Contempt Of Court: Hakeem Jeffries Denounces the Supreme Court As "Illegitimate"

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais took 36 pages to explain why Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is about combating intentional racial discrimination, not allowing racial gerrymandering. However, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries wrapped it up in one word: “illegitimate.”

Jeffries was not speaking of the case, but the Court. The man who would become the next Speaker of the House if Democrats retake power in November has joined other radicals in denying the legitimacy of the nation’s highest court.

Just for the record, the Supreme Court did not strike down Section 2, but said that neither the law nor the Constitution allows legislators to manipulate district lines to guarantee that candidates of a particular race will be elected. It was written not to give any race an advantage, but to prevent a state from creating a disadvantage to voters based on their race. The Act prevents any State from intentionally drawing districts “to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”

This is a matter upon which people of good faith can disagree. Many of the justices have been long opposed to racial criteria in areas ranging from college admissions to voting districts. Chief Justice John Roberts stated it bluntly in 2006 that “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” Like others, Roberts abhors racial discrimination but declared in another case that “way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

You will find no such distinctions in much of the press where experts declared the death of equal voting laws in America. UCLA Law Professor Richard Hasen dispenses with any nuance and simply ran a Slate column titled “The Slaying of the Voting Rights Act by the Coward Alito.”

For years, liberal law professors have been trashing conservative justices, including Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, who called them  “partisan hacks.”

However, the name-calling has mutated into a movement to scrap the Court or the Constitution, or both. Chemerinsky wrote a book recently titled “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) joined Jeffries in calling for changing the Supreme Court after the decision: “we’re going to have to try to transform the way the Supreme Court has been gerrymandered itself and stacked and packed with MAGA appointees.”

There was, of course, no such movement during the decades with a liberal majority that set aside an array of long-standing cases. It was only when a stable conservative majority emerged that law professors declared the Court illegitimate or dangerous, with many calling for packing the Court with an instant liberal majority once Democrats retake power.

I discuss some of these voices as the “new Jacobins” in my book Rage and the Republic, figures echoing the radical concepts or means used in France before what became known as “The Terror.”

Law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale have called for the nation to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.” Last December, they published a column titled “It’s Time to Accept that the US Supreme Court is Illegitimate and Must be Replaced.”

They insist that citizens must be rid of this meddlesome court: “remaking institutions like the US supreme court so that Americans don’t have to suffer future decades of oligarchy-facilitating rule that makes a parody of the democracy they were promised.”

Many Democrats realize that the public is rather attached to both the Constitution and its core institutions. That is why various Democratic politicians and pundits have been pledging to pack the Court once they are back in power.  Some have suggested that, if they are going to change the political system and retain power, they will have to do it with the help of a compliant Court.

Democratic strategist James Carville stated matter-of-factly, “They’re going to recommend that the number of Supreme Court justices go from nine to 13. That’s going to happen, people.” He added recently, “Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it.”

To do that, you must first delegitimate the Court. You must attack both the individual justices and the institution itself. You need true rage to get a people to tear apart the core institution of a Republic on its 250th anniversary.

Now you have the next possible Speaker of the United States declaring the Supreme Court illegitimate because he disagrees with its interpretation of the law.

What these figures do not mention is that the majority of opinions by the Supreme Court are unanimous or nearly unanimous.  A comparably few cases break along strict ideological 6-3 lines. Indeed, just last week, it was President Donald Trump who was denouncing the conservative justices as disloyal and weak for, again, ruling against his Administration.

It is not the voting record nor the underlying interpretations that are motivating this campaign of delegitimation. It is power. Former Attorney General Eric Holder explained it most clearly recently in pushing the packing plan after the Democrats retake power: “[We’re] talking about the acquisition and the use of power, if there is a Democratic trifecta in 2028.”

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/03/2026 - 12:50

Big Tech Is Funding Space Solar And Fusion While Running On Gas

Authored by Haley Zaremba via OilPrice.com,

• Meta signed a deal with startup Overview Energy to develop up to 1 gigawatt of space-based solar power, though a pilot satellite won't launch until 2028 at the earliest -- and commercial viability remains years away.

• Despite clean energy ambitions, Big Tech is still heavily dependent on natural gas: Meta is funding 10 new gas plants for its Louisiana data center campus, and Google is building a major gas facility in North Texas.

• Google admitted its carbon emissions rose 48% in five years and has conceded its 2030 net-zero target may be out of reach as AI energy demand continues to accelerate.

The AI boom has unleashed an energy monster unlike anything the world has ever seen before. No one is exactly sure how much energy the AI sector will require in the coming years as large language models continue to advance and expand. In fact, we don’t even really know how much energy it’s consuming now. But most experts agree that we can expect a sharp and continuing rise in demand from the data centers that power the tech sector in the coming years as the global economy increasingly integrates AI into virtually every market sector on Earth.

“AI’s integration into almost everything from customer service calls to algorithmic ‘bosses’ to warfare is fueling enormous demand,” the Washington Post reported last year. “Despite dramatic efficiency improvements, pouring those gains back into bigger, hungrier models powered by fossil fuels will create the energy monster we imagine.”

And, so far, it’s consumers who are bearing the burden of this ‘energy monster.’ As data centers place unprecedented strain on local power grids, consumers are paying the price for the extra competition at the meter. But this system is unsustainable, and in flux. In May, as a result of voter outcry ahead of the midterm elections, Big Tech firms signed a pledge to either purchase or provide their own energy supplies to power their energy-hungry data centers in order to buffer consumers from rising energy prices.

As a result, major tech firms are starting to invest more heavily in next-gen and clean energy alternatives in a bid to find ways to power their enormous future needs without throwing their climate pledges out the window. Just this week, Meta announced a deal with Overview Energy to start developing a solar power system in space, which would be able to beam energy down to Earth even in darkness.

Overview Energy is a startup seeking to put solar satellites into Earth’s orbit, where they can harvest power from the sun at all times of day and night. Meta, the company behind Facebook, has signed a deal with the energy startup to develop up to 1 gigawatt of space solar power, or the equivalent of the energy output of a nuclear reactor.

However, the deal is all theoretical at this point, as the technology of space solar has not yet caught up to the vision set out by the two companies. Overview Energy aims to launch a pilot satellite into orbit by 2028 – meaning that a gigawatt of power is still quite a few years away from becoming a reality, if it comes to fruition at all. But proponents of the technology feel that it’s just a matter of time before space-based solar becomes commercially viable, and some contend that it could even be cost-competitive with other energy sources as soon as 2040.

Silicon Valley is also investing more and more into a high-stakes bet on nuclear fusion as a silver bullet solution to slay the AI energy monster. “There’s no way to get there without a breakthrough,” Sam Altman, co-founder and CEO of ChatGPT firm OpenAI, said at the 2024 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “It motivates us to go invest more in fusion,” he went on to specify.

Tech giants, including Meta and Google are also increasingly investing in next-gen geothermal energy research, which uses enhanced drilling methods borrowed from the oil and gas sector and even, in some projects, from nuclear fusion to drill down to tap into the Earth’s heat from nearly anywhere on the surface.

In the meantime, however, Meta and other Big Tech firms are heavily relying on natural gas to power its massive AI ambitions. Meta alone is funding the development of 10 new gas-fired plants for its biggest-ever AI data center campus in rural Louisiana. Meanwhile, Google is developing a massive natural gas facility attached to a data center campus in North Texas.

So while Big Tech has major clean energy ambitions, these technologies are still years away, and real-time emissions are continuing to balloon. In 2024, Google admitted that the firm’s carbon emissions had risen 48 percent in five years thanks to the AI boom. Google had previously pledged to reach net zero by 2030, but the officials have conceded that “as we further integrate AI into our products, reducing emissions may be challenging.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/03/2026 - 11:40

Will Black Voters Rescue The GOP In 2026?

The Republican Party is bracing for a brutal midterm election this year. Polls show Democrats ahead in the generic congressional ballot, and prediction markets give them solid odds of taking the House and a modest chance of flipping the Senate. But despite polls and prediction markets, there are signs that the GOP could defy history.

And it comes down to black voters.

Could black voters actually be the secret weapon that keeps Republicans in power after the 2026 midterms? The numbers, at least according to CNN's Harry Enten, suggest the question is worth asking seriously.

Enten laid out a striking case, walking through data that shows Donald Trump and the GOP making inroads with African American voters that the Republican Party simply hasn't seen in decades. 

While there’s no doubt that Democrats still have a solid advantage among black voters, that advantage is shrinking, and in tight races, even modest shifts can flip outcomes.

Trump's approval rating among black voters sat at 12% during his first term. It's now at 16%. It’s a modest shift that could be consequential, Enten argues, in states like Georgia, where margins are razor-thin, and every percentage point is a battleground. "Republicans absolutely love the shift that's going on," Enten said, "because Democrats have had such a long-term advantage." He argued that Trump "actually gaining ground versus where he was in term number one... has major implications for elections down the line."

The party identification numbers are another good sign for the GOP in November. Democrats have a 51-point advantage with African-American voters, which may sound good, but it’s actually a devastating number when you consider that during Trump's first term, Democrats held a 63-point advantage. 

The Democratic advantage has shrunk by 12 points. 

