Oil refining capacity in Europe and the U.S. will decline over the next decade, while it will continue to grow in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, according to forecasts by S&P Global Energy experts.
Western governments are urging companies to expand refinery capacity to ensure uninterrupted supplies of critical resources during future crises, but investors are reluctant to fund new projects, which will create problems in the future—both in Europe and North America, the Financial Times reports.
This year, refineries in the U.S. and Europe are operating near full capacity as the industry struggles to cope with shortages caused by the war in the Middle East, and they are generating high profits.
According to a forecast by S&P Global Energy, European refinery capacity will decline by 20% over the next ten years through 2035, to a level slightly above 9 million barrels per day (bpd). Last year, facilities with a combined refining capacity of about 500,000 b/d were shut down in Europe, and the United Kingdom, for example, lost two of its six refineries.
S&P Global Energy also expects U.S. capacity to decline by 7% over this period, to 16.7 million bpd.
The energy crisis caused by the war in the Middle East has not altered the industry’s trajectory, notes Daniel Evans, who is responsible for the oil refining market at S&P Global.
“Recent supply disruptions have forced a reassessment of the strategic importance of the refining industry in the West. But does this change the long-term fundamentals? I would say most likely not,” he noted.
Unlike in North America and Europe, companies in China, the Middle East, India, and Africa have built large, new, and highly competitive refineries.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has raised its forecast for U.S. corn exports in the 2026/27 season amid ongoing supply constraints from Ukraine.
In the August World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report, released on August 12, the forecast for U.S. corn exports was raised by 75 million bushels to 3.3 billion bushels, or approximately 83.8 million metric tons. Compared to the July estimate, the increase amounts to about 1.9 million metric tons, or 2.3%.
The USDA explicitly attributes the increase in the U.S. export forecast to rising global demand and limited export capacity from Ukraine.
At the same time, the agency lowered its forecast for Ukrainian corn exports in the 2026/27 marketing year by 1 million metric tons—from 23 million to 22 million metric tons. Meanwhile, the estimate for Ukraine’s corn harvest itself, on the contrary, was increased by 1.8 million metric tons—from 30 million to 31.8 million metric tons.
Thus, Ukraine may harvest more corn than the USDA expected just a month ago, but a smaller portion of the harvest will be able to reach foreign markets.
As a result, the forecast for Ukraine’s ending corn stocks has been increased from 2.06 million to 4.86 million metric tons—more than 2.3 times the previous figure. At the same time, the USDA left its forecast for domestic consumption virtually unchanged.
The situation on the global market is different. The USDA raised its forecast for global corn trade in the 2026/27 season by 0.6 million metric tons—from 209.88 million to 210.48 million metric tons.
The United States is the main source of this additional supply. At the same time, the USDA lowered its export forecast not only for Ukraine but also for the European Union.
The U.S. agency also raised its forecast for EU corn imports, while estimates for purchases by China and Turkey were lowered.
The growth in U.S. exports is occurring against the backdrop of a virtually unchanged forecast for U.S. corn production. The harvest is expected to reach about 16 billion bushels and could be the second-largest in the country’s history. However, the increase in export demand will lead to a reduction in U.S. ending stocks by 137 million bushels—to 1.7 billion bushels.
The USDA also raised its forecast for the average corn price for U.S. farmers by $0.10 to $4.50 per bushel.
Consequently, difficulties with Ukrainian corn exports are already beginning to shift the global market in favor of competing suppliers. The U.S. stands to increase shipments by nearly 2 million metric tons compared to the previous forecast, while Ukraine risks accumulating significant additional domestic stockpiles.
The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is considering the possibility of introducing refundable security deposits of up to $100,000 for certain foreign nationals applying for immigrant visas and green cards through U.S. consulates abroad.
The proposal is being developed by the U.S. Department of State in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security. A final decision has not yet been made, and official regulations and a list of applicant categories have not been published. The amount of the bond under discussion may be determined on a case-by-case basis and could be either lower or higher than the estimated $100,000.
It is expected that the requirement will initially be tested on citizens of a limited number of countries. The bond could be posted either by the applicant themselves or by relatives or sponsors residing in the U.S.
