Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., on Wednesday called for a federal probe into suspicious trading activity in oil and equity futures markets just before President Donald Trump’s announcement of a five-day delay in attacks on Iran’s energy infrastructure in March.

In a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Paul Atkins and Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chair Michael Selig, first reported by CNBC, Torres cites reports on a series of irregular and well-timed trades in the minutes ahead of Trump calling a pause on hostilities.

“What kind of trader would make a massive trade at 6:49 a.m., 15 minutes before a market-moving presidential announcement with billions of dollars at stake and without a hedge?” Torres said in an interview on Wednesday. “The only plausible answer to that question is an insider trader. Any other alternative is a statistical impossibility.”

More than $500 million in crude oil futures trades were made in the roughly 15 minutes before Trump announced the halt in strikes via Truth Social, Reuters reported last month. The New Yorker reported that in the immediate lead-up to Trump’s announcement, there was an abnormal surge in futures trading volume predicting a decline in oil prices and a rebound in equity markets.

Torres in his letter said the “occurrence may constitute one of the largest instances of insider trading in history,” and called on the SEC to open a formal investigation and, in consultation with the CFTC, obtain comprehensive trading records.

A spokesperson for the SEC on Wednesday declined to comment. The CFTC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The SEC tapped David Woodcock, a Gibson Dunn lawyer and former agency official, to be its next enforcement director, Reuters reported Wednesday.

“I have a lack of confidence in our market regulators,” Torres said in the interview. “But we have no choice but to agitate for accountability. We cannot allow the SEC and the CFTC to turn a blind eye to what may be the largest case of insider trading in history.”

This is the second time in several months that Torres — a member of the House Financial Services Committee — has raised the issue of potential insider trading around Trump administration actions.

Torres introduced legislation in January after an account on the prediction market platform Polymarket placed a well-time bet in the hours leading up to the ouster Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, earning a $400,000 payout.

The legislation would bar federal elected officials, congressional staff, political appointees and executive branch officials from buying or selling event contracts based on government policy, action or political outcomes if they have material nonpublic information. It has 42 Democratic cosponsors but is unlikely to pass in the Republican-controlled House.

Congressional Democrats in recent months have repeatedly raised concerns about the appearance of insider trading within the Trump administration, particularly on prediction markets. A group of House Democrats on Monday sent a letter to Selig questioning the CFTC’s role in regulating event bets placed on offshore prediction markets like Polymarket.

“Recent high-profile instances of alleged insider trading on prediction market platforms relating to U.S. government actions — including the military’s intervention in Venezuela and our recent attack on Iran —have fueled concern that the CFTC does not have adequate control over these fast-growing markets,” wrote the group, led by Reps. Seth Moulton and Jim McGovern, Massachusetts Democrats.

Oil prices edged higher after U.S. President Donald Trump doubled down on his threats to attack Iran’s civil infrastructure, warning that the nation will be “taken out in one night,” if the Islamic Republic’s leadership failed to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude futures for May were up 0.93% at $113.46 per barrel as of 8:45 p.m. ET. Brent crude for June delivery gained about 0.54% to $110.36 per barrel.

On Monday, Trump repeated his threat that the U.S. will destroy Iran’s power plants and bridges if Tehran did not reopen the Strait of Hormuz by 8 p.m. ET on Tuesday, while also signaling that Iranian leadership was negotiating in earnest.

The closure of the narrow waterway connecting the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman has led to a supply shock, sending prices for crude, jet fuel, diesel, and gasoline soaring since the war broke out on Feb. 28.

“They have ’til tomorrow,” the president said. “Now we’ll see what happens. I can tell you, they are negotiating, we think in good faith, we’re going to find out. We’re getting the help of some incredible countries that want this to be ended, because it affects them also.”

Reuters reported that the U.S. and Iran were discussing a framework plan to end their 5-week-old conflict, as Tehran has pushed back against Trump’s pressure to swiftly reopen the Strait of Hormuz, which would allow traffic to start flowing again through the vital energy artery.

Iran has rejected the U.S. ceasefire proposal, presenting its own 10-point plan, according to Axios, including a permanent end to hostilities in the region, rather than a temporary ceasefire, a protocol for safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz, lifting of sanctions, and reconstruction.

