In a clear concession announced April 1, 2026, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) yielded to Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and agreed to advance the Senate-passed bill funding most of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) – explicitly excluding ICE and key CBP enforcement operations – while moving long-term immigration enforcement and border security funding to the partisan reconciliation process.

This is the same bill that Johnson and House R’s rejected for over a week.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer quickly claimed victory:

NEWS: House Republicans caved.

They’ve agreed to pass the Senate bill to fund DHS except for ICE and CBP that unanimously passed a week ago. https://t.co/261f3cukS4

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) April 1, 2026

Full Johnson-Thune Joint Statement

“We appreciate and share the President’s determination to once and for all bring an end to the Democrat DHS shutdown.

“In the coming days, Republicans in the Senate and House will be following through on the President’s directive by fully funding the entire Department of Homeland Security on two parallel tracks: through the appropriations process and through the reconciliation process.

“We appreciate that Senator Graham and the Senate Budget Committee have already initiated the process of developing a budget resolution that will ensure border security and immigration enforcement will be funded for the balance of the Trump Administration and insulated from future attempts by the Democrats to defund those agencies.

“We operated under a belief that while our country is in the midst of an international armed conflict, Democrats might finally come to their senses and understand that defunding our homeland security agencies is beyond reckless and very dangerous. While we hoped they would accept the 60-day CR to fund the Department entirely so that bipartisan negotiations could continue, it is now abundantly clear that Democrats place allegiance to their radical left-wing base above all else — including their own power of the purse — which means open borders and protecting criminal illegal aliens. That is not acceptable to Republicans in Congress, nor is it to the American people. We cannot allow Democrats to any longer put the safety of the American public at risk through their open border policies, so we are taking that off the table.

“In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited. In return, Democrats will once again demonstrate to the American people their support for open borders and keeping criminal illegal immigrants in America.” –Speaker Johnson, X

The impasse began after House Republicans passed a full DHS bill with strong ICE/CBP funding. Senate Democrats blocked it, triggering a partial shutdown in mid-February that idled TSA, FEMA, Coast Guard, and CISA while leaving ICE/CBP on prior-year funds. On March 27 the Senate passed its stripped-down version by unanimous consent; House GOP initially rejected it as “garbage” and countered with a 60-day full CR that Schumer killed. Trump ultimately backed the two-track Senate approach.

🚨 Good on paper, Thune… but we’ve heard this song before. President Trump demanded FULL border security — that means funding ICE + Border Patrol AND passing the SAVE America Act to STOP non-citizens from voting in our elections. Without the SAVE Act, this is just half a win.…

— Donald J Trump The Service Dog (@Donnie4Veterans) April 1, 2026

This deal also leaves the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act – the House-passed bill requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration – completely untouched and stalled in the Senate. Trump and GOP hardliners had demanded it be attached to any DHS package; it was not included in the Senate bill or the immediate appropriations track.

Will the DHS shutdown end between April 1-4, 2026?
Yes 44% · No 56%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

Leaders may try elements in the reconciliation package for ICE/CBP funding, but the Byrd Rule makes non-budgetary policy changes difficult. Many conservatives on X are already blasting Johnson and Thune for failing to deliver the SAVE Act now.

What Happens Next

House expected to pass the Senate bill within days, reopening TSA/FEMA/Coast Guard and paying workers.
Senate Budget Committee advances reconciliation resolution to lock in three years of enforcement funding, protected from future Democratic defunding.
The SAVE Act fight is deferred, setting up another round of intra-GOP tension.

The agreement ends the immediate partial shutdown but guarantees continued immigration battles heading into the 2026 midterms.

An American company has secured control of one of the largest cobalt producers outside Chinese ownership, delivering a strategic boost to U.S. efforts to compete with Beijing over critical minerals, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The buyer, Virtus Minerals, completed its acquisition of Congo-based Chemaf for $30 million, along with a pledge to invest roughly $720 million. The deal caps a years-long push, spanning both the Biden and Trump administrations, to ensure U.S. access to cobalt resources in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Chemaf’s mines can supply about 5% of global cobalt output—a key material used in fighter jets, smartphones, and electric vehicle batteries. Virtus says future production will be directed toward American and allied buyers.

