The Department of Homeland Security’s social media team on X spent the weekend blaming Democrats for the travel chaos unfolding at airports nationwide, as TSA agents failed to report to work during a funding lapse caused by Senate Democrats’ refusal to fund the DHS budget without reforms to ICE and Border Patrol.

“Thanks to the Democrats’ shutdown, travelers at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport are again seeing MASSIVE security lines this morning,” DHS said on X on Saturday. “The Democrats’ political games are making spring break travel a NIGHTMARE for Americans as they continue to withhold funding from DHS and refuse to pay our heroic @TSA officers.”

Thanks to the Democrats’ shutdown, travelers at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport are again seeing MASSIVE security lines this morning.

The Democrats’ political games are making spring break travel a NIGHTMARE for Americans as they continue to withhold funding from DHS and… https://t.co/KsChjpcDnJ

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) March 15, 2026

DHS said Sunday that “Airports coast to coast are seeing major delays, HOURS-long security lines, and missed flights because of the Democrats’ DHS shutdown.”

Airports coast to coast are seeing major delays, HOURS-long security lines, and missed flights because of the Democrats’ DHS shutdown.

SAVE SPRING BREAK. REOPEN DHS NOW. https://t.co/ABeVfNiG2C

— Homeland Security (@DHSgov) March 15, 2026

A reader on Sunday evening sent ZeroHedge Tips a photo showing, he said, roughly 200 travelers stuck in line at BWI Airport’s international customs, with only two CBP agents staffing the booths while at least a dozen booths sat empty. He added that the Global Entry line had only a handful of passengers, who were waved through quickly, while non-Global Entry travelers were left waiting in what seemed like an hours-long line.

Last weekend, similar travel chaos unfolded at some airports, with TSA lines taking hours just to enter terminals. The disruption prompted ten U.S. airline and aviation heads to pen an open letter to Congress on Sunday, urging lawmakers to resolve the DHS funding dispute.

“That comes as no surprise. Americans—who live in your districts and home states—are tired of long lines at airports, travel delays and flight cancellations caused by shutdown after shutdown. Yet, once again air travel is the political football amid another government shutdown,” the chief executive officers of Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, American Airlines, Alaska Air Group, Southwest Airlines, JetBlue Airways, and United Parcel Service wrote in the letter.

The executives continued, “It’s past time for the government to make sure that TSA officers, U.S. Customs clearance officers at airports, and air traffic controllers are paid for the job they do.”

The current political battle has persisted for nearly a month after Senate Democrats refused to fund a DHS budget without reforms to ICE and Border Patrol. Democrats are frustrated that Trump is using the federal government to deport illegal aliens (whom they consider a potential future voting bloc). Democrats would like to see ICE significantly reformed or eliminated, as they view its power as an existential threat to their political party’s survivability.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Last week, Chief Judge James Boasberg delivered a blow to the criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell by tossing out grand jury subpoenas. Boasberg declared the investigation overtly political and coercive, without any criminal predicate. The decision is a rare rejection of a duly issued grand jury subpoena at this stage of an investigation. In my view, he was premature and could face a difficult appeal in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, Bd. of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. U.S.

I have previously expressed skepticism about the investigation into Powell and share concerns about the alleged use of the criminal justice system to pressure the Federal Reserve Board. However, the question is when a court can make such a judgment at this stage of the investigation. Prosecutors are generally entitled to make their case and these subpoenas sought potential evidence of waste or corruption.

Boasberg has long been one of the most vocal critics of President Donald Trump on the bench, including a series of orders to stop the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador and, recently, an order for their return. He was also the subject of an ethics complaint by the Administration over statements made at a judicial conference that portrayed President Trump as a threat to the rule of law. (For the record, I opposed the effort to impeach Judge Boasberg).

In the latest controversy, Boasberg rejected the premise of the criminal investigation of Powell:

“The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.”

Judge Boasberg quotes Trump’s personal attacks on Powell after he continued to refuse to lower interest rates. These include signature all-caps attacks from the President:

“Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair. He is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS …. Put another way, ‘Too Late’ is a TOTAL LOSER, and our Country is paying the price!”

Boasberg noted over 100 such postings, including “‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government …. TOO LATE’s an American Disgrace!”

He also noted a menacing statement by the President that, if the Fed does not cut rates, “I may have to force something.”

This is not the first time that the President’s social media postings have been used as evidence against Administration policies in federal cases.

Many of us have criticized the President over personal attacks on judges or other officials.

However, courts generally do not impute an unlawful motive to criminal investigations or prosecutions if there is an otherwise valid purpose or allegation.

Judge Boasberg dismisses any such possibility of a valid purpose, writing:

“The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.

On the other side of the scale, the Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President. The Court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications for these subpoenas are mere pretexts. It will therefore grant the Board’s Motion to Quash. It will also grant the Board’s Motion to Partially Unseal the Motion to Quash, related briefing, and this Opinion….”

Once again, I do not fault the court for skepticism, but I do have serious concerns over his timing and his own possible bias in issuing such a ruling.

The Administration has an active but still early criminal investigation into the massive spending on renovations to the Federal Reserve building. To that end, the Justice Department served two subpoenas on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, seeking records about the renovations of the Board’s buildings as well as Powell’s prior congressional testimony on those renovations. The Board filed a Motion to Quash, contending that the subpoenas are a raw play to force Powell to resign or to bend to the will of the President.

