Germany’s parliament has approved a sizeable contract for defense giant Rheinmetall to supply loitering munitions, or kamikaze drones, to the Bundeswehr, underscoring just how quickly European militaries are internalizing drone warfare lessons from both the Russia-Ukraine war and, more recently, the U.S.-Iran conflict. Berlin’s latest procurement push makes it clear that one-way attack drones are becoming a serious threat, and the race to stockpile them has begun.

Bloomberg reports that the budget committee of the Bundestag approved the Defense Ministry’s proposal for an initial tranche of Rheinmetall’s suicide drones worth $345 million.

The deal is capped at around $1.2 billion for Rheinmetall loitering munitions and depends on the firm meeting development and delivery milestones. The drones are initially intended for Germany’s brigade in Lithuania, but there is a possibility that they will be deployed elsewhere.

The approval follows Germany’s February decision to purchase $637 million worth of strike drones from startups Helsing and STARK. Rheinmetall missed out on those deals because it lacked a working prototype at the time.

The Defense Ministry confirmed the latest contract without identifying Rheinmetall: “As with the other two contracts, there are clearly defined qualification requirements, termination milestones, and innovation clauses.”

Lessons learned from the current conflicts across Eurasia have served as a wake-up call for countries around the world, unleashing a frantic race among the world’s militaries to procure low-cost attack drones.

What follows will be counter-drone systems to combat this emerging threat, as the war in the Middle East showed that the US and its Gulf allies lacked low-cost solutions.

On the U.S. homeland front, the Federal Aviation Administration has given the U.S. military the green light to deploy high-energy counter-drone laser weapons in U.S. airspace. Alarmingly, there are very few, if not any, low-cost counter-drone systems guarding America’s data centers, transmission substations, stadiums, and other critical infrastructure.

One month before the US-Iran conflict broke out, we informed readers of the urgent need for data centers to consider counter-drone systems. What followed were multiple data centers struck by Iranian drones in the Gulf region. Civilian infrastructure will not be spared as the world becomes increasingly dangerous and chaotic.

Authored by Gisele Widdershoven via OilPrice.com,

• Europe’s electrification strategy is ambitious but constrained by lagging grid infrastructure, creating bottlenecks that are already delaying industry and investment.

• Massive funding needs—running into trillions—combined with regulatory complexity and slow buildouts are exposing a gap between policy ambition and physical reality.

• Without better coordination, prioritization, and financing, Europe risks higher costs, weaker competitiveness, and a stalled energy transition.

The message given by Ursula von der Leyen to electrify the European economy is strategically coherent, politically appealing, and, on the surface, even unavoidable. It will be the real deal to decarbonize industry and power transport, reduce dependence on imported fossil fuels, and anchor Europe’s competitiveness. The latter is especially valid in an increasingly fragmented geopolitical order. Electrification is presented as the backbone of Europe’s future prosperity and security.

However, beneath this clear vision lies a far more uncomfortable reality. Brussels is not only pursuing an energy transition but also transforming its industrial base, transport systems, infrastructure networks, and geopolitical posture. All of this needs to be done while facing an increased financial, physical, and strategic strain. Electrification is not failing at present because the overall idea or strategy is wrong, but because the system required to support it is already overstretched. At the same time, and maybe even more important, the bill to fix that system is only beginning to emerge.

The real core problem of Brussels is not its ambition, but the sequencing of it all.

Europe is already accelerating the electrification of demand, mainly in the industrial, transport, and heating sectors, while simultaneously pushing to expand renewable supply at an unprecedented speed. One pivotal issue, however, seems to be constantly forgotten: the infrastructure that must connect the two is lagging dangerously behind. Policymakers and advisors should realize that electricity systems are not abstract constructs, but physical networks with hard limits. Throughout Europe, these limits have already been reached.

The prime example of this situation is the Netherlands.

Throughout the continent, the Dutch energy transition has been presented as a model: one of the highest per-capita deployments of offshore wind in the world, widespread solar adoption, aggressive electrification policies, and a political consensus around decarbonization. If Brussels’ overall strategy were working as intended, the Netherlands should be its showcase.

In reality, however, it is its warning.

At present, the Dutch electricity grid is no longer able to keep pace with the pace of change. The country’s grid congestion has become structural, not incidental. An ever-growing list of thousands of companies, some even stating 15,000+, are already on waiting lists for grid connections or capacity upgrades. In several Dutch regions, industrial clusters cannot expand, while new investments are delayed or diverted. The most shocking issue is that even residential developments are hindered or blocked by the lack of electricity.

The paradox is striking. At certain moments, especially when there is a positive combination of wind and sun, the Netherlands produces more renewable electricity than it can use. At other times, the country cannot supply enough electricity to meet demand. The Dutch system is increasingly hit by a system that needs to deal with a simultaneous suffering of surplus and scarcity.

This is not a temporary imbalance but the predictable outcome of a system in which generation has outpaced infrastructure. It is also where Europe’s electrification narrative begins to unravel.

