Trump Says TikTok Buyer Is "Group Of Very Wealthy People"

President Donald Trump, in a pre-taped interview on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo, revealed that "a group of very wealthy people" is prepared to acquire TikTok's U.S. operations. While he did not disclose the identities of the investors, Trump hinted that the names could be made public in the coming weeks.

"We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way. I think I'll probably need China approval, and I think President Xi will probably do it," Trump told Bartiromo, noting, "It's a group of very wealthy people."

Trump: “We have a buyer for TikTok, by the way.”

Bartiromo: “Who's the buyer?”

Trump: “I'll tell you in about two weeks.” pic.twitter.com/qxF3WMZ3Z8

— Open Source Intel (@Osint613) June 29, 2025

TikTok's future in the U.S. has been uncertain since the passage of the 2024 bipartisan law, the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA), which requires the platform's Chinese parent company, ByteDance, to divest its ownership or face a nationwide ban. The legislation was fueled by growing concerns over various national security threats, including foreign interference in elections and potential misuse of sensitive user data.

Just weeks ago, Trump once again delayed enforcement of PAFACA through an executive order, pushing the deadline back to mid-September. The original implementation date had been set for his inauguration in January.

Trump has been a supporter of TikTok, recently touting his popularity on the app: "I was No. 1 on TikTok in its history. Can you believe that? ... So I guess I like TikTok." 

Trump has tasked Vice President JD Vance with overseeing efforts to find a potential buyer, which could include Oracle's Larry Ellison and firms like Perplexity AI and AppLovin. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/30/2025 - 08:30

Altos reports that active single-family inventory was up 0.3% week-over-week.
Inventory is now up 33.1% from the seasonal bottom in January and is increasing.   Usually, inventory is up about 20% from the seasonal low by this week in the year.   So, 2025 is seeing a larger than normal pickup in inventory.
The first graph shows the seasonal pattern for active single-family inventory since 2015.
Click on graph for larger image.

The red line is for 2025.  The black line is for 2019.  
Inventory was up 28.7% compared to the same week in 2024 (last week it was up 30.7%), and down 14.1% compared to the same week in 2019 (last week it was down 13.2%). 
This is the highest level since November 2019.
For 2019, this was the week inventory peaked for the year (then moved sideways for several months), so any further increase this year will close to gap to 2019.  It now appears inventory will be close to 2019 levels towards the end of 2025.
This second inventory graph is courtesy of Altos Research.
As of June 27th, inventory was at 831 thousand (7-day average), compared to 829 thousand the prior week. 
Mike Simonsen discusses this data regularly on Youtube

My 4-day week Monday reads:

• The Business of Betting on Catastrophe: World Bank pandemic bonds paid out only after death tolls passed a threshold. They’re part of a booming market where investors turn calamity into capital. (The MIT Press Reader)

• The Stock-Market Rally Is Moving Beyond Big Tech and Investors Are Thrilled. One measure of market breadth recently touched a new high, as financial and industrial names fuel stocks’ climb. (Wall Street Journal) see also Bonds Have Underperformed. Why You Should Own Them Now. Barron’s has long favored dividend-paying stocks for those seeking income. But bonds now deserve a hard look because they are so attractively priced. (Barron’s)

• Why gold prices are forecast to rise to new record highs: “We have seen this before in 2008, 2020, and even in August 2024. Times like these are good buying opportunities, because gold typically rebounds shortly afterwards as investors seek safe assets. The same thing played out in April.” (Goldman Sachs)

• Lucky Breaks: Skilled management can take the limited resources and luck they’ve been given and multiply it. Mediocre management can’t. (Micro Cap Club)

• A Recipe for Doubling Your Stock Returns, Again and Again: Time is the secret ingredient of investing, a market veteran says. Over many decades, diversified stock index funds have produced extraordinary results. (New York Times)

• The Global A.I. Divide: Where A.I. Data Centers Are Located Only 32 nations, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, have A.I.-specialized data centers. (New York Times)

• The Future of Abundance and the Left: Left-wing commentators say abundance is their opposition. Left-wing politicians say it’s a credit to the Democratic Party. What if they’re both right? (Derek Thompson)

• How the Universe Differs From Its Mirror Image: From living matter to molecules to elementary particles, the world is made of “chiral” objects that differ from their reflected forms. (Quanta Magazine) see also The Largest Camera Ever Built Releases Its First Images of the Cosmos: The Vera C. Rubin Observatory is poised to discover billions of new astronomical objects, revolutionizing understanding of everything from the history of the solar system to the workings of dark energy. (Wired)

• How one program is changing surf culture in San Francisco: City kids in SF spend their Fridays learning to surf through this cool project. (The San Francisco Standard)

• The essential listening guide to Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Tracks II: The Lost Albums’ It’s a great day when your favorite artist releases a new record. But what if they released seven new records at once, recorded across almost three decades, full of music you didn’t even know existed? (NPR)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business this week Velina Peneva, where she manages more than $100 billion of Swiss Re‘s internal cpaital as the firm’s Chief Investment Officer: Previously, she was Private Equity practice leader in Zurich for Bain & Company.

 

What does it cost the IRS to collect taxes?

Source: USA Facts

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Monday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

Can Oil And Gas Solve The AI Power Dilemma

Authored by Joe Brettell via UtilityDive.com,

The promise, peril and possibilities of artificial intelligence continue to capture the cultural and business zeitgeist worldwide. Hardly a conference or long-form interview can be held these days without a panelist or pundit commenting on the technology’s implications for their profession.

Yet despite being the hottest topic in every circle, AI’s ultimate challenge isn’t technological but physical. After years of breathless speculation and prediction, the issue remains the same: AI needs more energy.

Data center power consumption

Source: McKinsey

Amidst this backdrop, the oil and gas industry faces a similarly fundamental challenge: a shifting production frontier and evolving path to continued growth. After a decade of efficiency-driven growth, the era of easy barrels is waning. Diamondback Energy CEO Travis Stice captured the new reality in a recent letter, warning of the increasingly dim prospects for expanding production amid geological constraints and rising costs. Other energy majors have issued similar cautions, a sharp departure from the boom years of the shale revolution when abundant, low-cost reserves, followed by shareholder-focused production, made the industry a market favorite.

Now, with resource intensity rising, global volatility accelerating and economic conditions tightening, the industry is under pressure to find its next value horizon.

That horizon may be converging with AI.