After reading the Boasberg opinion, my concerns only increased. At every juncture, Judge Boasberg ends his analysis with conclusory statements about his perception of the real motivation behind the case. That is a dangerous propensity for an Article III judge who must separate the politics from the merits in such challenges. In this case, Boasberg simply concluded that politics was the merits.

The court notes, correctly, that there are prior cases where grand jury subpoenas have been found improper if they are simply “fishing expeditions” or targeting “targets of investigation out of malice or an intent to harass.” They can also be quashed if prosecutors are seeking to meddle with an official’s duties. Such cases are very rare and the cited cases do not seem dispositive or even particularly helpful in the instant case.

The problem is that the main precedent relied on by the court suggests that this opinion is not just premature but itself an example of bias.

The court relies on Trump v. Vance to support the authority to quash an indictment. However, that case involved state prosecutors using grand-jury subpoenas financial records of President Trump and his businesses. Without actually ruling on whether the subpoenas were proper, the Court warned that state DAs cannot use grand-jury subpoenas to “interfer[e] with a President’s official duties.”

That case presented a threshold problem of state officials using the grand jury to target a president with obvious concerns over the Supremacy Clause. Judge Boasberg rightly noted that the clear import is that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly ….”

However, this is not something that the Justice Department is “barred from doing directly.” It has stated that the over-budget renovations raise concerns over fraud and wrongdoing. That is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.

Judge Boasberg cited cases such as NRA of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 190 (2024) as an example of the bar on doing indirectly what you are barred from doing directly. However, like Vance, that case only makes this opinion stand out more. The case involved a New York state official using her powers to pressure banks and other companies not to do business with the NRA. That is manifestly different from the context in which prosecutors seek to enforce duly issued subpoenas to investigate possible fraud or waste in the criminal system.

Judge Boasberg then veers significantly from these cases with a series of conclusory remarks. He virtually mocks the suggestion that the Administration is acting in light of the massive costs and overruns, noting “buildings often go over budget.” Yet that does not mean federal officials are therefore barred from launching investigations into such matters.

The court further stresses that budget overruns “standing alone, hardly suggests that a crime occurred.” The question, again, is whether the required threshold is showing. The costs of the federal building are breathtaking and arguably unprecedented in terms of square foot expenditures. The court does not explain what showing is necessary to commence a criminal investigation. This is an early subpoena seeking basic documentary evidence.

The court notes that inspectors general have authority to investigate overruns and waste, adding that there was no such finding in this case. However, once again, the question is why that is relevant to the question before the Court. The IG may indeed be a better avenue for investigation, but there is nothing legally that forestalls an investigation by the Justice Department.

Once again, Judge Boasberg has voiced concerns shared by many on the basis of this criminal investigation. However, that is speculation in commentary. Judge Boasberg is not a talking head. He is a federal judge who must decide whether, despite such personal suspicions or inclinations, the court can bar otherwise valid grand jury subpoenas issued in an early stage of investigation.

The irony is that, while castigating the prosecutors for a lack of evidence, Judge Boasberg relies on dubious evidence to establish that political harassment is the dominant motivation. Quoting all-caps postings of the President does not offer evidence of a sole or dominant motive in an investigation. It is itself speculative and presumptive.

While Judge Boasberg notes that, “[w]ith varied improper purposes popping up on different occasions, it is clear that such purposes cannot be reduced to a fixed and exhaustive list,” he does not offer any clarity on when an investigation into fraud or waste would be demonstrably valid in its earliest stages. The court acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held there is no need for the Government to establish probable cause as the basis for issuing a grand-jury subpoena.

So that is the standard here other than Judge Boasberg’s suspicions based on public statements from the President?

The court merely states

“What the Court must determine is whether the Board is correct in its inference. In other words, what is these subpoenas’ dominant purpose? A mountain of evidence suggests that the dominant purpose is to harass Powell to pressure him to lower rates.”

That dominant purpose is far from evident. There is no evidence that Powell will yield to the pressure to lower rates, and many of us have noted that this would be a particularly ham-handed effort to get him to do so. From what we have seen, Powell has little to fear from this inquiry on a personal level. If anything, the improper purpose would seem like raw retaliation. However, there is also the pesky claim in the grand jury and captured in these subpoenas that the Administration believes that there is fraud or waste – and the possibility of false testimony. How would the court know at this stage that such claims are meritless or fraudulent? More importantly, what would stop future courts from rendering the same inferential judgment on presidents that they oppose?

Rather than answer that question, Boasberg returns to all-caps posts about how much the President despises Powell and wants him gone. The problem is that both positions could be true. The President could want Powell gone while the Justice Department could want to investigate waste and fraud.

For example, Boasberg quotes Trump as saying “we’re thinking about bringing a gross incompetence, what’s called a gross incompetence lawsuit, it’s gross incompetence, against Powell . . . I’d love to fire him. Maybe I still might.”

The problem is that Trump could believe that Powell is grossly incompetent and that he allowed massive overruns on this project. Boasberg just assumes that Trump wants Powell gone and even makes a veiled analogy to King Henry II signaling to his henchmen to kill Thomas Becket:

“In sum, the President spent years essentially asking if no one will rid him of this troublesome Fed Chair.” 

(In this modern remake, apparently the murderous King is Trump, the saintly Becket is Powell, and the henchman is Pirro).

What is particularly disturbing is how the court dismisses the independent ethical duty of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to have a good-faith basis for seeking such subpoenas. 

