We're "Ending The Days Of Hiding Fraud": Bessent Goes After Dark Money In Nonprofits

Authored by Stu Cvrk via American Greatness,

On April 23, the US Treasury Department announced that the IRS plans to revise Form 990—the annual information return filed by tax-exempt organizations—to improve transparency and strengthen oversight, specifically targeting reporting on government contracts, government grants, and fiscal sponsorship arrangements. The stated goals are to detect misconduct and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent put the matter bluntly: “We are ending the days of hiding fraud, abuse, and extremist activity behind complicated nonprofit arrangements. When bad actors misuse charitable structures, directors and officers should understand that transparency can lead to scrutiny, accountability, and liability under the law.”

The acting IRS chief counsel added: “If an organization receives public funds or tax-deductible donations, it should be prepared to show who controls the money and where it goes.”

Why is this seemingly innocuous regulatory requirement a really big deal, as most Americans have no idea what Form 990 is used for?

Let us answer that in some detail.

Bottom Line Up Front

Right now, enormous sums of money flow through nonprofit “umbrella” organizations to dozens or hundreds of sub-groups, and the paper trail essentially disappears. The IRS currently has no mechanism on the Form 990 to require disclosure of fiscal sponsorship arrangements. The new rules would force these pass-through organizations to reveal who is getting the money and what it’s being used for.

Think of this in the context of the Southern Poverty Legal Center indictments, which are only the tip of the iceberg of fiscal sponsorship arrangements and transactions.

The Problem: What Is Fiscal Sponsorship and How Is It Exploited?

Fiscal sponsorship is a legitimate and longstanding practice. In a typical fiscal sponsorship relationship, a nonprofit organization’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status is extended to groups engaged in activities that serve the fiscal sponsor’s mission, typically for a fee. Donations to the project are directed to the fiscal sponsor and are restricted to supporting activities of the charitable venture. The fiscal sponsor is responsible for assuring the activities of the project fulfill their charitable purpose. Here is how the left-wing Tides Foundation advertises fiscal sponsorships on their website.

The legitimate use case: a new charity that hasn’t yet received IRS 501(c)(3) status can operate under an established nonprofit’s umbrella while it goes through the process. The problem is what happens at scale when the model is weaponized.

Arabella Advisors (see below) and its affiliated entities utilized tax regulations in which groups who use a fiscal sponsorship arrangement do not have to file a Form 990 with the Internal Revenue Service. Using “pass-through” arrangements, funding is passed from one organization to another, making it difficult to trace where a donor’s money ends up.

As noted in the Treasury Department’s press release, recent congressional oversight has raised concerns that some fiscal sponsorship arrangements may be used to obscure who is operating a project, who controls project funds, and how those funds are being used.

The key loophole: because the sponsored “project” is not a standalone legal entity, it files no independent 990. Millions of dollars can be directed to a group that, on paper, barely exists—perhaps just a website—with no public accountability whatsoever.

The Arabella Dark Money Network: Scale and Structure

Arabella Advisors, founded in 2005 by Clinton administration alumnus Eric Kessler, became the most sophisticated example of this model on the American Left. Arabella Advisors is a philanthropic consulting company that oversaw a handful of nonprofits, all of which oversaw a multitude of left-leaning projects and organizations. When accounting for the seven nonprofits in the Arabella Network, they provided nearly $1 billion in grants in 2023 alone. That buys a lot of elections and left-wing activism.

The scale is staggering. In the 2020 election cycle, Arabella’s nonprofits took in $2.4 billion, more than the fundraising of the Democratic and Republican National Committees combined. In the 2022 cycle, Arabella’s fundraising rose to $3 billion.

The Arabella-managed nonprofits collectively paid Arabella over $200 million in consulting fees while creating hundreds of left-wing policy and advocacy organizations through “fiscal sponsorship” agreements that generate “pop-up groups” that operate under the umbrella of an Arabella-managed nonprofit, are not required to file independent financial disclosure forms, and often exist as little more than a website.

The core technique—the “pop-up group”—is essential to understanding how the opacity works. Since the Arabella network’s inception, it sponsored at least 340 such groups. These groups rarely disclose their relationship to Arabella Advisors or its in-house nonprofits; nevertheless, many of them accept donations from the public, funds that go to Arabella’s nonprofits. This system also allows these groups to hide their funders, since it’s virtually impossible to trace individual grants to Arabella’s nonprofits to any particular group.

The flagship funds within the network—the New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund, Windward Fund, and North Fund—shuffle money among themselves, compounding the opacity. The five funds sent more than $52 million to Arabella Advisors as payment for operational and management services. On numerous occasions, the funds wired millions of dollars to each other, further obscuring which issues and initiatives individual grants supported.

Foreign money has entered this network as well. Swiss billionaire Hansjörg Wyss was able to move $475 million into various organizations to influence US politics and elections through his nonprofits. The Arabella Network can be linked directly to $265 million from Wyss’s Berger Action Fund and Wyss Foundations. Keep in mind that US election laws bar foreign nationals from contributing to candidates or PACs, but no equivalent restriction applies to nonprofits operating in this manner.

What did Arabella fund specifically? Arabella played a major role in battles over Supreme Court nominations, abortion, women’s sports, school discipline, environmental policies, fake local news outlets, “Zuck Bucks” that manipulate election offices, and more. One particularly notable example: An Arabella-sponsored group funded entirely with Soros money—”Governing for Impact,” started in 2019—worked with Harvard Law School to develop legal strategy memos on how to overturn dozens of federal regulations, including Title IX.

The Sixteen Thirty Fund in particular served as an electoral vehicle. The Sixteen Thirty Fund was behind several groups that ran issue advocacy ads to benefit Democrats during the 2018 midterms. The group also funded Demand Justice, which spent millions of dollars on ads attacking Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination. In 2020 alone, the Sixteen Thirty Fund donated $410 million toward defeating Trump and winning Democratic control of the US.

Arabella’s recent rebrand: Facing sustained scrutiny, Arabella announced it would be shuttering, to be replaced by a trio of successor organizations. The fiscal sponsorship division was acquired by Sunflower Services, a newly formed public benefit corporation. The remaining divisions of Arabella formed a new company called Vital Impact. Sunflower Services is at least majority-owned by the three biggest C3 charities in Arabella’s old empire—New Venture, Hopewell, and Windward Funds. Critics note this is a restructuring, not a shutdown; the same infrastructure continues under friendlier-sounding names.

The Tides Foundation: The Original Model

Tides predates Arabella by three decades and essentially invented the fiscal sponsorship model for the Left. Tides founder Drummond Pike envisioned using fiscal sponsorship for progressive political activism. Fiscal sponsorship uses a tax-exempt charity to provide financial support to a non-exempt project or organization, thereby lending it tax exemption as long as the charity retains control of the way its funds are spent.

Between 1996 and 2010, the Tides Center served as a fiscal sponsor to some 677 separate projects with combined revenues of $522.4 million; in 2010 alone, the Center was actively managing nearly 200 projects.

Tides founder Pike himself acknowledged the core purpose of the model: “Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with.” The Tides Center has been described as an organization that effectively washes away the paper trail between grants and the original donor.

The combined Tides network is enormous. The six Tides nonprofits saw combined total revenues of $785,605,823 in 2024. The Tides Center offers comprehensive fiscal sponsorship to projects that do not have their own tax-exempt status from the IRS. Again, note that Form 990 has no mechanism for disclosing fiscal sponsorship activities. Some current and past Tides Center projects include Fair and Just Prosecution, Palestine Legal, and the International Corporate Accountability Roundtable.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that in 2023, the Tides Foundation gave $286,000 to the Alliance for Global Justice, a group best known for serving as the fiscal sponsor of Samidoun—subsequently sanctioned by the US Treasury as a “sham charity” for providing material support to a Palestinian terrorist organization that participated in the October 7 Hamas attacks.

Tides has also used its fiscal sponsorship services to explicitly facilitate government grant-seeking. The fee for all funding from government sources is 15 percent, higher than standard rates because government grants entail significantly more paperwork and reporting—meaning Tides actively markets itself as a vehicle for its sponsored projects to access federal funding and takes a cut.

Government Money Flowing to Left-Wing Groups

This is where taxpayer dollars enter the picture directly—distinct from private dark money, but often intertwined with it. Here are some estimates and examples.

USAID awarded more than $800,000 to New Venture Fund—a dark money pass-through nonprofit that cloaks which donors give to which nonprofits—and $27 million to the Tides Center.

The US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, one of the nonprofits that transported illegal aliens across the country under the Biden administration, reported receiving $284 million of its $289 million in revenue from government grants—98.2 percent government-funded.

The Solidarity Center has received over $86 million from the federal government since 2008; $61 million of that was given under President Biden. Three Solidarity employees joined Biden’s Labor Department. Solidarity receives 99 percent of its total revenue from American taxpayers and serves the AFL-CIO, which gave 86 percent of its 2024 political donations to Democrats.

On the climate front: Inflation Reduction Act funds set aside hundreds of billions for the green agenda. A former staffer from an environmental group called the Coalition for Green Capital joined the Biden EPA specifically to direct $27 billion in green funding. Under his tenure, $5 billion was granted to his former organization. Power Forward Communities received nearly $9 billion despite being only a few months old when it applied—and one recipient was a group affiliated with Stacey Abrams that had only $100 in the bank when it received $2 billion.

The Environmental Law Institute, which ran a “Climate Judiciary Project” to educate federal and state judges in favor of climate tort litigation against energy companies, received millions of dollars in grants and contracts from the EPA, the Departments of Justice, Homeland Security, Agriculture, and State, and the National Science Foundation between 2021 and 2024.

Regarding the SPLC specifically: Despite the SPLC reporting $132.7 million in revenue and nearly $770 million in net assets for 2021, the State Department still granted honorariums and speaker fees to SPLC officials. Additionally, a Biden-era Department of Labor approved a $6 million “employment training” grant for NextGen, a nonprofit that fights for “progressive policy change” through advocacy and civic engagement.

The SPLC itself is in the news for separate reasons: the Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on federal fraud charges, alleging it improperly raised millions of dollars to pay informants to infiltrate the Ku Klux Klan and other extremist groups.

The revolving door between these funded NGOs and Democratic administrations is a key part of the story. Personnel from Open Society Foundations and associated left-wing groups cycled in and out of the Biden White House, Justice Department, and other agencies—the same people who had previously shaped grantmaking priorities then directed government money toward aligned organizations.

In just the first month of the Trump administration, 15 groups that had received federal cash from the previous administration sued the current administration, mostly to protect their funding, which totaled $1.6 billion. This is the feedback loop in miniature: government grants activist groups → activist groups lobby for more government → activist groups litigate against anyone who tries to stop it.

Concluding Thoughts

Several converging factors explain the timing of the Treasury Department’s April announcement:

1. Congressional pressure has been building. Multiple House hearings over the past year—the DOGE Subcommittee hearing “Public Funds, Private Agendas: NGOs Gone Wild” and the Judiciary Subcommittee hearing “How Leftist Nonprofit Networks Exploit Federal Tax Dollars”—have built an extensive public record and created political momentum for regulatory action.

2. The rebrand attempt flagged the problem. Arabella’s restructuring into Sunflower Services and Vital Impact in late 2025 was widely seen as an attempt to launder its reputation and escape scrutiny. The Treasury announcement signals that rebranding won’t be sufficient.

