Update (1240ET): Odds are not looking good for President Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, as two conservative justices now seem skeptical amid today’s oral arguments. 

As journalist Eric Daugherty notes on X, “SCOTUS Justice John Roberts is VERY skeptical of President Trump ending birthright citizenship, repeatedly firing back at Trump’s top lawyer,” noting that Roberts paid no mind when US Solicitor General John Sauer brought up the fact that China has 500 birth tourism companies that bring people to the US to have children. 

“That has no impact on the legal analysis…it’s a new world, it’s the same Constitution,” said Roberts.

🚨 JUST IN: SCOTUS Justice John Roberts is VERY skeptical of President Trump ending birthright citizenship, repeatedly firing back at Trump’s top lawyer

This would mean we require Amy Coney Barrett for a shot at 5-4.

SAUER: China has 500 birth tourism companies to bring people… pic.twitter.com/3nB3KtIBUd

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 1, 2026

And as Daughterty notes, “This would mean we require Amy Coney Barrett for a shot at 5-4.”

Except… Barrett is skeptical too:

🚨 BREAKING: SCOTUS Justice Amy Coney Barrett now appears skeptical of striking down birthright citizenship for illegals

“I can imagine it being messy in some applications.”

“What if you don’t know who the parents are?”pic.twitter.com/wGsti2tivu

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 1, 2026

Polymarket participants were all over this early in the day – with odds of the SCOTUS ruling against Trump spiking to 75% – and now 95%. 

My oh my. 

*  *  *

Update (0950ET): President Trump dropped by the Supreme Court on Wednesday for oral arguments in the high-profile Trump v. Barbara challenging his executive order restricting birthright citizenship – making him the first sitting US president to attend Supreme Court oral arguments. 

BREAKING

President Trump has just arrived at the Supreme Court as the Justices hear oral arguments in the Birthright Citizenship case. pic.twitter.com/gc1jUdclki

— Conservative Brief (@ConservBrief) April 1, 2026

The stop was on Trump’s official schedule sent out by the White House, which Trump announced on Tuesday.

🚨 BREAKING: President Trump said he is GOING to the Supreme Court when they hear the birthright citizenship case tomorrow

Wow!

This could truly be THE most important case in modern US history—and 47’s taking it seriously

No more anchor babies! pic.twitter.com/e5BZZzk0ws

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) March 31, 2026

The line has already formed outside of the Supreme Court for Wednesday’s oral arguments in Trump v. Barbara, which will determine the legality of Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship. People at the front of the line told me they got here yesterday. pic.twitter.com/OnXAWzhKsz

— amanda moore 🐢 (@noturtlesoup17) March 31, 2026

* * *

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Supreme Court on April 1 will consider whether President Donald Trump’s executive order excluding the children of illegal immigrants and legal temporary visitors from automatic birthright citizenship is constitutional.

Trump, who has frequently used the term “anchor babies” to refer to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents, issued Executive Order 14160 on Jan. 20, 2025, in hopes of ending the practice. His order, which is about to be considered by the justices, was blocked by lower courts.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in the government’s petition that automatic citizenship “operates as a powerful incentive for illegal migration,” presents national security concerns, and “has spawned an industry of modern ‘birth tourism,’ by which foreigners travel to the United States solely for the purpose of giving birth here and obtaining citizenship for their children.”

About 8 percent of all births in the United States in 2023 were to illegal immigrants and legal temporary visitors.

The Center for Immigration Studies estimated in February 2025 that in 2023, up to 250,000 babies were born to illegal immigrants, and about 70,000 babies were born to legal temporary visitors. Slightly under 4 million births took place in the United States in 2023, the Centers for Disease Control estimated.

Landmark Precedent

Since the Supreme Court’s landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the federal government has recognized that almost all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens at birth.

Wong was born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese parents who were legally residing permanently in the United States. Because his parents were not serving in a diplomatic or official capacity for the then-Emperor of China, the court held that he was a U.S. citizen by birth.

Trump’s executive order uses a different interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

The order said that, even though the clause adopted in 1868 “rightly repudiated” Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which misconstrued the Constitution to exclude people of African descent from citizenship based on race, it was never interpreted to bestow citizenship on everyone born in the United States.

The amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship individuals who were born in the United States but not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” said the order, adding that Section 1401 of Title 8 of U.S. Code, enacted in 1952, which generally mirrors the 14th Amendment, did the same.

The order states that “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

According to the order, an individual born in the United States is not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” if that person’s mother was unlawfully present in the country and the individual’s father was not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident at the time of the person’s birth.

Trump said on March 30 that the country’s current birthright citizenship policy was created to grant citizenship to freed slaves and their children, not to children born to temporary visitors.

Opposing Positions

A federal district court in New Hampshire temporarily blocked the executive order, finding it likely contradicts the 14th Amendment, Supreme Court precedent, and Section 1401.

The federal government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, but did not wait for a ruling, and asked the Supreme Court to intervene. In the meantime, the appeals court upheld a preliminary injunction blocking the executive order in a separate case.

The high court granted the government’s petition in Trump v. Barbara on Dec. 5, 2025. Sauer said in the petition that the executive order restores the clause’s original meaning which was “to grant citizenship to newly freed slaves and their children—not to those of temporary visitors or illegal aliens.”

