My first day of Spring (yay!) reads:

• Finance Bros to Tech Bros: Don’t Mess With My Bloomberg Terminal: Professional investors spend more time with the computer system than they do with their spouses. So when AI evangelists declared it ‘cooked,’ it was war. A battle of insults and threats has broken out between the tech world and Wall Street. (WSJ)

• Bond Traders No Longer Price In Any Chance of Fed Cut in 2026: Bond traders are no longer pricing in any chance that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates this year after the Bank of England stoked concern that global central banks may need to act soon against inflation. Yields in Europe and the US climbed across maturities, with those on two-year US Treasuries — which are especially sensitive to expectations for Fed policy — higher by 11 basis points to 3.89%. (Bloomberg) see also Demand destruction has begun: The ominous headline comes from JPMorgan’s team of oil analysts, who have been churning out good stuff over the past few weeks. By mid-March, multiple sectors in Asia had shifted into a defensive footing as energy prices spiked and supplies tightened. The retreat in refined product flows is already visible: shipments from the region’s major exporters are down about 30% over the past 10 days versus the five‑month baseline, with preliminary data for the last week pointing to an even steeper 35% drop. The pullback is sharpest in jet fuel (down more than 40%), followed by gasoline (down more than 30%) and diesel (down more than 20%). (Financial Times)

• Trump Wants Powell Out. Powell Is Digging In. Fed chair Jerome Powell says he will stay on the board until DOJ probe ends—and maybe longer. (Wall Street Journal)

• Concierge Nation: Welcome to White-Glove America: The growing bifurcation of the American experience—pay enough and you can skip every line, access every service, while everyone else waits. Two-tier citizenship with a smile. (Financial Times)

• Safe until crisis: What 300 years of wars reveal about government debt safety: Government bonds are widely viewed as safe assets, especially in times of recession and financial crisis. This column presents evidence from three centuries of US and UK history showing that wars and pandemic-scale emergencies have in fact consistently produced large real losses for bondholders, challenging the conventional notion that government bonds are safe assets. Public debt sustainability has returned to the centre of policy debates.  (CEPR)

• Cuba Is Going Dark: Cuba is facing what may be its worst electricity crisis since Fidel Castro’s revolutionaries swept to power 67 years ago. Following weeks of frequent blackouts, the national grid suffered a “complete disconnection” on Monday, according to the energy ministry. Blackouts are getting worse, and on some days the entire island is plunged into near total darkness. (New York Times)

• Meet the Lobbyist Next Door: What do a Real Housewife, an Olympic athlete, and a doula have in common? They’re all being paid by an ad-tech startup as influencers—peddling not products but ideologies. Grassroots lobbying has gone professional, and your neighbor might be a paid advocate without you knowing it. The line between activism and astroturfing keeps blurring. (Wired)

• Anti-Semitism Is Becoming Mainstream: The Michigan synagogue attack is a grim data point in a trend that should alarm everyone—anti-Jewish violence is escalating and moving from the fringes to the mainstream.  (The Atlantic)

• Trump is bombing the global economy: An inflationary downturn looms. Donald Trump just TACO’d again, did he? Mere days after insisting he would accept nothing less than “unconditional surrender” from Iran, on Monday he decided “we’ve already won” and that his war would end “very soon.”The geopolitical whiplash is wreaking havoc on oil prices, markets, and whatever’s left of policy credibility. (UnHerd) see also I’m Sick And Tired of All The Winning: A blistering assessment of how Gulf War Three is going—spoiler: not well—and the gap between triumphalist rhetoric and ground reality. Gulf War Three is not going well for the United States. (Drezner’s World)

• How Did Flea Make a Jazz Album? Practice, Practice, Practice. The Red Hot Chili Peppers bassist returned to the trumpet, for a new record featuring Nick Cave, Thom Yorke and a core cast of contemporary jazz luminaries. (New York Times)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview  this weekend with Bill Miller IV, Chief Investment Officer and Portfolio Manager at Miller Value Fund. Previously, he was at Legg Mason Capital Management covering specialty finance + consumer spaces with a focus on high-yielding securities. Miller competed in the Poker World Series Main Event. He began his career working for his father, famed investor Bill Miller III.

 

The rising prices of oil and gasoline after the start of Iran war

Source: Reddit

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Friday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

UK Teacher Banned For Saying Migrants Should 'Respect Our Laws Or Leave'

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A British Physical Education teacher has been indefinitely banned from the classroom after daring to state that migrants should respect Britain’s laws, culture, and way of life — or leave.

Sam Everett taught at Haughton Academy in Darlington for two years. Someone identified his X account, reported him to the school, and triggered an investigation into his political views. 

The independent Teaching Regulation Agency panel that heard the case cleared him of racism and sexism, praised his unblemished teaching record, noted colleague endorsements, and recommended he keep his job. Publication of the findings alone would suffice as punishment, they ruled.

PE teacher who told migrants to 'respect our laws or leave' banned from classroom despite being cleared of racism and it being recommended that he keep his job https://t.co/hkIEUzB91Q

— Daily Mail (@DailyMail) March 18, 2026

However, the Department for Education stepped in anyway and overruled the panel, claiming it had “failed to give sufficient weight” to the seriousness of his conduct. 

Everett is now banned from teaching for life — or at least two years before he can even apply to be reinstated, with no guarantee of success. He lost his job at the academy in June 2024.

The posts that sparked the witch hunt were hardly fringe. In one, Everett wrote: “Completely agree, if you don’t respect our laws, culture and way of life you should leave, nobody is forcing you to stay. We don’t go to other peoples countries and tell them they’re wrong for how they go about things.”

Responding to a claim that “The law of Allah is superior to your laws,” he replied: “Sick of hearing rubbish being spouted by these idiots. They can live in societies where their values are accepted, it isn’t here. Leave. You won’t be missed.”

On a Britain First post about “illegal migrant invaders” in small boats approaching British shores, Everett simply wrote: “Deploy the navy.”

He added: “There’s not an Islamist problem in our country according to some. How many times do we get called racists for being English? These people come from the most intolerable and barbaric places you can imagine and think they have more rights than us. Bore off.”

Other comments included the observation that anyone who uses the word “comrade” deserves to be shipped to Russia, and “Feel like ordering 20 nuggets every time I see these idiots” about pro-Palestine protesters picketing McDonald’s. When asked whether transgender comedian Eddie Izzard should be allowed in women-only toilets and changing rooms, he replied simply: “No.”

The panel found several posts ‘offensive’ and concluded Everett had shown a lack of tolerance. Yet it explicitly rejected any finding of racism or sexism. 

Colleagues spoke highly of him. A subsequent employer who knew the full details said he would rehire him without hesitation. Everett had shown “insight and remorse,” deleted the posts, and closed his accounts. The panel ruled there was “no significant ongoing risk of repetition.”

The panel report itself noted: “Mr Everett had, by his own admission, failed to successfully apply the necessary privacy controls and he was identifiable as a teacher on his profile. Although the school was not referred to, there was plainly enough information available to enable someone to email the school to express concerns about Mr Everett’s posts.”

None of that mattered to the Secretary of State’s decision-maker, who decided a mere published finding would not “satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession.”

This thought crime machinery is regularly being deployed within education in the UK. As we previously reported, a veteran teacher was branded a terrorist threat and referred to the government anti-terror body Prevent for showing basic Trump campaign and inauguration videos in a U.S. politics class. 

Students claimed they were “emotionally disturbed” and the Local Authority Designated Officer warned the views “could constitute a hate crime” and amount to “radicalisation.”

The UK government itself funded a video game called Pathways through the Home Office’s Prevent program that warns 11- to 18-year-olds they risk being flagged as terrorists for researching immigration statistics, blaming migrants for job competition, or protesting the erosion of British values.

And counter-terror police released an ad showing a white teenager having his devices seized and facing a criminal record simply for sharing a link he thought was “funny” but was later deemed “terrorist content.”

The pattern is unmistakable: express mainstream concern about unchecked migration, cultural erosion, or basic law and order, and the state labels you a threat. Meanwhile the small boats keep coming, integration failures mount, and the public is told to stay silent or face professional destruction.

Everett’s case proves the open-borders lobby cannot tolerate even polite pushback. The very existence of these views threatens the narrative that mass migration is an unqualified success requiring zero assimilation.

Britain’s educators are now expected to parrot the approved line or be purged. Free speech and common sense have fallen — and the public’s confidence in the profession is the last thing the Department for Education seems concerned about.

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 Fri, 03/20/2026 - 03:30

Orban Announces Will Block All EU Measures For Ukraine Until Oil Transit Restored

Hungary remains one of the lone Ukraine-skeptic EU/NATO members which actually has a lot of leverage, resulting in bolder and bolder pronouncements being issued by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of late.

He has newly made clear this week that Hungary will block all EU summit decisions in Ukraine's favor until oil Russian flows resume. There's ongoing controversy centered on the contested Druzhba pipeline and the central European nation's vital flows from Russia.

"We would like to get the oil, which is ours, from the Ukrainians, which is now blocked by the Ukrainians, I did not support any kind of decision here, which is in favor of Ukraine ... [as long as] the Hungarians are not able to get the oil which belong to us," Orbán stated.

Obran has already blocked a proposed €90 billion ($103 billion) loan for Ukraine as well as efforts to slap new sanctions on Moscow, despite the pleadings, pressure, and interventions from other EU leaders.

