Fort Lesley J. McNair, north gateRuss Baker
In the last few days, drones have reportedly been spotted over Fort Lesley J. McNair, in Washington, DC, where Marco Rubio and Pete Hegseth live. Officials are worried, and so am I, though for different reasons.
Did you know our secretary of state and secretary of defense live on an army base?
And they’re not the only ones.
Pam Bondi, Stephen Miller, and other senior Trump officials have moved into military housing. Tulsi Gabbard and Russell Vought are browsing the available housing, but have not moved yet. One more senior official, unidentified, has been advised to move by security officials.
The official excuse is that they face threats from a range of purported foes, including, we are told, cartels, foreign adversaries, and protesters.
But I can’t help feeling we’re not getting the real story. And, frankly, what that might be chills me.
Why does a king (and his courtiers) go into his castle and pull up the drawbridge?
Because they see themselves as besieged — or are planning to do something they know will cause them to be besieged.
Harvard professor Steven Levitsky — an expert on threats to democracies — made this sobering observation:
It is something you never see in a democracy. Government officials live on military bases or other sort of fortified zones [only] in authoritarian regimes.
In authoritarian regimes.
Coming at a time when fair elections are openly threatened and our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms challenged at every turn, when we see this group withdraw to a hardened inner sanctum, we’d better be paying close attention.
But thus far little attention has been paid to this matter, and what it may mean.
Plenty of factors do come to mind as potentially precipitating even more dramatic action on the part of Team Trump. You can surely think of many, but here are a few:
Any one of the above could — or, at least, should — spark such outrage that even the most indolent of MAGAs might eventually grab torches and pitchforks and join the masses storming the castle wall.
[…]
Via https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/trump-officials-flee-into-the-bunker/ar-AA1Zdg5i
When the world learned of the vast network surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, it was not merely another criminal exposé but a catastrophic unmasking of systemic vulnerabilities at the very heart of global power structures.
The revelation was jarring not only because of the nature of Epstein’s predatory, exploitative, and unspeakably cruel crimes but because it exposed how wealth, influence, and institutional inertia can conspire to shield wrongdoing from scrutiny. Epstein operated in a sphere where rules were often selectively enforced, where elite privilege could bend legal and moral constraints, and where access to power was itself a form of protection.
For years, Epstein’s activities were an open secret in elite circles. In financial boardrooms, university campuses, and the glamorous corridors of international politics, whispers about his predatory behavior circulated but were rarely acted upon. Behind closed doors, he cultivated relationships with influential figures in finance, academia, politics, and entertainment, carefully weaving a network that spanned continents and industries. Through a combination of charisma, cunning, and coercion, he created a world in which his influence could flourish unchecked.
What ultimately came to light was not just the depravity of one man’s crimes, but the chilling silence and complicity that allowed them to persist.¹ Legal authorities, institutional leaders, and even those closest to Epstein often chose discretion over justice, protection over principle. This complicity was structural, embedded in cultures of power that prioritize reputation, loyalty, and financial interests above accountability. Epstein’s case therefore became more than a criminal investigation; it has evolved to become a mirror reflecting society’s deepest failures, challenging the notion that justice is blind when it comes to those who move within the highest echelons of influence. It prompted urgent questions about the mechanisms that allow such networks to exist, and whether the very systems designed to prevent abuse are in fact susceptible to corruption and exploitation.
The Epstein Files — a colloquial term for the sprawling body of testimony, court records, flight logs, and settlement documents now in the public domain — exposed a landscape that many would have preferred remain hidden.² Far from being a series of isolated incidents, the files reveal a deeply entrenched system in which wealth, influence, and legal maneuvering intersected to shield wrongdoing. They document a pattern of sexual exploitation and trafficking, including the abuse of minors, alongside deliberate efforts to minimize exposure and accountability.³ Each document, each flight log, each confidential settlement paints a portrait not just of Epstein’s crimes, but of a network designed to protect him and facilitate his activities.
Even with the overwhelming gravity of the charges, investigators repeatedly found themselves entangled in a web of legal settlements, non-prosecution agreements, and procedural loopholes that allowed Epstein and, in some cases, his associates to evade the full force of justice.⁴ One of the most notorious examples is the 2008 non-prosecution agreement in Florida, which granted immunity to numerous unnamed co-conspirators and limited the scope of criminal accountability. Such arrangements were not merely legal technicalities; they were strategic instruments that leveraged the asymmetry of power and information, demonstrating how the law can be selectively applied when the accused occupies a position of privilege.
