Nvidia Shares Pump & Dump After CEO Jensen Expects “At Least” $1 Trillion In Revenue By 2027
Summary:
CEO Jensen began discussing all things AI around 1520 ET.
CEO Jensen said the data center AI opportunity will grow from half a trillion dollars to $1 trillion by 2027. CEO Jensen said, “Computing demand has increased by 1 million times in the last two years.”
A graphic on screen indicated that 60% of the business is hyperscalers.
CEO Jensen said, “We are now a computing platform that runs all of AI.”
CEO Jensen said, “Our cost per token is the lowest in the world.”
Nvidia unveiled the new Vera Rubin program.
* * *
Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang is speaking at the GTC 2026 in San Jose, California, about the company’s AI expansion.
Huang said the data center AI opportunity is growing from about half a trillion dollars to more than $1 trillion by 2027. He said that 60% of the company’s business comes from hyperscalers, adding that 40% is everything else, clouds, enterprise, robotics, gaming, supercomputing, etc.
The graphic shows that much of the demand is driven by model builders and AI companies such as Anthropic, xAI, Gemini, and OpenAI.
“We are now a computing platform that runs all of AI,” the CEO said.
The presentation initially sent Nvidia shares up as much as 4.8%, while the Nasdaq also moved higher, but most of those gains have now been erased.
A round trip for Nvidia shares.
Other highlights of Jensen’s presentation include…
Jensen says, “computing demand has increased by 1 million times in the last 2 years.” Hints at the current memory shortage created by the AI buildout of data entry.
On Tokens per watt: Jensen said, “Nvidia AI GPUs that can quickly get through more tokens than the competition.” He noted, “This is your revenue. Our cost per token is the lowest in the world.”
Nvidia unveils the New Vera Rubin program. It’s the company’s latest AI platform for AI data centers that is “vertically integrated completely with software.
Cuba’s National Electrical System has suffered what the country’s Energy Ministry called a “total disconnection,” and the causes are being investigated. This comes as Trump’s blockade of crude oil imports to the Caribbean island has reduced fuel stockpiles to dangerously low levels.
“A total disconnection of the SEN has occurred. The causes are being investigated, and protocols for restoration are being activated,” the Energy Ministry said on X around 1400 ET.
Earlier, we reported that Trump is in talks with Cuba and that a deal could be reached soon.
Over the weekend, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel publicly admitted for the first time that Havana was in talks with Washington.
* * *
As Aldgra Fredly detailed earlier for The Epoch Times, U.S. President Donald Trump said on March 15 that the United States is in talks with Cuba and expects to reach a deal with the communist-ruled country soon.
Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that “something will happen with Cuba pretty quickly,” and that Washington will decide on Cuba after dealing with the war in Iran.
Trump on Jan. 11 told Cuba to strike a deal after U.S. forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a Jan. 3 operation. Cuba has long been a close ally of Maduro’s regime and has relied on Venezuela’s oil supply for decades.
After Maduro’s ouster, interim Venezuelan leader Delcy Rodríguez redirected oil deliveries to the United States.
“Cuba also wants to make a deal, and I think we will pretty soon either make a deal or do whatever we have to do,” Trump told reporters on March 15. “And so, we’re talking to Cuba, but we’re going to do Iran before Cuba.”
On Jan. 29, Trump signed an executive order imposing tariffs on any country that “directly or indirectly provides oil to Cuba,” a move that exacerbated fuel shortages in the Caribbean island nation.
In his order, Trump accused the Cuban regime of aligning itself with “hostile countries, transnational terrorist groups, and malign actors,” including Russia, China, and Iran, as well as U.S.-designated foreign terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.
Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez said on March 13 that his government has been negotiating with U.S. officials to identify and resolve any bilateral issues between the two nations.
“These conversations have been aimed at seeking solutions, through dialogue, to bilateral differences that exist between the two nations,” Bermúdez said, according to a statement posted by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla on social media. “There are international factors that have facilitated these exchanges.”
Bermúdez said his officials have expressed that negotiations must be held “on the basis of equality and respect for the political systems of both states,” as well as their sovereignty.
“This is a matter that unfolds as part of a very sensitive process that is conducted with seriousness and responsibility, as it affects the bilateral relations between the two nations and requires enormous efforts to find solutions and create spaces for understanding that allow us to move away from confrontation,” he said.
Trump said last week that Cuba currently faces severe humanitarian challenges amid disruptions in imported oil and is eager to negotiate with the United States. He also said there could be a “friendly takeover” of the nation, but also said that “it may not be a friendly takeover.”
Like many Americans, I grew up playing a fair amount of baseball. Part of this involved trying to hit a little round ball with the equivalent of a modified, wooden stick.
Like asset prices and market forces, this little white ball, thrown by a pitcher 60 feet away, could sink, curve or speed by you in bewildering and often embarrassing ways.
Sometimes, however, we hitters of that ball would be blessed with what is called a “fat pitch”—that is, a ball thrown so comfortably straight, clear and trackable that it was effectively impossible to miss.
Below, I’ll show why the set-up we are currently seeing in the global silver market is precisely that: A fat pitch.
Prior Silver Curve Balls
Of course, silver markets, like baseball players, have also seen a lot of curve balls and crazy swings.
We saw recent versions of this in December of 2025, when the COMEX price-fixers, with a little help from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, or CME, raised margin prices to force a mass-selloff (i.e. price-fall) of the metal.
When that pitch failed, the COMEX threw another, far more effective margin hike (or “curve ball”) in late January of 2026 to openly engineer the single-worst silver price crash in 44 years.
The reasons for these tricky pitches at the COMEX were obvious. The big players (i.e., banks) going net-short silver were literally dying under the weight of silver’s rising price moves.
Not so coincidently, the CME/COMEX then initiated another, more effective, margin hike and thereby bailed the insider banks out of the mother of all short-squeezes.
There was no price discovery, but blatant price manipulation, as fixed/rigged as the 1919 World Series. (Ironically, both the CME and the cheating, 1919 White Sox hailed from Chicago…)
But as I argued in January, such a rigged game was nothing new. The COMEX has been playing it for decades, from defeating the Hunt Brothers’ silver bid in the 1980’s (with a sell-only trick) to crushing the “Reddit mob’s” attempt to bring honest demand (and pricing) to silver in 2021.
In short, the COMEX, and the banks who effectively self-regulate it, threw a lot of curve balls which were difficult to beat.
