Zero Rss

BlackRock Private Credit Fund Cuts Asset Values By 5%, As Golub Gates After 8.5% Redemptions

Just another day in private credit paradise... er, hell. 

One day after Gundlach repeated his warning that the private credit crisis will end in tears for bagholders, Blackrock cut the value of its publicly-traded private credit fund by about 5%, as it - like most of its peers - struggled under the weight of troubled loans, markdowns and lower returns.

BlackRock TCP Capital Corp., a publicly traded middle-market lending fund, said markdowns totaled $35 million in the quarter ended March 31, according to a statement on Thursday. Amusingly, and in hopes of redirecting attention, the $1.5 billion fund highlighted “improving credit quality,” and said it invested more in senior debt and strengthened its balance sheet. The fund said its dividend, which was cut to 17 cents a share last quarter, would remain flat.

The fund has been a challenge for BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with about $14 trillion in assets, which is expanding aggressively into private credit. BlackRock acquired specialist manager HPS Investment Partners last year for about $12 billion, aiming to significantly expand its existing capabilities and legacy funds, including TCPC.

The TCPC fund said in January that it cut the net asset value of its assets by 19%, which sent shares tumbling. The fund has struggled in part due to exposure to e-commerce aggregators - companies that buy and manage Amazon.com Inc. sellers - as well as troubled home improvement company Renovo Home Partners, which filed for bankruptcy. Back in March, we reported that Blackrock slashed the value of one of its private loans from par to 0 in just months, Infinite Commerce Holdings, sparking a selloff in the shares as the market was stunned by how quickly a loan from the world's most iconic asset manager can go from par to 0 in just days.

“While we have made meaningful progress, we recognize there is more work to do and we remain focused on disciplined execution,” Chief Executive Officer Phil Tseng said on a call with analysts.

Loans on non-accrual status - typically meaning borrowers have missed their debt payments - declined to 7.6% on a cost basis, compared with 9.7% in the prior quarter. That's because one of its portfolio loans was sold, and two were restructured. Investments in 13 portfolio companies were on non-accrual status.

Tseng said the largest driver of the markdowns was an investment in Job and Talent, a staffing and recruitment company that suffered from weak performance in the quarter. Almost a third of the markdowns came from software-related investments, he said.

Lenders in the $1.8 trillion private credit market have been under scrutiny as advancements in artificial intelligence threaten to upend their bets on software, an industry that makes up a significant portion of lenders’ portfolios. 

Elsewhere, the last big private credit fund we were waiting to report its redemption gates, did just that: Golub Capital announced it was capping withdrawals from its private credit fund after investors sought to pull 8.5% of shares, the latest instance of a money manager restricting outflows amid a wave of redemption requests.

Golub Capital Private Credit Fund, or GCRED, plans to enforce the quarterly withdrawal limit of 5% of common shares outstanding, according to a letter to shareholders on Thursday. The roughly $9.9 billion fund intends to fulfill repurchase requests for 8,891,200 shares.

The credit manager told investors that the redemption requests “were concentrated in a small subset representing approximately 5% of GCRED’s more than 12,000 shareholders.” Golub also cited roughly 14 million in new share subscriptions this year through the end of April. 

GCRED has a liquidity cushion of approximately $4.1 billion and its portfolio consists of nearly $10 billion in total investments at fair value, the firm said. As of the end of the first quarter, less than 0.1% of GCRED’s investment portfolio was on non-accrual status. 

None of that mattered in the, and Golub has now joined every single one of its BDC peers in gating its investors. The silver lining, unlike such disasters as the two big Blue Owl BDCs (OTIC and OCIC), which saw investors try to pull 41% and 22% of their capital respectively - and were obviously gated - Golub's tally was only 8.5%, which in this age where double digit redemptions requests are the normal, is downright respectable.

 

 

d

 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 00:08

Court Strikes Down Trump's Replacement Tariffs; A Minor, Temporary Setback, With Sec 301 Tariffs Coming

After the close on Thursday, the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled to invalidate Trump's latest set of universal 10% tariff imposed two months ago under Sec. 122. The administration will quickly appeal this decision before it takes effect May 12. If the case follows the same pattern as the challenge to the IEEPA tariffs last year, a higher court might soon stay this ruling and leave the tariffs in place pending a longer review.  

As the tariffs are due to expire July 24, even if the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) eventually rules against these tariffs, there is a good chance a full judicial review will take long enough that the tariffs will remain in effect until the administration replaces them with new tariffs under Sec. 301 (unfair trade practices) and Sec. 232 (national security).

As a reminder, Section 122 tariffs were always a stopgap: by statute, they can only be in place for 150 days, so they’ll expire on July 24, 2026. Investigations by the US Trade Representative under Section 301 are widely expected to wrap up before then, clearing the way for permanent replacement tariffs.

That said, if the ruling survives appeal, the government will likely have to refund unlawfully collected duties, adding to the nearly $170 billion already owed as a result of the Feb. 20 decision.

Key Points: 

1. The CIT ruling was a split decision, with two Democratic-appointed judges granting summary judgment against the administration’s position and one Republican-appointed judge dissenting, favoring a full review of the case instead. This is in contrast to the CIT’s earlier ruling last year, in which a panel of one Democratic- and two Republican-appointed judges unanimously granted summary judgment against the IEEPA tariffs. 

2. The CIT ruling gives the administration 5 days to rescind the tariffs, and requires that importers be paid refunds plus interest. We expect the administration to immediately appeal the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), as it did following the CIT’s IEEPA ruling. In that instance, the CAFC stayed the CIT ruling within a day, leaving the tariffs in effect, and then took 3 months to rule on the case. That ruling was then appealed to SCOTUS, which took another 6 months to rule. As the Sec. 122 tariffs expire July 24 and cannot be extended without an act of Congress, an eventual SCOTUS ruling against these tariffs looks unlikely to come before expiration. That said, if courts ultimately rule against the use of Sec. 122 to impose these tariffs after they have expired, importers could collect refunds beyond IEEPA refunds they will start to receive in coming days.

3. The Sec. 122 tariffs are worth slightly more than 4% on the effective tariff rate (this is lower than the 10% headline rate due to exemptions for products and most imports from Canada and Mexico), and account for slightly less than half of the new tariffs since the start of 2025 that remain in effect. They are likely generating customs duty collections of around $11-12bn per month (not annualized), or around $55-60bn total if they remain in effect for the full 5 months. 

4. Regardless of how courts ultimately decide this case, the ruling should have no bearing on the administration’s longer-term ability to impose tariffs under Sec. 232 (national security) or Sec. 301 (unfair trade practices), which the White House has signaled will replace the Sec. 122 tariffs. The authority to impose tariffs under those laws is well-tested, unlike the IEEPA and Sec. 122 tariffs, and customs duties have been collected continuously under both authorities since the first Trump administration. 

5. The US Trade Representative is currently conducting investigations under the Section 301 trade enforcement authority. These investigations are widely seen as setting the stage for permanent replacement levies that will largely replicate the tariff rates in place before the Feb. 20 court ruling.

6. The court limited relief to three plaintiffs representing a small fraction of total US imports. Other importers may now bring suit, but we expect the administration to quickly appeal and seek a stay of the ruling. The split decision invalidating the tariffs is relatively narrow.

• If the ruling stands, relief is limited to the importers who brought suit — two private firms and Washington State. The court dismissed claims from other non-importer parties for lack of standing. Additional importers could — and likely will — seek relief with their own lawsuits.
• The court also sidestepped the broader question of whether the US currently faces a “fundamental international payments problem”, the authorized purpose of Section 122. Instead, it found the administration’s stated justification — trade and current account deficits — was not an appropriate stand-in.
   

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 23:31

When Global Order Begins To Fracture

Authored by Milan Adams via Preppgroup blog,

There are moments in history when the world changes with noise — sirens, speeches, falling statues. And then there are moments when it changes so quietly that almost nobody realizes it is happening. We are living through the second kind. No formal announcement marked the transition. No historic summit collapsed on live television. No leader stepped forward to say: the old rules no longer apply.

And yet, somewhere between the war in Ukraine, the tightening strategic alignment between Russia and China, and the silent expiration of the New START in February 2026, the global system that kept great-power rivalry inside predictable boundaries began to dissolve. Not explode. Dissolve.

For decades, the world’s stability did not come from trust. It came from limits. From inspection regimes. From numbers written into treaties. From the strange comfort of knowing exactly how dangerous your adversary was allowed to be. Military planners in Moscow and Washington worked with ceilings. Diplomats worked with verification schedules. Leaders worked with red lines that had legal meaning. Those ceilings are now gone, and most of the public has not noticed because nothing dramatic happened the day they disappeared.

The Strategic Triangle That No Longer Moves

For years, American strategists believed the triangle between Washington, Moscow, and Beijing could be manipulated. If relations with one deteriorated, the other could be courted. It was the logic behind the Cold War opening to China and the repeated attempts to “reset” relations with Moscow. There was a quiet confidence that Russia, culturally tied to Europe and historically wary of China, would never fully lean toward Beijing.

That confidence now looks misplaced.

Today, the United States faces not two separate rivals but two powers whose interests increasingly overlap:

• Both view American sanctions as a weapon of political coercion

• Both seek to dilute U.S. influence in global institutions

• Both advocate a “multipolar” order where Washington’s dominance fades

• Both benefit from closer economic and strategic coordination

This is not a formal alliance, which paradoxically makes it more durable. It is not built on ideology or treaty obligations but on a shared reading of the world. Even a future change in leadership after Vladimir Putin may not reverse this direction. Years of sanctions, NATO expansion, and the war in Ukraine have reshaped Russian political psychology. The turn toward China is no longer tactical. It is structural.

The Day the Guardrails Disappeared

On February 5, 2026, New START expired. There was no emergency summit. No dramatic breakdown in negotiations. It simply ended.

For the first time since the early 1970s, there is no binding agreement limiting how many deployed strategic nuclear weapons the U.S. and Russia can field. Together, they hold the overwhelming majority of the world’s nuclear warheads. During the Cold War, even at moments of extreme tension, both sides maintained arms control agreements because they served a critical purpose: they made the enemy measurable. You could count warheads. You could inspect launchers. You could verify data.

Now, you cannot.

Russia suggested informally that both sides observe the old limits for another year to allow time for talks. Washington did not formally accept. No replacement treaty emerged. No urgent negotiations dominated the news cycle. The expiration passed like a date on a calendar, but inside defense ministries, the conversation shifted. Without legal ceilings, planners no longer ask what are we allowed to deploy? but what can we deploy? That is how arms races begin — quietly, through planning assumptions rather than political declarations.

A Pattern of Pressure in Unlikely Places

While most attention remains on Ukraine and nuclear policy, Moscow has been testing American reactions in places that rarely make front pages.

The Western Hemisphere

Near Venezuela, a U.S. Coast Guard seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker suspected of sanctions violations brought American and Russian forces into unusual proximity. Russian naval assets, reportedly including a submarine, were operating nearby. Moscow denounced the move as piracy. The incident did not escalate, but it revealed a willingness to challenge U.S. authority in its own neighborhood through presence and ambiguity rather than confrontation.

The High North

In the Arctic, melting ice is opening the Northern Sea Route into a viable trade corridor between Europe and Asia. Russia controls much of this passage and positions itself as its gatekeeper. China’s interest in what it calls a Polar Silk Road adds another layer of leverage for Moscow without a single shot being fired.

The Middle East

In crises involving Iran, Russia has condemned Western actions but avoided direct military involvement, constrained by the demands of the war in Ukraine. Even so, Moscow continues to present itself diplomatically as an alternative power center to Washington, choosing its moments carefully.

Multipolarity as a Strategic Weapon

In international forums, Moscow and Beijing repeat the same phrase: multipolar world. It sounds abstract and even reasonable, but strategically it signals a shift away from the system in which the United States could enforce rules through economic and institutional power. In a multipolar system, sanctions lose effectiveness, institutions become arenas of gridlock, and regional powers gain more freedom to challenge established norms without immediate consequences.

