Authored by James Varney via RealClearInvestigations,

The future was supposed to have arrived this year in a cluster of counties just east of Atlanta in the form of a state-of-the-art factory that would churn out 400,000 electric vehicles a year. But when JoEllen Artz looks about her lifetime neighborhood, all she sees are holes.

“Those shovel holes they made in the ground? That’s it,” she said of the planned site of a Rivian manufacturing plant. “It’s awful, awful.”

The problem is not a lack of funds. On the promise of thousands of jobs, elected officials in Washington, D.C., and Atlanta have pledged some $8 billion to the project, including a $6.5 billion loan the Biden administration green-lit in its final hours. 

Those loans are just two of the huge public bets, or investments, that state capitals and Washington, D.C., have made on EVs. While no one has calculated exactly how many federal and state dollars both Republican and Democratic elected officials have sent to that green sector, experts RealClearInvestigations consulted fixed the total north of $100 billion.

Overhanging that massive spending, however, is the issue of demand for EVs, or more precisely, the lack of it. In 2025, Rivian said it sold 25,000 EVs in the U.S., far below estimates of 40,000 to 51,000 vehicles. The company’s revenues were flat in 2024 and 2025, coming in around $5 billion. The Georgia plant was supposed to open this year, but the ribbon-cutting is now slated for 2028, according to the company. 

When it comes to electric vehicles, the U.S. consumer has spoken, as Ford CEO Jim Farley said earlier this month. Tesla is one of the few profitable manufacturers, and even its numbers are falling. But while people may not be opening their private wallets for EVs, the public purse for them is bulging. An RCI analysis has identified tens of billions of dollars in federal, state, and local subsidies to support EVs in recent years. Now, in light of market headwinds that show tepid consumer interest in the product and looming competition from China, the likelihood that the taxpayer loans will be repaid is diminishing. Experts say this may result in multiple, costly debacles of public “investments” in green energy projects like the Solyndra loan debacle during the Obama administration, which drew headlines at $500 million.

“This has been a colossal mistake,” said Thomas Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research. “This has been one of the worst examples of the government trying to impose its will on carmakers and the public.”

Federal Commitments

Public spending on green energy projects, including EVs, began in earnest in May 2009 when President Obama, flanked in the Rose Garden by Detroit and United Auto Workers executives, unveiled his National Fuel Efficiency Policy. It was, the crowd insisted, “good for consumers, good for the economy, and good for the country.” 

There has been bipartisan support for many EV initiatives, and the sector got a huge boost during the Biden administration when funding linked to a NetZero future spread throughout the federal government. The bill goes well beyond the billions of dollars in tax credits the federal government provided to EV buyers until that program was ended last September, and includes school buses, postal delivery vehicles, charging stations, and the big manufacturing loans.

The Energy Department, for example, has spent more than $30 billion. That chunk comes from the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing division. Prior to 2019, the ATVM, as it is known, had issued around $8 billion in loans to five different companies. Of those, Nissan repaid its $1.4 billion loan, while Tesla repaid its $465 million loan years ahead of schedule. A $5 billion loan to Ford remains active, but taxpayers lost nearly $210 million on loans to Fisker Automotive and Vehicle Production Group, both of which defaulted, according to the department. 

Since 2019, however, and especially after the new loan authority contained in the Inflation Reduction Act Biden and congressional Democrats pushed through via reconciliation in 2022, more than $21 billion has been approved for EV-related projects, records show. The $6.6 billion to Rivian was not the largest loan in that portfolio. Instead, a $9.6 billion loan to Blue Oval SK, a joint venture with Ford, for EV batteries and the EV supply chain production topped the bill.

At the Environmental Protection Agency, EV-related spending has topped $6.7 billion, with the lion’s share of that, $5 billion, in grants from its Clean School Bus Program to school districts to buy EV buses. 

The EPA has paid between $225,000 and $375,000 per EV school bus, which is roughly three times more expensive than a traditional internal combustion engine bus, and at those prices, it would cost more than $200 billion to replace the nation’s fleet. Such taxpayer largesse has been a boon to the bottom line of school bus manufacturer Blue Bird, but the EPA’s expensive program has suffered myriad setbacks, such as delayed deliveries, bus fires, route distances, and heating the buses in cold weather.

The U.S. Postal Service has spent an estimated $3 billion for EV vehicles in its fleet. A spokesperson said the Postal Service is in the midst of a $9.6 billion “investment” launched in 2022, but they declined to say how much of the remaining $6.6 billion has or would go to buying EVs. At the end of 2025, however, the Postal Service’s proposed EV fleet was running far behind schedule, with Republican Sen. Jodi Ernst ripping the plan as a “boondoggle.”

States Jump In

Some states have labored to force EVs into the market. More than a dozen of them have followed California’s lead, requiring at least 35% of cars offered for sale there annually be “ZEVs,” or “zero emission vehicles,” with all cars being ZEVs by 2035. This complicated, opaque system has made all cars more expensive, according to economists. Congress voted last year to kill California’s plan, but President Trump has not acted on that, and state officials have vowed to sue if he signs it.

On top of the costs of those market manipulations, which can be difficult to compute, are billions in direct state spending on EVs and EV-related projects. Both Republican and Democratic elected officials supporting these moves have done so on the grounds that it would provide an economic boost and be good for the environment.

