Global markets swung sharply on Monday after Donald Trump said the United States and Iran had held “productive” discussions on ending hostilities, offering the first hint of a possible de-escalation in a conflict that has roiled energy markets for weeks.

Oil prices reacted immediately. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude fell about 8% to near $90 a barrel, while Brent crude dropped a similar margin to around $102, reversing part of the surge that had pushed prices above $100 amid supply disruptions. Equities followed, with investors moving back into risk assets as the prospect of easing tensions reduced fears of prolonged energy shocks.

At the opening bell, the S&P 500 rose 1.48% to 6,602.60, the Dow Jones Industrial Average climbed 1.78% to 46,386.97, and the Nasdaq Composite gained 1.66% to 22,005.85. Bond markets also steadied, with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield easing slightly to 4.37% after weeks of upward pressure driven by inflation fears linked to higher energy costs.

The rally marked a break in sentiment after nearly a month of sustained volatility. In his post, Trump said the discussions were aimed at a “complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East,” adding that he had ordered a five-day pause on planned strikes against Iranian energy infrastructure, contingent on the outcome of ongoing talks.

The announcement, however, was quickly met with skepticism. Tehran has not confirmed that any such talks took place. State broadcaster Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting said: “Trump, fearing Iran’s response, backed down from his 48-hour ultimatum,” casting the development as a unilateral retreat rather than a negotiated step.

Markets appeared to share that caution. Oil prices partially rebounded later in the session, with Brent climbing back toward $105 a barrel. Chris Beauchamp of IG said the recovery suggested investors remain unconvinced that a durable breakthrough is imminent, pointing to unresolved risks around the Strait of Hormuz and the possibility of further strikes.

The waterway remains central to the crisis. With shipping effectively disrupted through the strait, which handles about 20% of global oil and liquefied natural gas flows, analysts estimate that between 7 million and 10 million barrels per day of Middle Eastern supply has been knocked offline. Fatih Birol described the situation as more severe than the oil shocks of the 1970s.

Even the hint of diplomatic movement was enough to trigger a sharp repositioning across markets. Lower crude prices ease inflation concerns, which in turn reduces pressure on central banks to tighten policy. That dynamic has been a key driver of volatility in recent weeks, with investors oscillating between fears of energy-driven inflation and hopes for policy support.

Marko Kolanovic, JPMorgan’s former quant chief, said Trump’s post is “net negative for markets.”

“Manipulation will cause liquidity to disappear and real problems will stay,” he wrote on X.

The conflict has already forced the U.S. to relax sanctions on Iranian and Russian oil to ease supply constraints, while major importers in Asia, including India and China, are exploring ways to secure additional crude. China Petroleum & Chemical Corp has reportedly sought permission to tap state reserves rather than re-enter the Iranian market directly.

Disruptions elsewhere have compounded the strain. In Russia, loadings at the Ust-Luga port resumed after a drone alert, but nearby Primorsk remains shut following airstrikes. In Libya, the El Feel oilfield has been offline due to pipeline issues, further tightening supply in an already constrained market.

Central banks are now navigating an increasingly uncertain outlook. Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran said it was too early to assess the full inflationary impact of the energy shock, but maintained that rate cuts may still be needed to support the labor market. In contrast, the Bank of Japan is weighing potential policy adjustments as rising import costs and a weaker yen add to inflationary pressure.

The divergence highlights the uneven global impact of the crisis. While lower oil prices on Monday offered temporary relief, the underlying drivers of volatility, geopolitical risk, disrupted supply chains, and uncertain policy responses remain unresolved.

For investors, the reaction to Trump’s comments underscores how sensitive markets have become to any signal of de-escalation. Yet the quick rebound in oil prices and conflicting narratives from Washington and Tehran point to a deeper uncertainty.

The prospect of an off-ramp has lifted sentiment, but without confirmation from both sides or a clear framework for negotiations, markets are likely to remain reactive rather than convinced.

The Securities and Exchange Commission has quietly shut down its long-running investigation into Faraday Future Intelligent Electric without bringing any enforcement action against the electric vehicle startup or its executives, including founder Jia Yueting, according to multiple people familiar with the case who spoke to TechCrunch.

