Judicial Sabotage? Obama Judge Blocks Trump Efficiency Reforms For Deportation Appeals

A federal judge slammed the brakes on one of the Trump administration's most aggressive moves yet to make the immigration appeals process more efficient, and he did it the night before the rule was set to go live.

U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss, an Obama appointee in Washington, D.C., issued his ruling late Sunday, March 8, 2026, vacating the core provisions of an interim final rule from the Justice Department's Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The rule, scheduled to take effect the following morning, would have fundamentally restructured how the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) handles cases.

EOIR slashed the time to file a notice of appeal of an immigration judge's decision from 30 days to 10. Any issue not raised in that notice was automatically treated as waived. And unless the BIA voted within 10 days to refer a case to the full board, the appeal faced summary dismissal — end of the road, no hearing. For most appellants, that's exactly what would have happened. 

And it was a critical reform. The BIA's backlog has ballooned from 37,285 pending appeals at the end of fiscal year 2015 to 202,946 by the end of fiscal year 2025. EOIR said the rule would streamline appellate review and cut through the bureaucratic paralysis that's made the immigration court system a joke. The Trump administration framed the changes as essential to its deportation mandate. 

But Judge Moss couldn’t stomach efficiency when it threatened the open-borders crowd’s playbook. He vacated the heart of the rule, claiming EOIR violated the Administrative Procedure Act by skipping public comment. Moss lectured that “Issues that are so fundamental to the rights of tens of thousands of individuals (and that will guide how organizations and lawyers present their claims to the BIA) ought to be considered and addressed before - rather than after - a rule takes effect.” 

Of course, that argument doesn’t exactly hold up, as agencies issue interim final rules all the time in urgent situations - like when a backlog this massive mocks the rule of law.

Moss painted the rule as a death sentence for appeals: an appellant “will almost certainly lose his case before the BIA before it even begins; in the vast majority of cases, the case will be disposed of by summary dismissal.” 

 Five left-wing nonprofits - Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, American Immigration Council, National Immigrant Justice Center, and two others - were responsible for the lawsuit to protect the right of illegals to back up the system.

 Emilie Raber from the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights crowed, “At a time when the due process rights of immigrants are under attack, this ruling prevents the BIA from reaching the point of near self-destruction.” 

This reeks of judicial activism from a lifetime appointee who answers to no one except the far left. Moss brushed aside the very crisis his ideological allies helped create. The backlog did not appear overnight. Joe Biden’s open-borders agenda fueled it for years. Voters made it clear when they elected Donald Trump that enough was enough. They wanted a course correction. They voted for border security and enforcement. They rejected bureaucratic paralysis and endless delay. Decisions like this ignore that mandate and push the country further from the accountability voters demanded.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 20:00

Transparency: Suing Schools That Hide Trans Kids' Identities From Parents

Authored by John Murawski via RealClearInvestigations,

A few weeks before Christmas in 2022, Amber Lavigne was cleaning her 13-year-old’s bedroom when she stumbled upon her daughter’s secret: a chest binder. She learned that Autumn had been wearing the garment, which girls use to flatten their breasts to achieve a masculine appearance, for about two months at school in Maine, where she had adopted a boy’s name, Leo, and was using he/him pronouns.

It was the first of two chest binders Lavigne found that had been provided to her eighth-grade daughter by a social worker at the Great Salt Bay Community School, according to a federal lawsuit Lavigne filed in 2023, which is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Her lawsuit alleges that the public school not only aided and abetted Autumn’s gender transition but also hid the information from her parents.

“I think it’s important for parents to know that this is occurring in our public schools because I don’t think many parents believe that it’s as bad as it really is,” Lavigne said on a recent podcast. “When I was a kid, one of the first things I heard about adults is if any adult asks you as a child to keep a secret, there’s something wrong with that adult, and you need to come tell me immediately.”

“And now, I mean, it’s like we’re in upside-down land.”

The Maine lawsuit and others like it raise one of the most contentious issues in the broader conflict over transgender policies: whether a parent’s constitutional right to direct their children’s education and medical care extends to a circumstance that society has never grappled with until the past decade or so – a youth’s rejection of their biological sex, adoption of a new name and matching pronouns, and assertion of a new gender identity. And to what extent children who are transitioning or exploring gender options have the right to confidentiality if they worry about rejection and hostility at home.

Growing Backlash

Some 40 such legal actions have been filed in recent years challenging policies that require public school officials to conceal transgender and nonbinary names and pronoun changes from parents at the student’s request. It’s part of a broader backlash that has forced hospitals to discontinue medicalized “gender affirming care” for minors, and spawned more than two dozen medical malpractice suits by “detransitioners” who underwent irreversible sex-change procedures. A jury recently awarded $2 million to 22-year-old Fox Varian, who was given a double mastectomy at age 16.

Queer advocates and their allies say the conservative focus on transgender people – and Donald Trump’s leveraging of the issue in the 2024 presidential campaign – is way out of proportion to the small numbers of trans people in society. Advocates also argue that teens have the right in a free society to express their gender identity without being “outed,” and that affirming their identities reduces rates of depression and suicide.

Critics counter that the cultural impact of such policies extends beyond the small universe of people who identify as trans. Over the past 15 years, advocates have argued that sex is not a biological fact but a socially constructed category; that there are not two but a limitless number of genders; that trans and nonbinary identities are normal and healthy, and that the refusal to acknowledge such genders or use people’s preferred pronouns is discriminatory and abusive. This cultural shift has been advanced by a host of government, corporate, academic, library and K-12 school policies.

Separate Records

The number of K-12 students directly affected by school trans policies over the past decade is unknown, but the total could potentially be several thousand. According to parental-rights lawsuits filed through 2024, about 6,000 public schools in more than 1,200 districts authorized the concealing of student gender transitions from parents. The policies, which can allow a student to access opposite sex bathrooms and sports activities, instruct school officials to send communications home with a student’s birth name, or “deadname,” while keeping a separate set of records at school.

In January, the U.S. Department of Education, citing news coverage, said at least 300 students in California were put on “Gender Support Plans” during the 2023-2024 school year, many without parental consent or knowledge. And a 2023 Supreme Court petition said a Montgomery County Board of Education spokesman in Maryland stated that there were more than 300 secret transitions the previous year in that county alone.

The issue is especially fraught because research cited in the parents’ lawsuits indicates that up to 90% of children will not persist in feelings of gender incongruence if left alone. But once young people commit to a social transition with a new name and pronouns, a majority will lock into a gender incongruent identity and continue transitioning.

Some parents and jurists are also concerned about the appropriateness of the information schools are providing students. In an Ohio case dismissed on procedural grounds, a federal appellate judge appointed by President Trump wrote that the parents’ allegations about their secretly transitioning ninth-grader who attempted suicide were “beyond troubling.”

The judge noted: “The parents also learned that teachers wore badges with QR codes that students – who are young children – could scan to access pornographic content and obscene material instructing children about sexual acts.”

Some school officials see themselves as protectors of students against what they detect as bigotry from parents and society. According to a Massachusetts lawsuit, which is pending at the Supreme Court, parents learned from a teacher that their sixth-grader was secretly affirmed as “genderqueer” at school and received transgender resources from the school’s “nonbinary librarian”; the teacher was promptly fired for notifying the parents, and the district superintendent said at a public meeting that claims of “parental rights” to know about student gender identities are thinly veiled camouflages for intolerance against LGBTQ students.

The school district in Massachusetts says that parents are asserting rights that simply don’t exist.

“There is no case cited by [parents] that stands for the proposition that a parent is entitled to notice of their child’s gender so that they can control it (or attempt to do so),” Ludlow Public Schools told a federal appeals court in 2023. “While the age of a child may have some bearing on the relevant analysis, no court has established a rule that establishes a parent’s asserted right trumps the rights of an eleven-year-old or twelve-year-old who asserts their gender identity.”

Lavigne’s lawsuit is one of seven such parental rights cases seeking review at the Supreme Court. While the high court has so far rejected three petitions, lawyers who represent the parents say it’s only a matter of time until the justices agree to hear a case on K-12 gender transition policies.

Wide-Ranging Lawsuits

The Supreme Court has heard four transgender-related lawsuits in the past two-and-a-half years. The court has sided with conservative states challenging medicalized sex-change treatments for minors. Last year, the justices sided with religious parents objecting to queer-themed books in K-12 schools. Another major case, argued in January, is whether women’s sports should be accessible to natal males who identify as trans women. A number of other trans policies are working their way through the lower courts – such as challenges to government-imposed misgendering/deadnaming bans, and challenges to adoption agencies that disqualify parents who believe there are only two genders. In a parental rights case out of Wisconsin that the Supreme Court declined to hear on procedural grounds, a group of Wisconsin parents challenged secret gender transitions and alleged that an activist teacher had posted a flyer in her classroom, proclaiming: “If your parents aren’t accepting of your identity, I’m your mom now.”

In an accompanying opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito argued that schools’ “Gender Support Plans” for trans kids raise serious constitutional concerns.

“This case presents a question of great and growing national importance: whether a public school district violates parents’ ‘fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of’ their children, when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process,” Alito wrote.

Alito noted: “As school personnel were told in an equity training session: ‘parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities. That knowledge must be earned.’”

According to court filings and public records, school officials go to great lengths to hide what they’re doing. In a New Jersey case, school officials agreed to call a 14-year-old girl by a boy’s name and use male pronouns in school, but were instructed to announce the student’s birth name over the intercom system to conceal the gender transition from a sibling at the same school. In a 2023 article, The New York Times described a delicate situation in which a middle-schooler had secretly changed names and pronouns without the mother’s knowledge, even though the mom worked as a teacher at the same school. In some cases, the concealment continues for several years, until the student graduates from high school.

Courts that have taken the side of the schools have said that the privacy rights of trans kids outweigh parental rights, that schools have a legal duty to protect gender-nonconforming kids from discrimination, that lack of parental acceptance could create an unsafe home environment, and that respecting a student’s preferred name and pronouns is just basic courtesy.

In the Massachusetts case, a panel of three judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, appointed by Presidents Obama and Biden, dismissed the parents’ claims, ruling that a school secretly supporting an 11-year-old who is “genderqueer” does not rise to the level of shocking the conscience, and in fact is quite mundane: “Providing educational resources about LGBTQ-related issues to a child who has shown interest imposes no more compulsion to identify as genderqueer than providing a book about brick laying could coerce a student into becoming a mason.”

In Lavigne’s case in Maine, her lawsuit was dismissed by a federal trial court in 2024 and again by a federal appeals court in 2025 for failing to establish that the school system had a permanent or well-settled policy of hiding gender transitions from parents.

Ugly Disputes

Lavigne’s case shows how ugly these disputes can get at the local level.

After she found the chest binder, Lavigne filed a complaint to a licensing board against two school social workers whom she believes were secretly supporting Autumn’s gender transition to “Leo.” Several days later, an agent from the Maine Office of Child and Family Services appeared at Lavigne’s door in response to an anonymous complaint alleging that Lavigne was emotionally abusive towards her daughter.

The agent spent several hours interviewing Lavigne and her family members, Lavigne said, but after a month, the case was closed without finding evidence of neglect or abuse. Lavigne now speaks publicly on the issue at local school board meetings and parents’ rights events.

“You’re very impressionable when you’re 12, 13 years old,” Lavigne said in a phone interview. “Someone is telling you that the root of your distress is ABC, and you’ll do anything to relieve that distress.”

Meanwhile, as the story spread, the school was subject to bomb threats and threats against school staff by those who opposed its transgender policies. School officials said the commotion was caused by “a grossly inaccurate and one-sided story,” forcing the school to shut down on three days.

Some of the parents’ lawsuits have backing from Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist and a former board member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Anderson, who is transgender, has gained notoriety since breaking ranks with the trans establishment and accusing its leaders of recklessness and overcorrection for being too quick to affirm trans identities and prescribe hormonal interventions and irreversible surgeries to kids who may be struggling with autism, homosexuality, trauma, or other problems, and would have otherwise outgrown their nonbinary or trans phase.

“School is now like Las Vegas: ‘What happens at school stays at school,’” Anderson wrote in court filings. “It should go without saying, but parents cannot obtain a professional evaluation, screen for dysphoria and other coexisting issues, or provide professional mental health support for their children, if their school hides from them what is happening at school.”

The tide of clandestine transitions appears to be turning. Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act, passed in 2022 and decried by queer advocates as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, forbids public schools from hiding gender transitions from parents. At least 12 other states have recently enacted statutes that address parental notice or consent regarding students’ gender identity, according to court filings. Last year, the U.S. Department of Education alerted public schools that it “will no longer passively accept school officials’ hostility to parental involvement” on matters of “gender ideology.”

The Trump administration currently has open investigations of the Maine Department of Education, Washington State Superintendent’s Office, four Kansas school districts, and Fairfax County Public Schools for similar practices. Trump has featured mothers whose kids were secretly transitioned at his last two State of the Union speeches to Congress.

California Doubles Down

California has been moving in the opposite direction. Last year the state enacted the Safety Act, or AB 1955, that prohibits teachers from notifying parents about student gender identities. The California Department of Education and state Attorney General Robert Bonta are taking enforcement actions against school districts that refuse to comply with the state ban, and instead tell parents if their kids are adopting new gender identities.

In federal court filings, Bonta says that LGBTQ students live in continuous fear of being outed, exposed to harassment, and potentially driven to suicide.

To illustrate his point, Bonta quoted a transgender student who spoke in favor of California policy at a public hearing: “If a student is outed to their family without their consent, this could possibly result in abuse, hate crimes, getting kicked out of their homes, [and] in extreme cases, being murdered.”

When debating the bill, the California Legislature was presented with statistics that 57% of LGBTQ youth reported parental rejection, ranging from mocking to physical abuse and being kicked out of the home.

The U.S. Department of Education responded by launching an investigation of California’s K-12 practices, and this year the feds said that California’s public school personnel have gone “to great lengths” to conceal children’s gender transitions, such as petitioning the software company used in many California schools to create features that hide student name changes and pronouns from parents.

Several parents and teachers have filed a class action lawsuit to block California’s school policies, winning in the lower court, but losing on appeal. On Monday this week, the Supreme Court sided with the parents, blocking California’s school policy. The high court said in its 6-3 ruling that the parents are likely to prevail and therefore entitled to the trial court’s December judgment in their favor, enjoining California’s policy while the state tries to overturn that judgment on appeal.

