The paperback of “How NOT to Invest” drops this week; to celebrate, this whole week I am running various stories and excerpts about the book. 

This short, Beatles-related excerpt from the book was one of my favorite chapters to write… Enjoy!

 

Is there any greater gap between “Expert Opinion” and subsequent history than The Beatles?

AllMusic sums up the Fab Four as “The most popular and influential rock act of all time, a band that blazed several new trails for popular music.”1 That’s obvious today, but it was not the consensus early in their career.

Many amusing details were recounted by Bob Seawright is his “Better Letter.” Nobody skewers humanity’s cognitive failings with more amusing flair than Seawright. He giddily recounted the early reviews of the Beatles when they first came to America. At the time, they had five singles in Britain’s Top 20, three of which hit #1 – all in 1963. Their debut album, “Please Please Me,” held the top spot on Britain’s charts for 30 weeks, displaced only by the band’s next album, “With the Beatles.“

Despite the sensation they were causing in Great Britain, The Beatles’ record label (EMI) could not persuade its American counterpart (Capitol) to release any of the band’s singles in the States. Dave Dexter was the man in charge of international A&R for Capitol, and ostensibly an industry expert on the public’s musical tastes. He repeatedly rejected The Beatles’ singles, calling them “generally amateurish and unappealing.” One after another, Dexter vetoed those singles tearing up the charts in the UK, starting with “Please Please Me” and “She Loves You.”

Ed Sullivan had also turned down the Fab Four (twice) for his television show. He was by coincidence at London (now Heathrow) Airport when he witnessed “Beatlemania” firsthand. The band was returning home from a tour in Sweden, greeted by a raucous, screaming mob of teenage girls. That convinced Sullivan to book the lads.2

The Ed Sullivan Show was a huge platform for breaking new acts, and Capitol decided to release “I Want to Hold Your Hand” a few weeks before The Beatles’ appearance. This was not some insightful exec reversing Dexter’s misguided rejections or a change of musical heart but rather, simply good corporate opportunism. How could you not capitalize on the demand one of the country’s most popular TV shows might create?

And how did the Sullivan Show go? 3

The Beatles played five songs on two broadcast segments, ending with “I Want to Hold Your Hand.”  Ray Bloch, Ed Sullivan’s musical director, was unimpressed: “The only thing different is the hair, as far as I can see. I give them a year.” 4

He was not alone in panning the appearance. Seawright collected a string of headlines and reviews that have not aged particularly well:

The New York Herald Tribune: “BEATLES BOMB ON TV.”

The Boston Globe: “Don’t let the Beatles bother you. If you don’t think about them they will go away and in a few more years they will probably be bald.”

The New York Times: “The Beatles’ vocal quality can be described as hoarsely incoherent, with the minimal enunciation necessary to communicate the schematic texts.”

The Los Angeles Times: “Not even their mothers would claim that they sing well.”

The New York Herald Tribune: “75 percent publicity, 20 percent haircut and 5 percent lilting lament.”

Talk about “Nobody Knows Anything.”

It wasn’t just that the reviews missed the mark. What is noteworthy is all of biases evident in those critiques. This is also evident in the prior section on Media (later on, we explore what causes this).

Consider Newsweek:

“Visually they are a nightmare, tight, dandified Edwardian-Beatnik suits and great pudding bowls of hair. Musically they are a near disaster, guitars and drums slamming out a merciless beat that does away with secondary rhythms, harmony and melody.” (emphasis added)

Whether you like their songs or not, The Beatles’ harmonies and melodies are simply not debatable. The musicality and beauty of their songs is simply beyond reproach.

And this was The Washington Post revealing their inside-the-beltway angle:

“They are, apparently, part of some kind of malicious, bi-lateral entertainment trade agreement. The British have to sit through dozens of dreadful American television programs. In return, we get The Beatles. As usual, we got gypped. Nothing we have exported in recent years quite justifies imported hillbillies who look like sheep dogs and sound like alley cats in agony.”

What was the 1960s equivalent of “Okay, Boomer”…? 5

You probably know what happened next: “I Want to Hold Your Hand” went to number one in the U.S., quickly selling a million copies.5 American tastes were not so different than Britain’s after all, and Beatlemania became a cultural phenomenon here too.6

***

Ironically, these music “experts” missed the biggest cultural shift in generations, and it was happening right before their eyes and ears. How did they blow it? In his book “Hit Makers,” 7 Derek Thompson explains Raymond Loewy’s concept of MAYA: New products that are “most advanced yet acceptable.”8

Loewy “believed that consumers are torn between two opposing forces: neophilia, a curiosity about new things; and neophobia, a fear of anything too new. As a result, they gravitate to products that are bold, but instantly comprehensible.” Any innovation too far ahead of the curve gets rejected by much of the public.

But with music, I suspect that MAYA line varies with age. The receptiveness to new music is different for a critic in their 40s or 50s than for teenagers. One group is still in its formative age, embracing new things (while rejecting most of what their parents liked); the others’ formative years were decades earlier. Once your musical taste hardens, you may be less receptive to the latest sounds.

This might explain the bad reviews from Beatles’ critics throughout their career. Many of their albums, including some of the best music ever recorded, were initially panned. Musicologist and Historian Ted Gioia observed that critics “literally were handed the greatest recordings of their era to review, and blew them off. Every classic song on these albums was not only attacked, but actually mocked.” 9

MAYA helps explain why.

Gioia notes that The Beatles were “punished for how quickly they were pushing rock music ahead . . . the critics misunderstood the lads from Liverpool for the worst possible reason – namely, that they were constantly learning, growing more ambitious, and willing to take risks.”

Or as UK rocker Elvis Costello said, “Every [Beatles] record was a shock.” 10

The Ed Sullivan appearance was merely a single episode in an explosive career. Throughout the 1960s, bad reviews of Beatles’ albums such as Sgt. Peppers, The White Album, and Abbey Road would come back to haunt the critics who penned them…

 

 

 

Previously:
HNTI: Never Take Candy from Strangers (May 7, 2026)

How NOT to Invest’s 10 Most Important Ideas (May 6, 2026)

Adventures in Recording an Audio Book (May 5, 2026)

How NOT to Invest Paperback Arrives! (May 4, 2026)

Nobody Knows Anything (Full archive)

 

 

The paperback of “How NOT to Invest” is out this week at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Books-A-Million, Bookshop, Hudson, or wherever you buy your favorite books!

If you want to learn more about how the book was made, any related media appearances or background, get unique bonus material, or just ask a question, you can sign up here: HNTI at RitholtzWealth dot com.

 

 

The post HNTI: Nobody Knows Anything, The Beatles edition appeared first on The Big Picture.

My end-of-week morning train WFH reads:

• The Great $110 Trillion Wealth Transfer Won’t Happen Any Time Soon: Financial advisory firms like to talk about a looming event called “the great wealth transfer,” where the huge and very wealthy baby-boomer generation dies off and their children inherit their money. But the process may be more of a slow drip than a sudden windfall. The two generations that hold the most wealth are baby boomers, who are between age 61 and 80, and Gen X, who are between 45 and 61. Americans 55 and up control most wealth, and many of them have decades of living left. (Wall Street Journal)

• Will the anti-obesity wonder drugs work wonders for the US economy? Unlike artificial intelligence, the impact of GLP-1 medications may already be happening in a big way. (Faster, Please!)

• Wall Street’s Wisest Man: The renowned investment wizard Charley Ellis (Chair Yale Endowment, BoD Vanguard Group)) from June 2001. It still rings true, because wisdom never goes out of style. Investing, like manufacturing cookies or toothpaste, is supposed to be boring: “If you find anything interesting, you’ve found something wrong.” (Jason Zweig)

• The $11 Billion Casino-Style Economy Built on Players Who Can Never Cash Out. Apple and Google are raking in money from social casinos that replace real winnings with virtual coins and dopamine hits. Some players have spent more than $1 million to keep playing. (Bloomberg Free)

• ‘Life is existential uncertainty. What happens when you outlive a fatal diagnosis? Bruce Deachman in this National Post article talks with three people whose lives were upended by grim prognoses. Life threw them another curveball by extending their lives, in some cases indefinitely. Tadas Viskanta’s quiet meditation on living with not-knowing. The investing application is obvious; the human one matters more. (Abnormal Returns)

• Brendan Carr Is Playing a Dangerous Game: If he can weaponize Jimmy Kimmel’s joke to punish ABC, other media companies with far less will be intimidated out of ever criticizing the president again. (Slate)

• How Texas Republicans Turned on George W. Bush: The former president is now persona non grata in his own state party. The man who delivered Texas to the GOP is now one of its chief targets. What gives? (Texas Monthly)

• Iran has hit far more U.S. military assets than reported, satellite images show: Imagery published by Iranian state-affiliated media and verified by The Post shows damage to at least 228 structures or pieces of equipment at U.S. military sites. Investigative satellite work re-counting the actual damage to U.S. bases. The official tally and the imagery don’t agree. (Washington Post)

• How the Classic American Game of Twister Went From Risqué to Record-Breaking: Sixty years ago, Johnny Carson and Eva Gabor played Twister on the “Tonight Show,” and the public took it as permission to buy the controversial game. The improbable history of the most physically suggestive game ever sold to children — from puritan panic to Guinness records. (Smithsonian Magazine)

• Billie Eilish says she does ‘everything I can’ to suppress Tourette syndrome tics: US singer-songwriter talks about huge effort of controlling her behaviour, in interview with Amy Poehler. Eilish on the daily work of masking a neurological condition in public. A useful counter to the ‘celebrities are fine’ assumption. (The Guardian)

Video of the day:  Why Boston Dynamics’ New Atlas is Years Ahead of Tesla

Be sure to check out our Master’s in Business interview this weekend with Howard Lindzon, known as “The Larry David of Finance.” He is General Partner at the seed fund, Social Leverage, he was one of the first seed investors in Robinhood, which IPOd at $30B in 2021, eToro, Manscaped, and Beehiiv. Previously, he founded Wallstrip, a daily online video show acquired by CBS (2007). He also co-founded Stocktwits, which pioneered the “cashtag.” Recognized by Institutional Investor as a “Super Angel;” his podcast is Panic with Friends.

 

Which US cities give new grads the best shot in 2026?

