Zero Rss

Trump Admin Kicks Off American Nuclear Renaissance With $17.5 Billion Loan Program For Reactor Projects

With hyperscalers set to spend roughly $800 billion on data-center capex this year alone, alongside reshoring and broader grid electrification, baseload power demand is poised to surge.

We have made the case that intermittent solar and wind are no match for the scale and reliability requirements of the modern economy, and that nuclear power is emerging as the clean, always-on power source needed to power the AI era.

The Wall Street Journal reports Tuesday morning that the Trump administration plans to supercharge the deployment of nuclear power with a $17.5 billion low-interest loan program to help utilities finance orders for Westinghouse Electric Co.'s AP1000 reactors.

The Energy Department, under Secretary Chris Wright, plans to make five loans available for two-reactor projects, with the goal of expediting equipment orders and cutting up to three years from construction timelines.

More from the report:

Seven utilities have already signed formal letters of intent for the five available project loans, according to the Energy Department, which didn't name the utilities.

Wright said the plan to accelerate the deployment timeline of ten reactors will "unleash the next American nuclear renaissance."

Those reactors "will also help accelerate the timeline of building those large-scale reactors by up to three years, lowering construction costs and ensuring the United States is able to deliver on President Trump's bold and ambitious energy addition agenda," Wright said.

The AP1000 reactors, which produce about 1,100 megawatts of power, are slated to come online in 2035 and will generate enough electricity to power a midsize city or a large data center.

Westinghouse Electric CEO Dan Sumner stated, "It really kick-starts fleet-scale nuclear development in the United States."

The problem is that the US track record of bringing new nuclear power reactors online has been awful. The only completed domestic AP1000s are Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in Georgia, which entered commercial service in July 2023 and April 2024, and took ten years to build.

The latest nuclear reactor construction note from Goldman shows China is in the lead with 40 reactors under construction, followed by India with eight and Russia with six.

Read the latest on the nuclear reactor construction tracker (here).

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 19:40

The Next Commodity Supercycle Has Already Started

Authored by Chris Macintosh via InternationalMan.com,

The world rotates between two sectors: technology and energy.

You have to turn the lights on or nothing happens. You need both the lights and the energy to power them. No lights, only energy? Nothing. Lights with no energy? Nothing.

Essentially you have to innovate or you never progress. Markets tend to rotate between those two broad sectors accordingly.

Go back to the height of the energy boom in 2013 and 2014. You couldn’t give Microsoft away. Energy, on the other hand, could do no wrong. That was the time to own tech.

Then tech took a bottle of Viagra and proceeded to shoot the lights out from 2014 through roughly 2022 while energy was decimated and left for dead. The way it works is that the last clutch of investors in any given sector go about losing their shirts and as a result are extremely reluctant to re-enter it anytime soon.

Recall that in 2001, the NASDAQ pulled back by a whopping 75%. That unleashed a commodity supercycle that ran all the way to 2014. When the NASDAQ recovered to its prior high, oil rolled over almost to the day… and the cycle reset. History suggests oil goes up seven times on average during such a cycle. Historically, the NASDAQ gets taken down 50 to 75%.

We are at the point where we think both have pretty decent probabilities. Hence our long positions on energy and short positions on NASDAQ.

What Has Changed: China Weaponises the Periodic Table

This cycle is bigger — far bigger and more structurally meaningful — than anything I’ve ever seen or researched by looking back at prior decades. The key driver is geopolitical and elemental.

China has weaponised the periodic table. The world’s two largest powers have divided the material world between them.

China dominates the periodic table, namely metals, rare earths, and critical minerals. China is, in essence, an electron state.

The United States dominates the organic chemistry version: hydrocarbons, food, fuels. The US is a molecular state.

When China restricted exports of critical minerals and rare earth magnets in October of last year, it immediately revealed how fragile Western manufacturing supply chains are. A magnet might represent 0.00001% of GDP, but remove it and you shut down an entire industry.

The same logic applies to oil. People say oil is a small share of the economy, but you pull it out and everything stops. Efficiency gains over decades have actually made oil more critical, not less. We’ve stripped out all the low-priority uses, leaving only the essential ones. You cannot substitute away from what remains. No energy, no civilisation. Simple.

This power struggle between the United States and China is the central frame for understanding commodity markets over the coming decade.

The End of the Bretton Woods Hegemon

The broader geopolitical structure underpinning commodity markets is fracturing.

The Bretton Woods world was built in 1944 when the United States had the only functioning manufacturing supply chain on earth.

The grand bargain was simple: America would take its enormous navy — inherited from the British, who inherited it from the Spanish and Portuguese before them (a 400-year accumulation of ports, bases, and sea lanes) — and protect global shipping in exchange for the world trading in US dollars.

The most important commodity flowing through those lanes was, and still is, oil.

Three things have now broken that model:

1. The US shale revolution made America energy independent, removing its incentive to protect global supply lanes.

2. Higher interest rates then exposed the fiscal impossibility of maintaining that role — Medicare and Social Security are the largest line items in the US budget, interest costs are now second, and defence is third. The US simply cannot continue to be the world’s policeman at this cost structure. Socialism combined with fiscal irresponsibility, compounding.

3. And China is actively resupplying and supporting its allies — Russia and Iran — making any US-led enforcement action structurally harder.

When the US protects a ship carrying Chilean copper from Santiago to Shanghai, it is paying the security bill for its primary strategic competitor. That arrangement is now ending. The problem is there is no replacement hegemon large enough to step into that role.

The world may be reverting to something resembling the Dutch East India Company era — state-sponsored sovereign entities with their own security arrangements, trading in gold, silver, and hard assets, using mercenary forces to protect supply chains.

Large corporations like Apple and Exxon are beginning to look more like sovereign entities than conventional companies.

*  *  *

The rotation from technology to energy and commodities is only one part of a much larger shift now underway. Debt, money printing, geopolitical conflict, and deep cultural changes are all colliding at the same time. That means the years ahead could bring extraordinary volatility—and extraordinary opportunity—for investors who understand what is really happening. That is why we recently prepared a free special report called Clash of the Systems: Thoughts on Investing at a Unique Point in Time. In it, contrarian money manager Chris MacIntosh explains the major economic, political, and cultural trends unfolding right now, what risks they could create for your money and personal freedom, and what you could do to stay one step ahead. You can get the full report here.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 19:15

Automakers Race Into Humanoid Robots As Timeline For Blue-Collar Job Disruption Emerges

Bernstein analyst Eunice Lee is out with a fascinating note explaining why automakers are making a mad dash into the world of humanoid robotics, arguing that their manufacturing scale, supply-chain depth, and years of investment in autonomous driving give them a structural lead in the emerging physical-AI market.

Lee writes that automakers are also seeking new revenue streams beyond the core vehicle business, with humanoids poised to move from factory floors into the physical world across retail, security, public service, and eventually homes.

From Tesla and Hyundai to XPeng, Xiaomi, BYD, Geely, and Chery, automakers are quickly moving beyond EVs and into humanoids through in-house development, acquisitions, minority stakes, and strategic partnerships. Lee said this trend became visible in China, where multiple OEM-linked robots were showcased at the 2026 Beijing Auto Show.

"OEMs are entering humanoid robotics to boost productivity and unlock new revenue streams," Lee wrote in the note.

She noted, "Automakers have several advantages across hardware, software, and scale. There is significant overlap between vehicle and humanoid components—motors, reducers, sensors —as well as manufacturing."

Here are the automakers in the humanoid robot lead:  

1. Tesla is developing its humanoid robot Optimus, progressing from Gen 1 (2022) to Gen 2 and Gen 2.5 prototypes by 2025, reflecting rapid iteration in hardware and software. Its strategy starts with manufacturing applications, with a long- term ambition to expand into consumer and household scenarios. Tesla targets limited commercialization in 2026 and volume shipments in 2027. A key constraint is that dexterous hand capability remains a major bottleneck, limiting real-world deployment readiness despite strong system-level progress.

2. Hyundai, the parent company of Boston Dynamics, is pursuing an aggressive humanoid roadmap, transitioning Atlas from R&D to industrial deployment. Production-ready Atlas robots are being introduced into real factory environments, with initial applications in parts sequencing and heavy-duty manufacturing tasks. The group is targeting annual production capacity of up to 30,000 units by 2028, alongside internal rollout of over 25,000 robots across Hyundai facilities. This combination of full-stack control, large-scale manufacturing plans, and clear volume targets positions Hyundai as the leading OEM in humanoid robot industrialization.

