Zero Hedge

No 'Gentlemen's Agreement' With Russia To Continue Compliance With New Start Treaty: Top Official

No 'Gentlemen's Agreement' With Russia To Continue Compliance With New Start Treaty: Top Official

Via The Libertarian Institute 

Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control and Nonproliferation Christopher Yeaw said that there was no informal agreement between the US and Russia to maintain the limits on nuclear weapons imposed by the New Start Treaty. The pact expired earlier this month.

During an event at the Hudson Institute on Monday, Yeaw was asked if there was a "gentlemen’s agreement" with Moscow to abide by the New Start Treaty. He responded, "I know of no such agreement. And that is still in the President’s hands."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov explained that Moscow was willing to continue to comply with the New Start Treaty, but Washington did not respond to the proposal. "The initiative put forward by President Putin for the parties to the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms to continue voluntarily observing its central quantitative limits was left without an official response from the American side," he told the Russian Duma last week.

"We proceed from the understanding that the moratorium announced by President Putin remains in force on our side, but only as long as the United States does not exceed the above limits." Lavrov added, "We will act responsibly and in a balanced manner based on daily analysis of US military policy and the overall strategic environment."

Yeaw claimed that the death of the New Start Treaty could usher in a "Renaissance" of arms control. However, the outlook for a new treaty to cap nuclear weapons appears unlikely.

"The president certainly wants China in this agreement. I don’t know exactly the path that we will take to get there," he admitted.

"I imagine it will be a difficult one. I don’t think anyone is under any illusions that this will be easy. It wasn’t easy in 2020, we tried to get to a similar spot," Yeaw added.

The relationship between the US and Russia is at a historic low. Western sanctions have nearly eliminated trade with Russia, and NATO’s support for Ukraine has further eroded ties.

Additionally, President Donald Trump is demanding that any new nuclear deal include China. While Beijing is a nuclear power, its stockpile is far smaller than Washington’s and Moscow’s strategic arsenals.

Yeaw went on to say President Trump was considering testing a nuclear weapon. The Assistant Secretary asserted the US was confident China had conducted nuclear weapons tests in recent years. Yeaw argued that the US was at an "intolerable disadvantage" if it was maintaining a nuclear test ban while other countries were testing weapons [hint, hint: China].

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 17:40

GLP-1 Anti-Obesity U.S. Drug Market In Four Charts

GLP-1 Anti-Obesity U.S. Drug Market In Four Charts

Beyond the most recent GLP-1 feud between Hims & Hers and Novo Nordisk, UBS analysts shift attention to anti-obesity drug trends in the U.S. market for the first week of February.

Analysts led by Matthew Weston focused on new data that show new-to-brand prescriptions (NBRx) for starter doses and all doses across the major obesity GLP-1s in a series of charts:

Obesity GLP-1 starter dose NBRx (up to 2/6/2026)

GLP-1 starter dose NBRx trends (up to 2/6/2026)

GLP-1 starter dose NBRx market share (up to 2/6/2026)

Obesity GLP-1 all doses Total Prescriptions (TRx, up to 2/6/2026)

Weston concluded:

NBRx trends for Wegovy continue to look strong with an encouraging start to the Wegovy pill launch. The uptick in NBRx at the start of the year for Wegovy pen is also going in the right direction. Importantly, the high proportion of Wegovy NBRx pill to TRx and high proportion of Wegovy pill starter dose NBRx to total NBRx suggest that there is very little cannibalisation of Wegovy pen volumes through the pill launch. Further focus points later in the year will be Medicare coverage from July, high dose Wegovy (7.2mg) launch and competitive dynamics from LLY's orforglipron launch (UBSe April).

The latest GLP-1 headline came from Europe earlier on Tuesday, when the European Commission cleared Novo to use a higher 7.2 mg maintenance dose of Wegovy. This approval reinforces that even greater demand for semaglutide is inbound.

In markets, Novo shares in Copenhagen have been pummeled by market share losses to rival GLP-1 drugs, a public feud with Hims & Hers over copycat GLP-1 offerings, and a recently downbeat outlook for the year. Still, the stock’s downside momentum has eased in recent quarters, although it remains about 70% below its 2024 peak.

Meanwhile, Goldman analyst Faris Mourad previously told clients that "obesity drug narrative sentiment is on the rise" and "it's an opportunity to buy the dip." James Quigley (Novo superbull) has remained bullish during Novo's bear market.

Professional subscribers can read the full UBS GLP-1 note on our new Marketdesk.ai portal​​​.

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 17:20

Voter ID Is Common Sense, But It Won't Fix Anything

Voter ID Is Common Sense, But It Won't Fix Anything

Authored by Connor O'Keefe via The Mises Institute,

As panic builds within the GOP over the approaching midterm elections, Republicans have renewed a push for one of their most popular policy proposals: voter ID.

In the latest version of the so-called SAVE America Act—formerly just the SAVE Act—Congressional Republicans added a requirement for every voter in federal elections to provide poll workers with a valid government-issued photo ID if they’re voting in person or a copy of a valid photo ID if they’re voting by mail.

On Friday—a day after the House passed the law and sent it to the Senate—President Trump put out a post in support of voter ID requirements, which led Senate Democrats to issue familiar denunciations of the policy while promising to block this version of the bill.

The arguments in favor of voter ID are pretty straightforward. If every eligible American citizen is entitled to one vote, poll workers and election officials should confirm that the person voting is who they say they are, so that people cannot submit extra or fraudulent votes by pretending to be someone else. And the best way to do that is the same way identities are confirmed in most other clerical settings—with an officially-recognized photo ID.

The vast majority of Americans, including over 70 percent of Democrats, are in favor of this measure. But that hasn’t stopped top Democratic leaders and many of the Left’s most vocal activists from blocking legislation and loudly opposing any step towards a federal voter ID law.

However, the arguments most often made against voter ID do not stand up well to even the slightest scrutiny. 

First, opponents will often point out—correctly—that there is no undisputable evidence of “widespread” voter fraud. They’ll then use that fact to argue that voter ID is a burdensome solution to a fake problem.

But if there was an actual conspiracy to either foment or permit voter fraud in a way that successfully flipped an election, it would not be “widespread,” it would be targeted. Even in large national elections like the presidential race, the outcome is almost always decided by a small handful of precincts. So a conspiracy to commit or allow “widespread” voter fraud would not only be pointless, it would all but guarantee its discovery.

Next, critics often assert that an ID requirement would prevent millions of legitimate voters from casting their ballots because they do not currently have a valid photo ID. But if that’s really true, the emphasis has been in the wrong place. The difficulties faced by people without any form of photo ID go far beyond voting, since ID requirements have become an increasingly frequent aspect of American public life. The obvious way for politicians to fix that problem would be to make it easier for people to get photo IDs, not to leave all those clerical barriers in place while preserving a gap that could allow people to commit voter fraud.

Finally, with the SAVE America Act specifically, its opponents in Congress are trying to frame this as an illegal “nationalization” of elections. There may be something to this argument if Trump tries to do this through executive action. But the Constitution gives Congress a fair amount of control over federal elections, which it has used with recent legislation like the National Voter Registration Act, the Voting Rights Act, and the Help America Vote Act.

Overall, it’s quite clear that the arguments against voter ID are not genuine arguments but excuses to preserve a status quo that has been advantageous to the party making them.

The lopsided polling on this issue indicates that most people, in both parties, aren’t falling for these talking points anymore.

So even if the SAVE America Act stalls in the Senate, it is certainly possible that some version of voter ID will become federal law in the near future.

But while that would probably be great for Republican politicians, candidates, and RNC officials focused on beating Democrats in elections, there is no reason to think it alone will genuinely put this country on a better path.

Because, while there are indeed some meaningful differences between the parties which keep elections from becoming an entirely meaningless ritual, the lesson of the last twenty years—at least—is that people tend to significantly overestimate how much elections matter, and, in doing so, get distracted from the most malicious and damaging government programs, which tend to have quiet, bipartisan support.

In the past two decades, almost every single presidential election has been won by a so-called “change” candidate who presented themselves as a sharper departure from the status quo than their opponent.

Obama won in 2008 by presenting himself as a repudiation of the financial cronyism and foreign interventionism of the W. Bush years. Trump won in 2016 by campaigning against the foreign wars, lax immigration restrictions, and crony neoliberalism of both the establishment Democrats and Republicans. Even in 2020, Biden rode to victory on a wave of utter exhaustion with the chaos of Trump’s media war with the establishment and the pandemonium set off by the government’s response to the covid pandemic—presenting himself as an abrupt deviation back to the “normalcy” of the Obama years. Finally, in his second victory, Trump and his team presented themselves as being ready and able to really deliver all the change he had promised the first time around, having totally learned from their mistakes in the first term.

