Zero Hedge

Washington, D.C. Will Feel Like June. Cue MSM Climate Doom Propaganda

Washington, D.C. Will Feel Like June. Cue MSM Climate Doom Propaganda

After a stretch of roller-coaster temperature swings across the Mid-Atlantic in March and early April, the midpoint of the month is now shaping up to be unusually warm, with highs that could exceed the region's average for June. That kind of temperature anomaly could prompt left-wing corporate media outlets to kick off their seasonal global-warming doom news cycle as summer approaches.

"Temperatures will soar well into the 80s just a week later, and on Thursday, it will be near 90 degrees. That's more like June or July," meteorologist Ben Noll wrote in a weather note titled "Hello...summer?" while referring to the U.S. East Coast.

Noll continued, "That's the type of variability that spring is known for, but a 70-degree temperature swing is more like whiplash. It will feel like summer up and down the East Coast this week as a big ridge of high-pressure flexes its muscles and sends sultry air northward."

However, he noted, "It won't last. Much cooler air from Canada will sweep in late next weekend or to start the week of April 20."

The latest data from Bloomberg shows highs in the Washington, DC area will trend near the 90s this week into Saturday, but expect a sharp drop in high temperatures late next weekend.

Average temperatures across the Capital Beltway will hover near 80F this coming week, well above the 30-year norm of around 57°F.

Like clockwork, the left-wing corporate media propaganda machine during the Biden-Harris regime years used global-warming headlines to mislead the public about an imaginary climate crisis so that green policies could get passed and climate NGOs could get funded - all to loot US taxpayers.

With President Trump back in power, left-wing MSM outlets dialed back the climate-fear propaganda in 2025.

The big question now is whether MSM will reactivate their climate crisis megaphone as the week's unusual warmth spreads across the U.S. East.

There's a war on your mind. 

Related:

Don't count on Greta to comment on climate; she's moved on to all things Palestine (probably because there is more activist money there).

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 23:15

Half Of US Data Centers Scheduled To Start In 2026, Will Be Canceled Or Delayed

Half Of US Data Centers Scheduled To Start In 2026, Will Be Canceled Or Delayed

Just over two years ago, we first penned our views on "The Next AI Trade", which looked beyond the hyperscalers and the data centers supporting the AI revolution, and instead focused on the energy and logistical needs that would be so very critical in allowing the US to dominate China in the existential race to first reach Artificial General Intelligence (which many have dubbed the next nuclear arms race due to its profound civilizational implications). It was here that we defined the "Power Up America" basket as the next AI trade. 

Yet as one can see in the chart below, after outperforming the AI Data center and the TMT AI baskets in 2024 and much of 2025, the Power Up America trade has lagged and clearly underperformed, as some investors have started to express doubt that the US would ever be able to "grow" into its massive AI computing needs... with dire consequences for record AI capex budgets, something the market has yet to grasp.

And unfortunately, with every passing day, the outlook for the US AI revolution looks increasingly more dim. 

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

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

That's right: half.

That's right: despite $700BN+ of expected 2026 hyperscaler capex, nearly half of the data centers scheduled to begin operations in the US
in 2026 "will either face delays or outright cancellations." The data, which comes from Sightline Climate's 2026 Data Center Outlook,  suggests that just 30% - 50% of the ~16 GW of planned US capacity for the year will face risks, with only ~5 GW currently under construction!

And the horizon only grows darker in the coming years. By 2027, the gap between ambition and reality widens further, as a mere fraction of the announced 21.5 gigawatts has actually broken ground. Worse, according to Futurism, data centers slated to open in 2027 are progressing far more slowly than anticipated. "Only about 6.3 gigawatts worth of computing infrastructure are actually under construction, compared to 21.5 announced gigawatts."

And then visibility drops to virtually nothing beyond 2028 as uncertainty increases materially in the outer years. According to the article, "things get even dodgier in the coming years, with the vast majority of data centers planned for launch between 2028 and 2032 having yet to even break ground. There are a further 37 gigawatts of planned infrastructure which haven’t even received a firm completion date, only 4.5 [gigawatts] of which have actually begun work."

This trend suggests an increasingly uncertain future for the industry, where power constraints and grid instability cast long shadows over projects slated through 2032.

But while one can pretend the future is irrelevant, the same limitations are visible in the here and now: according to the SightLine report, "at least 16GW of data center capacity is slated to come online this year across 140 projects. 53% will be grid connected, 3% will be powered solely by on-site power, and 25% have not disclosed their powering strategies. We expect 30-50% of these projects to be delayed. Only 5GW is currently in construction."

And the punchline:

"We expect 30-50% of 2026 projects to be delayed, driven by power constraints (25% of projects have not disclosed powering strategies), increasingly effective community opposition, and potential grid equipment shortages. 11GW of 2026 capacity remains in the announced stage with no signs of construction, despite typical build times of 12 to 18 months. Itʼs still possible for this capacity to come online, but it would need to dramatically accelerate."

Which brings us to the question we raised more than two years ago: how will the US modernize its ancient power grid and build out the huge energy supply needed to power up the AI revolution. Here, too, it appears there has been little progress: 

"On-site and hybrid power punch above their weight when measured by capacity. Grid-connected projects still lead at 40% of total capacity, but on-site generation and hybrid approaches together account for close to half of announced capacity, far exceeding their share by project count. A small number of gigascale, grid independent campuses account for this capacity, including New Era Energy & Digitalʼs 7GW project in Lea County, Homer Cityʼs 4.5 GW coal-to-gas redevelopment in Pennsylvania, and Crusoeʼs 1.8GW natural gas and renewables project in Cheyenne, Wyoming. These projects are large enough to require their own generation plant, and have the capital to fund it. Waiting for the grid to supply this level of capacity could take a decade."

The problem, as Canaccord warns, is that "without a radical acceleration in domestic manufacturing and grid integration, the digital expansion of the late 2020s risks stalling into a series of unfulfilled promises."

Others agree: in a note published over the weekend by Goldman Executive Direct Shreeti Kapa, she wrote that at a recent dinner with investors, the overwhelming consensus was that "there is simply not enough compute and every player is acutely compute constrained – bottlenecks from fabs to permitting for data-centers to power to memory to labor are real and are here to stay for some time to come. I wasn’t sure what to make of it – if its consensus is it peak, or is the imagination for scale of AI demand is so great among a very small sub-segment of investors & technologists here in the valley and the rest of the word is yet to catch-up?" 

While imaginations may indeed by running wild, the hard limitations in the real world are indeed starting to catch up: we recently highlighted OpenAI's decision to pause its UK Stargate project - a partnership with Nvidia and Nscale to deploy up to 31k GPUs - citing the UK’s prohibitive energy costs and regulatory hurdles. The project was to be based across several sites including Cobalt Park and a dedicated "AI Growth Zone", enabling OpenAI's models to provide local compute for critical public services and highly regulated industries including finance and national security.

  • UK energy prices represent a key bottleneck to AI infrastructure development. According to the report, UK's industrial prices "are among the highest in the world" and have been a key gating factor delaying companies from building AI infrastructure. According to a spokesperson from OpenAI, “we continue to explore Stargate U.K. and will move forward when the right conditions such as regulation and the cost of energy enable long-term infrastructure investment.”
  • OpenAI and Nscale maintain plans to develop the project in the future. According to the OpenAI spokesperson, “We see huge potential for the U.K.’s AI future... London is home to our largest international research hub, and we support the Government’s ambition to be an AI leader. In the meantime, we are investing in talent and expanding our local presence, while also delivering on the commitments under our MOU with the government to adopt frontier AI in UK public services.”

Bloomberg also chimed in earlier this month, writing that "as the global AI race heats up, there is a huge rush to build data centers fast. There’s no lack of money chasing these projects, with tech giants Alphabet Inc., Amazon.com, Meta Platforms Inc. and Microsoft Corp. committed to spending more than $650 billion this year alone. Yet neither ambition nor capital is enough to materialize all the necessary components." 

Here Bloomberg again quotes the Sightline data, noting that "almost half of the US data centers planned for this year are expected to be delayed or canceled" and as one big reason for the delay Bloomberg cites the shortage of electrical equipment, such as transformers, switchgear and batteries: "They are needed not just for powering AI, but also for building out the grid that is seeing increased consumption from electric cars and heat pumps. US manufacturing capacity for these devices cannot keep up with demand, and the scarcity has caused data center builders to rely on imports."

At its core, the problem is the lack of domestic manufacturing which makes sense for a country that has outsourced much of its industrial base to China in the past century, and despite loud promises of reshoring, there are few tangible results. 

Indeed, while over the past 10 years, the US government has tried a series of policies to reshore manufacturing, they haven’t yet yielded a significant boost to domestic capacity, forcing businesses to look to China regardless of the tariffs or the alleged national security risk. As a result, the US now finds itself in an absurd Catch 22: the US needs crucial parts from China to dominate it in the AI race, while China needs advanced chips from American companies to stay in the race.

The biggest bottlenecks, understandably, have been observed in the power space - the same space we aggressively pitched two years ago as enabling the AI revolution, hoping that whoever was in charge of the US would take America's chronic energy deficiency seriously. It appears we may have been overly optimistic. One thing is clear: data centers have rapidly grown in size and now consume more electricity than their predecessors a decade ago. That demands bigger transformers, which safely pull electricity from the high-voltage grid to feed to tiny computer chips. Without the right transformers, there’s no way to make the data center work.

