91.2 F
Chicago
Monday, June 29, 2026
Home Blog Page 95

Japan Crude Imports Fall 66% To Record Low

Japan Crude Imports Fall 66% To Record Low

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Amid the supply disruption in the Middle East, Japan’s crude oil imports crashed by 66% in April from the same month last year, dropping to an all time low, official Japanese data showed on Friday.

Japan imported 4.07 million kilolitres, or about 850,000 barrels per day (bpd), of crude oil last month, down by 65.7% from the April 2025 levels, the monthly petroleum statistics of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) showed.

Crude imports from the Middle East region, which delivered more than 90% of Japan’s total crude imports before the war, plunged by 68% in April from a year earlier.

Japan’s imports from Saudi Arabia crashed by nearly 58%, and supply from the United Arab Emirate (UAE) to Japan plunged by 69.4%, the Japanese government data showed. Of the total severely reduced crude supply, the Middle East continued to account for more than 90% of Japanese crude imports, at 93.7% in April.

Japan in April imported the lowest volume of crude oil from the Middle East on record dating back to 1979 as the Iran war and the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz choked supply from the region.

Japan’s crude imports from the Middle East plummeted by 67.2% in April compared to the same month of 2025, provisional trade data from Japan’s Finance Ministry showed last week. The April 2026 volume, estimated in Japan at 3.843 million kiloliters of crude oil, was the lowest since data collection began in 1979.

Japan has just welcomed the first shipment of Middle East crude via the Strait of Hormuz since the Iran war began on February 28.

Japan is also releasing crude from its strategic reserves as part of an IEA-coordinated global effort to release 400 million barrels of crude and oil products.

The ongoing oil stocks release, which is Japan’s biggest ever, is helping Japanese refiners increase throughput. So is alternative supply from producers outside the Middle East, including rare cargoes from Azerbaijan and Latin America.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 18:25

Anti-Trump Entertainers Bolt From Freedom 250 Celebration

Anti-Trump Entertainers Bolt From Freedom 250 Celebration

Several entertainers abruptly backed out of President Donald Trump-linked Freedom 250 concerts this week after learning more details about the patriotic celebration planned for the National Mall.

As American Greatness reports, the cancellations add to the long-running tensions between Americans and the politically progressive entertainment industry.

Young MC, Morris Day, the Commodores, Bret Michaels, and country singer Martina McBride were among the performers who announced they would no longer appear at “The Great American State Fair,” a series of concerts and events scheduled for June 25 through July 10 in Washington, D.C.

The event is being organized by Freedom 250, a group launched by Trump late last year that describes itself as a “national, non-partisan organization leading the celebration of our Nation’s 250th birthday.”

Trump selected former State Department official Keith Krach to serve as the organization’s CEO.

The cancellations came just one day after organizers unveiled the first wave of performers.

McBride said on social media that she initially agreed to participate because she believed the event would remain politically neutral.

“Yesterday things started changing and what we were told is, in fact, not what is happening,” she wrote Thursday.

Young MC similarly suggested he was uncomfortable with the event’s political ties.

“The artists were never told about any political involvement with the event,” he wrote on Instagram, adding that he hoped to “perform in D.C. in the near future at an event that is not so politically charged.”

Morris Day also confirmed his departure in a brief Instagram statement.

“Contrary to rumor, Morris Day & The Time will not be performing at the ‘GREAT AMERICAN STATE FAIR,’” he posted.

C& C Music Factory issued a confusing statement, distancing themselves from the event:

“As the Creator of C&C MUSIC FACTORY, I can state that we stand for love of all people and races globally and neutrality in all beliefs, in freedom and justice for all humanity”

The greatest lip-syncers ever – Milli Vanilli – are also out:

“The original/real vocalists of Milli Vanilli, Jodie Rocco, Linda Rocco. Brad Howell, John Davis, and Charles Shaw will NOT be performing their hits live at The Great American State Fair. Others using the name ‘Milli Vanilli’ that appear on the advertisement should be considered a tribute band with no association vocally or musically to our sound or songs.”

At least one “I Love the 90s” act will be there: Vanilla Ice.

“He is proud to help celebrate America’s 250th Anniversary!” a representative for the “Ice Ice Baby” rapper wrote in an email to the AP.

“Everyone is welcome to attend and celebrate USA’s Birthday and our Freedom!”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 18:00

Obama-Nominated Judge Orders Trump’s Name Removed From Kennedy Center Building

Obama-Nominated Judge Orders Trump’s Name Removed From Kennedy Center Building

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

A federal district judge on May 29 ordered that President Donald Trump’s name be removed from the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and blocked officials from shuttering the venue for two years for renovations.

Obama-nominated, Washington-based Judge Christopher R. Cooper issued an order temporarily halting the closure and preventing the name change.

“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name, and only Congress can change it,” the judge said.

The new ruling came in response to litigation initiated in December 2025 by Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) who sued Trump and the Kennedy Center board of trustees over its renaming as the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Beatty is an ex officio member of the center’s board of trustees.

Rep. Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio) (C) and Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.) (C) arrive for an event on Capitol Hill in Washington on Sept. 3, 2025. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

“Representative Beatty is entitled to summary judgment on the renaming issue,” Cooper wrote Friday.

“The Kennedy Center’s organic statute makes crystal clear that the Center is to be named for President [John] Kennedy, and it cannot bear any other formal name or public memorial based on the Board’s unilateral say-so,” the judge wrote.

Cooper also ordered that Beatty have her voting rights restored as an ex officio trustee.

“The Center’s organic statute makes no distinction between the powers of general and ex officio trustees,” Cooper wrote.

“Nothing in the statute permits the Board to discriminate categorically between the two as to fundamental trustee rights,” the judge wrote.

“And stripping ex officio trustees of their voting rights runs afoul of common-law trust principles incorporated into the statute, principles which presumptively place trustees on equal footing when it comes to participating in the trust’s administration.”

Days before, the Kennedy Center board had unanimously voted to rename the institution the Trump-Kennedy Center.