The closure, confirmed to Faraday Future and those involved just last week, ends a nearly four-year inquiry that began in the spring of 2022. At its core, the SEC examined whether the company made misleading statements during its 2021 SPAC merger and whether early deliveries of its flagship FF 91 luxury SUV in 2023 amounted to legitimate sales or were staged for appearances.

The decision marks a rare escape for a target that had received formal Wells Notices last July, warning that SEC staff intended to recommend charges for violations of federal anti-fraud provisions. A 2020 study from the Wharton School found that roughly 85 percent of Wells Notice recipients ultimately faced enforcement action. In this instance, the agency stepped back entirely.

Faraday Future said in a statement over the weekend that the SEC had informed the company it would take no action against it or any of its executives.

Jia, who has steered the company through repeated near-death experiences, responded with visible relief: “We can now put all our energy into strategy execution. Over the past five years, we had to spend a great deal of time, effort, and money on cooperating with the investigation.”

The investigation traced back to the chaotic period surrounding Faraday Future’s public listing. The company, founded in 2014 by Jia during his LeEco conglomerate days in China, positioned itself as a Tesla rival. It drew talent from Tesla, Apple, and other heavyweights and unveiled a flashy concept at the 2016 Consumer Electronics Show. But cash ran out quickly. By late 2017, the company was laying off workers, and Jia was fleeing to California after LeEco’s collapse left him on China’s debtor blacklist.

An investment from Chinese real estate giant Evergrande provided a temporary lifeline before that partnership also fractured. Jia nominally stepped down as CEO in 2019 while filing for personal bankruptcy to settle LeEco debts he had personally guaranteed. Behind the scenes, though, he retained significant influence.

When Faraday Future completed its SPAC merger in 2021 and raised roughly $1 billion, the new public board grew suspicious about Jia’s actual control and related-party transactions, including multimillion-dollar loans from low-level employees tied to him. A special committee hired outside lawyers and forensic accountants. Their findings were shared directly with the SEC, triggering the formal probe in March 2022.

Between January and April of that year, Jia was sidelined, co-CEO Matthias Aydt was placed on probation, and Jia’s nephew, Jerry Wang, was suspended. Wang later resigned for failing to cooperate, but has since returned to the company.

The SEC also scrutinized the first handful of FF 91 deliveries in early 2023. Former employees alleged in lawsuits that those were not genuine sales but rather internal arrangements meant to create the appearance of revenue. Subpoenas and depositions followed, with some former executives and employees sitting for extended interviews in 2024 and into 2025.

The Department of Justice requested information from Faraday Future shortly after the SEC opened its case, though the DOJ has never publicly confirmed opening a full criminal investigation.

The closure fits a pattern. The SEC examined nearly every electric vehicle startup that went public through SPAC mergers in the early 2020s. Most ended in settlements. The agency dismissed its probe into Lucid Motors in 2023 and, as previously reported, closed its investigation into bankrupt EV maker Fisker late last year.

Faraday Future, however, has continued to struggle with execution. Production of the high-priced FF 91 has remained minimal. In recent months, the company has pivoted toward importing more affordable hybrid and electric vans from China, selling re-badged Chinese-built robots, and converting a publicly traded biotechnology shell into a crypto-focused entity.

On Friday, the company disclosed that Nasdaq had issued a warning: its share price had fallen below the $1 minimum bid requirement, raising the possibility of delisting if it cannot regain compliance.

What the Closure Means

The end of the SEC investigation removes a significant legal cloud that had hung over Faraday Future for years. For Jia, who has survived multiple corporate collapses and personal financial ruin, it means another narrow escape and a chance to refocus on operations without the constant distraction of subpoenas and depositions.

Many doubt that the SEC’s decision can translate into sustainable sales and a viable business model for the company. The EV market has grown brutally competitive, capital remains expensive, and Faraday Future’s track record of overpromising and underdelivering has left many investors skeptical.

However, the decision pinpoints a shift from the SEC’s aggressive scrutiny of SPAC deals during the 2020-2021 boom. Many of those once-hyped startups have since faded, restructured, or disappeared entirely. Faraday Future now joins the small group that managed to walk away from a lengthy federal probe without formal charges.

