Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Wall Street money manager and financial analyst Ed Dowd of PhinanceTechnologies.com warned at the beginning of April that the economy was already rolling over. 

He said “Private Credit Problems are Ending the Party.”  Just 10 days ago, BlackRock and other firms with so-called private credit are  locking up investors’ cash because of a wave of redemptions.  Dowd predicted this, and the sagging economy is not going to be getting any better anytime soon. 

If you thought private credit was a drag on the economy, then the Iran war is going to be a boat anchor.  Dowd says:

“The longer this situation persists, the likelihood of oil drifting higher is going to happen.

 We have two scenarios, and one is oil peaks out at $125, and this gets resolved by May.  Inflation would peak around 5%…

We are at the point now, if this does not get resolved soon, oil prices could continue to drift higher…

We have a second scenario where we get $200 to $250 a barrel oil, which was our worst-case scenario. 

If that happens, inflation will peak out at around 11% by our models…”

Martin Armstrong said two weeks ago that gasoline prices could go to $9 a gallon.  Dowd agrees with Armstrong and says you might get $10 a gallon gas in a worst-case scenario.  Dowd adds:

“I see oil going a lot higher, which will cause a tremendous amount of demand destruction and a recession that I think is coming anyway. 

It will be even deeper than we have forecasted. 

It will cause layoffs and economic growth to go into recessionary territory.  The prices of commodities will collapse as deflation sets in.  

The solution to high commodity prices is high commodity prices because it creates demand destruction.”

So, what’s the Fed going to do?  Dowd thinks,

“The Fed could raise rates to combat the headline inflation.  My best guess is they do nothing at the June FOMC meeting. 

They are certainly not going to cut until they see the economic growth slowing…

Depending on this war . . . the real part of this economy, housing, is not doing well and rolling over. 

We are just waiting on the AI bubble to finally burst . . . we are close to that topping out soon.”

Dowd is still bullish on gold and silver long term, but short term, it may get sold off to raise cash like Turkey just did. 

Silver will have stronger headwinds than gold given the deflation that is coming. 

Dowd does not see China’s economic woes getting any better.  Dowd predicted China’s economic problems months ago, and Wall Street is just now catching up on the bad news.  Dowd says,

“China had 8% negative growth in the first quarter.”

Dowd goes into a deep dive on the severe economic problems facing China. 

Dowd points out big problems in housing and says it’s cheaper to rent a house than to own one. 

Dowd also predicts the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates in early 2027 because the deflation will be so severe.

In closing, Dowd says, “This is the normal credit cycle…”

”  The credit cycle is old and aging, and we are seeing the credit cycle get chinks in the armor with the private credit situation, which is effectively frozen.  This was credit growth that happened in 2024 and 2025.”

There is much more in the 44-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes One-on-One with money manager and investment expert Ed Dowd as he explains why we are seeing big trouble for the US economy.   Dowd predicted this was coming in January with his report called “US Economy Outlook 2026.”

Summary:

• Musk says the Bloomberg report is “false” 

• SpaceX Reportedly Lowers IPO Valuation Target, as per Bloomberg

Musk Rejects Bloomberg Report 

Yet again, corporate media is pushing fake news against Elon Musk.

This time, Musk called a Bloomberg report that cited unnamed sources and claimed SpaceX had lowered its IPO valuation target “false.” 

False

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 29, 2026

SpaceX Reportedly Lowers IPO Valuation Target 

SpaceX is targeting a valuation of at least $1.8 trillion in its upcoming initial public offering, Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the matter. This is below an earlier goal of more than $2 trillion.

In practice, the initial IPO valuation target is a marketing range, not a final number. Therefore, any valuation shifts ahead of the trading day would not be unusual. This suggests advisers are calibrating the deal to what investors are willing to absorb, especially given the massive proposed raise of up to $75 billion.

The target is settling lower after consultations with advisers and investors, the people said, asking not to be identified as the information isn’t public.

Details of an IPO, such as size and valuation, are typically adjusted ahead of pricing based on feedback from stakeholders, the people said.

