Author

admin

Browsing

A federal judge in California has blocked the Trump administration from designating Anthropic as a supply chain risk to national security and cutting off the AI company’s work with federal agencies.

Anthropic sued the Defense Department and other federal agencies this month after the Pentagon labeled it a “supply-chain risk to national security.” President Donald Trump said he would also ban the use of Anthropic’s products across other federal agencies.

“Defendants’ designation of Anthropic as a ‘supply chain risk’ is likely both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious,” U.S. District Judge Rita Lin of Northern California wrote in her order Thursday night. “The Department of War provides no legitimate basis to infer from Anthropic’s forthright insistence on usage restrictions that it might become a saboteur.”

Lin paused her order for a week to allow the administration time to appeal.

The Defense Department and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday evening.

“We’re grateful to the court for moving swiftly, and pleased they agree Anthropic is likely to succeed on the merits,” an Anthropic spokesperson said in a statement Thursday. “While this case was necessary to protect Anthropic, our customers, and our partners, our focus remains on working productively with the government to ensure all Americans benefit from safe, reliable AI.”

The supply chain risk designation requires the Pentagon and its contractors to stop using Anthropic’s commercial AI services for all defense business.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on X in late February that he was issuing a directive to give the company the “supply chain risk” label. Trump also said he was ordering all federal agencies, including the Treasury and State departments, to cease using Anthropic’s AI technology.

“The record reflects that the Challenged Actions were taken without any meaningful notice or pre-deprivation process (and, in the case of the Presidential Directive and the Hegseth Directive, without any post-deprivation process either),” Lin wrote in her order.

The order Thursday also bars other agencies from cutting off their work with Anthropic. Lin wrote that the order restores the status quo.

“This Order does not require the Department of War to use Anthropic’s products or services and does not prevent the Department of War from transitioning to other artificial intelligence providers, so long as those actions are consistent with applicable regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions,” the order said.

Anthropic filed two lawsuits against the Defense Department — one in U.S. District Court for Northern California and the other in U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. — alleging that the federal government’s moves go beyond a normal contract dispute and instead are an “unlawful campaign of retaliation” that followed months of heated negotiations about how the military should be able to use Anthropic’s AI systems.

Anthropic had sought stronger guarantees that the Pentagon would not use its AI systems for autonomous weapons or mass domestic surveillance.

Anthropic is the creator of the Claude chatbot system and the only AI company whose services were cleared for use on the Defense Department’s classified networks.

Hours after Hegseth’s announcement last month, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman said his company had reached an agreement with the Pentagon to use its services in classified settings.

Lin wrote: “Although Anthropic was on notice that the government objected to its contracting terms, it had no notice or opportunity to object before Defendants publicly barred it from all federal government work and blacklisted it with private companies working with the U.S. military. It also had no notice or opportunity to object to the factual basis for its designation as a supply chain risk, which it learned of in this litigation.”

WASHINGTON — The Senate agreed unanimously early Friday to fund the Department of Homeland Security, but without funding for immigration enforcement and deportation operations.

Senators approved the package at 2:20 a.m. by voice vote following a marathon session.

The 42-day funding lapse has seen them go without pay, leading many to call out of work and causing long lines at airports. While the measure still needs to pass the House, the Senate vote paves the way to allow airports to fully function again.

The legislation would fund all of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, which Democrats have refused to vote for without significant reforms to immigration raids and deportation practices.

The deal followed arduous bipartisan negotiations that occurred in fits and starts over the last six weeks, succumbing to the impasse around policy changes to immigration enforcement. Under the new plan, Democrats get their weeks-long demand to fund the department with the exceptions of ICE or CBP, but also without the restrictions they sought on how immigration officers may conduct operations.

“This could have been done three weeks ago,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “This is exactly what we wanted.”

