The post The “Fraud” Fraud appeared first on CEPR.

My mid-week morning train Malvern reads:

• The stock market looks wild under the surface: The S&P 500 appears relatively calm on the surface this year, but dig a little deeper and you’ll find some wild swings. Dispersion hiding beneath calm headline indices — sector rotations, factor volatility, and the growing divergence between what the S&P shows and what individual stocks are doing. Investors have retreated from the Big Tech names that carried the market in recent years, putting downward pressure on stocks. By the numbers: The S&P 500 has fallen just 3% for the year, but that masks some big-time. (Axios)

• The Biggest Active Stock Funds Picked the Right Stocks. They Still Lagged: A hypothetical portfolio of the largest active US stock funds’ collective holdings would have beaten the funds themselves. (Morningstar)

• Who ate all the Chinese stock market returns? Long-term nominal GDP is the stuff earnings are made of. And emerging-market economies grow faster than developed ones. Put these two facts together and the case for long-term allocations to EM equities has looked compelling. But no matter how compelling, it hasn’t really worked for a long time. And it has singularly failed to work for investors in Chinese stocks over the past 25 years. While the biggest global economic story of the last three decades has been the rise and rise of China, Chinese stock price performance has been . . . well, a bit rubbish. China got rich. Less so equity punters. The structural reasons why China’s economic growth has so consistently failed to translate into equity market gains for foreign investors. (Financial Times)

• Inside a $42 Billion Private-Credit Black Box: More Black Boxes: Cliffwater fund’s opacity helps explain why it is facing redemptions. A deep look at how private credit vehicles are layering complexity on top of complexity — and what that opacity means for investors who can’t see what they own. (Wall Street Journal)

• When the Best Retirement Is No Retirement at All: The 60-plus crowd is hard at work, and it’s not (just) about the money.The emerging research and personal accounts behind why staying engaged in meaningful work — on your own terms — often produces better outcomes than full retirement. (Businessweek)

• Congress Weighs Axing FINRA. But Is SEC Ready to Pick Up the Slack?: The case for eliminating the broker-dealer self-regulator — and the serious capacity questions about whether the SEC could absorb the workload. (The Daily Upside)

• America’s Diminished Place In The World: Techdirt’s Mike Masnick on how failure to check executive overreach earlier created the conditions for the current collapse of American standing abroad. (TechDirt) see also • The US Seems to Be Deliberately Weakening its Global Position: A careful argument that the pattern of damage to alliances, institutions, and credibility isn’t incompetence — it looks intentional. (Phillip’s Newsletter)

• Florida Is Trying to Ignore Measles Until It Can’t: Florida ranks third in measles cases and the state’s response has been conspicuous silence—a public health strategy best described as “pretend it isn’t happening.” Oh, and the state is in the midst of an outbreak. (The Atlantic)

• Is MAGA in its cringe era? Trump 2.0 was supposed to be younger and cooler than what came before. The vibes have shifted. Signs that the cultural coalition holding Trumpism together may be fracturing — the aesthetic and attitudinal shifts that signal a movement losing its grip. (Washington Post)

• Ticketmaster’s Grip on Live Concerts Is Finally Starting to Break: Live Nation’s settlement with the Justice Department is a big step toward accountability—and cheaper ticket prices. (Slate)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Matt Cherwin, co-founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital. The alternative asset management firm launched in 2024. Previously, he spent 16-years at JPMorgan Chase & Co where he held titles of Chief Investment Officer, Group Treasurer, Co-Head of Global Spread Markets, Global Head of Securitized Products, and Global Head of Asset-Backed Trading.

 

Where rents are falling (or rising) most

Source: Axios

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Wednesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Berlin Accused Of Prioritizing Migrants Over Merit In Hiring Judges & Prosecutors

Authored by Thomas Brooke via Remix News,

A diversity hiring policy affecting the recruitment of judges and public prosecutors in Berlin has come under renewed scrutiny after the city’s justice senator warned that the system may conflict with Germany’s constitutional requirement that public offices be filled strictly on merit.

The policy, introduced in 2021 under then justice senator Dirk Behrendt of the Green Party, stems from amendments to the Law to Promote Participation in a Migration Society, known as the PartMigG. The legislation was adopted by Berlin’s House of Representatives with support from the then-governing coalition of the Social Democrats, Greens, and the Left.

Under the law, recruitment procedures must ensure that applicants with a migration background are invited to interviews in numbers reflecting their share of the population. In Berlin, around 40 percent of residents fall into that category, defined by the Federal Statistical Office as individuals who themselves, or at least one parent, were not born with German citizenship.

In practice, the rule means that some interviewees experience positive discrimination and their migration background is a criterion for their selection, regardless of whether other applicants may have stronger academic credentials.

According to Bild, the system has been implemented in recent years by Berlin’s chief public prosecutor, Margarete Koppers, also associated with the Greens.

The newspaper noted that internal warnings were first raised when the measure was initially drafted.

Officials cautioned that introducing a quota linked to migration background during the selection process could violate Article 33(2) of Germany’s Basic Law, which states that access to public office must be determined by “suitability, competence, and performance.”

Berlin’s current justice senator, Felor Badenberg of the center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), has now drawn attention to the issue and questioned whether the rule is compatible with constitutional principles.

Badenberg said she supports efforts to improve integration and participation in public institutions, noting that she herself has a migration background, with parents who came from Iran. However, she emphasized that the constitution must remain the guiding standard.

“Access to public office must be based on suitability, competence, and performance,” she said, describing the Basic Law as her “compass.”

Critics say the policy reflects a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) approach that prioritizes demographic representation over merit, though there is no suggestion that the law will be amended or challenged in the near future.

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/18/2026 - 05:00

'Europeans Committing Demographic Suicide': EU Politicians Gather To Discuss Immigration Crisis

Via Remix News,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more here...

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/18/2026 - 03:30

Russia Touts Capture Of A Dozen Ukrainian Settlements In Opening Weeks Of March

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

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

AFP/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/18/2026 - 02:45

From Economic Engine To Military Machine: Berlin's Quiet Pivot To War Economy A Challenge To EU

Authored by Mateusz Morawiecki

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

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

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

via Reuters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full story here.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/18/2026 - 02:00

Time To Confront Islamic Terrorism

Authored by Victor Joecks via The Epoch Times,

Importing people who hate America didn’t end well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are three obvious takeaways here.

First, guns aren’t an inherent problem.

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

Next, America’s immigration system is broken.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 23:40

Bovino Out-Out: Top Border Patrol Official Plans To Retire

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Customs and Border Protection commander-at-large Gregory Bovino, who has led federal immigration raids in several major cities, said on March 15 that he will retire from the agency at the end of March.

U.S. Border Patrol Commander-at-large Gregory Bovino seen here in Charlotte, N.C., on Nov. 17, 2025. Matt Kelley/AP Photo

Bovino made the announcement during an interview with Breitbart Texas but did not specify the reason for his decision to retire or indicate whether he had formally notified the agency.

“The greatest honor of my entire life was to work alongside Border Patrol agents on the border and in the interior of the United States in some of the most challenging conditions the agency has ever faced,” he said.

“Watching these agents out there giving it their all in some of the most dangerous of environments we have ever faced was humbling,” Bovino added.