"I will never support any kind of decision here which is in favor of Ukraine," Orbán made clear at an EU meeting Thursday. "The Hungarian position is very simple. We are ready to support Ukraine when we get our oil, which is blocked by them," Orbán underscored further.

Budapest has accused Ukraine of intentionally leaving the pipeline in a state of disrepair after Kiev alleged that Russia struck it. Ukraine has been charged with seeking to indirectly punish Hungary and squeeze its energy supplies.

But Orbán has accused the Zelensky government of playing 'games':

According to EU officials, Ukraine has recently accepted technical and financial assistance from the EU to repair the pipeline. Kiev however said that the necessary repairs would take another month and a half.

"Without getting that oil, all the households and Hungarian companies will go [into] bankruptcy," Orbán said. "It's not a joke. It's not a political game."

Russian oil shipments to Hungary and Slovakia via Druzhba were first halted after the Jan. 27 airstrike in question on equipment and infrastructure in western Ukraine. But in the wake of this, Ukrainian media and officials have positively boasted of recent actions which harm the two EU members Hungary and Slovakia.

For example, one Ukrainian official in late February described on a drone attack on Russian energy infrastructure, "long-range SBU drones caused a 'bavovna' (explosion) at the main oil pumping station 'Kaleykino' near Almetyevsk in Tatarstan. It receives oil from Western Siberia and the Volga region and mixes it before sending it for export. The station is a key hub for supplying raw materials to the 'Druzhba' oil pipeline."

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/20/2026 - 02:45

Russia Benefiting From US-Iran War While Impacts On China Are 'Complicated': Analysts

Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times,

Operation Epic Fury presents Russia and China with a “mixed bag” of potential opportunities, but neither appear poised to take advantage of the United States’ “distraction” with Iran, according to analysts with the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

That, however, could change if the United States cannot quickly degrade the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz to allow commercial shipping to resume, and secure with Israel a convincing victory in decimating Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons, they concurred.

“Ultimately, this comes back to ... the duration of the war being key,” CSIS Geopolitics and Foreign Policy Department Chief of Staff Will Todman said during a March 16 “State of Play” presentation in Washington, summarizing views from Russia expert Maria Snegovaya and China Power Project Director Bonny Lin.

Snegovaya said while Russia has accrued short-term benefits from the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, a battlefield advantage against Ukraine is not among them.

“Ukraine has passed through the worst, hopefully,  this winter,” she said. “It’s spring now, so it’s a little bit easier for them to survive Russian attacks. Also, Russian attacks have similarly slowed down somewhat in the recent weeks, although it doesn’t mean that they will not resume at high intensity quickly.”

President Donald Trump lifted sanctions on Russian oil when he issued a 30-day waiver on March 12. Moscow has pocketed more than $7 billion in increased oil sales since, Snegovaya said.

But that’s hardly “a game-changer” for Russia considering it has a $50 billion deficit in its 2026 budget and is still moving forward with plans to cut at least $25 billion from its annual spending plan, she said, an indication that “Russian officials do not really anticipate this to radically alter its economic situation” unless the strait remains hazardous for an extended time.

Snegovaya said it would take weeks, if not months, for Russia to boost oil production to truly profit from sanctions being lifted and noted banks in India, for instance, are hesitant to “make payments” for Russian oil that may not be delivered once the 30-day waiver expires.

Iran’s value to Russia, she said, is serving as a disruptive force against U.S. interests in the Middle East and, while it is providing intelligence to Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin could threaten to send sophisticated weapons to Tehran as leverage in dealing with the Trump administration in extending the sanctions waiver or in sustaining support for Ukraine.

Snegovaya noted Russia, along with China, abstained from voting in the March 11 U.N. Security Council condemning Iran for attacking its Gulf state neighbors, adopted in a 13–0 vote.

But unlike China, Russia opted to participate in planned naval exercises earlier this year, she said, noting there are reports that newly minted Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, named to succeed his father—killed in the Feb. 28 decapitation strike that kicked off Operation Epic Fury—as Iran’s “supreme leader,” is convalescing from wounds in Moscow.

“I think it was a Kuwaiti paper that said that, and—maybe I shouldn’t say this—but they’re not always extremely driven by facts,” Todman said.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi with Djibouti's Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Mahamoud Ali Youssouf upon his arrival at the diplomatic institute in Djibouti on Jan. 9, 2020. -/AFP via Getty Images

China: It’s ‘Complicated’

Lin, who heads the CSIS China Power Project, said how the war affects China is “complicated” since it receives 25 percent of its crude oil imports from Iran, but she dismissed fears it will seize the moment to invade Taiwan while the United States remains in conflict with Iran.

“I think, usually, pundits are too quick to link whatever the United States does to Taiwan,” she said. “There is a link, but it’s important to remember China has its own set of calculations for Taiwan that isn’t just based off whether the United States can defend Taiwan or not.”

Lin said the planned late-March meeting between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping is far more important to China than Iran. Trump said on March 16 that he’s requested the meeting be delayed “a month or so.”

“So I think the reason why China has not directly engaged with the United States on Iran is, I think, they want to keep these issues separate,” she said.

China has more at stake in the region than oil imports, Lin said, noting that “since 2019, it has invested nearly $90 billion in LNG facilities, ports, various different projects, power grids, petrochemical projects” across the region. Its exports to the Middle East grew nearly twice as fast as its exports to the rest of the world in 2025, according to the Institute for Energy Research.

“So as Iran is retaliating” in attacking Gulf state energy infrastructure, “it’s also impacting China’s overall investment in the region,” she said.

But it’s unlikely to send warships to aid a U.S.-led effort to shield commercial ships from attack in the strait, Lin said. Even though it has two destroyers stationed in Djibouti on the Bab el-Mandeb Strait linking the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, and is building a “dual-use” port in Gwadar on Pakistan’s Arabian Sea coast.

There are several reasons for this, she said, noting China has avoided formal defense commitments to Iran, has been “distancing itself” from the regime in Tehran, and continues to purchase 90 percent of the discounted, sanctioned oil Iran produces with Chinese flagged or contracted tankers still moving up to 12 million barrels of crude through the strait a day.

She said in analyzing internal Chinese commentary on the war, contrary to being pleased to see the United States expending expensive air-defense munitions such as THAAD anti-ballistic missile systems and Patriot air-defense systems to knock down Iranian drones, many are “suspicious” that the Trump administration is sending Beijing a message.

“For example,” Lin said, “I’m seeing Chinese experts write, ‘Well, why did the United States and Israel have to [use] so many advanced capabilities against a medium-sized power like Iran? Well, maybe because the United States wants to exercise the capability so they can ... demonstrate a real world exercise of it, so they can use it later against China.’”

Lin said other analysts in China are “saying, ‘This is the second major operation the United States has conducted this year, first against Venezuela, second against Iran. And for both of these countries, they are critical suppliers of oil to China.’ So, yes, it is not directly against China right now, but it could be used to indirectly contain China.”

From China’s perspective, “I don’t think they’re seeing these conflicts as completely separate. And as a result, I don’t think the first thing that comes to China’s mind, or leading Chinese experts’ minds, is, ‘How do we take advantage of the situation?’ It’s more of, ‘To what extent is this situation going to negatively impact China?’”

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/20/2026 - 02:00

Out Of The BDC, Into The CLO: World's Largest Private Credit Fund Repacking Loans As Bonds Hoping To Find New Investors

When a motley crew of private credit loans (mostly to software companies) are all mixed in and thrown together into a messy melange known as a Business Development Company, then quietly all go sour and spark a redemption run, what's the frazzled investor to do? Why take them out of the melange, put them into a different wrapper, changing nothing except the name and pretending everything is now somehow different. 

That's what Blackstone is about to do. According to Bloomberg, the firm's flagship private credit fund is planning to sell bonds backed by a broad swathe of its $82.5 billion of assets. 

BCRED, the world’s largest business development company, is looking to finalize the collateralized loan obligation (CLO) deal early next week, the Bloomberg sources said. Proceeds will be used to repay some existing debt, they added which the company desperately needs at it was recently flooded with redemption requests which amounted to a whopping 7.9% of its flagship private credit fund, more than the statutory limit of 7%.

Regular readers are of course familiar with BCRED: the Blackstone fund earlier this month took the unusual step of asking some of its senior leaders to pitch in $150 million to help fund elevated redemption requests rather than cap investor withdrawals like some of its private credit peers. Still, BCRED is a regular CLO issuer, and the latest sale was planned months ago, one of the people said.

The transaction highlights an increasingly popular option for BDCs to raise debt from Wall Street investors. Last year, at least three BDCs issued private credit CLOs for the first time, including Apollo Debt Solutions BDC, Morgan Stanley Direct Lending Fund and Kohlberg & Co LLC. 

CLOs package up corporate loans into bonds of varying size and risk. The biggest bond in the BCRED deal, rated AAA, is expected to price at an interest rate premium of 1.3 percentage points, the people said. That’s a similar level to deals BCRED issued last year.

Of course, whether one calls it a BDC or a CLO, the assets are identical - in both cases private loans, many of which have been mismarked and/or gone source - and the only different is what are the liabilities wrapping them.

And since the appears to be lots of confusion, we will write a detailed primer on the topic this weekend. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/20/2026 - 00:55

The Ultimate Race Hoax

Authored by Scott Greer via American Greatness,

It was a case that captured the nation’s attention 20 years ago. In March of 2006, a black stripper accused three members of Duke University’s nearly all-white lacrosse team of rape. The only evidence for the crime was her own testimony, which changed repeatedly. It didn’t matter that every other eyewitness disputed the rape claim. An opportunistic district attorney, a vengeful cop, a feminist nurse, and a ravenous media were all ready to believe the Duke lacrosse rape, and that was enough to make it “truth” in the public eye for much of 2006.