The pairing makes increasing sense. While initially circling one another warily, major players in energy and technology have become increasingly intertwined. At major gatherings like CERAWeek, energy executives and tech leaders now share the same stage — and increasingly, the same strategic questions. How do we scale the infrastructure to match exponential AI growth? Who will supply the energy to power it? And how do we do so fast enough while dealing with rising environmental, social and regulatory concerns?

These challenges come amid a stark reality: AI’s computational appetite isn’t just increasing — it’s exploding. Several recent studies demonstrate that power demand will soar by the end of the decade, presenting real challenges for utilities and their customers who are already grappling with rising costs.  

That creates both a dilemma and an opportunity. As federal and state incentives for clean energy projects face legal and political headwinds — even amid substantial private investment — the timeline to deliver renewable power at scale is getting longer. Grid interconnection queues, permitting delays and community opposition remain real barriers. At the same time, nuclear and geothermal technologies hold promise, but even under the best-case scenarios, their rollout will take years to materially shift supply.

Which brings us (again) to the topic of natural gas.

Few would dispute that a diverse portfolio of renewables, firm power, storage, nuclear and emerging technologies must meet long-term AI energy needs. But without a tectonic shift, an “all of the above” solution is no longer the political reality.  Natural gas is abundant, dispatchable, and backed by a sector with proven experience in infrastructure delivery, supply chain integration and stakeholder engagement.

Granted, natural gas has its share of controversies. Building new pipelines has become increasingly complex, with communities hostile to natural gas infrastructure and deployment nationwide. Yet, despite these challenges, Exxon and Chevron have already announced serious interest in powering data centers. This partnership is not simply one of convenience but of practicality. It is not about reviving old debates but utilizing practical solutions to solve deeper issues for two pillars of the American economy.

The bottom line is that natural gas offers a workable solution for technology companies racing to deploy AI capabilities and energy companies looking to maintain shareholder value amidst a transitional time in the sector. With nuclear and geothermal both gaining political and investment momentum, gas is unlikely to be a permanent panacea but a critical bridge across a widening gap (yes, the old “bridge fuel” talking point is yet again en vogue).

This convergence between oil, technology, and ultimately, utilities isn’t simply a tactical alignment of convenience; instead, there’s a more profound structural shift — energy and compute are no longer parallel industries but mutually dependent pillars of modern innovation.  If you need evidence, look no further than the recent announcement that Open AI and the United Arab Emirates will open a massive new data center in the country by 2026. Even traditional oil powers are hedging their bet and looking to participate in the changes AI will bring.

However, amidst the race to satisfy shareholders, inventors and policymakers, both industries would do well to remember customers. With concern about AI technology continuing to linger and economic challenges only growing, the political and social environment is ripe for a full-throated pushback from households already frustrated by rising energy bills, service disruptions and increasing skepticism toward unchecked tech expansion in their communities and states.  

Many companies are already making significant strides on this front, with investment in local communities, building dialogue, relationships and trust. Yet just as AI’s technological promise can be limited by something practical like where to plug it in, this growing union between energy and technology sectors can be thwarted by unhappy voters. 

Ultimately, the moment demands coordination and innovation, not competition. Only with pragmatic collaboration between energy developers of all kinds, grid operators and the communities where they operate can we build an energy strategy as dynamic as the technology it supports. In the end, like those paradigm-shifting endeavors, the future of AI won’t be decided by what’s possible in silicon. It will be determined by what’s deliverable in steel, concrete and kilowatt-hours.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/30/2025 - 06:30

A Third Of American Households Are Over-Burdened By Housing Costs

U.S. Census data analyzed by Harvard University shows that a third of all U.S. households, whether they are buying or renting, spend more than the recommended one third of their income on housing and utilities and therefore qualify as cost-burdened.

While the overall rate of households burdened by housing cost in the U.S. was 32.7 percent in 2023, Statista's Katharina Buchholz shows in the chart below, several states had even higher average burdens.

You will find more infographics at Statista

California, known for its high cost of living, came in at 41.7 percent of burdened households, followed by Hawaii at 39.5 percent, Florida at 38.6 percent and New York at 38.2 percent.

In general, West Coast states and those in the country's populous Northeast showed the highest burdens, with the addition of sunshine locations Florida and Hawaii.

The least burdened households were found in the interior of the country, in West Virginia, North Dakota and Iowa, where fewer than a quarter of households felt an outsized financial burden because of housing costs. Colorado and Texas came in 11th and 12th.

The report published this week shows that renters are more often overburdened by their costs that homeowners, but that the gap has been closing in recent years.

Before and after the Great Recession, homeowners were still more overburdened than renters in the country, but this equilibrium changed in 2012 when renters began to be burdened more by rising rent costs while homeowners were profiting from zero interest rates.

With the end of the no-interest era in 2022, homeowners' burden jumped up, while the economic hardships of the inflation crisis affected both types of households.

The researchers also identified higher insurance premiums and property taxes as an issue for homeowners, while saying that more than half of renters were spending more than 50 percent of household income on renting in 50 out of the 100 largest metro areas in the United States.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/30/2025 - 05:45

J.K. Rowling Destroyed Trans Ideology With One Savage Tweet

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

Famed “Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling became a vocal critic of transgender ideology back in 2019, when she supported a woman who lost her job for saying that biological sex is immutable. In 2020, Rowling’s tweets and essay argued that prioritizing “gender identity” over biological sex threatens women’s rights and safety, drawing from her experience as an abuse survivor. She faced fierce backlash, was branded a “TERF” by activists, and even endured death threats, but stood firm.

Rowling’s stance has only grown more defiant as she continues to call out the bullying tactics of trans activism and the erasure of women. Despite relentless attacks from activists, media outlets, and even cast members from "Harry Potter," her unapologetic wit and unwavering resolve have made her a leading voice of resistance against a radical ideology that silences dissent. This week, she once again proved why she remains a formidable force in the culture war over gender, giving courage to countless women who’ve been too afraid to speak out.

Apparently some people have been attacking Rowling by saying she looks like a “trans woman.” Her response to such attacks says it all:

Attention all men telling me I look like a trans woman: I’m sensing that this isn’t meant as a compliment. In fact, the implication seems to be that trans women look male, or odd, or ugly. This is appallingly transphobic and I’ll thank you to take your bigotry off my timeline.

