth stocks.

∙ United Airlines (UAL) — Travel demand, fuel costs, and forward guidance will tell us if consumers are still spending on experiences or pulling back.

∙ U.S. Bancorp (USB), KeyCorp (KEY), Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB) — Regional banks continue the financials parade. Net interest margins remain under pressure, but dealmaking and loan growth could surprise.

∙ D.R. Horton (DHI) — The homebuilder reports amid elevated mortgage rates and a cooling housing market. If they’re optimistic, it signals confidence in 2026 demand despite affordability challenges.

Wednesday, January 21:

∙ Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) — Healthcare has been a laggard, but 80% of U.S. healthcare companies are guiding earnings higher, according to FactSet. J&J’s report could set the tone for the sector.

∙ Charles Schwab (SCHW) — Trading volumes, asset flows, and net interest revenue will show whether retail investors are rotating or sitting on the sidelines.

∙ Halliburton (HAL) — Energy services. Oil prices have been volatile, and this report will reveal whether drilling activity is holding up or slowing.

Thursday, January 22:

∙ Intel (INTC) — The chipmaker is fighting for relevance in the AI boom. Investors want to see progress on turnaround efforts and whether they can compete with Nvidia and AMD.

∙ Capital One Financial (COF) — Credit quality, consumer lending, and Trump’s proposed 10% credit card interest rate cap will all be in focus.

∙ Intuitive Surgical (ISRG) — Robotic surgery demand and margins.

∙ CSX (CSX) — Rail freight volumes are an economic bellwether. If shipping is strong, the economy is strong.

Friday, January 23:

∙ SLB (formerly Schlumberger) — Another energy services giant. Combined with Halliburton’s Wednesday report, this will paint a picture of global energy demand.

What We’re Watching: Whether earnings support the rotation trade. If cyclicals, financials, and industrials post strong results and guide higher, the broadening rally continues. If they disappoint while tech stabilizes, money flows back to the Magnificent Seven.

Economic Data: Inflation and Growth

Wednesday, January 21:

∙ Construction Spending — Housing market health check.

∙ Housing Starts and Building Permits — Forward-looking indicators for residential construction.

Thursday, January 22:

∙ Third-quarter GDP (revised) — The economy is tracking strong. Confirmation of that keeps the Fed on hold and supports the “no landing” thesis.

∙ Personal Income and Personal Spending — Consumer strength or weakness.

∙ PCE Prices (Core PCE) — The Fed’s preferred inflation gauge. This is the big one. If inflation remains sticky above 2%, rate cut expectations get pushed further out. If it cools, June rate cuts stay on the table.

Friday, January 23:

∙ University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment (final) — Consumer confidence impacts spending. If sentiment is strong, the economy keeps humming. If it weakens, watch for cracks.

The Inflation Question

Friday’s jobs report showed the labor market is stable but weakening. That’s good news for inflation—wage pressures are easing. But Thursday’s PCE data will tell us if inflation is actually moving toward the Fed’s 2% target or staying stubbornly elevated.

Right now, markets are pricing in two quarter-point rate cuts in 2026, starting in June. If inflation stays hot, those expectations get pushed to late 2026 or scrapped entirely. If inflation cools, the Fed has room to cut sooner.

Higher rates for longer favors value stocks, financials, and energy. Lower rates favor growth, tech, and high-duration assets. Thursday’s PCE print could dictate which scenario plays out.

The Rotation Trade: Real or Mirage?

The story of early 2026 has been rotation. Small caps are up over 8%. Energy, materials, industrials, and consumer staples are all up nearly 6%. Meanwhile, five of the Magnificent Seven are in the red.

The equal-weighted S&P 500 is outperforming the cap-weighted index—a sign of broad market participation. Historically, that’s healthier and more durable than rallies driven by a handful of mega-caps.

But here’s the test: Do these sectors have the earnings to justify the move? Or are investors rotating into cyclicals just because they’re cheaper and tech feels overextended?

This week’s earnings will answer that. If financials, industrials, and materials post strong quarters and guide higher, the rotation is real. If they disappoint, money flows back to what’s been working: AI, mega-cap tech, and growth.

What Could Go Wrong

Geopolitical Risk: Iran protests continue. Trump threatened strikes, then backed off. If tensions escalate, oil spikes and risk assets sell off.

Credit Card Rate Cap: Trump’s proposed 10% cap on credit card interest rates is hanging over financials. JPMorgan’s CFO pushed back hard last week, warning it would hurt consumers. Watch how other banks address this during earnings calls.

