WASHINGTON — Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced his resignation Tuesday, becoming the first senior official in the Trump administration to step down in protest over the ongoing U.S. military involvement in Iran.
Joe Kent
In a statement posted on X, Kent said he “cannot in good conscience” continue to support what he described as an unnecessary war. He asserted that Iran “posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”
The resignation marks a significant break within the administration’s national security ranks amid escalating conflict in the Middle East. U.S. and allied forces have been engaged in strikes against Iranian targets since early March 2026, following a series of escalations that included Israeli operations and Iranian proxy attacks on regional interests.
Kent, a former Army Green Beret and longtime Trump supporter, was confirmed as NCTC director in July 2025 after a contentious Senate process. He had faced criticism during his nomination for past associations with far-right figures and promotion of conspiracy theories, but Republicans advanced his confirmation along party lines.
The National Counterterrorism Center, part of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, fuses intelligence on domestic and foreign terrorism threats, coordinates analysis and shares information across agencies. Kent’s departure comes as the U.S. faces what officials describe as elevated terrorism risks tied to the Iran conflict, including potential retaliation from Tehran-backed groups.
Advertisement
Administration officials did not immediately comment on the resignation or name a successor. White House press secretary statements earlier in the day defended U.S. actions as necessary to counter Iran’s nuclear ambitions and support for terrorism, rejecting claims of external pressure dictating policy.
Kent’s statement drew swift reactions across the political spectrum. Some Trump allies criticized the move as disloyalty, while critics of the war hailed it as principled dissent. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., posted on X that Kent’s departure was “good riddance,” citing Iran’s history of attacks on Americans. Democratic lawmakers, including those who opposed Kent’s nomination, pointed to his words as validation of concerns over the war’s justification.
The conflict’s origins remain disputed. Administration officials have described initial U.S. strikes as preemptive against an “imminent” Iranian nuclear breakout or threats to American forces, though intelligence assessments shared publicly have varied. Kent’s claim that no such imminent threat existed aligns with some congressional Democrats’ arguments that the war lacks constitutional authorization and clear strategic rationale.
The war has intensified in its second week, with reports of heavy airstrikes on Iranian military sites, ballistic missile exchanges and civilian casualties on both sides. A new Iranian supreme leader assumed power amid the chaos, facing immediate internal and external pressures. U.S. officials have reported no direct homeland attacks linked to the conflict so far, but warnings persist about heightened risks to Americans abroad and potential cyber or proxy operations.
Advertisement
Kent’s background as a combat veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan added weight to his critique. In his confirmation hearing, he emphasized using intelligence to avoid “endless wars,” a stance some now see as ironic given his role in an administration pursuing aggressive action against Iran.
The resignation highlights strains within U.S. national security apparatus. Recent reports indicate firings and departures at the Justice Department and FBI have depleted counterterrorism resources, even as threats rise amid the war. About half of the DOJ’s counterterrorism prosecutors have left since the administration began, alongside significant turnover elsewhere.
Kent’s post on X garnered rapid attention, with thousands of reposts and comments. He did not elaborate on immediate plans but signaled intent to speak more publicly about his concerns.
Advertisement
The White House has maintained that military operations aim to eliminate threats from Iran’s nuclear program and its support for groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis. President Trump has described the campaign as decisive action to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, contrasting with what he calls failed diplomacy under previous administrations.
Iranian officials have denounced U.S. involvement as aggression driven by Israeli interests, vowing retaliation while denying nuclear weapon pursuits. International observers warn of risks for broader regional escalation, including potential involvement from other powers.
Kent’s exit is the most prominent yet in what some analysts describe as growing unease among intelligence and defense professionals over the war’s scope and justification. Earlier departures have been quieter, tied to policy shifts or personnel changes rather than explicit protests.
As the administration navigates the fallout, questions linger about intelligence-policy alignment. Kent’s assertion challenges the narrative used to launch operations, potentially fueling congressional scrutiny when lawmakers return from recess.
Advertisement
The NCTC continues operations under acting leadership, with focus on monitoring any spillover terrorism threats. Officials urged vigilance but reported no immediate changes to threat levels.
Kent’s resignation underscores deep divisions over U.S. foreign policy in a volatile moment, as the nation grapples with the costs and consequences of another Middle East conflict.
Options traders’ fears of a U.S. stock market crash have pulled back nearly to levels seen before the U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran that made oil prices soar.