Judge Boasberg writes:

“True, most of the evidence above speaks to the motives of the President, not the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Yet judges ‘are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.’ Dep’t of Com. v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 785 (2019) (quotation marks omitted). The U.S. Attorney was appointed by the President and can be fired by him. Her peer one district over was recently pushed out for refusing to prosecute the President’s opponents.”

This, for me, was the final abandonment of objectivity where assumptions become reality. By dismissing Pirro’s independent motivation, Boasberg leaves the weight of his own evidence as a string of social media posts. He ignores a major push by the administration to seek out government waste and fraud, which began with the DOGE efforts and was recently followed by the appointment of a “tsar” to root out fraud in federal programs. There is no serious debate that this Administration has made combating fraud and waste a priority and has taken unprecedented steps to investigate and prosecute such wrongdoing. Yet the court suggests that Pirro is merely clinging to her job by blindly carrying out the President’s demands.

None of this means that the court would lack the authority or a possible basis to dismiss this action at a later stage. My primary concern is the timing and the court’s presumptive analysis at this early stage. I fail to see a discernible standard in this case that would inform future courts or officials … other than presidents should not post in all caps or troll officials. While Judge Boasberg chastises the Justice Department for yielding too readily to its impulses, this opinion seems strikingly impulsive in critical aspects.

The Justice Department is appealing this opinion. We may see greater clarity on the underlying standard as the case works toward the Supreme Court.

Here is the opinion: Boasberg Opinion

By Noi Mahoney of FreightWaves

Mexico’s heavy-vehicle industry posted sharp year-over-year declines in production, exports and sales in February, signaling continued weakness across the country’s truck manufacturing sector.

Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) reported that 6,974 heavy vehicles were produced in February, a 49.1% decline compared to the same month in 2025. Exports also fell, with 7,849 units shipped abroad, a 32% drop year over year.

The declines also offer a window into the broader North American freight cycle. Mexico is a key production hub for tractor-trailers used by U.S. fleets moving goods across the U.S.-Mexico border. When freight demand softens or carriers delay fleet upgrades in the U.S., Mexico’s truck factories and export volumes often move in tandem.

Domestic demand also weakened significantly. Retail sales totaled 2,303 units in February, down 38.9% from a year earlier, while wholesale sales reached 1,836 units, a 27.3% decline compared with February 2025.

For the first two months of 2026, the industry produced 13,767 heavy vehicles, representing a 50.5% decline from the same period last year, while exports totaled 12,925 units, down 42.6% year over year.

Domestic truck demand continues long slide

Industry officials say the downturn reflects weakening demand in Mexico’s domestic trucking market, which has now posted more than a year of declines.

Cristina Vázquez, coordinator of economic studies for the Mexican Association of Automotive Distributors (AMDA), said the market has been in a prolonged contraction.

“With the results released today, we have accumulated 14 consecutive months of decline in the Mexican market in year-over-year terms,” Vázquez said during a news conference on Tuesday.

Retail sales in February totaled 2,303 heavy vehicles, nearly 39% fewer than the same month in 2025, reflecting a slowdown after record demand in 2024.

Vázquez said weakening investment trends are also weighing on truck purchases.

“The fixed gross investment indicator — particularly machinery and equipment — has been in negative territory for more than a year,” she said. “That sends a very relevant signal about confidence in the economic environment and the willingness of companies to invest in capital assets such as heavy vehicles.”

Production slump spreads across truck segments

Manufacturing declines were widespread across the heavy truck sector.

Of the 6,974 heavy vehicles produced in February, about 6,739 were cargo trucks and tractor-trailers, while 235 were passenger buses, according to figures presented during the news conference.

Cargo vehicles account for the vast majority of Mexico’s heavy-vehicle production, representing more than 97% of total output during the first two months of 2026.

Exports still dominated by U.S. market

Despite the sharp annual decline, exports rebounded slightly compared with January.

Mexico exported 7,849 heavy vehicles in February, up more than 50% from January, according to data from Mexico’s National Association of Bus, Truck and Tractor-Trailer Producers (Anpact).

Alejandro Osorio, director of public affairs and communication at ANPACT, said the month-to-month improvement offered cautious optimism.

“These are incipient but encouraging signs in the behavior of exports,” Osorio said during the news conference. 

However, exports remain significantly lower than a year earlier. The U.S. accounted for 91.3% of shipments in February, followed by Canada (5.7%) and Colombia (2.6%).

The 16 members of Anpact in Mexico are Freightliner, Kenworth, Navistar, Hino, International, DINA, MAN SE, Mercedes-Benz, Isuzu, Scania, Shacman Trucks, Foton, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Daimler Buses Mexico and Volkswagen Buses.

Osorio said the industry is navigating a volatile global environment that continues to affect demand.

“The industry is facing a complex environment marked by adjustments in domestic demand and volatility in international markets,” he said. “Strengthening competitiveness and recovering the internal market will be key for the sector going forward.”

Freightliner was the top truck producer and exporter in Mexico in February, producing 5,538 trucks, a 32% year-over-year decline. The truck maker exported 5,264 units during the month, a 31% year-over-year decrease.

International Trucks Inc. was the No. 2 producer and exporter during February, manufacturing 307 trucks, a 91% year-over-year decrease. The truck maker’s exports fell 31% year-over-year to 2,251 units during the month.

Used truck imports cited as industry concern

Industry representatives also warned that rising imports of used trucks from the U.S. are undercutting new-vehicle sales in Mexico.

Osorio said the imbalance between new and used truck purchases has become a major distortion in the market.

“For every 100 new heavy vehicles sold in Mexico, about 64 used trucks enter the country,” he said, warning the trend is harming domestic manufacturers and transport companies. 

