By Emma Penrod of UtilityDive.com

About 44 GW of large load projects slated for Oncor’s service territory qualified for ERCOT’s new “Batch Zero” interconnection process for large loads, company executives told analysts during a Thursday earnings call. But the timeline for that process is uncertain following an order by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott that paused new data center interconnection approvals pending a state-wide audit.

ERCOT’s criteria for Batch Zero, which include new financial and technical requirements for loads with a peak demand of 75 MW or greater, narrowed immediate load growth projects for Oncor, a subsidiary of Sempra.

The batch approach, Sempra Chairman and CEO Jeff Martin said, was intended to align the interconnection of large loads with the construction of new generation. The criteria for acceptance into the first Batch Zero was finalized in June.

“Think about a situation where you’ve got close to 500 GW of generation on the sideline waiting to come on the system and, similarly, over 400 GW of large load customers,” Martin said. “That batch process is intended to sequence generation with large loads. Over time, it will be a sequencing effect that’s intended to balance what we think is going to be remarkable load growth.”

The utility had submitted a qualifying load forecast of about 127 GW to ERCOT earlier this year, before the Batch Zero eligibility criteria were released.

On Thursday, executives expressed confidence in the durability of the pipeline, despite uncertainty. Oncor CEO Allen Nye said service requests at that company had increased from 289 GW at the end of the first quarter, to 298 GW this past quarter.

“We continue to have really strong growth, really strong interest. And yes, there is more out there,” Nye told analysts on Thursday.

By the numbers: Sempra Q2’26

• 44 GW: Oncor Batch Zero interconnection requests under ERCOT review prior to the state moratorium.
• $65B: Capital plan through 2030, including $47.5B at Oncor.
• $560M: Additional base rate revenue approved at Oncor by the Public Utility Commission of Texas.

It is not yet clear how the governor’s order, issued on Monday, will affect the new ERCOT review process. ERCOT spokespeople told local media on Monday that they had put the Batch Zero review on hold pending clarification from the governor.

Oncor’s current $47.5 billion capital plan does not include any spending tied to the Batch Zero load, Martin said. The utility plans to update its capital plan in the fourth quarter of this year, he said, but any capital needs associated with the batch study will not make their way into the company’s capital plan until at least 2027.

But the current plan does include about $5 billion tied to high-voltage transmission projects Oncor has underway in Texas’ Permian Basin, which Nye noted were the subject of a 15-hour public hearing in July. Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and several state senators called on the Public Utility Commission of Texas to deny the transmission lines’ applications following the hearing, in which speakers decried the projects’ potential impacts on private landowners.

Martin and Nye said they understood the Texas lawmakers’ position and expressed support for their efforts, despite the potential for delays at Oncor.

“Like all across this country, there’s a variety of elections taking place in November,” Martin said. “There’s a big focus on affordability. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat or an independent, we’re looking for ways to release pressure on American families, and I think Texas is not immune to that.

“There’s a process going forward where we’re doing things at a scale…that have never been done before,” Martin continued. “What we want to do is make sure that we’re supportive of the process. We’re there to make sure that we can address some of the needs of stakeholders. If the outcome is it takes a little bit longer to make the process better for everybody, and we end up with a durable framework, I think it’s great for the state of Texas.”

Leaders at Sempra also expressed support for legislative processes in California, where lawmakers are still mulling wildfire liability reforms. SoCalGas, a Sempra-owned utility, was named in January in a lawsuit filed by Edison International alleging actions by the gas utility worsened the 2025 Eaton Fire, for which Edison International has been sued. SoCalGas filed a cross-complaint against Edison seeking compensation for damages to SoCalGas’ infrastructure in April. A trial has been scheduled for January 2027. SoCalGas has also been named in suits related to the 2025 Palisades Fire. Sempra-owned San Diego Gas & Electric is not currently the subject of any wildfire-related litigation.

Sempra continues to pursue the sale of its interests in SI Partners, which owns LNG and natural gas infrastructure in the U.S. and Mexico, to KKR Partners for $10 billion, and of Mexican natural gas utility Ecogas. Mexican regulators recently approved the Ecogas sale, which Martin said puts the transaction on track to close later this month.

The sales will allow Sempra to remove more than $9 billion in debt from its balance sheet and should improve the company’s prospects with ratings agencies, according to Karen Sedgwick, executive vice president and chief financial officer at Sempra. Moody’s issued a negative outlook for the parent company in January on account of its debts and funding capacity, Sedgwick said.

Texas regulators in April approved a $560 million base rate increase at Oncor that took effect on June 1, and SDG&E filed an initial 2028 GRC application with the California PUC in June.

Regional rivals and enemies are calling out Saudi Arabia as a “paper tiger” which must rely on others for protection and defense needs.

Criticisms of Riyadh are being issued on the same day the kingdom signed a major security pact with the other major Muslim-dominant nations of Pakistan and Turkey. Formally called the Makkah Joint Defense Agreement, it is essentially a NATO-style agreement for the ‘Muslim world’ – given that it stipulates and formalizes that an armed attack on any of the countries will be treated as an attack against all of them.

The pact extends across populations with a combined total of some 380 million people. Both Iranian and Israeli officials have taken to mocking the historic agreement.

For example, on Friday within hours of the deal’s signing, prominent Iranian MP Ebrahim Rezaei called on Riyadh to change course in terms of its pro-American policies, which has included allowing US troops to be stationed on Saudi soil. He said the new pact won’t bring Riyadh protection or peace.

He stated on X: “Saudis must know that a paper agreement with Turkiye and Pakistan will not bring them security, just as years of one-sided nursing to the Americans did not bring them security.“

“Reform your policies so that you do not need to beg for security from others,” continued Rezaei, who is also a member of parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission.

Somewhat ironically, voices out of Israel echoed similar criticisms, blasting the wealthy kingdom as seeking to appear strong but in truth being weak with not much of a military to speak of:

Saudi Arabia is less powerful than it may seem at first glance, former head of the National Security Council Prof. Jacob Nagel told 103FM in a Friday morning interview addressing the defense agreement between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan.

