Individual Economists

Transcript: Lawrence Calcano, iCapital CEO

The Big Picture -



 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Lawrence Calcano, iCapital CEO, is below.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

~~~

Masters in Business — Lawrence Calcano of iCapital

Barry Ritholtz [00:00:16] This week on the podcast — wow, another great conversation. Lawrence Calcano has built iCapital since 2013 into what has become the dominant financial technology platform for alternative investments — for wealth managers, for advisors, for banks. I found this informative and quite interesting, and I think you will too. With no further ado, my discussion with iCapital’s CEO, Lawrence Calcano.

Lawrence Calcano [00:00:47] Thanks, Barry. It’s great to be here.

Barry Ritholtz [00:00:49] It’s great to have you. I’ve been looking forward to this for a while. Before we get into your time with iCapital, I want to work back through your career. You got a bachelor’s from Holy Cross and an MBA from Dartmouth. What was the original career plan?

Lawrence Calcano [00:01:09] I don’t know that I had one coming out of the gate. My dad was raised in an orphanage. His father died when he was two, so he was in an orphanage until he was 18. He went into the army, and then he came out and had to put himself through school. He didn’t have a regular path that would lead him to say to me as a teenager, “Here’s the way to do it.” So he was learning, and I was learning a little bit. I was a hockey player, and I got recruited to Holy Cross to play hockey. When I was there, I was an economics major and a theater minor — spent a lot of time doing theater. Then I went off to Morgan Stanley, and that was an interesting decision because I was in a professional play and had been asked to be in a second play. I had a bit of a career crisis early on in terms of what to do.

Barry Ritholtz [00:02:04] What was the first play?

Lawrence Calcano [00:02:05] It was called The Murder Room — a James Sherkey slapstick play. I played a young Texas millionaire who was engaged to a wealthy British woman. The play takes place at her father’s manor in the U.K. It was full of sight gags and jokes.

Barry Ritholtz [00:02:23] On Broadway or off?

Lawrence Calcano [00:02:25] Off Broadway. It was a lot of fun. I was offered a role as the father in The Diary of Anne Frank as a follow-up. At that point, I had also gotten an offer to go to Morgan Stanley, and I was in early trade-off mode. Ultimately, I figured I needed to eat — I had a lot of student loans — so I decided to go off into the world of finance.

Barry Ritholtz [00:02:47] You spent a few years at Morgan Stanley. What were you focused on while you were there?

Lawrence Calcano [00:02:51] I was in mortgage finance. We were helping S&Ls raise capital and do M&A, and also structuring some of the new products — Ginnie Mae securities, Fannie Mae securities, REMIC CMOs, things like that. A lot of structured-type investments.

Barry Ritholtz [00:03:07] This was late eighties, early nineties.

Lawrence Calcano [00:03:10] Late eighties — ’85 to ’88. Then I put in one application to business school. A good friend of mine who had been an analyst before me left and went off to Tuck. I visited him. I had an offer to stay on at Morgan as an associate, but decided that after my weekend at Tuck, that would be a good thing for me — to stop, reassess, figure out what I wanted to do. So I went off to Tuck.

Barry Ritholtz [00:03:38] I have to ask the obvious question. There’s a whole industry helping students figure out which is the right school for them — their first school, their safety schools, their reach. It’s a whole side industry. You applied to one MBA school.

Lawrence Calcano [00:03:53] I applied to one MBA school, and part of the reason is that I had accepted the job to become an associate. I went up on the visit, as I mentioned, and I just had this feeling that I was making the wrong decision. I loved Morgan — it was a fantastic firm — but I had this sense that maybe staying wasn’t the right thing to do, and going off to business school for two years would be the right decision. I loved it. It was an incredible two years. I’m on the board of Tuck.

Barry Ritholtz [00:04:25] But why apply to just one school if you’re deciding, “Hey, this path isn’t exactly how I want to get an MBA”? If you’re applying to Dartmouth, you could apply to Stern, to Columbia, to wherever. Why only one school?

Lawrence Calcano [00:04:42] I was just wrapped with it. I went up there — it’s a small school. When I was there, there were 160 or so in the class. It’s very focused on team — study groups, teamwork, and so forth. I just felt like it was the right place for me. I wasn’t too worried about it. If I didn’t get in, I was going to become an associate at Morgan Stanley, so it wasn’t like I was putting all my eggs in one basket.

Barry Ritholtz [00:05:12] Really interesting. How did you end up at Goldman Sachs? Was that while you were in business school or afterwards?

Lawrence Calcano [00:05:19] When I went to business school, I said to myself, “I’m going to think about all the different things I can do.” After about two months, I said, “I really did like finance a lot, and I want to go back there.” So I applied for summer internships and had a few offers.

Barry Ritholtz [00:05:36] More than one?

Lawrence Calcano [00:05:37] I did. I applied to all the summer internships, and obviously coming out of Morgan Stanley was helpful to my candidacy. I ended up getting an offer to be a summer associate at Goldman, which I took, and I was fortunate to have an offer to come back post-graduation, which I did. I spent a long time there and had a very good experience.

Barry Ritholtz [00:06:00] I’m curious — they’re such large and yet such different firms. What were the culture differences? What did you learn from each?

Lawrence Calcano [00:06:10] They are different — and there are a lot of different ways to skin the cat. Goldman had a very team-oriented culture, and I think Morgan Stanley does too, but at Goldman it’s right there in front of you. They’ve got 14 business principles, the first of which is “Our clients come first.” When you think about the things you learn early on in your career, there were several from that experience that really stuck with me — starting with business principle number one: your client’s interests always come first. And secondly, the importance of working as a team. My wife used to make fun of me because I would be in the office early, and if there were a party or some social event, I was always the last to leave. She would say to me, “Dude, you don’t have to actually be there till the end.” I just loved it so much. That camaraderie was powerful — smart from a business perspective, but mostly as a person, it was just fun being in that group.

Barry Ritholtz [00:07:18] You ended up co-leading Goldman’s global technology banking group. Was your focus on tech and financial technology deliberate, or did it evolve organically over time?

Lawrence Calcano [00:07:30] It just evolved. I was a generalist in corporate finance — it was then called Global Finance. My Morgan Stanley friends used to make fun of me and call it Intergalactic Finance, but it was Global Finance. I did that as a generalist for a couple of years, and then I was asked to start the East Coast tech group, which I did.

Barry Ritholtz [00:07:50] This was mid- to late nineties.

Lawrence Calcano [00:07:52] Early nineties. I was a third-year associate. It was late ’92, early ’93. We started to win some business, and as you recall, the internet started to really kick in with the Netscape IPO in ’95. We went from having a really good business to being on fire and drinking from a fire hose, given all that was going on with the internet.

Barry Ritholtz [00:08:21] Really fascinating. So you’re there right through the dot-com boom and bust — probably the most transformative technology of the last 30 years, at least before AI. What did that teach you about how capital markets operate, the way investors behave? That had to be a wildly instructive era.

Lawrence Calcano [00:08:42] It was wildly instructive, and it was all happening so quickly. As you recall, people were trying to figure out how to even value these companies. We had a great team — research, salespeople, bankers — we all worked really well together. We would make presentations to potential clients, and we’d talk about where we saw the market going apart from valuation. What did we think the adoption was going to look like? We had what then was viewed as wild assumptions about internet adoption. At the time, people were afraid to put their card numbers in a computer to buy anything. What happened was, for a while, the valuations kept pace and at times exceeded the hysteria. But even though the valuations came back at the end — mid ’01, the internet valuations came down; mid ’02, the comm-tech valuations came down — the reality of what was happening was even wilder than what our projections suggested. The adoption rate of the internet, and how it would fundamentally change people’s lives — the way they bought things, reviewed things, communicated — was so powerful. We saw that wave; we saw the communications-equipment wave. Now we’re obviously looking at a different wave. For me, there are several massive lessons. One is: you’re never safe. When I started, the big technology companies were called DEC and Wang. You remember those companies?

Barry Ritholtz [00:10:31] Oh, sure. Wang Computers — not Wang who owned Computer Associates. Wang Computers.

Lawrence Calcano [00:10:36] Wang Computers, not Charles Wang. That’s right. Those companies all got replaced — first by client-server, then a lot of the client-server companies got displaced by the internet, and now you’re seeing another interesting potential risk of displacement. One of the big things is: you cannot be afraid of new changes in technology waves. You’ve got to adopt. If you remember, when Amazon was growing, many of the bookstores and music stores — hope is not a strategy. You can’t hope it’s going to go away. You’ve got to adopt, even if it means changing your business, even if it means your business model has to change and maybe your margins aren’t going to be the same. You’ve got to adapt. The one thing I would say is this always takes a little longer than people think. The hype is always ahead of the reality. I think there’s a little of that right now. But AI is a massively important trend. We’re spending a lot of money on it, as are lots of companies — and you’ve got to be willing to adopt or run the risk of dying.

Barry Ritholtz [00:11:57] If there’s any lesson to be drawn from Elon Musk and Tesla, it’s that — or maybe the lesson comes from Amazon and Jeff Bezos: your margin is my opportunity. If you don’t pivot hard, they’re going to come along and eat your lunch. It happens so regularly.

Lawrence Calcano [00:12:19] Yeah.

Barry Ritholtz [00:12:19] The cycle never stops turning. So at what point did you decide, “Hey, I could do a lot with this technology and these various platforms”? What led you to move from Goldman to helping build and lead iCapital?

Lawrence Calcano [00:12:38] The real story is that I left in ’07. With one of my former partners, we were going to start a technology buyout fund. You may remember there were some events in ’07 and ’08 that were not too pleasant.

Barry Ritholtz [00:12:54] Don’t really recall. Everything’s kind of blurry.

Lawrence Calcano [00:12:55] It reminds me of the Leslie Nielsen joke in Airplane: “I picked a bad week to stop sniffing glue.” There was a little of that. We went off to start a private equity fund in the middle of the GFC.

Barry Ritholtz [00:13:06] You should have started a distressed asset fund. Probably perfect.

Lawrence Calcano [00:13:09] We weren’t smart enough to figure that out. So we put it on pause. It was a little bit of an unplanned cleansing in a sense — I coached my kids’ football and lacrosse teams. I worked from home, and it was actually very exciting. Did a few entrepreneurial things. Then with a great group of folks, we looked at what was happening in the independent space — a space you obviously know well. We saw a lot of firms, a lot of advisors, going off and starting their own firms. That trend was significant. There were hundreds of billions, or early trillions, of dollars now being managed by these independent RIAs. One of the things we looked at: almost by definition, the firms leaving were the firms with the largest asset bases and, generally speaking, the largest clients. Those clients typically invested in alts.

Barry Ritholtz [00:14:15] Meaning family offices, ultra-high-net-worth?

Lawrence Calcano [00:14:18] Think about some of your clients and the types of products they’re interested in buying. The wirehouses do — and still do — a phenomenal job providing outstanding products, support, and services. So when somebody leaves to be independent, they don’t have a platform. We felt we could create a platform to help advisors have access to alts in the right way. It’s different because at that moment in time, there was no technology. Investing in alts was a highly manual process.

Barry Ritholtz [00:14:53] To a large degree, for a lot of firms, it still is. The various funds don’t all play well together.

Lawrence Calcano [00:15:02] We’ll come back to this experience point, but we felt that firms that were independent really needed a technology chassis. They needed access to product, education, diligence — and a technology platform. We felt we could build that end-to-end — not just the diligence, not just fund sales, but the whole end-to-end solution. We started to build that out and realized it was something clients really needed. The other interesting thing we found out along the way — and I would say this was not a pivot as much as an expansion — we had assumed the wirehouses had absolutely everything they needed because they knew every manager in the world and had close relationships. What they didn’t really have at the time was much technology. They had a lot of people doing a great job serving advisors, but they didn’t have technology. We felt we could offer them a full technology platform. We rethought our role in the ecosystem to be one where we were going to serve advisors wherever and however they choose to practice. That’s allowed us to serve advisors at the wirehouses, advisors at RIAs and IBDs — and really help create a great experience for them and for their clients.

Barry Ritholtz [00:16:31] Coming up, we continue our conversation with Lawrence Calcano, CEO and Chairman of iCapital, discussing how he built the firm out to a trillion-dollar platform. I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

Barry Ritholtz [00:17:05] I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Lawrence Calcano. He is the chairman and chief executive officer of iCapital, where he has been helping to build the firm since 2013. They now service over a trillion dollars in client assets on behalf of advisors and other professionals. So how should a traditional 60/40 investor — thinking about some allocation to private equity or private credit — access your platform? Is it directly through their advisor? Tell us what the process is like.

Lawrence Calcano [00:17:41] It’s very much an advisor business. We are very focused on helping financial advisors serve their clients. It’s not a B2C model — it’s a B2B2C model. All the clients at iCapital are advisors and, obviously, the GPs trying to reach those advisors. For financial advisors who are large, we can build a whole white-label capability for them, so they can have an operating system to run their alts, structured investments, or annuities business — as well as the data aggregation they have to do for clients with information that’s everywhere. For advisors that are a little smaller and don’t have a persistent need, they can come to our marketplace and see a menu of hundreds of funds where they can avail themselves of those funds for their clients.

Barry Ritholtz [00:18:33] Really interesting. I like the description of iCapital as the world’s alternative investment marketplace for advisors and wealth managers. When you joined in 2013, what problem were you trying to solve?

Lawrence Calcano [00:18:51] We were trying to help the advisors who, as I mentioned, had left their homes to start their new businesses. We felt we could create for them an investment platform to allow them to service their clients consistent with how they had previously served them.

Barry Ritholtz [00:19:11] Part of the problem we’ve seen with alternatives over the years is they all seem to be a slightly different widget. They don’t all fit on a platform easily. You have to onboard the assets, align the capital, go through subscription documents and capital calls and custodian and performance reporting, and then all the analytics. They’re all a little different, and it’s a big lift. How have you addressed this issue at iCapital?

Lawrence Calcano [00:19:45] We think technology is essential to creating an experience that lets you deal with all of those things effectively, in a way that will encourage you to do the business with your clients where it makes sense. Everything from what happens before you make any decisions — education for you as an advisor on the asset class, education for your client, the tools to help build a portfolio, research to help you learn about funds — and once you’ve worked with a client and developed a portfolio perspective, tools to help you subscribe. Then automation to help you manage all the things that happen post-investment: capital calls, distributions, redemptions, transfers, reporting. We help create an experience that, as an advisor, will give you time back to serve and spend time with the client. We feel strongly about going through advisors because there’s so much about a client that an advisor will know that a platform will never really be able to know — what is their real feeling toward illiquidity? One of the issues the industry is dealing with today is illiquidity and people’s expectations about it. Advisors have a deeper perspective on how a client really feels. We want to be partnered with advisors in bringing the solution to market.

Barry Ritholtz [00:21:11] I’m glad you brought that up, because every time there’s some issue with illiquidity, it seems people don’t really understand what a lockup means. It should be fairly self-explanatory. We saw this a couple of years ago with BREIT — which part of “seven-year lockup” was confusing to you? I know what happened in 2022: the Fed raised rates, and people thought, “Hey, let’s get out of illiquid real estate before the marks reflect the reality of pricing relative to rates.” But that’s not how private investments work. How do you educate investors and their advisors as to what illiquidity means?

Lawrence Calcano [00:21:56] It is a journey. There’s no one answer. We spend a ton of time and energy on education, as do most of the GPs in our system. When you look at the documents around some of these funds, the liquidity rules are not on page 98 in small print — they’re on the front page. The reality is, people want to hear what they want to hear. These are illiquid investments, whether wrapped as a 3(c)(7) private fund — clearly illiquid — or in an evergreen wrapper, a registered fund. The underlying investments are still illiquid. Some are shorter duration than others. Private credit is shorter duration than private equity or real estate. But a private credit investment is still an illiquid investment. The problem is, when they get wrapped in a wrapper that says “you can sell up to or redeem up to 5%,” it confuses people. When the industry uses terms like “semi-liquid” — I don’t even know what that means.

Barry Ritholtz [00:23:25] I always think of that 5% gate as a widows-and-orphans clause. If somebody is suddenly no longer a suitable investor for this — say the person who made the investment passed away — now the wife and kids can get out of it. It shouldn’t be, “Oh, I could sell 5% a quarter for as long as I want.”

Lawrence Calcano [00:23:45] People should make these investments because they think they’re going to provide medium- to long-term positive impact in their portfolio. If you’re buying it to get a return this quarter or next quarter, it’s probably not the right investment. I’m not a financial advisor, but you need to buy these things with the right duration in mind — and that’s not a short one. The products do provide what I think of as liquidity features — opportunities, if things change in your life, to potentially redeem all of it if there’s not a big queue, or redeem up to 5% if you need to. That’s a flexibility and liquidity feature in the wrapper. But it doesn’t mean the product is liquid. People should invest thinking these products solve an investment need that’s medium to long term, not short term.

Barry Ritholtz [00:24:43] Let’s talk a little bit about demand for this product. We’ve seen, at least on the institutional side, flows into alts now exceeding a trillion dollars a year. As that scales, what are some of the challenges and bottlenecks for advisors to allocate more to privates?

Lawrence Calcano [00:25:02] Education is still a very important issue for advisors. A lot of the advisors in the mix have been doing it for a while, but there are still a lot who haven’t really gotten into these products yet. They’re going to need more education — that’s point one. Point two: how they invest is probably going to be different. A lot of advisors use models with respect to their liquid portfolios. We believe models will be a very important way people invest in alternatives — either models of just alternatives that get married to an otherwise liquid portfolio, or models that include both liquid and illiquid investments together. We have brought both types of products to market in partnerships with managers, as well as partnerships with the infrastructure players. Models will represent an important way advisors allocate client assets to alternatives.

Barry Ritholtz [00:26:06] I’ve been hearing more and more about interest overseas in a global alternatives platform. What do you think is driving the demand internationally versus what’s driving the demand here? Is it the same thing, or a different approach?

Lawrence Calcano [00:26:22] I think it’s the same thing. Adoption is a little bit behind U.S. adoption on our platform. In the alts space, we have over $65 billion of alternatives allocated from investors who live outside the United States. Half of our 20 offices are outside the U.S. We think it’s a really important growth area for the market and our business. A lot of the same things that drive advisors to introduce these products to clients — potential for incremental return, portfolio diversification — are the same things that drive international interest as well.

Barry Ritholtz [00:27:00] Let’s talk about end-to-end technology. I know this is more than just a menu of alternative funds. Tell us about your whole tech stack and what it provides for your clients.

Lawrence Calcano [00:27:16] A lot of what people want help with out of the gate is just how to build these portfolios. We talked about education, but how do you build the portfolio? How do you construct portfolios that match a client’s goals and objectives? We’ve built technology to do that, which includes alts, structured investments, and annuities, along with the liquid products they might need. One thing we’ve tried to do as an organization is not only build an end-to-end solution for alts, but do the same thing for structured investments — those are important products for advisors and clients — as well as annuities and insurance. What’s happening in the market today, which is a really interesting and ongoing trend, is that people are looking at the different types of wrappers — ETF wrappers, insurance wrappers — wrapped around things like hedge funds, private equity funds, credit funds. Being able to help advisors think about how the products should be structured, and how they could address client needs, is a really important part of what we’re doing. As I mentioned earlier, being able to automate the whole workflow is critical. I’ll make one other point as it relates to tech: one of the issues for the industry is around data management. We live in an ecosystem. When we first started the company, people used to say, “Oh, you guys are so disruptive.” I would politely correct them and say, “We’re not trying to be disruptive — we’re trying to be enabling.” There are a lot of infrastructure players we’re trying to help achieve their goals. We’re not trying to, like Amazon did to Borders, push them out of business. We’re trying to enable them to participate. One of the things that has to happen now in the industry is that all the different big constituents — administrators, transfer agents, custodians, firms like iCapital, advisors, GPs — have to work together to support clients. If we can get all of our systems to be better connected, things like tokenization and blockchain will help. It will end up paying huge dividends for the advisor and for the end client.