The Nations TailDex Index and the Cboe Skew Index, two separate gauges that measure how much traders are paying for crash protection, have retreated to near where they stood before the February 28 strikes on Iran. The S&P 500 is still down 2% from pre-war levels.
“TDEX is signaling that investors are now less worried about a “tail event,” or a really steep drop in equity prices, than at any point since the war started,” said Scott Nations, president of Nations Indexes, an independent developer of volatility and option strategy index products.
“Given the muted response from the S&P 500, this outlook makes sense, but it’s an important metric to watch,” he said.
Advertisement
On Monday, the TailDex index was at 18.84, just below its closing level of 19.01 on February 27. The Cboe SKEW index finished at 141.49 on Monday, down from 146.67 prior to the air strikes.
Live Events
Both indexes soared to multi-month highs as soaring oil prices unleashed fear of a sizeable pullback in markets. The cost of deep out-of-the-money S&P 500 puts – contracts that would offer protection against a 20% drop in the market over the next three months – stands just slightly higher than it was immediately prior to the strikes, according to Susquehanna Financial Group strategist Christopher Jacobson. “After hitting multi-year highs at times last week, S&P skew levels have declined incrementally as some of that downside tail bid has faded alongside,” Jacobson said.
While fear of a market crash has faded, market anxiety levels are still higher than they were in early February. Nor are investors rushing to bet on a sharp rebound in stocks past old highs.
“We haven’t really seen that skew shift back towards the upside tail,” Jacobson said.
A landmark tribunal ruling that public electric vehicle (EV) charging should be subject to a reduced 5% VAT rate rather than the standard 20% has sparked renewed debate over fairness in the UK’s charging infrastructure, with potential implications for millions of drivers.
The decision, issued by a First-tier Tribunal, could bring public charging costs into line with those faced by motorists charging at home, addressing what many in the industry have long argued is a structural inequality in the tax system. Currently, drivers with access to off-street parking benefit from the lower VAT rate on domestic electricity, while those reliant on public charging, often urban residents, pay significantly more.
Justin Whitehouse, Managing Director at Alvarez & Marsal Tax, said the ruling reflects “a win for common sense”, highlighting a disparity that has persisted since EV adoption began to scale.
“To most people, it feels inherently unfair that those with a driveway can charge their vehicles at a reduced VAT rate, while those without off-street parking are left paying the full rate,” he said.
The case has also exposed deeper issues within the UK’s VAT framework, particularly around how electricity is classified depending on where it is consumed. The legislation hinges on the definition of “premises”, distinguishing between residential and commercial supply, a distinction that has proven increasingly difficult to apply in the context of modern EV charging networks.
Advertisement
Whitehouse noted that despite sustained lobbying from the industry, HMRC had not clarified its position, making a legal challenge almost inevitable. “The legislation has always been difficult to apply in practice,” he said, pointing to ambiguity that has left operators and consumers navigating an inconsistent system.
The ruling raises the prospect of refunds for drivers and businesses that may have overpaid VAT on public charging, potentially unlocking significant sums across the sector. However, any immediate impact remains uncertain. As a First-tier Tribunal decision, the ruling does not set a binding precedent and could yet be appealed, prolonging uncertainty for both operators and consumers.
Even if upheld, a key question will be how quickly, and to what extent, any VAT reduction is passed on to drivers. While lower tax rates could reduce charging costs in theory, pricing structures across public networks are influenced by a range of factors, including energy wholesale prices, infrastructure investment and operator margins.
In the short term, the decision is likely to intensify pressure on policymakers to address inconsistencies in EV taxation, particularly as the UK accelerates its transition away from petrol and diesel vehicles. Aligning VAT rates between home and public charging has been a longstanding demand from industry groups, who argue that the current system risks penalising those without access to private driveways — often those in cities where EV adoption is critical to meeting emissions targets.
Advertisement
Over the longer term, the case could act as a catalyst for broader reform of how energy usage is taxed in a decarbonising economy, where traditional distinctions between domestic and commercial consumption are becoming increasingly blurred.
For now, the ruling represents a significant moment in the evolution of the UK’s EV ecosystem, one that highlights both the opportunities and the complexities involved in building a fair, scalable and accessible charging infrastructure for the future.
Amy Ingham
Amy is a newly qualified journalist specialising in business journalism at Business Matters with responsibility for news content for what is now the UK’s largest print and online source of current business news.
