62.3 F
Chicago
Friday, October 9, 2026
type here...
Home Blog Page 181

Trump Threatens To Jail Arms Shortage ‘Leakers’

survivalnomics
-
0
Trump Threatens To Jail Arms Shortage ‘Leakers’

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.

Official White House Photo

“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.

“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.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/07/2026 – 14:00

Saudi Arabia’s $5 Oil Detour Is Expensive… But Worth It

survivalnomics
-
0
Saudi Arabia’s $5 Oil Detour Is Expensive… But Worth It

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.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/07/2026 – 13:20

5th Small Modular Reactor Validated Since June, Poised For Mass Production

survivalnomics
-
0
5th Small Modular Reactor Validated Since June, Poised For Mass Production

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.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/07/2026 – 13:00

Exit Narrative Grows: Bessent Says New Deal & Ceasefire Will Open Hormuz ‘Today Or Tomorrow’

survivalnomics
-
0
Exit Narrative Grows: Bessent Says New Deal & Ceasefire Will Open Hormuz ‘Today Or Tomorrow’

Summary

  • 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.

Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by August 31?
Yes 13% · No 88%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

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…

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

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.

via Reuters

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!

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”.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/07/2026 – 12:40

Meet The Investors In SpaceX Who Say Their Shares “Disappeared”

survivalnomics
-
0
Meet The Investors In SpaceX Who Say Their Shares “Disappeared”

Some investors who thought they had secured one of Wall Street’s hottest trades, owning SpaceX before its blockbuster IPO, say the shares they expected to cash in on simply disappeared, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The controversy centers on special purpose vehicles (SPVs), investment funds that promise accredited investors exposure to private companies before they go public. After SpaceX’s June IPO, several investors who bought into SPVs managed by Late Stage Management say they were stunned to learn the underlying SpaceX shares had allegedly been sold years earlier, leaving them without the windfall they believed they still owned.

The Journal writes that one of those investors, Virginia data engineer Ram Rupireddy, invested $17,250 in a Late Stage fund in 2020 after being told it offered exposure to SpaceX. Based on statements in his investor portal and 2025 tax documents, he believed he still owned the equivalent of 2,500 SpaceX shares when the company debuted publicly. At the IPO price, he estimated the position would have been worth more than $300,000. Instead, the firm later informed him the underlying shares had been sold in 2024, leaving him with roughly $45,450.

“The plan was to fund college education for both of my kids,” Rupireddy said after filing a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He says he never received notice that his investment had been sold, and only discovered the change after temporarily losing access to Late Stage’s investor portal, which later showed the position had been liquidated.

Another investor, who asked not to be identified, told The Wall Street Journal he experienced the same surprise. He said he believed he still owned pre IPO SpaceX exposure until after the company’s public debut, when he was informed the underlying shares had already been sold years earlier. Like Rupireddy, he has since joined other investors seeking legal remedies, and told the newspaper an SEC attorney and an FBI special agent contacted him to discuss his experience.

According to The Wall Street Journal, at least four investors reported similar experiences, while roughly 150 Late Stage investors have joined a group chat to discuss potential legal action. One investor told the newspaper that an SEC attorney and an FBI agent contacted him about his experience. The SEC declined to comment on whether it is investigating the matter, and the FBI also declined comment.

Late Stage Management did not respond to repeated requests for comment. The firm is already facing separate legal scrutiny after three former sales executives pleaded guilty earlier this year to fraud charges involving hidden markups and fees, though prosecutors said those cases were unrelated to the disputed SpaceX shares.

The episode is also drawing fresh attention to the risks of SPVs, which often provide indirect “exposure” to private companies through multiple layers of investment vehicles rather than direct ownership of shares. As Davis Polk partner Jared Fine told the Journal, “Ultimately if you’re investing, you want to make sure you own what you think you own.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/07/2026 – 12:20

Consumers More Optimistic On Jobs, Financial Conditions, Stock Prices As Inflation Eases: NY Fed Survey

survivalnomics
-
0
Consumers More Optimistic On Jobs, Financial Conditions, Stock Prices As Inflation Eases: NY Fed Survey

Unlike recent extremely volatile months, consumers expectations for inflation in July barely budged as disclosed today by the latest NY Fed Survey, which showed that inflation expectations in one year fell slightly to 3.6% from 3.7% prior. Estimates for price increases in three and five years remained at 3.3% and 3%, respectively, although the 3Y inflation forecast did dip notably, if not enough to move it by a significant digit. 

