President Donald Trump on Monday issued a sharp new threat aimed at ending the war in Ukraine: a 50-day deadline for Russian President Vladimir Putin to agree to a peace deal — or face sweeping “secondary tariffs” of around 100% on nations trading with Moscow.

“We’re very, very unhappy with them, and we’re going to be doing very severe tariffs, if you don’t have a deal in 50 days, tariffs at about 100%, they call them secondary tariffs,” Trump said from the White House while meeting with NATO’s secretary general, Mark Rutte.

Trump added that he was “disappointed” in Putin, saying he had expected a deal months ago.

“So based on that, we’re going to be doing secondary tariffs,” Trump added.

But the threat, which would impose stiff levies on countries and companies doing business with Russia — particularly in energy and raw materials — is drawing more skepticism than surprise. Critics say the move may be another example of Trump’s pattern of tough talk with limited follow-through, especially when dealing with Putin.

A Persuasive Approach vs Confrontation

The president has long been criticized for his unusually conciliatory posture toward Putin. Unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, whose administration took a confrontational approach by rallying NATO, arming Ukraine heavily, and implementing sweeping financial sanctions on Moscow, Trump has consistently opted for persuasion.

He has claimed repeatedly — without providing details — that he could end the war within 24 hours by “sitting both sides down” and brokering a deal. That posture, and his refusal to sharply criticize Putin even after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine, earned Trump a reputation for being lenient on Russia.

Monday’s tariff threat, while bolder than usual, is seen by some as hollow. Others point to Trump’s previous praise for Putin’s leadership style and his skepticism toward NATO as further signs that the tariff warning may be more political theater than policy.

If implemented, the so-called secondary tariffs would target nations that continue buying Russian exports — especially oil, gas, grain, and industrial commodities. Among those potentially in the crosshairs: China, India, Brazil, Turkiye, and others who have maintained or even expanded trade with Moscow despite Western sanctions.

That move could create major geopolitical friction. Countries like India and China are now deeply entwined with Russia’s energy and trade networks. Any attempt to penalize them could risk a global trade clash — and possibly backfire on the U.S. and its own supply chains.

Would It Even Work?

Beyond doubts about Trump’s willingness to impose the tariffs, there is another lingering question: Would it even matter?

Russia has, for the most part, weathered the storm of past Western sanctions and tariffs. It has reoriented its energy exports to Asia, rerouted trade through third-party nations, and leaned on massive foreign reserves to stabilize its economy. Even with billions in frozen assets and restricted access to Western tech, Moscow’s war effort has continued largely unabated.

Analysts warn that another round of tariffs — even with a 100% rate — may do little to force a policy change in the Kremlin.

Former CIA officer Dan Hoffman said on Fox News that the massive strike on Kyiv right after Putin’s call with Trump was no coincidence. Putin wants to show strength. 

Trump did not specify which products would be targeted or how the tariffs would be enforced. Nor was there clarity on whether he would seek multilateral support from U.S. allies or act unilaterally. Without those details, analysts say the threat looks more like posturing than actionable foreign policy.

Still, it signals Trump’s growing frustration with the conflict. In March, he floated a similar warning, saying he would impose secondary tariffs on all Russian oil if no peace deal was reached and if he deemed Russia responsible.

“We get a lot of bullshit thrown at us by Putin. He’s very nice all the time, but it turns out to be meaningless,” he said earlier this month.

Although this time, Trump he has added a timeline — 50 days — setting up a potential moment of reckoning in early September, his record of backing down from implementing threats, as notable in his global tariff policies, has earned him the TACO (Trump always chicken out) nickname.

Against this backdrop, Trump’s remarks are currently generating more questions than confidence. And for Putin — who has defied NATO, Western sanctions, and U.S. tariffs for over two years — it is unclear whether even this latest threat will move the needle.

FirstBank of Nigeria has rolled out a facial biometric verification feature on its flagship mobile app, FirstMobile, allowing customers to onboard and activate their mobile banking without needing a debit card—which the bank is touting as a major step in making financial services more accessible and secure.

The update removes card-based registration as a prerequisite for account activation, enabling users—including Nigerians in the diaspora, those who have lost or misplaced their cards, and new customers—to enroll using facial recognition technology.

It also incorporates anti-spoofing capabilities to block impersonation attempts, a growing concern in Nigeria’s evolving fraud landscape.

“With these new services now live on FirstMobile, we are confident we will undoubtedly enhance our customers’ digital experience,” said Chukwuma Ezirim, Group Executive, E-Business and Retail Products Division at FirstBank.

The FirstMobile update also comes with other feature additions—virtual cards for secure e-commerce, instant credit card activation, flexible salary advances with up to three-month repayment, and general app enhancements. Users can access these by downloading or updating the app via the Play Store or Apple Store.

This marks a strategic shift by FirstBank to enable cardless digital banking, removing what had been a significant barrier for many customers.

Until now, FirstMobile required a debit card to complete activation—cutting off a swathe of the population that either didn’t hold a card or had expired or compromised ones. That group includes tech-savvy users who intentionally go cardless for security reasons, as well as rural and diaspora users often unable to retrieve cards physically.

“We understand the importance of keeping up with the evolving digital landscape, and we are dedicated to providing our customers with cutting-edge solutions that make banking simpler, faster, and more accessible. Our goal is to ensure that every interaction with FirstBank enhances customer satisfaction and builds long-lasting relationships,” Ezirim added.

Still, financial security experts warn that the biggest threat to digital banking isn’t the absence of customer verification—it’s the compromised integrity of those overseeing internal systems.

“The Real Danger Is Within”

The move aligns with a wider push in Nigeria’s banking sector to deepen digital inclusion by simplifying onboarding processes. Although banks have been rolling out different efforts to contain fraud, cybersecurity experts and financial analysts have warned that the real threat to customer funds may be beyond the reach of facial biometrics.