“One set of parents learned of their child’s transition at school only after the child attempted suicide,” Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a concurrence. “Strikingly, even after this tragic event, school administrators continued to withhold information about the student’s gender identification.”

At the trial court, U.S. District Judge Robert Benitez, who was appointed to the bench in 2002 by George W. Bush, decried a “trifecta of harm” against children, parents and teachers, in a scathing critique of the state’s policies in December:

“The difficult and long lasting issues of gender nonconformity leave parents to suffer adverse consequences over a lifetime,” Judge Benitez wrote.

The harm in question is described in the class action lawsuit, in which one set of parents allege that their junior-high daughter was being treated as a male for nearly a year, and then attempted suicide. They didn’t know that their child was presenting as a boy in school until they learned it from a doctor at Fremont Hospital, where the student was admitted in the inpatient psychiatric program for adolescents after her suicide attempt.

The parents and teachers are represented by attorney Paul Jonna, who said in a phone interview that one problem with the trans advocacy position is that school officials assume that anything short of automatic affirmation means that parents are motivated by transphobia.

“They are grossly exaggerating the harassment,” Jonna said. “Their position essentially is: If the parent is not automatically affirming, not excited about your new gender identity, then they’re harassing and abusive.”

As for Lavigne’s daughter, she never made the transition to the male gender. Autumn is now a 16-year-old 11th-grader at another school. She is back to using her birth name and female pronouns, Lavigne said.

“It was a process for her,” Lavigne said. “After many years of connectedness to her family, many years of connectedness to her body.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 19:35

Transparency: Suing Schools That Hide Trans Kids' Identities From Parents

Authored by John Murawski via RealClearInvestigations,

A few weeks before Christmas in 2022, Amber Lavigne was cleaning her 13-year-old’s bedroom when she stumbled upon her daughter’s secret: a chest binder. She learned that Autumn had been wearing the garment, which girls use to flatten their breasts to achieve a masculine appearance, for about two months at school in Maine, where she had adopted a boy’s name, Leo, and was using he/him pronouns.

It was the first of two chest binders Lavigne found that had been provided to her eighth-grade daughter by a social worker at the Great Salt Bay Community School, according to a federal lawsuit Lavigne filed in 2023, which is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Her lawsuit alleges that the public school not only aided and abetted Autumn’s gender transition but also hid the information from her parents.

“I think it’s important for parents to know that this is occurring in our public schools because I don’t think many parents believe that it’s as bad as it really is,” Lavigne said on a recent podcast. “When I was a kid, one of the first things I heard about adults is if any adult asks you as a child to keep a secret, there’s something wrong with that adult, and you need to come tell me immediately.”

“And now, I mean, it’s like we’re in upside-down land.”

The Maine lawsuit and others like it raise one of the most contentious issues in the broader conflict over transgender policies: whether a parent’s constitutional right to direct their children’s education and medical care extends to a circumstance that society has never grappled with until the past decade or so – a youth’s rejection of their biological sex, adoption of a new name and matching pronouns, and assertion of a new gender identity. And to what extent children who are transitioning or exploring gender options have the right to confidentiality if they worry about rejection and hostility at home.

Growing Backlash

Some 40 such legal actions have been filed in recent years challenging policies that require public school officials to conceal transgender and nonbinary names and pronoun changes from parents at the student’s request. It’s part of a broader backlash that has forced hospitals to discontinue medicalized “gender affirming care” for minors, and spawned more than two dozen medical malpractice suits by “detransitioners” who underwent irreversible sex-change procedures. A jury recently awarded $2 million to 22-year-old Fox Varian, who was given a double mastectomy at age 16.

Queer advocates and their allies say the conservative focus on transgender people – and Donald Trump’s leveraging of the issue in the 2024 presidential campaign – is way out of proportion to the small numbers of trans people in society. Advocates also argue that teens have the right in a free society to express their gender identity without being “outed,” and that affirming their identities reduces rates of depression and suicide.

Critics counter that the cultural impact of such policies extends beyond the small universe of people who identify as trans. Over the past 15 years, advocates have argued that sex is not a biological fact but a socially constructed category; that there are not two but a limitless number of genders; that trans and nonbinary identities are normal and healthy, and that the refusal to acknowledge such genders or use people’s preferred pronouns is discriminatory and abusive. This cultural shift has been advanced by a host of government, corporate, academic, library and K-12 school policies.

Separate Records

The number of K-12 students directly affected by school trans policies over the past decade is unknown, but the total could potentially be several thousand. According to parental-rights lawsuits filed through 2024, about 6,000 public schools in more than 1,200 districts authorized the concealing of student gender transitions from parents. The policies, which can allow a student to access opposite sex bathrooms and sports activities, instruct school officials to send communications home with a student’s birth name, or “deadname,” while keeping a separate set of records at school.

In January, the U.S. Department of Education, citing news coverage, said at least 300 students in California were put on “Gender Support Plans” during the 2023-2024 school year, many without parental consent or knowledge. And a 2023 Supreme Court petition said a Montgomery County Board of Education spokesman in Maryland stated that there were more than 300 secret transitions the previous year in that county alone.

The issue is especially fraught because research cited in the parents’ lawsuits indicates that up to 90% of children will not persist in feelings of gender incongruence if left alone. But once young people commit to a social transition with a new name and pronouns, a majority will lock into a gender incongruent identity and continue transitioning.

Some parents and jurists are also concerned about the appropriateness of the information schools are providing students. In an Ohio case dismissed on procedural grounds, a federal appellate judge appointed by President Trump wrote that the parents’ allegations about their secretly transitioning ninth-grader who attempted suicide were “beyond troubling.”

The judge noted: “The parents also learned that teachers wore badges with QR codes that students – who are young children – could scan to access pornographic content and obscene material instructing children about sexual acts.”

Some school officials see themselves as protectors of students against what they detect as bigotry from parents and society. According to a Massachusetts lawsuit, which is pending at the Supreme Court, parents learned from a teacher that their sixth-grader was secretly affirmed as “genderqueer” at school and received transgender resources from the school’s “nonbinary librarian”; the teacher was promptly fired for notifying the parents, and the district superintendent said at a public meeting that claims of “parental rights” to know about student gender identities are thinly veiled camouflages for intolerance against LGBTQ students.

The school district in Massachusetts says that parents are asserting rights that simply don’t exist.

“There is no case cited by [parents] that stands for the proposition that a parent is entitled to notice of their child’s gender so that they can control it (or attempt to do so),” Ludlow Public Schools told a federal appeals court in 2023. “While the age of a child may have some bearing on the relevant analysis, no court has established a rule that establishes a parent’s asserted right trumps the rights of an eleven-year-old or twelve-year-old who asserts their gender identity.”

Lavigne’s lawsuit is one of seven such parental rights cases seeking review at the Supreme Court. While the high court has so far rejected three petitions, lawyers who represent the parents say it’s only a matter of time until the justices agree to hear a case on K-12 gender transition policies.

Wide-Ranging Lawsuits

The Supreme Court has heard four transgender-related lawsuits in the past two-and-a-half years. The court has sided with conservative states challenging medicalized sex-change treatments for minors. Last year, the justices sided with religious parents objecting to queer-themed books in K-12 schools. Another major case, argued in January, is whether women’s sports should be accessible to natal males who identify as trans women. A number of other trans policies are working their way through the lower courts – such as challenges to government-imposed misgendering/deadnaming bans, and challenges to adoption agencies that disqualify parents who believe there are only two genders. In a parental rights case out of Wisconsin that the Supreme Court declined to hear on procedural grounds, a group of Wisconsin parents challenged secret gender transitions and alleged that an activist teacher had posted a flyer in her classroom, proclaiming: “If your parents aren’t accepting of your identity, I’m your mom now.”

In an accompanying opinion, conservative Justice Samuel Alito argued that schools’ “Gender Support Plans” for trans kids raise serious constitutional concerns.

“This case presents a question of great and growing national importance: whether a public school district violates parents’ ‘fundamental constitutional right to make decisions concerning the rearing of’ their children, when, without parental knowledge or consent, it encourages a student to transition to a new gender or assists in that process,” Alito wrote.

Alito noted: “As school personnel were told in an equity training session: ‘parents are not entitled to know their kids’ identities. That knowledge must be earned.’”

According to court filings and public records, school officials go to great lengths to hide what they’re doing. In a New Jersey case, school officials agreed to call a 14-year-old girl by a boy’s name and use male pronouns in school, but were instructed to announce the student’s birth name over the intercom system to conceal the gender transition from a sibling at the same school. In a 2023 article, The New York Times described a delicate situation in which a middle-schooler had secretly changed names and pronouns without the mother’s knowledge, even though the mom worked as a teacher at the same school. In some cases, the concealment continues for several years, until the student graduates from high school.

Courts that have taken the side of the schools have said that the privacy rights of trans kids outweigh parental rights, that schools have a legal duty to protect gender-nonconforming kids from discrimination, that lack of parental acceptance could create an unsafe home environment, and that respecting a student’s preferred name and pronouns is just basic courtesy.

In the Massachusetts case, a panel of three judges at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, appointed by Presidents Obama and Biden, dismissed the parents’ claims, ruling that a school secretly supporting an 11-year-old who is “genderqueer” does not rise to the level of shocking the conscience, and in fact is quite mundane: “Providing educational resources about LGBTQ-related issues to a child who has shown interest imposes no more compulsion to identify as genderqueer than providing a book about brick laying could coerce a student into becoming a mason.”

In Lavigne’s case in Maine, her lawsuit was dismissed by a federal trial court in 2024 and again by a federal appeals court in 2025 for failing to establish that the school system had a permanent or well-settled policy of hiding gender transitions from parents.

Ugly Disputes

Lavigne’s case shows how ugly these disputes can get at the local level.

After she found the chest binder, Lavigne filed a complaint to a licensing board against two school social workers whom she believes were secretly supporting Autumn’s gender transition to “Leo.” Several days later, an agent from the Maine Office of Child and Family Services appeared at Lavigne’s door in response to an anonymous complaint alleging that Lavigne was emotionally abusive towards her daughter.

The agent spent several hours interviewing Lavigne and her family members, Lavigne said, but after a month, the case was closed without finding evidence of neglect or abuse. Lavigne now speaks publicly on the issue at local school board meetings and parents’ rights events.

“You’re very impressionable when you’re 12, 13 years old,” Lavigne said in a phone interview. “Someone is telling you that the root of your distress is ABC, and you’ll do anything to relieve that distress.”

Meanwhile, as the story spread, the school was subject to bomb threats and threats against school staff by those who opposed its transgender policies. School officials said the commotion was caused by “a grossly inaccurate and one-sided story,” forcing the school to shut down on three days.

Some of the parents’ lawsuits have backing from Erica Anderson, a clinical psychologist and a former board member of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Anderson, who is transgender, has gained notoriety since breaking ranks with the trans establishment and accusing its leaders of recklessness and overcorrection for being too quick to affirm trans identities and prescribe hormonal interventions and irreversible surgeries to kids who may be struggling with autism, homosexuality, trauma, or other problems, and would have otherwise outgrown their nonbinary or trans phase.

“School is now like Las Vegas: ‘What happens at school stays at school,’” Anderson wrote in court filings. “It should go without saying, but parents cannot obtain a professional evaluation, screen for dysphoria and other coexisting issues, or provide professional mental health support for their children, if their school hides from them what is happening at school.”

The tide of clandestine transitions appears to be turning. Florida’s Parental Rights in Education Act, passed in 2022 and decried by queer advocates as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, forbids public schools from hiding gender transitions from parents. At least 12 other states have recently enacted statutes that address parental notice or consent regarding students’ gender identity, according to court filings. Last year, the U.S. Department of Education alerted public schools that it “will no longer passively accept school officials’ hostility to parental involvement” on matters of “gender ideology.”

The Trump administration currently has open investigations of the Maine Department of Education, Washington State Superintendent’s Office, four Kansas school districts, and Fairfax County Public Schools for similar practices. Trump has featured mothers whose kids were secretly transitioned at his last two State of the Union speeches to Congress.

California Doubles Down

California has been moving in the opposite direction. Last year the state enacted the Safety Act, or AB 1955, that prohibits teachers from notifying parents about student gender identities. The California Department of Education and state Attorney General Robert Bonta are taking enforcement actions against school districts that refuse to comply with the state ban, and instead tell parents if their kids are adopting new gender identities.

In federal court filings, Bonta says that LGBTQ students live in continuous fear of being outed, exposed to harassment, and potentially driven to suicide.

To illustrate his point, Bonta quoted a transgender student who spoke in favor of California policy at a public hearing: “If a student is outed to their family without their consent, this could possibly result in abuse, hate crimes, getting kicked out of their homes, [and] in extreme cases, being murdered.”

When debating the bill, the California Legislature was presented with statistics that 57% of LGBTQ youth reported parental rejection, ranging from mocking to physical abuse and being kicked out of the home.

The U.S. Department of Education responded by launching an investigation of California’s K-12 practices, and this year the feds said that California’s public school personnel have gone “to great lengths” to conceal children’s gender transitions, such as petitioning the software company used in many California schools to create features that hide student name changes and pronouns from parents.

Several parents and teachers have filed a class action lawsuit to block California’s school policies, winning in the lower court, but losing on appeal. On Monday this week, the Supreme Court sided with the parents, blocking California’s school policy. The high court said in its 6-3 ruling that the parents are likely to prevail and therefore entitled to the trial court’s December judgment in their favor, enjoining California’s policy while the state tries to overturn that judgment on appeal.

“One set of parents learned of their child’s transition at school only after the child attempted suicide,” Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a concurrence. “Strikingly, even after this tragic event, school administrators continued to withhold information about the student’s gender identification.”

At the trial court, U.S. District Judge Robert Benitez, who was appointed to the bench in 2002 by George W. Bush, decried a “trifecta of harm” against children, parents and teachers, in a scathing critique of the state’s policies in December:

“The difficult and long lasting issues of gender nonconformity leave parents to suffer adverse consequences over a lifetime,” Judge Benitez wrote.

The harm in question is described in the class action lawsuit, in which one set of parents allege that their junior-high daughter was being treated as a male for nearly a year, and then attempted suicide. They didn’t know that their child was presenting as a boy in school until they learned it from a doctor at Fremont Hospital, where the student was admitted in the inpatient psychiatric program for adolescents after her suicide attempt.

