Before the ‘official’ futures markets opened, the risk-off tone (due to the failed peace talks and Trump’s threat to blockade Iranian vessels) was very evident in FX and crypto markets.

Even given the usual caveats about thin liquidity, AUD/USD is down around 1%, a classic growth-sensitive barometer flashing warning signs, while EUR/USD is weaker by roughly 0.5%.

The moves point to a softer tone for risk assets and sure enough bitcoin is down notably, but still up from pre-ceasefire levels…

All eyes are of course on the oil markets where hyperliquid perps were signaling a major jump higher as traders react to peace talks falling apart over the weekend, and the US moving to blockade the Strait of Hormuz in response.

WTI opened up over 8% surging back above $100 (topping $105)…

European gas futures also surged more than 10% as the trading day for the product expanded to 21 hours, from 10 hours, on Monday.

The timeline for the start of efforts to unwind the extreme supply shocks created by the war looks to be getting longer and longer. 

And of course, as goes oil, so goes stocks etc…

Since the war started, markets have increasingly taken their cues from crude prices given their far-reaching consequences. Surging energy costs have driven both the pullback in risk appetite as an immediate reaction to the conflict, as well as investors’ longer-term anticipation for a pickup in inflation and slowdown in consumption. 

The extent of the divergence (between oil and stocks) has now surpassed levels seen in 2022. 

But, even as the bond-stock-oil correlations started to creak on Friday…

…they are back in sync on this thin Sunday evening with S&P futures down over 1% for now…

Treasury futures prices are down notably (implying around a 5bps jump in 10Y Yields)…

The stronger dollar has pushed gold back down below $4700…

Obviously, investors will continue to monitor Middle East tensions in the coming week, while monthly reports from OPEC and the IEA will add some insight into how the Iran war is affecting the oil market.

Several major US banks are due to report earnings, where any commentary on the impact from the conflict will also be closely watched.

US data releases include producer prices, industrial production and existing home sales, while the Fed’s Beige Book will offer additional color on the health of the economy.

China is also due to report first-quarter GDP plus retail sales and industrial production data for March.

As Morgan Stanley’ Michael Wilson warned: The final phase of a correction is rarely easy and could require another re-test for markets, particularly if rates or bond volatility push higher again.

It may be about to get more difficult again.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Create a crisis.”

That call is made in a new campaign sponsored by the American Association of University Professors to force “colleges to drop their contracts with ICE’s key corporate enablers.”

Despite years of criticism over the purging of faculty ranks of conservatives and libertarians, university professors continue to double down on far-left ideology that is now an orthodoxy in higher education.

I previously wrote about the AAUP’s ideological shift in my book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage. After that book, the AAUP then selected Todd Wolfson, a far-left activist, as its new president.

Wolfson ran on the pledge to make AAUP a “fighting organization” for social change.

After his selection, Wolfson has called Trump supporters “fascists” and demanded boycotts of Israel.

Given that history, it was little surprise to see the AAUP’s sponsorship of this campaign, as reported by the College Fix.

The campaign is also funded by  Coefficient Giving, associated with liberal billionaire Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna. They have been criticized for reportedly funding groups pushing defund police and other radical agendas.

AAUP joined this campaign with Young Democratic Socialists of America, Sunrise Movement, and the Workplace Justice Lab at Rutgers University. It includes a toolkit instructing students to “create a crisis for university admin through an escalating campaign.”

The campaign seeks to organize to combat the “Trump regime” and its “terrorism”: “When students and workers join together in action, we can force our schools to stop funding and normalizing ICE collaborators and take down the whole regime.”

They are targeting companies such as Enterprise, Flock, ICE Air Carriers, Hilton, and Target.

The campaign states further that “ICE, and the Trump regime generally, cannot function without the consent and collaboration of the business world. Breaking companies from ICE is the central axis for generating enough leverage to stop the regime’s terrorization campaign.”