These revelations, brought to light through painstaking litigation and rigorous journalistic inquiry, ignited public outrage and prompted intense scrutiny of the institutions involved.⁵ The Epstein Files became more than a record of criminal activity; they became a window into the mechanisms by which the powerful operate above the law, insulated by networks of lawyers, financiers, and enablers. They exposed the moral compromises made by those who prioritized reputation, access, or financial interest over justice, raising uncomfortable questions about systemic inequality in accountability and the ease with which privilege can distort legal and social norms.
The scandal forced a reckoning with difficult truths: that sexual exploitation and trafficking are not only crimes of individuals but are often enabled by structural and institutional failures, and that true justice requires transparency, vigilance, and the courage to challenge entrenched hierarchies. The Epstein Files, in all their chilling detail, underscore that the problem is not merely the existence of predators, but the silence and complicity of those who allow them to persist.
1. The U.S. Justice System
The Department of Justice and U.S. Attorneys’ offices came under intense scrutiny in the wake of the Epstein scandal.
Critics focused on the infamous 2008 non-prosecution agreement in Florida, which allowed Epstein to serve a minimal sentence despite facing serious federal charges involving sexual abuse and trafficking.⁶ The deal, negotiated in secrecy, raised questions about prosecutorial discretion, transparency, and the influence of wealth and power on legal outcomes. Beyond the plea agreement itself, systemic failures were highlighted: investigators struggled with limited resources, bureaucratic inertia, and pressure from high-profile figures, demonstrating how the justice system can be manipulated or stalled when confronted with cases involving the elite. Epstein’s case has since become a benchmark for examining the limits of accountability in the U.S. legal framework.
2. Financial Institutions
Epstein’s wealth and influence were tightly intertwined with some of the world’s largest financial institutions, both in the U.S. and abroad.⁷ While no major bank or firm was formally charged with criminal complicity, investigative reporting revealed how offshore accounts, complex investment vehicles, and high-net-worth client relationships helped facilitate Epstein’s financial empire. Questions arose about the due diligence conducted by banks and investment firms, the role of billionaires who provided capital or endorsements, and the broader culture of financial opacity that allowed his wealth, and by extension his predatory activities, to flourish. The scandal underscored how institutions that prioritize profits over ethical scrutiny can inadvertently create environments in which exploitation thrives.
3. Cultural Patronage and the Arts
Epstein cultivated an extensive network within the cultural and academic worlds, directing substantial donations not only to universities and research foundations but also to museums, art institutions, and cultural organizations.⁸ These contributions, often framed as philanthropic support for the arts, humanities, and social research, frequently granted him privileged access to exclusive exhibitions, gala events, and influential circles within the art and museum communities. The revelations surrounding Epstein prompted deep ethical reflection across cultural institutions: how should museums and galleries vet high-profile donors, what limits exist between sponsorship and curatorial influence, and how should organizations respond when a benefactor faces serious criminal allegations? His case underscored the tension between financial support and moral responsibility, highlighting how reputational considerations in the arts and culture can sometimes overshadow ethical judgment.
4. International Diplomatic Channels
Epstein’s operations were not confined to the United States; they extended across multiple countries through private flights, international property acquisitions, and visits to private islands.⁹ These global connections drew the attention of foreign governments and international law enforcement, raising questions about cooperation in cases of sex trafficking, money laundering, and transnational abuse. The scandal sparked debate over whether diplomatic immunity, elite privilege, or jurisdictional ambiguity can allow powerful actors to evade justice. Epstein’s global reach highlighted the need for stronger international coordination and mechanisms to prevent cross-border exploitation, illustrating that abuses of power are not only local but often intricately connected through global networks.
The Epstein Files quickly became a global media sensation, but reporting varied widely in tone, depth, and accuracy.¹⁰ What emerged was a complex interplay between rigorous investigative journalism, international news dissemination, social media amplification, and, at times, sensationalism. The way the scandal was reported profoundly shaped public perception, influencing not only awareness of Epstein’s crimes but broader conversations about privilege, systemic complicity, and institutional accountability.
