(Morgan Sweeney, The Center Square) Boeing is partnering with the Department of War to triple its production of seekers for Patriot missiles, according to a joint announcement Wednesday.
The U.S. has been working toward building up its supply of Patriot missiles for years, but the Trump administration announced earlier this year the specific goal of more than tripling the department’s annual production from roughly 600 missiles per year to 2,000. Each missile costs at least $4 million to build, according to a 2025 briefing from the Congressional Research Service.
Lockheed Martin will build the missiles themselves, while Boeing will make the seekers that enable the missiles to identify and track their targets. Both companies started accelerating production in 2024.
Patriot defense systems are “the U.S. Army’s most advanced air defense system” and an “integral component” of both U.S. air and missile defense, capable of intercepting both aircraft and missiles. But there have been reports of waning stockpiles.
President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to quash rumors of diminishing munitions just days into Operation Epic Fury, saying that U.S. “medium and upper medium grade” munitions stockpiles have “never been higher or better.”
“We have a virtually unlimited supply of these weapons. Wars can be fought ‘forever,’ and very successfully, using just these supplies,” Trump wrote.
However, he did note that he would like to see the supply of high-grade weaponry enhanced.
“At the highest end, we have a good supply, but are not where we want to be,” he said, which he claimed was in part due to former President Joe Biden being too generous with it and not “[bothering] to replace it.”
Patriot missiles are among the most advanced, sophisticated weapons systems in modern day warfare.
A few days later, Trump again posted to social media describing a meeting with major U.S. defense manufacturing companies saying they had agreed to quadrupling their production of “‘exquisite class’ weaponry.”
As part of its announcement, the government touted its new Acquisition Transformation Strategy, which it has used to create seven-year frameworks for its agreements with Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
“We will award companies bigger, longer contracts for proven systems so those companies will be confident in investing more to grow the industrial base that supplies our weapons systems more and faster,” Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said in a November speech.
Even though the strategy prioritizes “engaging directly with key suppliers at all levels of the industrial base,” the department says it still reduces “upfront government facilitization and capacity investments.”
(Tate Miller, The Center Square) The Trump administration’s decision to send tax dollars to the abortion industry by continuing former President Joe Biden’s Title X grant awards to Planned Parenthood has encountered pushback from the pro-life crowd, who state that taxpayers should not be made to fund the termination of unborn children.
President of pro-life organization Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America Marjorie Dannenfelser told The Center Square that “the Trump-Vance administration must correct course by at a bare minimum reinstating the Protect Life Rule.”
Dannenfelser said the Protect Life Rule is “a proven policy from the first Trump administration that barred Title X funds from organizations performing abortions.”
“It is unacceptable that the process still hasn’t even begun fourteen months into the term,” Dannenfelser said.
“Taxpayer dollars should never fund Planned Parenthood because its primary business is ending the lives of innocent unborn children through hundreds of thousands of abortions each year,” Dannenfelser said.
Dannenfelser said the Trump administration’s decision “comes on the heels of the administration undermining GOP states by allowing the shipping of abortion drugs into their borders, violating their laws.”
“It has even gone so far as to side with the abortion industry against red states in cases brought by GOP attorneys general,” Dannenfelser said.
“And it comes after the president suggesting the GOP should be ‘flexible’ on the Hyde Amendment,” Dannenfelser said, adding that “this spells disaster for November.”
“Three out of four GOP primary voters support defunding Planned Parenthood, with one-third saying they would be less enthusiastic about voting if Republican leaders abandon pro-life principles,” Dannenfelser said. “This is not a fringe view, but a core demand from the party’s base.”
Dannenfelser told The Center Square that “SBA Pro-Life America’s field team is on the ground daily in battleground states motivating voters who are most likely to stay home if they feel betrayed,” and that action to continue funding Planned Parenthood “undermines that critical work.”
“The pro-life movement helped deliver the election victory, and the administration has both the mandate and the tools to deliver its commitments,” Dannenfelser said. “Enough is enough.”
As SBA Pro-Life America stated in a news release, the Trump-Vance administration “decided not to cancel Biden’s Title X grant awards to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion business.”
“After initially pausing funds that were awarded under President Biden, the administration unfroze the grants in January and will now extend them one more year,” SBA said.
SBA has expressed disappointment in some of the president’s recent abortion stances.
For instance, at the beginning of 2026, Trump said Republicans may have to be “flexible” on the Hyde Amendment, The Center Square reported – the Hyde Amendment being a rule which protects unborn lives and prevents taxpayers from being forced to fund abortions.
That includes 54 million lethal fentanyl pills worth more than $500 million.
Newsom’s office said the fentanyl was taken before it reached California communities.
