A new bipartisan bill introduced in the U.S. Senate aims to create a transparent picture of how artificial intelligence is reshaping the American workforce, as fears grow that automation could eliminate millions of jobs in the coming years.

Senators Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Wednesday unveiled the AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act, which would require publicly traded companies, select private firms, and federal agencies to report quarterly on how AI is affecting their employment numbers. The legislation mandates that organizations submit detailed data to the Department of Labor on job losses, reduced hiring, new AI-driven roles, and other workforce changes directly linked to the use of artificial intelligence.

The Labor Department would then be required to compile the information into a public report, allowing policymakers, researchers, and the public to track AI’s real-world economic effects.

“This bipartisan legislation will finally give us a clear picture of AI’s impact on the workforce,” Warner said in a statement. “Armed with this information, we can make sure AI drives opportunity instead of leaving workers behind.”

Hawley reportedly echoed similar sentiments, noting that policymakers need accurate data to anticipate disruptions.

Rising Alarm Over AI-Driven Job Losses

The bill comes amid growing unease among politicians, economists, and labor advocates over the rapid spread of automation across industries. Artificial intelligence, particularly generative AI systems like chatbots, coding assistants, and content-generation tools, has already begun to displace entry-level and administrative roles, according to recent studies and industry statements.

In May, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei warned that AI systems could eliminate up to half of all entry-level white-collar jobs and drive unemployment rates to as high as 20% within five years. He said at the time that the impact could be severe and fast-moving.

The concern is already reflected in corporate restructuring announcements. Over the past two months, Amazon, UPS, and Target collectively announced more than 60,000 job cuts, citing automation, efficiency drives, and shifting business priorities. Tech firms, including IBM and Meta, have also cut staff while ramping up investment in AI tools that automate administrative and technical functions.

While some executives argue AI will create new roles in engineering, data management, and model training, the net impact on employment remains unclear. Economists say the absence of centralized reporting has made it difficult to separate hype from measurable impact.

The AI-Related Job Impacts Clarity Act seeks to change that by imposing a federal reporting standard. Under the proposal, companies would have to explain how AI is influencing workforce decisions, including automation of specific tasks, changes in recruitment patterns, and shifts in skill requirements.

The goal is to ensure that the United States develops “evidence-based policies” to manage AI’s economic disruption — rather than reacting after mass layoffs occur.

The proposed bill follows similar calls for transparency from labor unions and civil society groups. The AFL-CIO, the country’s largest federation of labor unions, has repeatedly urged Congress to establish reporting requirements on AI’s deployment in workplaces, warning that unchecked adoption could “hollow out” middle-income jobs.

Tech Transformation and Political Pressure

AI’s influence on the job market has become one of the most politically sensitive issues in Washington. Both parties have expressed concern that automation could widen inequality and reduce economic mobility.

Earlier this year, the White House Council of Economic Advisers noted that AI poses “substantial short-term disruption risks,” especially to clerical, transportation, and customer service roles. At the same time, President Donald Trump’s administration has emphasized the need for “American-first AI innovation” that preserves jobs and ensures that U.S. companies remain competitive globally.

The bill also reflects a broader push in Congress to regulate the social and economic impacts of AI. It follows a wave of legislative activity targeting AI transparency, algorithmic accountability, and national security implications.

Still, questions remain about how the government will define AI-driven changes and whether companies will accurately report them. There is concern that firms could downplay AI’s role in layoffs or overstate its job-creating potential to influence public opinion.

However, the bill signals a growing bipartisan recognition that AI’s economic effects must be measured before they can be managed. If passed, the law would make the United States the first major economy to require systematic disclosure of AI’s employment impact — a move that could set a precedent for other nations grappling with automation’s consequences.

Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) is on the verge of securing European Union approval for its proposed €14.7 billion ($17 billion) takeover of German chemicals maker Covestro, people familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The European Commission, the EU’s competition regulator, is expected to greenlight the deal in the coming weeks, marking a major milestone for the state-owned oil giant’s global expansion strategy.

The Commission restarted its investigation on October 24, after temporarily pausing the process on September 3 while awaiting additional information from the companies. A new March 2 deadline has been set for a final decision, though insiders suggest the approval could come as early as mid-November, barring last-minute objections.

The proposed deal — ADNOC’s biggest-ever acquisition — is one of the largest foreign takeovers of an EU industrial firm by a Gulf state-backed company, highlighting the growing influence of Middle Eastern sovereign wealth and state enterprises in Europe’s industrial and energy landscape.

Addressing EU Competition and State Aid Concerns

The transaction, which has been under review since the summer, has faced scrutiny from EU officials concerned that ADNOC’s deep state backing could distort competition within the European market. The company is fully owned by the Abu Dhabi government and benefits from an implicit state guarantee, which Brussels feared could give ADNOC an unfair advantage over private rivals when financing major acquisitions.