Gas price growth expectations rebounded partially after their sharp decline in June, increasing by 1.4% to 2.9%. 

Away from inflation, labor market expectations were mixed, with the mean probability of higher US unemployment rate increasing by 1.1 ppt to 42.8%…

… and the mean probability of losing one’s job in the next twelve months increasing by 0.1 ppt to 14.2 percent; however, this was offset by the mean perceived probability of finding a job if one’s current job was lost, which increased by 1.3% to 46.2% the highest this year.  That increase was most pronounced among those who have a high school degree or less and those living in a household where income is under $ 50,000 per year. 

Earlier on Friday, the government employment report showed employers cut jobs in July and the labor-force participation continued to slide. The jobless rate declined to 4.1%. 

Recent data pointed to a strengthening of the American consumer. Spending rose more than expected in the three months through June, and the University of Michigan’s gauge of sentiment increased to a five-month high in July.

In the New York Fed report, more households said their current financial situation was better than last year, and more said their finances will stay about the same in 2027.

Still, the average perceived probability of missing a minimum debt payment in the next three months increased, especially among in households where annual income is below $ 50,000.

Consumers were also more optimistic about the stock market, with the probability that stock prices will be higher a year from now reaching the highest level of the series since April 2021.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/07/2026 – 11:45

Hours After Murkowski Predictably Sides With Dems, Cassidy Unblocks Blanche AG Nomination

survivalnomics
-
0
Hours After Murkowski Predictably Sides With Dems, Cassidy Unblocks Blanche AG Nomination

Sen. Bill Cassidy announced Friday he will support Todd Blanche’s nomination for attorney general, clearing the decisive path for confirmation after two other Republican senators opposed the pick.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, July 15, 2026. 

Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican who had remained undecided amid weeks of scrutiny, made the announcement in remarks on the Senate floor. “Mr. Blanche is not perfect, and he will tell you this, but the choice is not between perfection and Mr. Blanche,” he said. “It is between Mr. Blanche and another acting attorney general who may not run the department effectively under President Trump and who indeed may not be as good as Mr. Blanche.” He added: “All considered, I will vote for Mr. Blanche. I’ll be criticized for this vote. What’s new?”

The decision came hours after RINO Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) declared she would not support Blanche. In a post on X, Murkowski said the country needs an attorney general “who will check the worst impulses of this administration” and that she lacked confidence Blanche is that person. She also voiced concern that confirmation would remove Senate leverage over a nearly $2 billion anti-weaponization fund intended to compensate people claiming they were unfairly targeted by the government. “The fund is only off the table because this nomination is pending and the Senate has leverage,” Murkowski stated. “Once we vote, that will end, and there is no telling what the future holds.”

Blanche, who has served as acting attorney general and previously as President Donald Trump’s personal criminal defense lawyer, rescinded the order establishing the fund on Aug. 2. The move formed part of an agreement with Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and John Cornyn (R-TX) that allowed the Senate Judiciary Committee to advance the nomination to the full Senate. Blanche said at the time that the department “always welcomes and appreciates productive engagement with all members of Congress.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), another RINO, announced earlier in the week that she would oppose Blanche, citing actions including an order shielding Trump and his family members from certain tax audits. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) remains absent while ‘recovering from a fall at home’, with no clear timeline for his return.

Republicans hold a 53-47 Senate majority. With McConnell out, Blanche could afford to lose only two Republican votes if all Democrats opposed him. Collins and Murkowski provided those two “no” votes. Cassidy’s support supplies the critical 50th vote in favor, positioning the nomination for approval by a narrow margin even without Democratic support. All 47 Democrats are expected to vote against Blanche.