The government argues that the citizenship clause and Section 1401, which reinforces it, do not give citizenship to children of temporary visitors or illegal immigrants.

The text of the clause, its history, and the way it was originally understood, and Supreme Court rulings, agree with the idea that the clause applies to children who are “completely subject” to the “political jurisdiction” of the United States, which means they owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to this country and may claim its protection.

The court held in Wong Kim Ark that children of citizens, as well as those with “‘a permanent domicile and residence in the United States,’ meet that criterion,” according to the petition.

Historical evidence supports the idea that citizenship does not extend to children of parents who were temporarily present in the country “for health, or occasional business.”

During congressional debates over the 14th Amendment, lawmakers said the clause would not give citizenship to anyone “born here of parents from abroad temporarily in this country,” the petition said.

Wong Kim Ark recognized that the clause guarantees citizenship not just to children of U.S. citizens, but also to children of aliens “enjoying a permanent domicil [sic] and residence” in the United States.

Those challenging the executive order argue that Wong Kim Ark was correctly interpreted by the high court to “specifically foreclose the government’s parental domicile argument.” The president’s executive order violates both the clause and Section 1401 by attempting to add a parental status requirement, they say.

The court’s analysis of the clause found that foreign nationals temporarily present in the country for “business or pleasure” are “‘amenable to the jurisdiction of the country.’”

While ambassadors may be immune from jurisdiction and are treated as if present in their home countries, “there is no such fiction for ordinary foreign nationals” present in the United States who are “completely subject to its jurisdiction,” they said in a brief.

Exempting foreign nationals from U.S. jurisdiction would be “inconvenient and dangerous to society, and would subject the laws to continual infraction, and the government to degradation,” the brief says, quoting Wong Kim Ark.

What Does the ‘Subject’ Phrase Mean?

How the justices rule may turn on what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the citizenship clause means.

Michael O’Neill, legal affairs vice president at Landmark Legal Foundation, said the order correctly interprets the phrase.

Evidence shows “the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment intended it to apply to political jurisdiction, rather than territorial jurisdiction,” O’Neill told The Epoch Times.

“Mere presence” isn’t enough, he said. “You need to owe some political allegiance to the United States of America in order for you to have birthright citizenship today.”

Chris Hajec, deputy counsel at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, suggested the executive order was “95 percent” constitutional but went too far in excluding the children of temporary workers on visas and foreign students.

Surely, children of people who have resided here for years while working or attending school would be citizens, he told The Epoch Times.

David Super, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, suggested the executive order overreached.

Someone born at a foreign embassy would not be subject to U.S. power under international treaties concerning diplomats, “but everyone else is subject to U.S. power whether they acknowledge it or not,” Super told The Epoch Times.

Jim Burling, senior legal counsel at Pacific Legal Foundation, said the government has a “really huge burden.”

The actual text makes it “clear that if you’re born here, you’re subject to the jurisdiction, and pretty much everybody here is,” he told The Epoch Times.

Illegal immigration wasn’t a public concern when the clause was adopted, but nowadays, supporters of the executive order are putting a “historical gloss on the interpretation of a constitutional provision based on future history,” Burling said.

In a blistering exclusive interview with The Telegraph, President Trump has declared he is “strongly considering” pulling the United States out of NATO, branding the 77-year-old alliance a “paper tiger” after European allies – including the UK under Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer – refused to join America’s military campaign against Iran or help reopen the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump told the newspaper the decision was now “beyond reconsideration,” adding: “I was never swayed by Nato. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.” He singled out Britain, mocking its naval capabilities and Starmer’s green-energy focus: “You don’t even have a navy. You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work… All Starmer wants is costly windmills that are driving your energy prices through the roof.”

The row erupted after Iran effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz – through which 20 per cent of the world’s oil flows – in response to US-Israeli strikes launched on February 28. Allies have been reluctant to deploy warships, prompting Trump to accuse NATO of operating a “one-way street.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the president on Fox News, warning that America would have to “re-examine” its NATO membership once the Iran conflict ends. “If Nato is just about us defending Europe if they’re attacked, but them denying us basing rights when we need them, that’s not a very good arrangement,” Rubio said. Trump later told The Telegraph he was “glad” Rubio had spoken out.

Starmer Fires Back: “This Is Not Our War”

Starmer moved quickly to reaffirm Britain’s commitment to NATO while drawing a firm line on the Iran conflict. “This is not our war, and we’re not going to get dragged into it,” he told The Telegraph, describing the alliance as “the single most effective military alliance the world has ever seen.” He signalled a pivot toward closer European cooperation “whatever the noise” from Washington.

Absolute humiliation for the White House. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer publicly brushes off Donald Trump’s threats to leave NATO. He explicitly states that despite massive pressure from Washington, Britain will never be dragged into this disastrous war on Iran. pic.twitter.com/vkniEBVSW5

— Furkan Gözükara (@FurkanGozukara) April 1, 2026

The UK’s military vulnerabilities have only added fuel to the fire. On Tuesday, the First Sea Lord admitted the Royal Navy was not ready for war. Four of Britain’s six destroyers were out of service at the conflict’s start, forcing London to borrow a German warship to meet NATO obligations in the North Atlantic.