To allay these concerns, ADNOC offered to amend its articles of association, introducing safeguards that limit its reliance on unlimited state support. It also pledged to retain Covestro’s intellectual property, research facilities, and patents in Europe, ensuring the German company’s technology and innovation base remains under EU jurisdiction.

Sources told Reuters that ADNOC later fine-tuned these commitments following consultations with competitors and major customers of Covestro. The changes were reportedly well received by the Commission, paving the way for a positive decision.

“XRG does not comment on ongoing regulatory matters and continues to engage constructively with the Commission,” ADNOC’s international investment arm said in a statement to Reuters.

If approved, the acquisition would mark a strategic milestone for ADNOC’s global diversification drive, as the Gulf energy powerhouse pushes into downstream industries such as petrochemicals and advanced materials. The move aligns with Abu Dhabi’s broader vision to diversify its economy beyond crude oil exports, using its state-owned companies to secure long-term industrial assets across Europe and Asia.

The deal also mirrors a wider investment wave by Gulf sovereign funds and energy companies seeking opportunities in Europe’s energy transition. Earlier in 2024, Saudi Aramco acquired a 10% stake in China’s Rongsheng Petrochemical, while QatarEnergy expanded its LNG investments into Germany and Italy.

The Covestro acquisition represents a bid for ADNOC to become a global leader in chemicals and materials, areas that complement its existing strengths in refining and low-carbon energy. Covestro’s expertise in sustainable polymers and circular materials fits neatly into ADNOC’s strategy to reduce emissions and enter higher-value markets.

Covestro’s Struggles and the Path to Takeover

Covestro, based in Leverkusen, Germany, produces high-performance plastics used in automotive manufacturing, construction, electronics, and consumer goods. The company has struggled in recent years amid volatile raw material prices, energy shocks following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and weakening global demand.

In June 2024, Covestro’s board entered formal negotiations with ADNOC after months of informal talks that began in 2023. ADNOC initially proposed a €11 billion valuation but raised its offer several times before reaching the current €14.7 billion figure. Analysts have noted that the increased bid reflects both Covestro’s strategic value and ADNOC’s strong financial capacity, buoyed by Abu Dhabi’s massive oil revenues.

The deal also underscores Europe’s growing openness to Gulf investment despite concerns over state funding. European policymakers are balancing the need for foreign capital with growing caution over state-owned entities acquiring critical assets, particularly in chemicals, energy, and technology.

If the Commission gives the green light this month as expected, the deal would proceed to closing in early 2026, pending national regulatory approvals in Germany and other EU member states. Covestro shareholders would then vote to finalize the transaction.

Once completed, the takeover would position ADNOC as a major global chemicals player, capable of competing with industrial giants such as BASF, Dow, and SABIC. It would also provide ADNOC with a stronger European foothold and access to technologies essential for developing more sustainable and recyclable materials.

The European Commission’s upcoming ruling will be closely watched across global markets. Analysts say it will serve as a litmus test for how the EU handles large-scale acquisitions by state-backed companies in strategic industries — and how far Europe is willing to open its doors to Gulf capital while preserving competition and sovereignty.

Nigeria has returned to the international debt market with a strong showing, raising $2.25 billion through a dual-tranche Eurobond sale on Wednesday despite rising global tensions and threats from U.S. President Donald Trump of potential military action.

The successful sale marks Nigeria’s first major return to the Eurobond market in nearly two years and underscores a broader resurgence in emerging market borrowing, as global investors pile into high-yield assets amid easing global financing conditions.

According to market data seen by Reuters, Nigeria’s ten-year and twenty-year bonds were priced at 8.625% and 9.125%, respectively—both below initial price guidance. The offering was oversubscribed, signaling strong investor confidence in Nigeria’s fiscal direction despite the country’s economic strains and Trump’s warning on Sunday that the United States could take military action if Nigeria failed to stop attacks on Christians.

Market participants appeared largely unfazed by the geopolitical noise. Analysts said investors were instead focusing on Nigeria’s recent fiscal and monetary reforms under President Bola Tinubu, who has dismantled costly fuel subsidies and allowed the naira to float more freely—two moves that have been painful for households but applauded by financial markets.

The deal adds to a wave of frontier-market issuances this year, as borrowing costs fall sharply from the highs seen during the global inflation and rate-tightening cycle. According to JPMorgan data, only four emerging market countries now have bond spreads above 1,000 basis points over U.S. Treasuries—the level generally seen as a barrier to affordable borrowing. The narrowing spreads have drawn several African nations back to the Eurobond market, including the Congo Republic, Angola, and Kenya.

