The Vaccine Safety Signal The Media Still Won't Read

Authored by Dr. Joseph Fraiman via the Brownstone Institute,

The serious-adverse-event signal found in the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA Covid-19 vaccine trials has been in the peer-reviewed literature for nearly four years. Mainstream media outlets, on the rare occasions they address it, have treated it not as evidence to be weighed but as misinformation to be managed - dismissed on the authority of experts without relevant expertise, or simply ignored. A recent BBC Radio 4 broadcast is a near-textbook example.

The broadcast aired on Everything Is Fake and Nobody Cares, a BBC Radio 4 series hosted by Jamie Bartlett, whose stated purpose is to ask why, in so much of modern life, fakery is no longer punished but rewarded. It is a reasonable question. The most direct answer the series has produced to date appears inside one of its own episodes.

In the episode in question, Bartlett devoted his broadcast to Dr. Aseem Malhotra and Covid-19 vaccine safety. As part of that segment, he aired a specific claim about a peer-reviewed paper I led, published in the journal Vaccine in September 2022. To evaluate Dr. Malhotra’s on-air statements, Bartlett brought in Dr. Vicky Male, a reproductive immunologist at Imperial College London. Dr. Male told listeners that the authors of the paper had been “specifically told to make it clear this paper should not be used” to support the kinds of claims Dr. Malhotra was making.

That statement is not true. No one told us that. The paper does not contain such an instruction. I am one of its authors; I have the peer review correspondence; I know what the journal asked of us and what it did not. Anyone could have checked this in five minutes by reading the paper, which runs eight pages and is open-access online. Jamie Bartlett did not check.

On the basis of an unchecked false claim about a scientific paper, Bartlett told his audience that Dr. Malhotra was spreading false information - on a podcast whose central premise is that modern life now rewards exactly this kind of thing.

Whether that reflected willful dishonesty or plain incompetence, I cannot say. The case that follows lays out what happened in enough detail for readers to decide for themselves. Both possibilities reflect poorly on a national broadcaster. Only one of them would be excusable.

I. What the Paper Says, and What Dr. Male Said It Says

The most consequential of Dr. Male’s on-air claims was the one I opened with: that the authors were “specifically told to make it clear this paper should not be used to make the kinds of claims Dr. Malhotra is making,” and that Dr. Malhotra’s statement “is not actually correct. The paper doesn’t show that that’s true.”

Told by whom? Dr. Male did not say. Scientific papers pass through three groups of people who could, in principle, issue such an instruction: peer-reviewers, journal editors, and - in some fields - regulators or sponsoring agencies. None of them told us any such thing. The peer review correspondence for our paper is not private. We deposited it publicly alongside our adjudication records and study data at a Zenodo archive, and the paper’s data-availability statement directs readers there. Anyone can read the reviewers’ comments. They contain substantive methodological questions and no such instruction. The editors communicated no such instruction before, during, or after review. There were no sponsoring agencies, because the paper was carried out with no grant funding at all. There was, in short, no one who told us any such thing, because no such exchange took place.

What does the paper actually say?

The closest sentence to the claim Dr. Male described - and this is the one critics occasionally misread - is a standard scope statement from the introduction: “Our study was not designed to evaluate the overall harm-benefit of vaccination programs so far. To put our safety results in context, we conducted a simple comparison of harms with benefits to illustrate the need for formal harm-benefit analyses of the vaccines that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes.” That is a description of what the paper did and did not analyze. It is not a disavowal of the paper’s findings. Every careful research paper contains a sentence like it.

What the paper actually concluded, in its own words, is that the findings “raise concerns that mRNA vaccines are associated with more harm than initially estimated at the time of emergency authorization,” and that formal harm–benefit analyses stratified by risk of serious Covid-19 outcomes are needed.

Section 3.4 of the paper, titled “Harm-benefit considerations,” quantifies that ratio directly. In the Pfizer trial, the excess risk of serious AESIs was 10.1 per 10,000 vaccinated, against a Covid-19 hospitalization reduction of 2.3 per 10,000 - a harm-to-benefit ratio of roughly 4.4 to 1. In the Moderna trial, the excess risk was 15.1 per 10,000 against a hospitalization reduction of 6.4 per 10,000 - a ratio of roughly 2.4 to 1.

Dr. Malhotra’s on-air statement - that a trial participant was 2 to 4 times more likely to suffer serious harm from the vaccine than to be hospitalized with Covid - was, if anything, a conservative rendering of what the paper reports. The Pfizer ratio sits just above the top of the range he stated; the Moderna ratio sits near the bottom. Both numbers appear in the paper’s own harm–benefit section. Dr. Male’s statement that the paper “doesn’t show that that’s true” is directly contradicted by the paper itself.

II. The Four Methodology Objections

Dr. Male made four additional methodological criticisms of the paper. Each is answerable on the record.

Timing and Data Access

Dr. Male noted that the reanalysis was done “a couple of years after the fact,” and that the authors did not have access to all of the data.

On the chronology: my co-authors and I began this work in July 2021 - roughly seven months after Pfizer’s phase III results appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, and six months after Moderna’s. What took time was what always takes time in this kind of work: assembling the serious adverse event tables from the sponsors’ published results and regulatory documents, double-blinded adjudication of each event type against the Brighton Collaboration’s pre-specified priority list of Adverse Events of Special Interest, statistical analysis, peer review, and publication. The preprint appeared in June 2022; the peer-reviewed article in September.

On data access, Dr. Male is correct, and we have said so plainly from the start. We did not have individual participant data. That limitation is acknowledged in the paper. Without participant-level data we could not run the stratified subgroup analyses - by age, by comorbidity, by prior infection - that would most inform clinical decisions. On the day of publication, my co-authors and I published an open letter to the CEOs of Pfizer and Moderna in The BMJ calling on them to release the individual participant data so a more definitive analysis could be done - by us, or by anyone else.

Four years later, they still have not.

Working only with the public data, we found that in the Pfizer trial there were more serious adverse events in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group - a finding that had not been reported previously. The correct response to “We don’t have the participant-level data” is not to dismiss what the public data show. It is to release the participant-level data.

One implication of this critique is worth naming. Critics who insist the absence of participant-level data is fatal to our reanalysis have been remarkably untroubled that the same data remain withheld by the sponsors themselves. Pfizer and Moderna have administered a novel medical intervention to billions of people worldwide. The raw safety data from the trials that licensed those products are still not public - four years on. If the argument is that no one should draw conclusions from the public SAE tables because the full data would be more informative, the implication is that no one, including regulators and the public, should be confident in the current harm–benefit picture until those data are released. That is not a position most critics of our paper appear willing to hold.

The “Wide Definition” Objection

Dr. Male’s second objection was that the reanalysis used “a very wide definition of side effects, including things that might not have been caused by the vaccine.” This contains a misunderstanding of how randomized trials generate knowledge.

In a randomized trial of a novel intervention, no one - not the investigators, sponsors, or regulators - can determine whether a given individual’s adverse event was caused by the vaccine. That is not a weakness of the paper; it is a fact about how randomization works. The whole point is that the only systematic difference between the two groups is the intervention. If fewer serious adverse events occur in the vaccine arm, the inference is that the vaccine likely reduced them. If more occur in the vaccine arm, the inference is that the vaccine likely caused them. You do not need to adjudicate individual causation. The trial does.

The paper in fact ran two analyses. The first used the widest definition of harm - every serious adverse event reported in the trial, from any cause. This has a known weakness: because most serious adverse events in a large trial are random, a real vaccine-related signal can be drowned in background noise. 

Despite that, in the Pfizer trial serious adverse events were significantly higher in the vaccine group - 127 events versus 93, a 36 percent relative increase and an absolute risk difference of 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95% CI 1.2 to 34.9). Pfizer’s own pivotal NEJM paper stated that “The incidence of serious adverse events was low and was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups.” That statement is not accurate. We wrote to the NEJM to note the error. No correction has been issued.

The second analysis was narrower, not wider. We examined only serious adverse events falling on the Brighton Collaboration’s priority AESI list - a list endorsed by the World Health Organization in May 2020, before the mRNA vaccines were authorized, specifically to pre-specify which adverse events should be monitored in Covid-19 vaccine trials. 

The rationale is the opposite of what Dr. Male described: by restricting the analysis to pre-specified events of biological plausibility, we reduce the random background noise that can hide a real signal. Two independent, blinded clinician reviewers adjudicated every one of the 325 distinct SAE types that appeared across the two trials against that pre-specified list. 

They agreed on classification 86 percent of the time, and disagreements were resolved by consensus or by a third reviewer. The combined excess risk of serious AESIs was 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). That the signal appeared in pre-specified events - not in scattered random diagnoses - makes chance alone a less plausible explanation, not a more plausible one.

Counting Events, Counting People

Dr. Male’s third objection was that the paper counted events rather than participants, using diarrhea and vomiting in the same patient as her illustration.

On the methodology: event-level and participant-level counts answer slightly different questions, and both are worth knowing. A participant-level count would treat a heart attack followed by a stroke as identical to a single heart attack. An event-level count captures that distinction. Neither metric is inherently correct and neither is inherently wrong. Pfizer and Moderna have not released the participant-level data that would let us publish both, so we published what the public data allowed. Where participant-level data was visible in Pfizer’s published tables, the direction is the same: more individual participants had at least one SAE in the vaccine arm than in the placebo arm, and among those who did, vaccine-arm participants were roughly twice as likely as placebo-arm participants to experience more than one - 24 versus 13.

What I want to address more directly is the diarrhea example. Dr. Male used it straightforwardly, and I do not fault her for that. But the handful of other critics who have discussed our paper on YouTube and on mainstream podcasts have landed on the same example almost without exception - and several have discussed it in a jovial, smiling register, as if the word alone is meant to be funny. Across 325 distinct SAE types in the analysis, virtually every critic reaching a general audience has chosen the same one.

I speak as an emergency physician. A case of diarrhea severe enough to meet the regulatory threshold of a serious adverse event is not “the runs.” The regulatory definition requires hospitalization, life-threatening illness, persistent or significant disability, or death. The serious-diarrhea patients I have personally cared for have been elderly, immunocompromised, acutely dehydrated, hypotensive, in acute kidney injury, or septic from C. difficile. 

Diarrheal illnesses are estimated to kill about 6,000 Americans each year in CDC mortality data - more than the roughly 4,500 Americans who die annually of HIV/AIDS. No serious person in medicine jokes about HIV. The mortality numbers for serious diarrhea are larger. Physicians on podcasts presenting themselves as responsible scientific communicators should be able to see the problem with their own tone.

With 325 distinct SAE types to choose from - coagulation disorders, cardiac injury, myocarditis, encephalitis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, acute kidney injury, thrombosis, and dozens of others - the decision to keep returning to the one with a punchline-friendly name is a rhetorical move, not a scientific one. If the argument is that our methodology swept in events that should not have counted, the argument should be made with the 30 to 50 SAE types across the two trials where reasonable clinicians could disagree on the adjudication, not with the one that generates an involuntary half-smile from a lay audience.

We took that concern seriously enough to run the exercise ourselves. In response to an earlier critique from the FDA, we performed a sensitivity analysis that excluded every SAE whose inclusion had required a subjective clinical judgment - chest pain and the other calls where reasonable clinicians might have adjudicated differently. The findings were consistent with the original analysis. The excess remained. The subjective judgments, in other words, were not what was generating the signal. That sensitivity analysis is publicly posted on our Zenodo archive, alongside the rest of the study data.

One related point, because critics of our paper commonly argue that a Covid-19 hospitalization is obviously more serious than a case of serious diarrhea, and therefore the harm–benefit comparison is itself unfair. As an ER physician who has treated hundreds of hospitalized Covid-19 patients, I can say this does not match what actually happens in a hospital. Most patients admitted with a positive Covid test during most periods of the pandemic were not critically ill; many did not need supplemental oxygen at all and would have recovered at home. 

The UK data confirm this. In the UK Health Security Agency’s 2023 appendix to the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation - the document underpinning the UK’s official NNV calculations for the autumn 2023 booster - UKHSA defined a “severe” Covid-19 hospitalisation as one requiring at least a 2-day stay with documented use of oxygen, ventilation, or ICU admission. 

Across the population rates reported in that document, the ratio of all Covid-19 hospitalisations to severe Covid-19 hospitalisations is roughly 10 to 1. Approximately 90 percent of Covid-19 hospitalisations in the UK surveillance data did not require oxygen, ventilation, or ICU admission. When critics invoke the mental image of a Covid hospitalization to make our harm–benefit comparison look absurd, they are invoking the severe 10 percent and quietly generalizing it to the other 90.

Time Runs Both Ways

Dr. Male’s fourth objection was that side effects typically occur in the first days or weeks after vaccination, whereas protection against Covid-19 lasts months. Compared in that way, she argued, the paper underestimates the vaccine’s benefit.

She is partly right, and we said so in the paper. The vaccines did reduce symptomatic Covid-19 for longer than the roughly two-month window the trials analyzed, and a longer blinded follow-up would likely have shown larger reductions in Covid-19 hospitalizations, improving the ratio on the benefit side.

