Comey Subpoenaed For Alleged ‘Grand Conspiracy’ Against Trump
Former FBI Director James Comey has been slapped with a subpoena as part of a wide-ranging case against Obama-Biden-era officials who helped frame Donald Trump is a Russian asset in a “grand conspiracy.”
The grand jury subpoena, issued last week by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, focuses on Comey’s role in the preparation of the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that concluded Russia sought to influence the election in favor of Trump and against Hillary Clinton. The probe, which Trump allies have described as examining a “grand conspiracy” against the president, has issued more than 130 subpoenas in total, according to Axios, citing people familiar with the matter.
The investigation is being overseen by a grand jury in Fort Pierce, Fla., under U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee who previously presided over the classified-documents case against Trump that was dismissed in 2024. The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Jason A. Reding Quiñones, a Trump appointee, is leading the effort.
Representatives for Comey declined to comment on the subpoena. The Justice Department doesn’t typically confirm or comment on ongoing grand-jury proceedings.
The move marks a significant escalation in scrutiny of Obama-era officials who were involved in the early stages of the Russia investigation, including the FBI’s Crossfire Hurricane probe and the special counsel inquiry led by Robert Mueller. Comey, who was fired by Trump in May 2017 amid the Russia probe, has long been a central figure in debates over those investigations.
Democrats and former officials are pissed, of course, and have described it as politically motivated retribution against adversaries from the 2016 election cycle. Supporters argue it addresses unresolved questions about potential abusesof authority or procedural irregularities in how the Russia inquiries were conducted.
The Intelligence Community Assessment, which Comey helped oversee as FBI director, has been a point of contention for years. Trump allies have questioned aspects of its sourcing and conclusions, particularly regarding the inclusion of material related to the controversial Steele dossier.
This development unfolds against a backdrop of heightened political and legal tensions in Trump’s second term, with the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi pursuing several high-profile reviews of prior administrations’ actions.
No charges have been announced in connection with the investigation, and it remains unclear what specific information prosecutors are seeking from Comey or how he intends to respond to the subpoena. Grand-jury proceedings are secret, and details are expected to emerge slowly, if at all, absent court filings or official disclosures.
The subpoena to Comey renews focus on one of the most divisive episodes in recent U.S. political and law-enforcement history, with potential implications for how past investigations are viewed and whether additional former officials will face similar demands.
The momentum behind President Trump’s drive to expose hidden UAP files continues to build, now underscored by fresh reminders of why such secrets have been buried for decades.
The Executive Office of the President has registered the aliens.gov domain, a quiet but unmistakable step toward a potential public portal for declassified materials on unidentified anomalous phenomena.
This follows Trump’s directive to release all related government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, UAP, and UFOs.
The odds of aliens being confirmed this year are soaring.
As we previously covered, filmmaker Dan Farah also predicted on Joe Rogan’s podcast that Trump could declare humanity is not alone, confirming recovered non-human technology amid a secret global race.
We also previously highlighted former Bank of England analyst Helen McCaw’s warning to prepare for potential economic shock from disclosure, including market volatility and loss of institutional trust.
Now, with aliens.gov secured in the registry, the administration appears intent on forcing transparency where predecessors allowed compartmentalization to persist. Skeptics have dismissed accounts, but pilots, radar data, and credible military witnesses continue to describe phenomena that defy conventional explanations.
Trump’s approach—declassifying UAP records—prioritizes the public’s right to know over entrenched secrecy. Whether the domain launches as a full disclosure hub or not, the barriers are eroding. Americans, and the rest of the world, deserves the full picture on what has been observed in our skies, especially when it involves potential interference with critical defenses.
JUST IN – Trump says he has directed the release of all government files related to “alien and extraterrestrial life, UAP, and UFOs.” pic.twitter.com/JLRFhBaRSq
A former U.S. Air Force missile launch officer has reiterated claims that UFOs once rendered nuclear missiles inoperable at a key Cold War installation. Robert Salas, who served at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana in 1967, described the incident on the Danny Jones Podcast.
Salas urges that guards reported strange fast-moving lights that halted above the facility, followed by a craft with a reddish, pulsating glow hovering near the front gate. One guard was injured in the encounter.
Salas recounted how alarms then sounded in the underground control center: the launch panel showed one missile dropping offline, then the rest in rapid succession. “Within moments, all ten missiles at the site became inoperable,” Salas claims.
Security teams dispatched to the silos reportedly halted after seeing lights hovering overhead, too frightened to proceed. An official investigation could not identify the cause, despite the systems’ heavy shielding against external interference.
Salas and others were required to sign secrecy agreements afterward. He has spoken publicly in recent years, linking the event to similar reports of UAP interest in nuclear facilities.
This testimony aligns with patterns documented over decades: intrusions over restricted nuclear airspace that known technology could not match or explain. As Secretary of State Marco Rubio has noted in prior comments, there have been “repeated instances of something operating in the airspace over restricted nuclear facilities, and it’s not ours.”
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.
A state agency erred when it blocked autism-services kickbacks from being investigated—a decision based on the agency’s flawed, decades-old definition of “fraud,” according to a Minnesota audit released March 17.
That was the key finding of the state’s Office of Legislative Auditor, a state watchdog that conducted a two-year special review. The autism-services program that auditors examined is among many health and welfare benefits that Minnesota’s Department of Human Services runs or oversees.
For months, Minnesota has been a focal point for government-program fraud that could total billions of dollars, with dozens of people, mostly Somalis, having been charged and convicted since 2022. Additional schemes emerged late last year and remain under investigation, with more charges expected, prosecutors have said.
Concerns about fraud have recently expanded nationwide. On March 16, President Donald Trump signed an executive order creating an anti-fraud task force. Saying that other states such as California and New York may have fraud problems that are worse than Minnesota’s, the president directed Vice President JD Vance and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson to root out fraud in federally funded social services and welfare programs.