3. Form 990 has a structural blind spot. As noted in the Treasury Department’s press release, Form 990 has no mechanism for disclosing fiscal sponsorship activities. This isn’t a bug in enforcement—it’s a gap in the regulatory framework itself, one that has been known and exploited for decades. Treasury is finally moving to close it through regulatory action rather than waiting for Congress to act legislatively.

4. The SPLC indictment and related scrutiny. The indictment of the SPLC, combined with sustained focus on the Tides Foundation’s role in funding anti-Israel groups, has elevated the broader question of nonprofit accountability in the current political moment.

5. The “revolving door” has been documented. The Biden years produced extensive documentation of personnel moving between the dark money network and government agencies, with the explicit effect of directing public funds toward aligned organizations. The Trump administration is using every available tool—executive, regulatory, and prosecutorial—to dismantle these arrangements.

The bottom line is pretty straightforward: for decades, a small number of sophisticated nonprofit aggregators have used fiscal sponsorship to create a system in which billions of dollars—from private megadonors, foreign nationals, and American taxpayers—flow to politically aligned left-wing activist organizations with direct ties to the Democrat Party with essentially no public accountability. The sponsored groups don’t file their own 990s.

The pass-through organizations don’t have to disclose which projects their money supports. And the whole system is perfectly legal under current IRS rules. The Treasury announcement is the first significant regulatory step toward forcing disclosure of these arrangements, and its timing reflects both the political will of the current administration and the groundwork laid by over a year of congressional investigation.

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant” for the body politic!

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/09/2026 - 06:00

The Day Civilization Runs Out Of Bread Will Not Feel Like Fiction

Authored by Madge Waggy,

For nearly three decades, much of the modern world behaved as though the nuclear age had quietly expired sometime in the early 1990s. The collapse of the Soviet Union created the comforting illusion that humanity had stepped away from the edge permanently, as if the terrifying balance that defined the Cold War had dissolved together with old political maps. Younger generations grew up hearing about nuclear drills, fallout shelters, and atomic panic the same way they heard about trench warfare or medieval plagues: as distant historical experiences disconnected from ordinary life. Governments gradually shifted public attention toward terrorism, economic globalization, artificial intelligence, and climate policy, while nuclear annihilation faded into the background of public consciousness.

Yet history has a dangerous habit of returning precisely when societies become convinced they have outgrown it.

Throughout 2025 and the opening months of 2026, the international system entered one of its most unstable periods since the twentieth century. Military analysts began warning openly about simultaneous geopolitical flashpoints involving several nuclear powers at once. Russian officials intensified references to strategic deterrence during ongoing confrontations connected to Eastern Europe, while NATO expanded military exercises across regions Moscow considers existentially sensitive. At the same time, China accelerated modernization of its nuclear arsenal and long-range missile systems at a pace that alarmed Western intelligence agencies. North Korea continued demonstrating increasingly advanced delivery capabilities, and tensions surrounding Taiwan, cyber warfare, and contested maritime territories pushed diplomatic relations into progressively uncertain territory.

Most citizens observed these developments from a psychological distance shaped by modern media exhaustion. Continuous exposure to crisis has transformed public attention into something fragmented and temporary. Economic anxiety, inflation, political polarization, housing instability, technological disruption, and endless digital noise have conditioned people to process existential threats as short-lived headlines rather than historical warnings. This emotional fatigue may partially explain why recent discussions surrounding nuclear risk have failed to produce widespread public alarm despite the seriousness of the underlying situation.

What many people still fail to understand is that contemporary fears surrounding nuclear war extend far beyond the immediate destruction caused by the weapons themselves.

The dominant concern among climate scientists, food security experts, and strategic analysts is no longer limited to blast zones or radiation exposure.

The larger fear involves what happens afterward, when the environmental consequences of large-scale firestorms begin altering the planet’s atmosphere and destabilizing the systems that sustain modern civilization.

Civilization Does Not Collapse In One Afternoon

During the Cold War, researchers studying atmospheric science reached conclusions that many policymakers initially struggled to accept. Their models suggested that nuclear detonations targeting cities and industrial infrastructure would ignite massive firestorms capable of releasing extraordinary amounts of soot and smoke into the upper atmosphere. Unlike ordinary pollution, these particles could remain suspended in the stratosphere for extended periods, blocking significant portions of sunlight from reaching the Earth’s surface. The phenomenon eventually became known as “nuclear winter,” though the phrase itself almost sounds too simple for the scale of devastation being described.

The consequences outlined in scientific simulations were extraordinary. Temperatures across major agricultural regions could fall dramatically within weeks. Growing seasons would shorten or disappear entirely in some parts of the world. Rainfall patterns could become severely disrupted, while frost conditions might appear during periods traditionally associated with crop growth. Wheat, corn, rice, and soy production would decline simultaneously across multiple continents, creating a synchronized collapse unlike anything modern economies were designed to survive.

What makes this possibility especially catastrophic in 2026 is the structure of contemporary civilization itself. Modern societies are built upon tightly interconnected supply chains operating with remarkable efficiency but very little redundancy. Large urban populations depend on continuous transportation networks, imported food, fuel distribution systems, refrigeration infrastructure, and stable international trade routes to maintain ordinary daily life. The abundance visible inside supermarkets creates the illusion of permanent security, yet many cities possess only limited food reserves capable of supporting their populations for short periods without resupply.

Once agricultural output begins failing internationally, governments would almost certainly prioritize domestic survival over global cooperation. Export restrictions would emerge rapidly. Shipping routes could become militarized or inaccessible. Financial systems would destabilize under panic conditions, while fuel shortages would further damage transportation and farming operations. Nations heavily dependent on food imports would face immediate humanitarian crises, but even agricultural powers would struggle once climate disruption and supply chain fragmentation intensified simultaneously.

Several modern studies examining nuclear famine scenarios estimate that billions of people could face starvation following a large-scale nuclear exchange. Some projections, revisited in light of newer climate data and current population levels, suggest mortality rates so extreme that they challenge the imagination. This is partly why historical American government assessments discussing potential death tolls approaching ninety percent of humanity continue attracting renewed attention today. The figure sounds almost impossible to comprehend until one begins analyzing how dependent modern civilization truly is on environmental stability and uninterrupted agricultural production.

There is also a psychological dimension to these discussions that experts rarely address publicly in direct terms. Human beings often assume technological sophistication automatically guarantees resilience. The modern world appears powerful because it possesses satellites, artificial intelligence, advanced medicine, digital communication, and industrial automation. However, none of those systems can function normally without stable energy networks, functioning governments, predictable climates, and access to food. Civilization may appear technologically invincible while remaining biologically fragile underneath.

Historical examples repeatedly demonstrate that famine destabilizes societies faster than almost any other force. Political institutions that appear permanent during periods of abundance can deteriorate with astonishing speed once populations begin competing for survival. Social trust erodes rapidly under conditions of scarcity, and governments facing mass hunger frequently resort to emergency powers, censorship, militarized distribution systems, or violent repression in attempts to preserve order. The concern among researchers is not merely that people would suffer physically after a nuclear conflict, but that the organizational foundations of civilization itself could begin disintegrating under sustained environmental pressure.

The Most Dangerous Illusion Of The Twenty-First Century

Perhaps the most unsettling aspect of the modern nuclear dilemma is the persistence of a belief that rational actors will always prevent ultimate catastrophe. Nuclear deterrence theory has long depended upon the assumption that political leaders understand the unacceptable consequences of escalation. For decades, this logic arguably prevented direct conflict between major powers. However, contemporary geopolitical conditions have introduced forms of instability far more unpredictable than those defining much of the Cold War.

Cyberattacks, artificial intelligence-assisted military systems, disinformation campaigns, autonomous weapons development, regional proxy wars, and instantaneous digital propaganda have dramatically accelerated the speed at which crises evolve. Decision-making environments have become saturated with uncertainty, misinformation, and political pressure. Under such conditions, the possibility of miscalculation increases substantially. Many historical catastrophes did not emerge because leaders consciously desired apocalypse; they unfolded because governments believed escalation remained controllable until events moved beyond anyone’s ability to contain them.

This fear now shapes many contemporary security discussions behind closed doors. Analysts increasingly worry less about intentional world-ending war and more about uncontrolled escalation arising from regional conflict, technological failure, accidental launch detection, or political desperation during moments of extreme instability. The existence of thousands of nuclear warheads means humanity continues living inside a system where a relatively small number of decisions made within minutes could alter the trajectory of civilization permanently.

The deeper tragedy is that modern society possesses enough scientific knowledge to understand these risks with remarkable clarity while simultaneously lacking the political unity necessary to eliminate them completely. Humanity has mapped the environmental consequences, modeled agricultural collapse scenarios, studied historical famines, and analyzed strategic escalation pathways extensively. The danger is not hidden ignorance. The danger is collective normalization.

For years, nuclear weapons survived in public imagination mostly as symbols rather than active threats. In 2026, that perception has begun changing again. What once felt theoretical now appears uncomfortably plausible to many researchers observing the deterioration of international stability. The silence surrounding these fears should not be mistaken for safety. In many ways, silence may simply reflect how accustomed humanity has become to living beside mechanisms capable of ending the modern world.

The Hunger That Would Rewrite Human History

For most people living in industrialized nations, hunger exists as an abstract concept rather than an immediate fear. Supermarkets remain illuminated throughout the night, delivery systems function with mechanical precision, and food arrives so consistently that modern consumers rarely consider the extraordinary infrastructure required to sustain this daily normality. Entire generations have grown up inside societies where scarcity feels temporary and manageable, something associated with distant humanitarian crises rather than a condition capable of consuming advanced civilizations. This psychological distance from famine may explain why discussions surrounding nuclear conflict still focus overwhelmingly on explosions instead of agriculture.

Yet among climate scientists and food security researchers, the central nightmare has increasingly shifted away from the battlefield itself. The deeper fear concerns the months and years following the initial detonations, when collapsing harvests begin interacting with fragile political systems and overstretched global supply chains. In this scenario, the bombs become only the beginning of the disaster rather than its conclusion.

A Planet Running Out Of Sunlight

Recent studies examining large-scale nuclear conflict suggest that the atmospheric consequences could emerge faster than most populations would expect. Massive firestorms generated by burning urban centers, oil facilities, industrial complexes, and transportation infrastructure would inject soot into the upper atmosphere on a scale modern civilization has never experienced directly. Once suspended in the stratosphere, these particles could reduce the amount of sunlight reaching agricultural regions across the planet for extended periods of time.

Even relatively small temperature declines can devastate food production when they occur globally and simultaneously. Agriculture depends upon stability more than abundance. Crops evolve around predictable seasonal rhythms, specific rainfall patterns, and narrow temperature windows that determine germination, growth, and harvest cycles. Sudden climatic disruption affecting multiple breadbasket regions at once would trigger cascading failures impossible to offset through ordinary trade mechanisms.

Wheat production in North America, rice cultivation across Asia, corn yields in major exporting nations, and soybean harvests supporting livestock industries could all experience severe declines within the same agricultural cycle. Fisheries might collapse as ocean ecosystems react to cooling temperatures and contamination, while livestock production would suffer from both feed shortages and infrastructure breakdown. Nations that currently import large portions of their food supplies would face immediate humanitarian emergencies, but even countries traditionally considered agricultural powers would struggle to maintain internal stability under prolonged climate disruption.

