admin

In Latest News

Tom Emmer calls for Tim Walz, Keith Ellison to ‘serve jail time’ if fraud coverup allegations are true

March 5, 2026 No Comments

The highest-ranking Minnesotan in Congress is calling for a deeper investigation into allegations that leaders in his state government knowingly ignored evidence of welfare fraud, and he called for those leaders to even face incarceration if proven true.

‘People are sick and tired of elected officials having a double standard, being treated differently than they are. They’re held accountable for things that they should be held accountable for, when their elected officials are not,’ House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., told Fox News Digital.

‘If these two guys are dirty, they should be held accountable, and they should serve jail time.’

He was referring to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and state Attorney General Keith Ellison, two of several witnesses at a high-profile hearing on fraud conducted by the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday.

Both Walz and Ellison insisted that they were serious about prosecuting fraud in the state’s social programs and that they took action to stop it once it was brought to their attention.

But Emmer cited a report by the House Oversight Committee that accused them both of knowing about the fraud earlier than previously thought and delaying public accountability for fear of political retribution from progressives in the state — particularly the Somali community in Minneapolis, who Republicans have accused of taking advantage of the state’s welfare system.

‘They might have been able to qualify it enough that it wasn’t black and white, but if they lied to the committee this morning about knowing about the fraud and when they knew about the fraud and the FBI investigation, that is a criminal act of its own,’ Emmer told Fox News Digital.

‘So I do believe, depending on this report and what else the majority staff is doing, they very well may want to call them back in and depose them under oath.’

He added at another point, ‘You have maybe 80 to 100,000 Somalis in Minnesota. Tim Walz won with 52%. They made a difference. Keith Ellison won by less than 1%. I think it was 20,000 votes. Makes a difference. So if those are connected, yeah, I mean, this is campaign fraud.’

‘I’ve taken accountability for this. I’m not going to run again. I need to spend the time fixing this,’ Walz said during the hearing. ‘This does undermine trust in government. Do I wish there were things that could have happened earlier? Yes. But in this job, ‘wish’ didn’t do it. I’m looking into where I see it.’

At another point, Walz attributed the rise in fraud statistics to an increase in prosecutions, telling Republicans, ‘When you catch people and prosecute them, it shows up as a fraud increase.’

He also dismissed accusations that he kept whistle-blowers quiet over fear of being seen as Islamophobic, ‘I can’t speak to it because it’s not anything I would say.’

Ellison, meanwhile, said he was happy to work across bipartisan lines to prosecute fraud.

‘I am here to work to improve this system, and there are improvements that can be made,’ he said. ‘If we can get out of fixing the blame and get to fixing the problem, that would be an enormous thing for me.’

But Emmer, who maintained that further investigation was needed, suggested he doubted their intentions.

‘It’s power. They want power. In order for them to get power, they need to be elected. In order for them to get elected, they have to cheat in different ways. And that is exactly what they did,’ Emmer said. ‘If the Somali community is being used by these public officials to get themselves into office…it sure does look suspect, it needs to be investigated.’

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

In Investing

Precious Metals Price Update: Gold, Silver, PGMs Fall on Escalating US-Iran War

March 5, 2026 No Comments

Precious metals prices are down on potential for economic fallout from escalating US-Iran War.

Volatility has returned to the precious metals market this past week. All eyes are on the breakout of a full-scale war across the Middle East prompted by a coordinated assault on Iran by the United States and its ally Israel. Oil prices are up, which means inflation risks are once again on the minds of Federal Reserve board members as they contemplate upcoming interest rate decisions.

Let’s take a look at what’s got the precious metals moving over the past week.

Gold price

The price of gold is showing remarkable resilience in the face of strong volatility this past seven very eventful days. On Thursday (February 26), the yellow metal managed an intraday high of US$5,200 per ounce, well above the low of US$4,440 per ounce reached in the first few days of February following US President Donald Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh, a former Federal Reserve governor, to replace Jerome Powell as the next Fed chair.

Gold continued this upward trend on Friday (February 27) rising to an intraday high of US$5,270 per ounce. Over the weekend, tensions in the Middle East erupted into a full-scale war as the US and Israel launched a massive military campaign targeting multiple locations across Iran. Consequently, Iran quickly escalated the conflict into a large-scale regional war including missile strikes and drone attacks in Israel, Cyprus, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait.

The events lit a fire of safe-haven demand for gold, pushing prices up over US$5,400 per ounce on Monday (March 2). However, the yellow metal just as quickly reversed course on profit-taking and dropped as low as US$5,263 per ounce before recovering to a close of US$5,328 per ounce.

By Tuesday (March 3), the precious metal had lost further ground, following slightly below the psychologically important US$5,000 mark during morning trading, before finishing the day at US$5,088 per ounce.

Gold was trading back up at US$5,195 per ounce early Wednesday morning, as investors sought to buy the dip–a sign that strong confidence remains in the long-term bullish outlook for the metal. Gold closed the day at US$5,145.24 per ounce as investors balance safe-haven demand with the potential for higher interest rates for longer.

Gold price chart, February 25, 2026 to March 4, 2026.

Here are the primary drivers for gold this past week:

Geopolitical conflict in the Middle East remains the primary driver for safe-haven gold this week. Investors once again flocked to safe-haven gold, pushing the precious metal to near-record highs.
Expected profit-taking brought a healthy correction to the gold market, which contributed to the sharp, short-term drop on Tuesday.
Investor faith in gold’s long-term value brought on a buy-the-dip sentiment, giving the metal a strong level of support.
Concerns that rising oil prices as a result of the US-Iran war will lead to increased inflation is likely to place pressure on the Federal Reserve to delay interest rate cuts until later in the year. This takes a bit of the wind out of the sails for gold prices.
The likelihood of interest rates staying pat for longer strengthened the US Dollar and raised 10-year Treasury yields, both of which are also price negative for gold.

In other gold news, the World Gold Council reported that for the first time in more than a decade the Bank of Korea will begin investing in overseas-listed physical gold ETFs.

In gold mining sector news, SSR Mining (NASDAQ:SSRM,TSX:SSRM,OTCPL:SSRGF) has agreed to sell its majority stake in the Çöpler gold mine in Turkey for US$1.5 billion in cash.

Silver price

Silver has also experienced a volatile week of trading influenced by geopolitical tensions and concerns over the Fed’s next monetary policy moves.

Still well below its all-time high of more than US$120 per ounce it reached on January 29, 2026. The white metal traded at an intraday high of US$88.95 Thursday (February 26) before surging as high as US$94.14 per ounce the following day.

For Monday (March 2), silver continued higher to reach US$95.71 per ounce in early morning trading. Tracking gold’s decline, silver prices touched as low as US$86.61 that day before recovering to close at US$89.34 per ounce.

Tuesday’s (March 3) dip saw silver sink as low as US$79.734 per ounce in early morning trading before closing up at US$82.05 per ounce. Silver managed to hold on to those gains Wednesday (March 4) to close the trading day at US$83.56 per ounce

Silver price chart, February 25, 2026 to March 4, 2026.

As the world’s most electrically and thermally conductive metal, silver is still receiving strong support from industrial demand. The entrenched silver supply deficit also continues to provide a floor of support for the metal’s price.

In silver mining news, major silver producer Fresnillo (LSE:FRES,OTCPL:FNLPF), reported earnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortization of US$2.80-billion for the 12 months ended December 31, 2025, up more than 80 percent over the previous year. This allowed the company to payout a total of US$950-million, or 128.92 cents per share, to shareholders for 2025.

Platinum price

Platinum prices were trading well above the US$2,200 mark on Thursday (February 26), reaching as high as US$2287.50 per ounce. Friday brought further gains, with the precious metal pushing up past the US$2,400 per ounce level, although only slightly and very briefly.

However, by Monday (March 2) the price of platinum had slid as low as US$2,291.50 in the morning trade before finishing the day at a four-week high of US$2,325.70 per ounce.Tuesday (March 3) brought further volatility for platinum prices as they sank as low as US$2,015.70 as part of a broader liquidation event in the commodities markets. Yet, platinum managed to swing back slightly above the US$2,100 level by the end of the trading day.

Wednesday (March 4) saw platinum hanging on to those gains and moving upward to close at US$2,165.80 per ounce.

Platinum price chart, February 25, 2026 to March 4, 2026.

Platinum prices this week were supported by a March 3 report from the World Platinum Investment Council (WPIC) highlighting the fourth consecutive annual platinum market deficit with a 240,000 ounce shortfall expected in 2026. Although that is much lower than the 1.1 million ounce deficit recorded in 2025.

Demand is being driven by the metal’s essential role in the emerging hydrogen economy. The WPIC reports it sees support for platinum will come from a 7 percent rise in hydrogen stationary applications in 2026.

Palladium price

Palladium also succumbed to the downward trend for precious metals prices this past seven days. On Thursday (February 26), palladium retreated from the one-month highs above the US$1,900 level experienced last week to slip as low as US$1,770.50 per ounce in morning trading and struggled to finish the day close to US$1,800 per ounce. Friday found the metal back up to an intraday high of US$1,856.50 per ounce.

