The Mexican government said the security situation in the western state of Jalisco has ‘stabilized’ after an explosion of cartel-linked violence following the death of kingpin Nemesio Rubén Oseguera Cervantes, known as ‘El Mencho.’
The Embassy of Mexico in the United States said federal and state authorities were working to normalize conditions after the unrest, reopening transit corridors and restoring public services following targeted operations.
The update comes as the State Department’s travel advisory for Mexico remains in effect at a heightened level of caution, while flight cancellations and transportation disruptions stranded some travelers in popular destinations such as Puerto Vallarta and Guadalajara. Hundreds of Americans remain stranded in Mexico following the violence.
‘The security situation has now stabilized following targeted operations in Jalisco,’ the embassy said in a post on X. ‘Federal and state authorities are proceeding to reopen transit corridors and restore public services smoothly.’
The embassy said airline operations were returning to normal and that international carriers were resuming flights. Puerto Vallarta International Airport has reopened to domestic traffic, according to the statement.
‘If traveling through Jalisco, some local security measures remain in place, while authorities are restoring airport operations to full capacity,’ the embassy added.
Officials said they were coordinating with international partners ‘to ensure safety and stability at all transit hubs and tourist destinations.’
The statement described the operation as part of ‘a broader national effort that has produced a sustained decrease in violence across Mexico in recent months.’
According to the State Department’s official website, Mexico is currently under a Level 2 ‘Exercise Increased Caution’ travel advisory due to risks including crime and kidnapping. The advisory notes that violent crime and organized criminal activity remain concerns for U.S. citizens traveling in the country.
Certain Mexican states carry higher risk levels, with some areas classified as Level 3 ‘Reconsider Travel’ or Level 4 ‘Do Not Travel,’ depending on local conditions. Jalisco — where the recent violence occurred — has previously been listed among states with elevated advisory levels, though the State Department notes that risk can vary by region.
The advisory urges U.S. citizens to take precautions similar to those required of U.S. government employees, including avoiding intercity travel at night, using regulated transportation services and remaining aware that emergency services may be limited in some areas.
The State Department said it had received hundreds of calls on its 24/7 crisis hotline as Americans sought assistance following the violence.
Mexican authorities said Oseguera Cervantes was killed Sunday during an operation aided by U.S. intelligence.
The cartel responded by setting vehicles on fire and erecting roadblocks throughout Guadalajara, the state capital. The city’s international airport operated at limited capacity as violence gripped the area.
The U.S. State Department had previously offered up to $15 million for information leading to his arrest or conviction, describing him as ‘one of the most wanted fugitives in Mexico.’
Related Article
Narcotics expert reveals slain drug kingpin ‘El Mencho’s’ deadly impact on Americans
Germany’s medical cannabis market exploded in 2025, with prescriptions surging 3,300 percent from March 2024 to December 2025, per Bloomwell Group’s Cannabis Barometer.
That’s according to Niklas Kouparanis and Dr. Julian Wichmann, co-founders of the Bloomwell Group, a Frankfurt-based cannabis company that operates Germany’s largest digital platform for medical cannabis.
According to the report’s authors, this environment is setting the stage for Germany’s medical cannabis market to quickly become one of the largest in Europe.
Reform fuels cannabis growth in Germany
Bloomwell’s review, built on anonymized real-world data from hundreds of thousands of self-paying patient prescriptions filled via its app, e-prescriptions and partner pharmacies from January 2024 to December 2025, shows Germany’s medical cannabis market saw a 3,300 percent surge in prescriptions by December 2025 compared with March 2024, the final month before medical cannabis was reclassified and removed from the country’s list of narcotics.
“What we’re seeing is a fundamental shift in patient access to legally prescribed, medically supervised and digitally accessible cannabis following regulatory reform,” said Kouparanis.
The country’s Cannabis Act (CanG) removed cannabis from its Narcotics Act (BtMG) and enacted the Medical Cannabis Act (MedCanG), shifting prescriptions from strict narcotic controls to standard pharmaceutical processes. The act enabled telemedicine and easier approvals to boost access for chronic conditions.
Prescriptions hit record highs in late 2025, reflecting telemedicine’s role in transitioning self-medicating patients to regulated care; however, misuse debates erupted that same year, with the Federal Ministry of Health drafting amendments driven by Minister of Health Nina Warken’s concerns over a 400 percent import surge, which she cited as evidence of potential abuse via telemedicine platforms.
In October 2025, the German Cabinet formally approved a draft of the amendment, which banned new remote prescriptions and mail-order sales. The draft was submitted to the European Union’s Technical Regulations Information System for review, with the first Bundestag reading occurring on December 18, 2025. As of February 2026, the parliamentary process is ongoing; second and third readings are targeted for this spring.
Amid these headwinds, Kouparanis emphasized resilience.
“In the face of political uncertainty and proposed regulatory pushback, the biggest achievement for Germany’s medical cannabis industry is that we’ve continued to guarantee a secure and stable supply of prescriptions for more than a million medical cannabis patients,” he said. “Imports are breaking records, and medical cannabis has firmly established itself as part of mainstream healthcare.”
German cannabis market trends
The report identifies several growth trends in the German medical cannabis market, including an increase in products — while fewer than 470 strains were available at the start of 2025, by the fourth quarter there were 720.
At the same time, patient preferences for specific flower attributes have shifted.
Patients increasingly favor non-irradiated flowers, which captured roughly 90 percent of the market share from July to December 2025, reflecting demand for natural products.
“Despite this rise in demand, Germany’s supply of medical cannabis has remained stable and more affordable. We’ve found that the average price per gram of medical cannabis flower fell by more than 3 euros over the course of 2025, declining from 8.33 euros in January to 5.23 euros in December,’ commented Kouparanis.
‘These developments show that the market is successful, competitive, resilient and continues to deliver safe and reliable medical cannabis to patients in need,’ the expert added.
According to the report, telemedicine and mail-order pharmacy efficiencies can save health insurers 2.9 billion euros annually versus in-person care, while cannabis therapy cuts sick leave by 2.7 billion euros yearly, with no evidence of increased hospitalizations or daily use post-reform.
“At a time when Germany’s healthcare system is overstretched, and health insurers are under financial pressure, this model should serve as a benchmark, not a target for rollback,” said Kouparanis.
The report also emphasizes the role of importers, wholesalers and pharmacies that have invested substantial resources — and created jobs — to build an innovative digital supply chain to ensure nationwide access. Kouparanis emphasized that this chain is now at risk due to the regulatory risks introduced by the proposed amendment.
