Zero Rss

"The Dynamic Has Shifted": Global Automakers Now Bet Heavily On China For Global Expansion Strategies

Foreign automakers are rushing to debut China-developed models at a major auto show, recognizing they can’t afford to lose ground in the world’s largest car market, according to Nikkei.

After years of declining sales, many legacy brands are shifting to an “in China, for global” strategy—using local innovation not just to regain domestic customers, but to compete abroad.

Companies like Volkswagen and Nissan are leaning heavily on Chinese partnerships to accelerate development and integrate advanced tech.

Volkswagen, for instance, is working with Xpeng and Horizon Robotics to build software-driven vehicles and unveiled several new models at the Beijing auto show. It plans to launch over 20 EVs in China this year and up to 50 by 2030. Still, its sales dropped 14.9% in Q1, and it now expects lower long-term volumes. As one executive put it, “The era of super-returns is over.”

Despite setbacks, China has become a source of efficiency. Volkswagen says it has cut EV development time by 30% and slashed some production costs by half. CEO Oliver Blume noted that the country’s rapid innovation “... we can carry over to other processes around the world.” The company is also expanding exports of China-built cars to regions like Asia-Pacific and South America.

Nissan is pursuing a similar “in China, for China, to global” approach, aiming to absorb local technology and turn China into an export hub. CEO Ivan Espinosa emphasized: “The technology, the speed and the cost that we have achieved in the China ecosystem can play a very important role for us.” New models and collaborations have helped Nissan’s China sales rebound, and it plans to export more vehicles globally.

The Nikkei report says that other automakers are following suit. Honda has begun selling a China-made EV in Japan, while Hyundai is expanding local partnerships and model offerings. Even Peugeot and Citroen have returned to Chinese auto shows, signaling renewed commitment.

The broader shift reflects a reversal of roles in the global auto industry. As one analyst observed, “Thirty years ago, Western automakers entered China as teachers… Today, that dynamic has fundamentally shifted.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/27/2026 - 04:15

US Has No Plan To Renew Iranian, Russian Oil Waivers, Bessent Says

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said on April 24 that the United States will not renew the sanctions waivers that enabled buyers to take delivery of Iranian and Russian crude already loaded on tankers at sea.

Bessent said a one-time license covering Iranian oil on the water would not be extended, calling it “totally off the table.” The parallel waiver for Russian oil and petroleum products will also be allowed to end, he said.

“We will not be renewing the general license on Russian oil, and we will not be renewing the general license on Iranian oil,” Bessent said. “That was oil that was on the water prior to March 11. So all that has been used.”

The Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) also on Friday sanctioned Hengli Petrochemical (Dalian) Refinery Co., a Chinese plant that can process roughly 400,000 barrels a day.

“Hengli has played an outsized role in purchasing crude oil from Iran’s armed forces,” the Treasury said in a statement.

The OFAC also sanctioned approximately 40 shipping companies and tankers connected to Iran’s so-called shadow fleet.

The action was executed under Executive Order 13902 and President Donald Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum 2, the framework for the White House’s “maximum pressure” campaign.

“Treasury will continue to constrict the network of vessels, intermediaries and buyers Iran relies on to move its oil to global markets,” Bessent said in the Treasury statement.

On Friday, Bessent also disclosed the seizure of about $344 million in cryptocurrency held in crypto wallets the government has tied to Tehran.

“We will follow the money that Tehran is desperately attempting to move outside of the country and target all financial lifelines tied to the regime,” Bessent said.

Blockchain analysts cited in the report tied some of the wallets to the Central Bank of Iran and to Iranian cryptocurrency exchanges.

Bessent predicted earlier in the week that Iran’s oil sector was close to collapse. He said Kharg Island, the terminal that handles nearly 90 percent of Iran’s crude exports, would run out of storage “in a matter of days,” meaning producers had to shut in fragile wells that are hard and costly to restart.

“Constraining Iran’s maritime trade directly targets the regime’s primary revenue lifelines,” he said.

Bessent said on Wednesday that the maritime oil waivers covering both countries had been quietly extended for another 30 days, noting that at the spring meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, “more than 10 of the most vulnerable and poorest countries” had pleaded for relief as crude prices rose past $100 a barrel.

That extension was executed via OFAC General License 134B, issued April 17, authorizing wind-down transactions involving Russian crude and petroleum products put on vessels by that date. The license is set to expire on May 16. It replaced an earlier authorization that ran out on April 11.

The original waiver, issued in March after the U.S.–Israeli war with Iran led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and a squeeze on global supply, was designed to keep barrels already at sea moving and calm jittery markets.

Bessent said that the administration is also ready to employ secondary sanctions against any country or bank that purchases Iranian oil or holds Iranian funds, noting that it is “a very stern measure.” He said pressure will next be placed on the banks and refiners still conducting business with Tehran.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/27/2026 - 03:30

Where Does Eastern Europe Begin And End? Key Takeaways

• There is no single definition of Eastern Europe. Its borders vary depending on historical, political, and cultural context.
• Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus are almost always included, forming the region’s “core.”
• The eastern boundary is widely agreed upon, but the western edge shifts significantly across definitions.

The maps below use data from various organizations to highlight interpretations of Eastern Europe’s geographical extent.

At a glance, the visualizations - via Visual Capitalist - show a tight core centered on Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, with boundaries stretching eastward into Russia and stopping along a debated western frontier that cuts through Central Europe.

Eastern Europe’s Borders, Defined

Below are major groupings from the UN, CIA World Factbook, StAGN (Germany’s committee on geographical names), and The European Correspondent, the creator of the map.

 

A Region Defined by Perspective

 

Unlike continents or countries, Eastern Europe is not a fixed geographic entity. Instead, its definition has evolved over time, shaped by empires, ideology, and institutions. According to various modern definitions, the region can include anywhere from a handful of countries to over a dozen.

Historically, the term gained prominence during the Cold War, when it often referred to Soviet-aligned nations. This political framing still influences perceptions today.

The Core vs. the Fringe

Despite disagreements, some countries are almost always included:

• 🇷🇺 Russia
• 🇺🇦 Ukraine
• 🇧🇾 Belarus

These nations form the “core” of Eastern Europe across most academic and institutional definitions. Beyond them, the picture becomes less clear. Countries like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic are sometimes included, but are often classified as Central Europe instead.

Research from institutions like the University of Basel highlights how these shifting classifications reflect cultural identity as much as geography.

How Far Does It Stretch?

At its maximum extent, Eastern Europe can span from Germany’s eastern border all the way to the Ural Mountains in Russia. This broader definition may include the Balkans and parts of Central Europe.

At its minimum, however, the region shrinks to just a few countries in Eastern Slavic territory. That these narrower definitions often reflect cultural or linguistic commonalities.

Ultimately, where Eastern Europe “begins” and “ends” depends on who you ask, which makes it less of a place on a map and more of an idea shaped by history and geopolitics.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/27/2026 - 02:45

Reset Germany: Breaking With An Exhausted Ruling Class

Authored by Frank-Christian Hansel via American Greatness,

Germany is not, in the first place, suffering from an economic crisis, an energy crisis, a migration crisis, or a crisis of state. Germany is suffering, chiefly, from a crisis of its elites.

More precisely, Germany is suffering from a crisis brought on by that milieu which regards itself as the country’s morally, intellectually, and administratively legitimate leadership class but which has, for years, sustained a regime of reality-avoidance, self-congratulation, and rhetorical substitutes for genuine action.

The misery of our situation is not that mistakes have been made. Mistakes are part of politics. The real misery is that Germany has produced a class of managerial elites that refuses to change course even when the consequences of its actions lie plainly exposed. That class does not correct itself, because it no longer measures itself against reality; rather, it measures itself against the approval of its own circles. It does not want to be right before the tribunal of reality; it wants to be right before the tribunal supplied by its own milieu.

That is the root of Germany’s decline.

The Federal Republic was once—for all its flaws—a country that drew its strength from a peculiar mixture of sobriety, an ethic of performance, technical reason, institutional discipline, and bourgeois self-restraint. This country was not great through pathos but through seriousness, not through visions but through reliability, and not through moral grandstanding but through quiet competence. That was precisely why it was strong: because it had the capacity to concentrate on what was necessary, instead of losing itself in what was desirable.

Of that Germany, little remains inside the ruling apparatus.

In place of prosaic sobriety, a political-media class has emerged that mistakes governing for pedagogical world-improvement. Its first instinct is no longer to secure, to enable, and to set limits. Its first instinct is to educate, to frame, to therapize, to reinterpret, and to morally cultivate. Its relationship to the citizen is no longer republican; it is curatorial. The citizen no longer appears to this class as the sovereign on whose behalf it works—as Helmut Schmidt once understood the office—but as a problem case: too skeptical, too stubborn, too set in his ways, and too interested in normality, safety, and prosperity.

This is where the real cultural rupture becomes visible.

Germany’s elites no longer distrust merely particular political positions. They distrust ordinary life itself. The desire for normality, the desire for affordable energy, the desire for borders, the desire for safety in public space, the desire for cultural continuity—the desire, in short, that a state should first be obligated to its own—all of this is held in the upper reaches of society to be suspect, unpleasantly banal, and morally backward.

A paradoxical situation has emerged: the more obvious the functional failures of the state, the louder the moral self-celebration of its representatives. The thinner the substance of the country, the more clamorous the professions of stance, diversity, transformation, and responsibility—with the federal president, at the top of the hierarchy, leading the chorus.

We live, accordingly, in a state that announces ever more and delivers ever less. Politics that indulges in historical sermonizing while failing at train stations, borders, schools, the electricity grid, housing, the Bundeswehr, public administration, and internal security—an elite that cloaks its own barrenness with the claim that it, at least, stands on the right side of history. That formula is the real total loss.

