Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

Fresh reporting reveals that Melissa Casias, administrative assistant at the Los Alamos nuclear lab, left home with everyday possessions that suggest she intended to survive – not end her life – raising new questions in the widening pattern of mysterious deaths among nuclear and UFO-linked personnel.

Some have suggested that Casias committed suicide, yet new details about her final moments show that before walking out the door of her Ranchos de Taos home on June 26, 2025, Casias took her toothbrush and thyroid medication with her.

Los Angeles Magazine contributor Lauren Conlin, who has followed the case closely, told NewsNation that these are “things that might indicate you’re planning to stay alive.”

NEW DETAILS?New Mexico State Police Reveal Chilling New Details in Melissa Casias’ Death Investigation: Fresh details about the Los Alamos employee’s death are revealed + her husband obtains a TPO accusing a private investigator of harassment https://t.co/FqDRi9DquX

— Lauren Conlin (@conlin_lauren) June 19, 2026

She also returned home to drop off both her work and personal phones – which were later found wiped clean of all data. Her skeletal remains were discovered nearly a year later next to a handgun her family has stated did not belong to her. No bullet was recovered despite reports of a gunshot wound to the head.

Investigator Morgan Wright put it plainly: “You don’t get slumped up on a tree… Most of the time, in every crime scene I’ve worked on, there are skeletonized remains, and there’s no connective tissue left. Everything’s on the ground in pieces.”

These elements – the survival items, the wiped phones, the unfamiliar weapon, and the scene inconsistencies – are now the focus of renewed scrutiny.

The discovery of missing New Mexico lab worker Melissa Casias’ body has raised new questions after her case was linked to a broader group of U.S. scientists whose deaths or disappearances remain unexplained. Lauren Conlin joins “Elizabeth Vargas Reports” to discuss. More:… pic.twitter.com/HcAGtfQsmO

— NewsNation (@NewsNation) June 23, 2026

This latest angle on the Casias case arrives against the backdrop of a documented cluster of similar incidents involving scientists and support staff tied to sensitive programs.

Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. William Neil McCasland, long described as a UFO “gatekeeper,” vanished just days after President Trump’s full disclosure order on UAP files.

A NASA nuclear propulsion expert was found charred inside a crashed Tesla.

A NASA-linked aerospace engineer and family members died in a plane crash.

Additional cases brought the total to around 11 by mid-April 2026, many sharing traits like wiped devices and abrupt departures from normal routines.

President Trump has addressed the wider string of cases directly, telling reporters it is “pretty serious stuff” and that the administration is reviewing them. He stated that while some of the individuals were “very important people,” “so far we’re finding that there’s not much of a connection,” describing many as individual matters. He pledged a full report.

Trump says string of missing and dead scientists are not connected: “There’s not much of a connection.” Join Share: pic.twitter.com/0VCnDSep14

— THE Q STORM (@TheQ170) May 21, 2026

Three sets of declassified UFO/UAP files have since been released under the administration’s transparency directives, with more batches expected.

Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker has highlighted the risks in classified environments, noting that administrative staff in high-clearance labs “would basically be in the know on what’s going on” and that it “wouldn’t be the first time their administrative assistant has been targeted.”

More recently, former FBI agent Ben Hansen assessed the Casias case as roughly “80 percent foul play” and raised the possibility of advanced tactics, including direct energy weapons or voice-to-skull technology, that could influence behavior without leaving conventional traces.

In an environment where America is finally forcing long-buried advanced technology files into the open, the repeated loss of personnel with access to those very secrets carries national security weight. Whether foreign actors, internal resistance to transparency, or other forces are involved, the pattern deserves unflinching examination.

The Trump administration’s willingness to release the files and review these cases represents a break from past secrecy.

The public now has every right to demand the same level of transparency when it comes to why these specific individuals – and the small but telling choices they made in their final hours – keep disappearing from the picture.

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

The Strait of Hormuz was disrupted or nearly closed for roughly three and a half to four months, offering Gulf states aligned with the U.S. one clear message: energy flows – or tanker transits – must be rewired through pipeline networks that bypass the maritime chokepoint.