SpaceX is seeking to raise as much as $75 billion, people familiar with the matter have said, which would make it the biggest IPO of all time. -BBG

The May 21 SpaceX S-1 filing revealed that Elon Musk’s space company is much more than a reusable-rocket and satellite-internet company. It now encompasses AI services, infrastructure, orbital data centers, and a claimed $28.5 trillion total addressable market.

Earlier this month, Reuters reported that the IPO is set to price on June 11, with a June 12 debut. The stock is expected to list on Nasdaq and Nasdaq Texas under the ticker “SPCX.”

Polymarket bets show a 90% chance that SpaceX’s market capitalization will be $1.8 trillion on the IPO date.

There was speculation earlier this week of a SpaceX-Tesla merger in 2027. Wedbush Securities’ Dan Ives has those odds at 80%.

Bas van Geffen, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank

Both Bloomberg and Axios report that the US and Iran have reached a tentative deal to extend the ceasefire by 60 days as they engage in further negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme. However, Tasnim reported that the text of the memorandum of understanding had not been finalized.

US Vice President Vance said that the two sides are still “going back and forth on a couple of language points,” which reportedly includes the wording on Iran’s nuclear capacity. But the Vice President said that Iran appears to be negotiating in good faith, paving the way for Trump’s approval of the ceasefire extension.

While negotiators are trying to dot the i’s and cross the t’s of the memorandum, President Trump has reportedly asked for a couple of days to think about the final deal.

Energy prices fell further on the news that a deal could –again– be imminent, after the US administration made similar claims last week. Brent futures are currently down about 10% on the week. That, in turn, is lifting optimism in other markets. Yields dropped, and green figures returned on stock exchanges.

Admittedly, a 60-day extension would lessen some of the near-term tail risks – although both sides have accused each other of violating the current ceasefire. Just the past day, Kuwait intercepted a missile that Iran had fired at a US base, causing the US to respond with new “defensive strikes” on Iran.

More importantly, a ceasefire does not solve anything, unless the US and Iran manage to agree on the key sticking points during that extended ceasefire.

Treasury Secretary Bessent reminded everyone that Trump’s three red lines are unchanged: Hormuz must reopen, Tehran must end its nuclear programme, and Iran must transfer its highly enriched uranium. As we noted earlier this week, a nuclear deal still seems highly unlikely at this juncture.

Likewise, Iran still believes that it can effectively control traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, together with Oman, allowing it to put down toll booths along the strait. Even though this would allow paying ships to cross, that’s not a “reopening” in Trump’s view.

The US imposed sanctions on the Hormuz Strait Shipping Authority, which is supposed to collect the toll. And Bessent warned that “Oman, in particular, should know that the ⁠U.S. Treasury will aggressively target any actors involved –directly or indirectly– in ⁠facilitating tolls for the Strait.” President Trump even threatened to “blow them up” if Oman works with Iran to control shipping through Hormuz.

It still seems unlikely that the key sticking points will be resolved soon. On that basis, we have shifted our baseline for Hormuz to remain closed for up to three more months before we see a crisis resolution. Only if either the US or Iran blinks regarding the nuclear programme, could we see a quicker end to the conflict.

Meanwhile, tensions are rising in other parts of the globe too. Talks between the US and Cuba appear to have stalled, while Cuba and China discussed agricultural cooperation, food shipments, and political support. This increases the risk that the US may resort to military aggression. China, meanwhile, claims that a Dutch frigate entered their waters – which the Netherlands disputed; and a Canadian frigate transited the Taiwan Strait, defying Chinese warnings not to do so.

And, as we’ve noted before, even if the US-Iran conflict is resolved sooner, it would still take a substantial amount of time before energy flows return to some form of normalcy. So, some further inflationary pressure is inevitable.

Policymakers are also starting to realize this. The ECB’s Schnabel noted recently that “even if the war ended today, a lot of damage has already been done to energy infrastructure and global supply chains.” She adds that higher costs will probably trickle through global supply chains and into higher goods prices.