The EC’s strategy again assumes a relatively smooth scaling of supply, demand, and infrastructure. Reality, however, is much more complex. At present, infrastructure development lags due to permitting constraints, investment bottlenecks, and physical construction timelines. At the same time, demand does not scale linearly, especially when industries hesitate amid uncertainty about costs and grid access. The system itself introduces frictions, such as congestion, curtailment, and volatility, all undermining efficiency.

Across Europe, an increasing number of grid operators are issuing urgent warnings as connection queues grow while investment pipelines stall. All are looking at a situation where the congestion costs are rising. And yet the policy response remains focused primarily on accelerating renewable deployment and electrification targets, as if infrastructure will inevitably follow.

It will not.

Right now, now is that electricity grids cannot be expanded at the pace of policy ambition. Building high-voltage transmission lines takes years, often more than a decade. At the same time, distribution networks require massive upgrades to handle decentralized generation and electrified demand. Local opposition, environmental regulations, and supply chain constraints slow all of this.

Brussels dramatically underestimates the scale of investment needed, which should motivate industry leaders to develop innovative financing strategies and advocate for substantial capital allocation to meet the €660 billion annual target and beyond.

To be clear, this is not incremental spending, but a structural reallocation of capital on a scale rarely seen outside wartime economies.

Given the €1.2 trillion investment requirement for electricity grids alone by 2040, policymakers should explore innovative financing models, public-private partnerships, and EU-level funding instruments to mobilize the necessary capital efficiently.

Addressing electrification requires a collective effort to rebuild Europe’s entire energy backbone, highlighting the importance of coordinated strategic planning among policymakers, industry, and investors to prevent economic inefficiency and political fragility.

That is where the Dutch case becomes valid. The Netherlands has already demonstrated that high levels of renewable penetration do not automatically translate into effective electrification. Without grid capacity, renewable energy cannot be fully utilized. Without certainty about the connection, industrial electrification stalls. Without system flexibility, volatility increases.

In other words, the transition becomes economically inefficient and politically fragile.

Another major constraint is that the financial challenge does not exist in isolation. It is unfolding within a rapidly deteriorating geopolitical environment.

The European Union is simultaneously being forced to increase defense spending, support Ukraine, and respond to renewed instability in global energy markets. The war in Ukraine has already triggered a structural shift in defense priorities, with European defense spending reaching hundreds of billions annually and new EU-level instruments targeting up to €800 billion in mobilized resources.

Since the last two months, tensions in the Middle East, especially in Hormuz, have reintroduced energy security risks that Europe had hoped electrification would mitigate. Roughly a fifth of global oil and LNG flows through Hormuz. Even partial disruptions immediately translate into higher prices, increased volatility, and renewed dependence on external suppliers.

This strategic contradiction is compounded by geopolitical risks, such as disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and increased defense spending, which threaten to undermine Europe’s energy security and complicate the transition to electrification despite its intended benefits.

Brussels attempts to invest heavily in electrification to reduce energy vulnerability, while simultaneously being forced to spend heavily on defense and absorb the costs of ongoing fossil fuel dependence. The energy transition does not replace one system with another, but it layers new costs on top of old ones.

This is the fiscal collision at the heart of the European project. The real question right now, which needs to be answered honestly, is: who is going to pay?

Most European governments are already fiscally constrained, as public debt levels remain elevated following the pandemic and energy crisis. They also need to deal with increased defense spending, while social pressures are rising. The idea that national budgets alone can finance the electrification of the economy is no longer credible.

Again, private capital is often presented as the solution. Brussels strategy relies heavily on mobilizing institutional investors, de-risking projects, and leveraging capital markets. However, private capital is not a substitute for public strategy. Private capital flows where risk-adjusted returns are predictable. Grid infrastructure, industrial electrification, and system flexibility often do not meet these criteria without significant public guarantees.

Moreover, the scale required goes far beyond what current mechanisms can deliver. Even ambitious instruments such as the Innovation Fund or the proposed Industrial Decarbonization Bank, targeting tens or even hundreds of billions, remain small relative to the annual investment gap.

Europe’s uncomfortable truth is that it will need to adopt a fundamentally different financing model. Electrification at this scale clearly requires something closer to a strategic investment doctrine than a collection of policy instruments. Brussels will need to deal with a reality that requires prioritization, coordination, and, for all parties, critical acceptance of trade-offs.

• First, Europe will need to elevate energy infrastructure to the same strategic level as defense. If joint borrowing and coordinated financing can be justified for military capabilities, the same logic applies to cross-border electricity grids, storage systems, and industrial electrification corridors. These are not optional climate investments; they are the foundation of economic resilience.

• Second, existing revenue streams, particularly from carbon pricing mechanisms, must be more aggressively redirected toward infrastructure. The current allocation is insufficient relative to the scale of need.

• Third, public financial institutions, the European Investment Bank and national development banks—must significantly expand their role, particularly in areas where private capital remains hesitant.

All the above, however, will eliminate the need for prioritization.