The Duke lacrosse hoax offered a preview of America’s coming social conflicts in the age of woke. Imagined racial grievance, feminism, and belief in “white privilege” all fueled this story. The media was all too eager to buy it. Journalists wanted to believe it was true to show that white men are the real menace to society. It was a story too “good” to pass up. It was also a story too “good” to be true.

No lessons were learned from the Duke lacrosse case. We would see similar lies play out with Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and Rolling Stone’s infamous “A Rape on Campus” story. While District Attorney Mike Nifong paid a high price for his reckless pursuit of the case, the media and activists who aided him suffered no real consequences. Hate hoaxes would flourish as a result.

The story is best explained by the 2007 book, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case by Stuart Taylor Jr. and K. C. Johnson.

The tale begins with a bored group of youth looking to entertain themselves while stuck on campus during spring break. The lacrosse team, unlike other Duke students, couldn’t vacation with the time off. They had games and practice during the holiday, leaving them in Durham. To blow off steam, the team decided to hire strippers for a party. Too many of their teammates were underage and couldn’t go to a strip club, so they decided to bring the entertainment to a house where a bunch of lacrosse players lived. They requested two strippers, one of whom was Crystal Mangum.

Mangum was a disturbed woman with a rap sheet and a history of mental illness and substance abuse. She had even made up a gang rape allegation in the past. On the night of March 13, 2006, she showed up severely inebriated after a weekend of having sex with multiple men. She and the other stripper didn’t perform their duties well. The lacrosse men quickly became disgusted with their antics and regretted the $800 they had spent on the night’s entertainment. The guys argued with the other stripper, Kim Roberts, over what was happening. Tempers flared, and Roberts decided to leave with Mangum, who could barely stand on her own. Roberts called the lacrosse guys “short-dicked white boys,” which prompted one of them to call her the n-word. That action would be used to establish the entire lacrosse team as deranged racists.

Roberts would call the police on the lacrosse team over the slur, claiming she was just passing by the house when they began calling her names. She drove away with Mangum, who was too intoxicated to communicate properly. Roberts took her passenger to a local grocery store and got security to call 911 on the disturbed Mangum. When taken to the hospital, Mangum faced the possibility of being involuntarily committed. But she found her opportunity to avoid that fate when she was asked by a nurse if she had been raped. She replied yes, which gave her a ticket out of involuntary commitment.

Thus began the rape hoax. The examining nurse was a feminist activist who fully believed Mangum’s story and found enough evidence to support the theory due to evidence of sexual activity. However, there was no evidence of physical harm done to her. Her word, supported by the feminist nurse, was enough to get police involved. The case was taken up by Durham police sergeant Mark Gottlieb, an officer with a notorious reputation for going hard on Duke students. Administrators had even requested that Gottlieb be reassigned due to his harsh crusade against students.

But this would be the man who investigated the case, and he was committed to proving these privileged lacrosse players had committed an unspeakable crime. Gottlieb was even willing to rig the evidence to fit the picture he wanted to paint. He would later write “supplemental case notes” months after the event took place to make them seem like they were taken right at the beginning of the investigation. This is just one example of his dubious practices that would be used to crucify the lacrosse players.

Gottlieb’s behavior, however, looks like that of an Eagle Scout compared to DA Mike Nifong. Nifong is the true villain in this story. He was the interim Durham County DA in 2006, filling out the rest of the term of the previous officeholder who had been appointed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. He was given that appointment under the assumption he would not run for a full term. He instead decided to run for a full term anyway. Things did not look good for Nifong’s chances to keep the job in early March 2006. The Duke lacrosse case offered him a lifeline. The racially charged case allowed the white lawyer to win over black voters in the diverse district. He tied his political survival to Mangum’s tall tale. It would help him win the election, but at the price of his disbarment and removal from office in the following year.

Nifong immediately condemned the Duke lacrosse team in public, calling them a “bunch of hooligans” and saying it was his mission to prevent Durham from being known as a place where “a bunch of lacrosse players from Duke rap[ed] a black girl.” His over-the-top comments were taken as scripture by the press, which incited a frenzy to declare these young men guilty of rape. Nancy Grace was one of the worst offenders. Night after night, Grace and other cable news hosts would insist these lacrosse players committed an evil, racist act against an innocent black girl. Mangum went from a mentally ill, drug-addled criminal to a hardworking mom and model college student in the media.

There was a strong desire to believe that preppy white boys were out raping innocent black women. It’s a case one would find depicted regularly on Law & Order and other popular movies and TV shows. The myth mattered more than reality.

Several Duke professors and left-wing students embraced the story. In an ad in the student newspaper, 88 professors endorsed a message that claimed the elite university was a hotbed of racial and sexual violence. Many of these professors would go on to punish lacrosse players in their classes with bad grades and insulting comments. Faculty were at the forefront of decrying the “white privilege” and “systemic racism” that allegedly emboldened these white men to rape a black woman. Virtually none of these professors would apologize for their rush to judgment after the case fell apart.

Mangum’s story was fishy from the beginning. Roberts, her fellow stripper, called the story a “crock” when initially questioned by police. Mangum showed no signs of bruising and was only alone by herself in the house for a few minutes. Her description of her attackers didn’t match anyone on the lacrosse team. She claimed three short, chubby men assaulted her. The three who were eventually charged did not match her descriptions. Her story imagined the event was a bachelor party, complete with her assailants referencing a wedding the next day. None of that was true. She also kept changing the story, adding more participants, alleging more physical force on her, and other new details each time she retold the story. It was obvious she couldn’t keep her story straight. But Nifong, Durham’s black community, and the national media chose to believe her anyway.

Mangum could not even consistently identify the three suspects in photo lineups. The three charged players—David Evans, Collin Finnerty, and Reade Seligmann—were basically chosen at random. Seligmann and Finnerty had alibis putting them outside of the house when the alleged rape could have occurred. That didn’t matter. They were still charged with the bogus crime.

Durham’s black community was incensed by the rape allegation. Numerous threats of violence were issued against Duke students, with even a few assaults occurring against white students by local blacks. One of the accused, Reade Seligmann, had to drive away from a local car wash after attendees recognized him and began violent gestures at him. Some local activists didn’t even care whether the players were innocent or not. They felt they should go to prison anyway as payback for all the allegedly innocent black men who went to jail. The NAACP was heavily involved in the case and pressured the judges to issue gag orders to prevent the truth from coming out about the players’ innocence.

But the truth finally did come out, slowly but surely. 60 Minutes, in contrast to much of the media, conducted a thorough investigation of the case in the fall of 2006, including interviewing the accused. The CBS show discovered that the case was filled with holes, and it was likely a hoax. But it still took months for the accused to be absolved. North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper eventually dismissed the case and declared the lacrosse players innocent in April of 2007.

While the players were accused of stonewalling investigators, they in fact did the opposite. Ever since the criminal investigation was launched, players fully cooperated, provided DNA, and even were willing to subject themselves to polygraph tests. Their story remained consistent and clear throughout the ordeal, unlike Crystal Mangum’s. But due to the motivations of others, it still took over a year to definitively rule that the players were innocent.

Fortunately, Nifong’s career was ruined by the case, and he even spent a short time in jail for his behavior. Mangum avoided charges of filing a false police report due to her mental illness, but would later serve a lengthy jail sentence for murdering a boyfriend. She was released from prison earlier this month. In 2024, she finally admitted she made up the whole thing.

The damage was already done when three innocent men were falsely accused and charged with a crime. The truth coming out only prevented further injustice. It didn’t wipe away what had already been done.

The worst part is how this story kept being repeated over the coming years. America bought the lie about Trayvon Martin and how he was an innocent black boy shot in the back. We experienced riots over the Michael Brown lie, with millions falsely believing he had his hands up when he was shot. Countless numbers of young men had their lives ruined during the 2010s campus rape hysteria, most notably culminating in Rolling Stone’s libelous “A Rape on Campus.” Our whole country was torn apart by the mythology surrounding George Floyd’s death.

Sometimes the truth emerged in these cases, just like it did with the Duke lacrosse hoax. But many still chose to believe the lies over the truth. The former supported their prejudices about our society, while the latter undermined them. It’s why hate hoaxes kept being perpetuated and believed. The Left and the media wanted to believe that evil white racists are doing terrible things to minorities on a regular basis. The demand for these cases far outstripped the supply of actual occurrences.

Thanks to social media and the decline of the establishment media, it’s harder for such a hoax to go unchallenged. But the desire to believe such nonsense is still present within our society. Belief in white privilege and systemic racism is much more mainstream than it was in 2006. We will still see hoaxes promoted to demonize middle America and support calls for change.

It’s up to conservatives to ensure these hoaxes are quickly debunked. We can’t trust the mainstream media to do the job.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 23:30

Pakistan Outraged At Being Called An Emerging Missile Threat To US By DNI Gabbard

The US declared Pakistan a major non-NATO ally all the way back in 2004, but relations have soured at various points since then. But given Pakistan does indeed remain a close regional ally, which is also nuclear-armed, the country is outraged at Wednesday's Senate Intelligence hearing wherein Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard raised some eyebrows over a new 'missile threat'.

She for the first named the South Asian country along with Russia and others in the 2026 Annual Threat Assessment Report, citing that Pakistan's missile program could be a future threat to the Untied States.

"Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan have been researching and developing an array of novel, advanced, or traditional missile delivery systems with nuclear and conventional payloads, that put our homeland within range," Gabbard told the intelligence committee.

She then specified: "Pakistan's long-range ballistic missile development potentially could include ICBMs with the range capable of striking the homeland."

Pakistan ballistic missile, file image/Arab News

While other countries listed - especially Iran and North Korea have long been named by US officials as 'rogue' actors or else part of an 'axis of evil' (going back to the Bush era) - this appears to be the first time Pakistan was openly named in such a high-level annual briefing before Congress. Perhaps Washington is thinking that the conservative Islamic country is just 'one coup away' from becoming highly dangerous.

Gabbard also described more broadly the South Asian region as a place of "enduring security challenges" - warning that India-Pakistan relations "remain a risk for nuclear conflict." At the moment, Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan under the Taliban are in a state of active hot war, though there have been reports of a shaky ceasefire.

Pakistan is angry at being singled out, and has communicated its objections to Washington:

On Thursday, Tahir Andrabi, spokesman for Pakistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said: "Pakistan categorically rejects the recent assertion by a United States official alleging a potential threat from Pakistan’s missile capabilities."

Pakistan's strategic capabilities are "exclusively defensive" in nature, he said, and are "aimed at safeguarding national sovereignty and maintaining peace and stability in South Asia."

The foreign ministry official further explained, "Pakistan’s missile program, which remains well below intercontinental range, is firmly rooted in the doctrine of credible minimum deterrence vis-a-vis India. In contrast, India’s development of missile capabilities exceeding 12,000 kilometres [7,460 miles] reflects a trajectory that extends beyond regional security considerations and is certainly a cause of concern for the neighborhood and beyond."

At times in the last couple decades, the US has accused Pakistan of cooperating with terrorists, and for failing to reign in ISIS-type operatives in its restive northwest province - a region which has long proven a headache for the whole region.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 23:05

Why Is Australia Not Already Rationing Fuel?

Authored by 'Fast Eddy' via 'The World according to Fast Eddy' substack,

I’m an Australian Wholesale Fuel Trader

An insider's explanation of what is going on...

The commentary below was lifted from a Reddit post.

Other than the issues I have already raised in previous articles How Is Iran Blocking and Mining Hormuz? And so it begins.... the question I am asking after reading this analysis is:

Why is Australia Not Already Rationing Fuel?

I’m the pricing, sales and trading guy at one of Australia’s fuel importers. It’s been an insane two weeks on the trading and supply front, but now it’s the weekend and my brain is still wired running at 150%.

My partner asked me last night in detail to explain the overall situation. I thought I’d share my knowledge here and happy to answer questions. I’ll respond when I can throughout this weekend!

Note we don’t have any retail sites so I can’t really speak for retail fuel. I also obviously can’t share anything proprietary.

1. Australian fuel is 90% imported these days, mainly from Asia.

The Asia refiners are more competitive and have economies of scale that compete Australian refineries, that’s why most of our have closed. Australia for over a decade has not met the internationally agreed 90-day buffer of fuel reserves in the country, we sit a roughly 32 days of stock. This is the fault of both Labor and Liberal governments in the past. Note: it’s easy to store crude oil but much more difficult to store refined products like diesel and petrol, they are flammable and go off after a few months of sitting in a tank. It is very expensive to build brand new storage tanks, which is why no commercial personal is doing it - this is why we import so much oil throughput.

2. Not all crude oils are the same.

The Asian refineries are set up to refine medium sour crude (far more experienced chemical engineers, or Google, can give you more info of the API and Gravity ranges of crude oil types). This is mainly produced by the Middle East. It is very hard to replace this crude oil into the refineries at short notice. So it doesn’t matter how many barrels the US releases from its crude stock piles as that is a “light sweet crude” (and is prohibitively expensive on the ocean freight component). Asian refiners have been cancelling contracts and governments like Thailand and China are banning diesel and petrol exports to keep these critical fuels in their own countries. Therefore, it has gotten very expensive to source alternative cargos to supply Australia (something called the MOPS Premia has skyrocketed. So has backwardation).

The best analysis I am reading is a soon as the Middle East waterway (Strait of Hormuz) opens up, it will still be 1.5 to 2 months before the Asian refiners are running at full capacity again.

Ed: Australia - and I am sure most countries - do not have stored fuel that will last this long even with rationing.

The critical mining industry in Australia runs on diesel...

If this situation does not urgently get resolved, we will soon be dead men walking.

Meanwhile, the world sits on it’s hands watching and refusing to act. 

Am I alone in thinking there is something wrong with this picture?

Note you can’t just shut down a refinery, these things are designed to run 24/7. Shutting down completely puts equipment at serious risk of damage, therefore refiners are choosing to run at say 50% capacity to delay to running out of crude oil feedstock and not damage refinery equipment.

3. While Brent crude has gone from say 70 to 100 USD/barrel (ie roughly 40%), refined products like diesel, petrol and jet fuel, have spiked far higher relatively speaking.

This mainly comes down to the regional supply and demand issues being experienced in Asia. Note Australian fuel is roughly priced as Singapore fuel + ocean freight + local costs. Therefore you can’t just take the increase in Brent crude (main type of crude oil) and assume that’s the increase in cost to the fuel that you buy. Diesel seems to be facing far worse supply constraints compared to petrol aka gasoline (and jet fuel even worse than that). I’ll link a great article at the end on why jet fuel is spiking so much more (it’s a free article on substack)

4. Regional Australia wholesale diesel All the oil majors (Mobil, BP, Ampol etc) are understandably holding onto their own product to keep supplying their own retail stations (this was the case last week at least).

They stopped selling in the wholesale market. The oil majors years ago largely exited regional Australia and delivery services to farms etc. Independent wholesale business filled in this gap. They do not import their own fuel, but rather buy on the wholesale spot market (where I sell to them), and therefore usually have no term supply guarantees from BP, Ampol etc. Given regional Australia still runs on diesel fuel for all farming, food transportation etc, this is why you hear regional Australia having a fuel crisis more than the cities. This is why I believe that the electrification of key transportation supply chains is critical for Australia’s future. So for Chris Bowen, our Energy Minister, saying he is working with the majors to secure more diesel that is dedicated/prioritised for regional communities, I have no idea how the government are practically going to pull that off (price caps? Allocated volume with some sort of government mandated fixed price? Who knows how it’ll work, but it sounds nice in a speech).

5. Conclusion/generic thoughts

This situation isn’t resolving itself anytime soon unfortunately. There is a saying commodity trading - “high prices cure high prices and low prices cure low prices”. When the price sky rockets, demand drops off where possible or supply is increased. When there’s super low prices, supply reduces as said suppliers can’t stay in business selling at those low prices. In this current high prices situation, supply can’t increase right now, so the only lever is to reduce demand. If the price is kept low by governments, demand would stay around, you would have no more supply coming into Australia, and you would eventually run out of fuel.

Neither is a good situation, but running out of fuel entirely is probably worse than having some fuel at a high price, which theoretically destroys some flexible demand.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 22:40

Comey Subpoenaed For Alleged 'Grand Conspiracy' Against Trump

Former FBI Director James Comey has been slapped with a subpoena as part of a wide-ranging case against Obama-Biden-era officials who helped frame Donald Trump is a Russian asset in a "grand conspiracy." 

The grand jury subpoena, issued last week by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, focuses on Comey’s role in the preparation of the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that concluded Russia sought to influence the election in favor of Trump and against Hillary Clinton. The probe, which Trump allies have described as examining a “grand conspiracy” against the president, has issued more than 130 subpoenas in total, according to Axios, citing people familiar with the matter.

The investigation is being overseen by a grand jury in Fort Pierce, Fla., under U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who previously presided over the classified-documents case against Trump that was dismissed in 2024. The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason A. Reding Quiñones, a Trump appointee, is leading the effort.

Representatives for Comey declined to comment on the subpoena. The Justice Department doesn’t typically confirm or comment on ongoing grand-jury proceedings.

The move marks a significant escalation in scrutiny of Obama-era officials who were involved in the early stages of the Russia investigation, including the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe and the special counsel inquiry led by Robert Mueller. Comey, who was fired by Trump in May 2017 amid the Russia probe, has long been a central figure in debates over those investigations.

Democrats and former officials are pissed, of course, and have described it as politically motivated retribution against adversaries from the 2016 election cycle. Supporters argue it addresses unresolved questions about potential abuses of authority or procedural irregularities in how the Russia inquiries were conducted.

The Intelligence Community Assessment, which Comey helped oversee as FBI director, has been a point of contention for years. Trump allies have questioned aspects of its sourcing and conclusions, particularly regarding the inclusion of material related to the controversial Steele dossier.

This development unfolds against a backdrop of heightened political and legal tensions in Trump’s second term, with the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi pursuing several high-profile reviews of prior administrations’ actions.

No charges have been announced in connection with the investigation, and it remains unclear what specific information prosecutors are seeking from Comey or how he intends to respond to the subpoena. Grand-jury proceedings are secret, and details are expected to emerge slowly, if at all, absent court filings or official disclosures.

The subpoena to Comey renews focus on one of the most divisive episodes in recent U.S. political and law-enforcement history, with potential implications for how past investigations are viewed and whether additional former officials will face similar demands.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 22:15

SoCal Heat-Wave Prompts Health Warning Of High Bacteria Levels At Los Angeles Beaches

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

Health officials warned that some Southern California beaches may be unsafe for swimming due to elevated bacterial levels this week amid elevated temperatures across the region.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health on March 18 said that visitors should avoid swimming, surfing, or playing in the ocean waters between Malibu and Santa Monica due to bacteria levels that it said exceed state health standards.