Investigative Reporting: Investigative journalists were central to uncovering the full scope of Epstein’s operations. Outlets like The Miami Herald conducted painstaking inquiries into the infamous 2008 plea deal, bringing to light details that had been minimized or overlooked by mainstream media. Reporters combed through court documents, interviewed survivors, and followed financial and social networks, providing evidence-based reporting that held institutions accountable and pressured the justice system to respond more transparently. This work exemplified the power of persistent, evidence-driven journalism to pierce the veil of secrecy surrounding the powerful.
Global News Networks: International media played a crucial role in contextualizing Epstein’s global reach. News organizations across Europe, Asia, and the Americas reported on his private flights, overseas properties, and connections to influential figures worldwide. This coverage highlighted the transnational dimensions of the scandal, raising questions about cross-border law enforcement cooperation, the reach of elite networks, and the challenges of prosecuting crimes that spanned multiple jurisdictions. By framing Epstein’s activities in a global context, international outlets underscored that exploitation and impunity are not confined by national borders.
Social Media and Public Discourse: Platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and later Instagram amplified the Epstein scandal in real time. They allowed survivors, activists, journalists, and the general public to engage with information, demand accountability, and share evidence. At the same time, social media also facilitated the spread of misinformation, unverified claims, and conspiracy theories, creating a chaotic mix of outrage, speculation, and fact. The viral nature of content ensured that the conversation around Epstein reached unprecedented levels of public attention, but it also made it difficult for audiences to separate credible reporting from rumor.
Impact on Public Perception: Media coverage transformed Epstein from a shadowy financier known only in elite circles into a symbol of systemic failure. His story became shorthand for the ways in which wealth, secrecy, and social privilege can shield wrongdoing from scrutiny. Public outrage was heightened as the media revealed the complicity, silence, and structural weaknesses that allowed abuse to persist. However, sensationalist reporting sometimes blurred the line between verified fact and conjecture, challenging audiences to navigate a landscape in which both investigative rigor and speculative narrative coexisted. The Epstein Files thus illustrate the dual power of the media: to illuminate hidden truths and to shape perception in ways that can both educate and mislead.¹¹
Ultimately, the scandal demonstrated that the media is not just a mirror reflecting events but an active participant in shaping societal understanding, accountability, and the collective response to abuse and institutional failure.
Labeling Epstein’s network a “kingdom” is more than mere metaphor; it captures the terrifying scale at which influence, secrecy, and wealth can converge to construct a near-impenetrable cocoon of impunity. Private jets that traversed international airspace with little oversight, exotic islands that served as secluded retreats, substantial financial backing from billionaires, and a revolving door of high-profile guests all combined to create a gilded façade.¹² On the surface, it projected power, prestige, and social sophistication but beneath it lay the darkest forms of criminal exploitation, meticulously concealed by the very privileges that gave Epstein access to the world’s elite.
The kingdom was built with careful attention to appearances. Lavish properties, elite social gatherings, and connections to influential figures across finance, academia, politics, and entertainment created a sense of untouchability. For Epstein and his inner circle, these symbols of status were not simply luxuries; they were tools of control, enabling him to manipulate, coerce, and silence victims while projecting legitimacy. Every flight, every invitation, every handshake reinforced a system in which rules were selectively enforced, and justice was contingent upon the social standing of the accused.
[…]
Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/epstein-files-global-power-systemic-failure/5919766
(Photo credit: Brendan SMIALOWSKI / AFP via Getty Images)The Cradle
More and more US troops deployed to West Asia are expressing doubts about fighting in the war against Iran, including having to “die for Israel,” the Huffington Post reported on 23 March.
A veteran and reservist who mentors younger officers told HuffPost that troops she speaks with are expressing a loss of faith after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu helped push US President Donald Trump to go to war against Iran.
“I’m hearing out of service members’ mouths the words, ’We do not want to die for Israel – we don’t want to be political pawns,” she said.
“I’ve shared conscientious objector information six times in the past two weeks, and I’ve been in the military almost 20 years – I’ve never had people reach out this way,” the first reservist continued.
Interviews with active-duty soldiers, reservists, and advocacy groups conducted by HuffPost found that many US troops expressed feeling vulnerable, overwhelming stress, frustration, and disillusionment to the extent that they wished to leave the military.