But the changes for a ceasefire deal to be reached before the deadline remained slim, according to the report.

Trump responded to the proposal, saying that “They made a … significant proposal. Not good enough, but they have made a very significant step. We will see what happens.”

“As the deadline approaches, [Trump] wants to apply even more pressure to get them across the finish line,” Brain Jacobsen, chief economic strategist at Annex Wealth Management.

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz is slowly resuming, with 8 tankers transiting Monday, up from the average of fewer than 2 transits per day in March, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. That, however, is a fraction of the pre-war levels with an average of 20 million barrels of crude oil and products transiting per day via the strait in 2025.

Gasoline prices over $4 a gallon, part of an ongoing supply shock in the energy markets, might seem like a cue for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to head off inflation. At least for now, that looks like a bad bet.

Investors instead expect the central bank to hold benchmark rates steady, or even pivot back toward cuts later in the year as policymakers weigh the risk that higher energy prices will slow growth more than they fuel lasting inflation.

In market-moving remarks Monday, Fed Chair Jerome Powell signaled that raising rates now could be the wrong medicine for an economy already facing a softening labor backdrop and elevated recession concerns on Wall Street.

Asked whether he thought policymakers should consider rate increases here, Powell responded: “By the time the effects of a tightening in monetary policy take effect, the oil price shock is probably long gone, and you’re weighing on the economy at a time when it’s not appropriate. So the tendency is to look through any kind of a supply shock.”

The comments come at a critical juncture for markets, which have struggled to get a handle on the Fed’s intentions amid a bevy of conflicting and perpetually shifting economic signals.

Just a few days ago, traders began to entertain the possibility that the Fed’s next move could be a hike. That mindset followed some unsettling inflation news: Import prices rose much more than expected in February, even ahead of the war-related oil spike, while the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development raised its U.S. inflation forecast dramatically, to 4.2% for 2026.

However, Powell’s comments — complete with the usual Fed qualifiers that there are potential cases for both hikes or cuts — helped bring the market back off the hawkish position. Before the war, markets had been looking for two and possibly even three cuts this year in anticipation that inflation could continue to drift back to the Fed’s 2% target and central bankers would switch their focus to supporting the labor market.

Futures prices Tuesday morning pointed to just a 2.1% chance of a rate hike by year-end, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch tool. That’s despite headlines noting that regular unleaded gasoline had eclipsed $4 nationally at the pump and U.S. crude oil priced above $102 a barrel.

While there’s still plenty of uncertainty about where rates are headed, Wall Street commentary shifted back to expectations for cuts. To be sure, odds are still low for a reduction — about 25% — but they have climbed considerably over the past two days.

“Central bankers’ bark will be bigger than their bite” when it comes to fighting higher prices, wrote Rob Subbaraman, head of global macro research at Nomura.

“Right now, it makes sense for central banks to do nothing but sound hawkish in order to help anchor inflation expectations as headline inflation spikes,” he added. “However … the pass-through to wage growth and core inflation is likely to be limited, and instead the Middle East war could quickly morph into a global growth shock.”

Indeed, concerns about the impact that the oil price spike will have on growth superseded the worries about consumer prices, echoing Powell’s worry that hiking now won’t fix energy costs and could cause more trouble later. Policymakers are worried less about the immediate hit from energy-driven inflation than the risks that higher prices could sap consumer demand and hiring.

Joseph Brusuelas, chief economist at RSM, said central bankers should fear “demand destruction” brought on by the energy shock.

“Time is not an ally of the American economy,” he wrote. “The bigger risk is what comes next: demand destruction. That’s the economic term for what happens when high prices force people and businesses to spend less. It sounds abstract, but it’s very concrete — it means fewer cars sold, fewer homes bought, fewer restaurant meals, fewer business investments, and eventually fewer jobs.”

The Fed is in a bind policy-wise, Brusuelas added: Raising rates now risks slowing economic growth further, while standing put runs the chance that the oil situation gets worse.

President Donald Trump said in a Truth Social post Monday that, following talks with Iranian authorities, he ordered the U.S. military to postpone strikes on Iran’s power plants and energy infrastructure for five days.

He told CNBC’s Joe Kernen in a phone call shortly after the post that “we are very intent on making a deal with Iran.”