Barry Ritholtz [00:29:40] It’s funny — you mentioned “disruptive.” In 2013 there was nothing to disrupt. It was just a series of private offerings — no umbrella, no platform that pulled everything together.

Lawrence Calcano [00:29:55] That’s right. It was really a greenfield, which is why I say we’re enabling, not disruptive. The truth is, we’re still scratching the surface. BCG does a report every year on global wealth. Late in December they put out a report saying there’s $153 trillion in wealth owned by individuals. That’s a huge number. It rivals the size of the institutional market. In the U.S., the estimates are something like 2 to 2.5% allocated to alts. Outside the U.S., it’s even less. There’s a significant amount of wealth that’s going to be looking to build more sophisticated portfolios. Tools, technology, AI, tokenization — all of these have to evolve to create a great experience for advisors and clients to make the best decisions they can in the asset-allocation world.

Barry Ritholtz [00:30:58] Really interesting. Let’s stay with technology and innovation. You’ve built a number of fairly innovative technologies. You’ve bought, you’ve partnered. What’s the calculus? How do you decide whether you’re going to buy something, build something, or partner with a provider in the space to build out the platform?

Lawrence Calcano [00:31:19] It’s a combination of things. It’s time to market, it’s culture. Everything we’ve purchased — we’ve made 24 acquisitions — we’ve integrated. To me, that’s really important. If the goal is to provide an integrated solution for advisors and GPs, and you don’t integrate the things you buy, you’re not really doing that. Point one. Point two: if the people who join aren’t integrated, then it doesn’t work either. It’s not just about technology — it’s actually more about the people. So spending a lot of time on culture and trying to figure out how to bring things together — how do you create what I often refer to as “one iCapital” — is critical. As time has evolved — I was always very focused on culture from the start, when we were just a couple of people — it’s even more important than ever. It probably continues to occupy a very significant percentage of my time: getting people working together, putting people in the right seats to be successful, creating simple ideas they can rally around. Clients come first. What is it we need to do to help our clients succeed? And everything we do, we have to do together. Those two things are really unifying to our culture.

Barry Ritholtz [00:32:48] You did a big capital raise in 2025 that valued you at a substantial multibillion-dollar level. What are you looking at for further raises? How are you deploying that capital? Is it just build, build, build, until eventually you become the biggest player in the space?

Lawrence Calcano [00:33:09] We’ve announced a couple of acquisitions since then. We’re about to close our acquisition of Hector. Hector provides an EAP for annuities — that helps us complete our annuities vertical. M&A will continue to be an important use of cash, and we continue to actively look at what’s out there. We continue to grow organically, but the model is self-financing, so we don’t need outside capital to run our business. I’m a believer, though — given the duration of these assets, when we talk to financial advisors, they have to know we’re financed to be around for a long time. So we’ve tried to finance ourselves in a way that our partners can look at us and say, “They’re going to be here to support me.” A lot of it is just making sure we have a strong balance sheet to support our clients.

Barry Ritholtz [00:34:04] It’s always interesting when we see these big private entities go public in the alternative and private space. How do you think about that? How do you think about the Blackstones, Carlyles, and Apollos of the world?

Lawrence Calcano [00:34:24] Going public allows firms to have access to capital, leverage their growth, and provide secondary markets for employees and other investors. For us, we spend very little time actually thinking about that, other than wanting to make sure we run the company with the discipline of a public company. We get our quarterly reports turned around, our monthly reports by the second day of every month, quarterly reports by the third day of the new quarter. We turn the year-end results in a fair period of time as well. The process of being public creates some disciplines that we want to make sure we have. But it’s not something we’re focused on. There are two sides to every coin. When you go public and the stock is going up, everyone’s really excited and happy. When you have massive corrections, which we live through pretty regularly, and the stock goes down — now you’ve got to deal with the opposite of motivation. There’s concern. You’ve got to make sure your employees aren’t staring at the — I was going to say Tron, but only you and I would know what that means.

Barry Ritholtz [00:35:51] It’s so funny — I had a buddy whose firm got bought by Yahoo in ’96. He was telling me in ’99, people were just refreshing the screen constantly. That’s all they did.

Lawrence Calcano [00:36:02] There’s an element to it that’s super unproductive. That’s why we’re in no rush to do that. As I said, we want to make sure we have a strong balance sheet, strong capital structure. Equity is an important part of our compensation for everybody. A hundred percent of the employees have stock at iCapital. To me, that’s a big cultural point in terms of bringing people together. But if you’re going to provide that as part of someone’s compensation, there needs to be some opportunity for people to get some liquidity. Over our history, we’ve provided four such opportunities, and as long as we stay private, we’ll continue to find a way. It’s limited, of course, but we try to find a way for people to get some liquidity from their equity holdings.

Barry Ritholtz [00:36:50] Really interesting. Coming up, we continue our conversation with Lawrence Calcano, CEO and Chairman of iCapital, discussing how he built the firm out to a trillion-dollar platform. I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

Barry Ritholtz [00:37:25] I am Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Lawrence Calcano. He is the chairman and chief executive officer of iCapital, where he has been helping to build the firm since 2013. They now service over a trillion dollars in client assets on behalf of advisors and other professionals. Let’s talk about what’s going on today. Obviously, alts have been very hot for the past 10 years or so, increasingly so. They’ve been in the news for other reasons the past few months. But let’s talk about the underlying structural shift before we get to any of the noisy stuff. How are advisors and individuals changing the way they access alternative structured investments, annuities — any of the products on your platform?

Lawrence Calcano [00:38:17] If I can make some divisions by wealth: the wealthier clients have tended to buy the private funds. Perhaps they’ll invest directly if they can make a $20 million investment, or if not — if they’re a $1 million or $5 million investor — they usually come through a vehicle that we’ll set up for them to access. We aggregate that capital and we look like one large investor to the institution, to the GP. So the wealthier clients tend to invest through those private vehicles across the board. From a platform perspective, the way you’ve got to build these portfolios — if you have a credit and equity portfolio, debt and equity, and you want to build them or rebalance them, you can do that with a few mouse clicks. With alts, if you target an allocation of 10, 15, or 20%, you’ve got to build that.

Barry Ritholtz [00:39:16] It takes time, in other words.

Lawrence Calcano [00:39:17] To allocate, it takes time. You need to make sure you have persistent access to quality product across all the strategies — equity, credit, real estate, infrastructure, hedge funds. Our platform tries to provide that. The wealthy individual will probably use private funds to build it. The accredited investor will probably use registered funds. They’ll either buy individual registered funds, or they might buy registered funds wrapped together. That’s something we’re seeing a lot of the market do today — wrapping three, four, or five different funds together to give people exposure to maybe a growth-oriented product, where there’s a buyout, growth, and venture component, or maybe an income-oriented product, where you’ve got credit and real estate, or maybe multi-asset, where you’ve got all of that wrapped together. Every individual has a different set of needs and objectives. It’s important that there’s a lot of flexibility in the system so people can allocate precisely what’s important to a given client.

Barry Ritholtz [00:40:29] What you’re describing sounds fundamentally different from how portfolios used to be constructed. How significant are these changes compared to — I won’t even mention the nineties — but the 2010s?

Lawrence Calcano [00:40:44] What’s happened, which is a good thing, is clients have access to more products to potentially meet their needs. That doesn’t mean these products are right for everybody — they’re probably not right for a lot of people. But for those that have the ability to make these investments and the willingness to tolerate the illiquidity we talked about before, these products provide more opportunities to build the right portfolio. If you think about the public markets — you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about them — there are probably 150,000 private companies with EBITDA or revenues greater than $100 million. There are 4,000 to 5,000 public companies. The private markets are so much larger than the public markets. And as you know, the public markets are increasingly dominated by a small number of stocks. Accessing the private markets gives you access to a much broader set of possible investments. Not right for everybody, but for those looking to build more involved portfolios, there’s an opportunity that the private markets enable you to pursue that you just don’t get by buying just stocks and bonds.

Barry Ritholtz [00:42:04] That’s one compelling reason — you can access companies you wouldn’t get otherwise. What are some of the other reasons? Why else should an investor or advisor who is alt-curious explore this space?

Lawrence Calcano [00:42:20] I am decidedly not trying to sell anybody on anything, just to be clear. But it’s like anything else in life — we’re all better off when we have more choices. Those choices can be bucketed to make it easier to go through the decision-making process. If you have more choices to build a portfolio where you’re seeking longer-dated returns and more portfolio diversification, these products provide more flexibility to create a diverse portfolio and potentially have a higher-returning portfolio. Ultimately, every person has to make a decision they can live with on the products.

Barry Ritholtz [00:43:06] During the 2010s, we had 0% interest rates and QE and all that fun Fed stuff. I think that’s where private credit really caught the attention of a lot of investors and advisors. “What do you mean my bond portfolio is yielding 3%?” All right — you’re trading off a little liquidity and you get 5, 6, 7, 8%. That’s pretty attractive relative to the alternatives. You’ve got to deal with a K-1, which nobody likes, but your accountant will deal with it for double the yield you’re getting in traditional treasuries or corporates. How has that moved from straight-up credit to private infrastructure, private equity, private real estate? It seems like that whole world has opened up dramatically.

Lawrence Calcano [00:44:02] It has. A lot of the private credit investments you can look at are floating rate, so they still can provide opportunities for excess return — real alpha — because of the way they float. It was interesting in the early part of this century coming out of COVID. You had people very actively buying private credit. When interest rates went up to 5%, some people were earning 10 to 12% on their private credit investments. They were then looking not at private credit versus public credit, but at private credit at 10 to 12% versus private equity, which is shorter duration — was that the right mix for them? Right now, we’re seeing a lot more people focusing on equity as well. But you definitely had a period of time where private credit was very, very attractive. Where we sit today, a lot of people are anxious to understand what the underlying credit quality is in these products. There are certainly disruptive forces from AI that we’ve talked about — the industry talks about every single day. It’s not clear to me that the existing portfolios are in bad shape. I actually think the portfolios are likely in better shape than people think. I’ve spent a lot of time talking to various managers — both equity and credit — about what they’re seeing in terms of adoption. While everybody is working on how to implement AI, it’s not like existing software vendors are seeing their businesses dry up. That’s not happening. A lot of those are the borrowers of these private credit assets. We’ll need to get more information over the next several quarters on where we are with private credit. But my guess is the portfolios are in a lot better shape than people think.

Barry Ritholtz [00:46:07] We could talk about navigating some of the headlines, but you mentioned AI, and now I’m legally obligated to ask you a question. What are the most meaningful near-term applications of artificial intelligence within the alternative space? Is it administration and workflow? Identifying better or less great funds? All of the back office? How is iCapital using AI in your business?

Lawrence Calcano [00:46:39] We have pilots going on across what we do. If you take our tech stack, there are really two ways to think about it. One is the tech we use to empower clients and the technology that clients engage with. The second is the technology we use to run our business. There are big applications in both. To give a couple of examples: when a manager comes to iCapital to raise a fund, we build a sub-doc. AI can build that sub-doc for us very quickly. When a client comes to our marketplace and wants to describe what they’re interested in — they hit toggles and go through a few steps to inform us — AI can do that really quickly. There are also a number of ways we collect data. One of the services we provide to clients is helping advisors aggregate client data, because a client might have held-away data in lots of different places that you want to aggregate so you can present a holistic picture. How we get that data, how we retrieve it, how we extract data from documents, and how we reassemble it — AI can drive a lot of that. The applications of AI are significant across our entire platform.

Barry Ritholtz [00:48:06] Really interesting. We’ve been dancing around some of the negative headlines. How are you helping advisors navigate that these days? For the most part, it’s a relatively small handful of companies. Everybody knows their names. But the cockroach theory has people waiting for the next GFC to unroll. We haven’t really seen much like that.

Lawrence Calcano [00:48:30] This is such a smaller magnitude than the GFC. I don’t think we’re anywhere near those types of concerns. We are big believers in communications. I made a point earlier about how the ecosystem needs to work together — it really needs to work together now in terms of helping people understand what’s happening. Generally speaking, the asset management industry has to be even more transparent today than ever before. That’s a good thing going forward. Alternative asset managers probably need to be more transparent to clients over time. Being out in front of clients, helping them understand the landscape and what’s going on, has been a big part of how we’ve spent a lot of time. One of the things we’re doing now is trying to bring the industry together — getting people on the GP side working together. Transparency, information, educational material — not promotional material, but educational material — to try to help create a better and deeper level of understanding about these products.

Barry Ritholtz [00:49:48] I’ve been hearing a little bit about convergence lately between public and private markets. You are known as dealing with the private side. Do you ever see a day where private and public both end up on your platform — completely full wallet share?

Lawrence Calcano [00:50:06] For us, we’re really focused on helping people have very successful journeys with their private investments, structured notes, annuities, etc. The way in which we will interact with the public markets will be more around the model portfolios I talked about — collaborating and partnering with the GPs and the public-company people who either provide models or have public investments, and helping to create model packages for investors to invest holistically in a portfolio. That’s probably how we’ll play the public space — in partnership and in concert with people who are experts in that area.

Barry Ritholtz [00:50:52] Makes a lot of sense. Last question before our speed round: given all these major technological shifts, what do you think is going to redefine asset management going forward? You mentioned tokenization. We hear about blockchain, AI, data analytics. What’s the next big thing?

Lawrence Calcano [00:51:11] The next biggest thing is the deep implementation of those technologies. We’re still scratching the surface. Tokenization hasn’t even hit private markets in any meaningful way yet. AI — same. There’s significant application of those technologies that will be meaningful. For financial advisors, this reminds me of 10 years ago when all the robos were coming out. There was this big debate: robo-advisors versus human advisors. I always thought that was a false choice. The best answer for clients was a great financial advisor who leveraged technology to create an incredible experience for their clients. The same is true today. The best financial advisors are not going to be afraid of technology. They’re going to adopt it and embrace it to create an incredible client experience. That’s how I think the market will evolve in a constructive and positive way.

Barry Ritholtz [00:52:15] All right, let’s jump into our speed round. These are quick answers so people get a flavor of who you are. Starting with: who were your mentors? Who helped shape your career?

Lawrence Calcano [00:52:26] I had a lot of mentors growing up. I always tried to watch people and see what they did. There were several senior people at Goldman Sachs that I learned things from. I remember the head of investment banking once told me, when I was a young associate, “The loneliest job on the planet is the CEO’s job. So if you want to be a successful investment banker, make a friend of the CEO and be a sounding board, and you’ll have a good career.” That was pretty good advice. The other piece of advice I got from another senior partner in banking was: you always have to be intellectually honest. A lot of people are afraid to be intellectually honest because they’re calculating what’s happening in the room versus being true to what they think and saying it — not being afraid to do that. I’ve tried to really do that in all the things I’ve done as I’ve grown in my career.

Barry Ritholtz [00:53:26] Really interesting. What are you reading these days? What are some of your favorite books?

Lawrence Calcano [00:53:31] I’m overwhelmed with work reading right now between what we’re doing in our business and client stuff. I’m reading a lot on AI. The honest thing is, I keep reading new AI books — about AI and technology, AI in general. There are a lot of incredibly positive things about AI. There are a lot of risks with AI, and a couple of the books I’ve read recently were really focusing on the risks — around unemployment, around control and governance. When you get to natural intelligence, when AI reaches sort of human intelligence, what happens then? There’s a really exciting and bright side, and there’s a dark side that’s going to need a lot of governance to protect all of us.

Barry Ritholtz [00:54:21] Lots of guardrails. If you don’t have time to read, do you have time to listen to podcasts or watch anything? What are you streaming?

Lawrence Calcano [00:54:29] I’m married 33 years. Honestly, my wife and I are just binge-watching a series of shows. We’ve gone through the whole Yellowstone saga, the prequels and —

Barry Ritholtz [00:54:41] Did you get to Landman yet?

Lawrence Calcano [00:54:43] We finished Landman. Love Landman. Looking forward to watching the Peaky Blinders movie, which we haven’t seen. When I get home, when I put the work down, my wife and I tend to watch shows together.

Barry Ritholtz [00:54:56] That sounds fun. Our final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college grad interested in a career in alternatives or investing?

Lawrence Calcano [00:55:07] I would say: the world owes you nothing. This is what I’ve said to my kids — I have several who have graduated college — and what I’d say to anyone at iCapital generally: the world owes you nothing. What you get in this life is a function of what you work for. People need to be flexible. They need to have an open attitude. At a given level of intelligence, attitude makes the difference. It’s funny — we all went through this work-from-home during COVID, and now some people want to continue to work remotely. When you asked about mentors, a lot of the mentorship I got — that a lot of people got — was just being in the office, watching people, listening to people. How do they act? How do they treat other people? How do they behave in meetings? That stuff is super valuable.

Barry Ritholtz [00:56:09] Osmosis learning. You don’t get that when you’re sitting in your apartment on a Zoom screen.

Lawrence Calcano [00:56:17] A Zoom screen is one-dimensional. Life is multidimensional. So I’m a huge — some people in the company love this, some don’t — but I’m a huge work-from-the-office person, because I believe that multidimensional experience is much more powerful, and it’s better for every individual from a learning perspective.

Barry Ritholtz [00:56:34] I couldn’t agree more, although I do love those Fridays from home.

Lawrence Calcano [00:56:48] No doubt.

Barry Ritholtz [00:56:52] And final question — what do you know about the world of alternatives and investing in technology today that might have been useful back in the mid-1980s when you were first getting started?

Lawrence Calcano [00:56:52] I’ll generalize that a little bit: patience. I was young and just hard-charging, as a lot of us are. But you have to be patient. It’s funny — we sponsor golfers, and I watch golf. I love golf. You see people bogey holes. Jon Rahm won the Masters a few years ago. He double-bogeyed the first hole. I remember I was standing there watching it and I was like, “It’s over.” It wasn’t over. It was one hole. It reminds me — my youngest daughter graduated Dartmouth a few years ago, and Roger Federer was the speaker.

Barry Ritholtz [00:57:35] I recall that speech. It was really amazing coming from him.

Lawrence Calcano [00:57:40] It was an amazing speech. One of the things he said is that in his career he’s won — I may get the numbers slightly off — 80% of his matches and 54% of his points. His point was: it’s just a point. I think that’s a huge lesson. It’s just a point. It happened. You lost it, you won it, you lost it. You move on. I think that’s great advice — and advice I wish I had had when I was younger.

Barry Ritholtz [00:58:09] Lawrence, this has been absolutely fabulous. Thank you for being so generous with your time. We have been speaking with Lawrence Calcano, CEO and Chairman of iCapital. If you enjoyed this conversation, check out any of the 650 we’ve done over the past 12 years. You can find those at iTunes, Apple, Spotify, Bloomberg — wherever you get your favorite podcast. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the crack team that helps put these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Anna Luke is my podcast producer. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been watching Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