Older imported trucks also raise environmental and safety concerns, he added, because many units arriving in Mexico have already logged hundreds of thousands of miles in the U.S.

Industry outlook uncertain

Guillermo Rosales, executive president of AMDA, said the heavy-vehicle sector is facing multiple economic headwinds, including geopolitical uncertainty and fuel price volatility.

“We are living through a period of tariff volatility and also volatility in fuel prices derived from international conflicts,” Rosales said during the briefing. 

Despite the slowdown, Rosales said the industry expects demand to eventually stabilize as freight activity improves.

“The heavy-vehicle industry established in Mexico has historically relied on the recovery of both the domestic and external markets to return to normality,” he said. 

Industry leaders say the outlook for the remainder of 2026 will depend heavily on freight demand, investment trends and cross-border trade activity across North America.

Shares of Chinese EV maker BYD surged the most in 13 months after a report that its factory in Bahia, Brazil, a former Ford Motor plant, secured export orders for about 100,000 vehicles from Argentina and Mexico. This development suggests BYD’s strategy to localize production in South America is still in its early stages and set to flood the continent with Chinese EVs.  

Bloomberg quoted Macquarie Capital analyst Eugene Hsiao, who said the local Chinese media report about BYD’s Brazil factory receiving large orders from Argentina and Mexico suggests that “this is positive for the broader BYD thesis, which is that overseas sales will become the core growth and profit driver over time.”

Brazil is BYD’s largest market outside China. The factory in Bahia is critical to the Chinese company’s overseas expansion plans in the Americas. The plant has a capacity to make 150,000 EVs per year.

In BYD’s home market of China, overall sales for the first two months of the year slumped 36% to 400,241 units. Competition in China has intensified as rivalry among domestic brands grows fiercer. However, exports have gained solid traction, with the company now planning to sell 1.3 million cars abroad.

“A higher gas price would potentially drive demand in the European market, which would benefit Chinese automakers that export to that market such as BYD,” Morningstar analyst Vincent Sun said, adding, “For Chinese market, gas bill is not as big a driver to EV demand as in overseas market.”

BYD shares in Hong Kong surged 8% on Monday, marking the largest gain in 13 months, as news of overseas expansion lifted investor sentiment.

The stock was a top performer on the Hang Seng Tech Index, with trading volume doubling to 35.7 million shares. Peers including Nio and Xiaomi climbed more than 5%.

Top BYD headlines (courtsey of Bloomberg):

• The Brazil plant has annual capacity of 150,000 vehicles and will increase production to 600,000 vehicles in phases

• BYD will launch the premium Denza Z9GT electric vehicle in Europe on April 8, offering up to 800 kilometers range

• The new vehicle can charge from 10% to 70% in about five minutes using BYD’s latest fast-charging system

• BYD unveiled its second-generation Blade Battery on March 9, promising to charge EVs from 10% to 97% in under nine minutes

• BYD is exploring entry into Formula 1 and endurance racing to boost global brand appeal

• BYD is actively considering building a manufacturing plant in Canada and keeping options open to acquire a global automaker

For readers heading to Mexico for spring break, one of the first things you may notice after stepping outside the airport terminal is how many BYD vehicles are already on the road. The flood of Chinese EVs is shifting into hyperdrive, and in the Americas, the invasion is already underway.

After Friday’s revelation that it was the first consecutive monthly Friday 13th for 11 years, DB’s Jim Reid writes that today’s nearly-as-impressive revelation is that this week sees the Fed, ECB, BoJ and BoE all meet in a single calendar week for the first time since December 2021. So a “super week” for central banks. All of them will have a very complex backdrop to deal with, shaped by geopolitical risk, volatile energy prices, and unsettled inflation dynamics.

Clearly the Middle East is the center of attention for markets right now, with oil prices fluctuating rapidly depending on the mood of the moment, which in turn is set by rapid burst headlines which are stale by the time the next flashing red headline hits. And since every asset class now reacts to any up or down tick in oil, it leads to cross-asset chaos, to say the least. The bigger problem, of course, is that the longer the conflict lasts, and the higher oil prices rise, the more hawkish central banks will have to be no matter the AI-driven bloodbath in the labor market. 

Indeed, while the Iran war is set to dominate the week ahead, we do still have those four big central bank meetings, where all eyes will be on their reaction functions to the war’s impact and the latest oil shock. Starting with the Fed, DB economists expect them to keep rates unchanged this week and think they’ll emphasize elevated geopolitical uncertainty. They only expect minor statement tweaks, including smoothed language on recent labor data (especially given January and February’s conflicting payrolls) and a nod to geopolitical risks, highlighting uncertainty and near-term upside pressure on inflation. Then at the press conference, they think Chair Powell is likely to stress that recent events mainly transmit through financial conditions—particularly oil prices. For now, however, economists think he’ll avoid signalling any meaningful shift in the near term policy outlook.

For the Fed, an important consequence of the conflict is that higher energy prices have begun to feed into inflation assumptions. So DB’s economists have nudged up their headline inflation estimates for this year, and they expect Fed officials to reflect a similar adjustment when they publish their updated Summary of Economic Projections. Indeed, core PCE inflation has registered back-to-back 0.4% monthly increases now, pushing the year-on-year rate to 3.1%, the highest since early 2024. For the dot plot, economists are still expecting it to signal one rate cut this year, although it wouldn’t take much to shift the median dot for 2026. Clearly though, the outlook is going to remain heavily dependent on the oil price. For example, our economists have found that a sustained oil price around $100/bbl would still see the projected tax benefits to consumers from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act outweigh the drag from higher effective energy costs. However, a move toward $150/bbl would pose a more material risk to consumer spending and the broader outlook.

