Kevin Warsh has intermittently pursued the position of Chair of the Federal Reserve ever since US President Donald Trump first considered nominating him nearly a decade ago. Now, as he moves closer to taking the role, the scale of the challenge ahead is coming into sharper focus.

To be effective, Warsh must earn the confidence of at least three key constituencies: fellow Federal Reserve officials, whose votes he needs to change interest rates; financial markets, which could undermine his efforts to lower borrowing costs if they perceive him as acting on political motives; and, no less important, President Trump himself—a former real estate developer who understands precisely how interest rate moves affect heavily indebted borrowers, whether corporations, households, or even the government.

“He has to walk this tightrope,” said Raghuram Rajan, a professor of economics at the University of Chicago and former governor of the Reserve Bank of India. “If he appears too accommodating to the administration, he will lose the support of Fed members and become unable to build consensus.”

At the same time, Rajan added, alienating the White House carries its own risks, potentially placing the Federal Reserve back in the president’s crosshairs. Under Trump, current Fed Chair Jerome Powell has faced repeated criticism for not cutting interest rates as quickly as the president wanted and is now subject to a criminal investigation by the Justice Department. Powell has described the probe as a pretext aimed at pressuring him to lower rates.

Warsh may also face a difficult confirmation process in the Senate. Two Republican senators have already said they will oppose his nomination unless the criminal investigation is resolved. One of them, Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, sits on the Senate Banking Committee and could block the nomination from advancing if he votes against it alongside Democrats. Tillis reiterated on Friday that he would continue to oppose Warsh’s nomination until the Justice Department’s investigation concludes.

Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, also a member of the committee, said: “It is hard to trust that any Federal Reserve chair chosen by this president would be able to act with the independence the role requires, under an administration that threatens charges against any leader who sets interest rates based on economic facts and needs rather than Trump’s personal preferences.”

Further drama may lie ahead. Under the Federal Reserve’s complex structure, Powell could remain a member of the Board of Governors and the rate-setting committee even after his term as chair ends in May. That could leave Warsh facing an unprecedented situation not seen in 80 years: a former chair potentially acting as a counterweight to the new leader.

Demonstrating independence from the White House is likely to be Warsh’s greatest challenge. Alan Blinder, a former Fed vice chair and Princeton economics professor, said the biggest unknown is what assurances Trump may have extracted from Warsh in exchange for nominating him to lead the central bank. “We know Donald Trump—he wants some kind of loyalty pledge,” Blinder said. “I hope Kevin Warsh didn’t give him one.”

Blinder noted that Warsh brings market experience and monetary policy expertise—important qualifications for the role. But he stressed that equally critical are Warsh’s interpersonal skills and his ability to influence other Fed officials during policy deliberations. “What he has in abundance is interpersonal and diplomatic skill,” Blinder said. “He knows how to deal with people, he’s very good at it, and he’s widely liked.”

Don Kohn, a former Federal Reserve governor who served alongside Warsh, described him as “extremely smart—both intellectually and in his ability to read the room.” Kohn added: “He understands how important it is for the Federal Reserve’s decisions to be guided by a long-term view of its goals—price stability and maximum employment—rather than the short-term objectives of whoever happens to be in the White House.”

Copper prices fell during Friday’s trading on the London Metal Exchange, pressured by profit-taking and a stronger US dollar against most major currencies, after the red metal hit a record high in the previous session.

The most actively traded copper futures on the London Metal Exchange declined by 2.27% to $13,309.5 per tonne at 01:55 p.m. Mecca time, after touching a record high of $14,527 per tonne on Thursday.

Futures pared some of their losses after sliding to around $13,000 earlier in the session, coinciding with a one-hour delay to the opening of the London Metal Exchange following the detection of a potential technical issue during pre-opening checks.

Meanwhile, analysts at Citi Group maintained their forecast for average copper prices at $13,000 per tonne this year, citing increased scrap supply and softer demand as a result of higher prices, according to Bloomberg.

On the currency front, the US dollar index rose by 0.5% by 15:22 GMT to 96.7 points, having touched a high of 96.8 and a low of 96.1.

In US trading, March copper futures fell by 2.7% to $6.02 per pound at 15:17 GMT.

Bitcoin slid sharply during Friday’s trading, falling to its lowest level in more than two months, amid a wave of forced liquidations that hit leveraged traders, alongside growing investor anxiety over the potential implications of a leadership change at the US Federal Reserve.

By 02:15 a.m. Eastern Time (07:15 GMT), the world’s largest cryptocurrency was down 6.4% at $82,620.3.

Bitcoin touched an intraday low of $81,201.5 over the past 24 hours, coming close to breaking below its April lows if losses persist.

$1.7 billion in crypto liquidations

Data from CoinGlass showed that around $1.68 billion worth of leveraged positions were liquidated over the past 24 hours amid the sell-off, with roughly 93% of those liquidations coming from long positions — bets on higher prices.

Nearly 270,000 traders were forced out of their positions, intensifying the decline in Bitcoin and other digital assets.

