Oil could hit $200 per barrel if these conditions are met in Middle East: Citi



Brent crude, the primary global benchmark for oil prices, rose higher than $120 per barrel in early summer 2022, largely on account of the fallout from the war in Ukraine and increased demand in countries reopening after suffering through years of self-imposed COVID restrictions.

At the time, this generated a great deal of excitement and consternation, especially when U.S. gas prices soared to a record high of roughly $5 a gallon.

Americans may soon long for the days of $120 per barrel.

'Consumers continue to feel the sting of rising oil, gasoline, and diesel costs as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East remain elevated.'

Analysts at Citi said in a note on Wednesday that Brent crude — which recently saw an intraday high of nearly $120 a barrel and is presently trading over 65% above its level at the beginning of the year — could hit $200 a barrel if Tehran executes "broad energy infrastructure attacks" or keeps the Strait of Hormuz blocked until June, Investing.com reported.

Iran appears keen to satisfy both of these conditions.

Following the initial joint U.S. and Israel strikes on Feb. 28, Iran targeted energy facilities in its backyard, prompting various companies to wind down their production and shutter their facilities.

RELATED: Trump blasts allies over reluctance to join Iran conflict: 'WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!'

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Qatar's state-run QatarEnergy, for instance, shut down its LNG production complex following Iranian drone strikes at two of its facilities. OilPrice.com recently noted that even if the hostilities in the region ended immediately, it could take several weeks to restart production.

On Wednesday, Tehran issued a warning via state media to several Middle Eastern oil facilities — the Samref Refinery and Jubail Petrochemical Complex in Saudi Arabia; the Al Hosn Gas Field in the United Arab Emirates; and the Mesaieed Petrochemical Complex, Mesaieed Holding Company, and Ras Laffan Refinery in Qatar — notifying them of imminent strikes "in the coming hours," Reuters reported.

"These centers have become direct and legitimate targets and will be targeted ⁠in the coming hours," the warning said. "Therefore, all citizens, residents, and employees are requested to immediately leave these areas and move to a safe distance without ⁠any delay."

The warning, which was followed by a jump in the per-barrel price of Brent crude, came in the wake of airstrikes against the South Pars gas field, the world's largest natural gas reserve which is shared by Iran and Qatar.

A source confirmed to the Jerusalem Post that several energy facilities in South Pars and the Iranian city of Asaluyeh were struck by the Israeli Air Force on Wednesday. Two senior Israeli officials told Axios that the attack was coordinated with and approved by the Trump administration.

Amid the attacks and threat of attacks on energy infrastructure, analysts at Citi wrote, "Brent prices will rally as the conflict continues over the coming days, to $110-120/bbl," adding that could be the "price or market event which drives the U.S. to end its military operation" or alternatively drives global powers to "forcefully reopen the Strait."

President Donald Trump has implored the international community to aid the U.S. in reopening the strait, emphasizing that China and other nations are far more reliant than America on the supply flowing down the strait.

According to Reuters, China received 1.6 billion barrels of crude oil over the past 14 months via the Strait of Hormuz; the rest of Asia collectively received 1.6 billion barrels; India received 1 billion barrels; Japan and South Korea each received 800 million barrels; the U.S. and Europe each received around 200 million barrels; and the rest of the world received a combined 300 million barrels.

Citing sources familiar with the matter, Bloomberg reported that Vice President JD Vance and other administration officials plan to meet at the American Petroleum Institute on Thursday to meet with oil executives.

"We look forward to convening key officials — including Vice President Vance, Energy Secretary [Chris] Wright, bipartisan leaders in Congress, and governors — to discuss the role of American oil and natural gas in supporting reliable energy supply amid global volatility," Andrea Woods, a spokeswoman for the institute, told Bloomberg. "Our industry is focused on providing insight into market dynamics and strengthening American energy leadership and resilience for the long term."

The price-tracking service GasBuddy noted that as of Monday, the national average price of gasoline was up 80 cents per gallon from a month ago and 66.1 cents higher than a year ago.

"Consumers continue to feel the sting of rising oil, gasoline, and diesel costs as geopolitical tensions in the Middle East remain elevated, pushing gasoline prices to their highest levels in years while diesel could soon approach the $5-per-gallon mark nationally," said Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy.

"Until we see a meaningful resumption of oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz, upward pressure on fuel prices is likely to persist," De Haan continued. "At the same time, seasonal forces are beginning to intensify as several regions complete the transition to summer gasoline, creating a double headwind that could continue driving pump prices higher in the weeks ahead."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Data centers are a hidden tax on your burger



Last September, Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins warned that the United States has “offshored our food, our beef cattle, our citrus.” She put the problem plainly: “If we can’t feed ourselves, this is a national security issue.” Fair enough. So why does so much of government land-use policy push projects that devour farmland — hyperscale data centers, utility-scale solar farms, and the sprawling infrastructure that comes with them?

If Washington wanted to drive up land prices, make farming harder, and funnel a generation of acreage into non-agricultural uses, it couldn’t improve on the current playbook. The uniparty does this everywhere, and red states often lead the charge.

Data centers: The ‘cloud’ that drains the water

Texas is suffering through a long drought. Yet Amarillo has approved an 18 million square-foot data center on what used to be cattle country. Land-grabs tell only part of the story. Data centers also drink water — and they don’t act like the kind of clouds that bring rain.

