Month: May 2026

A widely circulating fresh report in Reuters has raised eyebrows and serious questions related to the effectiveness of the 38-day aerial campaign which saw US-Israel bombs unleashed in the many thousands (combined: some 20,000+ munitions expended) on the Islamic Republic.

“US intelligence assessments indicate that the time Iran would need to build a nuclear weapon has not changed since last summer, when analysts estimated that a US-Israeli attack had pushed back the timeline to up to a year, according to three sources familiar with the matter,” the report lays out.

“The assessments of Tehran’s nuclear program remain broadly unchanged even after two months of a war that US President Donald Trump launched in part to stop the Islamic Republic from developing a nuclear bomb,” it continues.

The Israelis are believed to have done most of the direct targeting of Iranian nuclear facilities in the late February through April air campaign. This after already since last June, the White House insisted Iran’s nuclear program was ‘obliterated’.

Again, one wonders what nearly 40 days of record-levels of bombardment of Iranian cities and military sites actually accomplished in terms of degrading Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability – which has emerged as the primary US goal (stalled negotiations have centered on the demand that Tehran given up its nuclear material). It seems the needle may have hardly moved in terms of degrading Iranian nuke sites since last June?

The Reuters report gives the following additional conclusion: “The unchanged timeline suggests that significantly impeding Tehran’s nuclear program may require destroying or removing Iran’s remaining stockpile of highly enriched uranium, or HEU.”

And that of course brings the situation back to the square one dilemma of whether to launch ground operations to recover what Trump calls the ‘nuclear dust’ – which further raises the prospect of utter disaster and endless quagmire (and there are signs of quagmire already, even without ground forces).

In shifting from ‘Epic Fury’ to ‘Project Freedom’ – the US administration seems to want to find a way out of this without a protracted ground war, which would mean serious losses in blood and treasure. The below is the official latest White House position:

While Operation ⁠Midnight Hammer obliterated Iran’s nuclear facilities, Operation Epic Fury built on this success by decimating Iran’s defense industrial base that they ‌once leveraged as a protective shield around their pursuit of a nuclear weapon,” said White House spokeswoman Olivia Wales, referring ‌to the June operation and the latest war that began in February.

“President Trump has long been clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon – and he does not bluff.”

But Iran has countered that it considers its enriched uranium stockpile a matter of national sovereignty, and will ‘never’ allow it to be transferred outside the country.

Next round of US-Israeli bombing being planned?

An Israeli official told CNN:

The coordination between Israel and the United States includes preparations for a round of strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure and senior officials.

“The intention is to carry out a short operation aimed at pressuring Iran to make further…

— Amit Segal (@AmitSegal) May 5, 2026

Iran’s foreign ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei two weeks ago denied reports at the time which said Tehran had agreed to transfer its highly enriched uranium abroad, saying “enriched uranium is sacred to us, as is Iranian soil.” The Iranians have since repeatedly made clear that the issue is a non-starter, and wants to focus talks on opening Hormuz and ending the war.

Authored by Bill Pan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing Minnesota over the state’s own climate lawsuit against major energy companies.

The complaint, filed Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, accuses state officials of trying to impose their own climate policies on domestic energy producers in a way the DOJ says burdens national energy development and intrudes on federal authority.

The underlying lawsuit was filed in 2020 by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison against Exxon Mobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and Koch subsidiary Flint Hills Resources. Minnesota brought the case under state consumer-protection laws, alleging that the companies engaged in fraud and deceptive business practices by misleading the public about “climate change and the role of fossil-fuel products in climate change.”

That lawsuit remains pending after years of procedural fights over whether it belongs in state or federal court. Minnesota succeeded in keeping the case in state court in 2024, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a lower-court ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed there.

In its new complaint, the DOJ argues that authority over national energy policy and major questions involving greenhouse gas emissions rests with the federal government, not individual states. The department is asking the court to block Minnesota from pursuing the 2020 lawsuit and prevent the state from bringing similar litigation in the future.

“Climate change lawsuits, like Minnesota’s, artfully plead around federal law while transparently seeking to change national energy policy related to global greenhouse gas emissions and to regulate conduct beyond local borders,” the complaint states.

The federal government’s move to counter climate litigation with its own lawsuit follows an executive order issued last year by President Donald Trump, who directed the DOJ to “take all appropriate action to stop” state lawsuits seeking to “dictate national energy policy.”

“President Trump promised to unleash American energy dominance, and Minnesota officials cannot undermine his directive by mandating that their woke climate preferences become the uniform policy of our Nation,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a statement.