~~~

 

 

The post Transcript: Lawrence Calcano, iCapital CEO appeared first on The Big Picture.

Ukraine Flexes With Much Deeper Drone Reach Targeting Russia's Refineries 

Zero Hedge -

Ukraine Flexes With Much Deeper Drone Reach Targeting Russia's Refineries 

Ukraine has been demonstrating deeper targeting reach inside Russia, as several key oil sites have come under direct drone attack this week, resulting in significant destruction.

This as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Wednesday announced "a new stage in the use of Ukrainian weapons to limit the potential of Russia's war."

Satellite image of Perm attack aftermath, via Reuters.

The massive Tuapse complex on Russia's Black Sea coast has been hit no less than three times in under a month, sparking a series of massive fires that in some cases took days for emergency crews to extinguish.

In some cases, targets in the Urals - nearly 1,000 miles away from the Ukraine border - have been hit.

Transneft’s oil pumping and distribution facility in the city of Perm was struck this week, which lies very far into Russian territory.

The Ukraine Security Service (SBU) owned up to it, boasting that the targeted facility is "a strategically important hub of the main oil transportation system." It further declared that "almost all oil storage tanks are on fire."

Amid the fresh Perm attack, Russia had said it downed nearly 100 Ukrainian drones across various regions, while Russia’s presidential envoy to the region, Artem Zhoga, conceded that "The Urals are now within reach, be vigilant."

