The managing editor of Paradigm Pressroom’s 5 Bullets suggested that Enrique Abeyta had written what could be the most important Paradigm article of 2026.

Enrique’s article — “AI Is Now ‘Too Big to Fail’” — raises a troubling possibility: Artificial intelligence has become so important to the U.S. economy that Washington may have no choice but to rescue it.

But rescue whom? And at whose expense?

Those questions lead directly back to Jim Rickards’ August Strategic Intelligence report, “Inside the AI Bubble.”

Jim opens with a blunt warning:

“Investing in artificial intelligence-related stocks means buying into what I believe is the biggest stock-price bubble in history.”

Jim approaches AI from a macroeconomic perspective, drawing on his knowledge of debt crises, currency markets and financial panics.

Enrique comes from another corner of the Paradigm universe. A veteran hedge fund manager and trader, he follows the money, looking for deals the market has underappreciated.

Jim sees a bubble that threatens investors’ wealth. Enrique sees an industry whose collapse could threaten the financial system itself.

And here’s where their warnings converge: AI could survive a crash that still wipes out many of its investors.

Send your opinions to, feedback@newsyoucanacton.com

Your Rundown for Monday, October 12, 2026...

AI’s Incestuous House of Cards

Jim’s concern begins with the billions of dollars circulating among a relatively small group of AI companies.

Money changes hands, but much of it stays within the same circle. Meanwhile, their financial obligations to one another keep growing.

What looks like a thriving industry becomes an increasingly tangled web of financial relationships.

Jim calls this circular financing. He compares it to “three or four drunks leaning on one another for support. They may appear stable, but if one falls, the rest go down with him.”

Enrique picks up that argument and adds another complication: debt.

Unlike many of the speculative dot-com companies of the late 1990s, today’s AI expansion involves enormous amounts of borrowed money.

Consider Oracle, which is borrowing billions to expand its AI infrastructure.

Enrique notes that Oracle bonds maturing in 2046 were recently trading around 85 cents on the dollar, yielding more than 8%.

That’s an unusually high yield for investment-grade debt, suggesting investors are growing wary of Oracle’s long-term financial obligations.

Enrique also cites a JPMorgan estimate that AI-related investment could reach $5.5 trillion by 2030. Some of that spending will require outside financing, including borrowing.

But what happens if the money stops flowing? Which brings Enrique to 2008.

During the financial crisis, Washington intervened to prevent the banking system from collapsing.

JPMorgan bought Bear Stearns with government help. When Washington Mutual failed, JPMorgan bought its banking operations, too. And the federal government stepped in to rescue insurance giant AIG, taking a controlling stake in the company.

The financial system survived, but plenty of shareholders suffered devastating losses.

“The system was too important to fail,” Enrique summarizes. “The companies themselves weren’t.”

Today, Washington regards American AI leadership as a national priority in its competition with China.

And the Trump administration has already demonstrated a willingness to take ownership stakes in companies it considers strategically important, including Intel and MP Materials.

A bailout wouldn’t necessarily come from Washington. Enrique envisions a future in which Microsoft could acquire a struggling OpenAI.

Such deals could preserve valuable AI technology, infrastructure and engineering talent. Washington might even encourage takeovers to safeguard America’s AI capabilities.

These are possibilities, of course, not pending deals.

At the same time, Jim questions whether today’s AI companies can generate enough revenue to justify their staggering costs.

“This is not an argument against AI itself,” he says. “It is an argument against paying irrational prices for AI stocks.”

Consider that the largest technology companies now account for an enormous share of the S&P 500. Millions of Americans have exposure to these stocks through mutual funds and index funds held in their 401(k)s and other retirement accounts, whether they follow the AI trade or not.

So even if you’ve never purchased a share of Nvidia, Microsoft or Oracle, your retirement savings may depend on their performance.

Before buying another AI stock, assess how much of your retirement savings is already tied to AI.

Remember, soaring stock prices don’t tell you whether a company earns enough money to cover its mounting expenses and debt.

Jim warns about the inflated prices investors pay for AI’s promise. Enrique warns that the AI industry could survive a financial crisis even as its investors suffer heavy losses.

A bailout might keep the servers humming, the data centers operating and America’s AI ambitions intact.

Your portfolio might not be so fortunate.

Market Rundown for Monday, Oct. 12, 2026

S&P 500 futures are 0.10% to 7,865.

Oil is up 1.45% to $93.20 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold’s down 0.70% to $4,187.10 per ounce.

And Bitcoin’s down 0.90% to $82,855.

He’d placed some hefty wagers on NFL games, including one involving the Denver Broncos that he cashed out early.

Had he held on, he claimed, his original $10,000 could have ballooned to $60,000.

Other Redditors wanted to know how someone his age could afford to throw around that kind of money.

His explanation? A trust fund worth more than $1 million, inherited after both his parents died.

Despite the mile-high wager, he insisted he knew when to walk away.

“I hug the cashout button like a baby,” he wrote.

His experience is self-reported, but it offers a glimpse into a business that’s attracting enormous sums of money.

And the stakes have gotten so high that the NFL is taking a grievance to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Your Rundown for Friday, October 9, 2026...