Interviews further revealed that troops are worried about inadequate protection from Iranian ballistic missiles and drones targeting US bases in the Gulf region.
“Getting random indirect fire is not the same as watching the entire gym and coffee shop and some dorms get blown up from a door less than 50 meters away,” said one service member.
Thirteen troops have been killed in the war so far, and at least 232 have been wounded.
White House officials are now speaking of launching a limited ground invasion to seize Kharg Island in the Persian Gulf.
A ground operation would be “an absolute disaster … we don’t have a plan for that,” said a military official who is treating service members evacuated from the Gulf to a US military hospital in Germany. “We can’t even fully defend a single land base in the theater.”
Mike Prysner, the executive director of the Center on Conscience and War, said at least one new military service member now contacts the organization daily.
On Friday, Prysner said his group is handling “expedited” objector applications by US Army, Navy, and Marine Corps personnel who were scheduled to deploy within days.
Three Navy ships carrying 2,200 more marines have been deployed to West Asia, two US officials told ABC News on Sunday.
And Matt Howard, the co-director of the group About Face: Veterans Against The War, said his organization has been helping more active-duty troops understand their rights to leave the military as conscientious objectors.
“Folks have the right to options, including conscientious objector status. My understanding is that more and more folks are going that particular route. We’re definitely finding ourselves having more of those conversations than we have in a long time,” Howard stated.
Those wishing to obtain conscientious objector status say they were influenced by the US Tomahawk missile strike on an elementary school in the Iranian town of Minab that killed more than 175 people, including at least 165 schoolgirls.
[…]
A mural at the Vali Asr Square in central Tehran.
Press TV
Iran has responded negatively to an American proposal aimed at ending the ongoing imposed war, insisting that it will only occur on Tehran’s own terms and timeline, a senior political-security official told Press TV on Wednesday.
The official with knowledge of the details of the proposal, speaking exclusively to Press TV, said Iran will not allow US President Donald Trump to dictate the timing of the war’s end.
“Iran will end the war when it decides to do so and when its own conditions are met,” the official said, emphasizing Tehran’s resolve to continue its defense and inflict “heavy blows” on the enemy until its demands are fulfilled.
According to the official, Washington has been pursuing negotiations through various diplomatic channels, putting forward proposals that Tehran views as “excessive” and disconnected from the reality of America’s failure on the battlefield.
The official drew parallels with two previous rounds of negotiations held in the spring and winter of 2025, characterising them as deceptive.
In both instances, the official stressed, the United States had no genuine intention to engage in meaningful dialogue and subsequently carried out military aggression against Iran.
Tehran has therefore categorized the latest overture, which was delivered via a friendly regional intermediary, as a ploy to heighten tensions and has responded negatively.
The official outlined five specific conditions under which Iran would agree to end the war. These include:
The official further noted that these stipulations are in addition to demands previously presented by Tehran during the second round of negotiations in Geneva, which took place just days before the US and Israel carried out a fresh round of aggression on February 28.
Iran has communicated to all intermediaries acting in good faith that a ceasefire is contingent upon the acceptance of all of its conditions.
“No negotiations will be held prior to that,” the official stressed, reiterating that the continuation of Iran’s defensive operations will persist until the outlined conditions are met.
“The end of the war will occur when Iran decides it should end, not when Trump envisions its conclusion,” he hastened to add.
The unprovoked and illegal war was launched on February 28 – in the middle of indirect nuclear talks – with the assassination of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, and some top-ranking military commanders and government officials.
In response, Iranian armed forces have so far carried out nearly 80 waves of retaliatory strikes targeting Israeli and American military assets across the region.
In recent days, the American side has courted some regional countries to persuade Iran to cease its retaliatory strikes that have decimated American and Israeli military infrastructure in the region as well as to allow American vessels to pass through the Strait of Hormuz.
[…]
Dmitry Orlov
[…]
First, a few words about the Strait of Hormuz. Although various clueless Western journalists were quick to start babbling about Iran “blockading” or “mining” the accursed Strait, no such events ever took place. Instead, ten or so ships attempting to pass through the Strait got set ablaze, by Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, one must presume. As a direct result, ship insurance rates shot up into the stratosphere and shipping through the Strait all but stopped. It did not stop entirely because Iran started granting safe passage to ships that complied with certain requirements: they couldn’t have anything to do with the US or with Israel, the cargo had to be paid for in yuan (or renminbi), the Chinese currency, and there was also a hefty fee for safe passage. The course for safe passage lies through Iranian territorial waters, where Iranian forces can examine the ships closely.