Ellison, who is named as a defendant in the DOJ lawsuit, pledged to seek dismissal of what his office called a “frivolous and meritless” case.

“In 2020, I sued Big Oil for lying to Minnesotans about the true causes of climate change, then sticking us with the bill for the harms it is causing,” Ellison said in a statement. “Six years later, we are still waiting to go to trial because Big Oil has pulled every procedural trick in the book to delay facing the consequences of their unlawful actions.”

Minnesota is among a number of states and local governments that have turned to consumer-protection, public-nuisance, and similar laws to sue major oil and gas companies over the climate impact of their products. Those lawsuits generally accuse the companies of misleading the public about climate risks while seeking to hold them financially responsible for infrastructure costs, natural disaster- or health care-related costs, and other damages.

The DOJ has taken aim at several such efforts. Last year, it filed preemptive lawsuits against Hawaii and Michigan, though both were dismissed by federal judges. Separate DOJ challenges to New York and Vermont’s laws, which seek to impose penalties tied to past greenhouse gas emissions to fund disaster relief and climate-related projects, remain pending.

Allowing individual states to use courts to advance climate goals, the Trump administration argued, would create a patchwork of conflicting regulations and interfere with the executive branch’s authority over national energy security and interstate commerce.

“When states target or discriminate against out-of-state energy producers by imposing significant barriers to interstate and international trade, American energy suffers,” Trump’s executive order stated.

A courtroom victory for Elon Musk in his high-stakes federal trial against Sam Altman and OpenAI would deliver one of the most disruptive blows to the artificial intelligence sector in its brief but explosive history – potentially forcing the $850-billion-plus company to unwind its for-profit empire, ousting its top leaders, and handing Musk a symbolic and financial hammer to reshape the global race for AGI while weakening one of its fiercest competitors.

The case is now being argued in a federal courtroom in Oakland, before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The trial opened on April 28 and entered its second week on Monday, when OpenAI president Greg Brockman took the stand and confirmed his personal stake in the company is worth roughly $30 billion. Musk’s counsel returned to the figure more than a dozen times in two hours of questioning.

The Case

Musk co-founded OpenAI in late 2015 as a nonprofit and contributed roughly $38 million in its early years. He left the board in 2018. The following year, OpenAI created a capped-profit subsidiary to attract the capital that frontier AI now requires; Microsoft has since invested more than $13 billion. ChatGPT launched in November 2022. By 2025, OpenAI was preparing for what would have been one of the largest initial public offerings in history.

Musk sued in 2024. The original complaint contained twenty-six claims; only two survive – breach of charitable trust and unjust enrichment – while the fraud claims were dismissed before trial. Microsoft is named as a co-defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the breach, a detail often elided in summary coverage.

The remedies sought are unusually sweeping. Musk wants OpenAI’s for-profit structure unwound and its assets returned to the nonprofit foundation. He wants Sam Altman and Brockman removed from leadership. And he is seeking up to $150 billion in damages from OpenAI and Microsoft combined, with any award flowing directly to OpenAI’s charitable arm rather than to Musk personally.

Structure of the Trial

Judge Gonzalez Rogers has bifurcated the proceedings into a liability phase, expected to conclude around May 21, and a separate remedies phase that would follow only if the defendants are found at fault. A nine-person jury sits during liability alone, and its verdict is advisory. Structural remedies – including any order to dissolve the for-profit subsidiary – fall solely to the judge.

This procedural detail matters more than it may appear. Coverage that casts the jury as the decisive actor misreads the case. The jury can shape narrative momentum and offer a finding the judge may weigh, but it cannot order OpenAI to unwind anything. Whatever the verdict, Gonzalez Rogers writes the remedy.

What a Musk Win Would Actually Mean

Setting aside the $150 billion headline – which is a ceiling, not a floor, and is divided across defendants – three concrete consequences would follow a substantive ruling against OpenAI.

The first is restructuring. A finding that the 2019 capped-profit conversion and its 2025 successor breached a charitable trust would, at minimum, force a reorganization placing the nonprofit foundation back in unambiguous control. The IPO would be delayed indefinitely, if not foreclosed. Investor returns would be capped or rewritten. Microsoft’s roughly $13 billion stake, and the larger commitments that followed from Amazon, SoftBank, and Nvidia, would all face revaluation.

The second is leadership. Musk’s complaint seeks the removal of Altman and Brockman. Whether the court orders that remedy in full is uncertain; partial governance reform is the likelier outcome. Either way, the result would be destabilizing for an organization whose competitive position rests substantially on the people at the top of it.