During the Minnesota audit, investigators told auditors that they believed they lacked “authority to investigate allegations of kickbacks” in the autism program without additional claims of “fraud, theft, abuse, or error.”
The department’s fraud definition, set in 1995, failed to specifically include “kickbacks.” Those are payments or “anything of value” to induce referrals to providers of federally funded health care—a practice that is illegal under federal law, the report noted.
Auditors opined that the department had misapplied or misinterpreted a rule that includes that fraud definition. The agency had the power to amend the rule and correct an erroneous federal-law citation “without any legislative action,” the report stated.
“Had [the department] done so at any point since 1995, it would have had clear authority to suspend payments” to providers who were strongly suspected in kickback schemes, according to the report.
Auditors recommended that the agency amend its fraud definition “to clearly include kickbacks”—or lawmakers should do so, the report says.
James Clark, inspector general for the state Department of Human Services, said the department agrees with that recommendation.
However, in his written response appended to the report, Clark said the standard rulemaking process could take a year or two to complete, unless officials or lawmakers agree to fast-track it.
The autism-services program, which has operated in Minnesota since 2013, aims to provide “early intervention” for autism-diagnosed patients who are under age 21.
Under the program, providers receive reimbursement for services rendered.
Federal prosecutors have brought charges against at least two people for alleged autism-services fraud in Minnesota.
Late last year, prosecutors also said that many more suspects remained under investigation for allegedly failing to provide autism services—or for allegedly paying kickbacks to parents who fraudulently enrolled their children for services they didn’t need or never received.
The number of Minnesota autism-service businesses grew from about 150 in 2020 to more than 500 in 2024. Similarly, the number of autism-service recipients nearly tripled during that period, from about 1,400 patients in 2020 to more than 5,600 patients in 2024.
During that same timeframe, the program’s cost burgeoned from about $38 million to nearly $325 million.
Faced with that dramatic expansion and other concerns, lawmakers strengthened state laws in 2025, the legislative auditor’s report noted.
Auditors examined complaints that the state Department of Human Services’ investigative division received between July 2017 and February 2024.
That sample included seven completed investigations that were handled appropriately, auditors concluded.
However, among 25 complaints that were dismissed without further investigation, three involved alleged kickbacks. The auditors concluded the agency should have done more in those instances.
The auditors’ report does not disclose dollar amounts of the alleged kickbacks, nor does it say whether the faulty definition of fraud could have affected other state-administered programs.
A federal judge has struck down a law in Arkansas that required the display of the Ten Commandments in classrooms, finding it violated children’s rights.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks (Obama) ruled on March 16 that not enjoining the law, Act 573, would violate the religious and Free Exercise rights of children in public school.
“Act 573’s purpose is only to display a sacred, religious text in a prominent place in every public-school classroom. And the only reason to display a sacred, religious text in every classroom is to proselytize to children,” Brooks wrote.
“Nothing could possibly justify hanging the Ten Commandments—with or without historical context—in a calculus, chemistry, French, or woodworking class, to name a few. And the words ‘curriculum,’ ‘school board,’ ‘teacher,’ or ‘educate’ don’t appear anywhere in Act 573. Accordingly, there is no need to strain our minds to imagine a constitutional display mandated by Act 573. One doesn’t exist.”
John Williams, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, one of the plaintiffs, said in a statement that the ruling shows “Arkansas lawmakers cannot sidestep the First Amendment by mandating that a particular version of the Ten Commandments be displayed in every classroom.”
Brooks had on Aug. 4, 2025, preliminarily enjoined the law in certain districts. It went into effect statewide the day after.
Arkansas officials had argued that the law was legal and should not be struck down.
The act was approved by state lawmakers and signed by Republican Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders in 2025.
“The 10 Commandments aren’t just the foundation of our faith—they’re the foundation of every law and moral code in the West,” Sanders said in a March 17 post on X. “That’s why we are appealing this ruling.”
Several other states have recently enacted similar laws.
A different federal judge blocked Louisiana’s law requiring schools to display the Ten Commandments, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in February overturned that decision, finding that the case was not ready to be litigated yet because there were unresolved questions, including how the Ten Commandments would be displayed and whether teachers would reference them during classes.
Dissenting judges in that case pointed to the Supreme Court’s 1980 decision striking down a similar law in Kentucky.
Lawsuits are ongoing against a Texas law, signed in 2025, that required public school classrooms to feature the Ten Commandments. The Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in one of the cases earlier this year.
US Fast-Tracks Billions In ‘Emergency’ Arms Sales To Gulf, Bypassing Congress
On the one hand President Trump and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth have declared that America is ‘winning’ against Iran, having destroyed its navy and air defenses, and having seriously degraded its missiles – but on the other the admin has put in for a more than $200 billion supplemental request to Congress to fund the war.
It seems Congress will likely eventually sign off on this gargantuan figure – for an ‘excursion’ which should end ‘soon’ we are told by Trump – given that even the effort to pass so much as a War Powers resolution gets repeatedly stymied.
Still, the US administration is busy bypassing standard congressional review requirements, on Thursday approving a series of emergency arms sales across the Middle East, at a moment US regional allies are being pummeled by Iranian drones and ballistic missiles.
The argument is that Washington’s allies are in imminent danger, and given that indeed vital Gulf infrastructure is getting hit quite seriously – new arms have to be rushed over there on an emergency basis.
The largest package was approved for the United Arab Emirates, totaling more than $8 billion. It includes the $4.5 billion sale of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), $2.10 billion for FS-LIDS counter-drone systems, $1.22 billion in Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AMRAAMs), and $644 million in F-16 munitions, including GBU-39 small diameter bombs and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs).
In parallel, Washington approved an $8 billion deal for Kuwait to buy Lower Tier Air and Missile Defense Sensor Radars, significantly enhancing the country’s missile detection and tracking capabilities.
Jordan was also included in the emergency approvals, with a $70.5 million package covering aircraft support and munitions to sustain operational readiness.