Bovino joined the Border Patrol in 1996 in California’s El Centro sector and was assigned by the Trump administration last year to lead its immigration operations in some of the nation’s largest cities.

He had led immigration enforcement operations in cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Charlotte, New Orleans, and Minneapolis, which resulted in the arrests of thousands of illegal immigrants.

More than 5,000 illegal immigrants convicted of crimes were arrested during operations in Los Angeles between June and August 2025, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The crackdown triggered legal challenges from officials who were opposed to federal immigration enforcement.

In October 2025, Judge Sara Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois ordered Bovino to appear in court every weekday to report on federal immigration enforcement in Chicago. The order was later blocked by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

In January, Bovino was removed from his leading role in Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis after federal agents fatally shot two U.S. citizens—Renee Good on Jan. 7 and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24—during immigration enforcement operations in the city.

President Donald Trump later assigned border czar Tom Homan to take over and oversee immigration enforcement operations in Minnesota, as well as to investigate fraud in state programs.

During a Fox News interview aired on Jan. 27, Trump said of Bovino’s departure from Minnesota: “I don’t think it’s a pullback. It’s a little bit of a change. Everybody in this room that has a business ... you make little changes. You know, Bovino’s very good, but he’s a pretty out there kind of a guy, and in some cases, that’s good; maybe it wasn’t good here.”

In a Jan. 26 social media post, Trump said that Homan has not been involved in operations in Minnesota but that Homan is familiar with many officials there.

The Epoch Times has reached out to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for comment on Bovino’s remarks, but did not receive a response by publication time.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 20:10

Did Two Weird Events At The Oscars Just Expose Woke Hollywood's Greatest Fear?

It's no secret that the Oscars has largely abandoned its role as a showcase for the art of film, devolving into a schizophrenic fever dream of woke rants, political declarations and progressive platitudes that never seems to end.  Yes, the event has always had political moments; celebrities are often very dumb people and the dumbest of people all think they are geniuses with something profound to say.  However, there has been a distinct and disturbing change in the past decade.

The community's cultism has gone far beyond its habit of gatekeeping against conservative views.  The worst elements of Hollywood's social control are aimed at people who have already pledged fealty.  If they step out of line in the slightest, the collective sets out to remind them of their place.  And you don't have to do much to be marked for punishment; all you have to do is tell the truth.

One such example of this probably went under the radar of most people, including those few Americans who actually cared to watch the Oscars.  But the name of actor Timothee Chalamet (Oscar nominee best know for his role in the Dune films) kept popping up throughout the night as the butt of jokes. 

The Hollywood media has launched an all out attack on Chalamet, some asserting that "His arrogant swagger has turned off fans.." and others arguing that he deserved to be "taught a lesson" with a snub from the Academy (and he was snubbed).  One would think he must have said something horrible to invoke such wrath.  

His arrogant swagger, which has turned off fans, Academy voters and even Doja Cat, is a roadmap for how not to win
https://t.co/T9KFZOXQe9

— The Times and The Sunday Times (@thetimes) March 16, 2026

During a discussion on movie making with Variety and CNN in Austin, TX, Chalamet committed the worst of all sins:  He suggested that Hollywood might be losing cultural relevancy.  On the issue of the survival of the industry he noted:

“I’m really right in the middle...Cause I admire people, and I’ve done it myself, [who] go on a talk show and go, ‘Hey, we gotta keep movie theaters alive. You know, we gotta keep this genre alive.’ And another part of me feels like, if people wanna see it, like ‘Barbie,’ like ‘Oppenheimer,’ they’re gonna go see it and go out of their way and be loud and proud about it. And I don’t want to be working in ballet or opera, or things where it’s like, ‘Hey, keep this thing alive.’ Even though it’s like, no one cares about this anymore. All respect to the ballet and opera people out there. I just lost 14 cents in viewership..."

His observations are entirely logical - It was simply an analogy to illustrate his hope that cinema remains self-sustaining instead of a niche that pleads for its own survival.  And it is true that no one, save a tiny minority of enthusiasts, cares about opera and ballet anymore.  But Hollywood elites raged over his comments and even dedicated a number of attacks throughout the Oscars as a way to humiliate him. 

As time passed it was clear that the event was becoming a struggle session for Chalamet instead of an awards ceremony.  The event included a ballet dancer in the final musical number as a message to the actor, while Conan O'Brien and award winners made numerous jabs.  He reportedly walked out of the event after an endless barrage of insults - All because he said out loud that Hollywood might be in trouble. 

On the other side of weird, top YouTuber Markiplier (Mark Fischbach) received an invitation to the Oscars as part of the industry's partnership with YoutTube and was set to walk the red carpet, only to find himself "whisked away" from the cameras by the event's VIP handlers. 

Markiplier reveals why he missed the #Oscars red carpet:

“I'm here at the Oscars I swear! So… funny story about why I wasn't on the red carpet. I was somehow TOO VIP and they whisked me away. And I didn't know better not to go with them! I swear I just went the wrong way. The… pic.twitter.com/eKLStjXl3m

— Film Updates (@FilmUpdates) March 15, 2026

Markiplier's recent low budget film "Iron Lung" (based on a video game) is being heralded as a shot across the bow of Hollywood.  Made for only $3 million, the horror flick has received critical acclaim and earned a reported $47 million at the box office.  It's a massive profit margin and it crushes the majority of competing Hollywood films, most of which lost money in the last year (Oscar winner and pro-Antifa movie "One Battle After Another", lost over $100 million). 

Iron Lung was made in Austin, TX and completely sidestepped the industry, setting a precedent for future independent filmmakers by proving that in the digital age, Hollywood no longer matters as long as you can tell a good story. 

Some critics say that the Oscars "mix-up" was deliberately designed to keep the YouTuber out of the limelight.  In other words, they wanted to avoid giving attention to a creator that might fuel discussions about online distribution and decentralization.  These are the kinds of changes that will undermine Hollywood's control.   

Markiplier says the incident must have been a "mistake", but others are not convinced.  There is a reason why the indie film market has been eroded in recent years.  The only low budget movies that make it through the Hollywood filter are woke screeds.  It is becoming clear that the only reason the legacy film business still exists is to act as a propaganda wing for the progressive religion.   

Ultimately, these two incidents highlight a system in decay; a system fearful of losing its influence over pop culture, youth culture, the art world and western society overall.  Events like the Oscars expose an underlying weakness; the progressive "mean girls" club is losing its grip as it doubles down and closes ranks.  These are acts of desperation relegated to a community that is quickly fading into obscurity.      

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 19:45

Kansas Introduces Medical Freedom Act; Would Impose $50,000 Fines For Vax Mandates Or Medical Discrimination

Authored by Jon Fleetwood via JonFleetwood.com,

A new bill introduced last week in the Kansas Legislature would prohibit government agencies, employers, schools, and businesses from denying services or employment based on a person’s medical decisions, including whether they accept or refuse vaccines, tests, masks, or other medical interventions.

The legislation, Kansas Senate Bill 522, was introduced March 2, 2026, during the 2025–2026 legislative session and is currently pending before the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee, where lawmakers are scheduled to consider the measure in a committee hearing.

The bill was requested for introduction by the Kansas Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs, a legislative committee responsible for advancing policy proposals related to statewide governance and regulatory matters.

