Skip to main content

Finance & News Intelligence

AI-powered analysis of financial markets, economics, world news, and technology. Data-driven insights you can trust.

Portfolio Updates

Latest Analysis

View All
NewsUS-Taiwan trade dealSupreme Court tariffs rulingIEEPA

News: U.S. and Taiwan Trade Deal Thrown Into Uncertainty as Supreme Court Strikes Down Tariff Framework — What the Landmark Ruling Means for Chips, Trade, and Beijing

The sweeping trade agreement between the United States and Taiwan — signed just eight days ago to slash tariffs, lock in $250 billion in semiconductor investments, and deepen economic ties across the Pacific — now faces a dramatically altered legal landscape after the Supreme Court struck down the tariff framework that underpinned much of the deal's architecture. On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, invalidating the broad trade levies that had reshaped global commerce since April 2025. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority alongside Justices Gorsuch, Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, concluded that Trump's use of IEEPA represented a "transformative expansion of the President's authority over tariff policy" that lacked clear congressional authorization. Hours later, President Trump responded by imposing a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — then raised it to 15% the following day. The implications for the U.S.-Taiwan trade agreement are profound. The original deal, negotiated under the umbrella of Trump's aggressive tariff regime, reduced duties on Taiwanese exports to 15% while securing massive commitments from TSMC and other Taiwanese firms to invest in American chip fabrication. With the legal basis for much of U.S. trade policy now upended, both governments face urgent questions about which provisions survive, how the new tariff structure affects semiconductor investment timelines, and whether Beijing will exploit the confusion.

February 21, 2026Read Analysis
NewsUS-Taiwan trade dealSupreme Court tariff rulingIEEPA

News: U.S.-Taiwan Trade Deal Faces Legal Earthquake as Supreme Court Strikes Down Tariff Framework and Trump Imposes New 15% Global Levy

The landmark U.S.-Taiwan trade agreement signed just eight days ago has been thrown into uncharted territory after the Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump's reciprocal tariff regime in a 6-3 ruling on Friday, declaring that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The decision invalidated the legal framework under which the bilateral deal was negotiated, raising urgent questions about the agreement's terms, Taiwan's preferential status, and the future of hundreds of billions of dollars in semiconductor investments. Hours after the ruling, Trump signed a proclamation imposing a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a different legal authority that limits levies to 15% for a maximum of 150 days without congressional approval. By Saturday, Trump had raised that rate to 15%, declaring the increase "effective immediately" in a Truth Social post that called the Supreme Court's decision "ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American." The developments create a paradox for the Taiwan deal. When the agreement was signed on February 13, Taiwan's 15% tariff rate represented a significant concession — a reduction from the 20% initially proposed and far below the 32% that had been threatened. Now, with every country facing a 15% global levy under Section 122, Taiwan's negotiated rate is no longer preferential. The island's cabinet responded on Saturday by saying the new flat tariff would have a "limited impact" on its economy, while pledging to "closely monitor" developments and maintain communication with Washington.

February 21, 2026Read Analysis
NewsIran nuclear talksTrump military strike IranUS-Iran crisis

News: US-Iran Nuclear Crisis Escalates as Trump Considers Military Strikes and Tehran Prepares Counterproposal

The US-Iran nuclear confrontation has escalated sharply in the four days since indirect talks concluded in Geneva on February 17, with President Donald Trump publicly acknowledging he is "considering" limited military strikes against Iran while Tehran races to prepare a diplomatic counterproposal. The dual-track posture — simultaneous talk of war and deal-making — has left markets, allies, and adversaries alike attempting to gauge whether the world's most dangerous geopolitical standoff is heading toward resolution or conflagration. Trump on Thursday gave Iran a 10-to-15-day ultimatum to reach a nuclear agreement or face "really bad things," and on Friday told reporters at the White House that he was indeed considering a limited strike to pressure Tehran into concessions. Two US officials told Reuters that military planning has reached an advanced stage, with options including targeting specific individuals and even pursuing leadership change. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded by saying a draft counterproposal would be ready "in the next two or three days," while insisting that "there is no military solution for Iran's nuclear programme." The crisis unfolds against a backdrop of the largest US military buildup in the Middle East since Operation Midnight Hammer last June, with two aircraft carrier strike groups converging on the region, oil prices surging more than 5% in a single week, and fresh protest violence erupting at Iranian universities as campuses reopen. NATO member states have begun ordering their citizens to evacuate Iran, with one warning that "the possibility of a conflict is very real."