On Monday (March 2), palladium lost ground again, dipping to a low of US$1,781 per ounce before closing out the day at US$1,803 per ounce. However, the following day palladium’s price tracked its sister metals in a runaway slide that brought prices to a low of US$1,631 per ounce. By the end of the trading day it had only managed to claw back to US$1,672 per ounce.

After rebounding to US$1,730 per ounce in early morning trading Wednesday, palladium closed out the day at the US$1,700 level.

Palladium price chart, February 25, 2026 to March 4, 2026.

It seems investors are reassessing palladium’s value with a focus on broader economic risks to industrial demand brought about from potential shipping route closures in the Strait of Hormuz.

Market tightness persists due to output disruptions in South Africa and uncertainty over Russian exports, which provide a partial floor for prices.

Securities Disclosure: I, Melissa Pistilli, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

In Investing

Oreterra Announces Closing of Final Tranche of $9.7 Million Oversubscribed and Upsized Non-Brokered Private Placement

March 5, 2026 No Comments

Oreterra Metals Corp. (TSXV: OTMC) (OTCID: OTMCF) (OTCID: RMIOD) (FSE: D4R0) (WKN: A421RQ)(‘Oreterra’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce that, further to its press releases of February 10, 2026, February 12, 2026, February 18, 2026, February 19, 2026 and March 2, 2026, it has closed the second and final tranche of its oversubscribed and upsized non-brokered private placement with the placement of 154,444 hard-dollar units (‘HD Units’) of the Company at a price of $0.45 per HD Unit for gross proceeds of $69,500 and the placement of 660,000 flow-through units (‘FT Units’) at a price of $0.50 per FT Unit for gross proceeds of $330,000 (collectively, the ‘Final Closing’). Combined with the first closing of $9.3M, gross proceeds from the placement totaled $9.7M.

Offering Details:

The non-brokered private placement was upsized multiple times to $9,684,000 through the issuance of a combination of $5,500,000 in hard-dollar units (‘HD Units‘) of the Company at a price of $0.45 per HD Unit and $4,184,000 in flow-through units (‘FT Units‘) at a price of $0.50 per FT Unit (collectively, the ‘Offering‘).

Each HD Unit, priced at $0.45, comprised one (1) common share of the Company and one (1) common share purchase warrant (each a ‘HD Warrant‘). Each HD Warrant entitles the holder to acquire one additional common share of the Company at an exercise price of $0.60 per share for three years following the closing of the Offering.

Each FT Unit, priced at $0.50, comprised one (1) flow-through share of the Company (each a ‘FT Share‘) and one (1) common share purchase warrant (each an ‘FT Warrant‘). Each FT Warrant entitles the holder to acquire one additional common share of the Company at an exercise price of $0.60 per share for three years following the closing of the Offering.

Final Closing Details:

The Company paid one eligible finder a cash commission of $6,900 and issued 13,800 broker warrants (each a ‘Broker Warrant‘). Each Broker Warrant entitles the holder thereof to acquire one additional common share of the Company at an exercise price of $0.60 per share for three years following the closing of the Offering.

Canaccord Genuity Corp. acted as financial advisor to the Company and received 62,777 HD Units as compensation for its $28,250 advisory fee (inclusive of HST).

All securities issued under the Final Closing are subject to a hold period expiring on July 5, 2026.

The securities described herein have not been offered or sold within the United States. This press release does not constitute an offer to sell or a solicitation to buy any securities in any jurisdiction.

The FT Shares qualify as ‘flow-through shares’ within the meaning of subsection 66(15) of the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the ‘Tax Act’). An amount equal to the proceeds received from the issuance of the FT Shares will be used to incur eligible resource exploration expenses which will qualify as (i) ‘Canadian exploration expenses’ (as defined in the Tax Act), and (ii) as ‘flow-through critical mineral mining expenditures’ (as defined in subsection 127(9) of the Tax Act) (collectively, the ‘Qualifying Expenditures‘).

Expenditures in an aggregate amount not less than the proceeds raised from the issue of the FT Shares will be incurred (or deemed to be incurred) by the Company on or before December 31, 2027 and will be renounced by the Company to the purchasers of the FT Shares with an effective date no later than December 31, 2026. The net proceeds from the issuance of HD Units will be primarily used for exploration activities at the Company’s Trek property, as well as for general working capital purposes.

Early Warning Disclosure Regarding Anastasios Drivas

Anastasios Drivas (‘Tom Drivas‘) previously filed an early warning report with respect to the securities of Oreterra on July 16, 2025. As a result of an increase in the issued and outstanding capital of Oreterra pursuant to the Offering, including the acquisition by Tom Drivas and affiliates of 690,000 FT Units (the ‘690,000 FT Units‘) pursuant to the Offering and the expiry of 833,333 warrants and 800,000 stock options held by Tom Drivas, the direct and indirect interest of Tom Drivas in Oreterra has been reduced to approximately 7.54% of the issued and outstanding common shares of Oreterra on a non-diluted basis and 8.72% on a partially diluted basis, assuming the exercise of the warrants held directly or indirectly by Tom Drivas. Therefore, Tom Drivas is no longer required to file an early warning report under National Instrument 62-103.

Tom Drivas has advised that the 690,000 FT Units were acquired for investment purposes and that he has no present intention to either increase or decrease his direct or indirect holdings in the Company. Notwithstanding the foregoing, he has advised that he may increase or decrease his beneficial ownership, control or direction over common shares of the Company through market transactions, private agreements, other treasury issuances or otherwise.

This news release is issued pursuant to National Instrument 62-103 – The Early Warning System and related Take-Over Bid and Insider Reporting Issues of the Canadian Securities Administrators, which also requires an early warning report to be filed with the applicable securities regulators containing additional information with respect to the foregoing matters. A copy of this early warning report in respect of this transaction will be available on Oreterra’s issuer profile on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.

Adoption of the 2025 Stock Option Plan

At the Annual General and Special Meeting of Shareholders of the Company held on January 16, 2026, the Shareholders adopted the new 2025 Stock Option Plan (the ‘2025 SOP‘). The 2025 SOP was appended to the Company’s Management Information Circular (the ‘Information Circular‘) dated November 28, 2025 as Schedule ‘C’, a copy of which Information Circular was filed on sedarplus.com on December 10, 2025. All changes to the 2017 Stock Option Plan made pursuant to the 2025 SOP are set out in a black-lined version of the 2025 SOP appended as Schedule ‘D’ to the Information Circular. The Company wishes to bring to the attention of shareholders the following amendments to the 2017 Stock Option Plan resulting from the adoption of the 2025 SOP. The 2025 SOP requires that the Company obtain disinterested shareholder approval of any decrease in the exercise price of or extensions to any stock options granted to individuals that are insiders at the time of the proposed amendment. In addition, the 2025 SOP clarifies the fact that any option that has an expiry date that occurs within ten (10) Business Days from the end of a Blackout Period shall not be extended and shall expire if unexercised by the original expiry date.

In addition, the amendments to the 2025 SOP provide that both the Company and any Optionee that is an Employee or Consultant are responsible for ensuring that such Optionee is a bone fide Employee or Consultant of the Company and that any adjustments to options, other than pursuant to a stock split or consolidation, are subject to prior acceptance by the TSX Venture Exchange. Other minor clarifications with respect to the 10% limit applicable to Insiders and limits on options granted to persons providing investor relations services in the event of an acceleration of the Expiry Date are reflected in the 2025 SOP.

About Oreterra Metals Corp.

Oreterra Metals Corp. commenced trading on February 2, 2026, under the new ticker OTMC, following a months-long effort to restructure the former Romios Gold Resources Inc. Management took on the task because it believes the Company’s wholly-owned Trek South porphyry copper-gold prospect represents, based upon the impressive results of the spectrum of geosciences applied to the target area to date, among the finest new targets of its kind in BC’s Golden Triangle. The Company recently released (news, January 22, 2026) a National Instrument 43-101 Technical Report for the Trek property which recommends two initial phases of drilling at Trek South, for execution in the approaching 2026 field season. A copy of the Technical Report is available on the Company’s website at www.oreterra.com, and on the Company’s SEDAR+ issuer profile at www.sedarplus.com.

Additional wholly-owned Company property interests include two former producers in Nevada: the Kinkaid claims in the Walker Lane trend covering numerous shallow Au-Ag-Cu workings over what is believed to be one or more porphyry centres (source: J.Biczok, P.Geo, June 2025, Kinkaid Gold-Copper-Silver Project, www.oreterra.com), and the Scossa mine property in the Sleeper trend which is a former high-grade gold producer (source: J.Biczok, P.Geo, July 2025, Scossa Historic Gold Mine Property, www.oreterra.com). The Company also holds a 100% interest in the large Lundmark-Akow Lake Au-Cu property adjacent to the northwest of the Musselwhite Mine in northwestern Ontario, where drilling by the Company has produced highly encouraging, broad VMS-style Au-Cu intersections.