You can contact Kansas state senators here and voice your support for the bill.

What the Bill Would Do

SB522 would establish the “Kansas Medical Freedom Act,” prohibiting both government and private entities from denying services, employment, access to events, or public benefits based on whether an individual accepts or refuses a medical intervention.

The legislation defines “medical intervention” broadly to include vaccines, masks, diagnostic tests, medications, devices, and other health-related treatments.

Under the proposal:

• Private businesses could not deny services or access to individuals based on their use or refusal of medical interventions.

• Employers—both public and private—could not require medical interventions as a condition of employment.

• Schools, conferences, and educational institutions could not require medical interventions for entry or participation.

• Government agencies could not condition licenses, permits, benefits, or access to public buildings or transportation on compliance with a medical intervention.

The bill also states that these protections would apply even during declared emergencies, meaning they could not be suspended during a public health crisis or state of emergency.

Individuals who believe their rights were violated under the law could file complaints with the Kansas Attorney General, who would be authorized to investigate and impose civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation.

Strengths of the Bill - & Areas Lawmakers May Want to Strengthen

One of the strongest provisions of SB522 appears in Section 5, which states:

“The provisions of this act shall apply at all times and shall not be suspended, nullified or otherwise disregarded during any declared emergency, public health crisis or state of emergency issued by any local, state or federal authority.”

This language is significant because pandemic mandates were largely justified under emergency powers.

By stating the law cannot be suspended during emergencies—including those declared by federal authorities—the bill attempts to close the same legal pathway used during COVID-19 to impose vaccine mandates, mask mandates, and other public health orders.

At the same time, several areas could be strengthened before final passage.

• First, while the bill is titled as legislation “relating to medical mandates,” its core mechanism is to prohibit the penalties used to enforce those mandates. The bill bars governments, employers, schools, and businesses from denying employment, services, or access to venues based on an individual’s acceptance or refusal of a medical intervention. By removing the primary enforcement tools used during COVID—such as job loss, service denial, or exclusion from public spaces—the legislation effectively makes medical mandates extremely difficult to enforce in practice. Lawmakers may nevertheless wish to clarify this further by explicitly stating that governments cannot impose universal mandates for vaccines, testing, masking, or other medical interventions.

• Second, the bill does not address quarantine or isolation powers, which were heavily used during the COVID response. Current public health statutes often allow officials to restrict movement or isolate individuals during outbreaks. Legislators could consider adding due-process protections, such as requiring individualized medical evidence or court orders.

• Third, although the bill effectively blocks discrimination tied to vaccination status, it does not explicitly prohibit vaccine passport systems. Stating this directly could remove ambiguity.

• Fourth, the legislation does not address insurance or financial discrimination tied to medical decisions, such as premium surcharges or employer penalties imposed on individuals who decline certain medical interventions.

• Finally, enforcement depends largely on investigations by the Kansas Attorney General, who may issue civil penalties for violations. Some lawmakers may consider adding a clearer private right of action, allowing individuals to sue directly if their rights under the law are violated.

Taken together, SB522 represents a significant attempt to prevent COVID-style medical mandates and discrimination, while leaving several areas where lawmakers could further strengthen the protections before the bill reaches final passage.

Read the rest here...

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 19:20

VDH: Our New Ungracious Immigrants

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

The Traditional Immigrant

Silicon Valley was energized by legal immigrants from all over the world who founded eBay, Google, Nvidia, SpaceX, Stripe, Sun Microsystems, Tesla, Yahoo, and a host of others.

The Greek American Elia Kazan’s 1963 film America, America is a fictional account based on the Herculean struggle of the director’s uncle to immigrate to the United States from an impoverished and hostile Turkish Anatolia.

The film summed up Americans’ traditional view of immigrants: They had risked everything for the chance to reach America, and once there, became hyperpatriotic in their gratitude for the magnanimity of their new hosts.

An excellent example is the recently released memoir from Encounter Books, American Trojan, by former University of Southern California president and Cypriot immigrant Dr. Max Nikias. It resonates with thankfulness to America for offering him opportunities undreamed of elsewhere.

He and his wife arrived in the U.S. from war-torn Cyprus nearly penniless but determined to work hard, master English, and enrich the country that welcomed them with their talents and education. What followed was an amazing American trajectory that saw Nikias become president of the University of Southern California—arguably the most successful one in recent memory.

I grew up in rural California surrounded by hard-working immigrant farm families from Armenia, India, Japan, and Mexico. Their work ethic, love of America, and productive farms were models for U.S. non-immigrants. Such immigrants explained why the San Joaquin Valley was the most productive and richest agricultural region in the nation.

My own Swedish grandfather, disabled by poison gas while fighting on the Western Front in World War I, loved all things Swedish, but not nearly as much as his beloved America.

Four Hansons fought on the front lines of World Wars I and II. One was disabled, and another was killed on Okinawa. And all felt blessed that their parents and grandparents had gotten to America.

Gratitude and Ingratitude

But recently, something has gone terribly wrong with immigration—an open border, of course, but also a change in legal immigration as well as student visitors.

During World War II, Japanese Americans fought heroically in horrific conditions in Italy in the famous 442nd Regimental Combat Team and 100th Infantry Battalion—even as their families were interned in the Western United States. Few native-born Americans were more loyal or patriotic than the Japanese Americans.

And now?

While America is at war with Iran and de facto with its terrorist proxies, crowds of immigrants, visitors, and foreign students in New York scream anti-American slogans as they cheer on our enemies in theocratic Iran and its terrorist proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Are we surprised, then, when Islamic terrorists begin hunting down Americans on our own soil?

On campuses today, thousands of Middle Eastern international students, mostly arriving from autocratic, tribal, and failed nations, have staged often violent demonstrations in the years following the October 7, 2023, massacre. They are not shy about cheering on the Hamas slaughter of Israeli civilians.

These pro-Hamas students have not just damned Israel but also often harassed Jewish Americans. They revile their host America and expect Americans to smile and shrug.

It is hard to determine whether such zealots hate the U.S. more than they love living in America and preserving their student visas and work permits.

Hating or Loving the Great Satan?

Take Dr. Fatemeh Ardeshir-Larijani. She is the daughter of Ali Larijani, one of the late Supreme Leader Khamenei’s murderous henchmen. He sent his daughter Fatemeh to the top schools in the satanic United States. She was eventually even hired as a professor at Emory University—at least until popular outrage at the Larijani family’s hypocrisy prompted her dismissal.

To our enemies in Iran, we may be the “Great Satan.” But Iranian theocrats apparently prefer their children and other relatives to study and get rich in Luciferian America. So, many send their kids to universities in the USA.

Another surreal example is the case of Mahmoud Khalil, who arrived on a student visa at Columbia University and soon led the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment.”

When the State Department sought to revoke his temporary visa, the Left made Khalil a veritable martyr. Apparently, his university supporters reasoned that the U.S. had an obligation to invite to its shores those who are active supporters of terrorists like Hamas.

New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a naturalized citizen from Uganda whose parents became public figures and multimillionaires in America, in the past has had little good to say about his adopted country.

His quite public wife, Rama, whose parents were naturalized Syrian citizens, illustrated a book that was rife with antisemitism. It’s no accident that after October 7, she posted “likes” of social media praise of the terrorist Hamas killers, who are sworn enemies of her own country.