"This to me was absolutely stunning," Enten said, noting that the Democratic lead among black voters is now "actually smaller than any lead from 2006 to 2021" - a stretch of time that includes Barack Obama's two presidential runs.

What makes this more than just a polling curiosity is that the gains appear to be sticking. Democrats got shellacked with black voters in 2024. Trump turned in what Enten called a "historically strong performance" with that group, and Democrats had their worst showing in a generation. The natural assumption would be that some of that was a one-cycle anomaly, and that current economic concerns and opposition to the war in Iran would erase the gains Trump made. 

But the data says otherwise. 

Pre-election polling ahead of 2024 showed Kamala Harris leading among Black voters by 63 points. That number now sits at 62 points. "Republicans are holding onto the gains that they made among African Americans in 2024," Enten observed.

Whether these gains will stick after Trump leaves office remains to be seen, but as far as the 2026 midterm elections go, it’s clear there’s no Democratic bounce-back. The voters who drifted toward Trump or away from the Democratic Party haven't come back. This is a huge problem for the Democratic Party coalition, which has relied heavily on the loyalty of black voters.

 "The Donald Trump-led Republican Party is making gains among African Americans that we simply put have not seen the Republican Party make in a generation." 

Trump's GOP is holding on to the generational gains they made with Black voters in the 2024 election.

The GOP has gained 12 pts on the Dems on party id with African Americans vs. Trump term 1 at this point.

Trump's approval with Black voters is higher than it was in term 1. pic.twitter.com/EKiEv561jk

— (((Harry Enten))) (@ForecasterEnten) April 30, 2026

The implications of these numbers is huge for the 2026 midterms.

Southern states with competitive House and Senate races depend heavily on black voter turnout and margins. This means that if Democrats are hemorrhaging even a few percentage points of that support, the math gets ugly for them really

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/03/2026 - 11:05

The Left's Reaction To Arrest Of The Latest UK Stabbing Is As Predictable As It Is Disgraceful

Authored by Paul Birch via DailySceptic.org,

These people have never been in a life-or-death situation like the arresting officers

One would think that even when the police successfully detain a suspect who was alleged to have been conducting a marauding knife attack, the professional activists would have a day off.

But you would be wrong. Amid all the ‘Don’t Look Back in Anger’ cliché bingo, voices of criticism were heard. Among them, the blue-tick career race-baiter Shola Mos-Shogbamimu. She was quick to take to X following yesterday’s attack on the Jewish community in Golders Green, north London. The 45 year-old suspect, a British national of Somali origin, had reportedly stabbed two Jewish men at random. The suspect – depressingly, inevitably – had previously been referred to the Government’s counter radicalisation programme, Prevent.

Shola Mos-Shogbamimu criticised police officers who are shown kicking the suspect in the head while he is on the ground. She opined:

Contemptible abuse of police power. Why kick him in the head several times when he’s already Tasered and in your control? Should he not be alive to be brought to justice in a court of law for stabbing two Jews??!! Disgusting.

Also, Green Party leader Zack Polanski, still playing at politics, was quick to condemn the actions of the arresting officers, using a retweet to maintain that:

Essentially his (Commissioner Mark Rowley’s) officers were reportedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was already incapacitated by taser.

What Shola, Zack and other commentators do not understand – because they have never been in a life-or-death situation – is that force is not judged by how it looks in a six-second clip. It is judged by necessity in the moment. These keyboard warriors have no idea what it’s like to face immediate and possibly lethal violence armed with often nothing more than some irritant spray and a stick. Your priority is to keep members of the public safe, followed by yourselves as much as possible.

These officers would have had no idea in such a fast moving situation whether the suspect was acting alone or as part of a cell. He needed to be neutralised as soon as possible in order to keep people safe. He wasn’t showing his hands; he was still holding a bloodied weapon that he had just used to attack Jewish members of the public; he had been moving rapidly towards them, and they would have had no idea if he was wearing an explosive vest (wearing a coat on a warm day is never a good sign).

Policing is not theatre. It is not performed for social media approval. It is messy, fast and often brutal. Because the people officers deal with are messy, fast and often brutal. A man armed with a knife who has already stabbed two people, who refuses repeated commands to disarm and who continues to pose a threat even after being tasered, is not “under control”. He is an active danger until the weapon is removed. That is the reality, no matter how uncomfortable it makes Left-leaning commentators feel.

The idea that officers should politely wait or somehow apply ‘gentler’ tactics while a suspect still has the capacity to kill is not just naïve in the extreme, it is dangerous. It puts officers’ lives at risk. It puts the public at risk. And it reveals a complete detachment from reality (I am reminded of the occasion when then Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, declared that Islamic State murderer Mohammed ‘Jihadi John’ Emwazi should have been arrested in war-torn Syria rather than killed.)

This is the gap at the heart of modern public debate on policing. One side deals in real-world consequences. The other deals in optics. The officers in Golders Green had seconds to act. Not minutes. Not the luxury of hindsight, slow-motion replays or viral commentary. Seconds. In those seconds they made unquestionably the right decision: remove the threat as quickly as possible, by whatever means necessary short of lethal force. And that point matters. Because the same voices now condemning ‘excessive force’ would be the first to demand answers if those officers had hesitated and others had been stabbed.

There is also an uncomfortable truth that many would rather avoid: this attack was not just violent, it was targeted. Two visibly Jewish men were attacked in broad daylight in a part of London with a large Jewish community. That context matters. It should matter. It’s part of an ever growing pattern of antisemitic attacks carried out by people holding extreme Islamist ideologies.

Yet instead of sustained outrage about antisemitic violence, the conversation was almost immediately derailed, redirected toward the conduct of the officers who stopped it. That inversion of priorities is telling.

It reflects a culture where the instinct is no longer to back those who confront violence but to scrutinise them first, and often most harshly. Where the benefit of the doubt is extended to offenders, those enforcing the law are expected to meet an impossible standard of perfection under extreme pressure – often from their own senior management.

And it is precisely this culture that erodes effective policing. If every split-second decision is second guessed by people with no operational understanding, officers will become more hesitant. More risk-averse. Less pro-active. That is not compassion. It is a recipe for more victims.

None of this means police should be beyond scrutiny. Of course they shouldn’t be. But scrutiny requires context. It requires full evidence. It requires intellectual honesty. A selectively edited clip on social media is not scrutiny. It is propaganda. That is the real issue here.

Not just one commentator getting it wrong, but an entire ecosystem that rewards outrage over accuracy, speed over truth and narrative over fact. The Metropolitan Police, to their credit, did something increasingly necessary: they put out the full body-worn footage. They showed the public what actually happened. And when people saw the complete picture, the narrative collapsed. Because reality is stubborn like that.

In the end, strip away the noise and the incentives of social media and the situation becomes very simple. A violent attacker stabbed two innocent men. Two unarmed officers confronted him. They stopped him. They went home alive, and so did everyone else.

That is not a scandal. That is policing working exactly as it should.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/03/2026 - 09:20

Ukraine Flexes With Much Deeper Drone Reach Targeting Russia's Refineries 

Ukraine has been demonstrating deeper targeting reach inside Russia, as several key oil sites have come under direct drone attack this week, resulting in significant destruction.

This as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday announced "a new stage in the use of Ukrainian weapons to limit the potential of Russia's war."

Satellite image of Perm attack aftermath, via Reuters.

The massive Tuapse complex on Russia's Black Sea coast has been hit no less than three times in under a month, sparking a series of massive fires that in some cases took days for emergency crews to extinguish.

In some cases, targets in the Urals - nearly 1,000 miles away from the Ukraine border - have been hit.

Transneft’s oil pumping and distribution facility in the city of Perm was struck this week, which lies very far into Russian territory.

The Ukraine Security Service (SBU) owned up to it, boasting that the targeted facility is "a strategically important hub of the main oil transportation system." It further declared that "almost all oil storage tanks are on fire."

Amid the fresh Perm attack, Russia had said it downed nearly 100 Ukrainian drones across various regions, while Russia’s presidential envoy to the region, Artem Zhoga, conceded that "The Urals are now within reach, be vigilant."

Putin's office has also denounced these fresh assaults on oil facilities as "terrorist attacks". As for the prior Black Sea export and refining hub attacks of the last month, CNN reviews:

For the third time in 12 days, the Russian Black Sea town of Tuapse woke up Tuesday to apocalyptic scenes.

Thick toxic fumes, and flames rising up from the latest Ukrainian drone attack on the Rosneft-owned Tuapse oil refinery, almost reached the heights of the surrounding Caucasus mountains.

By Thursday morning, authorities said the fire had been extinguished. Fires from the two previous attacks, on April 16 and 20, also took days to put out, with toxic substances pouring down in black rain and blanketing cars and streets in oily grime, leading to what experts are dubbing the worst environmental disaster in the region in years.

Huge fireball at Perm oil site...