The problem is that the concern is applied asymmetrically. Dr. Male extends the benefit side beyond the trial window while implicitly assuming the harm side does not. That assumption is not justified. Spike protein has been detected in circulation in some individuals for months following vaccination - not the short-lived pharmacokinetic profile initially described to regulators and the public. Autoimmune disease and certain neurological disorders often begin insidiously around a triggering event but are not formally diagnosed until months or years later. 

Physicians who treat long Covid and post-vaccine injury patients - who often overlap clinically - consistently report that many of their patients carry debilitating symptoms for long periods before receiving a formal diagnosis. Prolonged disability is, by regulatory definition, a serious adverse event. If a material fraction of vaccine-associated serious adverse events take months to declare themselves, the short trial window underestimated the harm side of the ledger, not just the benefit side.

Had the Pfizer and Moderna trials continued in their original blinded form for two years, with boosters administered at realistic intervals and both Covid-19 hospitalizations and serious adverse events tracked throughout, the long-run harm–benefit ratio would be empirically knowable. It is not. The trials were unblinded early, placebo recipients were offered the vaccine, and the scientific question was effectively surrendered. I agree with Dr. Male that a longer analysis would be informative. I would welcome the data.

A Model Is Not a Trial

One further on-air claim deserves direct response. To counter our trial-based findings, Dr. Male cited a modeling study estimating that the vaccines saved millions of lives. What the audience was not told is that this figure does not come from clinical trial data. It comes from a mathematical model.

Such models rely on efficacy inputs drawn from post-authorization observational studies, which are notoriously vulnerable to the “healthy user effect.” Individuals who proactively seek vaccination are, on average, healthier and have better baseline mortality than those who do not. Because observational studies lack randomization, they routinely overestimate benefits. The problem compounds at the modeling stage. The standard class of vaccine-impact models contains no term for vaccine-caused harm; it treats vaccine mortality as zero by construction.

You cannot use a zero-harm mathematical model, fed by healthy-user-inflated observational inputs, to refute an excess harm signal found in the sponsor’s own randomized, placebo-controlled trials. To present such a model to a lay audience as proof that a randomized trial’s harm–benefit analysis is incorrect is methodologically incoherent.

III. The Journalist Who Needed a Doctor

Dr. Male is a respected scientist. Her research on natural killer cells in pregnancy and the uterine immune environment is substantial, and her published work in reproductive immunology speaks for itself. In the BBC segment, she did not claim expertise in clinical trial methodology or evidence-based medicine, and for all I know she was offering informal responses to a journalist’s questions - something any academic would do if a BBC reporter called. I do not fault her for the errors in what she said about our paper. If a journalist asked me to interpret a molecular immunology study on NK cell signaling pathways in the decidua, I would get things wrong too, and I would deserve the same grace I am extending here.

My issue is with the journalist.

The BBC is the broadcaster UK audiences consistently rank among their most trusted sources for news. It is not a fringe outlet, and a failure of basic journalistic practice there is not a fringe problem. This is the same institution whose Director-General and Head of News resigned in late 2025 after the corporation misleadingly edited a speech by Donald Trump - a failure its own reporter acknowledges, on tape, inside this very episode.

Jamie Bartlett told his audience, more than once, that much of what Dr. Malhotra said sounded reasonable, but that he himself was not a doctor and could not evaluate the clinical evidence being cited. He said he needed to find an expert who could help him sort through it. That framing - I am the humble generalist, I need a specialist to guide me - is a legitimate journalistic move when the specialist actually has relevant expertise. 

Dr. Male is an immunologist who studies NK cells in pregnancy. She is not an epidemiologist, a biostatistician, a pharmacologist, or a clinical trialist. She does not hold a medical degree and does not treat patients. She has no published record in the interpretation of randomized controlled trials, harm-benefit analysis, or vaccine safety signal detection. Dr. Malhotra, whatever one thinks of his public positions, is a consultant cardiologist who treats patients and is the author of a widely cited BMJ editorial on evidence-based medicine. He has spent over a decade writing and lecturing on the interpretation of clinical trial evidence for public audiences - which is, in fact, exactly the skill set Bartlett said he was looking for.

Bartlett knew whom he had found. He chose to present Dr. Male to his audience as the expert who could adjudicate Dr. Malhotra’s claims about a clinical trial reanalysis. That is not a neutral editorial decision.

What followed was worse. By the end of the segment, the same reporter who had opened by confessing he was unqualified to evaluate the evidence had graduated to confidently declaring that Dr. Malhotra’s claims were not true, that he was unsure why Dr. Malhotra held such views, and that the audience should regard them with deep suspicion. 

The journey from “I’m not a doctor and I can’t evaluate this” to “I can now tell you this is false” was accomplished entirely by outsourcing the evaluation to someone who lacked the relevant expertise to perform it - and then treating that person’s answers as settled fact.

Dr. Male’s most consequential claim on the segment was the one at the top of this piece: that the authors were “specifically told” not to use the paper the way Dr. Malhotra was using it. You do not need a medical degree or a PhD in epidemiology to check whether a published paper contains a specific sentence. You need to be able to read. The paper is eight pages long, open-access, and was the centerpiece of Bartlett’s own segment. 

A reporter who built an entire broadcast around a peer-reviewed study, and who took the time to record cheap shots about how Dr. Malhotra was “bombarding” him with data and telling stories that are “just more exciting,” could not be bothered to read the paper himself and verify whether Dr. Male’s most important claim about it was true. It was not. The host of a podcast about why fakery is no longer punished had, in his own broadcast, produced a specimen of exactly that phenomenon. On the basis of that unchecked claim, he told his audience that Dr. Malhotra was spreading false information.

One more failure of basic journalism is worth naming. During the segment, Dr. Male stated that she does not receive pharmaceutical industry funding. Bartlett accepted this at face value and used it to frame Dr. Malhotra’s concerns about financial conflicts as conspiratorial thinking. Two minutes of searching would have complicated the picture. Dr. Male’s publicly declared research funders include the Wellcome Trust and the UK Medical Research Council. 

The Wellcome Trust was founded from the estate of Sir Henry Wellcome, the pharmaceutical magnate who built the company that became GlaxoSmithKline; from 1936 to 1995 the Trust was the sole or majority owner of that pharmaceutical company, and its current £37.6 billion endowment derives from that origin. The UK Medical Research Council describes “alignment with industry” on its own website as central to its strategy, with formal partnerships with AstraZeneca, GSK, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Takeda, and UCB, and more than £100 million in industry contributions to MRC-funded research since 2010.

It is entirely possible that Dr. Male has never examined the provenance of her grant funding, and I do not fault her for that - most researchers do not. But the journalist who spent time on air suggesting that Dr. Malhotra was peddling conspiracy theories about pharmaceutical influence could have determined, with a single Google search, that the expert he had chosen to adjudicate that very question receives her salary support from organizations founded by, or formally partnered with, the pharmaceutical industry. He did not perform the most basic job of a journalist - to fact-check his source. Instead, he had a recording of a denial, used it as a sound bite, and moved on to the next cheap shot.

I cannot determine from the evidence available to me whether Jamie Bartlett knew any of this and broadcast his claim anyway, or whether he simply failed to do the work. The case for either reading is in what he aired.

IV. The Filter

There is a second, uglier layer to the claim that the authors “were told” anything. After our paper was published, Vaccine published two Commentaries critical of our findings - one in 2023, another in 2024. In both cases, the journal declined to share those critiques with me or my co-authors in advance, and declined to invite us to respond - a courtesy that is standard scholarly practice, and that one of the editors had promised in writing. In January 2025, we submitted a short response letter on our own initiative. The editor-in-chief rejected it without peer review.

A scientific journal willing to publish criticism of a paper it had peer-reviewed and accepted, and then unwilling to publish the authors’ response to that criticism, is the opposite of how scholarly exchange works. None of my co-authors had ever encountered it before, and we have looked.

The same pattern reaches beyond the journal. Our paper was labeled “misinformation” on social platforms after publication - a label that, to my knowledge, has never been applied to any peer-reviewed study reporting favorable vaccine outcomes, however methodologically thin.

Dr. Male, through her commentary on the BBC, does not appear to realize that any of this is happening. That is itself part of the problem she is describing - an expert confident in the consensus because she cannot see the filter that produced it.

Conclusion

The paper I led still stands. Its findings have not been refuted; they have been disputed, and the dispute has been handled by a scientific journal in a manner that none of us had ever encountered before. Our finding is straightforward: in the pivotal phase III trials of the mRNA Covid-19 vaccines, serious adverse events of special interest occurred more often in the vaccinated group than in the placebo group, at a rate that exceeded the reduction in Covid-19 hospitalizations within the trial window. That finding has implications for how the vaccines should be used going forward, particularly in populations at lower baseline risk of serious Covid-19.

The evidence would be settled quickly if Pfizer, Moderna, and the FDA released the individual participant data. Until then, the public is entitled to a more honest discussion than the one broadcast on the BBC. Dr. Male is welcome to disagree with my conclusions. She is not entitled to tell listeners that the paper says something it does not, and neither the BBC nor Jamie Bartlett is entitled to build a narrative of false information on the back of a claim they did not bother to verify.

The paper is in the public record. The journal that published it is in the public record. The journal’s subsequent refusal to publish our response is, now, also in the public record. Readers are intelligent adults. They can weigh the evidence themselves - which is, after all, the only reason peer-reviewed science gets written down in the first place.

What the BBC broadcast illustrates - whether one reporter’s willful dishonesty, one reporter’s incompetence, or both - fits a pattern that has been in place for nearly four years: mainstream coverage of Covid-19 vaccine safety outsourced to experts who were not asked to read the evidence, and the evidence that remains labeled “misinformation.” The public has been entitled to a more careful discussion from the start. Readers are welcome to decide for themselves whether that is what they have been given.

Jamie Bartlett’s podcast is called Everything is Fake and Nobody Cares. He is half right.

Dr. Joseph Fraiman is an emergency medicine physician in New Orleans, Louisiana. Dr. Fraiman earned his medical degree from Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, NY and completed his training at Louisiana State University, where he served as Chief Resident as well as Chairman of both the Cardiac Arrest Committee and the Pulmonary Embolism Committee.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 16:20

Peer Review Is Broken - Here's How To Fix It

Authored by Rob Jenkins and Michael R. Jenkins via the Brownstone Institute,

Within academia, there seems to be a growing consensus that the peer-review system—once the backbone of academic scholarship—is broken. But is it irreparably so? Perhaps. At the very least, the breakdown of its current form is worth exploring. However, rather than abandoning the entire endeavor, we believe we have a novel solution. First, though, let us examine where the system went wrong.

In the Middle Ages, most scientific research was self-published, as scholars shared their findings among themselves. But, as the profession grew, that became impractical, and the scientific journal was born as a way of disseminating information. A scholar would have an idea, investigate, summarize his conclusions, and submit the resulting manuscript to a journal. There, the editor or editors would consider it and decide whether to publish the work as-is, request revisions, or reject it altogether. Over time, as the number of scholars continued to proliferate, all of them under increasing pressure to publish, publish, publish—in order to be hired, earn tenure, and qualify for grants—the task of journal editors became overwhelming. There were just too many submissions to give them all fair consideration.

And so they came up with the idea of farming out their evaluation of submissions to teams of unpaid reviewers, other scholars in the same field or a related field who were (theoretically, at least) qualified to judge the quality of the research under consideration. This would relieve some of the burden on the editors while also bestowing an additional stamp of legitimacy on the finished product. Whether a given piece of scholarship was worthy of publication was to be determined not just by one or two people but rather by a group of “blind” experts. Thus, the label “peer-reviewed” became the gold standard for scholarly research. A publication in a “peer-reviewed journal” has long been considered essentially unassailable, to the point that politicians and media types seem convinced they can win any argument simply by referencing a piece of “peer-reviewed research.”

It was initially a pretty good system, and it worked reasonably well for a long time. But it seems to have now run its course. Tenure requirements have become more quantitative. The internet has decreased barriers to submission, encouraging more scholars to submit more articles to more journals. The number of submissions from Asian, African, and Middle Eastern universities has exploded. Even with more journals and more reviewers, the system has broken down, as all large, complex systems eventually do. We know this to be the case because of a problem first identified 20 years ago by Stanford scientist John Ioannidis, which has since come to be known as the “replication crisis.”

One of the hallmarks of good science is that an experiment can be replicated—that is, another researcher using the same methodology will achieve the same result, meaning the findings are both valid and consistent. But what Ioannidis argued in his seminal 2005 article “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” (updated in 2022) was that, well, most published research findings are flawed. The experiments can’t be replicated, casting their validity into question.

Other scholars have since taken issue with Ioannidis’s thesis, especially his use of the word “most.” Social scientists, in particular, argue that experiments involving human subjects often can’t be replicated precisely because people are themselves inconsistent. Nevertheless, scholars generally agree that the replication crisis is real, if not quite as widespread as Ioannidis suggests.

What does this have to do with peer review? Obviously, if the system were functioning as intended, with teams of bona fide experts checking and double-checking each other’s work, we might expect that very few flawed studies would slip through. In other words, there wouldn’t be a replication crisis if peer review actually worked.

Unfortunately, the accuracy of the system isn’t even the biggest issue. Like many institutions, it has devolved into a highly politicized echo chamber. Rather than a mechanism for determining and disseminating truth through a system of scholarly checks and balances, peer review has become an instrument for promoting and enforcing orthodoxy. No longer a community of scholars rigorously but collegially testing each other’s hypotheses, journal editors and reviewers have appointed themselves gatekeepers. Only those who recite the correct passwords are admitted.