Geopolitical messages that MBS is sending

– Instead of Abraham accords, it is Mecca accords

– Instead of a GCC defense pact, Saudi Arabia is looking to Turkey, Pakistan

Turns page on alliance w UAE + anti-Islamist approach. Still doesn’t mean Turkey alliance; Egypt stayed out

— Joyce Karam (@Joyce_Karam) August 7, 2026

Via The Daily Signal,

This is a lightly edited transcript of an Aug. 6 segment of the Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words podcast…

Jack Fowler: And the whole trans issue is coming up in the WNBA, and various coaches are like, “I don’t know. Should a she – I can’t say who should be playing.” They will not say that a biological woman should be playing in the WNBA. It’s this absurdity.

Victor Davis Hanson: But they know.

I think Clay Travis said he was going to buy a franchise …and have only trans players. Would they let him do that? No, because they would win every game.

Fowler: Yeah. It was funny what he put up there.

Hanson: And the Minnesota coach who wore a jacket… with advertisements or a message about trans issues.

She was also whining that there are still too many men in women’s coaching and that women don’t get a chance to dominate the field as they should, given that they’re women.

So, obviously, she was walking into a logical inconsistency because she had this jacket on that she would want biological men in women’s sports, where they would dominate, and then she was angry that, in her own coaching aspect, she was being dominated by men.

So, why wouldn’t she have the same concern about women who are players that she does about biological men? Aside from the fact that—I don’t think we’re ever going to—correct me if I’m wrong—but I don’t think in my lifetime, or anyone’s lifetime, we’re ever going to see a woman transition to a man and play in the NBA.

Does anybody believe that? I don’t. I just don’t think that’s going to happen.

I do think you will continue to see trans athletes in women’s sports because they were biological males at birth, and nobody wants it.

The other thing—and I talked a little bit with Sami [Winc] about it—is that I went and looked at about six AI estimates. If you ask them how much money and media attention Caitlin Clark has brought to the Women’s National Basketball Association—which is owned by the men’s league and ran at a deficit until about three years ago—most of them estimate that, through increased attendance, merchandising, advertising packages based on ratings, and the fact that the Indiana Fever and any team she plays sells out, they think she has generated about $1 billion in added revenue, value, and free publicity.

The teams that had been perennially losing money are now starting to break even, if not show a profit. They’re upgrading their travel arrangements, so women are flying privately now. They’re not like a college basketball team on United or American Airlines. They have their own chartered jets. They’ve got upgraded salaries, and they’re getting bonuses.

And what has the reaction been?

The one woman who’s doing all of this—it’s not any white woman; it’s one white woman who is a superb athlete: Caitlin Clark, probably the best natural shooter and passer we’ve seen in women’s basketball in two or three generations. She’s magnificent.

Now she has a sidekick who is also a very good blocker and shooter herself, Sophie Cunningham. She’s beautiful, and like Caitlin, she’s white and heterosexual.

In a league that we didn’t know much about because nobody watched it, the more we watched, the more we were told by various sportscasters—sometimes joking, sometimes bragging, sometimes hinting they didn’t approve—who knows? But they all agree on one thing. The WNBA, like the NBA, “doesn’t look like America,” to quote the Left. It’s not diverse.

It’s about 60–65 percent Black and roughly 30–40 percent gay.

Now you have these two women. When Sophie Cunningham made that [22-second viral point at an opponent], it became a social media phenomenon. Everybody was talking about it. Now her name is everywhere, and she’s making a lot of money.

I saw a clip the other day someone sent me. She’s doing bikini photo shoots. She must be about 6’2″ or something. She’s lean, muscular, beautiful—stunning, actually.

You can see what this is doing for the league.

A logical, rational person would say, “We’ve got to make sure we don’t gratuitously foul these two girls because they’re our meal ticket. They’re bringing us more money than we ever imagined. The crowds are bigger. We’re getting better exposure. We’re getting our own media contracts.”

Or would the reaction be, “I don’t like white people. I don’t like heterosexual people. I’m going to try to injure these people”?

That’s what they’re doing.

Sophie Cunningham got hit really hard in the face, and they called a foul on her.

Fowler: Yeah. She got elbowed in the jaw.

Hanson: Yes, just like what happened to Caitlin Clark.

Then you look at everything else and say, “Well, maybe it’s just the players.”

No, because you see the coach wearing a propaganda jacket. You see a co-owner going over and yelling at two little girls.

You get the impression what? 

The more you see of the WNBA, the more you don’t want anything to do with it. It’s just too toxic.

Everything about it is toxic. It brings together the worst in American society. It is tribal. It is racialist. It has a sexual-orientation chauvinism about it. It’s driven by projection. Everything about it.

The irony is that it would rather destroy itself than benefit if it meant having to allow two white, heterosexual women to continue being stars in the league and the biggest breadwinners for everybody.

They would rather destroy it.

Fowler: Or simply say this is a league for biological women.

There’s something about that, Victor. I could be totally wrong—I have no data on this—but my gut tells me it’s the lesbians in the league, and perhaps lesbians more generally, who seem to favor trans participation in women’s sports more than, say, your wife, my wife, or other heterosexual women.

Hanson: I think they see it as adding numbers. I think about 2 percent of the population is lesbian, and .001 is trans, but they’ll include them because they see them as another victimized tribal group that can join their coalition.

But it’s not going to work.

At some point, Sophie Cunningham, Caitlin Clark, and some smart investors are going to say, “You know what? I want to start a league—or go somewhere else—where race is incidental, we don’t obsess over it, we don’t constantly talk about sexual orientation, and we try to be good leftists and try to represent America.”

Quoting, ”Who are we? We’re America. We’re diverse. We’re proportionally representative.”

Use all of the left-wing boilerplate.

Of course, when you do that you’re ”racist.” When they do that, they’re ”inclusive.”

