Trump’s Oil Market Gambit: Why Traders Are Growing Sceptical

Donald Trump’s efforts to influence oil markets through his statements made publicly and social media posts have started to lose their potency, as traders grow more sceptical of his claims. Over the last month, since the US and Israel began strikes on Iran on 28 February, the oil price has surged from around $72 a barrel to just below $112 as of Friday afternoon, reaching a peak at $118 on 19 March. Yet despite Trump’s latest assurances that talks with Iran were advancing “very well” and his announcement of a delay to military strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure until at least 6 April, oil prices maintained their upward movement rather than falling as might once have been anticipated. Market analysts now indicate that investors are regarding the president’s comments with considerable scepticism, viewing some statements as deliberate efforts to influence prices rather than authentic policy statements.

The Trump Effect on International Energy Markets

The connection between Trump’s pronouncements and oil price shifts has conventionally been notably direct. A presidential tweet or statement indicating escalation of the Iran situation would prompt significant price rises, whilst talk of de-escalation or peaceful resolution would lead to decreases. Jonathan Raymond, fund manager at Quilter Cheviot, notes that energy prices have become a proxy for general geopolitical and economic uncertainties, spiking when Trump’s language turns aggressive and declining when his tone softens. This sensitivity demonstrates legitimate investor concerns, given the significant economic impacts that accompany increased oil prices and potential supply disruptions.

However, this established trend has begun to unravel as traders doubt that Trump’s remarks truly represent policy goals or are mainly intended to influence oil markets. Brian Szytel at the Bahnsen Group argues that certain statements surrounding productive talks seems carefully crafted to sway market behaviour rather than communicate actual policy. This growing scepticism has substantially changed how traders respond to presidential statements. Russ Mould, head of investments at AJ Bell, notes that markets have become accustomed to Trump changing direction in reaction to political and economic pressures, breeding what he describes as “a degree of scepticism, or even downright cynicism, creeping in at the edges.”

• Trump’s remarks previously triggered rapid, substantial oil price movements
• Traders are increasingly viewing discourse as possibly market-influencing instead of grounded in policy
• Market responses are becoming more muted and less predictable in general
• Investors struggle to distinguish legitimate policy initiatives from price-affecting rhetoric

A Month of Volatility and Shifting Sentiment

From Growth to Diminished Pace

The past month has experienced dramatic fluctuations in oil prices, illustrating the complex dynamics between military action and diplomatic negotiations. Before 28 February, when attacks on Iran started, crude oil exchanged hands at approximately $72 per barrel. The market later jumped sharply, attaining a maximum of $118 per barrel on 19 March as market participants priced in potential escalation and possible supply shortages. By late Friday, levels had come to rest just below $112 per barrel, staying well above from pre-strike levels but demonstrating stabilization as market mood shifted.

This trend demonstrates increasing doubt among investors about the trajectory of the conflict and the trustworthiness of statements from authorities. Despite Trump’s announcement on Thursday that talks with Iran were progressing “very well” and that air strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure would be delayed until at least 6 April, oil prices kept rising rather than declining as past precedent might indicate. Jane Foley, chief of foreign exchange strategy at Rabobank, ascribes this gap to the “significant divide” between Trump’s reassurances and the absence of corresponding acknowledgement from Tehran, leaving investors sceptical about chances of a quick settlement.

The muted investor reaction to Trump’s peace-oriented rhetoric constitutes a significant departure from historical precedent. Previously, such remarks consistently produced price declines as traders factored in reduced geopolitical risk. Today’s increasingly cautious market participants acknowledges that Trump’s track record includes frequent policy reversals in reaction to political or economic pressures, making his statements less trustworthy as a reliable indicator of forthcoming behaviour. This erosion of trust has fundamentally altered how markets process presidential communications, compelling investors to look beyond superficial remarks and assess underlying geopolitical realities independently.

Why Financial Markets Have Lost Trust in Executive Messaging

The credibility breakdown developing in oil markets reveals a fundamental shift in how traders interpret presidential communications. Where Trump’s statements once regularly shifted prices—either upward during confrontational statements or downward when calming rhetoric emerged—investors now treat such pronouncements with substantial doubt. This erosion of trust stems partly from the wide gap between Trump’s reassurances about Iran talks and the shortage of reciprocal signals from Tehran, making investors doubt whether diplomatic settlement is genuinely imminent. The market’s muted response to Thursday’s announcement of delayed strikes demonstrates this newfound wariness.