Take the field of climate research, for example. For at least a couple of decades now, the scientific consensus has been that anthropogenic climate change poses an existential threat to humanity. Anyone who challenges that orthodoxy, regardless of the quality of his research or the logic of his arguments, finds it very difficult to publish his findings in leading journals. The gatekeepers (read: reviewers) simply won’t allow it.

Or how about transgender ideology? Even before we learned that the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) was hiding and manipulating its data, why did very few scholars question the claim that social, medical, or surgical transitioning for minors reduced their suffering? You know the answer: They knew they couldn’t do so without derailing their careers. Even now, we take a professional risk just by pointing this out. That is not science, which advances the search for truth; it is politics, which impedes it.

In all fairness, it’s easy to understand why this happens. We’re not even claiming it’s entirely nefarious. It’s just human nature. Ideas that challenge the prescribed way of thinking have always been unpopular among those doing the prescribing, going back to Copernicus and Martin Luther. New findings and the theories that grow out of them threaten to discredit the theories of the previous generation of scholars—and guess who primarily serves as reviewers? When we say “politics,” we don’t necessarily mean that in the partisan sense but, rather, in the personal sense: Whose ox is being gored?

But, of course, partisan politics—and ideology, specifically—often enter into the equation, as well. Even in disciplines that are not as politically fraught as climatology or “gender studies”—such as accounting or marketing—young scholars must still bow to the ideological gods of their seniors. They must pay proper homage to concepts such as “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” “whiteness,” and “marginalized populations,” even if those concepts have nothing whatsoever to do with their research or, worse, are unsupported by their findings. And, of course, if they really want to be published, they will find some way to tie those findings into the political flavor of the month. Hence, we get articles with titles such as “How Branding for Whiteness Disadvantages BIPOC Consumers” or “Addressing Marginalized Populations in Management Research.” (One of these is real; the other we made up. Can you tell which is which?)

So, what now? We believe it is time to return to the medieval “community of scholars” model—with a 21st-century twist. Sure, in most disciplines, it is nearly impossible to get all scholars together to pass around manuscripts (as anyone who has been to a conference can attest), but, with modern technology, scholars can indeed “pass around” their manuscripts, sharing their work-in-progress with colleagues from across the country and around the world.

Our idea involves creating official online forums for each discipline, where scholars can post essays about their ideas at any stage, laying out the theoretical background, proposing hypotheses, disclosing research findings (including methodology), and extrapolating to implications or predictions. Other scholars in the community can comment on those essays, offering critiques, providing missing information, and suggesting new directions in which to take the research. They can also try the experiments themselves to see if they get the same or similar results and “report back” to the group. Then the original authors can take that information and apply it to their further exploration of the research topic.

One advantage of this approach is that it is iterative, with each scholar building on the efforts of those who came before. Another is that scholars can “publish” regardless of their results. A common criticism of the current peer-review system is that scholars can publish only if they get positive results. Yet negative results are also results and help, in their own way, to advance knowledge. Just as scholars need to know what has been found to be true in order to build on that progress, so they must also know what has been proved to be false so they can avoid the same pitfalls.

Submissions to the forums would be time-stamped, so authors could easily prove ownership of ideas. The posts could be hyperlinked to make follow-up research and citations quick and easy. To discourage bad actors, there would be no anonymity for contributors and commenters. And the forums would be lightly moderated to ensure posts met scholarly standards, with appropriate decorum, civility, and attribution. But all ideas would be entertained. There would be no gatekeeping. Instead, the community would police itself, “ratioing” (to use the social-media term) rather than censoring “bad” ideas.

Obviously, in order for this system to ultimately take the place of the current peer-review system, universities would need to embrace it and figure out how to evaluate scholars’ productivity for the purposes of granting tenure and so forth—perhaps based on the number of posts and the reaction to them from the community.

But we believe this is where things are headed, and universities, disciplines, and learned societies would do well to get on board. The current system has outlived its usefulness, becoming a hindrance to the pursuit of truth rather than a means of supporting it.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 15:40

Engineering Bottleneck Drives Major Deals Across Nuclear Services

In the latest development with private equity firms making moves in the nuclear industry, Arlington Capital Partners has acquired nuclear engineering specialist ENERCON from funds managed by Oaktree Capital Management. 

The deal includes merging ENERCON with Arlington portfolio company Pond & Company. The combined entity will operate under the ENERCON name, creating a powerful nuclear engineering firm with more than 2,700 professionals.

And then there is the issue of where the US gets 300,000 engineers to build all this missing power supply by 2030 https://t.co/a18crhqZ4v pic.twitter.com/tinW8SHDwM

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 14, 2025

ENERCON currently supports ~90% of the nation's nuclear plants. It also holds capabilities in small modular reactors and large-scale reactor projects. Pond contributes with strengths in federal energy, natural gas infrastructure, and mission-critical engineering services. Together, they form an end-to-end provider for regulated power and energy infrastructure.

Arlington Managing Partner Michael Lustbader highlighted the strategic timing. “We have begun a once-in-a-generation structural shift in power demand driven by AI, the onshoring of manufacturing, and changing national security priorities,” he said.

This transaction is the latest in a string of acquisitions signaling intense interest in nuclear-related engineering and services capacity…

In December, advanced reactor developer Natura Resources purchased Shepherd Power from NOV Inc. The move bolstered Natura’s project deployment, regulatory, and licensing expertise as it advances molten salt SMR commercialization for data centers and industrial users.

Earlier this year, Swedish nuclear services firm Studsvik acquired Kärnfull Next for approximately €6.5 million. The deal expands Studsvik from supporting existing fleets into full project development for new SMR initiatives in Sweden and beyond.

Energy Capital Partners also recently announced plans to acquire EnergySolutions (for the second time), a provider of integrated nuclear services spanning maintenance, modifications, decommissioning, waste management, and lifecycle support.

We just detailed this concern for lack of specialized labor in the nuclear industry with the breakdown of a report from Barclays. There is serious demand for specialized engineering talent and capacity as the nuclear renaissance gathers momentum. With utilities and tech giants alike racing to secure reliable, dispatchable zero-carbon power, the bottleneck in qualified engineering resources is becoming evident. 

UnoMasReactor Thu, 04/30/2026 - 15:20

Sternlicht's Starwood Real Estate Fund Gates Redemptions

Earlier this month, when much of the attention was largely focused on private credit, we warned that one of the old, familiar credit market time-bombs, commercial real estate which for many years had been penned as the "Next Big Short", was deteriorating rapidly: according to the latest TREPP CMBS monthly report, March saw a surge in the CMBS delinquency rate, which jumped by 41bps to 7.55%, the highest in years, led by a surge in the lodging rate, a category which until now was not a source of concern. 

It now appears that this particular time bomb is about to go off, as the huge redemptions wave that rocked private credit in recent months is making a move into commercial real estate. 

According to Bloomberg, Barry Sternlicht's high-profile Starwood Capital Group Management is halting redemptions from a $22 billion real estate fund aimed at retail investors as it seeks to prevent a flight of assets amid mounting pressure on its bet that the commercial real estate markets would quickly recover from interest rate rises in 2022 and 2023

The asset manager is “temporarily suspending” share repurchases from its Starwood Real Estate Income Trust with a few exceptions following a strategic review, according to a letter to shareholders. It will also cut its annualized distribution to 4.7% for Class I shares, down from 6.3% as of March.

Sternlicht's fund, one of the first retail private markets funds, pinned its decision to temporarily suspend most redemptions on interest rates that have “remained high”. The move comes after Sreit had restricted investors’ liquidity rights by more than 80% two years ago

“We recognize this decision may be frustrating for some shareholders,” Starwood CEO Barry Sternlicht said in the letter. “However, taking this step now allows us to preserve the opportunity to realize better outcomes as market conditions improve.”

The issue was “not the real estate,” said Sternlicht in the letter, but rather “the pressure created by elevated redemption requests, which rose quite suddenly when interest rates spiked and remained high”. 

As the FT notes, SREIT has struggled to recover from a real estate market that has remained weak since interest rates began to creep up four years ago. The fund owns 598 properties across the US. Sternlicht said Sreit would “reintroduce liquidity when it can be done in a consistent and sustainable way” Until then, the firm will only allow investors to redeem their shares due to death, disability or if their balance is below $5,000.

The CEO said Starwood expected “the war with Iran to conclude, oil prices to subside, inflation to stabilize, and for Kevin Warsh to be seated as Fed Chair, supporting a lower interest rate environment”. 

“The temporary actions announced today reflect our commitment to making the right long-term decisions for all SREIT shareholders, including the nearly 70% who have never made a redemption request,” Sternlicht said in an emailed statement. “Our interests are fully aligned with our investors as the largest owner of SREIT, with over a $500 million ownership stake.”Sternlicht said in a statement.

Last month, hedge fund Saba Capital last month offered to buy 5% of the outstanding shares in Sreit, at a discount of more than 20% of the fund’s most recent stated value. In the end, Saba acquired only $7.7 million of the approximately $400mn in SREIT shares they had offered to buy, the FT reported. 

Two years ago, Starwood limited investors’ ability to redeem their investments after the FT reported that SREIT had tapped its credit facility to support redemptions, rather than selling real estate assets.

SREIT launched in 2018 amid a wave of similar offerings from Blackstone and KKR  to give retail investors exposure to commercial real estate. In the early years, low interest rates helped the funds plow capital into apartment buildings, warehouses and other properties. But the real estate cycle flipped in the middle of 2022, when a sharp increase in interest rates cratered property values and pushed investors to withdraw capital. Those withdrawals have been eating into SREIT’s liquidity, leading to Wednesday’s decision to halt redemptions.

As readers are well aware, SREIT is not the only retail-oriented fund that has come under pressure in recent months. Similarly structured vehicles that invest in private credit have suffered a wave of withdrawals amid concerns over underwriting standards and potential disruption to software businesses from AI, forcing managers to enforce caps on withdrawals.

SREIT is among the largest owners of multifamily apartments in the US, with more than 63,000 apartment units concentrated in the Sunbelt, including Texas and Florida, according to the letter.

Sternlicht made a reputation buying distressed real estate in the aftermath of the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s. He went on to found Starwood Hotels & Resorts, which was later acquired by Marriott International Inc., and the real estate lender Starwood Property Trust.

In recent years, he has criticized the Federal Reserve for being late to increase interest rates in the aftermath of Covid. In the letter he said that he expects the war in Iran to end, leading to lower oil prices and stabilizing inflation. He now expects the Fed to cut rates.  

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 14:40

House Unanimously Approves Bill To End 76-Day DHS Shutdown, Sending Measure To Trump

Well that was anticlimactic... On Thursday, the House of Representatives approved by voice vote a Senate-passed bill to fund most of the Department of Homeland Security, clearing the way to end the longest partial government shutdown in U.S. history after 76 days.

The measure now heads to President Trump’s desk. The shutdown, which began February 14, will officially conclude once the president signs the legislation into law.

Democrats had long objected to funding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol - the two DHS agencies at the center of the administration’s immigration crackdown - prompting the impasse. The Senate unanimously passed legislation last month to fund the remainder of DHS, but House Republicans initially rejected the plan, arguing it would amount to caving to Democratic demands to defund the president’s immigration agenda.

After weeks of negotiations, House Speaker Johnson, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and President Trump settled on a two-track solution. The first track - immediate House passage of the Senate bill - will reopen the broader department. The second track will fund ICE and Border Patrol through the budget reconciliation process, allowing Republicans to advance the measure without Senate Democratic support.

Both chambers took the first formal step toward reconciliation this week by adopting a budget plan that directs the relevant committees to draft legislation funding the immigration enforcement agencies. President Trump has said he wants the full reconciliation package on his desk by June 1.

The president ordered DHS to redirect funds to cover employee payroll in March, but Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned that money for payroll would run out by the beginning of May, intensifying pressure on lawmakers to act.

ICE and Border Patrol have been largely insulated from the shutdown’s effects. Both agencies received tens of billions of dollars in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, allowing their operations to continue mostly unimpeded.

The heaviest burden has fallen on other DHS components, including the U.S. Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, and Federal Emergency Management Agency.

In an exclusive interview with CBS News, Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Kevin Lunday said his workforce was “furious” that the impasse had dragged on so long, calling the situation “incredibly frustrating.”

The House action marks the beginning of the end for a shutdown that has left thousands of federal workers and critical agencies in limbo for more than two and a half months. Once signed by the president, the legislation will restore funding and stability to the vast majority of DHS operations while Republicans move forward separately on their immigration enforcement priorities through reconciliation.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 14:20

Feds Charge Sinaloa's Governor, Senator, Mayor, & Other Top Officials With Running A Narco-State

Submitted by The Bureau's Sam Cooper,

Federal prosecutors in New York have charged ten current and former senior Mexican government officials — among them the sitting governor of Sinaloa, a sitting federal senator, the mayor of the state capital, and the state’s former secretary of public security — with conspiring to protect the Sinaloa Cartel’s most powerful faction in exchange for millions of dollars in drug money, in what may be the most sweeping corruption indictment ever brought against a sitting government in the Western Hemisphere.