Over the past 75 years, the U.S. electricity system has shifted from one dominated by coal to one in which natural gas and renewables supply nearly two-thirds of generation.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, shows annual U.S. electricity generation by source from 1950 to 2025 using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. It tracks output in billions of kilowatt-hours and each source’s share of the electricity mix over time.

Natural Gas and Renewables Lead U.S. Electricity Generation

Coal supplied 46.4% of U.S. electricity in 1950 and remained the country’s largest power source for decades. By 2025, however, its share had fallen to 16.6%. Natural gas moved in the opposite direction, rising from 13.5% to 40.8% and overtaking coal in 2016.

The table below shows each energy source’s share of total U.S. electricity generation at 15-year intervals from 1950 to 2025.

Renewables reached a 24.0% share in 2025 and have remained ahead of coal since 2022. Together, natural gas and renewables supplied 64.8% of U.S. electricity that year.

Coal peaked at 56.9% of the electricity mix in 1988. By 2025, no single source accounted for a majority of U.S. generation.

Coal Declined as U.S. Electricity Generation Surged

Coal generation peaked at 2,016 billion kWh in 2007. By 2025, it had fallen to 737 billion kWh, a decline of 63.4%.

Meanwhile, natural gas generation expanded rapidly with the growth of efficient combined-cycle power plants and abundant shale gas, rising from 45 billion kWh in 1950 to 1,807 billion kWh in 2025.

The table below shows U.S. electricity generation by source at 15-year intervals, measured in billions of kWh:

Over the same period, total U.S. electricity generation rose from 334 billion kWh to 4,430 billion kWh. Natural gas accounted for about 43% of the overall increase, illustrating how it absorbed much of the system’s long-term growth.

The national shift is also visible at the regional level. A recent Visual Capitalist map of what powers each U.S. state and Canadian province shows natural gas as the leading electricity source across much of the United States.

Renewables Set a New Generation Record in 2025

Renewable generation rose to a record 1,064 billion kWh in 2025, equal to 24.0% of total electricity production. That was 93 billion kWh more than in 2024 and nearly twice the 539 billion kWh generated in 2015.

The complete dataset for U.S. electricity generation by source from 1950 to 2025 is available below:

Renewables first edged above coal in 2020, fell back below it in 2021, and moved ahead again in 2022. They remained the larger source through 2025. Renewables also surpassed nuclear in 2021 and have stayed ahead since, while nuclear generation held relatively steady at about 785 billion kWh in 2025.

As U.S. electricity demand records its strongest three-year growth stretch since before the global financial crisis, natural gas and renewables are supplying much of the increase, including demand linked to AI data centers.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out this map, What Powers Each U.S. State and Canadian Province?, on Voronoi.

Authored by Rachel Chiu via the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

Hawaiian residents are challenging ancestry-based housing restrictions in federal court. A pair of lawsuits filed in June and July takes aim at the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, a state agency that reserves long-term homestead leases to individuals who meet the state’s “blood quantum” requirement.

To be eligible for a homestead lease—long-term, affordable leases for residential, agricultural, and pastoral purposes—an applicant must prove that he or she has 50 percent Native Hawaiian ancestry. In any other context, this type of requirement would be instantly illegal. No ordinary government agency or housing authority can deny your application or evict you because of your ancestry. Yet, these controversial rules are very common for determining benefits for indigenous populations, and continue to give the state inordinate power to withhold opportunities and take property from citizens according to overtly discriminatory justifications.

The lead plaintiff in the first lawsuit is Eric Ryan, a lifelong Hawaiian resident whose application for a homestead lease was immediately denied because he was not, as the pre-qualification form required, “at least 50 percent Native Hawaiian.” The legal definition of a Native Hawaiian is a “descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778.” With this narrow construction, the state is empowered to reject thousands of applicants. Meanwhile, many others are left on hold. According to the complaint, the waiting list for new leases exceeds 30,000 applicants, and some have been waiting for more than 40 years.

The Department has sought to expand its efforts to meet the high demand. Last year, it purchased an 82-unit private housing complex in Kauai for a state-run rent-to-own program. But, yet again, the program was reserved for residents who were at least 50 percent Native Hawaiian. This meant that applicants like Ryan would be ineligible and, even worse, existing homeowners would be evicted because of their ancestry. In July, two residents initiated a second lawsuit against the Department. Linda Twitchell, who is not Native Hawaiian, will soon be forced to leave the apartment she has lived in for seven years. Another resident, David Kalahiki, who is 25 percent Native Hawaiian, will not be able to continue living in his home since it will go to someone on the waitlist who meets the strict ancestry cutoff. These evicted residents were forced back into a tumultuous housing market where renters struggle to find affordable homes, and a majority must spend more than 30 percent of their monthly income on rent.

The dispossession of residents through these discriminatory rules unnecessarily exacerbates the housing insecurity within the state. This situation stems from an antiquated and controversial policy: the Department is empowered by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920, a federal law that mandates the blood quantum requirement. It was enacted during Hawaii’s territorial period between annexation and statehood. According to a 1920 House report, lawmakers were concerned about too much social assimilation and native population decline. However, some scholars and commentators have called the requirement a tool of dispossession that was designed to reduce individual autonomy under the guise of protection.

Still, state officials claim that the Act is beneficial rather than harmful. In a statement, Hawaii Governor Josh Green vowed to defend the statute rigorously, and Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez claimed that the program has “provided opportunities, stability, and hope to generations of Native Hawaiian beneficiaries.” But the plaintiffs contend that the ancestral requirement is constitutionally impermissible and violates the guarantee of equal protection under the law.

The Kauai evictions are particularly suspect because they involve the displacement of residents, while Governor Green paradoxically claims that the Act is designed to remedy dispossession. As the complaint alleges: “The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act does not expressly authorize [the Department] to purchase private real property and convert that property into Hawaiian home lands. Rather, the purpose of the Act was to specifically preserve the Hawaiian home lands—real property previously held by the Hawaiian monarchy—for homesteading purposes.” Even if the law has conceptual merit, it is uncertain whether it still accomplishes its intended goals or works against them.