For further information, visit www.oreterra.com or contact:

Kevin M. Keough
Chief Executive Officer
Tel: 613 622-1916
Email: kkeough@oreterra.com

Stephen Burega
President
Tel: 647 515-3734
Email: sburega@oreterra.com

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Information

This news release includes certain ‘forward-looking statements’ which are not comprised of historical facts. Forward-looking statements include estimates and statements that describe the Company’s future plans, objectives or goals, including words to the effect that the Company or management expects a stated condition or result to occur. Forward-looking statements may be identified by such terms as ‘believes’, ‘anticipates’, ‘expects’, ‘estimates’, ‘may’, ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘will’, or ‘plan’. Since forward-looking statements are based on assumptions and address future events and conditions, by their very nature they involve inherent risks and uncertainties. Although these statements are based on information currently available to the Company, the Company provides no assurance that actual results will meet management’s expectations. Risks, uncertainties and other factors involved with forward-looking information could cause actual events, results, performance, prospects and opportunities to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from such forward-looking information include, but are not limited to failure to identify mineral resources, delays in obtaining or failures to obtain required governmental, environmental or other project approvals, political risks, inability to fulfill the duty to accommodate First Nations, uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future, changes in equity markets, inflation, changes in exchange rates, fluctuations in commodity prices, delays in the development of projects, capital and operating costs varying significantly from estimates and the other risks involved in the mineral exploration and development industry, and those risks set out in the Company’s public documents filed on SEDAR+. Although the Company believes that the assumptions and factors used in preparing the forward-looking information in this news release are reasonable, undue reliance should not be placed on such information, which only applies as of the date of this news release, and no assurance can be given that such events will occur in the disclosed time frames or at all. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, other than as required by law.

NOT FOR DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, RELEASE, OR PUBLICATION, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN OR INTO THE UNITED STATES OR FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES

Corporate Logo

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/286347

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

In Investing

Copper Quest Completes AI-Driven Analysis at Kitimat & Identifies Large Concealed Conductive Target

March 5, 2026 No Comments

Copper Quest Exploration Inc. (CSE: CQX,OTC:IMIMF; OTCQB: IMIMF; FRA: 3MX) (‘Copper Quest’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce the completion of its AI-driven geological analysis at its 100%-owned Kitimat Copper-Gold Project (‘Kitimat’) in northwestern British Columbia confirming a large conductive anomaly consistent with a buried porphyry center.

Brian Thurston, CEO of Copper Quest, stated, ‘The completion of our AI-driven analysis marks a significant step forward at Kitimat. The AI generation of this very large conductive anomaly positioned along a structural magnetic boundary in fertile arc volcanics could very easily represent a concealed intrusive porphyry center. The historical mineralization drilled nearby delivered significant near-surface copper-gold intercepts that remain open and conforms with our geologic interpretation that those intercepts may represent the outer expression of a much larger porphyry system, perhaps of the AI generated anomaly now observed.’

Copper Quest announced its strategic partnership with U.S. based Exploration Technologies Inc. (‘ExploreTech’) on Decemeber 1, 2025, to deploy generative artificial intelligence across its project portfolio, beginning with the Kitimat Copper–Gold Project in British Columbia. Using the ExplorTech platform, historical information from the Kitimat project was integrated and reprocessed, including historical diamond drilling (including 2010 Jeannette Cu-Au Zone drilling), government airborne magnetics, VTEM conductivity data, structural and lithological interpretations, 2025 field observations and alteration mapping, as well as soil and rock geochemistry. The platform integrated this historical information into a unified probabilistic 3D geological framework while the AI system generated thousands of subsurface geological scenarios, ranking probability clusters for concealed intrusive centers and sulphide-rich alteration zones.

Alex Miltenberger, PhD, CEO of ExploreTech commented, ‘Our generative AI platform evaluates thousands of geological and geophysical permutations to identify the highest-probability mineralized centers. At Kitimat, the integrated magnetic, VTEM, drilling and geological datasets produce a coherent target architecture consistent with buried intrusive-related mineralization. This platform has been successfully applied on multiple porphyry systems worldwide and we look forward to supporting Copper Quest as they advance this project toward drill confirmation.’

AI modeling has identified a large, buried conductive body measuring approximately 1.5 km by 1.5 km in lateral extent. The anomaly demonstrates strong vertical continuity to at least 1 km depth—the maximum limit of the analysis—and begins just 50 meters below surface, concealed beneath sedimentary cover. The conductor is situated within a pronounced magnetic gradient/dipole corridor, with a spatial relationship suggestive of an intrusive contact or alteration boundary. It also lies in proximity to documented volcanic-hosted sulphide mineralization.

The geological setting—Lower Jurassic Hazelton Group volcanics intruded by Coast Plutonic rocks—further supports the exploration model. Collectively, these characteristics are interpreted by the Company as indicative of a concealed, sulphide-rich hydrothermal center. Permitting has been initiated for a 2026 Induced Polarization survey followed by a diamond drill program to test this compelling target.

These AI results have materially refined and strengthened Copper Quest’s theory that the project area hosts a large hydrothermal copper-gold porphyry system. ExploreTech’s modeling supports the geologic interpretation that the 2010 drilling at the Jeannette Zone may represent a peripheral expression of a larger concealed intrusive center (Figure 1), represented by the AI interpreted kilometer-scale conductive anomaly.

Presumed geological setting of the Jeannette zone within the larger Kitimat claim block taken from National Instrument 43-101 report written on the Kitimat property by Jeremy Hanson, P.Geo, in 2020.

Figure 1: Presumed geological setting of the Jeannette zone within the larger Kitimat claim block taken from National Instrument 43-101 report written on the Kitimat property by Jeremy Hanson, P.Geo, in 2020.

The Kitimat Project hosts significant historical copper-gold drill intersections, mostly completed by Decade Resources Ltd. in 2010 at the Jeannette Zone. Notable intervals include 117.07m grading 0.54% Cu and 1.03 g/t Au (Hole J-7), 103.65m grading 0.55% Cu and 1.00 g/t Au (Hole J-1), 107.01m grading 0.45% Cu and 0.80 g/t Au (Hole J-2), and 112.20 m grading 0.33% Cu and 0.41 g/t Au (Hole J-8).

INFRASTRUCTURE ADVANTAGE

The Kitimat Project is supported by outstanding infrastructure that meaningfully strengthens its development potential. The property benefits from established road access via historic logging and exploration roads, proximity to rail infrastructure, access to high-voltage hydroelectric power, and deep-water port facilities at Kitimat. Located just 10 kilometers from the city within a stable, mining-friendly jurisdiction, the project is exceptionally well positioned. Collectively, this infrastructure base has the potential to materially enhance project economics in the event of a discovery.

QUALIFIED PERSON

Brian G. Thurston, P.Geo., the Company’s President and CEO and a qualified person as defined by National Instrument 43-101 – Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects, has reviewed and approved the technical information in this news release.

COPPER: GLOBAL SUPPLY DEFICIT & CRITICAL METAL

Global copper demand is accelerating at an unprecedented pace, fueled by electrification, electric vehicles, renewable energy deployment, expanding data centers, AI infrastructure, and large-scale grid modernization. At the same time, the industry faces mounting constraints while ore grades at existing mines continue to decline, new discoveries become increasingly rare, permitting timelines are lengthening, and meaningful supply deficits are projected over the coming decade.

In this environment, advancing new copper discoveries in stable, mining-friendly jurisdictions such as Canada and the USA has become essential to Western energy security and long-term economic growth. Copper Quest is strategically positioned to help deliver the next generation of North American copper discoveries.

ABOUT EXPLORETECH

ExploreTech is a mineral exploration company which specializes in AI-driven exploration workflows, including geological modeling, geophysical inversion, and drill-target optimization, to find concealed mineralized systems. ExploreTech is led by Alex Miltenberger, PhD, and Tyler Hall, PhD, both graduates of Stanford University in Geophysics and Geology respectively, with professional backgrounds in exploration and mining. The ExploreTech platform integrates geophysics, drilling, geochemistry, structural interpretation, and satellite data into a probabilistic 3D geological framework designed to rapidly identify possible concealed intrusive centers and mineralized systems. ExploreTech has successfully leveraged their technology on a number of different projects, with a particular strength in revealing hidden porphyry targets. More information on ExploreTech can be found at www.exploretech.ai

ABOUT Copper Quest Exploration Inc.

The company’s land holdings comprise 8 projects that span over 46,000 hectares in great mining jurisdictions of Canada and the USA. Copper Quest is committed to building shareholder value through acquisitions, discovery-driven exploration, and responsible development of its North American portfolio of assets. The Company’s common shares are principally listed on the Canadian Stock Exchange under the symbol ‘CQX’. For more information on Copper Quest, please visit the Company’s website at www.copper.quest.

Copper Quest has a 100% interest in the past-producing Alpine Gold Mine located approximately 20 kilometers northeast of the City of Nelson British Columbia, spanning 4,611.49 hectares with a 2018 National Instrument 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects historical inferred resource of 268,000 tonnes, estimated using a cut-off grade of 5.0 g/t Au and an average grade of 16.52 g/t Au, that represents an inferred resource of 142,000 oz of gold (McCuaig & Giroux, 2018)*. Apart from the Alpine Mine itself the property hosts 4 other less explored significant vein systems including the past-producing King Solomon vein workings, the Black Prince and the Cold Blow veins system, and the Gold Crown vein system. *The Company has not yet completed sufficient work to verify the 2018 historic inferred resource results.

