Authored by Vijay Jayaraj via PJMedia.com,

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has called the nuclear phaseout a “serious strategic mistake” that left Germany short of firm power that turned the Energiewende into the most expensive energy transition on the planet. This is an early marker for a developing worldwide retreat from policies that sidelined nuclear power and demonized coal, oil, and natural gas.

German and Japanese Nuclear Embarrassment

Germany stubbornly closed its last three functioning nuclear reactors in April 2023 right in the middle of a crippling energy crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine. As pragmatists predicted, German citizens now suffer under punishingly high electricity prices and remain heavily dependent on imported energy.

The green dream was sold as a route to “cheap” renewables, yet the reality for German households and factories has been record‑high electricity prices, complex subsidies for favored businesses and individuals who conform to the climate narrative, and a grid that struggles on windless days or under gray skies. 

Japan made a remarkably similar error but is finally correcting course. After the Fukushima disaster, the government panicked and shut down all 54 of its nuclear reactors. Today, Japan is slowly restarting those idle units.

The pattern is plain to see. Countries abandon dependable power sources under political pressure, then spend years rebuilding what they had demonized and dismantled.

Regret Over Abandoning Fossil Fuels

This is why I anticipate a cascade of similar reversals by national leaders who participated in a destructive campaign that stripped grids of dependable, affordable, and abundant coal, oil, and natural gas.

Politicians are already quietly hitting the brakes on their aggressive fossil fuel phaseouts when reality bites. The massive Groningen gas field was scheduled for permanent closure due to localized earthquake risks. Yet in 2024, the Dutch Senate delayed the final shutdown vote when lawmakers demanded guarantees that abandoning the domestic resource would not jeopardize energy security.

Within a week of the German chancellor’s admission of a nuclear energy fiasco, the country’s energy minister lamented at an oil and gas conference the push of net zero policies, indirectly referencing the abandonment of fossil fuels.

In the United States, President Donald Trump took executive actions aimed at preventing some coal plants from closing, including orders that kept aging facilities like the J.H. Campbell plant in Michigan running to “avoid summer blackouts.”

South Africa’s Mineral Resources and Energy Minister Gwede Mantashe consistently fights international pressure to quickly abandon coal. “You don’t destroy what you have on the basis of hope that something better is coming,” he says. Mantashe rightly insists that protecting the ability of the state to supply energy must remain a priority.

India offers the most powerful example of this energy pragmatism. The country has signaled that coal will remain the backbone of the economy for decades, even as its diplomats make empty promises about reaching net-zero by 2070. Deputy Power Minister Shripad Naik recently revealed that India had added a massive 7.2 gigawatts of new coal capacity in the 2025–26 fiscal year alone and would add 307 gigawatts of total coal capacity by 2035.

A majority of Western countries, especially in Europe, utterly lack this basic foresight on energy security. Many countries have locked in policies that tear down coal, oil, gas, and nuclear plants before they have built credible alternatives. They chase targets for emissions reductions. They downplay the costs to their citizens.

Energy security has become more prominent in the news because of turmoil in the Middle East. Yet a war may not be needed to launch the next generation of energy crises. When the next prolonged cold spell, drought, or demand surge hits, the weakness of the anti-fossil fuel approach will show up in higher bills, rolling blackouts, and public anger.

Russia on Tuesday announced that it has successfully completed a test of the “Sarmat” intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), a new ‘doomsday’ weapon which has had a troubled roll out and development, but which has not yet been fully deployed as part of Russia’s military arsenal. 

While in 2023 the cutting edge heavy missile was reportedly put on ‘combat alert’ – according to some headlines at the time – the following year saw at least one test deemed unsuccessful and a failure. This was seen as delaying its full combat deployment.

Interfax was the first to report Tuesday’s new Sarmat test, with Russian President Putin in follow-up remarking that its range could exceed 35,000. And Reuters has followed with:

Russia has ​successfully tested ‌its new Sarmat intercontinental ​ballistic missile, ​Sergei Karakayev, the ⁠commander ​of the strategic ​missile forces, told Russian President ​Vladimir ​Putin on Tuesday. Putin said ‌that ⁠Russia planned to put the ​Sarmat ​on ⁠combat duty by ​the end ​of ⁠this year.

The nuclear-capable Sarmat ICBM was previously touted by President Putin as being capable hitting “any target on Earth” – and is widely believed to be by far the longest-range missile in Russia’s arsenal (or in the world for that matter). It’s been nicknamed by NATO the “SATAN II”. 

The Sarmat, which is in a “superheavy” class of missiles, has a short initial boost phase which gives it better ability to elude all conventional anti-missile defense systems, given this results in a much smaller window of time to track it. By design, its super long-range gives it the ability to reach targets thousands of missiles away in the United States or Europe.

According to its specifications, it’s by far the heaviest missile Russia possesses – at over 200 tons – and heavier than all foreign competitors: 

This allows it to carry around 15 warheads, up to 750kt. (The bomb US dropped on Hiroshima was 15kt.)

This would be enough to wipe out a country the size of France. It can also carry hypersonic missiles, rendering most missile defense systems ineffective.

It has long been in development – since 2009 – and has been in testing phase for many years, some test flights of which may have failed. The Sarmat has been touted as being able to reach speeds of nearly 16,000 mph.

Putin early in the program described: “The new complex has the highest tactical and technical characteristics and is capable of overcoming all modern means of anti-missile defense. It has no analogues in the world and won’t have for a long time to come.”

❗️ President Putin Receives Report on Successful ‘Sarmat’ Intercontinental Missile Test – Kremlin

The successful launch will allow the first regiment to be put on duty by the end of the year, according to the commander of the Strategic Missile Forces.

