Construction on the planned $16 billion rail tunnel under the Hudson River could halt again within two to three months unless federal funding resumes, the project’s developer warned last week, according to Bloomberg.

The project, led by the Gateway Development Commission, would build a new rail tunnel linking New Jersey and Manhattan for Amtrak and New Jersey Transit trains. It would also allow rehabilitation of the existing tunnel, which opened in 1910 and is in urgent need of repairs. Gateway says the broader project would expand rail capacity between the two states and generate about $19.6 billion in economic activity.

Funding for the project has been in dispute for months. The US Department of Transportation has withheld funds since October, prompting Gateway to sue last month to force the release of the money. New York and New Jersey filed a similar lawsuit.

Bloomberg writes that some payments resumed after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to release reimbursement funds the agency had requested. Since the ruling last month, Gateway has received about $254 million. The federal government had suspended payments while reviewing whether the project complied with a new administration policy banning contracting requirements tied to race or gender.

Still, Gateway officials say the funding interruptions threaten construction progress. A previous stoppage between Feb. 6 and Feb. 22 temporarily laid off about 1,000 construction workers and added “million of dollars in additional costs,” Gateway chief financial officer Pat McCoy said in a court filing.

“We will have no choice but to stop work again if the federal government does not continue to disburse the funds that are committed to the project,” Gateway Chief Executive Officer Tom Prendergast said in a statement Tuesday. “This project is too important to delay. That’s why we’re doing everything possible to regain consistent and predictable access to all our federal funding so we can keep our workers on the job and deliver the reliable, modern rail transit Americans deserve.”

Congress has already approved funding for the project, including $11 billion in federal support and $4 billion in loans to be repaid by New York, New Jersey and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. Amtrak is expected to contribute another $1 billion.

Authored by Anthony Watts via ClimateRealism.com,

In The New York Times (NYT) article “Is Climate Change Making Inflation Worse?,” writer Lydia DePillis suggests that extreme weather linked to global warming is quietly raising the price of everyday goods like food, electricity, and insurance.

The framing is, at best, misleading and, at worst, flat-out false. Inflation is a monetary phenomenon driven by fiscal policy, central banking decisions, supply-chain disruptions, and energy policy choices — there is no evidence climate change has altered in a way that impacts any of those factors. The NYT erroneously substitutes weather anecdotes and speculative projections for demonstrated economic causation. However, since instances of extreme weather haven’t become more frequent or severe in recent decades, climate change can’t be causing “inflationary” impacts.

The NYT opens by asserting that there is “mounting evidence that extreme weather is making some everyday stuff more expensive.” That claim is presented as a settled fact. It’s not. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) assigns low confidence to global increases in most types of extreme weather and emphasizes regional variability. The IPCC AR6 does not claim that extreme weather trends are uniformly intensifying in a way that would systematically impact global inflation.

The NYT then turns to food prices, citing drought in Eastern Europe and China, coffee impacts in Brazil, and ranchers culling cattle. Agricultural output, however, fluctuates every year due to natural variability. Long-term production data in the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization’s FAOSTAT database, shown in the figure below, illustrate that global grain production has generally trended upward, amid modest warming and the recent claims of the “three hottest years ever” from 2022 to 2025.

Commodity markets automatically adjust; when one region underperforms, trade reallocates supply. The NYT acknowledges that tariffs and export controls can amplify price spikes. That is policy-driven inflation, not climate-driven inflation.

When discussing energy, the article points to grid repairs and increased electricity demand during heat waves. U.S. electricity prices have risen sharply in recent years, but that’s not due to a changing climate but rather is primarily due to fuel mix changes, regulatory mandates, and grid reliability challenges tied to rapid renewables integration driven by climate policies. It’s not climate change, but climate policies that have driven higher energy prices. Historical pricing data available through the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) electricity database show that price increases correlate more closely with political decisions that cause fuel supply volatility and shifts to expensive, intermittent, wind, solar, and battery storage power rather than with long-term temperature trends.

The NYT also cites a study projecting that weather-related disruptions could raise electricity infrastructure costs by as much as 25 percent toward the end of the century. That is a modeling projection, not an observed cost trend. The United States has already experienced roughly 1°C of warming since the late nineteenth century, yet official inflation tracking in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Price Index database attributes recent inflation primarily to pandemic-era stimulus, supply chain disruptions, and energy price shocks, not temperature changes.