“While others chase headlines and deploy troops for political theater, California is doing the real work, stopping drugs at the border, saving lives and holding traffickers accountable,” the Democratic governor said in his announcement.
Since 2021, the California National Guard has supported efforts at ports of entry. This is part of a $30 million state investment proposed by the governor and enacted in the state budget.
California Military Department Major General Matthew P. Beevers said service members live and work in the same communities they serve.
“Whether that’s helping disrupt drug trafficking or standing shoulder to shoulder with firefighters on the front lines, it’s about putting the right people in the right place to protect Californians,” said Beevers in a press release.
But state Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Huntington Beach, told The Center Square that seizing 54 million fentanyl pills isn’t a victory. Strickland called it a warning sign of how much poison is still reaching our communities
“Californians don’t feel safe because fentanyl is fueling crime and addiction,” Strickland said Wednesday. “Too often, the bad actors selling this poison to our children just get a slap on the wrist.”
While the governor points to seizures, Strickland said “weaker enforcement and lenient public safety policies” allow the problem to continue on California’s streets.
“We need real public safety leadership that backs law enforcement and holds dealers accountable,” said Strickland.
Strickland was the only Republican lawmaker to respond to The Center Square’s requests for comment.
Newsom has said that he will consider running for president in 2028. Newsom’s second term as governor ends in January 2027.
(Sarah Roderick-Fitch, The Center Square) Just over a month after Operation Epic Fury began, President Donald Trump Wednesday proclaimed U.S. strikes on Iran are nearing completion, while telling allies to step up defense of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil and gas passageway.
During a nearly 20-minute address from the White House Wednesday night, the president outlined the accomplishments of the military strikes, while sending a swift warning to the Iranian regime.
“I’m pleased to say that these core strategic objectives are nearing completion…We are going to finish the job. And we’re going to finish it very fast,” the president said.
“Our armed forces have delivered swift, decisive, overwhelming victories on the battlefield,” said the president.
“I can say tonight that we are on track to complete all of America’s military objectives shortly, very shortly, we’re going to hit them extremely hard over the next two or three weeks, we’re going to bring them back to the stone ages, where they belong,” Trump said.
The president claims the Iranian’s Navy, Air Force and leadership have been decimated.
Trump highlighted his core objective of the mission, which includes eliminating Iran’s ability to produce and build nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and supporting proxies in the region.
The president spotlighted concerns over Iran’s ballistic missile capabilities, which were demonstrated when the Islamic Republic attempted to strike Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, exceeding prior beliefs of their long-range missile capabilities.
“They had some weapons that nobody believed they had. We just learned that we took them out,” said Trump. “We are systematically dismantling the regime’s ability to threaten America or project power outside their border.”
The president addressed concerns over the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its impact on the global oil trade, assuring American taxpayers of the nation’s energy independence, though gas prices topped $4 a gallon in states across the nation.
Trump proclaimed that the U.S. is completely independent of oil from the Middle East, but “we are there to help. We don’t have to be there. We don’t need their oil.” He reiterated his commitment to helping allies in the region.
He attempted to reassure Americans that the high prices at the gas pump will be short-lived as the conflict wraps up.
“This is a short-term increase and has been entirely the result of the Iranian regime launching to raise terror attacks against commercial oil tankers and neighboring counties that have nothing to do with the conflict,” said the president.
The president said the U.S. imports “almost no oil through the straight.”
Trump stressed his attempts at diplomacy with Iran in striking a deal to cease the production of nuclear and ballistic missiles.
Trump called out allies depending on oil from the Strait to step up and take back the Strait of Hormuz.
“I have a suggestion. Number one, buy oil from the United States of America. We have plenty. We have so much. And number two, build up some delayed courage,” said the president.
Trump left the door open for diplomacy with the Islamic Republic, describing the new regime as “less radical and much more reasonable.”
However, he warned them that if a deal isn’t made “during this period of time,” the U.S. will hit key targets, including energy infrastructure and oil.
(Headline USA) Stocks are dropping and oil prices are soaring after President Donald Trump vowed the U.S. will continue to attack Iran and failed to offer a clear timetable for ending the conflict in the Middle East. The S&P 500 fell 1.2% and the Dow sank 600 points and the Nasdaq dropped 1.7%.
The price of U.S. crude oil jumped more than 10% to above $110. Trump did not mention a looming deadline he set for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz, the critical waterway for global oil and gas transport.
Thursday is the last day of trading on Wall Street this week with with the stock market closed on Good Friday.
Oil rose more than 10% and U.S. futures tumbled Thursday after President Donald Trump said in his first national address since the Iran war began that the United States will escalate its campaign in the coming weeks.
Futures for the S&P 500 tumbled 1.5% before the opening bell, while futures for the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 1.4%. Nasdaq futures slid 2%.
