Aggregator

During his time living in the Philippines, the 81-year-old experienced a massive earthquake and underwent an emergency leg amputation.

During his time living in the Philippines, the 81-year-old experienced a massive earthquake and underwent an emergency leg amputation.

According to photos obtained by Page Six, the Amazon founder and the former journalist arrived hand in hand at Vogue's former editor-in-chief's home in NYC.

According to photos obtained by Page Six, the Amazon founder and the former journalist arrived hand in hand at Vogue's former editor-in-chief's home in NYC.

Colorblind Constitution: The Roberts Court Ends A 'Sordid Business'

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, barring racial gerrymandering, has many on the left feigning vapors, despite the predictions of many of us that this result was likely.

While figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) declared that the court itself has been “gerrymandered” to rig the upcoming elections, this decision is actually the culmination of decades of jurisprudence by various justices — particularly Chief Justice John Roberts.

Indeed, the decision will cement the legacy of the Roberts Court in moving the country toward a colorblind system of laws.

Like most Americans, Roberts abhors racial discrimination in any form. He holds the quaint idea that when the drafters of the 14th Amendment barred discrimination on the basis of race, they meant it. This is why, in 2006, Roberts famously wrote, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”

Roberts sees no difference between such discrimination when it disfavors one or another race. It is all a sordid business, and he has spent decades writing eloquent arguments for the court to abandon its conflicted and hypocritical approach to racial discrimination.

The court has struggled to rationalize using race to discriminate when it serves a higher purpose, such as greater equity or affirmative action. Some of those opinions were constitutionally incomprehensible.

For example, in 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court divided five to four on whether to uphold racial admissions criteria used to achieve “diversity” in a class at the University of Michigan Law School. However, in her opinion with the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated that she “expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”

Few of us could understand how O’Connor found a type of expiration date on permissible racial criteria in the Constitution.

Throughout that period, however, certain justices held firm that there is a bright-line rule against such racial criteria. That includes the author of the court’s Callais decision, Justice Samuel Alito, but also Roberts, who in 2007, put it succinctly: “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

One can certainly disagree with this interpretation and the low tolerance for racial criteria. However, this had nothing to do with the midterm elections. It is the result of dozens of opinions building up to this point.

From college admissions to gerrymandering, the court has created the bright line that figures like Roberts have long sought. In doing so, they have moved this country closer to a colorblind jurisprudence than at any time in our history.

The Biden administration was found repeatedly to have violated the Constitution through racial discrimination in federal programs. Democratic leaders have fought this trend and have pledged to reverse these decisions. Some even demand that Democrats pack the Court with a liberal majority as soon as they retake power.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that whites cannot be placed under additional burdens when bringing discrimination lawsuits.

Much of the coverage of the Callais decision is long on rhetoric and short on substance. The court did not “gut” the Voting Rights Act. It also did not strike down Section 2 of the act. Rather, the court held that neither the act nor the Constitution gives legislators authority to manipulate districts so as to effectively guarantee the race of the elected representatives — any race.

For decades, the courts have faced endless litigation over district configurations designed to elect minority representatives. It is a system that gave candidates an advantage based solely on their race. The court held that such racial gerrymandering is unlawful. The Voting Rights Act will now be read to prevent intentional racial discrimination. Courts will still bar any districts designed “to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”

That does not mean that racial discrimination has been eliminated in our nation, or that we do not need to commit ourselves wholly to its eradication. The stain of slavery and segregation remains with us, as does the lingering scourge of racial prejudice. African Americans and other minorities still face invidious discrimination that cannot be tolerated in our system. We still have much work to be done.

In the area of voting rights, the courts have and will continue to strike down any rules designed to suppress or block minority voters.

Despite this ongoing struggle with racism, there are reasons to be hopeful.

As the Rev. Martin Luther King put it, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Non-whites are now powerful players in American politics. White voters are expected to be a minority in this country within two decades.

We have now elected a black president and a black vice president. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (who declared the Court “illegitimate” after the Callais opinion) expects to be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.

This progress was hard-fought, and both the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act played important roles in achieving greater racial diversity in our society.