The article presents insurance costs as the clearest climate-related inflation driver. But insurance markets respond more to litigation environments, construction costs, regulatory frameworks, and development patterns in high-risk areas. Long-term normalized hurricane damage trends discussed at Climate at a Glance Hurricanes  show no upward trajectory after population growth and coastal development are accounted for. The same is true for rising wildfire costs. They are due to shifting policies on public lands and increased development in areas historically prone to wildfires, not significant changes in the climate in those regions. Indeed, acreage lost to wildfires has declined significantly over the past two decades. Rising premiums reflect higher rebuilding costs and denser development in vulnerable zones, not necessarily stronger storms.

The article pegs global warming’s impact at “between $400 and $900 per person annually,” but concedes the wide range stems from difficulty separating weather variability from climate change. That uncertainty is not incidental, it is central. Without a clear attribution chain linking long-term warming trends to persistent price acceleration in specific sectors, the NYT claim remains purely speculative; it’s not just that there is no causal link, there isn’t even a correlation between experienced weather trends and inflation related price increases.

The NYT further notes that U.S. commodity crops like corn, soybeans, wheat, and rice “have been less affected by shifting weather patterns.” Those crops form the backbone of global calorie supply. If staple production remains broadly stable, sweeping claims about climate-driven food inflation collapse.

Finally, the article cites mitigation policies, such as emissions trading systems and regulatory mandates, as contributors to rising prices. That is not climate inflation. That is climate policy inflation. When governments impose carbon pricing, trade barriers, or compliance costs, consumers pay more by design. Conflating the cost of political decisions supposedly designed to fight climate change with the cost of climate change itself obscures the true driver.

Inflation over the past five years has been historically elevated across advanced economies, driven primarily by unprecedented fiscal stimulus, monetary expansion, pandemic supply disruptions, and geopolitical energy shocks. None of those are climate variables. Economic research consistently identifies monetary policy as the dominant long-term determinant of inflation.

Weather variability can affect specific commodity prices in specific years. That has always been true. Droughts affected grain markets in the 1930s. Hurricanes disrupted supply chains in the twentieth century, yet sustained inflation requires sustained monetary imbalance.

The New York Times frames climate change as an emerging inflationary force poised to accelerate, but observational economic record refutes any such economy-wide climate-driven inflation trend. Weather anecdotes, modeling projections, and policy cost provide no proof of climate-driven inflation. Inflation is fundamentally a monetary and policy phenomenon. Blaming it on the weather may make compelling click-bait copy, but it does not withstand economic scrutiny.

Authored by Julio Rivera via American Greatness,

Washington has discovered a familiar political trick: wrap a flawed policy in the language of protecting children and hope nobody reads the fine print. The latest example is the App Store Accountability Act, a bill championed by lawmakers who appear eager to regulate the internet without understanding how it actually works.

Supporters insist the legislation will protect kids online. In reality, it risks undermining privacy, violating constitutional protections, and creating a cybersecurity disaster in the process.

And remarkably, Congress is pushing forward with this even though federal courts have already signaled that this exact regulatory model is unconstitutional.

The App Store Accountability Act would require app stores to verify the ages of every user and share age information with app developers. On paper, that sounds straightforward. In practice, it would force companies to collect massive amounts of sensitive personal data simply to download everyday apps.

Want to download a weather app? Verify your age.

Want to install a calculator? Verify your age.

Want to read the news? Verify your age.

The practical result is obvious: app stores would be compelled to gather highly sensitive identity data on tens of millions of Americans and then distribute that information to countless third-party developers.

This could be one of the largest digital identity honeypots ever conceived.

Security experts have been warning about this for months. In fact, 419 cybersecurity and privacy academics from 30 countries recently signed an open letter warning that large-scale age verification systems are “dangerous and socially unacceptable” because they create enormous new attack surfaces for hackers and data thieves.

The logic is simple. If every app download requires age verification, that means sensitive identity data must be stored, transmitted, and accessed across thousands of services. Instead of limiting the spread of personal information, the bill effectively multiplies it.

For cybercriminals, it would be a dream target.