Ultimately, the courts will need to clarify whether these ancestry-based requirements can persist and, separately, whether they justify the ousting of residents from their homes. But as it stands, Hawaii can tell residents that they are insufficiently Native Hawaiian and evict them based on its rigid, government-imposed standard.

Summary

• US official tells Reuters that US will lift blockade upon Omani deal announcement.
• Bessent: Hormuz could reopen under a 30-60 day ceasefire as soon as “today or tomorrow.”
• Iran asserts that US & Israeli vessels remain barred until sanctions are lifted and compensation is paid.
• Trump says the conflict could “end pretty soon,” signaling a possible final US exit.
• Iran remains defiant, pointing out it still has the leverage & can threaten Hormuz.
• However, the deal could reopen oil flows while strengthening Iran’s control over the strait.

*  *  *

US to Lift Blockade once Oman Deal Announced

Importantly, Reuters reports late in the day Friday that Washington plans to lift the naval blockade on Iranian ports once the Oman deal is finalized and announced, which Bessent earlier said could be as soon as ‘today or tomorrow’. If the US were to back down militarily in the Gulf, it would cede effective control of the vital waterway to the Iranians. Per Reuters:

Progress is being made ​between Iran and Oman ‌on the Strait of Hormuz and “we expect a deal soon,” ​a U.S. official told ​Reuters on Friday.

Once a deal ⁠is announced to restore commercial ​shipping without impediments, the ​United States will lift its blockade of Iranian ports, the official said.

“There ​is progress between Oman ​and Iran on the Strait, and ‌we ⁠expect a deal soon,” the official said. “Once the deal is announced to restore commercial ​shipping ​without ⁠impediments, the United States will lift the blockade ​of Iranian ports.”

Iran’s FM is declaring ‘victory’ saying that in the “face of the word’s most expensive military” his country’s forces demonstrated their might and capability…

Iran’s Powerful Armed Forces have shown their readiness, capability, and might in face of the world’s most expensive military.

When Muslims stand together, we can face every challenge by malicious outsiders head-on.

Time to rely only on ourselves and embrace true brotherhood.

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) August 7, 2026

Bessent: Today or Tomorrow the Strait will be Open; Iran Signals ‘Compensation’

Iran has announced that under the ‘finalized’ Oman-Iran scheme and ‘deal’ for management of the Hormuz Strait that “enemy countries” (read: US and Israel) may only transit the waterway after lifting sanctions and paying compensation for the war.

While this was not issued by the Foreign Ministry or top leadership per se, it does appear to represent Tehran’s overall position, after on Thursday it first declared that US and Israeli-linked ships will not be allowed Hormuz transit under the Oman plan:

Tehran Mayor says Passing through the Strait of Hormuz is subject to the lifting of sanctions and the payment of compensation:

“The countries that have attacked Iran will not have the right to use this strait until compensation is paid. Governments that freeze Iranian assets or continue to impose sanctions and threaten the nation will be deprived of this strategic boon.”

While Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has appeared to back the Omani plan to reopen the strait, the US State Department has also newly warned on Friday that more ‘decisive action’ will be taken to cut off sources of Iran’s funding. Bessent has newly stated that…

I think shortly, maybe even today, tomorrow, we are going to see an agreement, a 30- to 60-day ceasefire, and the Strait will be open.

This is somewhat surprising, but as we described below, it seems a final Washington exit is indeed in motion, even if it leaves Iran with greater leverage in the region. Like Trump’s latest comments Thursday night, Bessent seems in ‘mission accomplished’ mode with this newly published interview…

Bessent on Iran:

We have them by the throat, and they’ve got 150–180% food inflation, not able to pay the troops.

I think shortly, maybe even today, tomorrow, we are going to see an agreement, a 30- to 60-day ceasefire, and the Strait will be open.

Energy prices should come… pic.twitter.com/C1vGuQUIRM

— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 7, 2026

This really does sound like ‘it’s finally over’ talk…

Bessent on the Strait of Hormuz:

The strait is never going back to the way it was because the Iranians have used, or tried to use it, as a choke point.

What we are going to see over the next two years, the strait is going to become irrelevant.

It is going to become just… pic.twitter.com/LP8evMbeJP

— Clash Report (@clashreport) August 7, 2026

White House Largely Quiet on Iran-Oman Deal to Manage the Strait

President Trump’s latest Iran comments came Thursday night, after a prior day wherein Iran and Oman unveiled their ‘finalized’ Hormuz management scheme, which most notably includes a ban on all US and Israeli vessels in the energy transit waterway. 

As we reviewed earlier, the White House has appeared to genuinely be searching for an exit strategy, but this stipulation alone may be too hard a pill for Trump to swallow, if accurate – given that it obviously leaves Iran in de facto control of the strait. Many pundits have pointed out it even leaves Iran with more leverage and power in the region than before the launch of Operation Epic Fury.

But this is why Trump’s comments to reporters in the Oval Office Thursday evening are surprising, given that instead of reacting angrily and outright condemning the Iran-Oman plan, his reaction was somewhat muted and meager. Doves who see this war as disastrous and hope for quick exit will welcome the development.

Trump: Going to End Pretty Soon

“I think it’s going to end pretty soon. I don’t think they can go much longer,“ the president said, while leaving his meaning ambiguous. Asserting once again that the US is involved in negotiations with Tehran (something the Iranians have been vehemently denying all along), Trump added that “I think we’re doing fine.”

The only thing Trump truly got angry about Thursday was related to the domestic side of the conflict, after US major media published several reports saying the Pentagon is perilously low on missiles and interceptors, which have been drained after nearly six months of war. He blasted ‘treasonous’ ‘fake reporting’ and even threatened to jail ‘leakers’ over the reports (the inherent contradiction says a lot here).

But again, Trump’s penchant for raging against ‘dishonest’ and ‘evil’ Iranian leaders has been curiously absent over the last several days as the US bombs have fallen silent – after he called off planned ‘harder’ strikes over the weekend (or the last big TACO moment, among many prior).