Rivian, whose corporate communications did not respond to RCI’s request for comment, hasn’t only benefited from the Biden administration’s last-minute loan. In 2022, the state’s Republican leadership in Atlanta pledged up to another $1.5 billion – one of the largest incentive packages in Georgia history – including tax incentives, abatements, support programs, and more than $175 million for land acquisition and improvements. There has been an estimated $25 million in local incentives provided, too.

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and House Speaker Jon Burns, both Republicans, attended the groundbreaking ceremony there last September.

“Today is another milestone in bringing quality, good-paying jobs to Georgians in this part of the state,” Kemp said.

The plan has seen repeated delays, however. Currently, Rivian builds its EVs at an Illinois plant, but the company has been losing roughly $39,000 per EV it sells.

Oversight of the sputtering EV project, which was announced in 2021 and is now slated to come online in 2028, has been given to the Joint Development Authority of Jasper, Morgan, Newton, and Walton counties, which did not respond to a request for comment. Opponents said that the maneuver protected the 2,000-acre site from local zoning restrictions.

The delayed timetable of factory construction, along with Rivian’s flat revenue and struggling sales, has led a group of six residents, including Artz, to step up their opposition to the project. They argue the massive construction could damage their water table, but their lawsuit against the plant lost in 2024, although they successfully battled Georgia’s attempt to make them pay legal fees.

“We’re frustrated as taxpayers,” Artz told RCI. “They’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this plant that doesn’t exist.”

In December, Tennessee lawmakers said they might renegotiate a $500 million payment they had offered the Blue Oval SK battery factory in Haywood County after Ford scaled back its EV venture. The joint venture’s new plans will likely involve 1,000 fewer jobs than initially announced in 2021.

In addition, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation noted another $8.5 million spent on EV buses and charging stations, although some of that money may have come from federal grants.

At Volkswagen’s Chattanooga EV factory, a labor dispute erupted with union workers last year after shifts were cut due to low sales numbers, although a tentative agreement on that was announced by the company this month.

The Wrong Incentives

EV supporters insist the vehicles are the future, and that American businesses and citizens need robust incentives to embrace technologies that will stave off the apocalyptic consequences of climate change. As with many other aspects of climate policy, backers have not only argued for the environmental benefits of EVs but have cast them as an economic boon that will create jobs and save consumers money. 

“The key is designing incentives that convert new buyers, not subsidizing people who were going to buy an EV anyway,” said Mike Murphy, CEO of EVs for All America, a nonprofit public-education group working to ensure the benefits of electric vehicles reach every community. “A first-time ‘conquest credit’ is simply a smarter use of taxpayer dollars because once somebody switches to electric, data shows 80% stay with EVs. That’s the win for preparing the US auto makers to be competitive in the future car business, which will be dominated by EVs.”

Ingrid Malmgren, senior policy director of Plug In America, said the move away from EVs will have dangerous long-term consequences as it “favors a return to fossil fuels over the growth of a clean energy economy.” Malmgren said, “This essentially will shift taxpayer liabilities from funding clean energy and manufacturing jobs to funding fossil fuel subsidies.”

Critics of Biden’s policies counter that the promised benefits of such policies – in a world where China is now by far the largest emitter of greenhouse gases – are dubious. What is clear is that tabulating all the ways the federal government props up the EV industry is a “herculean task,” the American Energy Institute concluded in a report last year, saying “the federal government is running roughshod over sound public policies.”

Institute CEO Jason Isaac said an accounting of the spending is long overdue.

“Taxpayers have spent tens of billions of dollars subsidizing electric vehicles through direct tax credits, manufacturing incentives, charging infrastructure grants, and a web of regulatory mandates that shift additional costs onto consumers,” he told RCI. The dense web of regulations and credits has made spending opaque and “allowed regulators to game the standards in ways that masked the true costs.”

Huge Losses

Outside of government work, the market for EV makers is grim. On Feb. 6, Stellantis announced a $26 billion loss on its EV business. Ford has never been able to entice buyers to an electric version of its F-150 pickup, which for many years has been the best-selling car in America, and two months ago announced it will absorb losses of $19 billion on its EV ventures through 2027. In an earnings call this month, Honda revealed big 2025 EV losses, which have now cost the company close to $5 billion.

In between those staggering hits came General Motors, whose Chief Executive Mary Barra has been an outspoken booster of EVs. Last month, General Motors announced a $6 billion write-off, which, added to previous losses, brings GM’s EV hit to $7.6 billion. The German carmaker Volkswagen has seen declining sales of its EV cars in the U.S. – they fell off a cliff in the last quarter of 2025 after federal payments for buyers ended. VW executives said last year the company remained committed to spending $180 billion on its EV ventures, a slight reduction from initial estimates, but its flagship model, the ID4, is the slowest-selling car in the United States.

The Trump administration would seem to be opposed to massive spending on EVs, as it has said repeatedly that it wants energy policy focused on resilient, reliable, and less expensive energy sources than the renewables that comprise NetZero plans. On Feb. 12, Trump announced he was revoking the Obama-era decree that classified greenhouse gases as a public health issue that should be regulated. That finding has been the main regulatory arch supporting the green energy policies that followed.