Ukrainian drone attacks have struck Perm (about 1,500 km from Ukraine), targeting oil infrastructure. pic.twitter.com/lCXo8Pb1tb

— Clash Report (@clashreport) April 30, 2026

Currently, the globe's attention is largely focused on the Iran war and the Hormuz Strait blockade, and with that efforts to reach a political and peace settlement in Ukraine have faded as well. Earlier in the Ukraine war, these major refinery attacks would dominate world headlines, but at the moment they have remained in the background given the constant Iran-related news flow. President Putin has lately communicated to Trump that he's open to a 'Victory Day' ceasefire, a proposal the Kremlin said Washington has backed.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/03/2026 - 07:35

Alliance Fracture Is Now Global

Authored by Gregory Copley via The Epoch Times,

Western focus was, in 2026, on whether U.S. President Donald Trump would fulfill his threat to withdraw the United States from NATO. Eastern and Southern focus was on whether the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS alliance were even functioning.

In the U.S.–NATO standoff, it may take more complex political maneuvering for Trump to achieve a breakup of the alliance. Certainly, he could withdraw the U.S. military from European basing, but Congress in 2023 approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an act of Congress. The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and, ironically, Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)—now Trump’s secretary of state—was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Joe Biden.

It may be more feasible for Trump to have the United States leave aspects of the military component of the North Atlantic Alliance, as French President Charles de Gaulle did in withdrawing from the NATO integrated military command structure—but not the North Atlantic Alliance—in 1967. Other members of NATO may themselves go beyond that to abandon NATO in order to form a new alliance, but that is a separate issue.

Of real, but as yet unexplored, interest is that other alliances have been forced to the sidelines because Trump initiatives, and time, have rendered them ineffective.

Among the most important of these are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS. Secondarily, the informal Quad alliance against China—of India, the United States, Japan, and Australia—is quietly becoming less tight.

The SCO, which emerged in 2001 from the 1996 Shanghai Five security arrangement, now has 10 member states, most of which harbor suspicions about other members of the SCO. It was meant to contain a mutual security clause to require members to support other members under attack from outside. SCO membership includes Iran, and that clause has proven to be unenforceable as the wars against Iran continue. So the SCO is now effectively inoperable, except as a showcase with an expensive bureaucracy.

Similarly, BRICS—which began as a working group of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—was designed to circumvent U.S. domination of global trade systems by finding alternatives to trading using the U.S. dollar. The BRICS membership had expanded by 2026 to 10 states, adding Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. But it failed to shake the United States’ ability to control and sustain a global sanctions regime against political leaders who used the U.S. dollar in ways deemed inimical to U.S. interests.

BRICS achieved some new trading modalities that avoided the use of the U.S. dollar, but this did little to weaken the U.S. currency, or strengthen the currencies of BRICS members. But that was to be expected. This journal, as early as 2008, was discussing the end of the globalist, multinational framework of financing the international logistics chain based on the U.S. dollar. It discussed a return to bilateralism of trading methodologies, including barter and countertrade, which had, even in the 1970s, been a normal practice.

The past year-plus has seen the promoters of BRICS—as a defensive mechanism against the United States—becoming incapable of creating a new trade finance system. A proposed BRICS currency has come to naught; the currency of China has weakened to the point that it is hardly tradeable. And so on.

At what point is the Trump administration prepared to push for the complete breakdown of “opposing currencies,” not just of the BRICS states’ proposed new currency, but even of the euro and sterling?

Has all of this saved and bolstered the U.S. dollar? By default, yes; there is still no viable alternative to the use of the U.S. currency for major world trade.

But is Trump yet through with his plans to diminish, and perhaps totally dispense with, the United Nations? He has certainly hit key aspects of the U.N. that were heavily dependent on U.S. taxpayer contributions. The U.N. itself has been making itself less relevant and less forceful; it has taken an extremely polarizing, leftist position on many international issues and, at the same time, has been disregarded by the United States and other powers.

This, in turn, has made it less useful to Beijing, which entered the U.N. on Oct. 25, 1971, displacing the original founding member, the Republic of China, also known as Taiwan. China then began a sustained campaign to use U.N. agencies for political influence. So some of Trump’s anti-U.N. activities were clearly designed as moves against China.

What is the impact of the diminishing role of the U.N.? It has become less trusted as an instrument to impartially mediate interstate conflicts, and this makes its International Criminal Court (ICC)—to which the United States is not a signatory—also less trusted. The attempt to use the ICC as a key body to create “international law” out of thin air has now become discredited, or less of an influence. The World Trade Organization is also increasingly disregarded, as are regional bodies, such as ECOWAS in West Africa, and the Organization of American States.

So to what extent was the “rules-based world order” a creature of this utopianist U.N. thinking, or was it merely a reflection of a pax Americana?

If Trump wished to move heavily against the U.N., his best timing might be before the U.S. midterm congressional elections in November. But could he make it stick?

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 23:20

DOJ Releases Report Alleging Anti-Christian Bias Under Biden

Authored by Savannah Halsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 30 released a 500-page report detailing alleged anti-Christian bias on the part of the Biden administration.

According to the report by the DOJ’s Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, the former administration’s prosecutions, policies, and practices constituted bias throughout multiple agencies, in accordance with the administration’s priorities.

The task force is chaired by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

“No American should live in fear that the federal government will punish them for their faith,” Blanche said. “As our report lays out, the Biden Administration’s actions devastated the lives of many Christian Americans.”

Around 200 pages of the report are dedicated to the actions of more than 17 federal agencies that uncovered alleged religious discrimination. The investigation included a review of internal discussions and case files, as well as prosecutorial decisions.

There were details of a since-retracted 2023 FBI memo on “radical traditionalist” Catholics, which cited the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The review also listed Biden-era regulations on abortion, contraception, gender, and human sexuality, among other issues that pitted the government against religious groups.

The report also makes note of the Biden administration’s reading of the 2019 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which led to decisions that were based on what the Trump administration report called “sex-based discrimination in federally funded schools and sports.”

According to the DOJ report, the previous administration used the FBI, IRS, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies to monitor, investigate, and apply pressure to various Christian groups at a federal level.

The current DOJ’s task force was formed in accordance with President Donald Trump’s Feb. 6, 2025, executive order titled Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.

The president ordered multiple agencies to investigate what he called an “egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses.”

Conflicting Response

This is a “very different Department of Justice ... than the previous administration,” said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers.

“The conclusion in the report, at least from an enforcement perspective, was that ... federal law was disproportionately used to prosecute pro-life and other Christians under the Biden administration,” he told The Epoch Times.

However, Rahmani, who worked at the DOJ from 2009 to 2012, said that while policies change, he has not seen a “systematic bias for or against” any one religious group.

“I don’t necessarily see ... [that] Christian activists in this country are receiving more prison time for violent acts, as opposed to, you know, Muslim or other religious groups.”

According to Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, director of the Conscience Project, the report “calls out the brazen assault against religious freedom by the former administration for what it was: a failure of constitutional and statutory duty.”

Picciotti-Bayer said in an emailed statement that the Biden administration disregarded “fundamental guarantees” in the First Amendment and federal civil rights law, and treated “sincere religious objections as obstacles to overcome, prosecuting peaceful prayer, trampling on parental rights and steamrolling conscience rights.”

The Interfaith Alliance, however, which states its mission is to “challenge Christian nationalism and religious extremism,” responded to the DOJ report, saying their group has “consistently opposed the work of this ‘task force.’” It accused the DOJ of trying to “undermine Americans’ religious freedom and First Amendment rights.”

The alliance called the task force’s report a “political stunt designed to promote the lie that American Christians are a persecuted group, while providing justification to target anyone deemed out of step with their Christian nationalist agenda.”

Previous Report

This report comes just weeks after an 800-page report from the department, detailing the “weaponization” of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which called out alleged prosecutorial problems, surveillance activities undertaken by pro-abortion groups, and failures to comply with federal law.

Biden’s DOJ did not enforce the law evenly, according to the April 14 report.

The task force under the Biden administration treated pro-life groups differently from pro-abortion groups, outlining disproportionate coordination with pro-abortion groups that, according to the report, indicated bias and prosecutorial overreach.

In her statement, Picciotti-Bayer said, “Religious freedom isn’t a courtesy the government extends—it’s a legal check on what government can do. It’s refreshing to see that recognized today.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 22:10

The US Spends More On 'Defense' Than The Next 8 Countries Combined

For the first time on record, the top 15 military spenders allocated more than $2 trillion to defense in 2025.

Total global defense spending also reached a record $2.6 trillion, signaling a major shift in geopolitical priorities.

Using data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, this visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, ranks the 15 countries driving this surge in military spending.

While the U.S. still operates on an entirely different scale, the biggest shift is happening in Europe, where countries are no longer just maintaining military capacity but expanding it significantly.

The $2 Trillion Arms Race: Defense Spending by Country

The U.S. defense budget reached $921 billion in 2025, larger than the combined military spending of China, Russia, Germany, the UK, India, Saudi Arabia, France, and Japan.

Looking ahead, Donald Trump has proposed increasing defense spending to $1.5 trillion by 2027, although this plan has not been enacted. If realized, this would represent roughly 90% higher spending than the Cold War peak in real terms.

China ranked second globally with $251.3 billion in defense spending in 2025. Its share of Asia’s military spending has climbed to 44%, up from 39% in 2017, highlighting its expanding regional influence.

Below is the breakdown of the 15 nations with the largest defense budgets in 2025.

Russia’s defense budget reached $186.2 billion in 2025, rising by more than $40 billion in a single year and equivalent to 7.3% of GDP.

However, spending is expected to decline in 2026, the first drop since the invasion of Ukraine. With a growing deficit, the country faces mounting economic pressure, though higher oil prices have recently provided some relief.