The parents and teachers are represented by attorney Paul Jonna, who said in a phone interview that one problem with the trans advocacy position is that school officials assume that anything short of automatic affirmation means that parents are motivated by transphobia.

“They are grossly exaggerating the harassment,” Jonna said. “Their position essentially is: If the parent is not automatically affirming, not excited about your new gender identity, then they’re harassing and abusive.”

As for Lavigne’s daughter, she never made the transition to the male gender. Autumn is now a 16-year-old 11th-grader at another school. She is back to using her birth name and female pronouns, Lavigne said.

“It was a process for her,” Lavigne said. “After many years of connectedness to her family, many years of connectedness to her body.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 19:35

Fani Spanked Again: Judge Allows Trump And Co-Defendants To Pursue $17 Million In Legal Fees

Fani Willis, the disgraced Fulton County, Georgia DA who couldn't keep her clam in her pants while prosecuting Donald Trump, was just dealt a serious blow this week after a judge denied her attempt to intervene in litigation over the reimbursement of legal fees stemming from her now-dismissed Georgia election case against Trump and several co-defendants.

He knows what Willis is talkin' 'bout...

The ruling by Scott McAfee allows efforts to recover nearly $17 million in attorney fees and costs to proceed after the high-profile prosecution collapsed late last year.

In August 2023, Trump and 18 others were indicted in Fulton County for allegedly conspiring to overturn then-President Joe Biden’s narrow election victory in Georgia. The case was dismissed in November, prompting Trump and several co-defendants to seek reimbursement for legal expenses incurred during the prosecution.

Willis’ office attempted to intervene in the fee litigation in an effort to block the claims. But McAfee ruled this week that the district attorney’s office had no legal basis to participate in the case after Willis had already been disqualified from it.

The judge noted that the state was already represented by a temporary district attorney appointed after Willis’ removal, meaning the office’s interests were already represented in the proceedings.

However, McAfee granted Fulton County itself permission to intervene in the case. The county funds most of the district attorney’s office and could ultimately be responsible for paying any reimbursement ordered by the court.

The dispute centers on a 2025 Georgia law that defendants say allows them to recover attorney fees if a prosecutor is disqualified and the case is later dismissed. The decision to allow the reimbursement claims to move forward could have significant financial implications, potentially exposing taxpayers to substantial costs if the requests are approved.

Trump alone is seeking more than $6.2 million in attorney fees from the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office under the statute.

Willis had argued that the law permitting the reimbursements was unconstitutional and maintained that her disqualification was not the cause of the case’s dismissal. McAfee declined to halt the reimbursement process at this stage.

Willis was removed from the case in December 2024 after Trump and his co-defendants argued that her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest and that she had made improper public statements about the prosecution.

The Supreme Court of Georgia declined in September 2025 to review her removal, leaving the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia to identify a replacement prosecutor. The case was later dropped.

Trump attorney Steve Sadow praised McAfee’s ruling in a statement posted to X, writing that the judge had “properly denied DA Willis’ motion to intervene in POTUS’ action for reimbursement of attorney fees because her disqualification for improper conduct bars Willis and her office from any further participation in this dismissed, lawfare case.”

Trump also criticized Willis following the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision not to hear her appeal, telling reporters last September: “What Fani Willis did to innocent people, patriots that love our country, what she did to them by indicting them and destroying them, she should be put in jail.”

Willis, speaking after she was disqualified from the case, said she hoped whoever took over the prosecution would “have the courage to do what the evidence and the law demand.”

The next phase of the litigation will focus on determining whether the requested reimbursements are reasonable under the statute. A judge will evaluate the fee claims - including Trump’s request exceeding $6.2 million - in a process that could take weeks or months and may lead to appeals.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 19:10

Fani Spanked Again: Judge Allows Trump And Co-Defendants To Pursue $17 Million In Legal Fees

Fani Willis, the disgraced Fulton County, Georgia DA who couldn't keep her clam in her pants while prosecuting Donald Trump, was just dealt a serious blow this week after a judge denied her attempt to intervene in litigation over the reimbursement of legal fees stemming from her now-dismissed Georgia election case against Trump and several co-defendants.

He knows what Willis is talkin' 'bout...

The ruling by Scott McAfee allows efforts to recover nearly $17 million in attorney fees and costs to proceed after the high-profile prosecution collapsed late last year.

In August 2023, Trump and 18 others were indicted in Fulton County for allegedly conspiring to overturn then-President Joe Biden’s narrow election victory in Georgia. The case was dismissed in November, prompting Trump and several co-defendants to seek reimbursement for legal expenses incurred during the prosecution.

Willis’ office attempted to intervene in the fee litigation in an effort to block the claims. But McAfee ruled this week that the district attorney’s office had no legal basis to participate in the case after Willis had already been disqualified from it.

The judge noted that the state was already represented by a temporary district attorney appointed after Willis’ removal, meaning the office’s interests were already represented in the proceedings.

However, McAfee granted Fulton County itself permission to intervene in the case. The county funds most of the district attorney’s office and could ultimately be responsible for paying any reimbursement ordered by the court.

The dispute centers on a 2025 Georgia law that defendants say allows them to recover attorney fees if a prosecutor is disqualified and the case is later dismissed. The decision to allow the reimbursement claims to move forward could have significant financial implications, potentially exposing taxpayers to substantial costs if the requests are approved.

Trump alone is seeking more than $6.2 million in attorney fees from the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office under the statute.

Willis had argued that the law permitting the reimbursements was unconstitutional and maintained that her disqualification was not the cause of the case’s dismissal. McAfee declined to halt the reimbursement process at this stage.

Willis was removed from the case in December 2024 after Trump and his co-defendants argued that her romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest and that she had made improper public statements about the prosecution.

The Supreme Court of Georgia declined in September 2025 to review her removal, leaving the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia to identify a replacement prosecutor. The case was later dropped.

Trump attorney Steve Sadow praised McAfee’s ruling in a statement posted to X, writing that the judge had “properly denied DA Willis’ motion to intervene in POTUS’ action for reimbursement of attorney fees because her disqualification for improper conduct bars Willis and her office from any further participation in this dismissed, lawfare case.”

Trump also criticized Willis following the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision not to hear her appeal, telling reporters last September: “What Fani Willis did to innocent people, patriots that love our country, what she did to them by indicting them and destroying them, she should be put in jail.”

Willis, speaking after she was disqualified from the case, said she hoped whoever took over the prosecution would “have the courage to do what the evidence and the law demand.”

The next phase of the litigation will focus on determining whether the requested reimbursements are reasonable under the statute. A judge will evaluate the fee claims - including Trump’s request exceeding $6.2 million - in a process that could take weeks or months and may lead to appeals.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 19:10

Public Bitcoin Miners Are Dumping Crypto For AI, A Historic Mistake

Authored by Juan Galt via BitcoinMagazine.com,

There is no doubt about it, this is the age of AI. Corporations are cutting their workforces in half to invest cash flow into hardware, while the stock market remains near all-time highs, mostly thanks to FAANG. OpenClaw, a self-hosted AI agent, has more stars on GitHub than Linux and React, while even Jack Dorsey is taking harsh measures to restructure Block in the face of digital, artificial intelligence. But how much of this AI wave is hype, and how many of the companies that build its infrastructure will actually capture the profits? 

Public Bitcoin miners in the United States have made their choice, a variety of them committing capital to building out AI datacenters, and some even making full rebrands, distancing themselves from the orange coin. While there’s a full range of AI-related pivots and statements made by public Bitcoin miners on the matter, a couple stand out as the most radical. 

Cypher Mining, estimated to be worth around six billion dollars — placing it among the biggest in the country – announced a full rebrand away from Bitcoin and on to the AI hype train. In their most recent investment report titled “Rebrands to Cipher Digital to Reflect Strategic Shift Toward HPC,” the company explained why they “Divested 49% Stake in Alborz, Bear, and Chief Mining Sites”. Bitfarms Ltd, another large public miner valued at over a billion dollars, also made a full pivot to AI. The CEO, Ben Gagnon, went as far as saying “We are no longer a Bitcoin company,” as reported by Coindesk, though they did keep the ‘Bit’ in the name. 

Some of these public companies are expecting more dollar returns from digital intelligence than those they get from Bitcoin, at least in the short to mid term, while other are others might consider it a diversification or an opportunity too large to miss.  

Kent Halliburton — Co-Founder & CEO of Sazmining explained to Bitcoin Magazine in an exclusive interview that  “The average cost to mine a bitcoin right now is about $87,000. The spot price of bitcoin is about $70,000. So most of the industry is underwater, and the public miners are using that as their excuse to pivot.” Sazmining is a private Bitcoin miner that specializes in frontier energy sources, with operations mostly outside of the United States.  

Halliburtonalso noted that “$87,000 is an industry average — it includes guys running old-gen rigs on grid power in Texas. At our sites in Paraguay and Ethiopia, our clients are producing bitcoin on an energy cost basis of $50,000 to $64,000, on 100% renewable energy. That’s a 10 to 30 percent discount to spot. The profitability is right there.” It just requires a longer investment horizon or cheaper energy, neither of which appears to be actionable for American public miners who have dollar-denominated quarterly reports to target. 

On the topic of cheaper energy, however, Halliburton suggests that public U.S. miners had the chance to be competitive but have failed to take advantage of their resources. He minced no words on the topic, saying that these public companies “had the power contracts, the land, the infrastructure — everything you need to mine bitcoin cheaply — and they’re handing it to Microsoft and Google in exchange for lease checks. They went from securing the Bitcoin network to securing rack space for hyperscalers, and they’re calling it a strategy. Meanwhile, they’ve dumped over 15,000 bitcoin off their balance sheets to fund the transition”.  

Of the biggest public Bitcoin miners, IREN Limited began its pivot to AI cloud services in April 2025, announcing a$9.7 billion, five-year agreement with Microsoft for 200 MW of critical IT load using NVIDIA GB300 GPUs. TeraWulf has executed multiple Google-backed HPC expansions through Fluidstack, securing 10 year agreements for over 200 MW. 

Cipher Digital completed its full rebrand to an HPC landlord with 600 MW of contracted capacity, including a 15-year, 300 MW lease with AWS and a 10-year, 300 MW lease with Fluidstack backed by Google. Hut 8 signed a 15-year, 245 MW lease with Fluidstack, also backed by Google, eyeing future possible extensions and a right of first offer for over 1,000 MW. Core Scientific has expanded its HPC focus to 270 MW through partnerships with CoreWeave, which serves Microsoft and OpenAI workloads.

Riot Platforms is strategically evaluating an AI hosting expansion by partnering with AMD on an operational 10-year, 25 MW lease and assessments for 600 MW of AI/HPC at its Corsicana site, though no hyperscaler agreements have been announced. 

MARA Holdings is diversifying into AI through a joint venture with Starwood Capital’s Starwood Digital Ventures, targeting 1 GW of near-term IT capacity expandable to over 2.5 GW for hyperscale and AI workloads, with Starwood leading financing and tenant sourcing, but without named hyperscaler contracts yet.

CleanSpark is pursuing a pivot to AI by acquiring Texas land and power for AI/HPC, including 447 acres in Brazoria County for 300–600 MW potential and an Austin County site contributing to 890 MW aggregate, funded by Bitcoin sales, with tenant discussions ongoing but no hyperscaler leases disclosed.

So the AI gold rush is here, there’s no doubt about it, many of these public miners apparently see an opportunity to build out the infrastructure of — what is without a doubt— a profound technological trend. But history has not been kind to those who build the infrastructure of a new era, not in the long term anyway. It tends to be a very high-risk, medium-reward kind of bet. How many of the companies that built the railroads — for example — are still around today? Or, without going back that far, can you name any company that built out internet fiber lines in the late 90’s and 2000’s? 

There is a long list of railroad bankruptcies from the late 1800’s, which even led to a financial crisis in what’s called the Panic of 1873, many overleveraged in debt to fund build-outs for which there was not enough demand yet. After the panic, J.P. Morgan led a consolidation of bankrupt railroad companies, resolving debt disputes and bringing their real estate assets under new ownership. It was they who ended up capturing the upside of the railway build-out.

And just around the corner of the century, the dot com bubble of the 2000’s left a graveyard of fiber line infrastructure companies that were also, in the end, bought out by hyper scalers like Google and Meta during the post crash consolidation, for pennies on the dollar. 

While both the railway and fiber line build-outs overall helped scale commerce for the world in incredible ways — demonstrating the overall wisdom of the markets — most individual companies involved did not survive the process, and venture capitalists looking at the AI boom today are aware of this dynamic. 

The Capex vs Revenue AI Gap

Various investor groups are starting to question where the returns on this massive infrastructure spending will come from. In an October 2025 report titled “AI: In a bubble?”, GoldmanSachs took a argued that, while the investments so far could be supported by big tech revenue, the valuations of some of these companies were starting to get “frothy”. 

David Chan at Sequoia has been pointing out the growing gap between AI-driven revenue and capital expenditures (Capex) since 2023, leading to a widely reported number of a $600 billion gap between them. Capex spending commitments in 2026 are north of $700 for the hyper scalers, but where are the returns? 

OpenAI’s $20 billion annual recurring revenue (ARR) is impressive for a new company, but that represents “roughly 3% of the projected 2026 hyperscaler capex total” as reported by FuturumGroup, who noted that “Anthropic’s $9 billion run rate, while showing 9x year-over-year growth, occupies a similar position. The entire cohort of pure-play AI vendors – including Cohere ($150 million ARR), Mistral (~$400 million), Perplexity ($148 million annualized), and others – likely accounts for less than $35 billion in projected combined 2026 revenue.”

Skepticism about where the value of AI will actually be captured has also been aired by VC’s like Chamath Palihapitiya. He was a prominent investor in Groq, a company building custom silicon for the AI age, which was licensed by NVIDIA in a $20 billion deal last year, and was a Facebook insider through the company’s rise to become a hyperscaler. If he has his doubts about the profitability of building the railroads of artificial intelligence, then perhaps there’s something worth giving a very close look at. 