So university professors are funding a campaign that actively seeks to create a crisis on campuses. It takes a position as an organization that immigration enforcement is a form of terrorism. The silence among faculty is deafening. Rather than objecting that the AAUP should focus on issues related to academic freedom and protections for its members, there have been virtually no objections to the organization’s ideological agenda.

It is evidence of the new orthodoxy in higher education and the refusal of administrators and faculty to make any meaningful change in their intolerance for opposing views.

Many departments no longer have a single Republican faculty member in this academic echo chamber.

A Georgetown study found that only 9% of law school professors at the top 50 law schools identify as conservative — almost identical to the percentage of Trump voters in the new poll.

There is little evidence that faculty members are interested in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools.  In places like North Carolina State University, a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.

Yale University has finally achieved the academic version of Nirvana, a state of perfect peace and enlightenment. A recent study found that the faculty had finally purged every Republican donor from its ranks.

According to a recent report from the Buckley Institute, there is now not a single Republican found across 27 of 43 departments at Yale University. In a nation roughly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats (with a slight advantage to the GOP), only 3 percent are Republicans across all Yale departments.

The hostility to opposing views is impacting our students. A new study offers additional data on this problem, showing that almost 90% of students misrepresent their views in class and on assignments to satisfy faculty by adopting more liberal views.

In the meantime, the small number of dissenting faculty have no real voice, particularly among legal academics. I have previously written about the similar liberal agenda of the American Bar Association despite plunging membership among lawyers. The ABA now represents just 17 percent of the bar.

The AAUP currently has only 44,000 to 45,00 members. There are an estimated 1.5 million university and college professors in the United States. Both the ABA and AAUP have become captive to the most ideological elements of their membership. That agenda has overwhelmed the original apolitical mission of these groups.

This orthodoxy will continue until donors refuse to support universities that do not take meaningful action to restore diversity in the faculty ranks. The AAUP’s radical agenda is only the latest example of how higher education remains a hardened ideological silo. These faculty members have shown again and again that they are unwilling to change this culture.

Only donors can force reform by cutting off their contributions or directing them to schools with a proven commitment to intellectual diversity.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Massachusetts lawmakers are barreling ahead with a bill that would force the state to slash the total miles residents drive, all under the banner of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

The proposal, Senate Bill S.2246, doesn’t slap a hard cap on your daily commute… yet – but it orders the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) to set binding goals for reducing statewide vehicle miles traveled (VMT). It also creates a new government council tasked with pushing people onto public transit whether they like it or not.

WOW 🚨 Massachusetts Democrats preparing to limit how much you can drive your car

Instead of driving your car, a new council will be established to make sure residents use more public transportation

“The bill proposed in Massachusetts would limit how far you can drive in your… pic.twitter.com/D8goGLwqzo

— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) April 12, 2026

A local Boston report highlights the move:

“The bill proposed in Massachusetts would limit how far you can drive in your own car. So lawmakers say it would help reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Now, while no specific mileage limit was listed, the bill would require MassDOT to set goals to reduce the number of statewide driving miles. It would also establish a new council to find ways to make public transportation more accessible for residents. Now, critics say A cap on personal vehicle miles would directly impact those in rural parts of the state.”

The committee gave it a favorable 4-1 vote and shipped it to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, keeping the radical plan alive on Beacon Hill.

This isn’t some fringe idea cooked up in isolation. It’s part of a broader push to ration mobility under the twin excuses of “climate” and “equity.” Similar thinking powers the 15-minute city concept – the urban planning fad sold as “convenience” but designed to make driving anywhere outside your little neighborhood a bureaucratic nightmare.

Need to visit family across town or haul supplies for a business? Too bad. The goal is fewer cars, fewer miles, and more dependence on government-run transit that’s already unreliable and crime-ridden in blue cities.

Europe is already testing the waters with energy rationing talk amid ongoing crises. Officials have floated work-from-home mandates, driving restrictions, and even limits on flying or heating homes to meet net-zero targets.

Massachusetts Democrats are importing that same top-down control in America, where rural families, tradespeople, and anyone not lucky enough to live in a walkable Boston enclave get punished hardest.