But each and every time, the “change” candidate ended up delivering the exact kind of crony, inflationist, interventionist status quo with, at most, a few minor and easily-reversible executive actions to keep their base happy for a bit.

As Ryan McMaken laid out in an article earlier this month, this shouldn’t surprise anybody who understands where power truly resides in this country. It does not lie mostly with the handful of bombastic politicians and political appointees who fill the heavily-televised halls and briefing rooms on Capitol Hill, at the White House, and in the various executive agencies, as we learn in elementary school.

The bulk of federal power lies with a large group of governing elites, most of whom are faceless, seemingly unimportant bureaucrats, “nonpartisan” federal officials, and well-connected heads of industry. And that class of people—call them the establishment, the political class, the elites, whatever—are not willing or interested in surrendering their power.

Primarily by using their institutional control to determine which candidates voters get the option of voting for, the established governing elites have brought about a comfortable political status quo for them where both major parties spend all their time fighting ferociously over issues that—while certainly not unimportant—pose no actual risk to the establishment’s interventionist, inflationist, crony rackets that are quietly expanding their power and transferring a tremendous amount of the American public’s wealth to the elites and their friends.

This has been great for the establishment. But the whole scheme requires keeping the population blind to how badly it’s being ripped off. And, as I hinted at above, one of the main ways the current governing elites in America do that is by aggressively playing up the differences between establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats, to keep us all in a state of perpetual certainty that nearly all of our current societal problems will be, if not solved, greatly diminished if “our party” just wins the next election.

Look back at the unbridled joy and overwhelming sense of accomplishment and hope that voters on both sides felt after their party won each of the elections I talked about before. With Obama in 2008, Trump in 2016, Biden in 2020, and Trump again in 2024, there was a palpable sense among their supporters after the election that the battle was won, and things would now, finally, be alright. The same goes for a lot of midterm elections—most famously the “Republican Revolution” in 1994 and the Democrats’ “Blue Wave” in 2018.

All that optimism looks almost delusional in hindsight, knowing where we’ve ended up. But that isn’t really the fault of the voters in question. They were deliberately tricked. Because there is no better way for the current elites to fortify their power than to convince roughly half of the population at any given time that they are in control now, that they are in power, that they are winning.

If we’re ever going to truly escape this awful status quo—as a sizable portion of the American public clearly desires—it won’t come from a policy like voter ID. It will happen once “both sides” understand that they are losing.

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 17:00

Teacher Loses Career Over Two-Word Facebook Post Supporting ICE

Teacher Loses Career Over Two-Word Facebook Post Supporting ICE

James Heidorn, who taught at Gary Elementary School in West Chicago, found himself at the center of a community firestorm that cost him not just his teaching position but his identity as an educator, all for posting two words on Facebook: "Go ICE." 

The incident began in late January when Heidorn, a 14-year physical education teacher, responded to a news story about a local police department pledging cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. His personal Facebook post sparked immediate backlash in the heavily Hispanic district, with local activists circulating screenshots and demanding action against him.

School officials quickly notified Heidorn on Jan. 22 about growing social media chatter.

After meeting with HR staff that same day, he resigned briefly, then rescinded his decision hours later.

He was set to return on Monday pending an investigation. The investigation never got that chance.

"This process has been professionally and personally devastating and surreal," former West Chicago teacher James Heidorn told Fox News Digital.

"I’ve spent 14 years building my career, pouring my heart into teaching kids, building relationships and being a positive role model. To see it all upended over two simple words, ‘Go ICE,’ where I expressed my personal support for law enforcement felt like a severe blow to my career."

Indeed, the outcry was relentless. 

Illinois state Sen. Karina Villa, a Democrat, publicly condemned the post.

"I stand in unwavering solidarity with families upset about the disturbing comments reportedly made by an educator," Villa said.

West Chicago Mayor Daniel Bovey joined the pile-on before any investigation concluded. In a Saturday Facebook video, he explained why Heidorn's comments were "hurtful" and "offensive" to the community.

"So to have someone cavalierly rooting on—as if it's a football game or something, yeah go—events which have traumatized these children… that is the issue," Bovey said.

Meanwhile, parents organized online, planning a boycott by keeping their kids from school, and the city held a “listening session” on Jan. 26 at Bovey’s request, complete with a Spanish translator. Attendees described the post as "cruel" and said "kids do not feel safe."

Heidorn maintained that his post meant nothing beyond supporting law enforcement.

"This started with a two-word comment on my personal Facebook page supporting law enforcement—nothing more," Heidorn said. "It wasn't directed at any student, family or school community."

The distinction made no difference to the community or to the school administrators.

"I was placed on leave and faced intense pressure before any full investigation or fair process could play out, with this it led to my resignation," Heidorn said. He resigned a second time rather than face termination after a hearing with school officials.

A West Chicago Elementary School District 33 spokesperson called the post "disruptive" and said it "raised concerns and caused disruption for students, families and staff." The district declined to specify which rule Heidorn violated or whether teachers who publicly disrupt in favor of opposing immigration enforcement would face similar consequences. In fact, teachers across the country have protested President Trump's immigration policies without repercussions. In Chicago specifically, teachers even stormed a Target and harassed employees over the same policies without losing their jobs. But expressing support for law enforcement in Chicago is apparently controversial. 

"It does feel like a double standard—due to my viewpoint being different from others within the community that I taught in," Heidorn said. "Fairness should apply equally, regardless of those viewpoints. If personal political speech is grounds for punishment, it should be consistent—not selective based on what side you're on."

The fallout extended beyond his teaching position. Heidorn lost his coaching job at a nearby private school. He must now inform future employers that he resigned and explain why. "I really don't know what is next for me, as the teaching profession has been, up to this point in time, all that I ever wanted to do," Heidorn said.

He earned a master's degree in educational leadership to become the best teacher possible. Now he spends time healing. "I lost my career, my income and the chance to close out my time with my students properly—no farewell, no goodbyes," Heidorn said.

Despite the loud outcry, Heidorn has received some local support, including a GoFundMe being set up for him. 

“James Heidorn, a beloved physical education teacher at Gary Elementary School, resigned after a single social media comment ignited outrage and a one-sided account that quickly spiraled beyond control,” the GoFundMe page reads. “What followed was not reflection or fairness, but permanent consequences that have changed the course of his life.”

As for his future, he’s not sure what’s going to happen.

"I really don’t know what is next for me, as the teaching profession has been, up to this point in time, all that I ever wanted to do," he said. "It is all I have ever studied for and teaching is what has defined me. Even advancing my education with a master's degree in educational leadership because I wanted to become the best teacher I can be."

Heidorn said he’s exploring other options in education or related fields. “I want people to know I’m grateful for the outpouring of support from those who reached out, donated or shared my story,” he said. “It reminds me that most people value fairness and second chances. I’m determined to move forward positively and keep contributing to kids’ lives in whatever way I can.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 16:40

Panics, Politics, & Power: America's 3 Experiments With Central Banks

Panics, Politics, & Power: America's 3 Experiments With Central Banks

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times,

The Federal Reserve, established more than a century ago, is the United States’ third experiment with central banking.

For much of its existence, the institution maintained a low public profile.

Only after the 2008 global financial crisis did the Fed begin communicating more openly, introducing post-meeting press conferences and allowing monetary policymakers to engage more frequently with the media.

Greater transparency, however, has brought greater scrutiny.

Public sentiment toward the Fed and its leadership has fluctuated over the years. Today, YouGov polling suggests the central bank is viewed favorably by 44 percent of Americans and unfavorably by 18 percent.

If the Fed pursues a series of reforms, it will have “another great 100 years,” said Kevin Warsh, who was nominated by President Donald Trump to serve as the institution’s next chair.

Comparable to past central banks, Warsh said, the current Federal Reserve System is beginning to lose the consent of the governed.

“You can think about the Jacksonians of prior times say that the central bank seems like they’re trying to focus and they’re all preoccupied with those special interests on the East Coast, and they’ve lost track of what’s happening to us in the center of the country,” Warsh said in a July 2025 interview with the Hoover Institution’s Peter Robinson.

“It’s a version of what worries me today.”

What happened in the past, and why is it relevant to today’s central bank?

The First Bank of the United States

In the aftermath of the American Revolution, the United States faced a series of immense economic disruptions, forcing the nation’s architects to rebuild the economy.

The objective was to lower inflation, restore the value of the nation’s currency, repay war debt, and revive the economy.

Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury under the new Constitution, proposed establishing a national bank modeled on the Bank of England. Hamilton stated that a U.S. version would perform various duties, including issuing paper money, serving as the government’s fiscal agent, and protecting public funds.

Not everyone shared Hamilton’s ebullience over a central bank.

Thomas Jefferson, for example, feared that such an institution would not serve the nation’s best interests. Additionally, Jefferson and other critics argued that the Constitution did not grant the government the authority to create these entities.

Nevertheless, Congress enacted legislation to establish the Bank of the United States. President George Washington then signed the bill in February 1791.

Two of America's founding fathers: Thomas Jefferson (L) and Alexander Hamilton. The White House

While bank officials did not conduct monetary policy as modern central banks do, they did influence the supply of money and credit, as well as interest rates.

The entity managed the money supply by controlling when to redeem or retain state‑bank notes. If it sought to tighten credit, it would require payment in gold or silver, thereby draining state banks’ reserves and limiting their ability to issue new notes. If it wanted to expand credit, it simply held on to those notes, boosting state‑bank reserves and enabling them to lend more.

By 1811, the national bank’s charter expired.

While there had been discussions of allowing it to continue maintaining operations, Congress—both chambers—voted against renewing its mandate by a single vote.

Its closure came shortly before the War of 1812, which fueled inflation and weakened the currency.

Second Bank of the United States

Lawmakers believed another central bank was critical at a time of fiscal, inflationary, and trade pressures.

Congress used a similar 20-year model to produce the Second Bank of the United States, headed by Nicholas Biddle. The second incarnation had a federal charter, was privately owned, and was tasked with regulating state banks (with gold and silver for note redemption).

President James Madison, who opposed the first central bank on constitutional grounds, supported the new institution out of financial necessity.

Its creation stabilized credit and brought down inflation. However, by the 1830s, the bank faced strong opposition, particularly from President Andrew Jackson.

Labeled the Bank War, Jackson engaged in a years-long initiative to dissolve the central bank.

Jackson claimed the national bank was a tool for the wealthy eastern elite and a threat to self-government.

“The Jacksonians described themselves as conscious hard-money men who supported the rigid discipline of the gold standard, yet they opposed the newly powerful national Bank because it restrained the expansion of credit and, thus, thwarted robust economic expansion,” author William Greider wrote in “Secrets of the Temple.”

In 1832, Jackson vetoed legislation to recharter the bank four years early, delivering a fiery message that historians say was one of the most important vetoes in the nation’s history.

“It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government,” Jackson wrote.

“There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses. If it would confine itself to equal protection, and, as Heaven does its rains, shower its favors alike on the high and the low, the rich and the poor, it would be an unqualified blessing. In the act before me, there seems to be a wide and unnecessary departure from these just principles.”

The charter expired in 1836, leading to the panic of 1837.

An economic crisis unfolded, leading to bank failures, business bankruptcies, rising unemployment, and contracting credit. While the collapse of the central bank is often considered a leading cause, the British also urged London banks to reduce credit to American merchants, causing a sharp drop in global trade.

As the smoke cleared and dust settled, it was not until the 1840s that the United States embarked on a historic economic recovery, now known as the Free Banking Era.

Banking was decentralized, and finance was largely unregulated. Despite an erratic financial system, the U.S. economy grew rapidly: agricultural production accelerated, railroads were built, and the country expanded westward. Additionally, deflation was paramount throughout most of the economic expansion.

The Federal Reserve System

The panic of 1907 led to the creation of the Federal Reserve System.

Following years of heavy borrowing, speculative commodities investments (mainly copper), and enormous stock market gains, a financial crisis was brewing. The event nearly brought down the U.S. banking system.

J.P. Morgan, a financier, intervened and emulated the actions of modern central banks. He met with the nation’s top bankers, facilitated emergency loans to financial institutions, and backed stockbrokers. The damage had been done as the United States fell into a year-long recession, marked by high unemployment and widespread bank failures.

The Federal Reserve Board of Governors seal in Washington on Oct. 29, 2025. Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times

Washington realized that it could not rely on private bailouts to prevent sharp downturns.

Sen. Nelson Aldrich (R-R.I.) is widely regarded as one of the chief architects of the modern Federal Reserve System.

In 1910, Aldrich hosted the famous Jekyll Island meetings, a gathering of U.S. officials and bankers, to discuss the blueprint of a new central bank.

While the initial draft laid the foundation for the institution, the official Federal Reserve Act was drafted by President Woodrow Wilson, Rep. Carter Glass (D-Va.), and H. Parker Willis, an economist on the House Banking Committee.

The new system was a public-private hybrid, with the federal government firmly in charge, and bankers running the regional reserve banks.

“It was Wilson’s great compromise,” wrote Greider, “creating a hybrid institution that mixed private and public control, an approach without precedent at the time.”

The legislation triggered a contentious political debate over the extent of its independence from the Treasury and the degree of authority delegated to policymakers over currency issuance.

Days before Christmas, the bill cleared both chambers and was signed into law by Wilson on Dec. 23.

“Wilson’s conviction that he had struck the right moderate balance seemed confirmed, however, by the reactions to his legislation,” Greider noted.

“It was attacked by both extremes—the ‘radicals’ from the Populist states and the bankers in Wall Street and elsewhere.”

Since its inception in 1913, the modern Federal Reserve has undergone numerous changes and has gained greater power.

The New Deal, for instance, allowed the Fed to become the lender of last resort as Washington learned the central bank could not prevent bank failures.

In 1951, the Treasury-Fed Accord restored central bank independence after the Federal Reserve had been forced to keep interest rates artificially low throughout the Second World War.

Congress then enacted the Federal Reserve Reform Act in 1977, establishing the dual mandate of promoting maximum employment and maintaining price stability.

2026 and Beyond

Over the past 50 years, the Fed has undergone modest changes, including the issuance of forward guidance and the disclosure of emergency lending facilities.

But while each new regime has nibbled around the edges, Warsh has suggested he could effect substantial reforms at the central bank.

“Until there’s regime change at the Fed and new people running the Fed, a new operating framework, they’re stuck with their old mistakes,” Warsh told Fox Business Network in October 2025.

“Bygones aren’t just bygones.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 16:20

Three Key Constraints That Could Derail The Data Center Buildout Story

Three Key Constraints That Could Derail The Data Center Buildout Story

The data center investment macro story centers on hyperscalers such as Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, and Amazon Web Services, whose massive cloud computing services are becoming the backbone for AI workloads, including ChatGPT and others. However, as we've previously noted, the data center buildout has run into supply-chain snarls, including memory chip shortages, power-grid constraints, and even a shortage of turbine blades for natural-gas generators.

The data center boom powering the AI revolution is certaintly impressive to watch unfold, but it won't be a straight line from here as the US attempts to hold the number one spot in the global AI race. Challenges are mounting, and the latest coverage on this comes from a conversation Goldman analyst Brian Singer had with Mark Monroe, a former principal engineer in Microsoft's Datacenter Advanced Development Group, who warned that data center buildouts face three major headwinds.

Here's a recap of the conversation between Singer and Monroe, which focused on three key constraints: power, water, and labor.

1. Energy: Power remains the most critical near-term constraint for data center deployment, while flexible load management and Behind-the-Meter solutions could help close the power gap. While cloud and AI inference workloads generally require proximity to end-users -- creating power shortages in these congested markets -- AI training workloads are location-agnostic and migrating to remote areas with available power. Grid conditioning or flexible load management for data centers during peak electricity consumption could unlock significant capacity. A Duke University study suggested that 76 GW of new load (10% of US aggregate peak demand) could be integrated if data centers accepted average annual load curtailment of 0.25% (99.75% up time) and 98 GW added for curtailment of 0.5% (99.5% up time). While this could potentially unlock ~100 GW of capacity, Mr. Monroe notes that adoption: (a) is hindered by the industry's inherent risk aversion of cycling IT equipment off and on; and (b) may require stronger financial or regulatory incentives.

Behind-the-Meter power is a costly and likely temporary bridge to initial grid gaps. While a single digit percentage of data centers in the pipeline have BTM requests, Mr. Monroe highlighted this can still be significant for power demand given these are typically larger data centers. Primarily deploying natural gas simple cycle generators, onsite power solutions cost 5x-20x more than grid power. However, Mr. Monroe highlighted that deploying BTM solutions to push forward data center startups can be an economically viable choice given the immense profitability of large scale AI data centers. According to Mr. Monroe, data centers deploying BTM power ultimately aim to connect to the grid eventually over three years, while either relocating to other data centers, integrating and selling power back into the grid, or retiring BTM assets.

