Zero Rss

USAF Says Former Qatari 747 Boeing Ready For USA Paint Scheme

The U.S. Air Force reports that the Boeing 747 donated by Qatar, now designated the VC-25B Bridge, has completed modification and flight testing and is entering the paint phase ahead of deployment as an interim Air Force One jet. 

The bridge aircraft is a former Qatar head-of-state Boeing 747-8i that will serve as an interim presidential aircraft until Boeing's delayed VC-25B replacements are ready, now expected in 2028. 

"This program epitomizes what is possible when clear accountability is placed on one individual, and the entire enterprise of stakeholders aligns behind a single mission outcome … deliver a bridge capability as soon as possible to relieve pressure on the aging VC-25A fleet," Gen. Dale White, Department of War direct reporting portfolio manager for Critical Major Weapon Systems, wrote in a press release.

The VC-25B Bridge underwent flight testing in Texas and is now in a hangar being painted in a "new red, white and blue" livery, according to the U.S. Air Force. The service said the aircraft will be ready for use by summer, likely ahead of the nation's 250th anniversary celebrations on July 4.

Rendering of the new paint scheme:

Military blog TWZ noted there are still a lot of "questions swirling about the legality and ethics of receiving the gifted plane." Last May, the Pentagon took delivery of the aircraft and said it would rapidly undertake the required modifications.

USAF did not disclose the new capabilities added to the former Qatari jet nor disclose the cost of the modifications. Lawmakers suggested last year that those modifications could exceed $1 billion.

 

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 20:30

Trump DOJ Probes 36 Illinois School Districts For Secretly Transitioning Kids Behind Parents' Backs

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

The Trump administration is cracking down hard on radical gender policies in public schools. The Department of Justice has launched full investigations into 36 Illinois school districts accused of helping children “change genders” without telling their parents and pushing sexual orientation and gender ideology without proper opt-out notifications.

While blue-state bureaucrats treat families as obstacles, the DOJ is stepping in to enforce basic accountability and Supreme Court precedent. 

The review is also looking at whether the district’s violated parents right to opt their child out of lessons on gender and s*xuality.”

🚨 BREAKING: The Trump administration launches investigations into DOZENS of Illinois school districts for carrying out TRANSGENDER transitions on kids behind the parents' backs

WTF?! This is DEMENTED. Pull all funding!

"Prosecutors say they helped children CHANGE GENDERS… pic.twitter.com/teYRZvH1NT

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) May 4, 2026

Senior correspondent Mike Tobin reported: “The DOJ has launched an investigation into some 36 schools in Illinois. The investigation is going to probe whether the schools are pushing woke agenda on the students, particularly if they’re pushing s*xual orientation and gender ideology.”

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon made the administration’s position crystal clear: “This Department of Justice is determined to put an end to local school authorities keeping parents in the dark about how sexuality and gender ideology are being pushed in classrooms.”

“Supreme Court precedent leaves no doubt: parents have the fundamental right and primary authority to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children,” Dhillon added.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker dismissed the probe as “a sham aimed at punishing states President Trump does not like.”

The official DOJ announcement confirms the scope: the investigations examine whether districts included sexual orientation and gender ideology (SOGI) content in any pre-K-12 class and whether parents received opt-out notices. They will also assess compliance with biological-sex rules for bathrooms, locker rooms, and girls’ sports. 

This isn’t isolated. It directly builds on a pattern of leftist gender ideology assault that the Trump administration is systematically dismantling.

A year ago, the White House stated outright that “changing a minor’s gender is child abuse and medical malpractice.”

Democrats, meanwhile, have pushed to classify “misgendering and deadnaming” as child abuse:

Earlier this year, California parents were informed that they risk losing custody of their kids for simply refusing to affirm a child’s trans identity: https://modernity.news/2026/02/28/california-parents-risk-losing-custod…

These examples show the coordinated push: hide the truth from parents, punish dissent, and medicalize confusion at the expense of children’s long-term health. 

Illinois districts now face the same scrutiny California tried to ram through before the Supreme Court stepped in to protect families.

The investigations come after recent Supreme Court victories affirming parental rights over secret social transitions and ideological curriculum. Parents are no longer sidelined while schools play doctor and activist behind closed doors.

This DOJ action sends a loud message: federal funding and civil rights enforcement will no longer subsidize secrecy and experimentation on minors. 

The Trump administration will seek to defund the districts that refuse to comply and restore parents as the ultimate authority over their children’s upbringing. 

Without such action, The US risks going down the same path as the UK, where new trans guidance for schools suggests that kids as young as four can “change gender”: 

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 Tue, 05/05/2026 - 20:05

US Intelligence Only Sees Limited Additional Damage To Iran Nuclear Program Since Last June

A widely circulating fresh report in Reuters has raised eyebrows and serious questions related to the effectiveness of the 38-day aerial campaign which saw US-Israel bombs unleashed in the many thousands (combined: some 20,000+ munitions expended) on the Islamic Republic.

"US intelligence assessments indicate that the time Iran would need to build a nuclear weapon has not changed since last summer, when analysts estimated that a US-Israeli attack had pushed back the timeline to up to a year, according to three sources familiar with the matter," the report lays out.

"The assessments of Tehran's nuclear program remain broadly unchanged even after two months of a war that US President Donald Trump launched in part to stop the Islamic Republic from developing a nuclear bomb," it continues.

via Fox

The Israelis are believed to have done most of the direct targeting of Iranian nuclear facilities in the late February through April air campaign. This after already since last June, the White House insisted Iran's nuclear program was 'obliterated'.

Again, one wonders what nearly 40 days of record-levels of bombardment of Iranian cities and military sites actually accomplished in terms of degrading Iran's nuclear enrichment capability - which has emerged as the primary US goal (stalled negotiations have centered on the demand that Tehran given up its nuclear material). It seems the needle may have hardly moved in terms of degrading Iranian nuke sites since last June?

The Reuters report gives the following additional conclusion: "The unchanged timeline suggests that significantly impeding Tehran’s nuclear program may require destroying or removing Iran’s remaining stockpile of highly enriched uranium, or HEU."

And that of course brings the situation back to the square one dilemma of whether to launch ground operations to recover what Trump calls the 'nuclear dust' - which further raises the prospect of utter disaster and endless quagmire (and there are signs of quagmire already, even without ground forces).

In shifting from 'Epic Fury' to 'Project Freedom' - the US administration seems to want to find a way out of this without a protracted ground war, which would mean serious losses in blood and treasure. The below is the official latest White House position:

While Operation ⁠Midnight Hammer obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities, Operation Epic Fury built on this success by decimating Iran’s defense industrial base that they ‌once leveraged as a protective shield around their pursuit of a nuclear weapon,” said White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales, referring ‌to the June operation and the latest war that began in February.

"President Trump has long been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon – and he does not bluff."

But Iran has countered that it considers its enriched uranium stockpile a matter of national sovereignty, and will 'never' allow it to be transferred outside the country.

Next round of US-Israeli bombing being planned?

An Israeli official told CNN:

The coordination between Israel and the United States includes preparations for a round of strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure and senior officials.

“The intention is to carry out a short operation aimed at pressuring Iran to make further…

— Amit Segal (@AmitSegal) May 5, 2026

Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei two weeks ago denied reports at the time which said Tehran had agreed to transfer its highly enriched uranium abroad, saying "enriched uranium is sacred to us, as is Iranian soil." The Iranians have since repeatedly made clear that the issue is a non-starter, and wants to focus talks on opening Hormuz and ending the war.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 19:40

DOJ Sues Minnesota To Block Climate Lawsuit Targeting Energy Companies

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing Minnesota over the state’s own climate lawsuit against major energy companies.

Pumpjacks operate near the site of a new oil and gas well being drilled in Midland, Texas, on April 8, 2022. Eli Hartman/Odessa American via AP

The complaint, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, accuses state officials of trying to impose their own climate policies on domestic energy producers in a way the DOJ says burdens national energy development and intrudes on federal authority.

The underlying lawsuit was filed in 2020 by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison against Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and Koch subsidiary Flint Hills Resources. Minnesota brought the case under state consumer-protection laws, alleging that the companies engaged in fraud and deceptive business practices by misleading the public about “climate change and the role of fossil-fuel products in climate change.”

That lawsuit remains pending after years of procedural fights over whether it belongs in state or federal court. Minnesota succeeded in keeping the case in state court in 2024, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a lower-court ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed there.

In its new complaint, the DOJ argues that authority over national energy policy and major questions involving greenhouse gas emissions rests with the federal government, not individual states. The department is asking the court to block Minnesota from pursuing the 2020 lawsuit and prevent the state from bringing similar litigation in the future.

“Climate change lawsuits, like Minnesota’s, artfully plead around federal law while transparently seeking to change national energy policy related to global greenhouse gas emissions and to regulate conduct beyond local borders,” the complaint states.

The federal government’s move to counter climate litigation with its own lawsuit follows an executive order issued last year by President Donald Trump, who directed the DOJ to “take all appropriate action to stop” state lawsuits seeking to “dictate national energy policy.”

“President Trump promised to unleash American energy dominance, and Minnesota officials cannot undermine his directive by mandating that their woke climate preferences become the uniform policy of our Nation,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a statement.

Ellison, who is named as a defendant in the DOJ lawsuit, pledged to seek dismissal of what his office called a “frivolous and meritless” case.

“In 2020, I sued Big Oil for lying to Minnesotans about the true causes of climate change, then sticking us with the bill for the harms it is causing,” Ellison said in a statement. “Six years later, we are still waiting to go to trial because Big Oil has pulled every procedural trick in the book to delay facing the consequences of their unlawful actions.”

Minnesota is among a number of states and local governments that have turned to consumer-protection, public-nuisance, and similar laws to sue major oil and gas companies over the climate impact of their products. Those lawsuits generally accuse the companies of misleading the public about climate risks while seeking to hold them financially responsible for infrastructure costs, natural disaster- or health care-related costs, and other damages.

The DOJ has taken aim at several such efforts. Last year, it filed preemptive lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan, though both were dismissed by federal judges. Separate DOJ challenges to New York and Vermont’s laws, which seek to impose penalties tied to past greenhouse gas emissions to fund disaster relief and climate-related projects, remain pending.

Allowing individual states to use courts to advance climate goals, the Trump administration argued, would create a patchwork of conflicting regulations and interfere with the executive branch’s authority over national energy security and interstate commerce.

“When states target or discriminate against out-of-state energy producers by imposing significant barriers to interstate and international trade, American energy suffers,” Trump’s executive order stated.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 19:15

Mexico's Claudia Sheinbaum Is Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place

Authored by Nick Corbishley via NakedCapitalism.com,

The rock is the rising threat of US military intervention in Mexico; the hard place is Sheinbaum’s own party’s narco-politicians.

