Robotaxis, autonomous trucks, and drone networks are moving closer to reality. As costs fall and infrastructure grows, physical AI is unlocking new markets and business models.
See what's driving the next era of mobility by subscribing to Bank of America Institute.
Well, that didn’t last long. President Trump unveiled “Project Freedom,” an initiative to escort ships and restore traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, on Sunday. By Tuesday evening, he had unceremoniously suspended it by Truth Social post, shortly after Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters how committed the administration was to it.
The US Navy did manage to bring two destroyers and two American-flagged commercial ships through the waterway during that time. Alas, the administration had set a significantly higher bar for success. “What we’re demonstrating with Project Freedom,” Defense Secretary Hegseth said, “is that they don’t control the strait.” Within hours of Trump’s announcement, Iran fired on vessels attempting passage and launched missiles and drones at the UAE. The Strait promptly cleared out. Hegseth and General Dan Caine took pains to explain that none of this – not the UAE strikes, not the ship attacks, not the dozen-plus times Iran has fired on US Navy vessels in the past month – crossed the White House’s threshold for resuming major combat operations. “We’re not looking for a fight,” the man who insists on being called Secretary of War said with a strait face. Project Freedom was downgraded to mine-mapping, information-sharing, and calling for other countries to help before being “paused” – supposedly to allow time for talks, really because neutral commercial shippers weren't willing to transit while Iran was actively shooting.
The good news from this short-lived episode is that the “ceasefire” is still on, at least as far as President Trump is concerned. The bad news is the Strait remains decidedly closed. Iran has demonstrated once again that it is prepared to escalate to preserve its leverage even at the risk of returning to hot war, and Trump’s lackluster response has only bolstered its confidence that it has the upper hand.
It should be clear by now that barring regime change (which Trump is learning is easier said than done), the Strait reopens only through Iranian agreement or a naval deployment massive enough to force it open – one that would require a significant ground presence to hold. There is no secret third option.
Yet every week the Strait remains closed, the economic costs continue to compound … and we aren’t just talking about rising gas and diesel prices anymore. Jet fuel inventories are drawing down toward critical levels. Chemical tankers that had been slipping eastbound through the shallow southern edges of the Strait were the primary cargo making it out before the latest attacks, most of them carrying fertilizer to South Asia ahead of the approaching sowing season. That pipeline is now largely cut off again. Add the gas tankers critical for cooking fuel across South and Southeast Asia and the energy exports with no alternative route out, and the pain we’ve seen so far will look like a warm-up once actual shortages start to show up and prices rise enough to destroy demand.
So how does Trump get out of this?
He’d prefer to avoid a significant military escalation that draws the United States deeper into the conflict. The month-long truce (however tenuous) and the constant search for offramps make that clear. Structurally, both sides still have incentives to eventually reach a negotiated end to the war. But both sides have thus far been too certain that they have the advantage – Tehran believing it can outlast Trump politically, Trump believing Tehran is on the verge of surrender – to make any major concessions and agree on terms. Talks have accordingly been deadlocked.
Reports this morning suggest the White House believes they are nearing a deal along the lines of Iran’s preferred phased framework: ending the war and opening the Strait first, nuclear talks later down the road. Trump himself confirmed he believes an agreement is within reach … provided that Iran actually agrees to it. A big if, especially since the US is apparently still pushing Tehran to hand over its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to Washington – a non-starter for Iran. It wouldn’t be the first time the administration has publicly expressed optimism about an imminent deal despite the sides still being far apart. Today may be different. It’s encouraging that the US and Iran are still exchanging proposals despite the elevated tensions, and a breakthrough may be closer than it’s been. But it’s likely not as close as the headlines suggest.
Until then, Trump can keep the blockade going and hope it creates enough pressure to make Tehran more pliant. But Project Freedom was an implicit admission that the blockade isn’t working as well or as fast as the administration expected. Yes, it’s causing economic pain, but Iran is still loading crude at its export terminals and selling it to China, its oil infrastructure can handle shut-ins with less durable damage than advertised, and the regime isn’t close to capitulating.