Before 2020, these high-power transformers typically arrived 24 to 30 months after an order was placed. Those timelines were “totally manageable in the old world” when data centers didn’t need such large transformers or at such short timelines, says Philippe Piron, chief executive officer of GE Vernova’s electrification division. But AI companies “want something typically in less than 18 months.”

The spike in demand from data centers and grid expansion have pushed up prices and extended delivery times to as much as five years. That is why some, like Crusoe, have even resorted to refurbishing old transformers from shuttered power plants as a stopgap measure.

Meanwhile, a far greater looming problem is where will the US source the dozens of Gigawatts needed to power up the AI revolution. So far Trump's promises of a nuclear renaissance have remained just that, with virtually no new nuclear power plants breaking ground, while the push for small modular reactors - a ray of hope in an otherwise dreary landscape - is still years away from practical results, let alone scale. 

Oh, and there is the question of who pays for all this: by now everyone knows about the hundreds of billions in capex the hyperscalers will spend over the next few years. 

What fewer people know is that this money won't be enough. According to an analysis by JPMorgan, it will take no less than $5 trillion to fund the AI cycle, and even with the massive capex - and debt outlays - the US government will still be on the hook for over a trillion to close the funding gap.

It's not just power: as Canaccord writes, beyond the power-related technicalities "lies a fraught sociopolitical reality".

Consider the following: The Maine House of Representatives approved a moratorium on large-scale data centers until 2027. This pause allows a newly formed coordination council to weigh innovation against environmental and resource stewardship. The House passed the bill 82-62, advancing it to the Senate. The goal of the bill, according to state representatives, is not to fight innovation, but as a pause for planning to improve stewardship of the state's resources and limit financial and environmental impacts on the state's citizens. In addition to the moratorium, "the bill also creates the Maine Data Center Coordination Council, and instructs the council to provide strategic input, facilitate planning considerations and evaluate policy tools to address data center opportunities."

Simultaneously, OpenAI faces mounting scrutiny as Florida’s Attorney General launched an investigation into the company following the release of safety-critical chat logs. And then there was last week's firebomb attack on Sam Altman's home: while the police are still investigating, and there are many reasons why someone may want to express their "displeasure" with the man behind ChatGPT, the reality is that, as we warned last August, "between exploding electricity bills and lack of jobs for grads, a new luddite revolution is coming - they will be burning down data centers within a year."

Sure enough, these institutional shifts arrive as a recent Quinnipiac University poll - which looked at AI use and its impacts on daily life, education and healthcare - confirmed the public is growing increasingly wary of AI’s deepening integration into healthcare, education, and daily life. Here are some of the findings showing just how rapidly public sentiment has turned against AI:

The bottom line is that the time for talk has long passed, and yet for all the posturing, the US government continues to act as if a victory against China in the AI race is a given. It is anything but, especially with America's own society rapidly turning against the next industrial revolution.

As Canaccord concludes, "Not only are the energy constraints mounting, but so are the sociopolitical ones. Something's got to give."

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 22:38

Pelosi's Monster: The Creation And Destruction Of Eric Swalwell

Pelosi's Monster: The Creation And Destruction Of Eric Swalwell

Authored by Jonathan Turley via jonathanturley.org,

In Mary Shelley’s famous work, Dr. Frankenstein is asked, “Accursed creator! Why did you form a monster so hideous that even you turned from me in disgust?”

This week, Rep. Eric Swalwell (D. Calif.), the leading Democratic candidate for California governor, may wish he could ask that of former Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.). After sexual assault allegations were raised by former staff members, Pelosi, Sen. Adam Schiff (D., Calif.), and even his close friend (and former campaign chair) Sen. Ruben Gallego (D., Ariz.) have withdrawn their endorsements.

The fact, however, is that (regardless of the merits of these latest allegations), Swalwell was always a notorious figure in Washington who was constructed by Pelosi and others to serve their interests.

As Pelosi and his other allies now seek to destroy him, they cannot escape their hand in his creation.

Multiple women came forward this week to allege sexual assault and other potentially criminal acts by Swalwell. The first allegations came from a former staffer who said that she was raped twice by Swalwell, who had sex with her when she was too drunk to consent. Swalwell is denying the allegations.

Four women spoke to the Chronicle; one former staffer alleged that she tried to fight off Swalwell who left her bruised and bleeding after a rape. Even CNN, which eagerly featured Swalwell on programs as he attacked the Trump Administration, ran detailed accounts of another alleged assault in a hotel room. One of these accounts is from February of this year.

The accounts, if true, suggest that Swalwell is not just a sexual harasser but a sexual predator operating in plain view. One woman, Ally Sammarco, alleged that she (like other women) received nude photos of Swalwell as well as inappropriate social media messages.

Swalwell’s scandal is about as surprising in Washington as the return of the cicadas.

Swalwell was infamously accused of having an affair with an alleged Chinese spy named Fang Fang. His patron in Congress, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi, immediately moved to protect him, declaring, “I don’t have any concern about Mr. Swalwell.”

Pelosi even blocked efforts to remove him from the House Intelligence Committee despite obvious concerns that he was susceptible to blackmail over his sexual trysts.  She lashed out at those calling for his removal in the interests of national security, declaring “I do think that it is unfortunate that Mr. McCarthy is trying to make an issue of this.”

After sexual assault allegations were raised by former staff members, Pelosi, Sen. Adam Schiff and even his close friend (and former campaign chair) Sen. Ruben Gallego have withdrawn their endorsements.

What these women are describing is a politician who felt that he had a license to prey on female staffers. I wonder who gave him that impression?

For years, the Democratic establishment and the media ignored any rumors surrounding Swalwell because he was their useful monster, someone who was an attack dog always straining at the leash.

Swalwell was always the first to a mob. Indeed, he now hopes that voters will not apply the same standard he applied to figures like Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In his confirmation hearing, Kavanaugh faced an allegation of attempted rape from high school, and Swalwell had little patience for those of us arguing for a modicum of due process.

Swalwell said that Kavanaugh’s guilt was self-evident: “More and more cases that are separate and independent, that look the same, pretty soon a prosecutor starts to say to a jury … that the arrows are pointing in the same direction.”

On the Epstein matter, Swalwell demanded full disclosure and called legal concerns “bulls****” in a screaming match with FBI Director Kash Patel.

Recently, Swalwell took a different view on the release of his own FBI files from the Chinese spy scandal. In a cease and desist letter to prevent public disclosure, attorneys Norm Eisen and Sean Hecker warned Patel, “Your actions threaten to expose you, others at the FBI, and the FBI itself to significant legal liability.”

It is now a pile-on as Swalwell’s former enablers run for cover: even Gallego, who posed with Swalwell bare-chested on camels in Qatar. Notably, no one seemed concerned that the trade group US-Qatar Business Council spent more than $84,000 to fly Swalwell, Gallego, and their loved ones to Qatar for the luxurious trip.

The most obvious beneficiary of the scandal, Katie Porter, has denied any involvement with the woman who organized the disclosures against Swalwell. The irony is that Swalwell’s scandal will remove a candidate who has allegedly physically assaulted staffers in favor of a candidate who has verbally assaulted staffers.

The implosion of Eric Swalwell is raising questions about how so many close associates and friends could not have known about the rumors of his misconduct. Now, suddenly, Swalwell has no friends or allies after years of being praised by Pelosi and many in the media.

Mary Shelley made the point most vividly in Frankenstein that there is little difference between the creators and the monsters in such moments: “It is true, we shall be monsters, cut off from all the world; but on that account we shall be more attached to one another.”

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 22:10

Massie For Governor? GOP's Libertarian Firebrand Talks Political Future

Massie For Governor? GOP's Libertarian Firebrand Talks Political Future

On Friday the Ron Paul Institute (RPI) has highlighted an important and fresh interview touching on the Republican Rep's political future: Governor Thomas Massie? - RPI's Adam Dick asks.

"A run for governor may be in the future for Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), but only if he first wins his May 19 Republican primary contest — the next step in his race for reelection to the United States House of Representatives," the RPI report says.

But, "If Massie loses next month, the seven-term representative says he expects he will call it quits on working in government, stating he would consider the loss as “a sign from God or the people or both that I should go back to the farm."

Getty Images

President Trump has on more than once occasion personally called out the Libertarian firebrand for vocally opposing the White House on various key issues, and especially most recently on the Iran war.

Massie has been one of the very view GOP members to join Dems in trying to force a Congressional vote to impose limits on Trump's military actions in Iran. As a reminder:

Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) brought a war powers resolution on Iran to the House floor less than a week after Trump joined Israeli leaders in launching massive strikes against Iran in late February. It failed by a vote of 212-219, with four Democrats bucking their party to oppose it: Reps. Greg Landsman (Ohio), Jared Golden (Maine), Henry Cuellar (Texas) and Juan Vargas (Calif.). 

He remains one of the few outspoken 'non-interventionist' Republican members of the House. On the Senate side, Rand Paul, also of Kentucky, is Libertarian-leaning and condemns foreign adventurism and 'wars of choice'.

As for a potential future run for Governor of Kentucky, Massie hinted at it here.

If U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie loses his upcoming primary against a Republican opponent backed by President Donald Trump, you'll see a whole lot less of him.

"If I lose on May 19, I am not doing any more government ever," he told University of Louisville students April 6 at an event on campus. "... It's a sign from God or the people or both that I should go back to the farm."

