"Serve Your Country": Uncle Sam Seeks Investment Bankers For 'Economic Defense Unit'

The Department of War is reportedly building a 30-person investment banking team, called the "Economic Defense Unit," to deploy $200 billion in private equity over three years into defense companies and, more importantly, war unicorns, as the race to secure the Western Hemisphere and counter China, Russia, and Iran intensifies in the Trump era.

Seamfor reviewed a slide deck from the headhunting firm Heidrick & Struggles that says DoW is seeking to stack EDU with bankers from Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, and Bank of America.

The presentation pitches bankers a once-in-a-lifetime chance to "serve your country" and deploy "more capital than most investors deploy in their entire careers," as well as an opportunity to sell a large amount of stock tax-deferred.

Seamfor noted that EDU will report to former Cerebrus alums David Lorch and George K. Kollitides II, the former Remington CEO who is now a partner at private equity firm Alvarez & Marsal Capital. 

Heidrick & Struggles' deck also promises bankers "unmatched access to top-level government officials and privileged information flow—whatever you need, you can get."

Finance influencer High Yield Harry published on X what he claims is the deck that headhunters sent to investment bankers.

Intro

Situation Background

Situation Background

The Mission

The Investment Team

Value Proposition

Managing Director Candidates

Vice President Candidates

Associate Candidates

The Trump administration has invested in a handful of companies critical to the survival of the US, from Intel to MP Materials to L3Harris Missile Solutions to USA Rare Earth, Trilogy Metals / Upper Kobuk Minerals Project, and soon a whole bunch of war unicorns (read here).

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/14/2026 - 14:35

Palantir CEO Has Grim Prediction For Democrats Over AI

Palantir CEO Alex Karp delivered an apocalyptic warning to progressives, particularly "highly educated, often female voters, who vote mostly Democrat," stating that their influence over the economy and broader society will erode as technologies such as artificial intelligence transfer power to working-class, right-leaning men.

"This technology disrupts humanities-trained, largely Democratic voters, and makes their economic power less. And increases the economic power of vocationally trained, working-class, often male, working-class voters," Karp told CNBC hosts on Thursday.

He continued, "And so these disruptions are gonna disrupt every aspect of our society. And to make this work, we have to come to an agreement of what it is we're going to do with the technology; how are we gonna explain to people who are likely gonna have less good, and less interesting jobs."

Karp, whose software company builds surveillance and defense products for the U.S. government, is essentially saying that AI will shift economic power away from highly educated, so-called "woke Karens" and toward working-class, often right-leaning male voters.

He then shifted the conversation toward military uses of AI, admitting that these technologies are "dangerous" while claiming that Palantir will enable an American future.

"These technologies are dangerous societally," Karp said, adding, "The only justification you could possibly have would be that if we don't do it, our adversaries will do it. And we will be subject to their rule of law.… Why is it that we're absorbing the risk of disrupting the very fabric of our society, including the most powerful parts of our society, if it's not because it's about maintaining our ability to be American in the near term and long term?"

The CEO of Palantir just said the quiet part out loud.
Alex Karp — whose company builds surveillance and defense technology for the U.S. government — just openly stated that AI will deliberately shift economic power away from highly educated, often female, Democratic-leaning… pic.twitter.com/mqznkz4V90

— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) March 12, 2026

Karp's view is that AI will restructure the American class system and shift the balance of economic power. That's one way to present the AI narrative to the everyday person.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/14/2026 - 13:25

Oil Could Test $200; Martin Armstrong Warns Attacking Iranian Water Supplies Could Bring Out Nukes

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Legendary financial and geopolitical cycle analyst Martin Armstrong warned in February, “This is where the volatility starts kicking in.” 

What do we have?  Oil, gold and silver spiking in price, and violent exchanges between Iran, the United States and many other countries in the Middle East. 

Now, water assets like desalination plants in Bahrain and Iran are being blown up.  Add the worst water shortage in decades in Iran as a backdrop to constant bombing, and you have a situation that could turn very ugly, very fast. 

The water shortage is so bad that there has been water rationing in Tehran for months.  This water rationing was part of the reason there were huge protests in Iran a few months ago.  Armstrong explains:

“Part of the protests (in Iran) were about water rationing.  The Islamic Republic Guard were called the ‘water mafia.’  They control the water. 

It’s kind of like North Korea.  If you want to be fed, you join the army.  All food goes to the army first, and water will also go to the military first.”

Remember, they are water rationing in Iran now, and they don’t have a lot left.  So, what happens if the US, Israel and other Persian Gulf nations knock out what’s left of Iran’s water?  What happens if Iran is completely out of water?  Armstrong says:

“Personally, I would ask Pakistan for a nuke.  Look, you are talking about the death of a country.  When you get to that point, if you’ve got a nuke, you are going to use it.”

So, what happens if the dams and reservoirs are bombed and Iran is completely cut off from water?  Armstrong says:

“If you do that, is that a war crime because you are wiping out the average population and civilians?  Would you do that?  This is a mess.  It’s a complete mess.”

On the other side, what happens if Iran knocks out all the Persian Gulf oil refineries?  Armstrong says:

“If I were Iran, I would attack all the oil refineries of the neighboring states.  You do that, and you will bring the entire West to its knees.  The US only gets about 3% of our oil from the Middle East.  You would wipe out Europe for sure.”

Armstrong sees gold going as high as “$8,800 an ounce . . . and silver $150 per ounce. . .. Oil could test $200 a barrel. . .. It’s going to get worse this summer, and it’s a 250-year drought cycle in Iran.  I wrote about this on my site.”

In closing, Armstrong says, “Winston Churchill said, ‘In time of war, truth is very precious, and it needs a bodyguard of lies to protect it.’”

There is much more in the 54-minute interview.”

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes One-on-One with Martin Armstrong to talk about the volatility that got kicked into high gear with the bombing of Iran for 3.10.26.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/14/2026 - 12:50

When Do Protest Observers Become Lawbreaking Participants?

Authored by Ben Weingarten via RealClearInvestigations,

When an ICE agent shot and killed Minneapolis resident Renee Good after she allegedly obstructed immigration authorities with her vehicle, disobeyed their commands, and attempted to flee – drawing fatal fire from an officer nearly struck by the vehicle – politicians and pundits decried her death as murder. They called it particularly unjust because she was not acting as a protester but a legal observer.

After federal agents arrested Don Lemon for allegedly disrupting a St. Paul church service in protest of the same Twin Cities immigration enforcement surge Good had opposed. His lawyer defended the former CNN anchor as a journalist, persecuted by the Trump administration for having carried out “constitutionally protected work” in violation of his First Amendment rights.  So too did myriad media organizations ranging from the National Association of Black Journalists to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

While Good’s shooting presents a distinct issue, her case and Lemon’s highlight the complex legal issues surrounding those who claim to be chronicling protests. Legal observers and journalists have long worked on the frontlines of civil unrest, the former documenting instances of alleged police misconduct in violation of constitutional rights to peaceably assemble, and the latter chronicling the assemblies. Their efforts have brought transparency and accountability. But what happens when legal observers and journalists act, or are seen by authorities as unlawful protestors rather than the neutral parties they are supposed to be? To what degree do their titles afford them special protections from prosecution in a court of law?