Equally troubling is the bill’s blatant disregard for recent federal court rulings. Lawmakers promoting the legislation often claim that age-verification mandates have already received judicial approval.

That claim collapses under even basic scrutiny.

Just months ago, a federal judge blocked a nearly identical Texas law modeled on the same concept, ruling that it was “exceedingly overbroad” and failed strict constitutional scrutiny.

The court compared the requirement to a government mandate forcing bookstores to check the ID of every customer before allowing them inside. Such a system, the judge explained, would restrict minors from participating in the “democratic exchange of views online.”

In other words, it violates the First Amendment.

Despite that ruling, Congress now appears ready to repeat the same mistake on a national scale.

Supporters of the bill, including lawmakers like Representatives John James (R-MI), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), and Erin Houchin (R-IN), argue that forcing app stores to verify the age of every user will protect children online. But critics warn the approach risks creating new privacy and security problems while doing little to address the real harms children face on the internet.

Additionally, the proposal ignores the practical realities of how the modern app ecosystem actually functions.

Most apps are not social media platforms. They are mundane tools: banking apps, airline apps, school apps, fitness trackers, weather alerts, home security dashboards, and so forth. The App Store Accountability Act would force age verification for all of them.

Even worse, the bill requires verification across four distinct age brackets: under 13, 13 to 15, 16 to 17, and adults. That may sound bureaucratically tidy, but in the real world, it creates a massive liability problem for app stores.

If a company guesses wrong about whether someone is 12 or 13, it could face penalties from federal regulators. The only way to avoid that risk is to demand hard identification, such as driver’s licenses, credit cards, or even birth certificates to prove parental relationships.

That is the inevitable outcome of the bill’s legal structure.

And millions of Americans do not even possess the required credentials. More than 45 million Americans are either credit unserved or underserved, meaning the law could effectively force them to hand over government IDs simply to download basic apps.

Ironically, many parents do not even support this approach. Surveys show parents overwhelmingly prefer tools that protect children while they use apps rather than a one-time age verification at the app store level.

In other words, the bill creates a massive bureaucracy that fails to solve the problem it claims to address.

More importantly, it distracts from real solutions that actually help protect kids online.

Digital literacy education, stronger parental control tools, and targeted enforcement against platforms that knowingly facilitate exploitation are all more effective approaches. These strategies address harmful behavior without building a nationwide surveillance system for internet users.

The App Store Accountability Act does the opposite. It places the burden on every user, every developer, and every app store while doing little to target the bad actors responsible for real harm.

That is why critics from across the technology and cybersecurity communities are raising alarms. The legislation threatens to create new privacy risks while inviting years of constitutional litigation that will likely end with the law being blocked in court.

If lawmakers truly want to protect children online, they should start by listening to experts instead of rushing through legislation that ignores both legal precedent and technical reality.

Unfortunately, Washington often prefers symbolic victories to workable solutions.

The App Store Accountability Act is a perfect example of what happens when lawmakers regulate technology they clearly do not understand. It risks undermining privacy, weakening cybersecurity, and violating free speech rights all at the same time.

And if Congress insists on passing it anyway, the courts will almost certainly remind them why the Constitution still matters.

Yet another rich guy is fleeing their Democrat-controlled state over a new wealth tax. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, a huge liberal himself, announced that he’s moving from Washington state to Miami, Florida – hours after state lawmakers advanced a tax bill targeting residents earning over $1 million per year. 

Schultz, 72, who bought the company in 1987 and built it into the globally recognized chain it is today, made the announcement in a Tuesday LinkedIn post – writing that he and his wife Sheri were moving to Florida “for our next adventure together.” 

“We have moved to Miami for our next adventure together. We are enjoying the sunshine of South Florida and its allure to our kids on the East Coast as they raise families of their own,” he wrote. 

Under the new wealth tax, SB 6346, people making over $1 million per year would pay a $9.9% tax on income above that threshold starting in 2029. A final vote could come as early as today in the state Senate, after which it would go to Gov. Bob Ferguson’s desk where he says he plans to sign it. 

Schultz’s announcement came hours after the Washington state House passed the so-called Millionaire’s tax after more than a day of debate. The new wealth tax, which will raise an estimated $4 billion per year, will be used to cut other taxes and expand the Working Families Tax Credit to an estimated 460,000 households (until of course a flood of high-earners leave the state). The measure passed in the Democrat-controlled house by 51-46 after a debate which exceeded 24 hours. 