📹: Russian MoD pic.twitter.com/6euvdKssds

— RT_India (@RT_India_news) May 12, 2026

But despite this rosy presentation of the Sarmat’s purported capabilities, it has faced an uphill battle from the start, and there were manufacturing problems being reported even nearly a decade ago. For example:

The heavy, liquid-fueled Sarmat ICBM is being developed as a replacement for Russia’s older R-36M missile (NATO Reporting name: SS-18 Satan). The Sarmat’s large payload will allow for up to 10 heavy warheads or 15 lighter ones, or as many as 24 hypersonic Yu-71 glide vehicles (Sputnik News, June 11, 2016). Production of the new missile and its prototype was entrusted to the Krasnoyarsk Machine Building Plant (Krasmash), which suffers from serious equipment depreciation issues—in 2010, fewer than 20 percent of machines at its fabrication facility were less than 20 years old (T. V. Yankova, A. M. Ragozina, “Techno-Economic Justification of Equipment Modernization at Krasmash,” Actual Problems of Aviation and Cosmonautics, No. 6: 2, 2010). The quality and lead time of the order will depend on the modernization of the production facilities at Krasmash. Efforts toward this end have already started: more than 16 billion rubles ($274 million) will reportedly be invested by 2019. And Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has taken a personal interest in making sure these modernization goals are met.

But by now the Kremlin is stressing that prior troubles have been resolved and smoothed out, and that this nuclear-capable beast is set to be the heavy ballistic long-range missile of Russia’s future defense.

Via Remix News,

Last week, reports that the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) is investigating France’s right-wing, anti-migration party National Rally (RN) for misallocation of EU funds made the rounds. At its core, the case involves a complaint filed last December by the association AC!! Anti-Corruption with the National Financial Prosecutor’s Office (PNF) in Paris. 

These allegations have already been contested by RN, but the party must also now face scrutiny from Brussels, as the funds involved include EU money.

The charge is that the National Rally misused the funds by allocating money received for media training for its leader, Jordan Bardella, not for his work as an MEP, but with the aim of helping him to prepare for France’s 2027 presidential election. Other members of the party have also been named in connection with the same charge.

Bardella posted on X that the investigation is not news and certainly nothing new for the party, labeling the charges as politically motivated slander.

Nous n’avons strictement rien à nous reprocher. L’association à l’origine de la plainte est une organisation d’extrême-gauche revendiquée, dont les déclarations agressives laissent peu de doute quant à leurs intentions.

J’ai déposé plainte il y a plusieurs semaines pour… https://t.co/GNkyGB5lbd

— Jordan Bardella (@J_Bardella) May 7, 2026

“We have absolutely nothing to reproach ourselves for. The association behind the complaint is a self-proclaimed far-left organization, whose aggressive statements leave little doubt as to their intentions. I filed a complaint several weeks ago for slanderous denunciation,” he wrote, while assuring that he and his party would fully cooperate with the EPPO.

National Rally has been in the top spot in recent polling, despite its former leader, Marine Le Pen, having been sidelined by a similar case last year. She is appealing that decision, but for now has made it clear that Bardella will run on the RN ticket for president.

The party’s popularity, with or without Le Pen, cannot be a surprise to its rivals, given the slew of issues France has been suffering from due to its policy of mass immigration and lax deportation: Elderly rape, minor prostitution, failing education, robberies, violent rape, concerns over sharia law, and murder. As the mother of 18-year-old Théo, who was stabbed to death by a Senegalese migrant who ended up avoiding prison, said: “You can kill in France with impunity.”

Meanwhile, the media and the left prefer not to draw attention to the link between increased migration and violence.

And yet, a new website and real estate browser extension for Chrome is offering data on immigration levels, insecurity, and Islamization rates of neighborhoods for prospective buyers in the latest sign that the French public is highly concerned about record-breaking numbers of immigrants.

According to a recent ifop poll, 60 percent of French believe there is “a replacement of the French population by non-European populations, mainly from the African continent.” The same poll found that 66 percent see it as a bad development. Only 9 percent noted it as good.

This is a major factor why the National Rally has been surging in the polls, and why left-wing parties and activist organizations will do anything to bring them down — first targeting Le Pen and now Bardella. Other party politicians and staff members have been implicated in both cases.

Such efforts are not unique to France, with efforts ongoing for years over in Germany to bring down the anti-migration AfD party, which has also seen a massive rise in popularity.

With reports indicating France is spending over €2 billion a year on housing and healthcare for asylum seekers and illegal migrants, RN’s rivals will need more than accusations of misappropriated funds to stop voters from exercising their desire for change.

Read more here…

One day after vehemently denying speculation that India plans to raise duties on gold and silver imports following ​Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s urging people to ​avoid buying ​gold for a year ‌due ⁠to the impact of the Iran war, India did in fact raise import tariffs on gold and silver in an attempt to defend its currency, a surprise move as the country races to limit the damage from the Middle East war and to shore up foreign-exchange reserves.

The government has more than doubled import taxes on gold and silver to about 15% from 6%, according to two official orders, imposing a 10% basic customs duty alongside a 5% agriculture infrastructure and development levy.

The hikes, aiming to dampen demand in the world’s second-largest bullion market, followed a rare weekend appeal from Prime Minister Narendra Modi in which he urged citizens to forgo gold purchases as well as unnecessary foreign travel in order to help hold up the currency. The Indian rupee has plunged more than 6% in 2026 with most of the losses occurring after the Iran war started; the currency is on pace to drop to 100 vs the US dollar in the coming weeks.

New Delhi is also weighing other emergency steps, including raising fuel prices and curbing non-essential imports like electronic goods.

India, the world’s third-largest oil importer, has been hit hard by the inflationary shock caused by energy disruptions in the Persian Gulf. 

Higher import bills have driven sharp foreign-exchange outflows, pushing the rupee down to a record low and prompting the Reserve Bank of India to step in and sell dollars. And the fact that gold is the country’s largest import item after crude oil does not help, which is why India is doing everything in its power to limit capital outflows. 

Gold is deeply ingrained in Indian culture and plays a vital role in savings, weddings and religious festivals. India meets almost of all its demand through imports, with 710 tons of gold coming in last year. 