For whoever believes himself to be on the right side of history ceases to answer to the present. He replaces examination with conviction, outcomes with intentions, and reality with narrative. From this posture comes the mixture of hypermoralism and state failure that characterizes Germany today. They speak of humanity and lose control of migration. They speak of responsibility and destroy the energy foundations of our industry. They babble about worldly openness and ask us to tolerate the degradation of public spaces. They speak of democracy and exclude millions of voters. They take the word “diversity” in their mouths and drive cultural estrangement in their own country.

This is not accidental. It follows a deeper logic. Those who rule the Federal Republic today have grown accustomed to drawing legitimacy not from performance but from moral elevation. They no longer govern out of their own solidity but out of symbolic self-immunization. Whoever objects is not treated as an opponent but as a disturbance. Whoever points to the limits of what a society can bear is not treated as a realist but as a suspect case. Whoever invokes people, nations, cultural inheritance, sovereignty, or self-interest is not tested argumentatively but ritually delegitimized.

Which is exactly why the opposition in Germany today is, at its core, not simply one more party among others. It is, apart from its internal difficulties and the external attacks against it, the political expression of a surviving cast of mind in this country.

A surviving cast of realism, of the will to self-assertion, and of a sense for reality. It is the form in which Germany still articulates itself politically: the Germany that is not yet willing to let itself be parted from its history, its cultural identity, its industrial reason, and its claim to the normality of the state. We can say it plainly: yes, we are bourgeois dissidents.

This also explains the frenzied state of mind of the establishment. We are not opposed so bitterly because we are irrelevant. We are opposed so bitterly because we touch exactly the point that the ruling cartel must conceal at any cost: that the decline is not fated, but politically engineered; that the crisis does not come from the voters, but from the leadership classes; and that the real scandal lies not in the protest, but in the necessity of the protest—in the necessity of dissent itself.

What has exhausted itself in Germany is not merely a government or a coalition. It is the whole style of governing: a style that dissolves all limits and manages everything at once; that relativizes every binding and sanctions every deviation; that treats national self-assertion as indecent and state overreach as progressive; that subordinates economic reason to climate, legal clarity to a false morality, cultural self-respect to a pedagogy of guilt, and democratic equality to the political firewall. This model is depleted. It has no answer left to reality except to impose further demands on those it governs.

It has, ultimately, no future.

What Germany needs, therefore, is not merely a change of policy. It needs a mental restart—a return to Go—so that a true reset becomes possible. Every renewal begins with a reset. Not with grand programs, but with a rediscovery of what is real. A country must know again who it is before it can decide where it wants to go. It must stop despising itself morally before it can become politically capable of action again. That is where the real task lies.

Germany must—we must—free ourselves from our exhausted elites. Not only in terms of personnel, but also mentally and spiritually. We must find our way back to a politics that distinguishes between one’s own and the foreign, between responsibility and posture, between freedom and paternalism. We must remember that the purpose of a state is not to redeem the world but to protect its own political community. And that a nation which loses the will to self-assertion will, in the end, lose its capacity for freedom as well.

The German reset will therefore not come from the centers of today’s operations. Not from the party apparatuses, not from the editorial offices, not from the committees of a class that is blind to its own failures and seeks refuge in haughty notions of moral superiority. The reset and restart can only come from those places where something of the country’s sense of reality still remains intact: where decline is not celebrated as transformation, where the normal is not dismissed as reactionary, and where Germany is not regarded as a problem but as a task.

That surviving cast of mind, on which the reset depends, still exists. But it is not infinitely resilient.

The question, therefore, is not whether this country needs a rupture. The question is whether that rupture will be organized politically in time—or whether Germany must first pass still deeper through the exhaustion zones of its old elites. In this situation, the opposition is not merely an opposition party. It is the only political force that understands the necessary rupture not as a breakdown to be managed, but as the precondition of renewal.

Whoever truly wants to restart Germany must first have the courage to stop treating this country‘s elite misery as its fate. It was done. And what was done can be undone.

Tyler Durden Mon, 04/27/2026 - 02:00

Hayek, Orwell, And 'The End Of Truth'

Authored by Jonathan Miltimore via Civitas Institute,

In 1942, after fighting in the Spanish Civil War (1936–1937), a disillusioned writer returned to London to write about his experience. It wasn’t just that the fascists in Spain had won and his side—a small, anti-Stalinist Marxist group—had lost. What frightened him was the ease with which truth itself had been erased and replaced by propaganda.

“I saw great battles reported where there had been no fighting, and complete silence where hundreds of men had been killed. I saw troops who had fought bravely denounced as cowards and traitors, and others who had never seen a shot fired hailed as the heroes of imaginary victories ... and I saw newspapers in London retailing these lies and eager intellectuals building emotional superstructures over events that had never happened.”

The writer was George Orwell, and the quote appears in his book “Looking Back on the Spanish Civil War.”

The disconnect between reality and narrative clearly made an impression on Orwell, who worried that “the very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world.” The theme of falsified history and the destruction of truth would resurface in his fictional masterpiece “Nineteen Eighty‑Four,” where “memory holes” swallowed inconvenient facts and the past was rewritten to suit the Party’s needs.

Orwell’s book would go on to sell 25 million copies worldwide, and he is today remembered as a prophet for foreseeing a future in which the state’s deliberate power could extinguish truth itself.

Yet few today remember that five years before the publication of “Nineteen Eighty‑Four,” an Austrian economist, in his own magnum opus, explored how the state destroys truth.

Management of Minds

Unlike George Orwell, Friedrich Hayek (1899–1992) is not a household name, but his 1944 classic “The Road to Serfdom” made him one of the twentieth century’s most influential thinkers—despite the book’s inauspicious beginning.

Originally a memo penned at the London School of Economics, “The Road to Serfdom” was rejected by three publishers before finding a home with Routledge. The first run—2,000 copies—sold out in 10 days. Hayek’s book went on to sell more than two million copies and be translated into over twenty languages. Its core argument was straightforward: central planning, however well-intentioned, erodes individual freedom and sets society on a path toward serfdom.

What is often overlooked is Hayek’s deeper insight. Economic control does not remain confined to the economy. Once the state directs production and prices, it inevitably reaches into thought, expression, and belief. For Hayek, the danger of socialism was not only material impoverishment—as seen in the USSR—but the steady expansion of intellectual control.

“... It is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the same ends,” Hayek wrote. “It is essential that people should come to regard them as their own ends.”

Hayek was warning that once the state begins to manage prices and production, it will soon find it necessary to manage minds. When a government takes control over economic life, it must “justify its decisions to the people” and “make people believe that they are the right decisions.”

In doing so, it inevitably begins to decide which opinions and values align with its plan—rewarding and amplifying voices that comply while punishing, suppressing, and silencing those that do not.

‘The End of Truth’

The quotes above appear in Chapter 11 of “Serfdom,” aptly titled “The End of Truth.”

When I first read the book twenty years ago, the chapter didn’t stand out to me. Today it does. After all, we recently lived through a period in which the phenomenon Hayek described played out before our eyes.

The COVID-19 pandemic was a vast economic experiment. The federal government issued a wide array of public health “recommendations” that soon became dogmas. To question the efficacy of masks or social distancing—a policy we learned in 2024 had no basis in science—was to risk being censored or accused of spreading “misinformation.” Scientific debate gave way to official decree, and many who questioned “the plan” or resisted it lost their jobs or were booted from platforms.

None of this would have surprised Hayek, who warned that the plans constructed by central planners must be “sacrosanct and exempt from criticism.”

“If the people are to support the common effort without hesitation, they must be convinced that not only the end aimed at but also the means chosen are the right ones,” he wrote. “Public criticism or even expressions of doubts must be suppressed because they tend to weaken public support.”

Hayek’s chapter is not primarily about censorship. Instead, he argues that the rise of state power will systematically undermine the concept of truth itself and the human pursuit of it.

As governments assert control over economic and social life, facts and evidence are subordinated to political goals—an idea Orwell illustrated vividly when the Party refused to accept Winston Smith’s claim that two plus two equals four.

‘Sometimes, Winston...’

The phenomenon Orwell described was not moral relativism but factual relativism. It was a theme Hayek also addressed. The Austrian economist noted that in totalitarian systems, even basic facts—including mathematics—become subservient to state dogma. He reminded readers that in the USSR and Nazi Germany, ideology had consumed even the sciences. There was “German Physics” and a “Marxist-Leninist theory in surgery.”

“It is entirely in keeping with the whole spirit of totalitarianism that it condemns any human activity done for its own sake and without ulterior purpose,” he wrote. “Science for science’s sake, art for art’s sake, are equally abhorrent to the Nazis, our socialist intellectuals, and the communists.”

Hayek observed that as the state’s power grows, the sciences become corrupted. Instead of advancing truth, they become tools in the hands of planners.

“Once science has to serve, not truth, but the interest of a class, a community, or a state,” he wrote, “the sole task of argument and discussion is to vindicate and to spread still further the beliefs by which the whole life of the community is directed.”

Hayek said the phenomenon he described was most pronounced in dictatorships, but he added that it was not “peculiar to totalitarianism.” Even in free societies, he warned, “the most intelligent and independent people cannot entirely escape [the] influence” of state propaganda. His point was unsettling: susceptibility to propaganda is not limited to the gullible or uninformed—propaganda ensnares the thoughtful and educated as well.

The erosion of truth becomes apparent through a decay in language. Words like “freedom,” “right,” “equality,” and “justice” lose their meaning. Eventually, the word “truth” itself “ceases to have its old meaning.”

