Authored by Sylvia Xu via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Dr. Mehmet Oz launched a federal investigation into New York’s Medicaid program on March 3, citing the unusual spending trend in the state.

“Heart surgeons are trained to look at the numbers. When something doesn’t add up, you don’t ignore it; you investigate,” Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and a former heart surgeon, said in a video posted on X.

“Right now, the numbers coming out of New York’s Medicaid program don’t add up,” he said.

New York far outspends other states on its Medicaid program, both on a statewide and per beneficiary basis, according to Oz’s letter to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul.

Numbers

New York’s Medicaid program spends more than $90 billion a year, the second-highest total in the nation, Oz said. That’s roughly 10 percent of the nation’s $900 billion in Medicaid spending for 2024.

New York’s average spending on each beneficiary is more than $12,500, which is 36 percent higher than the national average. The state’s per-resident spending is the highest in the country, nearly 80 percent higher than the national average.

As of January, about one-third of New Yorkers—6.7 million individuals—have enrolled in Medicaid.

That is nearly 14 percentage points higher than the national average of 20 percent Medicaid enrollment, according to November data from the federal government.

“That alone demands scrutiny, but it gets worse,” Oz said in the video.

In addition to New York’s Medicaid enrollment size, Oz cited the workforce delivering long-term care, particularly home-based personal care services, as another driver of New York’s high Medicaid spending.

Between 2023 and 2024, 38 percent of job growth in New York was from the home health and personal care aide category.

“Now, New York has turned this [Medicaid] program to help our most vulnerable into a massive jobs program reimbursed by federal taxpayers,” Oz said.

Personal care services include daily living assistance such as eating, bathing, and dressing. Patients need such services due to aging, chronic illness, or disability.

From 2023 through mid-2025, New York state provided personal care services for nearly 75 percent of its Medicaid enrollees at a cost of $45 billion.

In fiscal year 2024, the state’s Medicaid spending on personal care services was $18.5 billion, nearly 70 percent more than other states’ combined spending on this item, according to The Epoch Times’ analysis of open data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

“That level of utilization is unheard of,” said Oz.

New York state allowed problems such as being “easily distracted” to qualify for a personal care system, making personal care services the number one occupation in the state, Oz said.

Demand for Documentation

He said officials must send documents on how they handle fraud, waste, and abuse, or their federal payments will be put on hold.

“We ask hard questions; we expect an honest answer,” Oz said.

On March 4, Gov. Hochul said the Trump administration was targeting New York for political reasons. She added that she would “show them the facts” to prove them wrong and promised to help fight any actual fraud, according to The Associated Press.

The federal government temporarily deferred $259 million in Medicaid payments to Minnesota over alleged fraud on Feb. 25.

Oz said the money would be released after Minnesota proposes and acts on a “comprehensive corrective action plan to solve the problem.”

Minnesota sued the federal government on March 2 to stop it from withholding funding. The state warned that freezing these funds could force cuts to medical care for low-income residents.

G-7 finance ministers are holding an emergency meeting on Monday morning to discuss options to cap skyrocketing energy prices, with Brent and WTI trading in triple-digit territory as the Middle East conflict threatens to unleash a global energy shock. As the U.S.-Iran conflict intensifies heading into the new week, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has warned of $200-a-barrel oil.

IRGC spokesman Ebrahim Zolfighari said on Monday that the U.S. has begun a new chapter in the conflict by targeting Iran’s energy infrastructure.

“If they can afford the price of oil at $200 per barrel, let them keep playing this game,” Zolfighari said in a video message posted by Al Jazeera on X.

“If they can afford the price of oil at $200 per barrel, let them keep playing this game.”

The spokesman for a wing of the IRGC, Ebrahim Zolfighari, says the US has opened a new chapter in the war by bombing Iran’s energy infrastructure. pic.twitter.com/UNy21beiAj

— Al Jazeera English (@AJEnglish) March 9, 2026

Over the weekend, Israeli strikes on major oil facilities around Tehran, combined with production shut-ins by major Gulf producers and IRGC retaliatory attacks on energy facilities across the Middle East, sparked panic in energy markets worldwide, with Brent crude briefly topping $119 per barrel in Asian trading.

