Gold steady as traders await U.S. payroll data for economic cues
Gold prices were stable on Thursday as investors assessed weaker-than-expected U.S. data and ongoing global economic and political uncertainties, while looking ahead to U.S. payroll data for further economic cues.
Spot gold held its ground at $3,372.91 an ounce, as of 0354 GMT. U.S. gold futures edged down 0.1% to $3,396.60.
"Like most markets at present, gold finds itself in a holding pattern and at the whim of Trump's trade headlines — supported, yet hesitant to trade above this week's high," said Matt Simpson, a senior analyst at City Index.
"Volatility is also suppressed while we await comments from FOMC members and Friday's NFP report ... If anything, it points to a stronger jobs change figure, which could weigh on gold."
The U.S. services sector contracted in May for the first time in nearly a year, as businesses faced higher input costs amid growing fears of stagflation.
Gold gained support after the Federal Reserve reported a slowdown in U.S. economic activity, citing rising costs and prices driven by increased tariff rates since the last policy meeting.
Bullion gained additional momentum after U.S. President Donald Trump reiterated his call to Fed Chair Jerome Powell on Wednesday to cut interest rates.
The ADP National Employment Report showed that U.S. private employers added in May the fewest number of workers in more than two years, with investors awaiting Friday's nonfarm payrolls report for further clues on the labor market.
Trump's doubling of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports took effect, with his administration seeking "best offers" from trade partners to avoid further levies slated for July.
Trump described Chinese President Xi Jinping as "extremely hard to make a deal with," highlighting tensions ahead of a long-awaited call between the two leaders this week.
Gold, a safe-haven asset during times of political and economic uncertainty, tends to thrive in a low-interest-rate environment.
Elsewhere, spot silver fell 1.3% to $34.51 an ounce, platinum rose 1.1% to $1,097.13 and palladium was down 0.2% at $998.71.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump hits Iran: 5 questions on what comes next
President Trump's decision to authorize a military strike on Iran is a seismic moment that could reshape the future of the Middle East and his presidency. The administration on Sunday signaled it wants to contain the conflict, underscoring that it does not want an all-out war with Iran but will not accept a world where Tehran has a nuclear weapon. Whether it can contain the fallout is a different proposition and one that may depend largely on Iran. Politically, the vast majority of Republicans are sticking with Trump, while many Democrats are expressing outrage over what they see as a lack of strategy, as well as a lack of notification to Congress ahead of the strikes. The move by Trump is, in some ways, a surprise, as he came to office promising to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. Now, less than six months into his second term, he is on the brink of a larger battle. Live updates: Iran threatens to shut Strait of Hormuz; US warns of 'heightened' risk Here are five big questions about what comes next. This is the most important question. Administration officials on Sunday signaled that they are hopeful Iran will return to the negotiating table, but signs quickly emerged of a more aggressive response from Tehran. Iranian television reported that Iran's Parliament had approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping route between Iran and Oman. State-run Press TV said a final decision on doing so rested with Iran's Supreme National Security Council. Shutting off the waterway could have major implications for global trade, leading to increased oil and gas prices in the U.S. That would bite at Trump, who vowed to bring down prices after years of high inflation under former President Biden in the post-COVID era. It also risks turning the conflict into a broader war. Iran could also launch strikes against U.S. military targets, though its abilities to do so have been hampered by more than a week of strikes by Israel, which has allowed U.S. and Israeli planes more security to fly over Iranian skies. Another widely discussed possibility is that Iran could back terror attacks around the world on U.S. targets. Of course, there would be serious risks to such actions by Iran. Just taking steps to move forward with its nuclear program, let alone striking out at the U.S., would lead to negative consequences, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned on Sunday. 'Look, at the end of the day, if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk,' he said during an appearance on Fox News's 'Sunday Morning Futures.' 