Regulatory risks in Germany’s cannabis market
The authors believe the Ministry of Health’s proposals are based on unsubstantiated misuse fears.
Wichmann argued against the idea of these risks from pharmaceutically supplied medical cannabis.
“This is especially true when compared to other prescription medications commonly used to treat the same conditions, as the addiction risks for opioids and Z-drugs have already been well established,’ he continued, highlighting the benefits of affordable digital access for medical cannabis therapy on the private market.
“If policymakers continue to stigmatize medical cannabis and restrict telemedicine and shipping pharmacies, they risk pushing vulnerable patients back to medications with more severe side effects as well as unsafe cannabis from unregulated sources, undermining both the wellbeing of individual patients and public health as a whole.”
German cannabis market outlook
North American investors are betting on Germany’s medical cannabis staying power, as seen in recent acquisitions of key players in the country like Sanity Group and Remixian.
“Legal cannabis is here to stay,” said Kouparanis, underscoring market resilience despite the regulatory debates.
Highlighting the sector’s evolution, he noted that despite falling prices, major wholesalers may still be profitable. “But of course, as with all product-touching business models, such as wholesale and pharmacy, margins are decreasing.”
This shift favors scalable digital platforms amid intensifying competition.
As regulatory hurdles loom, Germany’s medical cannabis market proves a potentially lucrative investment frontier for digitized platforms like Bloomwell, provided policymakers embrace data over dogma.
Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Faraday Copper (TSX:FDY,OTCQX:CPPKF) has signed a letter of intent (LOI) to acquire BHP’s (ASX:BHP,NYSE:BHP,LSE:BHP) San Manuel property, which sits next to its Copper Creek project in Arizona.
The company says the move will combine the two adjacent assets into a single US-focused copper district.
San Manuel includes the legacy San Manuel and Kalamazoo deposits, the former plant site, closed tailings facilities and surrounding BHP-owned land, along with related mineral rights, quarries and associated assets.
The mine operated between 1955 and 1999 as one of the largest underground copper mines in the US, producing more than 4.5 million metric tons of copper. Faraday will assume all environmental and closure liabilities tied to the property.
Copper Creek, which is located roughly 80 road kilometers northeast of Tucson and about 19 kilometers from San Manuel, is a porphyry copper project that is 100 percent owned by Faraday.
The firm released an updated resource estimate and a preliminary economic assessment in 2023.
The deposit remains open in all directions and hosts both breccia-hosted and vein-style mineralization. Faraday says significant exploration upside remains, with less than 15 percent of known breccia occurrences drill tested.
The proposed consolidation would add approximately 27,000 acres of private land and access to existing regional infrastructure. Faraday has also outlined a staged development concept prioritizing copper cathode production, followed by open-pit sulfides and later underground operations.
If completed, the transaction would see Faraday issue common shares to BHP equivalent to a 30 percent interest in the company on a fully diluted basis at closing.
BHP would also receive customary investor rights so long as it maintains a minimum shareholding.
“This agreement provides the opportunity for a transformative acquisition as it looks to consolidate two adjacent and complementary assets in the heart of the Arizona copper corridor at a time when sourcing of critical minerals within the USA is essential,” Faraday President and CEO Paul Harbidge said in a release.
“The combined project has the potential to become a multi-generational copper district delivering made-in-America copper, while providing significant economic opportunities to the local communities.”
For BHP, the deal would convert a legacy asset into a strategic equity position in a junior developer focused on US copper at a time when market participants are increasingly calling for a supply crunch.
The LOI includes a six month exclusivity period and a financing participation clause under which BHP has agreed to subscribe for 30 percent of any Faraday equity raise over the next 24 months, up to US$20 million.
Separately, Faraday recently announced a non-brokered private placement of up to C$100 million priced at C$4.20 per share. Strategic investors, including the Lundin Family Trusts and BHP, intend to participate.
The proceeds are earmarked primarily for advancing copper projects in Pinal County, including expenses related to the planned San Manuel acquisition.
Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.
Eagle Energy Metals Corp. (“Eagle”), a next-generation nuclear energy company with rights to the largest conventional, measured and indicated uranium deposit in the United States, today announced that it has completed its business combination with Spring Valley Acquisition Corp. II (OTC: SVIIF) (“SVII”), a special purpose acquisition company (the “Business Combination”). The Business Combination was approved by SVII shareholders in a special meeting held on February 23, 2026 and formally closed on February 24, 2026.
The new combined company will operate as “Eagle Nuclear Energy Corp.” (“Eagle Nuclear”). On February 25, 2026, Eagle Nuclear’s common stock and public warrants will begin trading on the Nasdaq under the ticker symbols “NUCL” and “NUCLW”, respectively.
Mark Mukhija, Eagle’s CEO, commented: “The completion of our business combination with SVII is the culmination of months of hard work and company development. The closing of this transaction marks another key milestone in our efforts to rebuild a secure domestic nuclear supply chain here in the United States. Anchored by our significant uranium deposit and SMR technology, we believe we are well positioned to restore American leadership in the nuclear industry at a time when AI, quantum computing, and cryptocurrency are driving unprecedented electricity demand. We are optimistic about the path ahead and look forward to addressing electricity demand and uranium market needs moving forward.”
Chris Sorrells, Chairman & CEO of SVII, added: “Today’s successful merger completion marks a significant milestone for our company, our shareholders and the future of the U.S. nuclear industry. Eagle is a unique partner, with significant domestic uranium capabilities that can directly respond to market demand, alongside record private investments in U.S. nuclear projects. We look forward to working closely with the Eagle team as they continue to address the need for domestic uranium production.”
Advisors
Cohen & Company Capital Markets, a division of Cohen & Company Securities, LLC, is the exclusive financial advisor, lead capital markets advisor and private placement agent to SVII. Greenberg Traurig, LLP is serving as legal counsel to SVII, and Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP is serving as legal counsel to Eagle. Gateway Group is serving as investor relations and public relations advisor for the transaction.
About Eagle Energy Metals Corp.
Eagle Energy Metals Corp. is a next-generation nuclear energy company that combines domestic uranium exploration with proprietary Small Modular Reactor (SMR) technology. The Company holds the rights to the largest conventional, measured and indicated uranium deposit in the United States, located in southeastern Oregon. This includes the Aurora deposit, with 32.75Mlbs Indicated and 4.98Mlbs Inferred (SK-1300 TRS) of near-surface uranium resource, and the adjacent Cordex deposit, which offers significant potential to expand the project’s overall resource inventory. By integrating advanced SMR technology with a sizeable uranium asset, Eagle is building an integrated nuclear platform positioned to help restore American leadership in the global nuclear industry.