That same day, new lettering was installed on the outside of the building along with digital rebranding.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 17:40

Trump Refiles Lawsuit Over Wall Street Journal Article Linking Him To Epstein Letter

Trump Refiles Lawsuit Over Wall Street Journal Article Linking Him To Epstein Letter

Authored by Jackson Richman via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump has refiled his $10 billion defamation lawsuit against Dow Jones & Company, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, over an article that alleged he signed a birthday letter sent to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump’s legal team submitted the revised complaint exactly on the May 27 deadline set by U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles. In April, Gayles dismissed the original lawsuit, ruling that Trump had failed to show that The Wall Street Journal acted with “actual malice,” the legal standard required in defamation cases involving public figures.

The updated complaint, which is seven pages longer than the original filing, again argues that Trump suffered significant financial and reputational damage from what his attorneys describe as a “false, defamatory, and malicious” article.

Trump has repeatedly denied authoring the 2003 letter.

In the new filing, Trump’s attorneys argue that only two surviving individuals could confirm whether the letter existed. According to the complaint, Trump “vehemently denied” writing it, while Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell allegedly told federal officials she had no knowledge of the document.

The complaint further accuses reporters Khadeeja Safdar and Joe Palazzolo, along with Dow Jones and News Corp., of either knowingly publishing false information or intentionally avoiding evidence that contradicted the story.

The original Wall Street Journal report said that Trump denied both writing the letter and drawing the image.

However, Trump’s legal team states “the Defendants falsely, maliciously, and defamatorily state as fact that regardless of how the alleged letter was prepared, it nonetheless contains President Trump’s authentic signature.”

Responding to requests for comment, publisher Dow Jones declined to discuss the refiled lawsuit but reiterated a previous statement issued in July 2025.

“We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,” a company spokesperson said.

In dismissing the original case, Gayles explained that proving actual malice requires evidence that a publisher knowingly reported false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. He wrote that Trump’s earlier complaint “comes nowhere close to this standard.”

Gayles also noted that The Wall Street Journal sought comment from Trump, the Justice Department, and the FBI before publication. Trump denied writing the letter, the Justice Department did not respond, and the FBI declined to comment.

The judge further stated that claims the newspaper ignored contradictory evidence were weakened by the article itself, which included Trump’s denial. Allegations of ill intent alone, he wrote, were insufficient to establish actual malice without supporting factual evidence.

Attorneys representing the newspaper have argued that the article’s claims are true and therefore not defamatory. However, Gayles declined to decide those factual disputes at this stage of the proceedings. He said questions regarding whether Trump authored the letter or maintained a personal relationship with Epstein remain unresolved.

To proceed with the lawsuit, Gayles wrote, Trump must provide clear evidence that The Wall Street Journal knowingly published false information or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The judge characterized the original complaint as relying on “formulaic” accusations that failed to meet the high legal threshold required for public figures pursuing defamation claims.

Following the dismissal, Trump addressed the case on Truth Social, saying his legal team would submit a revised complaint before the court’s deadline.

“It is not a termination, it is a suggested re-filing,” Trump wrote.

Trump originally filed the lawsuit in July 2025 after The Wall Street Journal published an article about the sexually suggestive letter allegedly bearing his signature in a birthday album created for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 15:40

“Closing The Nuclear Fuel Cycle” – Newcleo’s $780M War Chest And Oklo Partnership Fuel $2.4B SPAC Debut

“Closing The Nuclear Fuel Cycle” – Newcleo’s $780M War Chest And Oklo Partnership Fuel $2.4B SPAC Debut

It’s open season in the nuclear industry for going public, and this week’s episode features newcleo, a European lead-cooled reactor developer. 

The Paris-based developer of lead-cooled fast reactors (LFRs) and closed-cycle MOX fuel announced it will merge with NewHold Investment Corp III (ticker NHIC) in a deal valuing the company at roughly $2.4 billion

A $220 million oversubscribed PIPE at $10 per share plus up to $209 million from the SPAC trust should deliver as much as $429 million in gross proceeds before redemptions and fees. The combined entity expects to list on Nasdaq under ticker NWCL in the second half of 2026.

Hopefully their transition to public markets doesn’t follow the same path as microreactor developer Hadron Energy…

Founded by Stefano Buono (the man who took Advanced Accelerator Applications public on Nasdaq in 2015 and sold it to Novartis for $3.9 billion in 2018), Newcleo has already raised approximately $780 million privately across Europe. It generated roughly $80 million in revenue last year from its vertically integrated supply-chain subsidiaries while building a 900-plus employee team across seven countries and 16 offices. 

The technology: Newcleo’s 200 MW (electric) reactor uses liquid lead coolant. The company highlights that lead is cheap, high-boiling, and chemically inert with water and air. The lead is paired with proprietary MOX fuel (a mixture of uranium and plutonium) fabricated from reprocessed nuclear waste.

Their target for commercial fuel manufacturing is 2031, and they hold a pipeline of 9.2 GW of advanced commercial opportunities, including a state-backed Slovak project for up to four 200 MWe units.

As we recently covered, Oklo was selected by the Department of Energy for advanced negotiations under the Surplus Plutonium Utilization Program; one of five firms tapped to convert up to 20 metric tons of Cold War-era weapons plutonium into usable reactor fuel. Newcleo is Oklo’s fuel-cycle partner on the deal, supplying European MOX expertise and potential project capital.

The two companies already signed a strategic partnership last October that contemplates up to $2 billion in Newcleo-affiliated investment into U.S. advanced fuel fabrication infrastructure, alongside Sweden’s Blykalla.
 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 15:25

Bitcoin ETFs Bleed $2.8B In Record 9-Day Outflow Streak

Bitcoin ETFs Bleed $2.8B In Record 9-Day Outflow Streak

Authored by Helen Partz via CoinTelegraph.com,

US-listed spot Bitcoin exchange-traded funds (ETFs) posted their longest outflow streak since launch, extending withdrawals as institutional demand for Bitcoin exposure weakened.

Spot Bitcoin ETFs recorded another $223 million in net outflows on Thursday, marking the record nine-day outflow streak since the funds launched in 2024, according to data from Farside Investors.

The latest streak surpassed the previous record eight-session outflow run recorded in February 2025, though its roughly $2.84 billion in cumulative withdrawals remains below the $3.2 billion lost during the earlier selloff.

