Los Angeles Superintendent Praised By Gavin Newsom Placed On Leave Following FBI Raid

Los Angeles schools were thrown into chaos after the FBI raided the home and office of embattled Superintendent Alberto Carvalho in connection with a widening investigation into a $6 million deal between the nation's second-largest school system and an AI startup. Days later, the district’s board put him on paid administrative leave (he makes $440,000 a year). 

The F.B.I. raided the home of Alberto M. Carvalho, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, and the district offices on Wednesday. Credit...Philip Cheung for The New York Times

According to federal officials, the agency executed a series of search warrants which included Carvalho's home - during which they seized Carvalho’s work phone and other devices during Wednesday’s raid, according to district insiders. By Friday, the Board of Education voted unanimously to sideline him. Veteran administrator Andres Chait, the district’s chief of school operations, will step in as interim superintendent.

At the center of the FBI probe is a collapsed ed-tech startup called AllHere, which was given a $6 million LAUSD contract to build an artificial intelligence chatbot named “Ed,” pitched as a revolutionary tool to “democratize education.” Carvalho personally championed the project after arriving in Los Angeles in 2022, touting it at tech conferences as a game-changing way for students and parents to stay connected.

And of course, the bot was bullshit, and AllHere's founder - Joanna Smith-Griffin, now faces federal fraud charges for allegedly inflating revenues and exaggerating the company’s client base. The criminal case remains unresolved as both sides discuss a possible deal, court records show.

Sources familiar with the investigation say the federal probe appears to have expanded beyond AllHere’s collapse to examine Carvalho’s dealings with Debra Kerr, a consultant who helped connect the startup with school districts. Kerr, a longtime associate of Carvalho dating back to his tenure running Miami-Dade County Public Schools, also had her Florida home searched this week.

District officials insist LAUSD itself does not appear to be a target and say earlier internal reviews found no criminal wrongdoing by Carvalho. But as part of its cooperation with federal authorities, the district has now ordered an additional outside review of contracting decisions made under his leadership.

Carvalho’s paid leave is expected to last at least a month.

From Undocumented Migrant to Immigration Crusader

Carvalho spent 13 years leading Miami-Dade schools, and has been an outspoken advocate for immigrant students, frequently recounting his own story as an undocumented immigrant from Portugal who later became a U.S. citizen.

He's also had his own rough patches. In 2008, leaked emails suggested an inappropriate relationship with a reporter covering Miami schools - which he denied, though he acknowledged the emails themselves were inappropriate. 

In 2018, he famously accepted the top job running New York City’s massive school system - only to dramatically reverse course on live television and remain in Florida.

And of course, California governor Gavin Newsom loves him...

Just weeks ago, Gavin Newsom took a moment out of his State of the State address to make sure everybody knew about all the amazing work LAUSD Superintendent Alberto Carvalho was doing.

So it is quite fitting that the FBI is raiding Carvalho’s home today. https://t.co/Jz5SensnL2 pic.twitter.com/awdNKJfb9f

— Kevin Dalton (@TheKevinDalton) February 25, 2026

And in Los Angeles, he has faced criticism from multiple fronts. Within a year of his arrival, he dismantled programs championed by his predecessor, Austin Beutner. Last year, Beutner and several students sued the district, alleging more than $76 million in art and music education funds had been misused.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 19:40

Hormuz Freeze Sends Brent-Dubai Spread to Multi-Year High

By Julianne Geiger of OilPrice,

Brent’s premium to the Middle East’s Dubai benchmark has blown out to its widest level since 2022, confirmation that the global oil market is squarely trading on disruption.

As of Tuesday morning, Brent was trading around $83–$84 per barrel, up more than 7% on the day, while Dubai crude sat near $68, barely moving. The spread between Brent futures and Dubai swaps — known as the Exchange of Futures for Swaps (EFS) — surged above $6 per barrel, compared to less than $2 just last week before the Iran conflict erupted. It is the widest gap in years, according to a Bloomberg analysis.

Brent is the global pricing reference used for much of the world’s seaborne oil trade, while Dubai serves as the key marker for Middle Eastern crude flowing into Asia. When Brent trades at a large premium to Dubai, it signals tightness and risk in Atlantic Basin barrels relative to Gulf-linked supply.

The futures market, where traders buy and sell contracts for oil delivered at a future date, is reacting to risk in real time, pricing in potential shortages, often before physical flows are visibly curtailed.

The catalyst is easily identifiable. Tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz has effectively frozen amid Iran’s threats and ongoing military action. Even if the Strait is not formally “closed,” no shipper wants to test how many teeth Iran has to make good on their threats. With crude from the Gulf stranded and freight rates spiking as available tankers thin out, trading in Middle East benchmarks has become patchy and uncertain.

Brent, meanwhile, is absorbing the geopolitical premium.

This widening gap matters. If the Strait remains inactive for weeks rather than days, upstream shut-ins in the region become increasingly likely. Analysts warn that beyond roughly three weeks of disruption, producers may have no choice but to curb output.

The market is debating how long the supply risk will last, and whether $100 oil is a floor rather than a ceiling if Hormuz does not normalize.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 19:15

New Jersey Faces Structural Deficit Crisis And Democrats Blame Trump

When all else fails, blame Trump.  It might be the only political strategy the Democrats have left but it doesn't work for everything.  

New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill, who took office this year, warns that the state faces a serious structural deficit (spending exceeding revenues annually) of roughly $3 billion, despite a projected surplus of $7.2 billion by the end of 2026. The notice comes as she prepares to unveil her first state budget on March 10th.  

Shockingly, Sherrill admits that Covid relief funds are drying up and that the stimulus helped to paper over the many budgetary problems within NJ (this is something alternative economists have been asserting for years).  However, she immediately launched into an attack on the Trump Administration, blaming federal cuts for the state's incoming fiscal crisis.

New Jersey's extreme deficit earns them a membership in an exclusive club of states, all of them run by Democrat governors.  California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Maryland all have deficits of $3 billion or more (California and New York are running deficits above $30 billion).  It would seem there is a discernible pattern here, and it has nothing to do with Trump.

New Jersey's total state government debt was roughly $213 billion as of late 2025, ranking among the highest in the nation.

Furthermore, in August 2023 the New Jersey Policy Perspective (NJPP) think tank issued an analysis citing "red flags" in the FY 2024 budget, including a structural deficit estimated at $1.5 billion for that year. They warned of a looming crisis with revenues projected to fall short by $3-4 billion annually in coming years if trends continued, citing declining year-over-year revenues in many states (including NJ) and unsustainable spending growth.

Phil Murphy, a Democrat, was governor of NJ in 2023.  Republicans accused him in 2025 of trying to hide the budget crisis and they threatened to report him to the SEC.  Sen. Declan O'Scanlon (R-Monmouth) reviewed financial disclosures from the New Jersey Department of the Treasury. What he found was a series of "grossly misleading" data shared with Wall Street credit rating agencies and the public.  

In other words, Democrats knew well before Trump returned to office that they were facing a fiscal shortfall and they relied on covid funds and rigged numbers to kick the can down the road.  Sherrill is carrying out a pre-planned agenda to dump these Biden era economic dysfunctions at Donald Trump's feet. 

“Washington isn’t coming to save us. Trump is only making things worse,” said Sherrill. “We have to stand up on our own two feet and make some tough choices. But that’s fine. I’ve been doing hard things for most of my life – and that’s what I was elected to do..."