Any formal US withdrawal would require Congressional approval under 2023 legislation co-sponsored by Rubio himself. However, experts note Trump could still gut American participation by pulling troops, bases, and command support – effectively hollowing out the alliance without a full exit.

Trump is expected to deliver a national address on Wednesday evening outlining the Iran war’s status and, according to Reuters sources, to voice further disgust at NATO’s lack of reciprocity.

As oil prices spiral and recession fears mount, the standoff over the Strait of Hormuz has exposed raw fractures in the Western alliance. Whether Trump’s latest broadside is negotiation theatre or the beginning of America’s strategic retreat from Europe remains to be seen — but the “paper tiger” label has already left its mark.

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon appeared on Fox & Friends on Tuesday, covering everything from artificial intelligence to the economy to the continuing exodus from radical-left blue states. More notably, he offered his views on the U.S.-Iran war, which this week entered its fifth week and has remained at the center of the news cycle.

Dimon was first asked about the energy shock from the US-Iran conflict and whether surging fuel prices would impact the American economy.

“Look the markets are unpredictable and it’s hard to for me to tell you exactly what,” Dimon said of a potential impact.

“But I think they’re just looking at, is there a chance something can go wrong now? We should all hope nothing goes wrong. We should all hope that … we win this thing and clean up the straits and that Iran is no longer a threat to everybody. The markets will be concerned until it’s over.”

Dimon added, “It’s much more important that this be successfully completed than what the market does.”

He noted, “Yes, I hear people say they were not an imminent threat. But these people have been engaged in violent acts for 47 years, killing people, killing Americans, and funding Hamas. Several Americans were killed on October 7. They have fought proxy wars and threatened people. A ballistic missile can travel 3,000 miles. These are bad people who needed to be stopped. I do not know what the military and the president know, but we have to finish this thing and finish it right.” 

Layered on top of Dimon’s comments yesterday is a broader geopolitical framework laid out earlier this month by Zoltan Pozsar of Ex Uno Plures.

In Pozsar’s view, the Trump administration is “methodically building a portfolio of assets” from Venezuela to the Panama Canal to Iran’s oil flows and the Strait of Hormuz, a strategy aimed at reasserting American dominance, securing the empire for years to come, and tightening the screws on Beijing after last year’s rare earths stunt.

Over the weekend, both Emirates Global Aluminum (EGA) – the largest aluminum producers in the Gulf – and Aluminium Bahrain (ALBA) reported drone attacks damaging smelting facilities after hits on Iranian steel infrastructure last week.

Neither company (at the time) confirmed whether supply will be impacted, but this morning the worst case appears to be confirmed with Reuters reporting that according to a Wednesday note by consultancy Wood Mackenzie “EGA’s Al Taweelah facility in the United Arab Emirates halted operations after an Iranian missile and drone attack on Saturday damaged a power plant.” A subsequent report from Bloomberg confirmed the report, writing that “Emirates Global Aluminium, the Middle East’s top producer of the metal, halted operations at its Al Taweelah smelter after the site was struck by Iranian missiles and drones over the weekend, according to a person familiar with the matter.“

At the same time, the smelter belonging to Aluminium Bahrain – Alba – which was also targeted on Saturday, “sustained significant damages and is expected to operate at an estimated utilisation of 30 percent”, Wood Mackenzie said.

“The ongoing Middle East conflict is triggering a critical supply crisis in the global aluminium market, with disruptions potentially removing 3 to 3.5 million tonnes of output in 2026,” Wood Mackenzie said. For context, the world produced just under 74 million tonnes of primary aluminum last year.

Wood Mackenzie’s press office said its information was sourced from the consultancy’s contacts in the Middle East, but declined to provide further details. 

As a reminder, the aluminum smelter in Al Taweelah, in the emirate of Abu Dhabi, has a capacity of roughly 1.5 million metric tonnes per year, and an alumina refinery. Alba’s capacity of 1.6 million tonnes per year in Bahrain makes it the world’s biggest single-site aluminium smelter. The Middle East as a whole produces about 9% of global supply, with EGA and others playing a key role in supplying manufacturers across Europe, Asia and the US. Even before the industry was directly targeted, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz had already left the region’s major producers short of critical inputs, with the sector anticipating a cascading wave of production cuts unless the strait reopens soon.

As Goldman commodity specialist James McGeoch writes, it’s “hard to think of a bigger metal supply shock: High degree of expectation this was where it was heading, but the initial reaction was to fade the uncertainty yesterday, that should be replaced by fresh length if history is a guide.”

This is how the Goldman trader does the math on lost output:

Lost ALBA 1mm + EGA 1.6mm + Qatalam 0.3mm  + Mozal 0.6mm = 3.5m on a 74mt mkt = 4.7% impact to supply, and 7.7% of ex china supply

Balance this with Oil price demand destruction ~1mm, assume China overproduce and ship 500k – need to price demand destruction to balance ~2mt (inventory we see at ~1.5mt but majority of that is China link).

McGeoch says that in light of the shut downs, some traders have been eyeballing a significant surge in the aluminum price to $4500 (15% premium to LME for China is a clear starting point).

• The Goldman trader also writes that if the report is accurate, the market will first draw LME stocks, which is hard as not everyone can take Russian units, both regionally and financially.
• Second, market needs to solve for the China export tax.
• Third, it will be important to see China ramp supply, which means you have to convince them its a good use of power allocations.  

