The little-known Democrat from Sullivan, Maine, surged past Gov. Janet Mills in fundraising and polling, eventually helping force the two-term governor out of the Senate race.

Then everything unraveled.

In July, a woman Platner previously dated accused him of sexual assault. Platner denied the allegation, calling the accusations against him false, but suspended his campaign shortly afterward.

“We believe for the movement to continue, it can’t be me,” he said while announcing his withdrawal.

[Now Republicans are dealing with their own candidate problem.

Ohio Rep. Max Miller is resisting pressure to abandon his reelection campaign amid allegations of domestic abuse from his ex-wife and former girlfriend.

Miller denies the allegations and has requested a House Ethics Committee investigation. The committee has obliged.]

But there’s another part of the Platner story worth mentioning.

Platner was an outspoken opponent of Maine’s rush toward massive data centers.

He backed efforts to halt new construction after communities including Sanford, Lewiston and Wiscasset pushed back against proposed projects.

Platner recognized something politicians across the country are now discovering…

Your Rundown for Friday, August 7, 2026...

The Copper Bull Outlives AI

People really don’t like data centers.

A March Gallup poll found 71% of Americans oppose building AI data centers in their communities. Nearly half strongly oppose them, period.

That brings us to Paradigm’s natural resource expert Matt Badiali.

“I think the data center buildout will fall far short of expectations,” he says.

Goldman Sachs analysts agree; they estimate only about 50–60% of U.S. data center capacity scheduled over the next two years will actually come online on time.

There are permitting problems, equipment shortages and increasingly hostile communities.

But the biggest obstacle may be electricity.

Projects can wait years just to connect to the grid. Meanwhile, the existing U.S. electrical system requires enormous investment of its own.

Which raises an important question for investors. If fewer data centers get built, what happens to the metals boom supposedly riding on their construction?

Matt recently asked exactly that question about copper. “Here’s the thing,” he says, “it’s still great.”

Data centers have become such a dominant investment narrative that it’s easy to mistake them for the entire copper story.

“You know I’m a copper bull,” Matt says. “It’s my favorite metal. It’s the key that unlocks the electricity we need for the future.

“EVs, renewable power, batteries, etc. are all incredibly copper intensive.

“Updating and expanding power grids all over the world, not just here in the U.S., requires billions of pounds of copper.”

That last point is especially important.

Even if America builds fewer data centers because the electrical grid can’t handle them, the grid itself still needs to be upgraded.

In other words, one of the biggest obstacles to the data center boom is itself a source of future copper demand.

Then there’s the other side of the equation: supply.

“We’re dealing with an aging fleet of mines that require more ore moved to produce the same amount of copper,” Matt says. “And there is currently a lack of new copper mines coming online.”

You can’t solve that problem overnight.

Finding a major copper deposit is only the first step. Developing it into a producing mine can take years of permitting, financing and construction.

Meanwhile, S&P Global estimates copper demand will climb roughly 50%, from about 28 million metric tons today to 42 million by 2040.

“We have not yet discovered enough mines to meet that demand,” says Matt, “let alone have them in the queue to build.”

Copper mining, in fact, is expected to peak at roughly 27 million metric tons in 2030.

That’s why he believes investors shouldn’t confuse a slowdown in data center construction with the end of the metals bull market.

“Make no mistake, data centers are not the only reason metal prices have soared,” Matt emphasizes.

Even without all that projected data-center demand, Matt expects a “structural deficit” in copper by the end of this decade.

That’s the investment story.

AI may be consuming the headlines — even the political ones — but copper demand runs much deeper than AI.

And while data center projects can be canceled, delayed or downsized, you can’t conjure a new copper mine into existence.

As Matt puts it: “Short of another massive global recession, sustained higher copper prices are inevitable.”

The data center boom could disappoint spectacularly. Copper doesn’t need it.

Market Rundown for Friday, August 7, 2026

S&P 500 futures are up 0.25% to 7,755.

Oil is down 0.85% to $76.60 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold is up almost 2% to $4,383.30 per ounce.

And Bitcoin’s up almost 1%, just under $65K.

The Pentagon has also used nearly half of its global inventory of Tomahawk cruise missiles.

Meanwhile, inside Iran, the economic damage mounts.

According to data published by the Statistical Center of Iran, the country's Misery Index — which combines the inflation rate and unemployment rate — has climbed to a record 91.1, the highest level ever recorded.

Those two emergencies tell different stories about the same conflict.

One side is consuming weapons faster than industry can replace them. The other is watching its economy buckle under the weight of war, inflation and unemployment.

Both carry consequences that extend well beyond the battlefield.