The third is precedent, and it may prove the most durable. A ruling for Musk would establish that nonprofit-to-commercial transitions in American technology can be reversed years after the fact, once the entity has grown large enough to be worth reversing. Founders, donors, and investors in mission-driven labs would have to reckon with a previously hypothetical risk: that the structure they signed up for is the structure they will be held to, indefinitely.

The Defense

OpenAI’s response, articulated by lead counsel William Savitt, is that Musk himself supported a for-profit restructuring as early as 2017 – as long as he was placed in charge of it. When the other founders declined, he left, predicted the company’s failure, and later launched a competitor. The obvious angle here is that the lawsuit is a delayed instrument of competitive harm rather than a vindication of charitable principle.

The defense will lean on contemporaneous evidence: Musk’s own emails proposing for-profit structures; his instruction to associates to register a for-profit corporation in OpenAI’s name; and Brockman’s private journal, which Musk’s team has used to suggest financial motive but which also records the founders’ resistance to handing OpenAI to Musk.

What Remains

Several witnesses are still to come. Altman has not yet testified. Microsoft chief executive Satya Nadella is expected. Stuart Russell, the Berkeley computer scientist, will appear as Musk’s expert on AI risk; the judge has already declined a request from Musk’s counsel that Russell be permitted to range beyond his written report into extinction scenarios.

Two days before the trial began, Musk texted Brockman to gauge interest in settlement. When Brockman proposed mutual dismissal, Musk replied that he and Altman would be the most hated men in America by week’s end. The judge declined to admit the exchange. No settlement has materialized.

The trial is expected to run another two to three weeks. The remedies phase, if it comes, will follow.

By Robert Walton of UtilityDive

Electricity consumption in New England will grow about 9% over the next decade, driven by electrification of buildings and vehicles, the region’s independent system operator said in an annual report published Friday. While significant, the rise in consumption is lower than its forecast in the two previous reports, reflecting changes in “government policy,” ISO New England said.

The “2026-2035 Forecast Report of Capacity, Energy, Loads, and Transmission,” or CELT report, estimates annual consumption will rise from 116,679 GWh this year to 127,660 GWh in 2035, an increase of about 0.9% annually.

In 2024, the ISO said it anticipated a 17% rise in annual energy use by 2033. In 2025, it reduced its 10-year outlook to an 11% rise by 2034.

The energy forecast “reflects more conservative assumptions around future adoption of electric vehicles and heat pumps in light of government policy changes,” the ISO said in a blog post.

New England’s net annual energy use has trended downward since 2005, “mainly due to more efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances, and lighting,” as well as growth in behind-the-meter solar, the grid operator said. Now, it predicts “that trend will reverse over the next decade.”

“Steady growth in net annual energy use is expected as state policy goals for carbon emissions reductions continue to incentivize electrification of heating systems and transportation in the region,” the ISO said.

Notably, the ISO said sustained load growth means it will soon be a dual-peaking system.

While New England has typically seen electricity demand peak during the hot summer months, the addition of electric heating load means that by 2035, the ISO expects winter and summer peaks to be roughly the same, around 26.5 GW. ISO New England’s all-time peak of 28.1 GW was set in summer 2006.

The grid operator anticipates peak demand of 25.2 GW this summer and 20.5 GW this upcoming winter season.

Heating electrification is projected to contribute 5,533 MW to the winter peak in 2035/2036, ISO said, while transportation electrification is forecast to contribute 1,509 MW. In the ISO’s previous CELT report, it estimated electric vehicles would account for 1,764 MW of the winter peak in 2034/2035, while heating electrification was is expected to account for 4,765 MW that season.

The ISO said it revised its EV adoption forecast down to account for the removal of federal incentives and revisions to state policies and expectations for each vehicle class. Its heat pump forecast was similarly adjusted to account for expiring federal tax credits.

Behind-the-meter solar is forecast to have a growing impact on winter peak demand, reducing it by an expected 316 MW in 2035/2036, the ISO said in its latest report.

Authored by Kenin M. Spivak via RealClearPolitics,

The Trump administration is restoring the core value of equal opportunity to civil rights enforcement. It is eviscerating the race-baiting, intersectional policies of the Biden and Obama administrations, and giving substance to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services (2025) that whites, men, and heterosexuals are not held to a higher standard in discrimination cases.

This is a time for rejoicing, tempered by concern that the administration will not have time to complete its work, and that its reliance on executive orders, rather than legislation and consent decrees, will allow the next Democratic president to rip asunder President Trump’s laudable accomplishments.

