Directed by Korean-Canadian Maggie Kang
Faithfully Recreates K-Pop, Blended with Korean Culture
Hits No. 1 Worldwide, Sparks Outcry in China: ‘Korea Stole from Us Again

The global entertainment landscape is once again witnessing the unstoppable rise of Korean culture, this time through an unlikely medium—an American-produced animated film about K-pop idols battling demons. K-Pop Demon Hunters is not just a clever fusion of music, fantasy, and action; it is a cultural phenomenon that reflects how K-culture has become one of the most lucrative and influential forces in global media. Since its release, the film has captured the imagination of audiences worldwide, reaching the No. 1 spot on Netflix in 41 countries. But with fame comes controversy. As the world celebrates this vibrant depiction of Korea, some Chinese netizens are accusing it of cultural theft, exposing the persistent tensions that often accompany the globalization of Korean culture.

This is more than just an animated film riding the wave of K-pop’s global appeal. It is a vivid example of how Korean cultural exports, once considered niche, have become global entertainment juggernauts, powered by international capital, cutting-edge production, and the universal language of storytelling. At the same time, it highlights how cultural products today are no longer just national artifacts but highly sought-after global intellectual properties, igniting both admiration and disputes across borders.

A U.S.-Made K-Pop Sensation Takes the World by Storm

According to the streaming ranking platform FlixPatrol, K-Pop Demon Hunters maintained the No. 1 position on Netflix’s global film chart as of June 25, boasting a viewership score of 807, a commanding lead that underscores its massive global traction. Although the score slightly dipped from the previous day, it remained firmly ahead of all competitors. The film premiered globally on June 20, and from the very first day, it captivated audiences across diverse cultures and countries.

This is not a Korean production in the traditional sense. The film is an American animated feature produced by Sony Pictures Animation, the same studio that brought audiences the critically acclaimed Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. Co-directed by Korean-Canadian filmmaker Maggie Kang and Chris Appelhans, K-Pop Demon Hunters stands as a collaborative project that heavily features Korean and Korean diaspora creators who infused it with authentic cultural textures.

The film’s meteoric rise is a testament to the global power of K-pop. Within just 24 hours of its release, it clinched the top spot in 22 countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, France, and Germany. By the third day, the tally jumped to 31 countries, and by the fourth day, it had reached 41 countries. While its dominance in Asia, including nations such as Vietnam, Singapore, and Thailand, is expected given the region’s familiarity with Korean culture, what is particularly striking is the film’s widespread popularity in North America and Europe, where it continues to resonate with mainstream audiences.

The story is as imaginative as it is entertaining. It follows a fictional K-pop girl group—Rumi, Mira, and Joy—who are global pop sensations by day but secretly hunt demons by night. The narrative pivots around the shocking revelation that a freshly debuted boy band is actually a demonic cult threatening the world. On the surface, the plot may seem whimsical or even absurd, but it’s precisely this blend of fantasy and humor, executed with impeccable craftsmanship, that has captivated viewers.

Critics and fans alike have praised the film for transforming what could have been a formulaic concept into a delightful cinematic experience. Its meticulous attention to detail, clever storytelling, and the magnetic charm of its female leads make it more than just an animated spectacle. Visually, it mirrors the hyper-polished aesthetic of K-pop music videos, delivering a sensory experience that blends neon-lit stages with fantastical action sequences.

Beyond the spectacle, what truly elevates the film is how it celebrates Korean culture. The film is peppered with cultural nuances that resonate deeply with anyone familiar with Korea, while also introducing these elements to a global audience. Off-stage, the characters are hilariously relatable, lounging around in mismatched pajamas, obsessing over comfort foods like gimbap, ramen, and soondae, and filming casual vlogs that mimic the real-life routines of K-pop idols. Authentic slices of Korean daily life abound, from the ubiquitous green plates used in local snack bars to sweeping panoramic shots of Seoul’s landmarks, including the Namsan Seoul Tower and the historic fortress walls of Naksan Park. The film even incorporates a mystical tiger messenger, inspired by traditional Korean folk paintings like Ho-jak-do, symbolizing the seamless fusion of Korea’s ancient traditions with its hyper-modern pop culture.