Many Somali immigrants of Minneapolis repaid the kindness of Americans in welcoming them from war-torn Somalia by committing the greatest welfare fraud in U.S. history, which may reach $9 billion in theft. Their iconic representative, Ilhan Omar, has voiced antisemitic vitriol, downplayed 9/11, claimed the U.S. has a dictatorship worse than the one she fled, and said the U.S. was turning into one of the worst countries in the world. That is the thanks she returns for entering a hospitable America under controversial circumstances and dubious legality.

Hating—or Hating to Leave—America?

Stranger still is the attitude of visitors and illegal aliens when they finally face deportation.

Joe Biden allowed 10–12 million foreign nationals to illegally enter the U.S. during his tenure, among them some 500,000 known criminals. In the years since his inauguration, not a day goes by without news that illegal aliens of that era have murdered, assaulted, been arrested for felonious acts, or caused horrific auto accidents.

One of them was Kilmar Ábrego Garcia, an illegal alien from El Salvador, who long ago was ordered to be deported for his unlawful entry and residence.

Instead, he too became an icon to the Left when he was recently and belatedly facing permanent deportation. He had clearly ignored his earlier deportation orders, and was an alleged gang member, an often violent spousal abuser, and a human trafficker.

Ábrego Garcia apparently felt he had a right to enter the U.S. illegally. He successfully made a mockery of our immigration laws. But he presciently expected that soon hundreds of thousands of dollars of free legal help would come his way, ensuring he could stay in the country for which he showed utter contempt.

And in the U.S., one of the most bizarre aspects of recent protests against ICE efforts involved episodes of Mexican nationals waving the flag of the country to which under no circumstances they wished to return, even as they burned the flag of the nation in which they insisted they had an innate right to stay.

Our New Americans Killing Americans

Yet the immigration disaster transcends student visas and illegal aliens, since it extends to many naturalized citizens as well.

Consider the terrorist acts that have transpired in just the last eight days.

On March 1, Ndiaga Diagne, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Senegal, shot up a beer garden in Austin, Texas. He murdered three people and wounded 14 others. Diagne wore a “Property of Allah” sweatshirt, along with an Iranian flag T-shirt.

On March 7, 2026, Emir Balat, the son of a naturalized citizen from Turkey, and Ibrahim Kayumi, the son of naturalized Afghan refugees, threw IEDs toward a conservative protest outside Gracie Mansion, the New York mayor’s residence.

The media sought to cover up their Islamist motives but could not, given that the two terrorists openly boasted of their aims. Indeed, the two bragged that they wanted to achieve something “bigger than the Boston Marathon bombing.”

That was a reference to Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the murderous Chechen-immigrant brothers. In 2013, they murdered three and injured hundreds at the Boston Marathon. Their aim too was apparently to further the so-called global “Islamic cause.”

This same week, on March 12, Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, another naturalized U.S. citizen, this time from Sierra Leone, went into an ROTC meeting at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. Once there, he murdered the instructor, Lieutenant Colonel Brandon Shah, a decorated combat veteran. Jalloh shouted “Allahu Akbar” as he fired. Jalloh had previously been convicted for attempting to support ISIS but was released before serving his full sentence.

That same March day, Ayman Muhammed Ghazali, a naturalized U.S. citizen born in Lebanon, whose family in the Middle East currently has strong Hezbollah terrorist ties, drove his car rigged with explosive fireworks into Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, Michigan.

Ghazali was killed by security guards before he could carry out his homicidal plan. Hezbollah, remember, in the past, butchered hundreds of Americans in Lebanon.

There is an endless list of illegal aliens and naturalized citizens who have killed hundreds of Americans, both as common criminals and as would-be jihadists.

And not all the killing is intentional. Thousands of driver’s licenses have been issued to both illegal aliens and legal residents from all over the world, including those who do not understand English, cannot pass a commercial driver’s test, and are utterly unqualified to drive. Is it any surprise that we have recently witnessed serial horrific crashes, where incompetent drivers rammed their 80,000-pound semi-trucks into unsuspecting drivers?

What Happened to Immigration?

So what made the U.S. adopt such a suicidal immigration and visitation policy—one that welcomes in millions illegally, hundreds of thousands who are known criminals, tens of thousands of students who despise the U.S., and thousands of terrorists themselves and their sympathizers?

In the mid-1960s, amid the Great Society’s dreams of transforming America, new immigration laws were passed that ended the older quota process. That traditional system tended to favor better-off immigrants from Europe and the former British Empire to reflect somewhat the founding demographics of the republic.

But the new law junked the prior merit-based system and instead admitted immigrants chiefly on the basis of family ties and the purported need of the host country for inexpensive labor—with most now arriving from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Suddenly, far less important for entry were critical skill sets, English mastery, high school diplomas, proof of self-support, and knowledge of, or familiarity with, the American system.

But in the subsequent 60 years, Democrats went even further beyond the 1965 Hart–Celler Act efforts to change the demography of the U.S. They began welcoming in anyone, legal or not, who simply crashed the border or claimed they wanted to study in the U.S. The old melting pot was banished, replaced by the “salad bowl.”

Immigration was seen by the Left as the answer to why they had never been able to complete their socialist agendas amid a skeptical American public. Supposedly, by welcoming in a “diverse” demographic, poor and without English fluency, they would grow the welfare state, creating a new dependent constituency.

The new immigrants and visitors were envisioned as left-wing voters-to-be who would look to the Democratic Party as their guarantors of open borders, a new entitlement society, and a criminal justice system that saw the perpetrator as a victim—and the real criminal as a racist America itself.

Diversity, the Immigration Force Multiplier

The new “diversity” ideology peaked under Barack Obama and Joe Biden. The subtext of their open-borders nihilism was a new oppressor/oppressed binary.

It dictated that traditional America was still too white, too traditionalist, too Christian, too unfairly successful—and too hostile to the Democratic-socialist agenda of a mandated equality of result achieved through massive coercive government redistributive efforts.

Under this warped view, the criminally minded Ábrego Garcia became a victim of supposed “Gestapo” ICE “goons” (ironic, when patriotic and skilled Mexican American officers disproportionately staff ICE ranks).

The Tsarnaev Boston Marathon killers became “hot” underdog freedom fighters. So the supposedly sexy, photogenic young murderer Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was highlighted on the cover of Rolling Stone.

The more Mahmoud Khalil took on the mantle of an anti-American, pro-Hamas activist, the more the Left rallied to his cause.

When Major Nidal Hasan, the son of naturalized Palestinian immigrants, slaughtered 13 and wounded 32 fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, the Pentagon resisted efforts to tie him to the Islamic terrorist cause. That was hard to do, since he screamed “Allahu Akbar!” as he mowed down his fellow soldiers.

Then Army Chief of Staff George Casey responded to the mass murder with his lamentation on CNN that, “As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.” He sought to quash any speculation about Hasan’s Islamic motives, in fear that the ensuing truth might endanger the Army’s diversity efforts.

Then we come to the case of Eileen Gu, the recent American Winter Olympic multi-medalist skier.

She was born in San Francisco to a Chinese immigrant mother and an American father and lived her entire life in the U.S. But Gu chose to compete in the games for communist China, despite its efforts to isolate, dehumanize, and eventually vastly “reduce” its Uyghur minority population.