Send your opinions to, feedback@newsyoucanacton.com

Your Rundown for Wednesday, August 5, 2026...

The Factory Floor Offensive

After months of sustained operations across the Middle East, Reuters reports that U.S. stocks of long-range precision weapons have fallen to dangerously low levels.

These missiles are among America’s most valuable conventional weapons, designed to strike heavily defended targets from hundreds of miles away without putting pilots at risk.

Their depletion also underscores one of modern warfare’s biggest lessons.

Wars are no longer won simply by possessing advanced weapons. They’re won by maintaining the industrial capacity to keep producing them.

That lesson has repeated over the past several years, from Ukraine to the Red Sea to the Iran conflict. Precision-guided missiles, drones and interceptor systems are being consumed at rates few military planners anticipated.

President Trump downplayed concerns Tuesday, saying the U.S. has “far more munitions than anyone in the world” and that defense manufacturers are “making more munitions than they have ever made before,” while expanding production capacity at record levels.

Still, replenishing sophisticated missile inventories isn’t as simple as flipping a switch. Many require specialized propulsion systems, advanced electronics and complex supply chains that can take months — or years — to rebuild.

Iran faces a different kind of crisis.

The country’s economy is deteriorating at an astonishing pace.

• According to the Statistical Center of Iran, consumer prices were 82% higher this spring than they were a year earlier, while unemployment climbed to 9.1%, pushing the country’s Misery Index up nearly 17 points in just one quarter — and almost double the level recorded a year ago.

An economy under that kind of strain can become a strategic liability.

History shows governments fighting expensive wars often face growing domestic pressure as inflation erodes purchasing power and unemployment rises.

Whether that ultimately changes Tehran’s military calculus remains an open question, but the economic burden is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

The latest conflict is also accelerating broader changes in warfare.

Cheap drones continue forcing militaries to expend million-dollar interceptors. Electronic warfare is becoming just as important as firepower.

Artificial intelligence is helping drones navigate, identify targets and coordinate attacks with minimal human input. And industrial production — not battlefield tactics — is determining which countries can sustain a prolonged conflict.

For investors, that’s an important distinction.The next phase of the defense story may have less to do with battlefield victories than factory output.

Companies that manufacture missiles, propulsion systems, precision guidance electronics, rocket motors and counter-drone technologies could remain in focus as governments replenish depleted arsenals.

The race isn’t simply to build more weapons. It’s to rebuild the industrial base capable of producing them fast enough to be battle ready.

Market Rundown for Wednesday, August 5, 2026

S&P 500 futures are up 0.50% to 7,800.

Oil’s up 0.40% to $76.05 for a barrel of West Texas Intermediate.

Gold is up 2.85% to $4,271.40 per ounce.

And Bitcoin’s up 0.20% to $64,370.

One is about money.

The other is about trust.

According to Axios, Elon Musk is preparing to reactivate America PAC for an aggressive Republican turnout campaign targeting competitive House and Senate races across at least eight states.

The effort could exceed $100 million, making it one of the largest outside political operations of the 2026 midterm cycle. The super PAC plans to focus on the unglamorous mechanics that often decide close elections: door-to-door canvassing, digital advertising, direct mail and voter outreach.

It’s another sign that America’s wealthiest entrepreneurs increasingly see politics as an investment worth making.

Washington determines everything from tax rates and energy policy to defense spending, artificial intelligence regulation and antitrust enforcement. For companies operating in heavily regulated industries, elections can reshape the business environment almost overnight.

Whether Musk’s investment pays off is another question.

History isn’t especially kind to the party that controls the White House during midterm elections, and Republicans are already facing political headwinds.

Even GOP strategists have acknowledged the environment is difficult, with concerns about inflation, voter dissatisfaction and the traditional midterm backlash all working against them.

Still, campaigns aren’t won only by television ads or headline-grabbing speeches. They’re often won on the margins, through turnout.

Finding a few thousand additional voters in the right congressional district can determine who controls a House seat. Multiply that across several battleground states, and a well-funded turnout machine suddenly becomes far more consequential than another campaign commercial.

Money alone doesn’t guarantee victory. But it certainly buys opportunity.

Your Rundown for Monday, August 3, 2026...

The Confidence Gap

There’s another trend developing alongside the fundraising race, and it may prove even more important.

Americans are increasingly worried about the election itself.

A new Gallup survey conducted with the Charles F. Kettering Foundation found broad concern about election integrity heading into November.

Source: Charles F. Kettering Foundation and Gallup. Chart: Noah Bressner/Axios

Sixty-seven percent of respondents said they’re concerned about political leaders pressuring election officials to change election outcomes. Fifty-seven percent worry ballots won’t be handled or counted properly.