For more information about Eagle Energy Metals Corp., visit www.eagleenergymetals.com.
About Spring Valley Acquisition Corp. II
Spring Valley Acquisition Corp. II (“Spring Valley II”) is part of a family of investment vehicles formed for the purpose of acquiring or merging with a business focused on the Power Infrastructure and Decarbonization sectors. Over the past five years, Spring Valley has raised $920 million across four IPOs. Spring Valley II is led by Christopher D. Sorrells, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, and Robert Kaplan, Chief Financial Officer and Head of Business Development. Spring Valley I successfully completed its business combination with NuScale Power (NYSE: SMR), a leading U.S. small modular reactor (“SMR”) technology company, and Spring Valley II successfully completed its business combination with Eagle Energy Metals, a next-generation nuclear energy company that combines domestic uranium exploration with proprietary SMR technology. Spring Valley III has announced a business combination with General Fusion, a global leader in fusion energy developing a differentiated, engineering-driven approach to commercial fusion power.
SVII maintains a corporate website at https://sv-ac.com.
Certain statements included in this press release are not historical facts but are forward-looking statements. All statements other than statements of historical facts contained in this press release are forward-looking statements. Any statements that refer to projections, forecasts or other characterizations of future events or circumstances, including any underlying assumptions, are also forward-looking statements. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by words such as “estimate,” “plan,” “project,” “forecast,” “intend,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “seek,” “strategy,” “future,” “opportunity,” “may,” “target,” “should,” “will,” “would,” “will be,” “will continue,” “will likely result,” “preliminary,” or similar expressions that predict or indicate future events or trends or that are not statements of historical matters, but the absence of these words does not mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Forward-looking statements include, without limitation, SVII’s, Eagle Nuclear’s, Eagle’s, or their respective management teams’ expectations concerning the Business Combination and expected benefits thereof; the outlook for Eagle’s or Eagle Nuclear’s business; the abilities to execute Eagle’s or Eagle Nuclear’s strategies; projected and estimated financial performance; anticipated industry trends; the future price of minerals; future capital expenditures; success of exploration activities; mining or processing issues; government regulation of mining operations; and environmental risks; as well as any information concerning possible or assumed future results of operations of Eagle or Eagle Nuclear. The forward-looking statements are based on the current expectations of the respective management teams of Eagle, Eagle Nuclear, and SVII, as applicable, and are inherently subject to uncertainties and changes in circumstance and their potential effects. There can be no assurance that future developments will be those that have been anticipated. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks, uncertainties or other assumptions that may cause actual results or performance to be materially different from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, (i) market risks; (ii) the effect of the Business Combination on Eagle’s business relationships, performance, and business generally; (iii) risks that the Business Combination disrupts current plans of Eagle and potential difficulties in its employee retention as a result of the Business Combination; (iv) the outcome of any legal proceedings that may be instituted against Eagle or SVII related to the Business Combination; (v) failure to realize the anticipated benefits of the Business Combination; (vi) the inability to maintain the listing of Eagle Nuclear’s securities on Nasdaq Capital Market or a comparable exchange; (vii) the risk that the price of Eagle Nuclear’s securities may be volatile due to a variety of factors, including changes in laws, regulations, technologies, natural disasters or health epidemics/pandemics, national security tensions, and macro- economic and social environments affecting its business; (viii) fluctuations in spot and forward markets for lithium and uranium and certain other commodities (such as natural gas, fuel oil and electricity); (ix) restrictions on mining in the jurisdictions in which Eagle operates; (x) laws and regulations governing Eagle’s operation, exploration and development activities, and changes in such laws and regulations; (xi) Eagle’s ability to obtain or renew the licenses and permits necessary for the operation and expansion of its existing operations and for the development, construction and commencement of new operations; (xii) risks and hazards associated with the business of mineral exploration, development and mining (including environmental hazards, potential unintended releases of contaminants, industrial accidents, unusual or unexpected geological or structural formations, pressures, cave-ins and flooding); (xiii) inherent risks associated with tailings facilities and heap leach operations, including failure or leakages; the speculative nature of mineral exploration and development; the inability to determine, with certainty, production and cost estimates; inadequate or unreliable infrastructure (such as roads, bridges, power sources and water supplies); (xiv) environmental regulations and legislation; (xv) the effects of climate change, extreme weather events, water scarcity, and seismic events, and the effectiveness of strategies to deal with these issues; (xvi) risks relating to Eagle’s exploration operations; (xvii) fluctuations in currency markets; (xviii) the volatility of the metals markets, and its potential to impact Eagle’s ability to meet its financial obligations; (xix) disputes as to the validity of mining or exploration titles or claims or rights, which constitute most of Eagle’s property holdings; (xx) Eagle’s ability to complete and successfully integrate acquisitions; (xxi) increased competition in the mining industry for properties and equipment; (xxii) limited supply of materials and supply chain disruptions; (xxiii) relations with and claims by indigenous populations; (xxiv) relations with and claims by local communities and non-governmental organizations; and (xxv) the risk that other capital needed by Eagle Nuclear may not be raised on favorable terms, or at all. The foregoing list is not exhaustive, and there may be additional risks that neither SVII, Eagle, nor Eagle Nuclear presently know or that SVII, Eagle, and Eagle Nuclear currently believe are immaterial. You should carefully consider the foregoing factors, any other factors discussed in this press release and the other risks and uncertainties described in the “Risk Factors” section of the Form 10-K filed by SVII for the year ended December 31, 2024, the risks described in the registration statement on Form S-4 initially filed by Eagle Nuclear on September 30, 2025, and the definitive proxy statement / prospectus contained therein, and any amendments or supplements thereto, and those discussed and identified in other filings made with the SEC by SVII, Eagle Nuclear or Eagle from time to time, which may be found on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. Eagle, Eagle Nuclear, and SVII caution you against placing undue reliance on forward-looking statements, which reflect current beliefs and are based on information currently available as of the date a forward-looking statement is made. Forward-looking statements set forth in this press release speak only as of the date of this press release. Neither Eagle, SVII, nor Eagle Nuclear undertakes any obligation to revise forward-looking statements to reflect future events, changes in circumstances, or changes in beliefs. In the event that any forward-looking statement is updated, no inference should be made that Eagle Nuclear, Eagle or SVII will make additional updates with respect to that statement, related matters, or any other forward-looking statements.