Aluminum futures on the London Metal Exchange have surged since the strikes, with LME Aluminum trading up 50% from a year ago, and if production remains shuttered, it will likely move notably higher.

Summary

• UAE mulls becoming first Gulf country to directly joint US-Israeli war against Iran, lobbies for firm UNSC security resolution.

• Trump to Reuters: will be “out of Iran pretty quickly” and could return for “spot hits” if needed. Also says he’s open to exiting ‘paper tiger’ NATO after Iran war is over, angry over lack of help in Hormuz crisis.

• Oil tanker leased to QatarEnergy was struck by an Iranian cruise missile in Qatari waters Wednesday.

• IRGC has newly vowed to keep attacking with “full intensity and power” – suggesting this is far from over, as ceasefire talks remain theater lacking in much substance. Ayatollah praises Hezbollah in written statement.

*  *  *

Preparing American Public for an Exit?

President Trump has issued new words to Reuters on his highly anticipated speech tonight (9pm ET):

The United States will be “out of Iran pretty quickly” and could return for “spot hits” if needed, President Donald Trump tells Reuters, hours before he was scheduled to make a primetime address to the nation.

Trump also says he would state in the speech that he is considering withdrawing the US from the NATO alliance.

There’s expected to be heavy focus on chastising NATO. If this is indeed the Bush-style ‘mission accomplished’ moment, it may be that he’s ready to blame Western allies for the closure of the Hormuz Strait – a problem which didn’t exist before Operation Epic Fury.

Trump: Iran President has Asked for Ceasefire

President Trump on Truth Social has claimed the US has been directly asked for ceasefire; however, he coupled this with the typical threat of bombing Iran “back to the Stone Ages!!!” Here’s what he said:

Iran’s New Regime President, much less Radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE! We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!! President DJT

And yet the Hormuz question lingers, after just yesterday Trump strangely said the vital energy shipping waterway would “automatically open”. Oil prices initially dumped on the Trump message, and quickly rebounded – perhaps based on the latter part of Trump’s statement. A lot would have to happen – for one Washington is likely to require that Tehran giving up charging a some $2 million fee for tankers to make safe passage. Oil unimpressed…

First Gulf Country to Directly Join War?

The small but wealthy country of United Arab Emirates appears to be edging toward open confrontation, with Arab officials saying it is preparing to join the US and allied powers in forcibly reopening the Strait of Hormuz after absorbing Iranian strikes. If so, the move would mark the first time a Persian Gulf state formally enters the conflict as a combatant. Behind the scenes Abu Dhabi is reportedly pushing hard at the UN, lobbying for a Security Council resolution to legitimize military action, while simultaneously urging Washington and its European and Asian partners to assemble a coalition willing to act, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

At the same time, the UAE is quietly assessing what it can bring to the fight, from mine-clearing operations to broader logistical and naval support aimed at securing the vital shipping lane. But the ambitions don’t stop there, amid an opportunity to settle old grievances and a territory dispute. Gulf sources say the Emiratis are also floating a far more aggressive idea: that the US should seize key islands in the waterway, including Abu Musa – held by Iran for decades but claimed by the UAE.

However, the fine print is important here…

Headline: The UAE is “ready to join the fight” to open Strait of Hormuz!

Article text: The UAE would like to put American troops in harm’s way while Emiratis provide “support services.” https://t.co/loAwKtQGdm pic.twitter.com/WLy2OHClDp

— Eli Clifton (@EliClifton) April 1, 2026

Trump Mulls NATO Exit

In an interview with The Telegraph newspaper, the president described the alliance as “paper tiger” and, when asked if he would reconsider American membership in the bloc, Trump responded: “Oh yes, I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration.”

“I was never swayed by NATO. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way,” he said, in the remarks published Wednesday. He’s of course angry at refusal of allies to join a military campaign to force back open the Strait of Hormuz.

“Beyond not being there, it was actually hard to believe. And I didn’t do a big sale. I just said, ‘Hey’, you know, I didn’t insist too much. I just think it should be automatic,” he continued. “We’ve been there automatically, including Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t our problem. It was a test, and we were there for them, and we would always have been there for them. They weren’t there for us.”

And here’s what Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Al Jazeera on Monday: “If NATO is just about us defending Europe if they’re attacked but then denying us basing rights when we need them, that’s not a very good arrangement. That’s a hard one to stay engaged in and say this is good for the United States.  So all of that is going to have to be reexamined.”

Oil Tanker in Qatari Waters Struck; Kuwait Airport Hit Again

A tanker leased to QatarEnergy was struck by an Iranian cruise missile in Qatari waters on Wednesday, in another escalation spilling directly into critical energy corridors. According to Qatar’s defense ministry, three missiles were launched from Iran, with two intercepted but the third slamming into the Aqua 1 fuel oil tanker. While there were no casualties and damage remained above the waterline, the hit came just 17 nautical miles off Ras Laffan, home to the world’s largest gas facility, as Reuters has detailed. Bloomberg has noted, “Since the start of the war in Iran, UKMTO has reported 16 attacks on vessels operating in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman.”

