By Ethan Howland of UtilityDive

The U.S. Department of Energy’s secretary has broad authority under the Federal Power Act to declare emergencies to keep power plants from retiring, and those emergencies don’t have to be imminent, DOE told a federal appeals court last week in response to challenges over its orders keeping a Michigan coal plant online.

“The statute’s text grants the Secretary discretion to determine that an emergency exists,” DOE said in a March 17 brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. “This expressly includes a sudden increase in demand, a shortage of generation facilities, or other causes.”

The brief is the DOE’s first defense in court of the 90-day emergency orders it began issuing last year to prevent fossil-fueled power plants from retiring. So far, the orders have targeted six power plants — all but one coal-fired — totaling about 4,300 MW.

Generally, in those orders, DOE said the power plants need to keep running to prevent blackouts in the face of rising electric demand. The DOE has not allowed any of those orders to lapse, using its authority under the Federal Power Act’s section 202(c) to issue new 90-day orders when the old ones expire.

The brief was in response to challenges brought against the DOE over its May 23 order directing Consumers Energy to continue running the 1,407-MW, coal-fired J.H. Campbell power plant in West Olive, Michigan, past its May 31 retirement date. The department has renewed that order three times since.

Michigan, Minnesota and Illinois as well as the Sierra Club and other groups have challenged the emergency order. In part, they contend that DOE failed to show the Midcontinent region around the Campbell power plant faces an energy emergency.

In its brief, DOE said the Federal Power Act defines emergency broadly.

“It does not require imminence or an unexpected development,” DOE said. “The Secretary is also granted broad discretion to use his ‘judgment’ on what ‘will best meet the emergency and serve the public interest.’”

Moreover, the statute lacks strict procedural requirements, according to DOE.

“Contrary to Petitioners’ contentions, the Secretary was not required to prepare any particular analysis, weigh alternatives, or to select the best theoretically possible emergency response,” the department said.

When DOE considered issuing an emergency order for the Campbell power plant, the department found that electricity demand was rising, major power plants were retiring and new power sources weren’t coming online fast enough, it said. The Midcontinent Independent System Operator was at “elevated risk” for reliability problems and higher than normal temperatures were expected, DOE told the court.

“The Secretary interpreted the totality of this evidence and applied his expertise to find that an emergency exists,” DOE said.

DOE noted that Secretary Chris Wright ordered the Campbell plant to operate under “economic dispatch” to reduce ratepayer costs.

If the court finds a legal flaw in the 202(c) order, it should send the issue back to DOE instead of vacating the order and limiting its ability to issue similar orders, government lawyers argued.

“The Secretary must be able to use section 202(c) to protect public health and safety, particularly in anticipation of extreme weather events like the recent Winter Storm Fern and the ensuing, prolonged cold snap,” the DOE said.

In the seven months after DOE ordered the Campbell plant to stay online, it produced 3.6 million MWh, down 39% from 5.9 million MWh generated over the same period in 2024, according to the latest U.S. Energy Information Administration data. 

Consumers Energy spent about $254 million keeping the Campbell plant operating per the DOE orders through December, according to a Feb. 10 filing at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It received $119 million in revenue from running the plant in the second half of last year and has asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for permission to recoup $135 million in costs from MISO ratepayers, said CMS Energy Corp., which owns Consumers.

Consumers urged the appeals court in a brief to not weigh in on the cost-recovery issue, which is being handled by FERC.

The utility asked the court to “avoid unintended consequences for those separate proceedings, including making clear that any decision here does not assume the availability of refunds or otherwise affect FERC’s decision-making in those separate proceedings.”

DOE continues to issue emergency orders to keep other fossil-fueled power plants running. On March 16 it issued its second emergency order for TransAlta’s 730-MW, coal-fired Centralia power plant in Washington. The company must make the plant available to run until mid-June under the order. The company had planned to shut it down at the end of 2025.

TransAlta’s president and CEO, John Kousinioris, said during an earnings call in February that the company was complying with the orders, but he did not expect the plant to run given “how flush” the state was with hydropower.

“Our primary focus is more on getting clarity on the existing order,” including how TransAlta will recoup its expenses from keeping the unit online, Kousinioris said.

Other generators under 202(c) orders are in Colorado, Indiana and Pennsylvania.

Authored by David Manney via PJ Media,

California’s education system continues to search for answers while student performance struggles to recover. In one case, the Merced City School District approved a contract worth about $270,000 to bring a rap-based curriculum into classrooms, even as academic performance remains weak.

The district serves over 11,000 students, yet only 13% meet math proficiency standards. The program includes a summer “Rap Camp” and specialized programming tied to cultural themes, all framed to boost student engagement.

The curriculum comes from School Yard Rap, founded by Brandon Brown, a former teacher who promotes music-driven instruction. Lessons include songwriting, DJ work, and performances that connect history and culture through rhythm and storytelling.