These questions have been brought into sharp relief as the Trump administration has brought hundreds of cases against people whom it alleges have not merely monitored but participated in illegal actions impacting immigration enforcement operations. 

“We respect the First Amendment and the right to peacefully protest,” a DOJ spokesperson told RealClearInvestigations, but “journalists and observers are not provided special protections to obstruct law enforcement operations.”

Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Lubet, who has criticized the Trump administration’s approach to immigration, concurred that legal observers “have no special legal status,” nor do journalists have “license to engage in violence or disruption.” But, he added, "law enforcement authorities should have a heavy burden to show that a journalist...or legal observer...had overstepped their role."

Although it did not respond to a request for comment, the American Civil Liberties Union has litigated against federal law enforcement authorities in connection with ICE’s activities in Minnesota. It argues that the government is violating the “constitutional rights” of people “observing, documenting, and protesting ICE activity in their neighborhoods.”

Like so many issues, the very nature of protest and the definitions of legal observers and journalists have come into question during the Trump years. America has a long history of protest, but the anti-ICE protests are different. Typically, protestors have engaged in somewhat organized demonstrations, with law enforcement responding if there is violence or property damage. But residents of Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and other sanctuary jurisdictions to which the second Trump administration has surged ICE agents have turned this dynamic on its head by arriving at the scene in response to law enforcement actions, and sometimes challenging such efforts.

It is hard to distinguish protestor from legal observer as many self-described ICE-watchers pursue officers in their cars and approach them during encounters – often times with phone in hand to record the events, and, they claim, to deter misconduct. Alex Pretti, an armed man who was killed by border patrol agents in Minneapolis after appearing to come to the assistance of another protestor, had been filming the scene before his deadly encounter. While he was widely described as a legal observer, just a few days prior, he had kicked in the taillight of an ICE vehicle, raising the murky issue of whether one can toggle back and forth between protester and observer depending on the circumstances.

The fine line between participant and observer also emerged during the Kyle Rittenhouse murder case. Rittenhouse shot three people, two fatally, during the Black Lives Matter unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020. The lone survivor, Gaige Grosskreutz, testified that he had pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, leading the then-17-year-old to shoot in apparent self-defense – a turning point in the trial leading to Rittenhouse’s acquittal. Grosskreutz was operating not only as a paramedic when the incident occurred, but also as an ACLU legal observer.

The decline of traditional news outlets has also muddied the waters, giving rise to the concept of citizen journalists. Given his long career at CNN, Lemon, who works independently, may qualify as a journalist – though the government alleges he was not just reporting on but participating in the church disruption. The question, however, can be harder to answer when it involves bloggers and those who post news on social media. Similarly, where journalists have long been constrained by the fear of being fired for violating professional standards of neutrality, such guardrails have been weakened in the new, highly politicized media landscape.  

As growing numbers of Americans have vowed to ramp up resistance to President Trump’s policies, and the administration seems committed to arresting what it deems unlawful actors, these definitions may take on added significance. Judges and juries will have to weigh First Amendment-protected activities against law enforcement imperatives and make judgment calls about where to draw the line based on the facts and evidence in each case. So too will prosecutors, often operating in Democrat-dominated jurisdictions, who must weigh these competing claims.

Black Panthers and the Constitution

Legal observers exist to help vindicate the First Amendment rights of the assembled. According to the National Lawyers Guild, which formalized the practice, such observers “create documentation during events which can later be use (sic) in defense cases, public statements, and litigation which aims to hold law enforcement agencies accountable for the actions of their officers.” 

The Guild notes that legal observation has its roots in the Black Panthers’ “cop watch” activities of the late 1960s, whereby that militant organization “conducted armed citizens’ patrols in order to monitor the behavior of law enforcement officers in the Oakland Police Department.”

In 1968, in connection with anti-war and racial justice demonstrations in New York City, the Guild “took components from this practice” of cop watch to develop its legal observer program – the self-described “eyes and ears” of a larger infrastructure of “arrest hotlines, jail support teams, community bail funds ... attorney referral networks, and more.”

Those who have adopted the Guild’s practice, such as the Minnesota ICE Watch group with which Good was reportedly affiliated, have advocated for activities that blur the line between observation and participation in protests. They defend their actions as a response to ICE agents who, they claim, routinely use excessive force, including in the killings of Good and Pretti.

According to its social media postings, Minnesota ICE Watch exists not only for the purpose of “documenting” and “archiving” but “resisting … ICE, Police and all Colonial Militarized Regimes.” 

Minnesota ICE Watch’s Instagram account shows the group has disseminated materials detailing how to share intelligence about agents’ movements and tipping off illegal aliens to impending raids. They also advise taking “direct action” against authorities to prevent such a “kidnapping,” including harboring those being pursued in one’s car or a “lockable room.” 

Likewise, according to a City Journal review of trainings and communications of “Defend the 612,” a prominent organizer of anti-ICE activities, including ICE watch trainings in Minnesota, “members and related officials have encouraged protesters to impede law enforcement; pushed civilians toward legally and physically risky confrontations; and helped mobilize a counterprotest that turned violent.” 

Blurry Lines

Some anti-ICE groups, as well as the Guild and the ACLU, warn activists that there is a line between protected behavior and that which might run afoul of the law, and that observers may sometimes become liable as actors. 

The Guild warns that law enforcement may smudge that line. “Just because you have legal rights does not mean the government will respect them. In fact, law enforcement will generally trample over your rights,” its “Know Your Risks” pamphlet reads. 

Leigh Ann O’Neill, the chief legal affairs officer of the conservative America First Policy Institute, told RCI that “Observing…officials in public is generally lawful, but conduct that harasses, intimidates, doxxes, obstructs, or aids evasion of lawful enforcement can trigger criminal liability.” 

For its part, DOJ has slapped some 650-plus individuals with charges under federal law since the summer of 2025, according to a recent Reuters analysis – including for allegedly following federal agents in their cars. In some instances, media reports suggest that prosecutors have downgraded such charges or chosen not to prosecute.

In Minnesota, prosecutors have reduced charges from felonies to misdemeanors or dismissed them in 20 cases pertaining to alleged attacks on law enforcement. In cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles, prosecutors have similarly found some of their cases dismissed or unsuccessful due to a lack of sufficient evidence or from overcharging defendants, judges have suggested. A Wall Street Journal analysis suggests similar trends regarding cases in which defendants were accused publicly of assaulting federal officers.

