Summary

• Iran oil sector official admits “serious threat” – telling NYT: “export of our oil and energy and the fate of our refineries is now at risk.”

• US Navy jet fires on Iran-flagged tanker trying to reach Iranian waters & port.

• Axios reports that the White House is nearing a preliminary deal with Iran to end the war, as Trump post appears to offer olive branch. Other reports say just hammering out at ‘framework’ for ‘monthlong’ talks.

• White House says it expects a response to the latest offer within 48 hours.

• Iran’s initial response via media & national security spox: US demands are unrealistic & do not reflect reality, & Axios report based on too much ‘speculation’.

• A key caveat of the US offered deal is that Iran would commit to a moratorium on uranium enrichment, & Washington wants a 20-year ban on this; Iran & China FMs coordinate messaging in Beijing, denying Iran’s intent to build nuclear bomb.

*  *  *

Surprisingly Frank Admission Out of Iran’s Oil Sector

An Iranian energy official just conceded something in a surprise admission that the US naval blockade has begun to bite the Islamic Republic’s oil industry. According to new reporting in the NY Times:

The blockade has halted Iran’s oil exports, choking off crucial revenues, and the country risks running out of places to store its oil. It is also affecting the import of other goods, forcing Iran to seek alternative routes through neighboring countries and its smaller ports on the Caspian Sea. And the economic pain inside Iran, already dire before the war, is becoming much worse.

“The sea blockade is a much more serious threat than even war, and the current stalemate must be broken because the export of our oil and energy and the fate of our refineries is now at risk,” said Hamid Hosseini, an expert on Iran’s oil sector who serves on the energy committee of Iran’s Chamber of Commerce, in an interview from Tehran.

This as Kpler has stated based on its data that since the US blockade took effect on April 13, no Iranian oil-laden tankers have been able to exit the strait. 

“The bottom line is that Iran could run out of storage space in about 25 to 30 days if the blockade is not lifted, according to Homayoun Falakshahi, Kpler’s head of oil analysis,” continues the Wednesday report. “Other experts have given different estimates ranging from a few weeks to a month or more.” Last month we offered the following, saying a likely 15 days – probably followed with a few weeks left on the clock before the Iranians run out of storage space…

Tehran Timeline: Iran Has 15 Days Until Its Oil Industry Begins Full Shut-Ins https://t.co/21WPtRfINW

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 22, 2026

So much for that ceasefire and alleged ‘pause’ in US naval blockade actions, as things just took another escalatory turn. In this case, a rare live fire incident unfolded Wednesday in Gulf waters as a US jet launched from the Lincoln carrier fired on and possibly disabled an Iranian-flagged tanker, per the officials US Central Command statement:

U.S. forces operating in the Gulf of Oman enforced blockade measures by disabling an Iranian-flagged unladen oil tanker attempting to sail toward an Iranian port at 9 a.m. ET, May 6.

U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces observed M/T Hasna as it transited international waters enroute to an Iranian port on the Gulf of Oman. American forces issued multiple warnings and informed the Iranian-flagged vessel it was in violation of the U.S. blockade.

After Hasna’s crew failed to comply with repeated warnings, U.S. forces disabled the tanker’s rudder by firing several rounds from the 20mm cannon gun of a U.S. Navy F/A-18 Super Hornet launched from USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72). Hasna is no longer transiting to Iran.

The Pentagon/CENTCOM statement then emphasized, “The U.S. blockade against ships attempting to enter or depart Iranian ports remains in full effect. CENTCOM forces continue to act deliberately and professionally to ensure compliance.” Tehran’s response to this will be interesting, and follows prior alleged attacks this week on the UAE.

‘Framework’ Being Hammered Out for ‘Monthlong Period of Talks’

Iran’s Foreign Ministry has said that Iran’s response to the United States has not yet been presented to mediator Pakistan, as the WSJ reports that the US and Iranian sides are currently trying to hammer out a one-page memorandum of understanding which features 14-points. This would “lay out a framework” – the report says, for a “monthlong period of talks to end the war.”

Given that agreement cannot even be found on the ‘framework’ for future talks, it seems the process is not very advanced at all – but is perhaps still back at square one, with headlines in the US way out front, and likely overly optimistic. 

CNN citing the White House: “The White House received positive feedback from Pakistani mediators on Tuesday that the Iranians were progressing toward a compromise.” And more from WSJ:

Iran’s mission to the UN said that “the only viable solution in the Strait of Hormuz is clear: a permanent end to the war, the lifting of the maritime blockade, and the restoration of normal passage.”

Key Timing of Wang-Araghchi Meeting in Beijing

During Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi’s visit to Beijing on Wednesday, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi pushed for the rapid reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and a halt to the fighting. Araghchi echoed the urgency, saying, “Currently, it is possible to resolve the issue of reopening the Strait of Hormuz as soon as possible.” Wang called for a “comprehensive ceasefire” and stressed that “the international community shares a common concern for restoring normal and safe passage through the Strait,” urging swift action.

The coordinated messaging reflects shared economic and strategic interests, especially as US naval actions have disrupted Iranian oil flows to China. Wang also signaled support for Tehran’s position, stating China “appreciates Iran’s pledge to not develop nuclear weapons,” while Iran continues to insist its nuclear program is peaceful and maintains its right to uranium enrichment as a matter of sovereignty.