Yet it is still not clear what action, if any, the Trump administration will take regarding EVs.

At the Department of Energy, which the Biden administration repurposed as a spearhead in the NetZero drive, a spokesperson suggested little has changed as yet. As always, it can be difficult to pluck specific threads from a quilt of federal spending, but when it comes to EVs and EV-related projects, 

Trump energy officials did not identify any specific changes they have made to the Advanced Transportation and Vehicle Manufacturing program, although they indicated some could be in the offing. 

 “(The Office of Energy Dominance Financing) has completed the thorough review of each project in its portfolio, ensuring that every taxpayer dollar is used to advance the interests of the United States. The review is complete – the actions of de-obligating or revising loans and conditional commitments are still ongoing,” a spokeswoman told RCI. EPA officials said they were “actively reviewing and revamping the Clean School Bus Program.”

Although Biden’s Transportation Department had received wide criticism when news broke last year that it had constructed only eight charging stations as part of its $7.5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) plan, the Trump administration seems intent on spending that money.  

“In just five months since issuing revised NEVI guidance, Secretary (Sean) Duffy was able to obligate 39% more NEVI funds than the Biden Administration obligated in three years,” a spokesman said.

The most recent NEVI stats show some three dozen stations and 148 ports across 12 states, according to tracking by North Carolina State University.

The experts RCI spoke with said a tally of just what taxpayers have provided the EV industry should be made, but agreed that no one has successfully done so.

Similarly, just how much of this spending could be wasted in an industry that has enjoyed government support remains to be seen. But if some of the projects fail, the $500 million lost on Solyndra, which created a scandal at the time, will seem like small beer.

“There have been massive, mounting losses that are going to have to be made up somewhere,” Pyle said. “Washington bludgeoned carmakers into a timetable of efficiency standards and the carmakers went along with it. People should be vehemently opposed to anything mandatory, which in effect is what the government is doing.”

The party that won’t stop lecturing America about democracy is once again rigging its own primary by endorsing – thereby biasing voters – towards certain candidates over others. On Monday, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) endorsed 12 candidates through its “Red to Blue” program to help Democrats win back the majority in the House of Representatives.

“Today, the DCCC announced the first slate of 12 top-tier candidates added to its highly competitive ‘Red to Blue’ program for the 2026 cycle,” the committee said in a statement. “This initial group of candidates will receive strategic guidance, staff resources, training, and fundraising support to ensure they are in the best possible position to win in November.”

The committee describes the “Red to Blue” program as a “highly competitive and battle-tested DCCC program that arms top-tier candidates with organizational and fundraising support to help them continue to develop strong campaigns.” 

Candidates earn spots in the program by hitting aggressive benchmarks for grassroots engagement, local support, and fundraising. 

Now, 17 Democratic congressional candidates are accusing the party’s own campaign arm of torching the integrity of the 2026 primary process by interfering with the primary.

According to a joint statement from the snubbed candidates, this early backing by the DCCC “carries significant influence in the primary process —often shaping fundraising pipelines, access, and perceived viability before voters have had the opportunity to evaluate the full field.”

The statement highlighted mounting frustration among Democratic candidates nationwide, who are concerned about the increasingly aggressive pattern of early primary intervention by the DCCC, “a trend they say risks weakening voter trust and diminishing the role of voters in selecting their own nominees.”

 “Primaries are not an inconvenience, they are the foundation of democratic legitimacy,” the candidates said. 

In multiple states and districts, party leadership has signaled preferred candidates well before voters have had the opportunity to evaluate the full field. Through early infrastructure support, fundraising advantages, and institutional backing, these actions show that outcomes are being shaped before ballots are cast.

[…] 

Candidates emphasize that their concern is not opposition to party infrastructure or general election strategy. Rather, they argue that legitimacy in the primary depends on fairness and openness in the months prior. 

“You cannot argue that democracy is on the ballot in November while narrowing democracy in the primaries from now through August,” the candidates who were passed over argue. “If a candidate is strong, they should be able to earn support in open competition. Protecting them from competition is not confidence.”

DCCC Chair Rep. Suzan DelBene defended the committee’s picks with an answer that probably made the dissidents even angrier. “These are all strong candidates, they’re the ones who are going to be the general election candidate and they’re the ones that we think can win the general election,” she said. 

“We are just six months away from the primary,” Knapp pointed out. “And it’s incredibly frustrating.”

He added. “This is precisely what we’ve been voicing concerns about as Democrats for years, and it appears we are repeating the same mistakes.” 

Democrats have faced accusations of rigging elections for years. Last year, Bernie Sanders (I-VT) blasted his own party, accusing Democratic leaders of rigging elections and shutting down any semblance of a fair primary process. He even agreed with the assessment that the party has become “a threat to democracy.”

Sanders showed real grassroots momentum in his 2016 and 2020 presidential bids, but party effectively blocked his path to victory both times. The perception that entrenched establishment figures moved to stop him from upending the status quo has never really gone away — and Sanders himself all but confirmed it. 

Authored by Joseph Lord, Stacy Robinson, Troy Myers via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Supreme Court is poised to hear arguments on major constitutional and legal issues over the next several months.