But as we enter the 2026 macro playing field, it is the COMEX itself which is about to strike out, and this bodes extremely well for silver.
Here’s why.
Silver: About to Hit a Homerun
The set-up for silver is now nothing short of extraordinary. In fact, it is unprecedented.
At 30,000 feet, the big picture remains the same. That is, as currencies are debased to monetize unsustainable sovereign debt levels, monetary metals like silver outshine dying paper currencies.
It’s really that simple.
But the more nuanced, and often misunderstood, tailwinds for silver are a bit more complicated, though entirely clear once you know where to look.
And the first place to look is at the COMEX itself, where silver (like gold) has been manipulated downwards for decades. We’ve covered the motives, means and symptoms of this COMEX price fix in greater detail elsewhere.
What is worth noting here, however, is critical. That is, once the physical silver leaves the COMEX, the artificial price-fixing charade ends, and silver naturally rips higher.
Paper Claims vs. Physical Demand
Traditionally, for example, paper claims on silver (and gold) never resulted in actual delivery out of the COMEX. Instead, the contracts were simply rolled over or cash-settled.
But those days are ending.
As of this writing, there are more paper claims (“open interest) on the COMEX silver exchange than there are actual ounces of “registered” silver to meet delivery. In fact, there’s only about 80 million ounces on hand to meet over 570 million ounces of delivery demand.
That’s a levered mismatch of 7:1 at the COMEX.
If we then consider the larger silver market itself, including ETF silver, derivative claims, futures contracts, etc., many analysts in the commodity space are quoting the number of paper silver claims to actual silver ounces at a ratio of 350:1.
Read that last line again.
No Chairs Left
If one were to think of the paper silver market as a game of musical chairs in which the “music” represents the actual amount of physical silver available and the “chairs” represents the number of paper claims on it, the supply & demand ratios above make it mathematically clear that once the music stops, there’ll be very chairs left standing with silver.
Or stated more simply, percolating physical silver demand is about to hit a supply shock, which means silver is poised to skyrocket.
And if you look at the COMEX silver flows, you’ll quickly discover that the music is slowing down.
January applications for silver deliveries at the COMEX, for example, came in at 40M ounces, which was 40X the normal delivery rate.
A more recent delivery took 20% off the COMEX inventory in a week. (I have no proof, but I’m guessing the buyer here was JP Morgan…)
Looming Delivery Failure
At this exit pace, it’s at least plausible that the COMEX could see a bald failure of physical delivery within 90 days.
But this, of course, would only happen if one assumed the COMEX wouldn’t declare some kind of emergency in the interim, which we can be almost sure they will…
Nevertheless, the screws are now undeniably tightening on this New York exchange in ways we’ve never seen before.
This classic mismatch of supply and demand in the silver space is unprecedented, and whether the price-fixers in New York like it or not, supply and demand forces still matter, and they can be powerful forces…
Supply Deficits Colliding with Rising Demand
For example, and as most silver investors know, this metal has seen five consecutive years of supply deficits at 200M ounces/year, now aggregating to a deficit of nearly 1 billion ounces. China’s recent export restrictions for silver, moreover, aren’t helping supply flows.
Meanwhile, in the silver future’s market, we are seeing backwardation, a fancy way of saying that current prices are higher than future prices, which is a screaming signal of high demand colliding with low supply.
These factors help explain why the current lease rate for silver is at 8% levels, whereas for the bulk of my entire investing career, the lease rate had never surpassed 1%– until now.
Combine such evidence of a supply shock with silver’s rising industrial demand (60% of silver’s demand is industrial) in everything from solar panels to the missiles now cris-crossing Middle Eastern skies, and we see all the makings of a historical price hike in the metal.
After all, the silver supply can’t be magically increased with just the touch of a button. 70% of silver production comes as a byproduct of other mining.
This means there’s no silver supply miracle on the horizon.
And Then There’s War…
What IS filling our horizon, however, is the fog of war and hence the fog of oil. Supply shocks matter to oil just as much as they do to any asset, including silver.
As crude oil rises thanks to tightening flows in the Strait of Hormuz, so does inflation, and for every $10.00 rise in oil, we see a 0.1% rise in even our otherwise openly bogus inflation scale.
And as inflation rises, as it will, the monetary profile of silver just gets another tailwind as an anti-fiat metal.
Back to Baseball
Which brings me back to my original point and metaphor.
When one combines silver’s monetary profile with its rising industrial demand in a backdrop of historical supply deficits, COMEX delivery failures, rising lease prices, futures market backwardation, and all that is inherently backward as to war and rising oil, we arrive at what comes to nothing more than an unprecedented “fat pitch” for silver.
Marjorie Taylor Greene Tells CNN That MAGA Feels ‘100% Betrayed’ By Iran War
Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has become a big fan of CNN since her departure from Congress since, we’re guessing, FOX and Newsmax aren’t excited to give her a platform of late. On Monday, she appeared on The Situation Room to once again declare doom and gloom for the MAGA movement… with a little help from the host.
During the interview, host Pamela Brown asked what she’s hearing from Trump supporters in Georgia regarding Iran, playing up the Israel angle.
“Are you hearing from them that they believe President Trump is doing this on behalf of Israel?” she asked. “Bring us there.”
Greene, who has been a thorn in Trump’s side since leaving office, painted a picture of a Republican base that is fractured and angry over the ongoing military operation in Iran, and
“It’s actually very split. And it’s split along generational lines,” she said.
“Many of the older Americans from the Baby Boomer generation that watch Fox News all day long very much believe the talking points on Fox News, and they have spent decades of their lives convinced that fighting these wars is the right thing to do,” she explained.
She then pointed to the next wave of voters, who see the issue through a completely different lens.
“But the younger generations – I’m Gen X – millennials and Gen Z are very much against this war,” Greene continued. “And so, when you talk to people on the ground, that’s how it comes across. It’s very generational. And the younger generations are completely against it.”
Marjorie Taylor Greene: “It’s turned into some perverted, deranged version of MAGA now that nobody wants” pic.twitter.com/OceBnJpLnp
That sentiment echoes something that has been brewing in conservative politics since Trump entered the political arena. Younger voters inside the America First movement tend to view foreign wars as expensive distractions from domestic priorities. Greene leaned straight into that argument.
“We want world peace. We want good trade. We want a great economy. We want a lower inflation, lower the cost of housing,” she said. “And younger generations want to be able to afford their American lives, and they don’t want their taxpayer dollars shipped off to — and you can fill in any foreign country.”