Reports indicate the Amarillo facility alone could use 912 million gallons of water per year. Large data centers can guzzle up to 5 million gallons per day, matching the daily use of a town of 10,000 to 50,000 people. That kind of demand crowds out ranchers and farmers who already operate under tight margins and tight water allocations.

If food security is national security, then farmland is strategic territory. Let’s start acting like it.

Texas data centers used roughly 49 billion gallons of water in 2025, rising to 399 billion gallons by 2030 — enough to lower Lake Mead by more than 16 feet annually. Meanwhile, ranchers face reduced access, higher pumping costs, and deeper draws from shrinking aquifers. Less water means smaller herds, smaller harvests, and more pressure to sell.

That’s how the cycle locks in. Water becomes scarce. Ranching becomes less viable. Landowners get squeezed. Tech developers show up with wads of cash and tax incentives. Grazing land disappears for good.

On what planet does it make sense to trade the beef and food we need for speculative gains from chatbots and cloud-based generative AI?

Maybe Elon Musk has the right idea when he suggests building data centers in space. Texas doesn’t need them planted on top of its ranches.

Some red states now treat these projects as untouchable “economic development,” even when they wreck local quality of life. Ohio offers a telling example. An Ohio EPA draft permit for a data center states: “It has been determined that a lowering of water quality … is necessary to accommodate important social and economic development in the state of Ohio.”

That sentence says everything. Regulators will sacrifice water quality to accommodate the newest corporate appetite. Families and landowners can adapt.

RELATED: Living human brain cells are training a chatbot to be ‘more like us’

Photo by Kyle Grillot/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Solar ‘farms’ crushing farmland

President Trump has criticized the solar agenda from day one. He has called utility-scale solar inefficient and ugly — and he’s right about the aesthetics. Yet the administration now treats solar as a power source for data centers, while some MAGA influencers and pollsters try to sell the right on the plan. Pairing solar with hyperscale AI facilities accelerates the transfer of land out of food production.

Utility-scale solar typically requires five to 10 acres per megawatt. A solar build meant to feed a one-gigawatt hyperscale facility can swallow 5,000 to 10,000 acres. Supporters respond with percentages: Solar uses only a small share of total farmland. That dodge ignores where developers build. They don’t chase scrub. They target flat, well-drained, high-quality fields with cheap and easy access to transmission.

Follow the incentives. In states such as Indiana and Illinois, solar leases reportedly offer $900 to $1,500 per acre annually — far above the average return from corn and soybean ground. Landowners take the deal. Young farmers get priced out. Rural communities lose working land and the local economies that depend on it.

Reuters reported that in Indiana counties such as Pulaski, Starke, and Jasper, solar projects have secured 4% to 12% of some of the most fertile cropland. That’s not “marginal land.” That’s the kind of ground America needs to keep producing.

Tax breaks pour gasoline on the fire. Federal and state subsidies for data centers, solar farms, and battery installations push up land values and rents. In Pulaski County, Indiana, cropland rents reportedly jumped 26% since 2020 amid solar growth, outpacing state and national averages. Young families trying to farm don’t compete with subsidized megaprojects.

Indiana Republicans have compounded the damage by greasing the skids for carbon capture pipelines and special regulatory favors tied to the “Mid-States Corridor,” which will take even more farmland out of service.

Indiana’s own Department of Agriculture reports the state lost roughly 345,000 acres of agricultural land between 2010 and 2022. Residential sprawl drives much of that loss. Industrial conversion is accelerating — and data centers paired with solar build-outs speed it up.

So what exactly are these conservatives conserving?

Imports keep climbing. In 2023, imports supplied 59% of fresh fruit availability and 35% of fresh vegetables — up from 50% and 20% in 2007. America has the land to feed itself and then some, yet policymakers keep nudging production overseas. Mexico alone accounts for over half of imported fruits and vegetables, valued at more than $20 billion.

God gave this country an abundance of fertile land. He gave sun and rain to grow food. Our leaders now treat that ground as a blank canvas for industrial build-outs that don’t feed anyone.

If food security is national security, then farmland is strategic territory. Let’s start acting like it.

Trump’s agenda faces a midterm kill switch in 2026



Ten months ahead of November’s midterms, political and economic crosscurrents are colliding. Which of these conflicting trends prevail will greatly shape the next two years. And possibly even longer.

Midterm elections are always important. Besides gauging the country’s political mood, they have proven integral to maintaining America’s political equilibrium.

For good or ill, incumbent presidents and their party own the economy. The question is: Which economy will Republicans own?

They are the “ebb” to the “flow” of America’s political tide. Historically, every four years a large tide of voters go to the polls and elect a president. Then every two years, the large voter flow ebbs back, and the president’s party suffers accordingly.

This midterm is particularly important to Trump because he has proven susceptible to being baited by his opponents. After 2018, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) returned to the House speakership and unrelentingly harassed Trump over the last two years of his first term. These distractions and obstructions­ — especially during COVID — were undoubtedly a factor in Trump’s narrow 2020 Electoral College defeat.

Today’s political crosscurrents are pronounced. We know the president’s party historically loses seats. The last two two-term presidents, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, suffered congressional losses averaging 22 House seats and 7.5 Senate seats.

