Zero Rss

Anti-Trump Entertainers Bolt From Freedom 250 Celebration

Several entertainers abruptly backed out of President Donald Trump-linked Freedom 250 concerts this week after learning more details about the patriotic celebration planned for the National Mall.

As American Greatness reports, the cancellations add to the long-running tensions between Americans and the politically progressive entertainment industry.

Young MC, Morris Day, the Commodores, Bret Michaels, and country singer Martina McBride were among the performers who announced they would no longer appear at “The Great American State Fair,” a series of concerts and events scheduled for June 25 through July 10 in Washington, D.C.

The event is being organized by Freedom 250, a group launched by Trump late last year that describes itself as a “national, non-partisan organization leading the celebration of our Nation’s 250th birthday.”

Trump selected former State Department official Keith Krach to serve as the organization’s CEO.

The cancellations came just one day after organizers unveiled the first wave of performers.

McBride said on social media that she initially agreed to participate because she believed the event would remain politically neutral.

“Yesterday things started changing and what we were told is, in fact, not what is happening,” she wrote Thursday.

Young MC similarly suggested he was uncomfortable with the event’s political ties.

“The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event,” he wrote on Instagram, adding that he hoped to “perform in D.C. in the near future at an event that is not so politically charged.”

Morris Day also confirmed his departure in a brief Instagram statement.

“Contrary to rumor, Morris Day & The Time will not be performing at the ‘GREAT AMERICAN STATE FAIR,’” he posted.

C& C Music Factory issued a confusing statement, distancing themselves from the event:

"As the Creator of C&C MUSIC FACTORY, I can state that we stand for love of all people and races globally and neutrality in all beliefs, in freedom and justice for all humanity"

The greatest lip-syncers ever - Milli Vanilli - are also out:

"The original/real vocalists of Milli Vanilli, Jodie Rocco, Linda Rocco. Brad Howell, John Davis, and Charles Shaw will NOT be performing their hits live at The Great American State Fair. Others using the name 'Milli Vanilli' that appear on the advertisement should be considered a tribute band with no association vocally or musically to our sound or songs."

At least one “I Love the 90s” act will be there: Vanilla Ice.

“He is proud to help celebrate America’s 250th Anniversary!” a representative for the “Ice Ice Baby” rapper wrote in an email to the AP.

“Everyone is welcome to attend and celebrate USA’s Birthday and our Freedom!”

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 18:00

Obama-Nominated Judge Orders Trump's Name Removed From Kennedy Center Building

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

A federal district judge on May 29 ordered that President Donald Trump’s name be removed from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and blocked officials from shuttering the venue for two years for renovations.

Obama-nominated, Washington-based Judge Christopher R. Cooper issued an order temporarily halting the closure and preventing the name change.

“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” the judge said.

The new ruling came in response to litigation initiated in December 2025 by Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) who sued Trump and the Kennedy Center board of trustees over its renaming as the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Beatty is an ex officio member of the center’s board of trustees.

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) (C) and Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) (C) arrive for an event on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 3, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

“Representative Beatty is entitled to summary judgment on the renaming issue,” Cooper wrote Friday.

“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President [John] Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” the judge wrote.

Cooper also ordered that Beatty have her voting rights restored as an ex officio trustee.

“The Center’s organic statute makes no distinction between the powers of general and ex officio trustees,” Cooper wrote.

“Nothing in the statute permits the Board to discriminate categorically between the two as to fundamental trustee rights,” the judge wrote.

“And stripping ex officio trustees of their voting rights runs afoul of common-law trust principles incorporated into the statute, principles which presumptively place trustees on equal footing when it comes to participating in the trust’s administration.”

Days before, the Kennedy Center board had unanimously voted to rename the institution the Trump-Kennedy Center.

That same day, new lettering was installed on the outside of the building along with digital rebranding.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 17:40

Japan Prepares To End Quantitative Tightening Amid Bond Market Turmoil

With Japanese bond yields recently hitting record highs and bond market volatility soaring, overnight Reuters floated a trial balloon that Japan's central bank may pause the unwinding of its massive debt holdings next fiscal ​year, which would give Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi some relief amid growing investor concerns about her growing spending plans.

A pause would mark a turning point in the Bank ‌of Japan's quantitative tightening plan - started in 2024 as part of Governor Kazuo Ueda's efforts to unwind a decade-long, massive stimulus which everyone said would result in failure. Well, there it is. The next step, of course, is more QE.

According to Reuters, which is well known for being the mouthpiece of BOJ insiders, at its June 15-16 meeting, the Japanese central bank will review its bond taper plan running through March next year and lay out a new plan for fiscal 2027. With no change expected to the existing taper plan, markets are focusing on whether the BOJ would keep reducing its monthly bond purchases in fiscal 2027 or maintain the current pace.

While ​there is no consensus yet within the BOJ on the final decision, a pause in taper is increasingly seen as the preferred option with uncertainty over the Iran war keeping ​bond markets jittery, said two sources familiar with the deliberations.

"Markets remain volatile, so there's no need to rush," one of them said on the BOJ's ⁠taper, adding that many market players appeared to favor maintaining the current pace of buying. Ironically, the market volatility is precisely the reason to rush. 

Political considerations may also push the BOJ to pause as rising bond yields threaten to confine Takaichi's spending plans. "What the ​administration wants to avoid most is rises in bond yields," said one of the sources. Of course, if the intention is to avoid bond yields from surging, it's far too late.

Japan's 20Y bond yield rises as high as 3.511%, highest since 1996 as global interest rates go vertical pic.twitter.com/Rc1gKjfGyo

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 13, 2026

Confirming the end of the QT is effectively a done deal, some investors are now calling on the BOJ to pause its bond taper plan, a central bank survey ​earlier this month showed, highlighting the challenge it faces in reducing its massive Japanese government bonds (JGB) holdings. 

Even before the Reuters report, there had already been some indications the BOJ might consider slowing its taper plan amid market uncertainty. A clearer signal on the BOJ's taper plan will come next week, when the central bank releases minutes of its meeting with bond market participants held on May 21-22.

"We've seen a pretty fast rise in bond yields, which makes it hard for investors to buy ​bonds. The finance ministry may be getting worried too," said former BOJ official Nobuyasu Atago. "Given the political headwinds, I see no reason for the BOJ to keep tapering next fiscal year," he said.

Concerns ​over Japan's worsening finances and rising inflation pushed up the 10-year JGB yield to a 30-year high of 2.8% last week, nearing the 3% estimate the finance ministry set in compiling its fiscal 2026 budget. A rise ‌above 3% ⁠would boost debt servicing costs and reduce scope for other spending.

The BOJ's rate-hike decision may also affect its taper plan with an increase in short-term rates to 1% from 0.75% seen as a strong possibility at the June meeting. While the central bank has said its taper program has no monetary policy implications, the case for slowing QT becomes stronger if it pushes through a hike, something it has been woefully unable to do so far despite a collapsing yen. 

"With the bond market so unstable, it would be natural for the BOJ to play it safe and avoid causing undue market turbulence," said Mari Iwashita, executive rates strategist at Nomura Securities, who projects a taper pause ​in fiscal 2027.

"A combination of a taper pause ​and rate hike would be a good ⁠one," as the former will ease upward pressure on yields, while the latter would alleviate concern the BOJ is behind the curve in addressing inflationary risks, she said.

It's not just Japan: rising debt and volatile yields have heightened challenges for central banks unwinding their balance sheets that ballooned from years of heavy asset ​purchases to reflate their economies. In the US, analysts doubt whether new Fed chief Kevin Warsh can push through his calls for a smaller balance ​sheet as U.S. Treasuries lose ⁠their luster.

The BOJ has also been cautious in its QT program which started in 2024, and under which the central bank gradually reduced purchases and currently trims monthly buying by 200 billion yen each quarter. 

Political hurdles for the BOJ's QT have heightened under Takaichi, who has vowed to cut tax and boost spending by issuing even more debt in the world's most indebted economy. 

Taper or not, a reduction in the BOJ's holdings, currently at around 500 trillion yen, will proceed steadily due ⁠to the runoff ​of maturing JGBs that already shaved 20% off its balance sheet from a peak in late 2023.

That's all the more ​reason for the BOJ to maintain the current pace of buying, said former BOJ executive Akira Otani, currently at Goldman Sachs Japan.

"When inflationary risks from the Middle East conflict and the government's proactive fiscal policy are putting upward pressure ​on bond yields, proceeding with further tapering could cause political friction by pushing up yields," he said.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 17:20

This Is The Deep State On Parade Like A Naked Emperor

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

In the annals of Deep State WTF-ery, is there a stranger case than CIA officer David Rush turning up with $40-million in 303 one-kilogram gold bars, plus $2-million in cash, plus a stash of 30 mostly Rolex watches?

Well, yeah, the stranger story is how the guy got hired by the CIA in the first place.

Rush was arrested on Monday, May 18, by an FBI SWAT team at his home in Loudoun County, VA. Agents searched the house all day long and found the stash. Rush is currently charged with theft of public money and allegedly falsifying his military and academic credentials to obtain federal employment benefits, including roughly $77,000 in improper military leave pay. He’s scheduled to make a federal court appearance in Alexandria today.

Rush first applied for a job at the CIA in March 2006. He claimed to have a bachelor’s degree in math from Clemson University and a master’s from the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI). He was rejected. He reapplied later that same year. Bumped again. He reapplied again in 2009, adding a new credential: that he’d been a US Navy test pilot and flight trainer. This time, he was hired.