The superseding indictment, filed in the Southern District of New York and unsealed Wednesday, charges all ten defendants with narcotics importation conspiracy — specifically, conspiracy to flood the United States with fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine — as well as conspiracy to possess machineguns and destructive devices in furtherance of drug trafficking.

One defendant, a municipal police commander, faces additional charges of kidnapping resulting in death: the alleged abduction and murder of a Drug Enforcement Administration confidential source, his relative, and a 13-year-old boy, carried out using a police patrol car.

The document does not describe a cartel that corrupted a government. It describes a government that became the cartel’s operating infrastructure.

In what appears to be the first instance in American legal history of the Justice Department indicting a sitting Mexican governor, prosecutors allege that Ruben Rocha Moya, 76, who has served as governor of Sinaloa since November 2021, did not simply accept cartel money. He allegedly made his deal with the Chapitos — the sons of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman — before he was ever elected, in a meeting guarded by Cartel sicarios armed with machineguns, and delivered on every term thereafter.

Rubén Rocha Moya, the governor of Sinaloa state... 

What makes the filing extraordinary even by the standards of major cartel prosecutions is the physical evidence prosecutors say they recovered: handwritten monthly bribe lists, seized in Mexico during the investigation, that record by name, alias, and official position which Sinaloa officials were being paid by the Cartel, and exactly how much. The lists name defendants in this case. They are reproduced in the indictment as photographs. They are, in effect, the Chapitos’ payroll — and they show a government bought line by line.

“The Sinaloa Cartel is a ruthless criminal organization that has flooded this community with dangerous drugs for decades,” said U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton. “No matter your title or position, we are committed to bringing you to justice.”

The indictment sets off what observers described as a political earthquake in Mexico — and poses a crisis of a different kind for President Claudia Sheinbaum, whose own party, Morena, counts at least three of the defendants among its members. The charges land on the eve of formal renegotiations of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the trade pact central to Mexico’s export economy, a timing that reads less like coincidence than calculated maximum pressure.

Ioan Grillo, a veteran journalist and author who has spent decades covering Mexico’s cartels, noted Wednesday that Mexico’s foreign relations department received the extradition requests for Rocha Moya and the other Sinaloa officials the previous evening at 6 p.m. — meaning Sheinbaum had roughly 18 hours to prepare a response before the indictment became public. “She is in a very tough position,” Grillo wrote.

At the center of the indictment is Rocha Moya.

As governor, he oversees Sinaloa’s entire administrative apparatus, including all state and local police forces. Prosecutors allege his relationship with the Chapitos predates his election and was foundational to it. In early 2021, while still campaigning, Rocha Moya allegedly attended a meeting with Ivan and Ovidio Guzman at which he promised that if elected, he would install officials friendly to the Chapitos’ drug trafficking operations throughout the Sinaloa government. The Chapitos delivered on their side.

On election day in June 2021, sicarios acting on Ivan’s orders stole ballots and ballot boxes for the opposing party. They used a list of Rocha Moya’s opponents and their home addresses — provided to the Chapitos by co-defendant Enrique Diaz Vega — to kidnap and intimidate those opponents into abandoning the race. Officers of the Sinaloa State Police, whose commanders had been ordered to stand down, received emergency calls reporting armed men at polling stations, voters being directed at gunpoint toward favored candidates, and ballot boxes being stolen across Culiacan, Mazatlan, Navolato, and Elota.

After winning, Rocha Moya and his secretary general, Enrique Inzunza Cazarez — now a sitting federal senator — met again with the Chapitos under machineguns and confirmed their arrangement: in exchange for the Chapitos’ support, Rocha Moya would deliver effective control of the Sinaloa State Police to the Cartel. As governor, prosecutors allege, he has delivered on every term.

Inzunza Cazarez, now representing Sinaloa in Mexico’s federal senate, allegedly served as a direct physical courier between the Chapitos and Rocha Moya, conveying communications confirming the terms of their arrangement. Enrique Diaz Vega, who served as Sinaloa’s secretary of administration and finance from November 2021 to September 2024, allegedly handed the Chapitos the names and home addresses of Rocha Moya’s political opponents so the Cartel could threaten them out of the race before a ballot was cast.

The corruption ran deep into the state’s law enforcement apparatus.

Damaso Castro Zaavedra, Sinaloa’s deputy attorney general, allegedly received approximately $200,000 pesos — roughly $10,893 in U.S. dollars — every month. In exchange, he gave the Chapitos advance warning of planned operations, including identifying which drug labs were being targeted by the Drug Enforcement Administration so evidence could be destroyed or moved before raids began.

Two successive chiefs of Sinaloa’s Investigative Police — Marco Antonio Almanza Aviles and Alberto Jorge Contreras Nunez, known as “Cholo” — were both allegedly on the Chapitos’ monthly payroll throughout their tenures. Aviles allegedly accepted roughly $16,670 per month from a meeting at one of Ivan’s ranches in 2017 or 2018; in exchange, he issued arrest warrants for the Chapitos’ enemies on demand and ordered the release of cartel members arrested for drug trafficking.

Contreras Nunez, selected by Rocha Moya with explicit Chapitos approval and holding the position until approximately February 2026, accepted approximately $16,000 per month in cash and helped the Chapitos track down and kill their enemies. Gerardo Merida Sanchez, Sinaloa’s secretary of public security — overseeing the entire state police — allegedly accepted more than $100,000 in U.S. dollars in monthly cash bribes and in 2023 alone warned the Cartel in advance of at least ten raids on drug labs, allowing them to evacuate personnel, drugs, and equipment before police arrived.

Jose Antonio Dionisio Hipolito, known as “Tornado,” a deputy director and later commander of the Sinaloa State Police, allegedly accepted approximately $6,000 per month from at least 2012 through 2024, sold ammunition and assault rifle magazines to Chapitos members, had arrest paperwork altered to conceal that detained cartel members had been armed, and met personally with Ivan and Ovidio to receive a radio with instructions to stay in contact.

The most grave allegation in the indictment concerns October 2023, and it falls on Juan Valenzuela Millan, known as “Juanito,” a high-level commander in the Culiacan Municipal Police from approximately 2018 to 2024.

Millan allegedly accepted approximately $41,000 per month in cash — funds distributed among himself, his commanders, and more than forty other corrupt municipal officers — and gave the Chapitos unrestricted access to the intelligence, operations, and physical resources of the municipal police, including patrol cars and radios.

When Ivan Guzman and a senior Chapitos associate ordered the kidnapping and murder of Alexander Meza Leon, a confidential source providing information to the Drug Enforcement Administration about Chapitos drug trafficking operations, Millan’s officers carried out the abduction. In a marked patrol car, municipal police stopped Meza Leon and another victim on the street, detained them, and handed them directly to Cartel sicarios, who tortured and killed them. Among the victims killed was a 13-year-old boy. Additional civilians were subsequently kidnapped and murdered as the Chapitos sought to eliminate anyone associated with the source. Count Four of the indictment charges Millan alone with kidnapping resulting in death. Juan de Dios Gamez Mendivil, the current mayor of Culiacan, rounds out the list of defendants. He allegedly accepted more than $10,000 in U.S. dollars per month and shielded Chapitos operations across the city he governs.

Among the most remarkable pieces of evidence described in the indictment are physical documents prosecutors say they recovered from Mexico: handwritten monthly bribe lists maintained by the Chapitos’ plaza boss in Culiacan. Each month, prosecutors allege, the plaza boss received from the Chapitos a box of cash alongside a list specifying the name, alias, or official position of each official to be paid and the precise peso amount. Three such lists are reproduced as photographs in the indictment — each headed with a variation of “Gobierno” and a total figure, each with the names of defendants circled in red. They are, prosecutors say, the Cartel’s own records — a paper ledger of a purchased government, recovered in Mexico, showing the systematic monthly acquisition of Sinaloa’s law enforcement apparatus, position by position, peso by peso.

The indictment situates the corruption within a supply chain that begins in China and ends in American communities.

The Sinaloa Cartel, prosecutors allege, has for years worked directly with precursor chemical manufacturers in China and elsewhere to obtain the raw materials needed to produce fentanyl and methamphetamine at industrial scale. Sinaloa’s position on Mexico’s Pacific coast has given Chinese suppliers both maritime and air access to deliver those chemicals to the state and its surrounding regions — access that was only possible, prosecutors allege, because corrupt officials like those charged Wednesday ensured no one would interfere with the shipments.

Once manufactured, the narcotics moved north through Sonora and Baja California across the United States border concealed in car compartments, tractor-trailers, luggage on commercial flights, shipping containers with falsified paperwork, and the bodies of drug mules, as well as through tunnels beneath the border and on so-called black flights, where planes flew with their transponders disabled. Stash houses in Southern California, El Paso, and Phoenix fed a wholesale distribution network reaching New York and the East Coast. Fentanyl has become one of the leading causes of death for Americans between the ages of 18 and 49.

The political fallout for Sheinbaum is severe.

At least three of the defendants — Rocha Moya, the mayor of Culiacan, and Senator Inzunza Cazarez — are members of her party, Morena. Rocha Moya was a staunch ally of Sheinbaum’s political mentor, former president Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and enthusiastically embraced Lopez Obrador’s signature “Hugs, Not Bullets” cartel policy — a deliberate strategy of avoiding direct confrontation with Mexico’s most powerful criminal organizations. Critics have long argued that both Lopez Obrador and Sheinbaum carried out few high-level corruption prosecutions and weakened the institutions responsible for rooting it out. His long personal friendship with Lopez Obrador, Mexican observers have noted, appeared to shield Rocha Moya from scrutiny despite long-rumored cartel ties.

Sheinbaum, just days before the unsealing, told reporters her government had seen no evidence supporting the corruption allegations and insisted any American investigation of Mexican nationals must be reviewed by the Mexican attorney general’s office. Mexico’s foreign ministry, after receiving the extradition requests, said the documents provided by Washington did not contain sufficient evidence to establish the defendants’ responsibility, adding that the attorney general’s office would determine whether arrests and extraditions were warranted.

Rocha Moya denied everything. “This attack isn’t just against me,” he wrote on X Wednesday afternoon. “It is part of a perverse strategy to violate the constitutional order” of Mexico and an assault on national sovereignty. “We will show them that this slander doesn’t have any sort of foundation.” Senator Inzunza Cazarez issued a similar denial.

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Ron Johnson last week signaled the campaign was coming, warning publicly that Washington would be targeting Mexican officials linked to organized crime. Two of El Chapo’s sons — Ovidio Guzman Lopez and Joaquin Guzman Lopez — are currently in U.S. custody facing drug-smuggling charges and are widely reported to be cooperating with prosecutors in exchange for leniency.

The granular detail in Wednesday’s indictment — the meeting dates, the ranch locations, the radio handoffs, the bribe list totals — is consistent with, among other possible sources, testimony from individuals who were present at those meetings. Ovidio and Joaquin Guzman Lopez, both in U.S. custody and widely reported to be cooperating with prosecutors, would be among those with direct knowledge of the arrangements described.

As of Wednesday, none of the ten defendants were in custody. The charges carry maximum penalties including life imprisonment on the narcotics conspiracy count. Eight of the ten face mandatory minimum sentences of 40 years.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 13:40

Iran's Ghalibaf Tells Iranians 'Unify' As US Blockade Seeks To 'Make Us Collapse From Within'

Iran's parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has since the war's start and prior assassinations of top leaders including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei become the most visible figurehead representing the Islamic Republic to the world, has continued trolling the United States even as President Trump is renewing fresh military strikes amid an uneasy extended ceasefire and ongoing US naval blockade of Iranian ports.

He stated Wednesday that the United States' naval blockade of the country has a goal to create division and "make us collapse from within." His message was delivered through state TV and he is warning citizens about "maintaining unity" in the face of this unprecedented economic and military pressure.

Ghalibaf went on to explain that Trump falsely "divides the country into two groups: hardliners and moderates, and then immediately talks about a naval blockade to force Iran into submission through economic pressure and internal discord," according to more from state media sources.

via state media

"The enemy has entered a new phase and wants to activate economic pressure and internal division through naval blockade and media hype to weaken or even make us collapse from within," he continued, urging Iranians that the only solution is to keep national unity amid the assault.

This hearkens back to Trump having said earlier this month that the Iranian government was "seriously fractured, not unexpectedly so."

This was quickly followed by reports that Ghalibaf himself was being sidelined by the IRGC when it comes to the next potential US-Iranian talks. But Tehran quickly rejected reports that the influential parliament speaker had been removed from the negotiating team.

As for definitions of 'hardline vs. moderate' - these are somewhat superficial and manufactured by the West (akin to prior Middle East wars and regime change operations, with one recent example being so-called "moderate rebels" in Syria).

With the MSM and Iran, this is based fundamentally on speculation from afar and circular logic. Any Iranian official who is against pursuing more negotiations - while understandably coming to the conclusion that Washington can't be trusted (after it bombed Iran twice during talks) - gets automatically labelled 'hardliner' by the MSM, and this also carries all kinds of implications overlapping with radical Islam. The idea is to make anyone not amenable to Washington and Israeli plans for the region look irrational and fanatical - even if their decisions might be rational and understandable based on Iranian national self-interest and survival.

Meanwhile Ghalibaf has continued trolling the US on X over rising oil and gas prices, which again suggests that Tehran is settling in for a long war, and is willing to endure and survive politically...