The current reality shows that Europe cannot fund everything simultaneously. It cannot electrify all industries at once, build all infrastructure at once, and meet all geopolitical commitments without making choices. It is a political illusion to believe that coordination and efficiency gains will eliminate trade-offs.

The Dutch experience already demonstrates what happens when these trade-offs are ignored. Infrastructure constraints begin to shape economic outcomes. Investments are delayed or redirected. The energy transition loses momentum not because of political opposition, but because of practical limitations.

If we scale the Dutch experience to the European level, the consequences could be far more significant. Industries that depend on reliable, high-capacity electricity, especially chemicals, steel, and data infrastructure, will look beyond Europe if energy systems cannot deliver. Investment flows may shift to regions with more robust infrastructure. And Europe’s industrial base could erode at precisely the moment it seeks to strengthen it.

This is the risk embedded in the current electrification narrative.

Brussels assumes that more renewable energy and more electrification will automatically lead to lower costs, greater security, and enhanced competitiveness. Facts on the ground, however, show that without the infrastructure and financing to support it, the opposite may occur: higher costs, increased volatility, and reduced competitiveness.

The greatest danger is not a failure of electrification, but that it will proceed in an unbalanced way. There is a huge risk of too much generation without infrastructure, too much demand without connectivity, and too much ambition without sequence.

This is already happening.

The Netherlands shows that even a highly advanced energy transition can hit hard physical limits. These limits are not theoretical. They are visible in grid congestion, curtailed renewable output, delayed investments, and constrained economic growth.

Europe as a whole is now approaching the same inflection point.

Von der Leyen is right that electricity will define Europe’s future. However, to define the future is not the same as building it. Brussels needs to understand that building requires infrastructure that takes decades, capital that runs into trillions, and political choices that are far more difficult than current rhetoric suggests. We are not only looking at an energy strategy when pursuing electrification, but also at a test of Europe’s ability to align ambition with reality.

At present, that alignment is missing.

The physical limits of a grid need to be confronted by Europe, including the financial scale of its ambitions, and the geopolitical pressures shaping its choices. If not, the electrification agenda will remain incomplete. Again, the vision is not wrong, but the system required to deliver it is not yet ready. At the same time, the willingness to pay for it has not yet been fully acknowledged.

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

In March I published an article titled “Global Energy Crisis Or Iranian Surrender In Five Weeks?” in which I outlined the “worst case” and “best case” scenarios for the war in Iran. In my best case scenario I argued in favor of a specific plan to end the conflict quickly: A US naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, flipping the tables on Iran by blocking or seizing any oil tankers or gas tankers which exit Iranian ports.

Two weeks later, the Trump Administration has implemented this exact strategy.

The effectiveness of the blockade is already apparent; the propaganda bots on social media are scrambling to find a narrative to counter it, but they are failing. Why? Because Iran already tried to lock down the strait (which is an international waterway), and any government cheering (or secretly cheering) for Iran’s actions is now unable to make a rational argument against the US doing the same thing to Iran. As I noted in March:

“We constantly hear about international exposure to the Hormuz shutdown, but the media rarely mentions that Iran is the MOST exposed economy of all. For now, Iranian oil ships continue to pass through the strait and these vessels are Iran’s economic lifeline. Strategic estimates suggest that without the steady passage of these oil tankers, the Iranian economy would completely collapse within five weeks…”

I then summarized what I believed was the simplest solution to end the war:

“Iranian cargo ships can be targeted for seizure by a US blockade of the Persian Gulf well away from the narrow waters of the Hormuz. The ships could be destroyed, but I suspect the Department of Defense will try to avoid oil spills and ecological disasters. Instead, the best option is to capture Iran’s tankers and then redirect the oil to countries in danger of shortages.

Iran has the option of shutting off GPS tracking for their vessels (shadow fleet), but this would not help them maneuver past a comprehensive US blockade. In other words, I argue that the US could turn the tables on Iran and use their reliance on the Hormuz against them.

With Iran’s economy in shambles, they will no longer be able to purchase missiles or drones for resupply from Russia and China. They won’t be able to pay for logistic resources for their military and they won’t be able to contain public unrest. The Iranians would be forced to negotiate and the war would be over quickly with minimal risk to US troops.”

For now, the US is not seizing Iran’s tankers and is merely sending them back to where they came from. However, it would seem that the Trump Administration and their military advisers have come to the same basic conclusions I did.

For years I have expressed my concerns about a potential conflict in Iran, largely because of the precarious global economic risks associated with mass energy shortages caused by a closure of the Hormuz, which transits around 25% of the world’s energy exports. That said, I do not care about “picking sides” when it comes to Israel or Iran.

This debate is irrelevant and designed, I think, to divide US conservatives over ancient tribal vendettas that do not involve us. I don’t care about the Israeli government or “Zionism” and I certainly don’t care what happens to the theocratic and tyrannical Muslim regime in Iran. We have much more important things to think about.