There is no secret pact binding Russia and China into a military bloc. But patterns are visible. China purchases discounted Russian energy. Russia benefits from China’s refusal to isolate it diplomatically. Joint exercises occur. Messaging aligns in international institutions. This is not conspiracy. It is convergence, and over time, convergence reshapes the balance of power as effectively as formal alliances.

A World Without Clear Edges

For American policymakers, the problem is new and uncomfortable. Deterring one nuclear peer was the central challenge of the Cold War. Deterring two, at the same time, is a strategic puzzle without historical precedent. How do you prepare for simultaneous crises in Europe and the Pacific? How do you distribute forces without weakening credibility in either theater?

The answers are unclear, and that uncertainty is itself destabilizing. What makes this period unsettling is not the presence of immediate crisis but the absence of clear boundaries. No arms control limits. No clean separation between economic and military rivalry. No reliable assumptions about how far competitors are willing to go.

Speak privately with diplomats or analysts, and you hear the same quiet phrase repeated: this feels different. Not louder. Different. The stabilizing mechanisms built over fifty years are eroding faster than new ones can replace them, and the world is drifting into a phase where miscalculation becomes more likely simply because the rules that once structured rivalry no longer exist.

The Geography of Escalation

What makes the current geopolitical shift so difficult to grasp is that its most consequential developments are not unfolding in spectacular acts of confrontation, but through a slow accumulation of pressure points that, taken together, redraw the strategic map of the world. The new contest for power is no longer concentrated in obvious flashpoints alone; it is spreading across trade routes, technological infrastructure, energy corridors, and regions once treated as peripheral to great-power rivalry.

Its defining characteristics are becoming increasingly clear:

• Strategic competition is expanding into spaces once considered neutral, from Arctic maritime corridors and orbital infrastructure to undersea cables and semiconductor supply chains that now carry the weight of national security.

• Economic interdependence is no longer viewed primarily as stabilizing, but increasingly as vulnerability — something states seek to weaponize, shield against, or strategically reduce.

• Military deterrence is becoming more diffuse and unpredictable, shaped not only by nuclear arsenals, but by cyber capabilities, autonomous systems, and the ability to cripple critical infrastructure without firing a conventional shot.

• Political fragmentation inside democracies has become an external strategic variable, as rivals increasingly calculate not only military strength, but institutional resilience, public fatigue, and the ability of societies to sustain prolonged competition.

This is what makes the moment historically unusual: the architecture of confrontation is becoming broader than war itself. Power is now projected through disruption, ambiguity, and exhaustion as much as through force, creating a landscape where crises may emerge not as singular explosions, but as overlapping pressures that slowly weaken the coherence of entire systems.

Where Stability Used to Live

For decades, global order depended on mechanisms that reduced uncertainty even when hostility remained intense. What held rivalry in check was not goodwill, but structure — the confidence that opponents understood thresholds, recognized consequences, and operated within a strategic grammar both sides could read. That grammar is now eroding, and with it disappears the predictability that once made dangerous competition manageable.

Several pillars have quietly weakened at once:

• Arms-control architecture is fading faster than replacement frameworks can emerge, removing the legal and psychological ceilings that once constrained escalation.

• Diplomatic channels remain open, but increasingly hollow, producing language of cooperation while substantive trust continues to deteriorate beneath the surface.

• Alliance systems are strengthening militarily while becoming politically more complex, forcing governments to balance deterrence abroad with growing strain at home.

• Strategic planning is increasingly dominated by worst-case assumptions, and once governments begin budgeting, deploying, and preparing around pessimistic scenarios, those scenarios begin shaping reality regardless of original intent.

This is how history often changes — not when one pillar falls, but when several begin cracking at once under accumulated weight.

The Century’s Harder Question

The central issue facing the world is no longer whether tension between major powers will define the coming decades; that much is already visible. The deeper question is what kind of competition is now being born, and whether political leadership is capable of understanding its scale before events begin dictating terms on their own.

What increasingly worries strategic analysts is a convergence of destabilizing trends:

• Two nuclear peer competitors confronting Washington simultaneously, creating deterrence challenges without modern precedent.

• A world economy fragmenting into competing technological and industrial blocs, where efficiency is sacrificed for resilience and security.

• Critical infrastructure becoming a battlefield, from ports and power grids to satellite systems and digital finance architecture.

• A widening gap between strategic reality and public perception, with governments quietly preparing for long-term confrontation while much of society still assumes the turbulence is temporary.

That disconnect may prove more dangerous than any single military crisis, because nations are often least prepared for transformation when they mistake structural change for passing instability. By the time reality becomes obvious, the balance of power has usually already shifted.

The Illusion of Distance

One of the most persistent misconceptions in periods of strategic transition is the belief that major geopolitical change remains distant until it becomes visible through unmistakable crisis. That assumption is comforting, but history rarely moves according to the emotional timelines societies prefer. By the time structural change becomes obvious to the public, it has usually been unfolding for years beneath the surface — inside defense budgets, industrial policy, intelligence assessments, shipping patterns, alliance planning, and the quiet recalibration of what states believe they may soon be forced to do. What appears sudden is often only the first moment ordinary people notice what governments have already spent years preparing for.

Several developments suggest that this deeper transition is no longer theoretical:

• Military-industrial production is being reconsidered as a strategic necessity rather than an economic burden, with governments increasingly prioritizing ammunition stockpiles, shipbuilding capacity, rare-earth access, semiconductor sovereignty, and resilient supply chains that can withstand prolonged confrontation.

• Energy has fully returned as an instrument of power, no longer merely a commodity traded on markets but a geopolitical lever capable of rewarding alignment, punishing dependence, and reshaping regional influence through pipelines, shipping routes, and long-term infrastructure partnerships.

• Technology is being absorbed into national-security doctrine at unprecedented speed, turning artificial intelligence, quantum computing, satellite networks, cyber offense, and digital infrastructure into strategic assets whose control may define power as decisively as oil fields or naval fleets once did.

• Neutral space is shrinking, as regions and states once able to balance relations between competing blocs increasingly face pressure to choose economic, technological, and strategic alignment in a world becoming less tolerant of ambiguity.

The cumulative effect is profound: global competition is no longer being organized around isolated disputes, but around a broader contest over who will shape the operating rules of the twenty-first century. That makes nearly every crisis larger than it first appears, because behind each confrontation sits a wider struggle over influence, leverage, and strategic endurance.

The Pressure That Does Not Break — Until It Does

What makes this era particularly dangerous is that it is not defined by one overwhelming shock, but by the gradual layering of tensions that, individually manageable, collectively create systemic strain. International order does not always fail because of catastrophic singular events; often it weakens because too many pressures build simultaneously until institutions lose the capacity to absorb them. That is the pattern increasingly visible today.

Among the most destabilizing pressures now converging are:

• Persistent military confrontation in Europe, where the war in Ukraine has transformed from regional conflict into a long-term strategic contest reshaping NATO posture, Russian doctrine, European defense spending, and the broader military balance on the continent.

• Rising strategic friction in the Indo-Pacific, where Taiwan, the South China Sea, maritime chokepoints, and expanding naval competition increasingly place the world’s economic center of gravity inside an active security dilemma.

• Intensifying competition over critical resources, including rare earth minerals, industrial metals, advanced chips, and logistical infrastructure that underpin both civilian economies and modern military capability.

• Growing vulnerability of interconnected systems, where attacks on communications networks, financial systems, power grids, satellite constellations, or maritime infrastructure could generate cascading disruption without a single formal declaration of war.

This is what gives the current moment its unusual gravity: escalation no longer needs to be deliberate to become real. It can emerge through overlap, accident, misreading, or exhaustion. A cyber disruption during a regional military standoff, an industrial blockade disguised as regulation, a maritime collision in contested waters, a sanctions spiral that unexpectedly fractures global markets — these are no longer improbable scenarios imagined in think-tank exercises. They are increasingly plausible outcomes in a world where strategic friction exists across too many domains at once.

The Cost of Misreading the Moment

Perhaps the greatest strategic danger is not aggression itself, but complacency — the tendency of societies, markets, and political systems to interpret structural instability as temporary turbulence rather than historic transition. The modern world is deeply conditioned to believe that shocks are disruptions to normality, after which normality returns. Yet some periods are not interruptions; they are turning points, moments when the previous equilibrium quietly expires and a harder reality begins taking shape.

The signs of that transition are already visible:

• Governments are preparing for resilience rather than efficiency, favoring redundancy, domestic production, and strategic reserves over the economic logic that dominated globalization’s peak decades.

• Defense planning horizons are expanding, with states investing not for immediate conflict alone, but for prolonged competition measured in decades rather than election cycles.

• Strategic alliances are being reinforced not simply for deterrence, but for endurance, reflecting growing recognition that the defining challenge ahead may be sustained geopolitical pressure rather than singular confrontation.

• Public awareness remains significantly behind elite strategic assessment, creating a dangerous disconnect between the scale of transformation underway and the political urgency with which societies respond to it.

History is often shaped not by the crises leaders expect, but by the ones they underestimate because the early warning signs appear too gradual to command attention. That is what makes this moment so consequential. The old order is not collapsing in spectacle, but in slow motion — treaty by treaty, assumption by assumption, safeguard by safeguard — while a more unstable world quietly assembles itself in its place, piece by piece, beneath the comforting appearance of continuity.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 23:25

Pastor: U.S. Intel Warned Christian Leaders That Trump's "Alien Files" Release Could Shatter Beliefs

Zero-Point energy? Hologram theory? Consciousness is actually remote controlling our bodies via quantum microtubules in our squishy brains? How about all those dead scientists? Whatever reality is, the steady drumbeat of UFO 'disclosures' now apparently includes religious leaders, who are being 'read in' on some plan for a 2027 disclosure. Maybe project Blue Beam is ready for prime time...

Perry Stone, an influential pastor and author based in Tennessee, claimed that U.S. intelligence officials told Christian leaders to brace their congregations for the federal government’s imminent disclosures regarding extraterrestrial beings, warning that the shocking findings could shake the foundation of their faith.

In a recent video, Stone alleged that the pastors were briefed on unidentified flying objects and so-called “reptilians” in the possession of the government. The claim follows President Trump’s order directing the Pentagon and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to release all information the government possesses on aliens.

"You're going to have people who are going to say if there are galaxies and there are allegedly other creations in the galaxies, then the whole creation story is a myth, and you're going to have people that's going to apostatize and turn from the Christian faith because they have no answer for what they're about to hear,’ Stone said.

🚨Report: Pastor Perry Stone said a large group of pastors was invited to a secret meeting with individuals from the US government telling them to prepare their churches for UFO disclosure:

“There's going to be a release concerning aliens. You need to prepare your people.” pic.twitter.com/ctUFpMNc2p

— The Calvin Coolidge Project (@TheCalvinCooli1) May 6, 2026

Stone added that non-believers could be so shaken by the findings that religious leaders will see a flood of people coming to them seeking answers.

"They're going to freak out and they're going to come to pastors, ministers, and teachers and say, 'What is this? Is this really real?”’ he said.

Then there's this guy: 

In a Space today, Alan DiDio (@alandidio) says he attended the UFO disclosure pastor meeting, and the year 2027 was discussed in relation to aliens and UFO disclosure. 😳 pic.twitter.com/BvUbFYFrYY

— Astral🛸 (@The_Astral_) May 5, 2026

Despite Trump’s order to release files on aliens, some of the highest-ranking government officials remain skeptics.

Vice President JD Vance told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson in March that the most likely explanation for aliens is that they are actually “demons.”

"When I hear about extra natural phenomenon, that’s where I go: The Christian understanding that there’s a lot of good out there, but there’s also evil out there," Vance said. "I think that one of the devil’s great is to convince people that he never existed.”

JD Vance Tells Me That UFOs are DEMONS:

“I Think They’re DEMONS” 🛸

“I don’t think they’re aliens. There are weird things out there that are very difficult to explain.”

The Vice President tells me he’s going to AREA 51 with his Top Secret Security Clearance to FIND OUT.

“I… pic.twitter.com/mDtrafkxB9

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 27, 2026

Still, some in Congress appear to disagree Vance's dismissed stance towards UFOs, including Rep. Tim Burchet (R-TN)

"I've been briefed by just about every alphabet agency there is,” Burchet told Newsmax. And, I'll just say this, if they were to release the things that I've seen, you'd be up at night, worrying about, thinking about this stuff.”