The NFL Wants a Federal Referee

On Thursday, the NFL filed a brief backing New Jersey’s legal fight against Kalshi, asking the justices to decide who gets to regulate sports prediction markets.

According to the league’s filing, NFL games accounted for $1.8 billion of the $3.3 billion traded on prediction markets on Sunday, Sept. 13 — the first Sunday of the 2026 season.

At the heart of the dispute is one question: Are these financial trades or sports bets?

New Jersey says sports prediction markets belong under state gambling laws. Kalshi argues its contracts are financial instruments regulated by the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Traditional sportsbooks like DraftKings and FanDuel require state licenses and pay sports betting taxes. Prediction markets like Kalshi sidestep those particular requirements.

New Jersey alone estimates it could collect an additional $17–21 million a year if authorized to tax these operators.

Federal appeals courts have split over whether state gambling laws apply to these markets. The NFL wants the U.S. Supreme Court to settle the dispute; the justices have yet to agree to hear the case.

But America’s biggest sportsbooks have plenty riding on the outcome.

DraftKings (DKNG) shares are down about 43% in 2026. Flutter Entertainment (FLUT), FanDuel’s parent company, has lost 64%.

Rather than surrendering to the likes of Kalshi, DraftKings and FanDuel have jumped into prediction markets themselves.

And Wall Street spots an opportunity.

This week, Bank of America upgraded DraftKings to Buy, with a $27 price target. Its analysts estimated prediction markets could bring DraftKings $400 million in fees in 2027, plus another $200–400 million from market making.

The company’s expansion is already meeting resistance.

On Thursday, Florida’s Seminole Tribe sued DraftKings, arguing that the company is encroaching on its exclusive right to offer online sports betting in the state. DraftKings says its prediction markets comply with federal law.

For all the courtroom drama, there’s no shortage of customers willing to put money on the line.

Especially younger customers, who are beginning to treat gambling as a form of investing.

According to Betterment’s 2026 Retail Investor Survey, 26% of Gen Z investors consider sports betting part of their long-term financial strategy.

Another 52% have diverted money intended for investing into sports wagers during the past year.

For some young Americans, No Gamble, No Future sounds less like a poker slogan than a retirement plan.

Market Rundown for Friday, Oct. 9, 2026

S&P 500 futures are up 0.40% to 7,845.

Oil is down 1% to $90.55 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold is up 1.25% to $4,209.40 per ounce.

And Bitcoin is up 1.70% to $84K.

For weeks, students across France have been blockading schools and clashing with police over teacher shortages, deteriorating school conditions and education funding. What began in poorer Paris suburbs in September has since spread across the country.

Source: X

More than 6,100 people, most of them minors, have been arrested since the protests began. Hundreds of police officers have been injured.

On Tuesday, more than half of France’s high schools were blockaded or expected to close, according to the High School Students Union.

In Belfort, the violence turned particularly ugly.

Video circulating online showed a mob surrounding the 59-year-old police commander before he was knocked to the pavement and repeatedly kicked. Prosecutors have opened an attempted-murder investigation into the attack.

The French, of course, have something of a reputation for taking their grievances to the streets. Strikes and protests are practically a national pastime.

But France has also shown how quickly one grievance can collide with another.

Your Rundown for Wednesday, October 7, 2026...

When Diesel Hits $10 a Gallon

In November 2018, protesters wearing the fluorescent safety vests required in every French car began blocking roads and traffic circles across the country.

The spark was fuel.

President Emmanuel Macron’s government planned to raise fuel taxes, including the tax on diesel. For drivers already feeling pinched by rising prices, the proposed increase was enough to set off demonstrations nationwide.

But the anger didn’t stay confined to the petrol pump. The Yellow Vests became a much broader revolt against taxes, shrinking purchasing power and the high cost of living.

Protesters descended on Paris weekend after weekend. The Arc de Triomphe was vandalized and some of the demonstrations descended into riots.

Macron’s government eventually abandoned the planned fuel-tax increase.

Today’s student protests are not a revival of the Yellow Vests. But something familiar is happening at French filling stations.

As of Monday, diesel averaged €2.38 per liter in France. Converted into terms that mean something on this side of the Atlantic, that’s about $10.14 per gallon.

Regular gasoline works out to roughly $9.25 per gallon.

And high prices aren’t the only problem.

As of 7 a.m. Tuesday, the French government reported that 12% of filling stations were short at least one grade of gasoline or diesel. In the Grand Est region along France’s eastern border, the figure was 18%.

The rest of Europe is also vulnerable. After Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, the European Union banned most Russian oil imports and later prohibited Russian refined petroleum products. That left Europe more dependent on fuel arriving from elsewhere.

Refinery disruptions in the Middle East have helped squeeze diesel supplies enough that the G7 agreed last week to release 100 million barrels of crude and diesel from emergency reserves, although the exact breakdown has yet to be finalized.

But gasoline and diesel aren’t Europe’s only concern as winter approaches.

The European Union enters the heating season with its natural gas storage facilities about 73% full, compared with 83% at this point last year and a five-year average of roughly 88%.

