Wood McKenzie hasreleaseda report that US spending on power generation gear for data centers alone could hit$65 billion by 2030, more than triple the $20 billion logged last year. Data center capacity is forecast to reach110 GW by the end of the decade, with Bloomberg alsocommentingthat “total US spending on power-plant equipment may climb to$215 billion."
The increased spending for the heavy electrical equipment market sounds great, but unfortunately, there's no equipment to buy domestically.
Lead times for transformers, switchgear, and related gear stretch from 18-36 months and much of the shortfall is filled by imports from China, exposing the supply chain to the very geopolitical risks Washington claims to be racing against. The heavy reliance on imports for these grid-critical items led to the massive stack of Defense Production Act orders put out by the administration in April.
Sightline Climate data highlighted earlier shows nearly half of the roughly 16 GW of US data center capacity slated to break ground in 2026 now faces delay or outright cancellation. Only about 5 GW sit under active construction.
The explosion in AI data center energy demand has been ongoing for years now. From PJM’s frantic scramble for 15 gigawatts of new supply to feed hyperscaler loads to the eye watering capacity auction price spikes that data centers helped trigger.
That squeeze is accelerating two parallel trends.
First, hyperscalers are increasingly turning to behind the meter solutions. These include small nuclear reactors or gas fired generation directly on site. This approach allows them to bypass years-long waits for grid interconnection. Examples include Brookfield’s nuclear tied cloud venture to Nano Nuclear modular reactor studies and Talen Energy’s direct hookups.
Second, the cost pressure on households is drawing Washington’s attention. Grid upgrades required by the AI buildout have become the primary driver behind projected electricity rate increases. The Ratepayer Protection Pledge was signed back in March, which pushed hyperscalers to build, bring, or buy their own power and cover every dollar of the new transmission and distribution infrastructure.
The White House has also framed rapid AI infrastructure buildout as a national security imperative, leading to a conflict of interests between the demand for new data centers without stressing the grid or consumers. AI has been widely labeled by the White House as necessary for the safety of the country, and is the new modern-day arms race.
Beijing is moving to tighten its grip on tens of millions of gig workers—an increasingly vital but volatile segment of China’s labor force—prompting warnings from analysts that the effort could deepen social tensions rather than contain them.
On April 26, China’s top leadership bodies, the General Office of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the State Council, released new guidelines via Chinese state media Xinhua News Agency, calling for stronger management of what the CCP describes as the country’s “new employment groups.”
The directive, while only now made public, is dated Oct. 29 last year. It calls for increased adherence to Xi Jinping’s political doctrine and urges workers to “listen to and follow the Party.”
Using vague language, it also mentions plans for “a working mechanism characterized by top-to-bottom coordination” by the year 2027, with further objectives coming within another three to five years, including that “ideological and political guidance will be more forceful.”
The move comes as Beijing seeks to assert tighter control over the fast-growing gig workforce that now numbers about 84 million people—roughly one-fifth of China’s employed population—according to a February analysis in “Qiushi,” a CCP propaganda magazine.
Vast, Hard-to-Control Workforce
China defines “new employment groups” as workers that are engaged in flexible, platform-based jobs tied to the digital economy. They include food delivery riders, couriers, ride-hailing drivers, e-commerce workers, and livestream hosts, many of whom are young job seekers drawn by low barriers to entry but who face long hours, unstable incomes, and limited labor protections.
The category overlaps with China’s broader concept of flexible employment, which includes part-time workers and the self-employed. By 2025, officials estimated that more than 200 million people fell into that broader grouping, according to state media Xinhua News Agency.
Despite their size, these workers often lack access to social benefits and operate outside traditional labor structures, making them difficult to organize and, from the CCP’s perspective, difficult to control, according to U.S.-based China current affairs commentator Wang He.
Wang told The Epoch Times the new directive reflects mounting concern within the CCP about the political risks posed by this group. He said the policy is about extending state control.
“The CCP sees this [as a segment of the workforce] that cannot be allowed to drift beyond Party oversight,” he said. “The priority is political control.”
Wang said that in recent years, China has already expanded surveillance systems and grassroots governance networks. The latest policy signals an effort to integrate gig workers more fully into that framework, while reinforcing the Party’s authority over both society and the government.
“This group is young, mobile, and highly connected through the internet,” he said. “Their ability to voice grievances is stronger than many other groups.”
Signs of Discontent
Incidents over the past year have underscored those concerns.
In December, hundreds of delivery riders in Changsha, China, gathered to protest restrictions on access to a residential compound. Videos circulating online showed one participant dressed in a yellow cape, prompting a heavy police response.
More recently, from late March to early April, delivery workers in Chongqing, China, staged a multi-day strike, protesting falling pay rates and what they described as exploitative platform practices.
Such episodes, while localized, have raised alarms among some experts about the potential for broader unrest.