This relative quiet at the White House comes even after Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf openly mocked the United States and Trump’s theatrics and constant changes of course on X. He wrote Thursday:

“Massive attack coming… wait, never mind, they want to negotiate.” That’s theater diplomacy on loop. Using bullying + broken promises + fake news as leverage is a failed strategy. Acknowledge the facts and fulfill your commitments. We don’t need more theater.

All of this change in Washington tone and posture suggests this could finally be the moment for a true offramp, as the US faces a ‘go big or get out’ realization, and as the prospect of slogging through months more of a developing quagmire becomes too politically and economically costly. This is potentially the declare ‘victory’ and get out moment. As former Congressman Ron Paul has put it: Just Walk Away!

Trump: I think the war with Iran will end pretty soon. I don’t think they can go much longer.

Q: Have you reached a deal to reopen the strait of Hormuz?

Trump: It’s sort of open right now. pic.twitter.com/J3lcPyuVwM

— Acyn (@Acyn) August 6, 2026

This is further evidenced in Trump’s sudden realism, expressed late Thursday in the same Oval Office presser. When asked about the status of the Strait of Hormuz, he admitted that “it’s easy for them to send a drone or two, drop a mine, or deliver a close range missile somewhere along, or in, this Waterway, no matter how badly defeated they are.”

He further acknowledged: 

“People don’t want” to risk ships worth billions of dollars and expose them to the possibility of accidentally hitting a mine in the Strait of Hormuz, he conceded. Trump also claimed Thursday that Hormuz is “sort of open right now,” although fewer than 10 ships per day transited from Sunday through Tuesday, according to Kpler data.

Of course, the US and Iran have been involved in several of these ‘pauses’ and cooling off periods before, which were later revealed to be the ‘calm before the storm’. Tehran has since wised up and pointed out that the Pentagon used these interim periods of no fighting to just rearm, reposition, and ramp up military supply flights to the region.

Joe Kent: ‘Good First Step’ Toward an Exit

Joe Kent, a top national security official who resigned in protest of the Iran war upon the very start of the operation, is welcoming these signs that Trump is finally seeking to extricate the US from the conflict at all costs:

Trump is messaging that he won the war— this is a good first step in extricating us from what would otherwise be a catastrophic mistake. The reality is, the best “deal” we can make with Iran at this point that works in our favor is to just leave—it’s the only case in which POTUS then holds the cards.

He needs to “close the deal” now, before the Iranians force him back into a shooting war. We simply can’t assume that Iran will wait idly for us to make the next move. Alarmingly, it seems we are failing to account for just how aggressively killing the Ayatollah & bombing the girls’ school has radicalized Iranian leadership & its people—it’s very likely that Iran will feel compelled to drag us back into the war in order to force the U.S. to retreat, bloodied, both for the sake of its national honor & for deterrence.

Trump can end this by pulling our troops & ships out of the region now—deprive Iran of targets to hit and the leverage they need to escalate. Trump says we’ve won, therefore we can bring them home.

So either Trump is indeed preparing to go bigger, or this is – belatedly – the final ‘cut and run’ moment that probably the majority of the American public has been hoping for.

Another sign, via his Truth Social latest, that Trump could finally be willing to say ‘mission accomplished’ and get out, while letting the regional and oil transit ‘chips fall’:

Iran Hasn’t Blinked

The deadly alternative to simply declaring an exit is an eventual introduction of ground troops and full-on regime change. Thankfully, Trump officials have continued to by and large condemn this as a legitimate scenario – given it would surely once again put US forces in a new ‘forever war’ that would last years or even decades.

Read our: Visualizing Iran’s Vast Size & Why Any Ground Invasion Means Years-Long Quagmire

But in the meantime, the Iranians do smell weakness and blood in the water. Just before US markets closed Thursday, Tehran announced its forces attacked and struck ‘hostile targets’ at Qeshm island, near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran is remaining defiant, and even sees itself in the driver’s seat with its ability to wage asymmetric warfare against a much larger US foe which is confused on what to do next. This was also on display with Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian having asserted this week in an interview, “Our enemies expected the country to collapse due to the pressures they have exerted.“ He added that these pressures have “reached their maximum”.

Authored by Ed Dowd via ‘Beyond The Narrative’ substack,

…a delicate meal to cook before Midterms…

My conclusions on the Bessent yen intervention:

• The move is a temporary Band-Aid at best and sharp yen strength can historically trigger carry-trade unwinds and risk-asset volatility, but it does not fix Japan’s structural debt or rate differentials. The Fed, BOJ and Treasury are walking a tightrope.

• Consensus is correct that the primary driver is preventing forced sales of Japan’s $1T+ UST holdings that would spike US yields.

• Expanding the FIMA repo facility is a backdoor start to yield-curve control, letting Japan borrow dollars against Treasuries instead of dumping them.

• Bessent is explicitly worried about contagion in his own words by citing the Asian financial crisis trigger from a weak yen and framing the intervention as “stopping an emergency” before it spreads.

• I believe one of the motivations was to delay any major market or yield disruption until at least the midterms.

• Interventions like this rarely stick without fundamental policy shifts and often unleash unintended consequences down the road.

Background

On Friday last week:

July 31 (Reuters) – The U.S. Treasury has informed a number of ‌banks that it may intervene in the Japanese yen market on Friday and that they should “stand ready for future action,” a source familiar with the matter told Reuters.

The notice to banks, channeled through the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, comes a day after Japanese authorities stepped in to prop up the yen, setting ​the currency up for its biggest weekly rise since February, pulling it off of four-decade lows against the dollar.

News of ​the potential intervention by the U.S. Treasury helped push the yen higher against the dollar on Friday. It last traded at ⁠159.09 to the dollar after trading as low 163.65 on Thursday.

On Sunday August 2nd Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent confirmed intervention on X:

The Trump Administration delivers for America’s trusted partners. Economic security is national security. And the U.S.-Japan alliance is built on both.