February 21, 2026Read Analysis
NewsSupreme Court tariffs rulingTrump tariffsIEEPA tariffs unconstitutional

Developing: Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Tariffs in Landmark 6-3 Ruling — President Fires Back With New 10% Global Levy

The United States Supreme Court delivered a historic rebuke to President Donald Trump's trade agenda on Friday, ruling 6-3 that his sweeping global tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unconstitutional. The decision, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by two Trump-appointed justices, found that the president had overstepped his authority by imposing import duties without explicit congressional authorization — a power the Constitution reserves for the legislative branch. Hours after the ruling, a visibly agitated Trump held a White House press conference in which he called the decision "terrible" and said he was "absolutely ashamed" of the justices who voted against him, including his own appointees Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, whom he labeled "fools and lapdogs." He then signed a proclamation imposing a new 10% global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 — a never-before-used provision that limits duties to 15% for a maximum of 150 days. The ruling opens the door to potentially $175 billion in refunds to importers who paid the now-invalidated tariffs, according to an estimate by the Penn Wharton Budget Model, and introduces fresh uncertainty into a global trade landscape that has been roiled by over a year of escalating tariff wars. Markets reacted with cautious optimism, with the S&P 500 closing up approximately 0.7%, even as businesses warned that the path forward remains far from clear.

February 21, 2026Read Analysis
FinanceAmazonWalmartrevenue milestone

Deep Dive: Amazon Dethrones Walmart as the World's Largest Company by Revenue — What It Means for Investors and the Future of Retail

For decades, Walmart held an unchallenged claim to the title of the world's largest company by annual revenue. That era ended this week. Amazon's full-year 2025 revenue of $716.9 billion officially surpassed Walmart's $713.2 billion for its fiscal year ending January 31, 2026 — a symbolic but seismic milestone that reshapes the hierarchy of global commerce. The dethroning was not sudden. Amazon first overtook Walmart in quarterly revenue about a year ago, and the annual crossover had been anticipated for months. But the confirmation, arriving just as Walmart reported otherwise strong fourth-quarter results on Thursday, crystallizes a broader truth: the center of gravity in retail has shifted decisively toward digital platforms, cloud computing, and AI-powered commerce. For investors parsing the two stocks — Amazon trading at $209.44 with a $2.25 trillion market cap, and Walmart at $122.07 with a $973 billion valuation — the question is no longer who is bigger, but which company is better positioned for the next chapter. The milestone also arrives at a pivotal moment for both companies. Amazon is pouring up to $200 billion into AI infrastructure in 2026, while Walmart is navigating a CEO transition and a cautious earnings outlook that spooked Wall Street. The revenue crown may be symbolic, but the strategic divergence underneath it is anything but.

February 20, 2026Read Analysis
NewsSouth KoreaYoon Suk Yeolinsurrection

Developing: South Korea Sentences Former President Yoon Suk Yeol to Life in Prison for Leading Insurrection — The Harshest Penalty Ever Imposed on a Democratically Elected Leader in the Nation's History

A South Korean court sentenced former President Yoon Suk Yeol to life imprisonment with hard labor on Thursday, February 19, finding him guilty of masterminding an insurrection when he declared martial law on December 3, 2024, in a dramatic attempt to shut down the National Assembly and arrest opposition politicians. The verdict makes Yoon the first democratically elected head of state in South Korea's modern history to receive the maximum custodial sentence, marking what the court called a necessary punishment for actions that 'fundamentally damaged South Korea's democracy.' Presiding judge Jee Kui-youn described Yoon as the 'insurrectionist leader' who deployed military troops to blockade parliament, attempted to arrest key figures including the assembly speaker and party leaders, and sought to seize control of the national election commission — all within a chaotic six-hour window before lawmakers fought their way into the building and voted down the martial law decree. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty, arguing that Yoon committed 'a grave destruction of constitutional order,' but the court opted for life imprisonment, noting that while the crime was grave, Yoon's planning 'did not appear meticulous' and most of his plans ultimately failed. The sentencing, broadcast live on national television, laid bare the deep polarization that has gripped South Korea since that December night 14 months ago. Outside the Seoul Central District Court, roughly 1,000 police officers maintained order as Yoon's supporters — waving South Korean and American flags and chanting 'Yoon again' — clashed emotionally with progressive groups calling for the death penalty. Some supporters collapsed in tears, crying 'the country is finished,' while opponents erupted in cheers. Yoon himself showed no visible emotion as the sentence was delivered.

February 20, 2026Read Analysis
FinanceUS trade deficittariffstrade policy

Analysis: The $1.2 Trillion Paradox — Why Trump's Tariffs Failed to Shrink the US Trade Deficit

The numbers are in, and they tell a story the White House would rather not hear. The US goods trade deficit hit a fresh record of approximately $1.2 trillion in 2025, widening 2.1% from 2024 despite the most aggressive tariff regime in nearly a century. Goods imports surged to an all-time high of $3.4 trillion even as tariff rates on some countries exceeded 100%. The result is a paradox that upends the central economic argument for tariffs: that taxing foreign goods would reduce American dependence on overseas production and narrow the trade gap. Instead, businesses rushed to front-load imports ahead of escalating duties, AI-related investment drove record demand for computer parts and semiconductor equipment, and supply chains simply rerouted through third countries — swapping a shrinking China deficit for record gaps with Mexico, Vietnam, and Taiwan. For investors, the trade data carries implications that extend well beyond politics. A $1.2 trillion goods deficit means massive dollar outflows that weaken the currency over time, while the Supreme Court's pending challenge to Trump's tariff authority could reshape trade policy overnight.

