Authored by John Haughey via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s European nations would need to bolster standing militaries by at least 300,000 troops and significantly boost defense spending beyond 3.5 percent of gross domestic product – at least 250 billion euros – while reviving and integrating their industrial base to defend themselves against Russia without the United States.

And they’d need to do that fast, according to a 2025 joint analysis by European think tanks Bruegel and the Kiel Institute for World Economy.

They warn that even with 80,000 American soldiers and airmen stationed on 30 bases on the continent—and the United States’ capacity to rapidly deploy forces—Moscow will test NATO’s resolve “within three to 10 years.”

The once-inconceivable prospect of the United States withdrawing from NATO is now a possibility. President Donald Trump—never a fan of the 32-nation coalition the Pentagon has spearheaded since 1949—has called for a “very serious examining” of the alliance, after its members failed to respond to his appeal to assist in the Iran war or join the U.S. Navy’s Arabian Sea blockade of Iranian shipping. 

Trump has vowed Europeans could face a “reckoning” without American leadership and support. Such a departure would require unlikely congressional approval, but the president’s statements are sparking discussion on both sides of the Atlantic about a restructuring of the alliance that would require Europeans to shoulder more of NATO’s burden.

As widely reported, European allies are actively discussing and preparing for a “NATO minus U.S.” scenario. The idea originated in response to Trump’s demand for Europeans to bulk up support for Ukraine in fighting off Russia’s invasion, his threats to seize Greenland from Denmark, and his characterization of member states as “cowards” unlikely to uphold NATO’s commitments.

While Americans have questioned NATO’s post-Cold War resolve since former President Barack Obama’s administration, Europeans in turn have questioned Trump’s reliability in meeting treaty obligations. 

In response to Trump’s demand that NATO allies commit 5 percent of GDP to defense, members agreed during the alliance’s 2025 summit to commit 3.5 percent to their militaries—roughly matching the percent of GDP the U.S. spends on its armed forces—and 1.5 percent for infrastructure improvements, such as cybersecurity, crisis response, and adapting roads, rail lines, bridges, and ports to military needs.

Muscle and Money

The Bruegel/Kiel Institute analysis documents Europe’s armies have a combined force of about 1.5 million troops. In order to withstand a hypothetical Russian invasion, a European-only force would need 300,000 more infantry soldiers, or roughly 50 more brigades, than it had in 2025. It would need a minimum of 1,400 tanks, 2,000 infantry fighting vehicles, and 700 artillery pieces with more than 1 million 155 mm shells—the minimum for three months of combat, the Bruegel/Kiel Institute analysis states. 

That boost in manpower and armaments would exceed the current French, German, Italian, and British forces combined.

And that’s just ground forces.

To match Russian war-footing military production—even with Ukraine attrition—a Europe-only military would need collective arms procurement, common armaments, unified logistics, and integrated military units. Such an army would need to replace stationed U.S. forces and rotational deployments within the 65-mile Suwalki Corridor between Poland and Lithuania, while also establishing bases in Moldova and Romania.

These are but a few of the challenges a “NATO minus the U.S.” would face, military analysts and international relations scholars told The Epoch Times. And as Europeans by necessity assumed a more robust posture on the continent, American forces would need to compensate for the loss of specialties and skills brought by their European allies.

“Non-U.S. NATO forces are well-trained and have some highly competent defense manufacturing industries,” said University of Miami professor of politics June Teufel Dreyer, a senior Foreign Policy Research Institute fellow and former U.S.–China Economic and Security Review commissioner. 

European giants such as Thales and Leonardo would “surely be attracted by the idea of more indigenous investment,” Dreyer said. But, she added, European defense contractors “also know the funds they need aren’t guaranteed” without orders from the U.S. military to, for instance, annually build 2,000 “long-range loitering munitions”—drones—to match Russia’s numbers.

“The French and the Germans build highly thought of diesel-electric submarines; Sweden produces great fighter planes,” Dreyer said.

But from a nuclear deterrent perspective, a U.S. departure from NATO is problematic. Dreyer pointed to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s June 2025 announcement that Britain would buy at least 12 U.S.-made F-35s to “enhance the interoperability of NATO defense” in its nuclear posture, since these jets would be the UK’s only nuclear deterrent beyond its submarine force. The stealth fighter is the first to carry both conventional and nuclear weapons.

U.S. and European allies’ coordination in defense procurement and production “saves money and the R&D costs for the most advanced weapons,” she said, noting while the projected cost for the sixth-generation F-47 is $4.4 billion, but it is a shared NATO expense.

Specialties and Skills

If NATO ties are severed, the United States will no longer benefit from what retired Navy captain and Epoch Times contributor Carl Schuster calls “amazing capabilities that may prove essential in any conflict.” Those capabilities include aircraft and ship design, special ops, and regional know-how such as mountain operations capabilities and Arctic warfare expertise. 

However, many European military assets are aging, and it was only after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—and Trump’s threats to pull the United States from the alliance—that leaders showed urgency to address the deficiencies, Schuster said.

He expressed doubts about Spain—which has refused to let the United States use bases on its mainland to attack Iran—and Turkey. 

“Spain has rejected any idea of its ground and air forces being committed to combat outside Spanish territory,“ he said. ”So their contribution to NATO defense is more statistical than real.”

Turkey has the alliance’s largest ground force, yet its “willingness to contribute to the defense of Greece, Bulgaria, and Eastern Europe” may be questionable, he said.

Middle East Forum Director Gregg Roman also questioned Turkey’s NATO commitment, in a September 2025 column in The Epoch Times, calling for “an urgent compartmentalization assessment” after Turkey made overtures to China and Iran during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit. 

“Six months later,” he said in April, “that assessment is non-optional. You know, thinking about everything [NATO] is trying to put together—joint air missile defense planning—with an ally like Turkey that is functionally aligned with Iran and the [SCO] bloc that we’re opposing, they can’t be trusted.“

Read the rest here…

President Volodymyr Zelensky led Ukraine in a Sunday ceremony marking the 40th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and used the occasion to call on the international community to take decisive action against what he called ongoing Russian “nuclear terrorism”.

There were various candlelight remembrance ceremonies in cities across Ukraine, and in the capital. Later echoing the statement on Telegram, Zelensky alleged the the Chernobyl site’s the New Safe Confinement structure – built with support from more than 40 countries – is under direct threat from Moscow’s aggression.

The 1986 explosion and Chernobyl core meltdown is widely considered to be among the largest man-made disasters in human history. Zelensky has been hyping that another could be around the corner given Moscow’s latest actions.