Rush’s college credentials were found to be false, but it is unclear when that was discovered. Since he included them in his two earlier 2006 failed applications, why were they not flagged in his successful 2009 application? His claim of being a US Navy pilot was also found to be false (he was an information systems tech in his Navy service). The FBI affidavit unsealed recently details the pattern of lies across all applications.

Understand that CIA vetting procedures are supposed to be exceedingly rigorous. The process is stressful and invasive — many candidates drop out or are weeded out. The background check involves interviews with practically everybody who knows the applicant going back decades, his criminal history, work, financial history, education, military service. The applicant gets a polygraph exam. Even after getting hired, monitoring continues.

Rush was hired at the very start of the Obama admin; Leon Panetta was the newly appointed CIA Director. Wouldn’t you like to hear him ‘splain how David Rush managed to get hired? Was somebody smoothing his way in? Rush rose to become a senior executive service (SES) officer with a top-secret (TS/SCI) security clearance. His exact duties, the division he worked for, his day-to-day responsibilities have not been disclosed.

Rush allegedly requested the gold and foreign currency from the CIA for “work-related expenses” between November 2025 and March 2026. The agency later could not account for the assets or locate records explaining their official purpose. A search of a storage locker at CIA connected to Rush turned up only a small amount of the requisitioned cash.

“There is a whole process that we go through to get that money. I don’t just walk into the logistics office and say ‘Excuse me, I need $100,000 tomorrow.’ There is a form I have to fill out. It’s not a bank vault you walk into. It doesn’t work like that.” — Tracy Walder, 46, a former FBI special agent and CIA officer, quoted in The New York Post.

Wouldn’t you assume that some higher-up CIA officer would have to sign off on such a colossal requisition of gold and money? (And where does the CIA get so much gold on-demand?) Perhaps the very Director of the CIA approved it — which would be John Ratcliffe through 2025 up to right now. Doesn’t he have some ‘splainin’ to do? (Was Rush set-up? Was this a sting?)

Assuming Rush spent some period of time as an entry-level CIA employee, when did his rise to SES level happen? John Brennan became CIA Director in early 2013 (the start of Barack Obama’s second term). What were David Rush’s relations with John Brennan? Was Brennan his mentor? Does the gold stash have any connection with the current legal problems of John Brennan and other former high officials involved in the long-running “grand conspiracy” case about the attempted overthrow of a president?

You might imagine that Rush’s phone and computers were seized in the May 18th raid on his house — though it’s unlikely he used such conventional channels for black ops chatter. It’s conceivable, though, that any alt-communications of his were captured by the vast national security surveillance apparatus, and that DNI Tulsi Gabbard might have come across them this past year. How else might Director Ratcliffe have been tipped off?

This story is not going away. The scale of the grift is spectacular and vivid — 303 gold bars! — like a Hollywood movie. Rush’s explanation of “work-related expenses” sounds preposterous. If the requisitions were made serially, over several months, as appears, then the agency had more than one opportunity to review and question them.

Rush faked his entire back-story. How incompetent (or corrupt) are the agency’s past managers that he got away with it for so long? How many other gross fakers, rogues, grifters, and tools are embedded in the agency, and who are they really working for? The institutional embarrassment is monumental. Trust in the so-called Intel Community is at an all-time low.

Indictments and trials are coming.

This is the Deep State on parade like a naked emperor.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 17:00

Bessent Signals Crackdown On Dark-Money Funded NGOs In "Weeks, Months Ahead"

Last year, readers were briefed on what was then the investigative phase into dark-money-funded NGOs and alleged foreign influence operations routed through far-left activist networks. These NGOs and activist networks advance anti-capitalist agendas, mobilize protests and riots to fuel unrest under the banner of toxic social justice, and have also served as a permanent protest-industrial complex designed to delay, deny, and destroy President Trump's pro-America agenda.

Fast forward to late spring, and there now appears to be a clear transition inside parts of the Trump administration from the investigative phase to the action phase.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled just that during a Thursday press briefing.

Here, the exchange between a reporter and Bessent suggests the potential enforcement phase has already begun:

Reporter: "I want to ask you about Antifa. In October, the Treasury Department started working with the FBI to investigate who's funding Antifa. Can you give us an update on that investigation? How close are you guys finding out who is funding it?"

Scott Bessent: "It is ongoing. We made substantial progress, and I think in the weeks and months ahead, we are going to have a lot to report""

(Bessent continues on IRS guidance for nonprofits): "The IRS is now giving guidance on the Form 990, which nonprofits they have to file. We are going to demand that nonprofits know their grant recipients. So if a grant recipient is violent, if they are suppressing people's rights, then YOU are responsible for that. And I think that's a very good first step."

Watch the Exchange: 

🚨 WOW! Scott Bessent just revealed the IRS has moved to make NGOs LIABLE for violent activity committed by their grant recipients like Antifa

George Soros has been put on NOTICE.

"The IRS is now giving guidance on the Form 990, which nonprofits they have to file. We are going… pic.twitter.com/15ToheHbwa

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) May 28, 2026

What's key to understand is that Bessent lays out a timeline of the action phase against the radical left that seeks revolution and routes its operations through dark-money-funded NGOs and activist groups.

We suspect that one of the key focuses is on U.S. Marxist tech financier Neville Roy Singham, who has reportedly been living in China and has been linked by The New York Times to CCP-aligned propaganda activist networks.

This week, far-left Turkish-American millionaire and Twitch streamer Hasan Piker committed an operational-security mistake by publicly identifying Singham as the "funding vehicle" for Marxist political movements in the U.S. routed through a network of nonprofits.

Piker revealed last week that he received a U.S. Treasury's "Requests for Information" subpoena over his "humanitarian trip" to Cuba with pro-China CodePink cofounder Susan Medea Benjamin. Keep in mind that CodePink is connected to the Singham network.

We've been early to the story of some nonprofits used as adversarial influence operations, as noted last year:

• Is There A "Cuba Connection" Behind The Radicalization Of America's Nonprofit Left

Last October, Seamus Bruner, Director of Research at the Government Accountability Institute, briefed President Trump on television about radical left NGOs and activist networks.

"We have identified dozens of radical organizations, not just the decentralized Antifa organizations, but dozens of radical organizations that have received more than $100 million from the Riot Inc investors," Bruner told Trump.

Source: Government Accountability Institute

This subject is near and dear to Elon Musk, who at the time commented on a video of Seamus briefing Trump.

Way more than $100M of US taxpayer money

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 8, 2025

The best understanding we can provide readers is that the investigative phase into these radical-left NGOs has entered the action phase.

Hedge fund legend Kyle Bass noted, "SecScottBessent is doing God's work. Imagine if the IRS required a full donor list to be public to maintain the 501 (c) (3) ’s tax-exempt status."

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 16:40

One In Three American Men No Longer Working

Via American Greatness,

The number of American men participating in the workforce has fallen to one of its lowest levels in nearly two decades, according to new federal labor statistics.

Just 66 percent of men age 20 and older were employed or actively seeking work as of April, according to data released earlier this month by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. That figure has dropped sharply from 73 percent in 2006 and now sits near levels last seen during the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis.

The numbers mean roughly one in three American men are no longer in the workforce.

The only modern period with lower participation rates came during the economic devastation caused by the 2020 pandemic, when male workforce participation collapsed to 59 percent.

While employment rates gradually recovered during the years following the Great Recession, those gains were wiped out during the pandemic downturn. Participation rebounded somewhat within two years before beginning another steady decline that has continued into 2026.

The downward trend appears ongoing. Male workforce participation fell another full percentage point in April compared with the same period in 2025, according to Labor Department data.

Several economic shifts are contributing to the decline.

Industries that have traditionally employed large numbers of men including transportation, manufacturing and other labor-intensive sectors, have shed jobs over the past year, according to the Washington Post.

At the same time, growing numbers of retirees and male students have reduced the share of men participating in the labor market.

The labor picture for women has followed a different trajectory.

Female workforce participation also declined during the past two decades, though the swings have been less dramatic. Women saw only a 2-point decline during the 2008 recession, compared with a 5-point drop for men.

Women’s labor force participation has also remained more stable since the pandemic recovery, never falling below 56 percent since 2022.

The economy increasingly appears to favor sectors dominated by female workers. Healthcare and education jobs have grown over the past year, helping women capture nearly all recent job gains.

Of the 369,000 jobs added to the US economy since 2025, 96 perent went to women while just 4 percent went to men, according to the Washington Post.

Despite the shrinking share of men participating in the labor force, male unemployment has remained relatively low, hovering between 3 percent and 4 percent since 2021.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 16:20

Trump Refiles Lawsuit Over Wall Street Journal Article Linking Him To Epstein Letter

Authored by Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump has refiled his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against Dow Jones & Company, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, over an article that alleged he signed a birthday letter sent to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump’s legal team submitted the revised complaint exactly on the May 27 deadline set by U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles. In April, Gayles dismissed the original lawsuit, ruling that Trump had failed to show that The Wall Street Journal acted with “actual malice,” the legal standard required in defamation cases involving public figures.

The updated complaint, which is seven pages longer than the original filing, again argues that Trump suffered significant financial and reputational damage from what his attorneys describe as a “false, defamatory, and malicious” article.

Trump has repeatedly denied authoring the 2003 letter.

In the new filing, Trump’s attorneys argue that only two surviving individuals could confirm whether the letter existed. According to the complaint, Trump “vehemently denied” writing it, while Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly told federal officials she had no knowledge of the document.

The complaint further accuses reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo, along with Dow Jones and News Corp., of either knowingly publishing false information or intentionally avoiding evidence that contradicted the story.

The original Wall Street Journal report said that Trump denied both writing the letter and drawing the image.

However, Trump’s legal team states “the Defendants falsely, maliciously, and defamatorily state as fact that regardless of how the alleged letter was prepared, it nonetheless contains President Trump’s authentic signature.”