What matters to me is how the US and the American people are affected by geopolitical events. There has been endless debate on what the war is really about, whether it be Iranian nukes, Israeli schemes, Saudi schemes, control of global oil markets, etc. (I think every action the Trump Administration has take so far from Venezuela to Iran has largely been designed to contain China). In any case, a long term closure of the Hormuz will eventually result in market cascades and a stagflationary crisis.

What matters now is ending the war as quickly and decisively as possible without leaving the Homuz and 25% of global energy exports under Iran’s control. After that, people can wrestle over the “moral and constitutional” quandary to their heart’s content.

First, I think it’s vitally important to address some lies and disinformation being spread by propagandists and foreign agents online about the US blockade, so let’s quickly go down the list…

Lie #1: The US Is Blocking All Ships Traveling Through The Strait

This is false. The US is only blocking ships coming from Iranian ports. All other ships have been allowed to pass without incident. This lie is being spread by disinfo agents all over social media and it is also being spread by foreign governments from the UK to France to China. This, to me, says A LOT about the true agenda of these countries, given that they said little or nothing about Iran locking down the strait.

Lie #2: Chinese Vessels Have Broken The Blockade And The US Is Afraid

Nope. All Chinese vessels coming from Iranian ports have been turned away and any vessels coming from alternative ports have been allowed to pass. At the time this article is being published, only one ship from an Iranian port has allegedly slipped through the blockade, though the story on this ship might be fabricated. All other Iranian ships have been repelled.

Lie #3: The Blockade Puts US Naval Ships At Serious Risk

No, it does the opposite. US ships have no need to traverse the narrow Hormuz to blockade it. All they have to do is wait outside of it and turn back Iranian tankers that approach. No mines, no missiles, no drones, no tiny attack boats, nothing Iran has the ability to deploy has much of a chance of harming the US Navy. In fact, reports indicate ships like the USS Abraham Lincoln (an aircraft carrier) have already been targeted hundreds of times by Iran with no damage taken.

There is nothing Iran can do about a comprehensive blockade.

Lie #4: Iran Is Used To Sanctions And Can Hold Out Longer Than The US

No, they can’t. Only 7% of energy exports going to the US travel through the Hormuz. Iran’s entire economy hangs by a thin thread and that thread is oil exports to countries like China or Vietnam.

Iran is reportedly losing around $430 million each day that their ships remain stuck in the strait, and they have already taken around $270 billion in infrastructure damages. Iran pays for new weapons and military logistics with oil revenues. Their soldiers are paid in part with oil revenues. They mitigate civil unrest with oil revenues.

I suspect that the blockade will force Iran back into negotiations within a couple weeks. That’s how little time they have left.

Lie #5: Iran Has Alternative Ways To Bypass The Blockade

No, they don’t. Overland routes without ample pipelines are no substitute for the ease of oil tanker shipments. Even if they did have such pipelines, those lines could be easily destroyed.

By extension, as Iran’s oil exports stack up they will quickly run out of storage space, which means they will have to shut down drilling. This would cause significant damage to their oil infrastructure within weeks due to pressure differentials.

Recent news indicates that Iran has already halted all petrochemical exports until further notice. If true, this proves that the blockade is highly effective.

Lie #6: The Chinese Will Intervene And Force The Strait To Reopen

As noted, the strait is not closed. Only Iranian ports are closed. Furthermore, China has stayed away from direct intervention in the Hormuz because they simply don’t have the naval capacity to square off with the US even if they wanted to.

Keep in mind, only a week ago the Chinese government vetoed a UN resolution to reopen the strait when they thought Iran was going to control it. The CCP is impotent and they can do nothing.

Lie #7: The US Is Losing All Its Allies Over The Blockade

Wrong. What the blockade (and the war in general) is doing is exposing the countries which were pretending to be our allies when it was convenient. I examined this problem in my last article “The US Separation From Europe And NATO Is Long Overdue”, and this brings me to my final point on the war.

The fact that the European elites are suddenly so concerned with the US blockade, enough to call for a “coalition” to reopen the strait and “circumvent” the US, tells us all we need to know. I continue to believe that the globalists in these nations have been feeding off the US while at the same time organizing a “multicultural alliance” behind the scenes – A socialist new world order to supplant western civilization and leave the US behind as a husk.

Part of this agenda clearly involves a partnership with Islamic fundamentalists as a goon squad to oppress native western populations. This is why the elites have flooded Europe with third world migrants – Ignoring the concerns of citizens and even arresting people who speak out.

This is also why the Pope is so adamant to call for a Muslim/Christian pact (while he blatantly ignores the fact that Europeans have been terrorized by Muslim immigrants for over a decade). Let’s not forget that during the pandemic lockdowns, the Vatican joined with the globalists to form the Council for Inclusive Capitalism (run by Lynn Forester de Rothschild). Modern-era Popes are not friends to conservatives or Christians, but I plan to go into that problem in my next article.