The sonic experience is just as immersive. The film’s fictional idol groups, Huntrix and Lionboyz, deliver performances under the musical direction of Teddy, the legendary K-pop producer behind global acts like BIGBANG and BLACKPINK. The soundtrack features powerhouse vocals from artists like LIAE, Audrey Nuna, and Rei Ami, all of whom are either Korean or part of the Korean diaspora. Adding even more star power, TWICE members Jeongyeon, Jihyo, and Chaeyoung perform the film’s main single, “Takedown.” The soundtrack further pays homage to Korean pop culture history, with nostalgic tracks like Deux’s “Look Back at Me” and MeloMance’s ballad “I Think It’s Love,” enhancing the emotional depth of the film.

Korean Culture Becomes a Global Money-Making Machine

At the heart of K-Pop Demon Hunters’ explosive success is a broader narrative about the commodification of Korean culture on the global stage. This didn’t happen overnight. The polished, aspirational image of K-pop idols, pioneered by groups like BTS, has been instrumental in establishing Korea’s presence on the global cultural map. When the Oscar-winning film Parasite and the Netflix juggernaut Squid Game shattered records, they didn’t merely ride the wave of K-pop’s popularity; they propelled it even further, transforming Korean culture into a globally recognizable and highly profitable brand.

As younger generations worldwide grew increasingly curious about Korean entertainment, their interest naturally expanded to encompass Korean food, fashion, beauty, and lifestyle. For content creators and entertainment companies, Korea has become what many now openly call a “profitable IP," a rich reservoir of stories, aesthetics, and cultural cachet that translates directly into commercial success.

The United States, known for its sharp instincts for global market trends, was predictably quick to act. Netflix was among the first to tap into this wave with XO, Kitty, a series centered around an American girl studying in Seoul. Similarly, The Recruit 2 and Amazon Prime’s Butterfly chose Korea not just for its stunning urban backdrops but because the Korean setting itself is now a major selling point for international audiences.

This trend is not merely anecdotal. It represents a seismic shift in the business model of Korea’s entertainment industry. Today, a growing portion of the Korean film and television sector’s revenue comes from global streaming platforms producing content either about Korea or filmed on Korean soil. In this sense, K-Pop Demon Hunters is more than just a film; it is the culmination of years of strategic cultural globalization, an artistic and commercial explosion that embodies how K-culture has become a powerful global force, seamlessly blending domestic authenticity with international marketability.

Cultural Clash: Chinese Accusations and Ironic Piracy

Yet, no global success story comes without its share of backlash. As K-Pop Demon Hunters continued its climb up the global charts, it also ignited a familiar yet frustrating controversy, accusations of cultural appropriation from some corners of the Chinese internet. On Douban, China’s largest review platform, more than 1,000 reviews surfaced within days of the film’s release. Many Chinese netizens took issue with what they perceived as Korean misappropriation of Chinese cultural elements, specifically citing depictions of traditional knots, herbal medicine, tigers, and architectural motifs as being “inherently Chinese.”

The criticisms were pointed and often vitriolic. Some accused Korea of “stealthily borrowing” from Chinese culture, questioning the frequency of Chinese knots appearing in the film. Others dismissed the entire production as a blatant exercise in cultural theft, calling it “disgusting” and asking why Chinese elements were “inserted” into something branded as Korean.

What makes this situation deeply ironic is the fact that Netflix does not officially operate in mainland China. The users posting these comments were most likely accessing the film through illegal streaming platforms or pirated downloads. This is hardly an isolated incident. Chinese audiences have a long history of consuming Korean content through unauthorized means, with massive hits like The Glory, Squid Game, and My Liberation Notes all having been widely viewed through pirated sources. Adding insult to injury, there have been multiple instances where images and likenesses of Korean stars were exploited without permission to produce counterfeit merchandise sold within China.

Korean cultural diplomacy expert Seo Kyung-duk was unequivocal in his response. He condemned the hypocrisy of the situation, pointing out that illegal streaming has become so normalized in China that many no longer even consider it problematic. “It’s truly astonishing how shameless this has become,” he remarked, adding that rather than making absurd claims about Korea “stealing” Chinese culture, Chinese netizens should first develop the ability to respect the cultural heritage of other nations.

