Tag: finance

Authored by Gregory Copley via The Epoch Times,

Western focus was, in 2026, on whether U.S. President Donald Trump would fulfill his threat to withdraw the United States from NATO. Eastern and Southern focus was on whether the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS alliance were even functioning.

In the U.S.–NATO standoff, it may take more complex political maneuvering for Trump to achieve a breakup of the alliance. Certainly, he could withdraw the U.S. military from European basing, but Congress in 2023 approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an act of Congress. The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and, ironically, Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)—now Trump’s secretary of state—was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Joe Biden.

It may be more feasible for Trump to have the United States leave aspects of the military component of the North Atlantic Alliance, as French President Charles de Gaulle did in withdrawing from the NATO integrated military command structure—but not the North Atlantic Alliance—in 1967. Other members of NATO may themselves go beyond that to abandon NATO in order to form a new alliance, but that is a separate issue.

Of real, but as yet unexplored, interest is that other alliances have been forced to the sidelines because Trump initiatives, and time, have rendered them ineffective.

Among the most important of these are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS. Secondarily, the informal Quad alliance against China—of India, the United States, Japan, and Australia—is quietly becoming less tight.

The SCO, which emerged in 2001 from the 1996 Shanghai Five security arrangement, now has 10 member states, most of which harbor suspicions about other members of the SCO. It was meant to contain a mutual security clause to require members to support other members under attack from outside. SCO membership includes Iran, and that clause has proven to be unenforceable as the wars against Iran continue. So the SCO is now effectively inoperable, except as a showcase with an expensive bureaucracy.

Similarly, BRICS—which began as a working group of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—was designed to circumvent U.S. domination of global trade systems by finding alternatives to trading using the U.S. dollar. The BRICS membership had expanded by 2026 to 10 states, adding Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. But it failed to shake the United States’ ability to control and sustain a global sanctions regime against political leaders who used the U.S. dollar in ways deemed inimical to U.S. interests.

BRICS achieved some new trading modalities that avoided the use of the U.S. dollar, but this did little to weaken the U.S. currency, or strengthen the currencies of BRICS members. But that was to be expected. This journal, as early as 2008, was discussing the end of the globalist, multinational framework of financing the international logistics chain based on the U.S. dollar. It discussed a return to bilateralism of trading methodologies, including barter and countertrade, which had, even in the 1970s, been a normal practice.

The past year-plus has seen the promoters of BRICS—as a defensive mechanism against the United States—becoming incapable of creating a new trade finance system. A proposed BRICS currency has come to naught; the currency of China has weakened to the point that it is hardly tradeable. And so on.

At what point is the Trump administration prepared to push for the complete breakdown of “opposing currencies,” not just of the BRICS states’ proposed new currency, but even of the euro and sterling?

Has all of this saved and bolstered the U.S. dollar? By default, yes; there is still no viable alternative to the use of the U.S. currency for major world trade.

But is Trump yet through with his plans to diminish, and perhaps totally dispense with, the United Nations? He has certainly hit key aspects of the U.N. that were heavily dependent on U.S. taxpayer contributions. The U.N. itself has been making itself less relevant and less forceful; it has taken an extremely polarizing, leftist position on many international issues and, at the same time, has been disregarded by the United States and other powers.

This, in turn, has made it less useful to Beijing, which entered the U.N. on Oct. 25, 1971, displacing the original founding member, the Republic of China, also known as Taiwan. China then began a sustained campaign to use U.N. agencies for political influence. So some of Trump’s anti-U.N. activities were clearly designed as moves against China.

What is the impact of the diminishing role of the U.N.? It has become less trusted as an instrument to impartially mediate interstate conflicts, and this makes its International Criminal Court (ICC)—to which the United States is not a signatory—also less trusted. The attempt to use the ICC as a key body to create “international law” out of thin air has now become discredited, or less of an influence. The World Trade Organization is also increasingly disregarded, as are regional bodies, such as ECOWAS in West Africa, and the Organization of American States.

So to what extent was the “rules-based world order” a creature of this utopianist U.N. thinking, or was it merely a reflection of a pax Americana?

If Trump wished to move heavily against the U.N., his best timing might be before the U.S. midterm congressional elections in November. But could he make it stick?