By creating alternative pipeline export routes through the UAE, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Oman, or Turkey, regional producers can reduce the risk that Tehran can once again use Hormuz as a leverage tool to disrupt tanker traffic through one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints. 

TotalEnergies SE CEO Patrick Pouyanne is the latest to signal the urgent need for Gulf producers to prioritize building pipelines that bypass the Strait of Hormuz, according to Reuters.

Speaking at an energy conference in Paris on Tuesday, Pouyanne said, “The reality is that the Strait of Hormuz represents a genuine threat, so we must act. To ensure it doesn’t remain a threat, there is only one solution: we must invest in pipelines to bypass the strait, which is an absolute priority.”

Pouyanne identified alternative export routes in the UAE and Iraq, as well as through Syria. He continued, “When you are in Iraq and need to reach the sea, you can go down through Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, or head towards Syria or Turkey.” 

He referenced TotalEnergies’ discovery of oil in Iraq in 1928, which led to an Iraq-Syria pipeline that took six years to build and allowed the French energy giant to load crude in the Mediterranean and feed refineries in southern France.

“If our predecessors did it 100 years ago, I believe we should be capable of doing it again today,” he added.

Pouyanne’s comments to bypass Hormuz come days after the UAE’s Minister of Foreign Trade Thani Al Zeyoudi told Bloomberg in an interview that “zero Hormuz dependency” is essential for survival, adding, “It’s going to open and we hope that will happen quickly, but we will not stop the new plan.”

The plan includes major investments in pipelines, rail, and road links from UAE ports in the Persian Gulf to Dibba, Fujairah, Khor Fakkan and at least one new harbor on the Gulf of Oman coast.

Earlier this month, Sheikh Khaled Ahmad Al-Sabah, managing director of international marketing at Kuwait Petroleum, said Kuwait is among the countries that have reportedly held talks with Saudi Arabia and the UAE about potential cross-border pipelines that could connect Gulf oil production to buyers without relying on tanker transits through Hormuz.

In the first month of the conflict, Saudi Arabia’s Hormuz-bypassing East-West pipeline ramped up to its full capacity of 7 million barrels a day, allowing the Kingdom to divert flows from Persian Gulf loading terminals to those at Yanbu on the Red Sea.

There is a growing consensus among Gulf producers and global energy giants that a pipeline network must be expanded at lightning speed to bypass the Hormuz chokepoint. That logic is simply because it would drastically reduce the region’s dependence on the chokepoint and simultaneously shatter Tehran’s ability to use tanker flows as a leverage tool in any future spat with Washington.

Related:

• As Gulf States Plan Bypass Pipelines, US Military Is Quietly Helping Ships Cross Hormuz

Earlier today, Eurasia Group senior analyst Gregory Brew wrote on X that Iran’s regional leverage is eroding: “This may be Iran’s first misstep—and proof that its leverage isn’t total. Iran announced the strait was closed, but it didn’t *close* the strait. Without the credible threat of force, Iran’s sway over the waterway has limits.”

A seismic shift is underway in the U.S. labor market after a quarter-century of America’s industrial base being hollowed out following China’s entry into the WTO, a period marked by the decline of goods-producing jobs while leisure and hospitality employment surged.

The driver of the current job shift is the data center buildout phase, which is expected to require millions of new jobs across construction, manufacturing, electrical trades, power infrastructure, and the broader industrial supply chain. Additionally, reshoring critical supply chains will require even more goods-producing jobs, which are high-paying and pay far more than low-wage jobs such as bartending and waiting.

Nancy Lazar, Piper Sandler’s chief global economist and head of the firm’s economics research team, published a note on Sunday showing what happened to the U.S. labor market after China joined the WTO in 2001.

The result was a long-term hollowing out of America’s industrial base, marked by a sharp decline in higher-paying goods-producing jobs while lower-quality leisure and hospitality jobs surged. Education and health services jobs also continued to move up and to the right.

But there was good news around 2010, when goods-producing jobs began to reverse. Lazar’s note suggests that the trend is now set to accelerate as the data center, power grid, and AI infrastructure buildout drives a new wave of demand for industrial labor.

