A damaged Russian LNG tanker is drifting uncontrolled in the Mediterranean after what Moscow says was a Ukrainian drone attack, triggering alarm across Europe over a potential ecological disaster in the heart of EU waters, as the stricken tanker is somewhere between sunny Malta and Italy’s beautiful resort town Lampedusa.

The carrier Arctic Metagaz was reportedly attacked east of Malta earlier this month, and is in a deteriorating state, raising fears of a major spill. A letter cited by Reuters outlines the alarm raised by Italy, France and several other EU states, who have told Brussels that the situation poses an “immediate and serious risk” to both maritime safety and the environment.

“The unstable condition of the vessel, combined with the nature of its specialized cargo, creates an immediate and serious risk of a major environmental disaster in the very center of the EU maritime space,” the document laid out.

This aerial photo taken on March 15, 2026, via Getty Images

The crisis actually highlights a “double problem” – per officials – namely containing the environmental issue while also navigating EU sanctions on Russian energy exports. Or in essence, Europe wants to look the other way while Ukraine engages in the high-risk behavior of targeting so-called dark fleet Russian tankers.

Moscow is in turn highlighting the contradictions and irony here, pointing the finger squarely at Kiev for creating the crisis, and as ‘blowback’ on the EU.

Russia’s Transport Ministry has said, “The tanker was traveling with cargo, issued according to all international rules, from the port of Murmansk. The attack on him was carried out from the coast of Libya by unmanned boats of Ukraine.”

So this appears a rare or even unprecedented instance of the Ukrainians using a foothold on the Mediterranean to attack Russian interests.

Malta has meanwhile confirmed the vessel is drifting without crew and remains “in an uncontrolled state” – with Italy now coordinating monitoring efforts as it floats within Malta’s search-and-rescue zone. Ticking time bomb?

Surveillance footage shows the 277-meter Arctic Metagaz smoldering and listing heavily to one side with a massive gash in its port hull. The vessel, identified as part of Moscow’s sanctions-evading shadow fleet, is a floating powder keg carrying approximately 900 metric tons of diesel and over 60,000 metric tons of liquefied natural gas (LNG).

The ship was reportedly struck by maritime and aerial drones on March 3 in neutral waters about 168 nautical miles southeast of Malta while en route from Murmansk to Egypt. The 30-person crew abandoned the burning vessel and were rescued by the Libyan Coast Guard, according to CNN.

Both Italy and Malta have reportedly sent tugboats and anti-pollution assets to monitor the vessel, also enforcing a strict five-nautical-mile exclusion zone as it drifts with not steering or control. Here’s more from the Kremlin:

“Notably, the attack occurred in close proximity to the shores of an EU member state, yet none of the European nations have condemned the incident to date,” Zakharova said while calling the incident as “a flagrant violation of international law”.

❗️According to Italy’s RAI, the Russian shadow fleet gas tanker Arctic Metagaz is currently drifting off the coast of the island of Lampedusa after explosions on March 3. On board were about 60,000 tonnes of LNG and 900 tonnes of diesel fuel. pic.twitter.com/ugH8cUkye7

— 🪖MilitaryNewsUA🇺🇦 (@front_ukrainian) March 14, 2026

The whole episode and potential further ecological disaster serves to underscore how the Ukraine war continues to spillover into the heart of Europe. NATO’s role in the war has meanwhile only deepened.

Via Remix News,

Europeans are committing demographic suicide and the tools used to managed migration are failing at every level, said Rodrigo Ballester, the head of the Center for European Studies at the Mathias Corvinus Collegium. He made his remark at a recent Ordo Iuris Institute event in Warsaw, Poland, which saw European politicians, policymakers, and other important players gather to discuss a groundbreaking paper: “Taking Back Control from Brussels. The Renationalization of the EU Migration and Asylum Policies.”

“As Europeans, we are committing demographic suicide. We are a continent of old rich people, facing a continent of young, hungry, and determined people — ambitious people. We’re still trying to manage migration with hopelessly outdated tools, using conventions from a century ago. They have completely lost their meaning today. In practice, I’m talking about the Geneva Convention. This is the ‘sacred cow’ we should get rid of,” Ballester emphasized.

The “Taking Back Control” paper, which was recently covered by Remix News, outlines 18 ways Europe can regain control of immigration policy. Ballester emphasized that these policies need to be implemented and quickly.