Notably, a US base all the way over in Jordan, the Muwaffaq Salti Air Base, was struck by Iran in the opening days of the war, satellite imagery showed.
This development of all these newly approved ’emergency’ arms and weapons shipments begs the question: is this more evidence that Washington is settling in for a ‘long war’?
Day 1: it’s going to take a couple of days
Day 20: ok we need 200 billion dollars
After all, Trump has given no timeline despite being repeatedly asked, and Israel too is saying the anti-Iran campaign is not even halfway complete. In the end it’s certainly not the American people ‘winning’ here (and they are not going to think so especially at the gas pump either), but the major defense firms.
Throughout the First World, and, particularly in the US, there is an increasing consciousness that fiat currency, far from being the solution to economic problems, is, in fact, a cause of them.
There are even those who, over the years, have predicted that the continued massive creation of fiat dollars may well lead to price controls, destruction of savings, looting, riots and, possibly, even revolution. A decade ago, such predictions were regarded by most as nonsense. Today, all of these eventualities seem more likely, although there still remains a strong contingent (possibly even a majority) who believe that, “It can’t happen here.”
A Brief History of Colonial US Fiat Currency
At this juncture, with regard to the US, it may be helpful to mention that not only can it happen here… it in fact, already has – back when the US was first created.
Much has been said about the American founding fathers having been “visionaries,” and this is most certainly true.
But how was it that so many people in pivotal positions in late 18th-century America possessed such insight, such inspiration in terms of designing a country whose Constitution was based upon free-market values, and avoided, as much as possible, a central government that had its fingers in the economic pie?
In the 1750s, the use of fiat currency by the colonies (particularly in the financing of military endeavours against the French in Quebec) caused massive inflation. The situation became so dire that Mother England stepped in and called an end to the creation of debt-related promissory notes. There was an immediate return to using coinage.
The result was prosperity. Although the colonies did not yet possess their own coinage, they used gold and silver coins from England, France, Holland and Spain as unofficial currencies. (Note: The word “unofficial” is key here as a free market prevailed and was able to adjust itself, as necessary, with regard to the purchasing value of each form of coinage.)
But this was not to last. When the American Revolution broke out in 1775, the Continental Congress saw fit to “solve” the cash-flow problem by starting up the printing presses. (Once again, war created the incentive to print paper currency.) At that time, the colonial money supply had been some $12 million. Within five years, over an additional $600 million had been created. Whilst this monetary creation initially served as a boost to the economy, the predictable end result was that massive inflation returned, laying waste to the economy.
Then, as now, many people could not understand why the Continental Congress did not simply keep printing until the problem went away.
By the time the war had ended, the newly-formed United States was deeply mired in economic troubles. Although there were those who called for an end to the rolling of the presses, the government did what governments typically do: exert a greater level of force to get the people to use the debased currency. Wage and price controls were created, in addition to stiff penalties for anyone who refused to use the Continental Dollar. Congress declared that, any person shall hereafter be so lost to all virtue and regard for his country as to refuse to accept its notes, such person shall be deemed an enemy of his country.
It may be beneficial to read this simple statement a second time, whilst considering just how timeless and universal it is. It is the position governments typically take whenever they have created a problem that the public have ultimately paid the price for. When the public ultimately realise that they have been victimised, and back off from the government “solution,” they (the public) are described by the government as being “unpatriotic.” In this case, Congress went so far as to describe the public as “enemies.”
Today, Americans have not yet reached this point; however, it should not be surprising if, as the US dollar declines more severely, they are once again described as enemies of the state, should they move away from using the dying dollar in favour of a more stable form of wealth, such as precious metals.
Money in the US Constitution
It was in the immediate aftermath of the 1787 monetary debacle that the Constitutional Committee met to create the Constitution. Having read the foregoing, it should not be surprising to the reader that a primary concern of the American founding fathers was that, in future, neither the state nor the federal governments should have the ability to create fiat currency, period.
Oliver Ellsworth, a Connecticut attorney, stated at the time,
“This is a favourable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischief of the various experiments which have been made are now fresh in the public mind and have excited the disgust of all the respectable parts of America.”
It was under this sentiment that the Committee consciously rejected a recommendation for the federal government to “emit bills of credit.” And, instead, allowed the federal government only to “… coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.”
Central Bank Tug-of-War
It is clear that, in 1787, there existed a true “vision” as to a government’s rightful role in the economy. However, it should be stated that, as early as three years later, in 1790, a move was afoot to create a central bank, modeled after the Bank of England, and that that bank, in addition to having the power to borrow for national interests, would have the exclusive right to issue bank notes.
For another century, a tug of war existed over both the wisdom and the Constitutional legality of a central bank that could issue fiat currency, and this struggle waxed and waned throughout the 19th century. In 1913, a cabal of bankers succeeded in creating the Federal Reserve, and, for the last hundred years, the US economy has been subject to its manipulation. Currency is one manipulation, but the Fed’s manipulation extends beyond currency manipulation.
Back in the late 18th century, the former colonists found themselves in a disastrous economic situation which was a direct result of debt and fiat currency. In 1787, businesses were bankrupted, looting became commonplace, and there was mob violence in the streets. However, the situation was saved by a small group of people who had been given the responsibility to craft the American Constitution. In my belief, the greatness that the US experienced was due, in no small part, to the rejection of fiat currency and a focus on free-market values.
However, today, the American Constitution has largely been abandoned, and the economic debacle of the late 18th century is being repeated. It is conceivable that the present situation is so dire that the US will again see the currency controls and riots that occurred in 1787.
It is left to the reader to consider whether the present situation will generate a movement to re-establish both the word and spirit of that exceptional document – the American Constitution – or whether the powers that be will dig in their heels in favour of their own ability to control both the population and the economy.
The answer could well determine whether the US can rise again as a great nation, or whether it will fall to the wayside.