Late last week, as Mexico was still reeling from revelations that CIA agents are operating in Chihuahua, in direct violation of Mexico’s constitution and sovereignty, the Sheinbaum government received an extradition request from Washington for 10 Sinaloa-based individuals. They included the state’s governor, Rubén Rocha, and its senator, Enrique Inzunza Cázares.

The indictments pose the biggest threat yet to Sheinbaum’s presidency. If she bows to US pressure and agrees to indict Rocha, a senior member of Sheinbaum’s Morena party, and the other nine serving and former politicians and security chiefs, she risks opening the floodgates to more US extradition requests. If she doesn’t, she risks the wrath of an increasingly unhinged Trump administration.

“Without Precedent”

The veteran Mexican journalist Denise Marker described the development as “extremely worrying” and “without precedent”. As one twitter commenter remarked tartly, it is indeed “without precedent”: drug cartels have operated in Sinaloa with total impunity and government protection for nigh on 80 years and not a single PRI or PAN governor has ever been extradited.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Vanda Felbab-Brown, an expert on non-state armed groups at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington, DC, said that indicting elected politicians in Mexican had “long been considered a very big step, almost a ‘nuclear option’”. And more indictments are likely to come, she added.

Rumours are already flying of an approaching second wave of extradition requests — including for three more governors, two legislators and the son of an ex-president, presumably Andrés Manuel López Obrador. For the moment, this is pure conjecture, but it would be in keeping with the Trump administration’s slash-and-burn approach to international relations.

🔴 En unas semanas vendrá la segunda OLA; Llegaran órdenes de detención para al menos tres gobernadores más , dos legisladores y un hijo de un “expresidente” y un secretario de estado ,

— Mario Di Costanzo (@mario_dico50) May 4, 2026

Perhaps that’s why the Sheinbaum government has declined the extradition request — for now. Mexico’s Attorney General’s Office (FGR) on Friday ruled out provisionally detaining the suspects indicated. The head of the Specialized Prosecutor’s Office for Competition Control of the FGR, Raúl Jiménez Vázquez, said there was not enough evidence to justify taking such an action.

Until now, Sheinbaum has generally bent to the US’s will despite her constant reaffirmations of Mexican sovereignty and independence, reports Ioan Grillo:

“We are not a protectorate of the United States. We are not a colony of the United States,” Sheinbaum, the 63-year old former scientist, said Monday.

However, in actions, Sheinbaum has delivered to President Donald Trump on several key demands since he returned to office last year. Her government helped halt the flow of undocumented migrants though Mexico to the U.S. border, slashing Border Patrol encounters to the lowest in decades (this is also due to Trump largely killing asylum at the border). She has whacked fentanyl trafficking, so U.S. border seizures of the venomous drug were down 72 percent last month compared to when she took office in October 2024.

But the demands continue to grow in size and number. As the Wall Street Journal notes, each time Sheinbaum gives President Trump an inch, he demands a mile:

More than a year after both leaders took office, the give and take is forcing Mexico’s president into a corner. In that way, she may be following other world leaders who have tried to forge a working partnership with Trump—from Italy’s Giorgia Meloni to French President Emmanuel Macron—only to face a falling-out.

It was a by-now-familiar pattern in the relationship between the two neighbors.
It began with decisions that cost Sheinbaum very little political capital, such as sending National Guard troops to the border to stop U.S.-bound drug smuggling and closing Mexico’s doors to migrants from Venezuela and other countries.

But lately Trump has pushed Sheinbaum into moves that risk angering her political base.

Just over a week ago, it was revealed that four CIA agents had participated in an anti-narcotics operation with the state police force of Chihuahua without informing Mexico’s federal authorities. This was a complete violation of Mexico’s constitution and sovereignty. The only reason why the public — and apparently, the federal government — learned of the operation was that two of the CIA agents died in an alleged car accident as it unfolded.

The resulting scandal severely damaged relations between Mexico and the US while sparking a fierce showdown between the federal government and the Chihuahuan governor, Maru Campos Galván, who has thrown her state’s doors wide open to US government agencies including the CIA, the DEA and the FBI. In doing so, Campos Galván not only violated the constitution, she committed the most serious of crimes: high treason.

Amid the resulting fallout, the Trump administration, represented in Mexico by Ron Johnson, a former CIA agent and Green Beret with decades of experience of destabilising foreign countries, including by training death squads, tightened the screw further by unsealing the indictment of Rocha. In a rare departure from custom, the indictment included 34 pages of allegations that have already been made public.

The goal, it seems, is two-fold: first, to distract the US and Mexican publics from the Chihuahua debacle (and whatever other scandals du jour the Trump administration need cover from, including, of course, Epstein); and second, to paint Sheinbaum into a corner. If she complies with the extradition request, she opens the door to the US gradually picking off more and more of Morena’s elected representatives, with the resulting damage this could do to Morena’s base.

Rocha is fully aware of this fact. In what can be easily read as a veiled threat to Morena’s leadership, he tweeted a couple of days ago (emphasis my own):

“This attack is not just aimed at my person but the whole Fourth Transformation movement, its emblematic leaders and the Mexicans who represent the cause”.

According to unnamed sources cited by the Mexican corporate law firm León Barrena Rodríguez & Partners LLP (LBR), “the Governor’s defiance carries an implicit, scorched-earth ultimatum directed straight at the National Palace”:

The subtext is clear: if Sheinbaum attempts to sacrifice him to appease Washington, he will take the entire structure down with him. A sitting governor with his level of access doesn’t just go to a U.S. interrogation room to face a life sentence; he goes there to trade. The leverage is absolute. The threat (“if you hand me over, I disclose everything regarding AMLO, the presidency, and Morena’s tactical alliances with the cartels”) is the only thing keeping him from being extradited tonight. Sheinbaum is now effectively a hostage to her own party’s regional power brokers.

On the other hand, if Sheinbaum declines the extradition request, as she has done so far, she risks being painted by the US government, Mexican opposition parties and pliant media outlets in Mexico and abroad as a “narco president” who is more interested in protecting the country’s drug lords than helping the US Department of Justice put them behind bars.

Refusal to cooperate also increases the risk of US military intervention in Mexico. After all, if US forces can abduct a sitting president in Venezuela, what’s to stop them from snatching a regional governor in Mexico (apart from Mexico’s US-trained and equipped armed forces)? According to LBR’s sources, this option has been on the table “for months”:

[T]he use of US special operations forces to apprehend Governor Rocha, Senator Inzunza, and other indicted officials has been a live option on the tables of the DOJ, DOW, and DEA for months…

Sheinbaum and AMLO have decided that a total diplomatic rupture with the U.S. is a smaller price to pay than the existential threat of Governor Rocha “spitting” in a New York courtroom. They are gambling on the assumption that Washington lacks the will for forceful extraction. This is a fatal error.

The former DEA agent Mike Vigil, who lives in Mexico, believes than an extraction is unlikely, warning in an interview with the Chilean outlet Entrevistas Meganoticias that any attempt to abduct Rochoa would be a disaster, not only for Mexico but also Latin America as a whole (translation my own):

They did it in Venezuela with Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores. But Venezuela is not Mexico. So, to go that way, which for me was an act of war, to remove politicians in Mexico would be a disaster. This would cause instability throughout Latin America.

It would also be a disaster for the US government, Vigil says without elucidating as to why. One thing is clear: this is all happening at the most delicate of times for US-Mexico relations, with the USMCA trade deal up for mandatory joint review in June. One might think that the last thing the US needs right now, as the global economy teeters on the edge of a global crisis of Trump’s choice, is to risk upending its biggest trade partnership.

It’s possible, of course, that Trump is using the extradition requests as leverage in the trade  negotiations. However, the threat of US military intervention against the cartels has been on the cards since at least early 2023, when neo-con Republicans like Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio and former Attorney General William Barr began talking of the need to designate the cartels as “terrorist organisations.”

Which was one of the first things Trump did on his return to office. Sheinbaum and her government are now feeling the inevitable fallout from that.

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

“She’s caught between a rock and a hard place because she obviously understands what’s at stake for her government and the US and the critically important USMCA review,” said Arturo Sarukhán, a former Mexican ambassador to the US.

Sheinbaum has so far prioritised loyalty to Morena. On Friday, she declared that the ten Mexican officials charged with drug trafficking and weapons offences will be tried in Mexico, not the US — if credible evidence emerges against them.

As for Rocha, he allegedly travelled with Sheinbaum to meet with AMLO at his “La Chingada” ranch in Palenque, Tabasco, at the weekend. Immediately afterwards, the Sinaloan governor took temporary leave, which removes all the legal protections against prosecution he enjoyed as a sitting governor.

But is he guilty of colluding with the Sinaloan cartel? Most probably yes.

The word that keeps popping up to describe Rocha, including in some pro-government media outlets, is “undefendable”. He clearly has ties to the Sinaloan cartel (who doesn’t in the higher reaches of Sinaloa’s government?) and allegedly received campaign funding from prominent cartel members. He has almost certainly been fingered (no, not that way) by members of the Chapitos branch of the Sinaloan cartel, who’ve turned witness in return for lighter sentences.

All that being said, Rocha is still a relatively small pawn in a much larger game being played by Washington. That game extends to the entire American continent, and its ultimate goal is to remove all obstacles to the US’ dominion over the strategic resources of that region — including, crucially, its oil and gas. Or as RevKev put it recently, to turn all of Latin America into one giant quarry for Western corps, as we are already seeing in post-Maduro Venezuela.

Secretary Chris Wright admits they overthrew the Venezuelan government so American corporations could stampede in.

They are actively exploiting a sovereign nation to extract its wealth.

Washington is running a violent imperialist looting operation for corporate greed. pic.twitter.com/0YZZH2Mwb5

— Furkan Gözükara (@FurkanGozukara) May 4, 2026

To achieve that goal, Washington must remove all governments in the region that are not entirely subordinated to its interests and wish to maintain some degree of national sovereignty. And its main instrument for doing that, as we saw with Venezuela, is the so-called war on the drug cartels.

Since the recent rash of elections that have returned far-right governments in Chile, Bolivia and Honduras (with prodding from Trump, of course) and the US’ half-baked coup in Venezuela, the number of non-US aligned countries is in rapid decline. Chief among them are Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, which together account for over 60% of the region’s population and GDP, as well as Nicaragua and Cuba, whose shattered economy is now subject to blanket US sanctions.

Trump and Marco Rubio are so obsessed with making Cubans suffer that they have announced even more sanctions on the ridiculous pretext that Cuba is a threat to US national security. This order threatens to sanction any company, anywhere, doing business with Cuba. It is barbaric.…

— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) May 3, 2026

The latest revelations of the Hondurasgate scandal suggest that Argentina’s Milei is now conspiring with the recently pardoned Honduran narco-president Juan Orlando Hernández, whom the US and Israel apparently want to return to power, to spread propaganda online to “eliminate the left” in Latin America, targeting Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, and the left-wing opposition in Honduras — all apparently paid for with US and Israeli funds…

Bombshell: Leaked audio recordings prove Argentina's libertarian President Javier Milei is conspiring with the drug lord Juan Orlando Hernández -- the drug-trafficking former dictator of Honduras, whom Trump freed from prison.