Thursday is the last day of trading this week due to the Good Friday holiday. Markets have not posted a weekly gain since the war began in late February.
A spokesman for Iran’s military insisted Thursday that Tehran maintains hidden stockpiles of arms, munitions and production facilities.
“The centers you think you have targeted are insignificant, and our strategic military productions take place in locations of which you have no knowledge and will never reach,” Lt. Col. Ebrahim Zolfaghari claimed.
Just before Trump began his address — in which he said U.S. “core strategic objectives are nearing completion” — explosions were heard in Dubai as air defenses worked to intercept an Iranian missile barrage.
Trump did not mention a looming deadline he set for Iran to open the Strait of Hormuz, the critical waterway for global oil and gas transport, after he threatened Iran earlier with U.S. attacks on its energy infrastructure if the strait was not reopened. He did not offer a clear path to end the supply disruptions that have sent energy prices soaring.
Oil prices shot sharply higher following Trump’s remarks. The price U.S. crude on Thursday actually shot higher than the type of crude that has been bottled up by the near closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Benchmark U.S. crude rose $10.11 to $110.24 a barrel outpacing Brent, the international benchmark. Brent jumped more than 8% to $109.38.
“The market has shown disappointment because the speech President Trump made was far less than what the market expected,” said Takashi Hiroki, chief strategist at Monex in Tokyo. “There were no concrete details about the end of the hostilities with Iran.”
“What the market wants is a clear outline for the ceasefire,” he said.
In overnight equities trading, General Motors slid more than 2% after the automaker reported a nearly 10% decline in first quarter sales. That dragged most automakers lower early Thursday as several others prepare to post their latest results.
At midday in Europe, Britain’s FTSE 100 was down 0.6%, France’s CAC 40 fell 1.3%, and Germany’s DAX lost 2.4%.
Asian shares closed lower. Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 was down 2.4% to 52,463.27 on Thursday. South Korea’s Kospi lost 4.5% to 5,234.05, also after government data showed consumer prices in March rose 2.2% from a year earlier on soaring fuel costs.
Hong Kong’s Hang Seng fell 0.7% to 25,116.53, the Shanghai Composite index was down 0.7% to 3,919.29.
(Headline USA) Four astronauts embarked on a high-stakes flight around the moon Wednesday, humanity’s first lunar voyage in more than half a century and the thrilling leadoff in NASA’s push toward a landing in two years.
Carrying three Americans and one Canadian, the 32-story rocket rose from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center where tens of thousands gathered to witness the dawn of this new era. Crowds also jammed the surrounding roads and beaches, reminiscent of the Apollo moonshots in the 1960s and ’70s. It is NASA’s biggest step yet toward establishing a permanent lunar presence.
“On this historic mission, you take with you the heart of this Artemis team, the daring spirit of the American people and our partners across the globe, and the hopes and dreams of a new generation,” launch director Charlie Blackwell-Thompson told the crew right before liftoff. “Good luck, Godspeed Artemis II. Let’s go.”
Artemis II set sail from the same Florida launch site that sent Apollo’s explorers to the moon so long ago. The handful still alive cheered this next generation’s grand adventure as the Space Launch System rocket thundered into the early evening sky, a nearly full moon beckoning some 248,000 miles (400,000 kilometers) away.
Five minutes into the flight, Commander Reid Wiseman saw the team’s target: “We have a beautiful moonrise, we’re headed right at it,” he said from the capsule. On board with him are pilot Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Canada’s Jeremy Hansen. It is the most diverse lunar crew ever with the first woman, person of color and non-U. S. citizen riding in NASA’s new Orion capsule.
“NASA is back in the business of sending astronauts to the moon,” NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman told reporters following liftoff, calling the half-century hiatus a brief intermission.
Tensions were high earlier in the day as hydrogen fuel started flowing into the rocket. Dangerous hydrogen leaks erupted during a countdown test earlier this year, forcing a lengthy flight delay.
To NASA’s relief, no significant hydrogen leaks occurred. The launch team loaded more than 700,000 gallons of fuel (2.6 million liters) into the 32-story Space Launch System rocket on the pad, a smooth operation that set the stage for the Artemis II crew to board.
Then NASA had to overcome a flurry of last-minute technical issues — bad battery sensors and an inability to get commands through to the rocket’s flight termination system. In both cases, the issues were quickly resolved, allowing the launch to proceed.
The astronauts will stick close to home for the first 25 hours of their 10-day test flight, checking out the capsule in orbit around Earth before firing the main engine that will propel them to the moon.