Nigeria has quietly built one of Africa’s most expansive AI-driven surveillance networks, committing more than $470 million to facial recognition and vehicle tracking systems.

The scale of that investment now places the country at the top of the continent’s spending league, according to a March 2026 study by the Institute of Development Studies.

Across 11 African countries reviewed in the report, total spending on smart surveillance is estimated at least $2.1 billion. Nigeria alone accounts for a substantial share of that figure, with roughly 10,000 cameras deployed across major urban centers.

“Nigeria alone has spent over US$470 million on AI-enabled facial recognition and automatic car number plate recognition (ANPR), making it Africa’s largest buyer of smart city surveillance technologies,” the report said.

On paper, the logic is straightforward. The systems are designed to identify suspects, track movement patterns, and support law enforcement in real time. In practice, the results are far less clear.

After years of deployment, the study found little evidence that the expansion of surveillance has translated into a measurable drop in crime.

“There is little evidence that the expansion of digital surveillance reduces overall crime,” the researchers said, noting that court records showed limited reliance on surveillance footage in prosecutions.

That disconnect has become harder to ignore in Nigeria, where insecurity remains persistent and, in some regions, worsening. Kidnappings, armed attacks, and organized criminal networks continue to stretch security agencies, even as the technological toolkit available to them has grown more sophisticated.

For many, the issue is not the absence of tools, but how they are used.

Peter Obi, the former governor of Anambra State, has been among those questioning the gap between capability and outcome, arguing that the country’s ability to track communications and movement has not been matched by effective enforcement. His criticism echoes a broader public frustration: that technology is being deployed without corresponding improvements in intelligence coordination or accountability.

Government officials point to a different challenge. Bosun Tijani, Minister of Communications, Innovation and Digital Economy, has said criminal networks are adapting faster than the systems designed to catch them, often operating outside conventional telecom channels or using methods that bypass standard tracking frameworks.

That adaptation speaks to a deeper structural issue. Surveillance systems generate vast amounts of data, but their effectiveness depends on the institutions that interpret and act on that data. Where intelligence sharing is fragmented, policing is under-resourced, and the judicial process is slow, the impact of even advanced technology can be muted.

Nigeria’s experience with the NIN-SIM linkage policy illustrates this tension. The programme was intended to make it harder for criminals to operate anonymously by tying mobile numbers to verified identities. While it has expanded the government’s data visibility, it has not eliminated the use of unregistered SIMs or alternative communication channels, limiting its effectiveness in high-risk cases.

The supply side of the surveillance buildout raises its own questions. Much of the infrastructure across Africa has been provided by Chinese companies, financed through soft loans. This model has enabled rapid deployment, but it also introduces long-term dependencies, from maintenance contracts to software updates and data management systems.

In Nigeria’s case, the reliance on external vendors reflects both cost considerations and the absence of a domestic manufacturing base for such technologies. It also mirrors a broader pattern in critical infrastructure, where speed of deployment often takes precedence over long-term control.

The legal framework has not kept pace.

The report found that none of the countries studied, including Nigeria, has a comprehensive set of laws governing the use of AI surveillance. That leaves a gap between the state’s expanding monitoring capabilities and the protections available to citizens.

Researchers called for clear legislation defining who can collect surveillance data and under what conditions, with judicial oversight to ensure actions are “legal, necessary, and proportionate.” They also recommended independent bodies to monitor usage, investigate abuses, and publish transparency reports.

Without those safeguards, the expansion of surveillance risks outpacing accountability.

There is also a question of economic prioritization. Surveillance systems are expensive to deploy and maintain, and their benefits are often indirect. In a country facing competing demands on public resources, the scale of spending has prompted debate about whether funds could have delivered greater impact if directed toward policing capacity, community intelligence, or judicial reform.

At the same time, officials argue that technology is an unavoidable part of modern security architecture. As crime becomes more networked and mobile, traditional methods alone are unlikely to suffice.

Nigeria’s investment reflects that belief. It is seen as an attempt to leapfrog constraints by adopting advanced tools at scale. But the evidence so far suggests that technology, on its own, does not resolve underlying institutional weaknesses.

The result is a system that is extensive but not yet decisive, because Across Africa, similar patterns are emerging. Countries are investing heavily in surveillance as part of broader “smart city” initiatives, often with external financing and limited public scrutiny. The benefits remain uncertain, while the risks, both financial and civil, are becoming clearer.