Analysts anticipate a higher supply of debt being raised by the Big Five hyperscaler companies this year as they race to build out their data center infrastructure, following Amazon’s near-record bond sale last week of roughly $54 billion in investment-grade bonds.
Hyperscalers, which operate vast data centers and other infrastructure to facilitate AI training and deployment, have been raising debt to finance data centers needed to fuel the boom in AI.
“There continues to be an expectation of a lot of capital to be raised in this sector,” said John Servidea, co-head of investment-grade debt capital markets at JPMorgan, which led the Amazon deal.
“Whether it’s the companies’ publicly stated capex budgets, or whether it’s various banks’ estimates of the amount of hyperscaler issuance, if you look at all of those, a realistic expectation would be that at some point there’s more,” Servidea added.
Advertisement
Analysts at BofA Global Research on Friday raised their forecast for the hyperscalers’ new debt in 2026 to $175 billion from $140 billion. In early February, Barclays analysts said that U.S. investment-grade corporate bond issuance could be greater than $2 trillion in 2026, which they said “would exceed even the post‑COVID record levels seen in 2020.”
Live Events
The five major AI hyperscalers – Amazon, Alphabet’s Google, Meta, Microsoft and Oracle – issued $121 billion in U.S. corporate bonds last year, versus an average $28 billion per year between 2020 and 2024, according to a January report by BofA Securities. Microsoft and Oracle declined to comment, while the other companies did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Hyperscalers made up four of the five biggest U.S. high-grade bond deals in 2025, according to a December report by MUFG analysts. Most of those took place in the second half of the year. Oracle sold $18 billion in bonds in September. This was followed in October by Meta’s $30 billion deal and November deals from Alphabet ($17.5 billion) and Amazon ($15 billion).
This year saw a $31.51 billion global bond raise by Alphabet in February, which included a rare 100-year “century” bond as part of the deal.
Most recently, Amazon raised about $37 billion across 11 tranches in the U.S. bond market on March 10. This was followed the next day by a 14.5 billion euro-denominated ($16.8 billion) bond raise by the company.
The overwhelming demand – nearly four times the total amount sold – for Amazon’s bond sale underlines investor appetite for debt from the major hyperscalers.
Advertisement
Market participants believe the actual and expected debt raise by hyperscalers will keep forecasts for potential record-breaking overall U.S. corporate debt issuance on track, despite quiet days in the primary market preceding and following the escalation of conflict on February 28 between Iran and U.S.-Israeli forces.
“It’s fertile ground right now in capital markets, and you’re also in the first half of the year,” said George Catrambone, head of fixed income, Americas, at asset manager DWS.
C. Stephen Tusa – JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Presentation
C. Stephen Tusa JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Advertisement
All right. We’re moving along with Mark Okerstrom from CFO of Fortive. Thank you so much for joining us here in lovely Washington, D.C.
Mark Okerstrom Senior VP & CFO
Yes, thanks. Great to be here.
Advertisement
Question-and-Answer Session
C. Stephen Tusa JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
Advertisement
Yes. Just wanted to start off with a basic kind of background on what’s happening out in the world today, I kind of have to ask the question about exposures and anything that’s going on in the world that is a concern or impact for Fortive. Middle East wise?
Mark Okerstrom Senior VP & CFO
Yes. Listen, I’d say we’re on track on the Fortive accelerated strategy, on track in terms of our strategic initiatives. The Middle East for us is a small portion of our revenue. It’s low single digits percentage of our revenue. We are seeing strong demand for products into the Middle East.
Advertisement
So Fluke Industrial Scientific that does gas sensors, again, seen strong demand, some challenges getting shipments into the Middle East. But again, generally, it’s a pretty small portion, and it’s — for better, for worse, it seems like it’s an opportunity as opposed to a risk for us.
C. Stephen Tusa JPMorgan Chase & Co, Research Division
And how are you guys putting the Middle East and what’s happening over there aside. How are things kind of trending over the course of the quarter, kind of quarter-to-date, point-of-sale trends, software sales, anything like that?
The National Audit Office has praised the Government for acting quickly on the at-risk steel maker
The British Steel steelworks in Scunthorpe(Image: PA Archive/PA Images)
The Government has been praised for quickly intervening to save the Scunthorpe steelworks when it was at risk of closure – but there is a warning that the £377m cost of the initial deal is set to rise.