They won’t pause for a stopover or orbit the moon like Apollo 8’s first lunar visitors did so famously on Christmas Eve 1968, reading from Genesis. But they stand to become the most distant humans ever when their capsule zooms past the moon and continues another 4,000 miles (6,400 kilometers) beyond, before making a U-turn and tearing straight home to a splashdown in the Pacific.
Once settled in a high orbit around Earth, the astronauts assumed manual control and practiced steering their capsule around the rocket’s detached upper stage, venturing as close as 33 feet (10 meters). NASA wants to know how Orion handles in case the self-flying feature fails and the pilots need to take control.
During Monday’s lunar flyby, the moon will appear to be the size of a basketball held at arm’s length. The astronauts will take turns peering through Orion’s windows with cameras. If the lighting is right, they should see features never before viewed through human eyes. They’ll also catch snippets of a total solar eclipse, donning eclipse glasses as the moon briefly blocks the sun from their perspective and the corona is revealed.
All of NASA’s moon plans — a surge in launches over the next several years leading to a sustainable moon base for astronauts assisted by robotic rovers and drones — hinge on Artemis II going well.
It’s been more than three years since Artemis I, the only other time NASA’s SLS rocket and Orion capsule have soared. With no one aboard, the Artemis I capsule lacked life-support equipment and other crew essentials like a water dispenser and toilet.
These systems are now making their space debut on Artemis II, ratcheting up the risk. That’s why NASA is waiting a full day before committing Wiseman and his crew to a four-day trip to the moon and four-day journey back.
The capsule’s toilet is already acting up. Koch informed Mission Control that it shut down seconds after she activated it. Mission Control advised her to to use a handheld bag-and-funnel system for now — CCU, short for Collapsible Contingency Urinal — while engineers pondered how to deal with the so-called lunar loo.
“There’s always been a lot riding on this mission,” NASA’s Lori Glaze said ahead of launch. But the teams are even more “energized” now that the space agency is finally accelerating the lunar launch pace and laser-focusing on surface operations — seismic changes recently announced by Isaacman.
With half the world’s population not yet born when NASA’s 12 moonwalkers left their boot prints in the gray lunar dust, Artemis offers a fresh beginning, NASA’s science mission chief Nicky Fox said earlier this week.
“There are a lot of people who don’t remember Apollo. There are generations who weren’t alive when Apollo launched. This is their Apollo,” said Fox, who was 4 when Apollo 17 closed out the era.
NASA is in it for the long haul this time. Unlike Apollo, which focused on fast flags and footprints in a breakneck race against the Soviet Union, Artemis is striving for a sustainable moon base elaborate enough to satisfy even the most hard-core science fiction fans. But make no mistake: Isaacman and the Trump Administration want the next boot prints to be made by Americans, not the Chinese.
Until Isaacman’s program makeover, Artemis III was crawling toward a moon landing no sooner than 2029. The billionaire spacewalker slid in a new Artemis III for 2027 so astronauts could practice docking their Orion capsule with a lunar lander in orbit around Earth. Astronauts’ momentous landing near the moon’s south pole shifted to Artemis IV in 2028 — two years before an anticipated Chinese crew’s arrival.
Like Apollo 13 — astronauts’ only moon landing miss — Artemis II will use a free-return, lunar flyby trajectory to get home with gravity’s tug and a minimum of gas. The gravity of both the moon and Earth will provide much if not most of the oomph to keep Orion on its out-and-back, figure-eight loop.
The danger is right up there for Artemis II. NASA has refused to release its risk assessment for the mission. Managers contend it’s better than 50-50 — the usual odds for a new rocket — but how much more is murky.
The SLS rocket leaked flammable hydrogen fuel during ground tests, a recurring problem that engineers still do not completely understand. The hydrogen leaks and unrelated helium blockages stalled the flight for two months, coming on top of years of vexing delays and cost overruns. Both problems also thwarted Artemis I, whose capsule returned with excessive heat shield damage. To NASA’s relief, Wednesday’s countdown was leak-free.
Beating the Soviet Union to the moon made the huge risks acceptable for Apollo, said Charlie Duke, one of only four surviving moonwalkers.
“I’m cheering you on,” Duke said in a note to Wiseman and his crew before their flight.
During a weekend news conference, Koch stressed how humanity’s path to Mars goes through the moon, the proving ground for points beyond.
“It is our strong hope that this mission is the start of an era where everyone, every person on Earth, can look at the moon and think of it as also a destination,” she said.
Added Glover: “It’s the story of humanity. Not Black history, not women’s history, but that it becomes human history.”
(Money Metals News Service) In this episode of the Money Metals Midweek Memo, host Mike Maharrey opens with a stark thought experiment. He asks listeners whether they would lend money to a head of household earning $52,446 a year, spending $73,378, running a $20,932 annual deficit, and sitting on $1,361,788 in liabilities and unfunded promises against just $60,554 in assets.