“Russian-Iranian Shahed drones constantly fly over the station, and one of them hit the confinement last year,” Zelensky said, warning that another disaster could be imminent. 

“The world must not allow this nuclear terrorism to continue, and the best way is to force Russia to stop its reckless attacks,” he then emphasized.

He described that protecting the Chernobyl site serves global interests and that the only way to guarantee safety is to force Russia to “stop its mad attacks.”

The warning followed a major aerial assault on Saturday in which Russia launched over 660 missiles and drones at Ukraine, targeting cities and areas nationwide, including strikes on civilian infrastructure in Dnipro and Kharkiv.

Various international organizations say extreme danger for disaster persists, but Rosatom insists it has safety under control:

The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Rafael Grossi, and Moldovan President Maia Sandu joined the commemorative events.

Commenting on damage to the shell, which the environmental group Greenpeace says raises the risk of a radioactive leak, Grossi said that “repairs should start as soon as possible and that leaving the situation as it is now is problematic.”

Any repairs to the massive metal outer structure, which may potentially take up to four years, are virtually impossible due to Russia’s invasion, according to Greenpeace.

Russia’s nuclear agency Rosatom, the successor of the Soviet atomic energy ministry, which managed the facility, said: “To remember Chernobyl means to remember the people who bore the brunt of the disaster, and to take that experience into account in every decision we make today, to prevent a similar catastrophe.”

There was a very alarming 2025 incident where an explosive drone hit the protective containment shell of the defunct Chernobyl plant. However, emergency crews were able to make it to the impact site on the immense roof and make repairs. Both the Ukrainian and Russian sides pointed the finger at the other for that attack.

Today marks 40 years since the Chernobyl disaster. On April 26, 1986, at 1:23 AM, a routine safety test spiraled into the worst nuclear disaster in history. pic.twitter.com/ioZFHTTNHh

— World of Engineering (@engineers_feed) April 26, 2026

Given that Chernobyl is a name that has captured popular imagination for decades since the apocalyptic historic disaster left the vicinity basically a radiation death zone, it could present the perfect false flag opportunity for anyone wishing to prolong and escalate the war – and nuclear officials have been keenly aware of this possibility.

Authored by Arthur Schaper via American Greatness,

Viktor Orbán, the valiant populist, the restorer of the Christian faith in Hungary, the welcome thorn in the side of the EU establishment, and the strong ally of President Trump since his first bid for office, has lost his own re-election bid. I had a feeling it would come to this.

Sixteen years of uninterrupted administration as a strong force for conservative, right-wing nationalist populism have come to an end, at least with Orbán as the head of it.

Sometimes, voters have a strange fatigue when it comes to governments. Fourteen years of a “conservative” UK government ushered in the Labour Party in 2024. However, fatigue doesn’t explain Orbán’s crushing loss.

What set that off?

Corruption charges and the argument that his administration had looked the other way when sex abuse scandals broke out at a local school.

Economics reared its ugly head, as well, since the EU was cutting off its funding. Orbán’s supposed lack of judicial reforms, as well as his uniform check on EU policy, frustrated Brussels.

Orbán faced a crisis election, and inviting US VP JD Vance to campaign on his behalf didn’t help.

Why would Hungarian voters care what a foreign politician thinks? This desperate move only exacerbated how out of touch the Orbán government had become. Critics also saw him as too close to Russian “president” Vladimir Putin and unhelpful in resolving the Russo-Ukrainian war. The EU had been waiting for this opportunity: an unpopular Orbán facing electoral collapse.

They were salivating for a post-Orbán Hungary, one that would stop its Christian restorationism, welcome more LGBT promotion, tolerate more spending, and open its borders.

Would the Orbán replacement accomplish their scheme?

His challenger, Péter Magyar, was trained and prepped as an Orbán acolyte.

In 2024, he broke from his party, but not over core policy. Magyar (whose name means “Hungarian,” for what it’s worth) campaigned to end corruption and restore good government in Hungary. He campaigned to the right of Orbán, calling for an end to importing cheap labor into the country. He campaigned on cracking down harder on immigration—illegal and mass—than the incumbent.

His message, if anyone was listening, wasn’t pro-EU. He was still asking the question: “What about us Hungarians?”

Supporters of the cultural restoration Right thought that Orbán was not getting the job done. Was he failing?

April 12, 2026, Magyar’s Tisza Party swept the elections: supermajority status, up to 140 out of 199 seats. Orbán won 56 seats, and another far-right party won the rest.

Sure, EU progressive elites celebrate Orbán’s loss, as did Barack Obama and George Soros. They view the downfall of Orbán as a harbinger for the end of Republican hegemony in Washington later this year.

Yet look again at the results of the Hungarian parliamentary elections. I mentioned three parties that won seats: three right-wing parties. Not one left-wing or centrist element came to power or won seats. A minimum threshold of five percent in the election results is required for a party to place. The left was shut out of the Hungarian Parliament.

The Right Wing won Hungary. Orbán may have lost his premiership, but Orbánism is standing strong.

This election focused on personalities, not principles.

Magyar is just as socially conservative as Orbán. He has already pledged to end the foreign permit workers. He wants to give Hungarians in other countries a chance to come back to their own country and thrive again. That’s about as “Hungary First” as it gets!

Magyar has already stated that he will not support fast-tracking Ukraine’s membership into the EU. Huge move for ending the Russo-Ukrainian war!

He announced a diversification plan for energy. Instead of relying predominantly on Russia, he wants to draw oil from the South and the West, as well. This sounds like real economic freedom for Hungary. National populism is great, but it must face economic realities. Too many right-wing populist governments are shoveling out money to voters for school supplies, raising families, and pensions. Where is the money supposed to come from? More taxes?! From whom?

Right-wing socialism is still . . . socialism, and Orbán had a problem here.

Eventually, the government runs out of others’ money, or inflation bites whatever purchasing power the government intended for the people. Inflation and tariff pressures weighed down Orbán’s reelection chances.

Orbán’s Hungary was still not the perfect social conservative paradise for other reasons. Prostitution is still legal. Abortion is also still legal. While countries need to encourage their native populations to bear children, that vision will collapse in the face of easy sex and no responsibility. Cultural norms need reinforcement, with no tolerance for deviance.

Orbán and his party imposed vaccine passports and health mandates during COVID. How is this good for the working public? Where is the freedom? Too much state-sponsored anything is bad for a country.

Even now, Hungarians cannot own a gun without passing strict government demands. Czechia made self-defense a right, and in Switzerland everyone owns a gun (though it’s registered with the state).

