By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Technically I’m not an economist, I just play one on TV (CNBC and Bloomberg TV from last Monday).

While I am not a military strategist, everyone in the market and corporate America is being forced to be one, to some extent. Academy is in a unique position to offer unbiased, nonpolitical assessments of the conflict with our Geopolitical Intelligence Group (“GIG”). I’ve lost track of how many conversations I’ve had with our retired Generals, Admirals, and Intelligence officers this past week, let alone since the start of the conflict. We cover a lot of topics during our conversations with clients, with Iran being at the forefront.

Today I will do my best to provide an assessment of the most pressing concerns. The Geopolitical Intelligence Group has a range of opinions, but I think this is a fair assessment of the current consensus view. It is an honor and a privilege to work with the GIG (as well as a competitive advantage in this environment) and all our veterans. Any mistakes or misrepresentations are my own.

That is the same set of conditions that applied to Ceasefire?, which we published earlier this week. That piece remains a useful framework for examining the conditions likely required to reach a deal. However, it was interesting that the President started trying to frame something along the lines of “the regime has changed so much, that it is like regime change.”

After a “manic” week like this week, it is sometimes difficult to go back and review what we published last weekend – Another Manic Monday, but that too is worth re-reading.

Finally, before jumping into today’s report, Academy’s Around the World Report and Around the World Podcast (with General (ret.) Evans and Admiral (ret.) Buss) were both released this week.

Normalizing Tanker Traffic Through the Strait of Hormuz

We will try not to use the words “closed” or “open” in this report, because that doesn’t reflect the real issue. It isn’t about “opening” the Strait, it is about convincing the captains (and owners) of ships that they can transit the Strait just like they used to.

This is an important distinction, from much of what you might hear or read.

From a military standpoint:

• There is little evidence that the Strait has been extensively mined. Ships are making it through. It is possible they “know” where the mines are, but it is also possible (and likely) that there are relatively few mines. To the extent there are mines, addressing this threat is precisely what the Littoral Combat Ships assigned to 5th Fleet (with mine countermeasures capabilities and helicopter support) are designed to do.

• The main threats remain rockets, missiles, and drones. Especially those fired close to the shore. The time we have from launch, to detection, to interception is crucial to the success of our defenses. The closer the weapon is at the time of launch, the less time we have to hit it.

• The U.S. Navy is designed for situations like this. The AEGIS Combat System is specifically designed to defend U.S. ships against such attacks.

• Mines, mine layers, small ships packed with weapons, and unmanned surface ships (the naval equivalent of a drone) also pose a threat.

Why haven’t we seen the Navy patrol the Strait? That is the question, as it has become clear that getting shipping back to normal would reduce the leverage Iran has on the global economy. While it is impossible to know (we are not getting all of the information available), here are some of the themes that come up when discussing this crucial question (it really is the $100 or $150 per barrel question).

• In all combat situations, there is always a balance between risk and reward. What are the risks of patrolling the Strait today versus striking other targets in Iran? What is the trade-off in risk to U.S. sailors, Marines, pilots, and even the ships today versus what they might be in a day or a week from now? Getting oil (and everything else flowing through the Strait) is a primary economic, and maybe even political concern, but should not drive military decisions.

• The caution may be because we have real concerns about how many weapons the Iranians are able to train on the Strait. It may be a function of some elements required to patrol the Strait being engaged elsewhere (we are sending more Marines, 82nd Airborne Division paratroopers, and ships to the region). Some of it might be adapting strategy to the asymmetric warfare threat (more on this later).

• The assessment of the GIG is we will get to the point of patrolling or routinely transiting the Strait, maybe in days, maybe longer, but only once the risk vs reward has been justified.

What does it take to convince commercial vessels to go through? In theory, we could set up a “convoy” and send out a naval force (with air cover) and escort ships through the Strait. That is probably what will happen “eventually.” The decision for the Navy to sail in the Strait is very different than that of merchant vessels. The Navy is prepared for this, built for this, trained for this, and it is what those in service signed up to do.

• The “realistic” assessment from the GIG that I buy into, is it will take days of demonstrating the Navy’s ability to sail in the Strait without getting attacked before most merchant vessels will even think about trying to do it. Take this job and shove it, comes to mind. This is “just a job” to most of the merchant crews (and even the captain) and they are probably getting paid extra time to wait to cross, so it isn’t like they feel the urgency the market might feel. The insurance plan that the President ordered to be put in place will help (more with the owners than the crew), but I haven’t been able to find out much about the status of the U.S. government-backed plan (Chubb is the carrier being used to provide it according to the reports I’ve read).

• The merchant vessels might not even be comfortable if the Navy is getting shot at. This would be another reason for delaying the attempt until there is more certainty that Iran’s capability to attack the Strait is minimal.

• Finally, many of the cargo ships are likely going to need to go to port soon. 30 days of eating, and moving around the gulf, take a toll on supplies. The ports they are sailing to, may also not be able to handle them all at once (in the unlikely event they all try to go at once), further limiting how quickly the traffic through the Strait can be normalized.

A lot to think about, but I think that is a realistic assessment of the thought process going on. What is against us, how much safer can we make it, and how do we convince commercial vessels to follow suit.

Asymmetric Warfare

The “concept” is simple – small, cheap weapons, maneuverable, easy to hide, against large expensive systems. Ukraine, first with a plant in the U.K. and now apparently a deal in the Gulf to supply drones, shows how much they have learned in 3 years of war with Russia. Much of which has devolved (or evolved) into drone warfare.

Let’s list the “problems” first:

• Shooting down things that cost in the thousands with things that cost in the millions is a very expensive endeavor. It is far from ideal, but not the biggest problem.

• Production and replenishment is a more important issue. Have we used a year’s worth of production of some missile systems already? Maybe more. Ships in particular set sail with a limited amount weapons. If we were prepared for a “peer” battle, we were probably expecting to face ships and systems similarly equipped (not as good as the U.S. ones, but similar in concept, cost, etc.). But you cannot just let a “cheap” but effective drone hit you, you need to defend against it. Hopefully, in many cases, other weapons systems that aren’t as costly manage to take out the target. But this need to potentially replenish faster than expected can hamper some efforts.

• Really difficult to eradicate. Ballistic missile launches are relatively easy to detect. Ballistic missile launchers are often plodding. Mobile, yes, but not like driving a race car. The launchers are vulnerable after they launch, especially when the U.S. and Israel have Air Superiority (better than Supremacy). Step out of a cave, launch, run back into the cave or through some tunnel system. The fact of the matter is it is difficult to completely stop this threat “without boots on the ground.” This type of enemy is not easy to defeat with range weapons, and is likely why we are hearing more and more about the possibility of landing troops not just on one of the islands, but possibly on the coast where they can more thoroughly clear out the enemy positions (no official decision has been made yet regarding using troops in Iran).

