Navigating US Policy and Market Shifts in 2025

The landscape for corporate finance and supply chains is changing fast under the headline US policy and market shifts 2025. Therefore, treasury teams, supply chiefs and dealmakers must reassess liquidity plans, sourcing strategies and geopolitical risk models. However, firms do not need perfect foresight to act. Instead, practical steps—stress testing cash, diversifying suppliers, and refreshing sanctions due diligence—can reduce exposure. Additionally, this post walks through five connected developments from recent Financial Times reporting and explains their immediate implications for business decision-makers.

## 1. Federal balance-sheet growth and what it means now — US policy and market shifts 2025

FT reporting suggests the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet is likely to grow again soon. Therefore, corporate treasurers should prepare for a market where central bank balance-sheet operations re-enter the picture. However, that does not mean an immediate return to the easy liquidity of past years. Instead, the likely dynamic is episodic intervention: the Fed may step in to calm short-term stress while keeping policy rates where they are. Consequently, firms that rely on short-dated funding should update their liquidity buffers and diversify cash holdings across instruments and counterparties.

Additionally, the potential growth in the Fed’s balance sheet has knock-on effects for capital planning. Therefore, borrowing costs could remain volatile even as episodic purchases dampen acute market dislocations. However, balance-sheet expansion also means some relief for money markets during stress events. As a result, finance teams should run funding stress scenarios that assume both tighter funding conditions and occasional Fed backstops. Finally, firms that engage in active cash management should communicate contingency plans to boards and lenders sooner rather than later.

Source: ft.com

2. Money-market stress, short-term funding and corporate liquidity — US policy and market shifts 2025

FT coverage warns that US money markets face the risk of a fresh bout of stress, and that banks expect the Fed may resume asset purchases if short-term rates spike. Therefore, corporate liquidity managers must treat short-term funding as a first-line risk. However, many firms treat their cash runway as stable. Instead, companies should model scenarios where overnight and repo funding become more expensive or less available for periods of days or weeks.

Additionally, this environment elevates operational risks around treasury operations. Therefore, firms should review payment cycles, counterparty limits and margining terms. Moreover, companies that use multi-bank sweeps or rely on prime money funds should verify redemption gates and notice periods. Consequently, maintaining committed credit lines and longer-term financing options becomes more valuable. However, those options carry costs. Therefore, deciding the right balance between readiness and cost will be an active management choice for CFOs.

Finally, firms should coordinate with investors and rating agencies. Additionally, clear communication about liquidity positions can prevent market second-guessing. Therefore, practical steps now include refreshing cashflow forecasting, stress testing under money-market disruption, and confirming backup financing.

Source: ft.com

3. Critical minerals reclassification: silver and copper added — US policy and market shifts 2025

FT reports the US has added silver and copper to its “critical minerals” list. Therefore, companies with exposure to electronics, energy and industrial supply chains need to reassess sourcing and tariff risk. However, the immediate effect is not just symbolic. Instead, the designation signals that these materials may be subject to future policy tools, including tariff changes, export controls or targeted incentives for domestic processing. Consequently, procurement teams should map where silver and copper enter their value chains and identify single-source points that could become chokepoints.

Additionally, investors and boards should treat this reclassification as a strategic cue. Therefore, capital allocation decisions for metal-intensive projects may change. However, firms should avoid knee-jerk reshoring without a cost-benefit view. Instead, companies can pursue a mix of supplier diversification, strategic inventories and partnerships with firms in lower-risk jurisdictions. Moreover, sustainability and traceability programs will grow in importance as regulators and customers focus on secure and responsible supplies.

Finally, firms in sectors like renewable energy and semiconductors should expect closer scrutiny from policymakers. Therefore, early engagement with trade advisers and scenario planning around tariff or incentive shifts will reduce surprises.

Source: ft.com

4. Boosting rare-earth supply: US-backed Brazilian mine and supply resilience

FT reports the US is backing a Brazilian mine with a $465m loan to expand rare-earth output and loosen China’s grip on processing capacity. Therefore, this signals a strategic push to diversify a critical part of the tech and energy supply chain. However, building alternatives takes time. Instead, the loan is a step toward more global processing capacity and greater supplier choice for firms reliant on motors, magnets and battery components.

Additionally, companies in cleantech and defense should track how new mines and processors alter sourcing options. Therefore, procurement strategies that once accepted China-centric supply will need to consider new partners and different cost structures. Moreover, as global processing capacity increases, firms may see more competition for midstream services like refining and separation. Consequently, integrating strategic sourcing, inventory policies and longer-term purchasing agreements will help smooth transition costs.

Finally, the US-backed financing shows governments will underwrite strategic supply goals. Therefore, firms can expect more public-private initiatives aimed at supply diversification. However, companies should remain realistic about timelines and costs and use government-backed opportunities to build resilient, not just politically aligned, supply chains.

Source: ft.com

5. Sanctions, M&A and geopolitical risk: the Gunvor–Lukoil bid fallout

FT reports Gunvor has dropped a $22bn bid for Lukoil assets after US moves to block the deal, with the Treasury labeling the trader a “Kremlin’s puppet.” Therefore, the episode underscores how sanctions and licensing decisions now materially affect large cross-border M&A. However, dealmakers sometimes underestimated how swiftly geopolitical decisions can render transactions infeasible. Instead, boards and legal teams must integrate sanctions scenarios into early-stage deal evaluation.

Additionally, energy sector players and their advisers should anticipate tougher scrutiny on counterparties with political ties. Therefore, pre-deal diligence must expand to include sanctions risk, licensing exposure and contingency plans for blocked approvals. Moreover, alternative deal structures—spin-offs, local partnerships or staged purchases—may not avoid risk if primary licensing is denied. Consequently, firms looking to buy significant overseas assets should model the probability and impact of regulatory blockages as a core part of valuation.

Finally, the deal collapse reinforces the link between geopolitics and corporate strategy. Therefore, global businesses must align risk appetite with realistic expectations about regulatory intervention and map how sanctions could disrupt not only transactions but long-term contracts and supply relationships.

Source: ft.com

Final Reflection: Connecting liquidity, supply chains and geopolitical risk

Taken together, these five developments illustrate a single theme: US policy choices are reshaping markets in ways that go beyond traditional monetary or trade policy. Therefore, corporate leaders should view liquidity, sourcing and deal strategy as parts of one risk ecosystem. Additionally, the Fed’s potential balance-sheet growth and money-market vulnerabilities affect funding and operating rhythm. Meanwhile, critical-mineral designations and financing for rare-earth supply change the economics and politics of sourcing. Finally, sanctions and licensing decisions can abruptly alter the feasibility of major transactions.

However, this is also an opportunity. Therefore, firms that proactively stress test liquidity, diversify supply chains, engage with policymakers and tighten sanctions compliance can gain resilience and competitive advantage. Moreover, companies that treat these signals as strategic inputs—not just regulatory noise—will navigate US policy and market shifts 2025 with less disruption and more confidence.