Deflation Is Not The Villain - The Overleveraged Fiat System Is

Authored by Nick Giambruno via International Man,

It is important to clarify something here.

While mainstream economists, the financial media, academia, and other gatekeepers of the rotten fiat currency system howl about the dangers of deflation, it is worth taking a moment to consider whether it is really such a bad thing.

First, it is important to define our terms.

The correct and true meaning of inflation is an increase in the money supply. So the correct and true meaning of deflation is a decrease in the money supply. But that is not what most people mean when they refer to deflation, because the money supply rarely contracts in a fiat monetary system. When most people say deflation, they mean a general fall in prices.

One of the biggest popular misconceptions in economics is that a general fall in prices is a "bad thing."

It is an enormous misnomer. Falling prices caused by increases in productivity are actually a good thing. Who does not want to see their money go farther?

Technology is naturally deflationary. It drives down costs, increases efficiency, and makes goods and services cheaper over time.

In an honest monetary system, that would mean falling prices and rising purchasing power. In other words, your money would buy more as technology advances.

But that is not how the current system is designed to work. In fact, it does the opposite. It is like running on a treadmill that keeps accelerating.

In a fiat currency system, deflationary increases in productivity are more than offset by inflation, which benefits people who own stocks, houses, and other assets that rise with inflation, and hurts those who depend on wages denominated in the debased currency.

In short, in a fiat currency system, the benefits of deflationary technology primarily accrue to asset holders, because the forced inflation created by central banks pumps up asset values.

If we were living under an honest, hard-money monetary system, where the benefits of technology would not be offset by central banks debasing the currency, those gains would accrue more evenly across the population.

That is why I think the chart below is instructive.

It is a long-term view of real wages versus productivity.

The two tracked together well for decades, showing that as productivity increased, real wages did too. In other words, most people benefited from increases in productivity through higher real wages.

Then something changed around 1971, when that strong positive correlation broke. It was the year the US government cut the dollar's last link to gold and the dollar became a pure fiat currency.

Since 1971, there has been a growing gap between productivity and real wages.

If you could transport yourself back to the early 1970s, just as the divergence between productivity and real wages began, and ask people what they thought 2026 would look like, they might have said something like The Jetsons - flying cars, advanced technology, and a society in which everyone was better off.

They probably would not have believed you if you told them that, in reality, people would be worse off in many ways in 2026 than they were in the early 1970s, despite enormous technological progress. We may not have flying cars or The Jetsons, but there have still been significant advances. Yet people's standard of living has declined in many ways.

Today, many people are bewildered by how people could be worse off now than they were then. The answer is in this chart, which shows that the fiat system and currency debasement are the problem.

Despite advances in technology, the shocking level of currency debasement has not merely kept pace with the natural deflation that comes from increased productivity, but has vastly outpaced it... which is why people are, in many ways, worse off today than they were in the early 1970s. That prosperity has been stolen by inflation and fiat currency.

Since 1971, productivity has continued to increase, largely thanks to advances in technology, but those gains have not translated into growth in real wages as they had in the past under an honest money system. That is because under a fiat currency system, the central bank - the Federal Reserve - has created significantly more inflation than the gains in productivity, which meant real wages did not keep up.

However, those productivity gains from advancing technology did not just disappear. They were redirected somewhere else. They accrued primarily to asset holders, as wage earners chased rapidly depreciating fiat currency.

In short, the fiat currency system is a mechanism for transferring wealth created by technological productivity gains to asset holders and politically connected insiders closest to the money printer.

Frankly, it is a disgusting, dishonest system that operates at the expense of honest people.

But that is the nature of the monetary system we are all forced to live under. And it is wise to acknowledge it, understand it, and take action to protect yourself.

And now, with AI bringing a mind-bending level of productivity gains, this dynamic is about to go into overdrive.

I suspect we will see the gap in the chart above explode even further as AI, and future breakthrough technologies, produce the biggest productivity gains in human history, even as the US government is forced to create the largest amount of inflation in history to try to keep the debt-ridden fiat system going in the face of this historic disruption.

In other words, as technology becomes exponentially more deflationary and debt grows exponentially larger, the central bank's response will have to become exponentially more aggressive.

That means more debasement of your purchasing power to fight the very force that should be making your life cheaper.

Clearly, you want to be an asset owner in this environment so you can protect yourself from currency debasement and also benefit from tech-driven productivity gains.

But what assets should you own? I will get to that soon.

If we lived under an honest monetary system anchored in hard-to-produce money like gold, I think there would be far fewer worries about AI automation and disruption. That is because we would not live under a debt-ridden fiat system in which the government is forced to debase the currency. That would mean increases in productivity from technology would benefit far more people, as their money would go farther, prices would generally fall, and the cost of living would decline. And the government would not try to offset that with inflation.

In such a world, I do not think AI would be nearly as controversial, because it would be seen as making the average person wealthier by reducing the cost of living.

So technological deflation that increases productivity and lowers prices is most certainly not a bad thing, as the fiat economists would have you believe. It is a wonderful thing and should create more abundance and make most people wealthier... in an honest monetary system.

That is why the whole framing around this issue needs to be challenged. It is not technology that is the problem. It is the fiat currency and the highly leveraged system that is the problem.

It is also why you see charlatans promote things like universal basic income (UBI) as a solution to the supposed AI problem.

The solution to the non-problem of technological increases in productivity is most certainly not a UBI, but rather an honest hard-money monetary system in which everyone generally benefits from increases in productivity - not just asset holders and politically connected insiders closest to the money printer.

Throwing the plebs a few crumbs with a UBI to help prop up a failing debt-based fiat currency scam is not a real solution. But thankfully, there is a real solution.

It starts with understanding the monetary, economic, and political forces driving this crisis - and taking practical steps before the next major wave of instability hits.

The fiat system is already under enormous pressure from sky-high debt, endless money printing, and accelerating technological disruption. The people who understand what is happening will be in a far better position than those who are blindsided by it.

That is why I put together a free special report focused on practical solutions - the top three strategies to help protect your money, preserve your freedom, and prepare for what comes next.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 17:00

Buffett Delays Midyear Donation To Gates Foundation Amid Epstein Controversy

Warren Buffett has funneled roughly $48 billion into the Gates Foundation from 2006 to 2025, typically through annual midyear transfers of Berkshire Hathaway shares. However, this year, for the first time in two decades, Buffett is reportedly delaying his usual donation as he waits for the outcome of a review into the foundation's ties to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, according to a new Wall Street Journal report.

The delay comes as Buffett's relationship with Gates, a longtime friend, has reportedly become strained since the release of Justice Department files related to Epstein.

Buffett said in March that he had not spoken with Gates since the files were released and wanted to see what else emerged before making his annual giving decision.

WSJ noted:

Whatever decision Buffett makes, it isn't expected to affect his annual contributions to his family's foundations, including those run by his three children and the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, named after his first wife, according to the people familiar with the matter.

This year, a series of DoJ documents sparked scrutiny of Gates's ties to Epstein. He recently appeared at a congressional hearing and said that his meetings with Epstein were "a grave error in judgment."

Bill Gates with an unidentified but manifestly well-proportioned brunette number, in a photo from the Epstein files (House Oversight Committee)

Related:

• "I Did Nothing Illicit": Bill Gates Begins Apology Tour Over His Epstein Ties

Bill Gates with an unidentified but manifestly well-proportioned brunette number, in a photo from the Epstein files (House Oversight Committee)

WSJ recently reported that the Gates Foundation slashed 500 jobs, or about 20% of its staff, as the left-wing NGO has come under fire for Gates' ties to Epstein. Back in February, Gates pulled out as a keynote speaker at a high-profile global AI summit in India.

The Gates Foundation CEO recently told employees during a town hall event that the Gates-Epstein relationship had deeply tarnished the nonprofit's reputation, according to a Financial Times report.

But it is not just the Gates-Epstein ties that Buffett should be concerned about. Late last year, the Gates Foundation had to publicly sever ties with philanthropic adviser Arabella Advisors, which engineered a sprawling "dark money" network of nonprofit entities, including the New Venture Fund, Sixteen Thirty Fund, Hopewell Fund, and Windward Fund, that continues to wage color-revolution-style operations against President Trump.

All in all, it is not looking great for the Gates Foundation.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 16:40

The New Socialists: Elite, Ungrateful, And Toxic As Ever

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

Win some blue-state and blue-city races, and the cocky new socialist Jacobins believe that they have either already taken over the Democratic Party or will soon absorb it. And in reaction to these new swarms, an increasingly terrified and ossified old Democrat guard either limps away from the hive or invites them in to take over more.

It is fascinating but ultimately depressing to watch old-style Democrats say or do anything to avoid the new mob of Robespierres. Democrat candidates who recently begged for a Schumer/Pelosi/Jeffries endorsement now are telling them to get in line at the guillotine.

