Amid the fog of war and fading 'hard' data, the final March S&P Global Manufacturing PMI printed 52.3 (a small drop from the flash 52.4 print), higher than the 51.8 print for February.
The ISM Manufacturing PMI also rose from 52.4 to 52.7 - the highest since August 2022...
Source: Bloomberg
Under the hood, Prices Paid continued to rise dramatically while New Orders and Employment dipped...
Business confidence regarding output in the year ahead has also so far held up well, if one follows the S&P Global report.
"This sustained resilience in part reflects reduced concerns over government policies such as tariffs, but also indicates that producers anticipate only a short-term and modest impact from the war, which is clearly uncertain.
It remains early days in terms of the impact of the conflict, and a sharp rise in prices and delivery delays has cast a cloud over the outlook, threatening to drive inflation higher, dampen demand and throttle supply chains, warns S&P Global's Williamson.
Factory input costs have already jumped higher on the back of surging oil prices and supplier delays have become more widespread than at any time since October 2022, linked to the war exacerbating existing shipping, haulage and port delays.
“Some manufacturers are hence reporting stock building as a precaution against future price rises or supply shortages, and hiring has almost stalled in order to reduce staffing costs, underscoring the growing concern about how the war might cause problems for factories in the coming weeks."
Obviously, if price pressures and supply delays persist, demand, employment and production capabilities will inevitably start to be more seriously affected.
Oil prices are down overnight but playing headline roulette with every word that comes out of any leaders' (or non-leaders') mouth as ceasefire chatter (now denied) has WTI riding a roller-coaster (but below $100 once again as we write).
“Flows and actions matter more than words,” said Giovanni Staunovo, a commodity analyst at UBS Group AG.
And while inventory data may not be the market-moving event in this new regime, it is useful to see signs of stockpiling or demand.
DOE
Crude +5.45mm (+10.3mm API, +2mm exp)
Cushing +520k
Gasoline -586k
Distillates -2.11mm
A sizable crude build (the sixth weekly rise in total US crude stocks in a row) was mirrored by the seventh weekly drawdown in gasoline stocks...
Stockpiles at Cushing, Oklahoma, also rose for the sixth consecutive week.
A 520,000-barre- build takes inventories at the storage hub to the highest level since July 2024. Stockpiles at Cushing are now firmly above 30 million barrels.
Stocks for all transport fuels in the US dropped this week with diesel falling 2 million barrels to the lowest level since mid-March.
That fuel, alongside jet, is in the spotlight as the Iran war has had an outsized impact on the price of those fuels compared with gasoline.
Interestingly, US crude production slipped lower again last week. Refinery crude runs fell for the first time in five weeks. Despite the drop, they remain at a multi-year seasonal high.
Oil prices dipped after the data...
The surge in market volatility has made intraday trading choppier, with many traders having to curb position sizes.
Oric Pharmaceuticals has pickedthe phase 3 dose for its prostate cancer prospect, barreling into the pivotal program while outlining a claimed edge over Pfizer’s rival candidate. But investors sent the stock down as they digested Oric’s phase 1b data and choice of pivotal treatment regimen.
The phase 3 trial, which will start in the first half of the year, will test 400-mg, once-daily doses of Oric’s PRC2 inhibitor rinzimetostat in combination with Bayer’s Nubeqa in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients previously treated with abiraterone. At an interim phase 1b analysis, 33% of patients on the regimen had at least a 50% decline in prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Oric reported a 40% rate of PSA50 across all doses in November.
California-based Oric posted an 84% radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) rate after five months. The company said the rPFS results were consistent with Pfizer’s rival EZH2 inhibitor, mevrometostat, and better than standard-of-care therapies including Novartis’ Pluvicto.
On a call with investors to discuss the results, Oric Chief Medical Officer Pratik Multani, M.D., said the biotech chose 400 mg, not 600 mg, for the phase 3 dose after seeing no statistical relationship between exposure and efficacy. The 400-mg dose performed numerically better than the 600-mg dose on some measures, Multani said, and the confidence intervals overlapped.
While the efficacy data suggested the doses are comparable, the safety and tolerability results pointed to a clear advantage for 400 mg. Oric saw more toxicity and dose modifications at the 600-mg dose, leading it to advance the lower dose into phase 3. Citi analysts called the choice of dose “logical” in a note to investors.