Xu Zhen, a senior professional in China’s capital markets, told The Epoch Times that disputes involving delivery workers have increasingly become flashpoints for social instability.
“The CCP is trying to consolidate various tools of social control, through Party branches in platform companies and even intervention in algorithms,” he said. “But it’s not clear these measures will work.”
The official guidelines also promised better services and legal protections for gig workers, including efforts to solve “practical difficulties” and “enhance ideological and political work.”
Critics say such language is often more rhetorical than substantive.
Wang said the promise to protect rights and provide services is largely a façade.
In practice, many gig workers struggle to access social insurance or other benefits, leaving them effectively marginalized within China’s labor system, according to Wang. Local governments, already under fiscal strain, may lack the resources—or the incentive—to expand support.
Expanding Party Reach
The policy also reflects a broader institutional shift.
In 2023, Beijing established a new Central Social Work Department tasked with strengthening social stability and expanding CCP influence across a wide range of sectors, from industry associations to private enterprises and grassroots organizations.
Earlier this month, the CCP also announced a campaign via Chinese state media People’s Daily targeting industry associations, again stressing the need for stronger party leadership.
Taken together, Wang said the measures point to a deepening emphasis on control amid economic uncertainty and rising social pressures, raising questions about whether tighter oversight will ensure stability or fuel further discontent.
Ning Haizhong and Luo Ya contributed to this report.
The United States has asked partner countries to join its newly formed Maritime Freedom Coalition to help secure passage through the Strait of Hormuz and Persian Gulf waterways, according to a State Department cable.
The cable, sent this week to US diplomatic posts around the world, instructed diplomats to announce the coalition and “ask for partner participation” by Friday.
It also told diplomats not to discuss the initiative with “US adversaries, including Russia, China, Belarus, and Cuba.”
According to the cable, which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, the coalition will be led by the State and Defense Departments through US Central Command.
“The MFC will take steps to ensure safe passage, including providing real-time information, safety guidance, and coordination to ensure vessels can transit these waters securely,” the cable said.
President Donald Trump has on several occasions criticized NATO allies and European countries for not doing enough to help the United States reopen and secure the Strait of Hormuz which has been effectively closed after the Iran war.
US blockade
The US initiative comes as Washington has imposed a naval blockade on Iranian ports since April 13, sharply reducing Iran’s oil exports and intensifying pressure on Tehran’s access to maritime trade routes.
Iranian crude shipments that successfully moved out of the Gulf of Oman fell to about four million barrels between April 13 and April 25, Reuters reported, citing oil analytics firm Vortexa.
That was down more than 80% from a comparable period in March, when Iran exported 23.4 million barrels, according to LSEG data cited by Reuters.
Reuters said only a handful of tankers carrying Iranian crude left the Gulf of Oman during that period.
Some Iranian vessels have turned off tracking systems, while US forces have turned back Iranian tankers, making it impossible to determine how much crude Iran is still delivering to customers, particularly China.
“I promised to make the same types of retirement accounts enjoyed by federal employees available to all Americans, and that’s what we’re doing. It only seemed fair,” he said during the signing ceremony in the Oval Office.
Low-income earners without an individual retirement account (IRA) through their employer will receive a yearly federal matching contribution of up to $1,000 each, the president noted.
That designation applies to individuals making less than $35,500 annually, heads of household making $53,250 per year, or couples making $71,000 each year jointly.
“This will be really revolutionary because they’ll be covered,” Trump said in the Oval Office.
“Nobody thought that was possible. For example, if a 25-year-old who is eligible for a Saver’s Match program invests just $165 a month under the matching federal contributions, they will have an estimated $465,000 in their account by the time they’re 65 years old,” he added.
“In other words, they’ll be rich. And there’s something awfully nice about that.”
About 56 million Americans lack access to an employer-sponsored retirement plan at work, according to Pew Research.
Those include gig workers such as Uber drivers, those who are self-employed in the trades as well as freelance and contract workers.
Small-business owners — such as those that run bodegas in the Big Apple — could also benefit.
At least 27 million are already eligible for the retirement plans — but not yet enrolled through a 2022 law that started the Saver’s Match program, allowing for the matching contributions.
A report from the Joint Committee on Taxation in Congress previously projected the Saver’s Match will spend roughly $9.3 billion on those enrolled from 2027 to 2032.
The US Treasury Department will launch the website TrumpIRA.gov on Jan. 1, 2027, to begin fielding applications.
An earlier effort under former President Barack Obama, myRA, was eliminated by the 45th president in 2017.
The initiative comes as Trump touts his administration’s efforts to improve economic outcomes ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The Treasury is expected to start a messaging campaign in anticipation of the website launch in 2027.
Earlier this year, the Treasury launched a Trump Accounts initiative with billions of dollars in seed money from donors to provide kids born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028, with tax-advantaged savings accounts.