'I really do. I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.' Before this week, Trump's Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement looked divided on a strike on Iran. Trump has long criticized past U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a big part of his draw to many voters was his promise to keep the U.S. out of foreign conflicts. MAGA voices ranging from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to political pundit Tucker Carlson to former Trump strategic adviser Steve Bannon have all cast doubt on getting the U.S. more directly involved in the Iran-Israeli conflict. In the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Republicans were notably united, with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) being a notable exception. And administration officials with noninterventionist records were taking rhetorical steps to keep the doubters in line. A chief example was Vice President Vance, who said the U.S. was at war with Iran's nuclear program, not Iran as a country. Iran may not see things that way, and if Tehran takes steps to hurt the U.S., GOP voices who doubted the wisdom of a strike may get louder. That will be something the administration watches closely going forward. Trump, in a Sunday Truth Social post, also touted 'great unity' among Republicans following the U.S. strikes and called on the party to focus on getting his tax and spending legislation to his desk. On the left, Democrats have hit Trump hard over the strike on Iran. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), speaking at a rally on Saturday night, reacted to unfolding events live, arguing Trump's action was unconstitutional as a crowd chanted 'no more wars.' Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said Trump's action was an impeachable offense. That was a bold statement in that Democrats largely have avoided impeachment talk with Trump after twice voting to impeach him during his first term. Both of those efforts ultimately ended with Senate acquittals and, finally, with Trump's reelection last year. Presidents in both parties have taken limited military strikes without first seeking permission from Congress, but Democrats have also brought up the War Powers Act, saying Trump went too far with the strikes. At the same time, many Democrats are concerned about Iran's potential to go nuclear, and the party does not want to be cast as soft on Tehran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a vociferous opponent of Iran, called for his GOP counterpart, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (S.D.), to put the War Powers Act on the floor so senators could vote to authorize Trump's actions. Going a step further, Schumer said he would vote for it. 'No president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy,' Schumer said in the statement. 'Confronting Iran's ruthless campaign of terror, nuclear ambitions, and regional aggression demands strength, resolve, and strategic clarity. The danger of wider, longer, and more devastating war has now dramatically increased.' 'We must enforce the War Powers Act, and I'm urging Leader Thune to put it on the Senate floor immediately. I am voting for it and implore all Senators on both sides of the aisle to vote for it,' he said. Another Democrat further to the center, Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, reposted Trump's Truth Social post on the attack and said he fully agreed with it. In general, the strikes on Iran may further divide Democrats on liberal-centrist and generational lines. Yet much, again, depends on events. A successful Gulf War by former President George H.W. Bush did not save his presidency in 1992. And the second Gulf War ended disastrously for the Republican Party led by Bush's son, former President George W. Bush. Trump justly had a reputation as a president who is averse to foreign conflicts, given his criticism of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his repeated calls that he would keep the U.S. out of such wars. So how did this Trump end up bombing Iran, becoming the first president to authorize the dropping of some of America's most lethal nonnuclear bombs? It's more likely Trump's shift is a bit of a one-off based on current world events than a complete change in philosophy. After Israel's initial strike on Iran on June 13, the administration distanced itself from the decision. Trump previously had been seeking to get Iran to agree to a nuclear deal, and many reports suggested he was not keen on an aggressive Israeli attack. But that attack happened, and it went well. Israel had control of Iranian airspace, potentially clearing the way for U.S. B-2 bombers. Action by Russia was unlikely given its own war with Ukraine — something that was not part of the political fabric in Trump's first term. Iran's backers in Hamas and Hezbollah also have been devastated by Israel since Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, 2023, an event that has had a number of serious repercussions. Some U.S. officials on Sunday called for peace, a sign that Trump is not seeking a prolonged conflict. That could also be a message to his supporters who did not think they were voting for a leader who risked getting the country into a Middle East war. At least some of those voters may be asking questions in the days and weeks to come, and what comes next will make a big difference in shaping their views. Trump's decision to attack Iran and enter the Israeli-Iran war is a big win for hawkish supporters and allies of the president, most notably Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). It is also, oddly, something that will be cheered by certain Republicans who are more often critics of Trump, such as former national security adviser John Bolton and former Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.). It seems clear Trump is listening to the voices of Graham, Rubio and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, despite the sometimes-tense relationship between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Vance is clearly a part of the president's inner circle, and it was notable that he, Rubio and Hegseth were at Trump's side when he announced the strikes on Saturday night. Trump 2.0 has been notable for having few voices that offer pushback to Trump's decisions. It is difficult to see Hegseth pressing Trump to move in a different direction on a national security issue, for example. And Trump twice this week described assessments by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that Iran was not close to developing a nuclear weapon as wrong. So, who has Trump's ear? Most of these key people surround Trump and others, like White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. But Trump is his own decider in chief, and the Iran strikes are a reflection of his own unpredictability. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