Source: Sherwood

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Friday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Baltic States Warn Of Unfunded Debt Surge For Europe's Defense Splurge

In a rare outbreak of sanity from the continent that perfected kicking the can, officials on NATO’s eastern front are openly admitting what Brussels and Frankfurt have spent years denying: you can’t fund a permanent war footing with infinite borrowing and hope the bond market never notices.

Estonia’s outgoing ECB rate hawk Madis Muller dropped the red pill in parliament Thursday, bluntly telling lawmakers that jacking up budget deficits to pay for the defense surge is no long-term solution. “These higher defense expenditures are not temporary,” he warned. The message: the party is ending, and the tab is about to get ugly.

Next door in Latvia, Finance Minister Arvils Aseradens echoed the warning, calling for “every possible instrument” to secure sustainable funding. He even threw support behind Canadian PM Mark Carney’s pet idea of a multilateral defense bank, because nothing says fiscal responsibility like creating yet another supranational borrowing vehicle to paper over the cracks.

Both Baltic states, sitting on the razor’s edge with Moscow, not to mention sharing a border with the Russian bear, have massively ramped up military outlays in recent years. Their spending has exploded even as existing social welfare commitments continue to balloon budgets already teetering under the weight of Europe’s sacred model. Welcome to the European conundrum in 2026: you need guns to deter Russia, but the welfare state can’t be touched, and nobody wants to tell voters the truth about taxes.

The broader picture across the continent is grim. European nations are scrambling to square exploding public debt with an unfunded defense boom while somehow still pretending they can keep the lights on for Ukraine’s war effort. The math simply does not add up.

Estonia’s Debt Trajectory: From Poster Child to Problem Child

Estonia, the euro-area’s former fiscal hawk with just 1.3 million people, now finds itself in the crosshairs. Its debt-to-GDP ratio remains a relatively modest 24%, but that’s changing fast. Public debt is projected to more than double: from €10 billion ($11.8 billion) in 2025 to €21 billion by 2030. The IMF has already raised concerns, and Fitch downgraded the country’s sovereign rating back in 2023 as investors began pricing in geopolitical risk and demanding higher yields.

On Thursday, Estonia’s central bank doubled down on its earlier warnings: act now while you still have the luxury of being one of the EU’s least indebted nations. Because that window is closing fast.

Tallinn’s much-touted “defense tax” introduced in 2024? Already watered down and nowhere near enough to cover the actual sums required.

This is the inevitable endpoint of Europe’s post-2022 panic: politicians who spent decades hollowing out defense budgets in favor of green deals, migration costs, and generous entitlements suddenly discover they need actual military capability. Rather than make hard choices — cut elsewhere, raise taxes transparently, or rethink open-ended commitments — the default instinct is to borrow more and hope the ECB or some new “defense bank” magically makes the numbers work.

Spoiler: it won’t.

The Baltics are simply saying out loud what markets have been whispering for months. Permanent defense hikes require permanent revenue, not more creative accounting and supranational debt vehicles. Europe’s eastern flank is learning the hard way that you cannot deter Russia with PowerPoint slides and growing interest payments.

The real question now isn’t whether Europe will boost defense spending, it will and will then quietly shuffle most of the funds into various green (and not so green) grifts under the guise of an "existential threat." It’s who ultimately pays - and whether the bond vigilantes will wait patiently for the answer. Given the trajectory, the real question is when does the emperor's nudity finally get confirmed.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 04:15

Hungary Returns Ukrainian Bank Cash & Gold Seized During Election Campaign

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

Hungary has returned money and valuables belonging to Ukrainian state-owned bank Oschadbank after authorities seized the shipment earlier this year while it was being transported from Austria to Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced the return on Telegram on Wednesday, saying the assets had been seized by Hungarian special services in March, a move he claimed had been unjustified.

“Today, the funds and valuables of Oschadbank, seized by Hungarian special services in March of this year, were returned,” Zelensky wrote.

“I thank Hungary for the constructive and civilized step,” he added.

The shipment, which reportedly included cash and gold belonging to Oschadbank’s Ukrainian branch, was stopped by Hungarian authorities during a period of high tension between Budapest and Kyiv.

Hungarian officials said at the time that the bank workers involved were suspected of money laundering.

The Ukrainians were later released, but the authorities retained the seized assets until now.

The incident occurred during Hungary’s parliamentary election campaign last month, when Prime Minister Viktor Orbán had made criticism of Ukraine a central part of his political messaging.

His government was also locked in a dispute with Kyiv over the interruption of Russian oil supplies through Ukraine to Hungary via the Druzhba pipeline.

Orbán, who had long clashed with Ukraine and its European backers over sanctions, aid, and energy policy, was defeated in April’s election.

Péter Magyar, the leader of the Tisza party, will now succeed him, and the new Hungarian parliament is expected to be sworn in on Saturday.

The return of the Oschadbank assets follows a broader easing of tensions between Budapest and Kyiv.

Despite multiple claims from Ukraine during the election campaign that the Druzhba pipeline could not simply resume due to damage inflicted by Russian shelling, Kyiv promptly resumed the flow of oil to Hungary and Slovakia shortly after Orbán’s election defeat.

At the same time, Budapest stopped blocking final approval of a €90 billion European Union loan to Ukraine.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 03:30

Russia Outraged At Its Ally Armenia For Hosting Zelensky: 'Whose Side Of History Are You On?'

Russia is seething after its Caucasus regional ally Armenia decided to host Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a European summit earlier this week.

Moscow is further warning against Yerevan pursuing closer relations with the European Union as well. The Kremlin slammed Zelensky being hosted there, right in Russia's own backward, as "incomprehensible".

Source: Perry-Castañeda Library

"Russian society, with deep indignation and bewilderment, not only saw but remembered that Armenia, which we are used to considering a friendly, brotherly country, served as a platform. For whom? For a terrorist," Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Thursday.

"The current, illegitimate Kyiv regime has been issuing threats to strike Moscow during the annual parade on May 9, a day sacred to our peoples... And no one in Armenia’s current leadership rebuked Zelensky. So whose side of history are you on?” she posed.

"Such a course by the Armenian authorities will sooner or later lead to Yerevan’s irreversible involvement in Brussels’ anti-Russian line, with all the ensuing political and economic consequences for Armenia," she said.

However, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has responded to the pressure, stating: “Back in 2022-2023 I already stated that, on the issue of Ukraine, we are not an ally of Russia.”

He is also reportedly refusing to attend Moscow’s Victory Day parade on Saturday, saying he needs to stay in his country in order to prepare for parliamentary elections scheduled for June 7.

Armenia has long been a key member of the regional Russian-led bloc, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). However, Armenia froze its participation since 2024, outraged over Russia's failure to protect ethnic Armenians during Azerbaijan’s 2023 takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Russia since played a 'peacekeeping' role with some limited troop deployments, however, Armenian Christians had already been booted from the ancient enclave.

Russian MFA tells Armenian ambassador: UNACCEPTABLE to provide platform for Zelensky to voice TERRORIST threats against Russia

VIDEO: Zelensky meeting Armenia’s Pashinyan in Yerevan on Monday pic.twitter.com/AfyL0J8bqO

— RT (@RT_com) May 7, 2026

So relations have been fraying, to say the least. PM Pashinyan made clear Thursday: "We have sent humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and I have said that we are not allies of Russia on the issue of Ukraine."

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 02:45

The EU Is Pushing "Driver-Monitoring Cameras" - Here's Why...

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,

From July of this year, every vehicle registered in the European Union will be required to have driver-monitoring cameras in place. That’s not every new car manufactured, but every car registered.

The “Advanced Driver Distraction Warning” (ADDW) cameras are designed to monitor driver behaviour for signs of potential distraction, and then set off a warning if those signs are detected.

It was first announced in 2024 as part of the EU’s “Vision Zero” plan to eliminate car-related deaths by 2050.

But it’s not really about that.

It’s never about what they say it’s about.

Here’s where this goes…

Firstly, kiss successful insurance claims goodbye.

Any accident will be blamed on “sub-optimal driver performance”, and that time you checked your phone while stopped at a light, or your hands moved briefly from the 10-and-2 or your eyeline wasn’t correctly picked up by the mirror sensor, will be used to blame your fender-bender on you.

This will create a change in accident reporting statistics, spiking “driver error” as the cause for anything and everything that goes wrong on the road.

This, in turn, will kick off a big “people drive dangerously” propaganda push.

Headlines like “ADDW data harvesting has shown up 80% of us might be driving more recklessly than we think”, or “most veteran drivers slip in to bad habits, reports show” will appear.

Then comes the new legislation to act on this totally fabricated problem.

What is it? It’s re-certification.

That’s not speculation; it already happened. Under new EU rules, passed just a few months ago, every driver has to be re-certified and issued a new driver’s license after 15 years. It would be the smallest of tweaks to add “or after Y number of distraction warnings are recorded” to that legislation.

The new driver’s licenses will be digital, with biometrics included. It’s possible new cars will be undrivable without a scan of your biometric license.

Your car’s data will be uploaded to a database, of course. That’s going to happen.

…in fact, it already is.

It’s not at all far-fetched to imagine your driver monitoring data getting scanned for errors by an AI, and any detected errors putting points on your license. If you go over a certain number of points, your ability to drive is taken away…pending recertification.

You can appeal, and drive while the appeal takes place. But the appeal fee will be greater than the recertification fee, and if you lose, you have to pay extra legal costs, and you’re subject to an extended driving ban.

This will be covered in the press as a universally Good Thing.

Headlines will celebrate the (almost entirely fictional) decrease in traffic fatalities, whilst baselessly claiming that the smaller number of private vehicles on the road has “improved pollution levels in the inner cities”.

An opinion piece from an anonymous “former driver” will appear in the Guardian, “I lost my driver’s license, and it’s the best thing that ever happened to me”.

It will talk up how much money they’re saving on petrol and road tax, and how much fitter they get walking and cycling everywhere and how they know their neighbours so well now.

Not forgetting all sorts of cozy anecdotes about the charming characters you meet and life-affirming tableaux you witness using public transport.

Meanwhile, American “journalists” will wax poetic about the EU’s “forward-thinking system”, and the UK press and punditry will talk of “lagging behind the EU”, and blame every road accident on Brexit.

Some academics will publish a paper finding that “private car ownership has decreased under EU driver monitoring regulations”, and this “unintended upside” will be widely applauded.