Jewish American Democrats are terrified that what happened to the primaried and defeated Rep. Dan Goldman of New York, an arch-Trump hater, could befall them. Goldman's obnoxious showboating hatred of Trump and championing of neo-socialist agendas offered no defense against the Jacobins' antisemitism and hatred of Israel.

A number of Jewish Democrat candidates, like wannabe California congressman Scott Wiener, are backing off from Israel and now join the "genocide!" mob. Wiener hopes that the throng will reward his new anti-Israel position by overlooking the now inconvenient fact that to the anti-Semitic Democrat base he is still Jewish.

Some of the rich, likewise, think they can escape the guillotine - the various proposed taxes on "billionaires" and "millionaires" on their net worth or unrealized capital gains or plans to confiscate private properties deemed "not in the people's interests." They will either flee to Florida or join the mob and hope their donations spare them from the blade.

The hard socialist agenda, which lacks even 50 percent popular support, is often recognizable despite efforts to conceal it until after elections. Given the clickbait lunacy of these socialists' mindset, their true views often trickle out from prior social media posts, hot mics, leaks, and occasional temper-tantrum outbursts (cf. Mamdani's "monsters" or Talarico's "I hate Christianity" or Platner's litany of unapologetic racist, antisemitic, and misogynistic outbursts).

In general, the socialist challenge is to "fundamentally transform America" into a statist, inert redistribution machine - nuttier than socialist Europe, a prescription for North Korean-style poverty, and completely unrecognizable to the Founders and most contemporary Americans. As far as we can distill, here are their agendas:

1. The New Demography: Open borders, massive, unaudited new immigration ending the distinction between mere residence and citizenship.
2. Dismantling the "System": Packing the court, destroying the Electoral College, ending the filibuster, bringing in new left-wing states, defunding the police, ensuring same-day registration/voting, no voter ID, foreign nationals residing here being eligible to vote.
3. The Islamization of America: Ending America's traditional friendship with Israel and realigning the U.S. with the West Bank, Hamas, Hezbollah, and their autocratic and illiberal, terrorism-sponsoring Muslim regimes. Restoring massive USAID subsidies to fund left-wing takeovers abroad and mainstreaming now overt harassment of Jews at home.
4. Old Communism: The government takeover of housing and utilities, targeted expropriation of private property, new punitive taxes on net worth and unrealized capital gains. Wild talk of nationalizing airlines and all health care.
5. Statism: Massive new entitlements, free college, canceling $1.7 trillion in student loans, more federal acquisition of private lands, rent freezes.
6. Reparations: Compensation for victims of alleged "white privilege," institutionalization of radical identity politics, and racial, ethnic, and sexual orientation chauvinism. Third world hatred of supposed white oppressors, justifying reparatory preferences for the non-white "oppressed."
7. Globalism: Pledging solidarity with socialist/communist movements abroad while despising Western civilization in general and the U.S. in particular.

Once "Mayor" Zohran Mamdani took control of New York, he began promising to confiscate rental properties from landlords and to focus on "white" neighborhoods, and he no longer disguised his innate hatred of Jews.

Governor Spanberger of Virginia dropped her moderate false face and began radically ramming through hard-left executive orders to ensure more DEI, higher taxes, and anti-ICE hysterics. After being elected, Seattle Mayor Katie Willson gushed "bye-bye" to the billionaire entrepreneurs who are fleeing from Washington state's new "millionaire's tax." She mocked their departure and cared not a whit that her now-socialist city would further descend into a West Coast Detroit or Baltimore.

Socialists hide their revolutionary anger with banal pleasantries. We have become well accustomed now to the "socialist smile," emblemized by the grinning Mamdani or the faux-happy face of James Talarico. Usually, the new touchy-feely socialists chuckle loudest when a rare reporter presses them on their past lunatic harangues, which are then laughed off as hysterias from paranoid right-wing minds.

Sometimes socialists embrace the hard commissar style, like the perpetually venomous Maine Senate candidate Graham Platner, who ridicules journalists, lies flagrantly, and takes back none of his hate-filled rants.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) perpetually screams rather than talks, usually venting her monotonous hatred for the Jewish state. Her latest socialist champions are the Antifa criminals just sentenced to long prison sentences for their conspiracy to murder ICE officers.

The more Ilhan Omar is caught trafficking in antisemitic tropes, denying alleged immigration fraud schemes, or filing preposterous federal financial disclosure forms, the more defiant her shouts of "racist" become.

The newly emerging socialists, like recent congressional nominees Darializa Avila Chevalier or Analilia Mejia, can never explain why their parents left socialist paradises in Latin America to come to cutthroat capitalist America.

Nor do they explain to us why and how such a supposedly toxic, racist nation would extend such generous scholarships and DEI preferences to both. They suffer from the Joy Reid/Ilhan Omar/Rashida Tlaib/AOC socialist syndrome: parents flee socialist paradises of indigenous peoples to ensure their children might thrive in a settler/colonialist and capitalist U.S. whose magnanimity they interpret as proof of guilt that is therefore to be reciprocated not with gratitude but with ever more venom.

And once the second-generation socialists joined the privileged elite classes of America, these boutique radicals decided to tear down the very system that nurtured them, without ever expressing a wish to return to the socialist paradises of their parents' homelands.

What drives the sheer hatred of the new upscale socialists, and why are they in vogue now?

There are three constants in all these new socialists, as we have seen recently from the recent nationwide primary elections, as well as the daily street theater.

One, they hate the United States - loathe its foundation, hate its maturation, and despise the current American nation. They detest especially the middle classes, who lack both the romance of the dependent poor and the supposed "refinement" and "culture" of their own elite socialist aristocracy. And the more they demagogue "white privilege" and "white supremacy," the more they feel that the river of exemptions, set-asides, preferences, and special considerations will flow to them from a supposedly guilty nation.

The socialists' hatred of America is becoming clearer as middle America embraces the 250th anniversary of the nation, highlighted by throngs of World Cup tourists who cannot praise highly enough the decency, amicability, and prosperity of America between the coasts. So, what is a perennial socialist PhD candidate, or a failed "community organizer," or NGO flack to do when millions happily suffer from "false consciousness" and have failed to listen to their Marxist handlers?

The socialist architects of the current Jacobin takeover see no contradiction in that, like moths harkening to flames, they cannot get enough of the American good life, conspicuous consumer consumption, and merit badges of success like their Ivy League-branded kids, letters and titles after their names, and the right zip code for their first and second homes.

Every socialist buffoon reminds us almost daily of Alexis de Tocqueville's droll warning that most people would prefer everyone to be absolutely equal and worse off than all better off, but with some better off than themselves.

The socialists' hatred of America is also revealed in their envy. Unlike the poet Hesiod's notion of a "good" envy - embodied in the American tradition of emulation and admiration of those richer than themselves - they buy into the "bad" envy of wanting to destroy those who are brighter, more successful, richer, and more essential to America than themselves, whether an Elon Musk, a Larry Ellison, or a Jeff Bezos.

Second, socialists still have little current power other than their control of institutions such as K-12 education, academia, the media, foundations, the bureaucracies, the corporate boardrooms, professional sports, entertainment, and popular culture. Perhaps they wish to end up like the lifelong government employee, Bernie Sanders, who for a half-century shook his two upraised fists at America, screamed at the greed, and ended up with three homes and membership in the millionaire class.

Socialists and communists have no confidence in winning over the majority of the American people, at least outside blue-city and blue-state districts. Hence, their efforts to change balloting laws, destroy the border, import angry, poor, new constituents, stage violent street confrontations, and either celebrate or contextualize assassinations from the attempts on Trump to the killing of Charlie Kirk.

Sane Democrats would reexamine 2024 and conclude the party was far too left-wing and the antidote was a return to the winning formulas of Bill Clinton. But unhinged socialists and communists would claim that 2024 was lost because they were not far-left enough. So we are to believe that Americans scared of Harris's poorly disguised radicalism can be won over by scaring them even further? A communist in 2028 can win over America when a socialist in 2024 could not?

Third, Donald Trump has driven the Left so crazy that they have gyrated from Obama's four-mansion socialism to unapologetic hardcore Trotskyism. Why? Their pathological hatred transcends Trump's background, his appearance, his accent, his tweets, and even his appeal to the despised "clingers, irredeemables, deplorables, chumps, dregs, and garbage."

Of course, Trump is a conservative, so he suffers the same left-wing slurs of "fascist" and "Nazi" that met Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. But in his second term, Trump, quite unlike most Republican presidents, is not addressing just symptoms but also the causes and fuel of the socialist project.

Trump did not just jawbone the "fake news" but cut off subsidies to NPR and PBS, suing the media when they deliberately engaged in baseless character assassination. He did not just close the border but began deporting the criminal cohort of Biden's 10 million illegal entrants, sought to end birthright citizenship, made would-be refugees apply for entry in their home country, ended catch-and-release, and will wall off or electronically secure the entire southern border from the Pacific to the Gulf of America.