Throughout his tenure, Orbán strengthened ties with China, joining the deceptive Belt and Road initiative. He even allowed Chinese police to operate in his country! American citizens voiced righteous outrage when the local press exposed former New York City mayor Eric Adams for allowing a CCP-run police station in the Big Apple. Yet no one on the Right complained about Orbán allowing CCP Hungary? That’s wrong.

There’s room for improvement, and Magyar has the opportunity to exceed Orbán’s victories while correcting his mistakes.

He is already doubling down on stopping mass migration!

He is committed to putting all Hungarians first, and he is fighting for the rights of ethnic Hungarians in other countries.

Magyar must revive and restore Hungary’s economy. One can hope he will place his country in a better position to profit without dependence and root out undue Chinese influence.

In a media masterstroke, he appeared on state television to discuss his plans for the country. Without missing a beat, he dressed down the reporter interviewing him, castigating the news organization for not allowing him on their program over the last year and a half. He then scolded them for lying about him and his family.

Then came the coup de grace: he announced his government plan to cut their funding and shut them down. Hungary needs honest independent media, he said, not government-funded agitprop that would inspire envy in Joseph Goebbels or North Korea.

He is not hostile to Putin, but he will not engage him aggressively either: sounds a lot like Trump!

He will not participate in the EU migration pact. He is keeping up the border fences, but he has also pledged to find a way for the EU to release the funds that the country needs, too.

He is making inroads with his Slavic neighbors, including the more populist, nationalist leaders in Slovakia and Czechia.

Magyar reminds me of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. He isn’t just talking the national populist talk. He is walking the walk, and he is sprinting ahead with major reforms.

Orbán was T-800. Magyar may well be T-1000, and the EU Left is going to find that he will be worse for their globalist, leftist, secularist agenda.

Authored by Ron Paul via the Ron Paul Institute,

Two weeks ago, President Donald Trump commemorated income tax payments being due by having DoorDash deliver food from McDonald’s to the White House. The delivery was intended to highlight the first year of tax-free tips. Removing tax on tips was part of the 2025 Big Beautiful Bill (BBB).

As the sponsor of the first No Tax on Tips legislation introduced in Congress, I was obviously pleased to see this change in tax laws included in the BBB. The bill also included other good tax changes such as removing tax on overtime and extending the 2017 tax cuts. Unfortunately, the bill also increased federal spending and debt.

Supporters of the income tax implicitly endorse the idea that our rights are gifts from government and, thus, can be revoked by government at the will of our rulers. Adoption of the income tax signified the abandonment of the belief that individuals have inalienable rights granted them by the Creator.

Therefore, those who believe in natural rights must reject income taxation. It is also a violation of the people’s rights when the central bank reduces the value of the dollar, and thus the people’s purchasing power, via the hidden inflation tax.

The income tax system’s rejection of natural rights is exemplified by withholding that gives government first claim on an individual’s earnings. The government then may return, via what it calls a refund, some of what was taken. However, a normal refund is when a business returns a customer’s payment because the customer is dissatisfied with the good or service he received, not when a thief returns some of what the thief stole.

Withholding was implemented during World War Two as a “temporary” wartime measure. Yet, it is still with us decades later.

Milton Friedman, as a young economist, played a role in the US government’s development of withholding. Of course, Friedman went on to become a leading advocate for free markets. He also redeemed himself for his work on withholding by becoming a prominent advocate for ending the military draft.

The draft is the worst example of how the government has rejected the principles of the Declaration of Independence. The draft gives government power to force young men (and possibly young women) to join the military and kill or be killed in a war. Contrary to the beliefs of some progressives, support for the draft is not justified by allowing individuals to choose between serving in the military or performing some other form of mandated “service.”

While the US does not have a military draft, the infrastructure for the draft remains in place via Selective Service registration. A provision in this year ‘s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allows Selective Service to automatically register all men between the ages of 18 and 25. This makes it easier than ever for government to reinstate a draft.

Income taxes, along with the military draft and other types of mandated “service,” are incompatible with a free society and should be opposed by all who value liberty and peace. As Ronald Reagan said in a statement that could be modified to apply to income taxes, the draft “rests on the assumption that your kids belong to the state…. That assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea.”

Earlier today, when previewing this week’s earnings by the Mag 7 which account for over $10 trillion in market cap set to report Q1 results after the close on Wednesday, Goldman’s Delta-One head Rich Privorotsky said that “Equities are being driven by one thing…AI spend”, and warned that “it’s hard not to respect the strength of the AI bid, but the velocity has been extreme. The upside surprise vs expectations has almost entirely come from AI spend…it’s the whole game.” 

Not only is the whole game, it is the one thing that has prevented the market from collapsing into the Iran war’s stagflationary black hole, with “oil/product prices is sucking the oxygen out of the room…Europe underperforming, dispersion extreme.” 

But none of that matters as long as capex recipients, i.e., chip and semi stocks, keep surging on hopes and expectations that the LLMs and hyperscalers will keep pumping them full of cash day after day, for the unforeseeable future, which they have so far: recall that at the end of Q4, full-year capex estimates soared to a mindblowing $740 billion among just 6 hyperscalers (a number which is expected to rise to almost $1 trillion in 2027).

And at top of this trickle-down monetary waterfall is none other than Sam Altman’s OpenAi, generously peeing money into the overeager mouths of hyperscalers around the globe, having built up staggering purchase commitments to the tune of $1.5 trillion because there will never be enough compute. 

Maybe Sam’s right: perhaps there truly is an insatiable need for compute (unless of course one uses Chinese LLMs and/or RAM chips, both of which have a fraction of the hardware demands of the latest and greatest US technology). 

The problem arises when one asks if OpenAI will ever be enough revenue to satisfy these astronomic commitments. 

For much of the past year, that has been the core thesis behind countless AI bear cases: now that even Michael Hartnett openly calls tech a “bubble”, the question is not if but when, to which the bulls have calmly countered that as long as the drunken-sailor at the helm of OpenAi keeps spending at the rate he has been, the “when” isn’t coming any time soon.

It now appears, however, that the “when” may have come much sooner than most thought. 

According to the WSJ, OpenAI has recently missed its own targets for both new users and revenue, stumbles that have raised concern among some company leaders about whether it will be able to support its massive spending on data centers.

One of them is the company’s finance chief: CFO Sarah Friar told other company leaders that she is worried the company might not be able to pay for future computing contracts if revenue doesn’t grow fast enough. In other words, that $1.5 trillion OpenAI had pledged to spend on various data centers, GPUs and memory chips… you can kiss all that goodbye.