"This country would've come unglued, I think, if they [the public] would've heard all that I heard. They would demand answers,” the lawmaker added.

And just in case all of this is true - here's stoned Alex Jones going off...

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 23:00

Saudi Arabia's $1Tn Wealth Fund Opens Shanghai Office As China Ties Deepen

Via The Cradle

Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) opened a second office in mainland China earlier this year, establishing a Shanghai branch to expand dealmaking and attract more Chinese investment into the kingdom, Bloomberg reports.

The office was registered last year, falls under PIF’s Beijing branch, and is led by Lily Cong, a former chief representative of Fidelity International in China’s capital.

Source: Britannica 

The Shanghai outpost was reportedly created to strengthen the $1 trillion fund’s ability to pursue outbound deals in China, while officials are also seeking to bring more Chinese companies into Saudi Arabia.

This move strengthens Riyadh’s investment relationship with Beijing, while the US continues to be a major market for the kingdom. The Shanghai office expands PIF’s global presence, which already features offices in New York, London, Hong Kong, and Paris. 

Saudi Arabia and China already maintain strategic and financial links across sectors, including energy and finance, while other Gulf wealth funds are also looking to expand their exposure to China.

Abu Dhabi is also considering placing Chinese assets held by two of its wealth funds into a new entity, according to earlier reports, a move that could pave the way for a broader shift in its investment strategy.

The Gulf investment push comes amid major shifts in West Asian markets following the US war on Iran, triggering regional disruptions that have put pressure on Gulf economies and accelerated moves away from dollar-dominated energy trade.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Gulf states have deepened yuan-based financial links with China, while disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have further exposed the fragility of the “petrodollar order”.

According to a report by Fortune, Riyadh did not formally renew its 2024 commitment to price oil exclusively in US dollars, a year after signing a $7 billion currency swap agreement with Beijing. 

The Saudi central bank is also a key participant in the mBridge digital payment platform, which enables direct currency exchanges via blockchain technology.

Economists cited by Fortune say the shift reflects China's growing weight in Saudi trade, as Beijing has displaced the US as the kingdom’s largest oil customer. 

"The economic gravity pointed toward yuan while the currency arrangement pointed toward dollars," EBC Financial Group analyst Michael Harris wrote. 

Saudi Arabia still conducts most deals in US dollars, but expanding financial ties with Beijing signal a broader effort to diversify trade and investment channels as China positions the yuan as a possible alternative in global energy markets.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 22:35

Chief Justice Roberts Says US Supreme Court Is Not Political

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

Chief Justice John Roberts said on May 6 that U.S. Supreme Court justices are not “political actors.”

Roberts’s comments came at a conference in Hershey, Pennsylvania, attended by judges and attorneys from the jurisdictions covered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. That circuit encompasses Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Although some of the high court’s decisions may be unpopular, they are based exclusively on the law, he said at the gathering.

“I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we’re saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides,” said the jurist, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005.

“I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.”

Roberts’s speech came at a time when public confidence in the Supreme Court is at a low ebb, and a week after the court issued a ruling that changed how the federal Voting Rights Act is interpreted.

Roberts was part of the court’s majority on April 29 when it ruled 6–3 in Louisiana v. Callais that race may only be a minor factor in redistricting rationales, and may not be the predominant, overriding reason for how congressional district lines are drawn.

The justices struck down a federal district judge’s decision that created a second black-majority congressional district in Louisiana. The judge had ruled the electoral district was needed to comply with anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

The ruling has spurred a new round of mid-decade redistricting efforts, largely in Republican-dominated state legislatures around the country.

In the past few years, the Supreme Court has also issued rulings striking down the constitutional right to abortion, strengthening gun rights, weakening the powers of federal agencies, and getting rid of affirmative action in higher education admissions.

Roberts avoided mentioning any specific rulings in his presentation, but stressed that the court is “simply not part of the political process.”

He said the court’s formal, written opinions are based on the Constitution.

“One thing we have to do is make decisions that are unpopular,” Roberts said.

The chief justice said criticism should be aimed at rulings, instead of individuals in the form of personal attacks.

He denounced the rhetorical targeting of lower court judges.

“That’s not appropriate, and it can lead to very serious problems,” Roberts said.

Weeks ago, Roberts said that personal criticism of federal judges imperils the judiciary.

Although criticism of judicial opinions “comes with the territory” and can be healthy, “personally directed hostility is dangerous and it’s got to stop,” he told an audience at Rice University in Houston, Texas, on March 17.

As the chief justice of the United States, Roberts presides over Supreme Court oral arguments and oversees the entire federal judiciary.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 21:45

Uber Says AI Is Writing More Code and Slowing Hiring Growth

Uber Technologies, Inc. is expanding its use of AI tools and using some of those efficiency gains to slow the pace of hiring, according to Business Insider.

Speaking on the company’s first quarter earnings call, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said autonomous coding agents now account for about 10% of Uber’s code updates. Engineers still review that output before it is committed to internal repositories, but he said the shift offers an early glimpse of how AI can accelerate software development.

Business Insider writes that Uber has long relied on machine learning for customer facing functions such as setting ride prices and pairing drivers with riders. Now the company is rolling out similar tools across internal teams. “We’re seeing uptake of these tools, whether it’s our legal team or marketing team or developers,” Khosrowshahi said. “We think it’s creating kind of employees with superpowers.”

That broader adoption is influencing hiring plans. CFO Balaji Krishnamurthy said executives did not fully anticipate how quickly AI tools would improve productivity when they mapped out their 2026 budget.

He said on the call, per Goldman: “One last comment on AI. I would say, candidly, when we set up budgets for 2026 in November, we underestimated the amount of impact the AI tools could have,” he said. After a new wave of models arrived in December, Uber “re-upped our investment here,” while also reducing “incremental headcount growth.”

The spending ramp has been significant. Last month, CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga said Uber had already used its entire 2026 budget for Anthropic’s Claude Code, underscoring how quickly demand for AI tools is growing inside the company.

Khosrowshahi said the strategy makes sense if those tools continue improving employee output. “If every person at this company can increase their throughput by 20%, 30%, 50%, 100%, then I think metering headcount growth and leaning in on AI investment is going to be well worth it,” he said.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 21:20

California Insurance Regulators Say State Farm Mishandled Wildfire Claims

Authored by Dylan Morgan via The Epoch Times,

The California Department of Insurance announced on May 4 it filed an enforcement action against State Farm, alleging the company significantly mishandled claims from survivors of the 2025 Los Angeles wildfires.

“Wildfire survivors came to us for help, and we followed the facts,” Insurance Department Commissioner Ricardo Lara said.

“Our investigation found that State Farm delayed, underpaid, and buried policyholders in red tape at the worst moment of their lives. That is unacceptable, and we are taking decisive action to hold them accountable.”

The Palisades Fire and the nearby Eaton Fire, which ignited in Altadena, California, on Jan. 7, 2025, claimed around 30 lives and destroyed more than 12,000 structures.

The Insurance Department said that State Farm received approximately 11,300 of the nearly 39,000 claims related to the Los Angeles wildfires filed across all insurers, and that Lara launched an investigation into the insurance company in June 2025 after the department heard many complaints.

According to the department, it examined 220 of the claims filed with State Farm and found a total of 398 violations in 114 of those claims.

These violations consisted of “slow and inadequate investigation” through failing to meet deadlines in investigating claims, accepting or denying claims, and providing notice for additional time.

The Insurance Department also alleged that State Farm made unreasonably low settlement offers and underpaid claims.

This enforcement action seeks millions of dollars in penalties, which the department said is the largest amount pursued this century relating to a wildfire disaster.

The department also wants State Farm to speed up payments and settle outstanding claims.

The property lines of homes burned during the Palisades Fire are visible in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles on June 9, 2025. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

State Farm denied any mishandling or intentional underpaying of wildfire claims and said the violations the Insurance Department identified require only about $40,000 in additional payments beyond the more than $5.7 billion it has paid to those affected by the fires.

“California’s homeowners insurance market is the most dysfunctional in the country ... the state is facing an availability and affordability crisis, and the California Department of Insurance should take responsibility for regulatory delays and uncertainty that have contributed to fewer choices and higher costs for consumers,” the company said in its statement.

State Farm said it strongly disagrees with the department’s characterization of the company, and that any prospect or threat to suspend its licensing over “primarily administrative and procedural errors” is a reckless and politically motivated attack.

“Using a thin sample of claims to justify sweeping allegations turns regulatory oversight into a political weapon, creating headlines instead of delivering facts and real consumer protection. [The department’s examination] was based on a sample of 220 files, and most of the issues cited were administrative or process-related,” State Farm said.

The insurance company said every issue identified has already been, or is being addressed through claim reviews, and that it will provide supplemental payments when appropriate.

The same day, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued a statement warning insurance companies they may be subject to state enforcement actions if they unlawfully delay or deny claims from survivors of the Los Angeles fires.

In November 2025, Los Angeles County launched its own investigation into State Farm’s handling of insurance claims.

“The County has heard loud and clear from wildfire survivors that State Farm’s delays are standing in the way of rebuilding. Fair and timely insurance payments aren’t a privilege; they’re a right,” Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Chair Kathryn Barger said.

On March 31, President Donald Trump also weighed in on the situation, saying State Farm and other insurers should “get their act together” after meeting with California politicians and hearing about the difficulties the wildfire victims faced in their insurance claims.

“It was brought to my attention that the Insurance Companies, in particular, State Farm, have been absolutely horrible to people that have been paying them large premiums for years, only to find that when tragedy struck, these horrendous Companies were not there to help!” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 20:55

Hochul Targets NYC's Multimillion-Dollar Second Homes In $268 Billion Budget Framework

New York is taking direct aim at the city’s ultra-wealthy absentee owners. In a major policy shift announced Thursday, Governor Kathy Hochul and state legislative leaders reached a framework agreement on a $268 billion state budget that includes a new annual tax on multimillion-dollar second homes in New York City - a move designed to generate roughly $500 million a year to help close the city’s projected $5.4 billion budget deficit.

The proposal, often called a “pied-à-terre” tax (French for “foot on the ground”), would apply to luxury properties valued at $5 million or more that are owned by people whose primary residence is outside New York City. These high-end apartments and townhouses - frequently used only a few weeks a year by global elites, celebrities, and finance executives - have long been criticized as under-taxed symbols of inequality in one of the world’s most expensive housing markets.

“This is a tax on properties worth more than $5 million that are owned by people who do not reside in New York City - the super wealthy who can purchase properties and use them to store their wealth,” Mayor Zohran Mamdani said in support of the plan. “If you can afford a $5 million second home that sits empty most of the year, you can afford to contribute like every other New Yorker.”

Hochul’s Political Pivot

The tax represents a notable evolution for Governor Hochul. For years she resisted aggressive wealth taxes, warning they could drive businesses and high-net-worth residents out of the state. But after Zohran Mamdani - a 34-year-old democratic socialist and state assemblymember - won the New York City mayoral race in November 2025 in a stunning upset, the political math changed.

With Mamdani pushing an ambitious progressive agenda (including universal pre-K and 3-K) and with federal funding cuts looming under the Trump administration, Hochul agreed to the second-home surcharge as part of a broader budget deal. The revenue would flow directly to New York City, according to the NY Times. 

Hochul framed the tax as both fiscally necessary and morally fair:

“If you can afford a multi-million dollar second home in New York City, you can afford to pay your fair share.”

Details Still Being Finalized

While the framework has been agreed to in principle, key specifics remain under negotiation. Hochul said she would release more details “soon,” including exact rates, exemptions, and how many of the roughly 13,000 eligible properties would actually be taxed. Legislative leaders cautioned that the governor’s announcement was premature.

Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie said Thursday that no final deal had been reached and that “there is no budget deal.” Senate Democratic spokesman Mike Murphy described the agreement as covering only “big concepts.”