The accounts of the April ECB meeting suggest that Schnabel is not the only policymaker who’s concerned about the size and the persistence of the inflation shock. It therefore looks like a June hike is all but a done deal. According to the minutes, some policymakers said that the decision to hold or hike was already a “close call” for them in April. This group essentially indicated that they would not have opposed a rate hike last month, if this had been proposed as the path forward.

Today’s inflation data are further cementing the case for a rate hike. French HICP inflation rose to 2.8% y/y, while Spanish HICP inflation edged up to 3.6%. Meanwhile, business surveys indicate that companies expect to raise selling prices further – although selling price expectations eased a bit in May, compared to the steep increases in the two months prior.

And, worryingly, consumers’ medium-term inflation expectations have started to pick up alongside the rise in current inflation rates. As Schnabel pointed out, these shifts in consumer expectations could be a first indication that expectations are de-anchoring.

However, we still believe that the current backdrop is less conducive to broader and protracted inflationary pressures than 2021-2022. Yesterday’s business confidence survey indicated that employment expectations continue to score below the long-term average. The labor hoarding index remains above its long-term average, but businesses appear to hoard less labor than before.

Russia is deeply alarmed about US plans to deploy thousands of additional troops to NATO’s eastern flank member Poland, slamming reports out of Washington as unacceptable and portending an escalation in the Ukraine war.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said at a press briefing on Thursday that sending additional American soldiers to Poland “would result in escalation of tension across Europe” and that Moscow would be forced to take “retaliatory measures”.

Given that some 5,000 troops are being moved there from Germany, she did acknowledge that reducing America’s troop presense in Europe would overall be “rational, justified, and long-overdue” step toward stabilizing what she called an “imbalanced” security situation created by NATO and Western policies.

Weeks ago, the White House began threatening a significant and historic force reduction from Germany, following Berlin officials’ repeat criticisms of the US-Israeli war against Iran. This was initially presented in media reports as part of a broader drawdown from Europe, but now it appears US forces are just being shifted around, and with 5,000 to be placed closer to Russia.

But these thousands more troops in Poland could induce Russia to respond with “military-technical measures.” Zakharova in perhaps the most provocative part of her remarks warned that NATO is pushing the continent toward a “suicidal” conflict.

In total, some 10,000 US service members are stationed in Poland, on a regular rotation, and the new Washington deployment would see thousands more added to this – from among the 80,000 deployed across Europe.

Poland shares a border with Russia’s Kaliningrad Region, setting off further concerns about targeting and drone activity: 

The deployment of additional US military forces to Poland could lead to a “qualitative escalation” of tensions between Russia and the West and force Moscow to take retaliatory measures, Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.

Zakharova also said that the number of drone attacks on Russian territory from the direction of Europe and Northern European states was increasing.

Moscow has expressed concern that Ukrainian drones could be using Baltic or other countries’ airspace to launch attacks on targets inside Russia, an assertion rejected by Kyiv and the three Baltic countries.

Warsaw has hit back, with Foreign minister Maciej Wewiór having told the Polish news agency PAP that allied troops in Poland were “a necessary reinforcement of NATO’s eastern flank” as a result of Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, and given the Kremlin’s “escalatory rhetoric” towards the alliance.

Wewiór additionally said the “real source of escalation and tensions in Europe” remains Moscow’s “unlawful and aggressive military actions” – and not legitimate measures taken by NATO countries to defend their populations and borders.

South Africa’s parliament has scheduled for Monday the first meeting of an impeachment committee ​that will probe allegations around President Cyril Ramaphosa’s “Farmgate” scandal, Reuters reported citing the Democratic Alliance ‌party. 

The meeting is the next stage in an impeachment process against Ramaphosa that was revived by the Constitutional Court this month, in a setback for the leader for whom the ​affair has been a major embarrassment during his presidency. 

Ramaphosa has denied wrongdoing ​in the scandal, in which bundles of cash were stolen from ⁠a sofa on his farm in 2020, raising questions about where he had ​acquired the money and why it was hidden in furniture.