“The School Yard Rap curriculum transforms history lessons into relatable characters presented through songs and storytelling—resulting in emotional connection,” the School Yard Rap website states. 

Established in 2016, School Yard Rap, which operates in 28 states, presents “a world where learning meets rhythm, exploring diverse cultures and subjects through interactive music-infused modules.”

Merced has handed out $610,000 worth of contracts to School Yard Rap, the Post reported. Fox News Digital has reached out to the school district and School Yard Rap. 

Supporters believe that approach helps students stay interested in school, an argument that sounds appealing, yet it doesn’t resolve a basic concern. Students struggling with reading and math need direct, structured teaching that builds skills step by step, while a program centered on performance and expression risks shifting attention away from those core needs.

The financial side raises its own concerns; the district has already committed over $600,000 in total contracts tied to the program, a level of spending that stands out in a district already dealing with low performance and limited resources. 

When outcomes remain weak, large investments in unproven strategies invite scrutiny, making leaders accountable for whether those dollars would deliver more value if directed toward tutoring, teacher support, or curriculum improvement that’s focused on the fundamentals.

Federal officials have also taken notice. Harmeet Dhillion, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the DOJ, has warned that race-based programming raises legal concerns, stating that offering benefits based solely on race would violate federal law if proven true.

The Merced program includes an “African American Affinity Group,” which has drawn attention because of how it organizes students. Those details place the district in a position where innovation intersects with legal boundaries.

That’s a concern that doesn’t exist in isolation. Attorney General Pam Bondi and federal civil rights officials have recently taken action in other California districts over programs that classify or treat students differently based on race.

Federal filings have challenged policies that assign benefits or resources using racial categories, arguing that such practices conflict with equal protection principles. These actions signal a broader push to examine how districts design programs and whether they comply with federal law.

California’s education leadership continues to face pressure amid lagging results. State Superintendent Tony Thurmond oversees a system where many students remain below grade level in reading and math. Years of declining performance have created urgency, yet urgency alone doesn’t guarantee sound decisions.

Districts often reach for new ideas in hopes of turning things quickly around. Some ideas may help in limited cases, yet large-scale adoption without clear evidence can deepen existing problems rather than solve them.

Local school boards and administrators are responsible for these choices, deciding how to allocate funding, which programs to adopt, and how to measure success. When a district with low performance heavily invests in a music-based curriculum, it signals a shift in priorities.

Families watching those decisions want reassurance that leaders remain focused on academic growth, not just student engagement. Engagement matters, but it doesn’t replace the need for measurable progress in reading, writing, and math.

Merced’s situation reflects a larger issue across parts of the country, where education systems under pressure turn to bold or unconventional strategies. Some of those strategies generate attention and short-term excitement, while long-term improvement depends on whether students gain the skills they need to succeed beyond the classroom. Without that foundation, new programs risk becoming distractions rather than solutions.

California schools don’t lack funding or attention; they face a deeper challenge rooted in priorities and execution. A rap-based curriculum may draw interest, but interest alone doesn’t raise test scores or close learning gaps.

Leaders must decide whether to continue experimenting or return to methods that have proven results over time. Students deserve clarity, consistency, and a focus on skills that prepare them for the future.

Get more in-depth analysis and unfiltered insight by joining PJ Media VIP today. Right now, save 60% with promo code FIGHT when you sign up. Support independent writing and unlock exclusive content that stays focused on what matters.

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has again warned of a “critical energy situation” as oil and gas markets convulse, underscoring growing fears of supply shocks, at a moment President Trump early this week claimed the Strait of Hormuz could “reopen very soon” if talks with Iran succeed – though Tehran has flatly denied any negotiations are underway as confusion reigns over the status of backchannel dialogue. 

Already one country says it is suffering a fuel shortage crisis, amid broader reports of some demand destruction problems coming in from various parts of the globe. Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos on Tuesday said there’s a “distinct possibility” planes may be grounded due to a jet fuel shortage, connected to the war on Iran and de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Several countries have already told our airlines they cannot fuel their aircraft, so they have to carry fuel there and back,” he told Bloomberg News in an interview.

He additionally warned that long-haul flights could become “a much more serious problem” due to the fuel crisis and restrictions. He was specifically asked whether planes might inevitably be grounded, to which he responded: “We’re hoping not, but it’s a distinct possibility.”

Now in its fourth week, the US-Israel-Iran war had already disrupted commercial flights across the Gulf and Mideast region, especially impacting key regional hubs of Dubai, Doha, Abu Dhabi, and Tel Aviv – due to the ongoing missile and drone danger in the skies. Another significant development reported by Bloomberg Tuesday:

Vietnam Airlines will temporarily suspend flights on some domestic routes as jet fuel shortages and rising fuel prices caused by the conflict in the Middle East start to impact the nation’s air travel.

The national flag carrier will cut around 23 flights per week from April 1 over tightened supplies of jet fuel, according to a statement from the Civil Aviation Authority of Vietnam. VietJet Aviation JSC is also reducing flights on some routes, according to schedules on its booking website.

