Americans Will Foot The Bill For Germany's New Drug Price Controls

Authored by Drew Johnson via PJMedia.com,

Germany just found a new way to lower its own healthcare costs: make Americans pay more.

In late April, German policymakers proposed changes that cap spending growth, restrict care, and force drugmakers to provide steep discounts.

These changes are supposed to save Germany money. But drugmakers still need to recoup the high costs of research and development. When a country like Germany suppresses the prices it pays for innovative medicines, those costs don't disappear — they simply shift elsewhere.

And because many other wealthy countries use similar price controls, that cost burden is increasingly falling on the United States.

The global imbalance is already stark.

American patients generate roughly three-quarters of global pharmaceutical profits despite accounting for just a quarter of global GDP. In effect, the United States is underwriting much of the world's drug innovation while patients abroad pay far less for the same treatments.

President Trump has spent months trying to end this freeloading by pressing other countries to pay fair value for new treatments — and he shouldn't let Germany get away with refusing to cooperate.

Foreign mooching off American medical innovation is a real and longstanding problem. Wealthy governments around the world — and especially in Europe — set drug prices by decree, effectively refusing to pay manufacturers fair value for treatments they spend years, sometimes decades, developing.

As a result, drugmakers disproportionately rely on revenue from the United States to sustain research and development. While patients abroad often pay cut-rate prices, Americans pay far more for the same meds. That imbalance is fundamentally unfair.

Of course, America can't simply stop paying for innovation. If U.S. leaders copied other countries' price-control tactics — as Democrats have often suggested — companies would struggle to earn returns on new research, and global development of life-saving new drugs would grind to a halt.

That leaves only one viable solution: force other countries to start paying their fair share for innovation.

President Trump has made progress on this front by pressuring wealthy allies directly. In April, for instance, he convinced the United Kingdom to increase its spending on new medicines. The deal proved that a firm U.S. stance could yield meaningful results.

But Germany is now testing America's resolve. Germany already spends far less than the United States on medicines, even when factoring in its smaller population and economy. Its new plan will deepen that divide by imposing strict limits on health spending growth and taking money directly from manufacturers to fund drug coverage.

Soon, Germany will pay even less than it already does for innovative medicines. The result will be higher costs concentrated in the U.S. market — or reduced investment in new cures. Either way, American patients will bear the burden.

And if Washington fails to respond, its broader effort to end foreign free-riding will lose credibility. Other countries will assume that they can continue to free-ride without facing consequences.

The United States needs to make a stand.

Fortunately, the Trump administration has real negotiating leverage. As the recent deal with the UK shows, U.S. trade officials have plenty of tools to obtain cooperation from foreign governments. They should use these tools to ensure fair pricing, knock down barriers to market access, and make clear that continued freeloading will come with consequences. This can and should start with a Section 301 investigation of other countries' drug-pricing policies. Such a move would expose unfair practices and empower U.S. officials to impose trade penalties, forcing allies like Germany to pay fair value for innovative medicines.

Ultimately, policymakers should ensure that all of America's allies pay their fair share. President Trump ended a different form of international leeching last year when he convinced NATO members to spend a greater percentage of their GDP on defense. If U.S. negotiators can secure similar spending targets for innovative medicines, they can end free-riding for good — and allow drugmakers to lower prices at home without hurting innovation.

American patients shouldn't have to subsidize the world's medicine cabinet. The policies of countries like Germany have inflated U.S. drug costs for too long.

By standing up to Germany now, President Trump can reaffirm that the United States no longer tolerates foreign freeloading on American medicines, while helping to reduce costs for American patients and preserving the breakthroughs they depend on.

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

Medvedev: Russia Must Instill 'Animal Fear' In EU Warmongers As Goodwill Measures Futile

Head of the Russian Security Council and former president, Dmitry Medvedev, has penned an article ahead of the 81st anniversary of Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, or Russia's V-Day, lambasting Europe's new path of reckless militarization. As widely featured in state media, he argued that the "animal fear" of unacceptable losses will prevent Germany and the wider "United Europe" from launching another attack against Russia.

He wrote, "It is no secret that an attempt is being made to impose on us the doctrine of ‘peace through strength’. Our response then can only be 'the security of Russia through the animal fear of Europe.'"

Anadolu Agency

He stressed that "neither persuasion, nor demonstration of good intentions, nor goodwill and unilateral confidence-building steps should be our tools to prevent a big massacre."

"Only the formation of an understanding among Germany and the United Europe supporting it of the inevitability of their receiving unacceptable damage in the event of the implementation of the Barbarossa 2.0 plan," Medvedev concluded.

RT reviews and pinpoints why Medvedev is taking direct aim at Berlin in his written piece: 

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz openly vowed to turn the German military into the “strongest conventional army in Europe” in a speech just days after the world marked the 80th anniversary of the fall of the Third Reich last May.

Last month, the German Defense Ministry unveiled a plan to reach this goal and field 460,000 combat-ready personnel by 2039, the 100th anniversary of Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Poland. German and other EU officials repeatedly cited 2029 as the first stage deadline to be “war-ready” for a potential conflict with Russia.

It is true that even after 4+ years of grinding war in eastern Europe, the Western powers have yet to intervene directly by sending their own forces, and after losses on both the Ukrainian and Russian sides have probably been in the hundreds of thousands.

The conflict is largely stalemated, with Russian forces in the east having had a very slow but steady, piecemeal momentum over the past year.

However, Ukraine's drone strikes deep inside Russia have been devastating of late, inflicting serious damage on Russian oil refineries - in some cases hitting key sites multiple times, with Russia's anti-air defenses appearing powerless to stop these attack waves.

The Moscow region itself has been coming under repeat drone attack. While these operations have little or no impact on the frontline situation in the Donbass, Kiev hopes to inflict serious costs on the Russian government and population, the latter which is surely growing tired and weary of the war.

But Medvedev's point is also that if broader conflict with Europe opens one day, the European powers won't be able to find an offramp before absorbing immense losses - no matter their efforts to revamp and expand their respective defense industries.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 04:15

Age Verification PsyOp? Kids Bypass UK Government Tech With Fake Moustaches

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

The UK government’s much-hyped age verification system for social media has been reduced to a joke overnight – and the punchline is being delivered by schoolkids armed with makeup pencils and fake facial hair.

A damning new report from Internet Matters reveals that more than a third of UK children have already figured out how to dodge the latest “safeguards” imposed under the draconian Online Safety Act.

Methods include entering fake birthdays, borrowing logins, and – most hilariously – drawing on fake moustaches to fool facial age estimation tech. One parent admitted catching her son using an eyebrow pencil; the system promptly verified him.

The UK government’s age verification checks have been brought down by children wearing fake moustache’s

Brilliant pic.twitter.com/FvSAiKaZ6r

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) May 5, 2026

This comes as ministers double down on plans to restrict or outright ban social media access for under-16s. Just days ago, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and junior minister Olivia Bailey confirmed the government will impose “some form of age or functionality restrictions” regardless of whether a full ban is enacted.

A national consultation on the policy closes later this month, with pilots already running in hundreds of homes testing bans, time limits, and digital curfews.

But the farce unfolding in real time shows exactly why these measures were always doomed to fail – or, more cynically, why they were designed to fail.

I suspect it’s fake news so they can push for ID verifications

— Fellow Noticer (@Sendem_Bach) May 5, 2026

Either the architects of this scheme are completely incompetent, or this is a deliberate ploy to make the whole thing look ridiculous.

Why? To curtail resistance and downplay the inevitable next step: mandatory digital ID.

Age verification, or more properly defined as "identity verification," was designed to fail, so that the government could push for a full blown digital ID system.

The people behind this are utterly dastardly and machiavellian in their lust for total power over their fellow Man.

— NPC Knuckles (@KnucklesNp26684) May 5, 2026

Eventually there will be no work-around for any of us unfortunately

— Gabhán (@OffgridIreland) May 5, 2026

We’ve seen this playbook before. When Apple began forcing iPhone users to prove their age with government ID or lose unrestricted internet access, we warned it was the thin end of the wedge.

The government’s digital ID scheme is already being rolled out. A “dystopian experiment in mass surveillance,” with critics warning it will make proving your identity online unavoidable for everything from banking to browsing.

And it’s not just Britain. The EU is charging ahead with its own war on online freedom, forcing age verification and going after VPNs in the name of “saving the children” while quietly building the infrastructure for continent-wide censorship and tracking.

Commission Urges Member States to Implement EU Age Verification Apphttps://t.co/F3eYpQfaoO

The EU has moved to protect children from harmful and inappropriate online content. On Wednesday, the EU Commission adopted a recommendation urging Member States to accelerate the roll...

— eurotoday (@eurotoday_org) May 5, 2026

Just coincidentally, the EU’s own age verification system was defeated in minutes after it was soft launched in April. So now, of course, there needs to be a further crackdown.