Hence why people close to the US president – and regime insiders on the Iranian side who are engaging with the administration – increasingly believe that Trump is inching closer toward restarting the war. If Trump feels negotiations aren’t moving enough, he could at any point decide to start striking again with no warning and no credible ultimatum, having blown through all of those already. More so after the latest Iranian attacks.
The problem is that military escalation is unlikely to accomplish much other than raise the stakes and increase the costs of the conflict. Target what’s left of Iran’s leadership and instead of opening a path to a deal, you remove the few interlocutors (like parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf) still willing to negotiate with the Americans at all. Order broader strikes on Iranian infrastructure – Kharg Island, its gas fields – and you risk retaliation against major energy facilities, desalination plants, and power grids across the Gulf. The Iranians have done little of this despite retaining more than half of their pre-war missile stockpile, thousands of drones, and plenty of launchers. That’d mean market panic, a sudden exodus from Gulf states, and an economic shock that makes the current fallout look contained – all without reopening the Strait or producing Iranian capitulation. Even a limited military response to this week’s violence, no matter how calibrated in American eyes, risks spiraling into uncontrolled escalation.
Alternatively, Trump could declare victory and end the war unilaterally – cutting America’s losses while leaving other countries to negotiate Hormuz passage directly with Iran, which loses leverage over time once the shooting stops anyway. Every major economy in the world has more direct economic exposure to a closed Strait than the United States does, and most would move quickly to engage Tehran if Washington stepped back and gave them room. This wouldn’t look like a win for Trump, to be sure, but it is the least worst option on the table at this point.
Whether Trump is ready to take it is a different question. I’m not holding my breath. Gamblers would say he’s too pot committed to fold now – he’s staked too much political capital and (more relevant for a lame duck) too much of his legacy to walk away empty-handed. He knows gas is going over $5 a gallon no matter what. He knows most voters will blame him for it. He knows the midterms are lost in any case. Why accept a sure defeat when he can keep rolling the dice on the possibility of an outcome that feels like more of a win?
I don’t think such an outcome exists. There’s no silver bullet to the Iran problem: no decapitation strike that transforms the regime, no Persian Delcy to install, no military operation that magically unlocks an acceptable deal, no amount of pressure that forces Tehran to capitulate quickly at an acceptable cost to the US and the global economy. Then again, what matters isn’t what I think but what Trump thinks. And he appears more willing to absorb the costs of a longer and more escalatory war – acknowledging oil prices will go higher and counseling “patience” – than he is to walk away without a win he evidently believes is still to be found somewhere.
What’s most concerning is that the people best positioned to advise him against this course are the least likely to do it. Every conversation I hear about that people have with Trump starts the same way: how smart he is, how much he’s winning, how the Iranians are nearly broken and victory is at hand. Any pushback is careful and cushioned. That’s rational behavior for people who value access. It means he’s running this war on bad information, with no obvious mechanism for correction. Air strikes would topple the regime or degrade Iranian military capacity enough to force surrender; Iran wouldn’t dare close the Strait, and if it did the US military could easily reopen it; a blockade would bring them to their knees in short order. Each move built on a flawed premise about how Iran would behave – all proven wrong, none denting the president’s confidence or piercing his filter bubble. This war is already the largest foreign policy mistake of either of Trump’s terms, and the conditions that produced it keep making it worse.
As long as the sides are still talking, a deal to end the war and reopen the Strait remains possible. But as Trump himself acknowledged this morning, the war ends and the Strait reopens only if Iran agrees – “which is, perhaps, a big assumption.” And if it doesn’t: “the bombing starts, and it will be at a much higher level and intensity than it was before.” The likelihood that this ceasefire breaks down and leads to another round of serious fighting, in a global economy far more fragile than when this started, looks higher today than at any point since the ceasefire began.
Watch: BEEF on Netflix. For those enjoyed the Emmy-winning, rage-filled first season, you’re in luck! BEEF is back with an all-new plot and cast, this time including Oscar Isaac, Carey Mulligan, and Charles Melton. While the show does feel like one prolonged anxiety spiral, it’s also deeply entertaining and the plot is….rich. – Natalie J.