Liquidations occur when exchanges automatically close leveraged positions that can no longer meet margin requirements as prices move against traders, a dynamic that often amplifies volatility and accelerates sell-offs in high-risk asset markets.

Traders await Trump’s choice for Fed chair

Friday’s decline coincided with rising market unease over the future leadership of US monetary policy.

US President Donald Trump said he would announce his pick to succeed Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell on Friday morning, fueling speculation that former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh could be nominated for the role.

Reports suggested that the White House is already preparing to move forward with Warsh’s nomination to lead the central bank.

Warsh is widely viewed as favoring tighter monetary policy and a reduction of the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet, a shift that could drain liquidity from markets and weigh on risk assets, including cryptocurrencies.

Markets reacted to these concerns with a broader risk-off move, marked by a stronger US dollar and rising bond yields, while digital asset prices came under renewed selling pressure.

The trajectory of central bank policy has a direct impact on interest rates, liquidity conditions, and the valuation of high-risk assets — all key drivers for cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin.

Cryptocurrency prices today: altcoins sink sharply

Altcoins were not spared from the sell-off, also coming under heavy pressure from liquidations.

Ether, the world’s second-largest cryptocurrency, fell more than 7% to $2,749.92.

XRP, the third-largest cryptocurrency, declined by 7% to $1.75.

Brent crude futures fell during Friday trading, pulling back from their highest levels in five months, after US President Donald Trump signaled the possibility of holding talks with Iran, easing concerns over potential supply disruptions.

By 09:58 GMT, Brent futures were down 68 cents, or nearly 1%, at $70.03 per barrel. The decline came ahead of the expiry of the March contract later on Friday, while the more actively traded April contract fell 80 cents, or 1.15%, to $68.79 per barrel. US West Texas Intermediate crude also slipped 72 cents, or 1.1%, to $64.70 per barrel.

Tamas Varga, an analyst at PVM, said Trump’s willingness to give diplomacy with Iran a chance makes US military intervention less likely than it appeared a day earlier, adding that a stronger dollar and improving supply conditions also encouraged investors to lock in profits.

The pullback comes ahead of the OPEC+ meeting scheduled for Sunday. Five delegates told Reuters they expect the alliance to keep its production increase pause in place for March, despite Brent climbing back above $70 per barrel on Iran-related concerns. Brent had jumped to around $72 per barrel earlier, its highest level since August.

The eight producers behind the current supply policy had raised output quotas by around 2.9 million barrels per day between April and December 2025, before deciding to suspend any further increases from January through March due to weak seasonal demand. The Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee is also set to meet on Sunday, although it does not take direct decisions on production levels.

In Thursday’s session, Brent surged 3.4% to settle at $70.71 per barrel, marking its highest close since July 31, amid reports that Trump was considering steps against Iran, alongside the European Union imposing new sanctions on Tehran over its crackdown on protests.

PVM analyst John Evans said the main risk remains the potential closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20 million barrels per day of oil flows. The sharp rally pushed Brent into technically “overbought” territory and widened the Brent–WTI spread to $5.30 per barrel, a move that could encourage higher US crude exports.

According to traders, Friday’s moves looked more like cautious risk reduction ahead of the weekend rather than a shift in the broader market trend, with additional pressure stemming from the expiry of the front-month contract and the roll into later-dated positions along the futures curve.

Oil trading linked to Iran has been highly headline-sensitive this week, with prices factoring in a so-called “geopolitical premium” reflecting disruption risks, which could quickly fade if progress is made toward any potential talks.

Currencies also play a key role. A stronger dollar typically weighs on oil prices, as crude is priced in dollars, making it more expensive for buyers using other currencies.

On the supply side, signals remain mixed. US production is recovering after weather-related disruptions, while Kazakhstan is working to stabilize output following recent interruptions, partially easing the tight-supply narrative.

The spread between Brent and WTI adds another layer to the outlook. When the spread widens, US crude becomes more attractive for export, which over time could cap gains in global benchmarks as shipments increase.

A Reuters poll of 31 economists and analysts forecast Brent crude to average $62.02 per barrel in 2026, expecting surplus supply to ultimately outweigh geopolitical factors. Norbert Rucker, head of economics and next-generation research at Julius Baer, said geopolitics creates plenty of noise, but the oil market appears to be in a state of sustained surplus. The poll estimated a potential surplus ranging between 0.75 million and 3.5 million barrels per day, with expectations that OPEC+ will leave output unchanged at Sunday’s meeting after shelving planned increases for the first quarter.

Risks remain two-sided. If talks with Iran stall or tensions escalate, the market could quickly reprice the risk premium. Conversely, if surplus barrels build up and demand undershoots expectations, any upside may run into a clear ceiling.

Traders are now focused on Sunday’s OPEC+ decision for guidance on March supply and what may follow, depending on developments in US–Iran talks, while also closely watching Trump’s upcoming choice for the next Federal Reserve chair, given its direct impact on the dollar and, in turn, oil demand.