On Friday, Goldman analyst Daan Struyven wrote four reasons why oil prices are moving higher:

• Shipping has stopped. We estimate that shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz are down 90% from normal, curtailing 18 mbpd from the global market (~18% of global oil).

• Pipeline pressures. We estimate only about 25% of the theoretical redirection of oil in the Middle East through pipelines is currently being achieved, partly due to physical disruptions. We estimate only ~0.9 mbpd are incrementally coming to market through Middle East pipeline initiatives.

• No quick shipping solutions. Our conversations highlight that most shippers are in a wait-and-see mode while physical risks in the SoH are high.

• Demand destruction may be necessary. With no supply relief in sight, oil prices may need to go to demand-destruction levels even more quickly than history and simple models focusing on Persian Gulf exports alone suggest.

Goldman’s Rich Privorotsky commented on the speculation of SPR dumps, indicating:

Such a release would buy time. If the disruption proves temporary, a coordinated SPR release makes sense. If the disruption persists for months, those reserves might arguably be more valuable at higher prices or in a more acute shortage.

Additionally, energy economist Anas Alhajji warned UBS analysts last week about SPR limitations:

“The impact of the U.S. SPR is limited. Saudi Arabia is completely out of the picture. All of that spare capacity in OPEC is out of the picture. So what do we do? We are then left relying on demand destruction to curb”

Related:

• JPMorgan’s New Hormuz Closure Math: Just 3 Days Until Commodity Chaos

What’s evident is that Operation Epic Fury, which initially focused on military, nuclear, missile, and IRGC sites, is now targeting economic high-value assets, with Iran’s Kharg Island now in focus (read). 

Via Modernity.news,

The Iran conflict has ignited a massive surge in demand for nuclear-proof bunkers across America, with even top Trump administration officials securing their own underground fortresses amid whispers of World War Three.

As The Telegraph reports, Ron Hubbard, owner of Atlas Survival Shelters, reports being “inundated with calls” since the conflict erupted, with enquiries spiking “tenfold.”

The Texas-based company, which builds everything from $20,000 basic shelters to multimillion-dollar compounds, is reaping a harvest from the heightened tensions.

Hubbard revealed that two senior Trump Cabinet members are new customers.

“One of them texted me yesterday, asking me: ‘When will my bunker be ready?’” he said.

These bunkers boast hardened steel construction, armoured blast doors, air purification systems, and luxuries like cinemas, pools, and gun ranges—designed to withstand drone strikes or worse.

Yet Hubbard is blunt about limits:

“No bunker in the world is designed to withstand a bunker buster from an American bomber. I’m sorry you just can’t make a bunker strong enough.”

He added: “If the Americans want you dead, you’re dead. I don’t think any bunker in the world can protect you from an American that wants to kill you.”

The boom extends globally, with Hubbard’s new Dubai office fielding urgent requests after Iranian missiles hit the city.

“They thought they’d never see bombs fall. But now [they’re getting the s— bombed out of them],” he noted of local clients.

Atlas averaged $2 million in monthly sales this year but expects $50 million next month.

“Bunker building is like being a farmer. When it’s time for harvest, you have to reap all you can,” Hubbard explained. “Now that they’ve been bombed, they’re all going to want shelters. It’s just a fact of life.”

Hubbard has built for tech moguls like Mark Zuckerberg and even Andrew Tate, underscoring how elites are hedging against chaos.

Oklo and Centrus Energy announced they have agreed to pursue a joint venture focused on deconversion services for high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) and the advancement of related fuel-cycle technologies and supply chains.

The JV would operate at Centrus’ Piketon site in Ohio, co-located with the existing enrichment facility and adjacent to Oklo’s planned 1.2 GW power campus. Centrus also recently started expansion efforts at their site and was awarded $900 million to support their HALEU project.