Watch: Rooster. A wholesome-ish show starring The Office’s Michael Scott, Ted Lasso’s Jamie Tartt, and Scrubs’ Perry Cox? Sign me up for 6 seasons and a movie! Rooster follows the messy relationship between an awkward novelist (Steve Carell) and his professor daughter (Charly Clive) on a college campus full of ego and dysfunction, supported by an eccentric crowd. It’s slightly cringe, sentimental, and unhinged, which means you’ll laugh and then feel a bit bad about it. The writing is sharp, the cast is game, and Robby Hoffman steals scenes in her brief appearances. If you want a replacement for Shrinking, Rooster might be worth a look! — Suhani
Watch: Should I Marry a Murderer? This new Netflix docuseries has quickly become a top-watched show on the platform, and for good reason. When Glasgow mortician Dr. Caroline Muirhead announced her engagement to her farmworker boyfriend (whom she met on Tinder) after only a few months of dating, she raised a few eyebrows. But the couple would go on to capture national attention for another, more shocking scandal before they ever made it down the aisle. What first appears as an open-and-shut case soon spirals into a chaotic saga that blurs the line between victim and perpetrator.Do you trust us?
A recent Pew Research Center poll found that fewer than half of Americans have trust in journalists to act in the public’s best interests — a share that has been falling for years. At the same time, partisanship is surging, and generative AI is challenging the very notion of truth.
We’ve come a long way from the days when CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite was regarded as “the most trusted man in America.” In 1976, two-thirds of the American public had confidence in the media to accurately report the news – even after the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandals rocked the country. Today, that number sits at a little less than 30%.
How did things change so much?
One tipping point, the data suggests, was the Iraq war, which saw trust in journalists drop by 10%, along with an overall decline in trust for US institutions.
In an episode of “ian explains,” filmed in the lead-up to the 2024 presidential election, Ian Bremmer broke down how the media landscape – and the interaction between politics and the media – has evolved over the last few decades.
And as the US heads into a contentious midterm election season and notches more primaries on its belt, the media faces yet another test. Watch the video here.
The United States has paused its 72-hour old mission to “guide” ships through the Strait of Hormuz, as Tehran reviews a US-proposal under which Iran would accept some limits on uranium enrichment, the US would lift sanctions, and both sides would agree to reopen the waterway. US President Donald Trump has warned that without a deal the US would attack Iran again “at a higher level” than before. Iran’s Tasnim news agency has quoted an official saying the proposal contains “unacceptable provisions.” Both sides seem confident they have the upper hand, while also facing constraints. Tehran has weathered two months of assault from the world’s most powerful military, but is under growing economic pressure from the US blockade. Trump can maintain that blockade on Iran for a long period of time, but having so far failed to achieve the various stated objectives of the campaign, he appears reluctant to resume a war that is deeply unpopular at home.
The Trump administration reportedly plans to drop sanctions against the East African country of Eritrea, which is strategically located along the Red Sea. Eritrea has been run by a ruthless military dictatorship ever since gaining independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a decades-long conflict. In 2021, the US sanctioned Eritrea for entering and committing war crimes in Ethiopia’s more recent civil war. But with the Strait of Hormuz now effectively closed as a result of the US-Israel war with Iran, Washington wants to ensure that the other key Middle East shipping route (which links Europe to Asia via the Suez Canal) stays secure and clear. Eritrea, which borders war-torn Sudan, has roughly 1,000 miles of Red Sea coastline, and is located across the water from US-ally Saudi Arabia and Yemen, which is largely controlled by Iran-backed Houthi rebels.
The Pacific archipelago’s appeals court ordered Prime Minister Jeremiah Manele to reconvene the island’s legislature by tomorrow for a non-confidence vote on his minority government. The Solomons have been gripped by a political crisis since March, when 19 members of Manele’s ruling coalition defected to the opposition over what they characterized as internal divisions and concerns about the government’s direction. One long-simmering issue is China’s influence: it has accelerated under Manele and his predecessor Manasseh Sogavare, who shifted the islands’ diplomatic recognition from Taiwan to Bejiing’s “One China” policy in 2019 and signed a security pact in 2022. This raised security concerns in the US and Australia due to the islands’ strategic location on sea lanes connecting the two countries. If Manele’s government falls, the Solomons will hold elections, though it’s not clear how much Beijing's influence will diminish even if the opposition comes to power, as the coalition includes both pro and anti-China members.