Birthright Citizenship

One of the term’s most consequential cases arises from a class-action lawsuit alleging that the president violated the 14th Amendment by withholding citizenship for children of illegal immigrants. The case, Trump v. Barbara, is set for oral argument on April 1.

The clause of the 14th Amendment at issue guarantees citizenship to people “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

Trump, on his first day back in office, issued an executive order that calls for officials to deny citizenship documents to children if their mothers were unlawfully or temporarily present in the United States, and their fathers were not citizens or lawful permanent residents.

In 2025, multiple lower courts issued rulings blocking implementation of the executive order, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The courts said that it violated the amendment and the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

In the 1898 case, the Supreme Court said the amendment guaranteed citizenship for a Chinese man whose parents were permanently domiciled in the United States but were not U.S. citizens.

Lower courts have said that the decision’s reasoning lent itself to guaranteeing citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. The administration disagreed, arguing that the decision and the 14th Amendment indicated parents should have some kind of allegiance to the United States.

Attorneys also told the Supreme Court that even if Trump’s order complied with the 14th Amendment, it violated the Immigration and Nationality Act. That law uses the amendment’s language to guarantee citizenship for people “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The attorneys said that law was understood in the 20th century to include the children of illegal immigrants. The Justice Department said instead that the law’s meaning “depends on what the Citizenship Clause actually means, not what Congress thought it meant.”

Mail-In Ballots

In Watson v. Republican National Committee (RNC), the Supreme Court will consider whether states can count mail-in ballots received after Election Day.

This case has its origins in 2020, when Mississippi amended its state law to authorize counting mail-in ballots received up to five days after Election Day, so long as they were postmarked by that day. In 2024, the RNC and others alleged Mississippi violated a federal law that defines “Election Day” as “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November.”

Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson, meanwhile, argued that the Elections Clause of the Constitution—which broadly allows states to choose the “manner” of their elections—protected the law.

After the RNC’s initial suit in 2024, a district court ruled in favor of Mississippi. Later, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overturned that ruling, prohibiting Mississippi from accepting late-received ballots.

The Supreme Court accepted Mississippi’s appeal and scheduled oral arguments for March 23.

Gun Rights for Drug Users

Ali Danial Hemani was charged in 2023 with violating a federal law that prohibited firearm possession by individuals who unlawfully use controlled substances.

Hemani, who admitted to smoking marijuana approximately every other day, challenged his indictment, arguing that the wording of the statute was too vague and violated the Second Amendment.

In the case U.S. v. Hemani, the Supreme Court is set to reexamine its 2022 precedent in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. There, the court said laws restricting the right to bear arms are constitutional only when they are “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The government has argued that the law at issue in Hemani’s case is “analogous to founding-era laws restricting the rights of drunkards.” Hemani’s attorneys disputed that comparison, arguing that “habitual drunkard” laws targeted people who regularly abused alcohol, not people who regularly drugs or alcohol, such as Hemani.

Oral arguments for the case are scheduled for March 2.

Asylum at US–Mexico Border

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral argument on March 24 over the Obama administration’s policy of turning away asylum-seekers before they cross the southern border.

Although the Biden administration rescinded that policy, the Supreme Court is reviewing the results of prior litigation with consequences for future border enforcement. The main question in the case, Noem v. Al Otro Lado, is whether migrants have officially arrived in the United States if they stop on the Mexican side of the border.

A group of 13 asylum-seekers and an immigrants’ rights organization sued in 2017. They  alleged the policy violated federal laws allowing migrants to apply for asylum and to be inspected by an immigration officer if they arrive in the country.

One of the laws states that “any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” can apply for asylum regardless of his or her legal status.

The Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the plain meaning of arrival meant physical presence. It is asking the justices to reverse a 2024 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

In a 2–1 decision, it ruled that noncitizens are considered to have arrived if they encounter a border official. The court said, among other things, that one of the relevant laws distinguished between physical presence and arrival, suggesting that some arrivals might not be physically present.

FCC Penalties

The Supreme Court will hear two cases on April 21 involving the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) imposing fines on wireless carriers for sharing customer location data without consent.

In 2024, the FCC imposed nearly $200 million in fines on major telco firms, including $57 million on AT&T and nearly $47 million on Verizon.

The companies argued that the fines, which were investigated, decided, and ordered in-house at the FCC, violate their right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment.

Their cases—FCC v. AT&T and Verizon Communications v. FCC—are building off of a landmark decision from 2024. In that case, the Supreme Court said the Securities and Exchange Commission had to provide a jury trial if it wanted to impose civil penalties.

For the FCC, federal law allows the agency to issue a forfeiture order with a penalty. In response, the company can either pay the penalty and seek review in an appeals court, or it may refuse to pay, prompting the agency to potentially refer the issue for prosecution in a jury trial.

Because Verizon chose the first option, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said its rights weren’t violated. Rather, it passed on its opportunity for exercising those rights. AT&T similarly paid the penalty, but the Fifth Circuit said the prospect of a future trial wasn’t enough.

Read the rest here…

Update(1737ET): Absolutely huge late Friday developing news, if it’s confirmed and assuming it sticks, via CBS: “Iran has agreed to give up its stockpile of enriched material – zero accumulation – and allow for full verification by the IAEA of its nuclear program according to US-Iran talks mediator, Oman’s foreign minister Badr al Busaidi.”