Despite its value, Chemaf proved difficult to sell. U.S. companies were wary of its heavy debt—around $1 billion—along with reputational concerns and the challenges of operating in Congo, including weak infrastructure, corruption risks, and labor issues.

The company has a controversial history. Its Mutoshi mine has faced repeated problems with unsafe working conditions and incursions by informal miners. In earlier years, child labor and bribery allegations also surfaced. Although some reforms were attempted, informal and hazardous mining has since returned.

WSJ writes that Virtus itself is a small, eight-person firm founded in 2022 by Phil Braun, a former Green Beret, and Andrew Powch, a Naval Academy and Harvard Business School graduate. Backed by U.S. government support, the company positions the deal as part of a broader national security effort to rebuild supply chains.

Financing for the acquisition includes $200 million from Virtus and its operating partner, India’s Lloyds Metals and Energy, along with $475 million from Orion Resource Partners and additional funding. The firm has also reached an agreement with Trafigura, Chemaf’s largest creditor.

Chemaf was put up for sale after cobalt prices fell sharply in 2023. Significant additional investment—estimated at up to $300 million—is still required to upgrade facilities and increase production capacity.

The deal faced competition from China. In 2024, Chemaf had agreed to sell to Norin Mining, a subsidiary of a Chinese state-owned defense company, for $920 million. That agreement collapsed after failing to gain approval from Congolese authorities, opening the door for Virtus.

The acquisition highlights the broader geopolitical contest over Congo’s vast mineral wealth. The country produces nearly three-quarters of the world’s cobalt, and Chinese firms have already invested heavily in its mining sector.

Still, questions remain about whether Virtus can successfully operate the assets. The company has a previous investment in Congo that remains stalled due to a legal dispute, and its partner’s experience is largely outside cobalt. Even so, Lloyds expects to begin work soon and complete upgrades within about a year.

*  *  * Only 2 more in stock

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

President Donald Trump’s speech in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, was not an official act and is thus not covered by immunity, a federal judge said in a March 31 decision.

President Donald Trump at a rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. Jenny Jing/The Epoch Times

“President Trump has not shown that the Speech reasonably can be understood as falling within the outer perimeter of his Presidential duties,” U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta ruled.

Trump’s speech on Jan. 6, 2021, was given to a rally at The Ellipse, about 1 mile from the U.S. Capitol.

Lawmakers and others sued Trump, claiming his speech incited the crowd to go to the Capitol and riot.

Trump had sought a dismissal of the lawsuits, arguing he is entitled to immunity for official acts as president and that the speech was an official act.

Supreme Court justices ruled in 2024 that presidents enjoy immunity for core official acts, and presumptive immunity for acts within the outer perimeter of duties, but that unofficial acts are not covered.

Mehta said that contextual facts, such as that White House personnel were not involved in planning the Jan. 6 rally, besides securing an exception for the placement of the stage, supported the position that Trump’s speech fell outside his presidential duties.

The speech was made as then-Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress met in a joint session to certify the results of the 2020 election and featured Trump urging them to consider alternate slates of electors and saying he, not Joe Biden, had actually won the election.

Mehta said the speech was focused on promoting his alleged 2020 victory, rather than on carrying out official duties, such as ensuring the faithful execution of laws.

“The content of the Ellipse Speech confirms that it is not covered by official-acts immunity,” he wrote.

Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which is representing some of the plaintiffs in the consolidated case, said in a statement that “today’s ruling affirming that Donald Trump is not immune from civil liability is a monumental victory for the rule of law, affirming that no one, including the president of the United States, is above it.”

He added, “The court rightly recognizes that President Trump’s actions leading to the January 6 insurrection fell outside the scope of presidential duties.”

Lawyers for Trump did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

The ruling denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the case and means the litigation will proceed, although the judge did agree to a request from the president’s lawyers to certify certain issues for appeal, including the new decision.

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Leftist politicians in Providence, Rhode Island, are erasing the memory of an innocent victim to shield their failed policies on crime and immigration. 