According to The Wall Street Journal, the money is planned to be returned after the immigrant obtains U.S. citizenship. Naturalization is typically possible no earlier than five years after obtaining permanent resident status. Thus, a significant amount of money may remain frozen for several years.
The State Department stated that it is reviewing existing authorities that allow it to require financial guarantees from certain applicants. The stated goal of the initiative is to confirm that a prospective immigrant has the means to support themselves and will not become dependent on public assistance.
U.S. law allows for the denial of a visa to a foreign national whom a consular officer deems a potential recipient of public assistance. The assessment takes into account the applicant’s age, health, education, professional skills, financial resources, and family status.
Current federal regulations already provide for the possibility of issuing an immigrant visa after a bond is posted, provided that it eliminates the risk of the applicant being deemed a potential financial burden on the government. Such a bond may be released after naturalization, permanent departure from the United States, or the foreign national’s death, provided the conditions have not been violated.
The proposed mechanism should not be confused with the existing pilot bond program for B-1/B-2 tourist and business visas. Under this program, certain applicants from countries with high rates of visa violations may be required to post a refundable bond of up to $15,000.
The introduction of a $100,000 bond could significantly limit access to family-based immigration for applicants with low to moderate incomes. Immigrant visas are most commonly issued to spouses, parents, children, and other relatives of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
For now, this is only a proposed initiative. Applicants are not required to post such a bond until an official decision is published and they receive a corresponding request from a U.S. consulate.
Foreign buyers purchased $45.3 billion worth of residential real estate in the U.S. between April 2025 and March 2026, a 19.1% decrease from the previous 12 months, according to a report released by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) on July 29, 2026. The number of properties purchased by foreigners fell by 14%—from 78,100 to 67,100. This is the second-
lowest figure since 2009, when the NAR began tracking these statistics. The median purchase price was $465,000.
NAR Chief Economist Lawrence Yun attributed the decline in activity to an overall reduction in international tourism and travel to the United States. According to him, even a slight weakening of the dollar, which boosted foreign buyers’ purchasing power, was unable to offset high prices and limited housing supply.
Among foreign buyers who abandoned planned transactions, 33% were unable to find a suitable property, 28% found prices too high, and 19% encountered difficulties related to immigration regulations. High mortgage rates, inflation, trade policy, and geopolitical uncertainty placed additional pressure on demand.
Canadian citizens accounted for 16% of all foreign purchases, acquiring 10,700 properties worth $5.2 billion. Mexico ranked second with a 14% share and 9,400 transactions totaling $5 billion.
Buyers from China dropped from first to third place in terms of the number of purchases, accounting for 11% of foreign demand. However, they retained the lead in total transaction value at $7.6 billion. The average price of a property purchased by Chinese buyers was approximately $1 million.
The top five groups of foreign buyers also included citizens of India, with a 9% share and $3.7 billion in transactions, as well as the United Kingdom—4% and $1.2 billion, respectively.
Florida retained its status as the most popular destination for foreign buyers, accounting for 20% of all transactions. California accounted for 19%, Texas for 12%, and New Jersey and Georgia for 4% each. Foreign buyers continued to focus on the higher-end segment of the market. The median price of the homes they purchased was $465,000, compared to $413,600 for all existing-home transactions in the U.S. About 15% of foreign buyers purchased properties valued at over $1 million. Nearly half of the transactions—48%—were paid for entirely in cash, while among all U.S. homebuyers, this figure stood at 28%. Foreign buyers purchased about half of the properties for vacation use, rental income, or a combination of these purposes.
According to NAR statistics, foreign buyers include both non-residents who permanently reside outside the U.S. and recent immigrants and holders of non-immigrant visas who have been living in the country for more than six months. Non-residents purchased 29,500 properties worth $23.5 billion, while foreign nationals residing in the U.S. purchased 37,600 properties worth $21.8 billion.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) brings together professionals in the residential and commercial real estate markets. The study of international transactions is based on a survey of association members and has been published annually since 2009.
According to the analytics department of the Fixygen.ua project, the passage of a U.S. law on the structure of the digital asset market, the finalization of stablecoin regulations, and the further expansion of banks’ access to cryptocurrency transactions could be the key government decisions capable of positively impacting the cryptocurrency market in the second half of 2026.