Lazar continued:

Bullish On Goods Producing Jobs vs. Hotel & Restaurant Jobs.

When China joined the WTO in 2001, U.S. goods producing jobs began a decade of decline, while leisure & hospitality, and education & health jobs continued to rise …

… so today, goods producing jobs are less than half those of low-paying service jobs – their share was over 50% in the mid-1980s.

That employment mix shift gave us the bifurcated consumer, as lower paying jobs gained share. Goods producing jobs pay more than overall service producing jobs – and lots more than leisure & hospitality, or education & health care jobs.

Good news: That mix is now shifting the other way, as the long-running (not just tech) capex cycle raises productivity and margins, encouraging adding headcount.

Look at relative earnings growth, by sector, below.

Combine that with falling energy prices and (we believe) slowing core inflation, and we’re on the lookout for narrowing bifurcation among consumers. That would indeed be good news. We’re watching our Daily consumer confidence survey, non-investor component, closely.

Industrial labor demand is likely to remain a strong trend for several years, with $800 billion in hyperscaler capex being deployed for data center buildouts just this year alone – and don’t worry about humanoid robots entering construction sites until the next decade.

However, college graduates, mostly burdened by insurmountable student debt, are watching in disbelief as corporate America rapidly automates white-collar jobs out of existence.

Last week, Goldman analysts led by Pierfrancesco Mei identified the 20 college majors most exposed to AI job disruption.

Most and Least AI-Exposed Jobs  

It’s a boon for Main Street and blue-collar workers, rather than college-educated elites. Liberals are furious that SpaceX welders with no college degrees have been minted into instant millionaires after the latest IPO.

The current political climate across the west is tumultuous and chaotic, largely due to one volatile issue causing deep divisions:  Mass immigration.  Not just mass immigration, but mass invasion from third-world countries and facilitated by liberal governments. 

Leftists, driven by an obsession with multiculturalism and Marxism, desperately want mass immigration to continue unabated.  Conservatives and centrists want immigration stopped and, ideally, reversed.  Both sides refuse to budge which has created an explosive impasse.  The debate is on the verge of becoming a civil war. 

In this debate, only one side is correct.  It is clear to the majority of western citizens that after a decade of migrant programs, there simply is no compatibility between European/American culture and third world cultures.  These cultures reside in regions of the world where authoritarianism and barbarism are ingrained in the public psyche; they have no conception of western ideals of individual freedom, meritocracy, high trust or “tolerance.” 

They only view western empathy as a weakness that should be exploited.  Meaning, westerners and third worlders will never be able to coexist.  It’s simply not possible without one side dominating the other.

In the midst of this debate the political left has had the most control over popular media and which message gets the most exposure.  Pro-immigration and multicultural movies, TV shows and commercials saturate the market.  If any project criticizing immigration makes it to the light of day, it’s kind of a miracle.  Enter the independent film “Citizen Vigilante”.

Produced and directed by Uwe Boll, Citizen Vigilante stars Armie Hammer as Sanders, an American businessman and former US Army officer living in Europe.  He becomes incensed by vicious migrant crimes and the corrupt two-tier  legal system that consistently helps migrants escape punishment.  He sets out on a mission to target criminals who avoid justice, along with the political officials who enable the crime. 

Here is the scene in Citizen Vigilante where he confronts a judge who let a group of migrant rapists escape jailtime after raping a 14 year old girl

“Laws are meant to protect the victims” pic.twitter.com/5BlwH1TYxZ

— Jack Posobiec (@JackPosobiec) June 22, 2026

The film is reminiscent of a modern-day Death Wish, a movie which was inspired by the extreme firearms restrictions in New York City in 1974.  Restrictions that allowed violent criminals and gangs to run rampant without fear of citizen reprisal.  To this day, NYC remains a safe haven for repeat offenders and lunatics and any private citizen who steps up to prevent a crime is prosecuted.  

Needless to say, the Citizen Vigilante release has caused a stir.  Progressives and Muslim advocates are outraged by the film’s brutal violence against migrant characters.  The German government has essentially banned the film from release, refusing to give it a rating or age classification which is needed for theaters to carry the movie.  All the right people seem to be angry.