Safety and tolerability are key to Oric’s plans. Pfizer has taken mevrometostat into phase 3 based on data that suggest it matches rinzimetostat’s efficacy. Lagging behind its rival, Oric sees mevrometostat’s rates of gastrointestinal and hematological adverse events, plus cases of dysgeusia and alopecia, as areas to gain an edge. Oric CEO Jacob Chacko told investors rinzimetostat’s safety profile “looks markedly better.”
Another analyst asked about Nubeqa's selection as a phase 3 combination drug. Oric also studied its candidate with Johnson & Johnson’s Erleada. Like Nubeqa, Erleada is an androgen receptor inhibitor. Chacko said Oric chose Nubeqa to avoid the drug-drug interactions associated with Erleada, adding that the company could combine rinzimetostat with J&J’s product in future phase 3 studies.
Oric shares were trading down 24% to $9.60 in the first hour of trading Wednesday compared to a Tuesday closing price of $12.67. Citi analysts said the stock drop could reflect confusion about the choice of the 400-mg dose or “possibly misguided expectations of greater efficacy” compared to mevrometostat.
While Pfizer’s candidate is leading the race, the analysts said the safety data support Oric’s belief that rinzimetostat can claim a substantial share of the post-abiraterone market.
In the span of nine months, nine top-level scientists in the United States have died or vanished without a trace.
Seven of them were connected to the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) or the institutions it directly funds.
AFRL develops and transitions the most sensitive aerospace technologies in the United States’ defense arsenal.
1) Monica Jacinto Reza vanished June 22, 2025 while hiking with friends in the Angeles National Forest in California.
She was last seen waving to a hiking companion approximately 30 feet behind the group. Despite an extensive search involving helicopters, drones, and canine units, only a beanie and lip balm were recovered, and her body was never found.
Reza, 60, was an aerospace engineer and Technical Fellow at Aerojet Rocketdyne who later moved to NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)and co-inventor of Mondaloy.
Mondaloy is a family of nickel-based superalloys developed by Aerojet Rocketdyne to withstand oxygen-rich environments and extreme heat in rocket engines. Its unique achievement is balancing high oxygen compatibility with structural strength, solving a critical challenge where traditional oxygen-resistant alloys were too weak for use in high-pressure components like preburners and turbine rotors.
She worked closely with Retired Major General William Neil McCasland, who commanded the AFRL from 2011 to 2013 and oversaw the government funding for her alloy program. McCasland disappeared in February.
Dallas Hardwick, Reza’s mentor and co-inventor of Mondaloy, died on January 5, 2014, apparently of natural causes.
2) Melissa Casias has been missing since June 26, 2025, in Taos County, New Mexico.
She was last seen walking alone on Highway 518 near Talpa around 2:15 p.m., wearing a light-colored shirt, jeans, and tennis shoes, with a backpack containing personal items.
Casias, 53, was an administrative assistant at the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), a facility known for nuclear weapons research and national security science.
Her job at LANL links her to McCasland, who worked closely with LANL on national security projects at Kirtland Air Force Base, according to the Daily Mail. She vanished just four days after Reza mysteriously disappeared.
3, 4, 5) Jacob Prichard, Jaymee Prichard, and 1st Lt. Jaime Gustitus all died on October 25, 2025.
Jacob Prichard, 34, was the Acquisition Project Manager in the AFRL Sensors Directorate at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, specializing in technologies for air and space reconnaissance and surveillance.
Jacob’s wife, Jaymee Prichard, 33, was a finance specialist at the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center at Wright-Patterson. The couple had three children.
Gustitus, 25, was a U.S. Air Force Operations Analysis Officer who worked in a top secret capacity at the 711th Human Performance Wing at Wright-Patterson.
Jacob allegedly killed his wife Jaymee and placed her body in the trunk of their car, then drove to Sugarcreek Township, broke into Gustitus’s apartment and fatally shot her around 2 a.m.
He then drove to the West Milton Municipal Building, opened the trunk for police to discover Jaymee’s body, and at around 4:23 a.m., committed suicide by gunshot in the parking lot. The act was reportedly captured on security cameras.
6) Carl Grillmair, astrophysicist and astronomer at the Caltech Infrared Processing and Analysis Center (IPAC), was shot dead on the front porch of his home in Llano, California on February 16, 2026.