There are some “good” things:

• The U.S. military has had drones and has been developing drones for years. That development increased in intensity during the Russia/Ukraine war. It only ramped up further with this new administration. General (ret.) Tata, before starting the confirmation process to be an Undersecretary of War, was very focused on drones. There is no shortage of signals from this administration that they see the need for drones. While a “peacetime” military may be slow to adopt new strategies, that can change abruptly during conflict. Something that might struggle to get acceptance, that might be difficult to fund as it has to come at the expense of other projects, might struggle to get the attention it deserves in “normal” times. This is not normal times, so expect rapid advances in the number and capabilities of U.S. drones in the region. Separately, as discussed last week, if I was Europe I’d set up a drone consortium and start making them as fast as possible, bypassing the expensive military hardware for now. Drones don’t require as much sophistication to produce, so everyone can convert factories and ramp up production relatively quickly.

• The U.S. may not want to reveal “everything” we have. China is watching the U.S. military closely. They will be learning how our equipment works in the real world (not just in theory). How much damage does a certain missile do? How deep do the bunker busters go? What sort of things are we defending against easily and what is not working? No need to expose your best stuff, if you don’t think you need to. We might see more deployments of new systems.

My working assumption is Asymmetric FOR NOW.

The U.S. should be closing the gap on asymmetric warfare. Again, is that in time to keep the global economy (especially Asia) from tumbling into recession? I don’t know.

While asymmetric warfare is a distinct topic from getting commercial vessels to sail through the Strait, it is highly correlated, and I’m cautiously optimistic this is being addressed at lightning speed.

Other Risks

The Houthis, until this weekend, had been quiet. Their involvement could open up more shipping problems as they can control a choke point around the Red Sea. It will also cause the U.S. and Gulf Countries to spread their military around.

The Saudi pipeline is extremely helpful, but very vulnerable. While Iran (and the Houthis) might not want to attack production facilities or ships at sea, a pipeline like this might be too tempting to pass up.

Little evidence of cyber-attacks. Maybe they weren’t as good as people thought? Maybe we hit their computer centers early in the war?

Maybe our defenses are that good and we’ve hardened our critical infrastructure? If it is any of the above, it is a solid win for the U.S.
Terrorist activity has not really occurred. Similar to cyber, maybe we have done a great job of identifying and destroying their “sleeper” cells. This has also been a positive and is one form of potential Iranian response we haven’t seen (and hope never to see again).

Humanitarian Relief?

At some point there will be humanitarian issues that need to be addressed in the region. Much of the region imports food. Iran imports food. It is unclear if much is getting through.

This may provide a new “twist” to what is going on there. Who will allow what? Will China get involved? (They did make one statement about possibly being involved in humanitarian missions, but no statement about helping to open the Strait). At least not that I’ve seen.

Strategic Move to Hurt China by Restricting Access to Oil?

This comes up periodically. Was Venezuelan oil first, Iranian oil second, and Russian oil possibly third, all targeted in an attempt to hit China on energy? A way to push back on their control over processed and refined rare earths and critical minerals?

There are some parts of what is going on that fit that narrative well. I’m not sure I buy into it.

If it is true, it does mean the U.S. will need to see this conflict carried out until there really is a change in Iran regarding how they deal with the rest of the world. It does fit with my view that the administration would like U.S. companies to get some access to Iran’s energy business (and would frame that as helping change the regime over time).

Declare Some Form of Victory and Move On

The GIG has talked about shifting from the old model where “if we broke it, we fixed it” to one where “if we broke it, we might come back and break it again.” 

It would leave the region in a confusing state. But some of the messaging (from the President and the Vice President) does have the tone – that we are setting up to declare some sort of victory and move on.

Still seems low probability, but it is still possible.

Economic Fragility, Affordability, and Recession Risk

This will be a separate report in its own right, but nothing that we haven’t been writing about. Supply chain, and economic fragility is real, expect to see cracks soon.

Affordability is an issue across the globe, not just domestically. Affordability has only gotten worse. The “working poor” concept is getting some discussion as it would be the start of a very different type of recession. Job loss recessions, we have a playbook for. People with “good” jobs who cannot afford a reasonable lifestyle is new. Not good.

Is recession for Asia (ex-China) and Europe my base case? Not quite, but possibly only because I haven’t had the time to think about it.

I don’t see a recession for the U.S. (or China), but it is certainly something we should be admitting is a possibility as not only does the conflict continue, but also the willingness to target energy, refiners, smelters, etc., is increasing and will take a toll even if we come to a resolution in the coming weeks. A world where the resolution is ideal or suboptimal won’t even make a difference as the damage is done and permeates throughout the global economy.

Bottom Line

Expect bond yields to start acting “normally” in a risk-off environment. Friday morning may have been peak unwind/capitulation and peak inflation fear. Friday afternoon might have been the market deciding to at least think about recession and economic slowdown risks.

Very cautious on risk here.

Could we miss a big relief rally? Possibly, but I think this time (unlike last Monday/Tuesday) the relief rally will require credible evidence that a resolution is coming.

Because of that, we will have time to adjust our positioning. Until then, be cautious on risk, add some duration.

Credit did feel weak on Friday, which would be a new thing to worry about (credit, not just private credit). Spreads were leaking.

So far the equity sell-off hasn’t required much help from credit, but if credit were to turn more negative, we have some serious downside risk for equities. From our Is Credit Whispering or Screaming? and Credit – A Little Louder Now – we’ve identified how we see a path to credit widening. It hasn’t been a primary concern, but we need to revisit that “complacency” as the risks of an economic downturn are increasing.

I think I ended sounding gloomier than I feel, but this is a very tricky environment, and military and politics will drive the next 5% on stocks.

Hopefully that 5% will be to the upside as ships start sailing through the Strait sooner than the market is expecting! (There, I did finish with some optimism, even if it isn’t how I’m positioned).

Creatine is an amazing compound that our bodies make naturally. Long used in the gym for peak muscle performance, a flood of recent research shows that it has profound effects on brain metabolism, cognitive performance under stress (including sleep deprivation), memory, attention, and even mood support. It’s also extremely safe for the vast majority of people. 

Most people need 2-3 grams/day as a baseline – with our bodies making roughly 1g/day from amino acids in the liver, kidneys, and pancreas. According to new studies, boosting creatine intake beyond baseline is extremely good for your brain in everyday healthy adults. One 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis (Frontiers) of 16 randomized controlled trials found that regular creatine supplementation led to improvements in memory and gains in attention and processing speed. These benefits showed up across adults (including healthy individuals). Another review highlighted particularly noticeable memory gains in healthy older adults.

And if you’re elbow-crawling at work after a night of insomnia, a big dose can have significant effects and kick in fast (within a couple of hours). In one double-blind, randomized study (Nature), participants running on fumes after 21 hours of sleep deprivation experienced a 10.3% boost in word memory performance (plus 17.7% faster processing) and 16–29% gains in processing speed for language, logic, and numeric tasks.

But before we get into the science… 

Let’s get this out of the way; you probably know we sell creatine, so this is obviously an ad. But whether you buy it from us or not, you should take note of what these studies have found and consider taking it as part of your daily stack.

Long story short, it works well, we use it, and the stuff we sell is high-grade, pure micronized creatine (5g/scoop). The jar it comes in is pretty big and it lasts a while. Support yourself & support the site – buy some here. And if you don’t buy ours, just check it out. 

Actual product: 

And now for the studies

Gym rats have known this for decades about Creatine, it increases strength, muscle mass, and training capacity by rapidly regenerating the body’s cellular fuel, ATP.