Of course, none of this will come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Sam’s mercurial style of capital allocation. As a reminder, when OpenAi made its $1.5 trillion flurry of deal announcements last fall, a few things were missing, among them how it plans to fund them, details of the bulk of the financial terms, and any mention of who was providing independent, clear-eyed advice on these complex mega transactions. The reason for that, as the FT reported at the time, is OpenAI still doesn’t know exactly how it will fund them, the terms mostly don’t exist, and advisers were overwhelmingly shunned.

In fact, we learned last October, Sam Altman came up with the “bold vision” himself and leaned heavily on a small number of lieutenants to flesh out the details and push the deals through with little involvement of bankers or lawyers.

One of the brilliant side quests completed by Altman during this period of epic obfuscation (and unprecedented wealth generation by Sam for himself from a “non-profit” thanks to nothing more than promises) was unleashing the AI circle jerk, pardon, circular financing concept, where one company would “invest” in its customer, only to see that money flow back to its through the income statement but not before lifting its PE by several turns; this process would be repeated countless of times lifting all AI valuations substantially even if no actual revenue or cash flow was created. Eventually, virtually every company in the AI sector was wrapped up in such circular structures that tied together suppliers, investors and customers (see “The Stunning Math Behind The AI Vendor Financing “Circle Jerk“.”)

Yet promises (and lies) can only go so far, and even the loftiest of grand schemes are eventually brought to the ground when the revenue fails to materialize. As it has for OpenAi.

As a result, the company’s board of directors have started to closely examine the company’s data-center deals in recent months and questioned Sam Altman’s efforts to secure even more computing power despite the business slowdown, the WSJ reported.

The spending scrutiny is constraining Altman’s once-boundless ambitions ahead of a potential IPO that could take place by the end of the year (he desperately wants to go public before his former employee and arch nemesis, Dario Amodei takes Anthropic public).

Friar and other executives are now seeking to control costs and instill more discipline in the business, at times putting them at odds with their CEO; this may very well mean that the money spigot that has pumped hundreds of billions in capex promises is about to be shut as well, leaving the entire AI ecosystem in a Wile E Coyote moment, suspended in the air off the cliff, just before gravity kicks in.

In a desperate attempt to keep reality as far away as possible, the two heads of OpenAI had no choice but to deny there was any trouble in paradAIs: “We are totally aligned on buying as much compute as we can and working hard on it together every day,” Altman and Friar said in a joint statement. Any suggestion that the pair are divided or pulling back on securing new computing resources is “ridiculous,” they said. 

Well, of course they would: the alternative would be an immediate collapse of OpenAI’s valuation as revenue growth suddenly collapses, and takes the entire AI bubble with it.

Still, with OpenAI having difficulty to generate even 2% of its spending commitments in the form of revenue (ignoring that the company will likely never be profitable), denials may be all OpenAI has left. 

For years, Altman has sought to lock up as much data-center capacity as possible, arguing that computing shortages were the biggest constraint to OpenAI’s growth. As noted above, Sam went on a “dealmaking” spree last year that put OpenAI on the hook for some $1.5 trillion in future spending commitments, and tied much of the tech sector’s success to OpenAI’s.

In other words, if OpenAI goes down, it will take the entire AI sector with it. And since AI is now 40% of the S&P500… you get the picture (if you don’t, reread the comments above from Goldman’s Delta One head).

Not that anyone can blame Sam for thinking he would get away with it: for a long time, he did. His “buy everything” computing strategy was buoyed by ChatGPT’s seemingly invincible success, and had the support of both Friar and the board. But the chatbot’s growth slowed toward the end of last year, especially as Claude starting stealing clients, sowing fresh doubt among company leaders about the approach.

What followed next was the first domino to fall: OpenAI missed an internal goal of reaching one billion weekly active users for ChatGPT by the end of last year, according to people familiar with the goals. The company still hasn’t announced that milestone, unnerving some investors the WSJ reports. It also missed its yearly revenue target for ChatGPT as well after Google’s Gemini saw massive growth late last year and ate into OpenAI’s market share. Worst of all, for the industry where there are still almost no switching costs, the company has also struggled with defection rates among subscribers, according to WSJ sources.

Things went from bad to worse in 2026 when OpenAI missed multiple monthly revenue targets earlier this year after losing ground to Anthropic in the coding and enterprise markets, people familiar with its finances said.

OpenAI recently raised $122 billion in what was the largest funding round in Silicon Valley history, putting it on more solid financial footing. But to get there, the company signed up for so much computing power that it expects to burn through that amount in the next three years, and that’s assuming that it meets ambitious revenue targets. Some of the funding is also conditional and depends on specific agreements with partners (and may explain why Microsoft, which knows the company’s business best of all, dramatically revised its agreement with OpenAI earlier today).  

To streamline costs, OpenAi recently cut non-core projects such as its video-generation app Sora. OpenAI also recently released GPT-5.5, a powerful model that topped a number of industry benchmarks. Then again, in an industry where the frontier jumps every 2-3 months, the latest model will be obsolete by July. 

Meanwhile, a blowback from within the user base is emerging: a number of AI companies including Anthropic have faced a capacity crunch for computing in recent weeks, leading to price increases for access to AI processors, outages and rationing. The challenges have rankled power users of AI products, especially coders who have grown frustrated when AI systems have been unable to finish tasks in a way they had come to expect from past use.

In a recent memo to investors, OpenAI said that it has been able to secure more computing capacity than Anthropic, giving it an advantage in reaching users. The memo, which was viewed by The Wall Street Journal, also addressed Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s veiled criticism of OpenAI at a recent business conference, when he said some companies had pulled “the risk dial too far” on data-center spending. 

“In hindsight, that caution looks less like discipline and more like underestimating how fast demand would arrive,” the OpenAI memo said. 

It would be extremely ironic is Anthropic’s “caution” proves correct in the end, and OpenAI is forced to cancel its contracts as it simply does not have the money (but not before Masa Son implodes).

In recent months, Friar has also expressed reservations about OpenAI’s plans to go public by the end of this year, according to people familiar with the matter.  She has emphasized to executives and board directors the need for OpenAI to improve its internal controls, cautioning that the company isn’t yet ready to meet the rigorous reporting standards required of a public company. Altman, who has favored a more aggressive timeline for an IPO.

OpenAI has to work through a slate of other issues ahead of a public listing. The company is currently experiencing a leadership vacuum after its second-in-command, Fidji Simo, unexpectedly took medical leave earlier this month.