The blockade, I believe, is so effective that it has struck fear in Iran, fear in China, and fear in the liberal order in Europe which was counting on the war to drag on for months or years. Look at how angry they all are that Trump flipped the script on the Hormuz? Why all the emotion and irrational hand wringing after the strait has been opened to MORE ships and oil traffic? Why all the panic when oil prices are falling? It doesn’t make sense unless they WANT the US to fail.

Regardless of how you might feel personally about the Iran war, it is undeniable that the situation has revealed many of our supposed allies as enemies. In reality, they were always enemies. The only thing that has changed is that the truth is finally out in the open.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Someone on GitHub has built an open-source radar system capable of tracking multiple targets up to roughly 12 miles away, at a fraction of the cost that a major defense contractor would typically charge for a comparable system.

AERIS-10 is an open-source phased-array radar system that demonstrates how advanced sensing technology has moved out of the defense-prime world and into civilian hands, with one person releasing all the design and development files on GitHub.

The 10.5 GHz phased-array radar system is available in two versions:

AERIS-10 is an open-source, low-cost 10.5 GHz phased array radar system featuring Pulse Linear Frequency Modulated (LFM) modulation. Available in two versions (3km and 20km range), it’s designed for researchers, drone developers, and serious SDR enthusiasts who want to explore and experiment with phased array radar technology.

The developers wrote, “The AERIS-10 project aims to democratize radar technology by providing a fully open-source, modular, and hackable radar system.”

“Whether you’re a university researcher, a drone startup, or an advanced maker, AERIS-10 offers a platform for experimenting with beamforming, pulse compression, Doppler processing, and target tracking,” they added.

X user chiefofautism noted, “One person built what defense contractors charge a quarter million for and open-sourced it.”

That’s a great question:

I can only imagine what the FCC will have to say about this…

— E__Strobel (@E__Strobel) March 13, 2026

The bigger takeaway is not the project itself, but what it signals: dual-use capability has shifted into the civilian and open-source domain, a shift that is clearly visible in the drone world. It also shows how powerful dual-use technology is now becoming accessible outside the traditional defense-contractor ecosystem – something the Department of War will find increasingly difficult to ignore as funding flows redirect to “war unicorns” promising faster innovation at lower cost. 

Submitted by American Truckers United,

Over the last year, the American people have awakened to the reality of truck drivers unable to speak English, operating with non-domicile CDLs, and wreaking havoc on our roadways. What had yet to gain national attention was the ownership behind these illicit trucking companies. The 60 Minutes special that aired this weekend finally changed that by exposing one of the worst “chameleon carriers” in the industry.

Chameleon carriers are four times more likely to be involved in crashes, according to data from a risk assessment firm, Fusable. pic.twitter.com/3l5LOUQcyQ

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) April 12, 2026

The CBS report laid out the crisis in stark detail. The motor carrier mentioned is a Serbian-based network that repeatedly sheds its identity—changing names and USDOT numbers—to erase thousands of safety violations and hundreds of crashes. Drivers described forced 18-hour days, ELD cheating orchestrated by dispatchers in Serbia, and paychecks that came back negative after excessive lease, insurance, and repair fees were skimmed off the top. The carrier network racked up nearly 15,000 violations and 500 accidents in just two years while hauling freight for major shippers. Yet the carrier insists it is merely a “leasing company,” not a motor carrier, and therefore bears no responsibility for the trucks or drivers operating under its trailers. 

A whistleblower from a Super Ego-affiliated company says dispatchers and managers in Serbia were told to overwork and exploit American drivers. pic.twitter.com/cdvIbaSL38

— 60 Minutes (@60Minutes) April 12, 2026

60 Minutes built a compelling case that dismantled their narrative.  

What 60 Minutes likely left on the cutting-room floor is the most damning part of the story: who keeps loading these illegal carriers with freight in the first place? Who failed—or refused—to vet the motor carrier, its foreign ownership, or its forced-labor operations?

The answer points directly to freight brokers, with industry giant C.H. Robinson at the forefront. Despite the motor carrier not being a registered motor carrier with the USDOT, C.H. Robinson awarded it “Carrier of the Year” in the 1,000+ truck category for 2025. Industry sources allege that the selection process for this award involves rigorous vetting and requires final approval from upper management. Such high-level oversight strongly suggests that senior leadership at C.H. Robinson may have been directly involved in bestowing one of its most prestigious honors on a well-known chameleon carrier.

CH Robinson (ATA & TIA Member) awarded Super Ego as one of their carriers of the year for 2025 https://t.co/A6Q6OaStFx

— American Truckers 🚛🦅 (@atutruckers) April 13, 2026

This is not merely a failure of due diligence. It reflects a pattern of willful blindness, driven by greed, that prioritizes profit margins over safety, regulatory compliance, and the integrity of America’s trucking industry.

Large freight brokers have spent the past six years expanding their market share by abandoning legacy American-owned asset-based carriers and instead tapping a new, captive capacity source: foreign networks running what amounts to organized forced-labor schemes. Dispatch operations remain in foreign countries while unsafe trucks terrorize American highways. The brokers pocket the margin; the public pays the price in crashes, congestion, and national-security risks.