The latest research suggests that this molecule may be less a niche performance enhancer and more a universal energy buffer for human life.

Brain Benefits in Healthy Adults

A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis in Frontiers in Nutrition looked at 16 randomized controlled trials involving 492 adults. Creatine supplementation showed positive effects on memory, attention time, and processing speed. A separate 2023 meta-analysis in Nutrition Reviews focused specifically on memory in healthy individuals and found overall improvements, with particularly noticeable gains in older adults.

The two studies found;

• Better overall memory performance with creatine supplementation
• Faster attention and quicker thinking/processing speed
• Particularly noticeable memory improvements in healthy older adults (ages 66–76)
• Stronger benefits often seen in women and people aged 18–60
• Improvements showed up in both healthy adults and those under various types of stress

Fast-Acting Support When Sleep-Deprived

When you’re running on empty after little or no sleep, brain energy systems take a hit. The 2024 Scientific Reports (Nature) study tested whether a single high dose could help.

Fifteen healthy adults went through 21 hours of sleep deprivation twice. They received either a large dose of creatine monohydrate (0.35 g/kg body weight – roughly 20–30 grams for most people) or a placebo.

Brain scans showed better preservation of energy metabolites, and cognitive testing revealed real improvements: a 10.3% boost in word memory (with 17.7% faster processing) and 16–29% gains in processing speed on language, logic, and numeric tasks. Effects started showing within about 3 hours.

This doesn’t replace sleep, but it suggests creatine can act as a quick buffer when you’re seriously short on rest.

Short-Term Loading Improves Sleep and Cognition

A December 2025 randomized, double-blind trial in Nutrients tested a practical 7-day loading protocol in 14 physically active men (20 g/day, split into 4 × 5 g doses).

After loading, participants reported significantly better subjective sleep quality and went to bed earlier. They also showed improved performance on a cognitive attention test and reduced muscle soreness, plus better output in high-intensity exercise.

This adds to the picture: even in normal training life, short-term higher dosing can help how you feel and perform when sleep isn’t perfect.

Safety: One of the Best Profiles Out There

Creatine monohydrate has been studied extensively for decades. A comprehensive 2025 review in Frontiers in Nutrition analyzed over 680 clinical trials involving more than 12,800 participants (with doses up to 30 g/day and use lasting up to 14 years). No clinical adverse events were linked to creatine, and minor side effects were no different from placebo. Worldwide adverse event reporting over 50 years also shows creatine mentioned in an extremely small fraction of cases despite billions of doses consumed.

It remains one of the safest and most researched supplements available for healthy people.

Practical Takeaways for Most People

• Daily maintenance: 3–5 grams per day (one scoop of our product = 5g). Simple, effective, and what most long-term users stick with for brain and body support.
• Short loading phase: 20 g/day (split into 4 doses) for 5–7 days if you want faster saturation, then drop back to 3–5 g.
• Occasional high-dose rescue: Around 20–30 g (body-weight adjusted) when you know sleep will be terrible. Hydrate well and don’t make it a habit — it’s for occasional use.

Vegetarians and vegans often notice bigger effects since they get almost none from diet. Women and adults in the broader 18–60+ range also tend to show good responses in the studies.

Creatine won’t turn you into a genius or fix chronic sleep debt, but the growing evidence shows it can be a cheap, convenient daily tool to help your brain’s energy systems work better – whether you’re grinding through work, training, aging, or just trying to stay sharp.

We take it every day. If you’re ready to add it to your stack, grab a jar here. Or pick up any high-quality micronized creatine monohydrate – the research is what matters most.

This is for informational purposes only and not medical advice. Consult your doctor before starting any supplement, especially if you have kidney concerns or other health conditions.

Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times,

The partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) became the longest in U.S. history on March 29.

The DHS shutdown reached its 44th day on Sunday, breaking the previous record set during the U.S. government shutdown in the fall of 2025.

Republican and Democratic lawmakers on Capitol Hill have blamed each other for the standstill while tossing a dizzying array of proposals through the halls of Congress that have not successfully moved forward.

Republicans criticized Democrats for not advancing their DHS spending bills as Democrats said they will not approve the funding bill until they are guaranteed to see an overhaul in how immigration operations are handled.

The House passed a stopgap plan to fund the DHS for 60 days on March 27 with a 213–203 vote.

The bill was sent to the Senate, which just went on a two-week recess.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) has urged his colleagues to return to Washington and end the DHS shutdown.

“If you don’t want to fight fires, don’t become a firefighter,” Lee said during an interview on Fox News.

“If you don’t want to take grueling votes at difficult hours and sometimes have to work longer than you want to, maybe you shouldn’t become a United States senator.”

The short-term bill to fund the entire DHS passed the House after Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) rejected the Senate’s measure that would have funded most of the department, aside from its immigration enforcement operations.

“We hope that someday Democrats finally come to their senses again and put the safety of American citizens first but we’re not holding our breath,” Johnson said during a press conference on Saturday.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he would not support the House’s bill that passed on Friday night.

“A 60 day CR that locks in the status quo is dead on arrival in the Senate, and Republicans know it,” Schumer wrote in an X post.

“We’ve been clear from day one: Democrats will fund critical Homeland Security functions—but we will not give a blank check to Trump’s lawless and deadly immigration militia without reforms.”

The shutdown has caused extremely long lines at airports, as many Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agents—who have not received a check since mid-February—have not shown up at work.

Nearly 500 TSA agents have quit since the shutdown started because they weren’t able to pay for costs such as gas, groceries, or their mortgages, the DHS said.

TSA agents are expected to receive their long-delayed paychecks as soon as March 30, after President Donald Trump signed an executive order.

*  *  *

 Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

There is a special kind of denial that only financial markets can sustain. It is the quiet insistence that everything is fine because the S&P is only down about 10%, as if that number alone captures the health of an entire financial system. It is the belief that until equities are in full free fall, nothing truly serious can be happening underneath.

But as we know, underneath, things are already starting to break.

That is the part people are not fully appreciating. If a modest correction is enough to expose fragility in private credit that is already spilling over to counterparties and sectors like real estate, what exactly happens when there is a real downturn, the kind that actually forces price discovery instead of delaying it?

It does not stop at private credit. Private credit flows into private equity, which depends on leverage to generate returns. Private equity flows into commercial real estate, which is already dealing with structural problems that have nothing to do with interest rates and everything to do with demand. Commercial real estate flows into regional banks, which hold the debt and rely on valuations that have not fully adjusted.

It is a chain reaction waiting for a trigger. We knew this heading into 2026.

At the same time, inflation has refused to cooperate with the Federal Reserve’s plan. U.S. CPI is holding at 2.4% year over year as of February 2026, and core inflation is at 2.5%. That is not an emergency level, but it is also not the 2% target the Fed has spent years insisting is non negotiable.

Central banking is not about being approximately correct. It is about maintaining credibility, and credibility does not come from saying close enough.

So the Fed is staring at a system where financial stress is building and inflation is still above target, as I’ve been writing they would face for years now. That combination removes the easy answers, and all of a sudden the Fed runs out of road.