But the knockout blow for OpenAi could, ironically, come from the person who funded the company in the first place back when it was still an “Open” non-profit. Court proceedings began today in a lawsuit by Elon Musk in which he is seeking to oust Altman and unwind OpenAI’s conversion into a for-profit company. Should Musk prevail, OpenAI may or may not survive, but Sam Altman will have no choice but to move on to his next scam. 

Scam Altman has a incredible track record for being a con artist I don’t think anyone has a “former ally turned enemy” list this big with directly with people he worked with

A massive new 18-month investigation dropped, revealing the full list of people who worked directly with… pic.twitter.com/1aOkUEsgkq

— X Freeze (@XFreeze) April 27, 2026

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

If you go to NASCAR to watch the cars crash, the Democratic gubernatorial race in California has been a thrilling pile-up.

The recent debate saw all the Democratic candidates play the race card over a curious issue. When asked if they supported the move to rescind at least 17,000 commercial driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, every single Democrat declared the policy racist. The candidates also pledged to support truckers who cannot speak or read English.

When Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican candidate, said that being able to read English (and particularly English signs) should be mandatory, Porter lectured the Hispanic sheriff on racism, saying that his support for English proficiency by truckers disqualified him from being governor of California.

Not to be outdone, Democratic candidate Tom Steyer declared that requiring truck drivers to be able to read English is “racial profiling.”

Steyer, a billionaire, has been funding his own campaign with almost $120 million and has tried to capture the far-left supporters of Swalwell. In so doing, he has increasingly looked like Howard Hughes with better-trimmed nails.

Steyer grabbed Swalwell’s platform of pledging to arrest ICE officers and take punitive measures against them. He cannot fulfill that pledge, and the Ninth Circuit recently shot down the flagrantly unconstitutional California law seeking to dictate the conduct or appearances of federal officers. The law was supported by Gov. Gavin Newsom and all of the Democratic candidates.

Steyer’s claim that English proficiency rules are “racial profiling” is more Looney Tunes than law.

Racial profiling occurs when a person’s racial appearance alone is grounds for reasonable suspicion for a stop or search. English proficiency requirements are race-neutral conditions to ensure basic safety in the operation of large trucks. We have seen several fatal cases involving undocumented persons who could not read or speak English proficiently.

Even the use of apparent race or ethnicity is allowed when part of a totality of circumstances or observations by law enforcement. Last year, the Supreme Court stayed a racial profiling case from California on that ground, in favor of law enforcement, in a 6-3 decision in Noem v. Vasquez-Perdomo.

If requiring English proficiency is racial profiling, a wide array of jobs in the United States are the products of racism, including airplane pilots, air traffic controllers, U.S. military, astronauts, mechanics, and baseball umpires. Even the European Space Agency has required English proficiency.

By Steyer’s standard, he may also be the product of a racial profiling system. In order to appear on the ballot, Steyer certified that he is a U.S. citizen. To be a U.S. citizen, you must be proficient in English. Thus, a candidate must certify that he is both a citizen and English-proficient. He can then go on a stage and call such requirements racial profiling without any basis in the law.

Ironically, Steyer made much of his money managing Farallon Capital Management, which profited from owning private prisons and, in the case of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), actually runs one of the largest ICE facilities. Now called CoreCivic, the company requires not only U.S. citizenship but also English proficiency.

As with the pledges to arrest ICE officers and dictate how they conduct their operations, the racial profiling claim is knowingly misleading and unfounded. It is designed to pander to the far left by suggesting that requiring basic English skills of large-truck operators is somehow unlawful or unconstitutional.

The only thing that Steyer proved, again, is that there are sadly few requirements to run for governor of California beyond a large fortune and little shame.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

North Korea has continued its surprising level of public acknowledgement of troop deaths in the Russia-Ukraine war, where it has maintained some 10,000 or more troops in support of Moscow. Starting last summer North Korea began issuing footage of coffins of slain DPRK troops being flown into Pyongyang, with Kim Jong Un in attendance.

Now the ‘pariah’ nation long hated by Washington is taking publicizing its Russia operation a big step further, having newly opened a memorial museum in Pyongyang for its soldiers killed in the conflict. 

What is called the Memorial Museum of Combat Feats at the Overseas Military Operations has been formally opened in an inaugural ceremony on Sunday. The occasion fell on the one-year anniversary of the two countries having liberated Russia’s Kursk border region from a Ukrainian incursion.

State-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) confirmed that Kim Jong Un attended the event along with senior Russian officials, including State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin and Defense Minister Andrei Belousov.

South Korea’s intelligence agency some  2,000 North Korean troops have been killed in the operation, out of some 15,000 total; however, neither Moscow nor Pyongyang have issued any official figures.

In a speech by Kim during the ceremony, he declared that the fallen troops would remain “a symbol of the Korean people’s heroism” and would support “a victorious march by the Korean and Russian people.”

He also as expected lashed out at the United States for imperialist wars, charging that Washington and its allies are pursuing a “hegemonic plot and military adventurism” on the Russia-Ukraine front.

Back in April, President Putin released a statement saying, “The Russian people will never forget the heroism of the Korean special forces. We will always honor the Korean heroes who gave their lives for Russia and for our shared freedom, alongside their brothers-in-arms from the Russian Federation.”

Eventually, Pyongyang will want Russia to return the favor as part of the two countries’ deepened defense pact. There’s always the potential for renewed conflict on the Korean peninsula – and potential presence of Russia troops in the north would certainly complicate things, also given the permanent American bases in South Korea.

Ukraine has meanwhile long bitterly complained about the foreign contingencies helping Russia, and in previously claimed that North Korea could send up to 30,000 – though there’s been little evidence of such a high figure.

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) warned investors recently that fraudsters use phishing, smishing, and vishing scams to attempt to compromise their financial, investment, or personal accounts.

“Phishing, smishing, and vishing are types of scams where a fraudster tries to trick you into providing sensitive personal or financial information by posing as an entity you know or trust, such as an investment firm, bank, or some other personal service that you use,” the SEC said in an April 23 alert.

Once a malicious actor gets the personal information of a target, such as social security numbers, bank account numbers, ATM PINs, and driver’s licenses, they can use this to access the target’s accounts

“The main difference between these ‘-ishing’ scams is the method the fraudster uses to try to steal your information or carry out other attacks.”

Phishing involves the use of email to contact a target, tricking them into providing personal or financial information. This is done by urging the target to reply to the mail, clicking on a link to a website mimicking a legitimate platform, or opening an attachment, which downloads malware into their systems.