US spot Bitcoin ETF outflows in May 2026 versus February 2025. Source: SoSoValue

Visualizing further shows BTC ETFs have seen outflows for 13 of the last 15 days

The outflows suggest institutional demand for Bitcoin exposure is weakening through the ETF channel, and come as major corporate holders such as Strategy face renewed pressure even as some new altcoin products like Hyperliquid (HYPE) ETFs continue attracting investor interest.

BlackRock’s IBIT leads the outflows at $2 billion

Signs of institutional selling have also emerged beneath the surface.

BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust (IBIT), the largest US spot Bitcoin ETF by assets, accounted for a massive share of losses during the nine-session outflow streak, recording its largest single-day outflow since launch earlier this week, driven largely by a sizeable dark pool transaction.

The fund recorded roughly $2.04 billion in cumulative outflows between May 15 and Thursday. As Cointelegraph reported, a $527.8 million withdrawal on May 27 marked IBIT’s second-largest daily outflow on record, narrowly below the $528.3 million record posted on Jan. 30, 2025.

BTC holdings for all US spot Bitcoin ETFs as of market close on Wednesday. Source: Wallet Pilot

While the precise motivation behind the trade is unknown, CoinDesk notes that the scale of the redemption suggests some investors may be reallocating capital away from bitcoin exposure and toward sectors that have recently generated stronger returns.

Despite the selling pressure, BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF remains the dominant US spot Bitcoin fund by assets under management. IBIT held roughly 792,000 BTC as of market close on Wednesday, representing about 62% of all US spot Bitcoin ETF holdings, according to Wallet Pilot data.

US spot Ether ETFs have also faced persistent selling pressure, logging 13 consecutive days of outflows between May 11 and Thursday, with cumulative losses of roughly $694 million.

HYPE ETFs buck the broader slowdown

While spot Bitcoin ETFs face sustained selling pressure, newly launched HYPE ETFs have continued attracting fresh capital from investors.

The products recorded steady inflows between May 12 and Thursday, with cumulative net inflows rising above $100 million, according to SoSoValue.

Daily flows in US-listed spot HYPE ETFs. Source: SoSoValue

Other altcoin funds such as spot XRP ETFs also recorded steady gains over the period, totaling roughly $120 million in net additions between May 4 and Thursday.

The divergence underscores a shift in crypto fund flows, with investors pulling back from Bitcoin and Ether ETFs while newer products tied to tokens such as Hyperliquid’s HYPE continue to attract inflows.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 15:00

Both Sides Agree Iran Deal ‘Close’ But Not Finalized, As Trump Promises ‘Final Determination’ Soon

Both Sides Agree Iran Deal ‘Close’ But Not Finalized, As Trump Promises ‘Final Determination’ Soon

Summary

  • NYT: President Trump’s meeting in the Situation Room lasted about two hours, but the president did not reach a decision on any new deal with Iran.
  • Trump repeats conditions on Iran for lifting US naval blockade, oil pushed lower. Fars responds: “Mix of truth & lies.”
  • Trump vows to ‘unearth’ and gain control of nuclear dust in ‘cooperation’ with Iran and/or China, says no money will be exchanged with Iran, and that it ‘must agree’ to never have a nuclear weapon (Truth Social).
  • NY Times reports surprising element of the Iran peace draft deal: a proposed investment fund for Iran – reportedly $300 billion.
  • Tehran confirms MOU stalled, but is being reviewed, amid lack of trust in negotiating with Washington.
  • The Revolutionary Guards said any renewed conflict would spread “far beyond the region,” threatening “crushing blows” and “utter ruin” in places opponents “cannot even imagine.”

US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 30, 2026?
Yes 38% · No 63%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

Trump After 2-Hour Situation Room Meeting: No Deal Yet

By close to day’s end on Friday, both sides appear in agreement that no deal has been reached. First, fresh reporting after a two-hour White House situation room meeting from the NY Times:

President Trump’s meeting in the Situation Room lasted about two hours, but the president did not reach a decision on any new deal with Iran, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to speak about internal deliberations.

The administration believes it is close to an agreement but there are still certain matters being debated including the unfreezing of funds for the Iranians, the official said.

And from the Iranian side, the last afternoon official message was as follows (Reuters, state sources):

A senior Iranian source tells Reuters that a political understanding has been reached between Iran and the US, though it has not yet been finalized.

More from NYT:

Trump: Iran’s Uranium will be unearthed by the United States; Fars: Trump’s claims “mix of truth and lies”

These Truth Social messages are starting to appear uncannily similar to ones already issued weeks ago. But this seems more confirmation that there is no MOU which has been ‘finalized’ – but that some key things have been agreed to.

  • Trump is again saying the US will get the ‘nuclear dust’
  • Iran “must agree” to never have a nuclear weapon
  • No toll system for Hormuz
  • Removal of all sea mines
  • “No money will be exchanges until further notice.”

 

Oil pushed lower on the headlines via Trump’s post…

But amid the return to some ‘optimism’ in headlines, there are the usual caveats and counternarratives (likely accurate):

Iran Clarifies Deal ‘Not Finalized’ Amid Lack Of Trust

Iran’s Tasnim reports Friday that the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not yet finalized, and that Thursday’s flurry of Western media headlines about an agreement finally being reached were inaccurate.

“The text is not finalized yet and the account in Western media is not precise,” a fresh statement indicates. Official confirmation will be announced if it does get to the point of being finalized, Tasnim notes. The report cited an Iranian official to say that “the text of the possible memorandum of understanding has had changes over the past few days.”

The warring sides are attempting to lock in a 60-day extended ceasefire, during which time they will get back to the table – and that’s when finer details like how to address Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium will be dealt with. It is now day 91, and according to the latest Friday:

Iranian Parliament Speaker and top negotiator Ghalibaf says: “We have no trust in guarantees or words.”

Late Thursday, US Vice President J.D. Vance indicated that President Trump has not approved, at a moment Washington is insisting the nuclear issue be more front and center as part of the MOU.

However, the Iranians have consistently said their nuclear program is not up for negotiation toward ending the war – but that it is something that can be talked about once the conflict closes.

According to a summary of the latest on the stalled MOU from an Al Jazeera correspondent

Diplomatic efforts to preserve the ceasefire between the United States and Iran have continued behind the scenes, with officials signaling progress towards a framework that could open the door to formal negotiations after weeks of conflict and disruption across the Gulf and beyond.