Many of the speakers discussed various aspects of Europe’s ongoing immigration crisis, including the sharply differing trajectories of pro-immigration countries such as Poland versus Germany.

Polish Prof. Zdzisław Krasnodębski, a former MEP, spoke to the large audience who had gathered, where he compared the impact of immigration on the Polish city of Warsaw to the German city of Bremen where he lived and worked for a long time.

“How did it happen that such a process, which is suicidal, was supported by societies for years? I can tell you that I know two such cities well. One was poor and large, and people were moving away from it. It was Warsaw. Warsaw was also White, if I may use that term. The other city (Bremen) was well-off, middle-class, also White. In 2025, one is almost a ruin. It used to be a prosperous, medium-sized town. Meanwhile, this big, great city we’re in right now has become one of the wealthiest cities in Europe,” he pointed out.

Krasnodębski underlined the trajectory of Warsaw, which is economically booming while still maintaining a strong White majority and rejecting the diversity seen in many other Western cities. Meanwhile, Bremen has been labeled the “most dangerous city in Germany,” where an incredible 73 percent of crime suspects are non-German. The situation has deteriorated so greatly in Bremen that even left-wing politicians in the city have admitted that “massive immigration” has sparked a housing and crime crisis.

However, other speakers warned that not all is well in Poland, either.

Jacek Saryusz-Wolski—a former Polish Minister for European Affairs and Member of the European Parliament, currently President Nawrocki’s main advisor for European affairs — took the floor.

“Looking at the statistics, you can see that in most of Western Europe, immigrant communities make up a percentage in the teens, or even over 20 percent, of the population. It’s not like that here (in Poland) yet, but we too face the risk of an open-borders policy starting here. We will then, after a certain delay, share the same fate,” noted Saryusz-Wolski.

Saryusz-Wolski further warned that the EU is taking more and more power away from nation-states in order to dictate an open borders policy.

“Migration policy is not among the European Union’s exclusive or shared competencies. This is only an area, the third category of cooperation, within which the Union institutions may assist, encourage, and advise the member states, but they cannot legislate. And that is the origin of this great usurpation,” the politician emphasized.

Another speaker, Róbert Gönczi, an analyst at the Hungarian Institute for Migration Research and at Mathias Corvinus Collegium, warned that policies in other countries, such as Spain, which is working to legalize hundreds of thousands of illegal migrants.

“Today we are witnessing a huge surge in migration that Europe is grappling with, and let’s not forget that we are all part of the European Union; it affects us all, and we all bear the consequences,” the analyst emphasized.

He also drew attention to the problem of numerous migrants not being registered in European countries’ systems.

“There are millions of people we can’t track down. We don’t know where they are, we don’t know what they’re doing, we don’t know where they came from, and we don’t know what to do about it. This places a very significant burden on the European system, on the European Union, and it is one of the reasons why we find ourselves in a serious economic crisis,” he noted.

Deputy Speaker of the Sejm, Krzysztof Bosak, emphasized that in addition to illegal immigration, mass legal immigration is also a problem.

“The discussion about legal immigration — its scale, rules, and criteria — is no less important, if not more important, because the transformation of Western Europe was largely the result of large-scale legal immigration, and only as a result — or in parallel — did illegal immigration begin to arrive,” he said.

The politician also noted that the European Union treats different countries unequally when it comes to assessing their migration policies. He pointed out that this area has already been partially “renationalized,” but he warned against a possible hardening of the stance toward countries that continue to firmly protect their borders.

“Please note that very few of our Border Guard’s decisions — whether during the Law and Justice government or now under the Civic Platform-led government — have been seriously challenged by any EU bodies. However, I’m not saying that this won’t happen at any moment now. It can happen. It depends solely on where the ‘Eye of Sauron’ from Brussels, from Luxembourg, turns its gaze, and which regulations, which practices it chooses to scrutinize. Such arbitrariness, it seems to me, has been taking place in the European Union for years with regard to the practice of so-called pushbacks — that is, what I call sending illegal migrants back to the proper side of the border,” said Bosak.

“Taking Back Control from Brussels. The Renationalization of the EU Migration and Asylum Policies” report discusses the possibility for European Union member states to regain greater control over migration and asylum policy without the need to adopt new EU treaties. The authors show that the key competencies concerning border protection, security, and deciding on the admission of foreigners still belong to nation-states, and that any limits on them result more from legal interpretation than from actual legal provisions.