Wang reinforced Beijing’s stance by warning that “a comprehensive ceasefire brooks no delay” and that negotiations must continue, while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has called on China to pressure Iran to ease its blockade of the strait.

Alarmed Reaction from Israel

An Israeli official cited in Times of Israel said Israel did not know that President Trump was close to a deal with Iran to end the fighting and reopen the Strait of Hormuz, even as global headlines pointed to progress. The official said Israel had been preparing for escalation, reflecting recent reports that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government was waiting for US approval to resume its aerial campaign following 38 days of strikes under Operation Epic Fury.

US messaging has shifted rapidly. with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Tuesday having announced the end of Operation Epic Fury and a pivot to Project Freedom focused on reopening Hormuz, while Trump later declared a pause to allow negotiations. The mixed signals from Washington created confusion as diplomacy and military positioning unfolded simultaneously.

Both Iran and Israel signaled readiness to escalate despite the diplomatic push. Iran warned its “finger is on the trigger,” while Israeli military chief Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir said forces have multiple targets prepared inside Iran and remain on high alert. He emphasized ongoing coordination with US forces and readiness to resume a broad campaign if fighting restarts.

More Official Iran Denials: Too Much ‘Speculation’

The latest response out of Tehran via Tasnim: “Despite claims by US media that Iran and the US are close to a final one-page agreement to end the war, Iran has not yet given an official response to the Americans’ final text, which contains some unacceptable clauses.”

And separately Iran’s ISNA calls parts of the Axios report “speculation” – also reiterating the country has rejected some recent US proposals, as they are “unrealistic”. However, an Iranian spokesperson has said that Iran is indeed “reviewing the US proposal to end the war.”

Trump Admits: ‘Too Soon’

And now a bit of rapid narrative reversal, coming from President Trump himself, after once again a likely premature early morning Axios report with overly optimistic language. Trump’s fresh words are via the NY Post:

President Donald Trump said it’s “too soon” to plan peace talks with Iran despite reports of a near deal, downplaying prospects of imminent negotiations in Pakistan. He warned that if Iran accepts terms, hostilities could end and the Strait of Hormuz reopen—but failure to agree would trigger intensified military action.

Indeed the Iranian reaction issued via media reports also suggests this is the case, that all the talk of an agreement being close is premature, and there remains immense hurdles and a long way to go. Axios’ Barak Ravid still insists that “the sources said this was the closest the parties had been to an agreement since the war began.”

Initial Word From Tehran: Doesn’t Reflect Reality

Iranian initial reaction through its media: “What US media outlets are publishing about the details of the negotiations does not reflect the reality of what is happening, according to AI Araby citing Iranian Sources.”

“Progress has been made in talks with Washington through Pakistan, but it has not yet reached a level that would lead to an agreement,” the statement says. The Iranians are also clearly sticking by their approach which says the nuclear issue is a non-starter and that talks must focus on opening Hormuz and finding a final end to the conflict. “The negotiations are focused on ending the war, not the nuclear issue,” the statement in Al Araby continues.

And then the final criticism of Washington’s approach: “The negotiations are still facing the intransigent American approach and excessive demands.” And further, this: 

Ebrahim Rezaei dismissed U.S. demands as unrealistic, saying Washington won’t gain through conflict what it failed to secure in talks. He added Iran is ready to act and warned of a severe, regret-inducing response to any provocation.

Here is the full statement from the Iranian Spokesperson of the National Security and Foreign Policy Commission (via machine translation):

Trump Issues Carrot & Stick

The below is a fresh Trump Truth Social Post on Wednesday morning, warning the Iranians that the Hormuz Strait must be “open to all”. However, the president continues, if Tehran doesn’t agree then “the bombing starts” and it will be at a “much higher level and intensity than it was before”. 

All of this has followed an awkward 24 hours of drastically different signals coming from various top officials of the US administration.

Marco Rubio says the goal of the war in Iran is now to restore it “back to the way it was” before Trump started the war in Iran pic.twitter.com/G1E9qyxMc4

— Headquarters (@HQNewsNow) May 5, 2026

WH Expects Iranian Response In Next 48 Hours

Axios reports that the White House is nearing a preliminary deal with Iran to end the war. This is based on a 14-point, one-page memorandum that creates a 30-day negotiating window for a broader nuclear and Strait of Hormuz deal and follows President Trump’s announcement last night of “great progress” and a “complete and final” deal nearing. 

“The U.S. expects Iranian responses on several key points in the next 48 hours.

Nothing has been agreed yet, but sources said this was the closest the parties had been to an agreement since the war began,” Axios wrote in the report.

Here are the key points:

• Iran would commit to a moratorium on uranium enrichment. The duration is still under negotiation, with the U.S. pushing for 20 years, Iran offering five, and sources suggesting 12 to 15 years may be the likely spot.

• Iran would also pledge not to seek nuclear weapons, accept enhanced inspections, potentially halt underground nuclear facility operations, and possibly remove highly enriched uranium from the country.