More than half fear voter intimidation near polling places, while 40% say they’re concerned about personally being confronted, followed or recorded while voting.

Perhaps the most striking finding is that these concerns cross party lines.

Republicans and Democrats disagree about many of the underlying causes. But both sides increasingly worry that the system itself is under strain.

Election officials can administer an accurate vote count, courts can resolve disputes and campaigns can spend hundreds of millions persuading voters. But if large portions of the public lose faith in the process, every close election becomes harder to accept.

That’s the backdrop heading into November.

On one side sits an unprecedented wave of political spending, with billionaires and outside groups preparing to pour enormous resources into key races.

On the other sits a country where many voters are already questioning whether they’ll trust the outcome, regardless of who wins.

The winners and losers won’t be determined until Election Day.

But the battle to shape both the electorate — and public confidence in it — is already well underway.

Market Rundown for Monday, August 3, 2026

S&P 500 futures are up 0.50% to 7,555.

Oil’s down 6.40% to $79.25 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold is up 0.25% to $4,117.40 per ounce.

And Bitcoin’s down 1.35% to $62,460.

The country’s major oil-producing regions, however, escaped serious damage. And Venezuela is producing more oil than it has in years.

As Paradigm’s Matt Badiali — trained geologist and former mining company executive — tells me this week: “Venezuela hit its highest oil production volume since 2019.

“In January 2026, the country produced about 820,000 barrels of oil per day. In June 2026, it stood at 1.23 million barrels per day.”

That’s a remarkable turnaround in just six months.

“The state-run oil company, PDVSA, now has a tailwind behind it,” Matt continues. “Without former president Maduro, it’s free to court foreign investment again.

“And with the war in the Middle East raging, the country looks like a better place for investing.”

That investment is already beginning to materialize.

Italian energy giant Eni is negotiating with PDVSA to develop the Junín 5 field in Venezuela’s Orinoco Oil Belt. This isn’t some marginal oil project.

The Orinoco Belt contains one of the world’s largest accumulations of heavy crude, and Eni believes Junín 5 alone could eventually add roughly 200,000 barrels of oil per day.

At first glance, that’s a classic comeback story. But there’s a catch.

Your Rundown for Friday, July 31, 2026...

This Comeback Has a Catch

For decades, Venezuela operated as an integrated oil producer. It pumped crude, refined much of it at home and exported petroleum products around the world.

Today, only the first part of that equation is coming back.

A recent Reuters investigation found Venezuela’s refining system in severe decline after years of underinvestment and deferred maintenance.

One worker at the country’s 645,000-barrel-per-day Amuay refinery described the sprawling complex in blunt terms: “Everything looks ugly and rusty.”

Courtesy: BOE Report, X

Reporters found leaking pipelines, overflowing waste pits, deteriorating equipment and facilities operating at only a fraction of their former capacity.

Rebuilding that infrastructure would likely require tens of billions of dollars and years of work.

“That’s a critical piece of information,” says Matt, “because all oil fields and equipment need capital investment. They need massive investment. And without the refineries, the oil needs to get shipped out of the country.”

That’s where the investment story changes.

The obvious question isn’t who will rebuild Venezuela’s refineries. It’s whether anyone needs to.

The U.S. already has some of the world’s most sophisticated refineries designed to process heavy crude like the oil produced in Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt.

From an economic standpoint, it may make more sense to produce the oil in Venezuela, ship it to existing refineries along the Gulf Coast and capture the higher-margin refining profits there than to spend billions rebuilding aging infrastructure.

In other words, Venezuela may once again become a key oil producer — without ever reclaiming its role as a refining powerhouse.

It may not be the vertically integrated energy giant it once was. Instead, it could become a world-class supplier of heavy crude while refiners elsewhere capture the most profitable part of the business.

For investors, that’s the headline story worth watching.

Market Rundown for Friday, July 31, 2026

S&P 500 futures are up 0.20% to 7,485.

Oil is up 2% to $85.25 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold’s down 1.10% to $4,113.60 per ounce.

And Bitcoin is down 1.65% to $63,645.

This morning, Dr. Anthony Fauci returns to Capitol Hill under subpoena to testify before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Armed with newly declassified intelligence records, portions of Fauci’s pandemic-era diary and a sweeping presidential pardon hanging over the proceedings, Sen. Rand Paul believes today’s hearing could be unlike any of the previous confrontations with the former public-health official.

To understand what's at stake today, we have to go back more than four decades.

The other night, in fact, I stumbled upon an old Geraldo Rivera documentary on YouTube.