Arrests and Lawsuits

In response to media scrutiny suggesting an overzealousness in pursuing such cases, outgoing Department of Homeland Security Director Kristi Noem reported that vehicular attacks, death threats, and assaults against ICE agents increased dramatically from when Trump took office to the end of 2025. DHS officials reported 275 assaults as compared to the 19 reported assaults during the same period in 2024.

Meanwhile, in a counter-offensive against the immigration cops, the ACLU, TNG-NCWA, and dozens of individuals, including self-described observers and journalists, have filed suit in Minnesota against the Trump administration, claiming federal agents violated their rights during “Operation Metro Surge” and in analogous operations in cities across the country. “[O]bservers and protesters have been met with gratuitous uses of force, threats, detention, and intimidation ... all in an attempt to chill, discourage, prevent, and retaliate against protesters and observers from exercising their First Amendment rights,” the plaintiffs allege.

Amid an outcry from Democratic officials and anti-ICE activists over outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s casting of Good’s conduct as “domestic terrorism,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in January that the department would not be investigating Good’s killing.

Conversely, shortly after the shooting of Pretti, the Justice Department opened a civil rights investigation into the incident.

While opponents of the Trump administration’s mass deportation policy try to halt it, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have indicated the bureau is probing the networks behind anti-ICE activism.

Journalism or Activism?

Although reporters have a well-established constitutional right to gather the news, they cannot break the law to do so.

“Journalists have no special exemption from generally applicable laws if they trespass, interfere with someone’s right to worship, or otherwise engage in illegal activity,” O’Neill said. Many journalists, for example, have been jailed for refusing to identify anonymous sources of classified material.

In Don Lemon’s case, the government alleges that he – and 38 others – conspired to and violated the rights of worshippers at St. Paul’s Cities Church to freely practice their religion. Prosecutors allege in their indictment that Lemon did not act exclusively as an independent journalist but as a co-conspirator in an illicit operation. Among other things, they claim that he “took steps to maintain operational secrecy” when livestreaming in advance of what Lemon described as the “resistance” action; hounded the pastor with questions “to promote the operation’s message;” ignored the pastor’s request to leave the church; and stood at the church’s main door “where he confronted some congregants and physically obstructed them as they tried to exit…”

Lemon said in a statement that he was arrested “for doing what I have been doing for 30 years. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects that work for me and countless other journalists who do what I do. I stand with all of them, and I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court.”

While accepting a Samizdat Prize last month from the RealClearFoundation – which supports RCI – for his work defending free speech, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz argued that Lemon “helped promote the cause of journalism.”

“Now, he may have gone beyond journalism. He may have blocked entrances. He may have done things that don’t deserve journalism,” Dershowitz said. “But to the extent you have any doubts, they should always be resolved in favor of the First Amendment and in favor of journalism.”

Unequal Justice?

Just as supporters of Lemon believe that Trump officials are targeting journalists they see as liberal – with AG Bondi ordering agents to arrest Lemon, and three others – some say prosecutors under the Biden administration went after reporters it considered ideological foes. William Shipley, a former federal prosecutor turned criminal defender who represented some 90 defendants connected to the January 6 riots in Washington, D.C., said one of his clients, conservative freelance journalist Steve Baker, was at the Capitol capturing footage that would be licensed to several outlets subsequently. Chasing the story, he entered the Capitol during the riot.

Several years later, Baker was charged with four nonviolent misdemeanor counts, including trespassing and disorderly conduct, for which he was arrested.

Shipley would argue in court that he had identified some 60 other journalists who had done some or all of the same things Baker did that day, but went unprosecuted.

The government “singled out conservative members of the press and used commentary by them either recorded in real time, or things they reported later, to show ‘support’ for the rioters and then prosecuted them based in part on that commentary,” Shipley said. 

“At the same time, left-wing reporters who did the exact same acts were not prosecuted and won awards for their ‘coverage’ because they expressed condemnation of the rioters.”

Baker would plead guilty to charges shortly after the 2024 election, only to be pardoned by President Donald Trump several weeks later.

Filmmaker Georgia Fort was charged as a co-conspirator alongside Lemon in the Cities Church disturbance. She said following her release from jail that “As a journalist who has worked in media for more than 17 years, I leave this federal courthouse today with one question, ‘Do we have a Constitution’?”

Lawyers for Lemon and Fort, in a joint filing, asserted that they were each present at Cities Church “in their capacities as journalists.” “At no point did either engage in chanting or other behavior characteristic of protesting or activism,” they represented to the court.

Lemon has publicly said he didn’t enter the church with the protestors and didn’t impede or intimidate anyone. “They said that I peppered people with questions. That’s what reporters do,” he argued.

Meanwhile, despite ICE having decamped from the Twin Cities, the administration’s opponents are ramping up for more activism.

In February, the No Kings movement launched a series of trainings nationwide as part of its “Eyes on ICE” monitoring program – a precursor to what the group is billing as the “largest nonviolent protest in American history” on March 28th.

“When the Trump administration sends mass militia to terrorize neighborhoods, retaliates against people who protest, or uses federal power to punish those who speak out, it sends a clear message: to stay silent or to pay the price,” the emcee to one such training session, progressive activist Ash-Lee Woodard Henderson said.

Documenting and recording ICE agents while carrying out their duties, she and those who followed her argued, would be a critical tool to “resist” such “occupying” forces.

Meanwhile, Congress remains at an impasse over immigration enforcement, with Democrats seeking to impose significant restraints on ICE, while Republicans seek to curtail sanctuary policies – and potentially dramatically increase the penalties for interfering with ICE officers.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/14/2026 - 11:40

When Do Protest Observers Become Lawbreaking Participants?

Authored by Ben Weingarten via RealClearInvestigations,

When an ICE agent shot and killed Minneapolis resident Renee Good after she allegedly obstructed immigration authorities with her vehicle, disobeyed their commands, and attempted to flee – drawing fatal fire from an officer nearly struck by the vehicle – politicians and pundits decried her death as murder. They called it particularly unjust because she was not acting as a protester but a legal observer.

After federal agents arrested Don Lemon for allegedly disrupting a St. Paul church service in protest of the same Twin Cities immigration enforcement surge Good had opposed. His lawyer defended the former CNN anchor as a journalist, persecuted by the Trump administration for having carried out “constitutionally protected work” in violation of his First Amendment rights.  So too did myriad media organizations ranging from the National Association of Black Journalists to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

While Good’s shooting presents a distinct issue, her case and Lemon’s highlight the complex legal issues surrounding those who claim to be chronicling protests. Legal observers and journalists have long worked on the frontlines of civil unrest, the former documenting instances of alleged police misconduct in violation of constitutional rights to peaceably assemble, and the latter chronicling the assemblies. Their efforts have brought transparency and accountability. But what happens when legal observers and journalists act, or are seen by authorities as unlawful protestors rather than the neutral parties they are supposed to be? To what degree do their titles afford them special protections from prosecution in a court of law?

These questions have been brought into sharp relief as the Trump administration has brought hundreds of cases against people whom it alleges have not merely monitored but participated in illegal actions impacting immigration enforcement operations. 