In a recording between Milei and the drug lord,… pic.twitter.com/fJPrqaO8jT

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) May 4, 2026

In Mexico, the goal is presumably to erode Morena’s support base with a view to the mid-term elections in 2027. That’s assuming the US doesn’t try to remove Sheinbaum by force, á la Maduro, before then. For now that is hard to imagine, given she is democratically elected and still enjoys high levels of public support. According to the latest El Financiero poll, her approval rating is 68%, which is just six points above Donald Trump’s latest disapproval rating (62%).

In order to destroy Morena, Washington must first destroy the reputation of its co-founder and first national president, López Obrador, who ended his six-year term with an approval rating of close to 80%. During his presidency, AMLO did the unthinkable: he sought to distance himself from the disastrous war on the drug cartels initiated by President Felipe Calderón in 2006.

In 2020, the AMLO government passed a national security reform aimed at reaffirming Mexico’s national sovereignty in matters of security vis-à-vis the United States. In the bill, the Senate of the Republic established provisions and added articles to the chapter on International Cooperation that substantially limit the actions of foreign agencies on Mexican soil — the same provisions and articles that have been violated by the CIA and Chihuahua’s state government.

All of this made AMLO some powerful enemies in Washington. William Barr called AMLO the cartel’s “chief enabler” for refusing to wage war against the cartels with quite the same zeal as his predecessors:

“In reality, AMLO is unwilling to take action that would seriously challenge the cartels. He shields them by consistently invoking Mexico’s sovereignty to block the U.S. from taking effective action.”

Of course, Barr is hardly one to talk given his prominent role in the cover-up of Iran-Contra, which obviously included drug running by the CIA (h/t Carloninian), as well as other crimes and misdemeanors.

As readers may recall, the DEA finally struck back against AMLO by launching a series of accusations against him in his final months in office. However, the widely published allegations did not present conclusive proof showing AMLO’s complicity; nor did they dent Morena’s electoral prospects in the 2024 presidential elections. Sheinbaum ended up winning by a historic landslide.

Since then, however, the US appears to have set its sights on bringing down AMLO, as we reported in February 2025:

In recent months rumours have also been circulating in certain corners of social media that the US government will soon set its sights on Mexico’s former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, aka AMLO, for his alleged ties to Mexico’s drug cartels. Just under a month ago, the journalist Salvador García Soto published an article in El Universal titled “They Are Building a Case Against AMLO in Washington”:

Headed by the imminent Secretary of State of the United States, Marco Rubio, and based on the statements that have already been made to the Department of Justice, Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada and the two sons of Chapo Guzmán, Ovidio Guzmán López and his brother Joaquín Guzmán López, the legal offensive against the former Mexican president would also have the collaboration of Mexican politicians who are collaborating with Rubio’s office, including a former PAN governor, a former foreign minister of the Republic and a former Mexican ambassador to the United States, who are bringing “information and witnesses” to the U.S. authorities.

One thing that is undeniable about Mexico today is that its drug cartels have compromised or even taken over large sections of its political structures at the local and state level in key strategic regions. All of the political parties, not just Moreana, are implicated. As Denise Maerker wrote in Milenio, criminal groups have all but supplanted local authorities in some parts of the country:

No Mexican needs to hear it from anyone else, it is obvious and clear as day: there are entire regions in which a criminal group controls and governs the territory.

That does not mean that criminal groups govern the entire country or that Mexico is a “narco state”, as some politicians and pundits in the US are wont to claim. Also, conspicuously absent from the public debate in Mexico is an acknowledgment that the US itself is a criminal state that is simultaneously waging a war of aggression against Iran, facilitating genocides in Gaza and Lebanon, and conducting extrajudicial killings in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

It is also clear that expanding and escalating the US’ war on the drug cartels will do nothing to improve the situation on the ground in Mexico, especially if nothing is done on the demand side or to srem the “iron rivers” of guns flowing from the US. On the contrary, it will bring yet more violence, suffering and immiseration while doing little to reduce the flow of drugs.

Even the New York Times ran an op-ed in 2022 declaring the US-War on Drugs as a “staggering failure” — from a counter-narcotics perspective. As Roberto Saviano, the Italian anti-mafia author known for Gomorra and ZeroZeroZero, has long argued, the only effective way to dismantle the economic power of organised crime is to legalise drugs.

“Legalising cocaine would mean cutting off access to the oil wells of criminal organisations, legalisation would transform the world economy,” Saviano told journalists during the launch of ZeroZeroZero in 2019.

But that is the last thing Washington wants. At their root, both the international drugs trade and the Global War on Drugs, like the Global War on Terror, are tools for imperial hegemony and resource plunder.

If the Trump administration’s plan for hemispheric hegemony comes off, which is still a big “IF” given how over-extended the US empire has become as well as the compounding economic risks it faces from Trump’s war of choice against Iran, the future of Latin America is likely to look a lot like Daniel Noboa’s Ecuador — in other words, bleak. Once the region’s second safest country, Ecuador is now the most violent.

Neoliberal Ecuador: Violent crime is so high the govt just declared a military curfew on a majority of its cities, including the capital. You can't be outside after 11pm for the next month.

10 years ago 🇪🇨 ranked as 2nd safest country in region under leftist President Correa. pic.twitter.com/CVYlH9dZmp

— Ollie Vargas (@Ollie_Vargas_) May 4, 2026

After signing up to a US-led military crackdown in early 2024, that violence has done nothing but spiral to unprecedented levels — in 2025, the national homicide rate was 50.9 per 100,000, more than triple the rate in Mexico — while Ecuador’s weight in the global narcotics trade has done nothing but grow. Oh, and lest we forget, the Noboa family’s banana business has been repeatedly implicated in the smuggling of cocaine to Europe.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 18:25

How A Musk Victory Vs. Altman Would Reset America's AI Roadmap

A courtroom victory for Elon Musk in his high-stakes federal trial against Sam Altman and OpenAI would deliver one of the most disruptive blows to the artificial intelligence sector in its brief but explosive history - potentially forcing the $850-billion-plus company to unwind its for-profit empire, ousting its top leaders, and handing Musk a symbolic and financial hammer to reshape the global race for AGI while weakening one of its fiercest competitors.

The case is now being argued in a federal courtroom in Oakland, before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The trial opened on April 28 and entered its second week on Monday, when OpenAI president Greg Brockman took the stand and confirmed his personal stake in the company is worth roughly $30 billion. Musk's counsel returned to the figure more than a dozen times in two hours of questioning.

The Case

Musk co-founded OpenAI in late 2015 as a nonprofit and contributed roughly $38 million in its early years. He left the board in 2018. The following year, OpenAI created a capped-profit subsidiary to attract the capital that frontier AI now requires; Microsoft has since invested more than $13 billion. ChatGPT launched in November 2022. By 2025, OpenAI was preparing for what would have been one of the largest initial public offerings in history.

Musk sued in 2024. The original complaint contained twenty-six claims; only two survive - breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment - while the fraud claims were dismissed before trial. Microsoft is named as a co-defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the breach, a detail often elided in summary coverage.

The remedies sought are unusually sweeping. Musk wants OpenAI's for-profit structure unwound and its assets returned to the nonprofit foundation. He wants Sam Altman and Brockman removed from leadership. And he is seeking up to $150 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft combined, with any award flowing directly to OpenAI's charitable arm rather than to Musk personally.

Structure of the Trial

Judge Gonzalez Rogers has bifurcated the proceedings into a liability phase, expected to conclude around May 21, and a separate remedies phase that would follow only if the defendants are found at fault. A nine-person jury sits during liability alone, and its verdict is advisory. Structural remedies - including any order to dissolve the for-profit subsidiary - fall solely to the judge.

This procedural detail matters more than it may appear. Coverage that casts the jury as the decisive actor misreads the case. The jury can shape narrative momentum and offer a finding the judge may weigh, but it cannot order OpenAI to unwind anything. Whatever the verdict, Gonzalez Rogers writes the remedy.

What a Musk Win Would Actually Mean

Setting aside the $150 billion headline - which is a ceiling, not a floor, and is divided across defendants - three concrete consequences would follow a substantive ruling against OpenAI.

The first is restructuring. A finding that the 2019 capped-profit conversion and its 2025 successor breached a charitable trust would, at minimum, force a reorganization placing the nonprofit foundation back in unambiguous control. The IPO would be delayed indefinitely, if not foreclosed. Investor returns would be capped or rewritten. Microsoft's roughly $13 billion stake, and the larger commitments that followed from Amazon, SoftBank, and Nvidia, would all face revaluation.

The second is leadership. Musk's complaint seeks the removal of Altman and Brockman. Whether the court orders that remedy in full is uncertain; partial governance reform is the likelier outcome. Either way, the result would be destabilizing for an organization whose competitive position rests substantially on the people at the top of it.

The third is precedent, and it may prove the most durable. A ruling for Musk would establish that nonprofit-to-commercial transitions in American technology can be reversed years after the fact, once the entity has grown large enough to be worth reversing. Founders, donors, and investors in mission-driven labs would have to reckon with a previously hypothetical risk: that the structure they signed up for is the structure they will be held to, indefinitely.

The Defense

OpenAI's response, articulated by lead counsel William Savitt, is that Musk himself supported a for-profit restructuring as early as 2017 - as long as he was placed in charge of it. When the other founders declined, he left, predicted the company's failure, and later launched a competitor. The obvious angle here is that the lawsuit is a delayed instrument of competitive harm rather than a vindication of charitable principle.

The defense will lean on contemporaneous evidence: Musk's own emails proposing for-profit structures; his instruction to associates to register a for-profit corporation in OpenAI's name; and Brockman's private journal, which Musk's team has used to suggest financial motive but which also records the founders' resistance to handing OpenAI to Musk.

What Remains

Several witnesses are still to come. Altman has not yet testified. Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella is expected. Stuart Russell, the Berkeley computer scientist, will appear as Musk's expert on AI risk; the judge has already declined a request from Musk's counsel that Russell be permitted to range beyond his written report into extinction scenarios.

Two days before the trial began, Musk texted Brockman to gauge interest in settlement. When Brockman proposed mutual dismissal, Musk replied that he and Altman would be the most hated men in America by week's end. The judge declined to admit the exchange. No settlement has materialized.

The trial is expected to run another two to three weeks. The remedies phase, if it comes, will follow.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 18:00

ISO New England Trims 10-Year Forecast Based On Electrification Outlook

By Robert Walton of UtilityDive

Electricity consumption in New England will grow about 9% over the next decade, driven by electrification of buildings and vehicles, the region’s independent system operator said in an annual report published Friday. While significant, the rise in consumption is lower than its forecast in the two previous reports, reflecting changes in “government policy,” ISO New England said.

