America’s artificial intelligence (AI) boom is pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the nation’s economy, helping to sustain growth even as traditional manufacturing struggles to recover. However, many of the companies at the center of the so-called AI revolution are losing billions of dollars, raising questions about whether the technology boom represents a genuine economic transformation or an enormous investment bubble.

The National Pulse gives you original analysis of trends across the globe. To help support Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

Economists estimate the underlying U.S. growth potential at approximately two percent, while the Congressional Budget Office expects longer-term growth potential to remain around 1.8 percent.

Despite President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to stimulate economic growth through tariffs, tax reductions, and deregulation, the promised manufacturing renaissance has yet to fully materialize as he approaches the midpoint of his second term. Meanwhile, the AI industry is consuming unprecedented capital, much of it based on expectations of future profits that remain uncertain.

The Rise of the AI Economy.

The modern AI revolution accelerated in 2020 with OpenAI’s introduction of GPT-3, a large language model capable of generating human-like text. The November 2022 release of ChatGPT brought the technology to millions of ordinary consumers, triggering an investment race involving Microsoft, Google, Amazon, Meta, and other technology giants.

By 2025, the competition had evolved into an enormous infrastructure-building campaign involving specialized semiconductors, data centers, electricity generation, and advanced computing networks.

According to Stanford University’s 2026 AI Index, the computing costs associated with developing and operating advanced AI systems have increased dramatically. OpenAI’s reported annual computing expenditure reached approximately $16.3 billion in 2025, compared with $5.8 billion in 2024. Anthropic’s equivalent spending reached approximately $6.8 billion in 2025.

The economic consequences are substantial. Unlike software development, building the physical infrastructure necessary to operate advanced AI systems requires enormous upfront investment.

Hundreds of Billions Pour Into AI Infrastructure.

Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet, Meta, and Oracle are collectively spending hundreds of billions of dollars annually on infrastructure, much of it related to artificial intelligence.

A Morningstar analysis projected approximately $453 billion in combined capital expenditure for the five companies during 2026, up from $376 billion in 2025. These figures include spending beyond AI alone. Meanwhile, OpenAI was targeting approximately $600 billion in cumulative computing expenditure through 2030.

Anthropic has also entered enormous infrastructure agreements, including commitments involving Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. Such arrangements raise questions about circular financing, as some of the same technology companies investing in AI developers also receive billions from them through cloud-computing contracts.

Government involvement includes federal AI research, procurement, and tax incentives. Trump’s tax legislation has encouraged capital investment, although government support should not be confused with direct public financing of the industry’s multitrillion-dollar infrastructure ambitions.

The AI Giants Are Burning Through Cash.

Few AI companies, however, appear to be turning any sort of profit, with many spending more and more each year. Anthropic generated $16.29 billion in revenue during the first six months of 2026, while recording an operating loss of $693 million. Its operating losses had reached approximately $8.06 billion in 2025.

OpenAI has also experienced huge revenue growth alongside enormous computing costs. The company reported $13 billion in revenue for 2025, while its plans involve hundreds of billions in future computing expenditure.

Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and Meta remain highly profitable corporations, supported by established businesses in software, advertising, cloud computing, and e-commerce. Their individual AI divisions’ profitability, however, is generally not disclosed on its own.

OpenAI, Anthropic, and Elon Musk’s xAI face a different challenge: developing sustainable business models while competing against corporations capable of financing AI expansion using profits from other operations.

Manufacturing Struggles While Technology Investment Surges.

The AI boom has also complicated President Trump’s efforts to rebuild American manufacturing. Actual evidence of manufacturing reshoring remains mixed despite the administration’s tariff policies. Imports have continued rising, partly because American data center construction requires substantial quantities of foreign-produced equipment.

While AI-related construction and computing investment boost economic output, they do not necessarily translate into renewed employment in steelmaking, automobile production, machinery, or other traditional industries. The danger is that headline economic growth becomes increasingly dependent on a relatively narrow group of technology companies rather than a broad-based industrial recovery.