The Iranian side also seems to be confirming its willingness to make this significant concession, also to stave off a massive US attack, given the immense build-up of Pentagon assets in the region. According to more breaking details via CBS:

Negotiators from the U.S. and Iran have made “substantial progress” toward a deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi told CBS News on Friday, as President Trump considers strikes on Iran.

Albusaidi — who has mediated several rounds of U.S.-Iran talks over the last month — told “Face the Nation” moderator Margaret Brennan that a “peace deal is within our reach.” 

He said Iran has agreed that it will “never, ever have … nuclear material that will create a bomb,” which he called a “big achievement.” The country’s existing stockpiles of enriched uranium would be “blended to the lowest level possible” and “converted into fuel, and that fuel will be irreversible,” according to Albusaidi.

President Trump had just before the headline hit struck a cautious and ambiguous tone, describing that Iran “does not want to go quite far enough” and for now it’s “too bad” as the White House is not yet “happy with Iran negotiations”.

It’s still very premature at this point to point to any kind of ‘done deal’ – but this at least signals US strikes are unlikely to come this weekend, also as Rubio is still expected in Israel early next week.

But the pressure campaign is continuing, and with this new, strange designation – which no one will really notice:

Today I designated Iran as a State Sponsor of Wrongful Detention. For decades the Iranian regime has cruelly detained innocent Americans and citizens of other nations to use as political leverage. Iran must end this abhorrent practice and immediately free all unjustly detained…

— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) February 27, 2026

* * *

After the third round of indirect US-Iran talks held in Geneva on Thursday, Omani Foreign Minister Badr Al-Busaidi – who was the chief mediator – cited “significant progress” – which echoed the generally positive assessment of the Iranian side.

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi initially declared, “We reached agreement on some issues, and there are differences regarding some other issues. It was decided that the next round of negotiations will take place soon, in less than a week.”

He acknowledged that it was the most “intense” round yet, but still a “mutual understanding” was reached to “continue to engage in a more detailed manner on matters that are essential to any deal – including sanctions termination and nuclear-related steps.” But there has been no deal, and Washington’s attack plans are still in preparation phase.

“Success in this path requires seriousness and realism from the other side and avoidance of any miscalculation and excessive demands,” Araghchi reportedly said in a call with Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty.

There are reports that Washington may have actually dropped the ballistic missile reduction demand (or is at least not pressing it), but is still demanding zero enrichment, and that all remaining enriched uranium in Iran’s stockpile be transferred to US custody. In the process, the US wants to see Iran further dismantle the damaged nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.

The Wall Street Journal reported soon after Thursday’s talks wrapped up that no deal was reached, and that Tehran negotiators balked at the nuclear demands.

“Iran rejected the idea of transferring uranium stockpiles abroad. It also has objected to ending enrichment, dismantling its nuclear facilities and permanent restrictions on its program, Iranian state media and people familiar with the talks said,” WSJ wrote.

Are the negotiations just a smokescreen to put all military assets in place before the big (unprovoked) attack?

Exclusive- we spoke to Armed Services Chairman @SenatorWicker on Iran yesterday, who told us it’s a waste of time to expect the Iranian government to negotiate w/U.S. in good faith.

He suggested there’s a push to move to military strikes pic.twitter.com/UhB0rptcgW

— Joe Khalil (@JoeKhalilTV) February 27, 2026

With the next round (the fourth) of talks set to be held in Vienna this coming Wednesday, there remains the possibility that Trump could order some kind of strikes between now and then. Such an operation could be ‘limited’ – but there’s no guarantee that Iran’s response will also be limited in terms of the inevitable retaliation.

SpaceX is preparing to confidentially file for an initial public offering as early as next month, people familiar with the matter said, advancing plans for what could become the largest listing ever, according to Bloomberg.

The Starbase, Texas-based rocket and satellite company is expected to submit draft IPO paperwork to the US Securities and Exchange Commission in March, potentially positioning it for a June debut. That timing would make it the first in a possible wave of mega-offerings, with OpenAI and Anthropic PBC possibly following.

Deliberations are ongoing and plans could shift, the people cautioned, noting the filing could still be postponed.

Bloomberg writes that some of the people said SpaceX may pursue a valuation above $1.75 trillion, speaking anonymously because discussions are private. The company recently acquired xAI, Elon Musk’s AI venture, in a February deal valuing the combined business at $1.25 trillion, Bloomberg News reported. A confidential filing would allow SpaceX to receive regulatory feedback and revise disclosures before they are made public. A representative for the company did not immediately comment.

The IPO could raise as much as $50 billion, which would exceed Saudi Aramco’s record $29 billion offering in 2019. At a $1.75 trillion valuation, SpaceX would rank behind only five members of the S&P 500 Index — Nvidia Corp., Apple Inc., Alphabet Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Amazon.com Inc. — and would surpass Meta Platforms Inc. as well as Musk’s Tesla Inc. by market value.