The “2026-2035 Forecast Report of Capacity, Energy, Loads, and Transmission,” or CELT report, estimates annual consumption will rise from 116,679 GWh this year to 127,660 GWh in 2035, an increase of about 0.9% annually.

In 2024, the ISO said it anticipated a 17% rise in annual energy use by 2033. In 2025, it reduced its 10-year outlook to an 11% rise by 2034.

The energy forecast “reflects more conservative assumptions around future adoption of electric vehicles and heat pumps in light of government policy changes,” the ISO said in a blog post.

New England’s net annual energy use has trended downward since 2005, “mainly due to more efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances, and lighting,” as well as growth in behind-the-meter solar, the grid operator said. Now, it predicts “that trend will reverse over the next decade.”

“Steady growth in net annual energy use is expected as state policy goals for carbon emissions reductions continue to incentivize electrification of heating systems and transportation in the region,” the ISO said.

Notably, the ISO said sustained load growth means it will soon be a dual-peaking system.

While New England has typically seen electricity demand peak during the hot summer months, the addition of electric heating load means that by 2035, the ISO expects winter and summer peaks to be roughly the same, around 26.5 GW. ISO New England’s all-time peak of 28.1 GW was set in summer 2006.

The grid operator anticipates peak demand of 25.2 GW this summer and 20.5 GW this upcoming winter season.

Heating electrification is projected to contribute 5,533 MW to the winter peak in 2035/2036, ISO said, while transportation electrification is forecast to contribute 1,509 MW. In the ISO’s previous CELT report, it estimated electric vehicles would account for 1,764 MW of the winter peak in 2034/2035, while heating electrification was is expected to account for 4,765 MW that season.

The ISO said it revised its EV adoption forecast down to account for the removal of federal incentives and revisions to state policies and expectations for each vehicle class. Its heat pump forecast was similarly adjusted to account for expiring federal tax credits.

Behind-the-meter solar is forecast to have a growing impact on winter peak demand, reducing it by an expected 316 MW in 2035/2036, the ISO said in its latest report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 17:40

"No Quick Fixes": Supply-Chain Deep Dive Shows Beef Prices To Remain High

We are all familiar with the surge in beef prices, driven by a U.S. cattle herd at more than a half-century low amid severe drought, elevated feed costs, higher financing expenses, and other inflationary factors, such as soaring diesel prices, squeezing ranchers.

$175 for beef?!🥩

$20.65 per pound … for one cut.

Herds are at generational lows after years of drought, rising feed costs, and pressure on ranchers.

Supply gets squeezed → prices explode → families get hit.

This was the Democrat push!

What are you paying for beef where… pic.twitter.com/c5HdnidaKA

— Sherri Unfiltered™ (@FFT1776) May 4, 2026

USDA data show average retail beef prices have been on a parabolic rise since the early days of the pandemic, with consumers facing sticker shock as soon as they step into any supermarket's meat department.

A new Bloomberg report helps explain why beef prices are likely to remain sticky: the US cattle herd has fallen to its lowest level in 75 years. This supply shock has taken years to develop, and rebuilding will take years as well.

The Trump administration promised to tame beef prices, even considering a deal with Argentina to import cattle and alleviate the shortage. However, it appears the administration has shifted from potential supply maneuvers to asking the Justice Department to investigate possible antitrust violations among processors.

On Monday, Tyson Foods, the nation's largest meat processor, reported another quarterly loss in its beef unit, highlighting that beef margins remain deeply negative even at the processing level. Tyson and other major meatpackers are being forced to pay premiums for scarce cattle, crushing margins that are being passed on to consumers.

"The reality behind expensive beef is complicated. There's no quick fix for tight supplies, as the sticker shock in the grocery aisles didn't happen overnight," Bloomberg agricultural reporter Ilena Peng wrote in a note, adding, "It's not just that the animals take a long time to grow. The complicated economics of cattle ranching also create pain points at key stages of production."

Peng walked readers through a hypothetical example of one animal's journey through the cattle supply chain, showing that the profit pool is heavily skewed toward the front end.

Cow-calf ranchers are currently seeing solid profits, but margins deteriorate further downstream - from stockers to feedyards and meatpackers - where operators remain under pressure. Grocers, meanwhile, have been able to pass higher costs on to consumers, particularly as beef demand remains robust.

Source: Bloomberg

Peng warned readers, "All this means there are few quick fixes for near-record beef prices."

Source: Bloomberg

Monthly US Imports of Beef and Beef Products

Source: Bloomberg

January Cattle and Calves Count

Source: Bloomberg

"Pressures at every stage of the 18-month supply chain are expected to keep prices high at least through year-end," Peng continued.

This means beef prices may have to rise even higher into summer and enter demand-destroying territory. This is bad news for consumers ahead of cookout season.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 17:20

From DEI To Equal Protection: A New Direction In Civil Rights Policy

Authored by Kenin M. Spivak via RealClearPolitics,

The Trump administration is restoring the core value of equal opportunity to civil rights enforcement. It is eviscerating the race-baiting, intersectional policies of the Biden and Obama administrations, and giving substance to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (2025) that whites, men, and heterosexuals are not held to a higher standard in discrimination cases.

This is a time for rejoicing, tempered by concern that the administration will not have time to complete its work, and that its reliance on executive orders, rather than legislation and consent decrees, will allow the next Democratic president to rip asunder President Trump’s laudable accomplishments.

Despite more than a century of Supreme Court decisions forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, Democrats generally, and progressives specifically, have inverted President John F. Kennedy’s executive order establishing affirmative action. Intended to bring an end to discrimination because of race, creed, color, and national origin, progressives instead transformed affirmative action into a system of preferences based on melanin content, and absorbed this once hopeful construct into radical philosophies used to justify bias, including Critical Race Theory (CRT), intersectionality, disparate impact theory, and ultimately DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion).

They oppose Trump’s effort to dismantle their race-addled policies with every lever available to them. Ivy League universities have to be bludgeoned into enforcing equal rights. Blue city mayors continue their fight to sideline white males. Hollywood artists and programmers refuse to work for studios and tech companies that recognize political and legal realties. Liberal Supreme Court justices bemoan the majority’s refusal to rule based on the intersectional hierarchy of so-called “marginalized” minorities, and Obama- and Biden-appointed federal judges enjoin proper exercises of executive power.

CRT originated in the 1970s as a tortured rationale advocating that colorblind laws inevitably serve the interests of white people.

Intersectionality has become a cornerstone of CRT. Developed principally by Columbia Law Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, it utilizes a hierarchy of social oppression to allocate benefits and burdens, providing the doctrinal basis for DEI policies, transgender activism, and antisemitism. The latter shows the bankruptcy of the dogma: Despite hundreds of years of oppression, pogroms and the Holocaust, as a result of educational and business achievements, Jews are seen as powerful oppressors, while Palestinians and other Muslims are seen as marginalized minorities.

Disparate impact is a central tenet of progressive litigation strategy. Its premise that marginalized communities must receive their proportionate share of opportunities is the progenitor of the “equity” prong of DEI. Liability is established if there is a shortfall, regardless of whether that shortfall is caused by discrimination.

DEI is the fusion of these philosophies, a malevolent form of affirmative action that allocates benefits based on race, sex, and gender identity. To ensure pre-determined outcomes, progressive decisionmakers and courts have tampered with and eliminated entry exams, waived criminal background checks, and watered down academic, disciplinary, admissions, graduation, employment, and promotion standards.

In 2024, the Biden administration took a bow for more than 650 actions that required federal, state, and local government agencies and contractors to award and allocate burdens, opportunities, and benefits based on race, sex, and gender identification.

Progressives defended these manifestly unconstitutional and unlawful actions by claiming that while the words of the 14th Amendment, federal civil rights statutes, and President Johnson’s executive order on equal employment opportunity prohibit the use of race in government actions, their true meaning was the opposite – that race and other innate characteristics must be used to achieve outcomes based on these characteristics.

The Biden administration also targeted people of faith, with abuses ranging from FBI infiltration of Catholic churches to weaponizing the FACE Act against pro-life Americans. And it adopted rules requiring that universities treat biological males who identify as women as actual women, and ended due process for any grievances filed for allegedly violating their rights, or in sexual harassment cases. Respondents were denied notice, the right to examine the complainant, or a right of appeal. The university investigator was permitted to serve as the hearing officer.

Progressives justified the administration’s attack on religion, female athletes, and due process as necessary to protect the rights of marginalized minorities.

Underscoring the left’s situational ethics, as the Biden administration embarked on a whole-of-government censorship enterprise to silence its critics, the ACLU abandoned its 100-year commitment to free speech, declaring that speech that denigrates marginalized groups can “inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality.”

Upon taking office for his second term, President Trump revoked Biden’s executive orders impacting race, sex, and gender. He issued orders prohibiting DEI, other race-based programs, and disparate impact in federal government hiring, promotion, and contracting; terminated federal employees hired for the Biden administration’s massive DEI apparatus; and ordered “appropriate action” to pressure K-12 schools into abandoning race-based disciplinary policies. He rescinded an executive order that required federal contractors to utilize affirmative action in their hiring practices.

Rejecting intersectionality, Trump issued orders tying federal funding to elimination of extreme gender ideology, proclaiming, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality,” and protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation – positions belatedly adopted by leading medical organizations. He also ordered the Department of Education to take all appropriate action to keep biological men out of women’s sports.

Trump directed federal agencies to improve security vetting for international students and to prioritize civil rights protections for Jewish students. He eliminated collection and publication of data used in a misguided effort to claim that environmental harms targeted minorities because manufacturing facilities are concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods, and he issued an order to pressure the Smithsonian Institution to restore balance to its depiction of American history.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under Harmeet Dhillon and Education Department under Linda McMahon launched enforcement actions against Ivy league universities to protect Jewish students and restore viewpoint diversity. The Justice Department also commenced investigations, filed and intervened in lawsuits, and reached settlements with public and private institutions to protect Americans of all backgrounds and faiths – just last week forcing Colorado to abandon a law that favors AI algorithms that promote “diversity.” It investigated the Biden administration’s weaponization of the FACE Act, issued an 882-page report exposing the abuses, and eliminated them. The Education Department ordered universities to bring back due process in university grievance procedures.

The left is vigorously fighting back. Universities have slyly rebranded DEI offices, legal challenges have been filed against Trump’s executive orders and related regulations, Democrat-appointed judges have issued injunctions, and Democratic Party officials have doubled down on racial and gender politics. For the most part, the administration has prevailed in lower courts or secured stays of adverse rulings pending appeals.

Some progressives support intersectionality, disparate impact, and DEI to harm straight white Americans. Many are so caught up in innate characteristics that they believe individual opportunity and fairness is determined at a group level, while other progressives delude themselves into believing they can choose winners without creating losers. The administration must hold firm against the left’s vitriolic counterattacks. As Donald Trump restores the American dream of equal opportunity, his challenge with just eight months until the probable loss of the Republican legislative majority is to create enduring change, rather than an interregnum in progressive rule.