Investor Relations Contact:
775-335-2029 info@eagleenergymetals.com
Media Relations Contact:
Gateway Group Zach Kadletz, Brenlyn Motlagh 949-574-3860 EAGLE@Gateway-grp.com
The Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) will bring together the mineral exploration and mining community in Toronto for its 94th annual Convention, taking place March 1 – 4, 2026, at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre (MTCC).
As the World’s Premier Mineral Exploration & Mining Convention, PDAC 2026 will draw industry leaders, investors, government representatives, Indigenous communities and students from around the world for four days of investment, insight and networking.
“PDAC 2026 comes amid intensifying global competition to secure the minerals underpinning modern economies,” said PDAC President Karen Rees. “At a time of accelerating demand, the convention is where leaders convene to advance projects, strengthen partnerships and shape the future of the industry.”
The convention will span the full Metro Toronto Convention Centre, reflecting strong internationaldemand and underscoring PDAC’s role at the centre of the sector. Participants will have access to expansive exhibit halls, comprehensive programming including technical sessions, short courses and keynote presentations addressing the trends and challenges shaping mineral exploration and development.
“PDAC 2026 will feature the largest trade show footprint in our history, with more than1,300 exhibitors across the North and South buildings of the MTCC,” Rees added. ‘That breadth gives participants a clear view of the projects, technologies and ideas defining the sector.’
Opportunities to evaluate projects and connect with company leadership will be available through the Trade Show, Investors Exchange, Core Shack, Prospectors Tent and Corporate Presentations for Investors. Throughout the week, networking events, including the Awards Celebration & Nite Cap,will bring the global industry together to recognize excellence and build new relationships.
Registration is available at pdac.ca/convention-2026.
About PDAC
The Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada (PDAC) is the leading voice of the mineral exploration and development community, an industry that employs more than 724,000, and contributed $156 billion to Canada’s GDP in 2024 (Natural Resources Canada, February 2025). Currently representing over 8,200 members around the world, PDAC’s work centres on supporting a competitive, responsible, and sustainable mineral sector. Visit pdac.ca for more information.
Media contact
Scott Barber Director, Communications sbarber@pdac.ca 416-362-1969 x 244
Fathom Nickel Inc. (CSE: FNI) (FSE: 6Q5) (OTCQB: FNICF) (‘Fathom’, or the ‘Company‘) is pleased to announce the completion of the winter trail, and mobilization of drilling and ancillary equipment to the Gochager Lake project. Drilling of the 3,000-to-4,000-meter program is expected to begin during the first week of March 2026.
Ian Fraser, Fathom CEO and VP Exploration stated, ‘Our field crews have worked very hard getting the winter trail in place in spite of abnormally warm weather and challenges created by recent wildfires in the area. With overland access and lake trails now in place, it is go time! We plan to be drilling by the first week of March. The initial drillholes will test the very robust ‘Camp’ multi-element soil/rock geochemical anomaly, located 1.5km along strike of the historic deposit. The expanded ‘footprint’ and potential scale at the project is supported by the mapped Gochager-like geology/mineralization now recognized 3.5km along strike east-northeast of the deposit. Drillholes will also test the strike extension of the historic deposit to the immediate east-northeast, in an area of favourable geology and geochemistry that extends >500 meters towards Scurry Lake. This is a very exciting time for our Company and shareholders. We have methodically developed these high priority drill targets, and we very much look forward to the results.’
The Company is fully funded to complete the proposed drill program. If the full drill program is not completed by spring break-up in mid-April, we intend to complete the full 3,000-to-4,000-meter drill program in late-May/early- June 2026.
Comments on Figures 1 and 2:
Figure 1 emphasises the >8km trend defined by Ni in-soil geochemical anomaly(s). The Ni in-soil anomalous trend is also supported with anomalous to very anomalous Cu, Co in-soil, along with anomalous to very anomalous Mg and Cr. Mg and Cr are key pathfinder elements and indicators of subsurface mafic-ultramafic rock; the Gochager Lake deposit ‘Container Rock’. The east-northeast trend coincides with mineralized variable-texture gabbro mapped in outcrop up to 3.5km along trend of the deposit. Mineralized variable-texture gabbro at the deposit hosts the steeply oriented, high-grade chutes and lenses of Ni-Cu-Co semi-massive to massive sulphide mineralization intersected by Fathom drilling.
Area A – The Camp anomaly is defined by the >900m long multi-element soil geochemical anomaly and associated with mapped outcrops of variable-texture gabbro and mafic to ultramafic rock. Elevated Cu, coincident with elevated Ni in rock samples, strongly indicates control by magmatic sulphide processes. A mapped and sampled outcrop occurring between Scurry and Rainbow Lakes that mimics the deposit stratigraphy and, specifically, mineralized variable-texture gabbro, has a Ni-tenor of 4.51% Ni* (Fathom Press Release January 28, 2026). Furthermore, rock grab samples collected in this area returned anomalous Pt values (40-60ppb), and Pd values (20-30ppb).
Area B – Gochager East Extension Anomalies cover the >500m distance along strike east-northeast of the Gochager Lake deposit to the shore of Scurry Lake. Within this area, the soil anomalies exhibit a stronger response than the Gochager deposit. EM anomalies, defined by surface geophysical surveys remain untested, and off-hole BHEM anomalies from drillhole GL23011 remain untested. Mapped geology confirms the extension of mineralized variable-texture gabbro, and Ni-tenors up to 5% Ni* in outcrop have been recorded. Coincident with elevated Ni in outcrop, elevated Cu is prominent which strongly suggests a magmatic sulphide control.
Area C – The North Gochager Lake Anomaly defines the highest Ni in-soil geochemical anomaly observed to date (1650 ppm Ni, 116.5ppm Cu, 373ppm Co). Rock samples collected (grab, and pXRF chip samples) at this anomaly returned elevated Ni, Cu, Cu but in a non-mafic to ultramafic rock type. Drilling here is designed to better understand the geology and to ascertain a possible subsurface, mineralized mafic-ultramafic body as the source of the multi-element soil geochemical anomaly.
Area D – The Wolf Lake Anomaly is a standalone multi-element (Ni, Cu, Co, Mg, Cr) soil anomaly measuring 1500m x 400m (note: the anomaly not fully defined due to the gap in data caused by the 2025 wildfire). Drilling in this area is designed to gain an understanding of the underlying geology. An initial understanding of the Wolf Lake Anomaly will impact follow-up summer field activities and surface geophysics in the area. It is unlikely that this target will be tested during the winter drilling campaign due to logistical and time constraints.