Long wait lines at a TSA checkpoint at New York’s LaGuardia airport Friday.Gabrielle Korein / NBC News

The bill faces an uncertain future in the Republican-controlled House. It is expected to have President Donald Trump’s support, which could help corral conservatives who have been skeptical about splitting off ICE funding from the underlying bill.

“Hopefully they’ll be around, and we can get at least a lot of the government opened up again, and then we’ll go from there,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said of the House and a potential vote on Friday. He said he texted with Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Thursday night.

The Senate adjourned for a two-week recess, leaving the House with few options other than to accept their bill as written.

Thune separately blamed Democrats. “President Trump should never have had to step in to rescue TSA workers and U.S. air travel. We are here because, thanks to Democrats’ determined refusal to reach an agreement, there will be no Homeland Security funding bill this year.”

Speaking after the vote, Schumer said: “In the wake of the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, Senate Democrats were clear. No blank check for a lawless ICE and Border Patrol.”

He added that the “long overdue agreement” funds TSA, the Coast Guard, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, and “strengthens security at the border and the ports of entry, and keeps Americans safe.”

He added that the deal “could have been accomplished weeks ago if Republicans hadn’t stood in the way.”

The White House and Republicans declined to grant Democrats’ demands to restrict Trump’s immigration practices. They now plan to pursue the remainder for funding for ICE and CBP in a separate party-line bill, which they could also use to pass Iran war funding and elements of the Trump-backed SAVE America Act.

Senate Republicans held a vote open for hours Thursday as the two sides continued to negotiate, having traded offers for days.

Trump, meanwhile, announced earlier Thursday that he would instruct newly sworn-in Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin to “immediately pay our TSA Agents in order to address this Emergency Situation.”

That move may not be needed if the House passes the Senate legislation, according to a senior administration official, who said the White House is waiting to see what will happen.

This official also said the funds to pay TSA agents would come from the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, the tax-cut and spending legislation Trump signed into law in July. It’s not clear exactly how that would work, but the administration has dipped into those unspent funds before to cover pay gaps during funding lapses.

The House can either debate and vote out the Senate-passed measures in the Rules Committee before bringing them to the floor under a simple majority vote, or Johnson can seek to fast-track it to the floor.

The House was set to hold an unrelated vote at 10 a.m. before leaving for recess.

We’d like to hear from you about how you’re experiencing the partial government shutdown, whether you’re a TSA agent who can’t work right now or a federal employee who is feeling the effects at your agency. Please contact us at tips@nbcuni.com or reach out to us here.

TSA officers missed their first full paychecks in mid-March, leading many to call out of work. Call-out rates for TSA officers have exceeded 11% nationally, with rates at some airports passing 40%.

Trump sent ICE agents to airports to help TSA earlier this week. Unlike TSA officers, ICE agents continue to receive paychecks during the partial shutdown as a result of funding from the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, a sweeping GOP domestic policy package, that Trump signed into law last year.

The S&P 500 ($SPX) just logged its fifth straight trading box breakout, which means that, of the five trading ranges the index has experienced since the April lows, all have been resolved to the upside.

How much longer can this last? That’s been the biggest question since the massive April 9 rally. Instead of assuming the market is due to roll over, it’s been more productive to track price action and watch for potential changes along the way. So far, drawdowns have been minimal, and breakouts keep occurring. Nothing in the price action hints at a lasting change — yet.

While some are calling this rally “historic,” we have a recent precedent. Recall that from late 2023 through early 2024, the index had a strong start and gave way to a consistent, steady trend.

From late October 2023 through March 2024, the S&P 500 logged seven consecutive trading box breakouts. That streak finally paused with a pullback from late March to early April, which, as we now know, was only a temporary hiccup. Once the bid returned, the S&P 500 went right back to carving new boxes and climbing higher.

New 52-Week Highs Finally Picking Up

If there’s been one gripe about this rally, it’s that the number of new highs within the index has lagged. As we’ve discussed before, among all the internal breadth indicators available, new highs almost always lag — that’s normal. What we really want to see is whether the number of new highs begins to exceed prior peaks as the market continues to rise, which it has, as shown by the blue line in the chart below.