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) June 24, 2025

Talk about a masterclass in rhetorical jiu-jitsu. She takes the intended insult of her critics and flips it right back on them, exposing the hypocrisy at the heart of so much of the pro-trans activist rhetoric.

Rowling’s critics, who claim to be the champions of tolerance and inclusion, routinely stoop to personal attacks and misogynistic insults whenever a woman dares to challenge their orthodoxy. The latest trend is to hurl accusations that Rowling “looks like a trans woman," a jab that is supposed to be both an insult to her and a defense of trans women. But Rowling, with her trademark wit and clarity, called their bluff. 

She pointed out the obvious: If you’re accusing someone of looking like “trans woman” in the pejorative sense, you’re essentially admitting what most people already know: that “trans women” don’t look like real women. Let’s face it, men can grow out their hair, get breast implants, and take whatever drugs they want, but everyone knows what they really are. Calling Richard “Rachel” Levine a woman doesn’t make him a woman. Using female pronouns to refer to Bruce “Caitlyn” Jenner doesn’t change the fact that he is a man. Letting Will “Lia” Thomas compete against real women doesn’t erase what he is.

Rowling refuses to apologize, refuses to play by the ever-changing rules of the woke mob, and instead shines a spotlight on the contradictions baked into their rhetoric, like how calling someone a “trans woman” is supposedly empowering until it’s used as a slur. Her wit, clarity, and refusal to back down force her critics to confront the ugliness of their tactics.

Through years of smears, threats, and public pressure campaigns, Rowling has stood firm, using every attack as an opportunity to expose the movement’s double standards and moral incoherence. In an era when most public figures wilt under pressure, she’s become a symbol of courage for women everywhere who are tired of being silenced. She’s not just defending herself; she’s defending reality, and doing it with a fearlessness that leaves her critics sputtering.

Just because trans activists demand that we all pretend that men who grow their hair out and play dress up are women doesn’t mean that the rest of us have to play along. And when those same activists who have spent years lobbing insults and even death threats at Rowling try to mock her by saying she “looks like a trans woman,” they don’t expose her bigotry; they expose their own hypocrisy. If comparing her to a “trans woman” is meant as an insult, then it’s not Rowling degrading “trans women”; it’s the so-called allies who use the comparison as a punchline. In doing so, they don’t validate their ideology; they reinforce the biological truth they insist everyone ignore.

The attacks on J.K. Rowling reveal just how desperate the radical left has become to crush dissent. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/30/2025 - 05:00

Meet The Dystopian Startups Making 'Biological Computers' From Human Cells

Picture a dystopian future where computers don’t just mimic human thinking - they’re powered by actual human brain cells. That future is taking shape in a Cambridge, England, lab, where a groundbreaking device called CL1 is blending biology and technology in ways that could transform how we compute. Developed by Australian startup Cortical Labs and U.K.-based bit.bio, this shoebox-sized machine houses 200,000 lab-grown brain cells wired to silicon circuits, creating a “biological computer” that’s already turning heads.

Cortical Labs' CL1

Unlike traditional computers, which guzzle energy, CL1 operates with the efficiency of a human brain. “Our brains process information using a fraction of the power that modern electronics need,” Hon Weng Chong, CEO of Cortical Labs, told FT. “This could open doors to smarter robots, stronger cybersecurity, and immersive virtual worlds.”

Oh, joy.

Low-energy computing has fueled a race to develop biological systems, with Cortical Labs leading alongside competitors like FinalSpark in Switzerland and Biological Black Box in the U.S.CL1’s brain cells, grown from human skin-derived stem cells, are carefully arranged in layers: one type sparks electrical activity, while another keeps it in check. “It’s like balancing a gas pedal and brakes,” Chong explains. This precision, says bit.bio’s Tony Oosterveen, gives CL1 an edge over rival approaches using less uniform “mini-brains.” The result is a platform for testing how brain cells handle information, with early experiments already yielding insights for neuroscience and drug development.

Photo: Chris Radburn/FT

One of CL1’s quirkiest feats? Playing the classic video game Pong. Its predecessor, DishBrain, learned to move a virtual paddle by receiving electrical “rewards” for good moves and disruptive noise for mistakes. CL1 has taken this further, revealing how substances like alcohol impair performance or how epilepsy drugs, like carbamazepine, boost it. “We’re learning how to ‘program’ these cells,” Chong says, noting that his team is even teaching them to recognize numbers, like distinguishing a nine from a four.

Kagan and team testing the CL1 units, which are built to maintain the health of the cells living on the silicon hardware (New Atlas)

“This is the first device that can consistently measure what neurons can do,” says Mark Kotter, a Cambridge professor and bit.bio founder. Karl Friston, a neuroscientist at University College London, sees it as a tool for groundbreaking experiments, while Johns Hopkins’ Thomas Hartung praises its use of games like Pong to benchmark biological computing.

In the lab, the early CL1 model is put through its paces as the team monitors its response to stimuli (prompts) New Atlas

Chong recognizes the ethical challenges that could emerge if biological computers and neuron cultures begin to show early signs of consciousness.

“[T]hese systems are sentient because they respond to stimuli and learn from them but they are not conscious. We will learn more about how the human brain works but we do not intend to create a brain in a vat.”

The cells form an entirely new kind of artificial intelligence New Atlas

The CL1 units are slated to retail for around $35,000 each and are expected to be broadly available by late 2025, according to a report.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/30/2025 - 04:15

Why Greenland Isn't Chasing The Dream Of Becoming A Mining Superpower

Authored by Felicity Bradstock via OilPrice.com,

• Greenland, despite possessing vast mineral reserves and past ambitions from the U.S. to acquire it for these resources, is not interested in becoming a major mining superpower.

• The country's minister for business and mineral resources emphasized a desire for only 5 to 10 active mines at any given time, prioritizing high environmental, social, and governance standards.

• Concerns about the environmental impact and the uncertain economic return from mining activities, particularly with an unstable market for rare earths, contribute to Greenland's cautious approach.

Early in Donald Trump’s presidency, he announced his ambitions to acquire Greenland. In March, Trump said, “We need Greenland for international safety and security. We need it. We have to have it.” As well as stating ambitions to counter Russia’s presence in the Arctic, taking control of Greenland would put vast quantities of rare earth minerals and rare earth elements in the possession of the United States. However, Denmark quickly shot down the idea of Trump’s acquisition, saying that Greenland was not for sale. Meanwhile, Trump’s announcement led several political figures in Greenland to suggest that Greenland should be independent, rather than under the ownership of Denmark or the U.S. 