Such losses would hand Democrats control of Congress, giving them a House majority larger than Republicans’ narrow edge and a Senate majority bigger than the GOP’s current six-seat margin. Such outcomes would end Trump’s legislative agenda, and Democrats could set their own. To understand the potential impact, play back the recent funding impasse when Democrats shut the government down for the longest period ever — despite lacking control of either chamber.

While Trump would be able to veto Democratic legislation and Republican numbers would be ample to uphold his vetoes, Democrats would have a formal hand in shaping the political agenda. This could greatly help their 2028 presidential prospects.

RELATED: Republicans are letting Democrats lie about affordability

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Current politics are blunting the historical midterm flow, however. Trump is divisive, with just a 43.4% favorable rating; however, his job approval rating of 43.1% is higher than Obama’s (42.4%) at the same point in his second term. Further, Democrats are in abysmal shape with just a 32.5% favorability rating.

The current 2026 political map is also favorable to Republicans. While they have more seats (22 to 13) to protect in the Senate, the toss-up seats are evenly split: Republicans with Maine and North Carolina; Democrats with Georgia and Michigan. Mid-decade House redistricting efforts are also likely to favor Republicans somewhat; if the Supreme Court should allow race to be disregarded in drawing House districts when it rules on the Louisiana case currently before it, then even more redistricting could occur and amount to an even greater Republican advantage.

Today’s economic crosscurrents are equally pronounced. For good or ill, incumbent presidents and their party own the economy. The question is: Which economy will Republicans own?

At the micro level, the growing issue is “affordability.” Nationally, this is an overhang of inflation that surged during Biden’s administration and peaked at 9.1% in June 2022 — a 40-year high.

Locally, affordability played well in New York City (which has been plagued by Democratic policies of rent control and excessive taxation, regulation, and litigation) in 2025’s mayoral race. It also played well in Virginia, where it linked powerfully into the record-long government shutdown. Democrats are therefore seizing on the issue with some success — particularly in the establishment media — and are trying to nationalize it.

At the macro level, the economy is a different story. Despite “expert” predictions that Trump’s tariffs, green agenda rollback, attack on illegal immigration, and reduction in government would combine to wreck the economy, the reverse has occurred. In Trump’s first two full quarters in office, GDP is averaging over 4% growth: up 3.8% in the second quarter and 4.3% in the third. Inflation has also been moderate — 2.7% in November — certainly not the spike experts predicted and a far cry from the previous four years.

RELATED: Conservatives face a choice in ’26: realignment or extinction

MediaProduction via iStock/Getty Images

So politically, depending on your perspective, Republicans look to outperform historically. Their Senate majority looks safe for now, with the chance that Republicans could even gain a seat or two. By contrast, Republicans’ House majority looks vulnerable; this could be offset slightly by current mid-decade redistricting efforts. Yet even just half the average loss of the last two administrations in their second midterms would mean an 11-seat swing and a 226-209 Democratic majority.

Economically, the question is whether the micro or the macro prevails. Can the micro become a national mood outside Democratic areas, or will the macro of strong GDP growth and moderate inflation have time to prevail? Expect political midterm fortunes to respond accordingly.

What is certain is that the midterms will shape the last two years of Trump’s second term. And possibly determine who will run and who will win the presidency in 2028.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Kamala Harris Floats ‘Honest’ Reality Check Of Trump Economy, Seemingly Forgetting Biden Admin’s Affordability Crisis

'the American dream has become more of a myth than a reality'

Costco attacks the tariff plan that puts America — and Americans — first



Costco is suing the Trump administration.

Yes, Costco. The warehouse temple of middle-class stability where Americans stock their freezers, fill their carts, and feel briefly insulated from the chaos of the broader economy. Costco thrives when the American consumer thrives.

Remember, when faced with a choice between standing with the American worker or protecting the globalist status quo, Costco sided with the status quo.

So why file suit against the administration? The company’s board donated heavily to Democrats in the 2023-2024 cycle, and now its leadership wants its tariff money back. The lawsuit doubles as a political favor and a financial windfall.

In short, Costco refuses to accept the new populist moment.

Fighting the populist tax revolt

Trump’s tariff program funds his most audacious promise: eliminating income taxes for working Americans and issuing a $2,000 tariff “dividend” as early as next year. This would mark the largest direct transfer of economic power to workers in modern history.

Costco wants to stop it.

The company that markets itself as the moral alternative to Walmart now positions itself as the moral critic of tariff-driven tax abolition. For decades, Americans have trusted Costco as the “good” warehouse store — high quality, honest pricing, reliable value. But the rotisserie chicken glow fades fast when the company sues to block a working-class tax cut.

Costco insists its lawsuit is about fairness. Please. It’s all about politics.

Stuck in a pre-Trump mentality

Trump upended the left’s narrative by putting workers — not donors, not multinationals — at the center of national policy. The tariff-funded tax revolution threatens decades of Democratic posturing about “helping the little guy.”

So Costco’s leadership had to intervene.

The company claims it fears a pending Supreme Court ruling that overturns tariffs without refunding the money companies paid. In reality, Costco wants a heads-I-win, tails-I-win scenario.