He did not just rhetorically critique DEI; he banned it from the federal bureaucracy. Unlike past Republicans, Trump did not merely critique elitist campuses; he leveraged them to behave like normal people - taxing endowments, banning racist DEI protocols, prohibiting grant surcharge scamming, and demanding they abide by the Bill of Rights. He slashed the left-wing USAID money machine rather than just whining that it subsidized America's worst critics abroad.

In other words, the socialists are enraged not just because they despise the U.S. and lack the power to turn America into Cuba or because they have not yet stabbed, poisoned, shot, decapitated, or blown up the hated Trump, as their followers, celebrities, and a few of their leaders have so often boasted.

The real rub is that Trump is their flip side - not a revolutionary but a counterrevolutionary. He seeks to overturn root and branch the entire 100-year progressive project and ensure America's insidious slouching toward socialism ends with his term - for good. The more they brag about our collective socialist tomorrow, the more Trump incessantly dismantles socialism today.

So far, they haven't stopped him yet - but their lidless eyes never close.

Victor Davis Hanson is a distinguished fellow of the Center for American Greatness and the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. He is an American military historian, columnist, a former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 16:20

Katz Says Israel Could Be Back At War With Iran 'Tomorrow'

Authored by Dave DeCamp via AntiWar.com,

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said on Monday that the Israeli military was ready to restart the war against Iran and that it could happen as soon as "tomorrow".

Katz vowed that Israel would bomb Beirut's southern suburb of Dahiyeh if Hezbollah rockets were fired into northern Israel and that the IDF was prepared to respond if that prompted Iranian attacks on northern Israel.

Katz visiting Israeli troops in southern Lebanon on February 2, 2025. Israeli Defense Ministry photo

"There is no reality in which Israel will not respond to an Iranian attack," Katz said, according to Israel Hayom. "The equation stands – rocket fire on Israeli communities means an immediate assault on the Dahiyeh. The possibility exists that Iran will attack Israel not only in response to strikes in the Dahieh. We could find ourselves at war with Iran tomorrow."

The Israeli minister said that a second potential scenario that would lead to a renewed war with Iran would be if President Trump decides to restart the bombing campaign.

"There are two scenarios that would resume full-scale fighting – a decision by President Donald Trump or Iranian missile fire. This could happen in two days," he said.

Katz also insisted that Israel was ready to fight Iran on its own, which he called a "blue and white operation," despite the fact that Israel is extremely reliant on US air defenses.

"The IDF is just waiting for it. We have selected targets to strike in Iran, and the IDF is prepared and alert, but we will not interfere with the US President’s current moves vis-a-vis the Iranians," he said.

Katz also boasted about the destruction of Shia Muslim villages in southern Lebanon. "It was clear during Operation Silver Plow that the Shia villages along the contact line had to disappear," he said, using the codename for Israel’s recent operations in southern Lebanon.

'Israel is preparing for the immediate resumption of military operations against Iran.'

Senior Middle East Correspondent @ariel_oseran joins @benitalevin on #TheRundown pic.twitter.com/8c7YfNgaMP

— i24NEWS English (@i24NEWS_EN) June 30, 2026

"We are currently in a situation where there is nearly 100% destruction in the contact-line villages of the western and central sectors. In the eastern sector, we are at 73% of villages destroyed," Katz added.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 15:40

Trading Giant Susquehanna Lost Over $70 Million To Mystery Insider Traders

Trading giant Susquehanna Investment Group said it was attempting to unmask the identities of individuals it claims made at least $100 million trading on inside information about a Chinese government crackdown on cross-border brokerages last month.

The Pennsylvania-based market-maker, which says it was the counterparty on most of the alleged insider trades, sued 100 John Doe defendants in Manhattan federal court on Monday. Susquehanna is seeking to recover more than $70 million it says it lost to what it believes is one of the largest insider-trading schemes in recent memory, Bloomberg reported.

While it’s unusual for a major Wall Street firm to sue as a victim of insider trading - which is normally policed by the Securities and Exchange Commission and federal prosecutors - in suing the dozens of unknown traders, aka "John Does", Susquehanna is using a tactic sometimes employed by the SEC to seek information it hopes will identify the alleged insider traders.

According to Susquehanna, many of the trades were made from accounts at Interactive Brokers Group Inc., as well as the platforms of two firms targeted in the Chinese crackdown, Futu Holdings and Up Fintech’s Tiger Brokers (we discussed this in May in "China Launches Crackdown On Cross-Border Stock Selling To Block Capital Outflows").

Susquehanna is seeking an order freezing certain accounts at those brokerages and authorizing subpoenas of them.

Susquehanna, which is one of the largest US market-makers and is active in options, stocks, energy, bonds and foreign exchange markets, said in an SEC filing that its equity positions in the first quarter totaled more than $893 billion. The closely held company based in the Philadelphia suburbs has made its co-founder Jeff Yass one of the richest people in the world with a fortune estimated at $92 billion, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Susquehanna’s allegations focus on 200,000 short-dated put option bets placed in the two weeks before the Chinese government’s May 22 announcement that it would punish firms helping mainland Chinese clients illegally invest overseas. The statement was released by eight regulators, including the China Securities Regulatory Commission, the central bank and the public security ministry.

Almost simultaneously, regulators released a statement singling out Futu, Tiger and the unlisted Long Bridge Securities for operating in China without onshore licenses. Futu and Up Fintech’s shares plummeted in response.

In its suit, Susquehanna alleges several accounts engaged in a pattern of “high risk, high reward trading” designed to take advantage of the projected drops. In one example, a trader purchased the option to sell Futu shares at $102.45 — down from $124.58 — up to a week after the Chinese government’s announcement.

There was “powerful evidence” the traders were using material non-public information to inform their well-timed bets, Susquehanna alleges. It said the tips could have come from Chinese securities regulators or personnel at Futu or Up Fintech.

The traders collectively purchased $12 million in options, yielding a profit of more than $100 million and a return of more than 900%.

“By way of comparison, Raj Rajaratnam’s infamous insider trading scheme at Galleon Management yielded only approximately $53 million in profits,” Susquehanna said in its complaint, referring to the hedge fund manager convicted in 2011.

According to Bloomberg, the alleged insider traders’ use of Interactive Brokers could prove awkward for that firm. The suit doesn’t accuse Interactive Brokers of wrongdoing, but founder Thomas Peterffy, also one of the world’s richest men with an estimated $104 billion fortune, is an outspoken supporter of legalizing insider trading.

“I’m in favor of not having any rules against insider trading. I would like all the information out there as soon as it’s available,” he said in an recent interview on Bloomberg. “Because look, as a society, we are better off knowing as soon as possible anything that is knowable.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 15:00

Here We Go Again: Taiwan Raids Super Micro In AI Chip Probe

Taiwan has intensified its efforts to stop advanced AI hardware from reaching China, carrying out raids at the local offices of Super Micro Computer and several businesses connected to an investigation into the movement of servers equipped with NVIDIA chips, according to Bloomberg.

Investigators searched multiple business locations and the homes of six individuals as part of the inquiry. While prosecutors did not publicly identify those involved, a source familiar with the matter said Super Micro's Taiwan office was among the locations searched. The company said it is fully cooperating with investigators and emphasized that it works to safeguard its technology and ensure its products are sold in compliance with applicable laws. Shares fell about 8% following the announcement.

Bloomberg writes that the probe also reached Chief Telecom and Albatron Technology. Both companies acknowledged the searches, saying day-to-day operations were unaffected, although Albatron's shares dropped sharply.

The case marks another step in Taiwan's broader campaign to prevent restricted AI technology from being diverted to China. Earlier this year, authorities arrested three suspects accused of using fraudulent export paperwork involving Super Micro servers loaded with Nvidia AI processors. Officials believe at least one shipment ultimately made its way to China through Japan, while dozens of additional servers were intercepted before they could leave Taiwan.

Taiwan currently lacks a law that specifically criminalizes exporting AI chips to China, limiting prosecutors to pursuing related offenses such as document fraud. Lawmakers are now considering tougher export rules that would make such shipments illegal and give authorities stronger enforcement powers as Taiwan moves to more closely mirror U.S. restrictions on advanced semiconductor technology.

The latest developments also add to the uncertainty surrounding Super Micro.

Ever since Hindenburg Research published its report less than two years ago, "Super Micro: Fresh Evidence Of Accounting Manipulation, Sibling Self-Dealing And Sanctions Evasion At This AI High Flyer," the company has struggled to shake a steady stream of damaging headlines.

The short seller accused Super Micro of accounting irregularities, undisclosed related-party transactions involving family members, export control concerns, and other governance failures, allegations the company has disputed.

Since then, Super Micro has faced delayed financial filings, scrutiny from regulators and most recently one of its co-founders charged in a scheme to divert roughly $2.5 billion in advanced Nvidia chips to China, according to an indictment unsealed earlier this year.