The nearly completed mural honoring Iryna Zarutska—the 23-year-old Ukrainian refugee brutally murdered on a North Carolina light rail train by a repeat offender—is being removed after pressure from Democrat leaders who called it divisive.

Conservative commentator Benny Johnson broke the story, posting: “Iryna Zarustka mural in Providence, RI, is being removed following protest of it by Mayor Brett Smiley. 

Iryna Zarustka mural in Providence, RI, is being removed following protest of it by Mayor Brett Smiley.

The artist of the mural says owners of the business (The Dark Lady) in the building the mural is on asked that it be removed.

Would they had asked if it was of George Floyd? pic.twitter.com/pytE3CTsSb

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) March 31, 2026

Mayor Brett Smiley immediately demanded the artwork come down. His office confirmed the move, and he released a statement: “The murder of the individual depicted in this mural was a devastating tragedy, but the misguided, isolating intent of those funding murals like the one across the county is divisive and does not represent Providence.”

“I continue to encourage our community to support local artists whose work brings us closer together rather than divide us,” Smiley further claimed.

State Rep. David Morales (D-RI) escalated the attack, claiming the mural was “nationwide right-wing propaganda” and declaring it “does not reflect our values” and “does not reflect Providence’s values.”

Elon Musk, who has funded some of the murals, responded directly to Morales’ remarks with a simple question: “What are his values?” 

What are his values?

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 31, 2026

The owners of The Dark Lady, a prominent downtown LGBTQ club, folded instantly. Identifying as “progressive Democrats,” they stated: “We’re sorry for the chaos this has caused. We are progressive Democrats, we do not support Donald Trump or politics of division, and our values are deeply rooted in inclusion, equality, and respect.”

This latest act of erasure follows a clear pattern. In February, leftist vandals twice defaced murals honoring the same victim in Chicago. 

In both cases, activists dismissed the memorials as “MAGA propaganda” simply for showing the deadly results of revolving-door justice and soft-on-crime policies.

X users quickly called out the double standard. One replied: “If this was a mural for a leftist cause, the Mayor would be out there for a ribbon cutting ceremony.” 

Another posted side-by-side images contrasting Zarutska with George Floyd:

She was so beautiful.
She was slaughtered on a public subway by a man who was released by an activist magistrate SHAM judge without a law degree.

She was the victim of a dirty system and an evil, drug addicted criminal.

JAIL TERESA STOKES! pic.twitter.com/wxME8v8Hvd

— Missy in So Cal 𝄞𝄢 🇺🇸 (@MissyIsMaga) March 31, 2026

A third summed it up succinctly 

Dems really love illegals & criminals.

— MAGA & World (@MAGAWorld4896) March 31, 2026

This is the RI mayor who demanded the mural of Iryna be removed pic.twitter.com/YATLRsd2vP

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) April 1, 2026

The contrast is impossible to ignore. Murals, statues, and streets have been dedicated to George Floyd—a career criminal—while an innocent young woman who fled war in Ukraine only to be killed by America’s broken system is scrubbed from view the moment it becomes inconvenient.

Democrat officials cannot tolerate any reminder of how their policies produce victims like Iryna Zarutska. Every time such a mural appears, it forces a reckoning with the human cost of open borders and catch-and-release justice. And every time it gets protested, defaced, or removed, it proves why those policies must end.

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.

Just one day after the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps threatened U.S. companies across the Middle East, the Financial Times reported late Tuesday morning that an IRGC strike had damaged Amazon’s cloud computing infrastructure in Bahrain. 

The FT cited Bahrain’s interior ministry, which said civil defense teams were “extinguishing a fire in a facility of a company as a result of the Iranian aggression.”

Local authorities did not identify the company, disclose the type of air-delivered munition used, and/or provide further operational details about the strike.

But according to a person familiar with the incident cited by the FT reporters, the damaged site was part of Amazon’s cloud computing operation, a reminder that civilian infrastructure, such as data centers and other digital infrastructure, is increasingly exposed to cheap one-way attack unmanned aerial systems. 