And the Callais decision is also part of that progress. We are moving into a new era where racial criteria and discrimination are neither rationalized nor tolerated. There is now reason to hope that we will indeed end “this sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/04/2026 - 11:45

The list of products that have been recalled includes two types of Mama Cozzi’s frozen pizzas sold at Aldi.

The daring dress made the most of the tennis legend's toned legs.

The daring dress made the most of the tennis legend's toned legs.

There's nothing quite like using one on a self-care night.

Schumer announced she and the pro chef were splitting up in December 2025 before filing for divorce a month later.

Schumer announced she and the pro chef were splitting up in December 2025 before filing for divorce a month later.

Mifepristone, part of a two-drug regimen given to women to terminate a pregnancy, was approved by the FDA in 2000 and access to it has expanded over recent years.

Pirates Of The Arabian

By Stefan Koopman, senior macro strategist at Rabobank

“We landed on top of it. We took over the ship, the cargo, the oil. It’s a very profitable business… We’re like pirates.” President Trump’s remarks were, once again, strikingly blunt and unfiltered, to the point of sounding almost satirical. Yet the irony is real. The US president was openly acknowledging that American naval power in the Arabian Sea is now being used in ways that mirror the practices it was once built to suppress.

Negotiating with pirates is difficult. While this weekend’s headlines finally hint at diplomacy between the US and Iran, the gap between their positions appears wider than the Strait itself. Iran continues to cling to maximalist demands, while the US rejects them as unacceptable. For now, no credible outlines of a deal have emerged.

In the meantime, Washington is trying a different tactic. The US is encouraging neutral commercial vessels to run the blockade, putting Iran’s threats to the test. It has offered to help guide stranded ships through the Strait by sharing information on safer transit routes (e.g. no mines) and, potentially, insurance support. Although US navy vessels may operate nearby, this falls short of formal military escorts, which would likely violate the ceasefire. Even so, the approach carries obvious risks, as it could still result in exchanges of fire with Iranian ships, which might then lead to further escalation.

From Washington’s perspective, that risk is not entirely unwelcome. Any Iranian attack on neutral shipping would strengthen the US public‑relations case and might make it a bit easier to assemble the international coalition that has so far proven elusive.

This is a savvy legal move by Trump.

May 1: War Powers letter formally ends hostilities, preserves force posture, asserts Article II constitutional authority.

May 3: "Project Freedom" announced as a humanitarian operation, not military.

Monday: US Navy escorts neutral… https://t.co/jEJTdw5C7C

— Chris Rollins (@ThePowerAudit) May 3, 2026

If some energy does flow out of Hormuz, it will kick the can down further down the road. The deeper problem remains that both sides believe they have won. Washington points to the destruction of much of Iran’s navy and air force, its missile‑launching capacity, and large parts of its military and industrial base. Tehran draws a different conclusion. It has survived a campaign widely seen as aiming at regime collapse, it has demonstrated its ability to strike across the Gulf and into Israel, and it has shown it can place the global economy in a chokehold.

Even as its own economy suffers from the US blockade, Tehran appears convinced it can outlast the US economically and politically, especially as Trump moves closer to the midterm elections. At present neither side holds a strong card, yet both believe time is on its side. That might look like a manageable situation were it not for oil markets losing roughly 10 million barrels a day, with inventories now running uncomfortably low.

This leaves Trump facing a binary choice. He can pursue genuine diplomacy, concede parts of Iran’s demands, and secure outcomes he wants. That path would provoke resistance from Israel and hawks in Washington, but it would also be the fastest way to restore flows through Hormuz. Or he can resume the war, whether being provoked or not, betting that another bombing campaign will achieve what the first 40 days did not.

The problem is that coercion does not stop at Iran. Its oil may be seized, but buyers are punished too. The US Treasury has escalated sanctions by targeting major Chinese oil importers, most notably Hengli, a 400,000‑barrel‑a‑day refinery accused of purchasing billions of dollars of Iranian crude. Beijing pushed back. Its commerce ministry invoked the Blocking Statute, instructing firms not to comply with what it described as unjustified and improper US sanctions. This puts large companies between a rock and a hard place, because they either have to decide to comply with US sanctions or with the Chinese rules. That points at decoupling.