Carl Heastie, the Assembly speaker, cautioned that no deal had been finalized, calling the governor’s announcement premature.Credit...Cindy Schultz for The New York Times

Still, the direction is clear: New York is joining a growing number of jurisdictions (including parts of Europe and several U.S. cities) that are experimenting with higher taxes on non-primary residences to fund public services amid housing shortages and affordability crises.

The second-home tax is just one piece of a wide-ranging budget that also includes:

• $4.5 billion to expand child care statewide - a key priority for Mayor Mamdani.
• Delays to the state’s aggressive climate targets under the 2019 Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (pushing full implementation to 2028 and adjusting methane calculations).
• New restrictions on federal immigration enforcement, including barring ICE agents from wearing masks and limiting cooperation between local police and federal agents.
• A cap on certain auto insurance payouts and speed-limiting devices for chronic “super-speeders” in New York City school zones.
• A state-level exemption on up to $25,000 in tips for many workers (mirroring federal changes) and $1 billion in utility bill rebates.

Political and Economic Stakes

Republicans immediately attacked the package. Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, Hochul’s likely Republican opponent in November’s gubernatorial race, called the budget a “triple threat to your wallet: more taxes, record spending, and a utility bill crisis.”

Environmental groups criticized the climate deadline extensions as a retreat, while trial lawyers and consumer advocates expressed concern that auto insurance changes could limit compensation for crash victims.

For Hochul - who is seeking re-election - the deal allows her to claim credit for delivering on affordability and child care while showing political flexibility in partnering with the city’s new progressive mayor. For Mamdani, it marks an early victory in his effort to make the ultra-wealthy “pay their fair share.”

The budget must still be finalized and passed by the Legislature. Details on the second-home tax rates and implementation are expected in the coming days.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 20:30

What To Know About Trump's Presidential Fitness Test Award Revival

Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times,

In the coming academic year, old-fashioned calisthenics, timed runs, and the spirit of competition could return to many public schools.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a proclamation restoring the Presidential Fitness Test Awards, which date to the mid-20th century but ended under President Barack Obama’s administration. The May 5 White House action is a follow-up to the July executive order re-establishing the President’s Council on Sports, Fitness, and Nutrition.

This proclamation, which also recognizes May as National Physical Fitness and Sports Month, affirms the nation’s commitment to fitness and competition ahead of America’s 250th birthday and the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which the United States is cohosting with Canada and Mexico.

“Working alongside world-class professional athletes, major league organizations, teams, schools, and communities across our country, we are ushering in a new Golden Age of physical fitness—expanding access to wellness for every American, promoting the many benefits of exercise and good nutrition, supporting youth sports, and celebrating a culture of strength, vitality, and excellence,” the proclamation reads.

“I call upon public officials, sports educators, athletes, and all the people of the United States to get involved in sports and physical activity, especially our nation’s youth.”

Here’s what to know.

Push-Ups and Pull-Ups

The Presidential Fitness program, which benefits students ages 10 to 17, has changed over the years. It has existed since 1956, beginning with President Dwight Eisenhower, according to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website.

The test has timed runs to measure endurance, the sit-and-reach challenge to measure lower body flexibility, push-ups and pull-ups or curl-ups to measure upper body strength, and a timed shuttle run challenge that assesses quickness and agility as the participant sprints and pivots in different directions to pick up cones.

The benchmarks vary based on age and sex.

In the past, and with this re-implementation, high performers could be recognized by school district, state, and nationally.

The format of the program changed in recent years to emphasize participation and downplay the competitive aspect, but the test component remained in several states, including New York, for the purpose of assessing whether seventh- and eighth graders were fit enough to safely compete in high school sports.

The benchmarks, along with an image of a certificate of excellence signed by Trump that would be awarded to high performers, were recently posted on the White House website.

A 6-year-old girl, for example, could earn that certificate by remaining in a plank position for 71 seconds, performing two pull-ups or nine push-ups, and running one mile in 11 minutes and 20 seconds.

A 17-year-old boy would need to hold the plank position for 156 seconds, perform 13 pull-ups or 53 push-ups, and run one mile in six minutes and six seconds, according to the chart.

Competition Debate

Obama ended the fitness test in 2012, replacing the competitive elements with a national curriculum for health and the benefits of physical activity. He also called for the inclusion of disabled students and nutrition education and renamed the program the Presidential Youth Fitness Program.

Trump did not restore the test during his first term.

Biden also did not make any changes to Obama’s initiative. His only noted activity for the program was a “One Lacrosse Gathering Celebration” at the National Mall to recognize the Native American roots of lacrosse. Professional players provided a skills clinic to youth participants, who also learned about Native American culture and “indigenous foods and ingredients,” according to the Health and Human Services website.

The program had enjoyed significant growth through the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s.

In 1985, President Ronald Regan initiated a data collection system to compare past results. Two decades later, President George W. Bush established the Fitness.gov website and launched the Presidential Active Lifestyle Award, which also recognized sports participation and the health benefits of physical activity.

“I think it’s very unfortunate that President Obama and President Biden abandoned it,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said during the May 5 signing ceremony in the Oval Office.

“He said competition is not good for kids, which is not true. If we’re going to be competitive internationally, we need to be competitive with each other. We need to teach people how to win and how to lose, and how to process victory and defeat.”

Added Trump: “We’re bringing it back. My administration is working very hard to defend America’s cherished athletic traditions and pass our values of excellence and competitiveness to the next generation.”

Michigan State University researchers criticized Trump’s initiative, calling the fitness test “demoralizing for many.”

“Kids don’t want to be embarrassed or have negative memories," Spyridoula Vazou, an associate professor in MSU’s kinesiology department, said in a January report on the school’s website. “They don’t want to feel that they’re the worst.”

Obesity in Children

More than 21 percent of American youngsters ages 2 to 19 are obese, a nearly 500 percent increase since the 1970s. Severe obesity rates, meanwhile, have increased sevenfold in the past half century, with 7 percent of children now falling in that category, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

An April 28 report from that agency indicated that only five states have mandated federal recommendations for 150 minutes of weekly physical education for students in grades K-5, and 37 states require less than 60 minutes per week.

As for fitness testing, 24 states have no requirements. Eleven states recommend it, but only three require fitness tests annually. Only 16 states require some district oversight for fitness testing, but most don’t provide any enforcement measures, according to the report.

“For the Presidential Fitness Test to provide a meaningful lever for youth public health promotion and surveillance, systematic state policy reform and resulting school-level physical education infrastructure changes are necessary,” the report concludes.

What’s Next

U.S. public schools begin the 2026–2027 academic year in August or September.

Trump’s proclamation and prior executive order on the fitness test strongly encourage state and district participation but stop short of mandating it.

Many states and school districts are still awaiting federal guidance on implementation. Still, some leaders embraced the concept and took their own initiative to bolster fitness in schools.

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, for example, issued an Oct. 30 executive order re-establishing the Presidential Fitness Test in schools ahead of the 2026–2027 academic year.

“Students across the country are spending far too much time sitting around looking at screens and eating too much highly processed junk food,” Reeves said in a news release. “We know that obesity, sedentary lifestyles, and poor nutrition lead to more negative health outcomes.

“If we want more healthy adults in our society, it’s important that we encourage students to be physically active and educate them on healthy eating habits. Mississippi will do its part to build a healthier America.”

The Tennessee Legislature and Gov. Bill Lee ratified a similar law earlier this spring. It supplements previous legislation that increased recess time from 15 minutes to 40 minutes per day. More physical activity in schools is needed, lawmakers said, considering that about 40 percent of children in the Volunteer State are overweight.

“Tennessee is setting the standard by helping students become healthier and more successful,” said Rep. Scott Cepicky, a Republican.

“This proposal is a critical component of our continued efforts to improve academic outcomes by promoting active lifestyles and a balanced diet.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 20:05

$16M Hospice Fraud Exposed In Newsom's California As Trump Admin Ramps Up Crackdown

Authored by Steve Watson via modernity.news,

The Trump administration continues its aggressive push to root out waste and abuse in federal entitlement programs, exposing yet another layer of systemic fraud thriving in Gavin Newsom’s California. 

A new investigation highlights a single attending physician whose National Provider Identifier was tied to 17 different hospice operations in the Los Angeles area. 

These entities filed more than 3,000 claims on behalf of only 900 patients, billing Medicare for $16 million.

🚨 GAVIN NEWSOM JUST GOT CAUGHT ALLOWING EVEN MORE FRAUD

This "hospice" provider PANICKED when the reporter came up and exposed:

"[They] filed more than 3,000 claims for 900 patients, billing Medicare for $16 MILLION DOLLARS." 🤯

"Anything over 100 patients at a given time… pic.twitter.com/vTNwyZ3MLR

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 5, 2026

Hospice care expert Ira Byock laid out the red flags clearly: “Anything over 100 patients at a given time that you have responsibility for as a hospice physician should start to raise red flags.”

This case fits the broader pattern of exploitation that federal authorities under the Trump administration have targeted. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, led by Dr. Mehmet Oz, recently delisted around 450 suspected fraudulent hospice providers in Los Angeles County, suspending more than $600 million in questionable claims with no appeals filed.

Oz’s spotlighted billions in hospice fraud connected to foreign mafias and welfare scams that victimized seniors:

These revelations build directly on prior exposures of California’s entrenched fraud networks. As we previously detailed, the Trump administration dismantled elements of a sprawling $146 billion Medi-Cal fraud operation: 

California Democrats have responded by attempting to criminalize the very act of exposing such schemes, as independent journalist Nick Shirley confronted them over proposed measures that would silence watchdogs: 

The on-the-ground reporting captured providers panicking when approached. Doors closed quickly. Seniors in Visalia described feeling deceived. One couple stated plainly: “The way I see it we were just taken in.”

Neither the physician in question nor the associated hospice operation has faced discipline or charges in this latest instance. Both remain active in the Medicare program. This lack of immediate consequences underscores the inertia that oversight under Trump is now confronting head-on.

State officials have pointed out that Medicare is a federal program and highlighted their own enforcement actions, including a $267 million hospice fraud takedown announced in April. Yet the persistence of these schemes in Los Angeles County—home to far more hospice providers than many entire states—reveals deep vulnerabilities that predated the current federal pressure.

The Trump administration’s Task Force to Eliminate Fraud is delivering results by acting decisively, protecting taxpayers and vulnerable Americans from networks that treat end-of-life care as a revenue stream. Newsom’s deflection cannot obscure the reality: California’s entitlement systems have operated with minimal accountability for too long.

Billions have been siphoned while seniors were enrolled without full understanding and providers cycled patients for maximum billing. The sunlight now being shone on these operations marks a decisive shift from previous neglect.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 19:15

'Muslim-Only' Water Park Event Canceled By Texas City

Authored by Tom Gantert via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Texas city that had a Muslim-only celebration scheduled at a city-owned water park has said that the event would be canceled.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks to the media at the Texas Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Aug. 22, 2025. Eric Gay/AP Photo

“After further review and in the best interest of the City of Grand Prairie, the June 1 Eid event at Epic Waters Indoor Waterpark has been canceled. No additional comment will be made at this time,” said Eric Alvarez, spokesman for the city of Grand Prairie.

Aminah Knight, the organizer of the event, said she was “deeply disappointed” by the event being canceled and had only been informed by a park manager.

“What began as a private event for the Muslim community to celebrate Eid in a joyful and modest environment became something much bigger than I ever imagined,” she said in a text message to The Epoch Times. “The flyer was originally shared within private community spaces, but it was later circulated more broadly by people who were not interested in attending, but rather in creating division and controversy.”

Knight said she is going to turn what she called a “painful experience” into “something beautiful” and will host an interfaith event called “The Great American Cookout” on July 4. She said the event would be a place “where people from different backgrounds can come together, connect, and truly get to know one another as Americans.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to pull $530,000 in state funding if the city of Grand Prairie allowed the celebration to go on.

The event was to celebrate Eid al-Adha, an annual Islamic celebration, and was promoted as being for only Muslims. While the city of Grand Prairie owns the water park, a private third-party contractor runs it.