Amazon’s Service Health page on its website shows that AWS is “Disrupted” in the Bahrain operating area. 

The IRGC strike on the Amazon facility in Bahrain comes one day after Sepah News, the IRGC’s official news outlet, named 18 U.S. companies with operations in the Middle East that are now considered “legitimate targets.”

“From now on, for every assassination, an American company will be destroyed,” an IRGC-affiliated news outlet said.

The list of companies also included Cisco, HP, Intel, Oracle, IBM, Dell, Palantir, JPMorgan, Tesla, GE, Spire Solutions, Boeing, and UAE-based artificial intelligence company G42.

Let’s not forget that IRGC forces struck AWS data centers in the Middle East in early March, causing outages in a number of apps and digital services across the United Arab Emirates.

The U.S.-Iran conflict has taught the world that civilian infrastructure, more importantly, data centers, has become a target, and as we warned even before the conflict erupted, there will be a push for counter-UAS technology at these facilities, as well as other high-value assets. Just this week, we learned that the U.S. military is preparing to deploy laser weapons against drones in Washington, D.C.

Authored by Mary Prenon via The Epoch Times,

About 55 percent of Americans surveyed in a 2026 Quinnipiac poll said artificial intelligence (AI) will be more harmful than helpful.

The survey, released on March 30, was conducted in collaboration with the Quinnipiac University School of Computing & Engineering and the Quinnipiac University School of Business.

In April 2025, only 44 percent believed AI would do more harm than good in their daily lives.

In the 2026 poll, 21 percent answered that AI affects their lives a lot, while 29 percent said only somewhat, and 30 percent believed AI impacts are minimal. Only 17 percent said they are not impacted at all.

Regarding education, 64 percent of survey respondents said AI is more harmful, compared with just 27 percent who believe it will help. For health care issues, 45 percent of those surveyed believed AI will do more harm, while 43 percent said AI will be more helpful.

The employment outlook showed the greatest percentage of people worried about the future of AI, as 75 percent said continuous advancements in AI will most likely lead to a decline of job opportunities for people. While 18 percent said AI will not have much of an impact on jobs, only 7 percent said jobs for humans will increase as a result of AI.

In just one year, the fear of possible job losses due to AI increased by nearly 20 points. In April 2025, 56 percent of respondents said AI would be detrimental to human jobs.

All generations surveyed remain pessimistic about the job outlook as a result of AI’s rapid growth, with Gen Z—including ages 18 to 29—exhibiting the highest percentage at 81 percent. For millennials, aged 30 to 45, 71 percent said jobs are likely to decrease as AI grows, and 67 percent of Gen Z, aged 46 to 61, agree. Of the baby boomer generation, aged 62 to 80, 66 percent indicated that human jobs will decline.

“Younger Americans report the highest familiarity with AI tools, but they are also the least optimistic about the labor market,” Tamilla Triantoro, associate professor of business analytics and information systems at Quinnipiac University School of Business, said in the report.

“AI fluency and optimism here are moving in opposite directions.”

Among those currently employed, 30 percent reported being very or somewhat concerned about AI rendering their jobs obsolete, but 69 percent said they are not very worried about it. Compared with last year’s survey, only 21 percent of employed Americans expressed fear of losing their jobs to AI.

“Americans are more worried about what AI may do to the labor market than about what it may do to their own jobs,” Triantoro said.

“People seem more willing to predict a tougher market than to picture themselves on the losing end of that disruption—a pattern worth watching as the technology moves deeper into the workplace.”

An overwhelming 85 percent of Americans said they would be unwilling to work a job where their direct supervisor was an AI program that assigned their tasks and schedules.

When asked how much they trust AI, 76 percent of respondents said that they hardly ever trust it, while just 21 percent admitted they do trust AI. Still, 51 percent said they often use AI for researching topics. Only 20 percent said they relied on AI for medical advice, and just 15 percent for personal advice.

NASA’s Artemis II mission is finally set to launch three Americans and one Canadian atop the Space Launch System rocket on a lunar mission not seen in more than 50 years. 

