The U.S. dollar sank sharply on Tuesday after President Donald Trump publicly dismissed concerns about the currency’s rapid decline, comments that traders interpreted as tacit approval of a weaker greenback at a moment of heightened sensitivity in global foreign exchange markets.

“I think it’s great,” Trump told reporters in Iowa when asked whether the dollar had fallen too far. “The dollar’s doing great.”

Those remarks accelerated an already steep sell-off. The benchmark ICE U.S. Dollar Index, which tracks the currency against a basket of major peers including the euro, yen, pound, Canadian dollar and Swiss franc, extended losses to as much as 1.5% on the day. That put the dollar on track for its worst single-day decline since April, and capped what was already shaping up to be its worst three-day stretch since Trump’s April 2025 “Liberation Day” tariff announcement roiled global markets.

By late afternoon in New York, the dollar was trading at its weakest level since early 2022, underscoring how far sentiment has shifted since the currency’s post-pandemic peak.

The sell-off reflects more than a single offhand remark. Trump’s comments reinforced a perception that the White House is comfortable with — or even welcomes — a softer dollar as part of its broader trade and industrial strategy. Speaking in Iowa, Trump said he wanted the currency to “just seek its own level,” adding that he could move it “up or down like a yo-yo” if he wanted to.

For currency traders, that signaled a reduced willingness by the administration to defend dollar strength rhetorically, let alone through policy coordination.

That matters because the dollar has already been under pressure since Trump rolled out sweeping global tariffs last year. While U.S. equity markets recovered from the initial shock, the currency never fully rebounded. In 2025, the dollar index fell 9%, its worst annual performance since 2017, reflecting a combination of trade uncertainty, widening fiscal deficits, and growing expectations that interest rate differentials may narrow in the years ahead.

For households and businesses, the implications of a weaker dollar are tangible. A falling currency makes overseas travel more expensive for Americans and can push up the cost of imports, adding to inflationary pressures at a time when price stability remains politically sensitive. Morgan Stanley analysts noted previously that a softer dollar can also make U.S. assets less attractive to foreign investors, potentially weighing on capital inflows.

Analysts Link Weakening Dollar to Trump’s Export Push

There is, however, a flip side. A cheaper dollar improves the competitiveness of American exports by making them more affordable in foreign markets, a dynamic Trump has long favored. In Iowa, he revisited familiar grievances about currency practices abroad, saying he had previously “fought like hell” with China and Japan over what he described as efforts to weaken their currencies.

“It’s hard to compete when they devalue,” he said, while adding that those countries “always want our dollars.”

Recent moves in Asia have amplified the dollar’s slide. Abrupt shifts in the Japanese yen following Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s call for a snap election injected fresh volatility into currency markets, further pressuring the greenback. At the same time, China’s yuan strengthened sharply, touching a 32-month high against the dollar as Beijing guided its currency higher amid intensifying global selling of the U.S. currency.

On Wednesday, the yuan rose as far as 6.9449 per dollar, its strongest level since May 2023, before easing slightly. The People’s Bank of China set the daily midpoint at 6.9755, its strongest fixing in more than a year and a move that was more than 100 pips stronger than the previous session. Traders said the guidance signaled that Beijing is allowing measured appreciation while discouraging speculative, one-way bets on rapid yuan gains.

Analysts at China Construction Bank said markets are increasingly convinced that the dollar will continue to weaken into 2026, with many expecting new cyclical lows.

“Given that the greenback is unlikely to regain strength in 2026, the renminbi should face much less external pressure going forward,” the bank wrote, adding that China’s relative equity market strength could attract foreign inflows and further support the currency.

The steady decline of the U.S. dollar is increasingly being interpreted as part of a broader economic strategy under President Donald Trump to re-engineer America’s export competitiveness at a time when global trade dynamics are tilting sharply in Asia’s favor.

For much of the past decade, the strength of the dollar has been a double-edged sword for the United States. While it reinforced the currency’s status as the world’s primary reserve asset and helped tame imported inflation, it also made American goods expensive in global markets. That imbalance became more pronounced as China, through tight management of the yuan, ensured its exports remained attractively priced across Africa, Latin America, and parts of Europe.

Analysts now argue that the dollar’s recent weakness is correcting that imbalance. In trade-weighted terms, the greenback has lost ground against several major currencies, narrowing the price gap between U.S. and Chinese exports.

For manufacturers of machinery, agricultural products, industrial chemicals, and consumer goods, this shift matters. A weaker dollar lowers the foreign-currency price of U.S. exports, making them more competitive against Chinese alternatives that have long dominated price-sensitive markets.

Economists following to the administration’s thinking believe the logic is straightforward. For years, American exporters have complained that they are being priced out of global markets, not because of quality or scale, but because currency differentials favor their competitors, particularly China. The yuan’s relative weakness meant Chinese goods often arrived cheaper, even when production costs were comparable. By allowing the dollar to soften, the U.S. effectively reduces that disadvantage without direct subsidies or new trade barriers.

This view aligns with Trump’s long-standing trade philosophy. Since his first term, he has argued that an overvalued dollar hurts American workers and manufacturers. His public statements have repeatedly tied currency strength to factory closures, trade deficits, and job losses in industrial states.

While the administration rarely frames exchange rate movements as explicit policy targets, analysts have noted that fiscal expansion, tolerance for looser financial conditions, and a more confrontational stance toward traditional allies have all contributed to downward pressure on the dollar.

The implications go beyond exports alone. A weaker dollar also improves the earnings outlook for U.S. multinationals, which generate a large share of their revenues overseas. When foreign earnings are converted back into dollars, companies benefit mechanically from currency depreciation. This has already begun to show up in corporate guidance, with several exporters pointing to foreign exchange as a tailwind for revenues.

