Workforce Inefficiencies Reduced After AI Adoption
Wave of Layoffs Accelerates Across U.S. Industries
Companies Restructure Hiring Strategies Around AI Priorities

Major corporations across the United States are initiating workforce reductions. This trend appears to stem from two key factors: the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI), which is increasingly capable of replacing human roles, and a growing perception that large organizational structures are becoming obstacles to corporate growth.

Layoffs Persist Despite Soaring Profits: AI-Driven Downsizing Accelerates Across U.S. Corporations

Across the United States, major corporations are initiating widespread layoffs. This trend is largely being driven by the growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in replacing human labor and a rising belief that large organizational structures are becoming barriers to long-term growth.

According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) on the 18th (local time), Procter & Gamble (P&G), a global consumer goods giant, recently announced plans to lay off 7,000 employees, accounting for about 15% of its non-manufacturing workforce. P&G described the move as “an effort to build broader roles and smaller teams.”

Other companies are following suit. Estée Lauder, one of the world’s largest cosmetics companies, and Match Group, which operates several dating apps, have each recently cut 20% of their managerial staff. IT company Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE), which announced 3,000 layoffs in March, now reports a total workforce of 59,000—the smallest in a decade.

While layoffs during economic downturns are not uncommon, the WSJ emphasized that the current wave is different. “In typical cycles, companies downsize during recessions and hire again during recovery,” the paper explained. “But this time, the cuts are happening despite a surge in both sales and profits.”

Indeed, U.S. corporations posted record profits last year. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, operating profits at American firms reached USD 4 trillion by the end of 2023—more than double the level in 2010. Corporate earnings accounted for 16.2% of the nation’s total income, around 3 percentage points higher than the 2010–2019 average of 13.9%.

Amazon CEO Acknowledges First Major AI-Driven Layoffs in Big Tech

The advancement of AI is increasingly cited as a key driver of job cuts. According to the WSJ, AI technology has progressed to the point where it can now replace complex decision-making tasks traditionally performed by humans. For example, in logistics, AI can handle payment processing or inventory rerouting when supply chains are disrupted by natural disasters. Walmart has deployed AI agents that reduced the apparel production cycle by up to 18 weeks.

In a notable statement, Amazon CEO Andy Jassy became the first Big Tech leader to explicitly link job reductions to AI. In a company-wide memo on April 17, Jassy warned employees that AI will soon reduce the need for certain roles while creating demand for new ones.

“Some of the work people do today will require fewer human resources because of AI,” he wrote, “but we will also need more people for new types of roles.” He added, “In the coming years, increased efficiency through AI could lead to a reduction in total white-collar headcount.”

Jassy called generative AI a “once-in-a-lifetime technological shift,” noting that it is already transforming the way Amazon interacts with customers and operates internally. “With AI agents,” he said, “we can begin almost everything from a more advanced starting point. While some existing roles will disappear, others will emerge.”

Since 2022, Amazon has undergone multiple rounds of layoffs. More than 27,000 employees were let go in the first wave alone, and several divisions were shut down. Citing sources, the WSJ reported that while another round of mass layoffs like those in 2022 or 2023 is unlikely, the company will likely experience gradual workforce reductions over time through attrition.

"Large Scale Seen as Obstacle to Growth": AI Spurs Shift Toward Leaner Teams

In addition to automation, the advancement of AI is pushing companies to cut back on future hiring. For instance, Duolingo, a language learning service provider, recently announced it would gradually phase out contract workers to delegate more tasks to AI systems. Similarly, Shopify, the e-commerce platform, instructed employees to justify new hire requests by explaining why AI cannot perform the job.

A growing number of businesses now believe that smaller organizations are more conducive to growth. According to the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), “There’s a rising belief that having too many employees can slow down a company’s progress,” and “there is also a perception that current employees will work harder if the workforce is leaner.” The report added, “Many U.S. companies now believe that fewer employees can lead to faster growth.”

Even startups are not exempt from this trend. Jolie, a company that sells high-end filtered showerheads, is projected to reach $50 million (approx. 69 billion KRW) in annual revenue this year—with just five employees. CEO Ryan Babenzien remarked, “Hiring isn’t as essential as it used to be. A decade ago, building a $50 million business with fewer than five people would have been nearly impossible, but today it’s becoming increasingly common.”

OpenAI: “Partnership Restructuring Is Inevitable”
Warning Signs of a Trust Breakdown Emerging Across the Board
Microsoft’s Offerings Deemed ‘Below Expectations’

Once celebrated as the crown jewel of strategic alliances in the AI industry, the partnership between OpenAI and Microsoft is now teetering on the edge of collapse. Behind polished public statements and joint product announcements, the relationship has been quietly eroding—undermined by years of structural imbalance, unfulfilled expectations, and diverging visions of the future. What began as a union of capital and innovation has deteriorated into a power struggle defined by mistrust, lopsided returns, and technical grievances.