2. Water: Community, regulatory and chip advancement pressures likely to shift the industry towards more water-efficient cooling technologies coming at significant energy costs. The industry is seeing a shift from the traditional water-intensive evaporative approaches towards more waterless designs, especially among hyperscalers, as community, regulatory and technological pressure mounts. According to Mr. Monroe, the shift towards closed-loop and waterless cooling systems is likely to raise Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) from best-in-class levels of 1.08 to 1.35-1.40, representing a 35%-40% energy overhead versus 8% in evaporative systems. Although innovations such as direct-to-chip liquid cooling and higher-temperature water cooling could enable more efficient heat transfer in more geographic locations, co-location data centers are likely to remain committed to chiller-based designs given their diverse customer base and need to commit to cooling architecture early in construction. Regardless of any diminishing share of overall data center cooling solutions, according to Mr. Monroe the demand for chillers is expected to continue to see a material increase over the next decade, driven by overall growth in data center capacity.

3. Labor: Skilled labor shortage could become the next gating factor for data center deployment. Data centers are differentiated from generic industrial buildings by the specialized electrical and mechanical systems required, making electricians and pipefitters critical to the continued data center build out. According to Mr. Monroe, the skilled labor shortage represents the next major constraint after power. Industry organizations, in collaboration with technical universities and colleges, are actively developing training programs to address this gap, while attempting to reach students as early as middle school to make skilled trades more attractive career paths. We estimate the US will require >500,000 net new workers across manufacturing, construction, ops & maintenance, and transmission and distribution to deploy all the power to meet demand by 2030.

Related coverage:

Looking ahead, the key question is whether the U.S. can sustain a largely uninterrupted surge in data center capex, given how much these buildouts are now embedded in both the macro narrative and tech valuations. The investment thesis assumes that continued buildout translates into measurable productivity gains and, in turn, a multi-year uplift in growth. Overall, the execution risk boils down to critical inputs and infrastructure, including core components, grid access, and related supply chain bottlenecks, which could slow buildouts and stymie overly optimistic expectations.

To bypass these ground-based constraints, that's why the narrative of data centers in space has emerged.

Professional subscribers can see the full note on our new Marketdesk.ai portal​​​​.

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 15:25

Calm Market Waters Hide Fierce Undercurrents

Calm Market Waters Hide Fierce Undercurrents

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The price movement in the broad S&P 500 index is relatively calm. Yet the market’s undercurrent, as measured by sharply diverging returns across stock sectors and factors, is anything but calm. The current market picture we paint is well embodied by a quote from Jules Verne in 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.

“The sea was perfectly calm; scarcely a ripple disturbed its surface. But beneath this tranquil exterior, powerful currents were flowing with irresistible force.”

Given this divergence between the calm market surface and the volatility of its underlying stocks’ returns, let’s get a better grip on the market’s undercurrent and decipher what it may be trying to tell us.

A Calm Market

The graph below shows that the S&P 500’s upward trend has recently flattened into a tight range with minimal volatility. Such consolidation is common after a sharp upward price trend, as the market experienced since early April. 

The next graph shows the average true range (ATR) for the index. ATR is a measure of realized volatility. As we define it, ATR is the percentage difference between the highest and lowest intraday prices over a rolling 20-day period. The current ATR is only about 3%, near the bottom of the range since 2015. It is also less than half the ten-year average.

Both charts point to a relatively calm market with limited volatility. It’s worth noting that implied volatility (expected volatility) on the S&P 500 is around 20. While not low, it doesn’t suggest that investors expect significant volatility in the weeks ahead.

The Markets Undercurrent

While the broad S&P 500 market index is relatively calm, its undercurrent is anything but tranquil. Significant rotation trades, characterized by heavy trading activity in and out of various sectors and factors, have led to large daily divergences in the performance of certain sectors and stock factors.

We use the dispersion of returns to quantify the market’s fierce undercurrent. For this article, we take the 20-day percentage price changes for sector and factor groups and then calculate the standard deviation of those changes. The more divergent the returns, the higher the standard deviation.

The first graph below shows that the current standard deviation of returns across all sectors is at its second-highest level since early 2023.

The following graph uses factors such as growth and value, market cap, and momentum. It also shows that returns among various factors are highly dispersed.

Next, we share a graph, courtesy of Nomura, that delves deeper into the recent dispersion. It compares the average move for all S&P 500 stocks over the last 20 days to that of the S&P 500 index.  As the graph shows, the relative volatility of individual stock returns versus the market is now at levels last seen during the financial crisis and the dotcom crash.  

Cross-Sector Correlation

To further quantify the market’s strong undercurrent, we examine the correlation of returns among the S&P 500 sectors.  The first table shows the correlation between the weekly returns thus far this year. The second table is for 2025.

In 2026, the average correlation among all sectors is a mere 0.066, compared to the statistically significant 0.517 in 2025. Moreover, the standard deviation of the correlations is much greater this year than last year. This, as with the graphs above, further indicates that the various sectors are currently showing a large divergence in weekly returns compared to last year.

We also ran the average correlation from 2019 through 2025, including the tumultuous pandemic sell-off and sharp recovery, and arrived at an average correlation of .68 and a standard deviation of .175.

Our Takeaway

The market’s surface may look calm, but beneath it, passive investors are actively shifting between narratives, valuations, and risk exposures. This reflects changing sentiment among investors about economic growth, inflation, monetary and fiscal policy, and the current political leadership.

Historically, periods of elevated sector dispersion tend to occur during market transitions rather than steadily trending bull or bear markets. However, high dispersion after a long bullish trend is not automatically bearish. It may just represent the market searching for its next regime rather than distress.

Furthermore, as we shared, high sector and factor dispersion is occurring alongside low cross-sector correlations. Typically, correlations between stocks are high during periods of crisis. As the old saying goes, “correlations go to one during a crisis.”

Therefore, if correlations begin to rise and the market heads lower, the recent bout of high dispersion may not be a lasting shift in investor preferences but an omen of a downward trend. 

Summary

Periods of high return dispersion are an opportunity for investors. As return performance gaps widen and valuation spreads develop, the ability to quantify the current rotation regime and anticipate the next one can deliver outperformance relative to the broader index.

While the calm market undercurrent is fierce, it is in and of itself not of great concern. But, as we noted earlier, if we start to see returns among sectors and factors become more aligned, especially downwardly, our concern will heighten.

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 14:15

FOMC Minutes Confirm Divided Fed: "Several" Suggest Rate-Hikes Possible, Fear Private Credit "Vulnerabilities"

FOMC Minutes Confirm Divided Fed: "Several" Suggest Rate-Hikes Possible, Fear Private Credit "Vulnerabilities"

Since the last FOMC meeting (where they held rates with two dovish dissents) on Jan 28th, Bitcoin has been the biggest underperformer (along with gold) while bonds and the dollar have rallied with stocks lagging...

Source: Bloomberg

March is 'off the table' for a rate-cut now (following last week's payrolls beat) but overall 2026 rate-cut expectations are dovishly higher since the last FOMC meeting...

Source: Bloomberg

With macro data confirming Powell's positive narrative (for now)

Source: Bloomberg

With Growth surprising to the upside and inflation drifting lower...

Source: Bloomberg

Today's Minutes could be more interesting than recent months since The Fed displayed a hawkish tone with Powell talking up a “clear improvement” in the US outlook during the press conference, and said the job market shows signs of steadying.

So here's what The Fed wanted you to know about the last FOMC Meeting:

A very divided Fed sees more rate-cuts (or hikes) possible and embraces lower inflation (and fears higher inflation)...

Almost all supported maintaining 3.50-3.75%, while a couple preferred a 25bps cut, citing restrictive policy and labor market risks; "some" judged rates should be held steady for some time.

(h/t Newsquawk)

Policy outlook & rate guidance

  • Almost all supported maintaining 3.50-3.75%, while a couple preferred a 25 basis point cut, citing restrictive policy and labor market risks.

  • Several said further rate cuts would likely be appropriate if inflation declines as expected.

  • Some judged rates should be held steady for some time pending clearer disinflation evidence.

  • Some said it would likely be appropriate to hold the policy rate steady for some time while assessing incoming data.

  • A number judged further easing may not be warranted until clear evidence shows disinflation is firmly back on track.

  • Several favored two-sided guidance, noting upward adjustments could be appropriate if inflation remains above target.

  • Vast majority saw downside employment risks as moderated, while inflation persistence risks remained; some judged risks more balanced.

  • Several warned further easing amid elevated inflation could signal reduced commitment to 2% goal.

  • A few cautioned overly restrictive policy could significantly weaken labor conditions.

Neutral rate & financial conditions

  • Those favoring no change said, after 75 basis points of cuts last year, policy was within estimates of neutral.