That leaves Europe more reliant on liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipped in from abroad. Much of that LNG is coming from the United States.

Europe received 54% of all U.S. LNG exports in September, as European buyers paid a premium to pull American cargoes away from other destinations.

That creates a direct link between Europe’s winter energy needs and the U.S. natural gas market. The gas loaded onto LNG tankers along the Gulf Coast comes from the same domestic market that supplies American furnaces, power plants and factories.

Record U.S. production and ample inventories have helped keep domestic gas prices in check for now, giving the U.S. a cushion Europe lacks.

Henry Hub natural gas futures, for instance, traded around $3.12 per million Btu Tuesday. In France, the comparable wholesale price is roughly $25 per million Btu — around eight times the U.S. price.

But that cushion is being tested. U.S. LNG exports jumped 23% during the first half of 2026, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects exports to continue climbing through 2027.

For investors, that creates a potential tailwind for U.S. natural gas producers and the pipeline operators moving that gas toward Gulf Coast export terminals.

But rising exports also add another source of demand to the U.S. natural gas market. And the potential effect doesn’t stop with the heating bill.

Natural gas supplied about 41% of U.S. utility-scale electricity generation last year, which means higher natural gas prices can also work their way into electricity bills.

Americans are feeling higher energy costs at the pump, too.

The latest EIA figures put regular gasoline at $4.35 per gallon, up $1.23 from a year ago. Diesel has climbed to $6.20, nearly $2.50 higher than a year ago.

The Atlantic may separate American households from the violent protests on French streets. It doesn’t separate our energy markets.

While France’s current student unrest wasn’t caused by $10 diesel, the country has seen what can happen when one grievance collides with an energy crisis.

Market Rundown for Wednesday, Oct. 7, 2026

S&P 500 futures are down 0.40% to 7,840.

Oil is up 0.75% to $90.10 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold’s down 1.80% to $4,107.50 per ounce.

At the time of writing, Bitcoin’s down to $83,475.

According to The Financial Times, Amazon has discussed selling thousands of Nvidia Grace Blackwell chips that already run inside more than a dozen of its data centers.

The new owners wouldn’t take possession of the hardware. Instead, Amazon would lease the chips back and continue using them to run AI.

By selling chips it already owns and leasing them back, Amazon could recover billions in cash and put that money toward its next round of AI spending.

The deal would work through a special-purpose vehicle, or SPV — a separate company created specifically for the transaction. Outside investors would put money into the SPV, which would buy the chips from Amazon. Amazon would then pay the SPV to keep using them.

Amazon gets cash and keeps the computing power. Investors collect the lease payments and own the hardware.

But the hardware poses a problem.

Nvidia says its advanced GPUs can generate revenue for up to a decade. Banks take a more conservative view, typically underwriting GPUs on a three-to-four-year depreciation schedule.

Nvidia keeps producing faster, more efficient hardware, which can lower the price customers will pay to use older chips — and the price investors could recover by selling them.

That leaves investors putting billions of dollars into hardware without much history to tell them what those chips will be worth several years from now.

The potential Amazon deal represents just one piece of a much larger financing boom.

Companies plan to spend more than $5 trillion on AI infrastructure through 2030, from chips and data centers to cooling systems and power generation. Big Tech and traditional banks won’t provide all of that capital.

So Wall Street is turning to another source of capital: private credit.

Your Rundown for Monday, October 5, 2026...

After SaaS, Private Credit Bets on AI

Private credit simply means loans made by investment firms and funds instead of traditional banks. The industry has grown rapidly by lending to companies that banks might avoid or by structuring loans banks don’t want to hold.

Private-credit loans to software-as-a-service companies, or SaaS, grew from about $8 billion in 2015 to more than $500 billion by the end of 2025, according to the Bank for International Settlements.

The appeal seemed straightforward. SaaS companies sell software through monthly or annual subscriptions. Customers tend to stick around, producing recurring revenue that lenders could count on when borrowers made their debt payments.

Then AI disrupted that model.

Generative AI can write code, automate tasks and perform jobs that once required specialized software. That has put pressure on some software companies — and the loans behind them.

Blue Owl’s technology-focused private-credit fund, for instance, received $1.1 billion in withdrawal requests for the third quarter of 2026, equal to 39% of the fund’s shares.

But Blue Owl allows investors to withdraw only about 5% of the fund’s shares each quarter. Investors have now spent three straight quarters trying to pull large amounts of money from the fund.

Blue Owl (NYSE: OWL) is also publicly traded, which means ordinary stock investors can own shares of one of the country’s largest private-credit managers.

And now private credit wants a major role financing AI itself.

Carlyle, one of the world’s largest private-credit managers, estimates private-credit firms could lend roughly $1 trillion to finance AI infrastructure.

Last week, Carlyle published a paper called “Financing AI Without a SaaS Repeat.”

The firm warns that AI lending could prove even more speculative than software lending. Lenders must evaluate new financing structures, rapidly changing technology and projects that have never faced a serious economic downturn.

Carlyle research chief Jason Thomas has compared the approach some lenders take toward data centers with mortgage lending before the 2008 financial crisis.