As of Wednesday’s close, 100 S&P 500 stocks were either at new 52-week highs or within 3% of them. That’s a strong base. We expect this number to continue rising as the market climbs, especially if positive earnings reactions persist across sectors.

Even when we get that first day with 100+ S&P 500 stocks making new 52-week highs, though, it might not be the best time to initiate new longs.

The above chart shows that much needs to align for that many stocks to peak in unison, which has historically led to at least a short-term consolidation, if not deeper pullbacks — as highlighted in yellow. Every time is different, of course, but this is something to keep an eye on in the coming weeks.

Trend Check: GoNoGo Still “Go”

The GoNoGo Trend remains in bullish mode, with the recent countertrend signals having yet to trigger a greater pullback.

Active Bullish Patterns

We still have two live bullish upside targets of 6,555 and 6,745, which could be with us for a while going forward. For the S&P 500 to get there, it will need to form new, smaller versions of the trading boxes.

Failed Bearish Patterns

In the chart below, you can view a rising wedge pattern on the recent price action, the third since April. The prior two wedges broke down briefly and did not lead to a major downturn. The largest pullbacks in each case occurred after the S&P 500 dipped below the lower trendline of the pattern.

The deepest drawdown so far is 3.5%, which is not exactly a game-changer. Without downside follow-through, a classic bearish pattern simply can’t be formed, let alone be broken down from.

We’ll continue to monitor these formations as they develop because, at some point, that will change.

U.S. stocks rose Wednesday and global oil prices fell in yet another volatile trading session as traders and investors were buffeted by constant headlines about the war in Iran.

News of a 15-point U.S. peace plan proposal sparked hopes early in the day that the Trump administration was moving to end its monthlong war against Iran. Initially, the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq 100 futures rose more than 1%.

But reports that Iran had responded negatively to the proposal briefly knocked index futures off their pre-market highs and lifted oil prices off their morning lows.

Despite the early setback, stocks closed the trading day higher. At 4 p.m. ET, the S&P 500 index was up about 0.4%, the Nasdaq Composite closed 0.7% higher, and the Dow jumped 305 points. The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies rose 1.1%.

The price of U.S. crude oil also traded off its lowest levels of the day and was down only 1.4% to about $90 per barrel by late afternoon. West Texas Intermediate crude oil has soared more than 30% since the start of the war on Feb. 28. The cost per barrel is up 50% since the beginning of the year.

International Brent crude prices traded near breakeven, at around $102 per barrel. The price of heating oil, a proxy for jet fuel, dropped 6%.

The global price of oil directly affects what Americans pay at the gas pump and what it costs them to heat and cool their homes. The average nationwide price of unleaded gas Wednesday was $3.98 per gallon, according to AAA data.

“Markets desperately want to believe in the positive,” UBS Global Wealth Management chief economist Paul Donovan wrote. “Focus on the apparent 15-point US plan to end the war has received more attention than Iranian dismissals of this, or the fact that passage through the Strait of Hormuz is minimal.”

Iran’s response to the U.S. proposal included a list of five conditions for ending the war, according to Iranian state TV, which cited a senior political-security official with knowledge of the details of the proposal.

Pakistan has also offered to mediate talks to end the hostilities, four sources told NBC News. A Persian Gulf official said Pakistan had been passing messages between the two countries for the past two days.

An in-person meeting between the U.S. and Iran could be held in the coming days, two sources added.

But President Donald Trump has continued to give conflicting signals.

On March 16, Trump said he was delaying his scheduled visit to China “by a month or so” to monitor the war. On Monday, he said the Strait of Hormuz would be “open very soon.”

And on Tuesday, Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, “This war has been won.” At the same time, the U.S. is sending more than 1,000 additional troops to the Middle East, sources said.

A motorist drives past a sign displaying prices at a gas station in Oakland, Calif., on Tuesday.Godofredo A. Vásquez / AP

Since the war started, the market has experienced several days like this, when markets are whipsawed by constant back-and-forth comments.