*Ni-tenor is the quantity of nickel contained within the sulphide component of the rock. At the Gochager Lake deposit, various styles of sulphide mineralization in gabbroic and ultramafic rock demonstrate Ni-tenors ranging from 2% to 5%. Ni-tenor is the percentage of nickel in sulphide only and is reported as the weight percent nickel in 100% sulphide. Fathom only reports Ni-tenor calculations in drill core and rock assay samples where assays report ≥1% sulphur. Calculations on samples below 1% sulphur tend to be inaccurate with respect to contained nickel in the sulphide component.
Figure 1 – Gochager Lake Deposit Hosted in >8km Multi-Element Soil Geochemistry Trend
To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7843/285052_a74673f88416797c_002full.jpg
Figure 2 – Drill Target Areas
To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit: https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/7843/285052_a74673f88416797c_003full.jpg
Quality Assurance / Quality Control (QA/QC) Disclosure Statement
As part of its ongoing exploration activities, Fathom is utilizing a portable Vanta XRF Analyzer (‘pXRF’) to provide real-time lithogeochemical, multi-element data on surface rock chip samples and rock grab samples collected in the field. The Vanta XRF Analyzer is a hand-held device, held in position for a total 120 seconds – beam 1 (30 seconds), beam 2 (60 seconds) and beam 3 (30 seconds) to allow for an effective reading of elements occurring at that specific point, and at that specific surface of a rock sample. All elements detected at that specific point; nickel, copper, cobalt plus key pathfinder elements, chrome and magnesium, are recorded. The reader is cautioned that pXRF data should be treated only as an indication of elements, as the accuracy of the beam position on a particular element is variable.
Qualified Person and Data Verification
Ian Fraser, P.Geo., CEO, VP Exploration and a Director of the Company and the ‘qualified person’ as such term is defined by National Instrument 43-101, has verified the data disclosed in this news release, and has otherwise reviewed and approved the technical information in this news release on behalf of the Company.
About Fathom Nickel Inc.
Fathom is an exploration company that is targeting magmatic nickel sulphide discoveries to secure the supply of North American Critical Minerals and to support the global green energy transition. The Company now has a portfolio of three high-quality exploration projects located in the prolific Trans Hudson Corridor in Saskatchewan:
1) The Albert Lake Project, a 90,000+ hectare project that hosts the historic Rottenstone Mine1. Fathom exploration to date at the Albert Lake project confirms:
The high-grade Ni-Cu-Co+3E1 Rottenstone deposit mineralization extends to the south a minimum 40m and remains open.
The Rottenstone deposit is potentially offset and continues within the footwall of a prominent fault defined by drilling.
A new Rottenstone-like discovery (similar host rock, and similar mineralization) by drilling 500-550m W-NW of the historic mine; the 300+m Bay Island Trend, remains open along strike.
Similar Rottenstone-like host rock and mineralization intersected by drilling approximately 1.5km S-SW of the historic mine (the Nic5-Tremblay-Olson area).
2) The 33,000+ hectare Gochager Lake Project that hosts the historic Gochager Lake deposit2. Fathom exploration to date at the Gochager Lake project confirms:
Vertical extension of Ni-Cu-Co mineralization a minimum of 150m below the historic Gochager Lake deposit interpreted boundary, and very good potential for expansion of mineralization in all directions.
Multiple high-grade vertically oriented Ni-Cu-Co sulphide breccia mineralization zones and chutes occur within the historic deposit, and the zones, chutes remain open for further expansion and delineation in all directions.
Surface mapping and rock geochemistry has confirmed the Gochager Lake deposit host/container rock extends 3.5+ km along strike east-northeast of the deposit.
Soil geochemistry has defined a favourable geochemical footprint, inclusive of the historic deposit, that now extends 8.6+ km.
3) The 10,000+ hectare Friesen Lake Project located 40km southwest of the historic Rottenstone Mine and 30km northwest of the historic Gochager Lake deposit.
The Friesen Lake property hosts the Olsen Cu-Ni-Pt Showing also referred to as the Friesen Lake Cu-Ni-Pt showing and is described as an ultramafic dyke that historic trenching and drilling demonstrates Cu-Ni-Pt-Pd and Au mineralization within the ultramafic dyke (Saskatchewan Mineral Deposit Index (SMID) #0928a). To date Fathom has not performed any exploration at the Friesen Lake Project.
1 – The Rottenstone Mine; a small open-pit mining / milling operation was in production 1965-1969. Mining in 1965 produced 5,500 short tons with a reported average production grade of 3.23% Ni, 1.83% Cu, 0.14 oz/ton Pt, 0.10 oz/ton Pd, 0.03 oz/ton Au (9.26 g/t*3E, 3E = Pd-Pt+Au) and 0.20 oz/ton Ag. Initial milling of mine concentrate; September 5 – November 7, 1965, produced 1,070 dry short tons of concentrate that averaged 10.83% Ni, 5.74% Cu, 0.33 oz/ton Pt, 0.53 oz/ton Pd, 0.10 oz/ ton Au (32.91 g/t* 3E) and 1.25 oz/ton Ag. Richards, B.R. and Robinson, B.G.W. (1966), Mining and milling a small ore deposit …. Rottenstone Mining Limited: The Canadian Mining and Metallurgical Bulleting for December 1966. The Saskatchewan Mineral Deposit Index (SMDI) #0958 reports final mine production in 1969 of 28,724 tons with an average grade of 3.28% Ni, 1.83% Cu and 9.63 g/t 3E and that approximately 9,000 tons of concentrate were sold to the International Nickel Company of Canada Limited. * A factor of 34.286 g/tonne was used to convert 1 oz/ton to g/tonne (g/t).
2 – The Gochager Lake property is host to the historic Gochager Lake Ni-Cu deposit. There is no source or available Technical Reports to verify the historic resource estimate for the Gochager Lake deposit; hence, Fathom will treat the historic estimate as an Exploration Target. Available records in the Saskatchewan Mineral Deposit Index (SMDI) and Saskatchewan Mineral Assessment Database (SMAD) suggest an Exploration Target of 4-5 million tons grading 0.3% Ni – 0.4% Ni and 0.08% Cu – 0.09% Cu. The potential quantity and grade are conceptual in nature, there has been insufficient exploration to define a mineral resource, and that it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the target being delineated as a mineral resource. At present, Fathom has drilled 16 drillholes (5,549m) into the historic Gochager Lake deposit and has confirmed Ni-Cu grades comparable to and higher than the historical grades reported, thus confirming that a deposit of Ni-Cu+Co metal accumulation does exist at the historic Gochager Lake deposit / property. The disclosed potential quantity and grade has been determined by historic records notably; the Saskatchewan Mineral Deposit Index and Saskatchewan Mineral Assessment Database. (SMDI #0880) reports delineation drilling outlined a deposit at the historic Gochager Lake Deposit; Steel, J.S. (1990), (SMAD 73P15-0091): Report on a Diamond Drilling Program on the Gallagher (Gochager) Lake Property of McNickel Inc., reported that Scurry-Rainbow Oil Ltd. constructed vertical sections and a longitudinal section from drill data collected 1966-1968, and an orebody with reasonably well-defined limits was interpreted. As stated above, the historic estimate is not well documented and there are no available Technical Reports to support the historic resource estimate(s).