“These warnings are issued because recent water samples showed bacterial levels exceeding health standards, which may increase the risk of illness,” the department warned.

The health department did not elaborate on the species or type of bacteria that prompted the warnings.

The warnings issued by the county health department appear to apply mainly to areas near storm drains, restrooms, and creeks.

Specifically, the advisory said the warnings applied to areas within 100 yards up and down the coast from:

• the Culver Boulevard storm drain at Dockweiler State Beach

• the public restrooms at Leo Carrillo State Beach in Malibu

• Walnut Creek at Paradise Cove

• the Wilshire Boulevard storm drain at Santa Monica Beach (north of Tower 12)

• Topsail Street in Venice

• the lagoon at Topanga Canyon Beach in Malibu

• Escondido Creek at Escondido State Beach

• and the entire swim area at Mother’s Beach in Marina del Rey

Advisories were lifted at Inner Cabrillo Beach in San Pedro, the Santa Monica Pier in Santa Monica, the Marie Canyon Storm Drain at Puerco Beach, the Santa Monica Canyon Creek at Will Rogers State Beach near Will Rogers Tower 18, and the Malibu Lagoon at Surfrider Beach, the Los Angeles Health Department said.

Temperatures in Southern California are under a “long-duration heatwave” throughout this week, according to the National Weather Service (NWS). Temperatures are around 25 to 35 degrees Fahrenheit above normal, and a number of daily records will be broken, the weather agency said.

Forecasters say that for March 19 and March 20, temperatures across Los Angeles are set to exceed 90 degrees Fahrenheit, while the weekend will see lower temperatures.

“Numerous and widespread daily and March monthly record highs are likely, with some locations in California already breaking their March monthly records on Tuesday,” the NWS wrote in a bulletin Thursday.

Elevated bacteria at beaches have long been a concern for some groups. Nearly two-thirds of beaches tested nationwide in 2024 experienced at least one day in which indicators of fecal contamination reached potentially unsafe levels, conservation group Environment America said in a report issued last summer.

The group reviewed beaches on the coasts and Great Lakes and found that 84 percent of Gulf Coast beaches exceeded the standard at least once. The number was 79 percent for West Coast beaches, 54 percent for East Coast beaches, and 71 percent for Great Lakes beaches, it said.

The report also said more than 450 beaches were potentially unsafe for swimming on at least 25 percent of the days tested.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 21:00

Bezos Plots Colossal $100 Billion Fund To Transform Companies Using AI: WSJ

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is in early discussions to raise as much as $100 billion for a new investment vehicle aimed at acquiring and revitalizing manufacturing companies through the application of artificial intelligence, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The proposed fund, described in investor materials as a “manufacturing transformation vehicle,” would target companies in strategic industrial sectors such as semiconductor fabrication, defense and aerospace. Bezos has held preliminary meetings with some of the largest asset managers in Asia and the Middle East, though the talks remain at an nascent stage, the Journal said.

The initiative is closely linked to Project Prometheus, the AI startup Bezos co-founded and co-leads as CEO. Launched in late 2025 with $6.2 billion in initial funding—much of it from billionaire himself—the company is developing advanced AI models designed to understand and simulate the physical world.

Project Prometheus, valued at roughly $30 billion following its initial round, is separately pursuing additional capital, the Journal also reported.

The unprecedented surge in investment into artificial intelligence has raised a host of unresolved questions. Is the AI boom a bubble destined to burst? And perhaps more pressingly, how will the world muster sufficient energy to sustain this revolutionary technology amid soaring power demands from data centers?

In an interview at Italian Tech Week in October, Bezos offered an answer to the second question.

The Amazon founder predicted that “gigawatt-scale” data centers—massive facilities capable of drawing power on the scale of entire cities—will begin to be constructed in orbit within the next 10 to 20 years. The billionaire argued that the orbital installations would harness constant, uninterrupted solar energy, free from clouds, weather, or nighttime interruptions that constrain terrestrial operations.

“These giant training clusters…will be better built in space, because we have solar power there, 24/7. There are no clouds and no rain, no weather,” Bezos said during a fireside conversation with Ferrari and Stellantis Chairman John Elkann. “We will be able to beat the cost of terrestrial data centers in space in the next couple of decades.”

Jeff Bezos plans to build a data center in space within the next 10+ years.

Unlimited solar energy available 24/7, space is an ideal location for data centers.$AMZN AWS is set to make major moves out there. pic.twitter.com/KJCEO973eQ

— Bourbon Capital (@BourbonCap) October 3, 2025

The concept of orbital data centers has gained traction among tech giants as Earth-based facilities devour electricity and water to cool their racks of servers. Continuous sunlight and zero weather make space an appealing option - at least in theory.

But Bezos acknowledged there are serious hurdles ahead: maintenance and upgrades would be far more difficult in orbit, rocket launches are costly, and any failure could wipe out billions in hardware in a flash.

Still, the Amazon founder insisted that as launch costs fall and technology improves, the economics will eventually tilt in space’s favor.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 20:35

Super Micro Co-Founder Arrested In Alleged $2.5 Billion Nvidia Chip Smuggling Scheme

Federal prosecutors have charged a co-founder of Super Micro Computer Inc. and two associates with participating in a scheme to divert roughly $2.5 billion in advanced Nvidia chips to China, according to an indictment unsealed Thursday afternoon. The charges mark a notable escalation in Washington’s effort to police the flow of high-end artificial-intelligence hardware, shifting focus from overseas resellers to individuals with direct ties to U.S. technology firms.

The indictment alleges that the defendants obtained restricted graphics processors - used to train large AI models - and routed them through intermediaries to obscure their ultimate destination. U.S. export rules bar the sale of the most advanced chips to China without a license, citing national-security concerns.

U.S. prosecutors have charged three men - senior executive Yih-Shyan “Wally” Liaw (the co-founder), Ruei-Tsang “Steven” Chang, and Ting-Wei “Willy” Sun - with conspiring to divert billions of dollars’ worth of advanced U.S.-made AI servers to China, bypassing strict export bans.

The servers (packed with powerful restricted Nvidia chips) are banned from sale to China without special government approval because of national security risks. No licenses were ever obtained. Authorities say the group used a combination of third-party entities and altered shipping documentation to bypass those restrictions. Details on the volume and value of the shipments weren’t immediately available.

How the Alleged Scheme Worked:

• The group used a company in Southeast Asia as a front buyer to place huge orders with a California-based U.S. manufacturer.
• Once the servers arrived in Southeast Asia, they were quickly repackaged and secretly shipped to customers in China through a network of brokers.

Cover-Up Tactics:

• Fake documents claiming the Southeast Asian company was the real end-user.
• When audits happened, they staged warehouses with non-working “dummy” replica servers.
• One defendant allegedly posed as a lawyer during a U.S. government inspection.
• Text messages show they knew the rules were tightening but rushed shipments anyway (e.g., “We need to speed these up before May 13!”).

They've been charged with three counts; Conspiracy to violate the Export Control Reform Act, Conspiracy to smuggle goods from the United States, and Conspiracy to defraud the United States (impairing Commerce Department licensing and enforcement).

The case places an unusual spotlight on Super Micro, a Silicon Valley company that has emerged as a key supplier of servers configured with Nvidia processors for data centers and cloud providers. The inclusion of a co-founder raises questions about whether the alleged activity reflects isolated conduct or broader compliance gaps, though prosecutors haven’t accused the company itself of wrongdoing.

Shares of Super Micro fell sharply in extended trading following reports of the charges, reflecting investor concern that the case could disrupt relationships with customers and suppliers or invite additional scrutiny from regulators.

A Persistent Weak Point

U.S. officials have spent the past several years tightening export controls on advanced semiconductors, aiming to limit China’s ability to develop cutting-edge AI systems with potential military applications. Yet enforcement has lagged behind policy.

Investigations and industry disclosures have repeatedly shown that restricted chips continue to reach Chinese buyers through a web of resellers and transshipment hubs in Asia. The result is a gray market that has proven difficult to eliminate, even as Washington expands blacklists and licensing requirements.

The latest case suggests a shift in strategy. Rather than focusing primarily on overseas networks, prosecutors appear increasingly willing to pursue individuals closer to the source of supply - where access, knowledge and documentation can be harder to disentangle.

"The conduct by these individuals alleged in the indictment is a contravention of the Company’s policies and compliance controls, including efforts to circumvent applicable export control laws and regulations," Supermicro said in a statement. "Supermicro maintains a robust compliance program and is committed to full adherence to all applicable U.S. export and re-export control laws and regulations."

This isn't the first time Super Micro has made news for shady practices. Back in 2020, the company (and its then-CFO) were slapped with a $17.5 million SEC settlement for years of classic accounting gimmicks - prematurely booking revenue on servers that were still sitting in warehouses, shipping incomplete units, and all the usual channel-stuffing tricks that inflated profits by hundreds of millions. Fast-forward to 2024, and short-seller Hindenburg dropped a bomb accusing Supermicro of ongoing related-party deals tied to the CEO’s family in Taiwan/China, more revenue-recognition games, and enough red flags that Ernst & Young quit as auditor and the DOJ opened a criminal probe.