AI Is Already Being Blamed for Mass Layoffs.

The AI revolution also threatens to undermine employment in sectors previously considered relatively insulated from automation.

According to figures compiled from reports by employment consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas, American employers cited artificial intelligence as the reason for approximately 120,136 announced job cuts between January and September 2026, representing roughly 21 percent of all announced layoffs during that period. That compares with approximately 54,836 AI-cited job cuts throughout 2025.

Software development, customer service, administrative work, and content production are among the occupations facing pressure as businesses attempt to reduce labor costs.

Another Dot-Com Bubble?

The AI boom bears some similarities to the dot-com frenzy of the late 1990s, when investors poured enormous sums into Internet companies before many collapsed. The Internet ultimately transformed the global economy, but that did not prevent investors from losing fortunes on businesses that never became profitable.

Artificial intelligence could follow a similar trajectory, delivering substantial technological progress while leaving many investors with losses.

For now, the American economy faces an uncomfortable contradiction: AI investment is supporting economic growth even as traditional manufacturing struggles, AI developers absorb enormous amounts of capital, and employers increasingly cite the technology when announcing layoffs. The question is whether the gains will ultimately prove to outweigh the potential losses.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team provide you with more of the original reporting and analysis you deserve, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image by Jernej Furman.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Raheem Kassam, Editor-in-Chief of The National Pulse, hit back at the anonymous leader writers at The Times after they used Britain’s de facto newspaper of record to smear him and attack Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party.

“The Times editorial today is about… me!” Kassam wrote on X, in response to a “leader” article branding him a racist for calling the Conservative Party leader a “Nigerian scammer” over her long history of misleading statements about her past and positions. His response shone a spotlight on “these ANONYMISED ‘leader’ columns and who exactly writes them, because they don’t have bylines on them. Because they are COWARDS.”

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team call out the corporate media, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

The Named Writers Behind the Anonymous Column.

Kassam publicly identified three members of The Times’s leader team as follows:

• Daniel Finkelstein, a sitting Conservative member of the House of Lords and former Conservative Party adviser. Kassam added that he was “the reason Chelsea FC was run into the ground following the big Russia focus after the invasion of Ukraine.”
• Sebastian Payne, a former Spectator writer who previously ran the Conservative-aligned Onward think tank. Payne has repeatedly sought Conservative parliamentary nominations without success. Kassam noted he is “told today’s ‘leader’ is his desperate last bid to get in Kemi’s good books.”
• Oliver Kamm, a former Oxford Labour Party Club chairman and anti-Brexit Blairite who has pushed neoconservative foreign policy. Kassam noted that Kamm was a strong supporter of the Iraq War and is “still unrepentant.”

“These are the people who set the tone for the Times’s leader column, and these are the people who hide behind the anonymity afforded to them by the paper,” Kassam said. “I say enough is enough. If you’re going to wantonly attack people in the paper of record, be brave enough to put your byline on the item. It’s time we started sending cameramen to these people’s houses, doorstepping them, and making them truly have to own the things they write.”

The Substance of the Editorial.

The Times editorial framed Kassam’s comments as a “racist attack on the opposition leader, who was, in fact, born here.” It claimed Kassam’s words reflect a “Nigeria strategy” by Reform outriders seeking to regain voters lost to Restore Britain and criticized Farage for calling the remark “not intentionally racist,” also taking aim at Reform lawmakers Robert Jenrick and Danny Kruger for declining to denounce Kassam and his remarks.

Kassam dismissed the piece as “risible.” The claim that calling Badenoch a “scammer” is racist because “she was born here” ignores that she was born in Britain to Nigerian parents who flew into the country to have her in a London hospital, but returned to Nigeria to raise her. She has previously stated she loves Nigeria “just as much as” Britain, only claiming more recently that she no longer identifies as Nigerian while remaining “Nigerian through ancestry.”

