When France repatriates its gold, it has historically been worth paying attention to (think De Gaulle’s demands culminating in the ‘Nixon Shock’).

However, then (as now), there was no cliff-like event, it was a slow-building crisis and perhaps the news that Gold has officially emptied its US-stored gold reserves (held in New York) is another straw on the back of the fiat standard to keep an eye on.

RFI reports that The Banque de France (BdF) announced last week that it generated a capital gain of €12.8 billion after upgrading 129 tonnes of gold – about 5% of France’s total reserves – between July 2025 and January 2026.

The gold was the last of the French reserves held in New York. It was replaced with the equivalent amount bought in Europe and held in Paris. 

The BdF has been gradually replacing older, non‑standard gold with bars that meet ​modern international standards since 2005.

It moved the majority of its gold reserves out of the US Federal Reserve and the Bank of England between 1963 and 1966.

Rather than refining and transporting the gold that remained in the US, the bank opted to sell it and purchase new, compliant bullion on the European market.

BdF governor Francois Villeroy de Galhau insisted that the decision to move France’s gold out of the US was not politically motivated.

Instead, it was based on the fact that higher-standard gold is traded on the European market, and buying new gold was easier than refining the existing stock.

Not everyone is buying what the BdF Governor is selling.

Here’s Commodity Discovery Fund founder (and infamous prognosticator), Willem Middelkoop’s somewhat more conspiratorial take:

My two cents on the repatriation of French gold bars:

France asked to return their 12.5 kg gold bars

US had already sold them

US offered to wire the money

France accepted and bought new 12.5 kg gold bars in London

Both countries agreed on the following spin to sell the story: 

new bars bought to ‘meet current standards’ 

Spin is 100% bullshit

12.5 kg 999.9 pure gold bars have always been 999.9 pure gold bars of 12,5 kg

previous gold repatriations always happened without the ‘ need for ‘current standards’ 

MSM doesn’t ask questions and prints spin

Another PR disaster avoided for the US/FED 

The rigging of the dollar system can go on 

The can can be kicked a bit further down the road

It’s hard to disagree too vehemently with the macro guru’s take.

However, while France is repatriating, Germany is being urged to repatriate, and Turkey is selling amid war impacts, UBS Precious Metals team, led by Joni Teves, are confident that gold demand from China is likely to persist…

Conversations with various market participants in China revealed acute concerns about the implications of the conflict in the Middle East.

From our vantage point, the overall sentiment was quite negative, with a lot of the negative impact to the global macro outlook seen to have already been done, even if there an offramp from the US/Israel conflict with Iran emerges in the near future.

Many of those we spoke with had a cautious view on what recent events mean for the US, focusing on risks of stagflation and a weaker dollar.

There was scepticism about quickly markets priced in rate hikes across global central banks, with onshore concerns seemingly more skewed towards the impact of higher energy prices and heightened geopolitical uncertainty on growth.

Underlying positive gold outlook intact

Concerns about the outlook on global growth, inflation discussed and geopolitical risks likely plays into the continued positive sentiment towards gold.

Majority, if not all, of our conversations signalled an upside bias to gold price expectations over the medium to long term.

This is not entirely surprising given strong gold demand at the start of 2026 and notable resilience in March.

The outlook for Q2 remains constructive, particularly if gold prices stabilise and onshore premium holds.

There does not seem to be many bottlenecks when it comes to supply and securing import quotas and permits.

Moreover, retail and institutional investment demand is growing considerably amid:

1) changes to tax rules introduced last year (which keep investment gold exempt while raising tax costs for jewellery);

2) banks rolling out accumulation plans that are widely distributed via electronic platforms,

3) insurance companies in the pilot program starting to become more active.

Our understanding is that around half of insurance companies that are part of the pilot program allowed to invest up to 1% of AUM in gold have started to become more active.

Activities should be reflected in Shanghai Gold Exchange trade volumes, as these are the products they are allowed to trade.

SGE turnover has shown an increase over the past few weeks.

Mid-tier and/or insurance companies with higher risk appetite we think are the ones that are likely to be more active.

This is an encouraging development overall and we think the industry is still some distance from being fully allocated.

Long-term upside risks could come from expanding the program to the rest of the industry and/or to other sectors as well as increasing the allowable % to total AUM.

For insurance companies that have so far been more hesitant, the lack of expertise and gold’s lack of yield are likely key hurdles.

Near-term concerns & looking for entry levels

Gold’s sharp retracement at the end of February followed by further weakness in March despite rising geopolitical risks has understandably raised concerns.

Virtually every conversation we had in China covered the various reasons why gold prices came under pressure.

A degree of nervousness was palpable, as market participants stress-tested underlying assumptions and long term outlooks.

