President Donald Trump on Thursday announced tariffs on polysilicon and its related products, in his administration’s latest attempt to eliminate China’s choke points in the global supply chain for solar panels and semiconductors.

But Trump’s directive won’t take effect until Dec. 4 — well after November’s midterm elections and a planned September summit between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping — as the administration grapples with voters complaining of high prices and fragile trade negotiations with China.

“This will bring the supply chain here,” Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said of the order on Thursday alongside Trump at the White House. “We’ve got the industry here, it’s too small, and it’s going to explode.”

Because polysilicon is used in semiconductors and solar panels, it’s essential for military hardware and everyday electronics like cell phones and laptops, in addition to the world’s fastest-growing energy source.

The order imposes a 15 percent tariff on imported polysilicon and its derivatives, as well as minimum prices for imports of polysilicon, polysilicon ingots and wafers, solar cells and solar modules.

It also includes a clause intended to prevent companies from stockpiling those materials between now and December, authorizing Customs and Border Protection to restrict imports if it suspects an importer is attempting to dodge the higher duties.

Trump’s order is the result of a Commerce Department investigation launched last July into national security risks in the polysilicon supply chain, as part of a broader effort to shift supply chains away from China for multiple industries including wind turbines and robotics.

China has a near-monopoly on the production of polysilicon, according to S&P Global. But recent U.S. efforts to limit key areas of trade with China have already drawn a backlash from Beijing, which earlier this week implemented new controls on drone exports to the U.S.

The White House emphasized the order’s impact on domestic semiconductor production, a key focus as the U.S. looks to build out infrastructure related to artificial intelligence. Trump said the U.S. will “have a big percentage of the chip business by the time I leave office.”

But Thursday’s order may have a big impact on the solar industry, according to Jon Toomey, president of the pro-tariff Coalition for a Prosperous America organization.

“This proclamation delivers the most significant global trade protection action for the American polysilicon and solar industry in the modern era,” Toomey said in a statement. “For the first time, the United States is protecting the entire solar supply chain with a single action — and rewarding the manufacturers that build here — while taking a significant step to bolster the domestic semiconductor supply chain.”

Late last year, Department of Justice (DOJ) officials agreed to make a surprisingly damaging but until-recently little-noticed admission in court: the Trump administration had cancelled several grants worth at least hundreds of millions of dollars largely because the money was slated to be sent to states that did not support the president in the last election. 

“A primary reason” for withholding the funds in question was that “the grantee was located in a ‘Blue State,’” the DOJ wrote in a December 2025 court filing called a stipulation, an agreement entered into by the parties involved in a lawsuit agreeing to certain facts. 

A review by TPM identified multiple other instances of the administration making the same concession in court. One, from July, was recently covered by the New York Times; TPM found other examples of the same concession, documenting that the administration’s lawyers have been open for several months now about having withheld money in part or entirely to punish the president’s perceived political enemies.

BERLIN — A drone packed with explosives discovered at Leipzig Airport is raising fears of foreign interference in upcoming German regional elections in which far-right politicians have campaigned on fears of escalations with Moscow.

The drone — found at a strategic airport serving Ukrainian and NATO aircraft as well as a major DHL logistics hub — is being seen as evidence of a potential act by “foreign powers,” said German Interior Minister Alexander Dobrindt.

The Kremlin has been accused of seeking to sway September’s elections in Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg–Western Pomerania, states in the former communist East Germany where pro-Russian sentiment remains strong and where the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) party could take power for the first time at the state level.

“We do of course see that Russia attempts every day, in one way or another — through hybrid means and various measures — to exert influence here in Germany in a manner that seeks to undermine our democracy and erode trust in politics and politicians,” said Martin Giese, a foreign ministry spokesperson.

Russian disinformation campaigns have portrayed German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and his government as warmongers. They aim to undermine the already unpopular chancellor and boost Russia-friendly forces such as the AfD and the far-left Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) — both of which are strong in eastern Germany.

“The state elections in Saxony-Anhalt and in eastern Germany are, of course, a major target of Russian influence, because these are pivotal elections in the heart of Europe,” said Stefan Meister, a Russia expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations.

He said that it is too early to attribute the explosive-laden drone to Russia as investigations are still ongoing. But he added that Moscow is clearly waging a broad hybrid campaign targeting the region ahead of next month’s votes.

“This could be the first time right-wing populists come to power,” Meister said. “And with that, the chancellor might even fall — or at the very least, the coalition would be severely weakened — and a pro-Russian party would come to power in one of the federal states.”  

“There is a major campaign underway on the Russian side to influence these elections in favor of the AfD and the BSW,” he added. 

Polls show that the AfD has a chance of winning an outright majority in Saxony-Anhalt on Sept. 6 and is poised to be the largest party in Mecklenburg–Western Pomerania and is expected to perform well in Berlin when those states hold elections on Sept. 20.

Vulnerable transport hub

The drone incident risks raising fears in Germany that their country’s support for Ukraine is bringing the war closer to home.

The Leipzig-Halle airport has been a target in the past. In July 2024, an incendiary parcel caught fire at a DHL facility there shortly before it was due to be loaded onto an aircraft. European investigators later identified 22 suspects allegedly working for Russian military intelligence in the wider parcel plot. 

The airport is among Germany’s most strategically important transport hubs.

It is the home base for NATO’s SALIS airlift program, which gives nine participating countries access to Ukrainian Antonov aircraft capable of carrying oversized military cargo for national, EU and alliance missions.

The incident adds to a feeling of insecurity, which could help populist parties, said Meister.

“It’s once again obvious that we’re simply very vulnerable,” he said.

An interior ministry spokesperson said Wednesday that the government was monitoring a campaign it called “Matryoshka,” and regarded it as serious.

German officials said this week that fabricated videos that falsely accused candidates of corruption, sexual misconduct and other crimes appeared to have mimicked trusted outlets such as the German regional public broadcaster ARD and the U.K.’s BBC.

Independent researchers have gone further. Deutsche Welle counted more than 180 fake posts linked to Matryoshka targeting September’s three elections. The posts largely attacked candidates from centrist parties, while sparing the AfD and BSW, according to researchers.

Chris Lunday contributed to this report.

LONDON — Andy Burnham entered Downing Street with a promise to give hard-pressed voters “breathing space” on the cost of living. Now he must show he can deliver. 

At the top of his list is finding a way to reduce stubbornly high energy bills — even as the Iran-U.S. war forces up prices and ministers are under pressure to cut their own departmental budgets. The new prime minister knows any intervention must make a real impact for voters if he is to turn Labour’s fortunes around. 

“You need to make an emotional connection with people,” said one senior government official, granted anonymity to talk candidly about Whitehall thinking. 

Britain’s new prime minister has already made one bid to show voters he is serious about tackling the problem: Removing VAT from household electricity bills, something he announced on his first day in No. 10. 

The move will knock less than £4 off the average monthly bill, ends after one year, and comes with a price tag of £850 million. Downing Street said it will be paid for through so-far unspecified Whitehall savings. 

But Burnham and his new Energy Secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, promised that the intervention is just a start. Cutting VAT is a “down payment” ahead of the winter, Fahnbulleh said. 

That means ministers have just weeks before Burnham’s first budget this fall to figure out what, if anything, can really ease the burden — and how to pay for it. 

Salami slicing 

“The fiscal space is going to be a challenge, and that is the case for any government,” said Sam Alvis, associate director for environment, energy security, and nature at the Labour-aligned Institute for Public Policy Research think tank. 

That’s because any intervention to bring down energy bills will have to be funded from already under-pressure Whitehall departments. 

“This government is going to have a look at the budget. Whether it chooses to do some priorities differently — that is an open question,” Alvis said. 

One option for Burnham is to slice more charges from electricity bills, as he did with VAT. But any savings could be quickly wiped out if, as expected, the Middle East crisis pushes up wholesale gas prices.

Forecasters at Cornwall Insight predict that average annual household bills will rise by two percent this fall, even after the VAT intervention. 

That leaves Burnham facing the same problems as the man he replaced, Keir Starmer. 

Starmer cut £150 off yearly bills last November by shifting some so-called green levies, used to fund a clean energy scheme, onto general taxation. By the summer, that cut had been swallowed up by higher prices driven by the Strait of Hormuz crisis. 

Nonetheless, Alvis said, this approach remains Burnham’s most realistic option. 

“We are now in a bit of a scenario of salami slicing, where you’re aggregating lots and lots of smaller bits,” he said. “There’s no one big thing that you can do that’s going to take over £100 off bills. So, it’s about accumulating all those things that you think you could possibly do in one go, so it becomes sizable and noticeable.” 

Decisions, decisions 

One of those options, proposed by the think tank Nesta and reportedly being considered by Burnham, involves shifting further green levies from electricity bills onto tax.  

It identified another £42 of savings from a yearly bill, costing the Treasury £1.7 billion per year for a decade. 

Every small cut helps consumers, insists Andrew Sissons, Nesta’s director of sustainable futures. The think tank has also proposed knocking £22 a year off bills by shifting the standing charge on gas — currently a fixed daily fee — onto the unit rate, which changes depending on how much energy a home uses. That would take a year to implement and would not cost the government a penny, Nesta says. 

But such moves must be accompanied by larger interventions if voters are to feel the benefit, he added. 

“The amount you’d need to cut people’s energy bills … for it to feel like a real difference is quite substantial,” he said. The government, he argued, should aim for a “big package.”  

If the government aims for larger changes, they would come with even greater costs.  

Nesta has suggested a one-off move to wipe out electricity debt, removing some bailout costs currently funded through bills, taking total annual bill savings to £130. But the Treasury would have to find £2.7 billion to fund that. 

“[We] shouldn’t ignore the fact that there are fiscal trade-offs. But if the government wants to prioritize energy bills, then this is the kind of step it needs to take,” Sissons added, pointing to their proposed levy change alongside the VAT cut.  

Things take time  

Net-zero policies will, ministers hope, bring down bills for good. But large-scale changes take years to implement. 

“Realistically, the only way to deeply, deeply help people is to get them solar panels, is to get them an EV [electric vehicle], potentially heat pumps in some houses as well,” said Alvis. 

This is another reason to opt for “salami slicing”, he said: To “alter the balance of electricity and gas prices, so that those clean technologies stack up and save people even more money.”  

Alex Bevan, a research fellow at the Future Governance Forum, agreed that big savings attached to the shift to green energy were still a way off.  

“There aren’t quick workarounds on whichever form of energy you choose to generate and deploy,” he said. But government must nonetheless “lock in the benefits [of clean energy],” he argued. 

The same official quoted above stressed that no decision had yet been made on how the government would intervene on bills. Asked whether the government favored a series of small policies or one big intervention, they said: “It doesn’t have to be binary. … It doesn’t have to be one or the other.”  

A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “The energy secretary’s focus is bringing bills down for good. We will tackle the cost of living to make life’s essentials affordable again and bring back hope.”

For now, Alvis insisted, Burnham has one thing going for him: He can operate in the knowledge voters accept international issues are pushing up costs. 

“The political point I would make is: By doing your best effort, you give yourself the space to have a conversation with the public,” he said. 

Italy will use extra leeway from the EU to spend billions of euros on energy and defense, Finance Minister Giancarlo Giorgetti told members of the country’s parliament on Wednesday.

Rome is set to boost its expenditure on green energy and defense over the coming three years, said Giorgetti following a relaxation of rules from Brussels, which allows the additional spending to be exempted from the EU’s strict spending targets and waived from Rome’s deficit figures.

Italy is poised to issue a formal request to the European Commission — laying out the investments it intends to undertake with the extra flexibility — by a mid-August deadline.

Giorgetti said Italy will request to spend an additional 0.6 percent of gross domestic product on green energy investments and 0.9 percent on defense — the full amount that is envisaged under the new fiscal guidelines.

The additional defense spending will “include both new multi-year investment programs and proposals to reallocate resources already provided for under current legislation,” Giorgetti told MPs. Italy’s parliament is expected to approve Giorgetti’s request to the Commission on Wednesday.

The extra flexibility is aimed at reducing dependence on fossil fuels and moving toward NATO’s target to spend 5 percent of GDP on defense. With 2 percent of GDP allocated to defense in 2025, Italy is among the alliance’s spending laggards.

However, the decision to raise military spending is set to inflame political tensions within the country ahead of a crucial election year that will see incumbent Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni seek a second mandate.

The governing coalition is split on the issue, and the right-wing League party — from which Giorgetti himself hails — has repeatedly campaigned against spending more money to counter the Russian threat.

In a further constraint, the government is under heavy pressure from the right-wing, Russia-friendly National Future party led by former Gen. Roberto Vannacci, which is eating into support for the other governing parties, according to the polls.  

More leeway

In June, the Commission gave EU countries suffering from the ongoing energy crisis more fiscal breathing room by exempting some green investments from public spending rules.

The goal was to allow heavily indebted governments to mobilize resources for green expenditure, including subsidies for electric vehicles, geothermal and solar energy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels. Italy lobbied the EU to offer this concession after the war in the Middle East fueled a surge in oil prices.

However, Giorgetti failed to lay out which green investments will be included in Italy’s request to the Commission.

In another gaping omission, he did not reveal whether Italy will tap into the EU’s cheap loans for defense — another divisive issue within the government coalition.

Rome had initially earmarked €15 billion under the Security Action for Europe (SAFE) program, prompting defense companies to factor in those investments.

Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani recently suggested that Rome will use the SAFE money, but said the exact amount will be decided later in the year.

Jacopo Barigazzi contributed to this report.

At this month’s NATO summit in Ankara, allies announced billions of dollars in new arms deals and reaffirmed their commitment to spend more on defense. European governments have made the pledge, and the money is real: European defense spending has doubled since 2019, and by 2030, European NATO member countries are projected to spend in excess of €800 billion a year, up €300 billion from 2025, with equipment spending alone nearly doubling.

But committing money is the easy part. The harder question is whether Europe’s defense industry can turn it into equipment fast enough to matter. Europe’s largest defense manufacturers’ order books now average more than five years for production, and some are closer to nine. Money is flowing in faster than industry can turn it into equipment. But a purchase order is not equipment that can be deployed on the ground and the air.

European countries have long duplicated capabilities rather than pooling them.

The bottleneck sits in the defense industrial system. Deterrence relies on the chain from funding to contracts, then through production, deployment into services, then rapid innovation in the field. Europe’s next goal comes after the spending promise. The continent fields six times as many weapons platforms as the United States, because countries have long duplicated capabilities rather than pooling them. Production ends up split across many small runs that never reach an efficient scale. Ukraine, under pressure, has shown how fast a defense system can move, adapting tactics in weeks and building drone detection networks from consumer electronics. Europe needs to catch up and then accelerate.

Four moves would help Europe accelerate.

The first is multi-speed procurement. Software-led systems such as drones and targeting improve in rapid cycles throughout their deployment and need procurement that can keep up. Israel’s Iron Dome started out as far less capable than it is today and improved continuously in service. European defense ministries have already set up high-speed procurement units with dedicated teams and greater risk tolerance. These need to become mainstream, rather than the exception.

Collaboration in procurement, maintenance and training brings costs down and delivery forward.

The second is military collaboration to reduce fragmentation. Collaboration in procurement, maintenance and training brings costs down and delivery forward. The Tempest project, where the U.K., Italy and Japan are jointly building a next-generation fighter, demonstrates the model: shared development costs that no single country could carry alone. Recent bilateral maritime agreements, and Romania’s use of EU funding to buy European while expanding production at home, show the same logic spreading.

The third is industrial consolidation, which is already underway and needs to move faster. Companies are driving it themselves. Airbus, Leonardo and Thales have agreed to merge their space divisions into a single joint venture with roughly €6.5 billion in revenue and 25,000 employees, and European defense mergers and acquisitions rose 35 percent year over year in the first half of 2025. McKinsey analysis finds that consolidation across key supply chain segments could unlock around €9 billion in annual synergies, more than the current equipment budgets of 24 of Europe’s 30 NATO members. The deepest opportunity sits below the big primes, among the thousands of tier two, three and four suppliers that still duplicate one another’s work. Europe can speed this up by harmonizing requirements, reducing national carve-outs and letting industry do the combining. Consolidation is only half the task. Europe also needs to build sheer capacity — more shipyards, more assembly lines, more of the physical plants that turn orders into hardware — and the capital to fund it. In several categories, Europe simply lacks enough places to build.

Real deterrence means difficult choices, and a public that understands the importance and the cost of security.

The fourth is regulatory unlocking. Full scale-up demands skilled workers retrained, accredited and security cleared from other industries; production sites with preapproved permitting; and alignment of export controls across European allies. These regulatory unlocks now need the same energy and focus as the funding commitment debate. 

Real deterrence means difficult choices, and a public that understands the importance and the cost of security. That conversation is only beginning in much of Europe. It must include the potential for “gray zone” cyber strikes on hospitals, arson at industrial sites, drones disrupting ports, undersea data cables cut — these have all occurred, but many citizens do not yet recognize this as having malicious intent.

The opportunity in getting it right is significant. McKinsey and GLOBSEC estimates indicate that every euro of spending on European-manufactured equipment generates two euros of revenue across the European supply chain, and an additional €165 billion a year in equipment spending could create up to 1.2 million jobs. The coming years will reveal how effectively Europe is able to scale up to protect its territory and citizens, and how much of the promised investment becomes lasting deterrence and European jobs. Getting there depends on the whole ecosystem — governments, industry and investors — moving together. Increased spending is important. Spending it effectively matters more.

Jonathan Dimson is a senior partner in McKinsey’s London office. Mikael Robertson is a senior partner in the Stockholm office.

When Iran shut down the Strait of Hormuz five months ago, experts predicted oil could spike to $150 or $200 a barrel. It has barely topped $100. According to Rogé Karma, writing in The Atlantic, the reason may be China, which abruptly cut its oil imports by half. — Read the rest

The post China cut its oil imports in half. No one knows why. appeared first on Boing Boing.

Home affairs ministers are meeting this morning as the fallout of the Ceuta crisis continues to roil Europe.

Last week’s sudden influx of migrants into the Spanish exclave — most of whom have since returned — sparked heated exchanges between European leaders. On the show, hosts Zoya Sheftalovich and Ian Wishart preview whether today’s emergency meeting can cool tensions, and what measures the Commission may propose to address concerns across the bloc.

Next, a drought in Hungary and Romania could grind nuclear power plants to a halt since the River Danube has fallen too low to cool their reactors. Budapest and Bucharest are on high alert over the risk of an energy crisis in the coming days.

Plus: The Belgium push to encourage young people to sign up for voluntary military service appears to have worked, as the program starting Sept. 1 is already fully booked.

Are you taking part in voluntary military service, in Belgium or elsewhere? We’re intrigued. Get in touch on our WhatsApp here or at +32 491 05 06 29.

President Donald Trump on Saturday abruptly called off the “biggest attacks since World War II” against Iran in favor of negotiations, the latest in a seemingly endless series of whiplashes in the conflict.

The energy markets, which typically favor stability and predictability, responded with little more than a shrug.

Crude prices dipped slightly and gas prices remained steady. Even as the war stretches past the six-month mark and the midterms creep closer, Trump has been able to keep retail prices lower than experts say they should be through the sheer power of promises – which have yet to come through – of a swift end to the conflict. On Monday, he took that a step further, chastising the major oil companies for “making too much money” off global oil shortages as a result of the war.

“They better cut the retail price, the consumer price,” Trump said. “I’ll say it loud and clear. I’m not happy about it.”

But Trump’s ability to jawbone the markets may be diminishing at a critical time, three months before the midterm elections when control of Congress is hanging in the balance and his approval is sinking to new lows amid voter anger over cost of living concerns. It comes as global crude oil supplies are running low, the war threatens more energy flows, refiners are running out of spare capacity and the administration has few tools to keep gas prices low.

“Labor Day is the point where gas prices are baked into the election,” said Republican pollster Frank Luntz. “That last summer trip determines how voters evaluate their cost of living.”

And the higher gas prices come at a time when Trump repeatedly promises to escalate the war and then says it’s almost over a few hours or days later. That is starting to degrade his ability to cause price drops, a former adviser cautioned.

“His credibility has been a little bit shot,” said a former Trump adviser close to the White House, granted anonymity to avoid reprisal.

“The markets aren’t paying attention to him, they’re paying attention to what’s happening and, with respect to oil prices, it is a huge liability for the Republicans,” the adviser said.

Trump on Monday acknowledged that dynamic but expressed no urgency. He told reporters in the Oval Office that he was in no rush to end the conflict, though he acknowledged the need to fully reopen the Strait of Hormuz, through which about 20 percent of global energy supplies flowed before the war. He hinted at the midterm stakes for his party if the conflict does not end soon.

“I’m under no time constraint,” he said. “I don’t happen to be running, but a lot of very good Republicans are running.”

Trump’s ability to move the markets may be the only tool the administration has left to keep gas prices in check, said Rory Johnston, an oil market researcher and founder of the Commodity Context newsletter.

The Trump administration has drawn down the U.S. Petroleum Reserve to its lowest level since President Ronald Reagan’s first term. Oil majors are warning that the lack of refinery capacity could keep prices high for the foreseeable future.

“The market is so entrenched on this idea that eventually this will resolve by Trump deciding and ceding some ground on some issue, likely kind of even symbolic control of the Strait of Hormuz,” he said. “So the market’s going to be constantly watching for any sign that he’s shifting there.”

While experts continue to marvel at Trump’s ability to get the markets to bend to his whims, there is little consensus on when that power will dissipate.

Trump has “less credibility” in terms of moving markets, but it has not totally dissipated, Patrick de Haan, head of petroleum analysis at pricing service GasBuddy.

“I don’t think credibility completely goes to zero,” he said. “Hard to know though when it really bends.”

Trump’s push to keep energy prices low has also been buoyed by reduced Chinese oil imports, the successful rerouting of about 7 million barrels per day of Saudi Arabian crude through the Red Sea and releases from strategic petroleum reserves.

The administration released nearly 3 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve last week, bringing the reserves down to their lowest level since February 1983, according to Department of Energy data. About half of the 218.5 million barrels the Department of Energy said it would make available to the market have now left the salt caverns along the Gulf Coast.

As the summer driving season winds down, consumers expect gas prices to fall as well.

If the national average price of a gallon of gas is still above $4 by Saturday, de Haan noted, it will set a new record for the latest in the calendar year that prices are so high.

Ben Lefebvre contributed to this report.

President Donald Trump turned up the heat on Exxon Mobil and Chevron over high gasoline prices on Monday, blasting his longtime industry allies for “making too much money” while Americans struggle with higher prices at the pump.

Oil majors have reported bumper quarterly earnings, buoyed by higher crude prices caused by the supply disruptions in the Middle East and the soaring profit margins for refineries. That has put targets on the backs of companies as the Trump administration faces mounting pressure to show it is working to bring down high gas prices ahead of the midterm elections.

“Based on a shortage, they’re making too much money,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office Monday. “I don’t like it, and I should be the last one to say because I’m a big free enterprise guy — nobody bigger.”

Trump specifically called out the two biggest U.S. oil producers by name after both reported strong earnings on Friday.

“Chevron, too much money. Exxon Mobil, too much, too much money,” Trump said. “They ought to give some of that back to the public, and they better cut the retail price, the consumer price.”

The average U.S. retail gasoline price has hovered near $4.10 a gallon for the past week, up from less than $3 before the United States and Israel launched their attacks against Iran in February.

In late June, Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate big oil companies for not bringing gasoline prices down fast enough as crude oil prices weakened. Pump prices are generally set by the retailers, often sole proprietors, who own gas stations, rather than major oil producers.

Chevron declined to comment on Trump’s remarks, and Exxon did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two companies’ chief executives warned in earnings calls Friday that a shortage of refining capacity could keep gasoline prices high through the fall.

Andrea Woods, a spokesperson for the American Petroleum Institute, which represents major oil producers, said in a statement that higher prices are “driven by global supply, demand and continued uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz and other critical shipping lanes—not by any one company.”

“Our industry shares the goal of delivering affordable, reliable energy for consumers,” she said.

Trump also criticized Chevron CEO Mike Wirth in a social media post Monday morning for failing to credit the administration’s policies for the company’s record quarter.

“The only thing he conveniently forgot to mention is that, without the genius, foresight, strength, and stability, of the TRUMP Administration, the Oil Industry, and our Country itself, would be DEAD!” Trump wrote, adding that all oil companies must “get your consumer (retail!) Oil Prices DOWN, NOW!”

For Europe’s maritime sector—and beyond—the European Commission’s proposal to revise the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) goes in the right direction and reflects much of what Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) has consistently called for: a framework in which carbon pricing supports, rather than holds back, the maritime transition, strengthens Europe’s industrial competitiveness and preserves connectivity, including for outermost regions. The starting point is an encouraging one.

The proposal matters because it is about far more than carbon pricing. Not that the sector shies away from that: cruise lines already comply with the ETS, in addition to port dues, passenger charges, tonnage-based taxes and value-added tax (VAT). Unlike traditional taxation, the ETS is designed to drive decarbonization. Its revision matters because, by reinvesting a greater share of maritime ETS revenues in infrastructure—ports, shore-side electricity, alternative fuels, bunkering and other facilities—Europe can help the maritime industry maintain its global leadership while accelerating the energy transition. That leadership is not a matter of prestige. It is a matter of European prosperity, jobs, skills, competitiveness and industrial capacity across the continent.

The cruise industry alone generates an annual economic impact of €64.1 billion in Europe and supports 445,000 jobs. It is also one of Europe’s industrial success stories, combining world-leading shipbuilding, advanced engineering and maritime innovation with high-value tourism. Behind those figures lies a shipbuilding story that few industries can match: 98 percent of the global cruise orderbook is built in European shipyards, from Fincantieri in Italy to Chantiers de l’Atlantique in France and the Meyer yards in Germany and Finland. There is €62.2 billion committed to ships on order through 2037. This investment sustains a vast ecosystem of engineering firms, technology providers and thousands of suppliers, keeping in Europe the skills and industrial capacity that other regions of the world are actively trying to attract.

By reinvesting a greater share of maritime ETS revenues in infrastructure—ports, shore-side electricity, alternative fuels, bunkering and other facilities—Europe can help the maritime industry maintain its global leadership while accelerating the energy transition.

That is why it is important to be clear about cruise’s role in Europe. Cruise is a key part of the maritime industry: we build ships, move people between ports and across seas, and help drive innovation and investment through one of the most advanced supply chains in Europe. Cruise should therefore be understood first and foremost as part of Europe’s maritime industrial ecosystem, combining maritime transport, advanced manufacturing and tourism in a way few sectors do. It is governed by an extensive regulatory framework alongside the rest of international shipping while supporting one of Europe’s most innovative maritime value chains.

Cruise represents just a small fraction of the global fleet—less than one percent of commercial vessels—but it is consistently at the forefront of maritime’s transformation in ways that benefit the broader maritime sector. Decarbonization is our north star, and our experience shows that it advances fastest when it travels hand in hand with innovation. Done well, decarbonization is not only an environmental objective but also a driver of industrial modernization and European competitiveness. This is why cruise matters to Europe’s maritime future: the industry is helping to turn decarbonization ambition into industrial progress—investing more than €44 billion since 2022 in new ships designed to meet or exceed Europe’s environmental regulations to improve performance and advance the maritime transition.

The cruise industry alone generates an annual economic impact of €64.1 billion in Europe and supports 445,000 jobs. It is also one of Europe’s industrial success stories, combining world-leading shipbuilding, advanced engineering and maritime innovation with high-value tourism.

More than half of the capacity on order today is capable of using liquefied natural gas (LNG), which can reduce CO2 emissions by up to 20 percent compared with conventional fuels. And while LNG is not the end-game solution, it does serve as an important bridge to lower-emissions fuels like renewable and synthetic methane as these types of fuels become available at scale. Today, 57 percent of cruise ships on order are designed with multi-fuel capability, meaning their engines will be able to run on low and zero greenhouse gas fuels, when available at scale. In addition, more than 60 percent of the global cruise fleet can already connect to shore-side electricity where ports are equipped, allowing ships to switch engines off at berth and reduce emissions by up to 98 percent. By 2028, close to 75 percent of capacity will be shore-power-ready.

The environmental transition is broader than carbon reduction alone. Across the global fleet, 225 ships—80 percent of the fleet and 84 percent of passenger capacity—are outfitted with advanced wastewater treatment systems, with more than a third capable of meeting stricter Baltic Sea Special Area discharge standards. More than 94 percent of the reporting fleet produces freshwater onboard, and approximately 60 percent can meet their full onboard consumption needs. Together, the cruise sector’s advancements in environmental technologies and practices help reduce emissions, support responsible operations and lessen pressure on local infrastructure in the destinations cruise ships visit.

Europe leads the world in cruise shipbuilding, maritime innovation and the deployment of technologies that can help decarbonize shipping.

None of this happens in isolation from the places we serve. Cruise itineraries are planned up to three years in advance, which makes cruise one of the most predictable forms of tourism and allows ports, destinations and operators to manage visitor flows together. The economic footprint is tangible and local: when a ship provisions in port, a single day’s order of fresh produce alone can be worth some €150,000 to local suppliers, before counting fuel, services, excursions and the wider activity a call generates. And because cruise ships connect islands, outermost regions and remote coastal communities—often where alternative transport links are limited—cruise can extend the tourism season and spread benefits well beyond the traditional hotspots.

The road ahead, through the European Parliament, Council and trilogues, will be long, and we will walk it constructively together with our members and institutions at every stage. But the compass is set. Europe leads the world in cruise shipbuilding, maritime innovation and the deployment of technologies that can help decarbonize shipping. By preserving that leadership and reinvesting the sector’s ETS contribution into maritime infrastructure, fuels and facilities, the ETS will not merely price emissions—it will help build the ports, fuels and ships of the future, preserving the competitiveness and global leadership of Europe’s maritime industry for decades to come.

---

Disclaimer

POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENT

• The sponsor is Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA)
• The political advertisement is linked to advocacy on The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS).

More information here.

PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron’s office is courting Saudi cash to turn what was once the country’s biggest theme park into a manga-themed attraction.

According to half a dozen diplomatic, government and industry officials — all of whom were granted anonymity to speak candidly about a project one person characterized as “highly confidential” — the Elysée Palace has for several months held discussions with potential Saudi Arabian investors about the revival of Mirapolis, which closed in 1991 due to financial issues and has remained abandoned since.

A subsidiary of the Saudi Public Investment Fund called the Qiddiya Investment Company is at the center of the negotiations. The Saudi sovereign wealth fund recently opened an office in Paris.

According to one diplomat with contacts in the Gulf, the project would involve Saudi investors acquiring the former Mirapolis site, located some 30 kilometers northwest of Paris, with an eye to turning it into a theme park based on the popular manga series Dragon Ball.

Manga’s explosion in popularity has been felt keenly in France, where comic books and graphic novels are particularly popular.

The expected investment amount is not yet known, but several parties involved in the discussions suggest the deal could exceed €1 billion.

Saudi spinoff

The enterprise is part of Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 plan, which aims to diversify the kingdom’s oil-dependent economy with massive investments in tourism and leisure.

The Qiddiya Investment Company is overseeing the construction of the city of Qiddiya — a huge entertainment complex situated some 50 kilometers from Riyadh. The site is set to feature a Formula 1 circuit, a large tennis complex designed to host international tournaments, an amusement park operated by the American chain Six Flags and another theme park based on Dragon Ball.

According to three people familiar with the negotiations, the current plan is to build a smaller-scale Dragon Ball park where Mirapolis once stood.

The Elysée did not respond to questions about the project’s details, and Qiddiya Investment Company did not respond to a request for comment.

Qiddiya Managing Director Abdullah Aldawood met with Macron at the last two Choose France summits, which are events organized to attract foreign investment in the country. At the event, the summit’s press kit referred to, in cryptic terms, the signing of a memorandum of understanding aimed at “exploring a major tourism and entertainment project in France.”

A few weeks before Choose France this year, Aldawood met with Valérie Pécresse, president of the Île-de-France region, where the abandoned Mirapolis site is located. Aldawood also met with teams from Business France and Choose Paris Region — the region’s economic development agency — said a person who attended the meeting.

In a sign that the project is progressing well, late last month officials representing Île-de-France, which includes Paris, met with representatives from 10 key ministries, electricity grid operator RTE and public transport operator Île-de-France Mobilités to discuss the park’s possible revival.

The agenda for this meeting, which POLITICO saw, included discussions about the governance of the future project, transportation infrastructure, energy requirements and land acquisition issues. The gathering was chaired by Macron’s former Chief of Staff Georges-François Leclerc, who is now the prefect of the Île-de-France region.

“We had no information before receiving the invitation to the meeting, but we understand that the Elysée wants to step up the pressure on this issue,” said a ministerial adviser who took part in the discussions.

A fallen icon of the 1980s

Opened in 1987 by then-Prime Minister Jacques Chirac and with funding from Saudi billionaire Ghaith Pharaon, Mirapolis was intended to be France’s attempt at subverting U.S. dominance in the theme park industry.

But financial difficulties quickly mounted. Visitor numbers came in below expectations, and competition from EuroDisney further undermined the park’s business model a few years later. Mirapolis closed its doors for good four years later.

Discussions about Mirapolis’ manga successor have remained very limited. No one at the town hall in Courdimanche, the commune where Mirapolis is located, responded to requests for comment.

Rachid Temal, the Socialist Party senator who represents Mirapolis’ constituency, said he was not involved in the discussions and preferred not to comment at this stage.

Aurélien Taché, a member of Parliament from the far-left France Unbowed party who represents the area, said he was not kept in the loop either, and that he will be paying particular attention to “the environmental and social aspects of the project.”

Hungary faces “the most critical five days” ahead as a record drought in Central Europe has forced Budapest to shut down a nuclear power plant that generates 40 percent of the country’s electricity, Prime Minister Péter Magyar said Sunday.

“As our electricity system will face an enormous strain, I ask everyone to pay even closer attention to each other from Monday,” Magyar said in a video appeal.

The warning comes after Magyar announced over the weekend that the last operating reactor units at the Paks Nuclear Power Plant south of Budapest would be taken offline because of the continued drop in water levels in the Danube River, which the plant uses for cooling.

“Due to the further drop in the Danube’s water level,” Magyar wrote Saturday, “tomorrow it will be completely shut down for the first time in 44 years.”

The Soviet-built Paks facility remains the backbone of the country’s power system. The loss of output has triggered national energy-saving measures and offers of support from regional neighbors.

A prolonged outage would cripple Hungary’s electricity supply at a time when temperatures are forecast to rise above 40 degrees Celsius in Budapest next week amid an ongoing heatwave and drought across Europe.

Magyar warned the shutdown could trigger an emergency at a time of high summer demand: “An energy crisis situation may arise from Monday. Coordinated steps and self-restraint will be needed to avoid more severe consequences.”

The government has urged households and businesses to reduce electricity consumption during peak hours between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m., calling on people to limit their use of air conditioning and washing machines. Authorities have also prepared an emergency plan to temporarily restrict consumption at industrial facilities on a rotating basis, while increasing output from other power plants.

The European Commission said Friday it was closely monitoring the situation and was prepared to convene an emergency meeting of its Electricity Coordination Group over the Paks shutdown.

There was a backup plan for getting oil out of the Middle East. We may need another one.

 On July 20, the Iran-backed Yemeni rebel movement known as the Houthis declared a “blockade” against their long-time enemy Saudi Arabia, and a short time later attacked two Saudi oil tankers in the Red Sea. Shortly afterward, several ships carrying Saudi crude oil through the Red Sea made abrupt U-turns to avoid going near the Yemeni coast.  

With Iran now blocking shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, the Red Sea was supposed to be an alternative way to get oil out of the Middle East and to the world market. Now, though, the importance of the route has merely created fresh leverage in the long-simmering conflict between the Houthis and their longtime enemies in Saudi Arabia. These attacks were a major factor in pushing oil back over $100 a barrel last week.  

The Houthis have their own agenda partly unrelated to the Iran conflict. But in launching the Iran conflict, the US has inadvertently given them outsized influence in the region: The sea lane they control is more important than ever. Now, in opening up a new front, they may have just made the war harder to end. 

The Red Sea has become increasingly important to Saudi Arabia and energy markets as shippers have avoided Hormuz in recent months. Saudi Arabia has diverted around 70 percent of its oil exports via a pipeline connecting the oil fields on the Persian Gulf to the port of Yanbu on its Red Sea coast. This means that tankers need to use the Red Sea to get oil to Asia. As a result, the Red Sea now accounts for around 7 percent of the world’s energy supplies. 

This release valve is one reason why the price of oil — and the price of gas for American drivers — has not risen as much as many experts expected when the Hormuz crisis began shortly after the US-Israel strikes on Iran. 

But now, that release valve is also under threat, putting the region and the world in what shipping experts call a “double chokehold.”

The Houthis have used their location to cause chaos before: In 2023 and 2024, they attacked over 100 ships they accused of links to Israel, and dramatically drove down shipping through the Red Sea. Those attacks stopped after the Israel-Hamas ceasefire last year, but shipping has still not fully recovered. 

President Donald Trump has threatened both the Houthis and Iran with “major military punishment” over the attacks in recent days. And the attacks also make it likelier that the conflict in Iran could make oil pricier than ever, increasing political pressure on Trump. 

What do the Houthis want? 

The Houthis are a member of Iran’s network of regional proxies, known as the “Axis of Resistance,” along with Hezbollah, Hamas, and a number of Iraqi militias. But most experts believe that while they rely on Iranian support, they operate independently and don’t take their marching orders from Tehran. 

Officially known as Ansar Allah, the Houthis are members of the minority Zaydi sect of Shia Islam. They’ve been fighting for control of Yemen since the 1990s and took over Yemen’s capital city, Sanaa, in 2014, though most countries do not recognize them as Yemen’s legitimate government. 

The Houthis fought a brutal decade-long war against Yemen’s internationally recognized government and an international coalition led by Saudi Arabia, which ended with a UN-mediated ceasefire in 2022. 

The Saudi-Houthi peace has largely held since then, even as the Houthis gained global notoriety during the Gaza war. When this year’s war began, many expected the Houthis to join the fight against Iran’s enemies, the United States and Israel, but for the first few weeks of the conflict, they were conspicuously quiet. Their impact was felt in a different way, though. 

Iran’s success in using cheap drones and missiles to effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz almost certainly drew on lessons gained from the Houthi campaign in the Red Sea in 2023 and 2024.

In March, the Houthis made their first move toward actively joining the Iran war when they launched a round of missiles at Israel. But things really escalated in mid-July when they began launching attacks on Saudi Arabia in response to an attack on the Sanaa airport, which they blamed on the Saudis. (The initial attack was claimed by Yemen’s internationally-backed government.)

In addition to the Red Sea attacks, the Houthis also claimed an attack on a Saudi oil refinery last Saturday, the group’s first attack on Saudi energy infrastructure since 2022, followed by attacks on oil depots along the Red Sea coast on Sunday. Several Iran-backed militias in Iraq also carried out their own attacks on Saudi Arabia over the past few days. 

The Houthis have now entered the conflict, but it would be a mistake to view them just as Iranian proxies. They have their own demands and agenda in this fight. 

“When the whole Iran war started, they were kind of observing and waiting for the right moment,” said Mohammed al-Basha, a US-based security analyst and Yemen expert. Basha suspects that the Houthis saw the leverage and concessions Iran had gained throughout the region and wanted to exert some leverage of their own. “Their aggressiveness went from zero to 60 last week,” he said. “They’re all in.”

All in for what, exactly? The Houthis’ demands from the Saudis include billions in reparations payments and full control of their coastline and airspace. In the long term, they aim to be Yemen’s internationally recognized government. 

The Saudis, then, who fought a brutal and unpopular war against the Houthis that ended in a stalemate, are faced with the unappealing choice between placating the group by agreeing to its demands or a return to war. 

What about the US? The US carried out more than 1,000 airstrikes over 52 days against the Houthis in 2025. While this campaign, known as Operation Rough Rider, caused significant damage to the group’s infrastructure, it did not succeed in fully restoring shipping in the Red Sea. 

Trump has threatened retaliation, but given concerns over munitions stockpiles, the US capacity to retaliate, much less expand this war to a new front, is probably limited.

How many chokeholds is too many?

For the moment, the Bab el-Mandeb is not completely closed — shipping is down around 22 percent since the blockade was declared, but 28 ships were able to transit the strait on Monday. The Houthis maintain that their blockade targets only Saudi Arabia, but Chinese supertankers have been allowed to leave the Red Sea carrying Saudi oil.  

But shippers recall that during the Houthis’ last Red Sea campaign in 2024, they were theoretically only targeting ships linked to Israel, but had a pretty broad definition of “linked to Israel.”  Under these circumstances, many shippers, and more importantly their insurers, might not want to take the risk. 

“We’ve seen what the Houthis can do,” said Noam Raydan, an expert on energy and maritime shipping at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “We know that they can sink ships. We know that they can hit a ship with drones, missiles, and then even board the ship. We know that they can hijack a vessel. This is why a lot of operators, in my opinion, would really be hesitant right now to go through the Bab al-Mandab.” 

There’s also still the risk that this new front in the war could escalate. Iran’s government has asked the Houthis to shut the Bab el-Mandeb entirely if the US launches airstrikes against Iran’s power network, which Trump has repeatedly threatened to do.

This adds a new complicating factor to the larger conflict in the Middle East. The fact that the price of oil never rose as high as many experts had predicted during Operation Epic Fury, the initial strikes in the spring and early summer, is probably one reason why Trump has often seemed willing to continue the conflict, rather than cutting a quick deal on Iran’s terms. But Saudi Arabia’s access to the Red Sea is one important reason why oil has not reached $120 or even $200 a barrel. A full closure of the Bab el-Mandeb would test even the ever-adaptable global oil industry’s ability to adapt.

It’s possible the Saudis may still be able to cut a deal with the Houthis that ends the attacks. But it’s also clear that for the foreseeable future, two of the Middle East’s most important energy chokepoints are going to be under continual threat of closure by adversaries of the United States. 

For now, oil can still leave the Red Sea via the Suez Canal at its northern end, then head toward Asia around the southern tip of Africa. (Since the largest tankers aren’t able to transit the Suez while fully loaded, this is a complicated process that involves them pumping their oil into a pipeline, then meeting it at the other end in the Mediterranean.) 

“It just gets harder and harder,” said Robin Mills, CEO of the Dubai-based energy analysis firm Qamar Energy. “Can they get all of the oil from Yanbu out through the Suez? I think they probably can but it’s a little bit tight. If [the Houthi campaign] were to expand, it becomes more of a problem.” 

The Suez Canal itself is also a potential target for disruption or sabotage, retired US Adm. James Stavridis recently warned. 

The disruptions at sea will increase interest in workaround projects such as a proposed pipeline from Iraq to Turkey, bypassing sea routes entirely, but these are still a long way off. The Houthis and their allies in Iraq also demonstrated this week that they can attack oil infrastructure and pipelines in addition to ships. 

The oil and shipping industries are nothing if not adaptable. Previous disruptions, whether the tanker that ran aground in Suez in 2021, the container ship pileups caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, or the Houthis’ previous Red Sea campaign, have been temporary. Goods eventually find their way to market, even if that means another month sailing around Africa.

But as the number of armed conflicts grow, and actors like the Houthis and Iran learn how to effectively weaponize the global economy’s chokepoints to punish much larger and more powerful adversaries, the stresses on the system are growing, and the question becomes whether there’s a breaking point.   

The Trump administration may have just signed an agreement so controversial that President Donald Trump himself is opposed to it. 

On Wednesday, the US and Saudi Arabia signed a 30-year, multibillion-dollar nuclear energy cooperation agreement. The terms of the deal signed by Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and his Saudi counterpart have not been released, but some of the details discussed by officials in reporting by the Wall Street Journal and New York Times earlier this week raised eyebrows, mainly the fact that in addition to helping the Saudis construct nuclear reactors, the US could potentially help the Saudis construct facilities to enrich their own uranium.

The timing is particularly awkward with the US currently at war with Saudi Arabia’s rival Iran, in large part due to concerns about that country’s nuclear enrichment program. 

It is also happening in the context of an emerging new nuclear world, where last century’s arms control agreements are falling by the wayside, regimes like Russia are increasingly employing nuclear threats, and longtime US allies are increasingly nuclear-curious due to both growing military threats and skepticism about the value of American security guarantees. It could raise the risk that other countries will seek the capability to raise the bomb, even if they don’t immediately build one. 

“It’s unprecedented in the history of US nuclear policy,” said Matthew Kroenig, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of the book, Exporting the Bomb. “Never before have we helped another country build a uranium enrichment facility. All the way back to Eisenhower, the deal has been: If you want nuclear energy, terrific. We’re happy to help you, but you can’t make the fuel because once you make the fuel, it’s too dangerous.”

Whether the deal will even happen is getting less clear. The agreement was already going to face significant opposition in Congress, where it must be sent for review, but Trump added to the confusion on Thursday morning with a Truth Social post that contradicted much of what had been reported the day before. Trump wrote that there would be “no enrichment of material” under the deal and that the agreement is “totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords,” referring to the series of diplomatic normalization agreements between Israel and a number of Muslim countries signed during Trump’s first term. This was not reported in any of the media accounts earlier in the week, which were based on statements from US officials. 

The Saudi government has not yet responded to Trump’s latest statement, but sources close to the talks have indicated that no such pledge was included in the negotiations. 

Saudi Arabia has long insisted that it will not normalize relations with Israel until the creation of a Palestinian state, and if they had caved on that position prior to the agreement, it seems unlikely that no one would have mentioned it before today. At a press briefing on Thursday, White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt affirmed that the deal would be “off” unless Saudi Arabia joined the Abraham Accords. Asked for clarification on the discrepancy between Wednesday’s reporting and Trump’s announcement on Thursday, the White House press office referred Vox to Leavitt’s statement. 

At the moment, there’s more confusion than clarity around the deal, and what it means for the future of both the Middle East and global efforts to control nuclear weapons. 

What’s standing between Saudi Arabia and a nuke?

This idea behind the Saudi deal isn’t new: Both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration pursued a civilian nuclear deal with the kingdom. It’s been a controversial notion for just as long, given Saudi Arabia’s often aggressive foreign policy, human rights record — including the high-profile murder of US citizens — and the fact that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has said in the past that his country would seek to build its own nuclear bomb if Iran ever acquired one. 

Saudi Arabia insists that its interest in nuclear energy is purely peaceful — part of a larger goal to diversify its economy away from oil and gas and to generate power for a nascent artificial intelligence industry. Proponents in the US argue that a deal would deepen ties between the US and an important security partner. It would also, they argue, head off the risk of Saudi Arabia cooperating instead with China or Russia to build a nuclear program and be a potential windfall for the US nuclear power industry. 

The US has previously entered into 29 nuclear cooperation agreements — commonly known as “123 deals” for Section 123, the legislation that governs them — involving 49 countries. The deals require countries to submit to a number of safeguards to prevent them from weaponizing these nuclear programs, including requiring US consent for any enrichment of uranium for the US-built nuclear plants. 

In more recent US deals, most countries have agreed to give the International Atomic Energy Agency even more stringent inspection authorities. Some have gone further: Under the deal signed with the United Arab Emirates in 2009 and Taiwan in 2013, the countries agreed to forswear any enrichment of uranium on their soil, including for projects in which the United States is not involved. This has been called the “gold standard” for nuclear sharing deals, and it’s what the US pushed for in previous nuclear sharing negotiations with Saudi Arabia. 

The Saudis have long balked at some of the stricter provisions in some more recent US deals, such as additional IAEA inspections and a pledge to enrich no uranium at all. The kingdom has argued these are intrusive infringements on its sovereignty, particularly given that Iran was allowed to continue enriching under previous agreements with the US. But, Kroenig said, there’s little plausible reason to oppose these restrictions if Saudi Arabia is only interested in civilian energy.

“They probably haven’t decided to build nuclear weapons yet, but it seems like they want the option,” Kroenig said.

Saudi Arabia is not going to build a bomb overnight. It’s not even going to start enriching uranium for some time. Under the deal — at least the version that was reported earlier this week by the Wall Street Journal — US companies would immediately begin work on building nuclear power plants when the deal goes into force, while US and Saudi officials would conduct a two-year study to determine “value of enrichment for Saudi Arabia.” (This, notably, would likely be concluded during Trump’s term.)

In this respect, the deal may in fact be tougher than the never-concluded Biden agreement, which reportedly would have allowed enrichment to begin immediately. 

If the study concludes Saudi Arabia needs to enrich, the enrichment facility would be constructed in a secretive “black box” to prevent the Saudis from acquiring sensitive technology. If the US objects to Saudi enrichment after the study, the Saudis couldn’t enrich for another 10 years. After that, it’s not clear what happens. 

The safeguards do not mollify many nonproliferation experts. 

“Skeptical is a mild way of putting it,” said James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment. “Even if you black-box the technology, Saudi Arabia could still nationalize the facility. This is a country that has overtly declared an interest in proliferation. Once it’s on Saudi soil, you have very limited options to stop it from misusing that technology if it decides to do so.”

The most difficult and expensive part of building a nuclear device is uranium enrichment, and the US will have helped Saudi Arabia a long way down that path. That doesn’t mean the kingdom is necessarily planning to build a bomb, but if it decides on that course of action down the road, it will have a significant head start.

“Saudi Arabia’s nuclear program does not pose a near-term proliferation risk,” said Kelsey Davenport, director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association. Rather than trying to quickly build a bomb, she suggested that “the more likely scenario is that Saudi Arabia will continue to acquire the capabilities that would be necessary to weaponize and move to the threshold of nuclear weapons, which would enable a rapid move to build the deterrent if the decision were made.”

This, she added, would both complicate ongoing nuclear talks with Iran and “set a terrible precedent” for future nuclear agreements. 

What happens now? 

“Look, there are some benefits to the deal,”  said Robert Einhorn, a former State Department special adviser for nonproliferation and arms control. “It will give a boost to the US nuclear industry. It will help cement US-Saudi strategic relations. It will deny Russia and China a foothold in an important element of the Saudi economy. But the Trump administration will have to work hard to convince the Congress and the American public that the shortcomings of the deal are not disqualifying.”

That process starts this week. The agreement will now be submitted to Congress for a 90-day review period. This isn’t a formal treaty that requires approval. Congress has to pass a joint resolution opposing it.

The deal is likely to draw opposition on both sides of the aisle. In 2019, then-Republican Sen. Marco Rubio (FL), now secretary of state, sponsored legislation that would require any 123 agreement with Saudi Arabia to be affirmatively approved by Congress.  (“I miss Sen. Rubio,” Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), a co-sponsor of the House version of the bill, said during a hearing on Wednesday.)

In addition to security concerns, the potential conflicts of interest around the bill may also draw scrutiny. Tom Barrack, a close Trump confidante who is now US ambassador to Turkey and an adviser on Middle East policy, was investigated by federal authorities and was the subject of a House probe during Trump’s first term for lobbying for nuclear deals with Saudi Arabia and the UAE while he had significant real estate investments in those countries and ties to the government.  

ProPublica also reported in 2019 that Barrack had sought a major financial stake in Westinghouse, the nuclear reactor builder. The Wall Street Journal wrote that Westinghouse Electric is likely to be one of the main beneficiaries of the deal to build nuclear reactors in the Kingdom.

It still seems unlikely that opponents of the deal in Congress will be able to cobble together a veto-proof majority to block it. The better question is whether Trump is effectively blocking it. If he is really going to insist on Saudi Arabia joining the Abraham Accords, that could be a nonstarter for Mohammed bin Salman. 

A new nuclear world takes shape

Events in recent years have led Saudi leaders to doubt the extent to which the US would really come to their aid in a worst-case scenario. There have been mixed reports about whether Saudi Arabia backed or opposed Trump’s decision to launch this year’s war on Iran — the Saudi government denies supporting it — but either way, if this war ends with Iran’s regime still in place, in possession of its uranium stockpile, and in control of the world’s most critical energy chokepoint, the doubts in Riyadh about America’s reliability will only increase, along with their nuclear ambitions. 

In the coming weeks, the White House will make the case that this deal is safer and more comprehensive than the ones the US would not agree to in the Biden administration and Trump’s first term. But that argument will be harder to make against the notion that Saudi Arabia’s incentive to build a bomb has only grown since then. 

Discover why you have no energy and learn the science-backed COM-B framework for energy management. Practical strategies for high-achievers to reclaim vitality.

Introduction

It’s 3 PM on a Tuesday. You’ve crushed three back-to-back meetings, cleared 47 emails from your inbox, and somehow still have half your to-do list glaring at you from your second monitor. But here’s the problem: you’re running on fumes. Your third coffee has stopped working. Your brain feels like it’s wading through molasses. And the thought of “powering through” the rest of your day makes you want to crawl under your desk.

Sound familiar?

If you’re a high-achiever, chronic energy depletion isn’t just an occasional annoyance. It’s your daily reality. You’ve built a successful career, you’re hitting your goals, you’re doing all the things you’re supposed to do. Yet you still wake up exhausted, drag yourself through the day, and collapse into bed wondering why you can’t seem to get your energy back.

Here’s what most people won’t tell you: this isn’t temporary tiredness. This is persistent fatigue that fundamentally affects your performance, your relationships, and your quality of life. And the generic advice—sleep more, eat better, exercise—doesn’t address the root causes for people operating at your level.

The truth? Your energy crisis isn’t a personal failure. It’s a predictable result of how modern high-performance work depletes specific energy resources. As someone running a company with two young sons at home, I’ve learned this the hard way. The difference between barely surviving and actually thriving isn’t willpower or caffeine. It’s understanding the science behind energy depletion and strategically rebuilding your reserves.

In this article, you’ll discover why your fatigue is different from normal tiredness, the psychophysiological mechanisms behind energy depletion in high-performers, and a comprehensive framework to diagnose and fix your energy crisis. Most importantly, you’ll get practical strategies that actually work within your packed schedule—because I know you don’t have time for advice that requires a complete life overhaul.

Let’s figure out why you have no energy, and more importantly, how to get it back.

Understanding Your Energy Crisis: It’s Not Just About Being Tired

The Three Types of Fatigue High-Achievers Experience

When you say “I have no energy,” what you’re actually experiencing is likely a combination of three distinct types of fatigue. Understanding which type you’re dealing with is the first step to fixing it.

Physical fatigue is what most people picture when they think of exhaustion. It’s body-level depletion from lack of movement, poor sleep quality, or physical overexertion. Your muscles feel heavy, your body aches, and you struggle to complete basic physical tasks. For desk-bound professionals, physical fatigue often comes from paradoxical sources: too much sitting, not enough movement, or disrupted sleep patterns rather than actual physical exertion.

Cognitive fatigue is the mental fog that sets in after sustained focus, decision-making, and information processing. It’s that moment when you’ve been analyzing spreadsheets for three hours and suddenly can’t remember what you’re looking at. Your brain feels slow, concentration becomes impossible, and even simple tasks require Herculean effort. Research by Enoka and Duchateau distinguishes between performance fatigability (actual measurable decline in function) and perceived fatigability (how tired you feel). With cognitive fatigue, you might still be able to perform, but it feels exponentially harder ^[1].

Emotional fatigue is the psychological drain from managing stress, navigating difficult relationships, and performing emotional labor. It’s the exhaustion that comes from maintaining your professional persona all day, managing team conflicts, or dealing with high-stakes client relationships. You might have energy for tasks but zero bandwidth for people. Or you dread social interactions that used to energize you.

Here’s what makes high-achievers different: you often experience all three simultaneously. You’re physically depleted from poor sleep and chronic stress. You’re cognitively overloaded from constant decision-making and context-switching. And you’re emotionally drained from managing teams, clients, and your own high standards.

Ask yourself these diagnostic questions:

Physical fatigue check: Do you wake up feeling unrested? Does your body feel heavy or achy? Do you struggle with basic physical tasks?

Cognitive fatigue check: Does focusing feel impossible? Do you reread the same paragraph five times? Do simple decisions feel overwhelming?

Emotional fatigue check: Do you dread interactions with people you normally enjoy? Do you feel cynical or detached? Does everything feel harder than it should?

The problem isn’t picking which type you have. It’s recognizing that your energy system is under siege from multiple directions at once. A senior executive I know exercises regularly, eats well, and still feels completely exhausted. Why? Because she’s addressed physical fatigue while ignoring the cognitive and emotional drain of running a 200-person company. Her body is fine. Her brain and emotional reserves are tapped out.

This is why generic “just exercise more” or “get better sleep” advice falls flat for high-performers. You need a framework that addresses all three types of fatigue simultaneously.

The Hidden Energy Drains in High-Performance Work

The obvious energy drains are easy to spot: poor sleep, skipped meals, back-to-back meetings. But the real culprits behind chronic exhaustion in high-achievers are invisible, insidious, and constantly running in the background.

Decision fatigue is the silent killer of your energy. Every single choice you make—from what to wear, what to eat for lunch, which email to answer first, whether to take that call—depletes a finite pool of cognitive resources. Research shows that the average adult makes about 35,000 decisions per day. For executives and entrepreneurs, that number is likely higher ^[2].

Each decision costs metabolic energy. Your brain uses about 20% of your body’s energy despite being only 2% of your body weight. When you’re making hundreds of micro-decisions before 10 AM, you’re burning through cognitive fuel at an alarming rate. By afternoon, you’re not just tired—you’re running on vapors.

This is why Mark Zuckerberg wears the same outfit every day. It’s not quirky minimalism; it’s strategic energy conservation.

Context switching is murdering your productivity and energy. Every time you shift from email to a report to Slack to a meeting, your brain pays a metabolic switching cost. You’re not just changing tasks; you’re loading entirely new mental models, retrieving different information from memory, and recalibrating your attention.

A study from the University of California found that it takes an average of 23 minutes and 15 seconds to fully regain focus after an interruption ^[3]. If you’re switching contexts every 10-15 minutes (which is typical for most professionals), you never actually achieve deep focus. You’re operating in a constant state of partial attention, which is cognitively exhausting.

Invisible load is draining you dry. This is the energy you spend on things no one sees or acknowledges. Emotional labor—managing difficult personalities, staying composed under pressure, maintaining your professional image. Cognitive load from holding multiple projects in your working memory simultaneously. Social coordination—the mental effort of managing relationships, expectations, and communication across teams.

For many leaders, invisible load represents 30-40% of their daily energy expenditure. You’re not just doing the visible work; you’re managing the emotional, social, and cognitive infrastructure that makes the work possible. And none of it appears on your calendar or task list.

Information overload is drowning your cognitive capacity. The average professional receives 121 emails per day and checks their phone 96 times. Each notification, ping, and alert fragments your attention and triggers a small stress response. Your brain treats each input as potentially important, activating threat-detection systems and evaluating whether you need to respond.

This creates chronic cognitive arousal—your brain stays in a low-level alert state, unable to fully relax or focus. It’s like having 47 browser tabs open simultaneously. Each one uses a tiny bit of processing power. Collectively, they crash the system.

Conservation of Resources Theory, developed by psychologist Stevan Hobfoll, explains this perfectly: energy is a finite resource that requires active, strategic management. When you’re constantly depleting without restoring, you spiral into resource loss. The more depleted you become, the less capable you are of protecting your remaining resources, creating a downward cascade ^[4].

Your daily decision budget exercise:

Track your decisions for one day. Count every choice, from snooze button to bedtime Netflix. You’ll likely hit 200+ before lunch. Now ask yourself: which 10% of these decisions actually matter? Those are worth your cognitive energy. The rest? Automate, delegate, or eliminate them.

Identify your top three hidden energy drains right now. Be specific. “Email” isn’t specific enough. “Checking email 37 times per day and feeling obligated to respond to non-urgent requests within 10 minutes” is specific. You can’t fix what you can’t see.

The Energy Management Framework for High-Achievers

The COM-B Model: Capability, Opportunity, Motivation

Here’s why most energy advice fails: it tells you what to do without addressing why you’re not already doing it. “Just exercise more” ignores the fact that you barely have time to eat lunch. “Meditate for 20 minutes daily” overlooks that your brain won’t shut up long enough to sit still. “Get 8 hours of sleep” dismisses the reality that your mind races the moment your head hits the pillow.

Sustainable behavior change—including energy management—requires three elements working together. This is the COM-B model from behavioral science, developed by Susan Michie and colleagues at University College London ^[5].

Capability: Do you have the physical and psychological ability to manage your energy? This includes your sleep quality, nutrition, fitness level, cognitive skills, and knowledge about energy management.

Opportunity: Does your environment support energy-sustaining behaviors? This covers your schedule structure, workspace design, social support, and the time architecture of your day.

Motivation: Do you have the drive and reasons to prioritize energy management? This includes both reflective motivation (conscious goals and plans) and automatic motivation (habits and emotional responses).

All three must align. If any one is missing, the system fails.

You can have perfect capability (you know exactly what to do) and strong motivation (you desperately want to change), but if your opportunity is broken (your calendar is packed with back-to-back meetings), nothing changes. Or you might have great opportunity (flexible schedule) and motivation (you’re committed), but without capability (you don’t actually know how to optimize your energy), you spin your wheels.

This is why “just try harder” doesn’t work. Willpower is motivation without capability or opportunity. It’s trying to force behavior change through sheer determination while ignoring the structural barriers making it impossible.

The beauty of the COM-B framework is that it shows you exactly where your energy management system is breaking down. You’re not failing because you’re weak or lazy. You’re failing because one or more of these three pillars is compromised.

Let’s build all three.

Capability: Building Your Energy Infrastructure

Building energy capability isn’t about generic wellness advice. It’s about strategic optimization of your physical and cognitive infrastructure.

Sleep Architecture (Not Just Duration)

Everyone tells you to sleep 8 hours. Almost no one tells you that sleep quality matters more than quantity, and that your ultradian rhythms affect everything about how you function during waking hours.

Your brain operates in roughly 90-120 minute cycles throughout the day and night. During sleep, these cycles move you through different stages—light sleep, deep sleep, and REM. Each stage serves distinct restoration functions. Deep sleep restores physical energy and consolidates memories. REM sleep processes emotions and enhances creativity ^[6].

Most high-achievers hack this wrong. They focus on total hours while ignoring sleep architecture. You can sleep 7 hours with optimal architecture and wake up more restored than 9 hours of fragmented, low-quality sleep.

Practical protocol: Track your sleep cycles, not just hours. Aim to wake up at the end of a complete cycle (multiples of 90 minutes from when you actually fall asleep, not when you get in bed). If you’re crashing at 11 PM and need to wake at 6 AM, that’s 7 hours—roughly 4.5 complete cycles. Better than 7.5 hours that cuts you off mid-cycle.

Strategic Nutrition Timing for Cognitive Performance

Chrononutrition—eating specific foods at specific times to optimize performance—is criminally underutilized by professionals. Your body’s insulin sensitivity, digestive efficiency, and nutrient utilization vary dramatically throughout the day.

For sustained energy: high-protein breakfast stabilizes blood sugar and reduces decision fatigue. Carbohydrate-heavy lunches trigger insulin spikes and afternoon crashes. Light, protein-focused lunches maintain afternoon cognitive performance. Strategic carbs in the evening support sleep quality by promoting serotonin and melatonin production ^[7].

Practical protocol: Front-load protein (30g at breakfast), moderate complex carbs midday, save simple carbs for evening. Time your largest meal for when you don’t need peak cognitive performance. If you have crucial afternoon work, eat your smallest meal at lunch.

Movement Patterns That Energize (Not Deplete)

Exercise advice for energy management is backwards. People treat movement as energy expenditure when it should be energy restoration.

High-intensity workouts deplete immediate energy but improve baseline capacity over time. Low-intensity movement (walking, stretching, light mobility) provides immediate energy restoration with minimal depletion. The problem? High-achievers skip the restorative movement and only do depletion-focused exercise (or no movement at all).

Your body needs both, but timing matters. Intense training when you’re already depleted compounds fatigue. Gentle movement when you’re depleted restores energy through improved circulation, stress hormone regulation, and nervous system reset.

Practical protocol: Schedule intense workouts during high-energy windows (typically morning for most people). Use 5-10 minute movement snacks every 90 minutes during work (walk, stretch, mobility drills). These aren’t workouts; they’re energy restoration.

Cognitive Capacity Building

Your brain has working memory limits. Most people can hold 4-7 pieces of information simultaneously. When you exceed this, cognitive performance crumbles and mental fatigue spikes.

Attention restoration theory, developed by environmental psychologists Rachel and Stephen Kaplan, shows that different activities either deplete or restore attention capacity. Directed attention (focused work, decision-making, problem-solving) depletes. Soft fascination (nature, art, music, casual conversation) restores ^[8].

Practical protocol:

Offload working memory externally. Use a second brain system (notes, task managers, reference systems) to free cognitive capacity.

Build attention restoration into your day. Five minutes looking at trees or listening to instrumental music after intense cognitive work restores 30-40% of depleted attention capacity.

Batch cognitive load. Group similar tasks to reduce switching costs. Process all emails in 2-3 defined windows rather than 47 micro-sessions throughout the day.

Energy Audit Action Item

Track one full day with brutal honesty: – Sleep: actual hours and quality (restless, deep, interrupted?) – Food: what you ate and when, how you felt 60-90 minutes later – Movement: when you moved, intensity, how it affected your energy – Cognitive load: peak focus periods, depletion moments, restoration attempts

You can’t optimize what you don’t measure. Your energy patterns are unique to you—generic advice will fail without personalized data.

Opportunity: Restructuring Your Environment

You can have perfect sleep hygiene, optimal nutrition, and excellent cognitive practices, but if your environment constantly sabotages you, none of it matters. Opportunity is about designing your context to make energy-sustaining behavior the path of least resistance.

Time Architecture: Building Energy-Optimized Schedules

Your calendar is either your energy management tool or your energy destruction device. Most professionals use calendars to cram in maximum productivity, creating schedules that guarantee depletion.

Energy-optimized scheduling works differently. It respects three principles:

Chronotype alignment: Your energy peaks and valleys follow predictable daily patterns based on your circadian rhythm. Morning people (larks) hit peak cognitive performance 2-4 hours after waking. Evening people (owls) peak 8-10 hours after waking. Forcing an owl to do deep analytical work at 8 AM is fighting biology. They’ll complete the task, but at 2-3x the energy cost ^[9].

Task-energy matching: Different tasks require different energy types. Creative work needs fresh cognitive energy. Administrative tasks tolerate lower energy. Relationship-heavy work requires emotional energy. Schedule high-value, cognitively demanding work during your peak windows. Save low-value, routine tasks for energy valleys.

Strategic batching: Group similar tasks to minimize context-switching costs. All meetings on specific days. Deep work in uninterrupted blocks. Email processing in defined windows. Every context switch costs 15-20 minutes of cognitive recalibration. Batching similar work can save 2-3 hours of effective time per day.

Practical implementation: Block your calendar for next week right now. Mark your peak energy windows (typically 2-4 hours) and protect them ruthlessly. Schedule only your highest-leverage work there. Batch all meetings into specific afternoons. Create “decision-free zones”—periods where you’ve pre-decided what you’ll work on, eliminating choice fatigue.

Environmental Design: Physical and Digital Workspace Optimization

Your workspace either supports sustained energy or drains it through a thousand small cuts.

Physical environment factors: Natural light exposure regulates circadian rhythm and improves alertness. Poor lighting increases cognitive fatigue by 15-20%. Temperature affects performance—most people perform best in 68-72°F. Too warm induces drowsiness. Too cold increases metabolic stress. Air quality matters more than most realize; CO2 levels above 1000ppm (common in poorly ventilated offices) impair decision-making and increase fatigue ^[10].

Quick wins: Work near windows when possible. Open windows for 10 minutes every 2 hours if you can’t control ventilation. Adjust lighting to match task—bright for alertness, dimmer for creative work. Keep workspace temperature slightly cool rather than warm.

Digital environment is equally important. Every notification triggers a cortisol micro-spike and fragments attention. Open browser tabs create background cognitive load. Visual clutter increases cognitive fatigue even if you’re not consciously processing it.

Practical protocol: Eliminate all non-essential notifications. Seriously, all of them. Close all browser tabs at end of work sessions. Use separate browsers or profiles for different contexts (work, research, personal) to reduce cognitive bleeding between domains. At day’s end, shut down completely—no half-closed laptops humming in the background.

Social Environment Energy Accounting

People either energize you or drain you, and that calculus changes based on context and your current reserves. An energizing conversation when you’re fresh becomes an exhausting obligation when you’re depleted.

Most professionals never account for social energy in their schedules. They book back-to-back meetings with difficult stakeholders, accept every coffee chat invitation, and wonder why they’re emotionally fried by 3 PM.

Social energy audit: List your regular interactions and honestly rate them: energizing (+1), neutral (0), or draining (-1). Notice patterns. Some people always drain you. Some energize you only in small doses. Some relationships are energizing but require you to be fresh first.

Strategic scheduling: Cluster draining interactions together when possible, followed by recovery time. Never schedule energy-draining meetings before high-stakes, high-value work. Protect time with energizing people when you’re depleted—they’re restoration resources.

With two young sons, I learned this the hard way. Coming home completely depleted and trying to be present for family time doesn’t work. I restructured my schedule to include a 20-minute buffer before the evening shift—a walk, music, anything that transitions me from work mode to dad mode. That small opportunity change transformed both my energy and my presence.

Environmental Energy Audit

Map your weekly energy flow: – Which days leave you energized vs. depleted? – Which time blocks consistently drain you? – Which physical spaces correlate with better/worse energy? – Which digital tools or platforms increase cognitive fatigue? – Which people or interactions reliably deplete you?

Look for patterns. Your energy crisis likely has structural causes hidden in your environment. You can’t willpower your way through a sabotaged context.

Motivation: Aligning Energy with What Matters

Here’s the paradox of high-achiever energy management: you have motivation to succeed but often lack motivation to protect the energy that makes success sustainable. You’ll work through exhaustion to hit a deadline but won’t take 15 minutes for a recovery walk.

The problem isn’t that you don’t care about energy. It’s that your motivation system is misaligned.

The Purpose-Energy Connection

Self-Determination Theory, one of the most validated frameworks in motivational psychology, shows that sustainable motivation comes from three elements: autonomy (control over your choices), competence (feeling effective), and relatedness (connection to meaningful outcomes) ^[11].

When your energy management aligns with these three, it becomes self-sustaining. When it doesn’t, it feels like another obligation draining your already-depleted reserves.

Autonomy: You need control over how you manage your energy. Cookie-cutter programs fail because they remove autonomy. “Do these 12 steps exactly as prescribed” triggers resistance. “Here are principles—design your system” creates ownership.

Competence: You need to see that your efforts work. This requires measurable feedback loops showing that your energy interventions actually improve your performance and life quality.

Relatedness: You need to connect energy management to outcomes you care about. “Have more energy” is vague. “Have energy to be fully present when my kids get home from school” or “Have cognitive capacity for the strategic work that actually grows my business” creates meaning.

Identifying Energy-Giving vs. Energy-Draining Activities

Not all work depletes energy equally. Some activities, even challenging ones, leave you energized. Others drain you disproportionately to their difficulty.

The difference often comes down to alignment with your strengths and values. When you’re working in your zone of genius on something that matters, the work itself generates energy. When you’re grinding through tasks that feel meaningless or misaligned, every minute costs double.

Energy-value matrix: Create four quadrants. High value + energizing (your zone of genius—maximize this). High value + draining (necessary evil—minimize or systematize). Low value + energizing (pleasant distraction—time-box it). Low value + draining (eliminate ruthlessly).

Most high-achievers spend 60-70% of their time in the “high value + draining” quadrant. They’re doing important work that exhausts them. The goal isn’t to eliminate draining work entirely (impossible), but to strategically increase the ratio of energizing high-value work.

Practical implementation: Track one week of activities and energy impact. Note what leaves you energized vs. depleted. Look for surprises. Sometimes tasks you thought were valuable are actually low-impact energy drains. Sometimes challenging work you’ve been avoiding is actually energizing.

Aligning High-Value Work with Peak Energy

You have roughly 3-4 hours of peak cognitive energy per day. Maybe 6-8 hours of decent energy. The rest is low-grade functioning where you can execute routine tasks but not create breakthrough thinking.

Most professionals waste their peak energy on low-value work because it’s easier or more urgent. They answer emails during their freshest hours, then attempt strategic planning when they’re cognitively fried.

Strategic alignment: Identify your single highest-leverage activity—the work that disproportionately drives results. For me, it’s product strategy and key content creation. For you, it might be sales conversations, creative problem-solving, or strategic partnerships.

Schedule this work during your absolute peak energy window. Protect it like your life depends on it (your career growth probably does). Everything else gets scheduled around this priority.

Progress Tracking and Feedback Loops

Motivation dies without visible progress. You need to measure energy ROI on your interventions.

Simple tracking protocol: – Daily energy score (1-10) at three time points: morning, midday, evening – Weekly qualitative notes: what worked, what didn’t, how you felt – Monthly review: patterns, improvements, adjustments needed

The goal isn’t perfect data. It’s sufficient feedback to show whether your changes are working. When you see that protecting your sleep improved your decision quality, or that batching meetings reduced your afternoon fatigue, the data creates motivation to continue.

Your Energy Dashboard Metrics

Choose 3-5 personal metrics that matter to you: – Subjective energy levels (how you feel) – Performance indicators (output, decision quality, creative ideas generated) – Health markers (sleep quality, HRV, resting heart rate) – Presence quality (how often you’re fully engaged vs. going through motions) – Recovery efficiency (how quickly you bounce back from depletion)

Track these monthly. The specific metrics matter less than having some feedback mechanism showing whether your energy management is improving your life.

When I started tracking presence with my sons instead of just “time spent,” it shifted everything. I realized I was physically present but mentally absent during peak depletion times. That data motivated me to restructure my evening energy architecture more than any generic “work-life balance” advice ever could.

Motivation isn’t about wanting it more. It’s about creating systems that align energy management with autonomy, competence, and what actually matters to you. Make it personal, make it measurable, and make it meaningful.

The Rapid Recovery Protocol: When You Need Energy NOW

Immediate Energy Boosters (0-15 minutes)

Sometimes you don’t have time for systemic energy management. You need a functional boost right now. These aren’t long-term solutions, but they’ll get you through the next few hours without destroying your energy reserves for tomorrow.

Physiological Sigh: The Fastest Stress Reset

This breathing technique, researched extensively by Stanford neuroscientist Andrew Huberman, activates your parasympathetic nervous system and reduces cortisol faster than almost any other intervention ^[12].

Protocol: Double inhale through your nose (one deep breath, then a sharp second inhale to fully expand lungs), followed by a long, slow exhale through your mouth. Repeat 1-3 times.

This takes 30 seconds and immediately shifts your nervous system from sympathetic (stress/alert) to parasympathetic (calm/restore). Use it before high-stakes meetings, when you notice energy crashing, or when stress is amplifying perceived fatigue.

Strategic Movement (Not Generic Exercise)

You don’t need a workout. You need targeted movement that reactivates your system without depleting it further.

For cognitive fatigue: 2-minute rapid walking or stair climbing increases blood flow to the brain and provides an immediate alertness boost.

For physical fatigue: Gentle stretching or mobility work (cat-cow, spinal twists, hip openers) releases tension and activates parasympathetic recovery.

For emotional fatigue: Expressive movement—shaking out your limbs, dancing for 60 seconds, or doing power poses—shifts emotional state through embodied cognition.

The key is matching movement type to fatigue type. When your brain is fried, don’t do yoga. Move fast. When your body is tense, don’t do cardio. Stretch and breathe.

Sensory Reset Practices

Your nervous system responds powerfully to sensory input. Strategic sensory interventions can override fatigue signals and reset attention.

Cold exposure: Splash cold water on your face or run cold water over your wrists for 30 seconds. This triggers a dive reflex that immediately increases alertness and activates your sympathetic nervous system. (Use this for acute energy crashes, not before sleep.)

Scent: Peppermint and citrus scents increase alertness and cognitive performance. Keep essential oils at your desk for a 10-second reset.

Music: Up-tempo instrumental music (120-140 BPM) increases dopamine and physical energy. Avoid lyrics if you need to focus; they compete for linguistic processing resources.

Cognitive Offloading for Immediate Relief

When your brain feels overloaded and exhausted, it’s often because you’re trying to hold too much in working memory. External offloading creates instant relief.

Brain dump protocol: Take 3 minutes to write down everything consuming mental bandwidth—tasks, worries, ideas, reminders, decisions. Don’t organize, just dump. The act of externalizing cognitive load frees up working memory and reduces perceived fatigue by 20-30%.

Close incomplete loops: That nagging feeling of exhaustion often comes from unfinished tasks cycling in the background. Spend 5 minutes either completing small tasks or explicitly scheduling when you’ll address them. Your brain can relax once it trusts the system.

These rapid recovery techniques won’t fix chronic depletion, but they’ll prevent acute crashes from derailing your day. Use them strategically, not constantly. If you need them every 90 minutes, that’s a signal your foundational energy management needs work.

Daily Energy Restoration Practices (15-60 minutes)

Beyond quick fixes, you need daily restoration practices that rebuild depleted reserves. These aren’t luxuries or self-care indulgences. They’re performance requirements for sustained high achievement.

Strategic Napping for Cognitive Recovery

Naps have a PR problem. They’re seen as weakness or laziness. In reality, strategic napping is one of the most efficient cognitive recovery tools available.

Research on professional performance shows that a 20-minute nap improves alertness, working memory, and decision quality for 2-3 hours ^[13]. NASA studies with pilots found that a 26-minute nap improved performance by 34% and alertness by 54%.

The key is timing and duration. Sleep cycles move through stages. If you nap for 10 minutes, you barely enter light sleep—minimal benefit. If you nap for 45 minutes, you enter deep sleep, and waking up mid-cycle creates sleep inertia (that groggy, disoriented feeling). The sweet spot: 20-30 minutes for light sleep refreshment, or 90 minutes for a full cycle with REM benefits.

Practical protocol: If you have afternoon cognitive fatigue (nearly universal for knowledge workers), schedule a 20-minute nap between 1-3 PM. Set an alarm for 25 minutes (5 minutes to fall asleep, 20 asleep). Don’t feel guilty. You’ll reclaim the time through improved performance.

Can’t nap at work? Non-sleep deep rest (NSDR) protocols—lying down with eyes closed, doing guided body scans or yoga nidra—provide 60-70% of napping benefits without actually sleeping.

Attention Restoration Through Soft Fascination

Remember the Attention Restoration Theory from earlier? Your directed attention (focused work) depletes throughout the day. Soft fascination activities restore it.

Soft fascination is engagement that captures attention without requiring concentration. Nature exposure is the gold standard. A 20-minute walk in a park or natural setting restores cognitive capacity as effectively as a nap. Even looking at nature photos for 5 minutes provides measurable restoration benefits ^[14].

Other soft fascination activities: watching aquariums, listening to ambient nature sounds, gentle instrumental music, observing art, casual conversation with friends (not work-related problem-solving).

The contrast with screen time is crucial. Scrolling social media or watching high-stimulation content doesn’t restore attention; it depletes a different pool through constant micro-decisions and dopamine hits.

Practical implementation: Build one 20-30 minute soft fascination block into your daily schedule. Ideally outdoors. If that’s impossible, even a window view of trees provides restoration benefits. This isn’t downtime; it’s recovery infrastructure.

Social Energy Management

For introverts, social interaction depletes energy. For extroverts, isolation depletes energy. Most people are ambiverts—social energy impact depends on context, quality, and current reserves.

Strategic social recovery means intentionally scheduling energizing interactions when you’re depleted, and protecting yourself from draining interactions when reserves are low.

Energy-giving social activities: Authentic connection with people you trust. Laughter. Shared experiences without performance pressure. Physical presence (not video calls). Conversations about topics you’re passionate about.

Energy-draining social activities: Performative interactions. Networking with strangers when you’re already depleted. Conflict resolution. Managing difficult personalities. Video meetings (require more cognitive effort than in-person due to lack of non-verbal cues).

Track which relationships and interaction types energize vs. drain you. Then intentionally design your social environment to maximize restoration and minimize unnecessary depletion.

End-of-Day Energy Transition Rituals

How you end your workday determines how you start your evening and next morning. Most people crash from work straight into home life without transition, carrying stress and depletion into their personal time.

Transition ritual components:

Physical transition: Change clothes, even if you work from home. Shower. Take a walk. Signal to your body that work is over.

Cognitive closure: Spend 5 minutes reviewing what you accomplished, noting incomplete tasks for tomorrow (so they stop cycling in your head), and celebrating small wins.

Environmental reset: Close your computer completely. Put your phone in a specific place (not your pocket). If possible, physically leave your workspace.

Sensory shift: Music, scent, lighting change—something that creates clear delineation between work and not-work.

I walk around the block between shutting down work and greeting my family. Ten minutes. That small ritual transforms my energy availability for the people who matter most. Without it, I’m physically home but mentally still in CEO mode—depleted, distracted, and unavailable.

These aren’t optional nice-to-haves. They’re required infrastructure for sustainable high performance. Build them into your day the same way you schedule meetings. Non-negotiable.

Building Your Personalized Energy Management System

The 4-Week Energy Rebuild Plan

You can’t rebuild your energy overnight, but you can create sustainable improvement in four weeks. This isn’t about perfection. It’s about progressive optimization with real data guiding your decisions.

Week 1: Assessment and Baseline

Before you change anything, you need to understand your current patterns. Most people skip this step and jump straight to interventions, which means they have no idea what’s actually working.

Energy tracking journal: Rate your energy three times daily (morning, midday, evening) on a 1-10 scale. Note what you were doing, what you ate, how you slept, and any significant factors (stress, exercise, social interactions). Do this for 7 days without changing your behavior.

Identify your energy type and patterns: Are you a lark (morning person) or owl (evening person)? When do you consistently crash? Which days are worst? What activities drain you most? What naturally energizes you?

Baseline measurements: Track sleep quality (hours and how rested you feel), cognitive performance (note when you’re sharp vs. foggy), emotional state (mood, stress levels), and one physical metric (could be HRV, resting heart rate, or simply how your body feels).

The goal isn’t comprehensive data science. It’s sufficient information to spot patterns and measure progress. At week’s end, you should be able to identify your top 3 energy drains and your most depleted time windows.

Week 2: Foundation Building

Now you make targeted changes to physical infrastructure based on week 1 data.

Sleep optimization: Based on when you naturally fall asleep and when you must wake up, calculate your optimal sleep window (in 90-minute cycle increments). Implement one sleep improvement: consistent bedtime, screen cutoff 1 hour before sleep, or temperature optimization (cool room, 65-68°F).

Nutrition timing experiments: Try the protein-front-loaded breakfast for 3 days. Track afternoon energy. Try the light lunch approach for 3 days. Track cognitive performance. Keep what works, discard what doesn’t.

Movement integration: Add one 10-minute movement break midday when energy typically crashes. Walk, stretch, or do light mobility. Track the impact on afternoon productivity.

Don’t try to optimize everything simultaneously. Pick one intervention per category and run the experiment. The goal is finding what actually moves your needle, not implementing generic best practices.

Week 3: System Design

With foundation work underway, now you redesign your environment and schedule.

Schedule restructuring: Based on your chronotype and energy patterns from week 1, map your week. Block your peak 2-3 hours for high-value cognitive work. Batch meetings into specific days or afternoon blocks. Create buffers between energy-intensive activities.

Environment modifications: Make one physical workspace change (lighting, temperature, ergonomics). Make one digital environment change (notification elimination, browser tab management, app organization).

Decision-making protocols: Identify your three biggest sources of decision fatigue from week 1. Create systems to eliminate or automate those decisions. This might mean meal planning Sunday, creating a work uniform, or pre-deciding when you’ll check email.

Track the same metrics as week 1 and 2. You should start seeing measurable improvements in energy levels and productivity by mid-week 3.

Week 4: Fine-Tuning and Sustainability

The final week is about refinement and building systems that survive contact with real life.

Strategy refinement: Review your four weeks of data. What interventions had the biggest impact? Which felt sustainable? Which created more stress than benefit? Double down on what works, eliminate what doesn’t.

Creating maintenance systems: Build your energy interventions into non-negotiable routines. Calendar block your peak work hours. Set reminders for movement breaks. Create evening shutdown rituals. Make the invisible visible in your schedule.

Building in flexibility: Perfect systems break. You need protocols for disruption. What’s your minimum viable energy management when travel disrupts sleep? When emergencies blow up your schedule? When you’re sick? Define your fallback protocols before you need them.

Measuring success: Compare week 4 metrics to week 1. You should see improvements in energy scores, sleep quality, cognitive performance, or mood. If you don’t, either your interventions aren’t working (try different strategies) or you need professional help (see previous section).

Your Four-Week Commitment

Four weeks isn’t long enough to transform everything, but it’s long enough to establish whether this approach works for you. Commit to the full protocol. Track honestly. Adjust strategically. By the end, you’ll have a personalized energy management system built on your actual data, not generic advice.

Download this as a worksheet so you can track progress week by week. Turn vague “I should take better care of myself” into specific, measurable, improvable interventions.

Advanced Strategies for Sustained High Performance

Once you’ve built your foundation, these advanced strategies will take your energy management from functional to exceptional.

Biofeedback and Self-Tracking Tools

Data-driven energy management removes guesswork. Modern wearables and tracking tools provide objective metrics that correlate with subjective energy experience.

Heart Rate Variability (HRV): Measures your autonomic nervous system balance. High HRV indicates good recovery and resilience. Low HRV signals stress, poor recovery, or impending illness. Track HRV trends to know when to push hard and when to recover. Devices like Oura Ring, Whoop, or even Apple Watch provide HRV data.

Sleep cycle tracking: Monitors sleep stages and quality. Helps you optimize bedtime, identify sleep disruptors, and validate whether your sleep interventions actually improve restoration.

Productivity metrics: Time tracking tools (RescueTime, Toggl) show when you’re actually productive vs. when you’re spinning wheels. Correlate this with energy data to validate that your peak energy windows align with peak output.

The goal isn’t obsessive tracking. It’s creating feedback loops that show whether your energy interventions translate to real performance improvements.

Conclusion

If you’re asking yourself “why do I have no energy,” you now know the answer isn’t simple. It’s not just that you need more sleep (though you might). It’s not just stress (though that’s part of it). It’s not weakness or failure on your part.

Your energy depletion is a predictable result of how modern high-performance work intersects with human biology. You’re experiencing some combination of physical fatigue (body-level exhaustion), cognitive fatigue (mental depletion from decisions and focus), and emotional fatigue (psychological drain from managing relationships and stress). Often all three simultaneously.

The gap between how tired you feel and how tired you actually are gets amplified by stress, creating unnecessary suffering and poor decisions. And hidden energy drains—decision fatigue, context switching, invisible load, information overload—constantly deplete your reserves in ways you don’t even see.

But here’s the good news: energy management is a solvable problem with a clear framework.

The COM-B model gives you structure. Build your Capability through sleep architecture optimization, strategic nutrition timing, and cognitive capacity development. Create Opportunity by restructuring your environment—time architecture that respects your chronotype, workspace design that supports sustained energy, and social arrangements that restore rather than drain you. Align your Motivation by connecting energy management to what actually matters to you and tracking progress that proves it works.

You have tools for immediate relief when you need energy now—physiological sigh breathing, strategic movement, sensory resets, cognitive offloading. You have daily restoration practices that rebuild reserves—napping, attention restoration through soft fascination, social energy management, and transition rituals. And you know when your fatigue signals medical or psychological issues that need professional help.

The four-week energy rebuild plan gives you a concrete starting point. Week 1: assess your patterns. Week 2: build physical foundation. Week 3: design your system. Week 4: refine and create sustainability. Advanced strategies take you from functional to exceptional. And when you hit roadblocks—time constraints, interventions that don’t work, guilt about resting, unpredictable schedules—you have protocols to navigate them.

Your Action Steps Right Now:

1. Start with an energy audit. Track your patterns for one week to understand what’s actually depleting you.

2. Choose ONE area to optimize first. Don’t try to fix everything. Pick the intervention with the highest return: protect your sleep, eliminate major decision fatigue sources, or restructure your peak energy windows.

3. Track and adjust based on real data, not generic advice. Your energy patterns are unique to you.

4. Remember: energy management is performance strategy, not weakness. Rest isn’t opposed to achievement; it’s required for sustainable success.

You’re not broken. Your body and brain are responding exactly as they should to the demands you’re placing on them. The fatigue is the signal. This framework is the solution.

The goal isn’t superhuman stamina or working 80-hour weeks indefinitely. It’s strategic energy investment that allows you to show up fully for the work and people that matter—not just this week, but for decades.

Your energy crisis brought you here. The framework in this article gives you a way forward. The only question left is: what will you do with the energy you’re about to reclaim?

 

The post Why Do I Have No Energy? The Science-Backed Energy Management Framework for Overwhelmed High-Achievers appeared first on LifeHack.