But if he wins, Frankfort could be on the mind of the longtime congressman from Northern Kentucky, who's emerged during Trump's second term as one of Congress' most consequential members.

During a question-and-answer portion of his forum, hosted by the school's College Republicans group, an attendee asked Massie if he would ever consider running for governor. Gov. Andy Beshear is ineligible to run for a third time as he eyes a presidential campaign, leaving the seat open at the end of 2027.

And then came this:

Massie wouldn't run for a U.S. Senate seat — "it's the same circus with different clowns, and also they don't have a discharge petition, which is kind of a neat thing to do" — but he sees the appeal of the governor's mansion.

"If I do win (the upcoming primary), I would consider it," responded Massie, who would be up for reelection in 2028 if he wins the 2026 race. He pointed to an old friend he'd served with in Congress for three terms as an example.

"His name was Ron DeSantis," Massie said. "What I've seen him achieve in Florida is inspiring and a lot of people want to move to that state, so I do believe that you could make a difference."

Massie would have a real shot, given he remains quite popular in Kentucky - but he has an uphill battle in terms of reelection to Congress given Trump's political machine has turned against him.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 21:00

Treasury, IRS Propose Rules For 1 Percent Remittance Tax On Some Money Sent To Foreign Countries

Treasury, IRS Propose Rules For 1 Percent Remittance Tax On Some Money Sent To Foreign Countries

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

The Internal Revenue Service and the Department of the Treasury proposed regulations on Friday regarding the new excise tax, established under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, on certain remittances made abroad.

The Internal Revenue Service in Washington on March 10, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

“Beginning Jan. 1, 2026, a 1 percent remittance transfer tax applies to remittances sent from the United States to recipients in foreign countries when the sender provides cash, a money order, a cashier’s check, or other similar physical instrument to the remittance transfer provider,” the IRS said in an April 10 statement.

“The sender is liable for the tax, and remittance transfer providers are required to collect the remittance transfer tax from certain senders, make semimonthly deposits, and file quarterly returns with the IRS. If the remittance transfer provider does not collect the tax from the sender, the tax becomes a liability of the remittance transfer provider.”

The proposed regulations clarify how the remittance transfer tax would be applied.

According to the notice of the proposed rule, the remittance tax is applicable to all eligible transfers irrespective of whether the amount is actually disbursed to the designated recipient.

In case a remittance transfer expires or is canceled and the remittance transfer provider refunds the amount to the sender, the sender can recoup the tax by filing a claim for refund with the IRS.

The tax does not apply to any remittance transfer in which the funds come from a credit or debit card issued in the United States. It is also inapplicable if the funds being sent are withdrawn from an account held in a financial institution.

Any amount that is ultimately transferred to a designated recipient will be taxed, the notice clarified.

The rules affect remittance transfer providers, such as credit unions, banks, and money services businesses, as well as their agents.

There are roughly 600 money services businesses licensed as money transmitters in the United States, out of which more than 200 operate through around 500,000 authorized agents, the IRS said, citing data from the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System.

Between 2019 and 2024, money transfers to domestic and foreign destinations via money services businesses increased from $1.3 to $4 trillion.

“Money transmitted to foreign destinations (remittance transfers) accounted for 9 to 25 percent of the total money transmissions, equaling $236 billion in 2019, growing to almost $1 trillion in 2021 and 2022, but decreasing to $365 billion in 2024,” the notice said.

“Over 2019–2024, annual remittance transfers to foreign destinations through [money service businesses] averaged $520 billion. The average individual money transfer size ranged from $290 to $740 over the same time period.”

The IRS said in its statement that remittance transfer providers must report the new remittance transfer tax via Form 720.

In an Oct. 7 statement, the IRS said that limited penalty relief will be available for remittance transfer providers who fail to deposit the collected remittance taxes in the first three quarters of this year.

“Treasury and the IRS understand there might be challenges implementing the new law and have determined it is in the interest of sound tax administration to provide limited penalty relief related to remittance transfer tax deposits,” the agency said.

Tax Impacts

In a July 1 report, the Center for Global Development said that even at 1 percent, the remittance tax would hit poor countries “hard.” The new tax not only raises costs by 1 percent but can also lead to a dip in remittances.

Mexico stands to lose the most due to the tax imposition, with the loss being more than $1.5 billion per year, the report said. Other nations majorly affected by the tax include India, China, Vietnam, Guatemala, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador.

“Central American countries are projected to suffer the greatest loss relative to their gross national income (GNI), with El Salvador—a close ally of the Trump administration—projected to lose the equivalent of 0.6 percent of GNI,” the report said.

“Where the effects of the tax are significant relative to GNI, countries could experience lower household incomes, weaker consumer demand, and increased exchange rate pressures.”

The Federation for American Immigration Reform blamed remittances for causing the United States’ economy to lose at least $200 billion per year, according to a July 22 report.

This amount is more than enough to run the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department combined. It is also four times the amount spent on the Department of Justice.

“Remittances represent a substantial loss to the U.S. economy. The money that is sent out of the United States is money that is not spent on goods and services in the United States,” the report said.

“The loss of money remitted also means no benefits from the sales, excise, and restaurant taxes, etc. attached to those goods and services. Indeed, remittances carry a significant opportunity cost.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 19:50

All High Earners Need To Know About The Mega Backdoor Roth

All High Earners Need To Know About The Mega Backdoor Roth

Authored by Javier Simon via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

If done the right way, a mega backdoor Roth can allow investors to save in a workplace retirement plan such as a 401(k) beyond the typical contribution limits.

High earners can use a mega backdoor Roth to save beyond normal retirement contribution limits. Vyaseleva Elena/Shutterstock

It also can allow investors to save in a Roth account when they otherwise would not have been able to do so because of certain restrictions.

So let’s take a closer look at this complex, but potentially beneficial strategy for high earners.

What Is a Mega Backdoor Roth?

The mega backdoor Roth is a strategy that involves making after-tax contributions to a 401(k) and then making a conversion of those contributions into either a Roth IRA or Roth 401(k).

Many people take the mega backdoor Roth approach because they can’t contribute to a Roth IRA due to income limits, or they’ve already maxed out their traditional 401(k) via salary deferrals and want to make additional contributions.

In 2026, you can’t contribute to a Roth IRA at all if your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is $168,000 as a single filer or $252,000 if married and filing jointly.

How Does a Mega Backdoor Roth Work?

If your plan administrator allows it, you can make after-tax contributions to your traditional 401(k) and then convert those contributions to a Roth IRA via an in-service distribution. Or, if the plan allows it, you can convert those after-tax contributions into a Roth 401(k) portion of the plan.

The key here is after-tax contributions.

After-tax 401(k) contributions are different from Roth 401(k) contributions and pretax contributions, which are associated with traditional 401(k)s.

But after-tax contributions may allow you to contribute to a workplace retirement plan like a 401(k) beyond the annual contribution limits for pretax and Roth contributions.

So let’s take a close look at these contribution limits for 2026.

You can contribute up to $24,500 in pretax and/or Roth contributions to your 401(k) if you’re under the age of 50.

Because of catch-up contributions, those aged 50 or older can contribute up to $32,500.

If your plan allows for super catch-up contributions, those between the ages of 60 and 63 can contribute up to $35,750.

But by factoring in after-tax contributions, those below age 50 may be able to save up to $72,000. Those between the ages of 50 to 59 or 64-plus can save up to $80,000. And those between the ages of 60 to 63 can save up to $83,250 if the plan allows super catch-up contributions.

But any employer contributions would count toward these limits.

Drawbacks to the Mega Backdoor Roth

Taking the mega backdoor Roth route can leave you with a hefty tax bill. This is because when you make qualified withdrawals in retirement, any investment earnings would be taxed as ordinary income.

And the earnings portion of the conversion into a Roth IRA would be subject to taxation at the time of the conversion.

In addition, your capacity to make after-tax contributions could be restricted by IRS nondiscrimination rules that affect highly compensated employees. These rules may limit how much highly compensated employees can contribute compared to non-highly compensated employees.

For 2026, you’re a highly-compensated employee if you made $160,000 or more in 2025 compensation, or if you owned more than 5 percent of the company at any time during the current or previous year.

And some plans don’t allow after-tax contributions to be eligible for employer matches.

And that brings us to one of the biggest downsides. Your plan administrator simply may not allow you to engage in the mega backdoor Roth strategy. Some employers won’t let you move money from the 401(k) and into a Roth IRA while you’re still employed by them. Or they may not allow you to transfer money from the after-tax portion of your plan into a Roth 401(k) part of the plan.

So you need to contact your plan administrator or human resources department to learn what their rules are.

The Bottom Line

Many high earners face some barriers when it comes to contributing to a Roth account. But this is when the mega backdoor Roth can come into play. This is a strategy involving making after-tax contributions to a traditional 401(k) and converting those contributions into a Roth IRA or a Roth 401(k) within the plan. But there are a few obstacles; not all companies let you take these steps within their 401(k) or other type of workplace retirement plan. There also may be some important tax implications, and the overall process could be highly complex. That’s why you need to be interested enough to brush up on your plan’s rules and take the backdoor route approach the right way. So it’s highly recommended you engage in this strategy with the guidance of a qualified tax professional.