Congo Republic, which carries one of the lowest credit ratings on the continent at CCC+, also issued its first Eurobond in nearly two decades on Wednesday—an indication of how eager investors are to chase yields even in riskier markets.

Thys Louw, a portfolio manager at London-based asset manager Ninety One, said the rebound was long overdue.

“African frontier borrowers had issued very little external debt since 2022, helping support spreads and investor demand,” he noted. “They’ve been so reliant on local debt markets, and this is true across Africa, that it now starts to make sense to start to diversify funding sources once again at these yield levels.”

The broader context is a global surge in emerging market debt issuance. Data from JPMorgan and other banks show that dollar-denominated bond sales by developing economies have already surpassed the record volumes seen during the pandemic years. Analysts say that for countries like Nigeria, the window for accessing affordable foreign capital could be brief, as markets remain sensitive to further rate decisions by the U.S. Federal Reserve.

The proceeds from the $2.25 billion sale are expected to help Nigeria shore up reserves and support government spending at a time of heavy fiscal pressure. While Tinubu’s reforms have improved Nigeria’s credit perception, they have also unleashed inflation, which rose to record highs this year. The government is betting that investor confidence will strengthen as the reforms take hold and growth stabilizes.

Louw added that other African countries, including Egypt, Ivory Coast, South Africa, and Benin, may soon follow Nigeria’s lead with new issuances.

He indicated that at these yield levels, it’s an opportune time for well-managed sovereigns to test the market again.

Nigeria’s return to the Eurobond market appears to have achieved what Tinubu’s administration sought: a show of investor faith that Africa’s fourth-largest economy remains creditworthy—and open for business.

Prediction markets swung sharply on Wednesday after U.S. Supreme Court justices — including several conservatives — voiced skepticism about President Donald Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs, raising doubts about whether the court will uphold his trade policy.

Contracts on Kalshi, tied to whether the Supreme Court would rule in favor of Trump’s tariffs, plunged to around 30% from nearly 50% before the hearing. A similar contract on Polymarket dropped to roughly the same level, down from more than 40% earlier in the week. The moves reflected traders’ growing belief that the justices could strike down the tariffs or significantly limit the president’s trade authority.

The case centers on Trump’s reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose what he called “reciprocal tariffs” on goods from U.S. trading partners, and additional levies on products containing fentanyl from Canada, China, and Mexico. Lower federal courts previously ruled that the administration overstepped its legal authority, finding that the law did not grant the president the power to unilaterally reshape tariff policy — a power reserved for Congress.

During oral arguments, several conservative justices appeared unconvinced by the administration’s defense. They questioned Solicitor General D. John Sauer about the scope of Trump’s emergency powers under IEEPA, pressing him on whether the law could be stretched to justify tariffs that effectively act as a form of taxation.

Justice Neil Gorsuch and others reportedly raised concerns about the separation of powers, suggesting that allowing presidents to use emergency powers to impose trade measures might blur constitutional boundaries between the executive and legislative branches.

That skepticism sent ripples through the prediction markets. Traders, who closely parse every word and tone shift from justices during major hearings, quickly cut their bets on a favorable outcome for Trump.

Although prediction markets react to perceived signals from oral arguments, today’s tone was believed to be clearly cautious. Analysts note that the fact that conservative justices voiced similar doubts as the liberals gave traders reason to think the administration may not get the ruling it wants.

The Supreme Court is not expected to issue a decision immediately, and it remains unclear when a ruling will be announced. But Wednesday’s reaction showed how investors and traders are interpreting judicial sentiment as an early gauge of the likely outcome.

The case carries significant implications for Trump and his broader trade agenda. The tariffs — a central pillar of his “America First” economic policy — were presented as tools to pressure foreign governments and protect U.S. industries. A loss at the Supreme Court could weaken the administration’s ability to wield emergency powers for economic leverage and reshape global trade terms.

While the court’s final ruling will ultimately decide the legality of the tariffs, Wednesday’s hearing signaled that a majority of justices may be wary of upholding an interpretation of presidential authority that many see as too expansive.

Economists say a Supreme Court ruling against the tariffs would likely bolster the dollar in the medium term by reducing trade tensions and restoring confidence in the predictability of U.S. trade policy.

Since the tariffs were imposed, they have weighed on U.S. manufacturers and exporters, pushing up input costs and prompting retaliatory measures from key trading partners. The uncertainty has also unsettled global markets, driving periodic sell-offs in emerging market currencies and equities.

The Supreme Court is not expected to issue a ruling immediately, though analysts say a decision could come before the end of the year. Until the decision is issued, traders will continue to read between the lines — and, for now, they’re betting that Trump’s tariff gamble may not survive the Supreme Court’s scrutiny.