Stocks soar and oil prices plunge after US-Iran ceasefire
A trader works on the floor at the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in New York, US, on Monday, April 6, 2026. Signs of last-ditch efforts to secure a truce in the war that has rattled global markets spurred a cautious advance in stocks as oil retreated. (Photographer: Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — Stocks soared and oil prices plunged in early trading on Wednesday, just hours after the U.S. and Iran announced a two-week ceasefire.
The Dow Jones Industrial average surged 1,215 points, or 2.6%, while the S&P 500 climbed 2.5%. The tech-heavy Nasdaq jumped 3.4%.
As part of the accord, Iran says it will allow tankers passage through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping route for oil and gas, as long as they coordinate with the nation’s military. Investors appeared optimistic that the agreement would ease one of the worst global oil shortages in decades.
U.S. oil prices plummeted 18% on Wednesday, registering at about $92 a barrel. Still, the price of oil remained well above pre-war levels of about $67 a barrel.
President Donald Trump touted the ceasefire in a social media post on Wednesday, saying there would be “no enrichment of Uranium,” despite the Iranians claiming that the U.S. agreed to its plan, which includes numerous concessions.
The president added that “the United States will, working with Iran, dig up and remove all of the deeply buried (B-2 Bombers) Nuclear ‘Dust.'”
The Iranian Supreme National Security Council’s statement on Tuesday included “acceptance of enrichment” in its 10-point plan.
Investors will likely pay close attention to a potential uptick in tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.
Typically, scores of ships carry a fifth of the world’s oil through the strait each day, but Iran effectively closed the passage over the course of the war. That oil shortage sent crude prices soaring, and it threatened far-reaching price increases that some economists feared could tip the U.S. economy into a recession.
ABC News’ David Brennan, Jon Haworth and Nadine El-Bawab contributed to this report.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaks during a press conference following the Federal Open Markets Committee meeting at the Federal Reserve on December 10, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(NEW YORK) — The Federal Reserve on Wednesday is set to announce its latest decision on the level of interest rates, marking its first rate move since news surfaced of a federal criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell.
The investigation ratcheted up an extraordinary clash between the nation’s top central banker and the White House, which has urged the Fed to significantly reduce interest rates.
The central bank is widely expected to hold interest rates steady on Wednesday. The anticipated move would end a string of three consecutive quarter-point rate cuts, aligning with a cautious approach outlined by Powell last month, before reports of the investigation into his conduct.
“We’re well positioned to wait and see how the economy evolves,” Powell said at a press conference in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 10.
Futures markets expect two quarter-point interest rate cuts this year, forecasting the first in June and a second in the fall, according to CME FedWatch Tool, a measure of market sentiment.
The federal probe appears to center on Powell’s testimony to Congress last year about cost overruns in a multi-billion-dollar office renovation project. Powell, who was appointed by Trump in 2017, issued a rare video message earlier this month rebuking the investigation as a politically motivated effort to influence the Fed’s interest rate policy.
The investigation follows months of strident criticism leveled at the Fed by Trump. The president denied any involvement in the criminal investigation during a brief interview with NBC News hours after the Fed posted Powell’s video.
Over the past year, hiring has slowed dramatically while inflation has remained elevated, risking an economic double-whammy known as “stagflation.” Those conditions have put the Fed in a difficult position.
The central bank must balance a dual mandate to keep inflation under control and maximize employment. To address pressure on both of its goals, the Fed primarily holds a single tool: interest rates.
The strain on both sides of the Fed’s mandate presents a “challenging situation” for the central bank, Powell noted last month.
“There’s no risk-free path for policy as we navigate this tension between our employment and inflation goals,” Powell said.
If the Fed raises interest rates as a means of protecting against elevated inflation, it risks a deeper slowdown of the labor market. On the other hand, by lowering rates to stimulate hiring, the Fed threatens to boost spending and worsen inflation.
The criminal investigation into Powell raised concern among some analysts and former top Fed officials, who said it poses a threat to central bank independence.