3. XPeng is one of the more ambitious OEMs in humanoid robotics, with its IRON robot evolving through multiple generations during 2024-2025. A key milestone was its 2025 AI Day debut, where IRON's natural, catwalk-like walk went viral—so lifelike that audience questioned whether a human was inside. This showcased a major breakthrough in human-like locomotion and established XPeng as a frontrunner in embodied intelligence. The company targets mass production by end-2026 and global deliveries in 2027, focusing on both industrial and retail/service use cases such as showroom assistants and patrol robots, aiming for near-term commercialization.

4. Chery is currently one of the more advanced OEMs in China on commercialization, with its humanoid robot "Moyin" achieving global delivery of 220 units in 2025 and further deployments across public service scenarios such as policing and medical guidance. Chery's humanoid robot are available for purchase for RMB 285.8k (US$41k) through e-commerce channels like JD.com (LINK). Chery stands out for delivering the first meaningful batch of products among OEMs, a diversified product ecosystem (including robot dogs and service robots), and a clear three-stage roadmap from companion robots to public service and, eventually, household applications.

5. GAC has developed the GoMate humanoid series (now at the 4th-generation GoMate Mini), targeting applications in elderly care, security, and industrial environments, with pilot production planned for 2026 and mass production in 2027. Incrementally, GAC differentiates itself through innovations such as a wheel-legged hybrid mobility structure and by spinning off a dedicated robotics subsidiary to accelerate commercialization in a more market-oriented structure.

Early industrial deployment of these bots:

1. BMW has rapidly progressed humanoid robotics from pilot testing to real production environments, building on early collaborations with Figure's robots in 2025. At its Spartanburg plant, humanoids supported the production of over 30k vehicles through tasks such as sheet-metal handling, demonstrating reliability in high-throughput settings. The company is now expanding pilots to Europe, with deployments in Leipzig targeting battery assembly, intralogistics, and component production from summer 2026. BMW's strategy emphasizes iterative scaling through live manufacturing validation, positioning humanoids as flexible co-workers rather than committing to immediate mass production.

2. Toyota is among the first OEMs to convert humanoid pilots into commercial deployment through a Robots-as-a-Service (RaaS) model with Agility Robotics. Following a successful pilot, Toyota signed a 2026 agreement to deploy Digit humanoids in production, focusing on logistics tasks such as parts handling and line feeding. Initial deployments remain small

Emerging players:

1. Xiaomi has been developing humanoid robots since 2020, launching CyberOne in 2022 and more recently open-sourcing its Xiaomi-Robotics-0 embodied AI model in 2026. Its current focus is on manufacturing scenarios such as inspection and assembly, though no clear mass production timeline has been announced. Xiaomi has demonstrated strong technical progress, including achieving over 90% success rates in real factory tasks and advancing high-precision dexterous hand capabilities, supported by its strength in AI foundation models and embodied intelligence.

2. BYD is advancing an internally developed humanoid robot project (codename "Yao Shun Yu"), initiated in 2022 and supported by partnerships such as its embodied intelligence lab with HKUST. BYD stands out for its deep vertical integration across batteries, motors, semiconductors, and precision manufacturing, as well as its potential to leverage its global dealership network for future commercialization.

3. Li Auto is taking a differentiated approach by framing robotics under a broader "space robot" concept, incorporating wheeled robots for manufacturing and future humanoids potentially for household use. While mass production plans are not disclosed, the company has established dedicated robotics business units. Li Auto is notable for its emphasis on AI, including heavy investment in large models such as Mind GPT, and its vision of integrating robots into a wider in-car, wearable, and intelligent ecosystem.

Complete overview of the auto industry by company developing humanoids:

More color from Lee about why automakers are expanding into humanoids:

Auto OEMs are expanding into humanoid robotics for two main reasons: to raise internal productivity and to open up new revenue pools beyond the core vehicle business. They also believe they possess structural advantages in manufacturing, supply chains, and embodied AI that position them well in this emerging category.

On raising internal productivity: Humanoid robots offer a logical next step in factory and warehouse automation, especially as manufacturers face rising labour costs, an aging workforce, and persistent shortages in repetitive, physically demanding, or harsh-environment roles. While stamping, welding, and painting are already highly automated, final assembly and intralogistics remain comparatively labour-intensive. This leaves a meaningful automation gap in tasks such as material handling, precision assembly, inspection, and testing. Humanoid robots could help narrow that gap by operating in tighter spaces and more complex shop-floor environments than traditional fixed automation. Material handling is a particularly relevant use case, given its high injury incidence and recurring labour shortages during peak production periods. If execution improves and costs fall, humanoids could support both labour substitution and structurally lower manufacturing costs over time.

Opening up new external revenue streams: Some OEMs, including Tesla and XPeng, have framed the long-term total addressable market for humanoid robots as comparable to, or potentially larger than, the automotive market. In addition to manufacturing and warehouse settings, humanoids could eventually address a broad range of consumer and service applications, including patrol and security, retail guide and store operations, and, over the longer term, household assistance. For OEMs, the appeal is not only participation in a potentially large new market, but also the opportunity to extend their capabilities in high-volume manufacturing, supply chain know how, software, sensing, and control systems into a new product category.

Here are the jobs humanoids could displace in the next 1-3 years, 3-5 years, and 5 years and beyond.

We suspect the adoption curve for humanoids will be much steeper than the rollout of automobiles over a century ago.

Humanoid robot adoption should accelerate over the next several years as automakers position themselves to become key suppliers of these bots that could easily disrupt blue-collar work across factories, warehouses, logistics networks, and eventually homes.

The labor disruption theme is already unfolding across white-collar jobs, where AI-related layoffs have topped 50,000 so far this year. Goldman recently outlined the college degrees youngsters should avoid as AI begins reshaping entry-level career paths.

Professional subscribers can read more on humanoids and AI at our Marketdesk.ai portal. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 18:50

California Residents Sue Gas Stations Alleging AI Price Fixing

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

Three California residents are suing a fuel pricing company and several gas station operators, alleging that they use artificial intelligence-based pricing systems to raise gasoline prices in an uncompetitive manner.

Gas prices above $6 a gallon are displayed at a Shell station in Los Angeles on on May 4, 2026. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

"Californians are being forced to pay surcharges that cannot be explained by crude oil costs, refining costs, environmental regulation, or taxes," said the June 22 class action lawsuit, filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division.

"Part of the cause of California's astronomical fuel prices is an illegal algorithmic price-fixing scheme orchestrated by the algorithmic pricing company Kalibrate and some of the state's largest fuel retailers."

The company's Kalibrate Fuel Pricing software, an algorithmic, AI-based pricing system, "connects directly to gas stations' pumps and signs. Instead of lowering prices to attract drivers, Kalibrate Fuel Pricing relies on the data of competing gas stations to coordinate high prices and wring more money from the pockets of consumers throughout the state," the lawsuit states.

This is contradictory to historical trends where gas stations have competed to secure customers by "aggressively undercutting" retail prices, the lawsuit said.

The "artificial surcharge" from the algorithmic pricing scheme inflicts a "severe, daily financial toll" on millions of Californians, the lawsuit said. For people whose livelihoods are tied to road transport, such as truck drivers, the higher gas prices eat into their incomes.

According to data from the American Automobile Association, a gallon of regular gasoline costs $5.56 on average in California as of June 23, the highest in the country.

A month ago, prices were at $6.11 per gallon amid US-Iran war tensions. A year ago, prices were still close to $5 at $4.66 per gallon.

California's current gasoline price of $5.56 per gallon is more than $1.6 higher than the $3.92 national average.

In their lawsuit, the defendants said that Kalibrate Fuel Pricing even has a feature that enables almost all gas stations in a market to raise gasoline prices simultaneously.

In addition to Kalibrate, the complaint lists 14 gas station operators and 10 unidentified gasoline fuel retail companies as defendants. Some of the major gas station operators include 7-Eleven, Walmart, Sam's Club, and BP.

The plaintiffs - Joel Casciani from Chula Vista, Paola Hartman from Homeland, and Crystal Turnbough from Marysville - allege that the gas station defendants' actions amount to a "modern, digital iteration of traditional price-fixing and combination that California law expressly forbids."

They asked the court to stop "Defendants' unlawful combination and collusion, restore competition to California's retail fuel markets, and make California drivers whole by compensating them for the substantial overcharges Defendants have extracted from them through their illegal scheme."

The Epoch Times reached out to Kalibrate, 7-Eleven, Walmart, Sam's Club, and BP for comment but did not receive a response by publication time.