Digital ID systems always promise security and always deliver breaches. The EU's new age verification app got hacked in under two minutes. Passport photos were stored unencrypted. PIN protection was bypassed with a text editor. Von der Leyen called it "technically ready." Every…

— Reclaim The Net (@ReclaimTheNetHQ) April 19, 2026

This was never about protecting kids. They don’t care about kids. It’s about control. Every failed “safety” measure provides the perfect excuse to demand even stricter verification – biometric scans, national digital IDs, device-level monitoring.

The moustache kids aren’t the problem; they’re exposing the con.

In the US, President Trump has already drawn a line in the sand, declaring war on the Euro-style censorship machine and vowing to smash any UK-EU internet crackdown that threatens free speech.

While the UK government chases headlines with performative “child safety” gestures that collapse under the weight of a 12-year-old with a makeup pencil, the real threat isn’t social media – it’s the authoritarian apparatus being built in its name.

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

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 03:30

Visualizing The Stunning Global Fertility Divide

A widening gap is emerging in global birth rates.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist's Niccolo Conte, shows population-weighted total fertility rates (TFR) across major world regions, based on data from the UN World Population Prospects 2024 Revision, and how they compare to the 2.1 replacement level.

While Africa remains far above this threshold, most of the world, including Asia, Europe, and the Americas, has already fallen below it.

This split highlights where future population growth is likely to be concentrated.

Africa Stands Apart

Africa’s fertility rate of 4.0 children per woman is the highest of any region. It is nearly double the global average of 2.2 and close to three times Europe’s rate of 1.4.

With a rapidly growing population base, Africa is expected to drive a significant share of global population growth in the coming decades.

Higher fertility rates are often linked to younger populations, lower urbanization, and differences in access to education and healthcare.

Below Replacement in Most Regions

Many parts of the world now have fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1. Asia, North America, and South America each sit at 1.7, while Europe trails at 1.4.

These levels point to aging populations, slower natural population growth, and potential workforce pressures over time. In many countries, immigration and family-support policies are becoming more important parts of the demographic outlook.

Population Weight Matters

Asia accounts for 54% of the global population, meaning its relatively low fertility rate has an outsized influence on the global average.

By contrast, regions like Oceania and the Middle East have higher fertility rates but much smaller populations. This helps explain why the global average remains at 2.2 even as most major regions fall below replacement.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out When Will the Global Population Reach Its Peak? on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 02:45

Is It Time For Von Der Leyen To Go?

Via Remix News,

Amidst continued fears regarding Putin attacking beyond Ukraine and economic uncertainty caused by the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Brussels is reportedly beginning to grumble, i.e., look for someone to blame and remove.

Now, according to a report by Finnish public service media Yle, cited by Világgazdaság, voices are growing to remove the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

Several European leaders, as well as NATO officials, have long warned that Moscow may potentially attack NATO states, which is why there has been a continued push for support for Ukraine to prevail in its war with Russia.

In the event of such a scenario, where Putin looks to further his ambitions and attack inside NATO, rapid and effective cooperation between European countries will be crucial, which is why, according to this recent report, some are wondering if von der Leyen is the right person for the job.

One name that has been put forth for “European war leader” is Finnish president, Alexander Stubb, an independent known for seeking greater EU integration and a higher profile for the EU in international policymaking.

The suggestion was also reportedly confirmed by defense expert Line Rindvig, who believes that the Finnish president may be particularly suitable for such a role.

The Finnish president is even said to have served as a “quasi-European representative” on several occasions in discussions on support for Ukraine.

Rindvig has actively been assisting Finland to boost its military defense capabilities in light of lessons learned from Ukraine.

He says that the Nordic country is at the forefront of preparations in Europe, which he attributes in large part to Stubb’s diplomatic activity and international acceptance.

He is, according to the expert, a good bet for leading broader European cooperation.

Significantly, Stubb also enjoys good relations with U.S. President Donald Trump, which is key for transatlantic coordination.

Rindvig even pointed to their closeness being aided by a shared interest in golf.

As the EU seeks to navigate its role in a world dominated by major powers and their wars, the right person at the helm will be critical if it ever wants a seat at the table — to discuss Ukraine, as well as NATO, foreign policy, and other economic matters.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 02:00

Russia Calls On Foreign Embassies To Evacuate Diplomats From Ukrainian Capital

Russia is warning that the Ukrainian capital could face unprecedented aerial bombing, and is taking the somewhat unprecedented step of issuing evacuation orders for bystanders in Kiev.

Russia's Foreign Ministry said Wednesday it warned foreign diplomatic missions to evacuate staff from the Ukrainian capital ahead of a potential large-scale strike if Ukraine attempts to disrupt Russia's May 9 Victory Day commemorations.

via Associated Press

Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, speaking in a video posted on Telegram, called on diplomats to take seriously a Defense Ministry warning issued Monday about retaliation in response to any Ukrainian attack linked to the commemorations and the Red Square parade.

"The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs strongly urges the authorities of your country…to treat this statement with the utmost responsibility and ensure the timely evacuation from the city of Kyiv of the personnel of diplomatic and other representations in connection with the inevitability of a retaliatory strike on Kyiv by Russia’s Armed Forces," Zakharova said.

Zakharova charged that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently made "aggressive and threatening statements" about disrupting the commemorations during Monday remarks at a European Political Community meeting in Armenia.

"Several EU countries were present," she said. "None of them reprimanded the ringleader of the Kyiv regime."

Here's what Zelensky had said:

"It will be the first time in many, many years they cannot afford military equipment and they fear drones may buzz over Red Square. This is telling."

Last year similar back-and-forth threats and rhetoric surrounded the lead-up to Russia's V-day celebrations, but little in the way of direct threats or hostile drone activity over Moscow materialized at the time.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry is urging foreign countries to ensure the evacuation of diplomats from Kyiv.

Russia will strike decision-making centers in Kyiv if Ukraine disrupts the May 9 parade. pic.twitter.com/G7YmNUm3Kf

— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 6, 2026

At the moment, the warring countries have presented competing dates for ceasefire. Putin wants it to correspond with the major Russian holiday: May 8-9, while Zelensky had last week offered May 5-6, which has already come and gone.

Both sides have meanwhile continued attacking the other's vital energy sites, and in some cases this has left significant casualties and destruction.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 23:00

Denver Leaders Reject Justice Department's Demand That City Repeal 'Assault Weapons' Ban

Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times,

Denver is refusing to repeal its 37-year-old ban on certain types of firearms known as “assault weapons.”

Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent a demand letter on April 28 to Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and City Attorney Miko Brown, requesting the city repeal the ordinance, which has been in place since 1989.

In a May 4 response letter, Brown stated that the ordinance has withstood legal challenges, kept violent crime low, and was democratically enacted.

Brown wrote that while Denver may consider various strategies to keep citizens safe, “Reversing a common-sense ban that has worked for 37 years and bringing assault weapons back into the City’s neighborhoods is not one of them.”

Johnston reiterated that sentiment in a statement released that same day.

“Denver’s law has stood for 37 years because it works, it saves lives, and it reflects the values of our community. No demand or lawsuit from Washington is going to change that,” Johnston said.

The ordinance—Denver Revised Municipal Code Section 38-121(c)—prohibits carrying, storing, keeping, manufacturing, selling, or possessing an assault weapon.

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston testifies before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Capitol Hill on March 5, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The ordinance defines an assault weapon as “any semiautomatic pistol or centerfire rifle, either of which have a fixed or detachable magazine with a capacity of more than fifteen (15) rounds, and any semiautomatic shotgun with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six (6) rounds or both.”

The definition includes firearms that have been modified to have these features to function as an assault weapon.

Dhillon wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court held in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment secures “the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”

She goes on to state that arms in common use may not be categorically banned.

Dhillon stated that the definition includes AR-15-style rifles, which are owned by “literally tens of millions” of people.

“The city has banned an arm in common use for lawful purposes by law-abiding citizens. Therefore, the Ordinance violates the Second Amendment,” Dhillon’s letter states.

Dhillon set a deadline of May 5 for the city to enter negotiations to repeal the ban. To avoid a lawsuit, the city would have to cease enforcing the ordinance, acknowledge the law is unconstitutional, and enter a consent decree to prevent enforcement of the ordinance.

“This ordinance has helped keep Denver safe for decades. Repealing it would put my officers and our residents at greater risk and violate our duty to protect and serve,” Denver Police Chief Ron Thomas was quoted as saying.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 22:35

Toward Dual-Use Deterrence On The Moon

Authored by Rick Fisher via The Epoch Times,

As the United States pursues its goal of sending astronauts to the moon starting in 2028 to start building lunar bases—and China pursues its goal of sending its people to the moon by 2029 or 2030, also to start building lunar bases—it is necessary to consider a lunar political-military stability based on dual-use technologies.

Concern that China could behave aggressively on the moon is justified based on its behavior on Earth: an unwillingness to recognize the territory of neighboring states while mounting militarized aggrandizement against Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and India.

This behavior does not bode well for China’s willingness to be transparent about its intentions on the moon, while being predisposed to defend claimed areas rather than seeking deconfliction should other countries pursue nearby lunar activities.