Analysts at JPMorgan, Citigroup, and Bitwise cite the passage of the U.S. Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act as the most significant potential development. The bill aims to delineate the authority of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), as well as establish federal regulations for cryptocurrency exchanges and token issuers.
JPMorgan analysts, led by Nikolaos Panigirtzoglou, previously noted that the passage of legislation regarding the structure of the crypto market could serve as a positive catalyst for digital assets in the second half of 2026. The law has the potential to reduce legal risks and facilitate participation in the sector by banks, asset management firms, and other institutional investors.
Citi strategist Alex Saunders also believes that regulatory changes will stimulate the further adoption of cryptocurrencies and an influx of capital. However, the bank warned that the window for passing the law in 2026 is narrowing. The delay in considering the CLARITY Act has already become one of the reasons for Citi’s downward revision of its forecasts for Bitcoin and Ethereum.
Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hogan expects a sharp improvement in market sentiment if a version of the CLARITY Act acceptable to the cryptocurrency industry is passed. In his view, the lack of a final decision maintains uncertainty and is causing institutional investors to postpone investments.
As of the end of July, the bill had made progress in the Senate, but it requires the support of some Democrats for final passage. Controversial issues include rewards for stablecoin holders, anti-money laundering requirements, regulation of decentralized platforms, and restrictions on high-ranking politicians’ involvement in cryptocurrency projects.
A second potential catalyst could be the publication of the final implementing rules for the GENIUS Act, which was signed into law in the U.S. in July 2025.
The law established a federal regulatory framework for payment stablecoins, but a number of provisions require additional regulations from the Department of the Treasury, banking regulators, and financial monitoring agencies.
On April 1, 2026, the U.S. Treasury Department presented the first draft of regulations defining the conditions under which state-level regulation of issuers can be considered comparable to the federal system. A week later, FinCEN and OFAC proposed requirements regarding anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance.
The publication of the final rules could allow banks and payment companies to launch their own stablecoins more quickly, as well as increase demand for blockchain infrastructure, tokenized assets, and digital asset custody services.
Bitwise notes that the volume of tokenized real-world assets has grown by 50.3% since the beginning of 2026, reaching $32.89 billion. In terms of transaction volume, stablecoin transactions are already 2.3 times higher than those of the Visa payment system.
Ethereum, Solana, and other networks actively used for issuing digital dollars, tokenizing assets, and international settlements stand to benefit most from the completion of stablecoin regulation.
A third potential positive development will be further clarification of the legal status of certain cryptoassets and staking transactions.
On March 17, 2026, the SEC and CFTC issued a joint interpretation stating that most cryptoassets are not securities in and of themselves. The document also clarifies the application of the law to mining, staking, airdrops, and inverse tokens.
The next positive step for the market could be formal rules that allow cryptocurrency companies to determine in advance whether a specific token falls under the jurisdiction of the SEC or the CFTC.
Another catalyst could be the further approval of exchange-traded funds that utilize staking. Such products allow investors not only to gain price exposure to cryptocurrencies but also to participate in the revenue generated from transaction validation.
By 2026, exchange-traded products featuring staking of Solana, Avalanche, Ethereum, and other tokens had already appeared in the U.S. The expansion of such authorizations could increase institutional demand, primarily for cryptocurrencies that operate on a Proof-of-Stake mechanism.
A fourth potentially positive development could be the CFTC’s authorization for regulated U.S. platforms to organize spot trading in digital assets.
The CFTC’s Crypto Sprint program is scheduled to run through August 2026 and aims to develop regulated spot trading of crypto assets, enable the use of stablecoins and tokenized assets as collateral, and adapt infrastructure to support 24/7 trading and blockchain-based settlements.
The emergence of regulated spot trading platforms could attract brokers, banks, and professional managers to the market, who are currently constrained by internal rules or counterparty requirements.
This could also reduce U.S. investors’ dependence on foreign trading platforms and increase the liquidity of Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other assets that the CFTC officially classifies as digital commodities.
Analysts consider the further lifting of regulatory restrictions on banks to be a fifth potential catalyst.
The U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has already confirmed that national banks may provide crypto-asset custody services, buy and sell them on behalf of clients, and engage third-party sub-custodians.
The next step could be broader harmonization of regulations by the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and state banking regulators.