Europe’s Expanding War Chest

With Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and pressure from the U.S., European NATO members have committed to spending 3.5% of GDP on defense by 2035.

This would translate to roughly $1.2 trillion by 2035, the largest defense buildup among these countries since the Cold War.

Outside of Russia, Europe holds six of the world’s 15 largest defense budgets, led by Germany ($107.3 billion) and the UK ($94.3 billion). Both countries increased spending by tens of billions between 2024 and 2025.

What was once gradual growth has become a sharp acceleration, making defense one of the fastest-growing spending categories across advanced economies.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the world’s largest armies in 2026.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 21:35

Alaska Governor Vetoes Election Reform Bill Due To 'Significant Operational Burdens'

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed a major election reform bill on April 30, arguing it would place “significant operational burdens” on the state’s Division of Elections months before high-stakes statewide and federal contests.

Alaska Gov. Michael Dunleavy in Washington on Oct. 29, 2019. Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times

The bill, at least a decade in the making, sought to allow absentee and other ​voters track their ballots and see when they had been received and ​counted.

Dunleavy announced the veto of Senate Bill 64 after the measure arrived following its passage in both chambers of the legislature.

The legislation, which had won bipartisan support in the state’s House of Representatives and Senate, also sought to expand acceptable voter identification, modify voter roll ⁠maintenance, change the absentee ballot timeline, and create a rural community liaison position.

“Going forward, I encourage those who wish to continue this work to use this bill as a starting point to ensure that any proposed changes comply with state and federal law and pass any election legislation on a timeline that allows the Division of Elections to develop, test, and implement the necessary systems properly,” Dunleavy said in an April 30 statement. “While the Alaska gasline bill is the most important bill this session, I am open to a conversation with lawmakers on how we can address the legal and operational issues this session.”

In his veto letter, the Republican governor noted his misgivings about provisions requiring expanded ballot tracking and the curing of minor errors on mail-in ballots. He said such changes would be particularly difficult to implement securely and reliably ahead of the November elections.

“Taken as a whole, the bill would impose significant operational burdens on the administration of Alaska’s elections during an election year,” Dunleavy wrote. The Division of Elections had warned such mid-cycle alterations would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible,” to complete without risking reliability.

House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, an independent, said the veto was disappointing.

“This was a bipartisan effort to address the real challenges of voting in a state as vast, rural, and remote as Alaska,” Edgmon said in a statement. “Alaskans deserve a system that reflects our unique geography, not one that ignores it. This veto does exactly that.”

State Sen. Bill Wielechowski, a Democrat from North Anchorage and one of the bill’s key sponsors, said in a post on social media that the legislation was a “decade in the making, passed with broad bipartisan support, and reflected the governor’s own stated priorities.”

He said the veto also blocks efforts to strengthen voter ID rules.

“The Governor’s veto also blocks tightening of voter ID laws that would have limited acceptable IDs to government-issued identification,” Wielechowski added.

The legislature will have an opportunity to override the veto in the future.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 21:00

The U.S. Wants To Ban Chinese Cars, But They're Already At The Gate

Efforts in Washington to block Chinese-made cars often sound like a future problem - but in practice, those vehicles are already within reach of American consumers, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Just south of the U.S. border, Chinese automakers have been rapidly expanding in Mexico, setting up dealerships and offering vehicles at prices far below what most new cars cost in the U.S. Brands like BYD, Geely, and Great Wall Motor are selling electric and gas-powered models packed with features - often for the price of a used car in the U.S. That proximity matters: American consumers living near the border can easily see, test, and in some cases drive these vehicles, even if large-scale imports remain restricted.

Meanwhile, U.S. policymakers are moving in the opposite direction. Proposed tariffs, import restrictions, and national security reviews are all aimed at limiting Chinese auto penetration, especially in the electric vehicle market. The concerns go beyond economics—lawmakers have raised questions about data security, supply chains, and the long-term competitiveness of domestic automakers.

The Journal writes that the situation is more complicated than a simple “ban.” Chinese-built vehicles are already entering the U.S. market indirectly. Some come through global partnerships, shared manufacturing platforms, or brands that don’t obviously appear Chinese to consumers. Others arrive in small numbers through personal imports or cross-border use. In other words, the presence is already here—it’s just not always visible at scale.

At the same time, Chinese automakers are becoming major global players. Companies like BYD, for example, have surged in electric vehicle production and are expanding across Latin America, Europe, and beyond. Their strategy often focuses on affordability and speed to market—areas where traditional U.S. automakers have struggled, especially as new car prices continue to climb.

That pricing gap is a key pressure point. Many American buyers are increasingly priced out of new vehicles, creating demand for cheaper alternatives. If Chinese automakers were allowed to compete freely in the U.S., they could significantly undercut domestic offerings—something that worries both policymakers and legacy car companies.

So while the political conversation centers on keeping Chinese cars out, the reality is that the market is already shifting around that goal. The vehicles are being sold nearby, seen by U.S. consumers, and in some cases already used on American roads.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 20:25

First US Integrated Humanoid Robot Factory To Build 100,000 NEO Robots By 2027

Authored by Neetika Walter via Interesting Engineering,

U.S.-based robotics firm 1X has started full-scale production of its humanoid robot NEO at a new manufacturing facility in Hayward, California.

The factory marks a key step toward commercializing general-purpose humanoid robots designed for home use. The company says the robots are built to safely operate alongside humans and assist with everyday tasks such as mobility support, light household activity, and routine interaction.

NEO robot units working at the NEO Factory in Hayward, California.1X on YouTube

Spanning 58,000 square feet, the facility currently employs more than 200 workers and is expected to expand further as production scales. It has the capacity to produce up to 10,000 robots annually, with plans to increase output beyond 100,000 units by 2027. The setup is designed for rapid iteration as hardware and AI systems evolve.

The company has already seen strong early demand. It said its first-year production capacity of over 10,000 units sold out within five days of launch in October, signaling early commercial interest in humanoid home robotics.

Full-stack manufacturing push

A key feature of the factory is its vertically integrated production model. 1X designs and manufactures core components in-house, including motors, batteries, sensors, structures, and transmission systems.

This approach allows the company to control the entire production process, from raw material handling to final assembly. It also reduces reliance on external suppliers and supports faster iteration cycles, especially for hardware upgrades and safety improvements.

“We’re building the world’s safest, most reliable humanoid robots—right here in Hayward, California,” said Vikram Kothari, VP of Manufacturing & Hardware.

The company says its setup includes automated motor manufacturing lines and systems that handle precision tasks such as copper coil winding. This level of integration is aimed at improving reliability, reducing production bottlenecks, and scaling manufacturing efficiently without outsourcing key subsystems.

Robots produced at the facility are currently being routed to internal testing, validation, and research environments. Customer shipments are expected to begin in 2026, starting with early access users before wider rollout.

AI brains power robots

Each NEO robot is powered by NVIDIA’s Jetson Thor computing platform, which serves as the system’s onboard processing unit.

The platform enables real-time AI inference directly on the robot, allowing it to perform perception, reasoning, navigation, and decision-making tasks without depending heavily on cloud infrastructure. This improves response time and reduces latency in real-world environments.

1X is also using NVIDIA’s Isaac simulation tools to train its robots in virtual environments. These simulations allow large-scale reinforcement learning and help improve robot behavior before deployment in physical homes.

“Humanoid robots require high-performance, real-time AI inference and continuous training and testing in simulation for safe and reliable operation,” said Deepu Talla, vice president of robotics and edge AI at NVIDIA.

CEO Bernt Børnich said the factory signals a shift from concept to execution. “Production is happening now, and American consumers will be among the first in the world to welcome NEO into their homes.”

NEO will be offered through an early access program priced at $20,000, with a subscription option starting at $499 per month. The company plans to sell the robots directly through its online platform.

1X says building robots at scale in the United States will allow faster delivery, localized support, and quicker product improvements based on user feedback. The company also aims to reduce supply chain risks by keeping core manufacturing domestic.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 19:50

Ahead Of Trump-Xi Summit, Beijing Tells Chinese Firms To Ignore U.S. Sanctions On "Teapot" Refineries

President Donald Trump is set to travel to Beijing in mid-May for a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the first U.S. presidential visit to China in eight years, and a meeting already delayed once by the Iran war.

The pair will obviously discuss the U.S.-Iran conflict and the resulting energy shock, which has hit Asia fastest and hardest. There is no shortage of issues for the two leaders to discuss, including Taiwan, trade, AI chip controls, rare earths, and sanctions.

One important topic the two leaders will likely spend time on is the energy shock and the maximum pressure campaign imposed by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control on Chinese independent "teapot" refineries, particularly in Shandong Province, due to their continued purchases and refining of Iranian crude.

Perhaps last week's sanctions on China's teapot refiners are part of a leverage campaign by the Trump team ahead of the upcoming meeting.

By Saturday morning, Beijing announced that companies in the country should ignore and not comply with U.S. sanctions targeting five domestic refineries. 

The refiners, including Hengli Petrochemical's Dalian refinery and several privately owned processors, had been hit with U.S. asset freezes and transaction bans earlier in the week, according to Bloomberg.