Supporters dress it up as “aligning transportation plans with emissions goals.” The bill’s own text demands the state develop a “reasonable pathway” to cut VMT through everything from denser development to parking restrictions and tech-enabled tracking. Critics rightly call it what it is: a precursor to surveillance, fees, or outright limits on how far your personal vehicle can go.

This is the same crowd that cheered COVID lockdowns while elites jetted off to climate conferences. Now they’re eyeing your car as the next target. Rural Massachusetts residents already face long drives for work, groceries, and medical care. Forcing them onto broken public buses or trains isn’t “progress” – it’s punishment for not living the approved urban lifestyle.

This creeping surveillance state is an affront to freedom, including the personal freedom to drive where you want, when you want, in the vehicle you choose.

Massachusetts Democrats just proved again why voters are fleeing blue strongholds for red states that still respect individual liberty. If this passes, expect more families packing up and heading to places where the government doesn’t treat your car like public property. The fight against these soft tyrannies is on.

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

A smart new approach to fixing road issues is taking shape in San Francisco—and honestly, it’s finally a good idea. 

Waymo, known for putting driverless cars on city streets, is now teaming up with Waze to help identify potholes. Using data from its self-driving vehicles, Waymo can detect rough road conditions and automatically flag them in the Waze app, according to a new report from NBC. 

Drivers using Waze can already see these reported potholes, but the bigger impact comes from Waze’s “Waze for Cities” program. Thousands of cities use it to collect real-time road hazard data, giving local agencies a clearer picture of where repairs are needed.

The report notes that San Francisco officials say this won’t replace existing systems like 311 reports, but it adds another valuable layer of information. Crews still aim to fix major issues within a few days, while also making sure all neighborhoods—not just high-traffic areas—get equal attention.

This kind of tech-driven system actually makes a lot of sense. Bringing something like this to places like New Jersey or New York could seriously improve how quickly and fairly road repairs get handled.

Before partnering with Waymo, Waze had already developed a crowd-sourced approach to identifying road hazards like potholes. Drivers using the app could manually report issues in real time, tagging exact GPS locations of potholes, debris, or rough road conditions, which were then shared with other users to improve routing and safety.

Over time, Waze also leveraged passive data—such as repeated sudden decelerations or erratic vehicle movement patterns—to infer the presence of road irregularities without explicit reports. This combination of active user input and behavioral data allowed Waze to build a dynamic, continuously updated map of road quality, laying the groundwork for more automated detection methods later explored in collaborations with autonomous driving systems.

In a stunning collapse that ends 16 years of uninterrupted rule, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has conceded defeat in Sunday’s parliamentary elections, according to statements from opposition leader Péter Magyar.

With early results showing the Tisza Party on track for 128 seats in the 199-seat National Assembly and Fidesz collapsing to just 62 seats (based on more than 21% of votes counted), Orbán’s long-dominant alliance has suffered a decisive repudiation. Four years after securing a supermajority of 135 seats, Fidesz is projected to fall well short of even a simple majority.

Hungary Election Update (21:12 CET)

Official NVI count (21.54% processed):

🔹 Tisza (Magyar): 56.4% (128 seats)
🔸 Fidesz (Orbán): 37.8% (62 seats)
📈 Turnout: Record 77.8%

Magyar holding a steady lead as counting continues. 🇭🇺 #HungaryElection #Magyar #Orbán

— Mandolin Rain (@Mandolin__Rain) April 12, 2026

The concession, delivered as vote tallies continued to roll in with record 77.8% turnout, marks the first time in the post-communist era that Orbán’s Fidesz has lost control of parliament. It validates the dire warning Orbán himself issued just days ago in his final campaign rally: “We could now lose everything.”

Péter Magyar, the 43-year-old former Fidesz insider who rocketed Tisza from fringe movement to projected governing force in under two years, hailed the moment as a turning point for Hungary.