If lenders overestimate the value of AI chips, data centers or the revenue they generate, funds could take losses. Investors could seek withdrawals, lenders could tighten their standards and heavily indebted companies could struggle to refinance.

Higher financing costs could then delay data-center projects and raise the cost of the AI buildout.

Private credit poured hundreds of billions into software because recurring revenue looked dependable. AI exposed the risk in that assumption. Now the same lenders are preparing to finance the technology that disrupted it.

Jim Rickards warned Strategic Intelligence readers about the private-credit crisis back in May, before the industry’s latest push into AI.

Jim’s advice to investors: “Review your 401(k)s and IRAs for exposure to private credit and reduce it where possible.”

Some exposure is easy to spot. Blue Owl, for example, trades publicly under the ticker OWL. But private-credit risk can also show up through the banks that finance the industry.

Jim pointed out that Wells Fargo, Bank of America, PNC, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs all have exposure to private credit.

That doesn’t mean investors should dump their bank stocks. But losses in private credit could eventually affect the banks that finance the industry — and their shareholders..

Market Rundown for Monday, Oct. 5, 2026

S&P 500 futures are slightly in the red at 7,774.

Oil is down 1.10% to $90 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold is up 0.50% to $4,183.20 per ounce.

And Bitcoin is up 0.75% to $86,075.

The Rundown lands in your inbox every Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

The reason I’m breaking our normal schedule?

Because exactly 33 days from now, Americans will decide which party controls Congress.

And if there’s one person at Paradigm whose election analysis deserves consideration during these final 33 days, it’s Jim Rickards.

Jim doesn’t simply read a poll’s headlines.

He actually reads the footnotes. Who did they poll — registered voters or likely voters? What’s the margin of error? How big is the sample?

Most people never read that fine print.

They see one candidate up two points, another down three and move along.

But the headline number can hide almost as much as it reveals.

Jim demonstrated that in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election.

He spent months examining the polls state by state, particularly in the battlegrounds that would determine the Electoral College.

Then, on Nov. 1, Jim forecast Donald Trump would win 312 electoral votes.

Four days later, Americans voted.

The final Electoral College result?

Trump 312. Harris 226.

But 2024 wasn’t Jim’s first unconventional election call…

Your Rundown for Thursday, October 1, 2026...

Jim’s Midterm Math: 40–40–20

Jim also forecasted Trump’s victory in 2016 when most prominent polling models strongly favored Hillary Clinton.

Now Jim is applying his framework to 2026.

He sees a surprisingly small contest hiding inside these midterms.

Although all 435 House seats are on the ballot, he believes only about 25 races are truly in play.

Meanwhile, the Senate fight has reached states Republicans might once have considered safe.

Texas. Kansas. Iowa. Alaska. North Carolina. Ohio.

Several of those races are now commanding attention and resources that Republicans might have preferred to spend elsewhere.

But the number of competitive races is only part of Jim’s thesis.

His shorthand divides the electorate roughly 40% Republican, 40% Democratic and 20% independent. That’s an analytical framework, not the literal national party-identification breakdown.

In Jim’s view, that means roughly 80% of voters have already picked a side. That puts enormous weight on the remaining slice of the electorate — particularly independent and undecided voters who could break either way.

Jim cautions, however, against assuming those voters neatly share the priorities of either party’s base.

Put it together and his thesis becomes remarkably simple:

About 25 consequential House races. A handful of competitive Senate contests. And control of Congress could ultimately rest on a small number of voters in states that weren’t expected to be battlegrounds.

Thirty-three days isn’t much time.

So between now and Nov. 3, you’ll be hearing more of Jim’s election analysis at The Rundown. We’ll follow the races Jim believes matter most — and what’s changing as Election Day approaches.

The calendar says 33 days.

From here, we’ll count them down.

Market Rundown for Thursday, Oct. 1, 2026

S&P 500 futures are up 0.35% to 7,740.

Oil is up 1.45% to $91.70 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold’s up 0.60% to $4,212.20 per ounce.

And Bitcoin is up 0.30%, just under $84K.

Who should decide whether Flock cameras belong in your community: police, elected officials or the public?

And if the cameras stay, what safeguards should come with them?

You had plenty to say.

Some of you want the cameras gone. Others see a useful law-enforcement tool. And several land somewhere in between.

So today, we’re turning The Rundown over to you…

Kathryn C. sees value in the cameras — with a big caveat.

“I like the idea of the cameras as a tool for tracking bad activities,” she writes. “The question is what the definition of ‘bad’ would be based on who is creating the definition.”

For Kathryn, that means police shouldn’t get the final say.

“It should not be left up to a police department without the expressed consent of elected officials so the public has a clear understanding of who carries the responsibility for such a decision.”

And if voters approve the cameras?

“If the question is placed before the public on a vote, it should also be reversible by vote.”

Carl H. gets even more specific about safeguards.

“Flock gives bad cops a new tool to misuse,” Carl writes. “They should never be used without screening at the supervisory level for accuracy, probable cause or civil misuse.”