3 days in, no well exploded.We could extend to 30 and livestream the well here.
That was the kind of junk advice the US admin gets from people like Bessent who also push the blockade theory and cranked oil up to $120+. Next stop:140. The issue isn't the theory, it's the mindset.

— محمدباقر قالیباف | MB Ghalibaf (@mb_ghalibaf) April 29, 2026

The longer the Hormuz standoff goes, and the more the anti-Tehran rhetoric flows out of the White House and from Trump on Truth Social, the more likely the Iranian so-called hardliners are to influence broader numbers of Iranian leaders and sectors of the public. This is especially if Tehran gets bombed again, which is looking likely.

Yet Washington is hoping that it actually produces the opposite: admin officials have expressed hope that common Iranians would take to the streets in large numbers, with regime collapse being the end goal.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 13:20

GDP Shocker: 75% Of US Growth In The First Quarter Was Due To AI

On the surface, today's Q1 GDP print was unremarkable: Real GDP grew 2.0% annualized in the first quarter, somewhat below consensus expectations of 2.3% and reflecting a surprisingly small rebound in government spending after the shutdown drag in Q4. Federal government spending contributed only half as much to real GDP growth in Q1 (+0.6%) as it subtracted in Q4 (-1.2%), implying that the level of real federal government spending in Q1 is 2.2% below its level in 2025Q3. Inventory accumulation also contributed less to Q1 growth than we had anticipated (+0.4pp vs. our expectation of +1.2pp). Net exports subtracted 1.3% from GDP after boosting it dramatically in early 2025 as imports surpassed exports. Consumer spending rose 1.6%, somewhat above consensus expectations, but as we noted earlier, much of this has been due to "stimulus" refunds which are now over, and which pushed spending growth far higher than income growth.

Even with the stimmies, personal savings dropped to a 3 year low.

Yet when we get to fixed investment, something remarkable emerges: Housing investment declined 8%, and subtracted 0.31% from the bottom line GDP print, which is to be expected with mortgage rates remaining very high, maintaining a depressed housing market.

But Nonresidential fixed investment was the outlier, soaring by 10.4%, largely reflecting a boost from higher electronics imports and a 12% annualized decline in software prices.

Let's take a closer look at the breakdown.

The chart below shows quarterly annualized GDP growth broken down by components. It shows that Q1 GDP grew at exactly 2.0% in Q1. Also notable is that traditionally strong consumption, which contributed 1.0% of GDP growth, was offset by net trade (1.3%) with, inventories (0.4%) and government (0.73%) providing a modest offset. 

The highlighted block is Fixed Investment, which contributed 1.1%. However, keep in mind that residential fixed investment subtracted 0.31% from the total number, which means that Nonresidential fixed investment was responsible for 1.38% of the 2.0% GDP print.

Focusing on the fixed investment component, we find the following: as noted above, it was all about non-residential fixed investment.

Zooming into this segment, we find that Nonresidential equipment grew by 6.3%, or contributing 0.9% to the 2.0% GDP, while Intellectual Property products grew just over 5%, and added 0.7% to the bottom line GDP. 

While IP is clear - it consists primarily of Software, the kind that one uses to create and develop AI tools, as well as R&D - the components behind Nonresidential equipment need a closer look again, and here we find that Information Processing equipment, i.e., data centers, grew at a stunning 13%, comprising virtually all of the 0.88% contribution to 2% GDP growth.

And there you have it: between Software (0.7% of the GDP growth) and Nonresidential Equipment (0.88%), AI - which was the primary driver behind growth in both - contributed just over 1.5% to GDP growth of 2.0%; in other words about 75% of all US growth in Q1 was due to AI.

Another way to visualize the remarkable impact of spending on "computers" is the chart below: it clearly shows just how reliant the US has become on spending on computer products.

And that's why AI is now not only a market bubble, but it has become a core anchor propping up the entire US economy; it's also why the US government will have no choice but to backstop it once the inevitable AI bubble pops. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 12:53

DeSantis Rolls Out Redistricting Map - Partisan Framing May Put It In Legal Peril

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis rolled out a proposed redistricting map for the state this week, but the way he did it could give ammunition to lawyers mounting inevitable legal challenges that will follow the map's expected approval by the legislature, both Democratic and Republican observers say. Some Republican legislators are uneasy with DeSantis' rollout of the plan -- which he shared with Fox News before he shared it with them. 

Today, Republicans hold 20 of Florida's US House seats, compared to 8 held by Democrats. Under the DeSantis plan, the GOP could have a 24-4 advantage. DeSantis gave Fox News a map of his proposed new districts, depicting anticipated party control after the midterms.

The format of that map could prove legally fatal to the scheme. The Florida constitution contains anti-gerrymandering "Fair District" provisions that seek to prevent partisan "intent." A Florida Republican consultant who's participated in previous redistricting efforts expressed surprise at the  DeSantis team's use of a color-coded map, telling NBC News, “This is wild. I don’t know how you can argue a red and blue map released from the governor’s office doesn’t show some form of partisan intent.” DeSantis told Fox News that new districts are needed after Florida was "shortchanged" in the 2020 census that determines each state's number of House seats. 

In a memo to lawmakers, DeSantis also signaled his new map will be an attempt to force reconsideration of the Fair Districts provisions in the state Constitution. The language requires the consideration of race when drawing new political lines, which DeSantis says is unconstitutional. - NBC

Some Republicans are uneasy about the proposed districts. To create new GOP opportunities, some Republican-rich neighborhoods have been removed from current Republican districts, amping up the pressure on the incumbents who hold them, at a time when President Trump's low approval ratings and significant Republican disenchantment with the administration present significant headwinds for the party. While many Republicans are still enthusiastic about Trump, some are put off by his initiation of a war of choice on Iran, his opposition to the release of the Epstein files, and his disinterest in imposing fiscal discipline. 

In what may or may not prove to be an omen for November, a March special election brought Republicans and Trump a bruising loss in Florida, as the GOP lost its grip on a reliably red state House seat that includes President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate. The Democrat challenger won the race by just over 2 points -- an approximate 11-point swing toward Democrats from the 2024 outcome in the Palm Beach County district.

An appropriate response to Virginia - but what this reveals is both sides have given up on persuasion, recognizing the country is so divided that it's basically impossible. So it's a race to rig the system in your favor, all while speaking in grand terms about "our democracy." https://t.co/96f8Dsfs4O

— FischerKing (@FischerKing64) April 27, 2026

The Florida plan is the latest development in a year-long, nationwide set of electoral-map skirmishes ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. In the opening salvo of a war started at the urging of President Trump, last August Texas undertook a rare, mid-decade redistricting effort that aspires to flip five current Democrat-held seats into the Republican column this November. California responded with a new map meant to fully negate the Texas impact, flipping five GOP seats. Other states have made tweaks, and in the latest move, Virginians narrowly approved a referendum that would likely see the GOP lose four seats to the Democrats.

The various plans have been subjected to legal challenges. The last few days brought big news on that front. On Monday, the US Supreme Court issued a summary reversal allowing Texas to proceed with its new congressional map for the November 2026 elections. The justices overturned a federal district court’s earlier injunction against the new boundaries. Sunday held good news for Democrats, as a Virginia court rejected a Republican-led challenge to the state's new map.

As the legal battles continue, some see the redistricting war as a clear signal that America is steadily plowing deeper into discord: 

We have reached phase six of Ray Dalio's Big Cycle -- when irreconcilable differences lead to political fracture, war, and then collapse. Arguably, we are already in a soft civil war.

— Kenneth Rapoza (@BRICbreaker) April 27, 2026

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 12:40

Breaking The Stalemate

By Bas van Geffen, Senior Macro strategist at Rabobank

Energy prices continue their ascend –with Brent futures trading above $124/barrel – after media report that the US may try to break the stalemate in the US-Iran war by force. Axios reports that military leaders will brief Trump on potential military options today. Reportedly, the Pentagon is preparing a wave of “short and powerful” strikes on Iran, likely targeting infrastructure.

Yesterday, Trump still suggested that he would not resume the bombing campaign. The US president said he believes the US blockade of Hormuz is the most effective form of leverage. However, that strategy has so far failed to exert significant concessions from Iran. So, these military strikes –or the mere threat thereof– could be an option if Iran does not budge on the nuclear issue.

The news injects fresh tail risks into the outlook for the war, energy prices, and inflation around the globe. Amidst the unusually high uncertainty about the outlook, the FOMC kept the federal funds target range unchanged at 3.50-3.75%, as widely expected.

Equally expected was Governor Miran’s dissent, who repeated his preference for a rate cut. However, that was offset by three dissenting votes on the policy statement. Governors Hammack, Kashkari, and Logan “did not support the inclusion of an easing bias in the statement at this time.”

Chair Powell noted that the Committee was in no rush to change the language of the statement. Perhaps, the FOMC decided to wait for the change of guard – and to avoid wobbly messaging. Because once Warsh is appointed as next Fed chair, he will probably try to convince the other FOMC members of the need for additional rate cuts.

Whether Warsh succeeds depends on incoming data, but Powell suggested yesterday that this could be an uphill battle. According to the current Fed chair, the more centrist policymakers were moving towards a more neutral place in thinking about cuts versus hikes. Likewise, their economic assessment now says that inflation is “elevated,” instead of “somewhat elevated.”

We still forecast two rate cuts from a Warsh-led Fed this year. However, as we have flagged before, we think that in the coming months are more likely to drop a rate cut from our forecast than add one.

But the biggest surprise was arguably Powell’s personal decision: the current Fed chair announced that he will continue to stay on as governor for some time after his term as chair ends. This does not mean he will serve out his term as governor; Powell said he will leave when he thinks it’s appropriate – which he seemed to tie to the legal attacks on the central bank. Powell did suggest he would keep a lower profile, and that he would not try to undermine Warsh out of respect for the role of Fed chair.

Returning to energy prices, the fresh highs for Brent this week provide a sobering backdrop to the otherwise better-than-expected April inflation data for the Eurozone countries. Overall, German and Spanish inflation data for April were on the lower end of expectations – although the harmonized inflation measure still ticked 0.1 percentage point higher in Spain.

VAT cuts on petrol have certainly softened the blow. The fact that energy prices were somewhat lower in the first half of April may also have limited energy-driven price pressures for the month. That may be short-lived, given that the price of energy commodities has been on the rise again.

But the miss wasn’t entirely driven by lower energy prices – core inflation, i.e., inflation excluding energy and food, came in a bit lower too. Clothing and recreation –the Spanish bureau of statistics specifically mentions package holidays– were the main reasons why core inflation decelerated compared to the prior month. However, keep in mind that pricing of these goods and services can be quite erratic, due to seasonal shifts and the timing of holidays like Easter. So, this is a mitigating factor for now, but we don’t think that this is a sign of broader disinflation.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 12:20

Fidelity, Vanguard Halt Donations To SPLC After Federal Indictment

Fidelity and Vanguard have stopped processing donations to the Southern Poverty Law Center through their donor-advised fund platforms, citing the organization’s recent federal indictment on fraud charges.

The moves came April 29, eight days after a federal grand jury in Alabama indicted the SPLC on 11 counts of wire fraud, false statements to a bank, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Prosecutors allege that between 2014 and 2023 the group secretly funneled more than $3 million in donor funds to individuals affiliated with extremist organizations, including the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan Nations, and the National Socialist Party of America, while misleading donors about the use of the money.

Fidelity Charitable, which oversees more than 350,000 donor-advised accounts, notified customers that the SPLC is no longer an eligible grant recipient, the NY Times reports. “Fidelity Charitable is aware of an ongoing governmental investigation into Southern Poverty Law Center,” the company wrote in an email to a donor. “Consistent with our grant-making standards and practices, the organization is not an eligible grant recipient during the ongoing investigation.”

Vanguard Charitable issued a similar denial when a donor requested a grant. “The organization has had allegations and/or charges brought against them for activities that may call into question their ability to carry out their tax-exempt charitable purpose,” the company stated.

Both sponsors have long-standing rules that allow them to reject grant recommendations when legal issues arise. Fidelity Charitable’s guidelines state that recommendations “might” be declined if an organization “is being investigated for alleged illegal activities or noncharitable activities, such as terrorism, money laundering, hate crimes or fraud,” or if other federal or state agencies are investigating the group.

Vanguard Charitable’s policy is triggered by any criminal indictment from state or federal authorities. A Vanguard spokeswoman said the sponsor makes grants “only to organizations that meet I.R.S. eligibility requirements” and pauses funding “while the matter is pending” when charges are filed. The company does not evaluate the substance of the allegations, she added.

Fidelity Charitable distributed $18.3 billion in grants last year. The SPLC now joins a list of organizations the sponsor has paused under its due-diligence rules.

Context of the Indictment

The Department of Justice announced the indictment April 21. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and other officials described the case as involving deception of donors. The SPLC has denied the allegations, called them politically motivated, and said its payments were part of a legitimate informant program that provided intelligence to law enforcement. The group has filed court motions seeking grand jury transcripts and restrictions on public statements by prosecutors.

The SPLC has not lost its tax-exempt status. Legal experts note that donor-advised fund sponsors can still act on investigations or indictments even without a final conviction or IRS revocation.