This becomes more of a concern for two additional reasons.

• First, both China and the United States are targeting lunar bases for the south pole of the moon due to the greater probability of finding water ice, but as National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Moon Base Program Executive Carlos Garcia-Galan noted in the agency’s March 24 “Ignition” briefing, this region is about the size of the state of Virginia.

• Second, while Virginia is not a small state, China’s early moon landing system will employ two stages: a manned or cargo stage that is decelerated near the moon by a second propulsion stage that detaches and then crashes into the lunar surface.

For China, use of the propulsion stage is needed because its initial Long March-10 lunar space launch vehicle (SLV) can only loft about 26 tons to the moon, thus requiring two Long March-10 launches to put people on the moon, and use of a propulsion stage lowers the weight of the lunar landing system.

So far, Chinese state-affiliated sources have revealed that their Lanyue manned lunar lander and a larger pressurized lunar rover will be transported to the moon using the crashing propulsion stage, but it is likely that other payloads will do so as well.

For decades, the Chinese regime has tolerated the crashing of SLV first stages into populated areas, so it is a legitimate concern that Beijing will be similarly cavalier about the potential dangers to other countries’ lunar settlements posed by crashing Chinese propulsion stages.

It is certainly preferable to deconflict lunar basing plans, something that could be done between NASA and Chinese space officials who attend the annual International Astronautical Congress, which brings together space officials and engineers.

But China’s decades-long refusal to consider transparency and controls over its nuclear weapons does not bode well for its willingness to ensure that other countries are not “bombed” by its 5- to 8-ton moon-crashing propulsion stages.

As such, it is necessary to have a backup plan that can “deter” China from aggressive behavior on the moon and to defend against potentially dangerous behaviors, such as refusing to prevent threats from its moon-based propulsion stages.

A Long March-2F carrier rocket, carrying the Shenzhou 20 spacecraft and a crew of three astronauts, lifts off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in the Gobi Desert on April 24, 2025. Pedro Prdoa/AFP via Getty Images

By now, it’s also possible to discern that both the United States and China are preparing to deploy “dual-use” systems to the moon that could serve defensive-military objectives, offering the possibility of a system of lunar deterrence.

Lunar Satellites: Both the United States and China plan to deploy small constellations of satellites around the moon for surveillance of the lunar surface and to enable lunar navigation and intra-lunar and Earth-moon communication.

Since 2024, China has deployed its Queqiao-2 communication relay satellite to the far side of the moon, supported by two small Tiandu navigation-communication development satellites.

By 2050, China intends that Queqiao will host a large number of communication, surveillance, and navigation satellites, enabling missions to the moon, Venus, and Mars, and even further into the solar system.

NASA intends to deploy two groups of five lunar satellites in 2027 and 2028 to perform surveillance, navigation, and communication missions.

Both China and the United States could use their lunar satellite constellations to support military objectives on the moon, and both are developing “combat” satellites for low Earth orbit operations, which, if needed, could also be deployed to lunar orbits.

Moon Hoppers: For its next Change-7 unmanned moon probe mission later this year to the far side of the moon, China will test a small “moon hopper,” an unmanned vehicle able to fly or hop into a nearby moon crater to search for water ice.

On March 24, NASA revealed that it intends to deploy three groups of four hopping vehicles to the moon in 2028, 2030, and 2032—a total of 12 such vehicles.

Even early, small hopping vehicles like China’s could swap out their small science payload for a small electromagnetic pulse grenade that could disable unshielded electronics at the target moon base. The fact that both could use their hopping vehicles as Earth-bound unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) would add to deterrence.

Lunar Nuclear Power: On March 24, NASA revealed its intention to develop space nuclear-thermal power systems to propel a nuclear-thermal powered spacecraft to Mars in 2028, with that power system also serving as the basis for a lunar-based nuclear power system for U.S. bases on the moon, to compensate for the loss of solar power during the “lunar night.”

Co-developed with the U.S. Department of Energy, the plan is to deploy a 40- to 100-kilowatt fission power system to the moon by 2030 or 2031 to provide reliable power for U.S. unmanned and manned moon base systems.

Chinese literature also reveals the intention to develop space nuclear power, both to propel spacecraft into deep space and to generate electricity for Chinese lunar bases, with a prototype space reactor reported to have been completed in 2023.

As fear of retaliation is the basis for nuclear deterrence on Earth, there would be a similar fear of retaliation that would deter attacks against lunar nuclear power stations, which would threaten personnel and contaminate a lunar base, thus preventing recovery and rebuilding.

But as a lunar nuclear power station would power lunar habitats and lunar rovers, it could also power future lunar mining lasers, which may also be inherently “dual-use”—an early lunar “artillery.”

With the May 4 signature of Ireland and Malta, there are now 66 nations that have signed the 2020 Artemis Accords principles for transparent and peaceful behavior on the moon, which form the basis for future U.S. cooperation on the moon with all Artemis partners.

As the leader of the Artemis “coalition,” the United States should try to achieve lunar deconfliction with China, especially to prevent errant Chinese propulsion modules from posing a threat to Artemis coalition lunar activities.

However, inasmuch as the Chinese Communist Party may regard dominance on the moon as a necessary tool for achieving future hegemony on Earth, the United States may have to lead its Artemis partners in making sure that “dual-use” technologies are deployed in a way that creates a system of lunar deterrence.

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

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 21:45

"Existential Fight For Survival": MSFT May Nuke Green Data Center Climate Pledge

One week ago, Microsoft expected roughly $190 billion in AI data center spending for this fiscal year, highlighting the massive scale of the hyperscaler capex cycle as Big Tech races to build out compute infrastructure. Across the tech space, hyperscalers are expected to spend nearly $700 billion in capex this year alone.

The incredible amount of capex being deployed this year has forced some tech giants to slash headcount and trim operating costs to free up capital for data centers. At the same time, Microsoft may now delay or abandon its ambitious 2030 "100/100/0" clean-energy target for data centers as costs continue to mount.

Bloomberg reports MSFT is set to nuke its pre-AI-era climate commitment, which aimed to match 100% of its electricity use, 100% of the time, with "green" energy by 2030, due to the mounting costs of going green.

MSFT wanted every hour of electricity used by its offices and data centers to be matched with clean energy purchases. The reality of saving the planet in a pre-AI era has collided with costs and power constraints as renewable energy struggles to keep pace with data center buildouts.

"The costly and energy-intensive buildout of data centers is affecting views on the feasibility of climate commitments made before the AI era," according to the outlet, citing one person familiar with the matter.

MSFT is reportedly adding about 1 gigawatt of data center capacity every three months (enough to power 750k homes) and expects to spend about $190 billion on data center buildouts this year. The tech giant recently held talks with Chevron to fund a major natural gas plant in the West Texas Permian Basin.

"AI is an existential fight for survival for Big Tech, and so all and any funds at their disposal are being diverted to building as much AI as possible," Alexia Kelly of the High Tide Foundation told the outlet.

MSFT's emissions have already jumped 23% from the pre-AI chatbot era, while Meta, Google, and Amazon have seen similar spikes as well.

The possible move by MSFT to dial back its climate pledges comes as data center buildout costs mount, and the tech giant is doing everything possible to trim those costs to ensure it continues to lead the hyperscaler race. Most importantly, it wants to lead the AI race against China, where data centers are predominantly powered by coal.

The need for cheaper power costs by MSFT also comes at a very precarious time for the entire AI buildout narrative, as cracks are beginning to emerge. Read the full report here.

 

 

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 21:20

Canadian Prime Minister Is Playing A Very Dangerous Game

Authored by 'Sundance' via The Last Refuge blog,

Anyone who has ever dealt with a toxic narcissist understands the psychology behind their manipulative language, words and intents. 

What Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is doing here is very dangerous, particularly for the Canadian people.

After a year of increased provocative language intended to confront President Trump for U.S. nationalist policy changes on economics, trade and security, Prime Minister Carney travelled to Europe where he again delivered strong remarks saying that Europe is now the center of the “rules based international order,” the western government control mechanisms that have maintained economic and security relationships for the past one-hundred years.

Essentially, Carney, after saying the USA was no longer a reliable or obedient partner, emphasized the opposition to state nationalism must come from a collective decision to retain the old geopolitical structures.  President Trump must be opposed, and Europe -according to Carney- represents the assembly that will not permit state government nationalism (sovereignty) to replace their long-constructed globalist systems.

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Carney faced questions about those remarks. I don’t want to influence the audience, but with the context in mind, watch and listen closely to his response.

[NOTE: The question comes from the Toronto Star, the only ‘conservative’ media outlet permitted under the rules of the Canadian regime to ask questions.  All other outlets who might challenge the government viewpoints are strictly controlled and not permitted audience.]

Notice how Carney divides the world of opposition to President Trump, indicating the 5-Eyes nations of Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand are in opposition to Trump and in alignment with the old control mechanisms. 