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Authored by Savannah Halsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 30 released a 500-page report detailing alleged anti-Christian bias on the part of the Biden administration.

According to the report by the DOJ’s Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, the former administration’s prosecutions, policies, and practices constituted bias throughout multiple agencies, in accordance with the administration’s priorities.

The task force is chaired by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

“No American should live in fear that the federal government will punish them for their faith,” Blanche said. “As our report lays out, the Biden Administration’s actions devastated the lives of many Christian Americans.”

Around 200 pages of the report are dedicated to the actions of more than 17 federal agencies that uncovered alleged religious discrimination. The investigation included a review of internal discussions and case files, as well as prosecutorial decisions.

There were details of a since-retracted 2023 FBI memo on “radical traditionalist” Catholics, which cited the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The review also listed Biden-era regulations on abortion, contraception, gender, and human sexuality, among other issues that pitted the government against religious groups.

The report also makes note of the Biden administration’s reading of the 2019 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which led to decisions that were based on what the Trump administration report called “sex-based discrimination in federally funded schools and sports.”

According to the DOJ report, the previous administration used the FBI, IRS, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies to monitor, investigate, and apply pressure to various Christian groups at a federal level.

The current DOJ’s task force was formed in accordance with President Donald Trump’s Feb. 6, 2025, executive order titled Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.

The president ordered multiple agencies to investigate what he called an “egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses.”

Conflicting Response

This is a “very different Department of Justice … than the previous administration,” said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers.

“The conclusion in the report, at least from an enforcement perspective, was that … federal law was disproportionately used to prosecute pro-life and other Christians under the Biden administration,” he told The Epoch Times.

However, Rahmani, who worked at the DOJ from 2009 to 2012, said that while policies change, he has not seen a “systematic bias for or against” any one religious group.

“I don’t necessarily see … [that] Christian activists in this country are receiving more prison time for violent acts, as opposed to, you know, Muslim or other religious groups.”

According to Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, director of the Conscience Project, the report “calls out the brazen assault against religious freedom by the former administration for what it was: a failure of constitutional and statutory duty.”

Picciotti-Bayer said in an emailed statement that the Biden administration disregarded “fundamental guarantees” in the First Amendment and federal civil rights law, and treated “sincere religious objections as obstacles to overcome, prosecuting peaceful prayer, trampling on parental rights and steamrolling conscience rights.”

The Interfaith Alliance, however, which states its mission is to “challenge Christian nationalism and religious extremism,” responded to the DOJ report, saying their group has “consistently opposed the work of this ‘task force.’” It accused the DOJ of trying to “undermine Americans’ religious freedom and First Amendment rights.”

The alliance called the task force’s report a “political stunt designed to promote the lie that American Christians are a persecuted group, while providing justification to target anyone deemed out of step with their Christian nationalist agenda.”

Previous Report

This report comes just weeks after an 800-page report from the department, detailing the “weaponization” of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which called out alleged prosecutorial problems, surveillance activities undertaken by pro-abortion groups, and failures to comply with federal law.

Biden’s DOJ did not enforce the law evenly, according to the April 14 report.

The task force under the Biden administration treated pro-life groups differently from pro-abortion groups, outlining disproportionate coordination with pro-abortion groups that, according to the report, indicated bias and prosecutorial overreach.

In her statement, Picciotti-Bayer said, “Religious freedom isn’t a courtesy the government extends—it’s a legal check on what government can do. It’s refreshing to see that recognized today.”

For the first time on record, the top 15 military spenders allocated more than $2 trillion to defense in 2025.

Total global defense spending also reached a record $2.6 trillion, signaling a major shift in geopolitical priorities.

Using data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, this visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Dorothy Neufeld, ranks the 15 countries driving this surge in military spending.

While the U.S. still operates on an entirely different scale, the biggest shift is happening in Europe, where countries are no longer just maintaining military capacity but expanding it significantly.

The $2 Trillion Arms Race: Defense Spending by Country

The U.S. defense budget reached $921 billion in 2025, larger than the combined military spending of China, Russia, Germany, the UK, India, Saudi Arabia, France, and Japan.

Looking ahead, Donald Trump has proposed increasing defense spending to $1.5 trillion by 2027, although this plan has not been enacted. If realized, this would represent roughly 90% higher spending than the Cold War peak in real terms.

