The United States has reportedly intervened directly in the foreign exchange market to support the Japanese yen for the first time in more than a decade, marking a significant escalation in efforts by Washington and Tokyo to halt the currency’s sharp depreciation and restore stability to global financial markets.

According to a report by the Financial Times, the U.S. Treasury purchased Japanese yen on Friday through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, representing the first coordinated U.S. intervention in support of the Japanese currency since the aftermath of Japan’s devastating 2011 earthquake and tsunami.

The move reveals growing concern among U.S. and Japanese policymakers that the yen’s prolonged weakness, which recently pushed the dollar to its highest level against the Japanese currency since 1986, risks destabilizing financial markets, distorting trade flows and fueling imported inflation in Japan.

The Financial Times, citing people familiar with the matter, reported that the New York Fed sold euros and bought yen on behalf of the U.S. Treasury through Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. The report did not disclose the size of the intervention.

Reuters separately reported that the Treasury had informed several major banks earlier on Friday that it could enter the foreign exchange market and instructed them to “stand ready for future action,” suggesting authorities were preparing for coordinated operations if necessary.

Further evidence of Washington’s intentions emerged during a cabinet meeting at Camp David, where a Reuters photograph of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s handwritten notes showed a “To Do” list that included the instruction: “Buy Japanese Yen (JPY) $5-10 bil.”

Neither the Treasury Department nor the Federal Reserve Bank of New York immediately commented on the reported intervention.

First Coordinated Support Since 2011

If confirmed, the operation would represent the first time since 2011 that the United States has directly participated in supporting the Japanese currency.

That earlier intervention followed the devastating earthquake, tsunami and Fukushima nuclear disaster, when Group of Seven nations jointly acted to stabilize financial markets and prevent excessive appreciation of the yen. The current intervention is notable because authorities are now attempting to strengthen, rather than weaken, the Japanese currency.

The shift emerges following the extraordinary decline in the yen over recent years as wide interest-rate differentials between Japan and the United States encouraged investors to sell yen in favor of higher-yielding dollar-denominated assets.

Although the Bank of Japan has gradually tightened monetary policy after ending years of negative interest rates, borrowing costs in Japan remain well below those in the United States, limiting the currency’s recovery.

Markets Respond to Intervention Signals

News of the reported U.S. action immediately lifted the yen. According to LSEG data, the dollar fell to approximately 157.6 yen shortly before 5 p.m. EDT (2100 GMT), from around 158.9 yen less than an hour earlier.

The move reversed part of the dollar’s recent rally, which had driven the exchange rate close to 164 yen, the weakest level for the Japanese currency in roughly four decades. The sharp appreciation suggested traders quickly unwound speculative positions after reports that Washington had joined Tokyo’s intervention efforts.

Currency strategists have long argued that coordinated intervention involving both the United States and Japan would carry considerably greater credibility than unilateral action by Tokyo, increasing the likelihood of influencing market expectations.

The reported U.S. intervention follows increasingly aggressive efforts by Japanese authorities to support their currency.

Central bank data released on Friday indicated that Japan may have spent as much as $58.97 billion purchasing yen on Thursday, one of its largest interventions on record. Japanese financial newspaper Nikkei subsequently reported that Tokyo intervened again during New York trading hours on Friday, highlighting authorities’ determination to slow the currency’s decline.

While Japan’s Finance Ministry did not immediately comment on the reported market operations, it sought to reassure investors by emphasizing the breadth of policy tools available to maintain orderly financial markets. In a statement posted on X, the ministry said Japan’s monetary authorities possess “a broad range of tools to address market liquidity needs.”

“We remain prepared to use available tools as necessary to support orderly market functioning,” the ministry said.

The statement specifically referenced the Federal Reserve’s Foreign and International Monetary Authorities (FIMA) Repo Facility, which allows foreign central banks to obtain U.S. dollar liquidity without selling their holdings of U.S. Treasury securities.

Established during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the facility enables countries such as Japan to finance market interventions while avoiding large-scale Treasury sales that could disrupt global bond markets.

Policy Announcement May Follow Next Week

Japanese and U.S. officials could unveil additional coordinated measures as early as next week, according to Kyodo News. The report said the two governments are discussing a joint policy statement aimed at discouraging speculative trading that has intensified downward pressure on the yen.