A new report from the National Audit Office (NAO) said the deal to save the blast furnaces prevented job losses and the likely wider economic shock if primary steel making had stopped in the UK. But it warns that Ministers went into the deal with “without a clear exit strategy” and the rescue package could cost £1.5bn by 2028, with ongoing operations costing around £1.3m a day.
Jingye, the owner of British Steel, and the Department of Business and Trade (DBT) had been in talks around transitioning to electric arc furnaces between 2022 and 2025, but had not reached an agreement.
Last March, Jingye announced it was losing £700,000 a day due to challenging market conditions, tariffs, and high environmental costs, and was considering the closure of the blast furnaces. This would have led to a large number of job losses at Scunthorpe and affected customers in the supply chain, such as Network Rail, said the report.
Advertisement
As well as the £377m to keep British Steel operating, £15m was spent on advisers and £359 million to the company for operating activities such as paying for raw materials, payroll, and other costs.
Gareth Davies, head of the NAO, said: “DBT was able to act quickly to save British Steel’s Scunthorpe furnaces from closure, avoiding heavy job losses and serious impacts on major UK infrastructure and construction projects.
“However, the trade-off is the significant cost of maintaining operations, and uncertainty over how long this will continue. “DBT should learn from this experience to be better prepared for future interventions.”
Alasdair McDiarmid, assistant general secretary of the Community union said: “The Labour Government took decisive action to secure the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe, saving thousands of jobs in the process. Following years of neglect, Labour are investing to protect our steelmaking capabilities and to start rebuilding our strategically important industry.
Advertisement
“Should the Government have sat on its hands and allowed British Steel to collapse, the financial and social impacts would have been catastrophic. The Government made the right decision to invest now because local economies would have been decimated, our nation would have been less secure and we would have seen a massive and long-term increase to the welfare bill.”
The Nissan Murano is seen at the New York International Auto Show on April 16, 2025.
Danielle DeVries | CNBC
DETROIT — Nissan Motor plans to join fellow Japanese automakers Toyota Motor and Honda Motor in exporting U.S.-produced vehicles to Japan following changes to the country’s vehicle import rules reached through a trade deal last year by the Trump administration.
Advertisement
The company on Tuesday said it will import the midsize Nissan Murano, built in Smyrna, Tennessee, to Japan beginning early next year. It marks the first American-made Nissan sold in Japan since the 1990s, according to a Nissan spokeswoman.
“With the introduction of this model, Nissan aims to further strengthen its product lineup in Japan and meet the diverse needs of Japanese customers,” Nissan CEO Ivan Espinosa said in a statement.
Nissan is the latest Japanese automaker to announce such plans after changes to regulations meant automakers could more easily import vehicles from the U.S. to Japan. Those rules were put in place as part of a trade deal that also included easing U.S. tariffs enacted by President Donald Trump.
Under the new Japanese regulations that were confirmed last month, U.S.-made vehicles don’t have to meet the country’s vehicle certification as long as they comply with American standards.
Advertisement
Nissan confirmed plans to import the Murano from the U.S. with the steering wheel on the left-hand side of the vehicle, which is typical for Americans but not in the Japanese market.
Automakers typically have to tailor vehicles to meet safety and other regulations for different countries globally. They can range from things such as lighting and side mirrors to more complex parts such as the location of the steering wheel.
Toyota, Honda and Nissan stocks
Advertisement
Nissan’s decision follows Toyota announcing plans in December to begin exporting the Camry sedan, Highlander SUV and Tundra pickup from the U.S. to Japan beginning this year.
Honda — Japan’s second-largest automaker behind Toyota — earlier this month also announced plans to export the U.S.-built Acura Integra Type S and Honda Passport TrailSport Elite SUV to Japan beginning in the second half of this year.
While plans for such exports from the U.S. to Japan likely help with trade relations between the countries, the number of vehicles to be imported may not be meaningful, experts said.
About 95% of the Japanese market is made up of locally produced vehicles, leaving less than a quarter of a million units for imports from all around the world, and a majority of those are from Germany, according to Sam Fiorani, vice president of global vehicle forecasting for AutoForecast Solutions.
Advertisement
Vehicles sold under U.S. brands, including models built in other countries, are a small fraction of that group, including roughly 8,700 Jeeps and 500 Cadillacs, according to Fiorani.
Many of the vehicles planned to be imported to Japan also are considered big or not mainstream for Japanese consumers, according to Stephanie Brinley, a principal automotive analyst at S&P Global Mobility.