Tech Weakness: If Netflix, Intel, and other tech names disappoint, the Nasdaq could roll over. The VIX spiked 18.94% on Friday—a sign volatility is creeping back in.

Rates: The 10-year Treasury yield hit 4.23% Friday, the highest since September. If yields keep climbing, it pressures valuations across equities, especially growth stocks.

What’s Working

Financials: Banks are benefiting from stronger dealmaking, trading revenue, and easing regulation. Even with net interest margin pressure, diversified revenue streams are carrying the sector.

Energy: Oil prices have stabilized. Geopolitical risk keeps a floor under crude. Energy stocks are cheap relative to historical multiples and are riding the cyclical rotation.

Industrials and Materials: AI data centers need copper, steel, and construction. Defense spending is rising. Infrastructure investment is accelerating. These sectors sit at the intersection of multiple mega forces.

Small Caps: After years of underperformance, the Russell 2000 is outpacing large caps. If rates stabilize and the economy avoids recession, small caps have room to run.

What’s Not Working

Mega-Cap Tech: Five of the Mag 7 are down year-to-date. Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Meta are all underperforming. Alphabet and Tesla are holding up, but the group as a whole is facing selling pressure as investors rotate.

Growth Stocks: High-duration assets are getting hit as rates stay elevated. If the 10-year yield pushes above 4.30%, expect more pain.

Bottom Line: Earnings Will Decide Everything

The MLK weekend gave Wall Street a breather. Now the real work begins.

Earnings season will determine if the rotation trade is sustainable or if it’s just a January head-fake. Economic data will determine if the Fed cuts rates this year or stays on hold. And geopolitical risks—Iran, Trump tariffs, China tensions—loom in the background.

The S&P 500 finished Friday at 6,940. The Nasdaq at 23,515. The Russell 2000 at 2,677.

By Friday, we’ll know if those levels hold or if volatility returns in force.

Key Takeaway: This week separates the winners from the pretenders. Earnings, inflation data, and market internals will show whether 2026’s early rotation is the start of a new cycle or just noise before the Magnificent Seven reassert dominance.

Trade accordingly.

—US Daily Letter Markets Desk

While the country settles into the weekend, Wall Street is processing a Friday for the record books. The S&P 500 and Dow Jones didn’t just climb—they vaulted to all-time highs, closing a volatile first week of 2026 with a defiant surge.

Here’s what you need to know.

1. The Jobs Report: Mixed Signals, Maximum Gains

The Labor Department’s December report gave markets a “glass half full” read. Employers added just 50,000 jobs, missing expectations of 60,000+. Normally, sluggish hiring signals a cooling economy, but investors found a silver lining: the unemployment rate dropped to 4.4%.

This “low-hire, low-fire” state is exactly what the soft-landing crowd wanted to see. It suggests a resilient economy that isn’t overheating, even if it isn’t sprinting.

2. The “Trump Bump” for Intel

The biggest corporate story of the week belongs to Intel (INTC). Shares skyrocketed over 10% Friday following a high-profile White House meeting between President Trump and CEO Lip-Bu Tan. The administration’s vocal support for domestic semiconductor manufacturing and the AI cycle has revitalized investor confidence in the American chip giant.

3. The Tariff Waiting Game

Markets were braced for a Supreme Court ruling on the legality of the administration’s proposed tariffs—the so-called “Liberation Day” levies. The Court delayed the decision until January 14. Until then, trade-sensitive sectors remain in a holding pattern.

4. Energy & The Venezuela Factor

Oil prices climbed as industry executives met with the President to discuss American operations in Venezuela. Crude (WTI) settled near $59, as traders bet on a long-term shift in global supply chains under new U.S.-led energy policies.

THE CLOSING BELL

January 9, 2026

* DOW: 49,504.07 (+0.48%) – RECORD CLOSE

* S&P 500: 6,966.28 (+0.65%) – RECORD CLOSE

* NASDAQ: 23,671.35 (+0.81%)

* BITCOIN: ~$90,200 (Stable)

* GOLD: $4,515/oz (+1.3%)

THE WEEK AHEAD

Earnings season begins Tuesday with JPMorgan Chase (JPM) reporting. These results will be the first real look at how the American consumer is faring in this high-interest, high-record market. The Supreme Court’s tariff decision lands midweek—watch that space.

Stay vigilant. Stay informed.