Sherrill pledged not to raise taxes, instead directing departments to identify savings. She warned that failure to act could trigger credit downgrades, school funding cuts and other painful consequences under the state’s balanced budget requirement.  However, blue states inevitably revert to higher taxes on the middle class (as we are seeing under Mamdani in NYC), because Democrats rely on government handouts and subsidized programs as a way to buy votes. 

It is likely that New Jersey residents and businesses will be slapped with high taxes within the next year.   

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 18:50

US Arranging Charter, Military Flights For Americans In The Middle East

Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. State Department is looking to help Americans in the Middle East find a way home.

The State Department said on March 3 it is working to charter aircraft to fly Americans home following the start of the U.S.–Israel military strikes on Iran.

“The State Department is actively securing military aircraft and charter flights for American citizens who wish to leave the Middle East,” said Dylan Johnson, assistant secretary of state for global public affairs.

The Middle East war has caused major disruption in commercial air travel in the region.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the State Department “is actively working on plans to help Americans in the Middle East return home.”

She said U.S. citizens in the region should register at step.state.gov.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a March 3 presser that to date, 9,000 Americans have been able to leave the Middle East since the start of the war with Iran.

According to the diplomat, more U.S. citizens are still attempting to leave the area, and in addition to military and charter flights, the government is working to secure expanded commercial flight options to facilitate the repatriation.

“Here’s the message I want to deliver [to] Americans who are in the Middle East and in need of assistance,” Rubio said. “We need to know where you are. We need to have contact information for Americans that need assistance. They have to register with us, because as these options begin to open up, and as they open up, we have to be able to call you.”

Johnson said the department has been in touch with almost 3,000 Americans seeking information on how to leave the area.

Nearly 500 of those inquiries came from Americans in Israel alone. Thus far, the Department of State has helped about 130 of those citizens leave the country, and 100 more are expected to leave on March 3.

Additional resources and departure options for Americans abroad can be found by calling 1-202-501-4444.

While many nations are moving citizens away from the Middle East, Israel is preparing ways to bring its citizens home who are stranded abroad.

The country will reopen Ben-Gurion Airport for limited incoming flights early on March 5, according to Israeli Transportation Minister Miri Regev.

Ben-Gurion is Israel’s primary international airport, located a few miles southeast of Tel Aviv. Israel’s airspace has been closed for days, since the U.S.–Israeli war on Iran began.

According to Regev, one passenger flight will be allowed to enter per hour, for the first 24 hours. This will bring in about 5,000 individuals looking to return to the Middle East nation. More flights could be allowed in later, depending on security issues.

There will be no commercial departures from the airport, and it is unclear whether anyone other than Israelis will be permitted on the incoming flights.

 

British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper announced to the House of Commons on March 3 that their government is working to increase the capacity of flights from Muscat, Oman, to bring home British citizens.

British Airways said in a statement that it is still unable to operate flights from several Middle East destinations, including Abu Dhabi, Amman, Doha, Dubai, and Tel Aviv.

Cooper said 130,000 Britons have registered their presence in the Middle East.

“We ​are also working with airlines on increasing ‌capacity ⁠out of Muscat for British nationals, with priority for vulnerable nationals,” Cooper told parliamentarians.

“A government ​charter flight ​will ⁠fly from Muscat in the coming days, ​prioritising vulnerable nationals, but ​British ⁠nationals in Oman must wait to be contacted by the ⁠foreign ​office regarding these ​options.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 18:25

"Account Temporarily Unavailable": Facebook Outages Reported In U.S.

Facebook appears to be suffering widespread outages, as login attempts on the social media site produce the error: "Account Temporarily Unavailable."

The full error reads: "Account Temporarily Unavailable. Your account is currently unavailable due to a site issue. We expect this to be resolved shortly. Please try again in a few minutes."

Users on the website-tracking site Downdetector started reporting Facebook outages shortly after 1600 ET.

Outage map:

Besides Facebook, Downdetector users report TikTok, Bluesky, Instagram, and Facebook Messenger are also experiencing outages or disruptions.

*Developing...

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 17:44

Behind America's New Industrial Revolution

Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. economy grew faster than many predicted over the past year, outpacing other advanced economies, especially in Europe, where growth has nearly stalled.

The manufacturing facilities of the Independent Can Company in Belcamp, Md., on June 25, 2025. Ryan Collerd/AFP via Getty Images

Analysts say President Donald Trump’s pro-growth policies, combined with a surge in investment in artificial intelligence, have further strengthened the country’s economic momentum.

The United States is “at the doorstep of a new industrial revolution,” said Stoyan Panayotov, a financial adviser and founder of Babylon Wealth Management.

He said the country’s strong capital base, skilled workforce, and shareholder-friendly environment make it more attractive to investors than other markets.

Recently, S&P 500 companies have reported earnings that beat market expectations. More than 70 percent of companies recorded positive earnings surprises in the fourth quarter of 2025, according to FactSet data.

On Feb. 6, the Dow Jones Industrial Average surpassed 50,000 for the first time—after the S&P hit 7,000 on Jan. 28.

During his State of the Union address on Feb. 24, Trump credited these milestones to his economic policies, particularly tariffs.

In a Truth Social post on Feb. 6, the president also made a bold prediction: “I am predicting 100,000 on the Dow by the end of my term. Remember, Trump was right about everything!”

Strong corporate earnings, technological innovation, and a positive economic outlook all have contributed to the U.S. stock market’s appeal.

Despite the recent market volatility, entrepreneur and investor Kevin O’Leary believes the United States remains the “most trusted” investment hub for global investors.

Traders work on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange during morning trading in New York City on Feb. 24, 2026. Strong corporate earnings, technological innovation, and a positive economic outlook have contributed to the US stock market’s appeal. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

“You’ve got to realize, 52 cents of every dollar created on earth is invested in the American stock market,” O’Leary told The Epoch Times on Jan. 28 during a summit about “Trump Accounts” for newborns.

“It’s the most liquid and most successful economy on earth,” the “Shark Tank” star said. “It provides consistent returns.”

On Independence Day last year, Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law, which included pro-business measures aimed at boosting capital spending and encouraging the onshoring of factories.

Among its provisions was the permanent restoration of 100 percent bonus depreciation for qualified assets. The policy allows businesses to immediately deduct the full cost of new factories, factory improvements, capital investments such as machinery and equipment, and software, as well as domestic research and development. Many companies are leveraging bonus depreciation to reduce tax liability and reinvest in growth.

The manufacturing footprint is expanding, and the AI boom is increasing demand for energy, data centers, and commodities. Despite concerns about an AI bubble, U.S. technology giants Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Microsoft plan to invest collectively about $650 billion in 2026, mainly to expand their AI infrastructure.

These trends are driving renewed investor optimism, according to Panayotov.

A technician works at an Amazon Web Services AI data center in New Carlisle, Ind., on Oct. 2, 2025. The United States has outpaced many advanced economies in growth and productivity over the past year, with some analysts describing the momentum as the start of a new industrial revolution. Noah Berger/Getty Images via Amazon Web Services Growing Productivity Gap

Recent data show U.S. businesses are also becoming more efficient, with nonfarm productivity jumping by 4.9 percent in the third quarter of last year. Productivity measures how efficiently companies produce goods and services using given input such as labor and capital.