“The good thing is that ​parliament seems to be moving forward,” said DA parliamentary leader George Michalakis.

The first order of business for the committee’s 31 members will be to elect a chairperson, he said, adding: “The DA’s strong ​opinion is that it shouldn’t be someone from the ANC.” The DA is the ​second-biggest party in a coalition government with Ramaphosa’s African National Congress party, but the DA remains ‌critical ⁠of the president and has said it will hold him accountable for any findings of wrongdoing.

Ramaphosa on Tuesday filed a legal challenge against an independent panel report which found preliminary ​evidence he had ​committed misconduct, which ⁠some legal analysts said may delay the impeachment proceedings. The president has also threatened to seek an urgent court order to halt ​impeachment proceedings if parliament moves ahead with the process while ​his legal ⁠challenge is pending.

The ANC holds about 40% of seats in the National Assembly, which means it should be able to shoot down any eventual impeachment vote, which would require ⁠a ​two-thirds majority to pass. The party’s leadership has ​said it fully backs the president. But the ANC holds only 9 seats out of 31 seats on the impeachment ​committee.

Canada is not only going the way of Europe with the country’s draconian speech laws, it is in many ways surpassing the suppression and censorship across the Atlantic.  The speed at which the population is being robbed of their freedoms is staggering, and much of this is being done through backdoor bureaucracy.  

One factor that consistently frustrated the globalist Trudeau regime during the pandemic lockdowns was the Canadian public’s access to national and international independent media.  Even with political leaders working directly with social media giants to censor users, truthful data outside of the institutional filters was still being effectively spread by alternative journalists and news sites. 

This ultimately led to a large enough backlash in Canada and the US that eventually, covid mandates had to be abandoned.  Indie journalists were central to the effort to expose pandemic fallacies promoted by politicians as “science”. 

It would seem that in Canada, the elites are quickly working to close that loophole. 

Mere proximity to the US makes censorship projects more difficult for the Canadian government, though incrementalism is well underway and “hate speech” laws in Canada are used on occasion to silence dissent, specifically on transgender issues.  But officials are utilizing two sneaky policies as a way to subvert indie media outlets without directly shutting them down. 

The first policy is the Canadian Online News Act passed in 2023.  This bill was presented as a way to force Big Tech intermediaries like Google and Facebook to share profits they derive from the flow of content created by mostly smaller digital media providers (indie media).  It requires large online platforms to compensate Canadian news outlets for making their content available—through links, snippets, sharing, or search results.      

The Act argues that platforms benefit from news content (driving engagement and traffic) without fairly sharing value with creators. It’s supposed aim is to sustain journalism, especially local and independent outlets. 

However, the opposite has happened.  Big Tech companies are blocking Canadian media instead, making it difficult or impossible to maintain traffic to their websites.  Google has cut a $100 million deal to avoid settlements with individual outlets, but once it is spread out, this money is nowhere near enough to make up for the ad revenues losses they face.

Larger corporate media outlets are able to survive because they have the money to advertise and generate their own views.  Indie outlets rely on word of mouth and link sharing, which is now being eliminated because of government regulation.

The second policy which is crushing indie media in Canada is the use of government subsidies as a designator for “official journalism”.  

Two major federal departments – Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) and Global Affairs Canada (GAC) – have quietly updated their media accreditation policies to prioritize or limit government responses to journalists.  Canadian bureaucrats are increasingly restricting which outlets they will talk to and will only work with those designated as Qualified Canadian Journalism Organizations (QCJO). 

QCJO is a government program (administered by the Canada Revenue Agency) tied to tax credits and subsidies for journalism and it’s linked to broader media support efforts, including overlapping with the Online News Act.  

To put it plainly, government institutions in Canada are saying that only certain media outlets that receive subsidies are considered “real news”.  Eligible outlets get favored access to officials and information.  In other words, the government decides who is a journalist and who is not.