Grillmair was celebrated for his groundbreaking research in astronomy, including the discovery of dozens of stellar streams (remnants of ancient galactic collisions) and the first detection of water signatures in the atmospheres of exoplanets. For over nearly 30 years at IPAC, he worked on numerous projects including the NEOWISE Science Data Center, where he validated data pipelines for detecting asteroids and comets that could impact Earth.
Grillmair’s role involved testing new instrumentation and ensuring the NEO Surveyor’s instruments performed to specification to identify dark, cold objects against the black of space.
7) William Neil McCasland, former AFRL Commander, former research commander at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico, vanished from his home in Albuquerque, New Mexico, on February 27, 2026. A “Silver Alert” was issued after the 68-year-old disappeared.
He reportedly left his phone and glasses but took his wallet, boots, and a .38 revolver, with the FBI now assisting in his search.
McCasland held some of the most sensitive positions in the U.S. military, including Director of Special Programs at the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, giving him critical knowledge of the nation’s most classified programs.
He reportedly oversaw $4.4 billion in classified aerospace research and development, running the lab at Wright-Patterson and serving as the executive secretary of the Special Access Program Oversight Committee, the body with full purview of every SAP in the Department of Defense. His name appears in WikiLeaks emails coordinating a UAP disclosure meeting with the Clinton campaign and the head of Lockheed Martin’s Skunk Works, according to the Sentinel Network.
McCasland’s association with UFO research and brief professional association with Tom DeLonge and the To The Stars Academy have drawn significant public and media attention to the case.
According to The Sentinel, these mysterious deaths and disappearances do not amount to “a loose collection of people who happened to work in defense.”
This is one documented system, traceable through patent filings, congressional testimony, DTIC records, and federal contract databases.
Reza vanished in LA County. Grillmair was killed in LA County. Both in the shadow of the JPL/Caltech corridor where America’s planetary defense infrastructure is built. McCasland vanished in Albuquerque, home of Kirtland AFB and Sandia National Labs. The Wright-Patterson deaths were in Dayton. These are not random locations. They are the three geographic nodes of American defense aerospace research. Southern California. New Mexico. Ohio. The triangle where AFRL lives.
And at every node, the same institutional silence. JPL said nothing about Reza. NASA said nothing. The AIAA said nothing. Caltech’s statement about Grillmair said he “passed away suddenly” without using the word “shot.” Wright-Patterson offered counseling services. In every case, the institution that lost someone chose the minimum possible disclosure. The silence is its own pattern inside the pattern.
8) Nuno F. Gomes Loureiro, a prominent Portuguese plasma physicist, was fatally shot at his home in Brookline, Massachusetts, on December 15, 2025 and died from his injuries the following day.
Loureiro, 47, held joint appointments as a professor in MIT’s Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering and Department of Physics and director of MIT’s Plasma Science and Fusion Center.
He joined MIT in 2016 and was known for his work on nonlinear plasma dynamics, including the development of the Viriato simulation code and his research on solar flares and fusion confinement.
9) Jason Thomas, a chemical biologist, was reported missing on December 13, 2025, after leaving his home on the night of December 12 without his phone, wallet, or identification. He was found dead in Lake Quannapowitt in Wakefield, Massachusetts, on March 17, 2026.
Thomas, 45, was the assistant director at Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research with over 4,500 citations in chemical biology and chemoproteomics. His work reportedly included active contracts with the Department of Defense.
Commenting on the string of deaths and disappearances, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) told podcaster Benny Johnson last week that “Something dark is going on.”
“I know these scientists and researchers. They have testified. We’ve got to get to the bottom of it,” he said. “It’s just too much, too much is going on right now—and by the way, I’m not suicidal.”
The case, known as Trump v. Barbara, is set for oral argument on April 1.
Upon entering office, Trump signed an order barring the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States from securing citizenship. It also applies to mothers on temporary U.S. visas who give birth in the country.
The order has been blocked by local courts pending the high court’s decision.
The justices are expected to wrestle with the meaning of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. That part of the amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
Here are some of the key questions in the case and how they’ve been debated.
What Does ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Mean?