He then reveals that these figures are not about a household at all. They are the 2025 consolidated U.S. government financial statements, divided by 100 million to make them comparable to a family budget.
Maharrey says the comparison makes the federal government’s fiscal condition impossible to miss. In his telling, Uncle Sam is financially broken, and the only reason many people fail to see it is that the numbers are usually presented on such an enormous scale that they lose emotional impact.
The U.S. Government Is Insolvent by the Numbers
Maharrey argues that the United States government is insolvent based on a plain reading of the Treasury Department’s fiscal year 2025 consolidated financial statements. He says the federal government ended the year with $6.06 trillion in total assets and $47.78 trillion in total liabilities.
That leaves the government with $7.90 in liabilities for every $1 in assets. Maharrey says that if the U.S. government were a private business, it would already be in bankruptcy court.
He notes that Forbes was one of the few mainstream outlets to meaningfully cover the report. According to Maharrey’s recap of the coverage, the government’s financial position deteriorated by $2.07 trillion in fiscal 2025, pushing the federal balance sheet to a negative $41.72 trillion.
He points to a $2 trillion increase in the national debt, interest expense payable of $30.33 trillion, and $438.8 billion in federal employee and veteran benefits payable as major drivers of the deterioration. He also stresses that these figures do not even include the unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare.
Why the Debt Crisis Keeps Getting Ignored
Maharrey pushes back against the claim that America’s fiscal reckoning is becoming impossible to ignore. His view is that it remains very easy for Washington, the financial media, and much of the public to ignore it.
He says the Treasury released this alarming data “to the sound of crickets.” Aside from a few predictable critics such as Senator Rand Paul and Representative Thomas Massie, he argues that few in Congress seriously engage with the issue.
Maharrey also rejects the idea that because warnings about the debt have circulated for decades without immediate collapse, the danger must be overstated. He recalls the balanced-budget politics of the 1990s, during the Newt Gingrich era and the Contract with America, when the national debt ranged between $4.5 trillion and $5 trillion.
Today, he says, the debt stands at $39 trillion and is on track to hit $40 trillion before the end of the year. In his view, that historical comparison shows that the problem has not stabilized. It has exploded.
Revenues Are Up, but Spending Keeps Rising
Maharrey argues that the core problem is not insufficient tax revenue. It is runaway spending.
He dismisses the idea that taxing the rich could solve the crisis, saying that even confiscating all billionaire wealth in the United States would only fund the federal government for about six weeks. He also notes that federal revenues have risen, boosted in part by tariffs, and says revenues are up by roughly 10% so far in fiscal 2026.
But that has not changed the trajectory. Through the first five months of fiscal 2026, Uncle Sam spent $3.1 trillion, a 2% increase over the same period in fiscal 2025.
Maharrey acknowledges that there have been some spending cuts, including reductions at the EPA and Department of Education, and that lower disaster spending helped moderate the numbers. But he says the larger trend remains unmistakable.
The federal government spent just over $7 trillion last year. That works out to an average of $583.3 billion per month and $19.2 billion per day. He adds that the outbreak of war is likely to push spending even higher, with some estimates running into the $200 billion range.
The Household Analogy Has Limits, but the Problem Is Real
Maharrey addresses the common objection that a government cannot be compared to a household because the United States can borrow endlessly, print money, and issue the world’s reserve currency.
He concedes that the analogy is imperfect. A sovereign government is different from a family or a private company.
But he says critics often use that distinction not to add nuance, but to wave away a real and growing danger. In his view, a government carrying nearly $40 trillion in debt is facing a serious problem, whether or not it has unique monetary powers.
He also argues that the debt is already harming the economy. Citing research suggesting that debt above 90% of GDP begins to drag on growth, he points out that the U.S. is now around 120% of GDP and climbing. He concludes that the economy would be larger and Americans would be wealthier if the government were not absorbing so many resources through borrowing and spending.
Why Maharrey Thinks the Fed Will Cut Rates
One of Maharrey’s key arguments is that the debt burden is shaping monetary policy in ways many analysts ignore.
He says the mainstream narrative holds that war-driven oil prices and higher CPI should keep the Federal Reserve hawkish, with higher rates for longer. In that framework, gold is supposed to suffer.
Maharrey disagrees. He says the “debt black hole” makes it impossible for a debt-ridden bubble economy to function in even a normal rate environment for very long.
If the economy weakens materially, he believes the Fed will choose rescue over inflation-fighting, just as it did in 2008, during the pandemic, and even after the 2018 stock market correction. In each case, he argues, policymakers responded with easier money.