Fraudsters can use names of real people, companies, or government agencies to make the message sound authentic. The email address they use may contain the name of a company or government agency. The emails could also contain official-looking fine print, legal references, along with graphics and logos.

Such emails typically invoke urgency to solicit information. For instance, the hackers may claim the target’s bank account or other types of accounts will be closed if it’s not updated with certain information. Some fraudsters can claim problems with account or payment information, while others entice through monetary schemes such as prize money.

Smishing and vishing are similar to phishing. Smishing involves fraud via texts or direct messages, while vishing involves the fraudsters contacting targets via phone calls.

In its 2025 Internet Crime Report, the FBI listed phishing as a major financial crime type for the year.

The agency’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) received more than 1 million complaints in total from people who were defrauded out of their money.

Last year, phishing/spoofing was the top crime type reported to IC3, which received 191,561 complaints. Phishing and spoofing resulted in more than $215 million in losses to the complainants.

In the recent alert, the SEC said that its efforts to warn investors about phishing, smishing, and vishing were in accordance with a March 6 executive order signed by President Donald Trump, “Combating Cybercrime, Fraud, and Predatory Schemes Against American Citizens.”

The order defined cybercrime and predatory schemes as activities involving phishing scams, ransomware and malware attacks, sextortion, financial fraud, and impersonation. It called on officials to determine how regulatory, operational, technical, and diplomatic tools can be improved to counter transnational criminal organizations behind cybercrimes.

In a March 6 Fact Sheet, the White House said, “In 2024, American consumers reported losing more than $12.5 billion to cyber-enabled fraud, with seniors on average losing the most.”

“[Seventy-three] percent of U.S. adults have experienced some kind of online scam or attack, and 87 percent of seniors view online scams and attacks as a major problem.”

Protecting Accounts

In another April 23 alert, the SEC advised people to protect their online investment accounts from fraud by using strong passwords, changing passwords regularly, using two-step verification, turning on account alerts, adding biometric safeguards, and avoiding using public computers to access accounts.

SEC asked investors to use caution when using public Wi-Fi connections.

“If you access your account on a public wireless connection, such as at a coffee shop or airport, you should use extra caution. It is very easy to ‘eavesdrop’ on internet traffic, including passwords and other sensitive data, on a public wireless network.”

The agency advised investors in a separate alert on April 23 to contact their investment company immediately if they think their account has been compromised.

Plus, investors should regularly monitor investment accounts for any suspicious activity. “Look out for any changes to your account information that you do not recognize (e.g., a change to your address, phone number, e-mail address, account number, or external banking information),” the SEC said.

“You should also confirm that you authorized all of the transactions that appear in your account statements and trade confirmations.”

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“It is so hard to live ethically in an unethical society.” That lament heard this week from New York Times opinion culture editor Nadja Spiegelman could well be the Democratic Party’s epitaph.

Spiegelman was interviewing two left-wing influencers about how everything from shoplifting to murder may be excusable today in light of the unfairness they see in society.

The podcast, a product of the nation’s newspaper of record, reveled in the moral relativism that has taken over the American left. It featured the ravings of the antisemitic Marxist streamer Hasan Piker, who calmly explained how the murder of United Healthcare executive Brian Thompson was perfectly understandable. His rationalization came from Marxist revolutionary Friedrich Engels, who had called capitalism “social murder.” If capitalists are “social murderers,” then why not kill them? The logic is liberating and lethal for some on the left looking for a license for violence.

Mind you, this same newspaper had once condemned and effectively banned a U.S. senator for writing an op-ed advocating the use of the military to quell violent protests during the summer of George Floyd’s death. The Times even forced out its own opinion editor for having the temerity to publish such an opinion.

But glorifying murder? The suggestion of open hunting season on corporate executives did not appear to shock or repel Spiegelman. After all, we are living in “an unethical society.” She explained that many felt that the murder of Thompson, the father of two, meant that “finally, someone can actually do something about health care.”

Even liberal comedians are practicing a literal version of slapstick. Margaret Cho this week declared that “we need a feral, bloodthirsty, violent Democrat.”

To be fair, Spiegelman did concede that it might seem a bit “scary” for some to start murdering our way to social justice.

She also explained that shoplifting can be justifiable because people are “stealing from Whole Foods — not just for the thrill of it, but out of a feeling of anger and moral justification.”

New Yorker writer Jia Tolentino also contributed to the podcast, titled “The Rich Don’t Play by the Rules. So Why Should I?” She immediately threw in her own experience with “microlooting” and explained why it is arguably moral: “I have, under very specific circumstances. I will say, I think that stealing from a big-box store [isn’t] significant as a moral wrong, nor is it significant in any way as protest.”

She detailed her own past thefts and added, “I didn’t feel bad about it at all, in part because the store was a corporation. And it certainly felt, in a utilitarian sense, I was like, this is not a big deal. Right, guys?”

Not in the confines of the New York Times, where apparently you are entitled to all goods that are fit to pilfer.

The bizarre exchange highlighted the moral chasm that is opening its maw on today’s political left. In my book “Rage and the Republic,” I write about how rage helps people excuse any offense or attack. It dismisses the humanity of others and provides a license to hate completely and without reservation.

It is not really murder or theft if there are no real humans on the other side, is it?

Other columnists have defended such property crimes. Washington Post writer Maura Judkis ran a column mocking shoplifting stories as the “moral panic” of a nation built on “stolen land.” It is reminiscent of those who excused rioting in past summers “as an expression of power” and demanded that the media refer to looters as “protesters.”

Former New York Times writer (and now Howard University Journalism Professor) Nikole Hannah-Jones went so far as to call on journalists not to cover shoplifting crimes.

At its core, it is a denial of transcendent values and rights. It is a decoupling of our society from a grounding in moral or universal truths. It is a trend that extends not only to attacks on individuals but also to attacks on our constitutional system. There is a growing denial of our founding based on Enlightenment principles of natural rights, which come not from government but from God.

Some people seem to have forgotten this. In 2024, a celebrated political journalist memorably asserted that belief in God-given rights is a form of “Christian nationalism” — an odd claim about a concept the nation’s founders literally wrote into our Declaration of Independence.

Last year, Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) — a man who represents Thomas Jefferson’s own state — attacked a witness in committee for espousing Jefferson’s immortal assertion that human beings’ natural rights are endowed by their Creator. Kaine disparaged this idea as something worthy of Iran’s mullahs.

The result is the type of moral free-fall and rejection of personal responsibility expressed on the New York Times podcast. Simply because they condemn our entire age as unethical, they feel justified in asserting a moral right to commit any offense, from microlooting to murder. This underpins the increasingly frequent justifications made for attacks against conservatives or law enforcement as a form of “defending democracy.”