Palihapitiya also argued in a recent All In Podcast that corporations might soon start to realize they are exposing their trade secrets to cloud AI, preferring instead to self-host. Building out in-house GPU farms might seem like a bit of a side quest, but can you really risk your trade secrets with AI providers who train on user data? After all, new versions of models trained on that data will have it in their knowledge base, exposed to the world. And even if corporate agreements not to train on corporate data become the norm, a very high trust relationship would be formed, posing a systemic risk to certain corporations, a risk that the data might get leaked or seen by the wrong insiders inside the cloud AI provider companies. 

There are also questions about whether the market fundamentally wants cloud AI for the same reasons. Would you hire a personal assistant if you knew the data you share with them would end up on the internet? Probably not, but that’s what’s happening with AI. In fact, the U.S. Southern District of New York recently ruled that users do not have client-attorney privilege when getting legal help from AI chatbots, and thus, sensitive discussions with AI could be legally subpoenaed and used against the clients in a court of law, a sign of the risks involved with trusting AI blindly. Some speculate that new kinds of terms and agreements will need to be formed to support this use case. But the legal case points to a fundamental element of the demand for AI: people want humanoid intelligence, digital or otherwise, that they can trust.

AI Loyalty and Trust

Ah, “Trust”, that ubiquitous, almost supernatural word that does so much work to carry the weight of the world. But what is trust? Fundamentally, it is predictability, one person’s confidence that another human, system, or AI will behave in a certain way, in a reliable, predictable, and positive way towards one’s interests. AI, when hosted in the cloud, however, can not give such assurances; the data is fundamentally leaving the user’s machine to be processed by “the cloud,” and what happens up there is beyond us mortals. In fact, “the cloud” has legal risks that might prevent it from being loyal to you as a user in certain scenarios. Hence, perhaps the public’s fascination with OpenClaw.

In recent weeks, a new open source project in the AI world has taken the tech industry by storm. 289,000 stars on GitHub, more than Linux has gotten despite supporting the software infrastructure of the world, more than React, one of the most popular web development languages in the world. And it’s only been live for what, weeks? How could this be? Why do people like it so much?

Well, arguably two reasons. It feels more like a human assistant than a chatbot; it updates itself, remembers what you are interested in, journals, and develops around your preferences. But most important of all, you can host it on your machine. People were buying Mac minis in droves to run OpenClaw, pairing it up with Claude Max API token plans of about $200 a month. Some argue this is a revolution in self-hosting, even though the above setup is still dependent on the cloud. But what’s actually happening here is that OpenClaw appears loyal, it remembers you, it is “in your home” in your PC. It’s not a chat interface whose context window will eventually become too much for it to manage, ending in a small death, replaced by a new chat tab. OpenClaw is not a chatbot; it’s an AI entity of sorts that users create a relationship with. And good relationships are built on trust. 

So what does all of this have to do with public Bitcoin Miners? Well, perhaps self-hosted AI is the future, Chinese AI models are increasingly leaner and can run on machines far from the cutting edge, arguably pressured into innovation by sanctions on specialized AI hardware like high-end Nvidia chips. Open source tools of all kinds that manage and host models locally are regularly launched and improved, and if history is any guide, the mass production of AI hardware will lead to the commoditization of powerful computers that will make it to end users’ homes, and can handle AI.

In fact, Apple, the FAANG that has had the worst AI products deployed to date, may end up becoming one of the biggest winners of the AI race. Why? Because their user hardware is excellent. Recent Macs don’t have a distinction between RAM and VRAM, an issue all other computers dependent on GPUs, such as Nvidia, have. This limits the size and speed of models that can be self-hosted. Instead, all RAM is unified in the latest Mac machines, letting users run powerful models locally that don’t easily run on non-Apple hardware. Self-hosted AI is the future. 

And thus, public Bitcoin miners, in the pursuit of mid-term fiat gains, might have just fallen for a trap.

The same trap the giants of the dot-com bubble fell for. The same trap that the titans of the industrial era, who built the railroads, fell for.

The infrastructure that runs the future does not necessarily capture the gains.  

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 18:45

AP Shills For Big Pharma Antidepressants With 'Bewildering' Hit Piece

Check this out... The Trump FDA's top drug regulator, Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, is working to hire a researcher and friend who strongly believes the agency should add new warnings about antidepressants and pregnancy risks. 

So what does the Associated Press do? They pen a hit piece, smearing Hoeg, her associate, and suggesting that peer reviewed studies over the risks are 'unproven.' 

This is how the medical arm of the blob works, and Paul Thacker of the DisInformation Chronicle is calling them out... 

* * *

Associated Press Cannot Explain Bewildering Reporting on FDA’s Tracy Hoeg and Antidepressant Risks

By Paul D. Thacker

Cruising through X last week a weird story caught my eye: it reported that The Food and Drug Administration’s top drug regulator, Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, was trying to hire a “friend” who wants the FDA to add warnings to antidepressants about “unproven pregnancy risks.” The story makes several claims that are bewildering and appear to be fabricated. I sent several questions to AP’s global health editor Jonathan Fahey, but he did not respond to repeated requests to explain the article’s puzzling errors.

AP reporter Matthew Perrone later blocked me on X. I’ve pasted my email to Fahey at the bottom of this article.

The person AP’s Matthew Perrone identifies as a “friend” of FDA’s Hoeg is Dr. Adam Urato, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at Metro West Medical Center in Massachusetts.

One passage in the AP story stood out to me:

Within the agency, Hoeg’s close relationship with Urato is viewed as a clear conflict of interest that, under normal FDA standards, would result in her recusing herself from any work on the petition. But Hoeg is actively working to speed up the agency’s review of her friend’s proposal, according to the people familiar with the situation.

I have never seen the term “friend” defined as a “conflict of interest” by any federal agency. Nor have I run across “friend” defined as a “conflict of interest” in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It’s a conflict of interest that doesn’t seem to exist.

And I happen to know quite a bit about conflicts of interest in science, because I’m an expert on the matter.

While I was a Senate staffer, I wrote a law on conflicts of interest called the Physicians Payments Sunshine Act. The bill I wrote was later passed into law and you can now go look up doctors on the government’s Open Payments website to see who is giving them money. I’m sure AP reporters use this website all the time. During my time in the Senate, I also helped to reform conflicts of interest at the National Institutes of Health. This took thousands of hours, untold numbers of meetings, and years of work to complete.

When I left the Senate and joined the Safra Ethics Center at Harvard, I was celebrated as the “Father of Sunshine” for this work to reform conflicts of interest in medicine.

Confused by the AP’s confusing reporting, I contacted Health and Human Services (HHS) and FDA, sending them almost the exact same questions that I sent to AP’s Jonathan Fahey.

“Being a friend is not a violation of ethics or conflicts of interests’ laws,” wrote HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon, in an email. Several senior FDA officials told me that HHS doesn’t even have a legal definition for what a “friend” is and no government conflict of interest form asks people to identify who their friends are.

“It’s a hit piece from industry against Dr. Hoeg, who is doing an amazing job at the FDA,” said one FDA official.

Hoeg did not respond to requests for comment, but during a phone call, Urato told me the AP story was filled with fake facts. The FDA has not offered him a full-time job as AP reported, and if they did, he couldn’t take it as he has a full-time clinical practice with hundreds of patients. FDA has expressed interest in offering him a limited, part-time position as an “advisor,” but nothing has been formalized.

He’s known Hoeg for only a couple years, and met her once when he went to DC to testify in favor of a labelling change for antidepressants that warns pregnant women about the documented risks for fetuses.

“This whole thing is being made up, and it’s an absurdity,” Urato said. “I’m not close friends with her as we’ve only discussed work. But If I say I’m not friends with her, then it’s like saying I’m her enemy.”

In his practice, Urato treats depressed women who are on antidepressants and always advises them of the research that has found risks for these drugs to developing fetuses. To ensure all women are warned, he has started a petition that asks the FDA to place a formal warning on the label for antidepressants. READ PETITION HERE.

“There’s 12 MRI studies in humans that show brain alterations found in offspring who were exposed in utero to antidepressants, and the corporate media has ignored this,” Urato says.

The AP falsely states in their story that Urato is making up “unproven pregnancy risks” but Nature Communications published a peer-reviewed study last May that found these exact risks that AP denies. The children of pregnant mothers on antidepressants later exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed kids. Kids exposed to antidepressants while in utero were also found to have different brain activity when shown photos of fearful faces.

“These findings have potential implications for the clinical use of [antidepressants] during human pregnancy and for designing interventions that protect fetal brain development,” the authors concluded. The study appears in Urato’s petition along with dozens of other peer-reviewed studies.

“What a woman should do varies from patient to patient,” Urato told me. “But the first thing is to inform them. We know that cancer drugs are toxic, but we don’t ignore that and hide it from patients for fear they won’t get treated for cancer.”

Urato says he doesn’t know if the FDA will act on his petition, despite the evidence. “What the FDA will do with that, I don’t know.” However, Urato has had success with a prior FDA petition.

Urato partnered with Public Citizen in 2019 to petition the FDA to withdraw the drug Makena, because it had been approved to stop premature births without adequate data showing it helped pregnant women. The FDA later agreed with the petition and withdrew Makena from the market in 2023.

Oddly enough, AP’s Matthew Perrone covered Urato’s success at getting the FDA to remove Makena from the market, which you can read here: “FDA forces unproven premature birth drug Makena off market.”

“This is all a distraction,” Urato told me. “It’s so stupid. Of course we need to warn women.”

FULL DISCLOSURE: While working in the Senate, I was invited to give the keynote address at a conference on conflicts of interest in medicine and research hosted at Tufts University. Administrators later withdrew my invitation, causing one of the organizers to resign and creating a minor scandal that made news in the Boston Globe.

“It’s too bad a reform perspective has been removed from the program,” the Senate Committee’s spokeswoman told the Globe.

Some days later, I got a call from a physician who said Tufts organizers chose him to give the keynote speech in my place. I remember him being irate that Tufts had silenced me. He told me he wanted to know exactly what I was going to say, as he was going to give my exact same talk. He then took notes as I explained my speech. I may have also sent him my slide deck, but I can’t remember as this conversation took place in 2009.

I do remember laughing during the conversation at the thought that Tufts administrators were going to hear exactly what I was going to say, although it was coming from the mouth of someone they deemed more acceptable.

When I called Urato for this story, I thought it was the first time we had ever communicated. However, he reminded me during our conversation that he was the physician who called me all those years back, angry that Tufts had cancelled my keynote address. And he was the person who gave my talk at Tufts about the importance of conflicts of interest in medicine. Urato sent me this article in the Tufts newspaper to show this was the case.

I have no clue if AP or other reporters believe this makes Urato and I “friends” but feel free to discuss in the comments below.

* * *

Below is the email I sent to AP asking them to explain their bewildering article.

Hello Jonathan,

I’m working on a story about this AP article that claims FDA’s Tracy Hoeg is bringing a “friend” to FDA and that this is an FDA conflict of interest. That story is here https://apnews.com/article/hoeg-urato-fda-drugs-antidepressants-pregnancy-warnings-a2a48cd2285f5b33aef2d390b5b60d0c

While I was a Senate staffer, I wrote a law on COI called the Physicians Payments Sunshine Act that many reporters now use through the government’s Open Payments website. I also helped to reform NIH COI regs. I also wrote an award winning series for the BMJ on FDA COVID vaccine approvals by digging through FDA COI disclosures.

The AP alleges in this passage, which I’ve put in italics:

Within the agency, Hoeg’s close relationship with Urato is viewed as a clear conflict of interest that, under normal FDA standards, would result in her recusing herself from any work on the petition. But Hoeg is actively working to speed up the agency’s review of her friend’s proposal, according to the people familiar with the situation.

I have never seen the term “friend” defined as a COI for any federal agency. Nor have I run across this claim in the peer-reviewed literature. I also don’t know what “friend” means as I spoke to Adam Urato and he said he’s met Hoeg only a few times and it was only over professional matters.

Senior FDA officials have contacted me and explained that the FDA General Counsel has no legal definition of “friend” and no record of “friend” appearing in any COI policies. I have a couple questions, please.

1. Can you provide me with any evidence FDA/HHS has a legal definition for the term “friend”?

2. Can you provide me with an FDA/HHS policy that lists the term “friend” as a conflict of interest, as AP reports?

3. AP states that Urato wants FDA to add new warnings to antidepressants about “unproven pregnancy risks.” Nature communications published a study about the pregnancy risks to fetuses and SSRI use last May. Can you explain to readers why AP thinks this study is false? Has it been retracted? This is one of many studies showing effects to fetuses from SSRI use.

Again, we need a response by COB today.

Thank you for your time,

Paul

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 17:55

AP Shills For Big Pharma Antidepressants With 'Bewildering' Hit Piece

Check this out... The Trump FDA's top drug regulator, Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, is working to hire a researcher and friend who strongly believes the agency should add new warnings about antidepressants and pregnancy risks. 

So what does the Associated Press do? They pen a hit piece, smearing Hoeg, her associate, and suggesting that peer reviewed studies over the risks are 'unproven.' 

This is how the medical arm of the blob works, and Paul Thacker of the DisInformation Chronicle is calling them out... 

* * *

Associated Press Cannot Explain Bewildering Reporting on FDA’s Tracy Hoeg and Antidepressant Risks

By Paul D. Thacker

Cruising through X last week a weird story caught my eye: it reported that The Food and Drug Administration’s top drug regulator, Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, was trying to hire a “friend” who wants the FDA to add warnings to antidepressants about “unproven pregnancy risks.” The story makes several claims that are bewildering and appear to be fabricated. I sent several questions to AP’s global health editor Jonathan Fahey, but he did not respond to repeated requests to explain the article’s puzzling errors.

AP reporter Matthew Perrone later blocked me on X. I’ve pasted my email to Fahey at the bottom of this article.

The person AP’s Matthew Perrone identifies as a “friend” of FDA’s Hoeg is Dr. Adam Urato, chief of maternal-fetal medicine at Metro West Medical Center in Massachusetts.

One passage in the AP story stood out to me:

Within the agency, Hoeg’s close relationship with Urato is viewed as a clear conflict of interest that, under normal FDA standards, would result in her recusing herself from any work on the petition. But Hoeg is actively working to speed up the agency’s review of her friend’s proposal, according to the people familiar with the situation.