Copper Quest has a 100% interest in the road accessible Stars Porphyry Copper-Molybdenum Property, spanning 9,693 hectares in central British Columbia’s Bulkley Porphyry Belt with Tana Zone discovery drill intersection highlights of 0.466% Cu over 195.07m* in drill hole DD18SS004 from 23.47m, 0.200% Cu over 396.67m* in drill hole DD18SS010 from 29.37m, and 0.205% Cu over 207.27m* in drill hole DD18SS015 from 163.98m. This highly prospective, approximately 5 X 2.5 kilometer annular magnetic anomaly is interpreted to represent an altered monzonite intrusion and surrounding hornfels.

Copper Quest has a 100% interest in the road accessible Kitimat Copper-Gold Property, spanning 2,954 hectares within the Skeena Mining Division of northwestern British Columbia located northwest of the deep-water port community of Kitimat, British Columbia. The property benefits from exceptional infrastructure, being within 10 km of tidewater, 1.5 km of rail, and 6 km of high-voltage hydroelectric transmission lines. Exploration on the Kitimat property dates to the late 1960s, with the most significant historical work conducted by Decade Resources Ltd. (2010), which completed 16 diamond drill holes totaling 4,437.5 meters in the Jeannette Cu-Au Zone, and drill intersection highlights of 1.03 g/t Au, 0.54% Cu over 117.07 m in Hole J-7 from 1.52 m, 1.00 g/t Au, 0.55% Cu over 103.65m in Hole J-1 from 9.15 m, 0.80 g/t Au, 0.45% Cu over 107.01m in Hole J-2 from 6.10 m, and 0.41 g/t Au, 0.33% Cu over 112.20m in Hole J-8 from 11.89 m.

Copper Quest has a 100% interest in the Nekash Copper-Gold Project, a porphyry exploration opportunity located in Lemhi County, Idaho, USA, along the prolific Idaho-Montana porphyry copper belt that hosts world-class systems such as Butte and CUMO. The project is fully road-accessible via maintained U.S. highways and forest service roads and consists of 70 unpatented federal lode claims covering 585 hectares.

Copper Quest has an option to earn 100% interest in the past-producing road accessible Auxer Gold Mine, spanning 1,087 hectares located in Bonner County, Idaho, USA. This orogenic gold opportunity is positioned along one of the region’s most significant structural corridors located within the prolific Hope Fault system. Historical exploration has demonstrated exceptional gold grades, with the 1936 Platts report documenting up to 21.0 g/t Au in surface samples and underground workings showing consistent mineralization over 4.3-meter widths averaging 9.42 g/t Au at an 18-meter depth.

Copper Quest has a 100% interest in the road accessible Stellar Property, spanning 5,389-hectares in British Columbia’s Bulkley Porphyry Belt contiguous to the Stars Property.

Copper Quest has a 100% interest in the Thane Project located in the Quesnel Terrane of Northern British Columbia spanning over 20,658 hectares with 10 priority targets identified demonstrating significant copper and precious metal mineralization potential.

Copper Quest has an earn-in option of up to 80% and joint-venture agreement on the road accessible Rip Porphyry Copper-Molybdenum Project, spanning 4,700-hectares located in the Bulkley Porphyry Belt in central British Columbia.

On behalf of the Board of Copper Quest Exploration Inc.

Brian Thurston, P.Geo.
Chief Executive Officer and Director
Tel: 778-949-1829

For further information contact:

Investor Relations
info@copper.quest

https://x.com/CSECQX
https://ca.linkedin.com/company/copper-quest

Forward Looking Information

This news release contains certain ‘forward-looking information’ and ‘forward-looking statements’ (collectively, ‘forward-looking statements‘) within the meaning of applicable securities legislation. All statements, other than statements of historical fact included herein, including without limitation, future operations and activities of Copper Quest, are forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are frequently, but not always, identified by words such as ‘expects’, ‘anticipates’, ‘believes’, ‘intends’, ‘estimates’, ‘potential’, ‘possible’, and similar expressions, or statements that events, conditions, or results ‘will’, ‘may’, ‘could’, or ‘should’ occur or be achieved. Forward-looking statements reflect the beliefs, opinions and projections on the date the statements are made and are based upon a number of assumptions and estimates based on or related to many of these factors. Such factors include, without limitation, risks associated with possible accidents and other risks associated with mineral exploration operations, the risk that the Company will encounter unanticipated geological factors, risks associated with the interpretation of exploration results, the possibility that the Company may not be able to secure permitting and other governmental clearances necessary to carry out the Company’s exploration plans, the risk that the Company will not be able to raise sufficient funds to carry out its business plans, and the risk of political uncertainties and regulatory or legal changes that might interfere with the Company’s business and prospects. Readers should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements and information contained in this news release concerning these items. The Company does not assume any obligation to update the forward-looking statements of beliefs, opinions, projections, or other factors, should they change, except as required by applicable securities laws.

The Canadian Securities Exchange has not reviewed, approved or disapproved the contents of this press release, and does not accept responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

A photo accompanying this announcement is available at https://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/bc390adc-89c5-4413-bc0a-bd350735d023

Primary Logo

News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

In Investing

New Found Gold Announces US$75 Million Term Sheet to Advance Queensway Development

March 5, 2026 No Comments

New Found Gold Corp. (TSXV: NFG) (NYSE American: NFGC) (‘New Found Gold’ or the ‘Company’) is pleased to announce that it has entered into a non-binding term sheet for an up to US$75,000,000 loan facility (the ‘Loan Facility’).

The proceeds from the Loan Facility will be used as financing for the development of the Company’s 100% owned Queensway Gold Project (‘Queensway‘ or the ‘Project‘) in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, including the procurement of long lead items, early construction activities, upgrading and expanding the Company’s 100% owned Pine Cove Mill to accommodate Queensway Phase 1 off-site milling, and general working capital purposes. The Loan Facility, alongside cashflow from the Hammerdown Gold Project (‘Hammerdown‘), is an important component of the Company’s overall finance strategy.

‘We are pleased to enter into the term sheet for this debt financing, which will support Phase 1 of our flagship Queensway Gold Project and enable us to remain on track with the development timeline outlined in our 2025 PEA,’ commented Keith Boyle, CEO of New Found Gold. ‘Once the Loan Facility is in place, we will be well capitalized as we advance towards a formal construction decision later this year, taking us closer to production at Queensway, which showcases a solid low-cost production profile via a phased mine plan, near-term cash flow generation and significant upside through exploration, as we aim for first production in late 2027.’¹

Pursuant to the non-binding term sheet, the Loan Facility will be documented by way of a senior secured debenture and advanced in two tranches: US$50,000,000 to be funded at closing (‘Tranche 1‘) and, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions and if required by the Company, an additional US$25,000,000 to be funded no later than 15 months after closing (‘Tranche 2‘) at no additional standby fee. Both tranches will be subject to customary arrangement fees. The Loan Facility will bear interest at a fixed annual rate of 9.25% payable quarterly in arrears and will have a term of 24 months, and will be subject to a quarterly administration fee based on a fixed annual fee of 0.50%. The Company will have the option to extend the term by an additional six months. The funds to be advanced reflect principal amounts subject to an original issue discount, which will increase if the term is extended.

In connection with the Loan Facility and subject to the approval of the TSX Venture Exchange (‘TSXV‘), the Company will issue to Nebari Natural Resources Credit Fund II, LP (the ‘Lender‘) at closing non-transferable warrants for the purchase of common shares in the Company. The warrants issued in connection with Tranche 1 will have an aggregate value of US$3,750,000, and the warrants issued in connection with Tranche 2 will have an aggregate value of US$1,875,000. Each warrant will be exercisable for one common share of the Company at an exercise price equal to a 25% premium to the lower of the volume weighted average price of the common shares of the Company on the TSXV for the 20 trading days prior to (a) the date hereof, and (b) the date the warrants are issued, provided that the exercise price will not be below the market price as determined by the TSXV. The warrants will be exercisable for a period of 24 months following closing. If the Company extends the term of the loan by an additional six months, the expiration date of the warrants will also be extended by six months if permitted by the TSXV.

All direct and indirect subsidiaries of the Company will guarantee the Loan Facility. The Company and such guarantors will secure the Loan Facility with first-lien security interests over all of their present and after-acquired real and personal property.

The provision of the Loan Facility remains subject to customary conditions precedent, such as the negotiation, execution, delivery and registration of definitive financing documents, completion of due diligence to the Lender’s satisfaction, receipt of all necessary corporate and regulatory approvals (including approval of the TSXV), and approval by the Lender’s Investment Committee. The term sheet includes a mutual break fee in the event of a termination by either party prior to closing.

Cutfield Freeman & Co. Ltd. (‘CF&Co‘), an independent global mining finance advisory firm, is acting as financial advisors to the Company in relation to the Loan Facility and its overall project finance strategy (see the New Found Gold press release dated November 28, 2025).

The Company appreciates the interest from other finance providers who were willing to support New Found Gold and were eager to be part of our Company’s growth.

This press release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy nor shall there be any sale of warrants in any state in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful. The warrants have not been, nor will they be, registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ‘U.S. Securities Act‘) and may not be offered or sold in the United States absent registration or an applicable exemption from the registration requirements of the U.S. Securities Act, and applicable state securities laws.

About New Found Gold Corp.