Another reader goes further, arguing that the cameras themselves cross a constitutional line:

“I feel that Flock cameras are against the law because they are a clear violation of our 4th Amendment. We have a reasonable right to privacy! Doesn’t surveillance require probable cause and a warrant?”

Marjorie C. shares that concern.

“I remember when people had privacy. Do I trust officials to use this technology responsibly? NO! We’ve already seen sufficient irresponsible behavior at all levels of government.”

But not everybody wants Flock cameras unplugged.

Your Rundown for Wednesday, September 30, 2026...

Pink Slip Pete, Trump’s Dividend and Jack Ma

One reader calls license plate readers “a beneficial tool for various law enforcement uses.”

“Perhaps, some in law enforcement have abused or misused this technology,” the reader writes. “But let’s not condemn a tool so valuable to the safety of our nation.”

Another reader comes down even more firmly on the cameras’ side.

“I have actually been to China a few times and love the cameras,” the reader says, describing feeling safe on the streets late at night. “If you’re not doing anything wrong the cameras don’t matter.”

Privacy versus security. Oversight versus efficiency. A potentially useful tool versus the possibility that the same tool gets used against the wrong person.

There’s no easy consensus here. But your responses make one thing clear: The technology is only part of the issue. The rules governing when, where and how these cameras are used matter just as much.

Of course, Flock isn’t the only subject filling our inbox.

Contributing editor Emily Clancy’s look at Pete Hegseth and the upheaval at the Pentagon was a lightning rod issue.

One 21-year military veteran with seven combat deployments has a straightforward reaction: “I stand with Hegseth. These GOs and FOs [generals and admirals] need to go.”

Jim Mc. agrees: “The U.S. Army prior to Marine Hegseth was just like the Washington Swamp,” he writes. “It was well past time to weed out these unproductive Army generals.”

But some readers don’t stop at defending Hegseth. They take issue with Emily’s article itself.

One calls it a “one-sided opinion” and suggests Emily is “at the very least a closet liberal, IMO.”

Others see things very differently. “Hegseth is simply a vindictive, stupid man,” a contributor writes.

“If I were on the front lines, I’d rather have a nerd or a babushka-wearing grandma operating drones to cover my back than some testosterone-fueled hunk who bench-presses 500 pounds.”

Reader B.G. reminds: “The Pentagon is a machine. Some projects should die.”

Meanwhile, President Trump’s proposed $5,000 tariff dividend also draws plenty of skepticism.

“Insane idea,” Spencer P. writes. “An insolvent nation spending like no tomorrow. Further debases an already debased currency.”

Another reader boils his objection down to four words: “Mistake — inflation, debt, bribe.”

But not everyone’s planning to send the money back.

One reader already has a plan: “I personally would do something I’ve never done. I would buy $4,500 worth of silver and keep the $500 for a rainy day.”

Bill brings us even closer to the kitchen table. “I’m retired 8 years now and barely keeping up with my bills,” he says. “These are the most frustrating times I have ever encountered in my 77 years.”

Finally, Monday’s story about Alibaba founder Jack Ma produced this gem:

“A Chinese tech billionaire insults the entire financial industry and the CCP?” one reader writes. “Truly a popcorn moment!”

The reader is surprised that Ma’s next public appearance “wasn’t planting a rice paddy by hand.”

Thanks to everyone who took the time to write. Whether you agree with us, push back on something or point us toward an angle we’ve missed, your emails make The Rundown better.

Keep them coming. Your note could wind up in a future edition.

Market Rundown for Wednesday, Sept. 30, 2026

S&P 500 futures are down slightly to 7,730.

Oil is up 1.45% to $90.70 for a barrel of West Texas crude.

Gold is up 1% to $4,221.50 per ounce.

And Bitcoin is down 0.35% to $84K.

Chinese banks, he said, operated with a “pawnshop mentality,” demanding collateral and guarantees instead of embracing new forms of credit.

Then he went further.

China didn’t suffer from systemic financial risk, Ma argued, because China barely had a financial system to begin with.

This was not some dissident speaking from abroad.

This was Jack Ma.

The former English teacher built Alibaba into an e-commerce colossus and became one of China’s most famous businessmen.

Now his financial technology company, Ant Group, was preparing to raise roughly $37 billion in Shanghai and Hong Kong.

It was set to become the largest IPO in history.

Investors were practically throwing money at him. Retail investors alone submitted bids worth about $3 trillion for Ant shares.

But then Ma delivered his “pawnshop” speech in October 2020.

Your Rundown for Monday, September 28, 2026...

Magnets, Yttrium and the Pentagon’s 2027 Deadline

Nine days later, Chinese regulators summoned Ma and other Ant executives.

The following day, Nov. 3, 2020, the Shanghai Stock Exchange suspended Ant’s listing. Hours later, Ant suspended its planned listing in Hong Kong, too.

The $37 billion IPO was dead two days before Ant shares were scheduled to begin trading.

Then in December Beijing launched an antitrust investigation into Alibaba. In April 2021, regulators fined the company 18.2 billion yuan, then worth about $2.75 billion, for anticompetitive practices.

And Ma? One of the most recognizable businessmen on Earth dropped out of public view for almost three months.

When he resurfaced in January 2021, it was via video, speaking to a group of rural teachers.