International powers have long eyed Greenland for its vast mineral potential. As several countries around the world strive to undergo a green transition, the demand for critical minerals is expected to grow dramatically in the coming years. Demand for critical energy transition minerals like lithium, cobalt, and copper could increase almost fourfold by 2030, according to United Nations estimates. 

At present, China dominates the global mineral mining market. According to International Energy Agency (IEA) data, China contributes around 80 percent of the world’s natural graphite and 60 percent of mined magnet rare earths. In 2024, it produced more than 60 percent of the world’s lithium, 40 percent of refined copper, and 70 percent of refined cobalt. As the U.S. looks to reduce its reliance on China for energy, critical minerals, and other goods, President Trump sees Greenland as the potential solution. 

Greenland holds vast mineral reserves, including rare earth metals, coal, graphite, uranium, copper, lead, and zinc. A 2023 Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland survey found that 25 of the 34 critical raw materials recognised by the European Commission are present in Greenland. In addition, as ice sheets melt due to climate change, Greenland’s previously hard-to-retrieve mineral reserves are expected to become more accessible. 

Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, a professor of war studies and Arctic security specialist at the U.K.’s Loughborough University, explained, “The fight for infrastructure in the Arctic is incredibly important. Plus, because Greenland’s ice sheet is melting, and melting fast, those rare earth minerals will become cheaper to access. So, these are seen as long-term investments for America.”

To date, mining activity in Greenland has been limited, as investors have avoided financing mining operations due to the harsh conditions and environmental pushback from community groups. Developing the country’s mining industry would require significant funding, as well as support from local groups. 

Around a decade ago, a team of geologists published a paper that warned of unrealistic expectations for Greenland’s mineral potential. It states, “Even if estimates of the quantity and quality of ore in a geological deposit are well documented… it is difficult to translate this into economic potential and even more difficult to predict a specific revenue for Greenlandic society.” 

Minik Thorleif Rosing, one of the authors of the report, said that the situation remains relatively unchanged since the date of publication. “There is a misconception that Greenland will be like a new Saudi Arabia, only at the size of a small British town,” Rosing said. He blamed the uncertainty on global market conditions for rare earth metals. There has been significant pushback against mining operations, as many Greenlanders believe the cost of mining will far outweigh the benefit. It is unclear just how much of a return on investment Greenland would see from mining activities, as there is no stable market for rare earths, according to Rosing. However, many are more concerned about the environmental impact of mining in the Arctic. 

In June, Naaja Nathanielsen, Greenland’s minister for business and mineral resources, said that while some mining operations are already underway in the country, there is little interest in Greenland becoming a major mining power. “For Greenland, we are not necessarily interested in becoming a really great mining country. We just really want 5 or 10 active mines at any given time,” said Nathanielsen. “We are a very small population, so for us, we don’t need the entire country to be covered in mines. We are happy with managing a few, and I think that is feasible,” she added. 

Nathanielsen emphasised the “very high” environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards held by Greenland. She said, “I think the people of Greenland really support the mining industry, which is quite kind of rare when you look at other jurisdictions. But they do so because they have faith in us having a high environmental standard and taking care of local communities.” Nathanielsen went on to say that if the government compromises its environmental standards, it could lead Greenlanders to no longer support the mining industry, which could be highly detrimental for future projects. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/30/2025 - 03:30

Oceania Has The Highest Cocaine Use In The World

Oceania recorded by far the highest cocaine use prevalence among 15- to 64-year-olds of any region in the world in 2023, according to the latest report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

As Statista's Anna Fleck shows in the chart below, that year, just over 3 percent of people said that they had used cocaine.

You will find more infographics at Statista

In the Americas, 1.64 percent of the age group had taken it, with a more detailed breakdown showing that 1.92 percent had used cocaine in North America, versus 1.55 percent in South America and 0.94 percent in Central America.

The UNODC reports that 1.1 percent of Europeans had used cocaine in 2023, with prevalence far higher in Western and Central Europe (1.66 percent), compared to Eastern and South-Eastern Europe (0.28 percent).

In Africa and Asia, far lower shares of people are thought to have used the drug that year, at 0.38 percent and 0.11 percent, respectively.

The global average was 0.47 percent.

By absolute number, it is a different story.

On this metric, the Americas rank first with an estimated 11.41 million people having taken cocaine. It is followed by Europe with 5.97 million, Asia with 3.37 million, Africa with 3.22 million and Oceania with 880,000 people.

Between 2019 and 2023, there was a 68 percent increase in the amount of cocaine seized worldwide. Production of the drug also increased, jumping up nearly 34 percent between 2022 and 2023 to 3,708 tons.

According to the UNODC, global cocaine production "has hit an all-time high once again, accompanied by significant increases in cocaine seizures, cocaine users and – most tragically – cocaine-related deaths in many countries in recent years."

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/30/2025 - 02:45

Continued Russian-US Talks Prove Putin Doesn't Think Trump Duped Iran With Diplomacy

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed last week that the US’ bombing of several nuclear sites in Iran won’t affect their bilateral dialogue, declaring that “These are independent processes.”

This is significant since many observers speculated that Trump duped Iran with diplomacy while supposedly plotting to attack it this entire time. If true, then it would follow that he might also be duping Russia too, albeit not in preparation of a direct US attack but in pursuit of some other nebulous goal.

Putin doesn’t adhere to that interpretation, however, which is also proven by him later talking about his “great respect” for Trump and praising his “sincere commitment” to peace in Ukraine.

Skeptics might speculate that he’s playing “5D chess” as part of some “master plan” to “psyche out” the US but that doesn’t make much sense.

There’s no point in continuing a dialogue if one of the parties is convinced that the other isn’t negotiating in good faith. That would be a total waste of time and resources.

Nevertheless, Russian politicians and experts were very critical of Trump’s decision to bomb Iran, as was the country’s Permanent Representative at the UN.

Their polemics don’t equate to Putin supposedly suspecting Trump of foul play in the US’ talks with Iran, however, but they do show that Russia was very displeased with what he ended up doing even though it later expressed cautious optimism about the ceasefire that he claimed credit for brokering. All of this is consistent with Russian policy.