The language being used by company leadership to describe the goals of the JV points to their intentions of pursuing the establishment of a Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus (NLIC) in Ohio.

CEO and co-founder of Oklo Jacob DeWitte stated:

“This framework supports deeper discussions with Centrus on potential pathways to expand deconversion capacity, strengthen domestic supply chains, and advance a more efficient fuel-cycle model that operates from the same location.”

The NLIC program is a push by the DOE to incentivize state governments to host the various stages of the nuclear fuel chain within their borders. States like Texas, Tennessee, and Ohio are getting the message. Other anti-nuclear waste states like New Mexico and California will continue denying their residents the extra tax revenue and high paying job opportunities…

Deconversion transforms enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) into forms such as uranium metal or oxide suitable for fabricating fuel assemblies in next-generation reactors. A centralized facility could eliminate the need for individual developers to establish their own deconversion capabilities.

This announcement advances a longstanding partnership. The companies first collaborated via a 2021 letter of intent and expanded ties with a 2023 memorandum of understanding that included HALEU supply from Centrus, component manufacturing, power procurement from Oklo’s plants, and plans for deconversion and fuel fabrication.

As we have been pounding the table for months now, it seems like more companies are getting serious about finally addressing the shortcomings in the American nuclear fuel chain.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

In Rage and the Republic, I quote former Rep. Jaamal Bowman (D., N.Y.) as capturing the essence of an age of rage when a colleague asked him to stop yelling outside of the House floor. Bowman responded, “I was screaming before you interrupted me.”

Bowman’s statement came to mind this week when Democratic members were miffed when they were interrupted in tirades over war powers with questions about their prior support for unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. Leaders like Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Cal.) and Sen. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) struggled to explain their prior support for President Barack Obama in doing precisely that in Libya with embarrassing results.

The greatest face plant may have been Schiff’s appearance on “Real Time” with host Bill Maher.

After Schiff denounced any attack without prior congressional approval, Maher read “This statement from the administration: ‘The president had the constitutional authority to direct the use of military force because he could reasonably determine that such use of force was in the national interest.’”

He then asked Schiff, “That’s too vague for you?”

Schiff responded, “Totally vague…”

Mayer than dropped the H bomb: “Okay. Because that’s from Obama about Libya.”

🚨Bill Maher TRAPS Sen. Adam Schiff LIVE on air while U.S. strikes on the Middle East.

Schiff rips into the “vague” statement, convinced it’s from Trump… BUT FINDS OUT IT’S FROM OBAMA🤣

The double standard is glaring. 😂pic.twitter.com/qpQoOU4Hqn

— The Rubin Report (@RubinReportShow) March 9, 2026

The moment laid bare the towering hypocrisy of democrats who continued to support Obama after he attacked Libya without any suggested imminent threat to the United States and an open strategy of regime change.

I represented members of Congress opposing that war over the absence of a declaration of war; most of the senior Democrats today refused to join that litigation.

Pelosi is especially hypocritical on the issue.

She expressly declared that Obama did not need congressional authorization to launch unilateral attacks on Libya seeking regime change. She stated unequivocally that ”I’m satisfied that the president has the authority to go ahead. I say that as one very protective of Congressional prerogative and consultation all along the way.”

Reporters then followed up and pressed her if she really believed that a president could not only launch an unprovoked war but could also continue combat operations without congressional approval. Pelosi answered “yes.”

This week, she made a ham-fisted effort to spin the contradiction. She told the media that the Iran and Libyan wars are “two completely different things. They’re not at all alike.”

Pelosi added, “What Obama did was limited military force. This is beyond that. It was limited military force.” In signature fashion, she then struck out at pesky reporters asking about her past position: “Do your homework. Read the law. We have lost people in war already… I just think if you read the law, you will see the difference.”

While not challenged on the spin, it is historically and legally nonsensical.