The publication critically assesses the EU migration pact, indicating that it may facilitate mass migration and the forced relocation of migrants. The report also proposes specific legal measures that would enable EU countries to strengthen their own migration policy under existing European and international law.

Read more here…

The Russia-Ukraine war, now at the start of its fifth year, has largely fallen from daily global headlines, given the world’s attention – and markets – seem wholly focused on the fast-moving events of the Iran war, and the standoff in the Strait of Hormuz.

While many pundits are essentially ‘looking the other way’ – Russia continues gobbling up territory, and this week has announced its forces captured 12 settlements in just the first half of March. This comes as its offensives intensify in the east and south.

AFP/Getty Images

Chief of General Staff Valery Gerasimov touted the advances, declaring the push is broad-based and accelerating in all directions.

“The offensive is being conducted in all directions,” he has freshly announced, adding that “12 settlements have been liberated” in just two weeks.

This includes troops now “actively moving towards Sloviansk” – which remains one of the most heavily fortified Ukrainian strongholds in Donetsk, while also claiming 60% control of Kostiantynivka amid ongoing urban combat.

There are running “street battles” in Kostiantynivka Gerasimov described of the assault which has reportedly pushed deeper into the city. Russia says it’s also establishing buffer zones along the Kharkiv and Sumy borders.

The Ukrainian military and government leaders are meanwhile pushing back against this. President Volodymyr Zelensky himself is seeking to contradict the Russian narrative of consistent battlefield gains.

“Ukraine’s defense forces have disrupted Russia’s strategic offensive operation,” Zelensky said Monday. “Although attacks are constant… their intensity and scale are not what Russia had planned.”

The dueling claims highlight a familiar pattern of the last several years of grinding war in the east – one of Moscow touting steady territorial gains, while Kiev insists its troops blunting and reversing the push, even as the front line remains fluid but on the whole somewhat stalemated.

NEW: Continued Ukrainian advances in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast are likely constraining Russian offensive operations in the Oleksandrivka direction and may soon threaten Russian offensive operations in the Hulyaipole direction. Ukrainian counterattacks in Dnipropetrovsk Oblast are… pic.twitter.com/bnNkNRpZJT

— Institute for the Study of War (@TheStudyofWar) March 17, 2026

But both sides have settled in for a war of attrition, and while neither side publishes freshly updated casualty figures, the lives lost from the tragic war is widely believed to be in the hundreds of thousands.

Authored by Mateusz Morawiecki

A year after Friedrich Merz’s narrow victory and the formation of a new grand coalition between the CDU-CSU and the SPD in May 2025, Nicolas Baverez writes about the existential crisis Germany is experiencing. A crisis on several levels.

Firstly, Germany is experiencing a demographic crisis, with its population expected to decline by 100,000 people by 2025. Secondly, the economic crisis, following successive recessions in 2023 and 2024 and very weak growth of 0.2 percent in 2025. Thirdly, the social crisis, with the end of full employment and rising unemployment (6.5 per cent of the economically active population), resulting from increasing layoffs (52,000 jobs lost in the automotive industry and 150,000 in metallurgy and electronics in 2025). And finally, fourthly, the strategic crisis resulting from the situation in which Germany finds itself trapped between Donald Trump’s illiberal America – which is no longer a protector but a predator – the military threat from Russia and the economic domination and unfair competition of China.

And one answer from Friedrich Merz: Germany first and the militarization of Germany. According to Nicolas Baverez, Friedrich Merz found the answer to all his country’s problems in the militarization of Germany. To this end, he brought about a constitutional revision that allowed for the abolition of the debt brake limiting new federal loans and the creation of a special investment fund worth €500 billion.

via Reuters

Germany’s militarization entails converting part of its industrial capacity, particularly its automotive plants, into arms production. Spectacular expansion has been emphasized, as evidenced by the meteoric success of Rheinmetall, whose order book is approaching €55 billion. By 2025, Germany will become the world’s fourth-largest arms exporter, overtaking China (5.6 percent).