He also says the U.S. is already engaged in monetary expansion. He points listeners to his recent article on the “real inflation rate” and money supply, arguing that quantitative easing and lower rates remain inherently inflationary because they expand money and credit.
Interest Expense Has Become a Monster
Maharrey highlights interest in the national debt as one of the clearest signs that the system is reaching dangerous territory.
Interest expense cost the federal government $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2025. That was up 7.3% from 2024.
He says interest is now the second-largest federal spending category, trailing only Social Security. According to Maharrey, the government now spends more on interest payments than it does on national defense or Medicare.
That, he argues, is one reason the Fed will eventually be pressured to cut rates even if inflation remains elevated. If rates stay too high for too long, he believes debt service costs will squeeze the economy even harder.
De-dollarization and Weak Treasury Demand Add Another Layer of Risk
Maharrey then turns to the question of who will keep funding the U.S. government’s deficits.
He says around 40% of the national debt is held by foreigners, which means Washington depends heavily on overseas appetite for Treasury securities. In his view, America’s fiscal irresponsibility is one factor driving De-dollarization and what he calls the “debasement trade.”
He points to declining Treasury demand and rising yields as warning signs. In past crises, investors often fled to Treasuries as a safe haven. Maharrey says that logic is breaking down because lending to a government that is nearly $40 trillion in debt no longer looks obviously safe.
He also rejects the claim that the debt does not matter because “we owe it to ourselves.” Yes, many Americans and U.S. institutions hold Treasuries, he says, but that does not erase the burden. In his view, the government is not the same thing as the people, and saying otherwise only masks the problem.
Maharrey’s Critique of Modern Monetary Theory
Maharrey takes aim at Modern Monetary Theory, or MMT, which he characterizes as a sophisticated justification for endless money creation.
Drawing on his accounting background, he says MMT relies on accounting tautologies and presentation tricks that can make financial statements look healthier than they really are. He argues that the theory sounds plausible in part because it dresses up inflationary money creation in technical language.
But the practical reality, in his telling, is simpler. Yes, the government can print money. No, that does not mean there is no cost.
The cost is currency debasement. And that cost, Maharrey says, falls on ordinary people whose dollars lose purchasing power over time.
Inflation, Reserve Currency Status, and the Fragility of the Dollar
Maharrey emphasizes that inflation should be understood not merely as higher prices, but as an increase in the supply of money and credit.
From that perspective, he says rate cuts and quantitative easing are inflationary by definition. They create more money, encourage more borrowing, and gradually undermine the dollar.
He argues that America has been able to sustain this system in part because the world still wants dollars. The petrodollar system, global trade flows, and foreign reserve demand have all helped prop it up.
But he warns that the dollar does not need to lose reserve currency status outright for the U.S. to face severe consequences. Even modest De-dollarization could send excess dollars back into the domestic economy, creating a dollar glut and intensifying inflationary pressure.
Worst case, he says, any fiat currency can ultimately collapse. He stops short of predicting imminent hyperinflation, but insists that such an outcome is not impossible for the United States.
Save in Real Money, Not in a Failing Currency
Maharrey closes the fiscal section with a familiar Money Metals message. The solution, in his view, is to save in real money.
He says the dollar is being systematically debased and that even a 2% annual erosion in purchasing power is part of the plan. Over time, that becomes a serious hit to savers.
That is why he again urges listeners to own gold and silver. Whether the dollar fails suddenly or declines through “a million little disinvestments,” Maharrey says the long-term direction is clear.
Silver Special and the Bullish Case for the Metal
As part of the show’s product spotlight, Maharrey highlights random 1-ounce government-minted silver coins available through Money Metals.
He says the coins are either .999 or .9999 fine silver and were being offered for as low as $4.99 over spot per ounce, or $5.99 over spot for orders under 10 ounces.
Maharrey also makes a bullish case for silver’s upside. He says silver has recently traded in the high $60s to low $70s and notes that it has previously reached as high as $120.
His fundamental argument is that the silver market remains tight. He points to consecutive years of deficits in which mine supply has failed to meet demand, and says that dynamic has not changed. In his view, there is still significant upside potential for both silver and gold, especially after the current war-related volatility passes.
How Much Gold Exists in the World
In the second major topic of the episode, Maharrey explores global gold supply and scarcity.
He cites Metals Focus estimates showing that 219,890 tons of gold currently exist above ground. Because gold is rarely destroyed, that figure effectively represents almost all the gold mined throughout human history.
He says that may sound like a lot, but the physical reality is surprisingly modest. Melted into a single cube, all of the world’s gold would measure just 22 meters, or about 73 feet, on each side.
He offers another visual comparison: all the gold ever mined would fit into roughly four and a half Olympic-sized swimming pools.