Beyond the Fed, this week’s incoming data is unlikely to materially alter the tone of the meeting. February’s industrial production today is expected to rise by 0.3%, slower than January’s 0.7%, largely due to softer utility output, though oil and gas extraction will be worth monitoring. Otherwise, the regional manufacturing surveys from New York and Philadelphia could reflect some drag from geopolitical uncertainty, with particular attention on capital spending components. And given the recent labor market volatility, Thursday’s initial jobless claims will take on added importance as they fall within the March employment survey window.

Away from the US, this Thursday will bring the ECB, BoE and BoJ meetings, with DB economists expecting all three to leave rates on hold, with the emphasis firmly on guidance rather than action. At the ECB, expect the Governing Council to acknowledge heightened uncertainty and near-term upside risks to inflation, while stopping short of explicitly flagging medium term risks. Also expect a strong reiteration of policy flexibility and a clear message underscoring the ECB’s unwavering commitment to price stability, with officials keen to signal that they stand ready to act to avoid a repeat of the 2022–23 inflation episode. 

Then in the UK, DB thinks the MPC will lean into a dovish wait and see stance amid a more clouded outlook following the Iran related energy shock. Expect a less divided vote than in February, with the majority favoring an unchanged Bank Rate, while two members continue to favor a cut. Although DB economists still sees two rate cuts this year, recent developments have pushed back the expected timing.

Over in Japan, the BoJ is expected to maintain its current stance, with attention focused on Governor Ueda’s press conference. While underlying fundamentals could justify an early hike, elevated oil prices and growth risks are likely to temper near term action, and sustained crude prices above $100/bbl would reduce the likelihood of an April move. Meanwhile, other central banks making decisions this week include the RBA (Tuesday; expect a hike), the BoC (Wednesday), the SNB and the Riksbank (Thursday). The latter three are widely expected to see no change in rates.

Finally this week, notable data includes Germany’s Zew survey for March tomorrow and UK labor market data due Thursday. In the geopolitical sphere, President Trump and Japanese PM Takaichi are meeting in Washington, with defence cooperation expected to be the primary topic (see more in our Chief Japan economist’s week ahead here). In Europe, this week’s events include an EU leaders’ summit (Thursday to Friday). And on earnings, the lineup includes Micron, FedEx and Lululemon in the US as well as Tencent and Alibaba in China. See the day-by-day calendar of events at the end as usual for more.

Courtesy of DB, here is a day-by-day calendar of events

Monday March 16

• Data: US March Empire manufacturing index, NAHB housing market index, February industrial production, capacity utilisation, China February retail sales, industrial production, home prices, investment, Italy January general government debt, Canada February CPI, housing starts
• Earnings: Standard Life
• Other: EU foreign affairs council meeting

Tuesday March 17

• Data: US March New York Fed services business activity, February leading index, pending home sales, Germany March Zew survey, Eurozone March Zew survey, Canada February existing home sales
• Central banks: RBA decision
• Earnings: Lululemon, Oklo
• Auctions: US 20-yr Bond (reopening, $13bn)

Wednesday March 18

• Data: US February PPI, January factory orders, total net TIC flows, Japan January Tertiary industry index, February trade balance, Canada January international securities transactions
• Central banks: Fed decision, BoC decision
• Earnings: Tencent, Micron

Thursday March 19

• Data: US March Philadelphia Fed business outlook, January new home sales, wholesale trade sales, initial jobless claims, UK January average weekly earnings, unemployment rate, February jobless claims change, Japan January core machine orders, capacity utilisation, Eurozone January construction output, Q4 labour costs, Australia February labour force survey
• Central banks: rate decisions from the ECB, the BoJ, the BoE, the SNB and the Riksbank
• Earnings: Alibaba, Accenture, Enel, FedEx, Vonovia
• Auctions: US 10-yr TIPS (reopening, $19bn)
• Other: Leaders of US and Japan meet in Washington, European Council meeting (through Friday)

Friday March 20

• Data: UK February public finances, Germany February PPI, Italy January trade balance, current account balance, ECB January current account, Eurozone January trade balance, Canada January retail sales, February industrial product price index, raw materials price index
• Central banks: China 1-yr and 5-yr loan prime rates, ECB’s Nagel speaks

* * * 

Finally, looking at just the US, the key economic data release this week is the PPI report on Wednesday. The March FOMC meeting is on Wednesday. The post-meeting statement will be released at 2:00 PM ET, followed by Chair Powell’s press conference at 2:30 PM.