“It is regrettable that Germany is carrying out the rescue of its industry and its own armaments, ignoring and even overwhelming its partners,” concludes Nicolas Baverez. The columnist notes that Friedrich Merz’s goal is to strengthen Germany’s dominance over the European Union – its vast market and its currency – through control of the European Commission and the European Parliament. The goal is to redirect German industrial exports toward Europe, but also toward the dynamic poles of the global economy: China and the United States, ASEAN, Australia and Korea, India, and Latin America.

The Germans only care about their own particular interests. Nicolas Baverez isn’t afraid to make a very strong claim, one that hasn’t appeared in mainstream French journalism until now. He writes that Germany is subordinating the European Union to its own goals (taking advantage of the controlling role it has held over the EU since Brexit).

Another thesis of Nicolas Baverez, which has not been heard in the French media so far, is that Germany is responsible, and it is primarily responsible, for most of the strategic mistakes that have weakened Europe since the beginning of the 21st century: from the strong euro, through the deflationary response to the crash of 2008, the unilateral disarmament of the continent after 1989, the dismantling of the nuclear industry and distortions of energy policy, the methodical destruction of the car industry after the disclosure of Volkswagen’s fraudulent practices, to the unconditional opening of borders to immigration.

Such sharp “anti-German” theses have never been seen before in the most serious French press title, i.e. “Le Figaro”, at most in the right-wing “Journal du Dimanche”, where recently Philippe de Villiers came out with a hard and very sharp thesis: “Berlin is imposing its position on France, pushing it to the margins.”

Germans are freed from any guilt for World War II: It must come as a shock to anyone following mainstream French journalism that Nicolas Baverez’s piece in Le Figaro includes another sentence that has never before been used in French journalism. Until now, it has been careful not to offend its German neighbor. Now, however, Nicolas Baverez writes bluntly:

“Germany is reinventing itself today, with a sovereignty without borders, freed from all guilt and rooted in the memory of World War II. The return to a language and strategic stance serves a national ambition without complexes, which does not hesitate to directly clash with its partners. This is particularly true of France, whose economic ruin, financial insolvency, and the complete disgrace of its leaders are being exploited by Berlin to undermine its last remaining strengths in nuclear energy, defense, aviation, and the space sector.”

So Germany will once again build itself on the ambition, militarization, and weakness of “declining France.” And there is no doubt that this process overlaps with the changes possible both in Germany (here the shorthand for these changes is AfD) and in France (here the slogan is Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella’s National Rally ).

The return of German power also worries former Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki, who writes in an article for “Wszystko co Słońca”: “If Germany actually allocates 5% of its GDP to armaments, it will not only be the greatest effort since the Cold War, but also a turning point for the balance of power in Europe.”

“Something new is beginning before our eyes: Germany’s industrial awakening, and with it—even more importantly – a military awakening. Berlin is emerging from decades of military minimalism and preparing to become a real power. This time, these are not symbolic gestures or image-boosting tactics – but a systemic change that must be monitored closely. And understood before it’s too late again.”

If Germany truly devotes 5% of its GDP to armaments, it will not only be the greatest effort since the Cold War, but also a turning point for the balance of power in Europe. And the return of German military power will no longer be a hypothesis—it will be a matter of time. And it is precisely this possibility that Germany is consistently preparing for—step by step, lifting budget constraints, mobilising special funds, and transforming state structures into a wartime economic mobilization mode…

There is no doubt that Germany is striving to build a world-class army, one of the greatest forces on the Old Continent. The sheer scale of the funds it intends to allocate to broadly defined defense expansion suggests that we’re talking about a decade rather than decades. Or, if the federal government makes the right decisions, even sooner. Berlin is clearly articulating its desire to expand its role in  NATO structures  and to take responsibility for  European security , especially Mitteleuropa. If Germany maintains this chosen course, it could fundamentally alter the geopolitical security puzzle in Europe .

From the German perspective, two key aspects are worth noting: ensuring financing for armed forces modernization through stable economic growth and the ambition to build a common European defense system, including the creation of a European army. The foundation of both goals is a strong arms industry – one of the most powerful in Europe.

Rheinmetall, known for its production of Leopard 2 tanks, ammunition, and air defense systems, remains the leader in this sector. The company is rapidly increasing its production capacity – in 2025, it will invest €600 million to produce 350,000  artillery shells  annually. In 2024, it achieved record profits and an order book worth €55 billion. It’s worth noting that Rheinmetall has just entered into cooperation with the American Anduril – a symbol of a new arms paradigm based on AI and automation – which, somewhat contrary to Münchau’s thesis, demonstrates that Germany not only maintains its ambitions but is attempting to leapfrog into the technological vanguard. Meanwhile, companies like Anduril and Palantir remain virtually nonexistent on the map of decision-makers in Warsaw.