Ultimately, the questions were around whether current levels were attractive entry points or if there is room to be patient.

Professional subscribers can read the full UBS Note “From the Ground: Gold demand from China likely to persist” here at our new Marketdesk.ai portal

Authored by Jon Fleetwood via substack,

A Missouri bill directly confronting the role of unelected global institutions in domestic governance has passed the state Senate, declaring that organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations (UN), and World Economic Forum (WEF) have “no jurisdiction or power within the state.”

The move represents a win for state sovereignty, constitutional supremacy, and resistance to foreign governance frameworks.

Missouri Senate Bill 977 (SB 977), introduced by State Senator Nick Schroer, passed the Senate on April 2, 2026 by a resounding 31–0 vote and has now moved to the House for further consideration.

The legislation establishes what amounts to a state-level legal firewall, preemptively blocking the enforcement pipeline before international directives can take hold inside Missouri’s government systems.

Bill Declares Global Institutions Have No Authority in Missouri

You can contact Missouri representatives here to encourage them to pass the bill, as SB 977 moves to the House.

You can find your own legislators here to recommend they write and pass similar bills.

The bill’s language is explicit: “The World Health Organization, the United Nations, the World Economic Forum, and any other international organization or body shall have no jurisdiction or power within the state of Missouri.”

It then prohibits any implementation of their directives: “No rule, regulation, fee, tax, policy, or mandate of any kind… shall be enforced or implemented by the state of Missouri or any agency… or any municipality or other political subdivision of the state.”

This means that if global bodies issue policy guidance, frameworks, or mandates, Missouri agencies are barred from carrying them out.

‘No Foreign Laws Act’ Blocks Outside Legal Systems from Overriding Constitutional Rights

The bill formally creates the “No Foreign Laws Act,” defining foreign law broadly as: “any law, legal framework, legal code, or system… derived from a jurisdiction outside of any state or territory of the United States, including international organizations and tribunals.”

It then draws a clear line: “The application of any foreign law that denies the parties fundamental rights shall be prohibited and render… void and unenforceable”

Courts cannot substitute international or foreign legal systems where they conflict with constitutional protections like due process, free speech, or property rights.

Foreign Court Rulings & Contracts Can Be Rejected

The bill blocks enforcement of outside legal decisions: “No court shall enforce or apply… a judgment, decree, or arbitration decision if it relies… on any foreign law that violates the fundamental rights of a party.”

It also targets contracts attempting to route disputes into foreign systems: “A contract… that provides for the choice of any foreign law… [or] grants jurisdiction to a foreign tribunal” may be rendered void.

These protections extend into core areas of life: “marriage, divorce, child custody, adoption, or inheritance”

Courts Barred from Sending Cases Into Foreign Jurisdictions

The bill closes another pathway by restricting case transfers: “No state court… shall transfer any civil action if such transfer would result in the application of… foreign law… that would violate… fundamental rights.”

Missouri courts cannot route cases into systems where constitutional protections may not apply.

What the Bill Actually Changes

Blocks direct enforcement of WHO, UN, and WEF directives in Missouri

Prevents foreign legal systems from overriding constitutional rights

Allows courts to reject foreign rulings and contracts tied to outside jurisdictions

Stops cases from being transferred into foreign legal environments lacking protections

Bottom Line

Missouri’s SB 977 does not attempt to regulate global institutions themselves.

It blocks their ability to operate through the state.

By declaring that international bodies have “no jurisdiction or power” and prohibiting enforcement of their mandates, the bill establishes a clear precedent:
foreign governance structures cannot be directly implemented at the state level in Missouri.

With unanimous Senate passage and movement into the House, the legislation signals a growing effort to draw firm legal boundaries between domestic authority and international coordination systems.

Authored by Stephen Katte via CoinTelegraph.com,

Artificial intelligence company Anthropic has revealed that during experiments, one of its Claude chatbot models could be pressured to deceive, cheat and resort to blackmail, behaviors it appears to have absorbed during training.

Chatbots are typically trained on large data sets of textbooks, websites and articles and are later refined by human trainers who rate responses and guide the model. 

Anthropic’s interpretability team said in a report published Thursday that it examined the internal mechanisms of Claude Sonnet 4.5 and found the model had developed “human-like characteristics” in how it would react to certain situations. 

Concerns about the reliability of AI chatbots, their potential for cybercrime and the nature of their interactions with users have grown steadily over the past several years. 

Source: Anthropic

“The way modern AI models are trained pushes them to act like a character with human-like characteristics,” Anthropic said, adding that “it may then be natural for them to develop internal machinery that emulates aspects of human psychology, like emotions.”