Monday, March 16 

• 08:30 AM Empire State manufacturing survey, March (consensus +3.9, last +7.1)
• 09:15 AM Industrial production, February (GS flat, consensus +0.1%, last +0.7%); Manufacturing production, February (GS +0.1%, consensus +0.1%, last +0.6%); Capacity utilization, February (GS 76.1%, consensus 76.2%, last 76.2%): We estimate industrial production was unchanged in February, reflecting strong auto production but weak electricity production. We estimate capacity utilization edged down to 76.1%.
• 10:00 AM NAHB housing market index, March (consensus 37, last 36)

Tuesday, March 17

• 10:00 AM Pending home sales, February (GS flat, consensus -0.7%, last -0.8%)

Wednesday, March 18 

• 08:30 AM PPI final demand, February (GS +0.4%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.5%); PPI ex-food and energy, February (GS +0.3%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.8%); PPI ex-food, energy, and trade, February (GS +0.3%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.3%); 10:00 AM Factory orders, January (GS +0.1%, consensus +0.1%, last -0.7%) : We forecast that factory orders increased by 0.1% in January, driven by a rebound in commercial aircraft orders.
• 02:00 PM FOMC statement, March 17-18 meeting: As discussed in our FOMC preview, we expect the FOMC to leave the funds rate unchanged at 3.50–3.75%. We expect Governors Bowman, Miran and Waller to dissent in favor of a 25bp cut. The Committee is likely to note in its statement that the war in Iran has increased uncertainty about the outlook and will likely raise inflation and weigh on economic activity in the near term. The Summary of Economic Projections is likely to show changes to the 2026 forecasts in line with our own, including higher core (+0.2pp to 2.7% Q4/Q4) and headline (+0.6pp to 3.0%) inflation, lower GDP growth (-0.2pp to 2.1%), and a higher unemployment rate (+0.2pp to 4.6%). We expect little change in the dot plot, where the median is likely to continue to show one cut in each of 2026 and 2027. We recently pushed the two additional rate cuts in our forecast back to September and December. 

Thursday, March 19 

• 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended March 14 (GS 210k, consensus 215k, last 213k); Continuing jobless claims, week ended March 7 (consensus 1,850k, last 1,850k): We expect initial jobless claims to decline by 3k. Initial claims remain below their average level in 2025H2 and the layoff rate edged down in January, suggesting that nationwide layoffs remain low despite the increase in alternative layoff measures in Q4 of last year. 
• 08:30 AM Philadelphia Fed manufacturing index, March (GS 7.0, consensus 10.0, last 16.3)
• 10:00 AM New home sales, January (GS -2.0%, consensus -2.7%, last -1.7%): We estimate that new home sales fell by 2.0% in January, reflecting a drag from winter storm Fern.

 
Friday, March 20 

• There are no major data releases scheduled.

Source: DB, Goldman

The White House has struggled to present the American public and the world with a clear timeline or precise strategy on Operation Epic Fury, but Israel has seemed clearer on signaling it is settling in for a longer war.

Israel is bracing for its war with Iran to stretch well into April, even as officials quietly concede the government in Tehran is unlikely to collapse, according to Israeli media.

This has Israel has expanded its attacks not just to Iran’s oil and energy sites, but more broadly to its defense industrial sector, wanting to see even Tehran’s ability to manufacture new missiles utterly destroyed.

And according to Ynet, “At the same time, the idea of encouraging public unrest inside Iran has not been abandoned, though officials acknowledge uncertainty about how effective such efforts might be.”

“We continue to strike regime targets, mainly in Tehran. We are entering the decisive phase. We are aiming to bring the people out into the streets. It’s not only us – the Americans are also working toward that,” an Israeli official stated.

“Not everything can be controlled, but everything possible is being done to make it succeed. The regime must be weakened as much as possible, including the Basij,” the official added. “We are striking them and killing them in the thousands.”

Israeli officials have further made clear they have assets on the ground, or Iranians who have helped spot IRGC/Basij checkpoint and security locations. Israel’s military has publicized some instances of active strikes on these locations.

As for whether targeting information is actually being communicated by anti-regime Iranians, this could just be Israeli propaganda intent on sowing discord and suspicions among the Iranian populace.

Still, Israeli officials have admitted they are skeptical that street protests alone could topple the Iranian government. Over in Washington, President Trump apparently thought ‘decapitation strikes’ would quickly result in some kind of rapid uprising in the streets and change of government, but that didn’t appear even close to happening.

On the White House’s series of miscalculation as this war is in week three with no signs of an off-ramp, Robert D. Kaplan has written in Foreign Affairs:

The biggest U.S. foreign policy fiascos happened because policymakers were obsessed with regional and global consequences they often could not properly manage, and thus ignored critical conditions on the ground. In Vietnam, U.S. leaders overlooked the history and nature of Vietnamese nationalism; in Iraq, it was sectarianism. Tuchman has encouraged leaders to trust area specialists more than grand strategists or democracy promoters. Sophisticated and specific cultural knowledge, she has observed, is much more useful than metrics and shadowy schemes.

Middle-sized wars often stem from misunderstandings about the place intervention is meant to help. The key, then, is for the intervening country to know what it is getting itself into. This may seem easy, but it can be the hardest part of policymaking. Bringing up cultural matters and differences is tricky because it can easily be misconstrued as prejudice, which pushes people to avoid critical conversations about realities on the ground. But it is such discussions that can keep a superpower out of trouble.

Meanwhile, as far as a timeline, Israeli leaders have admitted that it’s renewed war with Hezbollah is expected to outlast the conflict with Iran. Hezbollah has been launching missiles on northern Israel, while IDF ground forces have moved in, also as Beirut continues to get pounded from the air.

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

The Florida Legislature passed new election legislation modeled after President Donald Trump’s proposed SAVE America Act.

House Bill 991, sponsored by state Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, passed along party lines by a vote of 83 to 31.

“We are the Election Integrity State!” Persons-Mulicka wrote on X after the vote.

Sponsors of the bill moved the effective date to appease critics who feared the new identification requirements would discourage some voters from participating in midterm elections. The new laws won’t take effect until Jan. 1, 2027.

The bill requires Floridians to show proof of citizenship to register to vote, requires a valid photo ID to vote, makes paper ballots the primary method of voting, and bans student IDs as an acceptable voter ID.