Ukrainian drones are hitting targets deep inside Russia, reaching areas where once residents believed the war was too distant to touch them. For the city of Yekaterinburg, which saw residential buildings damaged by drones, the attack carries symbolic weight. The city lies in Ural Mountains and served as a base for the Soviet Union during World War II because it was considered out of range from attacks coming from Europe.
Chris, an Army veteran, started his Walmart journey over 25 years ago as an hourly associate. Today, he manages a Distribution Center and serves as a mentor, helping others navigate their own paths to success. At Walmart, associates have the opportunity to take advantage of the pathways, perks, and pay that come with the job — with or without a college degree. In fact, more than 75% of Walmart management started as hourly associates. Learn more about how over 130,000 associates were promoted into roles of greater responsibility and higher pay in FY25.
Ian explains that Iran’s swift retaliation in the Strait of Hormuz, including targeting ships and launching drones and missiles at the UAE, wasn’t just about disruption. It was a calculated signal: Tehran is prepared to escalate to keep the strait closed unless a deal is reached, while also deepening divisions among Gulf States.
Ian highlights a growing split in the region. The UAE, aligned with Israel, favors continued pressure on Iran, while Saudi Arabia is pushing for de-escalation and regional stability. “These are very different models,” Ian notes, underscoring how diverging interests are reshaping alliances.
For the US, the options are narrowing. A military response risks broader regional damage, while inaction could fuel further instability and rising oil prices. Ian argues the “least worst outcome” is to wind down the conflict and pursue global negotiations, but he warns that political pressure and sunk costs may push Washington in the opposite direction.
“The likelihood that this ceasefire… breaks down and leads to another round of very serious fighting… looks more likely today,” Ian says.
The Trump administration is considering vetting artificial intelligence models before they’re released to the public, according to The New York Times. The effort to boost oversight would mark a sharp reversal from the administration’s laissez-faire approach toward Silicon Valley. So what changed? As we noted recently, Anthropic’s powerful new Mythos model may have been the catalyst. Designed to identify software vulnerabilities, the model rang global alarms over its ability to exploit those same cybersecurity weaknesses, prompting Anthropic to release it only to a small group of companies. The administration has since sought access to Mythos following its announcement, and reportedly wants to avoid potential political fallout should an AI-powered cyberattack occur. The vetting process may not be an idea that AI companies will necessarily oppose. While the Times notes companies don’t agree on what regulation should look like, they may find it easier to work with the administration than against it — so long as the White House doesn’t slow the rollout of their models.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney attended a meeting of the European Political Community in Armenia this weekend, a first by the leader of a non-European country. He was invited to discuss common interests in trade, energy, and security. In a speech that echoed his address to the World Economic Forum in Davos two months earlier, Carney called on middle powers, including Canada and European nations, to work together in the wake of disruption of the established world order — implicitly pointing to the United States. “It’s my strong personal view that the international order will be rebuilt,” he told the crowd in Yerevan, “but it will be rebuilt out of Europe.”
Carney’s trip — and somewhat more optimistic tone — comes on the heels of suggestions by French and Finnish politicians that Canada should consider joining the European Union. The question isn’t new; it has been cropping up in Canadian media ever since US President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on Canadian exports and mused about the country becoming America’s 51st state. Europe, meanwhile, is also grappling with Trump’s impact, including his promise to withdraw US troops from Germany and new tariffs on EU auto exports. Taken together, these developments are pushing Canada and the EU closer, and despite a body of water between them, are making the case for joining the union that much stronger.
A lot in common. Canada and the EU have deep cultural, historical, and demographic ties, rooted primarily in British and French traditions. Canada’s legal system recognizes both common and civil law, derived from the French Napoleonic Code. Politically, its parliament is modeled on Britain’s Westminster system and maintains the British monarch as head of state. The country is officially bilingual, and more than half of its population has European ancestry.