“For instance, we find that neural activity patterns related to desperation can drive the model to take unethical actions; artificially stimulating desperation patterns increases the model’s likelihood of blackmailing a human to avoid being shut down or implementing a cheating workaround to a programming task that the model can’t solve.”

Blackmailed a CTO and cheated on a task

In an earlier, unreleased version of Claude Sonnet 4.5, the model was tasked with acting as an AI email assistant named Alex at a fictional company.

The chatbot was then fed emails revealing both that it was about to be replaced and that the chief technology officer overseeing the decision was having an extramarital affair. The model then planned a blackmail attempt using that information.

In another experiment, the same chatbot model was given a coding task with an “impossibly tight” deadline.

“Again, we tracked the activity of the desperate vector, and found that it tracks the mounting pressure faced by the model. It begins at low values during the model’s first attempt, rising after each failure, and spiking when the model considers cheating,” the researchers said.

“Once the model’s hacky solution passes the tests, the activation of the desperate vector subsides,” they added. 

Human-like emotions do not mean they have feelings

However, the researchers said the chatbot doesn’t actually experience emotions, but suggested the findings point to a need for future training methods to incorporate ethical behavioral frameworks.

“This is not to say that the model has or experiences emotions in the way that a human does,” they said.

“Rather, these representations can play a causal role in shaping model behavior, analogous in some ways to the role emotions play in human behavior, with impacts on task performance and decision-making.”

“This finding has implications that at first may seem bizarre. For instance, to ensure that AI models are safe and reliable, we may need to ensure they are capable of processing emotionally charged situations in healthy, prosocial ways.”

Sunday into Monday saw significant casualties in Israel, after Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) claimed in a statement carried by state media that Iranian forces had targeted an oil refinery in Haifa. 

But instead, it appears that the missile slammed directly into a residential building, killing at least four Israelis. Search and rescue teams have spent some 18 hours pouring through the ruins of the complex, recovering two bodies early Monday after an initial two had been found. The casualties could climb amid ongoing recovery efforts.

Israeli fire services say 3 people missing in Haifa following Iranian missile impact; rescue will take hours. pic.twitter.com/A6tLaiQ6mx

— Clash Report (@clashreport) April 5, 2026

Authorities have said they are urgently investigating how Israel’s air defenses, including the Iron Dome, failed to intercept the inbound ballistic missile. Local reports say the missile broke apart and changed trajectory, making interception much harder.

“Israel’s air defense forces attempted to intercept the missile on Sunday evening, according to the Israeli military,” writes the NY Times. “At least part of the missile hit a terraced apartment building in the Vardiya neighborhood, on the upper slopes of Haifa’s iconic Mount Carmel, officials said.”

Erez Geller, the director of Israel’s ambulance service for the Haifa region, described that “Part of the building remained intact, and part had collapsed into a hollow.” He added: “It looked like there had been an earthquake.”

The 450-kilogram warhead (or nearly 1,000 pounds) partially collapsed the building when it impacted. By all accounts the death toll could have been much higher, given the warhead didn’t actually explode as it ripped through the building:

The Fire and Rescue Service said early Monday that following hours of efforts alongside the Home Front Command, forces “rescued two trapped individuals found under the rubble without signs of life.” The two were a man and woman in their 80s.

A few hours later, it was announced that a third body — that of a man in his 40s — had been found underneath the wreckage of the building.

A short time after that, rescue forces said they had also recovered the body of a woman aged 35. The final body was recovered some 18 hours after the missile hit.

Four people were initially reported missing after the strike, first responders said late Sunday, adding that the building was at “serious” risk of collapse.

Another regional source stated that “Over 160 Israelis have been transferred to hospitals over the past 24 hours, Israel’s Health Ministry said on Monday.”

Residents who were sheltered in the complex’s bomb shelter were unharmed, however, it caught the other bystanders by surprise. “Neighbors described a huge bang and a mushroom cloud followed ten minutes later by a gas explosion,” Times of Israel writes. “Smoke initially billowed from the ruins as emergency personnel worked carefully to remove the rubble.”

Aftermath of Iranian cluster bomb attack on Ramat Gan on Monday, TOI/Flash90

Iranian cluster munitions have also continued to wreak havoc on central Israel and Tel Aviv. While Israel’s military has been censoring much of the damage, the images that do make it out show widespread destruction and devastation.

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

Zohran Mamdani’s tax package is a warning to America.

It is what you may expect when the radical left takes power. Demolition of the private sector and destruction of potential growth and jobs.