Schultz, whose net worth is estimated by Forbes a $4.3 billion, went on to praise Pacific Northwesterners who helped build Starbucks into a worldwide brand – saying that it is their “hope that Washington will remain a place for business and entrepreneurship to thrive.” 

Of course, he didn’t mention that Seattle has become a cesspool, with open-air drug markets and soft-on-crime leadership that’s done virtually nothing to stem the homeless crisis and fentanyl epidemic. 

Starbucks headquarters will remain in Seattle, however the company announced earlier this month that it will be expanding its corporate footprint to Nashville, Tennessee as the company moves to expand its presence in the Southeast. Like Florida, Tennessee taxes are far more favorable for rich people, and in many cases, corporations. 

“The Millionaires’ Tax passed by the House represents historic progress in rebalancing our unfair system. It sends significant dollars back to Washington families and small businesses,” Gov. Ferguson said on X. 

The Millionaires’ Tax passed by the House represents historic progress in rebalancing our unfair system.

It sends significant dollars back to Washington families and small businesses.

It expands the Working Families Tax Credit to 460,000 additional households – that’s money…

— Governor Bob Ferguson (@GovBobFerguson) March 11, 2026

Authored by Ron Paul,

President Trump’s unconstitutional and unjust war against Iran is setting back his “affordability” agenda. The war has caused a big rise in gasoline prices. Among the related concerns is the hindering of the movement of oil through the Strait of Hormuz, the only available passage for ships to transport oil from the Persian Gulf.

The increased costs will do more than raise prices at the pump. An increase in gas prices brings increased transportation costs that will be passed along to consumers. Prices of a variety of goods, including food, will increase.

No wonder Energy Secretary Chris Wright, White House Chief of Staff Susan Wiles, and other Trump administration officials are frantically working to develop policies to lower gas prices. One possibility under consideration is deploying US troops to try to ensure ships can pass through the Strait of Hormuz. This could turn into a permanent deployment of US troops.

According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the US government is spending about 891.4 million dollars a day on the Iran War. These costs are likely to increase as the war drags on and the US increases its military presence, possibly even putting boots on the ground in Iran.

According to numerous media reports, the Trump administration is preparing a 50 billion dollars “supplemental” funding request for the Iran War. This request will soon be sent to Congress. This funding would be added on top of the defense budget.

The supplemental bill is likely to pass with overwhelming bipartisan support. The Trump administration’s 50 billion dollars price tag is a floor, not a ceiling. Senators and Representatives will seek to add their spending priorities to this “must pass” legislation, while corporate lobbyists are no doubt already preparing “wish lists” to present to lawmakers.

The costs of the Iran War will further increase the already over 38 trillion dollars and rising national debt.

The rate of increases will be greater as long as the government is spending almost a billion dollars a day, or more, on a regime change war in Iran.

The costs of this war will put added pressure on the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates low and increase its purchase of Treasury bonds in order to monetize the federal debt. The pressure on the Fed will also increase as other countries reduce their purchase of US debt. These reductions will be motivated by concerns over the economic instability caused by the US government’s out of control spending and by resentment over the US government’s hyperinterventionist foreign policy. These factors could also accelerate the increasing rejection of the dollar’s world reserve currency status. A loss of the reserve currency status will cause a dollar crisis, leading to an economic crash worse than the Great Depression.

This crash will likely result in the end of the welfare-warfare-fiat money system. Whether this system is replaced by an even more authoritarian one or by a system of limited government and much more freedom depends on whether those of us who know the truth do our best to spread the message that the key to peace and prosperity is a system of free markets, limited government, individual liberty, and peaceful relations and free trade with all nations.

Saudi Arabia is in discussions with a Ukrainian counter-drone firm to acquire low-cost interceptor drones designed to counter inexpensive IRGC kamikaze drones. The cost-exchange ratio remains highly unfavorable for the U.S. and its Gulf partners, who are using multimillion-dollar interceptor missiles against $20,000 drones. If the conflict drags on for months, the risk of depleting critical interceptor missile stockpiles will become a major problem, not just in the Gulf area but also on the Ukrainian battlefront.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Saudi Arabia is preparing to purchase a “large order” of interceptor drones and electronic warfare equipment from Ukraine. This report is based on sources and has yet to be confirmed.