The Epoch Times copyright © 2026. The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 18:40

Oil Jumps, Stocks Dump As Peace Talks Fail, Hormuz Blockade Looms

Oil Jumps, Stocks Dump As Peace Talks Fail, Hormuz Blockade Looms

Before the 'official' futures markets opened, the risk-off tone (due to the failed peace talks and Trump's threat to blockade Iranian vessels) was very evident in FX and crypto markets.

Even given the usual caveats about thin liquidity, AUD/USD is down around 1%, a classic growth-sensitive barometer flashing warning signs, while EUR/USD is weaker by roughly 0.5%.

The moves point to a softer tone for risk assets and sure enough bitcoin is down notably, but still up from pre-ceasefire levels...

All eyes are of course on the oil markets where hyperliquid perps were signaling a major jump higher as traders react to peace talks falling apart over the weekend, and the US moving to blockade the Strait of Hormuz in response.

WTI opened up over 8% surging back above $100 (topping $105)...

European gas futures also surged more than 10% as the trading day for the product expanded to 21 hours, from 10 hours, on Monday.

The timeline for the start of efforts to unwind the extreme supply shocks created by the war looks to be getting longer and longer. 

And of course, as goes oil, so goes stocks etc...

Since the war started, markets have increasingly taken their cues from crude prices given their far-reaching consequences. Surging energy costs have driven both the pullback in risk appetite as an immediate reaction to the conflict, as well as investors’ longer-term anticipation for a pickup in inflation and slowdown in consumption. 

The extent of the divergence (between oil and stocks) has now surpassed levels seen in 2022. 

But, even as the bond-stock-oil correlations started to creak on Friday...

...they are back in sync on this thin Sunday evening with S&P futures down over 1% for now...

Treasury futures prices are down notably (implying around a 5bps jump in 10Y Yields)...

The stronger dollar has pushed gold back down below $4700...

Obviously, investors will continue to monitor Middle East tensions in the coming week, while monthly reports from OPEC and the IEA will add some insight into how the Iran war is affecting the oil market.

Several major US banks are due to report earnings, where any commentary on the impact from the conflict will also be closely watched.

US data releases include producer prices, industrial production and existing home sales, while the Fed’s Beige Book will offer additional color on the health of the economy.

China is also due to report first-quarter GDP plus retail sales and industrial production data for March.

As Morgan Stanley' Michael Wilson warned: The final phase of a correction is rarely easy and could require another re-test for markets, particularly if rates or bond volatility push higher again.

It may be about to get more difficult again.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 18:00

"Create A Crisis": American Association Of University Professors Sponsors Anti-ICE Campaign

"Create A Crisis": American Association Of University Professors Sponsors Anti-ICE Campaign

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Create a crisis.”

That call is made in a new campaign sponsored by the American Association of University Professors to force “colleges to drop their contracts with ICE’s key corporate enablers.”

Despite years of criticism over the purging of faculty ranks of conservatives and libertarians, university professors continue to double down on far-left ideology that is now an orthodoxy in higher education.

I previously wrote about the AAUP’s ideological shift in my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. After that book, the AAUP then selected Todd Wolfson, a far-left activist, as its new president.

Wolfson ran on the pledge to make AAUP a “fighting organization” for social change.

After his selection, Wolfson has called Trump supporters “fascists” and demanded boycotts of Israel.

Given that history, it was little surprise to see the AAUP’s sponsorship of this campaign, as reported by the College Fix.

The campaign is also funded by  Coefficient Giving, associated with liberal billionaire Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna. They have been criticized for reportedly funding groups pushing defund police and other radical agendas.

AAUP joined this campaign with Young Democratic Socialists of America, Sunrise Movement, and the Workplace Justice Lab at Rutgers University. It includes a toolkit instructing students to “create a crisis for university admin through an escalating campaign.”

The campaign seeks to organize to combat the “Trump regime” and its “terrorism”: “When students and workers join together in action, we can force our schools to stop funding and normalizing ICE collaborators and take down the whole regime.”

They are targeting companies such as Enterprise, Flock, ICE Air Carriers, Hilton, and Target.

The campaign states further that “ICE, and the Trump regime generally, cannot function without the consent and collaboration of the business world. Breaking companies from ICE is the central axis for generating enough leverage to stop the regime’s terrorization campaign.”

So university professors are funding a campaign that actively seeks to create a crisis on campuses. It takes a position as an organization that immigration enforcement is a form of terrorism. The silence among faculty is deafening. Rather than objecting that the AAUP should focus on issues related to academic freedom and protections for its members, there have been virtually no objections to the organization’s ideological agenda.

It is evidence of the new orthodoxy in higher education and the refusal of administrators and faculty to make any meaningful change in their intolerance for opposing views.

Many departments no longer have a single Republican faculty member in this academic echo chamber.

A Georgetown study found that only 9% of law school professors at the top 50 law schools identify as conservative — almost identical to the percentage of Trump voters in the new poll.

There is little evidence that faculty members are interested in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools.  In places like North Carolina State University, a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.

Yale University has finally achieved the academic version of Nirvana, a state of perfect peace and enlightenment. A recent study found that the faculty had finally purged every Republican donor from its ranks.

According to a recent report from the Buckley Institute, there is now not a single Republican found across 27 of 43 departments at Yale University. In a nation roughly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats (with a slight advantage to the GOP), only 3 percent are Republicans across all Yale departments.

The hostility to opposing views is impacting our students. A new study offers additional data on this problem, showing that almost 90% of students misrepresent their views in class and on assignments to satisfy faculty by adopting more liberal views.

In the meantime, the small number of dissenting faculty have no real voice, particularly among legal academics. I have previously written about the similar liberal agenda of the American Bar Association despite plunging membership among lawyers. The ABA now represents just 17 percent of the bar.

The AAUP currently has only 44,000 to 45,00 members. There are an estimated 1.5 million university and college professors in the United States. Both the ABA and AAUP have become captive to the most ideological elements of their membership. That agenda has overwhelmed the original apolitical mission of these groups.

This orthodoxy will continue until donors refuse to support universities that do not take meaningful action to restore diversity in the faculty ranks. The AAUP’s radical agenda is only the latest example of how higher education remains a hardened ideological silo. These faculty members have shown again and again that they are unwilling to change this culture.

Only donors can force reform by cutting off their contributions or directing them to schools with a proven commitment to intellectual diversity.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 17:30

Decades-Long Study Blows Up Narrative That 'Gender Reassignment' Prevents Suicide

Decades-Long Study Blows Up Narrative That 'Gender Reassignment' Prevents Suicide

Authored by Tim O'Brien via PJ Media,

One of the most common talking points from the left is that if you don’t rush confused kids into the gender reassignment pipeline, they will kill themselves. The left tells us that “transgenderism” is not a mental health problem, while at the same time telling us that people, especially minors, will kill themselves at greater rates if steps aren’t quickly taken to get those kids on puberty blockers, and on track to have their bodies permanently mutilated to change their sex. 

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

More to the point, the narrative goes like this: “Trans kids” are at higher risk of suicide if they don’t receive greater acceptance, supportive environments, and “access” to “gender-affirming care.” 

Did it ever occur to the left that the suicide in these cases may be connected to the increased likelihood that gender-confused children have severe mental health instability? Did it ever occur to the left that a pre-existing mental health issue, not the gender issue, is what may contribute to the risk of suicide? 

I’ve looked at a bunch of studies the left uses to justify this narrative, and one thing goes overlooked, which is the difference between correlation and causation. In other words, if someone doesn’t call a teenager by her trans name, is that the cause of her later suicide? Or was it something else, and the "misgendering" was just a convenient scapegoat? 

And so, when researchers studied the relationship "between chosen name use, as a proxy for youths' gender affirmation in various contexts, and mental health among transgender youth," did they just assume that the trigger for later “health risks” was due to how they were addressed by name, or were all possible causes considered? 

Kids who are confused about their gender are likely confused about a lot of things, and it could be that it’s this state of confusion and a general struggle with reality that is the more fundamental problem. But if researchers only key in on how those boys and girls are addressed, they can come to any conclusions that suit them.

Destroying a common myth

Don’t take my word for it. Researchers in Finland published a groundbreaking study in the peer-reviewed pediatric journal Acta Paediatrica, which pretty much destroyed the notion that “gender reassignment” surgeries and treatments help gender-confused kids. 

According to the study, the surgeries and treatments may, in fact, be making things worse. 

“In some individuals, medical GR [gender reassignment] appears to be linked to deterioration in mental health,” the study found. “Subsequent to medical GR, psychiatric treatment needs appear to increase.” 

In other words, the surgeries and puberty blockers may be hurting the children they purport to help, and even then, the kids’ needs for psychiatric treatment for mental health problems only increase. 

Let’s dig deeper: “Among adolescents who underwent medical gender reassignment, psychiatric morbidity increased markedly during follow-up,” the study found. If that euphemism is sufficiently confusing to you, “psychiatric morbidity” in this context is suicide, eating disorders, depression, and other serious mental health problems.  

The title of the study is “Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adolescents and Young Adults Who Contacted Specialised Gender Identity Services in Finland in 1996–2019,” which itself emphasizes that this is an analysis of real-world data, not just some carefully constructed sample to study. And the time period for the study spanned 25 years. You would think that if you take a deep dive into 25 years of real-world data, you might get a clear picture of the issues at play and what’s really happening. 