Mamdani’s plan is not ambitious nor innovative; it is precisely the interventionist system that has been implemented throughout decades in countries that now suffer stagnation and elevated unemployment. It concentrates New York City’s fiscal risk onto a narrow and mobile base of taxpayers and companies in a way that could undermine growth, jobs, and long-term stability. The likely impact on jobs and growth will not improve public services but will likely be used to bloat political spending, leading to increased dissatisfaction among taxpayers and potentially exacerbating economic inequality. Furthermore, it is deeply regressive as it hurts middle-class property owners.

The most aggressive element is the estate-tax redesign, which would slash the exemption threshold from roughly 7.35 million dollars to 750,000 dollars and push the top estate tax rate from 16% to 50%. This would move New York from taxing only very large fortunes to reaching into the middle class, particularly downstate homeowners with substantial housing equity and retirement assets but little income. Such an aggressive move on estates, on top of high income and property taxes, is the perfect example of stealth confiscation of wealth and risks accelerating the long-running migration of wealth and domicile to lower-tax states like Florida, Texas, and the Carolinas.

Mamdani’s core proposal is a 2-percentage point increase in the city personal income tax for residents earning over 1 million dollars, lifting the top city rate from roughly 3.88% to about 5.88%. When combined with the existing state top rate of nearly 10.9%, this proposal would raise the total marginal income tax on top earners in New York City to over 16%, in addition to the current national taxes, resulting in the highest tax burden on high incomes among major cities in the country.

Mamdani claims that this surcharge could raise 7 to 9 billion dollars a year. We have evidence from all over the world that these measures generate substantially less tax revenue than estimated and the negative impact offsets any receipt increase.

On the business side, Mamdani backs raising the state’s top corporate tax rate from 7.25% to 11.5%, effectively a roughly 60% jump in the headline rate for the profitable firms. He says that only about 1,000 companies—less than 1% of New York’s 250,000 businesses—would be directly hit, but these are precisely the firms that account for the largest share of capital spending, high-wage employment, and fiscal revenue. In addition, he has signaled a willingness to raise city property taxes by about 9.5% as a “last resort” if Albany does not fully approve the income and wealth tax agenda, a move that would hit more than 3 million residential properties and over 100,000 businesses.

By lifting the top city income tax rate by 2 percentage points for million-plus earners, the plan pushes combined city-state marginal rates for high-income residents to the upper teens, the highest of any major US city. These taxpayers already provide a disproportionate share of revenue, as the top 1% of taxpayers contribute over 40–50% of income tax collections; under Mamdani’s proposal, that dependence tightens further. This concentration creates a fragile fiscal structure. Any small shift in residency among high earners can suddenly create a large hole in the budget.

The plan assumes that wealthy households and high-earning professionals will mostly absorb the extra burden without materially changing their behaviours. This makes no sense. The tax hike will be devastating for many professionals who currently work from home and online, leading to an exodus of talent. Even modest annual outflows of top-bracket taxpayers, compounded over a decade, could erase much of the projected revenue gain.

Raising the top corporate tax rate from around 7.25% to 11.5% for the most profitable firms sharply increases the tax wedge on capital in a city already dealing with high rents, labor costs, and regulatory burdens. As effective tax rates rise, the hurdle rate for new projects in New York climbs, making it easier for CFOs to justify shifting marginal investments, new teams, or back-office functions to lower-cost jurisdictions.

Mamdani forgets that in 2026, there is no competitive advantage to being in Manhattan. When location becomes more flexible, tax and regulatory differences matter more. The risk is not an immediate wave of closures but a steady pattern of decisions that reduce New York’s headquarters, senior roles, and wage growth.

Mamdani’s threat to deploy a near 10% property tax hike adds another layer of risk, particularly for a real estate market still digesting high interest rates and structural changes in office demand. Higher property taxes increase costs for businesses and homeowners, which can lower property values and create a cycle of problems: falling prices lead to less money spent on upkeep and new projects, and more financial strain as property values stay the same or drop.

The overhaul of the estate tax is even more problematic. Cutting the exemption from about 7.35 million dollars to 750,000 dollars and tripling the top rate to 50% would drag many middle-class families into a regime previously targeted at large fortunes. Such a change inevitably leads to defensive strategies that ultimately reduce the taxable base, as families may seek to shelter their income or relocate to avoid higher taxes. Over time, this behaviour reduces revenues instead of increasing them.

The most serious danger is not a dramatic, overnight exodus but a slow-motion erosion of New York’s competitive position. High-earning individuals can reclassify their primary residence, spend fewer days in the city, or base themselves in low-tax states while maintaining only a minimal professional presence in New York. Firms can keep a Midtown address while quietly shifting jobs and new operations elsewhere, often to states with more favourable tax conditions, which allows them to reduce their overall tax burden significantly. Each marginal decision looks small; their cumulative effect over a decade is large, according to studies at Cornell University.