Nearly all Florida driver’s licenses and ID cards are Real-ID compliant—a process that already verifies citizenship.

Once in place, the new regulations will also make it a felony for political parties, committees, organizations, and candidates to accept or solicit contributions from foreign nationals for any state elections.

Florida state Democrats voted against the bill, dubbing it the “Show Your Papers Act.”

Rep. Anna Eskamani, a Democrat representing Orlando, said the measure would restrict “all kinds of IDs Florida voters can use.”

“Student IDs and retirement center IDs would no longer be valid; driver’s licenses, state ID cards, military ID, and licenses to carry concealed weapons would still be accepted as proof of voter identity,” Eskamani said in a Facebook post.

The ACLU’s Florida Chapter condemned the measure’s passage, calling it an anti-voter bill.

“These changes are not neutral or harmless—they would fall hardest on low-income voters, students, seniors, women, and Black and brown Floridians,” said Bacardi Jackson, executive director of the ACLU Florida chapter.

“This wave of anti-voter legislation is advancing amid ongoing abuses of power that pose unprecedented threats to American democracy.”

Florida State Rep. Jenna Persons-Mulicka, R-Fort Myers. Courtesy of the Florida House of Representatives

A similar effort by congressional Republicans has stalled for months in the U.S. Senate.

Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd encouraged Congress to move forward with the SAVE Act after Florida’s bill passed.

“Florida leads the nation in election integrity because we don’t rest on our laurels and are always looking to improve,” Byrd posted on X. “It’s now time for Congress to act on critical election integrity measures.”

Republican Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has been unable to advance the SAVE Act, despite growing pressure from the public and within his party.

Thune told colleagues on March 10 that he didn’t have the votes to pass the act by employing the talking filibuster. He plans to bring the bill to the Senate floor next week.

After a strong gain in January, US Industrial Production continued to expand in February, rising 0.2% MoM (better than expected +0.1%) – the fourth straight month of gains with Production up 1.44% YoY…

Source: Bloomberg

Manufacturing output also beat expectations, rising 0.2% MoM in February.

• Durable manufacturing output edged up 0.1 percent, with mixed results across categories; the index for motor vehicles and parts posted the largest gain, and the index for machinery posted the largest loss.

• Nondurable manufacturing output rose 0.2 percent, with gains in the production of chemicals, of plastic and rubber products, and of paper products outweighing declines in the output of petroleum and coal products and of food, beverage, and tobacco products. The output of other manufacturing (publishing and logging) rose 1.3 percent.

• Mining output increased 0.8 percent in February, following a 0.9 percent increase in January. The output of utilities fell 0.6 percent in February, reflecting no change in the index for electric utilities and a 4.7 percent drop in the index for natural gas utilities.

Source: Bloomberg

Capacity Utilization printed 76.3 (better than expected)…

…maintaining the positive trend since Trump’s second term began.

Authored by Boredom Baron via Substack,

Four sectors demand specific attention this week, and the supply chain dynamics within each are more nuanced than the headlines suggest.

Logistics and Transportation face existential cost pressure, but the picture is bifurcating exactly as I suggested it would. The Denmark story, with the government begging citizens to “please, please, please” avoid driving, tells you how directly the energy shock is hitting consumer behavior and by extension transportation demand. European road freight is already under structural pressure: contract freight rates climbed 2.6 points quarter-over-quarter in Q4 2025 as major shippers locked in rates ahead of anticipated capacity tightening. The spread between contract and spot rates is a real-time barometer of corporate panic: when shippers are willing to pay a heavy premium for guaranteed truck availability over volatile spot pricing, it suggests boardrooms expect logistics disruptions to persist. Add the Hormuz closure on top of a pre-existing 444,000 driver shortage across Europe, and the pressure on transport-dependent small-caps is severe. But the restructuring of global trade routes around the Hormuz blockade is also creating winners. European logistics hubs positioned as alternative gateways for Asian goods, particularly those with rail connections to Central Asian corridors, could see structural increases in volume. The Global Baku Forum this week highlighted the “Middle Corridor” linking Asia and Europe through the Caucasus as a strategic transport opportunity that is gaining momentum.

Defense and Dual-Use Infrastructure continues to be the most structurally advantaged sector in our universe. European governments are demonstrating a strict, legislatively mandated preference for domestic procurement to guarantee sovereignty and the security of supply, which means the multi-decade rearmament cycle (anchored by Germany’s €500 billion infrastructure plan and the Readiness 2030 initiative) flows disproportionately to European small– and mid-cap precision component manufacturers, not just the headline-grabbing prime contractors. Modern defense platforms require vast networks of deeply specialized suppliers producing complex avionics, precision optical sensors, hardened materials, and secure communications equipment. The qualification processes in aerospace (3-7 years to certify a component, then specified for the aircraft’s 30+ year lifecycle with recurring maintenance revenue) create the most durable competitive moats in European small-cap investing. Companies strategically positioned at the intersection of civilian infrastructure and defense mobility are essentially insulated from standard cyclical downturns by the non-discretionary nature of sovereign budgets.