Cue Buzzfeed: “New license rules have taken cars off the road, and it’s a good thing.”

And Vox: “The EU’s driver’s license law has given us a glimpse of what a car-less future could look like, and it’s beautiful”.

While all this is going on, there will be persistent white noise on the safety of “robot drivers” vs human drivers, talking up automatic driving software in Chinese electric cars and so on.

Public transport will be increasingly automated too – whether really automated, or just remotely driven doesn’t matter. The point will be to remove images of people driving from the public sphere.

The important part is you don’t get to decide where you’re going or how you’re getting there.

The end goal will be to inculcate a generally anti-car atmosphere, where even knowing how to drive will be considered somewhat old-fashioned.

Middle-class parents will boast to social media echo chambers that “I never wanted my Jacinda to learn!”, and receive bot-fueled applause as a reward. Implausible self-congratulatory anecdotes detailing how “My eight-year-old just told me he doesn’t want to drive because it’s bad for the planet! Children are so wise!” will go viral.

Because the easiest way to trap people is to make freedom uncool.

That might seem like a lot of speculation based on a little information, and in some ways it is, but pattern recognition is important. It’s much easier to put out a fire that hasn’t started yet, and we know they want to burn it all down.

We know they want to end private vehicle ownership; they have repeatedly said so.

Well, this is how they do that. A little at a time, creating atmospheres and environments. Seemingly arbitrary rules and regulations with “unforeseen consequences”. That’s how they work now, they come at us sideways with slow-developing long-cons, because they can’t afford to work in straight lines, not since Covid.

Stuff like this might seem a small – a throwaway issue vs war or the price of oil – but the powers-that-shouldn’t-be have an eye on the far horizon when they take small steps, and we should pay attention to where they want to take us.

Tyler Durden Fri, 05/08/2026 - 02:00

BlackRock Private Credit Fund Cuts Asset Values By 5%, As Golub Gates After 8.5% Redemptions

Just another day in private credit paradise... er, hell. 

One day after Gundlach repeated his warning that the private credit crisis will end in tears for bagholders, Blackrock cut the value of its publicly-traded private credit fund by about 5%, as it - like most of its peers - struggled under the weight of troubled loans, markdowns and lower returns.

BlackRock TCP Capital Corp., a publicly traded middle-market lending fund, said markdowns totaled $35 million in the quarter ended March 31, according to a statement on Thursday. Amusingly, and in hopes of redirecting attention, the $1.5 billion fund highlighted “improving credit quality,” and said it invested more in senior debt and strengthened its balance sheet. The fund said its dividend, which was cut to 17 cents a share last quarter, would remain flat.

The fund has been a challenge for BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager with about $14 trillion in assets, which is expanding aggressively into private credit. BlackRock acquired specialist manager HPS Investment Partners last year for about $12 billion, aiming to significantly expand its existing capabilities and legacy funds, including TCPC.

The TCPC fund said in January that it cut the net asset value of its assets by 19%, which sent shares tumbling. The fund has struggled in part due to exposure to e-commerce aggregators - companies that buy and manage Amazon.com Inc. sellers - as well as troubled home improvement company Renovo Home Partners, which filed for bankruptcy. Back in March, we reported that Blackrock slashed the value of one of its private loans from par to 0 in just months, Infinite Commerce Holdings, sparking a selloff in the shares as the market was stunned by how quickly a loan from the world's most iconic asset manager can go from par to 0 in just days.

“While we have made meaningful progress, we recognize there is more work to do and we remain focused on disciplined execution,” Chief Executive Officer Phil Tseng said on a call with analysts.

Loans on non-accrual status - typically meaning borrowers have missed their debt payments - declined to 7.6% on a cost basis, compared with 9.7% in the prior quarter. That's because one of its portfolio loans was sold, and two were restructured. Investments in 13 portfolio companies were on non-accrual status.

Tseng said the largest driver of the markdowns was an investment in Job and Talent, a staffing and recruitment company that suffered from weak performance in the quarter. Almost a third of the markdowns came from software-related investments, he said.

Lenders in the $1.8 trillion private credit market have been under scrutiny as advancements in artificial intelligence threaten to upend their bets on software, an industry that makes up a significant portion of lenders’ portfolios. 

Elsewhere, the last big private credit fund we were waiting to report its redemption gates, did just that: Golub Capital announced it was capping withdrawals from its private credit fund after investors sought to pull 8.5% of shares, the latest instance of a money manager restricting outflows amid a wave of redemption requests.

Golub Capital Private Credit Fund, or GCRED, plans to enforce the quarterly withdrawal limit of 5% of common shares outstanding, according to a letter to shareholders on Thursday. The roughly $9.9 billion fund intends to fulfill repurchase requests for 8,891,200 shares.

The credit manager told investors that the redemption requests “were concentrated in a small subset representing approximately 5% of GCRED’s more than 12,000 shareholders.” Golub also cited roughly 14 million in new share subscriptions this year through the end of April. 

GCRED has a liquidity cushion of approximately $4.1 billion and its portfolio consists of nearly $10 billion in total investments at fair value, the firm said. As of the end of the first quarter, less than 0.1% of GCRED’s investment portfolio was on non-accrual status. 

None of that mattered in the, and Golub has now joined every single one of its BDC peers in gating its investors. The silver lining, unlike such disasters as the two big Blue Owl BDCs (OTIC and OCIC), which saw investors try to pull 41% and 22% of their capital respectively - and were obviously gated - Golub's tally was only 8.5%, which in this age where double digit redemptions requests are the normal, is downright respectable.

 

 

d

 

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

Court Strikes Down Trump's Replacement Tariffs; A Minor, Temporary Setback, With Sec 301 Tariffs Coming

After the close on Thursday, the Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled to invalidate Trump's latest set of universal 10% tariff imposed two months ago under Sec. 122. The administration will quickly appeal this decision before it takes effect May 12. If the case follows the same pattern as the challenge to the IEEPA tariffs last year, a higher court might soon stay this ruling and leave the tariffs in place pending a longer review.  

As the tariffs are due to expire July 24, even if the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) eventually rules against these tariffs, there is a good chance a full judicial review will take long enough that the tariffs will remain in effect until the administration replaces them with new tariffs under Sec. 301 (unfair trade practices) and Sec. 232 (national security).

As a reminder, Section 122 tariffs were always a stopgap: by statute, they can only be in place for 150 days, so they’ll expire on July 24, 2026. Investigations by the US Trade Representative under Section 301 are widely expected to wrap up before then, clearing the way for permanent replacement tariffs.

That said, if the ruling survives appeal, the government will likely have to refund unlawfully collected duties, adding to the nearly $170 billion already owed as a result of the Feb. 20 decision.

Key Points: 

1. The CIT ruling was a split decision, with two Democratic-appointed judges granting summary judgment against the administration’s position and one Republican-appointed judge dissenting, favoring a full review of the case instead. This is in contrast to the CIT’s earlier ruling last year, in which a panel of one Democratic- and two Republican-appointed judges unanimously granted summary judgment against the IEEPA tariffs. 

2. The CIT ruling gives the administration 5 days to rescind the tariffs, and requires that importers be paid refunds plus interest. We expect the administration to immediately appeal the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), as it did following the CIT’s IEEPA ruling. In that instance, the CAFC stayed the CIT ruling within a day, leaving the tariffs in effect, and then took 3 months to rule on the case. That ruling was then appealed to SCOTUS, which took another 6 months to rule. As the Sec. 122 tariffs expire July 24 and cannot be extended without an act of Congress, an eventual SCOTUS ruling against these tariffs looks unlikely to come before expiration. That said, if courts ultimately rule against the use of Sec. 122 to impose these tariffs after they have expired, importers could collect refunds beyond IEEPA refunds they will start to receive in coming days.

3. The Sec. 122 tariffs are worth slightly more than 4% on the effective tariff rate (this is lower than the 10% headline rate due to exemptions for products and most imports from Canada and Mexico), and account for slightly less than half of the new tariffs since the start of 2025 that remain in effect. They are likely generating customs duty collections of around $11-12bn per month (not annualized), or around $55-60bn total if they remain in effect for the full 5 months. 

4. Regardless of how courts ultimately decide this case, the ruling should have no bearing on the administration’s longer-term ability to impose tariffs under Sec. 232 (national security) or Sec. 301 (unfair trade practices), which the White House has signaled will replace the Sec. 122 tariffs. The authority to impose tariffs under those laws is well-tested, unlike the IEEPA and Sec. 122 tariffs, and customs duties have been collected continuously under both authorities since the first Trump administration. 

5. The US Trade Representative is currently conducting investigations under the Section 301 trade enforcement authority. These investigations are widely seen as setting the stage for permanent replacement levies that will largely replicate the tariff rates in place before the Feb. 20 court ruling.

6. The court limited relief to three plaintiffs representing a small fraction of total US imports. Other importers may now bring suit, but we expect the administration to quickly appeal and seek a stay of the ruling. The split decision invalidating the tariffs is relatively narrow.

• If the ruling stands, relief is limited to the importers who brought suit — two private firms and Washington State. The court dismissed claims from other non-importer parties for lack of standing. Additional importers could — and likely will — seek relief with their own lawsuits.
• The court also sidestepped the broader question of whether the US currently faces a “fundamental international payments problem”, the authorized purpose of Section 122. Instead, it found the administration’s stated justification — trade and current account deficits — was not an appropriate stand-in.
   

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 23:31

Saudi Arabia's $1Tn Wealth Fund Opens Shanghai Office As China Ties Deepen

Via The Cradle

Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) opened a second office in mainland China earlier this year, establishing a Shanghai branch to expand dealmaking and attract more Chinese investment into the kingdom, Bloomberg reports.

The office was registered last year, falls under PIF’s Beijing branch, and is led by Lily Cong, a former chief representative of Fidelity International in China’s capital.

Source: Britannica 

The Shanghai outpost was reportedly created to strengthen the $1 trillion fund’s ability to pursue outbound deals in China, while officials are also seeking to bring more Chinese companies into Saudi Arabia.

This move strengthens Riyadh’s investment relationship with Beijing, while the US continues to be a major market for the kingdom. The Shanghai office expands PIF’s global presence, which already features offices in New York, London, Hong Kong, and Paris. 

Saudi Arabia and China already maintain strategic and financial links across sectors, including energy and finance, while other Gulf wealth funds are also looking to expand their exposure to China.