Of course, attempts by the government to limit capital outflows via precious metals will only encourage the population to find alternative mechanisms to preserve purchasing power, and it is only a matter of time before India joins the rest of the financially suppressed developing world in actively pursuing such non-fiat alternatives as tether and bitcoin if the traditional gold and silver pathways are limited. 

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman spent roughly four hours on the witness stand Tuesday defending the company’s shift from a nonprofit to a for-profit model, directly rebutting Elon Musk’s claims that he and co-founder Greg Brockman “stole a charity” when they restructured the artificial intelligence lab.

“I think it’s wonderful that through the hard work of thousands of people … we’ve been able to create one of largest nonprofits in the world, [and] that it has this role to protect the technology and the impact on the world,” Altman told the court. 

The testimony came during the third week of Musk’s federal lawsuit against Altman, Brockman, and OpenAI in U.S. District Court in Oakland, California. Musk, who helped found OpenAI in 2015 but left its board in 2018, accuses the pair of betraying the original mission to develop safe AI for humanity after he provided tens of millions in early funding. He is seeking Altman’s and Brockman’s removal from leadership, more than $150 billion in damages, and the unwinding of OpenAI’s 2019 conversion to a for-profit structure now backed heavily by Microsoft. Musk has accused the pair of bilking him out of $38 million in donations, then restructuring the nonprofit lab they coufounded by exclusively licensing their flagship product to Microsoft. This, Musk’s team argues, betrayed OpenAI’s founding mission to operate an open-source charity that would counter the existential risks of profit-driven AI. 

Altman told the jury that Musk had pushed for significant personal control from the outset, including an early proposal that he receive 90 percent equity in the company – an idea Altman said made him “extremely uncomfortable.” He also rejected Musk’s suggestion of a merger with Tesla, saying it would have compromised OpenAI’s independence because “Tesla needs to serve its customers and sell cars.”

On the central issue of the for-profit conversion, Altman testified that Musk either supported the move or did not oppose it. “Quite the opposite,” he said when asked whether Musk had resisted the change. Altman portrayed Musk’s current lawsuit as driven by “sour grapes” after Musk launched the rival xAI lab, attempted to poach OpenAI researchers, and engaged in what Altman described as “business interference.”

Musk, meanwhile, told the court “You can’t just steal a charity.”

Altman shot back when his turn came: “No, you can’t steal it, but Mr. Musk did try to kill it.”

As the Epoch Times notes further, Altman said Musk abandoned the company in 2018 to start his own for-profit competitor, xAI, when other founders rejected his bid to take full control of the operation.

“I thought incredibly highly of Elon, and felt like he had abandoned us, not come through on his promises,” Altman said, suggesting Elon’s withdrawal of support jeopardized the mission. “We were left for dead.”

He acknowledged Musk was a critical contributor but added, “I also wish he would stop doing what he is doing here, which in my opinion is jealousy as we get more and more successful.”

In the bitter feud between the former friends and cofounders, which in recent years has unfurled on social media, both volley accusations of betrayal, double-dealing and hypocrisy.

Altman on Tuesday described his tumultuous tenure at OpenAI’s helm as painful and difficult, its successes unimaginable just a decade prior.

The once-embattled and underfunded nonprofit startup, founded in 2015, was recently valued at $852 billion following a 2025 restructuring as a public benefit corporation, in which the nonprofit arm received a 26 percent stake in the for-profit, based on a transfer of intellectual property. Microsoft, following $13 billion in investments since 2019, currently owns a 27 percent stake in the company.

‘Hurt and Angry’

Of the circumstances surrounding his chaotic 2023 ouster by former nonprofit board members, who at the time cited his “consistent pattern of lying” and concerns over safety protocol issues, Altman said it was one of the most painful moments in his life.

“I had poured the last years of my life into this. I was watching it about to be destroyed. … I was very angry and hurt and upset. It felt like an incredible betrayal,” he said, noting he could have made a lot of money and had a “much easier life” if he had gone to work for Microsoft.

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella testified Monday that at the time, he offered to create an AI project for Altman, Brockman and any potentially departing employees, in an effort to prevent the wholesale implosion of OpenAI—and along with it his company’s formidable investments.

Musk alleges Microsoft “methodically entrenched itself” into OpenAI, helping to engineer the 2023 “coup” and seize the company’s board of directors.

Altman returned to OpenAI just days later, at the board’s invitation, he said, because he “cared about the mission and the people,” and thought it would be the last chance to create an AI lab with OpenAI’s unique mission and structure.

“I was not trying to deceive the board,” Altman said. “I was certainly not trying to do anything other than make safe AI and distribute it to humanity. I feel badly for the misunderstandings … but that was never my intent.”

In court Tuesday, Steven Molo, an attorney for Musk, pressed Altman about his conditions for return, which included firing the original board—and vetting a new one with Nadella’s approval. 

Musk is suing Microsoft for aiding and abetting OpenAI’s breach of a charitable trust, allegations Nadella disputed when he testified May 11 about his involvement in the messy 2023 shakeup and a landmark financial agreement between the two companies the same year.

Power Struggle

Following a 2017 milestone demonstration of OpenAI technology at a gaming event, the founders realized they had a chance at becoming competitive but would need significantly more capital and computing power to take on Google, at the time an undisputed leader in the field.

Each floated various ideas for profit and nonprofit configurations; Musk at one point suggested rolling OpenAI into Tesla. Throughout late 2017 and early 2018, discussions became more contentious as the power struggle between Musk and Altman intensified.

At one point, Altman said, Musk suggested giving himself a 90 percent equity stake in a for-profit entity; Musk meanwhile, pointed out that he proposed taking an initial majority stake that would be diluted with additional investment over time.

Altman said Tuesday that Musk contributed only 28 percent of the nonprofit’s funding from 2015 to 2020, and failed to come through on a $1 billion pledge, leaving the startup with few options.