I’ll be amazed if this movie doesn’t get banned. pic.twitter.com/7lh1rDOijD

— Ian Miles Cheong (@ianmiles) June 22, 2026

Leftists have attempted to run interference as the movie rises in popularity, with some claiming that Uwe Boll made the flick as a parody to mock “right wing xenophobia”.  This narrative has been dismissed by Uwe Boll himself, and he states that he is quite serious about the film’s message.  In response, the media has attacked Boll as a “Nazi”.   

The film is inspired by real world events, such as a 2016 Hamburg gang-rape case where perpetrators received suspended sentences because of their migrant status. It ends with a dedication to “rape victims in Europe who were betrayed by our legal system.”

The mainstream critics hate Citizen Vigilante, which is a badge of honor these days.  But is it really so shocking that the commentary within the popular zeitgeist is shifting to address a problem which concerns the majority of the western population?  Did the political left really believe that they could engineer a foreign invasion without the public speaking out?  Did they really think they could control the narrative forever?

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The Cuban dictator Miguel Díaz-Canel’s recent admission that Cuba’s generalized price caps failed to contain inflation, generated shortages, encouraged illegal markets, and reduced tax revenues is another confirmation of a much older economic lesson: price controls do not solve inflationary pressures, and they intensify the distortions they are meant to prevent.

The Cuban case is especially revealing because the criticism comes not from ideological opponents but from the regime that imposed the controls and later conceded their failure.

Cuban dictator admits that price controls never work.

Mamdani, Elizabeth Warren, Sanders and Ocasio Cortez should listen pic.twitter.com/OtEChOioL3

— Daniel Lacalle (@dlacalle_IA) June 21, 2026

According to Díaz-Canel’s own remarks, price controls in Cuba produced the opposite of their intended effect: instead of stabilizing prices, they encouraged product scarcity, illegal-market activity, higher effective prices, and falling tax revenues. The government’s decision to eliminate price controls therefore amounts to an empirical acknowledgment that administrative decrees could not keep pace with economic reality.

This episode matters beyond Cuba because it captures the core mechanism of price control failure. When official prices are fixed below levels that would clear the market, legal suppliers reduce availability, quality deteriorate, and transactions migrate to informal channels where the real market price reappears, often with a premium for risk and scarcity. Thus, inflation is not abolished by decree but only transferred from the official statistics into queues, shortages, and the underground market.

The Austrian School of Economics has long argued that prices are not arbitrary numbers but indispensable signals coordinating dispersed knowledge across an economy. Ludwig von Mises claimed that intervening against market prices does not eliminate the underlying forces of supply and demand but rather creates secondary distortions that generate demands for additional intervention. Friedrich Von Hayek reminded us that market prices transmit information that no planner can centrally aggregate in real time, making administrative price fixing structurally destructive.

From this standpoint, price controls always fail because they attack symptoms of disequilibrium rather than the causes. Inflation is caused by monetary expansion, fiscal excess, and government intervention. Capping prices cannot restore equilibrium; it only disguises the visible expression of official price measures for a short time. Every nation that implemented price controls experienced repressed inflation, scarcity, and the transfer of exchange into underground markets.

Modern empirical research is almost unanimous. A broad review of studies on price controls and limits finds near-universal evidence of shortages and persistent inflation, along with lower quality, weaker innovation, and long-run welfare losses. Historical evidence from the United States also shows that wartime price controls and the Nixon-era stabilization program only brought rationing, shortages, and renewed price surges.

The empirical literature is particularly clear on resource misallocation. Lucas Davis and Lutz Kilian estimate that residential natural gas price controls in the United States from 1954 to 1989 created shortages of almost 20 percent and widespread supply disruptions. Edward Glaeser and Erzo Luttmer find that rent control in New York generated scarcity and misallocated housing by encouraging occupancy patterns disconnected from household size, imposing substantial annual welfare losses.