Significantly for the racism allegation, “Nigerian” is not a race, and in addition to her aforementioned contradictory remarks, Badenoch has said she does not identify with Nigeria but with her “specific ethnicity” as a Yoruba, adding that she does not like being “lumped in” with her “ethnic enemies” in Nigeria’s north.

Kassam has long argued that the “scammer” characterization refers to this selective invocation of heritage, alongside dubious claims about her background, including a seemingly invented offer of a Stanford scholarship and an at best highly exaggerated childhood chess championship.

The Times‘s assertion that Kassam is “not a journalist” is likewise dismissed; The National Pulse chief is more widely accredited in Washington than The Times writers criticizing him. As for the invention of a coordinated “Nigeria strategy,” he said it does not exist: “There’s just me tweeting my views.”

The Uniparty Playbook.

Kassam drew a parallel to 2015, when media figures attributed messaging on HIV and migrants messaging to him despite his opposition to it. He argued there is “something ACTUALLY deeply racist about the way Dan Hodges, Giles Dilnot, and people like Daniel Finkelstein treat me,” explaining: “They are all very very mad I don’t say ‘yes master’ to them. And this is their way of handling it. I know the uniparty is used to having their useful idiots. I’ll never be one of them.”

The substance of the piece is risible btw.

1. Claiming it’s “racist” to call Kemi a scammer because “she was born here.”

2. Saying I’m not a journalist (I’m accredited more widely here in DC than any of these guys)

3. Saying there’s a “Nigeria strategy.” No there’s not.…

— Raheem J. Kassam (@RaheemKassam) October 28, 2026

Raheem J. Kassam and his team can bring you original news analysis free of government and corporate influence because of reader support. To help it that way, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image by inc_monocle.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

British households could be facing another massive energy price shock, with some forecasts suggesting annual bills could climb to more than $3,200 by April 2027 as the Iran war drives international gas prices higher. The crisis is again exposing Britain’s dependence on imported energy, with successive Conservative and Labour governments having refused to encourage energy production at home and pursued net zero ideology.

The National Pulse brings you detailed analysis on global energy trends and many other topics. To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION. We are 100% reader-funded.

Forecasts from energy supplier EDF suggest the typical annual household energy bill could rise by 27 percent in January, from the equivalent of approximately $2,309 to $2,937, before climbing again to $3,201 in April. Wholesale gas prices have reached a four-year high, driven by disruptions to liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments through the Strait of Hormuz and concerns about European gas reserves.

Britain’s North Sea Retreat.

Britain was once an energy powerhouse, extracting enormous quantities of oil and natural gas from beneath the North Sea. However, domestic production has declined dramatically, leaving the country increasingly dependent on foreign suppliers.

According to the House of Commons Library, British North Sea oil and gas production peaked in 1999 and has subsequently fallen by more than 70 percent. In 2004, Britain became a net importer of natural gas, much of it from the Norwegian sector of the North Sea.

The decline has partly resulted from the natural depletion of mature offshore fields. However, government policy has repeatedly discouraged new exploration, with the leftist Labour Party going as far as committing to ending new oil and gas exploration and production licenses, while allowing limited developments around existing fields.

Ofgem’s analysis of Britain’s gas supplies indicates that approximately 47 percent of Britain’s gas comes through pipelines from Norway, compared with just 29 percent from domestic North Sea fields. Despite having domestic reserves, Britain is increasingly forced to rely on overseas suppliers to meet its energy requirements, driving up costs for consumers and businesses alike.

Britain’s Electricity Market Makes Everything Worse.

Britain’s energy problems extend far beyond the long-standing declining domestic gas production. The structure of its electricity market means international gas price increases can affect households even when their electricity is generated by renewable sources like wind and solar, or nuclear power.