If tariffs stay, Costco raises prices to recoup costs. If tariffs fall, Costco demands a refund. What it will not do is refund customers who paid higher prices.

Costco argues that tariffs fall under Congress’ taxing authority. A federal circuit court agreed, ruling that tariffs are a core congressional power. That argument never troubled Democrats when they rebranded an Obamacare tax as “not a tax” to shove it through the courts.

When Democrats extract revenue for their political projects, the courts call it progress. When tariffs return money to American workers, Costco calls it unconstitutional.

The truth about taxes

Income tax is the burden of wage earners, not the wealthy. Costco knows it. Democrats know it. Everyone knows it.

The wealthy use capital gains, trusts, foundations, and investment shelters. Eliminating income taxes barely touches them. It liberates the working class — precisely the group Democrats once claimed to defend while quietly shifting their coalition toward illegal aliens and the ever-expanding alphabet of sexual identities.

Trump exposed the contradiction: Democrats talk about workers. Trump delivers for them.

RELATED: Is a tariff a tax?

Photo by Kevin Carter/Getty Images

Costco chose poorly

Costco’s lawsuit will not collapse its business model. Americans will still buy their bulk salsa, tires, kayaks, paper towels, and of course, the hot-dog combo that has famously resisted inflation for decades.

But they will remember this moment.

When faced with a choice between standing with the American worker or protecting the globalist status quo, Costco sided with the status quo. A company famous for its generous return policy may soon see a return movement of its own as consumers decide they want their tariff-inflated dollars back.

The company’s lawsuit reveals something not so flattering about the “good” big-box store: Liberal elites love talking about helping workers — as long as it never requires losing money for workers.

The Trump tax-and-tariff revolution threatens that arrangement. And Costco’s leadership made its position clear. I’ll still eat their hot dogs after making a few returns and taking a few extra free samples.

The Middle Class Can’t Keep Up With Persistent Inflation Forever

Conservatives should focus like a laser beam on making life better for the middle class.

Young, broke, and voting blue: 2025’s harsh lesson for the right



In 1992, a young Democratic strategist on the Clinton campaign named James Carville coined the now-famous phrase “it’s the economy, stupid.” He directed it to the campaign workers to ensure that they remained laser-focused on kitchen-table issues. In November's elections, voters delivered that same message, loud and clear, in New York City, Virginia, and New Jersey. The results were not surprising — even the margins were roughly in line with 2017, the last off-year elections in those localities when Trump was president.

The message was clear: Many young voters are hurting economically. Of course, the Trump administration is well aware of this. The government has been digging out of the economic disaster Joe Biden left behind. Compared to Europe and much of Asia, the U.S. is doing better, but the global macro environment is still challenging — especially for young people.

Once again and as ever: 'It’s the economy, stupid.'

This is why almost immediately after the election, the administration focused on ramping up its communication efforts on the economy. President Trump indicated an urgent need to blow up the filibuster and enact a legislative agenda commensurate with the issues young voters are facing. Trump’s approach was echoed by Vice President JD Vance, who noted, “We’re going to keep working to make a decent life affordable in this country, and that’s the metric by which we’ll ultimately be judged in 2026 and beyond.”

It is useful to do a deep dive into the 2025 election data so that we can learn what happened and how we can be ready with the right political and policy prescriptions to win the much more important midterm elections in 2026.

A coalition of the ‘falling behind’

Contrary to the thinking of most political commentators, Zohran Mamdani’s win in the New York City mayoral race wasn’t about racial identity politics. I’m not saying he doesn’t believe in racial identity politics. It’s quite central to his worldview. After all, this is the guy who tweeted in 2020 that “Black + brown solidarity will overcome white supremacy.” Mamdani’s anti-Israel activities have also been well known and much remarked upon. But that’s not what led his coalition to victory on Nov. 4.

First, Mamdani’s campaign was fundamentally a youth movement. Young women ages 18-29, while a relatively small part of the electorate, gave him 81% of their support. These are staggering numbers. Overall, Mamdani won younger voters under 45 by an incredible 69%-25%, while former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) won voters over 45 by 51%-39%. Just as importantly, Mamdani actually won white voters by one point. He certainly did well with Muslims and in the South Asian community.

It’s possible that Mamdani may in fact be a Third-Worldist or Muslim supremacist, as some have alleged — but these were peripheral issues in electing him, and a look at his coalition suggests that focusing on them would fracture it.

Likewise, feelings about Israel were overblown. While it was a “major factor” in 38% of voters’ minds, it was essentially a political wash, with Mamdani losing 47%-46% among those who felt passionately about the issue. While Israel may be personally important for him, it was not a driving issue for most of his voters.

Mamdani’s coalition is spiritually and geographically rootless. While he did strongly among Muslims (presumably a significant chunk of the 14% of voters of “other religions” that he took 70% of), far more powerful was the 75% he took among the 24% of voters who claimed no religion. For those who have made politics their god, Mamdani is a comforting idol and socialism a powerful liturgy.

RELATED: Mao tried this first — New Yorkers will not like the ending

Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

His is also a coalition of the mobile, anchored by those with shallow roots in New York — and, one might suspect, America. Mamdani dominated among newer arrivals, winning a staggering 82% among those who have lived in New York City for less than 10 years. Cuomo, meanwhile, carried the NYC-born 50%-38%, but that group comprised just 45% of the electorate. Likewise, Mamdani racked up a 59%-34% margin among renters.