In the event a central bank loses independence, policymakers tend to favor lower interest rates as a means of boosting short-term economic activity, analysts previously told ABC News. Such a posture could pose a major risk of yearslong inflation fueled by a rise in consumer demand, untethered by interest rates.
Federal law allows the president to remove the Fed chair for “cause” — though no precedent exists for such an ouster. Powell’s term as chair is set to expire in May, but he can remain on the Fed’s policymaking board until 2028. Powell has not indicated whether he intends to remain on the board.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated, and will be updated again with the Fed’s rate decision.
US President Donald Trump speaks during a press conference at the White House, Washington, D.C., US on February 20, 2026. Kyle Mazza/Anadolu via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — President Donald Trump rushed to enact new tariffs and vowed to preserve others after a recent Supreme Court ruling knocked out most of his levies.
Businesses and consumers now face a different set of tariffs, which amount to taxes paid by importers for goods shipped into the U.S. Oftentimes, importers pass along tariff-related costs to consumers, raising retail prices.
The nation’s overall tariff rate has dropped, meaning some products have gained relief from tariff-related price pressures, some analysts told ABC News. But levies remain in place for nearly all imported goods, including duties as high as 50%, hiking costs for some companies and shoppers, they added.
“In general, we’ve seen tariffs pushing up on prices. That won’t go away,” Jason Miller, a professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University, told ABC News.
The high court ruled on Friday that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) does not authorize Trump to impose levies, nullifying 70% of Trump’s tariffs after they collected more than $140 billion through December, the Yale Budget Lab found.
During his State of the Union speech on Tuesday, Trump criticized the Supreme Court decision, describing at as a “very unfortunate ruling,” and asserting that he retains the ability to impose tariffs under “fully approved and tested alternative legal statutes.”
In a social media post on Monday, Trump affirmed what he said was his authority to issue tariffs, saying he does not need to consult Congress before erecting new trade levies.
Trump also reiterated his commitment to his policy approach, warning other countries that they may face a “much higher Tariff, and worse.”
A 10% global tariff took effect on Tuesday, marking the first duty enacted by Trump since the high court’s decision. Trump issued the levy under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to hike tariffs for 150 days as means of addressing “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficits, or disparities between a country’s total payments in transactions with other nations and its total earnings. In order to extend the Section 122 tariffs beyond 150 days, Trump would need to secure congressional approval.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said this week that Democrats would oppose an extension of Section 122 tariffs, which could deny Trump the 60 votes necessary to overcome a potential Senate filibuster.
Trump has vowed to hike the Section 122 tariff to 15%. As of Tuesday, however, the president had not issued an order formalizing that increase.
A 15% Section 122 tariff would result in price increases amounting to $800 in additional costs for an average U.S. household over the next 150 days, the Yale Budget Lab projected.
“That’s hundreds of dollars that you’re going to be paying as a result of these tariffs,” Raymond Robertson, professor for trade, economics and public policy at Texas A&M University, told ABC News.
Robertson noted the ultimate cost impact may be slightly lower than projected as consumers shift away from products that display noticeable tariff-induced price hikes. But, he added, tariff-impacted products will be all but impossible for shoppers to avoid.
“These tariffs are hitting across the board,” Robertson said.
The Trump administration also plans to maintain sector-specific tariffs imposed under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and conclude pending investigations that could authorize additional levies, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement on Friday.
That statute permits the White House to levy tariffs on products of importance to national security. Under the law, the White House must await the result of an investigation undertaken by the Commerce Department before imposing a tariff.
Under Section 232, for instance, steel and aluminum face a 50% tariff, putting upward pressure on prices for tableware, motorcycles, canned goods and assorted children’s products, analysts previously told ABC News.
A 50% tariff also applies to some copper products, while 25% tariffs remain for cars and auto parts. Those levies exclude a host of goods compliant with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, a free trade agreement.
To be sure, some products will experience a reduction of tariffs in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision. Products from China, Brazil, Vietnam and India will likely gain notable tariff relief, since those nations faced significant tariffs under the legal authority that was struck down by the Supreme Court, Miller said.