Beijing's Commerce Ministry called the sanctions unlawful, saying they restrict normal trade with countries and lack authorization under international law.

"The Chinese government has consistently opposed unilateral sanctions that lack authorization from the United Nations and a basis in international law," the department said.

It appears that Beijing is shielding its refiners to mitigate Washington's pressure campaign on Iranian crude flows as the energy shock still festers across Asia.

The good news last week is that China reopened its fuel export spigot to surrounding countries, as domestic inventories are now at comfortable levels. This will provide some relief to countries dealing with fuel shortages caused by the Hormuz chokepoint, which remains partially frozen to this day.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 19:15

Federal Court Blocks Abortion Drug Mifepristone From Being Sent Via Mail

Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times,

Americans won’t be able to receive abortion drug mifepristone in the mail, according to a temporary ruling by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court on May 1.

“FDA conceded it had failed to adequately study whether remotely prescribing mifepristone is safe,” the three-judge panel in New Orleans ruled on Friday.

The decision will block the drug from being shipped via mail until the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can ensure the drugs are “safe and effective” before they can be marketed in the United States.

Mifepristone, often called “the abortion pill,” is part of a two-drug regimen which allows a woman “to end a pregnancy up to 70 days into gestation,” according to Johns Hopkins University.

The FDA first approved mifepristone in 2000, but doctors were only allowed to prescribe it after three in-person visits.

The procedure changed in 2023 after the Biden administration expanded access to “medication abortion,” which provided a pathway for patients to avoid an in-person visit to the doctor and, instead, order the drug online to be shipped to their house.

The state of Louisiana challenged the rule in 2025, arguing the justification for allowing this was based on “flawed or nonexistent data.”

Louisiana alleged the medication “resulted in numerous illegal abortions” in the state and it also made women pay “thousands in Medicaid bills” for being harmed by mifepristone.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called Friday’s decision a “victory for life!”

“The Biden abortion cartel facilitated the deaths of thousands of Louisiana babies (and millions in other states) through illegal mail-order abortion pills. Today, that nightmare is over, thanks to the hard work of my office and our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom,” Murrill wrote.

“I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues.”

A bill to ban mifepristone was introduced by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in March.

“The science is clear: The chemical abortion drug is inherently dangerous to women and prone to abuse. Yet major companies like Danco Laboratories are making billions off it,” Hawley said.

Hawley’s bill would also allow women to sue manufacturers for damages if they are harmed by the chemical abortion.

Rep. Delia C. Ramirez (D-Ill.) criticized the federal court decision on social media.

“Mifepristone is safe and reliable,” Ramirez wrote in an X post on Friday.

“IT SAVES LIVES.
 Extremist attempts to control our bodies and restrict our choices make women less safe. The right to make decisions about our bodies and our healthcare are OURS. They don’t belong in the hands of judges or politicians.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 18:40

Trump On Hormuz Blockade: "We're Like Pirates - And It's Very Profitable"

Rare agreement with Iranian officials? President Trump has newly said the US Navy is acting "like pirates" as he described an operation about seizing a ship amid the ongoing blockade of Iranian ports.

"We … land on top of it and we took over the ship. We took over the cargo, took over the oil. It’s a very profitable business," Trump told a large audience at a rally in Florida on Friday. "We’re like pirates," he added as the crow cheered him on. "We’re sort of like pirates. But we’re not playing games." Watch the US President also declare "it's a very profitable business":

TRUMP ADMITS AMERICANS ARE PIRATES

“It’s a very profitable business. We’re like pirates.” pic.twitter.com/p7g6kMPCmG

— Sulaiman Ahmed (@ShaykhSulaiman) May 2, 2026

The irony in this statement is that it precisely echoes Tehran's own accusation that the Pentagon is indeed engaged in 'piracy' in Persian Gulf waters, and as the US seeks to interdict other Iranian vessels on the high seas globally, especially near Asia.

This week Iran issued formal request to the UN Security Council that it stop the "continuing internationally wrongful acts of the United States through yet another piracy-style seizure and deliberate targeting of commercial vessels, namely the M/T Majestic and M/T Tifani."

Some of Iran's embassies abroad have also directly responded to the fresh Trump piracy clip. Here's what the Iranian Foreign Ministry had to say on X through one of its diplomatic outposts in south Asia:

"Sort of like pirates"? No, Donny—that's textbook piracy. One upside to an incompetent opponent: moments like this. But the crowd cheering and clapping along? That's the truly disturbing part. U.S. urgently needs a swift and serious regime change.

Additionally, one show host with Russia's RT had this to say by way of reaction: "The only good thing about Trump is that he openly admits the US is a rogue state that doesn’t care at all about international law, he doesn't bother to cover up the US’ heinous actions with the bogus liberal PR language that previous Presidents used."

It is also akin to when Trump became the first US leader to declare that American troops were in Syria to "secure the oil" - contradicting prior presidents and officials who insisted Washington was merely engaged in 'counter-ISIS' operations.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has said on X this week Americans have an "undeniable right and the solemn duty" to demand accountability from the White House over the ongoing US-Israel "war of choice" against Iran.

The war is "a clear, unprovoked act of aggression" - he stated, and called on Americans to rise up challenge their leaders for "waging this illegal war against the nation of Iran and for all the atrocities perpetrated."

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 18:05

Tether Reports $1.04B Profit In Q1 As Treasury Holdings Top $140BN

Authored by Nate Kostar via CoinTelegraph.com,

Stablecoin issuer Tether (USDT) reported $1.04 billion in net profit for the first quarter of 2026, as its excess reserves rose to a record $8.23 billion, according to its latest attestation on Friday.

The company said its reserves remain heavily concentrated in US Treasuries, with around $141 billion in direct and indirect exposure, while total assets of about $191.8 billion exceeded liabilities of approximately $183.5 billion as of March 31.

Tether said this level of exposure makes it the 17th largest holder of US Treasuries globally. Beyond Treasuries, reserves included about $20 billion in physical gold and $7 billion in Bitcoin (BTC).

USDT circulating supply remained broadly stable at about $183 billion at the end of the first quarter. After the period, CEO Paolo Ardoino said supply has increased by more than $5 billion into April.

Tether said its proprietary investments are held separately from reserves backing USDT (USDT) and are funded through excess capital and profits.

The report was prepared by accounting firm BDO. The company also said it has begun the formal audit process.

Tether is the issuer of USDT (USDT), the largest stablecoin by market capitalization. According to DefiLlama data, the total stablecoin market is valued at about $320 billion, with USDT accounting for roughly 59% of the sector.

 

Total stablecoins market cap. Source: DefiLlama

Demand for digital dollars rises in emerging markets

Ardoino said in a post on X on Friday that USDT’s user base reached an all-time high of about 570 million in the first quarter, citing demand for dollars across emerging markets.

In Latin America, stablecoins accounted for 40% of crypto purchases in 2025, surpassing Bitcoin’s 18% share, according to a report released by Bitso this week based on data from its nearly 10 million retail users. The report described the trend as “digital dollarization,” as users turn to stablecoins for savings and everyday transactions.

 

Source: Paolo Ardoino

Stablecoins are also gaining traction in Africa for remittance payments. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in January, former UN official Vera Songwe said traditional transfers can cost about $6 per $100 sent, while stablecoins allow funds to move more quickly at lower cost.

Songwe also said stablecoins can help users preserve value in high-inflation environments, noting that inflation has exceeded 20% in several African countries since the pandemic.

FSB annual report for 2025. Source: FSB

However, stablecoin adoption has drawn scrutiny from global regulators. The Financial Stability Board warned in its 2025 annual report that widespread use of US dollar-denominated stablecoins could pose risks to emerging economies, including currency substitution and reduced effectiveness of domestic monetary policy.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 17:30

Berkshire Cash Hits A Record $397 Billion After Selling Most Stocks In 2 Years

The head of Berkshire may be new, but nothing has changed in the business model.

In Berkshire's first quarter Greg under Abel, who succeeded Buffett in January as Berkshire's chief executive, the company on Saturday reported a higher first-quarter operating profit even as economic uncertainty weighed on several of its consumer-oriented ​businesses. The Omaha, Nebraska-based conglomerate built by Warren Buffett and now led by Greg Abel also reported a record cash level, reflecting continuing difficulty finding ‌investments that meet its value-oriented principles.The conglomerate also continued its trend of divesting its stock portfolio with the largest sales od equity securities in Q1 since mid-2024; it also unveiled the first, modest stock buyback since Q2 of 2024.

Profit from Berkshire's numerous businesses rose 18% to $11.35 billion, or about $7,891 per Class A share, from $9.64 billion a year earlier. Net income, including from common stock investments, more than doubled to $10.1 billion, or $7,027 per Class A share, from $4.6 billion thanks to a boost from an improvement in underwriting results in its vast insurance businesses (Berkshire has traditionally downplayed the relevance of net income, which because of accounting rules includes unrealized gains and ​losses on stocks it has no plans to sell, and its therefore especially volatile during periods of market stress).

Berkshire's earnings are closely watched because the conglomerate’s businesses, ranging from insurance to railroads to energy and manufacturing, provide a snapshot of the health of the US economy. The company owns dozens of businesses including Geico, the BNSF railroad, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Dairy Queen and See's Candies. Yet while Berkshire is sometimes considered a microcosm of the broader U.S. economy, its focus on insurance and hard ​assets has left it out of step with broader market trends, including the prevailing euphoria over artificial intelligence.