Friday’s coordinated foreign exchange actions countered disorderly yen movements.

Treasury remains attentive and in close communication with our counterparts at MOF and BOJ. We will not hesitate to participate in further joint intervention.

The FIMA Repo Facility is an important backstop. We would encourage it to be upsized in the coming months.

We strongly support Japan’s decisive market and monetary steps to correct the substantial undervaluation of the yen.

The Takaichi government is moving into an exciting new phase of Abenomics, as nearly 15 years of powerful stimulus have created durable, robust underlying economic dynamics.

Market commentary on X quickly coalesced around protecting the US Treasury market. Japan is one of the largest foreign holders of USTs. A collapsing yen raises the risk of liquidation to defend the currency, pushing US yields higher at a politically sensitive moment. Many skeptics noted the fix is temporary and that the yen’s weakness is rooted in Japan’s public-debt burden and policy divergences, not purely speculative overshoot. Without follow-through on BOJ rates and Japanese fiscal discipline, official buying merely delays the inevitable.

In a clip aired on Bannon’s War Room on August 4, Bessent laid out the contagion risk directly: “One of the things that triggered the Asian financial crisis was a very weak Japanese yen that caused a tsunami across Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Someone asked me, ‘What’s the emergency?’ The emergency is stopping an emergency. We don’t have to wait for the crisis. We can remediate it early.” Bannon’s own brief framing that day was that the effort ultimately keeps Japan financing US deficits so they neither sell nor stop buying Treasuries.

My analysis

I posted this right after the weekend announcement on X:

“Massive, coordinated Yen intervention announced this weekend. Traditionally large delta rapid strengthening of the yen has been associated with risk asset weakness especially global equities. So far this is a 5% down move in USD/JPY (yen strength). Rapid moves can sometimes cause the Yen carry trade to become more expensive and liquidations can occur. In August 2024 a 10% move provided some volatility especially in Japanese equities. The cooks are in the kitchen now and it’s a delicate meal they are preparing.”

Meaning the authorities want to halt the Yen slide but they also don’t want it to strengthen too much and cause the Yen carry trade unwind. The goal is stability. Put another way, we simultaneously don’t want Japanese selling our treasuries out of reserves to defend a weak Yen but we also don’t want to see rapid yen strength cause a cascading global margin call. We saw a milder version of margin call in 2024 when the Yen strengthened 10% very quickly. The market is currently applauding the move. However, a coordinated official bid changes the near-term price action, but it does not erase the underlying positioning or the rate differential that keeps the trade alive.

I agree with the consensus that the core motive is preventing Japanese sales of US Treasuries and that the FIMA expansion is a backdoor beginning of yield-curve control. By letting Japan post Treasuries as collateral for dollar liquidity instead of selling them into the open market, the authorities are effectively capping the upward pressure on US yields. It is a clever, low-visibility way to manage the curve without an explicit Fed QE announcement. Combined with the direct yen purchases, it buys some time. I believe one of the motivations was to delay any major market or yield disruption until at least the midterms. But it is temporary. Japan’s debt dynamics and the need for eventual BOJ normalization remain. History shows these interventions lose effectiveness once markets test the resolve and the size required grows with diminishing returns.

Officials can signal and buy for a while, but without sustained Japanese policy follow-through the yen will eventually drift weaker again, forcing larger and more frequent interventions. Each round raises the risk of the very asset volatility and liquidity events that the cooks are trying to manage. Keep watching the carry-trade heat and the pace of any further coordinated actions…that will tell us whether the meal is cooked well or burnt.

“But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” Matthew 7:26-27

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

President Trump on Thursday threatened “leakers” with jail time over reports about dwindling US military stockpiles as a result of the Iran war, and claimed the US had plenty of munitions available.

“The US has massive amounts of ‘munitions,’ especially of certain types. Additionally, large amounts are being manufactured and shipped to the US as needed,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

“Defense companies are building the largest number of plants and factories in our country’s history. The ‘leakers’ of these treasonous statements are being hunted down,” the president added.

Some of the most significant reports about the shortage of advanced munitions didn’t come from media reports but from analysis published by the think tank the Center for International Studies (CSIS), which used publicly available data to produce its estimates.

CSIS found that the US has used about 60% of its advanced Patriot air defense missiles and about half of its interceptors for the THAAD missile defense system, though sources told CNN that the US had actually used about 80% of its THAADs during the war.

While Trump says that US arms makers are working to produce more munitions, the current rate of weapons use far exceeds the rate at which they can be produced, and it will take years to significantly increase production.

Media reports have also said that the US has used up nearly all of its ATACMS missiles and Precision-Strike Missiles, which were both used extensively in strikes on Iran.

Trump also responded to a report from The Washington Post that said he lashed out at US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth over the munitions shortages, which one source told the outlet was part of the reason why Trump held off on his threats to dramatically escalate the war.

Sources told the Post that on the sidelines of a recent cabinet meeting at Camp David, Trump vented his frustration at Hegseth over the munitions shortages. The report said that Hegseth then blamed his deputy, Stephen Feinberg, for both the shortages and for failing to ensure Trump was informed about the issue.

Asked about dwindling US weapons stockpiles, President Trump on Thursday said there’s a “virtual unlimited supply” of certain munitions and “we have others where it’s a little bit tighter” https://t.co/UFMSGvXiWa pic.twitter.com/lZtfbSuKgB

— Bloomberg (@business) August 6, 2026

“The Fake News, as usual, is spreading false and completely unfounded rumors. I am extremely happy with the job that Pete Hegseth is doing,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. He said that the Post published the report “despite our telling them their story is completely FALSE” and added that he believed their “fake ‘reporting’ is treasonous.”

Authored by Leon Stille via OilPrice.com,

• Rerouting Saudi crude to Asia via Yanbu, Egypt’s SUMED pipeline and the Cape of Good Hope may add around $5 per barrel and up to four weeks to a voyage.

• That premium is small compared with the economic damage caused by losing access to Hormuz or Bab el-Mandeb altogether.