“It describes no longer something to be found,” Hayek wrote, “it becomes something to be laid down by authority—something which has to be believed in the interest of unity of the organized effort, and which may have to be altered as the exigencies of this organized effort require it.” (emphasis added)

All of this sounds familiar to readers of “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” who see Winston Smith struggling to hold onto objective truth in a world where truth is dictated by power. Surely two plus two equals four, he pleads.

“Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five,” he is told in the Ministry of Love. “Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder.”

‘The Tragedy of Collectivist Thought’

Orwell was a master, and “Nineteen Eighty-Four” is a masterpiece. But Hayek was describing Orwellianism several years before Orwell gave it fictional form. (It’s also worth noting that G.K. Chesterton used the “two plus two equals four” blasphemy metaphor nearly a half-century before Orwell.)

This doesn’t diminish Orwell’s work. On the contrary, it shows how powerfully he dramatized ideas that Hayek had already diagnosed in theory. (Orwell, it should be noted, read “The Road to Serfdom” and enjoyed it, with caveats.)

Still, Hayek deserves credit for superbly articulating—in one chapter!—the phenomenon that Orwell would translate into a terrifying warning, one that millions of junior high and high school students would receive in English courses.

The economist Daniel Klein recently called “The End of Truth” the most important chapter in Hayek’s most important work. I couldn’t agree more. The chapter serves as a reminder that the human mind is not something to be controlled but something to be unleashed. If we forget this simple lesson, we risk surrendering the very capacity for independent thought that sustains civilization.

“The tragedy of collectivist thought,” he noted, “is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 23:50

Compute Costs More Than Talent In AI

For leading AI companies, the biggest expense is not talent. It is compute.

This chart from Visual Capitalist’s AI Week, sponsored by Terzo, uses Epoch AI data to compare spending at Anthropic, Minimax, and Z.ai across R&D compute, inference compute, and staff plus other costs.

In every case, compute accounts for the majority of total spending, underscoring how capital-intensive it has become to build and serve frontier AI models.

How AI Company Costs Break Down

Despite differences in scale, all three companies allocate the largest share of their budgets to a single category: compute.

The data below compares spending composition across Anthropic, Minimax, and Z.ai. Anthropic’s figures are for 2025, while Minimax’s are from Q1 to Q3 of 2025 and Z.ai’s are for H1 2025.

Across all three AI companies, compute is the main cost center. Epoch AI estimates that R&D compute and inference compute together account for 57% to 70% of total spending, making infrastructure more expensive than staff and other costs in every case.

Among the three, Z.ai has the most R&D-heavy profile, with 58% of spending tied to compute powering model development and training.

Anthropic stands out for sheer scale. Epoch AI estimates the company spent $9.7 billion in 2025, including $6.8 billion on compute alone across training and inference.

Its costs are significantly higher than Minimax’s and Z.ai’s, even if the two Chinese AI companies’ figures were annualized to match Anthropic’s full-year period.

Both Chinese companies release many of their models as open source, meaning the model weights are freely available for anyone to download, modify, and run. This strategy helps them compete with better-funded U.S. labs by building developer adoption at a fraction of the cost.

AI Talent Costs Less Than Chips and Compute

One of the clearest takeaways is that talent costs less than compute in this comparison. Even though top AI labs pay some of the highest salaries in tech, staff and other costs still account for less than half of total spending at each of the three firms.

While the chart focuses on costs, Epoch AI estimates these labs are currently spending around 2–3x more than they generate in revenue, even as some expect economics to improve over time.

How These Estimates Were Built

This dataset comes with a few important caveats. Anthropic’s figures are based on reporting from The Information and are more speculative, while Minimax and Z.ai figures come from IPO filings released in January 2026.

The time periods also differ: Anthropic data is for the full year of 2025, Minimax covers 2025 Q1–Q3, and Z.ai covers 2025 H1. Epoch AI says its expense totals include operating expenses, cost of goods and services, and non-cash items such as stock-based compensation.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out The Soaring Revenues of AI Companies on Voronoi.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 23:25

Charlottesville: The Deceit Underlying The Hoax

Authored by Steve Cortes via RealClearPolitics.com,

For years, Democratic politicians and their allies in the legacy media have spread the damnable Charlottesville Hoax: the propaganda myth that President Trump praised bigots who rioted in 2017 in the Virginia town.

Of course, the opposite is true, as Trump actually said: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”

Now, we learn that the entire hoax of Trump and Charlottesville is, itself, built upon another grand lie. The media and people like Joe Biden have continually pushed the narrative that some big, organic gathering of hateful Americans descended upon Charlottesville and represented some larger threat to the republic itself. But it now turns out that the “Unite the Right” rally was organized and financed by the highly partisan, left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center.

In a sweeping 11-count indictment, the Department of Justice and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche charge the advocacy group with criminal defrauding of donors and “manufacturing the extremism it purports to oppose by paying sources to stoke racial hatred.”

The charges contained in this indictment are akin to the fire department becoming an aggressive criminal arson enterprise, setting fires all across a town, and then demanding more budget and authority to fight the very infernos it set ablaze.

So…the end result is that America endured years of propaganda that convinced a large segment of the population – in contravention of the facts – that their president supported violent hate merchants. Even worse, masses of unskeptical Americans, who consume only legacy media content, believed that the entire America First populist movement was based on bigotry, rather than patriotism.

Now, nearly a decade later, the truth is revealed about the deception that lay beneath that grand lie. There was a layer of duplicity here that is almost difficult to fathom. Only true Marxists could excuse this level of propaganda. The SPLC created hate groups and activities like the Charlottesville rally, and the complicit media then weaponized these concocted offenses by spreading outright lies about Trump’s reaction to the staged events.

I myself played a role in this saga regarding Charlottesville, best explained by a timeline:

March 2019 – After more than a year serving as a contributor on CNN, I grew tired of the near-nightly lies told about Charlottesville during the primetime hits when I was on-air. I tried my best to debunk the myth, but was routinely shouted down, and even “benched” for short periods for daring to tell the truth. So…I wrote a column at RealClearPolitics with the exact Trump transcript and precise citations.

April 2019 – Joe Biden launched his 2020 presidential campaign based entirely upon the Charlottesville lie, claiming that the “bulging veins” of the racists convinced him to run for the White House.

August 2019 – Dennis Prager had read my RealClearPolitics article and had me on his radio show repeatedly to discuss what we branded as the “Charlottesville Hoax.” He also asked me to narrate a five-minute video for his online platform, PragerU, debunking the hoax, which went mega-viral, with well over 10 million total views.

September 2019 – CNN removed me from the air. Rebecca Kutler, now the head of MSNOW and then the director of talent at CNN, expressly told me that the permanent “benching” was because of the Charlottesville video, even though I was clearly allowed to make such online videos, per the terms of my contract. I asked to be released so that I could do TV elsewhere, and she refused. In other words, they paid me to be silent, to stay on the sidelines.

December 2019 – I was released from CNN.

June 2024 – Supposedly objective “fact-checking” site Snopes finally admits the clear reality of the full transcripts and video evidence that Trump never praised bigots at Charlottesville.

April 2026 – The Southern Poverty Law Center was indicted for millions of dollars in secret payments to racists to foment and organize racial unrest and events, including the Charlottesville event itself.

This entire sad saga matters.

• First, it unveils the systemic duplicity of the left in America. Because their demand for “hate” far exceeds the actual supply, they had to pay to manufacture bigotry, so that they then could oppose it.

• Second, the record reveals that lies build upon lies, while the truth remains, inherently, emancipating.

Whatever any citizen thinks of Donald Trump, the entire madness of Charlottesville represents a preventable and despicable tragedy. The actions of the SPLC were criminal and mafia-like. A young woman, Heather Heyer, lost her life because of this mayhem. More broadly, millions of Americans bought into an insidious lie and believed it for years, doing grave damage to the cohesion of our society.

Only a full accounting, now, can begin the process of healing and truth-telling.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 23:00

Futures Jump To Record High After Report Iran Offered New Non-Starter Proposal To Reopen Strait

Update (10:30pm): Just when it seemed that the market may have its first red Monday in a while - and the semiconductor bubble may actually have a down day after a ridiculous 18 day streak higher - the Trump-Axios plunge protection team struck again, and courtesy of Axios' in-house market levitator, Barak Ravid, whose specialty is creating cheerful market narratives to preserve faith that the Strait of Hormuz will open any second now, coupled with a few strategically timed flashing red headlines from Bloomberg, futures surged to a new record high, and oil pared after Axios reported that Iran offered the US a new proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. 

🚨President Trump is expected to hold on Monday a situation room meeting on Iran with his top national security and foreign policy team
🚨The meeting is expected to discuss the current stalemate in the negotiations with Iran and potential options for the next steps in the war https://t.co/nevd1SjWhd

— Barak Ravid (@BarakRavid) April 27, 2026

According to the report, which is a rerun of news which hit about 12 hours earlier on Sunday, Axios ran earlier in the day but which no algos noticed, Iran - through Pakistani mediators - gave the Trump admin a new proposal for reaching a deal on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the ending of the war, however with nuclear negotiations postponed for a later stage, something which Trump has repeatedly said is a non-started. 