SMCI is the infinite money glitch of fraud https://t.co/KsQ6bDtinh

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 29, 2026

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 14:45

Trump Threatens 'Big Problems' For Gasoline Retailers If They Don't Cut Prices

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump on Tuesday demanded that gasoline retailers immediately lower prices at the pump, warning of “big problems” if they fail to pass along the benefits of falling crude oil prices to consumers.

In an early-morning post on Truth Social, Trump said gasoline prices remain too high despite U.S. crude oil trading at about $68 a barrel and continuing to decline.

“Gasoline Retailers must get their Prices down, IMMEDIATELY!” Trump wrote.

“They’re too high considering that Oil is now at $68 a Barrel, and heading south.”

[ZH: Perhaps Mr. Trump does not fully realize that it takes time for the energy supply chain to ripple down to pump prices]

He urged retailers to “start targeting around the $2.50 a Gallon number,” while accusing some stations of price gouging.

Price gouging “is totally illegal,” Trump wrote, adding that if gas stations don’t lower prices at the pump, “big problems lie ahead!”

Trump also singled out California, saying the state should reduce gasoline taxes that he argued are inflating prices for drivers.

“Soon the Tax will be higher than the Product itself,” he wrote, adding that Californians were being “abused” by their state government.

Trump’s warning comes less than a week after he said he had directed the Department of Justice to investigate whether gasoline retailers and oil companies were failing to lower pump prices in line with the sharp decline in crude oil prices following the U.S.–Iran ceasefire agreement.

At the time, Trump accused companies of “gouging” consumers and said retail gasoline prices were not falling quickly enough despite crude prices dropping “like a rock.”

[ZH: lower gas prices correlate well with higher approval ratings for Trump (and vice versa)...]

Gas Prices Continue to Ease

National gasoline prices have been trending lower in recent weeks as global oil markets stabilized following the easing of tensions in the Middle East.

According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), the national average price for regular gasoline stood at $3.91 per gallon on June 29, marking the fifth consecutive weekly decline and the second straight week below $4 per gallon.

The average was down from nearly $4 a week earlier and more than 50 cents lower than one month ago, when drivers were paying about $4.51 per gallon.

AAA said declining crude oil prices and improving fuel supplies have helped push prices lower, although demand is expected to rise as a record number of Americans prepare to travel over the Independence Day holiday weekend.

The U.S.–Iran conflict disrupted crude supplies in the Persian Gulf, driving prices to multi-year highs.

However, since the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding on June 17, agreeing to extend a ceasefire to give room for negotiations on a lasting peace deal and reopen the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, oil benchmarks have fallen sharply from peaks above $126 per barrel for Brent and nearly $120 for West Texas Intermediate (WTI).

After five straight monthly increases, analysts have cut their 2026 oil price forecasts for the first time since the Iran war began, following the U.S.–Iran deal reopening the Strait of Hormuz and easing concerns over prolonged supply disruptions.

A monthly Reuters survey of 31 economists and analysts forecast Brent crude would average $84.50 per barrel in 2026, versus $90.44 projected last month. WTI was seen averaging $79.49 per barrel, down from May’s projection of $84.63.

However, some analysts said that lingering geopolitical risks mean that the potential remains for crude prices to rebound.

“We believe that the market is being too optimistic over the speed of the supply recovery as well as its sustainability,” Warren Patterson, ING’s head of Commodities Strategy, wrote in a Monday note.

“Furthermore, we have seen a significant tightening in global oil inventories since the start of the conflict, which leaves the market more vulnerable relative to the pre-war environment.”

Some energy experts have said that gasoline prices typically do not fall as quickly as crude oil prices due to factors such as delays in refining, transportation, and distribution.

Chevron chief financial officer Eimear Bonner said last week that lower crude prices should eventually translate into cheaper gasoline for consumers but noted that the process takes time.

“There is a lag between ... reductions in oil prices and when that shows up at the pump,“ she told CNBC on June 25. ”But we expect that prices will come down as things continue to normalize.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 14:25

JPMorgan Backs US Crypto Bill, But Puts Warning Label Front & Center As Senate Eyes August Deadline

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

JPMorgan threw its support behind federal digital asset legislation Monday, but the bank’s message to Congress was as much a caution as an endorsement: get the framework right, or risk recreating the financial vulnerabilities regulation was designed to prevent.

In a joint op-ed, Umar Farooq, global co-head of JPMorgan Payments, and Peter Muriungi, CEO of Digital Assets and Blockchain Solutions, argued that the United States has a genuine opportunity to lead in digital finance — provided lawmakers pair regulatory clarity with durable safeguards. 

The piece arrived as the Senate race to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act before its August recess, with negotiators still working through sticking points on stablecoin yield provisions, ethics rules for government officials with crypto ties, and liability protections for decentralized finance developers.

“Regulatory clarity matters only if paired with durable safeguards,” Farooq and Muriungi wrote. “Clarity with gaps or loopholes can push activity into lightly supervised channels and weaken long-standing protections.”

The op-ed stands out less for what it celebrates than for what it warns against. Rather than leading with the promise of tokenization and programmable money, the executives spent much of their argument flagging how crypto innovation could go wrong without proper guardrails.

JPMorgan’s take on stablecoins, blockchain

On market structure, JPMorgan’s position was blunt: the blockchain on which a product is issued does not change its economic function. Assets that look and behave like securities should face disclosure, custody, and market integrity rules. 

Decentralized trading platforms that operate like brokers or exchanges should be held to the same standards. Tokenization, the executives argued, should improve how markets operate, not serve as a mechanism for bypassing the rules that have made U.S. capital markets the most trusted in the world.

The bank reserved particular focus for stablecoins, where JPMorgan sees both commercial opportunity and competitive threat. Stablecoins and tokenized deposits could enable faster settlement and reduce friction in cross-border payments, Farooq and Muriungi wrote. 

But when those products offer yield-like incentives or hold balances without meeting bank-level capital, liquidity, and consumer-protection standards, payments innovation becomes shadow banking by another name.

Features such as rewards or cashback on held balances lead many consumers to assume the product carries familiar protections. When it does not, the result is heightened run risk — a concentrated vulnerability that surfaces in the worst moments. 

JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon has been among the banking industry’s loudest voices on the issue. “The banks will not accept it,” Dimon said last month, vowing to fight stablecoin yield provisions in the Clarity Act “down to the wire.”

The executives also pressed for strong anti-money laundering and law enforcement tools across the digital asset ecosystem. Broad exemptions for infrastructure that processes core transactions, they argued, can enable opaque arrangements that shield true ownership — a risk for both national security and market integrity.

The op-ed did not arrive without commercial context. Also Monday, JPMorgan announced the expansion of its Kinexys blockchain payments platform to eight currencies, adding the Australian dollar, Hong Kong dollar, Japanese yen, Chinese renminbi, and Singapore dollar to a system that already supports the U.S. dollar, euro, and British pound.

The platform has processed more than $4 trillion in transactions to date, with average daily volume exceeding $7 billion. Payoneer and Japanese energy trader JERA Global Markets are among the first clients using the new currency accounts.

Kinexys earlier this year also launched JPM Coin, a deposit token designed to give institutional clients near-instant, 24/7 settlement without stepping outside the regulated banking system. The token runs on a permissioned blockchain network operated by J.P. Morgan, where client deposits are represented digitally and transfers settle within the network rather than on public rails.

Earlier this week, Fidelity wrote that Bitcoin’s current crypto winter could end if one or more major catalysts emerge, including the continuation of the four-year halving cycle, clearer crypto regulation, Federal Reserve rate cuts, a new breakout crypto use case, or a fresh wave of institutional adoption. 

While none of these factors are guaranteed, the bank argued that history suggests major bull markets have often followed similar shifts in supply dynamics, policy, macro conditions, and investor demand.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 14:05

Blackstone Sells Stake In Three Virginia Data Centers Amid Grassroot Outrage

Up until now, when it comes to real estate, Blackstone was best known in recent years for dumping many of its trophy office properties - which in the aftermath of work from home never recovered their projected cash flow potential - at a huge discount. Now, it may be pulling a page from its old, pre-Lehman playbook  by calling the top in yet another commercial real estate segment: data centers. 

According to Bloomberg, Blackstone is selling its stakes in a trio of data centers across Northern Virginia for $3.5 billion, cashing out of part of a bet it made less than three years ago.

Digital Realty Trust will pay $1.2 billion of cash and offer $2.3 billion of its shares to Blackstone funds, the firms said in a statement Monday. In exchange, the data center company will acquire Blackstone’s 80% interest in two 96-megawatt data centers in Manassas, Virginia, and a 50% interest in a 96-megawatt center in nearby Sterling.

The assets involved in this week’s sale were part of a joint venture that Blackstone announced it would set up with Digital Realty in 2023 as it sought to get ahead in the AI arms race that has engulfed Wall Street in recent years. Blackstone and Digital Realty will continue to work together on their remaining data center investments located elsewhere in Northern Virginia as well as in Paris and Frankfurt. 