Pirates also have a habit of breaking deals. Over the past year European policymakers persuaded themselves that a durable bargain with this White House was possible. That belief produced the Turnberry deal, a one‑sided concession presented as a truce to stabilize Transatlantic trade. The logic was always questionable. And this weekend president Trump said he will raise its Section 232 tariffs on European car imports back to 25% from Turnberry’s 15%, underlining how little its own deals constrain it.

The Commission’s instinct may be to reopen talks, seeking a return to the lower rate through technical adjustments or promises of rapid implementation. That reaction is understandable, but it may also miss the point. The lesson of the Greenland episode is that this administration responds more to firmness than to appeasement. On paper, Europe has options too. It still holds a list of €93bn in retaliatory tariffs, suspended after Turnberry. It also has the Anti‑Coercion Instrument, the so‑called trade bazooka, which allows restrictions on US investment or the withdrawal of intellectual property protection. The tools exist, but the question ahead is whether Europe is willing to follow China’s lead?

US pressure on Europe, and Germany in particular, is not limited to trade. Days after a call between Trump and Putin, Washington said it would withdraw 5,000 troops from Germany, part of the 37,000 still stationed there. Russia would clearly welcome such a move, as would Iran. Trump appears to see these forces as deployed mainly to protect Germany. In reality, the bases exist to allow the US to project power into Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. Their removal would weaken America’s own strategic reach.

Berlin now faces the same choice as Brussels. One option is deference, flattering a protector in the hope of restraint despite mounting evidence that protection has become transactional and unreliable. The other is acceptance and acceleration, by folding this shock into Europe’s broader defense awakening and pushing faster towards genuine strategic autonomy.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/04/2026 - 11:20

Euphoria Season 3 like a safe full of pills: Some are pick-me-ups, some are poison.

Rudy Giuliani’s shocking weekend hospitalization came after the former mayor came down with pneumonia.

GameStop CEO's CNBC Interview Raises More Questions Than Answers On eBay Bid

Summary:

• GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen Can't Explain Basic Deal Math To CNBC Host 

• eBay Confirms Receipt of Unsolicited Proposal from GameStop

• GameStop CEO Tells CNBC: We Haven't Heard Anything Yet From eBay

• Wall Street analysts "skeptical" about the GameStop Takeover of eBay

• GameStop CEO Reveals Unsolicited Offer to Buy eBay

GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen Joins CNBC's Andrew Ross Sorkin For Interview

CNBC's Andrew Sorkin interviewed GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen earlier this morning about GameStop's bid for eBay.

Sorkin asked Cohen about "how does the math work for you? Given the price tag $56 billion, given the market cap of GameStop which is a fraction of that. I know you have this $20 billion dollar financing letter from TD but sort of walk us through how you could get to that price and how it would work."

Sorkin responded to Cohen's answer with disbelief, noting that he had not provided the basic math for how the deal would work. Cohen pointed to a press release that stated the deal is "half cash, half stock."

Sorkin pressed Cohen on the basic math, yet Cohen still couldn't provide a straight answer.

Sorkin emphasized, "I hear you. You understand that. And just trying to understand where the rest of the money would come from."

Cohen responded by repeating what he had said before: "Half cash, half stock."

Sorkin: "I'm just saying that math doesn't get to the price of your offering. So that is a pretty straightforward question. I don't get it. Where is the rest of the money coming from?"

Cohen: "Andrew, I laid it out clearly. I don't understand your question. We're offering half cash, half stock and we have the ability to issue stock in order to get the deal done. But the full details... that's on our website."

Here's the most contentious part of Ryan Cohen's CNBC Squawk Box interview about the GameStop-EBAY acquisition.

This is a HEATED back and forth, uncommon for financial news. $GME

Sorkin, at one point is in disbelief at RC's repetitive answering to his question. pic.twitter.com/MWAbYWStlp

— Reese Politics (@ReesePolitics) May 4, 2026

Why Cohen couldn't explain the basic math to CNBC viewers is a major red flag.

X users pointed out that GameStop's new 13D shows derivatives, or option calls, represent 99.89% (22,176,000 shares) of its $EBAY position.

Actual common stock owned by GameStop is about 25,000 shares, or .11% of the total position.

Wow $GME's new 13D shows derivatives (calls) represent 99.89% (22,176,000 shares) of its $EBAY position.