“A city-owned water park in Grand Prairie openly advertised a ‘MUSLIMS ONLY’ event—closed to the general public,” Abbott posted on X on Wednesday. “That’s religious discrimination. It’s unconstitutional. I signed HB 4211 into law—banning Muslim only no-go zones in Texas. The City must cancel the event and commit to never allowing something like it again by May 11th, or lose $530,000 in state grants. Let this be a lesson to local officials: Facilities funded by ALL taxpayers are not just for a subset of Texans.”

The city, prior to the cancellation, posted a message on its website.

“The City of Grand Prairie is aware of concerns that have been expressed about an upcoming private event at Epic Waters,” the statement reads. “The City has been in contact with the Epic Waters management team to ensure all policies and procedures have been followed. Epic Waters is owned by the City and managed by a third-party operator. Like other City-owned facilities, it is available for rental by individuals and organizations.”

Alvarez said earlier Wednesday in an email to The Epoch Times that the city reached out to Abbott’s office and was in discussions with the state government regarding the matter.

The third-party contractor did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Knight posted on the event’s website, “So if you are a friend of a different faith who wants to celebrate the Eid holiday with us and adhere to the modest dress code ... this event is FOR YOU TOO!”

Knight continued: “DFW Epic Eid is a privately organized and privately funded event held through a standard rental of Epic Waters, just like many other private gatherings hosted at the park. This event was created to celebrate Eid al-Adha, one of the most important holidays in Islam, which commemorates faith, devotion, and gratitude. … In response to feedback, we have updated our materials to clearly reflect that this is a modest dress-only event, centered around a respectful and family-friendly environment.”

Mitch Little, a Republican Texas state representative, said in a video posted on Facebook that he learned the “Muslim-only” event had been held two previous times.

“I think this is a very serious civil rights violation that is going on here,” Little said in the video. “If you are making a public accommodation, whether it is a restaurant or a hotel or an entertainment venue like Epic Waters, you’re not permitted to exclude people on the basis of race, religion, etc. I think people are locally shocked at what is going on here.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 18:25

"Existential": Israel Quadruples Foreign-Influence Budget To Massive $730M

With the ranks of its foreign sympathizers plummeting all around the world and all across the political spectrum, the State of Israel is quadrupling its budget for so-called "public diplomacy," bringing its 2026 spending on foreign influence campaigns to a massive $730 million.

With the country's growing unpopularity threatening US financial, military and diplomatic support, Israel's foreign minister has said an intensified effort to mold global opinion is an "existential issue." Both inside and outside of Israel, the country's public diplomacy effort is also referred to by its Hebrew name: hasbara. Even before the 2026 ramp-up in spending, Israel's spending on hasbara was already striking. 

Recent disclosures about 2025 hasbara spending shed some light on how Israel goes about shaping public opinion. Per the Jerusalem Post, that year's outlays included a $50 million social media ad campaign carried out on Google, YouTube, X and Outbrain. Another $40 million covered the hosting of foreign delegations. “We flew a lot of delegations to the country - whether it’s pastors, whether it’s politicians, universities,” Israeli Consul General Israel Bachar told the Jerusalem Post. “Everyone who returns from the country understands better and is more supportive. But you have to fly out a lot of people.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson abruptly ended the workweek, sending the House into early recess to avoid a vote on releasing more Jeffrey Epstein documents.

Members of Congress then packed their bags and flew to Israel. pic.twitter.com/QMV3TvAgaK

— FlyingBeagle "Abu Alya" (@FlyingBeagle_) August 6, 2025

“We must as a country invest much, much more,” Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar argued in December. “It should be like investing in jets, bombs and missile interceptors. In the face of what’s arrayed against us and what’s invested against us, it’s far from enough. This is an existential issue.”

An April Pew Research survey found that 60% of American adults now view Israel unfavorably -- that's up 18 points from 2022. Underscoring the mammoth challenge faced by Israel's hasbarists, the proportion of Americans who have a very unfavorable view of Israel now stands at 28% -- triple what it was in 2022. Most alarming for Israel is the cratering of support among Republicans, with 57% of those under 50 now viewing Israel unfavorably.  

The erosion of US support has taken place over a span that has included Israel's stunningly-destructive rampage across Gaza in response to the Oct 7 2023 Hamas invasion of Israel, and this year's US-Israeli war on Iran which has caused fuel prices to rocket higher while threatening a global economic catastrophe. 

The money they steal from you they spend on lying to you. https://t.co/YUwfEEqhFm

— Scott Horton (@scotthortonshow) May 5, 2026

Israel's weakened position in US politics is manifesting in various ways. Candidates in Democratic primaries are now attacking opponents who've taken money from the pro-Israel lobby, which has prompted those forces to effectively "launder" their contributions through intermediary organizations. This week, 30 House Democrats co-signed a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, demanding that the US government finally acknowledge the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal -- ending decades of bipartisan obfuscation. Votes in Congress that follow the Israel lobby's recommendations used to be enormously lopsided on Israel's side, but are now decided by just a handful of votes -- with the lobby still prevailing for now.   

In October, westerners' wariness of Israeli hasbara was heightened by Responsible Statecraft's revelation that Israel was paying social-media influencers something like $7,000 per pro-Israel post that they made. 

The best 'conservative' influencers Israel can buy?

Emily Austin participated in the Epstein binders hoax, and joined Netanyahu's recent influencers meeting

Xavaier DuRousseau attended the secret Hamptons influencer summit with Bill Ackman, then junketed off to Israel pic.twitter.com/JLoGk3Jzfd

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) September 28, 2025

Some hasbara efforts have been carried out in a purposely deceptive fashion. For example, an undercover Al Jazeera documentary captured American Jordan Schachtel, who now publishes The Dossier on Substack, describing his involvement in a social media campaign in which Israeli propagandists ran Facebook pages that ostensibly cover topics far from geopolitics -- such as the environment or feminism -- for the sole purpose of periodically sprinkling the feed with pro-Israel content. "It’s a secretive thing, because we don’t want people to know that these side projects are associated with The Israel Project," Schachtel was caught saying on hidden camera.

Imagine what they'll be cooking up with three-quarters of a billion dollars. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 18:00

Vote Harder? Why Secession Is The Only Answer To The American Megastate

Authored by Ryan McMaken via The Mises Institute,

There are still some Trump supporters out there who continue to bill the Trump administration as some kind of great victory for the forces of populism against the “deep state.” A year into the second Trump administration, it is clear this is not a serious position. The populism of the Trump campaign has clearly failed and what we ended up with instead is a continuation and strengthening of the status quo. Over the next three years of this second Trump term, the welfare-warfare state will only get larger. Trump now actively pushes to strengthen the surveillance state, and to massively increase overall defense spending. He points to some miniscule trimming around the edges of the welfare state while overall spending continues to rise and federal deficits are near all-time highs. In turn, these huge deficits will require central-bank intervention to partly monetize the debt, pushing up price inflation. 

Far from being some sort of shock to the system in Washington, Trump is governing largely like a business-as-usual Republican. In other words, it should be abundantly obvious by now that there is not going to be anything coming out of this administration that will endanger the governing elites or their institutions which retain a firm grip on Washington institutions and the special interests that drive policy. 

This is apparently the best that the “militant” populists could come up with: yet another milquetoast republican administration that will ensure the gravy train continues for politically favored allies. This administration is basically just a Marco Rubio administration with some “mean tweets” thrown in for color. 

The populist “victory” of the Trump administration is perhaps the best evidence yet that a strategy of “vote harder” is simply not going to lead to any significant change of any kind. After all, the media, academia, and even the GOP’s old guard fought tooth and nail to keep Trump out of the White House. And in the end, it was much ado about nothing. Now, just imagine if someone ran for the presidency who actually opposed the regime’s power on principle. That person would simply not be allowed to get the nomination, let alone win. 

So, there won’t be any viable candidates who will actually tear down the federal state through legal or constitutional means. That will not be permitted via any federal election. The logic of the welfare state, moreover, ensures that no candidate can hope to get elected while also favoring significant cuts to defense spending, old-age pensions, or any of the beloved federal programs that support millions of Americans on the dole, such as pensioners and government contractors. 

The only way significant change comes to this tightly constructed system of patrons and clients will be via a significant crisis that disrupts standards of living. This must be severe enough that it shakes the population’s faith in the regime to the point that people actually begin to question the state’s legitimacy. Only when real economic pain is felt will there be any real change. So long as the most of the population feels comfortable enough with an ample supply of Doordash and pornography and reality TV, the system will be deemed to be working “well enough.” 

Eventually, however, the ruling elite, through either miscalculation or laziness or complacency, will no longer be able to deliver on its promises to guarantee ease, safety, and “free” goods and services for a growing population on the dole. Once the elites become unable to buy compliance from the population, the regime will turn to brute force. This, however, can only last as long as the ruling elites are able to draw upon loyal personnel in large enough numbers as to be able to force obedience from the general population. This is easier said than done, especially in a period of economic stagnation or decline. The Soviet Union is a key example. In 1989, when the Soviet Government was crumbling, the Soviet Regime still commanded six million personnel in military uniform. But when the regime tried to shore up control, that enormous military proved to be largely AWOL and of little use. 

But then what? Once the ruling elite and its regime cease to be seen as legitimate, and once the usual methods of control fail, what is the next step? Unfortunately, the next step is usually to simply replace the outgoing group of governing elites with a new group. This is the usual progression of events. Uprisings turn into civil wars and civil wars turn into contests over who will control the state’s enormous apparatus of coercion. The French revolution is perhaps the quintessential cautionary tale here. The revolutionaries won with lavish promises of freedom and “rule by the people.” Yet, there is no such thing as rule “by the people,” and there never has been. Any polity that is more complex than a tribal village ultimately ends up with the civil government in the hands of a relatively small elite.

What usually happens is this: the state and most of its powers endure, but under new management. As the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto put it: “The revolution at the end of the eighteenth century led merely to the bourgeoisie taking the place of the old elite.”  Pareto further notes that in the wake of a revolution, the population discovers “they have merely exchanged yokes.”

This will be the ultimate end game of every scheme hatched by those who imagine themselves to be anti-regime radicals, but who ultimately want nothing more than to keep the state fully in tact and use it to their own ends. And make no mistake, the power will be used to benefit the small new class of governing elites, at the expense of the ordinary taxpayers. Whatever rhetoric may be used about serving “the people” will be nothing more than window dressing designed to trick unsophisticated non-elites into supporting the new regime. 

Whether from the Left or the Right, this type of centralist “revolutions” will provide no escape from the endless cycle of replacing one set of elites with another, and which characterizes much of human history which is, Pareto writes, “a graveyard of aristocracies.” Again and again, we find that the “liberators” are doing little more than replacing the people’s current yoke with a slightly different one.

Consequently, the only hope in providing any truly limiting factors on state power will be the dismemberment of the state into smaller and weaker pieces. It will be necessary to check power with power through true decentralization. This is why the Soviet state never re-emerged under a new name with similar prerogatives. Thanks largely to the centrifugal forces of latent nationalism within the various republics of the Soviet Union, the new Russian elite that replaced the old Soviet elite was unable to maintain the “union.” The result has been greatly beneficial to many of the former Soviet republics—especially the Baltic states—and to the old states of the Warsaw Pact which were informally under the boot of the Soviet regime.   In other words, the dismemberment of the Soviet State, through a variety of de jure and de facto secession movements, accomplished what would not have been through simply placing a new elite atop the Soviet state. 

Similarly, the American revolution, which was primarily a movement to secede from the British state, created a highly decentralized new “state” which possessed few of the powers of the old regime.

We can conclude that any American who actually values human freedom—and its necessary antecedent, the weakening of the central state—will desire a similar dismemberment of the United States. After all, as the French revolution showed us, it is not enough to simply transfer the regime from the hands of one elite to another. Rather, radical decentralization, via secession and other means, will have to take place in order to create new power centers and new elites that can push back against the established elites and power centers of the rump state. Only when power is allowed to check power will there be any meaningful institutional limits on state power. 