The Libyan War was not limited. The Obama Administration attacked the capital city of a country that was posing no imminent threat to the United States. It also took out columns of Libyan military units. It did so with the overt strategy of producing regime change. Figures like then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supported the action, which led to years of violence and instability in the country.

More importantly, it is immaterial how the two major operations stack up. The question is whether a president can launch large-scale military operations against another country based on their inherent Article II powers. Both Obama and Trump maintained that they could do so and we lost the challenge to the Libyan War.

Moreover, while there are good-faith objections to the need for the attack, presidents have successfully claimed the right to initiate combat operations without congressional authorization.  That has boxed in Congress since the Jefferson administration.

Even though both Democratic and Republican presidents have questioned the constitutionality of the War Powers Act, Trump has actually complied with the requirements to notify and consult with Congress.  The law requires presidents to inform Congress within 48 hours if U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities and requires congressional authorization for engagements that last more than 60 days.

Moreover, both houses have now voted and rejected any limits on Trump’s authority to prosecute this war.

They are, of course, not alone in this hypocrisy.

In 2011,  Sen. Richard Blumenthal praised Obama’s unilateral attack on Libya as a “prudent, decisive action.” This year, he denounced Trump’s attack on Iran as a “unilateral action without accountability…engaging in a war of choice that rejects opportunities for diplomacy.”

These glaring contradictions mean little today in our post-truth political environment. These politicians know that their base does not care as long as they oppose Trump. The obvious misrepresentation of their positions in the past would ordinarily be viewed as raw contempt for the intelligence of the voters. However, they know their base and the license of rage. They also know that the media will not press particularly hard on their flip-flop.

It is that rage that is giving Democrats the courage to vote virtually unanimously to end all combat operations in the midst of an existential battle over Iran. It is the same assurance that is evident in continuing the government shutdown by denying funding to the Department of Homeland Security.

The vote not to fund Homeland Security during a fight with the leading state sponsor of terrorism may stand as the single most reckless, irresponsible vote since Congress authorized the payment of “tribute” to the Barbary Pirates.

The important thing is that, now that these members simply denied that there is any contradiction with their positions from prior Democratic Administrations, they can now avoid further interruptions in this rage rave.

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

Novo Nordisk confirmed Monday morning that its months-long GLP-1 feud with telehealth firm Hims & Hers Health has, at least for now, been put on ice, with the Danish drugmaker set to sell Wegovy and Ozempic through HIMS’ platform by the end of the month. The feud’s end was first reported by Bloomberg late Friday and has sparked a panic short squeeze in heavily shorted HIMS shares in New York premarket trading.

Bloomberg headlines crossed around 8:30 a.m. ET, stating that HIMS will no longer offer knockoff GLP-1 drugs on its telehealth platform and will instead offer NOVO’s GLP-1 shots and the Wegovy pill. In return, NOVO has withdrawn its patent infringement lawsuit against Hims.

“We see tremendous growth opportunities in the US with the expanding assortment of branded GLP-1 medications,” said HIMS CEO Andrew Dudum.

Dudum continued, “I’m excited to have a great partner in Novo Nordisk as we work to create a new model that works for everyday people. This collaboration reflects what’s possible globally when drugmakers, biotech companies, and diagnostic leaders partner with consumer platforms to support scaled distribution of their latest medical innovations.”

As we noted over the weekend, the move is very surprising because NOVO and HIMS have been locked in an epic GLP-1 feud for months. Just last month, Novo sued HIMS over a copycat Wegovy pill and patent infringement tied to Ozempic and Wegovy. Even the head of the FDA recently stated that telehealth firms were put on notice about copycat GLP-1s.

Leerink Partners analyst Michael Cherny told clients over the weekend that the NOVO and HIMS news via the Bloomberg report from Friday is a “surprise and an unabashed positive for Hims’ stock.”

And positive it is for the heavily shorted stock, with 39.1% of its float short, or 81 million shares.

HIMS shares are up 52% in premarket trading.