Such an announcement would reinforce recent intervention efforts by signaling that both countries are prepared to act against excessive currency volatility if necessary.

Market participants are expected to closely monitor any official communication for indications of whether authorities intend to establish informal thresholds for the dollar-yen exchange rate or pursue additional coordinated intervention.

However, the reported U.S. participation represents a significant shift in international currency policy.

Washington has historically been reluctant to intervene in foreign exchange markets except during periods of severe financial stress. Direct support for the yen suggests U.S. policymakers increasingly view the currency’s weakness as a broader financial stability issue rather than solely a domestic Japanese concern.

A persistently weak yen raises import costs for Japan, increases inflationary pressures and complicates monetary policy, while also affecting the competitiveness of exporters across Asia and contributing to volatility in global capital markets.

For investors, coordinated intervention by the world’s two largest reserve currency authorities carries greater weight than unilateral operations because it demonstrates shared policy objectives and increases the resources available to influence market conditions.

Whether the intervention succeeds over the longer term, however, will depend largely on underlying monetary policy. Currency analysts generally believe that sustained appreciation of the yen will require a narrowing of the interest-rate gap between the United States and Japan, alongside continued efforts by authorities to deter speculative trading.

Shares of Berkshire Hathaway climbed to an eight-month high this week, extending a steady recovery that has narrowed the conglomerate’s performance gap with the broader U.S. stock market as investors grow increasingly optimistic about its diversified earnings base and capital allocation strategy.

The company’s Class B shares closed Tuesday at $512.37, their highest level since November 28, when they ended at $513.81. Class A shares also reached their strongest close since late November, finishing at $768,010, compared with $770,100 on November 28.

Despite the recent rally, Berkshire’s shares remain about 5% below the record highs reached in May 2025, shortly before Warren Buffett announced he would step down as chief executive at the end of that year, handing leadership to Greg Abel.

The rebound suggests investor confidence has continued to strengthen during the leadership transition, easing concerns that surrounded Buffett’s departure after six decades at the helm.

Although Berkshire has recovered strongly in recent weeks, the stock continues to trail the broader market.

According to Barron’s, Berkshire remains about 7.6 percentage points behind the S&P 500’s performance over the comparable period, suggesting there may still be room for further gains if investors continue rotating into defensive, high-quality companies.

That gap, however, has narrowed significantly. Just two months ago, Berkshire lagged the benchmark index by roughly 17.5 percentage points, meaning the conglomerate has erased more than half of its underperformance in a relatively short period.

The improving relative performance points to a shift in investor positioning as market volatility has increased and richly valued technology stocks have experienced bouts of profit-taking.

Unlike most large-cap companies, Berkshire derives earnings from dozens of businesses spanning insurance, railroads, utilities, manufacturing, energy, consumer products and one of the world’s largest publicly traded equity portfolios. That diversification has historically enabled the company to outperform during periods of economic uncertainty by reducing dependence on any single industry.

Nevertheless, Berkshire’s operating businesses have recently faced challenges.

Its railroad operations continue to contend with softer freight volumes and higher operating costs, while its insurance businesses are navigating elevated catastrophe claims and changing pricing dynamics across global markets. Investors will therefore be watching the upcoming quarterly earnings report for updates on underwriting profitability, railroad performance and the deployment of Berkshire’s massive cash reserves.

Another factor underpinning Berkshire’s recent strength has been solid performance from several of its largest publicly traded investments.

Its largest holding, Apple, now valued at more than $70 billion, has gained 13.6% this year as renewed optimism around artificial intelligence and stronger-than-expected earnings helped revive investor sentiment toward the iPhone maker.

Coca-Cola, Berkshire’s third-largest equity investment with an estimated value of $35 billion, has surged 25% year-to-date after reporting stronger-than-expected earnings and raising its full-year guidance, bolstering confidence in resilient consumer spending despite a challenging macroeconomic environment.

Meanwhile, Bank of America, Berkshire’s fourth-largest holding, has advanced 12.6% this year, lifting the value of the conglomerate’s stake to nearly $32 billion.

Appreciation in these core holdings has boosted the value of Berkshire’s investment portfolio and provided additional support for book value growth.