• The U.S. would gradually lift sanctions and release billions of dollars in frozen Iranian funds.

• Shipping restrictions through the Hormuz chokepoint and the U.S. naval blockade would be gradually lifted during the 30-day talks. If negotiations fail, U.S. forces could restore the blockade or resume military action.

Axios said talks are being led by Trump envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner with top Iranian officials, both directly and through mediators.

News of this sparked risk on in U.S. equity index futures, WTI fell to the $95-a-barrel handle, and U.S. Treasury yields dipped.

Market Response:

S&P500 Futs

Brent Futs

WTI Futs

UST10Y

BTC/USD

developing…

Head of the Russian Security Council and former president, Dmitry Medvedev, has penned an article ahead of the 81st anniversary of Soviet victory over Nazi Germany, or Russia’s V-Day, lambasting Europe’s new path of reckless militarization. As widely featured in state media, he argued that the “animal fear” of unacceptable losses will prevent Germany and the wider “United Europe” from launching another attack against Russia.

He wrote, “It is no secret that an attempt is being made to impose on us the doctrine of ‘peace through strength’. Our response then can only be ‘the security of Russia through the animal fear of Europe.’“

He stressed that “neither persuasion, nor demonstration of good intentions, nor goodwill and unilateral confidence-building steps should be our tools to prevent a big massacre.”

“Only the formation of an understanding among Germany and the United Europe supporting it of the inevitability of their receiving unacceptable damage in the event of the implementation of the Barbarossa 2.0 plan,” Medvedev concluded.

RT reviews and pinpoints why Medvedev is taking direct aim at Berlin in his written piece: 

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz openly vowed to turn the German military into the “strongest conventional army in Europe” in a speech just days after the world marked the 80th anniversary of the fall of the Third Reich last May.

Last month, the German Defense Ministry unveiled a plan to reach this goal and field 460,000 combat-ready personnel by 2039, the 100th anniversary of Adolf Hitler’s invasion of Poland. German and other EU officials repeatedly cited 2029 as the first stage deadline to be “war-ready” for a potential conflict with Russia.

It is true that even after 4+ years of grinding war in eastern Europe, the Western powers have yet to intervene directly by sending their own forces, and after losses on both the Ukrainian and Russian sides have probably been in the hundreds of thousands.

The conflict is largely stalemated, with Russian forces in the east having had a very slow but steady, piecemeal momentum over the past year.

However, Ukraine’s drone strikes deep inside Russia have been devastating of late, inflicting serious damage on Russian oil refineries – in some cases hitting key sites multiple times, with Russia’s anti-air defenses appearing powerless to stop these attack waves.

The Moscow region itself has been coming under repeat drone attack. While these operations have little or no impact on the frontline situation in the Donbass, Kiev hopes to inflict serious costs on the Russian government and population, the latter which is surely growing tired and weary of the war.

But Medvedev’s point is also that if broader conflict with Europe opens one day, the European powers won’t be able to find an offramp before absorbing immense losses – no matter their efforts to revamp and expand their respective defense industries.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

The UK government’s much-hyped age verification system for social media has been reduced to a joke overnight – and the punchline is being delivered by schoolkids armed with makeup pencils and fake facial hair.

A damning new report from Internet Matters reveals that more than a third of UK children have already figured out how to dodge the latest “safeguards” imposed under the draconian Online Safety Act.

Methods include entering fake birthdays, borrowing logins, and – most hilariously – drawing on fake moustaches to fool facial age estimation tech. One parent admitted catching her son using an eyebrow pencil; the system promptly verified him.

The UK government’s age verification checks have been brought down by children wearing fake moustache’s

Brilliant pic.twitter.com/FvSAiKaZ6r

— Basil the Great (@BasilTheGreat) May 5, 2026

This comes as ministers double down on plans to restrict or outright ban social media access for under-16s. Just days ago, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson and junior minister Olivia Bailey confirmed the government will impose “some form of age or functionality restrictions” regardless of whether a full ban is enacted.

A national consultation on the policy closes later this month, with pilots already running in hundreds of homes testing bans, time limits, and digital curfews.

But the farce unfolding in real time shows exactly why these measures were always doomed to fail – or, more cynically, why they were designed to fail.

I suspect it’s fake news so they can push for ID verifications

— Fellow Noticer (@Sendem_Bach) May 5, 2026

Either the architects of this scheme are completely incompetent, or this is a deliberate ploy to make the whole thing look ridiculous.

Why? To curtail resistance and downplay the inevitable next step: mandatory digital ID.

Age verification, or more properly defined as “identity verification,” was designed to fail, so that the government could push for a full blown digital ID system.

The people behind this are utterly dastardly and machiavellian in their lust for total power over their fellow Man.

— NPC Knuckles (@KnucklesNp26684) May 5, 2026

Eventually there will be no work-around for any of us unfortunately

— Gabhán (@OffgridIreland) May 5, 2026

We’ve seen this playbook before. When Apple began forcing iPhone users to prove their age with government ID or lose unrestricted internet access, we warned it was the thin end of the wedge.

The government’s digital ID scheme is already being rolled out. A “dystopian experiment in mass surveillance,” with critics warning it will make proving your identity online unavoidable for everything from banking to browsing.

And it’s not just Britain. The EU is charging ahead with its own war on online freedom, forcing age verification and going after VPNs in the name of “saving the children” while quietly building the infrastructure for continent-wide censorship and tracking.

Commission Urges Member States to Implement EU Age Verification Apphttps://t.co/F3eYpQfaoO

The EU has moved to protect children from harmful and inappropriate online content. On Wednesday, the EU Commission adopted a recommendation urging Member States to accelerate the roll…

— eurotoday (@eurotoday_org) May 5, 2026

Just coincidentally, the EU’s own age verification system was defeated in minutes after it was soft launched in April. So now, of course, there needs to be a further crackdown.

Digital ID systems always promise security and always deliver breaches. The EU’s new age verification app got hacked in under two minutes. Passport photos were stored unencrypted. PIN protection was bypassed with a text editor. Von der Leyen called it “technically ready.” Every…

— Reclaim The Net (@ReclaimTheNetHQ) April 19, 2026

This was never about protecting kids. They don’t care about kids. It’s about control. Every failed “safety” measure provides the perfect excuse to demand even stricter verification – biometric scans, national digital IDs, device-level monitoring.

The moustache kids aren’t the problem; they’re exposing the con.

In the US, President Trump has already drawn a line in the sand, declaring war on the Euro-style censorship machine and vowing to smash any UK-EU internet crackdown that threatens free speech.

While the UK government chases headlines with performative “child safety” gestures that collapse under the weight of a 12-year-old with a makeup pencil, the real threat isn’t social media – it’s the authoritarian apparatus being built in its name.

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 widening gap is emerging in global birth rates.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, shows population-weighted total fertility rates (TFR) across major world regions, based on data from the UN World Population Prospects 2024 Revision, and how they compare to the 2.1 replacement level.

While Africa remains far above this threshold, most of the world, including Asia, Europe, and the Americas, has already fallen below it.

This split highlights where future population growth is likely to be concentrated.

Africa Stands Apart

Africa’s fertility rate of 4.0 children per woman is the highest of any region. It is nearly double the global average of 2.2 and close to three times Europe’s rate of 1.4.

With a rapidly growing population base, Africa is expected to drive a significant share of global population growth in the coming decades.

Higher fertility rates are often linked to younger populations, lower urbanization, and differences in access to education and healthcare.

Below Replacement in Most Regions

Many parts of the world now have fertility rates below the replacement level of 2.1. Asia, North America, and South America each sit at 1.7, while Europe trails at 1.4.

These levels point to aging populations, slower natural population growth, and potential workforce pressures over time. In many countries, immigration and family-support policies are becoming more important parts of the demographic outlook.

Population Weight Matters

Asia accounts for 54% of the global population, meaning its relatively low fertility rate has an outsized influence on the global average.

By contrast, regions like Oceania and the Middle East have higher fertility rates but much smaller populations. This helps explain why the global average remains at 2.2 even as most major regions fall below replacement.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out When Will the Global Population Reach Its Peak? on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Via Remix News,

Amidst continued fears regarding Putin attacking beyond Ukraine and economic uncertainty caused by the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz, Brussels is reportedly beginning to grumble, i.e., look for someone to blame and remove.

Now, according to a report by Finnish public service media Yle, cited by Világgazdaság, voices are growing to remove the president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen.

Several European leaders, as well as NATO officials, have long warned that Moscow may potentially attack NATO states, which is why there has been a continued push for support for Ukraine to prevail in its war with Russia.

In the event of such a scenario, where Putin looks to further his ambitions and attack inside NATO, rapid and effective cooperation between European countries will be crucial, which is why, according to this recent report, some are wondering if von der Leyen is the right person for the job.

One name that has been put forth for “European war leader” is Finnish president, Alexander Stubb, an independent known for seeking greater EU integration and a higher profile for the EU in international policymaking.

The suggestion was also reportedly confirmed by defense expert Line Rindvig, who believes that the Finnish president may be particularly suitable for such a role.

The Finnish president is even said to have served as a “quasi-European representative” on several occasions in discussions on support for Ukraine.

Rindvig has actively been assisting Finland to boost its military defense capabilities in light of lessons learned from Ukraine.

He says that the Nordic country is at the forefront of preparations in Europe, which he attributes in large part to Stubb’s diplomatic activity and international acceptance.

He is, according to the expert, a good bet for leading broader European cooperation.

Significantly, Stubb also enjoys good relations with U.S. President Donald Trump, which is key for transatlantic coordination.

Rindvig even pointed to their closeness being aided by a shared interest in golf.

As the EU seeks to navigate its role in a world dominated by major powers and their wars, the right person at the helm will be critical if it ever wants a seat at the table — to discuss Ukraine, as well as NATO, foreign policy, and other economic matters.

Read more here…

Russia is warning that the Ukrainian capital could face unprecedented aerial bombing, and is taking the somewhat unprecedented step of issuing evacuation orders for bystanders in Kiev.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said Wednesday it warned foreign diplomatic missions to evacuate staff from the Ukrainian capital ahead of a potential large-scale strike if Ukraine attempts to disrupt Russia’s May 9 Victory Day commemorations.

Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, speaking in a video posted on Telegram, called on diplomats to take seriously a Defense Ministry warning issued Monday about retaliation in response to any Ukrainian attack linked to the commemorations and the Red Square parade.

“The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs strongly urges the authorities of your country…to treat this statement with the utmost responsibility and ensure the timely evacuation from the city of Kyiv of the personnel of diplomatic and other representations in connection with the inevitability of a retaliatory strike on Kyiv by Russia’s Armed Forces,” Zakharova said.

Zakharova charged that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently made “aggressive and threatening statements” about disrupting the commemorations during Monday remarks at a European Political Community meeting in Armenia.

“Several EU countries were present,” she said. “None of them reprimanded the ringleader of the Kyiv regime.”

Here’s what Zelensky had said:

“It will be the first time in many, many years they cannot afford military equipment and they fear drones may buzz over Red Square. This is telling.”

Last year similar back-and-forth threats and rhetoric surrounded the lead-up to Russia’s V-day celebrations, but little in the way of direct threats or hostile drone activity over Moscow materialized at the time.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry is urging foreign countries to ensure the evacuation of diplomats from Kyiv.

Russia will strike decision-making centers in Kyiv if Ukraine disrupts the May 9 parade. pic.twitter.com/G7YmNUm3Kf

— Clash Report (@clashreport) May 6, 2026

At the moment, the warring countries have presented competing dates for ceasefire. Putin wants it to correspond with the major Russian holiday: May 8-9, while Zelensky had last week offered May 5-6, which has already come and gone.

Both sides have meanwhile continued attacking the other’s vital energy sites, and in some cases this has left significant casualties and destruction.

Authored by Michael Clements via The Epoch Times,

Denver is refusing to repeal its 37-year-old ban on certain types of firearms known as “assault weapons.”

Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, sent a demand letter on April 28 to Denver Mayor Mike Johnston and City Attorney Miko Brown, requesting the city repeal the ordinance, which has been in place since 1989.

In a May 4 response letter, Brown stated that the ordinance has withstood legal challenges, kept violent crime low, and was democratically enacted.

Brown wrote that while Denver may consider various strategies to keep citizens safe, “Reversing a common-sense ban that has worked for 37 years and bringing assault weapons back into the City’s neighborhoods is not one of them.”

Johnston reiterated that sentiment in a statement released that same day.

“Denver’s law has stood for 37 years because it works, it saves lives, and it reflects the values of our community. No demand or lawsuit from Washington is going to change that,” Johnston said.

The ordinance—Denver Revised Municipal Code Section 38-121(c)—prohibits carrying, storing, keeping, manufacturing, selling, or possessing an assault weapon.

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston testifies before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Capitol Hill on March 5, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The ordinance defines an assault weapon as “any semiautomatic pistol or centerfire rifle, either of which have a fixed or detachable magazine with a capacity of more than fifteen (15) rounds, and any semiautomatic shotgun with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six (6) rounds or both.”

The definition includes firearms that have been modified to have these features to function as an assault weapon.

Dhillon wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court held in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment secures “the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”

She goes on to state that arms in common use may not be categorically banned.

Dhillon stated that the definition includes AR-15-style rifles, which are owned by “literally tens of millions” of people.

“The city has banned an arm in common use for lawful purposes by law-abiding citizens. Therefore, the Ordinance violates the Second Amendment,” Dhillon’s letter states.

Dhillon set a deadline of May 5 for the city to enter negotiations to repeal the ban. To avoid a lawsuit, the city would have to cease enforcing the ordinance, acknowledge the law is unconstitutional, and enter a consent decree to prevent enforcement of the ordinance.

“This ordinance has helped keep Denver safe for decades. Repealing it would put my officers and our residents at greater risk and violate our duty to protect and serve,” Denver Police Chief Ron Thomas was quoted as saying.

Add another vocal warning to the chorus singing about the dangers of private credit. 

DoubleLine CEO Jeffrey Gundlach, who has been especially critical of private credit for the past year warning last November that the space “has the same trappings as subprime mortgage repackaging had back in 2006,” raised fresh concerns about financial advisers and other principals who ushered retail investors into private credit and other so-called semi-liquid funds, suggesting they’ve been motivated by high fees as much as by their clients’ interests.

“It’s clear that prospectuses talked about the gating mechanism, but I have a feeling that the financial intermediaries, not all of them of course, but enough of them, didn’t explain,” he said Wednesday on a panel at the Milken Institute Global Conference in Beverly Hills.

The products have been “kept opaque and not granularly described,” he said according to Bloomberg. “That’s why everybody wants their money back: They’re starting to realize they might be the bag-holder.”

Gundlach took issue with private credit firms calling their funds “semi-liquid” in nature. “Semi-liquid is kind of a diabolical name,” Gundlach said. “Half the time it’s liquid. It’s liquid when you don’t want your money, and it’s illiquid when you do want your money.” A little bit like “half cash, half stock“, in the parlance of our times.

As documented extensively, private credit firms have been slammed with a wave of redemption requests, a jolt to an industry that had viewed retail investors as a new source of capital to complement institutions; instead it is scrambling to gate them as they seek their money back as cracks have emerged in the private credit architecture. At Milken and elsewhere, asset managers are now questioning the wisdom – or at least, the marketing message – of selling illiquid investments to the masses.

Gundlach also compared today’s private credit market to the boom-and-bust cycles in the dot-com era and in mortgage-backed securities and other derivatives. Risky credit might be able to hide in the private market, he said, noting that the quality in the high-yield public market is much better than it was before the global financial crisis.

“This is gonna be an interesting period because the data points aren’t as frequent as they were with the dot-coms and the mortgage market,” Gundlach said. “I don’t know what systemic means, but people are going to lose money here.”

They certainly are, and today the firm at the epicenter of the private credit crisis, Blue Owl, reminded us of that when two of its private credit funds bought back $85 million of shares as volatility in technology markets and a selloff in publicly traded loans brought down their value. 

The firm cut the value of its $14.1 billion technology-focused business development fund by about 5% to $16.49 a share in the three months ended March 31, according to a filing Wednesday. The value of its $15.3 billion Blue Owl Capital Corporation, fell almost 3% to $14.41 a share.

Ever a cheerful cheerleader for his struggling product, Blue Owl co-president Craig Packer said underlying credit trends remained sound for both funds. “We continue to see solid credit performance across our portfolio of durable, mission-critical businesses with many already taking steps to adapt to the evolving AI environment,” Packer said in a statement, referring to Blue Owl Technology Finance Corp.

Blue Owl noted that share buybacks had helped boost the net asset value of the funds in the quarter.  At the same time, the firm which has been facing a liquidity crunch, cut the dividend at the bigger fund to 31 cents a share from 37 cents, citing an “extended period” of declining rates and lower risk premiums. The total dividend for the technology fund was flat at 40 cents.

Blue Owl, which earlier this year precipitated the crisis in the $1.8 trillion private credit market and gated redemptions at two other private credit funds when faced with an unprecedented $5.6 billion in withdrawal requests sending shares to a record low last month, on Wednesday said it had reduced the leverage at its biggest publicly traded fund, giving it flexibility to act fast when buying opportunities come up in an improving market for lenders.

Blue Owl wasn’t the only one to suffer from mismarked loans. A private credit fund overseen by Apollo Global reported a quarterly loss, citing declining valuations amid market volatility and weakness in some specific deals. 

MidCap Financial Investment Corp., a business development company focused on direct lending, reported a net loss per share of 30 cents, compared to a 32 cent gain for the same period a year ago, it said in a statement. Net asset value per share fell to $13.82 compared to $14.18 at the end of December, missing analyst expectations.

BDC earnings are drawing sharper scrutiny as managers grapple with exposure to software companies confronting the disruptive potential of AI. Oaktree Capital Management said this week that it cut the value of one of its private credit funds by almost 4% as the firm marked down its software assets, while Sixth Street Specialty Lending reduced its dividend and reported a decline in net asset value per share.

“Our net loss for the quarter was driven by a combination of unrealized valuation adjustments reflecting broader credit spread widening, as well as credit weakness in certain positions,” MFIC Chief Executive Officer Tanner Powell said in a statement.

Loans marked as non-accrual – typically meaning the borrower missed debt payments – climbed to about $167 million on an amortized cost basis, from $48.5 million in the same period a year ago, according to a presentation. The firm said that its software portfolio had a fair value of $327 million, accounting for about 11% of its total holdings. MidCap is “highly selective” on those investments, avoiding categories where workflows are easily automated, it said. 

Meanwhile, in a sign even more pain is yet to come for the sector, Bloomberg reported that a group of banks led by JPMorgan is expected to shoulder paper losses of more than $500 million on a debt deal for software firm Qualtrics Internationa. The banks are preparing to use their own balance sheets to fund $5.3 billion of debt for Qualtrics’ acquisition of Press Ganey Forsta. That would make it the biggest “hung” deal in the leveraged finance market this year.

According to Bloomberg, the lenders decided not to launch a formal offering after pausing early discussions on the deal in March, when investors in the leveraged loan and junk-bond markets balked because of Qualtrics’ exposure to the software rout. Back then, the roughly $1.5 billion Qualtrics loan due in 2030 had fallen to about 86 cents on the dollar, down from near par levels just one month earlier. At those levels, investors would find it more attractive to buy existing debt rather than participate in a new issuance, which would also sharply push up borrowing costs for the company.

The financing effort, led by JPMorgan, was tied to Qualtrics’ $6.75 billion acquisition of Press Ganey Forsta, with the package expected to include a $3.3 billion leveraged loan and another $2 billion across junk bonds or private credit.

Qualtrics, which makes online survey tools, has emerged as one of the highest-profile examples of the pain plaguing software firms at the heart of the private credit crisis, as investors reassess business models across the industry given the rapid advances in artificial intelligence.

The reason why JPMorgan capitulated on laucnhing a formal offering is because the existing term loan is currently trading at about 84 cents on the dollar, creating a hurdle too big to overcome when pricing any new deal.

Banks typically provide bridge financing commitments to support acquisitions with the intention to sell the debt on to institutional investors as part of a syndication process, and earn a fee for doing so. They try to offload the borrowings quickly – before the transaction closes – because getting stuck with the debt on their balance sheets means they can’t commit that capacity to new deals.

In the case of Qualtrics, the company imploded much faster than anyone had expected, stiffing the bank syndicate with massive paper losses.

Qualtrics’ acquisition of Press Ganey, an online survey and data analytics business, is expected to close as soon as this month. Banks are discussing a number of potential structural changes with PE sponsor Silver Lake to make the deal more palatable to investors, and plan to bring the debt offering to the market at a later date, arguably in hopes that the current market euphoria lasts long enough to find a new, naive batch of buyers who would be willing to take on the banks’ balance sheet risk. Should that happen, it’s possible that some of the paper losses banks will have to book when funding the Qualtrics deal will be reversed once they bring the transaction back to market.

Qualtrics is the biggest deal to have run into trouble this year. In February, a Deutsche Bank-led group was unable to sell about $1.2 billion of loans supporting an acquisition by Thoma Bravo-backed Conga Corp., another software business. More recently, banks led by UBS financed the tie-up of two logistics firms after pausing early talks to offload a $765 million loan to investors.

And as more and more firms reveal just how badly they mismarked their books over the years in hopes of attracting retail investors with mark-to-model gains which have in retrospect turned out to be fictitious, some are taking proactive steps to restore confidence in the space. Apollo is one of them: the alternative asset manager plans to offer investors daily valuations for its private-credit funds by the end of September, a move that could help ease worries about the health of an opaque world of lending.

The private-market giant disclosed its plans Wednesday during a call with analysts after reporting its first-quarter results.

“This is the beginning of standardization across this marketplace,” Chief Executive Marc Rowan said on the call reported by the WSJ.

Since most private investment funds provide valuations of their assets to investors on a quarterly basis, the investing public has to wait at least three months to get an updated sense of how the portfolio is performing. The marks (or valuations) are used to calculate fees and give investors a sense of their unrealized returns. Unlike with stocks or public debt, investors don’t have real-time updates on how their investments are faring.

Rowan said the firm would observe other trades, comparable assets and market trends to produce a price for assets. Then again, if all Apollo does is merely spew out what some excel model thinks the loan book is worth daily instead of every three months, nothing at all will change unless the actual marking process is also fixed.

Authored by Rick Fisher via The Epoch Times,

As the United States pursues its goal of sending astronauts to the moon starting in 2028 to start building lunar bases—and China pursues its goal of sending its people to the moon by 2029 or 2030, also to start building lunar bases—it is necessary to consider a lunar political-military stability based on dual-use technologies.

Concern that China could behave aggressively on the moon is justified based on its behavior on Earth: an unwillingness to recognize the territory of neighboring states while mounting militarized aggrandizement against Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and India.

This behavior does not bode well for China’s willingness to be transparent about its intentions on the moon, while being predisposed to defend claimed areas rather than seeking deconfliction should other countries pursue nearby lunar activities.

This becomes more of a concern for two additional reasons.

• First, both China and the United States are targeting lunar bases for the south pole of the moon due to the greater probability of finding water ice, but as National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Moon Base Program Executive Carlos Garcia-Galan noted in the agency’s March 24 “Ignition” briefing, this region is about the size of the state of Virginia.

• Second, while Virginia is not a small state, China’s early moon landing system will employ two stages: a manned or cargo stage that is decelerated near the moon by a second propulsion stage that detaches and then crashes into the lunar surface.

For China, use of the propulsion stage is needed because its initial Long March-10 lunar space launch vehicle (SLV) can only loft about 26 tons to the moon, thus requiring two Long March-10 launches to put people on the moon, and use of a propulsion stage lowers the weight of the lunar landing system.

So far, Chinese state-affiliated sources have revealed that their Lanyue manned lunar lander and a larger pressurized lunar rover will be transported to the moon using the crashing propulsion stage, but it is likely that other payloads will do so as well.

For decades, the Chinese regime has tolerated the crashing of SLV first stages into populated areas, so it is a legitimate concern that Beijing will be similarly cavalier about the potential dangers to other countries’ lunar settlements posed by crashing Chinese propulsion stages.

It is certainly preferable to deconflict lunar basing plans, something that could be done between NASA and Chinese space officials who attend the annual International Astronautical Congress, which brings together space officials and engineers.

But China’s decades-long refusal to consider transparency and controls over its nuclear weapons does not bode well for its willingness to ensure that other countries are not “bombed” by its 5- to 8-ton moon-crashing propulsion stages.

As such, it is necessary to have a backup plan that can “deter” China from aggressive behavior on the moon and to defend against potentially dangerous behaviors, such as refusing to prevent threats from its moon-based propulsion stages.

A Long March-2F carrier rocket, carrying the Shenzhou 20 spacecraft and a crew of three astronauts, lifts off from the Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in the Gobi Desert on April 24, 2025. Pedro Prdoa/AFP via Getty Images

By now, it’s also possible to discern that both the United States and China are preparing to deploy “dual-use” systems to the moon that could serve defensive-military objectives, offering the possibility of a system of lunar deterrence.

Lunar Satellites: Both the United States and China plan to deploy small constellations of satellites around the moon for surveillance of the lunar surface and to enable lunar navigation and intra-lunar and Earth-moon communication.