New Found Gold is an emerging Canadian gold producer with assets in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. The Company holds a 100% interest in Queensway and Hammerdown, which includes the Hammerdown deposit and fully permitted milling and tailings facilities. The Company is currently focused on advancing its flagship Queensway to production and bringing the Hammerdown deposit into commercial gold production.

In July 2025, the Company completed a PEA at Queensway (see New Found Gold press release dated July 21, 2025). Recent drilling continues to yield new discoveries along strike and down dip of known gold zones, pointing to the district-scale potential that covers a +110 km strike extent along two prospective fault zones at Queensway.

Through 2025 New Found Gold built a new board of directors and management team and has a solid shareholder base which includes cornerstone investor Eric Sprott. The Company is focused on growth and value creation.

Keith Boyle, P.Eng.
Chief Executive Officer
New Found Gold Corp.

Contact

For further information on New Found Gold contact us through our investor inquiry form at https://newfoundgold.ca/contact/ or contact:

Fiona Childe, Ph.D., P.Geo.
Vice President, Communications and Corporate Development
Phone: +1 (416) 910-4653
Email: contact@newfoundgold.ca

Forward-Looking Information
This press release contains certain ‘forward-looking statements’ within the meaning of Canadian and United States securities legislation, including statements regarding the non-binding term sheet for the Loan Facility; the proposed terms of the Loan Facility, including the amounts to be funded and the timing thereof; the arrangement and administration fees; the interest rate; the term of the Loan Facility; the terms of the warrants to be issued in connection with the Loan Facility, including the aggregate value of each tranche, the calculation of the exercise price and the exercise period; the guarantees and security interests to be granted in connection with the Loan Facility; the expected use of proceeds; the Company’s overall finance strategy; the Company’s advancement towards a formal construction decision at Queensway; the future production at Queensway; and the Company’s focus on growth and value creation. Although the Company believes that such statements are reasonable, it can give no assurance that such expectations will prove to be correct. Forward-looking statements are statements that are not historical facts; they are generally, but not always, identified by the words ‘expects’, ‘plans’, ‘anticipates’, ‘believes’, ‘interpreted’, ‘intends’, ‘estimates’, ‘projects’, ‘aims’, ‘suggests’, ‘indicate’, ‘often’, ‘target’, ‘future’, ‘likely’, ‘pending’, ‘potential’, ‘encouraging’, ‘goal’, ‘objective’, ‘prospective’, ‘possibly’, ‘preliminary’, and similar expressions, or that events or conditions ‘will’, ‘would’, ‘may’, ‘can’, ‘could’ or ‘should’ occur, or are those statements, which, by their nature, refer to future events. The Company cautions that forward-looking statements are based on the beliefs, estimates and opinions of the Company’s management on the date the statements are made, and they involve a number of risks and uncertainties. Consequently, there can be no assurances that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Except to the extent required by applicable securities laws and the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange and NYSE American, the Company undertakes no obligation to update these forward-looking statements if management’s beliefs, estimates or opinions, or other factors, should change. Factors that could cause future results to differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements include risks associated with the Company’s ability to complete exploration and drilling programs as expected, possible accidents and other risks associated with mineral exploration operations, the risk that the Company will encounter unanticipated geological factors, risks associated with the interpretation of exploration results and the results of the metallurgical testing program, the possibility that the Company may not be able to secure permitting and other governmental clearances necessary to carry out the Company’s exploration plans, the risk that the Company will not be able to raise sufficient funds to carry out its business plans, and the risk of political uncertainties and regulatory or legal changes that might interfere with the Company’s business and prospects. The reader is urged to refer to the Company’s Annual Information Form and Management’s Discussion and Analysis, publicly available through the Canadian Securities Administrators’ System for Electronic Document Analysis and Retrieval (SEDAR+) at www.sedarplus.ca and on the website of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission at www.sec.gov for a more complete discussion of such risk factors and their potential effects.

¹ See the New Found Gold technical report titled ‘NI 43-101 Technical Report for the Queensway Gold Project, Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada’, dated Sept. 2, 2025 prepared by SLR Consulting (Canada) Ltd.

Corporate Logo

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/286276

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

In Latest News

Trump is realigning world energy markets and the Iran strikes are actually helping

March 5, 2026 No Comments

Iran’s tyrannical and ruthless regime is disintegrating. After yet again massacring thousands of its own citizens for voicing their dreams for liberty and better governance, the Iranian regime meantime resumed pursuing nuclear capability and its aggressive ICBM program. The regime’s overconfidence in U.S. inaction cost it its leader and its core military capabilities are going up in smoke. Against this backdrop, the conflict has spread to the Gulf, threatening the Strait of Hormuz, a chokepoint for roughly one-fifth of the world’s petroleum, and forcing the rest of the world to rethink how it prices energy risk and political alignment.

This is not another regional flare-up. This is a rupture of an old equilibrium in which sanctioned oil, shadow fleets and calibrated escalation kept markets stable enough to function. That equilibrium is now breaking. A rapid political-military shift in the Middle East is unfolding alongside a restructuring of the global energy order.

When I was in Afghanistan during the surge, Tehran’s active support for the insurgency fighting the United States and Afghan forces fomented instability and amplified violence for which civilians paid the biggest price, a dynamic that so many across several nations have tragically encountered for decades. But Iran was never a contained regional problem.

While its terrorism was widely perceived as a Middle East issue, its cyber and intelligence operations spanned continents, with assassination plots that included the American president. As to global effects, Iran’s energy has always made its regime globally significant.

At this stage of the conflict, the most economically significant and immediate geography is the Strait of Hormuz which Iran is working to choke off. Roughly one-fifth of global petroleum and a substantial portion of liquefied natural gas move through that narrow corridor. As strikes intensified, vessels paused transit, insurers reassessed exposure and operators rerouted cargoes. Markets adjusted immediately. Energy security and geopolitical stability are now inseparable; maritime risk has become the pressure valve through which regional conflict spills into global consequence.

This realignment did not begin in the Gulf this weekend. It started with U.S. actions in Venezuela. Caracas holds the world’s largest proven crude reserves — about 303 billion barrels — and even marginal normalization under a more U.S.-cooperative government alters the supply calculus for Washington and its allies.

The new U.S.–Venezuela arrangement has already generated roughly $2 billion in transactions in just weeks, pulling Venezuelan barrels back into wider circulation and altering the discount ecosystem Moscow had grown accustomed to. Stack that with a post-crisis Iran re-entering markets on different terms, and the shadow ecosystem of discounted, sanctioned crude — Russia, Iran, Venezuela — begins to fracture and reprice simultaneously.

But the most consequential energy recalibration runs through Beijing. China is essentially Iran’s oil export market. In 2025, China bought more than 80% of Iran’s shipped oil, averaging ~1.38 million barrels per day, about 13.4% of China’s seaborne crude imports—meaning Beijing is simultaneously Tehran’s economic lifeline and its strategic choke chain.

Oil tanker blazes near the coast of Oman in

By turning a sanctioned producer into a quasi-captive supply relationship — sustained through gray-market routing, reflagging and intermediary hubs — Beijing secured discounted barrels in normal times and leverage in crisis. Any sustained disruption of Iranian flows forces China into replacement buying that tightens global markets and exposes China’s own energy security; Iran exports about 1.6 million bpd mainly to China and such disruptions pushes Beijing to pivot to alternatives.

The relationship is therefore best understood as a dependency loop: Iran needs China for revenue and sanctions relief-by-proxy; China uses Iran as a discount supplier and as a pressure valve in the sanctioned crude system — one that can be tightened or loosened depending on Beijing’s broader negotiation posture with Washington and its appetite for risk in the Gulf. That Iran-China dependency is no longer stable. With Iranian oil flows disrupted, China faces a choice between turning to alternative suppliers at higher cost or even tapping strategic reserves. Tightening global crude markets resulting from U.S. actions in Venezuela and now Iran give Washington leverage in energy pricing.

Beyond the tanker decks, this shift underscores the larger theme of reconfiguration: resources once bundled to manage sanctions are now subject to heightened geopolitical risk, forcing China to rethink dependencies while the U.S. and its partners are positioning to shape the post-conflict energy order. Energy supply patterns will restructure global power relations. And where China is recalibrating exposure, Russia is recalculating opportunity.

The same forces reshaping China’s calculations are altering Moscow’s. As India trims Russian purchases, Moscow has been pushing more barrels into China, and Reuters reports China’s Russian crude imports hitting new records in February while Russian sellers widened discounts to keep demand — Urals trading roughly $9–$11 below Brent for China deliveries, and other Russian grades also cutting hard as sellers chase Chinese refiners.

The new U.S.–Venezuela arrangement has already generated roughly $2 billion in transactions in just weeks, pulling Venezuelan barrels back into wider circulation and altering the discount ecosystem Moscow had grown accustomed to.

This matters because China is also the anchor buyer for sanctioned Iranian crude; the ‘discount market’ is not infinite, so Russia and Iran are now competing for the same limited pool of Chinese buyers, driving deeper concessions and leaving cargoes idling — exactly the kind of sanctions-economy dynamic.

Add the West’s tightening focus on Russia’s ‘shadow fleet’ and the risk of seizures or insurance denial, and you get an energy chessboard where coercion moves from rhetoric to logistics: who can ship, insure and clear payments reliably becomes as strategic as who can produce.