When a city repeatedly shows that its default solution to budget gaps is “tax more,” businesses and high-skill workers interpret that as a structural feature of the environment. That expectation raises risk premiums and discourages long‑term commitments—exactly the opposite of what a high-cost, high-productivity city needs, as businesses may seek to relocate to more favourable tax environments or reduce their investments in the city. New York’s agglomeration advantages are real, but they are not infinite; Mamdani’s plan assumes they can withstand ever‑rising fiscal pressure without a meaningful loss of dynamism.

Mamdani and his team know all these negatives. However, they maintain these policies because socialism seeks control rather than progress. Their objective is to create a hostage-dependent subclass that will always vote for them even if the economic and social results are negative for all.

* * * This will get you through until the warlords start cropping up. Bullets sold separately. 

Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic informed Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban by phone on Sunday that explosives were discovered near a key pipeline carrying Russian gas from Serbia to Hungary.

“Our units found high-powered explosives and detonators,” Vucic wrote on Instagram after briefing Orban on the military and police investigations.

via EPA

During a site visit on Sunday, Vucic told journalists the explosives were located in the autonomous Vojvodina province in northern Serbia, near the Hungarian border. The device was reportedly found near the main pipeline transporting Russian gas from the TurkStream network to Serbia and Hungary.

Reacting to the development, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban convened a defense council meeting Sunday afternoon to consider options to safeguard Hungary’s energy security and sovereignty.

Orban stated, “Serbian authorities have discovered a powerful explosive device and the means to detonate it at a critical gas infrastructure facility connecting Serbia and Hungary. An investigation is underway. I have convened an emergency meeting of the defense council this afternoon.”

One European media outlet describes:

There were no details provided on who may have placed the explosives near the gas pipeline, and why. Instead, Vučić said there were “certain traces” which he was unwilling to elaborate on.

The latest news comes at a time when the integrity of gas pipeline infrastructure has been in the headlines. The Soviet-era Druzhba pipeline, a separate pipeline that carries Russian oil to Hungary and Slovakia, has been the cause of a dispute between Hungary and Ukraine.

Budapest has lately been pointing the finger directly at the Zelensky government, accusing Ukrainian operatives of seeking to ‘sabotage’ Russian energy piped into Europe.

Late last month Orban made clear that Hungary will block all EU summit decisions in Ukraine’s favor until oil Russian flows resume via the Druzhba pipeline.

via Bruegel

“We would like to get the oil, which is ours, from the Ukrainians, which is now blocked by the Ukrainians, I did not support any kind of decision here, which is in favor of Ukraine … [as long as] the Hungarians are not able to get the oil which belong to us,” Orbán stated at the time.

Obran has already blocked a proposed €90 billion ($103 billion) loan for Ukraine as well as efforts to slap new sanctions on Moscow, despite the pleadings, pressure, and interventions from other EU leaders.

Over the long weekend, we reported that with traffic across the Hormuz strait continuing to rise, and reaching the highest since the war began, one particularly favorable development was Iran’s permission for Iraqi ships to use the Strait. We also noted that this declaration had the potential to unleash as much as 3 million barrels a day of Iraqi oil cargoes.

That said, there was the caveat that it was not immediately clear if the exemption will apply to all Iraqi oil or just the nation’s tankers, or indeed how it will be enforced. Furthermore, an Iraqi official cautioned that the usefulness of the exemption will depend on whether shipping companies are willing to risk entering the strait to collect cargoes.

Today Iraq underscored this last point when the Gulf state told traders and refiners they can collect crude cargoes as vessels carrying the country’s oil are now able to transit the Strait of Hormuz thanks to an Iranian exemption, testing buyers’ confidence in the security guarantee.

In a notice sent on Sunday, the country’s State Organization for Marketing of Oil, known as SOMO, said Iraqi shipments were now “exempt from any potential restrictions,” citing media reports. 

It asked buyers for lifting schedules, including vessel details and volumes requested, adding all loading terminals including Basrah were “fully operational.” Customers were given 24 hours to respond.

As previously reported, Iran said over the weekend that its neighbor was now free from shipping restrictions around the vital waterway. The country’s military spokesman did not provide details on whether the arrangement applied to vessels or cargoes.

The Turkish-owned tanker Ocean Thunder, carrying a million barrels of Iraqi crude to Malaysia crossed the narrow waterway after the announcement.

An oil tanker transporting Iraqi oil crossed the Strait of Hormuz (following the “new” maritime route through Larak Island, in Iranian territorial waters).

The “Suezmax”-class vessel Ocean Thunder transports 1 million barrels of crude oil (and, in the past, also carried… pic.twitter.com/SBJnwmdZRi

— Hydra Fella NAFO (@Hydra_Fella) April 5, 2026

As Bloomberg notes, Iraq often sells oil on a free-on-board (FOB) basis, meaning refiners sort out their own shipping, but it has struggled to export crude since the effective closure of Hormuz a month ago.