She emphasized that the frustration extends beyond any one ally or region.
“We will take Israel out of it. They don’t want their money sent overseas,” Greene said. “And you know what? They’re right for saying this.”
She even argued that the military operation in Iran is a betrayal of the movement that carried Donald Trump back into the White House.
“This is absolutely absurd,” she said. “And it’s 100 percent a betrayal to what MAGA was supposed to be when we voted in 2024, and it’s turned into some perverted, deranged version of MAGA now that nobody wants.”
“And a lot of people are just like, this doesn’t make sense,” she added.
Polling on Iran has been mixed.
A CNN poll earlier this month showed that while a majority of voters (59%) opposed military action in Iran, a whopping 77% of Republicans approved of the decision, which hardly suggests the party is divided. However, there may be some truth to what Greene said.
Within the Republican Party, there is a sharp divide between those who say they consider themselves part of the “Make America Great Again” movement and those who do not, a division that appears largely linked to trust in the president. MAGA Republicans are 30 points more likely than non-MAGA Republicans to say they strongly approve of the decision to take military action, 34 points likelier to say it will reduce the threat Iran poses to the US and nearly 50 points more likely to say they have a great deal of trust in Trump to make the right decisions about US use of force in Iran.
However, more recent surveys show that Americans have been warming up to the Iran strikes. A Washington Postpoll from last week showed the country was more evenly divided on the strikes, with a plurality, 42% supporting the strikes, 40% opposing them, and 17% indicating they were unsure – a stunning change from its previous survey when 52% were opposed, 39% supported, and just 9% were unsure. Republican support for continuing the strikes even increased by 12 points. Fox News similarlyreported a more even split of 50% support and 50% opposition, with 84% of Republicans supporting.
Yet, a Quinnipiac poll revealed that support changes drastically when it comes to boots on the ground – which 2,200 Marines may (or may not) provide.
SNAP Recipients Claim Trump Trying To “Destabilize Food Access”, Sue Feds Over Junk Food Ban
The Make America Healthy Again agenda just found its first serious legal challenger. This week, five food stamp recipients filed suit in Washington, D.C., federal court demanding the right to spend taxpayer-funded SNAP benefits on candy, soda, and energy drinks.
The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over its growing list of “food restriction” waivers, which Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins began approving back in May 2025. Since then, 22 states have signed on, each with their own specific list of banned items — generally soda, energy drinks, candy, and pre-packaged desserts.
Both Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have championed the waivers as a concrete step toward addressing chronic disease and redirecting taxpayer money toward genuinely nutritious food.
“The Trump Administration is unified in improving the health of our nation. America’s governors have proudly answered the call to innovate by improving nutrition programs, ensuring better choices while respecting the generosity of the American taxpayer,” Rollins said last year.
“Each waiver submitted by the states and signed is yet another step closer to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.”
The lawsuit claims they had no right to do this.
The five plaintiffs. residents of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, and represented by the law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner, argue in their complaint that the restrictions “destabilize food access” for SNAP participants in the 22 affected states.
They claim the USDA exceeded its legal authority by approving the waivers without soliciting public input, establishing proper evaluation metrics, or engaging those directly impacted by the waivers first, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
The lawsuit further contends that the relevant section of the Food and Nutrition Act only authorizes pilot projects designed to “enhance the efficiency” or improve the delivery of benefits — and that banning specific food items accomplishes neither.
“SNAP is a critical lifeline for millions of families and households, and Congress has established clear guardrails for how the program must operate across the country,” Jeffrey Shinder, founding partner at Shinder Cantor Lerner, claimed in a statement to Newsweek.
“The USDA is attempting to bypass those strict guardrails by empowering states to curtail access to SNAP in ways that will create significant hardship on recipients and retailers. We urge the Court to halt this attack on SNAP, which threatens millions of individuals’ access to essential food assistance nationwide.”
The plaintiffs claim they or their family members rely on the restricted foods to manage health conditions such as diabetes and allergies, or to obtain energy boosts for daily life.
The claim that sugary drinks and candy are medically necessary for diabetics runs directly counter to established dietary guidance. One plaintiff argues that her state’s waiver would restrict her daughter to only three “safe” foods and beverages — one of which is bottled water.
The plaintiffs also argue that confusion is another problem impacting SNAP recipients.
“We are focused on litigating the case we filed yesterday and securing relief for the plaintiffs already before the Court. At the same time, we remain open to expanding the case to challenge similar waivers in additional states. SNAP serves as an essential support system for millions of families,” added Meegan Hollywood, a partner at the firm.
“The waivers create confusion at checkout and force retailers to apply standards that are vague and unworkable. A program that millions of families rely on cannot operate amid confusion and uncertainty. Our complaint details how these policies are already harming recipients in multiple states and undermining the very families SNAP is meant to support.”
That framing assumes junk food is a non-negotiable line item. Recipients who want soda and candy remain free to purchase them — with their own money.
Trump Says US “Hammering Iran’s Ability To Threaten Shipping”, Warns Xi Summit Could Slip If Beijing Bails
Summary:
Trump reiterates military campaign continuing in full force, main efforts to Iran’s threat to shipping
Trump presses for multinational Hormuz escort coalition as allies hesitate; Bessent says US allowing limited Iranian, Chinese, and Indian tanker transits “for now” to stabilize global supply.
Bessent downplays link to Trump-Xi summit, calling any potential delay “logistical” due to Iran war coordination needs.
Trump floated delaying March 31–April 2 Beijing meeting unless China helps reopen Strait fully, citing Beijing’s heavy reliance on Gulf oil.
Europe reluctant to join Hormuz operation, Germany outright rejects it alongside Italy and Greece: Trump warned of a “very bad” future for NATO if allies don’t help reopen the strait. UK also says it won’t be ‘NATO-led’.
Iran rejects ceasefire, vows prolonged defense; selective Hormuz policy continues, with traffic still down 70-90% and only “friendly” vessels passing safely.
Gulf energy infrastructure under ongoing attack; regional proxies (Houthis, others) threaten further disruptions to bypass routes.
* * *
Trump says US “Hammering Iran” to Ease Shipping Concerns
President Trump has provided an update on the ongoing U.S. military campaign against Iran, describing it as continuing in full force over the past several days.