Yet the feeling of “anger and moral justification” does not make an act moral. It is the morality of mayhem; a spreading decay within our society. History has shown us how democracies can become mobocracies.

During the French Revolution, journalist Jacques Mallet du Pan observed that “like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.” The sad fact is, it is not just the danger of fellow revolutionaries deciding that you are the next reactionary to be guillotined. It is the self-consumption of radicals who untether themselves from any higher order or purpose. It is the knowledge that all mortals carry the Saturn gene; all mortals share the capacity to become monsters.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Summary

• Bessent describes IRGC leaders as now “trapped like drowning rats” amid the enduring US naval blockade of Iranian ports, which will soon result in gasoline shortages, anger & uprising

• Putin tells FM Araghchi that he’s been in contact with the new Supreme Leader, and says Iran fighting for ‘sovereignty’

• After a weekend of stalemate malaise, Iran reportedly offers new proposal for opening ship traffic, while postponing the thorny nuclear issue; Rubio says ‘will not tolerate’ Iran control of strait

• Trump says peace could come via telephone rather than face-to-face meetings, also warning Iranian oil infrastructure could explode from within unless flow resumes; Tehran later says Trump has requested new talks

• Iranian FM has been sending written messages to US via Pakistani intermediaries 

• Israel strikes deep into Lebanon in Beqaa Valley for first time of 3-week ceasefire.

*  *  *

Bessent: ‘Rats’ Trapped by US Blockade

In the early evening of Monday, well after markets closed, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent issued the following on X (below), describing IRGC leaders as now “trapped like drowning rats” amid the enduring US naval blockade of Iranian ports, which will soon result in gasoline shortages and anger – and potential protests leading to uprising (according to US desires and aims). Also here is where things stand on the stalled negotiations, and an early hint of the potential White House reaction, per WSJ:

Iran has presented regional mediators with a new offer to stop its attacks on ships in the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for a full end to the war, including the U.S.’s lifting of its naval blockade of Iranian ports and the postponement of nuclear negotiations, according to officials familiar with the matter.

The proposal, presented by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during his tour of the region and Pakistan over the weekend, is designed to break the deadlock in the conflict and set talks back in motion, the people said. President Trump and his national-security team are skeptical of Iran’s offer, U.S. officials said. Trump previously said negotiations could happen over the phone instead of in person.

And: “Trump held discussions with aides Monday morning about the offer. While he didn’t reject it outright, officials said Trump sounded notes about Iran not dealing in good faith or being willing to meet his key demand: ending nuclear enrichment and vowing never to make a nuclear weapon.”

While the surviving IRGC Leaders are trapped like drowning rats in a sewage pipe, Iran’s creaking oil industry is starting to shut in production thanks to the U.S. BLOCKADE.

Pumping will soon collapse.

GASOLINE SHORTAGES IN IRAN NEXT! https://t.co/Czgy9VsHBO

— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) April 27, 2026

Rubio: ‘Will Not Tolerate’ Iran Control of Strait

The latest via WSJ on what Iran is proposing, centered on immediately lifting the US naval blockade on Iranian ports:

Iran has presented regional mediators with a new offer to stop its attacks in the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for a full end to the war and a lifting of the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, according to officials familiar with the matter. The proposal, presented by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi during his tour of the region and Pakistan over the weekend, is designed to break the deadlock in the conflict and set talks back in motion, the people said. It would see discussions about Iran’s nuclear program shelved. Washington hasn’t responded to the proposal, one of the people said. Iran’s mission to the United Nations didn’t respond to a request for comment.

But US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has told Fox News on Monday that the US will not tolerate Iran controlling or establishing a toll system in the Strait of Hormuz. Rubio further asserted that the strait would remain open either through international pressure or a coalition-led effort.

Iranian Foreign Minister told Russia’s President Putin that US ‘destructive habits’, ‘unreasonable demands’ and frequent changes in positions are slowing diplomatic progress

Just days ago Iran began declaring that the first toll passage funds had been successfully transferred to the Central Bank of Iran, after Trump stated the US won’t allow a toll system. Rubio further said the US will not normalize the Iranians being essentially a gatekeeper, with countries seeking permission from Iran.

We will not tolerate a system where Iran plays gatekeeper to the world.” 🚨

Secretary Marco Rubio draws a line. As the “dual blockade” chokes global energy, the U.S. stance is clear: The Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway, not an Iranian toll booth. pic.twitter.com/YECpK8SUi4

— Martin (@Martin_Sedi) April 27, 2026

Putin Says He’s in Contact with Ayatollah in Araghchi Moscow Meeting

President Putin, FM Lavrov, and Iranian FM Araghchi have been meeting in Moscow, after warm greetings and amid competing narratives over the future of the Strait of Hormuz. The Russian leader said something surprising right out of the gate, at a moment Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei has not been seen since the US-Israeli war began: “Last week I received a message from the Supreme Leader of Iran,” he told Iran’s Araghchi

Additionally Putin pledged, “The people of Iran are courageously and heroically fighting for their sovereignty.” This certainly stands in sharp contrast from the US and Western consensus. Putin also stressed, “Russia will do everything that serves the interests of Iran and the region to achieve peace as soon as possible.” This after Tehran on Monday made clear that it sees the future of the Strait of Hormuz as being under Iranian military control – an earlier headline which pushed crude prices up, and within hours later on this as well:

Hours prior, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov described of Araghchi’s arrival, “the importance of this conversation is difficult to overestimate in terms of how the situation around Iran and in the Middle East is developing.” Araghchi to Putin: “It’s been proven to everybody that Tehran has friends and allies such as Russia… Allies that, in times of need, are standing next to Iran – and we are grateful to you for your support.”

The moment Putin greeted the Iranian top diplomat and his team (below), and where things stand on Iran’s proposal…

Iran has reportedly sent a new proposal to the U.S. that would reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but only after an end to the war and guarantees it will not resume, according to sources and regional reports. Under the plan, broader talks on the nuclear program and maritime navigation would come later.

Vladimir Putin greets Iranian FM Abbas Araghchi and his team https://t.co/Zgto3ZyVVI pic.twitter.com/ObAOkfMmPN

— RT (@RT_com) April 27, 2026

Meanwhile President Trump is expected to hold a situation room meeting soon on Monday, related to Iran and the Hormuz crisis with his top national security and foreign policy team.