Electronics and clothing are among the products that could benefit from softer tariffs.
If the Supreme Court had opted to uphold tariffs issued under IEPPA, the nation’s effective tariff rate would have remained at 16%, the Yale Budget Lab said. Taking into account Section 122 tariffs, the effective tariff rate now stands at 13.7%, the group said.
“The good news for consumers is there’s an overall decrease in tariff rates,” Miller said. “What creates a challenge is we don’t know exactly what the new landscape will look like.”
Elon Musk arrives to court for his lawsuit against OpenAI at the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building on April 28, 2026 in Oakland, California. (Benjamin Fanjoy/Getty Images)
(OAKLAND, Calif.) — Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk and prominent AI executive Sam Altman are facing off in court with major implications for OpenAI, the San Francisco-based tech giant led by Altman.
The federal case, which concerns OpenAI’s evolution from nonprofit to profit-seeking, kicked off on Monday in Oakland, California. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is managing proceedings alongside nine jurors and no alternates, according to a court filing last month.
The star-studded list of potential witnesses includes Altman, Musk and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, among other tech luminaries, a court filing showed.
Musk sued OpenAI and Altman, its CEO, in 2024, alleging that the company abandoned its mission of benefiting humanity in a sprint toward profits.
Musk, a co-founder of OpenAI, said he reached an agreement with the company’s leaders on the nonprofit course of the firm when it launched in 2015. The company later breached that “Founding Agreement,” Musk said in a 2024 court filing, when it made ChatGPT-4 available for use by Microsoft — the tech giant got access to the then-most powerful version of its popular chatbot under an exclusive licensing agreement.
Microsoft and OpenAI have renegotiated the exclusive licensing agreement, allowing OpenAI to strike deals with other tech firms.
OpenAI has rebuked the charges, calling them “baseless.” Microsoft has also denied any wrongdoing. Musk, the world’s richest person, counts $839 billion in wealth, according to Forbes. He is seeking $150 billion in damages from the tech companies.
OpenAI, which is not publicly traded, valued itself at $852 billion after a round of funding in March. Microsoft’s value — as measured by market capitalization — stands at about $3.1 trillion.
After jury selection, the case will take place in two sections, Gonzalez Rogers said in a court filing. An initial phase will focus on liability to determine whether any of the defendants committed illegal acts. A subsequent remedies portion will assess potential damages.
Musk and the OpenAI defendants will each be afforded 22 hours to present their case during the liability phase, Gonzalez Rogers said in a court filing earlier this month. Microsoft, also a defendant, will be given five hours for its case.
Musk will plead two claims against OpenAI: unjust enrichment and breach of charitable trust, according to a legal filing last week.
“OpenAI, Inc. has been transformed into a closed-source de facto subsidiary of the largest technology company in the world: Microsoft,” Musk said in the lawsuit.
Typically, deals established between a top investor and company leadership are set out in writing with concrete terms, some experts previously told ABC News, leaving Musk in a difficult position as he attempts to invoke what they say appear to be spoken commitments made years ago without a formal contract.
For his part, Musk says in the lawsuit that the agreement was memorialized in a legal filing when OpenAI was incorporated.
In the lawsuit, Musk alleges that Altman and OpenAI President Greg Brockman reaffirmed the founding agreement in written messages over the ensuing years.
“[I] remain enthusiastic about the non-profit structure!” Altman wrote to Musk in 2017, according to the lawsuit.
Musk, who helped bankroll OpenAI, launched a rival AI company in 2023 called xAI, which built a chatbot that competes with ChatGPT.
Acknowledging his previous criticism of the pace and ambitions of AI development, Musk said in a conference call on X in July 2023 that he entered the industry reluctantly.
In the lawsuit, Musk alleges breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and unfair business practices.
Musk is seeking a legal order that requires OpenAI to abide by its alleged founding mission of aiding humanity and retaining its nonprofit form, as well as compensation for the funds received by OpenAI while it carried out allegedly unfair business practices.