Adding to this grouping, Carney pulls in the entire European continent and boldly proclaims his position as lead diplomat and representative for their effort against the USA.

This is a very dangerous game that Prime Minister Carney is choosing to play here. 

This is the behavior of a person who is toxically narcissistic and prepared to claim victim status as soon as his target hits back.  Carney has carefully and purposefully deceived his domestic audience, and things are about to get very ugly.

I must say something of a personal frustration….

In the bigger picture, expanding on the ancillary aspects that pertain to the geopolitical landscape that surrounds us, Carney is able to push this line this far because we have internal friction driven by people like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and other short-sighted “influencers, who do not recognize the scale of the moment.

President Trump is standing up to a globalist system that weakened the United States over several generations. 

The same voices who understand how toxic the United Nations, NATO, USAID and other international influences are to what remains of U.S. sovereignty, are the same voices attempting to divide Trump’s base of support while our President battles multinational influence operations; all because they have the same traits as Mark Carney underpinning their psychology.

You either affix your bayonet against these forces, or in our lifetime there will be nothing left to fight over.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 20:55

Israel Attacks Beirut For First Time In Nearly A Month: Assassination Raid

The Lebanon ceasefire seems definitively off, as the capital of Beirut has come under heavy attack on Wednesday, with Israeli officials describing the military action as a targeted assassination of a top Hezbollah commander.

"Israeli forces have targeted Beirut’s southern suburbs for the second time today, causing a loud explosion and extensive damage," Al Jazeera reports. "The Israeli army confirmed the attack and said that it was targeting a commander of Hezbollah's Radwan Force."

IAF file image

This marks the first day in nearly a month that Israeli jets have bombed Beirut, given the relative period of calm during a US-mediated ceasefire.

"The IDF has just struck in Beirut the commander of the Radwan Force in the Hezbollah terror organization to eliminate him," an Israeli statement has confirmed.

 Defense Minister Israel Katz says that Radwan Force operatives "were responsible for firing [rockets] at Israeli communities and harming IDF soldiers."

"No terrorist has immunity, Israel’s long arm will reach every enemy and murderer. We promised to bring security to the residents of the north. This is how we act, and this is how we will continue to act," the statement added.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has also confirmed that he ordered the military to carry out the killing. Al Jazeera provides some further details as follows:

Israeli warplanes targeted an apartment with three missiles in the vicinity of Haret Hreik in the southern suburbs of Beirut, NNA reported.

Jets were also reportedly flying at a very low altitude over the Bekaa Valley.

This strongly suggests Lebanon is on the brink of once again entering full-fledged fighting between Israel and Hezbollah. Already a conflict has been raging in the far south, but now Israeli forces seem to be expanding to a total aerial operation once again.

The conflict goes back to the wake of Oct.7, 2023 and Gaza war. But Hezbollah's entry was also renewed following Trump's Operation Epic Fury. Hezbollah had successively joined the fight both related to the Palestinian and the Iranians.

As reports circulating that Iran and the U.S. inch closer to a possible framework to end the war, Israel hits Beirut’s southern suburb in a serious breach of the ceasefire. pic.twitter.com/lXuvPnXOtL

— Ali Hashem علي هاشم (@Alihashem) May 6, 2026

If Israel returns to unleashing a series of massive bombing waves on the capital Beirut, which many ordinary Lebanese have chaffed at - it could have serious repercussions for the ultra-fragile Iran ceasefire across the Gulf. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 20:05

The Supreme Court Needs A Clock

Authored by Frank Miele via RealClearPolitics,

The Supreme Court decides cases. But it also decides when to decide them – and that timing can be just as consequential as the ruling itself.

Now we have a real-world example.

In a closely watched decision last week, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-black congressional district violated the Constitution, holding that race cannot be used too heavily in drawing political maps, even to comply with the Voting Rights Act.

Reasonable people can agree with that conclusion. The Constitution promises equal protection under the law, and the idea that race should not dominate redistricting decisions is consistent with that principle. For years, the court has struggled to reconcile the Voting Rights Act with the Equal Protection Clause. This ruling moves that balance in a more colorblind direction.

But the substance of the ruling is only part of the story.

The timing matters too.

The case was argued twice – first in March 2025 and again in October – and for months it sat undecided, even as the justices’ questioning during oral arguments suggested that a conservative majority was likely to strike down race-driven congressional districts. Some observers questioned whether the delay reflected more than ordinary deliberation, given how the timing of the ruling could affect the current election cycle. But whatever the reason, states were left waiting, unsure how the law would ultimately be interpreted.

Meanwhile, political calendars did not stop. In an unusual step, both Republican- and Democrat-led legislatures have been working to redraw congressional maps mid-decade, partly in response to political pressure from President Trump. But they could not know whether the court’s interpretation of the racial component of redistricting would change – or how.

Each state was left without certainty as the midterm elections approached. Louisiana was already in the middle of absentee voting for congressional elections when the court’s ruling invalidated its district map. The governor said he had no choice but to suspend the House elections in response. Even prior to the ruling, Mississippi’s governor signed an executive order calling for a special legislative session to redraw districts 21 days after the much-anticipated decision. And in Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis had already positioned lawmakers to act, placing redistricting on the agenda of a special session, ensuring the state could move quickly once the court ruled.

Most other states are scrambling to determine how the court’s ruling impacts them, especially during the current election cycle. For the most part, redistricting is not instantaneous. It requires legislation, legal review, and often additional litigation. Every week that passes reduces the number of states that can realistically redraw maps before the midterms. A decision handed down earlier in the term might have produced one set of outcomes. A decision handed down now may produce another.

That is not a criticism of the ruling itself. It is a recognition that timing is not neutral.

Most Americans focus on what the court decides. Far fewer consider the significance of when those decisions are released. But in a system where legal rulings intersect with political processes, timing can shape outcomes just as surely as legal reasoning.

Whether intentional or not, the court’s discretion over timing creates an opportunity for influence that extends beyond the law. A delay – even one rooted in ordinary deliberation – can affect elections, legislative agendas and, ultimately, who holds power. But what if the delays are intentional? Might the minority justices in the Voting Rights Act decision knowingly have withheld their dissents as a tactic to postpone the ruling’s impact? We will probably never know, but even the possibility suggests the need for reform.

But how could reform occur? In most areas of our government, the people hold the key. Members of Congress must answer to voters. Presidents face elections and constant political pressure. When procedures break down or public confidence erodes, those institutions are pushed – sometimes reluctantly – to adapt.

The Supreme Court is different.

Its members serve for life. Its internal processes are self-governed. Congress can shape the court at the margins – including aspects of its jurisdiction – but it does not and realistically cannot control the internal mechanics of how and when the court issues its decisions. Nor can the president. That is a function of the separation of powers.

The result is an institution largely insulated from the kinds of external pressures that force reform elsewhere in government.

Within that insulation lies a vulnerability.

Timing, left entirely to internal discretion, can become a form of influence. A majority controls when a decision is issued. But the minority, through the drafting of concurring and dissenting opinions, can affect how long deliberations continue. A chief justice may have procedural tools that shape the pace of the court’s work, but up until now, most chief justices have given court minorities considerable discretion to determine their own timelines.

We have seen how that discretion operates under pressure. In the Dobbs case, a draft majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade was leaked weeks before the final decision was issued. During that period, the court faced intense public pressure, protests at the homes of justices, and heightened security concerns. If a majority justice had been removed from the court before the decision was finalized, through intimidation or even assassination, the result would have been a tie, effectively nullifying the ruling as a national precedent. Yet the court did not accelerate its timetable.

That is not a judgment about the justices’ motives. It is a reflection of the reality of the court’s process. A final decision does not emerge until the full cycle of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions is complete. That means the timing of a ruling is not controlled by the majority alone. It is shaped by the pace of the court as a whole.

The power to affect that timing – even under extraordinary circumstances – rests entirely within the court itself.

That is precisely why a clock is needed. It would not assume bad faith. It would remove the opportunity for timing itself to become a form of influence.

If timing can shape outcomes, then timing should be governed.

The solution need not be complicated. Chief Justice John Roberts could adopt a formal internal rule requiring that opinions – both majority and dissenting – be finalized within a defined period. That period could be measured from oral argument or from the circulation of the majority draft. It could allow for limited extensions in extraordinary cases.

But it would establish a principle – that decisions will be issued within a reasonable and predictable timeframe.

Critics will say that such rules could rush deliberation. That concern is real. But delay has costs as well – costs that are now visible.

A court that wields immense power over the direction of the country should not also wield unlimited discretion over when that power is exercised. It’s time the Supreme Court recognized this reality – and governed itself accordingly.