Molo pressed Altman, suggesting he had a “fixation” with being CEO. The attorney referenced an email from Brockman and fellow cofounder Ilya Sutskever during the period of intense negotiations over the future funding and structure of OpenAI.

“We don’t understand why the CEO title is so important to you. Your stated reasons have changed, and it’s hard to really understand what’s driving it,” the two wrote. “Is AGI  your primary motivation? How does it connect to your political goals?”

Artificial General Intelligence refers (AGI) generally refers to the theoretical point at which machine “intelligence” meets or surpasses human cognitive abilities and can operate autonomously, which many experts view as an existential threat to humanity. Musk cites the risks of runaway AGI as the express motivation for founding OpenAI.

Altman on Tuesday said, by way of explanation, “I was thinking about running for governor at the time.”

Molo challenged OpenAI’s contention that its nonprofit board has control of OpenAI’s for-profit ventures and governance.

In a poignant moment, the plaintiff’s attorney played a brief clip of Altman’s 2024 appearance on a popular podcast, in which he appears to acknowledge former board members’ contentions that he maintained de-facto control over the nonprofit’s board of directors, and impeded their ability to carry out their duties.

Asked on the podcast if he trusted himself with the kind of power that will come with being first to develop AGI, Altman paused and said he was going to offer a standard response about how no one person should have total control over AGI.

“I think you want a robust governance system,” he said, noting a number of issues related to “our board drama.”

“But as many people have observed, although the board had the legal ability to fire me, in practice it didn’t quite work. And that is its own kind of governance failure,” he said.

Under re-direct by OpenAI attorney William Savitt, Altman clarified the outgoing board technically fired him, rehired him, and appointed a new board.

Toxic Management Style

Altman said he was “annoyed” when Musk resigned from the OpenAI board in 2018 to pursue his own AI venture.

“He really had lost confidence in the organization and did not believe we were going to be successful. … And he didn’t want to be associated with something he couldn’t control,” Altman said.

That left questions about funding gaps, competition and, Altman said, whether Musk would “take revenge” on his former cofounders.

“I don’t think Mr. Musk understood how to fund a good research lab,” Altman said, noting he had “demoralized” some of the company’s most key researchers, including by suggesting they be ranked by accomplishments.

Musk’s management style, he said, may work in other industries, but upset the culture in a fledgling, frontier lab where people needed “psychological safety” and long periods of time to develop their work.

Reaction to his departure, Altman said, was mixed. It introduced instability but also provided a “morale boost.”

Challenging Altman’s Credibility

Musk’s lawyer, Steven Molo, hammered Altman – citing prior testimony that described a “toxic culture of lying” at OpenAI and statements from former executives who questioned Altman’s trustworthiness. He repeatedly asked whether Altman had misled people in business dealings. Altman responded that he believed he was “an honest and trustworthy business person,” while acknowledging there had been times he had not told the full truth and that he had heard others describe him as a liar.

Molo also highlighted Altman’s personal financial interests, including a roughly $1.7 billion stake in Helion Energy, suggesting potential conflicts during OpenAI’s negotiations. Altman’s own lawyer, William Savitt, focused on Altman’s commitment to the company, including his decision during the 2023 board crisis to return rather than leave for Microsoft. Altman described that choice as being willing to “run back into a burning building to save it.”

Musk did not remain in the courtroom for Altman’s testimony – while closing arguments are expected on Thursday. An advisory jury may begin deliberations shortly afterward, though the judge will ultimately decide any remedies.

The case centers on whether OpenAI’s leaders violated a charitable trust when they created a for-profit subsidiary in 2019 to attract talent and capital. OpenAI maintains that Musk was aware of and supported the restructuring at the time. Musk argues the conversion enriched Altman and Brockman at the expense of the original nonprofit mission.

Brockman’s private journal – awkward…

One bit of awkwardness; During Brockman’s testimony last week, hundreds of pages from his personal journal – kept since 2010 – were introduced as evidence. The entries, written in 2017, captured Brockman’s internal debate over balancing financial pressures with OpenAI’s founding mission and his uncertainty about Musk’s role and intentions. One entry from November 2017, labeled Exhibit 161, was written before and after a key meeting with Musk and has been frequently cited by both sides.

The journal first surfaced in January during the discovery phase of the case. Musk’s legal team obtained the full document and began questioning Brockman about specific passages during his deposition. OpenAI tried to keep large portions sealed, arguing they were cherry-picked and taken out of context, but the judge allowed several entries to be entered as exhibits and even quoted from them in her ruling that let the trial proceed.

The entries that have drawn the most attention were written in 2017, during a particularly turbulent period as OpenAI was wrestling with its future direction and Musk’s role in the company.

One August 2017 entry showed Brockman grappling with the tension between financial realities and the original mission to benefit humanity. A September entry captured his stream-of-consciousness reasoning about the complicated Musk situation – written in the same “chain of thought” style that would later become famous in AI models. The most cited entry, labeled Exhibit 161, was written in November 2017, both before and after a pivotal meeting with Musk. It revealed a founder full of uncertainty, ambition, self-doubt, and a clear desire to do the right thing for the company’s long-term mission.

Brockman testified that he used the journal to process important decisions and that he wrote only for himself. He described the public disclosure as “very painful” but said there was “nothing in there that I’m ashamed of.” He stopped documenting OpenAI matters in the journal in 2023. Musk’s attorneys have referred to the document as a “diary,” while OpenAI’s lawyers have called it a “journal.”

Authored by Allen Stein via The Epoch Times,

They are the dinosaurs of the modern age—hulking retired aircraft baking in the Arizona sun, stretching in rows across the desert.

Once America’s defenders of the sky—B-52 Stratofortress and B-1B Lancer bombers, F-16 Fighting Falcon fighters, C-130 Hercules and C-5 Galaxy cargo planes—they now sit idle, preserved for parts or history.

Maintaining and reclaiming these aircraft is no small task at the nation’s only military aircraft “boneyard.”

At Davis–Monthan Air Force Base, the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group (AMARG) oversees that work.