Now, OpenAI is proposing a dramatic shift in the nature of its partnership with Microsoft—offering a 33% equity stake in its restructured for-profit arm but withholding any claim to future profits. Microsoft, which has invested approximately $13 billion in the AI firm since 2019, sees this as an existential threat to its return on investment. As OpenAI courts new partners and edges away from its Azure dependency, the alliance appears to be unraveling before the industry’s eyes.

A Collision Course: From Investment to Antitrust Threats

The current fallout between OpenAI and Microsoft is not an isolated event but the culmination of an increasingly strained relationship. According to The Wall Street Journal, OpenAI has hit a wall in its attempt to gain Microsoft’s consent for a corporate restructuring plan that would transition its governance and financial model. In response to Microsoft’s resistance, OpenAI is reportedly preparing to approach U.S. regulatory authorities—specifically the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—to determine whether the partnership’s exclusive provisions violate antitrust laws. If necessary, OpenAI has signaled its readiness to wage a public opinion battle that could tarnish Microsoft’s corporate image.

At the heart of the discord lies OpenAI’s controversial proposal: transfer a 33% stake in its newly formed for-profit unit to Microsoft, but deny the tech giant access to any future revenue. Under previous agreements, Microsoft had secured lucrative rights, including a 20% cut of potential profits estimated to reach $120 billion and exclusive access to AI model licenses through 2030. The new deal would require Microsoft to relinquish these hard-earned claims.

Unsurprisingly, Microsoft balked. Company officials viewed the proposal not as a negotiation but as an ultimatum—one that undermines the financial viability of Microsoft’s own AI-powered products, many of which are deeply intertwined with OpenAI’s models. Since its initial $1 billion investment in 2019, which secured exclusive rights to GPT-3, Microsoft steadily increased its stake, ultimately reaching a cumulative total of $13 billion. Yet in return, it now faces the prospect of owning non-dividend equity in a firm that is increasingly charting its own path.

From OpenAI’s perspective, the shift is a matter of survival. The nonprofit-parent/for-profit-subsidiary model was never designed to support perpetual revenue sharing. If OpenAI were to split profits with Microsoft, it argues, it would be left with insufficient funds to support its own operational growth. Complicating matters further is a looming December deadline: failure to complete its restructuring in time would cost OpenAI a promised $20 billion tranche of a $40 billion investment agreement with SoftBank.

In short, what began as a strategic partnership is devolving into a courtroom drama—one that may have implications far beyond the two companies involved.

Cracks in the Foundation: From Exclusivity to Strategic Drift

The rupture didn’t emerge overnight. Cracks in the OpenAI–Microsoft alliance began to show as early as late 2023, when OpenAI moved to renegotiate the terms of its cloud infrastructure agreement. Microsoft’s exclusive position as OpenAI’s cloud provider was reduced to a "right of first negotiation"—a subtle yet significant downgrade. While the move was publicly framed as a measure to ensure strategic flexibility, many industry insiders interpreted it as a signal that OpenAI was preparing to expand its technological alliances.

That suspicion has since proven correct. OpenAI recently entered into a major partnership with CoreWeave, a fast-growing cloud infrastructure provider known for its high-performance data centers powered by NVIDIA AI chips. This collaboration marks a decisive shift away from Microsoft's Azure ecosystem and serves as a clear indicator that OpenAI is pursuing a diversified cloud strategy to support the training of its next-generation models.

Microsoft, in response, has been aggressively reshaping its AI roadmap. It is accelerating development of its in-house open-source AI model, Phi-3, while expanding internal research teams and making high-profile hires. The aim is to reduce dependency on OpenAI, rebuild competitive cloud capabilities, and regain strategic leverage. The tech giant is pivoting from partnership to autonomy—adopting a more self-reliant model in anticipation of a decoupled future.

Despite public appearances of continued cooperation, the two firms are now pursuing parallel paths. OpenAI is seeking technological influence through internal innovation and diversified alliances. Microsoft is shifting its focus toward monetization and independence. Once the AI industry’s most potent partnership, theirs is now a fractured alliance held together by little more than legacy contracts and institutional momentum. Even if formal ties remain, the mutual trust and integration that once defined the relationship are unlikely to return.

Discontent from Within: Doubts, Imbalances, and Diverging Expectations

While external observers focus on profit-sharing disputes and governance models, the seeds of discord were planted much earlier—within OpenAI itself. For years, engineers and executives expressed dissatisfaction with Microsoft’s offerings, particularly Azure’s GPU clusters. The platform’s high latency, limited flexibility, and constrained autonomy were persistent pain points. It became commonplace within OpenAI to hear criticism that Microsoft’s technology packages "fell short of expectations." These frustrations ultimately pushed OpenAI to seek alternatives.