In that context, Russia’s loud warnings about Hormuz disruption are not just diplomacy, they are a reminder that Moscow profits from volatility, but also needs a functioning gray-market channel to China, and Iran’s crisis threatens to scramble the very discount ecosystem Russia has used to finance its war in Ukraine. Structural realignment threatens the very gray-market architecture on which Moscow has relied.

Energy is only one layer of a global shift. Strategic minerals remain critical. The Trump administration has increased economic and maritime pressure on Cuba, tightening an effective oil blockade that choked off fuel imports. President Donald Trump has authorized tariffs targeting countries supplying oil to Havana.

WATCH: US forces board Veronica III crude oil tanker

This is not simply punitive policy. It reflects a broader strategic doctrine: deny adversarial regimes energy lifelines while repositioning the Western Hemisphere’s resource base toward U.S. leverage. Oil is only one domain. Rare earth elements are a strategic asset. Cuba’s nickel and cobalt output, combined with China’s tightening grip through rare-earth export controls indicates that leverage is not just oil fields but also supply chains. America achieving rare earth elements sovereignty will remain a strategic goal and such a global realignment on this front is much needed.

By the close of the first weekend, Iran appeared intent on accelerating its own collapse by compounding strategic error with strategic error. Iran felt it wise to respond to U.S. and Israeli strikes by pushing a half dozen other nations against it. On Saturday afternoon, Feb. 28, Iran launched attacks on seven sovereign nations – Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan and Israel. It added Oman shortly after.

These nations now have a legal and political basis to deepen security ties with the U.S. and Israel that they could never have justified domestically before today. Iran has arguably done more to consolidate the anti-Iran regional architecture in one afternoon than a decade of American diplomacy. Watch for accelerated Abraham Accords-adjacent normalization with Saudi Arabia in the coming weeks.

Any sustained disruption of Iranian flows forces China into replacement buying that tightens global markets and exposes China’s own energy security…

After massacring thousands of its own citizens for demanding better governance, the regime’s long-standing presumption of U.S. inaction cost the 1979 Revolution its dream of ruling over Iranians perpetually. After 47 years, its leader is gone, and its core military capabilities are being dismantled.

The lesson is not simply that the Iranian regime is falling. It is that when it falls amid energy chokepoints and great-power competition, supply chains, alliances and leverage structures shift simultaneously. Iran’s collapse is not the end of the story; it is the catalyst for a broader redistribution of power across energy, alliances, and great-power leverage. America should exploit these shifting dynamics fully.

The views expressed here are his and do not reflect the policy or positions of the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Advisory Council, U.S. Army or Department of Defense.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

In Latest News

Top 5 wildest moments as GOP lawmakers clashed with Walz, Ellison in heated fraud hearing: ‘Unbelievable’

March 5, 2026 No Comments

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison faced a barrage of tough questions from Republicans during a Wednesday House hearing on the massive fraud scandal in the state, with most of the questions focused on one key theme: What did they know, and when did they know it?

Walz and Ellison were asked multiple times for specifics regarding when they were first made aware of the fraud problems and faced sharp rebukes from Republican members, including Rep. Virginia Foxx.

‘You did not do your job, you did not do your job,’ Foxx told Walz. ‘You did not protect taxpayer dollars. You allowed massive fraud. You and Mr. Ellison allowed massive fraud to go on in the state of Minnesota. It is unfortunate, as somebody said, that you can’t be held personally responsible at this stage in the game.’

An exchange between GOP Rep. Jim Jordan and Walz sparked immediate pushback from conservatives on social media.

‘Why didn’t you tell the truth about why you restarted the payments?’ Jordan asked during a House Oversight Committee hearing on Minnesota fraud on Wednesday.

The exchange centered on Walz’s past public statements that a judge ordered the Minnesota Department of Education to continue reimbursements in April 2021 after the agency had halted payments over fraud concerns.

Jordan pointed to a 2022 court-authorized news release from then-Ramsey County District Court Judge John H. Guthmann that disputed the governor’s characterization of the events.

‘So either you’re lying or the court’s lying. And I’m just asking you which one is it?’ Jordan said.

One of the most contentious exchanges came during questioning from GOP Rep. Nancy Mace when she pressed Walz for specific numbers on how many children are in his state, the massive increase in autism care spending and why that occurred without getting specific numbers back from Walz.

‘Ok, so your excuse before — that you didn’t know what the 2017 autism numbers were — because you were not governor, and today you can’t answer the numbers about 2024 as governor, and you still said you prepared for this hearing today. It’s unbelievable.’

Walz shot back that he wouldn’t be a ‘prop’ for Mace, and she eventually said, ‘I expect you to know this information. Thank God you’re not vice president of the United States.’

GOP Rep. Clay Higgins confronted Ellison in another heated moment asking him to say he was ‘leading’ the fight against rooting out corruption without getting the specific answer he was looking for, prompting him to call for Ellison’s resignation.

‘I’m not talking about Medicaid fraud, don’t hide behind that,’ Higgins said, interrupting Ellison. ‘You have the authority to prosecute anything criminally that the governor asks you to, and this thing is big. I’m giving you an opportunity sir, are you leading the criminal investigative effort into this massive fraud across the board…or not?’ Higgins pressed.

‘We are following the law,’ Ellison said before Higgins cut him off again.

‘You are not leading, I’m going to say, Mr. Chairman, that the attorney general of the state of Minnesota should resign,’ Higgins said.

At the close of the hearing, things became tense again when GOP Rep. Nick Langworthy suggested that Walz, who is still serving as governor despite dropping out of his re-election bid due to the fraud scandal, should be impeached for ‘malfeasance,’ citing Minnesota’s own state Constitution.

Fox News Digital’s Ashley Carnahan contributed to this report.

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

In Economy

India’s Aviation Meltdown Reveals Hazards of Command-and-Control

March 5, 2026 No Comments

In early December 2025, a cascading series of flight cancellations at IndiGo, India’s largest airline, brought one of the world’s fastest-growing aviation markets to a grinding halt, stranding tens of thousands of passengers during the peak of winter travel season. On December 5 alone, over 1,000 flights were canceled nationwide, including all departures from the national capital, New Delhi’s Indira Gandhi International Airport, as the airline struggled to comply with new pilot fatigue regulations it had been given months to prepare for. By mid-December, upwards of 4,500 flights had been axed or delayed, prompting government interventions, regulatory examinations, and frontline outrage.

For US and international readers unfamiliar with Indian skies, the scale of this disruption was unprecedented: a carrier that handles nearly two-thirds of India’s domestic traffic saw its network unravel in a matter of days, leaving packed terminals, long queues, lost luggage, and frustrated travelers in its wake. Such chaos is rare even in the world’s largest aviation markets, where diversified competition and regulatory frameworks tend to contain operational breakdowns before they become systemic — a contrast that highlights deeper tensions between regulation, competition, and resilience in India’s aviation sector.

At the root of the crisis were updated Flight Duty Time Limitation (FDTL) rules issued by India’s aviation regulator, the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA), to strengthen pilot fatigue safeguards. Among other changes, the new rules increased mandatory weekly rest from 36 to 48 hours, sharply limited night landings per pilot, and tightened duty-hour caps — measures intended to reduce cumulative fatigue and align India with global safety practices.

Research and regulatory studies indicate that fatigue impairs alertness, attention, and decision-making ability, increasing the risk of errors in aviation operations — which is why agencies such as EASA and others require flight time limitations and rest requirements to mitigate fatigue risks for pilots. However, the timing and implementation of these rules collided disastrously with IndiGo’s tightly optimized, lean operational model. The rules took full effect on November 1, 2025, immediately before the winter schedule ramp-up, and the airline’s rosters, crew hiring, and scheduling buffers proved insufficient to absorb the added constraints.

“Given the size, scale and complexity of our operation, it will take some time to return to a full, normal situation,” said IndiGo’s Chief Executive Pieter Elbers in a video message during the crisis, acknowledging both the disruption and the airline’s planning shortfalls. He said the carrier expected cancelations to fall below 1,000 and hoped operations would stabilize between December 10 and 15 before returning to full normalcy by mid-February 2026.

The airline’s reputation for punctuality and efficiency, a hallmark of its rapid ascent as India’s dominant carrier, was severely dented. Over several days, airports nationwide saw terminals overflow with passengers scrambling for information, staff overwhelmed by inquiries, and strike-like levels of cancelations and delays that are more common after major weather events than in well-regulated commercial environments.

Adding to the industry upheaval, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) and the DGCA moved to investigate whether IndiGo’s market dominance had been exploited during the chaos. Regulators sought fare data from leading carriers after reports emerged that ticket prices on alternative airlines surged significantly once IndiGo’s capacity shrank, sparking concerns about exploitative pricing and potential antitrust violations.

It was not only market watchers who were alarmed. An international pilots’ advocacy group, the International Federation of Air Line Pilots’ Associations (IFALPA), publicly warned that India’s temporary exemption of some night-duty rules for IndiGo was concerning because “fatigue clearly affects safety” and said the move was not grounded in scientific evidence. IFALPA’s president, Captain Ron Hay, stressed that regulatory exemptions to core fatigue protections risk undercutting broader safety goals and could exacerbate pilot attrition if working conditions worsen.