US Daily Letter

A decade to the day after President Donald Trump first announced his run for the White House, his sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, took center stage at Trump Tower in New York to unveil Trump Mobile. This new venture, a mobile virtual network operator (MVNO), plans to run on AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile’s 5G networks. For $47.45 a month, their “47 Plan” promises unlimited talk, text, and data, plus handy perks like roadside assistance and telehealth. But the real headline grabber? A gold-colored, Android-powered "T1 Phone," boasting a "designed and built in the United States" label, set to hit shelves this September for $499.

The launch, draped in patriotic rhetoric about "putting America first," certainly plays into Trump's recent threats of imposing 25% tariffs on giants like Apple for their overseas manufacturing. Yet, as always with these ventures, the finer details remain frustratingly vague. We know the Trump Organization is licensing its name to a Florida-based entity, T1 Mobile LLC. What we don't know is who is actually manufacturing the T1 Phone, or how exactly "Made in USA" will be defined in a world of complex global supply chains. Skepticism is already swirling on X (formerly Twitter), with some users quickly dubbing the device a "reskinned Chinese midrange" phone, significantly marked up.

Here in DC, where the lines between policy and business often blur, Trump Mobile is far more than just a new product on the market. It's shaping up to be a critical litmus test for the administration’s economic nationalism. Will it truly shake up the telecom industry, or is this just another gilded branding play? We’re diving deeper into those questions right here.

Analysis: DC's Deep Hand in Trump Mobile's Ambitions

Washington, DC, isn’t merely a backdrop for Trump Mobile’s grand debut—it’s arguably the driving force. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), currently overseen by Trump-appointed Chairman Brendan Carr, holds the reins over MVNOs like Trump Mobile. This naturally sparks questions about potential regulatory favoritism. Furthermore, the administration's fervent push for domestic manufacturing, amplified by Trump’s tariff threats, creates an incredibly fertile ground for a "Made in USA" phone pitch to land. However, industry analysts remain skeptical about Trump Mobile's potential reach. MVNOs historically capture a small slice of the U.S. wireless market, typically just 3-4%, and more established competitors like Mint Mobile already offer unlimited plans for as low as $25 a month.

On the global stage, Trump Mobile's arrival is intertwined with escalating U.S. trade tensions. Should tariffs genuinely compel companies like Apple to shift production back to American soil, consumer costs could soar; analysts estimate a U.S.-made iPhone might retail for a staggering $1,500. Against that backdrop, Trump Mobile’s $499 price point seems surprisingly competitive, though the early chatter on X suggests quality concerns, with one user issuing a stark warning about potential "bloat/spyware" risks. For our international readers, this saga highlights how DC's protectionist policies could send ripples across global tech markets, from Seoul to Brussels.

Back in the capital, whispers of conflict-of-interest concerns are growing louder. Trump’s reported $600 million in 2024 income, much of it from ventures like crypto and merchandise, inevitably fuels the ongoing debate about the delicate balance—or imbalance—of blending executive power with personal financial gain. As DC DAILY LETTER keeps a close watch on these unfolding developments, we'll keep you posted on whether Trump Mobile truly becomes a telecom game-changer or simply another high-profile distraction.

Quick Hits

* FCC Scrutiny Looms: Will Trump Mobile face the usual regulatory hurdles, or will Chairman Carr’s established ties to the administration pave a smoother path?

* DC’s Tech Buzz: The capital is alight with tech policy debates, from the intricacies of AI regulation to the surging popularity of crypto endorsements. Trump Mobile just poured more fuel on that fire.

* Global Eyes on DC: Foreign diplomats stationed in Washington are closely monitoring how Trump’s tariff rhetoric might reshape upcoming international trade talks. Stay tuned for their insights.

From the Archives: Echoes of Power

Back in 1791, Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton’s seminal letters to Congress effectively laid the foundation for U.S. industrial policy, passionately advocating for robust domestic manufacturing. Today, Trump Mobile’s very public “Made in USA” pitch strikingly echoes that historic vision. Yet, in a capital where business and politics are now so deeply intertwined, the stakes for this modern-day push feel exponentially higher. For a deeper dive into these fascinating historical parallels, subscribe to our paid tier for weekly “Letters from the Past,” connecting DC’s history directly to today’s headlines.

Join the Conversation

So, what’s your take on Trump Mobile’s launch? Do you see it as a bold stride for American manufacturing, or is it more of a calculated branding stunt? We want to hear from you! Reply to this post on dcdailyletter.com or share your thoughts on X using #DCDailyLetter. We’ll be featuring the most insightful reader comments in tomorrow’s letter.

Subscribe to DC DAILY LETTER at dcdailyletter.com for your daily dispatch from the heart of the capital.