One of the most disturbing conclusions emerging from famine modeling is that modern civilization possesses remarkably little resilience once synchronized global shortages begin appearing. International trade networks function efficiently during normal conditions precisely because they rely on predictability. Under extreme pressure, however, governments tend to abandon cooperative frameworks rapidly in favor of domestic preservation. Export bans would likely emerge within days of confirmed agricultural collapse. Strategic grain reserves would become politically weaponized. Transportation systems already strained by fuel shortages and economic panic could deteriorate rapidly, preventing aid distribution even when supplies remain technically available.

History offers numerous examples of societies destabilized by food insecurity, but the modern world has never experienced simultaneous scarcity affecting billions of people across multiple continents. During previous famines, unaffected regions could still provide assistance or maintain economic stability. A nuclear-induced agricultural collapse would remove that possibility almost entirely because every major nation would confront variations of the same crisis at once.

The social consequences become difficult to calculate precisely because they extend beyond starvation itself. Large urban populations dependent on uninterrupted food deliveries would likely experience panic within weeks of sustained shortages. Financial systems could freeze as governments impose emergency controls. Mass migration, civil unrest, organized violence, and authoritarian crackdowns would become increasingly probable as political institutions struggle to preserve order. Under such conditions, mortality would rise not only from hunger but from disease outbreaks, collapsing medical systems, infrastructure failures, exposure during extreme winters, and violent conflict over remaining resources.

Why The Twenty-First Century Could Be Less Prepared Than The Cold War

There is an uncomfortable irony hidden within modern discussions about civilization and progress. Technologically, humanity has never appeared more advanced. Artificial intelligence systems can process extraordinary quantities of information, satellites monitor climate activity in real time, and global communication networks connect billions of people instantly. Yet beneath this technological sophistication lies a level of systemic dependency that may actually increase vulnerability during extreme crises.

Cold War societies, despite living under constant nuclear anxiety, often possessed stronger local manufacturing capabilities, larger strategic reserves, and populations more psychologically familiar with rationing or national emergency planning. In contrast, contemporary economies operate through highly optimized global supply chains designed for efficiency rather than resilience. Many industries maintain minimal redundancy because uninterrupted trade and stable geopolitical conditions became normalized assumptions after decades of globalization.

This efficiency creates enormous fragility. A disruption affecting fuel, transportation, fertilizer production, semiconductor manufacturing, or energy infrastructure can rapidly spread through multiple sectors simultaneously. Agriculture itself has become deeply industrialized and dependent on advanced logistics systems. Modern farming requires machinery, synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, refrigeration networks, digital coordination systems, and stable access to fuel. Once several of these components begin failing together, food production declines far more dramatically than many people assume.

Another factor rarely discussed publicly involves population density. The global population now exceeds eight billion people, with massive concentrations living inside urban environments unable to sustain themselves independently for extended periods. Cities function because surrounding systems continuously move food inward and waste outward. Remove those systems long enough and urban civilization becomes extraordinarily difficult to maintain peacefully.

Researchers studying nuclear famine scenarios increasingly emphasize that the world entering such a crisis would already be politically and environmentally strained beforehand. Climate change has intensified droughts, floods, heatwaves, and agricultural unpredictability across several continents. Economic inequality has deepened social tensions within many nations, while migration pressures and regional conflicts continue destabilizing vulnerable areas. In this context, a large-scale nuclear exchange would not strike a healthy and stable international order. It would strike a world already showing signs of exhaustion.

Perhaps this is why certain historical government assessments produced mortality estimates that appear almost surreal to ordinary readers. The projections were not based solely on blast casualties. They reflected broader systemic collapse involving food insecurity, governance failure, economic fragmentation, environmental destabilization, and prolonged humanitarian breakdown. Once those variables interact globally, the number of potential deaths rises with terrifying speed.

The greatest misconception surrounding nuclear war may therefore be the belief that survival depends primarily on avoiding the initial explosions. In reality, the long-term environmental and societal consequences could determine humanity’s future far more decisively than the first hours of destruction. The bombs themselves would last minutes. The famine afterward could reshape civilization for generations.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 23:25

The Rise Of AI Writing And The Decline Of Human Voice

Artificial intelligence has become a powerful writing assistant, helping people draft emails, essays, marketing copy, and social media posts in seconds. But as these tools grow more popular, researchers are raising concerns about an unintended consequence: AI may be changing not just what we write, but how we communicate altogether, according to Axios.

New research suggests that widespread use of large language models is making language more uniform. A study conducted by University of Southern California found that after the release of ChatGPT, diversity in writing styles declined across several forms of communication, including scientific publications, local journalism, and social media posts. Researchers observed fewer differences in vocabulary choices and sentence patterns, pointing to a growing preference for polished, formulaic language.

Axios writes that the influence appears to extend beyond writing. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development analyzed more than 740,000 hours of spoken and written material and found that certain words commonly associated with ChatGPT responses are appearing more frequently in everyday communication. Words like “delve,” “meticulous,” “boast,” and “comprehend” have become increasingly common, suggesting AI-generated language may be shaping human speech habits as well.

Morteza Dehghani, who led the USC research, believes this shift is happening because people are becoming familiar with a specific type of polished communication. “People get used to this idealized, very predictable form of language, and even people who are not using it, in order to have that sense of powerful, influential writing, they start writing more like LLMs,” he told Axios.

Not everyone sees that as progress. Alex Mahadevan of the Poynter Institute for Media Studies argues that AI-generated content often feels empty despite being technically sound. He described it as noticeably “soulless” and “mediocre,” adding, “There’s no art in it.”

For Emily M. Bender, the concern is personal as well as cultural. The University of Washington linguist said she avoids AI-generated writing whenever possible, explaining, “I do my very best not to read any synthetic text.” However, she admitted that identifying it is becoming increasingly difficult: “oftentimes people will send me something and I won’t know.”

That challenge may only grow as AI adoption accelerates. According to a 2025 survey from the Brookings Institution, nearly one-third of small businesses now use AI tools for customer service and outreach, while 16% of individuals report using large language models for communication and social media content.

Bender warns that the pursuit of flawless AI-style writing could create what she calls the “‘LinkedIn average,’” where communication becomes polished but generic. Mahadevan echoed that frustration, saying he misses “good bad writing,” the kind of imperfect but memorable work that reflects real human personality. He admitted that AI’s growing presence has even made him second-guess his own style: “I have been second-guessing myself, thinking, ‘well, sh*t, is someone going to think this was written with AI?’”

At the heart of the debate is a larger question about what writing actually does for people. Bender argues that writing is more than producing clean sentences—it helps people process ideas and sharpen their thinking. “There is value in the struggle of writing, because we learn to express ourselves, and we learn to do the thinking that happens as we’re writing,” she said.

As AI tools become a permanent part of modern communication, experts say the challenge will be maintaining individuality in a world increasingly shaped by machine-generated language. “Each time we choose not to do that, we are losing out, both individually and societally,” Bender says.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 23:00

Gold, Debt And The Inevitable Global Housing Market Crash

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

Maybe the most prominent economic discussion circulating today is the fear that the vast majority of people have been priced out of housing markets for the rest of their lives, regardless of the country they live. Gen Z and even Gen Alpha teens are already planning for a future in which buying a home is impossible. Those that are buying are aiming for cost efficiency and they are buying alone (prioritizing savings and home ownership over marriage).

This is a subject for another article but it represents a reversal in traditional consumer behavior; a sea change that needs to be examined because it reflects greater underlying social and economic struggles.

This struggle is not only happening in the US; all across the western world from Australia to Canada to most of Europe people are facing the worst home price inflation in decades and they’re scrambling to find ways to adapt.

That said, just as in physics, there are rules of motion that still apply to markets regardless of government or central bank intervention. What goes up must inevitably come down. There’s been an interesting development in the past year, specifically on the sellers side of the housing equation, and it signals big changes in the near term.

Because of the pandemic, the relocation panic, Covid stimulus and corporate buyers, prices were juiced across the board and the average cost of a home skyrocketed by 50% or more from 2019 to 2024.

A large portion of this buying involved people trying to escape draconian blue state mandates, but there were a lot of speculators trying to play the market and make a quick buck in the expectation that prices would continue rising. Instead, demand has crashed and there are limited buyers to meet the supply.

Google searches for “can’t sell my house” hit an all time high last month surpassing the peak of the crash of 2008. Housing sales have dropped by 32% from 2020 to 2026 while supply has spiked. Realtors have been warning of a massive slowdown, with many sellers refusing to read the room and cut prices as they struggle to find interested buyers.

The reason for the impasse and the frozen market is largely because of debt. In 2008, the crash was caused by easy mortgage loans to people who did not have the income to cover costs attached to ARM mortgages that ratcheted up interest rates over time. Millions of homes were sold to people that didn’t have the income to buy and they defaulted all at once, crashing the system and the derivatives tied to it.

Today, millions of homeowners are locked into ultra-low mortgage rates from previous years. Selling would mean giving up a 3% loan and replacing it with one closer to 6.5%. So they don’t sell.

Beyond that, too many owners bought at the peak of the pandemic rush and the peak of pricing. Now they are stuck trying to sell $250,000 homes for $600,000, and $500,000 homes for over a million dollars. To sell at a steep discount would be essentially the same as accruing even more debt.

The problem is, NO ONE wants to buy a house for $600,000 when they know it’s only going to be worth $250,000 in a few years. In the end, the speculators are left holding the bag and there’s only two options left – Put their excess homes on the rental market, or, cut their prices dramatically and take the loss. I believe this is going to start happening in an accelerated fashion within the next year, even if there is a government or central bank intervention.

Inflationary stimulus is not going to save the housing market this time.

This means considerable losses in home equity and the overall net worth of the population, not to mention a heavy decrease in mortgage loans and credit liquidity. Less credit access means a consumer slowdown. In the case of corporate buyers and banks, a stimulus package might protect them, but not average citizens.

Where there is no liquidity, there is a crash. For now money seems to be moving at a healthy pace, but this is largely in the stock market which is not representative of a stable economy. Stocks are not a leading indicator of crisis; they are always late to the party. By extension, stocks are not going to signal a future crash in housing, nor are they going to pick up on the throttling of buyers taking place right now.

Can this eventual plunge be managed? Yes, to a point, but not at a global level, only at a national level. And, even then it’s not going to change the ultimate outcome, which is concrete losses in liquidity and a spike in debt.

For people waiting to purchase a home this could be good news. Price cuts of 30% to 50% are possible and well overdue. That said, buyers will likely wait out the storm until they think prices have hit bottom. In the meantime there is a danger of post-crash systemic risk to stocks and credit markets. Investors will be looking for a safe haven alternative.

This brings us to a trend that’s been developing over the past couple years that we have not seem since the crash of 2008-2012. That crash coincided with a historic gold and silver surge and the same pattern is surfacing again. During narrow periods of heightened uncertainty, property might no longer represent a secure place for people to park their cash. When markets are in a panic and other hard assets are in decline, precious metals become the go-to investment.

Despite the wild fluctuations in the past couple months, gold is still up 270% since 2019 and is likely to continue climbing even as housing markets fall. The reason is simple: Consumer debt has continued to grow despite central bank interventions and increased interest rates. These measures were supposedly meant to reduce consumer borrowing, but that didn’t happen.