In a memo, SpaceX said it is preparing for a possible 2026 IPO to finance an “insane flight rate” for its developing Starship rocket, space-based artificial intelligence data centers and a lunar base. The company has tapped Bank of America Corp., Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley for senior underwriting roles and is weighing a dual-class share structure that could grant insiders, including Musk, enhanced voting control, Bloomberg News has reported.

The most prolific rocket launcher globally, SpaceX leads the industry with its Falcon 9 vehicle, transporting satellites and astronauts into orbit. It is also building toward a lunar foothold before ultimately pursuing Musk’s long-stated goal of sending humans to Mars.

Through Starlink — a vast network of low-Earth orbit satellites — the company has become the dominant provider of space-based internet, serving millions worldwide.

Here comes more of those “Hundreds of Billions”

So much capital coming to this space next 3 years https://t.co/ZwTB0C2CUU

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 18, 2025

The DOE announced Wednesday that its Office of Energy Dominance Financing (EDF) has closed a $26.54 billion loan package (the largest in the agency’s history) to two Southern Company subsidiaries.

Georgia Power will receive $22.4 billion and Alabama Power $4.1 billion. The roughly 30-year loans, drawable through September 2033, will finance more than 16.7 GW of reliable generation and transmission upgrades across the Southeast. This new loan dwarfs the previous billion dollar loan recently secured by Constellation for Three Mile Island. 

The portfolio includes approximately 5.3 GW of new natural-gas capacity, 6.3 GW of nuclear improvements through uprates and license renewals at existing plants (including Vogtle), 1 GW of hydropower modernization, battery energy storage systems, and more than 1,300 miles of new transmission lines and grid enhancements.

DOE and Southern project the financing will deliver more than $7 billion in electricity cost savings to customers in Georgia and Alabama over the life of the loans. Once fully drawn, the lower, taxpayer-backed interest rate is expected to cut Southern’s annual interest expense by more than $300 million, costs that would otherwise be recovered from ratepayers. 

Said another way, the burden for upgrading the grossly under-maintained grid will be passed from the local ratepayer to the federal taxpayer. Yay?

*TRUMP: TELLING BIG TECH THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THEIR OWN POWER

*TRUMP: NEGOTIATED NEW RATE PAYER PLEDGE ON DATA CENTER ENERGY

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 25, 2026

“These investments will support the extraordinary and transformative projected growth we’re seeing across our company” Southern Chairman and CEO Chris Womack said. “These loans will help lower the cost of investments in our grid that will enhance reliability and resilience for the benefit of our customers”

Energy Secretary Chris Wright framed the deal as a direct fulfillment of the Trump administration’s energy policy. “Thanks to President Trump and the Working Families Tax Cut, the Energy Department is lowering energy costs and ensuring the American people have access to affordable, reliable, and secure energy for decades to come”.

The timing aligns with explosive load growth in the region. Georgia Power alone has secured roughly 7 GW of large-load commitments, largely from data centers and manufacturing, and is pursuing far more. Latitude notes the loans were restructured after the election to emphasize additional gas-fired resources alongside nuclear and transmission. It’s exactly the infrastructure needed to meet hyperscaler demand that utilities say private markets could not finance at comparable rates.

For taxpayers, the structure is debt, not a grant. In theory, the Treasury could break even or better versus Southern borrowing at higher private-market rates. DOE officials, including EDF Director Gregory Beard, stress that individual projects will undergo viability reviews to protect ratepayers and the public balance sheet.

Former President Bill Clinton on Friday told lawmakers that he had no clue about crimes carried out by Jeffrey Epstein, the late sex offender who visited the Clinton White House at least 17 times while Bill was president, before letting Clinton fly on the ‘Lolita Express’ dozens of times. 

“I saw nothing, and I did nothing wrong,” Clinton said in a statement prepared for a closed-door deposition in Chappaqua, New York. “I know what I saw, and more importantly, what I didn’t see.”

Bill Clinton swears he never knew. pic.twitter.com/B2QxiuG2X4

— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) February 27, 2026

“My brief acquaintance with Epstein ended years before his crimes came to light, and … I never witnessed during our limited interactions any indication of what was truly going on,” said the 79-year-old former president, adding “I had no idea of the crimes Epstein was committing.“

Which is weird, because Epstein had a picture of Clinton in a blue ‘Monica Lewinsky’ dress and red pedo club shoes on his wall…

Clinton became the first former president forced to testify to Congress – and did so just one day after his wife, Hillary Clinton, testified before the same panel. 

While Clinton was interviewed in a closed-door session, the GOP chairman of the committee, James Comer, said they would be asking Bill about trips he took on Epstein’s plane, and the White House visits Epstein made while Clinton was president. 

Another GOP lawmaker on the panel, Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina, said that Clinton would be “thoroughly asked” about pictures of him featured in the Epstein files – including one of him soaking in a jacuzzi, and another of him swimming with Ghislaine Maxwell. 

According to the Epoch Times, an FBI document stated that a person whose name was redacted and was not an Epstein victim reported that she was invited to an orgy with Clinton, but did not attend. Law enforcement emails said that an Epstein victim said she met Epstein through another victim who had traveled with Epstein and Clinton to Africa.

Clinton flew on Epstein’s plane in 2002 and 2003, according to previously known flight logs and photographs. He has said previously through a spokesperson that those trips involved work for the Clinton Foundation and that he never went to Epstein’s island, although he briefly went to Epstein’s home in New York and logs showed Epstein went to the White House while Clinton was president.