But technology was only one dimension of the discontent. The deeper problem lay in the structural framework of the partnership. OpenAI’s nonprofit-over-profit model was intended to ensure mission alignment and sustainability. However, its collaboration with Microsoft yielded diminishing returns: capital flowed in, but operational freedom was limited, and revenue remained negligible. Internally, the question gained urgency—why sustain a partnership that offered so little in financial or strategic benefit?

From Microsoft’s vantage point, the imbalance was just as stark—but in reverse. Despite pouring billions into OpenAI, it wielded little influence over the company’s strategic decisions. OpenAI’s board remains nonprofit in character, and key choices—such as model development and partner selection—have been made independently. Microsoft, in effect, was reduced to a technical vendor: a financier and cloud provider with no seat at the decision-making table.

The resulting conflict is not a case of sudden fallout but of long-term structural misalignment. OpenAI, though publicly portraying Microsoft as a strategic partner, increasingly designed its roadmap without MS input. Microsoft, in turn, found itself holding equity in a company that had no intention of sharing its future gains. With OpenAI now forging new alliances and Microsoft doubling down on internal AI infrastructure, the rupture looks irreversible.

Fed Maintains Stance of Holding Rates Four Times a Year
Powell: “Decisions must consider variables like inflation”
Trump: “There are stupid people at the Fed,” intensifies criticism

In the face of mounting political pressure and an increasingly uncertain economic landscape, the U.S. Federal Reserve has chosen caution over capitulation. On June 18, the Fed announced its decision to leave the federal funds rate unchanged for the fourth consecutive time—extending its position first taken in January, then reaffirmed in March and May. This steady hand, held firmly by Fed Chair Jerome Powell, sends a clear message: despite President Donald Trump’s vocal demands for deep interest rate cuts, the central bank remains committed to data-driven decision-making and monetary independence.

The decision arrives at a tense moment. Trump’s aggressive use of tariffs, especially the reciprocal levies imposed since early April, has added turbulence to an already fragile global economy. While the White House continues to dismiss inflation concerns, insisting tariffs will not drive up prices, the Fed sees the risks differently. With inflationary pressures looming and growth slowing, Powell and his team are in no rush to stimulate the economy further—particularly when the effects of trade policy are still unfolding.

A Deliberate Pause in an Uncertain Climate

The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) unanimously agreed to maintain the benchmark interest rate at 4.25% to 4.50%. This marks the fourth straight pause following a series of three rate cuts totaling one percentage point in late 2024. But 2025 has ushered in new complexities. Escalating global trade tensions—particularly the Trump administration’s imposition of reciprocal tariffs on major trading partners—along with the ripple effects of Middle Eastern conflicts, have clouded the economic horizon.

Powell made clear that the Fed is holding off on any abrupt shifts in policy until it better understands the evolving conditions. The Fed, he emphasized, is well-positioned to wait and observe rather than react prematurely. According to the Summary of Economic Projections (SEP), officials continue to anticipate two quarter-point cuts before the end of the year, potentially bringing the rate to 3.9%. But not everyone agrees: the Fed’s “dot plot” reveals that seven committee members expect the rate to remain unchanged through December, underscoring the internal divisions and the broader atmosphere of uncertainty.

Longer-term expectations have also been trimmed. For 2026 and 2027, the Fed now projects just one 0.25 percentage point cut per year, down from the two cuts per year previously forecasted. Powell acknowledged the lack of clarity in the current outlook, stating that no one at the Fed feels entirely confident about the path forward. Still, he expressed cautious optimism that some resolution may soon be in sight. He noted that the summer months could offer clearer insight into the trajectory of tariffs and their economic impact. Indeed, Powell said the Fed “will learn a lot over the summer,” conveying hope that the cloud of trade-related uncertainty might lift—potentially opening the door to monetary easing as early as September. Investors have taken note: the CME FedWatch tool showed a 68.4% probability of a rate cut in September, up from 63.2% the day prior.

Economic Forecasts Weaken as Tariff Effects Deepen

While the Fed’s policy stance remains steady, its outlook on the U.S. economy has notably darkened. In its latest economic projections, the Fed downgraded the country’s GDP growth forecast for the year from 1.7% to 1.4%—a second consecutive downward revision following a 2.1% estimate last December. This revised figure now matches the World Bank’s June 10 outlook, which also cited the Trump administration’s tariff war as a major factor in curbing global economic momentum.

Other indicators tell a similar story. The Fed raised its forecast for year-end personal consumption expenditures (PCE) inflation from 2.7% to 3.0%, and for core PCE inflation—which excludes food and energy—from 2.8% to 3.1%. These revised projections suggest that price pressures, long dismissed by the Trump administration, are beginning to materialize. The year-end unemployment rate was also nudged upward, from 4.4% to 4.5%, suggesting potential weakening in the labor market as businesses face higher input costs and greater operational uncertainty.