According to Kalibrate, its pricing software is used in more than 20 nations across five continents. The company says on its website that the Kalibrate Fuel Pricing platform delivers "competitive, profitable prices at speed," powered with AI-driven intelligence.

The software delivers 8.3 million fuel prices every month. More than 25,000 fuel sites are actively priced with Kalibrate Fuel Pricing, with the average weekly profit per site rising by $331 from AI optimization, the company said.

California's Gasoline Crisis

Meanwhile, California is experiencing an energy crisis resulting from decades of environmental regulations that stifled domestic oil production, defense and engineering expert Mike Fredenburg said in a Feb. 23 commentary published by The Epoch Times.

"Refining capacity has plummeted to about 1.3 million barrels per day today from 2.5 million barrels per day in 1982 - a drop of 48 percent," Fredenburg said.

"During this same period, oil pumped from California wells dropped to a little more than 300,000 from more than 1 million barrels per day, a 70 percent decrease."

Fredenburg attributed the huge premium paid by Californians for gasoline partly to the "general hostility" of the state to the oil and gas sector.

This has created a situation in which many oil and gas companies are moving away from the state. As such, California is left to buy crude oil from foreign nations and even pay other countries to produce the state's special gas and diesel formulation, Fredenburg said.

In May, a group of lawmakers introduced the Transportation Fuel Market Transparency Act to crack down on market manipulation and protect people from price spikes at gas pumps, according to a May 5 statement from the office of Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).

The bill seeks to create a Transportation Fuel Monitoring and Enforcement Unit within the Federal Trade Commission to "proactively monitor fuel markets for fraud, manipulation, and anti-competitive behavior that can artificially inflate prices," the statement said.

The measure "would also increase transparency across fuel markets and significantly raise penalties for bad actors," it said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 18:25

SpaceX Builds A Regulatory Moat Around Its Starlink Empire

Scotiabank analysts write that SpaceX is using the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) process to transform spectrum rights, service approvals, and satellite rulemaking into a regulatory moat around Starlink. This reinforces its position as the rocket and AI company moves to secure years of dominance as the leading space-based communications provider.

Scotiabank's Maher Yaghi and Joey Chan wrote in a note titled "SpaceX at the FCC: Building a Wider Regulatory Moat" that, after reviewing SpaceX's filings from October 2025 through June, there are three major takeaways regarding how the company is "reinforcing three core advantages":

1. Increasing control of scarce spectrum assets,

2. shaping a regulatory framework better suited to scaled constellation economics, and

3. broadening the authority needed to extend Starlink into mobile and supplemental-coverage use cases.

Yaghi said, "For investors, the filings point to a coordinated effort to widen SpaceX's structural lead over smaller or less integrated peers."

Here's how the coordinated push could allow Starlink to dominate the industry for years, as explained by the analysts:

The biggest file in the dockets is spectrum transfers. The Echostar related filings collectively suggest that SpaceX was not simply pursuing transfer approval, but working to ensure the asset would be usable on commercially attractive terms. That distinction matters. Spectrum only carries strategic value if the associated rights are flexible enough to support deployment, service expansion, and product monetization. Viewed through that lens, the filing record suggests SpaceX was willing to make concessions to secure an asset that could deepen service quality, broaden addressable markets, and raise the entry hurdle for competitors without comparable spectrum depth or regulatory leverage.

The second pillar is rule-shaping. SpaceX has been active in the FCC's work on NGSO/GSO coexistence, particularly docket SB 25-157, where the outcome has direct implications for how efficiently large constellations can scale. This is important because, in satellite, the rule book can be as valuable as the hardware. A sharing framework that better accommodates large, dense networks disproportionately benefits operators with the capital base, launch cadence, and vertical integration to exploit it. Read alongside GN 25-340, which relates to SpaceX's push for NGSO MSS authority and supplemental coverage from space, the broader pattern is clear: the company appears to be aligning spectrum, service authority, and operating rules around a more integrated mobile-satellite platform. If successful, that could strengthen SpaceX's cost, coverage, and time-to-market advantages.

More broadly, SpaceX's filing activity suggests it is not limiting itself to company-specific approvals. Its presence across proceedings on market access reciprocity, satellite modernization, Upper C-band, spectrum abundance, and coordination procedures indicates a wider effort to influence the regulatory architecture. For investors, that matters because competitive advantage here is not determined solely by launch capability or network footprint; it is also shaped by who helps define the operating environment. Consistent engagement across multiple proceedings suggests SpaceX is seeking to shape a framework that reinforces LEO scale economics.

Comparing SpaceX filings at the FCC to T-Mobile, Verizon and AT&T, we see differences. Clearly, the three incumbents appear substantially more active at the FCC in raw filing volume. Compared with the incumbents, SpaceX appears less active in raw volume but more concentrated in a small number of strategic, platform-defining asks, whereas T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T maintain much broader filing portfolios spanning transactions, waivers, operational compliance, and policy matters. SpaceX's interventions are concentrated in the following areas: (1) spectrum acquisition and waiver relief, (2) reshaping satellite sharing constraints, (3) securing NGSO MSS and supplemental coverage authority, and (4) shaping adjacent policy frameworks such as market access reciprocity.

Those rivals include:

1. Amazon Kuiper: Amazon's planned low-earth-orbit broadband constellation and probably Starlink's most important future U.S. competitor.

2. OneWeb / Eutelsat: A LEO satellite network focused heavily on enterprise, government, aviation, maritime, and remote connectivity.

3. Telesat Lightspeed: Canada-backed LEO broadband constellation aimed at enterprise, telecom, aviation, maritime, and government markets.

4. Viasat / Inmarsat: GEO and mobility-focused satellite broadband player, strong in aviation, maritime, government, and defense.

5. HughesNet / EchoStar / Dish spectrum assets: Legacy satellite broadband and spectrum player, relevant because of SpaceX's EchoStar-related filings.

6. AST SpaceMobile: Direct-to-device satellite broadband company focused on connecting standard mobile phones from space.

The key to understanding Starlink's lead is that it is not just a satellite internet provider. It is vertically integrated with SpaceX's impressive launch machine, giving it a massive advantage no rival can currently match - not even Amazon Kuiper with Jeff Bezos' Blue Origin. And that advantage could widen once Starship is commercialized.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 18:00

Obama-Appointed Judge Dismisses Federal Government's Lawsuit Challenging Los Angeles Sanctuary City Policy

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A California judge has dismissed the federal government's legal challenge to Los Angeles's sanctuary city ordinance that restricts the use of city resources to assist federal immigration enforcement.

People in the audience hold up signs as the Los Angeles City Council considers a "sanctuary city" ordinance during a meeting at City Hall in Los Angeles on Nov. 19, 2024. Etienne Laurent/AFP via Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Fernando Olguin of the Central District of California said the federal government failed to support its claim that the city's ordinance violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. But the judge stated that the government could file an amended complaint.

"The Ordinance does not directly regulate the federal government. Rather, it 'controls the actions of [the City's] own agents and agencies," the judge stated in a five-page order dated June 20.

Olguin rejected the government's argument that the ordinance was preempted by federal law because it "restricts the sending, requesting, maintaining, or exchanging of citizenship or immigration status" by prohibiting city personnel from collecting such information.

The judge said the ordinance's provision "merely restricts a City employee from inquiring into or collecting information about a person's citizenship or immigration status, and says nothing about the City's ability to maintain or share such information."

In a statement on June 22, Los Angeles city attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto praised the judge's order, saying it "reinforces the well-established principle that local governments have the authority to decide how to use their personnel and resources."

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed the lawsuit in June 2025, alleging that Los Angeles's sanctuary city laws are unlawful because they "interfere with and discriminate against" the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts.

The department alleged that the city's ordinance impeded federal immigration authorities from detaining illegal immigrants who are subject to removal and have been convicted of crimes.

The Trump administration said the city's refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement had led to "lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism that was so severe," which prompted the deployment of the California National Guard and the U.S. Marines to restore order in the city.

The Epoch Times reached out to the DOJ for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

The Trump administration also brought similar legal challenges against several other cities and states with sanctuary policies, including New York City, Minnesota, and Illinois.

In April 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security to pursue legal remedies for jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal law.

"This is a lawless insurrection against the supremacy of Federal law and the Federal Government's obligation to defend the territorial sovereignty of the United States," the president said. "It is imperative that the Federal Government restore the enforcement of United States law."