The unfavorable kill-exchange ratio for the Saudis – eliminating a $20,000 IRGC drone with a +$2 million missile – is quickly straining defense budgets and supplies. A cheaper approach is to use Ukrainian interceptors that have been battle-tested in Eastern Europe for several years.

Other Gulf countries, including Qatar, are also examining the use of cheap Ukrainian drones. The U.S. has already deployed Ukraine-tested Merops interceptors to U.S. forces in the Gulf region.

Last week, a Financial Times report stated that U.S. officials were negotiating a purchase of interceptors to counter IRGC drones. This comes as supplies are dwindling and costs are soaring after nearly 12 days of conflict.

“They have missiles for the Patriots, but hundreds or thousands of Shaheds cannot be intercepted with Patriot missiles. It is too costly,” Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy said in an interview last week.

Operation Epic Fury has heavily relied on Patriot PAC-3, SM-3 Block IIA, SM-6, and THAAD interceptors, with limited supplies. Lockheed Martin is the top manufacturer of PAC-3 and THAAD missiles, while RTX produces the SM series and Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Heads of U.S. defense firms recently met with President Trump at the White House. The CEOs agreed to quadruple bomb production.

One Ukrainian defense firm, SkyFall, said its P1-SUN interceptor drone has shot down 1,500 Shahed drones and an additional 1,000 unmanned aerial vehicles over the past four months in Eastern Europe. It stated it can produce up to 50,000 interceptor drones per month and export between 5,000 and 10,000 units to the Middle East.

Ukraine has spent the last four years in a hyperdevelopment phase of wartime tech that now appears ready to be exported to the highest bidder, as global conflict spreads to multiple fronts.

Our latest observations:

• AI’ Kill Chains’ And Rise Of Skynet-Like Weapons Offer Glimpse Of 2030s Battlefield

The Russia-Ukraine war has offered an early look at what 2030s warfare will likely resemble: drones, war bots, AI kill chains, etc. That future has clearly been pulled forward. The more important point now is that this wartime tech is no longer confined to Eastern Europe and is set to spread to Middle Eastern battlefields, where it will be sold to the highest bidder.

Authored by Kenin M. Spivak via RealClearPolitics,

California’s elected Democrats can’t move beyond pandering. Gov. Gavin Newsom is fixated on reparations for African Americans, and the legislature’s Democratic Party majority is once again trying to divide Californians by race, sex, and gender orientation.

In 1996, California stunned the nation when 55% of voters approved Proposition 209, which amended the state’s constitution to prohibit public institutions from considering race, sex or ethnicity in employment, contracting, and education. Ten years later, the United States Supreme Court confirmed its right to do so.

As the state moved further left, in 2019, the Democratic controlled legislature placed Proposition 16 on the ballot to repeal Proposition 209. That effort failed in 2020 when more than 57% of voters rejected it, despite widespread support of elected officials and opponents being outspent nearly 20 to 1.

Undeterred, in 2020, the legislature enacted laws that required California-headquartered public companies to include up to three directors who “self-identify” as women and up to an additional three directors from “underrepresented communities.” In 2022, California state judges enjoined that social engineering for violating due process under California’s constitution. California lost its appeals.

Also in 2020, Newsom signed into law a requirement that the state develop reparations proposals for black Californians. In 2022, he issued an executive order directing all state agencies to reorder their missions and hiring practices “to advance equity” while also establishing a commission to develop policies based on the reparations proposals. Among dozens of preferences, it recommended payments exceeding $1 million for each descendant of slaves, as well as housing assistance, guaranteed wages, racially segregated education, and overturning Proposition 209. Earlier this year, Newsom established a bureau to develop programs to implement the commission’s report.

Inevitably, those programs will violate the California and U.S. constitutions. At a USC Dornsife event last week, a panel of recently retired top Democrat officials acknowledged that the state could not afford reparations and that it would be far more productive for it to focus on improving academic and vocational education.