“Today the Hungarian people have chosen change,” Magyar told supporters in Budapest. “Orbán has conceded. A new era begins.”

The scale of the upset is seismic. Tisza appears headed not only for a simple majority (requiring 100 seats) but potentially the two-thirds supermajority (133 seats) needed to rewrite cardinal laws and amend the constitution — the very tools Orbán used to entrench his “illiberal democracy” model.

What the Numbers Mean

Tisza: ~128 seats (and climbing as more precincts report)
Fidesz: ~62 seats
Previous election (2022): Fidesz 135 seats

Urban centers, younger voters, and economically frustrated middle-class families drove the surge, while Fidesz held rural strongholds. The opposition’s consolidation under Magyar — a center-right, pro-EU, anti-corruption platform — proved decisive after years of fragmented resistance.

Immediate Geopolitical Shockwaves

The result upends the European political landscape:

Brussels truce: Frozen EU funds (over €20 billion) are now expected to flow again. Hungary’s systematic vetoes on Ukraine aid, migration policy, and rule-of-law mechanisms are likely to end.
Ukraine/Russia pivot: Orbán’s pro-peace, Russia-friendly stance – including delays on sanctions and energy deals – will almost certainly be reversed.
Populist right in freefall: The defeat delivers a body blow to Europe’s nationalist movements. Marine Le Pen, Matteo Salvini, and Germany’s AfD lose their strongest Central European anchor. Donald Trump’s recent endorsement of Orbán as a “strong leader” and JD Vance’s pre-election Budapest visit now look like backing the wrong horse.
Markets react: Early trading signals suggest a stronger forint and narrowing sovereign spreads as investors price in EU reconciliation and policy normalization.

Orbán, 62, has not yet issued a personal statement, but sources close to Fidesz say he will address the nation later today. The party retains pockets of deep loyalty, particularly among older voters and in the countryside, but the scale of the urban and youth revolt proved overwhelming.

Official final results are still days away (including overseas and mail-in ballots), but with Orbán’s concession the political reality is already set: Hungary’s voters have delivered a verdict that will reverberate across Europe and the global populist movement for years.

This is a breaking story. ZeroHedge will update as Orbán speaks and final tallies come in.

Authored by Tim O’Brien via PJ Media,

One of the most common talking points from the left is that if you don’t rush confused kids into the gender reassignment pipeline, they will kill themselves. The left tells us that “transgenderism” is not a mental health problem, while at the same time telling us that people, especially minors, will kill themselves at greater rates if steps aren’t quickly taken to get those kids on puberty blockers, and on track to have their bodies permanently mutilated to change their sex. 

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

More to the point, the narrative goes like this: “Trans kids” are at higher risk of suicide if they don’t receive greater acceptance, supportive environments, and “access” to “gender-affirming care.” 

Did it ever occur to the left that the suicide in these cases may be connected to the increased likelihood that gender-confused children have severe mental health instability? Did it ever occur to the left that a pre-existing mental health issue, not the gender issue, is what may contribute to the risk of suicide? 

I’ve looked at a bunch of studies the left uses to justify this narrative, and one thing goes overlooked, which is the difference between correlation and causation. In other words, if someone doesn’t call a teenager by her trans name, is that the cause of her later suicide? Or was it something else, and the “misgendering” was just a convenient scapegoat? 

And so, when researchers studied the relationship “between chosen name use, as a proxy for youths’ gender affirmation in various contexts, and mental health among transgender youth,” did they just assume that the trigger for later “health risks” was due to how they were addressed by name, or were all possible causes considered? 

Kids who are confused about their gender are likely confused about a lot of things, and it could be that it’s this state of confusion and a general struggle with reality that is the more fundamental problem. But if researchers only key in on how those boys and girls are addressed, they can come to any conclusions that suit them.

Destroying a common myth

Don’t take my word for it. Researchers in Finland published a groundbreaking study in the peer-reviewed pediatric journal Acta Paediatrica, which pretty much destroyed the notion that “gender reassignment” surgeries and treatments help gender-confused kids. 