The next phase of this cycle is almost certainly deleveraging. Not the slow and orderly kind that policymakers like to describe in speeches, but the forced kind. The kind where lenders pull back, refinancing becomes difficult, and assets that were priced for perfection suddenly have to reflect reality. When that process begins in earnest, it tends to accelerate because falling prices create more pressure, which creates more selling, which creates more falling prices. Then, like we are seeing in private credit, psychology eventually breaks and the blame game starts. Who could have seen this coming?

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

Once that process starts, there are only two broad paths. The first path is to let it happen. Credit contracts, defaults rise, asset prices fall, and the system works through its excesses the old fashioned way. The problem is that the amount of leverage in the system today is enormous, and it has been built during a period of unusually low rates. When you combine high debt levels with higher interest costs, the math becomes unforgiving very quickly. That kind of deleveraging does not look like a mild recession. It starts to resemble something much more severe, potentially deflationary, potentially prolonged.

The second path is intervention. The Fed steps in (stop me if you’ve heard this one before), provides liquidity, and expands its balance sheet aggressively. Quantitative easing returns, possibly at a scale that makes previous rounds look restrained. Asset prices stabilize, credit markets function again, and the immediate crisis is contained. This is what my friend Larry Lepard refers to as “the big print”.

But here is where the situation becomes genuinely problematic. The Fed cannot cleanly choose the second option, though I think it’s the way they will head.

They cannot do it with inflation still running above target without major inflationary consequences. Injecting massive liquidity into a system that has not fully extinguished inflationary pressure risks reigniting it. Not gently, not in a controlled way, but in a way that forces a much harsher response later. The entire credibility of the central bank rests on the idea that it will not tolerate persistent inflation above its target. If it abandons that stance in order to stabilize markets, it risks unanchoring expectations in a way that is very difficult to reverse.

Watch the below clip at 50:02 until 52:47 if you want a 2 minute explanation of the direction we will keep heading if we go the inflation route.

It’s a trap, in essence. For years, critics have warned about some version of this outcome. They have argued that excessive debt and repeated interventions would eventually leave policymakers with no good options. Those arguments have been easy to dismiss because, historically, the Fed has always managed to navigate crises. Somehow inflation stayed low. The Fed cut rates, it expanded the balance sheet, it restored stability, and the system moved forward.

But the current setup is different in a way that matters.

We have never had this level of systemic leverage at the same time as a large, opaque private credit market that sits outside traditional banking channels. We have never had an environment where so much of the financial system depends on continued access to cheap or at least predictable financing. And we have never faced the prospect of needing extremely large scale intervention while inflation is still running above target.

Each of those factors on its own would be manageable. Together, they create a situation that does not have a clean historical precedent, so what happens next is unlikely to be neat and orderly, though fucked if I know exactly how the chaos or reset it going to play out.

The Fed is not in control of a stable system that just needs minor adjustments. It is managing a complex, highly leveraged structure where each decision carries significant tradeoffs. What seems increasingly unlikely is a smooth resolution where the Fed threads the needle perfectly and everything stabilizes without meaningful damage. There is no painless option left. There’s no more road.

The more realistic expectation is a policy response that looks inconsistent, reactive, and at times contradictory, because it will be attempting to balance objectives that are no longer fully compatible. And when that happens, it will not feel like a controlled process. It will feel like the system is being managed in real time, with no clear roadmap, and no guarantee that the chosen path leads anywhere good.

Now read:

• A Veteran Investor Sees The System Breaking
• My Bear Market Stock Shopping List
• Private Credit Cracks Reach Real Estate
• The Private Credit Snowball Accelerates
• Ron Paul: Just Get Out! Now!
• The Mistaken Identity of Prediction Markets
• Bigger Isn’t Better: A Case for Downsizing the Federal Reserve
• I’ve Reached Peak Lobotomized Consumer

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Summary

• Report says Pentagon has been weeks in preparing ground operations as initial Marines arrive in region (WaPo).

• Foreign ministers of regional countries seeking peace & offramp in Pakistan meeting on Sunday.

• After two Iranian university campuses struck by attacks, IRGC issues warning for American university campuses in Middle East.

• Not just ‘damaged’ but obliterated: images show destroyed US AWACS jet at Saudi Airbase. 

*  *  *

‘Weeks’ of Ground Ops Under Preparation: WaPo

Iran’s parliament speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the man who many believe is de facto running the country during wartime, has said United States is busy plotting a ground attack despite publicly engaging in diplomatic efforts aimed at finding a ceasefire.

Fresh reporting in The Washington Post suggests he could be right: “The Pentagon is preparing for weeks of ground operations in Iran, U.S. officials said, as thousands of American soldiers and Marines arrive in the Middle East for what could become a dangerous new phase of the war should President Donald Trump choose to escalate,” the Saturday night report indicated. WaPo further says the plans have been at least weeks in development, writing “Any potential ground operation would fall short of a full-scale invasion and could instead involve raids by a mixture of Special Operations forces and conventional infantry troops, said the officials. All spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss highly sensitive military plans that have been in development for weeks.”

It should be obvious to all what an ultra high-risk gambit this would be, and geography certainly isn’t in US forces’ favor. The report continues, “Such a mission could expose U.S. personnel to an array of threats, including Iranian drones and missiles, ground fire and improvised explosives. It was unclear Saturday whether Trump would approve all, some or none of the Pentagon’s plans.”

Scramble to Find Offramp: Summit in Islamabad

Several regional countries are meeting in Islamabad to try and forge a path toward ceasefire and peace. The four foreign ministers representing Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia began consultations Sunday.

The Pakistani government said over the weekend that its prime minister Muhammad Shehbaz Sharif is working to “create a conducive environment” for peace negotiations and direct talks between Tehran and Washington as the war reaches one month. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is being kept abreast of developments in communications with Pakistan. Some progress emerging?…

Iran has agreed to allow 20 Pakistani-flagged ships to pass through the Strait of Hormuz unharmed, Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar announced Saturday.

Oil tanker carrying Saudi crude to Pakistan.

Map frm @Kpler pic.twitter.com/qSUSTca7k1

— Anas Alhajji (@anasalhajji) March 29, 2026

Pezeshkian told PM Sharif in a Saturday call that “Attacks on infrastructure and assassinations by aggressors show they cannot be trusted.” 

As for the Sunday summit in Pakistan, one question that must be asked is where are the US negotiators? Days ago there was chatter that VP J.D. Vance or perhaps Witkoff or Kushner might be in Pakistan, working on the sidelines, but it’s unclear what Washington’s posture on diplomacy is at this point.

The Consultations among the Foreign Ministers of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, and Egypt have commenced in Islamabad on 29 March 2026.

Convened at the invitation of Deputy Prime Minister / Foreign Minister Senator Mohammad Ishaq Dar @MIshaqDar50, the Foreign Ministers during… pic.twitter.com/5capTCXUNO

— Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Pakistan (@ForeignOfficePk) March 29, 2026

Attacks on Universities, Infrastructure

The last 48 hours saw new US-Israeli attacks on Iran’s university of science and technology in the northeast of the capital. Buildings were severely damaged – but reports of casualties have not emerged.

