Gold prices edged lower on Thursday, remaining under pressure from elevated U.S. Treasury yields and a firmer dollar, even as diplomatic developments around the U.S.-Iran conflict provided some support and limited the downside.

Spot gold fell 0.3% to $4,528.03 per ounce by 0611 GMT. The metal had rebounded more than 1% on Wednesday after sliding to its lowest level since March 30 at $4,479.54. U.S. gold futures for June delivery declined 0.1% to $4,528.90.

“Inflation expectation, rising yields, and stronger dollar are the headwinds keeping gold prices under pressure. And these factors will continue to remain in place until we get clarity on how long the conflict is going to persist,” said ANZ analyst Soni Kumari.

Since the Iran war erupted in late February, gold has lost more than 14%, reflecting the market’s shift in focus from geopolitical risk to the monetary policy implications of sustained higher energy prices.

Yields Resume Upward March After Brief Pause

U.S. Treasury yields climbed again on Thursday after a short-lived pullback. The benchmark 10-year note yield rose more than 3 basis points to 4.6014%, while the 30-year bond yield advanced over 1 basis point to 5.1334%. The policy-sensitive 2-year yield increased more than 3 basis points to 4.0746%.

This renewed selling pressure followed the release of the Federal Reserve’s April meeting minutes, which showed that a majority of policymakers believe “some policy firming would likely become appropriate” if inflation remains persistently above the 2% target. Markets are now pricing in a roughly 39% probability of a 25 basis-point rate hike by December, according to CME Group’s FedWatch tool.

Higher yields raise the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding assets like gold. Kelvin Wong, senior market analyst at OANDA, highlighted the technical picture.

“The overall trend of 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, since the start of early March, is still in a medium-term uptrend phase. Hence, gold bulls may not be so aggressive in beating up prices at this juncture,” he said.

He sees near-term resistance at $4,645 and support at $4,456.

Oil and Geopolitics Provide Mixed Signals

Oil prices edged higher on Thursday amid continued uncertainty in the Middle East. U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures rose 1.4% to $99.61 per barrel, while Brent crude gained 1.3% to $106.42.On the diplomatic front, President Donald Trump said he had paused planned military action after receiving a peace proposal from Tehran, stating there was a “very good chance” of reaching a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear program.

While this eased some immediate safe-haven buying in gold, analysts caution that any resolution is unlikely to bring energy prices back to pre-war levels quickly.

The current environment presents a classic headwind for gold: geopolitical risk is supportive, but the resulting inflation fears are driving real yields higher and strengthening the dollar — both negative for the metal. This dynamic has dominated price action since the conflict began, overriding gold’s traditional safe-haven status in the short term.

Investors are also awaiting key U.S. housing data later on Thursday, including April housing starts and building permits. Consensus forecasts point to 1.41 million starts (down from 1.502 million in March) and 1.39 million permits (up from 1.363 million).

Outlook for Gold

Gold’s performance remains heavily tied to the interplay between Middle East developments and U.S. monetary policy expectations. A swift diplomatic breakthrough could ease energy prices and reduce inflation fears, potentially allowing yields to stabilize and opening the door for a gold recovery.

Conversely, prolonged conflict or hotter-than-expected inflation data would likely keep pressure on bullion.

For now, the metal appears range-bound with a mild downside bias. Longer-term investors continue to see gold as an important portfolio diversifier amid elevated geopolitical risks, fiscal deficits, and uncertainty around central bank policy paths. However, near-term traders are likely to remain cautious until clearer signals emerge from both the Fed and the Middle East.

U.S. President Donald Trump is preparing an executive order that could reshape how advanced artificial intelligence models are released in the United States, as mounting concerns over cybersecurity risks split his political allies and intensify pressure on the rapidly expanding AI industry.

According to sources familiar with the matter cited by Reuters, Trump could sign the order as soon as Thursday. The White House has also been working to bring top AI executives to Washington for a signing ceremony, underscoring the growing political and strategic importance of artificial intelligence in Trump’s second term.

The proposed order would establish a voluntary framework under which AI developers would engage with the federal government before publicly releasing highly capable models.

Under the framework being discussed, companies would be asked to provide their models to the U.S. government 90 days before public launch and grant early access to operators of critical infrastructure, such as banks and other major institutions.

