FCC Chair Brendan Carr has taken lots of actions to designed to punish broadcasters that have behaved inappropriately by his lights: he has opened an investigation into a broadcaster reporting on the location of Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions; responded to Comcast, which allegedly “impl[ied] that [Kilmar] Abrego Garcia was merely a law abiding U.S. citizen” and ignored facts about Garcia, by suggesting that Comcast had engaged in news distortion; suggestednarrowing the category of bona fide news programs that are exempt from the equal time requirement; suggested that the splicing together of two different portions of Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech at the Ellipse may constitute news distortion and/or a broadcast hoax; and opened other news distortion investigations. And most famously, he threatened broadcasters who carry Jimmy Kimmel’s show. But his post yesterday responding to a Trump post is notable for its brazenness.
The Fog of War and War Reporting
On Friday the Wall Street Journal reported that, according to U.S. officials, an Iranian missile struck and damaged five Air Force refueling planes that were on the ground at an airbase in Saudi Arabia. Yesterday Trump claimed on Truth Social that the Wall Street Journal’s reporting was inaccurate, as “Four of the five [planes] had virtually no damage” and “One had slightly more damage.” And then in language that somehow no longer seems shocking, he said that the reporters involved “are truly sick and demented people.”
Less than three hours later, Carr posted Trump’s statement on Twitter/X and said in response:
Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions – also known as the fake news – have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.
Note that the factual differences between the WSJ and Trump are fairly small (all agree that the planes were hit) and that the WSJ’s reporting relied on U.S. officials. More importantly, it is difficult for anyone (soldiers, journalists, and Presidents) to determine the facts in any war. So if a journalist cannot safely publish unless he/she is certain that every significant fact is absolutely correct, there will be precious little war reporting. I always assumed that decisionmakers wouldn’t try to so restrict war reporting, but Trump and Carr indicate otherwise.
Newspapers, Broadcasters, and Threats
As to Carr’s invocation of news distortions and broadcast hoaxes: As I discuss in a forthcoming article I just posted (and in less detail about news distortion in this post), it would be an unprecedented extension of the new distortion policy and the broadcast hoax rule to apply either of them to mistaken war reporting. With the exception of a couple of bursts of indecency regulation, the FCC narrowly interpreted its public interest authority from the Reagan Administration through the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration, but Carr has rejected that longstanding consensus.
Carr’s post illustrates the vast difference between the Supreme Court’s treatment of broadcasting and all other media. Trump focused only on newspapers, but the First Amendment would prohibit government action against them for their reporting. Carr pivoted to broadcasters, who have much less protection under Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation.
That’s not to say that those cases would protect Carr’s threats. Red Lion applies to speech that the government deems valuable, and Pacifica focused on indecency, so there is a reasonable argument that neither would give the government any greater ability to publish false broadcast speech than false speech on any other medium. And I think the current Court would probably overrule both cases if the issue were squarely presented (flowing from the FCC’s longstanding restraint, the Court hasn’t had occasion to reconsider either case).
We believe that the role of the electronic press in our society is the same as that of the printed press. Both are sources of information and viewpoint. Accordingly, the reasons for proscribing government intrusion into the editorial discretion of print journalists provide the same basis for proscribing such interference into the editorial discretion of broadcast journalists. The First Amendment was adopted to protect the people not from journalists, but from government. It gives the people the right to receive ideas that are unfettered by government interference. We fail to see how that right changes when individuals choose to receive ideas from the electronic media instead of the print media. There is no doubt that the electronic media is powerful and that broadcasters can abuse their freedom of speech. But the framers of the Constitution believed that the potential for abuse of private freedoms posed far less a threat to democracy than the potential for abuse by a government given the power to control the press. We concur. We therefore believe that full First Amendment protections against content regulation should apply equally to the electronic and the printed press.
Carr’s threats make that language seem quaint.
In some ways, Carr has done us all a service by being clear about his desire to cow broadcasters. To quote Justice Scalia from a different context, issues frequently “come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing…. But this wolf comes as a wolf.”
FCC Chair Brendan Carr has taken lots of actions to designed to punish broadcasters that have behaved inappropriately by his lights: he has opened an investigation into a broadcaster reporting on the location of Immigration and Customs Enforcement actions; responded to Comcast, which allegedly “impl[ied] that [Kilmar] Abrego Garcia was merely a law abiding U.S. citizen” and ignored facts about Garcia, by suggesting that Comcast had engaged in news distortion; suggestednarrowing the category of bona fide news programs that are exempt from the equal time requirement; suggested that the splicing together of two different portions of Trump’s January 6, 2021 speech at the Ellipse may constitute news distortion and/or a broadcast hoax; and opened other news distortion investigations. And most famously, he threatened broadcasters who carry Jimmy Kimmel’s show. But his post yesterday responding to a Trump post is notable for its brazenness.