Yet, for the foreseeable future, we are likely to hear over and over again that the only acceptable “strategy” is to embrace elections and party politics. This is the “vote harder” argument. The usual “reformers” prefer this because voting, from the perspective of the regime, is harmless and quite ineffective in mounting any sort of meaningful opposition to the core powers and institutions of the state and its elites. Moreover, even in the highly unlikely event that elections were able to bring about any significant replacement of the current elite, this would only leave the current centralized state and its institutions intact, with only a change in those who control the means of exploitation.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 17:40

The Maps Are Moving: How A Supreme Court Ruling Turned The 2026 House Race Into A Republican Offensive

A few short weeks ago House Democrats were riding high. They had spent tens of millions to win a Virginia referendum that promised up to four new seats. President Trump was struggling in the polls. The path to a House majority looked plausible.

Yet in the span of roughly two weeks, a combination of aggressive Republican redistricting and a pivotal Supreme Court decision has dramatically altered the battlefield. What was once a Democratic advantage has become a steep uphill climb. Republicans are now positioned to gain as many as 10 to 14 seats through map changes alone - enough to transform a narrow 217–212 majority into something much more durable.

Supreme Spark

The turning point was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. The decision effectively curtailed the use of race in drawing congressional districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. For Democrats, who had long relied on VRA protections to create majority-minority districts in the South, the ruling was a gut punch. For Republicans, it was an opening.

Southern states with Republican trifectas moved with remarkable speed. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a map that could eliminate four Democratic seats. Alabama called a special session to redraw its map with the goal of flipping two Democratic districts and giving the GOP all seven seats. Tennessee targeted the lone Democratic stronghold in Memphis. Louisiana, South Carolina, and even Mississippi began exploring ways to eliminate their remaining Democratic representatives.

Republican Redistricting Surge

Here’s a clear breakdown of the Republican-led redistricting efforts and their potential impact:

Here's the updated version with black text in the header (since the black background is being locked out):

State Current GOP Seats Potential Change Status / Notes Florida 20 of 28 +4 Map signed by Gov. DeSantis. Multiple lawsuits pending. Texas 24 of 37 +5 New map approved by Supreme Court. Most aggressive early move. Alabama 5 of 7 +2 (aiming for 7–0) Special session called. Targeting Reps. Figures and possibly Sewell. Tennessee 8 of 9 +1 (targeting Rep. Steve Cohen) Special session underway. Memphis seat in crosshairs. Louisiana 4 of 6 +2 (aiming for 6–0) Redrawing after SCOTUS ruling. Primary delayed. South Carolina 6 of 7 +1 (targeting Rep. Jim Clyburn) Considering new map to eliminate Clyburn’s deep-blue seat. North Carolina 7 of 14 +1 New map approved; flips one Democratic seat. Mississippi 3 of 4 +1 (targeting Rep. Bennie Thompson) Gov. Reeves considering it — most likely for 2028.

Total Potential Republican Gains: 10–14 seats

Democrats have tried to mount a counteroffensive in states where they still hold power, but their efforts have been more limited and face greater legal headwinds. In California, voters approved Proposition 50 last year, a Democratic-drawn map designed to net the party five additional seats - though the map is now under legal challenge following the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais decision. Virginia appeared to deliver one of Democrats’ biggest victories when voters approved a redistricting referendum on April 21 that could give the party as many as four new seats - potentially 10 of the state’s 11 districts. However, that victory is now in serious jeopardy after a Virginia judge ruled the referendum invalid just one day later, nullifying the results. Efforts in New York to flip the state’s lone Republican seat were blocked by the Supreme Court, while proposed maps in Maryland and Illinois have either been rejected by Democratic lawmakers or paused over legal concerns. Utah remains a rare bright spot for Democrats, where a court-imposed map could add one seat. Overall, Democratic gains have proven far more fragile and uncertain than the aggressive Republican advances in the South.

Democratic Counter-Moves

Democrats have not been passive. They’ve pursued their own aggressive strategies where they hold power:

State Current Dem Seats Potential Change Status / Notes California 13 of 52 +5 Proposition 50 passed by voters. Now facing lawsuits after SCOTUS ruling. Virginia 6 of 11 +4 (could reach 10 of 11) Voter-approved referendum. Major uncertainty — Virginia Supreme Court may strike it down. Utah 1 of 4 +1 Court rejected GOP map and imposed a new one drawn by a centrist group. New York 15 of 26 Limited / blocked Attempt to flip Staten Island’s GOP seat blocked by SCOTUS. Now pushing to amend state constitution. Maryland 7 of 8 None Gov. Moore’s map rejected by Democratic legislature over legal concerns. Illinois 14 of 17 None (paused) Proposed race-based amendment paused after SCOTUS decision. Bottom Line

Republicans currently hold a clear structural advantage, especially across the South, where they control the process in multiple states, while Democratic gains are more limited and face greater legal uncertainty (particularly in Virginia and California). Virginia remains the single biggest near-term variable for Democrats. If the court overturns the referendum, their path to a House majority becomes significantly harder.

A potential 10-to-14 seat Republican gain would be significant. In a chamber this closely divided, it could mean the difference between a fragile majority and comfortable control heading into 2028.

Yet, the devil is in the details (including election-related malarkey). Even the most skillfully drawn maps can be overwhelmed by national political tides. If the economy weakens, if President Trump’s approval ratings remain low, or if a major scandal erupts, some of these newly Republican-leaning districts could still flip. Conversely, a strong Republican environment would amplify the advantages of these new maps.

So for now, the momentum belongs to Republicans, but the situation remains fluid. Multiple maps face lawsuits, Virginia’s fate is uncertain, and candidate recruitment and national conditions could still reshape the battlefield.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 17:20

Dana White Says Society Is Failing Young Men, And The Backlash Proves His Point

Authored by David Manney via PJ Media,

Dana White touched some nerves this week when he mocked modern concerns over toxic masculinity and warned that society is increasingly pushing young men aside.

Cue the shrieks in 3...2...1...0

White's broader point, however, resonated with millions of Americans who see young men struggling socially, economically, and emotionally while much of modern culture (read: feminazis) treats masculinity itself like a behavior problem needing correction.

White appeared on The Katie Miller Podcast, where the host and wife of Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, asked him about the state of young men and women in America today. 

DANA WHITE: “When you're a man, you are the provider. You are the one that that takes care of your family. You are the example for your kids when they grow up and your sons, and your daughters.

“You can't be that guy that I see posting on social media. Oh, I had a bad day, and… pic.twitter.com/3P1M8GsTZY

— Katie Miller (@KatieMiller) May 5, 2026

White went on to argue that young men are struggling with a wildly different set of circumstances than the ones he grew up with.

"Times are changing from when I was young," he said. "These young men, I think, you know, we went through COVID and the whole woke era and all the weird s--- that went on during that period. A lot of the young males felt displaced."

The UFC president noted that he often gets accused of outlandish things like "being the head of the manosphere, whatever that means" and of "toxic masculinity."

Around 12 years ago, I ran into such a proud feminist who started to rip me a new one because I held a door open for her. I let her go for about five seconds before laying some truth on her, saying, “You know who taught me to hold a door for women? My mother, the strongest person I've ever known.”

It stopped her cold. Maybe because of what I said, but I really think it's because of how I said it. My guess was that she was used to rolling over men trying to be polite.

For years, political activists, academics, and media commentators have used phrases like "toxic masculinity" to describe aggressive, destructive, or antisocial male behavior.

So when White opines on what manhood supposedly is or isn’t, it offers insight into the perspective of some men in the MAGA movement, which is deeply obsessed with performative masculinity. That’s why I found it pitiful to see him publicly berating men who openly discuss their mental health.

White delivered his commentary, fittingly, on the podcast of MAGA influencer Katie Miller, who is married to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. White, after saying it’s a “man’s job” to make sure a woman feels “safe” and is “treated right,” admitted that his idea of masculinity is “toxic” and railed against men who talk about their feelings

And that's fair; real abuse, violence, and recklessness deserve criticism regardless of gender.

Problems start when the conversation expands so broadly that ordinary masculine traits begin falling under suspicion too. Competitiveness becomes dangerous, stoicism becomes unhealthy, physical toughness becomes outdated, and leadership becomes problematic.

Even fatherhood sometimes gets discussed less as a social necessity and more as an optional accessory.

Young men notice.

Many of them also notice who usually delivers the lectures. Discussions surrounding masculinity often happen in universities, activist circles, corporate HR departments, entertainment panels, and political spaces where traditional male culture receives little respect.

Blue-collar values, physical labor, risk-taking, hunting, mechanical trades, competitive sports, and military service were, for years, increasingly viewed through a skeptical culture lens instead of being treated as honorable parts of society.

White's comments gained traction partly because he works inside one of the few major industries where unapologetic masculinity still openly exists. The UFC built an audience around discipline, competition, toughness, accountability, and merit. Fighters either win or lose, and excuses carry little value once the cage door closes.

Many cultural leaders still respond by doubling down on criticism instead of asking why so many young men feel disconnected from institutions increasingly dominated by ideological messaging. 

Could it be that those institutions have been increasingly hostile in their ideological messaging?

Our entertainment industry has talked about empowering nearly every demographic group imaginable, while conversations involving boys and men frequently center around correction, privilege, or danger.

White argued that society risks creating a generation of displaced young men searching for identity and purpose. Recent political trends suggest he may have found something. President Donald Trump made major gains among younger male voters during the 2024 election cycle, especially among working-class men frustrated with cultural hostility toward traditional masculinity.

Not every criticism of masculinity is unfair; plenty of destructive male behavior exists. Every society needs standards involving responsibility, self-control, and respect. Yet healthy masculinity historically built families, defended nations, worked dangerous jobs, and carried enormous physical burdens most people preferred avoiding.

Society heavily depends on those traits today, even while portions of "elite" culture mock them.

White's critics often frame masculinity discussions as a battle between progress and backwardness.

If you’re considering looking to White for lessons on manhood or mental health, consider that this is a person who was recorded slapping his wife in public in 2023 (White said afterward, “I’ve been against this. I’ve owned this. I’m telling you that I’m wrong” but faced no repercussions) and said he had “almost no feelings about” the death of his parents, from whom he was estranged.

And yet, there he was on Miller’s podcast, lecturing American men on how they should ignore their feelings and make women feel “safe.” 

A man discussing his feelings or openly referencing his mental health issues obviously doesn’t preclude him from providing or being present for his loved ones. It’s suggestions to the contrary that contribute to the men’s mental health crisis, which people like White seem to want us all to ignore.

Many ordinary Americans instead see fathers coaching Little League, mechanics fixing engines, linemen restoring power after storms, soldiers serving overseas, and construction workers building homes. Most don't view those men as threats to society.

Fighter culture understands something modern politics often forgets: young men usually respond better to purpose than humiliation. They want challenge, respect, direction, and responsibility. Constantly framing masculinity itself as suspicious leaves many entirely tuning out.

Ironically, the furious backlash toward White helped reinforce his argument; a culture truly comfortable with masculinity probably wouldn't panic each time somebody yelled "Man!" in a crowded theater.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 17:00

UN Climate Panel Quietly Admits Its Doomsday Climate Scenarios Were 'Implausible'

The IPCC has published a new generation of climate scenarios - and buried in the fine print is a remarkable concession: the extreme warming pathways that dominated climate research, policy, and media coverage for decades were never actually plausible. It took a while to notice because almost no one in mainstream media bothered to report it.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published the next generation of climate scenarios," Science policy analyst Roger Pielke Jr. wrote, calling it "big news" that "eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades." 

The conclusion was unambiguous. "The IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures."

Those "impossible futures" formed the backbone of a decade-plus of apocalyptic climate messaging - melting ice caps, submerged coastlines, mass extinctions, widespread crop failures, and global hunger, always around the corner, always demanding immediate, economy-reshaping action to avert a catastrophe that, it now turns out, the underlying science community had assigned to a category closer to science fiction than projection.

The new IPCC framework formally demotes its remaining "HIGH scenario" from expected outcome to "exploratory - a thought experiment, not a projection."

That's a significant institutional retreat. 

Pielke noted that the previous framework lacked "any systematic effort to evaluate plausibility of scenarios," meaning the scariest pathways were able to dominate the policy debate for years without anyone in the room applying a basic reality check. 

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.

Curiously, the revised framework was technically adopted back in 2021, but has only now filtered into public view as related technical and institutional changes caught up. And it’s fair to ask why. The policy consequences of those “impossible futures” were very real.