Turnabout is Fair Play, Bitch

The move carries extra bite because of what happened three years ago. Back in 2023, the SPLC released a report blasting donor-advised fund sponsors - naming Fidelity and Vanguard among them - for supposedly bankrolling “hateful and extremist beliefs.” The same organization that once criticized these platforms for lax standards now finds itself on the receiving end of their risk controls.(Fidelity notably stopped advertising on ZeroHedge during this period, so we assume they bent the knee). 

Not all donor-advised fund providers have followed the same path. Daffy, a newer platform, continues to allow donations to the SPLC, stating that it generally relies on the IRS’s determination of tax-exempt status. The SPLC remains in good standing with the IRS, the company said. Charles Schwab’s affiliated DAF platform had not issued a public statement as of Wednesday.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 12:00

The Most Splendid Housing Bubbles In America

Authored by Wolf Richter via Wolf Street,

In 27 of the 33 big and expensive cities we track here, mid-tier home prices in March were down from their respective peaks in prior years, led by Austin (-26%), Oakland (-25%), and New Orleans (-19%).

Now also filtering into these mid-tier home prices is the “mansion shortage” in San Francisco, the epicenter of the AI investment bubble. Total employment in the city dropped and the unemployment rate ticked up. But a relatively small number of super-highly paid people get hired by AI companies, and they’re chasing down expensive homes, and there aren’t enough expensive homes for sale, and so they throw easy-come-easy-go money around in the realm of mid-tier homes and drive up their prices. Despite the recent spike in mid-tier home prices, they’re still 11% below the all-time high of 2022. By contrast, prices dipped in San Jose, where mid-tier homes are even more expensive than in San Francisco.

For one of the 33 cities, Boston, the jury was still out for March. April 2025 was the all-time high, and in March 2026, prices were down year-over-year by just a hair, and down by 1% from the high in April, but this is too close to call.

And in five of the 33 cities, prices rose to new highs in March, seasonally adjusted: New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Omaha. But price increases have been much slower than in the crazed free-money days of 2021 and 2022.

In the two years between mid-2020 and mid-2022, all of these cities had seen huge price spikes, some of which qualify for “price explosions”: Austin +62%, Phoenix +60%, Fort Worth +50%, Raleigh +49%, and Sacramento +39%.

Those price explosions were fueled by the Fed’s reckless free-money policies, which included trillions of dollars of purchases of Treasury securities and mortgage-backed securities, which led to the below-3% mortgage rates, even as inflation was raging at the time toward 9%, which led to crazed FOMO buying behavior at the time. Those price gains came on top of the already outsized price gains in the prior years.

The price measurement here is the seasonally adjusted three-month-average mid-tier Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) for single-family homes, condos, and co-ops, released today. Mid-tier means the middle-third by price in each market. The ZHVI is based on millions of data points in Zillow’s “Database of All Homes,” including from public records (tax data), MLS, brokerages, local Realtor Associations, real-estate agents, and households across the US. It includes pricing data for off-market deals and for-sale-by-owner deals.

To qualify for the list of the 33 most splendid housing bubbles, the city must be one of the largest by population and be among the expensive cities where the ZHVI for all mid-tier homes must have been at least $300,000 at some point.

Some cities that are large enough don’t qualify for this list because the ZHVI for all homes never reached $300,000, despite the surge in recent years, such as the cities of New Orleans, Houston, Philadelphia, Memphis, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, etc.

But Houston, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and Omaha are included anyway: Houston and Philadelphia because they’re the fourth-largest and sixth-largest cities in the US; New Orleans because it got within a hair of $300,000 in 2022; and Omaha, because it’s within a hair of $300,000 now, and is thereby the most expensive big city in the center of the US.

The 33 Most Splendid Housing Bubbles.

In the little tables, MoM = month over month; YoY = year-over-year. The column furthest to the right shows the percentage increase “since 2000.” All seasonally adjusted.

See the rest here...

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 11:40

Caterpillar's Parabolic Rise Continues As AI Boom Supercharges Generator Sales

Hyperscalers are deploying as much as $725 billion in capital expenditures this year, primarily on AI data center buildouts, and it comes as no surprise that Caterpillar posted solid first-quarter earnings, as surging on-site power demand has created a boom for the company's power-generation business.

CAT is one of the world's biggest makers of machines used to build, mine, dig, haul, and power industrial sites. But what has investors focused on in recent quarters is its energy and power unit, which makes diesel and natural-gas engines, generators, turbines, and backup power systems.

CAT reported first-quarter per-share profit excluding one-time items of $5.54, compared with $4.25 a year earlier, beating the average analyst estimate tracked by Bloomberg of $4.63.

The heavy-equipment maker reported that sales at its power and energy unit grew by 23% year over year, largely driven by strong demand for on-site power generation at data centers.

Here's a snapshot of first-quarter earnings (courtesy of Bloomberg):

Adjusted EPS $5.54 vs. $4.25 y/y, estimate $4.63 (Bloomberg Consensus)

• EPS $5.47 vs. $4.20 y/y

Revenue $17.42 billion, +22% y/y, estimate $16.24 billion

• Financial segment revenue $942 million, +8.2% y/y, estimate $895.8 million 

• Machinery, Power & Energy revenue $16.47 billion, +23% y/y, estimate $15.41 billion

• Adjusted operating income $3.13 billion, estimate $2.74 billion

• Machinery, Power & Energy operating income $3.00 billion, +19% y/y, estimate $2.63 billion

• Financial Products operating income $237 million, +18% y/y, estimate $225.3 million 

R&D expenses $537 million, +12% y/y, estimate $530.2 million

Backlog $62.7 billion

CAT shares are up 5% in premarket trading in New York. 

CAT shares have gone parabolic as news stories for data center power have erupted in recent years. 

Dec Mullarkey, managing director at SLC Management, was quoted by Bloomberg as saying, "Caterpillar is certainly benefiting from the AI buildout," adding, "And given there is no letup in related capex, which has been confirmed in this earnings season, Caterpillar will continue to be an essential player in all that."

On Wednesday, Alphabet and Meta Platforms both raised their full-year capex guidance, while Microsoft reported its first estimate of spending through the end of December, matching Alphabet's $190 billion. Amazon reported $200 billion in spending this year, as the 2026 capex spending forecast by hyperscalers exceeds $700 billion, according to Bloomberg.

Soaring capex spending by hyperscalers this year only suggests increased demand for CAT's power-generation systems.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 11:30

Political Violence And The Willful Self-Deception Of The Left

Authored by John R. Lott Jr. via RealClearPolitics,

Violence motivated by political differences has emerged as a defining, if alarming, feature of 21st -century American civil life. Neither side in our nation’s increasingly dangerous ideological divide has a monopoly. But one side, the Democratic Party and its allies, refuses to acknowledge the increase in mayhem from the left.

Would-be Trump assassin Cole Tomas Allen

This is true even in the face of the campus assassination of beloved conservative activist Charlie Kirk – or the very public attack against a televised banquet featuring the president of the United States in a ballroom room full of politicians and journalists.

On Sunday, well after authorities released Cole Tomas Allen’s anti-Trump administration screed, former President Barack Obama posted on X that the attacker’s motive remained unclear. Actually, Allen’s writings made his radical leftist views perfectly clear, along with his rage against conservatives and President Trump himself.

This brought to mind ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s stubborn insistence that Tyler Robinson, the man arrested for shooting Charlie Kirk was part of “the MAGA gang.” He wasn’t, of course. His own mother told investigators that her son, who was in a relationship with a gay man transitioning to female, had “become more pro-gay and trans-rights oriented.”

But willful self-deception has become a default position for liberals, who have convinced themselves for years that political violence is the province of the far right. It might still be, as some claim that might be the case of one Minnesota’s couple murder and another wounded in their homes, though the murderer had hundreds of  “No Kings” flyers and was appointed to advisory boards by two different Democrat governors. But the arson and violence that accompanied many of the George Floyd riots; the Lafayette Square riot near the White House, where more than 150 law enforcement officers were injured; the fire-bombings and attacks on pro-life facilities following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision; the plot to kidnap and kill  Justice Brett Kavanaugh; the 2024 ambush murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson – all came from the left.

On Sunday, CNN’s Dana Bash asked Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat, whose own vitriolic rhetoric has been aimed at the president, whether he had any second thoughts in the wake of third assassination attempt against Trump. Raskin has repeatedly labeled Trump as “authoritarian” and exhibiting “fascism” and declared that Trump wants “to be a dictator.”

Raskin seemed surprised by the question and responded by doubling down: “The authoritarianism like we saw on display in Minneapolis where two of our citizens were gunned down in streets simply for exercising their First Amendment rights. Renee Good, Alex Pretti. And others have died in custody.”

This response not only ducked the question about whether elected Democrats’ intemperate rhetoric is spurring fringe Americans to violence, it also misstated the facts. Renee Good struck an officer with her car and ignored verbal orders from an officer. Alex Pretti put himself between officers and people they were trying to arrest, disobeyed orders from officers to stop, got into a physical confrontation with officers, and was carrying a gun.

Raskin isn’t alone. Democrat after Democrat seems incapable of discussing whether their own incendiary rhetoric has caused violence. After Saturday night’s frightening attack at the Washington Hilton, Rep. Hakeem Jeffries was asked about his comments urging Democrats to “maximum warfare” in the gerrymandering battles. “I don't give a damn about the criticism,” he said. “Get lost.”

Even more bizarrely, Jeffries invoked the fire-bombing of the Pennsylvania governor’s mansion while Josh Shapiro and his family were home and said Republicans should get their own house in order. But Shapiro’s attacker, who pleaded guilty, cited left-wing talking points about Gaza and his motivation.

This kind of confusion comes even from those who should know better. A frequently cited source used by the media to try to show that most violence is from the “right” is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Its latest annual report claims, “This is the third year in a row that right-wing extremists have been connected to all identified extremist-related killings.” According to the ADL, between 2022 and 2024 there were 34 so-called “right-wing extremists” murderers, with 23 of them (68%) carried out by white supremacists. They say those attacks took 61 lives.

Claiming that all the extremist murders are by “right-wingers” sounds dramatic, and the ADL report received extensive uncritical news coverage in media outlets including CNN, The Economist, and PBS. But it’s untrue. None of the cases listed by the ADL involved a right-winger murdering a political target.

Serious questions surround how the ADL defines “right-wing extremists.” Does it always classify all white supremacists as “right-wing”? Does it automatically label every mass murderer who targets a gay bar as a “right-winger”? At the ADL, the answer appears to be yes.

Consider Payton Gendron, the 2022 Buffalo supermarket shooter who murdered 10 black shoppers. The ADL labeled him a right-wing extremist because of his racism. However, his own writings complicate that characterization. Gendron said he hated black people because he believed they had too many children, which he thought harmed the environment. In his manifesto, he identified himself as an “eco-fascist national socialist” and even called himself part of the “mild-moderate authoritarian left.”

Or take Anderson Lee Aldrich, who murdered five people at Club Q, a gay bar in Colorado Springs, in 2022. The ADL classified him as a right-wing extremist because he targeted LGBT people. Yet Aldrich identified as nonbinary and used they/them pronouns – facts the ADL left out of its framing. Those identifiers are hardly the hallmarks of right-wing ideology, especially when the ADL itself emphasizes the “LGBTQ+” nature of the venue.

Meanwhile, the ADL conveniently leaves other mass shooters off its list entirely:

• In 2022, transgender shooter Audrey Elizabeth Hale attacked the Covenant School in Nashville, Tennessee, and murdered six people. In her writings, she raged against “white privilege,” vowed she wanted to “kill all you little crackers,” and resented the wealth of the students at the school. The Nashville Police report also noted her support for gun control.
• Robert Crimo murdered seven people in Highland Park, Illinois, in 2022. He made no secret of his hostility toward Trump.
• In 2023, Connor Sturgeon murdered five people in Louisville, Kentucky. He had previously praised the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and posted sharp criticism of police violence and Donald Trump.
• That same year, Kimbrady Carriker murdered five people in Philadelphia. Carriker supported Black Lives Matter, wore women’s clothes, and called for defunding the police.

These crimes claimed a total of 38 lives. Yet the ADL claims that people on the left committed none.

The ADL also makes other questionable assumptions. The Aryan Brotherhood, a white gang with roots in the California prison system, is certainly racist, but it has no political ideology beyond racism and making money through racketeering, drug trafficking, and murder. None of the Aryan Brotherhood murders the ADL cites were politically motivated. Most involved disputes with other gang members, or in one case, the killing of a two-year-old girl the perpetrator had sexually assaulted, and in another, the murder of an 11-year-old girl living on the same property. Removing these cases cuts six murders from the ADL’s tally.

Three of the murderers were neo-Nazis, who murdered one person each. They are again classified as right-wingers based on their being racist even though they are “national socialists.” But again, none of these murders had anything to do with anyone’s political views, with one murdering his aunt.

Other cases are listed as right-wing because the perpetrators held antisemitic views. But given the recent anti-Israel riots, those views can hardly be considered right-wing. One of the killers, tied to QAnon and anti-vaccine beliefs, murdered his wife. Another case involved a man who beat his five-year-old to death. Why do any of these killings qualify as a political murder?