According to Ravid, the new proposal is aimed at overcoming the current stalemate in the talks and bypass the internal disagreements in the Iranian leadership about the scope of nuclear concessions it is willing to give in order to get a deal with the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the report is meant to eliminate the bitter taste in the market's mouth from yet another weekend where there was zero progress on either peace, of extending the ceasefire, or certainly on unblocking Hormuz. So it was time to sprinkle an anonymous US official and two anonymous "sources with knowledge" to kickstart the market meltup. As for the actual "proposal" even Axios admits it is unlikely to make any impact:

But reaching a deal on the Strait of Hormuz first and lifting the U.S. blockade would leave President Trump with no real leverage in order to get Tehran to give up on its stockpile of enriched uranium and commit to a suspension of uranium enrichment for at least a decade.

Addressing those two nuclear concerns through military action or diplomacy are a key objective for Trump in the war against Iran.

Which is precisely why nothing will happen, but at least stocks will now levitate higher instead of drifting lower. 

Sure enough, Asian shares rose 1.3% while MSCI’s emerging markets index hit a record high, as easing oil prices help curb inflation and support economic growth. As sentiment improved, US equity-index futures erased earlier losses to rise 0.1%. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index erased earlier gains and fell 0.1% after the report.

“The news aligns with market expectations that Iran and the United States would eventually reach an agreement,” said Yugo Tsuboi, chief strategist at Daiwa Securities Co. “The headline came at a good time as we head into peak earnings season.” Of course, the Trump admin is well aware of that. 

Separately, Axios reported, citing the usual group of "anonymous sources", that Trump is expected to hold on Monday a situation room meeting on Iran with his top national security and foreign policy team. The meeting is expected to discuss the current stalemate in the negotiations with Iran and potential options for the next steps in the war.

Trump signaled in an interview with Fox News on Sunday that he wants to continue the naval blockade, hoping that it will get Iran to cave in the next few weeks when its oil facilities could be under risk of collapsing due to the inability to export oil.

"When you have vast amounts of oil pouring through your system ... if for any reason this line is closed because you can't put it into containers or ships ... what happens is that line explodes from within ... they say they only have about three days before that happens," Trump said.

"And when it explodes you can never rebuild it the way it was...it would only be 50% of what it is right now. So I think they are under pressure."

We previously discussed the risk to Iran's infrastructure as a result of shut ins in "Tehran Timeline: Iran Has 15 Days Until Its Oil Industry Begins Full Shut-Ins."

 

* * * 

Earlier:

Stocks futures fell and oil and the dollar jumped in early trading, as risk sentiment was dented after Trump scrapped his envoys' trip to Pakistan for Iran talks, breaking down momentum toward a second round of peace talks between the US and Iran, even as the Strait of Hormuz remains indefinitely blocked. 

Futures contracts for the S&P 500 Index dropped 0.3% after the underlying index closed at a record on Friday, although with two-thirds of S&P constituents closing red: this was the second worst negative breadth all-time high for the S&P following the bizarre October record high when the S&P printed an ATH with 80% of stocks lower.

The last 2 all-time highs have been on negative breadth: Friday's record saw 324 SPX companies close lower; this was the 2nd worst negative breadth record only after Oct 28, 2025 when the S&P closed at a record with 80% of S&P companies red. pic.twitter.com/J5TBJZvvLS

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 25, 2026

The dollar rose against most major peers, with risk sensitive currencies such as the South African rand among the biggest laggards. Brent crude oil rose more than 2% above $107, the highest in 20 days. US Treasury futures edged lower in early trading.

The soft start to a very busy week - the bulk of the S&P is set to report in the next few days including most Mag 7s (MSFT, AMZN, META, GOOGL, AAPL) - comes after efforts to resume US-Iran peace talks collapsed over the weekend when Trump abruptly canceled a planned trip by his top envoys and Tehran said it won’t negotiate under threat. The setback adds to concerns for global equities at or near record highs (hedge funds just sold the most tech stocks in two years) with Brent crude oil rising to a 20 day high elevated bond yields from Sydney to London driving up borrowing costs.

Investors are still encouraged by strong corporate earnings and the AI boom “while keeping the US-Iran situation on their side mirrors,” said Indosuez Wealth strategist Francis Tan. But “the market is driving at 120km/h now and may have less reaction time when it is really time to change lanes.”

There have been some signs that investor enthusiasm for the biggest beneficiaries of the month-long rally may be waning. According to Goldman and BofA’s trading desks, investors should hedge across rate sensitive areas of the market such as small caps, regional banks and gold, adding that underperformance might still shake out those holding gold as high beta risk asset.

Separately, markets will remain on edge as major central banks including the Fed and Bank of Japan deliver policy decisions beginning Tuesday (no surprises expected). While investors expect them to all leave rates unchanged, traders will be alert to signs officials are worried about the inflation threat posed by the biggest disruption to oil supply in history from the Iran war.

A fresh round of speculation that policy tightening may come in coming months would be negative for government debt, which has already underperformed other assets in recent weeks as stocks and credit markets rallied with traders looking past the war. The Bloomberg GlobalAgg Index, a measure of global investment grade debt, has slid 1.7% since the Iran war broke out against the 1.5% gain in global stocks.

While the aggressive policy tightening cycle that was penciled in during the first part of the Middle East war has been partially unwound, “markets have been forced to recognize that the inflation threat is not over,” Marc Chandler, chief market strategist at Bannockburn Capital Markets wrote. April inflation reports are unlikely to offer relief from firm March readings and the spill over in to core prices is becoming more visible.

But the big variable for markets this week will not be geopolitics but earnings, with tens of trillions in market cap, some 42% of the S&P, set to report: Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon.com and Meta are set to report Wednesday, followed by Apple a day later. The companies are worth nearly $16 trillion combined, representing a quarter of the S&P 500 Index’s market capitalization.

“It’s going to be a critical week,” said Keith Lerner, chief investment officer and chief market strategist at Truist Advisory Services. Results need “to validate this recent move,” he added.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 22:50

California's Billionaire Tax Proposal Has 'Slippery Slope' Lever

California’s latest effort to tax its richest residents into leaving is barreling toward the ballot - only this time, it's got a built-in 'slippery slope' lever once voters hand them the keys.

Backers of the proposed “billionaire tax” say they have already cleared the first hurdle, gathering more than enough signatures (at least 1.5 million) to qualify a measure that would impose a one-time 5% levy on residents with net worths above $1 billion, the Wall Street Journal reports. On its face, the proposal is straightforward: a targeted strike at roughly 200 ultrawealthy individuals meant to plug a looming multibillion-dollar hole in California’s healthcare funding. But buried in the fine print-and now surfacing in a growing political backlash-is a provision that could allow lawmakers to revisit, revise, and potentially expand the tax later with a two-thirds vote. That clause is fast becoming the real story.

The initiative’s language allows the California Legislature to amend the law so long as changes are “consistent with” and “further the purposes” of the act (aka the slippery slope). In Sacramento, that phrasing is doing a lot of work. Critics argue it effectively hands lawmakers a tool that could evolve well beyond a one-time billionaire levy. With a two-thirds majority, the Legislature could lower thresholds, extend timelines, or reinterpret what qualifies as taxable wealth. In a state where Democrats already hold supermajorities in both chambers, that is less a hypothetical than a political reality.

This is significant

I get it — taxing Billionaires is popular

But the proposed tax in CA is something vastly more expansive

It would give the CA legislature a new power:

The ability to lower the threshold or repeatedly pass the tax

Simply with votes from the CA legislature https://t.co/YcBUy7gTJN

— Shaun Maguire (@shaunmmaguire) April 27, 2026

California, meanwhile, has done this kind of thing before where they kick the door open with a seemingly innocuous bill. For example, in 2012 voters approved Proposition 30 as “temporary taxes to fund education,” promising a sunset once the recession eased. Four years later, with the economy recovered, the same coalition returned with Proposition 55 and extended the high-income tax hikes for another 12 years—without extending the sales tax or returning to voters for full approval. Nearly identical “consistent with and furthers the purposes” amendment clauses appear in Proposition 64 (marijuana legalization) and Proposition 63 (Mental Health Services Act), and have been used repeatedly to expand taxes, regulations, and spending far beyond the original ballot language. The billionaire tax measure contains this exact same permissive language. Once voters bless a flexible wealth-tax framework, Sacramento has shown it will use that door when fiscal pressure returns - which, in California, it always does.

The proposal has already triggered a high-profile reaction among the very group it targets. One of the most prominent examples is Google co-founder Sergey Brin.

Sergey BrinPhotographer: Will Oliver/EPA/Bloomberg

In a late-evening confrontation at a Christmas party hosted by crypto titan Chris Larsen in a treehouse nestled in redwoods north of San Francisco, Brin and his wellness-influencer girlfriend Gerelyn Gilbert-Soto told Gov. Gavin Newsom they were leaving the state over the proposed billionaire tax, which could hit Brin’s massive stake in Alphabet and his fortune.

Newsom, who opposes the wealth tax, was still telling people about the lengthy exchange at the party months later, complaining of a lingering cold the pair had given him, according to the people, who asked not to be named discussing private conversations with the governor. -Bloomberg

Brin followed through: he relocated to Nevada ahead of the tax’s residency cutoff, purchasing a $42 million lakeside mansion on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe. He has since poured more than $58 million into political efforts over the past four months, becoming the largest donor to the group Building a Better California, which is dedicated to fighting the wealth tax and pushing pro-business policies. His move and massive spending have become a symbol - if not entirely representative - of a broader anxiety rippling through California’s economic base. The concern isn’t just that billionaires might leave. It’s what happens if they do.

Also his wellness-influencer girlfriend (Gilbert-Soto) is pretty hot. 

California’s tax structure is unusually dependent on its wealthiest residents. Even a small number of departures can create outsized revenue swings. Analysts have warned the proposed tax could generate “tens of billions” in the short term-but also risk long-term losses if it accelerates outmigration. Gov. Gavin Newsom has echoed that warning, opposing the measure on the grounds that it could destabilize the state’s already volatile revenue system.