High Stakes for the AI Supply Chain

The chips at the center of the case are among the most sought-after components in the global technology industry. Nvidia’s high-performance processors underpin everything from generative-AI models to advanced analytics systems, and demand has surged as companies race to build out AI infrastructure.

That demand has also created incentives to circumvent restrictions. Industry executives have privately acknowledged that once chips leave the U.S. or authorized distributors, tracking their final destination becomes challenging.

Related:

2 Chinese Nationals, 2 Americans Charged With Smuggling Nvidia Chips To China

For Super Micro, the episode comes at a pivotal moment. The company has benefited from a boom in AI-related spending, positioning itself as a fast-growing provider of specialized server systems. Any perception of compliance failures could complicate that trajectory, particularly if customers or partners reassess risk.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 20:10

NASA May Shrink Boeing's Moon-Mission Role While Handing SpaceX Core Rocket Responsibilities

President Donald Trump's NASA chief could soon announce Boeing's diminishing role in returning astronauts to the Moon, while leaning heavily on Elon Musk's SpaceX rocket company to do the heavy lifting.

Boeing's Space Launch System (SLS), originally the rocket backbone of the Artemis mission, would no longer carry the Lockheed Martin-built Orion crew capsule to the Moon. Under the new plan, SpaceX's Starship would take the lead.

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman plans to meet with the companies working on the Artemis program next Tuesday, including Boeing, SpaceX, and Blue Origin, to discuss progress and current paths forward. Sources close to the program said any significant changes could face immediate Congressional scrutiny.

"NASA is committed to using the SLS architecture through at least Artemis V, which is necessary to support both human landing system providers, and their associated acceleration plans to return American astronauts to the Moon," Isaacman said in a statement. "We're incredibly supportive of both our HLS providers and their plans to accelerate America's path forward to the moon," Isaacman added.

SpaceX will ultimately deliver millions of tons to the Moon to build a self-growing city there and same for Mars

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 19, 2026

If Isaacman does boot SLS from the core rocket during the launch of the Orion crew capsule to the moon, it would be a massive blow to Boeing, which has been mired in setbacks ranging from Starliner capsule issues to SLS launch delays. Notably, Starship still lacks a fully successful orbital flight.

The effort to swap SLS for Starship shows Isaacman's urgent push to accelerate Artemis timelines (target: 2028 landing) after years of delays and cost overruns, with SLS missions costing over $4 billion each.

Isaacman has also been weighing alternatives for the HLS on the Moon from both SpaceX and Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin - both of which hold multibillion-dollar contracts to develop Moon landers for Artemis.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 19:45

Minnesota Audit: State Agency 'Accidentally' Blocked Kickback Investigation Into Autism Services

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A state agency erred when it blocked autism-services kickbacks from being investigated—a decision based on the agency’s flawed, decades-old definition of “fraud,” according to a Minnesota audit released March 17.

A view outside the Minnesota State Capitol building in Minneapolis, Minn., on June 20, 2020. Stephen Maturen/Getty Images

That was the key finding of the state’s Office of Legislative Auditor, a state watchdog that conducted a two-year special review. The autism-services program that auditors examined is among many health and welfare benefits that Minnesota’s Department of Human Services runs or oversees.

For months, Minnesota has been a focal point for government-program fraud that could total billions of dollars, with dozens of people, mostly Somalis, having been charged and convicted since 2022. Additional schemes emerged late last year and remain under investigation, with more charges expected, prosecutors have said.

Concerns about fraud have recently expanded nationwide. On March 16, President Donald Trump signed an executive order creating an anti-fraud task force. Saying that other states such as California and New York may have fraud problems that are worse than Minnesota’s, the president directed Vice President JD Vance and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson to root out fraud in federally funded social services and welfare programs.

During the Minnesota audit, investigators told auditors that they believed they lacked “authority to investigate allegations of kickbacks” in the autism program without additional claims of “fraud, theft, abuse, or error.”

The department’s fraud definition, set in 1995, failed to specifically include “kickbacks.” Those are payments or “anything of value” to induce referrals to providers of federally funded health care—a practice that is illegal under federal law, the report noted.

Auditors opined that the department had misapplied or misinterpreted a rule that includes that fraud definition. The agency had the power to amend the rule and correct an erroneous federal-law citation “without any legislative action,” the report stated.

“Had [the department] done so at any point since 1995, it would have had clear authority to suspend payments” to providers who were strongly suspected in kickback schemes, according to the report.

Auditors recommended that the agency amend its fraud definition “to clearly include kickbacks"—or lawmakers should do so, the report says.

James Clark, inspector general for the state Department of Human Services, said the department agrees with that recommendation.

However, in his written response appended to the report, Clark said the standard rulemaking process could take a year or two to complete, unless officials or lawmakers agree to fast-track it.

The autism-services program, which has operated in Minnesota since 2013, aims to provide “early intervention” for autism-diagnosed patients who are under age 21.

Under the program, providers receive reimbursement for services rendered.

Federal prosecutors have brought charges against at least two people for alleged autism-services fraud in Minnesota.

Late last year, prosecutors also said that many more suspects remained under investigation for allegedly failing to provide autism services—or for allegedly paying kickbacks to parents who fraudulently enrolled their children for services they didn’t need or never received.

The number of Minnesota autism-service businesses grew from about 150 in 2020 to more than 500 in 2024. Similarly, the number of autism-service recipients nearly tripled during that period, from about 1,400 patients in 2020 to more than 5,600 patients in 2024.

During that same timeframe, the program’s cost burgeoned from about $38 million to nearly $325 million.

Faced with that dramatic expansion and other concerns, lawmakers strengthened state laws in 2025, the legislative auditor’s report noted.

Auditors examined complaints that the state Department of Human Services’ investigative division received between July 2017 and February 2024.

That sample included seven completed investigations that were handled appropriately, auditors concluded.

However, among 25 complaints that were dismissed without further investigation, three involved alleged kickbacks. The auditors concluded the agency should have done more in those instances.

The auditors’ report does not disclose dollar amounts of the alleged kickbacks, nor does it say whether the faulty definition of fraud could have affected other state-administered programs.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 19:20

Obama Judge Strikes Down Ten Commandments In Arkansas Classrooms

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A federal judge has struck down a law in Arkansas that required the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, finding it violated children’s rights.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks (Obama) ruled on March 16 that not enjoining the law, Act 573, would violate the religious and Free Exercise rights of children in public school.

A copy of the Ten Commandments is posted along with other historical documents in a hallway of the Georgia Capitol in Atlanta on June 20, 2024. John Bazemore/AP Photo

“Act 573’s purpose is only to display a sacred, religious text in a prominent place in every public-school classroom. And the only reason to display a sacred, religious text in every classroom is to proselytize to children,” Brooks wrote.

“Nothing could possibly justify hanging the Ten Commandments—with or without historical context—in a calculus, chemistry, French, or woodworking class, to name a few. And the words ‘curriculum,’ ‘school board,’ ‘teacher,’ or ‘educate’ don’t appear anywhere in Act 573. Accordingly, there is no need to strain our minds to imagine a constitutional display mandated by Act 573. One doesn’t exist.”

John Williams, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement that the ruling shows “Arkansas lawmakers cannot sidestep the First Amendment by mandating that a particular version of the Ten Commandments be displayed in every classroom.”

Brooks had on Aug. 4, 2025, preliminarily enjoined the law in certain districts. It went into effect statewide the day after.

Arkansas officials had argued that the law was legal and should not be struck down.

The act was approved by state lawmakers and signed by Republican Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders in 2025.

“The 10 Commandments aren’t just the foundation of our faith—they’re the foundation of every law and moral code in the West,” Sanders said in a March 17 post on X. “That’s why we are appealing this ruling.”

Several other states have recently enacted similar laws.

A granite Ten Commandments monument stands on the grounds of the Texas Capitol in Austin, Texas, on May 29, 2025. Eric Gay/AP Photo

A different federal judge blocked Louisiana’s law requiring schools to display the Ten Commandments, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in February overturned that decision, finding that the case was not ready to be litigated yet because there were unresolved questions, including how the Ten Commandments would be displayed and whether teachers would reference them during classes.

Dissenting judges in that case pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1980 decision striking down a similar law in Kentucky.

Lawsuits are ongoing against a Texas law, signed in 2025, that required public school classrooms to feature the Ten Commandments. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in one of the cases earlier this year.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 18:20

US Fast-Tracks Billions In 'Emergency' Arms Sales To Gulf, Bypassing Congress

On the one hand President Trump and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth have declared that America is 'winning' against Iran, having destroyed its navy and air defenses, and having seriously degraded its missiles - but on the other the admin has put in for a more than $200 billion supplemental request to Congress to fund the war.

It seems Congress will likely eventually sign off on this gargantuan figure - for an 'excursion' which should end 'soon' we are told by Trump - given that even the effort to pass so much as a War Powers resolution gets repeatedly stymied. 

Still, the US administration is busy bypassing standard congressional review requirements, on Thursday approving a series of emergency arms sales across the Middle East, at a moment US regional allies are being pummeled by Iranian drones and ballistic missiles.

US military file image

The argument is that Washington's allies are in imminent danger, and given that indeed vital Gulf infrastructure is getting hit quite seriously - new arms have to be rushed over there on an emergency basis.

According to details in Saudi-owned Al Arabiya:

The largest package was approved for the United Arab Emirates, totaling more than $8 billion. It includes the $4.5 billion sale of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), $2.10 billion for FS-LIDS counter-drone systems, $1.22 billion in Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), and $644 million in F-16 munitions, including GBU-39 small diameter bombs and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs).