Other studies show that the negative effect of controls quickly adds other costs. H. E. Frech III and William C. Lee estimate that the welfare cost of gasoline queuing during the U.S. oil crises exceeded $5 billion in California alone, illustrating how suppressed prices frequently reappear as waiting costs and widespread economic losses. Research also finds that quality tends to deteriorate under ceilings because producers attempt to remain profitable by lowering inputs when they are prevented from charging market prices.

One of the worst outcomes of price controls is the expansion of the black economy. When the legal price becomes uneconomic for suppliers, transactions disappear or go off the books, where sellers can charge prices closer to actual scarcity conditions. Even the European Commission, the World Bank, and the FMI recognize this pattern, admitting that controls drive activity toward illegal markets, reduce tax collection, and create significant distortions in the economy. Gas price controls in Spain resulted in an increase in prices for 75% of consumers when the government imposed a cap on the 25% that used the state-regulated tariff. Gasoline price controls in China led to enormous losses in refineries and a widespread ban on refined product exports that resulted in multi-billion yuan losses in tax revenue.

This fiscal effect is not irrelevant. When activity shifts into informal channels, governments lose taxable transactions even as they face stronger political pressure to subsidize shortages, police markets, and intensify enforcement. The result is a destructive cycle in which intervention reduces formal output, shrinks the tax base, and then becomes the rationale for additional intervention.

Price-control defenders believe that inflation is caused primarily by the pricing decisions of firms rather than monetary and macroeconomic imbalances, and they think that governments can set prices. However, every single instance of price controls leads to scarcity and worse results, but interventionists do not care because they blame the problems caused by intervention on the lack of enough repression. The evidence is clear. Price controls can alter the formal expression of inflation, but they do not remove price pressures or the underlying causes; instead, they convert open price increases into scarcity, rationing, lower quality, and underground-market premium.

Inflation cannot be solved by declaring prices illegal. Furthermore, price controls perpetuate high inflation by destroying the elements that can help prices normalize, competition and technology, as well as innovation. Inflation is solved through sound money, prudent fiscal policy, and a market process that allows prices to coordinate production and consumption.

Governments never reduce prices; they increase them by spending and printing. All a government can do is facilitate inflation reduction by controlling spending and opening the economy to competition. Cuba’s reversal is therefore more than just a change in domestic policy; it serves as a reminder that regimes committed to intervention will eventually clash with economic realities that price controls cannot disguise.

With hyperscalers set to spend roughly $800 billion on data-center capex this year alone, alongside reshoring and broader grid electrification, baseload power demand is poised to surge.

We have made the case that intermittent solar and wind are no match for the scale and reliability requirements of the modern economy, and that nuclear power is emerging as the clean, always-on power source needed to power the AI era.

The Wall Street Journal reports Tuesday morning that the Trump administration plans to supercharge the deployment of nuclear power with a $17.5 billion low-interest loan program to help utilities finance orders for Westinghouse Electric Co.’s AP1000 reactors.

The Energy Department, under Secretary Chris Wright, plans to make five loans available for two-reactor projects, with the goal of expediting equipment orders and cutting up to three years from construction timelines.

More from the report:

Seven utilities have already signed formal letters of intent for the five available project loans, according to the Energy Department, which didn’t name the utilities.

Wright said the plan to accelerate the deployment timeline of ten reactors will “unleash the next American nuclear renaissance.”

Those reactors “will also help accelerate the timeline of building those large-scale reactors by up to three years, lowering construction costs and ensuring the United States is able to deliver on President Trump’s bold and ambitious energy addition agenda,” Wright said.

The AP1000 reactors, which produce about 1,100 megawatts of power, are slated to come online in 2035 and will generate enough electricity to power a midsize city or a large data center.

Westinghouse Electric CEO Dan Sumner stated, “It really kick-starts fleet-scale nuclear development in the United States.”

The problem is that the US track record of bringing new nuclear power reactors online has been awful. The only completed domestic AP1000s are Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia, which entered commercial service in July 2023 and April 2024, and took ten years to build.

The latest nuclear reactor construction note from Goldman shows China is in the lead with 40 reactors under construction, followed by India with eight and Russia with six.

Read the latest on the nuclear reactor construction tracker (here).

Authored by Chris Macintosh via InternationalMan.com,

The world rotates between two sectors: technology and energy.