And, as debt grows, precious metal values invariably climb (inflation through stimulus does not need to be present, but it usually is).

US housing debt has shot up 38% since 2019. US consumer credit card debt has climbed 35% since 2019. The US national debt has climbed 71% since 2019. Property used to offer a safe haven for debt- exposed markets, but this is ending. There are very few secure places left in this environment. IF stock markets take hit (as they probably will), precious metals is one of last bastions of security.

There is definitely a correlation trend taking place which seems to echo the 2008-2012 crisis. Every time US housing prices dip or slow sharply, gold and silver prices typically rise.

As noted, it’s not just the US facing a housing market crash. Reports suggest conditions are even worse in Canada, Australia, the UK and most of Europe. In Canada, for example, leftists from the US have gone in search of alternative residency in order to “flee the Trump regime” only to come crawling back in desperation after dealing with unprecedented housing costs.

In the UK, housing for median income earners barely exists, even if they want to rent. In Australia, the median home price is around $700,000 (in the US, the median home price is $415,000). There’s really no escaping this trend unless you want to live in a third world country. And, ironically, those people are not too happy to see westerners moving into their backyards right now.

On top of the inflationary conditions for home buyers, there’s the mass invasion of illegal migrants into the west over the past decade and this has eaten up the rental markets and driven up prices further. Deportations could help alleviate some of the pressure, but this will also act as a catalyst to speed up housing depreciation. For home owners, a substantial loss of equity should be expected.

In the end the pain is necessary; something has to give. There needs to be a debt reconciliation and the economy needs to take its medicine (a deflationary event). Currently, buying has stabilized after years of decline, but we still have a long way to go before demand and supply are balanced.

It’s doubtful that central banks, built entirely on Keynesian interventionism, will allow this to occur without interference. They will eventually step in with more stimulus, which, again, means ever increasing gold and silver values. For now, the smart move for people looking to buy property (or protect their savings) is to rent until this process plays out, and perhaps invest in precious metals in the meantime as a hedge.

Homeowners should also think about investing a portion of savings into precious metals to offset losses caused by plunging property values. The status quo is ripe for an earthquake.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 22:35

DOE's NNSA Removes Enriched Uranium From Venezuela And Japan

The Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has coordinated with Japan and Venezuela to remove enriched uranium from both countries. 

The U.S. has secured its largest-ever HALEU fuel shipment, working in partnership with Japan. This significant transfer advances President Trump’s strategy to restore America's energy dominance and power next-generation nuclear reactors. https://t.co/h5Oc6f5kRq pic.twitter.com/EG7kA9Eopg

— NNSA (@NNSANews) May 7, 2026

The NNSA coordinated with Japanese government and nuclear agencies to transfer 1.7 metric tons of high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) from Japan to the US. The material comes from excess supplies at the recently shut-down test reactor in Japan. 

Japan has not completely ceased research into new reactor technology, and instead will focus on the Joyo research reactor. There is a long-standing coordination between the US and Japan to offload excess quantities of enriched uranium due to proliferation concerns.

Typical commercial reactors run on low-enriched uranium (LEU) which is typically enriched to 3-5%. The percentage of enrichment indicates how much of the fuel is actually usable for fission; the amount of U-235 isotopes present in the uranium mix. 

Some of the advanced reactors and currently operating research reactors across the world use HALEU, enriched up to 20%. Enrichment levels beyond that are considered weapons grade and only used for military reactors and nuclear weapons development. 

The HALEU that was imported from Japan will be repurposed and utilized in advanced reactors being developed under the DOE's Reactor Pilot Program and other research efforts.

For context, the amount of enriched uranium brought over from Japan is likely enough to fuel only one microreactor for one full operating cycle. Centrus Energy also currently produces 900kg/year of HALEU at their Piketon facility, with a massive expansion effort currently underway. 

Immediately following the Japan announcement, the NNSA declared all the highly enriched uranium (HEU) was successfully removed from Venezuela. The material was left over from a research reactor program in Venezuela that shut down in 1991. 

The HEU has been transported to the Savannah River Site for processing and reuse, potentially to also be included in future DOE programs 
 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 22:10

Global Jet Fuel Exports Hit 10-Year Seasonal Low in April

Submitted by Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Global seaborne jet fuel exports crashed to a seasonal low in April as supplies remained trapped in the Middle East and Asian refiners slashed run rates amid lower crude availability, energy flows analytics firm Vortexa said in a report on Friday.

Global seaborne exports of jet/kerosene fuels slumped to as low as 1.1 million barrels per day (bpd) in April, down by 630,000 bpd from the same month last year. That's also at the lowest end of the ten-year range between 2016 and 2025, Vortexa's freight tracking data showed.

The crash in exports of jet fuel – which is the most stressed barrel during the ongoing supply shock – was not unexpected. Supplies of the fuel from the Middle East cannot move past the Strait of Hormuz, while Asian refiners slashed exports amid reduced run rates and preference and/or orders to keep more supply for their respective domestic markets.

Jet fuel supplies from Northeast Asia and India West Coast crashed and tightened the global jet fuel market so much that officials and airline executives started talking about fuel shortages in a few weeks’ time.

Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), warned in mid-April that Europe has “maybe six weeks or so” of remaining jet fuel supply.

Following the slump in global flows in April, exports are set to rebound from May and June as some Asian countries and refiners will be exporting more barrels amid high margins, Ivan Mathews, Head of APAC Analysis at Vortexa, wrote.

A rebound in Northeast Asia’s jet fuel exports would be led by South Korea, which could raise refinery utilization as crude arrivals to the country are expected to recover to about 80% of pre-war levels in May, according to Mathews.

Moreover, the expected rise in jet fuel supplies from Asia in May could lead to arbitrage flows to the U.S. West Coast and Northwest Europe, the analyst said.

While higher Asian supplies would drive a modest recovery in global jet fuel exports in the coming months, incremental exports from Asia are unlikely to fully offset in the near term lost supply from the Middle East, Mathews noted.

“Until seaborne flows normalise, jet/kero cracks are expected to remain elevated relative to other refined products, incentivising refiners to maximise jet fuel yields at the margin.”

 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 21:45

Is Marco Rubio The New Heir Apparent To Trump?

For months, the conventional wisdom inside Republican circles has been settled and simple: JD Vance is next. The vice president has led 2028 Republican presidential nomination polling by a country mile, averaging nearly 45.5 points in the RealClearPolitics aggregate — more than 30 points ahead of Donald Trump Jr. at 14.8% and Marco Rubio at 14%.

And yet, something shifted this week. One press briefing, and the betting markets started hedging.

Rubio stepped in as White House press secretary on Tuesday, covering for Karoline Leavitt while she’s on maternity leave, and delivered what even the skeptics had to acknowledge was a polished, commanding performance. He defended the war in Iran before a press corps not exactly known for its generosity toward administration officials — and walked away with his standing improved. The room, by most accounts, was notably less adversarial than it tends to be when Leavitt or Trump takes the podium. Rubio was fluid and measured, giving the journalists little to sharpen their teeth on. 

Washington noticed, and Kalshi, one of the leading prediction markets, noticed too. 

By Tuesday, Rubio had leapfrogged Vance to become the overall favorite to win the 2028 presidential election, coming in at 18% to Vance's 17%. Gov. Gavin Newsom sits just behind at 16% - a reminder that the Democrats haven't entirely vacated the field in the markets' eyes.

For Rubio, the jump is particularly striking given that he was sitting in the single digits on Kalshi earlier this year. 

Polymarket still has Vance in front overall - 19.6% to Newsom's 16.7% and Rubio's 15%. 

On the GOP nomination question specifically, Vance retains a meaningful edge on Polymarket (though Rubio's odds are rising). Primary voters and general-election bettors, it turns out, are pricing these things very differently.

None of this, of course, happens in a vacuum. Trump himself has been notably careful — or deliberately noncommittal — about who carries the MAGA torch after January 2029.

Weeks into his second term, Trump sat down with Fox News's Bret Baier and declined to designate Vance as his heir apparent, saying simply that it was too early for such an endorsement. For a president who has never been shy about anointing winners and losers, that hesitation was conspicuous to say the least. He left the door ajar, and markets being markets, traders are now watching to see who walks through it.

Trump says he does not view JD Vance as his successor and declines to endorse him in 2028, saying it’s too early and that there are “lot of very capable people.”pic.twitter.com/xRtnX1DgZ2

— bryan metzger (@metzgov) February 10, 2025

Vance remains the favorite by most conventional metrics. His polling advantage is enormous, and he’s been the heir apparent since joining the Trump ticket in 2024. 

But Rubio's trajectory is definitely worth watching to see if his stock goes higher or merely plateaus. His rise from the low single digits to within striking distance of Vance on Kalshi over just a few months could be a one-off or the opening act of a longer repositioning.

For now, Vance’s commanding polling lead offers the most grounded picture of where Republican voters actually stand.

But, prediction markets have a knack for capturing things polls don’t. And it will likely take some time to determine if Rubio’s rise will stick.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 21:20

Is There More Risk Than Reward In The US–China Summit?

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Do the advantages of the U.S.–China summit still outweigh the disadvantages?

Perhaps, but the negative risks are high.

President Donald Trump (left) and Chinese leader Xi Jinping shake hands before their meeting at Gimhae International Airport in Busan, South Korea, on Oct. 30, 2025. Mark Schiefelbein/AP Photo

The scheduled May 14–15 summit in Beijing between President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping was intended to be a landmark “reset” between the two nations. But as the high-stakes game of chicken unfolds between Washington and Beijing, there may be more reasons not to meet than to carry on with the summit.

Why would that be?

In both principle and practice, the U.S.–China relationship has moved beyond mere trade friction into the realm of indirect military confrontation. In both countries, there are challenges on the internal political, economic, and social fronts, as well as global reputations at stake.

Any one of a number of potentially explosive geopolitical triggers could justify a second delay to the meeting.

The Hormuz Flashpoint: Chinese Weapons Threatening the US Navy?

Of course, the escalating naval war in the Middle East is one of the main reasons for the summit—and for why it may not happen.

Reports indicate that China’s transfer of “carrier-killer” anti-ship missiles to Iran could enable Iranian forces to strike a U.S. Navy vessel. If such an attack were to occur, the political optics for Trump would be disastrous. Not only would American lives and ships be at risk, but Trump’s humiliation in Beijing would be seen by the entire world.

Furthermore, at least one Chinese tanker has passed through the U.S.-led blockade of the Strait of Hormuz in April, to the distaste of the Trump administration.

For Trump, who prides himself on “strength,” does it make sense to shake hands with a leader whose technology just “painted a target” on American sailors and violated a U.S. blockade?

At the same time, the U.S. blockade, combined with the Iranian-led security controls, has made the strait a high-risk zone, even for Chinese-flagged or linked vessels. In fact, on May 4, a Chinese-owned tanker was hit by Iran, and according to some reports, several people were wounded, and the vessel was damaged.

Beijing Doubling Down on Iran

The war in Iran is both harming the Chinese regime and deepening its presence in the region. That won’t be bargained away. With fundamental disagreements on the future of Iran, there’s little, if any, prospect for long-term upside, with high risk and low probability of even short-term success.