There are, however, trade-offs. Dollar weakness can feed imported inflation, particularly for energy, electronics, and consumer goods. That risk is closely watched by the Federal Reserve, especially as inflation remains a politically sensitive issue for households. Still, some analysts believe that the inflationary impact is being cushioned by slowing global demand and increased domestic production, particularly in energy and agriculture.

In contrast, China’s position is becoming more complex. While a relatively cheap yuan continues to support Chinese exports, it also raises concerns about capital outflows and financial stability. Beijing has had to strike a careful balance, preventing sharp depreciation that could unsettle markets while maintaining export competitiveness.

The narrowing currency gap with the U.S. means China’s exporters may no longer enjoy the same overwhelming price advantage in key markets.

For global trade, the shift signals a subtle reordering. If the dollar remains weaker for an extended period, U.S. exporters could regain market share in regions where Chinese dominance was built largely on price rather than technological superiority. That would align with Trump’s broader goal of shrinking the trade deficit and reasserting American manufacturing strength without relying solely on tariffs.

In this context, the dollar’s decline is less a warning sign and more a policy signal. Analysts see it as an indirect but powerful tool in Washington’s economic playbook, one aimed at restoring balance in a global trading system that many in the administration believe has long tilted against the United States.

Amazon has agreed to a sweeping settlement worth more than $1 billion to resolve claims that it failed to properly refund customers who returned items, drawing renewed scrutiny to the company’s returns and customer service systems at a time when regulators are already pressing the e-commerce giant on consumer protection issues.

The agreement is seen as one of the most consequential consumer settlements in the company’s history, not just for its size but for what it reveals about the hidden strain inside the world’s largest e-commerce operation.

Valued at more than $1 billion, the settlement addresses allegations that Amazon failed to properly refund customers who returned items, sometimes leaving them charged months after complying with the company’s own return rules. Court filings show the deal blends cash compensation, previously issued refunds, and structural changes meant to repair gaps in Amazon’s sprawling logistics and payments systems.

At the center of the agreement is a $309.5 million non-reversionary common fund, money that will be distributed to members of the class-action lawsuit and cannot flow back to Amazon. That payment sits on top of about $570 million in refunds Amazon has already issued to customers, with roughly $34 million more still outstanding.

In addition, Amazon has committed more than $363 million in non-monetary relief, a figure that underscores how much the company is now willing to spend to overhaul its internal processes rather than risk prolonged litigation or further regulatory action.

Amazon has denied any wrongdoing.

How the problem emerged

The lawsuit, filed in 2023, accused Amazon of causing “substantial unjustified monetary losses” by charging customers for items they had returned. Plaintiffs said the company often approved refunds but failed to complete them, or claimed it could not verify the returned item even when customers followed prescribed steps, including using Amazon’s own shipping labels and drop-off partners.

The dispute process has proved opaque for many customers. Refund delays stretched for weeks or months, while customer service interactions frequently ended without resolution. In some cases cited in the lawsuit, customers said the charges were never reversed at all.

Amazon says the failures came to light after an internal review conducted in 2025.

“Following an internal review in 2025, we identified a small subset of returns where we issued a refund without the payment completing, or where we could not verify that the correct item had been sent back to us, so no refund had been issued,” the company said in a statement emailed to TechCrunch. “We started issuing refunds in 2025 for these returns and are providing additional compensation and refunds to eligible customers per the settlement agreement.”

While Amazon has not disclosed how many transactions were affected, the scale of the refunds already paid suggests the issue spanned a large customer base and multiple product categories.

The logistics paradox

Ironically, the settlement exposes a weakness at the heart of Amazon’s greatest strength. The company built its dominance on logistics efficiency, fast shipping, and a famously generous returns policy designed to remove friction from online shopping. Over time, that system scaled to handle hundreds of millions of returns annually, involving third-party sellers, warehouses, delivery partners, and automated decision tools.

According to court filings, that complexity became part of the problem. Refund decisions, item verification, and payment processing often pass through different systems, increasing the risk that a refund could be approved but never completed, or flagged for review without clear follow-up.

The non-monetary relief portion of the settlement is expected to focus on closing those gaps. This includes tighter coordination between return verification and payment systems, clearer notices to customers when a refund is delayed or denied, and stronger audit trails to ensure approved refunds are actually paid.

A broader regulatory backdrop

In 2025, Amazon agreed to pay $2.5 billion to settle a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, accusing it of tricking users into enrolling in Prime subscriptions and making cancellations unnecessarily difficult. The e-commerce giant is currently accepting claims from affected customers in that case.

Taken together, the two settlements highlight a growing regulatory focus on so-called “dark patterns” and systemic consumer harm in digital platforms. Regulators and courts are increasingly less tolerant of scale being used as a defense when automated systems fail customers repeatedly.

Although the financial hit is manageable given Amazon’s size, the reputational cost is harder to quantify. Trust in hassle-free returns has long been a pillar of its brand promise. The lawsuit punctured that image by showing how quickly convenience can unravel when systems fail silently, and customers are left to absorb the loss.

What the settlement means for consumers

Eligible customers will receive payments from the $309.5 million fund in addition to any refunds already issued. Because the fund is non-reversionary, any unclaimed money is expected to be redistributed among class members rather than returned to Amazon.

The operational changes may prove just as significant as the cash. If implemented effectively, they could reduce refund disputes across Amazon’s platform, including transactions involving third-party sellers, which have historically generated some of the most complex return cases.

The settlement closes a legal chapter for Amazon but opens a broader reckoning about how its systems scale. Automation and speed helped the company grow, but this case shows how small failure rates, multiplied across millions of transactions, can translate into hundreds of millions of dollars in consumer losses and legal exposure.