Worries about the economy took a toll on several of ​Berkshire's consumer-oriented businesses. Berkshire said economic conditions weighed on building products businesses such as the Clayton Homes mobile home unit, while the Forest River RV unit, Fruit of the Loom ‌and Squishmallows ⁠maker Jazwares reported lower revenue amid "higher economic uncertainty" and lower consumer confidence.

Underwriting earnings from the firm’s collection of insurance businesses surged to $1.7 billion, up about 29% from a year ago, when the units were hit by losses tied to the Los Angeles wildfires. Still, Geico posted a 35% decline in pretax underwriting earnings, as the unit faced more losses and spent more to gain new clients. 

“Most of Geico’s peer group this quarter posted significantly improved underwriting results,” said Cathy Seifert, an analyst at CFRA Research, on the contrast between competitors and Geico. “They’re a big unit and that’s a big deterioration.”

Profit from all insurance operations rose 4% ⁠to $4.4 billion from a year earlier, when wildfires in Southern California hurt results in reinsurance and smaller insurance businesses. The overall improvement came despite the 35% profit drop at Geico, where accident claims and marketing expenses ​increased. Geico spent several years upgrading its underwriting discipline and technology, and is trying to reclaim market share it ​gave up to rivals ⁠such as Progressive. Abel said at the meeting that the insurance sector generally is "softening" and becoming "more challenging" as more capital flows into the market, making it harder for Berkshire to charge sufficient premiums for the risks it takes on.

Profit at its railroad unit BNSF rose 13% to $1.4 billion, helped by higher demand to ship grains, petroleum fuels, oilseeds and meals, and relieving pressure on BNSF management, led by CEO Katie Farmer, to improve the unit’s operating margin and close the gap with its most efficient peers.

The railroad ​has lagged some peers in operating margin, and Abel said in his first annual letter to ​Berkshire shareholders that improved efficiency and service were necessary. Abel had given the division’s management a clear mandate to improve the business on those fronts. He said at the meeting that while he’s pleased with the first-quarter results, there’s still room for improvement.

“We had heard that there was some cost efficiencies being implemented at BNSF, and that showed up in the first-quarter results,” Seifert said.

Elsewhere, Berkshire Hathaway Energy said profit rose 2%, as higher revenue from natural gas pipelines attributable to cold weather offset rising maintenance and wildfire prevention costs ​in utility businesses. Profit from manufacturing, service and retail operations rose 5% to $3.2 billion.

Earnings aside, Berkshire's cash hoard soared to a new record high just shy of $400 billion, or more than the US government traditionally has in its Treasury General Account (except for rare outlier occasions). As of March 31, Berkshire's total cash (held mostly in T-Bills) was $397 billion. The cash pile reflected the company's years-long inability to find a ​major acquisition, as well as sales of some of its largest stock holdings led by Apple. 

After a nearly two year hiatus without any stock buybacks, in Q1 Berkshire repurchased a modest $234 million of its own stock, the first buybacks ​since May 2024. It conducted no repurchases in the first two weeks of April.

More importantly, in Q1 Berkshire sold $8.1 billion more stocks than it bought, the 14th straight quarter it was a net seller of stocks, and the largest net sales since Q3 2024 when BRK sold almost $30 billion. Berkshire hasn't bought stock since Q3 2022. Berkshire paid $9.5 billion in January for Occidental Petroleum's chemicals business; it also decided against a new impairment charge on Kraft Heinz, one of its largest equity holdings, for now, even as the book value of its holding in the packaged food giant exceeds its fair value by $1.4 billion. Last year, the firm took a $3.8 billion hit, as the stock’s performance continued to disappoint. 

Results were released prior to Berkshire's annual shareholder meeting, which draws tens of thousands of people to Omaha, and this year they won't be happy; not only is the Oracle of Omaha no longer there, but Berkshire shares have significantly lagged the broader market since Buffett unexpectedly announced at last year's meeting when Abel would take over. In 2026, Berkshire Class A shares of the $1.02 trillion buy-and-hold behemoth have fallen 6%, a mirror image of the S&P's 6% ascent, and a far cry from the historic surge in Semiconductor names which are now the market's darling du jour. 

Abel took to the stage and address shareholders in Omaha on Saturday for his inaugural annual meeting as CEO. This is the first time in decades that Buffett won’t be leading the event after the 95-year-old announced he would step down from his role last year, though he was still in attendance and even shared a few remarks to help kick off the meeting.

At the Omaha shareholder meeting earlier today, new CEO Greg Abel assured Berkshire shareholders that he will invest wisely and manage the conglomerate's massive cash stake without the burdens of bureaucracy, as he seeks to win over those cautiously hoping he is ​a worthy successor to Warren Buffett. Abel, 63, spoke at Berkshire's annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, four months after succeeding arguably the world's most famous investor as CEO. 

To do that, he must earn the trust of ‌investors now enamored with technology and artificial intelligence, rather than Berkshire's collection of insurers, retailers and hard-asset businesses in energy, industrials and manufacturing.

"As a conglomerate, we live by the fact that we hate bureaucracy," Abel said in response to a prerecorded question from Buffett, who also sat in a front-row seat. "We do not intend to be beholden to anyone. We start with that."

Still, attendance was down significantly from when Buffett and Vice Chairman ​Charlie Munger, who died in 2023, presided over meetings filled with their lively insights and banter about Berkshire, the economy, markets and life. Buffett and Munger drew capacity crowds in ⁠the downtown arena where the meeting took place, but several thousand of the approximately 18,000 seats were empty when Abel took the stage.

The meeting is the centerpiece of a weekend of shareholder events around Omaha, including investment conferences, private get-togethers, and shopping from Berkshire-owned businesses in an exhibit hall adjacent to the arena. Fewer people ⁠shopped. While thousands ​lined up outside the arena before doors opened at 7 a.m., the lines were considerably shorter than in recent years.

“I wanted to ​soak in the atmosphere and network with finance professionals,” said Jobby Chin, a finance student from Singapore attending her first meeting, who said she got in line at 2 am. Michael DiDonna, a fashion photographer from Oyster Bay, New York, said he arrived at 3:10 a.m. for his fifth ​meeting. "I want to feel a part of the monumental shift at the company," he said.

Buffett, for his part, assured the audience that "Greg is doing everything I did and then some," reprising comments he made last year when he announced his retirement ​as CEO. The 95-year-old also praised Apple, one of Berkshire's most successful investments, and its departing chief executive, Tim Cook. Buffett remains Berkshire's chairman.

In an interview with CNBC on the meeting's sidelines, Buffett fretted about a gambling mentality that has taken hold of some investors. "We've never had more people in a gambling mood than now," he said. "That doesn't mean investing is terrible, but it does mean that prices for an awful lot of things will look awfully silly."

Abel also assured shareholders he would not break up Berkshire, saying it operated effectively and its bench of expertise was strong. "We want Berkshire to endure," he said. Abel also said ​he is constantly evaluating opportunities to add to Berkshire's existing portfolio, whether that is acquiring public or private companies or a piece of a company.

Abel adhered to Buffett's mantra of patience, saying he would like to hold investments "forever" and not plow into any without understanding their economic ​prospects and risks. "It doesn't mean you need to deploy all ​your capital and spend all your money," he ⁠said.

He agreed with Berkshire's longtime insurance chief, Ajit Jain, who also answered questions from the stage, that it was important to say "no" if an investment did not look right. "It is very difficult to sit there and do nothing," Jain said, "while everyone else is being wined and dined by brokers and taken to London."

Abel praised a recent Oregon appeals ​court ruling that, for now, spared Berkshire's PacifiCorp unit from billions of dollars of potential liabilities for wildfires in 2020 that the utility maintains it did not ​cause. "We're back to first base" on the ⁠legal side, he said, meaning the threat has lessened.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 16:55

Judge Blocks Enforcement Of Colorado's New DEI-Driven AI Law

Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the State of Colorado from enforcing a first-of-its-kind artificial intelligence law.

Colorado is prohibited from taking enforcement actions on alleged violations of the law occurring up to 14 days after the court issues a ruling on the company xAI’s motion for a preliminary injunction, judge Cyrus Y. Chung ruled on April 27.

The Department of Justice had said the state law, which was set to go into effect on June 30, would have required AI developers and deployers to “discriminate based on race, sex, & religion—all in the name of DEI.”

DEI is an acronym for “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Brett Shumate, an assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Division, called the suspension a “huge win for the American people.”

“Colorado immediately caved and agreed not to enforce the law against ANY AI company,” Shumate wrote in a X post on May 1.

Gov. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) signed into law the Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence in May 2024 and issued a statement sharing his reservations about how it could impact Colorado.

In the statement, he urged the General Assembly to revise and delay implementing it until January 2027.

“I am concerned about the impact this law may have on an industry that is fueling critical technological advancements across our state for consumers and enterprises alike,” Polis wrote.

However, the legislation was not revised; instead, it was delayed until June 30, 2026, which prompted tech billionaire Elon Musk’s company xAI, which created Grok, to sue the state on April 9.

The unedited legislation was months away from going into effect when xAI asked the court to block the law from being enforced.