And I mean old Geraldo — before the empty Al Capone vault and the sleazy daytime talk show.

This was Geraldo Rivera in 1983, investigating a frightening new disease called AIDS for ABC’s “20/20.” At the time, much of the national media had barely acknowledged the epidemic.

Rivera interviewed dying patients, activists and government researchers. Which is when a remarkably young Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared on the screen.

Fauci was not yet the country’s most recognizable public-health official. He was a chief researcher at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — part of the National Institutes of Health — warning about a mysterious immune disorder and pressing for a stronger federal response.

Watching it more than four decades later was jarring.

Rivera and Fauci were both young, serious and seemingly determined to shake powerful institutions awake. Each would eventually become a television personality almost as much as a journalist or physician.

Their careers followed different paths, of course. But both stories raise the same question: What happens when public service, media attention and personal celebrity become impossible to separate?

Your Rundown for Wednesday, July 29, 2026...

Fauci’s Reckoning: “A Full Public Accounting”

Fauci’s early work on AIDS remains an important part of his record.

He became director of NIAID in 1984 and later helped reshape the government’s approach to HIV drug trials. President George W. Bush awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2008 for his contributions to PEPFAR, the global AIDS-relief program.

That history matters.

It also helps explain how Fauci accumulated extraordinary institutional authority. By the time COVID-19 reached the United States in 2020, he had served under six presidents and led NIAID for more than 35 years.

He was no longer simply advising the government. To millions of Americans, he appeared to speak for science itself.

That perception made every subsequent decision more consequential.

Reasonable people can disagree over what officials knew at each stage of a fast-moving emergency in 2020. They were confronting an unfamiliar virus, incomplete information and genuine fear.

But uncertainty does not excuse evasion.

Nor does it erase the enormous costs of the policies Fauci defended: lost schooling, shuttered businesses and a deep collapse in public trust.

As Paradigm macro expert Jim Rickards puts it: “Everything Americans were forced to endure during the pandemic — experimental mRNA vaccines, mask mandates, social distancing, lockdowns, job losses for those who refused vaccination, lost schooling that cannot be made up and much more — flowed from decisions made by government officials who claimed they were following ‘the science.’

“Those decisions deserve a full public accounting,” Jim says.

The Paper Trail Before the Pardon

But that accounting became more complicated on Jan. 19, 2025.

In one of his final acts as president, Joe Biden granted Fauci a “full and unconditional pardon” covering potential federal offenses committed from Jan. 1, 2014, through the date of the pardon, provided they arose from Fauci’s government service.

Biden said the move was intended to protect public servants from politically motivated prosecutions and stressed that the pardon did not imply wrongdoing.

The pardon was sweeping. But it was not lifetime immunity.

It cannot protect Fauci from federal offenses committed after Jan. 19, 2025.

That detail is important this morning.

Ahead of today’s hearing, Sen. Rand Paul released portions of Fauci’s pandemic-era diary. 

Fauci’s diary may help investigators establish how much he knew about an effort to keep pandemic communications away from public scrutiny.

One entry from April 2021 identifies David Morens, Fauci’s longtime senior adviser at NIAID, as someone who was privately updating him about attempts to link Fauci to the Wuhan laboratory.

That matters because Morens has since been accused of deliberately moving sensitive government communications onto personal email accounts so the messages would not be captured by Freedom of Information Act requests.

Federal prosecutors allege that Morens concealed or destroyed records involving U.S.-funded coronavirus research, the Wuhan Institute of Virology and the debate over whether COVID-19 escaped from a laboratory.

Morens was indicted in April on charges including conspiracy against the United States and the destruction, alteration or concealment of federal records. He has pleaded not guilty and the charges remain allegations.

A second set of records raises another question.

Documents declassified by outgoing Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard show the intelligence community considered consulting Fauci during its 2021 review of COVID's origins and sought his recommendations for outside scientists to interview.

Fauci recommended scientists intelligence officials could interview, including authors of an influential paper supporting a natural origin of the virus rather than researchers who had expressed openness to the Wuhan “lab leak” theory.

These same officials considered asking Fauci to review their findings but ultimately decided against it, concluding that his leadership role at NIAID and his public statements on the virus's origins could create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Again, the documents do not establish that Fauci dictated the intelligence community’s final assessment. They do show, however, that his involvement was more substantial than the passive, arms-length role many Americans may have assumed he played.

The Fifth Amendment Dilemma

But the biggest development may not be the documents themselves. It may be Biden’s pardon.

Jim Rickards, an attorney who has personally met Sen. Rand Paul, believes today’s confrontation has been years in the making.