Responding to requests for comment, publisher Dow Jones declined to discuss the refiled lawsuit but reiterated a previous statement issued in July 2025.

“We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,” a company spokesperson said.

In dismissing the original case, Gayles explained that proving actual malice requires evidence that a publisher knowingly reported false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. He wrote that Trump’s earlier complaint “comes nowhere close to this standard.”

Gayles also noted that The Wall Street Journal sought comment from Trump, the Justice Department, and the FBI before publication. Trump denied writing the letter, the Justice Department did not respond, and the FBI declined to comment.

The judge further stated that claims the newspaper ignored contradictory evidence were weakened by the article itself, which included Trump’s denial. Allegations of ill intent alone, he wrote, were insufficient to establish actual malice without supporting factual evidence.

Attorneys representing the newspaper have argued that the article’s claims are true and therefore not defamatory. However, Gayles declined to decide those factual disputes at this stage of the proceedings. He said questions regarding whether Trump authored the letter or maintained a personal relationship with Epstein remain unresolved.

To proceed with the lawsuit, Gayles wrote, Trump must provide clear evidence that The Wall Street Journal knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The judge characterized the original complaint as relying on “formulaic” accusations that failed to meet the high legal threshold required for public figures pursuing defamation claims.

Following the dismissal, Trump addressed the case on Truth Social, saying his legal team would submit a revised complaint before the court’s deadline.

“It is not a termination, it is a suggested re-filing,” Trump wrote.

Trump originally filed the lawsuit in July 2025 after The Wall Street Journal published an article about the sexually suggestive letter allegedly bearing his signature in a birthday album created for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 15:40

"Closing The Nuclear Fuel Cycle" - Newcleo's $780M War Chest And Oklo Partnership Fuel $2.4B SPAC Debut

It's open season in the nuclear industry for going public, and this week's episode features newcleo, a European lead-cooled reactor developer. 

The Paris-based developer of lead-cooled fast reactors (LFRs) and closed-cycle MOX fuel announced it will merge with NewHold Investment Corp III (ticker NHIC) in a deal valuing the company at roughly $2.4 billion. 

A $220 million oversubscribed PIPE at $10 per share plus up to $209 million from the SPAC trust should deliver as much as $429 million in gross proceeds before redemptions and fees. The combined entity expects to list on Nasdaq under ticker NWCL in the second half of 2026.

Hopefully their transition to public markets doesn't follow the same path as microreactor developer Hadron Energy…

Founded by Stefano Buono (the man who took Advanced Accelerator Applications public on Nasdaq in 2015 and sold it to Novartis for $3.9 billion in 2018), Newcleo has already raised approximately $780 million privately across Europe. It generated roughly $80 million in revenue last year from its vertically integrated supply-chain subsidiaries while building a 900-plus employee team across seven countries and 16 offices. 

The technology: Newcleo’s 200 MW (electric) reactor uses liquid lead coolant. The company highlights that lead is cheap, high-boiling, and chemically inert with water and air. The lead is paired with proprietary MOX fuel (a mixture of uranium and plutonium) fabricated from reprocessed nuclear waste.

Their target for commercial fuel manufacturing is 2031, and they hold a pipeline of 9.2 GW of advanced commercial opportunities, including a state-backed Slovak project for up to four 200 MWe units.

As we recently covered, Oklo was selected by the Department of Energy for advanced negotiations under the Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program; one of five firms tapped to convert up to 20 metric tons of Cold War-era weapons plutonium into usable reactor fuel. Newcleo is Oklo’s fuel-cycle partner on the deal, supplying European MOX expertise and potential project capital.

The two companies already signed a strategic partnership last October that contemplates up to $2 billion in Newcleo-affiliated investment into U.S. advanced fuel fabrication infrastructure, alongside Sweden’s Blykalla.
 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 15:25

Bitcoin ETFs Bleed $2.8B In Record 9-Day Outflow Streak

Authored by Helen Partz via CoinTelegraph.com,

US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) posted their longest outflow streak since launch, extending withdrawals as institutional demand for Bitcoin exposure weakened.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded another $223 million in net outflows on Thursday, marking the record nine-day outflow streak since the funds launched in 2024, according to data from Farside Investors.

The latest streak surpassed the previous record eight-session outflow run recorded in February 2025, though its roughly $2.84 billion in cumulative withdrawals remains below the $3.2 billion lost during the earlier selloff.

US spot Bitcoin ETF outflows in May 2026 versus February 2025. Source: SoSoValue

Visualizing further shows BTC ETFs have seen outflows for 13 of the last 15 days...

The outflows suggest institutional demand for Bitcoin exposure is weakening through the ETF channel, and come as major corporate holders such as Strategy face renewed pressure even as some new altcoin products like Hyperliquid (HYPE) ETFs continue attracting investor interest.

BlackRock’s IBIT leads the outflows at $2 billion

Signs of institutional selling have also emerged beneath the surface.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), the largest US spot Bitcoin ETF by assets, accounted for a massive share of losses during the nine-session outflow streak, recording its largest single-day outflow since launch earlier this week, driven largely by a sizeable dark pool transaction.

The fund recorded roughly $2.04 billion in cumulative outflows between May 15 and Thursday. As Cointelegraph reported, a $527.8 million withdrawal on May 27 marked IBIT’s second-largest daily outflow on record, narrowly below the $528.3 million record posted on Jan. 30, 2025.

BTC holdings for all US spot Bitcoin ETFs as of market close on Wednesday. Source: Wallet Pilot

While the precise motivation behind the trade is unknown, CoinDesk notes that the scale of the redemption suggests some investors may be reallocating capital away from bitcoin exposure and toward sectors that have recently generated stronger returns.

Despite the selling pressure, BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF remains the dominant US spot Bitcoin fund by assets under management. IBIT held roughly 792,000 BTC as of market close on Wednesday, representing about 62% of all US spot Bitcoin ETF holdings, according to Wallet Pilot data.

US spot Ether ETFs have also faced persistent selling pressure, logging 13 consecutive days of outflows between May 11 and Thursday, with cumulative losses of roughly $694 million.

HYPE ETFs buck the broader slowdown

While spot Bitcoin ETFs face sustained selling pressure, newly launched HYPE ETFs have continued attracting fresh capital from investors.

The products recorded steady inflows between May 12 and Thursday, with cumulative net inflows rising above $100 million, according to SoSoValue.

Daily flows in US-listed spot HYPE ETFs. Source: SoSoValue

Other altcoin funds such as spot XRP ETFs also recorded steady gains over the period, totaling roughly $120 million in net additions between May 4 and Thursday.

The divergence underscores a shift in crypto fund flows, with investors pulling back from Bitcoin and Ether ETFs while newer products tied to tokens such as Hyperliquid’s HYPE continue to attract inflows.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 15:00

The Two Ugly Paths Now Facing The US Economy

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

I was watching Andrew Ross Sorkin on 60 Minutes last Sunday. Sorkin was on the show to promote his new book, 1929: Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History — and How It Shattered a Nation.

When Leslie Stahl asked him during his interview whether we would have another crash, Sorkin answered: “The answer is, we will have a crash. I just can’t tell you when, and I can’t tell you how deep. But I can assure you, unfortunately, I wish I wasn’t saying this, we will have the crash.”

At one point he says “We are either living through some kind of remarkable boom, [or we’re reliving] 1929.”

I thought to myself: hell, I can do better than that, and I didn’t even write a book about 1929. Because at this point, the real question is not whether we are headed toward some sort of financial reckoning…the question is what form that reckoning takes.

And after looking at the current economic landscape, I increasingly believe there are only two realistic outcomes over the next several years: a soft default through inflation or a hard default through financial crisis. The former seems more likely than the latter, and can be confusing to people because nominal prices staying steady or rising while inflation runs out of control won’t look like a “crash” that most of 60 Minutes’ viewers will expect. It’ll be a crash upward.

To understand why, let’s start with where we are right now and summarize a lot of what I’ve written about over the past month or two. There’s four key things I’m watching:

1. inflation

2. market valuation

3. the consumer

4. the bond market

These four things have worked together to produce a combination that I believe is close to locking up the economy and taking away any response options from the Central Bank that won’t have immediate and ugly consequences.

Inflation remains structurally above the Federal Reserve’s target despite one of the most aggressive rate-hiking cycles in modern history. Even now, inflation is still running around 3.8%, nearly double the Fed’s stated objective. This is no longer a temporary post-pandemic distortion that policymakers can dismiss away with optimistic forecasts and revised models.

Inflation has become embedded across the economy, from housing and insurance to healthcare, wages, food, and government spending itself. The cost structure of modern American life has permanently shifted upward, while policymakers continue pretending that a return to stable 2% inflation is just around the corner. It’s not.

At the same time, financial markets continue to trade at historically stretched valuations. The Shiller P/E ratio sits around 42x versus its mean of 17.3x and market capitalization relative to GDP has surged above 230%, levels associated not with healthy long-term expansion but with periods of deep speculation and excess.

A better way to look at this instead of valuations are high is that the market is extraordinarily vulnerable to falling further in percentage terms. When valuations become detached from underlying economic reality, the downside risk grows larger because there is simply farther to fall once confidence breaks. Expensive markets do not automatically cause crashes, but they create the conditions where even modest disappointments can trigger violent repricing. Especially if the market’s rally has been on poor breadth and the result of speculation on options and the passive bid.

Beneath the surface, delinquency data shows that the consumer is tapped out. Student loan delinquencies have surged back toward record levels as repayments resume into an economy where borrowing costs and living expenses have both exploded higher.