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 17:40

Cyberattack Hits Iran's Banking System, Disrupting Card Networks At Three Major Lenders

It seems that the United States and Israel have not completely given up on covert efforts toward regime change in Iran, or at least on sabotage efforts to weaken the government's hold over the population.

The precursor to Trump's Operation Epic Fury was of course the January economic protests, which saw serious clashes with police and security forces, and left thousands dead. Trump subsequently claimed over 30,000 were killed - a very high, dubious number - according to many independent analysts.

At the same time US Treasury Secretary Bessent openly bragged about waging economic warfare to send the Rial plunging, which was a spark and catalyst for the destabilizing protests and unrest.

On Tuesday Al Jazeera reports on what could be renewed efforts to further weaken Iran from within. "Iran's state-owned banking technology provider says attacks disrupted services at Bank Melli, Bank Saderat and Bank Tejarat," the publication reports.

EPA, via Shutterstock

One theory among Washington hawks is that economic collapse can be engineered via external means (though Israel has also long bragged about having many assets on the ground inside the Islamic Republic).

Is the prior failed 'plan A' still on? ...even as direct bombing has failed to achieve regime change?

According to more from Al Jazeera, referencing the major bank-focused cyberattacks: 

This had prompted a temporary suspension of all card-related operations at the three banks to prevent further unauthorized access, the company told state TV, with cybersecurity teams working to restore normal operations.

The company’s public relations head said ATM services, point-of-sale terminals and mobile applications linked to card systems were all affected.

Major banks, including Melli, Saderat, Tejarat and the Export Development Bank of Iran, have faced disruptions first reported on June 14 after a cyberattack targeting a shared communication infrastructure, Iran’s banking coordination council has said.

As far can be assessed, there was no unrest or protests that resulted in this latest incident, and Iranian state media has in follow-up reported that the serious issues and lack of fund access for customers took several days to resolve.

"Iranian authorities have previously blamed hostile foreign actors, such as Israel, for similar incidents. Israel has previously not commented on such allegations," the Tuesday report also noted.

Iran is bracing for more such cyber-provocations, given it is still technically at war with the US and Israel, and despite the signing of the peace MoU with the US, based on extending the ceasefire for at least 60-days, giving time for the nuclear issue to be dealt with.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 17:20

Randi Whinegarten

Authored by Larry Sand via American Greatness,

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, wrote a hyperbolic piece titled "America's Teachers Can't Afford to Teach," which appeared in Time magazine on June 11.

The excessively whiny article is filled with half-truths meant to make readers feel sorry for impoverished, underpaid teachers. Among other things, she asserts that the vast majority of American educators are living paycheck to paycheck, taking on debt to buy groceries, and facing other financial hardships.

She maintains that the pay gap between "teachers and other college-educated professionals - known as the 'teacher pay penalty' - has grown to 27 percent. To put it plainly, people with the same level of education and experience can make far more doing almost anything other than teaching. We cannot accept this as an unfortunate reality or an accident."

But when you look at the facts, which apparently is an alien concept to the union boss, you get a very different picture. While it is true that teacher salaries nationwide have not quite kept up with inflation, Weingarten tells only part of the story, omitting many perks afforded to educators.

Just Facts, a nonprofit dedicated to researching and publishing verifiable facts on critical public policy issues of our time, analyzes teacher salaries and reports that in the 2021-22 school year, the average U.S. teacher earned $66,397 in salary and $34,090 in benefits, including health insurance, paid leave, and pensions, for a total compensation of $100,487.

Also, full-time public school teachers work an average of 1,490 hours per year, including time spent on lesson preparation, test construction, grading, providing extra help to students, coaching, and other activities, while their counterparts in private industry work an average of 2,045 hours per year, about 37 percent more than public school teachers.

Weingarten also fallaciously claims that teachers in states with union-backed collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) earn 24 percent more than those in states without such agreements.

However, those without an agenda tell a very different story, arguing that CBAs actually hurt the bottom line for all teachers. Mike Petrilli of the Fordham Institute writes that teachers in non-collective bargaining districts earn about 12 percent more than their unionized peers. Other research by Michael Lovenheim and Andrew Coulson produced similar findings. In 2018, University of California, San Diego professor Augustina Pagalayan reported that CBAs do not improve teacher pay.

It's worth noting that union dues for teachers are quite high these days. In Los Angeles, for example, full-time educators pay about $1,500 in dues annually.

Weingarten also never explains where the bulk of union dues are spent. According to a Pew Research poll, about 58 percent of public K - 12 teachers lean Democratic and 35 percent lean Republican. But OpenSecrets reports that in 2024, the American Federation of Teachers gave $3,069,063 (99.89 percent) to Democrats and a scant $3,323 (0.11 percent) to Republicans.

Additionally, while she bemoans low teacher pay, the money she collects from them goes to pay her a hefty salary. As the Illinois Policy Institute reveals, Weingarten's current yearly income is $514,488, making her a one-percenter.

Another fraud perpetrated by Weingarten concerns a book she wrote last year, Why Fascists Fear Teachers: Public Education and the Future of Democracy, which she claims will "empower us and give us hope." The problem is that every word from the union boss is nonfactual claptrap.

As Aaron Withe, Freedom Foundation CEO, writes, the book opens by comparing the Nazi occupation of Norway to the current state of American education and "argues that anyone who disagrees with the author's vision for public schools is, in some meaningful sense, a fascist."

Perhaps the biggest deception in Weingarten's book is its portrayal of her role during the pandemic. "I led the AFT in developing a concrete plan to reopen schools as quickly and safely as possible," she claims.

Bald-faced lie.

In reality, she repeatedly argued for keeping schools shuttered throughout the spring and summer of 2020, while her union aggressively lobbied the CDC to revise its school-reopening guidance. Two of her language recommendations were adopted verbatim.

Weingarten also outrageously used members' dues to pay for her fiction-laden book.

Researcher Maxford Nelsen combed through the AFT's most recent LM-2 - the annual financial disclosure unions file with the U.S. Department of Labor - and unearthed a detailed accounting of how member dues were used to produce Weingarten's book.

The AFT paid nearly $1 million to a New York law firm, and its attorney is likewise thanked in the book's acknowledgments for reviewing the manuscript. When the New York Post asked about it, an AFT spokesperson claimed the review was done pro bono, but the union LM-2 says otherwise.

There was also $6,000 for fact-checking, $5,212 for a single-author photograph by a Washington-based photographer, and $64,090 to a literary agency that lists AFT, not Weingarten, as its client.

Nearly 30 AFT staff members are thanked in the acknowledgments, prompting questions about their role in the book's creation. Meanwhile, travel costs for Weingarten's nationwide promotional tour are not itemized separately but were almost certainly substantial.

In other words, teachers paid for nearly everything. Weingarten may not have contributed a single dollar to the enterprise.

Weingarten was also one of the more strident leaders in 2025's anti-Trump "No Kings" movement. She wrote, "At every turn, this president has undermined the rule of law, weaponized the federal government against the people it should serve, and divide and silence us. And now, the same far-right groups that cheered his chaos are smearing those of us who are organizing peacefully for justice."

The hypocrisy here is glaring. This is a woman who has served as AFT president since 2008 and, before that, led the UFT, AFT's New York City branch, for 11 years. Additionally, teachers do not vote for her directly; only delegates do.

At the end of the day, Randi Weingarten is a dishonest, left-wing, hypocritical bloviator who always points the finger at others for various problems.

Other than offending the dishonorable queen, teachers have nothing to lose by saying goodbye to their union and can save a lot of cash in the process.

* * *

Larry Sand is a retired classroom teacher with 28 years of experience and served as president of the nonprofit California Teachers Empowerment Network from 2006 to 2025. He currently works to raise awareness of the shortcomings of our education system.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 17:00

UN Maritime Agency Initiates Plan To Clear Hormuz Traffic: Hundreds Of Vessels, 11K Sailors

The Strait of Hormuz is supposed to be 'open' now, based on the MoU framework, though things are expected to be extremely slow moving, despite signs of life in terms of an increased transit flow becoming evident only this week.

The saga of just how hundreds of ships will traverse is developing and tenuous: "The UN's International Maritime Organization says it will begin evacuating more than 11,000 sailors stranded in the Gulf due to the Middle East war," per AFP.

via Bloomberg

"This large-scale operation will be carried out in close cooperation with Iran, Oman, all other coastal States in the region, the United States and the maritime industry," IMO secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez stated Tuesday.

"We have secured the necessary safety guarantees and have thoroughly verified the conditions for safe navigation to support these operations," he adds.