“Rand is a doctor. He has excellent staff,” Jim tells me. “He knew from the start that the pandemic virus was made in the lab and that research was funded by Fauci.”

Jim says he reached the same conclusion while researching for his 2021 book, The New Great Depression.

Jim also believes the newly declassified records give Paul documentary evidence he lacked during his previous confrontations with Fauci.

“Now Rand has the smoking gun and Fauci is back for the showdown,” Jim says. “Again, he’ll be under oath.”

But the legal dynamic is irregular.

Biden’s pardon protects Fauci from federal prosecution for covered conduct occurring before Jan. 20, 2025.

And because Biden’s pardon largely eliminates the risk of federal prosecution, it may also limit Fauci’s ability to invoke the Fifth Amendment which protects against self-incrimination.

(That said, Fifth Amendment privilege is determined question by question and could still apply if an answer might expose Fauci to an offense outside the pardon’s scope.)

It does not, however, protect him from crimes committed after the pardon.

And if Fauci knowingly gives materially false testimony today, that statement would constitute new conduct outside Biden’s protection.

That is what Jim considers Senator Paul’s trap.

If Fauci changes his previous account, Paul can argue that his earlier testimony was unreliable. If he stands by it, Paul can test that testimony against documents that were not publicly available during their previous confrontations.

“If he lies, that’s a new crime and not covered by the pardon,” Jim says.

Fauci’s defenders, meanwhile, say this investigation is political harassment. More than 155 scientists, physicians and public-health advocates signed an open letter this week arguing that accusations against him lack credible evidence and have fueled threats against scientists.

But a congressional subpoena is not a conviction. Asking Fauci to reconcile his sworn statements with newly released records is not an attack on science.

Today, Fauci will walk into the hearing protected from prosecution for covered conduct before Jan. 20, 2025.

What Fauci says after taking his seat is another matter.

This weekend, those two battlefields may have collided.

The U.S. paused its air campaign against Iran after nearly two weeks of strikes, while Oman brokered talks aimed at preserving a fragile ceasefire and reopening commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.

Iran likewise suspended its retaliatory attacks, although both sides warned the pause could prove short-lived.

Then the conflict took an unexpected turn.

President Volodymyr Zelensky announced what he called “very good results” from Ukrainian long-range operations in the Caspian Sea, saying Ukrainian forces had struck a Russian warship and vessels allegedly transporting Iranian military cargo to Russia.

Iran said one sailor aboard an Iranian commercial vessel was killed and another injured. Tehran condemned the strike as a “hostile and criminal” act, while Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned that it “cannot go unanswered.”

About 10 days ago, Dave Gonigam, managing editor at Paradigm Pressroom’s 5 Bullets, floated a grim possibility: the wars in Ukraine and Iran might eventually merge into a single conflict.

After this weekend, that possibility doesn’t seem so remote.

Your Rundown for Monday, July 27, 2026...

Proxy Wars Breaks Cover

The overlap begins with drones.

For years, Iran has supplied Russia with Shahed-series unmanned aerial vehicles, helping Moscow build a drone capability it has used extensively against Ukrainian infrastructure.

Russia now manufactures its own versions of the Iranian-designed Shahed, but the original technology, manufacturing know-how and supply relationship came from Tehran.

The Caspian Sea matters because it connects northern Iran with southern Russia while avoiding waters patrolled by the U.S. Navy.

Goods can move from Iranian ports such as Bandar Anzali north to Russia's Astrakhan region. From there, cargo enters Russia’s rail, river and road networks.

Source: Russia’s Pivot To Asia

To be clear, Iran is not shipping large quantities of crude oil to Russia. Russia has plenty of oil of its own. Roughly 90% of Iran’s crude exports travel south through the Strait of Hormuz, with the overwhelming majority ultimately destined for China.

Instead, the northern route is valuable for a different reason.

Since 2022, the U.S. and EU have sanctioned Iranian companies and networks supplying military equipment to Russia. The Caspian corridor gives Tehran and Moscow an inland trade route that’s harder for Western governments to monitor, sanction or physically interdict.

For years, these relationships played out via proxies and arms transfers. The strike in the Caspian suggests those proxies are becoming combatants in their own right.

Step back, the strategic picture looks like this:

Israel stands behind the campaign against Tehran, while Europe continues financing and equipping Kyiv.

The United States is fighting Iran — while arming Ukraine against Russia.

Russia deepens its military partnership with Iran while using Iranian-designed weapons against Ukraine.

And over the weekend, Ukraine took the fight to an Iranian supply route in the Caspian.