Israel has made it clear it is going after an array of targets, including civilian infrastructure in Iran. Iran has over the weekend retaliated in kind, sending more missiles on Israel. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is now warning that American university campuses in the Middle East are now fair game. The statement said this is because two Iranian universities have been struck. The IRGC says American universities are now “legitimate targets” unless the US officially condemns the attacks on Iranian schools by noon on Monday, according to Fars.

Tit-for-tat attacks on infrastructure escalating:

⚡️BREAKING

An Iranian missile has just struck Israel’s crucial Rotem Chemicals Plant

The plant produces sapphire domes for defence missiles and also helps Israel’s nuclear weapons program pic.twitter.com/VuAikqH6ws

— Iran Observer (@IranObserver0) March 29, 2026

The IRGC has gone so far as to release a statement urging staff, faculty, and students to vacate and stay away from theses campuses. Some notable American university branches in the Gulf (among dozens) include Texas A&M University in Qatar and New York University in the United Arab Emirates.

Not Just ‘Damaged’ but Obliterated: Images of US AWACS Jet At Saudi Airbase

Images have emerged revealing that the Wall Street Journal’s initial report that the half-billion-dollar aircraft was merely “damaged” was an enormous understatement. Rather, a large portion of the fuselage has been obliterated, along with the distinctive 30-foot-diameter, 6-foot-thick rotating radar dome that’s mounted atop AWACS aircraft. We took a closer look at the photo set here. 

The images of the destroyed E-3 Sentry were first posted on the Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook page:

“The loss of this E-3 is incredibly problematic, given how crucial these battle managers are to everything from airspace deconfliction, aircraft deconfliction, targeting, and providing other lethal effects that the entire force needs for the battle space,” Heather Penney, a former F-16 pilot and director of studies and research at AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told Air & Space Forces Magazine. If this has been carefully kept under wraps until now, what else is the White House and Pentagon not telling the public?

*  *  * Now with cheaper 2-day shipping. Order by tonight.

Via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

We have recently tackled the rising stress in the Private Credit markets. Here are a few of our previous warnings:

• Fitzpatrick: Soros CEO & CIO Warns of a Reckoning

• Private Credit Stress: Will The Fed Backstop Exuberance Again? – RIA

• Is Private Equity A Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing?

After 30 years of watching credit cycles expand, distort, and collapse, I’ve learned one reliable rule:

“When enough people start drawing comparisons to 2008, it’s worth stopping to check whether the analogy holds up — or whether fear is doing the analytical work for them.”

Right now, judging by the amount of commentary on social media, the stress in the private credit market has everyone’s attention. Most of the commentary being generated makes the immediate jump from private credit firms “gating” exits to the onset of the next subprime crisis in the financial system. Those claims are certainly alarming and generate many clicks and views, but the question is whether those claims are based on facts rather than opinions.

Just recently, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon flagged the risk of private credit in his annual shareholder letter. Lloyd Blankfein, who piloted Goldman through the Global Financial Crisis, warned publicly that the financial system appears to be “inching toward another potential catastrophe.” Meanwhile, Goldman’s own research arm published a note concluding that private credit stress is “unlikely to generate large macroeconomic spillovers on its own.”

So which is it? A repeat of the subprime crisis of 2008, or a painful but contained credit cycle? The honest answer most likely sits somewhere in between, and understanding exactly where private credit differs from subprime tells you a great deal about how worried you should actually be.

Let’s revisit 2008.

What Made The Subprime Crisis So Catastrophic

It is hard to believe that we are rapidly approaching the 20-year anniversary of the “Great Financial Crisis” that nearly destroyed the financial system as we knew it. There are many investors and commentators in the markets today who only know about the event from reading history books. Having lived through it, it is a different reality.

Crucially, the 2008 subprime crisis wasn’t simply a mortgage problem. It was a leverage-and-derivatives problem that started in mortgages. That distinction matters enormously when you’re sizing up today’s private credit stress.

At the heart of the crisis was a product called the collateralized debt obligation, or CDO. Banks packaged pools of subprime mortgages into tranches, which were rated by agencies using flawed models. Those CDOs were then re-sliced into “CDO squared” structures, layering additional complexity and opacity on top of already opaque assets. The real acceleration came when synthetic CDOs entered the picture. Unlike cash CDOs, which required actual mortgages, synthetic CDOs referenced mortgages through credit default swaps. Journalist Gregory Zuckerman found that while roughly $1.2 trillion in subprime loans existed in 2006, synthetic structures created more than $5 trillion in exposure referencing those same loans. The CDS market alone reached a peak notional value of $62.2 trillion by year-end 2007. That is not a typo.

But the derivatives machine required raw material to function, and Wall Street’s insatiable hunger for collateral triggered what historians of the crisis now call the “race to the bottom” in mortgage underwriting. To keep the CDO assembly line running, originators needed volume. That demand for volume led to a collapse in underwriting standards. By 2006, no-money-down mortgages were commonplace.

• NINJA loans, “No Income, No Job, No Assets,” were extended to borrowers who could not remotely service the debt once introductory teaser rates reset.

• Stated-income loans, in which borrowers self-reported earnings with no verification, became the industry norm rather than the exception.

• Adjustable-rate mortgages were sold to buyers who qualified only at the teaser rate and had no capacity to absorb resets of 3 to 4 percentage points two years later.

The Mortgage Bankers Association later estimated that subprime originations reached $600 billion in 2006 alone, up from roughly $160 billion in 2001. Most importantly, the loans were designed to be sold, not held. In other words, the originator of the loan bore no long-term risk and had every incentive to close as many transactions as possible, regardless of quality.

That single misalignment of incentives was the original sin of the entire subprime crisis.

What compounded the damage beyond even that was systematic, institutionalized fraud at the origination and securitization level. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission documented widespread “robo-signing,” where bank employees executed thousands of mortgage documents per day without reviewing them. They affixed signatures and notarizations to paperwork they had never read. Countrywide Financial, Washington Mutual, and others were found to have misrepresented loan quality in the representations and warranties they made to investors purchasing MBS tranches, fraudulently inflating the apparent collateral quality of the pools they sold.

Appraisers faced pressure, and in many cases direct financial incentive, to hit predetermined valuations that supported loan amounts the underlying properties could never justify. The FBI reported that mortgage fraud suspicious activity reports increased by more than 1,400% between 2000 and 2007. When losses eventually surfaced, investors discovered they had purchased securities backed not just by bad loans, but by fraudulently documented ones. That distinction made recovery values nearly impossible to model and turned settlement litigation into an industry unto itself for a decade afterward. JPMorgan alone paid $13 billion in 2013 to resolve government claims over mortgage securities, and that figure represented only a fraction of industry-wide settlements.

When housing prices began falling, that entire structure detonated in both directions simultaneously. Banks that held CDO tranches faced mark-to-market losses. Banks that sold CDS protection, AIG being the most famous, faced collateral calls they couldn’t meet. Here is the most crucial point. These instruments traded freely in liquid markets, so price discovery occurred in real time, compressing the panic into a matter of weeks. The interconnection was total. Twelve of the thirteen largest U.S. financial institutions were at risk of failure, according to then-Fed Chair Ben Bernanke.

That’s what systemic risk actually looks like.