Gold Reserves, Mine Output, and Recycling
Maharrey says Metals Focus estimates there are 54,770 tons of economically mineable gold reserves underground. The U.S. Geological Survey offers a somewhat higher estimate of 64,000 tons.
In addition, Metals Focus estimates another 77,340 tons of known gold deposits exist that are not currently economical to extract.
He notes that the World Gold Council has observed that below-ground reserve estimates have remained relatively stable for decades, even as gold continues to be mined. In practice, that suggests new discoveries have broadly kept pace with depletion.
Global mine output set a record last year at 3,672 tons, up 1% from the prior year. Maharrey says gold production has generally ranged between just above 2,500 tons and 3,500 tons annually, with output declining from 2001 to 2008, rebounding in 2009, and largely plateauing over the last decade.
He then places that production in demand context. Gold demand set a record of just over 5,000 tons in 2025.
Mining was not the only source of supply. Recycling added another 1,144.3 tons in 2025, bringing the total supply to just over 5,000 tons and effectively balancing the market.
Peak Gold Is Possible, but Not Imminent
Maharrey discusses the idea of “peak gold,” the point at which mine production would hit a maximum and then begin to decline year after year.
He says the theory makes intuitive sense because as easier deposits are depleted, remaining gold is harder and more expensive to extract. Still, he cautions against overly dramatic claims.
Some analysts say there are only 15 years of reserves left at the current production rate. Maharrey says that is technically true in a narrow sense, but misleading because it does not account for continued discoveries or future technological advances that can turn currently uneconomic deposits into viable mines.
His bottom line is that gold supply is relatively stable for now and is meeting demand. While easily mined gold is becoming scarcer, he says new exploration methods, better geological modeling, deeper underground mining, and higher prices can all extend the usable supply base.
Why Gold’s Scarcity Still Matters
Maharrey says the long-term outlook from the World Gold Council is not for a sudden collapse in production, but for a plateau shaped by difficult project economics, permitting delays, geopolitical instability, rising capital costs, and financing challenges in remote regions.
And that matters because demand could rise sharply. Maharrey notes that more mainstream investors are beginning to take precious metals more seriously. He references a Morgan Stanley CIO suggestion that investors consider moving away from the traditional 60/40 portfolio and toward a 60/20/20 mix with 20% in precious metals.
He says that if investors begin taking even a small version of that idea seriously, demand could rise substantially. Right now, many portfolios have no precious metals exposure at all, and even 1% to 2% is considered high by many conventional standards.
A meaningful shift in allocation, he argues, would place major upward pressure on a market where supply cannot quickly respond.
Final Takeaway
Maharrey’s central message in this episode is straightforward. America’s fiscal condition is deteriorating rapidly, the debt burden is already distorting monetary policy and economic performance, and the long-term answer is not more financial engineering or more faith in fiat money.
He argues that the numbers from the 2025 Treasury statements are ugly, the political class remains unserious, and the world’s willingness to finance U.S. deficits cannot be taken for granted forever.
Against that backdrop, he presents gold and silver as real money, scarce assets, and long-term protection against a dollar that is steadily losing value. He closes by telling listeners that with gold still below $5,000 an ounce and silver fundamentals still tight, this remains a buying opportunity.
Conclusion
This Money Metals Midweek Memo episode blends fiscal alarm, monetary criticism, and a supply-side look at precious metals into one consistent thesis. Maharrey says the U.S. government’s balance sheet would be catastrophic by any ordinary standard, and he believes the system is being held together only by continued borrowing, money creation, and public complacency.
At the same time, he reminds listeners that gold remains genuinely scarce. Only 219,890 tons exist above ground, annual mine output was 3,672 tons last year, and total 2025 gold demand topped 5,000 tons. Silver, meanwhile, continues to face structural deficits.
For Maharrey, those facts point in one direction. As debt rises, rates become politically constrained, and the dollar continues to be debased, gold and silver remain essential tools for preserving purchasing power over the long run.
(Luis Cornelio, Headline USA) Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has once againdrawn ridicule across social media after one of her analogies defending birthright citizenship went viral on Wednesday.
During arguments about the constitutionality of birthright citizenship, Jackson appeared to suggest that committing crimes on foreign soil inherently means pledging allegiance to that country.
She appeared to be arguing that foreign nationals are subject to a country’s jurisdiction while present there. However, her remarks were muddled and quickly gained viral attention on X.
“I was thinking, I, a U.S. citizen, am visiting Japan. And what it means is that if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me,” Jackson began. “It’s allegiance, meaning can they control you as a matter of law.”
She continued, “I can rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, under Japanese law, go and prosecute that person who had stolen it. So there’s this relationship, even though I’m just a temporary traveler, I’m just on vacation in Japan, I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense.”