In addition to Rheinmetall, other significant companies operate: TKMS (warships), Hensoldt (battlefield radars and sensors), which is closely monitoring the changes on the battlefield in Ukraine, and Diehl Defence (air defense systems and precision weapons). The scale of public investment translates into tangible benefits – as shown, every €1 billion spent translates into a €1.23 billion increase in production, and the sector already employs nearly 400,000 people. German arms exports reached a record €13.2 billion in 2024.

History teaches us that industrial and military potential can be just as easily used as a tool of defense as it is a means of pressure – internal or external. The German arms industry, recently rebuilt on such a grand scale, is not developing in a vacuum. On the contrary, it is maturing in an atmosphere of political turmoil and growing support for parties challenging the post-war consensus. The Alternative for Germany (AfD), increasingly strong in the east of the country and leading in polls in some federal states, is openly questioning the pillars of Berlin’s current policy – ​​both towards Russia, the EU,  NATO, and the United States.

Read the full story here.

Authored by Victor Joecks via The Epoch Times,

Importing people who hate America didn’t end well.

See if you can spot any similarities in these four events.

During the weekend, President Donald Trump attacked Iran, Ndiaga Diagne opened fire at a bar in Austin. He wore a “Property of Allah” sweatshirt on top of an Iranian flag shirt.

He killed three people and injured more than a dozen before police shot him dead.

Diagne was a citizen of Senegal. He entered the United States in 2000 on a tourist visa and became a naturalized citizen in 2013.

On Saturday, March 7, around 20 people protested Islam outside of Gracie Mansion, the home of NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani. Around 125 people attended a counterprotest. Emir Balat, 18, then threw a bomb. Video suggests Balat screamed, “Allahu Akbar.” Video shows Balat grabbing a second bomb from Ibrahim Kayumi. Police saved the day, heroically subduing both men. Fortunately, neither explosive device detonated.

Balat later told police, “This isn’t a religion that just stands when people talk about the blessed name of the prophet …. We take action!” according to the Department of Justice. Balat also wrote that he pledged allegiance to the Islamic State.

Kayumi said he was connected to ISIS, watched ISIS propaganda, and that ISIS inspired his actions.

Balat’s parents are naturalized citizens from Turkey. Kayumi’s parents are naturalized citizens from Afghanistan.

On Thursday, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh shouted “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire in an ROTC class at Old Dominion University. Jalloh killed Lt. Col. Brandon Shah, the retired military officer leading the class and injured two others before at least one brave student killed him.

Jalloh was a naturalized U.S. citizen who came from Sierra Leone. He had previously been convicted of supporting ISIS.

Also on Thursday, Ayman Ghazali rammed a truck filled with explosives into a Jewish synagogue in West Bloomfield, Michigan. There were around 140 children plus staff at its early childhood center at the time. The man left his vehicle with a rifle. He exchanged gunfire with armed security who shot and killed him. The FBI believes the man specifically targeted the Jewish community.

Ghazali came from Lebanon and legally entered the United States in 2011. He became a naturalized citizen in 2016.

There are three obvious takeaways here.

First, guns aren’t an inherent problem.

It’s a problem when bad guys have guns and a lifesaver when good guys have guns.

Next, America’s immigration system is broken.

The melting pot has boiled over. All cultures aren’t created equal and some simply aren’t compatible with American values. When “naturalized” citizens murder Americans, it shows the naturalization process didn’t work. Congressional Republicans should pass a bill making it easier to denaturalize and deport those with terrorist sympathies.

Finally, Muslim terrorism is a systemic problem—and one the left doesn’t want to talk about.

The left has no problem using isolated incidents as evidence of a widespread threat from white supremacy. But after the NYC bomb attack, inverse journalism made it sound like Mamdani was the intended target.

Willful blindness doesn’t end well. Look at the child rape scandal in the UK. Officials let abuse continue for years rather than risk being called racists for exposing that the perpetrators were largely Pakistani Muslims.