Abu Dhabi is also considering placing Chinese assets held by two of its wealth funds into a new entity, according to earlier reports, a move that could pave the way for a broader shift in its investment strategy.

The Gulf investment push comes amid major shifts in West Asian markets following the US war on Iran, triggering regional disruptions that have put pressure on Gulf economies and accelerated moves away from dollar-dominated energy trade.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other Gulf states have deepened yuan-based financial links with China, while disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have further exposed the fragility of the “petrodollar order”.

According to a report by Fortune, Riyadh did not formally renew its 2024 commitment to price oil exclusively in US dollars, a year after signing a $7 billion currency swap agreement with Beijing. 

The Saudi central bank is also a key participant in the mBridge digital payment platform, which enables direct currency exchanges via blockchain technology.

Economists cited by Fortune say the shift reflects China's growing weight in Saudi trade, as Beijing has displaced the US as the kingdom’s largest oil customer. 

"The economic gravity pointed toward yuan while the currency arrangement pointed toward dollars," EBC Financial Group analyst Michael Harris wrote. 

Saudi Arabia still conducts most deals in US dollars, but expanding financial ties with Beijing signal a broader effort to diversify trade and investment channels as China positions the yuan as a possible alternative in global energy markets.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 22:35

Chief Justice Roberts Says US Supreme Court Is Not Political

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

Chief Justice John Roberts said on May 6 that U.S. Supreme Court justices are not “political actors.”

Roberts’s comments came at a conference in Hershey, Pennsylvania, attended by judges and attorneys from the jurisdictions covered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. That circuit encompasses Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Although some of the high court’s decisions may be unpopular, they are based exclusively on the law, he said at the gathering.

“I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we’re saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides,” said the jurist, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005.

“I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.”

Roberts’s speech came at a time when public confidence in the Supreme Court is at a low ebb, and a week after the court issued a ruling that changed how the federal Voting Rights Act is interpreted.

Roberts was part of the court’s majority on April 29 when it ruled 6–3 in Louisiana v. Callais that race may only be a minor factor in redistricting rationales, and may not be the predominant, overriding reason for how congressional district lines are drawn.

The justices struck down a federal district judge’s decision that created a second black-majority congressional district in Louisiana. The judge had ruled the electoral district was needed to comply with anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

The ruling has spurred a new round of mid-decade redistricting efforts, largely in Republican-dominated state legislatures around the country.

In the past few years, the Supreme Court has also issued rulings striking down the constitutional right to abortion, strengthening gun rights, weakening the powers of federal agencies, and getting rid of affirmative action in higher education admissions.

Roberts avoided mentioning any specific rulings in his presentation, but stressed that the court is “simply not part of the political process.”

He said the court’s formal, written opinions are based on the Constitution.

“One thing we have to do is make decisions that are unpopular,” Roberts said.

The chief justice said criticism should be aimed at rulings, instead of individuals in the form of personal attacks.

He denounced the rhetorical targeting of lower court judges.

“That’s not appropriate, and it can lead to very serious problems,” Roberts said.

Weeks ago, Roberts said that personal criticism of federal judges imperils the judiciary.

Although criticism of judicial opinions “comes with the territory” and can be healthy, “personally directed hostility is dangerous and it’s got to stop,” he told an audience at Rice University in Houston, Texas, on March 17.

As the chief justice of the United States, Roberts presides over Supreme Court oral arguments and oversees the entire federal judiciary.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 21:45

Uber Says AI Is Writing More Code and Slowing Hiring Growth

Uber Technologies, Inc. is expanding its use of AI tools and using some of those efficiency gains to slow the pace of hiring, according to Business Insider.

Speaking on the company’s first quarter earnings call, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said autonomous coding agents now account for about 10% of Uber’s code updates. Engineers still review that output before it is committed to internal repositories, but he said the shift offers an early glimpse of how AI can accelerate software development.

Business Insider writes that Uber has long relied on machine learning for customer facing functions such as setting ride prices and pairing drivers with riders. Now the company is rolling out similar tools across internal teams. “We’re seeing uptake of these tools, whether it’s our legal team or marketing team or developers,” Khosrowshahi said. “We think it’s creating kind of employees with superpowers.”

That broader adoption is influencing hiring plans. CFO Balaji Krishnamurthy said executives did not fully anticipate how quickly AI tools would improve productivity when they mapped out their 2026 budget.

He said on the call, per Goldman: “One last comment on AI. I would say, candidly, when we set up budgets for 2026 in November, we underestimated the amount of impact the AI tools could have,” he said. After a new wave of models arrived in December, Uber “re-upped our investment here,” while also reducing “incremental headcount growth.”

The spending ramp has been significant. Last month, CTO Praveen Neppalli Naga said Uber had already used its entire 2026 budget for Anthropic’s Claude Code, underscoring how quickly demand for AI tools is growing inside the company.

Khosrowshahi said the strategy makes sense if those tools continue improving employee output. “If every person at this company can increase their throughput by 20%, 30%, 50%, 100%, then I think metering headcount growth and leaning in on AI investment is going to be well worth it,” he said.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 21:20

'Muslim-Only' Water Park Event Canceled By Texas City

Authored by Tom Gantert via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Texas city that had a Muslim-only celebration scheduled at a city-owned water park has said that the event would be canceled.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott speaks to the media at the Texas Capitol in Austin, Texas, on Aug. 22, 2025. Eric Gay/AP Photo

“After further review and in the best interest of the City of Grand Prairie, the June 1 Eid event at Epic Waters Indoor Waterpark has been canceled. No additional comment will be made at this time,” said Eric Alvarez, spokesman for the city of Grand Prairie.

Aminah Knight, the organizer of the event, said she was “deeply disappointed” by the event being canceled and had only been informed by a park manager.

“What began as a private event for the Muslim community to celebrate Eid in a joyful and modest environment became something much bigger than I ever imagined,” she said in a text message to The Epoch Times. “The flyer was originally shared within private community spaces, but it was later circulated more broadly by people who were not interested in attending, but rather in creating division and controversy.”

Knight said she is going to turn what she called a “painful experience” into “something beautiful” and will host an interfaith event called “The Great American Cookout” on July 4. She said the event would be a place “where people from different backgrounds can come together, connect, and truly get to know one another as Americans.”

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott threatened to pull $530,000 in state funding if the city of Grand Prairie allowed the celebration to go on.

The event was to celebrate Eid al-Adha, an annual Islamic celebration, and was promoted as being for only Muslims. While the city of Grand Prairie owns the water park, a private third-party contractor runs it.

“A city-owned water park in Grand Prairie openly advertised a ‘MUSLIMS ONLY’ event—closed to the general public,” Abbott posted on X on Wednesday. “That’s religious discrimination. It’s unconstitutional. I signed HB 4211 into law—banning Muslim only no-go zones in Texas. The City must cancel the event and commit to never allowing something like it again by May 11th, or lose $530,000 in state grants. Let this be a lesson to local officials: Facilities funded by ALL taxpayers are not just for a subset of Texans.”

The city, prior to the cancellation, posted a message on its website.

“The City of Grand Prairie is aware of concerns that have been expressed about an upcoming private event at Epic Waters,” the statement reads. “The City has been in contact with the Epic Waters management team to ensure all policies and procedures have been followed. Epic Waters is owned by the City and managed by a third-party operator. Like other City-owned facilities, it is available for rental by individuals and organizations.”

Alvarez said earlier Wednesday in an email to The Epoch Times that the city reached out to Abbott’s office and was in discussions with the state government regarding the matter.

The third-party contractor did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Knight posted on the event’s website, “So if you are a friend of a different faith who wants to celebrate the Eid holiday with us and adhere to the modest dress code ... this event is FOR YOU TOO!”

Knight continued: “DFW Epic Eid is a privately organized and privately funded event held through a standard rental of Epic Waters, just like many other private gatherings hosted at the park. This event was created to celebrate Eid al-Adha, one of the most important holidays in Islam, which commemorates faith, devotion, and gratitude. … In response to feedback, we have updated our materials to clearly reflect that this is a modest dress-only event, centered around a respectful and family-friendly environment.”

Mitch Little, a Republican Texas state representative, said in a video posted on Facebook that he learned the “Muslim-only” event had been held two previous times.

“I think this is a very serious civil rights violation that is going on here,” Little said in the video. “If you are making a public accommodation, whether it is a restaurant or a hotel or an entertainment venue like Epic Waters, you’re not permitted to exclude people on the basis of race, religion, etc. I think people are locally shocked at what is going on here.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 18:25

"Existential": Israel Quadruples Foreign-Influence Budget To Massive $730M

With the ranks of its foreign sympathizers plummeting all around the world and all across the political spectrum, the State of Israel is quadrupling its budget for so-called "public diplomacy," bringing its 2026 spending on foreign influence campaigns to a massive $730 million.

With the country's growing unpopularity threatening US financial, military and diplomatic support, Israel's foreign minister has said an intensified effort to mold global opinion is an "existential issue." Both inside and outside of Israel, the country's public diplomacy effort is also referred to by its Hebrew name: hasbara. Even before the 2026 ramp-up in spending, Israel's spending on hasbara was already striking. 

Recent disclosures about 2025 hasbara spending shed some light on how Israel goes about shaping public opinion. Per the Jerusalem Post, that year's outlays included a $50 million social media ad campaign carried out on Google, YouTube, X and Outbrain. Another $40 million covered the hosting of foreign delegations. “We flew a lot of delegations to the country - whether it’s pastors, whether it’s politicians, universities,” Israeli Consul General Israel Bachar told the Jerusalem Post. “Everyone who returns from the country understands better and is more supportive. But you have to fly out a lot of people.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson abruptly ended the workweek, sending the House into early recess to avoid a vote on releasing more Jeffrey Epstein documents.

Members of Congress then packed their bags and flew to Israel. pic.twitter.com/QMV3TvAgaK

— FlyingBeagle "Abu Alya" (@FlyingBeagle_) August 6, 2025

“We must as a country invest much, much more,” Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar argued in December. “It should be like investing in jets, bombs and missile interceptors. In the face of what’s arrayed against us and what’s invested against us, it’s far from enough. This is an existential issue.”