According to the study, the surgeries and treatments may, in fact, be making things worse. 

“In some individuals, medical GR [gender reassignment] appears to be linked to deterioration in mental health,” the study found. “Subsequent to medical GR, psychiatric treatment needs appear to increase.” 

In other words, the surgeries and puberty blockers may be hurting the children they purport to help, and even then, the kids’ needs for psychiatric treatment for mental health problems only increase. 

Let’s dig deeper: “Among adolescents who underwent medical gender reassignment, psychiatric morbidity increased markedly during follow-up,” the study found. If that euphemism is sufficiently confusing to you, “psychiatric morbidity” in this context is suicide, eating disorders, depression, and other serious mental health problems.  

The title of the study is “Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adolescents and Young Adults Who Contacted Specialised Gender Identity Services in Finland in 1996–2019,” which itself emphasizes that this is an analysis of real-world data, not just some carefully constructed sample to study. And the time period for the study spanned 25 years. You would think that if you take a deep dive into 25 years of real-world data, you might get a clear picture of the issues at play and what’s really happening. 

During that period, the percentage of males wanting to become female jumped from 9.8% in 1996 to 60.7% in 2019. This stat alone kills the “born this way” assumption. As Finland’s culture has shifted aggressively leftward, more boys want to be girls. This suggests that the “trans kids” dynamic is a social contagion. 

On the female side, the number of girls wanting to become boys from 1996 to 2019 jumped from 21.6% to 54.5%. 

Here’s a look under the hood of the data. The study authors analyzed data from “a total of 2,083 individuals under the age of 23, who received ‘specialized gender identity services’” at hospitals over time. 

Finland has a nationalized, centralized health care system, which means that this data is pretty comprehensive and a reflection of what is actually happening in that country.  

The big news coming out of this research is that adolescents who were referred to specialist transgender services “showed significantly higher psychiatric morbidity than controls,” with 45.7% having mental health issues before referral, compared to 15.0% among the control population. This means the mental health problems were a pre-existing condition. 

Two years or more after referral to the system for “gender affirmation,” 61.7% of the gender dysphoric population had mental health issues, compared to only 14.6% of the control population.

At the same time, the data revealed that the proportion of teenagers with mental health problems also rose by 35% after receiving a referral to specialist transgender services. If I’m reading this right, it would seem that any kid in Finland who turned to the healthcare community for help with gender dysphoria issues likely found that his or her mental health problems got worse as a result. 

Here’s the kicker. Because not every kid who entered the system went through with the whole program, the researchers were able to measure how many kids who opted out of puberty blockers and sex change surgeries fared psychologically as a result.  

The study found that teens who decided not to receive hormonal or surgical treatments enjoyed better mental health outcomes. The rate of mental health challenges increased by a much lesser amount. That puts the kibosh on the whole rationale for transing the kids. 

If a kid is confused over his or her gender, and you don’t give them puberty blockers, and you don’t push surgeries on them, you’re more likely to have a kid with better mental health in the end.  

But if you do put them on the hormonal treatment track and the surgery track, the chances of the child having compounded mental health problems increase. 

Common sense wins

The bottom line is that common sense wins every time. Tragically, there are still hospitals, mental health professionals, school counselors, and parents who want to irreversibly change a child’s mental and physical make-up to solve what amounts to a very treatable mental health problem at a key stage of their adolescent growth and maturation process. 

The left likes to lecture the right to “follow the science,” but this science will be buried if the left has anything to do with it. The left wants gender-confused children. The left wants to “trans kids.”

Speaking of “trans kids,” how did that even become a thing? How does a child know he or she is, in fact, the opposite sex in the wrong body? That can only come as part of a very sophisticated, manipulative process that certain segments of society are foisting on the kids to corrupt them. 

It’s time to put an end to this. The more irrefutable data we have that cannot be suppressed, the more likely we’ll be able to look after the most vulnerable among us and protect them from “gender affirming” destruction. 