Elsewhere, Kuwait reported a “large fire” at fuel tanks near its international airport following another Iranian strike. This marks the seventh time of the war that the international travel hub was hit, and the last time it took emergency crews well over two days to put out the fires.

The Pentagon continues moving thousands of Marines, Special Forces, and Airborne troops into the region. This is not enough for a full ground invasion force, but could be preparation for a campaign to cut Iran from its strategic islands, such as oil export hub Kharg Island…

As I said here during this term, whenever Trump builds up forces in a region, it leads to escalation despite whatever conflicting statements he makes. Right now, we’re seeing a buildup for ground ops targeting Iranian islands, and I still believe we’re moving in that direction. https://t.co/lzjb6aKBYk

— Dave DeCamp (@DecampDave) April 1, 2026

Meanwhile, diplomacy continues to look like theater. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he has “no faith” in talks with Washington, confirming that while messages have been exchanged – but that “no negotiations are under way.” On the battlefield, Iran’s IRGC claims its latest barrage – spanning more than 100 heavy missiles, attack drones, and roughly 200 smaller rockets – hit targets across Israel and US military positions in the Gulf. Installations in Bahrain and Kuwait have also been hit, the group said, claiming that US helicopter was destroyed. The IRGC has newly vowed to keep attacking with “full intensity and power” – suggesting this is far from over.

Ayatollah Breaks Silence with Message Praising Hezbollah

The new, younger Ayatollah Khamenei – who may have been wounded in the early days of US-Israeli strikes, hasn’t been seen in any public way, not even on TV, throughout the war. There have not so much as been any official recent images of him circulated.

But Mojtaba Khamenei has apparently been issuing some limited written statements, mainly encouraging foreign proxies in their joining the war against US and Israeli forces in the region. State media has indicated he’s not making public appearances given the ongoing relentless bombing campaign and the Islamic Republic’s wartime footing.

The 56-year old Khamenei has on Wednesday praised Hezbollah for joining the war against Israel. Hezbollah has been launching hundreds of rockets on northern and central Israel, amid an emerging ground campaign in southern Lebanon, also as Israel bombs Beirut from the air. In the new words carried by Iranian state media, he praised Hezbollah for its “perseverance, steadfastness and patience” against “the most ruthless enemies of the Islamic world.”

Crypto bros and those of you with ‘creative’ accountants, heads up – the IRS is beefing up its ability to flag accounts for audits. Not only is this the first year that major US-based custodial crypto brokers are reporting gross proceeds to the agency, the IRS is getting aggressive elsewhere. Last year they paid Palantir $1.8 million to identify cases for audits, collections, and potential criminal investigations with a high probability of success. The contract was the latest in over $200 million the IRS has paid Palantir since 2014. 

According to documents obtained by WIRED, the new tool – called the Selection and Analytic Platform (SNAP) – is designed to help IRS staff analyze unstructured data from the agency’s existing internal databases. The goal is to more efficiently identify “high-value” targets amid the IRS’s fragmented legacy systems, which include over 100 business systems and 700 case-selection methods built up over decades.

The pilot is currently focused on areas like Residential Clean Energy Credits, disaster-zone tax relief claims, and gift tax returns. It also helps extract key details from supporting documents, such as contracts, vendors, and related records, to flag potential fraud or underreporting more efficiently. Importantly, SNAP works only with the IRS’s existing internal data – it doesn’t (yet) pull in fresh external feeds like social media or third-party apps.

Those who may get SNAPped up for an audit include;

• People or businesses with big clean energy credit claims (especially if documentation is weak, inflated, or mismatched with other IRS records)
• Individuals who filed disaster relief deductions/credits that appear suspicious
• High-net-worth individuals making large gifts that may trigger gift tax issues

In broader terms, anyone whose filings show high potential recovery value (big underreported income, large credits/deductions, or patterns the IRS flags as risky) could be surfaced faster once SNAP is fully operational. The tool aims to replace inefficient, fragmented manual processes with smarter, data-driven selection.

So why should crypto holders care?

Wired casually mentions that the IRS has experimented in the past with “contracting with companies like Coinbase to analyze information about crypto transactions” as one of several methods to improve audit targeting.

And look at this; they’re looking at mining social media posts.

Neuman has studied other methods the IRS has experimented with to improve its case selection process, including contracting with companies like Coinbase to analyze information about crypto transactions, and mining public social media posts for clues that an individual or business may be underreporting their income. 

Meanwhile, Gemini, Kraken, Binance, Coinbase, Robinhood, Crypto.com, PayPal, and Cash App are all reporting 2025 gross proceeds to the IRS starting this year via 1099-DA. 

And while this isn’t tied to this Palantir/SNAP project – the broader picture is clear: the IRS is aggressively upgrading its ability to spot underreporting and fraud. Crypto remains a high-priority area for the agency. Between the new 1099-DA reporting forms that Coinbase and other platforms are already sending to the IRS, ongoing blockchain analytics tools, and now a deeper partnership with Palantir’s data-crunching tech, the net is getting tighter and more sophisticated.

Bottom line for crypto users:

• Accurate record-keeping and proper tax reporting have never been more important.
• “It’s on-chain so they’ll never find it” is not a strategy anymore.
• The IRS is investing serious money in tools designed to surface the biggest potential recoveries — and crypto has long been on their radar.