While U.S. productivity has increased rapidly since 2019, productivity growth in the UK and eurozone has remained mostly stagnant, according to data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. The growing productivity gap between the United States and Europe is largely explained by the tech sector.

Economists note that most innovation over the past few decades has occurred in the United States, while Europe has lagged behind, primarily because of excessive regulation.

“The EU is weak in the emerging technologies that will drive future growth,” a 2024 report by the European Commission stated. “Only four of the world’s top 50 tech companies are European.”

The outlook also appears favorable for the United States. A recent Financial Times survey found that more than three-quarters of economists expect the United States to keep or increase its productivity lead over other countries. They point to AI, strong capital markets, and lower energy costs as the main reasons.

“Productivity growth is good for everyone and keeps inflation at bay,” Nancy Tengler, CEO of Laffer Tengler Investments, said in a recent note to clients.

European leaders take part in a meeting as they attend the Informal EU Leaders’ Retreat in Alden Biesen, Belgium, on Feb. 12, 2026. While US productivity has increased rapidly since 2019, productivity growth in the UK and eurozone has remained mostly stagnant, recent data shows. Ludovic Marin/AFP via Getty Images Cutting Red Tape

Reducing regulatory barriers is central to the Trump administration’s economic agenda. The administration aims to lower business compliance costs, thus allowing companies to reinvest capital, increase productivity, and create more jobs.

According to economist Daniel Lacalle, a contributor to The Epoch Times, deregulation has been a key driver of the U.S. economy’s strong performance in recent quarters relative to other advanced economies.

In his view, deregulation alongside lower taxes has delivered an “immediate boost to production, economic growth, and private investment.”

U.S. manufacturing activity expanded in January for the first time in 12 months. Typically, developed countries experience growth in services while manufacturing remains stagnant, Lacalle told The Epoch Times.

The United States is the only major economy implementing reforms, such as deregulation, tax cuts, and tariffs, to encourage manufacturing and investment, he said.

US Vice President JD Vance (3rd L) tours Hatch Stamping in Howell, Mich., on Sept. 17, 2025. US manufacturing activity expanded in January for the first time in 12 months. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images

Since returning to office, Trump has rolled back regulations across sectors including finance, energy, and technology.

In December 2025, the White House Office of Management and Budget announced that federal agencies eliminated 646 regulations while introducing only five new ones in fiscal year 2025. That amounts to 129 regulations removed for every new one issued, far exceeding the 10-to-one goal set by the president. The White House estimates that these efforts have generated $212 billion in savings, or more than $600 per American.

“Deregulation is unleashing innovation in every sector,” Cathie Wood, founder and CEO of Ark Invest, said in her 2026 outlook report.

More recently, Trump announced the repeal of an Obama-era rule that imposed greenhouse gas emissions restrictions on U.S. industries. The White House described the move as “the largest deregulatory action in American history,” estimating that it will save the American people $1.3 trillion.

The change is expected to benefit the fossil fuel and automotive sectors as well as energy-intensive manufacturers and power plants.

Read the rest here...

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 17:40

From Whiskey To Weed: A Second Amendment Fight

Authored by John R. Lott Jr. & Laura Lott via RealClearPolitics,

Are regular marijuana users the modern equivalent of “habitual drunkards” at the Founding? What about someone who regularly takes a sleep gummy? In oral arguments before the Supreme Court today in United States v. Hemani, the federal government argues that they are the same.

In August 2022, FBI agents searched Ali Danial Hemani’s home and found a Glock 9mm pistol, 2.1 ounces of marijuana, and 1.7 ounces of cocaine. Hemani told agents that he used marijuana roughly every other day.

The case could have far-ranging implications as 40 states now allow medical marijuana and 24 states, the District of Columbia, and two territories allow recreational use, and it carries major practical consequences for millions of Americans – including many gun owners. In 2022, about 18 million Americans reported using marijuana daily or near-daily, and 62 million said they had used it at least once in the past year.

As of 2020, 3.5 million people are enrolled as medical cannabis patients to help with everything from chronic pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting to multiple sclerosis and certain forms of epilepsy. The government classifies all “regular” marijuana users the same – regardless of why they use it – and bans them from owning guns, so the decision will also affect them.

“The Supreme Court must decide whether to strip even medical marijuana users of their right to protect themselves and their families or follow the government’s claim that anyone who regularly uses marijuana poses a danger to others,” David Mustard, a distinguished professor at the University of Georgia who extensively researches crime, told RealClearPolitics.

In its 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the Supreme Court instructed lower courts that when the meaning of the Second Amendment isn’t clear, they must look to historical laws that were broadly in effect either in 1791, when the Second Amendment was adopted, or possibly in 1868, when the 14th Amendment made it applicable to the states. But there weren’t any laws during those periods that broadly barred people who regularly used alcohol from owning firearms.

The federal government points to historical restrictions on “habitual drunkards” as an analogue. The government argues that in early American history lawmakers barred people from carrying guns while they were intoxicated. It also cited what it called a “highly robust body of much harsher founding-era restrictions” on groups analogous to “habitual drug users,” specifically laws targeting “habitual drunkards” based on the belief that they were more likely to commit crimes or act violently.

According to the government, early American legislatures punished habitual drunkards far more severely than those who were drunk in public on isolated occasions: Habitual offenders faced jail time or confinement in a workhouse, while someone drunk in public typically received only a small fine or a few hours in the stocks. Authorities “committed drunkards to lunatic asylums, and subjected drunkards to surety laws backed by threat of jail.”

Hemani’s lawyers responded in their brief by rejecting that comparison as “far afield.” They argue that historical limits on the gun rights of habitual drunkards did not apply to people who merely consumed alcohol regularly, but instead “only those who habitually abused alcohol to the point of frequent intoxication.” These were people who engage in public disruption, disorderly conduct, or dangerous behavior (e.g., criminal negligence). Indeed, Hemani’s lawyers contend that labeling everyone who regularly drank alcohol a “drunkard” would have struck early Americans as anomalous and would have classified a significant share of the population as drunkards.

In 1790, drinking-age Americans consumed an average of about 5.8 gallons of pure (absolute) alcohol per year. That is the equivalent of drinking 3.4 twelve-ounces glasses of 5% alcohol beer every day. In terms of wine, it would be equal to 3.4 five-ounce glasses of 12% alcohol every day.

This is far higher than what Americans drink these days. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism estimates that the per capita pure alcohol consumption was about 2.5 gallons per person in 2022 – 57% less than in 1790.

The federal government argues in its brief that founding-era laws restricted the rights of “habitual drunkards,” in terms of vagrancy, through civil commitments, or with surety laws – laws that allowed magistrates to compel certain persons who posed a risk of future misbehavior to post bond.

Hemani lawyers respond that this argument has serious problems. None of the founding-era laws imposed an outright ban on gun possession. Authorities did not target people simply because they drank heavily – by modern standards, most people drank heavily at the time. Instead, courts required individuals to post bonds only when they became so intoxicated that they regularly posed a danger to others.

Alcohol also produces much stronger impairment than marijuana and can, in some cases, increase aggression. Marijuana, by contrast, typically reduces aggression. Regular marijuana users today certainly don’t pose more of a danger than regular alcohol users in the 1790s.