“We have developed a strong partnership with Blackstone,” Greg Wright, Digital Realty CEO, said in the statement. “This transaction reflects the next phase of that relationship, allowing us to increase our ownership in a portfolio of fully leased, high-quality hyperscale assets.”

It does. The question is why did Blackstone decide to pull the cord now, just as fresh doubts are creeping whether the Mag 7s will continue funding the AI expansion with virtually unlimited capex.

As part of Wall Street’s broader push into data centers, investment has poured into Northern Virginia, which is considered the country’s largest data center market, and is better known as "Data Center Alley".

That includes Digital Gateway, an ambitious plan for a 2,100-acre corridor in the region that would house as many as 37 data-center buildings. 

Data center developers eyeing that land have faced strident opposition. Compass Datacenters, backed by Brookfield Asset Management, recently pulled out of a yearslong effort to build a key part of the development after facing intense pushback from local residents.  Blackstone’s QTS is also fighting in court to salvage a similarly sized development on adjacent parcels.

The increasingly vocal political and grassroots pushback against new data center construction may explain why Blackstone is getting cold feet just as the AI bubble is peaking.  A recent Gallup poll found that 7 in 10 Americans oppose constructing data centers for artificial intelligence in their local area, including nearly half, 48%, who are strongly opposed. Barely a quarter favor these projects, with 7% strongly in favor.

Half of opponents mention data centers’ excessive use of resources, including 18% each mentioning their use of water and energy. Sixteen percent mention a related environmental concern of pollution, including noise pollution and air and water pollution.

About one in five opponents are concerned with the impact on local quality of life, including increased population, increased traffic and preferring that the land be used for other purposes. A similar share mention potentially negative economic consequences, including higher utility bills, cost-of-living increases, and the cost of building the data centers (which could involve the use of taxpayer funds).

Most of the remaining opposition stems from general or specific concerns about artificial intelligence.

Blackstone, which manages more than $1.3 trillion, bills itself as the largest global provider of data centers, and also owns some of the utilities that power them. It acquired QTS in 2021 and bought Australian computing provider AirTrunk in 2024. In May, the firm held an initial public offering for Blackstone Digital Infrastructure Trust Inc., its data center acquisition vehicle, which aims to buy already built and leased properties benefiting from the artificial intelligence boom.

The firm has more than $150 billion of data center assets, and it has identified an additional $160 billion worth of opportunities for its pipeline, CEO Steve Schwarzman said in April.  

Affiliates of Blackstone are already selling the Digital Realty equity they’re set to receive from this week’s deal, which is expected to be completed Tuesday. They’re offering the stock at as much as a 2.9% discount to Monday’s closing price of $190.58, Bloomberg reported citing people familiar.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 13:25

Apollo Chief Economist Delivers Scathing Rebuke Of AI, Finds Zero Margin Boost Outside Of Tech

In his market note published this morning, Apollo's chief economist Torsten Slok delivers a scathing review of the failure of AI to boost profit margins outside of tech... which of course is what AI is supposed to do since it is meant to boost productivity across the entire economy, not just a select group of chipmakers. 

As Slok shows in the chart below, so far there are no signs of profit margins rising outside the tech sector. He notes that "this is ultimately what we are waiting for, because the value of AI companies today rests entirely on the promise that margins in the S&P 493 will eventually climb."

As Slok notes, the promise of higher margins for all is the link to current (soaring) market prices, since implicit in the valuations of AI companies are assumptions about future earnings. That's why the current debate about token costs, model routing and token marketplaces is important. If token costs converge toward zero for most AI use cases, then there is not enough revenue for all hyperscalers even in a situation where compute demand surges higher, Slok cautions stomping all over the now traditional "but Jevon's paradox" counterargument. (for more discussion, Slok recommends reading this piece from his colleagues in Apollo Thematic Investing).

Going back to the matter at hand, the key issue is the length of the ROI runway outside the tech sector. In a handful of sectors, software and tech above all, implementation is nearly immediate, since these firms can fold AI into their own products and processes overnight (ironically, it is the same software sector that has been crushed in 2026 due to doubts over the terminal values of ventures which may well be made obsolete by the same AI that is meant to boost their margins).

But that is the exception. Across most of the economy, and especially in capital-intensive, heavily regulated sectors, deep process re-engineering and data governance requirements could delay structural productivity gains well beyond what the market currently projects. The list of slow-moving sectors is long, spanning health care, banking and insurance, energy and utilities, defense and aerospace, pharma and life sciences, manufacturing, transportation and logistics, construction and real estate, education, legal and the public sector.

This, according to Slok, creates a dangerous divergence between aggressive, front-loaded valuations today and a much slower cash flow reality, since equity markets priced for instant earnings growth will face a painful repricing if the productivity hockey-stick takes five years rather than five months.

Put differently, companies will slow their AI spending if they don't see ROI quickly, and the current focus on token optimization is an early warning that AI implementation could be a bumpier, slower road than expected.

Slok's bottom line is that a mismatch between current earnings expectations and the actual time firms need to generate ROI on AI investments could have significant implications for many AI company valuations today

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 13:00

Oman Is Playing Word Games On Iranian Tolls Through Strait: 'Service, Environmental Fees'

Iran has remained on message in the last several weeks despite a few serious flare-ups in tit-for-tat fighting and missile and drone exchanges with US forces, also including Iranian strikes on at least two foreign shipping vessels which refused to heed Tehran's 'rules'.

Hormuz will not return to its pre-war status, Iranian officials insist, even as negotiations are still happening, but are stalled in terms of direct interactions with the American delegation led by Witkoff and Kushner in Qatar. Tehran’s position is that US-Israeli war on Iran forever changed the rules of passage. Safe navigation can no longer be treated as a free service, when Iranian infrastructure is threatened, Tehran has maintained.

The Iranians have been in high level talks with Oman, the coast on the other side of the Hormuz chokepoint passageway, even while Washington brings immense pressure on its southern Arabian ally not to comply - threatening punishment and repercussions.

via Reuters

Concerning the (nuanced, shall we say) Omani position, its Foreign Minister Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi has sought to clarify in a new interview that the Sultanate opposes imposing transit fees on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, saying it will uphold international maritime law.

However, it seems Oman is still largely in Iran's corner when it comes to jointly collecting "fees" of some kind, and like with much that we've seen of Iran-focused international statements and negotiations, some word games are being played - and wrangling over definitions:

FM Al-Busaidi said Oman opposes tolls on transit itself, which he said are “prohibited” under international law, but drew a “clear distinction between transit fees and maritime, environmental, and navigational services that may be discussed voluntarily with the benefiting states and companies,” the same distinction Iran has invoked to justify proposed “service fees.”

So the word "toll" might be nixed and replaced by talk of "environmental" and "navigational services" fees. It's akin to hotels in various Western cities charging hidden and ambiguous "city" and an "admin/hotel tax" or other ambiguous hard to nail down "fees" - which are often hefty and leave patrons confused and outraged.

The Omani FM claimed that Oman and Iran have agreed that any future arrangements for the strait will remain within international law and the "rights" of the coastal states. So clear enough 'legal loopholes' are being established here - enough to drive a truck through and raise the ire of Washington.

The fuller outline of the Omani plan:

Hormuz Scoop: Oman recently delivered a formal proposal to the United States and other Western allies that outlined a plan in which shipping companies would pay service fees to use the strait, according to the Iranian official and a regional diplomat.https://t.co/bjjgK1KjYk

— Vivian Nereim (@viviannereim) June 30, 2026

But it could be that the Trump administration, eager to end the war - or that is, this little 'excursion' in the Middle East and thus bring oil prices back to permanent pre-war levels, might in the end play ball with the Iranians and Omanis on the issue.

After all, the alternative is resumption of full war and thus escalating crude and energy prices globally - and that's precisely the kind of economic and political leverage the Iranians are counting on. There might be plenty of US willingness to look the other way to get energy transit flowing once again.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 12:40

Deutsche Bank: Tesla's Q2 Vehicle Deliveries Tracking Above Consensus Expectations

Tesla could be on track to deliver a stronger than expected second quarter, according to a new research note from Deutsche Bank analyst Edison Yu and his automotive team.

The firm now expects Tesla to report approximately 416,000 vehicle deliveries during the second quarter of 2026. That estimate is about 10,000 vehicles above the company compiled consensus and sits modestly ahead of most Wall Street expectations, which generally range between 413,000 and 420,000 deliveries.

If Deutsche Bank's forecast proves accurate, Tesla would post delivery growth of 16% from the first quarter and 8% from the same period a year ago. The results would mark a meaningful rebound following a weaker start to the year. According to the analysts, international markets are doing most of the heavy lifting.

Europe is expected to be Tesla's strongest region, with deliveries rising nearly 40% from a year ago. Deutsche Bank believes improving demand across the region is the primary reason the company is on pace to outperform expectations.

China is also expected to contribute to the stronger quarter, although growth there is forecast to be much more modest at roughly 3% year over year. Registration data through May tracked close to 74,000 vehicles, while the bank estimates total second quarter deliveries from China will reach approximately 133,000 units. June order activity has also remained solid, with roughly 40,000 orders recorded through June 21. Deutsche Bank believes there is enough time left in the quarter for deliveries to reach its estimate.