During that period, the percentage of males wanting to become female jumped from 9.8% in 1996 to 60.7% in 2019. This stat alone kills the “born this way” assumption. As Finland’s culture has shifted aggressively leftward, more boys want to be girls. This suggests that the “trans kids” dynamic is a social contagion. 

On the female side, the number of girls wanting to become boys from 1996 to 2019 jumped from 21.6% to 54.5%. 

Here’s a look under the hood of the data. The study authors analyzed data from “a total of 2,083 individuals under the age of 23, who received ‘specialized gender identity services’” at hospitals over time. 

Finland has a nationalized, centralized health care system, which means that this data is pretty comprehensive and a reflection of what is actually happening in that country.  

The big news coming out of this research is that adolescents who were referred to specialist transgender services “showed significantly higher psychiatric morbidity than controls,” with 45.7% having mental health issues before referral, compared to 15.0% among the control population. This means the mental health problems were a pre-existing condition. 

Two years or more after referral to the system for “gender affirmation,” 61.7% of the gender dysphoric population had mental health issues, compared to only 14.6% of the control population.

At the same time, the data revealed that the proportion of teenagers with mental health problems also rose by 35% after receiving a referral to specialist transgender services. If I’m reading this right, it would seem that any kid in Finland who turned to the healthcare community for help with gender dysphoria issues likely found that his or her mental health problems got worse as a result. 

Here’s the kicker. Because not every kid who entered the system went through with the whole program, the researchers were able to measure how many kids who opted out of puberty blockers and sex change surgeries fared psychologically as a result.  

The study found that teens who decided not to receive hormonal or surgical treatments enjoyed better mental health outcomes. The rate of mental health challenges increased by a much lesser amount. That puts the kibosh on the whole rationale for transing the kids. 

If a kid is confused over his or her gender, and you don’t give them puberty blockers, and you don’t push surgeries on them, you’re more likely to have a kid with better mental health in the end.  

But if you do put them on the hormonal treatment track and the surgery track, the chances of the child having compounded mental health problems increase. 

Common sense wins

The bottom line is that common sense wins every time. Tragically, there are still hospitals, mental health professionals, school counselors, and parents who want to irreversibly change a child’s mental and physical make-up to solve what amounts to a very treatable mental health problem at a key stage of their adolescent growth and maturation process. 

The left likes to lecture the right to “follow the science,” but this science will be buried if the left has anything to do with it. The left wants gender-confused children. The left wants to "trans kids."

Speaking of “trans kids,” how did that even become a thing? How does a child know he or she is, in fact, the opposite sex in the wrong body? That can only come as part of a very sophisticated, manipulative process that certain segments of society are foisting on the kids to corrupt them. 

It’s time to put an end to this. The more irrefutable data we have that cannot be suppressed, the more likely we’ll be able to look after the most vulnerable among us and protect them from “gender affirming” destruction. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 15:10

President Trump Faces Renewed Backlash As Trump-Linked Tokens Crash

President Trump Faces Renewed Backlash As Trump-Linked Tokens Crash

Authored by Vince Quill via CoinTelegraph.com,

United States President Donald Trump is facing renewed scrutiny as crypto tokens and projects touted by the US president crash to all-time lows or sit near record low levels.

The Official Trump token (TRUMP), a memecoin pushed by Trump, hit an all-time low of about $2.73 in March 2026 and is currently trading at about $2.86, according to data from CoinGecko.

The TRUMP memecoin has plummeted in price since launching in January 2025. Source: CoinGecko

The governance token issued by World Liberty Financial (WLFI), a decentralized finance (DeFi) platform co-founded by Trump’s sons, sunked to an all-time low of just $0.07 on Saturday.

WLFI is down by nearly 75% from its all-time high of about $0.31 reached in September 2025, while the TRUMP memecoin is down by about 90% since its all-time high of over $73 reached in January 2025. 

The WLFI token has crashed by nearly 75% since the all-time high reached in September 2025. Source: CoinMarketCap

“We thought Sam Bankman-Fried or Gary Gensler were the worst things to happen to the crypto industry, and they were horrible,” Professor Tonya Evans said in response to the plummeting token prices. Evans, a board member at Grayscale parent DCG, added:

“But, turns out, it was the guy who surrounds himself with sycophants, siphons every bit of value he can for himself, and then expeditiously bankrupts companies and casinos without consequence.”

President Trump also announced another gala for token holders, scheduled to take place on April 25, fueling renewed scrutiny from US Democratic lawmakers, who have accused Trump of influence peddling by giving token holders access to him.

US lawmakers send letter to Trump memecoin creator

Senators Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal and Adam Schiff have asked Bill Zanker, the individual who launched the Trump memecoin, for details on the purpose of the planned Trump memecoin gala in April.

The organizers of the event are “dangling access” to Trump, the lawmakers said, according to Politico, which obtained a copy of the letter. 

Trump and his family members stand to benefit from increased sales of the Trump memecoin; attendees are required to hold TRUMP tokens to gain access to the event, the Senators said.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 14:00

FAA Greenlights Laser Sentry Guns To Combat Attack Drones In U.S. Airspace

FAA Greenlights Laser Sentry Guns To Combat Attack Drones In U.S. Airspace

The Federal Aviation Administration has given the green light for the U.S. military to deploy high-energy counter-drone laser weapons in U.S. airspace, adding a new, low-cost layer of protection against the rising threat from kamikaze drones. The decision follows a two-month interagency standoff over whether the systems posed a risk to general aviation and commercial aircraft, as well as incidents in Texas earlier this year that briefly led to an airspace closure.

FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford was quoted by The New York Times as saying the new laser weapon systems had completed a safety assessment that "determined that these systems do not present an increased risk to the flying public."

The decision paves the way for broader use of these 20- to 35+-kilowatt-class laser weapon systems along the southern border to combat drug cartel drones and one-way attack drones. These threats have caused alarm at the highest levels in Washington, especially following the use of drones by Iran in the Gulf area to target data centers, civilian infrastructure, and U.S. military bases.

The NYTimes provided more color on the FAA's decision: 

The statement did not address whether the agency had determined that the high-energy lasers posed no physical risk to aircraft, or whether the safety determination was based on how the lasers were being deployed. But the F.A.A. determined that the risk would be minimal even if the laser came into contact with an airplane, according to an agency official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

The controversy surrounding these laser weapons stems from the February 10 incident when the FAA briefly closed airspace over El Paso after Border Patrol fired the weapon at an object that turned out to be a metallic balloon. With the interagency standoff over, the U.S. military has considered deploying these lasers in Washington, D.C., to combat low-cost, one-way attack drones.

The core vulnerability across U.S. airspace is that a cheap, layered counter-drone system still does not exist, nor is one widely deployed around critical civilian infrastructure such as data centers, power plants, transmission substations, and other critical nodes across the modern economy, where even limited disruption could trigger localized or regional turmoil. The race to close that gap with low-cost systems is underway. We laid out this threat assessment one month before the US-Iran conflict. Now it's time for solutions.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 13:25

More Than Just Iran

More Than Just Iran

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Without a doubt, trading at the start of the week will hinge on developments in the ongoing ceasefire negotiations.

As Spider, Bret, and I discussed on Friday’s podcast the range of possible outcomes has not narrowed significantly. Anything from a serious deal, to walking away and restarting the attacks seems plausible. Spider “guffawed” at the comparison of Regime Change to Welcome Back Kotter – well, the names have all changed…

You know we live in a weird world, where in less than a week, the President posting on Truth Social that a “civilization will die tonight” barely registers as something to talk about.

Academy will continue to stay in front of you this weekend and next week as the situation develops, but the podcast (and much of our writing from this week) remains relevant until we get a clear direction on the talks. So far it has been compared to two sides repeating their list of demands to each other, but at least they are communicating.

More Than an Easter Ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine?

With all the attention focused on Iran, there are stories circulating that Russia and Ukraine could be heading towards something more lasting (while at the same time, there are concerns that even the limited Easter ceasefire won’t hold). Easter (for those following the Julian calendar) is this weekend, while for those following the Gregorian calendar, it was last weekend.

Why could this war finally be headed towards a deal?

Ukraine.

  • Depending on the U.S. for big support has already seemed like a weak strategy. With the U.S. un-sanctioning Russian oil, it seems even more dangerous to tie your hopes to U.S. aid (also, the U.S. has been using up missiles in the fight in Iran, so will be less likely to want to ship military equipment elsewhere, until our stockpiles are replenished).

  • Relying on Europe has always been difficult at best. The EU has not been prepared for war, and the framework of the EU makes it difficult to do anything major, quickly. For me, when Brussels vetoed the taking of Russia’s frozen reserves, I largely gave up on the EU.

Russia. Given the two previous paragraphs, it would seem that Russia should be foaming at the mouth to increase attacks and not even be thinking about peace. But…

  • From a “carrot” perspective, this might be the easiest time for Russia to “ease back” into the global economy. With sanctions already lifted, it might make sense to do a deal now and have those sanctions permanently lifted (politicians have an easier time maintaining the status quo, than changing it).

  • Ukraine has a factory in the UK. Ukraine is working with some countries in the Gulf. We have already seen what asymmetric warfare can do against even the biggest, best, most well-prepared military in the world – and that is not what the Russian military is. If you are Russia, you may have to worry that Ukraine is getting better at drones. Also, while Russia and Ukraine largely kept away from infrastructure targets, those seem more likely to be on the table as attacks (and threats of attacks) on those targets moved the needle 

It would be a pleasant surprise to see some progress on this front. While it still seems unlikely, maybe we have finally reached the point where conditions on both sides warrant some sort of a deal.