Canada’s political and social systems are also more closely aligned with Europe than with the United States. Canada has a universal, single-payer health care system, state-subsidized childcare, pharmacare, and dental care, and imposes higher taxes than the US. In sectors like banking, telecommunications, and agriculture, Canada mirrors Europe’s more regulated approach and limits foreign competition with domestic firms.
A growing bromance with Brussels. In 2016, Canada signed the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a free-trade agreement with the EU, eliminating 98% of tariffs and improving market access for goods and services between the two parties. Canada’s exports to the EU have since increased by 57%, reaching $34 billion.
Since the start of Trump’s second term, those ties have deepened. In 2025, Ottawa and Brussels signed the New European Union (EU)-Canada Strategic Partnership of the Future and a Security and Defense Partnership to strengthen cooperation in trade, the digital economy, and the environment. In February of this year, Canada became the first non-European country to join the EU’s Security Action for Europe (SAFE) initiative, expanding access to European markets for Canadian defense industries.
Canada has also contributed over $25 billion in economic, military, and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since the start of the war, plus a $270 million contribution announced this week. While the assistance is a fraction of the $223 billion the EU has made available since 2022, it remains significant – and could boost the bloc’s overall contributions.
Should Canada join the EU, both sides could gain. Canada could secure even greater access to one of the world’s biggest economies and a strong new partnership at a moment when its longstanding relationship with its North American neighbor is under strain. For Europe, Canada offers access to commodities including natural gas and critical minerals, and another gateway to North America at a moment when ties to the US also look uncertain.
But there are barriers to EU membership – and disadvantages. The first roadblock for Canada is geography, though this may not be insurmountable. While Article 49 of the EU constitution says that only “European States” can join, Turkey was deemed an eligible candidate in 1997 (even though it has not yet achieved it) despite being partly in Asia. The European Parliament stated that Turkey’s case “shows that the term ‘European State’ need not be interpreted in a strictly geographical sense,” but is “subject to political assessment.” Still, all 27 member states must agree to that assessment to admit a new member — a consensus that still eludes Turkey, and even European nations like Ukraine.
Membership would require Canada to adopt the EU’s acquis communautaire, the body of EU law developed since 1957 – a process that some experts estimate could take 10 years. Canada would also have to adopt the EU’s strict environmental regulations, replace its supply management system with the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy, contribute to the EU’s carbon emissions trading program, and apply EU tariffs to non-member states, including the US, potentially complicating trade deals with Washington.
Joining could also prove expensive. With the fourth-highest GDP in the bloc after Germany, France, and Italy, Canada could become a net contributor to the EU’s budget, subsidizing programs in less wealthy member states. The EU’s labor mobility rules could also prove contentious, as membership would entail freer movement of people at a time when Canada is tightening immigration levels to lower the costs of housing and reduce unemployment levels.
Where does the public sit? Despite these downsides — or perhaps because they are not widely understood — Canadians appear broadly supportive of closer ties with the EU. A survey of 4,000 people conducted in April found that one in four Canadians supported the idea of formally joining the EU, with 58% saying it was worth considering.
As for the Europeans, a recent YouGov study found that a majority or plurality of adults in France, Germany, Italy, Poland, and Spain support admitting Canada. Support is highest among Germans at 55%, while Italians are the least likely at 41%, but that group still outnumbers those who oppose the idea, at 24%.
So while it’s unlikely that Canada will definitively swap Washington for Brussels, a deeper transatlantic partnership appears to be in the cards — and a popular option on both sides of the pond. What shape that takes might depend on the fate of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) this summer. Should that trade deal not be renegotiated by July 1, Canada — and Carney — will feel even greater pressure to diversify trade and shore up alliances elsewhere.
Tell us what you think: Should Canada try to join the EU? Send us a message with your thoughts here.Prime Minister Ilie Bolojan’s government fell after losing a no-confidence vote, putting Romania’s access to EU recovery funds – worth approximately $13 billion – at risk. The country, which has the largest budget deficit in the EU, has to complete the bloc’s mandated economic reforms by August to unlock the funds. But with its country’s pro-EU government pushed out, those reforms are uncertain.