“We respect the First Amendment and the right to peacefully protest,” a DOJ spokesperson told RealClearInvestigations, but “journalists and observers are not provided special protections to obstruct law enforcement operations.”

Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Lubet, who has criticized the Trump administration’s approach to immigration, concurred that legal observers “have no special legal status,” nor do journalists have “license to engage in violence or disruption.” But, he added, "law enforcement authorities should have a heavy burden to show that a journalist...or legal observer...had overstepped their role."

Although it did not respond to a request for comment, the American Civil Liberties Union has litigated against federal law enforcement authorities in connection with ICE’s activities in Minnesota. It argues that the government is violating the “constitutional rights” of people “observing, documenting, and protesting ICE activity in their neighborhoods.”

Like so many issues, the very nature of protest and the definitions of legal observers and journalists have come into question during the Trump years. America has a long history of protest, but the anti-ICE protests are different. Typically, protestors have engaged in somewhat organized demonstrations, with law enforcement responding if there is violence or property damage. But residents of Minneapolis, Los Angeles, and other sanctuary jurisdictions to which the second Trump administration has surged ICE agents have turned this dynamic on its head by arriving at the scene in response to law enforcement actions, and sometimes challenging such efforts.

It is hard to distinguish protestor from legal observer as many self-described ICE-watchers pursue officers in their cars and approach them during encounters – often times with phone in hand to record the events, and, they claim, to deter misconduct. Alex Pretti, an armed man who was killed by border patrol agents in Minneapolis after appearing to come to the assistance of another protestor, had been filming the scene before his deadly encounter. While he was widely described as a legal observer, just a few days prior, he had kicked in the taillight of an ICE vehicle, raising the murky issue of whether one can toggle back and forth between protester and observer depending on the circumstances.

The fine line between participant and observer also emerged during the Kyle Rittenhouse murder case. Rittenhouse shot three people, two fatally, during the Black Lives Matter unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in August 2020. The lone survivor, Gaige Grosskreutz, testified that he had pointed his gun at Rittenhouse, leading the then-17-year-old to shoot in apparent self-defense – a turning point in the trial leading to Rittenhouse’s acquittal. Grosskreutz was operating not only as a paramedic when the incident occurred, but also as an ACLU legal observer.

The decline of traditional news outlets has also muddied the waters, giving rise to the concept of citizen journalists. Given his long career at CNN, Lemon, who works independently, may qualify as a journalist – though the government alleges he was not just reporting on but participating in the church disruption. The question, however, can be harder to answer when it involves bloggers and those who post news on social media. Similarly, where journalists have long been constrained by the fear of being fired for violating professional standards of neutrality, such guardrails have been weakened in the new, highly politicized media landscape.  

As growing numbers of Americans have vowed to ramp up resistance to President Trump’s policies, and the administration seems committed to arresting what it deems unlawful actors, these definitions may take on added significance. Judges and juries will have to weigh First Amendment-protected activities against law enforcement imperatives and make judgment calls about where to draw the line based on the facts and evidence in each case. So too will prosecutors, often operating in Democrat-dominated jurisdictions, who must weigh these competing claims.

Black Panthers and the Constitution

Legal observers exist to help vindicate the First Amendment rights of the assembled. According to the National Lawyers Guild, which formalized the practice, such observers “create documentation during events which can later be use (sic) in defense cases, public statements, and litigation which aims to hold law enforcement agencies accountable for the actions of their officers.” 

The Guild notes that legal observation has its roots in the Black Panthers’ “cop watch” activities of the late 1960s, whereby that militant organization “conducted armed citizens’ patrols in order to monitor the behavior of law enforcement officers in the Oakland Police Department.”

In 1968, in connection with anti-war and racial justice demonstrations in New York City, the Guild “took components from this practice” of cop watch to develop its legal observer program – the self-described “eyes and ears” of a larger infrastructure of “arrest hotlines, jail support teams, community bail funds ... attorney referral networks, and more.”

Those who have adopted the Guild’s practice, such as the Minnesota ICE Watch group with which Good was reportedly affiliated, have advocated for activities that blur the line between observation and participation in protests. They defend their actions as a response to ICE agents who, they claim, routinely use excessive force, including in the killings of Good and Pretti.

According to its social media postings, Minnesota ICE Watch exists not only for the purpose of “documenting” and “archiving” but “resisting … ICE, Police and all Colonial Militarized Regimes.” 

Minnesota ICE Watch’s Instagram account shows the group has disseminated materials detailing how to share intelligence about agents’ movements and tipping off illegal aliens to impending raids. They also advise taking “direct action” against authorities to prevent such a “kidnapping,” including harboring those being pursued in one’s car or a “lockable room.” 

Likewise, according to a City Journal review of trainings and communications of “Defend the 612,” a prominent organizer of anti-ICE activities, including ICE watch trainings in Minnesota, “members and related officials have encouraged protesters to impede law enforcement; pushed civilians toward legally and physically risky confrontations; and helped mobilize a counterprotest that turned violent.” 

Blurry Lines

Some anti-ICE groups, as well as the Guild and the ACLU, warn activists that there is a line between protected behavior and that which might run afoul of the law, and that observers may sometimes become liable as actors. 

The Guild warns that law enforcement may smudge that line. “Just because you have legal rights does not mean the government will respect them. In fact, law enforcement will generally trample over your rights,” its “Know Your Risks” pamphlet reads. 

Leigh Ann O’Neill, the chief legal affairs officer of the conservative America First Policy Institute, told RCI that “Observing…officials in public is generally lawful, but conduct that harasses, intimidates, doxxes, obstructs, or aids evasion of lawful enforcement can trigger criminal liability.” 

For its part, DOJ has slapped some 650-plus individuals with charges under federal law since the summer of 2025, according to a recent Reuters analysis – including for allegedly following federal agents in their cars. In some instances, media reports suggest that prosecutors have downgraded such charges or chosen not to prosecute.

In Minnesota, prosecutors have reduced charges from felonies to misdemeanors or dismissed them in 20 cases pertaining to alleged attacks on law enforcement. In cities such as Chicago and Los Angeles, prosecutors have similarly found some of their cases dismissed or unsuccessful due to a lack of sufficient evidence or from overcharging defendants, judges have suggested. A Wall Street Journal analysis suggests similar trends regarding cases in which defendants were accused publicly of assaulting federal officers.

Arrests and Lawsuits

In response to media scrutiny suggesting an overzealousness in pursuing such cases, outgoing Department of Homeland Security Director Kristi Noem reported that vehicular attacks, death threats, and assaults against ICE agents increased dramatically from when Trump took office to the end of 2025. DHS officials reported 275 assaults as compared to the 19 reported assaults during the same period in 2024.