Thus, Iran can still ship its oil to China, as it is accustomed to doing. Incidentally, Iran’s oil production volumes are close to matching the record they set half a century ago. On the other hand, the Persian Gulf monarchies are precluded from selling their oil for dollars. Saudi Arabia still manages to sell some of its light sweet crude via its port on the Red Sea, delivered via a pipeline, at hugely inflated rates. That is a direct invitation to the Houthis in Yemen to show their support for their Iranian brothers by once again shutting down shipping through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, as they had when Israel attacked Gaza, and so this export route may not last either. What’s more, quite a few of the oil, gas, fertilizer and other production facilities in the Gulf have been damaged or destroyed, making any future restoration of shipping volumes expensive and time-consuming even after hostilities end.
[…]
A rocket to your superstructure could be metaphorically compared to a punch in the face if you happen to be an oil tanker. Less metaphorically, a punch to the face has certainly been delivered to oil traders who thought that they were managing world trade in oil by trading bits of paper (or bits of computer code) known as oil futures.
[…]
Refineries around the world have to hunt around to find compatible blends of oil from specific sources, for which they now have to pay a premium, making the paper market for “benchmark crudes” rather beside the point. Overall, oil has suddenly become quite a lot less “fungible” as a commodity. This has had an immediate knock-on effect on oil distillates such as aviation kerosene which is no longer available in a growing number of locations, stranding tourists and business travelers. Even more significantly, shortages and high prices for nitrogen fertilizer, made from natural gas, are likely to cause a missed crop growing season in many countries, resulting food price inflation, malnutrition and, in the case of some poorer countries, even starvation.
Perhaps you have been able to gather all of this on your own by paying attention to the news — it’s not that difficult. But what I’ll describe next is not something that you will often hear. Trump’s war on Iran is an epic failure on a purely conceptual level, as a foregone conclusion, that no new developments are likely to alter in any significant way.
To set the scene, let us briefly rewind to the Dozen-Day War, which lasted from 13 to 24 June 2025, during which Donald Trump claimed to have destroyed Iran’s nuclear program. He didn’t; we’ll get back to this important detail in a little while. But what he did succeed in destroying was Iran’s various opposition movements and networks of foreign operatives. They were outed in a feeble and harebrained attempt at a color revolution, in the hopes of effecting a quick and easy regime change in Teheran. They took to the streets where they were counted and tagged and their leaders were subsequently all neutralized. Thus, the Dozen-Day War left Iran bereft of opposition movements.
And yet Trump went in for an exact repeat. Here we have been forced to bear witness to a confluence of several spectacularly stupid ideas:
• That Trump can still effect a regime change in Teheran even after all of the opposition leaders have been killed during his previous failed attempt.
• That it is possible to destroy the Iranian state by assassinating its leadership.
• And, finally, after failing at both of the above, that it is still possible to “make a deal” (in Trump’s primitive English) to end the conflict. Who does he plan to negotiate with? With the people he just killed?
Of course, not all Iranian leaders are dead. There is the new Rakhbar (supreme religious leader) Mojtaba Khamenei, son of Rakhbar Ali Khamenei, who was killed by an American air strike on his residence. What is notable is that the post of Rakhbar is not heritable. A Rakhbar is appointed in a process vaguely similar to that of appointing the Pope: in a conclave of great and respected Shia theologians. The appointment of the son of a Rakhbar as Rakhbar is highly irregular, especially given the fact that Mojtaba is not a great theologian, does not have a religious following and is generally considered something of a theological lightweight. So, why was he the one appointed?
I see three plausible answers to this question. First, Mojtaba is not a public figure of the sort that would be easy for the Americans to assassinate. In fact, nobody seems to know where he is. Second, his father died as a martyr and it is Mojtaba’s sacred duty to avenge his death. His appointment as Rakhbar puts him in a position demand revenge. Third, Mojtaba fought with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 and has strong connections with it. It is the IRGC that will avenge Ali Khamenei’s martyrdom, along with the deaths of all the other Iranians.