As the Daily Sceptic's Chris Morrison opines; 

It cannot be over-emphasised how important this finding of implausibility is. It means that almost every fearmongering mainstream media climate headline and story that has been written over the last 15 years is junk. Of course it also explains why a growing band of sceptical commentators have refused to accept the political concept of ‘settled’ science and have engaged in widespread debunking. Shooting fish in a barrel is one way of describing this work. At times, with just a modicum of investigative scepticism, the stories can be seen as little more than an insult to average human intelligence.

When the RCP8.5 assumptions are loaded into computer models, they run politically-convenient red hot suggestions that the temperature in 2100 will rise by about 4°C from a 1850-1900 baseline – in other words, a rise of nearly 3°C in the next 80 years. Only the most deranged eco loons will claim such large short-term rises out loud, so the activist scientists quietly loaded garbage assumptions into their computers to arrive at their garbage-out Armageddon scares. The writing was on the wall for RCP8.5 last year when President Trump’s executive order titled ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ effectively banned the use of RCP8.5 for scientists on the United States federal payroll. It also noted one of the unrealistic RCP8.5 assumptions driving deliberate climate psychosis to be that end-of-century coal use will exceed estimates of recoverable reserves.

At the time, the climate researcher Zeke Hausfather dismissed the Trump Administration’s claims about RCP8.5 by stating that the research community had moved on. But Pielke has taken issue with this ‘nothing to see here’ claim. He states that from 2018 to 2021, Google Scholar reported 17,000 articles published using RCP8.5 compared with 16,900 in the next three year period. “Some shift,” he observed.

Again, those using less charitable words might note that the ultimate climate crackpipe has proved difficult to put down. A long and painful process of rehabilitation now seems likely.

RCP8.5 assumed high emissions of carbon dioxide leading to a radiative forcing (extra energy trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere) of 8.5 watts per square metre. The new pathways act as agreed guidelines for computer models that will then provide information for the IPCC’s forthcoming seventh assessment reports. Pielke has run the figures and estimates that the new high scenario will produce 3°C of warming by 2100, a reduction from 3.9°C but still an improbable 1.8°C rise in less than 80 years. Of course these new scenarios are just assumptions anyway, and on past observational evidence of atmospheric gas ‘saturation’ stretching back 600 million years they still grossly overestimate the warming effect of a few trace gases. Much higher levels of CO2 were the norm in the past in a complex, chaotic, non-linear and ultimately unmeasurable atmosphere. Climate scare bingo based on sightings in mainstream media of ‘scientists say’ will likely continue as long as an audience, albeit a diminishing one, still believes in the politicised agitprop of a ‘climate emergency’.

* * *

Climate change has been sold for years as an existential race against the clock, and despite decades of failed predictions, the alarmism hasn’t stopped.

In 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) warned that if we don’t address the climate issue, the planet would be destroyed in just 12 years.

Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned in a video posted on social media in 2023 that climate change is the “greatest threat facing our country and all of humanity,” and warned that “If there is not bold, immediate, and united action by governments throughout the world, the quality of life that we are leaving our kids and future generations is very much in question.”

This regular framing of the need for immediate action has prompted Democrats to impose massive spending and sweeping mandates. Billions in taxpayer dollars have gone into green energy boondoggles, all justified by the promise of stopping catastrophic climate change. The same narrative fueled a wave of regulations that hit ordinary Americans with higher costs and fewer choices. In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom put that agenda into action, signing Executive Order N-79-20 to phase out gas-powered passenger vehicles by 2035 and medium- to heavy-duty vehicles by 2045. Two years later, Gov. Kathy Hochul followed through in New York with her own executive order, mandating that 35% of 2026 model-year cars sold in the state be "emissions-free," scaling to 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. These Zero-Emission Vehicle mandates, along with aggressive federal emissions standards, were sold to the public as necessary responses to scenarios the IPCC now effectively acknowledges were describing things that could never happen.

Climate alarmism, of course, didn’t exist in a vacuum. It grew into a full-blown political and financial ecosystem - a machinery of grants, advocacy groups, media narratives, and regulatory agendas built on the premise that civilization had twelve to fifteen years to change course or face collapse. 

“The now-implausible upper-end scenarios […] are not just academic constructs used in esoteric research,” explains Pielke. “They are embedded in the policies and regulations of most of the world’s largest economies, found across the world’s most important multilateral institutions, and used in the climate stress tests that govern hundreds of billions of dollars in bank capital.”

That reality should spark real outrage. 

For years, the public was bombarded with worst-case scenarios that drove policy, justified massive spending, and steered hundreds of billions in capital - all under the banner of urgency and fear. If those dire projections were overstated or outright implausible, then the scale of the misallocation is staggering, and the media should be taking an interest in this story. Americans were told the clock was about to run out, and they were forced to pay accordingly. The fact that this reckoning hasn’t triggered a broader backlash says as much as the original alarmism ever did.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 16:40

The Democratic Party Is Dead, Long Live The Jacobins!

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

For the past century, the agendas of the Democratic Party were predictable. They professed concern for working Americans and supported blue-collar unions.

Unemployment insurance, a 40-hour work week, disability insurance, and Social Security were their trademarks—often rapidly achieved by growing government bureaucracies and continually raising taxes. Still, many Democrats were socially conservative.

By the 1970s, Democrats still deplored antisemitism. Party officials had rejected their own segregationists to champion civil rights.

Presidents like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy all supported strong defense and military deterrence.

All that is now passé.

The only vestigial Democrat left in Congress is Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, himself roundly despised by Democrat leaders.

Today, supporting Israel and calling for campuses to stop their institutionalized antisemitism is Democratic political suicide.

Forty years ago, any Democrat with a Nazi tattoo was political toast; today, he can become the party’s nominee for the Maine Senate race.

So, the current Democrat Party is no longer truly democratic at all. Its new spirit and methods resemble the radical Jacobin Party of the French Revolution. Today, Democrats claim that if any opponent gives a Roman salute, he is a Nazi—while insisting that one of their own with a Nazi tattoo is not.

Jacobinism rejects Martin Luther King Jr.’s emphasis on the “content of . . . character.” It instead prefers fixating on “the color of . . . skin.”

It aims to divide the nation arbitrarily between the noble oppressed and the toxic oppressors.

So these new Jacobins have institutionalized racially separate college dorms and graduation ceremonies, along with hiring and promoting on the basis of race.

The new Jacobins destroyed the southern border and welcomed in 10–12 million illegal aliens, seen as a future proletariat constituency. Today’s Jacobins would now ridicule Bill Clinton’s 1990s calls for secure borders and an end to illegal immigration as “fascist” and “racist.”

The most recent nihilist developments in American society can be attributed to these Jacobin “Democrats”: biological men competing in women’s sports; critical legal theory that normalizes cashless bail; race-based reparations; violent felons arrested and back on the street hours later; radical abortion on demand until birth; attacks on the concept of the cultural “melting pot”; and opposition to organized Christianity.

These agendas lack broad majority support. So street theater and violence focus on Tesla dealerships, ICE officers, conservative campus speakers, and, at times, any journalists covering the unrest.

Jacobins make excuses for pro-Hamas campus violence, which often targets Jewish students. The often violent and corrupt Black Lives Matter movement was a Jacobin ancillary.

Free speech is labeled “disinformation” and “misinformation”—synonyms for not toeing the Jacobin Party line. Until recent pushbacks, near-religious radical green agendas warred against fossil fuels and cost the working classes billions of dollars for sky-high fuel and electricity costs.

Like the Robespierre brothers of old, the most radical Jacobins are so often to be found among the wealthiest and most privileged Americans. Radical New York mayor Zohran Mamdani grew up as a rich Ugandan. Radical, self-described communist Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner attended one of the most elite and expensive prep schools in the United States.

When avowed socialists Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders barnstormed the country, they did so via private jets.

Radical “Squad” member Rep. Ilhan Omar cannot decide whether she is worth $30 million or nothing. Hard-left California billionaire, gubernatorial candidate, and radical environmentalist Tom Steyer is a billionaire who jump-started his fortune by investing in coal plants overseas and offshoring profits to avoid taxes.

At least 10 states are drafting laws to tax the net worth, as well as the income, of “billionaires and millionaires,” apparently for their “social” crimes. Mayor Mamdani taps on the window of philanthropist Ken Griffin as a warning to get out of town. The mayor of Seattle scoffs at the rich leaving her state with their billions due to new punitive taxes, offering a sarcastic “bye.”

In the old days, Democrats were embarrassed by their radicals and distanced themselves from the Weather Underground, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Black Panthers. Today, left-wing bomb throwers are the Democrat Party.

Hasan Piker, another multimillionaire, $200,000 Porsche-driving communist, has openly supported “social murder.”

So Piker praised Luigi Mangione’s targeted murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Meanwhile, Jacobins on social media expressed disappointment that all three assassination attempts on Donald Trump failed. The arsonist who burned down Pacific Palisades was a Mangione acolyte and saw his destruction as a revolutionary act, perhaps a form of mass “social murder.”

Jacobin politicians call for Trump to be “eliminated,” label him as a “fascist,” and call for “any means necessary” to end his presidency.

The aim is to lower the social and psychological barrier to violence.

The Jacobin Democrats of today are systematically destroying the legacy of the Democratic Party. And why not?

Their model is not the American Founding, but the radical mandated equality—and violence—of the French Revolution.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 16:20

30 House Dems Demand US Confirmation That Israel Has Nuclear Arsenal

In the latest indication that Israel's position in American politics is growing increasingly shaky, a group of 30 House Democrats have co-signed a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, demanding that the US government finally acknowledge the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal. It's a milestone event: For decades, both parties have diligently co-conspired in avoiding such a confirmation, typically claiming ignorance on the rare occasions when journalists or citizens asked them about it.

MUST SEE: For many years, journalist @samhusseini has tracked down high-level politicos in Washington, D.C. and asked them variations of the same question:

“Do you know that Israel has nuclear weapons?”

Watch as he presses John Negroponte, Mike Pence, John Kerry, the Biden and… pic.twitter.com/kDtFyZhA4i

— Decensored News (@decensorednews) April 7, 2026

Now we have dozens of House representatives asking the question. "This is something that people did not dare do before,” Avner Cohen, a historian of Israel's nuclear program, told the Washington Post. “Even raising these questions publicly is a departure from a bipartisan norm.”

The letter puts the need for transparency in the context of the ongoing US-Israel-initiated war with Iran -- which was launched over the claim that Iran was on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon, a claim that clashes with the repeated conclusions of the US intelligence community. The letter emphasizes that many of the countries with stakes in the conflict -- including the United States, the UK, Russia, China and Pakistan -- are nuclear-weapon states. 

“The risks of miscalculation, escalation, and nuclear use in this environment are not theoretical...Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be fully informed about the nuclear balance in the Middle East, the risk of escalation by any party to this conflict, and the administration’s planning and contingencies for such scenarios.”

Further violating the long-running bipartisan commitment to ignoring Israel's doomsday arsenal, the four-page letter points to many indications of that arsenal's existence, including revelations and photographs provided in 1986 by Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu, the contents of a formerly classified 1974 National Intelligence Estimate, and a statement-under-oath by then-Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates casually including Israel in a list of nuclear powers operating in the Middle East. 

Israeli leaker Mordechai Vanunu provided this photo to the London Sunday Times, and said it shows the control room of a plutonium separation plant. Israel tracked him down, used a female agent to lure him to Italy, drug him, then put him on a freight ship to Israel where he was imprisoned. 

The letter culminates in a pointed list of questions. Among other things, the Democratic representatives demand to know what nuclear weapons capability Israel has, the country's enrichment capabilities, and its doctrine guiding the use of nuclear weapons.

The Post reports that the Trump administration has been assessing Israel's potential to go nuclear in its joint war on Iran with the United States. "There is a low boil of unease about Israel’s nuclear program and what could compel them to use nuclear weapons short of facing a WMD attack,” a Trump administration official told the Post. One such scenario that US officials are said to "frequently" wring their hands over: An overwhelming barrage that causes an extraordinarily higher pace of Israeli civilian casualties. 