Under Britain’s marginal pricing system, the wholesale electricity price is frequently determined by the most expensive generator needed to satisfy demand. That generator is often a gas-fired power station. A recent parliamentary Energy Security and Net Zero Committee report warned that Britain already had some of the highest domestic and industrial electricity costs among comparable countries before the current crisis in the Middle East. It also called for reforms to reduce the disproportionate influence of gas on electricity prices.

France, Norway, and America Invested in Energy Independence.

Other Western countries show how different energy strategies can reduce dependence on imported natural gas.

France has maintained its large nuclear power industry, with reactors generating approximately 68 percent of the country’s electricity in 2025, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nuclear generation has helped limit France’s reliance on gas-fired electricity, although it still has some exposure to energy markets in Europe.

Norway pursued a different strategy, continuing to develop its North Sea oil resources while relying overwhelmingly on domestic hydropower for electricity. According to Norwegian government figures, hydropower accounted for approximately 90 percent of electricity production in 2025.

The United States, meanwhile, has benefited from the shale gas revolution, which dramatically expanded domestic production through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that American natural gas production reached a record 118.5 billion cubic feet per day in 2025, helping sustain a huge domestic energy supply.

All three countries show that prioritizing the cost of energy for their own residents over net zero and the green agenda has consistently left them more insulated to global energy market fluctuations and grants their own people cheaper energy at home.

Net Zero Has Made Britain Less Secure.

The contradiction in Britain’s energy strategy is that governments have sought to restrict domestic fossil-fuel development while the economy continues to rely heavily on natural gas.

According to the British government’s 2025 security of supply report, natural gas accounted for 35 percent of total British energy demand in 2024. The same report projects continued declines in North Sea production, although it argues that ending new exploration licenses will have only a marginal impact on future output.

Wind and solar alone cannot guarantee a continuous energy supply, leaving gas-fired generation important during periods of low renewable output. However, Conservative and Labour governments have moved away from domestic fossil fuel production without first establishing sufficient alternatives. With household energy bills potentially approaching $3,200 annually, that issue is becoming increasingly urgent.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team provide you with more of the original reporting and analysis you deserve, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image by Alnitak3.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

Two European NATO members sharing borders with Russia have broken with the European Union, opening direct talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin as the war in Ukraine continues to devastate the country and tensions escalate across the Baltic region.

The National Pulse brings you world-class analysis and reporting. To help us continue this work, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre spoke directly with Putin on Tuesday, calling on the Russian leader to negotiate an end to the conflict. Their intervention represents a major departure from the diplomatic isolation pursued by most European Union governments since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

The two leaders emphasized that their countries’ proximity to Russia gives them a particular interest in preventing further escalation. Finland shares an approximately 830-mile border with Russia, while Norway shares a roughly 120-mile frontier in the High North. “Ending the war requires direct discussions,” Stubb said following the conversation.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen criticized the decision to engage Putin independently, questioning what the Norwegian and Finnish leaders hoped to accomplish and insisting that European governments must maintain a united position.

The disagreement comes as Russian forces continue their offensive in eastern Ukraine, Moscow targets Ukrainian infrastructure, and tensions surrounding Russia’s Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad raise fears of a wider confrontation.

Russia Pounds Ukrainian Infrastructure.

On October 27, Russia launched 16 ballistic missiles and more than 280 drones against targets across 11 Ukrainian regions, according to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. The attacks killed civilians in Kiev and Kharkov despite a separate, localized humanitarian ceasefire in southern Ukraine.

Days earlier, Russian missiles struck Kiev, damaging subway infrastructure on the Southern Bridge over the Dnieper River and disrupting traffic. Russian drones also targeted energy infrastructure near Kremenchuk, an important industrial center in central Ukraine.

The attacks show Russia’s strategy is to cripple Ukraine’s ability to sustain the war by damaging electricity supplies, transportation infrastructure, and industrial facilities, as well as possibly provoke another refugee crisis as many flee cities in winter if no reliable power is available to heat their homes.