In addition, the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision noted that the historical tradition had to be widespread. But as Clayton Cramer, a historian whose work is frequently cited by both federal and state courts, told RealClearPolitics:

Massachusetts did not adopt the first Surety law (also known as a Peace Bonds law) until 1836—45 years after the ratification of the Second Amendment. And more importantly, only one state (Virginia) adopted a law in 1847 that applied bonds to “drunkards” who regularly were drunk and deemed dangerous if they possessed weapons.

Surety laws differed from today’s marijuana regulations in another important way: They required due process before forcing someone to post a bond. Under surety laws, a court determined whether an individual had to put up a bond. There was no requirement that people who were drinking a lot had to put up the bond before they had a judicial hearing. By contrast, under marijuana laws, no court decides whether someone is a “regular” user before requiring them to give up their guns. Instead, the law automatically bans all regular users from owning firearms.

Relatedly, Hemani’s lawyers argue that the statute is unconstitutionally vague. The law does not define how frequently someone must use marijuana to qualify as a “regular” user, nor does it specify how recent or substantial that use must be. The government contends that the regular use of marijuana presents sufficient risk to public safety to warrant disarmament under the Second Amendment and that this prohibition is consistent with historical analogues to disarming persons considered dangerous.

Supporters of the challenge argue that the Founding era did not categorically strip individuals of their right to self-defense based solely on alcohol consumption, and they contend that historical evidence does not support treating modern marijuana users – including those who use the drug legally for medical purposes under state law – as analogous to “habitual drunkards.” They say the government’s position would effectively transform otherwise lawful and widespread conduct into a basis for losing the ability to protect yourself and your family, even without individualized evidence of dangerousness.

John R. Lott Jr. is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He served as the senior advisor for research and statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Legal Policy in the U.S. Department of Justice during 2020-21.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 17:00

Trump Floats Backing Anti-Tehran Insurgency As Alternative To US Boots On Ground

It's only day four of the US-Israeli 'Operation Epic Fury' and there's already talks of a ground war and insurgency in Iran.

Of course, the White House is still saying it doesn't plan to send US boots on the ground (though is 'not ruling it out'), while also proclaiming the US wants regime change in Tehran, and the dismantling of the Islamic Republic as a state and system is a formal objective. 

But as the Bush Necons learned in Iraq, you can't have your cake and eat it too. An air war according to even the CIA and top defense officials won't be enough to effect regime change and state dismantling, so a ground operation is needed.

Cue death squads. Illustrative Fallujah fighting, via EPA

This dilemma is precisely what has led President Trump to float a new possible plan, per the Wall Street Journal:

President Trump is open to supporting groups in Iran willing to take up arms to dislodge the regime, U.S. officials said, as he continues to mull several options publicly and privately about who should succeed the country’s fallen leader.

Let the etho-sectarian nightmarish hellscape violence begin? Yes, Trump is already speaking in terms of peeling off ethnic minorities in Iran to create an insurgency targeting Tehran.

"Trump spoke Sunday with Kurdish leaders, officials said, and is continuing to engage other local officials who may leverage Tehran’s weakness to make gains," the report continues. "The Kurds have a sizable force along the Iraq-Iran border, and Israel has bombed positions in western Iran, leading to speculation that it is paving a path for a Kurdish advance."

Again, this is recipe for death squads and score-settling, given also the chance that Iranian authorities and loyalist paramilitaries - should they perceive the Kurds to be in rebellion - will then likely retaliate wholescale. 

“President Trump has spoken with many regional partners,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement, though without revealing whether any plan has been confirmed. 

"Officials said Trump hasn’t made a final decision on the matter, including whether he would provide arms, training or intelligence support to antiregime groups," WSJ adds..

The report comes after Trump urged the Iranian people to rise up and "take over your government". He went on to claim that "America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force."

"We have been told by Kurdish sources that American and Israeli forces have been asked to provide air cover when any such ground operation begins. Our sources do not know if that request has been approved." - @itvnews https://t.co/hEM4ro29wY

— Faytuks News (@Faytuks) March 3, 2026

But what groups would be willing to work with the US? It already appears clear that the White House lacks understanding of the internal dynamics of Iran, and has woefully underestimated how things would go after killing the Ayatollah. 

There's also historic Sunni minority populations along the southwest border regions of Iran. This would potentially mean the US once again backing Sunni Al Qaeda insurgents, as it did in Syria. Another top contender, probably already involved in the war via the Mossad and CIA, is the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK) - based largely outside of Iran.

"Most of the people we had in mind are dead," Trump has admitted to reporters. "And now we have another group, they may be dead also. Pretty soon we’re not gonna know anybody."

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 16:40

'Toxic Indoctrination': Dept Of War Cuts Fellowships At 13 'Elite' Universities

Authored by Gabrielle Temaat via The College Fix,

The U.S. Department of Defense announced the cancellation of its military education fellowships at 13 top universities on Friday, citing “toxic indoctrination.”

“We are eliminating certain Senior Service College (SSC) Fellowship programs for the 2026-2027 academic year and beyond. I am also directing the compilation of a revised list of elite institutions offering equivalent programs to replace those eliminated,” the agency wrote in a memo to Pentagon leadership. 

It said this change will give leaders “a more rigorous and relevant education.”

Further, in a video posted on X,  Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said, “For decades, the Ivy League and similar institutions have gorged themselves on a trust fund of American taxpayer dollars only to become factories of anti-American resentment and military disdain.”

“They’ve replaced the study of victory and pragmatic realism with the promotion of wokeness and weakness,” he said. 

For too long, the Ivy League and similar institutions have been subjecting our warriors to woke indoctrination—those days are over. pic.twitter.com/0xMC6BArDd

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) February 27, 2026

“We cannot and will not continue to send our most capable officers, senior officers, into graduate programs that undermine the very values they have sworn to uphold,” Hegseth said. 

He also said “so-called elite universities” have “poisoned” the U.S. military education system and “abused their privilege and access to this department and utterly betrayed their purpose.”

The 13 universities include Tufts, Georgetown, Brown, Columbia, Princeton, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Yale, among others, according to the memo. 

Department personnel currently attending these schools will be allowed to finish their studies. 

The department is also cutting ties with seven non-profit institutions, including the Center for Strategic and International Studies, The Brookings Institution, Center for a New American Security, and Council on Foreign Relations.

The memo names potential new partners such as Liberty University, Hillsdale College, Arizona State University, Pepperdine University, Baylor University, and The University of Tennessee.

Last month, Hegseth ordered evaluations of programs at all Ivy League schools and others with “significant adversary involvement,” according to another department memo.

“The goal is to determine whether or not they actually deliver cost-effective strategic education for future senior leaders when compared to, say, public universities and our military graduate programs,” Hegseth stated.  

This comes amid the Department of War’s recent decision to officially sever major ties with Harvard University, as previously reported by The College Fix.

Last month, it announced the military will no longer send active-duty officers to Harvard for fellowships, certificate programs, or graduate-level Professional Military Education.

“Harvard is woke. The War Department is not,” Hegseth stated on X.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 15:45

Trump Announces US To Cover Insurance For All Ships Traveling Through Gulf, Will Provide US Navy Escorts

Update (1440ET): Moments ago President Trump announced that the United States will provide insurance for "ALL Maritime Trade" via the US Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and will provide Navy escorts, "if necessary."

