A new economic iron curtain is falling across America as the “Boom Belt” — an 11-state powerhouse in the U.S. Southeast — shatters records and challenges the traditional financial dominance of New York and Chicago.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott joined forces in Miami on Tuesday to celebrate a $9 trillion gross domestic product (GDP) region that is now outpacing every other quadrant of the country in population, jobs and capital investment.

“I often tell people, as Governor of Florida, my job is to closely follow California, Illinois, New York, so I can do precisely the opposite of what they do,” DeSantis said during the panel held at the Pérez Art Museum. “Florida’s had more adjusted gross income move into our state since I’ve been governor than has ever moved into any state in the history of the United States.”

“Visionary business leaders seek to where not the puck is right now, but to where it is going… while other regions where the puck has been in the past, they’re now burdened by high taxes, by restrictive regulations, by policies that are actually hostile to businesses,” Abbott added.

‘NEVER SEEN A SHIFT LIKE THIS’: DESANTIS DETAILS FLORIDA’S HISTORIC SURGE DRIVEN BY ‘UNAPOLOGETIC’ RESULTS

The governors spotlighted how Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas now generate $9 trillion in annual GDP, trailing only the U.S. and China globally, while absorbing 70% of all U.S. population growth in the last five years.

Greg Abbott, governor of Texas, from left, Paul Atkins, chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Jim Lee, founder and chief executive officer of the Texas Stock Exchange, Jim Esposito, president of Citadel Securities, and Ron De (Getty Images)

The migration has been fueled by more than just sunshine; it is a tactical retreat from a wave of tax-the-rich proposals sweeping through blue-state legislatures including California, New York and now Washington.

“We’re in the 250th anniversary of the founding of the United States. The founding fathers, they wanted a system based on the consent of the government… They wanted to have a rule of law and they wanted some of this stuff, particularly private property, to not just be subjected to those types of whims,” DeSantis said.

“Hence, in Texas, even though we have never had a state income tax, we wanted to make sure that future generations would not be able to impose an income tax, so we made income taxes unconstitutional in the state of Texas,” Abbott said. “We made a wealth tax unconstitutional. We made a death tax unconstitutional, and as [Citadel’s] Jim Lee pointed out, we made a transactions tax unconstitutional.”

“I know that there’s been a lot of very healthy competition between states like Florida, Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, some of these. And I think that’s really, really good,” DeSantis noted. “When Greg’s doing stuff, people say, ‘Look [at] what Texas just did.’”

SEC Chairman Paul Atkins and TXSE CEO Jim Lee warned that the U.S. has lost half of its public companies over the last 30 years because the federal government made it “complicated, expensive and legally treacherous” to go public.

“When capital, companies and people all move in the same direction, with that kind of consistency and at that kind scale, it behooves us to ask why. I believe that the answer, more often than not, is the region’s steady adherence to first principles, including those that rigorously protect investors without needlessly paralyzing companies,” Atkins said. “So for our part, the SEC is returning to those same principles by renewing the conditions that make our public markets the natural destination for companies to raise capital and for investors to share in their success.”

“As Chairman Atkins has remarked repeatedly, it used to be cool to be public, so what happened? The answer is we made it complicated, expensive and legally treacherous to be a public company. Remaining private became the only rational choice. This is not a coincidence. It is a consequence,” Lee emphasized.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

As someone who helped lead the firm’s move from Chicago to Miami, Citadel Securities President Jim Esposito highlighted the practical, bottom-line reasons why the “Boom Belt” is winning the war for capital — framing the Southern governing style as an inspiration for the rest of America.

“Across Florida, Texas and other high-growth states, government officials have created environments where businesses can operate, invest. And importantly, grow with confidence,” he said. “This type of public and private partnership should be the model for the rest of our country.”

READ MORE FROM FOX BUSINESS

Britain’s standing as a global climate leader faces a critical test as senior figures in international diplomacy have warned that any move to open new oil and gas fields in the North Sea would deal a severe blow to worldwide efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

The government is facing mounting pressure from the oil industry, the Conservative opposition, Reform UK, certain trade unions and factions within the Treasury to grant new drilling licences. This comes despite research showing that the two largest remaining fields, Rosebank and Jackdaw, would displace just 1% and 2% respectively of the UK’s gas imports, offering negligible benefit to either prices or energy security.