Authored by Vince Quill via CoinTelegraph.com,

United States President Donald Trump is facing renewed scrutiny as crypto tokens and projects touted by the US president crash to all-time lows or sit near record low levels.

The Official Trump token (TRUMP), a memecoin pushed by Trump, hit an all-time low of about $2.73 in March 2026 and is currently trading at about $2.86, according to data from CoinGecko.

The TRUMP memecoin has plummeted in price since launching in January 2025. Source: CoinGecko

The governance token issued by World Liberty Financial (WLFI), a decentralized finance (DeFi) platform co-founded by Trump’s sons, sunked to an all-time low of just $0.07 on Saturday.

WLFI is down by nearly 75% from its all-time high of about $0.31 reached in September 2025, while the TRUMP memecoin is down by about 90% since its all-time high of over $73 reached in January 2025. 

The WLFI token has crashed by nearly 75% since the all-time high reached in September 2025. Source: CoinMarketCap

“We thought Sam Bankman-Fried or Gary Gensler were the worst things to happen to the crypto industry, and they were horrible,” Professor Tonya Evans said in response to the plummeting token prices. Evans, a board member at Grayscale parent DCG, added:

“But, turns out, it was the guy who surrounds himself with sycophants, siphons every bit of value he can for himself, and then expeditiously bankrupts companies and casinos without consequence.”

President Trump also announced another gala for token holders, scheduled to take place on April 25, fueling renewed scrutiny from US Democratic lawmakers, who have accused Trump of influence peddling by giving token holders access to him.

US lawmakers send letter to Trump memecoin creator

Senators Elizabeth Warren, Richard Blumenthal and Adam Schiff have asked Bill Zanker, the individual who launched the Trump memecoin, for details on the purpose of the planned Trump memecoin gala in April.

The organizers of the event are “dangling access” to Trump, the lawmakers said, according to Politico, which obtained a copy of the letter. 

Trump and his family members stand to benefit from increased sales of the Trump memecoin; attendees are required to hold TRUMP tokens to gain access to the event, the Senators said.

The Federal Aviation Administration has given the green light for the U.S. military to deploy high-energy counter-drone laser weapons in U.S. airspace, adding a new, low-cost layer of protection against the rising threat from kamikaze drones. The decision follows a two-month interagency standoff over whether the systems posed a risk to general aviation and commercial aircraft, as well as incidents in Texas earlier this year that briefly led to an airspace closure.

FAA Administrator Bryan Bedford was quoted by The New York Times as saying the new laser weapon systems had completed a safety assessment that “determined that these systems do not present an increased risk to the flying public.”

The decision paves the way for broader use of these 20- to 35+-kilowatt-class laser weapon systems along the southern border to combat drug cartel drones and one-way attack drones. These threats have caused alarm at the highest levels in Washington, especially following the use of drones by Iran in the Gulf area to target data centers, civilian infrastructure, and U.S. military bases.

The NYTimes provided more color on the FAA’s decision: 

The statement did not address whether the agency had determined that the high-energy lasers posed no physical risk to aircraft, or whether the safety determination was based on how the lasers were being deployed. But the F.A.A. determined that the risk would be minimal even if the laser came into contact with an airplane, according to an agency official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

The controversy surrounding these laser weapons stems from the February 10 incident when the FAA briefly closed airspace over El Paso after Border Patrol fired the weapon at an object that turned out to be a metallic balloon. With the interagency standoff over, the U.S. military has considered deploying these lasers in Washington, D.C., to combat low-cost, one-way attack drones.

The core vulnerability across U.S. airspace is that a cheap, layered counter-drone system still does not exist, nor is one widely deployed around critical civilian infrastructure such as data centers, power plants, transmission substations, and other critical nodes across the modern economy, where even limited disruption could trigger localized or regional turmoil. The race to close that gap with low-cost systems is underway. We laid out this threat assessment one month before the US-Iran conflict. Now it’s time for solutions.

By Peter Tchir of Academy Securities

Without a doubt, trading at the start of the week will hinge on developments in the ongoing ceasefire negotiations.