Nigeria stands at the center of that experiment as its $470 million outlay has built one of the continent’s largest surveillance networks. What remains unresolved is whether that network can deliver the security outcomes it was designed to achieve, or whether it will stand as an example of how technology, without reform, struggles to change entrenched realities.

Gold prices tumbled sharply on Monday, extending a historic rout as investors recalibrated expectations for global interest rates amid an escalating conflict involving Iran and its regional rivals.

Spot gold fell as much as 8% intraday to $4,097.99 per ounce, its lowest level since November, before trimming losses to trade around $4,203.21. The decline marks a ninth consecutive session of losses and follows a drop of more than 10% last week, the steepest weekly fall since 1983. From its January peak of $5,594.82, bullion has now shed roughly a quarter of its value.

U.S. gold futures mirrored the selloff, falling more than 8% to $4,205.10, as the market rapidly unwound positions built during months of strong safe-haven demand.

The reversal has been driven less by a collapse in risk and more by a shift in the macroeconomic outlook. Oil prices, held above $100 a barrel by disruptions linked to the conflict and the effective shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, have intensified inflation concerns. That, in turn, has pushed investors to reassess the path of monetary policy.

“With the Iranian conflict into its fourth week, and oil prices hanging around the $100 level, expectations have pivoted from rate cuts to potential rate hikes, which have tarnished gold’s appeal from a yield point of view,” said Tim Waterer, chief market analyst at KCM Trade.

Gold, which does not offer interest income, typically benefits from lower rates. The prospect of tighter policy has reversed that dynamic, strengthening the U.S. dollar and increasing the opportunity cost of holding bullion.

Market pricing now suggests a growing belief that the Federal Reserve could raise rates rather than cut them by the end of 2026, according to futures data tracked by CME’s FedWatch tool. That shift has become the dominant force in gold markets, overshadowing its traditional role as a hedge against geopolitical instability.

Market mechanics have also amplified the selloff. As equities declined across Asia and other regions, investors moved to liquidate gold holdings to meet margin calls elsewhere.

“Gold’s high liquidity appears to be hurting it during this risk-off period. Downturns in stock markets are leading to gold portions being closed to cover margin calls on other assets,” Waterer said.

Other precious metals followed gold lower. Silver dropped 6.1% to $63.66 per ounce, platinum fell 6.4% to $1,799.25, and palladium declined 3.6% to $1,352.75, with all three touching multi-month lows during the session.

The sharp correction has raised questions about gold’s safe-haven status, but some market participants argue the current downturn is consistent with past crisis cycles rather than a structural breakdown.

Peter Schiff, chief economist at Euro Pacific, said the market reaction is misaligned with underlying risks.

“If you were bullish on gold before the war, you should be more bullish now. The war means soaring U.S. budget deficits, skyrocketing food & energy prices, recession, rising unemployment, collapsing stock, bond, & real estate prices, increased terrorism, and a financial crisis,” he said.

Schiff pointed to historical precedent. “In the early months of the 2008 GFC, gold crashed 32%, about 40% of its prior bull-market gain. After gold bottomed, it surged 178% over the next three years. Gold nearly hit $4,100 today, down 27%, about 40% of its gain since $2K. A 178% surge from that low puts gold at $11,400.”

He added, “Falling real rates are bullish for gold. It’s the stock market that needs rate cuts. That’s why it makes no sense that stocks are down so little.”

For now, the market is trading on immediate pressures rather than longer-term narratives. Elevated oil prices, driven by supply disruptions and threats to Gulf infrastructure, are feeding inflation expectations. That has forced a repricing of interest rate trajectories, weakening gold even as geopolitical risks intensify.

The result is a reversal of the pattern that typically defines periods of crisis. Instead of rising alongside uncertainty, gold is being pulled lower by the same forces, higher energy costs, and tighter financial conditions that are unsettling broader markets.

However, market analysts believe that if the conflict continues to push inflation higher and central banks maintain a hawkish stance, gold could remain under pressure. But if growth weakens sharply and rate expectations reverse, the metal may find support again, as it has in previous cycles.