In other words, get your house in order.  If you’ve been sloppy with cost basis, mixing personal and business wallets, or treating crypto like the Wild West, the combination of better data analytics and old-fashioned enforcement could make for a very expensive wake-up call.

Authored by Tamuz Itai via The Epoch Times,

There’s a pattern quietly reshaping daily life, work, and society itself. Economists now call it the “barbell economy.” Value, growth, and opportunity concentrate at the two extremes—ultra-cheap utility on one end, premium experience and status on the other—while the broad, reasonable middle thins out. Once you start noticing it, you can’t unsee it. And the data show it isn’t a fleeting trend.

Start with something as ordinary as dinner. Fast-food drive-throughs, delivery apps, and value menus deliver speed and rock-bottom prices with almost no human interaction. At the opposite pole, tasting menus and farm-to-table experiences turn meals into curated stories worth premium prices. The casual sit-down restaurant is struggling or closing—that reliable neighborhood spot that was neither rock-bottom cheap nor luxurious.

The same appears in travel. Airlines sell ultra-low fares for tighter seats but tack on fees for seat selection, bags, and boarding, while business- and first-class cabins keep expanding, with more space, better food, and priority service. Premium-cabin bookings on U.S. domestic flights have grown nearly three times faster than economy seats since 2020. Hotels follow suit: luxury and upper-upscale properties posted stronger revenue growth per available room (RevPAR) in early 2025 than midscale or economy tiers, where occupancy often hovers in the mid-50 percent range and room rates struggle to keep pace with inflation.

Even cars illustrate the point. The average new-vehicle transaction price hit roughly $49,353 in February 2026—up 3.4 percent from the prior year and near all-time highs. For many families, that means heavy debt, stretched budgets, or leaving the new-car market altogether. Some trade down to older or used vehicles; others finance their way into premium models. A reliable new car without major financial strain is becoming rare.

The pattern repeats across many sectors. In education, elite universities grow more expensive and selective, free online resources explode at the low end, and middle-tier institutions face rising costs alongside skepticism about value.

In the workplace, highly skilled, high-pay roles in tech, finance, and specialized fields expand at one pole; gig and service work grow at the other. Stable mid-skill, mid-income jobs have been under pressure for decades. Their share of employment fell from about 59 percent in 1983 to 45 percent by 2012, with high- and low-skill roles filling the gap—a trend that recent analyses tie directly to the barbell shift. Retail mirrors it: ultra-cheap, high-volume platforms on one side, luxury brands on the other, and many traditional mid-tier department stores and general retailers struggling to hold ground. Everywhere, it seems, the middle ground of reliability, reasonable quality, and fair pricing is becoming the hardest place to sustain.

Why the Middle Gets Squeezed

Some of the forces behind include several reinforcing dynamics. Technology drives costs down at the low end—through automation, digitization, and global scale—while amplifying differentiation at the high end, enabling personalized experiences, strong brands, and ecosystems that command premium prices. Globalization intensifies the pressure: mid-tier businesses now compete with both lower-cost producers abroad and globally scaled luxury players, forcing them to slash costs dramatically or move upmarket.

Markets themselves reward extremes. Massive scale wins on price; strong differentiation wins on margins. Being “solid and reliable” without either advantage leaves you exposed. Consumer psychology gravitates toward either “the cheapest thing that works” or “what feels worth it and represents me.” Mid-tier operators also face rising fixed costs—rent, labor, regulation, supply chains—without the efficiencies of giants or the pricing power of luxury brands. The math is getting tighter.

Why the Middle Still Matters

Historically, the middle wasn’t just a pricing tier. It was a stabilizing feature of society. A large middle class with stable work, enough income to build a life, and independence from both the state and the elite acted as an anchor. These people invested in communities, cared about long-term stability, participated in institutions, and generally worked within the system because they had a genuine stake in it.

When the middle thins, shared experiences shrink. Different groups consume, travel, learn, and even perceive reality differently. Social mobility feels less realistic. Trust in institutions erodes as more people feel the system no longer includes or needs them. Ancient to modern political thinkers have warned that societies dominated by extremes tend to be less stable.

What makes the pattern subtle—and hard to reverse—is that almost every individual decision makes sense. Companies cut costs or differentiate to survive. Consumers hunt for deals or splurge on what feels special. Governments open trade for growth. Investors seek returns. But cumulatively, they push supply and demand toward the extremes. It’s a classic case of local optima creating a suboptimal system-level outcome.

The Fork in the Road

If the middle continues to thin, and societies nevertheless wish to re-stabilize it, three broad paths are visible.

• One is passive stability through distribution—ideas such as universal basic income. It could cushion immediate hardship but risks weakening the historical link between contribution, purpose, and livelihood. Also, large-scale central planning has a poor track record of sustaining broad prosperity (e.g., socialism).

• A second path is a controlled middle class, common in centralized systems. People can still live comfortably, but their position depends more heavily on alignment with the state or institutions. This often limits the autonomy that made the traditional middle class a genuine stabilizer. We can see that in China today, under the CCP, where the middle class is not fulfilling its traditional role.

• The third—and most hopeful—path is actively rebuilding a productive middle. This means reindustrialization, stronger domestic supply chains, infrastructure investment, technical education, and new pathways that don’t require elite credentials. The goal is restoring roles in which a broad group of people create real economic value.