The letter to Rubio was organized by Texas Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro. As we reported in March, Castro used a House hearing to put America's top arms control official on the spot, pointedly asking him, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Thomas G. DiNanno repeatedly dodged and obfuscated, even claiming that "it would be outside of my purview as the arms control and arms proliferation under secretary to discuss that specific question."

We are four weeks into a war where both sides have targeted each other's nuclear facilities.

We risk nuclear disaster. Yet the main Trump official on arms control refused to answer my question on Israel's nuclear capabilities and told me to ask the Israeli government. pic.twitter.com/Sxnru3EIrl

— Joaquin Castro (@JoaquinCastrotx) March 25, 2026

The letter recounts DiNanno's refusal to answer question posed by Castro, and three of the questions for Rubio directly probe the  veil of secrecy surrounding Israel's nuclear weapons: 

• "What are the specific restrictions on Undersecretary DiNanno answering such a question?
• What is the Department’s guidance to its employees on the discussion of any Israeli nuclear weapons capability?
• Please provide any documentation or information regarding the administration’s policy on discussing any potential Israeli nuclear weapons capability, including who has issued any such policies, what such restrictions cover, and who is bound by those restrictions."

Those questions are doubly awkward, because it may be illegal for Rubio to answer them. A secret classification directive issued by the Obama administration seemingly makes explicit the prohibition on talking about Israeli nuclear weapons. It was released in 2015 pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act inquiry. Though its contents are almost entirely redacted, the un-redacted title speaks volumes: “Guidance on Release of Information Relating to the Potential for an Israeli Nuclear Capability.”

One driver of Washington's practice of feigning ignorance about Israel's nuclear arsenal is the fact that -- combined with Israel's refusal to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- Israel's arsenal makes every dollar of US aid to Israel illegal, thanks to legislation enacted in the 1970s. While not addressing that inconvenient truth explicitly, the House Dems' letter to Rubio made an implicit reference to it: "If any such disclosure of any Israeli nuclear weapons capability would implicate U.S. laws concerning nonproliferation, we are ready to work with you to address those concerns through legislative action."

That language suggests that the Dems would cooperate in explicitly granting Israel an exception to the ban on aid to non-NPT nuclear states. Israel and its supporters often claim indignation when the country is, in their words, "singled out" for criticism. We don't expect they'll complain if Israel is singled out for an explicit exception to US nuclear non-proliferation law.  

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 15:45

The Complicated Reality Behind High Gas Prices

Authored by Petr Svab via The Epoch Times,

Average gas prices in the United States have gone up by almost 40 percent since March 1.

The reason appears straightforward: Iran has blocked the Strait of Hormuz in response to the U.S. military operation that decapitated its regime and degraded its military. Hundreds of tankers trapped behind the strait cannot deliver their oil, depriving the world of 7 percent to 10 percent of its supply.

Although that explains drastic price increases and even shortages in Europe and Asia, the United States gets almost no oil through the strait. In theory, the country should be energy-independent, as it is a net petroleum exporter.

But in reality, the United States is highly intertwined with the global oil market, and there is little chance it could disentangle itself from it, according to experts who spoke to The Epoch Times.

“Oil is a fungible commodity that can be shipped anywhere in the world, and that is why everyone is impacted by the events,” said Patrick De Haan, petroleum analyst with gas price tracker GasBuddy.

Countries facing shortages are willing to pay top dollar for U.S. oil.

“There’s huge demand to export the product,“ said Paul Sankey, an oil market analyst and president of Sankey Research.

”So that draws the prices up.”

If the U.S. government were to impose limits on oil exports, it would likely cause more problems than it would solve, the experts said.

Light Sweet Versus Heavy Sour

Not all crude oil is made the same. The oil produced in the United States through fracking is called “light sweet.” It is the easiest to refine and contains few impurities such as sulphur.

Much of Middle Eastern oil is categorized as “medium.” It is still fairly easy to process, but it is thicker and contains more sulphur. Canada largely produces “heavy sour” oil. It is even thicker and more sulphurous. Venezuela, despite its gigantic reserves, produces mostly very heavy, sour oil that few refineries can process.

U.S. refineries are generally geared toward heavier oil.

An aerial view shows the Chevron El Segundo refinery, one of California’s largest petroleum processing facilities, in Manhattan Beach, Calif., on April 8, 2026. Average gas prices in the United States have gone up by almost 40 percent since March 1 amid the war in Iran. Mario Tama/Getty Images

“Most of our refineries were built at least half a century ago now,“ said David Blackmon, an energy policy analyst and adviser. ”They were set up to refine heavier grades of crude oil coming in from the Middle East and Mexico, the big producing countries at that time, because we were heavily dependent on foreign oil during those days.”

Refineries have been adjusting to processing lighter grades, Sankey noted.

But switching from one grade to another remains difficult, said Keming Ma, former process engineer at a major refinery in Asia. It is easier to change the oil than the refinery.

“They blend the oil with a different grade to accommodate the refinery,” he said.

In fact, refineries have an incentive to maintain their setup for heavier oil, according to Robert Dauffenbach, an energy expert and professor emeritus at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business.

“These companies have invested billions of dollars into being able to take advantage of the price spread between heavier sour crude, which, quite frankly, can’t be run at every single refinery, so it tends to be cheaper,” he said.

And so the United States exports about 5 million barrels of largely light oil daily, while importing more than 6 million barrels of largely heavy oil.

“We’re kind of maxed out on the amount of light, sweet crude we can run out of refineries,” Dauffenbach said.

And there is another reason why heavier oil is desirable.

Refineries separate crude oil through distillation into fractions, from the lightest such as methane and propane, through petrol (gasoline), and then into heavier oils such as kerosene, diesel, and heating oil until only asphalt is left. The lighter the crude, the less of the heavier fractions it yields.

An aerial photo shows the Nave Photon crude oil tanker carrying Venezuelan oil docked in Freeport, Texas, on Jan. 16, 2026. Venezuela’s crude is largely heavy and sour—thicker and more sulphurous—making it difficult for most refineries to process. Mark Felix/AFP via Getty Images

“We import heavy sour ... because we need it for our refineries to make heavier products like diesel and jet fuel,” said Tracy Shuchart, a senior economist at NinjaTrader Group.

Export Ban Repercussions

“[Limiting exports] would likely push prices down here temporarily, but it would negatively impact many of our major allies that are now relying on us,” De Haan said.

The United States produces about 13 million barrels of crude per day, but its refineries, now running virtually at maximum capacity, guzzle about 16 million barrels per day, Dauffenbach said. The refineries produce more than Americans consume.

“America is a big winner from the exports,“ Sankey said.

”So you'd be shooting yourself in the foot if you banned exports.”

A ban would also throw a wrench into the supply chain.

“Our domestic storage would fill up with this light grade of crude coming out of the shale place, and we'd have to stop importing that heavier crude that we need to manufacture diesel,” Blackmon said.

A farmer prepares a blend of minerals, biologicals, and fertilizers to be sprayed onto fields during seeding in Hickory, N.C., on April 10, 2026. Experts say demand for fuels such as diesel and jet fuel is one reason U.S. refineries favor heavier crude. Grant Baldwin/AFP via Getty Images

It is the heavier fractions “that are very highly desirable right now,” De Haan said.

“Right now, the price of diesel is up even more significantly than gasoline,“ he said. ”So if anything, refiners would like more heavy oil right now.”

An export ban would also have a chilling effect on the industry.

“You’re going to disincentivize more export infrastructure,” Sankey said.

There is not much risk that exports would dent domestic supply too much, he added.

“There’s a limit on how much we can export as well,“ he said. ”So that’s probably not going to be a huge pull above a certain level of exports, which will be the capacity maximization of the existing export infrastructure.”

The Trump administration has already made clear that an export ban is not on the table.

Fuel prices are displayed at a truck stop in Belvidere, Ill., on April 6, 2026. With diesel prices rising faster than gasoline, refiners are turning to import heavier crude needed to produce diesel, experts said. Scott Olson/Getty Images

What Is Next?

The most obvious way out of the current conundrum is to open the Strait of Hormuz. Yet it is not clear how and when that will happen.

Iran does not have the capacity to block the strait outright. Yet it can still issue a credible threat to attack passing vessels. In response, insurance companies are not willing to insure ships, hence shipping companies are not willing to risk passage.

The Trump administration is trying to negotiate a deal with Iran amid a rolling ceasefire. Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a part of Iran’s military that answers to the clerical regime leadership, continues to threaten the crucial shipping lane.

The uncertainty leaves traders scrambling for clues about where oil prices are heading.

Boats navigate the sea in the Strait of Hormuz near Qeshm Island, Iran, on April 28, 2026. The Trump administration is trying to negotiate a deal with Iran amid a rolling ceasefire, but it rejected Iran’s last offer and continues to blockade Iran’s ports. Asghar Besharati/Getty Images

“The market is trying to figure this out,” Dauffenbach said.

It seems, though, that the general tendency is for prices to rise.

“It’s pretty clear in my mind that oil prices are going to continue to slowly rise until there’s a resolution here,” De Haan said.

“That’s what we’re starting to see again. The ceasefire and the peace talks only temporarily pushed the oil prices lower.”

The initial price shock was not as drastic as some expected, in part because of the supply chain lag.

“Going into this conflict, we had some cushions against the supply shock,” Blackmon said.

“We had [about] 400 million barrels of oil already in tankers on the water that provided a cushion. That’s about four days of global supply.”

In addition, the United States, Japan, and China have substantial oil reserves.

“But those are now being depleted on a daily basis,“ he said. ”And, last I saw, about two-thirds of that cushion on the water has been delivered now.”

Still, the United States is much better off than many other countries, particularly in Asia and Europe.

Cars queue at an entry gate to the PCK Schwedt refinery in Schwedt, Germany, on April 30, 2026. Fuel prices in Germany have surged to more than $9 per gallon amid a global energy crisis tied to the Iran conflict. Tobias Schwarz/AFP via Getty Images

Americans experienced “a sticker shock” when gasoline went from $3 to $4, but “the gasoline price is already low here in global terms,” Sankey said, noting that in Germany, gas is now more than $9 per gallon.

The United States benefits not only from domestic supply, but also from substantial imports from Canada.

“About 95 percent of what we consume is here in North America,” Blackmon said.

“We get a little from Mexico, but their industry has really gone downhill in recent years. And then we get some from Venezuela, and some from Brazil and Guyana.”

Canadian oil is generally cheaper “because it has limited means to flow out to the global marketplace,” De Haan said, although he noted that Canada recently opened a pipeline to the West Coast, which will allow it to access other markets in the future.

Thus, Americans are seeing higher prices, but at least no shortages.

“We’re insulated from the big supply shock, because we have such a high degree of energy security,” Blackmon said.

Policy Fixes

Even without export restrictions, the U.S. federal government has some policy options for easing the situation. One thing it has already done is suspend the Jones Act, which states that only American-made and American-flagged ships with American crews can run between American ports. This restriction has previously increased shipping costs between American ports.

Although helpful, it does not move the price much, Dauffenbach said.

“Now they’re getting to the point where there’s not much difference between Jones Act and internationally flagged [ships] because there’s a lack of ships right now,” he said.

A pumpjack stands idle in the Huntington Beach oil field, with port cranes visible in the distance, in Huntington Beach, Calif., on April 23, 2026. America benefits not only from domestic supply, but also from substantial imports from Canada. Mario Tama/Getty Images

The government could call a gas tax holiday.

“It would bring prices down immediately by 18.4 cents a gallon,” he said.

Individual states could also roll back their gas taxes. Georgia has already done so, he noted.

Customers fill up with gas in Los Angeles on March 11, 2026. Despite higher prices, Americans have not faced shortages because of the country’s “high degree of energy security,” analyst David Blackmon said. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

The federal government could allow year-round sales of E15, a fuel containing more ethanol.

“Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline right now, so that would help bring down prices a little bit,” he said.

For now, Americans are stuck paying more, as demand remains steady.

“It’s very difficult for demand to dissipate in the United States, unless things get really out of control, just because everybody has to drive everywhere here,” Shuchart said.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 15:25