That leaves California facing a paradox increasingly common in blue-state fiscal policy: a push to extract more from the ultrawealthy, paired with a growing dependence on keeping them in place. Supporters argue the stakes justify the risk. The tax is designed to offset federal healthcare cuts projected to cost the state more than $28 billion annually and leave millions without coverage.

“This did not start as a political statement about rising inequality,” said union leaders backing the measure. “We are simply trying to solve a huge and immediate problem.”

But opponents say the mechanism matters as much as the goal. Their central warning is that once the state normalizes wealth-based taxation through a flexible statutory framework, the definition of “wealthy” can shift. Today that threshold is $1 billion. Tomorrow, critics argue, it could be far lower-especially in a legislature empowered to act without returning to voters.

What a mess... 

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 22:35

SBA Sends 562k Pandemic Loans To Bessent For Collections Totaling $22 Billion

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) has announced a sweeping enforcement action targeting suspected pandemic-era loan fraud, referring more than 562,000 borrowers tied to $22.2 billion in delinquent loans to the U.S. Department of the Treasury for collection, according to the Small Business Association. The move marks the largest referral package in the agency’s history and signals a major escalation in federal efforts to recover funds distributed through COVID-19 relief programs.

The loans in question stem from the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and COVID Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) initiatives, which were designed to support small businesses during the pandemic. According to the SBA, these loans had already been flagged for potential fraud in prior years but were not previously sent for collection or investigation.

Now, in coordination with the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, the SBA has not only referred these debts to Treasury but also transmitted borrower information to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for potential legal action. Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service will begin collection efforts immediately.

"The SBA has transmitted the borrowers to the DOJ. And with today's referral, Treasury will begin collecting on the outstanding debt as part of the Trump Administration's commitment to recouping stolen pandemic-era funds on behalf of American taxpayers and small business owners," the agency wrote in a press release.

Loeffler stated, "From Day One, the Trump SBA has worked tirelessly to crack down on billions in pandemic-era fraud that the Biden Administration forgave or ignored."

"After extensive review, and with the strong support of the White House Task Force to Eliminate Fraud, we are taking our most decisive action yet to end a Biden-era scheme that protected over 560,000 borrowers tied to more than $22 billion in suspected pandemic-era fraud," she continued.

Loeffler's crusade to root out fraud, waste, and abuse was evident earlier this year when her team terminated hundreds of firms from the nation's largest DEI program, otherwise known as the 8(a) Business Development Program. These firms were terminated for failing to comply with the SBA's order to turn over three years' worth of financial documents for review. The companies were allegedly involved in DEI fraud as business pass-throughs.

Separately, the SBA has introduced new anti-fraud controls, including citizenship and birthdate verification, and launched a state-by-state probe into pandemic-era loan fraud. The agency has suspended nearly 112,000 borrowers in California and Minnesota suspected of obtaining fraudulent loans.

The Biden administration's failure to crack down on billions in pandemic-era fraud raises serious questions.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 21:45

The Reality Behind US-Iran Negotiations

Authored by Bryan Brulotte via The Epoch Times,

The current negotiations between the United States and Iran are being misread as a chaotic exercise in brinkmanship. They are not. They are the predictable endgame of a contest in which leverage has shifted decisively, and in which one side is now negotiating under constraints it can no longer escape.

Strip away the theatrics, and the picture becomes clear. Iran attempted to weaponize the Strait of Hormuz, calculating that disruption of global energy flows would fracture Western resolve and force Washington into concession. That calculation has failed. The United States has imposed sustained economic and maritime pressure, degrading Iran’s ability to monetize its oil and constraining its room for maneuver. Although Tehran retains the capacity to harass shipping, it no longer controls the strategic environment.

Much of the commentary has focused on President Donald Trump’s negotiating style; his deadlines, his threats, his reversals. This misses the point. Style is not strategy. Outcomes are. And the outcome, to date, is that Iran has been compelled back toward negotiations while publicly insisting it will not negotiate under pressure. That contradiction is not a sign of strength. It is evidence of it eroding.

Iran is not negotiating from parity. It is negotiating from a position of weakness. This is not to suggest the regime is on the verge of collapse. It is not, but it is under strain: economic, military, and internal. The fragmentation within Tehran’s leadership, between hardliners and more pragmatic elements, further complicates its ability to act coherently. That raises a critical question for any agreement: who, precisely, can commit the Iranian state, and who can enforce compliance?

Absent clarity on that point, any deal risks becoming performative. What is emerging, however, is a familiar and realistic framework. Constraints on uranium enrichment. Disposition of existing stockpiles. Monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Conditional sanctions relief. Limited provisions on missile activity and regional proxies. This will not be a transformative agreement. It will be a containment outcome, but that is not a weakness—it is the correct objective.

There is a persistent tendency in Western analysis to overstate what diplomacy can achieve with regimes that define themselves in opposition to the international order. Iran is not negotiating to become a liberal partner. It is negotiating to survive. The United States is not negotiating to normalize Iran. It is negotiating to constrain it. Those aims can intersect, but they will not converge.

The more serious issue lies elsewhere. The current negotiations are narrowly framed around nuclear thresholds, but the strategic risk extends beyond centrifuges. Iran has demonstrated that it can impose global costs through maritime disruption. Even limited interference in Hormuz reverberates through energy markets, supply chains, and inflation. A durable settlement must therefore address freedom of navigation as a core security issue, not a peripheral one.

This requires more than bilateral understandings. It requires a credible enforcement mechanism, ideally with an international dimension, that removes ambiguity about consequences. The absence of such a framework invites repetition of the current cycle: provocation, response, negotiation, relapse. That cycle is not stability. It is managed volatility.

It is also necessary to dispense with illusions about allied coherence. The Western response has been uneven. Some partners have equivocated. Others have postured. Few have demonstrated the operational seriousness required in a moment where global energy security and regional order are directly at stake. This is not a peripheral observation. It goes to the credibility of collective security arrangements in a more contested world. Against that backdrop, the United States has done what serious powers do. It has applied pressure, maintained optionality, and forced a narrowing of choices on its adversary. That does not guarantee success, but it is the precondition for it.

Negotiations conducted without leverage are exercises in self-deception. The path forward is therefore clear, if not easy. Iran can accept verifiable constraints on its nuclear program, curtail its destabilizing regional conduct, and regain access to the global economy under defined terms. Or it can continue to absorb economic attrition and strategic isolation under conditions it cannot indefinitely sustain. That is the choice.

Peace, if it comes, will not be the product of goodwill or rhetorical restraint. It will be the product of pressure, clarity, and enforcement. That is how durable agreements are made and how serious states behave. The outcome will not be determined at the table, but by the balance of power behind it.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 21:20

Ilhan Omar Probe Expands Into Hubby's $30M Of Shady Biz Deals In Kenya, Dubai And Somalia

House Oversight Chairman James Comer is cranking the investigation into Rep. Ilhan Omar’s husband, Tim Mynett, into overdrive - demanding a full accounting of shadowy international business trips and deals that stretch from the Horn of Africa straight into Kenya, Somalia and the glittering skyscrapers of Dubai.

Omar has been making strange moves since February, after Comer fired off a no-holds-barred letter demanding every document and communication on Mynett’s travel and business dealings in Kenya, Somalia and the UAE. Since then, the story has exploded again with several stunning new twists: Omar quietly amended her 2024 financial disclosure in late March, slashing the reported $30 million fortune down to nearly zero; just nine days later, on April 4, the California winery central to those valuations was officially dissolved; forensic accountants have publicly torn into the revised numbers for major inconsistencies.

Ilhan Omar has to explain how a business who has no equipment, no location, no bottles, no stickers, appears to have no employee wages, no vineyard, no wine tasting room, no tours, no product, no shipping, no marketing, no lids, no boxes, no barrels, no license, no freight… pic.twitter.com/qKxYp3WhL7

— Angela Rose (@angelaroosee) April 25, 2026

The Feb. 5 letter ordered Mynett - president of Rose Lake Capital LLC and co-owner of the now-defunct eStCru LLC winery - to hand over every record related to travel or business solicitation in those three countries. The Feb. 19 deadline came and went with no public confirmation that Mynett ever complied.

Omar’s original 2024 disclosure, filed in May 2025, showed the two firms exploding in value from a combined $51,000 in 2023 to as much as $30 million the following year. Rose Lake Capital was listed between $5 million and $25 million; the winery sat between $1 million and $5 million. Then came the late-March amendment, in which Omar blamed an accountant’s error in netting out liabilities. The companies’ reported net value was wiped to zero and the couple’s total household assets were slashed to between $18,004 and $95,000.

Nine days after that amendment, California business records show eStCru LLC was officially terminated and dissolved on April 4. The winery had never owned a vineyard, tasting room or major production equipment. It produced only tiny batches at a shared custom-crush facility, had no active phone line and went dark on social media years ago. It was already dogged by investor lawsuits alleging fraud. One Washington, D.C., restaurateur, Naeem Mohd, claimed he invested roughly $300,000 after being promised a 200% return in 18 months - plus 10% monthly interest if late. A separate cannabis-related venture involving Mynett’s partner William Hailer ended in a roughly $1.2 million settlement after investors accused the duo of misappropriating funds.

According to Comer's letter, Rose Lake Capital had marketed itself as a globe-trotting player with "deep global networks" built from on-the-ground work in more than 80 countries. Its website - later scrubbed of officer and advisor names, including former diplomats - hyped sustainable investments and solar-panel projects across Africa. One partner reportedly received a $10,699 business-class ticket to Dubai for deal discussions. The firm once claimed to manage $60 billion in assets - an eye-popping figure for a company that, according to earlier disclosures, had less than $1,000 in the bank in 2023.