In a 2016 post on Twitter, now X, the late comedian Norm Macdonald perfectly skewered this mindset.

“What terrifies me is if ISIS were to detonate a nuclear device and kill 50 million Americans. Imagine the backlash against peaceful Muslims?” he wrote.

Islamophobia is a weapon that leftists wield to keep people from discussing and fixing an obvious problem. Many Muslims want to destroy the West and kill Americans. Ignoring that reality has led to deadly consequences.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Across both conflict theaters, the Russia-Ukraine war in Eastern Europe and the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran, there is one common denominator that stands out the loudest: the widespread use of cheap kamikaze drones.

Focusing on the Middle East, Iran’s counteroffensive strategy of mass kamikaze-drone swarms, missile barrages, and electronic warfare has exposed the limits of expensive U.S. and allied air-defense systems, whose interceptor missiles can cost millions of dollars apiece.

Operation Epic Fury risks devolving into a grinding war of attrition for U.S. and allied forces across the Gulf. Reports indicate that missile-interceptor stockpiles are running low, while separate reports say the U.S. has deployed a copycat Shahed-type drone into combat.

There have also been reports that Saudi Arabia could acquire Ukrainian interceptor drones to defend high-value assets, such as oil and gas facilities.

The point is that low-cost kamikaze drones are changing the economics of war. It is not sustainable for the U.S. and allied forces to use million-dollar interceptors against $20,000 Iranian drones.

The problem gets worse for the U.S. as a new report says Chinese private companies are mass-producing Shahed-type drones.

New footage published by The Sun appears to show Shahed-type drones being mass-produced at a factory in China. The footage was originally posted on the video platform Douyin.

Britain’s former security minister Tom Tugendhat commented on the report on X, saying, “Oh look – Iranian and Russian Shahed drones are being mass produced in China.”

Oh look – Iranian and Russian Shahed drones are being mass produced in China.

This isn’t surprising but it’s a reminder that Beijing is the enabler of Moscow’s campaign murdering Ukrainian children. https://t.co/I2DBv2oLjo

— Tom Tugendhat (@TomTugendhat) March 15, 2026

Here’s the U.S. version of the Shahed-style drone, called the Low-Cost Unmanned Combat Attack System, or LUCAS.

Another picture of a Starlink mounted on a Low-Cost Unmanned Combat Attack System (LUCAS) drone https://t.co/SDVp4gZjCK pic.twitter.com/LyxwcL5fso

— Robin (@xdNiBoR) December 4, 2025

Iran’s kamikaze-drone swarms showed over the last three weeks that the battlefield cannot be contained in one single area, and civilian infrastructure was not spared, from data centers to skyscrapers. This alarming reality for the West is a wake-up call that these drones could soon be over US skies.

Across both conflict theaters, the Russia-Ukraine war in Eastern Europe and the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran, there is one common denominator that stands out the loudest: the widespread use of cheap kamikaze drones.

Focusing on the Middle East, Iran’s counteroffensive strategy of mass kamikaze-drone swarms, missile barrages, and electronic warfare has exposed the limits of expensive U.S. and allied air-defense systems, whose interceptor missiles can cost millions of dollars apiece.

Operation Epic Fury risks devolving into a grinding war of attrition for U.S. and allied forces across the Gulf. Reports indicate that missile-interceptor stockpiles are running low, while separate reports say the U.S. has deployed a copycat Shahed-type drone into combat.

There have also been reports that Saudi Arabia could acquire Ukrainian interceptor drones to defend high-value assets, such as oil and gas facilities.

The point is that low-cost kamikaze drones are changing the economics of war. It is not sustainable for the U.S. and allied forces to use million-dollar interceptors against $20,000 Iranian drones.

The problem gets worse for the U.S. as a new report says Chinese private companies are mass-producing Shahed-type drones.

New footage published by The Sun appears to show Shahed-type drones being mass-produced at a factory in China. The footage was originally posted on the video platform Douyin.

Britain’s former security minister Tom Tugendhat commented on the report on X, saying, “Oh look – Iranian and Russian Shahed drones are being mass produced in China.”

Oh look – Iranian and Russian Shahed drones are being mass produced in China.