“There’s really no way to know at this point what the facts are regarding the state of negotiations, as neither side has any real incentive to conduct talks via the press, so expect more whipsaw action as things continue to progress,” analysts at Bespoke Investment Group wrote in a client note.

They added that the “ongoing tensions continue to support higher prices [and] stoke inflation concerns” and are likely to cause central banks to remain on hold, rather than cut rates.

On the contrary, traders believe the European Central Bank and the Bank of England will both raise interest rates.

“Uncertainty remains high,” analysts at ING wrote in a note Wednesday morning. “Overall, volatility remains elevated and a geopolitical risk premium persists.”

In the 18 trading sessions since the war began, U.S. oil prices have closed down only five times. Likewise, over the same period, the S&P 500 has closed higher only seven times. Three of those higher closes were only fractional.

After Wednesday’s close, the Nasdaq was down nearly 6% for the year, while the S&P 500 was on track for a 3.5% loss so far. The majority of those losses were concentrated in the weeks since the war began.

Meanwhile, the Strait of Hormuz, through which 20% of the world’s oil supply typically passes, has remained at a near standstill since the war began.

On Monday, just five ships passed through the strait, according to data compiled by S&P Global Market Intelligence. On Tuesday, the total was six. On many days since the war started, not a single ship has passed through.

However, some of the ships passing through the strait have taken an unusual course that put them close to the Iranian coastline, potentially signaling that Tehran was keeping a tight grip on traffic flows. Two Indian ships were granted passage Tuesday after a deal with Iran, Bloomberg News reported. The Iranian navy also guided the ships.

Otherwise, hundreds of other ships loaded up with cargo, oil and liquefied natural gas remain stuck.

“TODAY” co-anchor Savannah Guthrie will return to the NBC morning show on April 6, as investigators continue to search for her 84-year-old mother in Arizona.

In her first interview since Nancy Guthrie went missing in February, Savannah Guthrie told Hoda Kotb she believes returning to “TODAY” is “part of my purpose right now” — even if it’s hard to imagine coming back to a workplace “of joy and lightness.”

“I can’t come back and try to be something that I’m not. But I can’t not come back because it’s my family,” Guthrie said in the interview about returning to work. “I don’t know if I can do it. I don’t know if I’ll belong anymore, but I would like to try. I would like to try.”

“I’m not gonna be the same. But maybe it’s like that old poem, ‘More beautiful in the broken places,’” she added.

Tune into “Savannah Speaks: A Dateline Special” at 9 p.m. EST on NBC.

Kotb revealed Guthrie’s return Friday on “TODAY.” Her co-host, Craig Melvin, added that the team “can’t wait to welcome her back with open arms.”

“It’s where she belongs. It’s where we all want her to be,” Melvin said.

A spokesperson for “TODAY” did not have additional comment.

Nancy Guthrie was reported missing Feb. 1 after she did not show up at a friend’s house for virtual church services, authorities said. She was last seen the previous night around 9:45 p.m. after having dinner at her daughter Annie Guthrie’s home.

Authorities have described the case as a possible kidnapping or abduction, but clues have been scarce. The Pima County Sheriff’s Office has not publicly specified a motive.

Guthrie told Kotb that her religious faith is “how I will stay connected to my mom.” She alluded to her mother’s experience with loss after her husband, Charles Guthrie, died at the age of 49 in 1988.

“I saw her belief. I saw her faith. She taught me, she taught all of us,” said Guthrie, who was 16 at the time of her father’s death. “I may not do it as well as her, but I will do it. I will do it for my kids. I will. I will not fall apart. I will not let whoever did this take my children’s mother from them.”

Guthrie repeated her pleas for information about her mother’s possible abduction, saying in part: “We need someone to tell the truth. I have no anger in my heart. I have hope in my heart. I have love. But this family needs peace.”