The Fog of War and War Reporting
On Friday the Wall Street Journal reported that, according to U.S. officials, an Iranian missile struck and damaged five Air Force refueling planes that were on the ground at an airbase in Saudi Arabia. Yesterday Trump claimed on Truth Social that the Wall Street Journal’s reporting was inaccurate, as “Four of the five [planes] had virtually no damage” and “One had slightly more damage.” And then in language that somehow no longer seems shocking, he said that the reporters involved “are truly sick and demented people.”
Less than three hours later, Carr posted Trump’s statement on Twitter/X and said in response:
Broadcasters that are running hoaxes and news distortions – also known as the fake news – have a chance now to correct course before their license renewals come up. The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.
Note that the factual differences between the WSJ and Trump are fairly small (all agree that the planes were hit) and that the WSJ’s reporting relied on U.S. officials. More importantly, it is difficult for anyone (soldiers, journalists, and Presidents) to determine the facts in any war. So if a journalist cannot safely publish unless he/she is certain that every significant fact is absolutely correct, there will be precious little war reporting. I always assumed that decisionmakers wouldn’t try to so restrict war reporting, but Trump and Carr indicate otherwise.
Newspapers, Broadcasters, and Threats
As to Carr’s invocation of news distortions and broadcast hoaxes: As I discuss in a forthcoming article I just posted (and in less detail about news distortion in this post), it would be an unprecedented extension of the new distortion policy and the broadcast hoax rule to apply either of them to mistaken war reporting. With the exception of a couple of bursts of indecency regulation, the FCC narrowly interpreted its public interest authority from the Reagan Administration through the first Trump Administration and the Biden Administration, but Carr has rejected that longstanding consensus.
Carr’s post illustrates the vast difference between the Supreme Court’s treatment of broadcasting and all other media. Trump focused only on newspapers, but the First Amendment would prohibit government action against them for their reporting. Carr pivoted to broadcasters, who have much less protection under Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation.
That’s not to say that those cases would protect Carr’s threats. Red Lion applies to speech that the government deems valuable, and Pacifica focused on indecency, so there is a reasonable argument that neither would give the government any greater ability to publish false broadcast speech than false speech on any other medium. And I think the current Court would probably overrule both cases if the issue were squarely presented (flowing from the FCC’s longstanding restraint, the Court hasn’t had occasion to reconsider either case).
We believe that the role of the electronic press in our society is the same as that of the printed press. Both are sources of information and viewpoint. Accordingly, the reasons for proscribing government intrusion into the editorial discretion of print journalists provide the same basis for proscribing such interference into the editorial discretion of broadcast journalists. The First Amendment was adopted to protect the people not from journalists, but from government. It gives the people the right to receive ideas that are unfettered by government interference. We fail to see how that right changes when individuals choose to receive ideas from the electronic media instead of the print media. There is no doubt that the electronic media is powerful and that broadcasters can abuse their freedom of speech. But the framers of the Constitution believed that the potential for abuse of private freedoms posed far less a threat to democracy than the potential for abuse by a government given the power to control the press. We concur. We therefore believe that full First Amendment protections against content regulation should apply equally to the electronic and the printed press.
Carr’s threats make that language seem quaint.
In some ways, Carr has done us all a service by being clear about his desire to cow broadcasters. To quote Justice Scalia from a different context, issues frequently “come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep’s clothing…. But this wolf comes as a wolf.”
One thing that has become incredibly consistent during times of financial stress is all of the “green dots” on Bloomberg terminals on Sunday night. This Sunday night is likely to be no different.
There are plenty of questions being asked (at a presentation on Thursday at a conference in Vegas, I may have, for the first time, faced too many questions!). There will be time to figure out how we got here. What went right, what went according to plan, and what didn’t go so well. But now is not the time for that, at least not for investors and corporate decision makers. Now is the time to plan, adapt, and ensure the best possible outcome for what you are responsible for.
The U.S. attacked military installations on Kharg Island on Friday night after the markets closed. Kharg Island is crucial for Iranian oil exports. It has the deep seaports required to load cargo into tankers that then deliver it. However, no energy infrastructure was hit, only military targets (including mine and missile storage facilities). President Trump then threatened to “wipe out” oil infrastructure on Kharg Island if Iranian forces continued to block the Strait of Hormuz. In addition, on Friday, it was announced that the U.S. was sending more forces to the region. The Japan-based Tripoli Amphibious Ready Group includes the America-class amphibious assault ship USS Tripoli, the San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships USS New Orleans and USS San Diego, and the embarked 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit. Sending these capabilities to the Persin Gulf will provide CENTCOM with additional options. These forces could be used in maritime interdiction, coastal raids, and help secure targets such as Kharg Island as well as islands in the Strait. This would put additional pressure on Iran. However, the decision to use troops for these missions has not been made just yet. It will also take a week or two for the forces to make it to the region. Please see below for some thoughts on these developments from our Geopolitical Intelligence Group:
“The strike on Kharg Island serves two purposes. First, there is military infrastructure on the island which may well have been involved somehow in enabling Iranian strike operations in the northern Persian Gulf. More importantly, however, it is a signal to the Iranian regime that we are willing, if necessary, to attack the oil infrastructure there. Iran exports around 90% of its oil through the Kharg Island terminal and its loss would be devastating for Iran’s economy. The possible future damage or destruction of the facilities there also effectively removes Iranian oil from the global market for a long time and will certainly have an effect on the market. I’m only speculating here but threatening Kharg Island might also be aimed at pressuring China, which is the recipient of most of Iran’s oil, to exert some positive influence on the regime.”– Neil Wiley, Former Principal Executive, Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
“The deployment of the MEU provides the U.S. with more options and serves as a deterrent against further Iranian escalation. Last night’s strikes and the deployment of the MEU signal to Iran that the U.S. is setting conditions to potentially take the island. However, the administration is clearly trying to prevent further rattling of the oil market by preserving Kharg’s oil infrastructure. I think the preferred options all involve scenarios short of boots on the ground anywhere in the region but that may not be sufficient to secure the concessions/conciliation the U.S. wants from Iran. Unfortunately, the Iranian regime still seems committed to outlasting the U.S.’s tolerance for market worry.”– Admiral Kelly Aeschbach
There are ongoing operations (and presumably back-channel negotiations) occurring as you read this. They will not necessarily end on Sunday night, but by Sunday night/Monday morning, we will have a clearer understanding of where things stand.