This isn’t surprising but it’s a reminder that Beijing is the enabler of Moscow’s campaign murdering Ukrainian children. https://t.co/I2DBv2oLjo

— Tom Tugendhat (@TomTugendhat) March 15, 2026

Here’s the U.S. version of the Shahed-style drone, called the Low-Cost Unmanned Combat Attack System, or LUCAS.

Another picture of a Starlink mounted on a Low-Cost Unmanned Combat Attack System (LUCAS) drone https://t.co/SDVp4gZjCK pic.twitter.com/LyxwcL5fso

— Robin (@xdNiBoR) December 4, 2025

Iran’s kamikaze-drone swarms showed over the last three weeks that the battlefield cannot be contained in one single area, and civilian infrastructure was not spared, from data centers to skyscrapers. This alarming reality for the West is a wake-up call that these drones could soon be over US skies.

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

A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court decision blocking the Trump administration from freezing trillions of dollars in funding to states.

The Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which houses the Office of Management and Budget, in Washington on Oct. 3, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

A U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit panel of judges said in the March 16 ruling that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) arbitrarily and capriciously directed agencies in early 2025 to pause funding.

The OMB “directed the Agency Defendants to freeze such funds without considering an obvious aspect of the problem—namely, the reliance interests of the recipients of the obligated federal funds that were to be frozen,” U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, writing for the unanimous panel, said in a 58-page decision.

“We thus agree that the States are likely to succeed in showing that it was ‘arbitrary and capricious to ignore such matters,’” he added, quoting from a different ruling.

The budget office on Jan. 27, 2025, directed agencies to review programs to determine whether they were consistent with President Donald Trump’s policies and requirements.

“Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance … that may be implicated by the executive orders,” the memorandum stated.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell, in Rhode Island, blocked the freeze, finding that the executive branch is not authorized to unilaterally suspend payment of federal funds to states or others.

OMB withdrew its directive after lawsuits were lodged, but the legal challenges have continued because parties have introduced evidence that steps were taken to freeze money even after the withdrawal.

Government lawyers said that the memo included language indicating that funds would not be blocked for programs “where reliance interests would be most acute, including for direct assistance to individuals, payments required by law, and payments that agencies believed appropriate to continue on a case-by-case basis.”

The new ruling stated that the relevant question was whether officials considered whether payments were legally required, and that the memo does not show officials undertook that consideration before freezing funds.

“Moreover, the Government does not point to anything other than the text of the OMB Memorandum when it comes to how the Agency Defendants decided to take the challenged actions,” Barron said.

The First Circuit panel largely upheld McConnell’s injunction, apart from vacating the portion that required the government to disburse money to states for awarded grants or executed contracts, pointing to Supreme Court decisions in a separate case that said district court judges lacked jurisdiction to order agencies to pay for certain grants. It kept in place the order for the government to pay “other executed financial obligations,” while saying arguments about the definition of those obligations should be settled by McConnell.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who is helping lead the litigation, said in a statement that the decision “affirmed what we all know to be true: The Trump Administration’s sweeping directive to unilaterally freeze all federal funding in its first days in office was deeply harmful, reckless, and wholly unreasoned.”

The White House did not return a request for comment by the time of publication.

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

A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court decision blocking the Trump administration from freezing trillions of dollars in funding to states.

The Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which houses the Office of Management and Budget, in Washington on Oct. 3, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

A U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit panel of judges said in the March 16 ruling that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) arbitrarily and capriciously directed agencies in early 2025 to pause funding.

The OMB “directed the Agency Defendants to freeze such funds without considering an obvious aspect of the problem—namely, the reliance interests of the recipients of the obligated federal funds that were to be frozen,” U.S. Circuit Judge David Barron, writing for the unanimous panel, said in a 58-page decision.

“We thus agree that the States are likely to succeed in showing that it was ‘arbitrary and capricious to ignore such matters,’” he added, quoting from a different ruling.

The budget office on Jan. 27, 2025, directed agencies to review programs to determine whether they were consistent with President Donald Trump’s policies and requirements.

“Federal agencies must temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance … that may be implicated by the executive orders,” the memorandum stated.

U.S. District Judge John McConnell, in Rhode Island, blocked the freeze, finding that the executive branch is not authorized to unilaterally suspend payment of federal funds to states or others.

OMB withdrew its directive after lawsuits were lodged, but the legal challenges have continued because parties have introduced evidence that steps were taken to freeze money even after the withdrawal.