Trucking is the backbone of U.S. supply chains. When middlemen profit by partnering with chameleon carriers that exploit truck drivers, they do more than undercut honest American trucking companies—they corrupt a dangerous occupation that is critical to our economy and national defense. 

Current State of the US Trucking Industry pic.twitter.com/zbG9hZRJQ2

— American Truckers 🚛🦅 (@atutruckers) April 13, 2026

This scandal extends far beyond the chameleon carriers themselves. It lies with the large freight brokers, the real profiteers, who continue to provide them with freight and access to the highways, accelerating the decline of American-owned trucking companies while leaving crash victims and their families without meaningful accountability or support.

Hold the brokers accountable for what they have done to our industry! Demand Accountability! Demand Broker Liability!

On Monday, DNI Tulsi Gabbard and the House Intelligence Committee released declassified transcripts revealing that the whistleblower whose complaint about Trump and Zelensky’s ‘perfect call’ as an extreme parisan who had a “prior professional relationship with one of the Democratic Presidential candidates,” and despite those facts, former-Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) Michael Atkinson claimed “I did not find the complainant (whistleblower) was biased.”

Well, tonight they’re the recipients of two criminal referrals. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on Wednesady referred who is believed to be former CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella – along with the former intelligence community inspector general who fast-tracked it – for potential criminal investigation, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence announced Tuesday.

The referrals to the Justice Department, first reported by Fox News and confirmed by multiple officials familiar with the matter, come days after Gabbard’s office declassified more than seven-year-old transcripts and supporting documents that Democrats and the intelligence community had kept under wraps since the fall of 2019. The newly public records raise fresh questions about the origins and handling of the complaint that accused Trump of pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter.

NEW RECORDS VIA @DNIGabbard @RepRickCrawford ATKINSON TRANSCRIPTS

– First Trump Impeachment + Whistleblower Motive

Whistleblower met with Democrats on House Intelligence Committee (then led by Adam Schiff) BEFORE reporting his allegations to the Intelligence Community… pic.twitter.com/x7A1IxHLLO

— Catherine Herridge (@C__Herridge) April 13, 2026

Ciaramella was a CIA analyst detailed to the National Security Council at the time. According to the declassified materials, he had no firsthand knowledge of Trump’s July 25, 2019, phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and instead relied on secondhand accounts from NSC colleagues. He was a registered Democrat who had previously worked on Ukraine policy under then-Vice President Biden – including traveling with him – and had pre-complaint contacts with Democratic staff on the House Intelligence Committee, including aides to then-Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the records show.

Former Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who received the complaint in August 2019, is accused in the declassified files of deviating from standard procedures. He allegedly changed the whistleblower complaint form to accommodate hearsay information, ignored Justice Department guidance that the complaint did not qualify as an “urgent concern,” did not review the actual call transcript, and relied on a narrow set of interviews – including one with a witness who had co-authored the controversial 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian election interference and had ties to former FBI official Peter Strzok.

Gabbard, a Trump ally installed as DNI earlier this year, framed the declassification and referrals as long-overdue accountability.

“Deep state actors within the Intelligence Community concocted a false narrative that was used by Congress to usurp the will of the American people and impeach the duly-elected President of the United States,” Gabbard said in a statement accompanying the release. “Inspector General Atkinson failed to uphold his responsibility to the American people, putting political motivations over the truth.”

The ODNI general counsel’s referral letter, obtained by outlets covering the story, cited possible violations of federal criminal law by “one or more former employees of the intelligence community,” specifically referencing Atkinson’s 2019 congressional briefings.

The declassified package – released by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence at the request of Chairman Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) following a March 24 committee vote – includes closed-door transcripts of Atkinson’s 2019 testimony before the panel. Those transcripts had been withheld from Trump’s defense team during the impeachment proceedings and from the broader public for more than seven years.

The move revives one of the most contentious chapters of Trump’s first term and comes as his second administration aggressively pursues investigations into perceived abuses by the intelligence community during the Russia investigation, the 2020 election challenges and both impeachments.

Schiff, now a senator from California, and other Democrats involved in the original impeachment have not yet commented publicly on the latest developments. A spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee under Democratic control in 2019 called the declassification “a partisan stunt designed to rewrite history.”

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Bangladeshi national, alleged by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to be a “prolific” alien smuggler, made his first appearance Monday in a Laredo, Texas, federal courtroom following his extradition from Brazil, according to a DOJ statement.

The indictment against Saiful Islam, 39, in the Southern District of Texas accuses him of being part of a conspiracy that smuggled numerous illegal immigrants through Central America to the United States, the DOJ said.

“Islam participated in a wide-ranging human smuggling operation,” the agency said.

The Bangladeshi man also allegedly helped other smugglers by facilitating the travel of aliens from São Paulo, Brazil, and other locations in South America, Central America, and Mexico, eventually instructing them in how to illegally cross the Rio Grande River or jump the border fence.