Backlash forced the government to back-peddle and clarify that QCJO status is strictly for tax/funding eligibility and not a press pass or accreditation tool to determine who qualifies as a “legitimate” journalist.  Critics argue, though, that the framework for this government filter is still in place even if they are not currently using it. 

If subsidies become a press pass, then only government funded and controlled media outlets will be able to operate in the Canadian system. 

One might question why anyone outside of Canada should care about how they regulate or manipulate their news platforms.  After all, Canada is a tiny country their impact on the rest of the west is minimal.  But this is a short-sighted way of thinking. 

It might be wiser to look at Canada as a kind of political petri dish; a beta test for regulations and controls that are likely to be tried in other countries in the near future.  Canada enforced some of the most stringent and authoritarian covid mandates of any western nation (except perhaps Australia and New Zealand).  Though this ultimately failed, it still shows that globalists view Canada as a testing ground. 

Today, the top goal of far-left governments is clearly the sabotage of independent media.  They’ve realized that they cannot assert dominance in other areas of life without first fully silencing free media.         

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

European elites are reeling from the information revolution they failed to suppress. A fresh leak exposes Germany’s state media regulators plotting a new law to compel social media platforms to automatically boost “reliable” and “trusted” mainstream outlets in their algorithms.

Sold as a defense of “media plurality” against disinformation, this scheme reveals the ugly truth: after brute-force censorship ignited a global backlash and helped propel Elon Musk’s purchase of X, authorities are now seeking to engineer the feeds themselves to favor their approved narratives while sidelining dissent.

This marks a shift from overt suppression to insidious manipulation. What began as panic over losing control has evolved into calculated digital gerrymandering. The awakening—fueled by years of heavy-handed crackdowns—created demand for uncensored spaces. Now, unable to fully extinguish that flame, regulators aim to starve alternative voices of oxygen through algorithmic favoritism.

I can assure you 2 dozen other countries are watching closely to see if Germany can get away with it. If no very visible retaliatory threat or diplomatic intervention is made here by USG, you will not believe the speed at which this cancer will spread.

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) May 27, 2026

The internal strategy paper from Germany’s Landesmedienanstalten, the network of state media authorities, outlines plans for a Digital Media State Treaty. It would grant automatic algorithmic preference to selected outlets.

The document remains in preparatory stages but is slated for presentation to politicians imminently. Thorsten Schmiege, head of the regulators and Bavaria’s media authority president, indicated a first draft could arrive this summer.

Critics rightly note the core problem: who defines “reliable” and “trusted”? The same state bodies entangled with public broadcasters that have repeatedly demonstrated bias. This isn’t about plurality; it’s about preserving a monopoly on public discourse as legacy media hemorrhages trust and audience.

Mike Benz, former State Department cyber official and vocal critic of censorship regimes, highlighted the international stakes in a pointed post reacting to the leak. He warned that dozens of other countries are watching closely to see if Germany can get away with it.

Benz stressed the need for visible US retaliatory threat or diplomatic intervention, stating that without it, “you will not believe the speed at which this cancer will spread.” He urged nipping this in the bud by whatever diplomatic, economic, or sanctions means are necessary.

This proposal doesn’t emerge in isolation. It builds directly on the patterns of escalating control seen across Europe. The EU’s “Democracy Shield” and broader Digital Services Act framework already pressure platforms into systemic content demotion under the guise of risk assessments.

Those tools have chilled speech across the continent. Germany’s move represents the next logical escalation: not just removing content, but ensuring state-aligned sources dominate what users actually see.

The EU’s €140 million fine slapped on X for alleged transparency violations formed part of a sustained assault. Musk responded forcefully, pointing to EU commissars’ role in stifling debate that could have mitigated Europe’s self-inflicted wounds.

That fine wasn’t about protecting users—it was punishment for refusing to play ball with narrative gatekeepers.

French President Emmanuel Macron’s calls for draconian measures and a full ‘Ministry of Truth’ apparatus further illustrate the continental appetite for control.

In the UK, London Mayor Sadiq Khan has pushed for a dedicated government disinformation unit, while the Online Safety Act has emerged as a comprehensive censors’ charter.