I have never seen the term “friend” defined as a “conflict of interest” by any federal agency. Nor have I run across “friend” defined as a “conflict of interest” in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. It’s a conflict of interest that doesn’t seem to exist.

And I happen to know quite a bit about conflicts of interest in science, because I’m an expert on the matter.

While I was a Senate staffer, I wrote a law on conflicts of interest called the Physicians Payments Sunshine Act. The bill I wrote was later passed into law and you can now go look up doctors on the government’s Open Payments website to see who is giving them money. I’m sure AP reporters use this website all the time. During my time in the Senate, I also helped to reform conflicts of interest at the National Institutes of Health. This took thousands of hours, untold numbers of meetings, and years of work to complete.

When I left the Senate and joined the Safra Ethics Center at Harvard, I was celebrated as the “Father of Sunshine” for this work to reform conflicts of interest in medicine.

Confused by the AP’s confusing reporting, I contacted Health and Human Services (HHS) and FDA, sending them almost the exact same questions that I sent to AP’s Jonathan Fahey.

“Being a friend is not a violation of ethics or conflicts of interests’ laws,” wrote HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon, in an email. Several senior FDA officials told me that HHS doesn’t even have a legal definition for what a “friend” is and no government conflict of interest form asks people to identify who their friends are.

“It’s a hit piece from industry against Dr. Hoeg, who is doing an amazing job at the FDA,” said one FDA official.

Hoeg did not respond to requests for comment, but during a phone call, Urato told me the AP story was filled with fake facts. The FDA has not offered him a full-time job as AP reported, and if they did, he couldn’t take it as he has a full-time clinical practice with hundreds of patients. FDA has expressed interest in offering him a limited, part-time position as an “advisor,” but nothing has been formalized.

He’s known Hoeg for only a couple years, and met her once when he went to DC to testify in favor of a labelling change for antidepressants that warns pregnant women about the documented risks for fetuses.

“This whole thing is being made up, and it’s an absurdity,” Urato said. “I’m not close friends with her as we’ve only discussed work. But If I say I’m not friends with her, then it’s like saying I’m her enemy.”

In his practice, Urato treats depressed women who are on antidepressants and always advises them of the research that has found risks for these drugs to developing fetuses. To ensure all women are warned, he has started a petition that asks the FDA to place a formal warning on the label for antidepressants. READ PETITION HERE.

“There’s 12 MRI studies in humans that show brain alterations found in offspring who were exposed in utero to antidepressants, and the corporate media has ignored this,” Urato says.

The AP falsely states in their story that Urato is making up “unproven pregnancy risks” but Nature Communications published a peer-reviewed study last May that found these exact risks that AP denies. The children of pregnant mothers on antidepressants later exhibited higher anxiety and depression symptoms than unexposed kids. Kids exposed to antidepressants while in utero were also found to have different brain activity when shown photos of fearful faces.

“These findings have potential implications for the clinical use of [antidepressants] during human pregnancy and for designing interventions that protect fetal brain development,” the authors concluded. The study appears in Urato’s petition along with dozens of other peer-reviewed studies.

“What a woman should do varies from patient to patient,” Urato told me. “But the first thing is to inform them. We know that cancer drugs are toxic, but we don’t ignore that and hide it from patients for fear they won’t get treated for cancer.”

Urato says he doesn’t know if the FDA will act on his petition, despite the evidence. “What the FDA will do with that, I don’t know.” However, Urato has had success with a prior FDA petition.

Urato partnered with Public Citizen in 2019 to petition the FDA to withdraw the drug Makena, because it had been approved to stop premature births without adequate data showing it helped pregnant women. The FDA later agreed with the petition and withdrew Makena from the market in 2023.

Oddly enough, AP’s Matthew Perrone covered Urato’s success at getting the FDA to remove Makena from the market, which you can read here: “FDA forces unproven premature birth drug Makena off market.”

“This is all a distraction,” Urato told me. “It’s so stupid. Of course we need to warn women.”

FULL DISCLOSURE: While working in the Senate, I was invited to give the keynote address at a conference on conflicts of interest in medicine and research hosted at Tufts University. Administrators later withdrew my invitation, causing one of the organizers to resign and creating a minor scandal that made news in the Boston Globe.

“It’s too bad a reform perspective has been removed from the program,” the Senate Committee’s spokeswoman told the Globe.

Some days later, I got a call from a physician who said Tufts organizers chose him to give the keynote speech in my place. I remember him being irate that Tufts had silenced me. He told me he wanted to know exactly what I was going to say, as he was going to give my exact same talk. He then took notes as I explained my speech. I may have also sent him my slide deck, but I can’t remember as this conversation took place in 2009.

I do remember laughing during the conversation at the thought that Tufts administrators were going to hear exactly what I was going to say, although it was coming from the mouth of someone they deemed more acceptable.

When I called Urato for this story, I thought it was the first time we had ever communicated. However, he reminded me during our conversation that he was the physician who called me all those years back, angry that Tufts had cancelled my keynote address. And he was the person who gave my talk at Tufts about the importance of conflicts of interest in medicine. Urato sent me this article in the Tufts newspaper to show this was the case.

I have no clue if AP or other reporters believe this makes Urato and I “friends” but feel free to discuss in the comments below.

* * *

Below is the email I sent to AP asking them to explain their bewildering article.

Hello Jonathan,

I’m working on a story about this AP article that claims FDA’s Tracy Hoeg is bringing a “friend” to FDA and that this is an FDA conflict of interest. That story is here https://apnews.com/article/hoeg-urato-fda-drugs-antidepressants-pregnancy-warnings-a2a48cd2285f5b33aef2d390b5b60d0c

While I was a Senate staffer, I wrote a law on COI called the Physicians Payments Sunshine Act that many reporters now use through the government’s Open Payments website. I also helped to reform NIH COI regs. I also wrote an award winning series for the BMJ on FDA COVID vaccine approvals by digging through FDA COI disclosures.

The AP alleges in this passage, which I’ve put in italics:

Within the agency, Hoeg’s close relationship with Urato is viewed as a clear conflict of interest that, under normal FDA standards, would result in her recusing herself from any work on the petition. But Hoeg is actively working to speed up the agency’s review of her friend’s proposal, according to the people familiar with the situation.

I have never seen the term “friend” defined as a COI for any federal agency. Nor have I run across this claim in the peer-reviewed literature. I also don’t know what “friend” means as I spoke to Adam Urato and he said he’s met Hoeg only a few times and it was only over professional matters.

Senior FDA officials have contacted me and explained that the FDA General Counsel has no legal definition of “friend” and no record of “friend” appearing in any COI policies. I have a couple questions, please.

1. Can you provide me with any evidence FDA/HHS has a legal definition for the term “friend”?

2. Can you provide me with an FDA/HHS policy that lists the term “friend” as a conflict of interest, as AP reports?

3. AP states that Urato wants FDA to add new warnings to antidepressants about “unproven pregnancy risks.” Nature communications published a study about the pregnancy risks to fetuses and SSRI use last May. Can you explain to readers why AP thinks this study is false? Has it been retracted? This is one of many studies showing effects to fetuses from SSRI use.

Again, we need a response by COB today.

Thank you for your time,

Paul

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 17:55

Rand Paul Warns Of "Disastrous" Midterms For GOP If Iran War Continues

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a leading voice for non-interventionism within the Republican Party, warned Tuesday that prolonged U.S. military action against Iran could spell disaster for Republicans in the 2026 midterm elections.

In an interview on Fox Business with host Maria Bartiromo, Paul downplayed internal party divisions as the main risk, instead pointing to economic fallout from the conflict, which began with joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on February 28.

“How worried are you that a split Republican Party will only mean losses in the midterm elections?” Ms. Bartiromo asked. “How are you expecting the midterms to play out?”

“I don’t think split party is the problem. I think high oil prices will be a problem. I think the 2026 election’s already – we are behind the eight ball as far as the electoral process,” Mr. Paul replied. "I think if you add in high gas prices, high oil prices, and if we are still bombing Iran with kinetic action – people don’t want to call it war – but if there’s still kinetic action that causes oil to be over $100, I think you’re gonna see a disastrous election.”

Rand Paul: "The 2026 elections, already we are behind the 8 ball. If you add in high gas prices, high oil prices, and if we're still bombing Iran with kinetic action -- people don't want to call it war -- I think you're gonna see a disastrous election." pic.twitter.com/lILcS0TUaa

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 10, 2026

In what should set off alarm bells in the White House and the House Speaker’s Office, Polymarket’s “Balance of Power: 2026 Midterms” market shows Democrats have a 44% of sweeping Congress in the midterms.

The U.S.-Israel strikes killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the opening wave, along with dozens of senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officials and other regime figures. Iranian sources reported 1,255 deaths and more than 12,000 injured. U.S. and Israeli assessments put Iranian military deaths at around 3,000. Iranian retaliatory missile and drone strikes killed 7 U.S. military personnel and 13 people in Israel.

The joint campaign has inflicted extensive damage on Iran's military infrastructure, including the sinking of over 30 naval vessels, destruction of ballistic missile launchers and production facilities, airfields, drone sites, key IRGC bases, and residual nuclear-related structures at sites such as Natanz and Isfahan. Air defenses were heavily degraded, limiting Tehran's ability to mount sustained retaliation, while allied proxy groups like Hezbollah sustained further losses.'

On Monday, President Donald Trump suggested that the war could end soon, describing the operation as a "short-term excursion" that was "very complete, pretty much.” Yet, the president warned of harsher military action should Iran attempt to disrupt oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz. The oil markets welcomed Trump’s dovish overtures as crude oil prices plunged as much as 10% on Tuesday morning, with Brent sliding around 8% to $91 a barrel and U.S. crude dropping 8.1% to roughly $87.

//--> //--> 2026 Balance of Power: D Senate, D House
Yes 45% · No 56%
View full market & trade on Polymarket Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 17:30

Loans To Non-Banks Threaten Banking Crisis

Authored by Christopher Whalen via DailyReckoning.com,

Last week, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp released the industry data for US banks for 2025.

On the surface, the numbers look reassuring, even strong. But beneath the calm headline figures lies a growing risk that investors should not ignore.

Domestic deposits increased for the sixth consecutive quarter in Q4 2025 by $318.3 billion or 1.8%, the FDIC reports. Loans grew by 2% in Q4 and almost 6% YOY. Foreign deposits grew 11%, but subordinated debt and FHLB advances each fell ~ 14% as banks shed excess capital and funding.

U.S. bank loan growth in 2025 was robust, with total loans and leases reaching $13.4 trillion by year-end, a sequential increase in Q4 and a 5.9% annual growth rate, driven by larger institutions. Personal loan balances hit $2.2 trillion, while credit card debt rose 5.5% annually but the utilization rate for credit cards is still less than 20% of the total credit available. Yet behind this placid picture is a growing threat to banks and financial markets. At first glance, this looks like a healthy banking system. But that placid picture masks a fast-growing vulnerability that could become the next major pressure point for banks and financial markets.

The fastest growing bank asset category is loans to non-depository financial institutions (NDFIs), a corner of the financial system that regulators have struggled to monitor and control, up 7% in Q4 vs Q3 and up 35% YOY to $1.4 trillion at year-end 2025. With growing signs of credit stress among nonbank companies, banks will eventually pull back from lending to NDFIs. The problem is timing. By the time banks tighten lending standards, many private companies dependent on this funding may already be heading toward collapse, and those failures will not stay confined to the shadow banking system.

They will hit bank balance sheets directly.

The latest default involving UK mortgage issuer Market Financial Solutions threatens a £930 million shortfall in collateral backing loans to Apollo, TPG, other Wall Street private credit sponsors that are heavily involved with lending to private credit and equity, and various speculative ventures involving the current “AI investment boom.”

“The collapse of MFS, which attracted backing from firms including Barclays Plc, Apollo Global Management Inc.’s Atlas SP Partners unit, Jefferies Financial Group and TPG, is the latest crisis to hit both banks and direct lenders, and puts a spotlight on asset-based financing,” Bloomberg reveals.

“Accusations of double pledging also emerged in the collapses last year of US auto parts supplier First Brands Group and sub-prime auto lender Tricolor Holdings.”

Accusations of double pledging collateral have also surfaced in recent failures such as First Brands Group and Tricolor Holdings, further highlighting the fragility of the system.

The fact that Apollo’s Atlas SP unit was caught unawares by the apparent collateral fraud at MFS is especially notable given the firm’s past experience. One of the leading providers of secured financing to nonbank mortgage companies in the US, Atlas SP was formerly owned by Credit Suisse and has been the advisor on numerous financing transactions for NBFIs. Yet two supposedly “secured” warehouse facilities backed by Atlas SP are now reported to be in default. If the lenders structuring these deals are surprised by collateral problems, investors should be asking deeper questions about how widespread these risks really are.

The collapse of American Car Centers in 2023, another Atlas SP client, provided advanced warning of a wave of corporate insolvencies that now threaten the US banking sector with contagion. U.S. corporate bankruptcies in 2025 surged to their highest level in 15 years, with over 700 companies filing for protection through November, marking a 14% increase over 2024. A large share of those failures involved private equity-backed firms.

Why is the rapid growth in bank lending to NDFIs a problem?

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell previously expressed that while non-depository financial institutions play a productive role in the economy, their growth outside the traditional regulatory perimeter poses risks to financial stability. We’re not talking here about mortgage companies with fully secured loans, but instead speculative credit and private equity schemes that are running out of cash.

The growth of private equity and credit is particularly problematic for banks. Many institutions are quietly masking early defaults through loan forbearance. When busted private equity firms cannot pay their debts, many seek to buy time by paying “in kind” with additional equity effectively issuing more of what the market already considers worthless. Paying “principal on original principal” or “POOP” (h/t Victor Hong) is one the thin canards used by private equity sponsors to conceal their financial malfeasance. In short: investors are being paid with more of the same failing capital structure.

In 2024, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell expressed concerns regarding the rapid growth of non-bank financial institutions and the shifting of financial intermediation outside the regulated banking perimeter. He emphasized the need for regulators to be “smart” about where risks are emerging in this sector, noting that non-bank lending could lead to an overall lack of economic stability.  But federal bank regulators have done little to address the explosion of lending to NDFIs. History shows that when a bank asset class grows significantly faster than the broader economy, it is usually a signal that systemic risk is building.