The plan reflects a delicate balancing act inside Trump’s political coalition between populist conservatives demanding tougher oversight of frontier AI systems and technology-aligned advisers warning against heavy-handed regulation that could slow American innovation. The debate has intensified sharply following the emergence of increasingly powerful AI systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos cybersecurity model and OpenAI’s GPT-5.5-Cyber.

Those systems have raised fears within Washington that advanced AI could dramatically increase the sophistication and scale of cyberattacks, especially against financial institutions, utilities, and government systems. The proposed framework appears designed as a compromise between factions within Trump’s orbit.

Prominent MAGA figures, including former Trump strategist Steve Bannon and conservative activist Amy Kremer, have been urging the White House to impose stronger safeguards, including mandatory federal testing of advanced AI models before deployment. At the same time, influential technology supporters around Trump, including venture capitalist Marc Andreessen and former White House AI adviser David Sacks, have resisted mandatory oversight measures, arguing they could undermine U.S. competitiveness in the global AI race.

Sacks stepped down earlier this year from his role as Trump’s lead AI official and now co-chairs the president’s technology advisory committee. So far, Trump’s broader AI agenda has largely aligned with Silicon Valley’s preference for limited regulation and rapid deployment, particularly as the administration frames AI leadership as a national security and economic priority in competition with China.

But the rapid advancement of frontier AI models is increasingly complicating that approach.

Mythos, introduced by Anthropic in April, became a flashpoint because of its unusually advanced cybersecurity capabilities. Experts warned the system could potentially identify software vulnerabilities and assist in developing sophisticated exploit strategies at a level not previously seen from publicly known AI models. That triggered growing calls among some conservatives for federal intervention.

Republicans have traditionally opposed new regulatory structures, but parts of the populist right are now arguing that AI represents an exceptional national security risk requiring government oversight. A letter sent to the White House last week by populist conservatives urged Trump to require government approval before “potentially dangerous” AI systems can be deployed publicly.

Kremer said supporting such regulation conflicted with her usual political philosophy but argued AI required different treatment.

“You can’t count on these people that are leading these AI companies to put our interests at heart and do what’s right to protect the American people,” Kremer said.

The executive order under discussion would stop short of imposing mandatory approval requirements, instead preserving voluntary cooperation between the government and AI firms. That approach would likely be more acceptable to the technology sector, which has become increasingly influential within Trump’s political coalition.

Executives from major technology companies, including Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, Google CEO Sundar Pichai, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman, have emerged as some of Trump’s highest-profile corporate supporters during his second term.

The administration’s internal discussions have reportedly involved White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House science adviser Michael Kratsios, deputy chief of staff Walker Barrett, and National Cyber Director Sean Cairncross.

The National Security Agency has also participated in broader administration discussions surrounding advanced AI risks and cybersecurity preparedness. Lawmakers have increasingly pushed the administration to establish mechanisms capable of monitoring what they describe as “sudden frontier AI capability jumps,” reflecting fears that AI systems could advance unpredictably.

Former U.S. Representative Brad Carson, who now helps lead a super PAC network backed in part by Anthropic supporters, said recent developments exposed the scale of potential vulnerabilities.

“The past couple months have served as a massive wake-up call for the kinds of vulnerabilities that AI can create,” Carson said.

Still, opponents of stronger intervention argue that slowing American AI deployment could backfire strategically.

Neil Chilson, head of AI policy at the Abundance Institute, said delaying model releases would not prevent foreign adversaries from eventually developing comparable systems.

“We need to make sure we’re deploying it and getting the most out of it, including by hardening our defenses,” Chilson said.

The Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise (CPPE) has endorsed the Central Bank of Nigeria’s decision to retain key monetary policy parameters, describing the move as a calculated shift toward economic stability at a time when global geopolitical tensions and domestic inflation risks are colliding.

In a policy brief released after the 305th Monetary Policy Committee meeting, the CPPE said the decision signaled growing policy maturity from the apex bank, particularly as central banks across emerging markets grapple with the inflationary consequences of rising energy prices and geopolitical instability linked to tensions involving Iran, Israel, and the United States.

The MPC retained the Monetary Policy Rate at 26.5%, leaving benchmark borrowing costs at their highest level in decades. The committee also retained the asymmetric corridor around the MPR, the Cash Reserve Ratio at 45% for deposit money banks, 15% for merchant banks, and 75% for non-TSA public sector deposits.