China ranked second globally with $251.3 billion in defense spending in 2025. Its share of Asia’s military spending has climbed to 44%, up from 39% in 2017, highlighting its expanding regional influence.

Below is the breakdown of the 15 nations with the largest defense budgets in 2025.

Russia’s defense budget reached $186.2 billion in 2025, rising by more than $40 billion in a single year and equivalent to 7.3% of GDP.

However, spending is expected to decline in 2026, the first drop since the invasion of Ukraine. With a growing deficit, the country faces mounting economic pressure, though higher oil prices have recently provided some relief.

Europe’s Expanding War Chest

With Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and pressure from the U.S., European NATO members have committed to spending 3.5% of GDP on defense by 2035.

This would translate to roughly $1.2 trillion by 2035, the largest defense buildup among these countries since the Cold War.

Outside of Russia, Europe holds six of the world’s 15 largest defense budgets, led by Germany ($107.3 billion) and the UK ($94.3 billion). Both countries increased spending by tens of billions between 2024 and 2025.

What was once gradual growth has become a sharp acceleration, making defense one of the fastest-growing spending categories across advanced economies.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the world’s largest armies in 2026.

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed a major election reform bill on April 30, arguing it would place “significant operational burdens” on the state’s Division of Elections months before high-stakes statewide and federal contests.

The bill, at least a decade in the making, sought to allow absentee and other ​voters track their ballots and see when they had been received and ​counted.

Dunleavy announced the veto of Senate Bill 64 after the measure arrived following its passage in both chambers of the legislature.

The legislation, which had won bipartisan support in the state’s House of Representatives and Senate, also sought to expand acceptable voter identification, modify voter roll ⁠maintenance, change the absentee ballot timeline, and create a rural community liaison position.

“Going forward, I encourage those who wish to continue this work to use this bill as a starting point to ensure that any proposed changes comply with state and federal law and pass any election legislation on a timeline that allows the Division of Elections to develop, test, and implement the necessary systems properly,” Dunleavy said in an April 30 statement. “While the Alaska gasline bill is the most important bill this session, I am open to a conversation with lawmakers on how we can address the legal and operational issues this session.”

In his veto letter, the Republican governor noted his misgivings about provisions requiring expanded ballot tracking and the curing of minor errors on mail-in ballots. He said such changes would be particularly difficult to implement securely and reliably ahead of the November elections.

“Taken as a whole, the bill would impose significant operational burdens on the administration of Alaska’s elections during an election year,” Dunleavy wrote. The Division of Elections had warned such mid-cycle alterations would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible,” to complete without risking reliability.

House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, an independent, said the veto was disappointing.

“This was a bipartisan effort to address the real challenges of voting in a state as vast, rural, and remote as Alaska,” Edgmon said in a statement. “Alaskans deserve a system that reflects our unique geography, not one that ignores it. This veto does exactly that.”

State Sen. Bill Wielechowski, a Democrat from North Anchorage and one of the bill’s key sponsors, said in a post on social media that the legislation was a “decade in the making, passed with broad bipartisan support, and reflected the governor’s own stated priorities.”

He said the veto also blocks efforts to strengthen voter ID rules.

“The Governor’s veto also blocks tightening of voter ID laws that would have limited acceptable IDs to government-issued identification,” Wielechowski added.

The legislature will have an opportunity to override the veto in the future.

Efforts in Washington to block Chinese-made cars often sound like a future problem – but in practice, those vehicles are already within reach of American consumers, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Just south of the U.S. border, Chinese automakers have been rapidly expanding in Mexico, setting up dealerships and offering vehicles at prices far below what most new cars cost in the U.S. Brands like BYD, Geely, and Great Wall Motor are selling electric and gas-powered models packed with features – often for the price of a used car in the U.S. That proximity matters: American consumers living near the border can easily see, test, and in some cases drive these vehicles, even if large-scale imports remain restricted.

Meanwhile, U.S. policymakers are moving in the opposite direction. Proposed tariffs, import restrictions, and national security reviews are all aimed at limiting Chinese auto penetration, especially in the electric vehicle market. The concerns go beyond economics—lawmakers have raised questions about data security, supply chains, and the long-term competitiveness of domestic automakers.