Meanwhile, in a counter-offensive against the immigration cops, the ACLU, TNG-NCWA, and dozens of individuals, including self-described observers and journalists, have filed suit in Minnesota against the Trump administration, claiming federal agents violated their rights during “Operation Metro Surge” and in analogous operations in cities across the country. “[O]bservers and protesters have been met with gratuitous uses of force, threats, detention, and intimidation ... all in an attempt to chill, discourage, prevent, and retaliate against protesters and observers from exercising their First Amendment rights,” the plaintiffs allege.

Amid an outcry from Democratic officials and anti-ICE activists over outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s casting of Good’s conduct as “domestic terrorism,” Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said in January that the department would not be investigating Good’s killing.

Conversely, shortly after the shooting of Pretti, the Justice Department opened a civil rights investigation into the incident.

While opponents of the Trump administration’s mass deportation policy try to halt it, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel have indicated the bureau is probing the networks behind anti-ICE activism.

Journalism or Activism?

Although reporters have a well-established constitutional right to gather the news, they cannot break the law to do so.

“Journalists have no special exemption from generally applicable laws if they trespass, interfere with someone’s right to worship, or otherwise engage in illegal activity,” O’Neill said. Many journalists, for example, have been jailed for refusing to identify anonymous sources of classified material.

In Don Lemon’s case, the government alleges that he – and 38 others – conspired to and violated the rights of worshippers at St. Paul’s Cities Church to freely practice their religion. Prosecutors allege in their indictment that Lemon did not act exclusively as an independent journalist but as a co-conspirator in an illicit operation. Among other things, they claim that he “took steps to maintain operational secrecy” when livestreaming in advance of what Lemon described as the “resistance” action; hounded the pastor with questions “to promote the operation’s message;” ignored the pastor’s request to leave the church; and stood at the church’s main door “where he confronted some congregants and physically obstructed them as they tried to exit…”

Lemon said in a statement that he was arrested “for doing what I have been doing for 30 years. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects that work for me and countless other journalists who do what I do. I stand with all of them, and I will not be silenced. I look forward to my day in court.”

While accepting a Samizdat Prize last month from the RealClearFoundation – which supports RCI – for his work defending free speech, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz argued that Lemon “helped promote the cause of journalism.”

“Now, he may have gone beyond journalism. He may have blocked entrances. He may have done things that don’t deserve journalism,” Dershowitz said. “But to the extent you have any doubts, they should always be resolved in favor of the First Amendment and in favor of journalism.”

Unequal Justice?

Just as supporters of Lemon believe that Trump officials are targeting journalists they see as liberal – with AG Bondi ordering agents to arrest Lemon, and three others – some say prosecutors under the Biden administration went after reporters it considered ideological foes. William Shipley, a former federal prosecutor turned criminal defender who represented some 90 defendants connected to the January 6 riots in Washington, D.C., said one of his clients, conservative freelance journalist Steve Baker, was at the Capitol capturing footage that would be licensed to several outlets subsequently. Chasing the story, he entered the Capitol during the riot.

Several years later, Baker was charged with four nonviolent misdemeanor counts, including trespassing and disorderly conduct, for which he was arrested.

Shipley would argue in court that he had identified some 60 other journalists who had done some or all of the same things Baker did that day, but went unprosecuted.

The government “singled out conservative members of the press and used commentary by them either recorded in real time, or things they reported later, to show ‘support’ for the rioters and then prosecuted them based in part on that commentary,” Shipley said. 

“At the same time, left-wing reporters who did the exact same acts were not prosecuted and won awards for their ‘coverage’ because they expressed condemnation of the rioters.”

Baker would plead guilty to charges shortly after the 2024 election, only to be pardoned by President Donald Trump several weeks later.

Filmmaker Georgia Fort was charged as a co-conspirator alongside Lemon in the Cities Church disturbance. She said following her release from jail that “As a journalist who has worked in media for more than 17 years, I leave this federal courthouse today with one question, ‘Do we have a Constitution’?”

Lawyers for Lemon and Fort, in a joint filing, asserted that they were each present at Cities Church “in their capacities as journalists.” “At no point did either engage in chanting or other behavior characteristic of protesting or activism,” they represented to the court.

Lemon has publicly said he didn’t enter the church with the protestors and didn’t impede or intimidate anyone. “They said that I peppered people with questions. That’s what reporters do,” he argued.

Meanwhile, despite ICE having decamped from the Twin Cities, the administration’s opponents are ramping up for more activism.

In February, the No Kings movement launched a series of trainings nationwide as part of its “Eyes on ICE” monitoring program – a precursor to what the group is billing as the “largest nonviolent protest in American history” on March 28th.

“When the Trump administration sends mass militia to terrorize neighborhoods, retaliates against people who protest, or uses federal power to punish those who speak out, it sends a clear message: to stay silent or to pay the price,” the emcee to one such training session, progressive activist Ash-Lee Woodard Henderson said.

Documenting and recording ICE agents while carrying out their duties, she and those who followed her argued, would be a critical tool to “resist” such “occupying” forces.

Meanwhile, Congress remains at an impasse over immigration enforcement, with Democrats seeking to impose significant restraints on ICE, while Republicans seek to curtail sanctuary policies – and potentially dramatically increase the penalties for interfering with ICE officers.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/14/2026 - 11:40

U.S. To Begin 86-Million-Barrel SPR Dump Next Week Via Exchange Program

The speed of the energy shock rippling out from the U.S.-Iran conflict in the Middle East and the near-paralysis of the Strait of Hormuz forced the 32-member IEA last week to approve a 400-million-barrel release from Strategic Petroleum Reserves to help cushion the blow to the global economy. The bulk of that supply will come from the U.S., with the Trump administration preparing a request to exchange 86 million barrels of crude oil as soon as next Wednesday.

The planned U.S. SPR release of 86 million barrels of crude, part of a broader 172 million-barrel U.S. release and part of the IEA's "historic" 400-million-barrel emergency release action plan across 32 nations to shield economies from the worst energy shock ever to hit the world, has been altered by the end of the week.

Under an exchange program, the Department of Energy will allow companies to borrow crude now and return it later with additional barrels as a premium.

Bloomberg Opinion and commodities columnist Javier Blas added more color on the altered SPR plan by the DoE on X, saying:

The U.S. government seems to have changed its mind about the terms of the use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve:

Earlier this week, it announced a SPR release (an outright sale, and the method used in the emergency actions of 1991, 2005, 2011, and 2022). But now, the DOE has published details for something different: a SPR exchange (effectively, an oil loan, with the barrels returned later with interest).

The US gov seems to have changed its mind about the terms of the use of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve:

Earlier this week, it announced a **SPR release** (an outright sale, and the method used in the emergency actions of 1991, 2005, 2011 and 2022)

But now, the DOE has… pic.twitter.com/KIo8SiFOUX

— Javier Blas (@JavierBlas) March 14, 2026

Secretary of Energy Chris Wright released a statement saying this SPR release will begin next week and "take approximately 120 days to deliver based on planned discharge rates."