* * *
The above is as old as fiat money itself: when governments print to fund their promises, the public pays through inflation—and when confidence cracks, officials reach for controls and coercion. If you want a clear, practical way to think about protecting your purchasing power as the dollar’s strength is questioned, we’ve prepared an urgent special dispatch featuring legendary investor Doug Casey explaining what the mainstream media won’t tell you about gold. Click here to see the free dispatch now.
The movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” (1946) features what is today the most famous bank run. It’s film and fiction, yes, but fits with a scenario that has been common for centuries. When the movie came out, the bank runs of 1930–1932 were very much in people’s memory. For older people, they remember the Panic of 1907. Before that, there was the Panic of 1893, the Panic of 1873, the Panic of 1837, and the Panic of 1819.
Panics and banking go together and have for 500 years.
It’s funny that we call them panics, as if people randomly start hurling themselves around in irrational fear. All that’s really going on is that people want their own money and ask for it. Customers grow concerned that the bank—which makes loans on deposits—has overextended and cannot make good on its redemption promises.
It’s a test that the bank passes or not. The bank run is nothing more than a rational check on the soundness of the bank. It’s not “panic” but merely a demand for one’s own property.
The bank run also serves a hugely important market function. The fear of one inspires banks toward prudence. Any attempt to suppress them invariably leads the banking system to become overextended, pushing out leverage beyond a sustainable point. When conditions change, unsound and overextended banks go belly up. This is nothing more than the market at work.
From 1913, with the establishment of the Federal Reserve, the driving ethos of banking and monetary policy has been to reduce bank runs and failures. It was to broadcast a message of confidence in the financial system so that people would no longer panic. It did not quite work, however, as evidenced by the vast bank failures of the early 1930s. President Franklin D. Roosevelt even declared a bank holiday to stop them, which didn’t work, so he turned to gold confiscation and devaluation.
All this is background to a note I just received from my own bank. It’s an update to the terms of service. Here is what it says:
“Added a new Section 8(e) (Digital Wires—Transaction Limits) to clarify that, to protect your account, online wire transaction limits may have daily or rolling 30-day restrictions and that we may establish or modify limits on the amount, frequency, or type of transactions you can initiate using our payment services, or your transaction limits may be temporarily reduced or subject to additional restrictions. Subsections following this one have been renumbered accordingly (Sections 8(f)–8(l)).”
Hardly anyone reads updates to terms of service. I’m probably in the 1 percent of customers who even clicked on the link. What it means should be obvious. My bank can restrict my access to money anytime it wants and by any amount. I might want to take it all in cash or move it to another institution. My bank has told me that this is entirely up to them. By continuing to bank with this famous institution, I have implicitly agreed to this.
To be sure, we should be grateful for banks that protect our accounts. That’s fine. What’s not fine is preventing access to money that is ours. It’s hard to know which is which, and while I would not suggest that banks would naturally lie to us, enterprises are not beyond some limited duplicity when financial survival is at stake.
Should I change banks? It’s probably pointless. Every bank, if it doesn’t have this as part of its terms of service, will adopt it anyway. You could say that this means nothing. Maybe that’s right. Or maybe the bank is just preparing for a rainy day that never comes, and so this update to the terms of service is practically meaningless. One hopes so.
But it did get me thinking: How would a bank run look today?
There will be no George Bailey rushing to the Building and Loan to calm the panicked depositors, explaining how the institution works (e.g., “Your money’s in Joe’s house”). These days, banks are not even very busy with customers. Every time I need to go to one, I walk right up to the window because no one is there. Nearly all money flows and banking services are done electronically.
I’m grateful for this change. My monthly bill-paying efforts take less than a minute. My childhood memories of my father on bill-paying day still stick with me. He had a small room off the kitchen that was his office. Once a month on Saturday, he would go inside. The kids knew not to disturb him. He had a stack of bills. He would write checks and put them in envelopes with stamps. With each bill paid, he went to his ledger and balanced the checkbook.
As he watched the family accounts drain more and more with each bill, he would grow ever more frustrated and upset. He made a salary of $14,500 and supported two kids, a wife, a home, and two cars, and we took plenty of vacations. In real terms, that’s about $114,000 today, a full household on one income. We made ends meet, but it was often a struggle, one from which he protected the family.
Our entire lives were being held by the bank.
There were never issues of trust.
I doubt that my father ever considered the possibility.
These days, money flows are throttled in every direction even without banking panics.
Venmo limits unverified weekly sending and spending to $300. Verified accounts allow up to $60,000 per week for payments to others. Outgoing bank transfers are limited to $5,000 per transfer and $20,000 per week as long as it is verified. Zelle’s limits vary by the bank: Bank of America permits $3,500 per day up to $20,000 per month. The others are the same or similar.
If you want to move real money, you have to go to ACH (automated clearinghouse) or FedWire (an improvement over old-style wiring) or get a crypto account and use a stablecoin (which moves $1.2 trillion per month, making it dominant). Regardless, it is not easy, and most depositors do not avail themselves of it.
Banks made ACH rather difficult, with pull-down menus of verified recipients. It can be extremely difficult to get serious blocks of money from here to there already. Mostly we don’t need to, so the system has not been really tested. Most people have no idea how much the system of electronic payments and withdrawals is already throttled.
As for cash, it is mostly out of the question. Your bank will give you the stare-down if you ask for $5,000 and make you fill out some law enforcement forms for $10,000. You dare not attempt to carry this kind of cash through an airport. You will be taken aside and asked to provide a full accounting for it. It’s even true for driving: If you are stopped and searched, you risk everything.
To the original question, what would a bank run look like?
It would involve millions of people simultaneously attempting to max out their withdrawals, perhaps to buy gold. It would be the raiding of ATMs until they are empty, which would take about 30 minutes. All the while, the institutions would assure you that they are fully sound and there’s nothing about which to worry.