Frank Miele, retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Mont., is a columnist for RealClearPolitics. His book “The Media Matrix: What If Everything You Know Is Fake” is available from his Amazon author page. Visit him at HeartlandDiaryUSA.com or follow him on Facebook @HeartlandDiaryUSA and on X/Gettr @HeartlandDiary.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 19:15

Treasury Weighs Allowing Billionaires To Donate Stock To Trump Accounts

Here's something that could go incredibly well or spectacularly wrong: The Trump administration’s flagship program for American children - the so-called Trump accounts - could soon get a dramatic upgrade. White House and Treasury Department officials are in internal discussions about letting the world’s wealthiest individuals donate shares of their companies directly into the accounts, a move that would transform the program from a conservative cash-and-index-fund vehicle into a potential magnet for high-growth tech stock.

The accounts, formally known as Section 530A accounts, are scheduled to begin accepting contributions on July 4. They were created as part of last year’s major domestic policy legislation and have already attracted billions of dollars in philanthropic pledges. Until now, the rules have been strict: only cash, invested exclusively in diversified index funds. That restriction may soon change, according to the NY Times. 

Brad Gerstner, founder of Altimeter Capital and the architect behind the 530A program, has been leading the push. Gerstner, who received a public shout-out during the president’s State of the Union address in February, has been meeting with administration officials to explore the idea. The proposal would allow ultra-wealthy donors to contribute appreciated stock - for example, Elon Musk donating Tesla or SpaceX shares, or Nvidia’s Jensen Huang contributing Nvidia stock - without triggering capital-gains taxes.

Proponents see two major upsides:

• Children could gain exposure to tomorrow’s biggest winners. Instead of modest, steady returns from broad index funds, millions of young Americans might own slices of high-growth companies for decades.
• Donors could give more, and more efficiently. By donating stock at its current fair-market value, billionaires would receive a full charitable deduction while avoiding the capital-gains tax they would owe if they sold the shares first.

Interest is already surging. At this year’s Milken Institute Global Conference, multiple ultra-wealthy individuals and companies signaled they are preparing to give. The $6.25 billion pledge from Michael and Susan Dell in December is seen as a bellwether; many others are now expected to follow.

Internal Debate and Risks

Not everyone inside the Treasury Department is comfortable with the idea. The original design deliberately limited investments to diversified index funds precisely to shield children from the volatility of individual stocks. Allowing direct donations of single-company shares - especially highly valued, concentrated tech holdings - could expose millions of young account holders to wild market swings over 18-year horizons.

Critics inside the building are also raising longer-term concerns:

• Will today’s hottest stocks still be dominant decades from now?
• Could Trump accounts become a de facto “lock-up” vehicle for billions of dollars’ worth of founder shares that cannot be sold for years?

Changing the rules would almost certainly require legislation to amend the statute. Some officials are exploring whether new Treasury guidance or even an executive order could achieve a similar result, but legal experts say a statutory fix is the cleaner path.

The conversations are still at an early stage, but momentum is building quickly. With July 4 rapidly approaching and billions already pledged, the White House faces a clear choice: keep the program simple and conservative, or open it up to the full force of private-sector wealth creation - and risk.

Either way, the Trump accounts have already succeeded in one important respect: they have turned children’s long-term investing into a national conversation. The question now is whether that conversation will include the world’s most valuable stocks.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 18:50

Scientists Reveal Time Travel Could Work

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Researchers have proposed a theoretical approach that could allow messages to be sent into the past using principles from quantum mechanics. Indeed, it could be happening right now already!

The concept does not enable physical travel through time but focuses on information transfer through causal loops at the quantum scale.

The work, accepted for publication in Physical Review Letters, builds on ideas from general relativity and quantum entanglement. 

A technique inspired by the film Interstellar suggests a new way of communicating backwards in time, but it could help improve conventional communication systems as well https://t.co/FXQTvhE6uE

— New Scientist (@newscientist) May 2, 2026

It draws a parallel to the causal loop depicted in Christopher Nolan’s film Interstellar, where a message is sent to the past via a watch.

Co-author Dr Kaiyuan Ji, a researcher at Cornell University, told New Scientist: “The father remembers how the daughter decodes his future message. So he can instruct himself on what is the best way to encode the message.”

Professor Seth Lloyd of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) described an earlier related experiment from 2010: “It was the equivalent of sending a photon a few nanoseconds backwards in time, and having it try to kill its former self.”

Lloyd noted the practical challenges: “Nobody’s built an actual physical, closed time-like curve, and there are reasons to think it’s very hard to make one. But all channels are noisy.”

The paper explains how prior knowledge of how a message was decoded could improve encoding in the future: “The father, who is in the future, may retrieve his memory of past events he has witnessed, even including the daughter’s decoding of the message which he is about to send! It would thus not be surprising that he will consult his memory of the daughter’s decoding when encoding his message, so as to maximize the efficiency of the communication.”

According to the research, this approach could make backward time messages clearer than those sent forward in normal time, even over noisy channels. 

The team suggests the idea could be tested experimentally at the quantum level and may offer insights into communication through noisy systems.

The concept relies on closed time-like curves (CTCs), paths allowed by general relativity where something could theoretically return to its own past. 

On macroscopic scales, creating such curves would require immense energy, but quantum systems may permit analogous effects through entanglement.

Quantum entanglement links particles so that the state of one instantly influences the other, regardless of distance. 

The research explores whether this “spooky action at a distance,” as Einstein called it, could be interpreted as information moving backward in time.

While the proposal remains theoretical, it highlights that nothing in current physics strictly forbids certain forms of time communication at the quantum scale. 

Future experiments could help clarify how information behaves in such systems and potentially improve real-world technologies.

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 Wed, 05/06/2026 - 18:25

FBI Raids Office And Cannabis Dispensary Of Virginia State Sen. L. Louise Lucas

Federal agents from the FBI executed court-authorized search warrants Wednesday morning at the Portsmouth legislative office of longtime Democratic Virginia State Sen. L. Louise Lucas and at an adjacent cannabis retail business she co-owns, as part of an ongoing federal corruption probe tied to marijuana dispensary operations.

Virginia Senate President pro tempore Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) listens to debate on the state Senate floor in Richmond, Va., on Feb. 17, 2026. Ryan M. Kelly/AP Photo

The raids, which also extended to other unspecified locations across the commonwealth, stunned Virginia political circles given Lucas’s status as one of the state’s most powerful and influential lawmakers. Lucas, 82, who has represented Portsmouth in the Senate since 1992 and serves as President Pro Tempore, was not arrested and returned home by midday, according to her longtime political consultant. No charges have been filed against her or anyone else publicly identified in connection with the searches.

Details of the Operation

The FBI’s Norfolk field office confirmed in a statement that agents were “executing a court-authorized federal search warrant in Portsmouth, Va.” FBI spokeswoman Cassandra Temple told reporters on scene that the bureau was conducting “court-authorized law enforcement activity today” but provided no further details on the targets or allegations.

Eyewitness accounts and news footage described a significant law enforcement presence: approximately 8 - 10 agents in marked uniforms at Lucas’s office in the Lucas Professional Center, with staff ordered outside and prevented from re-entering while agents carried out boxes of materials. At the neighboring cannabis dispensary, known as The Cannabis Outlet (or Cannabis Outlet), SWAT team members arrived with weapons drawn, ordered occupants to exit with hands raised, and placed at least three people in handcuffs before taking them into custody. Lucas arrived in the parking lot shortly after the operation began and told a reporter she had “no idea” what was happening.

A person close to the senator told CNN that agents seized electronics and other items. The investigation, which sources described as having opened during the Biden administration and continuing under the current administration, focuses on possible corruption and bribery related to marijuana dispensary businesses.

Political Context: Redistricting Champion

The timing of the raids has fueled speculation and partisan debate because of Lucas’s prominent role in Virginia’s recent congressional redistricting battle. Last month, Virginia voters approved—by a margin of more than 100,000 votes - a referendum allowing mid-decade redrawing of congressional district lines under certain conditions. Lucas was a leading architect of the effort, which produced new maps that could shift Virginia’s congressional delegation from its current 6–5 Democratic edge to as many as 10 Democratic seats out of 11.

Democrats framed the redistricting as a necessary counter to Republican-led gerrymandering efforts in other states ahead of the 2026 midterms. Lucas was characteristically blunt in public exchanges, responding on social media to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz’s criticism of the maps as a Democratic gerrymander with the words: “You all started it and we fucking finished it.”

"While we await the full facts of the investigation, it must be acknowledged that this FBI raid occurs in the broader context of President [Donald] Trump’s repeated abuse of the Department of Justice to target his perceived political opponents," Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA) posted on X. 

The FBI has not publicly linked the searches to redistricting. Official statements emphasize only that the probe is ongoing and that there is no threat to public safety.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 18:00

NOAA OKs First Deep-Sea Mining Plan For Critical Minerals In Pacific Ocean

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

The Trump administration approved on May 1 its first deep-sea critical minerals exploration application, submitted by North Carolina-based deep-sea mining explorer The Metals Company USA (TMC).

The company expects to find millions of tons of nickel, copper, cobalt, and manganese on the sea floor needed in the United States for electric vehicle batteries, infrastructure, and national defense systems.

TMC applied for the 10-year license last year after President Donald Trump ordered the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to expedite the process of reviewing and issuing the deep-sea permits to “unleash America’s offshore critical minerals and resources.”