Markets are fixated on what is or isn’t transiting the Strait of Hormuz.
As far as we “know” the Strait is passable. There is no physical obstruction blocking ships from transiting it. This has been accomplished by some ships, presumably those laden with Iranian oil destined for their customers, such as China.
There are some questions about mines and unmanned/manned surface vessels.
There are a LOT of questions about potential drone and missile strikes.
The insurance backed by the DFC (The U.S. International Development Finance Corp.), has not encouraged ships to transit. I haven’t been able to access the policy itself, but insurance alone is not going to get ships and their crews moving.
The story is moving beyond oil. Yes, oil gets the most attention, but it is only part of the story.
LNG is less fungible than oil and is likely the first product that causes major disruptions in economies. Diesel, jet fuel, and fertilizers aren’t far behind.
Downstream products like “plastics” may become a problem for supply chains. It is difficult to predict who or what will be hit (like we have seen in previous supply chain shocks), but with plastics in so many products, we may be in for some negative surprises.
Taiwan is dependent on imported LNG and helium (about 50% coming from Qatar), and this is becoming a topic of conversation. When one of the world’s most important countries in terms of making semiconductors enters the conversation, it makes sense to be a little more nervous.
Asia (ex-China) and Europe will be hit first. China has significant stockpiles, refining capacity, and has further restricted exports of refined products. “Force Majeure” seems to be the word of the week in Asia outside of China. Europe went from dependence on Russia to dependence on the Middle East. Maybe adopting ProSec™ and harnessing your own resources (even if not “carbon efficient”) isn’t a bad stop gap for the next decade or so.
Shutdowns are occurring. When you “shut down” a refinery or chemical processing facility, it is not like flicking a light switch. There is a controlled (and time-consuming process) in both directions. It can take a week or more to resume production at full capacity once the decision to start back up is made. This means that the more facilities that are shutdown, the further we are from “normalizing” quickly.
“Simple” solutions aren’t helping.
Government “messaging” has lost its ability to turn markets on a dime. Last Monday we recovered rapidly from Sunday’s overnight price pressures. Every announcement on the conflict, the steps to reduce oil prices, etc., were met with good responses (lower oil prices, higher stock prices). That “mojo” dried up by the end of the week – hence we need to see “solutions.”
If it was “just” about the price of oil, the release of the SPR, evidence that the Saudis are able to use a pipeline to redirect their shipping routes, etc., would all have worked out better than it did for markets coming into the weekend. I do not understand the “waffling” or what seems like “waffling” on suspending at least part of the Jones Act so that the U.S. can supply itself more easily. That sentence seems almost nonsensical, but yes, the Jones Act makes it more difficult for parts of the U.S. to support other parts of the U.S.
The longer it goes on, the worse it is for the global economy and markets.
What we don’t know:
The risk to oil (and LNG, fertilizer, downstream products, and food) shipments. We will be able to make a better assessment on Sunday and again on Monday morning as markets re-open.
It seems clear that the admin is pushing to “normalize” trade and transit as early as Monday, but we don’t yet know if they will be successful.
What will the economic issues be? Very difficult to predict, though Asia (ex-China) and Europe will likely be hit harder and faster than the U.S. and China. However, many “American” goods are manufactured in Asia and certainly require components from Asia.
The timing of “victory.” The definition of “victory” seems to be “evolving.” If a hostile regime that is responsible for over a thousand American deaths over the years can be brought down and the world has a few weeks of higher energy costs and some “manageable” supply chain issues as a result, then the price is probably “worth it.” Academy’s Geopolitical Intelligence Group does not seem concerned about losing, but it is a matter of timing and the cost of that victory in terms of blood and treasure, and that is the question they are all trying to answer.