Putin's office has also denounced these fresh assaults on oil facilities as "terrorist attacks". As for the prior Black Sea export and refining hub attacks of the last month, CNN reviews:

For the third time in 12 days, the Russian Black Sea town of Tuapse woke up Tuesday to apocalyptic scenes.

Thick toxic fumes, and flames rising up from the latest Ukrainian drone attack on the Rosneft-owned Tuapse oil refinery, almost reached the heights of the surrounding Caucasus mountains.

By Thursday morning, authorities said the fire had been extinguished. Fires from the two previous attacks, on April 16 and 20, also took days to put out, with toxic substances pouring down in black rain and blanketing cars and streets in oily grime, leading to what experts are dubbing the worst environmental disaster in the region in years.

Huge fireball at Perm oil site...

Currently, the globe's attention is largely focused on the Iran war and the Hormuz Strait blockade, and with that efforts to reach a political and peace settlement in Ukraine have faded as well. Earlier in the Ukraine war, these major refinery attacks would dominate world headlines, but at the moment they have remained in the background given the constant Iran-related news flow. President Putin has lately communicated to Trump that he's open to a 'Victory Day' ceasefire, a proposal the Kremlin said Washington has backed.

Tyler Durden Sun, 05/03/2026 - 07:35

10 Sunday Reads

The Big Picture -

Avert your eyes! My Sunday morning look at incompetency, corruption and policy failures:

An oligarch’s dystopian scheme to discredit journalism with AI: Judd Legum on a coordinated, AI-powered campaign to flood the zone with fake reporting and erode trust in the real thing. Disinformation industrialized. Peter Thiel goes full super villain, funding a startup launched this month will use an “AI jury” to “subject the media’s claims to systematic investigation and judgment.” That same system of AI adjudication assigns a numerical value — the so-called “Honor Index” score — grading the trustworthiness of individual reporters. And for a starting price of $2,000, anyone can pay for the company to review and adjudicate complaints they may have about a news outlet or reporter.  (Popular Information)

• Your Power Tools Got Worse on Purpose: How a Hong Kong conglomerate bought Milwaukee, DeWalt, and Craftsman — and what happened to quality after the acquisitions. (Worse on Purpose) see also Your Glasses Got Worse on Purpose: The consolidation playbook comes for eyewear too. (Worse on Purpose)

Has De-Dollarization Begun?: US President Donald Trump’s military adventures, attacks on long-standing allies, and dismantling of institutions like USAID are eroding the trust on which the dollar’s global primacy ultimately rests. The world’s reserve currency may have already begun its long, slow decline. Kaushik Basu argues the dollar’s reserve status is more vulnerable than the consensus assumes — and Washington is doing its best to test the thesis. A worthwhile contrarian read. (Project Syndicate)

• A Vital System of Atlantic Ocean Currents Is Weakening and Closer to Collapse Than Thought: New research moves up the timeline on AMOC’s potential breakdown. (CNN)

New Lawsuit: Do We Have a Right to Know We’re Being Surveilled? Scarsdale, New York didn’t want to share its plans for Flock surveillance cameras. A new lawsuit brought by NYCLU goes after Flock’s license-plate camera dragnet. The basic civil-liberties question — can a public agency hide where it’s watching from? — is overdue for a court answer. (Drop Site News) see also Your ISP Is Watching You. Here’s How a VPN Can Help: A practical primer on what your internet provider sees and what a VPN actually fixes (and doesn’t). Useful if your privacy hygiene is overdue. (PC Magazine)

New disclosures reveal how DOGE actually worked: Depositions offer insight into what Elon Musk’s group was up to, including its heavy use of ChatGPT. Members describe a club-like atmosphere in which they pushed for grant and contract cancellations across the government with little oversight. (Washington Post)

Bad Connection: Uncovering Global Telecom Exploitation by Covert Surveillance Actors. Two sophisticated telecom surveillance campaigns for the first time, links real-world attack traffic to mobile operator signalling infrastructure. The findings expose how suspected commercial surveillance vendors (CSVs) exploit the global telecom interconnect ecosystem, leverage private operator networks, and conduct covert location tracking operations that can persist undetected for years. (Citizen Lab) see also They Built a Legendary Privacy Tool. Now They’re Sworn Enemies: There’s a lot of love all over the world for GrapheneOS, the gold standard of mobile security. There’s very little love between the two guys at the center of its history. (Wired)

• How Did the U.S. Run Out of Missiles in Iran?: $800B a year in defense spending, and the stockpile still came up short. (Doomsday Scenario)

The Inside Story of Five Days That Remade the Supreme Court: Secret memos obtained by The New York Times illuminate the origins of the court’s now-routine “shadow docket” rulings on presidential power. Adam Liptak reconstructs the emergence of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket. (New York Times) see also Two justices, one quest: push to gut Voting Rights Act reaches final act: Latest ruling is culmination of Justices Roberts and Alito’s campaign to slowly but surely strangle efforts to protect democratic rights of Black and other minority Americans The Guardian traces a decade-long Roberts/Alito project to dismantle Section 2. The arc was never accidental. The latest ruling is culmination of Justices Roberts and Alito’s campaign to slowly but surely strangle efforts to protect democratic rights of Black and other minority Americans (The Guardian)

The Mind of a Minotaur Displaying Picasso’s dark side: If Picasso were alive today, I have to imagine he would have been canceled by now. Some tried to do it post-hoc, on the heels of 2018’s #MeToo reckoning, and failed. The Brooklyn Museum’s 2023 exhibition It’s Pablo-matic, curated by comedian Hannah Gadsby, notoriously attempted a grand reappraisal of the man in light of his mistreatment of women, urging other museums to reconsider how they present him. (The Point)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business this weekend with Lawrence Calcano, CEO and Chairman of iCapital, The firm is a fintech platform built to be the OS for alternative investments and complex products for financial advisors, wealth managers, and banks. The firm has over $1.2 trillion in active global assets on platform, across 2,455 funds used by 123,ooo financial professionals.

 