IDF Hits Beqaa Valley for First Time of Lebanon Truce

A three-week Lebanon ceasefire is officially in place, but in reality it exists on paper or in name only, as Israel has intensified and expanded its attacks, now striking the distant Beqaa Valley for the first time since the truce began. “The IDF says it has launched a wave of airstrikes against Hezbollah infrastructure in the Beqaa Valley and several areas of southern Lebanon,” Israeli media reported Monday. “The strikes come following repeated Hezbollah attacks on IDF troops and Israel during the ceasefire, including a deadly drone attack yesterday,” according to The Times of Israel.

The latest coverage notes that “Israel has not struck in Lebanon’s eastern Beqaa Valley in some three weeks.” The IDF frames the escalation as a response to Hezbollah violations of the ceasefire, while Hezbollah argues Israeli ground forces are on Lebanese territory and therefore legitimate targets.

Meanwhile, Joseph Aoun told representatives from southern villages that negotiating with Israel “is not betrayal,“ but necessary for stability. The Maronite Catholic leader added that “Betrayal is carried out by those who take their country to war to serve foreign interests.”

Iran Offers New Path To Opening Strait

Running a little ahead of schedule, Sunday evening brought this week’s infusion of pre-Monday-open optimism about prospects of ending the US-Israel war on Iran. Axios’ Barak Ravid, a veteran of Israeli intelligence who routinely posts anonymously-sourced scoops, reported that Iran has presented a new proposal for opening the Strait of Hormuz and ending the shooting — though Iran’s concept includes a potential non-starter via a proposed postponement of nuclear negotiations. No details were reported, beyond the notion of either an extended ceasefire or permanent end of the war that would accompany a full reopening of the strait. 

Earlier on Sunday, President Trump said face-to-face discussions with the Iranians weren’t essential to ending the war. “If they want to talk, they can come to us, or they can call us. You know, ​there is a telephone. We have nice, secure lines,” he told Fox News. “They know what has to be in the ⁠agreement. It’s very simple: They cannot have a nuclear weapon; otherwise, there’s no reason to meet.”  

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi:

Incorrect approaches and excessive demands by the U.S. caused the previous round of talks—despite progress—not to reach its objectives. pic.twitter.com/Bt7ikClaoe

— Clash Report (@clashreport) April 27, 2026

Sunday’s micro-dose of hope capped a weekend in which negotiations were perceived as grinding to a clear stalemate marked by a lack of warfare but also a continued choking of traffic through the vital Strait of Hormuz. On Saturday, Trump’s lead negotiators, Steve Witkoff and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, were poised to travel to Islamabad for another round of negotiations with the Iranians when Trump nixed their trip at the last minute.

Iran’s Fars news agency reported that Araghchi has “conveyed written messages regarding Iran’s red lines to the American side through Pakistani intermediaries.” 

Iranian Foreign Minister Shuttles Between Pakistan, Oman, Russia 

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has been on the go. On Saturday, he left Pakistan after meeting with Pakistan’s military chief, Asim Munir, Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar. On parting, Araghchi said he’d had a “very fruitful visit,” while cautioning it’s unclear “if the US is truly serious about diplomacy.”

Then he was off to Oman for talks centered on re-opening the strait — which lies between the two countries — then back to Pakistan. By Monday, Araghchi was in St Petersburg, Russia for discussions with President Putin. Commenting on the relationship via X, Iran’s envoy in Russia said: 

“Iran and Russia are present in a united front in the campaign of the world’s ​totalitarian forces against independent and justice-seeking countries, ​as well as countries that seek a ⁠world free from unilateralism and Western domination.” 

Trump: Iranian Oil Infrastructure In Peril From Limited Capacity

Trump told Fox News on Sunday that the US blockade on traffic to and from Iranian ports is putting major pressure on the country’s export infrastructure: 

“When you have, you know, lines of vast amounts of oil pouring through your system, if for any reason that line is closed because you can’t continue to put it into containers or ships, which has happened to them — they have no ships because of the blockade — what happens is that line explodes from within, both mechanically and in the earth.”

“It’s something that happens where it just explodes. And they say they only have about three days left before that happens. And when it explodes, you can never, regardless, you can never rebuild it the way it was.”

That approximate scenario has also been outlined by the Critical Threats Project at the American Enterprise Institute. “Once the tanks are filled, Iran would have to shut down its oil fields, which risks long-term damage to the fields,” AEI’s Annika Ganzeveld told the New York Post. A worst-case scenario doesn’t only imperil Iran’s economy, but also threatens to put more upward pressure on global energy prices. Analysts differ on how much time Iran has before a forced shutdown of production  — with estimates ranging from mere days to seven weeks. 

TankerTrackers.com on Sunday reported that Iran has loaded roughly 4.6 million barrels of oil at its terminals, without specifying the time-frame in which the feat had occurred. The outlet said another 4 million barrels have somehow evaded the US blockade. That volume of oil buys a few more precious days of storage capacity, the Wall Street Journal says. 

BREAKING: IRAN LOADS 4.6 MILLION BARRELS AT CRUDE OIL TERMINALS

ADDITIONAL FOUR MILLION BARRELS APPEAR TO HAVE EXFILTRATED US BLOCKADE LINE

— TankerTrackers.com, Inc. (@TankerTrackers) April 26, 2026

Meanwhile, citing claims made by the secretary-general of the Iran Shipping Association, FARS reported that “Iran’s maritime trade flow has not stopped, and ships are reaching ports by crossing the blockade.” The report also said the bolstering of alternative routes — including northern ports on the Caspian Sea and rail links to China and central Asia — had also buffered the country’s “economic resilience.” 

Iranian Leadership Divided On Deal Terms

Iran’s leadership is reportedly split on how flexible they should be on nuclear terms of a deal. Last year, at the encouragement of Israel and pro-Israel forces inside the United States, the Trump administration had adopted a maximalist position demanding that Israel agree to never again enrich nuclear material, even to levels far below weapon-grade. 

For many observers, this was seen as a demand that Israel knew Iran would never consent to, ensuring the all-out US-Israel war on Iran that Prime Minister Netanyahu himself admitted he had “yearned to do for 40 years.” It’s been the long-running conclusion of the US intelligence community that Iran has not been developing a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu has been warning of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon for 34 years — since 1992.  

Donald Trump has been repeating the same claims Benjamin Netanyahu has pushed for over 30 years:

“Iran is very close to obtaining nuclear weapons” – often framed as “a few months” or even “a few weeks.”

For 30 years, the same pretext – and Iran still without nuclear weapons. pic.twitter.com/pagRS2hQ0I

— Mr. Whale (@CryptoWhale) April 15, 2026

* * *