“They have been literally obliterated … their leaders are gone”: President Donald Trump discusses the war in Iran and the Middle East and says the U.S. and Israel are “doing what should have been done many years ago.” More: https://t.co/w1oXVmv975pic.twitter.com/cOs3scdVqv
He claimed significant successes, including striking more than 7,000 targets across Iran, decimating the country’s anti-aircraft equipment, and achieving a 95% reduction in Iran’s drone attack capabilities.
Trump emphasized that Iran’s missile and drone manufacturing plants have been heavily targeted, leaving the country with few missiles remaining and severely hampered ability to produce more: “hammering Iran’s ability to threaten shipping.”
Trump highlighted specific actions against Iran’s naval and strategic assets, noting the destruction of more than 30 mine-laying ships and strikes on Kharg Island – described as largely destroyed except for the oil pipes area.
He warned that with one simple order, the remaining oil infrastructure there could be eliminated, underscoring efforts to undermine Iran’s capacity to threaten shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
He expressed uncertainty about whether mines have already been deployed in the strait and strongly urged other nations, including China and Japan, to assist in securing the waterway, noting that some countries have shown little enthusiasm for helping.
These comments reflect Trump’s portrayal of a highly effective and intensifying operation amid the broader U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran, while shifting some responsibility for regional stability to international partners.
Hormuz ‘Selected Disruption’
The Iran war and Strait of Hormuz crisis remain in a tense selective-disruption phase rather than full closure, with Brent crude pulling back today (around $102 after earlier spikes) as markets digest weekend strikes and fresh US comments. The US precision bombing on Kharg Island hit only military assets (mines, missiles, air defenses) – leaving the oil export terminal (up to 90% of Iran’s loadings) untouched and operational. As Rabobank notes, “Trump was at pains to be clear that oil infrastructure was not targeted, but the implicit threat that it could be is an unsubtle one,” with Trump later joking about further strikes “just for fun.”
Tanker crossings via the Hormuz with AIS transponders. Now we’ve reported that some tankers have been turning off their transponders to go stealth through the waterway.
Latest Bloomberg ship-tracking data shows the Strait, on either side, is a massive parking lot of tankers. This could take weeks, if not longer, to unclog.
The USS Tripoli (light carrier with ~2,500 Marines and F-35Bs) has been redeployed to the Persian Gulf, fueling speculation about potential boots-on-ground roles (securing Kharg or clearing northern approaches), which Rabobank flags as a “major escalation.” Limited Iranian attacks hit US-aligned Gulf oil assets over the weekend, and Fujairah port saw fresh strikes today. Iran’s selective policy holds: traffic is still down 70-90%, but “friendly”/neutral vessels (Iranian, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani) continue limited transits. The standout today remains the Pakistan National Shipping Corp tanker Karachi (Abu Dhabi crude) safely crossing with full AIS active — the clearest non-Iranian success yet.
Diplomacy & China
On the diplomatic front,Treasury Secretary Scott Bessenttold CNBC’s Squawk Box this morning that the US is deliberately “allowing Iranian oil tankers to transit the Strait of Hormuz” and is “fine” with some Indian and Chinese ships moving through “for now… to supply the rest of the world.” He highlighted “more and more of the fuel ships start[ing] to go through” and a possible “natural opening” the Iranians are permitting – a tactical concession to stabilize global supply while full escorts remain “militarily” off the table for now.
🇺🇸🇮🇷 U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on the Strait of Hormuz:
“The Iranian ships have been getting out already, and we’ve let that happen to supply the rest of the world. We’ve seen Indian ships go out now… we also believe some Chinese ships have gone out” pic.twitter.com/QswYbQDh3m
Bessent said crude oil prices should fall “much lower” than $80 per barrel after the war is over, adding that when the war is over, the “world will be safer and we will be better supplied.”
🇺🇸🇷🇺🇮🇷 U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent:
“Which is more? If oil spiked to $150 but Putin was getting 70% of that, or oil stays at $95 to $100? Where is he getting more money? If it spikes to $150. So roughly his coffers are unchanged. In terms of the Russian Federation, it… pic.twitter.com/MN0iWL2aCU
Glimmers of de-escalation persist, per Rabobank: Hamas (an Iranian proxy) called for Iran to cease attacks on neighbors (speculated as an off-ramp signal), Iran struck passage deals with India/Bangladesh, and FM comments framed the strait as “not closed to anyone other than the US, Israel and their allies.” Yet counters are loud – Houthis threaten Red Sea escalation (risking Saudi’s 5-7 mn bbl/day bypass pipeline), Trump rebuffs ceasefire (Iran demands US withdrawal + reparations), and prediction markets price ceasefire odds before month-end at just 14%. The WSJ reports the US is forming an international naval escort coalition, with Trump demanding “about seven” countries help.
That said, by the looks of it most of Europe wants to avoid what’s looking like a recipe for another quagmire in the Middle East. Ironically, Iran is bordered by two countries which were subject of over two decades of US-led war and occupation.
For example, after Italy had earlier made very clear it will have no involvement, Al Jazeera reports:
The war in Iran has nothing to do with NATO, a German government spokesperson says, adding that Germany would not take part in the war nor in keeping the Strait of Hormuz open through military means.
“As long as this war continues, there will be no participation, not even in any effort to keep the Strait of Hormuz open by military means,” the spokesperson said. Greece also will not engage in any military operations in the Strait of Hormuz, Greek government spokesman Pavlos Marinakis said.
And Britain too while signaling openness says it won’t be NATO-led:
Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Monday Britain would not be drawn into a wider war in Iran but would work with allies on a “viable collective plan” to reopen the key Strait of Hormuz, though he acknowledged that would not be a simple task.
…Starmer told a press conference that reopening the strait was the only way to stabilize energy markets, and that he was talking to allies in Europe, the Gulf and the U.S. on a plan to secure freedom of navigation. He said it would not be a NATO-led mission.
The dominant pressure point is US-China leverage. Rabobank nails it: “Trump wants Hormuz open again. Xi wants guarantees that Gulf oil will continue to flow to Chinese refineries, Chinese industrial producers will have markets to sell to, and Chinese consumers will have food to import.” Speaking with FT on Sunday, Trump floated delaying the March 31–April 2 Beijing summit unless China helps reopen the strait, paraphrasing Connally: “it’s our war, but it’s your problem.” Bessent walked this back today as purely “logistical” (Trump may need to stay in DC for war coordination), not direct pressure — but the linkage and China’s heavy Gulf-oil dependence remain crystal clear. For Xi, the summit could become the moment Beijing quietly directs Tehran to ease restrictions… or risk Kharg-style escalation hammering China’s import-dependent industrial economy.