Private Credit Stress Is A Different Animal

The private credit market now stands at roughly $1.7 to $2 trillion in deployed capital, a figure that has grown rapidly since banks retreated from middle-market lending after the Global Financial Crisis. That growth is precisely what generated the current stress. Redemption requests have surged across major platforms. Blackstone’s BCRED fund saw record redemptions of $3.8 billion in Q1 2026, exceeding its 5% quarterly buyback limit. Apollo, Blue Owl, and Morgan Stanley’s North Haven fund have all imposed withdrawal restrictions. That gating of withdrawals led to an obvious decline in inflows across retail private credit funds. Those inflows fell to roughly half their 2025 pace, according to Goldman Sachs estimates.

So far, the catalyst is concentrated in software companies, which represent an estimated 15% to 25% of many private credit portfolios. They are under pressure as AI disruption fears potentially erode their earnings power and their ability to service debt. The headline default rate sits around 2% as of 2025, but Goldman Sachs Asset Management’s own research acknowledges that figure understates the true level of stress. When you include liability management exercises and distressed exchanges, the real rate approaches 4% to 5%. That’s meaningful deterioration. It’s not catastrophic, but it’s real.

J.P. Morgan’s analysis showed that for senior direct lending to produce negative total returns, default rates would need to exceed 6% while recovery rates would collapse below 40% simultaneously. Those numbers have historically appeared only during COVID and the Global Financial Crisis itself. That’s a high bar — but it’s not an impossible one. However, that would require a deterioration in macroeconomic conditions, a continuation of the Iran conflict oil shocks, and a contraction of consumer spending, which could certainly amplify risks. As shown below, the current structural comparison between the subprime crisis and the private credit sector today is markedly different.

The Importance of the Gating System

The most structurally significant difference between 2008 and today is also the one that generates the most debate. Unlike the subprime crisis, private credit funds can gate their exits. When Blackstone caps BCRED redemptions at 5% per quarter, it’s not a failure of the fund; it’s the mechanism working as designed. In 2008, there was no such circuit breaker. MBS and CDOs traded continuously in secondary markets, meaning every forced seller found a bid at a lower price, triggering more mark-to-market losses, which in turn triggered more forced selling. The feedback loop was instantaneous and brutal.

Gating slows that process considerably. LPL Research noted that while gating makes for terrible headlines, it prevents the forced liquidation that accelerated subprime losses. Goldman Sachs estimates that retail private credit inflows will remain in net outflow throughout 2026 and likely into 2027, a slow bleed, not a cliff. That’s a very different contagion profile.

That said, gating is not a cure. It transfers the problem in time, not away from investors. Those sitting in redemption queues face a multi-year wait to exit positions that may continue to deteriorate. The opacity of private credit portfolios and manager-reported valuations means stress can accumulate invisibly until it can’t.

“The key risk in private credit is not what is visible, but what remains hidden.” – The Daily Economy

Goldman Sachs economist Manuel Abecasis concluded that, even in an adverse scenario, private credit stress would only drag on GDP by 0.2% to 0.5%. His reasoning is straightforward: the private credit sector holds about $1.7 trillion in levered loans, or roughly 4% of all credit to the private non-financial sector. That’s is not nothing, but it’s not the $62 trillion CDS market either. Goldman also notes that bank lending to businesses has actually accelerated recently, providing a partial offset if private credit tightens.

Blankfein’s view carries different weight precisely because he’s been through the real thing. He warned that private credit assets “can be hard to analyze, may feature hidden leverage, and can become tough to sell.” He’s right that opacity and illiquidity create conditions where problems compound before they surface. The question is whether those conditions, combined with a still-manageable scale, produce systemic contagion or simply painful losses for a subset of investors.

“Private credit stress is unlikely to generate large macroeconomic spillovers on its own.” — Goldman Sachs Economist Manuel Abecasis, March 2026

I’m inclined to side with Goldman’s macro conclusion. However, with a caveat that matters. The base case holds only so long as private credit problems don’t compound with a broader recession, a sustained oil shock from the Iran conflict, and a sharper-than-expected deterioration in software company cash flows. Any two of those three conditions occurring simultaneously change the calculus. Goldman’s own research acknowledges this. The bigger risk isn’t private credit alone. It’s private credit stress coinciding with the wider tightening of financial conditions.

What Investors Should Pay Attention To

The structural differences between today and the subprime crisis are real and important. There’s no synthetic subprime CDO chain multiplying private credit losses to a $5 trillion notional exposure. Most critically, the investor base is primarily institutional, not retail money market funds holding fraudulently rated paper. Fund-level leverage is modest, and the gating mechanism, whatever its imperfections, prevents the instantaneous price cascade that made the subprime crisis so destructive.

What this most closely resembles is a normal credit cycle playing out in an untested asset class. Not a systemic collapse, but not a benign correction either. Goldman Sachs Asset Management’s own European research found that “stress events are likely to remain elevated relative to the last decade,” concentrated in smaller companies and cyclical sectors. That pattern will probably hold in the U.S. as well.

Three things would change my view and warrant genuine alarm.

• First, if default rates push past 8% in tech-heavy private credit portfolios as AI disruption accelerates.

• Second, if bank credit facilities to private credit managers get pulled at scale, triggering forced asset sales.

• Third, retail penetration of private credit grows, as institutional investors sell, leaving less-sophisticated money to hold the bag.

None of those conditions is inevitable. All of them are possible.

The subprime crisis analogy fails on the specifics. But the lesson from the subprime crisis isn’t about CDOs. It’s about what happens when credit markets expand rapidly, underwriting discipline erodes under competitive pressure, and opacity masks deteriorating loan quality. On those broader conditions, the warning is more relevant than the Goldman bulls would like to admit.

That is why we continue to underweight risk for now until we have better clarity about the future.

Key Catalysts Next Week

This is the most structurally loaded week of the quarter. The calendar stacks a Q1 close, a Q2 open, and a full employment gauntlet into five sessions, with markets still metabolizing whatever the Fed just delivered..

Tuesday is the pivot. Consumer Confidence is the marquee release, and it’s the first full-month reading that captures the Iran conflict, the tariff widening, and February’s payroll shock in a single survey. The prior print of 91.2 was already soft. The Expectations component, which the Conference Board flags as a recession signal below 80, is the number to watch. A sharp drop would validate the stagflation fears the Fed just tried to navigate around. Chicago PMI and Case-Shiller Home Prices round out the morning, and then Q1 closes at the bell. Expect elevated volume as pension funds and mutual funds finalize window dressing and mark final positions, totaling roughly $62 billion on the buy side.

Wednesday flips the calendar to Q2 and immediately delivers a triple shot: ADP private payrolls, ISM Manufacturing, and JOLTS. After February’s -92,000 NFP shock, the ADP print will either stabilize the labor narrative or accelerate the deterioration thesis. ISM Manufacturing is the tariff passthrough read, the Prices Paid subindex will tell us whether producers are eating costs or passing them through, while New Orders reveal whether demand is contracting under policy uncertainty. JOLTS completes the picture with the openings-to-unemployed ratio that the Fed uses to assess labor market slack.