But as far as oil and fuel flows disruptions, Asia in particular has been the first region to feel the supply crunch most acutely. Below is a round-up of some of the latest examples:

Flight surcharges: Some Asian countries, including Vietnam, say airlines are planning to role out fuel surcharges ​on ​international routes ⁠from early April.

Diesel shortages in Thailand: The abbot of Wat Saman Rattanaram in Chachoengsao province, about 50 miles east of Bangkok, warned that cremation services may have to be suspended. “In more than 50 years, I’ve never seen anything like this,” he said.

More drastic power-saving measures… Last week, the Thai government ordered civil servants to take the stairs rather than the lift, and it’s increased the air-conditioning temperature to 27C. It will tell government employees to wear short-sleeved shirts rather than suits.

Bangladesh electricity rationing:  Lectures at the country’s main universities have been cancelled until later this month as the government closed the campuses to save electricity.

India panic-buying gas supplies: India has been dealing with a squeeze in cooking gas supplies over the past few days, leading to panic-buying by domestic users.

Scrambling for cheap local alternatives: There are reports that suggest some regions in India are witnessing a spike in timber sales, while others see increased sales of cow dung cakes – both biomass fuels.

…and there are widespread images and examples of huge lines at gas pumps across various countries.

Major cities in India, particularly #Hyderabad is currently experiencing a severe Compressed Natural Gas #CNG shortage, forcing thousands of auto-rickshaws and cabs off the roads or into long, hours-long refueling queues pic.twitter.com/h0xMYHXDNr

— S.M. Bilal (@Bilaljourno) March 24, 2026

We also detailed earlier that hundreds of service stations across Australia have run out of fuel. 

Energy Minister Chris Bowen warned federal parliament on Monday that more than 109 gas stations in Victoria had run out of at least one grade of gas. He said 47 outlets in Queensland had no diesel, 32 had no regular unleaded, and 37 stations in New South Wales had completely run out of fuel.

The below data from Goldman Sachs charts an array of examples over the past couple weeks:

“The flow of oil to Asian refineries has slowed, and that has downward impacts on us,” Bowen said, adding, “We’re in an uncertain environment, so that’s why we’re doing all the preparatory work.” 

Bowen warned that fuel supplies were at about 38 days for gasoline. He said only 30 days of diesel and jet fuel remained. There’s the potential that the crisis could be coming to fuel pumps near you.

The Defense Department has announced plans to remove media offices from the Pentagon after a Clinton-appointed federal judge sided with The New York Times in a lawsuit challenging limits on reporters’ access to the building.  The action is seen as a “loophole” strategy to bypass the ruling against restrictions which the Trump Administration has struggled to enforce in the wake of a hailstorm of national security leaks.

The press area of the Pentagon, known as “Correspondents’ Corridor”, has been used for decades to cover U.S. military operations.  Journalists stationed at the Pentagon offices often enjoyed extensive freedom of movement and access to officials.  However, heightened hostilities involving leftist activists and the progressive media have brought operational security into question. 

Not since the Civil War has the political divide in the US been so deep, to the point that left-wing journalists might represent a clear and present danger to national security.  As a result, the Correspondent’s Corridor will be closed immediately according department spokesperson Sean Parnell.

Journalists will eventually be able to work from an “annex” outside the primary Pentagon building, which Parnell says “will be available when ready.” He did not offer details on how long that will take.  The Pentagon Press Association said the announcement “is a clear violation of the letter and spirit of last week’s ruling.”  But, it does not necessarily go against the ruling.  The Pentagon will still issue press credentials, but journalists won’t be allowed access to the corridor or move freely inside the building. 

On March 20, 2026, a U.S. District Court judge vacated key security provisions of the Pentagon’s October 2025 media access policy. The court removed every provision that allowed the Department to screen press credential holders for security risks and every provision that allowed…

— Sean Parnell (@SeanParnellASW) March 23, 2026

In the lawsuit brought by The New York Times (filed in December 2025), Judge Paul Friedman ruled that portions of the October 2025 press policy, imposed under Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, violated the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment. He argued that the rules were vague and “viewpoint-discriminatory”, as they allowed the Pentagon to revoke credentials for journalists who solicited or reported information not officially pre-approved.

BREAKING – Pete Hegseth confirms journalists will no longer roam the Pentagon freely, now requiring badges, escorts, and strict rules against soliciting classified or sensitive information to crack down on leaks and “fake news” reporting inside the building. pic.twitter.com/NyHjq9TSwW

— Right Angle News Network (@Rightanglenews) October 5, 2025

The judge ordered the restoration of press passes for seven Times reporters and vacated the challenged provisions for all affected journalists.  The most recent Pentagon office closures, though, are not targeted at any specific reporters for non-compliance with the new rules.  Rather, they are targeted to all reporters regardless.