Oil Hits Wartime High Above $120 a Barrel 

Source: New York Times

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

~~~

To learn how these reads are assembled each day, please see this.

 

The post 10 Sunday Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Alliance Fracture Is Now Global

Zero Hedge -

Alliance Fracture Is Now Global

Authored by Gregory Copley via The Epoch Times,

Western focus was, in 2026, on whether U.S. President Donald Trump would fulfill his threat to withdraw the United States from NATO. Eastern and Southern focus was on whether the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS alliance were even functioning.

In the U.S.–NATO standoff, it may take more complex political maneuvering for Trump to achieve a breakup of the alliance. Certainly, he could withdraw the U.S. military from European basing, but Congress in 2023 approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from NATO without approval from the Senate or an act of Congress. The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and, ironically, Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)—now Trump’s secretary of state—was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Joe Biden.

It may be more feasible for Trump to have the United States leave aspects of the military component of the North Atlantic Alliance, as French President Charles de Gaulle did in withdrawing from the NATO integrated military command structure—but not the North Atlantic Alliance—in 1967. Other members of NATO may themselves go beyond that to abandon NATO in order to form a new alliance, but that is a separate issue.

Of real, but as yet unexplored, interest is that other alliances have been forced to the sidelines because Trump initiatives, and time, have rendered them ineffective.

Among the most important of these are the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and BRICS. Secondarily, the informal Quad alliance against China—of India, the United States, Japan, and Australia—is quietly becoming less tight.

The SCO, which emerged in 2001 from the 1996 Shanghai Five security arrangement, now has 10 member states, most of which harbor suspicions about other members of the SCO. It was meant to contain a mutual security clause to require members to support other members under attack from outside. SCO membership includes Iran, and that clause has proven to be unenforceable as the wars against Iran continue. So the SCO is now effectively inoperable, except as a showcase with an expensive bureaucracy.

Similarly, BRICS—which began as a working group of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—was designed to circumvent U.S. domination of global trade systems by finding alternatives to trading using the U.S. dollar. The BRICS membership had expanded by 2026 to 10 states, adding Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. But it failed to shake the United States’ ability to control and sustain a global sanctions regime against political leaders who used the U.S. dollar in ways deemed inimical to U.S. interests.

BRICS achieved some new trading modalities that avoided the use of the U.S. dollar, but this did little to weaken the U.S. currency, or strengthen the currencies of BRICS members. But that was to be expected. This journal, as early as 2008, was discussing the end of the globalist, multinational framework of financing the international logistics chain based on the U.S. dollar. It discussed a return to bilateralism of trading methodologies, including barter and countertrade, which had, even in the 1970s, been a normal practice.

The past year-plus has seen the promoters of BRICS—as a defensive mechanism against the United States—becoming incapable of creating a new trade finance system. A proposed BRICS currency has come to naught; the currency of China has weakened to the point that it is hardly tradeable. And so on.

At what point is the Trump administration prepared to push for the complete breakdown of “opposing currencies,” not just of the BRICS states’ proposed new currency, but even of the euro and sterling?

Has all of this saved and bolstered the U.S. dollar? By default, yes; there is still no viable alternative to the use of the U.S. currency for major world trade.

But is Trump yet through with his plans to diminish, and perhaps totally dispense with, the United Nations? He has certainly hit key aspects of the U.N. that were heavily dependent on U.S. taxpayer contributions. The U.N. itself has been making itself less relevant and less forceful; it has taken an extremely polarizing, leftist position on many international issues and, at the same time, has been disregarded by the United States and other powers.

This, in turn, has made it less useful to Beijing, which entered the U.N. on Oct. 25, 1971, displacing the original founding member, the Republic of China, also known as Taiwan. China then began a sustained campaign to use U.N. agencies for political influence. So some of Trump’s anti-U.N. activities were clearly designed as moves against China.

What is the impact of the diminishing role of the U.N.? It has become less trusted as an instrument to impartially mediate interstate conflicts, and this makes its International Criminal Court (ICC)—to which the United States is not a signatory—also less trusted. The attempt to use the ICC as a key body to create “international law” out of thin air has now become discredited, or less of an influence. The World Trade Organization is also increasingly disregarded, as are regional bodies, such as ECOWAS in West Africa, and the Organization of American States.

So to what extent was the “rules-based world order” a creature of this utopianist U.N. thinking, or was it merely a reflection of a pax Americana?

If Trump wished to move heavily against the U.N., his best timing might be before the U.S. midterm congressional elections in November. But could he make it stick?

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

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 23:20

DOJ Releases Report Alleging Anti-Christian Bias Under Biden

Zero Hedge -

DOJ Releases Report Alleging Anti-Christian Bias Under Biden

Authored by Savannah Halsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Justice (DOJ) on April 30 released a 500-page report detailing alleged anti-Christian bias on the part of the Biden administration.

According to the report by the DOJ’s Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, the former administration’s prosecutions, policies, and practices constituted bias throughout multiple agencies, in accordance with the administration’s priorities.

The task force is chaired by Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche.

“No American should live in fear that the federal government will punish them for their faith,” Blanche said. “As our report lays out, the Biden Administration’s actions devastated the lives of many Christian Americans.”

Around 200 pages of the report are dedicated to the actions of more than 17 federal agencies that uncovered alleged religious discrimination. The investigation included a review of internal discussions and case files, as well as prosecutorial decisions.

There were details of a since-retracted 2023 FBI memo on “radical traditionalist” Catholics, which cited the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The review also listed Biden-era regulations on abortion, contraception, gender, and human sexuality, among other issues that pitted the government against religious groups.

The report also makes note of the Biden administration’s reading of the 2019 Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, which led to decisions that were based on what the Trump administration report called “sex-based discrimination in federally funded schools and sports.”

According to the DOJ report, the previous administration used the FBI, IRS, Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and other agencies to monitor, investigate, and apply pressure to various Christian groups at a federal level.

The current DOJ’s task force was formed in accordance with President Donald Trump’s Feb. 6, 2025, executive order titled Eradicating Anti-Christian Bias.

The president ordered multiple agencies to investigate what he called an “egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians, while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses.”

Conflicting Response

This is a “very different Department of Justice ... than the previous administration,” said Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers.

“The conclusion in the report, at least from an enforcement perspective, was that ... federal law was disproportionately used to prosecute pro-life and other Christians under the Biden administration,” he told The Epoch Times.

However, Rahmani, who worked at the DOJ from 2009 to 2012, said that while policies change, he has not seen a “systematic bias for or against” any one religious group.

“I don’t necessarily see ... [that] Christian activists in this country are receiving more prison time for violent acts, as opposed to, you know, Muslim or other religious groups.”

According to Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, director of the Conscience Project, the report “calls out the brazen assault against religious freedom by the former administration for what it was: a failure of constitutional and statutory duty.”

Picciotti-Bayer said in an emailed statement that the Biden administration disregarded “fundamental guarantees” in the First Amendment and federal civil rights law, and treated “sincere religious objections as obstacles to overcome, prosecuting peaceful prayer, trampling on parental rights and steamrolling conscience rights.”

The Interfaith Alliance, however, which states its mission is to “challenge Christian nationalism and religious extremism,” responded to the DOJ report, saying their group has “consistently opposed the work of this ‘task force.’” It accused the DOJ of trying to “undermine Americans’ religious freedom and First Amendment rights.”

The alliance called the task force’s report a “political stunt designed to promote the lie that American Christians are a persecuted group, while providing justification to target anyone deemed out of step with their Christian nationalist agenda.”

Previous Report

This report comes just weeks after an 800-page report from the department, detailing the “weaponization” of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which called out alleged prosecutorial problems, surveillance activities undertaken by pro-abortion groups, and failures to comply with federal law.

Biden’s DOJ did not enforce the law evenly, according to the April 14 report.

The task force under the Biden administration treated pro-life groups differently from pro-abortion groups, outlining disproportionate coordination with pro-abortion groups that, according to the report, indicated bias and prosecutorial overreach.

In her statement, Picciotti-Bayer said, “Religious freedom isn’t a courtesy the government extends—it’s a legal check on what government can do. It’s refreshing to see that recognized today.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 22:10

The US Spends More On 'Defense' Than The Next 8 Countries Combined

Zero Hedge -

The US Spends More On 'Defense' Than The Next 8 Countries Combined

For the first time on record, the top 15 military spenders allocated more than $2 trillion to defense in 2025.

Total global defense spending also reached a record $2.6 trillion, signaling a major shift in geopolitical priorities.

Using data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, this visualization, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, ranks the 15 countries driving this surge in military spending.

While the U.S. still operates on an entirely different scale, the biggest shift is happening in Europe, where countries are no longer just maintaining military capacity but expanding it significantly.

The $2 Trillion Arms Race: Defense Spending by Country

The U.S. defense budget reached $921 billion in 2025, larger than the combined military spending of China, Russia, Germany, the UK, India, Saudi Arabia, France, and Japan.

Looking ahead, Donald Trump has proposed increasing defense spending to $1.5 trillion by 2027, although this plan has not been enacted. If realized, this would represent roughly 90% higher spending than the Cold War peak in real terms.

China ranked second globally with $251.3 billion in defense spending in 2025. Its share of Asia’s military spending has climbed to 44%, up from 39% in 2017, highlighting its expanding regional influence.

Below is the breakdown of the 15 nations with the largest defense budgets in 2025.

Russia’s defense budget reached $186.2 billion in 2025, rising by more than $40 billion in a single year and equivalent to 7.3% of GDP.

However, spending is expected to decline in 2026, the first drop since the invasion of Ukraine. With a growing deficit, the country faces mounting economic pressure, though higher oil prices have recently provided some relief.

Europe’s Expanding War Chest

With Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine and pressure from the U.S., European NATO members have committed to spending 3.5% of GDP on defense by 2035.

This would translate to roughly $1.2 trillion by 2035, the largest defense buildup among these countries since the Cold War.

Outside of Russia, Europe holds six of the world’s 15 largest defense budgets, led by Germany ($107.3 billion) and the UK ($94.3 billion). Both countries increased spending by tens of billions between 2024 and 2025.

What was once gradual growth has become a sharp acceleration, making defense one of the fastest-growing spending categories across advanced economies.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the world’s largest armies in 2026.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 21:35

Alaska Governor Vetoes Election Reform Bill Due To 'Significant Operational Burdens'

Zero Hedge -

Alaska Governor Vetoes Election Reform Bill Due To 'Significant Operational Burdens'

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Alaska Gov. Mike Dunleavy vetoed a major election reform bill on April 30, arguing it would place “significant operational burdens” on the state’s Division of Elections months before high-stakes statewide and federal contests.

Alaska Gov. Michael Dunleavy in Washington on Oct. 29, 2019. Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times

The bill, at least a decade in the making, sought to allow absentee and other ​voters track their ballots and see when they had been received and ​counted.

Dunleavy announced the veto of Senate Bill 64 after the measure arrived following its passage in both chambers of the legislature.

The legislation, which had won bipartisan support in the state’s House of Representatives and Senate, also sought to expand acceptable voter identification, modify voter roll ⁠maintenance, change the absentee ballot timeline, and create a rural community liaison position.

“Going forward, I encourage those who wish to continue this work to use this bill as a starting point to ensure that any proposed changes comply with state and federal law and pass any election legislation on a timeline that allows the Division of Elections to develop, test, and implement the necessary systems properly,” Dunleavy said in an April 30 statement. “While the Alaska gasline bill is the most important bill this session, I am open to a conversation with lawmakers on how we can address the legal and operational issues this session.”

In his veto letter, the Republican governor noted his misgivings about provisions requiring expanded ballot tracking and the curing of minor errors on mail-in ballots. He said such changes would be particularly difficult to implement securely and reliably ahead of the November elections.

Taken as a whole, the bill would impose significant operational burdens on the administration of Alaska’s elections during an election year,” Dunleavy wrote. The Division of Elections had warned such mid-cycle alterations would be “extremely difficult, if not impossible,” to complete without risking reliability.

House Speaker Bryce Edgmon, an independent, said the veto was disappointing.

“This was a bipartisan effort to address the real challenges of voting in a state as vast, rural, and remote as Alaska,” Edgmon said in a statement. “Alaskans deserve a system that reflects our unique geography, not one that ignores it. This veto does exactly that.”

State Sen. Bill Wielechowski, a Democrat from North Anchorage and one of the bill’s key sponsors, said in a post on social media that the legislation was a “decade in the making, passed with broad bipartisan support, and reflected the governor’s own stated priorities.”

He said the veto also blocks efforts to strengthen voter ID rules.

“The Governor’s veto also blocks tightening of voter ID laws that would have limited acceptable IDs to government-issued identification,” Wielechowski added.

The legislature will have an opportunity to override the veto in the future.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 21:00

The U.S. Wants To Ban Chinese Cars, But They're Already At The Gate

Zero Hedge -

The U.S. Wants To Ban Chinese Cars, But They're Already At The Gate

Efforts in Washington to block Chinese-made cars often sound like a future problem - but in practice, those vehicles are already within reach of American consumers, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Just south of the U.S. border, Chinese automakers have been rapidly expanding in Mexico, setting up dealerships and offering vehicles at prices far below what most new cars cost in the U.S. Brands like BYD, Geely, and Great Wall Motor are selling electric and gas-powered models packed with features - often for the price of a used car in the U.S. That proximity matters: American consumers living near the border can easily see, test, and in some cases drive these vehicles, even if large-scale imports remain restricted.

Meanwhile, U.S. policymakers are moving in the opposite direction. Proposed tariffs, import restrictions, and national security reviews are all aimed at limiting Chinese auto penetration, especially in the electric vehicle market. The concerns go beyond economics—lawmakers have raised questions about data security, supply chains, and the long-term competitiveness of domestic automakers.

The Journal writes that the situation is more complicated than a simple “ban.” Chinese-built vehicles are already entering the U.S. market indirectly. Some come through global partnerships, shared manufacturing platforms, or brands that don’t obviously appear Chinese to consumers. Others arrive in small numbers through personal imports or cross-border use. In other words, the presence is already here—it’s just not always visible at scale.

At the same time, Chinese automakers are becoming major global players. Companies like BYD, for example, have surged in electric vehicle production and are expanding across Latin America, Europe, and beyond. Their strategy often focuses on affordability and speed to market—areas where traditional U.S. automakers have struggled, especially as new car prices continue to climb.

That pricing gap is a key pressure point. Many American buyers are increasingly priced out of new vehicles, creating demand for cheaper alternatives. If Chinese automakers were allowed to compete freely in the U.S., they could significantly undercut domestic offerings—something that worries both policymakers and legacy car companies.