Presumably this simply means UN assistance in seeing the stranded crew make safe passage with their cargo and on their ships. Reuters explains:

The evacuation process under ​the IMO plan, which has been under discussion for months, will be phased, ‌Oman's ⁠defence ministry said separately in an advisory.

"Given the elevated risk of collision in the current environment, a gradual and controlled evacuation of vessel traffic is required," it said.

The Omani ministry said ​the so-called Traffic ​Separation Scheme was "not ⁠safe for use at this time" and two temporary routes to north and south of the ​scheme could be used for evacuation.

"Vessels will be ​contacted individually ⁠and advised of their allocated transit day by the parties coordinated by IMO," the ministry advisory said.

According to a backgrounder in the NY Times:

Today, the stress on the roughly 11,000 stranded sailors in the Persian Gulf may be even greater. Seafarers now have internet access and are often watching livestreams of attacks happening around them, while also seeing explosions from their ship decks.

“The fact that they are sitting on board the ships with real-time information — it is psychologically very traumatic,” said Mr. Khanna, 55.

Three commercial vessels have been hit by U.S. forces this week. One of the strikes killed three people, bringing the number of seafarers killed since the start of the war to 14. All told, there have been 46 attacks on international ships in and around the Strait of Hormuz since Feb. 28, most by Iran and some by the United States.

Scant details have been issued by the International Maritime Organization. There's a backlog of some 500 or 600 vessels, but some are making it through this week.

Notably, lead crew members or captains have all along not abandoned their tens of millions or hundreds of millions in precious commodities/cargo - especially after already enduring the blockade for this long.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 16:40

The Decline Of Mainstream Media: From COVID To Capital Markets

Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

Many of my subscribers first found me before the COVID narrative became mainstream, when I was ringing the alarm bells about the stock market in late 2019 and early 2020 and warning people that the virus was going to be a much bigger deal than people thought.

At the time, almost nobody cared about COVID. The consensus view was that it was a localized problem in China and that markets would continue marching higher as they always had. By January and February 2020, I was repeatedly warning that the market was dramatically underpricing the risk posed by the virus and that investors were ignoring what seemed to me like an obvious threat.

Looking back at my first major retrospective on COVID from 2021, what stands out isn’t that every prediction was correct. Many weren’t. What stands out is that I was willing to examine information that most investors, journalists, and policymakers either ignored or dismissed. Remember how hard it was to push back against the mainstream Covid narrative once it started? This is why I started asking critical questions about whether we were creating too much hysteria and reminding readers that Covid was over if they wanted it to be, all the way back in 2021.

Worse than the virus itself, I noted, was the continued incessant reminders and outright media propaganda to get vaccinated, two-faced mask requirements from hypocritical politicians, spurious and useless mandates and individuals and businesses who suffered personal or economic losses.

Months before COVID became the dominant story in America, I was warning that markets were dramatically underpricing the risk posed by the virus. I questioned China’s reported numbers. I argued that investors were assuming a best-case scenario despite mounting evidence that supply chains, travel, and economic activity could be severely disrupted. I openly criticized the World Health Organization’s handling of the crisis and questioned why obvious inconsistencies weren’t receiving more scrutiny.

I also raised questions that, at the time, were considered beyond the pale. When discussion emerged about a possible laboratory origin for the virus, now confirmed as the likely origin, I argued that simply asking questions should not be treated as misinformation. The idea that SARS-CoV-2 may have originated from research activity at the Wuhan Institute of Virology was widely dismissed as a conspiracy theory in early 2020. Today it seems to be the leading hypothesis.

The lesson I took away from that experience wasn’t that alternative explanations are automatically correct. It was that institutional consensus is often far less certain than it appears. That realization is largely why this blog exists.

Watching politicians impose restrictions that they themselves ignored, watching media organizations aggressively police discussion while frequently revising their own narratives, and watching legitimate questions become taboo convinced me that there was tremendous value in examining uncomfortable subjects that mainstream outlets either couldn’t or wouldn’t touch.

The purpose of my blog became clear: investigate the gray areas. I wrote as much in my “About” page:

Both myself and the people I read are not afraid to challenge the mainstream narrative or succumb to it when it serves the collective best interests of identifying objective truths on complex, important or fringe topics - the areas where the mainstream media and mainstream finance won’t shine lights.

I have spent years reading news that, in my opinion, often missed the point and buried the lede. Up until a couple years ago, I just thought it was because the mainstream media needed to be careful. Now, it has become clear that it is likely due to the mainstream media and financial media’s purpose to drive a narrative which serves the interests of a small minority, rather than the common citizen.

I write not because every fringe idea is true, but because some important truths begin their lives on the fringe. One of the clearest examples was ivermectin.

At the height of the pandemic, ivermectin became less of a scientific question and more of a political litmus test. A drug that had been prescribed billions of times to humans and had won its discoverers a Nobel Prize was suddenly reduced, in popular media coverage, to “horse dewormer.”

The issue to me wasn’t whether ivermectin was a miracle cure. The issue was that the public was being manipulated. Media organizations routinely blurred the distinction between veterinary formulations and human prescriptions. Public health agencies issued messaging that many interpreted as dismissing the drug outright. Anyone who questioned the prevailing narrative risked being labeled a crank, conspiracy theorist, or misinformation spreader.

I argued at the time that this wasn’t science. It was narrative management. The treatment of Joe Rogan became one of the most visible examples. Major media outlets repeatedly referred to ivermectin as horse medicine despite knowing that Rogan had been prescribed the human version by a physician. CNN’s own medical correspondent eventually acknowledged the characterization was inappropriate. I mean, look at this bullshit:

Years later, the FDA itself would acknowledge in court that physicians retain the authority to prescribe ivermectin for COVID treatment.

Whether one believes ivermectin was effective, ineffective, or somewhere in between misses the larger point. The public deserved an honest discussion. Instead, it received a coordinated campaign of ridicule, censorship, and oversimplification. That episode reinforced one of the core principles behind this blog: whenever institutions become more interested in controlling debate than encouraging it, it is worth paying attention.

Which brings us to the latest chapter in the Covid saga. The recent document release by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard may ultimately prove to be one of the most consequential COVID disclosures yet.

The newly declassified materials reveal that Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory assessed a laboratory origin as a serious possibility as early as May 2020. In 2022, I published an interview with Dr. Richard Ebright of Rutgers University who claimed Covid was “much more easily explained” as a lab leak.

Contrary to the public perception that the lab-leak theory was merely a fringe internet speculation, one of America’s premier national laboratories concluded that a laboratory-modification scenario was plausible and deserving of equal consideration alongside a natural-origin explanation. The idea wasn’t nearly as batshit insane as the powers that be wanted us to think it was.

In fact, behind the scenes, many intelligent people thought it was the obvious explanation. How could you not? You could basically reach out and touch the Wuhan Institute of Virology from the Wuhan wet market.

The newly-released documents also shed additional light on the nature of U.S.-funded coronavirus research linked to EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and collaborating researchers. They describe research involving spike-protein modifications, receptor adaptation studies, experiments designed to evaluate human infectivity, and testing in humanized mice. These are precisely the types of activities that later became central to debates about whether SARS-CoV-2 could have emerged from laboratory work.

Perhaps most strikingly, the release includes records indicating that Anthony Fauci participated in discussions involving intelligence officials, COVID origins assessments, and related research issues while later testimony and public statements created the impression that his involvement had been minimal or nonexistent.

Whether future investigations conclude that these inconsistencies amount to intentional deception or not, the documents unquestionably raise serious questions about how much the public was told, when they were told it, and whether key officials were fully transparent.

The released also showed:

• The assessment stated that conditions for an accidental release of a laboratory-modified coronavirus existed at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2019.

• Documents describe NIH-funded coronavirus research through EcoHealth Alliance involving spike-protein studies, receptor-adaptation experiments, and testing in humanized mice with Wuhan collaborators.

• The release highlights links to the 2018 DEFUSE proposal, which contemplated engineering bat coronaviruses and studying ways to increase their ability to infect human cells.

• Internal emails show some scientists initially considered the possibility that certain features of SARS-CoV-2 could have resulted from engineering, though views evolved over time.

• Government and intelligence officials debated evidence related to the Wuhan lab, the virus’s furin cleavage site, and competing lab-origin versus natural-origin explanations.

• Documents include references to a 2016 Wuhan research paper describing techniques for large-scale viral genome reconstruction relevant to synthetic biology.