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) is a very curious organization. Unlike the generally agreeable and peace-minded Iranian leaders recently killed by Trump, the IRGC is made up of radical Shiites and the organization draws its inspiration from ancient Sufi military orders — imperial Persia’s most successful organizations. The order’s rules are based on the views of Imam Safi al-Din, the founder of the Safavi school, from the early 14th century. These principles underlie the IRGC’s organizational activities. Their essence is simple: no family ties are allowed once a man is accepted into the order and is initiated into the closed military-religious class.
Shia Islam is complex and nuanced, but the current conflict has distilled the duties of a Shia Moslem into just two functions: to die as a martyr; and to avenge the death of a martyr. The first function — martyrdom — was duly fulfilled by all of the now dead Iranian leaders, from Ali Khamenei, killed at the outset, to Ali Larijani, killed more recently. The second function — revenge —will be carried out by the secretive factotums of the IRGC who emerge briefly from their tunnels hidden deep in the folds of endless mountains. They emerge, fire a volley of rockets, then go back into hiding.
This is a rather simplistic summary of what would take several years of intensive study to fully comprehend, but even this modicum of information would probably be greeted with complete incomprehension by Trump and his merry band of political assassins. The American understanding of war was formed by what were the only truly successful military campaigns the Americans ever fought — against the American Indians. These wars lasted for an entire century and were a great success: Indian land was stolen; Indians were either killed off or herded into reservations. Here, the tactic of political assassination worked wonderfully: kill the Indian chief and the Indian braves disband in disarray, not knowing whom to follow.
It is this erroneous notion — that political assassination paves the path to victory — that caused Trump and his motley crew of assassins to make Trump’s Big Mistake. In the case of Iran, political assassination does not pave the path to victory; it just brings closer the assassin’s own death.
[…]
Via https://boosty.to/cluborlov/posts/c3f7fe45-0214-42c7-9bf5-addf7ee568ed
Edited by: Sanstuti Nath
Iran’s President Masoud Pezeshkian has said the Strait of Hormuz is “open to everyone” except Iran’s adversaries as he set out Tehran’s policy on X.
According to Boroujerdi, the move reflects what he called a new “sovereign regime” in the strait after decades. “Collecting $2 million as transit fees from some vessels crossing the strait reflects Iran’s strength,” Boroujerdi said.
“Now, because war has costs, naturally we must do this and take transit fees from ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz,” he added, claiming the move shows the Islamic Republic’s “authority”.
Boroujerdi’s remarks followed US President Donald Trump’s warning last week that the United States could target Iran’s power infrastructure if the strait is not reopened within 48 hours. Trump has said if Iran didn’t open the strait, the US would destroy its “various POWER PLANTS, STARTING WITH THE BIGGEST ONE FIRST!”
The Iranian lawmaker also referred to Trump’s threat, saying Israel’s energy infrastructure would be within Iran’s reach and could be destroyed “within a day”.
“The illusion of erasing Iran from the map shows desperation against the will of a history-making nation. Threats and terror only strengthen our unity. The Strait of Hormuz is open to all except those who violate our soil. We firmly confront delirious threats on the battlefield,” he wrote.
Following Trump’s threat, Iran has said the Strait of Hormuz, crucial to oil and other exports, would be “completely closed” immediately if the US follows up on Trump’s threat to attack its power plants.
[…]
The U.S. has already launched hundreds of missiles and precision-guided weapons in the escalating conflict with Iran, an air campaign that has consumed billions of dollars in advanced military hardware in just weeks. But a new warning circulating in Chinese and Western media suggests the materials needed to keep producing those weapons may be running dangerously low.
Reports from the South China Morning Post and Reuters indicate Washington could have only weeks or months of certain rare-earth inventories available for defense manufacturing if supply disruptions deepen.
Rare earth elements are embedded throughout modern military systems—from missile guidance and drone propulsion to radar systems and fighter aircraft electronics.
“You can’t fight a twenty-first-century war with twentieth-century supply chains,” said Lipi Sternheim, CEO of REalloys. “Modern weapons rely on materials that are difficult to source, difficult to process, and difficult to replace once inventories begin to tighten.”REalloys (NASDAQ: ALOY) is one of the few companies rebuilding the rare-earth metals stage of the supply chain in North America, converting rare-earth oxides into the metals and alloys used by magnet manufacturers and defense suppliers.