An April Pew Research survey found that 60% of American adults now view Israel unfavorably -- that's up 18 points from 2022. Underscoring the mammoth challenge faced by Israel's hasbarists, the proportion of Americans who have a very unfavorable view of Israel now stands at 28% -- triple what it was in 2022. Most alarming for Israel is the cratering of support among Republicans, with 57% of those under 50 now viewing Israel unfavorably.  

The erosion of US support has taken place over a span that has included Israel's stunningly-destructive rampage across Gaza in response to the Oct 7 2023 Hamas invasion of Israel, and this year's US-Israeli war on Iran which has caused fuel prices to rocket higher while threatening a global economic catastrophe. 

The money they steal from you they spend on lying to you. https://t.co/YUwfEEqhFm

— Scott Horton (@scotthortonshow) May 5, 2026

Israel's weakened position in US politics is manifesting in various ways. Candidates in Democratic primaries are now attacking opponents who've taken money from the pro-Israel lobby, which has prompted those forces to effectively "launder" their contributions through intermediary organizations. This week, 30 House Democrats co-signed a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, demanding that the US government finally acknowledge the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal -- ending decades of bipartisan obfuscation. Votes in Congress that follow the Israel lobby's recommendations used to be enormously lopsided on Israel's side, but are now decided by just a handful of votes -- with the lobby still prevailing for now.   

In October, westerners' wariness of Israeli hasbara was heightened by Responsible Statecraft's revelation that Israel was paying social-media influencers something like $7,000 per pro-Israel post that they made. 

The best 'conservative' influencers Israel can buy?

Emily Austin participated in the Epstein binders hoax, and joined Netanyahu's recent influencers meeting

Xavaier DuRousseau attended the secret Hamptons influencer summit with Bill Ackman, then junketed off to Israel pic.twitter.com/JLoGk3Jzfd

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) September 28, 2025

Some hasbara efforts have been carried out in a purposely deceptive fashion. For example, an undercover Al Jazeera documentary captured American Jordan Schachtel, who now publishes The Dossier on Substack, describing his involvement in a social media campaign in which Israeli propagandists ran Facebook pages that ostensibly cover topics far from geopolitics -- such as the environment or feminism -- for the sole purpose of periodically sprinkling the feed with pro-Israel content. "It’s a secretive thing, because we don’t want people to know that these side projects are associated with The Israel Project," Schachtel was caught saying on hidden camera.

Imagine what they'll be cooking up with three-quarters of a billion dollars. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 18:00

The Maps Are Moving: How A Supreme Court Ruling Turned The 2026 House Race Into A Republican Offensive

A few short weeks ago House Democrats were riding high. They had spent tens of millions to win a Virginia referendum that promised up to four new seats. President Trump was struggling in the polls. The path to a House majority looked plausible.

Yet in the span of roughly two weeks, a combination of aggressive Republican redistricting and a pivotal Supreme Court decision has dramatically altered the battlefield. What was once a Democratic advantage has become a steep uphill climb. Republicans are now positioned to gain as many as 10 to 14 seats through map changes alone - enough to transform a narrow 217–212 majority into something much more durable.

Supreme Spark

The turning point was the Supreme Court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. The decision effectively curtailed the use of race in drawing congressional districts under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. For Democrats, who had long relied on VRA protections to create majority-minority districts in the South, the ruling was a gut punch. For Republicans, it was an opening.

Southern states with Republican trifectas moved with remarkable speed. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a map that could eliminate four Democratic seats. Alabama called a special session to redraw its map with the goal of flipping two Democratic districts and giving the GOP all seven seats. Tennessee targeted the lone Democratic stronghold in Memphis. Louisiana, South Carolina, and even Mississippi began exploring ways to eliminate their remaining Democratic representatives.

Republican Redistricting Surge

Here’s a clear breakdown of the Republican-led redistricting efforts and their potential impact:

Here's the updated version with black text in the header (since the black background is being locked out):

State Current GOP Seats Potential Change Status / Notes Florida 20 of 28 +4 Map signed by Gov. DeSantis. Multiple lawsuits pending. Texas 24 of 37 +5 New map approved by Supreme Court. Most aggressive early move. Alabama 5 of 7 +2 (aiming for 7–0) Special session called. Targeting Reps. Figures and possibly Sewell. Tennessee 8 of 9 +1 (targeting Rep. Steve Cohen) Special session underway. Memphis seat in crosshairs. Louisiana 4 of 6 +2 (aiming for 6–0) Redrawing after SCOTUS ruling. Primary delayed. South Carolina 6 of 7 +1 (targeting Rep. Jim Clyburn) Considering new map to eliminate Clyburn’s deep-blue seat. North Carolina 7 of 14 +1 New map approved; flips one Democratic seat. Mississippi 3 of 4 +1 (targeting Rep. Bennie Thompson) Gov. Reeves considering it — most likely for 2028.

Total Potential Republican Gains: 10–14 seats

Democrats have tried to mount a counteroffensive in states where they still hold power, but their efforts have been more limited and face greater legal headwinds. In California, voters approved Proposition 50 last year, a Democratic-drawn map designed to net the party five additional seats - though the map is now under legal challenge following the Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais decision. Virginia appeared to deliver one of Democrats’ biggest victories when voters approved a redistricting referendum on April 21 that could give the party as many as four new seats - potentially 10 of the state’s 11 districts. However, that victory is now in serious jeopardy after a Virginia judge ruled the referendum invalid just one day later, nullifying the results. Efforts in New York to flip the state’s lone Republican seat were blocked by the Supreme Court, while proposed maps in Maryland and Illinois have either been rejected by Democratic lawmakers or paused over legal concerns. Utah remains a rare bright spot for Democrats, where a court-imposed map could add one seat. Overall, Democratic gains have proven far more fragile and uncertain than the aggressive Republican advances in the South.

Democratic Counter-Moves

Democrats have not been passive. They’ve pursued their own aggressive strategies where they hold power:

State Current Dem Seats Potential Change Status / Notes California 13 of 52 +5 Proposition 50 passed by voters. Now facing lawsuits after SCOTUS ruling. Virginia 6 of 11 +4 (could reach 10 of 11) Voter-approved referendum. Major uncertainty — Virginia Supreme Court may strike it down. Utah 1 of 4 +1 Court rejected GOP map and imposed a new one drawn by a centrist group. New York 15 of 26 Limited / blocked Attempt to flip Staten Island’s GOP seat blocked by SCOTUS. Now pushing to amend state constitution. Maryland 7 of 8 None Gov. Moore’s map rejected by Democratic legislature over legal concerns. Illinois 14 of 17 None (paused) Proposed race-based amendment paused after SCOTUS decision. Bottom Line

Republicans currently hold a clear structural advantage, especially across the South, where they control the process in multiple states, while Democratic gains are more limited and face greater legal uncertainty (particularly in Virginia and California). Virginia remains the single biggest near-term variable for Democrats. If the court overturns the referendum, their path to a House majority becomes significantly harder.

A potential 10-to-14 seat Republican gain would be significant. In a chamber this closely divided, it could mean the difference between a fragile majority and comfortable control heading into 2028.

Yet, the devil is in the details (including election-related malarkey). Even the most skillfully drawn maps can be overwhelmed by national political tides. If the economy weakens, if President Trump’s approval ratings remain low, or if a major scandal erupts, some of these newly Republican-leaning districts could still flip. Conversely, a strong Republican environment would amplify the advantages of these new maps.

So for now, the momentum belongs to Republicans, but the situation remains fluid. Multiple maps face lawsuits, Virginia’s fate is uncertain, and candidate recruitment and national conditions could still reshape the battlefield.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 17:20

Dana White Says Society Is Failing Young Men, And The Backlash Proves His Point

Authored by David Manney via PJ Media,

Dana White touched some nerves this week when he mocked modern concerns over toxic masculinity and warned that society is increasingly pushing young men aside.

Cue the shrieks in 3...2...1...0

White's broader point, however, resonated with millions of Americans who see young men struggling socially, economically, and emotionally while much of modern culture (read: feminazis) treats masculinity itself like a behavior problem needing correction.

White appeared on The Katie Miller Podcast, where the host and wife of Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff for policy, asked him about the state of young men and women in America today. 

DANA WHITE: “When you're a man, you are the provider. You are the one that that takes care of your family. You are the example for your kids when they grow up and your sons, and your daughters.

“You can't be that guy that I see posting on social media. Oh, I had a bad day, and… pic.twitter.com/3P1M8GsTZY

— Katie Miller (@KatieMiller) May 5, 2026

White went on to argue that young men are struggling with a wildly different set of circumstances than the ones he grew up with.

"Times are changing from when I was young," he said. "These young men, I think, you know, we went through COVID and the whole woke era and all the weird s--- that went on during that period. A lot of the young males felt displaced."

The UFC president noted that he often gets accused of outlandish things like "being the head of the manosphere, whatever that means" and of "toxic masculinity."

Around 12 years ago, I ran into such a proud feminist who started to rip me a new one because I held a door open for her. I let her go for about five seconds before laying some truth on her, saying, “You know who taught me to hold a door for women? My mother, the strongest person I've ever known.”

It stopped her cold. Maybe because of what I said, but I really think it's because of how I said it. My guess was that she was used to rolling over men trying to be polite.

For years, political activists, academics, and media commentators have used phrases like "toxic masculinity" to describe aggressive, destructive, or antisocial male behavior.

So when White opines on what manhood supposedly is or isn’t, it offers insight into the perspective of some men in the MAGA movement, which is deeply obsessed with performative masculinity. That’s why I found it pitiful to see him publicly berating men who openly discuss their mental health.

White delivered his commentary, fittingly, on the podcast of MAGA influencer Katie Miller, who is married to White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller. White, after saying it’s a “man’s job” to make sure a woman feels “safe” and is “treated right,” admitted that his idea of masculinity is “toxic” and railed against men who talk about their feelings

And that's fair; real abuse, violence, and recklessness deserve criticism regardless of gender.

Problems start when the conversation expands so broadly that ordinary masculine traits begin falling under suspicion too. Competitiveness becomes dangerous, stoicism becomes unhealthy, physical toughness becomes outdated, and leadership becomes problematic.

Even fatherhood sometimes gets discussed less as a social necessity and more as an optional accessory.

Young men notice.

Many of them also notice who usually delivers the lectures. Discussions surrounding masculinity often happen in universities, activist circles, corporate HR departments, entertainment panels, and political spaces where traditional male culture receives little respect.