Each child born in that window got a $1,000 starting sum, but others will be allowed to open their own accounts outside that window.
Trump’s executive order directs the Treasury to “list financial institutions that offer IRAs” and that will accept the Federal Saver’s Match contribution on its TrumpIRA.gov website.
The order also includes provisions easing access for tax-exempt groups.
There’s also a recommendation for Congress to pass laws codifying the policy.
On April 28, 2026, Erasca disclosed phase 1 data for its pan-RAS molecular glue ERAS-0015 that included a grade 5 pneumonitis event in a pancreatic cancer patient who withdrew supportive care and died, alongside Revolution Medicines issuing allegations of patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation related to the drug. Erasca shares plunged nearly 48% the next trading day. Tango has an active clinical collaboration and supply agreement with Erasca to evaluate vopimetostat (its PRMT5 inhibitor, also referred to as TNG-462) in combination with ERAS-0015 in MTAP-deleted, RAS-mutant cancers including pancreatic cancer. This news raised immediate concerns about risks to the partnered program, prompting profit-taking in TNGX after its recent sharp run-up to all-time highs on its own positive clinical momentum. Volume surged above average with no direct company-specific negative update from Tango itself (Q1 earnings not due until May 11).
A novel strategy for switching breast cancer therapy intrigued members of an FDA advisory committee but failed to sway the panel to recommend approval of the strategy.
By a 6-3 vote, the Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) agreed with an FDA staff assessment that a randomized trial of the oral selective estrogen receptor degrader camizestrant plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor did not clearly establish a clinically meaningful benefit for patients who switched to the combination on the basis of a molecular marker (ESR1 mutation). In a briefing document prepared for ODAC, FDA staff argued that accepting the strategy would represent a paradigm shift from reliance on clinical/radiographic evidence to define disease progression to use of a biomarker.
"I think it's a huge change in clinic and practice for a lot of women that have no chance of benefiting from it, given the large number of women that have to be tested [for ESR1 mutation]," said ODAC panelist Sarah Colonna, MD, of the University of Utah Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City. "I don't think we know that detection of a mutation should serve as our gold-standard marker for progression at this point. I hope that this is the future, but my hopes aren't enough to make me vote for it."
The concept of using molecular testing to determine how to treat patients "fascinated" Michael Kelley, MD, of Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina, but like Colonna, he remained unconvinced that "the implementation of this particular drug in this particular setting improves the clinical outcome for patients."
"I'm concerned about the design of this study," said Kelley. "I don't think we need a perfectly designed study, but I do think we need one that answers the question. One part of that could be offering the experimental drug as an option to be used at a future point."
Mixed Feelings
Even panelists who voted to recommend approval of the combination admitted to conflicted feelings.
"I voted yes, although quite frankly, I was about as much on the fence as you could get," said William Gradishar, MD, of Northwestern University in Chicago. "I don't think it's a perfect study. I don't think there will be a perfect study. If I were seeing a patient today and they were to ask me what am I going to do about second-line therapy, I have no idea. It's not just the patient circumstance 6 months, 12 months, or 2 years from now. The field is changing so fast, the landscape is sand under our feet."
"The sentiment of keeping a patient on a particular kind of therapy for an extended period of time with metastatic disease is ultimately the goal we have for all of our patients with metastatic breast cancer, particularly those with ER [estrogen receptor]-positive disease before we pivot to something more toxic," he added. "I thought it was a worthwhile effort to try and improve outcome."
Principal support for the new drug application came from the SERENA-6 trial involving patients with newly diagnosed advanced hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer. All patients started treatment on an aromatase inhibitor plus a CDK4/6 inhibitor. Patients who responded to treatment had follow-up that included assessment of circulating tumor (ct)DNA to detect ESR1 mutation. At that point, patients were randomized to switch to the camizestrant combination or continue treatment with the aromatase inhibitor and CDK4/6 inhibitor until radiographic progression.
The primary analysis showed a 7-month improvement in progression-free survival (PFS), a 56% reduction in the hazard ratio, in patients who switched to the camizestrant combination. Data on overall survival (OS) remained immature but suggested no detrimental effect with the switch (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.48-1.73). Moreover, the switch was associated with a fourfold improvement in time to deterioration in quality of life.
Nonetheless, FDA staff found the study failed to prove that switching at the first sign of ESR1 mutation is better than waiting until radiographic progression.
"To our knowledge, no prior trial or other body of evidence has established that the SERENA-6 approach improves long-term outcomes compared to the standard approach," said Mirat Shah, MD, of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, during the ODAC meeting. "The SERENA-6 trial also does not answer this question, as there is no evaluation of changing therapy at an earlier time point compared to changing therapy at a standard time point built into the trial design."