"President Trump promised to protect America's energy security by managing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve responsibly, and this action demonstrates his commitment to that promise," Wright said.

He continued, "Unlike the previous administration, which left America's oil reserves drained and damaged, the United States has arranged to more than replace these strategic reserves with approximately 200 million barrels within the next year, 20% more barrels than will be drawn down, and at no cost to the taxpayer."

The current U.S. SPR holds about 415 million barrels, up from roughly 395 million barrels one year ago.

As JPMorgan noted last week, no matter how large the SPR release is, it would not be able to offset the biggest issue facing global energy markets: the sudden elimination of 16 million barrels currently stuck in the Gulf due to the Strait of Hormuz blockade. That's because it's not a stockpile problem, but rather a flow problem.

Beyond the incoming SPR dump, the Trump administration has taken several steps to combat triple-digit Brent and WTI prices by waiving a century-old law that requires U.S. ships to transport goods between U.S. ports, allowing domestic supplies to be shifted around more quickly. The administration then allowed Russian seaborne crude already at sea to be sold.

... and now, with a major U.S. attack on Iran's Kharg Island in the overnight hours, this will only raise more fears of tightening global supplies.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/14/2026 - 11:05

The Most Expensive Science Lesson in European History

Authored by James Hickman via SchiffSovereign.com,

On March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake struck off the coast of Japan and triggered a massive tsunami that slammed into the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. Three of the plant’s six reactors melted down, and it became the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl.

On the other side of the world, German Chancellor Angela Merkel panicked.

Her government had extended the operating lives of Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors just five months earlier. But, because of the earthquake in Japan, Merkel reversed course overnight and mothballed eight German reactors.

But Merkel’s decision wasn’t really about natural disasters. It was political.

Merkel was terrified of Germany’s Green Party— which was literally founded on anti-nuclear activism in 1980 and had been gaining ground. A critical regional election was just two weeks away, and Merkel was hoping that she might pull out a victory if she killed the reactors.

Her gambit didn’t work, and the Greens won anyway.

But at that point the fate of nuclear had already been set in motion. Within three months, the German government decided to phase out EVERY nuclear reactor in the country.

Bear in mind that Germany’s 17 reactors were generating over a third of the country’s electricity… with zero carbon emissions. That’s a pretty good thing for a country obsessed with climate change.

Yet Germany’s Green party had inexplicably spent decades campaigning to close them, i.e. to shutter the cleanest, most carbon-free source of baseload energy known to man.

Germany committed to replacing its nuclear plants with solar panels. Naturally this meant that, in a country where the sun barely shines, Germany became increasingly dependent on natural gas— most of which is piped in from Russia.

The true extent of this idiocy didn’t reveal itself until February 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine: Germany joined Western sanctions against Russia. Russia retaliated by throttling gas supplies. And Germany had no fallback.

So Germany— the country that had lectured the entire world on carbon emissions— frantically restarted more than 20 coal-fired power plants. Then they imported 42 million metric tons of coal, including a surge from southern Africa. They even bulldozed the village of Lützerath to expand a lignite mine, dragging away protesters.

Germany also became a net electricity importer, buying power from France’s nuclear grid.

And gee what a surprise: German electricity prices are now the highest in the European Union. One obvious consequence is that Germany is no longer industrially competitive due to energy costs.

And that brings us to March 6, 2026.

Manuel Hagel, a 37-year-old political candidate from ex-Chancellor Merkel’s party, visited an elementary school.

National television cameras were rolling as Hagel attempted to explain the greenhouse effect to the children:

“Between the earth and the sun is the atmosphere. And as this gets increasingly thin, the sun gets hotter and hotter. And the reason for this is CO2 emissions and and and. And that is the greenhouse effect.”

Unfortunately his explanation is completely wrong. The greenhouse effect works because CO2 and other gases trap heat within the atmosphere; it has nothing to do with the atmosphere thinning or the sun getting hotter.

This is a guy who takes away stoves and gasoline powered vehicles in the name of reducing carbon emissions. Yet he doesn’t even understand the basics of his own ‘science’.

Zee German leadership humiliated themselves even more when, on March 10, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen stood at the Nuclear Energy Summit in Paris and declared that Europe’s retreat from nuclear power had been “a strategic mistake.”

“In 1990 one-third of Europe’s electricity came from nuclear, today it is only close to 15%. This reduction in the share of nuclear was a choice, I believe that it was a strategic mistake for Europe to turn its back on a reliable, affordable source of low-emissions power.”

She’s right, of course. It was a mistake. An extraordinarily costly one.

This is hilariously ironic since Von der Leyen is German. She served in Merkel’s cabinet. She personally voted to phase out nuclear, and her own policies at the Commission have been to quietly phase out nuclear power.

Also this week, Germany’s current Chancellor (Friedrich Merz) weighed in on this nuclear blunder when he called the reactor phase-out “a mistake” and said, “I regret this.”

Great. Then fix it!

But they’re not going to do that. Unfortunately for Germany, said the Chancellor, “it is the way it is, and we are now concentrating on the energy policy we have.”

Unbelievable. So, in summary:

• Germany (initially by Angela Merkel, then later by subsequent governments) destroyed their clean, cheap nuclear plants

• They did this for idiotic political reasons

• This led to a major energy crisis, which triggered an economic crisis

• Nearly everyone in power now acknowledges this was a huge mistake

• But they aren’t going to even bother trying to fix it

As we’ve written before, abundant cheap energy is one of the few forces that can reliably keep inflation in check. It fuels stronger growth, lowers prices, and makes life better for everyone.

The US, at least, is heading in the right direction for now, thanks to recent executive orders to reform nuclear licensing, fast-track small modular reactor designs, and create the first real momentum the US nuclear industry has seen in decades.

But the risk is obvious: one election, one change in administration, and a new set of politicians could gut all of that progress overnight — just like Merkel did in 2011.

Germany is a fifteen-year case study in how terrible policies can weaken a country.

And that’s exactly why it makes sense to have a Plan B.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/14/2026 - 10:30

Media Says 'Gambling' Trump Got Lucky On The Economy

Democrats have been predicting doom and gloom ever since Trump returned to office, yet the economic calamity they assured us would come has yet to materialize. But rather than give Trump credit, the narrative being pushed now is that his wins are just dumb luck.

(Washington Post staff illustration; photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post, iStock)

That’s certainly the message of a Politico piece headlined "Trump Keeps Gambling With the Economy — And Getting Away With It.” 

"President Donald Trump has spent his second term turning risky economic gambles into a way of life,” the article kicks off. “He has implemented sweeping global tariffs that have dramatically increased the cost of doing business across the world. He has sharply decreased the number of people immigrating to the U.S. He has pushed for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates under any circumstance, even though inflation has not entirely cooled. And now, he’s launched an attack on Iran, a scenario that has long been the clearest and most direct threat to one of Trump’s favored political barometers: gas prices.”