However, Iranian state media, citing an unnamed “senior security official” in a post on Telegram disputed Trump’s description of conversations, saying direct or indirect talks have not taken place between Washington and Tehran.

“There is been no negotiation and there is no negotiation, and with this kind of psychological warfare, neither the Strait of Hormuz will return to its pre-war conditions nor will there be peace in the energy markets,” state media reported the official as saying.

Trump countered later Monday morning that the U.S. and Iran “have had very, very strong talks” yielding “major points of agreement,” including that Tehran will “never have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump, speaking to reporters in Palm Beach, Florida, said his son-in-law Jared Kushner and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff participated in those talks Sunday evening with “a top person” in Iran.

“They want, very much to make a deal. We’d like to make a deal too,” he said. “We’re going to get together today by, probably, phone, because it’s … very hard for them to get out, I guess. But we’ll, at some point, very, very soon, meet.”

Trump said that if the five-day halt in strikes goes well, the parties could end up “settling this.”

“Otherwise, we’ll just keep bombing our little hearts out,” he said.

The president also said that he believes Israel will be “very happy” with the progress made with Iran so far.

He added that the Strait of Hormuz “will be opened very soon, if this works.”

Asked who would control the strait, Trump said it might be “jointly controlled” by himself and “whoever the ayatollah is,” suggesting that such a move would come as part of a “very serious form of regime change.”

In his Truth Social post earlier Monday, Trump said that the U.S. and Iran had “VERY GOOD AND PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATIONS REGARDING A COMPLETE AND TOTAL RESOLUTION OF OUR HOSTILITIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST.”

The U.S. president said these talks would continue through the week. It was not immediately clear who participated in the talks or when and where they were held.

U.S. stock futures rallied, the dollar fell against other major currencies, and oil prices tumbled on the news.

Speaking with Kernen, Trump said discussions with Iranian authorities had been very intense and that he remains hopeful something very substantive can be achieved.

The U.S. president also insisted on the same call that what is unfolding in Iran can be described as regime change, Kernen reported.

The White House did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for additional information about the purported talks, and did not immediately respond to Iran’s claim that no such negotiations are underway.

The U.S. president on Saturday issued a 48-hour ultimatum to Tehran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz or face strikes on Iran’s power plants.

The narrow waterway is a key maritime corridor that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Roughly 20% of global oil and gas typically passes through it.

The deadline had been due to expire on Monday evening in Washington.

Iranian Parliament spokesperson Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf had said critical infrastructure and energy facilities in the Persian Gulf region could be “irreversibly destroyed” should Iranian power plants be attacked.

Shipping traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has virtually ground to a halt since the U.S. and Israel launched airstrikes on Iran on Feb. 28. Iran has retaliated by targeting ships trying to pass through the strait, with several incidents reported in recent weeks.

The Iran war has stoked global inflation fears and created what the International Energy Agency calls the largest supply disruption in the history of the oil market.

— CNBC’s Anniek Bao contributed to this report.

The head of the International Energy Agency said on Monday that at least 40 energy assets across nine countries in the Middle East have been “severely or very severely” damaged since the Iran war began, raising fears of prolonged supply disruptions.

Speaking at the National Press Club in Australia’s capital, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said damage to oil and gas fields, refineries and pipelines across the Middle East would take some time to repair.

His comments come as market participants closely monitor threats from the U.S. and Iran over energy facilities as the sprawling regional conflict enters its fourth week.

The Iran war has severely disrupted energy trade flows through the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz, creating what the IEA says is the largest supply disruption in the history of the global oil market. The global supply of liquefied natural gas (LNG) has also been reduced by roughly 20% since the conflict began on Feb. 28.

Birol said the fallout from the Iran war is equivalent to the two major oil crises of the 1970s and the 2022 gas crisis “put together.”

He added: “And, if I may, not only oil and gas. Some of the vital arteries of the global economy, such as petrochemicals, such as fertilizers, such as sulfur, such as helium. Their trade is all interrupted, which would have serious consequences for the global economy.”

U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday threatened to “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if Tehran did not fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours.

The narrow waterway is a key maritime corridor that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Roughly 20% of global oil and gas typically passes through it.