The crisis raises an obvious question: How does a safety-driven rule lead to system-wide operational collapse? The answer lies in the interlocking dynamics of regulation and market structure. In many major aviation markets, safety regulation and commercial competition are designed to operate in a complementary, not contradictory, fashion. For example, in the United States, the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 removed federal control over fares, routes, and market entry yet preserved robust safety oversight. The result has been decades of competitive pressure that encourages airlines to maintain operational buffers and redundancy — not just for profit, but to avoid losing market share to rivals.

In Europe, liberalization in the 1990s enabled the rise of low-cost carriers that expanded capacity and required others to evolve service models. Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, too, have developed highly competitive hubs with minimal micro-management of airline operations beyond safety compliance.

India’s system has been more hybrid: rapid growth and liberal market entry coexisted with a regulator that, in practice, has exercised broad operational influence. The DGCA oversees not only safety certification but also staffing approvals, scheduling compliance, and enforcement of duty rules that directly shape airline operations — a role that can blur lines between safety oversight and commercial intervention.

While the intent behind the FDTL updates was to improve safety, critics argue that too little attention was paid to transition planning, industry capacity, and incentives for airlines to build redundancy. IndiGo had years to prepare for the new norms, yet recruitment lagged and roster reforms were implemented too late and too thinly to meet the demands of India’s busiest travel season. Other carriers, with smaller networks and different staffing strategies, weathered the changes with fewer cancelations. This suggested that operational choices, not just regulation, mattered in how airlines adapted.

The DGCA’s response illustrated this tension. In the face of chaos, authorities temporarily suspended the most restrictive duty limits for IndiGo — including night landing caps — and directed the carrier to adjust its schedules and submit revised planning roadmaps. The civil aviation ministry also instituted a fare cap on competing airlines to prevent opportunistic pricing spikes while IndiGo’s network recovered. An inquiry panel was ordered to examine what went wrong and recommend changes to prevent similar future breakdowns.

To an American or European audience, where regulatory functions are generally more clearly delineated and competition is vigorous across multiple carriers, the Indian episode highlights a set of broader governance challenges: the difficulty of balancing safety regulation with market incentives, the risks of high market concentration, and the need for effective transitional planning when policy changes affect deeply interdependent systems.

First, regulatory changes in safety-critical industries should be introduced with robust transitional frameworks that align industry capacities with compliance timelines. In the United States and the EU, fatigue management standards are phased in over long periods with consultations, transitional staffing analysis, and often incremental enforcement, minimizing sudden shocks to networks.

Second, market structure matters for systemic resilience. Markets dominated by a single carrier — particularly one with more than 60% market share — lack the redundancy that competition naturally creates. When that carrier falters, competitors cannot easily absorb displaced passengers or capacity, and prices can spike, reducing consumer welfare.

Third, coordination between regulators and industry is essential. Safety mandates that lack clear pathways for adaptation can backfire, not because the goal is misguided, but because execution does not account for operational realities. Planning frameworks that integrate regulatory foresight with industry hiring, training, and technology investments reduce the risk of rule implementation triggering wider system breakdowns.

IndiGo’s winter meltdown was not just a corporate planning failure or an administrative misstep; it was a public demonstration of how tightly coupled operational, regulatory, and competitive dynamics can lead to cascading failure when incentives are misaligned and buffers are thin. For Indian travelers, the immediate fallout was stranded families, disrupted plans, and a deep erosion in trust. For policymakers and global aviation observers, it is a case study in the complex trade-offs between safety regulation and system resilience.

Ultimately, resilient aviation markets embrace clear safety oversight and vigorous competition without allowing either to overwhelm the other. The US model of deregulated commercial competition and focused safety supervision, for all its imperfections, offers an example of how incentives and regulatory clarity can coexist. India’s aviation system, and others with similar structural traits, may yet find pathways to balance these dynamics — but the December 2025 upheaval will remain a stark reminder that turbulence often comes not from the skies, but from the regulatory and market architecture beneath them.

In Economy

Anthropic vs. The Pentagon: AI Ethics Collide With Government Power

March 5, 2026 No Comments

Daily headlines formulate new variations on the theme: artificial intelligence is too powerful to be left unregulated. Lawmakers, guardedly seconded by big tech CEOs, warn of catastrophe. Agencies draft frameworks. Editorial boards demand ethical guardrails. We are told that only government can ensure that AI is “safe,” “aligned,” and deployed responsibly. Yet, in the same week, the Pentagon reportedly moved to blacklist one of the country’s most prominent AI firms for refusing to remove certain ethical constraints from its flagship system. The contradiction is not subtle. It is fundamental.

Anthropic, the San Francisco–based AI company founded by Dario and Daniela Amodei, has built its reputation on what it calls “AI safety” and “constitutional AI.” Its Claude line of large language models competes at the frontier of capability with systems from OpenAI and Google DeepMind. But Anthropic has distinguished itself by emphasizing that its models are not merely powerful; their architecture incorporates embedded guardrails. The company has publicly stated that it has declined to grant the Department of Defense unrestricted use of its models for certain applications, specifically mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. In response, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared the company a “supply chain risk” and signaled that it could be excluded from defense procurement ecosystems unless it complied with the government’s terms.

The Pentagon’s position, as reported, is that it must have access to AI tools for “any lawful use.” From the government’s perspective, the stakes are obvious. AI is now integral to logistics, intelligence analysis, battlefield planning… and potentially autonomous systems. The United States faces strategic competition with China and other adversaries investing heavily in military AI. Should a private vendor’s internal ethical policies veto what defense officials consider lawful and necessary uses of a technology purchased with public funds?

Legal scholars in this field like Tess Bridgeman immediately pointed out contradictions, dubious legal assumptions, and barriers to implementing the position Hegseth seemed to take — and even questioned his intention to carry out his threat.

Alongside domestic surveillance, major powers are also racing to integrate AI into military systems, including autonomous weapons and autonomous operational capabilities. China, for example, has been reported to develop AI-enhanced unmanned vehicles and AI-powered “swarm” technologies capable of cooperative action among large numbers of drones or robotic units without continuous human control.⁷ That trend reflects a broader global pattern in which artificial intelligence is moving out of analytics and into direct force application, raising deep questions about how ethical limits are set and enforced — questions that are precisely the ones at stake in the dispute over who controls AI ethics in the first place.

That argument has force. The Constitution charges the federal government with providing for the common defense. National defense is not a hobby; it is one of the state’s core responsibilities. In wartime and even in tense peacetime, the government must be able to procure the tools it deems essential. Historically, America’s economic strength has been decisive in war precisely because private industry could be mobilized to produce ships, planes, steel, and munitions at scale. The phrase “arsenal of democracy” was not rhetorical flourish. It described a system in which private enterprise — operating for profit — supplied the matériel that preserved political freedom.

But what is happening in this dispute is not merely procurement. It is not a disagreement over price, performance, or delivery schedules. It is a dispute over who controls the ethical architecture of a technology. Anthropic is not refusing to sell computers. It is refusing to strip out guardrails that it believes are integral to the responsible design of its product. The Pentagon is not demanding a faster processor. It is demanding that the company relinquish the authority to restrict how its system is used.

The contradiction becomes acute. For the past several years, government officials have insisted that AI companies must internalize ethical responsibility. They must prevent misuse. They must anticipate harms. They must build systems that refuse dangerous or unlawful requests. Regulators argue that without such constraints, AI systems could be used for surveillance abuses, disinformation campaigns, or autonomous violence. Ethics, we are told, cannot be left to the market alone.

Across the globe, governments are already pushing the boundaries of what AI can do in practice. Most starkly, China’s government has built what may be the largest AI-supported surveillance apparatus in human history, deploying hundreds of millions of public-facing cameras linked to facial-recognition and data-fusion systems that can identify and track individuals in real time. As of recent years, analysts estimate that China operates well over half of the world’s surveillance cameras — many of them capable of identifying people and tracing movements across cities, social venues, and even everyday public spaces — creating an infrastructure that can monitor citizens at an unprecedented scale.⁶

Yet when a company attempts to operationally implement those very ethical constraints in its design, and applies them even to its most powerful potential customer, it is threatened with economic exclusion. The message is unmistakable: ethics are mandatory — except when the sovereign decides otherwise.

The mechanism of pressure is also revealing. By designating Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” the Defense Department reportedly signaled not only that it would decline to contract with the company but that other firms in the defense industrial base might be discouraged — or effectively barred — from doing business with it. In modern administrative practice, such a designation can function as a form of industrial excommunication — the Pope excommunicating the stubborn Jewish heretic Baruch Spinoza. The company is not nationalized; it is isolated. The pressure is not a knock at the factory gate; it is a warning to partners and customers that continued association carries risk.

There are historical precedents for government commandeering or directing private industry in times of emergency. The Defense Production Act of 1950 grants broad authority to prioritize contracts and allocate materials deemed necessary for national defense. Presidents of both parties have invoked it in wartime and in domestic emergencies. Yet even at the height of the Korean War, the Supreme Court in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer rejected President Truman’s attempt to seize steel mills absent explicit congressional authorization. The Court’s decision stands as a reminder that “necessity” does not erase constitutional structure. Emergency powers have limits.