Two years later, Ant announced a restructuring that left Ma without control of the company.

Jack Ma had money, celebrity and an international business empire.

Beijing still had the last word.

That episode revealed something larger than the limits of one billionaire’s power. It showed just how far Beijing’s reach could extend into a company the rest of the world regarded as a private enterprise.

Six years later, the same question of foreign control has become far more consequential for America’s supply chains.

In July, President Trump ordered the Pentagon to look deeper into the foreign companies embedded in America’s defense supply chains — all the way back to the raw materials.

Last week, we showed you China’s grip on the rare earths behind powerful permanent magnets — and on yttrium, the obscure metal that helps jet-engine parts survive temperatures above 2,000°F.

These vulnerabilities are already buried inside the machinery America depends on.

The stakes, then, are no longer a $37 billion IPO or an e-commerce empire.

They’re minerals, engine components and electronic systems the U.S. military cannot readily replace.

Jim Rickards has been tracking the companies caught in Washington’s push to reduce that dependence. He calls them Trump’s Blacklist.

Starting Jan. 1, 2027, the Pentagon will face tougher limits on buying certain critical materials tied to China. Trump’s July order also makes it harder to sidestep those restrictions.

But a blacklist creates a second list almost by definition.

If Washington wants certain foreign suppliers out of critical American supply chains, it needs other companies to take their place.

And in the scramble to replace them, Jim Rickards and his team see tremendous investment opportunities.

Market Rundown for Monday, Sept. 28, 2026

S&P 500 futures are down 0.35% to 7,778.

Oil is up 2.85% to $95.05 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold is down 2.75% to $4,201.50 per ounce.

And Bitcoin’s down 1.65% to $83,300.

The company operates in the aerospace sector with both civilian and defense applications. Its executives asked Reuters not to identify the company while discussing its production problems publicly.

With its supply of yttrium running low, it began turning away smaller customers to preserve what remained for larger clients, including engine makers.

The shortage had already forced the manufacturer to temporarily pause production. And the coating itself isn’t optional. It wears down with use and must be reapplied.

Without regular recoating, an engine’s turbine metal takes the heat directly, accelerating oxidation and cracking until components fail altogether.

So how did an American aerospace supply chain get this close to running out?

In April 2025, China placed yttrium and six other rare earth elements under export controls. Chinese exporters now needed government licenses to send the material overseas.

In the eight months before those controls took effect, China shipped 333 metric tons of yttrium products to the United States.

Over the next eight months, just 17 tons arrived.

As Chinese shipments collapsed, yttrium prices soared. By February 2026, the metal cost about 69 times what it cost a year earlier.

Your Rundown for Friday, September 25, 2026...

The Jet Engine Kill Switch?

Yttrium is element No. 39 on the periodic table. It occurs alongside rare earths and is generally grouped with them commercially.

American deposits do exist.

The Mountain Pass mine in California produces rare-earth ore containing small amounts of yttrium. Heavy-mineral-sand operations in Florida also produce concentrates containing yttrium-rich minerals.

But getting it out of the ground isn’t the same as producing usable yttrium.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, America has no fully commercial facility capable of separating or refining the metal.

U.S. net import reliance for yttrium is 100%.

Even more telling, nearly all imported yttrium metal and compounds ultimately come from mineral concentrates processed in China.

But after China imposed its export controls in April 2025, no yttrium reached the U.S. for the next six months.

Shipments resumed in October 2025, ahead of a meeting between Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping in Busan, South Korea.

China agreed to postpone additional rare-earth restrictions for a year, but the April 2025 controls on yttrium remained in place.

And exporters had to prove that the material would be used only for civilian purposes.

The White House eventually intervened with Beijing. In March 2026, China shipped 60 metric tons of yttrium oxide to the United States.

The March shipment offered only temporary relief. China sent another 10 tons in April, nothing in May or June and 29 tons in July — a fitful supply for a material the U.S. had imported at roughly 30 tons per month before the controls.

Again, there is no immediate American substitute for yttrium.

That helps explain what aerospace researchers are doing now.

Some American thermal-coating suppliers are exploring alternatives that contain no rare earths for less critical components. Others are looking at recycling leftover coating material.

But none of these approaches eliminates the dependence anytime soon. Aerospace manufacturers are years away from replacing modern rare-earth-based materials or developing enough alternative supply.

In short, one of the world’s most technologically advanced industrial economies still depends on China to turn ore into the material its aerospace industry can actually use.

China can squeeze the supply of materials American manufacturers need. But China has vulnerabilities of its own, particularly its dependence on imported energy.

“If China attempts to exert pressure through its exports of rare earths or advanced materials, the U.S. retains the ability to respond through energy restrictions,” Jim Rickards said in April.

“The United States now holds greater influence over China’s energy access,” he added, especially “through its control of [critical] chokepoints, including Venezuelan supply channels and transit through the Panama Canal.”

China has yttrium leverage. The U.S. has energy leverage.

But caught between the two is the manufacturer we met at the beginning — rationing a metal used to protect jet-engine parts.

Its customers rely on those coatings to keep commercial jets flying safely and military aircraft mission-ready.