• Saudi Arabia’s alternative export infrastructure is not a temporary workaround but a strategic asset—although it cannot replace the kingdom’s wider need to diversify beyond oil.

The latest Saudi oil route looks absurd on a map.

Crude moves west across Saudi Arabia to Yanbu, north through the Red Sea to Egypt, across the SUMED pipeline from Ain Sokhna to Sidi Kerir, then west through the Mediterranean before tankers sail around the Cape of Good Hope to reach customers in Asia.

Oil that started relatively close to Asia first travels thousands of kilometres in the opposite direction.

The detour reportedly adds around $5 per barrel once extra freight, fuel, insurance and pipeline charges are included. For a two-million-barrel cargo, that approaches $10 million. Aramco is therefore considering a separate pricing mechanism for crude loaded from Egypt’s Mediterranean port of Sidi Kerir, because its normal Asian official selling price no longer reflects the logistics.

The immediate conclusion is that avoiding Hormuz has made Saudi oil structurally more expensive.

That is true. But it misses the more important point.

Five dollars per barrel is not only the cost of disruption. It is the price of having another option when two of the world’s most vulnerable shipping chokepoints can no longer be treated as permanently available.

Two chokepoints turned one contingency route into another

Saudi Arabia’s first line of defence against disruption in the Strait of Hormuz is its East-West Pipeline. It carries crude from the kingdom’s producing region in the east to Yanbu on the Red Sea, avoiding Hormuz completely.

That system has proved its value. Aramco says it ramped the pipeline up to its maximum capacity of 7 million barrels per day during the first quarter of 2026. Around 2 million barrels per day feed western refineries, leaving roughly 5 million barrels per day of export capacity.

However, moving oil to Yanbu solves only the first geographical problem. Asian buyers would normally take those cargoes south through the Red Sea and exit via Bab el-Mandeb. Houthi threats and attacks have made that route unreliable as well.

The newer workaround therefore does not avoid the Red Sea entirely, as some viral descriptions claim. It uses the northern Red Sea between Yanbu and Ain Sokhna, but avoids the Houthi-exposed Bab el-Mandeb passage by moving through Egypt and into the Mediterranean.

From there, the ship still faces a remarkable journey. It must leave the Mediterranean through Gibraltar, sail around Africa and cross the Indian Ocean back towards Asia.

Reuters calculated that the journey to Asia can increase from about 19 days to 48 days. Fuel costs for a tanker can rise from approximately $1.26 million to $2.87 million, before adding around $1 million in Suez Canal fees. Fully laden very large crude carriers may also need to discharge part of their cargo into the SUMED pipeline before transiting the canal and reload it at Sidi Kerir.

None of this is cheap or efficient.

But the relevant alternative is not the old route operating normally. It is a delayed cargo versus no cargo.

The $5 premium is smaller than the risk it insures

Oil markets are accustomed to treating infrastructure efficiency as a question of cents per barrel. Under stable conditions, that makes sense. Producers compete on transport costs, crude quality and refinery margins, while buyers optimise routes aggressively.

Geopolitical resilience follows different economics.

An extra $5 on an $85 barrel is a material cost increase, but it is small compared with the price spikes, refinery shortages and lost export revenues caused by a major supply interruption. Saudi exports were down by around 2.4 million barrels per day year-on-year during the recent disruption, while Gulf exports fell to only 36% of pre-war levels.

Even more importantly, the risks do not disappear the moment both straits formally reopen.

Iran does not need to close Hormuz permanently to influence shipping. Mines, drone attacks, seizures or even credible threats can raise insurance premiums and persuade shipowners to wait. The Houthis have demonstrated a similar ability to disrupt Red Sea traffic with relatively inexpensive weapons.

A reopened chokepoint is therefore not the same thing as a dependable chokepoint.

That changes how the detour should be valued. The additional route is comparable to spare generation capacity in an electricity system or a second supplier in an industrial supply chain. It may look expensive when everything works. Its value becomes obvious only when the primary route fails.

Saudi Arabia has maintained this kind of optionality better than many producers. Despite the severe regional disruption, Aramco reported 98.4% supply reliability in the second quarter, supported by the East-West Pipeline, storage, alternative terminals and its international logistics network.

The $5 premium is part of the cost of preserving that record.

Redundancy is becoming part of the barrel

The important shift is that Aramco may now need different pricing formulas for the same crude depending on where it is loaded and how it reaches the buyer.

Official selling prices, or OSPs, are the monthly differentials that producers apply relative to regional crude benchmarks. They normally reflect grade quality, market conditions and destination. A separate Sidi Kerir formula would make logistics resilience an explicit component of the barrel’s price.

That is not necessarily permanent for every cargo. If Hormuz and Bab el-Mandeb become reliably navigable again, the longest route will lose its commercial appeal. Asian refiners will not voluntarily pay millions more for an unnecessary voyage.

But the infrastructure should not be viewed as stranded the moment normal shipping resumes. Saudi Arabia is already considering expanding its east-west pipeline capacity by as much as 2 million barrels per day. Yanbu is being repositioned from a secondary outlet into a strategic export hub. SUMED, Suez, Mediterranean storage and flexible tanker arrangements add further options.

The lesson of 2026 is that relying on a single efficient route can be more expensive than maintaining several imperfect ones.

This will influence investment decisions well beyond Saudi Arabia. Pipelines, terminals and storage assets previously judged as underutilised may acquire a resilience premium. Buyers may accept higher costs for supply contracts with genuine routing flexibility. Insurers and lenders will increasingly distinguish between producers that have contingency infrastructure and those whose exports depend on one exposed waterway.

The result is a higher structural logistics cost for some barrels, even if benchmark oil prices fall.

Better oil logistics do not solve Saudi Arabia’s larger problem

There is, however, a danger in celebrating resilience too much.

Saudi Arabia can spend billions making oil exports harder to interrupt, but it cannot make global oil demand permanent. Electric vehicles, efficiency, alternative fuels and climate policy will gradually erode demand growth. The kingdom ultimately needs business models that do not depend on exporting ever-larger volumes of crude.