North America remains the weakest part of Tesla's business. The bank expects deliveries in the region to decline about 21% from the same quarter last year. Even so, volumes are still projected to improve about 7% compared with the first quarter, suggesting conditions have stabilized somewhat despite softer demand.

Beyond the quarter itself, Deutsche Bank remains constructive on Tesla's full year outlook. The firm believes the company can deliver roughly 1.63 million vehicles during 2026, which would keep annual deliveries essentially flat even without a meaningful contribution from any new vehicle models.

The report suggests Tesla may not need a major product launch to stabilize sales this year. Instead, stronger demand in Europe combined with resilient performance in China could be enough to offset continued weakness in North America.

Investors will now be watching Tesla's official delivery report to see whether the company's international strength is enough to produce another quarter that comes in ahead of expectations.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 12:00

Trump Suggests He May Not Sign Bipartisan Housing Affordability Bill

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump indicated on June 29 that he may not sign a bill that Congress passed that aims to make housing more affordable.

Trump told reporters at the White House in Washington that he has not decided whether to sign the housing bill, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which Congress approved in a bipartisan fashion earlier in the month and targets permitting times, boosts financial incentives, and aims to make it easier to obtain mortgages.

“I think it’s so unimportant compared to the Save America Act,” Trump said.

“To me, compared to the Save America Act, just about everything is a big yawn.”

Trump had been poised to sign the housing legislation, but canceled those plans so as to try to force Congress to pass the Save America Act, which would require voters to prove they are American citizens to vote in federal elections.

The House of Representatives has passed the act, but it has stalled in the Senate, where Democrats oppose it over concerns that it could exclude voters who meet the standards but lack the necessary documents.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said over the weekend that the housing bill would be transmitted to Trump on Monday and that he was confident it would become law.

Johnson said the bill was a priority for Republicans because it would bring down housing costs and reduce regulation.

Trump has said that concerns about affordability are overblown.

“They say, ‘Oh, he doesn’t realize prices are high,’” he said in a speech in December 2025.

“Prices are coming down very substantially. But they have a new word. They always have a hoax. The new word is affordability.”

He said more recently that he does not consider the financial situation of Americans when deciding on next steps in the war with Iran.

Trump said Monday at the White House, where he signed a directive expanding Americans’ ability to repair their own vehicles, that the housing bill had not yet been sent to him.

“It’s coming, I understand,” he said. “And then I'll make a decision.”

Once Trump receives the bill, he has 10 days, excluding any Sundays, to veto or sign the legislation.

If he does not act within that period, the bill will become law automatically. If Trump vetoes the legislation, Congress can override the veto with a two-thirds vote in each chamber.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 11:40

Democrat-Led States Sue Trump Administration Over Medicaid Work Requirement Rules

Via American Greatness,

A coalition of 25 Democrat-led states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit Monday challenging the Trump administration’s rules implementing new Medicaid work requirements. The suit claims the work regulations unlawfully restrict exemptions for medically vulnerable recipients.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, seeks to overturn the administration’s rule governing eligibility exemptions tied to the work requirements.

The states contend the rule conflicts with congressional intent by making it more difficult for individuals with illnesses to qualify for exemptions.

According to the complaint, the Trump administration’s policy will “cause immediate and irreparable harm” to state Medicaid programs.

The lawsuit argues the rule “will further strain safety net providers, lead to more uncompensated emergency care, and raise other costs associated with newly uninsured, medically frail residents.

And it will cause rural hospitals to be even more likely to shutter.”

The legal challenge was brought by 23 Democratic attorneys general along with the Democratic governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, both of which have Republican attorneys general.

The states also allege the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) violated administrative procedure laws by adopting a rule that differs significantly from earlier guidance provided to states on implementing the work requirements.

The Trump administration has defended Medicaid work requirements as part of an effort to ensure public assistance programs are directed toward eligible recipients while encouraging workforce participation.

Under the policy, Medicaid beneficiaries must complete at least 80 hours of work or other approved activities each month to maintain coverage no later than Jan. 1.

States must begin notifying Medicaid recipients by Aug. 31 about how they can comply with the new requirements.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 11:05

AeroVironment Erupts On "Asymmetric Warfare Boom"

AeroVironment shares surged the most in nearly two decades in early trading after the defense contractor - best known for its loitering munitions and unmanned systems - reported stronger-than-expected fourth-quarter results and issued fiscal 2027 revenue guidance that topped Wall Street estimates tracked by Bloomberg.

AeroVironment's fiscal fourth-quarter revenue jumped 31% to $642 million, well ahead of the Bloomberg Consensus estimate of $556.4 million, driven mostly by its autonomous systems unit and soaring demand for Switchblade, Red Dragon, and Titan.

Switchblade

Adjusted EBITDA of $140.1 million and adjusted earnings of $1.84 per share also beat expectations. Initial fiscal 2027 guidance was broadly in line, with revenue projected at $2.125 billion to $2.225 billion, implying about 10% organic growth.

A quick look at AeroVironment's fourth-quarter earnings, courtesy of Bloomberg:

• Revenue $641.6 million vs. $275.1 million y/y, estimate $556.4 million
• Adjusted EPS $1.84 vs. $1.61 y/y, estimate $1.41
• Income from operations $56.9 million vs. $13.8 million y/y, estimate $39.4 million
• Adjusted Ebitda $140.1 million vs. $61.6 million y/y, estimate $126.1 million
• Gross profit $202.6 million vs. $100.3 million y/y, estimate $175.6 million

... and 2027 year forecast:

• Sees revenue $2.13 billion to $2.23 billion, estimate $2.16 billion (Bloomberg Consensus)
• Sees adjusted EPS $3.02 to $3.34, estimate $3.79
• Sees adjusted Ebitda $305 million to $325 million, estimate $346.2 million

Stifel analysts noted AeroVironment's strength in the drone and counter-drone space:  

AeroVironment is a leader in several key areas in new defense, namely loitering munitions (Switchblade family of drones) that we believe will be critical as the entire industry undergoes a transformation.

The company's merger with BlueHalo provides exposure in space, counterdrone, and missiles, all of which are priorities for the DoD.

We anticipate a steep ramp in organic EBITDA in the legacy AVAV portfolio and BlueHalo.

Our Buy rating reflects AeroVironment's positioning as a pure-play new defense tech company with rapidly growing sales and earnings driving increased investor enthusiasm and multiple expansion.

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Will Lee noted:

AeroVironment's fiscal 2027 sales targets seem achievable, fueled by expectations of robust demand across its loitering munition, drone and counter-drone, or C-UAS, portfolio. Still, sales are skewed toward 2H, and US budget delays might push them further out into 2028.

KeyBanc Capital Markets analyst Michael Leshock noted:

AeroVironment is positioned to capitalize on the proliferation of UAS/cUAS and increased government spending in defense and space-related programs. Should geopolitical tensions intensify, AVAV is positioned among the top beneficiaries.

In early trading, AeroVironment shares were up nearly 31%, which would mark the stock's largest one-day gain on record if the move holds into the cash session. Year to date, shares are down 42.5% as of Monday's close. Short interest remains elevated, with about 13% of the float sold short, equivalent to roughly 4.8 million shares.

Perfect timing on AeroVironment. We recently laid out for readers how to capitalize on the accelerating "asymmetric warfare boom," a theme that appears poised to gain momentum in the quarters ahead. Read the full note here.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:55

Supreme Court Strikes Down Trump's Birthright Citizenship Executive Order

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down President Donald Trump's executive order curbing birthright citizenship. 

President Donald Trump signs an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on January 20, 2025. (Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images)

In a massive 194-page, 5-4 ruling, the Court affirmed a District Court ruling, holding that Executive Order 14160 - Trump's attempt to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are undocumented or only temporarily present - violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett, and Jackson.

Justice Kavanaugh provided the sixth vote against the order while explicitly rejecting the majority's constitutional theory, arguing the EO fails only because it conflicts with a 1940s immigration statute - leaving the door open for Congress, not the Constitution, to revisit the question.

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has ruled that the children of illegal aliens and foreign nationals born in the U.S. count as American citizens.

Roberts and Barrett joined all the liberals.

Disgusting. pic.twitter.com/FStIm0J3R3

— Greg Price (@greg_price11) June 30, 2026

Polymarket had it right on SCOTUS Birthright decision (it wasn't even close) pic.twitter.com/aIXK1g9kcz

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 30, 2026

In response to the ruling, President Trump wrote that it was "too bad for our Country," but that Republicans can "easily make up for it in Congress through Legislation..."

Background

Birthright citizenship - the principle that nearly everyone born on U.S. soil automatically becomes a U.S. citizen - has stood as a foundational element of American law and identity for more than 150 years. Its modern constitutional anchor is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The clause was enacted primarily to overturn the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision (which denied citizenship to black people) and to guarantee citizenship to formerly enslaved people and their descendants. It established a clear rule of jus soli (citizenship by birth on the soil) with narrow historical exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats or members of invading armies.