If we exclude the Payton Gendron and Anderson Lee Aldrich shootings, along with the Aryan Brotherhood murders – but still include neo-Nazis and other debatable cases – the numbers show roughly as many “left-wing” murders as “right-wing” ones. The media treats the ADL’s selective definitions and exclusions seriously only because they support a political narrative rather than reflect the full reality.

Regardless of how one counts the cases, left-wing violence remains a serious problem – undoubtedly the most serious.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 11:00

Oil Spikes As Israeli Defense Chief Says 'Required To Act Again' In Striking Iran, Achieving Objectives Summary

• Israeli Defense Minister Katz: "soon we will need to act again in Iran to ensure that the regime cannot threaten Israel for years to come." Oil spikes on this and new reports of Israeli defense build-up at ports, air hubs.

• Not giving up nuclear program: Iran will "guard" its "advanced technologies" like it does its own borders, Mojtaba Khamenei said in a written speech read aloud by state TV. It will “secure the Persian Gulf region and dismantle the hostile enemy’s exploitation of this waterway."

• US military teases cutting-edge, not yet tested in battle, hypersonic missiles for Mideast region as CENTCOM head set to brief Trump on further military options at White House.

• Brent crude for June delivery reached as much as $126 a barrel in trading on Thursday, before easing to $114 - as oil prices have surge to their highest levels since 2022 as Trump mulls a military-enforced Iran blockade extension.

//--> //--> //--> US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 30, 2026?
Yes 34% · No 67%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

Oil Spikes on Israeli Defense Chief's Threats of New Strikes

Israel Defense Minister Katz has said in a Thursday briefing: "It is possible that soon we will need to act again in Iran to ensure that the regime cannot threaten Israel for years to come," according to a local reporter.

According to more, he said that while Israel supports the United States' diplomatic efforts with Iran, it may "soon be required to act again" to remove the "existential threats" posed by the Islamic Republic.

"Iran has suffered extremely severe blows over the past year, blows that have set it back years in all areas," Katz continued at a military ceremony. "US President Trump, in coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is leading the effort to complete the campaign's objectives in a way that ensures Iran will not return to being a threat to the existence of Israel, to the United States, and to the free world for generations to come," he added. "We support this effort and provide the necessary backing, but we may soon be required to act again to ensure the objectives are achieved." Oil prices shooting back up on the headline, and as Israeli media reports on a new military build-up and US defense aid at the country's ports...

The below is via AP on a "new plan" being mulled by Trump:

Under the plan, the United States would continue its blockade on Iranian ports, while coordinating with allies to impose higher costs on Iran's attempts to subvert the free flow of energy, according to a senior administration official. Trump is weighing multiple diplomatic and policy options to push Iran to end its chokehold on the waterway, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly.

Khamenei: Protect Nuclear Program, Gulf Region Will Have Future Without America

Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei has never released video or voice messages, and he's still not been seen or even photographed since the war's start, and is believed to be severely injured and recovering. State TV on Thursday read aloud his written speech, which struck a defiant tone, declaring that the only place Americans belonged in the Persian Gulf is "at the bottom of its waters" and that a "new chapter" was being written for the whole region. State media cited security as the reason for having to read aloud his statement.

Khamenei says Iran will closely guard and protect its nuclear and missile capabilities, a clear and direct rejection of President Trump's demand to hand over enriched uranium as the basis for a deal. Iranians will cling to the country's nuclear and missile capabilities "as their national capital and will guard them like water, land and air borders," Khamenei said.

Chilling: Iran supreme leader issues statement saying:
— only place Americans belong in Persian Gulf is 'at the bottom of its waters
— Iran will protect nuclear capability
—Iran will keep Hormuz

Iran is not surrendering— it’s preparing for escalation https://t.co/rFkkH0TTVh

— Robert A. Pape (@ProfessorPape) April 30, 2026

"By God’s help and power, the bright future of the Persian Gulf region will be a future without America, one serving the progress, comfort and prosperity of its people," Khamenei continued. "We and our neighbors across the waters of the Persian Gulf and the (Gulf) of Oman share a common destiny. Foreigners who come from thousands of kilometers away to act with greed and malice there have no place in it - except at the bottom of its waters." He also vowed Iran's forces will "secure the Persian Gulf region and dismantle the hostile enemy's exploitation of this waterway."

via Anadolu Agency US Teases Hypersonic Missiles, CENTCOM to Brief Trump

As we detailed Wednesday night, United States Central Command has requested deployment of the Army’s long-delayed hypersonic Dark Eagle to the Middle East for potential use against Iran, seeking a longer-range capability to strike ballistic missile launchers deep inside the country, Bloomberg first reported. If approved, the move would mark the first deployment of the hypersonic system, which remains behind schedule and has not been declared fully operational, even as Russia and China have already long ago fielded their own versions.

The Pentagon has claimed time and again of late that it has local air superiority, meaning that in some parts of Iran its aircraft can operate without facing much of a threat. And yet dozens of MQ-9 aircraft, plus several crewed fighters, have been downed, showing that other parts of Iran’s airspace remain dangerous.

The Bloomberg report hit just as Axios rehashed an earlier report, according to which President Trump will receive a briefing on new plans for potential military action in Iran on Thursday from CENTCOM Commander Adm. Brad Cooper. The briefing signals that "Trump is seriously considering resuming major combat operations either to try to break the logjam in negotiations or to deliver a final blow before ending the war."

Meanwhile the Iranian side has been claiming dozens of its vessels have breached the US naval blockade, which the Pentagon has been denying. Others say that while some ships have traversed the strait, they have not actually fully crossed the blockade.

Fifty two Iranian vessels have crossed a US-imposed blockade of Iranian waters within a 72-hour period...
https://t.co/mZrwK5qijI

— Trita Parsi (@tparsi) April 29, 2026

IAEA Chief on Global Energy Crisis, Oil

The head of the International Energy Agency (IAEA) has emphasized in new remarks that the world is facing its biggest energy crisis in history due to the war. "The oil markets and gas markets are going through big difficulties. When I looked last time, the oil price was over $120 which is putting a lot of pressure on many countries," executive director Fatih Birol said at a conference in Paris. "Our world is facing a major economic and energy challenge."

Indeed, benchmark Brent crude for June delivery reached as much as $126 a barrel in trading on Thursday, before easing to $114 - as oil prices have surge to their highest levels since 2022 as Trump mulls a military-enforced Iran blockade extension.

Iranian leadership in the meantime continues to troll the US over rising oil and gas prices, using its significant geographic leverage over global markets...

3 days in, no well exploded.We could extend to 30 and livestream the well here.
That was the kind of junk advice the US admin gets from people like Bessent who also push the blockade theory and cranked oil up to $120+. Next stop:140. The issue isn't the theory, it's the mindset.

— محمدباقر قالیباف | MB Ghalibaf (@mb_ghalibaf) April 29, 2026

More Latest Developments

via Newsquawk

• US CENTCOM is to brief US President Trump on new plans for potential military action in Iran on Thursday, Axios reported citing sources; plan includes a short and powerful strike potentially targeting infrastructure to break the nuclear issue deadlock. Other options expected to be presented include a plan to take over part of the Strait to allow for commercial shipping, which could involve ground forces, and a special forces op to secure Iran's uranium stockpile.
• US CENTCOM has asked to send the Army's hypersonic missile to the Middle East for possible use against Iran, Bloomberg reported citing sources.
• US CENTCOM said the US navy has redirected 42 vessels from the blockade in the Strait of Hormuz and that the military is fully committed to enforcing the blockade.
• US President Trump told Israeli PM Netanyahu that Israel should only take surgical military action in Lebanon and avoid a full resumption of the war, Axios reported.
• US Treasury Secretary Bessent said sprinting for the finish line with Iran, according to Fox Business; willing to do secondary sanctions on Iran oil buyers. Every day adding more economic pressure to Iran. Close to half a billion in Iran-related crypto seized. Consumers and stock market are looking through Iran. UAE and others have requested swap lines, swap lines are not a bailout.
• Iran lawmaker Mottaki says a naval blockade would amount to a declaration of war, and that fighters could decide as soon as tomorrow or next week to remove such obstacles via military action.
• Iran’s Navy Commander said the Islamic Republic will soon unveil a new weapon that would deeply terrify the enemy, IRNA reported. He said Iran has closed the strategic Strait of Hormuz from the Arabian Sea. Condemned the US’s illegal seizure of several Iranian vessels as part of the blockade, which he said amounted not only to “piracy” but also “hostage-taking".
• Iran's Navy commander warns that Iran will soon face its enemies with a very dreadful weapon that will strike fear into their hearts, according to Press TV.
• Pakistan's Foreign Ministry said channels of dialogue with officials in Washington and Tehran remain open, Al Hadath reported. "“The clock on diplomacy has snit stopped. We remain hopeful for a negotiated settlement on this issue. We will continue with our sincerest efforts”,.
• China's Military said they conducted combat readiness patrols near Scarborough Shoal, according to a statement.
• "No point" in negotiating over zero enrichment, Iranian lawmaker said, Al Jazeera reported; adding “I have no objection to going to the negotiating table, but we should have looked more closely at how to proceed”.
• The US administration is asking countries to join a new international coalition that would enable ships to navigate through the Strait of Hormuz, WSJ reported. The Maritime Freedom Construct would be a US-led coalition that would share information, coordinate diplomatically and enforce sanctions.
• A surveillance drone near the US embassy in Baghdad has been shot down, according to Iraqi security sources.
• Iranian Navy Commander said we have closed the Strait of Hormuz from the Arabian sea side and will take swift action if enemy advances, Al Araby reported.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 10:50

California Gas Tops $6 As "Big Prices Hike Expected" Across Great Lakes Region

The statewide average for 87-octane gasoline in California has topped $6 a gallon as the Iran-war-driven global energy crunch ripples across the West Coast, the hardest-hit U.S. region. Meanwhile, the national average remains above the politically sensitive $4-a-gallon threshold, hovering around $4.30, according to AAA data as of Thursday morning. It’s clear that bad ‘green’ energy policies by unhinged, left-wing politicians in the Golden State have left the state’s energy complex in a total mess, with no buffers.

"That’s the highest since October 2023. No other state has ever surpassed the $6-a-gallon mark. At the outset of the war, the price in the Golden State was $4.64 a gallon," Bloomberg wrote in a note earlier.

Beyond gasoline, diesel prices in California now average a staggering $7.48 per gallon, up from $4.98 one year ago.

On the national level, gasoline prices continue to climb, now at $4.30 and remaining above the politically sensitive $4 level for one month.

Also on the national level, diesel prices - the fuel that keeps the economy humming - are around $5.49 and have yet to reach their previous high of approximately $5.69 in early April.

West Texas Intermediate, the main U.S. crude benchmark, jumped to nearly $110.50 a barrel overnight, while Brent, the global benchmark, topped $126. This spike in oil prices was due to continued uncertainty over a near-term peace deal between the U.S. and Iran, as well as Trump laying the groundwork for an extended blockade of Iranian ports, according to MSM reports.

GasBuddy head analyst Patrick De Haan wrote on X, "WTI and Brent pushing higher after Trump says to expect prolonged blockade on the Strait," adding, "Expecting big gas price hikes as early as noon for MI, IN, IL, WI, and perhaps OH."

With the national average for gasoline above $4, we have already detailed emerging consumer behavior shifts at gas stations and convenience stores. Actual demand destruction should arrive north of $5 gas.

Read:

• Here's What Happened Inside Gas Stations When Gas Hit $4

• Here's What Happened Inside Convenience Stores When Gas Hit $4

Let's not forget we've outlined how the global energy crisis ripples across the world, already impacting Asia and Europe, and for the U.S., will affect California the hardest (read why).

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 10:40

Senator Finds More Evidence Federal Officials Evaded FOIA

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

A U.S. senator and his team say they have uncovered additional evidence that federal officials worked to evade requests made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) speaks during an interview with The Epoch Times at his office in the Hart Senate office building in Washington on March 21, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Several emails obtained by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) showed personnel with the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were aware of FOIA requests and sought to evade them. FOIA enables people to request records from the government. It requires officials to retain and produce requested records, subject to certain exemptions.

In a Nov. 26, 2022, missive, Allison Lale, a medical officer with the CDC, asked a colleague about receiving safety analyses of COVID-19 vaccination from the FDA.

Pedro Moro, a CDC epidemiologist, responded. “I think that because of the FOIAs we may have asked FDA to stop sending these weekly data mining outputs,” Moro wrote.

“Oh interesting,” Lale said. She added that during calls for a CDC-managed program, “we used to just verbally mention” that certain terms had not triggered safety signals, or signs vaccines were causing problems.

“But we could also leave it out if that [sic] this creates more hassle,” she added.

In a separate email chain, FDA officials were told by an FDA vaccine safety analytic expert, Dr. Ana Szarfman, that the approach they were using to analyze the safety of COVID-19 vaccines was faulty. The information sparked a long discussion, during which officials considered asking the expert to contact an outside expert on the matter.

“Before we potentially reach out to Ana, we should meet internally - many considerations not suited to email...” David Menschik, an FDA official who distributed the data mining reports, wrote on April 15, 2021.

“Sounds good,” Bethany Baer, another FDA worker, responded. “Happy to meet and discuss anytime open on my calendar.”