On that topic, Russia is also interested in a ceasefire with Ukraine, but only on its terms. These include Ukraine withdrawing from the entirety of the disputed regions, declaring that it’ll no longer pursue NATO membership, and Western countries cutting off arms shipments to it, among other demands. Russia believes that continued dialogue with the US can lead to Trump ultimately coercing Zelensky into these concessions, to which end Putin offered him a strategic resource-centric partnership as an incentive.

The idea is that the US could invest in Russia’s rare earth and Arctic energy industries, with the first providing the US with its sought-after minerals and the second leading to them jointly managing the global oil and natural gas markets, thus giving each of them stakes in the other’s success. This could then in turn help ensure that relations remain manageable even if another crisis unexpectedly erupts. With time, Russia and the US would then reshape the world order, but only if their détente remains on track.

Therein lies the importance of continued Russian-US dialogue, which Putin is committed to in spite of speculation that Trump duped Iran with diplomacy ahead of attacking it. From his perspective, Trump isn’t just saying the right things about the conflict (most of the time at least), but he more importantly hasn’t doubled down on military-intelligence aid to Ukraine. Simply put, it’s Trump’s actions (or lack thereof in this case) that impress Putin, not his words, which he’d be foolish to take at face value.

That said, there’s no guarantee that Putin can convince Trump to coerce Zelensky into his demanded concessions, and the potential failure of their talks could indeed lead to the US escalating its involvement in Ukraine and therefore worsening tensions with Russia. Even so, Putin won’t prematurely abandon diplomacy just because some speculate that the US never truly intended to reach a deal with Iran, the assessment of which he doesn’t share as confirmed by his own and Peskov’s recent statements.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/30/2025 - 02:00

Bovard: Trump’s Iran Bombing Is The Latest In Presidential Absolutism

Authored by Jim Bovard

Does President Trump have any legal basis for his foreign policy actions aside from his personal entitlement to absolute power? Presidents have been scorning congressional leashes on their foreign interventions since at least the Korean War. But Trump’s erratic behavior and fevered comments almost make President Richard Nixon look mild-mannered.

Democratic members of Congress and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) are pushing for a vote on a War Powers Act resolution to put a leash on Trump. But in the same way that President George W. Bush found lawyers that assured him the president was authorized to order torture, so Trump supporters are denying the validity of any law restricting the White House’s warring. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) declared on Tuesday: “Many respected constitutional experts argue that the War Powers Act is itself unconstitutional. I’m persuaded by that argument. They think it’s a violation of the Article 2 powers of the commander in chief.” Johnson is blocking any vote in the House of Representatives on that resolution.

Some Trump apologists are claiming that the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted in response to the 9/11 attacks, provides all the legal justification that Trump needed. Since President George W. Bush listed Iran as part of the “axis of evil” in his 2002 State of the Union address, that entitles subsequent presidents to scourge Iran forever. There was no justification for putting Iran in that 2002 trifecta, but lack of evidence rarely impedes presidential prattle.

Besides, the AUMF seems as archaic nowadays as a balanced budget amendment. In the same way that congressmen can perpetuate deficit spending by promising decades hence to balance the budget, so the AUMF allows politicians to perpetually pummel any group or nation accused of wrongdoing.

Trump appears to be claiming unlimited power to intervene abroad. In February, Trump posted on Truth Social a saying attributed to Napoleon: “He who saves his country does not violate any law.” Sounding like he was entitled to rule the world, Trump proclaimed in February: “We’ll own Gaza.” Trump signaled support for forcibly expelling more than a million Palestinian refugees in order to create “a Riviera of the Middle East.” In 2023, he boasted to Jewish donors that “I gave you Golan Heights,” signaling his prerogative to dispose of Syrian territory and redraw national boundaries as he pleased.

Trump’s pattern of issuing sweeping demands is driving his response to the Israel–Iran clash. Trump demanded “unconditional surrender” from Iran, as if he were General Ulysses S. Grant in 1862 waiting outside a fort commanded by a dimwitted Confederate general. Trump decreed that Iran must completely end all its efforts to enrich uranium, regardless of prior international approval and the lack of evidence for an active weapons program. At one point, Trump ominously warned Tehran’s 10 million residents to “immediately evacuate”—though he didn’t specify any locale where they would be safe from Israeli bombing. Perhaps Trump’s most bizarre utterance was his Truth Social post Saturday night. After announcing that the U.S. had bombed three sites in Iran, Trump concluded, “NOW IS THE TIME FOR PEACE! Thank you for your attention to this matter.” On Wednesday morning at the NATO summit, Trump scoffed at Defense Intelligence Agency doubts on knocking out Iran’s program and compared his bombing attack with Hiroshima and Nagasaki that were “essentially the same thing that ended that war.” That comparison is not expected to boost Trump’s popularity in Japan.

Turn back the clock two decades, and defenders of a bellicose president insisted that George W. Bush was smarter than he sounded. But many Trump supporters seem to think 47 is omniscient. Trump’s posts on Truth Social are now presumed to be vastly more accurate than any U.S. government intelligence report. As Vice President J.D. Vance said on Sunday on Meet the Press, “Of course we trust our intelligence community, but we also trust our instincts.” But what if the strongest instinct is to gratify pro-Israel donors? Secretary of State Marco Rubio provided the lodestar for Trumpian foreign policy: “Forget about intelligence.” DOGE missed a great chance to save over $80 billion a year by abolishing the intelligence agencies that the White House is determined to scorn. (Meanwhile, both the Washington Post and New York Times reported that Trump actually made the final decision to bomb Iran after seeing Fox News hosts lauding Israeli successes attacking Tehran.)

Presumed presidential omniscience is razing constraints on the Oval Office. Trump’s lawyers are touting the same legal nitroglycerine that helped destroy George W. Bush’s presidency. The Trump administration is echoing Bush’s “unitary executive theory” to assert that the president effectively has untrammeled power over almost everything in the solar system. Bush issued more than a hundred signing statements announcing that he would disregard specific provisions in legislation, thanks to “the President’s constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information” from Congress and the American people. Bush used that invocation to justify scorning congressional prohibitions on torture. His administration presumed that “checks and balances” were archaic. But Bush’s legal power-grabs helped make him intensely unpopular by the end of his reign and opened the door for Barack Obama to win the presidency by masquerading as a civil-liberties savior.

Trump-style legal absolutism appears to be the mirror image of tolerance—if not also common sense. Trump’s National Park Service wants to delete any material at national parks that “inappropriately disparages Americans past or living,” so official history will become an even bigger fairy tale.