So while the political conversation centers on keeping Chinese cars out, the reality is that the market is already shifting around that goal. The vehicles are being sold nearby, seen by U.S. consumers, and in some cases already used on American roads.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 20:25

First US Integrated Humanoid Robot Factory To Build 100,000 NEO Robots By 2027

Zero Hedge -

First US Integrated Humanoid Robot Factory To Build 100,000 NEO Robots By 2027

Authored by Neetika Walter via Interesting Engineering,

U.S.-based robotics firm 1X has started full-scale production of its humanoid robot NEO at a new manufacturing facility in Hayward, California.

The factory marks a key step toward commercializing general-purpose humanoid robots designed for home use. The company says the robots are built to safely operate alongside humans and assist with everyday tasks such as mobility support, light household activity, and routine interaction.

NEO robot units working at the NEO Factory in Hayward, California.1X on YouTube

Spanning 58,000 square feet, the facility currently employs more than 200 workers and is expected to expand further as production scales. It has the capacity to produce up to 10,000 robots annually, with plans to increase output beyond 100,000 units by 2027. The setup is designed for rapid iteration as hardware and AI systems evolve.

The company has already seen strong early demand. It said its first-year production capacity of over 10,000 units sold out within five days of launch in October, signaling early commercial interest in humanoid home robotics.

Full-stack manufacturing push

A key feature of the factory is its vertically integrated production model. 1X designs and manufactures core components in-house, including motors, batteries, sensors, structures, and transmission systems.

This approach allows the company to control the entire production process, from raw material handling to final assembly. It also reduces reliance on external suppliers and supports faster iteration cycles, especially for hardware upgrades and safety improvements.

We’re building the world’s safest, most reliable humanoid robots—right here in Hayward, California,” said Vikram Kothari, VP of Manufacturing & Hardware.

The company says its setup includes automated motor manufacturing lines and systems that handle precision tasks such as copper coil winding. This level of integration is aimed at improving reliability, reducing production bottlenecks, and scaling manufacturing efficiently without outsourcing key subsystems.

Robots produced at the facility are currently being routed to internal testing, validation, and research environments. Customer shipments are expected to begin in 2026, starting with early access users before wider rollout.

AI brains power robots

Each NEO robot is powered by NVIDIA’s Jetson Thor computing platform, which serves as the system’s onboard processing unit.

The platform enables real-time AI inference directly on the robot, allowing it to perform perception, reasoning, navigation, and decision-making tasks without depending heavily on cloud infrastructure. This improves response time and reduces latency in real-world environments.

1X is also using NVIDIA’s Isaac simulation tools to train its robots in virtual environments. These simulations allow large-scale reinforcement learning and help improve robot behavior before deployment in physical homes.

Humanoid robots require high-performance, real-time AI inference and continuous training and testing in simulation for safe and reliable operation,” said Deepu Talla, vice president of robotics and edge AI at NVIDIA.

CEO Bernt Børnich said the factory signals a shift from concept to execution. “Production is happening now, and American consumers will be among the first in the world to welcome NEO into their homes.”

NEO will be offered through an early access program priced at $20,000, with a subscription option starting at $499 per month. The company plans to sell the robots directly through its online platform.

1X says building robots at scale in the United States will allow faster delivery, localized support, and quicker product improvements based on user feedback. The company also aims to reduce supply chain risks by keeping core manufacturing domestic.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 19:50

Ahead Of Trump-Xi Summit, Beijing Tells Chinese Firms To Ignore U.S. Sanctions On "Teapot" Refineries

Zero Hedge -

Ahead Of Trump-Xi Summit, Beijing Tells Chinese Firms To Ignore U.S. Sanctions On "Teapot" Refineries

President Donald Trump is set to travel to Beijing in mid-May for a summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, the first U.S. presidential visit to China in eight years, and a meeting already delayed once by the Iran war.

The pair will obviously discuss the U.S.-Iran conflict and the resulting energy shock, which has hit Asia fastest and hardest. There is no shortage of issues for the two leaders to discuss, including Taiwan, trade, AI chip controls, rare earths, and sanctions.

One important topic the two leaders will likely spend time on is the energy shock and the maximum pressure campaign imposed by the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control on Chinese independent "teapot" refineries, particularly in Shandong Province, due to their continued purchases and refining of Iranian crude.

Perhaps last week's sanctions on China's teapot refiners are part of a leverage campaign by the Trump team ahead of the upcoming meeting.

By Saturday morning, Beijing announced that companies in the country should ignore and not comply with U.S. sanctions targeting five domestic refineries. 

The refiners, including Hengli Petrochemical's Dalian refinery and several privately owned processors, had been hit with U.S. asset freezes and transaction bans earlier in the week, according to Bloomberg.

Beijing's Commerce Ministry called the sanctions unlawful, saying they restrict normal trade with countries and lack authorization under international law.

"The Chinese government has consistently opposed unilateral sanctions that lack authorization from the United Nations and a basis in international law," the department said.

It appears that Beijing is shielding its refiners to mitigate Washington's pressure campaign on Iranian crude flows as the energy shock still festers across Asia.

The good news last week is that China reopened its fuel export spigot to surrounding countries, as domestic inventories are now at comfortable levels. This will provide some relief to countries dealing with fuel shortages caused by the Hormuz chokepoint, which remains partially frozen to this day.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 19:15

Federal Court Blocks Abortion Drug Mifepristone From Being Sent Via Mail

Zero Hedge -

Federal Court Blocks Abortion Drug Mifepristone From Being Sent Via Mail

Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times,

Americans won’t be able to receive abortion drug mifepristone in the mail, according to a temporary ruling by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court on May 1.

“FDA conceded it had failed to adequately study whether remotely prescribing mifepristone is safe,” the three-judge panel in New Orleans ruled on Friday.

The decision will block the drug from being shipped via mail until the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can ensure the drugs are “safe and effective” before they can be marketed in the United States.

Mifepristone, often called “the abortion pill,” is part of a two-drug regimen which allows a woman “to end a pregnancy up to 70 days into gestation,” according to Johns Hopkins University.

The FDA first approved mifepristone in 2000, but doctors were only allowed to prescribe it after three in-person visits.

The procedure changed in 2023 after the Biden administration expanded access to “medication abortion,” which provided a pathway for patients to avoid an in-person visit to the doctor and, instead, order the drug online to be shipped to their house.

The state of Louisiana challenged the rule in 2025, arguing the justification for allowing this was based on “flawed or nonexistent data.”

Louisiana alleged the medication “resulted in numerous illegal abortions” in the state and it also made women pay “thousands in Medicaid bills” for being harmed by mifepristone.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill called Friday’s decision a “victory for life!”

The Biden abortion cartel facilitated the deaths of thousands of Louisiana babies (and millions in other states) through illegal mail-order abortion pills. Today, that nightmare is over, thanks to the hard work of my office and our friends at Alliance Defending Freedom,” Murrill wrote.

“I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues.”

A bill to ban mifepristone was introduced by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) in March.

“The science is clear: The chemical abortion drug is inherently dangerous to women and prone to abuse. Yet major companies like Danco Laboratories are making billions off it,” Hawley said.

Hawley’s bill would also allow women to sue manufacturers for damages if they are harmed by the chemical abortion.

Rep. Delia C. Ramirez (D-Ill.) criticized the federal court decision on social media.

“Mifepristone is safe and reliable,” Ramirez wrote in an X post on Friday.

“IT SAVES LIVES.
 Extremist attempts to control our bodies and restrict our choices make women less safe. The right to make decisions about our bodies and our healthcare are OURS. They don’t belong in the hands of judges or politicians.”

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 18:40

Trump On Hormuz Blockade: "We're Like Pirates - And It's Very Profitable"

Zero Hedge -

Trump On Hormuz Blockade: "We're Like Pirates - And It's Very Profitable"

Rare agreement with Iranian officials? President Trump has newly said the US Navy is acting "like pirates" as he described an operation about seizing a ship amid the ongoing blockade of Iranian ports.

"We … land on top of it and we took over the ship. We took over the cargo, took over the oil. It’s a very profitable business," Trump told a large audience at a rally in Florida on Friday. "We’re like pirates," he added as the crow cheered him on. "We’re sort of like pirates. But we’re not playing games." Watch the US President also declare "it's a very profitable business":

The irony in this statement is that it precisely echoes Tehran's own accusation that the Pentagon is indeed engaged in 'piracy' in Persian Gulf waters, and as the US seeks to interdict other Iranian vessels on the high seas globally, especially near Asia.

This week Iran issued formal request to the UN Security Council that it stop the "continuing internationally wrongful acts of the United States through yet another piracy-style seizure and deliberate targeting of commercial vessels, namely the M/T Majestic and M/T Tifani."

Some of Iran's embassies abroad have also directly responded to the fresh Trump piracy clip. Here's what the Iranian Foreign Ministry had to say on X through one of its diplomatic outposts in south Asia:

"Sort of like pirates"? No, Donny—that's textbook piracy. One upside to an incompetent opponent: moments like this. But the crowd cheering and clapping along? That's the truly disturbing part. U.S. urgently needs a swift and serious regime change.

Additionally, one show host with Russia's RT had this to say by way of reaction: "The only good thing about Trump is that he openly admits the US is a rogue state that doesn’t care at all about international law, he doesn't bother to cover up the US’ heinous actions with the bogus liberal PR language that previous Presidents used."

It is also akin to when Trump became the first US leader to declare that American troops were in Syria to "secure the oil" - contradicting prior presidents and officials who insisted Washington was merely engaged in 'counter-ISIS' operations.

Meanwhile, Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei has said on X this week Americans have an "undeniable right and the solemn duty" to demand accountability from the White House over the ongoing US-Israel "war of choice" against Iran.

The war is "a clear, unprovoked act of aggression" - he stated, and called on Americans to rise up challenge their leaders for "waging this illegal war against the nation of Iran and for all the atrocities perpetrated."

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 18:05

Tether Reports $1.04B Profit In Q1 As Treasury Holdings Top $140BN

Zero Hedge -

Tether Reports $1.04B Profit In Q1 As Treasury Holdings Top $140BN

Authored by Nate Kostar via CoinTelegraph.com,

Stablecoin issuer Tether (USDT) reported $1.04 billion in net profit for the first quarter of 2026, as its excess reserves rose to a record $8.23 billion, according to its latest attestation on Friday.

The company said its reserves remain heavily concentrated in US Treasuries, with around $141 billion in direct and indirect exposure, while total assets of about $191.8 billion exceeded liabilities of approximately $183.5 billion as of March 31.

Tether said this level of exposure makes it the 17th largest holder of US Treasuries globally. Beyond Treasuries, reserves included about $20 billion in physical gold and $7 billion in Bitcoin (BTC).

USDT circulating supply remained broadly stable at about $183 billion at the end of the first quarter. After the period, CEO Paolo Ardoino said supply has increased by more than $5 billion into April.

Tether said its proprietary investments are held separately from reserves backing USDT (USDT) and are funded through excess capital and profits.

The report was prepared by accounting firm BDO. The company also said it has begun the formal audit process.

Tether is the issuer of USDT (USDT), the largest stablecoin by market capitalization. According to DefiLlama data, the total stablecoin market is valued at about $320 billion, with USDT accounting for roughly 59% of the sector.

 

Total stablecoins market cap. Source: DefiLlama

Demand for digital dollars rises in emerging markets

Ardoino said in a post on X on Friday that USDT’s user base reached an all-time high of about 570 million in the first quarter, citing demand for dollars across emerging markets.

In Latin America, stablecoins accounted for 40% of crypto purchases in 2025, surpassing Bitcoin’s 18% share, according to a report released by Bitso this week based on data from its nearly 10 million retail users. The report described the trend as “digital dollarization,” as users turn to stablecoins for savings and everyday transactions.

 

Source: Paolo Ardoino

Stablecoins are also gaining traction in Africa for remittance payments. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in January, former UN official Vera Songwe said traditional transfers can cost about $6 per $100 sent, while stablecoins allow funds to move more quickly at lower cost.

Songwe also said stablecoins can help users preserve value in high-inflation environments, noting that inflation has exceeded 20% in several African countries since the pandemic.

FSB annual report for 2025. Source: FSB

However, stablecoin adoption has drawn scrutiny from global regulators. The Financial Stability Board warned in its 2025 annual report that widespread use of US dollar-denominated stablecoins could pose risks to emerging economies, including currency substitution and reduced effectiveness of domestic monetary policy.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 17:30

Berkshire Cash Hits A Record $397 Billion After Selling Most Stocks In 2 Years

Zero Hedge -

Berkshire Cash Hits A Record $397 Billion After Selling Most Stocks In 2 Years

The head of Berkshire may be new, but nothing has changed in the business model.

In Berkshire's first quarter Greg under Abel, who succeeded Buffett in January as Berkshire's chief executive, the company on Saturday reported a higher first-quarter operating profit even as economic uncertainty weighed on several of its consumer-oriented ​businesses. The Omaha, Nebraska-based conglomerate built by Warren Buffett and now led by Greg Abel also reported a record cash level, reflecting continuing difficulty finding ‌investments that meet its value-oriented principles.The conglomerate also continued its trend of divesting its stock portfolio with the largest sales od equity securities in Q1 since mid-2024; it also unveiled the first, modest stock buyback since Q2 of 2024.

Profit from Berkshire's numerous businesses rose 18% to $11.35 billion, or about $7,891 per Class A share, from $9.64 billion a year earlier. Net income, including from common stock investments, more than doubled to $10.1 billion, or $7,027 per Class A share, from $4.6 billion thanks to a boost from an improvement in underwriting results in its vast insurance businesses (Berkshire has traditionally downplayed the relevance of net income, which because of accounting rules includes unrealized gains and ​losses on stocks it has no plans to sell, and its therefore especially volatile during periods of market stress).

Berkshire's earnings are closely watched because the conglomerate’s businesses, ranging from insurance to railroads to energy and manufacturing, provide a snapshot of the health of the US economy. The company owns dozens of businesses including Geico, the BNSF railroad, Berkshire Hathaway Energy, Dairy Queen and See's Candies. Yet while Berkshire is sometimes considered a microcosm of the broader U.S. economy, its focus on insurance and hard ​assets has left it out of step with broader market trends, including the prevailing euphoria over artificial intelligence.

Worries about the economy took a toll on several of ​Berkshire's consumer-oriented businesses. Berkshire said economic conditions weighed on building products businesses such as the Clayton Homes mobile home unit, while the Forest River RV unit, Fruit of the Loom ‌and Squishmallows ⁠maker Jazwares reported lower revenue amid "higher economic uncertainty" and lower consumer confidence.

Underwriting earnings from the firm’s collection of insurance businesses surged to $1.7 billion, up about 29% from a year ago, when the units were hit by losses tied to the Los Angeles wildfires. Still, Geico posted a 35% decline in pretax underwriting earnings, as the unit faced more losses and spent more to gain new clients. 

“Most of Geico’s peer group this quarter posted significantly improved underwriting results,” said Cathy Seifert, an analyst at CFRA Research, on the contrast between competitors and Geico. “They’re a big unit and that’s a big deterioration.”

Profit from all insurance operations rose 4% ⁠to $4.4 billion from a year earlier, when wildfires in Southern California hurt results in reinsurance and smaller insurance businesses. The overall improvement came despite the 35% profit drop at Geico, where accident claims and marketing expenses ​increased. Geico spent several years upgrading its underwriting discipline and technology, and is trying to reclaim market share it ​gave up to rivals ⁠such as Progressive. Abel said at the meeting that the insurance sector generally is "softening" and becoming "more challenging" as more capital flows into the market, making it harder for Berkshire to charge sufficient premiums for the risks it takes on.

Profit at its railroad unit BNSF rose 13% to $1.4 billion, helped by higher demand to ship grains, petroleum fuels, oilseeds and meals, and relieving pressure on BNSF management, led by CEO Katie Farmer, to improve the unit’s operating margin and close the gap with its most efficient peers.