You have to turn the lights on or nothing happens. You need both the lights and the energy to power them. No lights, only energy? Nothing. Lights with no energy? Nothing.

Essentially you have to innovate or you never progress. Markets tend to rotate between those two broad sectors accordingly.

Go back to the height of the energy boom in 2013 and 2014. You couldn’t give Microsoft away. Energy, on the other hand, could do no wrong. That was the time to own tech.

Then tech took a bottle of Viagra and proceeded to shoot the lights out from 2014 through roughly 2022 while energy was decimated and left for dead. The way it works is that the last clutch of investors in any given sector go about losing their shirts and as a result are extremely reluctant to re-enter it anytime soon.

Recall that in 2001, the NASDAQ pulled back by a whopping 75%. That unleashed a commodity supercycle that ran all the way to 2014. When the NASDAQ recovered to its prior high, oil rolled over almost to the day… and the cycle reset. History suggests oil goes up seven times on average during such a cycle. Historically, the NASDAQ gets taken down 50 to 75%.

We are at the point where we think both have pretty decent probabilities. Hence our long positions on energy and short positions on NASDAQ.

What Has Changed: China Weaponises the Periodic Table

This cycle is bigger — far bigger and more structurally meaningful — than anything I’ve ever seen or researched by looking back at prior decades. The key driver is geopolitical and elemental.

China has weaponised the periodic table. The world’s two largest powers have divided the material world between them.

China dominates the periodic table, namely metals, rare earths, and critical minerals. China is, in essence, an electron state.

The United States dominates the organic chemistry version: hydrocarbons, food, fuels. The US is a molecular state.

When China restricted exports of critical minerals and rare earth magnets in October of last year, it immediately revealed how fragile Western manufacturing supply chains are. A magnet might represent 0.00001% of GDP, but remove it and you shut down an entire industry.

The same logic applies to oil. People say oil is a small share of the economy, but you pull it out and everything stops. Efficiency gains over decades have actually made oil more critical, not less. We’ve stripped out all the low-priority uses, leaving only the essential ones. You cannot substitute away from what remains. No energy, no civilisation. Simple.

This power struggle between the United States and China is the central frame for understanding commodity markets over the coming decade.

The End of the Bretton Woods Hegemon

The broader geopolitical structure underpinning commodity markets is fracturing.

The Bretton Woods world was built in 1944 when the United States had the only functioning manufacturing supply chain on earth.

The grand bargain was simple: America would take its enormous navy — inherited from the British, who inherited it from the Spanish and Portuguese before them (a 400-year accumulation of ports, bases, and sea lanes) — and protect global shipping in exchange for the world trading in US dollars.

The most important commodity flowing through those lanes was, and still is, oil.

Three things have now broken that model:

1. The US shale revolution made America energy independent, removing its incentive to protect global supply lanes.

2. Higher interest rates then exposed the fiscal impossibility of maintaining that role — Medicare and Social Security are the largest line items in the US budget, interest costs are now second, and defence is third. The US simply cannot continue to be the world’s policeman at this cost structure. Socialism combined with fiscal irresponsibility, compounding.

3. And China is actively resupplying and supporting its allies — Russia and Iran — making any US-led enforcement action structurally harder.

When the US protects a ship carrying Chilean copper from Santiago to Shanghai, it is paying the security bill for its primary strategic competitor. That arrangement is now ending. The problem is there is no replacement hegemon large enough to step into that role.

The world may be reverting to something resembling the Dutch East India Company era — state-sponsored sovereign entities with their own security arrangements, trading in gold, silver, and hard assets, using mercenary forces to protect supply chains.

Large corporations like Apple and Exxon are beginning to look more like sovereign entities than conventional companies.

*  *  *

The rotation from technology to energy and commodities is only one part of a much larger shift now underway. Debt, money printing, geopolitical conflict, and deep cultural changes are all colliding at the same time. That means the years ahead could bring extraordinary volatility—and extraordinary opportunity—for investors who understand what is really happening. That is why we recently prepared a free special report called Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time. In it, contrarian money manager Chris MacIntosh explains the major economic, political, and cultural trends unfolding right now, what risks they could create for your money and personal freedom, and what you could do to stay one step ahead. You can get the full report here.