What is novel here is that the object of contention is not physical production but moral design. AI systems like Claude are unique tools; they are decision-support systems that can be configured to refuse certain tasks. Anthropic has said that it drew two bright lines: no mass domestic surveillance of Americans and no fully autonomous weapons. Whether one agrees with those lines is not the immediate question. Can a private company in a constitutional republic adopt such lines and adhere to them — even when the government disapproves?

As I argue in my forthcoming book, A Serious Chat with Artificial Intelligence, the defining feature of contemporary AI is not merely its intelligence but its embedded moral design, the guardrails that translate power into socially tolerable use. What is at stake in the present controversy is not a contract term but control of that moral design.

Critics of capitalism often describe corporations as purely profit-driven entities, indifferent to moral considerations so long as consumers are served and shareholder returns are maximized. Some defenders of capitalism have encouraged that caricature, arguing that business should concern itself solely with serving consumers within the bounds of law. But the real world is more complicated. Companies are run by individuals — owners, directors, executives — who have moral convictions, reputational concerns, religious beliefs, and political commitments. These shape corporate policies in ways that go beyond immediate profit calculation.

In a free society, the liberty and diversity of judgment is foundational, even metaphysical. If there is an implicit “social contract” — a rational incentive for instituting government — it is to gain the benefits of its defense of our rights without relinquishing our fundamental means of survival — the freedom to act on our judgment. Firms choose to avoid certain markets, to refuse certain clients, or to embed certain principles in their products. A newspaper may decline to publish particular advertisements. A technology company may refuse to build backdoors into its encryption. A pharmaceutical company may set conditions on distribution. The principle underlying these choices is freedom of conscience exercised through private property and voluntary exchange.

The government’s legitimate role is to protect the rights of individuals against force and fraud, including aggression by foreign powers. That role necessarily includes maintaining an adequate defense. It may purchase weapons, hire troops, build infrastructure, and contract with private suppliers. But the claim implicit in the Pentagon’s reported demand is more expansive: that when national security is invoked, the state’s judgment supersedes the moral constraints of the supplier. The company may sell — but only on terms that dissolve its own ethical boundaries.

Is that claim unique to this administration? Hardly. Governments of all stripes tend to assert broad discretion in matters of defense and intelligence. The difference here is that the technology in question is widely used in civilian contexts and subject to intense debate about ethical design. If AI companies are to be treated as quasi-public utilities whose internal policies must conform to federal guidance, then the principle should be stated plainly. If, instead, they are private actors responsible for their own moral choices within the law, then those choices cannot be overridden by administrative pressure alone.

There is also the matter of competition. Reporting indicates that Claude has been used, via partnerships with firms such as Palantir, in significant U.S. operations abroad. Whether one applauds or criticizes those operations, they demonstrate how quickly frontier AI has become operationally consequential. If Anthropic steps back from certain uses, other firms — OpenAI, Google DeepMind, or new entrants — may be willing to step forward. The economic incentives are enormous. Defense contracts are lucrative. Refusal by one vendor creates opportunity for another.

That dynamic helps explain the relative silence of other major AI firms. A united industry front insisting on the legitimacy of private ethical limits would force the government into negotiation. A fragmented industry competing for favor shifts leverage to the state. In the absence of solidarity, “AI ethics” risks becoming whatever the most powerful customer demands.

None of this is to deny the seriousness of national security. If adversaries develop and deploy autonomous weapons or pervasive AI-driven surveillance, American officials cannot simply abstain on moral grounds. The world is not a seminar room. But the constitutional design of the United States presumes that power is divided and limited precisely because the concentration of unchecked authority is dangerous — even when exercised with good intentions.

The deeper issue raised by the Anthropic–Pentagon dispute is not whether a particular application of Claude should be permitted. It is whether the state may simultaneously demand that private innovators internalize ethical responsibility and then exempt itself from those same constraints. If ethics are indispensable to safe AI, they are most indispensable where power is greatest and secrecy deepest. If, on the other hand, ethical guardrails must yield whenever national security is invoked, then regulators should be candid that “ethical AI” is conditional, not foundational.

In Economy

Central Banks Can’t Stop Wars

March 5, 2026 No Comments

Every time conflict erupts in the Middle East and oil prices jump, the same anxiety follows: will central banks respond with tighter money?

It’s an understandable fear. Households dislike inflation, and policymakers are tasked with maintaining price stability. But when inflation is driven by geopolitical crises — such as war in Iran or disruptions to global shipping lanes — the source is not excessive demand. It is a supply shock. And monetary policy is impotent before such disruptions.

When oil supply tightens or transport costs surge, the economy becomes poorer. Energy becomes more expensive to extract and move. No interest rate decision in Washington, Frankfurt, or London can produce more oil from the Persian Gulf or reopen a blocked trade route.

In these moments, central banks face a difficult but crucial choice. They can tighten monetary policy in an attempt to suppress inflation by weakening demand, slowing hiring, curbing investment, and cooling total dollar spending. Or they can allow a temporary period of elevated prices to absorb part of the shock while keeping the broader economy intact.

The instinct to “do something” about supply-side price hikes is powerful. But tightening monetary conditions to combat a supply shock risks compounding the damage. Slower money growth and higher rate targets do not solve the underlying scarcity. They merely redistribute the burden — often toward workers.

If energy prices spike because of war, households will pay more at the pump and businesses will face higher costs. That pain is unavoidable. But if central banks respond aggressively by tightening policy, they risk turning an external supply shock into a domestic demand slump. Unemployment rises, investment stalls, and wage growth falters. For the vast majority of workers, having a job amidst 4 percent price growth is preferable to unemployment amidst 2 percent price growth.

There is a long tradition in macroeconomics of distinguishing between demand-driven and supply-driven inflation. When inflation stems from overheated demand (too much spending chasing too few goods), central banks are right to step in. Tightening policy can ease the frenzy without causing long-term economic damage.

But war-induced oil shocks are different. They make the economy less productive. Attempting to fully offset that reality with tighter monetary policy can produce a worse outcome: lower output and higher unemployment layered on top of higher prices.

The least harmful strategy in such circumstances is often to “look through” the initial inflation impulse — provided inflation expectations remain anchored. That means tolerating temporarily higher headline inflation while emphasizing the external and temporary nature of the shock.

Communication is essential. Central bankers should say plainly that surging prices are the result of geopolitical events beyond their control. The Fed cannot drill for oil or end wars. What it can do is ensure that the financial system remains stable and that panic does not spill over into credit markets.

That role — safeguarding the demand side — is where monetary authorities are most effective during geopolitical crises. They can provide liquidity to prevent financial stress from amplifying the shock, if financial stress indicators suggest it is necessary. They can also reassure markets that banks and capital markets will function smoothly by guaranteeing adequate liquidity. And they can prevent a broader collapse in investment and hiring with standard open-market purchases.

In other words, central banks should focus on preventing second-order effects on the demand side. The danger is not the first jump in energy prices; it is the risk that frightened investors, tightening credit conditions, or collapsing confidence trigger a self-reinforcing downturn.

Critics will argue that tolerating higher inflation, even temporarily, risks unanchoring expectations. That risk is real. But credibility is not built by mechanically reacting to every price increase. It is built by responding appropriately to the source of inflation. If the public understands that central bankers are distinguishing between supply shocks and demand shocks, credibility can be preserved.

The worst outcome would be a policy mistake born of impatience: tightening aggressively in response to war-driven inflation, deepening the economic slowdown, and discovering months later that the original price pressures were fading on their own.

Wars make societies poorer. There’s no getting around the fact that destruction and turmoil are bad for business. Monetary policy will its best work if it avoids making the adjustment more costly than necessary. When public events exceed the scope of monetary policy, restraint is the least bad option.

Stay updated with the latest news, exclusive offers, and special promotions. Sign up now and be the first to know! As a member, you'll receive curated content, insider tips, and invitations to exclusive events. Don't miss out on being part of something special.
Your name

Your email
By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

Tom Emmer calls for Tim Walz, Keith Ellison to ‘serve jail time’ if fraud coverup allegations are true

Precious Metals Price Update: Gold, Silver, PGMs Fall on Escalating US-Iran War

Gold price

Silver price

Platinum price

Palladium price

Oreterra Announces Closing of Final Tranche of $9.7 Million Oversubscribed and Upsized Non-Brokered Private Placement

Copper Quest Completes AI-Driven Analysis at Kitimat & Identifies Large Concealed Conductive Target

New Found Gold Announces US$75 Million Term Sheet to Advance Queensway Development

Trump is realigning world energy markets and the Iran strikes are actually helping

Top 5 wildest moments as GOP lawmakers clashed with Walz, Ellison in heated fraud hearing: ‘Unbelievable’

India’s Aviation Meltdown Reveals Hazards of Command-and-Control

Anthropic vs. The Pentagon: AI Ethics Collide With Government Power

Central Banks Can’t Stop Wars

Rep. Tony Gonzales announces he will not seek re-election amid House Ethics investigation into affair

DOJ continues Biden autopen probe despite former president unlikely to face charges

Prismo Metals Closes Strategic Transaction with Blade Resources

Hegseth blasts Brits, says Iran’s chaotic retaliation has driven its own allies ‘into the American orbit’

admin

Related Article

Gold price

Silver price

Platinum price

Palladium price

Related Article

Related Article