The fundamental point that anchored Mamdani’s coalition was the economy: 25% of voters described themselves as democratic socialists, and he won 86% of them. And many appear to have been motivated by jealousy or frustration. He actually won 59% among those who thought the NYC economy was good, but also 59%-34% among those who felt they were personally falling behind. If you were among the one-third of voters who looked around and saw everyone else getting ahead but you, Mamdani was your candidate.

Fifty-six percent of voters said the cost of living was the most critical issue, and Mamdani won 66% of them. If he had only won these voters, Mamdani still would have come within a few percentage points of beating Cuomo (41%-37%). This is an essential message for the GOP to internalize if it wants to win back these voters at the 2026 midterms.

Of the 34% of voters who supported raising taxes, an incredible 86% were for Mamdani. But his coalition is not a working-class coalition. White voters with a degree supported Mamdani 57%-40%, while he took just 26% of white voters without a degree — a group that would have comprised eight out of ten voters in 1950 but just 14% today. Nor was it truly a coalition of the financial elite: Cuomo won 62%-33% among families earning over $300,000 per year.

Kitchen-table issues, again

While the circumstances in New York City were somewhat unique, the story in Virginia was more typical. There was a huge gender gap — which is really a marriage gap — though unfortunately, we have only the gender breakdown since pollsters, for whatever reason, didn’t ask about marital status, despite its enormous effect on women’s votes in particular. Republican Winsome Earle-Sears actually won men 51%-38%, but Abigail Spanberger crushed her among women, 65%-35%. If gender gap patterns here are similar to 2024, Spanberger took approximately 72% of single women’s votes.

Also notable is the incredible failure of tokenistic identity politics to appeal to left-wing identity groups. Earle-Sears, a black woman, took just 7% of the black vote — and, incredibly, just 3% of black women’s votes. Meanwhile, she took 61% of white men’s votes, even while losing by 14.5 points overall.

The lesson for the GOP is simple: Voters want tangible results on immigration, jobs, and affordability.

Spanberger was similarly dominant among youth, winning the under-45 vote 65%-34%, as opposed to a much narrower 53%-47% margin among the 45-and-over crowd. Similarly, we see how much the Democrats have become the party of the elite, with Spanberger winning 68%-32% among those with advanced degrees. Earle-Sears, meanwhile, won 2-1 among the one-third of Virginia voters who are white and do not have college degrees and 80% of white born-again Christians, who made up 28% of the voters.

Earle-Sears won 61%-37% among the 37% who are not affected financially by the shutdowns, while the 20% who are affected went for Spanberger 82%-18%. If you look at those Virginia voters who are only a little or not at all financially affected by federal cuts, Spanberger eked out only the narrowest victory over Earle-Sears. Almost her entire positive margin came from those 20% of voters who are substantially financially affected by federal job cuts. This illustrates in dramatic fashion how much Virginia has become a company town for the federal government, with politics that reflect that fact.

By a 58%-40% margin, Virginians said that the economy was good, but Spanberger won among the 23% who felt they were falling behind, by a 76%-24% margin. Again, we see that those who are unhappy with their place in the current economy went overwhelmingly for the Democrats.

Spanberger also won on kitchen-table issues. Among the 48% who felt the economy was the most important issue, she won 63% to 36%. And among the 21% who said health care was the most important issue, she won an incredible 81% to 18%.

By contrast, Earle-Sears had only a narrow advantage (50%-47%) on the transgender issue despite having made men in women’s or girls’ bathrooms and similar matters a centerpiece of her campaign. While it’s very likely that particular issue had a larger gap when related to men in women’s locker rooms than transgenderism as a whole, as insane as transgenderism is to most Republicans, it does not trump the economy for most swing voters.

RELATED: Accountability or bust: Trump’s second term test

Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Carville’s maxim

In New Jersey, once again, we saw economic anxieties come to the fore. Like New York, most people in the Garden State said the economy was not good. But they did not blame the extended period of Democrat governance, including a two-term Democrat governor. Instead, they blamed the Republicans who have been in power for less than a year. Indeed, among the 24% of voters who felt they were economically falling behind, they went 69%-31% for Democrat Mikie Sherrill.

GOP candidate Jack Ciattarelli barely won white voters, 52%-47%, while 68% of Latinos and 82% of Asian Americans voted for Sherrill. For both Spanberger and Sherrill, the Democrats were gifted with almost ideal candidates — experienced, elected congresswomen — given their potential coalition: relatively moderate, affluent white women who could deliver enough red meat to their minority base to turn out most of them while feeling very safe for moderate white suburbanites. Notably, both Sherrill, a Naval Academy graduate and veteran, and Spanberger, a former CIA officer, are married suburban moms, which makes it hard for your average independent voter to portray them as unpatriotic.

One encouraging point was that these results may say less about Republicans and Democrats than one might think. Among a much more Democrat-skewed electorate than in 2024, party favorability for the GOP in New Jersey was only five points under water (46%-51%), while the Democrats (49%-48%) were barely viewed favorably. But a staggering 23% of those with a somewhat favorable view of the Republican Party voted for Sherrill, speaking to her ability to win independent voters.