Credit card delinquencies are now sitting at their highest levels since the aftermath of the financial crisis, while auto loan defaults, especially among subprime borrowers, have reached multi-decade highs. Americans are financing $50,000 vehicles with monthly payments exceeding $750 at interest rates that would have seemed absurd just a few years ago.

Consumers have largely maintained spending not because household finances are healthy, but because they have increasingly relied on debt to sustain a standard of living that inflation has steadily eroded.

And the rate at which consumers are saving is dwindling significantly now.

But the most important warning signal in the economy is not the stock market or the consumer. It is the bond market.

Under normal economic conditions, weakening growth and financial stress would push long-term Treasury yields lower as investors seek safety and begin pricing in future Federal Reserve easing. Instead, the opposite is happening. The 10-year Treasury yield remains around 4.5%, while the 30-year Treasury has pushed above 5%. Those are not comforting numbers. They reflect a growing discomfort with the long-term fiscal trajectory of the United States itself.

This is the trap the United States now finds itself in.

And because of these four factors, I believe there are only two paths we can go down. The more likely path I think puts gold eventually on a (rocky and volatile) tracjectory to eventually get to $10,000.

The first, and in my view the more likely outcome, is the soft default. This is the inflationary path where policymakers ultimately choose to save the Treasury market through monetary intervention. They will not describe it as money printing, of course. They will use softer language such as liquidity support, balance sheet management, market stabilization, or yield curve control. But the mechanism is ultimately the same. The Federal Reserve creates money in order to purchase government debt and suppress long-term yields before the Treasury market becomes unstable.

This approach would almost certainly succeed in stabilizing borrowing costs in the short term. But it would come at the expense of the currency itself. That is why I increasingly believe the next major crash could actually be an upward crash. Stocks may continue rising in nominal terms. Gold could surge. Real estate and hard assets may inflate even further. On paper, asset values appear strong and financial markets may even seem resilient. But underneath the surface, the purchasing power of the dollar continues eroding year after year.

That is what a soft default looks like. The government technically honors its obligations, but repays those obligations in increasingly devalued dollars. Savers lose purchasing power. Wage earners fall behind inflation. The middle class gets squeezed as the cost of living rises faster than incomes. Yet politically, inflation remains preferable because it spreads the pain gradually across society instead of concentrating it into one catastrophic event. I’ve even speculated that the Fed could wind up inventing new inflation numbers out of thin air for PR purposes if this happens: The Fed Will Invent New Inflation Numbers Out Of Thin Air

The second possibility is the hard default. This is the more chaotic and openly destructive scenario where policymakers lose control before they can inflate their way out of the problem. A hard default would not necessarily require the United States to formally announce that it is refusing to pay its debts. It could emerge through failed Treasury auctions, a debt ceiling accident, a severe liquidity freeze in the bond market, delayed government obligations, or a broader sovereign confidence crisis that causes investors to rapidly reassess the safety of U.S. debt.

In that environment, Treasury yields could spike violently higher while banks and financial institutions holding large amounts of long-duration government debt come under enormous pressure. Credit markets could freeze. Equity markets would likely experience a rapid downward repricing before policymakers responded with emergency interventions. Government spending cuts and forced austerity measures could suddenly become unavoidable not because Washington chose discipline voluntarily, but because markets imposed discipline externally.

🔥 90% Off If You Subscribe Today. This coupon allows for 90% off of annual subscriptions and results in a 90%+ savings over paying the monthly rate for a subscription to the blog. You keep the discounted rate for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber. I will not be offering 90% off anytime again soon after the long weekend: Get 90% off forever

This is the scenario policymakers fear most because once sovereign confidence begins breaking apart, events move very quickly. Financial history repeatedly shows that debt crises tend to unfold slowly for years and then suddenly all at once. I see this as the less likely scenario, but between the two paths, I’d venture to guess we have 99% of what could possibly take place nailed down and out in the open.

I believe the soft default remains far more likely than the hard default for one simple reason: policymakers will do almost anything to avoid immediate collapse. They will print before they default. They will monetize debt before they accept a disorderly Treasury market. They will sacrifice the purchasing power of the currency before they willingly allow the government’s financing structure to implode.

Sorkin says he knows a crash is coming but does not know what form it will take. I think we can narrow it down much further than that. The next crisis will probably not look like 1929, and it may not even resemble 2008. The more likely scenario is an inflationary sovereign debt crisis disguised for a period of time as economic resilience. It will look like rising nominal asset prices, stubborn inflation, endless liquidity support, and growing pressure on the dollar itself as policymakers attempt to suppress yields and keep the Treasury market functioning.

Because ultimately, once long-term interest rates become politically intolerable, the Federal Reserve will face an impossible choice. It can defend the dollar by allowing yields to rise and risk detonating the debt structure, or it can defend the Treasury market through intervention and risk significantly higher inflation. Under a new Fed chair like Kevin Warsh, the options are still fundamentally the same. Policymakers can change the language, revise inflation metrics, redefine targets, and introduce new programs, but they cannot escape the underlying arithmetic.

History strongly suggests they will choose inflation. Not because it solves the problem, but because it delays the reckoning.

And that is ultimately where I disagree with Sorkin. I do not think the future crash is unknowable. I think the pressure points are already obvious. To me, the only real question is whether the United States defaults honestly through crisis or dishonestly through inflation. I’d bet on the latter, and as an investor it would make me keen to watch gold if it gets smacked lower an an initial shock to markets before the Fed intervenes. Because I could easily see a situation where gold keeps retreating, perhaps to $4,000 or lower, sharply moving lower during the initial shock, maybe to $3500 or lower, before doubling or tripling in the years after a Fed response that I believe could be very inflationary and push gold closer to $10,000 over time.

--

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I no longer actively trade (read my story here) and my accounts are managed by recurring contributions to trusted third parties and advisors and/or recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs. Such advisors, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in names that I know nothing about. Basically, I could own or not own anything at any point, and not have any idea about it.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 14:20

Was Amazon's Tokenmaxxing Fiasco Behind Claude's $500M Mystery Bill?

Axios reported this week that an unnamed Anthropic enterprise client managed to run up roughly $500 million in Claude charges in a single month after failing to put usage limits on employee licenses.

The company was not named, but we suspect Blue Origin might not be the only thing that blew up for Jeff Bezos this month.

Just as the Axios report landed with the $500M tidbit, Amazon was shutting down an internal AI-usage leaderboard after employees reportedly began “tokenmaxxing” - routing unnecessary work through AI tools to inflate their usage scores. The result was a perfect case study in what happens when corporate America turns AI adoption into a metric, then acts surprised when employees optimize for the metric instead of the work.

Whether or not Amazon was the mystery Claude whale, its internal AI experiment shows exactly how a runaway enterprise AI bill can happen.

The $500M Claude Mystery

The Axios item was brief, but extraordinary:;

An AI consultant tells Axios one of their clients recently spent half a billion dollars in a single month after failing to put usage limits on Claude licenses for employees. 

So, oops to every CFO who recently approved "AI adoption" as a corporate priority.

In the old software world, when true nerds roamed the land, a bad rollout usually meant paying for licenses employees barely touched. The waste was real, but at least it was mostly static. In the new agentic AI world, a bad rollout - or simply adopting AI for everything - can quickly become devastating: thousands of employees - or autonomous agents operating on their behalf - prompting, testing, summarizing, refactoring, retrying, and spinning up new tasks on usage-based pricing.

That is the heart of the current enterprise AI hangover. Companies spent the past year foisting AI on employees, often without a clean way to separate productivity from dashboard-friendly activity. And now the hangover is here. 

Microsoft has reportedly started canceling most Claude Code licenses and steering developers toward GitHub Copilot CLI. Uber reportedly burned through its entire 2026 AI coding-tools budget by April, with COO Andrew Macdonald saying it was “very hard to draw a line” between rising Claude Code usage and useful consumer-facing output. Meta killed an employee-created “Claudeonomics” dashboard after workers competed to rank among the company’s top AI token users.

Amazon’s Tokenmaxxing Fiasco

Amazon’s version of the problem was almost too on-the-nose.

Earlier this month, Financial Times reported that Amazon employees were using MeshClaw, an internal OpenClaw-style AI agent tool, to inflate AI usage metrics. MeshClaw let employees vibecode themselves agents that could interact with workplace systems, including code deployments, email triage, and Slack-style communications.

The company had also been pushing aggressive AI adoption internally. According to the FT, more than 80% of Amazon developers were expected to use AI tools weekly, and internal leaderboards tracked AI usage. Employees reportedly responded by routing non-essential tasks through AI agents in order to boost their token counts.

They even had an internal leaderboard - KiroRank - that issued nerd points (or whatever) to employees who tokenmaxxed. Apparently it didn't take long for them to realize this was a huge mistake - nuking KiroRank after it encouraged some workers to perform tasks that did not necessarily solve customer or business problems, but did help them climb the rankings. Amazon senior vice president Dave Treadwell reportedly told staff: “Please don’t use AI just for the sake of using AI.”

Amazon later emphasized that KiroRank was an informal employee-created tracker, not a formal performance system, and said it was never intended to promote AI usage for usage’s sake. The company also said it still tracks AI token usage to measure costs, but does not encourage tokenmaxxing.

Why Amazon Tops The $500M Suspect List

Start with the obvious: Amazon has one of the deepest strategic relationships with Anthropic of any company on earth.

Amazon announced in April that it would invest another $5 billion in Anthropic, with the possibility of up to $20 billion more tied to commercial milestones, on top of the $8 billion it had already invested. The same announcement said Anthropic had committed to spend more than $100 billion over ten years on AWS technologies.