And it’s the 11th hour for American defense and the entire defense industry, even if it wasn’t in the middle of a war with Iran that reportedly cost $5.6 billion just in the first two days.
That vulnerability isn’t new. For decades, the United States allowed much of its rare-earth processing and metallization capacity to migrate overseas, leaving China to dominate the stages of the supply chain that convert raw materials into the metals and magnets used in advanced technology. Today, much of the rare-earth material used in Western defense systems still traces through Chinese processing facilities. The Pentagon is now racing to reverse that dependence ahead of a 2027 deadline that will prohibit U.S. weapons systems from using magnets made with Chinese-origin rare earths.
REalloys’ flagship facility in Euclid, Ohio, is already ahead of the deadline.
REBUILDING AMERICA’S RARE EARTH METALS CAPACITY
Mountain Pass in California produces rare-earth concentrate that is separated domestically into NdPr oxide. That is an important step in rebuilding North American capability – but oxide itself is not the material defense contractors actually use.
Before it can enter manufacturing, oxide must first be chemically reduced into pure rare-earth metal. That metal is then blended into precise alloys used to produce high-performance permanent magnets.
For decades, that conversion—from oxide to metal—has taken place almost entirely in China. Even when rare-earth ore was mined in the United States and separated into oxide domestically, the metallurgical step that turns that chemistry into usable industrial metal was still performed overseas.
That is the break in the supply chain.
REalloys is positioned to help close it.
At its Euclid facility, the company converts rare-earth oxides into finished metals and magnet-grade alloys through high-temperature reduction and refining processes. Those materials are the feedstock required by magnet manufacturers and advanced industrial users.
It is also one of the most technically difficult stages of the entire rare-earth value chain. Metallization requires tightly controlled reduction reactions, high-temperature furnaces, and continuous process control capable of maintaining stable yields and purity levels across multiple rare-earth elements.
“Metallization is the least developed part of the value chain outside China,” said REAlloys co-founder Tim Johnston. “It requires deep operating expertise and process control systems capable of managing complex variables in continuous production. Even with capital and strong execution, replicating that capability typically takes three to seven years or more, with significant technical and qualification risk.”
The Euclid facility is already operating, converting rare-earth oxides into metals and alloys inside North America rather than sending those materials overseas for processing.
Upstream, REalloys owns the Hoidas Lake rare-earth project in Saskatchewan, anchoring primary resource exposure inside Canada.
In Greenland, the company has signed a long-term non-binding letter of intent covering roughly 15% of future production from the Tanbreez rare-earth project, one of the largest deposits of heavy and medium rare earths outside China.
Additional supply agreements extend to Kazakhstan, where the company is working with AltynGroup on access to material from the Kokbulak project and surrounding concessions. In Brazil, an alliance tied to the Araxá rare-earth project adds another potential non-Chinese source of feedstock.
“We’ve already solved the hardest part—proving that rare-earth metallization and alloying can be done domestically to the specifications real customers require,” Johnston said.
REalloys (NASDAQ: ALOY) isn’t stopping at metallization, either.
The company is also developing a large-scale permanent magnet manufacturing facility in the United States, designed to start with roughly 3,000 tons of neodymium-iron-boron (NdFeB) magnet production annually and expand to as much as 18,000 tons per year.
At full capacity, that level of output could supply magnets for roughly 1.5 to 2 million electric vehicles annually, thousands of wind turbines, and large volumes of industrial motors, robotics systems, and medical devices. Defense systems—from missile guidance units to radar and avionics—also rely heavily on high-performance rare-earth magnets.
That dependency runs across the entire contractor base. Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT), whose F-35 program requires hundreds of pounds of rare earth materials per airframe for flight controls, radar, and electronic warfare suites, has moved to dual-source critical mineral inputs as the 2027 deadline closes in. RTX Corporation (NYSE: RTX) faces the same pressure through its Raytheon unit, where AMRAAM and Tomahawk production depends on dysprosium and terbium magnets capable of holding performance under combat heat and vibration. At the smaller end of the contractor spectrum, Kratos Defense & Security Solutions (NASDAQ: KTOS) has built its high-volume drone and unmanned systems business around domestic supplier agreements that lock in proven rare earth alloys—a model that only works if the metallization layer it depends on actually exists inside the United States.