Iran’s Parliament spokesperson Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf responded, saying that critical infrastructure and energy facilities in the Gulf region could be “irreversibly destroyed” should Iranian power plants be attacked.

Given that shipping has virtually ground to a halt in the Strait of Hormuz since the conflict began, the IEA’s Birol said the reopening of the waterway was the “single most important” solution to the global energy crisis.

He singled out Asia as being at the forefront of the Iran war energy shock and said the IEA was prepared to follow-up its historic release of 400 million barrels of oil to the market on March 11.

“If it is necessary, of course, we will do it,” Birol said.

— CNBC’s Anniek Bao contributed to this report.

The White House has choked off Cuba’s oil supply and threatened a “friendly takeover” of the communist-run island, against a backdrop of military operations in Venezuela and Iran.

U.S. President Donald Trump is implying the country is his next target, saying: “Whether I free it, take it,  I think I can do anything I want with it. They’re a very weakened nation right now.” The oil shortage is bringing Cuba’s economy to the brink. But I’ve found myself thinking back when, not that long ago, it briefly looked like the two nations would normalize relations after decades of hostility.

I first landed in Havana in March 2012 to cover Pope Benedict XVI’s visit. The airport was small. I had to repeatedly explain to immigration officials that we were there as journalists, that we had permission, and that everything had been cleared in advance. I was grateful that my team spoke Spanish to help with the process.

Parts of the city felt strangely familiar from images I’d seen of faded pastel buildings and old American cars somehow still running on patched-together parts.

Cuba and the U.S. had been geopolitical foes for more than 50 years. Cuba became communist when the 1959 revolution brought Fidel Castro to power and the island nation, just 90 miles from Florida, strengthened its ties with the Soviet Union. The Cuban government seized U.S. property and American-owned businesses in response to a growing U.S embargo. In response, President John F. Kennedy formalized a full embargo in 1962. Supplies of food, fuel, and consumer goods quickly became scarce.

But being there, I sensed that something was beginning to shift.

Between 2012 and 2016, I made 10 trips, field producing for CNBC with international correspondent Michelle Caruso-Cabrera. Almost every visit seemed to line up with something significant — moments that felt like they might mark a turning point. But by the end, that momentum felt suddenly uncertain.

On my first visit, Havana was trying to look ready for a pope. Fresh paint lined parts of the Malecón, still drying in places along the route the pope was expected to travel. In a country shaped for decades by communism, his presence felt like more than a religious event. It felt like a signal, subtle but unmistakable, that Cuba might be opening up.

After that, things started to move quickly.

Less than a year later, the government invited a small group of journalists, including us, to see what it called “reforms” up close. We spoke with the central bank governor, and with small business owners trying to navigate a system that was changing, but not all at once.

We slipped away from the official itinerary and made our way to Hershey, Cuba, a town Milton Hershey built to secure sugar for his chocolate business in the early 20th century. It was one of several reminders of Cuba’s American past before its revolution. A former Coca-Cola factory had been repurposed by the state. A Western Union building housed the country’s telecom company. A Woolworth’s store had become a local discount store.

In July 2015, President Barack Obama announced the restoration of diplomatic ties. We moved quickly, out of New York, down to Miami, then onto a charter flight to Havana. On the ground, there was a real sense of excitement. But it wasn’t unguarded. People were hopeful, but careful.

A month later, the U.S. embassy reopened for the first time in more than 50 years. I watched the flag go up from the balcony of a crumbling apartment building across the street. For younger Cubans especially, it felt like a turning point: More opportunities, more access, more choice seemed within reach.

Obama’s visit the following March only added to that feeling. Travel restrictions for Americans were relaxed and limited trade began to restart. The embargo was still in place, as it is written into U.S. law, but it did slightly soften.

That week brought a Rolling Stones concert and a Major League Baseball game, the first on the island in years.

Even then, there was restraint. Cubans had learned not to get ahead of themselves. For many, optimism came with the memory of how quickly it could fade. After all, not everyone believed the United States should reopen relations with the country. Many argued that normalizing ties would reward the communist government without forcing meaningful reforms.

Still, things were changing. In 2016, Carnival Cruise Line, under its Fathom brand, docked in Havana, the first U.S. cruise ship to visit the island since 1978. By November, JetBlue had direct flights running from New York. For a time, it felt like the barriers were coming down in real time.