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s restrictions called for tighter oversight on approvals for information sharing, journalists had to be escorted through the Pentagon, and increased security screenings for any media employees working at the Pentagon.  The restrictions also made it easier for the Defense Department to revoke press badges if a journalist was “reasonably determined” to pose a security risk through unauthorized access, attempted access, or disclosure of sensitive information.

The Trump Administration has dealt with a flood of information leaks to the press in the past year, often in relation to military operations.  In April 2025, the Pentagon launched a large scale investigation (including polygraphs) into “recent unauthorized disclosures” of national security information.  The danger of Obama and Biden appointed officials working against Trump from the inside, even if this harms the US, is an unfortunate reality of the current political climate.

Specific leaks under probe included military operational plans for the Panama Canal, deployment of a second carrier to the Red Sea, Elon Musk’s Pentagon visit/briefing on China war plans (which was canceled after the leak), and a pause in intelligence collection for Ukraine.

Three senior political appointees were suspended/placed on leave (Dan Caldwell, senior adviser to Hegseth; Darin Selnick, deputy chief of staff; and Colin Carroll, chief of staff to the deputy defense secretary). Democrats used the scandals to demand Hegseth’s resignation, calling them breaches that threatened national security.

While the decision does challenge traditional courtesies given to the press, and perhaps even disrupts access that some would consider a First Amendment obligation, it cannot be denied that the establishment media as it exists today has proven time and time again to be dangerously biased against Trump and conservatives.  This bias has, in the recent past, bordered on treason (the Russiagate hoax being a clear example).  

It is not surprising that Trump would seek to distance the press from Pentagon access.  Why would he invite the enemy inside the wire?

*  *  * Better hurry... 

By Robert Walton of UtilityDive

U.S. electric utilities need new tools and regulatory authorizations to protect the power grid from drone attacks, experts and industry groups say.

The issue has taken on new urgency recently. The Department of Homeland Security reportedly urged U.S. energy companies to increase security in response to potential threats from Iran, which has successfully used drones to target American military personnel and assets since the U.S. and Israel launched a war against Iran on Feb. 28.

But power grid asset owners and operators have “growing concern” around “unmanned aircraft systems,” or UAS, attacks and their “ability to protect critical assets and infrastructure,” the North American Electric Reliability Corp. said in a report this week. 

The report was an assessment of NERC’s 8th biennial electric grid security exercise — GridEx VIII — held in November to evaluate grid security, including the resilience of the North American electric system in the face of a coordinated attack from a nation-state adversary.

Hundreds of organizations stress-tested emergency preparedness protocols and game-planned responses to hypothetical scenarios. In one of those scenarios, multiple UAS targeted a switchyard at a nuclear generating station and a transformer station.

The report said participants noted that there is a “variety of guidance” from different government agencies on drones regarding what laws and regulations apply to detection, and what technologies can be legally deployed.

“Collaboration between industry and government partners would allow for a better understanding of the concerns that [asset owner or operators] maintain related to [drones] and how the government can support [asset owner or operators] during impending and active threats,” it said. 

“Currently, utilities leverage detection capabilities to establish baseline traffic near critical assets but are limited to engaging with [drones] only after they are safely on the ground, which is often too late.”

– Kimberly Mielcarek, Vice President of Corporate and External Communications at the North American Electric Reliability Corporation

Drones have become ubiquitous in modern warfare, from Ukraine to the Middle East. The United States military is finding drones a difficult threat to counter — and even well-funded electric utilities do not have the budget of the U.S. military.

“The electric grid was never designed with aerial threats in mind,” said Charlie O’Connell, chief business officer of Fortem Technologies, an airspace security firm.

There have been drone attacks on the U.S. electric grid, but the threat is relatively new. In 2021, federal law enforcement issued a warning to state and local officials about an incident the year before where a crashed drone appeared to have been modified to “specifically target energy infrastructure.”

Since then, the threat has grown as the technology evolves. Small drones are “inexpensive, widely available, and increasingly capable, which means utilities now have to think about security not just at the fence line, but in the airspace above critical infrastructure,” O’Connell said.

Federal airspace regulation limits utility options

Power grid asset owners and operators said efforts should be made to consolidate federal guidance for consistency and clarity, NERC’s report noted.

U.S. airspace is regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration, which “grants very few exceptions to interdicting unmanned aircraft systems, which are treated the same as any aircraft,” NERC Vice President, Corporate and External Communications Kimberly Mielcarek, said in an email.

Utilities “are reluctant to engage UAS in flight because of these restrictions and penalties,” Mielcarek said. “The GridEx discussions highlighted this concern across the industry and the need for our government partners to decide the safest and best way to interdict drones over utility assets.”

Meanwhile, the drone challenge facing utilities is “evolving quickly,” said Melissa Swisher, chief revenue officer at SkySafe, an airspace intelligence company with a focus on drone visibility.

Currently, most drone incidents near critical infrastructure appear to involve surveillance or reconnaissance rather than direct attacks, Swisher said. But that reconnaissance can enable more coordinated cyber or physical assaults.