Dr. Frankenstein and his Monster

The final irony: Why do so many criminals believe they can enter the U.S. illegally and get away with murder?

Is it because they feel contempt for any nation that opens its borders, requires no background checks, destroys its own immigration laws, and weaponizes its criminal justice system to make the criminal the victim and the state his victimizer?

Why do so many burn the U.S. flag while waving the flag of Mexico, a country they have no intention of returning to?

Is it because they sense they might be praised for “celebrating diversity,” as the popular culture would term such abject cultural schizophrenia?

Why would the Tsarnaev brothers repay the country that took them in by killing innocent Americans?

Would it be because, in their formative years in American schools, their teachers and texts emphasized what was wrong with a supposedly exploitative U.S.?

Why, in the middle of a near-existential war with Iran to stop its efforts to obtain nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles pointed at the U.S. and its allies, would naturalized citizens feel so free to slaughter Americans for the cause of Islam?

Would it be because they sense from left-wing universities and popular culture that it is a virtual open season on Jews?

Or that any time an Islamic terrorist commits an act, a Democratic operative will warn America of “Islamophobia”—as if, say, mowing down soldiers at Fort Hood is the lesser crime?

Why would a rich, privileged Eileen Gu feel no discomfort competing for a murderous regime whose agenda is to displace her country from its global preeminence in favor of a communist dictatorship?

Is it because in our relativist modern America, Gu’s “truth” is just as meaningful as any other? And who, after all, is qualified to judge anything or anyone?

Who created our current Frankensteinian monstrosities?

We did.

We are the Dr. Frankensteins who asked nothing of immigrants, in a complete break from our nation’s past.

And we got our wish for a new, quite different class of immigrants, who treated the U.S. the very way they were taught to do by the Left: as an evil entity that deserved what it got.

And we sure have gotten it.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 16:20

Bank Of America Settles Lawsuit Over Ties To Jeffrey Epstein's Sex Crimes

Authored by José Niño via Headline USA,

Bank of America has reached a settlement with an anonymous woman who accused the financial giant of enabling Jeffrey Epstein’s sex trafficking operation and profiting from his criminal enterprise.

A Bank of America flies backward, emblematic of the financial institution's backward mindset in prioritizing woke political objectives over shareholder profits and financial health. / IMAGE: Wcnc Newsroom via YouTube

Lawyers for both parties informed a judge they had agreed to a “settlement in principle” according to court filings made public on Monday that The Financial Times reported. The proposed agreement contains undisclosed terms and awaits judicial approval at a hearing scheduled for early April. Bank of America declined to comment on the matter.

The woman filed her lawsuit in October of last year in Manhattan federal court under the pseudonym Jane Doe. She sought class action status and financial damages while accusing BofA of “participating in and financially benefiting from Jeffrey Epstein’s widespread and well-publicised sex-trafficking operation, as well as the direct financial benefits it received therefrom.”

According to her complaint, the plaintiff first encountered Epstein while living in Russia in 2011.

She resided in New York from 2011 to 2019 during which time the convicted sex offender abused her. The lawsuit alleged that Bank of America failed to file suspicious activity reports to law enforcement about questionable transactions “before it was far too late” and ignored red flags the bank had a legal responsibility to report.

“A review of Jane Doe’s account history will show incredibly alarming and erratic banking behaviour,” the initial complaint stated.

The anonymous woman described opening a Bank of America account in 2013 that Epstein and his accountant Richard Kahn allegedly used to pay her monthly rent.

This arrangement purportedly created documentation used to “defraud immigration officials.”

Kahn transferred $14,000 into the account immediately after it was opened and the plaintiff alleged it “continued to be utilised by Epstein and Kahn through Epstein’s death in 2019 for activities unknown and unexplained to Jane Doe.”

The complaint also described how the woman was added to the payroll of a sham company that paid her through one of her BofA accounts. Federal law requires banks to monitor money laundering and report suspicious activity while blocking prohibited transactions. Epstein’s sex offenses became public knowledge as early as 2006 and the financier signed a non-prosecution agreement with the Justice Department in 2008.

The lawsuit highlighted an “abnormal” $170 million payment that billionaire Leon Black made to Epstein from his BofA account for alleged “tax and estate planning advice.”

Black was scheduled to be deposed as a witness later this month according to court filings. He is not a defendant and his lawyer declined to comment.

Judge Jed Rakoff denied Bank of America’s attempt to dismiss the case just last month. The plaintiff had also filed a motion seeking class action status which could have substantially increased damages.

Boies Schiller Flexner represented the plaintiff. The firm previously secured settlements from JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank in similar Epstein related cases.

Those banks paid $290 million and $75 million respectively to settle class action allegations from trafficking victims.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 15:40

$5 Diesel Means A 35% Jump In Prices For US Consumers

While US gasoline prices have risen substantially since the start of the Iran war (although RBOB futures suggest there is much more upside should oil prices remain around $100), the average price of diesel has already soared above $5 per gallon in the US, the highest since 2022, and pushing up supply chain costs and setting the stage for broader inflation for consumers.

The price spike is increasing costs for farmers, truckers and construction firms.

With diesel at $5 per gallon, these industries are on track to spending around $6.1 billion this week on the fuel, according to BloombergNEF forecasts.

The same amount of fuel would have cost just $4.5 billion ahead of the war, a 35% increase.

According to BNEF, road diesel accounts for roughly 66% of US diesel consumption, with large trucking fleet operators like Walmart and Amazon highly exposed to fuel cost swings.

The fuel also powers agricultural machinery, ships and trains hauling goods across the country.

The widespread use of diesel feeds into the cost of goods across the economy.

However, unlike gasoline, where consumers feel the pinch immediately at the pump, the higher diesel costs show up indirectly over time.

Rapidan Energy's Director of Refined Products, Linda Giesecke, offered insight into the diesel market:

Diesel prices have surged globally to levels last seen since 2022, when Russian exports were at risk. But unlike 2022, the current tightness reflects physical supply disruptions rather than policy risk and trade reshuffling.

Because of the Hormuz outage in the Gulf, global diesel prices are on track to average about $150/bbl this month. That's a 60% increase vs. February, vastly outpacing crude's 40% rise to near $100, with diesel's price risk skewed sharply to the upside – especially if Hormuz reopening takes longer than the early-April timeline we assume in our base case.

We have global diesel prices easing toward $120/bbl in April, but only if shipping flows begin to normalize. If Hormuz flows do not resume in the coming weeks and diesel prices remain at $150/bbl into the second quarter, global economic growth will suffer because of diesel's close link to industrial production and freight activity.

As the war on Iran extends into the third week and oil prices remain elevated, inflation pressure in the US will likely broaden beyond fuel and into consumer goods.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 15:20

Appeals Court Lifts Block On Expedited Third Country Deportations

Authored by Stacy Robinson via The Epoch Times,

An appeals court ruled on Mar. 16 that the Trump administration could continue deporting illegal immigrants to places other than their native countries, without giving them a chance to protest against their destination.

“There is more work ahead on this important issue, but this is a key win for [President Donald Trump’s] immigration agenda,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said on X.

The 2–1 ruling by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit paused a previous decision by Judge Brian Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, who ruled in February that the government’s policy was illegal.