History, meanwhile, suggests a multipolar war rarely arrives with a formal declaration.

It develops when alliances harden, supply routes become targets and retaliation in one theater triggers escalation in another.

Market Rundown for Monday, July 27, 2026

S&P 500 futures are up 0.80% to 7,500.

Oil is down 5.85% to $84 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold is up 0.40% to $4,086.50 per ounce.

And Bitcoin’s up 0.50%, just under $65K.

The premise is simple: If the Strait of Hormuz is too dangerous, bypass it.

Hours later, the Middle East delivered an ugly reminder. In this war, every detour eventually becomes a target.

Specifically, a tanker sailing through the Red Sea off southern Saudi Arabia was struck by an unknown projectile, igniting a fire.

Yemen’s Houthi rebels later claimed they had attacked two Saudi oil tankers using ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones.

Both vessels had loaded refined petroleum products at Yanbu — the Red Sea port Saudi Arabia has increasingly relied on to bypass Hormuz.

They were heading south toward Bab al-Mandeb, the narrow waterway between Yemen and Djibouti.

Source: El Observador

In other words, these ships were already taking the detour.

Here’s how that’s been working: Saudi Arabia’s East-West pipeline carries oil to Yanbu, allowing cargoes to avoid Hormuz entirely. Tankers leaving Yanbu pass through Bab al-Mandeb before reaching the Indian Ocean.

But now the Houthis are threatening that corridor.

All to say, vulnerabilities abound.

The human cost is becoming impossible to ignore, too. Thousands of sailors remain trapped around the Gulf, while insurers grow increasingly reluctant to cover voyages through the war zone.

So shipping companies are now offering crews enormous bonuses to sail through Hormuz.

It’s one thing when oil traders get nervous. It’s another when sailors start demanding combat pay.

Your Rundown for Friday, July 24, 2026...

Trump Runs Out of Off-Ramps

The White House is reaching the same conclusion as the oil industry: There may be no clean way around this war.

The U.S. is moving special-operations forces, aerial tankers, fighter jets, medics and long-range bombers toward the Middle East. The buildup gives President Trump more options to expand attacks on Iran and potentially strike Houthi forces in Yemen.

Trump would clearly prefer a decisive ending. But Iran and its allies keep widening the battlefield, attacking American troops, energy infrastructure and shipping routes.

That leaves Trump with fewer options, not more.

Jim Rickards saw this coming months ago.

Back in April, while many analysts were still talking about diplomacy, Jim laid out three possible outcomes. Then he dismissed the first two.

“It’s not peace. It’s not negotiation,” he said. “It’s escalation.”

He reasoned every attack on shipping, every strike on energy infrastructure and every Iranian refusal to back down narrowed President Trump’s options. Eventually, the White House would face a choice between accepting a permanent threat to global commerce or expanding the war.

That forecast is proving uncomfortably accurate.

Trump can pull back and risk rewarding Iran’s pressure campaign. He can continue bombing and hope Tehran eventually folds. Or he can escalate in an attempt to restore freedom of navigation and break Iran’s ability to threaten the region.

Escalation may be the only option that produces a result.

Dan Amoss, Jim’s chief analyst, believes the consequences will reach far beyond the battlefield.

“The macro implications of this scenario are: inflation break-evens and swaps through mid-2027 rise... then the U.S. dollar rises with Treasury yields... credit tightens and stocks fall.”

He adds that Fed Chair Kevin Warsh could conclude “crude and diesel are doing the tightening for us at the Fed.”

And if financial conditions deteriorate further?

Dan believes Warsh could pivot toward quantitative easing and even begin hinting that “gold is the new, optimal reserve currency” as the world reassesses the costs of dollar dominance.

That is the chain reaction investors need to watch.

Wednesday’s tanker strike was not simply another attack. It was an attack on one of the oil market’s most important escape routes.

Hormuz is dangerous. Bab al-Mandeb is under threat. And the detours are disappearing.

Market Rundown for Friday, July 24, 2026

S&P 500 futures are up 0.25% to 7,465.

Oil is down 2.80% to $89.60 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold’s up 0.25% to $4,060.40 per ounce.

And Bitcoin’s up 0.30% to $64,950. 

This week, U.S. forces launched another round of strikes against Iranian military targets after President Trump vowed retaliation for the deaths of American service members.

Iran responded by targeting U.S.-linked sites in Bahrain, Kuwait and Jordan, while another commercial tanker was struck in the Strait of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, Iran-backed Houthi forces have threatened a naval blockade of Saudi Arabia, opening yet another front in a conflict that increasingly revolves around energy infrastructure and shipping lanes.