Much of the debate has focused on these five words from the amendment: “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
The wording of the 14th Amendment indicates that merely being born within U.S. borders is not enough for citizenship. That’s partially why the Supreme Court, in a 19th-century decision, said the children of foreign diplomats and those born in Native American territory do not receive citizenship.
One of the main questions before the Supreme Court is why and how these groups of people might differ from the children of illegal immigrants.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing children and their mothers, has argued that people are subject to U.S. jurisdiction if they are obligated to follow its laws. Diplomats and Native Americans are excluded because they belong to other sovereign nations.
The Justice Department has focused more on the concept of allegiance, namely that illegal immigrant parents lack allegiance to the United States and therefore aren’t fully subject to the country’s jurisdiction.
Last year, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision lifting several blocks on Trump’s policy, but did so in a limited way. That decision, known as Trump v. CASA, only clarified how far judges could go in blocking the president.
The current case is inviting the justices to delve deeper into the 14th Amendment and one of its much older decisions from 1898. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment guaranteed birthright citizenship to a Chinese man whose parents were permanently domiciled in the United States.
Many federal judges have cited that decision to say that the Supreme Court already said the 14th Amendment granted citizenship to people born on U.S. soil—including those born to illegal immigrants.
When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled on Trump’s policy, it pointed to a portion of the 1898 opinion that identified three exceptions: children of Native American tribes, those “born of aliens in hostile occupation,” and “children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state.”
The Justice Department argued instead that the 19th-century decision applied only to children whose parents were domiciled, or residing with some kind of allegiance to the country.
It noted that the court repeatedly referred to domiciled status. For example, the majority opinion read, “Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.”
Another portion of the opinion said that Chinese persons owed allegiance to the United States and were entitled to its protection “so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here.”
It’s unclear how the six conservative justices will rule, but the three liberal justices have already said in an opinion last year that Trump’s policy was “unquestionably unconstitutional.”
What Did Congress Intend When It Proposed the 14th Amendment?
The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 against the backdrop of the Civil War and the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which held that slaves were not citizens.
The Justice Department said the United States overturned that decision with the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. That law specified that persons born in the United States, “and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” were citizens.
That law and statements from members of Congress will likely bear on the Supreme Court’s decision-making, as many of the justices have been viewed as originalists, or giving especially strong weight to the nation’s history.
The Justice Department pointed to, among other things, what Sen. James Wilson of Iowa said about the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
At the time, he said, “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except ... children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”
The ACLU said that Wilson’s comment was incorrect and conflicted with English common law, which has been cited in legal decisions such as Wong Kim Ark.
In a briefing to the Supreme Court, the ACLU cited English legal scholar William Blackstone. Writing in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” Blackstone said, “Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king’s dominions immediately upon their birth.”
Is Trump Violating Federal Law?
The ACLU and congressional Democrats have argued that outside of the 14th Amendment, Trump is also violating a federal law passed in the 20th Century.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, and its predecessor, known as the Nationality Act of 1940, used the 14th Amendment’s phrasing. It states in part that “the following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
A long list of congressional Democrats filed an amicus, or friend of the court, brief telling the Supreme Court that regardless of what the 14th Amendment meant, Congress interpreted it as giving citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants when it enacted the 1952 legislation.
Because that was the lawmakers’ intent when they passed the bills, Democrats argued, the 1952 law was an independent reason to reject Trump’s executive order.
The administration argued that because the laws were transplanting language from the 14th Amendment, the original meaning of the amendment—not how Congress interpreted it—should rule.
Legal scholar Ed Whelan speculated that the Supreme Court might focus on the Immigration and Nationality Act but refuse to rule on the meaning of the 14th Amendment.
“My guess is that the Chief will be part of a supermajority of the Court that rules that the [executive order] violates section 1401(a) and that declines to address the constitutional question,” he said in a post on X.
Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor who worked on immigration issues, disagreed.
“Although courts, including the Supreme Court, avoid constitutional rulings when cases can be decided on narrower statutory grounds, the [Immigration and Nationality Act] mirrors the language of the 14th Amendment, so the justices are unlikely to rely on statutory authority alone,” he told The Epoch Times.
An "unknown projectile" struck and damaged a tanker 17 nautical miles north of Doha, Qatar, the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) said.
The hit caused damage to the hull of the tanker above the water line, the UKMTO noted, adding that the crew is reported as safe and that there's "no environmental impact."