Murphy’s ruling concerned two Department of Homeland Security memos, which said that if the United States had diplomatic assurances from a third country that deportees would not face persecution or torture, they could be sent there without any extra procedures.

“[The Department of Homeland Security] has adopted a policy whereby it may take people and drop them off in parts unknown ... and, ‘as long as the department doesn’t already know that there’s someone standing there waiting to shoot ... that’s fine,’” he wrote in his decision in February.

The Trump administration filed an appeal, asking the First Circuit to halt Murphy’s order, which it said “contains multiple serious legal errors.”

On March 5, it asked for a stay of that order while the case proceeds in court, noting that the U.S. Supreme Court had already halted Murphy’s previous rulings twice in this case.

Murphy noted the same thing in his ruling and said he would give the government 15 days to appeal before his order took effect.

“Ultimately, this court could be missing something in the final analysis,” he wrote.

In its filing, the Justice Department argued that neither courts nor immigration judges are allowed to “second-guess” the government’s conclusion about whether a country is safe or not.

“The district court’s order creates an unworkable scheme that materially impairs the ability of the government to enforce the immigration laws,” the DOJ wrote.

The case concerns a group of illegal immigrants that the government tried to deport to third countries in March 2025.

They sued, and Murphy blocked those deportations before the Supreme Court overruled him twice.

The First Circuit has given both sides a little more than a month to file briefs, after which time it will hear oral arguments on the matter.

The plaintiffs’ lawyer, Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said in a statement, “While the order, unfortunately, delays the restoration of our class members’ ‌statutory and ⁠due process rights, we are glad that the 1st Circuit ordered a swift resolution of the merits of the case.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 15:05

Warner Bros CEO To Collect $667 Million In Paramount Deal

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav will collect about $667 million in compensation after the entertainment empire completes its sale to Paramount Skydance.

President and CEO of Discovery Communications David Zaslav in Pasadena, Calif., on June 29, 2015. Alberto E. Rodriguez/Getty Images

Last month, the company accepted Paramount’s $110 billion proposal, concluding a months‑long bidding contest after Netflix exited the talks.

One of the key beneficiaries of the merger will be Zaslav, who could pocket several hundred million dollars, according to a March 17 Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

Zaslav is in line for approximately $34.2 million in cash severance, a package that includes salary continuation and bonuses tied to a change‑in‑control termination, the regulatory filing stated.

He would also receive $115.8 million in vested equity, along with $517.2 million in unvested share awards that would vest upon finalization of the sale.

Vested equity is stock or stock-based awards that executives have earned the legal right to keep. Unvested shares are shares that executives have been authorized to receive but have not yet earned the right to own.

The payout could also include up to $335 million in tax reimbursements. However, this figure will decline over time depending on when the Paramount-Warner Bros. deal is finalized.

Warner Bros. said this figure is based on tax‑code provisions “that are expected to cause it to significantly decline with the passage of time,” and noted that the tax payment would drop to zero if the deal closes in 2027.

Paramount anticipates the acquisition will be completed by the third quarter this year.

Ultimately, the filing states that these amounts may not be realized as they are “based on multiple assumptions that may or may not actually occur or be accurate as of the date referenced.”

The companies expect to hold a shareholder vote in early spring and are targeting a Sept. 30 closing, subject to shareholder and regulatory approval.

Current shareholders could receive a 25-cent-a-share “ticking fee” for each quarter the acquisition does not close, totaling approximately $650 million. Additionally, Warner Bros. would receive a $7 billion termination fee if the merger is not authorized due to regulatory pushback.

Paramount paid Netflix a $2.8 billion termination fee in February after Warner Bros. terminated its agreement with the streaming service.

The film and television studio agreed to pay $31 per share in cash to purchase 100 percent of Warner Bros.’ shares. The deal will be funded by $47 billion in equity, backed by the Ellison family and RedBird Capital Partners. Additionally, the purchase includes $54 billion of debt commitments from Apollo, Bank of America, and Citigroup.

A water tower at Paramount Studios in Los Angeles on Dec. 8, 2025. Mario Tama/Getty Images

Since landing on the winning side of the hostile takeover efforts, Paramount’s shares have declined about 25 percent to below $10. Conversely, Netflix stock has rebounded about 16 percent, potentially targeting $100.

Regulatory Hurdles

Whether it was Netflix or Paramount buying Warner Bros., the merger was likely to face pushback from a growing chorus of U.S. lawmakers.

In a March 12 letter, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.), and 11 other members of Congress demanded that the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department investigate antitrust and national security concerns related to the merger.

“Congress has a responsibility to ensure that merger enforcement in concentrated creative industries—particularly transactions involving substantial foreign capital—is conducted rigorously and in strict adherence to federal law,” the letter states.

“The structural reduction in independent studios, the Pay-1 foreclosure risks, and the downstream impact on exhibitors warrant thorough and transparent review.”

But the purchase may not receive heightened scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr told CNBC earlier this month that the Paramount-Warner Bros. deal was “cleaner” than the Netflix alternative.

“There’s a lot of concerns when Netflix was the potential buyer there. That particular combination raised a lot of competition concerns,” Carr said on March 3.

“If there’s any FCC role at all, it’ll be a pretty minimal role. And I think this is a good deal, and I think it should get through pretty quickly.”

It remains to be seen whether the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States—also known as CFIUS—will object to the deal. Paramount’s offer includes about $24 billion from Gulf state sovereign wealth funds.

Kimberly Hayek and Jill McLaughlin contributed to this story.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 14:25

Trump Signs Order Assigning Vance To Head Anti-Fraud Task Force

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump signed an executive order on March 16, officially creating an anti-fraud task force headed by Vice President JD Vance, a job that could be one of the most important in the country, the president said during an Oval Office signing ceremony.

Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson will serve as co-chair of the task force alongside Vance, Trump said, calling both men “extremely brilliant and just very talented.”

Their work could return hundreds of billions of dollars to American taxpayers, Trump said.

Officials have estimated that fraudsters steal up to $300 billion per year from government programs across the nation.

“This is a very big thing that we’re doing,” the president said.

“The kind of money we’re talking about is country-changing.”

Referring to Ferguson and Vance, Trump said, “If you guys can’t do it, we’ve got a problem—because nobody else will be able to do it.”

The executive order formalizes an announcement that Trump made during his Feb. 24 State of the Union address, when he announced that Vance, who is a lawyer, would spearhead a “war on fraud” for the White House.

Trump said fraud would be targeted “wherever it’s taking place” and denied critics’ accusation of political motivations for the fraud crackdown. However, he said, the problem seems to be dominant in Democrat-controlled states such as Minnesota. Trump said he believes that Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) are both “complicit” in that state’s fraud problem.

The Epoch Times sought comment from Walz and Omar but did not immediately receive a response.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff, said illegal immigrants are using benefits from government programs, and he believes that this is the “first-ever effort in American history” to reclaim trillions of dollars in government benefits that were taken improperly.

“If all of it were stopped, it would be enough to balance the budget. The extraction of wealth from American taxpayers to people who don’t belong here is the primary cause of the national debt,” Miller said.

As soon as he started looking into fraud, Vance said, it became apparent that “one big hold that existed is that the agencies of the government weren’t actually talking to each other.” He said the president’s order will fix one major issue: how agencies share information.