Powell underscored the tangible consequences of the administration’s trade policy, warning that this year’s tariff hikes are already pushing prices higher and placing additional strain on economic activity. He pointed specifically to sectors such as personal computing and audiovisual electronics, where tariffs are already translating into noticeable price increases. The Fed, he said, has begun to detect early effects of the tariffs and anticipates that their impact will grow more pronounced in the months ahead. Still, Powell maintained that the Fed would not act impulsively. It will wait for more definitive data before adjusting policy, particularly as inflation data is expected to be volatile through the summer.

Trump’s Fury Boils Over as He Targets Powell and the Fed

The Fed’s resistance to political pressure has done little to calm the mood in the White House. President Trump, long frustrated by Powell’s refusal to cut interest rates aggressively, launched his most personal attack to date following the June 18 announcement. In the days leading up to the decision, Trump renewed his call for a drastic two-percentage-point reduction in rates, arguing that the U.S. was lagging behind global counterparts. “Europe has cut them ten times—we haven’t done it once,” he said, painting the Fed as complacent and out of touch.

When the Fed held its ground, Trump escalated his rhetoric. He denounced Powell as “stupid” and “a political person, not a smart one,” accusing him of inflicting massive financial harm on the country by failing to lower rates. In an extraordinary turn, Trump suggested that he should replace Powell himself, quipping, “I might as well be the Fed Chair. Can I appoint myself? I’d do a much better job.” Though likely said in jest, the statement underscored the president’s deep frustration with the institution’s independence and Powell’s leadership.

Despite his harsh words, Trump clarified that he does not intend to dismiss Powell before his term ends in May of next year. “He’ll be gone in nine months,” the president remarked, effectively ruling out a premature ouster and likely attempting to avoid further rattling financial markets. Earlier in the year, speculation had swirled when Trump openly floated the idea of firing Powell—a threat that raised serious concerns about the politicization of the Federal Reserve.

Yet even as he pulled back on that threat, the damage to the relationship between the executive branch and the central bank was evident. Trump’s outbursts reflect not only political impatience but also a widening rift between economic strategy and monetary stewardship. At a time when inflation is accelerating, growth is slowing, and trade tensions remain unresolved, the Fed is steering through one of its most politically charged climates in decades. Powell may still have nine months left in his term, but the pressure isn’t letting up—and neither is the Fed’s resolve.

Trump Begins Nuclear Talks Early in His Second Term
Hardline Shift Following Israeli Strikes
U.S. Military Involvement Pressures Iran to Accept Demands

As tensions in the Middle East edge dangerously toward open conflict, President Donald Trump finds himself at the heart of a high-stakes geopolitical chess match. The White House has reportedly approved detailed military plans targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, yet the final order remains conspicuously unsigned. Behind this hesitation lies a finely calibrated calculation: how to neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat without plunging the region—and possibly the world—into uncontrollable chaos.

This posture, described by insiders as Trump’s “cautious mode,” reflects not indecision but a deliberate attempt to avoid repeating the devastating aftermath of past U.S. interventions in the region. Rather than seeking regime change at any cost, Washington appears to be maneuvering Iran toward a strategic retreat—possibly through Israel's actions—without stepping into the fire itself. In military strategy, this is reminiscent of the ancient Chinese tactic of “killing with a borrowed knife,” letting another party do the bleeding.

Strategic Ambiguity and the Shadow of War

On June 18, as the world speculated on a widening conflict, President Trump held court in the White House Oval Office with players from Juventus, Italy’s storied football club. But questions from reporters quickly shifted the mood. Would the U.S. join Israel in striking Iran? Trump offered only ambiguity. “I have thoughts about what I would do,” he said cryptically. “I’d like to make my final decision one second before the deadline, because things change. Especially in war, things change even more.”

Earlier that day, he had already floated the possibility that the U.S. “might or might not” act against Iran—a statement that appeared carefully crafted to maintain strategic flexibility. While emphasizing that he does not actively seek war, Trump made one thing clear: “If it’s a choice between conflict and Iran possessing nuclear weapons, then we have to do what must be done.”

Reporters pressed him on whether the regime of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could fall under the pressure. Trump’s reply—“Of course. Anything can happen.”—betrayed both confidence and volatility. He reiterated his stance that Iran must never become a nuclear power and declared that Tehran was now only “weeks away” from achieving that capability. The clock, it seems, is ticking.

From Talks to Tactics: A Shift Toward Military Calculations

Trump’s first term saw the unraveling of the Obama-era nuclear deal with Iran, and since returning to office, he has worked to revive negotiations—believing a new agreement could serve as both a legacy-defining win and a means of restoring regional stability. But despite intensive diplomacy, talks stalled amid unyielding disagreements. That impasse took a violent turn on June 13 when Israel executed a sweeping and coordinated strike against dozens of Iranian nuclear and military facilities.