“We need an answer, and someone has it in their power to help,” she added.

Guthrie also opened up about her visit earlier this month to the New York City set of the “TODAY” show, describing her NBC colleagues as her “greater family.”

“I really wanted to come and see everybody. I just love this beautiful place that we call home, where we get to come and be every day,” she said, adding, “When times are hard, you want to be with your family.”

LOS ANGELES — A jury found Meta and YouTube negligent in the design or operation of their social media platforms, producing a bellwether verdict in the first lawsuit to take tech giants to trial for social media addiction.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court jury said that Meta’s and YouTube’s negligence were a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff, identified in court by her initials, K.G.M., and that the companies failed to adequately warn users of the dangers of Instagram (Meta’s platform) and YouTube (which is owned by Google).

It awarded K.G.M. $3 million in compensatory damages, finding Meta 70% responsible for harm caused to the now 20-year-old plaintiff, and YouTube responsible for 30%.

The trial, which began last month in a Los Angeles County courtroom and included testimony from Mark Zuckerberg and other tech executives, was the first in a consolidated group of cases brought against Meta and other companies by more than 1,600 plaintiffs, including over 350 families and over 250 school districts.

Outside the courtroom, families who say their children were harmed by social media embraced as they celebrated the verdict, telling reporters they feel “vindicated.”

Spokespeople for Meta and Google said the companies disagree with the verdict and plan to appeal.

“Teen mental health is profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app,” a Meta spokesperson said. “We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously as every case is different, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online.”

José Castañeda, a spokesperson for Google, also said the case “misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site.”

In a joint statement, co-lead counsel for K.G.M. said the verdict is “a historic moment” for thousands of children and their families.

“But this verdict is bigger than one case,” the lawyers said. “For years, social media companies have profited from targeting children while concealing their addictive and dangerous design features. Today’s verdict is a referendum — from a jury, to an entire industry — that accountability has arrived.”

The jury decided on $2.1 million in punitive damages for Meta and $900,000 for YouTube, totaling $3 million. It’s a small fraction of the $1 billion in punitive damages the plaintiff’s counsel sought.

Plaintiff K.G.M., center, arrives at Los Angeles County Superior Court on Feb. 26.Mario Tama / Getty Images file

K.G.M.’s lead attorney, Mark Lanier, has said he hopes the proceedings produce transparency and accountability “so that the public can see that these companies have been orchestrating an addiction crisis in our country and, actually, the world.”

The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the incidents outlined in her lawsuit. K.G.M. testified in court that her nearly nonstop use of social media caused or contributed to depression, anxiety and body dysmorphia. It “really affected my self-worth,” she said last month.

Speaking about her social media use, K.G.M. testified that she felt she wanted to constantly be on the platforms and feared missing out if she wasn’t.

Attorneys for Meta and YouTube have disputed claims brought by the plaintiff, arguing their platforms aren’t purposefully harmful and addictive.

A spokesperson for Meta said K.G.M.’s “profound challenges” weren’t caused by social media and pointed to “significant emotional and physical abuse” that she experienced when she was younger.

In his closing argument, an attorney for YouTube said there wasn’t a single mention of addiction to that platform in K.G.M.’s medical records.

The verdict comes after jurors in a separate trial in New Mexico held Meta liable for failing to protect children from online predators and sexual exploitation on Facebook and Instagram.

The New Mexico jury found Tuesday that Meta violated the state’s consumer protection laws and ordered it to pay $375 million in civil penalties. Meta has said it disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal.

In Los Angeles, deliberations took longer, wrapping up after nearly 44 hours over nine days. The jurors had told Judge Carolyn B. Kuhl that they were having trouble coming to a consensus on one defendant.

Social media companies have historically been shielded by Section 230, a provision added to the Communications Act of 1934 that says internet companies aren’t liable for the content users post.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg leaves Los Angeles County Superior Court on Feb. 18. Kyle Grillot / Bloomberg via Getty Images file

K.G.M.’s lawsuit was the first civil action seeking to hold the platforms accountable for allegedly causing addiction and mental health problems.