The North Sea basin is now more than 90% depleted, and extracting its remaining pockets of hydrocarbons is becoming progressively more costly and energy-intensive. Yet the political appetite for new licensing persists, placing Ed Miliband, the energy security and net zero secretary, in an increasingly uncomfortable position.

Nicolas Stern, professor at the London School of Economics, cautioned that fresh drilling would be damaging on multiple fronts, bad for growth, bad for energy security and a harmful signal to the international community. Lord Stern pointed to Britain’s track record as the first G7 nation to commit to net zero by 2050 and its influential climate legislation, arguing that the world pays close attention when the UK changes course.

The backlash from the developing world has been particularly fierce. A senior African negotiator, speaking anonymously, said the continent would reject any UK expansion of oil drilling, describing it as fundamentally at odds with the Paris agreement. Mohamed Adow, director of the Nairobi-based Power Shift Africa thinktank, warned that approval of new projects would signal that short-term interests were being placed above long-term responsibility, setting a precedent that could prove impossible to contain.

The timing is especially sensitive. Britain has been one of the principal supporters of a global conference on fossil fuel transition taking place in Colombia later this month. However, Miliband will not attend, with climate envoy Rachel Kyte going in his place, a decision likely to disappoint campaigners who credited the energy secretary with brokering a last-minute deal at the Cop30 summit in Brazil last November.

Christiana Figueres, former executive secretary of the UN framework convention on climate change, acknowledged the geopolitical pressures driving the energy security debate but argued that expanding drilling risked locking in infrastructure that was increasingly out of step with the direction of the global energy system. True energy independence, she suggested, lay in scaling up clean domestic energy rather than prolonging the life of declining industries.

The strategic concern for Britain’s business community is clear. Many developing nations are weighing whether to exploit their own fossil fuel reserves rather than invest in renewables. If they choose the former path, the world would far exceed the carbon limits scientists say are necessary to avert the worst consequences of climate breakdown. A senior development official put the matter bluntly: developing countries are already asking why they should forgo their own resources if the UK will not do the same.

An ally of Miliband defended the government’s position, describing the decision to halt new exploration licences as a landmark stance for a major oil and gas producing nation. A government spokesperson confirmed that clean energy and climate action remained at the heart of the agenda, including what it called a world-leading commitment to stop issuing licences for new fields.

Whether that commitment holds in the face of political and industrial pressure will be one of the defining questions of Britain’s energy policy in the months ahead.

Jamie Young

Jamie is Senior Reporter at Business Matters, bringing over a decade of experience in UK SME business reporting.
Jamie holds a degree in Business Administration and regularly participates in industry conferences and workshops.

When not reporting on the latest business developments, Jamie is passionate about mentoring up-and-coming journalists and entrepreneurs to inspire the next generation of business leaders.

Elon Musk’s SpaceX holds a commanding lead in the intensifying rivalry with Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, launching more rockets, deploying thousands of satellites and securing key NASA contracts, even as both billionaires pivot aggressively toward lunar ambitions in 2026 amid a broader U.S. push to beat China back to the Moon.

As of April 2026, SpaceX has flown hundreds of missions with its reusable Falcon 9 rockets, maintains a Starlink constellation exceeding 10,000 satellites and continues rapid testing of its massive Starship vehicle. Blue Origin, while making strides with its New Glenn rocket — including successful booster landings in late 2025 — remains years behind in flight rate and orbital infrastructure.

The contest, once focused on low-Earth orbit and reusable rocketry, has shifted to the Moon. Musk has redirected SpaceX resources toward “Moonbase Alpha,” including plans for a lunar launch device, while Bezos has refocused Blue Origin on its Blue Moon lander for NASA’s Artemis program.

“This rivalry is accelerating America’s return to the Moon,” said a NASA official involved in Artemis planning. “Competition between these two is healthy, even if one is clearly ahead right now.”

SpaceX’s Dominance in Launch and Satellites

SpaceX’s operational edge is undeniable. The company generated roughly $8 billion in profit in 2025 and has received more than $24 billion in U.S. government funding over time. Its Falcon 9 rocket achieved the first orbital-class booster landing a decade before Blue Origin’s New Glenn accomplished similar feats.

In 2026, SpaceX prepares to fly an upgraded Starship version 3 with enhanced payload capacity — up to 200 tons to low-Earth orbit in reusable mode. The vehicle’s full reusability and potential for orbital refueling remain critical for lunar missions, though testing has included fiery setbacks that Musk embraces as part of rapid iteration.