That makes Amazon more than an ordinary Claude customer. It is an investor, infrastructure provider, distribution partner, and cloud beneficiary of Anthropic’s growth. 

Then there's the scale. Reuters reported in February that Amazon projected roughly $200 billion in capital expenditures for 2026, up sharply from 2025, as Big Tech raced to build out AI infrastructure. That level of spending needs demand signals. Internal AI usage is one of those signals.

Then there is the timing. Amazon’s MeshClaw usage controversy surfaced in May. KiroRank was deprecated in late May. Axios’ unnamed $500 million Claude bill appeared at the same moment the industry was waking up to the cost of tokenmaxxing.

2 weeks to kill the ROI Golden Goose pic.twitter.com/7wuDMpBNvb

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 29, 2026

So, yeah... 

Circle Jerk Intensifies?

The broader issue is not whether Amazon specifically spent $500 million on Claude in one month. The broader issue is that the AI boom is increasingly built on circular flows of money, usage, and valuation.

Hyperscalers invest billions in model companies. Model companies commit to spend billions back on hyperscaler cloud infrastructure. Enterprises push employees to use the tools. Token consumption rises. Rising usage supports higher revenue projections. Higher revenue projections support higher valuations. Higher valuations justify more infrastructure spending.

On paper, it looks like demand. In practice, some of that demand may be employees and agents burning tokens because management told them usage equals progress.

Reuters recently warned that Anthropic’s explosive growth tells only half the story, noting early signs of corporate AI fatigue even as revenue projections and valuation math move higher. The warning is simple: AI demand may be real, but not all usage is economically productive.

Which is a pretty big narrative killer...  If a developer uses Claude Code to ship a meaningful feature faster, that is adoption. If an employee routes fake busywork through an autonomous agent to climb a leaderboard, that is not adoption. It is metered theater.

The problem is that both show up as tokens.

There's an old idea in economics called Goodhart’s Law: when a measurement becomes the target, it stops being a useful measurement.

In plain English, if you tell employees they will be judged by a number, they will make the number go up - whether or not the underlying business gets any better.

That's exactly the danger with enterprise AI adoption. Token usage can be a useful internal signal. It can show whether employees are experimenting with tools, whether teams are adopting new workflows, and where demand is rising. But once token usage becomes a scoreboard, it no longer measures productivity. It measures willingness to burn tokens.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 14:05

Clorox CEO Steps Down For "Health Reasons" After Six-Year Stock Rout

Clorox shares tumbled on Friday after Chair and CEO Linda Rendle said she will step down for "health reasons," prompting the board to begin a search for her replacement.

"Rendle will also serve in an advisory role for a period following the appointment to drive business performance and a smooth leadership transition," Clorox wrote in a press release.

Rendle wrote in a statement, "Serving as CEO of Clorox for the past six years—and being part of this special company for more than two decades—has truly been the privilege of my career."

Under Rendle's six-year tenure, Clorox shares have fallen from grace, down a staggering 57%.

Here's what Wall Street analysts are saying, courtesy of Bloomberg:

TD Cowen (hold, PT $90)

• Analyst Robert Moskow says the announcement reinforces concerns about execution missteps amid CLX's plans to modernize its enterprise resource planning software and launch new products, particularly restaging cat litter."

• "We expect the company to guide below consensus for FY27."

BNP Paribas (neutral, PT $97)

• Analyst Kevin Grundy says CLX's next CEO will inherit a host of challenges, including worsening business performance, volatility in delivery, and subdued category growth.

• "Former and now retired CEO of CHD, Matt Farrell, is very unlikely, but would be a home run for CLX's shareholders"

So, did Rendle actually step down for "health reasons," or was it because investors had lost confidence in the turnaround timeline?

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 13:20

Dollar Dominance Remains Alive And Well

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The dollar is supposed to be dying. We’ve heard that argument for the better part of a decade, and it’s getting louder, not quieter. The narrative goes that BRICS countries are building an alternative, that China is dumping Treasuries, that gold is replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve asset, and that Washington is so desperate to find buyers for the next debt issuance that it’s now offering dollar swap lines to Gulf states as a backdoor liquidity rescue. Make no mistake, the “Persistent Purveyors of Doom” have a story. However, the data doesn’t support any of it.

Dollar dominance isn’t fading. In fact, the events of late April 2026 just delivered the loudest counter-signal in years.

Thesis Vs. Reality

I’ve been arguing for years that the “dollar collapse” thesis confuses inflation with debasement. You can’t be debasing a currency that the rest of the world is fighting harder than ever to acquire. We covered the rebasement argument in our previous piece on the dollar’s plumbing, and in “The Dollar’s Death is Greatly Exaggerated.” The latest data only sharpens the case for dollar dominance.

According to the U.S. Treasury’s most recent Treasury International Capital report, released April 15 with February 2026 data, foreign residents purchased $101 billion of long-term U.S. securities in February alone. Net TIC inflows totaled $184.5 billion for the month. On top of that, foreign holders added $91.6 billion to their Treasury bill holdings. Total foreign ownership of U.S. Treasuries hit a record $9.49 trillion in February, up $198 billion in the month and $587 billion over the trailing 12 months. However, that headline number actually undercounts the reality. It excludes foreign holdings managed through U.S.-domiciled hedge funds and the Cayman Islands basis trade, which the Federal Reserve estimates pulls another $1.5 trillion of de facto foreign demand into the bid stack. Adjusted for that, true foreign-linked exposure runs closer to $11 trillion.

Beyond stock-of-debt figures, the flow data tells the same story. Indirect bidder participation, the auction proxy for foreign demand, has run consistently above 70% of accepted bids on recent benchmark issues. Bid-to-cover ratios on 10-year and 30-year auctions have held above 2.5 across multiple cycles. If the world were truly walking away from the dollar, we’d see weak auctions, tailing yields, and a steepening term premium driven by rejected supply. Instead, we see the opposite. The U.S. just printed roughly two-and-a-half trillion in deficits over the past year, and global investors absorbed every basis point of it.

That doesn’t sound like a fire sale. On the contrary, that looks like the strongest sustained demand for U.S. sovereign debt in history.

Why Central Bank Gold Buying Reinforces Dollar Dominance

Here’s the part of the story the doomers consistently get wrong. The gold bugs have built an entire belief system on a category error. Of course, central banks have been buying gold in size. The World Gold Council’s Q1 2026 Gold Demand Trends report, published April 29, shows central banks bought 244 tonnes of gold net in Q1 2026 alone, up 3 percent year-over-year. That extends 17 consecutive months of net official-sector purchases, even with gold prices peaking above $5,400 an ounce in January.3 Total Q1 physical gold demand reached 474 tonnes, the second-highest quarter on record. Furthermore, the WGC forecasts roughly 850 tonnes of central bank purchases for full-year 2026, on par with 2025 and consistent with the multi-year pace. The trend is real and significant. However, it is not, in any practical sense, an escape from the dollar.

Gold is priced in dollars. The LBMA Gold Price, the global benchmark used to mark central bank holdings, settles in U.S. dollars per ounce. When the People’s Bank of China, the National Bank of Poland, or the Reserve Bank of India accumulates gold, the value of those reserves is reported, audited, and benchmarked in U.S. dollars. Of course, the unit of account doesn’t change just because the asset does. Furthermore, when those same central banks need to deploy gold for liquidity, the counterparty pricing reverts to dollars. That applies whether the deployment is through swaps, repo, or sale. The gold and dollar markets are not parallel systems. They’re the same system, with gold serving as a dollar-priced reserve asset.

That distinction matters because it reframes the entire de-dollarization narrative. A central bank that shifts 5% of reserves from Treasuries into gold has not abandoned the dollar. Instead, it has rebalanced inside the dollar-priced reserve system. The same is true for the Bank for International Settlements gold swaps, the Shanghai Gold Exchange yuan-quoted contract, and even the Russian central bank’s pre-sanction accumulation. Every one of those positions has a dollar-equivalent value because dollars are how the world prices reserve wealth. Even when gold is bought, sold, or pledged, the cross-rate to USD is the reference point. There’s no other deep, liquid pricing rail. In that sense, gold accumulation reinforces dollar dominance rather than threatens it.

The same World Gold Council survey that gets cited to “prove” a dollar decline shows that 73% of central bank respondents expect a moderately or significantly lower USD share of reserves over the next five years. The doomers stop reading at that headline. The reality is that the IMF’s most recent COFER release, covering Q4 2025, puts the dollar’s share of allocated reserves at 56.77%. That figure is essentially flat versus the prior quarter, with most of the variation explained by exchange-rate effects rather than active selling.

Total foreign exchange reserves stood at $13.14 trillion at year-end 2025. The dollar’s share of reserves has fluctuated between roughly 56% and 72% over the past three decades. At every level, however, it has been a multiple of every other reserve currency combined. The euro sits at 20.25%, and the yen and pound around 5% each, with the yuan, despite all the hype, still under 2%.

Bessent’s Dollar Swaps Extend Dominance

Indeed, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has spent the last several weeks discussing the possibility of extending dollar swap lines to allies in the Persian Gulf and Asia, with the United Arab Emirates as the lead candidate. Predictably, the doomers have framed this as a fire-sale-prevention move, claiming that Washington is offering swaps to keep Gulf sovereigns from dumping Treasuries amid the Iran conflict. However, that reading misses the strategy entirely.

Bessent said it himself in plain language. In his April 22 testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, he stated that swap lines “are to maintain order in the dollar funding markets and to prevent the sale of U.S. assets in a disorderly way.” Two days later, in a coordinated X post, he went further: “Additional swap lines can benefit our nation by reinforcing dollar usage and liquidity internationally,” and “extending permanent swap lines can be a major first step in creating new U.S. dollar funding centers in the Gulf and Asia.” He closed with the line that defines the entire policy framework:

“Dollar dominance and reserve currency status are strengthened by constant long-term initiatives, including countering the growth of problematic, alternative payment systems.”