In parallel, Washington approved an $8 billion deal for Kuwait to buy Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor Radars, significantly enhancing the country’s missile detection and tracking capabilities.

Jordan was also included in the emergency approvals, with a $70.5 million package covering aircraft support and munitions to sustain operational readiness.

Notably, a US base all the way over in Jordan, the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, was struck by Iran in the opening days of the war, satellite imagery showed.

This development of all these newly approved 'emergency' arms and weapons shipments begs the question: is this more evidence that Washington is settling in for a 'long war'?

Day 1: it's going to take a couple of days
Day 20: ok we need 200 billion dollars

— Alon Mizrahi (@alon_mizrahi) March 19, 2026

After all, Trump has given no timeline despite being repeatedly asked, and Israel too is saying the anti-Iran campaign is not even halfway complete. In the end it's certainly not the American people 'winning' here (and they are not going to think so especially at the gas pump either), but the major defense firms.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 18:00

All This Fuss About A Fiat Dollar

Authored by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

Throughout the First World, and, particularly in the US, there is an increasing consciousness that fiat currency, far from being the solution to economic problems, is, in fact, a cause of them.

There are even those who, over the years, have predicted that the continued massive creation of fiat dollars may well lead to price controls, destruction of savings, looting, riots and, possibly, even revolution. A decade ago, such predictions were regarded by most as nonsense. Today, all of these eventualities seem more likely, although there still remains a strong contingent (possibly even a majority) who believe that, “It can’t happen here.”

A Brief History of Colonial US Fiat Currency

At this juncture, with regard to the US, it may be helpful to mention that not only can it happen here… it in fact, already has – back when the US was first created.

Much has been said about the American founding fathers having been “visionaries,” and this is most certainly true.

But how was it that so many people in pivotal positions in late 18th-century America possessed such insight, such inspiration in terms of designing a country whose Constitution was based upon free-market values, and avoided, as much as possible, a central government that had its fingers in the economic pie?

The answer lies in the simple fact that they had not only experienced the outcome of the use of a fiat currency, but had done so in recent memory.

In the 1750s, the use of fiat currency by the colonies (particularly in the financing of military endeavours against the French in Quebec) caused massive inflation. The situation became so dire that Mother England stepped in and called an end to the creation of debt-related promissory notes. There was an immediate return to using coinage.

The result was prosperity. Although the colonies did not yet possess their own coinage, they used gold and silver coins from England, France, Holland and Spain as unofficial currencies. (Note: The word “unofficial” is key here as a free market prevailed and was able to adjust itself, as necessary, with regard to the purchasing value of each form of coinage.)

But this was not to last. When the American Revolution broke out in 1775, the Continental Congress saw fit to “solve” the cash-flow problem by starting up the printing presses. (Once again, war created the incentive to print paper currency.) At that time, the colonial money supply had been some $12 million. Within five years, over an additional $600 million had been created. Whilst this monetary creation initially served as a boost to the economy, the predictable end result was that massive inflation returned, laying waste to the economy.

Then, as now, many people could not understand why the Continental Congress did not simply keep printing until the problem went away.

By the time the war had ended, the newly-formed United States was deeply mired in economic troubles. Although there were those who called for an end to the rolling of the presses, the government did what governments typically do: exert a greater level of force to get the people to use the debased currency. Wage and price controls were created, in addition to stiff penalties for anyone who refused to use the Continental Dollar. Congress declared that, any person shall hereafter be so lost to all virtue and regard for his country as to refuse to accept its notes, such person shall be deemed an enemy of his country.

It may be beneficial to read this simple statement a second time, whilst considering just how timeless and universal it is. It is the position governments typically take whenever they have created a problem that the public have ultimately paid the price for. When the public ultimately realise that they have been victimised, and back off from the government “solution,” they (the public) are described by the government as being “unpatriotic.” In this case, Congress went so far as to describe the public as “enemies.”

Today, Americans have not yet reached this point; however, it should not be surprising if, as the US dollar declines more severely, they are once again described as enemies of the state, should they move away from using the dying dollar in favour of a more stable form of wealth, such as precious metals.

Money in the US Constitution

It was in the immediate aftermath of the 1787 monetary debacle that the Constitutional Committee met to create the Constitution. Having read the foregoing, it should not be surprising to the reader that a primary concern of the American founding fathers was that, in future, neither the state nor the federal governments should have the ability to create fiat currency, period.

Oliver Ellsworth, a Connecticut attorney, stated at the time,

“This is a favourable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischief of the various experiments which have been made are now fresh in the public mind and have excited the disgust of all the respectable parts of America.”

It was under this sentiment that the Committee consciously rejected a recommendation for the federal government to “emit bills of credit.” And, instead, allowed the federal government only to “… coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.”

Central Bank Tug-of-War

It is clear that, in 1787, there existed a true “vision” as to a government’s rightful role in the economy. However, it should be stated that, as early as three years later, in 1790, a move was afoot to create a central bank, modeled after the Bank of England, and that that bank, in addition to having the power to borrow for national interests, would have the exclusive right to issue bank notes.

For another century, a tug of war existed over both the wisdom and the Constitutional legality of a central bank that could issue fiat currency, and this struggle waxed and waned throughout the 19th century. In 1913, a cabal of bankers succeeded in creating the Federal Reserve, and, for the last hundred years, the US economy has been subject to its manipulation. Currency is one manipulation, but the Fed’s manipulation extends beyond currency manipulation.

Back in the late 18th century, the former colonists found themselves in a disastrous economic situation which was a direct result of debt and fiat currency. In 1787, businesses were bankrupted, looting became commonplace, and there was mob violence in the streets. However, the situation was saved by a small group of people who had been given the responsibility to craft the American Constitution. In my belief, the greatness that the US experienced was due, in no small part, to the rejection of fiat currency and a focus on free-market values.

However, today, the American Constitution has largely been abandoned, and the economic debacle of the late 18th century is being repeated. It is conceivable that the present situation is so dire that the US will again see the currency controls and riots that occurred in 1787.

It is left to the reader to consider whether the present situation will generate a movement to re-establish both the word and spirit of that exceptional document – the American Constitution – or whether the powers that be will dig in their heels in favour of their own ability to control both the population and the economy.

The answer could well determine whether the US can rise again as a great nation, or whether it will fall to the wayside.

*  *  *

The above is as old as fiat money itself: when governments print to fund their promises, the public pays through inflation—and when confidence cracks, officials reach for controls and coercion. If you want a clear, practical way to think about protecting your purchasing power as the dollar’s strength is questioned, we’ve prepared an urgent special dispatch featuring legendary investor Doug Casey explaining what the mainstream media won’t tell you about gold. Click here to see the free dispatch now.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 17:40

What Would A Bank Run Look Like Today?

Authored by Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times,

The movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” (1946) features what is today the most famous bank run. It’s film and fiction, yes, but fits with a scenario that has been common for centuries. When the movie came out, the bank runs of 1930–1932 were very much in people’s memory. For older people, they remember the Panic of 1907. Before that, there was the Panic of 1893, the Panic of 1873, the Panic of 1837, and the Panic of 1819.

Panics and banking go together and have for 500 years.

It’s funny that we call them panics, as if people randomly start hurling themselves around in irrational fear. All that’s really going on is that people want their own money and ask for it. Customers grow concerned that the bank—which makes loans on deposits—has overextended and cannot make good on its redemption promises.

It’s a test that the bank passes or not. The bank run is nothing more than a rational check on the soundness of the bank. It’s not “panic” but merely a demand for one’s own property.

The bank run also serves a hugely important market function. The fear of one inspires banks toward prudence. Any attempt to suppress them invariably leads the banking system to become overextended, pushing out leverage beyond a sustainable point. When conditions change, unsound and overextended banks go belly up. This is nothing more than the market at work.

From 1913, with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the driving ethos of banking and monetary policy has been to reduce bank runs and failures. It was to broadcast a message of confidence in the financial system so that people would no longer panic. It did not quite work, however, as evidenced by the vast bank failures of the early 1930s. President Franklin D. Roosevelt even declared a bank holiday to stop them, which didn’t work, so he turned to gold confiscation and devaluation.

All this is background to a note I just received from my own bank. It’s an update to the terms of service. Here is what it says:

“Added a new Section 8(e) (Digital Wires—Transaction Limits) to clarify that, to protect your account, online wire transaction limits may have daily or rolling 30-day restrictions and that we may establish or modify limits on the amount, frequency, or type of transactions you can initiate using our payment services, or your transaction limits may be temporarily reduced or subject to additional restrictions. Subsections following this one have been renumbered accordingly (Sections 8(f)–8(l)).”

Hardly anyone reads updates to terms of service. I’m probably in the 1 percent of customers who even clicked on the link. What it means should be obvious. My bank can restrict my access to money anytime it wants and by any amount. I might want to take it all in cash or move it to another institution. My bank has told me that this is entirely up to them. By continuing to bank with this famous institution, I have implicitly agreed to this.

To be sure, we should be grateful for banks that protect our accounts. That’s fine. What’s not fine is preventing access to money that is ours. It’s hard to know which is which, and while I would not suggest that banks would naturally lie to us, enterprises are not beyond some limited duplicity when financial survival is at stake.

Should I change banks? It’s probably pointless. Every bank, if it doesn’t have this as part of its terms of service, will adopt it anyway. You could say that this means nothing. Maybe that’s right. Or maybe the bank is just preparing for a rainy day that never comes, and so this update to the terms of service is practically meaningless. One hopes so.