Lessons From History—and Today

The old debate of “more free market” versus “more state” often misses how some countries actually succeeded. South Korea in the 1950s was poor and war-torn. Under President Park Chung-hee, the government didn’t simply let markets run free or impose permanent control. It provided guided support—directing credit to key industries, investing heavily in infrastructure and education, and pushing exports—but tied that support to performance. Companies that failed to compete internationally lost backing. As industries matured and became globally competitive, the state gradually stepped back, allowing more market autonomy. Success came from smart sequencing: early coordination to build capacity, followed by increasing competition within a strengthening institutional framework.

We see initiatives of a similar breed today in the United States, where recent policies have aimed to reshore manufacturing, support strategic sectors such as semiconductors and energy, and rebuild domestic capacity.

These efforts represent attempts to reform a system that long optimized purely for efficiency.

Rebuilding—or thoughtfully reshaping—the middle will require understanding the forces at work and making deliberate choices about the kind of society we want the economy to support.

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

Update (0845ET): Minutes after we prepared this post, President Trump posted on his social media feed that Iran has asked for a ceasefire:

“Iran’s New Regime President, much less Radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE!”

Trump added that he will consider it if the Strait is opened… or else!

“We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!!“

Presumably this will be a topic of tonight’s address to the nation, but once again it takes two (or three) to TACO and until the Strait is open, all bets are still off.

*  *  *

President Donald Trump is scheduled to address the nation on April 1 to give an update on the military operation in Iran, according to the White House.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a post on X that the president will provide “an important update” about the ongoing war at 9 p.m. ET on Wednesday.

During a White House press conference on March 31, Trump indicated that the U.S. military may conclude its combat operations against Iran within weeks.

“I would say that within two weeks, maybe two weeks, maybe three. We’re hitting them very hard. Last night we knocked out tremendous amounts of missile-making facilities,” he told reporters.

“We’re finishing the job, and I think within, maybe two weeks, maybe a couple of days longer, to do the job. But we want to knock out every single thing they have.”

As The Epoch Times’ Aldgra Fredly reports, Trump said while there is a possibility of reaching a deal with Iran to end the military operations for Tehran’s surrender of its nuclear weapons program, the operation could still be ended without any deal.

“If they come to the table, that’ll be good. But it doesn’t matter whether they come or not. We’ve set them back, it’ll take 15 to 20 years for them to rebuild what we’ve done to them,” the president said.

When asked about the impact of the war on gas prices, Trump said, “All I have to do is leave Iran, and we’ll be doing that very soon, and they’ll come tumbling down.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has denied engaging in direct negotiations with the United States. He told Al Jazeera on March 31, “We do not have any faith that negotiations with the U.S. will yield any results.”

Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has been disrupted since the United States and Israel began military operations against Iran at the end of February. Tehran has retaliated by firing missiles and drones at Israel and U.S. military assets and targets across Gulf nations.

Oil prices have surged in recent weeks, with the U.S. national average retail price for a gallon of regular gasoline exceeding $4 on March 31 for the first time since August 2022, after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine began.

At a Pentagon press briefing on March 31, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said the previous 24 hours had marked the lowest number of Iranian missile and attack drone launches since the fighting began.

“The latest intel is clear … our strikes are damaging the morale of the Iranian military, leading to widespread desertions, key personnel shortages, and causing frustrations amongst senior leaders,” Hegseth said.

Since the start of the military campaign—dubbed Operation Epic Fury—U.S. forces have struck more than 11,000 targets, according to U.S. Central Command.

So what will President Trump say?

With the recent deployment of A-10s and Apaches (consistent with a military option that involves close-air support and/or attacks on Iranian fast boats and water drones) in mind, Larry Johnson lays out three possibilities:

Option 1 — Declare that negotiations with Iran via intermediaries (e.g., Pakistan) are progressing and that they United States is going to cease combat operations against Iran in order to support the negotiations and achieve a peaceful resolution.

Option 2 — Declare that victory has been achieved and that US forces will begin withdrawing from the region, leaving the status of the Strait of Hormuz in limbo.

Option 3 — Announce a massive air and ground operation to secure the freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz.

The deployment of the A-10s and the Apaches can only mean one of two things:

1. It is a show of force intended to pressure Iran to return to the negotiating table.

2. The US is going to launch a massive attack against Iranian assets in the Persian Gulf, especially those located in and around the Strait of Hormuz.

Since Monday, March 30, 2026, President Donald Trump has made several public comments on the ongoing US-led Operation Epic Fury against Iran, primarily via Truth Social posts, interviews (including with the New York Post), and remarks to reporters. His statements emphasize US military successes, threats of further escalation if demands are unmet, criticism of allies, and a potential near-term wind-down of direct US involvement.

On Monday, Trump described Iran as effectively “decimated” or “obliterated,” with its air force, navy, and many ships sunk or destroyed. He portrayed the campaign as highly successful and “way ahead of schedule” in prior context, but continued highlighting strikes on “long-sought-after targets.” He shared video footage on Truth Social of a massive explosion and secondary blasts in Isfahan (linked to strikes on uranium-related or military sites), without additional caption in one instance.