Doug Porter, President & CFO 1-403-870-4349 Email: dporter@fathomnickel.com
Forward-Looking Statements:
This news release contains ‘forward-looking statements’ that are based on expectations, estimates, projections and interpretations as at the date of this news release. Forward-looking statements are frequently characterized by words such as ‘plan’, ‘expect’, ‘project’, ‘seek’, ‘intend’, ‘believe’, ‘anticipate’, ‘estimate’, ‘suggest’, ‘indicate’ and other similar words or statements that certain events or conditions ‘may’ or ‘will’ occur, and include, without limitation, statements regarding completion of the Offering, price of the FT Units, Charity FT Units and HD Units, dates for closing of the Offering, amount of proceeds under the Offering, approval of the Offering by regulatory authorities, payment of commissions and finder warrants to finders and the Company incurring Qualifying Expenditures. Forward-looking statements relate to information that is based on assumptions of management, forecasts of future results, and estimates of amounts not yet determinable. Any statements that express predictions, expectations, beliefs, plans, projections, objectives, assumptions or future events or performance are not statements of historical fact and may be ‘forward-looking statements.’ Forward-looking statements are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual events or results to differ from those reflected in the forward-looking statements, including, without limitation: risks related to failure to obtain adequate financing on a timely basis and on acceptable terms; risks related to the outcome of legal proceedings; political and regulatory risks associated with mining and exploration; risks related to the maintenance of stock exchange listings; risks related to environmental regulation and liability; the potential for delays in exploration or development activities or the completion of feasibility studies; the uncertainty of profitability; risks and uncertainties relating to the interpretation of drill results, the geology, grade and continuity of mineral deposits; risks related to the inherent uncertainty of production and cost estimates and the potential for unexpected costs and expenses; results of prefeasibility and feasibility studies, and the possibility that future exploration, development or mining results will not be consistent with the Company’s expectations; risks related to commodity price fluctuations; and other risks and uncertainties related to the Company’s prospects, properties and business detailed elsewhere in the Company’s disclosure record. Such forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date hereof and the Company does not assume any obligation to update or revise them to reflect new events or circumstances except in accordance with applicable securities laws. Actual events or results could differ materially from the Company’s expectations or projections.
Iran is nearing a deal with China to acquire supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, a move that could significantly raise the stakes in the Middle East as U.S. carrier strike groups assemble within striking distance of the Islamic Republic.
Reuters reported Tuesday that Tehran is close to finalizing an agreement for Chinese-made CM-302 missiles, citing six people with knowledge of the negotiations.
The supersonic weapons, which can travel roughly 180 miles and fly low to evade ship defenses, would enhance Iran’s ability to target U.S. naval forces operating in the region.
The deal is near completion, though no delivery date has been agreed, the people said. It is unclear how many missiles are involved, how much Iran has agreed to pay, or whether China will ultimately proceed given heightened regional tensions.
Reuters reported that negotiations accelerated after last year’s 12-day war between Israel and Iran, which left Tehran’s military infrastructure strained and heightened regional tensions.
The reported deal comes as President Donald Trump warns Tehran of consequences if it fails to curb its nuclear program, while the Pentagon has deployed multiple carrier strike groups to the region, including USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Gerald R. Ford. The buildup marks one of the largest U.S. naval deployments in the region in recent years.
Trump said on Feb. 19 he was giving Iran 10 days to reach an agreement over its nuclear program or face potential military action.
A White House official told Fox News Digital that the president remains firm that Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons or enrich uranium.
‘The president would like to see a deal negotiated, but he has been clear that ‘either we will make a deal or we will have to do something very tough like last time,’’ the official said when asked for comment on the reported approaching Iran-China deal.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last week appeared to threaten U.S. warships directly.
‘More dangerous than that warship is the weapon that can send that warship to the bottom of the sea,’ Khamenei wrote on Feb. 17 on X.
Military analysts say a Chinese transfer of supersonic anti-ship missiles could complicate U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters.
‘It’s a complete game-changer if Iran has supersonic capability to attack ships in the area,’ Danny Citrinowicz, a former Israeli intelligence officer and senior Iran researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, told Reuters. ‘These missiles are very difficult to intercept.’
Still, U.S. forces maintain layered defenses against Iranian threats, including Patriot missile batteries, Navy destroyers equipped with Standard Missile interceptors and F-35 stealth fighters, Fox News Digital reported.
Last year, Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean intercepted Iranian ballistic missiles using SM-3 interceptors, while Marine Corps F-35Cs operating from USS Abraham Lincoln shot down Iranian drones that approached U.S. assets, according to U.S. Central Command.
Iran has also relied on swarming fast boats, ballistic missiles and drones in past confrontations with U.S. forces.
The White House did not directly address the reported missile negotiations when asked by Reuters. China’s foreign ministry told the outlet it was not aware of the talks.
The potential transfer would mark one of the most advanced Chinese weapons systems supplied to Iran in decades and could test U.S. sanctions authorities if finalized.
As U.S. forces fan out across the region, defense officials have stressed that the buildup is designed to deter Iranian aggression — but warned they are prepared for combat if diplomacy fails.
Reuters contributed to this report.
Related Article
Iran launches war drills in Hormuz Strait as US carrier is flying missions 24/7 before Geneva talks
Erika Kirk, widow of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, will be President Donald Trump’s guest at Tuesday night’s State of the Union.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Kirk’s attendance as ‘one of President Trump’s special guests’ in a post on X that included the Daily Wire article first reporting the announcement.
During his speech, the president will reportedly affirm that America is ‘one nation under God’ and will call on Congress to ‘firmly reject political violence against our fellow citizens,’ the Daily Wire reported on Tuesday. The Daily Wire said the call comes after years of political violence, including the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Trump is no stranger to this wave of political violence, as he was shot during a campaign rally in Butler, Pa., in July 2024.