Ferguson said millions of Americans pay into these programs for “completely fake businesses,” robbing people who ought to receive that help.

About three weeks ago, Vance and Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, temporarily withheld $259 million in Medicaid from the state of Minnesota, following reports of rampant fraud in that state.

Although billions of dollars’ worth of fraud also has surfaced in California, Minnesota’s fraud problems have been a focal point for months, leading to multiple federal investigations and congressional hearings.

On March 4, Walz and the state’s attorney general, Keith Ellison, testified to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

During the hearing, both men defended their work, but congressmen pointed out that payments kept flowing to recipients who were suspected of fraud dating back to 2020.

Walz, in written testimony filed with the committee, said, “In Minnesota, if you defraud public programs, if you steal taxpayer money, we will find you, we will prosecute you, we will convict you, and we will throw you in jail.”

He acknowledged that the governor has an important role in fighting fraud and that “the buck ultimately stops” with him.

“I do not shy away from that responsibility, and I am prepared—as I have always been—to have a serious conversation with our federal partners about how to ensure fraudsters cannot take advantage of Minnesota taxpayers,” Walz wrote.

In addition to federal actions, numerous states are trying to clamp down on fraud.

The State Financial Officers Foundation—which includes members from 28 mostly conservative states—has been working to root out fraud. It found $5.7 billion in waste and returned $22.3 billion to taxpayers, according to that group’s 2025 report, released in February.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 13:45

Musk's xAI Turns To Wall Street Bankers To Improve Grok's Financial Analysis

Elon Musk’s AI startup xAI is expanding efforts to make its chatbot Grok more capable in financial analysis by hiring experienced finance professionals to help train the system, according to Bloomberg.

Job listings show the company is recruiting investment bankers, traders, portfolio managers, and credit analysts to join its data-training teams. These specialists would help teach Grok how to reason through complex financial work, including leveraged loan syndication, distressed investing, mortgage-backed securities, and collateralized loan obligations. The company is also seeking experts with experience in equity and cryptocurrency markets.

The move reflects a broader push by major AI developers to sell products to financial professionals. Competitors such as OpenAI and Anthropic have already introduced tools designed to speed up tasks like market analysis, research, and investment memo writing. These advances have raised concerns that some traditional financial software providers could lose relevance.

Compared with those rivals, xAI is generally seen as behind in attracting corporate customers. Much of its revenue so far has come from agreements with Musk-related businesses, including Tesla, Inc. and SpaceX, which merged with xAI last month.

Bloomberg writes that the company is also adjusting its strategy after a turbulent start to the year that included significant staff departures, including members of its founding team, as well as criticism over Grok generating explicit non-consensual images.

Recently, Musk recruited two senior employees from Cursor, an AI coding startup currently seeking funding at a reported valuation of around $50 billion. Musk has acknowledged publicly that xAI still lags competitors in coding tools, a category that has become an important revenue driver for other AI companies.

xAI relies on workers known internally as AI tutors to train Grok by supplying data and adjusting responses. At a recent staff meeting, tutor team lead Diego Pasini said the company’s biggest constraint remains the supply of training data. Much of Grok’s dataset currently comes from X.

Many of the new tutor roles are focused on credit markets, which are under increasing pressure as private credit funds face withdrawals and other industry challenges. Great timing.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 13:25

Stellar 20Y Auction Stops Through Amid Surge In Foreign Demand

Moments ago the week's lone coupon auction priced in what was a stellar sale of 20Y Treasury paper.

At 1pm ET, the US Treasury auctioned off $13BN in 20Y paper, with very solid metrics and even more solid buyside demand. 

The auction priced at a high yield of 4.817%, up from 4.664%, but below January's 4.846%. The auction stopped 0.7bps through the 4.824% When Issued. This was the 3rd stop through auction in the past 4, following an especially ugly, tailing February 20Y auction.  

The bid to cover jumped to 2.76 from 2.36, which was also above the six-auction average of 2.63.

Internals were especially strong, with Foreign demand surging from just 55.2% in February, to 69.2% in March, the highest Indirect award since April 2025 (and obviously above the recent average of 62.1%). And with Directs taking down 21.6%, below the six-auction average of 27.0%, Dealers were left holding 9.2%, a big drop from 17.6% in February and one of the lowest Dealer allotments on record.

Overall, this was a stellar 20Y auction despite the lack of concessions in today's session, and suggests that despite the recent selling across the curve, the bond market remains in solid shape one day ahead of the Fed's decision to keep rates on hold (as most expect). 

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 13:24

The Kobayashi Maru Scenario

By Michael Every of Rabobank

The Kobayashi Maru Scenario

Yesterday's Global Daily by Ben Picton, 'The Wrath of Kharg', couldn't help but get me thinking about the infamous Kobayashi Maru scenario in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. For those unfamiliar, back when Star Trek was a popular franchise based on serious ideas, not an unpopular one based on frivolous ones, Starfleet Academy tested its budding starship captains by making them try to rescue the simulated crew of a disabled freighter stranded in dangerous territory. Abandoning them was a failure; yet every attempt to retrieve them would be met by an ever-increasing number of attackers. Crucially, this no-win scenario was a key test of officer candidates’ characters, not their tactics or strategy.

The question today is if President Trump is himself caught in a Kobayashi Maru scenario given:

• If he retreats from Iran, it's a geopolitical defeat the equivalent of the 1956 Suez Crisis; and he may not even be able to retreat if Iran refuses to stop the war regionally.

• If he continues to attack, energy markets will panic further. The Israeli press says the country is preparing to fight for another month vs Iran and Hezbollah in Lebanon, not the three weeks alluded to yesterday; and Iran is now targeting upstream oil and gas fields (such as Shah in the UAE), not just refineries and export terminals, threatening energy supply, not flow.

Yet in Star Trek II we hear that Captain Kirk, in his youth, found a novel solution to the no-win outcome: he reprogrammed the computer, so victory was possible, winning a commendation for original thinking. "I don't like to lose," he tells a logical Vulcan who had already failed the test. Indeed, even as the media are calling this war Operation ‘Epic Folly' --and recalling that oil prices vs physical supply, and bunker fuel, jet fuel, and diesel are worse-- the futures market continues to price for cheaper energy within a few months. Even with backwardation showing the current physical squeeze, which seems to suggest an inherent view there will be no long-run disruption to the region's energy flows: and US assets are not tanking more than others on the suggestion this is due to a looming 1956 defeat. Or is that just the normal science fiction of mean-reverting "because markets" thinking? Let’s be clear: it's very easy to see how things can get far worse. However, there are arguably ways things can also improve as a result.

On one hand, Treasury Secretary Bessent says the US is fine with some Iranian, Chinese, and Indian vessels having successfully made it through Hormuz. Why wouldn't they be? If Iran starts letting everyone but the US and Israel through --neither of whom use it-- then the blockade is effectively over. Yet that argues for Iran not to do so to any great extent.

If true that means blockade is effectively over https://t.co/wHQy1ksNWp pic.twitter.com/spl1c7fVTf

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 14, 2026

On the other, the underlying logic is that Trump also needs to reprogram the no-win scenario via further escalation of his own. As an example, Trump has announced his long-awaited looming trip to Beijing is unlikely to happen because of the war: he wants a delay of a month or so. In short, only if the war ends without a US retreat can Trump and Xi discuss the US-China relationship. The messaging is crystal clear. So is that China can get energy from the Western hemisphere to replace Iran and the GCC if needed. So is the US ability to then put a foot on the hosepipe in certain geopolitical circumstances - as it is now doing with Iran at far greater distance, risk, and cost. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t part of a future deal.