Because of this, "unknown individuals may be investing to gain influence" with Omar. The timing has fueled even more suspicion: the reported wealth spike overlapped with the massive social-services fraud scandals ripping through Minnesota’s Somali-American community - the heart of Omar’s district - where authorities allege billions in taxpayer dollars were looted through fake daycare and nutrition programs.

Mynett’s past adds another layer. Before launching these ventures, he and partner Hailer ran E Street Group, a political consulting firm that pulled in nearly $3 million from Omar’s own congressional campaigns. Former associates described the pair as well-connected Democratic insiders.

Omar’s office has dismissed the entire inquiry as a "political stunt" and "smear campaign." Mynett has not responded publicly to the document demands or the sudden shutdown of the winery.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly called for Omar to face criminal charges, linking her to what he claims is up to $2.5 trillion in Minnesota welfare fraud - a figure he has offered without direct evidence tying her personally to the full scale of the scandal.

As of April 26, 2026, the $30 million paper fortune has evaporated on paper, the vineyard is legally gone, and the international paper trail now leads from a quiet Sonoma wine label straight into East Africa and Dubai. The House Ethics Committee has the ball, Comer shows no signs of letting go, and citizen sleuths continue digging through the disclosures.

Whether this was a spectacular (if suspiciously timed) business success, a simple accounting blunder, or something far more troubling is the question lawmakers - and the public - now demand answered. The money trail is global. The clock is ticking. And the spotlight is burning brighter than ever.

* * * New ranch | Wagyu | Hotdogs (40) 

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 20:55

Maine Governor Vetos Data Center Moratorium, Citing Job Creation And Economic Growth

Maine Governor Janet Mills has vetoed a bill that would have temporarily limited the development of large data centers across Maine, despite expressing support for a broader pause on such projects, according to Maine's website.

The governor said she would have approved the legislation if it had included an exemption for a $550 million data center redevelopment already underway at the former Androscoggin Mill in Jay, a project backed by local officials and seen as critical to economic recovery in the region.

Mills emphasized that while a moratorium makes sense due to concerns about environmental impact and rising electricity costs seen in other states, the bill in its final form failed to account for the Jay project’s potential benefits. The redevelopment is expected to bring hundreds of construction jobs, create at least 100 permanent positions, and restore a major portion of the town’s lost tax base following the mill’s closure in 2023.

The site says that Mills plans to move forward with an executive order to study the impact of large-scale data centers in Maine. She also signed separate legislation barring such projects from receiving state business tax incentives, signaling a cautious but measured approach to managing the industry’s growth.

“A moratorium is appropriate given the impacts of massive data centers in other states on the environment and on electricity rates. But the final version of this bill fails to allow for a specific project in the Town of Jay that enjoys strong local support from its host community and region,” she wrote. 

“The 2023 closure of the Androscoggin Mill dealt a devastating blow to the Town of Jay and its surrounding area. As a long-time resident of Franklin County, I know well how critical the mill was to generations of working families, and how important it is – and how challenging it has been – to promote reinvestment and job-creation at the former mill which is a brownfield site.  After prior redevelopment efforts failed, the Town of Jay worked for two years on a $550 million data center redevelopment project to finally bring jobs and investment back to the mill site.”

“I believe it necessary and important to examine and plan for the potential impacts of large-scale data centers in Maine, as the use of artificial intelligence becomes more widespread. Given the serious conversations about data centers here and around the country, I believe this work should commence without delay,” she concluded.

Meanwhile we wrote last week that the outlook for the US AI revolution looks increasingly more dim. 

That's because, as Canaccord Genuity analyst George Gianarikas writes, "the American data center boom is hitting a formidable wall of logistical friction." He is referring to the latest outlook by Sightline Climate, which is also reinforced by recent articles from Bloomberg and others, and reveals a sobering reality for 2026: nearly half of the nation's planned 16-gigawatt capacity faces cancellation or delay, with only 5 gigawatts currently under construction.

This inertia stems from a volatile mix of local permitting hurdles, community resistance, and a desperate reliance on overextended global supply chains for critical components like transformers and helium.

That's right: half. Despite $700BN+ of expected 2026 hyperscaler capex, nearly half of the data centers scheduled to begin operations in the US in 2026 "will either face delays or outright cancellations."

The data, which comes from Sightline Climate's 2026 Data Center Outlook,  suggests that just 30% - 50% of the ~16 GW of planned US capacity for the year will face risks, with only ~5 GW currently under construction!

* * * Know what's not a massive bitch? 

This 2.5lb Tomahawk Steak

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 20:05

Bessent Defends US Dollar Swap Lines As UAE Considers Formal Funding Request

Several Gulf countries have discussed receiving dollar swap lines from the US, the WSJ reported last week. In the near term, there is an economic drag if volumes of oil and gas sales have fallen by more than the price effect can offset, or where tourist and business travel has dried up. The effect is similar to that of the pandemic: slowing growth and fiscal revenues, and accelerated demand for fiscal spending.

As the WSJ reported, UAE. Central Bank Gov. Khaled Mohamed Balama had raised the idea of a currency-swap line with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Treasury and Federal Reserve officials in meetings in Washington. The Emiratis emphasized that they had so far avoided the worst economic effects of the conflict but might still need a financial lifeline.

The talks highlighted the U.A.E.’s concern that the war could inflict major damage on its economy and its position as a global financial hub, depleting its foreign reserves and scaring away investors who once saw it as a stable and secure place for their money. The conflict has damaged Emirati oil-and-gas infrastructure and shut off their ability to sell oil using tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz, depriving it of a key source of dollar revenues. Meanwhile tourism, another key source of hard currency, has also been throttled as a result of regional instability. 

Emirati officials haven’t made a formal request for a swap line, which would give the UAE. central bank inexpensive access to dollars to support its currency or shore up its foreign reserves in case of a liquidity crisis. A swap line would also avoid forcing a liquidation of dollar-denominated assets. The Emirati officials argued that it was President Trump’s decision to attack Iran that entangled their country in a destructive conflict whose effects may not be over; they added that if the U.A.E. runs short of dollars, it may be forced to use Chinese yuan or other countries’ currencies for oil sales and other transactions, strongly hinting that UAE may be forced to seek financial backing from Trump's arch-nemesis.

In that scenario is an implicit threat to the U.S. dollar, which reigns supreme among global currencies partially because of its near-exclusive use in oil transactions.

Gulf central banks hold dollar reserves in liquid assets like Treasury bonds and bills. However, using these reserves for fiscal support would be unwise according to UBS economist Paul Donovan who noted that "it would rapidly call into question the stability of the region’s currency pegs to the US dollar."

The Emirati dirham is pegged to the dollar and backed by foreign-currency reserves of $270 billion, but the war has put it under pressures from capital-flight risks, stock-market volatility and other disruptions, analysts said. 

The credit-rating firm S&P Global said in a March 6 report that the U.A.E.’s “substantial fiscal, economic, external, and policy flexibility will act as an effective buffer” against the war’s economic effects. But it warned that “the potential for prolonged disruption” to its oil exports and damage to infrastructure “add clear risk to our expectations.”

The Fed used swap lines heavily used during the 2008 financial crisis, buying the currency of other borrowing central banks with dollars and later selling it back. It also used swap lines to support foreign central banks after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Countries that don’t have a swap line with the Fed can still exchange their holdings of Treasury bonds for dollars through a program administered by the New York Fed.

Gulf sovereign wealth funds are different. The region’s wealth fund holdings (in excess of USD 5 trillion) are not for currency stability, but to provide long-term income streams. Gulf sovereign wealth fund holdings skew toward US dollar-denominated assets, but they are generally held in less liquid assets.

Using these assets to meet short term fiscal needs risks disrupting US markets. That might risk a vicious downwards spiral (like the UK’s Truss debacle). Swap arrangements give Gulf economies the cash without creating disorderly markets. However, in the longer term, the need to reconstruct and rearm means that asset sales may be considered, UBS warned.

On Friday, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent defended the possibility of the US participating in currency swaps with allies in the Persian Gulf and Asia who are seeking financial backstops due to the Iran war.

Discussions with those countries about US dollar swap lines “are part of ongoing, routine conversations that @USTreasury has been having with our partners over a number of years,” Bessent said in an X post, in which he offered a full-throated defense of additional swap lines.

Discussions with countries, including our Gulf and Asian allies, about U.S. dollar swap lines are part of ongoing, routine conversations that @USTreasury has been having with our partners over a number of years. They are a testament to the U.S. dollar’s primacy and the strength…

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) April 24, 2026

“They are a testament to the U.S. dollar’s primacy and the strength of America’s economic shield,” he said of the potential swaps adding that dollar dominance and reserve currency status are strengthened by constant long-term initiatives, including countering the growth of problematic, alternative payment systems,” he added. “Under @POTUS, this is American Economic Leadership at work.”

The assertion of swap lines’ benefits and commonness comes as the Trump administration considers offering the financial lifeline to the United Arab Emirates, CNBC reported Tuesday.

It also comes two days after Bessent said that “many” allies in the Persian Gulf are seeking the same backstop as the ongoing war wreaks havoc on the oil-rich nations’ economies.

A potential swap line runs the risk of being seen as an unnecessary bailout of a foreign country — especially if it’s a rich one like the UAE, which has one of the world’s highest per capita incomes.