Mojtaba Khamenei’s appointment of hardliner Mohsen Rezaei as military adviser adds hawkish continuity on the Iranian side. Overall, markets see a bullish crude tone from risks but “glimmers” of hope; the situation stays highly fluid — watch for coalition announcements, next tanker flows, or any Iranian response in the coming hours.
Tanker traffic on the key shipping lane in the Strait remains paralyzed. Last week, tankers began broadcasting “Chinese” on AIS as one way to transit the waterway.
Meanwhile, Bloomberg reported earlier that a Pakistan-flagged Aframax called “Karachi” hugged the Iranian coast in the Strait unscathed. It sailed from Fujairah in the UAE last month and now has a port call in Pakistan, according to ship-tracking data.
First non-Iranian cargo transits Strait of Hormuz with AIS on
The Aframax tanker Karachi, carrying Abu Dhabi’s Das crude, has become the first non-Iranian cargo to transit the chokepoint while broadcasting its AIS signal, suggesting that select shipments may be receiving… pic.twitter.com/Q6j6W3Cxz3
— Sal Mercogliano (WGOW Shipping) 🚢⚓🐪🚒🏴☠️ (@mercoglianos) March 16, 2026
President Trump stated earlier that the “war will end soon.”
IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol commented on the 32-nation emergency SPR dump and how it has begun to have a “calming” effect on energy markets to begin the week:
Iran’s Kharg Island export hub is a major focus for us, and what happens next, including what the Trump administration decides to do with it, remains in focus.
Rabobank analysts offered their take on Hormuz events:
The Strait of Hormuz stays under selective Iranian disruption rather than full closure. Traffic is down 70-90%, but vessels tied to “friendly” or neutral countries — especially China, Pakistan, India, and Turkey — continue limited transits.
Hormuz is all about transit flows at the moment, with some unclogging clearly underway and energy markets moving lower in direct response. The key question now is whether this is sustainable, and whether China joins Trump’s naval coalition to fully reopen the Strait (read here).
EARLIER…
President Trump and his top officials spent the weekend on the one hand touting the Iran campaign a decisive military win and supposed success, while on the other racing to assemble a naval coalition to force open Tehran’s chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz, all the while imploring other countries for help. Europe appears deeply reluctant, with some key NATO countries already slamming the door on this prospect.
“As far as I’m concerned, we haveessentially defeated Iran,” President Trump said in some of latest remarks aboard Air Force One. “They want to negotiate badly, as they should, but I don’t think they’re ready to do what they have to do… We will finish the job,” he claimed.
Ceasefire Rejected
But then on Monday Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi rejected calls for a ceasefire, insisting Tehran intends to impose steep and bloody costs on the aggressors. “The reason we say we do not want a ceasefire is not because we are seeking war, but because this time this war must end in such a way that our enemies never again think of repeating these attacks,” Araghchi said at a press conference.
“I think they have already learned a good lesson and understood what kind of nation they are dealing with.” He also dismissed reports that Iran had quietly sought negotiations: “As we have said many times and I reiterated last night in an interview with an American network, we have sent no messages and do not request a ceasefire.”
Still, Trump is pressing forward on plans for NATO to send allied ships. According to US officials cited in The Wall Street Journal, there are plans for as soon as this week to announce that multiple countries have agreed to join a coalition escorting ships through the strait. All of this, and especially a timeline, still seems up in the air.
And separately per Axios, the White House is simultaneously considering the far more aggressive option of seizing Iran’s main oil export hub on Kharg Island, after much of it has been subject of heavy US bombing, which started overnight Friday, but reportedly left oil terminals and vital export infrastructure in place.
Boots on the Ground
There remains widespread speculation that this is what the multi-thousand strong Marine Expeditionary Force currently en route is all about, raising the states even higher.
A direct Kharg Island seizure would require American boots on the ground – already asIran’s retaliatory blockade of the narrow strait has sent oil and gas prices climbing as a major share of global crude supply remains effectively frozen.
Allies on the Sidelines
Trump on NATO and Iran:
Whether we get support or not, but I can say this — and I said it to them — we will remember. pic.twitter.com/uki36COerk
This is apparently what’s behind Trump’s growing urgency – and some might day desperation – for allies to step up, with the US president having told European leaders there could be a “very bad” future for NATO if member states fail to help reopen the Strait of Hormuz, according to Financial Times.
Military Attacks
Iran meanwhile continues to send missile and drones on America’s gulf allies and energy infrastructure, with Saudi Arabia saying it intercepted 61 drones over its territory since midnight, though potential impact sites of projectiles what got through weren’t immediately disclosed.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi says the regime is not in a war of survival, telling @margbrennan the regime is “stable and strong enough.”
“We don’t see any reason why we should talk with Americans, because we were talking with them when they decided to attack us, and… pic.twitter.com/AQdyeWBiFu
Flights at Dubai International Airport have been suspended after a fuel take went up on flames. “An Iranian drone attack ignited a fuel tank at Dubai International Airport early Monday, authorities said, as Tehran continued to strike civilian infrastructure across the Persian Gulf,” Washington Post reports. Fujairah has also been hit again.
The Israeli military has said Monday it has begun “wide-scale wave of strikes targeting infrastructure” in the Iranian cities of Tehran, Shiraz, and Tabriz simultaneously. It has vowed to keep hitting Iran “as long as needed” – suggesting no quick end amid the war’s third week.
But Israel also faces unprecedented bombardment by Iran’s sophisticated missile and drone arsenal. Israel’s Health Ministry has newly announced that at least 3,369 people, including civilians and military personnel, have been wounded and injured – with many hospitalized – since the war’s start. At least a dozen people have been killed, but the true numbers could be significantly higher as Israel’s military has censored a lot of wartime information.
“Problem Is Solvable”: Airline CEOs Urge Congress To End Shutdown, Pay TSA Workers
The Department of Homeland Security’s social media team on X spent the weekend blaming Democrats for the travel chaos unfolding at airports nationwide, as TSA agents failed to report to work during a funding lapse caused by Senate Democrats’ refusal to fund the DHS budget without reforms to ICE and Border Patrol.
“Thanks to the Democrats’ shutdown, travelers at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport are again seeing MASSIVE security lines this morning,” DHS said on X on Saturday. “The Democrats’ political games are making spring break travel a NIGHTMARE for Americans as they continue to withhold funding from DHS and refuse to pay our heroic @TSA officers.”