Islam’s charges include conspiracy to bring an alien to the United States, multiple counts of bringing an alien to the United States for financial gain, and conspiracy to encourage or induce an alien to enter the United States, according to the DOJ statement. He also faces potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

A conviction on the charge of bringing an alien to the United States for financial gain carries a mandatory minimum sentence of three to five years in prison, depending on additional factors, and a maximum of 15 years.

Islam would face a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison on the other two charges if he is convicted of them.

There is no listed attorney for Islam yet in his online docket, which shows his case was assigned to a judge in August 2020.

Several agencies are coordinating in the investigation of Islam, including Homeland Security Investigations, Customs and Border Protection’s International Interdiction Task Force, the U.S. Marshals Service, and INTERPOL.

The DOJ credited its Joint Task Force Alpha, the agency’s lead effort in fighting human smuggling and trafficking by cartels and other criminal organizations, in investigating, charging, and prosecuting Islam.

Joint Task Force Alpha’s main goal is targeting leaders and organizers of cartels throughout the Americas, Mexico, and the “Northern Triangle countries” of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, the Justice Department said.

Former Attorney General Pam Bondi announced last September an expansion of the agency to cover Canada, the Caribbean, maritime borders, and elsewhere.

“This Department of Justice is investigating and prosecuting human smuggling more aggressively than ever before,” Bondi said.

Joint Task Force Alpha has, to date, arrested more than 450 domestic and international leaders, organizers, and facilitators of alien smuggling or trafficking. According to the Monday DOJ statement, the agency’s work has resulted in more than 395 U.S. convictions, more than 345 “significant jail sentences imposed, and forfeitures of substantial assets.”

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told reporters Tuesday that Beijing’s panic hoarding of crude and refined products, while refusing to join the rest of the world in releasing supplies to offset the Gulf energy shock, has now demonstrated for the third time in five years that China is an “unreliable global partner.”

“China has been an unreliable global partner three times in the past five years; once during COVID, when they hoarded healthcare products, second on rare earth,” Bessent said, referring to Beijing’s move last year to weaponize rare earth exports against the US in the tit-for-tat trade war that disrupted US supply chains, including temporary factory shutdowns such as production lines briefly shuttered by Ford Motor Company.

Bessent said China continued to purchase tanker loads of crude instead of helping ease the global supply crunch caused by Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz, despite already holding a massive strategic reserve. He also noted that China restricted exports of crude products early in the conflict. 

Reuters noted that China’s strategic petroleum reserve “was roughly the same size as that of the entire reserve held by the 32-member International Energy Agency, but it was continuing to purchase oil.”

Bessent added, “They continued buying, and they’ve been hoarding, and they have cut off exports of many products.” 

On US-China relations, he told reporters he’s been in contact with Chinese officials about the hoarding issue. 

He declined to comment on whether the dispute and elevated tensions will derail an upcoming Trump-Xi meeting in Beijing, which has been pushed to mid-May.

“I think the message for the visit is stability. We’ve had great stability in the relationship since last summer; that emanates from the top down,” he said. “I think that communication is the key.”

Bessent added that the US military blockade would ensure that no Chinese tankers or other ships would pass the strait: “So they’re not going to be able to get their oil. They can get oil. Not Iranian oil.” 

Last week, International Energy Agency chief Fatih Birol warned that governments must avoid panic hoarding and refrain from imposing fuel export bans as the Gulf energy shock continues to ripple outward to Asia, Africa, Europe, and eventually reaches the US West Coast.

“I urge all countries not to impose bans or restrictions on exports,” Fatih Birol emphasized in a Financial Times interview. “It is the worst time when you look at the global oil markets. Their trade partners, their allies and their neighbors will suffer as a result.”

The FT noted that Birol was “careful not to name China directly,” but made very clear his warning was likely aimed at Beijing.

So Bessent is clearly keeping a running tally of Beijing’s behavior as an “unreliable global partner,” and by his count, the number now stands at three.

What comes next is unclear, but the next signal will likely come from the upcoming Trump-Xi meeting.

* * *

Authored by Rex Widerstrom via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The volume of businesses struggling to pay their debts in Australia is on track to exceed the heights set during the COVID-19 pandemic, according to two reports on the nation’s economic health.

Up to 13 percent of working-age Australians and 47 percent of secondary school students want to work for themselves or start a business, but that’s not translating into a pipeline of new enterprises, according to the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia (CEDA).

“Our analysis shows the proportion of business owners in the workforce has declined steadily over the past two decades and fell to a record low last year. The decline has been sharpest for owner-managers with employees and less steep for solo owner-operators. It is evident across all age groups, including younger workers,” said CEDA Chief Executive Melinda Cilento.

While the total rate of business formation has grown moderately over the past decade, it has been almost entirely driven by growth in sole traders.

In contrast, entry rates for businesses that employ staff declined steadily through the 2000s and has since been relatively flat.

This trend has coincided with the rise in second jobs, “side hustles,” and digital-platform work.