Original intent. Four Justices just threw it out. pic.twitter.com/OtGZOqCoY4

— NoNonsense2 (@NoMoNonsense2) June 30, 2026

The Supreme Court's landmark 1898 decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark cemented this broad understanding. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco to Chinese parents who were legal residents but ineligible for naturalization under then-existing exclusionary laws, was ruled a U.S. citizen. Justice Horace Gray's majority opinion affirmed that the 14th Amendment codifies "the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country," applying to children of resident aliens without regard to race or the precise immigration status of the parents (beyond the traditional exceptions).

For well over a century, this interpretation has governed practice: federal agencies, courts, and both political parties treated birth on U.S. soil as conferring citizenship almost universally, regardless of whether a parent was undocumented, a temporary visa holder, or a lawful permanent resident.

The Modern Challenges

In recent decades, conservatives, immigration restriction advocates, and President Donald Trump have advanced a narrower reading. They argue that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" requires a deeper form of political allegiance or domicile - essentially limiting automatic citizenship to children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents. In short: the clause was chiefly meant for freed slaves and their children, that extending it to children of undocumented immigrants creates "anchor babies," encourages illegal immigration and birth tourism, and imposes costs on the country. They point to certain 19th-century commentaries and historical practices in other nations as support.

On January 20, 2025 - his first day in office for his second term - President Trump signed Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship." The order directs federal agencies not to recognize U.S. citizenship for children born in the United States after February 20, 2025, in two main scenarios:

• The mother was unlawfully present in the U.S. and the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident (LPR/green card holder); or
• The mother's presence was lawful but temporary (e.g., student, work, or tourist visa) and the father is neither a citizen nor LPR.

The administration maintains this is consistent with the 14th Amendment's original meaning and with the statutory codification in 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), which largely tracks the constitutional language.

The Path to the Supreme Court

The order never took effect. Federal district courts in multiple jurisdictions quickly struck it down as unconstitutional, with one judge describing it as "blatantly unconstitutional." In June 2025, the Supreme Court addressed related procedural issues in Trump v. CASA (and companion cases), ruling 6-3 that district courts generally lack authority to issue universal/nationwide injunctions. This narrowed some protections but left the core constitutional question unresolved.

Today's SCOTUS case, Trump v. Barbara (No. 25-365), stemmed from a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Plaintiffs include families challenging the order on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of affected children. One named representative is "Barbara," a Honduran asylum applicant whose child was due in late 2025; other plaintiffs include individuals on temporary visas (e.g., a Taiwanese student whose daughter was born in April 2025) and a Brazilian applicant for permanent residence whose son was born in March 2025. The district court issued a preliminary injunction and provisionally certified a nationwide class, finding the plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment from the First Circuit.

During oral arguments held April 1, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the order - emphasizing historical sources, the role of "domicile" in Wong Kim Ark, and contemporary policy concerns. Plaintiffs' counsel Cecillia Wang urged the Court to reaffirm Wong Kim Ark as establishing a fixed, bright-line rule rooted in text, history, and longstanding practice.

One of the most destructive and outrageous decisions in the long history of the Supreme Court. American citizenship is not the birthright of the world. It belongs only and solely to Americans. No provision of the Constitution can be read to require our national self-obliteration. https://t.co/qZuwzZq5tr

— Stephen Miller (@StephenM) June 30, 2026

Questioning from the justices spanned the ideological spectrum and focused heavily on Wong Kim Ark, the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and whether the government's proposed limitations could be squared with precedent and the amendment's text. Observers noted significant skepticism toward the administration's position, with several justices highlighting the breadth of the 1898 ruling and questioning efforts to distinguish it or limit its application based on parental status. A decision was widely expected by the end of the Court's term (June 30, 2026) or shortly thereafter.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:40

Another JOLT: Jobs Opening Smash Expectations, Despite Another Drop In Number Of Hires

Another month, another whopping beat by the BLS JOLTS job openings report.

One month after the April JOLTS report came out with a whopping 9-sigma beat to estimates, when it showed that in April the US added a whopping 731K job openings to 7.618 million (and up 520K from a year ago), smashing estimates of 6.9 million, moments ago the BLS reported that in May, the number of total job openings printed at 7.594 million, almost as if it was designed to post another improvement from last month's downward revised 7.585MM (from 7.618MM), and once again smashed estimates of 7.296MM.

While not as historic as last month's record 9-sigma beat, today's print was still a solid 2-sigma beat to the median estimate.

It was also the 5th consecutive beat of estimates and 8th in the past 10!

Where did the openings come from? According to the BLS,the notable increase came from an increase in wholesale trade (+71,000), but as can be seen from the table below, there were also increases in manufacturing and leisure and hospitality; on the other side, openings dropped in financial services, and private education.

Notably, unlike last month's record increase in Professional and Business service job openings in April, May's increase for the category was a tame 12K to 1.485 million. Also of note, Federal government dropped by 14K to 83K, the second lowest print of 2026 and not much above the record low hit last August, even as the total number of government job openings rose driven by an increase in state and local.

The continued strength in job openings prints, coupled with the modest increase in unemployed workers means that after 9 months of labor surplus, we now have a second consecutive month of more job openings than unemployed workes, and in May the surplus was 287K, the biggest surplus since Jan 2025, and a reversal to the "deficit" regime observed since last July.

The latest JOLTS report also means that after falling back to 0.9x in March, in April the ratio of job openings rose over 1.0x and was the highest since January 2025.

But while the job openings number was very strong for another month, this month we saw continued weakness in hires and barely any improvement in quits, In May, the number of Quits dropped to 5.170MM from 5.215MM, again approaching the post covid lows; quits - or the "take his job and shove it" indicator - rose modestly to 3.065MM from 3.043MM, and followed the 183K plunge in March. 

It goes without saying that a surge in job openings while hires are dropping, and few people are voluntarily leaving their jobs, while payrolls are growing (as we will find out on Thursday), leads one to scratch their head just what is going on here, besides data massaging of course.

In any case, since this hires number feeds directly into the payrolls calculations (after netting out separations) this explains why the May payrolls report surged by 172K, even if the JOLTS implied number is barely a third as strong.

Overall, this was a very strong JOLTS report, and shows that after some significant weakness in late 2025, US labor market has continued to stabilize throughout 2026. Of course, the report also lags the payrolls report by a month, which is why it gives us little insight into what Thurday's jobs report will be, although if the hires less separations dataset is any indication, it suggests that the June print will come well below expectations. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:35

Supreme Court: States Can Ban Trans Athletes From Girls' Sports

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that states can block biological transgender males from competing in girls' sports. In a 6-3 ruling, the court gave an iron-clad answer to the question. 

Writing for the majority in West Virginia v. B.P.J. (consolidated with Little v. Hecox), Justice Brett Kavanaugh held that neither Title IX nor the Equal Protection Clause requires schools to carve out an exception for transgender athletes who've undergone hormone therapy or never experienced male puberty. States can draw the line at biological sex, full stop - no judge-administered athlete-by-athlete fairness hearings required. The ruling reverses both the Fourth Circuit (which sided with West Virginia's B.P.J.) and the Ninth Circuit (which sided with Idaho's Lindsay Hecox), and lands squarely in the wake of last year's Skrmetti decision, extending its "this is a sex classification, not a transgender classification" framework from medical care straight into the locker room.

Background

Roughly half the states - approximately 27 - have enacted laws in recent years restricting participation in girls' and women's school sports to those whose biological sex, as determined at birth, matches the team category. These measures, often titled "Fairness in Women's Sports" acts or similar, reflect concerns over competitive fairness, safety, and the preservation of opportunities for biological females amid rising participation by transgender athletes.

The two cases before the Court arise from Idaho and West Virginia.

Idaho's law (enacted 2020) categorically bars transgender girls and women from girls' and women's teams in public elementary, secondary, and postsecondary schools. It defines eligibility based on biological sex and requires sex verification (often involving invasive procedures) for athletes on girls' teams but not boys' teams.

West Virginia's law (enacted 2021) similarly requires that participation on teams designated for girls or women be based on biological sex.

Lindsay Hecox, a biological male, challenged Idaho's law after seeking to compete on Boise State University's women's track and cross-country teams - and later participated in club sports. Hecox's lawsuit alleged violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, claiming the law discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status and imposes unequal verification burdens.

B.P.J., another biological male who has identified as a girl since third grade and has taken puberty blockers and estrogen, challenged West Virginia's ban after competing on their high school's girls' track and cross-country teams. The suit claims violations of both the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX (the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded education programs).

Lower federal courts blocked enforcement of both laws. The 9th Circuit found Idaho's measure likely violated equal protection by intending to exclude transgender girls/women and by imposing sex-based verification only on girls' teams. The 4th Circuit held West Virginia's law likely violated Title IX by discriminating against B.P.J. on the basis of sex.