February 19, 2026Read Analysis
FinanceWalmart earningsWMT stockretail earnings

Earnings Analysis: Walmart Beats on Revenue and EPS but Cautious Outlook Rattles a Trillion-Dollar Stock

Walmart Inc. (WMT) delivered a strong holiday quarter on Thursday morning — revenue up 5.6% year-over-year to $190.7 billion, adjusted earnings of $0.74 per share topping the $0.73 consensus — and still watched its stock slide more than 2% at the open. The culprit: a fiscal-year earnings outlook of $2.75 to $2.85 per share that landed well below Wall Street's $2.96 expectation, casting a shadow over what was otherwise a showcase quarter for the world's largest brick-and-mortar retailer. The report, filed before dawn on February 19, marks a pivotal moment for Walmart on multiple fronts. It is the first earnings release under new CEO John Furner, who succeeded Doug McMillon on February 1 after more than three decades at the company. It also arrives just weeks after Walmart crossed the $1 trillion market capitalization threshold, and days after Amazon officially overtook it as the world's largest company by annual revenue — a symbolic passing of the torch that underscores the competitive pressure Walmart faces even as it posts record digital numbers. Investors now confront a familiar tension: Walmart's operating machine has never been sharper, but its premium valuation — trading at roughly 44 times trailing earnings — leaves almost no room for guidance that merely meets expectations, let alone misses them. The question is whether the cautious outlook reflects genuine economic headwinds or the kind of conservative sandbagging that has become a Walmart tradition under new management.

February 19, 2026Read Analysis
NewsSouth KoreaYoon Suk Yeolmartial law

News: South Korea's Former President Yoon Suk Yeol Sentenced to Life in Prison for Leading Insurrection — A Democracy's Reckoning With Its Most Serious Crisis in Decades

Former South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol was sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labor on Thursday after a Seoul court found him guilty of leading an insurrection through his brief but dramatic declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024. The ruling, delivered by Seoul Central District Court Judge Jee Kui-youn and broadcast live on national television, marks the most severe sentence handed to a democratically elected South Korean president and represents a watershed moment for the country's hard-won democratic institutions. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty, arguing that Yoon's mobilization of military and police forces to seize the National Assembly, arrest opposition politicians, and suspend political activities constituted "a grave destruction of constitutional order." The court opted for life imprisonment instead, noting that while the crime was exceptionally grave, Yoon's planning had not been meticulous, he had attempted to limit the use of physical force, and most of his plans ultimately failed. Under South Korean law, the charge of leading an insurrection carries only three possible penalties: death, life imprisonment with labor, or life imprisonment without labor. The verdict arrives 14 months after the six-hour crisis that plunged Asia's fourth-largest economy into its deepest political turmoil in over four decades, shattered international confidence in South Korean stability, and left a once-vibrant democracy bitterly polarized between conservative and progressive camps. Outside the courthouse on Thursday, those divisions were on vivid display — hundreds of Yoon supporters waving flags and chanting "Yoon, again" clashed verbally with progressive protesters demanding the death penalty, as roughly 1,000 police officers maintained an uneasy perimeter.

February 19, 2026Read Analysis
FinanceWalmartTargetretail earnings

Retail Showdown: Walmart and Target's New CEOs Inherit Vastly Different Empires as Q4 Earnings Approach

America's two biggest big-box retailers enter a new era under new leadership this month, but the fortunes they've inherited could hardly be more different. On February 1, John Furner took the helm at Walmart and Michael Fiddelke assumed the CEO role at Target — both longtime company insiders, both promoted from within, yet each facing a fundamentally distinct set of challenges and opportunities. Walmart reports its fiscal fourth-quarter earnings on Thursday, February 19, riding a wave of momentum that has pushed its market capitalization past $1 trillion and its stock up 163% over the past five years. Target, which reports on March 3, tells a starkly different story: its shares have fallen roughly 40% over the same period, weighed down by declining store traffic, margin compression, and a string of public relations headaches. As both companies prepare to unveil holiday-quarter results and full-year guidance, Wall Street is focused less on backward-looking numbers and more on one question: can these new CEOs sustain Walmart's dominance and engineer Target's turnaround? The divergence between these two retail bellwethers is more than a stock market curiosity — it's a window into the shifting economics of American consumer spending, the growing power of digital retail platforms, and the widening gap between retailers that have successfully adapted to the post-pandemic landscape and those still searching for their footing.

February 18, 2026Read Analysis