When you see a bank asset class growing far more quickly than the broad economy, this is a red flag that suggests potential systemic risk. But even more troubling that the high rate of growth in bank lending to NDFIs is the huge amount of undrawn loans available to these lightly capitalized companies involved in private equity and credit.

The FDIC does not yet disclose full loan category data on NDFI series, but we can infer from Other Loans line that banks currently have an estimated $2.8 trillion in unused loan commitments to NDFIs or exposure at default of 200% of current advances as defined by Basel III.  A non-bank firm can draw on these contracted credit lines and immediately default, causing a massive loss to the bank lender.  For every dollar of the $1.4 trillion in bank loans outstanding today to NDFIs, there are two dollars in undrawn loans or a total of $2.8 trillion, as shown in the chart below.

In practical terms:

• Banks have $1.4 trillion in outstanding loans to NDFIs

• They have another $2.8 trillion in undrawn commitments

That means for every dollar already lent, two more dollars are waiting to be drawn.

And a nonbank borrower can draw on those lines and default immediately, leaving banks with the loss.

Total potential exposure: roughly $4.2 trillion.

If stress spreads across private credit markets, that number becomes very important, very quickly.

Source: FDIC

The massive amount of bank lending to NDFIs is an approaching storm that has been largely ignored by federal regulators but is gaining growing attention from credit analysts. One public benchmark for the growing credit stress facing nonbanks is business development companies, which have seen an 18% decline in stock valuations over the past year vs an equal positive gain for the S&P 500. That divergence is not random. BDC investors are effectively voting with their capital that private credit risk is rising and rising quickly.

“UBS strategists say private credit could see default rates surge as high as 15% if artificial intelligence triggers an “aggressive” disruption among corporate borrowers,” the Swiss bank reports. 

“Direct lenders that financed software companies are exposed to AI’s impact, with some estimates suggesting 40% of all sponsor-backed loans are tied up in the software industry.”

A 15% default rate is 2x the highest level of bank loan delinquency seen in 2008.

Put that number in perspective. A 15% default rate would be roughly twice the highest level of bank loan delinquencies seen during the 2008 financial crisis.

If even a portion of that scenario materializes, private credit markets, and the banks financing them, will feel the impact immediately.

The year 2025 was an extraordinary period for many reasons, including low credit loss rates and soaring asset values. QE teaches us that high asset prices suppress the cost of default, until asset values fall. But Wall Street is still trying to spin the growing delinquency among private companies as being only a problem “on the margins.”

“A review of the 3,649 middle market (MM) corporate credit assessments completed in 2025 shows mixed signals,” notes Kroll Bond Rating Agency.

“Slowing growth is negatively impacting some companies’ credit quality, but overall, our portfolio remains stable. The growing divergence in performance is driven by challenged subsectors that we believe will contribute to the rising, yet contained, default rate in 2026.”

In other words: the cracks are visible, but the market is still hoping the damage remains contained.

In the 1920s, many observers believed that asset values had reached a “permanently high plateau,” That confidence did not age well. This despite warnings from some observers of an impending collapse. Sectors like private equity and credit, and AI, all promise higher credit costs ahead. But for lenders, the immediate implication may be something very different: higher credit costs. When credit costs rise, earnings decline and stocks follow. The sharp declines in bank stocks in January and February illustrate this tendency.

We expect bank stocks to underperform their strong 2025 performance and face several challenges in the coming year:

• Rising credit costs

• Elevated market volatility

• Higher operating expenses

Banks will benefit from falling funding costs, which should provide some support for margins.

But the outsized credit exposure to nonbank financial institutions may become one of the dominant financial narratives of 2026.

If stress spreads through private credit markets, investors may quickly discover that the shadow banking system is not nearly as “separate” from the traditional banking sector as many assume.

*  *  *

Investors who want deeper analysis of bank balance sheets and emerging credit risks can follow Christopher Whalen’s ongoing research and commentary.

Access to the index and detailed bank research is available via Institutional Risk Analyst.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 17:05

Oracle Jumps On Solid Earnings And Guidance Boost Despite Soaring CapEx And Cash Burn

There was much anxiety ahead of Oracle's Q3 earnings release: yes, revenue growth would be solid but would it come at the expense of even more capex, which has sent the stock price tumbling more than 50% since its record high on Sept 10. In the end, it turned out the company had learned from recent mistakes and projected a goldilocks future: strong revenue and just right capex.

Here is what Oracle reports for Q3:

• Adjusted EPS $1.79 vs. $1.47 y/y, beating estimate $1.70
• Adjusted revenue $17.19 billion, +22% y/y, beating estimates of $16.89 billion (Revenue in constant fx +18%, in line with estimate +18.8%)
  • Cloud revenue (IaaS plus SaaS) $8.9 billion, +44% y/y, beating estimate $8.84 billion (in constant currency +41%, estimate +41.7%)
  • Cloud Infrastructure revenue (IaaS) $4.9 billion, +81% y/y, beating estimate $4.74 billion (in constant currency +81%, estimate +82.2%)
  • Cloud Application revenue (SaaS) $4.0 billion, +11% y/y, in line with the estimate $4 billion (in constant currency +11%, estimate +11.6%)
  • Software revenue $6.12 billion, +3.3% y/y, beating estimate $5.97 billion
  • Software Support revenue $4.97 billion, +3.6% y/y, beating estimate $4.89 billion
  • Software License revenue $1.15 billion, +1.9% y/y, beating estimate $1.1 billion
  • Hardware revenue $714 million, +1.6% y/y, missing estimate $724.6 million
  • Service revenue $1.44 billion, +12% y/y, beating estimate $1.36 billion

Of note here, sales in the company’s closely watched infrastructure business gained 81% to $4.9 billion in the period ended Feb. 28, the company said Tuesday in a statement. That marked a faster increase than estimate of 79% and compared with a 68% revenue rise in the previous quarter.  Going down the line: 

• Adjusted operating income $7.38 billion, +19% y/y, estimate $7.21 billion
• Adjusted operating margin 43% vs. 44% y/y, estimate 42.7%
• Remaining performance obligations $553 billion vs. $130 billion y/y

And while the above is all good, what wasn't so good is that ORCL's Q2 capex came in at a stunning $18.6 billion, triple the number from a year ago, and 50% higher than the Q1 capex print. To say that the company is incinerating money is doing a disservice to incinerators.

Elsewhere, the company's remaining performance obligation, a measure of bookings, were $553 billion, compared with the $523 billion reported in the prior quarter.

Looking ahead to the fourth quarter, the company's guidance range came above estimates: 

• Revenues to grow from 18% to 20% in constant currency (grow 19% to 21% in USD): 
• Adj. EPS to grow between 15% to 17% and be between $1.92 and $1.96, beating estimates of $1.95 (grow between 15% to 17% and be between $1.96 and $2.00 in USD)
• Cloud revenue to grow between 44% to 48% in constant currency (expected to grow from 46% to 50% in USD)

Adding across, this means that for fiscal 2026, Oracle expects revenue of $67 billion and capital expenditures of $50 billion, which is unchanged from our most recent previous guidance. Incidentally, there is no way in hell ORCL's full year 2026 CapEx is only $50 billion since its LTM capex is already $48.25 billion.

Perhaps most importantly, Oracle also published its fiscal 2027 guidance which is as follows:

• For fiscal year 2027, Oracle is raising total revenue guidance to $90 billion, beating estimates of $86.7 billion.

There was no mention of what 2027 capex will be, so expect some very pointed questions on the call because alongside massive capex comes just as massive cash burn, which, as shown below... is terrifying. As readers are well aware, the question for the past 6 months has been: just how much debt will ORCL need to fund it? 

Cash burn aside, Oracle's earnings were solid, with the company posting cloud revenue that was better than expected and projected strong sales in the upcoming fiscal year, a sign the company is turning its massive AI bookings into revenue.

Oracle is working to deliver on massive cloud infrastructure contracts with customers like OpenAI and Meta. Known for its namesake database software, the company’s cloud business has found major success by providing chip-filled data centers and other equipment for training and deploying AI models.

The shares increased about 7% in extended trading after closing at $149.40 as the kneejerk reaction to the company's earnings was viewed as favorable. Let's see if this continues into tomorrow's session.

As a reminder, the stock has lost more than 50% of its value from a September peak as Wall Street has grown worried about the costs and logistics associated with the massive build-out.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 16:43

Epstein Guard Googled Him Minutes Before Body Found; Bank Made 'Suspicious Activity Report' Over Cash Deposits

Authored by Jose Nino via HeadlineUSA,

A federal correctional officer assigned to monitor Jeffrey Epstein conducted internet searches about the convicted sex offender just moments before his body was discovered and received thousands of dollars in cash deposits in the weeks preceding his death, newly released Justice Department documents show.

Tova Noel worked as one of two Metropolitan Correctional Center employees who authorities later accused of fabricating logs claiming they had conducted required welfare checks on Epstein throughout the overnight hours before his August 10, 2019 death. Both guards lost their jobs, though prosecutors eventually dismissed criminal charges against them.

According to FBI forensic analysis of Bureau of Prisons computers, Noel entered the search term “latest on Epstein in jail” at 5:42 a.m. and repeated the query ten minutes later at 5:52 a.m. Her fellow officer Michael Thomas located the financier hanging in his cell at 6:30 a.m., less than 40 minutes after her final search.

Prosecutors stated that during the overnight shift, the 37-year-old Noel browsed furniture websites and slept rather than performing the required inmate checks every half hour. Thomas spent time looking at motorcycle listings online.

The New York Post reported that federal investigators produced a 66-page forensic report examining the desktop computers used by both officers. The Epstein related search was the sole query that the FBI chose to highlight in its analysis.

During sworn questioning by Justice Department officials in 2021, Noel disputed the FBI’s findings. “I don’t remember doing that,” she stated in the transcript. She characterized the federal records as not “accurate. I don’t recall looking him up.”

Noel also asserted that the failure to conduct proper monitoring was widespread at the Manhattan detention facility. “I’ve never worked in the Special Housing Unit and actually done rounds every 30 minutes,” she informed investigators.

Separate DOJ files reveal that Chase Bank submitted a “suspicious activity report” to the FBI in November 2019 regarding cash transactions in Noel’s account. The financial institution documented a total of 12 deposits starting in April 2018, with the largest single transaction of $5,000 occurring on July 30, 2019, just 11 days before Epstein died.

Available bank records beginning in December 2018 document seven separate cash deposits amounting to $11,880. Noel began her assignment in the Special Housing Unit where Epstein was held on July 7, 2019, approximately one month before his death.

Records indicate Noel operated a 2019 Land Rover Range Rover valued at $62,000. DOJ interviewers never questioned her about the cash transactions, according to the documents.

An internal FBI briefing contained in the released files indicates the bureau concluded that Noel was most likely the unidentified orange figure visible in grainy security camera footage near Epstein’s cell at approximately 10:40 p.m. on the night before his death.

“At approximately 10:40 pm, a correctional officer, believed to be Tova Noel, carried linen or inmate clothing up to the L-Tier, last time any correctional officer approached the only entrance to the SHU tier,” federal agents documented. Investigators determined that Epstein used strips of orange fabric to hang himself.

In her sworn testimony, Noel, who had been working consecutive shifts that day, stated she last observed Epstein alive “somewhere around after 10” that evening. She maintained that she “never gave out linen, ever” or clothing to inmates, asserting that such distributions occurred during earlier shifts.

The blurred orange shape captured on video has fueled speculation and conspiracy theories since the FBI made the footage public last summer. An inspector general report from 2023 described the figure only as “unidentified correctional officers,” making these newly released FBI documents the first official record to connect a specific name to the image.

Noel stated she could not explain why Epstein possessed additional bedding in his cell. She noted that Thomas, the other officer on duty, was asleep from 10 p.m. until midnight. Facility protocols prohibit staff members from entering the cell area without accompaniment, according to prison employees.

Legal representatives for Noel offered no comment. When investigators directly asked whether she played any role in Epstein’s death, Noel answered “no.”

As the New York Post reported, Noel currently faces a civil lawsuit in Westchester County Supreme Court alleging she committed assault while employed as a medical office assistant at Montefiore Einstein Advanced Care.

José Niño is the deputy editor of Headline USA. Follow him at x.com/JoseAlNino

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 16:25

Trump Threatens 'Unprecedented Military Consequences' As Iran Reportedly Starts Mining The Strait Of Hormuz

Summary:

• CNN says the IRGC had already begun laying explosive mines in the vital Strait of Hormuz.

• Reuters: AS MANY AS 150 US TROOPS WOUNDED SO FAR IN IRAN WAR

• CBS says US intelligence has begun to see indications Iran is taking steps to deploy mines in Strait of Hormuz shipping lane

• Divergent signals flying between Tehran and Washington: Witkoff says Trump "always willing to talk" to Iran, the question is whether or not it is worth it. Trump-Putin spoke Monday, and Putin-Pezeshkian spoke Tuesday. Meanwhile Tehran defiant: no ceasefire, vows maximum pain.

• Operation 'mostly achieved goals' - Trump says as WSJ reports officials seeking plans for offramp. Biggest airstrikes of the war.

• Tehran vows ‘eye for an eye’ if US-Israel hit infrastructure. Iran leaders on various levels sounding hawkish and not backing down.

• Oil/Energy: Iraq has shut down some oil wells, while Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia taking similar steps to curtail production. Qatar too: halted operations at several gas wells and shut down the liquefaction "trains" used to process natural gas for export.

• Qatar urges halt to attacks, quick return to diplomacy - Foreign Ministry: "Reaching the negotiating table quickly and halting attacks would serve the interests of the peoples of the region as well as international peace and security, in addition to strengthening global economic stability."

• Pentagon claims "winning": After ten days into Operation Epic Fury, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth lists objectives that include destroying Iran's missile infrastructure, defense industry, navy, and ensuring Tehran is "permanently" denied nuclear weapons.

• Trump's mixed messaging as war could end 'soon' while saying Iran's military is crippled, but also warns Tehran would be hit "20 times harder" if it disrupts oil traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. Signs of Washington officials looking for an offramp. A mere few days ago Trump stressed the US would stop at nothing short of Iran's "unconditional surrender" - but that continues to look dubious.

• Iran rejects U.S. narrative: The IRGC says its missile program remains intact and claims it is firing larger salvos with heavier warheads, while officials insist Iran, not Washington, will decide when the war ends.

