Oil slumps to $60 a gallon — lowest price since 2021 — as recession fears mount

New York Post - Apr 7th, 2025

US oil prices dropped below $60 per barrel on Monday, fueled by concerns that President Donald Trump's tariffs could trigger a recession. The futures tied to US West Texas Intermediate crude decreased to $58.95 before slightly recovering to $60.63 by the afternoon. Similarly, global benchmark Brent fell to $62.51 before climbing to $64.40. The decline in oil prices, the lowest since 2021, is attributed to fears of an inflationary impact from tariffs and a surprise supply increase from OPEC. While President Trump celebrated the lower prices and denied inflation on his social media platform, analysts warned that a continued slump could lead to an “eye-watering” surplus, potentially impacting American frackers and Trump's energy strategy.

The economic implications are significant as Bank of America forecasts that the global trade war, intensified by threats of retaliation from China and the European Union, will halve oil demand growth this year. A demand slump could result in a surplus of 1.25 million barrels per day. Analysts, including Kalei Akamine, noted that President Trump's tariffs and OPEC's actions exacerbate the forming surplus, adding pressure on market valuations. The situation has contributed to volatile trading, with major banks like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs raising recession odds and revising oil price forecasts downward. This market instability follows Wall Street's worst week since the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting broader economic concerns linked to tariff-related anxieties and global trade tensions.

Inflation Tariffs Goldman Sachs Bank Of America Jp Morgan Recession Fears President Donald Trump Global Trade War Us Oil Prices Opec

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.8

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article provides a timely analysis of economic concerns related to oil prices and trade policies, offering insights into potential recession risks. It presents credible sources but lacks detailed attributions and transparency in some areas, which affects its overall accuracy and source quality. The piece effectively captures public interest by addressing significant economic issues, though its impact could be enhanced by including a broader range of perspectives and more in-depth analysis. While the article maintains clarity and readability, minor inaccuracies and the use of technical terms without explanation may limit comprehension for some readers. Overall, the story is informative but could benefit from greater balance and detailed sourcing.

Accuracy

The article claims that US oil prices fell below $60 a barrel, which is mostly accurate, although it incorrectly uses 'gallon' instead of 'barrel.' Such errors can mislead readers about the scale of the price drop. The story mentions fears of a recession due to tariffs, supported by banks like JPMorgan raising recession odds, which aligns with economic analyses. However, the claim about OPEC's surprise supply hike lacks specific data, requiring verification from reliable sources. President Trump's comments on inflation and tariffs are presented, though some claims, like 'NO INFLATION,' are debatable and need further context.

Balance

The article presents perspectives from market analysts and President Trump, offering a glimpse into different viewpoints on the economic situation. However, it leans slightly towards emphasizing the negative economic implications of tariffs without exploring potential benefits or alternative perspectives. The piece could improve by including more diverse viewpoints, such as those from economists or policymakers who support the tariffs or have differing opinions on their impact.

Clarity

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, presenting the main points in a logical order. However, the incorrect use of 'gallon' instead of 'barrel' could confuse readers. Additionally, some complex economic concepts are mentioned without sufficient explanation, which may hinder comprehension for a general audience. Simplifying these concepts or providing brief explanations could improve clarity.

Source quality

The article cites analysts from major banks and President Trump's statements, which are credible sources. However, it lacks direct quotes or detailed attributions for some claims, such as the specific nature of OPEC's supply hike. The absence of named sources for certain predictions and economic impacts reduces the reliability of the information presented. Including a wider range of expert opinions and clearer attributions would enhance source quality.

Transparency

The article provides some context for the economic situation, such as the impact of tariffs and OPEC's actions. However, it lacks transparency in explaining the methodology behind the economic forecasts and the basis for certain claims, like the 'eye-watering' surplus. The article could benefit from more detailed explanations of the data and analysis methods used by the cited analysts, as well as any potential conflicts of interest.