“NOAA has determined that this application is fully compliant with the applicable application information requirements,” the agency reported May 1.

The application now moves into the certification stage and will undergo an environmental review process and be open for public comment before a license and permit are issued. TMC USA expects the process to conclude sometime in the first three months of 2027.

TMC is a subsidiary of a larger Canadian exploration firm with the same name that holds rights to what it describes as the world’s largest undeveloped resource of battery-grade nickel, copper, cobalt, and manganese.

“This determination marks an important step forward in NOAA’s transparent, rules-based process, and brings us ever closer to providing the U.S. with a new, abundant and lower-impact source of critical metals,” parent company TMC CEO Gerard Barron said in a statement.

“It reflects the sheer scale of scientific, environmental, and engineering effort and expertise that have been brought to bear on this project over the last 15 years, which provides us with sufficient information to move efficiently and responsibly into commercial operations under NOAA’s oversight,” Barron said.

NOAA determined that the application for an exploration license and commercial recovery permit under the Deep Seabed Hard Mineral Resources Act was in full compliance.

The Metals Company plans to conduct seabed mining exploration within the area beyond national jurisdiction known as the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, which stretches about 4,500 miles between Hawaii and Mexico in the North Pacific Ocean.

The zone is considered “common heritage of mankind” and is administered by the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a United Nations (U.N.) body that manages seabed resources.

The ISA, however, has not yet finalized global rules for the zone, and multiple countries view action in the absence of such rules as a violation of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Engineers aboard Hidden ​Gem inspect the ​top ​of the 4-kilometer-long ​riser system, ​which ​is used ​to ​transport ​collected nodules ​to the surface on compressed air. The Metals Company

The United States pushed forward this year to issue licenses under its own laws instead of waiting for the ISA, as part of a larger effort to amass a domestic supply of critical minerals for national security after China began to restrict global supplies.

TMC’s application and recovery permit covers a total area of 26,000 square miles in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone. The exploration areas are even larger, covering nearly 77,220 square miles.

The company believes the exploration areas contain an estimated 17 million tons of nickel, more than 14 million tons of copper, 2.2 million tons of cobalt, and 380 million tons of manganese.

The application received nearly 300 public comments, with some opposing and some supporting the company’s plans.

The ​Allseas-designed collector vehicle gently ​lifts the loose-lying ​polymetallic ​nodules from the seafloor at ​depths of 4 kilometers ​using water jets. The Metals Company

“I oppose deep-sea mining,” said Suzanne Reid, an individual from Florida. “We should not destroy the ocean’s natural oxygen-producing nodules. Please choose a moratorium to protect our future.”

Commenter James Selke said he thought the project was needed.

“While this project may introduce unavoidable impacts to the deep seabed, the relative area of this license (and the CCZ generally) is very small and isolated in comparison to the vastness of the World’s oceans,” Selke wrote. “The United States should deeply consider the national security impacts of such a project, holistically, rather than simply evaluating the unavoidable, yet mitigatable, impacts as the determining factor.”

NOAA accelerated permitting for deep-sea mining companies this year using a 1980s policy that allows U.S. citizens to explore the seabed to mine critical minerals until the international regulatory regime is in place.

The United States controls seabed mineral resources in the Exclusive Economic Zone and its Extended Continental Shelf, covering over 4 million square miles of submerged land around the Pacific islands, Alaska, and the Atlantic coast.

In ​2022, ​TMC and Allseas ​successfully lifted ​over 3,000 metric tonnes of ​nodules from the seafloor and transferred them ​to the hold of the Hidden ​Gem vessel. The Metals Company

Experts estimate that 43 of 60 minerals listed by the U.S. as critical to the economic and national security of America in 2025 can be found on the outer continental shelf, according to Congress.

The agency released the first images of geologic seafloor samples acquired through a survey project to map and characterize more than 30,000 square nautical miles of federal waters in the U.S. exclusive economic zone beyond the territorial waters of American Samoa in April.

“NOAA’s mapping missions serve as a reminder that ocean exploration is a vital piece of our nation’s economic development,” NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs said in a statement.

The data gathered from the project will enable science-based decision-making to support responsible development, Jacobs said.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 17:40

Indiana Primary: Senate Incumbents Crushed By Trump-Backed Challengers

First rule of politics:  Never ignore the will of your base.  Second rule of politics:  Never make your party and your supporters weaker, or the opposing party stronger. 

In December 2025, 21 Republican Indiana state senators joined forces with 10 Democrats to vote against a Trump-supported bill to redraw the state's congressional map as more favorable to conservatives in the midst of a redistricting battle that could decide the outcome of the 2026 mid-terms.  The decision was viewed by many conservative voters in the state as contrary to the will of the MAGA base and a move that could lead to greater disaster for the country. 

The national agenda to undo the unprecedented damage done by the Biden Administration is already facing significant interference from every angle by Democrats and activist judges.  Conservatives fear it would be further derailed if Democrats take control of the House or the Senate (or both) two years into Trump's last term.  The last thing the nation needs is Republicans with suicidal empathy coming out of the woodwork to add to the chaos.

Given the Republican Party's incessant propensity to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the Indiana GOP/Democrat alliance was predictable but still troubling.  Crossing the aisle these days means siding with the same people who tried to enforce permanent pandemic lockdowns, mass-jailed J6 protesters, initiated open borders, spread transgender propaganda in public schools, etc. 

The era of bipartisanship is dead.

Critics might argue that defiance of Trump is not, in itself, a betrayal of the party as long as it's in the service of greater conservative principles (the idea of "fair maps" being one of those principles).  However, in the end, the voters still decide who best represents conservative ideals.   

A recent decision by the Supreme Court to restrict race-based gerrymandering by Democrats has opened the door to redistricting in a number of red states (similar to redistricting efforts by Democrats in states like Virginia).  The shift brought even more negative scrutiny on Republican incumbents in Indiana, adding to their inevitable and embarrassing defeat this week in the State Senate primaries. 

Republican State Senator Travis Holdman — who lost by over 20 points — isn’t taking it very well.

“Revenge & retribution is not a Christian value.”

All you had to do was listen to your constituents. pic.twitter.com/CW41WrS7Fo

— ThePersistence (@ScottPresler) May 6, 2026

Trump responded to what he referred to as a "RINO" betrayal by endorsing primary challengers, taking on seven of the incumbents running for re-election. His allies (including groups like Turning Point USA) focused considerable funding into these otherwise low-profile races.  Trump accused incumbents of potentially costing Republicans two extra House seats in the Mid-Terms and warned:

"Anybody that votes against Redistricting, and the success of the Republican Party in D.C., will be, I am sure, met with a MAGA Primary in the Spring..."

Trump was not wrong.  Of the seven incumbents on Trump's hit list, five were overwhelmingly defeated in the primaries (some of them had been in office for decades).  The sixth, Sen. Spencer Deery, is hanging by a thread with 3 vote lead after 95% of the vote was counted.  Trump challenger Paula Copenhaver says she expects to win with provisional votes left to be tallied.  If Copenhaver prevails, Trump will have swept away a significant number of anti-MAGA state senators. 

In the lead-up to the race, rumors spread by anti-Trump influencers swirled on social media claimed that MAGA as "all but dead".  They asserted that the voters were "jumping ship" en masse.  Obviously this is not the case.  The Indiana primary results have set the tone going into the Midterms and any notion of an internal conservative revolt has been quashed.  

A new attempt at redistricting in Indiana will not take place until 2027, but is is likely that Trump thought it more important to send a message.  And, it is true that for many years certain segments of the Republican Party have consistently aided the Democrats even though they rarely if ever offer such fair play in return.  Some call it political diplomacy, others call it deliberate subversion. 

In any case, Trump just made it clear that it will no longer be tolerated.       

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 17:20

Will AI Make Us Wonderfully Prosperous?

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

“Any given government program will become the opposite of its name,” Elon Musk said recently.

The rule seems correct.

Think of the Affordable Care Act, the Inflation Control Act, the CARES Act, the War on Poverty, and countless others. They all resulted in the very inverse of how they are named.

That’s some wisdom right there.

Musk holds many libertarian views along these lines and has been a vocal champion of capitalism as an economic system. He famously set out to lead a team to cut $2 trillion from the federal budget. It did not work but not for want of trying.

However, Musk is not always consistent. And he is not always correct.

He also recently wrote the following: “Universal HIGH INCOME via checks issued by the Federal government is the best way to deal with unemployment caused by AI. AI/robotics will produce goods & services far in excess of the increase in the money supply, so there will not be inflation.”

Let’s consider these assertions from the inside out.

Musk claims that AI is going to produce vast goods and services such that it will generate 4, 5, and 6 percent growth. Indeed, if economic growth is going to outpace money supply growth, even in normal times, it will need to be above 6 percent at least. That’s just based on average rates of money growth over the decade. If we want healthy growth beyond that, we’ll need output growth on the level of 9 and 10 percent.