The railroad ​has lagged some peers in operating margin, and Abel said in his first annual letter to ​Berkshire shareholders that improved efficiency and service were necessary. Abel had given the division’s management a clear mandate to improve the business on those fronts. He said at the meeting that while he’s pleased with the first-quarter results, there’s still room for improvement.

“We had heard that there was some cost efficiencies being implemented at BNSF, and that showed up in the first-quarter results,” Seifert said.

Elsewhere, Berkshire Hathaway Energy said profit rose 2%, as higher revenue from natural gas pipelines attributable to cold weather offset rising maintenance and wildfire prevention costs ​in utility businesses. Profit from manufacturing, service and retail operations rose 5% to $3.2 billion.

Earnings aside, Berkshire's cash hoard soared to a new record high just shy of $400 billion, or more than the US government traditionally has in its Treasury General Account (except for rare outlier occasions). As of March 31, Berkshire's total cash (held mostly in T-Bills) was $397 billion. The cash pile reflected the company's years-long inability to find a ​major acquisition, as well as sales of some of its largest stock holdings led by Apple. 

After a nearly two year hiatus without any stock buybacks, in Q1 Berkshire repurchased a modest $234 million of its own stock, the first buybacks ​since May 2024. It conducted no repurchases in the first two weeks of April.

More importantly, in Q1 Berkshire sold $8.1 billion more stocks than it bought, the 14th straight quarter it was a net seller of stocks, and the largest net sales since Q3 2024 when BRK sold almost $30 billion. Berkshire hasn't bought stock since Q3 2022. Berkshire paid $9.5 billion in January for Occidental Petroleum's chemicals business; it also decided against a new impairment charge on Kraft Heinz, one of its largest equity holdings, for now, even as the book value of its holding in the packaged food giant exceeds its fair value by $1.4 billion. Last year, the firm took a $3.8 billion hit, as the stock’s performance continued to disappoint. 

Results were released prior to Berkshire's annual shareholder meeting, which draws tens of thousands of people to Omaha, and this year they won't be happy; not only is the Oracle of Omaha no longer there, but Berkshire shares have significantly lagged the broader market since Buffett unexpectedly announced at last year's meeting when Abel would take over. In 2026, Berkshire Class A shares of the $1.02 trillion buy-and-hold behemoth have fallen 6%, a mirror image of the S&P's 6% ascent, and a far cry from the historic surge in Semiconductor names which are now the market's darling du jour. 

Abel took to the stage and address shareholders in Omaha on Saturday for his inaugural annual meeting as CEO. This is the first time in decades that Buffett won’t be leading the event after the 95-year-old announced he would step down from his role last year, though he was still in attendance and even shared a few remarks to help kick off the meeting.

At the Omaha shareholder meeting earlier today, new CEO Greg Abel assured Berkshire shareholders that he will invest wisely and manage the conglomerate's massive cash stake without the burdens of bureaucracy, as he seeks to win over those cautiously hoping he is ​a worthy successor to Warren Buffett. Abel, 63, spoke at Berkshire's annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska, four months after succeeding arguably the world's most famous investor as CEO. 

To do that, he must earn the trust of ‌investors now enamored with technology and artificial intelligence, rather than Berkshire's collection of insurers, retailers and hard-asset businesses in energy, industrials and manufacturing.

"As a conglomerate, we live by the fact that we hate bureaucracy," Abel said in response to a prerecorded question from Buffett, who also sat in a front-row seat. "We do not intend to be beholden to anyone. We start with that."

Still, attendance was down significantly from when Buffett and Vice Chairman ​Charlie Munger, who died in 2023, presided over meetings filled with their lively insights and banter about Berkshire, the economy, markets and life. Buffett and Munger drew capacity crowds in ⁠the downtown arena where the meeting took place, but several thousand of the approximately 18,000 seats were empty when Abel took the stage.

The meeting is the centerpiece of a weekend of shareholder events around Omaha, including investment conferences, private get-togethers, and shopping from Berkshire-owned businesses in an exhibit hall adjacent to the arena. Fewer people ⁠shopped. While thousands ​lined up outside the arena before doors opened at 7 a.m., the lines were considerably shorter than in recent years.

“I wanted to ​soak in the atmosphere and network with finance professionals,” said Jobby Chin, a finance student from Singapore attending her first meeting, who said she got in line at 2 am. Michael DiDonna, a fashion photographer from Oyster Bay, New York, said he arrived at 3:10 a.m. for his fifth ​meeting. "I want to feel a part of the monumental shift at the company," he said.

Buffett, for his part, assured the audience that "Greg is doing everything I did and then some," reprising comments he made last year when he announced his retirement ​as CEO. The 95-year-old also praised Apple, one of Berkshire's most successful investments, and its departing chief executive, Tim Cook. Buffett remains Berkshire's chairman.

In an interview with CNBC on the meeting's sidelines, Buffett fretted about a gambling mentality that has taken hold of some investors. "We've never had more people in a gambling mood than now," he said. "That doesn't mean investing is terrible, but it does mean that prices for an awful lot of things will look awfully silly."

Abel also assured shareholders he would not break up Berkshire, saying it operated effectively and its bench of expertise was strong. "We want Berkshire to endure," he said. Abel also said ​he is constantly evaluating opportunities to add to Berkshire's existing portfolio, whether that is acquiring public or private companies or a piece of a company.

Abel adhered to Buffett's mantra of patience, saying he would like to hold investments "forever" and not plow into any without understanding their economic ​prospects and risks. "It doesn't mean you need to deploy all ​your capital and spend all your money," he ⁠said.

He agreed with Berkshire's longtime insurance chief, Ajit Jain, who also answered questions from the stage, that it was important to say "no" if an investment did not look right. "It is very difficult to sit there and do nothing," Jain said, "while everyone else is being wined and dined by brokers and taken to London."

Abel praised a recent Oregon appeals ​court ruling that, for now, spared Berkshire's PacifiCorp unit from billions of dollars of potential liabilities for wildfires in 2020 that the utility maintains it did not ​cause. "We're back to first base" on the ⁠legal side, he said, meaning the threat has lessened.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 16:55

Judge Blocks Enforcement Of Colorado's New DEI-Driven AI Law

Zero Hedge -

Judge Blocks Enforcement Of Colorado's New DEI-Driven AI Law

Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge has temporarily blocked the State of Colorado from enforcing a first-of-its-kind artificial intelligence law.

Colorado is prohibited from taking enforcement actions on alleged violations of the law occurring up to 14 days after the court issues a ruling on the company xAI’s motion for a preliminary injunction, judge Cyrus Y. Chung ruled on April 27.

The Department of Justice had said the state law, which was set to go into effect on June 30, would have required AI developers and deployers to “discriminate based on race, sex, & religion—all in the name of DEI.”

DEI is an acronym for “diversity, equity, and inclusion.”

Brett Shumate, an assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Division, called the suspension a “huge win for the American people.”

“Colorado immediately caved and agreed not to enforce the law against ANY AI company,” Shumate wrote in a X post on May 1.

Gov. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) signed into law the Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence in May 2024 and issued a statement sharing his reservations about how it could impact Colorado.

In the statement, he urged the General Assembly to revise and delay implementing it until January 2027.

“I am concerned about the impact this law may have on an industry that is fueling critical technological advancements across our state for consumers and enterprises alike,” Polis wrote.

However, the legislation was not revised; instead, it was delayed until June 30, 2026, which prompted tech billionaire Elon Musk’s company xAI, which created Grok, to sue the state on April 9.

The unedited legislation was months away from going into effect when xAI asked the court to block the law from being enforced.

The Justice Department added its name as a plaintiff alongside xAI on April 24, marking the first time the DOJ had stepped into a case that challenged AI on a state level.

Both alleged that Colorado’s law would have caused unconstitutional “algorithmic discrimination” and asked a court to block it from being enforced.

“Laws that require AI companies to infect their products with woke DEI ideology are illegal,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who works under the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

“The Justice Department will not stand on the sidelines while states such as Colorado coerce our nation’s technological innovators into producing harmful products that advance a radical, far-left worldview at odds with the Constitution.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to Polis and Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser for comment.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 16:20

The Cheap Foreign Labor Regime Blocking Agricultural Intelligence

Zero Hedge -

The Cheap Foreign Labor Regime Blocking Agricultural Intelligence

Authored by RJ Hauman via American Intelligence,

I grew up in Camarillo, California: fertile soil, Mediterranean climate, strawberries, avocados, lemons, citrus, and family farms passed down through generations. The kind of place that sells itself, and does.

Read the city’s own description of its agricultural economy and you will find every word you would expect: rich agricultural legacy, farming passed down, agricultural education, sustainability, drip irrigation, precision sensors, AI-driven robotics, research partnerships, and a North American AgTech market projected to reach $16 billion by 2027.

Read it again and notice what is missing.

The workforce.

Not wages. Not labor. Not who picks the strawberries, cuts the lemons, or brings in the harvest. The fields produce. The technology advances. The legacy continues. The workers disappear.

Every agricultural economy has a legacy. The question is which part is being preserved. The fertile soil is a legacy. The family farms are a legacy. The harvest is a legacy. So is the labor model that brings it in. And across American agriculture, that model has for forty years depended heavily on foreign labor, illegal hiring, and a political class determined not to disturb either.

When a city brochure pairs “legacy” with AI robotics in the same breath, it is not just describing the future. It is making a quiet promise: the technology will advance, but the labor model will not.

America is preparing for the AI age everywhere except the place that feeds the country.

In Washington, the debate tends to revolve around foundation models, export controls, chips, data centers, defense contracts, and the ideological capture of Silicon Valley. Those fights matter. But the next frontier of artificial intelligence will not stay confined to server farms or federal procurement offices. It will also play out in fields, dairies, orchards, irrigation networks, greenhouses, and the rural labor markets that underpin America’s food supply.

That frontier is no longer theoretical. Autonomous tractors already plant, till, and spray without a driver. Computer-vision systems can scout crops plant by plant. Machine-learning models can optimize water, fertilizer, pest control, and yield down to the meter. Robotic harvesters can pick faster, cleaner, and longer than hand crews. Precision irrigation can be guided by satellite analytics. AI-assisted breeding can compress decades of plant selection into months.

The question is no longer whether American agriculture can automate. It is whether Washington will stop subsidizing the cheap labor model that makes automation a losing bet.

America should be leading this revolution. It builds the software, funds the research, trains the engineers, and talks constantly about technological dominance. Yet federal policy still props up an agricultural labor model built on cheap imported labor, illegal hiring, and guestworker expansion. That bargain has kept human labor cheaper than machines, delayed mechanization, and now risks leaving the United States on the sidelines of a revolution it should own.

This is not a speculative warning. It is already underway. Syngenta’s Cropwise platform now spans more than 70 million hectares across 30 countries. The World Economic Forum projects that AI-amplified digital agriculture could increase agricultural GDP in developing economies by more than $450 billion annually. The Netherlands, Israel, and Australia are moving quickly to capture that ground.

American firms built much of the underlying technology. American universities produced the foundational research. American workers could be trained to operate it.

But the United States will not lead unless it dismantles the cheap labor regime that has allowed agriculture to skip the last revolution while pretending it is ready for the next.

You cannot leapfrog to autonomous agriculture over an industry that has barely mechanized. Software runs on hardware. AI runs on physical capital. The autonomous tractor still requires the tractor. The computer-vision yield system still needs the machine it is guiding. The machine-learning dairy platform still depends on the milking robot it is reading from. Farms that have not mechanized cannot become intelligent by press release.

The capital does not move. The infrastructure does not get built. The workforce does not get trained. The frontier goes to whoever did the prior work first.

Why has American agriculture failed to do that work?

Not because of technology. The tools have been available for decades.

The answer is policy. Washington has spent forty years making cheap foreign labor cheaper than the machine.

The Twin Pillars of the Cheap Labor Regime

American agriculture runs on a labor system Washington built, tolerated, subsidized, and now refuses to dismantle. It rests on two pillars.

The first is illegal hiring. Federal surveys show that roughly 40 to 45 percent of crop farmworkers lack legal work authorization. In California, the share is closer to 60 percent. Another large portion are foreign nationals who entered illegally or came on a temporary basis. The U.S.-born legal workforce in the fields is the minority.

This is not a system failure. It is the system. And it has been propped up by both parties.

The second pillar is H-2A, the federal guestworker program designed in 1986 as a narrow tool for seasonal shortages. It has since grown into one of the largest labor pipelines in the immigration system.

The Department of Labor certified roughly 385,000 H-2A jobs in FY 2024, nearly an eightfold increase since 2005. The program remains uncapped by statute. Recent rulemaking is projected to transfer tens of billions in wage value over the next decade, in some cases lowering effective labor costs by several dollars per hour.

Washington is making imported labor cheaper at the exact moment it should be forcing capital toward machines.

These pillars are not separate problems. They are the same subsidy delivered through different channels, defended by the same interests, and sustaining the same method.

When enforcement targets illegal hiring, employers demand H-2A expansion. When H-2A reform is proposed, they revive amnesty proposals like the Farm Workforce Modernization Act, which would grant Certified Agricultural Worker status and eventual green cards to up to 2.1 million illegal alien farmworkers while simultaneously opening H-2A to year-round industries.

The lobby’s actual position is not legal labor or illegal labor. It is permanent access to cheap foreign labor by whatever channel Washington will tolerate.

Illegal hiring supplies the shadow workforce. H-2A provides the legal release valve. Amnesty converts one into the other while preserving the pipeline behind it.

This is not stagnation by accident. It is by design.

The result is a labor-intensive production model with little incentive to mechanize, little reason to invest in agricultural intelligence, and no pressure to train American workers to operate either.

That helps explain why the United States lags Northern Europe in robotic milking, Israel in precision irrigation, and Australia in autonomous platforms.

Those countries did not discover secret technologies unavailable to American farmers. They built the workforce and mechanized base the United States has chosen to avoid.

We chose decades of cheap, and often illegal, foreign labor instead.

The Myth of the Impossible Crop

Big Agriculture’s most persistent claim is that American farming cannot be mechanized. The crops are too delicate. The terrain too uneven. The seasons too unpredictable. The farms are too diverse. The margins are too thin. The labor is supposedly too specialized.

Some of these objections contain fragments of truth. None justify a permanent federal subsidy for cheap foreign labor.

The “impossible crop” argument collapses the moment policy forces capital to solve the problem.

Commercial cabbage harvesters have existed for decades. Autonomous systems are now being developed for uneven terrain. Apple harvesting robots can pick roughly 10,000 apples an hour, about 30 to 50 times human speed, with less bruising than human crews.

Harvest CROO’s strawberry robots replaced crews of 30 migrant pickers with a small team of engineers and technicians and reached commercial viability in 2025. Carbon Robotics’ LaserWeeder uses AI-guided precision lasers to eliminate up to 5,000 weeds a minute, replacing the work of a hand crew of 75 people. Monarch Tractor’s MK-V is a fully electric, driver-optional tractor now operating on hundreds of farms. Bear Flag Robotics, now a John Deere subsidiary, retrofits existing tractors for autonomous tillage at scale.

Even crops long considered unmechanizable are starting to be mechanized.

The constraint is not engineering. It is incentive. And when the incentive shifts, capital tends to follow.

Dale Hemminger, an upstate New York dairy farmer, installed his first milking robots in 2007 after immigration authorities arrested one of his workers. Before mechanization, his farm produced about 800,000 pounds of milk per worker per year. Today it produces 2.5 million. About a dozen workers manage a herd of more than 2,000 cows. They earn more than typical farmworkers and work shorter hours.

That is what one enforcement event did on one farm.

Now imagine that incentive applied across the entire sector.

Bracero Proved the Point

America has already run this experiment.