TikTok and Snap, who were also named as defendants in K.G.M.’s lawsuit, reached settlements before the trial. They remain defendants in a series of similar lawsuits expected to go to trial this year.

Matt Bergman, founding attorney of the Social Media Victims Law Center — which is representing hundreds of plaintiffs in state and federal proceedings — said the jury’s decision Wednesday “establishes a framework for how similar cases across the country will be evaluated and demonstrates that juries are willing to hold technology companies accountable when the evidence shows foreseeable harm.”

“Families pursuing justice in other jurisdictions can now point to this outcome as proof that these claims deserve to be heard and taken seriously,” Bergman said in a statement.

Lanier told NBC News in an interview that this was the most difficult case he’s tried in his 42 years as a lawyer.

“I think the jury understood that they were the very first case in the history of our country to look at social media addiction, and they wanted to leave no question, but that they seriously considered the evidence,” Lanier said. “So they took forever, then they looked carefully at each of the questions and answered everyone was, yes, guilty.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta also weighed in on the Los Angeles and New Mexico verdicts, writing in an X statement that California “looks forward to holding Meta accountable in our own upcoming August trial in the Bay Area.”

U.S. stocks and bonds sold off Thursday and oil continued its weekslong upward trajectory, as optimism faded about possible peace talks or a U.S.-Iran ceasefire.

The price of U.S. crude oil rose near $95 per barrel, up more than 4%. International Brent crude rose 5%, to more than $109 per barrel. Since the war started, the cost of U.S. crude oil is up more than 40%. Since the start of the year, it has risen more than 60%.

The S&P 500 closed down by 1.7%, the Dow tumbled 470 points and the Russell 2000 ended the day down 1.7%. For the S&P 500, Thursday was its worst single day since the war began.

The Nasdaq Composite fared the worst though, and dropped nearly 2.4%, pushing the index into correction territory. A correction is when an index falls 10% or more from its most recent all-time high. As of Thursday’s close, the index is now down 10.9% from its October high.

Heating oil, a proxy for jet fuel prices, also spiked 8% on Thursday afternoon. The nationwide average price of unleaded gas was $3.98 a gallon.

Nonetheless, Trump downplayed the severity of the oil and gas price spikes.

Energy prices “have not gone up as much as I thought,” Trump said at a Cabinet meeting in Washington.

The military campaign is “not over, so maybe it’ll go up a little bit more,” Trump said. “It’s all going to come back down to where it was and probably lower.”

Trump also cast doubt on a deal with Iran. “They are begging to work out a deal,” he said. “I don’t know if we’ll be able to do that. I don’t know if we’re willing to do that.”

But analysts widely believe that oil prices will continue to remain elevated over the long run, factoring in the risk that shippers will now have to assume for oil tankers that transit through the Strait of Hormuz.

Also impacting market sentiment was a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which predicted that as a result of the war with Iran, the average inflation rate for G20 countries this year would rise to 4%, up from its December prediction of 2.8%. The United States is a member of the OECD.

Bonds also sold off, driving yields higher. The 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield rose to 4.42%. The yield on 20-year bond hit 4.97% and the 30-year yield hit 4.93%.

Treasury yields, especially for the 10-year bond, heavily influence consumer lending rates. As a result, mortgage rates have risen from around 6% at the start of the war on Feb. 28 to more than 6.5% as of Thursday afternoon.

Stock indexes in Asia had already begun to sell off overnight. China’s Shanghai index and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index both fell 1%, while Korea’s Kospi slid 3.2%.

These indexes were also weighed down by big drops in shares of tech companies, including Samsung, after Google revealed a new, more efficient use of storage and memory systems for artificial intelligence.

The Stoxx 600 in Europe followed, closing down more than 1%. Flagship stock indexes in Germany, France and the U.K. also ended the trading session down by around 1%.