Compared to direct common stock of 25,000 shares, which is only 0.11% of the position. pic.twitter.com/G9EAMiJF96

— Reese Politics (@ReesePolitics) May 4, 2026

"If the deal falls through, hopefully they just sell their calls for a 50% return," one X user said, which appears to be read.

That's my read

— Reese Politics (@ReesePolitics) May 4, 2026

Polymarket odds of "Will GameStop acquire eBay" stand at 27%.

//--> //--> //--> Will GameStop acquire eBay?
Yes 29% · No 71%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*GAMESTOP EXTENDS DROP TO SESSION-LOW 7.3% https://t.co/RGCnJjc0C0

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 4, 2026

Cohen is best known as the co-founder of Chewy and as an activist investor in GameStop.

Meanwhile .... "Big Short" investor Michael Burry: 

GameStop Makes Its Play
$56 Billion for eBay, Makes Perfect Sensehttps://t.co/Wk6q9MqqCn $GME $EBAY pic.twitter.com/sCs7XLsNJJ

— Cassandra Unchained (@michaeljburry) May 4, 2026

And GameStop's 'momo' traders are getting hammered by late morning, down about 7%. 

eBay Confirms Receipt of Unsolicited Proposal from GameStop

eBay confirmed that it received an unsolicited, non-binding acquisition proposal from GameStop.

eBay's Board of Directors will review the proposal to determine whether it is in eBay's and shareholders' best interests.

Wall Street Analysts Respond

eBay shares jumped as much as 13% in New York premarket trading after GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen told The Wall Street Journal that he had submitted a $56 billion takeover bid for the online marketplace.

Cohen's deal appears to be part of his strategy to transform eBay into a direct competitor to Amazon, leveraging GameStop's retail footprint and logistics infrastructure to create a larger e-commerce platform.

Wall Street analysts were broadly "skeptical" of Cohen's ability to finance the deal because eBay's market capitalization is nearly four times that of GameStop's, and Truist estimates that GameStop would need nearly $20 billion in debt financing.

Here's the latest comments from analysts, courtesy of Bloomberg:

Morgan Stanley (overweight)

• Analyst Nathan Feather notes the key question in any hypothetical acquisition scenario would be financing, as eBay's market cap is roughly four times larger than Gamestop

• "We are also initially skeptical on potential synergies. Regardless of outcome, confirmation of an offer would demonstrate eBay's increased potential strategic value"

• Notes that regardless of whether Gamestop's bid is successful, an offer would demonstrate how eBay "has been able to increase its strategic value as it has focused on its key strengths (focus categories, C2C, and recommerce) which could also be of interest to other potential acquirers"

Truist (hold)

• Analyst Youssef Squali is "skeptical of the ultimate success of this pursuit" at first glance; calls the bid "stunning"

• "GameStop CEO Ryan Cohen, who has accumulated a ~5% stake in the marketplace (through stock and options), indicated he is prepared to initiate a proxy fight to take the offer directly to shareholders if eBay's board remains unreceptive"

• Notes that Gamestop ended 2025 with a "significantly bolstered balance sheet," but deal would still require nearly $20 billion of debt financing to bridge valuation gap.

Trigon Brokerage (no rating)

• Analyst Dominik Niszcz says deal valuation is seen to be "justified by potential synergies, including significant cost savings, the combination of asset-light eBay (a weakness versus Amazon) with GameStop's physical stores and logistics, as well as a revenue 'flywheel' in collectibles and gaming products."

Meanwhile, GME shares fell 6% in premarket trading as retail traders received a real-time lesson in merger arbitrage, with the momentum stock running into a brick wall of a proposed $56 billion eBay takeover. 

GameStop CEO Reveals Unsolicited Offer to Buy eBay

Update: GameStop - the meme stonk that also happens to sell video games, is making an unsolicited offer to buy Ebay for around $56 billion, and already has a commitment letter from TD Bank to provide $20 billion in debt financing to help make it happen, the Wall Street Journal reports. 

Late last month, eBay reported strong first-quarter results. Anna Webber/Getty Images for Teen Vogue

According to Cohen, GameStop has built up a 5% stake in Ebay and is offering $125/share in cash and stock - which makes for a roughly 20% premium to Friday's closing price.