“Most of these planes have been decommissioned, but the parts are still very useful. The parts are all viable,” public relations manager Robert Raine said during an April 21 tour of the 2,600-acre (4-square-mile) AMARG facility in Tucson.

Each aircraft is secured for long-term storage, drained of fluids, stripped of explosive components, and preserved against the slow wear of the desert.

Depending on the aircraft, some could be brought back into service, Raine said.

Since 1964, the maintenance group has served as the sole designated storage, salvage, and disposal center for U.S. military and government organization aircraft.

(Top) A row of military helicopters in storage at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. (Bottom) A C-5 Galaxy cargo plane with a 223-foot wingspan overshadows other military aircraft in storage at the “Boneyard” at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

The facility employs more than 700 workers and encompasses more than half a million square feet of industrial space.

Here, aircraft come to die, hibernate, or be reborn, their components cleaned, repaired, and repurposed for use in other machines—for conflicts now and those yet to come.

The facility opened shortly after World War II, on April 1, 1946. The site was chosen for its dry desert climate and its ability to store vast quantities of surplus aircraft and military equipment.

Hard caliche soil, along with the absence of earthquakes and extreme weather such as tornadoes and hurricanes, made it an ideal place for long-term storage.

USGS orthophoto of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., on May 16, 1992. United States Geological Survey/Public Domain, CC0

The sprawling boneyard is home to 3,488 aircraft, ranging from supersonic fighter jets to massive refueling and cargo planes to strategic bombers—75 aircraft types and 6,700 engines in all.

“AMARG is the last stop for parts” for legacy aircraft, Raine told The Epoch Times. However, it is “not an infinite source.”

When a component is needed, the request typically begins in the global supply system, he said.

If it is not available there, the request moves up the chain to Air Force weapon system program offices, Navy and Marine Corps program management authorities, or Navy Supply Weapon Systems Support.

The 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz. Since 1964, the maintenance group has served as the sole designated storage, salvage, and disposal center for U.S. military and government organization aircraft. Overviews created with Apple Maps, satellite imagery courtesy of Digital Globe

Those agencies can then draw from the maintenance group’s vast inventory.

In that system, the boneyard functions as a deep reserve—an industrial fallback where retired aircraft continue to serve, one part at a time.

Raine noted that AMARG does not own any of the aircraft or other assets stored at the facility.

Ownership remains with the original service branches or organizations that delivered them, including U.S. government agencies such as the Coast Guard and Forest Service, allied governments, and private institutions such as the Smithsonian Institution.

The group has roughly 80 customers. But when it comes to procuring and delivering parts, its crews often work on short notice and tight timelines.

A B-1 bomber at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group “boneyard” in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. Each aircraft at the boneyard is secured for long-term storage, drained of fluids, stripped of explosive components, and preserved against the slow wear of the desert. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

Each year, AMARG receives an average of 250 to 300 aircraft. Its five core missions are storage, reclamation, regeneration, modification, depot-level maintenance, and disposal.

The planes are inventoried, flushed of fluids, washed, sealed tightly with tape and a special spray material, and stored for years or decades.

“They’ve taken off hazardous materials. They’ve taken off anything that might be classified. They’ve taken off anything that might need to be broken down to demilitarization,” Raine said.

“They’ve drained it to make sure that any residual preservative oil is out of it. They’ve drained the hydraulics out of the landing gear. They’ve depressurized any systems in the aircraft.

(Left, Right) Workers at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group remove the pilot ejection system at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. The facility employs more than 700 workers and encompasses more than half a million square feet of industrial space. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

“It’s basically clean and ready to go.”

The most recent aircraft to arrive was an F/A-18E Hornet in mid-April. The longest-stored aircraft is a Navy T-1A Sea Star, which arrived on April 6, 1970.

Among the rarest are the XC-99 heavy cargo aircraft, a YC-14 military transport aircraft, and a T-46 light jet trainer aircraft.

The F-16 Fighting Falcon is the boneyard’s most numerous resident, with more than 350 aircraft. Some have been dismantled and sent to Ukraine for use as training platforms.

It is followed by more than 315 C-130 Hercules aircraft, nearly 300 F-15 Eagle fighters, and 235 A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft.

The second YC-14, one of only two ever built, is stored at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., on Jan. 3, 2012. The aircraft is among the rarest at the boneyard. (w:en:Kitplane01 (talk | contribs), CC-BY-3.0)

In April, the Air Force moved a retired KC-135 Stratotanker out of long-term storage at the base for possible reactivation following losses of aerial refueling aircraft in the Iran conflict, according to FlightGlobal.

In 1948, “when the Soviet Union closed road, rail, and canal traffic into Berlin … about a quarter of the stored C-47 Skytrain cargo aircraft were withdrawn from storage and returned to flying service in support of the Berlin Airlift,” according to the Department of War.

(Top) An F-16 jet fighter is dismantled for parts at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. (Bottom Left) Reusable fuel tanks from an F-16C jet fighter at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. (Bottom Right) An F-16 jet engine ready for delivery at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

Aviation History

Some equipment hails from the Vietnam era, including the helicopter used in evacuating the last Marines from the U.S. Embassy in Saigon on April 30, 1975.

Another historic fighter jet kept at the site is a modified F-15 Eagle, nicknamed “Celestial Eagle,” which was used in the only successful satellite destruction by an aircraft-launched missile on Sept. 13, 1985.

Air Force Maj. Wilbert Doug Pearson launched an anti-satellite missile that destroyed a Solwind P78-1 satellite at an altitude of 375 miles.

The airplane got up to about 38,000 feet when Pearson fired the missile at Mach 1.22, Raine said. The weapon used a kinetic kill vehicle rather than an explosive warhead.

“So it just hit it, basically—skin to skin,” he said.

Raine said each aircraft in the boneyard is categorized by type based on condition and utility.