Friday is the week’s anchor: March Nonfarm Payrolls. February was distorted by a Kaiser Permanente strike and severe weather, giving bulls a one-month excuse. If March payrolls bounce back above 100,000, the “transitory weakness” camp wins. If they print flat or negative again, the labor market deterioration becomes undeniable, and the pressure on the Fed to act, despite sticky inflation, becomes immense. ISM Services PMI that morning adds the services-sector inflation read alongside Wednesday’s manufacturing data.

Even as homebuilders offer mortgage-rate buydowns, closing-cost incentives, and upgraded amenities to attract buyers on the sidelines, clouds of uncertainty continue to build over the housing market. New U.S. single-family permit activity fell again in January, highlighting yet more caution among builders ahead of the spring selling season as they respond to softer demand.

Goldman analysts, led by Susan Maklari, provided clients on Friday with a snapshot of homebuilders across America and a housing heat map suggesting continued sluggishness across the industry.

On a trailing 12-month basis, single-family permits fell 8% in January, versus 7% in the previous month, and were up 6% in December 2025.

Maklari said, “Ongoing moderation comes as builders look to limit unsold inventory given limited visibility to demand.”

Some of the January weakness stemmed from severe winter weather and dangerously cold temperatures, which delayed permits and construction in parts of the eastern U.S., including major homebuilding markets such as Texas, Florida, and the Southeast. However, the snow and sub-zero temperatures are only one part of the slowdown story. 

The analyst added that builders are dealing with a challenging macroeconomic environment for buyers, noting that sales traffic improved earlier in the year but vanished in March, according to the latest industry checks, as consumers “react to the effects of the Middle East conflict.”

At the same time, mortgage rates have jumped about 40 basis points over the last month, making monthly payments even less affordable as the housing market is stuck in the worst affordability crisis in a generation, a leftover gift from the Biden-Harris era.

The slowdown is most visible in some of the biggest new-home states:

Single-family permits for the 3-months ended January fell 11% YOY, compared to -9% in December, and -1% a year ago. That said, they were up 7% vs the comparable pre-pandemic period. Looking at the largest new home markets, the deceleration was led by Colorado (-21%), Texas (-20%), and Nevada (-19%) while the Northeast and Pacific Northwest outperformed. Nationally, we note 8 states were flat to up vs 11 in December. This comes as builders continue to align starts to demand while focusing on profitability and cash generation. As such, we expect permits will remain under pressure in the near-term.

At the metro level, the permit picture is deteriorating across the top 50 metro areas, with permits down 15% from one year ago, and some of the sharpest declines are in places such as Stockton, Richmond, and Cape Coral.

Permits in the top 50 MSAs declined 15% YOY for the 3 months ended December vs -13% in December and -4% in January 2025. On a YOY basis, Miami, FL (+33%), North Port, FL (+31%), and Portland, OR (+17%) showed the greatest gains while Stockton, CA (-47%), Richmond, VA (-39%), and Cape-Coral, FL (-36%) lagged. On a 2-year stack, growth was led by Colorado Springs, CO (+33%), Oklahoma City, OK (+30%), and Columbus, OH (+13%) while Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL (-52%), Myrtle Beach, SC-NC (-48%), and Denver, CO (-45%) had the largest losses.

Trailing 12 Month Single-Family Permits by State

Trailing 3 Month Single-Family Permits by State

Permits for Top 50 MSAs

A look at home prices shows the market is still rising nationally, but momentum has cooled.

Zillow’s single-family home value index showed prices were modestly higher in February versus one year ago, in line with January and below the 3% annual gain seen a year ago. The data shows that home values remain up 55% since February 2019. 

Regionally, home price strength was concentrated in the Midwest and parts of the Northeast, with Wisconsin, North Dakota, Illinois, and New York each posting 5% annual increases, while Connecticut, Michigan, and Iowa rose 4%. Sun Belt weakness persisted due to oversupply concerns, led by a decline in Florida, while Colorado, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and Georgia were down around 2%.

The slowdown in permits suggests the spring selling season may be weaker than expected. Builders remain wary of demand, and with mortgage rates moving higher and uncertainty growing due to the US-Iran conflict, the housing market as a whole appears to be in continued paralysis.

Professional subscribers can read the full “Americas Building” note at our new Marketdesk.ai portal

Authored by Joseph Lord and Nathan Worcester via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump asked Congress this week to pass a clean reauthorization of a critical—but controversial—spying authority as the U.S. military operation in Iran continues.

“I have called for a clean 18-month extension,” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social, noting that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) are working toward passing such a bill.

Specifically, Trump is asking Congress to extend the authorities in Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), a sweeping War on Terror-era spying authority that has seen wide abuse by federal intelligence agencies in the past.

Section 702 targets intelligence from foreign nationals thought to be outside the United States. Yet, it also enables intelligence agencies to gather information from Americans who are in contact with targeted non-U.S. persons—all without a warrant. The controversial authority was at the center of National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden’s 2014 disclosures.

Although intelligence officials must obtain a warrant to access Americans’ data, Section 702 has long caused bipartisan discomfort on Capitol Hill and beyond.

Trump noted in the post that he himself had been on the receiving end of what he described as “the worst and most illegal abuse of FISA in our Nation’s History,” referencing disclosures that revealed that the FBI had used Section 702 of FISA to spy on Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign as part of the Crossfire Hurricane operation.

Nevertheless, Trump said, “When used properly, FISA is an effective tool to keep Americans safe.”

“For these reasons, I have called for a clean 18-month extension, HOWEVER, the Critical and Common Sense Reforms that were made in the last Reauthorization of FISA must remain intact to protect the American People from abuses.”

In an extension of the authority passed last year, Congress imposed new training requirements for those with access to the FISA Section 702 database, stricter requirements for justifying queries into the database, requiring high-level approval to query the information of politically-sensitive individuals, and mandatory consequences for willful abuse of the program.

“Since the first day … my Administration has worked tirelessly to ensure these Reforms are being aggressively executed at every level of the Executive Branch to keep Americans safe, while protecting their sacred Civil Liberties guaranteed by our Great Constitution,” Trump wrote.

The president said that permitting the program to continue was crucial in view of the ongoing hostilities with Iran.

“The fact is, whether you like FISA or not, it is extremely important to our Military. I have spoken to many Generals about this, and they consider it vital. Not one said, even tacitly, that they can do without it—especially right now with our brilliant Military Operation in Iran,” Trump wrote.

Bipartisan Skepticism

However, bipartisan doubts about the extensive program remain, despite efforts among supporters of Section 702 to amplify the reductions in abuse brought about in the wake of the reforms.

Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) signaled opposition on March 17 in posts on X. That same day, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) endorsed reforms to the law in a conversation with reporters.

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), who chairs the House Freedom Caucus, told reporters on March 18 that 18 months is too long.

“I hope there’s some room for negotiating a couple of smaller reforms into it to show good faith, that they know there are problems,” he said.

Meanwhile, House Judiciary Committee Chair Jim Jordan (R-Ohio)—like Trump, a past critic of FISA—has backed its renewal.

Ahead of a March 18 briefing, he told reporters that the FBI has boosted compliance with Section 702’s querying procedures—guardrails to shield Americans from FISA wiretapping.

A review of FBI Section 702 compliance from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General identified more than 60,000 noncompliant queries in 2021 alone.