For instance, from Beijing’s perspective, will China agree to stop buying Iranian oil or stop supplying Tehran with war materiel?

Why would Xi allow himself to be humiliated by hosting the man who kicked China out of Panama and Venezuela, and now potentially Iran?

Trade, of course, is the answer. But Trump has shown that redirecting China’s trade and manufacturing to the United States is a top priority. Therefore, any agreements are unlikely to change those objectives in the long term.

U.S. forces patrol the Arabian Sea near M/V Touska on April 20, 2026. U.S. Navy via Getty Images Israel and the Overland ‘Silk Road’ Conflict

As the U.S.–Israel coalition continues to attack Iran and the surrounding areas, the Israeli attacks have spilled over into China’s critical supply lines. The Israel Defense Forces has reportedly begun striking China’s overland supply line, its railroad in Iran, viewing it as a lifeline for the Iranian regime.

This action by the Israelis moves the conflict from a proxy war with Iran to a direct assault on Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative assets and relationships.

Regardless of its diplomatic rhetoric, Beijing will have to respond.

Any response could potentially move China into a deeper role in the war, transitioning from a neutral mediator to an active adversary of the U.S.–Israel axis. That fact alone will make the summit more awkward and confrontational, as Beijing is forced to defend its infrastructure against American-aligned forces.

Xi Faces a Perfect Storm of Multiple Risks

Xi is facing a perfect storm of dissent on multiple fronts.

Financial disruptions and acute shortages in the wake of the Hormuz Strait blockade have triggered multiple, visible public protests against the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP). These events are censored, but they are happening with more frequency.

Economically, the structural slowdown in China’s economy has shifted from a “soft landing” to a hard reality, with 30 percent of China’s industrial companies operating at a loss, even as the debt-to-GDP ratio continues to rise to 300 percent.

Politically, with the 21st Party Congress approaching in 2027, Xi is in a precarious position, having to consolidate power with a depleted and purged People’s Liberation Army, while his “China Dream” is being undermined by the war in Iran. Every day the war continues, communist China’s geopolitical reputation and its economy grow weaker.

Geopolitically, there is the risk of Iran falling while Trump visits Beijing, or a massive U.S. attack on Iran during the meeting. Either would be a humiliation that Xi may find difficult to politically live down, especially given that confidence in Xi within the CCP has been waning for years.

Why would Xi take the risk of looking weak while the whole world is watching him hosting and toasting Trump? Xi must be planning to avoid this, but how?

A woman looks at a banner about the "China Dream," Chinese leader Xi Jinping's vision for China's future, in Beijing on July 7, 2015. Greg Baker/AFP/Getty Images Trump’s ‘Art of the Deal’ Versus the ‘Weakness’ Trap

Perhaps the most significant psychological factor is Trump’s own brand. Many global critics and domestic opponents argue that the current global instability was “started” by his administration’s aggressive stance on Iran and trade.

But the instability in the Middle East was arguably expanded and deepened by the Biden administration, enabling the Iranian regime to fund multiple military proxies in the region and greatly enhance its military capabilities, significantly aided by China.

If Trump goes to Beijing now, he risks looking like a supplicant—a leader in need of Xi to “save” him from a widening war—giving him the appearance of needing Xi’s help to clean up the mess he made.

Could Trump use another delay as a negotiating tactic to signal that he is not desperate for a deal, especially if the negative optics of the deal outweigh the benefits?

Might Xi feel similarly?

Both are real possibilities.

Does Either Side Actually Want the Summit?

The reality is that both leaders are caught in a paradox.

For Xi, a summit offers a chance to stabilize trade, but he cannot appear to be yielding to “American hegemony” while he prepares for a fourth term. If he cannot guarantee a “win,” he would do better to cancel the summit and not give CCP critics fuel to further undermine his leadership.

For Trump, he wants the “Grand Deal” that would cement his legacy. But the “Art of the Deal” requires leverage. Right now, with the Iranian regime still in power, Trump’s leverage may be less than he thinks it is.

It’s likely that any real upsides may be short-lived and perhaps temporarily improve public relations with the rest of the world, but is that worth the downside risk for Trump or Xi?

We will soon see.

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

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 20:55

What The Indiana Primaries Tell Us About Trump's Grip On The GOP

Tuesday night’s primaries in Indiana were not subtle. Five of seven Republican state senators who had blocked a congressional redistricting map favored by President Donald Trump lost their primary races to Trump-backed challengers. The message, delivered cleanly through the ballot box, couldn’t have been clearer.

Twenty-one Republicans in the Indiana Senate voted against a new congressional map that would likely have added two GOP-leaning U.S. House districts. Eight of those dissenters were up for reelection this cycle, and seven drew primary challengers who carried Trump's explicit endorsement. By Tuesday night, the Associated Press had projected wins for at least five of those challengers. Only state Sen. Greg Goode managed to hold his seat among the targeted incumbents. The rest are heading for the exits.

Trump's play here was neither complicated nor ambiguous. He targeted members of his own party, not for ideological apostasy or opposition to his signature policies, but for refusing to help the GOP fight back against decades of Democrat gerrymanders. It was a demonstration of leverage and political capital, and it worked.

The incumbents who lost weren't rogue progressives or even moderate Republicans, either. They were conventional Republicans who had largely supported Trump on major national issues, and didn’t expect to become Trump targets. That calculation turned out to be wrong, and the lesson other incumbents will draw is obvious: the scope of what constitutes a disqualifying defection is wider than many assumed.

And there are likely to be other victims of Trump’s wrath.

In Kentucky's 4th Congressional District, Trump has endorsed Ed Gallrein against Rep. Thomas Massie, a Republican who has broken with the president on the Iran war, tariffs, and quit a few other things. In Louisiana, Trump is backing Rep. Julia Letlow against incumbent Sen. Bill Cassidy, a physician who has pushed back against the administration's "Make America Healthy Again" agenda. Both of those incumbents were watching Indiana returns Tuesday night and learning something about their own futures.

CNN’s Scott Jennings made it clear that the elections signaled who controls the Republican Party… It’s Trump all the way.

"He's the boss of the party. He calls the shots in the Republican Party, and if you go against that, he will pour his wrath out upon you, and it doesn't typically turn out well." Jennings said.”If you look at what happened in Indiana tonight, and you're Thomas Massie tonight, or you're anybody else in a primary right now where Trump's on the other side of you, you've got to be thinking, this is a bad night for me."

Trump cleaned up in Indiana State Senate primary tonight. @VanJones68 and I analyze & debate presidents getting involved in state level redistricting matters on @cnn pic.twitter.com/LutBmNpX4h

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) May 6, 2026

The underlying data on Trump's standing inside the party makes all of this easier to understand, if no less striking. Back in March, an NBC News poll found that Trump had a 100% approval rating among MAGA Republicans - a number that CNN analyst Harry Enten flagged as essentially without precedent. "You don't have to be a mathematical genius to know you can't go higher than one hundred percent," Enten said. He was careful to note the distinction: "Now, there are some Republicans who disapprove of Donald John Trump, but they are not members of the Make America Great Again movement. The bottom line is this: if you are a member of MAGA, you approve of Donald Trump."

That's the context in which Tuesday's results make complete sense. Trump's grip on the GOP isn't merely rhetorical or cultural — it is electoral and operational. Indiana showed that the president is willing to spend political capital on state-level races to advance his agenda, even if tangentially. For Republican incumbents nationwide who have crossed him or are contemplating doing so, that combination — willingness and effectiveness — should worry them.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 20:30

UCLA Med School Illegally Using Race In Admissions: DOJ

A DOJ investigation into the University of California–Los Angeles (UCLA) found its medial school allegedly used applicants' race to discriminate against white and asian candidates. 

Royce Hall on University of California, Los Angeles, campus is seen in Los Angeles on Aug. 15, 2024. AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File

In a seven-page letter released on Wednesday, the agency’s Civil Rights Division wrote that UCLA "continues to intentionally discriminate against applicants based on their race after the Supreme Court’s decision in Harvard by granting and denying admission on the basis of race," citing a 2023 decision - Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard - which barred race-conscious admissions at colleges and universities, but still allowed schools to consider how race affected students if they wrote about their experiences in essays. 

The finding is the latest salvo in the clash between the Trump administration and woke institutions since last year, after federal investigators went after DEI initiatives in higher education.

"Racism in admissions is both illegal and anti-American, and this Department will not allow it to continue," said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Civil Rights Division.

The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA responded - saying its process was "based on merit and grounded in a rigorous, comprehensive review of each applicant." 

"We are confident in our practices and our mission to maintain access to a high-quality education to all qualified students," a spokesperson told the Epoch Times, which notes further: 

The medical school was reviewing the DOJ’s report and was “committed to providing equal opportunity to all applicants and fully complying with federal and state laws,” the spokesperson said.

The DOJ issued a letter to the university’s medical school on May 6 notifying officials of the school’s failure to comply with federal civil rights law for the 2023, 2024, and 2025 classes.

Federal law authorizes the DOJ to conduct periodic compliance reviews and investigations of practices and policies of institutions, such as UCLA, that receive federal funding.

A student walks near Royce Hall on the campus of UCLA in Los Angeles on April 23, 2012. Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images

The DOJ found the medical school’s internal policies, literature, and email correspondence to leadership consistently demonstrated its intent to use race as a factor in admissions despite a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2023 in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard that found race-based admissions programs were unconstitutional.

The medical school allegedly used different academic metrics to discriminate against all racial groups except black and Hispanic applicants to accept more black and Hispanic applicants into its program, according to the DOJ.

If the DOJ determines that the institution can’t voluntarily change its practices to comply with federal law, the DOJ may seek enforcement through the courts, according to the letter.

The school is also facing a class-action lawsuit filed in May 2025 by Do No Harm, a nonprofit organization opposed to “radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideologies” in health care and medical education.

In the lawsuit, the group also claims UCLA’s medical school has ignored federal law by discriminating against applicants based on race.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 19:40

Clinton-Appointed Federal Judge Rules DOGE's Terminations Of Humanities Grants Unlawful

Authored by Guy Birchall via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge ruled on May 7 that the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE’s) termination of hundreds of humanities grants last year was unconstitutional and involved “blatant” discrimination.

In April 2025, the Trump administration axed more than 1,400 grants, amounting to more than $100 million in congressionally appropriated funds awarded to scholars, writers, research institutions, and other humanities organizations.

The move was part of a whirlwind cost-cutting drive that tech billionaire Elon Musk was leading at DOGE as a “special government employee”—a role that is term-limited to 130 days. Musk departed that role after completing his term in May 2025.

However, Bill Clinton-appointed District Judge Colleen McMahon, ruling at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, said that the administration “engaged in blatant viewpoint discrimination,” ruling in consolidated cases brought by the American Council of Learned Societies, the Authors Guild, and others.

McMahon said the terminations violated the First Amendment right to free speech and the Fifth Amendment, which confers equal protection.

She also ruled that DOGE did not have the legal authority to terminate the grants.

“What mattered to DOGE was not whether a grant lacked scholarly merit, failed to comply with its terms, or fell outside NEH’s [National Endowment for the Humanities] statutory purposes. What mattered was that the grant concerned a ’minority group,'” she ruled.