In 2021, Newsom signed into law AB 101, making California the first state to require ethnic studies for all high school students. The California Department of Education issued a Mathematics Framework that rejected “natural gifts and talents,” called for de-emphasizing calculus, ended classes for gifted children to eliminate “inequity,” and directed teachers to move away from focusing on correct methods or answers. After pushback from parents, the state abandoned the most extreme aspects of the Framework. But AB 101 took effect this school year, requiring a curriculum based on Critical Race Theory, with an emphasis on “equity” and “people of color.”

Following the Newsom commission’s report on reparations in 2023, the California Assembly passed Assembly Constitutional Amendment 7 to indirectly repeal most of Proposition 209 and allocate state funds to so-called marginalized minorities. Last month, the Assembly passed a modified version of ACA-7 that preserves race-based funding, and may still repeal some of the other protections accorded by Proposition 209. The California Senate is now considering that legislation.

If ACA-7 is enacted by the legislature, it will be placed on the ballot in November.

Reparations based on race are unconstitutional. More insidious, compelling middle class and poor families to subsidize affluent students is contrary to the principles of most Americans of every race, gender identification, and economic strata. Countless polls over many years show that Americans overwhelmingly oppose using affirmative action and DEI in hiring, admissions, promotions, and contracting. Only progressive activists believe otherwise.

In a 2016 Gallup poll, a 2019 Pew survey, and a 2021 College Plus survey, about 70% opposed the use of race and ethnicity in admissions decisions, including about two-thirds of Latinos and a majority of blacks. In a January 2024 CRC survey of 1,600 registered voters, 66% disapproved of relying on race, sex, or gender identity for hiring or promotion. The results were similar among men, women, Republicans, Democrats, independents, conservatives, and moderates. Even liberals disapproved by a margin of 54% to 34%.

In a July 2024 survey of 2,100 likely voters by the Manhattan Institute, respondents across the partisan spectrum rejected race-conscious policies. Just 21% (including 36% of Democrats, 35% of Latinos, and 37% of blacks) agreed that “We should focus on creating a race-conscious society to repair the harms of the past by developing policies that benefit marginalized groups.” Majorities across all demographic groups agreed that “We should focus on creating a color-blind society where everyone is treated equally regardless of the color of their skin.”

A survey of 3,262 voters after the last presidential election conducted by Blueprint, a polling organization that helps Democrats, found that 67% of swing voters who chose Trump viewed Democrats as “too focused on identity politics.”

In 1860, there were 395,216 slave owners in the 15 states that permitted slavery and none in the other 18 states. In total, about 5% to 6% of all U.S. households owned slaves. Today, most blacks are at least middle class, live in diverse suburbs, and pursue the same careers as do people of other races.

When California was admitted in 1850, slavery was prohibited. No Californian has ever participated in America’s ugly legacy of slavery – whether as a slave, slave trader, or slave owner. None of their grandparents did. Very few of their great-great-great-grandparents did. More than a quarter of the state’s population is foreign-born. That means California’s elected Democrats are asking recent immigrants to subsidize the children of affluent, educated black Americans.

In a 2019 Associated Press-NORC poll, just 29% of Americans favored the payment of cash reparations to descendants of black slaves. In 2024, a Princeton University-Liberations poll found 36% approval for some form of reparations. A 2022 Rasmussen poll and a 2025 YouGov poll had similar results. Even a quarter of blacks oppose reparations. A search found no polls in which any meaningful percentage of Americans favor reparations to blacks who are not direct descendants of slaves.

Polls aside, the 14th Amendment prohibits governments from allocating benefits based on protected class, most notably race. Eliminating discrimination means eliminating all of it.

With a Republican leading the polls for the next governor of California, and many California Democrats opposed to reparations and racial pandering, more far-left virtue signaling is unlikely to benefit Democratic candidates. DEI and reparations deprive blacks of agency, penalize Americans with no connection to slavery, and represent racial politics at its worst.

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including RealClearPolitics, The American Mind, National Review, television, radio, and podcasts.

One week after Trump announced that the US would cover insurance for ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, and would provide them with US navy escorts, Reuters reports that the US Navy has refused near-daily requests from the shipping industry for military escorts through the Strait of Hormuz since ​the start of the war on Iran, saying the risk of attacks is too high for now.