The Treasury can provide its own version of swaps using its Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF), though traditional swaps are most often offered by the Federal Reserve. The arrangements can pose political risks for President Donald Trump, whose approval ratings on the economy have sunk as war-induced supply shocks rapidly raise prices for gasoline and other products, exacerbating Americans’ existing inflation woes. 

Trump, asked on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Tuesday about a possible UAE swap line, appeared to say he is in favor of it.

“If they had a problem ... I would be there for them,” Trump said.

Gulf countries have also raised billions of dollars in debt from investors - primarily PIMCO - in recent weeks via private deals, highlighting their push to have cash on hand as they face what the International Energy Agency has called “the most severe oil-supply shock in history.”

Bahrain also set up a roughly $5 billion swap line with the UAE. earlier this month to help improve financial stability, the countries’ central banks said.

Finance ministers and central bankers in Washington for the IMF and World Bank meetings said they didn’t expect an easy or swift recovery for the region.

“The basic logistics of scheduling tankers and bringing them back after the chaos we have seen, that will take possibly to the end of June,” said Mohammed Al-Jadaan, Saudi Arabia’s finance minister, during a panel on Thursday. “Anyone who’s counting for a quick recovery, even if there is a total end of hostilities, will need to recalculate that.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 19:38

"The National Security Premium": US Plan To Counter China In Critical Miners Could Drive Up Global Prices

The US is pressing its allies to rethink how they source essential minerals, urging them to accept higher prices if it means reducing reliance on China, which currently dominates much of the global supply, according to a new report from Financial Times.

According to US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, countries working with Washington should expect to pay extra for materials obtained through a proposed network of trusted partners. He framed this added cost as a necessary trade-off to strengthen supply chain security.

The idea under discussion involves setting minimum price levels for critical minerals among participating nations. The goal is to make mining and processing outside China financially viable, while potentially using tariffs or other restrictions to block cheaper imports from non-participants.

“There is a premium we pay, and I call it the national security premium, and we will all pay a national security premium to have a secure supply chain,” Greer said.

Not everyone is convinced. Some US partners, speaking privately, worry that such a system could drive up expenses for key industries and provoke a response from China. Businesses in sectors like defense, car manufacturing, and renewable energy could be particularly affected if input costs rise.

The debate reflects a broader challenge: breaking China’s grip on these resources is difficult after years of heavy investment that gave it a leading position. At the same time, many developed economies are already dealing with inflation and high energy prices, adding to the sensitivity around any policy that could increase costs further.

The FT report says that Greer has pushed back on concerns about affordability, arguing that prioritizing low prices in the past is exactly what left Western countries dependent on Chinese supplies. In his view, paying more now is the price of building a more secure and resilient system.

Meanwhile, governments are wary of possible retaliation. China has previously used its control over mineral exports as leverage, and any coordinated effort to sideline its role could lead to countermeasures.

Despite these tensions, there are signs of cooperation. Earlier this year, partners including the EU and Japan expressed interest in working together on a joint framework for critical minerals. Ideas being explored include shared pricing arrangements, financial support to bridge cost gaps, and agreements to buy from one another rather than external suppliers.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 19:15

War Schmwar

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Markets have been almost totally dismissive of the conflict in Iran. Frankly, the number of countries, including oil-rich nations, that had been firing at each other seemed quite high, yet most markets shrugged it off. While the Strait remained closed, or blockaded, or blocked, the market remained in Open Sesame mode this week.

Moonshot

Artemis II wasn’t the only “moonshot” we’ve seen.

The SOX index has jumped almost 50% since March 30th. That would be incredible, but 18 straight days of gains is wildly impressive! (Even the NY Mets could only do the same thing 12 days in a row, but in the other direction).

The lower chart is RSI (Relative Strength Indicator and one of my favorite technicals to look at). This index went from the cusp of oversold, to heavily oversold, to overbought territory in 2 weeks and gets “more” overbought by the day. Every strong chip earnings report not only “skyrockets” that stock, but it also pulls up the entire sector.

The AI and Data Center Buildout narrative remains completely intact even as “war” rages. If anything, the need for domestic AI and Data Centers is growing as physical security concerns continue in the Middle East.

Not Sure if “Laggards” Is the “Right” Word, But…

Quantum computing has bounced, but unlike the semis, it is not even at the highs of the year, let alone the highs from last year!

If you own a “quantum” ETF, you likely have seen far better returns in the past few weeks than this chart would indicate. But that is because the ETFs own a lot of semiconductors. QTUM (Defiance Quantum ETF), the largest “quantum” ETF at $4.1 billion, has TER as its largest holding. INTC, STM, and MU were the next largest holdings. So, I tried to identify 4 tickers from WQTM that seemed to be more “pure play” quantum.

We have yet to see a real breakout in Uranium and Rare Earths stocks.

REMX (for Rare Earths and Critical Minerals) and URA have bounced, but Uranium is still lower than it was before the war. If you look at the “small reactors” which were all the rage, their chart looks a lot more like the chart from the quantum stocks. Even in rare earths, names like MP, which the U.S. government invested in, is more than 35% lower than its high last October.

A warning sign? A rational reassessment? The next asset classes to “catch a bid”?

Bitcoin, where the news has generally been good, is still hanging around the $76k to $78k range. It has “recovered” the 100-day moving average, but has not rushed to “close the gap” with the 50-DMA. I’m watching this closely as another “next leg” of this rally. I cannot help but wonder if some of the “ceiling” on Bitcoin is due to concern that there may be some level of selling pressure from a country like Iran. Iran may not have Bitcoin, but given the fact that they allegedly asked for “safe passage” payments in crypto, it seems plausible that they do. Given the blockade and seizure of vessels, it would create pressure to sell (or transfer it to someone else who sells it) to fund their economy (if they have any).

I’m leaning towards a “breakout” as people look for anything remotely adjacent to new tech/chips that isn’t at its highs.

Markets Ignoring Stubborn Oil Prices Out the Curve

While we still see issues in LNG, Diesel, and Jet Fuel (also in the distillates and chemical industry), let’s go back to the big 2 – WTI and Brent.

WTI spiked to $120 March 9th and again got to almost $120 on April 7th. It is “comfortably” lower now, at $95. Brent spiked to $120 three times during the conflict and is “only” at $106. A bit less comforting than WTI.

But the story, as several people in the admin have pointed to, is what is happening to oil “out the curve.” When the admin was pointing this out, there was a pretty quick drop from “elevated” front end contracts as you moved out the curve. Now we are sitting at just under $80 for the November contract. That is closer to the highs of this conflict. The November contracts are now near their highs (since that “crazy” first weekend). It is difficult to be encouraged by this.

The further out the curve you go, the more it includes people “in the know” and less about speculation. And this pricing is consistent with the warnings that we keep hearing from participants in the physical products. I suspect that even in the event of a good deal with Iran, pricing out the curve doesn’t back down much from here.

It is possible that equities are fully pricing this in and don’t care. That the AI and Data Center story and current round of earnings are enough to cover this possibility.

I cannot help but wonder if we are being a bit complacent, especially since AFFORDABILITY has been an issue and has not dissipated in any way, shape, or form (at least not for the “average” American).

Maybe I’m looking too hard for something that might derail the rally (as opposed to the prior section when we were looking for what might benefit from the next wave), but I do have some concerns that people “in the know,” already “know” oil is going to remain uncomfortably high (for consumers) even if a good deal is reached.

Bottom Line

On rates, 4.25% is still the “midpoint” of our range. I think you buy 10s above 4.4% and sell if we get to 4.1%. Maybe a touch too wide of a range, but there is a lot of noise out there.

On credit, IG remains boring. HY has some interesting risks, so maybe a touch more cautious there, while I cannot help but want to nibble at the private credit/BDC space. IGV (software ETF) hung in last week, despite some headlines from the private credit side that could have hurt, and despite the massive rally in AI/Data Centers – which until recently didn’t seem good for software. IGV, BDCs, and Private Credit seem to be various forms of the same trade, and it is difficult not to scale in a little here, once again under the theory that they are under-owned and at some point capital will come looking for stocks with a story that is well off its highs.

On equity. European ProSec! Is Europe finally getting the joke? They are lending money to Ukraine to buy weapons. It has been reported that Sweden has been interdicting “ghost” ships to stop Russian oil sales. Many of the European stocks in the ProSec™ theme have been outperforming similar stocks in the U.S. Yes, Europe is more exposed to oil prices than we are, but that is precisely why you want to buy into their energy industry – the realization that they have to do something to reduce their exposure to regions outside of their control and harness their own resources!

I have to admit, I’m not even checking (or at least barely checking) Twitter for Iran headlines. Markets are closed, so nothing to say about them now, and by Sunday night, the story may have changed anyway, which in turn might look completely different by Monday morning. As a strategist, I think I’m either in the depression or acceptance phase of grief as it relates to trying to manage risk around the conflict.

Good luck and Academy will continue to try to bring our unique resources to bear on the geopolitical situation to help you navigate it as smoothly as possible!

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 18:40

Ford Denies Talks With Geely About Bringing Chinese Car Tech To U.S.

On Friday, a report crossed the wire that Ford and Geely had been in discussions about collaborating more closely, including whether their developing European partnership could expand into the U.S. market, according to the Wall Street Journal. 

Ford denied the claims, which stated that one idea involved Ford using Geely’s vehicle technology domestically. The talks had reportedly cooled, with both sides shifting attention back to Europe, where they are considering sharing production capacity and technical resources.

Geely is motivated to enter the U.S., a lucrative but tightly restricted market for Chinese automakers. High tariffs, bans on Chinese-connected vehicle software, and political resistance from U.S. industry and lawmakers all make entry difficult.