Investor sentiment also received a boost after UBS analyst Brian Meredith raised his price target on Berkshire’s shares. Meredith increased his target for the Class B shares to $585 from $570, while lifting his Class A target to $877,848 from $854,596, maintaining a “Buy” rating.

He also modestly raised his earnings forecasts and pointed to reports suggesting Berkshire may have repurchased as much as $11 billion of its own stock during the second quarter.

Large buybacks are often interpreted as a sign that management believes the shares remain undervalued. Repurchases also reduce the number of outstanding shares, increasing earnings per share and enhancing long-term shareholder returns.

Beyond quarterly earnings, investors will closely examine Berkshire’s capital allocation decisions.

The company has accumulated one of the largest cash positions in corporate America over recent years, prompting ongoing debate over when management will deploy those funds through acquisitions, equity investments, or additional share repurchases.

With financial markets remaining volatile and valuation gaps emerging across sectors, analysts believe Berkshire’s substantial liquidity gives it considerable flexibility to capitalize on attractive investment opportunities if they arise.

The conglomerate is expected to release its second-quarter earnings on Saturday, August 8, when investors will receive updated details on operating performance, cash holdings, investment activity and the scale of any share repurchases undertaken during the quarter.

FIFA President Gianni Infantino has suffered the most significant political setback of his decade-long leadership after abandoning a controversial plan to sell a stake in the commercial operations of the FIFA World Cup, a dramatic reversal that has exposed deep divisions within world football and cast fresh uncertainty over his bid for another term in office.

The collapse of the proposal, which came after an extraordinary backlash from football’s most powerful governing bodies, marks the first time Infantino has been forced to retreat on a flagship initiative under coordinated pressure from multiple continental confederations. It also raises broader questions about FIFA’s governance, consultation process and the limits of the president’s authority despite overseeing the governing body’s strongest financial period.

In a statement issued on Friday, FIFA confirmed it was withdrawing plans to establish a separate commercial entity that would have managed the World Cup and other major tournaments, with a proposed 20% stake to be sold to private equity investors.

A statement from Infantino in the early hours of Saturday read: “The FIFA Forward Enterprise project was intended to provide a basis for further strengthening our FIFA member associations and our sport worldwide, especially in those countries where support is most needed.

“And more so, as we said from the outset, to do this only if a majority of the FIFA member associations were in support and always subject to a consultation process with them, the FIFA Council, the confederations and wider stakeholders.

“Having listened carefully to all the views, it has become clear that the project has created divisions of a nature that, regardless of the level of support, are no longer in the interest of the objective set out in the first place. Our purpose has always been – and will always be – to unite and improve.

“As a result, this proposal will not proceed. Moving forward, my intent is to bring all interested parties back together in the coming days and weeks in the spirit of shared interest in our game, and with the objective to continue growing football everywhere, particularly in those countries that mostly need our support.”

The concession effectively ended three days of intense conflict within global football that culminated in UEFA threatening to boycott FIFA events unless the proposal was abandoned.

The plan had been one of Infantino’s most ambitious commercial initiatives, coming less than two weeks after FIFA staged what it described as its most financially successful World Cup.

Political Standing Weakened

Until this week, Infantino had appeared firmly in control of FIFA’s political landscape. His stewardship of record-breaking revenues and expanded World Cup competitions had positioned him as the overwhelming favorite to secure a fourth presidential term at the FIFA Congress in Morocco next March, with no credible challenger having emerged, according to Reuters.

That political certainty has now been shaken.

“A week ago, Infantino’s riding high and was almost certain to get elected overwhelmingly because he’s run against such a financially successful tournament,” Victor Matheson, professor of economics at the College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts, told Reuters.

“That’s all in jeopardy now.”

The failed proposal has transformed what looked like a routine re-election into what could become FIFA’s most competitive presidential contest since Infantino succeeded Sepp Blatter in 2016 following FIFA’s corruption crisis.

Several football administrators now expect rival candidates to enter the race after the controversy exposed growing dissatisfaction with Infantino’s leadership style and decision-making process.

Resistance to the proposal extended well beyond Europe.

UEFA, widely regarded as FIFA’s most influential confederation because of its commercial strength and sporting influence, led the opposition by threatening to boycott FIFA competitions.