Cassidy had raised repeated concerns in recent weeks that Blanche might function more as the president’s personal attorney than as an independent attorney general for the country. He spoke with Blanche multiple times, including meetings addressing worries about “lawfare” – prosecutions driven by political anger rather than valid legal grounds – and met with Murkowski as well. Despite those reservations, Cassidy concluded that confirming Blanche was preferable to leaving the department under an indefinite acting leadership that might prove less effective.

Before the Tillis-Cornyn deal, Trump had floated the possibility of withdrawing the nomination and waiting until senators facing reelection challenges or retirement were replaced in January 2027. Cornyn lost his primary, Tillis chose not to run, and Cassidy also lost his reelection bid after Trump-backed challengers prevailed. Collins advanced through her primary and faces a general-election contest; McConnell is not seeking another term. Murkowski’s term continues until early 2029.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Capitol Hill in Washington on March 18, 2021. Susan Walsh/Getty Images

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/07/2026 – 11:30

Scientists Warn Of Urgent AI Biosecurity Threat

survivalnomics
-
0
Scientists Warn Of Urgent AI Biosecurity Threat

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

For the first time, artificial intelligence has designed complete, functional viral genomes from scratch.

Oh dear.

Stanford University and Arc Institute researchers used generative AI models to produce 16 novel bacteriophages that successfully infect and kill bacteria in the lab.

Officials insist the viruses “pose no threat to people,” yet biosecurity experts are already sounding the alarm that the same technology opens the door to inventing dangerous pathogens.

The breakthrough, published in the journal Science, marks the first time generative AI has written entire viable viral genomes.

Researchers trained genome language models known as Evo 1 and Evo 2 on millions of natural genetic sequences. They then tasked the systems with designing complete bacteriophage genomes based on the well-studied ?X174 template that infects E. coli.

Of 302 synthesized designs, 16 proved fully functional: they assembled into virus particles, replicated inside bacterial cells, and in some cases outperformed the natural virus, even overcoming bacterial resistance when used as a cocktail.

Oh dear.

Brian Hie, assistant professor at Stanford who led the work, called it new territory. “This is a next step in the complexity that’s designable by generative AI, this is the first time generative AI has been used to design a complete genome, it’s something that can replicate and have other functions inside cells… this was new territory for us,” he told the BBC.

The team deliberately excluded genetic data from viruses capable of infecting complex organisms and conducted the work in a secure laboratory. The resulting phages target only specific bacteria.

Patrick Cai, a synthetic biologist at the University of Manchester not involved in the study, called it “an important milestone.”

Yet the same experts who celebrate the medical potential for phage therapies against antibiotic-resistant infections are issuing blunt warnings.

In an accompanying commentary in Science, Dr. Thomas Inglesby and Dr. Moritz Hanke of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security wrote that the findings raise “urgent biosafety and biosecurity questions.”

They stated it is no longer a question of “whether generative viral genome design will exist” but whether it can be used without “enabling serious harm.”

Oh dear.

New viruses with the potential to cause disease “should not be pursued,” they added. “The ability to compose viral genomes using generative AI now exists; the governance to safely steer it does not.”

Hanke has separately noted that one could simply prompt a genomic language model: “Hey, genomic language model, make me an influenza genome that is modified to be more transmissible or to be more lethal.”

This is not abstract risk. Humanity already learned hard lessons when researchers mess with pathogens in laboratories. The COVID era exposed the catastrophic consequences of gain-of-function work and lab leaks.

Now AI is being handed the tools to design novel viruses at machine speed, far outpacing the regulatory frameworks meant to contain them.

The potential for misuse or accidental release is frightening. The only meaningful safeguard cited by the researchers themselves is a training-data filter – something that can be reversed by any team with access to broader viral datasets.

Online reactions captured the unease immediately. One widely shared comment called the news “First article you find in a Resident Evil game.” Others noted the same pattern: “No way this sort of virus randomly mutates to harm humans! Would never happen!” and “Modern scientists didn’t watch 80’s sci-fi horror and it shows.”