In the end, K-Pop Demon Hunters is more than just a movie; it is a mirror reflecting the global hunger for Korean culture, the economic power of creative collaboration, and the cultural frictions that inevitably arise in a hyperconnected world. It demonstrates how K-culture, once a regional curiosity, has transformed into a global powerhouse, one that continues to shape, inspire, and occasionally provoke the world.

Trump Rebukes Reporter for Questioning Iran Nuclear Strike Damage
White House Joins Effort to Praise Trump
Iran Admits Damage but Vows to Continue Nuclear Development

The US government has directly refuted media reports suggesting that the damage from its airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities was limited. In an effort to protect the legacy of President Donald Trump, who made the decision to authorize the strikes, Trump himself, along with top intelligence officials and the White House, launched a coordinated public relations campaign.

Iran, for its part, has officially acknowledged that its nuclear facilities suffered significant damage as a result of the US attacks. However, Tehran made it clear that it has no intention of halting its nuclear program despite the setback.

Trump: "CNN Reporter Should Be Chased Out Like a Dog"

On the 25th (local time), President Trump mentioned a CNN reporter by name on his social media platform Truth Social, writing that "she should be immediately condemned and chased out of CNN like a dog." This public complaint came after CNN aired a report questioning Trump's claim that Iran's nuclear facilities had been completely destroyed. He also criticized The New York Times (NYT), which ran a similar report, calling them "really bad and sick people."

Tulsi Gabbard, Director of National Intelligence (DNI), also posted on X (formerly Twitter) the same day, stating, "The president’s repeated statements that Iran’s nuclear facilities were destroyed are confirmed by new information," defending Trump’s position. She added, "If Iran chooses to rebuild, it will need to reconstruct all three nuclear facilities (Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan), which will take years."

The White House also released a press statement titled "Iran's Nuclear Facilities Were Devastated, Claims Otherwise Are Fake News," highlighting assessments from various agencies and officials emphasizing the damage to Iran's nuclear sites. One example was an evaluation report from the Israel Atomic Energy Commission released by the White House, which stated, "The US destroyed key infrastructure at the Fordow site and rendered the uranium enrichment facilities inoperable," and "Iran's nuclear weapons development capability has been set back by several years."

DIA's Initial Damage Assessment

The CNN and NYT reports in question were based on the initial damage assessment from the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), a US Department of Defense agency. According to CNN's report on the 24th, an anonymous official cited the report, telling CNN that "the US airstrikes delayed Iran’s nuclear program by, at most, a few months." Two other officials explained that most of Iran's centrifuges were still "operational."

NYT also reported that "according to the assessment, the US succeeded in blocking the entrances to the Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities, but the internal underground structures remained intact." The five-page preliminary report stressed that "Iran still controls most of its nuclear material and could resume nuclear weapons development relatively quickly if needed."

Evidence also suggested that highly enriched uranium had already been moved to another location. Citing the report, NYT stated, "Most of Iran's highly enriched uranium was relocated before the airstrikes, resulting in minimal actual damage to the nuclear material," adding, "Some of it appears to have been transferred to unofficial nuclear facilities." The report continued, "Israeli intelligence also believes that Iran maintains small secret enrichment facilities designed to allow the nuclear program to continue even if key sites are attacked."

After the reports, the White House acknowledged the existence of the DIA’s initial assessment but dismissed its contents as "completely wrong." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement to CNN, "This leak is a malicious attempt to discredit President Trump and insult the fighter pilots who carried out the mission successfully," adding, "Everyone knows what happens when fourteen 30,000-pound bombs hit their target, its total destruction."

Signs of Iran's 'North Korea-ization'

On the 25th, Iran admitted for the first time that its nuclear facilities had sustained significant damage from the US airstrikes. Esmail Baghaei, spokesperson for Iran’s Foreign Ministry, said in an interview with Al Jazeera, the leading broadcaster in the Arab world, "Our nuclear facilities were severely damaged" and added, "Given the repeated attacks, the damage is certain." However, he refrained from providing specific details, referring to it as a "technical matter," and did not disclose the exact strike locations or the extent of the damage.

The main concern is that Iran has shown no intention of abandoning its nuclear development plans even after the airstrikes. On the same day, Spokesperson Baghaei emphasized Iran’s determination to continue its nuclear program. He stated, "Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy remains valid" and added, "We will continue to exercise our right to peaceful nuclear energy under the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty)." He also described the US airstrikes as a critical blow to international law, diplomacy, and ethics, asserting, "The international community’s primary concern should be condemning these illegal actions by the United States."