Bottom Line
Hopefully by Sunday night, or Monday morning, we are watching oil trade down hard and stocks (and bonds) rally. But at this point It remains a hope, not a fact. We will try to evaluate where we stand, how markets should respond, and what is “next” on the table for the U.S. (based on what happens between now and then).
Bonds are not acting as a good hedge – spending fears (globally) and inflation (globally) are pushing on that. I do not see stagflation as a “steady state,” or even that plausible in an energy independent America, but too early to fight that chatter.
We want to write about Private Credit and Software (the two other market-driving forces), but for today, we will stick to this “preparatory note” as we set the stage to provide color and context as we start next week (which is really at 6pm ET Sunday when futures open).
We continue to hope and offer our best wishes to all involved in this conflict, especially to those in service and their families, in these incredibly stressful times.
A federal judge on March 13 temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from ending temporary protected status (TPS) for Somali nationals in the United States.
U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs in Massachusetts (appointed by Barack Obama in 2014) issued the order following a lawsuit filed by four Somali nationals and two nonprofits—African Communities Together and the Partnership for the Advancement of New Americans—arguing that Somalis would face harm if their legal status were revoked.
TPS is a designation that allows individuals from countries affected by armed conflict, natural disasters, or other extraordinary events to remain in the United States.
DHS announced earlier this year that TPS for Somalia would end on March 17, saying that the country’s current conditions have improved and no longer warrant protection under the program.
In her ruling on March 13, Burroughs said that Somalis could face substantial consequences if the TPS termination were able to proceed while the legal challenge is still ongoing.
“Plaintiffs aver that if Somalia’s TPS designation is allowed to terminate, over one thousand people will face ‘a myriad of grave risks,’ including detention and deportation, physical violence if removed to Somalia, and forced separation from family members,” the judge said.
“On the other hand, if the court postpones the effective date of a decision committed to the executive branch by Congress, it risks harmful interference with its coordinate branches of government.”
Burroughs granted the plaintiffs an administrative stay and deferred ruling on the TPS termination to give both sides time to file briefs on the plaintiffs’ emergency motion.
“While the stay is in effect, the termination shall be null, void, and of no legal effect,” the judge stated.
She said the DHS must ensure Somali nationals with TPS or those with pending applications retain their rights and protections, including eligibility for work authorization and protection from deportation.
The Legal Defense Fund, one of the organizations representing the plaintiffs, welcomed the judge’s order in a statement.
“Although today’s court order is temporary, and many battles lie ahead within this legal challenge, the plaintiffs and their legal team are heartened by the interim protection today’s order affords all Somali people in the U.S. who have TPS or pending TPS applications,” it stated.
A DHS spokesperson said in a statement to multiple news outlets that the court order is another example of “judicial activists trying to prevent President [Donald] Trump from restoring integrity to America’s legal immigration system.”
According to the plaintiffs’ court filing, about 1,082 Somali nationals currently stay in the United States under TPS, while another 1,383 have pending applications.
The Biden administration in 2024 extended TPS for Somali nationals until March 17, 2026, citing “ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions” within the country.
The DHS said on Jan. 14 that its outgoing Secretary Kristi Noem determined that Somalia no longer meets the conditions required for TPS designation after reviewing the country’s situation.
“Temporary means temporary,” Noem said in a Jan. 13 statement. “Further, allowing Somali nationals to remain temporarily in the United States is contrary to our national interests. We are putting Americans first.”
Tucker Carlson Claims CIA Trying To Frame Him For FARA Violation; Loomer Celebrates
In a bombshell Saturday monologue, conservative commentator Tucker Carlson alleged that the CIA has been monitoring his private text messages as part of an effort to frame him for a crime and trigger a criminal referral to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
“The other day I found out that the CIA is preparing some kind of criminal referral against me, a crime report to the Department of Justice on the basis of a supposed crime I committed. What’s that crime? Well, talking to people in Iran before the war. They read my texts,” Carlson said, adding that the alleged violation under consideration involves the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), the 1938 law requiring individuals acting on behalf of foreign governments or entities to register with the DOJ and disclose their activities. Carlson emphatically denied any wrongdoing, insisting he is not a foreign agent and remains loyal to the United States.
Carlson emphatically denied any wrongdoing, insisting he is not a foreign agent, has never taken money or direction from any foreign power, and remains fully loyal to the United States. He described the surveillance as politically motivated retaliation against critics of official foreign-policy narratives.
He also said this is not the first timeU.S. intelligence has targeted his private communications – recalling well-known 2021 incident from his Fox News days, when he says the NSA intercepted and leaked his text messages while he was attempting to land an interview with Vladimir Putin. Those messages made their way from US intel to the New York Times in what Carlson called an effort to discredit him and potentially get his show canceled.
When you discover the CIA has been reading your texts in order to frame you for a crime. pic.twitter.com/XgoluHw8EG
The claim comes amid heightened tensions following the United States and Israel’s war against Iran. Carlson framed the surveillance as politically motivated, suggesting intelligence agencies are weaponizing communications with foreign contacts against domestic critics.