Investors naturally watch the price of oil whenever tensions flare. Crude oil has become a real-time barometer of geopolitical risk.

But while markets focus on the next missile launch or tanker attack, Chevron appears to be preparing for something much bigger: a future where the ability to move oil safely could become just as valuable as producing it.

Last week, the energy giant signed a series of memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with Iraq covering two of the country’s largest oil opportunities: the West Qurna 2 oil field and the massive Nassiriya project.

West Qurna 2 is hardly an unexplored frontier. The giant field already produces roughly 480,000 barrels of oil per day, making it one of Iraq’s most productive assets.

Nassiriya, meanwhile, contains billions of barrels of recoverable crude and has long been viewed as one of the country’s premier undeveloped projects.

The agreements are preliminary and don’t guarantee a final investment. Still, they represent one of Chevron’s most significant moves into Iraq in years.

Yet the most interesting part of the announcement wasn’t another oil field.

Your Rundown for Wednesday, July 22, 2026...

The Real Prize Isn’t Another Oil Field

Chevron also signed an agreement with Iraq and Syria to study a pipeline that would carry Iraqi crude west across Syria to the Mediterranean. If built, the route would provide Iraqi exports with an alternative to shipping almost exclusively through the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

That’s a meaningful strategic shift.

For decades, investors evaluated oil companies largely by how many reserves they owned or how much they could produce.

Today’s geopolitical landscape demands another question. Can those barrels actually reach customers?

The Strait of Hormuz remains the world’s most important oil chokepoint, with roughly one-fifth of global petroleum consumption normally passing through its narrow waters. Every drone strike, missile launch or attack on commercial shipping reminds markets how vulnerable that route can become during periods of conflict.

A Mediterranean export route wouldn’t eliminate those risks overnight. The proposed pipeline remains years away, assuming it ultimately receives political approval and financing.

But it would give Iraqi producers something increasingly valuable: options.

For Chevron, that’s part of the appeal.

Rather than simply adding another producing asset, the company appears to be positioning itself inside a region that could become more important if global energy flows continue to fragment.

Diversifying export routes can improve reliability, reduce transportation risk and potentially make production more resilient during future geopolitical shocks.

That’s the sort of long-term thinking that often gets overlooked when markets become consumed by daily headlines.

Nobody knows how the current conflict between Iran, the United States and Israel will unfold. Nor can anyone predict whether the Strait of Hormuz will reopen without further disruption.

But history shows that the strongest energy companies don’t simply react to crises. They adapt to them.

Chevron’s latest move suggests the company isn’t just investing in more oil. It’s investing in a world where geography — and geopolitics — matter just as much as geology.

Market Rundown for Wednesday, July 22, 2026

S&P 500 futures are down 0.40% to 52,325.

Oil’s up 3.20% to $87.05 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold is up 1.40% to $4,134 per ounce.

And Bitcoin’s down almost 1% to $65,780.

It gave us Silicon Valley, the drive-thru and avocado toast. It also gave us some of the country’s highest taxes, most expensive housing and, increasingly, some of its most consequential political experiments.

This November, Californians may vote on another first.

A ballot initiative would impose a one-time 5% tax on the “paper wealth” of every billionaire who was a California resident as of Jan. 1, 2026. Supporters say the revenue — an estimated $100 billion — would help replace healthcare funding reduced under President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill.

Unlike an income tax or capital gains tax, this proposal targets accumulated wealth itself: privately held businesses, stocks, bonds, venture capital stakes and other financial assets whose value exists largely on paper.

Certain real estate holdings and some pension assets are generally carved out, but the proposal would still represent the first statewide tax in America aimed directly at wealth rather than income.

Not surprisingly, some of California’s wealthiest residents are fighting back.

Google co-founder Sergey Brin has reportedly committed tens of millions of dollars to defeat the measure. Several other prominent technology investors have joined the effort, arguing the proposal would punish investment and encourage entrepreneurs to build their companies outside California.

But perhaps the most fascinating reaction has come from California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Your Rundown for Monday, July 20, 2026...

Newsom’s Wealth Tax Escape Hatch

Newsom isn’t embracing California’s billionaire tax.

He’s trying to export it.

In a recent Substack essay, Newsom argued that taxing billionaires at the state level risks driving them across state lines. Instead, he called for a national billionaire tax.

In other words, the governor isn’t saying the idea is flawed. He’s saying Sacramento shouldn’t be the one picking up the tab.

Newsom would rather let the IRS deal with billionaires.

It’s a remarkable political maneuver.

Support the policy.

Oppose the implementation.

Forward the paperwork to Washington.