• Regional escalation especially in Lebanon: Heavy IDF fighting continues with Hezbollah in Lebanon, while Gulf states intercept missiles and drones, and all the while Iranian leaders say US and Israeli regime-change efforts have failed and vow to prepare for a "long war" - even involving those who host American bases in region.

* * *

Update(1555ET): A fresh Tuesday CNN report says that Iran has already begun laying mines in the vital oil transit Strait of Hormuz waterway: 

Iran has begun laying mines in the Strait of Hormuz, the world’s most important energy chokepoint that carries about one-fifth of all crude oil, according to two people familiar with US intelligence reporting on the issue.

The mining is not extensive yet, with a few dozen having been laid in recent days, the sources said. But Iran still retains upward of 80% to 90% of its small boats and mine layers, one of the sources said, so its forces could feasibly lay hundreds of mines in the waterway.

The report further says that after IRGC threats have already de facto closed the strait to nearly all international traffic (apparently unless they signal they are Chinese vessels) amid the ongoing drone and missile threat, it maintains the capability to deploy a "gauntlet" of dispersed mine-laying craft, continues CNN, including explosive-laden boats and shore-based missile batteries.

TRUMP RESPONDS to the reports, warns the Military consequences to Iran will be at a level never seen before.

Trump revised his tweet quickly, adding the following:

"Additionally, we are using the same Technology and Missile capabilities deployed against Drug Traffickers to permanently eliminate any boat or ship attempting to mine the Hormuz Strait.

They will be dealt with quickly and violently.

BEWARE!"

He also followed with saying that the US already destroyed ten inactive mine laying boats.

CENTCOM meanwhile quickly counter-signals that it stands ready to fight back:

U.S. forces are degrading the Iranian regime's ability to project power at sea and harass international shipping. For years, Iranian forces have threatened freedom of navigation in waters essential to American, regional and global security and prosperity. pic.twitter.com/gIBN02mowh

— U.S. Central Command (@CENTCOM) March 10, 2026

* * *

Update(1458ET): In an afternoon WH press briefing, Karoline Leavitt was pressured by reporters on the scope of the Iran operations, as well as whether Trump will allow the new supreme leader to rule, as well as questions on what Trump meant when days ago he laid out that the US will not stop operations until Iran's "unconditional surrender". She struggled on some of these, but offered little new or substantive. One new and very alarming development, however, also mentioned in the WH briefing room - and not denied by Leavitt - was the following fresh Reuters report:

As many ‌as 150 ‌U.S. ⁠troops ⁠have been wounded so far ​in the war with ​Iran, two people familiar ⁠with ⁠the matter ⁠told Reuters ​on Tuesday.

The figure ​has ⁠not been previously reported ⁠and is far higher than the Pentagon's ⁠publicly disclosed figure of 8 seriously wounded U.S. forces.

And another big afternoon development: CBS'  Jim LaPorta reports that US intelligence assets have begun to see indications Iran is taking steps to deploy mines in Strait of Hormuz shipping lane.

LaPorta added that Iran is reportedly using smaller crafts that can carry 2 to 3 mines each. While Iran’s mine stock isn’t publicly known, estimates over the years have ranged from roughly 2,000 to 6,000 naval mines of Iranian, Chinese and Russian-made variants.

* * *

Ten days of Operation Epic Fury have passed, and War Secretary Pete Hegseth asserted that the United States is "winning" against the "barbarian" Iranians, and that Tehran has been "racing" toward a nuclear bomb.

He listed in a Pentagon press briefing Tuesday morning that war objectives are to destroy missiles and the defense industrial base, to destroy Iran's navy, and to ensure Iran can never obtain a nuclear weapon. He stressed that the goal includes to "permanently deny Iran nuclear weapons forever."

He added: "We will not relent until the enemy is totally and entirely defeated." This comes the day after President Trump said that he believes the war could end soon, even as Iranian officials signal they are preparing for a prolonged conflict.

AFP/Getty Images

"I think the war is very complete, pretty much," Trump told CBS News. "They have no navy, no communications, they’ve got no air force." Hours later in afternoon remarks from Florida, Trump warned that Iran would face massive retaliation if it tried to disrupt global oil flows, saying the United States would strike Tehran "20 times harder" if it attempted to block tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Pentagon's Tuesday morning briefing really emphasized steady destruction of Iranian missile sites - even underground ballistic launch bunkers - with heavy bunker busters. However, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has rejected Washington claims that its missile program has been destroyed, saying it is launching larger volleys of missiles with warheads weighing more than one ton.

Iran has continued retaliatory strikes on Israel and Gulf allies, including in Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia. One person was killed in Manama and two others were killed in central Israel Monday into Tuesday.

While Israel's military has heavily censored potential damage on the ground and the rate of Iran's missile and drone attacks, unverified but widespread online accounts suggest it continues to get hit hard on a nightly basis.

Tehran meanwhile has experienced some of the heaviest bombardment of the war overnight, with at least 40 people reported killed near Risalat Square. Since the start of the war, at least 460 people have been killed and 4,309 wounded in Tehran alone, according to the figures of Mehr Soroush, deputy head of the Tehran Emergency Health Department. The Iranian capital is densely packed with a size and population comparable to New York City.

⚡️ Israeli Airstrikes Hit Oil Infrastructure in Kerman, Iran pic.twitter.com/u4Drq2BgXs

— War Monitor (@WarMonitors) March 10, 2026

Across Iran, more than 1,200 people have been killed and over 10,000 injured. Even the newly named Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, may have been injured - reportedly before he was declared head of the country, state media has suggested.

Mohammad Jamalian, a member of Iran’s parliamentary health committee, has said nine hospitals are no longer operational due to the ongoing bombardment. Pharmaceutical stockpiles remain sufficient for about six months, he has described according to Al Jazeera, while non-elective surgeries have been suspended to free hospital capacity for emergency cases.

The conflict continues to expand regionally, with the Bahrain military saying it has intercepted and destroyed 105 missiles and 176 drones since Iran began attacks on countries hosting American forces. There remains a big open question on whether Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries will send their militaries to formally enter Operation Epic Freedom. Hawkish Senator Lindsey Graham has certainly been calling for it, saying the Gulf should do much more in its own defense.

Israel's northern front also remains active, with Israeli strikes in Lebanon having pushed the death toll there to at least 486 people as Israel and Hezbollah continue exchanging fire.

"Rally round the flag" effect in the wake of Trump's 'shock and awe-style' bombs on Tehran and elsewhere...

Powerful explosions erupt live on Iranian state TV — right from Revolution Square in Tehran

The Iranians didn't flinch, showing even more defiance and waving their country's flags even harder pic.twitter.com/Q17UvbUqI3

— RT (@RT_com) March 10, 2026

Israeli officials are also signaling that the war is far from over, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying in a visit to IDF troops, "Our aspiration is to bring the Iranian people to cast off the yoke of tyranny; ultimately, it depends on them. But there is no doubt that with the actions taken so far, we are breaking their bones – and we are not done yet."

As for the narrative from Tehran, leaders remain defiant - also as there's some degree of evidence of a "rally around the flag" effect, meaning Iranians have been filmed out in the street pledging allegiance to the nation and the new Supreme Leader. Iranian officials are loudly and boldly declaring Washington and Tel Aviv failed in their initial war objectives.

Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said the appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei has proven that regime change efforts have collapsed. "They thought that, in a matter of two or three days, they can go for a regime change, they can go for a rapid, clean victory, but they failed… they failed to achieve their goals at the beginning, and now, after 10 days, I think they are aimless," Foreign Minister Araghchi told PBS News Hour.

Case in point, from the speaker of the Iranian parliament right now: https://t.co/8XmCfHrk7Q pic.twitter.com/8lVJt7zQh0

— Yaroslav Trofimov (@yarotrof) March 10, 2026

Araghchi also rejected claims that Iran is responsible for rising oil prices and disruptions to global shipping, describing that "This is not our plan" and that "The oil production, the transportation of oil has been slowed down or stopped not because of us, because of the attacks and aggression made by Israelis and Americans against us."

Iran says it is still prepared for a "long war" and to fight to the end. On the question of closing Hormuz, the Iranian top diplomat claimed, "We have not closed that strait. We are not preventing them to navigate in that strait. But this is the result of the aggression by Israelis and Americans, which has made the whole region insecure, unstable." Additionally the IRGC has said that Iran, not the United States, will determine when the war ends.

Pressed on Iranian strikes targeting oil facilities in the region, Araghchi insisted Tehran is acting in self-defense. "We are facing an act of aggression, which is absolutely illegal. And what we are doing is the act of self-defense, which is legal and legitimate."

Amid continuing Hormuz crisis, more analysts are waking up to fact that Iran's capability to disrupt transit through the strait has little to do with the large surface vessels that Trump has been exuberant about sinking.

Iran will use its geography and unconventional warfare. https://t.co/mwGIvPSyLE

— Mohammad Ali Shabani (@mashabani) March 10, 2026

"Well, we have already warned everybody in the region that, if the US attacks us, since we cannot reach the American soil, we have to attack their bases in the region, their facilities, their installations, their assets."

Iran's foreign ministry has also taken the opportunity to fire back at European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen after she said the Iranian people "deserve freedom, dignity, and the right to decide their own future."

"Please spare the hypocrisy," foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei wrote on X. "You’ve made a career out of standing on the wrong side of history — green-lighting occupation, genocide, and atrocities, and now laundering U.S./Israeli crime of aggression and war crimes against Iranians."

"Where was your voice when more than 165 innocent IRANIAN little angels were massacred in the city of Minab?" he questioned. "Why don’t you say anything when hospitals, historical sites, oil facilities, diplomatic police headquarter, firefighting stations and residential neighborhoods are wickedly targeted?" He concluded that it's been: "Silence in the face of lawlessness and atrocity is nothing less than complicity."

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 15:55

IEA Delivers No SPR Action After Extraordinary Meeting As Crude Jawboning Mania Enters Day Two

Update (1514ET): 

For a second straight day, G-7 leaders attempted to push crude prices lower with headlines about an "emergency meeting" to discuss a possible Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) release aimed at containing Brent and WTI crude prices. However, by late afternoon in New York, the Financial Times reported that the International Energy Agency (IEA) had concluded the meeting without reaching a decision on a coordinated release of crude stockpiles.

Today's slide in Brent and WTI was initially sparked by IEA chief Fatih Birol, who said the G-7 energy ministers and the IEA would hold an "extraordinary meeting" to discuss energy market conditions. Hours later, the group of G-7 leaders reached no decision on an SPR dump.

And scene:

IEA MEETING ENDS WITH NO DECISION ON CRUDE STOCKPILE RELEASE: FT

France probably blocked it again https://t.co/4XRoLV4MCx

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 10, 2026

Why? Because there is no reason, when jawboning markets with headlines crushed WTI prices from $90/bbl to $76/bbl.

However, the most notable headline event in attempts to talk crude prices down was Energy Secretary Chris Wright's now-deleted tweet, which falsely claimed that a U.S. military-escorted tanker had transited the Hormuz chokepoint. Shortly thereafter, headlines hit that Iran was taking steps to mine the Strait of Hormuz, causing WTI to spike from around $76 to nearly $86 per barrel within a short time.

The crude market news flow today was pure circus chaos:

• Stocks Jump, Oil Tumbles After IEA Calls Extraordinary Meeting To Decide On SPR Release

• Hormuz Mine Threat Emerges; White House Denies Tanker Escort

Even with WTI briefly rising to nearly $120/bbl on Monday, G-7 ministers still could not agree on an SPR release plan. At some point, the market may begin treating these emergency meeting headlines as pure bullshit.

 

*   *   * 

With oil reversing much of the overnight losses as we neared the start of US cash open trading, futures slumped and it felt like we were back to square one. 

That's when the jawboning out of the G7 members - many of whom are already at their breaking point in terms of soaring input costs - decided to double down on the jawboning rhetoric from yesterday - and hinted strongly that an SPR release could be imminent. 

The narrative peaked just around 10:20am ET, when the head of the IEA, Fatih Birol, said that after the IEA hosted a G7 Energy Ministers Meeting, chaired by Minister Roland Lescure of France, on the current oil & gas market situation, tonight there would be an "extraordinary meeting of IEA Member governments later today to assess market conditions."

Today @IEA hosted a G7 Energy Ministers Meeting, chaired by Minister Roland Lescure of France, on the current oil & gas market situation

We will hold an extraordinary meeting of IEA Member governments later today to assess market conditions

My statement: https://t.co/ViR4Zc4Mhv pic.twitter.com/TYlt2Aj89E

— Fatih Birol (@fbirol) March 10, 2026

Birol also attached the following peak jawboning statement:

In oil markets, conditions have deteriorated in recent days. In addition to the challenges of transit through the Strait of Hormuz, a substantial amount of oil production has been curtailed. This is creating significant and growing risks for the market. We discussed all the available options, including making IEA emergency oil stocks available to the market. IEA Member countries currently hold over 1.2 billion barrels of public emergency oil stocks, with a further 600 million barrels of industry stocks held under government obligation.

Given conditions in oil markets, I have convened an extraordinary meeting of IEA Member governments, which will take place later today to assess the current security of supply and market conditions to inform a subsequent decision on whether to make emergency stocks of IEA countries available to the market.

As well as IEA Members, I am also in close contact about the situation with energy ministers from key energy producers and consumers around the world.

And in a mirror image of a similar verbal intervention from yesterday (see "G-7 Leaders Reject SPR Release Plan, But 'Stand Ready' After Initial Jawbone Efforts Fade"), oil immediately tumbled erasing all gains, and sliding to overnight lows, on expectations that this time the IEA/G7's jawboning will lead to something more than just promises.

And as oil falls, stocks rise...

Which is all as one would expect.

However, as Bloomberg's Ye Xie notes, despite the slump of crude oil prices and the calming of Brent crude spreads this morning, WTI option traders still see risks skewed toward higher prices. Investors are paying the highest premium in years for call options for WTI futures over puts...

That shows investors remain concerned about a prolonged oil and gas disruption as long as the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively shut. As Jordan Rochester at Mizuho noted, the amount of production shut down in the Middle East is set to double over the next week or so, taking daily supply of about 8 million barrels out of the market. That isn’t particularly encouraging news for investors - even as the jawboning from G-7 energy ministers continues.