From 1942 to 1964, the Bracero program admitted more than 4.6 million Mexican guestworkers. At its peak, it brought in more workers annually than today’s entire H-2A system.

The same arguments were made then: crops would rot, Americans would not work, mechanization was not ready.

Congress and President Lyndon Johnson ended the Bracero program in 1964.

The result was not collapse. It was modernization.

Tomato harvesters, developed at the University of California with public funds, were commercially deployed within five years. California processing tomato yields rose 300 percent while labor requirements fell by more than 80 percent. Real wages for remaining domestic farmworkers rose substantially. Crop losses were short-lived and concentrated in the first two seasons. Total production soon exceeded pre-termination levels.

The lesson is straightforward.

The technology was already there. Modernization was obstructed by outdated policy.

That lesson applies directly today.

End the federal guarantee of imported labor. Mandate E-Verify. Phase down H-2A on a real timeline. Reject amnesty that converts the existing illegal workforce into a permanent labor base while expanding future inflows.

No carve-outs. No indefinite delays.

Transition should be statutory, not chaotic. Enforcement must be paired with date-certain phase-downs, mechanization credit, and accelerated expensing. The point is not to create a harvest shock. It is to deny agribusiness the one thing that has defeated every reform for forty years: indefinite delay. Put serious public investment behind mechanization and agricultural intelligence in tandem, on the model of the semiconductor and energy industrial policies of the past five years. Pair the phase-down with targeted USDA credit for mechanization, accelerated expensing for qualifying capital investments, shared-ownership equipment consortia that put commercial-grade robotics within reach of smaller farms, and scale-tiered timelines that give family operations more runway than consolidated agribusiness.

Capital should move toward modernization, not toward Capitol Hill.

The Constituency This Is For

The Right often talks about building a worker-centered coalition. Agriculture is where that idea could actually take shape.

It is composed of the small dairy operator competing against a contractor-driven megafarm that lobbies for both illegal labor and H-2A expansion. It harbors the rural mechanic who could be trained as a robotics technician on a precision orchard. It uplifts the recent graduate of a community college agronomy program who could work in autonomous-equipment maintenance, computer-vision crop scouting, or precision-irrigation management. It represents the American worker who lost the field job a generation ago and never got the engineering job that should have replaced it, because the engineering job was never built.

Cheap, and oftentimes illegal, foreign labor does not just displace today’s American worker. It prevents tomorrow’s worker from emerging.

It blocks the investment that would create better jobs. It keeps rural America trapped in a low-wage equilibrium, and then frames that outcome as a necessary tradeoff.

It is not.

The Sovereignty of Food

The global agricultural intelligence revolution will not wait for American policy to catch up. It is happening now, on Dutch dairies, Israeli irrigation networks, Australian autonomous platforms, and in the orchards and greenhouses of countries that did the prior work, built the prior infrastructure, and trained the prior workforce.

But it does not have to be this way. American startups are building the machines. The United States can deploy them at scale, or watch other countries integrate the technology American firms invented.

The AI age is not just about who builds the model. It is about who controls the systems the model governs.

A country that imports foreign labor to prop up its food system, neglects the machines that should replace it, and fails to train its own workforce is not leading. It is stepping aside.

If “America First” means anything in the AI age, it means that the commanding systems of national life are built, operated, and controlled by Americans. Food is one of those systems.

The United States has the advantages: land, capital, universities, manufacturers, and workers.

What it lacks is the political will to end the old bargain.

For forty years, Washington has kept imported labor cheaper than machines. That decision has lowered wages, slowed mechanization, weakened the rural workforce, and delayed the productivity gains other countries have already captured.

Now the next revolution is here.

The choice is straightforward: a preindustrial labor system sustained by outdated and poor policy, or an industrial strategy worthy of a sovereign nation.

We should end the cheap foreign labor regime. Mandate E-Verify. Phase out H-2A. Restore wage discipline. Invest in mechanization and agricultural intelligence at scale.

America cannot shape the future of food while importing a labor model of the past.

There is no third option.

Coming soon from NICE: Phasing Out H-2A: How to Force American Agriculture into the 21st Century. A national mechanization and agricultural intelligence initiative built for American workers and American farms. The full case for ending Big Agriculture’s cheap labor racket and forcing the modernization that should have come a generation ago.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 15:10

Exiled MAGA Dissidents Consult With Ron Paul On Iran War

Zero Hedge -

Exiled MAGA Dissidents Consult With Ron Paul On Iran War

Authored by former Congressman Ron Paul

Last weekend my Institute for Peace and Prosperity hosted another conference here on the Texas Gulf Coast. Not only did we have a full house attending the conference – which is in a way the most important thing – but in this era of profound disappointment and disillusionment, we struck a note of optimism thankfully due to our wonderful line-up of speakers.

The main topic of the conference, titled "War is Back on the Menu," was of course the disastrous decision by the Trump Administration to launch an unprovoked war against Iran – both last June and again on February 28th.

Trump's former director of Counterterrorism at the Office of National Intelligence, Joe Kent, listens intently as Ron Paul offers thoughts on the Iran War & current crisis facing America in his home south of Houston, TX.

Professor Robert Pape from the University of Chicago offered a compelling blueprint to break free of some of the neocon chains that bind us to the Middle East to our own detriment. Let the states in the region manage their own security, he argued. It is not our job to be their policemen.

Very importantly, we were fortunate to have had as speakers two individuals who stood up for their principles when putting them aside for expediency – and personal gain – would have been so much easier.

Former US Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene was, in her own words, “a General in the MAGA Army.” She dedicated her life and plenty of her own money to the cause of electing Donald Trump because she believed he would put America first, as he had promised. She watched that cause betrayed, first with the President’s support for tyrannical central bank digital currency and then with his refusal to release the Epstein files.

Finally, she explained, after he had dubbed her a “traitor” for disagreeing with him on these issues, constant death threats forced her to resign her seat in the House.

Source: MTG on X

She could have gone along to get along – as most do in Congress. Instead, she stood up for what was right.

Likewise Joe Kent, who was serving as director of Counterterrorism at the Office of National Intelligence, could have kept quiet as he watched another war being launched on a mountain of lies pushed by special interests. He was a highly decorated US combat veteran who held a Senate-confirmed position in the Administration.

That would have been a golden ticket to any number of future profitable opportunities if he “played his cards right.” Instead, he did what was right. He resigned, writing in a statement that the war was not justified and that it was being fought for Israeli rather than American interests.

As could be predicted, Joe suffered the same demonization that Marjorie suffered for standing up for his values and principles. Their courage in making this sacrifice for truth should inspire all of us. It should give us hope.

My words of encouragement were simple: we don’t need a majority to change things. A purposeful minority dedicated to the principles of peace and liberty can move mountains.

We must stay strong and, importantly, stick together and work together across all party and ideological lines. We must be the big coalition that refuses to sacrifice our principles just as Joe and Marjorie refused to sacrifice theirs.

We will be in Dulles, VA, on Labor Day weekend for our tenth annual DC conference. Mark your calendars and be a part of our movement!

* * *

Kent, who is a decorated Special Forces and CIA Ground Branch veteran, has responded to the media smear campaign that was triggered at the moment of his public resignation in protest of Trump launching another war of choice in the Middle East...

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 14:00

Unexploded Ordnance Accident Kills 14 IRGC Members: State Media

Zero Hedge -

Unexploded Ordnance Accident Kills 14 IRGC Members: State Media

Trump's operation Epic Fury saw a combined number of US-Israeli strikes in the many thousands unleashed on Iran. The common high estimates suggest over 13,000 strikes by the American side, and possibly 10,000 by the Israelis - which are staggering figures.

While the severe damage to Iranian cities, bases, missile sites, and infrastructure has been abundantly clear - the hidden reality is the apparently persistent danger of unexploded ordnance still littering the country. On Friday state media reported a mass casualty event involving Iranian military members due to unexploded bombs.

"An explosion of leftover bombs from strikes during the war against Iran killed 14 members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iranian media reports," AFP reports based on state media.

Example of large unexploded bomb in Gaza, Getty Images

"A report by the Nour news website, believed to be close to Iran’s security, says the explosion happened near the northern city of Zanjan, which is northwest of Tehran," AFP continues.

And notably, "It is the largest number of IRGC members reported to be killed since the ceasefire began on April 7," it continues, describing that cluster bombs and 'air mines' which had been dropped during prior US and Israeli aids caused the deadly blasts.

The major blast could have been the result of an IRGC operation to recover the bombs, given that the last week has seen reports that the IRGC had recovered a fully intact GBU-57 Bunker Buster bomb.

While unconfirmed, one defense source said as follows:

The reported recovery by Iran of more than 15 unexploded American precision-guided munitions, including at least one fully intact GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, may prove to be one of the most strategically consequential intelligence gains in Tehran’s military history.

If confirmed, the transfer of these weapons to Iranian “technical and research units” for reverse engineering would transform a failed deep-strike campaign against hardened nuclear facilities into a long-term technology compromise for both Washington and Tel Aviv.

Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), through statements linked to the Imam Sajjad Corps in Hormozgan province and state-linked outlets including Press TV, IRNA, and Tasnim News, framed the recovered ordnance not as battlefield debris but as a strategic opportunity capable of accelerating deterrence, bunker survivability, and indigenous precision-strike development.

As for this new mass casualty event, another source adds the following further details: "The IRGC's Ansar al-Mahdi unit in Zanjan said demolition teams had entered a contaminated area to identify and neutralize unexploded munitions left from recent airstrikes when the deadly explosion happened on Friday."

Illustrative via Popular Mechanics 

The Friday incident strongly suggests there are other extreme danger zones, and given that thousands of bombs rained down all over Iran during the height of US-Israeli war, there could be more such deadly accidents to come.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 13:25

Trump Says Medicare Will Soon Cover Weight-Loss Drugs

Zero Hedge -

Trump Says Medicare Will Soon Cover Weight-Loss Drugs

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump announced on May 1 that Medicare patients will soon be able to obtain coverage for weight-loss drugs for $50 per month.

Speaking at an event in Florida, Trump said the coverage for the weight-loss and diabetes medications will begin in July, referencing drugs that contain semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist.

“Today, I’m thrilled to announce that starting on July 1, we will also provide Medicare patients with the coverage for weight-loss drugs like Ozempic, Zepbound, Wegovy. Will be available for $50 a month,” he said.

In December, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a voluntary model known as Better Approaches to Lifestyle and Nutrition for Comprehensive Health to expand access to GLP-1 medications for weight management and metabolic health, allowing Medicare Part D plans and state Medicaid agencies to cover the drugs while negotiating lower prices.

The model features CMS negotiating directly with manufacturers for reduced net prices, out-of-pocket caps, standardized coverage criteria, and lifestyle support programs.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 12:50

US Coast Guard Offloads More Than $72 Million Worth Of Cocaine

Zero Hedge -

US Coast Guard Offloads More Than $72 Million Worth Of Cocaine

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

More than $72 million worth of cocaine was offloaded by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) after it was seized in multiple operations.

A crew member aboard USCGC Escanaba carries a bale of cocaine during a drug offload at Port Everglades, Fla., on April 27, 2026. U.S. Coast Guard/Petty Officer 2nd Class Eric Rodriguez

On Monday, U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Escanaba’s crew offloaded roughly 7,050 pounds of cocaine valued at over $53 million at Port Everglades, Florida, according to an April 27 statement. The seizures were made following interdictions in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific. In addition to Escanaba, other USCG assets and the Joint Interagency Task Force South were involved in the operations.

The crew’s achievements on this patrol reflect the very best of our service—courage, vigilance, and an unshakeable commitment to protecting the American people,” Escanaba Commander Nicholas Seniuk said.

“Every pound of narcotics kept off our streets represents lives changed, violence prevented, and communities made safer. We couldn’t be prouder of their extraordinary work.”

In an April 23 statement, USCG announced that its Cutter Resolute crew offloaded roughly 2,570 pounds of cocaine valued at more than $19.3 million at Base Miami Beach, Florida, and also transferred six individuals suspected of drug smuggling to authorities.

The seizures were the result of three interdictions in the Caribbean by the crews of USS Billings and Coast Guard Cutter Tahoma, together with other partners.

Combined, the two offloading events involved the seizure of 9,620 pounds of cocaine worth more than $72.3 million.

According to the USCG, more than 511,000 pounds of cocaine were seized last year, which is more than three times the service’s annual average. The agency has also sped up its counter-drug operations in the Eastern Pacific region through Operation Pacific Viper.

“Since launching this operation in early August, the Coast Guard has seized over 215,000 pounds of cocaine and apprehended 160 suspected narco-traffickers. The Coast Guard’s persistent operations and rapid response have denied criminal organizations billions in illicit revenue and prevented the flow of dangerous drugs into American communities,” USCG said.

“Eighty percent of interdictions of U.S.-bound drugs occur at sea. This underscores the importance of maritime interdiction in combatting the flow of illegal narcotics and protecting American communities from this deadly threat.”

Cocaine use is a major issue in the United States. According to an August 2025 report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, cocaine overdose death rates jumped from 4.5 individuals per 100,000 people in 2018 to 8.6 in 2023. Between 2011 and 2023, the number of overdose deaths involving cocaine rose from 4,681 to 29,449 individuals.

Around 2.8 million adults used cocaine in 2021, out of which almost half had a cocaine use disorder, according to a January 22 study published at the National Library of Medicine. Cocaine use has been linked to cardiovascular risk factors.

Military Strikes

The United States has also conducted numerous recent strikes against suspected drug trafficking vessels.

In an April 26 post on X, the U.S. Southern Command said the military conducted a kinetic strike against a boat in the Eastern Pacific, which it said was ferrying drugs. The strike ended up killing three male narco-terrorists.

Earlier, the Southern Command announced a strike on a drug trafficking vessel in the Eastern Pacific on April 24, which resulted in the deaths of two individuals.

Such military strikes have come under criticism. On March 13, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) testified against these strikes at a hearing held by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR).

At the hearing, Jamil Dakwar, director of the ACLU Human Rights Program, said that the United States had launched 45 armed attacks as part of the strikes in international waters as of March 12, killing an estimated 157 individuals.

“The United States has not conducted these strikes pursuant to any congressional authorization, as required under domestic law. Instead, the government has acted unilaterally and in violation of international law on the use of force,” Dakwar said.

In a March 13 statement, Thomas Pigott, a spokesperson for the Department of State, criticized the hearing, saying the IACHR “strayed far outside its mandate and acted beyond its competence” in holding the event.

The United States called on the IACHR to focus on its statutes and rules of procedure rather than inserting itself in matters that fall “outside the human rights sphere.”

“The IACHR allowed the ACLU to exploit the hearing to try to force the United States to prematurely disclose arguments and evidence in two cases pending before U.S. federal courts,” Pigott said.

In December, Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson told reporters that the strikes have been thoroughly vetted by the proper authorities.

Each strike against a drug vessel operated by designated terror organizations is taken to protect the United States and to defend vital American interests, Wilson said.

“Our operations in the Southcom region are lawful under both U.S. and international law, with all actions in compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict. These actions have also been approved by the best military and civilian lawyers up and down the chain of command,” the press secretary said.

Tyler Durden Sat, 05/02/2026 - 11:40

Pages