The Journal writes that the situation is more complicated than a simple “ban.” Chinese-built vehicles are already entering the U.S. market indirectly. Some come through global partnerships, shared manufacturing platforms, or brands that don’t obviously appear Chinese to consumers. Others arrive in small numbers through personal imports or cross-border use. In other words, the presence is already here—it’s just not always visible at scale.

At the same time, Chinese automakers are becoming major global players. Companies like BYD, for example, have surged in electric vehicle production and are expanding across Latin America, Europe, and beyond. Their strategy often focuses on affordability and speed to market—areas where traditional U.S. automakers have struggled, especially as new car prices continue to climb.

That pricing gap is a key pressure point. Many American buyers are increasingly priced out of new vehicles, creating demand for cheaper alternatives. If Chinese automakers were allowed to compete freely in the U.S., they could significantly undercut domestic offerings—something that worries both policymakers and legacy car companies.

So while the political conversation centers on keeping Chinese cars out, the reality is that the market is already shifting around that goal. The vehicles are being sold nearby, seen by U.S. consumers, and in some cases already used on American roads.

Authored by Neetika Walter via Interesting Engineering,

U.S.-based robotics firm 1X has started full-scale production of its humanoid robot NEO at a new manufacturing facility in Hayward, California.

The factory marks a key step toward commercializing general-purpose humanoid robots designed for home use. The company says the robots are built to safely operate alongside humans and assist with everyday tasks such as mobility support, light household activity, and routine interaction.

Spanning 58,000 square feet, the facility currently employs more than 200 workers and is expected to expand further as production scales. It has the capacity to produce up to 10,000 robots annually, with plans to increase output beyond 100,000 units by 2027. The setup is designed for rapid iteration as hardware and AI systems evolve.

The company has already seen strong early demand. It said its first-year production capacity of over 10,000 units sold out within five days of launch in October, signaling early commercial interest in humanoid home robotics.

Full-stack manufacturing push

A key feature of the factory is its vertically integrated production model. 1X designs and manufactures core components in-house, including motors, batteries, sensors, structures, and transmission systems.

This approach allows the company to control the entire production process, from raw material handling to final assembly. It also reduces reliance on external suppliers and supports faster iteration cycles, especially for hardware upgrades and safety improvements.

“We’re building the world’s safest, most reliable humanoid robots—right here in Hayward, California,” said Vikram Kothari, VP of Manufacturing & Hardware.

The company says its setup includes automated motor manufacturing lines and systems that handle precision tasks such as copper coil winding. This level of integration is aimed at improving reliability, reducing production bottlenecks, and scaling manufacturing efficiently without outsourcing key subsystems.

Robots produced at the facility are currently being routed to internal testing, validation, and research environments. Customer shipments are expected to begin in 2026, starting with early access users before wider rollout.

AI brains power robots

Each NEO robot is powered by NVIDIA’s Jetson Thor computing platform, which serves as the system’s onboard processing unit.

The platform enables real-time AI inference directly on the robot, allowing it to perform perception, reasoning, navigation, and decision-making tasks without depending heavily on cloud infrastructure. This improves response time and reduces latency in real-world environments.

1X is also using NVIDIA’s Isaac simulation tools to train its robots in virtual environments. These simulations allow large-scale reinforcement learning and help improve robot behavior before deployment in physical homes.

“Humanoid robots require high-performance, real-time AI inference and continuous training and testing in simulation for safe and reliable operation,” said Deepu Talla, vice president of robotics and edge AI at NVIDIA.

CEO Bernt Børnich said the factory signals a shift from concept to execution. “Production is happening now, and American consumers will be among the first in the world to welcome NEO into their homes.”

NEO will be offered through an early access program priced at $20,000, with a subscription option starting at $499 per month. The company plans to sell the robots directly through its online platform.

1X says building robots at scale in the United States will allow faster delivery, localized support, and quicker product improvements based on user feedback. The company also aims to reduce supply chain risks by keeping core manufacturing domestic.

President Donald Trump is set to travel to Beijing in mid-May for a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the first U.S. presidential visit to China in eight years, and a meeting already delayed once by the Iran war.