Effective IMMEDIATELY, I have ordered the United States Development Finance Corporation (DFC) to provide, at a very reasonable price, political risk insurance and guarantees for the Financial Security of ALL Maritime Trade, especially Energy, traveling through the Gulf. This will be available to all Shipping Lines. If necessary, the United States Navy will begin escorting tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, as soon as possible.

And crude...

And stonks...

*  *  *

The price of crude instantly tumbled on Tuesday after the Trump administration is reportedly considering providing, or assisting in obtaining insurance for oil tankers crossing through the strait of Hormuz. 

According to Reuters, "U.S. President Donald Trump will review policy options on Tuesday aimed at controlling energy prices following recent attacks linked to Iran, including a proposal to help oil tankers transiting conflict zones to obtain insurance, according to two sources familiar with the matter." 

Ships have been frozen on either side of the strait after insurers instituted "war policies" that wouldn't pay out. 

Supertanker costs in the Middle East have hit ​all-time highs, according to shipping data and industry sources on Tuesday, as the U.S.-Iran conflict intensifies with Tehran attacking ships passing through the ‌Strait of Hormuz.

The immediate reaction was a plunge in crude prices...

And as we suggested earlier today...

Looks like the admin reads us https://t.co/HiUI9Lovqq pic.twitter.com/R0REjCQhhi

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 3, 2026

The news comes after the commander of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said that the strait of Hormuz is closed and that Iran would target any ship trying to pass through. 

Carter Doctrine meets Trump Doctrine?

If President Trump were to provide U.S. Treasury-backed war-risk insurance or direct naval assistance to oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz, it would amount to a modernized fusion of the Carter Doctrine with Trump-style economic statecraft. In 1980, Jimmy Carter declared the Persian Gulf a vital U.S. interest and pledged to use “any means necessary” - up to and including the use of military force - to prevent outside powers from controlling it. That doctrine institutionalized a permanent American security guarantee over Gulf energy flows, eventually embodied in the creation of United States Central Command and the U.S. naval presence that still patrols the region. Its core premise was simple: energy security is national security.

A Trump-era move to insure or financially backstop tanker traffic through Hormuz would preserve that core premise but update the mechanism. While the exact details of the insurance proposal are unknown - rather than relying solely on overt military escalation to reopen the strait, Washington could absorb shipping risk, stabilize insurance markets, and allow tankers to sail under U.S. guarantees - with naval force as a backstop rather than the opening move. In effect, it would convert a military red line into a market-stability red line. Iran’s leverage depends on panic: if oil spikes toward $100–$120 because traffic halts for weeks, global recession pressure mounts. But if the U.S. neutralizes that panic through financial guarantees and controlled deterrence, the chokepoint loses much of its coercive power.

The result would be a hybrid doctrine: Carter’s hard-power commitment to freedom of navigation combined with Trump’s preference for leverage, economic tools, and time-bound pressure rather than open-ended intervention. It would signal that the United States will not allow the weaponization of energy chokepoints - not just through force, but through balance-sheet power. 

Developing...

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 15:40

Visualizing Data Center Power Surge Before White House Meets With Big Tech

Ahead of tomorrow's White House meeting, where representatives from Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, xAI, Oracle, and OpenAI are expected to pledge that their data-center buildouts will not drive higher power bills for households near those facilities, UBS analyst Arend Kapteyn has published a new note featuring a chart of the day that visualizes the rapid growth in data center power demand on the grid.

After staying mostly flat for years, data center electricity demand has been surging since 2017, rising from about 70 TWh to more than 200 TWh, driven by cloud computing, social media, and AI workloads.

We outlined this theme a few years back in the piece "The Next AI Trade."

The IEA's 2025 Energy and AI report projects that U.S. data center power demand will double between 2025 and 2030, with a high-case scenario of a 160% increase to 582 TWh.

That would lift data centers' share of total U.S. electricity demand from about 4.5% today to around 10% by 2030.

Kapteyn explained:

The share of US data centre demand for electricity is set to rise from roughly 4½% to 10% of total US demand (with substantial risks to the upside given the speed of revisions in hyperscaler capex)

US electricity demand from data centres is set to rise sharply as AI scales, raising concern that energy constraints could slow AI capex. After all, energy infrastructure takes far longer to build than data centres (4–8 years for transmission versus 1-3 years for data centres), and grid bottlenecks are worsening as wait times for critical components have doubled over the past three years. After remaining broadly flat between 2007 and 2017 despite rapid digitalisation, data-centre electricity demand has surged since 2017 - roughly tripling from around 70 TWh to over 200 TWh - driven by cloud computing, social media use, and the rise of AI, with hyperscale AI training facilities being especially energy-intensive.

According to the IEA's 2025 Energy and AI report, US data-centre electricity demand is expected to double between 2025 and 2030 (and rise by around 160% in a high-case scenario of 582 TWh usage), lifting its share of US electricity consumption from 4½% to around 10%. That 2030 level of energy use is roughly equivalent to the total energy consumption of the UK or France at that stage, and implies roughly a 5% increase in overall US electricity demand over five years, after two decades of stagnation. The IEA estimates that about 20% of planned data-centre projects already face grid-related risks, although actual outcomes will depend on the pace and economic impact of AI adoption. While the implied demand increase is large, it remains smaller than the roughly 20pp rise in electricity generation over the past decade from gas, wind and solar that offset coal's decline - suggesting that sustained renewable growth could help mitigate the impact.

Next week's White House meeting with tech reps comes as the Trump administration is committed to rebuilding the power grid and lowering energy costs for all Americans after failed "green" policies collided with the data center boom and sparked a power crisis across the Mid-Atlantic region.

The chart above, showing that a greater share of U.S. electricity demand will come from data centers by the end of the decade, only reinforces our bullish stance on nuclear (explained here).

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 15:25

In Stunning Flip-Flop, DOJ Suddenly Revives Bid To Sanction Law Firms

Update (1400ET): In a stunning flip-flop, just 24 hours after The Justice Department said it was dropping its appeal of four trial-court rulings that struck down Trump’s sanctions against law firms Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Perkins Coie and Susman Godfrey, the DoJ told a court Tuesday that it plans to press forward with the defense of President Trump’s executive orders sanctioning law firms

The Wall Street Journal reports that the department said in a court filing that the federal appeals court in Washington hadn’t yet ruled on its request the previous day to dismiss the cases - and that it was the administration’s prerogative to instead pursue them further.

Judges across the ideological spectrum had ruled that the president’s attempts to punish law firms amounted to unconstitutional retaliation.

* * *

s Aldgra Fredly reported earlier for The Epoch Times, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion on March 2 seeking to drop its appeals of lower court decisions that struck down President Donald Trump’s executive orders sanctioning four law firms.

In its motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, the DOJ said it decided to “voluntarily dismiss” its appeals of rulings that sided with law firms Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (WilmerHale).

The DOJ did not provide any explanation for the decision in its filing.

Trump issued the orders in March 2025. They stated that the firms abused their pro bono practice “to engage in activities that undermine justice and the interests of the United States,” citing alleged “partisan representations” and other factors.

The orders directed all executive departments and agencies to suspend security clearances of individuals at the law firms while those clearances were being reviewed to see whether they aligned with the national interest, terminate any contracts with the law firms, and limit their employees’ access to government buildings.

The four law firms filed lawsuits challenging Trump’s orders, arguing that the orders were unconstitutional and violated their First Amendment rights. Federal judges handling the cases subsequently ruled in favor of the firms and struck down the orders last year.