Looking Ahead
Acting ODAC Chair Neil Vasan, MD, PhD, of NYU Langone Health in New York City, voted to recommend approval but agreed with the FDA staff that the SERENA-6 approach represents a paradigm shift that "may warrant a higher evidentiary bar."
"The issue is what that bar should be," said Vasan. "I felt that the large benefit in PFS and PFS2 [time to second progression or death], with an OS that was directionally favorable, was clinically meaningful. The FDA is correct that this trial does not define an optimal sequence, but the field itself has not defined one in ER-positive metastatic breast cancer. Second-line therapy is not a single standard. It's a plurality of options shaped by biomarkers, toxicities, access, timing."
"A perfect trial, defined in retrospect, would likely have required mandating therapies that were either unavailable at the time or are now outdated," he continued. "A design that maximizes interpretability might sacrifice relevance. Any attempt to fully specify therapy in advance would create a trial that is internally consistent but externally constrained, locking patients into predetermined pathways and risking obsolescence before it reads out."
When discussing treatment with a patient who has newly diagnosed metastatic ER-positive breast cancer, second-line therapy "is not preordained," said Vasan. "As a field, we have to think about trial designs that might lock patients into yesterday's treatments."
Acknowledging the growing impact of ctDNA assessment in clinical trial design, Vasan said clinicians "need clearer guidance on how to act on molecular progression in metastatic cancer because the field has already begun to move."
Dozens of physician groups, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Emergency Physicians,sent a letterto HHS and other federal agencies urging stronger enforcement of legislation meant to prevent "surprise billing."
The No Surprises Act, signed into law in 2020 by President Donald Trump, was intended to protect patients from unexpected bills for care from out-of-network providers and to ensure fair contracts between health plans and physicians. It would do so by establishing an independent dispute resolution (IDR) process in which the insurer and the provider each come up with an offer and an independent third party would choose one of the two.
The physician groups say the process isn't working as planned.
"Unfortunately, health plans are finding ways to circumvent the statute with harmful policies that shift costs onto patients and undercut independent physician practices, jeopardizing access to care in their communities," argued the groups in their letter to the secretaries of HHS and the Treasury Department and the acting secretary of the Department of Labor.
The groups called for "increased enforcement" from the agencies and greater transparency around the IDR process.
They cited "problematic conduct," such as payers losing IDR decisions then reprocessing claims, and forcing patients to pay higher cost-sharing amounts. Providers also claim that health plans are delaying payment, making only partial payments, or not paying at all. A survey of clinicians found that 22% of IDR awards owed to physicians and other providers in 2023 and 11% of awards in 2024 had not been paid.
Health plan representatives say they are following the law and making timely payments when disputes are properly adjudicated.
Matthew Fiedler, PhD, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C., said that while he's not certain that insurers always pay, he has yet to see data from any provider group that he would consider "reliable."
"The IDR process has been going very well for providers," he noted. They have been winning at high rates while offering high prices to arbiters. The resulting prices "greatly exceeded" payments for services prior to the No Surprises Act, he added.
The physician groups also called for greater transparency to address how qualified payment amounts (QPAs) are calculated. QPAs are supposed to reflect health plans' median in-network rates, but providers question their accuracy.
According to L. Anthony "Tony" Cirillo, MD, president of the American College of Emergency Physicians, providers have filed thousands of complaints with the agencies over QPAs that are sometimes 60% of what Medicare reimburses for services.
"That's really hard to believe," Cirillo said, referring to median contracted rates being less than Medicare rates. "The math may be right, but we don't know that anybody's really asked them to show their homework."
The physician groups also urged the federal agencies to mandate that the entire IDR process be conducted in the IDR portal, since that would increase transparency around submissions and help with eligibility issues.
AHIP (formerly America's Health Insurance Plans) addressed the letter by pointing to recent investigations from the New York Timesand STAT.
"Multiple investigations and expert analyses demonstrate that some providers along with IDR middlemen are relentlessly abusing a law intended to protect consumers from surprise bills, all to maximize their own profits at Americans' expense," said Chris Bond, a spokesperson for AHIP. "This persistent, provider-driven abuse of the No Surprises Act is driving billions of dollars in wasteful spending and raising healthcare costs for everyone."
The Times investigation cites examples of physicians who used the law to secure extremely high reimbursements for common medical procedures -- for example, ob/gyns winning awards that were 600 times higher than standard rates for placing intrauterine devices, and a $440,000 award to a surgeon for a breast reduction.
"Look, if there's physicians or providers that are doing things incorrectly, and they are doing it repeatedly, that should be addressed by the agency," Cirillo said.
The final rule governing the specific ways in which the No Surprises Act and the IDR process should be implemented has been pending for 2 years, Cirillo noted. Before anyone decides the IDR process doesn't work, he said it's important to have those rules in place, with all the players doing their respective parts.