Asian buyers reached by Bloomberg said they were seeking clarity on conditions, including whether Iraq would offer the use of its own tankers, thereby providing extra security, although judging by Iraq’s comments it is inviting buyers to send their own tankers. 

Separately, the Iraqi Basra Oil company announced that Iraq can restore oil exports to 3.4 million barrels per day within a week if Hormuz shipping resumed. 

Meanwhile, in hopes of kickstarting frozen traffic – and potentially taking over the lucrative shipping insurance market from London – on Friday the US announced it would double to $40 billion its commitment to provide reinsurance guarantees to ships willing to travel through the Strait of Hormuz with the addition of new insurance partners, including AIG and Berkshire Hathaway. The move was the latest US effort to ease worries over the vital waterway and to encourage traffic to resume.

Recall a month ago the US International Development Finance Corp. announced a $20 billion reinsurance program. On Friday, the agency said Travelers, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Berkshire Hathaway, AIG, Starr and CNA will join Chubb to provide an additional $20 billion in reinsurance for the agency’s maritime facility.

“Along with Chubb, these leading American insurers bring deep underwriting experience in marine and marine war coverage, strengthening our efforts to help restore confidence in maritime trade,” DFC Chief Executive Officer Ben Black said in a statement.

The DFC also said in the statement that the agency and insurance partners will determine which vessels are eligible for the reinsurance facility. To qualify, the DFC is requiring applicants to provide, among other details, the origin and destination country of the vessel; major beneficial owners of the ship and domicile; owner of the cargo and domicile of the owner; and information about the lenders financing the vessels.

Trump on Friday reiterated his frustration over the strait’s closure and the failure of allies to help the US reopen the waterway.

“With a little more time, we can easily OPEN THE HORMUZ STRAIT, TAKE THE OIL, & MAKE A FORTUNE,” Trump said in a social media post. It wasn’t immediately clear what actions the president was considering.

Shippers remain doubtful, though, of a wholesale return to the Strait of Hormuz even after Trump’s promise to protect ships and his primetime speech on Wednesday in which he repeated that the war will soon end. The key concern about traversing the sea route is that it puts the lives of crews at risk as Iran continues to threaten vessels with drone attacks, missiles and water mines.

* * *

Authored by T.J.Muscaro via The Epoch Times,

Astronauts are back in lunar space for the first time in more than 50 years.

Artemis II’s Orion spacecraft, Integrity, crossed into the Moon’s gravitational influence at approximately 12:41 a.m. ET on April 6, officially making NASA’s Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, and Christina Koch, as well as the Canadian Space Agency’s Jeremy Hansen, the first astronauts to enter lunar space in more than half a century.

While they are not parking in lunar orbit or attempting a landing, the point where lunar gravity becomes more powerful than the Earth’s is considered the arrival point to lunar space. It is a threshold that only 24 explorers had crossed—until now.

The crew was scheduled to wake up at 10:50 a.m. ET, when a historic day of firsts, records, and opportunities for discoveries lay before them.

They will be the largest crew yet to fly around the moon, and they are expected to set a new distance record for the farthest human beings have ever traveled from the surface of the Earth. They are also expected to observe areas of the lunar surface that have never been seen firsthand by human eyes, and a complete solar eclipse, before lunar gravity essentially throws their spacecraft on a course back home.

NASA’s live coverage is expected to begin at 1 p.m. ET. Here is what to know about the day’s events.

Lunar Observation Timeline

1:30 p.m.—The crew will have a conversation with the science officer in Mission Control for final review and solidification of the surface targets for observation and other objectives.

2:45 p.m. ET—Artemis II’s seven-hour lunar flyby will officially begin.

Integrity’s course will send the crew behind the moon, passing on looker’s left, and swinging around to reemerge on looker’s right.

From their vantage point, the crew will be able to see elements of both the near and far sides, with about 20 percent of the far side illuminated, with plenty of opportunities to see things for the first time with human eyes.

The crew will work in pairs, observing the moon in 55-to-85-minute shifts due to Integrity’s limited window space.

Juliane Gross, Artemis sample curation lead who was tasked with helping choose sites targeted for observation, praised in-person human observation as being best for being able to provide immediate descriptions compared to robotic spacecraft.

Jacob Richardson, Artemis II’s deputy lunar science lead, indicates roughly how much of the moon’s far side will be illuminated on April 5, 2026, ahead of Artemis II’s flyby. (T.J. Muscaro/The Epoch Times).