The remains of the helicopter used to evacuate Marines from the U.S. Embassy in Saigon, Vietnam, on April 30, 1975, are stored at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

For example, Type 2000 aircraft are used for parts, while Type 3000 aircraft remain flyable but are rarely used.

Reclamation is the process of removing parts from aircraft to support warfighters or replenish supply inventories.

Regeneration involves returning aircraft to a serviceable condition.

Disposal is the final stage, when an aircraft no longer has a use and is ultimately dismantled and sold as scrap metal.

A number of aircraft with historic value have found their way into the Pima County Air and Space Museum in Tucson.

Among the museum’s decommissioned aircraft are F-16s and older jet fighters, including the SR-71 Blackbird, capable of reaching speeds of Mach 3.

A Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird on display at the Pima County Air and Space Museum in Tucson, Ariz., on April 19, 2026. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

The longest-serving AV-8B Harrier II+ was added to the museum after accumulating 9,671 flight hours.

“There are different levels of decommission for aircraft,” Kaylei, a museum tour guide who asked to use only her first name, told The Epoch Times.

“Some are more just like waiting in the wings. But if needed, they’re kept in good enough repair to put back into service.”

Cost Avoidance

The Post Block Repair project at the AMARG is one of the Air Force’s major modernization efforts, keeping F-16s operational until they enter service life extension programs, according to the Department of War.

The first aircraft for modification arrived at the boneyard in August 2022.

At AMARG, specialists carry out inspections, repairs, and upgrades to maintain F-16 performance and combat readiness, including avionics improvements to keep pace with evolving air combat.

The Air Force returned two B-1 Lancer bombers to active service after restoring them from the boneyard.

The service also regenerated C-23 Sherpa aircraft for use by the U.S. Forest Service, and transferred B-57 Canberra aircraft to NASA for high-altitude missions, including eclipse observation.

A B-52 Stratofortress is seen in storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. In May 2019, a B-52 nicknamed “Wise Guy” became only the second to be returned to service from the boneyard, according to Air Force Times. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

The Department of War notes that work also continues on A-10 Thunderbolt II components, such as engine cowlings, following the completion of the A-10 wing overhaul program in 2024.

In May 2019, a B-52 nicknamed “Wise Guy” became only the second B-52 Stratofortress to return to service from the boneyard, according to Air Force Times. It had entered storage in 2008.

Raine said AMARG not only provides the vital parts needed to keep fleets airborne, but also generates billions of dollars in “cost avoidance.”

Every dollar not spent on new equipment is a taxpayer dollar saved, he said.

From fiscal years 2016 through 2026, AMARG reclaimed 79,358 parts—86 percent of them priority items—totaling $4.37 billion in value.

Fighter jets sit in storage at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

In fiscal year 2025, the facility reclaimed 8,399 parts, 85.3 percent of them priority, worth nearly $495 million.

So far this fiscal year, group crews have salvaged 6,434 parts, 71.8 percent of them priority, valued at $380.6 million.

For high-priority reclamations, the process can take as little as 24 to 48 hours from the time AMARG receives a request, Raine said.

More involved reclamations can take longer. On average, parts requests take seven to 10 working days from the time AMARG receives the request, he said.

In most cases, storage is long-term and requires extensive preparation.

“They’re going to clean all the bugs and gunk and grime off. Then they’ll start the taping process. So cardboard first, then barrier paper,” Raine said.

“The tape holds that in place. This seals up openings. These are the openings that are in the back of the aircraft, and they’ll wax the canopy to keep the spray seal from getting too adhered to the canopy.”

Boxes of tools used in aircraft parts manufacturing are stacked at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. More than 271,000 pieces of production equipment are stored on-site. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

It’s mostly for temperature control, but it completes the seal, Raine said. Then the aircraft is placed in cold storage.

“So the big guys—like these KC-10s—can be put right out in the desert. When the temperature gets too high or too low, we have to move the plane,” he said.

Cost savings are further driven by more than 271,000 pieces of aircraft production equipment kept on site.

These specialized tools include the original mold for the B-2 Spirit cockpit canopies.

“You can see where the windows went out of the cockpit for the B-2. And it looks kind of weirdly speckled because it originally had aluminum—what they call an armor shield aluminum coating—on it,” he said.

The mold used in fabricating the pilot canopy of a B-2 strategic bomber is one of thousands of original tools at the 309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

Driving through the aircraft tooling storage area is like moving through a small city. But the scale of the boneyard becomes clear once one sees the B-52 Stratofortress bombers in various stages of disassembly and the C-5 Galaxy cargo planes with their 223-foot wingspans.

An F-16 Fighting Falcon sat in pieces as a crew performed “egress,” removing explosive components such as ejection-seat systems.

The sprawling landscape is dotted with outbuildings, among them a 1,000-by-180-foot covered facility with adjustable docks for work on C-130 Hercules aircraft and Northrop’s T-38 Talon jet trainer.

Three hard-sided hangars house 20 docks configured for regeneration, modification, and structural repair work, along with commodity shops and adaptive workspaces.

The rear stabilizer wings from an F-16C jet fighter at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., on April 21, 2026. Allan Stein/The Epoch Times

The site also includes a dedicated engine test shop, laser systems for paint removal, and two cranes for heavy lifting.

In October, AMARG expects to complete a temporary maintenance shelter with eight docks designed for F-16 aircraft.

Raine said about 70 percent of the boneyard is used for storage, a figure that fluctuates each year as aircraft and parts move in and out.

“By and large, everything flies itself in. As long as stuff goes out, there’s room for aircraft to come in,” he said.

Russian military blogger Mikhail Zvinchuk, the operator behind the Rybar Telegram channel, recently surfaced in an interview with the Chinese outlet Guancha, offering a non-Western assessment of the ten-week U.S.-Iran war.

The interview is notable given that Washington has targeted the private Russian think tank, with the State Department’s Rewards for Justice program offering up to $10 million for information related to Rybar-linked foreign election interference operations.

The main topic of the hour-long conversation between Zvinchuk and the host representing Guancha was the Iranian conflict.