These legal doctrines are not a hypothetical threat to freedom. On March 25, masked ICE agents seized Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish graduate student, off the streets outside Boston. Öztürk was locked up for 45 days and her student visa covertly canceled because she coauthored an op-ed criticizing Tufts University for failing to divest from Israel in response to its actions in Gaza. Rubio vilified her as a “lunatic” and implied that the feds had ample evidence of her crimes and abuses. A leak to the Washington Post revealed that the feds had nothing on her—except that op-ed. Federal Judge William Sessions ordered Öztürk released because her arrest “potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of people in this country who are not citizens.” Uh, judge… maybe that was the whole point.

No matter how many bombs Trump drops or how many freedoms he skewers, he will retain an iron core of MAGA supporters who view Trump’s own power as the best hope for America. The New York Times noted a similar pattern in 1973 at the start of Nixon’s second term: “Conservatives who have traditionally favored a strong Congress and a weakened Presidency are now advocating the reverse.” Nixon’s attempt to “fix” Washington by radically centralizing power in the White House did not survive the Watergate scandal.

On Monday, Trump proclaimed a ceasefire between Iran and Israel. On Tuesday morning, after ceasefire violations, Trump raged: “We have two countries that have been fighting so long that they don’t know what the f*ck their doing.” Millions of Americans reached the same conclusion about Trump’s own foreign policy. Unfortunately, citizens cannot rely on Congress, the Constitution, or federal law to curb Trump’s interventions at home or abroad.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/29/2025 - 23:20

Peter Thiel Warns: One-World Government A Greater Threat Than AI Or Climate Change

In a wide-ranging interview on the future and global existential risks, billionaire technology investor Peter Thiel raised alarms not only about familiar threats like nuclear war, climate change, and artificial intelligence but also about what he sees as a more insidious danger: the rise of a one-world totalitarian state. Speaking to the New York Times’ Ross Douthat, Thiel argued that the default political response to global crises—centralized, supranational governance—could plunge humanity into authoritarianism.

Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and Palantir, shared his worries using examples from dystopian sci-fi stories. “There’s a risk of nuclear war, environmental disaster, bioweapons, and certain types of risks with AI,” Thiel explained to Douthat, suggesting that the push for global governance as a solution to these threats could culminate in a “bad singularity” - a one-world state that stifles freedom under the guise of safety.

Thiel critiqued what he described as a reflexive call for centralized control in times of peril.

“The default political solution people have for all these existential risks is one-world governance,” Thiel observed, pointing to proposals for a strengthened United Nations to control nuclear arsenals or global compute governance to regulate AI development, including measures to “log every single keystroke” to prevent dangerous programming. Such solutions, the investor warned, risk creating a surveillance state that sacrifices individual liberty for security.

Drawing on historical and philosophical analogies, Thiel referenced a 1940s Federation of American Scientists film, One World or None, which argued that only global governance could prevent nuclear annihilation. Thiel juxtaposed this with a Christian theological framing: “Antichrist or Armageddon?” In both, the billionaire said he sees a binary choice between centralized control and catastrophic collapse. Yet, Thiel questioned the plausibility of a charismatic “Antichrist” figure seizing power through hypnotic rhetoric, as depicted in apocalyptic literature. Instead, he offered a modern twist: the path to global control lies in relentless fearmongering about existential risks.

“The way the Antichrist would take over the world is you talk about Armageddon nonstop,” Thiel explained. The billionaire contrasted this with earlier visions of scientific progress, like those of 17th- and 18th-century Baconian science, where the threat was an evil genius wielding technology. Presently, Thiel argued, the greater political resonance lies in halting scientific advancement altogether. “In our world, it’s far more likely to be Greta Thunberg than Dr. Strangelove,” he quipped, invoking the radical Swedish climate activist as a symbol of anti-progress sentiment.

On AI specifically, Thiel struck a balanced tone, tempering both utopian and apocalyptic predictions.

“One question we can frame is: Just how big a thing do I think AI is?” he asked himself. “My stupid answer is: It’s more than a nothing burger, and it’s less than the total transformation of our society.”

Thiel compared AI’s potential impact to the internet in the late 1990s, suggesting it could create “some great companies” and add “a few percentage points” to GDP, perhaps boosting growth by 1% annually for a decade or more. However, the billionaire expressed skepticism that AI alone could end economic stagnation, viewing it as a significant but not revolutionary force.

While Thiel expressed nuanced views on artificial intelligence, his venture capital firm, Founders Fund, is aggressively backing the technology. Namely, it recently led a $600 million investment in Crusoe, a vertically integrated AI infrastructure provider.

“The biggest risk with AI is that we don't go big enough. Crusoe is here to liberate us from the island of limited ambition,” Thiel said at the time.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/29/2025 - 22:45

CDC: New COVID Variant Estimated To Be No. 1 Strain In US

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A new estimate from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that a COVID-19 variant that has been driving cases in China earlier this year is now the No. 1 strain in the United States.

This scanning electron microscope image shows the novel coronavirus (orange), which causes COVID-19 disease, isolated from a patient in the United States, emerging from the surface of cells (green) cultured in the lab. Photo published on Feb. 13, 2020. NIAID-RML

A CDC estimate, updated on June 26, shows that between June 8 and June 21, the NB.1.8.1 variant now makes up 43 percent of COVID-19 cases in the United States and is ahead of the LP.8.1 variant.

Earlier this month, CDC data showed that NB.1.8.1 had 37 percent of cases and was No. 2 behind the LP.8.1 variant, which saw 38 percent of reported cases at the time. The new CDC estimate this week shows that LP.8.1 now makes up 31 percent of all cases.

The CDC says that wastewater levels show COVID-19 activity is “currently low” despite the NB.1.8.1 variant increase. Only Alaska is reporting “high” levels of the virus, while Hawaii, Nevada, Texas, Missouri, Mississippi, Florida, and Connecticut are seeing “moderate” levels, according to the CDC.

Last week, private data showed that states reporting the variant, which has been dubbed “Nimbus” in some media reports, include Arizona, California, Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington state as of June 19.

Chinese doctors earlier this month predicted a peak of nationwide COVID-19 cases in July, as the latest data released by Chinese health authorities show that variant NB 1.8.1 is still the main pathogen causing the rapid increase in COVID-19 infections in China.

