​Since the beginning of 2026, geopolitics has increasingly moved back to the centre of financial-market risk, led by the escalation between the US and Iran. The conflict has shifted from a regional military confrontation into a broader threat to global trade infrastructure, with Iran using asymmetric naval tactics, including fast boats, vessel seizures and threats around the Strait of Hormuz, while the US has responded with a naval blockade and efforts to secure maritime corridors. Shipping traffic through the strait has fallen sharply, with reports indicating that only a few ships passed through the waterway in a recent 24-hour periods compared with a pre-war average of around 140, leaving hundreds of ships and thousands of seafarers stranded in the Gulf. This has reinforced the importance of strategic chokepoints as a macro-financial risk, as disruptions now feed directly into global shipping, insurance costs, supply-chain reliability and inflation expectations.
At the same time, US political risk has remained elevated, with trade policy again becoming a key source of uncertainty. The continuation of Trump’s tariff agenda has complicated corporate planning, strained relations with allies and reinforced concerns around policy unpredictability, while the unresolved legal and political disputes around tariff refunds have added another layer of uncertainty for large importers. From there, the trade-policy debate naturally extends to the broader US-China conflict, where tariffs, export controls, critical minerals, manufacturing reshoring and technology restrictions remain central points of tension. Trump’s China tariffs helped reduce the US goods trade deficit with China in 2025, but did not materially change China’s industrial policy, while renewed disputes in 2026 have kept the relationship fragile ahead of further negotiations.

​At the end of last week, the US Supreme Court delivered a major legal rebuke to executive trade policy, ruling that President Trump exceeded his authority by imposing sweeping global tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Supreme Court finds that the statute did not authorize broad tariff powers and therefore invalidating large portions of his tariff regime. In response, President Trump immediately pivoted to alternative statutory authorities, including a temporary global tariff of 10% - later increased to 15 % - under Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. This announcement signals further industry- and country-specific tariffs under national-security provisions, keeping trade policy uncertainty elevated. The legal clash and policy recalibration have fed deep political polarization over trade and economic strategy. Consequently, public polling shows substantial opposition to the tariff agenda and debate within both parties over statutory authority, executive power and economic priorities. These issues contribute to amplifying uncertainty in business confidence and strategic investment planning. These political dynamics intersect with broader economic signals that have diverged across the US economy. Manufacturing data show pockets of strength while consumer and business confidence remain subdued, and labour-market resilience coexists with weakness in investment and real incomes, underscoring the uneven impact of policy shifts and structural pressures on growth. Against this backdrop, market participants have increasingly adopted the “Sell America” narrative, a term describing sustained selling pressure on USD-linked assets amid perceived policy risk, with reallocation toward foreign equities, FX and alternative stores of value. The later is further boosted by geopolitical uncertainty.

​In early April 2025, President Trump reignited trade tensions with sweeping tariffs - 10% on all imports and up to 50% for countries with "unfair" practices, hitting China hardest at 145%. China retaliated with up to 125% tariffs, blacklisting US firms and restricting exports of rare earths. Facing global backlash, Trump announced a 90-day delay for most countries (excluding China) and eased tariffs on key sectors like tech and pharma. Markets, initially hopeful over pro-business policies, turned volatile as concerns over aggressive trade moves mounted. The VIX spiked to 60 on Liberation Day - levels not seen since 2008 and 2020. Upon the delay of the tariff implementation, volatility eased quickly, as shown in Figure 1. Volatility levels have dropped to below 25, which is only slightly elevated compared to historical levels.

​Last week, President Donald Trump reignited global trade tensions by continuing his tariff policy. During “Liberation Day,” the President announced a sweeping plan, imposing a baseline 10% tariff on all imports and sharply escalating tariffs on countries deemed to have unfair trade practices. For those countries, tariffs of up to 50% were announced. China was hit hardest, with tariffs reaching as high as 145%. While many countries chose to limit retaliatory measures and instead focus on reaching an agreement with the US, China imposed matching tariffs of up to 125% on US products, blacklisted several American companies, and restricted exports of key materials. The latter includes rare earth metals, which are crucial in today’s world as they are vital for many technological products. In response to global backlash, Trump announced a 90-day delay on the tariff increases for most countries (excluding China), attempting to contain diplomatic fallout while maintaining a tough stance on trade imbalances. Amid further concerns that tariffs on key growth-spurring sectors such as technology and pharma could backfire, the administration announced additional reprieve by limiting tariffs on such critical goods.