That stance was subsequently reinforced by the Asian Football Confederation, which publicly backed UEFA and CONCACAF.

“The AFC stands in solidarity with UEFA and CONCACAF in expressing serious concerns over FIFA’s proposal to introduce private investment into FIFA’s flagship competitions,” the confederation said.

Representing 47 member associations, including Australia, China, Japan and Saudi Arabia, the AFC warned that the mere prospect of a World Cup boycott demonstrated the seriousness of the crisis.

“The fact that the situation has reached the point where the real possibility of a FIFA World Cup boycott has entered public discourse should concern everyone who cares about the future of our game.”

The united front from multiple continental confederations represented one of the strongest institutional challenges Infantino has faced during his presidency.

The controversy also exposed rare public disagreement within FIFA’s senior leadership.

After FIFA defended the proposal by arguing it would unlock billions of dollars in additional funding for national football associations, several senior figures publicly distanced themselves from the initiative.

Senior adviser Carlos Cordeiro resigned, describing the proposal as “a bad deal for football.”

Chief Operating Officer Kevin Lamour reportedly accused Infantino of misleading FIFA staff and characterized the project as “a project of one person.”

Those public criticisms are significant because Infantino has generally maintained tight control over FIFA’s executive structure throughout his presidency.

Sources familiar with FIFA’s internal operations told Reuters that the Swiss administrator has often frustrated colleagues through an independent leadership style, although his ability to generate record revenues had previously allowed him to overcome internal opposition.

Familiar Strategy Fails

The setback contrasts with previous controversies that Infantino managed to survive.

In 2018, he abandoned plans for a $25 billion private investment vehicle linked to the Club World Cup after opposition from UEFA.

He also weathered sustained criticism surrounding Qatar’s hosting of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, including widespread scrutiny of his defense of the tournament and controversial public remarks made before the competition.

This week’s proposal, however, appears to have failed because key stakeholders said they were not consulted before FIFA announced the initiative.

According to Reuters, many football officials first learned of the proposal after details leaked to the media, fueling accusations that FIFA had bypassed its traditional governance processes.

The controversy intensified after reports that Infantino had selected Thrive Capital, the investment firm founded by Joshua Kushner, to lead the proposed investor group.

Trump Links Add Political Dimension

The involvement of Thrive Capital also drew attention because of Infantino’s close relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump. The relationship has attracted scrutiny since FIFA awarded Trump its inaugural Peace Prize last December.

Former FIFA vice-president Jim Boyce suggested Infantino’s growing proximity to political power may have influenced his leadership approach.

“I think what has happened here is that fame appears to have gone a little bit to Gianni’s head and his relationship with Donald Trump during that World Cup is nothing more than astounding,” Boyce told the BBC.

Questions about political influence also resurfaced after Trump publicly revealed during the World Cup that he had asked Infantino to overturn the suspension of U.S. forward Folarin Balogun following a red card.

Although Balogun was ultimately cleared to play by FIFA’s independent disciplinary body, the episode fueled criticism over the perceived closeness between FIFA’s leadership and the White House.

Sports marketing analyst Bob Dorfman said the Kushner connection compounded those concerns.

“It didn’t help that you had a Kushner involved in this whole thing,” Dorfman told Reuters.

“Especially what was going on during the World Cup with Balogun and Trump. To have a Trump relative involved in this only made the whole thing much worse.”

Trump said Friday that he did not discuss the proposed World Cup stake sale with Infantino.

Re-Election Battle Becomes Less Certain

Despite the political damage, analysts caution that it may be premature to conclude that Infantino’s presidency is nearing its end. His proposal was partly designed to generate additional funding for FIFA’s 211 member associations, many of which rely heavily on financial support distributed by FIFA and have benefited from increased development funding under his leadership.

Those national federations, rather than UEFA or other continental bodies, will ultimately determine the outcome of the presidential election.

To secure another four-year term through 2031, Infantino would need a two-thirds majority in the first round of voting or a simple majority in subsequent rounds.

Dorfman believes the FIFA president could still recover politically if he acknowledges mistakes made during the process.

“I know that’s not in his manner to do things like that but maybe he has to start apologising a little bit and say: ‘Maybe I handled this wrong’.”