The latest from the rumor mill on this is that Trump used Tucker as a useful idiot back-channel to deceive the Iranians into thinking we were cool.
If the CIA knew that he was talking to the Iranians, then President Trump would have known that also, when he invited Tucker into the Oval a few days before the strike.
Which means Trump may have used Tucker to deceive the Iranians about the likelihood of an impending attack https://t.co/TkbjY34js4
The revelation immediately drew fire from pro-Israel / pro-Iran-war activist Laura Loomer, a vocal Trump supporter and longtime critic of Carlson, who is anti-war and anti-Zionist. Loomer, who has repeatedly accused Carlson of pro-Islamic sympathies, being a “virulent Jew hater,” and suggesting he should be held ‘criminally accountable‘ for “every shooting that happens at a Chabad or Synagogue,” took to X to celebrate the news and claim credit.
“If Tucker Qatarlson gets charged for violating FARA and or leaking information to Russia, Saudi Arabia Iran or Qatar, I’m taking credit,” she wrote, adding “Islamic sympathizers always project onto others what they are likely guilty of.”
She says she’s has been “relentless” in lobbying GOP representatives, law enforcement, and the DOJ over Carlson’s alleged FARA violations. “You have no idea how relentless I have been in speaking to GOP reps and even reporting Tucker to law enforcement and the DOJ. I pray my efforts are successful,” Loomer posted. “Sounds like someone is trying to get ahead of a story. Lock him up!”
If Tucker Qatarlson gets charged for violating FARA and or leaking information to Russia, Saudi Arabia Iran or Qatar, I’m taking credit.
Islamic sympathizers always project onto others what they are likely guilty of.
Loomer resurfaced a February 2026 video of Carlson in Saudi Arabia alongside his brother Buckley Carlson and Tucker Carlson Network CEO Neil Patel, suggesting it showed improper foreign influence.
Shortly before that, she mocked Carlson, saying “If I was a foreign agent and doing something I shouldn’t be doing, I too would come up with an elaborate story about how the CIA was out to get me,” adding “Tucker sounds like someone who is about to be exposed for doing something they know they shouldn’t be doing.”
Deep Fission, a California-based nuclear energy startup, started drilling the world’s first underground nuclear borehole March 10 in Kansas, taking a major step forward in building small modular pressurized water reactors one mile below the surface.
The test project is being funded as part of the Trump administration’s plan to breathe new life into the American nuclear sector by investing in new technology.
“It represents the shift from concept to construction and begins the process of demonstrating a fundamentally new approach to nuclear energy deployment,” Liz Muller, CEO and co-founder of Deep Fission, said.
The initial phase will include the sinking of three wells for site characterization and engineering validation.
The first well will be drilled about 6,000 feet below the ground and will be about eight inches in diameter. Workers at the site will be able to gather critical data to inform the company’s final engineering design, safety analysis, and regulatory planning.
The site’s location in the rural community of Parsons, about 130 miles east of Wichita and home to about 10,000 residents, was chosen in December for its dense and impervious shale and limestone, which provide natural containment and radiation shielding.
“By placing reactors one mile underground, the surrounding geology provides billions of tons of passive shielding and natural containment—enhancing safety and security while significantly reducing cost, surface footprint, and visual impact,” the company stated.
The company also plans to complete construction of its first reactor and achieve criticality by July 4 at the Kansas location.
Deep Fission has already signed an agreement with the Great Plains Development Authority to develop a full-scale commercial project at the same site.
The company’s design uses pressurized water reactor technology with deep-borehole drilling techniques from the oil and gas industry and geothermal heat-transfer.
Each gravity reactor is installed one mile underground, where the surrounding geology provides natural shielding and containment, while also reducing the need for above-ground megastructures, according to Deep Fission.
The company has already entered into an agreement to buy low-enriched uranium from Urenco USA for the small water reactors.
“Securing fuel is one of the most important steps for any nuclear project,” said Deep Fission’s CEO Liz Muller. “This agreement with Urenco enables us to move quickly toward commercialization and scaling our technology with high-quality fuel.”
The uranium will be sourced from Urenco’s New Mexico enrichment plant and will be supplied for the demonstration and testing of the first gravity reactor, according to Deep Fission.
“Advanced reactor developers are an important part of the future energy landscape, and we are focused on ensuring a reliable domestic supply of enriched uranium to support growth in this sector,” said John Kirkpatrick, Urenco USA’s managing director.
Beyond the drilling project, the company is also working on a customer pipeline for 12.5 gigawatts of future planned power.
The company secured $80 million in cash for its operations last month.
Hormuz Chokepoint Claims Next Victim: World’s Largest Aluminum Smelter Cuts Capacity
The world’s largest single-site aluminium smelter in the Middle East cut its output by about 20% on Sunday, marking yet another troubling development for the global economy. The disruption in the Strait of Hormuz is no longer just an energy story – it’s now spreading into industrial metals. These second- and third-order effects could soon disrupt global supply chains and tighten aluminium availability, thus pressuring prices higher.