The United States has not experienced growth like that since the 1880s. Data gathering was not quite sophisticated in those days—national income accounting had not yet been invented—so we cannot say for sure. This is just an estimate.

Perhaps it is not far off, however.

We had a bout of explosive innovation: commercialized steel, internal combustion, electric lighting, telegraph and photography, and much more.

That kind of innovation did indeed generate economic growth. The world had never seen anything like it.

Elon is implicitly assuming that artificial intelligence will be the same, a driver of a massive increase in prosperity. There is reason for doubt. We heard the same thing about the digital age. In fact, I was certain back in the late 1990s that the Internet would yield huge increases in productivity that would lead to growth on the scale of the Gilded Age.

That did not happen. We saw the opposite. We’ve been through 30 years of frustratingly slow economic growth. The fruits of the digital revolution were squandered with growing amounts of government debt, regulation, burdensome business mandates, and a litigation explosion. That combination created an enormous drag on what should have been glorious growth.

Recall that in the 1880s, we had no federal regulatory agencies at all. We did not have a welfare state or income tax. The dollar was secured and sound with a gold standard. We had no inflation at all; in fact, the dollar grew in value year by year, something that has not happened once since World War II.

For technological innovation to create explosive economic growth, you need that special ingredient called economic freedom. We are nowhere near as free in economics today as we were then.

Given this history, I’m extremely doubtful of the predictions that AI will give birth to wonderful economic growth anywhere near 9 and 10 percent. I would be very surprised. Indeed, mankind has proven its remarkable capacity for squandering wonderful opportunities to make the world a better place.

AI is impressive but with all new technologies, the hype always exceeds the reality. Remember it was only 10 years ago that everything and anything would “get on the blockchain” and magically become wonderful. Business consultants made bank duping naive corporate managers with this prattle. At some point, it became obvious that the blockchain is useful for specific tasks while the old tech would be fine for most everything else.

I see the frenzy over AI very similarly. Nor do I believe that the home robot has much of a future in our domestic lives.

Factories and shipping, sure, but helping around the house as in the Jetsons? Doubtful.

There is another odd feature to Elon’s argument. He says that all this wonderful but unproven economic growth will be accompanied by widespread unemployment as robots replace humans. This is odd. We’ll never live in a world where there is no work to be done. There is always work to be done at some price. So long as labor markets are free, there will be jobs.

One might suppose, too, that with 10 percent economic growth, there would be more than enough prosperity flowing to hire people for every manner of work. It’s not as if human beings will become useless. AI is great at routine tasks but terrible at judgment and creativity. There will be more, not less, of a market for those skills in an AI/robot world.

Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that the AI revolution will create mass unemployment over the long term. It’s reasonable to expect disruption and dislocation out of many professions. But if the labor markets are free to adapt, the old jobs will be replaced by new jobs.

In the 20th century, we’ve developed an obsession with unemployment, particularly since the Great Depression. The entire reason for this problem traces to controls on the labor market, privileges flowing to unions, restrictions on wage levels, and attempts to keep the market from adapting. High unemployment is a sure sign that the labor market is not free.

In a genuine free market, there would be no unemployment at all simply because it’s the nature of the world always to call forth human labor for some purpose and at some price.

Musk proposes that the U.S. government offer huge benefits in the form of income support for the unemployed. There are now 170 million people in the labor force. If 20 million of them are displaced by AI/robotics and each person is given $100,000 a year, that’s an astronomical expenditure of $2 trillion a year—exactly the amount that Musk sought to cut from the federal budget.

To match that figure with a money supply increase would mean nearly a 9 percent increase in M2 each year, which would certainly be hugely inflationary, all else equal. To stop that inflation, economic growth would have to be 10 percent and higher, which is highly unlikely. As a result, such expenditure would certainly mean a dramatic degradation in the purchasing power of the dollar.

No inflation, promises Musk, but he is likely wrong and the rest of society and the world would be stuck with the results.

Putting all these workers on permanent welfare would stop labor markets from adjusting to reflect new technologies. Why would anyone take a job if he can sign up for a basic income from the taxpayers? Such a proposal is completely contrary to any conception of a free market.

There is another feature here. Putting millions or tens of millions on permanent income support would drain creativity, energy, and productivity from the markets. It would be the greatest subsidy that sloths ever enjoyed. This would be a disaster for the human spirit.

We saw how universal income worked in the COVID years with stimulus payments.

It led to fraud, demoralization, and inflation. Making such a policy permanent would do the same and worse.

Remember the first Musk principle: “Any given government program will become the opposite of its name.”

What this points to is the general tendency to oversell and mask especially in government. It’s the same for universal basic income. It would not and could not be universal and it will degrade the lives of everyone it touches.

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 17:00

Iran Oil Official In Surprise Admission: 'Fate Of Our Refineries Now At Risk' As US Blockade Begins To Bite Summary

• Iran oil sector official admits "serious threat" - telling NYT: "export of our oil and energy and the fate of our refineries is now at risk."

• US Navy jet fires on Iran-flagged tanker trying to reach Iranian waters & port.

• Axios reports that the White House is nearing a preliminary deal with Iran to end the war, as Trump post appears to offer olive branch. Other reports say just hammering out at 'framework' for 'monthlong' talks.

• White House says it expects a response to the latest offer within 48 hours.

• Iran's initial response via media & national security spox: US demands are unrealistic & do not reflect reality, & Axios report based on too much 'speculation'.

• A key caveat of the US offered deal is that Iran would commit to a moratorium on uranium enrichment, & Washington wants a 20-year ban on this; Iran & China FMs coordinate messaging in Beijing, denying Iran's intent to build nuclear bomb.

//--> //--> //--> US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 30, 2026?
Yes 44% · No 56%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

Surprisingly Frank Admission Out of Iran's Oil Sector

An Iranian energy official just conceded something in a surprise admission that the US naval blockade has begun to bite the Islamic Republic's oil industry. According to new reporting in the NY Times:

The blockade has halted Iran’s oil exports, choking off crucial revenues, and the country risks running out of places to store its oil. It is also affecting the import of other goods, forcing Iran to seek alternative routes through neighboring countries and its smaller ports on the Caspian Sea. And the economic pain inside Iran, already dire before the war, is becoming much worse.

“The sea blockade is a much more serious threat than even war, and the current stalemate must be broken because the export of our oil and energy and the fate of our refineries is now at risk,” said Hamid Hosseini, an expert on Iran’s oil sector who serves on the energy committee of Iran's Chamber of Commerce, in an interview from Tehran.

This as Kpler has stated based on its data that since the US blockade took effect on April 13, no Iranian oil-laden tankers have been able to exit the strait. 

"The bottom line is that Iran could run out of storage space in about 25 to 30 days if the blockade is not lifted, according to Homayoun Falakshahi, Kpler’s head of oil analysis," continues the Wednesday report. "Other experts have given different estimates ranging from a few weeks to a month or more." Last month we offered the following, saying a likely 15 days - probably followed with a few weeks left on the clock before the Iranians run out of storage space...

Tehran Timeline: Iran Has 15 Days Until Its Oil Industry Begins Full Shut-Ins https://t.co/21WPtRfINW

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 22, 2026

As for the current Trump blockade strategy, another analyst told the Times, "The blockade really is about putting a financial deadline on the Islamic Republic’s head."

US Jet Fires On Iranian Tanker Trying To Pass

So much for that ceasefire and alleged 'pause' in US naval blockade actions, as things just took another escalatory turn. In this case, a rare live fire incident unfolded Wednesday in Gulf waters as a US jet launched from the Lincoln carrier fired on and possibly disabled an Iranian-flagged tanker, per the officials US Central Command statement:

U.S. forces operating in the Gulf of Oman enforced blockade measures by disabling an Iranian-flagged unladen oil tanker attempting to sail toward an Iranian port at 9 a.m. ET, May 6.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces observed M/T Hasna as it transited international waters enroute to an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman. American forces issued multiple warnings and informed the Iranian-flagged vessel it was in violation of the U.S. blockade.

After Hasna’s crew failed to comply with repeated warnings, U.S. forces disabled the tanker’s rudder by firing several rounds from the 20mm cannon gun of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet launched from USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). Hasna is no longer transiting to Iran.

The Pentagon/CENTCOM statement then emphasized, "The U.S. blockade against ships attempting to enter or depart Iranian ports remains in full effect. CENTCOM forces continue to act deliberately and professionally to ensure compliance." Tehran's response to this will be interesting, and follows prior alleged attacks this week on the UAE.

Illustrative: F/A-18 Hornet and Super Hornet fighter jets, via US Navy 'Framework' Being Hammered Out for 'Monthlong Period of Talks'

Iran's Foreign Ministry has said that Iran's response to the United States has not yet been presented to mediator Pakistan, as the WSJ reports that the US and Iranian sides are currently trying to hammer out a one-page memorandum of understanding which features 14-points. This would "lay out a framework" - the report says, for a "monthlong period of talks to end the war."