But it did get me thinking: How would a bank run look today?

There will be no George Bailey rushing to the Building and Loan to calm the panicked depositors, explaining how the institution works (e.g., “Your money’s in Joe’s house”). These days, banks are not even very busy with customers. Every time I need to go to one, I walk right up to the window because no one is there. Nearly all money flows and banking services are done electronically.

I’m grateful for this change. My monthly bill-paying efforts take less than a minute. My childhood memories of my father on bill-paying day still stick with me. He had a small room off the kitchen that was his office. Once a month on Saturday, he would go inside. The kids knew not to disturb him. He had a stack of bills. He would write checks and put them in envelopes with stamps. With each bill paid, he went to his ledger and balanced the checkbook.

As he watched the family accounts drain more and more with each bill, he would grow ever more frustrated and upset. He made a salary of $14,500 and supported two kids, a wife, a home, and two cars, and we took plenty of vacations. In real terms, that’s about $114,000 today, a full household on one income. We made ends meet, but it was often a struggle, one from which he protected the family.

Our entire lives were being held by the bank.

There were never issues of trust.

I doubt that my father ever considered the possibility.

These days, money flows are throttled in every direction even without banking panics.

Venmo limits unverified weekly sending and spending to $300. Verified accounts allow up to $60,000 per week for payments to others. Outgoing bank transfers are limited to $5,000 per transfer and $20,000 per week as long as it is verified. Zelle’s limits vary by the bank: Bank of America permits $3,500 per day up to $20,000 per month. The others are the same or similar.

If you want to move real money, you have to go to ACH (automated clearinghouse) or FedWire (an improvement over old-style wiring) or get a crypto account and use a stablecoin (which moves $1.2 trillion per month, making it dominant). Regardless, it is not easy, and most depositors do not avail themselves of it.

Banks made ACH rather difficult, with pull-down menus of verified recipients. It can be extremely difficult to get serious blocks of money from here to there already. Mostly we don’t need to, so the system has not been really tested. Most people have no idea how much the system of electronic payments and withdrawals is already throttled.

As for cash, it is mostly out of the question. Your bank will give you the stare-down if you ask for $5,000 and make you fill out some law enforcement forms for $10,000. You dare not attempt to carry this kind of cash through an airport. You will be taken aside and asked to provide a full accounting for it. It’s even true for driving: If you are stopped and searched, you risk everything.

To the original question, what would a bank run look like?

It would involve millions of people simultaneously attempting to max out their withdrawals, perhaps to buy gold. It would be the raiding of ATMs until they are empty, which would take about 30 minutes. All the while, the institutions would assure you that they are fully sound and there’s nothing about which to worry.

The same would continue the next day as the banks doled out allotments as necessary and only for verified purposes. You might have a million dollars in the bank, but it would only be numbers flashing on a screen, interesting to look at but impossible to use. There is simply no way to get to it. And forget going to your branch. They would likely put up signs with the explanation that withdrawals are limited to $1,500 or so.

In other words, a serious bank run today would be a quiet and strangely uneventful financial apocalypse in which money movements would be effectively frozen. The Federal Reserve would get to work flooding the entire system with liquidity, unfreezing withdrawals even if they are still throttled. The new money flooding the system to bail out the banks would result in hyperinflation about nine to 12 months later, after which your money would have lost half its value anyway.

What could kick it off? Could be the default of a financial product. Could be the collapse in commercial real estate or a sudden plunge in artificial intelligence asset valuations. Or it could be nothing other than an online rumor that goes viral. This happened often in the 19th century: One person starts the fear, and it spreads like wildfire.

We will not likely ever see a bank run like we did in past times. That’s not a good thing. The system today provides the illusion of liquidity, but take a look beneath the surface. A genuine financial crisis—which we have somehow avoided even during these tumultuous times—would be a civilizational disaster.

This column is not intended to scare you. It might do that anyway.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 17:00

One Reason This Energy Shock Is Not Like The One 15-Years Ago

Arend Kapteyn, the global head of economics and strategy research and chief economist at UBS, told clients that one key reason the current Middle East conflict-driven energy shock "is not like 2011-2014" will be the absence of a comparable response from the shale patch, suggesting consumers are more likely to bear the brunt of the pain. 

Kapteyn noted that, on an inflation-adjusted basis, oil prices in 2011-2014 were actually higher than they are today, yet the U.S. economy absorbed that shock because the shale boom provided a lift to the industrial base. Soaring WTI crude prices at the time spurred oil/gas companies to increase drilling activity, production growth, and energy-sector investment. This helped create a tailwind for the US' manufacturing base and offset some of the drag from higher fuel costs.

However, this is where the bullish U.S. economic case starts to look a little shaky. As Kapteyn noted, "The oil sector is much less responsive to prices than a decade ago." 

The Trump administration has indicated that the oil price shock is temporary, suggesting shale drilling is unlikely to increase meaningfully or provide much of a tailwind for the manufacturing base.

That means this time, the pain from higher energy prices is more likely to hit consumers directly through weaker spending power, with less offset from booming domestic oil investment.

The shock at the gas pump begins:

We warned:

• $5 Diesel Means A 35% Jump In Prices For US Consumers

Kapteyn continued:

A common question is why current oil prices should be a concern for the U.S. economy when prices were substantially higher in 2011-2014 and growth held up well. Over that earlier period, Brent averaged around $110/bbl—close to $145/bbl in today's dollars, roughly 23% above today's spot prices—yet U.S. GDP growth still averaged just over 2%.

There are, of course, many differences relative to then: today's labor market is weaker, households are more liquidity constrained, and the inflationary impulse is sharper, reflecting a much faster run-up in prices (oil prices never rose more than about 55% year-on-year in 2011-2014, versus close to 100% if today's prices are sustained). But the key difference—and the focus here—is shale.

At the start of 2010, the U.S. mining sector (largely oil and gas) accounted for roughly 14% of industrial production. By 2012-2013, it was generating well over half of total U.S. IP growth, with brief periods in which mining effectively accounted for all of it. After oil prices collapsed in 2015-2016, U.S. mining output rebounded mechanically from a low base—but shale did not return to its pre-2014 investment or rig intensity. Oil production still responds to prices at the margin—via well completions, higher utilization, and productivity gains—but investment has become far less elastic. In other words, if current oil prices are perceived as temporary, the U.S. is unlikely to see anything resembling the 2011-2014 shale-driven supply response to offset the net income erosion that is likely to hit consumers.

Overnight developments, including Israeli and Iranian retaliatory strikes on upstream energy infrastructure across the Gulf area and Qatar's warning that Iranian attacks on its LNG complex - the world's largest - could leave capacity offline for months, if not years, only reinforce the view that global energy markets are set to tighten further. The risk now is a pump price shock, which could begin to weigh on sentiment in the weeks ahead if energy market turmoil persists. At the same time, signs of stress are emerging in credit markets, adding to concerns that the broader economic outlook could deteriorate. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 16:40

Costa Rica's President Cuts Off Diplomatic Ties With Cuban Regime

Authored by Kimberlyh Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Costa Rica’s President Rodrigo Chaves revealed Wednesday that his government has ceased recognizing the legitimacy of Cuba’s communist regime and ordered the Cuban embassy in San José to close.

The Costa Rican embassy in Havana, Cuba, on March 18, 2026. Yamil Lage/AFP via Getty Images

In a press conference in Peñas Blancas during the inauguration of new U.S.-donated mobile drug scanners at the northern border with Nicaragua, Chaves said the decision was a stand against the Cuban government’s oppression of its people.

“Costa Rica does not recognize the legitimacy of Cuba’s Communist regime, given the mistreatment, repression, and undignified conditions endured by the inhabitants of that beautiful island,” Chaves said. “We must cleanse the hemisphere of communists.”

During Wednesday’s press conference, Foreign Minister Arnoldo André Tinoco said the government chose to shutter its Costa Rica embassy in Havana and asked Cuba to remove its diplomatic personnel from San José, while permitting consular services to continue for practical purposes.

The decision comes as the Chaves administration positions itself against perceived leftist influences in the region and transnational crime syndicates. Meanwhile, Costa Rica and the United States increased collaboration on stopping drug trafficking.

Chaves doubled-down on the country’s security infrastructure at key ports, including Japdeva’s Gastón Kogan port, Peñas Blancas, Paso Canoas, and Caldera. Chaves on Wednesday connected the technology’s rollout to his administration’s campaign against organized crime.

Chaves said the new scanners would play a key role in blocking cocaine and fentanyl flows, crediting American support while condemning past domestic setbacks.

Cuba’s foreign ministry said it was informed on Tuesday of Costa Rica’s order for diplomatic staff to withdraw, leaving only consulate staff in place starting April 1. It said Costa Rica offered no justification and called the decision “arbitrary,” claiming it was made under pressure.

“The Costa Rican ​government, which displays a history of subordination to United States policy against Cuba, once again joins ​the offensive by the U.S. government in its renewed attempts to isolate our country,” the ministry said in a ‌statement.

The move follows Ecuador’s decision on March 8 to close its Cuban embassy and declare Cuba’s ambassador Basilio Gutierrez ​and his diplomatic staff “persona non grata,” giving him 48 hours to leave the country.

Cuba’s Foreign Ministry condemned the move, blaming the United States for Ecuador’s decision.

“This is an unfriendly and unprecedented act that significantly damages the historic relations of friendship and cooperation between both countries and peoples,” the ministry said in a statement on March 8.

Tyler Durden Thu, 03/19/2026 - 16:20