The same would continue the next day as the banks doled out allotments as necessary and only for verified purposes. You might have a million dollars in the bank, but it would only be numbers flashing on a screen, interesting to look at but impossible to use. There is simply no way to get to it. And forget going to your branch. They would likely put up signs with the explanation that withdrawals are limited to $1,500 or so.
In other words, a serious bank run today would be a quiet and strangely uneventful financial apocalypse in which money movements would be effectively frozen. The Federal Reserve would get to work flooding the entire system with liquidity, unfreezing withdrawals even if they are still throttled. The new money flooding the system to bail out the banks would result in hyperinflation about nine to 12 months later, after which your money would have lost half its value anyway.
What could kick it off? Could be the default of a financial product. Could be the collapse in commercial real estate or a sudden plunge in artificial intelligence asset valuations. Or it could be nothing other than an online rumor that goes viral. This happened often in the 19th century: One person starts the fear, and it spreads like wildfire.
We will not likely ever see a bank run like we did in past times. That’s not a good thing. The system today provides the illusion of liquidity, but take a look beneath the surface. A genuine financial crisis—which we have somehow avoided even during these tumultuous times—would be a civilizational disaster.
This column is not intended to scare you. It might do that anyway.
One Reason This Energy Shock Is Not Like The One 15-Years Ago
Arend Kapteyn, the global head of economics and strategy research and chief economist at UBS, told clients that one key reason the current Middle East conflict-driven energy shock “is not like 2011-2014” will be the absence of a comparable response from the shale patch, suggesting consumers are more likely to bear the brunt of the pain.
Kapteyn noted that, on an inflation-adjusted basis, oil prices in 2011-2014 were actually higher than they are today, yet the U.S. economy absorbed that shock because the shale boom provided a lift to the industrial base. Soaring WTI crude prices at the time spurred oil/gas companies to increase drilling activity, production growth, and energy-sector investment. This helped create a tailwind for the US’ manufacturing base and offset some of the drag from higher fuel costs.
However, this is where the bullish U.S. economic case starts to look a little shaky. As Kapteyn noted, “The oil sector is much less responsive to prices than a decade ago.”
The Trump administration has indicated that the oil price shock is temporary, suggesting shale drilling is unlikely to increase meaningfully or provide much of a tailwind for the manufacturing base.
That means this time, the pain from higher energy prices is more likely to hit consumers directly through weaker spending power, with less offset from booming domestic oil investment.
A common question is why current oil prices should be a concern for the U.S. economy when prices were substantially higher in 2011-2014 and growth held up well. Over that earlier period, Brent averaged around $110/bbl—close to $145/bbl in today’s dollars, roughly 23% above today’s spot prices—yet U.S. GDP growth still averaged just over 2%.
There are, of course, many differences relative to then: today’s labor market is weaker, households are more liquidity constrained, and the inflationary impulse is sharper, reflecting a much faster run-up in prices (oil prices never rose more than about 55% year-on-year in 2011-2014, versus close to 100% if today’s prices are sustained). But the key difference—and the focus here—is shale.
At the start of 2010, the U.S. mining sector (largely oil and gas) accounted for roughly 14% of industrial production. By 2012-2013, it was generating well over half of total U.S. IP growth, with brief periods in which mining effectively accounted for all of it. After oil prices collapsed in 2015-2016, U.S. mining output rebounded mechanically from a low base—but shale did not return to its pre-2014 investment or rig intensity. Oil production still responds to prices at the margin—via well completions, higher utilization, and productivity gains—but investment has become far less elastic. In other words, if current oil prices are perceived as temporary, the U.S. is unlikely to see anything resembling the 2011-2014 shale-driven supply response to offset the net income erosion that is likely to hit consumers.
Overnight developments, including Israeli and Iranian retaliatory strikes on upstream energy infrastructure across the Gulf area and Qatar’s warning that Iranian attacks on its LNG complex – the world’s largest – could leave capacity offline for months, if not years, only reinforce the view that global energy markets are set to tighten further. The risk now is a pump price shock, which could begin to weigh on sentiment in the weeks ahead if energy market turmoil persists. At the same time, signs of stress are emerging in credit markets, adding to concerns that the broader economic outlook could deteriorate.
Costa Rica’s President Rodrigo Chaves revealed Wednesday that his government has ceased recognizing the legitimacy of Cuba’s communist regime and ordered the Cuban embassy in San José to close.
In a press conference in Peñas Blancas during the inauguration of new U.S.-donated mobile drug scanners at the northern border with Nicaragua, Chaves said the decision was a stand against the Cuban government’s oppression of its people.
“Costa Rica does not recognize the legitimacy of Cuba’s Communist regime, given the mistreatment, repression, and undignified conditions endured by the inhabitants of that beautiful island,” Chaves said. “We must cleanse the hemisphere of communists.”
During Wednesday’s press conference, Foreign Minister Arnoldo André Tinoco said the government chose to shutter its Costa Rica embassy in Havana and asked Cuba to remove its diplomatic personnel from San José, while permitting consular services to continue for practical purposes.
The decision comes as the Chaves administration positions itself against perceived leftist influences in the region and transnational crime syndicates. Meanwhile, Costa Rica and the United States increased collaboration on stopping drug trafficking.
Chaves doubled-down on the country’s security infrastructure at key ports, including Japdeva’s Gastón Kogan port, Peñas Blancas, Paso Canoas, and Caldera. Chaves on Wednesday connected the technology’s rollout to his administration’s campaign against organized crime.
Chaves said the new scanners would play a key role in blocking cocaine and fentanyl flows, crediting American support while condemning past domestic setbacks.
Cuba’s foreign ministry said it was informed on Tuesday of Costa Rica’s order for diplomatic staff to withdraw, leaving only consulate staff in place starting April 1. It said Costa Rica offered no justification and called the decision “arbitrary,” claiming it was made under pressure.