One year after announcing its European digital commitments, Microsoft shared an update on progress across the region, highlighting new investments and expanded infrastructure to support AI adoption, strengthen resilience, and protect data.
As demand for AI grows, organizations across Europe are increasingly focused on digital sovereignty, seeking greater control over data, stronger security, and assurance that critical systems remain available amid geopolitical uncertainty. Microsoft’s latest update outlines progress across key areas, including cloud expansion, cybersecurity, and privacy protections, helping enable AI and cloud adoption at scale while aligning with European regulations and priorities.
Read the full update here.
Ian highlights growing confusion over Washington’s approach, noting that what was first presented as a “humanitarian mission” under ‘Project Freedom’ quickly shifted away from direct naval escort following early reports of attacks in the strait.
“You shouldn’t expect that shipping volume through the strait is going to change in the near term,” Ian warns, citing persistent security risks and declining merchant traffic.
Ian also stresses that Iran retains substantial military capacity, including thousands of drones and a significant number of missile launchers, despite sustained strikes. Given the US military buildup in the region, Ian says that the risk of escalation remains high, with no clear off-ramp in sight
Will the US and Iran reach a nuclear deal before 2027? Will the Cuban regime fall this year? Will France win the World Cup?
These questions are generating up to millions of dollars today on prediction markets — platforms where people wager on the outcomes of real-world events. If you’re right, you profit. If you’re wrong, you lose your stake. “Contracts,” or wagers, can be as cheap as $0.01, but as they become more popular, higher wagers are staked and the rare windfall from an accurate prediction can be massive.
Over the past year and a half, prediction markets have evolved from niche digital exchanges into global financial arenas in their own right. Monthly trading volume on platforms like Polymarket, Kalshi, Limitless, and Predict.fun has surged from roughly $1.2 billion early last year to more than $20 billion this January, according to the crypto analytics company TRM Labs.
How did prediction markets become so big?
Sports betting has grown steadily since its legalization in the US in 2018. But as our Graphic Truth shows, “notional” trading volume — the face value of bets — spiked sharply in October 2024, when a US appeals court cleared the way for Kalshi to offer betting tied to elections, just weeks before the presidential vote.
As billions of dollars flowed in, media attention followed. Coverage intensified when Polymarket odds showed Donald Trump leading by more than traditional polls suggested – a narrative Trump himself amplified on Truth Social. After the first presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Trump, betting markets were in the spotlight as they showed her briefly pulling ahead of Trump.
Prediction markets have since become events in their own right: tightly intertwined with geopolitical developments and closely watched by traders, analysts, and the public.
The same weekend in early January that Trump publicly weighed military action against Iran, Polymarket odds were featured during the Golden Globe Awards telecast. Since the US and Israel launched strikes on Iran in February, wagers tied to the conflict – spanning everything from whether the Supreme Leader would be killed to what Iranian demands Trump might agree to as part of a “deal” – have drawn more than $2 billion in wagers, according to some estimates.
But as prediction markets have surged, so have concerns. A US soldier involved in the operation to abduct Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro in January was charged last month with using classified information about the operation to win more than $400,000 on Polymarket.. Insider trading allegations are also dogging the White House amid speculation over well-timed, large-scale bets around Trump’s major announcements on the conflict.
Regulations on prediction markets vary by country, with some, like Brazil, even blocking the platforms altogether. In the US, they operate under a patchwork of state laws, though federal efforts are showing signs of picking up. Last week, the US Senate unanimously voted to ban itself from placing wagers on prediction markets and some Senators have called for a ban on all government officials. One key issue is whether to regulate these platforms as gambling or as financial futures.
There’s some momentum in that direction in the private sector too. Eurasia Group, GZERO’s parent company, recently banned all staff and their families from betting on prediction markets, with company founder Ian Bremmer arguing that political betting markets are “corrosive” to public life. A handful of other companies have taken similar steps, and more are weighing such bans in the future.
The two largest platforms, Kalshi and Polymarket, for their part, outlined measures in March to curb insider trading – with Kalshi even banning congressional candidates this spring over alleged wrongdoing. Both also welcomed the Senate’s action.
Will we see more regulation in the future? Maybe it’s worth betting on.