The Artemis II mission is scheduled for launch at 6:24 p.m. EST on Wednesday from Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

The fueling process for the Artemis II rocket has picked up speed. The rocket is now more quickly filling with liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.

When the core stage is completely full, it will contain 196,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and 537,000 gallons of liquid hydrogen. pic.twitter.com/wejiCveeNb

— NASA Artemis (@NASAArtemis) April 1, 2026

The crew of four, including NASA astronauts Reid Wiseman (commander), Victor Glover (pilot), and Christina Koch (mission specialist), along with Canadian Space Agency astronaut Jeremy Hansen (mission specialist), will circumnavigate the moon in a 10-day flight aboard the new Orion spacecraft. 

Artemis II is a critical test of the Orion capsule and marks another step toward future lunar landings, which SpaceX is likely to support as early as 2028.

Three hours and 30 minutes after liftoff, if everything goes to plan, the Orion spacecraft and its service module will separate from the second stage of the rocket, perform a manual flight test high in Earth orbit, and prepare for a translunar injection, in other words, a trip to the moon, during which Orion’s service module will fire its engines and catapult the four astronauts to 25,000 mph on a three-day journey into lunar orbit. 

Artemis II will enter the moon’s gravitational field about four days into the mission and then begin its U-turn, enabling a flyby around the far side more than 12 hours later. If today’s launch goes according to plan, that flyby of the moon will take place next Monday. 

“No one has ever seen this full crater on the far side of the moon, and so this would be really neat,” Hansen said. “I’m excited to have a look at it. It’s just enormous, super complex, and you could probably stare at it for hours.”

The flyby will set the astronauts up on a “free-return trajectory” that will essentially slingshot them around the far side and back to Earth without burning additional fuel. 

By April 10, Artemis II is forecast to re-enter Earth’s atmosphere, nine days and one hour after liftoff, and splash down off the coast of Southern California.

A successful mission sets NASA up for a crewed 2028 lunar surface mission. 

NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman has recently stated that his agency plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon. 

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

When investors want to reduce risk, one commonly used tool is beta. For instance, an investor may sell higher-beta stocks and replace them with lower-beta ones to cushion against an expected market decline. Such a strategy is intuitive and widely used; however, it can be greatly flawed.

We recently received a question from a client about how we use beta to manage our portfolios. Given recent volatility and declining prices, the timing could not be better to explore both the power of beta and its important constraints.  

What Is Beta

In simplistic terms, beta answers one question: when the market moves, how much does a stock tend to move with it? To wit, a stock with a beta of 0.50 should move roughly half as much as the market in either direction. A stock with a beta of 2.0 should move roughly twice as much.

In statistics, beta is the slope of the best-fit line through a scatter plot comparing a stock’s weekly returns to the market’s returns.  The steeper the line, the higher the beta, and vice versa.

To clarify, consider the graph below. Each dot on the scatter chart shows the intersection of the weekly returns of Exxon (XOM) and the S&P 500 over the last five years. The beta of XOM, or the slope, quantifies the angle of the best-fit line (orange line). XOM has a beta of 0.43. Thus, for every 1.00% increase or decrease in the S&P 500, the orange line will rise or fall by 0.43%. The yellow circle shows that an approximate 5.00% increase in the S&P 500 equates to an expected 2.15% (0.43% * 5%) increase in XOM.

If an investor fears a market drawdown, they might want to replace higher-beta stocks with lower-beta ones like XOM. Conversely, they might do the opposite if they think the market will move higher.

If only portfolio management were that easy!

Correlation Matters- Analyzing XOM

Let’s stick with the XOM analysis to demonstrate how misleading beta can be. As noted above, the beta of XOM over the last five years, using weekly data, is 0.43. But that figure doesn’t address how much we should trust it.

To quantify our confidence, we calculate the relationship’s R-squared. R-squared measures how closely the dots cluster around the trend line on a scale of zero to one. A reading near one means beta is highly reliable. A reading near zero means the relationship between the stock and the market is essentially random. The R-squared for the XOM graph we showed above is statistically insignificant at 0.0645, indicating a weak correlation between XOM and the market.