The bigger problem is what happens if - like yesterday - a few European countries who SPRs are already at dangerously low levels, kill the idea. After all, all an SPR release would do is buy a few weeks of artificially depressed oil prices while further draining global emergency stocks. So while oil is already frontrunning the drop, expect oil to surge should the IEA/G7 disappoint again and fail to move from mere jawboning to action. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 15:14

Ugly 3Y Auction Tails Most Since Liberation Day, Bit to Cover Slides

Not that anyone will care much in light of the Iran-related news barrage hitting every second, but moments ago the US sold $58BN in 3Y paper in what was a rather ugly auction. Let's take a quick look.

In the week's first coupon auction, the US sold $58BN in 3Y notes, at a high yield of 3.579%, up from 3.518% last month but in line with auctions since last August. The problem is that the auction tailed the When Issued 3.58% by 1.1bps, the first tail since August and the biggest tail since Liberation Day. 

The bid to cover was 2.546, down from 2.624 and the lowest since August. 

The internals were also mediocre at best: Indirects were awarded 59.8% as foreign demand was still there but at a subdued pace: the six auction average if 64.3%. And with Directs taking 20.7%, or on the low end of the recent average of 25.3%, Dealers were left holding a sizable 19.5%, the highest since April. 

Overall, this was a subpar, disappointing auction which however could be attributed to the melt up in stocks. However, if this weakness persists in the week's upcoming coupon auctions, that could be a problem. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 14:10

Ugly 3Y Auction Tails Most Since Liberation Day, Bit to Cover Slides

Not that anyone will care much in light of the Iran-related news barrage hitting every second, but moments ago the US sold $58BN in 3Y paper in what was a rather ugly auction. Let's take a quick look.

In the week's first coupon auction, the US sold $58BN in 3Y notes, at a high yield of 3.579%, up from 3.518% last month but in line with auctions since last August. The problem is that the auction tailed the When Issued 3.58% by 1.1bps, the first tail since August and the biggest tail since Liberation Day. 

The bid to cover was 2.546, down from 2.624 and the lowest since August. 

The internals were also mediocre at best: Indirects were awarded 59.8% as foreign demand was still there but at a subdued pace: the six auction average if 64.3%. And with Directs taking 20.7%, or on the low end of the recent average of 25.3%, Dealers were left holding a sizable 19.5%, the highest since April. 

Overall, this was a subpar, disappointing auction which however could be attributed to the melt up in stocks. However, if this weakness persists in the week's upcoming coupon auctions, that could be a problem. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 14:10

Bitcoin Vs Gold: ETF Flows Point To Early Capital Rotations Signs

Authored by Biraajmaan Tamuly via CoinTelegraph.com,

Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) flows have turned net positive over the past 30 days, while gold ETF demand has started to slow down after nine straight months of inflows. The shift comes even as gold prices remain elevated and sentiment around Bitcoin continues to cool.

With these contrasting trends in ETF flows and the historical pattern of Bitcoin-to-gold performance cycles, analysts are now examining data that may signal a gradual shift in investor demand between the two assets. 

Are ETF flows beginning to rotate?

According to the Kobeissi Letter, the largest US gold-backed ETF, GLD, recorded a $3 billion outflow on Wednesday, the largest daily withdrawal in more than two years. The move followed a 4.4% decline in gold prices, the sharpest drop since the Jan. 30 sell-off.

Gold ETFs had attracted $18.7 billion in January and another $5.3 billion in February, marking the strongest two-month start to a year on record and extending a nine-month inflow streak. The latest outflow points to investors taking profits after gold’s massive rally in 2025.

Bitcoin ETF flows moved in the opposite direction over the past month. The 30-day net flow shifted to a $273 million inflow on March 6 from a $1.9 billion outflow on Feb. 6

Bitcoin and gold net ETF inflows over the past 30-days. Source: bold.report

The holdings data measured in native units show the divergence more clearly. Bitcoin ETF balances moved to a net increase of 4,021 BTC on March 6 from −42,275 BTC on Feb. 6. Gold ETF holdings declined from 1.4 million ounces to 621,100 ounces during the same period.

The native units represent the actual underlying asset held by funds rather than the dollar value of those holdings. Tracking BTC or ounces isolates real accumulation or distribution without the distortion created by the price movements.

Head of growth at Horizon, Joe Consorti, summarized the current trend and said,   

“Gold is stalling out while bitcoin is soaring. BTC is set to overtake gold's % growth over the last month as the U.S. economy accelerates and risk sentiment improves. The anticipated risk-off → risk-on rotation could be underway.”

Gold rallies precede Bitcoin recoveries

In a “2026 Look Ahead” report released at the end of December 2025, Fidelity Digital Assets analyst Chris Kuiper noted that gold’s 65% return in 2025 was the fourth-largest annual gain since the end of the gold standard. With respect to past rallies, Kuiper noted that gold is potentially near the late stages of its leadership cycle between the two assets. Kuiper said, 

“Historically, gold and bitcoin have taken turns outperforming. With gold shining in 2025, it would not be surprising if bitcoin takes the lead next.”

However, the rotation may take some time to unfold in the market. 

Bitcoin-to-gold ratio analysis. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

As illustrated in the chart, BTC needed roughly 147 days or 21 weeks to establish a sustained trend outperforming gold after Bitcoin’s 2022 bottom. The period marked a consolidation phase before the ratio began trending higher.

The BTC-to-gold ratio currently trades near the same consolidation zone seen during the earlier rotation phases in 2022-2023.

Kuiper also added that both assets can benefit from the persistent fiscal deficits, trade tensions, and geopolitical uncertainty as investors seek neutral stores of value outside traditional monetary systems.

The ongoing US-Israel and Iran war has reinforced demand for traditional safe-haven assets, which previously supported gold rallies during periods of geopolitical stress.

Meanwhile, macroeconomic strategist Lyn Alden expects Bitcoin to outperform gold over the next two to three years following gold’s recent rally in the past few months.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 14:00

Bitcoin Vs Gold: ETF Flows Point To Early Capital Rotations Signs

Authored by Biraajmaan Tamuly via CoinTelegraph.com,

Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) flows have turned net positive over the past 30 days, while gold ETF demand has started to slow down after nine straight months of inflows. The shift comes even as gold prices remain elevated and sentiment around Bitcoin continues to cool.

With these contrasting trends in ETF flows and the historical pattern of Bitcoin-to-gold performance cycles, analysts are now examining data that may signal a gradual shift in investor demand between the two assets. 

Are ETF flows beginning to rotate?

According to the Kobeissi Letter, the largest US gold-backed ETF, GLD, recorded a $3 billion outflow on Wednesday, the largest daily withdrawal in more than two years. The move followed a 4.4% decline in gold prices, the sharpest drop since the Jan. 30 sell-off.

Gold ETFs had attracted $18.7 billion in January and another $5.3 billion in February, marking the strongest two-month start to a year on record and extending a nine-month inflow streak. The latest outflow points to investors taking profits after gold’s massive rally in 2025.

Bitcoin ETF flows moved in the opposite direction over the past month. The 30-day net flow shifted to a $273 million inflow on March 6 from a $1.9 billion outflow on Feb. 6

Bitcoin and gold net ETF inflows over the past 30-days. Source: bold.report

The holdings data measured in native units show the divergence more clearly. Bitcoin ETF balances moved to a net increase of 4,021 BTC on March 6 from −42,275 BTC on Feb. 6. Gold ETF holdings declined from 1.4 million ounces to 621,100 ounces during the same period.

The native units represent the actual underlying asset held by funds rather than the dollar value of those holdings. Tracking BTC or ounces isolates real accumulation or distribution without the distortion created by the price movements.

Head of growth at Horizon, Joe Consorti, summarized the current trend and said,   

“Gold is stalling out while bitcoin is soaring. BTC is set to overtake gold's % growth over the last month as the U.S. economy accelerates and risk sentiment improves. The anticipated risk-off → risk-on rotation could be underway.”

Gold rallies precede Bitcoin recoveries

In a “2026 Look Ahead” report released at the end of December 2025, Fidelity Digital Assets analyst Chris Kuiper noted that gold’s 65% return in 2025 was the fourth-largest annual gain since the end of the gold standard. With respect to past rallies, Kuiper noted that gold is potentially near the late stages of its leadership cycle between the two assets. Kuiper said, 

“Historically, gold and bitcoin have taken turns outperforming. With gold shining in 2025, it would not be surprising if bitcoin takes the lead next.”

However, the rotation may take some time to unfold in the market. 

Bitcoin-to-gold ratio analysis. Source: Cointelegraph/TradingView

As illustrated in the chart, BTC needed roughly 147 days or 21 weeks to establish a sustained trend outperforming gold after Bitcoin’s 2022 bottom. The period marked a consolidation phase before the ratio began trending higher.

The BTC-to-gold ratio currently trades near the same consolidation zone seen during the earlier rotation phases in 2022-2023.

Kuiper also added that both assets can benefit from the persistent fiscal deficits, trade tensions, and geopolitical uncertainty as investors seek neutral stores of value outside traditional monetary systems.

The ongoing US-Israel and Iran war has reinforced demand for traditional safe-haven assets, which previously supported gold rallies during periods of geopolitical stress.

Meanwhile, macroeconomic strategist Lyn Alden expects Bitcoin to outperform gold over the next two to three years following gold’s recent rally in the past few months.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 14:00

ASP Isotopes Jump On "Material Progress Toward Commercial Uranium Enrichment"

Just days after we covered the story on Quantum Leap Energy’s non-binding MOU with a major U.S. nuclear utility, Canaccord Genuity analyst George Gianarikas reiterated his buy rating on the beaten down ASP Isotopes, with an $11 price target citing “material progress” toward commercial uranium enrichment on two continents.

On February 23, QLE inked a Pre-Implementation Services Contract with South Africa’s Necsa to site, design, build, and operate an enrichment facility at the Pelindaba complex. The deal gives QLE access to existing nuclear infrastructure, utilities, and a joint oversight committee. Gianarikas says it’s the clearest signal yet that licensed HALEU production in South Africa is moving from lab to market readiness.

The March 6 MOU we highlighted last week adds the U.S. piece: the unnamed utility will potentially help stand up domestic HALEU and LEU+ enrichment, conversion, and deconversion capacity while discussing offtake and financing. That’s critical ahead of the 2028 Russian uranium import ban we’ve repeatedly flagged as the biggest catalyst for non-adversarial supply chains.

The report also spotlights accelerating LEU+ adoption by conventional fleets. Westinghouse loaded the first ~6% LEU+ test assemblies at Southern Company’s Vogtle Unit 2 last April. Urenco secured NRC approval to enrich to 10% and produced its first commercial batch in December. Framatome is upgrading its Richland plant and just filed for an 8% enrichment limit. Partners include Constellation (23% of U.S. nuclear output), Duke, Entergy, and Vistra.

As we first detailed after the Silicon-28 mega-contract and US radiopharmacy buy, then again when Trump Jr. and Eric Trump-backed funds poured in and when Renergen cleared regulatory hurdles, Canaccord is framing ASPI is one of the few names positioned across HALEU, medical isotopes, and quantum materials: a veritable cornucopia of next gen energy buzzwords. The South Africa and U.S. milestones now de-risk the commercial ramp in exactly the way we’ve been tracking.

Canaccord flags the usual risks including regulatory approvals, South African political noise, and balance-sheet needs, but ASPI is attempting to fill the HALEU gap that TerraPower, Oklo, and the entire advanced-reactor wave need. With the 2028 ban looming and AI data centers screaming for carbon-free baseload, the window for first-mover domestic enrichment is closing fast.

ASPI stock has been beaten down in recent months, although as its story continues to spread, expect more sellside coverage. As of today, just three banks (Canaccord, Cantor, and Lucid) cover the stock with a $13 average price target.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 12:40

ASP Isotopes Jump On "Material Progress Toward Commercial Uranium Enrichment"

Just days after we covered the story on Quantum Leap Energy’s non-binding MOU with a major U.S. nuclear utility, Canaccord Genuity analyst George Gianarikas reiterated his buy rating on the beaten down ASP Isotopes, with an $11 price target citing “material progress” toward commercial uranium enrichment on two continents.

On February 23, QLE inked a Pre-Implementation Services Contract with South Africa’s Necsa to site, design, build, and operate an enrichment facility at the Pelindaba complex. The deal gives QLE access to existing nuclear infrastructure, utilities, and a joint oversight committee. Gianarikas says it’s the clearest signal yet that licensed HALEU production in South Africa is moving from lab to market readiness.

The March 6 MOU we highlighted last week adds the U.S. piece: the unnamed utility will potentially help stand up domestic HALEU and LEU+ enrichment, conversion, and deconversion capacity while discussing offtake and financing. That’s critical ahead of the 2028 Russian uranium import ban we’ve repeatedly flagged as the biggest catalyst for non-adversarial supply chains.

The report also spotlights accelerating LEU+ adoption by conventional fleets. Westinghouse loaded the first ~6% LEU+ test assemblies at Southern Company’s Vogtle Unit 2 last April. Urenco secured NRC approval to enrich to 10% and produced its first commercial batch in December. Framatome is upgrading its Richland plant and just filed for an 8% enrichment limit. Partners include Constellation (23% of U.S. nuclear output), Duke, Entergy, and Vistra.

As we first detailed after the Silicon-28 mega-contract and US radiopharmacy buy, then again when Trump Jr. and Eric Trump-backed funds poured in and when Renergen cleared regulatory hurdles, Canaccord is framing ASPI is one of the few names positioned across HALEU, medical isotopes, and quantum materials: a veritable cornucopia of next gen energy buzzwords. The South Africa and U.S. milestones now de-risk the commercial ramp in exactly the way we’ve been tracking.

Canaccord flags the usual risks including regulatory approvals, South African political noise, and balance-sheet needs, but ASPI is attempting to fill the HALEU gap that TerraPower, Oklo, and the entire advanced-reactor wave need. With the 2028 ban looming and AI data centers screaming for carbon-free baseload, the window for first-mover domestic enrichment is closing fast.

ASPI stock has been beaten down in recent months, although as its story continues to spread, expect more sellside coverage. As of today, just three banks (Canaccord, Cantor, and Lucid) cover the stock with a $13 average price target.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/10/2026 - 12:40