Riyadh understands this. According to its Vision 2030 annual report, non-oil activities accounted for 55% of real GDP in 2025, while non-oil government revenue had risen substantially since 2016. Investment in tourism, logistics, mining, manufacturing, technology and renewable energy is intended to reduce the economy’s exposure to oil.

Those figures should not be confused with completed diversification. Oil remains central to exports, fiscal capacity and the financing of many non-oil investments. Some flagship projects are expensive, and turning state-led spending into self-sustaining private activity remains difficult.

Yet this is not an either-or choice.

Saudi Arabia needs to protect the oil revenues it still earns while using those revenues to build an economy that will eventually need them less. More flexible export infrastructure supports the first task. Vision 2030 is supposed to deliver the second.

The Cape route may add $5 per barrel. That is the visible cost.

The invisible value is that Saudi Arabia can still sell the barrel when the shortest routes become unusable.

In an oil market shaped increasingly by drones, missiles and maritime chokepoints, redundancy is no longer wasted infrastructure.

It is part of the product.

Another small nuclear reactor has achieved “criticality,” marking the fifth new reactor type to be certified as operationally viable in the United States since June, after none were certified for more than a half-century, as the nation’s “nuclear renaissance” quickly advances to commercial mass-production.

Santa Clara, California-based Oklo’s Groves Isotope Test Reactor reached criticality on Aug. 5 at the company’s plant in Lockhart, Texas, and will produce isotopes for medicine, advanced manufacturing, scientific research, space exploration, and national security needs.

Unlike massive cement-siloed, utility-scale reactors such as the Westinghouse AP1000, the Groves reactor is a circular 22.5-foot-diameter nuclear generator that can be shipped by truck or rail and planted in a 35-foot-deep reinforced concrete cavity, making it a distinct entry in an expanding range of small, portable reactors on the cusp of being retail ready.

As John Haughey details for The Epoch Times, Oklo is one of 10 companies selected by the Department of Energy (DOE) in August 2025 to develop 11 “first mover” innovations under a reactor pilot program authorized by President Donald Trump in four May 2025 “Nuclear Renaissance” executive orders that call for licensing 10 new reactors by 2030 and quadrupling the nation’s nuclear energy capacity by 2050.

The president’s executive orders included incentives for three prototypes to reach “criticality” by July 4 to commemorate the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding. That goal was eclipsed when Aalo Atomics’ Aalo-X became the fourth small reactor to attain criticality on July 4 after Antares Nuclear’s Mark-0 on June 4 became the first new reactor type in the United States to achieve the status since 1973.

With Oklo’s Groves reactor becoming the fifth to reach criticality in the last two months, Trump’s five-year goal for 10 small reactor types to be validated is already halfway accomplished. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said as many as seven would achieve criticality by year’s end.

The Groves reactor is one of two Oklo reactor developments that qualified for the pilot program. The company is also building a 75 megawatt reactor to anchor its Aurora Powerhouse Project at Idaho National Laboratory’s Materials and Fuels Complex, a prototype the company anticipates will be ready for “commercial operations” by 2028.

The Groves reactor is also one of two that attained viability in a privately owned plant rather than on the 890-square-mile Idaho National Lab near Idaho Falls.

“Thanks to President Trump’s precedent-setting directive to create the Reactor Pilot Program, Oklo’s Groves Isotope Test Reactor is part of the revival of America’s nuclear energy industry,” Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Ted Garrish said in a statement. “We applaud the work of the Oklo, DOE, and Idaho National Laboratory staff who helped achieve this milestone.”

United States Energy Secretary Chris Wright speaks with Kiewit Construction Site Manager Marvin Robb (L) and Atlas Engineering Project Manager Hillary Hack during a June 25 tour of Oklo’s Aurora Powerhouse Project at Idaho National Laboratory. John Haughey/The Epoch Times

Built in a Year

During a tour of Idaho National Laboratory in late June, Oklo Co-Founder and CEO Jacob DeWitte said the company’s Groves reactor in Texas would soon reach criticality despite being built from scratch in less than a year.

The company began building the open, water-cooled reactor designed to supply domestic radioisotopes for medical imaging, cancer treatments, and national defense in September 2025, he said, and received DOE’s “substantial completion” certification in April, clearing it for criticality.

“It’s dang impressive that we hit substantial completion in 227 days, and that we’ll be able to turn that reactor on in critical in less than a year,” he said. “We’re just waiting on the green light to take fuel, load it, and turn it on.”

That green light came late on Aug. 5.

“Reaching criticality in less than a year is an incredible milestone for our team,” DeWitte said in an Aug. 6 statement. “Oklo developed Groves from a greenfield site on private land, completed full-scale civil excavation and construction, manufactured or commercially procured all components, including fuel, and developed its operating programs in-house.

“Taken together,” he added, “we believe these accomplishments establish a new benchmark for the Reactor Pilot Program and set the stage for the future of advanced nuclear deployment at scale.”

The nation—the world—is poised to see “advanced nuclear deployment at scale” with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission expected this fall to adopt Part 57, a micro-reactor regulatory framework that trims license reviews from often more than a decade to between six and 12 months.

Under Part 57, when the commission issues a license for a prototype reactor, the developer doesn’t need further approvals to mass produce it. Public comment on the rule closed July 15. Commissioners are expected to debate and adopt a final rule no later than early 2027.

“Ordering one [reactor] is cool, but ordering 10 is a lot better,” DeWitte said in Idaho. “There’s a future for that, for sure.”

Oklo is engaged in multiple nuclear energy projects in addition to its Groves reactor and Aurora Powerhouse, including a fuel fabrication plant prototype to recycle fuels from Idaho National Lab’s Experimental Breeder Reactor-II, idle since 1994; a co-partnership with Nvidia in a fuel project at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico; and its September 2025 contract with hyperscaler Meta to power a 200-acre data center campus in Pike County, Ohio, with a small reactor by the early 2030s.