These developments show how temporary “emergency” powers metastasize into permanent architecture for managing reality.

The Digital Leviathan rose precisely to handle challenges like mass migration criticism and policy failures that elites preferred to keep hidden.

When combined with this algorithmic favoritism, the strategy becomes clear: starve challengers of reach while subsidizing compliant voices through forced visibility.

And then there are also punishments ready, such as debanking, to discourage journalists from stepping outside the approved thresholds.

Barack Obama’s infamous suggestion of a social media Ministry of Truth feels less like hyperbole and more like prophecy when viewing these coordinated efforts.

The backfire was predictable. Heavy censorship created martyrs, exposed hypocrisy, and drove users toward platforms prioritizing free expression. Musk’s acquisition of X exemplified this shift. Now, regulators adapt by gaming the very recommendation systems that exposed their weaknesses.

Advocates for this German law claim it counters “disinformative, polarizing” content. Yet the track record of the “trusted” outlets they seek to elevate undermines that claim entirely. The BBC provides a textbook case, with scandals ranging from manipulated editing exposed in the looming Trump lawsuit to further outrageous actions that continue to erode public confidence.

Public broadcasters aren’t neutral arbiters; they’re funded arms of the establishment view.

Germany’s own state media offers equally damning examples, including the fake AI-generated clip of ICE troops arresting a migrant family and systematic slander campaigns against figures like Charlie Kirk after his assassination.

These aren’t isolated lapses but symptoms of systemic narrative enforcement. When public funding meets ideological capture, journalism dies and propaganda thrives.

This aligns with long-standing critiques: legacy outlets function as extensions of the information state. Their declining relevance stems not from competition alone but from audiences recognizing the disconnect between reported reality and lived experience—particularly on immigration, economics, and cultural transformation.

Boosting them algorithmically won’t restore credibility; it will only highlight their dependence on artificial life support.

Parallel to algorithmic rigging, direct assaults on X continue under familiar banners. UK government schemes to restrict or shutter the platform over Grok’s humorous roasts, alongside outright ban threats, expose the cynicism.

Official claims of “protecting children” crumble under scrutiny, as these efforts target political speech far more than genuine safeguarding.

Spain’s far-left coalition similarly floated limitations, revealing a broader European discomfort with unmoderated conversation.

These pretexts enable deeper control. EU chat control proposals threaten end-to-end encryption, effectively ending private digital communication.

UK moves toward mandatory digital IDs with biometric tracking, combined with age verification theater, form pieces of a surveillance mosaic.

Government censorship of the internet is worse than ever in the UK, with the disinfo unit shifting focus from lockdown skeptics to mass migration critics.

Authoritarianism arrives not with tanks but with logins and compliance portals.

Germany stands at the forefront of this crackdown. Courts contemplating speaking bans against prominent politicians, alongside convictions of ordinary citizens for blunt criticism—like a pensioner penalized for calling a Green minister an “idiot”—signal a nation abandoning its post-war free speech commitments.

This environment makes the algorithmic proposal even more sinister. When the state already criminalizes mild dissent, empowering it to curate digital visibility creates a closed loop of approved thought. Independent voices face compounded marginalization online.

The German initiative forms part of a continent-wide offensive against digital liberty. These measures share a common thread: elites viewing open information flows as existential threats rather than democratic necessities. The result is a managed internet where “safety” justifies surveillance and “plurality” means enforced uniformity.

Thankfully, pushback is mounting. Concepts for a genuinely censorship-resistant internet—emphasizing decentralization, open protocols, and user sovereignty—offer technical pathways beyond centralized control. Legal and political pressure remains essential.

The Trump administration has signaled zero tolerance for European overreach. America stands ready to smash these UK and EU internet crackdowns.

Considerations of travel bans targeting officials enforcing speech restrictions, and actual entry prohibitions against anti-free-speech globalists demonstrate leverage available to free societies.

These actions protect not just American platforms but the principle of open discourse worldwide.