The facility is designed to integrate multiple stages of the rare-earth value chain, including metallization, alloying, powder production, and final magnet manufacturing.
If completed at the projected scale, it would represent one of the largest NdFeB magnet production sites outside Asia and a significant step toward rebuilding a fully integrated rare-earth supply chain in North America.
With Euclid converting oxide into metal inside the United States, the rare-earth supply chain begins to close a loop that has been broken for decades—just as Washington prepares to bar Chinese-origin rare earths from U.S. defense systems in 2027.
[…]
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed Executive Order 110, placing the country under a National State of Emergency and placing a unified package for livelihoods, industry, food and transport.PCO
Raffy Ayeng
25 Mar 2026
After weeks of not admitting that the country is experiencing a crisis, President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. on Tuesday released an Executive Order declaring the whole country under a National State of Emergency and authorizing the unified package for livelihoods, industry, food and transport.
Under Executive Order 110, signed by the President in Malacanang Palace, it said that the declaration was due the ongoing hostilities in the Middle East involving the United States of America, Israel, and Iran, which have heightened geopolitical tensions in the region that plays a critical role in global oil production and transportation, creating uncertainty in global energy markets, severe disruptions in supply chains, and significant volatility and upward pressure on international oil prices, thereby posing a threat to the country’s energy security.
President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. signed Executive Order 110, placing the country under a National State of Emergency and placing a unified package for livelihoods, industry, food and transport.
Malacañang warns hoarders, profiteers over fuel crisis
The Order also cited the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical energy corridor for global oil shipments, which disrupted the flow of petroleum products to international markets and constrained global fuel supply, with corresponding implications on the stability and adequacy of our domestic energy supply.
“WHEREAS, the Secretary of Energy has determined that the foregoing circumstances pose an imminent danger of a critically low energy supply and that urgent measures are necessary to ensure the stability and adequacy of the country’s energy supply,” the Order read.
Under Republic Act (RA) No. 7638, or the Department of Energy Act of 1992, it authorizes the President, upon determination and recommendation of the Secretary of Energy, to declare a critically low energy supply or imminent danger thereof, and authorize the implementation of the fuel and energy allocation plan and other energy conservation measures.
Energy Secretary Garin, also on Tuesday, maintained that the fuel supply of the country, including jet fuel, has buffer stocks, stressing that on average, there is around 45 days’ worth of supply for the whole country to date, based on their talks with fuel companies.
In particular, the current domestic supply of gasoline is expected to last for the next 53.14 days; diesel, 45.82 days; kerosene, 97.93 days; jet fuel, 38.62 days; fuel oil, 61.49 days; and liquified petroleum gas, 23.51 days.
On the other hand, Garin said supply continues to come in since the government has even talked with governments from supplier countries like South Korea, Japan, and China.
The President, in his order, stated that “the declaration of a state of national energy emergency will enable the government, through the DOE and other concerned agencies, to implement responsive and coordinated measures under existing laws to address the risks posed by disruptions in the global energy supply and the domestic economy.”
“A state of national energy emergency is hereby declared in light of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, and the resulting imminent danger to the availability and stability of the country’s energy supply,” the President said.
With the said declaration, the government will roll out a unified package for livelihoods, industry, food, and transport; the formulation of an Uplift Committee to oversee and coordinate the implementation of UPLIFT, which shall be composed of the President as chairman, with members including the Executive Secretary, and Secretaries of DOE, Transportation, Social Welfare and Development, Agriculture, Finance, Economy, Planning, and Development (Secretariat), and Budget and Management.
Some of the functions of the UPLIFT Committee include monitoring and ensure the continued and orderly movement, supply, distribution, and availability of fuel, food, medicines, agricultural products, and other essential goods; ensure the continuity of the operation of public transportation, public healthcare and establishments and infrastructure; safeguarding economic stability, while protecting vulnerable sectors from adverse impacts and severe disruptions caused by the ongoing crisis in the Middle East; among others.
To finance the Order, the EO stated that funding shall be sourced from existing appropriations of the concerned agencies and such other appropriate funding sources as the DBM may identify, subject to existing budgeting, accounting, and auditing laws, rules, and regulations.
[…]
Via https://tribune.net.ph/2026/03/24/marcos-jr-declares-state-of-national-emergency
The Most Revolutionary Act 