Trump administration officials rallied around Erika Kirk after her husband’s assassination in September during a debate event at Utah Valley University. Charlie Kirk’s casket was flown from Utah to his home state of Arizona aboard Air Force Two and Vice President JD Vance escorted the casket as it was carried onto the plane. Later, second lady Usha Vance was seen holding Erika’s hand as they departed Air Force Two.
Several members of the Trump administration, including the president and vice president, took part in a memorial service for Charlie Kirk in Arizona on Sept. 21, 2025, just 11 days after the outspoken conservative icon was killed. During his address at the memorial service, Trump called Charlie Kirk a ‘martyr for American freedom.’
A little more than a month after his assassination, Charlie Kirk was posthumously awarded the Medal of Freedom on what would have been his 32nd birthday. Erika Kirk accepted the medal from Trump on behalf of her late husband. She said that in awarding Charlie with the nation’s highest civilian honor, the president had given her late husband ‘the best birthday gift he could ever have.’
‘Charlie always admired your commitment to freedom, and that’s something that both of you shared. So thank you,’ Erika Kirk said to Trump during the event. ‘Your support of our family and the work that Charlie devoted his life to will be something I cherish forever.’
Erika Kirk also thanked the vice president and second lady, saying that their friendship had been an ‘unbelievable encouragement.’
Charlie Kirk was 31 when he was killed and left behind his wife and two young children — a son and a daughter.
Related Article
Judge dismisses defense push to remove prosecutors from Charlie Kirk murder case
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and CIA Director John Ratcliffe will brief top congressional leaders on rising tensions in Iran on Tuesday ahead of President Donald Trump’s annual State of the Union address.
Ratcliffe and Rubio, who also serves as Trump’s national security advisor, will brief the so-called ‘Gang of Eight,’ congressional leadership as well as top lawmakers on the Intelligence committees, from the White House Tuesday at 3 p.m.
The closed-door session comes as the administration weighs next steps in the escalating standoff with the Islamic Republic. Talks with Iran, where the U.S. is pushing for full denuclearization and a limit on its ballistic missile program, are scheduled to resume on Thursday. White House envoys Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff led talks last week with Iran that did not result in a tangible deal.
The White House has made clear that diplomacy is Trump’s first priority, but the Middle East has seen the largest U.S. military buildup in decades: one carrier strike group under the USS Abraham Lincoln is already in the region and another under the USS Gerald R. Ford is heading that way.
Meanwhile, Iran is digging in. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted on X Tuesday: ‘Our fundamental convictions are crystal clear: Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon; neither will we Iranians ever forgo our right to harness the dividends of peaceful nuclear technology for our people.’
In a message directed at the American side, he added: ‘A deal is within reach, but only if diplomacy is given priority.’
The U.S. has insisted Iran cannot have any nuclear enrichment capacity, even for energy purposes.
Araghchi said last week that the two sides had come to a ‘general agreement on a number of guiding principles’ and agreed to begin drafting text for a possible agreement, with plans to exchange drafts and schedule a third round of talks.
Meanwhile, reports have swirled that Trump is considering a ‘limited’ strike on Iran aimed at pressuring its leaders into acquiescing to a deal.
Rubio’s classified briefing comes at a pivotal moment — just hours before Trump steps to the podium for his State of the Union address. The timing suggests the administration wants congressional leaders fully briefed on Iran’s nuclear posture, U.S. intelligence assessments and potential next steps before the president publicly lays out his strategy to the nation.
By meeting with the ‘Gang of Eight’ ahead of the speech, the White House is also locking in oversight consultation before Trump speaks. That gives top lawmakers the same classified context the president is working from — and makes it harder for critics to argue they were blindsided if Trump signals tougher action, new diplomatic parameters or a shift in posture toward Tehran during his address.
Related Article
Top Iran security official seen in Oman days after indirect nuclear talks with US
Throughout American history, the federal government has played a role in state and local policy. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) breaks down the history of federal transfers to the states into four distinct time periods: the Antebellum Land Grants period, the Civil War Era, the New Deal Era, and the Great Society.
This explainer will elaborate on that history, examining the complex and often mutually dependent relationship between the federal government and the states.
The Antebellum Land Grants (1776-1860)
Prior to the Civil War, the federal government transferred land grants to the states as new territories were added to the US. Under the Articles of Confederation, states were, according to the CRS, “expected to be the primary instrument of governance in domestic affairs.” The Congress of Confederation was limited mostly to national defense spending, but the Land Ordinance of 1785 enabled the federal government to collect revenue from land sales acquired from Great Britain at the end of the American Revolution.
Even at this early stage, the federal government attached terms and conditions to land sales. The Ordinance required every new township incorporated in these lands to be subdivided into 36 sections (also known as lots), each one square mile. According to the CRS, “Lots 8, 11, 26, and 29 were reserved for the United States. The new townships were required to use Lot 16 ‘for the maintenance of public schools, within the said township.’” These land grants for education were retained under the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.
With the ratification of the Constitution, Congress gained the power to regulate interstate commerce, and the land grant system was maintained to add new states to the Union. However, federal encroachment was mostly kept at bay by the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” One rare exception to this occurred in 1837. The federal government used proceeds from Western land sales to retire the federal debt in 1836, reserved $5 million, and then dispersed the remainder to the states “in proportion to their respective representation in the House and Senate.” The states received $30 million in three quarterly payments in 1837 before the banking crisis of that year, which incentivized the Treasury to cease these payments. This era of American history comes closest to Michael Greve’s description of “competitive, market-preserving federalism.” Yet some state policymakers lobbied for transfer payments, and certain federal officials were equally willing to provide them.
This era of American history comes closest to Michael Greve’s description of “competitive, market-preserving federalism.” Yet some state policymakers lobbied for transfer payments, and certain federal officials were equally willing to provide them.
The Civil War and the Progressive Era Lay the Foundation for Centralization (1860-1932)
The CRS report notes that the “modern Grants-In-Aid System” began with the Civil War. During that time, the federal government began providing “assistance for business, industry, and farming: the protective tariff, homestead, land subsidies for agricultural colleges, transcontinental railroads and other internal improvements, national banks.”
In 1879, the Federal Act to Promote the Education of the Blind—the first ongoing federal grant to states aside from the National Guard—was adopted to “create a perpetual source of income for the purchase of teaching materials for the blind.” This was accomplished through a dedicated federal revenue fund that would be used to purchase interest-bearing bonds, with the interest income used to purchase the teaching materials.