The issuance of new banking licenses to companies working with digital assets, the launch of cryptocurrency custody services by major banks, and the provision of access to trading through traditional banking apps would send a positive signal to the market.
Such decisions could reduce operational risks for institutional investors and create additional channels for capital inflows into cryptocurrency funds.
Further support for the market could come from the convergence of digital asset regulations between the U.S., the U.K., and the European Union.
On July 14, 2026, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the UK Treasury presented recommendations on the development of cross-border transactions involving digital assets. The parties separately supported the expansion of international circulation of private stablecoins and the reduction of regulatory barriers between the two financial markets.
A positive development could be the mutual recognition of licenses or reserve requirements for stablecoins, which would facilitate the use of digital dollars and pounds in international settlements.
In the European Union, the MiCA regulation has already established a unified licensing system for cryptocurrency companies. Granting licenses to large international banks and exchanges could boost confidence among institutional clients and accelerate the development of a legal market for digital assets.
However, the most important regulatory factor for the market in the coming months remains the fate of the CLARITY Act. Its passage could reduce the likelihood of legal disputes with regulators and open the U.S. market to a greater number of institutional products.
However, a positive outcome is not guaranteed. Excessively strict requirements for DeFi, stablecoins, or software developers could limit the growth of certain market segments.
Furthermore, even favorable legislation cannot eliminate the impact of interest rates, geopolitics, liquidity, and investor activity. Bitwise notes that in the second quarter of 2026, the index of the largest crypto assets fell by 15.4%, and U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded a record quarterly outflow of funds.
At the time of writing, Bitcoin was trading at around $63,400, and Ethereum at around $1,625. Thus, the most positive scenario for the crypto market would be the simultaneous passage of the CLARITY Act, the finalization of regulations for stablecoins, and the expansion of banks’ access to digital assets. These decisions have the potential to reduce regulatory uncertainty, but their impact will depend on the final wording of the regulations and the state of global financial markets.
Ukrainians in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status (TPS) were set to lose their Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) as of July 22, but a Massachusetts court temporarily suspended that decision the day before, according to Valeriy Chaly, chairman of the board of the Ukrainian Cultural and Media Center (UKMC), who served as Ukraine’s ambassador to the U.S. from 2015 to 2019.
“On July 22, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians with TPS status were set to lose their jobs in the U.S. Because initially there was one regulation, and then the president’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill Act’ (IBBBA) was introduced, and it shortened the validity period of the work permit—the so-called EAD—to July 22… In just one state, the matter went to court, and that court has so far temporarily suspended the decision,” Chalyi described the situation during a discussion organized by NV dedicated to lobbying and promoting Ukraine’s interests in the U.S.
The diplomat noted with regret that the new wave of Ukrainian refugees in the U.S. has so far been unable to unite and organize to defend themselves, and many advocacy organizations dealing with issues of American political and military support have also failed to provide assistance to Ukrainians.
“The situation for these Ukrainians in America is very difficult right now. But our government isn’t doing anything about it—not at all,” Chalyi noted, although, in his opinion, the vast majority of these Ukrainians will not return to Ukraine anyway.
He told the “Interfax-Ukraine” news agency that the current TPS term for Ukrainians expires on October 19 of this year, and if it is not extended and a person does not have any other legal status, they will have to leave the U.S. According to Chaly, the decision to extend this status must be made no later than 60 days before its expiration, that is, by mid-August.
According to information on specialized websites, on July 21, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in the case of Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts v. USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), issued an emergency injunction preventing the termination of EADs for TPS beneficiaries—including Ukrainians—effective July 22. A final decision on this matter is expected no later than August 5, 2026.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) may extend TPS status for Ukrainians for 12 or 18 months; if DHS does not issue a decision by August 20 of this year, the status will be automatically extended for another 6 months.
According to the nonprofit organization Nova Ukraine, the cost of the initial TPS application is $510, while a TPS-based EAD costs $1,030, and the reduced fee under certain conditions is $560.
Current estimates indicate that more than 100,000 Ukrainians hold TPS status in the U.S.
As previously reported, the EU recently decided to extend temporary protection for Ukrainians for another year—until March 4, 2028—but to impose restrictions on granting it to those subject to military service.