Bloomberg reports that Aluminium Bahrain (Alba) began a controlled, safe shutdown of three reduction lines on Sunday to preserve business continuity amid heavily disrupted maritime shipping routes through the Hormuz chokepoint.
This production shutdown accounts for about 19% of Alba’s total output capacity of 1.62 million tons per year, representing roughly 2.2% of global aluminium production. The suspension aims to preserve its inventory of raw materials.
In 2025, Gulf Cooperation Council members produced around 6.16 million tons of aluminium, or about 8.35% of global supply, according to the International Aluminium Institute (IAI).
Alba’s cutback, along with the risk of broader disruptions to the aluminium market in the Gulf, could drive aluminium prices in the London market even higher.
The latest ship tracking data of the Hormuz chokepoint shows tankers anchored on both sides of the strait’s entry and exit points. Traffic remains muted.
Meanwhile, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi assured the world on Saturday evening that the Hormuz waterway was open to all vessels, except those linked to the US or Israel.
“New Era” Begins In Venezuela As U.S. Flag Is Raised At Embassy For First Time In Years
The United States Embassy in Caracas announced on X early Saturday morning that the U.S. flag was raised for the first time in seven years, stating that “a new era has begun for relations between the United States and Venezuela.”
“On the morning of March 14, 2019, the American flag was lowered for the last time at the United States Embassy in Caracas. This morning, March 14, 2026, at the same hour, my team and I raised the United States flag, exactly seven years after it was removed,” the embassy said, adding, “A new era has begun for relations between the United States and Venezuela. We are staying with Venezuela. – LFD.”
En la mañana del 14 de marzo de 2019, la bandera estadounidense fue arriada por última vez en la Embajada de los Estados Unidos en Caracas. Esta mañana, 14 de marzo de 2026, a la misma hora, mi equipo y yo izamos la bandera de los Estados Unidos—exactamente siete años después de… pic.twitter.com/kTrwnnECdb
— Embajada de los EE.UU., Venezuela (@usembassyve) March 14, 2026
The reopening of the American embassy in Caracas comes a little more than three months after former left-wing President Nicolás Maduro was forcibly removed from power by U.S. Delta Force operators in a daring midnight raid. Shortly afterward, President Trump backed Maduro’s successor, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez.
That “new era” the U.S. embassy describes is one in which American companies are investing billions of dollars in the South American country across the energy and mining sectors.
Reuters previously reported that Chevron and Shell were close to the first major new oil production deals in Venezuela.
Last week, Reuters reported that the U.S. expanded sanctions waivers to support investment in electricity infrastructure and the energy industry, including fertilizer, and to allow U.S. companies to negotiate contracts for future projects within the country.
Venezuela’s economy has been financially crushed by sanctions as well as by profound economic mismanagement under former socialist leader Maduro. Economists estimate that inflation surged by 400% last year.
Across the Caribbean, on Friday, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel was forced to admit that his administration is in talks with the Trump administration aimed at “finding solutions through dialogue” to longstanding bilateral differences between the two neighboring countries.
The Trump administration is in the process of ridding the Western Hemisphere of socialists and communists who have caused nothing but trouble and have squandered the inheritances of entire nations.
I just spent the afternoon at Figure headquarters in San Jose with Brett Adcock and David Blundin, and I’m still processing what I saw.
We’re not talking about concept robots. We’re talking about fully autonomous humanoid robots running neural networks end-to-end, doing kitchen work, unloading dishwashers, organizing packages – for hours at a time, with no human intervention.
Today? Figure’s robots are doing 67 consecutive hours of autonomous work. One error in 67 hours. That’s not a demo. That’s a product.
And here’s what most people don’t understand: the gap between “doing one task really well” and “doing every task a human can do” is collapsing at exponential speeds.
Let me explain why…
NOTE: Brett has been a past Faculty Member at my Abundance Summit, where leaders like him share insights years before the mainstream catches on. In-person seats for the 2026 Summit next month are nearly sold out. Learn more and apply.
The Death of C++ and the Rise of the Neural Net
When I first visited Figure, they had several hundred thousand lines of C++ code controlling the robots. Handwritten. Expensive. Brittle.
Every new behavior required engineers to anticipate edge cases, write more code, test it, debug it. It was the software equivalent of teaching a toddler to walk by writing an instruction manual.
In the last year, Figure deleted 109,000 lines of C++ code.
All of it. Gone.
What replaced it? A single neural network that controls the entire robot: hands, arms, torso, legs, feet. Full-body coordination. Real-time planning. Dynamic response to unexpected situations.
This is Helix 2, their latest AI model, and it’s a fundamentally different approach to robotics.
Here’s why this matters: neural nets learn from experience, not instructions.
You don’t code a robot to “grab a cup.” You show it thousands of examples of grasping objects—different shapes, weights, materials—and the neural net extracts the underlying patterns. It learns what “grasping” is at a representational level.
And once it understands grasping? It can generalize to objects it’s never seen before.
Brett put it simply: “If you can teleoperate the robot to do a task, you can train the neural net to learn it.”