“Drones represent a new domain of exposure for utilities,” she said in an email. “The challenge is less about reacting to a single drone sighting and more about understanding patterns of activity and having visibility into what is happening in the airspace around critical infrastructure.”

Utilities prepare while pursuing policy changes

Many utilities are exploring ways to incorporate airspace monitoring and drone detection capabilities into broader physical security strategies, Swisher said, “alongside traditional protections like perimeter security, surveillance systems, and coordination with law enforcement.”

Utilities track many threats to the grid, the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, said in an emailed statement.

“While physical threats to the grid are not new, drones do present unique challenges,” it said.

Grid operators currently use a “defense-in-depth approach to secure critical grid assets” from drones, EEI said, including “counter-drone measures, limiting single-points of failure, and responding and repairing systems should assets be impacted.”

EEI also said it is pursuing “technology and policy changes” that would allow utilities to limit drone use near critical facilities, and allow companies to interdict drones that enter their airspace.

According to Fortem’s O’Connell, the first thing utilities need is “airspace awareness” — the ability to detect and track drones operating near their facilities. Technologies such as compact radar and integrated command-and-control platforms can allow utilities to monitor low-altitude airspace around substations and generation sites, he said. When suspicious activity is detected, utilities can then coordinate with law enforcement and federal partners.

“The electric grid was never designed with aerial threats in mind.”

– Charlie O’Connell, Chief Business Officer of Fortem Technologies, an airspace security firm.

O’Connell also said that the FY2026 National Defense Authorization Act, signed into law in December, expanded domestic counter-UAS authorities and created a framework for state and local law enforcement agencies to “detect, track, and mitigate” credible drone threats.

“That change should make coordination between utilities and local authorities more practical going forward,” he said.

NERC’s primary UAS recommendation resulting from GridEx was for U.S. and Canadian federal government partners to “work with industry partners to identify legally accessible technology to address threats from UAS and clarify available government support.”

Additionally, the reliability watchdog called for government agencies to clarify guidance regarding UAS and the methods available or drone detection, and for more clarity around governmental support available to industry in the event of an incident or attack.

“Currently, utilities leverage detection capabilities to establish baseline traffic near critical assets but are limited to engaging with UAS only after they are safely on the ground, which is often too late,” NERC’s Mielcarek said.

* * *

After more than a month of political stalemate, the Senate Democrats are finally flinching, and a deal to reopen the Department of Homeland Security seems within reach – even if the path looks like a compromise designed to please no one. 

Key Senate Republicans left the White House late Monday in a noticeably upbeat mood, telling colleagues that there is now a realistic framework to get DHS running again, even as President Donald Trump continues to demand that the SAVE America Act be “welded in” to any funding package. 

According to a report from Punchbowl News, the outlines of the emerging agreement would fund nearly all of DHS while carving out ICE’s migrant removal operations, then use a separate reconciliation bill to backfill ICE and press ahead with the two key provisions of the SAVE America Act (proof of citizenship to register to vote and a photo ID to cast a ballot in federal election) that Trump has made very clear is his top legislative priority.

“This framework is similar to the outlines of an agreement that Senate Majority Leader John Thune discussed with Trump on Sunday – a strategy that the president rejected. Trump has insisted on tying the SAVE America Act to DHS funding, complicating matters even further. Thune said this was ‘not realistic,” explains Punchbowl. “It’s too early to say whether this DHS framework will satisfy Senate Democrats. There are several key details that still need to be ironed out. But many Democrats pointed to what they see as a sense of urgency to get something done, especially as nightmarish TSA security lines cause chaos for millions of air travellers.”

Republican leaders, including Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), are openly talking about a two‑step reconciliation strategy: first, fund the rest of ICE using budget‑reconciliation so Democrats do not have to vote “yes,” and second, attach pieces of the SAVE America Act to a broader reconciliation package that could also include a $200 billion defense‑spending push and random pet priorities from the GOP base. Kennedy has framed reconciliation as the only way to get policies through amid Democratic obstruction, but he acknowledges there is a question as to whether the votes are there.

“It’ll take a little longer,” Kennedy said. “But we could do it. If you want to throw in the SAVE Act, I’m fine with that. I don’t know how feasible that is in terms of the whip count.”

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) noted that the reconciliation process itself takes “about a month,” meaning even if leadership wanted to rush a deal, the machinery of the Senate would impose a natural delay.

Behind the closed‑door negotiations is another quiet calculation: the Senate parliamentarian. Republicans know that using reconciliation to pass the SAVE America Act’s citizenship‑verification and voter‑ID provisions is no sure thing, and many privately doubt the parliamentarian will bless such a move. 

That raises the possibility of a vote to overrule Elizabeth MacDonough, a nuclear‑option maneuver that would infuriate Democrats and probably trigger a fresh round of partisan recriminations. Thune has previously cast doubt on that idea, suggesting he would rather avoid the backlash than force the vote. However, there is precedent, since Democrats used reconciliation to pass Obamacare back in 2010.