Some experts now warn that Iran could withdraw from the NPT and follow North Korea’s path. There are concerns that Iran may break free from international monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), develop nuclear weapons, and become an isolated state using its nuclear capability as a bargaining chip for regime survival. One diplomatic expert noted, "Iran may have concluded from this conflict that the only way to ensure its security is through nuclear development," adding, "Without precise international monitoring and a diplomatic resolution, preventing Iran’s nuclear development will be difficult."

Conflicts Between Government Departments Create Confusion
Selective Approvals Result in Effective Blockade
Chinese Rare Earth Producers Facing Collapse

Over Three Weeks After China Eased Rare Earth Export Controls, Bureaucratic Red Tape and Arbitrary Procedures Continue to Choke Actual Supply. South Korea’s Imports Have Plunged by 76%, and Major Importers Like Japan and Europe Are Voicing Strong Opposition to China’s Selective Export Approvals. While Beijing Uses Strategic Resource Controls for Diplomatic Pressure, the Sharp Drop in Export Volume Is Now Triggering Domestic Industry Backlash. With Many Importing Countries Accelerating Supply Chain Diversification, Analysts Warn That China’s Current Export Policy May Backfire.

Officially “Resumed Exports,” but Reality Is “Selective Approvals”

According to Nikkei Asia on June 25, since switching its export controls on seven critical rare earth elements like samarium and dysprosium to a licensing system amid its trade war with the US, China has been causing worse-than-expected bottlenecks due to application delays and complex paperwork. Earlier this month, Beijing began requiring domestic rare earth producers to submit detailed online reports on transaction volumes and customer information.

Producers must now enter monthly production and inventory figures by the 10th of each month and apply for a traceability code before making sales. Export-related administrative requirements have also tightened further. Export licenses now demand disclosure of sensitive details such as item specifications, buyer identity, end-use purpose, and logistics routes. Compounding the issue, approval authority is split between central and local governments, creating inevitable regional discrepancies in processing speed. For the same company, outcomes may vary depending on the province handling the application.

This bureaucratic gridlock is creating severe uncertainty for businesses. Previously, clear regulations at least allowed firms to plan responses. Now, with unclear criteria and procedures, even scheduling supply deliveries is unpredictable. Repeated permit delays and document requests are causing firms to miss export windows or face canceled contracts. Given how time-sensitive rare earth shipments are for many industrial buyers, customs clearance delays are increasingly leading to broken deals.

For importers, the situation is equally troubling. UK-based industrial magnet producer Magnet Applications has reportedly been denied approval multiple times by Chinese authorities for lacking end-user information. A company representative stated, “We have about USD 1.3 million worth of magnets waiting for shipment, but customs officials are making physical export nearly impossible. Despite past dealings, we’ve never experienced delays like this before.”

Japan, EU Issue Stern Warnings, Suggest Possible Retaliation

Major importing nations are reacting with growing frustration. While China officially claims to have reopened rare earth exports, the actual trade flow remains choked. Countries including South Korea, the EU, and Japan broadly agree that current Chinese restrictions make exports functionally impossible. Governments and industries alike are criticizing Beijing’s contradictory stance, with diplomatic warnings escalating.

The European Commission recently stated in a briefing, “State-controlled strategic material exports that rely on arbitrary decision-making violate international trade principles.” The Commission added pointedly, “If China doesn’t want reciprocal actions from us, this practice should stop.” Japan’s government also sharply criticized the policy, saying, “China is only allowing certain routes through selected domestic suppliers and is arbitrarily limiting export destinations. This amounts to de facto discriminatory allocation.”

South Korea is no exception. According to industry data, imports of Chinese rare earths plunged roughly 76% year-over-year this May. Analysts say this sharp drop is not due to falling demand but rather widespread “permit omissions” and “customs failures.” Cases of repeated document revision requests or unexplained application rejections have become common, raising concerns about administrative fairness.