Despite the optimism, questions remain over the timing and scope of any agreement.

Iranian media reports suggested discussions are continuing and that key details have yet to be finalized, while both sides continue to navigate sensitive issues, including Iran’s nuclear program and security in the Gulf.

Ghalibaf: We Achieved Concessions Through Missiles, Not Dialogue

More from Iran’s chief negotiator in a Friday update:

What has become clear is that US and international media reports have consistently proven premature, too out front, thinly sourced, and ultimately inaccurate in their generally optimistic claims of a deal being ‘finalized’ or else ‘imminent’.

Iran Threatens ‘Utter Ruin’ on US-Gulf-Israel if War Resumes

In the meantime, Iran’s ongoing threats of an escalated, protracted war happen to be very clear:

The Revolutionary Guards said any renewed conflict would spread “far beyond the region,” threatening “crushing blows” and “utter ruin” in places opponents “cannot even imagine.”

The warnings come after a war that saw Iran target US bases, Israeli cities and critical infrastructure in Gulf Arab states, while effectively shutting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and triggering a global energy shock.

The Islamic Republic has also been touting new “tools” to use against its enemies, per CNN:

Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned that any future retaliation would “feature many more surprises,” while Iran’s military threatened to open “new fronts” using “new tools.” Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s top negotiator, said the armed forces had used the ceasefire period to rebuild their capabilities “at the highest level.”

Some pundits fear that such references to “new fronts” could mean either the closure of the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea, or even the possibility of missiles reaching Europe.

Umud Shokri, an energy strategist at George Mason University, has explained in a statement, “A simultaneous crisis in Bab al-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz would be far more serious, potentially affecting both Red Sea trade and Persian Gulf energy flows, which would raise oil prices, freight rates, and inflationary pressure worldwide.”

Still, the Trump administration is pressing for a deal which would make its Iran gambit look like ‘victory’ – something which finally reopens energy transit points and sees the removal of highly enriched uranium from Iran. Tehran leaders, however, don’t appear in the mood to allow Washington to have its cake and eat it too.

More Latest Headlines

More latest Iran developments via Newsquawk:

  • Many points regarding the Iranian nuclear file have been resolved; Iran has agreed to international oversight of its nuclear facilities to prevent their dismantling, Al Arabiya reported citing sources. Iran wants to transfer the enriched uranium to China with a commitment not to deliver it to America.
  • Chairman of the Iranian National Security Committee of the Iranian Parliament said there are no plans to transfer enriched uranium out of the country, Asharq reported.
  • Iran Deputy for Foreign Policy and International Security Ali Baqeri held separate meetings in Moscow with the Foreign Policy Advisor to Brazil’s President and the Secretary General of Egypt’s National Security Council.
  • IRGC Commander said Iran forces are ready to act on Supreme Leader’s order and enemies should not make mistakes as they will get themselves and others into trouble.
  • Iran military source said US drone was intercepted near Bushehr in southern Iran, according to Al Jazeera.
  • US Vice President Vance said that US President Trump is not yet ready to endorse the Iran agreement, while Vance noted that US and Iran made a lot of progress towards a ceasefire deal, according to AFP. Vance said US and Iran are at odds on uranium enrichment and stockpiles, according to SNN.
  • White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller stating in an interview with Fox News that US President Trump is directly involved in negotiations with Iran.
  • US President Trump said we completely sank the Iranian Navy and destroyed their air force, did not target all of Iran’s military leadership so that what happened in Iraq would not be repeated.
  • US military said Iran’s state TV claim that Iranian forces downed a US aircraft near Bushehr is false and no US aircraft was shot down by Iran, with all US air assets are accounted for.
  • US VP Vance said US and Iran are exchanging proposals regarding some drafting points including issue of enrichment, adds time is still early to know when an agreement with Iran will be reached and if it will happen at all.
  • US Treasury imposes fresh sanctions targeting Iran’s military oil sales, according to Reuters. IRNA reported US sanctions 25 individuals, firms and vessels over Iran oil.
  • US President Trump said that US has all the cards, Iran has been defeated militarily, according to a Fox interview.
  • Al Hadath posted Iranian television reported “the downing of an American fighter jet” in the vicinity of Bushehr, with no American confirmations.
  • US official denies what Iranian TV announced about downing any American plane near Bushehr, according to Al Hadath.
  • Israel’s Channel 12, citing military sources, said “The army recommends to the political leadership intensifying the air and ground strikes in Lebanon”.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 14:55

The Two Ugly Paths Now Facing The US Economy

The Two Ugly Paths Now Facing The US Economy

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

I was watching Andrew Ross Sorkin on 60 Minutes last Sunday. Sorkin was on the show to promote his new book, 1929: Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History — and How It Shattered a Nation.

When Leslie Stahl asked him during his interview whether we would have another crash, Sorkin answered: “The answer is, we will have a crash. I just can’t tell you when, and I can’t tell you how deep. But I can assure you, unfortunately, I wish I wasn’t saying this, we will have the crash.”

At one point he says “We are either living through some kind of remarkable boom, [or we’re reliving] 1929.”

I thought to myself: hell, I can do better than that, and I didn’t even write a book about 1929. Because at this point, the real question is not whether we are headed toward some sort of financial reckoning…the question is what form that reckoning takes.

And after looking at the current economic landscape, I increasingly believe there are only two realistic outcomes over the next several years: a soft default through inflation or a hard default through financial crisis. The former seems more likely than the latter, and can be confusing to people because nominal prices staying steady or rising while inflation runs out of control won’t look like a “crash” that most of 60 Minutes’ viewers will expect. It’ll be a crash upward.

To understand why, let’s start with where we are right now and summarize a lot of what I’ve written about over the past month or two. There’s four key things I’m watching:

  1. inflation

  2. market valuation

  3. the consumer

  4. the bond market

These four things have worked together to produce a combination that I believe is close to locking up the economy and taking away any response options from the Central Bank that won’t have immediate and ugly consequences.

Inflation remains structurally above the Federal Reserve’s target despite one of the most aggressive rate-hiking cycles in modern history. Even now, inflation is still running around 3.8%, nearly double the Fed’s stated objective. This is no longer a temporary post-pandemic distortion that policymakers can dismiss away with optimistic forecasts and revised models.