Warehouse Automation and Industrial Robotics is the sector that directly benefits from the nearshoring paradox I described in Contrarian #4. Every factory relocated from Asia to Central Europe needs automated systems to offset higher labor costs. The European warehouse automation market is projected to compound at double-digit rates through 2034, driven by labor shortages and vacancy rates exceeding 12% in European logistics, which sent robot installations up 28% in Central and Eastern Europe. The ecosystem extends beyond traditional robotic arms to encompass Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMRs), high-resolution LiDAR sensors, force-torque sensors, and AI-driven Warehouse Management Systems. Companies like Kardex Holding, Interroll Holding, and AutoStore aren’t selling into a cyclical demand pulse. They’re selling shovels during a structural gold rush, as European supply chain leaders confirm that cost reduction has definitively superseded innovation as the paramount objective for technology integration. Approximately 25% of EU firms have now invested in proprietary digital tracking systems to fortify supply chain visibility, and that percentage will only grow as Hormuz-related disruptions persist.

Energy Infrastructure and Alternatives are seeing renewed interest. Europe switched on its first microgrid-connected data center this week in Ireland, a niche story that nonetheless signals the direction of travel. Every week that Hormuz remains closed strengthens the investment case for distributed energy generation, waste-to-energy operations, and grid infrastructure companies. SoftBank’s $33 billion US power plant deal shows that institutional capital is making enormous bets on energy security. But there’s a contrarian wrinkle here too: the green transition requires exponential increases in critical raw materials, most notably rare earth elements, lithium, and cobalt, whose extraction and processing are dominated by China. The EU’s Critical Raw Materials Act aims to boost domestic recycling and extraction, but actual operational progress is dangerously slow relative to the pace of mandated decarbonization. Companies accelerating the energy transition could find themselves swapping a dependency on Middle Eastern hydrocarbons for a dependency on Chinese processed metals. That’s not energy security. That’s energy dependency with different geography.

Subscribe to Boredom Baron here…

By Noi Mahoney of FreightWaves

A wave of layoffs across U.S. supply chains — from EV battery plants and auto parts factories to warehouses and rail terminals — has affected nearly 4,000 workers in recent weeks, according to company announcements and WARN filings across multiple states.

Recent WARN filings and company announcements show job cuts across at least a dozen companies in states including California, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas, Ohio, South Carolina, Pennsylvania and Alabama.

The largest layoffs in the recent wave are coming from the automotive and industrial supply chain. SK Battery America said it laid off 958 workers — about 37% of its workforce — at its electric vehicle battery plant in Commerce, Georgia, citing shifting EV demand as automakers reassess production plans.

Meanwhile, bankrupt auto parts manufacturer First Brands Group announced major workforce reductions, including 572 layoffs across three facilities in Brownsville, Texas, and 333 jobs cut at a plant in Fayetteville, Tennessee, as part of its Chapter 11 restructuring.

In food manufacturing, Campbell’s said it will cut 205 jobs at its Paris, Texas plant as it repurposes the facility to focus on sauce production. Technology services firm Bluum USA also filed notice it will close its Irving, Texas distribution facility, eliminating 60 jobs as part of a restructuring.

Distribution centers and warehouses reduce staff

Several logistics and distribution operators have announced layoffs tied to restructuring, contract losses or network consolidation.

Third-party logistics provider Saddle Creek Logistics Services plans to lay off 151 workers at a warehouse facility in Bessemer, Alabama.

GEODIS Logistics will eliminate 105 jobs at a facility in Ashville, Ohio, after a client ceased operations at the site.

GXO Logistics also filed notice that it will shut down operations for a client at its West Jefferson, Ohio, warehouse, affecting 102 workers.

In California, CJ Logistics America announced 71 layoffs at a warehouse facility in Fontana scheduled for April 30.

Rail and intermodal logistics hit by contract losses

Intermodal logistics operator Parsec LLC is closing multiple rail cargo handling facilities after losing key customer contracts.

The company will shut down a Columbus, Ohio, intermodal terminal, eliminating 115 jobs by May 1.

A WARN filing with Ohio regulators shows the layoffs will affect loader operators, mechanics, warehouse staff and management roles.

Parsec is also closing a Jacksonville, Florida facility after losing a major customer contract.

In North Charleston, South Carolina, Parsec is shutting down an intermodal logistics operation at the Norfolk Southern terminal, eliminating 39 jobs.

Parcel network restructuring leads to FedEx closure

Package delivery giant FedEx is closing a facility in Pittston, Pennsylvania, affecting 63 employees as part of its “Network 2.0” initiative aimed at consolidating package pickup, transportation and delivery operations.

The company said the effort is designed to simplify its network through a “one van, one neighborhood” delivery model intended to improve efficiency.

Manufacturing and trucking supply chain layoffs

Manufacturing operations tied to heavy-duty trucking and industrial supply chains are also reducing staff.

Furniture manufacturer Ashley Furniture Industries is laying off 266 workers at a manufacturing center in Mesquite, Texas, according to a WARN notice filed with the state on Wednesday.

Commercial Vehicle Group, which produces seating systems used by truck manufacturers such as Freightliner and Mack, will lay off 76 workers at its Bostrom Seating plant in Piedmont, Alabama, amid softer demand in truck and construction markets.

In Ohio, Boelter Companies is closing its Custom Deco manufacturing facility in Toledo, affecting 63 workers.

Grocery and produce closures add more layoffs

Retail grocery and food distribution operations are also contributing to the job losses.

Several California grocery locations are shutting down:

• Food 4 Less #364, Inglewood — 64 employees affected.
• Foods Co. #371, Sacramento — 58 employees affected.

Produce distributor FreshKO Produce Services will close a facility in Fresno, eliminating 58 jobs.

Meanwhile, a Walgreens distribution center in Houston is slated to close, affecting 159 workers, as the retailer consolidates its distribution network.

Recent layoffs and closures across supply chain companies