  • Most expected growth support from favorable financial conditions, fiscal policy, or regulatory changes.

Inflation views

  • Inflation had eased markedly from 2022 highs but remained somewhat elevated relative to 2%.

  • Elevated readings largely reflected core goods boosted by tariffs; some noted continued disinflation in core services, especially housing.

  • Most cautioned progress toward 2% may be slower and uneven; risk of persistent above-target inflation seen as meaningful.

  • Some cited business contacts planning price increases this year due to cost pressures, including tariffs.

  • Several said sustained demand pressures could keep inflation elevated.

  • Several expected ongoing housing services moderation to exert downward pressure on inflation.

  • Several anticipated higher productivity growth would help restrain inflation.

  • A few reported firms automating to offset costs, reducing need to raise prices or cut margins.

  • Most longer-term inflation expectations remained consistent with 2%; several noted near-term expectations had declined from spring peaks.

Labor market & growth

  • Most said unemployment, layoffs and vacancies suggested stabilization after gradual cooling.

  • Almost all observed layoffs remained low but hiring was also subdued.

  • Several said contacts remained cautious on hiring amid outlook and AI uncertainty.

  • Some cited lower net immigration as contributing to weak job gains.

  • Vast majority judged stabilization signs and diminished downside labor risks.

  • Most nonetheless said downside labor risks remained, including sharp unemployment increases in a low-hiring environment.

  • Some pointed to soft survey measures and part-time for economic reasons as signs of lingering weakness.

  • Activity seen expanding at solid pace; consumer spending resilient, supported by household wealth.

  • Several cited disparity between strong higher-income and soft lower-income consumer spending.

  • Several noted robust business investment, particularly in technology; several judged productivity gains would support growth.

FOMC Minutes explicitly state high valuations, Mag 7 concentration, off-balance sheet funding, K-shaped economy and hedge funds piling into basis trades: 

  • In their discussion of financial stability, several participants commented on high asset valuations and historically low credit spreads.

  • Some participants discussed potential vulnerabilities associated with recent developments in the AI sector, including elevated equity market valuations, high concentration of market values and activities in a small number of firms, and increased debt financing.

  • A few participants commented that the financing of the AI-related infrastructure buildout in opaque private markets warranted monitoring.

  • Several participants highlighted vulnerabilities associated with the private credit sector and its provision of credit to riskier borrowers, including risks related to interconnections with other types of nonbank financial institutions, such as insurance companies, and banks' exposure to this sector.

  • Several participants commented on risks associated with hedge funds, including their growing footprint in Treasury and equity markets, rising leverage, and continued expansion of relative value trades that could make the Treasury market more vulnerable to shocks.

  • A couple of participants commented that although consumer credit quality remained solid in the aggregate, there were signs of weakness in the financial positions of low- and medium-income households.

  • A few participants noted the need to monitor potential spillovers from volatility in global bond markets and foreign exchange.

Finally, The Fed commented on the yen "rate check" on behalf of the BOJ

"In the days leading up to the meeting, the dollar had depreciated markedly after reports that the Desk had made requests for indicative quotes, known as "rate checks," on the dollar–yen exchange rate.

The manager noted that the Desk had requested those quotes solely on behalf of the U.S. Treasury in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York's role as the fiscal agent for the U.S."

Read the full FOMC Minutes below:

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 14:10

Nestle Weighs Scaling Back Ice Cream Unit As Investors Seek Turnaround Plan From CEO

Nestle Weighs Scaling Back Ice Cream Unit As Investors Seek Turnaround Plan From CEO

Update (1405ET)

Nestlé SA reports full-year results on Thursday. Ahead of the release and investor call, CEO Philipp Navratil is expected to outline a turnaround plan, while a new report says the Swiss foodmaker is considering a smaller footprint in its ice cream business.

People familiar with the discussions told Bloomberg:

The Swiss food giant has been studying possibilities including cutting its stake in Froneri, an ice cream joint venture with private equity firm PAI Partners which includes brands like Häagen-Dazs and Mövenpick, according to the people. It could also consider selling some of its remaining fully owned ice cream operations to the Froneri venture, one of the people said.

Deliberations are ongoing and there's no certainty a deal will eventually materialize. PAI could opt to increase its stake in Froneri if Nestlé decides to cut its holding, or the Swiss group could sell part of its Froneri stake to another investor like the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority, according to some of the people.

Shares of Nestlé are trading at 2018-2019 levels as the food giant grapples with the fallout from the infant formula crisis.

Analysts will focus on Navratil's turnaround plan, expected to be unveiled tomorrow, with hopes that it will provide enough confidence for investors to lift shares from depressed levels."

*   *   *  

Nestlé SA CEO Philipp Navratil is feeling the heat after the world's largest food company recently carried out the biggest recall in its history, pulling infant formula off supermarket shelves after a contaminated ingredient was discovered in late 2025. Shares have taken a beating, and scrutiny of the recall is intensifying, with prosecutors in Europe opening an investigation.

Navratil and his management team are expected to present a turnaround plan for the Swiss foodmaker on Thursday, following the December recall of its infant formulas. Multiple production sites were found to have cereulide, a toxin that can cause nausea and vomiting.

French authorities have received complaints from eight consumers who say their children vomited after consuming Nestlé baby formula, prompting Paris prosecutors to open investigations. In the UK, there have also been 36 reports of suspected food poisoning linked to baby formula consumption.

BBC News provided more color to those investigations:

Prosecutors in Paris will seek to establish whether the baby formula producers are liable for distributing a tainted product. It will be co-ordinated with local probes into whether there was a causal link between the contaminated formula and the deaths of three babies in France. Nestlé and France's health ministry have stressed there was as-yet no evidence to indicate such a link.

In Switzerland, the food giant's shares are little changed year to date, with uncertainty surrounding the baby formula debacle still hanging over sentiment. Zooming out, the stock has retraced to 2018-19 levels.

Vontobel analyst Jean-Philippe Bertschy told clients, "The pressure is enormous ... and full-year results have become almost anecdotal, as investors are now squarely focused on the robustness of quality controls in the infant nutrition case and on the strategic update pledged by the new management team."

Investors' attention now shifts to Thursday, when the Swiss giant reports full-year results and is expected to unveil its turnaround plan.

Bloomberg noted, "Thursday's strategy update may include a reorganization to streamline businesses. Navratil has signaled that he wants to focus on four core divisions — pet care, coffee, nutrition and health, and food and snacking — while centralizing functions such as marketing, an area the company did not invest enough in during years of short-term margin expansion."

Vontobel's Bertschy said, "It will be crucial that we receive an update on some of the under-performing units, how they want to reduce the net debt level and how they plan to accelerate the free cash flow. The market will look for a precise roadmap rather than another broad reassurance – a plan that is clearly underpinned by concrete actions, milestones and measurable commitments."

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 14:05

Trump DOJ Blocks Largest Copper, Gold, And Silver Extraction Site In The US Over Salmon, Sending Stock Tumbling

Trump DOJ Blocks Largest Copper, Gold, And Silver Extraction Site In The US Over Salmon, Sending Stock Tumbling

In a move that has sent shockwaves through the mining industry, the Trump administration has blocked what would have been the largest copper, gold, silver, and molybdenum extraction site in the United States, after the DOJ filed a 143-page brief late Tuesday defending the Biden Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2023 veto of the controversial Pebble Mine project in Alaska's Bristol Bay region.

Workers with the Pebble Mine project test drill in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska, near the village of Iliamma, on July 13, 2007 (Al Grillo / AP)

If built, the Pebble mine would produce 6.4 billion lb. of copper, 7.4 million oz of gold, and 300 lb. of molybdenum - along with 37 million ounces of silver and 200,000 kg of rhenium over 20 years, according to a 2023 economic study cited by mining.com.

The DOJ argues that the EPA correctly found that discharges from the mining operation would cause unacceptable adverse affects on salmon fisheries

"This precedent will be used by future Democratic administrations to reverse all of the progress this administration has made with its pro-energy, pro-mining, pro-development agenda," said Northern Dynasty president and CEO Ron Thiessen, calling the move "surprising." 

As a result, the stock (NAK) is down as much as 45% in Wednesday trade.

History: 

2001: Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. acquires mining claims for the Pebble deposit, a large low-grade copper-gold-molybdenum ore body in the Bristol Bay watershed. PLP (Pebble Limited Partnership), a subsidiary, begins data collection for large-scale mining.

2010: The Obama EPA announces that it would be conducting a scientific assessment under the Clean Water Act to evaluate large-scale mining impacts on Bristol Bay's water quality and salmon resources.