On Any Other Weekend This Would Be the Main Focus

Stocks averages did so well this week that weakness in an important sector has been largely ignored.

This ETF is comprised of some of the biggest, best “software” brands in the world. Yet, while everything else was rallying this week, this ETF had its lowest close since 2023. The recent selling, at least in part, coincided with a new AI model, which also triggered an “emergency” banking meeting in D.C.

What was interesting, and in direct contrast to the Barron’s article linked above, is that the CIBR (a cybersecurity-focused ETF) also did poorly (ending the week barely above its post Liberation Day lows).

SOXX, a semiconductor ETF, had a great week.

I continue to believe that as we near an end to the conflict in Iran, ProSec will once again take center stage, with domestic energy, electricity, and chip manufacturing as the focus.

Having said that, the carnage in software seems like it should have broader implications for the market. Maybe it will once we have fewer “headlines” about the Middle East.

CONsumer CONfidence

If the CON CON didn’t give it away (again), I am not a big fan of this data series. But two things struck me as interesting.

Inflation expectations for 5 to 10 years out remained “anchored” coming in at 3.4%. Up a bit from recent prints of 3.2%, and well above the Fed’s target, but well below readings throughout most of 2025. If the Fed was willing to cut rates with much higher long-run expectations (and they did), then this should help rate cut probabilities inch higher. It isn’t great data, but could have been worse, which is all that a Fed run by Warsh is likely to need.

On the flip side, while I’m not a huge fan of the number, “all-time” records deserve at least some attention

The deterioration has been dramatic and cannot be “just” linked to Iran. Does that mean affordability (and the “working poor”) thesis is about to get some attention again?

The caveat to this is that CONsumer CONfidence is very “political.” Not sure why it is that political, but it is – just look at the chart, and how confidence switched after the election. Long before the President was even sworn into office, the sentiment of Republicans and Democrats did a 180 (the same thing happened, but in reverse, when Biden beat Trump).

I will ignore the Democrats for now, and focus on Republicans and Independents. Both were slightly better than their lowest levels since the election. That mitigates some of the sting of the headline number but it is something to keep a close eye on.

I do hate that I dedicated so much space to a data series that I don’t put a lot of faith in, but this was too big to ignore.

Bottom Line

Sunday night and Monday morning will be heavily dependent on the messaging out of Pakistan (I did a double take as I wrote that, but it seems to be the case).

There is nothing bigger for the global economy than how this conflict is resolved or proceeds. Given the trading over the last two days (where every “negative” headline was met with minimal selling, and every “positive” headline was met with robust buying) a lot of good news is priced in. We will still rally on positive outcomes, but some form of a “deal” seems to be increasingly priced into markets.

Let’s hope that markets are right and we are near the end.

Then for better or worse, we can return to our “normal” programming and figure out what to make of the AI story, the software story, the K-shaped (or working poor) story, the affordability problem (which will be alleviated with a good outcome in the Middle East, but not solved), the jobs story, etc.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 12:50

Saudi Arabia's Most Critical Pipeline Restored After Drone Attack

Saudi Arabia's Most Critical Pipeline Restored After Drone Attack

A key Saudi oil pipeline to the Red Sea was restored on Sunday and is now pumping at full capacity after an Iranian drone attack last week damaged a pumping station.

The East-West pipeline is back at full capacity, moving about 7 million barrels per day and restoring critical energy flows from Saudi's Persian Gulf oil fields to the Red Sea port of Yanbu, bypassing the turmoil in the Strait of Hormuz.

Bloomberg quoted the Saudi energy ministry as saying that Saudi Aramco's offshore Manifa field has been restored, while repairs continue at the Khurais onshore complex. Last week, attacks on Manifa and Khurais each knocked out about 300,000 bpd.

"This quick recovery reflects the high operational resilience and crisis management efficiency of Saudi Aramco and the kingdom's energy ecosystem as a whole, thereby enhancing the reliability and continuity of supplies to local and global markets," the energy ministry said.

The Iranian attack on the pipeline last week came on the same day the U.S. and Israel agreed to a two-week ceasefire. By Sunday, after a marathon round of talks in Islamabad between Vice President JD Vance, U.S. negotiators, and Iranian negotiators, no peace deal was reached, but the door was left open for future diplomacy.

"We leave here with a very simple proposal: a method of understanding that is our final and best offer," Vance told reporters earlier. "We'll see if the Iranians accept it."

On Saturday, the U.S. Department of War confirmed that two U.S. warships transited the Hormuz chokepoint to begin marine mine-clearing operations. Only a handful of ships have transited the critical waterway, as traffic remained muted late into the weekend.

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 08:45

India's Nuclear Bet Is Starting To Pay Off

India's Nuclear Bet Is Starting To Pay Off

Authored by Haley Zaremba via OilPrice.com,

  • India's fast breeder reactor in Tamil Nadu achieved criticality earlier this month, making it self-sustaining and only the second commercial plant of its kind in the world.

  • The 500-megawatt plant advances India's goal of reaching 100 gigawatts of nuclear capacity by 2047, up from roughly 9 gigawatts today.

  • While the milestone is significant, experts warn India's 'all of the above' energy strategy may need to become more targeted as demand grows.

India has reached a milestone in its nuclear energy program through its state-of-the-art fast breeder reactor, signalling a major step forward for the clean energy transition in the world’s most populous country. The country’s most advanced nuclear reactor reached criticality earlier this month, meaning that the nuclear chain reaction powering the plant is self-sustaining. This breakthrough will ultimately allow India to import far less uranium to power its nuclear program, and can be adapted to use domestic thorium reserves for fuel in a win-win for the subcontinent’s energy security and autonomy. 

When the plant comes online fully, it will be only the second commercial breeder plant of its kind in the world. The other is in Russia. These plants could change the nuclear landscape completely, as they are capable of producing more fissile material (in essence, nuclear fuel) than they consume. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed the achievement as “a proud moment for India” and “a defining step” in advancing India’s nuclear program.

“This advanced reactor, capable of producing more fuel than it consumes, reflects the depth of our scientific capability and the strength of our engineering enterprise. It is a decisive step towards harnessing our vast thorium reserves in the third stage of the programme,” Modi said in a post on X on Monday.

This achievement is a long time in the making. The plant, based in the Southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, has been in development since 2000. It’s not yet clear when the plant will come online, but it is expected to generate 500 megawatts of carbon-free electricity. This will represent a major step toward India’s aim to achieve 100 gigawatts of capacity by 2047, a significant boost from today’s level of approximately 9 gigawatts.

At present, nuclear power accounts for just 2% of India’s energy mix, but the carbon-free form of energy production will be a critical part of India’s decarbonization strategy. India is currently between a rock and a hard place when it comes to balancing energy security and sustainability with the nation’s humans and economic development goals. 

Despite considerable economic development in recent decades, India remains one of the poorest countries in the world, and increasing energy access is a central platform of India’s continued climb out of poverty. “Tackling the energy access gap is a critical step in meeting the country’s economic and social development ambitions, and it has been a top priority for successive Indian governments,” says a Guardian report from September of last year. 

Meeting the energy needs of all 1.47 billion people in India without majorly derailing global climate goals will require enormous investments in a wide array of traditional and innovative energy alternatives. India is already the third-largest energy consumer in the world after the United States and China, and its needs will only continue to grow. Nuclear, and next-gen nuclear such as breeder reactors, will be just one component of a diverse energy portfolio. 

While the fast breeder reactor marks a major step forward for Indian energy innovation, it likely won’t provide a silver-bullet solution to the subcontinent’s energy challenges. Many other nations have pursued the development of such models, including the United States, China, France, and South Korea, but most have abandoned the pursuit in favor of other next-gen nuclear models that they see as more promising, such as small modular reactors. However, even if this form of reactor doesn’t become the new normal for India, it will still serve the country’s overall energy ambitions, which include a diverse energy playing field. But, going forward, a more streamlined approach may be necessary. 

“India’s energy transition goals have always been an ‘all of the above’ approach, to increase capacity from fossil and non-fossil sources as part of its broader economic growth aspirations – and in response to growing demand,” Ashwini Swain, an energy transition expert at the Delhi-based Sustainable Futures Collaborative, told The Guardian. “So far the approach has mostly been ad hoc and supply-centric rather than targeted to end users, because it comes from a scarcity mindset,” Swain went on to say. “This has worked out so far, but India has reached a stage where we need a much more strategic whole systems approach to energy transition.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 08:10

Add Pakistan To Growing List Of Countries Preparing To Stockpile Shahed-Style Attack Drones

Add Pakistan To Growing List Of Countries Preparing To Stockpile Shahed-Style Attack Drones

The Pakistan-based drone company Sysverve Aerospace can now be added to the rapidly expanding list of defense firms worldwide racing to develop, manufacture, stockpile, and potentially deploy low-cost, one-way attack drones on the modern battlefield. The proliferation of these drones across two major battlefields in Eurasia is set to permanently reshape warfare.

Pakistani-American artificial intelligence investor Amir Husain posted on X about an exhibit featuring Sysverve’s latest "Shahed-like loitering munition."