Inflation has become embedded across the economy, from housing and insurance to healthcare, wages, food, and government spending itself. The cost structure of modern American life has permanently shifted upward, while policymakers continue pretending that a return to stable 2% inflation is just around the corner. It’s not.

At the same time, financial markets continue to trade at historically stretched valuations. The Shiller P/E ratio sits around 42x versus its mean of 17.3x and market capitalization relative to GDP has surged above 230%, levels associated not with healthy long-term expansion but with periods of deep speculation and excess.

A better way to look at this instead of valuations are high is that the market is extraordinarily vulnerable to falling further in percentage terms. When valuations become detached from underlying economic reality, the downside risk grows larger because there is simply farther to fall once confidence breaks. Expensive markets do not automatically cause crashes, but they create the conditions where even modest disappointments can trigger violent repricing. Especially if the market’s rally has been on poor breadth and the result of speculation on options and the passive bid.

Beneath the surface, delinquency data shows that the consumer is tapped out. Student loan delinquencies have surged back toward record levels as repayments resume into an economy where borrowing costs and living expenses have both exploded higher.

Credit card delinquencies are now sitting at their highest levels since the aftermath of the financial crisis, while auto loan defaults, especially among subprime borrowers, have reached multi-decade highs. Americans are financing $50,000 vehicles with monthly payments exceeding $750 at interest rates that would have seemed absurd just a few years ago.

Consumers have largely maintained spending not because household finances are healthy, but because they have increasingly relied on debt to sustain a standard of living that inflation has steadily eroded.

And the rate at which consumers are saving is dwindling significantly now.

But the most important warning signal in the economy is not the stock market or the consumer. It is the bond market.

Under normal economic conditions, weakening growth and financial stress would push long-term Treasury yields lower as investors seek safety and begin pricing in future Federal Reserve easing. Instead, the opposite is happening. The 10-year Treasury yield remains around 4.5%, while the 30-year Treasury has pushed above 5%. Those are not comforting numbers. They reflect a growing discomfort with the long-term fiscal trajectory of the United States itself.

This is the trap the United States now finds itself in.

And because of these four factors, I believe there are only two paths we can go down. The more likely path I think puts gold eventually on a (rocky and volatile) tracjectory to eventually get to $10,000.

The first, and in my view the more likely outcome, is the soft default. This is the inflationary path where policymakers ultimately choose to save the Treasury market through monetary intervention. They will not describe it as money printing, of course. They will use softer language such as liquidity support, balance sheet management, market stabilization, or yield curve control. But the mechanism is ultimately the same. The Federal Reserve creates money in order to purchase government debt and suppress long-term yields before the Treasury market becomes unstable.

This approach would almost certainly succeed in stabilizing borrowing costs in the short term. But it would come at the expense of the currency itself. That is why I increasingly believe the next major crash could actually be an upward crash. Stocks may continue rising in nominal terms. Gold could surge. Real estate and hard assets may inflate even further. On paper, asset values appear strong and financial markets may even seem resilient. But underneath the surface, the purchasing power of the dollar continues eroding year after year.

That is what a soft default looks like. The government technically honors its obligations, but repays those obligations in increasingly devalued dollars. Savers lose purchasing power. Wage earners fall behind inflation. The middle class gets squeezed as the cost of living rises faster than incomes. Yet politically, inflation remains preferable because it spreads the pain gradually across society instead of concentrating it into one catastrophic event. I’ve even speculated that the Fed could wind up inventing new inflation numbers out of thin air for PR purposes if this happens: The Fed Will Invent New Inflation Numbers Out Of Thin Air

The second possibility is the hard default. This is the more chaotic and openly destructive scenario where policymakers lose control before they can inflate their way out of the problem. A hard default would not necessarily require the United States to formally announce that it is refusing to pay its debts. It could emerge through failed Treasury auctions, a debt ceiling accident, a severe liquidity freeze in the bond market, delayed government obligations, or a broader sovereign confidence crisis that causes investors to rapidly reassess the safety of U.S. debt.

In that environment, Treasury yields could spike violently higher while banks and financial institutions holding large amounts of long-duration government debt come under enormous pressure. Credit markets could freeze. Equity markets would likely experience a rapid downward repricing before policymakers responded with emergency interventions. Government spending cuts and forced austerity measures could suddenly become unavoidable not because Washington chose discipline voluntarily, but because markets imposed discipline externally.


🔥 90% Off If You Subscribe Today. This coupon allows for 90% off of annual subscriptions and results in a 90%+ savings over paying the monthly rate for a subscription to the blog. You keep the discounted rate for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber. I will not be offering 90% off anytime again soon after the long weekend: Get 90% off forever


This is the scenario policymakers fear most because once sovereign confidence begins breaking apart, events move very quickly. Financial history repeatedly shows that debt crises tend to unfold slowly for years and then suddenly all at once. I see this as the less likely scenario, but between the two paths, I’d venture to guess we have 99% of what could possibly take place nailed down and out in the open.

I believe the soft default remains far more likely than the hard default for one simple reason: policymakers will do almost anything to avoid immediate collapse. They will print before they default. They will monetize debt before they accept a disorderly Treasury market. They will sacrifice the purchasing power of the currency before they willingly allow the government’s financing structure to implode.

Sorkin says he knows a crash is coming but does not know what form it will take. I think we can narrow it down much further than that. The next crisis will probably not look like 1929, and it may not even resemble 2008. The more likely scenario is an inflationary sovereign debt crisis disguised for a period of time as economic resilience. It will look like rising nominal asset prices, stubborn inflation, endless liquidity support, and growing pressure on the dollar itself as policymakers attempt to suppress yields and keep the Treasury market functioning.

Because ultimately, once long-term interest rates become politically intolerable, the Federal Reserve will face an impossible choice. It can defend the dollar by allowing yields to rise and risk detonating the debt structure, or it can defend the Treasury market through intervention and risk significantly higher inflation. Under a new Fed chair like Kevin Warsh, the options are still fundamentally the same. Policymakers can change the language, revise inflation metrics, redefine targets, and introduce new programs, but they cannot escape the underlying arithmetic.

History strongly suggests they will choose inflation. Not because it solves the problem, but because it delays the reckoning.