Jackson then applied her analogy to foreign nationals in the U.S., adding, “Is that the right way to think about it? And if so, doesn’t that explain why both temporary residents and undocumented people would have that kind of allegiance just by virtue of being in the United States?”
KBJ: "If I steal a wallet in Japan, I am subject to Japanese laws…in a sense, it's allegiance." pic.twitter.com/AaQGsgW2IT
Jackson’s remarks were not entirely clear, though they appeared to touch on the broader legal debate over what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States under the 14th Amendment.
The Trump administration has argued that courts have misinterpreted that clause for decades, applying it too broadly to grant automatic citizenship to nearly anyone born on U.S. soil.
Ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment extended the rights and liberties guaranteed under the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved individuals in the U.S.
In 1898, the Court heard arguments in a case later interpreted to guarantee citizenship to individuals born in the U.S., unless they were children of diplomats.
Wednesday’s case, named Trump v. Barbara, followed an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Jan. 20 aimed at ending automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens.
The ACLU sued, triggering the case. The final ruling is expected later this year.
The murder case against Carlos de Juan Brown Jr., charged with killing Zarutska, gained national attention and sparked a broader conversation about soft-on-crime policies and whether he should have been behind bars given his prior offenses.
In Providence, Rhode Island, a large mural was painted to honor her life and legacy. However, Providence Mayor Brett Smiley and Rhode Island state Rep. David Morales want it removed.
“The murder of the individual depicted in this mural was a devastating tragedy, but the misguided, isolating intent of those funding murals like the one across the county is divisive and does not represent Providence,” Smiley said in a statement.
He claimed he continued to “encourage our community to support local artists whose work brings us closer together rather than divide us.”
Meanwhile, Morales told a reporter, “We can both agree that this mural behind us does not reflect Providence’s values nor does it reflect the creativity that we would want to see in our city.”
Rep. David Morales (D-RI) says the mural for Iryna Zarutska "does not reflect our values" pic.twitter.com/KL6lrDjl0I
It isn’t clear what Smiley and Morales meant by their statements. However, the artist behind the mural, Ian Gaudreau, said it was never meant to be political, saying via X that art has an “anti political agenda.”
“I wanted to humanize Iryna,” he added. “The blue shapes symbolize individual points of view, they’re almost strangling her and yet she shines through.”
In a separate post, Gaudreau continued: “I hope that this is what people will take away and put aside all of Put aside all of the political vitriol. Iryna Zarutska was a human being with a mother and father, who are still with us and still grieving.”
My painting of Iryna Zarutska that is being removed after the mayor has declared it divisive pic.twitter.com/Sr7m2UL4KI
Zarutska had fled Ukraine after the Russian invasion, seeking safety in the U.S., only to be murdered while sitting at a bus stop.
Headline USA exclusively obtained full footage of the stabbing, shedding new light on the brutal attack.
Carlos de Juan Brown Jr. now faces state first-degree murder charges, as well as a federal charge for committing a violent act against a mass transportation system.
(Kyle Anzalone, Antiwar.com) President Donald Trump has threatened to cut off arms sales to Ukraine if NATO members do not join his coalition to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. While Trump halted military aid to Ukraine, he has continued to sell weapons to NATO members, who transfer the arms to Kiev.
According to sources speaking with The Financial Times, Washington was unhappy with members of NATO after President Donald Trump called on European states to join his “coalition of the willing” to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, and no states signed on.
Tehran closed the Strait to most shipping after the US and Israel conducted a surprise attack on Iran.
The White House responded by threatening to halt weapon sales to Ukraine. After President Trump halted military aid to Ukraine, NATO established the PURL fund to buy American weapons for Ukraine. Ukraine has relied on Western military aid for its war with Russia.
As a result of Washington’s threats, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte persuaded several European leaders to sign a letter stating their intent to assist in reopening the Strait of Hormuz. However, the statement was symbolic as none of the signatories agreed to provide military assistance for the operation.
“It was Rutte who insisted on the joint statement because Trump had threatened to withdraw from Purl and from Ukraine in general,” an official told The Financial Times. “The statement was then quickly put together, and other countries joined in afterwards because there was not enough time to invite everyone to sign up straight away.”
In a call with European leaders, Rutte described Trump’s temperament as “rather hysterical.” It appears the letter was enough to appease Trump in the short-term, as Washington has not announced the end of arms sales to PURL.
However, the rift between Washington and NATO is growing. Trump, upset with Europe’s opposition to the war against Iran, told The Telegraph that he was considering pulling the US out of the alliance. Spain and other NATO states have barred US warplanes from using their airspace for operations against Iran.