Novo shares in Copenhagen are marginally higher, as we believe both firms making amends was largely driven by investor pressure to halt year-to-date sharp stock losses at both companies.

Friends again. How long will this last? 

Asian and European equities traded lower, while U.S. equity futures fell 1% as Brent and WTI futures traded in triple-digit territory following the weekend escalation in Middle East tensions. The energy shock we have been warning about for the past week, citing top institutional desks from JPMorgan, UBS, Goldman, and others, is now staring G-7 leaders directly in the face as energy market panic erupts.

You know conditions are deteriorating very quickly when the Financial Times reports that G-7 finance ministers are set to hold an 8:30 a.m. New York time call to discuss a possible coordinated release of strategic oil reserves to combat runaway crude prices, as Brent crude hit $119/bbl overnight. Such a move to dump SPR on global markets shows just how afraid policymakers are that the oil shock could crush consumer sentiment and, in turn, hit economic growth.

There have been five coordinated SPR dumps onto the global market with the International Energy Agency. The last two occurred in 2022, in the early days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which sent energy prices through the roof. However, as we must note, dumping SPRs in 2022 did not work so well, and the market will likely look beyond current flows and focus on overall stockpiles being drained (read: here & here).

Hello @ENERGY it’s time to open the SPR

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 9, 2026

The scramble by G-7 leaders comes as Brent crude hit $119/bbl in Asia, up from about $72 before Operation Epic Fury kicked off more than a week ago, now in its second week. With the Strait of Hormuz effectively closed and Gulf producers cutting output as storage fills up, the worst-case scenario appears to be unfolding: an energy shock.

To cushion the shock, potentially bridging some of the supply gap of a short-term war (but definitely not a longer term or wider disruption) FT sources said world leaders could release 300 million to 400 million barrels, or about 25% to 30% of the 1.2 billion-barrel reserve.

Given the extreme moves, any announcement is likely to move prices (and indeed is already being somewhat discounted) but the question remain of whether that will actually impact the cost of pump prices in America (which are set to soar to $5 a gallon, however briefly, on a lagged response to WTI and RBOB price surges currently).

As Goldman’s Rich Privorotsky noted:

Such a release would buy time. If the disruption proves temporary, a coordinated SPR release makes sense. If the disruption persists for months, those reserves might arguably be more valuable at higher prices or in a more acute shortage 

WTI is down $20 from its overnight highs on the report of the coordinated SPR release…

Late last week, JPMorgan’s top commodity strategist, Natasha Kaneva, did the ‘Hormuz Math‘ and warned that production shut-ins were imminent – hence the weekend production cuts by major Gulf states and Brent crude spiking into triple-digit territory.

Additionally, energy economist Anas Alhajji warned UBS analysts last week about SPR limitations:

“The impact of the U.S. SPR is limited. Saudi Arabia is completely out of the picture. All of that spare capacity in OPEC is out of the picture. So what do we do? We are then left relying on demand destruction to curb prices. And because of the panic buying, prices would go above $100 easily in this scenario.”

Even if the conflict in the Middle East ended today, Alhajji explained that returning Gulf oil and gas production to a ‘normal state’ would take two months because of logistical and technical issues. This only implies that an energy shock has begun. Deutsche Bank warned in recent days that this was an “existential threat” to airlines, and next could very well be a shock to consumers. The only question now is whether the shock is big enough to cause a financial blow to countries that are among the largest importers of crude from the Gulf region, such as China and other Asian countries.

As geopolitical tensions in the Middle East have escalated into direct conflict involving Iran, the global energy market is once again reminded of its precarious dependence on critical chokepoints. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz slowed to a crawl amid threats and attacks, while QatarEnergy halted LNG production following strikes on its facilities.

Oil prices jumped…

*BRENT OIL SURGES 13% TO $82 A BARREL AT OPEN AFTER IRAN STRIKES https://t.co/yD07qFkNk4

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 1, 2026

…and European natural gas benchmarks surged by as much as 45-50% in a single day.