Thanks to the Democrats’ shutdown, travelers at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport are again seeing MASSIVE security lines this morning.
The Democrats’ political games are making spring break travel a NIGHTMARE for Americans as they continue to withhold funding from DHS and… https://t.co/KsChjpcDnJ
DHS said Sunday that “Airports coast to coast are seeing major delays, HOURS-long security lines, and missed flights because of the Democrats’ DHS shutdown.”
Airports coast to coast are seeing major delays, HOURS-long security lines, and missed flights because of the Democrats’ DHS shutdown.
A reader on Sunday evening sent ZeroHedge Tips a photo showing, he said, roughly 200 travelers stuck in line at BWI Airport’s international customs, with only two CBP agents staffing the booths while at least a dozen booths sat empty. He added that the Global Entry line had only a handful of passengers, who were waved through quickly, while non-Global Entry travelers were left waiting in what seemed like an hours-long line.
Last weekend, similar travel chaos unfolded at some airports, with TSA lines taking hours just to enter terminals. The disruption prompted ten U.S. airline and aviation heads to pen an open letter to Congress on Sunday, urging lawmakers to resolve the DHS funding dispute.
“That comes as no surprise. Americans—who live in your districts and home states—are tired of long lines at airports, travel delays and flight cancellations caused by shutdown after shutdown. Yet, once again air travel is the political football amid another government shutdown,” the chief executive officers of Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, American Airlines, Alaska Air Group, Southwest Airlines, JetBlue Airways, and United Parcel Service wrote in the letter.
The executives continued, “It’s past time for the government to make sure that TSA officers, U.S. Customs clearance officers at airports, and air traffic controllers are paid for the job they do.”
The current political battle has persisted for nearly a month after Senate Democrats refused to fund a DHS budget without reforms to ICE and Border Patrol. Democrats are frustrated that Trump is using the federal government to deport illegal aliens (whom they consider a potential future voting bloc). Democrats would like to see ICE significantly reformed or eliminated, as they view its power as an existential threat to their political party’s survivability.
Last week, Chief Judge James Boasberg delivered a blow to the criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell by tossing out grand jury subpoenas. Boasberg declared the investigation overtly political and coercive, without any criminal predicate. The decision is a rare rejection of a duly issued grand jury subpoena at this stage of an investigation. In my view, he was premature and could face a difficult appeal in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, Bd. of Governors of the Federal Reserve System v. U.S.
I have previously expressed skepticism about the investigation into Powell and share concerns about the alleged use of the criminal justice system to pressure the Federal Reserve Board. However, the question is when a court can make such a judgment at this stage of the investigation. Prosecutors are generally entitled to make their case and these subpoenas sought potential evidence of waste or corruption.
Boasberg has long been one of the most vocal critics of President Donald Trump on the bench, including a series of orders to stop the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador and, recently, an order for their return. He was also the subject of an ethics complaint by the Administration over statements made at a judicial conference that portrayed President Trump as a threat to the rule of law. (For the record, I opposed the effort to impeach Judge Boasberg).
In the latest controversy, Boasberg rejected the premise of the criminal investigation of Powell:
“The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.”
Judge Boasberg quotes Trump’s personal attacks on Powell after he continued to refuse to lower interest rates. These include signature all-caps attacks from the President:
“Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell has done it again!!! He is TOO LATE, and actually, TOO ANGRY, TOO STUPID, & TOO POLITICAL, to have the job of Fed Chair. He is costing our Country TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS …. Put another way, ‘Too Late’ is a TOTAL LOSER, and our Country is paying the price!”
Boasberg noted over 100 such postings, including “‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars. He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government …. TOO LATE’s an American Disgrace!”
He also noted a menacing statement by the President that, if the Fed does not cut rates, “I may have to force something.”
This is not the first time that the President’s social media postings have been used as evidence against Administration policies in federal cases.
Many of us have criticized the President over personal attacks on judges or other officials.
However, courts generally do not impute an unlawful motive to criminal investigations or prosecutions if there is an otherwise valid purpose or allegation.
Judge Boasberg dismisses any such possibility of a valid purpose, writing:
“The case thus asks: Did prosecutors issue those subpoenas for a proper purpose? The Court finds that they did not. There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will.
On the other side of the scale, the Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President. The Court must thus conclude that the asserted justifications for these subpoenas are mere pretexts. It will therefore grant the Board’s Motion to Quash. It will also grant the Board’s Motion to Partially Unseal the Motion to Quash, related briefing, and this Opinion….”
Once again, I do not fault the court for skepticism, but I do have serious concerns over his timing and his own possible bias in issuing such a ruling.
The Administration has an active but still early criminal investigation into the massive spending on renovations to the Federal Reserve building. To that end, the Justice Department served two subpoenas on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, seeking records about the renovations of the Board’s buildings as well as Powell’s prior congressional testimony on those renovations. The Board filed a Motion to Quash, contending that the subpoenas are a raw play to force Powell to resign or to bend to the will of the President.
After reading the Boasberg opinion, my concerns only increased. At every juncture, Judge Boasberg ends his analysis with conclusory statements about his perception of the real motivation behind the case. That is a dangerous propensity for an Article III judge who must separate the politics from the merits in such challenges. In this case, Boasberg simply concluded that politics was the merits.
The court notes, correctly, that there are prior cases where grand jury subpoenas have been found improper if they are simply “fishing expeditions” or targeting “targets of investigation out of malice or an intent to harass.” They can also be quashed if prosecutors are seeking to meddle with an official’s duties. Such cases are very rare and the cited cases do not seem dispositive or even particularly helpful in the instant case.
The problem is that the main precedent relied on by the court suggests that this opinion is not just premature but itself an example of bias.
The court relies on Trump v. Vance to support the authority to quash an indictment. However, that case involved state prosecutors using grand-jury subpoenas financial records of President Trump and his businesses. Without actually ruling on whether the subpoenas were proper, the Court warned that state DAs cannot use grand-jury subpoenas to “interfer[e] with a President’s official duties.”
That case presented a threshold problem of state officials using the grand jury to target a president with obvious concerns over the Supremacy Clause. Judge Boasberg rightly noted that the clear import is that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly ….”
However, this is not something that the Justice Department is “barred from doing directly.” It has stated that the over-budget renovations raise concerns over fraud and wrongdoing. That is squarely within the jurisdiction of the Executive Branch.