When Chinese shipments stop, somebody has to decide which engines get what’s left.

Market Rundown for Friday, Sept. 25, 2026

S&P 500 futures are up 0.20% to 7,785.

Oil’s down 2.15% to $92.55 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold is up 0.85% to $4,334 per ounce.

And Bitcoin’s near $84,400.

Hours earlier, a multi-vehicle crash on Interstate 4 between Orlando and Daytona Beach had left three people dead. Investigators were looking for a Dodge Durango that fled the scene.

Isaacs owned a black Dodge Durango. And Flock Safety cameras had captured her SUV moving through the area that night, including one camera about three miles from the crash.

Troopers seized her vehicle that morning. Months later, on April 17, 2026, Isaacs was arrested on six felony charges — three counts of vehicular homicide and three counts of leaving the scene of a deadly crash.

She was denied bond and spent 13 days in jail.

But a reinvestigation found no crash damage to Isaacs’ SUV.

Investigators eventually identified a maroon Dodge Durango with evidence of a high-speed crash. Its plate also matched a partial plate reported in an original 911 call.

Prosecutors dropped all charges against Isaacs on May 22. Hours later, authorities arrested the driver of the maroon Durango.

But Flock disputes the suggestion that its technology caused Isaacs’ arrest.

Flock says its cameras provide investigative leads. What police do with those leads is up to them.

Still, Isaacs’ story shows the reach of Flock’s technology.

Your Rundown for Wednesday, September 23, 2026...

750 Contracts, 47 States

Flock Safety says its network now includes about 120,000 cameras across 49 states.

An independent public-records project called Who Approved This? has documented 750 government Flock contracts in 47 states. Only 309 contain publicly documented dollar amounts.

Those contracts alone total $149.7 million in public spending.

But that figure is just the floor.

The $149.7 million excludes 441 contracts with no publicly available contract amount, as well as cameras purchased privately by businesses or homeowners associations.

Some multiyear agreements run into the millions.

DeKalb County, Georgia, approved an $18 million deal over 10 years. Commerce City, Colorado, approved a $4.56 million contract over five years. Oakland, California, approved $2.25 million for two years.

But the size of these contracts tells only part of the story.

No Budget? No Problem

In July, Flock published a guide for police departments titled “All the Ways to Fund [License Plate Reader] Technology Without a Grant.”

Among the options: pandemic-relief money, asset forfeiture, jail commissary revenue, prosecutor partnerships and contributions from local businesses.

Asset forfeiture is particularly interesting. Flock suggests departments can use money seized in connection with crimes to launch a license plate reader program, then move the recurring subscription cost into the general budget.

Flock notes that better vehicle intelligence can also lead to successful investigations and more seized assets, replenishing the same forfeiture fund.

Then there’s jail commissary revenue — money generated when inmates buy snacks, hygiene products, phone time and other items. Flock says agencies in Indiana, Missouri, South Dakota and Kansas have used commissary money for initial Flock deployments.

So the money that gets the cameras onto the street doesn’t necessarily come from annual police budgets.

East Moline, Illinois, offers a clear example.

In 2022, the city approved 10 Flock cameras plus an advanced search package. The first year cost $32,600, paid with federal pandemic-relief money from the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA).

For year two, the city planned to put the $27,500 cost into its own budget.

East Moline paid Flock $2,500 per camera per year, plus another $2,500 annually for the search package.

Federal money covered the first year. After that, the recurring subscription shifted to the city budget, meaning local taxpayers inherited the bill.

Flock’s Origin Story

Flock got an early boost from Y Combinator, the influential Silicon Valley startup accelerator behind companies including Airbnb, DoorDash and Coinbase.

Flock joined Y Combinator’s Summer 2017 class, which helped prepare the young company to pitch investors and raise money.

Plenty of both followed.

In March 2025, Andreessen Horowitz led a $275 million investment round that valued Flock at $7.5 billion. Other investors included Founders Fund, Kleiner Perkins and Tiger Global.

By the first half of this year, Flock says annual recurring revenue had crossed $500 million.

The private company’s latest valuation: $8.3 billion.

And Flock is no longer just a license plate reader company. It has expanded into gunshot detection, drones and AI-powered search software.

The company, in fact, says more than half of its new revenue now comes from products other than license plate readers.

That means the camera beside the highway can be the first piece of a much larger Flock system that customers — especially government agencies — add over time.

The Other Flock Network

OpenSecrets found that Flock has spent more than $2 million lobbying federal and state governments since 2025, with active lobbyists in 34 states.

Federal filings don’t establish that Flock was lobbying for any particular funding program.

Still, the government sits on both sides of Flock’s business model. Legislators regulate the technology, while police departments and municipalities buy it — sometimes with help from federal money.

Florida, for one, is now pulling in the other direction.

Earlier this month, the state stopped local police from placing license plate readers on state highway rights-of-way and moved to revoke existing permits. The Florida Department of Transportation cited reports of misuse, data-privacy concerns and “surveillance schemes.”

That brings us back to Lindsey Isaacs. She’s not suing Flock and told InvestigateTV that she blames the police officers more than the cameras.