At oral arguments on January 13 of this year, the states and supporting parties (including the Trump administration) argued that the laws classify on the basis of biological sex - a classification long accepted in sports to ensure fairness and safety given average physiological differences in strength, speed, muscle mass, bone density, and cardiovascular capacity that emerge after male puberty. They contended that sex-separated teams are permissible and even required under Title IX regulations, that states need not create perfect individual accommodations, and that allowing transgender girls/women (even those on hormone therapy) into female categories undermines the very purpose of sex-segregated sports. They emphasized that transgender boys can generally compete on boys' teams, so the laws do not single out transgender status per se.

Challengers countered that the bans discriminate on the basis of transgender status and sex, that many transgender girls/women (especially those who never experienced full male puberty or who have undergone hormone suppression) lack meaningful competitive advantages, and that categorical exclusion stigmatizes transgender students, deprives them of athletic opportunities, and violates both constitutional equal protection and Title IX's promise of equal access. They urged individualized assessments rather than blanket rules.

Justices' questioning suggested a likely majority inclined to uphold the state laws, with conservative members emphasizing biological differences, state authority over education and athletics, and deference to longstanding sex-based categories in sports. 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:20

Conference Board Consumer Survey Signals Ugly Job Market, Weakest 'Present Situation' In Over 5 Years

Amid a plethora of revisions (lower), The Conference Board's measure of Americans' Consumer Confidence rose very modestly in June (from 90.6 to 91.2 - a big miss on the headline print's expectation of 94.4).

However, while Expectations rose to their highest level of the year, the Present Situation tumbled to its lowest since March 2021...

“Consumer confidence inched up in June as falling oil prices in recent weeks provided some relief to consumer inflation fears,” said Dana M Peterson, Chief Economist, The Conference Board.

“Consumer appraisals of current business conditions were slightly more positive compared to last month.

However, perceptions of the current labor market softened measurably as the percentage of consumers saying jobs were ‘hard to get’ rose to 22.5%, the highest level since January 2021 (22.8%).

Moreover, consumers anticipate little change in the labor market six months from now.

This was offset by improving expectations for business conditions and incomes.”

Consumers’ average and median 12-month inflation expectations were less elevated...

Among age groups, confidence for consumers under age 35 remained the highest, but confidence for all age groups trended downward on a six-month moving average basis.

By income, on a six-month moving average basis, confidence was mixed or little changed across all categories.

By generation, confidence fell the most for the Silent Generation but was stable or lower for others on a six-month moving average basis.

By political affiliation, confidence among Independents and Democrats rose while Republicans were somewhat less positive on a month-over-month basis.

Consumers’ write-in responses on factors affecting the economy continued to skew towards pessimism in June.

References to prices and oil and gas eased in frequency but remain elevated. Mentions of war, geopolitics, and conflict eased, reflecting some easing of consumer concerns about the inflationary impacts of the war in the Middle East.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:16

Today Will Or Won't See A US-Iran Meeting In Doha Which Will Be "Perhaps Important, Perhaps Not"

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Build 'em up or Burnham down?

In typical form, today will or won’t see a US-Iran meeting in Doha; which will be ‘perhaps important, perhaps not’; and either discussing the MoU or unfreezing $6bn of Iranian assets. So, the ‘peacefire’ continues, as expected, but with little chance this holds permanently. Likewise in Lebanon, where the US is pushing to disarm Hezbollah --which refuses-- and Israel won’t leave until that happens. And Gaza, where the Board of Peace is finalising its plans as the IDF warns Hamas is readying for war. And Iraq, which just set a September 30 deadline for pro-Iran militias to disarm. And Libya, where Marco Rubio is fighting another crisis. To give an early Christmas present to Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene, Israel also says it’s developing space lasers.

That’s as South Korea announced a $1.3 trillion AI and IT investment plan to maintain an edge vs. China over the next decade – which is showing footage of a 6G fighter jet and conducting tests of a hypersonic ramjet that can change shape in flight; China has restricted dual use exports to Mitsubishi, Hitachi, Komatsu units; Supermicro’s Taiwan offices were raided in a chip smuggling probe; and a Rakuten-led group is set for state subsidies to build Japan's answer to Starlink. In short, what we see around us is as about massive, urgent investment in defence and AI as much it is about related energy (i.e., Hormuz), broader commodities, and supply chains.

That’s unbelievably expensive to address. For example, the US is pushing for a $1.5 trillion defence budget, while keeping up with South Korea alone would require Europe to invest $14 trillion to match it equivalently. Tellingly, the UK will today unveil its new defence strategy, which shifts to cheap drones from larger platforms --guided missile destroyers and frigates are cut-- as outgoing PM Starmer presides over a plan that will only reach 2.7% of GDP by 2030, not the promised 3.0%; some say he wants to run NATO next (to tell his successor he must reach 3.5%).

So, we may soon require:

• Creative book-keeping: Hungary’s new PM claims his predecessor hid half of the budget deficit, which is actually 8% of GDP.
• Spending cuts: and good luck with that.
• New taxes: France is now looking for EU-wide taxes to fund a planned €2 trillion commission budget, with the idea that foreign firms, like US tech and polluters, could pay more.
• Tariffs: last week, US Treasury Secretary Bessent cited Hamiltonian economic statecraft; yesterday, White House macro-maven Miran penned a WSJ op-ed arguing for US tariffs. The EU just gave China an October deadline to address their huge --and predictable-- trade imbalance, kicking the can down the road, but pointing to a trade war and/or Hamilton (and Trump) moment ahead, which could prove transformative. Even Paul Krugman is telling the EU to tariff China.
• Industrial policy: which is very much back in vogue, even if what this means is vague for many.
• A compliant central bank: There, the Supreme Court just overturned precedent to allow the White House to remove heads of federal agencies, greatly empowering the executive. It kept FOMC member Cook in her seat for now until due process plays out but did not address whether “for cause” removals at the Fed are also constitutional or not, allowing Trump to restart the process of trying to fire her over allegations of mortgage fraud and, in time, to potentially relitigate if the Fed is a special case or not.

The ECB’s Lagarde, who years ago said the Bank should work hand-in-hand with governments to overcome geopolitical crises, just stated Europe is getting better at coping with economic shocks due to a better financial framework and the green transition. European refineries’ flexibility on jet fuel helped; but China did more by not importing as much oil, and the US and Japan by draining their SPRs, all due to *their* economic statecraft. Now the risk is rising of a China cut-off of rare earths to Europe, which account for half its total (and Russia a quarter), and of more expensive Chinese imports across the board. What if that transpires from October onwards – and if we get more war vs. Iran after the US midterms?

In the UK, the question is ‘Build ‘em up or Burnham down?’ as the soon-to-be UK PM just called to “rewire” the UK economy. He’s talking about devolution - which hasn’t boosted growth in Scotland; equalisation across regions – which most countries want but fail to achieve; (expensive?) public control of utilities; and reindustrialisation – in a period of protectionism and bloc-based realignment. In short, is the UK going to tariff everybody, or the US, or Europe, or China? Logically, one should start from there, not locally, only to then hit a low tariff ceiling on the attempted way back up.

In short, political economy remains in flux. Markets don’t think things through in such detail or depth: whatever happens is an input into the ‘up or down from here’ binary. However, the scale on which things can move up or down based on how political-economy transforms shouldn’t be understated. JPY is at a 40-year low vs. the dollar at time of writing: where will other crosses go as things unfold?

Yet even as politicians --and central bankers-- try to relearn things from first principles, revolutionary change can reshape the architecture which they think they are operating in. For example, regular readers may recall that years ago I floated the idea of letters of marque as a way to channel private sector energies and capital into national security without busting budgets or political constraints like no boots on the ground. On that note, see the following proposal taken from X and think about it seriously:

“A durable solution to the Iran problem is pretty easy:

1. Form the American Persian Energy Company (APEC)
2. Give 25% to Exxon and Chevron, who will capitalize it and provide expertise
3. Ground invasion of Iran, but only with volunteer troops who will be compensated with APEC stock
4. US military provides air cover and logistical support
5. Defecting Iranian generals will also be compensated with a quantity of APEC stock dependent on their rank and the number of soldiers they bring with them
6. All oil and gas rights in Iran are granted to the APEC
7. New $2 trillion American company is created out of thin air
8. Iran temporarily governed by APEC CEO while a transition to a suitable civilian government is negotiated”

If you think this kind of thing doesn’t happen (anymore: it used to) then you haven’t noticed how 18th and 19th century thinking is not just back in vogue but is actively winning vs. the post-Cold War political establishment consensus; or how modern mercenaries like Blackwater operate.

Political economy is changing; it will change much, much more; and markets will change with it. The volatility we are seeing in the Hormuz ‘peacefire’ is just a taste of what’s to come. Some assets will be built up. Others will be burned down.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/30/2026 - 10:00