As Spider, Bret, and I discussed on Friday’s podcast the range of possible outcomes has not narrowed significantly. Anything from a serious deal, to walking away and restarting the attacks seems plausible. Spider “guffawed” at the comparison of Regime Change to Welcome Back Kotter – well, the names have all changed…

You know we live in a weird world, where in less than a week, the President posting on Truth Social that a “civilization will die tonight” barely registers as something to talk about.

Academy will continue to stay in front of you this weekend and next week as the situation develops, but the podcast (and much of our writing from this week) remains relevant until we get a clear direction on the talks. So far it has been compared to two sides repeating their list of demands to each other, but at least they are communicating.

More Than an Easter Ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine?

With all the attention focused on Iran, there are stories circulating that Russia and Ukraine could be heading towards something more lasting (while at the same time, there are concerns that even the limited Easter ceasefire won’t hold). Easter (for those following the Julian calendar) is this weekend, while for those following the Gregorian calendar, it was last weekend.

Why could this war finally be headed towards a deal?

Ukraine.

Depending on the U.S. for big support has already seemed like a weak strategy. With the U.S. un-sanctioning Russian oil, it seems even more dangerous to tie your hopes to U.S. aid (also, the U.S. has been using up missiles in the fight in Iran, so will be less likely to want to ship military equipment elsewhere, until our stockpiles are replenished).

Relying on Europe has always been difficult at best. The EU has not been prepared for war, and the framework of the EU makes it difficult to do anything major, quickly. For me, when Brussels vetoed the taking of Russia’s frozen reserves, I largely gave up on the EU.

Russia. Given the two previous paragraphs, it would seem that Russia should be foaming at the mouth to increase attacks and not even be thinking about peace. But…

From a “carrot” perspective, this might be the easiest time for Russia to “ease back” into the global economy. With sanctions already lifted, it might make sense to do a deal now and have those sanctions permanently lifted (politicians have an easier time maintaining the status quo, than changing it).

Ukraine has a factory in the UK. Ukraine is working with some countries in the Gulf. We have already seen what asymmetric warfare can do against even the biggest, best, most well-prepared military in the world – and that is not what the Russian military is. If you are Russia, you may have to worry that Ukraine is getting better at drones. Also, while Russia and Ukraine largely kept away from infrastructure targets, those seem more likely to be on the table as attacks (and threats of attacks) on those targets moved the needle 

It would be a pleasant surprise to see some progress on this front. While it still seems unlikely, maybe we have finally reached the point where conditions on both sides warrant some sort of a deal.

On Any Other Weekend This Would Be the Main Focus

Stocks averages did so well this week that weakness in an important sector has been largely ignored.

This ETF is comprised of some of the biggest, best “software” brands in the world. Yet, while everything else was rallying this week, this ETF had its lowest close since 2023. The recent selling, at least in part, coincided with a new AI model, which also triggered an “emergency” banking meeting in D.C.

What was interesting, and in direct contrast to the Barron’s article linked above, is that the CIBR (a cybersecurity-focused ETF) also did poorly (ending the week barely above its post Liberation Day lows).

SOXX, a semiconductor ETF, had a great week.

I continue to believe that as we near an end to the conflict in Iran, ProSec will once again take center stage, with domestic energy, electricity, and chip manufacturing as the focus.

Having said that, the carnage in software seems like it should have broader implications for the market. Maybe it will once we have fewer “headlines” about the Middle East.

CONsumer CONfidence

If the CON CON didn’t give it away (again), I am not a big fan of this data series. But two things struck me as interesting.

Inflation expectations for 5 to 10 years out remained “anchored” coming in at 3.4%. Up a bit from recent prints of 3.2%, and well above the Fed’s target, but well below readings throughout most of 2025. If the Fed was willing to cut rates with much higher long-run expectations (and they did), then this should help rate cut probabilities inch higher. It isn’t great data, but could have been worse, which is all that a Fed run by Warsh is likely to need.