The GOP retained some gains it made among Hispanic voters in 2024, but overall, 18% of Hispanic voters who voted GOP in 2024 switched to the Democrats in this election. This still represented a significant gain in Hispanic votes for the GOP compared to the last governor’s race in 2021, but it was not enough to keep the race close.

A silver lining

One bright spot from the exit polls after a tough evening for the GOP is that immigration remains a solid issue for Republicans, even with Democrat intransigence. The Trump administration’s aggressive actions haven’t soured voters. Winsome Earle-Sears won 88% among those who considered immigration the most critical issue in Virginia (unfortunately, only 11% of the electorate). Jack Ciattarelli won 72% among voters who cared most about immigration (but again, just 7%).

The economy is the dominant issue, which is why it’s essential to spend more time talking about deporting illegal aliens as a kitchen-table issue that frees up jobs and housing for citizens, while reducing the tax burden on social services.

In each of these constituencies — New York City, Virginia, and New Jersey — Trump’s immigration policies were more opposed than supported. But these are all liberal constituencies in a Democrat wave election. If Trump’s policies polled this well among these constituencies during this election, they still retain solid popular support nationwide.

In New Jersey, 47% said the next governor should cooperate with the president on immigration, versus 49% who said she should not, a virtual tie in a state where the GOP gubernatorial candidate lost by 13 points. By a 15-point margin, Virginians opposed Trump’s immigration policies, identical to the gap in the governor’s race. Even in NYC, 34% of voters wanted the city to cooperate with the Trump administration on immigration enforcement, versus 61% opposed. That 34% number is several points higher than the 30% Trump won in the city in 2024, which represented the highest vote total for a GOP candidate in NYC since 1988.

The lesson for the GOP is simple: Voters want tangible results on immigration, jobs, and affordability. Recent polling suggests that these are the top three issues for 60% of low-propensity voters. If the GOP delivers on these points, it can have a great 2026 midterm election. If not, 2026 will look a lot like 2025.

Once again and as ever: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.

The Ticketmaster scam Trump vows to crush



If you’ve ever tried to buy tickets to a major concert or sporting event, you know the scam. You spend hours in a “virtual queue,” only to watch tickets vanish in seconds. Scalpers and bots scoop up thousands, then flip them for double or triple the price. Fans refresh their browsers over and over, while Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation, pocket the profits.

It’s a racket, and for decades the people who keep live entertainment alive — ordinary fans — have paid the price.

Fans don’t want excuses. They want a system that works for them, not one designed to funnel cash into a corporate machine while leaving families priced out.

That’s why President Trump plans to unveil a ticket reform package this month. His proposal promises to take on the corporate monopoly that dominates the industry and restore fairness to fans.

The problem is straightforward: Live Nation and Ticketmaster control roughly 70% of the ticketing and live events business — and about 80% of the primary ticketing market. According to the Justice Department, that dominance has allowed the conglomerate to dictate what fans can buy, what they must pay, and who gets access at all.

As Trump FTC Commissioner Mark Meador explained last year, “Live Nation Ticketmaster created a dominant conglomerate with an unprecedented amount of control over the live ticketing market, resulting in monopoly power it has used to entrench its position in the marketplace.”

Fans lose twice under this scheme. They pay outrageous fees when Ticketmaster sells the tickets the first time. Then they pay again when scalpers resell them — because Ticketmaster takes another cut.

Trump’s plan should target the obvious abuses by cracking down on bots that grab tickets before real people even have a chance, establishing distribution systems that treat fans fairly, and encouraging competition in a market currently controlled by one corporate behemoth.

Those reforms would finally level the playing field. But Live Nation-Ticketmaster has other ideas. The company now wants government-imposed price caps on resale tickets — a move that sounds like “reform” but would entrench its monopoly even further.

RELATED: It’s time to join the fight and expose Ticketmaster

Photo by Jack Taylor/Getty Images

Former Trump Justice Department official Brian Pandya warned that such price controls would bankrupt Ticketmaster’s smaller rivals, eliminating competition altogether. Meanwhile, the $38 billion conglomerate could take the hit, since it also profits from artist management, promotion, and the 400-plus venues it controls nationwide. Price caps would squeeze everyone else out while leaving the monopoly stronger than ever.

The better path is obvious: Open up the marketplace. Strengthen enforcement against ticket bots. Redirect regulations to protect fans, not corporations. And if necessary, break up the Live Nation-Ticketmaster monopoly entirely.

Fans don’t want excuses. They want a system that works for them, not one designed to funnel cash into a corporate machine while leaving families priced out of concerts, plays, and ball games.

Trump’s plan could finally deliver that. For once, fans might win — and the monopoly might lose.

Buc-ee’s gets rich by doing everything Wall Street hates



Buc-ee’s may be technically categorized as a “convenience store,” but for millions of Americans, it’s more like a roadside pilgrimage. No matter how big its new stores are, they remain packed. The chain has a fanatically loyal customer base, and it has become a destination for those not fortunate enough to have a Buc-ee's nearby.

What’s the draw? Buc-ee's has enormous restrooms that are immaculately clean, cheap gas with often more than 100 pumps, a kitschy-fun shopping experience, and exceptional food — including Texas barbecue and an in-house bakery. In addition, it’s heavily staffed with low-turnover, career employees.

