(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.
(Kyle Anzalone, Antiwar.com) President Donald Trump said that the “new” President of Iran had accepted a ceasefire with the US. Tehran quickly denied Trump’s statement.
“Iran’s New Regime President, much less Radicalized and far more intelligent than his predecessors, has just asked the United States of America for a CEASEFIRE!” the President posted on his Trump Social account on Wednesday. “We will consider when Hormuz Strait is open, free, and clear. Until then, we are blasting Iran into oblivion or, as they say, back to the Stone Ages!!!”
The post is confusing as Iran does not have a new president, and Tehran says there are no ongoing talks with the US. Masoud Pezeshkian has served as President of Iran since his election in 2024.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry said Trump’s claim that Tehran agreed to a ceasefire is false. Additionally, Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei issued a statement explaining that Iran would continue to use its leverage over the Strait of Hormuz and was seeking new domains to expand the war.
Throughout the month-long conflict, Trump and other top US officials have repeatedly claimed that Tehran was attempting to broker an end to the conflict. Iranian officials have rebuked those statements and said that Tehran is uninterested in a truce or negotiations with Washington.
While the White House and Pentagon have told the American people that Iran’s military capabilities have been significantly degraded, Iranian forces continue to fire missiles and drones at US bases, Israel, and other US allies in the region.
According to data compiled by Anadolu, Iran has fired missiles and drones at a consistent rate since the war was started by a US and Israeli surprise attack on February 28. On Wednesday, Fox News chief foreign correspondent Trey Yingst said that Tel Aviv was experiencing a constant bombardment from Iranian missiles.
The aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush and other warships that are part of its strike group departed Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia on Tuesday and are expected to arrive in the Middle East in a few weeks. The US Navy said the strike group’s departure is part of a regularly scheduled deployment.
USS George H.W. Bush departs Naval Station Norfolk on March 31, 2026 (US Navy photo)
According to The Wall Street Journal, once the Bush arrives in the region, the US could have three carriers deployed for the Iran war for the foreseeable future, though Al Arabiya reported that the warship could replace one of the two carriers that have been involved in the conflict: the USS Abraham Lincoln, which has been operating in the Arabian Sea, or the USS Gerald Ford, which is currently in Croatia after being in Crete for repairs.
The Ford, which was operating in the Eastern Mediterranean near Israel, went to port after a major fire on the ship destroyed the beds of 100 crewmembers. The US military has insisted that the blaze was caused by a fire in the ship’s laundry room, though there are suspicions that an attack or sabotage was the real cause. The Ford has also been on an extended deployment and is set to break the record for the longest deployment since the Vietnam War.
In addition to sending a third aircraft carrier to the Middle East, the US has deployed thousands of Marines and US Army Airborne troops to the region as the Pentagon prepares for potential ground operations. Trump is insisting the war could be over in a few weeks, but escalating to a ground war would likely lead to a much longer conflict.
(Headline USA) Advocacy groups and experts condemned YouTube for serving up low-quality artificial intelligence-generated videos to its most vulnerable audience: children.
In a letter to YouTube CEO Neal Mohan and Sundar Pichai, the CEO of YouTube’s parent company Google, children’s advocacy group Fairplay expresses “serious concern” about the spread of AI-generated videos on both YouTube and YouTube Kids. The letter, which was sent on Wednesday morning, was signed by more than 200 organizations and individual experts such as child psychiatrists and educators.
“This ’ AI slop ’ harms children’s development by distorting their sense of reality, overwhelming their learning processes and hijacking their attention, thereby extending time online and displacing offline activities necessary for their healthy development,” the letter reads. “These harms are particularly acute for young children.” The letter calls on YouTube to clearly label all AI-generated content and ban any AI-generated content on YouTube Kids. They also propose barring AI-generated videos from being recommended to users under 18 and implementing an option for parents to turn off AI-generated content even if their child searches for it.
The letter is signed by 135 organizations including the American Federation of Teachers and the American Counseling Association, and around 100 individual experts like “The Anxious Generation” author Jonathan Haidt. The letter is part of a larger campaign from Fairplay that also includes a petition.
Much of this AI-generated content is fast-paced with bright colors, lively music and clickbait titles that work to grab the attention of young viewers, the letter outlines. There has been a growing movement online against AI-generated content, particularly when it looks or feels low quality or leans into the meaninglessness of “ brainrot.”
Spokesperson Boot Bullwinkle said in a statement that YouTube has “high standards for the content in YouTube Kids, including limiting AI-generated content in the app to a small set of high-quality channels.”
“We also provide parents the option to block channels. Across YouTube, we prioritize transparency when it comes to AI content, labeling content from our own AI tools, and requiring creators to disclose realistic AI content,” Bullwinkle said. “We’re always evolving our approach to stay current as the ecosystem evolves.”
YouTube’s current policy regarding AI-generated content requires creators to disclose when content that’s “realistic” is made with altered or synthetic media, including generative AI. Creators are not required to disclose when generative AI is used to create content that is clearly unrealistic, including animated videos and those with special effects.
YouTube said it is actively working on developing labels for YouTube Kids.
In its letter, Fairplay argues that voluntary disclosure policy and what it sees as an “extremely limited” definition of altered and synthetic content mean kids still see a flood of AI-generated videos that are not labeled as such. They also argue that many children who watch YouTube videos are not yet able to read or to comprehend something like an AI disclosure. That leaves children “to fend for themselves or their parents to play whack-a-mole,” the letter reads.
Fairplay’s campaign comes shortly after Google’s AI Futures Fund invested $1 million into Animaj, an AI animation studio that makes videos for kids and draws in staggeringly high viewership numbers, according to Bloomberg.