On the flip side, while I’m not a huge fan of the number, “all-time” records deserve at least some attention

The deterioration has been dramatic and cannot be “just” linked to Iran. Does that mean affordability (and the “working poor”) thesis is about to get some attention again?

The caveat to this is that CONsumer CONfidence is very “political.” Not sure why it is that political, but it is – just look at the chart, and how confidence switched after the election. Long before the President was even sworn into office, the sentiment of Republicans and Democrats did a 180 (the same thing happened, but in reverse, when Biden beat Trump).

I will ignore the Democrats for now, and focus on Republicans and Independents. Both were slightly better than their lowest levels since the election. That mitigates some of the sting of the headline number but it is something to keep a close eye on.

I do hate that I dedicated so much space to a data series that I don’t put a lot of faith in, but this was too big to ignore.

Bottom Line

Sunday night and Monday morning will be heavily dependent on the messaging out of Pakistan (I did a double take as I wrote that, but it seems to be the case).

There is nothing bigger for the global economy than how this conflict is resolved or proceeds. Given the trading over the last two days (where every “negative” headline was met with minimal selling, and every “positive” headline was met with robust buying) a lot of good news is priced in. We will still rally on positive outcomes, but some form of a “deal” seems to be increasingly priced into markets.

Let’s hope that markets are right and we are near the end.

Then for better or worse, we can return to our “normal” programming and figure out what to make of the AI story, the software story, the K-shaped (or working poor) story, the affordability problem (which will be alleviated with a good outcome in the Middle East, but not solved), the jobs story, etc.

The U.S. Navy has finally thrown in the towel on the Los Angeles-class attack submarine USS Boise (SSN-764). After more than eleven years pierside and roughly $800 million poured into a repair effort that never really started, the service announced that the 34-year-old boat will be inactivated rather than returned to the fleet.

The decision comes as the Navy shifts focus to Virginia- and Columbia-class construction, yet one has to wonder why those same priorities could not have been acted on years earlier while Boise gathered dust and the rest of the submarine force picked up the slack.

Boise last deployed in January 2015. Its regular overhaul was supposed to begin in fiscal year 2016 at Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Instead, the boat sat idle, lost its dive certification in 2017, and was towed back and forth between public and private yards. A $1.2 billion contract finally went to Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News in 2024, but costs had already climbed and the work barely progressed. 

The submarine has spent the better part of a decade contributing nothing to deterrence or operations while other attack boats endured extended deployments and accelerated redeployments to cover the shortfall.

Roughly one-third of the Navy’s nuclear attack submarines have routinely sat in maintenance or idle status in recent years, well above the service’s own 20% target, forcing the available boats into higher operational tempo and longer patrols. The backlog creates a vicious cycle with fewer submarines at sea. This means more wear on those still deployed, which in turn means more maintenance down the road.

The episode also underscores just how far American shipyards have fallen. Contrast today’s performance with the Pearl Harbor Navy Yard immediately after the December 7, 1941, attack. With the yard working around the clock with Navy crews, civilians, and divers logging more than 20,000 hours underwater, battleships like Nevada, California, and West Virginia were refloated and patched in a matter of weeks.

The carrier Yorktown, battered at Coral Sea and estimated to need three months of repairs, received emergency work in roughly seventy-two hours and sailed in time to help win the Battle of Midway. The industrial base then could absorb catastrophic damage and surge back into the fight. Today, the US can’t overhaul one submarine in more than a decade without the price tag exploding and the project collapsing.

From our previous coverage on the topic, we have to wonder if this decision to inactivate the Boise has anything to do with the $448 million Palantir contract for utilizing their AI to improve submarine maintenance and construction. The Navy partnered with Palantir to tackle precisely these bottlenecks in new construction and maintenance.

The Navy now insists the Boise decision frees skilled labor and dollars for higher priorities. Yet after eleven years of inaction, millions spent, and a force stretched thin, the move feels less like strategic wisdom and more like an admission that the system has been broken for far too long.