Blue-collar values, physical labor, risk-taking, hunting, mechanical trades, competitive sports, and military service were, for years, increasingly viewed through a skeptical culture lens instead of being treated as honorable parts of society.

White's comments gained traction partly because he works inside one of the few major industries where unapologetic masculinity still openly exists. The UFC built an audience around discipline, competition, toughness, accountability, and merit. Fighters either win or lose, and excuses carry little value once the cage door closes.

Many cultural leaders still respond by doubling down on criticism instead of asking why so many young men feel disconnected from institutions increasingly dominated by ideological messaging. 

Could it be that those institutions have been increasingly hostile in their ideological messaging?

Our entertainment industry has talked about empowering nearly every demographic group imaginable, while conversations involving boys and men frequently center around correction, privilege, or danger.

White argued that society risks creating a generation of displaced young men searching for identity and purpose. Recent political trends suggest he may have found something. President Donald Trump made major gains among younger male voters during the 2024 election cycle, especially among working-class men frustrated with cultural hostility toward traditional masculinity.

Not every criticism of masculinity is unfair; plenty of destructive male behavior exists. Every society needs standards involving responsibility, self-control, and respect. Yet healthy masculinity historically built families, defended nations, worked dangerous jobs, and carried enormous physical burdens most people preferred avoiding.

Society heavily depends on those traits today, even while portions of "elite" culture mock them.

White's critics often frame masculinity discussions as a battle between progress and backwardness.

If you’re considering looking to White for lessons on manhood or mental health, consider that this is a person who was recorded slapping his wife in public in 2023 (White said afterward, “I’ve been against this. I’ve owned this. I’m telling you that I’m wrong” but faced no repercussions) and said he had “almost no feelings about” the death of his parents, from whom he was estranged.

And yet, there he was on Miller’s podcast, lecturing American men on how they should ignore their feelings and make women feel “safe.” 

A man discussing his feelings or openly referencing his mental health issues obviously doesn’t preclude him from providing or being present for his loved ones. It’s suggestions to the contrary that contribute to the men’s mental health crisis, which people like White seem to want us all to ignore.

Many ordinary Americans instead see fathers coaching Little League, mechanics fixing engines, linemen restoring power after storms, soldiers serving overseas, and construction workers building homes. Most don't view those men as threats to society.

Fighter culture understands something modern politics often forgets: young men usually respond better to purpose than humiliation. They want challenge, respect, direction, and responsibility. Constantly framing masculinity itself as suspicious leaves many entirely tuning out.

Ironically, the furious backlash toward White helped reinforce his argument; a culture truly comfortable with masculinity probably wouldn't panic each time somebody yelled "Man!" in a crowded theater.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 17:00

UN Climate Panel Quietly Admits Its Doomsday Climate Scenarios Were 'Implausible'

The IPCC has published a new generation of climate scenarios - and buried in the fine print is a remarkable concession: the extreme warming pathways that dominated climate research, policy, and media coverage for decades were never actually plausible. It took a while to notice because almost no one in mainstream media bothered to report it.

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just published the next generation of climate scenarios," Science policy analyst Roger Pielke Jr. wrote, calling it "big news" that "eliminated the most extreme scenarios that have dominated climate research over much of the past several decades." 

The conclusion was unambiguous. "The IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures."

Those "impossible futures" formed the backbone of a decade-plus of apocalyptic climate messaging - melting ice caps, submerged coastlines, mass extinctions, widespread crop failures, and global hunger, always around the corner, always demanding immediate, economy-reshaping action to avert a catastrophe that, it now turns out, the underlying science community had assigned to a category closer to science fiction than projection.

The new IPCC framework formally demotes its remaining "HIGH scenario" from expected outcome to "exploratory - a thought experiment, not a projection."

That's a significant institutional retreat. 

Pielke noted that the previous framework lacked "any systematic effort to evaluate plausibility of scenarios," meaning the scariest pathways were able to dominate the policy debate for years without anyone in the room applying a basic reality check. 

What matters today is that the group with official responsibility for developing climate scenarios for the IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.

Curiously, the revised framework was technically adopted back in 2021, but has only now filtered into public view as related technical and institutional changes caught up. And it’s fair to ask why. The policy consequences of those “impossible futures” were very real.

As the Daily Sceptic's Chris Morrison opines; 

It cannot be over-emphasised how important this finding of implausibility is. It means that almost every fearmongering mainstream media climate headline and story that has been written over the last 15 years is junk. Of course it also explains why a growing band of sceptical commentators have refused to accept the political concept of ‘settled’ science and have engaged in widespread debunking. Shooting fish in a barrel is one way of describing this work. At times, with just a modicum of investigative scepticism, the stories can be seen as little more than an insult to average human intelligence.

When the RCP8.5 assumptions are loaded into computer models, they run politically-convenient red hot suggestions that the temperature in 2100 will rise by about 4°C from a 1850-1900 baseline – in other words, a rise of nearly 3°C in the next 80 years. Only the most deranged eco loons will claim such large short-term rises out loud, so the activist scientists quietly loaded garbage assumptions into their computers to arrive at their garbage-out Armageddon scares. The writing was on the wall for RCP8.5 last year when President Trump’s executive order titled ‘Restoring Gold Standard Science’ effectively banned the use of RCP8.5 for scientists on the United States federal payroll. It also noted one of the unrealistic RCP8.5 assumptions driving deliberate climate psychosis to be that end-of-century coal use will exceed estimates of recoverable reserves.

At the time, the climate researcher Zeke Hausfather dismissed the Trump Administration’s claims about RCP8.5 by stating that the research community had moved on. But Pielke has taken issue with this ‘nothing to see here’ claim. He states that from 2018 to 2021, Google Scholar reported 17,000 articles published using RCP8.5 compared with 16,900 in the next three year period. “Some shift,” he observed.

Again, those using less charitable words might note that the ultimate climate crackpipe has proved difficult to put down. A long and painful process of rehabilitation now seems likely.

RCP8.5 assumed high emissions of carbon dioxide leading to a radiative forcing (extra energy trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere) of 8.5 watts per square metre. The new pathways act as agreed guidelines for computer models that will then provide information for the IPCC’s forthcoming seventh assessment reports. Pielke has run the figures and estimates that the new high scenario will produce 3°C of warming by 2100, a reduction from 3.9°C but still an improbable 1.8°C rise in less than 80 years. Of course these new scenarios are just assumptions anyway, and on past observational evidence of atmospheric gas ‘saturation’ stretching back 600 million years they still grossly overestimate the warming effect of a few trace gases. Much higher levels of CO2 were the norm in the past in a complex, chaotic, non-linear and ultimately unmeasurable atmosphere. Climate scare bingo based on sightings in mainstream media of ‘scientists say’ will likely continue as long as an audience, albeit a diminishing one, still believes in the politicised agitprop of a ‘climate emergency’.

* * *

Climate change has been sold for years as an existential race against the clock, and despite decades of failed predictions, the alarmism hasn’t stopped.

In 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) warned that if we don’t address the climate issue, the planet would be destroyed in just 12 years.

Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned in a video posted on social media in 2023 that climate change is the “greatest threat facing our country and all of humanity,” and warned that “If there is not bold, immediate, and united action by governments throughout the world, the quality of life that we are leaving our kids and future generations is very much in question.”

This regular framing of the need for immediate action has prompted Democrats to impose massive spending and sweeping mandates. Billions in taxpayer dollars have gone into green energy boondoggles, all justified by the promise of stopping catastrophic climate change. The same narrative fueled a wave of regulations that hit ordinary Americans with higher costs and fewer choices. In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom put that agenda into action, signing Executive Order N-79-20 to phase out gas-powered passenger vehicles by 2035 and medium- to heavy-duty vehicles by 2045. Two years later, Gov. Kathy Hochul followed through in New York with her own executive order, mandating that 35% of 2026 model-year cars sold in the state be "emissions-free," scaling to 68% by 2030 and 100% by 2035. These Zero-Emission Vehicle mandates, along with aggressive federal emissions standards, were sold to the public as necessary responses to scenarios the IPCC now effectively acknowledges were describing things that could never happen.

Climate alarmism, of course, didn’t exist in a vacuum. It grew into a full-blown political and financial ecosystem - a machinery of grants, advocacy groups, media narratives, and regulatory agendas built on the premise that civilization had twelve to fifteen years to change course or face collapse. 

“The now-implausible upper-end scenarios […] are not just academic constructs used in esoteric research,” explains Pielke. “They are embedded in the policies and regulations of most of the world’s largest economies, found across the world’s most important multilateral institutions, and used in the climate stress tests that govern hundreds of billions of dollars in bank capital.”

That reality should spark real outrage. 

For years, the public was bombarded with worst-case scenarios that drove policy, justified massive spending, and steered hundreds of billions in capital - all under the banner of urgency and fear. If those dire projections were overstated or outright implausible, then the scale of the misallocation is staggering, and the media should be taking an interest in this story. Americans were told the clock was about to run out, and they were forced to pay accordingly. The fact that this reckoning hasn’t triggered a broader backlash says as much as the original alarmism ever did.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 16:40

The Democratic Party Is Dead, Long Live The Jacobins!

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

For the past century, the agendas of the Democratic Party were predictable. They professed concern for working Americans and supported blue-collar unions.

Unemployment insurance, a 40-hour work week, disability insurance, and Social Security were their trademarks—often rapidly achieved by growing government bureaucracies and continually raising taxes. Still, many Democrats were socially conservative.

By the 1970s, Democrats still deplored antisemitism. Party officials had rejected their own segregationists to champion civil rights.

Presidents like Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy all supported strong defense and military deterrence.

All that is now passé.

The only vestigial Democrat left in Congress is Pennsylvania Senator John Fetterman, himself roundly despised by Democrat leaders.

Today, supporting Israel and calling for campuses to stop their institutionalized antisemitism is Democratic political suicide.

Forty years ago, any Democrat with a Nazi tattoo was political toast; today, he can become the party’s nominee for the Maine Senate race.

So, the current Democrat Party is no longer truly democratic at all. Its new spirit and methods resemble the radical Jacobin Party of the French Revolution. Today, Democrats claim that if any opponent gives a Roman salute, he is a Nazi—while insisting that one of their own with a Nazi tattoo is not.

Jacobinism rejects Martin Luther King Jr.’s emphasis on the “content of . . . character.” It instead prefers fixating on “the color of . . . skin.”

It aims to divide the nation arbitrarily between the noble oppressed and the toxic oppressors.

So these new Jacobins have institutionalized racially separate college dorms and graduation ceremonies, along with hiring and promoting on the basis of race.

The new Jacobins destroyed the southern border and welcomed in 10–12 million illegal aliens, seen as a future proletariat constituency. Today’s Jacobins would now ridicule Bill Clinton’s 1990s calls for secure borders and an end to illegal immigration as “fascist” and “racist.”

The most recent nihilist developments in American society can be attributed to these Jacobin “Democrats”: biological men competing in women’s sports; critical legal theory that normalizes cashless bail; race-based reparations; violent felons arrested and back on the street hours later; radical abortion on demand until birth; attacks on the concept of the cultural “melting pot”; and opposition to organized Christianity.

These agendas lack broad majority support. So street theater and violence focus on Tesla dealerships, ICE officers, conservative campus speakers, and, at times, any journalists covering the unrest.

Jacobins make excuses for pro-Hamas campus violence, which often targets Jewish students. The often violent and corrupt Black Lives Matter movement was a Jacobin ancillary.

Free speech is labeled “disinformation” and “misinformation”—synonyms for not toeing the Jacobin Party line. Until recent pushbacks, near-religious radical green agendas warred against fossil fuels and cost the working classes billions of dollars for sky-high fuel and electricity costs.

Like the Robespierre brothers of old, the most radical Jacobins are so often to be found among the wealthiest and most privileged Americans. Radical New York mayor Zohran Mamdani grew up as a rich Ugandan. Radical, self-described communist Maine senatorial candidate Graham Platner attended one of the most elite and expensive prep schools in the United States.

When avowed socialists Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders barnstormed the country, they did so via private jets.

Radical “Squad” member Rep. Ilhan Omar cannot decide whether she is worth $30 million or nothing. Hard-left California billionaire, gubernatorial candidate, and radical environmentalist Tom Steyer is a billionaire who jump-started his fortune by investing in coal plants overseas and offshoring profits to avoid taxes.

At least 10 states are drafting laws to tax the net worth, as well as the income, of “billionaires and millionaires,” apparently for their “social” crimes. Mayor Mamdani taps on the window of philanthropist Ken Griffin as a warning to get out of town. The mayor of Seattle scoffs at the rich leaving her state with their billions due to new punitive taxes, offering a sarcastic “bye.”

In the old days, Democrats were embarrassed by their radicals and distanced themselves from the Weather Underground, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Black Panthers. Today, left-wing bomb throwers are the Democrat Party.

Hasan Piker, another multimillionaire, $200,000 Porsche-driving communist, has openly supported “social murder.”

So Piker praised Luigi Mangione’s targeted murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson.

Meanwhile, Jacobins on social media expressed disappointment that all three assassination attempts on Donald Trump failed. The arsonist who burned down Pacific Palisades was a Mangione acolyte and saw his destruction as a revolutionary act, perhaps a form of mass “social murder.”

Jacobin politicians call for Trump to be “eliminated,” label him as a “fascist,” and call for “any means necessary” to end his presidency.

The aim is to lower the social and psychological barrier to violence.

The Jacobin Democrats of today are systematically destroying the legacy of the Democratic Party. And why not?

Their model is not the American Founding, but the radical mandated equality—and violence—of the French Revolution.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 16:20

30 House Dems Demand US Confirmation That Israel Has Nuclear Arsenal

In the latest indication that Israel's position in American politics is growing increasingly shaky, a group of 30 House Democrats have co-signed a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, demanding that the US government finally acknowledge the existence of Israel's nuclear arsenal. It's a milestone event: For decades, both parties have diligently co-conspired in avoiding such a confirmation, typically claiming ignorance on the rare occasions when journalists or citizens asked them about it.

MUST SEE: For many years, journalist @samhusseini has tracked down high-level politicos in Washington, D.C. and asked them variations of the same question:

“Do you know that Israel has nuclear weapons?”

Watch as he presses John Negroponte, Mike Pence, John Kerry, the Biden and… pic.twitter.com/kDtFyZhA4i

— Decensored News (@decensorednews) April 7, 2026

Now we have dozens of House representatives asking the question. "This is something that people did not dare do before,” Avner Cohen, a historian of Israel's nuclear program, told the Washington Post. “Even raising these questions publicly is a departure from a bipartisan norm.”

The letter puts the need for transparency in the context of the ongoing US-Israel-initiated war with Iran -- which was launched over the claim that Iran was on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon, a claim that clashes with the repeated conclusions of the US intelligence community. The letter emphasizes that many of the countries with stakes in the conflict -- including the United States, the UK, Russia, China and Pakistan -- are nuclear-weapon states. 

“The risks of miscalculation, escalation, and nuclear use in this environment are not theoretical...Congress has a constitutional responsibility to be fully informed about the nuclear balance in the Middle East, the risk of escalation by any party to this conflict, and the administration’s planning and contingencies for such scenarios.”

Further violating the long-running bipartisan commitment to ignoring Israel's doomsday arsenal, the four-page letter points to many indications of that arsenal's existence, including revelations and photographs provided in 1986 by Israeli nuclear technician Mordechai Vanunu, the contents of a formerly classified 1974 National Intelligence Estimate, and a statement-under-oath by then-Secretary of Defense nominee Robert Gates casually including Israel in a list of nuclear powers operating in the Middle East. 

Israeli leaker Mordechai Vanunu provided this photo to the London Sunday Times, and said it shows the control room of a plutonium separation plant. Israel tracked him down, used a female agent to lure him to Italy, drug him, then put him on a freight ship to Israel where he was imprisoned. 

The letter culminates in a pointed list of questions. Among other things, the Democratic representatives demand to know what nuclear weapons capability Israel has, the country's enrichment capabilities, and its doctrine guiding the use of nuclear weapons.

The Post reports that the Trump administration has been assessing Israel's potential to go nuclear in its joint war on Iran with the United States. "There is a low boil of unease about Israel’s nuclear program and what could compel them to use nuclear weapons short of facing a WMD attack,” a Trump administration official told the Post. One such scenario that US officials are said to "frequently" wring their hands over: An overwhelming barrage that causes an extraordinarily higher pace of Israeli civilian casualties. 

The letter to Rubio was organized by Texas Democratic Rep. Joaquin Castro. As we reported in March, Castro used a House hearing to put America's top arms control official on the spot, pointedly asking him, "Does Israel have nuclear weapons?" Under Secretary of State for Arms Control Thomas G. DiNanno repeatedly dodged and obfuscated, even claiming that "it would be outside of my purview as the arms control and arms proliferation under secretary to discuss that specific question."

We are four weeks into a war where both sides have targeted each other's nuclear facilities.

We risk nuclear disaster. Yet the main Trump official on arms control refused to answer my question on Israel's nuclear capabilities and told me to ask the Israeli government. pic.twitter.com/Sxnru3EIrl

— Joaquin Castro (@JoaquinCastrotx) March 25, 2026

The letter recounts DiNanno's refusal to answer question posed by Castro, and three of the questions for Rubio directly probe the  veil of secrecy surrounding Israel's nuclear weapons: 

• "What are the specific restrictions on Undersecretary DiNanno answering such a question?
• What is the Department’s guidance to its employees on the discussion of any Israeli nuclear weapons capability?
• Please provide any documentation or information regarding the administration’s policy on discussing any potential Israeli nuclear weapons capability, including who has issued any such policies, what such restrictions cover, and who is bound by those restrictions."

Those questions are doubly awkward, because it may be illegal for Rubio to answer them. A secret classification directive issued by the Obama administration seemingly makes explicit the prohibition on talking about Israeli nuclear weapons. It was released in 2015 pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act inquiry. Though its contents are almost entirely redacted, the un-redacted title speaks volumes: “Guidance on Release of Information Relating to the Potential for an Israeli Nuclear Capability.”

One driver of Washington's practice of feigning ignorance about Israel's nuclear arsenal is the fact that -- combined with Israel's refusal to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty -- Israel's arsenal makes every dollar of US aid to Israel illegal, thanks to legislation enacted in the 1970s. While not addressing that inconvenient truth explicitly, the House Dems' letter to Rubio made an implicit reference to it: "If any such disclosure of any Israeli nuclear weapons capability would implicate U.S. laws concerning nonproliferation, we are ready to work with you to address those concerns through legislative action."

That language suggests that the Dems would cooperate in explicitly granting Israel an exception to the ban on aid to non-NPT nuclear states. Israel and its supporters often claim indignation when the country is, in their words, "singled out" for criticism. We don't expect they'll complain if Israel is singled out for an explicit exception to US nuclear non-proliferation law.  

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 15:45

The Complicated Reality Behind High Gas Prices

Authored by Petr Svab via The Epoch Times,

Average gas prices in the United States have gone up by almost 40 percent since March 1.

The reason appears straightforward: Iran has blocked the Strait of Hormuz in response to the U.S. military operation that decapitated its regime and degraded its military. Hundreds of tankers trapped behind the strait cannot deliver their oil, depriving the world of 7 percent to 10 percent of its supply.

Although that explains drastic price increases and even shortages in Europe and Asia, the United States gets almost no oil through the strait. In theory, the country should be energy-independent, as it is a net petroleum exporter.

But in reality, the United States is highly intertwined with the global oil market, and there is little chance it could disentangle itself from it, according to experts who spoke to The Epoch Times.

“Oil is a fungible commodity that can be shipped anywhere in the world, and that is why everyone is impacted by the events,” said Patrick De Haan, petroleum analyst with gas price tracker GasBuddy.

Countries facing shortages are willing to pay top dollar for U.S. oil.

“There’s huge demand to export the product,“ said Paul Sankey, an oil market analyst and president of Sankey Research.

”So that draws the prices up.”

If the U.S. government were to impose limits on oil exports, it would likely cause more problems than it would solve, the experts said.

Light Sweet Versus Heavy Sour

Not all crude oil is made the same. The oil produced in the United States through fracking is called “light sweet.” It is the easiest to refine and contains few impurities such as sulphur.

Much of Middle Eastern oil is categorized as “medium.” It is still fairly easy to process, but it is thicker and contains more sulphur. Canada largely produces “heavy sour” oil. It is even thicker and more sulphurous. Venezuela, despite its gigantic reserves, produces mostly very heavy, sour oil that few refineries can process.

U.S. refineries are generally geared toward heavier oil.

An aerial view shows the Chevron El Segundo refinery, one of California’s largest petroleum processing facilities, in Manhattan Beach, Calif., on April 8, 2026. Average gas prices in the United States have gone up by almost 40 percent since March 1 amid the war in Iran. Mario Tama/Getty Images

“Most of our refineries were built at least half a century ago now,“ said David Blackmon, an energy policy analyst and adviser. ”They were set up to refine heavier grades of crude oil coming in from the Middle East and Mexico, the big producing countries at that time, because we were heavily dependent on foreign oil during those days.”

Refineries have been adjusting to processing lighter grades, Sankey noted.

But switching from one grade to another remains difficult, said Keming Ma, former process engineer at a major refinery in Asia. It is easier to change the oil than the refinery.

“They blend the oil with a different grade to accommodate the refinery,” he said.

In fact, refineries have an incentive to maintain their setup for heavier oil, according to Robert Dauffenbach, an energy expert and professor emeritus at the University of Oklahoma’s Price College of Business.

“These companies have invested billions of dollars into being able to take advantage of the price spread between heavier sour crude, which, quite frankly, can’t be run at every single refinery, so it tends to be cheaper,” he said.

And so the United States exports about 5 million barrels of largely light oil daily, while importing more than 6 million barrels of largely heavy oil.

“We’re kind of maxed out on the amount of light, sweet crude we can run out of refineries,” Dauffenbach said.

And there is another reason why heavier oil is desirable.

Refineries separate crude oil through distillation into fractions, from the lightest such as methane and propane, through petrol (gasoline), and then into heavier oils such as kerosene, diesel, and heating oil until only asphalt is left. The lighter the crude, the less of the heavier fractions it yields.

An aerial photo shows the Nave Photon crude oil tanker carrying Venezuelan oil docked in Freeport, Texas, on Jan. 16, 2026. Venezuela’s crude is largely heavy and sour—thicker and more sulphurous—making it difficult for most refineries to process. Mark Felix/AFP via Getty Images

“We import heavy sour ... because we need it for our refineries to make heavier products like diesel and jet fuel,” said Tracy Shuchart, a senior economist at NinjaTrader Group.

Export Ban Repercussions

“[Limiting exports] would likely push prices down here temporarily, but it would negatively impact many of our major allies that are now relying on us,” De Haan said.

The United States produces about 13 million barrels of crude per day, but its refineries, now running virtually at maximum capacity, guzzle about 16 million barrels per day, Dauffenbach said. The refineries produce more than Americans consume.

“America is a big winner from the exports,“ Sankey said.

”So you'd be shooting yourself in the foot if you banned exports.”

A ban would also throw a wrench into the supply chain.

“Our domestic storage would fill up with this light grade of crude coming out of the shale place, and we'd have to stop importing that heavier crude that we need to manufacture diesel,” Blackmon said.

A farmer prepares a blend of minerals, biologicals, and fertilizers to be sprayed onto fields during seeding in Hickory, N.C., on April 10, 2026. Experts say demand for fuels such as diesel and jet fuel is one reason U.S. refineries favor heavier crude. Grant Baldwin/AFP via Getty Images

It is the heavier fractions “that are very highly desirable right now,” De Haan said.

“Right now, the price of diesel is up even more significantly than gasoline,“ he said. ”So if anything, refiners would like more heavy oil right now.”

An export ban would also have a chilling effect on the industry.

“You’re going to disincentivize more export infrastructure,” Sankey said.

There is not much risk that exports would dent domestic supply too much, he added.

“There’s a limit on how much we can export as well,“ he said. ”So that’s probably not going to be a huge pull above a certain level of exports, which will be the capacity maximization of the existing export infrastructure.”

The Trump administration has already made clear that an export ban is not on the table.

Fuel prices are displayed at a truck stop in Belvidere, Ill., on April 6, 2026. With diesel prices rising faster than gasoline, refiners are turning to import heavier crude needed to produce diesel, experts said. Scott Olson/Getty Images

What Is Next?

The most obvious way out of the current conundrum is to open the Strait of Hormuz. Yet it is not clear how and when that will happen.

Iran does not have the capacity to block the strait outright. Yet it can still issue a credible threat to attack passing vessels. In response, insurance companies are not willing to insure ships, hence shipping companies are not willing to risk passage.

The Trump administration is trying to negotiate a deal with Iran amid a rolling ceasefire. Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a part of Iran’s military that answers to the clerical regime leadership, continues to threaten the crucial shipping lane.

The uncertainty leaves traders scrambling for clues about where oil prices are heading.

Boats navigate the sea in the Strait of Hormuz near Qeshm Island, Iran, on April 28, 2026. The Trump administration is trying to negotiate a deal with Iran amid a rolling ceasefire, but it rejected Iran’s last offer and continues to blockade Iran’s ports. Asghar Besharati/Getty Images

“The market is trying to figure this out,” Dauffenbach said.

It seems, though, that the general tendency is for prices to rise.

“It’s pretty clear in my mind that oil prices are going to continue to slowly rise until there’s a resolution here,” De Haan said.

“That’s what we’re starting to see again. The ceasefire and the peace talks only temporarily pushed the oil prices lower.”

The initial price shock was not as drastic as some expected, in part because of the supply chain lag.

“Going into this conflict, we had some cushions against the supply shock,” Blackmon said.

“We had [about] 400 million barrels of oil already in tankers on the water that provided a cushion. That’s about four days of global supply.”

In addition, the United States, Japan, and China have substantial oil reserves.

“But those are now being depleted on a daily basis,“ he said. ”And, last I saw, about two-thirds of that cushion on the water has been delivered now.”

Still, the United States is much better off than many other countries, particularly in Asia and Europe.

Cars queue at an entry gate to the PCK Schwedt refinery in Schwedt, Germany, on April 30, 2026. Fuel prices in Germany have surged to more than $9 per gallon amid a global energy crisis tied to the Iran conflict. Tobias Schwarz/AFP via Getty Images

Americans experienced “a sticker shock” when gasoline went from $3 to $4, but “the gasoline price is already low here in global terms,” Sankey said, noting that in Germany, gas is now more than $9 per gallon.

The United States benefits not only from domestic supply, but also from substantial imports from Canada.

“About 95 percent of what we consume is here in North America,” Blackmon said.

“We get a little from Mexico, but their industry has really gone downhill in recent years. And then we get some from Venezuela, and some from Brazil and Guyana.”

Canadian oil is generally cheaper “because it has limited means to flow out to the global marketplace,” De Haan said, although he noted that Canada recently opened a pipeline to the West Coast, which will allow it to access other markets in the future.

Thus, Americans are seeing higher prices, but at least no shortages.

“We’re insulated from the big supply shock, because we have such a high degree of energy security,” Blackmon said.

Policy Fixes

Even without export restrictions, the U.S. federal government has some policy options for easing the situation. One thing it has already done is suspend the Jones Act, which states that only American-made and American-flagged ships with American crews can run between American ports. This restriction has previously increased shipping costs between American ports.

Although helpful, it does not move the price much, Dauffenbach said.

“Now they’re getting to the point where there’s not much difference between Jones Act and internationally flagged [ships] because there’s a lack of ships right now,” he said.

A pumpjack stands idle in the Huntington Beach oil field, with port cranes visible in the distance, in Huntington Beach, Calif., on April 23, 2026. America benefits not only from domestic supply, but also from substantial imports from Canada. Mario Tama/Getty Images

The government could call a gas tax holiday.

“It would bring prices down immediately by 18.4 cents a gallon,” he said.

Individual states could also roll back their gas taxes. Georgia has already done so, he noted.

Customers fill up with gas in Los Angeles on March 11, 2026. Despite higher prices, Americans have not faced shortages because of the country’s “high degree of energy security,” analyst David Blackmon said. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

The federal government could allow year-round sales of E15, a fuel containing more ethanol.

“Ethanol is cheaper than gasoline right now, so that would help bring down prices a little bit,” he said.

For now, Americans are stuck paying more, as demand remains steady.

“It’s very difficult for demand to dissipate in the United States, unless things get really out of control, just because everybody has to drive everywhere here,” Shuchart said.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 15:25

AI Is Causing A Tidal Wave Of Job Cuts At Crypto Firms

Layoffs are spreading across crypto and fintech — and executives increasingly say AI is part of the reason, according to Bloomberg.

Coinbase, PayPal, Gemini, and Crypto.com have all recently cut jobs while emphasizing efficiency and automation. On Tuesday, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong framed the shift in stark terms, warning that “the biggest risk now is not taking action” as the company tries to become “lean, fast, and AI-native.”

Bloomberg writes that the trend gained momentum after Block, Inc. — the parent company of Square, Inc. and Cash App — announced major cuts earlier this year and pointed to AI as part of a broader restructuring effort. Since then, more firms have adopted similar language, pitching layoffs as preparation for an AI-powered future.

Critics aren’t fully convinced. Many of these companies are also facing more immediate business pressures: crypto trading activity has cooled, digital asset prices remain below their recent highs, and payments companies are navigating slower growth and tighter competition. Some firms have additional internal challenges — Block, Inc. expanded aggressively during the pandemic-era boom, while PayPal is still working through a broader turnaround under new leadership.

That has fueled accusations of “AI washing,” where companies use artificial intelligence as a cleaner explanation for layoffs tied to weaker demand or overhiring. John Todaro of Needham & Company questioned how much of the narrative is real: “Whenever I see these layoffs and AI is part of the reason, I step back and ask, do we see this from companies where the market is super hot?” He added: “I am not sure I buy that AI angle.”

Others say both things can be true. Raman Shalupau, founder of CryptoJobsList, estimated that current cuts are “probably an 80/20 split across the industry right now between real AI efficiency gains versus trimming down from the last bull run.”

Even when companies aren’t cutting headcount, they’re reshaping jobs around automation. Coinbase has been flattening management layers and asking leaders to operate more like “player-coaches,” while 0G Labs said it reduced staff by 25% after internal AI tools significantly improved productivity.

The bigger question is whether this marks a permanent shift in how crypto and fintech firms operate — or whether AI has simply become the latest justification for cost-cutting during a tougher market cycle. For now, both explanations appear to be driving decisions.

Tyler Durden Thu, 05/07/2026 - 15:05