*EUROPE GAS PRICES SURGE 50% AFTER QATARI LNG PRODUCTION HALTS https://t.co/NZImdHqf6A

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 2, 2026

For economies reliant on imported fossil fuels, it’s a stark warning.

In contrast, nuclear power plants around the world continue to hum along largely unaffected, chugging steadily forward while fossil markets panic. With fuel assemblies stockpiled for one to two years or more of operation, nuclear facilities don’t rely on daily tanker shipments or volatile global supply chains. Their high capacity factors provide consistent baseload power regardless of weather, politics, or the status of distant straits. This resilience stands in sharp relief to the chaos in oil and LNG markets.

The current disruptions highlight nuclear energy’s unique advantages for energy security. Uranium fuel is compact and can be sourced from diverse, stable suppliers or even domestic reserves in many nations. Once loaded, a reactor operates independently of the geopolitical storms that buffet fossil fuel transport routes like the Strait of Hormuz, which handles roughly 20% of global oil and significant LNG volumes from Qatar.

Europe finds itself particularly exposed. The continent’s energy import dependency is already over 50%, with countries like Germany historically even higher. Decades of policy prioritizing renewables and phasing out nuclear power, epitomized by Germany’s failed Energiewende, left the region overly reliant on imported natural gas and LNG. After the loss of cheap Russian pipeline gas, Europe turned to seaborne LNG, much of which now faces indirect risks from Middle East instability. The irony is hard to miss: nations that shuttered reliable nuclear plants in the name of safety and green ideals are now scrambling as fossil fuel prices soar, contributing to industrial strain and higher consumer costs.

France, by maintaining a robust nuclear fleet accounting for about 70% of its electricity, has enjoyed relatively greater stability and lower import dependence. Its experience suggests that a balanced energy mix with substantial nuclear baseload offers a buffer against external shocks. Even German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently acknowledged that the nuclear phase-out was a “severe strategic mistake,” underscoring the long-term costs of those earlier decisions.

Beyond security, nuclear power aligns with decarbonization goals. It produces low-carbon electricity at scale without the intermittency challenges of wind and solar. As demand surges from data centers, AI, and electrification, nations are eyeing a nuclear renaissance.

Of course, nuclear isn’t without challenges. High upfront costs, lengthy regulatory approvals, and lingering public concerns from past incidents require careful management. Waste disposal and proliferation risks demand ongoing attention. Yet, the technology’s track record for safety and reliability, combined with modern engineering, makes it a worthy path forward.

The latest events in Iran and the Gulf should serve as a catalyst for policy reevaluation. Governments would do well to streamline permitting for new reactors, invest in domestic fuel cycles, and educate the public on nuclear’s role in a secure, affordable, low-emission future. Short-term pain from energy price spikes may finally translate into long-term strategic gains if it accelerates the adoption of power sources immune to the whims of distant conflicts.
 

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said he will not seek reelection in his southern California district, which had been redrawn to favor Democrats in last year’s redistricting.

On March 6, the longtime congressman announced, shortly after the candidate filing deadline passed, that he would retire at the end of his term.

“This decision has been on my mind for a while, and I didn’t make it lightly,” Issa said in a statement announcing the end of his reelection bid.

Issa said he had built a strong campaign operation, enjoyed broad support, and believed polling showed he could win. But after roughly a quarter-century in Congress and another quarter-century in business, he said it was time “for a new chapter and new challenges.”

“First, we built the right campaign infrastructure, support has been overwhelming—including from President [Donald] Trump—and our polling was unmistakable: We would win this race. But after a quarter-century in Congress—and before that, a quarter-century in business—it’s the right time for a new chapter and new challenges.”

Issa endorsed San Diego County Supervisor Jim Desmond, a fellow Republican, to succeed him. Desmond filed paperwork on the morning of March 6 amid uncertainty over whether Issa might be dropping out of the race.

“He understands this community, was born and raised here, and will make a terrific Congressman,” Issa said of Desmond.