An internal university research report at China’s Peking University stated that NB.1.8.1 may become the next dominant global strain, with symptoms including a sharp sore throat, fever, runny nose, vomiting, and diarrhea, according to previous Epoch Times reporting.

A worldwide rise in cases late last month is primarily in the Eastern Mediterranean, Southeast Asia, and Western Pacific regions, the World Health Organization said on May 28. The new variant had reached nearly 11 percent of sequenced samples reported globally in mid-May.

The WHO said some Western Pacific countries have reported increases in COVID cases and hospitalizations, but there’s nothing so far to suggest that the disease associated with the new variant is more severe than other variants.

In a statement to The Epoch Times in late May, a CDC spokesperson said the agency “is aware of reported cases of COVID-19 NB.1.8.1 in China and is in regular contact with international partners.”

Prior reports from The Epoch Times, citing Chinese doctors and outside health experts, have said that patients are reporting a sharp sore that’s been dubbed the “razor blade throat” or “razor throat.” Some media outlets, including The Associated Press and international media reports from the UK and India, have used the “razor throat” moniker to describe the NB.1.8.1 variant.

Due to the Chinese Communist Party’s history of covering up information and publishing unreliable data, including underreporting COVID-19 infections and related deaths since 2020, information provided by local doctors and health workers can offer valuable information for understanding the situation on the ground in the totalitarian country.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/29/2025 - 22:10

"Bespoke Bombs": The Secret 15-Year Plan Behind US Strikes On Iran

Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

WASHINGTON—The United States’ B-2 stealth bomber strike on Iran’s Fordow uranium enrichment facility was the culmination of more than 15 years of study and planning, according to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine.

A June 25, 2025, poster from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) shows unclassified aerial images of Iran's Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant’s two ventilation shafts during construction in 2008, post-construction in 2009, and after the June 21, 2025, strike. According to Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Dan Caine, two DTRA employees spent years analyzing the site's geology, construction materials, and equipment to model the facility and develop a strike plan. The Pentagon

Caine joined Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for a press briefing on June 26, in which the defense secretary said the June 21 bombing mission was a resounding success that set Iran’s nuclear development back by years.

Caine detailed the military planning that began in 2009 to design a purpose-built method to knock out the Fordow facility, which is buried hundreds of feet underground in a mountainous region of Iran.

A Briefing in a Vault

Caine shed new light on the role of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), an organization tasked with preparing bespoke solutions to destroy highly sensitive targets, including emerging weapons of mass destruction.

“DTRA does a lot of things for our nation, but DTRA is the world’s leading expert on deeply buried, underground targets,” Caine said.

“In 2009, a Defense Threat Reduction Agency officer was brought into a vault at an undisclosed location and briefed on something going on in Iran,” Caine said, declining to identify the DTRA officer by name.

This DTRA officer, and another unnamed member of the agency, were then tasked to work with the intelligence community to study the construction of the Fordow site.

“For more than 15 years, this officer and his teammate lived and breathed this single target: Fordow, a critical element of Iran’s covert nuclear weapons program,” Caine said.

The two DTRA employees spent years studying everything from the geology surrounding Fordow, to the construction materials and other equipment arriving at the facility, so they could model the site and devise a plan.

“They literally dreamed about this target at night when they slept,” Caine said.

A satellite view shows an overview of the underground Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, after the U.S. struck the nuclear facility, near Qom, Iran, on June 22, 2025. Maxar Technologies/Handout via Reuters Bespoke Bombs

In the course of their study of the Fordow facility, Caine said the pair of DTRA employees leading the project soon determined the U.S. military did not have a weapon that could adequately address the challenge the fortified Iranian nuclear facility presented.

“So, they began a journey to work with industry and other tacticians to develop the GBU-57,” Caine said.

The GBU-57, also known as the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) or bunker-buster, is a 30,000-pound bomb designed to burrow and explode deep underground.

Military planners then spent years testing the bomb, specifically for the Fordow facility.

“They tested it over and over again. ... They accomplished hundreds of test shots, and dropped many full-scale weapons against extremely realistic targets for a single purpose: kill this target at the time and place of our nation’s choosing,” Caine said.

Each GBU-57 is “bespokely” designed for a specific target. He said each one dropped on the Fordow facility “had a unique desired impact angle, arrival, final heading, and fuse” corresponding to its role in the overall mission.

The Air Force, in coordination with the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, tests the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator, a precision-guided, bunker-busting weapon designed to destroy deeply buried and hardened targets, in Washington on Dec. 11, 2020. The test demonstrated the Air Force’s ability to strike heavily reinforced underground facilities and mountain complexes. Air Force Television Pentagon/Defense Visual Information Distribution Service

In addition to live-testing the GBU-57, Caine said the program to develop the heavy bunker-buster involved extensive and complex computing.

“In the beginning of its development, we had so many PhDs working on the MOP program, doing modeling and simulation, that we were quietly and in a secret way, the biggest users of supercomputer-hours within the United States of America,” he said.

Operation Midnight Hammer

The U.S. bomber strikes on Fordow were part of a larger mission, dubbed Operation Midnight Hammer, that also targeted Iran’s Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities.

B-2 Spirit stealth bombers tasked with striking the Fordow facility were specifically assigned to drop their GBU-57 bombs on a set of ventilation shafts running out of the underground facility. Ahead of the strikes on the Fordow facility, U.S. military planners observed last-minute changes to the site, including the placement of concrete caps on the ventilation shafts to further fortify the facility against an attack. 

Caine said the first weapon dropped on Fordow was specifically designed to remove the concrete caps shielding Fordow’s ventilation shaft. From there, he said, weapons two, three, four, and five were designed to enter the shaft and burrow down into the underground complex at more than 1,000 feet per second, and explode.

Airmen look at a GBU-57, or the Massive Ordnance Penetrator bomb, at Whiteman Air Base in Missouri on May 2, 2023. File/U.S. Air Force via AP

The general said a sixth bomb was designed as a “flex weapon,” in case one of the first five weapons failed to achieve its intended effect.

When it comes to assessing the true damage of the strike, Caine said the U.S. intelligence community plays the leading role, rather than the military.

“We don’t grade our own homework; the intelligence community does,” Caine said.

Read the rest here...