As a result, there is growing consensus that China’s rare earth export licensing should be viewed as more than just short-term pressure. Rare earths are essential to key industries like semiconductors, electric vehicles, and defense. With rising supply chain uncertainty, many nations are now ramping up their response strategies. Both the EU and Japan have activated multilateral trade dispute channels, and South Korea has begun structurally reassessing its dependency on any single country for rare earth supplies.

Shrinking Supply and Record-Low Exports: China’s Strategy Backfiring

China’s attempt to pressure the international community through strategic material controls is now producing the opposite effect, accelerating global demand shifts and supply chain diversification while weakening its own market position. According to the General Administration of Customs of China, the country’s total rare earth magnet exports for May stood at just 1,238 tons, marking a roughly 53% drop from the previous month. In April, exports had already fallen to 2,626 tons,nearly half of March’s 5,324.6 tons,resulting in two consecutive months of sharp decline. Compared to the same period last year, exports plunged by approximately 74%, signaling an unprecedented contraction.

Efforts by major economies to reduce dependence on China-centered rare earth supply chains are also picking up speed. The United States is investing in refining facilities in partnership with Australia and Canada, while Japan has announced plans to raise its share of non-Chinese rare earth sourcing to over 50%. The European Union is proceeding with legislation to include rare earths under its “Strategic Resource Autonomy Framework,” reflecting a shift from simply avoiding Chinese imports to actively building China-excluded supply networks.

Meanwhile, domestic rare earth producers in China are facing worsening difficulties. With export channels effectively blocked, these companies are forced to rely solely on domestic demand, leading to falling prices, mounting inventories, and reduced production. On top of this, Chinese authorities have implemented an “All-Cycle Rare Earth Management System” that monitors every step from production to transportation and sales. Excessive regulation has drawn heavy criticism from the industry. Delayed production permit renewals, suspended tax benefits, and stricter environmental assessments are pushing many small and medium-sized firms toward closure.

Ultimately, China’s strategy to weaponize rare earths as a diplomatic and strategic asset appears to be backfiring not only on its export markets but also on its domestic industries. Observers across the industrial and diplomatic sectors warn that this miscalculation is undermining both policy objectives and corporate competitiveness. As major economies accelerate the development of rare earth substitution technologies and secure new supply sources, China risks further eroding its position as the dominant supplier of rare earths.

Trump Hints at Possible Early Replacement of Fed Chair
Prolonged Clashes Over Several Years Deepen the Rift
Former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh Among Potential Successors

U.S. President Donald Trump has once again hinted at the possibility of removing Federal Reserve (Fed) Chair Jerome Powell before his term ends. After Powell refused to bow to Trump’s pressure to cut interest rates and instead maintained a freeze, Trump has signaled his intention to replace him with a new chair ahead of schedule. Markets are now closely watching who might succeed Powell.

Will Powell Ultimately Be Dismissed?

According to an AP report on the 25th (local time), Trump spoke at a press conference following the NATO summit held in The Hague, Netherlands. When asked about plans to replace Powell, Trump said, “He’s terrible” and added, “Fortunately, he will be leaving soon.” He also revealed that he has already narrowed down the pool of candidates, saying, “I will choose the next Fed chair from 3 or 4 people.” Normally, the U.S. administration announces a new Fed chair nominee about 3 to 6 months before the end of the incumbent’s term, but Trump’s deep dissatisfaction with Powell’s monetary policy suggests he is considering an early replacement. Powell’s current term runs until May 2026.

Trump and Powell have clashed repeatedly over interest rate policy, failing to bridge their differences for years. Even during his first presidential campaign, Trump persistently demanded rate cuts from Powell. After taking office, Trump openly attacked him with phrases like “idiot” and “too slow Powell,” applying continuous pressure for rate cuts. During the press conference, Trump again called Powell “very stupid and political,” continuing his blunt criticism. Despite these attacks, the Fed has maintained its rate freeze stance without wavering since the start of Trump’s second term.

Trump Feels Betrayed by Powell

What stands out is that Powell was Trump’s own nominee during his first term (2017–2021). Trump had frequently expressed frustration with Powell’s predecessor, Janet Yellen, during her term from 2014 to 2018. In November 2015, during a book launch event for Crippled America Trump criticized Yellen as being “too political.” This effectively amounted to a direct challenge to the Fed’s independence and political neutrality.