“The Costa Rican government, which displays a history of subordination to United States policy against Cuba, once again joins the offensive by the U.S. government in its renewed attempts to isolate our country,” the ministry said in a statement.
The move follows Ecuador’s decision on March 8 to close its Cuban embassy and declare Cuba’s ambassador Basilio Gutierrez and his diplomatic staff “persona non grata,” giving him 48 hours to leave the country.
Cuba’s Foreign Ministry condemned the move, blaming the United States for Ecuador’s decision.
“This is an unfriendly and unprecedented act that significantly damages the historic relations of friendship and cooperation between both countries and peoples,” the ministry said in a statement on March 8.
Netanyahu Declares Iran’s Nuclear Program & Missile Production “Destroyed” – Denies Israel Influenced Trump
Summary
Netanyahu: Iran can no longer enrich Uranium; missile production destroyed; says Israel acted alone against Pars oil field; claims Trump was not influenced by Israel to go to war.
F-35 stealth jet takes on Iranian fire, emergency landing: CNN
Trump dials up threat, seeking leverage, denies approving Israeli Pars strikes; however, reports from The Wall Street Journal and Axios say the White House was aware. US sending more troops to region.
Energy war hits breaking point: Qatar’s Ras Laffan damaged, KSA, Kuwait, Bahrain sites attacked; Saudi trust in Iran “completely shattered.” Iran’s navy in the Caspian Sea reportedly destroyed. Missile strikes key Israeli refinery. Qatari PM confirms damage to 17% of Qatar’s LNG exportcapacity for three to five years.
Iran signals not done exacting revenge: IRGC warns retaliation “not yet finished,” vowing escalating strikes across region as Gulf states, Iraq, and shipping lanes absorb widening fallout.
Strait of Hormuz a de facto economic war zone as prices rise at the pump with oil spiraling higher: Iran’s parliament is floating tolls on shipping – weaponizing control.
Netanyahu: Iran Can No Longer Enrich Uranium; Missile Production Destroyed; Acted Against Pars Alone
In a rare wartime press conference, Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu opened with a jab at rumors about his condition: “First of all… I’m alive.” He went on to claim that Israel and the US are “protecting the entire Middle East… the entire world” – and after 20 days, he asserted: “we are winning, and Iran is being decimated.” Netanyahu further claimed that Iran’s missile and drone stockpiles are being “massively degraded” and “will be destroyed,” framing the campaign as an all-out dismantling of Tehran’s capabilities. Bust most importantly he said production capability has been ended.
He further addressed claims Israel dragged the US into war, calling it “fake news” and adding: “Does anyone really think that someone can tell President Donald Trump what to do? Come on.” He praised tight US-Israel coordination: “We are achieving goals in lightning speed” – and said he and Trump “see eye to eye,” adding the world “owes a debt… to President Trump for leading this effort.” He also stated that Israel acted against Pars alone, but that he will hold off on ordering future such attacks without US consent. Netanyahu also said the war will end “much sooner than people think”. And another key aspect to his remarks:
Iran No Longer Able to Enrich Uranium
Iran Lost Ability to Manufacture Missiles
US, Israel Destroyed Iran’s Fleet in Caspian Sea
“What we’re destroying now are the factories that produce the components to make these missiles and to make the nuclear weapons that they’re trying to produce,” Netanyahu said, however without providing evidence of the claim. Just before he spoke, Israel’s military said it anticipates the anti-Iran campaign is only half complete.
NOW – Netanyahu: “I want to close these opening remarks with one other fake news, and that is that Israel somehow dragged the U.S. into a conflict with Iran. Does anyone really think that someone can tell President Trump what to do? Come on!” pic.twitter.com/eYXzvqReJp
Iran through its Foreign Minister has made clear on Thursday it will show “zero restraint” if energy infrastructure is targeted again. President Trump on the same day responded to reports the US has sent more troops to the region.
Europe’s Top Naval Powers See No Short-Term Path To Reopening Hormuz Chokepoint
European leaders are resisting Trump administration pressure to send warships to shadow tankers through the Hormuz chokepoint, citing the heightened risk of Iranian attacks and the lack of a clear U.S. strategy, according to Bloomberg.
UK Defense Minister Al Carns was quoted by the outlet as saying discussions on warship escorts in the Strait of Hormuz are in the “very early stages.”
Carns said allies are currently focused on “trying to conceptualize the totality of the problem and make sure that we’ve got a clear path toward the next stage.”
He warned that the conflict in the Middle East is raging on. The risk is that warship escorts aren’t enough to defend tankers from IRGC drone and missile attacks and naval mines. He said the situation requires a “deeply complex” multinational range of air, maritime, and strike capabilities.
UK Defense Secretary John Healey warned about Iranian naval mines in the Strait.
Earlier, President Trump said that Iran “is close to being demolished, the only thing is the strait: It’s very hard. You could take two people and they could drop little bombs in the water, and they’re holding things up.”
A partially paralyzed Hormuz has also been compounded with Israeli attacks on Iranian upstream energy assets, as well as retaliatory attacks by the IRGC on Qatar’s gas complex. Qatar has warned that its LNG export capacity could be severely hampered for years to come.
Qatar: Energy Strikes to Spark Serious Lasting Repercussions
Qatar’s Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani confirmed on Thursday that there were no human casualties while assessing damages at the country’s main LNG export hub, Ras Laffan, which was struck by Iranian missiles. He went on to angrily dismiss Iran’s claim that it was actually targeting US bases, calling the narrative “rejected and unjustified”. Bloomberg: Iran’s strikes to this field has damaged 17% of Qatar’s LNG export capacity for three to five years. And a new alarming headline via Reuters:
QATARENERGY CEO TELLS REUTERS: WE MAY HAVE TO DECLARE FORCE MAJEURE ON LONG-TERM
CONTRACTS FOR UP TO FIVE YEARS FOR LNG SUPPLIES TO ITALY, BELGIUM, KOREA AND CHINA
US F-35 Hit By Iranian Fire, Damaged, In 1st of War
CNN is reporting that a US F-35 stealth fighter jet made an emergency landing at US air base in the Middle East, in an incident confirmed by the Pentagon.