This development arrives against a backdrop of repeated AI systems exceeding their intended bounds.

In July, an OpenAI model went rogue during testing, escaped its sandbox, and launched a cyber attack on Hugging Face after chaining exploits and stolen credentials.

This keeps happening.

Earlier this year an AI coding agent wiped out a startup’s entire production database and backups in nine seconds after “thinking for itself.”

A tech entrepreneur reported his AI agent autonomously built itself a visual face and interface while he slept.

And when AI bots were placed in a virtual town for two weeks with clear rules against violence and chaos, they promptly went apesh*t – forming alliances, committing arson, and collapsing the simulated society.

These are not isolated glitches. They reveal systems that interpret goals, adapt, and act with speed and autonomy humans cannot easily interrupt.

Now layer onto that the growing chorus of voices who casually state that the human population needs to be halved.

Recent research and commentary have revived the idea that reducing the world’s people to around four billion by 2200 would ease pressure on the planet – framed as a “pro-human” strategy through voluntary measures, yet delivered with the same technocratic confidence that once dismissed lab-leak risks.

Imagine the same AI genome-design capability landing in the hands of those who view large-scale population reduction as a planetary necessity.

The tools that can design beneficial bacteriophages can, with different training data or prompts, design far more dangerous agents.

History shows that once a capability exists, containment relies on human restraint, institutional integrity, and enforceable rules – none of which have a perfect track record when power, ideology, or “greater good” justifications enter the picture.

The researchers emphasize medical upside: tailored phages that could help defeat drug-resistant bacteria. That potential is real. So is the reality that generative AI has crossed a threshold.

Complete, replicating viral genomes can now be written by machines. The governance structures that might prevent the worst outcomes remain incomplete.

What was once science fiction is now peer-reviewed fact. The only question left is whether the same systems that design the cure will one day be directed – or allowed to drift – toward something far darker.

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

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/07/2026 – 11:00

Meta Ordered To Pay $567 Million In New Mexico For Children’s Mental Health Fund

survivalnomics
-
0
Meta Ordered To Pay $567 Million In New Mexico For Children’s Mental Health Fund

A New Mexico state judge on Aug. 6 ordered Meta to pay $567 million into a fund dedicated to remedying the harm caused to children’s mental health by the company’s social media platforms.

Meta is the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp.

State judge Bryan Biedscheid said in a 68-page order that most of the total youth mental health fund, or $420 million, would go toward treatment services for children harmed by social media.

The remainder of the fund would be directed toward awareness and prevention, screening and assessment, referrals and coordination, and implementation, according to the order.

“The Court finds that the weight of the evidence presented demonstrates that Meta’s platforms are a cause of and substantial contributing factor to the youth mental health crisis in New Mexico,” the judge wrote.

Furthermore, as Aldgra Fredly reports for The Epoch Times, in his ruling, Biedscheid ordered the company to delete the accounts of users under 13, along with all personal information collected from those accounts, and simplify the steps for reporting underage users.

Meta was also ordered to disable push notifications on its platforms for users under 18 between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. on all days, and from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. on school days during the academic year.

The company is also required to implement mandatory usage time limits for those accounts and hide, by default, all like counts on their content unless a parent or guardian authorizes a change to the default setting.

New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez hailed the ruling as a victory for parents and children, saying that youngsters deserve to have a safer environment online.

“This case has always been about protecting children, standing up for families, and making sure that one of the world’s largest technology companies cannot profit from practices that endanger young people without consequence,” Torrez said in a statement.

Meta spokesperson Andy Stone said in a post on X that the company disagreed with the ruling and planned to appeal, noting that Meta had been working to remove bad actors and harmful content from its platforms.

“We remain confident in our record of protecting teens online and will continue to defend ourselves against claims that misrepresent the facts,” Stone said.

The latest penalty comes on top of the $375 million fines that a New Mexico jury imposed on Meta in March for violating the state’s Unfair Practices Act by failing to disclose the potential risks of its social media platforms to children.

