• Indian company to buy products the refinery will produce.
• America First plans to break ground in this year’s second quarter.
• Analysts sceptical about need for a new refinery on Gulf Coast.
  

In a major development, President Donald Trump has announced the construction of a refinery on the southern US border backed by India’s Reliance Industries, operator of the world’s biggest refining complex.

Trump announced as drivers react to spiking gasoline prices since the start of the US-Israeli war with Iran, and while Republicans and Democrats prepare for midterm elections that could determine which party controls Congress through the last two years of his presidency.

“Thank you to our partners in India, and their largest privately held Energy Company, Reliance, for this tremendous Investment,” Trump said on the social media platform Truth Social.

The 168,000 barrels-per-day (bpd) refinery will be built at the port of Brownsville and will offset $300 billion in the trade deficit with India, startup America First Refining said in a statement.

Reliance did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

“For the first time in half a century, the United States will build a new refinery designed specifically for American shale oil,” said America First’s chairman and founder, John V Calce.

Many Gulf Coast refineries are unable to process light, sweet crude oil from fracking shale fields because they were configured in the last 40 years to run lower-cost heavy, sour crude, which has higher density and contains more sulfur.

A “global supermajor” has provided a “9-figure investment” at a “10-figure valuation,” America First said.

Trump named the investor as Reliance, India’s largest private-sector company.

Reliance has signed “a binding 20-year offtake term sheet” with America First, meaning it will buy products the refinery produces. That will help cut India’s trade surplus with the US, which has been a Trump grievance.

America First said it plans to break ground in the second quarter of this year.

Industry experts question need

Analysts were sceptical about the need for a new refinery on the Gulf Coast, which is already home to eight of the country’s 10 largest refineries.

“Initial announcements like this by the Trump administration have a lot of hyperbole,” said Refined Fuels Analytics managing director John Auers.

The new refinery will “fuel US markets, strengthen our national security, boost American energy production, deliver billions of dollars in economic impact, and will be the cleanest refinery in the world,” Trump said on Truth Social.

Gulf Coast refineries have advantages over plants elsewhere in the US, said Kloza Advisors principal analyst Tom Kloza.

“If Brownsville is indeed the location for the build, I would assume that they are looking at an export refinery,” Kloza said. “There is not much local demand and there are not pipeline connections to take Brownsville product elsewhere.”

US refineries are the major suppliers of motor fuel and heating oil to South America, Kloza said, and have lower costs for natural gas, hydrogen and domestic crude oil.

“Let’s see what develops,” he said. “Reliance is a very successful company.”

Reliance operates the 1.4 million bpd refining complex in Jamnagar, India, the world’s largest. The firm, which reported $125 billion in revenue last year, also operates businesses in retail, new energy, digital services, media and entertainment.

Since late 2025, two California refineries with a combined capacity of 284,000 bpd have permanently closed, citing the state’s regulation of fossil fuel industries.

The cost of construction of refineries or additions to refineries in the past decade has averaged about $40,000 per barrel of capacity, or about $6.7 billion for 168,000 barrels.

US refining capacity was 18.4 million bpd at the end of 2024, showed data from the US Energy Information Administration. That is set to grow through a gradual increase in capacity into the 2030s, Auers said.

TEHRAN: Iran’s new supreme leader Mojtaba Khamenei is “safe and sound” despite reports of an injury during the war with Israel and the US, said the son of the Iranian president on Wednesday.

“I heard news that Mr Mojtaba Khamenei had been injured. I have asked some friends who had connections.

They told me that, thank God, he is safe and sound,” said Yousef Pezeshkian, who is also a government adviser, in a post on his Telegram channel.

State television had called Khamenei a “wounded veteran of the Ramadan war” but never specified his injury.

The new supreme leader is the son and successor of the country’s longtime ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was martyred in US-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28 which triggered a war across the Middle East.

The 56-year-old Mojtaba Khamenei, a discreet figure who has rarely appeared in public or spoken at official events, has yet to address the nation or issue a written statement since he was declared supreme leader on Sunday.

In a Wednesday report, The New York Times quoting three unnamed Iranian officials said that Khamenei “had suffered injuries, including to his legs, but that he was alert and sheltering at a highly secure location with limited communication”.

Britain has set out a new advisory definition of what it calls anti-Muslim hostility, a long-anticipated step in its plan to clarify how ‌authorities should identify and address abuse targeting Muslims, which is at record levels.

The move follows years of political deadlock over how to define anti-Muslim hatred in a way that helps consistent application of the law, but does not ⁠shut down or criminalise open debate about religious extremism.

There were almost 4,500 hate crimes targeting Muslims in the year ending March 2025, accounting for nearly half of all religiously motivated offences in England and Wales. This data also includes people wrongly assumed to be Muslim.

The new definition, which is not legally binding, includes criminal acts such as violence, vandalism, harassment, intimidation and ‌prejudicial ⁠stereotyping that is directed at Muslims or people perceived to be Muslim.

The government said the definition was needed to protect people from “unacceptable hostile behaviour that seeks to intimidate and divide,” and that rights to ⁠free expression were unchanged.

Lawful criticism of religious beliefs, including Islam, remained protected, it added.

Opposition lawmakers said the definition risked creating a “blasphemy law” and blurred ⁠the line between legitimate criticism of religious beliefs and unlawful hate speech.

Muslim, Jewish and humanist groups said the definition ⁠was a constructive step that would help institutions respond more consistently to abuse, provided it was implemented carefully and without curbing free expression.