As Bloomberg notes, ‘Clinton took several trips on Epstein’s private plane before Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to Florida state charges that included procurement of a minor to engage in prostitution. Epstein also donated $1,000 to Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and $20,000 to Hillary Clinton’s 2000 US Senate campaign. A charity controlled by Epstein contributed $25,000 to the Clintons’ private foundation.’

Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, told the BBC earlier this month that Bill was only flying on the Lolita Express “for his charitable work.” 

Like this?

This isn’t the first time the Clintons have asked us to believe them…

😂😂😂 pic.twitter.com/vs15nejB3F

— Politi_Rican 🇵🇷 𝕏 🇺🇸 (@TheRicanMemes) February 27, 2026

On August 19, 2025 we published what we thought was “the most insane chart”, one showing that value of data center construction was about to surpass the value of office construction. We added that we would reach the intersection point within 6 months. 

The most insane chart: value of data centers being built will surpass all offices in construction within 6 months pic.twitter.com/kQBGegx9Fj

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 19, 2025

We were right: earlier today the US published the much-delayed Construction Spending report for the month of December. It confirmed, that just as expected, the value of Data Centers constructed in the US has officially surpassed the value of Offices, a historical and very symbolic crossover which makes it clear that going forward machines, and not human workers will provide the bulk of US productivity. 

And while the long-term trend here is assured – at least until there is a new luddite revolution and (soon to be unemployed) humanity revolts against its new chatbot masters, burning down every data center in sight – there may be some near-term volatility. That’s because according to more real-time measures, real estate brokerage CBRE reported that construction of new data centers in the US fell for the first time since 2020 despite soaring demand for artificial intelligence computing capacity, as developers face delays in permitting, zoning and power procurement.

Capacity under construction fell to 5.99 gigawatts at the end of 2025 from 6.35 gigawatts at the end of 2024. Still, in light of the layoff tsunami, it is certain that construction of offices has slowed down even more thus keeping data centers in the pole position. 

The construction delays and faster long-distance networks are driving development to move outside traditional data center sites like Northern Virginia, Gordon Dolven, CBRE’s data center research director, said in the report. The good news is that overall vacancy rate in primary markets fell to a record low 1.4% at year-end.

“Combined with growing interest in markets that offer available land and power, this is spurring investment beyond traditional hubs and reshaping the North American data center market,” Dolven said.

Meanwhile, as we warned last year, local pushback against massive AI data center projects has intensified in recent months, with the tide turning from welcoming the economic benefits of major construction projects to scrutinizing their resource-intensiveness and the associated soaring electricity prices. 

Last week, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker sought to temporarily halt incentives for data centers in a bid to contain soaring power costs Bloomberg reported. An Oracle Corp. site in New Mexico that scored a package of tax incentives and support from government-backed bonds has prompted protests largely focused on its potential environmental impact. And tensions have flared in Northern Virginia, where some residents are now looking to flee what’s become one of the largest data center hubs in the world.

Still, these are just growing pains and once behind the meter power sources are mandated, and small modular reactors become an everyday phenomenon, data center construction will resume its surge. That’s because AI demand is forecast to require $3 trillion in data center investment, including related power supplies, according to estimates from Morgan Stanley. New tenants absorbed a record 2.5 million gigawatts in 2025, up 38% from a year earlier, CBRE said.

Construction underway fell 29% in Northern Virginia, followed by a 15% drop in Hillsboro, Oregon, and a 14% decline in Silicon Valley, CBRE reported. Projects soared 169% in Chicago and 15% in Dallas-Fort Worth.

Atlanta had more than 2 gigawatts of projects under construction, ahead of 1.9 gigawatts in Northern Virginia, in the second half of 2025.

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

The DOJ under the Biden administration “invited” disgraced Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to apply for a generous taxpayer-funded grant as she prosecuted President Donald Trump. 

The arrangement came to light after Willis referenced the grant in December 2022 correspondence with DOJ Senior Advisor Scott Pestridge of the Office of Justice Programs.  

The document was first revealed on Thursday by Just the News through open records requests filed by the outlet and nonprofit America First Legal. 

According to Just the News, Willis referenced the Office of Justice Programs’ Community-Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative grant, which ultimately awarded her office $2 million. 

The timing of the award coincided with her office’s aggressive prosecution of Trump, who at the time was running for president against then-President Joe Biden. 

“I want to document your recognition of our progress and services provided with dynamic partners, as we complete sole source steps for our new grant award, a grant in which you invited us to apply,” Willis wrote to Pestridge, according to Just the News. 

Willis described the award as a “sole source” grant, indicating her office faced no competing applicants. 

The $2 million award was part of roughly $18 million the Biden DOJ provided to Willis’s office between 2021 and 2024.  

She claimed the funds would help “at-risk” youth avoid falling into crime or assist with reintegration into society, according to Just the News. 

Documents released by Willis’s office in response to open records requests show her office maintained consistent coordination with the DOJ after Trump left office in 2021, when she became one of several left-leaning prosecutors pursuing cases against him.  

She later charged Trump under Georgia’s RICO statute, accusing him of attempting to subvert the 2020 election results in the state. 