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/29/2025 - 21:00

MSM Claims MAHA "Threatens To Set Women Back Decades" 

An increasing number of Americans are abandoning processed foods and taking control of their own food supply chain—planting backyard gardens and sourcing meat, eggs, dairy, and pantry staples directly from local markets and farms. The trend, which is gaining momentum under the "Make America Healthy Again" movement—and even noted by Goldman—reflects a broader push for food independence and a return to community-based sourcing.

Not everyone is on board with MAHA — especially not the feminist journalists at SELF (owned by the corporate media company Condé Nast), who recently penned an article that reads like a hit piece against MAHA.

Erica Sloan's critique of MAHA is that food independence is unrealistic and burdensome for women in the modern progressive world. 

In her article titled "How the MAHA Food Agenda Threatens to Set Women Back Decades," Sloan writes...

But it's what MAHA isn't saying that's most important: Stoking so much fear around these vital industries implies that Americans—more specifically, the mothers of America—need to find a different way to feed their families.

"Women do a disproportionate share of the kind of work that the MAHA movement is asking people to do, which is to grow their own food, to prepare all of their food from scratch, and to avoid processed food and even packaged foods," Norah MacKendrick, PhD, associate professor of sociology at Rutgers University and author of Better Safe Than Sorry: How Consumers Navigate Exposure to Everyday Toxics, tells SELF. Even today, with approximately 60% of women working outside the home, women still spend about two hours more on housework daily and cook more than twice as many meals a week as men do. The implication that our current food system is inherently unsafe just stands to pile on the labor.

"In order for a family to eat a diet of mostly homegrown or even just homemade meals… that's going to be a lot more work for women and mothers especially," Dr. MacKendrick says. It's an ideal that the MAHA moms have already embodied—and that would be not only unrealistic but unfair to expect from all American families.

Decades? 

The angle that Sloan uses to bash MAHA via a quote from some woman in acemedia is entirely flawed, that's because MAHA doesn't force anyone to grow their own food or make everything from scratch—it simply raises awareness about the systemic failures of Big Food and Big Pharma and empowers families to reclaim control where possible. Some folks plant gardens, while others buy from local ranchers and farmers. The movement calls for informed choices and better public policy—not a return to the primitive 1800s—or is asking women to live like the modern-day Amish. 

My wife’s sous vide with reverse sear tenderloin. I married well. pic.twitter.com/4TU6pizHyK

— Paul Charchian (@PaulCharchian) September 17, 2024

Heaven forbid women to cook from scratch for their families! More nonsense from the PR journalist ... 

MAHA's villainization of food processing just adds the burden of cooking from scratch to women's plates.

The journalist concluded the article with this: "Processed and ultraprocessed items are also functional necessities for many, and can spark joy. And again, some of them have positive nutritional value." 

Meanwhile...

At the end of the article, SELF advises readers to...

Why SELF is targeting MAHA remains a mystery, though the answer may lie in who their mega-corporate advertisers are.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/29/2025 - 20:25

Justice Kagan's Own Words Come Back To Haunt Her On Nationwide Injunctions

Authored by Matt Margolis via PJMedia.com,

The Supreme Court’s 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., released Friday, finally put the brakes on the reckless abuse of nationwide injunctions by lower courts—and has Democrats in full meltdown mode. The left’s favorite judicial weapon just got neutered, and the hypocrisy is impossible to ignore.

The liberal wing of the court didn’t do itself any favors, either. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s dissent was so horrible that Justice Amy Coney Barrett felt compelled to call it out in the majority opinion.

But Justice Elena Kagan’s credibility also took a direct hit. In a stunning display of judicial flip-flopping, Kagan’s own words from 2022 have come back to haunt her, exposing the left’s all-too-familiar habit of changing the rules when it suits their political objectives. 

Nationwide injunctions have been the left’s go-to tactic for derailing conservative policy at the stroke of a single judge’s pen. Under Trump, district judges from deep-blue enclaves repeatedly issued sweeping orders to block administration policies nationwide at an unprecedented pace, no matter how tenuous the legal grounds. 

Despite all the apocalyptic rhetoric, there’s no doubt that the left’s current position on nationwide injunctions is purely political—and Justice Elena Kagan accidentally proved it.

How? Well, Justice Kagan, who dissented in this case, was singing a very different tune just a couple of years ago.

Back in 2022, when President Biden was in the White House and conservatives were the ones seeking relief from his executive orders, Kagan was openly skeptical of nationwide injunctions. 

“This can’t be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stuck for the years that it takes to go through a normal process,” she said. 

That’s not some out-of-context paraphrase—it’s her own words, on the record.

Fast forward to 2025, and suddenly Kagan’s skepticism has evaporated. Now that Donald Trump is back in the Oval Office, she’s all-in for the same judicial overreach she once panned. It just goes to show you who the real partisans on the court are. They aren’t adhering to any particular judicial philosophy or the Constitution, they care only about whether a particular ruling hurts or benefits the Democratic Party.

This isn’t just about one justice’s hypocrisy. It’s a window into the left’s broader approach to power. When they control the levers of government, they demand deference and restraint from the courts. When they’re out of power, they want unelected judges to act as a permanent veto against any policy they dislike. It’s not about the Constitution or the separation of powers—it’s about maintaining their grip on the bureaucracy by any means necessary.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. is a must-needed correction, that frankly, should have been bipartisan. It restores a measure of balance and puts an end to the judicial free-for-all that has plagued our system for far too long. And if Justice Kagan and her allies are upset, maybe they should reread their own words from just a few years ago. Consistency, after all, used to be a virtue. But in today’s Democratic Party, it’s just another casualty of the endless war for power.

The Supreme Court just restored the rule of law—and the left can’t handle it.

Tyler Durden Sun, 06/29/2025 - 19:50

Weekend:
• Schedule for Week of June 29, 2025

Monday:
• At 9:45 AM ET, Chicago Purchasing Managers Index for June.

• At 10:30 AM, Dallas Fed Survey of Manufacturing Activity for June.

From CNBC: Pre-Market Data and Bloomberg futures S&P 500 are up 17 and DOW futures are up 212 (fair value).

Oil prices were down over the last week with WTI futures at $65.52 per barrel and Brent at $67.77 per barrel. A year ago, WTI was at $83, and Brent was at $82 - so WTI oil prices are down about 21% year-over-year.

Here is a graph from Gasbuddy.com for nationwide gasoline prices. Nationally prices are at $3.17 per gallon. A year ago, prices were at $3.49 per gallon, so gasoline prices are down $0.32 year-over-year.