“Starting a side hustle or taking on gig work can be a flexible way to get started and gain some hands-on experience,” Cilento said. ”But the evidence suggests most of these activities are intended only to top-up household income, and not to build the next generation of employing firms.

“If we want a more productive, competitive, and resilient economy, we need to make it easier for people to turn a good idea into a growing enterprise.”

To help achieve that, CEDA wants the federal government to use next month’s federal Budget to introduce further cuts to “red tape” and to review existing business support programmes.

This entails eliminating redundant or out-of-date regulatory obstacles, streamlining the application process for grants and other support programmes, and expanding access to financing and insurance.

The government should also promote business advice and training more effectively, and remove anti-competitive obstacles that hinder the entry and expansion of new businesses, CEDA says.

Auditors Sound Warning

Meanwhile, 2025 was a record year for “going concern” notices for businesses unable to pay their debts with in the next 12 months, according to Chartered Accountants.

The group was concerned about the viability of 28 percent of Australian-listed companies outside the mining sector, up from 20 percent in 2021.

That compares to 15 percent in New Zealand and approximately 8 percent in comparable high‑income countries internationally.

Among Australian miners, the figure increased to nearly half, up from 32 percent in 2021.

“This level of uncertainty exceeds that seen at the height of the COVID disruptions and reflects the cumulative impact of global trade uncertainty, market volatility, higher interest rates, and persistent inflationary pressures on business viability,” said Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand (CA ANZ).

Its report, “Insights into 2025 auditor reports: A focus on going concern,” was conducted in partnership with the Universities of Melbourne and Queensland, and took place before the current Middle East conflict and its resulting energy price shock.

“Auditors are now flagging greater uncertainty than during the pandemic itself, which shows how sustained economic pressures around liquidity, refinancing, and future profitability can be just as challenging for businesses as an acute shock,” said Amir Ghandar.

While mining is under particular pressure, the conditions are also affecting other capital-intensive industries such as information technology and health care.

via Middle East Eye

The pro-Israel advocacy group J Street is now calling for an end to “direct” US military support to Israel, per a new policy document published this week. The group had previously backed Washington’s continued provision of defensive weapons systems, such as the replenishment of Israel’s Iron Dome, at no cost to Israelis. 

Now, it says the US “should continue to sell” short-range air and ballistic missile defense capabilities to Israel, but Israel should use its own money to pay for them. 

“Israel faces real security challenges that require a significant defense investment. With a per capita GDP comparable to leading US allies such as the United Kingdom, France and Japan, as well as an annual defense budget of over $45 billion, it has the financial means to address these challenges,” J Street said. 

“It does not require almost $4 billion per year in US financial subsidies to purchase weapons,” it added. “Continuing this assistance is both unnecessary and politically counterproductive, creating avoidable tensions in US domestic politics and in the bilateral relationship.”

The way the current military aid package operates is that the US provides Israel with American taxpayer funds, and those funds are put into US weapons companies to acquire equipment. 

On its website, J Street says that it “organizes pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-democracy Americans to promote US policies that embody our deeply held Jewish and democratic values and that help secure the State of Israel as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people”. 

Political tide turns

J Street’s shift follows a distinct change in attitudes towards Israel among the American public after what has been widely labeled genocide in Gaza, where over 72,000 Palestinians have been killed since Israel’s war on the enclave broke out in October 2023. 

But perhaps more importantly for the group, whose support base is made up of Democrats, the party’s future is changing course. Progressive New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who is widely believed to be seeking higher office, announced earlier this month that she would no longer vote for any US military support to Israel, despite having previously backed the provision of defensive weapons, much to the disappointment of many of her supporters. 

It is notable, however, that her statement followed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s surprise declaration earlier this year that Israel will not seek to renew its military aid package with the US in 2028. “I want to taper off the military aid within the next 10 years,” all the way down to zero, Netanyahu told The Economist in January. 

J Street’s new position demands that any future US arms sales that Israel pays for out-of-pocket “be fully consistent with American law”, which echoed Ocasio-Cortez’s statement.

US law prohibits security assistance to any country whose government engages in a consistent pattern of gross human rights violations or blocks or restricts the transport or delivery of US-backed humanitarian aid.

This moment demands a reset. J Street is calling for the U.S. to end unconditional financial military subsidies to Israel and to move towards a relationship where we treat Israel like any other ally.

J Street supports:
– Phasing out taxpayer-funded military aid by 2028, when the…

— J Street (@jstreetdotorg) April 13, 2026

“US arms sales to Israel should be further conditioned to incentivize alignment with American interests and laws – as has been the case with other allies and partners – when their behavior is inconsistent with US interests,” J Street said. At the same time, the group acknowledges that Washington and Israel generally share the same interests anyway. “The US also benefits meaningfully from the relationship. Intelligence sharing has been critical in campaigns such as the fight against ISIS, while joint operations such as Israel’s 2006 strike on Syria’s secret nuclear facility have advanced shared security goals.”

It added that because “approximately 500,000 American citizens live in Israel”, selling it weapons should continue to be a US national security priority.