The Israeli escalation upended Washington’s diplomatic momentum. On June 16, Trump left the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Canada, in haste—an unambiguous signal that U.S. foreign policy was pivoting. For many observers, it marked a turning point: diplomacy with Iran may have reached its expiration date.

Reports from The New York Times and other major outlets confirmed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been lobbying Trump behind the scenes for months. Netanyahu’s message was urgent: a full-scale military strike must precede Iran’s acquisition of rapid nuclear weapons capability. Diplomacy, he argued, would only work if backed by overwhelming force.

Initially, Trump resisted. Just weeks prior, he reportedly opposed Netanyahu’s proposal to target Ayatollah Khamenei directly—warning that assassinating the spiritual leader could spiral into regional war. But by June 8, his tone had shifted. When CIA Director John Ratcliffe briefed Trump on a likely Israeli operation, the president did not push back. His prior restraint had weakened.

Instead of joining Israel’s campaign outright, Trump chose a calibrated middle ground: offer minimal U.S. support, stand back publicly, and let the military consequences play out. Five days after the briefing, Israel struck Iran hard, eliminating key military commanders including Hossein Salami, chief of the elite Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Faced with this dramatic escalation, Trump saw what many in his camp now call a “golden opportunity.” The stalled nuclear talks could be forced back into motion—this time under the shadow of firepower. Trump’s administration quickly revived its “maximum pressure” doctrine, seeking to compel Iranian concessions without destabilizing the entire region.

Iranian Regime Teeters as Israeli Pressure Mounts

Trump’s ideal scenario is clear: force Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, but avoid toppling the regime outright. A collapsed Iran could create a regional vacuum akin to the one left by Saddam Hussein’s fall in Iraq—one of the costliest U.S. miscalculations in modern history. The lesson was brutal and lasting: removing a regime without a post-war plan invites chaos, extremism, and long-term strategic loss.

Thus, Washington appears to be designing conditions that allow Iran to concede without losing face. But Israel’s actions may be pushing events too far, too fast.

Since June 14, Israel has expanded its offensive beyond military sites to energy infrastructure—gas fields, refineries, and industrial depots. The psychological toll inside Iran has been staggering. According to The Telegraph, Tehran has descended into disarray: mysterious sewer line explosions sent waste gushing into streets, drones triggered explosions in city traffic, and highways became clogged with vehicles as residents fled. The capital was in panic, and the imagery—streets flooded with sewage, cars ablaze—underscored the operation’s effectiveness and brutality.

Supreme Leader Khamenei reportedly fled to a secure underground bunker northeast of Tehran shortly after the strikes began. His disappearance, as citizens reeled from the violence, fueled speculation that the regime was crumbling. Foreign media outlets now widely agree: the Islamic Republic is facing its most serious crisis since the 1979 revolution.

Even Iran’s rhetoric is shifting. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi suggested that if Israel ceased its attacks, Iran would halt retaliation. Analysts interpret this as a rare sign of desperation. At the same time, Iran’s key proxies—Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen—appear destabilized and ineffective, their networks fractured.

Domestically, dissent continues to rise. Ongoing protests against the mandatory hijab law have grown into broader gender and generational uprisings. The state is losing its grip not just geopolitically, but from within. The cracks are widening.

Trump, it seems, is watching all this unfold without directly firing a shot. Whether this strategy will lead to a renewed agreement or uncontrollable collapse remains uncertain. But by outsourcing the military offensive to Israel and exerting pressure at arm’s length, Trump has pushed Iran into a corner—perhaps fatally.

As the world waits for his final decision, the president remains deliberately ambiguous. A strike could still come. Or not. In Trump’s own words, “I’d like to make my final decision one second before the deadline.”

Until that moment arrives, Iran, Israel, and the rest of the world will be holding their breath.

“LGD sheds LCD in China” / “LGD exits LCD in China”
 “Goes all-in on high-end OLED in Korea”
 “Goal: strengthen profitable next-gen products”

After enduring three consecutive years of losses, LG Display is taking a bold yet calculated step forward—embarking on approximately USD 910 million investment in next-generation OLED infrastructure. This move, driven by a renewed sense of financial stability and strategic urgency, signals the company’s intent to reclaim its footing in the fiercely competitive global display market. With pressure mounting from Chinese rivals and technological leadership shifting across the sector, LG Display is leaning into its strengths: premium OLED innovation and a leaner, more disciplined growth model.

The decision also reflects a broader trend of re-shoring high-tech manufacturing capabilities, as LG reinvests capital previously deployed in overseas ventures back into domestic production. The timing is telling—coming just after the company swung back into the black with two consecutive profitable quarters, including a USD 24 million operating profit in Q1 2025. This renewed financial breathing room is being channeled into futureproofing OLED competitiveness while keeping financial risk under tight control.