"EBay should be worth—and will be worth—a lot more money," said Cohen in an interview. "I'm thinking about turning eBay into something worth hundreds of billions of dollars."

Ryan Cohen in Miami in 2022. Anastasia Samoylova for WSJ

If eBay resists Cohen's advances, he's ready to run a proxy fight and take it directly to shareholders. 

"There is nobody who is more qualified, based on my experience, to run the eBay business," Cohen said - noting his time at GameStop, and previously Chewy - the online pet-products marketplace he co-founded. 

* * *

Three months ago, billionaire Ryan Cohen, the CEO of GameStop, told The Wall Street Journal he was eyeing a major acquisition. Fast forward to late last week, and in what appears to be an intentional leak to the same outlet, Cohen's next move may now be coming into focus: preparing an offer to buy eBay.

The WSJ cites sources who say that Cohen's GameStop has built a $12 billion position in eBay ahead of a potential offer. Notably, eBay has a market capitalization 3.8 times larger than that of the video game retailer.

Sources said Cohen could announce the offer as early as this month, and if eBay rejects it, he may take the bid directly to shareholders.

In late January, Cohen told WSJ that he was eyeing a major transaction and searching for deals in the consumer and retail space, as part of a plan to expand the business far beyond video games and collectibles. 

WSJ's Lauren Thomas noted, "GameStop had around $9 billion in cash on hand at the end of March, up from $4.8 billion a year earlier. Cohen would likely enlist his legions of online followers to rally behind a deal, too."

The report comes as GameStop shares are up about 32% this year on hopes for dealmaking, while eBay shares are up nearly 20% this year.

However, one week ago, we penned a note covering AI startup Anthropic, which quietly released a report titled "Project Deal" suggesting the company may be preparing to take on eBay.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/04/2026 - 11:09

An investment banker-turned-farmer and philanthropist, Barry Hoffner has visited 192 of the world's 193 countries, including every "banned" country.

Supreme Court Temporarily Restores Nationwide Access To Abortion Pill

Update (05/04/2026): The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday issued a temporary order that restores full nationwide access to the abortion medication mifepristone, including through mail-order, telehealth prescriptions, and certified pharmacies, until at least May 11.

The emergency ruling pauses a May 1 decision by the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that had reinstated a nationwide requirement for in-person dispensing only. That lower-court order had threatened to sharply restrict medication abortion access across the country, even in states where abortion remains legal.

The USSC administrative stay came in response to emergency applications filed Saturday by mifepristone manufacturers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro. The companies argued the 5th Circuit ruling would cause “immediate confusion,” “regulatory chaos,” and irreparable harm to patients and providers. Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency matters from the 5th Circuit, referred the matter to the full Court.

Background

Mifepristone, used in combination with misoprostol, accounts for approximately 60–70% of abortions in the United States and is also used for early miscarriage care. The FDA first approved the drug in 2000 and expanded access in 2016 and 2021, eventually allowing telehealth and mail delivery without an in-person visit requirement beginning in 2023.

In June 2024, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a previous challenge to the FDA’s rules, ruling that anti-abortion physicians lacked legal standing to sue. The new litigation was brought by Louisiana, which claimed standing as a state harmed by the federal regulations.

What's Next

The Supreme Court’s order maintains the status quo while the justices consider the manufacturers’ request for a longer stay or further review. A decision on whether to extend the relief beyond May 11 is expected in the coming days or weeks. The case could eventually return to the high court for full briefing and argument on the merits.

The temporary restoration prevents an immediate nationwide disruption to medication abortion services at a time when the method has become the dominant form of abortion care following the 2022 Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Advocates on both sides are closely watching for further developments. Reproductive health groups welcomed the pause, while opponents of expanded access expressed disappointment that the 5th Circuit’s restrictions were not allowed to take effect immediately.

The ruling marks the latest chapter in a years-long legal battle over one of the most widely used medications in reproductive health care.

* * *

Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times,

Americans won’t be able to receive abortion drug mifepristone in the mail, according to a temporary ruling by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court on May 1.

“FDA conceded it had failed to adequately study whether remotely prescribing mifepristone is safe,” the three-judge panel in New Orleans ruled on Friday.

The decision will block the drug from being shipped via mail until the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can ensure the drugs are “safe and effective” before they can be marketed in the United States.