The Trump administration reached deals with nine other law firms targeted by Trump’s orders, which agreed to provide pro bono legal services to the White House and to uphold “fairness in the justice system.”

In response to the DOJ’s latest filing, Jenner & Block said the decision “makes permanent the rulings” of four federal judges who found the president’s executive orders were unconstitutional.

“Our partnership is proud to have stood firm on behalf of its clients, and we look forward to continuing to serve them—guided by these bedrock values—for many decades to come,” the firm said in a March 2 statement.

Susman Godfrey said the filing indicates the government is no longer trying to defend what the firm deemed an “indefensible executive order” by Trump.

“The Government has capitulated, which is a fitting end to its plainly unconstitutional attack on Susman Godfrey and the rule of law,” Susman Godfrey said in a statement. “And we won.”

Perkins Coie said the DOJ’s dismissal of its appeal “means the district court’s decision stands as a final order, protecting core constitutional freedoms such as free speech, due process, and the right to select counsel without fear of retribution.”

WilmerHale said in a statement that it was pleased with the government’s decision.

“As we said from the outset, our challenge to the unlawful Executive Order was about ⁠defending our clients’ constitutional right to retain the counsel of their choosing and defending the rule of law,” it said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 15:05

Kalshi, Polymarket Face Trading Halt In Nevada After Court Rulings

Authored by Zoltan Vardai via CoinTelegraph.com,

Two US federal court rulings have increased the risk that Nevada regulators may seek to halt prediction-market trading in the state after a judge sent a dispute involving Polymarket’s parent company Blockratize and Kalshi back to state court in two separate rulings.

A federal judge rejected arguments that US regulation under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) fully preempts state gaming laws for prediction markets, according to a Monday order.

The judge found that the CEA’s savings clause does not completely displace state authority and that the companies had not shown a basis to block Nevada’s action at this stage.

The decision means the Nevada Gaming Control Board can continue pursuing its civil enforcement case in state court, where it could seek an injunction restricting Nevada residents from accessing event contracts offered by Polymarket or Kalshi.

Court filing in the case of Nevada vs. prediction markets. Source: Courtlistener.com

In response to the ruling, Polymarket’s parent company submitted a motion to request a brief administrative stay of the court’s remand order, the filing shows.

The motion is a legal request seeking to freeze a court ruling or enforcement action seen as a short-term emergency measure.

Prediction markets face mounting pressure after Nevada ruling: Lawyer

The Nevada decision comes as prediction markets face mounting pressure from state regulators, including Kalshi, which has been fighting Nevada’s gaming regulator since 2025.

On Tuesday, a federal judge also remanded Nevada’s civil enforcement action against Kalshi back to state court, exposing Kalshi to an “imminent temporary restraining order” barring it from offering event contracts in the state, according to a court filing seen by sports betting and gaming-focused lawyer Daniel Wallach.

“The ruling could embolden other states to sue Kalshi in state court and seek injunctions to block event contracts, a strategy that has so far succeeded in every case brought,” wrote Wallach, in a Tuesday X post.

Source: Daniel Wallach

Kalshi sued the state of Nevada in March 2025 after receiving a cease-and-desist order to halt all sports-related betting markets within the state.

However, in February, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Kalshi’s bid to stop Nevada’s gaming regulator from taking action on its sports event contracts.

Insider trading concerns add to scrutiny

The legal fight is unfolding as prediction markets draw scrutiny over information advantage and potential insider activity.

Suspected insider wallets netted $1.2 million by betting on the outcome of blockchain sleuth ZachXBT’s investigation into Axiom, Cointelegraph reported on Friday.

ZachXBT released the much-anticipated investigation on Thursday, alleging that Axiom employee Broox Bauer and others had been responsible for insider trading activity since early 2025.

Top wallets betting on Axiom in ZachXBT’s insider exposé. Source: Dune

Insider trading concerns were first highlighted in January after a Polymarket account profited $400,000 after it placed a bet on a contract predicting that Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro would be captured, wagering the funds just hours before US forces captured him during a military operation.

Earlier in February, Israeli authorities arrested and indicted two people suspected of using secret information related to Israel striking Iran for insider trading on Polymarket.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 14:25

Blackstone Launching Public Vehicle for Data Center Acquisitions

Amid overwhelming redemptions in other funds, Blackstone is preparing a publicly traded acquisition company dedicated to data centers, opening the door for “mom and pop" to jump into the AI boom, just as the market is panicking over who will find the trillions in data center spending over the next several years

Bloomberg reported that the vehicle’s focus is on already-built and leased facilities, allowing rapid deployment amid surging hyperscaler demand.

The new entity will initially raise capital from sovereign wealth funds and institutional investors before broadening access, with plans to gather tens of billions overall. This structure positions the vehicle as a direct player alongside REITs such as Digital Realty and Equinix, while leveraging Blackstone’s established scale in the sector.

Blackstone has emerged as the world’s largest data center owner following its 2021 privatization of QTS Realty Trust in a deal valued at roughly $10 billion. Since then, QTS’s leased capacity has expanded 14-fold. Blackstone Chief Executive Officer Steve Schwarzman said the “historic pace of investment” to develop AI is the “key driver of economic growth today and is creating an enormous need for capital solutions.”

The timing aligns with accelerating shifts in commercial real estate. Just last week, we detailed the ongoing AI takeover with server-farm projects now outpacing traditional office builds nationwide for the first time ever.

AI Takeover Complete: Data Center Construction Surpasses Office Construction For The First Time https://t.co/g5WxE9glY3

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 27, 2026

There was also a recent meeting at the White House between some of the heads of major tech companies and President Trump who pledged their data centers won't boost electricity bills.

*TRUMP: TELLING BIG TECH THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THEIR OWN POWER

*TRUMP: NEGOTIATED NEW RATE PAYER PLEDGE ON DATA CENTER ENERGY

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 25, 2026

For retail investors, the vehicle offers exposure to the “picks and shovels” of AI without needing to pick individual tech winners. Blackstone’s track record with QTS suggests strong underlying fundamentals, but broader challenges persist around power availability and potential construction delays. The recent report from MacroEdge shows January 2026 already setting records for data center cancellations and postponements. 

 

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 14:05

Trump Accepts White House Correspondents' Dinner Invitation For First Time

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump announced on Monday that he will attend the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner for the first time as president, after declining to attend during his initial term in office due to his view that the majority of the media is unfairly biased against him. The president also did not attend in 2025, the first year of his second presidential term.

“The White House Correspondents Association has asked me, very nicely, to be the Honoree at this year’s Dinner, a long and storied tradition since it began in 1924, under then President Calvin Coolidge,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social.

“In honor of our Nation’s 250th Birthday, and the fact that these ‘Correspondents’ now admit that I am truly one of the Greatest Presidents in the History of our Country, the G.O.A.T., according to many, it will be my Honor to accept their invitation, and work to make it the GREATEST, HOTTEST, and MOST SPECTACULAR DINNER, OF ANY KIND, EVER!”

Trump criticized the press and its coverage of him in his acceptance, pointing to it as a reason for his absence from past events.

“Because the Press was extraordinarily bad to me, FAKE NEWS ALL, right from the beginning of my First Term, I boycotted the event, and never went as Honoree,” he wrote. “However, I look forward to being with everyone this year. Hopefully, it will be something very special.”