CNBC
31 minutes ago
- CNBC
Gold subdued as dollar gains, markets await Iran response
Gold prices edged lower on Monday as investors favored the dollar following the U.S. attack on key Iranian nuclear sites over the weekend, with markets closely watching for Iran's response. Spot gold was down 0.2% at $3,362.29 an ounce, as of 0341 GMT. U.S. gold futures fell 0.2% to $3,378. "The US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities resulted in the dollar receiving safe haven buying flows in the currency market," KCM Trade Chief Market Analyst Tim Waterer said. "This USD uptick had pegged gold back and caused an uncharacteristically subdued performance from the precious metal despite risks stemming from the conflict." The dollar rose 0.2% against its rivals, making gold more expensive for other currency holders. USD/ U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday raised the question of a regime change in Iran following U.S. strikes against key military sites over the weekend, as senior officials in his administration warned Tehran against retaliation. Iran vowed to defend itself a day after the U.S. dropped 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs onto the mountain above Iran's Fordow nuclear site. Meanwhile, Iran and Israel continued to trade volleys of missile attacks. An Israeli military spokesperson said Israeli fighter jets had struck military targets in western Iran. Shares slipped in Asia on Monday and oil prices briefly hit five-month highs, but there were no signs of panic selling across markets. The Federal Reserve's latest monetary policy report to Congress, released on Friday, said U.S. inflation remained somewhat elevated and the labor market was solid. On the technical front, spot gold may retest support at $3,348 per ounce, a break below could open the way toward $3,324, according to Reuters technical analyst Wang Tao. Elsewhere, spot silver rose 0.2% at $36.07 per ounce, platinum edged 0.1% higher to $1,269.17, while palladium gained 0.2% to $1,046.62.
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Morning Bid: Now the ball is in Iran's court
A look at the day ahead in European and global markets from Wayne Cole As if there wasn't enough uncertainty in the world already, President Trump has to get the United States embroiled in another Middle East conflict. It's not often a president announces an attack on another country via social media, or that the word "bombs" is used in all caps. The U.S. administration says it's not at war and it will not escalate if Iran makes peace. Then again, it also said it was not aiming at regime change in Iran, until Trump posted on social media about that very prospect. For now the ball is in Tehran's court and it has not yet struck at any U.S. site, although its parliament was reported to have approved an attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz. Iranian media said such a move would need approval by the Supreme National Security Council. Polymarket even makes a book on the chance of Iran managing to close the Strait, and that's currently at 47%. So, suddenly every market commentator is an expert on how to close shipping lanes, the efficacy of bunker busting bombs and the intricacies of enriching uranium. The market position is to hope this U.S. intervention will not escalate, and perhaps might even make the region safer should Iran's nuclear ambitions really be set back by years. Oil is up almost 2%, but well off early five-month peaks as analysts note OPEC has plenty of extra supply to add if they want. Wall St share futures are down 0.3%, having started with losses of 1%, while European futures are off 0.4% or so. The dollar is marginally firmer on the euro and yen, reflecting the reliance of the EU and Japan on imported oil and LNG, and the U.S. status as a net exporter. Treasury yields are up slightly, so not many safe-haven bids there, while Fed fund futures are down a tick, likely on the risk a sustained rise in energy costs could add to inflationary pressure just as tariffs are being felt in prices. Fed Chair Jerome Powell is set for a grilling on all this when he faces Congress on Tuesday and Wednesday, along with queries on Trump's threats to fire him. It will also be interesting to see how Powell responds to Fed Governor Waller's sudden embrace of a July rate cut, when it seemed the FOMC choir had all been singing from the same cautious hymn sheet. Markets imply still only a 16% chance of a July easing, preferring a 70% wager on a September move. Key developments that could influence markets on Monday: - EU and UK PMIs for June - Introductory remarks by ECB President Christine Lagarde - Appearances by Fed members Waller, Bowman, Goolsbee and Kugler (By Wayne Cole; Editing by Edmund Klamann) Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