2014: BLOCKED! The EPA issues a Proposed Determination under Section 404(c) to restrict discharges in Pebble area waters due to risks to salmon habitat. 

2017: during the first Trump administration, the EPA reversed course - proposing a withdrawal of the 2014 determination, which was finalized in 2019 (the withdrawal). 

2022: The Biden EPA hits back, reversing the reversal - essentially putting the project on ice again. 

January 2023: The Biden EPA issues a final veto determination to kill the project.

July 2023: Alaska files a motion with the US Supreme Court to challenge the Biden EPA.

March 2024: Northern Dynasty files a separate complaint challenging the EPA. 

June 2024: Iliamna Natives Ltd. et al. (Alaska Native Corporations) file a complaint challenging the EPA. 

November 12, 2024: US District Court for Alaska consolidates the three cases

February 17, 2026: Trump DOJ files opposition brief defending the Biden EPA's final determination

The longer version: 

The story starts in 2001, when Vancouver-based Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. acquired mining claims for the Pebble deposit, a massive low-grade ore body estimated to hold billions of pounds of critical metals essential for green energy transitions and national security. Early exploration revealed its potential to become North America's largest mine, but its location in the headwaters of Bristol Bay - home to diverse salmon populations and vital aquatic habitats - quickly raised red flags.

Satellite Map of Proposed Pebble Mine and Bristol Bay project (Flickr)

By 2010, the EPA launched a scientific assessment under Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 104(a)-(b) to evaluate the risks of large-scale mining on the region's water quality and fisheries, setting the stage for over a decade of scrutiny.

The environmental concerns crystallized in January 2014 with the release of the Bristol Bay Watershed Assessment (BBA), a comprehensive study highlighting potential negative impacts from mining discharges, including habitat loss for salmon. This led to a July 2014 Proposed Determination under CWA Section 404(c) to restrict waste disposal in the area. However, pushback was swift: In November 2014, a U.S. District Court in Alaska issued a preliminary injunction halting the process amid lawsuits from Pebble Limited Partnership (PLP). 

In 2017, Trump's first term ushered in what investors in NAK thought was going to be a slam dunk. By July 2017, the EPA proposed withdrawing its 2014 determination - which was finalized in August 2019, clearing a path forward.

Progress accelerated in 2020. PLP revised its "2020 Mine Plan" in June, outlining a 20-year operation to extract 1.3 billion tons of ore, but acknowledging significant environmental costs: the loss of 8.5 miles of salmon-bearing streams, 91 miles of supporting streams, and over 2,000 acres of wetlands.

The Corps' Final EIS in July detailed these impacts, yet the permit was denied in November 2020 for failing to comply with 404(b)(1) Guidelines and public interest standards. PLP appealed in January 2021.

Ping Pong Intensifies

The tide turned again in October 2021, when a court vacated the Trump EPA's 2019 withdrawal, reviving the veto process. By January 2022, the Biden EPA announced a new 404(c) review, leading to a January 2023 Final Determination: a prohibition on discharges at the mine site in the South Fork Koktuli (SFK) and North Fork Koktuli (NFK) watersheds, and restrictions elsewhere in SFK, NFK, and Upper Talarik Creek (UTC) to protect salmon fishery areas.

Litigation intensified post-veto. Alaska sought Supreme Court intervention in July 2023 (denied January 2024), while Northern Dynasty filed its challenge in March 2024 (Case No. 3:24-cv-00059). The State of Alaska followed in April 2024 (No. 3:24-cv-00084), and Iliamna Natives Ltd. et al. in June 2024 (No. 3:24-cv-00132). The Corps denied PLP's permit without prejudice on April 15, 2024, citing the EPA's action. The EPA lodged its administrative record in August 2024, and the cases were consolidated on November 12, 2024.

Plaintiffs submitted summary judgment briefs on October 3, 2025, leading to the DOJ's recent filing backing the Biden EPA and sticking a fork in the eye of NAK longs

 

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 13:35

Yields Jump After Extremely Ugly, Tailing 20Y Auction Sees Lowest Foreign Demand Since 2021

Yields Jump After Extremely Ugly, Tailing 20Y Auction Sees Lowest Foreign Demand Since 2021

The week's lone coupon auction, was also one of the ugliest 20Y auctions since its inception in May 2020.

Moments ago, the Treasury sold $16 billion in 20Y paper in an especially disappointing auction: here are the details.

The auction stopped at a high yield of 4.664%, down from 4.846% in January and the lowest since October. It tailed the When Issued 4.644% by a whopping 2bps, the biggest tail since November 2024.

Going down the list, the Cid to Cover tumbled to 2.36 from 2.86 (one of the highest on record), the lowest btc since (also) November 2024. 

The internals were also dismal, as foreign buyers fled. Indirects took down just 55.167%, down from 64.715% in January and the second lowest on record (only Feb 2021 was worse).

And with Directs awarded 27.2%, down from 29.1% in January but above the recent average of 26.9%, Dealers were left with 17.6%, the highest since December 2024.

Overall, this was an extremely ugly auction, and one which dragged both 10Y and 30Y yields to session highs after the break. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 13:27

US Threatens To Quit IEA Over Green Energy Advocacy

US Threatens To Quit IEA Over Green Energy Advocacy

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

The United States has threatened, once again, to quit the International Energy Agency (IEA) if the organization, created in the aftermath of the 1970s Arab oil embargo, doesn’t return to forecasting energy demand without strongly promoting green energy.

“If it goes back to what it was — it was a fabulous international data recording agency, it was getting into critical minerals, was focused on big energy issues — we’re all in on that,” U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright said ahead of an IEA ministerial meeting this week.

“But if they insist that it’s so dominated and infused with climate stuff — yes, then we’re out,” Secretary Wright said ahead of the meeting, as carried by Bloomberg

Last November, the IEA dropped its predictions that oil demand growth would peak in a matter of a few years in the first major shift since it started promoting net-zero and green energy early this decade.

The tension between the Trump Administration and the IEA has escalated in recent months. 

A House committee last summer approved a bill that the U.S. withdraw its funding to the IEA, as the Republican lawmakers consider that the agency has strayed from its mission to safeguard energy security and has been pushing green energy policies instead.   

In July 2025, Secretary Wright said that the United States could abandon the IEA if the organization continues with its strong advocacy for renewables and doesn’t return to rational analysis of energy demand and promoting energy security.   

“We will do one of two things: we will reform the way the IEA operates or we will withdraw,” Wright told Bloomberg in an interview in the middle of July. 

“My strong preference is to reform it,” Secretary Wright added.  

The official echoed voices in the U.S. Republican party that the agency has become an advocate of the energy transition and is not objective in forecasting energy demand trends.

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 12:50

New Mexico Launches Probe Into What Happened At Epstein's 'Zorro Ranch'

New Mexico Launches Probe Into What Happened At Epstein's 'Zorro Ranch'

Until now, the public's visualizations of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal have largely centered on his Caribbean Island and his seven-story New York townhouse, but a new setting is poised to take greater prominence, as the New Mexico legislature just launched a wide-ranging investigation into what took place at Epstein's "Zorro Ranch" about 30 miles south of Santa Fe. One line of inquiry focuses on a redacted email in the DOJ files alleging that two "foreign girls" were buried on the property.   

Multiple women have claimed they were abused at Epstein's Zorro Ranch when they were under 18 years old

“He was basically doing anything he wanted in this state without any accountability whatsoever,” New Mexico state Representative Andrea Romero, a Democrat who co-sponsored the probe, told NBC News. She said there's no indication that the FBI ever searched the property

With a $2.5 million budget approved by unanimous vote of the legislature, a "truth commission" of Democrats and Republicans will head up the probe into potential criminal activity on the 7,600-acre property that features both a 26,700-square-foot mansion and guest houses. Legislators are urging victims to come forward, but multiple accusations of sexual misconduct at the ranch have already been made. For example: 

  • Annie Farmer, who testified at Ghislaine Maxwell's trial, said Maxwell gave her a nude massage there when Farmer was 16 years old -- and that, the next morning, Epstein entered her bed and "pressed his body" into hers. 

  • A victim identifed as "Jane" testified that she was taken to the ranch and abused when she was only 14 years old. “I just remember someone, at one point, just came into [my] room and said: ‘Jeffrey wants to see you,’ and then escorted me to see him.”

  • The late Virginia Giuffre claimed to have been abused at the ranch, and that Epstein partner-in-crime Ghislaine Maxwell instructed her to "massage" former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson there -- with "massage" mutually understood to mean sexual intimacy. 

  • A Santa Fe massage therapist accused Epstein of sexually abusing her at the ranch. 