Mifepristone, often called “the abortion pill,” is part of a two-drug regimen which allows a woman “to end a pregnancy up to 70 days into gestation,” according to Johns Hopkins University.

The FDA first approved mifepristone in 2000, but doctors were only allowed to prescribe it after three in-person visits.

The procedure changed in 2023 after the Biden administration expanded access to “medication abortion,” which provided a pathway for patients to avoid an in-person visit to the doctor and, instead, order the drug online to be shipped to their house.

The state of Louisiana challenged the rule in 2025, arguing the justification for allowing this was based on “flawed or nonexistent data.”

Louisiana alleged the medication “resulted in numerous illegal abortions” in the state and it also made women pay “thousands in Medicaid bills” for being harmed by mifepristone.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called Friday’s decision a “victory for life!”

“The Biden abortion cartel facilitated the deaths of thousands of Louisiana babies (and millions in other states) through illegal mail-order abortion pills. Today, that nightmare is over, thanks to the hard work of my office and our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom,” Murrill wrote.

“I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues.”

A bill to ban mifepristone was introduced by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in March.

“The science is clear: The chemical abortion drug is inherently dangerous to women and prone to abuse. Yet major companies like Danco Laboratories are making billions off it,” Hawley said.

Hawley’s bill would also allow women to sue manufacturers for damages if they are harmed by the chemical abortion.

Rep. Delia C. Ramirez (D-Ill.) criticized the federal court decision on social media.

“Mifepristone is safe and reliable,” Ramirez wrote in an X post on Friday.

“IT SAVES LIVES.
 Extremist attempts to control our bodies and restrict our choices make women less safe. The right to make decisions about our bodies and our healthcare are OURS. They don’t belong in the hands of judges or politicians.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/04/2026 - 11:04

"This Is Unacceptable": Duffy Sounds Off After United Jet Clips Light Pole, Truck In New Jersey

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy joined Fox Business on Monday morning, where he described Sunday's midair incident, in which a commercial jumbo jet's landing gear clipped a light pole and truck on a New Jersey highway, as "unacceptable," despite the aircraft being flown by "really well-trained pilots."

"So I don't want to get ahead of the investigation. Again, it seems pretty clear a light pole at least was hit. Was the truck hit? That will be ascertained as the NTSB arrives today. The FAA is going to arrive today. They're in contact with United," Duffy said.

United Airlines Boeing 767 aircraft (N77066) struck a light pole on the New Jersey Turnpike on approach at Newark Liberty International Airport on Sunday afternoon.

The Flight UA169, operated by a Boeing 767-424 from Venice, Italy, with 221 passengers and 10 crew members on… pic.twitter.com/Stpzf7hJ1Z

— FL360aero (@fl360aero) May 3, 2026

Local news outlet Fox Baltimore confirmed that a delivery truck owned and operated by the Baltimore-based Schmidt Bakery was struck by the United Airlines jet.

Chuck Paterakis of H&S Family of Bakeries said the driver had departed from the Baltimore metro area and was headed to a company depot in New Jersey when the incident happened near Newark Liberty International Airport. He said the driver suffered minor injuries from broken glass.

Duffy continued, "This is unacceptable. We have really well-trained pilots. This should never happen in America."

A photo has been posted on social media showing the moment United Airlines flight 169 struck a semi-truck on final approach to Newark Liberty International Airport yesterday.

The truck driver has since been released from hospital the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey… pic.twitter.com/wvMMWeb7pl

— Breaking Aviation News & Videos (@aviationbrk) May 4, 2026

He added, "The big and small incidents we study, we look at and we learn from and we take action on, and that's why America is the safest place to fly. We have the safest guys, the busiest guys, bar none, and we're the best because we look at every incident and learn from it."

Sec. Duffy on the United Airlines collision at Newark: This is unacceptable. We have really well-trained pilots. This should never happen in America. An incident like this, we study and we learn from, and we take action on. That’s why America is the safest place to fly. pic.twitter.com/SzshEpfZ7I

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 4, 2026

Why the United Airlines flight had a low angle of attack during final approach will be determined and released in a future FAA report on the incident.

Tyler Durden Mon, 05/04/2026 - 11:00

Democrats are defenders of democracy — except when they lose. Then they want to change the rules.