Given that agreement cannot even be found on the 'framework' for future talks, it seems the process is not very advanced at all - but is perhaps still back at square one, with headlines in the US way out front, and likely overly optimistic. 

CNN citing the White House: "The White House received positive feedback from Pakistani mediators on Tuesday that the Iranians were progressing toward a compromise." And more from WSJ:

Iran’s mission to the UN said that "the only viable solution in the Strait of Hormuz is clear: a permanent end to the war, the lifting of the maritime blockade, and the restoration of normal passage."

Key Timing of Wang-Araghchi Meeting in Beijing

During Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi's visit to Beijing on Wednesday, China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi pushed for the rapid reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a halt to the fighting. Araghchi echoed the urgency, saying, "Currently, it is possible to resolve the issue of reopening the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible." Wang called for a "comprehensive ceasefire" and stressed that “the international community shares a common concern for restoring normal and safe passage through the Strait," urging swift action.

The coordinated messaging reflects shared economic and strategic interests, especially as US naval actions have disrupted Iranian oil flows to China. Wang also signaled support for Tehran’s position, stating China "appreciates Iran’s pledge to not develop nuclear weapons," while Iran continues to insist its nuclear program is peaceful and maintains its right to uranium enrichment as a matter of sovereignty.

Wang reinforced Beijing’s stance by warning that "a comprehensive ceasefire brooks no delay" and that negotiations must continue, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called on China to pressure Iran to ease its blockade of the strait.

Alarmed Reaction from Israel

An Israeli official cited in Times of Israel said Israel did not know that President Trump was close to a deal with Iran to end the fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, even as global headlines pointed to progress. The official said Israel had been preparing for escalation, reflecting recent reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government was waiting for US approval to resume its aerial campaign following 38 days of strikes under Operation Epic Fury.

US messaging has shifted rapidly. with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday having announced the end of Operation Epic Fury and a pivot to Project Freedom focused on reopening Hormuz, while Trump later declared a pause to allow negotiations. The mixed signals from Washington created confusion as diplomacy and military positioning unfolded simultaneously.

Both Iran and Israel signaled readiness to escalate despite the diplomatic push. Iran warned its "finger is on the trigger," while Israeli military chief Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said forces have multiple targets prepared inside Iran and remain on high alert. He emphasized ongoing coordination with US forces and readiness to resume a broad campaign if fighting restarts.

More Official Iran Denials: Too Much 'Speculation'

The latest response out of Tehran via Tasnim: "Despite claims by US media that Iran and the US are close to a final one-page agreement to end the war, Iran has not yet given an official response to the Americans' final text, which contains some unacceptable clauses."

And separately Iran's ISNA calls parts of the Axios report "speculation" - also reiterating the country has rejected some recent US proposals, as they are "unrealistic". However, an Iranian spokesperson has said that Iran is indeed "reviewing the US proposal to end the war."

Trump Admits: 'Too Soon'

And now a bit of rapid narrative reversal, coming from President Trump himself, after once again a likely premature early morning Axios report with overly optimistic language. Trump's fresh words are via the NY Post:

President Donald Trump said it’s "too soon" to plan peace talks with Iran despite reports of a near deal, downplaying prospects of imminent negotiations in Pakistan. He warned that if Iran accepts terms, hostilities could end and the Strait of Hormuz reopen—but failure to agree would trigger intensified military action.

Indeed the Iranian reaction issued via media reports also suggests this is the case, that all the talk of an agreement being close is premature, and there remains immense hurdles and a long way to go. Axios' Barak Ravid still insists that "the sources said this was the closest the parties had been to an agreement since the war began."

Initial Word From Tehran: Doesn't Reflect Reality

Iranian initial reaction through its media: "What US media outlets are publishing about the details of the negotiations does not reflect the reality of what is happening, according to AI Araby citing Iranian Sources."

"Progress has been made in talks with Washington through Pakistan, but it has not yet reached a level that would lead to an agreement," the statement says. The Iranians are also clearly sticking by their approach which says the nuclear issue is a non-starter and that talks must focus on opening Hormuz and finding a final end to the conflict. "The negotiations are focused on ending the war, not the nuclear issue," the statement in Al Araby continues.

And then the final criticism of Washington's approach: "The negotiations are still facing the intransigent American approach and excessive demands." And further, this: 

Ebrahim Rezaei dismissed U.S. demands as unrealistic, saying Washington won’t gain through conflict what it failed to secure in talks. He added Iran is ready to act and warned of a severe, regret-inducing response to any provocation.

Here is the full statement from the Iranian Spokesperson of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission (via machine translation):

Trump Issues Carrot & Stick

The below is a fresh Trump Truth Social Post on Wednesday morning, warning the Iranians that the Hormuz Strait must be "open to all". However, the president continues, if Tehran doesn't agree then "the bombing starts" and it will be at a "much higher level and intensity than it was before". 

All of this has followed an awkward 24 hours of drastically different signals coming from various top officials of the US administration.

Marco Rubio says the goal of the war in Iran is now to restore it "back to the way it was" before Trump started the war in Iran pic.twitter.com/G1E9qyxMc4

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) May 5, 2026

WH Expects Iranian Response In Next 48 Hours

Axios reports that the White House is nearing a preliminary deal with Iran to end the war. This is based on a 14-point, one-page memorandum that creates a 30-day negotiating window for a broader nuclear and Strait of Hormuz deal and follows President Trump's announcement last night of "great progress" and a "complete and final" deal nearing. 

"The U.S. expects Iranian responses on several key points in the next 48 hours.

Nothing has been agreed yet, but sources said this was the closest the parties had been to an agreement since the war began," Axios wrote in the report.

Here are the key points:

• Iran would commit to a moratorium on uranium enrichment. The duration is still under negotiation, with the U.S. pushing for 20 years, Iran offering five, and sources suggesting 12 to 15 years may be the likely spot.

• Iran would also pledge not to seek nuclear weapons, accept enhanced inspections, potentially halt underground nuclear facility operations, and possibly remove highly enriched uranium from the country.

• The U.S. would gradually lift sanctions and release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds.

• Shipping restrictions through the Hormuz chokepoint and the U.S. naval blockade would be gradually lifted during the 30-day talks. If negotiations fail, U.S. forces could restore the blockade or resume military action.

Axios said talks are being led by Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner with top Iranian officials, both directly and through mediators.

News of this sparked risk on in U.S. equity index futures, WTI fell to the $95-a-barrel handle, and U.S. Treasury yields dipped.

Market Response:

S&P500 Futs

Brent Futs

WTI Futs

UST10Y

BTC/USD

developing...

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 16:45

JPM Tried $1 Million Payoff To Bury Banker's Sexual Assault Claims Before Daily Mail Bombshell

Views on JPMorgan banker Lorna Hajdini's Bloomberg profile surged on Wednesday afternoon.

Why?

The Wall Street Journal has released a new report stating that JPMorgan reportedly offered former investment banker Chirayu Rana $1 million to settle his sexual assault, harassment, and racial discrimination claims against Hajdini before he filed the lawsuit.

Rana's lawsuit was refiled on Monday after being withdrawn for a week. The lawsuit went viral after a Daily Mail report, which was later followed by a New York Post article citing sources who said the bank "found no evidence of wrongdoing" and Hajdini's lawyer, who rejected the claims in the suit.

"The original lawsuit was not withdrawn," said David Kramer, Rana's lawyer. "After filing, the court clerk informed us that the suit required review and sign-off from the judge before being formally filed under a pseudonym. Upon signature by the judge yesterday, the suit was formally filed under a pseudonym."

Rana alleges that Hajdini sexually assaulted him and that co-workers subjected him to racial harassment related to his Nepalese background.

JPM's settlement offer was reportedly intended to avoid litigation and reputational damage. JPM maintains that the claims are baseless.

The report stated that Rana's lawyers did not accept the $1 million offer and later countered JPM with a proposed settlement of $11.75 million.

Rana joined JPM's leveraged finance team in May 2024, filed an internal HR complaint in May 2025, was placed on paid leave, and later left the bank. He then joined private equity firm Bregal Sagemount in October 2025 but was reportedly let go last month.

"If you don't f— me soon, I'm going to ruin you… Never forget, I f—ing own you," Hajdini allegedly said, as detailed in the suit. "If you don't f— my brains out tonight, I'm going to sabotage your promotion."

The lawsuit continued, "She then told Plaintiff to suck her toes, repeating that she would facilitate his promotion and bonus."

Latest on Polymarket:

//--> //--> Chirayu Rana sued?
Yes 80% · No 21%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

 

//--> //--> Chirayu Rana sued?
Yes 80% · No 21%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

 

//--> //--> Chirayu Rana sued?
Yes 80% · No 21%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

Hajdini's lawyers continue to reject Rana's claims: "She never dated this individual, never had a sexual or romantic encounter with him of any kind, and never gave him any drugs. She maintains that his false claims are entirely fabricated and tarnishing her reputation."

Tyler Durden Wed, 05/06/2026 - 16:40