Starlink continues to expand, providing broadband to remote areas and generating significant revenue. Musk has dismissed Blue Origin’s new TeraWave satellite constellation — a planned 5,408-satellite network promising up to 6 terabits per second — by stating that SpaceX’s laser links will surpass those speeds.

Blue Origin announced TeraWave in January 2026 as a direct challenge, alongside Amazon’s Project Kuiper (now Leo) efforts. Yet analysts say SpaceX’s head start and scale make catching up difficult in the near term.

Blue Origin’s Methodical Approach Gains Traction

Bezos has poured more than $10 billion of his personal fortune into Blue Origin since its founding, calling it his most important work. The company’s New Glenn rocket, powered by BE-4 engines, achieved its first orbital flight and booster recovery in 2025. Plans call for 12 or more launches in 2026, with potential for up to 24.

New Glenn’s upgrades, including variants with greater thrust, position it as a heavy-lift competitor, though its payload capacity remains smaller than Starship’s. Blue Origin has shifted resources toward the Blue Moon lander, aiming for uncrewed lunar missions soon and crewed capabilities later.

In NASA’s Artemis program, SpaceX holds the primary human landing system contract worth billions for Starship-derived landers. Blue Origin secured a $3.4 billion award for a competing lander starting with later missions, such as Artemis V. NASA has adjusted timelines, adding test flights and reopening elements of competition due to Starship delays, giving Blue Origin a clearer path on some fronts.

Internal Blue Origin documents suggest a strategy to avoid Starship’s complex orbital refueling by pursuing a more straightforward architecture, prompting public jabs between the founders, including Bezos sharing turtle memes implying slow-and-steady wins.

Lunar Focus Intensifies Rivalry

Both companies now eye sustained lunar presence ahead of China’s targeted 2030 crewed landing. Musk envisions a self-growing lunar city with satellite-slinging capabilities. Bezos has long advocated industrial activity on the Moon, including potential factories.

NASA’s Artemis program relies on both: SpaceX for initial human landing systems and Blue Origin for cargo and follow-on landers. Recent changes to Artemis architecture include low-Earth orbit tests of commercial landers, potentially accelerating development for either or both firms.

The competition has spurred investor interest in the broader lunar economy, with startups in rovers, infrastructure and resource utilization reporting increased attention. One lunar company CEO noted 20 investor inquiries in a single week following heightened Musk-Bezos announcements.

Contrasting Styles, Shared Goals

Musk’s “move fast and break things” philosophy has delivered rapid progress — and occasional explosions during Starship tests — but also criticism over safety and regulatory pace. Bezos favors a more deliberate, engineering-heavy approach, which critics say has slowed Blue Origin but may yield more reliable systems long-term.

Both face pressure in 2026. SpaceX must demonstrate reliable Starship refueling and lunar-capable flights. Blue Origin needs to ramp New Glenn operations and prove its lander technology.

The rivalry extends beyond hardware. Musk’s xAI ties and planned SpaceX IPO (potentially valuing the company at over $1 trillion) contrast with Bezos stepping back from Amazon to focus more on Blue Origin. Public exchanges on social media add drama, yet both have expressed respect for the other’s contributions to humanity’s spacefaring future.

NASA leaders have praised private investment from Musk, Bezos and others, noting it advances capabilities benefiting all. “These billionaires are putting resources on the line for the good of humankind,” one official said.

Broader Implications for U.S. Space Leadership

The Musk-Bezos contest occurs against a national push to maintain superiority over China in cislunar space. Delays in government-led systems like the Space Launch System have elevated commercial partners.

Analysts say SpaceX currently “wins” on metrics of launches, revenue and deployed infrastructure. Blue Origin, however, could close gaps if New Glenn achieves high flight rates and its lunar lander matures faster than expected.

No clear victor exists yet in the long-term “space war.” Musk’s Mars ambitions persist in the background, while Bezos emphasizes gradual expansion from the Moon outward. The real beneficiaries may be NASA and the emerging space economy, driven by competition that lowers costs and accelerates innovation.

For now, SpaceX sets the pace while Blue Origin mounts a serious challenge. As both target the Moon in 2026 and beyond, their duel could determine not just who plants more footprints on lunar soil, but the speed and scale of humanity’s multi-planetary future.