Equally important are the broader implications. The documents suggest that significant uncertainty existed behind closed doors while the public was presented with a far more confident narrative. They reveal that laboratory-origin scenarios were receiving serious internal consideration while public discussion of those same possibilities was often stigmatized. They demonstrate that intelligence officials, researchers, and policymakers were wrestling with questions that ordinary citizens were frequently discouraged from asking.

In other words, the fringe wasn’t inventing questions. The fringe was asking questions that powerful institutions were unwilling to answer. And that distinction matters. Because when legitimate inquiry is mislabeled as conspiracy, skepticism becomes important.

That’s the real reason this blog exists and I’ll never stop writing…because there’s tons to be skeptical about, not just in current events and Covid, but in the financial world as well: modern monetary theory, changing the inflation goalposts, solving inequality by printing money, the illusion that the stock market is indestructible, and the avoidance to talk about how things are crumbling before our eyes but we refuse to discuss it:  Read "We're In A Historic Bubble"

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

I don’t think every unconventional idea is correct, nor do I particularly enjoy being contrarian. But history repeatedly demonstrates that consensus can be wrong, institutions can be self-interested, experts can be captured, and politically inconvenient truths can remain hidden for years. And that’s why I write.

The goal is not to live on the fringe, it is to visit it often enough to make sure reality hasn’t moved there while everyone else was looking the other way. And in the investing world in particular, being early often carries with it a pecuniary reward. And while I’ve stopped actively trading, I get immense satisfaction by hopefully passing down such useful ideas and ruminations to my kind subscribers.

--

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I personally no longer actively trade (read my story here). My investing/saving is done by recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs and a few select equities, trusted third parties who oversee my accounts, and advisors. Such advisors or funds, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in, exposure to, or holdings of names mentioned herein that I know nothing about. Basically, via index funds, ETFs and individual equities it is possible I could own, have exposure to, or not own anything at any point. As of the same date, May 20, 2026, in an attempt to lead a healthier lifestyle, I’ve also excluded myself from fantasy sports, sports betting, online and in-person casinos and prediction markets.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 16:20

Supreme Court Sides With Trump Admin On Removing Green Card Holders Accused Of Crimes

Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

In a 6-3 decision Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Trump administration, holding that green card holders can be stripped of their status if they traveled abroad while facing criminal charges involving moral turpitude, finding that pending allegations are sufficient to subject them to removal proceedings.

The Court said immigration officials do not need clear and convincing evidence of a crime at the moment a green card holder reenters the U.S. to treat them as an “applicant for admission” by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The case,  Blanche v. Lau, was focused on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese national who became a U.S. resident in 2007. He was arrested in 2012 and charged in New Jersey for allegedly selling $300,000 worth of knock-off shorts.

While Lau was awaiting trial, he left the U.S. but upon his return he was deemed an “applicant for admission” by the Department of Homeland Security which sought his removal from the United States.

The majority determined that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not require border officers “to have clear and convincing evidence” of a disqualifying offense at the exact time of parole. Instead, they said the government can satisfy the evidentiary burden later during removal proceedings.

The Court accepted the government’s argument that requiring immediate proof at the border would be unworkable and that the statutory text (“has committed”) does not mandate a “conviction” or immediate proof before parole is granted.

The decision allows DHS to treat green card holders facing pending criminal charges as returning aliens awaiting inspection, and later removal proceedings, rather than readmitting them as residents.

The majority explained that removing a permanent resident on a charge of inadmissibility involves two steps:

At step one, only commission of the crime is required to show that the alien could be regarded as seeking to be admitted; at step two, conviction or admission is required to show that the alien seeking to be admitted is inadmissible.

Lau was correctly charged with inadmissibility. At step one, the Government regarded him as an alien seeking admission because he had committed a crime involving moral turpitude before attempting to reenter the country.

At step two, he was inadmissible and therefore removable because he had been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

The three liberal dissenting justices argued that this ruling strips lawful permanent residents of their status based on unproven accusations, effectively allowing the government to bypass the higher burden of proof required for deportation by using the “inadmissibility” track instead.

“I worry that the Court has now handed the Government a massive blank check. With today’s decision, the Court allows the Government to return an LPR (lawful permanent resident) to the status of ‘seeking an admission’ upon his entry at the border, so long as the Government is able to show later that he was eventually convicted,” wrote liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent.

“That sequencing undermines the plain terms and basic operation of the relevant statutory scheme, which guarantees that LPRs will not be ‘regarded as seeking an admission’ at the border unless certain exceptions apply.”

James Percival, the general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, called the ruling a “big win” in a statement, Tuesday.

“Today, the Supreme Court affirmed an important tool DHS has long used to prevent criminals from entering our country. Big win!” Percival posted on X.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 15:45

Meta Developing Prediction Market App Called "Arena" To Compete With Polymarket, Kalshi

The company formerly known as Facebook which has yet to change its name from the terribly outdated Meta to something more AI-related, even if Meta has so far lost any hope of being a leading frontier model, is developing a new app called “Arena” that mirrors a prediction market platform to compete with the runaway success of Polymarket and Kalshi, according the New York Times.

The product - which would operate independently from Facebook and Instagram - would allow users to make forecasts about future events, ranging from politics and sports to entertainment and world affairs. However, unlike traditional prediction market platforms such as Polymarket or Kalshi, users would likely rely on a video game-like points system instead of cash, the report said, although the company has not ruled out the eventual use of real-money betting. In some ways, the product would be an extension of Meta's scuttled stablecoin project, Libra, when the company was hoping to enter the lucrative payments wallet market, however that venture proved unsuccessful and Zuckerberg pulled the plug in 2022.

The people described the product as both experimental and a top priority inside the company.

The effort comes as prediction markets have gained unprecedented popularity following Polymarket’s breakout success during the 2024 US presidential election, when traders came to the crypto-based platform to place bets on electoral outcomes, driving billions of dollars in trading volume and elevating prediction markets into the mainstream political conversation.

Meta previously launched a similar product called Forecast in 2020, which encouraged users to make predictions about current events and emerging trends during the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic. But as with most other new ventures by the company, Meta ultimately shut down the product in 2022.

As CoinDesk notes, Meta’s renewed interest in the sector is hardly surprising given the broader industry trend in the same direction. Nearly every major trading platform has made some effort to offer prediction market-style products or event contracts. Crypto-native companies such as Coinbase and Kraken have explored opportunities in the space, while retail brokerage Robinhood has introduced event-based contracts tied to political and economic outcomes.

Yet the rapid growth of those markets has also attracted increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny. Critics argue that contracts tied to elections, geopolitics, or other sensitive events can blur the line between financial instruments and gambling. 

Regulators have also raised concerns about market manipulation, insider information, consumer protection, and the potential for participants to profit from events they may be able to influence. In the United States, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has repeatedly grappled with whether certain event contracts serve a legitimate hedging purpose or constitute prohibited gaming activities.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 15:25

Judge Blocks SNAP Restrictions On Sugary Drinks, Candy

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Monday blocked the USDA from restricting the use of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance ​Program (SNAP) to buy sugary foods or drinks in five states.

Bags of candy on shelves at a Target store in Austin, Texas, on June 4, 2025. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued the ruling in response to a lawsuit by five SNAP recipients challenging the Agriculture Department's (USDA's) issuance of waivers for Colorado, Iowa, West Virginia, Tennessee, and Nebraska that allow them to restrict certain types of foods that can be purchased under the program.

According to the court documents, the states sought USDA approval between April and August 2025 to conduct pilot projects that would waive the federal definition of food and exclude soft drinks and sugary food from SNAP benefits.

The USDA approved the requests, but the plaintiffs argued the agency lacked authority to approve the food restriction waivers.

In her ruling, Jackson said the USDA lacked congressional approval to waive the federal definition of food under the program.

"Congress defined what 'food' is supposed to be, and it did not authorize the agency to amend or waive the definition it enacted. It did not authorize the agency to cut types of food out of SNAP entirely," the judge said.

"It set out clearly the type of experimental projects that could be tested to address the unquestionably serious health issues attributed to the rise of obesity in the population in general and particularly the low-income population. But it did not invite the Secretary to ignore its directives by trying to advance those ends under the banner of 'efficiency' or administrative improvements."

The judge also said that while the federal government and states may seek to encourage healthier choices for SNAP households, they must do so through lawful steps.

Following the ruling, the USDA ⁠defended the move and signaled that it would continue pursuing restrictions on the use of SNAP benefits for certain foods.

"The idea that taxpayer funds should not be used to purchase junk food should not be controversial," a USDA spokesperson said in a statement. "USDA will not be backing down from the fight to Make America Healthy Again, including for ​families and communities reliant on ​SNAP."