The annual dinner, which celebrates the First Amendment, is set to take place on April 25 at the Washington Hilton, outside of which John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Trump was the first president to skip the event since Ronald Reagan in 1981, who was recovering from the assassination attempt at the time.

The event also serves as a fundraiser for journalism scholarships and awards.

The WHCA announced last week that mentalist and mind-reader Oz Pearlman would entertain at the event.

“For more than 100 years, the journalists of the White House Correspondents’ Association have enjoyed an evening with the president, a dinner that celebrates the First Amendment while supporting the work we do including awards honoring excellent journalism and scholarships to help the next generation of reporters who someday will be the ones asking the questions at the White House,” WHCA President Weijia Jiang, a CBS News correspondent, stated in a response to Trump’s acceptance.

The dinner started in 1924 during the presidency of Calvin Coolidge. The president and a comedian or entertainer generally make remarks, often roasting political figures and the media.

Trump made headlines in 2016 when he roasted his campaign opponent Hillary Clinton ahead of Election Day at the annual Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 13:45

Voters Head To Polls In First 2026 Primary Election: What To Know

Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

Today, voters in Texas and North Carolina will cast their ballots in the first major contested primary elections of the 2026 midterm elections.

The elections in the two states have high stakes for the control of Congress in 2027.

The Texas Senate primaries for both parties have become some of the most closely watched in the nation, as Democrats vie for an upset victory over the GOP nominee in the general election.

In North Carolina, meanwhile, Republican candidates are facing off for their party’s nominations in a district redrawn to favor the GOP.

Here’s what to know.

Texas Republican Primary

While both parties are investing substantial resources and attention toward the race to be the Lone Star state’s next senator, Republicans enter the race with a strong advantage after President Donald Trump won the state by more than 14 points in 2024.

The incumbent in the race, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), is facing one of the toughest primary challenges of his career from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Rep. Wesley Hunt (R-Texas) is also seeking the Republican nomination.

Political analysts and betting markets largely view Paxton and Cornyn as the leading contenders.

Paxton entered the race earlier this year, carrying lingering fallout from past controversies, including his 2023 impeachment by the Texas House and subsequent acquittal by the Texas Senate. Framing the contest in ideological terms, Paxton has cast the race as a showdown between his brand of populist “America First” conservatism and what he describes as the establishment politics embodied by Cornyn.

Cornyn, meanwhile, has characterized the primary as a referendum on character, pointing to Paxton’s impeachment proceedings and other legal issues. At a recent campaign event, Cornyn accused Paxton of a “scandal-plagued career” and warned that he could be a “dead weight” on the ballot.

Paxton currently holds a 3.8 lead over Cornyn in RealClearPolitics polling averages.

Trump has yet to say which candidate he will endorse but has expressed his appreciation for both.

Texas Democratic Primary

Given the historically favorable national political environment for the party of the opposition in the midterm elections, Democrats are hoping for a long-shot win in the Lone Star State’s Senate election this year.

Texas state Rep. James Talarico led the pack of potential Democratic nominees, though polls show the possibility of a close race with U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), who entered the race on Oct. 8 last year.

Talarico rose to prominence during the redistricting battle this summer as Texas Republicans voted to add five Republican districts to the state’s congressional map. The former seminarian has gained national media and online attention for his Christian-focused messaging.

Crockett has become well-known for her heated questions during hearings on Capitol Hill.

Former Rep. Colin Allred (D-Texas) had been running but ended his bid for the nomination after Crockett announced her candidacy.

According to recent polling averages from RealClearPolitics, Talarico is leading Crockett by 4.5 percent.

In hypothetical polling match-ups, surveys said Talarico would be advantaged in a race against Paxton, but is disfavored if Republicans select Cornyn as their nominee.

Meanwhile, polling currently has Crockett at a disadvantage against either of the major Republican candidates.

The primary race will be held on March 3, and any runoff races are scheduled for May 26.

North Carolina’s 1st District Republican Primary

In North Carolina’s First Congressional District, Rep. Don Davis (D-N.C.) is running for reelection in a district that was redrawn through redistricting.

Davis won a second term in 2024 by less than 2 percent, becoming one of 13 House Democrats to win elections in districts won by Trump. He’s criticized the new boundaries for his districts, which now favor Republicans.

He faces no opposition in the Democratic primary, while five Republicans are vying for their party’s nomination.

Among them is Army veteran and former Trump administration official Laurie Buckhout, who is seeking a rematch after narrowly losing to Davis in 2024.

State Sen. Bobby Hanig, former sheriff Asa Buck, and Lenoir County Commissioner Eric Rouse are other political notables in the district seeking the nomination.

Rounding out the GOP field is attorney and small-business owner Ashley-Nicole Russell.

North Carolina’s 11th District Democratic Primary

In North Carolina’s 11th Congressional District, five Democrats are competing in the primary for the opportunity to take on incumbent Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.).

Although Edwards won reelection comfortably in 2024, Democrats are hoping to win enough support to flip the seat in the upcoming election.

The Democratic field includes farmer Jamie Ager, educator and advocate Zelda Briarwood, physician Richard Hudspeth, cancer researcher and professor Paul Maddox, and civil engineer Lee Whipple.

Ager is centering his campaign on lowering everyday costs, expanding access to health care, advancing immigration reform, and strengthening public safety. An internal Democratic poll shared with Newsweek shows Ager leading Edwards by 1 percentage point.

Briarwood is advocating for increased investment in rural health care, expanding Medicaid, limiting private equity ownership of residential housing, and making community college tuition-free.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 13:05

Drone Strikes On Amazon Data Centers In Middle East Reveal Urgent Need To Defend AI

For the first time in modern warfare, Iranian kamikaze drones struck commercial data centers in the Middle East operated by Amazon. This marks a major escalation in the targeting of civilian digital infrastructure.

Amazon wrote on its website that three Middle East data centers were hit by Iranian drones, causing widespread outages at Amazon Web Services facilities tied to the "ongoing conflict in the Middle East."

"These strikes have caused structural damage, disrupted power delivery to our infrastructure, and in some cases required fire suppression activities that resulted in additional water damage," the company said in a post on Monday on AWS's health dashboard. 

Operations in the Middle East remain "significantly impaired," AWS said, noting that "customers are experiencing elevated error rates and degraded availability for services."

The entire 'bomb the data center' incident led us to write a note on Monday morning titled, "Modern Warfare Sees First Drone Strike on a Commercial Data Center." This marks a first in a world where Morgan Stanley's Vishwanath Tirupattur recently forecasted that $3 trillion in global data center spending will occur through 2028. Translation: there's a massive security gap in defending data centers from aerial threats. 

We first outlined the theme in a late January note titled "Explosion in AI Data Center Buildouts Will Demand Next-Gen Counter-Drone Security."

Our view at the time was:

Wall Street analysts largely end their analysis at the financing and construction of next-generation data centers, with limited discussion regarding the modern security architecture required once these facilities are built and become instant high-value targets for non-state actors or foreign adversaries; traditional perimeter measures such as metal chainlink fencing and standard surveillance systems are rendered useless in the world of emerging AI threats, including coordinated autonomous drone or swarm-based attacks enabled by advances in AI and low-cost unmanned systems.