Trump also posted that the US was in “serious discussions with a new, and more reasonable, regime” to end operations. He warned that if the Strait of Hormuz is not “immediately ‘Open for Business’” and a deal is not reached shortly, the US would “completely obliterate” Iran’s electric generating plants, oil wells, Kharg Island, and possibly desalination plants. He framed this as concluding the US “lovely ‘stay’ in Iran.” In follow-up comments, he suggested the US could respond to Iranian actions “twenty times harder” with “Death, Fire, and Fury.”

Overall, Trump’s messaging since March 30 combines triumphalism about US achievements, escalatory warnings tied to the Strait of Hormuz and energy targets, frustration with allies, and signals of de-escalation with a short timeline for reduced US involvement. These comments have influenced market reactions (e.g., oil prices and equities) and drawn responses from Iranian officials and international observers.

Trump’s remarks since Monday have boosted the confidence of the folks on Wall Street and contributed to a significant surge in the stock market, with the Dow up 1,125 points. The price for BRENT oil dropped from 118 to 103 during Tuesday trading. This means the financial folks believe the war is going to end.

I think Trump is counting on Iran offering up some concessions in the face of the US buildup of additional air combat assets.

Netanyahu reportedly just said Iran no longer poses threat to Israel’s existence… A dramatic pivot if true.

However, over the last few hours, Israel and the US carried out a large wave of attacks across Iran.

They struck targets across several parts of Tehran, as well as in the cities of Karaj, Shahriar, Ahvaz, Shiraz, Abadeh, Isfahan, and Bandar Abbas. Iran will retaliate in force to these latest attacks.

In short, I believe Donald Trump will announce a major offensive to try to force Iran to release its chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz… I believe that offensive will fail and that the war will escalate unless the US and Israel agree to two critical Iranian demands: the end of all sanctions and the removal of US military bases from the Persian Gulf arab countries.

Russia and China are two wild cards that could change the trajectory of the current war. If they engage and apply pressure on the diplomatic front — including ironclad security guarantees to Iran — Donald Trump may take the exit ramp.

Bank of America’s omniscient analysts forecast a very strong month for Retail Sales in February data (released today)…

The actual print was +0.6% MoM (better than the 0.5% consensus, but less than BofA’s forecast) comes after a revised higher 0.1% MoM decline in January (and December’s nothingburger)…

Source: Bloomberg

That is the highest MoM rise since June 2025, and sales rose 3.7% YoY…

Core Retail Sales (Ex Autos) rose 0.5% MoM (much better than expected) and Ex Autos and Gas also rose more than expected (+0.4% MoM).

Food and Beverage spending fell while Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers saw the biggest jump…

Most importantly, the ‘Control Group’ which plugs into the GDP calculation rose 0.5% MoM (also considerably better than expected).

Interestingly, ‘real’ retail sales (admittedly crudely adjusted via CPI) have rebounded from a negative print in December…

Of course, this data was before the war started and before gas prices really exploded (but then again April’s tax refunds may offset some of the pain).

LVMH, the owner of Louis Vuitton, Christian Dior, Fendi, Bvlgari, Moët & Chandon, and dozens of other luxury brands, just posted its worst quarter since the dot-com bust era, making it the worst-performing European luxury stock this year as demand for luxury handbags, shoes, watches, perfumes, and wines continues to soften amid an intensifying Middle East conflict.

LVMH shares in Paris tumbled 28% in the first quarter, exceeding quarterly declines seen during Covid and the 2008 financial crisis, but not surpassing the 41% third-quarter decline in 2001. Peers Richemont fell 20%, and Hermès slid 25% in the quarter.

“Elevated global uncertainty has generated significant investor anxiety, particularly among those who had been anticipating a long-awaited recovery in luxury demand this year. This has driven a sharp sector de-rating across luxury,” UBS analyst Zuzanna Pusz wrote in a note for clients on Tuesday. 

Pusz said geopolitical uncertainty in the Middle East has largely driven de-rating across luxury stocks, leaving sector valuations roughly 15 percentage points below their long-term average relative to the broader market.

The selloff also reflects LVMH’s mounting problems: soft January guidance, greater exposure to more cash-strapped consumers, and continued weakness in its wines and spirits business, especially Hennessy. As a result, the stock now trades at a 20% discount to its peers.

Pusz noted that, despite the grim outlook for luxury, she has not yet seen clear evidence of a real demand slowdown, particularly in Asia, according to recent channel checks.

She added, “Against a backdrop of very negative market sentiment and depressed valuations, we think that even modest Q1 beats could be disproportionately rewarded. Fundamentally, we continue to expect sequential improvement for most companies, though selectivity remains critical. CFR and LVMH are our top picks.” 

The Goldman Sachs basket of European luxury stocks (GSXELUXG Index) appears to have found support at 2022 trading levels.

Meanwhile, LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault’s fortune has plummeted by $55.4 billion over the past quarter, the largest drop among the world’s 500 richest people.

“LVMH has become more than a luxury stock, it’s now a barometer of global confidence,” John Plassard, head of investment strategy at Cité Gestion, said. “The issue is not the Middle East exposure itself, but what it signals: uncertainty, pressure on the wealth effect, and fear of a broader slowdown.”

Professional subscribers can read the full UBS “European Luxury” note here at our new Marketdesk.ai portal