Beyond the R-squared, it’s also important to understand that beta is not static. It changes with new data and with changes to the time frame used to calculate it. As shown in the table below, XOM’s five-year beta differs markedly from the most recent 3 and 6-month calculations.  

Correlation Matters- Nvidia

We shift our focus to Nvidia (NVDA), a stock with a higher beta, to further illustrate why correlation (R-squared) is critical to understanding the efficacy of a stock’s beta. As shown below, NVDA has a five-year beta of 2.07; however, like XOM, it has been declining, with its three-month beta sitting at 1.10. This is not surprising given that Nvidia’s contribution to the S&P 500 has surged from about 1% to nearly 8% over the last five years. Its short-term beta implies that NVDA behaves similarly to the market, not twice the market as its longer-term beta claims.

The graph below shows that NVDA’s best-fit trend line has a steeper slope than XOM’s. Moreover, we can see that the dots are more closely clustered around the trend line than XOM’s are. The relationship between NVDA returns and the market, as measured by R-squared, is 0.4785 compared to XOM’s insignificant 0.0645.

Idiosyncratic Risk

Some describe beta as if it were like a volume control on a stereo, simply tune it up or down, and your risks change accordingly. The dispersion of weekly returns around the trend line indicates that factors beyond market returns drive individual stock returns. While there are many factors driving returns, they can largely be classified as systematic or idiosyncratic.

Beta only helps explain the fraction of a stock’s return attributable to systematic (market) risks. These are market risks that affect all investments simultaneously and include factors such as recessions, interest rate changes, and geopolitical events.

Idiosyncratic risk, on the other hand, is the company-specific risk. It includes unique factors such as management decisions, product sales, and competitive positioning. It also includes non-company-specific factors, such as investor preferences.

Together, systematic and idiosyncratic risks help us fully quantify risk.

As we discussed, XOM had a very low R-squared because many of the data points were randomly scattered across the graph. We can deduce from the low correlation (low R-squared) that changes driven by idiosyncratic factors greatly outweigh those driven by movements in the S&P 500.

Using Beta On A Portfolio

So far, we have only discussed the beta of an individual stock. Given the idiosyncratic risks and low correlation (R-squared) of many stocks, and the fact that beta shifts with the selected time frame, beta can be an inadequate tool.

However, when managing a portfolio, beta’s usefulness as a portfolio management tool increases. In the extreme, think of it this way: if you bought all 500 S&P stocks in the same percentages as the index, the portfolio’s beta would equal one, R-squared would be one, thus you would have zero idiosyncratic risk. The idiosyncratic risks associated with all 500 stocks would cancel each other out. The graph below plots this scenario.

In more realistic terms, the more diversified your portfolio, the more idiosyncratic risk you remove from your portfolio. To highlight this, we created a simple three-stock portfolio containing equal amounts of XOM, NVDA, and Duke Energy (DUK).

As shown below, the beta of our portfolio is 0.9994, and the R-squared is 0.5855. Below the graph is the summary of market and idiosyncratic risks for the three stocks and the portfolio.

Even with three stocks and minimal diversification in our portfolio, we have substantially reduced the idiosyncratic risk relative to that implied by the individual stocks.  

Summary

Beta is useful but imperfect. And, unfortunately, its imperfections tend to matter most when the need to manage risk is most critical. As the age-old saying goes: “In the midst of a crisis, all betas go to one.”  Simply, beta can be a broken compass when you need it most.

For individual stocks with low R-squared values and high idiosyncratic risk, such as XOM, beta can be a poor predictor of actual price behavior, particularly during periods of sector- or company-specific volatility.

For well-diversified portfolios, however, it is considerably more reliable, as idiosyncratic risks of the underlying stocks cancel out and systematic market risk dominates.

SpaceX has confidentially filed for an IPO, potentially setting up a June listing on U.S. stock exchanges that could become the largest public offering ever. The offering could value the rocket, satellite, and AI company at more than $1.75 trillion and raise as much as $75 billion, far exceeding Saudi Aramco’s 2019 IPO record.