Katie Deabler, senior attorney at the National Center for Law and Economic Justice, which represents the plaintiffs, said the ruling marked "a major step" in restoring essential food aid to SNAP households.

"This decision makes clear that the USDA cannot bypass the legal guardrails that establish how SNAP must operate across the country. It affirms that families deserve a program that works without confusion," Deabler said in a statement.

The USDA has so far approved food restriction waivers ⁠in 23 states, allowing them to restrict SNAP participants from using their benefits to buy products such as ​soda and candy.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have supported banning food items deemed unhealthy from SNAP as part of the Make America Healthy Again agenda.

In June 2025, Kennedy called on all state governors to exclude sugary drinks from the SNAP program.

"Taxpayer dollars should never bankroll products that fuel the chronic disease epidemic," he said at the time.

Naveen Athrappully and Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 15:05

Ras Laffan Explosion Threatens To Slow Qatar LNG Ramp, Goldman Says

A powerful explosion tore through Qatar's key natural gas plant late Sunday, killing at least 13 people and injuring 66 others. While the incident does not appear to have directly impaired LNG export capacity, it has certaintly raised the risk that Qatar may slow the restart of operations as a precaution.

The timing could not be worse. The blast at Qatar's giant Ras Laffan energy complex comes just a week or so after the US-Iran interim peace deal was signed and days after the Strait of Hormuz was reopened.

Latest maritime ship tracking data shows a notable uptick in transits of tankers and cargo vessels on the critical waterway.

Goldman Sachs energy expert Samantha Dart penned a note on Monday detailing how the explosion at Qatar’s Barzan gas plant in Ras Laffan does not appear to have directly affected the country’s LNG export capacity, but it has raised questions over whether Qatar Energy may slow the restart of export trains as a precaution, potentially tightening Europe’s winter gas balance.

Dart said the blast likely adds a one-month delay in the full ramp-up of Qatari LNG exports, relative to a base case of exports reaching 83% of capacity by the end of July, would reduce northwest Europe’s end-October storage level by about 4 percentage points to 70%, compared with a 74% base case.

Dart's four takeaways:

1. While yesterday's accident at Barzan, a Qatari natural gas supply facility that services domestic gas users, does not appear to have directly impacted the country's LNG export capacity, it has raised questions as to whether the pace of restart at Qatari LNG export trains might slow as a precautionary measure.

2. We estimate that a one-month delay in the full ramp of Qatari LNG exports (to 83% of capacity, net of the 13 mtpa under long-term damage) relative to our end-Jul26 base case would lower the NW Europe end-Oct26 gas storage fill by 4pp to 70% full (vs our 74% base case).

3. We believe such a scenario would lend only very limited (if any) incremental support to European gas prices vs our 41 EUR/MW 2H2026 forecast. This is because our implied end-Mar27 storage estimate, which would move to 28% (vs our 32% base case) under an average winter, would still be high enough to withstand a 1-2 standard-deviation colder-than-average winter

4. A scenario of a two-month delay for the ramp in Qatari LNG exports, however, to end-Sep26, would be more worrisome for winter gas availability. In this scenario, we would expect end-Mar27 storage fill 8pp lower vs our 32% base case, suggesting a risk of stock-out under a two-standard deviation colder-than-average winter. This increased risk of a NW Europe gas inventory stock-out would, in turn, likely support 4Q26 TTF closer to 50 EUR/MWh than to our 40 EUR/MWh forecast to reflect a higher probability that the market might need to rally towards 65 EUR/MWh ($22/mmBtu) to disincentivize Asia LNG demand

Any delay in Qatar’s LNG ramp-up would complicate the early stages of Hormuz normalization after being shuttered for several months due to the US-Iran conflict and would impact global gas markets, particularly the hardest-hit in Europe, where storage remains very sensitive to the pace of Qatari export recovery.

Professional subscribers can read much more on energy and the Hormuz chokepoint at our Marketdesk.ai portal.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 14:45

US Senate Passes Housing Bill With Four-Year Fed CBDC Ban

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The U.S. Senate passed a sweeping housing affordability bill Monday night — and tucked inside its pages is a provision that could permanently reshape America’s digital currency landscape: a formal ban on a Federal Reserve-issued central bank digital currency through the end of 2030.

The 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act cleared the Senate 85-5, with Republican leaders insisting the CBDC restriction ride along with one of the most bipartisan bills in years. The House was poised to fast-track a vote as early as Tuesday, putting the measure on a direct path to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature.

The bill’s language is sweeping: the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System or any Federal Reserve bank may not issue, create, or circulate a central bank digital currency — directly or through any intermediary — through December 31, 2030. 

It explicitly shields private stablecoins, carving out any “open, permissionless, and private” dollar-denominated asset.

Trump set the political foundation for the ban in January 2025, signing an executive order barring his administration from any CBDC activity, warning it would threaten “the stability of the financial system, individual privacy, and the sovereignty of the United States”.

New Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, who replaced Jerome Powell, has called a U.S. CBDC a “bad policy choice” — making the Fed and the White House, for once, aligned.

The crypto market, meanwhile, isn’t celebrating. Bitcoin was trading near $62,000 Tuesday morning — down more than 3.7% on the day — as a Nasdaq tech selloff bled into digital assets. 

BTC has now lost roughly half its value since setting an all-time high above $125,000 in July 2025, and some analysts say the pain may not be over: at least one widely-followed technical indicator is pointing to a potential additional drop of 15% or more before a bottom forms.

Additional crypto Senate legislation in the works 

The CBDC ban is the latest piece in a three-part legislative puzzle the Trump-era Congress has been assembling.

In July 2025, Trump signed the GENIUS Act — the first federal stablecoin law in U.S. history — requiring issuers to hold one-to-one reserves, make monthly disclosures, and obtain federal licensing. The law essentially gave private digital dollars a legal green light at the same moment the government’s version was being blocked.

The third and most complex piece is still pending.

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act — the industry’s long-sought framework for determining when a crypto token is a security versus a commodity — cleared the Senate Banking Committee 15-9 on May 14 and landed on the Senate Legislative Calendar on June 1. 

Galaxy Research has put the odds of passage this year as high as 60%, but the clock is running out.

The bill needs at least seven Democratic votes to clear the Senate floor, and senators must act before August — when the legislative calendar effectively shuts down ahead of midterm campaigning. 

Senator Bill Hagerty told Fox Business on June 18 that he hoped the Clarity Act could clear the floor in the weeks ahead. Without it, a key question — who actually regulates crypto, the SEC or the CFTC — remains unanswered heading into an election cycle.

If Trump signs the housing bill this week, it will mark the most concrete federal action against a government digital dollar yet.

The message from Washington is becoming harder to misread: private crypto has a seat at the table, and the Fed’s version of a digital dollar does not. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 14:25

The Burden Of History: Justice Jackson's Curious Call To Overturn Critical 2nd Amendment Precedent

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Since her confirmation in 2022, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson has established a legacy that is fast becoming one of the most radical in the Court’s history. Her sole dissents have drawn sharp criticism from both her conservative and liberal colleagues. However, for critics of some of these decisions, Justice Jackson continues to publish opinions that are not just, as she describes it, cathartic but chilling. Worse yet, the latest judicial jump scare was shared by her colleague, Justice Sonya Sotomayor, in her concurring opinion in United States v. Hemani..

At issue in the case was an effort to prosecute Ali Hemani for recreational use of marijuana, a prosecution that threatened up to 15 years and to strip him of his gun rights under  18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that the provision was not "consistent with the Second Amendment." Gorsuch noted that Hemani was not alleged to be a drug addict or to have used his guns in a menacing manner.

Gorsuch wrote that the "historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways."

However, Jackson used the concurrence to argue for overturning NYSRPA v. Bruen, a case critical to laying the foundation for interpreting the Second Amendment based on historical precedent. Jackson lashed out at the"'history and tradition' metric" and called for the Court to "revisit" the case.

Declaring Bruen "unworkable," Jackson called for the restoration of the "means-end scrutiny - the approach courts applied before we adopted Bruen's 'history and tradition' metric - offers a more rational way of assessing the constitutionality of firearm regulations."

The reason for undoing Bruen? According to Jackson, "it imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer 'contested historical questions,' and 'applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems.'"

Justice Jackson added that "Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen's test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws."

The burden of actually seeking to understand the intended meaning of a constitutional provision is certainly greater than the more free-style approach of Jackson who focused on how to "resolve contemporary problems" under a living Constitution. However, to suggest that her outcome-determinative approach is less inconsistent and arbitrary is only true when you control the Court with justices who have like-minded "solutions" for contemporary problems.