The implicit verdict is clear: these were all reckless moves, and Trump has no business still standing. Except the economy is still standing. Quite well, actually.

So-called experts warned repeatedly that Trump's tariff regime would send prices spiraling. That didn't happen. Inflation went down. Democrats entered 2025 predicting that aggressive immigration enforcement would "deliver a catastrophic blow to the U.S. Economy." That blow never landed. What about the prediction that Trump’s mass deportations would devastate the economy? Not only did that not happen (albeit there was TACO'ing over the scale of deportations), it reversed the trend of rising housing costs, making them more affordable. At some point, a pattern of failed predictions stops being an argument about Trump's recklessness and starts being an argument about the quality of the predictions.

The article quickly pivots to gas prices, which are up following the attack on Iran - though Energy Secretary Chris Wright called this a 'fear premium' that will fall in 'weeks, not months' [though we generally place little stock in bureaucrat promises].

“And now, he's launched an attack on Iran, a scenario that has long been the clearest and most direct threat to one of Trump's favored political barometers: gas prices,” the article warns. "The conflict has led to a jump in oil prices, though not quite to worst-case levels, and markets have been jittery about the prospect of more expensive energy and higher U.S. federal debt, stemming from the cost of the U.S.-Israel war with Iran." 

Politico is unwilling to credit the Trump administration for successfully managing the economy after the Biden administration went full leeroy jenkins on inflationary stimmies and red tape; instead, we’re supposed to be convinced that Trump is just lucky that disaster hasn’t struck, or as Politico put it, “getting away with it."

In fact, Politico suggests that the economy is doing well in spite of Trump...

"In so many ways, that is the story of Trump's economic stewardship up to this point. His disruptive policies have left some dents, including serious damage to his approval rating, but by the biggest readings of its health, the U.S. economy - measured by overall growth, the job market, the stock market, even inflation - largely keeps absorbing what he throws at it."

...

But mostly, the U.S. economy is just a consumer-driven powerhouse that seems hard to crush.

The closest they came to crediting Trump for anything was this painful concession:

The president himself is part of the reason for the resilience: GOP tax cuts are expected to provide a huge power-up to economic expansion this year by boosting refunds for individuals and offering immediate deductions for businesses making certain investments. And the administration's deregulatory efforts have repeatedly driven stocks to new highs, which has helped increase the wealth of households invested in the market.

...

Trump’s own effect, too, is hard to disentangle. He has demonstrated a willingness to be responsive to the desires of corporate America and to the anxieties of financial markets, but he’s also flouted both of those things far more than he did in his first term.

But all of that is just a gamble that paid off, as opposed to signs that Trump’s policies are working. The cognitive dissonance here is astounding, yet unsurprising.

* * *

Please consider supporting ZeroHedge with the purchase of a hat, t-shirt, or multitool. Thank you.

* * *

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/14/2026 - 09:55

The AI Boom Is Creating A Global Memory Chip Shortage

A global shortage of memory chips is emerging as demand for artificial intelligence infrastructure surges, according to a new report from Bloomberg.

Large technology companies are locking in supply by signing long-term agreements and paying higher prices to guarantee access to chips years in advance. Because these deals are more profitable, chip manufacturers are increasingly directing production toward AI customers. This shift has reduced the number of chips available for other products such as laptops, smartphones, gaming consoles, and cars, pushing prices sharply upward.

Memory chips play a critical role in modern computing because they store and deliver data to processors, which carry out calculations. Without sufficient memory, devices would struggle to run applications, load programs, or process data efficiently. Two types dominate the industry. DRAM functions as short-term working memory that computers and servers use to quickly access active data. NAND flash memory serves as long-term storage, holding files, photos, and software even when devices are powered off.

Bloomberg writes that Artificial intelligence systems require enormous amounts of memory, especially a newer design known as high-bandwidth memory (HBM). This technology stacks multiple layers of memory vertically and places them close to processors, allowing data to move much faster than with traditional designs. The speed is essential for AI models that must constantly move and process huge volumes of information.

The rapid expansion of AI data centers has dramatically increased demand for memory chips. Major technology firms are investing hundreds of billions of dollars to expand computing capacity, and AI servers require far more memory than traditional systems. As a result, data centers now account for a much larger share of global DRAM usage than they did just a few years ago, and that share is expected to keep growing.

With supply unable to keep pace, memory prices have climbed steeply. In some cases, DRAM spot prices have risen several hundred percent within a year, while NAND storage costs are also increasing. The impact is spreading across the electronics industry. Companies that build computers, phones, and gaming systems are facing higher manufacturing costs and tighter component supply. Some manufacturers have already raised prices or reduced the amount of memory included in certain devices to manage expenses.

Expanding production is not a quick solution. The memory chip industry is highly concentrated, with most output coming from companies such as Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix, and Micron Technology. Building new fabrication plants requires enormous investment and several years before meaningful output begins. Producing advanced chips like HBM is even more challenging because they involve stacking extremely thin layers of silicon with microscopic connections; even a small defect can ruin an entire unit.

Manufacturers are expanding cautiously because the memory business has historically been volatile, swinging between shortages and oversupply. Companies want to benefit from the AI boom without repeating past cycles that led to large financial losses when demand suddenly weakened. For the moment, firms building AI infrastructure are securing the components they need, while consumer electronics makers may have to cope with higher costs and limited supply until production eventually catches up with demand.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/14/2026 - 08:45

British Tourist Faces Prison Sentence In UAE For Filming Iranian Missiles

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

A British tourist is among about 20 people who are facing charges in the UAE for filming Iranian attacks on Dubai, as America's Gulf Arab allies are taking steps to censor the impact of the war.

According to The Guardian, the 60-year-old man is being charged with a law that prohibits sharing material that can endanger public security. The report said that he is still facing charges despite deleting the video immediately when he was asked to.

AP/Illustrative: Screenshots from a video posted on social media on March 7, 2026 shows an impact and smoke rising from the Dubai International Airport.

The charge carries a penalty of up to two years in prison, and many could face similar charges for simply sharing videos of missile attacks that have already been published online.

"The charges sound extremely vague but serious on paper. In reality, the alleged conduct could be something as simple as sharing or commenting on a video that is already circulating online," said Radha Stirling, the head of Detained in Dubai.

"Under UAE cybercrime laws, the person who originally posts content can be charged, but so can anyone who reshapes, reposts, or comments on it," Striling added.

In the immediate aftermath of the US and Israel launching the war with Iran on February 28, videos of counterattacks in Gulf countries were widespread on social media, but they became scarce once the Arab governments began cracking down.

In Bahrain, which has a Shia majority ruled by a Sunni monarch, authorities began arresting people for "misusing" social media and pursued people who appeared to be celebrating the attacks.