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including RealClearPolitics, The American Mind, National Review, television, radio, and podcasts.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 17:00

Alberta Separatists Say They Have Enough Signatures To Force Referendum On Leaving Canada

A group pushing for Alberta to break free from Canada announced Monday that it has submitted nearly double the number of signatures required to force a referendum -- which could come as early as October. While Alberta Premier Danielle Smith opposes independence, she has assured Albertans that she will not try to thwart a referendum if the signature hurdle were cleared.  

A signature in support of an independence referendum is collected atop a mountain in Alberta (via Stay Free Alberta)

Triggering a referendum requires 178,000 signatures, but the separatist organization Stay Free Alberta says it amassed more than 301,000. As in the United States, referendum organizers usually aim to far overshoot the required number so as to survive challenges on the validity of individual signatures.

On Monday, the group's leader, Mitch Sylvestre descended on Alberta's election offices in Edmonton with the petitions, aboard a convoy seven trucks strong. Celebrating the accomplishment, he likened it to Canada's favorite sport. “This day is historic in Alberta history,” he said. “It’s the first step to the next step — we’ve gotten by Round 3 and now we’re in the Stanley Cup final.”

Despite Sylvestre's triumphalism, the independence drive could hit a snag this week, as a judge may rule on a challenge of the referendum filed by a First Nations group. That term is used to describe indigenous people who are not Inuit or Métis. Their legal challenge centers on the claim that Albertan independence would deny them privileges afforded them by treaties. The verification of referendum-support signatures has been stayed pending the decision. However, Stay Free Alberta attorney Jeff Rath said these are mere speed bumps. "As far as we're concerned, whatever the court does or whatever Elections Alberta does at this point is meaningless,” he told CBC, given the premier can't ignore more than 300,000 signatures.  

Alberta has been on the wrong end of a Canadian policy called "Equalization" -- a more palatable term than what it should be called: "Wealth Redistribution." According to the Canadian government's official description, Equalization "address[es] fiscal disparities among provinces." It does so by distributing the fiscal fruits of federal taxation to provinces in such a way that poorer provinces get more money than more-prosperous ones. Alberta is easily Canada's best-off province on a per-capita basis. 

Alberta (AB) is easily Canada's wealthiest province, and sees its wealth redistributed throughout the country under the "Equalization" scheme (via Canadian government)

A victory for the "yes" side of the referendum won't guarantee independence, as more legal challenges will certainly sprout up, to say nothing of the thorny negotiations with the Canadian government that would be required -- negotiations that could be slow-walked by Albertan leaders who aren't enthused about breaking away.  

For those and other reasons, some who support independence are wary of how the referendum will play out. For example, even if the pro-independence side prevails, the waters could be muddied by the results of concurrent referendum questions. Writing at the Brownstone Institute earlier this year, Bruce Pardy painted a picture: 

If voters support independence but also other constitutional changes, what do they mean? Which should be pursued first? Which is the last resort? What if voters support independence but also support Alberta having the right to opt out of federal programs while retaining federal funding? Both of those things cannot happen. One requires that Alberta be a province, and the other requires that it not be. Any referendum result that requires interpretation is not clear.

A pro-unity group called Forever Canadian has been active too, racking up more than 400,000 signatures on a petition that asked, "Do you agree that Alberta should remain within Canada?” Meanwhile, polls show an uphill climb for the separatists, with huge differences between United Conservative Party and New Democratic Party voters: 

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 16:40

AMD Dumps & Pumps (To New Record High) After Beat-And-Raise

Just wow...

AMD shares initially puked after results dropped showing top- and bottom-line beats:

• EPS: $1.37 vs. $1.29 adjusted expected

• Revenue: $10.25 billion vs. $9.89 billion expected

But now they are exploding higher after the second-largest AI chipmaker raised estimates:

• For the second quarter, AMD said it expects about $11.2 billion in revenue, versus expectations of $10.52 billion, according to LSEG

That is a new record high...

Revenue jumped 38% from $7.44 billion a year ago, the company said in a release on Tuesday, beating in every segment...

• Data center revenue $5.78 billion, +57% y/y, estimate $5.61 billion

• Gaming revenue $720 million, +11% y/y, estimate $668.6 million

• Client revenue $2.89 billion, +26% y/y, estimate $2.73 billion

• Embedded revenue $873 million, +6.1% y/y, estimate $868.4 million

“Looking ahead, we expect server growth to accelerate meaningfully as we scale supply to meet demand,” Chief Executive Officer Lisa Su said in the statement.

“We delivered an outstanding first quarter, driven by accelerating demand for AI infrastructure, with data center now the primary driver of our revenue and earnings growth.”

Oh and in case you didn't see enough beats...

• Capital expenditure $389 million, +83% y/y, estimate $215.2 million

• Adjusted operating income $2.54 billion, +43% y/y, estimate $2.41 billion

• Adjusted operating margin 25% vs. 24% y/y, estimate 24.3%

• Free cash flow $2.57 billion vs. $727 million y/y, estimate $2.35 billion

• R&D expenses $2.40 billion, +39% y/y, estimate $2.26 billion

Tonight's gains come AFTER AMD's stock has more than tripled over the past year, including a 66% jump so far in 2026.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 16:29

NIH Virologist Vincent Munster Caught Smuggling Deadly Viruses Into U.S., FBI Investigating

Authored by Paul D. Thacker via The DisInformation Chronicle,

Since the COVID pandemic landed on American shores in early 2020, virologists and allied science writers have engaged in a vociferous propaganda campaign to deny the dangers of virus experiments. When Nature Magazine published a 2021 article minimizing a Wuhan lab accident as the pandemic’s cause, science writer Amy Maxmen quoted Vincent Munster, a virologist at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories, a division of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in Montana.

Munster told Nature’s Maxmen that there was nothing suspicious about a novel coronavirus popping up in the same city as the Wuhan Institute of Virology which was studying coronaviruses. Labs tend to specialize in the specific viruses found around them, Munster explained, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology focuses on coronaviruses because many circulate in China and neighboring countries.

“Nine out of ten times, when there’s a new outbreak, you’ll find a lab that will be working on these kinds of viruses nearby,” Munster told Nature.

Well, kind of. Sort of. But really not.

In fact, virologists regularly collect viruses from far away countries and bring them back to their own cities to study. And according to emails I have seen that are now circulating inside the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of those virologists is the NIH’s Vincent Munster.

“We are unable to comment as this is under investigation,” wrote HHS spokesperson, Andrew Nixon in an email. “So we will refer you to the FBI.”

When contacted about their investigation into Munster and his NIH researcher, the FBI press office replied by email, “We decline to comment.”

While on a trip back from the Democratic Republic of Congo earlier this year, Munster and a scientist in his NIH lab were pulled aside for an airport security inspection. Inside their luggage, one of the two had a hard-shelled protective case used to transport sensitive property such as electronics and firearms. When the protective case was opened, it was found to contain pathogen samples collected from patients.

However, the human pathogens, which included monkeypox virus, may have been inactivated by reagents and rendered no longer infectious.

Munster and his NIH research fellow Claude Kwe Yinda published a February study in a Lancet journal that cited monkeypox as a global threat. Without any hint of irony, they warned about “multiple travel-associated cases reported since 2024, including seven in the USA.” The Democratic Republic of Congo has been considered the global epicenter of monkeypox virus, with over 100,000 cases as of October last year.

HHS regulates monkeypox as a “select agent”—microorganisms and toxins that pose a severe threat to public safety. Federal programs control their possession and use, while Department of Transportation regulations manage their shipment and transport.

Munster and his lab scientist did not have paperwork required by law to transport deadly pathogens from Africa to his NIH lab in Montana. Both NIH scientists were placed on leave. Contact information for both Vincent Munster and Claude Kwe Yinda have been removed from the HHS employment directory.

Last year, the Department of Justice charged two Chinese nationals with criminal conspiracy for smuggling a dangerous plant fungus through a Detroit airport so they could study it in a lab at the University of Michigan.

Munster did not return repeated requests for comment sent to his NIH email asking him to explain if the monkeypox and potentially other viruses he was transporting had been inactivated or were still infectious. According to his bio at NIH’s Rocky Mountain Labs in Montana, Munster has field study sites in the Republic of the Congo to study Ebola virus with collaborators at the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Laboratoire National de Santé Publique in Brazzaville.

Rocky Mountain Labs is an integral part of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the institute once led by Tony Fauci. The Montana facility has a BSL-4 lab where virologists study the world’s most deadly viruses including Ebola, Marburg, and Lassa Fever.

Andrea Marzi, the Acting Chief of Virology at Rocky Mountain Labs, did not return emails asking if the monkeypox and other possible viruses Munster was transporting had been inactivated or were still infectious. Nor did she reply to requests asking if Munster’s lab had been secured.

Senator Rand Paul sent the NIAID director a letter two years ago regarding Munster, who was listed as a partner for a project called DEFUSE that was submitted in 2018 to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). As part of DEFUSE proposal to DARPA, virologists planned to engineer novel viruses by taking the backbone of a bat virus and inserting a spike protein with a furin cleavage site. A furin cleavage site allows viruses to infect the cells of human lungs.

DARPA denied funding for DEFUSE, but the following year, a novel bat virus with a furin cleavage site began infecting humans in Wuhan. No other virus closely related to the COVID virus has this furin cleavage site.

Shortly after the COVID virus began infecting Americans, Columbia University virologist Vincent Racaniello sent Munster an alarming February 2020 email, saying he had heard that the new COVID virus had a furin cleavage site “that might have been engineered.”

“If true this is very bad for all of virology research,” Racaniell wrote to Munster.

“And the fun begins,” replied Munster.

The news about Munster hits during an especially hard media cycle for virologists. I reported last week for RealClearInvestigations that the federal government had quietly removed University of North Carolina virologist Ralph Baric from all his NIH grants; UNC also placed Baric on leave. A senior HHS official, who reviewed the government’s classified material, told me that UNC is terrified the public will learn that they were complicit in starting the COVID pandemic.

“Baric designed the gun,” he said. “But the Chinese built it, and then they pulled the trigger.”

That same day, the Department of Justice indicted Tony Fauci’s senior advisor, David Morens, for concealing federal records concerning funding for virus research during the COVID pandemic. The indictment listed Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance as “CO-CONSPIRATOR 1” and Boston University virologist Gerald Keusch as “CO-CONSPIRATOR 2.”

Last month, I reported on newly unearthed emails that show Morens, Daszak, and Keusch plotted against me for writing a 2021 investigation for the BMJ that concluded virologists had conspired in a misinformation campaign to cover up a possible Wuhan lab accident as the COVID pandemic’s cause.