That’s not the language of a desperate Treasury Secretary trying to plug a leaky bid stack. On the contrary, that’s the language of a policymaker using monetary infrastructure to extend American financial reach. Swap lines are how Washington exports dollar liquidity. The 2008 crisis playbook used them defensively to backstop European and Japanese banks. Bessent is now reaching for the same tool offensively. He’s planting new dollar funding nodes in regions where alternative payment systems, including BRICS clearing rails and yuan-denominated commodity pricing, have been making noise.

Consider the geometry. Permanent swap line access turns a partner country’s central bank into a node of the dollar system. Once that line is in place, local banks have a guaranteed dollar liquidity backstop. As a result, there is no real incentive to develop a non-dollar alternative. The UAE flirted publicly with yuan-denominated oil pricing as recently as last year. A swap line eliminates that option in practice. It makes the dollar backstop too cheap and reliable to abandon. This is the same logic that has kept the existing G7 swap lines (Canada, ECB, Japan, UK, Switzerland) firmly inside the dollar orbit since the financial crisis.

Furthermore, this isn’t theoretical. Bessent has already run this playbook in practice. In September 2025, the Treasury used the Exchange Stabilization Fund to extend a $20 billion swap line to Argentina ahead of Milei’s pivotal October election. The strategic logic was identical. Reinforce dollar liquidity in a partner economy. Prevent disorderly Treasury liquidations during a political stress event. Lock the country into the dollar system at the moment of maximum strategic value. Bessent has publicly stated that the Argentina facility was fully repaid within months, validating the operational template. The UAE proposal extends the same framework to the Gulf, and the broader Asian conversation that Bessent referenced suggests the network is about to expand significantly.

Swap lines are the carrot. Sanctions are the stick. Bessent has been just as direct about the second tool as about the first, and the timing of the messaging is no accident.

Furthermore, in late April, the Treasury unveiled what it’s calling “Economic Fury,” a coordinated campaign to “systematically degrade Tehran’s ability to generate, move, and repatriate funds.” The mechanics are revealing. The U.S. Navy is enforcing a blockade of Iranian ports. Kharg Island oil storage is filling up because Iranian crude has nowhere to go. Tankers facilitating covert trade face direct sanctions exposure. Critically for this discussion, OFAC has already frozen $344 million in cryptocurrency wallets tied to the regime.

That last data point matters more than the doomers will admit. It directly validates the argument we made in our previous piece on digital dollar infrastructure. Stablecoin and crypto rails are not an escape from the dollar system. Instead, they’re an extension of it, with new enforcement capabilities attached. When Treasury can freeze nine-figure crypto positions through compliance pressure on issuers and exchanges, the supposed “uncensorable” alternative to dollar custody turns out to be more censorable, not less.

The reality is that dollar dominance is reinforced by both tools simultaneously. On the carrot side, you have liquidity provision, swap lines, digital dollar adoption, and the deep Treasury bid. On the stick side, you have sanctions reach, OFAC freezes, blacklisting, and naval enforcement of commodity flows. Of course, both capabilities are expanding, not contracting. Foreign reserve managers know this. Furthermore, they are also calculating that being inside the dollar orbit, even with custodial diversification, is far safer than being targeted by it.

The UAE OPEC Exit Validates the Strategy

Then came April 28. The UAE announced it was leaving both OPEC and OPEC+, dealing a heavy blow to the cartel and to its de facto leader, Saudi Arabia. The timing was not coincidental. Just six days earlier, Bessent had publicly endorsed an emergency dollar swap line for Abu Dhabi before the Senate. The UAE central bank governor, Khaled Mohamed Balama, had traveled to Washington during the IMF and World Bank spring meetings to meet with Bessent and Federal Reserve representatives.

Read the sequence carefully. First, Iran’s missile strikes hit Gulf infrastructure, and then the Strait of Hormuz closes. UAE faces a real liquidity stress event. Washington offers an emergency dollar backstop, security guarantees, and the deployment of Israel’s Iron Dome on UAE soil. Days later, the UAE walks out of the petroleum cartel that the doomers have spent years claiming was about to abandon the dollar in favor of a “petroyuan” alternative. Instead, the UAE just publicly chose the dollar bloc over its OPEC peers. The swap line offer didn’t avert a crisis through emergency liquidity. It reorganized a major Gulf state into the U.S. financial orbit at the moment of maximum strategic opportunity.

That is dollar dominance functioning exactly as Bessent described it in his testimony. Carrot first. Then, the strategic realignment is second. The petroyuan narrative just lost its most credible Gulf candidate.

Pushback: But What About De-Dollarization?

The strongest version of the de-dollarization argument runs as follows. After the 2022 sanctions on Russia froze roughly $300 billion in central bank reserves, every other sanction-vulnerable country had to reassess custodial risk. China shifted holdings from direct U.S. custody to Belgium and Luxembourg. BRICS expanded membership. The Saudi-Iran rapprochement, brokered partly by Beijing, signaled a regional pivot. In addition, Russia and China increased bilateral trade settled in yuan and rubles. All of this is true.

However, none of it actually undermines dollar dominance at the system level. Sanction-driven custodial diversification moves Treasuries from the New York Fed to Euroclear. Yet it doesn’t move them out of the Treasury market. China’s reported direct holdings have declined, but its total exposure, including third-country custody, has remained roughly flat. Furthermore, BRICS settlement still reverts to dollars at the cross-border invoicing layer. No participant wants to hold rubles, rupees, or yuan as a long-term store of value. Bilateral yuan settlement, despite the headlines, remains a sliver of total trade flows.

The reality is the doomers are confusing diversification with abandonment. Foreign reserve managers are doing two things at once. First, they’re spreading custodial risk across more jurisdictions. Second, they’re adding gold as a politically neutral hedge. Both moves leave the dollar as the dominant unit of account, the dominant settlement asset, and the dominant store of value. As shown above, the share has barely moved.

Beyond the traditional reserve channel, digital dollar infrastructure is rapidly expanding the dollar’s reach into emerging markets. Demand for dollar-denominated digital tokens has hit all-time highs in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tether’s Q1 2026 attestation, published May 1, confirmed direct and indirect U.S. Treasury exposure of approximately $141 billion as of March 31, against $191.8 billion in total assets and $183.5 billion in liabilities. The reserve buffer reached a record $8.23 billion, and Q1 net profit hit $1.04 billion. That makes Tether the 17th largest holder of U.S. Treasuries globally.

Furthermore, USDT circulation grew by more than $5 billion during April alone, pushing total supply above $188 billion. In Latin America, dollar-pegged digital tokens accounted for 40% of crypto purchases in 2025, surpassing Bitcoin’s share. The Bitso report on 10 million Latin American users described the trend bluntly as “digital dollarization.” That kind of grassroots demand is dollar dominance in action at the consumer layer.

The GENIUS Act, signed into law last July, created the first federal framework requiring permitted issuers to back tokens with high-quality liquid assets, primarily short-term Treasuries. The April 2026 FinCEN/OFAC proposed rule extends sanctions enforcement directly into the issuer layer. As a result, Washington can freeze, block, or seize dollar-denominated digital tokens through the issuer’s compliance program. That isn’t a workaround away from the dollar system; it’s an extension of it, with new enforcement rails attached.

What This Means for Investors

The investment implications cut several ways. First, foreign demand for U.S. Treasuries is structurally strong, which keeps a bid under the long end of the curve even as deficits widen. Indeed, that’s bullish for duration. Second, central bank gold buying creates a price floor under bullion that didn’t exist in prior cycles. Investors should hold some allocation to gold. However, they should hold it for the right reason. It’s a dollar-priced inflation hedge and a political risk diversifier, not a fiat escape hatch. Finally, the digital dollar buildout is creating a new investable vertical. Custody, payments infrastructure, and compliant on-ramp providers (CRCL, COIN, V, MA, JPM, BK) sit at the intersection of fiat and digital dollar plumbing.

The contrarian read is this. If you bought into the dollar collapse narrative over the last five years, you missed gains in U.S. equities. You missed the Treasury bid that compressed yields during recent risk-off episodes. You probably overweighted gold and Bitcoin at peaks. The bottom line is that the trade that has worked across cycles is owning U.S. assets denominated in U.S. dollars. Diversifying across the dollar-priced reserve system has worked. Diversifying against it has not.

What does this mean for portfolio positioning right now? It means duration risk is rewarded by structural foreign demand. Equity risk is supported by the dollar-priced earnings of multinational franchises. Gold belongs in the portfolio at a strategic weight, not a doomsday weight. Furthermore, investors should pay close attention to which firms are positioning for the digital dollar buildout. That’s where the next leg of dollar dominance is happening.

The doomers will keep selling fear. That’s the business model. Make no mistake, real risks exist. Fiscal trajectory, debt servicing costs, sanctions blowback, and CBDC competition are all worth tracking carefully. However, none of those risks add up to the collapse narrative being pitched on social media every other day. The reality on the tape is that foreign Treasury demand is at an all-time high. Central bank gold buying continues to reinforce dollar pricing. Swap lines are being deployed offensively to extend dollar reach. Digital dollar infrastructure is colonizing real-time commerce in emerging markets.