But she also said she would rather the Flock cameras weren’t there.

America didn’t build this network through one massive federal surveillance program. It grew camera by camera and contract by contract, paid for through federal grants, taxpayer-funded local budgets, seized assets and even jail commissary money.

Along the way, Flock became an $8.3 billion company.

So the next time you notice those solar-powered cameras beside the road, you might wonder who’s watching.

But there’s another question worth asking: Who paid to put them there?

[It’s your turn, reader: Who should decide whether Flock cameras belong in your community: police, elected officials or the public?

What safeguards would you require before allowing a system like Flock in your community? Send your opinions to feedback@newsyoucancounton.com]

Market Rundown for Wednesday, Sept. 23, 2026

S&P 500 futures are down 0.10% to 7,823.

Oil is up 0.15% to $90.65 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold’s down 0.70% to $4,345.80 per ounce.

And Bitcoin is down 1% to $85,465.

Matt is a trained geologist and former mining company CEO. He’s spent his career studying the resources that make the modern economy work — and the companies that produce them.

Today, he’s looking at one resource China has spent decades dominating.

But Matt sees a potential way around that dominance. And it doesn’t start with digging another mine.

I’ll let him explain…

Beijing’s Magnetic Leverage

The combination of scarcity plus utility creates valuable commodities. And that describes rare earth metals perfectly.

Rare earth metals are essential to many of today’s most important technologies, mainly in the form of permanent magnets.

These strong, small magnets go into everything these days: electric motors, hard disk drives, cell phones, speakers, headphones, MRI machines, precision-guided missiles, military communications and much more.

The problem with rare earth metals is that China dominates supply. It’s not that the country has all the deposits, but rather that it dominates the refining and manufacturing needed to turn those deposits into useful products.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), China accounts for:

1. 60% of magnet rare earth mining
2. More than 90% of magnet rare earth refining
3. Nearly 95% of rare earth permanent magnet manufacturing

That gives China an overwhelming economic lever to put pressure on other countries.

We got an early look at that power in 2010, when shipments of rare earths from China to Japan were disrupted during a territorial dispute. Japan’s auto and electronics industries suddenly faced a serious supply threat.

More recently, China tightened its grip again.

Your Rundown for Monday, September 21, 2026...

Breaking China’s Grip in Minnesota

In late 2024, Beijing restricted exports to the U.S. of several critical minerals, including gallium, germanium and antimony. Those aren’t rare earths, but the message was the same: China was willing to use its dominance of critical-material supply chains as economic leverage.

Then, in April 2025, China imposed export controls on seven heavy rare earth elements and related magnets. Shipments fell sharply, leaving manufacturers in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere scrambling for supplies. Some automakers were even forced to cut production.

And the pressure hasn’t gone away. China has continued restricting shipments of key heavy rare earths to Japan this year amid another diplomatic dispute.

That’s the danger of allowing one country to dominate a supply chain this important.

Developing a U.S. mining, refining and magnet manufacturing chain will help. But there’s another potential solution: innovate our way around rare earths altogether.

Permanent magnets don’t have to be made from rare earths.

Several research groups are focused on alternatives. One of the most advanced is an iron-nitride permanent magnet made by Niron Magnetics. The company grew out of research led by the University of Minnesota and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.

The co-founder of Niron, Dr. Jian-Ping Wang, is passionate about permanent magnets:

Permanent magnets are the unsung heroes of our modern society. Without them, many systems just don’t work. They convert electrical energy into mechanical motion in the most energy-efficient way. They’re in everything.

Unfortunately, Niron is private. But this is exactly the kind of company that we want to own.

Magnets, like batteries, are critical to technology. The companies that can disrupt the status quo are going to make investors rich.

And Niron has made significant progress since I first wrote about it.

In August, the company secured a $150 million loan to help build its first commercial-scale manufacturing plant in Sartell, Minnesota. Then, earlier this month, Honda announced an investment in Niron.

Construction is moving ahead, too. On Sept. 10, Niron held a steel-raising ceremony at the 287,000-square-foot Sartell plant.

Courtesy: LinkedIn

The facility is expected to begin operating in 2027, eventually producing up to 1,500 tons of rare-earth-free magnets per year.

And that’s just the beginning.

Niron is also planning a much larger 1.6 million-square-foot manufacturing facility capable of producing 10,000 tons of magnets annually. The company estimates that could eventually represent roughly 1–2% of global permanent-magnet demand.

Don’t get me wrong. One company won’t derail the need for rare earth magnets.

But Niron points to a future where China has real competition. And more importantly, it shows that there may be another way to break China’s grip on one of the world’s most important technology supply chains.

China has shown repeatedly that it will use its near-monopoly as leverage when it suits its interests.

The best long-term answer may not be trying to beat China at its own rare earth game.

It may be making that dominance matter a whole lot less.

Market Rundown for Monday, Sept. 21, 2026

S&P 500 futures are up 0.70% to 7,765.

Oil is down 2.55% to $97.75 for a barrel of WTI.

Gold is down 0.70% to $4,394.40 per ounce.

And Bitcoin’s up almost 5% to $85,175.