In emails discussing me and my 2021 article, Keusch asked Morens and Daszak if they knew how to get in contact with former BMJ editor Peter Smith to complain. Daszak emailed back that contacting the BMJ about me was “a really good move” as my reporting was “pretty offensive stuff.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 16:20

From DOJ To Ballot Box: The Rise Of Lawfare Candidates

Authored by Julie Kelly via RealClearInvestigations,

One of the beneficiaries of Virginia’s aggressive attempt to gerrymander the state for Democratic advantage could be a former federal prosecutor whose campaign for Congress hinges on his efforts to use the law to target President Trump and his supporters.

When a slim majority of Virginia voters gave the legislature authority last month to create congressional districts that could give Democrats a 10-1 advantage, J.P. Cooney cheered the outcome in a message on social media, boasting that the new district he was running in had been drawn “expressly for the purpose of standing up to Donald Trump’s and MAGA’s corruption.”

Although the fate of Virginia’s 7th Congressional District remains unclear – a state judge immediately blocked the measure, and the issue is expected to end up before the Supreme Court – Cooney’s candidacy represents a small but growing wave of former prosecutors who are running on their anti-Trump bona fides. So far, at least two other former Justice Department officials are seeking office by touting their work against the president, his supporters, and his current administration. All are running as Democrats.

J.P. Cooney is hoping to ride the anti-Trump credentials he accrued as a federal prosecutor to Congress. LinkedIn

To their supporters, these candidates represent a principled stand against what they see as the lawless excesses of the Trump administration. To many Republicans, the entry of supposedly neutral federal prosecutors into the brass knuckle world of politics confirms their suspicions that the DOJ is filled with partisans who used their power to target the president and the MAGA movement in general. 

Ryan Crosswell, who is running for Congress as a Democrat in Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District, resigned from his position as an assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York last year, after the Justice Department sought to drop the indictment against then New York City Mayor Eric Adams on corruption charges. Crosswell’s superiors decided the case should be dropped over evidence suggesting the Biden DOJ had targeted the mayor because he was a vocal critic of the administration’s immigration policies.

In what has become a popular tactic by anti-Trump DOJ lawyers, Crosswell issued a public resignation letter: “I cannot fathom how anyone would do this to the public servants he is supposed to be leading. And the damage done was not limited to two offices – it appalled prosecutors throughout the Department and our alumni.”

In his video announcement, Crosswell showed a clip of Trump walking into a courthouse (followed by now acting Attorney General Todd Blanche) and denounced the president for forcing prosecutors to “drop a case against one of his friends.” (It is unclear whether Adams is actually a “friend” of Trump’s.)

In Minneapolis, former Assistant U.S. Attorney Julie Le is using her opposition to Trump’s immigration policies in her bid to replace another fierce Trump critic, Rep. Ilhan Omar, in the Democratic primary. Le gained national attention in February when she had a meltdown before the judge. “What do you want me to do? The system sucks. This job sucks. And I am trying every breath that I have so that I can get you what you need,” Le said, referring to the DOJ’s overwhelming caseload. Le also told the judge, “We have no guidance or direction on what we need to do.”

Impeccable Anti-Trump Credentials

Le was quickly fired. She told the Washington Post that “she had never voted for Trump and opposed his brash enforcement style.” While Croswell and Le are hoping their anti-Trump credentials will help usher them into office, their record of resistance pales in comparison to Cooney’s, whose record of anti-Trump activity goes back a decade. 

Cooney – a Notre Dame grad where he served as the president of the College Democrats club before earning a law degree at the University of Virginia – launched his campaign in a crowded field by boasting about his key role in several anti-Trump prosecutions pursued by Attorney General Merrick Garland and Special Counsel Jack Smith between 2021 and 2025. After Attorney General Merrick Garland appointed Smith as special counsel in November 2022, Cooney became his top deputy in the DOJ’s Jan. 6, 2021-related indictment against the president in Washington. They pushed for a quick trial before Election Day. Cooney also successfully sought a gag order against the president one year before the 2024 presidential election, banning the president from making any public statements about potential witnesses in the case, which included former administration officials such as Vice President Mike Pence and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley, who were at the time criticizing Trump’s plan to again run for office.

Special Counsel Jack Smith, who sought ot prosecute Trump on multiple fronts, has endorsed Cooney. AP

Cooney, then chief of the fraud and public corruption section of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, drafted the initial plan for how the DOJ could pursue Trump, as well as several figures and organizations who had participated in the events of Jan. 6. But Cooney’s plan was so aggressive, according to a 2023 Washington Post article, that it alarmed top FBI and DOJ officials and was immediately scuttled.

Trump fired Cooney shortly after Inauguration Day.

The J6 case against the president was dropped after Trump won the 2024 election, but Cooney wants to finish the job. “We have the evidence to convict this president,” Cooney said, pointing to the White House, in one social media post. “That justice can still come.” Cooney also insists that if Trump hadn’t “escaped trials by winning the election,” the president right now “would be in prison.”

“Cooney was the mastermind of the J6 case against the president,” John Lauro, the president’s trial counsel in the J6 case in Washington, told RealClearInvestigations. “Smith and Cooney used the sacred powers of the DOJ against Trump and political movement. Now we see the ultimate fruition of that with Cooney running for office as a far left Democrat and to use his experience as a persecutor against Trump to get an advantage in the far left wing of the Democratic party.” 

Jack Smith Endorsement

Jack Smith is endorsing his longtime colleague – the pair worked together at the Obama DOJ’s public integrity unit – calling Cooney “a man of integrity who has committed his career to upholding the rule of law, and he’s the model of who our country needs in public service.”

The president and congressional Republicans disagree. Cooney is currently the subject of both House and Senate investigations for allegedly abusing his authority at the DOJ to pursue Trump and his allies. During an April 21 hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley accused Cooney and other former Biden DOJ officials of “literally trying to destroy” the country; Grassley, an Iowa Republican, released an extensive trove of text messages and emails between Cooney and Molly Gaston, his co-counsel in the J6 case against Trump.

Sen. Chuck Grassley has accused Cooney and other former Biden DOJ officials of “literally trying to destroy” the country. AP

Immediately following the events of Jan. 6, Cooney worked with Gaston to also investigate a handful of Republican House members for allegedly conducting “reconnaissance tours” on Jan. 5. That accusation was made by then Democratic Congresswoman Mikie Sherill, now the governor of New Jersey. Sherill claimed groups of individuals, some perhaps tied to Republican lawmakers, were walking inside the Capitol the day before the protest in an effort to scope out the building.

In a Jan. 16, 2021, text to Gaston, Cooney said he believed the “tour/map thing has legs.” He stated that Sherill’s allegations “made perfect sense” to him. “I am fairly confident that we are going to put a map or some other information relevant to coordinated activity in the hands of an extremist group and trace it back to a congressional office.”

Gaston replied, “yep.” A week later, the FBI Washington field office opened “Operation Rampart Twelve” to investigate Sherill’s accusations; the inquiry initially focused on Reps. Lauren Boebert and Paul Gosar based on groups of individuals walking near each representative on Jan. 5, 2021. (Sherril also made a similar allegation against Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.), who was cleared by Capitol Police after a separate investigation.)

FBI headquarters closed “Operation Rampart Twelve” a year later, after finding no evidence to support Cooney’s claims.

Cooney’s anti-Trump fingerprints stretch from Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation to “Arctic Frost,” the Biden DOJ’s investigation into Trump and hundreds of Republican organizations, donors, and officeholders for the so-called “fake electors” plan. Emails released last year by Grassley’s committee showed Cooney’s central role in obtaining the toll records of several Republican members of Congress related to the probe.

Cooney's team prosecuted Roger Stone for lies and obstruction in connection with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russiagate probe. AP

“It’s impossible to buy Democrats’ claim that Arctic Frost was a nonpartisan, by-the-book investigation when Jack Smith’s top henchman is now openly campaigning as a Democrat and running on a platform of impeaching President Trump,” a spokesperson for the Senate Judiciary Committee told RCI. “Cooney’s campaign is saying the quiet part out loud. Arctic Frost was never about justice – it was always about using the federal justice system to take down President Trump and the Republican Party. Thanks to Chairman Grassley’s oversight, which has exposed the Biden administration’s internal records, Americans are seeing the dark reality of the weaponized Arctic Frost investigation.”

But three ongoing federal criminal investigations into the president, a year before the 2024 election, were not enough for Cooney. A few months before Smith handed down his first indictment against the president in Florida for allegedly taking classified documents with him to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, Cooney wanted to open yet another line of inquiry into Trump’s involvement in a song produced by the so-called “J6 Prison Choir,” a group of inmates detained at a special prison in Washington. Cooney wanted to know whether Trump was profiting from sales of the song. “Can we do some work on this to nail down Trump’s role in this?” Cooney wrote to his colleagues at the special counsel's office in March 2023, referring to a Forbes article about the project.

“The special counsel’s team was filled with inbred ideologues,” Lauro said 

Excessive Sentences, False Rumors

After longtime Trump confidant Steve Bannon was found guilty by a D.C. jury in 2022 on two counts of contempt of Congress, Cooney sought excessive prison time for Bannon’s refusal to cooperate with the Select January 6 Committee. He filed a 24-page sentencing memo for two misdemeanors that are rarely, if ever, prosecuted in the nation’s capital; he asked Judge Carl Nichols to send Bannon to prison for six months and pay a $200,000 fine. “The rioters who overran the Capitol on January 6 did not just attack a building – they assaulted the rule of law upon which this country was built and through which it endures. By flouting the Select Committee’s subpoena and its authority, [Bannon] exacerbated that assault,” Cooney wrote.

Nichols sentenced Bannon to four months in prison and imposed a $6,500 fine.

It was another sentencing request in a separate Trump-related case that offended both the DOJ’s inspector general and House Republicans. Cooney was part of the government’s team prosecuting Roger Stone, a longtime Trump associate, for allegedly interfering in the bogus Russia collusion investigation. Just like Bannon, Stone was found guilty by a D.C. jury of all charges, including obstruction and making false statements.

Cooney attempted to throw the book at Stone, asking for a sentence of between seven and nine years in prison. But the following day, Cooney’s boss at the office, who had already sparred with Cooney over what he saw as an excessive sentencing request, filed a separate sentencing recommendation, informing Judge Amy Berman Jackson that the initial memo “does not accurately reflect the Department of Justice’s position on what would be a reasonable sentence in this matter.” 

That prompted Cooney, according to then-DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, to start rumors claiming President Trump and Attorney General Bill Barr had intervened to help Stone obtain a lower sentence. A report issued in 2024 by Horowitz, following an extensive investigation into the Stone sentencing controversy, “did not identify documentary or testimonial evidence that the actions and decisions of those involved in the preparation and filing of the first and second sentencing memoranda were affected by improper political considerations or influence.” House Judiciary Chairman James Jordan subsequently opened a congressional investigation into Cooney’s false claims of political interference in the matter.