When asked on X by one user where the exhibit was being featured, Husain stated it was at the World Defense Show, held in February in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Sysverve’s website describes the company as a leader of unmanned air target systems in Pakistan and states it also develops surveillance and combat UAVs. Its contact page lists the company in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

Last week, we revealed that India has adopted the Iranian-style drone playbook, with startup HoverIt showcasing its DIVYASTRA MK2, an advanced long-range strike drone.

In the six-week U.S.-Iran conflict, Shahed drones launched by Iran proved extraordinarily effective, knocking out data centers in surrounding Gulf states and even successfully striking U.S. bases in the region.

The U.S. announced during the conflict that it had deployed its own Iranian-style kamikaze drones.

We recently published a fascinating piece titled "Ukraine Becomes World’s AI Weapons Laboratory," which delves into Ukraine’s drone industry and offers more insight into interceptor technology.

On Friday, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced that Ukrainian forces stationed in the Gulf had successfully used Ukrainian interceptor drones against Iranian Shahed drones.

The emergence of these low-cost drones on the modern battlefield began with the war between Ukraine and Russia over the past four years. There are even reports that Russia was preparing to send a massive drone shipment to Iran:

The UAE recently announced that it has developed a jet-powered, Shahed-style drone capable of speeds exceeding 650 mph.

Let’s not forget that China is producing these drones at scale to the highest bidder:

The development of these low-cost drones will be accelerated by more advanced power plants, as well as AI-enabled targeting, which could make the kill chain truly autonomous. There are already reports suggesting that AI kill chains have arrived.

It is safe to assume militaries worldwide will stockpile one-way attack drones by the millions in the years ahead. 

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 07:35

London Mayor Sadiq Khan Calls For A Government Social Media 'Disinformation' Unit

London Mayor Sadiq Khan Calls For A Government Social Media 'Disinformation' Unit

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Sadiq Khan is pushing hard for a new state-backed disinformation unit to silence online criticism of London. The Mayor claims a “dark blizzard of disinformation” is undermining the city, linking it directly to offline harm, and wants government tools to force Big Tech to act – or else.

In a post on X (replies closed of course), Khan declared: “We can’t ignore the link between online disinformation and offline harm. At the Cambridge Disinformation Summit, I spoke about how the ‘outrage economy’ is eating away at the basic bonds of trust that hold our societies together – and why we need urgent action.”

He doubled down in remarks to the media, insisting: “We’re right to expect big tech to do better, but we should not rely on it. If platforms fail to act, the state must have the tools to make them. That’s why I’ll continue lobbying the government publicly and privately to take a much tougher approach.”

Khan called for “a new central body with the agility and authority to protect our democracy from disinformation, and deal with the scale and speed of this crisis. And we need more aggressive enforcement of the rules we already have. Because unless regulators like Ofcom have the power to hit companies where it hurts, they’ll keep on getting away with it.”

He added: “The outrage economy is eating away at the basic bonds of trust that hold our societies together. It isn’t just a challenge for progressives like me. It’s a challenge for anyone who believes in democracy – wherever they are.”

Khan further suggested that “The same people attacking the capital have already started targeting other cities around the world. And, in a few years’ time, I think we’ll look back on London as the canary in the coal mine. But I hope we’ll also see it as the place where the fightback began.”

Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch sounded the alarm on X:

As we recently highlighted, Khan is running a campaign to dismiss the chaotic reality on London’s streets as foreign propaganda or American disinformation:

While Khan obsesses over online narratives, the actual data from his own city tells a different story.

Every hour in London a rape is reported, and every half hour or thereabouts knife crime is reported. Yet Sadiq khan claims it is the safest city in the world and everything negative you hear is “disinformation.”

Big Brother Watch’s warning is spot on. When officials label uncomfortable truths about crime, migration and failing multiculturalism as “disinformation,” the real agenda becomes clear: protect the narrative, not the public.

This is classic surveillance-state creep dressed up as protecting democracy. Instead of fixing the streets, Khan wants to police the tweets. Free speech isn’t the problem – unchecked crime and open-borders policies that imported it are.

The fightback isn’t a new government censorship body. It’s citizens refusing to be gaslit while their city crumbles. Londoners deserve safe streets, not speech police.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 04/12/2026 - 07:00

'I Have A Dream'...

'I Have A Dream'...

Authored by 'no01' via Gold and Geopolitics substack,

I have a dream where politicians live next door to you...

Not metaphorically.

Literally...

The man who voted to rezone your street works three doors down. His kids go to the same school as yours. When he raises the local tax rate and the potholes don’t get fixed, he drives over those same potholes every morning. And when the community has had enough, they let him know. Loudly. Personally. The way humans have held each other accountable for most of history, before we invented the beautiful abstraction of “institutional distance”.

I know. It sounds naive.

Let me explain why I don’t think it is...

We live in an era that treats political monopoly as completely normal while losing its mind over market monopolies. Regulators drag Google into congressional hearings for owning search. They fine Microsoft for bundling browsers. They write entire legislative frameworks to prevent one company from becoming too dominant in any given market because we all understand, instinctively, what monopoly does: it kills accountability, it kills innovation, it raises prices, and it entrenches mediocrity. The monopolist has no reason to improve because you have nowhere else to go.

And then we hand the same monopoly structure to the people who control our laws, our taxes, our foreign policy, our money supply, and we call it “democracy”.

The irony is immaculate.

The European Union is the cleanest example of what happens when you take this logic to its conclusion. The European Commission - the body that actually initiates legislation - is not elected. The Parliament, which is elected, cannot propose laws. It can only approve or reject what the Commission puts in front of it. The commissioners are appointed by national governments, serve five-year terms, and answer to a structure so opaque that most Europeans couldn’t name a single one of them without Googling.

This isn’t a flaw in the design.

It IS the design.

Unaccountable by architecture.

And Brussels is just the most visible layer. NATO, the UN, the WEF, the IMF - the whole ecosystem of supranational governance operates on the same principle: decisions made by people you didn’t elect, cannot remove, and will never meet. Corruption doesn’t require evil people. It requires structures where there are no consequences for failure and no competition for alternatives. Give anyone a monopoly with no accountability and you don’t need to assume malice. Incentives do the rest.

Though, to be fair, the incentives also attract a specific type of person.

Friedrich Hayek made this point in “The Road to Serfdom”: in any large bureaucratic structure, it is not the best people who rise to the top. It is the people most willing to compromise, most comfortable with ambiguity about means versus ends, most talented at political manoeuvring.

Power selects for a particular psychology. Always has. And once you centralise enough of it into structures that nobody can vote out, you’ve created the perfect habitat for exactly the people you least want running things.

Hans-Hermann Hoppe pushed this further in “Democracy: The God That Failed”, making an argument that sounds monstrous until you actually think about it: monarchs, counterintuitively, have better incentives than democratic politicians. A king owns the country. He passes it to his heirs. His time horizon is generational - he has every reason to keep the thing functional long-term. A democratic politician has a four-year window. He doesn’t own anything. He’s a temporary caretaker with a short lease and no liability for what he leaves behind. So he extracts. He borrows against the future. He promises what cannot be delivered because he won’t be around when the bill arrives. You don’t have to agree with Hoppe’s conclusions to recognise that the time-horizon problem is real and unsolved.

The answer though in my opinion isn’t ‘monarchy’.

The answer is competition.

Hayek had a second insight (this one from “The Use of Knowledge in Society”, his 1945 essay in the American Economic Review), and it’s the one that made him famous: “The Knowledge Problem”.

Central planners fail not because they’re stupid, but because the knowledge they need is dispersed, local, contextual, and impossible to aggregate centrally. The price of tomatoes in a village market contains information no ministry of agriculture could replicate. When you centralise decisions, you lose the signal.

The same is true in politics. A bureaucrat in Brussels setting housing policy for Tallinn, Seville, and Ghent simultaneously is not making informed decisions. He’s making averaged guesses applied uniformly to situations that are not uniform. The knowledge that actually matters - what this or that neighbourhood needs, what these people value, what tradeoffs they’re willing to make - exists locally. It always has.

The economist Charles Tiebout formalised this in 1956, though the intuition is much older: municipalities that compete for residents are forced to govern well. If your city raises taxes and delivers nothing, people leave. The tax base shrinks.

The city either improves or it hollows out. Residents “vote with their feet” - a form of continuous democratic feedback that no election cycle can match, because it happens in real time and has immediate financial consequences for the state. Tiebout called it “fiscal federalism”. I’d call it capitalism applied to governance. Same principle. You have options, so the provider has to perform.

Liechtenstein wrote this into its constitution directly: any village has the right to secede from the principality by referendum. It has never happened. It doesn’t need to. The right to leave is enough to enforce good behaviour. Switzerland has 26 cantons, each with its own tax rate, its own laws, its own character. Zurich and Appenzell Innerrhoden are barely recognisable as the same country. And Switzerland, despite being landlocked, multilingual, and geographically inconvenient, consistently ranks among the most prosperous and stable places on earth. Coincidence is not the explanation.

Now add the OTHER half of the dream.

No professional politician class.

This isn’t even a new idea. The Romans had the cursus honorum - a structured series of civic roles that citizens were expected to fill as a duty, not as a career.

The Athenians used sortition, selecting officials by lottery from eligible citizens, on the logic that any competent adult could govern and that elections primarily select for rhetoric and ambition rather than competence. Switzerland still operates a militia democracy at the cantonal level - officials who hold day jobs and govern part-time. The professional politician is a modern aberration, roughly a century old, and the results speak for themselves.