“The main goal of Trump is to shake up the market. Because if you monitor all logistics companies, oil companies, and LNG companies, you will find that big players have started to consume mid-tier and small players.”

He continued, “For example, Maersk, one of the biggest logistics companies in the world, can wait for just one or two months and suffer financial losses. But some smaller companies from Greece simply can’t withstand such pressure.”

Zvinchuk noted, “And it helps this conflict monopolize the market. So Iran is just a mere tool to achieve market monopolization. Because you know quite well that Trump’s policy relies on profit. He is a businessman or merchant, so he acts in his and his team’s financial interests. And if you place your financial interest above political reputation and above your nation, then your actions have to have economic roots.”

In other words, Zvinchuk is claiming that the US-Iranian conflict is not just about Iran or the nuclear threat, but about forcing a market shakeout in the energy and logistics space. The war has clearly disrupted shipping, snarled global supply chains, and already begun to rewire energy flows. 

The market shakeout Zvinchuk refers to, especially in the energy sector, has affected Gulf countries such as Qatar, which have seen energy flows dramatically reduced or halted by the conflict. The direct result, as we mentioned earlier in the conflict, is that the US has become a direct beneficiary:

• US LNG Export Terminals “Running Near Maximum” As MidEast Energy Infra Descends Into Chaos

• Qatar Dethroned As ‘LNG King’ As U.S. Seizes Throne, Reshaping Future Of Gas

• Fill ‘er Up: Record Armada Of Tankers Bound For US Gulf To Load Oil

In fact, last week’s U.S. Department of Energy report showed U.S. fuel exports hitting record highs, with exports from the Gulf of America becoming the world’s emergency gas station…

US Crude Oil Exports

US Diesel Exports

Other topics were discussed during the hour-long interview between Zvinchuk and the Guancha host, but what captured our attention was how the U.S.-Iran war was being framed through an economic lens rather than the security aspect of nuclear threats. 

Western audiences are saturated with official White House messaging, selective corporate media leaks, and domestic propaganda, but it is occasionally useful to examine foreign propaganda as well to help understand how adversarial and non-aligned actors interpret Washington’s goals in the Middle East through an economic lens. 

In our view, the conflict is ultimately about empire, control of maritime chokepoints, and securing global energy supply chains ahead of the 2030s.

Zoltan Pozsar of advisory firm Ex Uno Plures recently explained it best: the Trump administration is “methodically building a portfolio of assets” to pressure China, centered on strategic energy supply nodes and maritime chokepoints that have historically supported Beijing’s cheap crude imports. 

Authored by Nick Giambruno via InternationalMan.com,

“The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity; both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.” 

— Ernest Hemingway

Thanks to the fiat currency system, governments at war can tap into a nation’s savings by financing conflict through currency debasement. Under a gold standard, governments had to have the gold or impose taxes if they wanted the funds to prosecute a war. When the gold ran out, the war stopped. But not in a fiat currency system. They can continue debasing the currency until they hyperinflate it.

That’s why there’s a simple equation you should sear into your memory:

War = Inflation

The historical pattern is clear.

If the first casualty of war is truth, the second casualty is the currency.

For example, the US money supply (M2) more than doubled during World War I and about tripled during World War II.

During Vietnam, the money supply rose roughly 90%, and during the 2003 Iraq War era, it rose about 65%.

War is expensive. The US government often ends up financing it by going deeper into debt and debasing the currency to service that debt.

How much will the war in Iran cost? Nobody knows the exact amount, but I am confident it will result in meaningful currency debasement.

According to the Iran War Cost Tracker, the conflict has cost at least $74 billion so far. Other estimates, such as those from CSIS, put the cost at around $2 billion per day. But these estimates almost certainly understate the true direct costs, not to mention the indirect costs of the war.

Further, the Pentagon is now asking for an additional $200 billion in emergency war funding. And that is on top of its recent request for a 50% budget increase to $1.5 trillion.

Lastly, it’s worth noting that recently Iran destroyed at least one E-3G “Sentry” Airborne Early Warning & Control aircraft in Saudi Arabia, along with 2 or 3 KC-135 tanker aircraft in the same strike.

This marked the first combat loss of an E-3 in history. Each unit costs at least $540 million.

After the strike, the US likely has only around 8 operational E-3s left, with none currently in production. It remains one of the most important aircraft in the US Air Force.

A cheap Iranian Shahed-136 drone, costing roughly $7,000 per unit, was what took out the $540 million E-3. That works out to a cost asymmetry of roughly 77,286 to 1 in this strike, which has to be a record, or close to it, for the biggest cost asymmetry in a single military strike.

If the war drags on for a few more weeks and Hormuz remains closed, I think we will see an economic collapse far larger than the one caused by the global lockdowns during the Covid mass psychosis. In response to that slowdown, the US government went on its biggest money-printing binge in history and increased the money supply by 40% in a matter of months. I expect the economic disruption from a prolonged closure of Hormuz to be even greater, and thus the accompanying monetary “stimulus” to be even greater as well.

In short, the Iran war and its side effects could unleash a tsunami of new government spending, which was already in the stratosphere.

How is the US government going to finance all of this spending?

It will do so by issuing new debt—Treasuries—but to whom, and on what terms?

First, it is important to understand that the overwhelming majority of new issuance has been in short-term T-bills. There are dwindling buyers—suckers—willing to buy long-duration US debt.

That is typical in a debt crisis. As demand for long-term bonds weakens, investors gravitate toward short-term instruments like T-bills instead of 10-year notes and 30-year bonds.

It is the same pattern you see in emerging-market crises. The market shortens maturities as conditions deteriorate. Only a fool would want to lend a bankrupt government money for the long term.

Further, the Chinese are divesting their Treasuries rather than buying more. The Japanese, the single largest foreign holder, are selling Treasuries to support the yen and prop up their own warped bond market.

So, who will be buying all of the new paper the US government is likely to issue to finance the Iran war and its effects?