OLED Investment Anchored in Stability and Strategy

At the center of this initiative is LG Display’s decision, announced during a June 17 board meeting, to invest USD 917 million through June 30, 2027, into next-generation OLED technologies. The funds will be concentrated at the company’s Paju plant, one of its key domestic production hubs. This investment is not aimed at expanding production scale but rather enhancing the quality and efficiency of existing OLED lines. Specifically, it focuses on improving panel resolution and reducing power consumption—key demands in both consumer electronics and automotive applications.

An LG Display spokesperson characterized the decision as a forward-looking strategy to strengthen the company’s differentiated technological competitiveness and secure leadership in the global display market. “We plan to focus on building infrastructure for panels and modules equipped with premium next-generation OLED technologies,” they stated, underscoring that this project is a core part of the company’s mid-to-long-term capital expenditure (CAPEX) strategy. LG also reaffirmed its commitment to financial health, emphasizing that the investment will proceed alongside ongoing efforts to streamline debt and improve its capital structure.

Symbolically, this is also a “reshoring” milestone. LG Display is channeling funds from the sale of its Guangzhou LCD production line—previously a major offshore asset—back into Korean soil. This reversal of capital flow marks a pivotal shift in the company’s global footprint. Years earlier, LG Display had been forced to invest in its Paju facility due to delays in regulatory approval from the Chinese government for its 8th-generation LCD plant. But when Guangzhou began mass production of 8th-gen LCDs in 2014, it resulted in duplicate investments. The new investment represents a cleaner, more consolidated focus on domestic capacity and innovation.

This pivot comes as the OLED market continues to outpace its LCD predecessor. Between 2022 and 2024, LG Display weathered multitrillion-won losses as it moved to restructure its business around OLED. That gamble is beginning to pay off. According to market intelligence firm Omdia, the global LCD market—valued at USD 78.9 billion in 2024—is expected to grow at a modest annual rate of 1% through 2028. In contrast, the OLED market, worth USD 53.3 billion in 2024, is projected to grow at 5% annually and reach USD 68.6 billion by 2028.

Cautious Stance on 8th-Generation OLED Expansion

Despite being the world’s first company to mass-produce OLED TV panels in 2013, LG Display’s grip on the large-panel OLED market has loosened. The OLED TV market failed to meet early expectations, and leadership shifted toward small- and mid-sized OLED displays—a segment now dominated by Samsung Display. Fueled by booming smartphone demand, Samsung invested USD 3 billion in 8.6-generation OLED lines in 2023. That same year, BOE, a rising Chinese powerhouse, invested a staggering USD 8 billion to build its own 8.6-generation OLED production line.

Rather than compete head-on in infrastructure scale, LG Display has focused on reshaping its business structure. From 2020 to 2023, the company grew OLED’s share of total revenue from 32% to 55%, and plans are underway to expand OLED applications across smartphones, IT devices, TVs, and even vehicles. These diversified OLED strategies are central to LG’s roadmap for full-year profitability after three straight years of red ink.

Yet notably absent from the company’s current roadmap is any direct move into 8th-generation OLED production. LG Display has made clear that this round of investment will not fund new 8th-gen manufacturing lines. Instead, it aims to enhance the productivity and performance of its current OLED infrastructure. The decision reflects a highly strategic calculus: in a year focused on securing profitability, the company is not prepared to risk significant capital without guaranteed clients in hand.

The company reinforced this stance during a January earnings call, firmly denying any plans to invest in 8th-generation OLED lines. In contrast, Samsung and BOE are racing to operationalize their 8.6-generation facilities by as early as 2026. LG’s deliberate pacing highlights a philosophical and financial divergence from its more aggressive competitors.

Financial Pressure and Market Uncertainty Shape Investment Outlook

While LG Display’s return to profitability is encouraging, the company remains heavily leveraged, carrying a debt load of USD 17.5 billion and a debt-to-equity ratio of over 308%. In Q1 alone, it paid USD 148 million in interest. These figures cast a long shadow over any consideration of large-scale expansion. Given the aggressive spending by rivals on new 8.6-gen OLED infrastructure, LG Display must weigh its financial constraints carefully.

Adding to the caution is the lukewarm demand for OLED in IT applications. While OLED panels are increasingly favored in premium devices like gaming laptops and high-end tablets, overall market penetration remains modest: 1.2% for monitors, 4.6% for laptops, and 6.6% for tablets as of 2024.

Apple’s OLED iPad Pro—launched with high expectations—fell short, selling only around 6.5 million units instead of the forecasted 10 million. This shortfall had direct repercussions for LG Display, which had built a dedicated OLED production line for iPad panels. When demand faltered, so too did panel orders. According to DSCC, OLED panel shipments for the iPad Pro reached only 5.7 million units, significantly below projections.