That is precisely what many Democrats have in mind as they openly pledge to pack the Court with an insistent liberal majority if they can retake power. Moreover, Jackson is often cited as the model of the left, a justice who is unburdened by the language and history of constitutional provisions.

Just last week, liberal Wisconsin State Supreme Court justices heralded Jackson’s approach in arguing for the restoration of race-based gerrymandering. The state jurists lamented not being able to interpret the Constitution to address the “harms this country has caused to those who are marginalized, disempowered, or disenfranchised,” including the “preference for White Americans and to burden Black Americans and those of other disadvantaged races or backgrounds.”

These federal and state Supreme Court opinions are a glimpse into what awaits the country if Democratic leaders carry out their threat to take over the Supreme Court by adding four liberal justices in the image of Justice Jackson.

It is not simply the desire to immediately overturn prior cases but to establish a largely untethered jurisprudence driven by judicial fiat and impulse. It is certainly an easier way to write opinions and would clear the way for a stated agenda on the left to maintain power indefinitely.

Before voters "unburden" these jurists, they need to seriously consider the costs of eviscerating an institution that has been vital in maintaining this Republic for the last 250 years.

Here is the opinion: United States v. Hemani

onathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 13:45

Trump Privately Told Zelensky To Act 'More Boldly' Toward Russia: Ukrainian Media

While the globe's attention has been fixated on efforts to finally achieve US-Iran peace, based on negotiations in Switzerland, the Russia-Ukraine war has been quietly (or not so quietly) heating up, as evidenced in the increasingly brazen Ukrainian drone attacks on Moscow and Crimea.

A slew of Ukrainian publications on Tuesday are reporting that this is in large part due to a White House greenlight to bring the war to Russian territory, in order to finally get significant concessions from Moscow, after over four years of grinding and a largely stalemated conflict.

"Ukraine now believes it has secured White House backing for a campaign aimed at forcing Russia into meaningful negotiations, the Kyiv Independent has learned," one such prominent English-language publication says.

The key claim is that President Trump privately told President Volodymyr Zelensky to act "more boldly," a senior Ukrainian official has claimed to several outlets.

"Trump says he doesn't really believe (Vladimir) Putin will do anything without pressure," the official, said to have been briefed on a recent Trump-Zelensky meeting, added.

"President (Trump) believes in peace through strength," one US official separately added.

According to Trump, who was recently asked about lukewarm efforts to get the warring sides back to the negotiating table...

"I don't mind," the American President said. "I mean, let them deal."

Ukraine's Zelensky had just days ago proclaimed: "I will not travel to Moscow to meet with Putin. We can meet in Turkey, Switzerland, or the Middle East."

Washington has clearly taken a step back after the prior big Putin-Trump summit in Alaska failed to produce any significant or lasting results in Ukraine, other than perhaps improving Moscow-Washington relations.

If it's true that Trump did indeed tell Zelensky to act 'more boldly' - this will music to the UK, France, Germany, and Baltic states' ears... they have wanted a clearer US greenlight to impose heavy costs on Russia.

But obviously the situation remains highly dangerous, given if they poke the nuclear-armed Russian bear too much, the war could finally escalate beyond just Ukraine and Russia's borders.

The problem is that this has all been tried before, and Russia only escalates in turn, seeking to clarify its red lines to the West. It's long been a proxy war, but things can always slide into dangerous open confrontation and conflict with NATO.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 13:25

Average 2Y Auction Stops Through, Has Highest Yield Since Jan 2025

In the week's first coupon auction, moments ago the Treasury sold $69BN in 2Y notes at a high yield of 4.189%, up from 4.071% and the highest yield since January 2025; the auction also stopped through the When Issued 4.192% by 0.3bps, the biggest through since January.

The bid to cover was perfectly average at 2.643, unchanged from last month's 2.640 and right on top of the recent average of 2.61.

Internals were a bit on the weak side, with Indirects awarded 55.45%, down from 57.60% and the lowest since Dec 25. And with Directs awarded 34.3%or the highest since Oct '25, Dealers were left with 10.24%, down from 12.3% and the lowest since Feb.

Overall, this was a medicore auction which priced on the strong side but whose internals offset that strength, printing a bit weak. Not like any of that mattered for the bond market, however, with yields trading near session lows across the curve.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 13:13

Kuwait Offers Gulf Oil Loadings In Ports Deep In Persian Gulf As Producers Seek Hormuz Outlet

Submitted by Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Kuwait is offering naphtha for loading at its ports deep into the Persian Gulf in the first such tender in months, as Middle Eastern oil producers seek to raise shipments through the Strait of Hormuz.

State-held Kuwait Petroleum Corporation (KPC) has issued a tender to sell naphtha cargoes to be picked up at Kuwaiti ports by buyers, Bloomberg reported on Monday, quoting a tender document it had seen.

The Kuwaiti tender is a sign that the Gulf producers are hopeful that the Strait of Hormuz reopening would allow them to boost production and crude and product shipments.

In previous sales during the Hormuz crisis, Kuwait has asked potential buyers to charter their own tankers to pick up petroleum from the country’s ports, traders told Bloomberg.

But tanker traffic at the Strait of Hormuz has seen hiccups hours after the U.S. and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding to reopen the critical oil and LNG chokepoint. Iran claimed on Saturday it closed the Strait again, due to the Israeli strikes in Lebanon, while the United States insists the waterway is open and millions of barrels of oil are flowing out of the Gulf.

Strait of Hormuz traffic through ~noon (UTC), today.
Vessels > 10,000 dwt.

Traceable traffic mostly through the Iranian lanes.
Outbound traffic includes three laden, sanctioned VLCCs.@LloydsList pic.twitter.com/wR45UVGgDr

— Tomer Raanan (@tldraanan) June 22, 2026

The situation remains volatile, but the Middle East Gulf producers, especially those relying solely on Hormuz such as Kuwait, appear to be preparing to increase output they had shut in in the early days of the war.

Last week, KPC’s deputy chairman and CEO Sheikh Nawaf Saud Al-Sabah said that Kuwait expects to raise its oil production to 2 million barrels per day (bpd) within a week, up from an average of 573,000 bpd in May, amid the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Prewar production levels could be restored within weeks once regular international commercial shipping to Kuwait ports has resumed,” Al-Sabah was quoted as saying by Kuwait News Agency.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 13:05

MP Materials' Lawsuit Against USA Rare Earth Highlights Battle For America's Future In Minerals

USA Rare Earth has dismissed a lawsuit filed by MP Materials, calling the claims "completely without merit" and arguing the case is an attempt to slow its growth. The company said it will deny all allegations that it improperly obtained confidential information from a former MP employee, according to Bloomberg.

The dispute underscores intensifying competition in the U.S. rare-earth sector, where both companies are racing to build domestic mining, processing, and magnet-production capabilities. USA Rare Earth said MP is trying to impede its progress as it develops the Round Top deposit in Texas and a magnet facility in Oklahoma.

Bloomberg writes that MP sued last month, alleging a coordinated effort by USA Rare Earth to recruit MP employees and misuse proprietary information. The lawsuit also questioned the viability of USA Rare Earth’s projects. MP declined to comment on the latest filing.

The clash comes as billions of dollars flow into the U.S. rare-earth industry amid efforts to reduce reliance on China, which continues to dominate global supply chains for the critical minerals.

Rare earth minerals have become increasingly important to the United States because they are essential components in advanced technologies, including electric vehicles, semiconductors, robotics, aerospace systems, and military equipment. Materials such as neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium are critical for manufacturing high-performance magnets used in everything from fighter jets and missile guidance systems to wind turbines and data centers.

The strategic importance of rare earths has grown as the U.S. seeks to reduce its dependence on China, which currently dominates global rare earth mining, processing, and magnet production. Supply chain disruptions and export restrictions have heightened concerns among policymakers and industry leaders, prompting significant investments in domestic mining, processing, and manufacturing capabilities. Companies such as MP Materials and USA Rare Earth are at the forefront of efforts to establish a secure and resilient American rare earth supply chain.

Under the Trump administration, rare earth minerals have become a central component of broader efforts to strengthen U.S. energy security, industrial competitiveness, and national defense. Recent policy initiatives and government support have accelerated domestic rare earth development, reflecting a growing consensus that securing access to these critical minerals is essential for maintaining America's technological leadership and reducing strategic vulnerabilities.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/23/2026 - 12:30