The pair will obviously discuss the U.S.-Iran conflict and the resulting energy shock, which has hit Asia fastest and hardest. There is no shortage of issues for the two leaders to discuss, including Taiwan, trade, AI chip controls, rare earths, and sanctions.

One important topic the two leaders will likely spend time on is the energy shock and the maximum pressure campaign imposed by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control on Chinese independent “teapot” refineries, particularly in Shandong Province, due to their continued purchases and refining of Iranian crude.

Perhaps last week’s sanctions on China’s teapot refiners are part of a leverage campaign by the Trump team ahead of the upcoming meeting.

By Saturday morning, Beijing announced that companies in the country should ignore and not comply with U.S. sanctions targeting five domestic refineries. 

The refiners, including Hengli Petrochemical’s Dalian refinery and several privately owned processors, had been hit with U.S. asset freezes and transaction bans earlier in the week, according to Bloomberg.

Beijing’s Commerce Ministry called the sanctions unlawful, saying they restrict normal trade with countries and lack authorization under international law.

“The Chinese government has consistently opposed unilateral sanctions that lack authorization from the United Nations and a basis in international law,” the department said.

It appears that Beijing is shielding its refiners to mitigate Washington’s pressure campaign on Iranian crude flows as the energy shock still festers across Asia.

The good news last week is that China reopened its fuel export spigot to surrounding countries, as domestic inventories are now at comfortable levels. This will provide some relief to countries dealing with fuel shortages caused by the Hormuz chokepoint, which remains partially frozen to this day.

Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times,

Americans won’t be able to receive abortion drug mifepristone in the mail, according to a temporary ruling by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court on May 1.

“FDA conceded it had failed to adequately study whether remotely prescribing mifepristone is safe,” the three-judge panel in New Orleans ruled on Friday.

The decision will block the drug from being shipped via mail until the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can ensure the drugs are “safe and effective” before they can be marketed in the United States.

Mifepristone, often called “the abortion pill,” is part of a two-drug regimen which allows a woman “to end a pregnancy up to 70 days into gestation,” according to Johns Hopkins University.

The FDA first approved mifepristone in 2000, but doctors were only allowed to prescribe it after three in-person visits.

The procedure changed in 2023 after the Biden administration expanded access to “medication abortion,” which provided a pathway for patients to avoid an in-person visit to the doctor and, instead, order the drug online to be shipped to their house.

The state of Louisiana challenged the rule in 2025, arguing the justification for allowing this was based on “flawed or nonexistent data.”

Louisiana alleged the medication “resulted in numerous illegal abortions” in the state and it also made women pay “thousands in Medicaid bills” for being harmed by mifepristone.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called Friday’s decision a “victory for life!”

“The Biden abortion cartel facilitated the deaths of thousands of Louisiana babies (and millions in other states) through illegal mail-order abortion pills. Today, that nightmare is over, thanks to the hard work of my office and our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom,” Murrill wrote.

“I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues.”

A bill to ban mifepristone was introduced by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in March.

“The science is clear: The chemical abortion drug is inherently dangerous to women and prone to abuse. Yet major companies like Danco Laboratories are making billions off it,” Hawley said.

Hawley’s bill would also allow women to sue manufacturers for damages if they are harmed by the chemical abortion.

Rep. Delia C. Ramirez (D-Ill.) criticized the federal court decision on social media.

“Mifepristone is safe and reliable,” Ramirez wrote in an X post on Friday.

“IT SAVES LIVES.
 Extremist attempts to control our bodies and restrict our choices make women less safe. The right to make decisions about our bodies and our healthcare are OURS. They don’t belong in the hands of judges or politicians.”

Rare agreement with Iranian officials? President Trump has newly said the US Navy is acting “like pirates” as he described an operation about seizing a ship amid the ongoing blockade of Iranian ports.

“We … land on top of it and we took over the ship. We took over the cargo, took over the oil. It’s a very profitable business,” Trump told a large audience at a rally in Florida on Friday. “We’re like pirates,” he added as the crow cheered him on. “We’re sort of like pirates. But we’re not playing games.” Watch the US President also declare “it’s a very profitable business”:

TRUMP ADMITS AMERICANS ARE PIRATES

“It’s a very profitable business. We’re like pirates.” pic.twitter.com/p7g6kMPCmG

— Sulaiman Ahmed (@ShaykhSulaiman) May 2, 2026

The irony in this statement is that it precisely echoes Tehran’s own accusation that the Pentagon is indeed engaged in ‘piracy’ in Persian Gulf waters, and as the US seeks to interdict other Iranian vessels on the high seas globally, especially near Asia.