“These vehicles are still — with the exception of the Integra — are relatively large for Japan. I think they’re still going to be niche, low-volume products within that market,” she said. “But because they are a little bit different and a little bit bigger, they can position them as a special halo product in Japan.”
This week, the Federal Reserve is expected to hold rates steady for a second straight meeting, though markets will closely watch Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s remarks for cues on the path forward.
The international oil benchmark, Brent crude, remains above $100 a barrel, stoking inflation fears and dampening hopes for further rate cuts. In early trading, gold futures in New York were down 1% to $5,009.90 a troy ounce. Silver, meanwhile, was down 2.6% to $79.22 an ounce.
UBS Group AG (UBSS:CA) European Financials Conference 2026 March 17, 2026 10:00 AM EDT
Company Participants
Todd Tuckner – Group CFO & Member of Executive Board
Conference Call Participants
Advertisement
Giulia Miotto – Morgan Stanley, Research Division
Presentation
Giulia Miotto Morgan Stanley, Research Division
Advertisement
Right. Good afternoon, everyone. I’m pleased to be joined today by Todd Tuckner, UBS’ CFO. Thank you for being with us, Todd.
Question-and-Answer Session
Advertisement
Giulia Miotto Morgan Stanley, Research Division
And let’s start with the polling question. So what do you think will be the primary driver of share price performance for UBS in 2026? We have a few choices. So clarity on capital, which hopefully is a few weeks away, earnings upgrades, wealth management inflows, U.S. or Asia and new additional buyback in the second half or macro driven? A very clear skill, fantastic. We will get there shortly. Or shall we comment first given there is such a clear — so we’re — let’s start with capital. We are nearing the end of the too big to fail. At least in April, we should get some sort of proposal. So what can you tell us?
Todd Tuckner Group CFO & Member of Executive Board
Advertisement
Well, look, Giulia, first of all, thanks for having me, and hello, everyone. For sure, on the issue of capital reform, we have been advocating pretty consistently for outcomes that are internationally aligned, targeted specifically to the Credit Suisse issues and proportionate. And in fact, that was the tenants outlined by the Swiss government itself when it developed a framework for financial stability reform 2 years ago. Unfortunately, when the proposals were issued in June of last year, they were sort of none of the above. And as a result, they — if those proposals were adopted as currently worded, we believe it would make us a pronounced outlier versus peers in terms of the level of capital and equity
The Yorkshire firm said an acquisition made last year had boosted its performance
Fintel House, the firm’s Huddersfield headquarters.(Image: Supplied by Ally Bayne of MHP Group. Ally.Bayne@mhpgroup.com)
Financial services company Fintel has hailed a “defining” year after publishing accounts in which its turnover increased by almost 10%.
The Huddersfield firm has issued results for 2025 in which its revenues went from £78.3m to £85.9m. Operating profit also increased, to come in at £12.5m.
Fintel said that SaaS (software as a service) and subscription revenue had gone up 9.6% to £48.7m, and its EBITDA margin had increased to 30.1%. It highlighted the role played by the acquisition of Rayner Spencer Mills Research during the year, which contributed £3.4m of revenue and £1.1m of EBITDA to the results.
Fintel’s net debt rose during the year to stand at £31.1m, but it said it had a strong balance sheet with £17.3m of cash and £72.5m of available headroom within its credit facility, providing flexibility for further organic and inorganic investment.
Advertisement
CEO Matt Timmins said: “2025 has been a defining year for Fintel, creating a simpler, more unified and scalable platform that sets the foundation for the next phase of our growth. Technology, data and regulation continue to reshape the UK retail financial services market, and Fintel’s unique combination of market-leading software, enriched proprietary datasets and insights, and distribution platforms, places us at the centre of this transformation.
“Looking ahead, our ambition is clear: to build the most connected, insight rich and intelligent platform in the sector, enabling better decisions and better outcomes across the entire advice ecosystem.
“We have entered the new financial year with clear strategic momentum, high levels of recurring revenues and a stronger platform enabling opportunities for organic growth, underpinned by deep customer relationships. Fintel has made a strong start to FY26, with trading in line with the board’s expectations; the group is poised to accelerate its strategy to deliver long term value for advisers, partners and shareholders alike.”
The company is proposing to pay a final dividend of 2.5 pence per share, resulting in a full year dividend of 3.8 pence per share. That would be an increase of 4.1% on the previous year.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login