In response, LG Display has pivoted to using the same production line for both iPhone and iPad OLED panels. An analyst from the securities sector noted, “If performance had even been average, LG Display might have accelerated its entry into 8th-generation IT OLED. But the results were underwhelming, and with Apple possibly delaying the OLED MacBook Air launch to 2029, there’s no need to rush.”

This prudent, phased approach is now LG Display’s blueprint: focus on securing profitability in small- and mid-sized OLED markets, continue improving operational efficiency, and only consider new investments once financial and market conditions allow. With this balanced mix of ambition and restraint, LG Display is positioning itself not for immediate dominance, but for sustainable leadership in a rapidly evolving global display industry.

U.S. Fails to Defend Corn Prices
Drop in Chinese Demand Threatens Global Supply Structure
Geopolitical Tensions Add to Market Uncertainty

U.S. corn prices have dropped to their lowest level in six months. Since the start of the year, China has completely halted its imports, fracturing the long-standing structure of U.S. grain exports and putting the profitability of Midwest farmers in jeopardy. Adding to the strain are geopolitical tensions and climate-related uncertainties, which are further amplifying price volatility in the global grain market.

Farmers’ Income Hit as Prices Collapse

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on June 17 (local time), U.S. corn exports from September 2024 to early this month totaled 51.54 million tons, an increase of about 27% year-on-year. South Korea’s imports surged to 4.47 million tons—2.5 times higher than last year. European and African imports also jumped to 3.28 million and 1.59 million tons, respectively, from just a few hundred thousand tons the previous year.

However, China—formerly one of the top four importers of U.S. grain—has virtually stopped buying during this period. The shift stems from escalating U.S.-China trade tensions. During his presidential campaign, Donald Trump pledged to impose a 60% tariff on all Chinese imports. After taking office, he raised tariffs on Chinese goods by up to 145% by April. In retaliation, China imposed additional tariffs of up to 15% on U.S. soybeans, corn, and poultry.

Despite the two countries agreeing last month to a 90-day tariff suspension during high-level talks, China has yet to resume imports of U.S. grain. With the largest buyer absent, corn futures on the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT) briefly fell to USD 4.20 per bushel on June 10—the lowest in half a year.

China’s strategic reduction in grain purchases is seen as more than a short-term retaliatory measure—it’s reshaping the global grain import structure. China is diversifying its import sources to include Brazil and Russia while also increasing domestic self-sufficiency. If this trend continues, long-term demand for U.S. grain is likely to decline. Given the country’s high export dependency, price volatility will likely intensify.

Midwest farmers—the backbone of U.S. grain production—are already feeling the pressure. The region, traditionally a conservative stronghold and a key political base for President Trump, is expected to suffer income losses due to falling corn prices. This economic strain could shake his political support in the area, according to U.S. political analysts.

Oversupply and Fewer Buyers Increase Stockpile Pressure

The fallout from China’s halt on U.S. grain imports extends beyond the U.S. With the primary buyer out, global supply chains are being flooded with excess inventory, and grain prices are swinging wildly. Major crops like soybeans and wheat are also affected—especially those with high trading volumes and short distribution cycles, which show more dramatic price swings.

There are growing calls for countries like South Korea to diversify suppliers and explore alternative commodities. The Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency (KOTRA) noted, “As shipping routes from the U.S. to China decrease, overall freight availability for agricultural products to East Asia will shrink, making it harder for Korea to secure space to import U.S. soybeans.” KOTRA emphasized the need to “closely monitor global production and supply trends given Korea’s heavy reliance on U.S. agricultural imports.”

Last year, the U.S. ranked third among Korea’s corn suppliers, providing 2.5 million tons—22% of total imports. For soybeans, the U.S. exported 580,000 tons to Korea, accounting for half the total. According to Korea’s 2022 food supply data, the country’s soybean self-sufficiency rate was just 7.7%, meaning it relies heavily on imports. As a result, both exporters and importers face urgent pressure to adjust their short-term strategies.

Related Industries Struggle to Shield Prices

Beyond China’s disappearing demand, instability in the grain market is also driven by geopolitical risks. The prolonged war in Ukraine has disrupted exports via the Black Sea, while military conflicts in the Middle East and climate-related yield instability in Europe are collectively putting upward pressure on grain prices. Ukraine and Russia are both major global suppliers of wheat and corn, and export restrictions from the war are a critical factor in supply instability.

This price volatility is affecting not just agriculture but the broader industrial ecosystem, including food manufacturing, livestock, and energy sectors. Grains are key inputs in processed foods, animal feed, and bioethanol production. When prices of corn, soybeans, and wheat rise, the cost of meat, beverages, and even energy increases in tandem. This means grain market turbulence directly leads to consumer price instability.