Ukraine has also continued striking Russian territory, including oil infrastructure, as both sides seek to increase the economic and military costs of the conflict, which has another effect of keeping international energy prices high.

Battlefield Developments.

The Russians continue to demand control over the entirety of Donbas, encompassing the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, as Ukraine still has footholds in both territories. The fighting around Dobropillia, a strategically important town northwest of Pokrovsk, has become the latest key battle for the region.

Russian forces have intensified operations in the area, attempting to penetrate Ukrainian defenses and threaten transportation routes supporting Ukrainian positions farther north.

Moscow has claimed to have taken Dobropillia,  while Ukrainian officials dispute the claims. An assessment by the Institute for the Study of War reported intensified Russian infiltration operations but claimed that these did not necessarily mean that Russian forces controlled the town. The assessment also highlighted Russian efforts to advance along routes supporting operations toward Dobropillia, with the longer-term objective of threatening Ukraine’s defensive positions around Sloviansk and Kramatorsk, the last major strongholds under Ukrainian control in the Donbas.

Putin reiterated during the Nordic leaders’ diplomatic outreach that Russia would not compromise on its objective of securing the entire Donbas.

Kaliningrad.

While fighting continues in Ukraine, another potential confrontation is developing around Kaliningrad, Russia’s heavily militarized Baltic exclave situated between Poland and Lithuania. Kaliningrad houses the headquarters of Russia’s Baltic Fleet and is an important military position, surrounded by NATO members.

The territory is also strategically sensitive because of its proximity to the Suwałki Gap, the narrow corridor connecting Poland and Lithuania that separates Kaliningrad from Belarus. Any military confrontation involving the exclave could quickly draw both NATO and Russia into direct conflict.

Earlier this month, Putin warned that Moscow could employ nuclear weapons if NATO attacked or attempted to isolate Kaliningrad. The warning followed Russian concerns over the possibility of NATO restricting access to the territory. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte responded by emphasizing the alliance’s defensive character and rejecting the usefulness of nuclear threats.

Military encounters in the Baltic have meanwhile continued. According to Lithuania’s Ministry of National Defence, NATO aircraft conducted multiple interceptions during October 12–18, including encounters with Russian military aircraft traveling between mainland Russia and Kaliningrad.

Some Russian aircraft operated without active transponders, filed flight plans, or radio communication, increasing the risk of dangerous incidents in the air.

The Baltics Are Resisting Peace Talks.

The willingness of the Norwegian and Finnish leaders to speak directly with Putin is directly contrasted by their neighbors in the Baltics, such as former Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas, who now serves as the European Commission Vice President for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy.

Kallas has emerged as one of Europe’s most outspoken advocates of maintaining economic and military pressure on Moscow. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have consistently supported extensive sanctions against Russia, increased military assistance to Ukraine, and a stronger NATO presence along the alliance’s eastern frontier.

Kallas has also defended Ukrainian attacks on Russian oil infrastructure, telling Euronews earlier this month that such operations constitute legitimate self-defense because Russian energy revenues help finance the war.

Finland and Norway, meanwhile, appear increasingly convinced that direct communication with Moscow is necessary alongside sanctions, deterrence, and military assistance.

Trump Forces Europe to Reconsider Its Position.

President Donald J. Trump has repeatedly pursued negotiations aimed at ending the Ukraine conflict since the start of his second term, but has been frustrated by both sides, who refuse to agree to terms.

Recent diplomatic efforts included meetings involving U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, Ukrainian officials, and Russian representatives, with another round of negotiations expected in Abu Dhabi in November.

Finland and Norway’s intervention follows an important October 20 meeting in Oslo, after which President Zelensky stated for the first time that he may be willing to end the war along the current line of conflict, with Russia continuing to occupy around 25 percent of pre-2022 Ukraine.

The two Nordic leaders challenging the status quo in Europe may reflect the emerging reality that it is America and Russia, rather than the EU and Ukraine itself, determining the peace.