The ultimate solution lies in rejecting the premise that information must be managed by self-appointed State guardians. Platforms succeeding through transparency and user choice expose the fragility of legacy models. Citizens increasingly demand accountability: defund captured public broadcasters, enforce viewpoint neutrality where subsidies exist, and prioritize constitutional protections over bureaucratic comfort.

Continued overreach will accelerate the very trends regulators fear. Each attempt at algorithmic rigging further erodes trust, driving innovation toward decentralized alternatives and reinforcing public skepticism.

The information awakening wasn’t a temporary glitch—it represents a fundamental realignment toward truth over narrative. Musk’s X stands as proof: refusing to bend created the space for genuine debate that elites now scramble to recapture through backdoor algorithmic controls.

Europe’s elites face a choice: adapt to a world where ideas compete freely or double down on control and risk greater backlash. The battle for the digital public square will define the coming decade.

Platforms and citizens prioritizing unfiltered exchange hold the advantage, provided they maintain vigilance against these evolving threats—from the German proposal and EU Democracy Shield to UK child protection pretexts and domestic speech prosecutions.

Free societies thrive on open debate, not engineered consensus. The push to game algorithms in favor of propaganda houses won’t save failing narratives; it will only hasten their irrelevance while empowering alternatives rooted in user trust and technological freedom.

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

A Turkish defense startup claims it has developed a spray-on radar-absorbing paint coating that could reduce the radar signature of one-way attack drones without the exorbitant costs of traditional stealth materials, a capability once only reserved for major defense primes.

Military and defense news outlet The Defense Blog reports that researcher Yunus İnce, along with colleagues at a small defense research firm, has developed a spray-on radar-absorbent material called “Kürşat 3.0.”

A Turkish startup claims it built a spray-on coating that makes drones invisible to radar — and says tests hit 43.2 dB attenuation. No independent verification yet. But if it works, stealth just got a lot cheaper.https://t.co/PTibodzoU2

— The Defence Blog (@Defence_blog) May 24, 2026

The coating reportedly consists of volcanic basalt and pumice and is designed to reduce radar return signals by up to 43 dB.

If independently validated, this would exceed the 20 to 30 dB reduction typically seen with many current radar-absorbent coatings, potentially giving low-cost drone platforms a new, cheap survivability upgrade once reserved for billion-dollar stealth military aircraft programs.

The Defense Blog offered additional color into the importance of this new spray-on radar-absorbent material:

The military logic driving interest in this kind of development is not difficult to follow.

The war in Ukraine transformed the global understanding of what small, cheap unmanned aircraft can accomplish in combat, as both sides demonstrated that drones costing a few hundred to a few thousand dollars could destroy armored vehicles, collapse supply lines, and sustain operational pressure at a scale that conventional artillery and air power struggle to match on the same budget.

The response from defenders has been a rapid expansion of electronic warfare systems, radar-based detection networks, and layered interception capabilities designed to find and destroy drones before they reach their targets.

Reducing a drone’s radar signature meaningfully complicates that detection chain at every stage, and doing so through a coating that adds negligible weight and requires no structural modification to the airframe would make the capability accessible to operators using commercially available hardware rather than purpose-built stealth platforms.

Yunus responded on X to The Defense Blog’s report, in which he says:

Here is the independent verification you mentioned. Official spectrum analyzer validation from Pamukkale University Electrical Engineering Lab: over 40 dB baseline, 43.2 dB peak attenuation. We are ready for the field.

Here is the independent verification you mentioned. Official spectrum analyzer validation from Pamukkale University Electrical Engineering Lab: over 40 dB baseline, 43.2 dB peak attenuation. We are ready for the field. 🇹🇷 pic.twitter.com/XTqAcPOfbd

— yunus (@yunus50) May 25, 2026

As we’ve previously stated, the rise of suicide drones will usher in counter-UAS systems, but with inexpensive stealth upgrades likely on the horizon, there will also be a rise in passive acoustic threat detection for the military and critical infrastructure, including data centers and power grids.