Judge Boasberg cited cases such as NRA of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 190 (2024) as an example of the bar on doing indirectly what you are barred from doing directly. However, like Vance, that case only makes this opinion stand out more. The case involved a New York state official using her powers to pressure banks and other companies not to do business with the NRA. That is manifestly different from the context in which prosecutors seek to enforce duly issued subpoenas to investigate possible fraud or waste in the criminal system.
Judge Boasberg then veers significantly from these cases with a series of conclusory remarks. He virtually mocks the suggestion that the Administration is acting in light of the massive costs and overruns, noting “buildings often go over budget.” Yet that does not mean federal officials are therefore barred from launching investigations into such matters.
The court further stresses that budget overruns “standing alone, hardly suggests that a crime occurred.” The question, again, is whether the required threshold is showing. The costs of the federal building are breathtaking and arguably unprecedented in terms of square foot expenditures. The court does not explain what showing is necessary to commence a criminal investigation. This is an early subpoena seeking basic documentary evidence.
The court notes that inspectors general have authority to investigate overruns and waste, adding that there was no such finding in this case. However, once again, the question is why that is relevant to the question before the Court. The IG may indeed be a better avenue for investigation, but there is nothing legally that forestalls an investigation by the Justice Department.
Once again, Judge Boasberg has voiced concerns shared by many on the basis of this criminal investigation. However, that is speculation in commentary. Judge Boasberg is not a talking head. He is a federal judge who must decide whether, despite such personal suspicions or inclinations, the court can bar otherwise valid grand jury subpoenas issued in an early stage of investigation.
The irony is that, while castigating the prosecutors for a lack of evidence, Judge Boasberg relies on dubious evidence to establish that political harassment is the dominant motivation. Quoting all-caps postings of the President does not offer evidence of a sole or dominant motive in an investigation. It is itself speculative and presumptive.
While Judge Boasberg notes that, “[w]ith varied improper purposes popping up on different occasions, it is clear that such purposes cannot be reduced to a fixed and exhaustive list,” he does not offer any clarity on when an investigation into fraud or waste would be demonstrably valid in its earliest stages. The court acknowledges that the Supreme Court has held there is no need for the Government to establish probable cause as the basis for issuing a grand-jury subpoena.
So that is the standard here other than Judge Boasberg’s suspicions based on public statements from the President?
The court merely states
“What the Court must determine is whether the Board is correct in its inference. In other words, what is these subpoenas’ dominant purpose? A mountain of evidence suggests that the dominant purpose is to harass Powell to pressure him to lower rates.”
That dominant purpose is far from evident. There is no evidence that Powell will yield to the pressure to lower rates, and many of us have noted that this would be a particularly ham-handed effort to get him to do so. From what we have seen, Powell has little to fear from this inquiry on a personal level. If anything, the improper purpose would seem like raw retaliation. However, there is also the pesky claim in the grand jury and captured in these subpoenas that the Administration believes that there is fraud or waste – and the possibility of false testimony. How would the court know at this stage that such claims are meritless or fraudulent? More importantly, what would stop future courts from rendering the same inferential judgment on presidents that they oppose?
Rather than answer that question, Boasberg returns to all-caps posts about how much the President despises Powell and wants him gone. The problem is that both positions could be true. The President could want Powell gone while the Justice Department could want to investigate waste and fraud.
For example, Boasberg quotes Trump as saying “we’re thinking about bringing a gross incompetence, what’s called a gross incompetence lawsuit, it’s gross incompetence, against Powell . . . I’d love to fire him. Maybe I still might.”
The problem is that Trump could believe that Powell is grossly incompetent and that he allowed massive overruns on this project. Boasberg just assumes that Trump wants Powell gone and even makes a veiled analogy to King Henry II signaling to his henchmen to kill Thomas Becket:
“In sum, the President spent years essentially asking if no one will rid him of this troublesome Fed Chair.”
(In this modern remake, apparently the murderous King is Trump, the saintly Becket is Powell, and the henchman is Pirro).
What is particularly disturbing is how the court dismisses the independent ethical duty of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro to have a good-faith basis for seeking such subpoenas.
Judge Boasberg writes:
“True, most of the evidence above speaks to the motives of the President, not the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Yet judges ‘are not required to exhibit a naiveté from which ordinary citizens are free.’ Dep’t of Com. v. New York, 588 U.S. 752, 785 (2019) (quotation marks omitted). The U.S. Attorney was appointed by the President and can be fired by him. Her peer one district over was recently pushed out for refusing to prosecute the President’s opponents.”
This, for me, was the final abandonment of objectivity where assumptions become reality. By dismissing Pirro’s independent motivation, Boasberg leaves the weight of his own evidence as a string of social media posts. He ignores a major push by the administration to seek out government waste and fraud, which began with the DOGE efforts and was recently followed by the appointment of a “tsar” to root out fraud in federal programs. There is no serious debate that this Administration has made combating fraud and waste a priority and has taken unprecedented steps to investigate and prosecute such wrongdoing. Yet the court suggests that Pirro is merely clinging to her job by blindly carrying out the President’s demands.
None of this means that the court would lack the authority or a possible basis to dismiss this action at a later stage. My primary concern is the timing and the court’s presumptive analysis at this early stage. I fail to see a discernible standard in this case that would inform future courts or officials … other than presidents should not post in all caps or troll officials. While Judge Boasberg chastises the Justice Department for yielding too readily to its impulses, this opinion seems strikingly impulsive in critical aspects.
The Justice Department is appealing this opinion. We may see greater clarity on the underlying standard as the case works toward the Supreme Court.
Mexico’s heavy-vehicle industry posted sharp year-over-year declines in production, exports and sales in February, signaling continued weakness across the country’s truck manufacturing sector.
Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) reported that 6,974 heavy vehicles were produced in February, a 49.1% decline compared to the same month in 2025. Exports also fell, with 7,849 units shipped abroad, a 32% drop year over year.
The declines also offer a window into the broader North American freight cycle. Mexico is a key production hub for tractor-trailers used by U.S. fleets moving goods across the U.S.-Mexico border. When freight demand softens or carriers delay fleet upgrades in the U.S., Mexico’s truck factories and export volumes often move in tandem.
Domestic demand also weakened significantly. Retail sales totaled 2,303 units in February, down 38.9% from a year earlier, while wholesale sales reached 1,836 units, a 27.3% decline compared with February 2025.