Government lawyers said that the memo included language indicating that funds would not be blocked for programs “where reliance interests would be most acute, including for direct assistance to individuals, payments required by law, and payments that agencies believed appropriate to continue on a case-by-case basis.”

The new ruling stated that the relevant question was whether officials considered whether payments were legally required, and that the memo does not show officials undertook that consideration before freezing funds.

“Moreover, the Government does not point to anything other than the text of the OMB Memorandum when it comes to how the Agency Defendants decided to take the challenged actions,” Barron said.

The First Circuit panel largely upheld McConnell’s injunction, apart from vacating the portion that required the government to disburse money to states for awarded grants or executed contracts, pointing to Supreme Court decisions in a separate case that said district court judges lacked jurisdiction to order agencies to pay for certain grants. It kept in place the order for the government to pay “other executed financial obligations,” while saying arguments about the definition of those obligations should be settled by McConnell.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who is helping lead the litigation, said in a statement that the decision “affirmed what we all know to be true: The Trump Administration’s sweeping directive to unilaterally freeze all federal funding in its first days in office was deeply harmful, reckless, and wholly unreasoned.”

The White House did not return a request for comment by the time of publication.

Authored by Evgenia Filimianova via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. government has confirmed that Tesla and South Korea’s LG Energy Solution have signed a supply agreement to build a $4.3 billion lithium iron phosphate (LFP) battery cell factory in Michigan.

A Tesla Model Y is displayed at the AI+Expo Special Competitive Studies Project in Washington on June 2, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

The project, to be located in Lansing, is expected to begin production in 2027, according to a March 16 statement by the U.S. Department of the Interior.

“Tesla and LG Energy Solution are expanding their partnership with a supply agreement to build a $4.3 billion LFP prismatic battery cell manufacturing facility in Lansing, Michigan, launching production in 2027,” the statement said.

“American-made cells will power Tesla’s Megapack 3 energy storage systems produced in Houston, creating a robust domestic battery supply chain.”

The announcement was included in the results from the Indo-Pacific Energy Security Ministerial and Business Forum held in Tokyo over the weekend.

The deal was one of several investments highlighted by the Trump administration at the forum as part of its “American energy dominance” agenda.

In July 2025, LG Energy Solution said it had signed an LFP battery supply deal with an overseas client, but did not name the buyer.

The Korean battery maker said in its July 25, 2025, quarterly results that it had begun producing batteries at its first North American energy storage manufacturing hub in Michigan and planned to expand capacity further.

“By proactively adjusting its capacity expansion plans, the company now aims to expand its annual production capacity for ESS [energy storage systems] batteries to 17GWh by the end of this year,” LG said in July.

In the same statement, the company said it plans to continue expanding its ESS business in North America and aims to secure more than 30 GWh of annual production capacity in the region by the end of 2026.

In financial results released on Jan. 29, LG Energy Solution CFO Chang Sil Lee said the company had seen strong growth in energy storage sales even as electric-vehicle demand slowed.

He added that profitability improved due to a better product mix, lower material costs, and production incentives tied to stable North American sales.

Domestic Supply

The Michigan factory’s output will feed Tesla’s Megapack 3 systems, large integrated batteries designed to store electricity and stabilize power grids.

Tesla says Megapack stores energy when supply is high and releases it when demand rises, helping balance renewable generation and prevent outages.

Megablock systems using Megapack 3 are designed for 20 megawatt-hours of alternating current capacity with a 25-year life and more than 10,000 charge cycles, Tesla said in a Sept. 9 post on X, adding that deliveries will start in the second half of 2026.

The Tesla-LG project was announced alongside other initiatives aimed at strengthening U.S. energy exports and supply chains.

Among them, the Export-Import Bank issued a term sheet for the $14 billion Delfin LNG project, an offshore liquefied natural gas facility planned off Louisiana with a capacity of about 13 million metric tons per year.

The Interior Department also said the United States and South Korea are exploring a memorandum of understanding on critical minerals through the Department of Energy to bolster supply chain resilience.

The Tokyo forum generated more than $56 billion in announced investments across sectors, including nuclear energy, liquefied natural gas infrastructure, critical minerals, advanced manufacturing, and clean energy technologies, the department said.

Commenting on the deals, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a March 16 post on X, “American Energy Dominance continues to deliver historic investment into the U.S. economy.”