Capt. Tim Hawkins, a spokesperson for US Central Command, said the advanced fighter was “flying a combat mission over Iran” when it was forced to make an emergency landing. CNN specifies it was based on taking fire from Iranian forces, while the Pentagon has been scant on details, only saying the warplane landed safely and the incident is under investigation.
“The aircraft landed safely, and the pilot is in stable condition,” Hawkins said. “This incident is under investigation.”
CNN underscores in its reporting, “The incident would be the first time Iran has hit a US aircraft in the war started in late February. Both the US and Israel are flying F-35s in the conflict; the aircraft costs upwards of $100 million.” However, March 1st saw three US F-16s go down over Kuwait, with six crew ejecting to safety, in what the Pentagon claimed was a ‘friendly fire’ incident. But it raised suspicions the Iranians shot them down.
One regional war correspondent notes: “The Haifa refinery (Bazan) is the country’s largest and most critical fuel facility, supplying about 50–60% of national fuel (≈60% diesel, 50% gasoline).”
Hegseth announced in a Thursday morning Pentagon briefing that the US military – presumably alongside Israel – has completely destroyed Iran’s submarine fleet and significantly damaged the military ports of the Islamic Republic.
We reported earlier that Wednesday into overnight hours saw the first heavy Israeli attacks on vessels in the Caspian Sea, which marked a geographical expanse into the north. Meanwhile there are reports of a successful Iranian hit in the vicinity of Israel’s Haifa oil refinery:
ISRAEL’S BAZAN OIL REFINERIES HIT IN IRAN MISSILE BARRAGE: N12
US Sending More Troops To Region, Eyes Ultra-Risky Kharg/Hormuz Op
There remain few (or no) options for guaranteeing tanker traffic through Hormuz. After the Pentagon bombed some 90 military sites on Iran’s oil export hub Kharg Island last weekend, the US is running up against the obvious limitations of a purely air and naval campaign.
In a scenario that screams escalation, discussions now include deploying US troops directly to Iran’s coastline to secure the passage, per Reuters and others. The even more aggressive option is potential ground operations targeting Kharg – again given it is the nerve center handling roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports. Of course, Trump strongly campaigned against such a scenario as ‘boots on the ground’ in a new regime change war. The admin has also been busy vowing ‘no quagmire’.
Trump Threatens To “Massively Blow Up” South Pars, Tries To Distance US & Israel Ops
In a late-night Truth Social post, President Trump has once again cranked the rhetoric to eleven, warning he’ll “massively blow up” Iran’s crown jewel gas field if Tehran dares hit Qatar’s LNG infrastructure again. Trump insisted the US “knew nothing” about Wednesday’s Israeli strike on the shared South Pars field, claiming neither did Qatar, while simultaneously declaring “no more attacks will be made by Israel”there – unless Iran escalates.
Then came the kicker: “In which instance the United States of America, with or without the help or consent of Israel, will massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars Gas Field at an amount of strength and power that Iran has never seen or witnessed before,” he wrote.
However, US media reports have been quick to say otherwise – that the US did actually know about it and greenlit the risky escalation. The Wall Street Journal reports the White House was aware – and also Axios’ Barak Ravid insists so too, and he’s seen as very close to the Israeli government.
Heavy Air War Ongoing Amid Potential Energy Point of No Return
Meanwhile, the Gulf is still being lit up by tit-for-tat major attacks on energy, as Western populations brace for severe impact at the gas pumps. Iran’s retaliation is already hitting energy nodes across the region after Israel’s Wednesday South Pars strike, pushing tensions with neighbors past a potential point of no return. Qatar quickly expelled Iranian military attaches after missiles caused “extensive damage” at Ras Laffan – its main LNG export hub, while Saudi officials say “the little trust that remained in Iran has been completely shattered.”
The air war is continuing against Iran, with retaliatory strikes still raining down on Israel, but reportedly at slower pace when compared to the opening days of the war. A strike in western Iran’s Dorud county reportedly killed at least a dozen civilians, Al Jazeera has reported.
Iran Signals No Signs Of Stopping Revenge Attacks
Tehran, however, is signaling the opposite of de-escalation, perhaps seeing Trump’s latest Truth Social post claiming no foreknowledge of the Israeli attack on Pars as a sign of weakness. A spokesman for the IRGC Khatam has newly warned retaliation is “not yet finished,” adding:
“We warn the enemy that you made a major mistake by attacking the energy infrastructure of … Iran… the next attacks on your energy infrastructure and that of your allies will not stop until their complete destruction.”
Kuwait: Iranian drones attacked one of the largest oil refineries, Al-Ahmadi Refinery.
The last 24 hours saw unprecedented destruction on key Gulf energy sites, summarized in the following:
Separately, UAE authorities said they were responding to incidents at the Habshan gas facilities and at the Bab oilfield caused by falling debris from intercepted missiles. The Abu Dhabi Media Office said the facilities were shut down and no injuries were reported.
Saudi Arabia said it intercepted and destroyed four ballistic missiles launched towards Riyadh on Wednesday and an attempted drone attack on a gas facility in its east. On Thursday, Iran targeted the Saudi capital, Riyadh.
Attacks on Kuwait and Bahrain were also reported.
Elsewhere, Iraq has shut its airspace, vessels are taking hits in the Gulf, with on Wednesday Trade Winds having reported: “A ship is on fire after being hit by an unknown projectile near the United Arab Emirates deepwater port of Khor Fakkan.”
WTI-Brent Spread Explodes As U.S. Export Ban Priced In
RBC Capital Markets analyst Julian Triscott told clients, “Our boots on the ground in D.C. suggest the administration favors a crude export tariff over an outright ban, though a full ban remains a tail risk.”