The Justice Department added its name as a plaintiff alongside xAI on April 24, marking the first time the DOJ had stepped into a case that challenged AI on a state level.

Both alleged that Colorado’s law would have caused unconstitutional “algorithmic discrimination” and asked a court to block it from being enforced.

“Laws that require AI companies to infect their products with woke DEI ideology are illegal,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who works under the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

“The Justice Department will not stand on the sidelines while states such as Colorado coerce our nation’s technological innovators into producing harmful products that advance a radical, far-left worldview at odds with the Constitution.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Polis and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser for comment.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 16:20

The Cheap Foreign Labor Regime Blocking Agricultural Intelligence

Authored by RJ Hauman via American Intelligence,

I grew up in Camarillo, California: fertile soil, Mediterranean climate, strawberries, avocados, lemons, citrus, and family farms passed down through generations. The kind of place that sells itself, and does.

Read the city’s own description of its agricultural economy and you will find every word you would expect: rich agricultural legacy, farming passed down, agricultural education, sustainability, drip irrigation, precision sensors, AI-driven robotics, research partnerships, and a North American AgTech market projected to reach $16 billion by 2027.

Read it again and notice what is missing.

The workforce.

Not wages. Not labor. Not who picks the strawberries, cuts the lemons, or brings in the harvest. The fields produce. The technology advances. The legacy continues. The workers disappear.

Every agricultural economy has a legacy. The question is which part is being preserved. The fertile soil is a legacy. The family farms are a legacy. The harvest is a legacy. So is the labor model that brings it in. And across American agriculture, that model has for forty years depended heavily on foreign labor, illegal hiring, and a political class determined not to disturb either.

When a city brochure pairs “legacy” with AI robotics in the same breath, it is not just describing the future. It is making a quiet promise: the technology will advance, but the labor model will not.

America is preparing for the AI age everywhere except the place that feeds the country.

In Washington, the debate tends to revolve around foundation models, export controls, chips, data centers, defense contracts, and the ideological capture of Silicon Valley. Those fights matter. But the next frontier of artificial intelligence will not stay confined to server farms or federal procurement offices. It will also play out in fields, dairies, orchards, irrigation networks, greenhouses, and the rural labor markets that underpin America’s food supply.

That frontier is no longer theoretical. Autonomous tractors already plant, till, and spray without a driver. Computer-vision systems can scout crops plant by plant. Machine-learning models can optimize water, fertilizer, pest control, and yield down to the meter. Robotic harvesters can pick faster, cleaner, and longer than hand crews. Precision irrigation can be guided by satellite analytics. AI-assisted breeding can compress decades of plant selection into months.

The question is no longer whether American agriculture can automate. It is whether Washington will stop subsidizing the cheap labor model that makes automation a losing bet.

America should be leading this revolution. It builds the software, funds the research, trains the engineers, and talks constantly about technological dominance. Yet federal policy still props up an agricultural labor model built on cheap imported labor, illegal hiring, and guestworker expansion. That bargain has kept human labor cheaper than machines, delayed mechanization, and now risks leaving the United States on the sidelines of a revolution it should own.

This is not a speculative warning. It is already underway. Syngenta’s Cropwise platform now spans more than 70 million hectares across 30 countries. The World Economic Forum projects that AI-amplified digital agriculture could increase agricultural GDP in developing economies by more than $450 billion annually. The Netherlands, Israel, and Australia are moving quickly to capture that ground.

American firms built much of the underlying technology. American universities produced the foundational research. American workers could be trained to operate it.

But the United States will not lead unless it dismantles the cheap labor regime that has allowed agriculture to skip the last revolution while pretending it is ready for the next.

You cannot leapfrog to autonomous agriculture over an industry that has barely mechanized. Software runs on hardware. AI runs on physical capital. The autonomous tractor still requires the tractor. The computer-vision yield system still needs the machine it is guiding. The machine-learning dairy platform still depends on the milking robot it is reading from. Farms that have not mechanized cannot become intelligent by press release.

The capital does not move. The infrastructure does not get built. The workforce does not get trained. The frontier goes to whoever did the prior work first.

Why has American agriculture failed to do that work?

Not because of technology. The tools have been available for decades.

The answer is policy. Washington has spent forty years making cheap foreign labor cheaper than the machine.

The Twin Pillars of the Cheap Labor Regime

American agriculture runs on a labor system Washington built, tolerated, subsidized, and now refuses to dismantle. It rests on two pillars.

The first is illegal hiring. Federal surveys show that roughly 40 to 45 percent of crop farmworkers lack legal work authorization. In California, the share is closer to 60 percent. Another large portion are foreign nationals who entered illegally or came on a temporary basis. The U.S.-born legal workforce in the fields is the minority.

This is not a system failure. It is the system. And it has been propped up by both parties.

The second pillar is H-2A, the federal guestworker program designed in 1986 as a narrow tool for seasonal shortages. It has since grown into one of the largest labor pipelines in the immigration system.

The Department of Labor certified roughly 385,000 H-2A jobs in FY 2024, nearly an eightfold increase since 2005. The program remains uncapped by statute. Recent rulemaking is projected to transfer tens of billions in wage value over the next decade, in some cases lowering effective labor costs by several dollars per hour.

Washington is making imported labor cheaper at the exact moment it should be forcing capital toward machines.

These pillars are not separate problems. They are the same subsidy delivered through different channels, defended by the same interests, and sustaining the same method.

When enforcement targets illegal hiring, employers demand H-2A expansion. When H-2A reform is proposed, they revive amnesty proposals like the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which would grant Certified Agricultural Worker status and eventual green cards to up to 2.1 million illegal alien farmworkers while simultaneously opening H-2A to year-round industries.

The lobby’s actual position is not legal labor or illegal labor. It is permanent access to cheap foreign labor by whatever channel Washington will tolerate.

Illegal hiring supplies the shadow workforce. H-2A provides the legal release valve. Amnesty converts one into the other while preserving the pipeline behind it.

This is not stagnation by accident. It is by design.

The result is a labor-intensive production model with little incentive to mechanize, little reason to invest in agricultural intelligence, and no pressure to train American workers to operate either.

That helps explain why the United States lags Northern Europe in robotic milking, Israel in precision irrigation, and Australia in autonomous platforms.

Those countries did not discover secret technologies unavailable to American farmers. They built the workforce and mechanized base the United States has chosen to avoid.

We chose decades of cheap, and often illegal, foreign labor instead.

The Myth of the Impossible Crop

Big Agriculture’s most persistent claim is that American farming cannot be mechanized. The crops are too delicate. The terrain too uneven. The seasons too unpredictable. The farms are too diverse. The margins are too thin. The labor is supposedly too specialized.

Some of these objections contain fragments of truth. None justify a permanent federal subsidy for cheap foreign labor.

The “impossible crop” argument collapses the moment policy forces capital to solve the problem.

Commercial cabbage harvesters have existed for decades. Autonomous systems are now being developed for uneven terrain. Apple harvesting robots can pick roughly 10,000 apples an hour, about 30 to 50 times human speed, with less bruising than human crews.

Harvest CROO’s strawberry robots replaced crews of 30 migrant pickers with a small team of engineers and technicians and reached commercial viability in 2025. Carbon Robotics’ LaserWeeder uses AI-guided precision lasers to eliminate up to 5,000 weeds a minute, replacing the work of a hand crew of 75 people. Monarch Tractor’s MK-V is a fully electric, driver-optional tractor now operating on hundreds of farms. Bear Flag Robotics, now a John Deere subsidiary, retrofits existing tractors for autonomous tillage at scale.

Even crops long considered unmechanizable are starting to be mechanized.

The constraint is not engineering. It is incentive. And when the incentive shifts, capital tends to follow.

Dale Hemminger, an upstate New York dairy farmer, installed his first milking robots in 2007 after immigration authorities arrested one of his workers. Before mechanization, his farm produced about 800,000 pounds of milk per worker per year. Today it produces 2.5 million. About a dozen workers manage a herd of more than 2,000 cows. They earn more than typical farmworkers and work shorter hours.

That is what one enforcement event did on one farm.

Now imagine that incentive applied across the entire sector.

Bracero Proved the Point

America has already run this experiment.

From 1942 to 1964, the Bracero program admitted more than 4.6 million Mexican guestworkers. At its peak, it brought in more workers annually than today’s entire H-2A system.

The same arguments were made then: crops would rot, Americans would not work, mechanization was not ready.

Congress and President Lyndon Johnson ended the Bracero program in 1964.

The result was not collapse. It was modernization.

Tomato harvesters, developed at the University of California with public funds, were commercially deployed within five years. California processing tomato yields rose 300 percent while labor requirements fell by more than 80 percent. Real wages for remaining domestic farmworkers rose substantially. Crop losses were short-lived and concentrated in the first two seasons. Total production soon exceeded pre-termination levels.

The lesson is straightforward.

The technology was already there. Modernization was obstructed by outdated policy.

That lesson applies directly today.

End the federal guarantee of imported labor. Mandate E-Verify. Phase down H-2A on a real timeline. Reject amnesty that converts the existing illegal workforce into a permanent labor base while expanding future inflows.

No carve-outs. No indefinite delays.