Despite more than a century of Supreme Court decisions forbidding discrimination on the basis of race, Democrats generally, and progressives specifically, have inverted President John F. Kennedy’s executive order establishing affirmative action. Intended to bring an end to discrimination because of race, creed, color, and national origin, progressives instead transformed affirmative action into a system of preferences based on melanin content, and absorbed this once hopeful construct into radical philosophies used to justify bias, including Critical Race Theory (CRT), intersectionality, disparate impact theory, and ultimately DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion).

They oppose Trump’s effort to dismantle their race-addled policies with every lever available to them. Ivy League universities have to be bludgeoned into enforcing equal rights. Blue city mayors continue their fight to sideline white males. Hollywood artists and programmers refuse to work for studios and tech companies that recognize political and legal realties. Liberal Supreme Court justices bemoan the majority’s refusal to rule based on the intersectional hierarchy of so-called “marginalized” minorities, and Obama- and Biden-appointed federal judges enjoin proper exercises of executive power.

CRT originated in the 1970s as a tortured rationale advocating that colorblind laws inevitably serve the interests of white people.

Intersectionality has become a cornerstone of CRT. Developed principally by Columbia Law Professor Kimberlé Crenshaw, it utilizes a hierarchy of social oppression to allocate benefits and burdens, providing the doctrinal basis for DEI policies, transgender activism, and antisemitism. The latter shows the bankruptcy of the dogma: Despite hundreds of years of oppression, pogroms and the Holocaust, as a result of educational and business achievements, Jews are seen as powerful oppressors, while Palestinians and other Muslims are seen as marginalized minorities.

Disparate impact is a central tenet of progressive litigation strategy. Its premise that marginalized communities must receive their proportionate share of opportunities is the progenitor of the “equity” prong of DEI. Liability is established if there is a shortfall, regardless of whether that shortfall is caused by discrimination.

DEI is the fusion of these philosophies, a malevolent form of affirmative action that allocates benefits based on race, sex, and gender identity. To ensure pre-determined outcomes, progressive decisionmakers and courts have tampered with and eliminated entry exams, waived criminal background checks, and watered down academic, disciplinary, admissions, graduation, employment, and promotion standards.

In 2024, the Biden administration took a bow for more than 650 actions that required federal, state, and local government agencies and contractors to award and allocate burdens, opportunities, and benefits based on race, sex, and gender identification.

Progressives defended these manifestly unconstitutional and unlawful actions by claiming that while the words of the 14th Amendment, federal civil rights statutes, and President Johnson’s executive order on equal employment opportunity prohibit the use of race in government actions, their true meaning was the opposite – that race and other innate characteristics must be used to achieve outcomes based on these characteristics.

The Biden administration also targeted people of faith, with abuses ranging from FBI infiltration of Catholic churches to weaponizing the FACE Act against pro-life Americans. And it adopted rules requiring that universities treat biological males who identify as women as actual women, and ended due process for any grievances filed for allegedly violating their rights, or in sexual harassment cases. Respondents were denied notice, the right to examine the complainant, or a right of appeal. The university investigator was permitted to serve as the hearing officer.

Progressives justified the administration’s attack on religion, female athletes, and due process as necessary to protect the rights of marginalized minorities.

Underscoring the left’s situational ethics, as the Biden administration embarked on a whole-of-government censorship enterprise to silence its critics, the ACLU abandoned its 100-year commitment to free speech, declaring that speech that denigrates marginalized groups can “inflict serious harms and is intended to and often will impede progress toward equality.”

Upon taking office for his second term, President Trump revoked Biden’s executive orders impacting race, sex, and gender. He issued orders prohibiting DEI, other race-based programs, and disparate impact in federal government hiring, promotion, and contracting; terminated federal employees hired for the Biden administration’s massive DEI apparatus; and ordered “appropriate action” to pressure K-12 schools into abandoning race-based disciplinary policies. He rescinded an executive order that required federal contractors to utilize affirmative action in their hiring practices.

Rejecting intersectionality, Trump issued orders tying federal funding to elimination of extreme gender ideology, proclaiming, “It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality,” and protecting children from chemical and surgical mutilation – positions belatedly adopted by leading medical organizations. He also ordered the Department of Education to take all appropriate action to keep biological men out of women’s sports.

Trump directed federal agencies to improve security vetting for international students and to prioritize civil rights protections for Jewish students. He eliminated collection and publication of data used in a misguided effort to claim that environmental harms targeted minorities because manufacturing facilities are concentrated in lower-income neighborhoods, and he issued an order to pressure the Smithsonian Institution to restore balance to its depiction of American history.