“DOGE swept in race and ethnicity – including grants concerning Black, Asian, Latino, and Indigenous communities – as well as national origin and immigration status; religion and religious identity (including Jewish, Christian, and Muslim subjects); sex; and sexual orientation, as criteria for grant termination.”

McMahon also said that DOGE staffers using ChatGPT to establish the rationale behind axing some grants would not absolve the government of responsibility for its decisions.

“The government cannot escape liability for DOGE’s work by scapegoating ChatGPT,” she ruled.

Neither DOGE nor the White House has yet responded to the ruling. The Epoch Times has contacted both for comment.

According to DOGE’s website, the department has saved an estimated $215 billion in taxpayers’ money since it was established in January 2025.

That figure amounts to around $1,335.40 per taxpayer, according to DOGE.

The department’s work has been met with other litigation since it began, with the Trump administration in March asking the Supreme Court for a second time to halt lower courts’ attempts to access information about DOGE’s inner workings.

The Supreme Court intervened in the case last year, ruling that lower courts’ orders for the government to turn over information about the department’s activities were overbroad. An appeals court has since asked for less information, but the government told the Supreme Court on March 23 that the requests were still intruding too much on executive branch powers.

“The court of appeals has continued to approve intrusive discovery against a presidential advisory body without adequate consideration for the separation of powers, the FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] statute, and this Court’s previous order,” the government’s filing stated.

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sued DOGE last year after its FOIA requests were not honored.

The government has argued that DOGE is an advisory arm of the executive branch—not an agency—and is not required to submit to FOIA inquiries. But a district court in Washington ruled differently and ordered DOGE to comply with those inquiries.

The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the administration’s latest request.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 19:15

Thailand Emerges As Possible Hub In Nvidia Chip-Smuggling Channel To Alibaba

New details have emerged in the alleged AI chip diversion scheme involving the co-founder of Super Micro Computer.

Bloomberg reports that some of the $2.5 billion worth of servers containing advanced AI chips were allegedly routed through a Bangkok-based company before reaching Chinese AI leader Alibaba.

The Bloomberg report noted:

US prosecutors this year outlined a scheme in which Super Micro's co-founder allegedly worked with an unnamed Southeast Asian company and a "rotating cast" of third-party brokers to divert the AI semiconductors in violation of US trade rules.

The Southeast Asian firm the prosecutors didn't name, identified only as Company-1, is Bangkok-based OBON Corp., the people said.

Some of the $2.5 billion worth of servers sold to OBON allegedly went to Chinese AI leader Alibaba, according to the people, who requested anonymity to discuss a sensitive legal and geopolitical matter.

It is important to note that OBON is linked to Thailand's AI infrastructure buildout and the creation of Siam AI, Thailand's sovereign cloud champion.

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang even appeared at a Siam AI event in December 2024, focused on sovereign AI. Siam AI's CEO, Ratanaphon Wongnapachant, said Siam AI was not involved and that he had left OBON when he launched Siam AI.

Washington has restricted exports of advanced Nvidia AI chips to China over national security concerns, leaving Chinese firms to either rent overseas computing resources or obtain chips through smuggling channels.

In mid-March, U.S. federal prosecutors charged three men: senior executive Yih-Shyan "Wally" Liaw, the co-founder; Ruei-Tsang "Steven" Chang; and Ting-Wei "Willy" Sun, with conspiring to divert $2.5 billion worth of Nvidia chips to China.

"OBON's purported involvement in the smuggling arrangement could deal a blow to Thailand's fledgling AI ambitions and reignite calls in Washington for restrictions on chip sales to the region," Bloomberg noted.

Shares of Super Micro have since recovered from the mid-March plunge that followed the co-founder's arrest by U.S. authorities.

Today's report outlines how Thailand's sovereign AI push may have served as a channel to smuggle advanced Nvidia chips to China.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 18:50

Traders Puzzled As Physical Oil Prices Tumble Amid Surging Chinese Crude Sales, Plunging Imports

Yesterday when discussing China's unexpected flip-flopping on its decision to order local banks to ignore the latest US sanctions on Chinese, followed days later by a demand that they pause loans to sanctions refiners, we highlighted something remarkable: in the aftermath of the Strait of Hormuz blockade, which throttled the transit of ~10% of global oil and sent physical prices soaring to record highs (especially for Dubai crude), resulting in a windfall for European refiners thanks to soaring gasoline premiums... 

... the reaction in China was a mirror image, as already razor-thin independent refiner (teapot) margins plunged to record negative.

The reason for the margin collapse was China’s domestic fuel policy: it has long been Beijing's policy to soften price hikes to help shield consumers and avoid social unrest; which while beneficial to end consumers is catastrophic to refiners and processors who are prohibited from passing on rising costs. In other words, Chna’s "energy security" was the dominant theme, and if it meant an entire industry has to suffer huge losses if it continues to purchase oil and process it into various product grades.

Ordered to process as much available inventory as possible, that's what the refiners have done, and refining rates in Shandong province, China's hub for smaller refineries known as teapots, ramped up over April to the highest level in almost two years, as processing margins cratered to record negative levels meaning refiners are losing record amounts on every barrel they process. 

“I would not be surprised if the teapots are prioritizing politics over economics with an eye to their long-term survival,” said Erica Downs, a senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “They may be calculating that if they do their part to help China weather the energy crisis, then maybe they will build up some goodwill in Beijing.”

While Downs is right, and teapots are prioritizing politics, they are also certainly keeping an eye on economics to the extent they can avoid Beijing's wrath, and predictably the logical consequence of this centrally-planned policy to force "independent" refiners (who are not really independent if they have to do whatever Beijing instructs them) to make fuel at record losses to ensure energy security, is for them to slash purchases of Iranian crude.

Sure enough, Chinese crude oil imports have plunged: according to Vortexa, China's April imports plunged to a multi-year low of just 8.2 million barrels a day, down by about a quarter from a prewar level of around 11.7 million. The 3.5-million barrels a day swing almost matches the total consumption of Japan and is double the amount supplied by the United Arab Emirates pipeline that circumvents Hormuz. 

As Bloomberg's Javier Blas writes overnight, "simply put, it’s huge, perhaps the second- or third-largest factor rebalancing the oil market today, behind only Saudi Arabia’s own pipeline bypassing the strait and the use of the strategic petroleum reserves of the US and Japan."

The import drop might make sense if Chinese commercial inventories were falling sharply, or if Beijing had tapped its strategic petroleum reserves. But neither appears to be happening. Instead, commercial stockpiles have continued to increase in recent weeks, according to satellite data (of course, China is well known to manipulate all data and with the bulk of its 1.4 billion in strategic oil reserves located underground, it is impossible to trace flows definitively)

Meanwhile, as imports have collapsed, inventories at sea have piled up: Kpler reports that there are now about 16 million barrels on ships anchored in the Yellow Sea off the Chinese coast, almost 40% higher than the level prior to a US blockade of Iran’s ports in mid-April as oil that was ordered previously remains unused. 

There has been another complication: after the Iran war broke out, Beijing banned exports of refined products, effectively allowing refineries to process less crude to meet domestic demand. But the policy has now been reversed, suggesting the country sees enough fuel availability.

In any case, in recent weeks, Blas writes that amid this collapse in Chinese imports, industry executives have noticed something odd: Chinese state-owned oil companies have been reselling some of their oil cargoes to European and Asian rivals. The behavior suggests surpluses, which is "odd" to say the least during a supply shortage. Where is this excess oil coming from (for the answer, see below).

The shift has not only capped benchmark oil prices, but also helped to trigger a collapse in the premia that traders pay above them to secure physical crude. The immediate outcome has been a very beneficial one: physical barrels that in early April went for $30 above benchmark prices are now changing hands at premiums as low as $1. Talk of discounts has even started to emerge.

Underscoring this point, North Sea oil traders don’t appear as desperate for crude for immediate delivery anymore, compared to the panic buying of late March and early April

While the collapse in refining margins is a clear clue to the plunging oil imports, other questions remain: chief among them how is China importing far less crude than before without running down stocks? In the past, the country clearly bought more oil than it needed, building a huge emergency stockpile. Today, China has nearly 1.4 billion barrels in its reserves according to media reports, well above the 400 million of the US and Japan’s 260 million. As we reported in late 2025, China probably bought one million barrels a day more than it needed last year. By simply stopping beefing up the reserve, China can cut imports a lot without affecting its underlying oil needs.

The shift can explain, perhaps, a third of the import cut. But the rest? Here’s where oil traders speculate with different theories. One argument says that Chinese economic activity is weaker than previously thought, and thus oil consumption growth is also lower. What’s the catalyst for that slowdown? Perhaps the impact of the war on several of China’s clients in the region, including the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand (just don't look for validation in Chinese economic "data" - like everything else, it took is centrally planned and Beijing would never confirm its economy is being hit due to the Iran war as that would mean reduced political leverage).

Separately, the increase of electric vehicles, improved public transportation and the option of working from home have made Chinese households better able to cope with higher oil prices.

Unlike most other nations in the region, China hasn’t announced any emergency action to rein in demand, like adopting a four-day work week for government employees or promoting carpooling.

The IEA estimates that Chinese oil demand slipped into a modest year-on-year contraction in both March and April, down by about 110,000 barrels a day to about 17 million barrels. While the drop is impressive when compared with the exuberant growth of the country’s consumption in the past, it isn’t nearly enough to explain why imports have fallen so much.

It is certainly possible that Chinese oil demand has been contracting far more sharply than currently thought, The key, Blas reckons, is the inscrutable petrochemical industry - the sector that has contributed the majority of oil consumption growth over the last five years. In petrochemicals, China is unique. On top of its traditional industry that uses oil and natural gas as feedstock, it has parallel production that relies on coal.

Since the war started in late February, coal-to-chemicals profit margins have improved markedly. The industry had typically operated with plentiful spare capacity, so there’s room for a significant shift to coal from oil as a chemical feedstock. Hard data is scarce but, anecdotally, petrochemicals plants transforming coal into plastics like polyethylene, polypropylene and polyvinyl chloride have been running hard for the last 60 days, in turn reducing consumption of traditional feedstocks such as ethane and naphtha.

So perhaps China has managed to rely far more on coal-to-chemicals than previously thought. Another possible explanation is that it’s running down hard-to-track inventories of semi-finished plastics and other chemicals, making the recent drop in oil consumption in the petrochemical industry an unsustainable one-off unless there is a global recession which collapses end-demand for Chinese plastics exports. 

And then there are the more banal explanations. Although oil traders try to estimate Chinese inventory data with the use of satellite data, it is in fact possible that observers are missing locations and stocks are, in fact, falling. About two months ago, we hinted that Chinese drain of its SPR could more than offset a full Hormuz blockade for a long time. As we said on March 18, "China can avoid any Gulf imports for months and drain its SPR instead." 

One relevant question: what is China's pace of SPR drain if any. Recall for the past year Beijing was adding about 500-700K in daily SPR stockpiles; total is said to be ~1.4 billion barrels. China can avoid any Gulf imports for months and drain its SPR instead.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 18, 2026

Sure enough, Blas writes that the oil market has been full of chatter about China quietly tapping its strategic reserves, starting by using underground caverns that no one can see using satellites. Maybe. Time lags may also be playing a role; Chinese domestic oil production has been increasing, too, perhaps helping to plug any gaps.

But, as Blas concludes, "make no mistake, China is rebalancing the oil market today." The bigger question is for tomorrow when the Strait is (eventually) unblocked: If China can reduce imports so drastically without having to take extreme measures, what does that say about the future of oil consumption there? Nothing positive for oil bulls, that's for sure. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 18:00

US To Revoke Passports Of People Who Owe 'Significant' Child Support

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Department of State announced on May 7 that it would revoke the U.S. passports of parents who are significantly behind on child support payments.

The department said it would work with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to revoke passports of individuals who owe “significant child support debt,” providing a link to the new guidance.

“Anyone owing child support debt should arrange payment now with the relevant state child support enforcement agency to prevent passport revocation,” the State Department said in a post on X.

“If outside the U.S. when their passport is revoked, individuals with significant debt will be eligible ONLY for a limited validity passport for direct return to the United States.”

In a statement, the department said the enforcement is designed to put “American families first through our passport process.”

Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, the government can deny or revoke passports for parents owing more than $2,500 in child support. As the State Department rejects or revokes a passport, it also must send the person a notice and provide the parent with a means to contact a relevant state child support agency, according to the law.

The State Department warned on its website that, under federal regulations, people who owe more than $2,500 in child support payments would be affected by the enforcement effort. Parents who owe more than that amount cannot be issued a new U.S. passport, it added.

Notices of passport revocations to passport holders will soon be sent out via email or to the mailing address associated with their most recent passport application, it said. The State Department did not provide a timetable and did not make mention of the PRWORA in its statements on Thursday.

Those who owe child support should contact the state to pay their debt, and can “be eligible for a new U.S. passport,” the department added. The state will then have to notify HHS to confirm that the individual has paid the debt and remove the person’s name from its records before sending that information to the State Department, a process that can take two to three weeks at minimum.

But the department cautioned that a passport that has already been revoked cannot be used to travel, even if the child support debt was paid off.

A passport holder who is abroad at the time of revocation will need to visit a U.S. embassy or consulate to obtain an emergency travel document that allows them to return to the United States, according to the State Department. They will also have to contact the state where the child support is owed to pay off the debt, it added.

“You are only eligible for a limited-validity passport for direct return to the United States until HHS verifies repayment of the debt,” the website said.

The agency did not say what would happen if the debt isn’t paid or if HHS cannot verify the repayment.

Until this week, only those who applied to renew their passports were subject to the penalty. Under the new policy, HHS will inform the State Department of all past-due payments of more than $2,500, and parents in that group with passports will have their documents revoked, the department said.

The State Department advised parents with child support debt to contact their state with any questions.

“We are expanding a commonsense practice that has been proven effective at getting those who owe child support to pay their debt,” Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Mora Namdar told media outlets on Thursday. “Once these parents resolve their debts, they can once again enjoy the privilege of a U.S. passport.”

The State Department did not immediately respond to an Epoch Times request for comment.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 17:40

NJ Transit Cuts World Cup Train Fare After Backlash Over $150 Ticket Price

After getting roasted over its $150 World Cup train fare, NJ Transit is backing off, lowering the roundtrip ticket to $105 for rides between Penn Station and MetLife Stadium, according to Bloomberg.

The agency had defended the original price as necessary to handle massive game-day crowds, with roughly 40,000 extra riders expected per match. That explanation didn’t land well, considering the same trip usually costs about $13.

Bloomberg writes that Mikie Sherrill pushed for a cheaper option and told the agency to look for outside funding, while also arguing that FIFA should help pay for moving its fans around.

The price cut comes as frustration grows over the broader cost of attending the tournament, from match tickets to parking and travel. And despite Gianni Infantino hyping the event as an economic bonanza, hotel bookings in host cities like New York City, Boston, Toronto, and Vancouver are looking weaker than expected.

FIFA maintains it already worked out financial responsibilities with host cities years ago and never agreed to cover transit costs. A bold stance from an organization expecting cities to roll out the red carpet — and apparently pick up the tab for it too.

This year’s tournament will be the biggest World Cup yet, with 48 national teams playing 104 matches across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico — the first time the event has returned to North America since the 1994 FIFA World Cup.

MetLife Stadium will host several marquee matches, including the final, putting the New York/New Jersey region squarely in the global spotlight. Which is exciting — assuming fans can actually afford to get there once they’ve paid for tickets, hotels, and a small fortune in stadium beer.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 17:20

Redistricting Battles Heat Up After Supreme Court Ruling

Authored by Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent landmark ruling on redistricting has prompted lawmakers in multiple states to reconsider their electoral maps ahead of the 2026 midterms.

The decision, issued on April 29, focused on a congressional map that Louisiana drew after a lower court stated that a prior map violated the Voting Rights Act. That law prohibits race-based discrimination in election practices. The lower court stated that Louisiana’s initial map discriminated against black people by not including an additional majority-black district.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais stated that the lower court decision, which resulted in Louisiana drawing a new map, erred. A majority of the justices said race could not be a primary consideration when states draw maps for elections.

The ruling has caused states, particularly in the South, to redraw their congressional maps ahead of the midterms.

Since Texas redrew its House districts to favor Republicans last year, eight states have adopted new congressional maps. Republicans believe the changes could net them as many as 13 seats, while Democrats estimate they could gain up to 10. Still, some of the newly drawn districts are expected to be competitive in November, potentially limiting the gains either party hopes to achieve.

Here is the latest on the redistricting battles nationwide.

Louisiana

After the Supreme Court decision, Louisiana politicians said their current map was unconstitutional and therefore shouldn’t be used in upcoming elections. Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry quickly suspended the state’s primary for U.S. House elections, set for May 16.

“Yesterday’s historic Supreme Court victory for Louisiana has an immediate consequence for the state,” Landry and state Attorney General Liz Murrill said in an April 30 statement posted on social media.

Louisiana requested a quicker-than-usual judgment from the Supreme Court, which usually issues a formal judgment after 32 days of releasing its opinion. The state worried that a delay could complicate redrawing a new map before the midterms. After Landry halted the primary election, a group of individual voters and activist groups filed suit to block that decision. Litigation in that case is ongoing.

Alabama

After the Supreme Court’s decision, Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said the ruling supported his own state’s redistricting efforts.

A federal court had required Alabama, like Louisiana, to include an additional majority-minority district. That ruling conflicted with what the Supreme Court stated in its recent decision, Marshall argued.

He also asked the Supreme Court to intervene, telling it that a quick decision was necessary.

“Expedited consideration is necessary to afford Alabama the same opportunity as other States to use a lawfully enacted congressional map free of an injunction that cannot be reconciled with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ‘as properly construed,’” he wrote, citing the Callais decision.

Alabama’s legislature has already attempted to implement a new map, passing one on May 6.

Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey called a special legislative session following the Supreme Court’s decision.

“[The] Supreme Court issued a positive decision in the Louisiana v. Callais case, which I said was encouraging for our own pending litigation,” Ivy said.

The Republican-led Alabama House on May 6 passed legislation authorizing special congressional primaries as Republicans pursue the possibility of implementing a new congressional map before the November elections. The bill now heads to the state Senate.

Alabama is seeking to overturn a federal court order that created a second congressional district with a near-majority black population. That court-drawn map led to the 2024 election of Rep. Shomari Figures (D-Ala.), a black Democrat. Republicans instead want to reinstate the 2023 map approved by state lawmakers that they believe would give the GOP a chance to win back Figures’s south Alabama district.

The legislation passed the House along party lines after four hours of heated debate.

The measure depends on either the U.S. Supreme Court or a lower federal court lifting the existing injunction blocking Alabama’s preferred map.

Under current law, Alabama’s congressional primaries are set for May 19. If courts side with the state, the legislation would invalidate those results for congressional races and require the governor to schedule new primaries using revised district boundaries.

Absentee voting is already underway. A new congressional map would be used starting this year.

But Alabama remains under a court order prohibiting the use of new congressional maps until after the 2030 census.

Nonetheless, Ivey called the special session so that Alabama can act immediately if it receives a favorable ruling. If the state gets that, it would revert to the maps drawn by the legislature for congressional districts in 2023 and state senate districts in 2021.

Alabama officials believe that the state could receive a favorable ruling because the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Louisiana case significantly narrowed how courts can use the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to require majority-black districts.

Tennessee

A week after the Supreme Court decision, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee signed into law a new map ahead of the 2026 midterms. This came on the same day that the GOP-controlled state legislature passed the new lines.

Lee said the goal was to ensure that the districts were “fair, legal, and defensible” following the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Louisiana case.

He didn’t specifically cite the Supreme Court’s ruling, but the new session came after pressure from President Donald Trump and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), who urged Tennessee Republicans to redraw the map in a way that could eliminate the state’s lone black-majority congressional seat in Memphis.

The new map would be for the 2026 election.

The candidate qualifying period in Tennessee ended in March, and the primary election is scheduled for Aug. 6.

It would divide Shelby County, home to Memphis, into three districts instead of the current two. This would consist of redrawing the state’s Ninth Congressional District, the lone Democratic district in the state, and making it lean Republican.

The member of Congress who is in that seat, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), said he will file a lawsuit in response to the new map.

Mississippi

Like Louisiana and Alabama, Mississippi also faced a court ruling accusing it of diluting the voting strength of black residents.

State lawmakers had delayed action pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Callais. Just before that decision, Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves called for a legislative session.

He indicated that he was hopeful the Supreme Court would give his state more flexibility.

“It is my sincere hope that, in deciding Callais, the U.S. Supreme Court will reaffirm the animating principle that all Americans are created equal and that when the government classifies its citizens on the basis of race, even as a perceived remedy to right a wrong, it engages in the offensive and demeaning assumption that Americans of a particular race, because of their race, think alike and share the same interests and preferences—a concept that is odious to a free people,” he said on social media.

In his order last month, Reeves scheduled the special session for 21 days after the day of the Supreme Court’s decision.

South Carolina

South Carolina is also looking to change its congressional map following the Supreme Court decision.

The state House on May 6 approved a resolution allowing lawmakers to return after the regular session ends to redraw congressional districts, a move that could eliminate the state’s lone Democratic-held seat. The measure now heads to the Senate, where it requires a two-thirds majority to pass.

Following the vote, Republican House leaders said they intend to unveil a new congressional map on May 7 and convene committee meetings on May 8. During floor debate, however, Republicans didn’t directly answer Democrats’ questions about why they were prepared to halt the June 9 U.S. House primaries after candidate filing had already closed, as well as how much postponing and rescheduling the elections could cost taxpayers.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 17:00

'An Epic Madness Burns In The Minds of Californians...'

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

The California Death Trip

“History records no pity for parties that choose purity over competence, vengeance over vision, pathology over pragmatism. The long night is not coming. It is here. . . . ”

- LHGrey on X

The Pacific Palisades fire ignited on January 7, 2025, in the very last days of the “Joe Biden” fake presidency.

6,837 total buildings destroyed plus about 1,000 damaged.

The Altadena fire across town in Eaton Canyon was arguably worse: 9,418 buildings destroyed.

A Year After the LA Fires

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass was in Ghana at the time to attend the inauguration of president John Dramani Mahama, part of a small U.S. presidential delegation sent by the “Biden” administration.