Bernstein analyst Eunice Lee is out with a fascinating note explaining why automakers are making a mad dash into the world of humanoid robotics, arguing that their manufacturing scale, supply-chain depth, and years of investment in autonomous driving give them a structural lead in the emerging physical-AI market.

Lee writes that automakers are also seeking new revenue streams beyond the core vehicle business, with humanoids poised to move from factory floors into the physical world across retail, security, public service, and eventually homes.

From Tesla and Hyundai to XPeng, Xiaomi, BYD, Geely, and Chery, automakers are quickly moving beyond EVs and into humanoids through in-house development, acquisitions, minority stakes, and strategic partnerships. Lee said this trend became visible in China, where multiple OEM-linked robots were showcased at the 2026 Beijing Auto Show.

“OEMs are entering humanoid robotics to boost productivity and unlock new revenue streams,” Lee wrote in the note.

She noted, “Automakers have several advantages across hardware, software, and scale. There is significant overlap between vehicle and humanoid components—motors, reducers, sensors —as well as manufacturing.”

Here are the automakers in the humanoid robot lead:  

1. Tesla is developing its humanoid robot Optimus, progressing from Gen 1 (2022) to Gen 2 and Gen 2.5 prototypes by 2025, reflecting rapid iteration in hardware and software. Its strategy starts with manufacturing applications, with a long- term ambition to expand into consumer and household scenarios. Tesla targets limited commercialization in 2026 and volume shipments in 2027. A key constraint is that dexterous hand capability remains a major bottleneck, limiting real-world deployment readiness despite strong system-level progress.

2. Hyundai, the parent company of Boston Dynamics, is pursuing an aggressive humanoid roadmap, transitioning Atlas from R&D to industrial deployment. Production-ready Atlas robots are being introduced into real factory environments, with initial applications in parts sequencing and heavy-duty manufacturing tasks. The group is targeting annual production capacity of up to 30,000 units by 2028, alongside internal rollout of over 25,000 robots across Hyundai facilities. This combination of full-stack control, large-scale manufacturing plans, and clear volume targets positions Hyundai as the leading OEM in humanoid robot industrialization.

3. XPeng is one of the more ambitious OEMs in humanoid robotics, with its IRON robot evolving through multiple generations during 2024-2025. A key milestone was its 2025 AI Day debut, where IRON’s natural, catwalk-like walk went viral—so lifelike that audience questioned whether a human was inside. This showcased a major breakthrough in human-like locomotion and established XPeng as a frontrunner in embodied intelligence. The company targets mass production by end-2026 and global deliveries in 2027, focusing on both industrial and retail/service use cases such as showroom assistants and patrol robots, aiming for near-term commercialization.

4. Chery is currently one of the more advanced OEMs in China on commercialization, with its humanoid robot “Moyin” achieving global delivery of 220 units in 2025 and further deployments across public service scenarios such as policing and medical guidance. Chery’s humanoid robot are available for purchase for RMB 285.8k (US$41k) through e-commerce channels like JD.com (LINK). Chery stands out for delivering the first meaningful batch of products among OEMs, a diversified product ecosystem (including robot dogs and service robots), and a clear three-stage roadmap from companion robots to public service and, eventually, household applications.

5. GAC has developed the GoMate humanoid series (now at the 4th-generation GoMate Mini), targeting applications in elderly care, security, and industrial environments, with pilot production planned for 2026 and mass production in 2027. Incrementally, GAC differentiates itself through innovations such as a wheel-legged hybrid mobility structure and by spinning off a dedicated robotics subsidiary to accelerate commercialization in a more market-oriented structure.

Early industrial deployment of these bots:

1. BMW has rapidly progressed humanoid robotics from pilot testing to real production environments, building on early collaborations with Figure’s robots in 2025. At its Spartanburg plant, humanoids supported the production of over 30k vehicles through tasks such as sheet-metal handling, demonstrating reliability in high-throughput settings. The company is now expanding pilots to Europe, with deployments in Leipzig targeting battery assembly, intralogistics, and component production from summer 2026. BMW’s strategy emphasizes iterative scaling through live manufacturing validation, positioning humanoids as flexible co-workers rather than committing to immediate mass production.