This week Iran issued formal request to the UN Security Council that it stop the “continuing internationally wrongful acts of the United States through yet another piracy-style seizure and deliberate targeting of commercial vessels, namely the M/T Majestic and M/T Tifani.”

Some of Iran’s embassies abroad have also directly responded to the fresh Trump piracy clip. Here’s what the Iranian Foreign Ministry had to say on X through one of its diplomatic outposts in south Asia:

“Sort of like pirates”? No, Donny—that’s textbook piracy. One upside to an incompetent opponent: moments like this. But the crowd cheering and clapping along? That’s the truly disturbing part. U.S. urgently needs a swift and serious regime change.

Additionally, one show host with Russia’s RT had this to say by way of reaction: “The only good thing about Trump is that he openly admits the US is a rogue state that doesn’t care at all about international law, he doesn’t bother to cover up the US’ heinous actions with the bogus liberal PR language that previous Presidents used.”

It is also akin to when Trump became the first US leader to declare that American troops were in Syria to “secure the oil” – contradicting prior presidents and officials who insisted Washington was merely engaged in ‘counter-ISIS’ operations.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has said on X this week Americans have an “undeniable right and the solemn duty” to demand accountability from the White House over the ongoing US-Israel “war of choice” against Iran.

The war is “a clear, unprovoked act of aggression” – he stated, and called on Americans to rise up challenge their leaders for “waging this illegal war against the nation of Iran and for all the atrocities perpetrated.”

Authored by Nate Kostar via CoinTelegraph.com,

Stablecoin issuer Tether (USDT) reported $1.04 billion in net profit for the first quarter of 2026, as its excess reserves rose to a record $8.23 billion, according to its latest attestation on Friday.

The company said its reserves remain heavily concentrated in US Treasuries, with around $141 billion in direct and indirect exposure, while total assets of about $191.8 billion exceeded liabilities of approximately $183.5 billion as of March 31.

Tether said this level of exposure makes it the 17th largest holder of US Treasuries globally. Beyond Treasuries, reserves included about $20 billion in physical gold and $7 billion in Bitcoin (BTC).

USDT circulating supply remained broadly stable at about $183 billion at the end of the first quarter. After the period, CEO Paolo Ardoino said supply has increased by more than $5 billion into April.

Tether said its proprietary investments are held separately from reserves backing USDT (USDT) and are funded through excess capital and profits.

The report was prepared by accounting firm BDO. The company also said it has begun the formal audit process.

Tether is the issuer of USDT (USDT), the largest stablecoin by market capitalization. According to DefiLlama data, the total stablecoin market is valued at about $320 billion, with USDT accounting for roughly 59% of the sector.

 

Total stablecoins market cap. Source: DefiLlama

Demand for digital dollars rises in emerging markets

Ardoino said in a post on X on Friday that USDT’s user base reached an all-time high of about 570 million in the first quarter, citing demand for dollars across emerging markets.

In Latin America, stablecoins accounted for 40% of crypto purchases in 2025, surpassing Bitcoin’s 18% share, according to a report released by Bitso this week based on data from its nearly 10 million retail users. The report described the trend as “digital dollarization,” as users turn to stablecoins for savings and everyday transactions.

 

Source: Paolo Ardoino

Stablecoins are also gaining traction in Africa for remittance payments. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in January, former UN official Vera Songwe said traditional transfers can cost about $6 per $100 sent, while stablecoins allow funds to move more quickly at lower cost.

Songwe also said stablecoins can help users preserve value in high-inflation environments, noting that inflation has exceeded 20% in several African countries since the pandemic.

FSB annual report for 2025. Source: FSB

However, stablecoin adoption has drawn scrutiny from global regulators. The Financial Stability Board warned in its 2025 annual report that widespread use of US dollar-denominated stablecoins could pose risks to emerging economies, including currency substitution and reduced effectiveness of domestic monetary policy.