Israel has also imposed tight restrictions on the dissemination of information about Iranian missile strikes, as it did during the 12-Day War in June 2025.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/14/2026 - 08:10

Sweden Seizes Another Suspected Russian 'Dark Fleet' Tanker, Despite US Easing Sanctions

Washington has eased sanctions on countries buying Russian oil in connection with the Iran war and Strait of Hormuz crisis, an easing welcomed by the Kremlin, but which has caused angst and anger among pro-Ukraine campaigners.

The US waiver is active for a month, and applies to crude which has has been floating at sea and thus was unable to be sold. However, this hasn't stopped some European countries from moving against tankers without proper registration and flags.

Illustrative file imagec

Sweden, for example, on Thursday seized a suspected Russia "shadow fleet" tanker sailing under "false flag" - following similar interdicts going back months. 

Ship-tracking data shows the 228-meter tanker Sea Owl I had been headed from Santos, Brazil toward Tallinn before Swedish police boarded it off the southern town of Trelleborg.

Swedish authorities said they believe the vessel’s actual destination was Primorsk, near Saint Petersburg. A statement said: 

"The tanker Sea Owl I flies the Comorian flag. The coast guard suspects that it is not included in their ship register, that it is sailing under a false flag and that there is therefore no flag state that can guarantee the safety on board," Sweden’s coast guard said.

"A preliminary investigation into suspected violations of the maritime act regarding lack of seaworthiness has been initiated," the coast guard added.

Authorities also noted the vessel is on a European Union sanctions list and has previously transported oil products between Brazil and Russia. Below is some more recent background on prior interdictions:

• On 6 March, Sweden stopped and detained the vessel Caffa in the Baltic Sea over suspicions of sailing under a false flag and violating maritime law and security regulations. The Russian captain of the ship was subsequently arrested.
• On the night of 28 February-1 March, Belgium, with the help of French military helicopters, detained the oil tanker Ethera in the North Sea, another vessel linked to Russia's shadow fleet.

As for the US letting off the gas pedal when comes to pressuring Russian oil exports, the move has been seen as another U-turn, and comes months after President Trump slapped tariffs on Indian goods in a bid to pressure Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to abandon energy purchases from Russia, which India never did. 

"To enable oil to keep flowing into the global market, the Treasury Department is issuing a temporary 30-day waiver to allow Indian refiners to purchase Russian oil," US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said last week in a post on X. "This deliberately short-term measure will not provide significant financial benefit to the Russian government as it only authorizes transactions involving oil already stranded at sea."

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/14/2026 - 07:35

UK Councils Warn Schools: Children's Drawings Could Be Blasphemous Under Islamic Law

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

In yet another assault on free expression in British classrooms, schools are being instructed by Labour councils to treat kids’ innocent drawings as potential offenses under Islamic interpretations. 

Guidelines warn that depicting humans or prophets could spark blasphemy complaints, forcing teachers to tiptoe around religious sensitivities at the expense of creativity and open education. 

The push comes amid a broader Labour government drive to monitor and suppress any perceived slights against Muslims, turning schools into surveillance outposts rather than places of learning.

Pupils' drawings could be blasphemous under Islamic law, Labour councils tell schools - while music and dance classes may go against the teachings of Islam https://t.co/fB8uWaSvx8

— Daily Mail (@DailyMail) March 11, 2026

The guidance, titled “Sharing the Journey,” originates from northern Labour councils like Leeds, Calderdale, Oldham, and Wakefield, and has been adopted by others including Sefton and Tameside. It explicitly states that “for some Muslim parents, sensitivities may exist in connection with the teaching of aspects of art, dance, drama, music, physical education, religious education and RSHE”.

Teachers are advised: “It is very important that the school understands this and is also careful not to ask its students to reproduce images of Jesus, the Prophet Mohammed or other figures considered to be prophets in Islam. Some Muslim pupils may not wish to draw the human figure.” This stems from hadith interpretations prohibiting images of living beings, viewed as idolatrous by some sects.

The restrictions don’t stop at art. On music, the document notes: “in Islam, music is traditionally limited to the human voice and non-tuneable percussion instruments as in the days of the Prophet, when they were only used in marriage ceremonies and on the battlefield”. It adds that “schools should listen to any concerns, discuss the place of music in the curriculum and ensure that students are not asked to join in songs that conflict with their religious beliefs”. 

Dance lessons face similar scrutiny, with warnings that they could cause parental concerns over “physical contact between males and females”. The overall aim, per the introduction, is to play a part in “building harmony and understanding” and fostering “cohesion” in local communities. 

This guidance ties directly into Labour’s escalating surveillance in schools. As we previously reported, Communities Secretary Steve Reed announced: “Today, we are adopting a non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This gives a clear explanation of unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred targeting Muslims, so we can take action to stop it.” 

Critics like Richard Holmes from the Free Speech Union countered: “It risks hindering free speech under the law and legitimate criticism of Islamism.” 

‘We do not need a government supplied definition of Islamophobia!’

GB News contributor Connie Shaw explains why the free speech union has claimed the new Islamophobia definition could stifle legitimate criticism of faith and freedom of speech. pic.twitter.com/mk5kYyNzIb

— GB News (@GBNEWS) March 11, 2026

Such monitoring creates a “chilling effect” on debate. It’s no surprise, given the regime’s pattern of stifling dissent. 

While all this is going on, the authorities are pushing propaganda depicting teenage white boys as terror threats.

The indoctrination is reaching into schools.

We have also highlighted earlier indoctrination efforts, including teaching children how to “spot extremist content and misinformation”. 

You can guess what constitutes that from the government’s perspective.

Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson announced she was “launching a review of the curriculum in primary and secondary schools to embed critical thinking across multiple subjects,” which really meant training kids to dismiss anything the state labels as “putrid conspiracy theories.” 

What started as spotting ‘fake news’ in English and maths has now morphed into policing playground sketches for blasphemy, all under the same veil of ‘critical thinking’ that stifles genuine inquiry and enforces ideological conformity.

The overreach also extends to online freedoms, with the government once again threatening to shut down X over Grok being recently prompted to produce ‘insults’ and ‘offensive language’.

Even national symbols aren’t safe from this all out assault on British culture. The leaked ‘Social Cohesion’ Strategy draft absurdly claims that “Flying a Union Jack flag is a ‘tool of hate’.

These interconnected policies reveal a clear agenda: under the guise of “cohesion,” the government is dismantling free speech and cultural expression. From classrooms to online platforms, the surveillance state expands, criminalizing everything from kids’ sketches to national flags.

The Batley Grammar School incident in 2021, where a teacher remains in hiding after showing a prophet image, underscores the real dangers of such accommodations. Yet instead of defending educators, authorities double down on restrictions.

This isn’t about harmony—it’s about control. As free-speech advocates warn, these measures inhibit legitimate criticism and debate, all while ignoring actual threats from unchecked migration and extremism.

Britain’s freedoms hang by a thread. Resisting this creeping authoritarianism means championing open discourse and national pride, rejecting a playbook that sacrifices liberty for appeasement.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Sat, 03/14/2026 - 07:00

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.

We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.