Europe’s Choice.

The decision by Finland and Norway to engage Putin is just the latest fracture in Europe in what was once a united front against Russia and for Ukraine.

As the fifth anniversary of the conflict approaches in February, Russian attacks continue to damage Ukrainian cities and infrastructure. Fighting in Donbas remains intense, while a potential conflict over Kaliningrad could drag NATO, including Finland and Norway, into a hot war with the Russians at their doorstep.

For years, much of Europe’s strategy has rested on the assumption that sustained pressure from economic sanctions and arms to Ukraine could force the Russians to reconsider their war aims and possibly retreat altogether. That strategy has not borne fruit, and now countries are beginning to look for other avenues to avoid conflict with the Russians and broker some kind of peace.

What follows could determine the fate of Europe, as the bloc will have to decide whether to pursue a potentially unpopular peace or a catastrophic war.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team continue to provide you with the latest developments of international conflicts, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image via Kyivcity.gov.ua.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.

A recent court case in Bristol has again put the spotlight on the risks some migrant groups pose to British women and girls. In November last year, three Afghan men and an Afghan minor aged 17 subjected a teenage girl to a prolonged gang rape lasting several hours. They had first contacted her through Snapchat, supplied her with alcohol, then assaulted her before attempting to leave the country hidden in a lorry bound for France. French officials sent them back, British courts convicted them, and they were sentenced on October 6.

Such cases reinforce public concerns about migrant crime that have been growing for years. A government booklet distributed to asylum seekers recently felt the need to spell out that the age of consent is 16 and that rape is a serious offense. Statistics suggest that these concerns are justified, with migrants from Afghanistan, the Middle East, and Africa perpetrating sex crimes at much higher rates than other demographic groups and the native population.

If you value the work of Raheem J. Kassam and his team, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today. We are 100% reader-funded.

What the Data Reveals.

Official statistics do not routinely break crime rates down by immigration status, so researchers must work with the limited figures available. Freedom of Information Act requests secured by the Migration Observatory at Oxford University produced Ministry of Justice records covering cautions and convictions in England and Wales from 2010 to 2024. Afghans accounted for 409 cases over the full period.

That raw total becomes meaningful once set against population size. The 2021 census counted roughly 21,400 people of Afghan origin in England and Wales. Subsequent arrivals after the Taliban takeover in August 2021 pushed the estimated Afghan population to around 45,000 by the end of 2022. Focusing on the 2020–22 window and adjusting for age and sex, the analysis finds Afghans convicted of sex crimes at seven times the rate of British nationals.

This is a large and persistent gap. The elevated rate means additional victims in every period, and continued high inflows will multiply the total impact.

The National Pulse can bring you original news and analysis without sugarcoating the truth because we do not rely on government or corporate cash. To keep it that way, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

A Pattern Across Europe.

Britain is not unique. Data from Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, and Sweden show immigrants from the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, and the Horn of Africa are over-represented among both suspects and those convicted of sexual offenses. Age-standardized comparisons reduce the disparity, but the elevated rates do not disappear. Alice Weidel, leader of Germany’s Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, has noted that Syrians and Afghans form the main category among those responsible for the most serious crimes, including rape and homicide.

The practical consequence for public safety of importing demographic groups with substantially higher rates of offending per person is more victims. Official reluctance to publish detailed, regularly updated rates by nationality has left the field open to competing claims. However, the available evidence confirms that Afghan, Middle Eastern, and African migrant groups commit sex crimes at markedly higher rates than the native population.

That reality, illustrated in repeated court cases and European data, is a serious problem that requires clear acknowledgment.

To help Raheem J. Kassam and his team expose the truth about mass migration and its consequences, please JOIN THE NATIONAL PULSE or MAKE A DONATION today.

Image by Tim Sheerman-Chase.

Join Pulse+ to comment below, and receive exclusive e-mail analyses.