In 2017, Trump nominated Powell, then a Fed governor, as the next chair. Given that most past Fed chairs continued serving even after a change in administration, Trump’s decision was seen as bold. For example, Alan Greenspan, appointed by Ronald Reagan, served under Presidents George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush for a total of 19 years. His successor, Ben Bernanke, originally nominated by Bush, was reappointed and served during the Obama administration for eight years.

Yet, upon taking office, Trump immediately removed Yellen from the chair position. This led to concerns in the market that Trump had selected Powell to back his economic policies. However, contrary to Trump’s expectations, Powell proved unwilling to align with the administration’s wishes. In his first year as chair, Powell raised the federal funds rate four times for a total increase of 1 percentage point. Trump publicly criticized this, saying the Fed had “gone crazy” and calling Powell “clueless.” Even in July last year, while campaigning as a presidential candidate, Trump insisted that lowering rates was something that “should not be done,” yet Powell went ahead with a sharp 0.5 percentage point rate cut that September.

For years, their clashes continued. Initially, Trump had maintained that he would not replace Powell before the end of his term. In an interview published last December, when asked if he intended to dismiss Powell, Trump replied, “I have no such intention.” He added, “If I told him to resign, he would probably do it, but if I asked him not to, he probably wouldn’t.” However, since the start of Trump’s second administration, their conflict has noticeably intensified. Trump has now reversed course and is actively pushing for Powell’s removal.

Who Are the Potential Successors?

The leading candidate currently being mentioned as the next Federal Reserve Chair is Kevin Warsh, a former Fed governor who served during the George W. Bush administration. Warsh met with President Trump earlier this year, and last fall, he was interviewed for the position of Treasury Secretary. However, concerns are emerging within Trump’s camp that Warsh could be seen as a rebellious figure inside the Fed. This is largely because of his hawkish stance, favoring inflation control over employment growth.

Another name drawing market attention is U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. A former prominent investment expert on Wall Street, Bessent has played a key role in major issues during Trump’s second term, including U.S.-China trade negotiations and tariff policy. In the process, he has strengthened his position within the administration and is reported to have gained Trump’s strong trust. Bessent also prevailed in a power struggle with Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla, who was once considered Trump’s "first buddy." When the two clashed over the acting commissioner appointment for the IRS, Trump ultimately sided with Bessent.

Kevin Hassett, Chair of the White House National Economic Council (NEC), is also being considered. Hassett, like Trump, holds a critical view of the Fed’s current monetary policy. In an interview with Fox News last month, he said, "We respect the Fed’s independence, but we don’t always agree with Chair Jerome Powell or their policies." He added, "We’re disappointed by their flawed economic modeling on tariffs," delivering a strong rebuke.

Other names mentioned as possible successors include Fed Governor Christopher Waller, former World Bank President David Malpass, former U.S. representative to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development Judy Shelton, and, again, David Malpass, emphasizing his presence on the list.

The Largest Deal Since ExxonMobil’s Merger in 1998
BP Struggles in the Aftermath of the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill
BP’s Push for Renewable Energy Development Also Becomes a Burden

The UK-based global energy company Shell is reportedly engaged in preliminary negotiations to acquire its rival, BP (British Petroleum). BP, which has been grappling with a series of incidents and declining performance, now faces a formal takeover proposal from a competitor. The market views this potential deal as one that would mark the largest energy sector merger since the 1998 merger of Exxon and Mobil in the United States.

A Shell–BP Merger Would Secure a Strong Position to Rival ExxonMobil

On the 25th (local time), The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that Shell is in early-stage negotiations to acquire BP. Citing sources familiar with the matter, the WSJ noted that while talks are actively underway, the deal’s terms have not yet been disclosed, and the outcome remains uncertain. Responding to the report, a Shell spokesperson said, “We remain focused on performance, discipline, and simplification, intending to maximize value for Shell.” BP has yet to issue an official statement.

If the deal goes through, it would become one of the largest mergers in European history. Shell currently has a market capitalization of USD 208 billion, ranking third among private energy companies globally, excluding state-owned firms. BP’s market cap stands at USD 84 billion.

The merger would create Europe’s first ‘supermajor’ oil company capable of competing directly with U.S. giants like ExxonMobil and Chevron. The combined upstream (exploration and production) output is expected to reach 5 million barrels of oil equivalent (boe) per day. The company would also gain a dominant position in the global liquefied natural gas (LNG) market.