And that is ultimately where I disagree with Sorkin. I do not think the future crash is unknowable. I think the pressure points are already obvious. To me, the only real question is whether the United States defaults honestly through crisis or dishonestly through inflation. I’d bet on the latter, and as an investor it would make me keen to watch gold if it gets smacked lower an an initial shock to markets before the Fed intervenes. Because I could easily see a situation where gold keeps retreating, perhaps to $4,000 or lower, sharply moving lower during the initial shock, maybe to $3500 or lower, before doubling or tripling in the years after a Fed response that I believe could be very inflationary and push gold closer to $10,000 over time.

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page hereThis 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.

As of May 20, 2026 I no longer actively trade (read my story here) and my accounts are managed by recurring contributions to trusted third parties and advisors and/or recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs. Such advisors, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in names that I know nothing about. Basically, I could own or not own anything at any point, and not have any idea about it.

And 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.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 14:20

Dollar Dominance Remains Alive And Well

Dollar Dominance Remains Alive And Well

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The dollar is supposed to be dying. We’ve heard that argument for the better part of a decade, and it’s getting louder, not quieter. The narrative goes that BRICS countries are building an alternative, that China is dumping Treasuries, that gold is replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve asset, and that Washington is so desperate to find buyers for the next debt issuance that it’s now offering dollar swap lines to Gulf states as a backdoor liquidity rescue. Make no mistake, the “Persistent Purveyors of Doom” have a story. However, the data doesn’t support any of it.

Dollar dominance isn’t fading. In fact, the events of late April 2026 just delivered the loudest counter-signal in years.

Thesis Vs. Reality

I’ve been arguing for years that the “dollar collapse” thesis confuses inflation with debasement. You can’t be debasing a currency that the rest of the world is fighting harder than ever to acquire. We covered the rebasement argument in our previous piece on the dollar’s plumbing, and in “The Dollar’s Death is Greatly Exaggerated.” The latest data only sharpens the case for dollar dominance.

According to the U.S. Treasury’s most recent Treasury International Capital report, released April 15 with February 2026 data, foreign residents purchased $101 billion of long-term U.S. securities in February alone. Net TIC inflows totaled $184.5 billion for the month. On top of that, foreign holders added $91.6 billion to their Treasury bill holdings. Total foreign ownership of U.S. Treasuries hit a record $9.49 trillion in February, up $198 billion in the month and $587 billion over the trailing 12 months. However, that headline number actually undercounts the reality. It excludes foreign holdings managed through U.S.-domiciled hedge funds and the Cayman Islands basis trade, which the Federal Reserve estimates pulls another $1.5 trillion of de facto foreign demand into the bid stack. Adjusted for that, true foreign-linked exposure runs closer to $11 trillion.

Beyond stock-of-debt figures, the flow data tells the same story. Indirect bidder participation, the auction proxy for foreign demand, has run consistently above 70% of accepted bids on recent benchmark issues. Bid-to-cover ratios on 10-year and 30-year auctions have held above 2.5 across multiple cycles. If the world were truly walking away from the dollar, we’d see weak auctions, tailing yields, and a steepening term premium driven by rejected supply. Instead, we see the opposite. The U.S. just printed roughly two-and-a-half trillion in deficits over the past year, and global investors absorbed every basis point of it.

That doesn’t sound like a fire sale. On the contrary, that looks like the strongest sustained demand for U.S. sovereign debt in history.

Why Central Bank Gold Buying Reinforces Dollar Dominance

Here’s the part of the story the doomers consistently get wrong. The gold bugs have built an entire belief system on a category error. Of course, central banks have been buying gold in size. The World Gold Council’s Q1 2026 Gold Demand Trends report, published April 29, shows central banks bought 244 tonnes of gold net in Q1 2026 alone, up 3 percent year-over-year. That extends 17 consecutive months of net official-sector purchases, even with gold prices peaking above $5,400 an ounce in January.3 Total Q1 physical gold demand reached 474 tonnes, the second-highest quarter on record. Furthermore, the WGC forecasts roughly 850 tonnes of central bank purchases for full-year 2026, on par with 2025 and consistent with the multi-year pace. The trend is real and significant. However, it is not, in any practical sense, an escape from the dollar.

Gold is priced in dollars. The LBMA Gold Price, the global benchmark used to mark central bank holdings, settles in U.S. dollars per ounce. When the People’s Bank of China, the National Bank of Poland, or the Reserve Bank of India accumulates gold, the value of those reserves is reported, audited, and benchmarked in U.S. dollars. Of course, the unit of account doesn’t change just because the asset does. Furthermore, when those same central banks need to deploy gold for liquidity, the counterparty pricing reverts to dollars. That applies whether the deployment is through swaps, repo, or sale. The gold and dollar markets are not parallel systems. They’re the same system, with gold serving as a dollar-priced reserve asset.

That distinction matters because it reframes the entire de-dollarization narrative. A central bank that shifts 5% of reserves from Treasuries into gold has not abandoned the dollar. Instead, it has rebalanced inside the dollar-priced reserve system. The same is true for the Bank for International Settlements gold swaps, the Shanghai Gold Exchange yuan-quoted contract, and even the Russian central bank’s pre-sanction accumulation. Every one of those positions has a dollar-equivalent value because dollars are how the world prices reserve wealth. Even when gold is bought, sold, or pledged, the cross-rate to USD is the reference point. There’s no other deep, liquid pricing rail. In that sense, gold accumulation reinforces dollar dominance rather than threatens it.

The same World Gold Council survey that gets cited to “prove” a dollar decline shows that 73% of central bank respondents expect a moderately or significantly lower USD share of reserves over the next five years. The doomers stop reading at that headline. The reality is that the IMF’s most recent COFER release, covering Q4 2025, puts the dollar’s share of allocated reserves at 56.77%. That figure is essentially flat versus the prior quarter, with most of the variation explained by exchange-rate effects rather than active selling.

Total foreign exchange reserves stood at $13.14 trillion at year-end 2025. The dollar’s share of reserves has fluctuated between roughly 56% and 72% over the past three decades. At every level, however, it has been a multiple of every other reserve currency combined. The euro sits at 20.25%, and the yen and pound around 5% each, with the yuan, despite all the hype, still under 2%.