The decision comes after Nigeria recorded consecutive increases in inflation in March and April 2026, reinforcing concerns that price pressures remain deeply entrenched even after aggressive monetary tightening over the past two years.

But unlike earlier policy cycles where higher inflation almost automatically translated into higher rates, the CPPE argued that the current inflation challenge is fundamentally different because it is being driven largely by structural and supply-side distortions rather than excessive consumer demand.

According to the group, further rate tightening at this stage could have worsened financing conditions for businesses already struggling with elevated energy costs, high logistics expenses, exchange-rate volatility, and weak consumer purchasing power.

“The decision to hold rates therefore demonstrates a commendable recognition that excessive tightening at this stage could suffocate productivity, weaken industrial recovery, constrain investment appetite and undermine employment generation,” the CPPE said.

“Economies do not grow on the strength of high interest rates; they grow on the strength of productivity, enterprise, investment confidence and policy coherence.”

The intervention highlights a growing debate within Nigeria’s economic policy circles over whether monetary tightening alone can meaningfully curb inflation in an economy where food insecurity, infrastructure deficits, insecurity in farming regions, high transportation costs, and foreign exchange pass-through effects remain major drivers of prices.

The CPPE stressed that while monetary policy remains an important stabilization tool, it cannot repair broken supply chains, resolve geopolitical disruptions, or eliminate structural bottlenecks affecting production and distribution across the economy.

Its position also reflects mounting concerns within the private sector over the impact of elevated borrowing costs on manufacturing, agriculture, construction, and small business expansion. Commercial lending rates in Nigeria have surged sharply following the CBN’s tightening cycle, making access to affordable credit increasingly difficult for many businesses.

The decision to pause rate hikes also comes against the backdrop of rising global oil prices triggered by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most critical energy shipping routes. Higher crude prices typically support Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings as an oil exporter, but they also intensify domestic inflationary pressures through higher fuel, transportation, and production costs.

FX Stability Emerges as Key Policy Anchor

Beyond interest rates, the CPPE commended the central bank’s recent efforts to stabilize the foreign exchange market, describing exchange-rate management as one of the most critical pillars supporting macroeconomic confidence.

“A stable currency environment improves investor sentiment, moderates imported inflation, enhances planning predictability and reduces speculative distortions within the market,” the group stated.

“Indeed, the recent policy direction of the Central Bank reflects a transition from crisis management to confidence management, a development that is critical for restoring macroeconomic credibility and rebuilding investor trust in the Nigerian economy.”

The remarks are notable because exchange-rate instability has remained one of Nigeria’s biggest macroeconomic vulnerabilities since the sweeping FX reforms introduced under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration. Sharp naira depreciation over the past two years triggered imported inflation, raised debt servicing costs, and worsened pressure on businesses dependent on imported raw materials and machinery.

However, recent improvements in external reserves and relative stability in the foreign exchange market have helped ease some concerns among investors and businesses.

CBN Governor Olayemi Cardoso disclosed after the MPC meeting that Nigeria’s gross external reserves climbed to $49.49 billion as of May 15, 2026, from $48.35 billion at the end of March. According to Cardoso, the reserve position now covers more than nine months of imports for goods and services, a level widely viewed as supportive of currency stability and external sector resilience.

The CPPE also praised fiscal authorities for ongoing fiscal consolidation measures and improved revenue mobilization efforts, noting that stronger coordination between monetary and fiscal authorities is becoming increasingly important as Nigeria attempts to rebuild investor confidence.

The group further applauded the banking sector recapitalization programme initiated by the CBN, describing it as a critical long-term reform aimed at strengthening financial intermediation and positioning Nigerian banks to support industrialization, infrastructure financing, and economic expansion.

Importantly, the CPPE noted that the recapitalization process has so far avoided widespread panic within the financial system, with no significant depositor anxiety or major shareholder losses reported. Still, it urged the apex bank to maintain transparent communication with lenders facing recapitalization-related transition challenges in order to preserve public confidence in the banking system.

The endorsement from the CPPE is likely to boost expectations that the CBN may maintain a cautious wait-and-see approach in the near term, especially as policymakers weigh the inflationary risks of global oil shocks against the danger of stifling economic recovery through excessive tightening.