The U.S. Navy has held regular ⁠briefings with shipping and oil industry counterparts and has said during those briefings it is unable to provide escorts for the time being, three unnamed shipping industry sources told Reuters. They added that the shipping industry has been making requests almost daily during the calls for naval ​escorts through the strait. One of the sources said the Navy’s assessment during Tuesday’s briefing had not changed and that escorts would only be possible once the risk of attack was reduced, which judging by images like the one below of a container ship in the Gulf today won’t happen any time soon.

Insane image from the bridge of a container ship arriving at the Port of Salalh in Oman earlier today, as flames engulf multiple port facilities and oil tanks at the MINA Petroleum Facility, resulting from several impacts by one-way attack drones launched by Iran. pic.twitter.com/ePFkxNpOEf

— OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) March 11, 2026

The ‌Navy’s assessments spell continued disruption to Middle East oil exports and reflect a stark divergence from President Donald Trump’s statements that the U.S. is prepared to provide naval escorts whenever needed to restart regular shipments along the key waterway.

Shipping along the narrow strait has all but halted since the start of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran more than a week ago, preventing exports of around a fifth of the world’s oil supply ​and sending global oil prices surging to highs not seen since 2022. Some ships – mostly Iranian VLCCs and Chinese tankers carrying embargoed products – have resumed transits with Iran vowing it would only attack western-linked ships, we reported earlier.

The status quo may soon change, however: on Tuesday General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the US military has started looking at options to potentially escort ships through the strait, should it be ‌ordered to do ⁠so. “We’re looking at a range of options there,” Caine told reporters at the Pentagon.

A U.S. official told Reuters the U.S. military has not yet escorted any commercial ships through the strait. Earlier in the day, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright deleted a post on X in which he said the Navy had successfully escorted one through.

While there have been some voyages through the waterway in recent days, the majority of shipping traffic remains on hold with hundreds of ships ​anchored.

Meanwhile, Trump has said repeatedly in recent days that the United States is prepared to escort tankers through the Strait of Hormuz when necessary.

“When the time comes, ​the U.S. Navy and its partners will escort tankers through the strait, if needed. I hope it’s not going to be needed, but if it’s needed, we’ll escort them ​right through,” he said on Monday during a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

For its part, Iran remains adamant: a senior official with Iran’s Revolutionary Guards has said the strait is closed and Iran will ​fire on any ship trying to pass, Iranian media reported last week. Several ships have already been hit.

Indeed, earlier in the day, a Thai ship attempting to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, the bulk carrier Mayuree Naree, was struck by projectiles while travelling about 18km north of Oman.

Images released show black smoke coming from a Thai cargo ship near the Strait of Hormuz after it was reportedly struck by an Iranian projectile.

Authorities say it is one of three commercial vessels that were targeted on Wednesday, and several crew members are missing. pic.twitter.com/6yL9U2WOw2

— Al Jazeera Breaking News (@AJENews) March 11, 2026

Never afraid of wading neck-deep in irony, just a few hours after photos of the latest ship to be attacked in the SoH circled the globe, Trump said “you can see great safety in the Strait of Hormuz“, when asked how he’s going to ensure the safety of oil following through it. 

When asked by a reporter if Iran laid mines in the Strait of Hormuz, “we don’t think so,” President Trump replied, all signs to the contrary. 

Amid escalating U.S.-Israel military strikes against Iran, a separate battle is brewing on Capitol Hill over President Donald Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh to chair the Federal Reserve, according to CNBC.

The key obstacle is Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who announced last year that he would not seek re-election one day after voting against advancing the president’s signature legislation, the “Big Beautiful Bill.”

Tillis has pledged to withhold support for any Federal Reserve nominees, including Warsh, until a criminal investigation into Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s handling of the Federal Reserve’s $2.5 billion renovation is resolved. Powell has denied any wrongdoing.

“No, no,” Tillis reportedly said when asked if Warsh could say anything during their scheduled meeting later that day to shift the senator’s stance on blocking his nomination.

“This is not about people, it’s about process,” the North Carolina Republican added. “I think this is a foul.”

Following the meeting, Tillis told reporters he would vote against advancing Warsh’s nomination out of the Senate Banking Committee if the Powell investigation remains unresolved by then.