Deputy Mayor for Public Safety, Brian Williams, overseer of the Police and Fire Departments, was on administrative leave at the time due to an alleged bomb threat against City Hall that he reportedly made in September / October 2024. The FBI raided his house that December, and in 2025 he copped a plea deal (guilty) to making threats involving fire and explosives. So, he was out of action during the fires.

There you have the rectified essence of how the Democratic Party operates in America’s biggest state.

Is it not astonishing that Karen Bass is running for reelection? How could she possibly be forgiven?

A large number of people employed in the movie business got burned out of their homes in the fires, and then city and state regulatory nonsense prevented them from rebuilding — on top of insurance company hocus-pocus that left families financially wrecked.

Is it a surprise that the city’s flagship industry is dying now (film production down 32-percent on a five-year average)?

What is LA without Hollywood?

And yet the show-biz celebs are still coming out to pimp for Democratic Party politicians. This is the kind of thing that forces you to conclude that an epic madness burns as hotly through the minds of Californians as the fires that ripped through the canyons in 2025. I know from personal experience as a college theater major that actors can be exceptionally stupid, but that can’t wholly account for what we’re seeing.

Wednesday’s primary debates had these villains on florid display. Because LA’s ranked-choice mayoral primary race styles itself “non-partisan,” candidate Spencer Pratt (a registered Republican) was on-hand for the debate. When the subject of LA’s cataclysmic homelessness came up, drug addicts living (if you can call it that) in wretched, filthy encampments all over the public space of the city, Mayor Bass bragged that she’d significantly reduced the problem, which is obviously and mendaciously untrue. LA City Council member Nithya Raman, who labels herself “progressive,” bragged on putting the homeless into shelters (i.e., motel rooms at $100-K per person per year.)

Spencer Pratt attempted to inject a little reality into the discussion about putting the homeless into homes: “No matter how many beds you give these people, they are on super meth, they are on fentanyl. The DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency] statistic says 93-percent of this is a drug addiction problem. These people do not want a bed — they want fentanyl or super meth.”

Pratt is currently running third in the polls. In ranked-choice voting, the top two winners in the primary will face off in the November election. Currently Bass is polling in the lead and Nithya Raman is running second. If the numbers stay that way, the winner in November could finish Los Angeles off. Blade Runner, here we come.

But there’s still a chance that Spencer Pratt might place well in the June 2 primary just as Golden Tempo shot from dead last to win the Kentucky Derby last week.

The seductions of the Marxist race hustle have worn a little thin, even for Angelenos. Karen Bass looks increasingly ridiculous grinning about her abject failures, which Mr. Pratt lays out relentlessly in plain talk. His reality-testing seems to be getting some minds right, gaining real traction. Nithya Raman has the charisma of a mung bean.

The gubernatorial debate was equally edifying, especially the spectacle of Democratic Candidates Katie Porter’s and billionaire Tom Steyer’s rousing lack of self-awareness. Ms. Porter, renowned for dumping a pot of steaming mashed potatoes over her ex-husband’s head, and for her crotchety way with the (friendly) news media and her own staff, made the astounding statement that “the public servants we have are focused on doing their job, which is not cooperating with the federal immigration authorities.” That’s their job? Hmmmm. Mr. Steyer went further and said he would arrest ICE agents going about their business. You think . . .? (I would think that a Governor Steyer would find himself arrested by the feds for attempting such a stunt.)

The governor’s race is also a rank-choice contest. So, Republican Steve Hilton was on-hand to break the reality-optional spell that shrouded the stage like a poisonous miasma. After several Democrats made a show of deploring the grotesque homeless druggie encampments from Nob Hill to MacArthur Park, Mr. Hilton said “[They] talk as if we’re in some parallel universe where Democrats haven’t been running the state for the last sixteen years.” He shares the lead in the polls in the large field at 18-percent with Xavier Becerra, who was “Joe Biden’s” Secretary of Health and Human Services, meaning, he presided over the vaxx mandates and lockdowns of the Covid operation.

California is ground zero for the death dance of the Democratic Party. Symptoms are popping up all over the country, of course. Just this week, the FBI raided the headquarters of Virginia State Senator pro tempore L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth) — and also raided the marijuana shop she co-owns next door to her HQ. The SCOTUS decision on Congressional redistricting has thrown many states’ Democratic Party outposts into a fugue of terror as they stand to lose as many as a dozen seats in Congress. DOJ prosecutions are underway against prominent Democrats in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Florida. Many of their heroes could go to prison. Panic has set in. The Democratic Party as we know it these days is not long for this world.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 16:20

Toyota And Honda See Sharp Declines In Profit Amidst Iran War Pressures, Spiking EV Costs

Toyota expects a sharp decline in profit as rising material and shipping costs tied to the Iran conflict pressure its business, according to Bloomberg. 

The automaker projected operating income of ¥3 trillion for the fiscal year ending March 2027, well below both analyst expectations of ¥4.6 trillion and last year’s ¥3.8 trillion.

The company said supply chain disruptions are driving up costs for aluminum, resins, and other materials, while logistics issues remain unpredictable. Toyota estimates the regional conflict could reduce earnings by about ¥670 billion.

After the forecast was released, shares dropped as much as 3.5%. Analysts noted Toyota may be giving conservative guidance, but future performance will depend heavily on how long the conflict continues.

Julie Boote, an analyst at London-based research firm Pelham Smithers Associates Ltd told Bloomberg: “Toyota did not only miss consensus estimates, but also its own forecast, as auto unit sales came in much weaker than predicted by the automaker. It is still likely that Toyota is once again lowballing its guidance, with earnings upgrades possible during the fiscal year; much depends also on the development of the Iran war.”

Toyota expects vehicle sales to dip slightly this year, though hybrid sales are projected to surpass 5 million units for the first time. The company is also focusing more on after-sales services, which it sees as a major future profit driver.

Despite record annual revenue of ¥50.7 trillion, quarterly operating profit fell 49% due to tariffs and higher shipping expenses.

Meanwhile, Honda just posted an operating loss of 400 billion yen -- its first in the company's history, according to Nikkei. The loss was primarily driven by problems tied to its electric vehicle business and marks the company’s first operating loss since going public in 1957.

This is a major decline from the 1.2 trillion yen operating profit it reported the previous fiscal year. It would also be the second-largest operating loss ever reported by a Japanese automaker, behind Toyota Motor Corporation’s 461 billion yen loss during the 2009 global financial crisis, although accounting differences make direct comparisons imperfect, Nikkei writes.

In March, Honda said it expected an operating loss between 270 billion and 570 billion yen and announced it was canceling three planned EV launches in North America.

The company also projected up to 2.5 trillion yen in EV-related costs over fiscal years 2025–2027, including asset impairment charges and supplier compensation.

Despite these losses, Honda plans to return to operating profitability in the current fiscal year, supported by strong motorcycle sales in Asia, a weaker yen, and a broader turnaround strategy for its North American and Chinese businesses.

Nissan had also trimmed production due to the Iran war earlier in the year. 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 15:50

Trump Gets Diplomatic Win In Ukraine War, 3-Day Ceasefire Declared For Russia's V-Day

President Trump announced Friday that the leaders of Russia and Ukraine have agreed to his request for a three-day ceasefire and a major prisoner swap. He hailed in a Truth Social post that this could be the "beginning of the end" of the long war between them.

He specified that the ceasefire would run Saturday through Monday - with Saturday being Victory Day celebrations in Russia. The Kremlin has been increasingly concerned that the major national holiday which commemorates its victory over Nazi Germany 81 years ago in World War II could be marred by drone attacks from Ukraine. There's no doubt that President Putin is welcoming of such a ceasefire declaration, and backing by Washington.

"I am pleased to announce that there will be a THREE DAY CEASEFIRE (May 9th, 10th, and 11th) in the War between Russia and Ukraine," Trump wrote. "The Celebration in Russia is for Victory Day but, likewise, in Ukraine, because they were also a big part and factor of World War II."

This is to include a suspension of all kinetic activity and the exchange of 1,000 prisoners by each country, the US president also said. While direct talks between the warring countries have not been happening, these kinds of prisoner exchanges have actually been somewhat of a constant throughout the over 4-year long war.

The timing is interesting, given that the White House is clearly consumed with the Iran war, the Hormuz Strait crisis, and the expanding economic fallout globally and at home. 

Moscow has meanwhile been threatening to attack Kiev with an unprecedented bombing campaign should V-Day events be disrupted by drone fire out of Ukraine this weekend.

Putin it seems is seeking the opportunity to soften Washington's stance toward Moscow's perspective of the Ukraine war. Also, at the moment Trump needs a diplomatic 'win' that he can tout to the world, given the Iran situation is sliding into a bit of a quagmire which could have dire consequences for Republicans going into the midterms.

Despite that Iran remains a key regional ally of Russia's, it remains that Moscow has benefited from both the easing of sanctions on its oil exports at sea, and rising global oil prices - both the result of the Iran war.

Previously, Kremlin leaders have offered a deal where Iran could keep its enriched uranium but hold it on Russian territory, to ensure the continuation of its nuclear energy. This, Moscow has reasoned, could serve as a basis for a grand deal with the US.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 15:30

Minnesota Democrats Unanimously Vote To Protect Rep. Ilhan Omar... And Dead Voters

Authored by Eric Utter via AmericanThinker.com,

Minnesota Senate Democrats recently voted - unaminously - against removing deceased persons from the state’s voter rolls.

This tracks with the fact that almost 100% of dead people vote for Democrats, making them Democrats’ most loyal voting bloc, even surpassing that of serial killers.

(This may explain why, historically, Democrat gerrymandering seems designed to encompass as many cemeteries as possible. O.K., that is just an unfounded assertion, but it seems likely, does it not?)

The dead — and serial killers — are groups that vote heavily for Democrats? Talk about a symbiotic relationship! The latter provide the former! Genius! Kismet!

This after they also voted — unanimously -- against an oversight committee effort to compel Rep. Ilhan Omar to testify after she missed a deadline to provide documents to the committee investigating the Somali fraud rampant in the North Star State.

So the multi-millionaire or poverty-stricken representative (take your pick) from Somalia escapes a subpoena, at least for now.

It is obvious that Democrats in Minnesota are as wedded to fraud as Ilhan once was to her brother. And for the same reason: they will do whatever it takes to attain and retain power, so help them Allah.

They share the same goals as well, at least for now: to fleece law-abiding taxpayers out of as much money as possible, so as to line their own pockets -- and the pockets of those who help them attain and retain power.

In a sane country, at a sane moment in time, this would be considered an unethical, unacceptable, unconstitutional, illegal, and treasonous misuse of power, one that spits in the face of a representative democracy. Here today? Meh. Not good, but let’s not fly off the handle like our founders did. Tolerance and empathy, you see.

Democrats want as many illegals in the country as possible, because they vote for Democrats in droves. Why wouldn’t it be the same for dead folks? The more dead people, the more votes Democrats get. And, if the dead are erstwhile denizens of red states and rural areas, so much the better. Presto chango, a Republican has been converted into a Democrat! Remarkable!

This could explain Democrats’ love of abortion, medical assistance in dying, and violent criminals.

Our forefathers would have done whatever it took to counter this orgy of criminality.

Past mafia godfathers would be proud of it.

Today? Democrats like Tim Walz, Gavin Newsom, and J.B. Pritzker might accurately be called “fraudfathers.”

 

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 15:10