In light of these developments, market participants are placing more value on stable supply than on price itself. Long-term contracts, more substantial intergovernmental strategic reserves, and alternative raw materials are being pursued to mitigate risks. However, in an era of constant climate and geopolitical crises, no single strategy seems sufficient to ensure market stability. In the future, the grain market is expected to respond more sensitively to long-term unpredictability rather than short-term supply shifts.

Trump Issues 'Ultimatum' to Iran
Threatens “Unconditional Surrender,” Hints at Eliminating Khamenei
Considers Striking Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Using U.S. Forces

The Trump administration has signaled that it may consider a future operation to remove Iran’s Supreme Leader, urging Iran to accept “unconditional surrender.” Although President Donald Trump initially appeared to pursue diplomatic solutions such as nuclear negotiations with Iran, following Israel’s airstrikes on Iranian targets, the U.S. has shown a sharp shift toward military involvement. This has led military analysts to speculate that Washington may now be aiming not only to support Israel's offensive against Iran but also to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities and potentially pursue regime change.

Trump Pressures Iran: “Unconditional Surrender”

On June 17 (local time), CNN reported, citing multiple U.S. government officials, that “President Trump is becoming increasingly open to using U.S. military assets to strike Iran’s nuclear site in Fordow” and is “growing less interested in a diplomatic resolution.” Upon returning early from the G7 Summit in Canada, Trump held an 80-minute meeting in the White House Situation Room with his national security team. Reportedly discussed were joint U.S.-Israel strikes on underground Iranian nuclear sites or direct strikes using B-2 stealth bombers and bunker-buster bombs (GBU-57).

Speaking to reporters after his return, Trump said, “I no longer want to negotiate with Iran,” adding, “I want a real end, not just a ceasefire.” He later posted on Truth Social, “We know the location where Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is hiding. He is safe for now, but not forever,” followed by a demand: “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!”

Though Trump had emphasized diplomacy, U.S. media noted a growing shift toward hardline measures since Israel’s surprise strike on Iranian nuclear facilities on June 12. Israel has requested the U.S. supply bunker-buster bombs and provide direct military support. In response, the U.S. has deployed over 30 aerial refueling tankers to the Middle East to support Israeli fighter jets. Trump also declared on Truth Social, “We now have full and total control over Iranian airspace,” a statement seen as hinting that the U.S. is aiding Israel’s air superiority over Iran.

Mideast in Turmoil – Oil Prices Volatile

As the prospect of U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict grows, markets are bracing for potential oil supply disruptions. The worst-case scenario would involve a cornered Iran attacking energy infrastructure in Saudi Arabia or blocking the Strait of Hormuz. This could trigger a sharp rise in global oil prices, worsening already uncertain inflation prospects and complicating the U.S. Federal Reserve’s interest rate policy—potentially leading to a recession.

However, Wall Street views this scenario as unlikely. Nicholas Colas, founder of DataTrek Research, noted, “A recession caused by a spike in oil prices would require a significant increase in crude prices.” According to DataTrek’s analysis from 1987 to 2019, recessions were typically triggered when West Texas Intermediate (WTI) prices doubled from their lows. Based on this, Colas estimated that WTI would need to reach USD 120 per barrel to cause a recession—far above the USD 76.54 closing price of Brent crude on June 17. He added that “such a surge in oil prices would require prolonged military action.”

Historically, markets have withstood major geopolitical shocks. Deutsche Bank analyzed 32 geopolitical events since 1939 that triggered stock market sell-offs and found that the S&P 500 typically fell about 6% over three weeks, then fully rebounded within the next three weeks. On average, it took 16 trading days to hit the bottom and 17 to recover. For instance, after the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, considered the closest the world came to nuclear Armageddon, the S&P 500 recouped its losses within nine days.

Is Regime Change the Goal?

Regime change in Iran is now a major focus. Experts say Israel’s airstrikes are no longer just about nuclear dismantling but may be aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. On June 15, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Fox News that regime change “could certainly happen” given how weak the Iranian regime is. Netanyahu has long appealed to the Iranian people, emphasizing the regime’s economic failures and moral corruption. Following the first airstrike on June 12, he urged Iranians to “rise up and make your voices heard,” inciting domestic unrest.

If the U.S. military—with its overwhelming power—joins Israel in attacking Iran’s nuclear sites or advancing regime change, the Middle East could head down one of two paths: a new regional order or an escalation of conflict. If Iran, for the sake of regime survival, chooses to abandon its nuclear program and adopt a conciliatory stance, Trump and Netanyahu could potentially reshape the region’s security landscape. This could also pave the way for ending the Gaza war and normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, allowing for a broader diplomatic realignment.

However, if Iran—the leading Shia power—chooses resistance over surrender and the conflict with Israel drags on, the Trump administration, which began with a promise to avoid foreign entanglements, may find itself deeply entangled in Middle Eastern chaos. In that case, Trump’s plans to refocus U.S. national security policy on containing its top strategic rival, China, could face major setbacks early in his new term.