Bessent’s Dollar Swaps Extend Dominance

Indeed, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has spent the last several weeks discussing the possibility of extending dollar swap lines to allies in the Persian Gulf and Asia, with the United Arab Emirates as the lead candidate. Predictably, the doomers have framed this as a fire-sale-prevention move, claiming that Washington is offering swaps to keep Gulf sovereigns from dumping Treasuries amid the Iran conflict. However, that reading misses the strategy entirely.

Bessent said it himself in plain language. In his April 22 testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, he stated that swap lines “are to maintain order in the dollar funding markets and to prevent the sale of U.S. assets in a disorderly way.” Two days later, in a coordinated X post, he went further: “Additional swap lines can benefit our nation by reinforcing dollar usage and liquidity internationally,” and “extending permanent swap lines can be a major first step in creating new U.S. dollar funding centers in the Gulf and Asia.” He closed with the line that defines the entire policy framework:

“Dollar dominance and reserve currency status are strengthened by constant long-term initiatives, including countering the growth of problematic, alternative payment systems.”

That’s not the language of a desperate Treasury Secretary trying to plug a leaky bid stack. On the contrary, that’s the language of a policymaker using monetary infrastructure to extend American financial reach. Swap lines are how Washington exports dollar liquidity. The 2008 crisis playbook used them defensively to backstop European and Japanese banks. Bessent is now reaching for the same tool offensively. He’s planting new dollar funding nodes in regions where alternative payment systems, including BRICS clearing rails and yuan-denominated commodity pricing, have been making noise.

Consider the geometry. Permanent swap line access turns a partner country’s central bank into a node of the dollar system. Once that line is in place, local banks have a guaranteed dollar liquidity backstop. As a result, there is no real incentive to develop a non-dollar alternative. The UAE flirted publicly with yuan-denominated oil pricing as recently as last year. A swap line eliminates that option in practice. It makes the dollar backstop too cheap and reliable to abandon. This is the same logic that has kept the existing G7 swap lines (Canada, ECB, Japan, UK, Switzerland) firmly inside the dollar orbit since the financial crisis.

Furthermore, this isn’t theoretical. Bessent has already run this playbook in practice. In September 2025, the Treasury used the Exchange Stabilization Fund to extend a $20 billion swap line to Argentina ahead of Milei’s pivotal October election. The strategic logic was identical. Reinforce dollar liquidity in a partner economy. Prevent disorderly Treasury liquidations during a political stress event. Lock the country into the dollar system at the moment of maximum strategic value. Bessent has publicly stated that the Argentina facility was fully repaid within months, validating the operational template. The UAE proposal extends the same framework to the Gulf, and the broader Asian conversation that Bessent referenced suggests the network is about to expand significantly.

Swap lines are the carrot. Sanctions are the stick. Bessent has been just as direct about the second tool as about the first, and the timing of the messaging is no accident.

Furthermore, in late April, the Treasury unveiled what it’s calling “Economic Fury,” a coordinated campaign to “systematically degrade Tehran’s ability to generate, move, and repatriate funds.” The mechanics are revealing. The U.S. Navy is enforcing a blockade of Iranian ports. Kharg Island oil storage is filling up because Iranian crude has nowhere to go. Tankers facilitating covert trade face direct sanctions exposure. Critically for this discussion, OFAC has already frozen $344 million in cryptocurrency wallets tied to the regime.

That last data point matters more than the doomers will admit. It directly validates the argument we made in our previous piece on digital dollar infrastructure. Stablecoin and crypto rails are not an escape from the dollar system. Instead, they’re an extension of it, with new enforcement capabilities attached. When Treasury can freeze nine-figure crypto positions through compliance pressure on issuers and exchanges, the supposed “uncensorable” alternative to dollar custody turns out to be more censorable, not less.

The reality is that dollar dominance is reinforced by both tools simultaneously. On the carrot side, you have liquidity provision, swap lines, digital dollar adoption, and the deep Treasury bid. On the stick side, you have sanctions reach, OFAC freezes, blacklisting, and naval enforcement of commodity flows. Of course, both capabilities are expanding, not contracting. Foreign reserve managers know this. Furthermore, they are also calculating that being inside the dollar orbit, even with custodial diversification, is far safer than being targeted by it.

The UAE OPEC Exit Validates the Strategy

Then came April 28. The UAE announced it was leaving both OPEC and OPEC+, dealing a heavy blow to the cartel and to its de facto leader, Saudi Arabia. The timing was not coincidental. Just six days earlier, Bessent had publicly endorsed an emergency dollar swap line for Abu Dhabi before the Senate. The UAE central bank governor, Khaled Mohamed Balama, had traveled to Washington during the IMF and World Bank spring meetings to meet with Bessent and Federal Reserve representatives.

Read the sequence carefully. First, Iran’s missile strikes hit Gulf infrastructure, and then the Strait of Hormuz closes. UAE faces a real liquidity stress event. Washington offers an emergency dollar backstop, security guarantees, and the deployment of Israel’s Iron Dome on UAE soil. Days later, the UAE walks out of the petroleum cartel that the doomers have spent years claiming was about to abandon the dollar in favor of a “petroyuan” alternative. Instead, the UAE just publicly chose the dollar bloc over its OPEC peers. The swap line offer didn’t avert a crisis through emergency liquidity. It reorganized a major Gulf state into the U.S. financial orbit at the moment of maximum strategic opportunity.

That is dollar dominance functioning exactly as Bessent described it in his testimony. Carrot first. Then, the strategic realignment is second. The petroyuan narrative just lost its most credible Gulf candidate.

Pushback: But What About De-Dollarization?

The strongest version of the de-dollarization argument runs as follows. After the 2022 sanctions on Russia froze roughly $300 billion in central bank reserves, every other sanction-vulnerable country had to reassess custodial risk. China shifted holdings from direct U.S. custody to Belgium and Luxembourg. BRICS expanded membership. The Saudi-Iran rapprochement, brokered partly by Beijing, signaled a regional pivot. In addition, Russia and China increased bilateral trade settled in yuan and rubles. All of this is true.