If the dollar were truly dying, none of this would be happening. The fact that all of it is happening simultaneously tells you everything you need to know about where the smart money is positioning. The dollar isn’t dying. It’s evolving. And dollar dominance is going to be the central pricing rail of the global financial system for a long time yet.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 13:00

Antares Signs World’s First Multi-Year Commercial HALEU Supply Deal With Urenco

Antares has secured the first long-term commercial contract for High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) enrichment services from Urenco, a critical milestone for the microreactor sector that has long been starved for reliable Western fuel supply.

The agreement gives Antares access to HALEU produced at Urenco’s new enrichment facility in the United Kingdom, scheduled to come online in 2031. While still years away, the deal marks the first time a Western supplier has committed to multi-year commercial HALEU deliveries outside of government allocations.

The decision by the leading microreactor developer in the US to sign their first long-term contract with an international supplier brings immediate concern to the speed of development in the US for the expansion of enrichment capacity. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent (with billions more pledged) on companies including Centrus and General Matter by the federal government. Yet Antares chose to buy their enrichment services overseas...

“We are pleased to execute with Antares the world’s first multi-year contract for the supply of HALEU, which marks an important milestone in the maturation of this new market,” said Magnus Mori, Urenco’s Head of Advanced Fuels.

Antares CEO Jordan Bramble was equally direct: “Microreactors fueled with HALEU will be more performant and more economical. This partnership ensures that when we scale beyond material allocated by the federal government, we will have commercial supply ready to meet our needs.”

Antares is one of the more advanced microreactor developers, with a sodium heat-pipe design, factory production model, and recent selection for the Department of the Air Force’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program. 

The company is on track to take their first reactor critical prior to July 4th. 

HALEU remains the single biggest constraint for the entire advanced reactor wave. While the U.S. has made real regulatory progress and DOE allocations have helped early movers, commercial-scale Western production has been painfully slow. Most developers are still relying on limited government stockpiles or waiting on facilities that won’t be ready until the early 2030s.

This Urenco-Antares deal doesn’t solve the near-term crunch, but it does show that serious commercial players are finally moving beyond announcements and into actual supply agreements.
 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 12:40

NATO Condemns Russia After Drone Smashes Into Romanian Apartments: 'Grave Escalation'

A Russian overnight attack on Ukraine reportedly involved an errant drone crashing into a 10-story apartment block in neighboring Romania, which is a member of NATO.

"We condemn Russia's recklessness, and NATO will continue to strengthen our defenses against all threats, including drones," a NATO spokesperson said on X, in an initial reaction.

 Romanian Department for Emergency Situations handout, via Reuters

Romanian officials described that during the Russian military's assault on Ukraine, which has basically become nightly at this point, a Russian drone slammed into the residential building in the southeastern city of Galati - resulting in an explosion and a fire that injured two people.

The Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry condemned the "grave and irresponsible escalation from Russia" while further declaring it has issued formal request for more anti-drone defense measures from NATO.

"Romania has informed allies and NATO's secretary-general about the circumstances and requested measures to accelerate the transfer of anti-drone capabilities to Romania," the ministry said.

While Romania and other countries which border Ukraine have witnessed 'errant' drones and missiles come across the border before, this is the first time Romania in particular has suffered casualties as a result of a projectile hitting a densely populated city or area.

Romania has said that drone fragments have fallen on its territory several of dozens of times - the vast majority or nearly all of these happening without injury or serious incident.

Reuters details that "Romania's emergency response agency said on Friday a fire broke out in a 10th floor apartment after the drone struck the building's roof and exploded." The report indicated that "Two people were receiving medical treatment on site, it said, adding 70 people had evacuated."

The Kremlin has denied that Russian forces were behind the incident, while state media suggested the drone came from Ukrainian forces:

Moscow denied the allegations, arguing that there is no definitive proof that the drones were Russian.

Several suspected Ukrainian drones have veered into the airspace of the Baltic states in recent months. On May 7, a UAV damaged four empty oil storage tanks in eastern Latvia near the Russian border. Moscow has accused the Baltic states of allowing Ukraine to use their airspace to conduct strikes deep inside Russia, which the NATO members have denied.

In prior recent instances of drones entering neighboring airspace, NATO jets were scrambled - and in some cases drones are safely brought down via electronic intercept means.

Video of drone crash. Romania's military said it could not safely intercept over densely populated areas:

BREAKING 🔴

A Russian drone crashed into an apartment building in Galați, Romania, Faytuks Network reports. pic.twitter.com/ouZhWOCuNH

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) May 28, 2026

But each instance creates new tensions between Russia and NATO, and the typical accusations and threats then fly. The Kremlin has of late been especially alarmed at the Trump administration transferring 5,000 US troops from Germany to Poland, near Russia's doorstep.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 12:00

Ferrari Vs Tesla: $640K Luce EV Loses Key Speed And Range Battles To Model S Plaid

Authored by Aamir Khollam via Interesting Engineering,

Ferrari's upcoming electric grand tourer, the Luce, has already sparked intense debate online. Much of that attention centers on its unconventional styling. Yet beyond the design discussion, the numbers reveal an interesting comparison against one of the EV market's most established performance sedans: the Tesla Model S Plaid.

The matchup is far from equal in price or positioning. Ferrari plans to launch the Luce at roughly $640,000, while Tesla's Model S Plaid starts near $95,000. Ferrari also intends to keep production limited, preserving the exclusivity tied to the brand. Tesla, meanwhile, sells the Plaid in far greater numbers worldwide.

Still, both vehicles target buyers seeking extreme electric performance, making the comparison difficult to ignore.

Performance Numbers Compared

On paper, Ferrari takes a narrow lead in outright power. The Luce produces 1,050 horsepower from four electric motors, while the Model S Plaid delivers 1,020 horsepower through a tri-motor setup.

Ferrari's approach goes beyond raw output. Each wheel receives its own dedicated motor, allowing advanced torque vectoring and sharper handling control. Ferrari engineers claim the setup will preserve the brand's traditional driving feel despite the shift to an electric platform.

crazy.. pic.twitter.com/DTNVAYNPZX

— Tesla Owners Silicon Valley (@teslaownersSV) May 27, 2026

Tesla counters with proven straight-line performance. The Model S Plaid still launches harder, reaching 60 mph in under two seconds. Ferrari estimates the Luce will hit the same mark in roughly 2.4 seconds. Tesla also claims a higher top speed, touching 200 mph compared to Ferrari's projected 193 mph.

Battery And Charging Edge

Ferrari equips the Luce with a larger 122 kWh battery pack. Tesla's Plaid uses a battery closer to 100 kWh. The Luce also benefits from an 800-volt electrical architecture capable of supporting up to 350 kW DC fast charging.

That charging advantage could reduce downtime during long-distance travel, assuming drivers access compatible high-speed chargers. Tesla's current V3 Supercharger network peaks at around 250 kW.

Despite the smaller battery, Tesla still holds the range advantage. The Model S Plaid carries an estimated range of about 348 miles, while Ferrari targets roughly 280 miles for the Luce. The Ferrari's additional weight likely contributes to the gap. Early figures place the Luce near 4,982 pounds.

Tesla also maintains an advantage in software maturity. The Model S Plaid includes Tesla's Full Self-Driving suite, although the system still requires driver supervision. Ferrari has not introduced a comparable autonomous driving package for the Luce.

Exclusivity Versus Accessibility

The massive price difference ultimately shapes the entire comparison. Buyers could purchase several Model S Plaids for the cost of a single Ferrari Luce.

Yet Ferrari is not chasing the same customer base as Tesla. The Luce competes as much with ultra-luxury brands like Rolls-Royce and Bentley as it does with mainstream performance EVs.

The Luce also represents a major milestone for Ferrari's future. Designed with input from Jony Ive and Marc Newson, the EV signals Ferrari's full entry into the electric era.

Even so, the comparison highlights Tesla's lasting influence on the segment. Years after launch, the Model S Plaid remains the benchmark many high-performance EVs still chase.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 11:40

Clinton-Appointed Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump's $1.776 Billion Anti-Weaponization Fund

A federal judge in Virginia has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund," freezing any transfers, claims processing, or disbursements while legal challenges proceed.

JUST IN: Clinton-appointed Judge temporarily BLOCKS the DOJ’s $1.8B “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”

— Jack (@jackunheard) May 29, 2026

The brief order from U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Eastern District of Virginia...

...says the Trump administration cannot take any action "pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund."

"...to ensure that no funds are irreversibly disbursed"

New: A federal judge in Virginia has temporarily barred the Trump administration from acting on claims for payouts from the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization fund” while she weighs a longer-term block; hearing set for 6/12… pic.twitter.com/70NyLtlDIv

— Zoe Tillman (@ZoeTillman) May 29, 2026

The fund, operated through the Justice Department, was created as part of a settlement involving President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization.

Sec. Bessent on the Anti-Weaponization Fund: "President Trump is a great American who has endured more than 10 years nonstop harassment and weaponization from federal and state government actors. A bad actor at the IRS leaked more than 400,000 tax returns, including the Trump… pic.twitter.com/GQFasifJcS

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) May 28, 2026

Under the settlement framework, individuals claiming to have been victims of politically motivated prosecutions or government abuse would be able to seek compensation, including the 1,500 Jan. 6 defendants whom Trump pardoned.

Any American—Democrat, Republican, Independent or apolitical—can file claims with the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which are then reviewed by a committee of five.

The fund was established as a result of the IRS illegally leaking the tax returns of the Trump family and around 100… https://t.co/6QS6Op6Eas

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) May 20, 2026

Congressional Democrats have been widely opposed to the $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund because they say it will serve as a massive "slush fund" for Trump allies.

Brinkema said the order was needed to prevent money from being "irreversibly disbursed" before pending motions are resolved. The fund cannot formally begin distributing money until five commissioners are selected.