That’s the unlock. If the hardware is capable—if the motors, sensors, and joints can physically perform the movement—then the AI can learn it from data.
Compare that to traditional robotics, where you’d need to write thousands of lines of code for every single new task. That approach doesn’t scale. Neural nets do.
The implication: Every robot in the fleet learns from every other robot’s experience. When one Figure robot masters folding laundry, every Figure robot on the planet instantly knows how to fold laundry.
Humans don’t work like this. Robots do.
Hardware Built Around the Brain
Most people think you design the robot first, then figure out the AI.
Figure did the opposite.
Brett’s team looked at the neural network architecture they wanted to run and asked: “What hardware do we need to make this work?”
That’s why Figure 3 exists. It’s not an incremental upgrade. It’s a complete redesign built around Helix.
Here’s what changed from Figure 2 to Figure 3:
90% cost reduction in manufacturing
~20 pounds lighter (135 lbs total)
Palm cameras for occluded grasping
Tactile sensors in every fingertip
Passive toe joint for better range of motion
Soft-wrapped body to eliminate pinch points
Onboard inference compute (no cloud dependency)
And critically: designed for data collection at scale.
Because here’s the thing — if you’re betting on neural nets, you’re betting on data. The more diverse, high-quality data you collect, the better the robot generalizes.
Figure built their robot to be a data-gathering machine. Every sensor, every camera, every interaction feeds back into the training loop.
And they’re not using off-the-shelf parts. They manufacture their own actuators, hands, battery systems, embedded compute—everything.
Why? Because the technology readiness of existing robotics components is too low. If a vendor’s motor fails in the field, you’re stuck waiting for them to fix it. If you built it yourself, you iterate overnight.
This is vertical integration at its finest. And it’s the only way to move fast enough to win.
The Manufacturing Ramp: From Thousands to Millions
Walking through Figure’s Baku (manufacturing facility) was surreal.
Four production lines. Capacity for 50,000 robots per year when fully ramped.
But Brett’s not stopping there. He’s already planning the next facility. Tens of thousands. Then hundreds of thousands. Then millions.
And here’s the kicker: Figure will use its own robots to build more robots.
They’re putting humanoids on the production lines this year. Robots assembling robots. Robots testing robots. Robots packaging robots.
Why? Because if you’re trying to scale to a billion units, you can’t rely on human labor. You need an exponential manufacturing curve, and the only way to get there is recursive self-improvement.
Think about it: every improvement Figure makes to the robot’s dexterity, speed, and reliability makes it better at building the next generation of robots.
It’s a flywheel. And once it starts spinning, it’s nearly impossible to stop.
Brett estimates they could ship a billion robots today if the AI were fully general-purpose. The demand is there. The capital markets (via leasing models) can finance it. The constraint is solving general robotics.
And that’s exactly what they’re working on.
General Robotics: The Only Milestone That Matters
Here’s the thing about humanoid robots that most people—and most companies—don’t get:
Teleoperation is not impressive. Open-loop behaviors are not impressive. One-minute demos are not impressive.
What’s impressive is closed-loop, autonomous work in unseen environments over long time horizons.
Let me break that down.
Closed-loop means the robot is continuously sensing its environment and adjusting in real-time. It’s not replaying a pre-programmed sequence. It’s thinking.
Autonomous means no human in the loop. No remote operator in Tennessee. The robot is making decisions on its own.
Unseen environments means you can drop the robot into a random Airbnb or factory floor it’s never visited, and it figures out how to navigate and work there.
Long time horizons means hours, days, weeks of continuous operation. Not 30-second clips stitched together in post-production.
This is what Brett calls “general robotics,” and it’s the only milestone that matters.
If you can’t do this, you don’t have a product. You have a very expensive remote-controlled toy.
Figure’s current benchmark: four to five hours of continuous neural network operation in logistics, kitchen work, and manufacturing tasks.
Their 2026 goal: Drop a robot into an unseen home and have it do useful work for days with minimal human intervention.
Once they hit that, the game is over. Because if the robot can generalize to any home, it can generalize to any environment. Factories. Warehouses. Hospitals. Senior care facilities. Mining operations. Space stations.
The hard part isn’t building a robot that can do one thing well. The hard part is building a robot that can do everything a human can do.
And Figure is closer than anyone else on the planet.
The Timeline: When Will You Have One?
Everyone wants to know: when can I buy a Figure robot for my home?
Brett’s answer: Not yet. And I’m not going to ship slop.
Here’s his roadmap:
2026: Alpha testing in homes. A small number of robots doing long-horizon work (cleaning, organizing, laundry, dishes) in real households. The goal is to measure human interventions – how often does someone need to step in and help?
Right now, industrial deployments see occasional errors. The target for home deployment is orders of magnitude better.
2027-2028: Scaled home pilots. Tens, then hundreds, then thousands of units. Iterative design based on real-world feedback. Safety validation. Privacy validation. Reliability validation.
2028-2029: Mass production and broad availability.
Why so cautious?