Transition should be statutory, not chaotic. Enforcement must be paired with date-certain phase-downs, mechanization credit, and accelerated expensing. The point is not to create a harvest shock. It is to deny agribusiness the one thing that has defeated every reform for forty years: indefinite delay. Put serious public investment behind mechanization and agricultural intelligence in tandem, on the model of the semiconductor and energy industrial policies of the past five years. Pair the phase-down with targeted USDA credit for mechanization, accelerated expensing for qualifying capital investments, shared-ownership equipment consortia that put commercial-grade robotics within reach of smaller farms, and scale-tiered timelines that give family operations more runway than consolidated agribusiness.

Capital should move toward modernization, not toward Capitol Hill.

The Constituency This Is For

The Right often talks about building a worker-centered coalition. Agriculture is where that idea could actually take shape.

It is composed of the small dairy operator competing against a contractor-driven megafarm that lobbies for both illegal labor and H-2A expansion. It harbors the rural mechanic who could be trained as a robotics technician on a precision orchard. It uplifts the recent graduate of a community college agronomy program who could work in autonomous-equipment maintenance, computer-vision crop scouting, or precision-irrigation management. It represents the American worker who lost the field job a generation ago and never got the engineering job that should have replaced it, because the engineering job was never built.

Cheap, and oftentimes illegal, foreign labor does not just displace today’s American worker. It prevents tomorrow’s worker from emerging.

It blocks the investment that would create better jobs. It keeps rural America trapped in a low-wage equilibrium, and then frames that outcome as a necessary tradeoff.

It is not.

The Sovereignty of Food

The global agricultural intelligence revolution will not wait for American policy to catch up. It is happening now, on Dutch dairies, Israeli irrigation networks, Australian autonomous platforms, and in the orchards and greenhouses of countries that did the prior work, built the prior infrastructure, and trained the prior workforce.

But it does not have to be this way. American startups are building the machines. The United States can deploy them at scale, or watch other countries integrate the technology American firms invented.

The AI age is not just about who builds the model. It is about who controls the systems the model governs.

A country that imports foreign labor to prop up its food system, neglects the machines that should replace it, and fails to train its own workforce is not leading. It is stepping aside.

If “America First” means anything in the AI age, it means that the commanding systems of national life are built, operated, and controlled by Americans. Food is one of those systems.

The United States has the advantages: land, capital, universities, manufacturers, and workers.

What it lacks is the political will to end the old bargain.

For forty years, Washington has kept imported labor cheaper than machines. That decision has lowered wages, slowed mechanization, weakened the rural workforce, and delayed the productivity gains other countries have already captured.

Now the next revolution is here.

The choice is straightforward: a preindustrial labor system sustained by outdated and poor policy, or an industrial strategy worthy of a sovereign nation.

We should end the cheap foreign labor regime. Mandate E-Verify. Phase out H-2A. Restore wage discipline. Invest in mechanization and agricultural intelligence at scale.

America cannot shape the future of food while importing a labor model of the past.

There is no third option.

Coming soon from NICE: Phasing Out H-2A: How to Force American Agriculture into the 21st Century. A national mechanization and agricultural intelligence initiative built for American workers and American farms. The full case for ending Big Agriculture’s cheap labor racket and forcing the modernization that should have come a generation ago.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 15:10

Exiled MAGA Dissidents Consult With Ron Paul On Iran War

Authored by former Congressman Ron Paul

Last weekend my Institute for Peace and Prosperity hosted another conference here on the Texas Gulf Coast. Not only did we have a full house attending the conference – which is in a way the most important thing – but in this era of profound disappointment and disillusionment, we struck a note of optimism thankfully due to our wonderful line-up of speakers.

The main topic of the conference, titled "War is Back on the Menu," was of course the disastrous decision by the Trump Administration to launch an unprovoked war against Iran – both last June and again on February 28th.

Trump's former director of Counterterrorism at the Office of National Intelligence, Joe Kent, listens intently as Ron Paul offers thoughts on the Iran War & current crisis facing America in his home south of Houston, TX.

Professor Robert Pape from the University of Chicago offered a compelling blueprint to break free of some of the neocon chains that bind us to the Middle East to our own detriment. Let the states in the region manage their own security, he argued. It is not our job to be their policemen.

Very importantly, we were fortunate to have had as speakers two individuals who stood up for their principles when putting them aside for expediency – and personal gain – would have been so much easier.

Former US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene was, in her own words, “a General in the MAGA Army.” She dedicated her life and plenty of her own money to the cause of electing Donald Trump because she believed he would put America first, as he had promised. She watched that cause betrayed, first with the President’s support for tyrannical central bank digital currency and then with his refusal to release the Epstein files.

Finally, she explained, after he had dubbed her a “traitor” for disagreeing with him on these issues, constant death threats forced her to resign her seat in the House.

Source: MTG on X

She could have gone along to get along – as most do in Congress. Instead, she stood up for what was right.

Likewise Joe Kent, who was serving as director of Counterterrorism at the Office of National Intelligence, could have kept quiet as he watched another war being launched on a mountain of lies pushed by special interests. He was a highly decorated US combat veteran who held a Senate-confirmed position in the Administration.

That would have been a golden ticket to any number of future profitable opportunities if he “played his cards right.” Instead, he did what was right. He resigned, writing in a statement that the war was not justified and that it was being fought for Israeli rather than American interests.

As could be predicted, Joe suffered the same demonization that Marjorie suffered for standing up for his values and principles. Their courage in making this sacrifice for truth should inspire all of us. It should give us hope.

What an honor.

Thank you @RonPaul ! pic.twitter.com/V4EZRFFMQK

— Joe Kent (@joekent16jan19) April 25, 2026

My words of encouragement were simple: we don’t need a majority to change things. A purposeful minority dedicated to the principles of peace and liberty can move mountains.

We must stay strong and, importantly, stick together and work together across all party and ideological lines. We must be the big coalition that refuses to sacrifice our principles just as Joe and Marjorie refused to sacrifice theirs.

Currently: a joy to see MTG at @RonPaulInstitut telling @RonPaul he was right about all the wars & “MAGA is dead” #IranWar‌ pic.twitter.com/6j95yO4jDO

— Brad Hoff (@BradRHoff) April 25, 2026

We will be in Dulles, VA, on Labor Day weekend for our tenth annual DC conference. Mark your calendars and be a part of our movement!

* * *

Kent, who is a decorated Special Forces and CIA Ground Branch veteran, has responded to the media smear campaign that was triggered at the moment of his public resignation in protest of Trump launching another war of choice in the Middle East...

Joe Kent, who is currently under investigation for “leaking classified information,” told Tucker Carlson that he knows they are going to come after him for what he’s openly talking about.

He said he expects to be called a traitor and says he doesn’t care because America is… pic.twitter.com/ra5EpgqAA5

— Shadow of Ezra (@ShadowofEzra) March 19, 2026

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 14:00

Unexploded Ordnance Accident Kills 14 IRGC Members: State Media

Trump's operation Epic Fury saw a combined number of US-Israeli strikes in the many thousands unleashed on Iran. The common high estimates suggest over 13,000 strikes by the American side, and possibly 10,000 by the Israelis - which are staggering figures.

While the severe damage to Iranian cities, bases, missile sites, and infrastructure has been abundantly clear - the hidden reality is the apparently persistent danger of unexploded ordnance still littering the country. On Friday state media reported a mass casualty event involving Iranian military members due to unexploded bombs.

"An explosion of leftover bombs from strikes during the war against Iran killed 14 members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iranian media reports," AFP reports based on state media.

Example of large unexploded bomb in Gaza, Getty Images

"A report by the Nour news website, believed to be close to Iran’s security, says the explosion happened near the northern city of Zanjan, which is northwest of Tehran," AFP continues.

And notably, "It is the largest number of IRGC members reported to be killed since the ceasefire began on April 7," it continues, describing that cluster bombs and 'air mines' which had been dropped during prior US and Israeli aids caused the deadly blasts.

The major blast could have been the result of an IRGC operation to recover the bombs, given that the last week has seen reports that the IRGC had recovered a fully intact GBU-57 Bunker Buster bomb.

While unconfirmed, one defense source said as follows:

The reported recovery by Iran of more than 15 unexploded American precision-guided munitions, including at least one fully intact GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, may prove to be one of the most strategically consequential intelligence gains in Tehran’s military history.

If confirmed, the transfer of these weapons to Iranian “technical and research units” for reverse engineering would transform a failed deep-strike campaign against hardened nuclear facilities into a long-term technology compromise for both Washington and Tel Aviv.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), through statements linked to the Imam Sajjad Corps in Hormozgan province and state-linked outlets including Press TV, IRNA, and Tasnim News, framed the recovered ordnance not as battlefield debris but as a strategic opportunity capable of accelerating deterrence, bunker survivability, and indigenous precision-strike development.

As for this new mass casualty event, another source adds the following further details: "The IRGC's Ansar al-Mahdi unit in Zanjan said demolition teams had entered a contaminated area to identify and neutralize unexploded munitions left from recent airstrikes when the deadly explosion happened on Friday."

Illustrative via Popular Mechanics 

The Friday incident strongly suggests there are other extreme danger zones, and given that thousands of bombs rained down all over Iran during the height of US-Israeli war, there could be more such deadly accidents to come.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 13:25