The most disturbing but least-substantiated claim was made anonymously -- an email in the possession of the DOJ said two females were buried in the hills near the ranch.  Last week, the New Mexico Chief of Criminal Affairs asked the DOJ to give his department "immediate access to a complete, unredacted version of file EFTA01250229" along with forensic information associated with the email and any DOJ documents associated with it.  

Are two sex-strangulation victims buried in these hills? 

According to the Albuquerque Journal, the email was sent to a local radio host in 2019, written by someone claiming to be a former worker at the ranch. The author claimed that Epstein and Maxwell ordered the bodies of two foreign girls to buried in the hills. The girls were said to have been killed "by strangulation during rough fetish sex."     

The new probe is expected to look beyond the wrongdoing of Epstein and Maxwell, with the potential to identify other participants in devious activities -- and those who looked the other way. “Many of the survivors had experiences in New Mexico, and as we’ve learned, there were local politicians and other people that were aware of what was happening in New Mexico,” said Sigrid McCawley, an attorney whose firm has represented hundreds of Epstein accusers. 

Annie Farmer testified that she was abused at Zorro Ranch at the age of 16 (Timothy A. Clary / AFP via Getty Images and NBC News)

Epstein bought the property in 1993 and owned it until he died in a New York prison cell. In 2023, Epstein's estate sold the ranch to the family of Don Huffines, a former Texas state senator and current Republican candidate for state comptroller. The property has been renamed San Rafael Ranch, and the Huffines family says it plans to transform the ranch into a Christian retreat.

In another document from the Epstein dump, a victim writes a coded diary where she describes being a 'human incubator' who was forced to give birth to a child that was taken from her.

 

EFTA00165118.pdf via @ashesofacacia

They may want to start with an exorcism. 

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 12:25

Record Taiwan Arms Deal In 'Limbo' As White House 'Vacillates' Amid Xi Pressure: Report

Record Taiwan Arms Deal In 'Limbo' As White House 'Vacillates' Amid Xi Pressure: Report

During their February 4 phone call, President Xi Jinping used the opportunity to warn President Donald Trump on China's Taiwan red lines. Xi had described the US approach to Taiwan "the most important issue in China-U.S. relations," declaring that China "will never allow Taiwan to be separated from China."

Trump has repeatedly stressed the need to keep lines of communication open with Beijing, even as he insists on safeguarding American interests and regional security, and as Washington continues arms and political support to Taipei and its full independence aspirations. But Trump is also looking ahead to his much anticipated China visit in April, as we've highlighted before.

Could the April visit to Beijing be in jeopardy, and is the direct pressure from Xi working?

Source: FirstPost/Asia Times

A fresh Wednesday report in The Wall Street Journal suggests the answer is yes - and the report goes so far as to describe that a key record-breaking $11.1 billion arms sale package to Taiwan, first announced in December of last year, is currently in limbo.

"A major U.S. arms-sales package for Taiwan is in limbo following pressure from Chinese leader Xi Jinping and concerns among some in the Trump administration that greenlighting the weapons deal would derail President Trump’s coming visit to Beijing, according to U.S. officials," WSJ writes.

The report lays out:

Trump’s advisers are vacillating on the decision, according to a U.S. official familiar with the arms package, who insisted that, while Xi was adamant, Trump wouldn’t be pushed around by China. Trump wants to preserve a trade truce with Xi, a second U.S. official said, so the timing of an arms-sale decision is being carefully considered behind the scenes, the person said.

In response to a request for comment, a U.S. official said the arms sales are working their way through the administration’s internal process.

The U.S. Congress hasn’t officially been notified of new arms sales, but a congressional aide said it had been expected to include Patriot antimissile interceptors and other weapons.

WSJ concludes that Trump is fundamentally seeking to avoid antagonizing China, in order to no blow up the anticipated visit.

Another key issue on the line, affirmed in the earlier February Xi-Trump call is seen in the following:

China is considering buying more U.S.-farmed soybeans, President Donald Trump said after what he called "very positive" talks with President Xi Jinping on Wednesday, even as Beijing warned Washington about arms sales to Taiwan.

In a goodwill gesture two months before Trump's expected visit to Beijing, Trump said Xi would consider hiking soybean purchases from the United States to 20 million metric tons in the current season, up from 12 million tons previously. Soybean futures rallied.

Trump was asked by reporters about the Taiwan weapons issue Monday, to which the president responded: "I’m talking to him about it. We had a good conversation, and we’ll make a determination pretty soon.

"We have a very good relationship with President Xi," Trump underscored, clearly signaling he wants things to go as smoothly as possible, and keep relations cordial.

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 12:20

Big Tech Turns To Uranium As Data Center Power Demand Soars

Big Tech Turns To Uranium As Data Center Power Demand Soars

Big Tech is considering supporting new uranium mining projects as companies need additional reliable power capacity for their huge data center expansion, according to the top executive of Canadian uranium miner NexGen Energy.     

“It's coming. You've seen it with automakers. These tech companies, they're under an obligation to ensure the hundreds of billions that they are investing in the data centres are going to be powered,” NexGen Energy’s CEO Leigh Curyer said at a Melbourne Mining Club luncheon on Wednesday, as carried by Reuters.

As OilPrice reports, NexGen Energy, which is developing Canada’s largest uranium project, Rook I in Saskatchewan, has held early talks with technology companies over potential financing from data center developers, Curyer said.   

The uranium developer has also discussed long-term uranium supply with data center firms.

Yet, potential funding or supply deals will not involve any changes to the control of NexGen Energy, the chief executive told Reuters.  

Global electricity demand increased by 3% annually in 2025, following growth of 4.4% in 2024, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its recent Electricity 2026 report.

Between 2026 and 2030, the annual average growth rate would be 3.6%, driven by higher consumption from industry, electric vehicles (EVs), air conditioning, and data centers, according to the agency.

Artificial intelligence, data centers, and advanced manufacturing support the return to growth in power demand in advanced economies, the IEA said.

U.S. electricity demand rose by 2.1% in 2025 and is expected to grow by nearly 2% annually through 2030. The rapid expansion of data centers will drive half of the increase, the agency noted. 

The U.S. is backing nuclear power generation to help meet rising electricity demand.

Nuclear energy will be one of the winners of the U.S. AI and data center boom, as Microsoft and other hyperscalers have been looking to purchase zero-carbon electricity to power up their data centers, which are consuming growing amounts of electricity.     

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 11:45

Apple Races To Build Smart Glasses To Take On Meta AI Ray-Bans

Apple Races To Build Smart Glasses To Take On Meta AI Ray-Bans

Apple learned the hard way that a $3,500 Apple Vision Pro is well out of reach for the average consumer, while the sub-$500 Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses sit in the sweet spot and have been in hot demand.

Vision Pro 

Vs. 

Meta smart glasses

Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman, citing people familiar with Apple’s product roadmap, reports that the company is accelerating work on three new wearables: smart glasses, a pendant-style device, and AirPods with expanded AI features, all centered around the Siri assistant.

However, Bloomberg reported last week that the latest upgraded version of Siri has encountered development headwinds, potentially delaying the release of several highly anticipated features.

Gurman’s report on new Apple smart glasses to take on Meta’s glasses follows a recent Omdia note saying Apple’s AR glasses are likely coming in 2028, while Meta could launch its version months earlier, likely in 2027.

We've long tracked the flop of Apple’s $3,500 Vision Pro and have consistently argued that Meta’s more affordable smart glasses are the clear winner. More recently, we flagged the key supplier behind the Ray-Ban and Oakley smart glasses (see the note here).

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 11:05

Wells Fargo Sees 'YOLO' Trade Driving $150B Into Bitcoin & Risk Assets

Wells Fargo Sees 'YOLO' Trade Driving $150B Into Bitcoin & Risk Assets

Authored by Zoltan Vardai via CoinTelegraph.com,

US tax filers may see bigger refunds in 2026 compared with previous years, a development one Wall Street strategist said may boost risk appetite for digital assets and tech stocks preferred among retail investors.

In a note cited by CNBC, Wells Fargo analyst Ohsung Kwon said the coming refund wave may help bring back the so-called “YOLO” trade, with as much as $150 billion potentially flowing into equities and Bitcoin by the end of March. Kwon said the extra cash could be most visible among higher-income consumers.

“Speculation picks up with bigger savings…we expect YOLO to return,” wrote Wells Fargo analyst Ohsung Kwon in a Sunday note seen by news outlet CNBC.

“Additional savings from tax returns, especially for the high-income consumer will flow back into equities, in our view,” he added.

Kwon said some of that liquidity could move into Bitcoin and into stocks popular with retail traders, including Robinhood and Boeing.