The S&P 500 ($SPX) just logged its fifth straight trading box breakout, which means that, of the five trading ranges the index has experienced since the April lows, all have been resolved to the upside.

How much longer can this last? That’s been the biggest question since the massive April 9 rally. Instead of assuming the market is due to roll over, it’s been more productive to track price action and watch for potential changes along the way. So far, drawdowns have been minimal, and breakouts keep occurring. Nothing in the price action hints at a lasting change — yet.

While some are calling this rally “historic,” we have a recent precedent. Recall that from late 2023 through early 2024, the index had a strong start and gave way to a consistent, steady trend.

From late October 2023 through March 2024, the S&P 500 logged seven consecutive trading box breakouts. That streak finally paused with a pullback from late March to early April, which, as we now know, was only a temporary hiccup. Once the bid returned, the S&P 500 went right back to carving new boxes and climbing higher.

New 52-Week Highs Finally Picking Up

If there’s been one gripe about this rally, it’s that the number of new highs within the index has lagged. As we’ve discussed before, among all the internal breadth indicators available, new highs almost always lag — that’s normal. What we really want to see is whether the number of new highs begins to exceed prior peaks as the market continues to rise, which it has, as shown by the blue line in the chart below.

As of Wednesday’s close, 100 S&P 500 stocks were either at new 52-week highs or within 3% of them. That’s a strong base. We expect this number to continue rising as the market climbs, especially if positive earnings reactions persist across sectors.

Even when we get that first day with 100+ S&P 500 stocks making new 52-week highs, though, it might not be the best time to initiate new longs.

The above chart shows that much needs to align for that many stocks to peak in unison, which has historically led to at least a short-term consolidation, if not deeper pullbacks — as highlighted in yellow. Every time is different, of course, but this is something to keep an eye on in the coming weeks.

Trend Check: GoNoGo Still “Go”

The GoNoGo Trend remains in bullish mode, with the recent countertrend signals having yet to trigger a greater pullback.

Active Bullish Patterns

We still have two live bullish upside targets of 6,555 and 6,745, which could be with us for a while going forward. For the S&P 500 to get there, it will need to form new, smaller versions of the trading boxes.

Failed Bearish Patterns

In the chart below, you can view a rising wedge pattern on the recent price action, the third since April. The prior two wedges broke down briefly and did not lead to a major downturn. The largest pullbacks in each case occurred after the S&P 500 dipped below the lower trendline of the pattern.

The deepest drawdown so far is 3.5%, which is not exactly a game-changer. Without downside follow-through, a classic bearish pattern simply can’t be formed, let alone be broken down from.

We’ll continue to monitor these formations as they develop because, at some point, that will change.

The Defense Department will remove media offices from the Pentagon after a federal judge sided with The New York Times in a lawsuit challenging limits on reporters’ access to the building, a department official announced Monday.

An area of the Pentagon known as “Correspondents’ Corridor” that reporters have used for decades to cover the U.S. military will close immediately, department spokesperson Sean Parnell said. Journalists will eventually be able to work from an “annex” outside the building, which he said “will be available when ready.” He offered no detail about how long that will take.

The Pentagon Press Association said the announcement “is a clear violation of the letter and spirit of last week’s ruling.”

“At such a critical time, we ask why the Pentagon is choosing to restrict vital press freedoms that help inform all Americans,” the association said.

The new policy is the latest dispute over press access to President Donald Trump’s administration, which has limited legacy media while boosting conservative and pro-Trump outlets.

The Times sued the Pentagon and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in December, claiming the agency’s new credentialing policy violated journalists’ constitutional rights to free speech and due process. Dozens of reporters had walked out of the building rather than agree to government-imposed restrictions on their work.

U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman in Washington, D.C., last week sided with the newspaper. He ordered the Pentagon to reinstate the press credentials of seven Times journalists and struck down some of the agency’s restrictions on news reporting.