Economist Robert Higgs, in his critical work Crisis and Leviathan, also notes that while the Civil War saw increases in government, these expansions did not take hold because the “ideological conditions that favor [government] growth must also be present” and were not present in the postwar period. He points to the economic crisis of 1893-1896, during which President Grover Cleveland, holding fast against ideological pressure, did not allow the government to grow. Higgs notes that the key moment of ideological and government growth was the Progressive Era.
Progressivism, the belief in a positive state, was, in Higgs’ words, “the dominant ideology of the elite on the eve of World War I and…was fundamentally at odds with the dominant ideology of the ruling elites in the late nineteenth century.” In 1902, there were a total of six federal grants to state and local governments: the National Guard as well as “teaching materials for the blind, agricultural experiment stations, the care of disabled veterans, resident instruction in the land grant colleges, and funding to the District of Columbia.” Higgs notes that while businessmen throughout American history sought advantages gained through government (i.e. protective tariffs), what was unique about this period was the “undisguised position” of businessmen who openly advocated perpetual government intervention in the economy and greater centralization. While elite ideology in the late nineteenth century restrained government growth, federal grants to states that began during the Civil War and continued into the following century proved to be the “thin edge of the wedge.” These grants powered ideological shifts and expanded federal influence in domestic affairs throughout the twentieth century.
Higgs notes that while businessmen throughout American history sought advantages gained through government (i.e. protective tariffs), what was unique about this period was the “undisguised position” of businessmen who openly advocated perpetual government intervention in the economy and greater centralization. While elite ideology in the late nineteenth century restrained government growth, federal grants to states that began during the Civil War and continued into the following century proved to be the “thin edge of the wedge.” These grants powered ideological shifts and expanded federal influence in domestic affairs throughout the twentieth century.
The New Deal Expands Federal Control (1932-1960)
Federal grants to the states sharply increased during the New Deal era (1933-1939). This was thanks to what the CRS generously calls “an expanded interpretation of congressional authority…under Article 1, Section 8, clause 1 of the Constitution,” which outlines Congress’s spending power.This “expanded interpretation” was spurred on by the ideological changes Higgs mentioned in Crisis.
Furthermore, changes in the Supreme Court’s ideological makeup enabled the federal government to grow unabated. In the wake of the Depression and World War II, despite some ratcheting back, federal transfers to the states never returned to pre-crisis lows. Additionally, elite opinion accepted federal intervention in economic affairs (whether during a crisis or in normal times). Federal policymakers were also eager to use federal transfers to intervene in state affairs and states could use these transfers for their gain over one another.
One notable example occurred when the state of Arkansas defaulted on its highway bonds in 1933. When the state of Arkansas failed to pay bondholders, it attempted to declare sovereign immunity and shed its losses, leaving bondholders empty-handed. The bondholders, who mainly resided in New York, turned to the federal government to force Arkansas to pay. The federal government then threatened to suspend all federal Public Works Administration loans to Arkansas until its bond refunding issues were resolved. This brought Arkansas back to the negotiating table and the New York bondholders were made “practically whole.” Arkansas agreed to pay back the bondholders by collecting 6.5 cents per gallon in gasoline taxes and ceding control of its highway-related revenues until the debts were paid.
In the period that followed, competitive federalism would be severely diluted, as states grew dependent upon federal transfers and ceded governing powers to the federal government. Greve notes that the Supreme Court of the New Deal era created the conditions “for unchecked cartel federalism of conditional funding programs and federal minimum standards.”
The Great Society (1960-1980)
Federal grants to the states increased again between 1960 and 1980 due to the Great Society programs. The CRS report notes that federal grants to state and local governments tripled between 1960 and 1970, from 132 in 1960 to 387 in 1968. In the 1970s, the federal government shifted from narrowly focused categorical grants to block grants and revenue sharing that allowed state and local governments greater discretion over how the money was spent. During the 1980 s, grants were further consolidated, but federal transfers to state and local governments increased.These programs enabled state governments to raise spending at the cost of federal taxpayers in other states and gave the federal government greater control over state and local affairs.
Figure 1 (below) shows the progression of federal transfers to state and local governments since 1940 (the earliest year of data available). Data prior to 1940 is sparse, but estimates from the Historical Statistics of the United States, 1789-1945 show that federal transfers to state and local governments were estimated at $86.8 million in 1902 and $97.6 million in 1913 (in 2025 dollars). In 1932 (just before FDR took office), federal transfers exceeded $3.5 billion in chained 2017 dollars.
Total spending frequently increases the most following periods of recession. Transfers to state and local governments increase and then slightly decrease but are still higher than pre-recession levels. This is a demonstration of what is known as a “the ratchet effect,” discussed extensively by Higgs in Crisis, where crises are used to expand government size and scope of authority.
One notable exception to the ratchet effect is the period from FY 1982-1990. This is due to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, which merged 77 categorical grants and two block grants into 9 block grants. What later became known as the “Devolution Revolution” under President Reagan, however, was short-lived. Federal grants to states continued in 1983, particularly for “payments to individuals” which included welfare programs such as Medicaid, Aid for Families with Dependent Children (which became Temporary Assistance for Needy Families in 1996), as well as job training programs.
Despite a brief pause in the early 1980s, federal grants to states increased steadily into and beyond the turn of the millennium. Each economic downturn brought greater demand from state officials to receive federal grants, which those in DC were more than happy to dole out. State officials received increased spending paid for by federal taxpayers in other states, while federal officials received influence over state and local policy by dictating behavior through compliance with the terms and conditions of receiving these grants.
Figure 1: Federal Grants to State and Local Governments
Source: “Historical Tables: Table 12.1—Summary Comparison of Total Outlays for Grants to State and Local Governments: 1940-2029” in The President’s Budget. White House Office of Management and Budget. Accessed September 5, 2024.
Notes: Years 2024-2029 are projected. Shaded areas indicate periods of recession.
Conclusion
What we’re seeing now in state funding is a slow creep of the influence that has been present since America’s founding. While it was kept at bay for most of the country’s history, federal growth in government rapidly metastasized during the twentieth century.
As America approaches the 250th anniversary of its Founding, federal policymakers can no longer ignore the need for spending cuts. The national debt has reached unsustainable levels. Federal transfers to state and local governments are likely to be among the first targets. State and local policymakers would be wise to make those cuts now, on their own terms.
XRF Analyzer (‘pXRF’) to provide real-time lithogeochemical, multi-element data on surface rock chip samples and rock grab samples collected in the field. The Vanta