She set a hearing for June 12 to hear arguments over whether she should issue a more lasting pause.

Meanwhile, unhinged and left-wing California Gov. Gavin Newsom said his administration will impose 100% tax on any resident receiving these funds. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 11:00

"The Real Part Of This Economy Is Not Doing Well": Ed Dowd Warns 'Just Wait 'Til The AI Bubble Bursts'

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Wall Street money manager and financial analyst Ed Dowd of PhinanceTechnologies.com warned at the beginning of April that the economy was already rolling over. 

He said “Private Credit Problems are Ending the Party.”  Just 10 days ago, BlackRock and other firms with so-called private credit are  locking up investors’ cash because of a wave of redemptions.  Dowd predicted this, and the sagging economy is not going to be getting any better anytime soon. 

If you thought private credit was a drag on the economy, then the Iran war is going to be a boat anchor.  Dowd says:

“The longer this situation persists, the likelihood of oil drifting higher is going to happen.

 We have two scenarios, and one is oil peaks out at $125, and this gets resolved by May.  Inflation would peak around 5%...

We are at the point now, if this does not get resolved soon, oil prices could continue to drift higher...

We have a second scenario where we get $200 to $250 a barrel oil, which was our worst-case scenario. 

If that happens, inflation will peak out at around 11% by our models...”

Martin Armstrong said two weeks ago that gasoline prices could go to $9 a gallon.  Dowd agrees with Armstrong and says you might get $10 a gallon gas in a worst-case scenario.  Dowd adds:

“I see oil going a lot higher, which will cause a tremendous amount of demand destruction and a recession that I think is coming anyway. 

It will be even deeper than we have forecasted. 

It will cause layoffs and economic growth to go into recessionary territory.  The prices of commodities will collapse as deflation sets in.  

The solution to high commodity prices is high commodity prices because it creates demand destruction.”

So, what’s the Fed going to do?  Dowd thinks,

“The Fed could raise rates to combat the headline inflation.  My best guess is they do nothing at the June FOMC meeting. 

They are certainly not going to cut until they see the economic growth slowing...

Depending on this war . . . the real part of this economy, housing, is not doing well and rolling over. 

We are just waiting on the AI bubble to finally burst . . . we are close to that topping out soon.”

Dowd is still bullish on gold and silver long term, but short term, it may get sold off to raise cash like Turkey just did. 

Silver will have stronger headwinds than gold given the deflation that is coming. 

Dowd does not see China’s economic woes getting any better.  Dowd predicted China’s economic problems months ago, and Wall Street is just now catching up on the bad news.  Dowd says,

“China had 8% negative growth in the first quarter.”

Dowd goes into a deep dive on the severe economic problems facing China. 

Dowd points out big problems in housing and says it’s cheaper to rent a house than to own one. 

Dowd also predicts the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates in early 2027 because the deflation will be so severe.

In closing, Dowd says, “This is the normal credit cycle..."

"  The credit cycle is old and aging, and we are seeing the credit cycle get chinks in the armor with the private credit situation, which is effectively frozen.  This was credit growth that happened in 2024 and 2025.”

There is much more in the 44-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes One-on-One with money manager and investment expert Ed Dowd as he explains why we are seeing big trouble for the US economy.   Dowd predicted this was coming in January with his report called “US Economy Outlook 2026.”

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 10:40

"False": Musk Denies Bloomberg Report About SpaceX IPO Valuation Drop

Summary:

• Musk says the Bloomberg report is "false" 

• SpaceX Reportedly Lowers IPO Valuation Target, as per Bloomberg

Musk Rejects Bloomberg Report 

Yet again, corporate media is pushing fake news against Elon Musk.

This time, Musk called a Bloomberg report that cited unnamed sources and claimed SpaceX had lowered its IPO valuation target "false." 

False

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2026 SpaceX Reportedly Lowers IPO Valuation Target 

SpaceX is targeting a valuation of at least $1.8 trillion in its upcoming initial public offering, Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the matter. This is below an earlier goal of more than $2 trillion.

In practice, the initial IPO valuation target is a marketing range, not a final number. Therefore, any valuation shifts ahead of the trading day would not be unusual. This suggests advisers are calibrating the deal to what investors are willing to absorb, especially given the massive proposed raise of up to $75 billion.

The target is settling lower after consultations with advisers and investors, the people said, asking not to be identified as the information isn't public.

Details of an IPO, such as size and valuation, are typically adjusted ahead of pricing based on feedback from stakeholders, the people said.

SpaceX is seeking to raise as much as $75 billion, people familiar with the matter have said, which would make it the biggest IPO of all time. -BBG

The May 21 SpaceX S-1 filing revealed that Elon Musk's space company is much more than a reusable-rocket and satellite-internet company. It now encompasses AI services, infrastructure, orbital data centers, and a claimed $28.5 trillion total addressable market.

Earlier this month, Reuters reported that the IPO is set to price on June 11, with a June 12 debut. The stock is expected to list on Nasdaq and Nasdaq Texas under the ticker "SPCX."

Polymarket bets show a 90% chance that SpaceX's market capitalization will be $1.8 trillion on the IPO date.

//--> //--> SpaceX IPO closing market cap above $1.8T?
Yes 90% · No 10%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

There was speculation earlier this week of a SpaceX-Tesla merger in 2027. Wedbush Securities' Dan Ives has those odds at 80%.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 10:07

Kicking The Can On A Ceasefire "Which Does Not Solve Anything"

Bas van Geffen, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank

Both Bloomberg and Axios report that the US and Iran have reached a tentative deal to extend the ceasefire by 60 days as they engage in further negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme. However, Tasnim reported that the text of the memorandum of understanding had not been finalized.

US Vice President Vance said that the two sides are still “going back and forth on a couple of language points,” which reportedly includes the wording on Iran’s nuclear capacity. But the Vice President said that Iran appears to be negotiating in good faith, paving the way for Trump’s approval of the ceasefire extension.

While negotiators are trying to dot the i’s and cross the t’s of the memorandum, President Trump has reportedly asked for a couple of days to think about the final deal.

Energy prices fell further on the news that a deal could –again– be imminent, after the US administration made similar claims last week. Brent futures are currently down about 10% on the week. That, in turn, is lifting optimism in other markets. Yields dropped, and green figures returned on stock exchanges.

Admittedly, a 60-day extension would lessen some of the near-term tail risks – although both sides have accused each other of violating the current ceasefire. Just the past day, Kuwait intercepted a missile that Iran had fired at a US base, causing the US to respond with new “defensive strikes” on Iran.

More importantly, a ceasefire does not solve anything, unless the US and Iran manage to agree on the key sticking points during that extended ceasefire.

Treasury Secretary Bessent reminded everyone that Trump’s three red lines are unchanged: Hormuz must reopen, Tehran must end its nuclear programme, and Iran must transfer its highly enriched uranium. As we noted earlier this week, a nuclear deal still seems highly unlikely at this juncture.

Likewise, Iran still believes that it can effectively control traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, together with Oman, allowing it to put down toll booths along the strait. Even though this would allow paying ships to cross, that’s not a “reopening” in Trump’s view.

The US imposed sanctions on the Hormuz Strait Shipping Authority, which is supposed to collect the toll. And Bessent warned that “Oman, in particular, should know that the ⁠U.S. Treasury will aggressively target any actors involved –directly or indirectly– in ⁠facilitating tolls for the Strait.” President Trump even threatened to “blow them up” if Oman works with Iran to control shipping through Hormuz.

It still seems unlikely that the key sticking points will be resolved soon. On that basis, we have shifted our baseline for Hormuz to remain closed for up to three more months before we see a crisis resolution. Only if either the US or Iran blinks regarding the nuclear programme, could we see a quicker end to the conflict.

Meanwhile, tensions are rising in other parts of the globe too. Talks between the US and Cuba appear to have stalled, while Cuba and China discussed agricultural cooperation, food shipments, and political support. This increases the risk that the US may resort to military aggression. China, meanwhile, claims that a Dutch frigate entered their waters – which the Netherlands disputed; and a Canadian frigate transited the Taiwan Strait, defying Chinese warnings not to do so.

And, as we’ve noted before, even if the US-Iran conflict is resolved sooner, it would still take a substantial amount of time before energy flows return to some form of normalcy. So, some further inflationary pressure is inevitable.

Policymakers are also starting to realize this. The ECB’s Schnabel noted recently that “even if the war ended today, a lot of damage has already been done to energy infrastructure and global supply chains.” She adds that higher costs will probably trickle through global supply chains and into higher goods prices.

The accounts of the April ECB meeting suggest that Schnabel is not the only policymaker who’s concerned about the size and the persistence of the inflation shock. It therefore looks like a June hike is all but a done deal. According to the minutes, some policymakers said that the decision to hold or hike was already a “close call” for them in April. This group essentially indicated that they would not have opposed a rate hike last month, if this had been proposed as the path forward.

Today’s inflation data are further cementing the case for a rate hike. French HICP inflation rose to 2.8% y/y, while Spanish HICP inflation edged up to 3.6%. Meanwhile, business surveys indicate that companies expect to raise selling prices further – although selling price expectations eased a bit in May, compared to the steep increases in the two months prior.

And, worryingly, consumers’ medium-term inflation expectations have started to pick up alongside the rise in current inflation rates. As Schnabel pointed out, these shifts in consumer expectations could be a first indication that expectations are de-anchoring.

However, we still believe that the current backdrop is less conducive to broader and protracted inflationary pressures than 2021-2022. Yesterday’s business confidence survey indicated that employment expectations continue to score below the long-term average. The labor hoarding index remains above its long-term average, but businesses appear to hoard less labor than before.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/29/2026 - 10:00