Reporting there was never simple. Permits could fall through without warning. Phones rarely worked. Wi-Fi was hard to find. Restaurants handed out long menus, but when you asked, you were often told the only thing available was rice and beans. I’d walk past buildings with elegant facades, only to step inside and find them hollowed out, crumbling, little more than dust and debris.

And yet, on each trip, you could see small signs that the transformation was continuing. Family-run restaurants began opening in people’s homes. Airbnb listings started to spread. It wasn’t dramatic, but it was there.

My final trip came in November 2016, just after Fidel Castro’s death, to cover his funeral. He’d ceded power to his brother Raoul years earlier, but the death of the man who symbolized the revolution was a huge moment.

This time, Havana was quiet.

Music stopped. Alcohol disappeared. The city entered a formal mourning period. People stood in long lines to sign condolence books.

From the outside, it looked like a clear ending. Inside Cuba, it didn’t feel that simple.

Standing there, it was hard not to feel that the energy of the previous years was slipping away. The same questions kept coming back. What happens now? What becomes of the reforms? Of the relationship with the United States?

When I left for the last time, I had the sense I’d witnessed something rare, a brief stretch of time when history seemed to accelerate, when long-standing patterns loosened, even if only slightly, and the future felt, for a moment, open.

In the years since, much of that momentum has slowed, and in some cases reversed. The U.S. withdrew embassy personnel, new travel limits were imposed in November 2017, and the flow of American visitors thinned. The opening that once felt within reach has given way to more familiar tensions, which are flaring like the changes I saw never happened.

History doesn’t always arrive with a clear beginning or a clean ending. In Cuba, it has a tendency to circle back on itself.

What comes next between these two neighbors is still unwritten.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday warned that if Iran continued targeting Qatar’s energy facilities, America would “massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field.”

Tehran has attacked a key energy facility in Qatar after Israel bombed the South Pars Gas in Iran, signaling a sharp escalation in the conflict and sending energy prices soaring.

Qatar said Wednesday that Iranian missiles caused “extensive damage” at Ras Laffan Industrial City, home to the largest liquefied natural gas, or LNG, export facility in the world.

Trump also denied any prior knowledge of Israel attacking South Pars, pushing back against reports that the strike was coordinated with and approved by his administration.

In a social media post Wednesday night stateside, Trump said that “the United States knew nothing about this particular attack, and the country of Qatar was in no way, shape, or form, involved with it, nor did it have any idea that it was going to happen.”

Trump also urged Israel to end attacks on the South Pars gas field, unless Iran “unwisely” decides to attack Qatar. In that case, the U.S. will “massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field at an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before.”

The attack on South Pars — the world’s largest natural gas reserve, shared between Iran and Qatar — marked the first time Israel has targeted Iranian natural gas production infrastructure since the conflict began on Feb. 28.

Iran has fired ballistic missiles at Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City, with ​QatarEnergy saying the attack had caused “extensive damage” warranting deployment of emergency response teams to contain fires at the site. No casualties were reported.

Separately, Reuters reported Thursday that the U.S. government was considering deploying thousands of U.S. forces to the Middle East, raising the prospect of further escalation.

As tensions spiral, world leaders are scrambling to contain the Middle East conflict amid fears of deepening the turmoil in global energy markets.

German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul on Wednesday warned of a “crisis of the gravest order” if global supply chains continued to be disrupted, calling for a path toward de-escalation and a cessation of hostilities once U.S. and Israeli military objectives are achieved, according to local media reports.

The United Arab Emirates called the targeting of energy facilities linked to the South Pars field in Iran a “serious escalation,” posing “a direct threat to global energy security” with severe environmental repercussions.

The UAE Ministry of Foreign Affairs also called Iran’s targeting of its Habshan gas facility and Bab field a “terrorist attack,” risking a “dangerous escalation.”

Qatar’s foreign ministry spokesperson Majed al-Ansari described the Israeli strike on South Pars as “a dangerous and irresponsible step” amid escalating regional tensions.

The Gulf nation has declared Iranian military and security attachés and their staff at the Iranian embassy in Doha “persona non grata,” ordering them to leave the country within 24 hours.