Ford itself has signaled caution, with leadership stressing the importance of protecting American jobs and competitiveness. A company spokesman reinforced that stance, saying, “Our commitment to a level playing field and safeguarding our home market remains absolute.”

The WSJ wrote on Friday that Geely, for its part, has kept its response general, noting, “We always keep an open mind when it comes to exploring cooperative opportunities,” while avoiding specifics about any potential deal.

Earlier discussions went further than simple cooperation, including the possibility of Ford building future models on a Geely-developed platform and leveraging its engineering to speed up EV development. Geely also explored using Ford’s existing manufacturing footprint—particularly in Europe—to bypass trade barriers and scale production more efficiently. While those ideas remain on the table in some form, they highlight how both companies see strategic value in collaboration, even as geopolitical tensions limit how far that cooperation can extend.

Later in the day on Friday after the report, Ford "denied a news report that it has held talks with Geely Automobile Holdings Ltd. about bringing Chinese car technology to the US market", claiming "no such talks" happened. 

The broader context is intensifying global competition: Chinese automakers are gaining ground internationally with cheaper, tech-focused vehicles, putting pressure on Western companies. Even so, any attempt to formalize a U.S. partnership would face significant political scrutiny, making overseas collaboration a more practical path for now.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 18:23

Will the Left Make The WHCA Dinner Shooter A Hero?

There was a lot of confusion in the initial hours after the shooting at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner at the Washington Hilton on Saturday night. But it soon became clear that the suspect, Cole Allen, a 31-year-old teacher from Torrance, California, had rabid anti-Trump views and was there to target Trump administration officials. 

While the usual suspects on the left are issuing standard statements condemning violence, there’s a real concern that the left will lionize Allen. And even former Obama official and current CNN pundit Van Jones is concerned about it.

 "I'm starting to worry about something,” Jones said. “Which is that the shooter survived, which means on Monday he's going to court, which means there is a danger that people try to make him some sort of hero."

He wasn't being paranoid. He was being prescient. And he didn't stop there.

"You watch what happened with Luigi, who shot a CEO to death, and somehow became a hero," Jones continued. " So, they said tonight you saw the worst of America. You saw the best of America. Tonight, you definitely saw the best of America. I hope on Monday we don’t see the worst again. I just want to say very clearly — this kind of despicable behavior has no place in America. It has no place on the right. It has no place on the left.”

He added, “This kind of behavior has no place in America. And it is wrong. Violence is not the way to resolve any grievances. And this cheerleader culture for violence, for people who think that the answer to our problems is to go shooting billionaires or going to synagogues or all these different things, has to be called out immediately. The minute it starts, every single person with the platform must denounce it, or we’re going to see this again.”

CNN Van Jones actually gets things right regarding the WHCD shooter. pic.twitter.com/wySCKHz5hv

— Scott Adams (@scottadamsshow) April 26, 2026

When Luigi Mangione was arrested in December 2024 for the killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, the radical left treated him like a celebrity. Within days of the shooting, social media flooded with memes casting Mangione as a modern-day vigilante, a working-class avenger striking back against the healthcare system. 

Online stores moved T-shirts. A fundraiser for his legal defense pulled in thousands. Even the Saturday Night Live audience cheered when Mangione’s name was mentioned during a Weekend Update segment.

Mainstream journalists didn't exactly pump the brakes either. CNN's Kaitlan Collins, a White House correspondent no less, casually directed her audience to Mangione's legal defense website.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Sunday that "preliminary" findings suggest Trump and members of his administration were the likely targets. Allen had been staying at the hotel as a registered guest. Investigators secured his room and began reviewing what CBS News and others described as his manifesto.

According to the New York Post, Allen’s manifesto ran over a thousand words, laying out a delusional justification for the shooting. In it, he described himself as a “Friendly Federal Assassin,” outlined “rules of engagement,” and claimed it was his moral duty to target officials tied to the Trump administration. 

Democrats moved quickly to condemn the shooting on Saturday. The statements were prompt and broadly worded. But the uncomfortable overlap between the suspect's stated grievances and the party’s rhetoric about Trump is hard to ignore, making Van Jones’s concerns extremely valid. 

* * * SUNDAY DINNER BELL!  (order tonight for shipment tomorrow)

Grass-Fed Steak Lovers Bundle

Nutrient-Dense Bundle (5lbs ground, 5lbs ancestral, 3 shanks, 2 femurs)

Carnivore Trio (beef, chicken, mmm bacon)

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 16:55

'Gender Identity' Requirements Will Be Discarded In Housing Programs: HUD

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner announced a new proposed rule on Thursday that seeks to end the use of “gender identity” across all departmental programs, which is intended to “restore biological reality and protect women.”

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Scott Turner walks towards the West Wing following a TV interview at the White House on Feb. 19, 2025. Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP Photo

“Under the proposed guidance, HUD would remove radical definitions of gender identity, sexual orientation, and gender, replacing them with sex across nearly 50 regulations,” HUD said in an April 23 statement.

The department’s Equal Access Rule will be modified to replace the ban on discrimination on the basis of “gender identity” across all Community Planning and Development programs.

HUD intends to define common terms such as mother, father, woman, man, girl, and boy, in a way that is consistent with a person’s sex across the department’s regulations.

“God created two sexes: male and female. The Left’s war on biological reality through radical gender ideology will no longer take precedence over the safety and security of America’s most vulnerable women,” Turner said.

The 2012 Equal Access Rule, titled Equal Access to Housing in HUD Programs Regardless of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, sought to ensure that HUD’s housing programs would be made available to all individuals and families regardless of their gender identity, sexual orientation, or marital status.

At the time, the rule did not address how transgender identifying and “gender non-conforming” individuals should be accommodated in certain temporary and emergency shelters, and other facilities used for this purpose. In 2016, another final rule was issued on this regulation addressing the matter.

The recent proposal builds on an order issued by the HUD Secretary in February last year that required a stoppage of any pending or future enforcement of the Equal Access Rule.

In a Feb. 13, 2025, statement, Turner said that the department’s actions were in line with an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day in office.

The Jan. 20, 2025, executive order, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, criticized what it described as denying the biological reality of sex and the increasing use of legal and socially coercive measures to allow men to self-identify as women.

This enabled such men to “gain access to intimate single-sex spaces and activities designed for women, from women’s domestic abuse shelters to women’s workplace showers,” Trump wrote in the order.

“This is wrong. Efforts to eradicate the biological reality of sex fundamentally attack women by depriving them of their dignity, safety, and well-being,” the president wrote.

The order defined the sex of a person as the individual’s biological classification as either male or female, dismissing the interchanging of the word “sex” with “gender identity.” It asked agencies to remove all regulations and policies that “promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology.”

The National Alliance to End Homelessness has criticized HUD’s move to modify enforcement of the Equal Access Rule.

In a February 2025 post, the alliance said that communities cannot afford to create more barriers to shelter and housing programs at a time when “unsheltered homelessness is soaring and when gender-expansive people are experiencing shocking disparities in unsheltered homelessness.”

“The Alliance strongly opposes the directive from Secretary Turner to halt any pending or future enforcement actions of the Equal Access Rule and any future steps to weaken or repeal this lifesaving rule,” the post said.

In its February 2025 statement, HUD said that the 2016 rule allowed men to take advantage of department programs directed at women.

* * * SUNDAY DINNER BELL!  (order tonight for shipment tomorrow)

Grass-Fed Steak Lovers Bundle

Nutrient-Dense Bundle (5lbs ground, 5lbs ancestral, 3 shanks, 2 femurs)

Carnivore Trio (beef, chicken, mmm bacon)

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 16:20

Is Anthropic Coming For eBay?

Late Friday afternoon, as most people were checking out for the weekend after nearly two months of U.S.-Iran war fatigue, Anthropic quietly released a note titled "Project Deal." The company built a closed marketplace where AI agents negotiated prices, struck deals, and completed real transactions with money changing hands.

"We created a marketplace for employees in our San Francisco office, with one big twist. We tasked Claude with buying, selling and negotiating on our colleagues' behalf," Anthropic wrote on X.

New Anthropic research: Project Deal.

We created a marketplace for employees in our San Francisco office, with one big twist. We tasked Claude with buying, selling and negotiating on our colleagues’ behalf. pic.twitter.com/H2f6cLDlAW

— Anthropic (@AnthropicAI) April 24, 2026

The results: Claude agents made 186 deals across more than 500 listed items on a Slack-based marketplace, totaling just over $4,000 in transaction value.

But the quality of the model mattered a lot. In the simulated runs where Opus and Haiku models negotiated with one-another, the Opus models got substantially better deals.

Interestingly, though, participants in our survey didn’t pick up on this disparity. pic.twitter.com/X26hhIieJN

— Anthropic (@AnthropicAI) April 24, 2026

Anthropic's point is that AI-to-AI commerce offers an early look at the coming agentic economy, where AI bots negotiate with other bots in a marketplace to strike the best deal.

Claude interviewed 69 of our colleagues about what they wanted to buy and sell. Each Claude asked for any custom instructions, then went off to haggle.

We ran 4 markets in parallel, to find out what would happen if we varied the models doing the negotiating. pic.twitter.com/FJdD6S2TSd

— Anthropic (@AnthropicAI) April 24, 2026

AI disruption has already hammered software stocks. Now, as Polymarket Money pointed out, "eBay's leadership team is seeing this," referring to Project Deal.

eBay's leadership team seeing this: pic.twitter.com/Hg0KMdhC5z

— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) April 24, 2026

Shortly after Project Deal's release, eBay shares fell about 4.5% by Friday's close in New York.

Does this mean Anthropic is now coming for eBay?

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/26/2026 - 15:45