Both sides also know that the DHS shutdown cannot go on indefinitely, and both want to emerge from this standoff claiming victory. But, with Democrats appearing eager to do something, it’s clearly progress.

* * *

Circle Internet Group, the issuer of the USDC stablecoin, plunged the most on record as investors reacted to potential stablecoin regulation changes that could make the firm’s cryptocurrency less attractive to large holders, as it would be stripped of interest payments. Concerns that a competitor is readying a move into the US market also hurt Circle’s share price.

The stock declined as much as 22%, its steepest intraday drop ever, and leading losses across crypto-linked equities. Coinbase fell as much as 11%, while MARA Holdings, Bullish, Galaxy Digital Holdings and Robinhood Markets also moved lower.

Bitcoin also dropped as much as 2.8% to $68,906.31, breaking below $70,000 after rising above it yesterday. 

Circle’s decline comes as investors grappled with the implications on the economics of stablecoins of proposed US legislation. Draft language of the so-called Clarity Act could prevent exchanges like Coinbase from offering rewards on holdings of stablecoins such as USDC, Circle’s US dollar-pegged token.

While the Clarity Act seeks to establish a comprehensive regulatory regime for cryptocurrencies and other forms of tokens, the proposed legislation has faced delays largely due to disagreements between the crypto industry and the banking sector over whether stablecoins can offer rewards similar to interest rates on bank accounts.

The proposed changes to the Clarity Act circulating in Washington could reduce incentives for holders to maintain balances in tokens rather than bank deposits, said analysts.

“We believe it is almost entirely related to the Clarity Act language out today,” John Todaro, an analyst at Needham & Co. said. His firm expects that if the draft language is adopted, it would curtail Coinbase’s program offering certain customers 3.5% rewards on their USDC balances.

Meanwhile, competition among stablecoin issuers is drawing renewed attention. On Tuesday, Tether said it has entered into a formal agreement with a big four accounting firm to complete its first full audit, creating speculation that the El Salvador-based firm could be preparing to move into the US, said Gus Gala, senior equity research analyst at Monness, Crespi.

“That’s what’s hitting the stock more so today,” he said.

Circle shares surged as much as 750% above its initial public offering price last year in anticipation of the US Genius Act stablecoin legislation that passed in July. But the euphoria has since faded as crypto prices have plummeted, competition has increased and the Clarity Act has stalled in Washington. Circle’s shares are now down more than 60% from their peak.

Via Freightwaves.com,

The freight market is no stranger to disruptive forces – tariffs, recessions, weather, economic fluctuations, and capacity crunches have all reshaped freight demand over the years.

But a new contender is emerging from an unexpected corner: the widespread adoption of GLP-1 medications (think Ozempic, Wegovy, Mounjaro, and similar GLP-1 receptor agonists).

These drugs, originally developed for diabetes management and now massively popular for weight loss, suppress appetite and reduce overall caloric intake. Early estimates suggest that even at current penetration levels — roughly 12% of U.S. adults — the downstream effect on food and beverage demand could be substantial.

Recent analyses, drawing from academic studies out of Purdue, Cornell, and others (including 2025 updates), point to an approximate 3% drop in total caloric food demand due to appetite suppression. That may sound modest, but in the context of America’s food supply chain, the numbers scale quickly.

U.S. trucks move more than 2 billion tons of food and beverages annually. At an average payload of around 20 tons per truckload, that’s roughly 100 million+ truckloads per year dedicated to food and bev freight.

Apply a 3% reduction across that volume, and you’re looking at approximately 3 million fewer truckloads annually.

To put that in perspective: the proposed Union Pacific–Norfolk Southern merger — one of the most significant potential rail consolidations in recent memory — is projected by some analysts to divert around 2 million truckloads off the road over time through improved intermodal efficiency and rail capture.

In other words, GLP-1 adoption, at its current (and still growing) level, could already eclipse that rail merger’s expected impact on truckload volumes — and we’re only in the early innings of penetration.

The categories hit hardest align with classic “snack-and-beverage” freight lanes:

• Processed snacks and beverages: user spending down 7-11% among adopters

• Alcohol: significant volume reductions

• Refined grains and similar carb-heavy products

Fresh produce and proteins appear more resilient, with some evidence of slight upticks in mix as consumers prioritize nutrient-dense foods even while eating less overall. Beer, as one slice of the broader beverage decline, fits squarely in the crosshairs.

This isn’t just theoretical. Real-world freight signals are beginning to whisper the trend: softer reefer and dry van demand in certain consumer packaged goods (CPG) segments, anecdotal reports from brokers of lighter loads in snack-heavy lanes, and early category-specific volume softness that doesn’t fully align with broader economic headwinds.

Of course, counterbalancing forces exist. Construction of new pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities (for GLP-1 production itself) is generating significant truckloads today. Food conglomerates may reformulate products to better appeal to GLP-1 users, potentially offsetting some losses. And broader demographic trends — including slower population growth — exert their own downward pressure on total consumption.