There is only one real candidate: the Federal Reserve, which buys Treasuries with “money” it creates out of thin air by debasing the currency.

As the war spending grows, the real cost won’t only show up in Pentagon budgets or Treasury auctions. It will show up in the purchasing power of the dollars in your bank account.

The key question is what to do before the next wave of debt, money printing, and inflation hits.

That’s why I’ve put together a simple, urgent guide showing the top 3 strategies you need right now to help protect your money and personal freedom. Get it now.

Authored by Chris Summers via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Chinese national has been indicted by the federal authorities in Florida for his alleged role in a plot to import and distribute large quantities of a new synthetic opioid, protonitazene, which is “significantly more potent than fentanyl,” the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida said in a May 11 statement.

Jia Guo and Seven Schmidt, an associate from Las Vegas, Nevada, are charged with conspiracy to import protonitazene into the United States from China and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute protonitazene. “If convicted, each defendant faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for each of the two counts,” the attorney’s office said.

The pair allegedly began operating a drug trafficking operation in September 2024. In the statement, the attorney’s office said the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) had investigated the pair, with assistance from China’s Ministry of Public Security.

“The indictment alleges that a China-based supplier and a domestic distributor worked together to bring a deadly synthetic opioid into the United States and turn it into counterfeit pills for distribution across the country,” U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida Jason A. Reding Quiñones said.

Guo allegedly procured the protonitazene in China and shipped it to co-conspirators, including an associate in Miami-Dade County, who used special presses to manufacture counterfeit pills, which were then distributed to drug dealers throughout the country.

Schmidt allegedly used the alias “Vegas” to order large amounts of the pills and had them delivered from Florida to Nevada by the U.S. Postal Service.

It was not immediately clear whether Schmidt or Guo had legal representatives who could comment on their behalf.

‘One Pill Can Kill’

In September, Frank Tarentino, who heads the New York Division of the DEA, warned about the growing threat from new synthetic opioids called nitazenes, which are being imported from China. He said they are increasingly prevalent on the illicit drug scene.

Nitazenes are delivered in the form of counterfeit pills mimicking drugs such as Xanax or Percocet, according to the DEA. They are more resistant than fentanyl to naloxone, a medication that can reverse opioid overdoses.

“Here in the United States, we have found it in heroin, methamphetamine, in some cases fentanyl, and more alarmingly, we have now seen it pressed into pills,” Tarentino said in a Sept. 10, 2025, interview with NTD, a sister outlet of The Epoch Times.

“These pills are made to look familiar, but one pill can kill,” Reding Quiñones said on May 11. “If you use South Florida as a gateway to import synthetic opioids, make counterfeit pills, or profit from addiction, you will face federal prosecution.”

In October 2025, the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) introduced the new task forces to target transnational organized crime operating in the United States.

The attorney’s office said the prosecution is part of the Homeland Security Task Force (HSTF) initiative established by Executive Order 14159, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.”

Reding Quiñones said the charges showed why Homeland Security task forces were needed.

With roughly half of planned U.S. data center buildouts this year expected to be delayed or canceled amid mounting power constraints and local opposition, tech bros are increasingly looking beyond Earth and toward space for the next phase of compute expansion.

This dovetails with one of our most investable themes, “Data Centers In Space Are Coming: Here’s How To Profit,” in which we outlined how SpaceX, leveraging Starship’s affordable launch costs and the Starlink network, could make it commercially viable to deploy spacecraft packed with chip stacks and build out a massive mesh network of orbital compute satellites.

Moments ago, The Wall Street Journal reported that Google is in discussions with Elon Musk’s SpaceX as a key launch provider for orbital data center deployments.

WSJ: Google is in talks with SpaceX for a rocket launch deal as the search giant expands its own efforts to put orbital data centers in space.

The speculative technology has been at the center of SpaceX’s pitch to investors ahead of its planned public listing this summer

A… https://t.co/eg9yE3J1Uz

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 12, 2026

The discussions center on potential Starship launches for Google’s Project Suncatcher, which aims to test satellite-based computing hardware by 2027, the outlet reported, citing sources.

“We’ll send tiny racks of machines and have them in satellites, test them out, and then start scaling from there,” Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Fox News in a recent interview.

Pichai noted, “There’s no doubt to me that a decade or so away, we’ll be viewing it as a more normal way to build data centers.”

With the SpaceX IPO scheduled for June and commanding a valuation between $1.25 trillion and $1.75 trillion, we recently outlined for readers exactly how to profit from the commercialization of space. Read more here.

The urgency for orbital data center deployments comes as Canaccord Genuity analyst George Gianarikas warned in mid-April that “the American data center boom is hitting a formidable wall of logistical friction.”

Gianarikas is referring to the latest outlook by Sightline Climate, which is also reinforced by recent articles from Bloomberg and others, and reveals a sobering reality for 2026: nearly half of the nation’s planned 16-gigawatt capacity faces cancellation or delay, with only 5 gigawatts currently under construction.

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

Mounting localized resistance against data centers has caused growing alarm among the tech bro world, such as Chamath Palihapitiya, founder of Social Capital and co-host of the All-In Podcast, who recently warned that data center sentiment among the American people is actually polling worse than ICE agents.

Hyperscalers are planning to spend a staggering $700 billion in capex on data center buildouts and other AI infrastructure this year.

We expect capex commitments toward orbital data centers to accelerate over the next several years, especially as Starship shifts from years of flight testing into full commercialization.

Starcloud…

.@Starcloud_ plans to build a 5GW orbital data center, lower energy costs by 10x, and reduce the need for energy consumption on Earth, including deployment of the Starcloud-1 satellite powered by an NVIDIA H100 GPU. pic.twitter.com/yPEddTWnh7

— NVIDIA Robotics (@NVIDIARobotics) May 11, 2026

For hyperscalers facing mounting constraints on land, power, permitting, and local opposition, space offers no zoning battles, no community resistance, and full access to solar energy.