I shudder to think of the destruction that would be brought upon the Buc-ee's business model if private equity decided to “fix” its operations.

Buc-ee's is thriving by rejecting numerous destructive “best practices” currently embraced by corporate America and private equity.

Fortunately for Buc-ee's, it’s still privately owned by its founders, Arch Aplin and Don Wasek, whose business acumen came from running convenience stores and working directly with customers and employees. They weren’t poisoned by an elite business school education, where modern executives learn that customers are prey and employees are a pestilence whose compensation reduces executive bonuses.

The winning formula

The magic formula to Buc-ee's success is built on a very simple foundation: clean restrooms and cheap gas. It first developed its cult following in Texas by being a place you could always count on for a clean restroom while driving the interstates. Good candies, food, and pastries then added to the appeal.

Nowadays, the same foundation is in place: clean restrooms and cheap gas. But once a customer walks inside to use the restroom, a wonderland of food and products awaits. The food and merchandise are not necessarily cheap, but they’re high-quality, and many customers enjoy making those purchases as part of their Buc-ee's experience. But it’s still possible to visit Buc-ee's for gas and a potty stop without paying a premium.

Standing up to Wall Street

By contrast, Las Vegas tourism is down dramatically — in no small part because of the city's outrageous pricing. The old Vegas model of cheap buffets and affordable rooms to get people into the casinos was not unlike Buc-ee's lure of clean restrooms and cheap gas. But the Wall Street wizards now in control of Vegas have ditched the old model in favor of revenue-mining every possible moment of a visitor’s stay.

As Jeffrey Turner explained on his Substack, “The MBAs and data-crunchers at the corporate casino have installed Disneyland pricing into their models.”

Buc-ee's still understands the power of the previous business model that Las Vegas abandoned: Provide a high-quality “loss leader” — or two — to get the customers in the door, and then provide high-margin products that entice them to open their wallets.

For those who work at Buc-ee's, it’s more than a job — it’s a career. Buc-ee's doesn’t consider its staff to be “unskilled” labor who deserve near-minimum wages. Their excellent compensation results in lower turnover and better customer service. The food at Buc-ee's might be a little more expensive than at a nearby fast-food joint, but it’s of much higher quality and served by professional staff — things customers will gladly pay a premium for.

As I discussed in a recent column, revenue mining has become an all-too-common corporate business strategy these days, especially in private equity. Revenue mining exploits customers while slashing costs to the bone, shipping jobs oversees, firing veteran employees who know the business best, wrecking customer service, downgrading quality, and killing innovation. That pernicious strategy may briefly produce record short-term profits, but it also destroys customer loyalty and brand value.

I shudder to think of the destruction that would be brought upon the Buc-ee's business model if private equity decided to “fix” its operations.

RELATED: Fear the beaver: How a gas station became a cult (and why you should consider joining)

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The famous Buc-ee's restrooms by themselves produce no revenue, and they occupy significant square footage. Its full-time staffers make about $40,000 annually simply to keep these restrooms clean. In other words, the restrooms are a loss leader, drawing customers in but producing no revenue. That’s anathema to private equity.

Private equity would slash the restroom maintenance, eliminate or outsource the cleaning crews, and decrease their square footage. Or maybe they’d try to charge admission to the restrooms. But they would undoubtedly kill the golden goose — the restrooms — and thus lose the golden egg that gets customers to the checkout registers.

A job sign outside a Buc-ee's in Alabama recently showed that several manager positions within a Buc-ee's pay in excess of $100,000 per year, and the store’s general manager can earn more than $200,000 per year. Wall Street or private equity would waste no time in slashing Buc-ee's employee head count and compensation, assuming it would increase the bottom line. But it wouldn’t; it would simply destroy the staffing that makes Buc-ee's success possible.

RELATED: Corporate America is eating its seed corn — and our future

Photo by Tim Grist Photography via Getty Images

Private equity would also be aghast at the “lost revenue” from offering below-market gas prices. Estimates are that Buc-ee's sells about 400,000 gallons of gas per day. Just charging 5 cents more per gallon would bring in an additional $7 million annually, all things being equal.

But all things aren’t equal.

A success story worth copying

Buc-ee's sells such a high volume of gas because its prices are lower. Buc-ee's understands that a lower gross profit per gallon with higher volume produces more gross profit than lower volume at a higher price. But more importantly, those swarms of cars fueling up on inexpensive gas are full of people who stroll inside and purchase high-margin discretionary products. It’s a simple concept that is alien to rapacious financial wizards, but one that’s well understood by retailers on the ground.

Buc-ee's success is a refutation of prevailing business wisdom. May it serve as an example to the next generation of business leaders on the importance of developing a loyal customer base with abundant staff, career wages, great customer service, high-quality products, and an enjoyable customer experience.

Corporate America is eating its seed corn — and our future



“Don’t eat your seed corn.” Every farmer gets it. Every American with common sense gets it. The only people who don’t? The people who run corporate America.

A farmer keeps part of this year’s crop for planting next year. He could sell it now and pocket more cash — but then there’s nothing to plant, nothing to harvest, nothing to live on later. That’s obvious to anyone who works the land.