Cointelegraph contacted Wells Fargo for details on the assumptions behind the $150 billion estimate and how much of that total the bank expects could go to digital assets, but had not received a response by publication time.

Bitcoin demand depends on sentiment

While some of the taxpayer funds may flow into Bitcoin and digital assets, it’s important to consider the higher inflation and consumer spending compared to the period during the COVID-19 pandemic, Nicolai Sondergaard, research analyst at crypto intelligence platform Nansen, told Cointelegraph:

“If sentiment starts to come around and retail sees positive upwards momentum in crypto assets, I see that as increasing the likelihood of funds flowing in this direction.”

Conversely, retail investors may opt for other assets with “higher momentum and social stickiness,” if digital asset sentiment doesn’t improve in the near term, he said.

The larger tax returns are due to the passage of US President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill, which included numerous favorable provisions for 2025 tax filings.

Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law on July 4, 2025, saying it would cut as much as $1.6 trillion in federal spending.

Smart money bets on crypto market downside as whales quietly accumulate

Meanwhile, the whales, or large investors, continue their quiet spot accumulation of the leading cryptocurrencies, while the most profitable traders by returns, tracked as “smart money,” are betting on more crypto market downside.

Smart money trader positions through the Hyperliquid exchange, top tokens. Source: Nansen

Smart money traders were net short on Bitcoin for a cumulative $107 million, along with most of the leading cryptocurrencies excluding Avalanche, according to crypto intelligence platform Nansen.

Still, whales acquired over $41.9 million worth of spot Ether tokens across 22 wallets during the past week, marking a 1.7-fold increase in the spot purchases of this cohort.

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 10:45

How Relaxed COVID-Era Rules Fueled Minnesota's Biggest Scam

How Relaxed COVID-Era Rules Fueled Minnesota's Biggest Scam

Authored by Kristin Robbins via RealClearPolitics,

In my testimony before the Senate last week as chair of the Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and Oversight Committee, I outlined the genesis of Minnesota’s massive fraud scandal, how it expanded under relaxed COVID-era rules, and what steps the federal government can take to help stop the theft of federal tax dollars throughout the country.  

Minnesota’s fraud crisis didn’t happen overnight; it took years. But it exploded when COVID hit, right when oversight was thrown out the window.

How did Minnesota get so bad? In March 2020, Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar authored a bill called the MEALS Act, which eventually became part of a larger COVID relief package. That law allowed states to waive the normal eligibility requirements for the National School Lunch Program. It eliminated income requirements and site inspections and expanded distribution methods. This opened the door for Feeding Our Future, which became the largest COVID fraud scandal in state and national history, stealing at least $250 million from taxpayers. To date, there have been 78 indictments and 61 convictions, with more cases headed to trial this spring.

This was organized, deliberate theft, enabled by weak controls, refusal to take multiple reports of fraud from whistleblowers and the legislative auditor seriously, and a government culture that refused to treat fraud like a crime.

The Feeding Our Future case revealed something even more disturbing: As many as half of the defendants were also receiving state money through other Medicaid-funded programs. But even after that became public back in 2023, Tim Walz and his agencies did nothing to stop those defendants from receiving additional state dollars.

Billions of federal COVID dollars didn’t start the staggering fraud in Minnesota, but that did supercharge a system that had already been compromised.

The original fraud scandal was tied to the Child Care Assistance Program, a federal program meant to help low-income families with children. There had been allegations of fraud reported with CCAP since 2011. By 2014 and 2015, there were raids, charges, and convictions of child care providers for billing non-existent or absent children, often exceeding $1 million in fraud in a single case.

Then in March and April of 2019, just months into the Walz administration, the legislative auditor published two major reports outlining CCAP fraud. Those reports detailed fraudulent providers and alleged movement of millions of dollars in cash out of Minnesota to Somalia, including allegations that some of that money was funding terrorism.

Whistleblowers have told us that shortly after those reports were released, the Department of Human Services shut down the criminal investigation unit for child care fraud.

Rather than pursuing fraud as a crime, the Walz administration began renaming fraud as “overpayment.” Cases were routed to an internal “overpayment committee” to decide whether reimbursement should even be pursued. Staff were no longer allowed to speak with their counterparts at the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension without supervisor approval.

Our committee has now uncovered fraud in multiple Medicaid programs, including autism centers, sober homes, non-emergency medical transportation, integrated community supports, and housing stabilization services.

In December, we held a hearing on credible allegations of fraud in two additional areas: adult day services and assisted living facilities. We have now seen allegations of fraud in 14 Medicaid programs. It is staggering.

The former first U.S. attorney who led these prosecutions estimated fraud at $9 billion, and that doesn’t include fraud in SNAP or child care programs.

Minnesotans expect their tax dollars to go toward roads, schools, health care, and public safety, not to fund criminals purchasing resorts in Kenya and luxury homes and cars. Even more alarming are the allegations that Minnesota taxpayer dollars have made their way into the hands of terrorist organizations like Al-Shabaab, directly or indirectly. The money is literally flown out in suitcases from the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport.

In 2017, estimates suggested $100 million in cash left annually. According to TSA, outbound cash was $342 million in 2024 and $350 million in 2025. That is astonishing. And it is wildly disproportionate compared to other airports. Minneapolis’ outbound cash is 99% higher than Dallas, Atlanta, LAX, and JFK, and 90% higher than Seattle.

So where do we go from here? 

Minnesotans are right to be outraged, and I hope other states learn from Minnesota’s failures.

We need a culture that treats fraud as a crime, not as “overpayment.”

We need to standardize and enforce basic internal controls. Both federal and state government need to require documentation, not attestation, to verify eligibility.

We need more audits and stronger oversight.

We need the federal government to enforce existing laws requiring states to pay back funds within one year when fraud or “overpayment” is found. We need more resources at the U.S. Attorney’s Office and CMS to investigate these cases. And we need stronger federal authority to track and investigate large sums of cash leaving our country.

We need leaders willing to stand up to this injustice and protect the most vulnerable.

Citizens in Minnesota and throughout the country deserve better. The time for accountability and justice is now.

Kristin Robbins has served in the Minnesota House of Representatives since 2019 and is chair of the Minnesota Fraud Committee.

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 09:40

US Industrial Production Surged In January

US Industrial Production Surged In January

Despite slumping sentiment surveys, 'hard' data continues to suggest the US economy is ticking along nicely with Industrial Production surging 0.7% MoM in January (better than the +0.4% MoM expected and well up from the downward revised +0.2% MoM in December).

This is the 3rd straight monthly increase in Industrial Production, lifting growth to 2.3% YoY - the best annual growth since Sept 2022...

Source: Bloomberg

Under the hood, US Manufacturing output rose 0.6% MoM (better than the +0.4% MoM expected and best monthly gain since Feb 2025)...

Source: Bloomberg

That is the fast annual growth in manufacturing since Feb 2022.

Capacity Utilization rose to 76.2% (below expectations),m extending the positive trend since the start of Trump's term...

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, circling back to the 'soft' survey data we noted at the beginning, we note that ISM Manufacturing exploded higher in January (after decoupling from hard data all year)...

Does make you wonder whether any of these surveys are real? Or did the Democrats being interviewed finally throw in the towel on the doomsaying?

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 09:35

Amid Slumping Sales & Sentiment, Housing Starts & Permits Jumped In December

Amid Slumping Sales & Sentiment, Housing Starts & Permits Jumped In December

It would appear that homebuilders are desperately hoping for a 'Field of Dreams' year...

After seeing existing home sales collapse in January (not driven by the winter storms), US Housing Starts and Building Permits rose dramatically more than expected in December (+6.2% MoM vs +1.1% exp and +4.3% MoM vs +0.4% MoM exp respectively)...

Additionally, Housing Starts rose as Home Builders confidence crumbled (and Future Sales expectations dropped)...

The surprise monthly surge lifted the SAAR totals for both housing sector data points to multi-month highs...

Breaking down the headline data shows that multi-family building permits and housing starts soared (+18.1% MoM and +10.1% MoM respectively) while Single-Family Building Permits tumbled 1.7% MoM while single-family starts rose for the 3rd straight month...

However, the pace of construction continues to decline on a year-over-year basis.

Growth in permit demand was most robust in the Northeast and West, two of the more volatile regions.

Finally, the inventory of new homes for sale remains a significant headwind for residential construction activity.

While mortgage rates have fallen, perhaps prompting the homebuilders to take advantage...

...the fact that rate-cut expectations have tumbled suggests they 'they will not come' anytime soon, no matter how much you build.

Tyler Durden Wed, 02/18/2026 - 09:20

Pages