While serving as the DOJ's Inspector General, Michael Horowitz found that Cooney had spread false rumors about Trump and former Attorney General Bill Barr. AP

Attempts to reach Cooney’s and Crosswell’s campaigns were unsuccessful. Despite repeated requests, a DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment on their candidacies.

Cooney’s years-long pursuit of the president and everyone around him, Lauro insists, helped Trump get elected in 2024. “Because of [Cooney’s] efforts, President Trump won the presidency. So he was terrific for the president and the MAGA movement in that regard.”

Still, Cooney’s anti-Trump legacy may not be finished yet. If Cooney wins his Virginia race and Democrats retake the House in the fall midterm elections, the former prosecutor could play a central role amid reports that his party is already planning to impeach Trump.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 15:40

The Nuclear Co. And Brookfield Partner For New Large Reactor Projects

Brookfield announced that it has formed a partnership with The Nuclear Company (TNC), to create a new company for developing Westinghouse reactor technology.

This new company, which remains unnamed, is being positioned as a world-leading nuclear project execution company. 

A few weeks ago, we covered how Bloomberg anticipated an announcement for new AP1000s. But it appears TNC is focusing the JV's efforts, in the near term, on the possible restart and completion of the two AP1000 reactors at VC Summer in South Carolina. 

Westinghouse originally attempted to construct the two large reactors in 2017, but eventually canceled the project after costs spiraled out of control. Brookfield is now performing the studies necessary to make a Final Investment Decision by 2027, which would mean purchasing the partially-completed assets from Santee Cooper for $2.7 billion. 

The new company will also offer execution capabilities for deploying Westinghouse's smaller AP300 design with “end-to-end project management, licensing support, and oversight of engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning activity.”

TNC's Chief Nuclear Officer, Joe Klecha, frames the announcement as finally addressing what the nuclear industry has been lacking in order to truly unleash the nuclear renaissance build out phase, “We know what it takes to deliver nuclear. What’s been missing is a model that brings together the people, the capabilities, and the capital to do it at speed and scale. That’s what this partnership creates.”

The timelines are still relatively disappointing. Every month China seems to be adding another reactor to their "under construction" stack, with India gaining speed as well. As the months go on, it becomes harder and harder to take the nuclear renaissance seriously in the United States, given the lack of nuclear energy being added to the grid.

It's also bewildering that Brookfield and Cameco are still leaving money on the table with the previously announced $80 billion worth of support from the US government.

These massive amounts of money remain untouched since they were announced in October of last year.  

The progress being made under programs like the DOE Reactor Pilot Program are promising. But the program's wins, with being close to taking kilowatt-scale reactors critical for the first time in decades, struggle to stand out when China is adding over 1,000 megawatts of energy to their grid every month or two. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 15:20

Iraq Offers Huge Discounts Up To $33 Per Barrel For Oil Shipments Via Hormuz

By Charles Kennedy of OilPrice.com

OPEC’s second-largest producer, Iraq, is offering huge discounts of up to $33.40 per barrel off the official selling prices for its crude that has to move through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iraq’s oil production and exports have been severely crippled due to the hostilities in the Middle East and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz, which is the only way to move Iraqi Basrah crude grades.

Iraq was one of the first Gulf producers to slash upstream production and now exports a small part of its crude via a pipeline to the Turkish Mediterranean coast. But its key export port at Basrah, which handled the bulk of exports prior to the war, is constrained due to the unpassable Strait of Hormuz. Iraq has shipped some cargoes eastward out of the Strait thanks to bilateral agreements with Iran’s forces, but tankers now have to move empty westward of the Strait and travel deep into the Persian Gulf to load from Basrah.

Port of Basra

The inbound movement at the Strait of Hormuz is at a standstill, and renewed tensions, blockades, the U.S. Project Freedom to guide ships, the Iranian threats to said project, and Iranian expansion of the area of control at Hormuz are further complicating tanker movement west into the Persian Gulf.

Iraq is now offering a discount of $33.40 per barrel off the official selling price of its flagship Basrah Medium crude loading from Basrah on the Gulf in May, Bloomberg News reported on Tuesday, citing a May 3 notice by Iraqi state oil marketing company SOMO.

Basrah Medium that would be loaded between May 1 and 10 would be priced at a discount of $33.40 a barrel below the OSP, and at a $26-per-barrel discount between May 11 and 31, according to the notice seen by Bloomberg.

Basrah Heavy for loading in May is being offered to buyers at $30 below the OSP.

If a buyer agrees to some of the offers, SOMO’s notice says that “force majeure shall not be applicable to this offer, given that it has been issued under existing exceptional conditions already known to all parties.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 15:00

Russia & Ukraine Declare Ceasefires That Will Begin On Different Days

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Russia said on Monday that it would observe a ceasefire with Ukraine on May 8 and May 9 to observe Victory Day, when Russia celebrates the Soviet Union's victory against Nazi Germany in World War II, but it’s unclear if the truce will hold, as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky responded by declaring a ceasefire that will start earlier.

"As of today, there has been no official appeal to Ukraine regarding the modality of a cessation of hostilities that is being claimed on Russian social media," Zelensky wrote on X.

via Associated Press

"We believe that human life is far more valuable than any anniversary ‘celebration.’ In this regard, we are announcing a ceasefire regime starting at 00:00 on the night of May 5–6. In the time left until that moment, it is realistic to ensure that silence takes effect. We will act reciprocally starting from that moment," the Ukrainian leader added.

Russia's ceasefire declaration came with a warning that if Ukrainian attacks targeted Moscow during Victory Day celebrations, the Russian military would respond with major attacks on the Ukrainian capital, a response to Zelensky suggesting Ukraine could hit a Russian military parade that will take place in Moscow on May 9.

"Should the Kiev regime attempt to implement its criminal plans to disrupt the celebration of the 81st anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, the Russian Armed Forces will launch a retaliatory, massive missile strike on the center of Kiev," the Russian Defense Ministry said.

"Russia, despite its capabilities, has previously refrained from such actions for humanitarian reasons. We warn the civilian population of Kyiv and employees of foreign diplomatic missions of the need to leave the city promptly," the ministry added.

On Monday, a Ukrainian drone hit a high-rise apartment building in Moscow. According to Russia’s TASS news agency, 26 Ukrainian drones targeted the Russian capital from May 2 to May 4.

Heavy Russian attacks hit Ukraine on Monday, killing at least six people in Kharkiv and two in the Kherson region, according to Ukrainian officials.

Ukraine has also stepped up its attacks on Russian oil infrastructure, hitting infrastructure on the Black Sea, causing massive fires and raining oil down from the sky.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 14:25

Trump's Project Freedom Likely Triggered By Oil Market's One-Month Countdown To Chaos

What is well established about President Trump's newly announced Project Freedom is that the U.S. military is helping "guide" commercial vessels out of the Strait of Hormuz.

The battle over the Hormuz chokepoint comes as the oil market appears to be one month away from a potential "tipping point." Without a resolution, traders warn that global crude and refined-product stockpiles could be drawn down to dangerous levels, creating dire conditions for another violent leg higher in fuel prices that could spark economic chaos.

Last week, ConocoPhillips was the first to warn about imminent "critical shortages" of oil for some nations as the Iran war that has crippled global energy flows enters its third month.

"The biggest challenge we're about to face is that the markets sort of had a bit of a grace period initially when the tankers that left the Persian Gulf in late February were still on the water; now all of those have reached their destination," ConocoPhillips CFO Andy O'Brien told analysts last Thursday, touching on a critical subject we outlined to readers at the start of April.

Source

"We are going to start to see some import-dependent countries potentially start to face critical shortages as we get into the June-July time frame," at which point the dreaded "demand destruction" kicks in, O'Brien warned.

ConocoPhillips' ominous warning was followed very shortly by President Trump's Project Freedom plan to provide military escorts for ships through Hormuz. On Monday, two US Navy destroyers transited the waterway and entered the Persian Gulf after navigating an Iranian barrage of missiles, drones, and gunboats. This allowed two US-flagged ships to safely transit through the maritime chokepoint to safer waters.

Trump's Project Freedom appears to be a response to the dire warnings from oil giants and Wall Street analysts, who see demand destruction quickly approaching if the Hormuz chokepoint remains severely disrupted.

"We do not have months," Frederic Lasserre, head of research at Gunvor, one of the world's largest oil traders, told Financial Times.

Lasserre warned that "huge pain" is coming for some countries as fuel shortages appear imminent, adding, "It goes beyond gasoline at the pumps to industry shutting down, and you enter recession."

He gave a timeline of when the energy crisis could worsen: "The tipping point is clearly June. This is the point at which something has to give."

Energy Aspects founder Amrita Sen issued a similar warning: if the US-Iran conflict continues through June, global buffers could be exhausted, with Brent crude futures soaring as high as $200 per barrel.

"The repricing is from today onwards. We expect significant upside to both crude and products," Sen noted, suggesting prices could climb towards the $150 to $200 a barrel range.

Helima Croft, head of global commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, warned, "We may be on the cusp of a sentiment shift as people are starting to realize that the US messaging may not represent reality." She noted that a continued Hormuz disruption this month could push Brent towards $140.

"From the start, the White House has been very successful in messaging that this would be a short war, and now it looks like something that could be sustained through the summer," Croft said.

So far, price increases have been contained by existing inventories, floating inventories, SPR releases, cuts in Asian demand, and refineries shifting output toward diesel and jet fuel.

Goldman analysts have warned of a petrochemical shock, and signs are already emerging of some Asian factories shuttering production lines amid the fuel price shock.

FT quoted an anonymous executive at a large commodity trading house as saying, "We had these buffers for the first two months. Refineries were able to switch the products that they were making because of the time of year. They really maxed out their jet fuel and diesel production."

Latest on Polymarket:

//--> //--> //--> Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by end of May?
Yes 16% · No 85%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

It becomes entirely clear that Trump's Project Freedom to reopen the Hormuz chokepoint was likely a nudge from the oil industry, which has set a one-month timeline from a crunch point that could send the global economy into a tailspin.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 14:05

The Precious Paper Problem: The Divergence In Western Bullion Markets

Authored by Armin Sidhu via The Mises Institute,

Gold has nearly doubled in two years. Silver has outpaced it. For the commodity that backed money for most of human history and that central banks still treat as the final settlement asset, these moves should represent a clean signal about physical scarcity and monetary demand. Western gold prices no longer carry that information cleanly.

The prices quoted in London and New York are increasingly detached from the physical reality of who owns what gold, where it sits, and whether it can be delivered on demand.

What looks like a bull market is the early indication of a pricing system failure.

Context

Western bullion markets operate on a credit model. The London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) runs the largest gold market in the world, but most of the gold traded there is held in what the industry calls “unallocated” accounts. This means the customer holds a paper claim on a clearing bank rather than title to a specific bar in a vault.

When an investor buys an ounce through an LBMA member bank, the bank records a liability on its balance sheet and does not transfer ownership of any particular piece of metal. The Commodity Exchange in New York (COMEX) works on similar principles for futures contracts. Historically, fewer than one percent of COMEX contracts ever resulted in physical delivery. The rest were closed out or rolled forward as bookkeeping entries.