For the first two months of 2026, the industry produced 13,767 heavy vehicles, representing a 50.5% decline from the same period last year, while exports totaled 12,925 units, down 42.6% year over year.
Domestic truck demand continues long slide
Industry officials say the downturn reflects weakening demand in Mexico’s domestic trucking market, which has now posted more than a year of declines.
“With the results released today, we have accumulated 14 consecutive months of decline in the Mexican market in year-over-year terms,” Vázquez said during a news conference on Tuesday.
Retail sales in February totaled 2,303 heavy vehicles, nearly 39% fewer than the same month in 2025, reflecting a slowdown after record demand in 2024.
Vázquez said weakening investment trends are also weighing on truck purchases.
“The fixed gross investment indicator — particularly machinery and equipment — has been in negative territory for more than a year,” she said. “That sends a very relevant signal about confidence in the economic environment and the willingness of companies to invest in capital assets such as heavy vehicles.”
Production slump spreads across truck segments
Manufacturing declines were widespread across the heavy truck sector.
Of the 6,974 heavy vehicles produced in February, about 6,739 were cargo trucks and tractor-trailers, while 235 were passenger buses, according to figures presented during the news conference.
Cargo vehicles account for the vast majority of Mexico’s heavy-vehicle production, representing more than 97% of total output during the first two months of 2026.
Exports still dominated by U.S. market
Despite the sharp annual decline, exports rebounded slightly compared with January.
Alejandro Osorio, director of public affairs and communication at ANPACT, said the month-to-month improvement offered cautious optimism.
“These are incipient but encouraging signs in the behavior of exports,” Osorio said during the news conference.
However, exports remain significantly lower than a year earlier. The U.S. accounted for 91.3% of shipments in February, followed by Canada (5.7%) and Colombia (2.6%).
The 16 members of Anpact in Mexico are Freightliner, Kenworth, Navistar, Hino, International, DINA, MAN SE, Mercedes-Benz, Isuzu, Scania, Shacman Trucks, Foton, Cummins, Detroit Diesel, Daimler Buses Mexico and Volkswagen Buses.
Osorio said the industry is navigating a volatile global environment that continues to affect demand.
“The industry is facing a complex environment marked by adjustments in domestic demand and volatility in international markets,” he said. “Strengthening competitiveness and recovering the internal market will be key for the sector going forward.”
Freightliner was the top truck producer and exporter in Mexico in February, producing 5,538 trucks, a 32% year-over-year decline. The truck maker exported 5,264 units during the month, a 31% year-over-year decrease.
International Trucks Inc. was the No. 2 producer and exporter during February, manufacturing 307 trucks, a 91% year-over-year decrease. The truck maker’s exports fell 31% year-over-year to 2,251 units during the month.
Used truck imports cited as industry concern
Industry representatives also warned that rising imports of used trucks from the U.S. are undercutting new-vehicle sales in Mexico.
Osorio said the imbalance between new and used truck purchases has become a major distortion in the market.
“For every 100 new heavy vehicles sold in Mexico, about 64 used trucks enter the country,” he said, warning the trend is harming domestic manufacturers and transport companies.
Older imported trucks also raise environmental and safety concerns, he added, because many units arriving in Mexico have already logged hundreds of thousands of miles in the U.S.
Industry outlook uncertain
Guillermo Rosales, executive president of AMDA, said the heavy-vehicle sector is facing multiple economic headwinds, including geopolitical uncertainty and fuel price volatility.
“We are living through a period of tariff volatility and also volatility in fuel prices derived from international conflicts,” Rosales said during the briefing.
Despite the slowdown, Rosales said the industry expects demand to eventually stabilize as freight activity improves.
“The heavy-vehicle industry established in Mexico has historically relied on the recovery of both the domestic and external markets to return to normality,” he said.
Industry leaders say the outlook for the remainder of 2026 will depend heavily on freight demand, investment trends and cross-border trade activity across North America.
BYD Shares Soar Most In 13 Months As Chinese EV Push Into Americas Accelerates
Shares of Chinese EV maker BYD surged the most in 13 months after a report that its factory in Bahia, Brazil, a former Ford Motor plant, secured export orders for about 100,000 vehicles from Argentina and Mexico. This development suggests BYD’s strategy to localize production in South America is still in its early stages and set to flood the continent with Chinese EVs.
Bloomberg quoted Macquarie Capital analyst Eugene Hsiao, who said the local Chinese media report about BYD’s Brazil factory receiving large orders from Argentina and Mexico suggests that “this is positive for the broader BYD thesis, which is that overseas sales will become the core growth and profit driver over time.”
Brazil is BYD’s largest market outside China. The factory in Bahia is critical to the Chinese company’s overseas expansion plans in the Americas. The plant has a capacity to make 150,000 EVs per year.
In BYD’s home market of China, overall sales for the first two months of the year slumped 36% to 400,241 units. Competition in China has intensified as rivalry among domestic brands grows fiercer. However, exports have gained solid traction, with the company now planning to sell 1.3 million cars abroad.
“A higher gas price would potentially drive demand in the European market, which would benefit Chinese automakers that export to that market such as BYD,” Morningstar analyst Vincent Sun said, adding, “For Chinese market, gas bill is not as big a driver to EV demand as in overseas market.”
BYD shares in Hong Kong surged 8% on Monday, marking the largest gain in 13 months, as news of overseas expansion lifted investor sentiment.
The stock was a top performer on the Hang Seng Tech Index, with trading volume doubling to 35.7 million shares. Peers including Nio and Xiaomi climbed more than 5%.
Top BYD headlines (courtsey of Bloomberg):
The Brazil plant has annual capacity of 150,000 vehicles and will increase production to 600,000 vehicles in phases
BYD will launch the premium Denza Z9GT electric vehicle in Europe on April 8, offering up to 800 kilometers range
The new vehicle can charge from 10% to 70% in about five minutes using BYD’s latest fast-charging system
BYD unveiled its second-generation Blade Battery on March 9, promising to charge EVs from 10% to 97% in under nine minutes
BYD is exploring entry into Formula 1 and endurance racing to boost global brand appeal
BYD is actively considering building a manufacturing plant in Canada and keeping options open to acquire a global automaker
For readers heading to Mexico for spring break, one of the first things you may notice after stepping outside the airport terminal is how many BYD vehicles are already on the road. The flood of Chinese EVs is shifting into hyperdrive, and in the Americas, the invasion is already underway.