Since 2024, China has deployed its Queqiao-2 communication relay satellite to the far side of the moon, supported by two small Tiandu navigation-communication development satellites.

By 2050, China intends that Queqiao will host a large number of communication, surveillance, and navigation satellites, enabling missions to the moon, Venus, and Mars, and even further into the solar system.

NASA intends to deploy two groups of five lunar satellites in 2027 and 2028 to perform surveillance, navigation, and communication missions.

Both China and the United States could use their lunar satellite constellations to support military objectives on the moon, and both are developing “combat” satellites for low Earth orbit operations, which, if needed, could also be deployed to lunar orbits.

Moon Hoppers: For its next Change-7 unmanned moon probe mission later this year to the far side of the moon, China will test a small “moon hopper,” an unmanned vehicle able to fly or hop into a nearby moon crater to search for water ice.

On March 24, NASA revealed that it intends to deploy three groups of four hopping vehicles to the moon in 2028, 2030, and 2032—a total of 12 such vehicles.

Even early, small hopping vehicles like China’s could swap out their small science payload for a small electromagnetic pulse grenade that could disable unshielded electronics at the target moon base. The fact that both could use their hopping vehicles as Earth-bound unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) would add to deterrence.

Lunar Nuclear Power: On March 24, NASA revealed its intention to develop space nuclear-thermal power systems to propel a nuclear-thermal powered spacecraft to Mars in 2028, with that power system also serving as the basis for a lunar-based nuclear power system for U.S. bases on the moon, to compensate for the loss of solar power during the “lunar night.”

Co-developed with the U.S. Department of Energy, the plan is to deploy a 40- to 100-kilowatt fission power system to the moon by 2030 or 2031 to provide reliable power for U.S. unmanned and manned moon base systems.

Chinese literature also reveals the intention to develop space nuclear power, both to propel spacecraft into deep space and to generate electricity for Chinese lunar bases, with a prototype space reactor reported to have been completed in 2023.

As fear of retaliation is the basis for nuclear deterrence on Earth, there would be a similar fear of retaliation that would deter attacks against lunar nuclear power stations, which would threaten personnel and contaminate a lunar base, thus preventing recovery and rebuilding.

But as a lunar nuclear power station would power lunar habitats and lunar rovers, it could also power future lunar mining lasers, which may also be inherently “dual-use”—an early lunar “artillery.”

With the May 4 signature of Ireland and Malta, there are now 66 nations that have signed the 2020 Artemis Accords principles for transparent and peaceful behavior on the moon, which form the basis for future U.S. cooperation on the moon with all Artemis partners.

As the leader of the Artemis “coalition,” the United States should try to achieve lunar deconfliction with China, especially to prevent errant Chinese propulsion modules from posing a threat to Artemis coalition lunar activities.

However, inasmuch as the Chinese Communist Party may regard dominance on the moon as a necessary tool for achieving future hegemony on Earth, the United States may have to lead its Artemis partners in making sure that “dual-use” technologies are deployed in a way that creates a system of lunar deterrence.

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

One week ago, Microsoft expected roughly $190 billion in AI data center spending for this fiscal year, highlighting the massive scale of the hyperscaler capex cycle as Big Tech races to build out compute infrastructure. Across the tech space, hyperscalers are expected to spend nearly $700 billion in capex this year alone.

The incredible amount of capex being deployed this year has forced some tech giants to slash headcount and trim operating costs to free up capital for data centers. At the same time, Microsoft may now delay or abandon its ambitious 2030 “100/100/0” clean-energy target for data centers as costs continue to mount.

Bloomberg reports MSFT is set to nuke its pre-AI-era climate commitment, which aimed to match 100% of its electricity use, 100% of the time, with “green” energy by 2030, due to the mounting costs of going green.

MSFT wanted every hour of electricity used by its offices and data centers to be matched with clean energy purchases. The reality of saving the planet in a pre-AI era has collided with costs and power constraints as renewable energy struggles to keep pace with data center buildouts.

“The costly and energy-intensive buildout of data centers is affecting views on the feasibility of climate commitments made before the AI era,” according to the outlet, citing one person familiar with the matter.

MSFT is reportedly adding about 1 gigawatt of data center capacity every three months (enough to power 750k homes) and expects to spend about $190 billion on data center buildouts this year. The tech giant recently held talks with Chevron to fund a major natural gas plant in the West Texas Permian Basin.

“AI is an existential fight for survival for Big Tech, and so all and any funds at their disposal are being diverted to building as much AI as possible,” Alexia Kelly of the High Tide Foundation told the outlet.

MSFT’s emissions have already jumped 23% from the pre-AI chatbot era, while Meta, Google, and Amazon have seen similar spikes as well.

The possible move by MSFT to dial back its climate pledges comes as data center buildout costs mount, and the tech giant is doing everything possible to trim those costs to ensure it continues to lead the hyperscaler race. Most importantly, it wants to lead the AI race against China, where data centers are predominantly powered by coal.

The need for cheaper power costs by MSFT also comes at a very precarious time for the entire AI buildout narrative, as cracks are beginning to emerge. Read the full report here.