Eastern bullion markets operate on a property model. The Shanghai Gold Exchange (SGE)—the largest Asian gold venue and the operational arm of China’s central bank for physical gold—requires sellers to deposit physical metal before trading and buyers to pay in full upfront. More than 90 percent of SGE spot contracts result in actual delivery of actual bars.

The Shanghai Futures Exchange—the second major Chinese precious metals venue—operates on similar physical-first principles for its gold and silver futures. India’s retail and institutional buyers import and hold physical metal directly. Dubai’s trading hub treats allocated, segregated storage as the default condition rather than the premium option.

This difference reflects a philosophical choice about what gold is. Western markets have built their infrastructure around credit claims on pooled metal. Eastern markets have built theirs around title transfer of specific bars. The size of the gap between those two systems’ prices is now the most important indicator in the global bullion market.

Figure 1: Shanghai Gold Exchange premium over London spot gold at selected moments, 2023-2024. 

Sources: CME Group OpenMarkets and MetalMetric.

Geo-Economic Implications

When two systems price the same asset on different principles, the weaker system loses credibility first. That process is underway in Western paper markets, and the mechanism is straightforward. If a clearing bank owes ten customers an ounce each but holds only two ounces in the vault, the bank is solvent so long as the customers never ask for delivery.

When they do ask, the bank either delivers to the first two and defaults on the other eight, or it rushes to the physical market to buy metal at whatever price it takes. That forced bid is what produced the 70-dollar premium of New York futures over London spot during the March 2020 delivery crunch and the 40-to-60-dollar spreads that opened again in January 2025.

The deeper economic problem goes beyond the stress episodes themselves. What matters is what those episodes reveal about the reliability of Western gold prices as information. Investors hold gold as a hedge against inflation, currency debasement, and monetary policy errors. That function depends on a credible, deliverable price.

When the quoted price represents a paper claim that might or might not be convertible into metal under pressure, the signal stops working. Portfolio managers begin to discount the LBMA benchmark. Physical buyers ignore it. Central banks ignore it, which is exactly what their recent accumulation behavior suggests. A financial system that cannot produce a reliable price for its oldest asset has quietly lost control of one of its most important instruments.

The economic cost of this failure falls on savers. Anyone holding gold as insurance against currency risk faces a second, unacknowledged risk: that the reference price used to value their holdings does not correspond to metal that can actually be delivered.

Geopolitical Implications

Reserve currency status depends on trust in the financial architecture behind the currency. The United States dollar remains the dominant global reserve asset because sovereign holders believe American institutions will honor their claims.

That belief was shaken in February 2022 when Western allies froze approximately three hundred billion dollars in Russian central bank reserves. It is being shaken further by the growing suspicion that Western bullion markets may not be able to physically deliver the gold they say they hold.

Sovereign gold accumulation by China, India, Poland, Turkey, and others functions primarily as a risk management response to a technical problem rather than a political statement. If the LBMA commercial float cannot reliably meet demand from its own customers, then a foreign central bank with tonnes held in London custody must ask what happens to its claim during a stress episode.

The answer explains the repatriation programs now underway in Germany, the Netherlands, Hungary, Austria, Romania, and India. These decisions are prudential. The same logic drives sovereign wealth funds and ultra-high-net-worth investors toward direct physical custody in Singapore and Dubai, where allocated storage is contractually enforceable and the jurisdictional risk is lower.

The longer Western regulators tolerate this paper-to-physical mismatch, the faster marginal reserve decisions move eastward. Each stress episode that forces clearing banks to scramble for metal is watched by finance ministries worldwide as evidence that the Western system cannot honor its own contracts under pressure.

The dollar’s reserve status rests on the premise that American-backed financial promises are the most reliable claims on earth. That premise is being tested by a market the Treasury does not regulate and cannot easily reform.

The Reforms

Three reforms would address the core problem without requiring new bureaucracy or expanded regulatory authority.

First, restore traditional bailment law to unallocated bullion accounts. Under Anglo-American common law, a custodian holding property on behalf of a client cannot pledge or sell that property without explicit authorization. Bullion banking has been allowed to operate as an exception to this rule, treating customer gold as a bank asset that can be lent, leased, and rehypothecated at the bank’s discretion. Ending the exception would require any account marketed as gold ownership to correspond to a specific, identifiable bar held on the customer’s behalf.

Second, prohibit the rehypothecation of client bullion. When a bank holds a customer’s gold and simultaneously pledges that same gold as collateral on its own borrowings, the customer’s ownership is compromised without their knowledge or consent.

Calling the practice financial innovation does not change its underlying character. A straightforward prohibition would eliminate the legal foundation for the synthetic gold claims that now dominate Western markets.

Third, pass the Gold Reserve Transparency Act of 2025—House Resolution 3795—introduced by Representative Thomas Massie. The bill would require a Government Accountability Office physical assay of all United States gold reserves and full disclosure of every sovereign gold transaction over the past fifty years.

If the Treasury holds the metal it claims, an audit costs almost nothing and settles a question open since the early 1960s. If it does not, the public has a right to know before the answer becomes a crisis.

These three reforms share a common principle. They ask Western bullion markets to honor the property rights that the rest of the financial system takes for granted.

Forecast and Conclusion

Gold is supposed to be the simplest asset class on earth. It produces no cash flows, carries no counterparty risk by its physical nature, and derives its value from supply and demand for a physically finite element.

The difficulty now facing anyone trying to interpret its price comes entirely from the inflationary credit structures that Western markets have built around it.

Over the next several years, the divergence between Western paper prices and Eastern physical prices will widen. Western financial media will describe the resulting spreads as volatility. Eastern buyers will treat them as discounts on real metal and accumulate accordingly. 

Central banks will bypass Western benchmarks because they no longer trust those benchmarks to reflect the underlying asset. As this continues, the basic question of what gold is actually worth at any given moment becomes harder to answer with confidence.

The correction is fundamentally about restoring property rights in a market that quietly abandoned them.

New regulators, committees, and Basel frameworks are not the answer.

Western bullion markets can fix themselves by admitting that a bar of gold is not a credit instrument, that a customer’s deposit is not a bank’s asset, and that the price of the oldest store of value on earth should reflect the metal itself, not the paper claims stacked on top of it.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 13:45

Apple Shares Jump On Report Next iOS Will Allow Users To Choose Rival AI Models

Having appeared to be behind the game on its AI offerings for months, Apple will reportedly allow users choose from a range of outside artificial intelligence services to power features across its software, building on a strategy to turn its devices into a comprehensive AI platform.

Bloomberg reports that, according to people with knowledge of the matter, Users will be able to select from multiple third-party AI models for tasks like generating and editing text and images, according to people with knowledge of the matter.

The change is slated for iOS 27, iPadOS 27 and macOS 27 this fall, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the plans are private.

The iOS update will let users choose from AI model providers that opt in by adding support through their App Store apps. So far, Apple has been testing integrations internally with at least Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Anthropic PBC, according to the people with knowledge of the matter.

Inside iOS 27, Apple refers to the capability as “Extensions.”

It lets users select which AI services they want to power Apple Intelligence features via the Settings app.

Apple shares extended gains on the report...

Bloomberg adds that the Apple Intelligence platform, introduced in 2024, currently offers ChatGPT as the only third-party option in features like Siri, Writing Tools and Image Playground.

It’s all part of Apple’s bid to gain an edge in the artificial intelligence market - with a twist.

Rather than building the best AI software and services itself, the company is looking to make it easy for customers to find a wide range of options on its devices.

Certainly seems a lot cheaper than dropping all that unprecented CapEx on the data centers and building their own (though at what 'other' cost to the platform)?

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 13:30

Trump Admin Working To Ease Memory Chip Crunch And Soaring Prices With Supply Chain Coalition

In a world where high commodity prices are the cure for high commodity prices, it was only a matter of time before we saw a surge in oil output in response to near-record oil prices, as Diamondback did ovenright. The same logic applies to memory chips, another commodity, whose prices have exploded in recent months due to soaring demand by data centers.

And while markets expect prices to drop once more supply comes on line, the proposed timline - which spans well into 2027 - is unacceptable, meanwhile the raging memory prices are translating into higher prices for virtually all electronics at a time when inflation is already set to explode higher. 

Which is why the US is working to address the global memory chip shortage through a supply chain coalition with allies in Asia, Europe and the Middle East, Nikkei Asia reported citing a US official. 

The State Department unveiled the Pax Silica initiative in December, a coalition with allies to secure supply chains involving semiconductors, artificial intelligence and critical minerals while reducing dependence on China.

Fourteen countries including India, Japan, South Korea, Singapore and the Philippines have joined the coalition, with Norway set to do so this week, Jacob Helberg, undersecretary of state for economic affairs, told Nikkei Asia on the sidelines of the 2026 Milken Institute Global Conference.

Jacob Helberg, U.S. undersecretary of state for economic affairs, speaks at the 2026 Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles on May 5.

The global memory chip supply shortage continues to worsen as the industry struggles to keep pace with skyrocketing demand boosted by artificial intelligence, weighing on tech companies big and small from AI chipmakers to Apple.

The Trump administration is looking to address the memory chip crunch by leveraging the supply chain coalition, particularly with Asian allies such as South Korea.

"Addressing the memory shortage is, for us, a key priority to advance through the Pax Silica initiative," Helberg said. "It's possible for us to partner in a bilateral and plurilateral way with an excellent framework to actually spin up projects that help us move the needle."

One example of that partnership, Helberg said, is the 4,000-acre industrial hub being set up on the Philippine island of Luzon by Washington and Manila. Helberg will lead a delegation of U.S. officials and business leaders to the Philippines later this month to discuss details of the use of the massive industrial park.

It remains to be decided how much of the land will be used for chip manufacturing, mineral refining or some other key manufacturing, he said.

"What we do know is we want memory to be in the mix in our strategy, and so if we don't end up partnering with the Philippines for memory, we'll easily partner with someone else for the memory piece," Helberg said, adding that the U.S. "would very much like to partner with companies like Samsung and SK Hynix" on addressing the memory chip crunch. It isn't clear how such a partnership would change the status quo since both companies are booked solid well into the future. 

Meanwhile, President Trump is expected to visit Beijing on May 14-15, and supply chain issues including semiconductor and rare-earth export controls could be discussed when he meets Chinese President Xi Jinping.

"President Trump will be heading to Beijing with the American delegation with maximum optionality and leverage because he has really positioned the United States to enhance its position at many different layers of the supply chain," Helberg said.

Regardless of the outcome of the meeting, initiatives such as Pax Silica that support supply chain de-risking from China will continue, Helberg said.

"The president can actually have a very productive and fruitful trip to China, while at the same time continuing to make progress on all of our supply chain security initiatives," he said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 05/05/2026 - 13:25