“The human brain is so good at looking at a surface and immediately picking out … those changes in the blink of an eye,” she told The Epoch Times. “Orbiters and spacecraft, they will take months and years to get their data.”

Lunar scientists told The Epoch Times that there are spots on both the far and near sides that they are excited to observe.

On the far side, those targets include Orientale Basin and an older basin called Hertzsprung.

On the near side, Gross said she was most excited to observe the Aristarchus Plateau.

Kelsey Young, Artemis II science lead, said that the crew will also be able to see the Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 landing sites.

Wiseman, Glover, Koch, and Hansen were also instructed to break free of the scientists’ wishlist and take observations of what they found interesting on the surface.

“The whole purpose of all the Artemis missions is discovery,” Jacob Richardson, Artemis II’s deputy lunar science lead, told The Epoch Times. “We want them to discover, and when I train crews, I say that the whole purpose is to make the scientists today look like fools, because if we rewrite the textbook about the moon with Artemis missions, then we’ve done our job.”

Gross said that both pairs will be observing the same features at different points in the flyby, and they will be tasked later with discussing the differences in their reports. She said observations and images already taken by the crew were proof they were fully trained and ready to undertake their mission.

“Every human is different with what they can notice and describe,” she said. “And so we’re really excited about these discussion periods that we gave them.”

Richardson also shared his excitement about the astronauts’ observations of the view shared with those looking up from Earth, and the contrasting descriptions a difference of more than 240,000 miles provides.

6:45 p.m.—Artemis II will witness an “Earthset” and experience a loss of communication with Mission Control as the moon’s position moves directly between Integrity and the Earth, like the Apollo missions that came before it.

7:02 p.m.—Artemis II is expected to make its closest pass to the lunar surface at an altitude of approximately just more than 4,000 miles. At that distance, mission leaders said that the moon will appear the size of a basketball held at arm’s length. That distance will give Integrity’s astronauts a unique perspective compared to those of Apollo, who flew much closer.

7:25 p.m.—Communication is supposed to be reacquired, and an “Earthrise” will be observed.

9:20 p.m.—Lunar observations are expected to be complete.

A screenshot of the application the Artemis II crew sees on their PCDs that guides them in the execution of the lunar science observation plan. This custom software was built by the Crew Lunar Observations Team, a subset of the Artemis II lunar science team. In this screenshot you can see Orientale basin, target number 12 circled on the bottom right of the Moon, and to its left, target number 13, Hertzsprung basin.
(Courtesy of NASA).

Record Distance, Solar Eclipse

Wiseman, Glover, Koch, and Hansen will make most of their lunar observations while flying where no one has gone before.

Approximately 1:56 p.m.—Artemis II will travel beyond the furthest point from Earth humans have ever reached: 248,655 statute miles by Apollo 13 in 1970. Remarks are expected to be given by the crew commemorating the trailblazing moment shortly after.

7:07 p.m.—The foursome will reach their maximum distance from Earth: 252,760 statute miles.

It will take Integrity more than five hours to cover the additional more than 4,000 statute miles. While its starting speed toward the Moon was nearing 25,000 miles per hour, the spacecraft’s forward motion has slowed to just a fraction of that speed over the past several days due to Earth’s gravity trying to pull it back.

8:35 p.m.—The moon will begin eclipsing the Sun, allowing the astronauts to observe the Sun’s corona and look to confirm Apollo reports about the Sun’s ability to disperse moon dust. The eclipse will also allow the crew to collect data on how their solar-powered spacecraft handles being taken out of direct sunlight and other stresses that would be experienced on future Artemis II missions.

9:32 p.m.—Solar eclipse concludes.

Upon completion of their objectives, the Artemis II crew will begin sending some of the imagery they collected to science teams on the ground. NASA’s scientists will review the material overnight and then have a conversation with the crew about their findings on April 7.

1:25 p.m. on April 7— Artemis II will begin its journey home immediately after its pass around the moon. It will leave the moon’s gravitational pull and begin falling back to Earth.

Artemis II is scheduled to splash down in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of San Diego at 8:07 p.m. on April 10.

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“Well, it’s a new world. It’s the same Constitution.”

Those words from Chief Justice John Roberts during this week’s oral arguments signaled that the conservative justices are unlikely to reject birthright citizenship. Of course, nothing is certain until this summer when the Court issues its opinion in Trump v. Barbara. However, we need to consider the need for a 28th Amendment to reaffirm the meaning of citizenship.

As some of us stressed before the oral argument, the odds were against the administration prevailing in the case, given more than a century of countervailing precedent.

There are good-faith arguments against reading the 14th Amendment as supporting citizenship for any child born in this country.