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division under Harmeet Dhillon and Education Department under Linda McMahon launched enforcement actions against Ivy league universities to protect Jewish students and restore viewpoint diversity. The Justice Department also commenced investigations, filed and intervened in lawsuits, and reached settlements with public and private institutions to protect Americans of all backgrounds and faiths – just last week forcing Colorado to abandon a law that favors AI algorithms that promote “diversity.” It investigated the Biden administration’s weaponization of the FACE Act, issued an 882-page report exposing the abuses, and eliminated them. The Education Department ordered universities to bring back due process in university grievance procedures.

The left is vigorously fighting back. Universities have slyly rebranded DEI offices, legal challenges have been filed against Trump’s executive orders and related regulations, Democrat-appointed judges have issued injunctions, and Democratic Party officials have doubled down on racial and gender politics. For the most part, the administration has prevailed in lower courts or secured stays of adverse rulings pending appeals.

Some progressives support intersectionality, disparate impact, and DEI to harm straight white Americans. Many are so caught up in innate characteristics that they believe individual opportunity and fairness is determined at a group level, while other progressives delude themselves into believing they can choose winners without creating losers. The administration must hold firm against the left’s vitriolic counterattacks. As Donald Trump restores the American dream of equal opportunity, his challenge with just eight months until the probable loss of the Republican legislative majority is to create enduring change, rather than an interregnum in progressive rule.

Kenin M. Spivak is founder and chairman of SMI Group LLC, an international consulting firm and investment bank. He is the author of fiction and non-fiction books and a frequent speaker and contributor to media, including RealClearPolitics, The American Mind, National Review, television, radio, and podcasts.

A group pushing for Alberta to break free from Canada announced Monday that it has submitted nearly double the number of signatures required to force a referendum — which could come as early as October. While Alberta Premier Danielle Smith opposes independence, she has assured Albertans that she will not try to thwart a referendum if the signature hurdle were cleared.  

Triggering a referendum requires 178,000 signatures, but the separatist organization Stay Free Alberta says it amassed more than 301,000. As in the United States, referendum organizers usually aim to far overshoot the required number so as to survive challenges on the validity of individual signatures.

On Monday, the group’s leader, Mitch Sylvestre descended on Alberta’s election offices in Edmonton with the petitions, aboard a convoy seven trucks strong. Celebrating the accomplishment, he likened it to Canada’s favorite sport. “This day is historic in Alberta history,” he said. “It’s the first step to the next step — we’ve gotten by Round 3 and now we’re in the Stanley Cup final.”

Despite Sylvestre’s triumphalism, the independence drive could hit a snag this week, as a judge may rule on a challenge of the referendum filed by a First Nations group. That term is used to describe indigenous people who are not Inuit or Métis. Their legal challenge centers on the claim that Albertan independence would deny them privileges afforded them by treaties. The verification of referendum-support signatures has been stayed pending the decision. However, Stay Free Alberta attorney Jeff Rath said these are mere speed bumps. “As far as we’re concerned, whatever the court does or whatever Elections Alberta does at this point is meaningless,” he told CBC, given the premier can’t ignore more than 300,000 signatures.  

Alberta has been on the wrong end of a Canadian policy called “Equalization” — a more palatable term than what it should be called: “Wealth Redistribution.” According to the Canadian government’s official description, Equalization “address[es] fiscal disparities among provinces.” It does so by distributing the fiscal fruits of federal taxation to provinces in such a way that poorer provinces get more money than more-prosperous ones. Alberta is easily Canada’s best-off province on a per-capita basis. 

A victory for the “yes” side of the referendum won’t guarantee independence, as more legal challenges will certainly sprout up, to say nothing of the thorny negotiations with the Canadian government that would be required — negotiations that could be slow-walked by Albertan leaders who aren’t enthused about breaking away.  

For those and other reasons, some who support independence are wary of how the referendum will play out. For example, even if the pro-independence side prevails, the waters could be muddied by the results of concurrent referendum questions. Writing at the Brownstone Institute earlier this year, Bruce Pardy painted a picture: 

If voters support independence but also other constitutional changes, what do they mean? Which should be pursued first? Which is the last resort? What if voters support independence but also support Alberta having the right to opt out of federal programs while retaining federal funding? Both of those things cannot happen. One requires that Alberta be a province, and the other requires that it not be. Any referendum result that requires interpretation is not clear.

A pro-unity group called Forever Canadian has been active too, racking up more than 400,000 signatures on a petition that asked, “Do you agree that Alberta should remain within Canada?” Meanwhile, polls show an uphill climb for the separatists, with huge differences between United Conservative Party and New Democratic Party voters: