WAR! FAA SHUTS Airspace After Mexican Cartel DRONE INCURSION Into US
The FAA shut El Paso airspace for seven hours in January 2025 after a Mexican cartel drone incursion, later deemed neutralized but still unexplained, despite 60,000+ flights detected near the U.S.-Mexico border in late 2024 and thousands of pounds of drugs seized via drones since 2019. A 10-day restriction followed without FAA coordination, raising questions about transparency or false flags—though unlikely given no escalation. Trump’s detention of Nicolás Maduro in October 2024 and strikes on drug boats contrast with past civilian strikes, yet Mexico’s President Claudia Scheinbaum rejects U.S. military involvement. Global tensions, including Jamie Dimon’s WWIII claims and rising drone threats, underscore a fragile security landscape demanding public vigilance. [Automatically generated summary]
Earlier this morning, we got word that airspace in El Paso is being shut down around the airport due to a national security threat.
Shortly after this, the restrictions were lifted, and we were informed that this was due to a Mexican cartel drone incursion.
That is, the cartels in Mexico have been using drones as transport for drugs as well as weapons, and this threatened the safety and security of commercial flights in and around El Paso.
The bigger question here is what will the U.S. do in response to this?
And should we tolerate this?
The New York Times has already reported that the DOD has been warning about Mexican cartels and their drone incursions for some time.
You see, in response to Donald Trump's crackdown on the border, they've adapted and they've begun to utilize drones, which for anyone paying attention to the war in Ukraine can be massively devastating.
If we as the United States do not get a handle on this, it could spell disaster.
Guys, in all seriousness, a single drone carrying a small payload can blow up a plane as it's preparing to take off.
It can kill hundreds, if not thousands of people.
About a decade ago, actually about 13 years ago, I was consulting a university group as well as the government on drone technologies as I and my friends had been hacking commercial grade drones.
This is very early on to broadcast, to live stream, to explore this technology.
And I was asked by a group of individuals with the government, what should we be concerned about as we prepare to regulate and address the incoming drone wave?
And I said, a single individual can take one of these drones and load a bomb onto it, and they can commit acts of terror that you cannot stop.
You will see it coming, and there's nothing you can do.
Because even if you take the drone out in midair, that bomb is here.
Now, the truth is, you could do the same for a car, or an individual could do these things as well.
What's scary about the drones is that they can be autonomously driven.
That is, with a vehicle, with a personal act of terror, the individual must engage in this themselves, though we do have more and more remote or self-driving technologies.
We saw that Cybertruck blow up in Vegas with drones.
This was entering a space where you could set it, predetermine its course of action, and deliver it with zero risk, increasing the likelihood that we see attacks like this.
Now, this, we may be okay on because the U.S. stopped it.
Faa And Pentagon Disagreements00:17:20
But what happens if the cartels decide to actually strike against U.S. targets?
Should we wait to find out?
And if the answer is no, what can we do?
My friends, let's jump into the story where it's not just about this.
Donald Trump has signaled a ground incursion into Mexico to go after these cartels.
Many people are shocked and worried about what that could mean.
And then, of course, for the 847th time, someone said World War III is here.
And in the context of it, I have to throw in there.
And people are all saying civil war is here.
So I'm about ready to just flip the table, go to the bar, order some wings, and say, I'm done listening because the world apparently is ending.
Anyway, let's get into the news, actually, and talk about what's currently going on with this cartel drone strike.
Before we do, my friends, head over to castbrew.com.
Pick up Alex Stein.
I'm sorry, Dr. Alex Stein's big booty Latina love potion.
Alex Stein is not a doctor.
It is just about to be released in time for Valentine's Day, and it is guaranteed to spice things up in the bedroom.
It is not guaranteed to spice things up in the bedroom.
So it's a gag product, but it's our Alex Stein product.
It's a great coffee.
It's a medium roast.
It is our Valentine's Day blend.
Check it out at castbrew.com.
I hope you get a laugh out of it.
On the back, there's a beautiful Latina AI-generated woman holding a bag of tacos.
This one's for you, Alex, castbrew.com.
And don't forget to join our Discord community at TimCast.com.
Click join us, $10 a month, and you're supporting the work that we do and you are actively involved in the space.
There are pre-shows, morning shows, after shows, pre-shows for IRL, late-night shows.
The community there is deeply engaged and they want to be friends with you.
We also do the 6.30 TimCast IRL member hangouts.
So you got to get involved.
And let's kick this off with today's debate.
Guys, in the comments below, let me know what you think.
Should the U.S. send ground troops in to put a stop to these cartels?
It's a big question.
That's why I throw it to you as the debate, because we've got people who say we should absolutely not, but we've got people who are saying we absolutely should.
The obvious reasons are that invading could cause blowback and it could cause serious problems with our relationship with Mexico, but they're not dealing with the problem.
So many others say if they're not going to stop these cartels and they're threatening us, then we have to do something about it.
It's a tough question, isn't it?
You guys, tell me what you think below.
Subscribe to this channel and share the video right now with every person you know.
If everyone who shared this video, I'm sorry, if everyone who watched this video shared it, this would be the biggest news program in the world.
You get a couple hundred thousand views on this.
Imagine what a couple hundred thousand shares could do.
So if you support the work, please consider it.
Here's a story from the Wall Street Journal.
FAA briefly closed El Paso airspace after Mexican cartel drone breach.
Administration says all flights will resume hours after issuing the halt for special security reasons.
Now we have, I believe we have an update here for from El Paso Matters.
FAA lifts unprecedented El Paso airspace restrictions after seven hours, 14 flights canceled.
This is crazy.
The FAA dropped unprecedented airspace restrictions after seven hours.
And the social media post, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, said the FAA and what the Trump admin calls the Department of War, I love what the Trump Department calls, acted to address cartel drone incursions.
The threat has been neutralized and there is no danger to commercial travel in the region.
U.S. Rep Veronica Escobar challenged Duffy's claim at a news conference Wednesday morning, quote, I believe the FAA owes the community and the country an explanation as to why this happened so suddenly and abruptly and was lifted so suddenly and abruptly.
And based on the information I have right now, which is the same information that the House Armed Services Committee has been provided, the ranking member in Congress, that is not what we in Congress have been told.
She declined to go into detail on what information she had received of the airspace restrictions.
Late Tuesday, the FAA issued what are known as notice to air missions or NOTAM, alerting pilots that the airspace, I believe it's notice to airmen, not air missions.
I could be wrong.
Because I don't know that commercial flights are missions.
At the airspace over most of El Paso and over a large swath of New Mexico land west of Santa Teresa would be closed for 10 days.
The restrictions took effect at 11.30 p.m., and the notices warned pilots that the U.S. government may use deadly force against the airporne aircraft if it is determined that the aircraft poses an imminent security threat.
The FAA announced shortly before 7 a.m. Wednesday on social media that the El Paso airspace restrictions had been lifted.
El Paso leaders sharply criticized the FAA's actions.
Quote, this was a major and unnecessary disruption, one that has not occurred since 9-11.
El Paso is not just a dot on a map.
We are a major, major city.
We are the sixth largest city in the state of Texas, and we are the 22nd largest city in the United States.
Without hospital, military operations and emergency services and critical infrastructures that depend on coordinated and reliable aerospace operations, decisions made without notice or coordination puts lives at risk and creates unnecessary dangers and confusion.
Full stop, my friends.
I think this is much more serious than we are being told.
The U.S. government rarely ever just shuts down airspace on a 10-day notice.
Not since 9-11.
This has been seen.
Here's my first thought.
There are concerns, the DOD, the DOW, whatever you want to call it, and the FAA that we faced a very serious threat, weaponization of drones from cartels, and that unfortunately sparked a panic.
I'm not going to say that everyone's running around with their hair on fire, but someone clearly said, shut it down, 10-day restriction now.
And that says to me that what the cartels were doing was not just drug transport, but perhaps something more serious.
The question I have for you guys, throw it back into the debate.
Do you agree?
Do you think this was incompetence, an accident?
Or if this really was something more serious and they're not telling us, I would argue that they're trying to avert a panic.
Because if it is true, the cartel launched some kind of attack, what would that mean?
My friends, in war, there is something we call a cassus belly, a cause for war.
And it refers to a justification for invasion or a strike on a target.
If the U.S. were going to send troops into Mexico, we would require what is referred to as a Cassus Belli.
Now, of course, it's going to be an opinion.
The U.S. government will say, hey, look, they did this drug thing.
We are justified.
The question is, how will the world see it?
And could it negatively impact our standing?
We need this for trade deals and general trust, right?
The issue, however, is sometimes you don't want a Cassus belly.
If it is true that the cartels launched a strike on the U.S. in some capacity, the American people would demand action.
And it may be that Trump literally does not want to invade Mexico.
He's talked about hitting land targets, but the issue would be like this.
You're in the military.
You get word, sir, cartels have launched weaponized drones and actually damaged U.S. infrastructure.
Okay, if this goes out to the press, the American people will demand action.
Action that we are not prepared to take.
So what does the U.S. do in these circumstances?
Cover it up.
There's the inverse.
That would be the false flag.
That's where the U.S. stages the incursion to justify the incursion, to give themselves the Cassus Belli.
And make the argument that based on what we're seeing, there's a decent probability that someone just screwed up, incompetence and inexperience.
Fine.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
But I got to say, part of me leaned towards you don't issue a 10-day shutdown unless something very serious happened.
And perhaps they're just not telling us.
Now, they did tell us there were drone incursions and they were neutralized, but not much more.
And they've lifted the lockdown.
Perhaps it was all just a simple mistake.
We have this story from CBS News.
Airspace closure followed spat over drone-related tests and party balloon shootdown sources say, I'm going to tell you this, my friends.
This report came out and our sources here at Timcast in the Department of War have told us this is not correct.
So they have disputed these claims pushed by CBS News.
For posterity, I'll tell you those claims and then reiterate, the Department of War has told us these are not correct.
CBS News reports the unexpected but brief airspace closure on the Texas border city of El Paso stemmed from disagreements between the FAA and Pentagon officials over drone-related tests.
Multiple sources close to the matter told CBS News.
The Pentagon had undertaken extensive planning on the use of military technology near Fort Bliss, a military base that abuts the El Paso International Airport, to practice taking down drones.
Two sources identified the technology as a high-energy laser.
Meetings were scheduled over safety impacts, but Pentagon officials wanted to test the technology sooner, saying that U.S. Code 130I requirements governing the protection of certain facilities from unmanned aircraft had been met.
FAA Administrator Brian Bedford on Tuesday night decided to close the airspace without alerting the White House, Pentagon, or Homeland Security officials, sources said.
Bedford told officials the airspace restrictions would be in place to ensure safety until issues with the War Department could be resolved.
The FAA declined to comment.
So I will stress this again.
Our sources at the Department of War have stated to us definitively, this is not true.
Believe what you want to believe, take it with a grain of salt.
That's all I can really tell you.
I don't believe we have any updates beyond that.
Nothing yet, but just confirmation from the Department of War, not correct.
So I'm not entirely sure, but we'll see.
These were the no TAM notices that went out.
This was the first one, which of course absolutely does include the United States government may use deadly force against the airborne aircraft if it is determined the aircraft poses an imminent security threat.
I'm going to have to tell you, my friends, I do not believe it, that this was simply a dispute between the FAA and the DOW on drone tests.
Shutting down airspace over an entire city over their airport is not something done lightly.
And I really doubt there was just bickering between two departments, considering the FAA under the DOT, under Duffy, and the Department of Order under Hedgenseth, these guys are buddies.
I just don't believe that reporting, but hey, who am I?
New York Times, U.S. officials have warned about cartel drones at the border.
So I'm going to tell you this.
They want to put out this, oh, it was some bickering over drone tests.
I don't believe it.
We already know, and we have reporting from the New York Times, this is not, okay, some disputed right-wing Trump says this, the media says this.
Even the New York Times is pointing out that we have been warned about drones from the cartels in the past.
The New York Times reporting, Trump admin officials have warned for months about Mexican cartels using drones near the U.S.-Mexico border, saying they are used to surveil border agents and smuggle drugs.
Mexican officials have publicly been more suspect, downplaying the threat drones pose at the border.
What is clear is that drones have become a prominent tool and weapon used by Mexican cartels across Mexico in recent years, according to cartel operatives, security analysts, and some government officials on both sides of the border.
Stephen Willoughby, director of counter-drone program at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, testified to Congress in July that U.S. officials detected more than 60,000 drone flights within 500 meters of the U.S.-Mexico border in the second half of 2024, or 326 flights per day, many at night and above the 400-foot maximum altitude allowed for drones.
For those that are not familiar, after you get above 400 feet, you're entering FAA airspace, regulated, controlled, largely commercial.
He added, U.S. officials have seized thousands of pounds of drugs transported across the border on drones since 2019, including over 1,200 pounds in the second half of 2024.
In October of 23, he said U.S. officials intercepted a drone carrying 3.6 pounds of fentanyl pills traveling from Mexico into the U.S.
He suggested officials had arrested more than 1,500 people in relation to such drone activity on the border.
We got this report recently in January, this from PBS.
Mexico sends 37 drug cartel members to the U.S. in the latest offer to the Trump administration.
That is, we know full well the cartels are a problem.
Negotiations between Mexico and the U.S. have been ongoing, with Mexico cooperating in taking down these drug cartels.
But is it enough?
If we are still seeing these drone incursions, the answer is I'm going to have to say no, because the fear is this could result in U.S. operations to finally put a stop to what these cartels are doing.
And I'll tell you what really worries me, my friends, is that we have cartel activity here in the United States, notably near the D.C. area.
We shouldn't tolerate this.
The American people should not have to worry about extranational organizations.
I don't want to call them just gangs.
They're more than that.
Killing, undermining our laws, entering illegally, facilitating smuggling and trafficking.
This needs to be stopped.
Euro News reporting, Trump says U.S. to quote, start hitting land in Mexico targeting drug cartels.
This report, of course, just from one month ago.
U.S. President Trump announced Thursday that American forces would begin ground operations in Mexico targeting cartels following months of naval strikes in the eastern Pacific and Caribbean.
Caribbean, Caribbean.
We are going to start now hitting land with regard to the cartels.
The cartels are running Mexico.
Trump provided no additional information on the timing of the planned land attacks.
Any military strikes on Mexico territory without Mexico City's consent would violate international law and mark an unprecedented attack on a U.S. ally and major trading partner.
The statement follows Saturday's Delta forces-led capture of Venezuela's Nicolas Maduro, excuse me, at a Caracas compound, where he was sheltering the culmination of an extended U.S. military and economic campaign against his government.
Maduro now faces drug trafficking charges in New York.
Ground strikes on cartels in Mexico would represent a substantial expansion of U.S. military involvement in the region.
Mexico's two most powerful criminal organizations, the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, control vast territories and have been locked in violent competition that killed more than 30,000 people last year.
Trump designated six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations in February of 2025, a move Mexico condemned as threatening its sovereignty and potentially justifying military intervention.
Mexican President Claudia Scheinbaum has proposed constitutional reforms to strengthen protections against unauthorized foreign operations and has consistently rejected any U.S. military presence on Mexican soil.
Scheinbaum said Monday that Americans do not belong to any single nation.
Really?
Responding to Trump's assertion of Washington's dominance over the hemisphere after Maduro's capture.
Trump said Sunday that Sunday he had pressed Scheinbaum to allow deployment of U.S. troops against Mexican cartels, an offer he said she had previously rejected.
We have another update on the U.S. operations against drug trafficking cartels in the Pacific.
NBC News reporting, U.S. strike on alleged drug boat kills two and leaves a survivor.
The bulk of U.S. strikes near Venezuela and Colombia took place from September to December, but the U.S. has stepped up attacks again in recent weeks.
Now, one thing I think you should consider is the possibility of a false flag.
If Donald Trump does want to invade Mexico, then again, we do need a Cassus Belly.
And while I will simply say it's much more likely that the cartels are launching these incursions against us, you need to understand that governments have historically, even the U.S. government, launched attacks against itself to justify this.
So what if?
And again, a simple what if.
The U.S. launches drone strikes against itself on the southern border, triggers a closure of airspace, says, look what happened, and then asks the public for permission.
Will you support our ground operations in Mexico?
Possible False Flag Operations00:09:25
Considering what we've seen so far, I do not believe this is the case.
I do believe one should consider the possibility.
But I believe if this actually was an attempt to generate a cause for war, the U.S. would simply say, the cartels attacked us, shutting down our airspace, and we will not tolerate this.
It doesn't mean they would immediately move to strike ground targets in Mexico, but they wouldn't be downplaying it.
They wouldn't be pushing back.
They wouldn't be lifting the airspace restrictions.
They would absolutely be saying the inconvenience that you are all experienced is due to the cartels.
They still may.
That's why I think it's important to consider this.
In the meantime, the U.S. is still engaged in these strikes in the Caribbean, but we have this strike in the Pacific.
Check this out.
The U.S. said Monday that it hit a vessel allegedly transporting drugs in the Eastern Pacific, killing two people and leaving one survivor in the second such strike in the past four days.
Citing intelligence, U.S. Southern Command said on Monday on X, the vessel was transisting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Eastern Pacific and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations.
Two narco-terrorists were killed and one survived the strike.
It said, adding, the Coast Guard was activated for search and rescue operations.
Now, what I find interesting is how many people in this country oppose strikes against these vessels.
You've got people coming out on the left largely saying these are farm, these are fishermen, civilians.
Now, I'm going to tell you this, my friends.
I'm not going to just give them the benefit of the doubt and say, sure, I blindly trust them.
But in the meantime, we don't really have much to go on.
I believe if the U.S. is going to be striking boats in the Pacific and in the Gulf, in the Caribbean, then they need to give a full accounting and report to the American people.
That being said, I give them so much more, so much more credit on this one than I would give any previous administration on our strikes in the Middle East.
We know the Obama administration was targeting civilians, but he would just say, or I should say the administration would come out and go, but they're military-aged males.
Okay, I'm not here to play those games.
Killing civilians is wrong.
It's a war crime.
It's criminal.
However, in the meantime, we have much more, I would say I'd give them much more runway in that targeting suspected traffickers of drugs and people, bringing these drugs into our country, or just transporting them into the country of our allies, warrants a strike so much more than anything we did in the Middle East.
Again, I'll tell you this.
They should give a full accounting.
They should testify.
They should say, here's the proof.
And I'll also add to the libs who are freaking out, guys, if bad things happen and mistakes are made, people should be held to account.
But this is also acts of war against us and our allies.
So the penalty is going to be substantially less than, say, a strike on a civilian in Iraq or Afghanistan.
That's the reality.
I don't believe in this unhinged, unmeasured response that we get from people where it's just, Trump did it, Trump's bad.
Obama did it.
I don't care.
I'm not playing those games.
I'm going to give them much more credit on these because we know and we've seen images, these appear to be drug boats.
Sometimes they may not be.
That's bad.
And someone's got to be held to account.
But don't come to me ignoring everything that Obama did in the Middle East.
And even right now, and even with Ukraine, an act like this is somehow unprecedented, my friends.
Axios reporting similarly that Trump was hinting to get more military invasions, not just Mexico, pointing out, of course, Mexico is one of them, but Colombia.
I believe there's Cuba as well.
And Mexico, of course, we already know.
And not Greenland.
That was exaggerated.
The interesting thing about what we're seeing with Venezuela, Cuba's out of fuel.
The reports are that Cuba is in chaos because seizing Maduro and shutting down their operations, seizing their oil operations, let me just, let me correct that.
Seizing back our oil operations has cut off Venezuela from one of their principal sources of fuel.
I'm sorry, cut off Cuba from one of their principal sources of fuel, and they are reeling.
Take a look at this.
After Trump said that we could potentially go into Mexico, the Mexican president, of course, Scheinbaum said, I don't believe in an invasion.
Well, my friends, how could they possibly respond?
Brookings argues, and again, very anti-Trump.
They say, if the Trump administration undertakes military action, whether by coercing a nominal agreement from Mexico, how would they react?
They go on to say, regardless, yielding U.S. military presence would entail immense political costs for the Scheinbaum administration.
Nationalist sentiments would flare as Mexicans decry U.S. actions against their government.
Public opinion is overwhelmingly against any U.S. military action, with some 80% of polled respondents rejecting the idea.
Conceding to the U.S. military actions on Mexico soil would also complicate Schinbaung's relations with the Mexican military, an insular, opaque, and powerful institution that has long disliked any kind of meaningful civilian oversight.
Well, my friends, Jamie Dimon chimes in, saying, World War III has already begun.
They say, fear-mongering or legitimate concern, how to keep your money safe.
Jamie Dimon, you know him, you hate him.
That's right.
CEO JP Morgan told a crowd in October of 2024, World War III has already begun.
You already have battles on the ground being coordinated in multiple countries.
He's correct.
It's true.
At the time, Diamond named the potential conflict between the Western countries and China, Russia, Iran, North Korea as far more concerning than any potential instability in global financial markets.
T.P. Morgan Chase has run scenarios that will shock you.
Of course, World War III hasn't truly begun, but since Diamond made his remarks, global geopolitical tensions have only risen since.
They say last year, Trump administration levy sweeping tariffs against China and Russia, allies such as Canada and the EU.
They say the prime minister of the UK, Kier Starmer, said in a statement, any decision about the future status of Greenland belongs to the people.
Trump's not invading Greenland.
Calm down.
But the reason why Trump, Trump want Trump, the reason why Trump wants access to Greenland is for national security purposes, so that Russia and China won't have control of the Northwest Passage.
My friends, it seriously does look like we are gearing up for some major warfare.
The Week reported, how close are we to World War III?
And I believe this is actually from just last week, this story.
I'm not entirely sure.
They say Peter Apps, the author of The Next World War, wrote, quote, from Whitehall to Washington, from Estonia to Taiwan, military powers large and small are escalating their preparations for a global confrontation.
Indeed, my friends, don't forget the Second American Civil War is already here, too.
We've got this one from Who, What, Why?
We've got this story from Magnolia Tribune, Waltz's Civil War rhetoric irresponsible.
That's why Tim Waltz asked, is this Fort Sumter?
And then, of course, from Newsweek, Republican declares the Second Civil War has already started.
You know, at this point, with everything going on, I'm ready to just flip the table over.
I'm going to go get some Buffalo Wild Wings.
love their garlic parmesan and just say, fine, whatever.
Bring it on.
In fact, you know what?
I actually do think I want some Buffalo Wild Wings.
I could use a nice order of chicken wings with some garlic parmesan sauce.
I guess my point is when they keep saying it in the media every day, when these incessant ad nauseum podcasts from these like wannabe skateboarding urban liberals who won't shut up about civil war keep happening.
I mean, come on, Tim.
How many podcasts have you made about civil war?
I'm kidding, by the way, but you get it.
At a certain point, it's just fine, right?
Drone incursions, World War III, Civil War, unemployment, silver is at $80.
It went to $120, then to $60, then the $80, Bitcoin falling.
Man, I think everyone's just ready for the whole thing to just crumble.
But I'll tell you in all seriousness what I see.
As the tower grows, so does the resonant frequency affect it.
That is, every day we are laying bricks and we are building a tower that is our civilization.
Entrenched economic factors, entrenched social disorders.
What happens is the tower gets more wobble the taller it grows.
It starts wobbling more and more and more.
And what we're seeing right now with all of this instability, all of this conflict is the wobbling back and forth violently until finally it snaps and it comes crashing down.
To me, that's what things feel like.
And so I've, over the past several years, prepared for just such scenarios.
Preparing for Collapse00:02:05
I'll say this, in the grand context of things, but to a personal level.
The security issues that we've faced here have not been abated and the costs are absolutely psychotic.
And we are struggling with figuring out how to continue the operations due to the escalation of security threats, the shooting that happened here, the threats against my life, our staff, et cetera.
It is all very serious.
As time goes on, people grow accustomed to the violence.
And that's why people can't see the potentiality for World War III or civil war.
Charlie Kirk was assassinated, and it was one of the most terrifying and shocking things his country had seen in generations.
Several months on, people are moving about with their lives.
Desensitized, as it were.
We do these shows, and I've seen people comment saying, Tim, thank you for continuing to do the work you're doing.
Well, it's true that we are doing the work, but people are acting as though because I'm still here, we've definitively solved the problems, which we have not.
So I don't know what's going to happen.
We are hanging on by a thread to try and do this work amid global crises and personal threats.
I'm not entirely sure when it's going to break apart, but trust me when I say it's much more serious than it seems.
As we grow desensitized, people seem to overlook these stories.
But let me put it like this.
Go back 30 years.
A major news report that drug cartels were launching unmanned aircraft.
Well, aside from the fact that we didn't really have unmanned aircraft to this degree, imagine there's a report about cartels invading the U.S.
I can't believe people are taking this so, I don't know, relaxed.
We'll see, my friends.
It's not to be alarmist, but I just don't know.
I think, hope for the best, prepare for the worst.