The campaign follows a landmark verdict in a social media addiction trial in which a California jury found that YouTube designed its platform to hook young users without concern for their well-being. Meta was also found liable on the same counts as YouTube in the same case.
“Pushing AI slop onto young children is just another testament to how YouTube and YouTube Kids are designed to maximize children’s time online — including babies. AI slop hypnotizes young children, making it hard for them to get off their screens and move onto essential activities like play, sleep and social interaction,” said Rachel Franz, the director of Fairplay’s Young Children Thrive Offline program, in a statement. “What’s more, YouTube’s algorithm makes it impossible for kids to avoid AI slop.”
Earlier this year, YouTube head Mohan listed out “managing AI slop” as one of the company’s priorities for 2026. In a January blog post, he wrote that the company was “actively building on our established systems that have been very successful in combatting spam and clickbait, and reducing the spread of low quality, repetitive content.”
(Emily Rodriguez & Brett Rowland, The Center Square) President Donald Trump made history Wednesday by attending oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court over his executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship, spotlighting a pivotal legal battle with far-reaching implications.
Trump has been urging the Supreme Court to rule in his favor on several key issues. After the court ruled against him on tariffs in February, the citizenship case moved to the forefront. During oral arguments, the president stayed for only part of the session, leaving the courtroom for the White House as an American Civil Liberties Union attorney presented the case against his order.
Trump, a second-term Republican, arrived in a secure convoy. Police blocked off access for non-Supreme Court personnel and redirected traffic, while photographers waited outside the area.
Around 9:40 a.m., police vehicles led Trump’s convoy to the Supreme Court, followed by several black vehicles, armored police vehicles, and an ambulance. Security was heightened as military personnel arrived and vehicles remained at the scene.
Trump left the court about 15 minutes after a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union presented the case against Trump’s executive order. On the drive back, tourists responded with gestures of support and opposition to the president. Trump arrived back at the White House at 11:30 a.m.
The birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara, challenges Trump’s first-day executive order denying birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. after Feb. 19, 2025, whose parents are either illegally in the country or are temporary residents. The central legal question is whether the president’s order violates or reinterprets the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of citizenship to those born in the United States.
The challenge centers on whether the executive order is consistent with the 14th Amendment, which conferred citizenship and voting rights to freed African Americans after the Civil War. Plaintiffs argue the order conflicts with what has been interpreted as a constitutional guarantee.
The 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The case could hinge on the meaning of five words: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
This case directly challenges the president’s authority to alter citizenship policy by executive order, and its outcome could reshape immigration policy, citizenship definitions, and broader U.S. policy.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide the case before the end of its term this summer.
(Stuart Englert, Money Metals News Service) Since it’s April 1st, it seems an appropriate time to look at the Top 10 reasons why it’s foolish to own gold and silver.
1) Despite persistently dire and gloomy headlines, all the world’s economic problems and financial woes, including excess currency creation, price inflation, and record indebtedness, have been solved—forever.
2) Acknowledging that charging exorbitant interest on loans is immoral, creditors and lenders around the globe plan to declare a debt jubilee, forgiving all government, corporate, household, and individual debts, totaling $348 trillion. Budgetary bliss and economic utopia will ensue, while financial exploitation and predatory lending will cease.
3) With their debts erased, financially reformed governments worldwide will halt deficit spending, incessant borrowing, and announce a decades-long income tax holiday, lifting the onerous burden on their citizens, who will stop dreading the financial future and wallow in their newfound wealth.
4) Since they’re so deadly, destructive, expensive to wage, and contribute greatly to budget deficits, world leaders will ban all wars and armed conflicts, as well as economic sanctions and trade restrictions. Free enterprise will rule, and the peace dividend will reign. Philanthropy and prudence will prevail over profligacy and war profiteering.
5) With debts forgiven, wars banned, and currency debasement curtailed, monetary inflation will be reduced to the point that the Federal Reserve and other central banks will embrace their irrelevancy. No longer needed to hike interest rates to deflate asset bubbles or combat rising prices, the parasitic institutions ultimately will be dismantled and mothballed.
6) With inflation slayed and across-the-board balanced budgets, fiat currencies will appreciate in value, prompting governments and central banks to unlock their vaults, relinquish their 37,000 tons of gold reserves, and donate the worthless bullion to architectural artists and historical museums, thereby abandoning thousands of years of monetary history.
7) Without depreciating currencies and monetary inflation, owning precious metals as financial assets, economic insurance, or personal savings will become pointless and passé. Gold and silver will become relics of the past as antiquated as dinosaur bones, film cameras, and telephone booths. Gold and silver coins will be repurposed as gaming tokens and poker chips. Bullion bars will be used as construction material, doorstops, and paperweights.
8) As part of the growing trend away from shiny rocks, women in India start collecting Barbie dolls and Beanie Babies for their enduring value rather than gold bangles, earrings, and necklaces.
9) With precious metals falling out of fashion, the anti-gold and silver craze catches on globally among the jewelry-wearing general public. Environmentally-conscious newlyweds in the United States, for example, begin exchanging wooden wedding bands and nose rings made from recycled plastic as symbols of their eternal love.
10) And finally, in addition to declining consumer demand for precious metals, space aliens have taught Chinese scientists how to transform abundant iron pyrite (known as fool’s gold) into gold, convert tin foil hats into silver, and turn scrap aluminum into palladium and platinum, purely for industrial applications, of course.
If you’re naïve enough to believe any of the forementioned nonsense on April Fools’ Day, or any other day for that matter, you’re probably foolish enough not to own gold and silver.
A veteran journalist, Stuart Englert is the author of Rigged: Exposing the Largest Financial Fraud in History, which documents precious metals market manipulation and price suppression. You can visit his Substack HERE.