“This is about [the] bedrock principle of Fed independence,”Tillis said. “The reason why I came out so strong so early is I believe that we, I, have no earthly idea what the market reaction would have been if suddenly the perception is that the Fed chair serves at the pleasure of the President, right?”

Of course, Tillis is simply shielding Powell – the architect of the everything-bubble and dollar debasement – from a long over due probe into waste and potential perjury. In other words ‘you can’t fire this guy until you’ve fully investigated him’ – effectively delaying or preventing accountability for Powell in a practical sense while preserving the status quo at the fed. 

Despite Tillis’s opposition to advancing Warsh’s nomination, the senator said he was “impressed” with Warsh, signalling that he would support Trump’s Fed pick if the Powell probe went away.

“I’ve known of his work for quite some time, and that’s why I’m so frustrated that I’m not going to be able to cast a vote until we dispose of the other issues,” Tillis said.

Tillis also took aim at the firing of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, calling it “sophomoric.”

“We had seven members of the Banking Committee who were witnesses at the alleged scene of the crime who said no crime was committed,” the retiring lawmaker said. “Why are we even still having this discussion and holding up a great nominee?” Tillis asked.

“I think it goes back to a young U.S. attorney with a dream, with a bogus basis for an investigation,” he added. “They need to acknowledge that and step away from it so we can get him confirmed.”

“Whoever came up with that idea should be fired, too,” the senator said.

U.S. law enforcement agencies in California were recently warned that Iran may have explored the possibility of launching drone attacks against targets on the West Coast in retaliation for Operation Epic Fury, according to a federal alert reviewed by ABC News.

The bulletin, circulated by the FBI to police departments in late February, said authorities obtained information indicating that, as of early February 2026, Iran had allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack using kamikaze drones launched from an unidentified vessel off the U.S. coast. The potential targets were described only as unspecified locations in California.

“We recently acquired information that as of early February 2026, Iran allegedly aspired to conduct a surprise attack using unmanned aerial vehicles from an unidentified vessel off the coast of the United States homeland, specifically against unspecified targets in California, in the event that the US conducted strikes against Iran,” the alert said, adding that investigators have “no additional information on the timing, method, target, or perpetrators of this alleged attack.”

The warning was issued amid the ongoing US-Israeli military assault against Iran. Tehran has responded with drone strikes against targets across the Middle East, raising concerns among U.S. officials about possible retaliation beyond the region.

A spokesperson for the FBI’s Los Angeles field office declined to comment on the alert. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The question is what exactly was the information obtained in early February that prompted the FBI to release a bulletin by late in the month. 

We should note that on Feb. 3, we highlighted a threat assessment published by the Russian military-focused Telegram channel Rybar, which warned that potential Russian drones in Cuba could put critical oil and gas infrastructure in the Gulf of America, as well as data centers and military installations across the homeland, within range of these cheap, low-cost kamikaze drones.

Around that same time, we also warned that the explosion in AI data center buildouts would require next-generation counter-drone security, including kinetic interceptors. The Gulf states quickly learned during Iran’s retaliatory strikes that data centers and other civilian infrastructure were very much in play.

Separately, U.S. intelligence officials have also been monitoring the growing use of drones by Mexican drug cartels and the potential for such technology to be used against U.S. personnel along the southern border. A September 2025 intelligence bulletin reviewed by ABC News said an uncorroborated report suggested unidentified cartel leaders had authorized attacks using drones carrying explosives against U.S. law enforcement and military personnel near the border.

The document noted that such an attack inside the United States would be unprecedented, though it described the scenario as plausible. It also cautioned that cartels generally avoid actions that could trigger significant retaliation from U.S. authorities.

John Cohen, an ABC News contributor and former acting undersecretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, said the possibility of drone-based threats emerging from both the Pacific and Mexico is a growing concern for security officials.

“We know Iran has an extensive presence in Mexico and South America, they have relationships, they have the drones and now they have the incentive to conduct attacks,” Cohen said. “The FBI is smart for putting this warning out so that state and locals can be better able to prepare and respond to these types of threats. Information like this is critically important for law enforcement.”

The FBI alert did not specify how a vessel carrying attack drones could approach the U.S. mainland without detection. However, intelligence officials have long worried that equipment could be pre-positioned either on land or aboard ships at sea for use in the event of military strikes by the U.S. or Israel against Iran.