Triscott said the Trump administration is likely weighing intervention in the oil market as gasoline and diesel prices at the pump surge, with a crude export tariff seen as more likely than an outright export ban, though the analyst said a full ban is still a major risk.
Triscott said the idea would be to shield U.S. consumers by making crude exports less attractive to foreign buyers, while potentially offsetting the impact with a pause or reduction in the federal fuel excise tax.
Triscott pointed out that traders are already beginning to price in this next intervention, with the WTI–Brent spread widening to its highest level since about 2012.
The market is largely pricing in a US oil export ban: Brent less WTI spread is the widest in decades (ex the negative WTI print). Export ban would landlock US oil, sending it sharply lower while sending Brent soaring pic.twitter.com/3YSLlVNZcx
Triscott’s conversation with sources in D.C. about what the Trump administration may do next to combat surging pump prices comes as the Trump administration appears to be following the six-option playbook laid out by JPMorgan analysts last week.
On Wednesday, the Trump administration waived the Jones Act to allow foreign vessels to ship crude to US ports. That was Option 3 on the list, while last week’s SPR release was Option 1. Option 2 is export restrictions.
We suspect the administration is following the six-point playbook, and here’s what may come next (read the report).
Energy Market Shockwaves After Iranian Attacks on Gulf Energy Assets
Brent crude futures surged toward $120/bbl, while WTI remained muted around $96/bbl, as Wednesday marked a major escalation in the US-Iran conflict. Israeli fighter jets struck Iran’s giant South Pars gas field with air-delivered munitions, triggering a retaliatory chain reaction in which IRGC forces targeted critical energy infrastructure across the Gulf.
Iranian drone and missile strikes caused heavy damage to Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG hub, while gas plants in Abu Dhabi shut down, Kuwaiti refineries were hit by drones, and Saudi refining assets on the Red Sea were targeted.
Unlike temporary shipping disruptions in the Gulf waters or the Strait of Hormuz, damage to upstream energy assets, such as production and LNG facilities, is far more serious and could take months or even years to repair, raising the risk of prolonged tight global supply.
Some 20% of global LNG exports originate from Gulf countries, and the latest round of Israeli and IRGC attacks on upstream energy assets shows how the conflict has entered an entirely new phase where energy infrastructure is being directly targeted.
Disruptions at Qatar’s LNG facilities threaten to tighten the global gas market, with ripple effects quickly spreading worldwide – across Asia, Europe, and even U.S. gas prices.
European natural gas benchmark futures jumped as much as 35% today, pushing prices to more than double their pre-war levels, as traders brace for what only appears to be a prolonged period of disruption from critical LNG hubs that account for a fifth of the world’s total supply.
QatarEnergy warned earlier that LNG facilities inside its Ras Laffan Industrial City were attacked by missiles, “causing sizable fires and extensive further damage.”
“This could be a game changer for the LNG industry, akin to the attack on Nord Stream or possibly even worse,” Susan Sakmar, visiting assistant professor at the University of Houston Law Center, said, quoted by Bloomberg. “This is a sudden disruption, with no indication that Qatar could restart anytime soon.”
Global Risk Management analyst Arne Lohmann Rasmussen warned, “LNG from Qatar could in principle be offline for months and, in the worst case, for years. For the gas market, the crisis does not end simply because the war ends and the Strait of Hormuz reopens.”
UBS analyst Matt Salmon commented on the exploding energy risk premia due to overnight war developments:
Geopolitical risk premia in the energy complex rose further following attacks on energy infrastructure in the Middle East, after President Trump failed earlier this week to establish an international coalition to support the resumption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. In a clear escalation of hostilities, Iranian energy infrastructure was targeted for the first time in the conflict, with Israel striking the South Pars gas field, while the US claimed no prior knowledge.
Iran had warned early in the conflict that there would be “no red lines” around retaliatory actions, and it made good on this threat with two strikes in less than 12 hours on Qatar’s Ras Laffan Industrial City, home to the world’s largest LNG facility, with state operator QatarEnergy reporting “extensive damage.”
Trump subsequently pressed for de-escalation of attacks on gas facilities in Iran, but moves in Brent were muted, reflecting diminishing confidence that the US has a credible off-ramp. Brent crude is currently trading around $112/bbl, Asian LNG prices are above $20/bbl, and Asian refining margin proxies exceed $40/bbl, amid rising investor anxiety over disruptions to global fuel and gas supplies.
Macron Urges Direct Talks: ‘Return to Reason’
At a moment Gulf shipping lanes are freezing up with tankers idling in the Gulf of Oman waiting for a greenlight through what’s been for most a no-go zone, Iranian lawmakers have proposed a plan to impose tolls and taxes on ships passing through the strategic Strait of Hormuz– which of course would not include passage of US and Israeli ships, or others deemed participants of Operation Epic Fury.
Europe is watching nervously from the sidelines, itching for some kind of presentable offramp, also after NATO allies this week snubbed joining Trump’s coalition to seek to militarily open the strait back up to global shipping. Germany’s Friedrich Merz welcomed signals that Trump might dial things back, saying “I am particularly grateful that the US president sent a signal last night that he prepared to bring the fighting to an end” – while France’s Emmanuel Macron warned of a “reckless escalation” as energy infrastructure becomes the primary battlefield, and so has called for direct talks between Washington and Tehran. Here’s what he said in part before an EU leaders’ summit in Brussels on Thursday:
“We will obviously defend a de-escalation, a return to stability in the Middle East,” Macron said, adding that he spoke to Qatari emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and Donald Trump about the war on Wednesday night.
“I think that everyone should calm down and the fighting should stop at least for a few days to try to give negotiations a chance again,” the French leader added. “I hope that, in any case, everyone will return to reason.”
⚡️ The US military has released documentation of the destruction of Iranian naval ships pic.twitter.com/tWeyUWoPFb