Capitalism creates wealth. But when wealth is extracted at the expense of the product, the people, and the future — that’s not capitalism. That’s predatory ransacking.

But in today’s boardrooms, the rule is reversed. Short-term profit is all that matters. Strip the future bare, cash out, and leave the mess for someone else to clean up.

The rewards for this corporate vandalism are massive: fat bonuses, stock windfalls, golden parachutes. The damage — lost jobs, gutted industries, shoddy products — is someone else’s problem.

And the fastest way to pull it off? Slash costs to the bone. Ship jobs overseas. Push out the people who know the business best. Wreck customer service. Kill innovation. Downgrade quality until the product barely passes as the same thing you used to make.

Private equity and corporate strategists have a new trick for squeezing customers dry: “revenue mining.” That means cross-selling, upselling, jacking up prices, and hiding the real costs in creative contracts.

At first, it works. Existing customers tend to stick around — inertia keeps them from bolting right away. But each gimmick drives off a slice of loyal business. Combine that with lower service quality and cheaper products, and the exodus accelerates. Before long, the company is stuck with an overpriced product, lousy service, and no easy way to attract new customers.

I’ve watched this play out in my own life. My exterminator. My alarm company. My HVAC service. All wrecked by the same formula. The local phone number? Redirected to a call center overseas — if I can navigate the phone tree. The people I used to know? Gone. The contract? Suddenly much more expensive.

The service I get for my trouble? Less than before. And when the tech finally arrives, all he says is, “Things are much different now.” They might wring one more payment out of me, but I’m already shopping for a local outfit that treats me like a customer instead of prey.

In short, they ate their seed corn. They got one fat harvest out of me, then pushed me straight into the arms of their competition — for good.

At least my dentist is still a one-man shop who owns his own business. But even dentistry is under siege. Private equity-backed dental chains are giving dentistry a bad name, pushing unnecessary procedures just to meet revenue targets.

A USA Today investigation titled “Dentists under pressure to drill ‘healthy teeth’ for profit” uncovered one such example:

Dental Express was part of North American Dental Group, a chain backed by private-equity investors. At least a year earlier, the company had told dentists like Griesmer to meet aggressive revenue targets or risk being kicked out of the chain. Those targets ratcheted up pressure to find problems that might not even exist.

In my professional career, I have seen too many examples of the same pattern: private equity buying and destroying great businesses that had loyal customer bases. To be fair, I have also seen examples of private equity groups buying a business, embracing its product, and continuing to provide good service. I wish it weren’t the exception, though.

More often, private equity groups treat the acquisition as a mine: extract the capital through dividends and existing customers while accruing significant debt. In fact, the funds used to purchase the business are often borrowed and never even repaid.

Dig until empty, leave a crater, and move on.

An X user put it perfectly:

Some private equity is genuinely investing in the business to grow a solid business. This is good, full stop.

Some private equity buys up dying businesses, breaks them up, sells off the valuable bits and sometimes lets the worthless bits go through bankruptcy, taking advantage of bankruptcy laws to profit. This is good, actually, as it recycles the resources of dying businesses into good businesses.

The third type of private equity buys good businesses that are doing OK or even doing well. Then they sell off all the assets, load the company up on as much debt as they can, pay themselves giant dividends, and then take advantage of the same bankruptcy laws to discharge all the debt so they never have to pay it back. This is really bad.

This isn’t just happening to small companies. It’s hitting America’s industrial backbone.

I’ve written before about how Carlos Tavares, the former CEO of Stellantis (corporate parent of Chrysler, Dodge, and Jeep), awarded himself a $39 million compensation package for making short-term decisions that briefly maximized profit before revenue and sales collapsed, leaving dealers with overpriced, outdated inventory. He made off with the profits, then left behind a hollow pipeline for the dealers truly committed to Stellantis.

RELATED: Private equity’s losing streak is coming for your 401(k)

Greenseas via iStock/Getty Images

I also covered Boeing’s disastrous $43 billion stock buyback binge. The short-term boost to its share price came at the expense of critical investment in its products — and has cost the aerospace giant $35 billion since 2019. To plug the hole, Boeing had to raise another $15 billion in capital and push back the already overdue launch of the 777, citing “negligent engineering.”

That phrase used to be unthinkable in the aerospace industry. Boeing made it possible by gutting its engineering and technical staff to feed Wall Street.

The consequences keep coming. This month, United Airlines grounded much of its fleet after a failure in its proprietary “Unimatic” flight system. The airline claims it doesn’t know what caused the failure.

But I have a strong suspicion.

In recent years, United has aggressively outsourced its technical operations to contractors using foreign labor — often H-1B visa workers — at lower cost. One subcontractor, Vista Applied Solutions Group, boasts that it helps clients “increase productivity” while achieving “considerable cost savings.”

That’s great — until the system fails and planes can’t fly. United may have saved on salaries. The short-term reduction in salary expense has eaten United’s seed corn, leaving the company with a technology system that can’t keep its planes in the air.

It is imperative for those of us who defend capitalism to also repudiate those engaged in practices that give it a bad name. Capitalism creates wealth. But when wealth is extracted at the expense of the product, the people, and the future — that’s not capitalism. That’s predatory ransacking.

And it deserves our scorn.