Friedman said the “undisputed evidence” shows that the policy is designed to weed out “disfavored journalists” and replace them with those who are “on board and willing to serve” the government, a clear instance of illegal viewpoint discrimination.

Parnell said the Defense Department disagrees with the ruling and is pursuing an appeal. He said security concerns prompted restrictions on press access, a claim that journalists have rejected.

Under the latest Pentagon rules announced Monday, journalists will still have access to the Pentagon for press conferences and interviews arranged through the department’s public affairs team, but they will have to be escorted, Parnell wrote on social media.

The current Pentagon press corps is comprised mostly of conservative outlets that agreed to the policy. Reporters from outlets that refused to consent to the new rules, including from The Associated Press, have continued reporting on the military.

The AP, meanwhile, is awaiting a decision by a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court of Appeals on its separate lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s administration. The AP contends that Trump’s White House team punished it by reducing its access to presidential events because the outlet hasn’t followed his lead in renaming the Gulf of Mexico.

U.S. stocks surged Monday, after President Donald Trump announced that he was postponing all military strikes on Iranian power plants for a five-day period.

Trump said the U.S. and Iran had engaged in what he called “very good and productive conversations regarding a complete and total resolution of our hostilities in the Middle East.”

Reporting about the nature and timing of these “conversations” evolved over the course of the day, and included conflicting accounts from various stakeholders.

But for markets, the talks offered a glimmer of hope that a path toward the de-escalation of the conflict — and the oil crisis it created — were within reach.

Iranian state media responded to Trump’s post by saying the U.S. president has “backed down” after Iran’s firm response.

Trump, however, said that Iran had “called” to discuss trying to resolve the war diplomatically.

“They want to make a deal, and we are very willing to make it,” Trump told reporters before boarding Air Force One in Florida.

The Strait of Hormuz, a crucial transit point for global oil supplies, could be “open very soon,” Trump added, but he provided few details.

Experts and analysts quickly pointed out that even if the fighting were to end this week, it would still take months for the strait to reopen.

The S&P 500 and Nasdaq 100 futures initially soared about 3% on Trump’s post shortly after 7 a.m. ET. By the time the closing bell rang, both indexes still recorded significant gains, but less than futures had indicated early in the morning. The S&P 500 closed up 1.1% and the Nasdaq Composite ended the day higher by 1.4%.

The gains were also broad based, with every S&P sector ending the day higher.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average also shot higher immediately after Trump’s statement. By the end of the trading session, the Dow was higher by 631 points, and the Russell 2000 index closed up 2.7%.

It was the best day for the S&P, Nasdaq and Dow since Feb. 6.

Oil prices plunged around 11% and U.S. crude oil settled for the day at $88.13 per barrel. International Brent crude oil fell to $99.94 per barrel, settling under $100 per barrel for the first time since March 11.

Still, crude oil prices have risen more than 30% since the war began on Feb. 28, and more than 50% since the start of the year.

Trump’s Monday announcement on social media came after the president on Saturday said that he had given the Iranian regime 48 hours to “fully open, without threat, the Strait of Hormuz.” That ultimatum was set to expire Monday night.

U.S. natural gas prices dropped 6% Monday, European natural gas futures slid 9% and heating oil prices dropped 12%. Heating oil futures can also be a proxy for the price of jet fuel.

U.S. Treasury bonds also rose in the minutes after Trump’s comments, and the yields which guide borrowing rates for consumers dropped after posting big moves higher on Thursday and Friday on rising inflation fears stemming from soaring energy prices. Yields were down only slightly in mid-morning trading after the statements from Iranian media and Trump.

Investors were already grappling with how to trade headlines about the war before Monday’s volatility.

“Investors have two related problems in pricing risks around the Gulf war,” UBS economist Paul Donovan said in a note on Monday before Trump’s post. “Statements from top U.S. administration officials give different and at times contradictory assessments of the war; in the absence of measurable objectives, this is all markets have to respond to. The result is volatility.”