Experienced market observers underscore Trump’s track record of policy shifts amid political and economic turbulence as a main source of investor scepticism. Brian Szytel at the Bahnsen Group contends some presidential rhetoric appears strategically designed to shape oil markets rather than communicate real policy objectives. This belief has led traders to look beyond surface-level statements and make their own assessment of the actual geopolitical situation. Russ Mould from AJ Bell points out a “degree of scepticism, or even downright cynicism, taking hold at the edges” as markets start to disregard statements from the President in preference for observable facts on the ground.

• Trump’s statements previously consistently shifted oil prices in foreseeable directions
• Gap between Trump’s assurances and Tehran’s lack of response raises trust questions
• Markets question some statements aims to influence prices rather than guide policy
• Trump’s history of policy shifts amid economic pressure fuels trader scepticism
• Investors increasingly prioritise verifiable geopolitical developments over statements from the president

The Credibility Divide Separating Rhetoric from Reality

A stark divergence has developed between Trump’s diplomatic overtures and the absence of corresponding signals from Iran, creating a chasm that traders can no longer ignore. On Thursday, minutes after US stock markets recorded their sharpest decline since the Iran conflict began, Trump announced that talks were progressing “very well” and committed to delay military strikes on Iran’s energy facilities until at least 6 April. Yet oil prices maintained their upward path, suggesting investors perceived the positive framing. Jane Foley, FX strategy head at Rabobank, observes that trading responses are becoming more muted largely because of this yawning gap between reassurances from the president and Tehran’s conspicuous silence.

The absence of reciprocal de-escalatory messaging from Iran has substantially changed how traders read Trump’s statements. Investors, accustomed to parsing presidential communications for genuine policy signals, now struggle to distinguish between genuine diplomatic advances and rhetoric designed purely for market manipulation. This uncertainty has fostered caution rather than confidence. Many traders, noting the unilateral character of Trump’s peace overtures, privately harbour doubts about whether genuine de-escalation is achievable in the short term. The result is a market that stays deeply uncertain, reluctant to reflect a rapid settlement despite the president’s ever more positive proclamations.

Tehran’s Silence Tells Its Own Story

The Iranian authorities’ failure to reciprocate Trump’s conciliatory gestures has become the unspoken issue for oil traders. Without recognition and reciprocal action from Tehran, even genuinely meant official remarks ring hollow. Foley emphasises that “given the optics, many market participants cannot see an swift conclusion to the tensions and sentiment stays uncertain.” This one-sided dialogue has effectively neutered the market-moving power of Trump’s declarations. Traders now understand that unilateral peace proposals, however positively presented, cannot replace genuine bilateral negotiations. Iran’s ongoing non-response thus acts as a powerful counterweight to any official confidence.

What Awaits for Oil and Global Political Tensions

As oil prices remain elevated, and traders grow ever more unconvinced of Trump’s messaging, the market faces a key turning point. The core instability driving prices upwards remains largely undiminished, particularly given the absence of meaningful diplomatic breakthroughs. Investors are girding themselves for persistent instability, with oil likely to remain sensitive to any fresh developments in the Iran conflict. The 6 April deadline for potential strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure looms large, offering a clear catalyst that could provoke considerable market movement. Until genuine bilateral negotiations materialise, traders expect oil to continue confined to this uncomfortable holding pattern, swinging between hope and fear.

Looking ahead, investors face the difficult fact that Trump’s verbal theatrics may have exhausted their power to shift markets. The credibility gap between White House pronouncements and on-the-ground conditions has grown substantially, forcing investors to depend on hard intelligence rather than official statements. This transition represents a significant reorientation of how traders assess political uncertainty. Rather than bouncing to every Trump statement, traders are paying closer attention to tangible measures and real diplomatic advancement. Until Iran participates substantively in conflict reduction, or military action recommences, oil prices are likely to stay in a state of nervous balance, capturing the real unpredictability that keeps on characterise this crisis.