But the core math is hard to ignore: a structural reduction in caloric intake at scale translates directly into fewer pallets, fewer loads, and ultimately fewer miles for truckers hauling America’s food supply.

For carriers, brokers, and shippers, this represents both risk and opportunity. The biggest losers may be those heavily exposed to discretionary, high-calorie categories. Winners could include haulers of fresh/perishable goods, health-focused CPG, and — ironically — the specialized logistics supporting the pharmaceutical boom.

The freight market has always been shaped by macroeconomic forces, policy shifts, and technology. Now add public health trends to the list. GLP-1s aren’t just rewriting waistlines, they’re changing freight demand.

*  *  * SPEAKING OF LOADS

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

Galaxy Digital’s latest report says the risk that quantum computing could compromise Bitcoin is real, but so is the work underway to protect the network.

The firm’s research frames the issue as a long-term engineering and governance challenge rather than an imminent crisis, with developers already building tools that could reshape how the network secures trillions in value.

At the center of the concern is a simple premise. Bitcoin relies on cryptographic signatures to prove ownership of coins. Those signatures, based on elliptic curve cryptography, are considered secure against classical computers. 

How Quantum Computing could break Bitcoin

A sufficiently advanced quantum machine could break that assumption, allowing an attacker to derive a private key from a public one and spend funds without authorization.

The scenario has a name within the industry: “Q-day,” the moment a cryptographically relevant quantum computer becomes viable.

The timeline remains uncertain. Estimates range from years to decades, and no consensus exists among experts. The report stresses that uncertainty itself is the problem. Bitcoin’s decentralized structure means upgrades take time, often measured in years, not months.

Still, the risk is uneven. Most Bitcoin is not exposed today. 

Wallets only reveal their public keys when funds are spent, meaning coins sitting untouched behind hashed addresses remain shielded. 

Vulnerability emerges in two main cases: coins whose public keys are already visible onchain, and coins in transit during a transaction.

Which Bitcoin is actually at risk

Galaxy cites estimates suggesting that millions of bitcoin could fall into the first category, including funds tied to early network activity and long-dormant wallets. 

These coins, often associated with early adopters and even the pseudonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto, present a unique challenge. If quantum capabilities arrive before protective measures are deployed, such holdings could become prime targets.

The implications extend beyond individual losses. A sudden unlocking of dormant supply could ripple through markets, placing pressure on price and, by extension, on mining incentives that underpin Bitcoin’s security. The report frames this as a systemic risk, not just a technical flaw.

Yet the tone of the research is measured.

Rather than signaling alarm, it points to a growing body of work aimed at preparing the network.

Among the most prominent proposals is a new transaction structure known as Pay-to-Merkle-Root, outlined in Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 360. 

The design removes a key exposure point by eliminating always-visible public keys, reducing the attack surface for long-term threats.

Other ideas take a broader approach. One proposal, known as “Hourglass,” attempts to manage the fallout from vulnerable coins by limiting how quickly they can be spent in a worst-case scenario. The goal is not to prevent access, but to slow it, giving markets time to absorb potential shocks.

There is also movement toward new forms of cryptography. Hash-based signature schemes, such as SPHINCS+, have emerged as candidates for a post-quantum future. These systems rely on mathematical assumptions different from those used today and are viewed by some researchers as a more conservative foundation. 

Post-Quantum cryptography brings tradeoffs

The tradeoff is efficiency. Larger signatures could increase transaction sizes and strain network resources.

In parallel, developers are exploring contingency plans. One proposal introduces a commit-and-reveal process that could protect transactions even if a quantum breakthrough occurs before new cryptography is deployed. Another line of research looks at zero-knowledge proofs to allow users to verify ownership of funds without exposing sensitive data.

Taken together, these efforts suggest a layered defense. No single fix solves the problem. Instead, the strategy resembles a toolkit, with protections aimed at different stages of exposure and different levels of urgency.

The harder question may not be technical. Bitcoin has no central authority to mandate changes. Every upgrade requires coordination among developers, miners, exchanges, and users. Past changes, including major upgrades like SegWit and Taproot, took years to activate and often sparked intense debate.

Quantum preparedness could prove even more complex. Some proposals touch on sensitive issues, including whether coins that fail to migrate to safer formats should lose spendability. Such ideas raise philosophical questions about property rights and the social contract embedded in the network.

Even so, the report points to a key difference from past conflicts. Quantum risk is external. It does not divide the community along economic lines or competing visions for Bitcoin’s future. Instead, it presents a shared threat. 

Every participant, from long-term holders to infrastructure providers, has an incentive to maintain the network’s security.

In the end, the report suggests that the outcome will hinge less on whether quantum computers arrive and more on whether a decentralized network can coordinate in time. 

The answer, as with much of Bitcoin’s history, will emerge through slow consensus rather than sudden change.