The requirement I’d add: you cannot spend more than 50% of your time on political duties. The other half you work. Not consulting, not board membership, not “advising” - you do something that produces a tangible output. You build something, fix something, teach something, grow something. You stay in contact with the reality that your decisions affect.

A transport minister who commutes by train. A housing regulator who rents. A labour minister who has been hired and fired. The skin-in-the-game principle that Nassim Taleb has been banging on about for decades: those who make decisions must bear the consequences of those decisions. The current system is precisely inverted - politicians make decisions whose consequences fall entirely on others, often long after the politician in question has retired comfortably on a parliamentary pension.

And pay them accordingly. Prestige, not salary. The Romans understood this. The Swiss still understand it. When you make politics lucrative, you attract people who are primarily motivated by the lucrative. When you make it a duty, you get different candidates. Not perfect candidates - nothing produces those - but structurally different ones.

The accountability piece is the last thread, and maybe the most important.

Human scale. That’s what’s missing from every layer of modern governance above the local. When the city councillor who approved the bad zoning decision is someone you recognise at the market, something changes. Not because everyone will tar and feather him (though the option is clarifying). But because social accountability is the oldest and most effective enforcement mechanism we have. It predates courts, predates elections, predates states. You live in a community. You face the people affected by your choices. That feedback loop, compressed into institutional distance, is exactly what supranational governance destroys. Nobody in Brussels faces any community. Nobody at the IMF shops at the same supermarket as the Greeks they were advising in 2010.

The counterarguments are real and worth taking seriously for thirty seconds.

  • Defence: small states are vulnerable. True - but there’s a difference between voluntary defensive alliances and permanent supranational governments. NATO started as one and became the other. You can coordinate on specific shared threats without surrendering legislative sovereignty. Switzerland manages it fine.

  • Race to the bottom on standards: if states compete, won’t they all rush to the lowest tax, weakest regulation, most exploitable environment? Sometimes. Singapore didn’t. Switzerland didn’t. Liechtenstein didn’t. Competition also produces race to the top - the record is mixed, and the assumption that centralisation produces good standards is contradicted by every agricultural subsidy regime in EU history.

  • Not everyone can move: valid, and the most serious objection. Foot-voting privileges the mobile. But the competitive pressure benefits even those who stay, because the government that loses mobile residents to better-governed neighbours has immediate incentive to improve. You don’t have to leave for the dynamic to work. You just have to be able to leave.

  • Global problems need global solutions: pandemics, climate, nuclear proliferation. Coordination on specific, defined problems with voluntary treaty structures is not the same thing as permanent supranational government with legislative power and no democratic accountability. We managed to coordinate on nuclear non-proliferation without building a world government. The argument proves too much.

My dream ain’t a utopia.

My dream is incentives that work instead of incentives that reliably produce what we currently have.

I have a dream where the man who raised your taxes has to look you in the eye at the weekend.

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/11/2026 - 23:20

New Iran Leadership More Extreme, Israeli Intelligence Concludes

New Iran Leadership More Extreme, Israeli Intelligence Concludes

In what should not at all be a surprise to anyone who has been awake and observant over the past 20+ years of America's military interventions in the Middle East, the Israeli Army and intelligence officials have concluded that Iran's news leadership is more extreme than the previous one.

The IDF delivered a closed-door intelligence briefing to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on Thursday, which involved presenting this finding, according to The Times of Israel.

via Majlis

Iran's new leadership consists of members of the elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) which are now frequently described as far more ideologically rigid than the former political leadership - a development which was entirely predictable.

The slain Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's son Mojtaba has not been seen in public since the US-Israeli attacks began, but he is also said to be hardline than his father. And of course, this current crop of leaders have either lost family or been wounded in the strikes - giving them more incentive to take a rigid stance against Washington.

Still, NeoCon warmongers have been at times repeating old Iraq war, Bush era talking points of "they will greet us as liberators". 

This certainly didn't happen in either Iraq or Afghanistan, and in the latter country the Taliban is now in complete control despite a more than two-decade long US coalition occupation and quagmire. America's 'nation-building' only produced a failed state followed by greater Taliban ascendancy and control.

In many cases, the very same officials advocating for regime change in Iran were on board with all the foreign policy failures of the past, also including Syrian and Libya.

The Trump administration itself in the opening days of the bombing campaign acted as if suddenly masses of people would rise up and overthrow the Islamic Republic and its long-standing institutions.

Yet the government has not fallen, and still President Trump has lately claimed that Iran's losses of dozens of senior civilian and military leaders is tantamount to "regime change". This has not changed facts on the ground.

Vice President JD Vance traveled Friday to Pakistan for high-level talks with Iranian officials, and reports say that some 70 Iranians are traveling with the Tehran team to present a 'unified front'. Talks are expected into Sunday, and they entered with contrasting demands which appear very far apart.

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/11/2026 - 22:45

Pakistani Warplanes Land In Saudi Arabia For Start Of Mutual Defense Pact

Pakistani Warplanes Land In Saudi Arabia For Start Of Mutual Defense Pact

Via The Cradle

A Pakistani military force arrived at Saudi Arabia's King Abdulaziz Air Base on Saturday, as part of a strategic defense pact between the two countries, the kingdom's defense ministry has announced.

The Pakistani force includes air force fighter jets and support aircraft. It was sent to Saudi Arabia to "enhance joint military cooperation, raise operational readiness, and support security and stability in the region," the ministry's statement said.

Pakistan Air Force image

The military deployment arrived following five weeks of US-Israeli attacks on Iran, and as ceasefire talks take place in Islamabad.

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan signed a strategic defense agreement last year involving joint deployments, intelligence sharing, and coordinated responses to regional threats.

The pact commits both states to treat any attack on one as an attack on both, allowing the Gulf kingdom to benefit from the protection afforded by Pakistan's nuclear weapons arsenal.

In January, Pakistani F-16 fighter aircraft participated in a multinational air combat exercise in Saudi Arabia. The Spears of Victory-2026 exercise also involved military forces from France, Italy, Greece, Qatar, Bahrain, Jordan, the UK, and the US.

Riyadh and Islamabad have a history of close military cooperation dating back to the 1960's. During the 1991 Gulf War, Pakistan sent troops to defend the Saudi kingdom from a possible Iraqi invasion. In return, Pakistan has benefited from Saudi financial and military support.

On Saturday, Turkish media reported that Saudi Arabia and Qatar will provide Pakistan with $5 billion in financial assistance to help shore up Islamabad's dwindling foreign currency reserves, which currently stand at about $16.4 billion.

The development comes as the UAE is requiring Pakistan to repay a $3.5 billion debt by the end of the month. Pakistan's reserves have come under additional pressure recently, thanks to rising costs for imported fuel resulting from the US-Israeli war on Iran.

The $5 billion payment was announced following a meeting between Saudi Finance Minister Mohammed bin Abdullah al-Jadaan and Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif on Friday night in Islamabad.

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/11/2026 - 22:10

Car-Shopping Websites Report Uptick In EV Interest Following Gasoline Price Shock

Car-Shopping Websites Report Uptick In EV Interest Following Gasoline Price Shock

March brought the biggest fuel price shock Americans have experienced on record, or at least according to AAA data going back to the early 2000s.

A fuel price shock changes consumer behavior, especially for low-income households, by forcing folks to drive less, combine trips, cancel discretionary travel, or shift to carpooling and public transit.

For those who have the financial flexibility to do so, a fuel price shock may push some consumers toward smaller cars, hybrids, and EVs and away from large SUVs and trucks, because fuel economy suddenly matters much more.

The Wall Street Journal reports that a $4-per-gallon national average for gasoline, a politically sensitive level, is the threshold at which some consumers are beginning to think about EVs again.

Online car-shopping platforms such as Cars.com and Edmunds have reported a modest uptick in EV interest among users on their platforms in recent weeks. 

Edmunds pointed out that interest in EVs on its website has returned to where it was before federal tax incentives expired late last year.

"In the short term, a lot of Americans, and this has nothing to do with regulations, are coming back to EVs because of the cost of ownership," Hyundai Motor Chief Executive José Muñoz told the WSJ. "Basically, the fuel costs are making them change their decision."

Muñoz said that EVs are finding a place in the driveways of households in states like California because it makes economic sense to commute to work during the week in EVs rather than gasoline-powered cars. 

He said the thinking in some households is: "I have one car from Monday to Friday, another car for the weekend."

We must point out that far-left states like California suffer from state-killing climate policies and terrible energy policies that are crushing households on the pocketbook level. 

Data from Cox Automotive shows that EV sales jumped 12% in the first quarter as a flood of off-lease EVs swamped the market, pushing prices lower and making them more affordable.

Edmunds data show that EVs accounted for roughly 6.2% of new-car sales in March, up from 6% in February, but this is noticeably down from September, when EVs accounted for 11.5% of sales. Higher EV sales last year were mostly driven by consumers seeing that federal tax credits were expiring at the end of the year, think of it as demand pulled forward.

Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of industry insights at Cox Automotive, said the surge in gasoline and diesel prices at the pump during the six-week U.S.-Iran conflict led to "an uptick in consideration" of EVs. She said driving habits are hard to change, considering Americans enjoy the luxury of large SUVs and trucks.

Meanwhile, Chinese EV exports soared 140% in March, driven by surging demand outside the US amid Gulf-related energy shocks. 

Tyler Durden Sat, 04/11/2026 - 19:15

Pages