However, the deal is expected to come with a hefty price tag. Some analysts believe that Shell would need to offer a premium of approximately 20% over BP’s current market value for the acquisition to succeed. BP’s substantial debt is also seen as a major hurdle. While BP officially reports net debt of USD 27 billion, some estimates suggest its total liabilities may reach as high as USD 38 billion.

In a note, global investment bank RBC commented, “BP’s debt load is a poison pill for any acquirer.” It argued that BP’s debt is excessively high relative to its enterprise value of USD 80 billion. Notably, Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) also considered acquiring BP last year but ultimately walked away, citing concerns over BP’s debt burden.

Green Push Backfires as BP Stumbles

BP and Shell were once considered equals in terms of scale, business scope, and global influence. However, in recent years, BP has fallen behind. A major turning point was the 2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, which caused a massive oil spill. The disaster severely damaged BP’s corporate image and financial performance.

Subsequent failures, including the collapse of BP’s attempt to acquire Russian oil giant Rosneft due to geopolitical tensions, further exacerbated the company’s decline. While Shell focused on improving profitability by doubling down on its fossil fuel operations—oil and gas —BP shifted aggressively toward renewable energy, losing competitiveness in the process. Former CEO Bernard Looney’s decision to accelerate BP’s low-carbon energy transition strategy was a key factor in weakening the company’s profitability.

In 2020, as the pandemic struck, Looney declared that the “oil era was coming to an end” and rolled out an ambitious roadmap to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. His plan included cutting oil and gas production by 40% from 2010 levels by 2030. This strategy widened the market cap gap between BP and Shell to more than double. Paul Sankey, lead analyst at Sankey Research, remarked, “BP’s attempt to turn an oil company into a renewable energy firm was a major mistake. The capital costs between the two industries are too different; BP should never have gone down that path.”

In the end, Looney resigned in September 2023, and his successor, Murray Auchincloss, has since attempted to reverse course by renegotiating Iraq’s fossil fuel projects, selling off renewable assets, and reducing the workforce by 5%. However, most investors and analysts believe these efforts are too little, too late.

BP on the Brink: U.K. Blue Hydrogen Exit Looms

Adding to BP’s troubles, there is now a high likelihood that it will cancel its £1.2 billion (about $1.5 billion) blue hydrogen project announced in 2021. The project, H2Teesside, was a flagship blue hydrogen initiative aimed at producing hydrogen from natural gas through carbon capture and storage (CCS). It was expected to supply over 10% of the U.K. government’s 2030 hydrogen production target.

The immediate cause of the crisis is the potential withdrawal of Saudi Aramco’s petrochemical subsidiary, SABIC, which was supposed to be a key offtaker of the hydrogen. SABIC is now considering halting or closing its hydrogen-consuming plant upgrade, which would collapse the project’s stable demand base and severely undermine BP’s investment case.

BP is now reportedly requesting subsidies from the U.K. government not only for hydrogen production but also for securing demand. This marks the second major hydrogen project BP has scaled back, following the cancellation of its green hydrogen project, HyGreen Teesside. As a result, BP’s broader USD 2.6 billion regional hydrogen investment plan, announced in 2021 by then-CEO Looney, is now under full review.

“Tariff Policy’s Impact on Inflation Must Be Closely Examined”
“Still Too Early to Specify Timing for Rate Cuts”
Diverging Opinions Within the Fed Over a Possible July Rate Cut

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell expressed that there is no need to rush into a rate cut when asked about the possibility of a cut in July. He emphasized that it is still too early to make such a move, as the impact of the Trump administration’s tariff policies on inflation remains uncertain. Powell indicated that the Fed should monitor the situation for now. However, some Fed officials appointed by President Trump are advocating for an early rate cut, leading to growing divisions within the Fed over the direction of monetary policy.

Powell Asserts that Tariff Impact Will Become Clear After Summer

On the 24th (local time), Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell appeared before the U.S. House Financial Services Committee for the Semiannual Monetary Policy Report hearing. When asked about the possibility of a rate cut in July, Powell responded, “If inflationary pressures continue to ease, we could reach a point where an early rate cut is appropriate. However, with the economy still strong, I don’t want to single out a particular meeting. I believe there’s no need to rush.” Powell further explained, “The impact of tariffs on consumer prices will gradually become apparent through the June and July data,” signaling that the Fed intends to wait and assess the situation after the summer.