Amid reports of increasing traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, Alireza Tangsiri, a commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy, said on X that the containership Selen was turned back by the IRGC Navy for “failing to comply with legal protocols and lacking permission to transit the Strait of Hormuz.” Needless to say, that is an upgrade from firing missiles at it.

کشتی کانتینربر SELEN به دلیل عدم رعایت پروتکل‌های قانونی و نداشتن مجوز عبور از #تنگه_هرمز، توسط نیروی دریایی سپاه به عقب بازگردانده شد.
عبور هرگونه شناور از این آبراهه مستلزم هماهنگی کامل با حاکمیت دریایی ایران است و این مهم جز به پشتوانه مردم شریف ایران به دست نمی‌آمد. pic.twitter.com/g6ei29Y90Q

— علیرضا تنگسیری (@alirezatangsiri) March 24, 2026

Tangsiri said passage through the waterway requires full coordination with Iran’s maritime authorities. His comments echo what he said a week ago when he told local media that has not yet closed the Strait of Hormuz and the vital waterway is “only being controlled.”

Tangsiri, who almost certainly is toward the top of the Pentagon’s most wanted list, warned a week ago after the Israeli attack on the South Pars gas field that “oil facilities associated with America are now on par with American bases and will come under fire with full force” and “warned citizens and workers to stay away from these facilities.”

While the reason why the Selen was turned back is unclear, it probably is because the captain refused to pay the toll Iran has started charging on some commercial vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz, in yet another sign of Tehran’s control over the world’s most important maritime energy channel.

Payments of as much as $2 million per voyage are being sought on an adhoc basis, effectively creating an informal toll on the waterway, according to Bloomberg. Some vessels have made the payment, though the mechanism wasn’t immediately clear – including the currency used – and it doesn’t appear to be systematic. 

The fact that increasingly more ships are crossing the strait confirms our previous report (see “Chinese Containership Is First To Pay Iran For “Safe Passage” Through Strait As Iraqi Tanker Crosses With Signal Off” and “Iran Ready To Let Japanese Ships Use Hormuz As Chinese, Indian Tankers Already Allowed Passage“) indicates that Iran’s hardline stance on blockading any/all non-Chinese ships crossing the strait is fraying. 

Stil, the payments show Iran’s influence over Hormuz, through which normally about a fifth of the world’s oil and gas, and vast amounts of food, metals and other materials are shipped every day. With the war in the Middle East now in its fourth week, it also highlights the desperate need for some consumers to ensure continued energy flows.

Hormuz traffic sends mixed signals

Iran appears to be pursuing a calibrated strategy in the Strait of Hormuz, using selective vessel passage as strategic signalling rather than imposing full disruption. According to #MarineTraffic data, some activity may be resuming, with nine… pic.twitter.com/fKjlPhdHYx

— MarineTraffic (@MarineTraffic) March 24, 2026

Bloomberg sources said the payments have been handled quietly. The lack of transparency and uncertainty over who might be targeted next is adding a fresh layer of friction to the shipping lane. Only a trickle of vessels have crossed the waterway since the war, many of them Iranian-linked. Some of the few others appear to have taken similar routes close to Iran’s coastline.

According to Lloyds List,. “at least two vessels transiting through the strait are understood to have paid in exchange for safe passage, with one fee reported to have been around $2 million.” As some quickly calculated, this actually is not that much if it means removing the Hormuz energy bottleneck: “$2 million on a VLCC carrying 2 million barrels = $1/barrel premium. Quite a bargain in this market. Expect more to follow suit.”

LloydsList: “At least two vessels transiting through the strait are understood to have paid in exchange for safe passage, with one fee reported to have been around $2m.”

$2 million on a VLCC carrying 2 million barrels = $1/barrel premium. Quite a bargain in this market.

Expect…

— Rosemary Kelanic (@RKelanic) March 23, 2026

Yesterday we reported that India, which got four vessels carrying liquefied petroleum gas to exit the Persian Gulf through Hormuz, said Tuesday that international laws guarantee the right of freedom for navigation through the strait and no one can levy any fee for use of the channel even though the four ships almost certainly paid the fee. Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that he discussed the Iran war on a call with President Donald Trump, including the conflict’s impact on the maritime corridor.

“Ensuring that the Strait of Hormuz remains open, secure and accessible is essential for the whole world,” Modi wrote in a social media post.

While Iran is demanding the transit fee on a case-by-case basis, the Islamic Republic has floated the idea of formalizing the charges as part of a broader postwar settlement, one person said. Last week, an Iranian lawmaker said that parliament was advancing a proposal to require nations to pay Iran for using the Strait of Hormuz as a secure shipping route.

For Arab producers in the Gulf, even an informal toll is unacceptable, people familiar said, as it raises the issues of sovereignty, precedent and the potential weaponization of a vital trade route for their energy exports. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates depend on the route to ship their oil to global markets, but are now relying on alternative pipelines bypassing Hormuz to get crude to their customers. 

*  *  *