The stakes — of course! — extend far beyond California.

Jim Rickards has warned that proposals like this aren’t appearing in isolation. They’re part of a broader political movement led by the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), a group gaining influence inside the Democratic Party.

“They favor wealth taxes,” Jim says. “That means after you pay income tax and invest the remainder, they want to tax the assets themselves, not just the income.”

That’s an important distinction.

Supporters argue, however, that billionaires have accumulated extraordinary fortunes while paying relatively little tax on unrealized gains.

Opponents counter that taxing paper wealth would discourage investment and create incentives for wealthy residents to relocate.

Opponents also aren’t convinced the debate ends with billionaires.

History suggests tax thresholds have a way of changing.

When the federal income tax was introduced in 1913, for instance, relatively few Americans paid it. Over time, Congress repeatedly expanded its reach.

That’s one reason investors should pay close attention to California’s vote.

Ballot measures frequently reveal where policymakers want to go — long before they show where they’ll stop.

Today’s debate centers on fortunes measured in billions. Tomorrow’s debate may not.

As Jim cautions: “Investors need to know what’s coming before the DSA knocks on your door.”

That may sound dramatic.

But California’s ballot isn’t just another state tax proposal. It’s a referendum on a much bigger idea: Should government tax wealth itself rather than the income it produces?

California voters will answer that question first.

If they approve the measure, don’t expect the debate to stay within California’s borders for long.

And if Governor Newsom has his way, it won’t stay in Sacramento at all.

He’d rather Washington collect the bill.

Market Rundown for Monday, July 20, 2026

S&P 500 futures are up 0.35% to 7,525.

Oil’s slightly down to $82.45 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold’s down 0.10% to $4,015.60 per ounce.

And Bitcoin is up 0.45% to $64,655.

The latest Consumer Price Index showed inflation cooling to 3.5% year over year. Financial headlines quickly declared victory. Markets cheered. The Federal Reserve suddenly looked less likely to raise interest rates later this month.

Paradigm’s macro expert Jim Rickards reacted: “I see, ‘inflation falls… inflation down…’ and I thought, ‘Wow, that’s amazing. Prices actually went down,’” Jim said during Tuesday’s live Strategic Intelligence briefing.

The truth of the matter: “Prices went up. They actually went up a lot. They went up by 3.5% [year over year]. They just went up less than they did the month before.”

It’s a simple distinction, but an important one.

Inflation slowing doesn’t mean prices are falling. It simply means they’re rising more slowly.

There’s nothing especially comforting about that.

As Jim pointed out, 3.5% inflation would cut the purchasing power of the dollar roughly in half over 21 years. Over the course of a typical working career, it would reduce your purchasing power by about 75%. “There’s nothing benign about it,” he said.

But what caught my attention wasn’t only Jim’s take on Tuesday’s CPI report.

It’s what he said next.

Most economists spend their time debating whether inflation is rising or falling. Jim asked a different question:

What kind of inflation are we actually dealing with?

Your Rundown for Friday, July 17, 2026...

The Psychology of Inflation

Jim explains there are three very different sources of inflation.

The first is driven by supply-chain disruption, like wars or shipping bottlenecks.

The second is demand-driven inflation, when consumers expect prices to keep climbing and start buying sooner rather than later.

The third comes from fiscal policy, when massive government spending injects new money into the economy.

That distinction matters because not all inflation behaves the same way.

Supply shocks eventually fade. Oil production recovers. Shipping routes reopen. Manufacturers adapt.

Psychology is another story.

When people begin expecting higher prices, they change their behavior. A family buys a refrigerator today instead of waiting until next year. Businesses raise prices because they assume everyone else will do the same.

Jim believes that’s the real risk today.

“We’re in a very dangerous moment,” he warned. “Are we at a tipping point?”

That question may prove far more important than whether June’s CPI came in a few tenths of a percentage point below expectations.

After all, today’s inflation report was helped by lower gasoline prices following the temporary lull in fighting between Iran and the U.S.

But as Jim noted, renewed attacks around the Strait of Hormuz are already pushing oil prices higher again, and diesel costs especially work their way into nearly everything Americans buy.

The headlines this week celebrated lower inflation.

Jim’s concern is something much harder to measure.

Once inflation moves from supply chains into human expectations, history suggests it becomes much more difficult to stop. And that’s a number that never appears in the CPI report.

Market Rundown for Friday, July 17, 2026

S&P 500 futures are down almost 1% to 7,505.

Oil is up 2.50% to $80.95 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold is down 0.30% to $3,980 per ounce.

And Bitcoin’s down 1.70% to $63,075.