As for why the Fed is not following the lead of other major central banks, like the European Central Bank (ECB), which is moving quickly to cut rates, Powell said, “Most experts and the Fed expect inflation to rise back to a meaningful level this year.” His comments suggest that the Fed is reluctant to move toward rate cuts prematurely, given the potential for renewed inflationary pressures.

The ECB, in contrast, has lowered interest rates eight times between June of last year and this June, cutting a total of 2 percentage points in response to slowing economic growth and downward pressure on inflation in the Eurozone. Earlier, on the 18th, the Fed concluded its two-day Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting by keeping the federal funds rate unchanged at 4.25%–4.50%. This marked the fourth consecutive rate freeze since the start of Trump’s second term, as the Fed maintained its stance despite the President’s demands for rate cuts.

At the time, Powell explained that the Fed’s wait-and-see approach was due to “a still-solid economy and robust labor market.” However, he added, “If the labor market deteriorates to a concerning level, that would influence our decision on a potential rate cut.”

Regional Fed Presidents Back Powell’s Cautious Approach

During the hearing, several officials expressed support for Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s cautious stance. Neel Kashkari, President of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve, stated, “Recent inflation data is encouraging, but we need clearer insight into how tariffs will affect prices.” John Williams, President of the New York Fed, added, “It is appropriate to maintain current interest rates to analyze the impact of recent policy changes.”

Beth Hammack, President of the Cleveland Fed, noted that “the current rate level is likely to be maintained for some time.” At the same time, Susan Collins, President of the Boston Fed, emphasized that “a somewhat restrictive policy stance remains necessary.”

Fed Governor Michael Barr also signaled caution regarding rate cuts. Speaking at an event hosted by the Kansas City Fed in Omaha, Nebraska, Barr warned that tariffs could lead to a resurgence in inflation. He noted, “The U.S. economy is currently on solid footing,” pointing to low unemployment and easing inflation approaching the Fed’s 2% target. However, he also warned, “Short-term inflation expectations, supply chain adjustments, and secondary ripple effects could cause inflationary pressures to become entrenched.”

Barr further pointed out the risks associated with the Trump administration’s tariff policy. He cautioned, “Excessive tariff barriers could slow economic growth and drive up unemployment. These impacts may not be temporary, and there is considerable uncertainty regarding their policy effects.” He stressed, “In this environment, it’s crucial to avoid prematurely shifting policy toward rate cuts. The Fed is currently well-positioned to observe how the situation unfolds.”

Trump-Appointed Fed Officials Push for Early Rate Cuts

In contrast, officials appointed by President Trump are pushing back against Powell’s caution, calling for an early rate cut. Fed Vice Chair Michelle Bowman, speaking at a conference hosted by the Czech National Bank on the 23rd, argued, “If inflation pressures continue to ease, we should lower interest rates as early as the July policy meeting. This would align rates with a neutral stance and help maintain a healthy labor market.”

Notably, Bowman, who previously voted against a **0.5 percentage point “big cut” at the September FOMC meeting last year, favoring only a modest reduction, is now seen as making a sharp shift from a hawkish (tightening) to a dovish (easing) stance.

Christopher Waller, a Fed Governor previously considered a moderate hawk, also called for rate cuts in a CNBC interview on the 20th. He said, “We should start considering a rate cut at the next FOMC meeting. I don’t want to wait until the labor market collapses before acting.” Waller pointed to recent data showing inflation gradually slowing, adding, “With inflation moving closer to the Fed’s 2% target, it’s time to begin discussing rate cuts.”

Both Bowman and Waller premised their arguments on the belief that Trump’s tariff policy will not cause significant inflation. Bowman specifically cited the Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) price index, noting that it is nearing the Fed’s target. The PCE inflation rate slowed from 2.5% earlier this year to 2.1% in April, and Wall Street expects the May PCE figure, to be released on the 27th, to show a 2.3% year-over-year increase. Waller further argued, “So far, economic indicators have been strong. Even if tariffs have some impact, it will be temporary and won’t lead to persistent inflation.”