The key takeaway is that Wall Street analysts and data center developers have just received a major wake-up call: trillions of dollars in planned data center buildouts will require next-generation security, including high-tech counter-drone detection, tracking, and kinetic interception systems. This follows the Ukraine war and other recent modern battlefields, which have sparked the hyper-development of cheap, dual-use, consumer-grade drones that can be mass-produced at a fraction of the cost of traditional air-delivered munitions. We said weeks ago, this proliferation of drones and AI kill chains has given readers a glimpse of the 2030s battlefield.

Our view is that Wall Street will now begin searching for "war unicorns" specializing in counter-threat systems, whether in detection, electronic warfare, or kinetic defenses, as the world appears increasingly unstable and the need to harden critical data center infrastructure against FPV and other drone threats becomes a national security threat. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 12:45

Zelensky Warns Iran War Could Starve Ukraine Of Critical US Arms

This isn't the first time the world's attention has shifted away from the Ukraine war, but it certainly marks the biggest other conflict to erupt throughout the four-year long war in Eastern Europe.

Every time there is a 'distraction' - President Zelensky takes pains to try and refocus attention on Kiev's plight, quite naturally. At a moment the depth of American arms supplies and ammo stockpiles are in question given the rate of expenditure in the new Iran war, the Ukrainians are rather nervous to say the least.

Zelensky has freshly warned that deeper US involvement in the conflict with Iran could disrupt the steady flow of American weapons that Ukraine depends on in its war against Russia. Of course, Ukraine was issuing desperate pleas for more arms and ammo even long before Trump's Operation Epic Fury kicked off.

via Reuters

On slowed arms flows, he said as quoted in WSJ:

“We understand that a long war–if it is long–and the intensity of the military actions will affect the amount of air defense we receive," Zelensky told reporters on Monday, according to audio of his remarks published by Ukrainian media.

Zelensky said he spoke to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz about the issue of weapons supplies to Ukraine, and was in contact with other allies. So far, he added, there are no signs of any delays.

“Everyone understands that, for us, this is a matter of life,” Zelensky said of the arms Ukraine receives through the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List, or PURL, a program European allies use to purchase weapons from the U.S. for Ukraine.

But then again America's Gulf allies, who are also desperate for anti-air replenishment, consider this moment a matter of life and death too.

WSJ notes further, "Ukraine has said it desperately needs PAC-3 interceptor missiles for the Patriot systems supplied by the U.S."

Further, "The U.S. has been using its own Patriot systems to protect U.S. military bases and the airspace of allied countries in the Middle East from Iranian retaliatory strikes."

So it seems like Zelensky's arms wish list will be further delayed - not for lack of money, but simply based on rate of slow replenishment, but mostly Washington's new conflict theatre priority: Iran and the Gulf. What's worse is that the war is already threatening expansion across the whole Mideast region, as the conflict spreads to Lebanon.

Still, Ukraine has come out in favor of Trump's strike on Iran, given especially that Russia uses Iranian suicide drones in the Ukraine conflict, and has from nearly the start.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 12:15

"I'd Be Angry, Too": Jamie Dimon Says Trump Debanking Suit Has No Merit, Then Rails Debanking Practices

JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said Monday that Donald Trump’s $5 billion lawsuit over the closure of his accounts “has no merit,” but added, “They have the right to be angry. I’d be angry, too.”

Trump claims JPMorgan and other banks shut his accounts for political reasons, according to CNBC. Dimon said banks are often “forced” to debank clients due to legal and regulatory pressures tied to reputational risk. “We debank people because it causes legal, regulatory risk for us,” he said, noting it’s easier for banks to avoid that risk.

Trump sued JPMorgan and Dimon in January, part of a broader legal campaign that also includes claims against Capital One, media outlets, and the IRS. JPMorgan has acknowledged closing dozens of Trump-related accounts after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

“But I agree with them,” Dimon said during an interview in Miami. “Like, why is a bank allowed to do that?”

CNBC writes that though no single law mandates dropping clients over reputational concerns, regulations make serving certain customers risky. The case puts Dimon in a delicate spot as banks begin benefiting from deregulation under Trump appointees.

“There are a lot of misunderstandings here,” Dimon said. “Hopefully the law will change, and hopefully it’ll get sorted out.”

Recall, President Donald Trump filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon, claiming the banking giant debanked him for political reasons. 

The lawsuit was filed in January in a Miami state court by his attorney, Alejandro Brito, on behalf of Trump and several of his hospitality companies. 

The complaint cites JPMorgan's code of conduct, which reads: "We set high expectations and hold ourselves accountable. We do the right thing—not necessarily the easy or expedient thing. We abide by the letter and spirit of the laws and regulations everywhere we do business and have zero tolerance for unethical behavior."

According to Brito, "Despite claiming to hold these principles dear, JPMC violated them by unilaterally—and without warning or remedy—terminating several of Plaintiff’s bank accounts."

Trump and his companies have "transacted hundreds of millions of dollars" through the bank, the lawsuit reads, adding that Feb. 19, 2021 was the day that "forever altered the dynamic of the parties’ relationship," when the bank allegedly "without warning or provocation," notified Trump and his companies that several of their bank accounts or were beneficiaries of, "would be closed just two months later, on April 19, 2021."

"JPMC did not provide plaintiffs with any recourse, remedy, or alternative—its decision was final and unequivocal," reads the suit. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 11:30

More Bark Than Bite: Kaine's War Powers Resolution Is An 'Imminent' Failure

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

We now have a glimpse of the War Powers Resolution promised by Sen. Tim Kaine (D., Va.), which is reportedly scheduled for a vote in the Senate today or Wednesday. The resolution purportedly ends all combat operations against Iran … until you reach the very end where there is a hole that you could drive a combat task force through.

I respect members asserting their inherent constitutional authority. I have long criticized the lack of declarations of war as demanded by the Framers. We have not had a formal declaration of war since World War II. However, courts and Congress have long deferred to presidents in the conduct of such operations.

I represented congressional members challenging the Libyan war operation launched by President Barack Obama. Most Democratic members were entirely silent when Obama (and President Joe Biden) exercised such authority against different countries. Notably, the Libyan operation clearly sought regime change without an imminent threat to the United States. Some of those members are now the loudest condemning President Donald Trump in this operation.

This resolution shows how presidents can easily box in Congress once combat operations begin.

The resolution boldly declares “Congress hereby directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces for hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran or any part of its government or military.”

However, at the very end, the resolution has this line: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the United States from defending itself from imminent attack.”

As I wrote this week, the problem with such resolutions is that they are effectively meaningless in the context of full combat operations against a nation: “Kaine and others insist that hostilities were not imminent when we attacked. Even if that were true, they are now.”

In these circumstances, it would be nearly impossible to limit the war powers of the President without putting American personnel or allies at risk.  After decapitating the leadership in Iran, Iranian assets are clearly operating under prior orders in a decentralized structure. The United States is now seeking to neutralize any assets that it can find in preemptive attacks while trying further to degrade the command structure and military capacity of the Iranian government.

As I wrote earlier:

“The choice now for Democrats is either a senseless or suicidal resolution. It can either resolve to end hostilities as soon as practically possible (an objective already stated by the Administration) or it can actually seek to limit the Administration’s options amid full-fledged war.”

This is the senseless option. All threats from Iran are now “imminent,” and all attacks are arguably preemptive. So what does this actually do?

Here is the resolution: Iran War Powers Resolution

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/03/2026 - 11:10