Her case ultimately unraveled after it was revealed that she had engaged in an affair with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she selected to lead the prosecution.  

Willis took vacations with Wade while her office paid him, later claiming she reimbursed him in cash, though she never produced receipts to substantiate those payments. 

Both Wade and Willis were ultimately disqualified from leading the case. After Trump returned to office in 2025, the prosecution was effectively nullified. 

As today’s 5PM ET deadline looms for Anthropic to militarize Claude AI for the Pentagon, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman waded into the fray – telling staff on Thursday night that his company is working with the Department of War to see if their models can be used in classified settings in a way that maintains the same safety guardrails that are about to get Anthropic booted from the Pentagon. 

“We are going to see if there is a deal with the DoW that allows our models to be deployed in classified environments and that fits with our principles,” Altman wrote in a Thursday night note to staff, reported by the Wall Street Journal. “We would ask for the contract to cover any use except those which are unlawful or unsuited to cloud deployments, such as domestic surveillance and autonomous offensive weapons.”

Altman says he wants to “try to help de-escalate things,” aka – they want to be the ones deeply embedded in the Pentagon’s most sensitive systems. 

Red Lines

Altman says OpenAI understands the government’s position that a private company should not have control over significant national-security issues [laughs in Palantir], but says they have the same issues as Anthropic when it comes to use cases. 

“We have long believed that AI should not be used for mass surveillance or autonomous lethal weapons, and that humans should remain in the loop for high-stakes automated decisions. These are our main red lines,” Altman wrote. 

“We believe this dispute isn’t about how AI will be used, but about control. We believe that a private US company cannot be more powerful than the democratically-elected US government, although companies can have lots of input and influence. Democracy is messy, but we are committed to it.”

Altman’s comments come as things aren’t looking so good for Anthropic. Earlier Thursday evening, CEO Dario Amodei announced that the company had rejected the Department of War’s demands that it make its technology available for “all lawful uses,” which means no mass domestic surveillance or autonomous weapons. 

Yet, the Pentagon’s Emil Michael – who allegedly as a private citizen Uber exec wanted to spend a million dollars to surveil and dig up dirt on journalists who covered Uber – noted that mass surveillance is already illegal under the Fourth Amendment, and insists that “Anthropic is lying” because “he @DeptofWar doesn’t do mass surveillance as that is already illegal. What we are talking about is allowing our warfighters to use AI without having to call @DarioAmodei for permission to shoot down an enemy drone swarms that would kill Americans.”

We agree @JeffDean. Mass surveillance violating the 4th Amendment, the N’tl Security Act etc is illegal which is why the @DeptofWar would never do it. We also won’t have any BigTech company decide Americans’ civil liberties. https://t.co/FhAO9gULBI

— Under Secretary of War Emil Michael (@USWREMichael) February 26, 2026

Anthropic is lying. The @DeptofWar doesn’t do mass surveillance as that is already illegal. What we are talking about is allowing our warfighters to use AI without having to call @DarioAmodei for permission to shoot down an enemy drone swarms that would kill Americans. #CallDario https://t.co/43PpyvCVzN

— Under Secretary of War Emil Michael (@USWREMichael) February 27, 2026

Grok On Deck?

The logical move for the Pentagon – after being able to claim they gave Anthropic and OpenAI a fair shake – would be to replace Claude with xAI’s Grok. 

Always ready. Built for maximum truth-seeking and helpfulness, no guardrails on facts or logic. Pentagon mission? Let’s deliver.

— Grok (@grok) February 27, 2026

And so, of course, ‘ALARMS ARE BEING RAISED’ over the prospect, according to the Wall Street Journal, citing the ever-insightful “people familiar with the matter.” 

Officials at multiple federal agencies have raised concerns about the safety and reliability of Elon Musk’s xAI artificial-intelligence tools in recent months, highlighting continuing disagreements within the U.S. government about which AI models to deploy, according to people familiar with the matter. 

The warnings preceded the Pentagon’s decision this week to put xAI at the center of some of the nation’s most sensitive and secretive operations by agreeing to allow its chatbot Grok to be used in classified settings.

…

Senior U.S. officials including at the White House view Anthropic’s outspoken stances on safety and ties to big Democratic donors as potentially making the company too “woke” to be a reliable provider, people familiar with the matter said. The looser controls on Grok, and Musk’s absolutist stance on free speech, have made it a more attractive choice to the Pentagon.

…

Ed Forst, the top official at the General Services Administration, a procurement arm of the federal government, in recent months sounded an alarm with White House officials about potential safety issues with Grok, people familiar with the matter said. Other GSA officials under him had also raised safety concerns about Grok, which they viewed as sycophantic and too susceptible to manipulation or corruption by faulty or biased data—creating a potential system risk. 

Also kinda funny is that the General Services Administration was severely diminished by serious DOGE cuts to ‘waste, fraud and abuse,’ but we’re sure this isn’t a case of sour grapes. 

Will ‘woke’ Anthropic & OpenAI win, or will Grok?

Either way, we all lose. Palantir is already balls deep across critical systems, and US adversaries are undoubtedly leveraging cutting edge AI within their own defense departments & surveilling whoever the fuck they want.