A screenshot of an email chain obtained by Sen. Ron Johnson. Screenshot by The Epoch Times

Johnson, the chairman of the House Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, said during an April 29 hearing that the emails served as “additional evidence of how federal officials avoided creating a paper trail to prevent transparency and public disclosure.”

A top CDC official’s emails were missing, the government told Johnson in 2025.

A grand jury charged Dr. David Morens, a former official with the National Institutes of Health, a component of the Department of Health and Human Services, this week with conspiring to destroy some records and conceal others, after he allegedly wrote, in missives obtained by journalists and Johnson, that said he wanted to use a personal email address to evade FOIA.

In one email cited by prosecutors, Morens said in 2020 that he wanted to “keep this correspondnce [sic] off of USG emails for obvious reasons, so am sending from gmail.” He added later, “I am under Multiple FOIAs already.”

In another, a co-conspirator told Morens that he was using Morens’s Gmail address “to keep you out of the FoIA target.”

Fauci advisor David Morens admits in an email that he "learned from our foia lady here how to make emails disappear after i am foia'd but before the search starts" https://t.co/sn6hvwDF7R pic.twitter.com/1MroXRWNQO

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 28, 2026

The National Institutes of Health declined to provide a comment on the charges.

Despite efforts to conceal, the subcommittee acquired the emails he just released thanks to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s responsiveness to subpoenas, Johnson said.

Neither the CDC nor the FDA, nor their parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, responded to requests for comment by the time of publication.

Lale, Moro, Baer, and Menschik still work for the government. Lale, Moro, and Baer did not return inquiries by publication time. A query to Menschik returned an automated message saying he is on extended leave.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 10:20

Japan Intervened In FX Market To Buy Yen

With Brent surging to a new post war high overnight, rising as high as $125 on fear of an imminent resumption of hostilities in Iran, which dragged yields higher, and also pushed the USDJPY above 160 for the first time since late March, overnight Japan made clear - again - it wouldn't take it any more, with the usual round of jawboning.

• *KATAYAMA: WE ARE MONITORING FX MARKET WHILE YOU ARE ON HOLIDAY
• *KATAYAMA: WE ARE NEARING TIMING TO TAKE BOLD ACTION ON FX

Then

• *MIMURA: WE ARE NEARING TIME TO TAKE BOLD ACTION ON FX
• *MIMURA: THIS IS MY FINAL WARNING BEFORE ACTION

Then

• *JAPAN PM TAKAICHI HOLDS PHONE TALKS WITH IRAN PRESIDENT: KYODO
• JAPAN PM TAKAICHI: I HAVE WORKED TO ENSURE PASSAGE OF JAPANESE-RELATED VESSEL THROUGH STRAIT OF HORMUZ" RTRS

And while the market had grown used to constant jawboning by Japanese officials, this time Japan finally put its money where its mouth was, and with the USDJPY extending gains after all this verbal diarrhea, at precisely 4am ET, or just as Japan was closing (as we head into a long weekend, with most of Asia off tomorrow and Japan kicking off with golden week starting Monday to Wednesday 6th May), the USDJPY tumbled sharply, and then continued to slide for the next 4 hours, plunging as much as 500 pips to a session low of 155.57.

The move which strengthened the yen by the most since 2023...

... immediately prompted speculation of intervention by Japan's authorities, especially since in recent weeks Japan had been jawboning not only against the yen but also oil prices, which mysteriously also tumbled from a multi year high.

There were early signs that Japan was indeed involved, with some 57BN in USDJPY volumes this morning, far above normal average. Note, previous intervention volumes in 2022 and 2024, EBS volumes had gotten up to around 70BN (for 29apr24 and 21oct22). On Friday 23 January 2026 on US rate check day – EBS volumes got to around 50BN.

And while normally we would have to wait days if not weeks for confirmation that the BOJ was in the market, today mercifully we got confirmation early on when the Nikkei reported that the Japanese Finance Ministry and the Bank of Japan carried out exchange rate intervention to buy yen and sell dollars on Thursday. A government official confirmed to Nikkei fact of intervention in an interview with the Nikkei.

"The government and the Bank of Japan intervened again, buying yen, causing the yen to surge against the dollar to the 155 yen target", the Nikkei reported.

There was no immediate comment on whether the BOJ was also intervening in oil, but it would not be surprising if they did (although it would be a first).

The problem for Japan, and the reason why the MOF/BOJ had held out for this long before intervening, is that by doing so they have once again blown their load, so to speak, and now the USDJPY has a clear path to rise even higher - our target is now 170 and potentially much higher since the BOJ so stubbornly refuses to raise rates, which means that either the yen or JGBs will have to be the buffer for Japan's surging inflation. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 10:02

In Major Victory For Gun Owners, ATF Unleashes 34-Rule Reform Package - Brace Rule Dead

In what can only be described as one of the biggest single-day victories for the Second Amendment in decades, the DOJ and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives dropped a bombshell yesterday: a landmark package of 34 regulatory actions designed to slash red tape, repeal overreaches, modernize outdated rules, and refocus the agency on actual criminals instead of law-abiding Americans.

The announcement, made by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and newly confirmed ATF Director Robert Cekada, marks the culmination of the "New Era of Reform" launched in 2025 under President Trump's Executive Order 14206, "Protecting Second Amendment Rights." Officials described it as the most comprehensive overhaul of ATF regulations in the agency's history.

"This Department of Justice is ending the weaponization of federal authority against law-abiding gun owners," Blanche declared. Cekada added that the reforms ensure regulations are "clear, legally sound, and narrowly tailored," with enforcement now zeroed in on "willful violators and criminal actors, not inadvertent compliance issues by responsible owners and licensees."

"The Second Amendment is not a second-class right." 

The Big Wins That Matter Most to Gun Owners

The package is broken into clear categories that read like a 2nd Amendment wish list (how did we fall so far?):

Repeals & Rollbacks (The Headlines)

• 11P: The hated 2023 Stabilizing Brace (Pistol Brace) Rule is officially being rescinded. Multiple courts had already blocked it - now it's being formally buried.
• 27P: The 2024 "Engaged in the Business" rule - the one that tried to turn occasional private sellers and gun-show participants into federal licensees - is being rescinded/revised.
• The 2024 machine gun definition tweak following the Supreme Court's Garland v. Cargill decision is finalized.
• The Youth Handgun Safety Act notification requirement for FFLs is on the chopping block.

Modernization

• 01P & 07P: A modernized Form 4473 and authorization for full electronic recordkeeping by FFLs. Whether 01P will prevent future admins from enacting another "zero tolerance" rule is the question.
• 08P: Defined retention periods for transaction records (public comment invited on the exact length). After the period expires, those forms can finally be destroyed - a direct blow to any notion of a permanent "billion-record registry."

Real Burden Reduction for NFA Owners & FFLs

• 03P: Streamlined interstate transport for NFA items. If you're traveling for less than 365 days, you file the form but no longer have to wait for ATF approval. For basically forever if you wanted to take a SBR/SBS or Machinegun outside of your state of residence you had to file a 5320.20 form and get permission from ATF to take the thing out of state. Now, if you're gone for less than 365 days you can just file the form, and you don't need to wait for approval once the rule takes effect. great for people who live in states like maryland and want to shoot at a range in VA or PA. 
• 13P & 15P: Joint spousal registration of NFA firearms and elimination of the CLEO notification requirement.
• 18P: Updated FOPA travel protections to clearly cover reasonable stops (hotels, gas, food) during lawful interstate transport.
• 19P: Updated rules for dealer machine gun sales samples (direction still being finalized).

Clarifications & Import Relief

• Training/simunition rounds are clarified as not "ammunition" under the GCA - making them easier to acquire and use.
• 04F: Major update to the Proscribed Countries List under the Arms Export Control Act. This lifts the long-standing de facto ban on importing firearms from most former Soviet-bloc countries (Russia remains restricted), finally allowing collectors and importers to legally bring in quality Eastern European and historical firearms again.
• Dozens of technical clean-ups on dual-use barrels, NFA serialization during conversions, straw-purchase language, "willfully" definitions, and more - all aimed at reducing ambiguity and litigation.

In total: 26 NPRMs (open for 90-day public comment), 6 Final Rules, 1 Direct Final Rule, and 1 Interim Final Rule.

The changes untangle years of ATF rules seemingly written to create confusion and trap honest people. Zero-tolerance enforcement hammered FFLs over minor paperwork errors. The brace rule turned millions of legal pistols into potential felonies overnight. The engaged-in-the-business rule threatened to criminalize private sales. Recordkeeping felt like it was building a de facto national registry.

This package doesn't repeal the NFA or abolish the ATF - but it does the next best thing: it starts rolling back the worst abuses, modernizes the system for the 21st century, and tells agents to go after gang members and traffickers instead of grandma's 4473 typo.

FFLs get lower compliance costs. NFA owners get practical relief on travel and registration. Importers get more options. Everyone gets clearer rules and the promise that old records won't live forever.

How We Got Here

This didn't happen in a vacuum. While the official rollout highlighted partnership with industry groups like the National Shooting Sports Foundation (which was on hand at the signing) and the Second Amendment Foundation (whose Executive Director attended and praised the effort), the groundwork was laid by years of relentless pushback from the broader gun rights community.

Gun Owners of America played an especially important indirect role. Through aggressive litigation - most notably as a lead plaintiff in the Texas v. ATF case - GOA helped deliver a crushing legal defeat to the engaged-in-the-business rule. Just 13 days before yesterday's announcement, the DOJ formally surrendered its appeal in that case, clearing the path for the rescission now included in the package. GOA's long-standing demands for defined record retention, an end to gotcha enforcement, brace rule repeal, and NFA simplifications aligned closely with many of the reforms now being implemented.

In other words: the courtroom victories created the political space for these regulatory changes.

Meanwhile, the National Firearm Industry Trade Association (NSSF) hailed the landmark rulemaking package as a massive win - calling it "the result of months of NSSF working closely with the ATF and DOJ to identify and fix punitive regulations published during the Biden administration, when the ATF was used as a political weapon to force policies intended to hobble the firearm industry and infringe on Second Amendment rights."

And the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said in a statement "For far too long, ATF rules were a creeping fog of regulatory malarky, seemingly intended to create confusion for the gun community and chill the exercise of their rights. Today’s announcement shows that the current administration intends to help clear that fog. We are hopeful this new batch of rules does just that."

Many of the biggest items are still NPRMs, so the 90-day public comment period is critical. Interested parties can reach out to Regulations.gov with support for the strongest possible versions - especially on record retention lengths and the machine gun sample rule.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 10:00

Education Department Probes Stanford Over Alleged Racial Discrimination

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

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has initiated an investigation into Stanford University to determine whether one of its programs is racially discriminatory and violates Title VI.

Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., on July 31, 2025. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and color in educational programs that receive financial assistance from the federal government. At issue is Stanford’s National Board Resource Center’s (NBRC’s) program that “helps future teachers who ‘identify as a person of color’ receive National Board Certifications,” the department said in an April 29 statement.

National Board Certification is a professional certification issued that recognizes accomplished teachers. Stanford’s NBRC offers support for teachers seeking this certification.

The Office for Civil Rights noted that the California Teachers Association (CTA) has partnered with Stanford in the NBRC program and positioned the initiative as seeking to boost diversity among certified teachers.

In a 2022 report, the CTA said that selected teachers from the “Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) Cohort” receive “full funding for all certification support services offered by Stanford NBRC.”

The NBRC program also provides such individuals with support in accessing funding sources to cover the costs of certification, including receiving funding through the California National Board Incentive Grant program.

In the statement, the Office for Civil Rights said the investigation into Stanford will assess whether the university’s NBRC program discriminates on the basis of race.

“Instead of helping students achieve their goals through merit, Stanford appears to be conditioning access to National Board Certification programs based on skin color. It is unconscionable that an institution which claims to be a pinnacle of educational excellence would deny opportunities based on race,” Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kimberly Richey said.

“If the allegations are true, Stanford is engaged in discrimination – pure and simple. The Trump Administration will always fight against discrimination to protect Americans’ rights under the law. All students, regardless of their skin color, should have an equal opportunity to succeed.”

Stanford University said it was meeting obligations required ‌under ⁠civil rights laws and “maintaining an environment free of prohibited discrimination” and that NBRC “is open to any primary or secondary teacher, regardless of their race, who is pursuing the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification.”

Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif., on July 31, 2025. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

The university added that the cohort-based program “is not accepting new teachers and ​is being sunsetted.”

The Epoch Times reached out to Stanford for further comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

‘Bringing Back America’s Golden Age’

In an April 6 statement, the Education Department said that under the Trump administration, more than 300 colleges and universities have so far eliminated diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) requirements, shut down DEI offices, and removed diversity statements from their hiring practices.

Such institutions include Stanford University, Harvard University, Purdue University, Rutgers University, the University of Iowa, the University of Southern California, and the Ohio State University.

According to the department, just over a year ago, colleges and universities were more focused on DEI than on ensuring students were prepared for success after graduating.

“Institutions required DEI statements from faculty and held segregated affinity graduation ceremonies for students. Academic standards fell, admissions were skewed to favor race over merit, and students graduated with a massive pile of debt and degrees that led to no job prospects,” the department said.

“Today, institutions of higher education are changing the game because President Trump is bringing back America’s Golden Age — shifting the culture and restoring our nation’s institutions to greatness.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Thu, 04/30/2026 - 09:40