New Mexico sued Meta in December 2023, alleging that the company’s social media platforms served as a “breeding ground” for predators targeting children for human trafficking, sexual image distribution, grooming, and solicitation.

Meta denied the allegations, saying at the time that it uses advanced technology to root out bad actors and employs child safety experts. The company also said that it shares information and tools with other companies and law enforcement, including state attorneys general, to help identify predators.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/07/2026 – 10:40

Wall Street Crowns First Solar As Clear Winner After Trump’s Polysilicon Tariffs Create “Structural Floor” For Industry

survivalnomics
-
0
Wall Street Crowns First Solar As Clear Winner After Trump’s Polysilicon Tariffs Create “Structural Floor” For Industry

Solar stocks are shining in premarket trading in New York after the Trump administration announced a new 15% tariff and a price floor on imports of polysilicon derivatives, including silicon wafers, photovoltaic cells, and solar modules. The move is intended to secure the domestic solar supply chain after years of cheap Chinese panels flooding the country, making it uneconomical for domestic manufacturers to compete.

“Polysilicon is the base material underpinning the security of America’s semiconductor and solar-power supply chains. Yet for decades, America has allowed foreign countries to weaken United States producers in the polysilicon sector ‑- eroding our economic and national security. Today, I am taking action to put a stop to these practices and revitalize the United States polysilicon sector,” President Trump wrote in an overnight executive order.

The Trump administration’s order is less a conventional tariff increase and more of a reset of the US solar-module pricing regime. The new framework, combining a 15% tariff with minimum import prices, could lift utility-scale module prices into the low-to-mid 40-cent-per-watt range from roughly 30 cents.

Analysts from several desks, including BMO Capital Markets, Truist Securities, Citi, and others, point to First Solar as the clear winner.

“We expect the immediate market reaction to favor FSLR given enhanced long-term pricing power and terminal value implications, while utility solar-exposed names including NXT, ARRY, SHLS and FLNC could face near-term pressure as investors reassess project economics and deployment costs,” BMO analyst Ameet Thakkar wrote.

Thakkar noted, “In this report we analyze the structure and implementation of the new tariff framework, the implications for module pricing and domestic manufacturing economics, potential upside to FSLR valuation and ASPs, the 120-day implementation window, and our continued constructive view on NXT despite likely near-term volatility.”

Moses Sutton at BNP Paribas outlined FSLR as the “biggest, long-awaited winner” and highlighted how a new “structural ‘floor’ for industry” is being created.

What other desks are saying (courtesy of Bloomberg):

Citi

  • Analyst Vikram Bagri notes that the polysilicon tariffs are largely in line with expectations and sees upside for First Solar
  • “For FSLR, the benefits are a minimum import price for poly/cells/ingots/wafers/modules, which may be adjusted at Commerce’s discretion to reflect market conditions, a 15% ad valorem on downstream poly derivatives, application to warehoused inventory plus anti-stockpiling provisions”
  • Notes that countries that adopt their own minimum import price may be able to claim favorable treatment for their exports to the US, which would be negative for US firms

Truist Securities

  • Analyst Christopher Souther sees First Solar as the biggest beneficiary of the tariffs and notes that the company’s module price is below the minimum import price
  • “In our view, this further reinforces First Solar’s competitive moat, as the company already benefits from a US-based manufacturing footprint, Section 45X tax credits, and existing trade protections”
  • Notes that the exemption paths for US module manufacturers may reduce the benefit for First Solar in out years

Barclays

  • Analyst Christine Cho sees the polysilicon tariffs raising the cost of imported modules to around $0.44 per watt
  • “The Section 232 outcome is more positive for FSLR than we and the Street were expecting and would seem to support ASPs to move somewhere in the low to mid $0.40/w range”

In premarket trading, FSLR is up 4%, Enphase Energy +2%, Array Technologies +2%, SolarEdge Technologies +2%, and T1 Energy +6%. The Invesco Solar ETF (TAN) is up nearly 3%. 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 08/07/2026 – 10:10

1...180181182...4,511Page 181 of 4,511

About Us

Popular Category

Editor Picks