Because Brett learned this lesson at Archer (his eVTOL company): you don’t ship safety-critical systems until they’re ready.
A humanoid robot in your home is around your kids, your pets, your elderly parents. If it drops a pot of boiling water, that’s catastrophic. If it steps on your cat, that’s catastrophic. If it gets hacked and streams your private conversations to the internet, that’s catastrophic.
So Figure is taking the time to get it right.
And honestly? I respect the hell out of that.
Because when Figure does ship, they’ll have a decade head start on everyone else in terms of safety track record, reliability data, and customer trust.
That’s a brand moat you can’t buy.
The Business Model: Leasing Humanoids Like Humans
Here’s the beautiful part of Figure’s go-to-market strategy:
They’re leasing robots the same way you lease humans — by the hour.
Think about it. You don’t “buy” an employee. You pay them a salary. You lease their time and capability.
Figure is doing the same thing. You don’t buy a $20,000 robot. You pay ~$300/month to lease one. That’s $10/day. Forty cents an hour.
Compare that to minimum wage ($15-20/hour in most US states). A Figure robot is 50x cheaper and works 24/7 with no breaks, no benefits, no turnover.
And because it’s a lease, Figure retains ownership. They can remotely update the software. They can recall and upgrade units. They can monitor performance and safety in real-time.
It’s the Apple model applied to robotics. And it’s going to print money.
Brett estimates the market for humanoid robots is half of global GDP: roughly $50 trillion annually. Because half of all economic activity is human labor.
And here’s the thing: the demand is already there.
Figure has signed multiple commercial clients. They’re deploying robots into factories, warehouses, and logistics operations this year. These aren’t pilots. These are revenue-generating contracts.
The bottleneck isn’t demand. It’s supply. It’s solving general robotics and scaling manufacturing fast enough to meet the orders.
When that happens? This becomes the largest economy in the world.
What Comes Next: The Age of Abundance
Let me paint the picture of where this is going.
2030: Every household in the developed world has access to a humanoid robot. You lease it for $300/month. It does your laundry, cleans your house, organizes your kitchen, runs errands.
You come home from work and your robot has already meal-prepped dinner based on your biometric data from your wearable. It knows you’re low on magnesium, so it adjusted the recipe.
2035: There are 10 billion humanoid robots on the planet. Five billion in homes. Five billion in commercial and industrial settings.
The cost of goods and services collapses. Why? Because labor is no longer a constraint. Robots mine the materials, manufacture the products, transport them, and deliver them to your door.
You want a custom piece of furniture? A robot designs it, fabricates it, and assembles it in your garage overnight. Cost: materials + energy. Labor: free.
2040: Robots are building robots. Robots are designing robots. Robots are optimizing supply chains, managing logistics, exploring asteroids, constructing orbital habitats.
Humans are freed from drudgery. We do what we’re best at: creating, exploring, connecting, imagining.
This is the age of Abundance.
And it starts in 2026.
Brett Adcock and his team at Figure are building it. Right now. In San Jose.
I’ve seen it. I’ve walked the floors. I’ve watched the robots work.
And I’m telling you: this is real.
The future doesn’t care if you believe in it. It’s coming anyway.
US Navy Surveillance Plane Made Provocative Flight Over Taiwan Strait, Weeks Before Trump-Xi Summit
With the world’s attention hyper-focused on fast-paced events in Iran and the effectively shuttered vital oil transit hub, the Hormuz Strait, some significant things were also happening around Taiwan this past week.
The US military confirmed that a P-8A Poseidon anti-submarine patrol aircraft transited the Taiwan Strait on Wednesday, a move that predictably drew Beijing’s attention.
China said it monitored the US Navy aircraft as it passed through the narrow waterway separating Taiwan from mainland China.
“By operating within the Taiwan Strait in accordance with international law, the United States upholds the navigational rights and freedoms of all nations,” the US 7th Fleet said in a statement, adding the transit “demonstrates the United States’ commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific.”
The latest fly-through comes just weeks before President Donald Trump is scheduled to travel to Beijing for talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping aimed at hammering out a new trade agreement.
But the diplomatic backdrop is already showing strain, with regional media including The Japan Times saying that Beijing has grown irritated with Washington for failing to engage in serious advance planning ahead of the summit.
China is also without doubt angered as its Iranian oil imports are in extreme jeopardy due to Trump’s Iran war, and recent bombing of Kharg Island export depot.
Against that backdrop, the Taiwan Strait patrol looks like a familiar piece of strategic signaling – a reminder to East Asian allies that even as Washington pours military resources into the Middle East, it still intends to project power in the Indo-Pacific.
Iranian oil shipments to China continue for a reason. With a Xi-Trump summit approaching, Washington has incentives to avoid steps that would directly pressure Chinese energy imports. Strategic stability with Beijing is clearly a priority right now. https://t.co/703UEnOmIR
And yet if China were to invade Taiwan tomorrow, there’s likely not much Washington could do about it at a moment it is concentrating its firepower and resources on regime change in Iran, alongside its Israeli ally.