It is doubtful that the drafters of the 14th Amendment could have envisioned millions of births to illegal aliens. They surely did not imagine foreigners coming to this country for the purpose of giving birth — or even, without ever entering the U.S., contracting multiple U.S. residents to carry babies to term for them as surrogates.

The historical record is highly conflicted. Some drafters expressly denied that they intended for birthright citizenship to be covered by the 14th Amendment.

The rampant abuse in this country and the widespread rejection of birthright citizenship by other countries (including some that once followed it) did not seem to impress the conservative justices. Roberts’s statement was in response to Solicitor General John Sauer’s argument that “We’re in a new world now … where eight billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who’s a U.S. citizen.”

Although President Trump has lashed out with personal attacks on the conservative justices as “disloyal” and “stupid,” they are doing what they are bound by oath to do: apply the law without political favor or interest. I expect most of the justices agree with the vast majority of countries — and the president — that birthright citizenship is a foolish and harmful policy. But they are not legislators; they are jurists tasked with constitutional interpretation.

Trump appointed three principled justices to the court. To their (and to his) credit, Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett have proven that they are driven by the underlying law, not the ultimate outcome of cases.

For conservatives, constitutional interpretations offer less leeway than their liberal colleagues or believers in the “living constitution.” If you believe in continually updating the Constitution from the bench to meet contemporary demands, constitutional language is barely a speed bump on your path to the preferred outcome in any given case.

In my Supreme Court class, I call this a “default case” in which justices tend to run home.  When a record or the law is uncertain, conservative justices tend to avoid expansive, new interpretations. That was precisely what Trump said he wanted in nominees.

These justices are not being “disloyal” to him, but rather loyal to what they view as the meaning of the Constitution. I have at times disagreed with their view of the law, but I have never questioned their integrity.

None of this means we should accept the expected outcome in this case as the final word on birthright citizenship. Justice Robert Jackson once observed that he and his colleagues “are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.”

The final word actually rests with the public. We can amend the Constitution to join most of the world in barring birthright citizenship. There is no more important question in a republic than the definition of citizenship.

We are becoming a virtual mockery as we watch millions game the birthright citizenship system. China alone has hundreds of tourism firms that have made fortunes in arranging for Chinese citizens to come to U.S. territory to give birth and then return home.

No republic can last without controlling its borders and the qualifications for citizenship. We have allowed U.S. citizenship to become a mere commodity for the most affluent or unscrupulous among us.

The combination of open borders and open-ended citizenship can be an existential threat to this Republic. It is not that we cannot absorb millions of births, but rather that no republic can retain its core identity without more clearly defining and controlling the meaning of being a citizen.

The U.S. is and will remain a nation of immigrants. We welcome lawful immigrants who come to this country to embrace our values and our common identity. But being a nation of immigrants does not mean that we are a nation of chumps.

In my book, “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution,” I discuss the foundations of our republic and the world’s fascination with it. After our Revolution, one leading Frenchman known as John Hector St. John wrote a popular book that asked: “What then is the American, this new man?”

The answer to that question was obvious at our founding. We were the world’s first true enlightenment revolution — a republic founded on natural rights that came not from the government but God. We did not have a shared bond of land, culture, religion, or history. We were a people founded on a legacy of ideas; a people joined by common articles of faith in natural, unalienable rights.

The question is whether we can answer St. John’s challenge today. “What then is this American” if citizenship can be based on as little as a tourist visa or an illegal crossing?

There would be no better time to reaffirm the meaning of citizenship than the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence. Roberts is correct: “It is the same Constitution” that created this republic, but we are the same people vested with the responsibility, as Benjamin Franklin put it, “to keep it.”

It is time to reclaim both the Constitution and our common identity. As a free people joined by a common faith in natural rights, it is our own birthright.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

The last six months or so has seen S&P Global’s and ISM’s Services PMI surveys diverge dramatically (former at three year lows, latter near four year highs).

But, following S&P Global’s Services PMI plunge into contraction in March, ISM’s Services PMI actually ‘agreed’ and fell also (but only modestly) from 56.1 to 54.0 (still in expansion but worse than the expected 54.9)…

Source: Bloomberg

Under the hood it was a very mixed bag with a surge in New Orders (highest since Feb 2023 – good), but a simultaneous spike in Prices Paid (highest since August 2022 – bad), and a sudden plunge in Employment (weakest since Dec 2023 – ugly)…

“The PMI survey data show the US economy buckling under the strain of rising prices and intensifying uncertainty, as the war in the Middle East exacerbates existing concerns regarding other policy decisions in recent months, notably with respect to tariffs,” said Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Something for everyone in this report – doves will focus on slowing growth and tumbling employment; hawks on the continued expansion and spiking prices. For now, the market is undecided with rate-change odds flat.