Saudi Arabia’s Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud also appeared to toughen the tone, reportedly saying that “what little trust there was before with Iran has completely been shattered.” Both political and non-political responses to Iran remain on the table, he added.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps on Wednesday threatened to escalate hostilities by targeting oil and gas facilities in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar.

In a post on X, Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian condemned the strikes on Iran’s energy infrastructure, saying that they “could have uncontrollable consequences, the scope of which could engulf the entire world.”

The attacks on Middle East energy production facilities have further deepened supply disruption triggered by the conflict. Brent crude May futures rose 4% to $111.77 a barrel as of 10:25 p.m. ET , while U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures for April climbed over 1.3% to $97.56 per barrel.

Oil tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz — a vital chokepoint for one-fifth of global oil supply and a significant share of LNG exports — has plunged since the war began, with the waterway effectively closed to most commercial shipping.

Hello, this is Leonie Kidd writing to you from London. Welcome to another edition of CNBC’s Daily Open.

U.S. President Donald Trump continues to dominate the news cycle, and his latest round with reporters in the Oval Office has yielded more headlines and market moves this morning. It’s only Tuesday and already it’s been a volatile week for oil, which remains the epicenter of trading action.

Market participants — as well as us journalists — will need to stay on their toes to keep up with developments.

Oil prices jumped over 2% on Tuesday as uncertainty lingered over a U.S.-led coalition to protect shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. President Donald Trump suggested Monday that the coalition was not fully in place as he urged other countries to get involved.

Energy analysts and traders said Monday that they wouldn’t be surprised if oil prices climb to as high as $200 per barrel as the sprawling Middle East crisis drags on.

U.S. President Donald Trump said his planned trip to China later this month could be delayed as Washington sought to pressure Beijing to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, underscoring a renewed flashpoint in an already fragile bilateral relationship.

In an interview with the Financial Times on Sunday, Trump said he expected China to help unblock the strait before he travels to Beijing for a summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, which had been scheduled for March 31 to April 2.

Trump added that the two weeks to the meeting were a “long time” and that Washington wanted clarity before then. “We may delay,” Trump told the FT, without elaborating on timing.

The remarks came as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent met his Chinese counterpart He Lifeng in Paris for talks about the planned summit. Beijing has yet to confirm the dates and typically announces such plans closer to their scheduled start.

The visit would be the first for a U.S. president since Trump’s last trip during his first term in 2017. It also comes five months after the two leaders met in the South Korean city of Busan, where they agreed to a one-year truce in a trade war that had seen tit-for-tat tariffs briefly soar to triple-digit levels last year.

Chinese top diplomat Wang Yi said earlier this month that the agenda for the exchange was already “on the table.”

Trump said Sunday aboard Air Force One that China sourced about 90% of its oil through the strait, framing Beijing’s cooperation on Hormuz as a matter of self-interest. The president has appealed to several European and Asian countries, including China, to help open up the chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s daily oil supply passes.

However, the numbers suggest Beijing may be more insulated from the closure than Trump’s comments implied.

China has spent the past two decades diversifying its energy sources and building strategic reserves to cushion the blow of any prolonged disruption.

Seaborne oil imports through the strait now account for less than half of China’s total oil shipments, according to Rush Doshi, director of the China Strategy Initiative at the Council on Foreign Relations. Nomura also estimated that oil flows through Hormuz represent just 6.6% of China’s total energy consumption.

Satellite imagery tracked by maritime research firms showed that Iran has continued to ship large amounts of crude oil to China since the war broke out late last month.

Both sides appeared to increase pressure ahead of the high-stakes summit in Beijing. The U.S. launched trade investigations into a broad swath of countries over alleged excess capacity and failures to address forced labour.

In a statement Monday, China’s commerce ministry said the Trump administration had “once again abused the Section 301 investigation process to override domestic law over international rules,” calling the probes “extremely unilateral, arbitrary and discriminatory.”

Beijing said it had formally lodged representations with Washington against the investigations. “We urge the U.S. side to immediately correct its wrong practices and meet China halfway,” a ministry spokesperson said, calling for dialogue and negotiated solutions.

The ministry said it would monitor the progress of the investigations closely and take unspecified measures to defend China’s interests.

— CNBC’s Evelyn Cheng contributed to this report.