Bloomberg states that SpaceX has just submitted a draft IPO registration to the SEC for nonpublic review. That allows SEC staff to review the filing, ask questions, and require any changes before the company reveals all of its financials and offering details to the public.

“The filing puts it on track for a June listing, which would make SpaceX the first of what could be a trio of mega-IPOs, ahead of OpenAI and Anthropic PBC,” the outlet noted.

A listing for SpaceX would raise $75 billion for the rocket company and dwarf Saudi Aramco’s $29 billion debut in 2019. The money raised would be used to fund an “insane flight rate” for the Starship rocket and to push ahead with deploying orbital data centers in low Earth orbit.

Sources familiar with the listing say that SpaceX has lined up Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Morgan Stanley for senior roles on the IPO.

A report last week from The Wall Street Journal said that Musk wants to allocate upwards of 30% of the IPO stock to retail investors, far beyond the typical allocation. He is also exploring giving priority access to loyal supporters, such as Tesla shareholders and individuals who have backed his other ventures, reinforcing his pattern of rewarding his existing base.

Last month, Morningstar released a note estimating that SpaceX generated nearly $16 billion in revenue in 2025 and $7.5 billion in EBITDA, driven “almost entirely by explosive subscriber growth” from its Starlink satellite internet unit, which had 10 million active customers as of March. The company forecasts revenue of $150 billion in 2040, with EBITDA of $95 billion.

After the SEC review process for a possible IPO is complete, the question then becomes: What will SpaceX’s ticker symbol be?

Polymarket bets show that “X” is in the running at 44% …

There is no fixed SEC timetable from a confidential IPO filing to an actual public debut. That process can take anywhere from several weeks to several months.

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

Embattled Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., who has long demanded that President Donald Trump release the Epstein files, now faces scrutiny as the FBI prepares to release documents tied to its investigation into his alleged ties to a Chinese intelligence operative.

The scrutiny comes after Swalwell demanded Monday that FBI Director Kash Patel refrain from declassifying the potentially damaging files, which could shed light on his relationship with Christine Fang, the suspected Chinese spy also known as “Fang Fang.”

On X, critics highlighted what they called blatant hypocrisy, pointing to Swalwell’s prior demands that Trump release the Epstein files.

One widely shared X post from July 2025 read, “Trump has the files. Why won’t HE release them,” in reference to the Epstein files.

Wait suddenly you’re against releasing files @RepSwalwell??? What changed https://t.co/AAwu8QRWlf pic.twitter.com/M47vWbRouz

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 31, 2026

On Sept. 25, Swalwell himself replied to a post from Patel, writing, “Blah blah blah. Where are the Epstein Files?”

On Oct. 7, Swalwell again pressed Patel, adding, “Where are the Epstein Files?”

Just 10 days later, Swalwell escalated further, branding House Speaker Mike Johnson the “pro-pedophile Speaker” and again demanding the Epstein files be released.

I refer to Johnson by his more accurate description, the pro-pedophile Speaker.

Release the Epstein Files.
Open the Government. https://t.co/NJRMHf6qoP

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) October 17, 2025

Swalwell conveyed his opposition in a cease-and-desist letter to Patel, urging that his own FBI files are not released.

“The congressman has never been accused of wrongdoing in that matter and your attempt to release the file is a transparent attempt to smear him and undermine his campaign for governor of California,” the letter said, as quoted by the leftist Washington Post.

It added, “Your actions threaten to expose you, others at the FBI, and the FBI itself to significant legal liability.”

The Post reported over the weekend that Patel had deployed agents to California to review the documents ahead of a potential public release.

The forthcoming release of the files could provide clarity on the FBI’s investigation into Swalwell’s early political career. He joined Congress in 2013 after serving three years on the Dublin City Council.

The probe centered on Fang’s alleged efforts to act as a Chinese intelligence operative by cultivating relationships with up-and-coming politicians.

Swalwell has not definitively denied having a sexual relationship with Fang. He purportedly cut off contact with her after being briefed by the FBI.

What Swalwell knew about Fang, and what he told the FBI, has largely remained speculative, but that could change if the files were released.

* * * Sink your fengs into these