A former Army officer and tech entrepreneur, Issa was first elected to a San Diego-area House seat in 2000. He chaired the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee from 2011 to 2014, overseeing high-profile investigations during the Obama administration, including probes into the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, and “Operation Fast and Furious,” where ATF agents allowed illegal gun purchases in an effort to map Mexican cartel networks but lost track of many of the weapons.

Issa left Congress in 2018 after Trump, then in his first term, nominated him to head the U.S. Trade and Development Agency. Although his nomination never advanced in the Senate, he mounted a successful comeback in 2020, winning a seat that had remained safely Republican until the latest remapping shifted the partisan balance of his 48th District.

After the lines shifted, Issa briefly floated the idea of running in Texas, but later said he would stay, declaring he “wasn’t quitting on California.”

Several Democrats are already in the race for the now-bluer 48th District, including San Diego City Council member Marni von Wilpert and Navy veteran Ammar Campa-Najjar, and Democrats quickly framed Issa’s decision as a sign the seat is ripe for a flip.

“Issa abandoning his voters now is the clearest sign yet that Republicans know he can’t win,” Anna Elsasser, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement. “Any Republican who tries to parachute into this race with the same extreme agenda will face the same fate.”

Republicans, meanwhile, praised Issa’s tenure and said they expect to remain competitive in the district even as the party defends a narrow House majority. Republicans currently hold a 218–214 edge in the chamber, with vacancies.

“We are grateful for Congressman Darrell Issa’s decades of dedicated service to the people of California and our nation,” a spokesperson for the National Republican Congressional Committee said in a statement to The Epoch Times. “We are optimistic that this district will continue to be represented by a Republican.”

Issa’s announcement capped a day of California election shake-up. Rep. Kevin Kiley, a two-term Republican, on March 6 filed to run in the 6th District as “no party preference,” citing frustration with congressional “hyper-partisanship” and gerrymandering.

“It is no secret I’ve been frustrated, at times disgusted, by the hyper-partisanship in Congress,” he said in a statement.

“In the last year, it’s led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, a massive increase in healthcare costs, and, of course, a pointless redistricting war. The epidemic of gerrymandering has spread from Texas to California to states all across the country. Both parties are complicit.”

India has really been walking a careful geopolitical tight-rope, wanting keep relations on good terms with the Trump administration, but also wanting to defend its energy sovereignty and decision-making.

On Saturday the government issued a somewhat surprisingly feisty statement, in terms of its tone, after the United States just granted a sanctions waiver that allows for Russian oil shipments currently stranded at sea to be unloaded to Indian buyers.

India’s Press Information Bureau wants the world to know New Delhi was never dependent on “a short-term waiver” to buy Russian oil.

This is clearly a bit of a loud brush-off to Washington, and Moscow is certainly going to welcome it:

“India has never depended on permission from any country to buy Russian oil,” the government said in a statement.

And further, as the AFP also reports, the New Delhi statement reminded the West: “India is still importing Russian oil even in February 2026, and Russia is still India’s largest crude oil supplier.”

Meanwhile in Washington US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has clearly indicated the Trump administration is considering lifting sanctions on more Russian oil. 

As a reminder of the initial huge Thurs-Fri complete U-turn, coming months after Trump slapped tariffs on Indian goods in a bid to pressure Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to abandon energy purchases from Russia, which of course India never did…

“To enable oil to keep flowing into the global market, the Treasury Department is issuing a temporary 30-day waiver to allow Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil,” US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a post on X. “This deliberately short-term measure will not provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government as it only authorizes transactions involving oil already stranded at sea.”

Since China gets ​about 45% of its oil from the Strait, should Iran agree to allowing Chinese ships through, and should Russia be able to fully supply India’s needs, and if Saudi Arabia can reroute as much as 7 million bbl/d from the gulf to Yangbu via the East-West pipeline, as we touched upon earlier…and suddenly the Hormuz blockade will seem far less ominous, as most of the oil blocked finds alternative ways to continue on its way to its final destination.