Biometric innovation has been applauded for improving user-side security, but has done little to address what’s becoming the most persistent—and least spoken—form of bank fraud in Nigeria: internal collusion.

Data compiled by SBM Intelligence, a Lagos-based geopolitical research firm, show that Nigerian banks lost over N14.7 billion to fraud between 2019 and 2023. Of that amount, insider collusion alone accounted for at least N1.5 billion in 2022 and N1.04 billion in 2023. These are cases where bank employees either aided or ignored fraudulent activity—granting third-party access to customers’ accounts, manipulating backend systems, or selling confidential user data.

The Nigerian Inter-Bank Settlement System (NIBSS) has repeatedly flagged internal breaches as the most damaging vector for fraud, particularly in high-profile cases involving large withdrawals from dormant or inactive accounts. In many of these, system access credentials were traced back to serving staff or outsourced IT support teams.

Despite efforts by regulators to strengthen background policies and implement biometric verification across the banking system, enforcement and internal monitoring remain weak.

With data showing that nearly one in every four financial frauds in Nigeria involves internal actors, experts are calling on banks—and the Central Bank of Nigeria—to invest just as heavily in institutional integrity, employee vetting, internal surveillance, and whistleblower protection as they do in digital upgrades.

Nvidia chief executive Jensen?Huang, whose company’s GPUs power the current boom in artificial?intelligence systems, says alarm over wholesale job losses is misplaced—but he’s unequivocal that no role will remain unchanged.

Speaking in an interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, Huang offered a nuanced but definite answer. AI won’t destroy employment as many fear, he argued, but every job—from top-level executives to entry-level workers—will be transformed.

“I am certain 100% of everybody’s jobs will be changed,” Huang said. “Some jobs will be lost. Many jobs will be created. And what I hope is that the productivity gains that we see in all the industries will lift society.”

As the head of the nearly $4 trillion tech giant at the core of the global AI race, Huang’s view carries weight. Nvidia dominates the AI chip market, providing the processing backbone for systems powering ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Meta Llama, and nearly every other frontier model. The company’s position gives Huang a real-time vantage point into how AI is reshaping industries—from finance and law to transportation and media.

Huang believes the fundamental shift underway is not wholesale job elimination but rather a deep transformation of tasks. AI, he said, acts like a “task reduction engine,” absorbing repetitive and rote functions—like coding boilerplate, document summarization, or scheduling logistics—and freeing up time for more creative, strategic, and cognitive roles.

He used himself as an example: “My job has already changed. I spend most of my time asking questions—of people and of AIs.”

For Huang, prompting AI is not a mindless shortcut, but a cognitive skill in itself.

“Asking good questions is a highly intellectual task,” he added, describing how he often poses the same question to multiple AI models, compares responses, critiques them, and synthesizes the best insights.

“That process enhances thinking, not replaces it,” he said.

This optimism isn’t universally shared. A growing number of experts have warned that AI will lead to large-scale displacement, particularly in white-collar roles. Geoffrey Hinton, one of the founding figures in deep learning research, said recently that “for mundane intellectual labor, AI is just going to replace everybody.” He warned that jobs like call center staff and paralegals are under immediate threat and suggested that people consider trades like plumbing, which are less vulnerable to automation.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, who leads one of the top AI labs globally, has also sounded the alarm. In an interview with Axios, he warned that up to 50% of white-collar entry-level jobs could disappear within five years as AI tools become more capable and widespread. He criticized tech leaders and government officials for “sugarcoating” the potential fallout, arguing that the pace of disruption is faster than many anticipate.

Adam Dorr, a researcher at think tank RethinkX, echoed those sentiments in a recent interview with The Guardian. Drawing on historical studies of over 1,500 major technological shifts, he predicted that most current jobs could be obsolete by 2045.

“We’re the horses. We’re the film cameras,” Dorr said, comparing workers today to past industries swept away by transformation.

But Huang believes those warnings overlook the broader benefits. In his view, AI is the “greatest technology equalizer” in history—one that will allow more people to build, solve, and create than ever before. Rather than widening inequality, he believes that with the right governance, AI will narrow the opportunity gap by putting powerful tools into the hands of ordinary workers.

He also dismissed the idea that reliance on AI weakens human thinking. “I’m not asking it to think for me,” he told Zakaria. “I’m asking it to teach me things that I don’t know, or help me solve problems that I otherwise wouldn’t be able to solve reasonably.”

Huang’s vision comes as Nvidia experiences unprecedented growth. The company’s chips are now central to virtually every AI model being developed, and demand is so strong that its new Blackwell GPUs—expected to power the next wave of frontier models—have already sold out through 2026. Nvidia’s staggering rise has made it the most valuable company in the world. It briefly touched over $4 trillion in valuation last week.

Huang’s argument that AI will reshape, not destroy, the labor market is consistent with statements from other AI optimists, including Meta’s chief AI scientist Yann LeCun, who recently said he “pretty much disagrees with everything Dario [Amodei] says.” LeCun has argued that history shows that each wave of automation leads to new kinds of work and that AI will be no different.

However, the pace of change is accelerating. Enterprises are rapidly embedding AI into workflows—from contract review and fraud detection to design prototyping and code generation. Early pilot programs are already showing significant productivity gains. With that shift, pressure is growing on governments to manage the transition—to ensure retraining, provide safety nets, and prevent technological gains from deepening social divisions.

Huang has called for more deliberate, large-scale investments in workforce readiness, as well as public-private partnerships to promote AI literacy.

Whether AI augments or automates, what is clear is that the world of work is undergoing one of the most profound transformations in modern history. And according to the man whose chips are powering that revolution, the change will be universal.