However, none of it actually undermines dollar dominance at the system level. Sanction-driven custodial diversification moves Treasuries from the New York Fed to Euroclear. Yet it doesn’t move them out of the Treasury market. China’s reported direct holdings have declined, but its total exposure, including third-country custody, has remained roughly flat. Furthermore, BRICS settlement still reverts to dollars at the cross-border invoicing layer. No participant wants to hold rubles, rupees, or yuan as a long-term store of value. Bilateral yuan settlement, despite the headlines, remains a sliver of total trade flows.

The reality is the doomers are confusing diversification with abandonment. Foreign reserve managers are doing two things at once. First, they’re spreading custodial risk across more jurisdictions. Second, they’re adding gold as a politically neutral hedge. Both moves leave the dollar as the dominant unit of account, the dominant settlement asset, and the dominant store of value. As shown above, the share has barely moved.

Beyond the traditional reserve channel, digital dollar infrastructure is rapidly expanding the dollar’s reach into emerging markets. Demand for dollar-denominated digital tokens has hit all-time highs in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tether’s Q1 2026 attestation, published May 1, confirmed direct and indirect U.S. Treasury exposure of approximately $141 billion as of March 31, against $191.8 billion in total assets and $183.5 billion in liabilities. The reserve buffer reached a record $8.23 billion, and Q1 net profit hit $1.04 billion. That makes Tether the 17th largest holder of U.S. Treasuries globally.

Furthermore, USDT circulation grew by more than $5 billion during April alone, pushing total supply above $188 billion. In Latin America, dollar-pegged digital tokens accounted for 40% of crypto purchases in 2025, surpassing Bitcoin’s share. The Bitso report on 10 million Latin American users described the trend bluntly as “digital dollarization.” That kind of grassroots demand is dollar dominance in action at the consumer layer.

The GENIUS Act, signed into law last July, created the first federal framework requiring permitted issuers to back tokens with high-quality liquid assets, primarily short-term Treasuries. The April 2026 FinCEN/OFAC proposed rule extends sanctions enforcement directly into the issuer layer. As a result, Washington can freeze, block, or seize dollar-denominated digital tokens through the issuer’s compliance program. That isn’t a workaround away from the dollar system; it’s an extension of it, with new enforcement rails attached.

What This Means for Investors

The investment implications cut several ways. First, foreign demand for U.S. Treasuries is structurally strong, which keeps a bid under the long end of the curve even as deficits widen. Indeed, that’s bullish for duration. Second, central bank gold buying creates a price floor under bullion that didn’t exist in prior cycles. Investors should hold some allocation to gold. However, they should hold it for the right reason. It’s a dollar-priced inflation hedge and a political risk diversifier, not a fiat escape hatch. Finally, the digital dollar buildout is creating a new investable vertical. Custody, payments infrastructure, and compliant on-ramp providers (CRCL, COIN, V, MA, JPM, BK) sit at the intersection of fiat and digital dollar plumbing.

The contrarian read is this. If you bought into the dollar collapse narrative over the last five years, you missed gains in U.S. equities. You missed the Treasury bid that compressed yields during recent risk-off episodes. You probably overweighted gold and Bitcoin at peaks. The bottom line is that the trade that has worked across cycles is owning U.S. assets denominated in U.S. dollars. Diversifying across the dollar-priced reserve system has worked. Diversifying against it has not.

What does this mean for portfolio positioning right now? It means duration risk is rewarded by structural foreign demand. Equity risk is supported by the dollar-priced earnings of multinational franchises. Gold belongs in the portfolio at a strategic weight, not a doomsday weight. Furthermore, investors should pay close attention to which firms are positioning for the digital dollar buildout. That’s where the next leg of dollar dominance is happening.

The doomers will keep selling fear. That’s the business model. Make no mistake, real risks exist. Fiscal trajectory, debt servicing costs, sanctions blowback, and CBDC competition are all worth tracking carefully. However, none of those risks add up to the collapse narrative being pitched on social media every other day. The reality on the tape is that foreign Treasury demand is at an all-time high. Central bank gold buying continues to reinforce dollar pricing. Swap lines are being deployed offensively to extend dollar reach. Digital dollar infrastructure is colonizing real-time commerce in emerging markets.

If the dollar were truly dying, none of this would be happening. The fact that all of it is happening simultaneously tells you everything you need to know about where the smart money is positioning. The dollar isn’t dying. It’s evolving. And dollar dominance is going to be the central pricing rail of the global financial system for a long time yet.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 13:00

Antares Signs World’s First Multi-Year Commercial HALEU Supply Deal With Urenco

Antares Signs World’s First Multi-Year Commercial HALEU Supply Deal With Urenco

Antares has secured the first long-term commercial contract for High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) enrichment services from Urenco, a critical milestone for the microreactor sector that has long been starved for reliable Western fuel supply.

The agreement gives Antares access to HALEU produced at Urenco’s new enrichment facility in the United Kingdom, scheduled to come online in 2031. While still years away, the deal marks the first time a Western supplier has committed to multi-year commercial HALEU deliveries outside of government allocations.

The decision by the leading microreactor developer in the US to sign their first long-term contract with an international supplier brings immediate concern to the speed of development in the US for the expansion of enrichment capacity. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent (with billions more pledged) on companies including Centrus and General Matter by the federal government. Yet Antares chose to buy their enrichment services overseas…

“We are pleased to execute with Antares the world’s first multi-year contract for the supply of HALEU, which marks an important milestone in the maturation of this new market,” said Magnus Mori, Urenco’s Head of Advanced Fuels.

Antares CEO Jordan Bramble was equally direct: “Microreactors fueled with HALEU will be more performant and more economical. This partnership ensures that when we scale beyond material allocated by the federal government, we will have commercial supply ready to meet our needs.”

Antares is one of the more advanced microreactor developers, with a sodium heat-pipe design, factory production model, and recent selection for the Department of the Air Force’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program. 

The company is on track to take their first reactor critical prior to July 4th

HALEU remains the single biggest constraint for the entire advanced reactor wave. While the U.S. has made real regulatory progress and DOE allocations have helped early movers, commercial-scale Western production has been painfully slow. Most developers are still relying on limited government stockpiles or waiting on facilities that won’t be ready until the early 2030s.

This Urenco-Antares deal doesn’t solve the near-term crunch, but it does show that serious commercial players are finally moving beyond announcements and into actual supply agreements.
 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 12:40