During a March 19 press conference, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said, “It’s clear that FISA reforms are necessary.”

“Every single Democrat will oppose the rule,” Jeffries said, referring to a procedural step that Johnson could take to advance the extension that would come ahead of a final vote.

In a major feat that comes weeks after the White House claimed that Iran’s ballistic missile capability had been “functionally destroyed,” Iran has laid waste to one of only 16 American E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft in the world, sending $500 million worth of technology up in smoke and crimping the US military’s ability to maintain situational awareness. The same attack also “damaged” several aerial refueling tankers and added a dozen service members to the tally of more than 300 who’ve been wounded in the month-long US-Israeli war on Iran. Thirteen have been killed. 

In recent days, foreign satellite images showed what appeared to be major damage at Prince Sultan Air Base, a U.S. military base located in Al Kharj, Saudi Arabia.

The images show damage on the base’s main apron, which holds high-value aircraft. 

While high-resolution commercial satellite imagery of the region from U.S.-based geospatial companies will be delayed for days, if not weeks, new ground-level photos apparently show the aftermath of Iranian drone and missile strikes.

Images have emerged revealing that the Wall Street Journal’s initial report that the half-billion-dollar aircraft was merely “damaged” was an enormous understatement. Rather, a large portion of the fuselage has been obliterated, along with the distinctive 30-foot-diameter, 6-foot-thick rotating radar dome that’s mounted atop AWACS aircraft.  

The images of the destroyed E-3 Sentry were first posted on the Air Force amn/nco/snco Facebook page:

According to military aviation aficionados, the identifier “OK 81-0005” — visible on the severed tail — confirms this particular aircraft was an E-3G named “Captain Planet,” which deployed to the Middle East theater from Oklahoma’s Tinker Air Force Base. It’s not clear if any of the recently-wounded service members were associated with the aircraft, which was destroyed in a missile-and-drone attack on PSAB. 

“The loss of this E-3 is incredibly problematic, given how crucial these battle managers are to everything from airspace deconfliction, aircraft deconfliction, targeting, and providing other lethal effects that the entire force needs for the battle space,” Heather Penney, a former F-16 pilot and director of studies and research at AFA’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, told Air & Space Forces Magazine. 

The destroyed E-3 was one of six stationed at the Saudi base and only 16 active craft in the entire Pentagon inventory — and all of them can’t even be counted on, on any given day:

The E-3 is aging, and its capabilities are falling behind those of some major adversaries. The Air Force’s E-3 fleet has dwindled down to 16 as the service retires less-capable planes. In fiscal 2024, E-3s had a mission-capable rate of about 56 percent, meaning a little more than half were able to fly and carry out their missions at any given time. — Air & Space Forces 

Despite its B-list status, earlier Iranian successes have elevated the E-3 Sentry’s importance. Iran reportedly damaged a $1.1 billion AN/FPS-132 radar at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar — one of just six in the world — and blew up a nearly $500 million AN/TPY-2 THAAD radar at Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan. There’s reason to believe other radars suffered similar fates, thwarting US detection and response to incoming fire. The radars take years to replace. In the ultimate example of financially-asymmetric warfare, Iran may have used drones that cost between $10,000 to $30,000 each to inflict some or all of that damage. 

The AN/FPS-132 phased-array radar in Qatar was damaged by Iran.

Satellite imagery shows debris from the damaged radar face scattered across the roof of the main building, along with visible water runoff from firefighting efforts. pic.twitter.com/HvPEIwF4la

— The Cradle (@TheCradleMedia) March 4, 2026

AWACS have figured in every major US military engagement since their debut in the 1970s.  Speaking of history…at a time when people like recently-resigned Counterterrorism Center director Joe Kent are calling for President Trump to stand up to Israel and chart a new America-first course in this war and in the future, note that the AWACS played a central role in one of the few times an American president has rebuffed Israel’s attempts to steer US foreign policy.

In 1981, Israel and the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) mounted a fierce campaign to thwart an arms deal with Saudi Arabia, because it included AWACS. Israel and its US-based backers argued that the move would erode Israel’s military superiority in the region. President Reagan stood firm against the Israel/AIPAC backlash, calling a press conference in which he declared:

“While we must always take into account the vital interests of our allies, American security interests must remain our internal responsibility. It is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy.” 

Reagan’s aggressive lobbying of legislators pushed the deal across the finish line. However, in an exasperating postscript, we must note that Reagan felt compelled to promise Israel another F-15 squadron and $600 million in credits to smooth things over. Alas, even when Israel was rebuffed, the conveyor belt that ceaselessly redistributes wealth from America to Israel ran only harder. 

The takeaway is that the Iranian strike on PSAB, which may have eliminated one E-3 from the USAF’s already tiny fleet, exposed weaknesses in U.S. counter-drone and counter-missile defenses, as well as broader battlespace awareness.

* * * Lot going on lately. Try IQ whole bean fortified coffee. Contains:

• MCT Oil
• Alpha-GPC
• L-Theanine
• Ashwagandha

Snag some here.

Authored by Mauricio Alencar via City A.M.,

Sir Keir Starmer has said he doesn’t hold legal powers to approve fresh exploration of North Sea oil and gas fields, with the decision falling in the hands of net zero secretary Ed Miliband.

Starmer said current legislation determined that a quasi-judicial decision relating to cases for more gas extraction at Shell’s Jackdaw site and Equinor’s Rosebank oil field was left to Miliband.

The Prime Minister reiterated the government’s commitment to expanding renewable energy. He said the introduction of fresh legislation would “slow the process down” and accused the leader of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, of failing to know about the law before raising questions in Parliament. 

“Its absolutely clear that the quasi judicial [process] lies with secretary of state,” Starmer said. 

“In the last four weeks, because we are on a fossil fuel rollercoaster, everyone is being held to ransom.”

He added: “The most important thing to get energy security is to make sure we de-escalate the war.”

Starmer backed by Davey

Scottish courts ruled government approvals for more extraction at each field as unlawful on environmental grounds.

The power now falls on the energy secretary to make a decision while considering economic and environmental reasons for projects.

Badenoch accused Starmer of “hiding behind legal process every time” though Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey, who served as the energy secretary in the coalition government, said he agreed with the Prime Minister. 

The Tory leader heckled Davey to “stop sucking up”. She also shouted out “you can change the law” and repeated the word “weak” several times. 

Starmer is facing growing pressure to remove restrictions on North Sea oil and gas projects from officials working across clean energy.

Jurgen Maier, who oversees Great British Energy, the publicly owned investment company, said in a post on LinkedIn that more drilling in the region would support a “managed energy transition”, slow job losses and improve tax receipts.

However, he said that energy costs would not be brought down and later emphasised he was “fully supportive” of the government’s position to use existing fields for further exploration.

Prime Minister’s Questions also came just a day after the lobby group Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) called on the government to “urgently” allow new drilling projects to take place. 

Its annual report said much as half of the UK’s liquified natural gas (LNG) will come from international suppliers by 2035. 

David Whitehouse, chief executive of OEUK, said:

“As demand rises and electricity use accelerates, weakening domestic supply would only increase our reliance on imported LNG, leaving consumers more exposed to global volatility and higher emissions.”