2. Toyota is among the first OEMs to convert humanoid pilots into commercial deployment through a Robots-as-a-Service (RaaS) model with Agility Robotics. Following a successful pilot, Toyota signed a 2026 agreement to deploy Digit humanoids in production, focusing on logistics tasks such as parts handling and line feeding. Initial deployments remain small

Emerging players:

1. Xiaomi has been developing humanoid robots since 2020, launching CyberOne in 2022 and more recently open-sourcing its Xiaomi-Robotics-0 embodied AI model in 2026. Its current focus is on manufacturing scenarios such as inspection and assembly, though no clear mass production timeline has been announced. Xiaomi has demonstrated strong technical progress, including achieving over 90% success rates in real factory tasks and advancing high-precision dexterous hand capabilities, supported by its strength in AI foundation models and embodied intelligence.

2. BYD is advancing an internally developed humanoid robot project (codename “Yao Shun Yu”), initiated in 2022 and supported by partnerships such as its embodied intelligence lab with HKUST. BYD stands out for its deep vertical integration across batteries, motors, semiconductors, and precision manufacturing, as well as its potential to leverage its global dealership network for future commercialization.

3. Li Auto is taking a differentiated approach by framing robotics under a broader “space robot” concept, incorporating wheeled robots for manufacturing and future humanoids potentially for household use. While mass production plans are not disclosed, the company has established dedicated robotics business units. Li Auto is notable for its emphasis on AI, including heavy investment in large models such as Mind GPT, and its vision of integrating robots into a wider in-car, wearable, and intelligent ecosystem.

Complete overview of the auto industry by company developing humanoids:

More color from Lee about why automakers are expanding into humanoids:

Auto OEMs are expanding into humanoid robotics for two main reasons: to raise internal productivity and to open up new revenue pools beyond the core vehicle business. They also believe they possess structural advantages in manufacturing, supply chains, and embodied AI that position them well in this emerging category.

On raising internal productivity: Humanoid robots offer a logical next step in factory and warehouse automation, especially as manufacturers face rising labour costs, an aging workforce, and persistent shortages in repetitive, physically demanding, or harsh-environment roles. While stamping, welding, and painting are already highly automated, final assembly and intralogistics remain comparatively labour-intensive. This leaves a meaningful automation gap in tasks such as material handling, precision assembly, inspection, and testing. Humanoid robots could help narrow that gap by operating in tighter spaces and more complex shop-floor environments than traditional fixed automation. Material handling is a particularly relevant use case, given its high injury incidence and recurring labour shortages during peak production periods. If execution improves and costs fall, humanoids could support both labour substitution and structurally lower manufacturing costs over time.

Opening up new external revenue streams: Some OEMs, including Tesla and XPeng, have framed the long-term total addressable market for humanoid robots as comparable to, or potentially larger than, the automotive market. In addition to manufacturing and warehouse settings, humanoids could eventually address a broad range of consumer and service applications, including patrol and security, retail guide and store operations, and, over the longer term, household assistance. For OEMs, the appeal is not only participation in a potentially large new market, but also the opportunity to extend their capabilities in high-volume manufacturing, supply chain know how, software, sensing, and control systems into a new product category.

Here are the jobs humanoids could displace in the next 1-3 years, 3-5 years, and 5 years and beyond.

We suspect the adoption curve for humanoids will be much steeper than the rollout of automobiles over a century ago.

Humanoid robot adoption should accelerate over the next several years as automakers position themselves to become key suppliers of these bots that could easily disrupt blue-collar work across factories, warehouses, logistics networks, and eventually homes.

The labor disruption theme is already unfolding across white-collar jobs, where AI-related layoffs have topped 50,000 so far this year. Goldman recently outlined the college degrees youngsters should avoid as AI begins reshaping entry-level career paths.

Professional subscribers can read more on humanoids and AI at our Marketdesk.ai portal.