For those who can’t join those dots, note that after Trump blocked most oil exports to it after flipping Venezuela by force, the communist Cuban government has just embraced perestroika, allowing Cuban American exiles to return to the island and open private-sector businesses. That’s yet another Russian-Chinese-Iranian ally that seems in the process of being flipped into the US camp. The world is changing radically and rapidly – and it’s not something one just gets to sit out in splendid isolation.

Indeed, while NATO allies and Japan and South Kore (so far) won’t send ships to help reopen Hormuz despite Trump threats to NATO and even key Asian security alliances, the "It's not our war" crowd must note that the longer this drags on, the more painful it risks getting for them. Moreover, they may also come to see that an angrier nuclear Iran with ballistic missiles, which can happen if the regime survives, would have huge implications for everyone. Japan’s PM Takaichi is reportedly ‘weighing her options’ and could agree to join a Hormuz coalition for freedom of navigation in principle, according to the Japan Times.

By contrast, the EU is saying “Don’t “blackmail” us’: but it arguably is being – in which case, who has the greater leverage and risks the larger fallout? Notably, Europe is also arguing ‘Not one molecule!’ and has ruled out relaxing a Russian gas ban, which logically only leaves the US as an LNG supplier. Via a transitive geopolitical process, that also places Europe on the same side as the US vs Iran, a key supporter of Russia vs Ukraine… and then vs China(?) Meanwhile, with India pushing to now deepen new EU ties even further, does that tie the EU to the US via that South Asian route too, or to pro-Russia India?

The first of the major central banks to have to try to grapple with this today was the RBA. They opted to raise rates 25bps to 4.10%, as expected. They also noted that sustained higher energy prices will add to inflation and that risks on that front have tilted further to the upside: indeed, Aussie inflation is seen staying above target for “some time” even as there are “material uncertainties” about the economic outlook. The Reserve Bank also added it “will do what’s necessary to deliver its price and jobs goals” – but, in the worst case, what if they run in opposite directions ahead? The Aussie 10-year yield, which managed to break through the psychological 5% level yesterday, is now back at around 4.92%. AUD softened slightly on the decision.

What will the other central banks say and do this week? And what will they say and do next month if this really is a Kobayashi Maru scenario for them rather than one they can simply reprogram with a new liquidity acronym? 

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 13:11

UBS Eyes Possible Bottom In Airline Stocks After Bear Market

The S&P 500 Passenger Airlines Index has tumbled into a bear market since Operation Epic Fury unleashed flight disruptions across the Middle East and sent Jet A fuel prices sharply higher, with Deutsche Bank warning the fuel price shock could become an "existential threat" for the weakest carriers. The key question now is whether the worst of the selloff in US airline stocks is over, with UBS analysts beginning to ask if a bottom is near.  

UBS analyst Atul Maheswari said that "most airlines will likely point 1Q towards the midpoint of the guidance" in the earnings season, adding, "Fuel spiked in early March, but airlines tend to hold two weeks of fuel inventory, implying higher fuel will impact only about 15 days of 1Q."

"This should cushion the drag to 1Q EPS. Plus, airlines have been talking up demand through the course of the quarter, suggesting upside to 1Q RASM. With respect to FY guide, we expect airlines to suspend FY'26 outlook given the significant uncertainty around fuel costs for the rest of the year," Maheswari noted.

The analyst said that airline stocks are approaching a 2022-style decline, similar to the Russia-Ukraine fuel shock, which may now imply a potential bottoming for airline stocks.

He explained:

How does the current decline in airline stocks compare to historical periods?

If we use share price performance in 1H'22 as a guide, then it suggests that the bottom might be near for these airline stocks.

Since 2/26, shares of ALK and smaller players are down around -30% while UAL, AAL, and LUV are down mid 20%. DAL is down only -17%. The decline in LUV, ALK and smaller players have already matched the peak to trough declines witnessed in 1H'22 - the last time jet fuel witnessed a spike of similar magnitude (following the Russia-Ukraine conflict) as we are seeing currently (full details in fig. 3).

The declines in share prices DAL/UAL have not yet matched the levels witnessed in 2022, but these players now have superior business models with relatively higher margins, suggesting better ability to deal with the fuel price shock.

However, there is a caveat:

Though, one needs to be mindful of the tail risk of this conflict persisting for longer than expected driving jet fuel even higher from current levels. There is also potential for inflation to pick up materially the longer the conflict persists and for consumers to start pulling back from travel and other spending. We don't think this scenario of demand destruction is necessarily priced into the stocks even at these levels.

The S&P 500 Passenger Airlines Index is currently showing a drawdown of about 22%.

Maheswari lowered estimates and price targets for airline stocks within the UBS coverage universe:

• DAL: We lower our FY'26 EPS estimate to $5.85 (was $7.17) assuming 50% pass through of higher fuel costs. Our FY'27 EPS estimate goes to $8.31 from $8.72. Our revised PT is $83, down from $87 previously based on 10x FY'27 EPS estimates.

• UAL: We lower FY'26 EPS estimate to $10.22 from $13.56 while our FY'27 EPS estimate goes to $14.87 from $16.28. We assume ~45% fuel pass through rates for UAL for FY'26. Our new PT is $134 vs. $147 previously.

• AAL: AAL has higher fuel sensitivity than DAL/UAL. As such, the decline AAL sees a greater decline in FY'26 estimates (now at $0.43 vs. $2.21 previously). Our FY'27 EPS falls to $2.13, down from $2.99. This drives a moderation in our PT to $15 from $21.

• LUV: We lower our PT to $59 from $73, which is 11x (was 12x) our new FY'27 EPS estimate of $5.33 (was $6.07). Our FY'26 EPS moves lower to $3.59 (was $5.05).

• ALK: We lower our PT to $60 from $77 based on 8x (was 9x) our new FY'27 EPS estimate of $7.48 (was $8.60). ALK also has high fuel sensitivity to EPS. As such, our FY'26 estimates move meaningfully lower to $2.19 from $5.21.

• We lower lower price targets and estimates for JBLU, ULCC, ALGT, and AC. Full details in figure 1.

• Sensitivity to higher fuel: We estimate that every $0.25/gallon increase in jet fuel would lower DAL's EPS by around -15 to -17% and 20-25% for UAL/LUV (assuming no pass through in the form of higher fares). Fuel sensitivity is higher for AAL/ALK and smaller players. We calculate that for every $0.25/gallon increase in fuel RASM would need to increase by 200-250 bps to fully offset the fuel drag (see fig. 2).

Earlier, US airlines reported strong bookings, with Delta and American both posting some of their best sales days in history as premium leisure and corporate travelers rushed to lock in fares before fuel-driven price increases spread further.

Airlines also pointed to rising fuel costs, with Delta indicating that expenses have already climbed by about $400 million this month. JetBlue said first-quarter demand improved, but warned of reduced capacity amid fuel price shock.

Professional subscribers can read much more from the UBS note here at our new Marketdesk.ai portal.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/17/2026 - 12:45